Donate

Free newsletter



Site Manager

Tami Dickson

Follow Us





Follow Unittus
Search

Custom Search
Healing Body
GMO Boycott Join in protect your families! Nov 22/14 Print E-mail
Saturday, 22 November 2014 16:34

GMO Dangers to know about please share with everyone you know!

see 6 huge players in the food industry to avoid and boycott. You can boycott their products for the best effect or you can petition them and ask them to stop throwing money at the anti-labeling campaigns.

Here are 6 huge conglomerates aiming to ruin your right to know what is in your food.

- See more at: http://naturalsociety.com/take-foods-shopping-list-6-multinational-companies-fighting-keep-eating-gmos/#sthash.Faoiaxo2.dpuf

See 6 huge players in the food industry to avoid and boycott. You can boycott their products for the best effect or you can petition them and ask them to stop throwing money at the anti-labeling campaigns.

Here are 6 huge conglomerates aiming to ruin your right to know what is in your food.

Click here: 6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying | Natural Society

see 6 huge players in the food industry to avoid and boycott. You can boycott their products for the best effect or you can petition them and ask them to stop throwing money at the anti-labeling campaigns.

Here are 6 huge conglomerates aiming to ruin your right to know what is in your food.

- See more at: http://naturalsociety.com/take-foods-shopping-list-6-multinational-companies-fighting-keep-eating-gmos/#sthash.Faoiaxo2.dpuf

see 6 huge players in the food industry to avoid and boycott. You can boycott their products for the best effect or you can petition them and ask them to stop throwing money at the anti-labeling campaigns.

Here are 6 huge conglomerates aiming to ruin your right to know what is in your food.

- See more at: http://naturalsociety.com/take-foods-shopping-list-6-multinational-companies-fighting-keep-eating-gmos/#sthash.Faoiaxo2.dpuf

GMO Sodas

Every one of these soft drinks includes high fructose corn syrup (one of the most common GMO ingredients) or just plain “sugar,” which is sourced from genetically modified sugar beets.

Coca Cola Company

Coca Cola
Sprite
Cherry Coke
Fanta Exotic
Barq’s Root Beer
Minute Maid Orange
Minute Maid Grape
Surge
Ultra

PepsiCo

Pepsi
Slice
Wild Cherry Pepsi
Mug Root Beer
Mountain Dew

Cadbury/Schweppes

7-Up
Dr. Pepper
A & W Root Beer
Sunkist Orange
Schweppes Ginger Ale


Click here: 6 GMO Loaded Brands You Should Avoid Buying | Natural Society

see 6 huge players in the food industry to avoid and boycott. You can boycott their products for the best effect or you can petition them and ask them to stop throwing money at the anti-labeling campaigns.

Here are 6 huge conglomerates aiming to ruin your right to know what is in your food.

 
Root Canals & Wheat Negative Effects on Body! Nov 19/14 Print E-mail
Wednesday, 19 November 2014 15:59
How root canals lead to a diseased body and what you can do to about it
Sunday, November 09, 2014 by: Kali Sinclair



(NaturalNews) Melanie was a young mother of two children and a housewife when she became ill. First her ear began popping every time she

swallowed and she could feel the pressure of fluid in her ear. Soon it was hard to swallow. Gynecological problems were followed by systemic

symptoms of overwhelming pain and fatigue. Eventually, Melanie, sick as she was, was forced to go get a job in order to pay her medical bills. She was miserable and in constant pain until the day she had her dead tooth pulled.

Before any of her symptoms began, Melanie had an infected tooth and a subsequent root canal. Later, although she experienced no pain at the site, the tooth was the root of her health problems. She
felt better the first day that tooth was pulled, and all of her symptoms disappeared with a few months.

Melanie's story is not uncommon, though the realization that the root canal is the source of disease is uncommon. Many people who have had a root canal suffer from a sudden onset of chronic disease
and never realize the connection.

Why root canals are dangerous

After a root canal is performed, the tooth is dead. The remaining tissue and structure now provides a ripe

environment for remaining bacteria. Tooth

material (dentine) is not solid. It is rife with tubules - incredibly small canals or tunnels. If you were to stretch out the tubules in each tooth, tubules

from incisors would reach 3 miles, while tubules from molars would reach 9 miles.

Once the pulp is removed from the tooth, there is no longer a blood or oxygen supply. The bacteria that remain can mutate to an anaerobic form and multiply until there are millions living within the tubules of the dead tooth. From there, they secrete potent toxins.

Holistic practitioners are finding these dead teeth are often a source of disease for the body - everything from unexplained symptoms to cancer. For example, Dr. Garcia tells of a woman who consulted several doctors for a mysterious swelling in one leg. Within one day after Dr. Garcia removed the woman's tooth (an old root canal), the swelling was gone. When Dr. Thomas Rau, a Swiss physician who specializes in breast cancer, learned of the possible link between root canals and cancer, he investigated his last 150 patients and found that 97% of them did have one or more root canals - and they were on the same meridian side of the body as the cancer!

A dead tooth may spew toxins into the body with no detectible symptoms - no pain, no swelling of the gums - nothing to alert you that it is wrecking havoc upon your immune system and causing chronic and acute medical conditions that you are attempting to cure.

Speak with your holistic dentist about extracting and replacing cadaverous teeth and how to proceed with ongoing dental care. In the meantime, you must eat a diet that aids you in releasing those toxins, while building and supporting the immune system.

How to support your immune system
A truly healthy diet is the foundation of health and a healthy immune system. If your body is dealing with toxins from cavitations or if you are dealing with the aftereffects, give your body the nutrient dense foods it needs.Whether vegetarian, vegan, or carnivorous, your diet should consist of80% raw produce--more vegetables than fruits. This is not the time to challenge your already overburdened immune system, and it's imperative to avoid foods that feed harmful pathogens. Buy organic--no herbicides,no pesticides, no GMOs. No artificial flavors, colors, preservatives, MSG, GMOs, or trans fats. No sugar. In other words, eat real food, not processed food.

Check out Bullet Proof Your Immune System and Heal Gum Disease Naturally. If you're dealing with a combination of cavitations, mercury fillings, and/or root canals, be sure to check out the first source below.

Sources:
http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com
http://www.organiclifestylemagazine.com
http://webpages.charter.net
https://www.youtube.com
https://www.youtube.com
http://bigdiastema.com
http://truthwiki.org/Garlic

About the author:
Kali Sinclair is a copywriter for Green Lifestyle Market, and a lead editor for Organic Lifestyle Magazine. Kali was very sick with autoimmune disease and realized that conventional medicine was not working for her. She has been restoring her health by natural means and is interested in topics including natural health, environmental issues, and human rights. 


The Real Reason Wheat is Toxic (it’s not the gluten)

toxic                                                            wheat

GREEN LIVING

by Sarah TheHealthyHomeEconomist November 13, 2014

13.1K
toxic wheat

The stories became far too frequent to ignore.

Emails from folks with allergic or digestive issues to wheat in the United States experienced no symptoms whatsoever when they tried eating pasta on vacation in Italy.
Confused parents wondering why wheat consumption sometimes triggered autoimmune reactions in their children but not at other times.

In my own home, I’ve long pondered why my husband can eat the wheat I prepare at home, but he experiences negative digestive effects eating even a single roll in a restaurant.
There is clearly something going on with wheat that is not well known by the general public. It goes far and beyond organic versus nonorganic, gluten or hybridization because even conventional wheat triggers no symptoms for some who eat wheat in other parts of the world.

What indeed is going on with wheat?

For quite some time, I secretly harbored the notion that wheat in the United States must, in fact, be genetically modified.  GMO wheat secretly invading the North American food supply seemed the only thing that made sense and could account for the varied experiences I was hearing about.

I reasoned that it couldn’t be the gluten or wheat hybridization. Gluten and wheat hybrids have been consumed for thousands of years. It just didn’t make sense that this could be the reason for so many people suddenly having problems with wheat and gluten in general in the past 5-10 years.

Finally, the answer came over dinner a couple of months ago with a friend who was well versed in the wheat production process. I started researching the issue for myself, and was, quite frankly, horrified at what I discovered.

The good news is that the reason wheat has become so toxic in the United States is not because it is secretly GMO as I had feared (thank goodness!).

The bad news is that the problem lies with the manner in which wheat is grown and harvested by conventional wheat farmers.

You’re going to want to sit down for this one.  I’ve had some folks burst into tears in horror when I passed along this information before.

Common wheat harvest protocol in the United States is to drench the wheat fields with Roundup several days before the combine harvesters work through the fields as the practice allows for an earlier, easier and bigger harvest

Pre-harvest application of the herbicide Roundup or other herbicides containing the deadly active ingredient glyphosate to wheat and barley as a desiccant was suggested as early as 1980.  It has since become routine over the past 15 years and is used as a drying agent 7-10 days before harvest within the conventional farming community.USDA pesticides applied to wheat


USDA                                                            pesticides                                                            applied to                                                            wheat

According to Dr. Stephanie Seneff of MIT who has studied the issue in depth and who I recently saw present on the subject at a nutritional Conference in Indianapolis, desiccating non-organic wheat crops with glyphosate just before harvest came into vogue late in the 1990′s with the result that most of the non-organic wheat in the United States is now contaminated with it.  Seneff explains that when you expose wheat to a toxic chemical like glyphosate, it actually releases more seeds resulting in a slightly greater yield:   “It ‘goes to seed’ as it dies. At its last gasp, it releases the seed” says Dr. Seneff.

According to the US Department of Agriculture, as of 2012, 99% of durum wheat, 97% of spring wheat, and 61% of winter wheat has been treated with herbicides. This is an increase from 88% for durum wheat, 91% for spring wheat and 47% for winter wheat since 1998.

Here’s what wheat farmer Keith Lewis has to say about the practice:

I have been a wheat farmer for 50 yrs and one wheat production practice that is very common is applying the herbicide Roundup (glyposate) just prior to harvest. Roundup is licensed for preharvest weed control. Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup claims that application to plants at over 30% kernel moisture result in roundup uptake by the plant into the kernels. Farmers like this practice because Roundup kills the wheat plant allowing an earlier harvest.

A wheat field often ripens unevenly, thus applying Roundup preharvest evens up the greener parts of the field with the more mature. The result is on the less mature areas Roundup is translocated into the kernels and eventually harvested as such.

This practice is not licensed. Farmers mistakenly call it “dessication.” Consumers eating products made from wheat flour are undoubtedly consuming minute amounts of Roundup. An interesting aside, malt barley which is made into beer is not acceptable in the marketplace if it has been sprayed with preharvest Roundup. Lentils and peas are not accepted in the market place if it was sprayed with preharvest roundup….. but wheat is ok.. This farming practice greatly concerns me and it should further concern consumers of wheat products.

Here’s what wheat farmer Seth Woodland of Woodland and Wheat in Idaho had to say about the practice of using herbicides for wheat dry down:
Last Updated on Wednesday, 19 November 2014 16:38
Read more...
 
Aspartame Ban & Coca Cola Deceptions? Nov 18/14 Print E-mail
Tuesday, 18 November 2014 15:42

Subject: Coke Attempts to defend artificial Sweeteners

I'm always amused by Coke's PR Department.  Their advertising campaign didn't work this last time and now they are trying it again.  They just keep on adding insult to injury.  Don't they realize that the first thing a consumer will do is google aspartame dangers and the game is over.
For instance, here is the National Soft Drink Assn's protest and the email to Dick Adamson, of  American Beverage (formerly  NSDA) which he never answered/ Perhaps he is still taking the fifth!  http://www.mpwhi.com/open_letter_dick_adamson.htm How do you go against 30 years of independent research and the FDA's own records.  We have two congressional hearings on aspartame on www.mpwhi.com Giants can fall too, especially when the public realizes they have been lied to all these years.  Having a proxy to attend the stockholder's meeting I even held up the 1000 page medical text, "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic" by the late H,. J. Roberts, MD.  It's on tape of their meeting. 

I also remember Lucky Vanous, called the Diet Coke hunk, when he came to Atlanta.  I threw him a decorated box with the records and this protest of the National Soft Drink Assn so he would realize that these kids trying to get his autograph would also be using the product.  On Hardcopy 58 days later, Lucky Vanous already had another job.   Betty  www.mpwhi.com


Coca-Cola Attempts to Defend its Artificial Sweeteners through a New Ad


Coca-Cola Attempts to Defend its Artificial Sweeteners through a New Ad

Kevin Winslow November 13, 2014 Report, World

Current trends show that along with soft drinks, there has also been a considerable decline in the sales of diet drinks and Coca-Cola is one such soft-drink manufacturer that has been dealing with the wrath of slowdown in soft drink and beverages industry. In order to protect its line of diet drinks, the leading soft drink maker has released an ad that attempts to defend its line of diet drinks. The print ad developed by the company will run on this Wednesday. The ad clearly signals that the company is not just having issues with its soft drinks, or the diet drinks that it sells.

Idea behind the Ad Campaign

The soft drink leader has been reportedly dealing with various challenges related to sales and growth across its line of both non-sugary and sugary colas. The company has now planned to roll out the newspaper ad for next several days. Through the ad, the company wants to convey the message that its diet drinks are made of aspartame, which are completely safe. The ad also claims that aspartame is considered safe based on over 200 studies conducted in last four decades. The print ad is expected to be featured on different issues of USA TODAY that are circulated in Atlanta region. After the ad releases this Wednesdays, it will appear on The Atlanta Journal Constitution on the next day and in the coming week the print ad by Coca-Cola will also appear in Chicago Tribune.

Prime Objective

It is being said that Coca-Cola is referring to this move as a calculated business strategy for battling the competitors and critics who are unnecessarily causing the consumers to move away from all kinds of soft drinks. The ad’s headline conveys the message that Coca-Cola offers high quality products that the consumers can feel good about.

The ad also offers to share the third party studies conducted on their colas in a bid to show that they market only those products that contain either low calorie or no calorie sweeteners. This ad is also said to be representing the company’s next phase of campaign that was started back in January to push back all the critics who claim that the soft drinks manufactured by Coca-Cola increase obesity rates.

Decline in Sales

Beverage Digest says that there has been a considerable decline in diet drinks and they have seen high loss in sales compared to regular soft drinks. Last years’ Coke’s sales volume plunged 1% and that of Diet Coke fell 3%. Pepsi saw a decline in 3.4% and Diet Pepsi plunged 6.2%.

FDA Answers Petition to Ban Aspartame After 14 Years

When I first saw their report on Google from Law360 there were only two paragraphs. Later the rest of the release was added  on google news and I realized FDA was actually responding to my 2002 petition for the toxic sweetener to be banned. FDA mentions also Dr. K. Stoller's petition but omitted the vital fact that Stoller is an M.D.

I appreciate Law360 for revealing FDA's long delayed answer to my petition. FDA apparently doesn't want to communicate directly to me because I have their records and can expose their coverup.  They won't even answer a FOIA request from 2010. By law a citizen's petition for ban must be answered in 180 days. FDA had told me they had more important things to do.  The imminent health hazard amendment in 2007 that is suppose to be answered in a week or ten days was ignored.

I just wrote a long and detailed report answering what I had read from Law360 showing FDA's many lies:  http://www.rense.com/general96/fda.html Now having read the rest mentioning my petition this is part two.  Some of their additional absurd remarks need to be explained. Basically they have denied the petition saying aspartame doesn't cause cancer because they know it's against the Delaney Amendment to approve something that does.  In the first part  I quoted Dr. Adrian Gross, FDA's lead scientist and toxicologist, who clearly stated aspartame causes cancer. FDA lies about this to protect the poison producers, letting the public sicken and die. In 2009 I received a call from FDA's Michael Delaney upset that I had added the imminent health hazard amendment.  He made everything clear when he said: "We have to depopulate!"  
On five acres in Elberton, Georgia stand the Georgia Guidestones which display Ten Guides to an "Age of Reason."  The first is: "Maintain Earth's population at 500 million" a call to kill 93% of the eight billion humans now on Earth. Apparently FDA is in agreement.
It is tragic aspartame is addictive.  The methyl-ester  immediately becomes free methyl alcohol when consumed and is classified as a narcotic causing methanol poisoning. This affects the dopamine system of the brain  creating  addiction.  A waitress told me: "if there are two groups, one drinking Coke and the other drinking Diet Coke, the Diet Coke group will drink three times as much." 

Aspartame is a neurotoxic drug that damages the mitochondria, powerhouse of the cell, and interacts with drugs and vaccines.  These  facts are laid out in the 1,000 page medical text Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic by the late illustrious H. J. Roberts, M.D., www.sunsentpress.com

Now read the whole short release, and below it, I will answer what I had not read.  


FDA Rejects Ban On Diet Soda Sweetener Aspartame

Share us on: By Jeff Overley
Law360, New York (October 27, 2014, 6:58 PM ET) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has rejected calls to ban low-calorie sweetener aspartame, finding no evidence that the widely used diet soda additive causes cancer.
In responses released Friday, the FDA shot down two citizen petitions that urged regulators to recall the ingredient and to revoke a regulation that allows its use in food. Aspartame is sold under the brand name NutraSweet, is a component of coffee sweetener Equal and is commonly used in popular soft drinks, including Diet Coke.

One of the FDA's responses addressed a petition originally lodged in 2002 by Georgia-based Mission Possible World Health International, a group focused in large part on the purported dangers of aspartame consumption. That petition attracted more than 1,000 public comments, although most have not been published by the FDA.

According to the FDA, the petition blamed incidences of brain tumors and seizures on aspartame but failed to back up its allegations with concrete data.

The anecdotal accounts of adverse effects of aspartame cited in the citizen petition are not supported by scientific evidence, FDA officials said.

Regulators at times suggested that the concerns are nothing new, writing that some of the alleged health risks were raised roughly 30 years ago and addressed in detail at the time.

Over the past decade, almost 200 adverse events tied to aspartame have been reported to the FDA, but there is little reason to give much credence to those supposed side effects, according to Fridays response.

FDA has not identified any causal link between aspartame consumption and the reported adverse events, and does not know of an established mechanism that would explain how aspartame is associated with the reported adverse events, the agency said.

One of the petitions specific concerns was that consuming aspartame results in harmful production of methanol, but the FDA said that such production is small compared to methanol that results from eating perfectly safe foods, such as apples and pears.

In any event, data reviewed by the FDA shows that methanol in aspartame or in fruits and juices does not accumulate in the body and is easily metabolized by the body's metabolic capacities, Fridays response said.

A second response posted Friday was directed at petitioner K. Paul Stoller, who in 2009 requested revocation of the aspartame regulation. Much of the response discussed a study conducted by an aspartame-focused group called the European Ramazzini Foundation, with the FDA saying that it has not been able to access full study data and that the studys integrity appears to have been compromised.

Despite your many assertions, you have not identified any scientific data or other information that would cause the agency to alter its conclusions about the safety of aspartame, the FDA wrote to Stoller.

Although aspartame has been used abundantly around the world for many years, lingering worries about its safety have forced companies that use the artificial sweetener to constantly defend the ingredient. The Coca-Cola Co., through its Beverage Institute for Health & Wellness, promotes aspartame as helpful to dieters and calls the additive "one of the most thoroughly studied food ingredients in the world."

Still, concerns have presented a business opportunity for some corporations, including Israel-based SodaStream International Ltd. Some of the company's do-it-yourself soda syrups include labeling that prominently says, No aspartame.

--Editing by Philip Shea.
________________________________________________

Martini continues:  The release says: " According to the FDA, the petition blamed incidences of brain tumors and seizures on aspartame but failed to back up its allegations with concrete data."  First of all, it was the FDA themselves who revoked the petition for approval based on the brain tumor  issue and the fact it had caused brain tumors and brain cancer in original Searle studies.  Go to my web site and read the entire 50 pages where the FDA discusses their own concern about aspartame causing brain tumors:  http://www.mpwhi.com/main.htm Scroll down to the banners. Secondly, one of the reasons the FDA tried to have G. D. Searle indicted for fraud was that as the rats developed brain tumors they would excise the tumors, put the rats back in the study and when they died they would resurrect them on paper.  Thirdly, why would anyone not think aspartame triggers brain tumors when the molecule breaks down to diketopiperazine, a brain tumor agent? 

Actually in the original report I wrote  about this release, URL above, I went into other studies and reports on the subject in detail.  Having taken the cases for over 20 years from those who suffered aspartame brain tumors I have never forgotten the case of a young 28 year attorney Kelli Motluck who had a head full of aspartame brain tumors who also discussed with me many other aspartame users she knew who had brain tumors.  G. D. Searle sold to Monsanto in 1985 and was the owner at the time Kelli called me.  In her last conversation she said to me, "I want to live, I want to live, I want to live, but if I die promise me you will tell the world Monsanto murdered me."  After her death I lectured in the UK in 2000 and in the lecture to the Green Party and press I did this. 

Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., author of 'Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills'
says about aspartame and brain tumors on page 212 - 213:

"It is interesting to note that the first experiments done to test the safety of aspartame before its final approval in l981 disclosed a high incidence of brain tumors in the animals fed NutraSweet. In fact, this study was done by the manufacturer of NutraSweet, G. D. Searle. In this study 320 rats were fed aspartame and 120 rats were fed a normal diet and used as controls. The study lasted two years. At the end of the study twelve of the aspartame fed rats had developed brain tumors (astrocytomas), while none of the control rats had. This represented a 3.75% incidence of brain tumors in the rats fed aspartame, which was twenty-five times higher than the incidence of spontaneous brain tumors developing in rats (0.15%). "

"The study divided the rats into those exposed to low doses of aspartame and those exposed to a high dose. In the low dose group five of the rats developed brain tumors for and incidence of 3.13%. In the high dose group, seven developed brain tumors (4.38%). This indicates a dose related incidence of brain tumors. The higher the dose of aspartame, the more brain tumors were induced. "

"When Dr. John Olney pointed out these findings to the FDA "Aspartame Board of Inquiry" he was told that the high incidence of tumors was the result of spontaneous development of brain tumors in rats. That is, that some rats develop brain tumors naturally, just as humans do. Dr. Olney is a trained neuropathologist as well as a neuroscientist. He reviewed the incidence of spontaneously occurring brain tumors in rats and found that out of seven studies using a total of 59,000 rats and only 0,08% developed brain tumors - the aspartame fed rats had a forty-seven fold higher incidence. But to be fair, he even accepted G. D. Searle's references for spontaneously developing brain tumors in rats and arrives at a figure of 0.15%. This was still a twenty-five fold higher incidence in the aspartame fed rats than in the controls. "

"It was then observed that when brain tumors develop spontaneously in rats, the rate at which they appear begins to accelerate after two years of age, exactly when the Searle's study ended. Importantly, brain tumors are extremely rare before age one and one-half in the rat. So in truth the incidence of spontaneously occurring brain tumors would be even less than cited above. Yet, the aspartame fed rats developed two tumors by sixty weeks of age and five tumors by seventy weeks."

"In a collective study of 41,000 rats no tumors were seen to occur before sixty weeks and only one by seventy weeks. The fact that 320 aspartame fed rats developed six brain tumors by seventy-six weeks indicates an "incredible and unprecedented" occurrence. Within the final twenty-eight weeks of the study six more brain tumors occurred in the aspartame fed group. Dr. Olney notes that "one must assume that many more (brain tumors) would have occurred after 104 weeks. "

"It became obvious that the G. D. Searle Company was trying desperately to protect their potential billion dollar plus money maker. They claimed that more brain tumors were found because they searched the pathological slides so diligently. But, they searched just as diligently in the control rats and found none. Besides, neuropathologists examining the slides later stated that the tumors were large enough to be seen with the naked eye. "

"Because of the criticism submitted by Dr. Olney, the G. D. Searle company conducted a second study which was designed to be more comprehensive. Instead of a two-year study, this would span the entire lifetime of the rats, from intrauterine life to death. The results of this study can only be characterized as bizarre. This time they reported five brain tumors in 120 control rats (an incidence of 3.13%) and four brain tumors in 120 control rats (an incidence of 3.33%). While this was designed to show that aspartame was not the cause of the brain tumors, if accepted, the study would indicate that both groups had a brain tumor incidence thirty times higher than the known rate of spontaneous brain tumor occurrence in rats."

"But the story gets even more interesting, Dr. Olney hypothesized that one possible cause of the tumor induction was a by-product of aspartame metabolism called diketopiperazine (DKP). When nitrosated by the gut it produces a compound closely resembling a powerful brain tumor causing chemical - N-nitrosourea. "

"The G. D. Searle company conducted a separate study to test the carcinogenicity of diketopiperazine (DKP). The results of this study were not submitted to the FDA until after aspartame had already been approved for general use by the American population. This study was not a lifetime study but rather a 115 week study which consisted of feeding rats their normal feed mixed with DKP. There were 114 control animals and 216 that supposedly ate the DKP. (Not all of the animals were even examined for tumors.) There were two brain tumors in the controls (1.62% incidence) and three (1.52% in the DKP groups. But strangely enough, the incidence of brain tumors found in both groups were sixteen times higher than would be expected from spontaneous occurring tumors. That did not make sense."

"So how can we explain these strange findings? It is instructive at this point to know that in l975 the drug enforcement division of the Bureau of Foods investigated the G. D. Searle company as part of an investigation of "apparent irregularities in data collection and reporting practices." The director of the FDA at that time stated that they found "sloppy" laboratory techniques and "clerical errors, mixed-up animals, animals not getting the drugs they were supposed to get, pathological specimens lost because of improper handling, and a variety of other errors, (which) even if innocent, all conspire to obscure positive findings and produce falsely negative results."

"The drug enforcement division carried out a study under the care of agent Jerome Bressler concerning Searle's laboratory practices and data manipulation (known as the Bressler Report  He found that the feed used to test DKP had been improperly mixed so that the animals would receive only small doses of the chemical to be tested. (I have seen a photograph of the feed mix and can attest to the "sloppy" method used.) The commissioner also charged G. D. Searle company with "failure to maintain control and experimental animals on separate racks and failure to mark animals to ensure against mix-ups between experiments (animals fed aspartame and DKP) and controls." This vital and telling report was buried in a file cabinet, never to be acted on by the FDA."

"Such poor techniques would explain why both control animals and those eating aspartame had exceptionally high brain tumor rates, since they, most likely, were both eating the aspartame feed. What is ironic is that the FDA would accept studies from a company with an obvious heavy financial interest in having aspartame approved. But even more amazing is that they would depend on the same company to provide studies that they, FDA, knew beforehand were highly questionable and possibly fraudulent upon which they would make such an important public safety decision."

"Thus far, no independent studies have been done to examine this vital issue. As a neurosurgeon I see the devastating effects a brain tumor has, not only on its victim, but on the victim's family as well. To think that there is even a reasonable doubt that aspartame can induce brain tumors in the American population is frightening. And to think that the FDA has lulled them into a false sense of security is a monumental crime." (end of quotes from book)

Searle's shenanigans and fraud were so bad because they couldn't prove aspartame safe they needed help to coverup the issue so on August 4, l976 they met with the FDA and convinced them to allow them to hire a private agency, University Associated for Education in Pathology (UAREP). As described by Florence Graves (l984, page s5500 of Congressional Record l985a):

"The pathologists were specifically told that they were not to make a judgment about aspartame's safety or to look at the designs of the tests. Why did the FDA choose to have pathologists conduct an investigation when even some FDA officials acknowledged at the time that UAREP had a limited task which would only partially shed light on the validity of Searle's testing? The answer is not clear."

In other words, UAREP was sworn to silence, and how much did they get to be quiet? They received a half a million dollars!!!

Searle was intent on getting aspartame approved. They had invested 19.7 million dollars in an incomplete production facility and 9.2 million dollars in aspartame inventory. On Dec 8, l975, stockholders filed a class action lawsuit alleging that G. D. Searle had concealed information from the public regarding the nature and quality of animal research at G. D. Searle in violation of the Securities and Exchange Act (Farber l989, page 48).

Aspartame also triggered mammary, uterine, ovarian, pancreatic, testicular and thyroid tumors just for starters, not just brain tumors. There were also pituitary adenomas.

Read more...
 
Shocking Pharm Secrets & EMF Dangers to Body! Nov 7/14 Print E-mail
Friday, 07 November 2014 13:25

And this is only the beginning and scratches only the surface:


Shocking Big Pharma SECRETS Reveal Cancer Cover-up And Drug Deaths

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK1OIuFbxuc 16 minutes

Cdsapi’s Added Comment:  A 16 minute video on the  Big Pharma criminal scandals that control “the medical care system ” in which we place our trust  -  and suffer the dire consequences..

The Corporate level of Big Pharma is rotten to the core.

Your Health is NOT the focus of their concerns.  Rather  their primary focus is Fleecing your pocket book and Creating a Marketing Strategy for Selling their drug concoctions, creating an endless conveyor belt of profits – and keeping the public sick and frightened enough to think they need them  -  masters at inventing diseases, if that creates a market for a new drug.
Remember – To Big Pharma, a Healthy population is a death knell to Profit.

What is so doubly alarming is the realization that so many professional people down the line, and politicians (with their eye on reelection finances), are willing to accept the bribes and perks, and serve compliantly in selling out the welfare of the public to these Big Pharma Cartel criminals.

Equally disturbing is the deep-seated gullibility of a public that allows itself to remain “blind-sighted” and swallows the propaganda, even when the disastrous consequential facts stare them in the face.

An aside note: This is the same Glaxo Smith Kline that was able to fabricate enough political pressure (via a totally invented series of published LIES) to demand that LANCET REMOVE  Dr. Wakefield’s Paper on the observed associations linking the MMR Vaccine (that GSK produced) to gut and brain disorders, including autism.  Also no one mentioned that Mr.Murdock, (who owned the paper that published the fabricated LIES), sat in the Board of GSK. 
99% of the media-brainwashed-public bought the scam -  which allowed GSK to get off scotfree to continue selling its vaccines (that continue to destroy the neurology of infants – with impunity and unaccountability.  
The LIES, repeated over and over again in the corporate-owned mainstream media, became “fact” in literally every discussion.  The career of a brilliant doctor was destroyed, but more importantly,
the Research into the connection between infant vaccinations and brain damage was stopped dead in its tracks.
And thus we continue to watch the exponential increase in autism and learning disabilities, extremely rare just 40 years ago, from 1 in 20,000  to now 1 in 50, and increasing annually  -  with Glaxo Smith Kline laughing all the way to the bank.
The public and the reporters have never bothered to read the thousands of published research papers in medical and scientific journals that indicate that Wakefield was indeed right – but that he had opened the
forbidden Vaccinations Pandora’s Box -  for which he, and many others, have paid, and continue to pay, the penalty..

Comment by cdsapi: Citizens Demand Scientific, Academic, Political (and Media) INTEGRITY

 

Shocking Big Pharma SECRETS Reveal Cancer Cover-up And Drug Deaths

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK1OIuFbxuc 16 minutes

EMF Wifi Dangers to the Body in Schools!

Wireless – WiFi in our schools - the health hazard that is being ignored  -  that is destroying the neurology (the brains) of our children.

Inge’s Comment:  Even though this interview with George Carlo was done in 2012, it is even more relevant today since the installation of

Wifi in our schools still continues to  be expanded exponentially in Canada and the USA.

(in Europe, they are taking Wifi out of schools because they have identified  the hazard, and are moving to protect their children.)

When you are voting for School Board  Trustees, question them on their position on WiFi in schools – and please don’t vote for anyone

who supports the implementation of Wifi in our schools.

Please pass this down your contact list  immediately -  interview with George Carlo on health hazard of Wifi in our schools-  since

municipal voting is just a week away.

Extremely important – please take the time to listen to this interview.

This is 27 min long.

George Carlo on Wireless

Wi-Fi in Schools: Dr. George Carlo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IgLO9yR1JlQ

 
Disharmonic Wifi Dangers to Health! Nov 5/14 Print E-mail
Wednesday, 05 November 2014 14:56

Cdsapi’s Added Comments:  Whether we are addressing the issues of GMOs, herbicides and pesticides,  EMFs,  Microwave WiFi , Food Irradiation,  Fluoride,   Aspartame, Mandatory Medications, especially Psychotropic drugs,  Mandatory Vaccinations,  Total Surveillance, Chemtrails and HAARP, genetically engineered Pandemics,  etc. etc., the same profile emerges every time – loud and clear
They know the destructive facts are real
They are concealing the destructive facts with ingenious stealth.

They are USING the destructive facts for an ulterior motive and agenda.
And it goes beyond just profit –
it strategically targets the society as we know it - in their pursuit of producing their “super-human race” – transhumanism.!

These policies and technologies are all reliably HEALTH DESTRUCTIVE while being propaganda-camouflaged under “Public Health”, Safety, Security and the hidden under the classified secrecy of “National Security” and “patented proprietary information”.

The soundly established, verifiable SCIENCE  and the independent research Scientists are quasi banned, and attacked by government and corporate propaganda entities, slick, polished and disarming. 
Blatant Lies become the norm and replace the real facts. 
As Ed Bernay, the father of PR Propaganda, said “
A redefinition of ethics is necessary . . .  the subject matter of the propaganda need not necessarily be true.”

Never mentioned in the mainstream media is the reality that these technologies and official policies all synchronize and conform with the “Global Elites’ Population Reduction Program Agenda  - that Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the Bilderbergers, Council of Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, etc., the eugenicists,  openly discuss, promote and finance.

How better to facilitate their agenda to “rid the planet of useless eaters”,  than to intentionally orchestrate policies that DESTROY HEALTH - especially the health and REPRODUCTIVE CAPACITY of the youngest generation  -  the health of the children .  Destroy the children and society implodes and crumbles.  Globalist Mission accomplished!

Under the radar and never mentioned by the mainstream media is the anomaly that when destructive laws protecting destructive technologies and policies are conceived and passed, they carefully ‘legally’ exclude the ELITES, the legislators, the upper bureaucrats, etc.

Thus the Billionaire Elites don’t eat Genetically engineered GMOs, and corporate CEOs don’t eat the JUNK that their corporations produce for mass consumption,  they have no “fly-lists,  they don’t drink fluoridated water, they are excluded from the legislated Mandatory Health Insurance Plans and controlled medications,  they send their kids to special schools that don’t expose their kids to WiFi all day long,  etc. etc., etc.

Please read Barrie Trower’s Report very carefully , realizing that the criminal travesty surrounding  the EMF, RF, Wireless technology and Wireless surveillance is just one arm of this Global Elite Octopus and its agenda.  cdsapi@telus.net

(This email is also attached as a document file)

http://rense.com/general96/trower.html
also
http://emfsummit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/WiFi-a-Thalidomide-in-the-making-who-cares.pdf

Barrie Trower WiFi Report - 
Humanity At The Brink

Wi-Fi –

A Thalidomide in the Making.

Who Cares?

By Barrie Trower
September 2013

With Deference to all Scientists:
this Research Report has been written
for all students and non-scientists to understand.

Abstract

As stated by University Researchers, Government Scientists and International Scientific Advisors;
a minimum of 57.7% of schoolgirls exposed to low-level microwave radiation (Wi-fi) are at risk of suffering stillbirth, foetal abnormalities or genetically damaged children, when they give birth.
Any genetic damage may pass to successive generations.

 

Wifi - a Thalidomide in the Making - Who Cares?

Professor John R Goldsmith, International / Advisor Consultant for R.F. Communication, Epidemiology and Communications Sciences Advisor to the World Health Organisation, Military and University Advisor, Researcher; wrote concerning the low level exposure of microwave irradiation (below thermal level) incident upon women:

Of the microwave-exposed women, 47.7% had miscarriages prior to the 7th week of pregnancy....”(1)

The level of irradiation incident upon the women was stated, as from, five microwatts per centimetre squared.  This level of irradiation may seem meaningless to a non-scientist; however, when I say that it is below what most schoolgirls will receive in a classroom of wi-fi transmitters, from the age of approximately five years upwards, this level becomes more meaningful.

A distinction here must be made and a very important one: schoolgirls are not women.  Schoolgirls are children and children are both neurologically and physiologically different from adults.  A child’s brain tissue / bone marrow has different electrical conductivity properties than adults due to the higher water content (2) (this renders the Specific Absorption Rate obsolete).
Children’s absorption of microwave radiation can be ten times higher than adults.  Permanent low-level microwave exposure can induce chronic nitrosative and oxidative ‘stress’, thence, damage the cellular mitochondria (mitochondropathy).  This ‘stress’ can cause irreversible mitochondrial DNA damage (mitochondrial DNA is ten times more susceptible to oxidative and nitrosative ‘stress’ than the DNA in the cell nucleus).  Mitochondrial DNA is irreparable due to its low histone protein content, therefore any damage (genetic or otherwise) can be transmitted to all successive generations through the maternal line. (3)

Hence, we are subjecting each successive female generation to harm.  Whether these two ten-fold increases ‘merge’ to become 57.7%  or are additional, thence equal 67.7% of those to suffer, is a moot point.  Either way we are facing the equivalent of a pandemic
I was invited to present a lecture at Brighton University recently and one Doctor commented on a +60% foetal birth rate damage from exposed farm animals. All mammalian species will of course suffer the same consequence resulting from low-level microwave irradiation.  There is very little difference ‘biologically’ between our embryonic cells.

I invite the Reader to peruse my diagram and / or read my simple explanation concerning the microwaving of the ovarian follicles in schoolgirls.

Simple Explanation

Imagine you are five years old, in school and sitting with a wi-fi laptop near your abdomen.  Theoretically, your ovaries can become irradiated until you leave school at aged 16-18 years old.  When you become pregnant, every one of your follicles (to become eggs) will have been microwaved.  Hence, you may or may not deliver a healthy child.

Should you become a pregnant as a student, your embryo (for its first 100 days ­ if it is female) is producing approximately 400,000 follicles (within its ovaries) for future child-birth.

The problem is that these developing follicle cells do not have the cellular protection of mature adult cells.  Consequently your ‘Grandchild’ may have had every single follicle cell irradiated and damaged prior to its conception.  Therefore when your child becomes an adult (with its irradiated follicles) there is a greater likelihood of its child (your Grand-daughter) suffering the ailments previously mentioned, during conception / embryonic and foetal development stages.

Beyond Belief

The shocking truth is, not only was all of this known and documented long before wi-fi was ever put in front of children, but the dangerous biological effects were concealed (as they are to this day) from the general public, in order to protect the industries profit.

Professor Goldsmith writes:

.....effects from exposure to RF radiation in certain populations: reproductive effects.....increased spontaneous abortion.....increased incidence of childhood and other cancers.....” (1)

Confirming this with more than 2000 references is the Naval Medical Research Institute in their document: ‘Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (Effects) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation’ highlight ‘......Altered Menstrual Activity / Altered Foetal Development.....’ (4)

The World Health Organization’s ‘International Symposium’ Research Agreement No. 05-609-04 ‘Biological Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation’ emphasizes in its 350 pages:  Biological effects, health and excess mortality from artificial irradiation of Radio Frequency Microwaves. Section 28 deals with problems concerning Reproductive Function.

This document was classed as ‘Top Secret’ and its contents withheld by WHO and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection). (5)

Eldon Byrd, a scientist for the Naval Surface Weapon Centre of the US Navy, in one of his 1986 lectures on the effects of low-level microwaves, is referenced as stating:

.....we can alter the behaviour of cells, tissue.....cause up to six times higher foetus mortality and birth defects....’. (6)

Finally, the Mobile Telecommunications Industry carried out a very thorough and exhaustive scientific study on its own product.  This industry’s conclusion was:

Sec. 7 “.....it can be concluded that electro-magnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer.

.....Direct damage on the DNA as well as influences on the DNA synthesis and DNA repair mechanisms.....” (7)

(Note I have underscored the relevant words here.)

Note: DNA synthesis is essential for healthy embryonic / foetal / child’s growth.

With these few of the roughly 8000 research articles showing this phenomena; in order to protect these industries’ profit, the United States Defence Intelligence Agency sent a ‘document’ to ‘advanced nations’ describing the problem and suggesting ‘how to deceive the public’.

It read:

.....if the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavourable effects on industrial output............exposed to microwave radiation below thermal levels experience more.....” (8)

NB: Industrial output is of course...profit.  A very relaxed exposure standard also makes it very difficult to take the industry to court.

This (and two other documents with ref. 8) then continues to list many physiological and neurological dangers from low-level: below thermal, microwave irradiation inc: blood disorders, heart problems, psychiatric symptoms and ‘menstrual disorders’.

***Wi-fi is of course, below thermal low-level microwave irradiation.***

In order to appease the US Government, some Governments adopted the ICNIRP guideline, whereby, the only safety limit is just six-minutes of warming.  Which means: if you do not feel too warm in six minutes, wi-fi is deemed to be safe.

No consideration at all has been given to the published ‘below thermal’ cellular interaction as listed by several countries including the United States; which were (and are) known to cause: cancer,  severe neuropathological symptoms,  foetal defects and  literally hundreds of illnesses related to cellular disorders.

Countries following ICNIRP continue to argue that their six minute warming effect is all that is required regarding microwave irradiation.

Should the Reader be wondering whether I am ‘as mad as a box of frogs’ and thinking ‘no government would ever harm its citizens for money, especially pregnant women’; I invite the Reader to investigate Government decisions behind: smoking, asbestos, BSE (mad-cow disease), lead in petrol, experiments on 20,000 UK serving military personnel serving in the 1960’s, thalidomide and of course Agent Orange sprayed over the food crops in Vietnam.  To this day, many global birth defects stem from these Government / Government Scientific / Military decisions: with industrial advisors.

If further evidence is required, I invite the Reader to read documents released under the Freedom of Information Act; namely, Operations:   Pandora,   MK Ultra,   MK Chaos,   Cointelpro,   MK Delta,   MK Naomi,   MK Search,   Bluebird,   Artichoke,   Chatter,   Sleeping Beauty   and Grill Flame.

Here, secret experiments carried out by the Military / Government scientists upon unsuspecting civilians, namely: students, servicemen, psychiatric patients, poor, children over the age of 4 years, pregnant women, Muslims, Catholics, prisoners, handicapped, deaf, blind, homosexuals, single women, elderly, school children, ‘marginal groups’ and dissidents; served to increase their knowledge and understanding of; what is commonly known as...Stealth Warfare.

Progress on the study of illnesses caused by low-level microwave irradiation continues to this day.  One current study on cancer and neurological harm continues until 2018 and involves women who could be pregnant. (9)

Progress Reports are also fed back to Governmental Scientists:

.....students will understand the nature of RF…...bioeffects research, including human / animal studies......students will become familiar with current state of knowledge on potential health effects RF, such as cancer, memory loss, and birth defects.” (10)

NB:  RF has become a generic term (Radio Frequency) to avoid using the term ‘microwave’.  It poses less ‘safety queries’ as the word ‘radio’ itself, which used to refer to ‘long wave radio’ was domestically non threatening.

Intentional Ignorance

Governmental Intransigence forces a moratorium upon the risks of exposure to future generations.  Both the Communications Industry and Governmental studies have proved that protein synthesis (the using of chemical structures to ‘build’ the roughly 4050 foetal and 4500 adults designated biological / neurological structures) can be influenced by low-level microwave irradiation.  This moratorium seems to spread to organizations either relying on Governmental funding, or for whatever reason; acquiescence.  However, not all research departments suppress the truth.

A brilliant paper published by Dundee University confirms that low-level microwave irradiation, unable to cause any heating (thermal) effect, can affect cellular signalling processes. (11)

The Main Risks to Children

These biological processes described as being ‘influenced’ by low-level microwave irradiation may not just damage foetal growth; relying on the same biological processes are:

Blood Brain Barrier - requires 18 months to form and protects the brain from toxins.  It is known to be effected.

Myelin Sheath - requires 22 years to build its 122 layers.  It is responsible for all thinking, organ and muscle processes.

Brain ­ requires 20 years to develop (I can assure you, cell phones do not help in its development).

Immune System - requires 18 years to develop.  Bone marrow and Bone Density are known to be affected by low-level microwaves as are the immune systems’ white blood cells.

Bones - requires 28 years to develop ­ as mentioned the moisture content of children makes both the ‘soft bones’ and marrow particularly attractive to microwave irradiation.  Bone marrow produces blood cells.

Clearly, our decision makers are overlooking a child illness pandemic hitherto unknown in our 40,000 generations of civilization; which can involve over a half of the World’s exposed mothers / children.

The Very Sad Truth

I have been very honoured to address approximately 40 Royals, Governments, Leaders of Governments, Leaders of Peoples and Government Officials over the years.

My address (text) to one King concerning the numbers of ill children was placed on the internet. (12)

I referenced over 200 cancer / leukaemia clusters in schools (up to the time of data collection) from low level microwave transmitters in schools.  There were many different types of cancers, leukaemias, miscarriages and breast cancers of staff.  These continue, mostly only recorded locally, to this day.

When this was discussed in the English Parliament (as one of the EU Countries involved), a Minister dismissed it and lied to the House of Commons.  My request to prove this lie was denied.

Possibly, the most respected children’s charity in the World: UNICEF, joined forces with the World’s leading authority on the effects of harm from low-level microwave irradiation:

The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection: in their research document ‘Health Effect on Children and Teenagers’ found;

85% increase in Central Nervous System Disorders

36% increase in epilepsy

11% increase in mental retardation

82% increase in blood immune disorders and Risk to Foetus. (13)

NB. The Reader may think that the cell phone irradiation is different from wi-fi as it has more power.  In fact wi-fi can be more harmful because of its lower power!  Low power can enter the body and cause harm.  All electromagnetic waves are accumulative.  If they are below the body’s threshold to cause activation of the necessary proteins required to defend and repair tissues, the damage accumulates very slowly and is undetectable like a cancer.  Think of sunbathing on a cloudy day, you can still burn your skin.

The Good Guys

I have a list of nine countries (some of whom I am working with) who are actively, either taking wi-fi out of schools or in the legal argument-stage of this process.  I decline to publically name these countries as my actions may interfere with their legal negotiations.

The Parliamentary Assembly (Assemblee Parlimentaire) Council of Europe Document 12608, published on 6.5.2011 in section 8.3.2. states:

.....ban all mobile phones, DECTphones or Wi-Fi or WLAN systems from classrooms and schools.....

For legal reasons this had to be changed to a ‘wired system is preferred’.  However, the meaning is clear.

In a translated document, Professor Yuri Grigoriev of the Russian Committee for Non Ionizing Radiation Protection wrote on 19.6.2012

.....recommend the use of wired networks and not networks using the wireless broadband access systems, including wi-fi, in schools and educational establishments.

A document dated 25.3.2013 (updated from 19.3.2013) by the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine wrote a letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District with the following recommendation:

.....do not add to the burden of public health by installing blanket wireless internet connections in Los Angeles Schools.

Just prior to this in December 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (representing 60,000 Paediatricians) wrote to Congress requesting more protection from low-level microwave irradiation for children and pregnant women:  with regard to wi-fi in schools, they write:

Read more...
 
Aspartame Re packaged & Healthy Eating Video! Oct 27/14 Print E-mail
Monday, 27 October 2014 16:26

Aspartame Re packaged & Healthy Eating Video! Oct 27/14

WE HAVE TO REMAIN EVER VIGILANT!!!

pass this on folks thanks---you might know people that use this poison

Corporate Tricks Against U.S. Citizens: Aspartame Renamed – AMINOSWEET – Now Marketed As A ‘Natural’ Sweetener!

Governance, Health and Nutrition,

Oct 232014

Aspartame, the artificial sweetener linked to cancer, heart palpitations, seizures, weight gain and other severe medical issues, is now going by the name AminoSweet. The toxic sweetener, Aspartame, has been around over 25 years after it was accidentally discovered by chemist, James Schlatter while working for the drug company G.D. Searle & Company.

Monsanto’s Diet Sweetener Aspartame Linked To Leukemia & Lymphoma In Landmark Study On Humans

It was created as an anti-ulcer pharmaceutical drug, but the chemist discovered it had a sweet taste, so the drug company switched its application to the FDA from a drug to a food. It was none other than Donald Rumsfeld, who was the CEO of Searle who pushed for Aspartame to be sold on the market in 1985. If that name sounds familiar, your right, he is the same Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense who served under George W. Bush.

He is a perfect example of someone taking advantage of the “revolving door” between our government and corporations.

AminoSweet is Aspartame, it changed its name to fool the public, and I am guessing it did so because consumers figured out that their product made them sick. Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. The book Prescription for Nutritional Healing, by James and Phyllis Balch lists aspartame under the category of“chemical poison.”

Phenylalanine is an essential amino acid (that is, an amino acid which our bodies cannot make and which we must obtain from our diet). It is also one of the amino acids which is used to make aspartame. Phenylalanine is found in all protein-containing foods including milk, cheese, eggs, meat and fish.
Products which contain aspartame have a label which says ‘Contains a source of phenylalanine’.

 

This label is there to help people with a rare inherited genetic disorder called phenylketonuria (PKU). These people cannot metabolise phenylalanine from any source and need to follow a strict diet to control their intake of this amino acid.

The disorder affects approximately 1 in 10,000 babies, and is identified by screening shortly after birth. [Source]

Ten percent of this sweetener contains methanol. When it is absorbed by our intestines, it breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin that causes cancer, retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication and causes birth defects.
I went to the AminoSweet website to see what kind of “spin” they are putting on their repackaged product to entice shoppers to buy their so-called “natural” sweetener and here is their selling point:

AminoSweet aspartame is the low calorie sweetener that tastes just like sugar. It is made from two building blocks of protein just like those found naturally in many everyday foods. Aspartame is digested by the body in exactly the same way as these other protein foods and so does not bring anything new to our diet.

Makers of this artificial sweetener claim it is made from protein found “naturally” in many everyday foods. So what is the meaning of ‘natural’ when it comes to the labeling of food? The FDA’s website writes:

“From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives.” [Source]

The word ‘natural’ is being thrown around to describe all sorts of genetically modified foods and AminoSweet is genetically modified. There is nothing natural about it. Why do you think these drug companies buy patents? They create them in a lab and they own it. And they know exactly what they are doing and choose to fool consumers into thinking their foods are safe when science proves differently.

In June 2013 Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream and Campbell’s Soup became defendants in class action lawsuits that allege they misrepresented the nature of the ingredients on their product labels. The Campbell’s Soup Company is currently being sued by Florida residents for misrepresenting the genetically modified (GMO) corn in its soup as “natural.”

We Can Be Smarter Than This!

Last Updated on Monday, 27 October 2014 16:29
Read more...
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 29