While Science Sleeps
Dr. Woodrow Monte, review
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 13:55:01 -0400
Subject: While Science Sleeps by Dr. Woodrow Monte, review
I would mention the reason aspartame victims don't want to use aspartame again even for a study is because of the chemical hypersensitization. Some have gone into anaphylactic shock. You remember if you saw "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World" that Cheryl Kemptner told the hospital no aspartame because she was chemically hypersensitive after using it. They gave her Crystal Lite with aspartame and she became a Code Blue and had to be resuscitated to save her life. Dr. James Bowen told me to always tell people who have used aspartame that its so poisonous it causes lifetime chemical hypersensitization, otherwise they will never be able to live a normal life. You "have to" read every label. Even if it says natural or artificial flavors you could be getting aspartame and/or MSG.
Also, if you haven't seen this be sure to read it on the methanol issue: FDA refuses to answer it. http://www.mpwhi.com/fda_violates_data_quality_act.htm
Mission Possible International
Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
From: "Jim McDonald" <email@example.com>
Subject: ****While Science Sleeps:Review:
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:22:21 +0100
Dear Professor Ware,
My name is James McDonald co-founder of the UK Aspartame Awareness Campaign and I have just read your excellent review of Professor Montes new Book, of which I have a copy. I am known to Professor Monte and share the same concerns regarding the presence of methanol in our food, specifically that from aspartame consumption. You might be interested to hear what is happening in the EU today regarding anecdotal evidence.
Following successful campaigning by ourselves and others on the question of aspartame's methanol content, EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) are in the middle of their 13th review of aspartame safety in the last 30 years ( Concluding 30th September 2012 each time they have rubberstamped it safe. They are currently angling to rubberstamp it safe again by ignoring any data they dont like, including Montes new book and our challenge that the ADI for aspartame ( 40mg per kg) is 35 times too high for safety and the NOAEL they used to calculate the ADI contained enough methanol to kill a human Note the ADI in the US (50mg/kg) is 44times too high. Our saving grace may just be possible proof that anecdotal evidence does show harm from aspartame consumption Your final section But it is mostly circumstantial evidence
In 2009 the FSA ( UK Food Standards Agency)decided to conduct their own Pilot Study on anecdotal evidence. They intended to recruit 75 volunteers who claimed a reaction when they consumed products containing aspartame and 75 who did not ( the number of volunteers was subsequently reduced to 50 of each) Volunteers would be fed a cereal bar containing 100mg of aspartame and their reactions noted. The study was to last 18 months concluding in Dec 2010, it was extended to Dec 2011 due to lack of reactionary volunteers, the Professor leading the study was quoted as saying at one time he had 149 reactionary volunteers but 141 of them withdrew when they realised they would be required to consume the bar containing aspartame!
Under pressure from our Campaign in March this year (2012) seeking their report of the results of the Pilot Study (which was already 12 months late)and their assurance that the study results would be considered by EFSA in the current aspartame safety review due to conclude Sept 2012. I received notification from FSA that the Study had again been extended to Dec 2012 at a further cost of #144.000, They would be recruiting a further 25 volunteers In order to ensure that a robust and thorough study can be seen through to completion ?? Their report is not now due until Dec 2012 by which time the EFSA review would have concluded. FSA have confirmed to me they have no intention of providing EFSA with any interim study details to consider in the review.
This is a very unsatisfactory situation, a simple study scheduled to take 18 months will now take 42months with a cost overrun of 36%. FSA have provided no scientific justification for this and are very reluctant to provide any indications of which way the study is progressing. They will not co-operate in providing EFSA with any results to consider in their review even though the study will be 93% complete.
Very familiar with the way FSA operates it is my belief that: -
1) If the study results favoured their position IE little or no reactions, they would have announced this to all their favourite publications at the earliest opportunity and would not have spent any more money on it.
2) If the results are showing positive reactions it could be disastrous. Their support for the safety of aspartame would be seriously challenged and the results would HAVE to be included in the EFSA review which would also be compromised.
I may be completely wrong but all the signs are that the Pilot Study results are not favouring the FSA/ EFSA line on the safety of aspartame. It is therefore in their interest not to reveal any results and attempt to bury them. Having no information to the contrary to consider I believe the latest extension is a crude attempt to prolong the study past the EFSA review date hoping to dismiss the pilot study with a negative statement without any details. We will of course do our best not to let that to happen.
This is the most important review of aspartame safety ever, if we fail in getting the methanol message to the EFSA so they cannot dismiss it we will have aspartame in our food forever more. WATCH THIS SPACE.
With Best Regards,
UKAAC (UK Aspartame Awareness Campaign)