ASPARTAME: RACKETEER INFLUENCED & CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS

Jokingly it's said that freckles 'are the rusty ends of someone's nerves of steel', but more serious and very underreported since years is the following background information on the poisoning of our nervs - and much more - by a chemical we all have in our food: Aspartame. [http://tinyurl.com/7g2gp ]

Why not find out if you know enough about it; what it is, and what it can do to you.

It may answer some of your questions...

HR/FPF

----- Original Message ----- From: Graham Jukes Subject:

Racketeering Charges Filed Against NutraSweet Co ASPARTAME

A RACKETEER INFLUENCED & CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS [RICO] complaint has been filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The suit, filed by a member of The National Justice League, charges the defendants with manufacturing and marketing a deadly neurotoxin unfit for human consumption, while they assured the pubic that aspartame (also known as NutraSweet/Equal) contaminated products are safe and healthful, even for children and pregnant women. Present Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is mentioned throughout the lawsuit.

As evidence, an explosive affidavit from a former employee of the G.D. Searle Co - the developer of aspartame - will be made public at a National Press Conference on Thursday, September 16 at 11:00 a.m. at the Sheraton Grand Sacramento Hotel, 1230 J Street, Sacramento, California 95814, phone (916) 447-1700.

For 16 years, the FDA denied approval of aspartame because of compelling evidence of its contributing to brain tumors and other serious disabilities. Donald Rumsfeld, present Secretary of Defense in the Bush Administration, left President Ford's administration as Chief of Staff to become the CEO of aspartame producer G D Searle Co. in 1981. Shortly after, Rumsfeld became the CEO, and the day after President Reagan took office, aspartame was quickly approved by FDA Commissioner Arthur Hayes over the objections of the FDA's Public Board of Inquiry. Hayes had been recently appointed by the Reagan Administration. Shortly after aspartame's approval by the FDA, Hayes joined NutraSweet's public relations firm under a ten year contract at $1,000 a day.

Aspartame/NutraSweet was the product of the G. D. Searle Co. In January 1977, the FDA wrote a 33 page letter to U.S. Justice Department Attorney Sam Skinner: "We request that your office convene a Grand Jury investigation into apparent violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act." Skinner allowed the Statute of Limitations to run.

Three FDA Commissioners and eight other officers and Skinner took jobs in the aspartame industry shortly after it was approved in 1982.

The Food and Drug Administration once listed 92 adverse reactions from 10,000 consumer complaints and sent the list to all inquirers. In 1996 the FDA stopped taking complaints and now denies existence of the report. Seizures, blindness, sexual dysfunction, obesity, testicular, mammary and brain tumors and death, plus dozens of other dread diseases named in the suit arise from the consumption of this neurotoxin.

Defendant Moser, past CEO of NutraSweet, is cited for misrepresenting facts to public and commercial users with full knowledge of the deceptions. The toxin is sold to Bayer, Con Agra Foods, Dannon, Smucker, Kellogg, Wrigley, PepsiCo, Kraft Foods (Crystal Light), Conopco (Slim-Fast), Coke, Pfizer, Wal-Mart and Wyeth (to name a few), who use it in some of their products, including children's vitamins. The National Justice League currently has suits filed against these companies in California courts.

Defendant American Diabetes Association's mission is to care for diabetics. A 35 year ADA member, world famous diabetic specialist H.J.Roberts, M.D., discovered aspartame can precipitate diabetes and reacts harmfully with insulin. ADA rejected his report which was then published in a prestigious medical journal.

The seven count indictment includes charges for violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Fraud, violations of California Civil Code §1780-1784 and Injunctive Relief: that Defendants be enjoined from future use/sale of aspartame. Url.: http://www.dldewey.com/rico.htm

WHAT EXACTLY IS ASPARTAME?

Aspartame, ( C14H1805 : L-Aspartyl-L Phenylalanine Methyl Ester, is its official chemical name ), is made up of three chemicals, 40% - Aspartic Acid, 50% - Phenylalanine and 10% - Methanol. It is argued by those that want you to believe that Aspartame is something good is because they state that phenylalanine and aspartic acid are important amino acids and are commonly found in many foods bound to proteins.

There are people very sensitive to phenylalanine. It causes a disease called PKU which can be fatal. However, there is a huge problem with anyone saying Aspartame is good. These amino acids in Aspartame are absorbed and metabolized differently from those found in normal foods. This is because the proteins in foods are broken down very gradually and the amino acids which comprise a full range of them are gradually absorbed slowly. This gradual absorption leads to a very slow and small increase in some of the plasma amino acids.

With Aspartame however, the aspartic acid and phenylalanine which are free and unbound to any proteins, are very quickly absorbed. This causes a rush of amino acids into the system which leads to spikes in plasma amino acids. For reference pertaining to this process, refer to the medical journal Metabolism (36/5):507-512. Some fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol which is 10% of Aspartame. It is very important to remember, methanol never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present and usually in much higher amounts.

Ethanol is an antidote for methanol toxicity to the body.

All natural foods that contain methanol contain ethanol. It is mother natures way of protecting the body from methanol toxicity In Aspartame, THERE IS NO ETHANOL to counter the methanol!

WHAT DOES ASPARTAME DO IN THE BODY - IT IS ANOTHER EXCITOTOXIN?

Aspartate acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain by facilitating the transmission of information from neuron to neuron. Aspartic Acid which is 40% of Aspartame, is an amino acid. When it is taken in its' free form as in Aspartame, ( unbound to proteins ), it significantly raises the blood plasma levels of Aspartate. This excess Aspartate leads to a high level of this neuro transmitter in certain areas of the brain.

Too much Aspartate in the brain kills certain neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the cells. This influx then triggers excessive amounts of free radicals which literally kills brain cells. The neural cell damage that can be caused by excessive asparate or glutamate, ( glutamate is also known as MSG, another excitotoxin ). These exicotoxins excite or stimulate neural cells to literal death!

Some areas of the brain affected by these spiked levels of aspartate ARE NOT protected by the blood brain barrier which protects the brain. A large majority, 75% or more of neural cells in particular areas of the brain are killed before any clinical symptoms of a chronic illness are finally seen.

Aspartic Acid has a cumulative harmful effect on the endocrine system and reproductive systems as well. Several animal experiments show that exicotoxic amino acids can penetrate the placental barrier and cause damage to the fetus, the unborn child. These same excitotoxins also dramatically lower the male and female hormones testosterone and estrogen. DNA damage to sperm has been reported from Aspartame use.

In both human and animal study experiments, plasma asparate levels are shown to spike to high levels after liquid administration of Aspartame. Humans are five times more susceptible to aspartic acid and glutamic acid, (MSG) than rodents, and twenty times more susceptible than monkeys. Why? Because they concentrate these excitatory amino acids in their blood plasma to much higher levels and for a longer period of time.

These are just a few of the many chronic illnesses that have contribute to long-term exposure to these excitotoxin amino acids such as asparate acid which is 40% of Aspartame. Multiple Sclerosis, Hormonal Problems, Hearing Loss, Epilepsy, Alzheimer's Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, (ALS - Lou Gehriig's Disease), Parkinson's Disease, Hypoglycemia, AIDS Dementia, Brain Lesions and Tumors, Neuroendocrine Disorders. I wonder, could all that cereral Lou Gehrig ate which contain glutamic acid as a preservative added caused his disease?

PHENYLALANINE - 50% OF ASPARTAME

Phenylalanie is an amino acid normally found in the brain. Persons with the genetic disorder phenyletonuria, (PKU), cannot metabolize phenylalanine. This leads to dangerously high levels of pheylalanine in the brain which can be lethal. It has been shown that ingesting Aspartame, especially with carbohydrates, can lead to excess levels of phenylalanine in the brain. Even in persons that do not have PKU. Human testing has shown that phenylalanine levels of the blood were decreased significantly in humans test subjects who used Aspartame regularly.

Even a single dose of Aspartame raises blood phenylalanine levels. This study, "Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function", was performed by Dr. Wurtman and Dr. Walker. They presented their findings at the 1st International Meeting on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function in Washington D.C., May 8-10, 1987. [end quote*]

Two more American giants, Pfizer and Slimfast, have been sued in California and are accused of deceiving and poisoning consumers. These suits are in addition to the dozen companies sued in April including NutraSweet, Coke, Pepsi, Wrigleys, and Walmart!

The toxicity and progressive destruction to users of Aspartame/NutraSweet/Equal was established in three congressional hearings and books by world renowned physicians like Doctors H. J. Roberts, M.D. and Russell Blaylock, M.D.

More complaints have been filed with the FDA on aspartame than on all other food additives combined. FDA once published a list of 92 adverse reactions to this poison from 10,000 consumer reports - symptoms included seizures, blindness and death. FDA doesn't take the complaints any more, nor do they post the reaction list, perhaps because many high ranking FDA officials have joined the NutraSweet industry.

The rest of the story can be found here - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/7oaoy

With: "Dr. John Olney has testified before Congress that Aspartame causes brain tumors, and more about methanol - aka wood alcohol/poison - 10% in aspartame."

CONTACT: NATIONAL JUSTICE LEAGUE - http://www.nationaljusticeleague.com
Email: info@nationaljusticeleague.com

San Francisco, CA: http://www.wnho.net/press_release_9-15-04.htm

Fwd. by:

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/6v8ru
Editor : Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/amn3q
The Netherlands
FPF@Chello.nl

* You harvest what you sow!

*Corporate News Media: Incompetent, Criminally Negligent or Complicit? - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/cqpfe

FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107 - any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information. Url.: http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html

-0-

MEDIA ALERT: PLAYING THE GAME - In The Service Of A Machine

FPF: How Mean are the Main$tream Media?

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

The New Statesman Editor and Blair's ''Mistake''

July 27, 2005 - The American philosopher Henry David Thoreau once wrote: ''Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth. I sat at a table where were rich food and wine in abundance, and obsequious attendance, but sincerity and truth were not; and I went away hungry from the inhospitable board.'' (Thoreau, Walden And Civil Disobedience, Penguin, 1986, p.379)

How often, dear reader, do we go away hungry from the media board, and for the same reasons? What a dismal experience it is to spend twenty minutes leafing through a two-inch wedge of newsprint on a Saturday morning, finding almost nothing of human interest but plenty that offends and grates.

Why is the media, for all its high-tech sophistication, wealth and power, +so+ bland, so empty, so dull?

The answer is that its capacity for sincerity and truth is fundamentally compromised by the profit motive at its heart. What can a system based on unrestrained greed possibly have to say about a world crucified by greed? How can it afford to make sense, to talk about what really matters? Does the corporate system want us inspired, enlivened, mobilized? Or does it want us trudging around in the same old circles of relentless production and consumption, with the promise of satisfaction always just up ahead, just one more purchase away?

The average journalist may mean well. But the average journalist is inevitably diminished by the profit making media Moloch, as Norman Mailer* has observed:

"There is an odour to any Press Headquarters that is unmistakable... The unavoidable smell of flesh burning quietly and slowly in the service of a machine." - (Norman Mailer, The Time Of Our Time, Little Brown, 1998, p.457)

[FPF: CIA's media-influence - Operation Mockingbird - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/8c2ok]

Newly retired CBS news anchor Dan Rather can now talk openly about this moronic inferno:"It's fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions. One finds oneself saying: ''I know the right question, but you know what, this is not exactly the right time to ask it.'' - (Greg Palast, Dan Rather conks out'' Nose week, April 2005)

Alas, while still inside the system, Rather infamously declared: ''George Bush is the president, he makes the decisions, and, you know, as just one American, he wants me to line up, just tell me where." (Quoted, Howard Zinn, 'Terrorism and War' - Seven Stories Press, 2002, p.58)

[Arafat-Rather-HR/FPF - Sept. 2003 - ICH - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/35p59]

Anyone writing for the mainstream simply knows that certain things are not allowed. It is as though an invisible force were cramping the mind - we know we +can+ write this or that if we like, but we know what the consequences will be. It takes one slip to be labeled 'extreme' and written off. A journalist friend wrote to us recently:

„You must see the reaction in a newsroom when one mentions Chomsky or Pilger. They run the other way, and I can see they are afraid by the look on their faces. Fact is that once you understand and admit what you are doing, you can't continue with it. When I mentioned Chomsky, one person commented, ''Oh, he's way out there. ''Way out where?‚ I asked.'' (Email to Media Lens, July 8, 2005)

And there is always a long line of people willing to take our place and to respect the boundaries (. What nonsense! No one has ever told me what to write!). And remember, leading commentators are paid vast sums for doing very little. How else are they to make this kind of money? How much better to let someone else ask the tough questions and instead seek job security in bland observations, trivia and obfuscation.

Senior media figures on the mainstream 'left' are where they are because they know how to play this game. The idea is to talk a good fight, to elicit applause from the 'left', but also quiet nods of acceptance from the media gatekeepers, the people they are supposed to be challenging. A key talent is to appear passionately radical while subtly indicating that one is not 'extreme', that the rules of the media club are accepted. The first rule of media club is: Don't talk about the inherent contradiction of a corporate 'free' press. The second rule: Rule one does not exist. The third rule: Do not discuss the existence or non-existence of rules one and two.

Our society often has minimal respect for systems of thought produced by much older, non-Western cultures. But these philosophies often provide acute insights into the art of being honest. How many modern professional journalists would recognize the crucial importance of the following advice?:

''As if they were stones on a narrow slippery path, you should clear away all ideas of gain and respect, for they are the rope of the devil. Like snot in your nose, blow out all thoughts of fame and praise, for they serve only to beguile and confuse.'' (Geshe Wangyal, The Door of Liberation, Wisdom Books, 1995, p.88)

SIGNALLING THE GATEKEEPERS

In a high profile piece for the Guardian's comment section, John Kampfner, recently appointed editor of the New Statesman, sends all the right signals:

''Shortly after 9/11, I laid a wager with a colleague about when the serious media would tire of the new seriousness. It did not take long - I think it was a couple of weeks before the broadsheets (or whatever they are called now) were publishing in-depth pieces about Nigella Lawson and domestic deification. The national conversation had resumed.'' (Kampfner, Challenge, don't emote, The Guardian, July 26, 2005)

This is the kind of banter that normally fills the media sections of newspapers, being written primarily for fellow journalists. It is critical of the media, but not in any serious way. Poking gentle fun at the broadsheets as lovable rogues signals that Kampfner is ('nuanced', 'measured', 'balanced'. To focus on the tired old complaint that even the broadsheets like to wallow in trivia is an alternative to focusing on real issues - the fact that the corporate media system is inherently corrupt, irresponsible and dangerous.
After all, Noam Chomsky's opening comments on the same theme might be along these lines:

„A properly functioning system of indoctrination has a variety of tasks, some rather delicate. One of its targets is the stupid and ignorant masses. They must be kept that way, diverted with emotionally potent oversimplifications, marginalized and isolated.'' (Chomsky, Deterring Democracy, Hill and Wang, 1992, p.369)

But then Chomsky (here paraphrasing comments made by elite intellectuals) is describing exactly the effect of Kampfner's article, the opening paragraph included.

Equally vital for success on the mainstream 'left', Kampfner declares a passionate commitment to truth, radical challenge and change:

''One of the great challenges of anyone who seeks change - journalist, politician or other - is to deal with anger and frustration, to know when to turn up the temperature and when not... good journalism of the left (I apply the definition in its widest 'liberal' context) must always challenge. It should never accept the status quo or take answers from officialdom at face value.''

[ FPF/HR - comment: Commentators should have stopped talking about 'left' or 'right' decades ago: it's a divide and rule trap. Among thinking human beings 'left' only means: "Critical towards the society one lives in, to make it better." The world is populated by 'givers' and 'takers'. At present a murderous gang of US/Israeli neocons - massacring for billion $ profits - tries globally to rob the 'givers' blind. But they - 'the takers' - will again be 'holocausted' the very second people understand who's taken them for a ride, again...There will not be enough lampposts, it is feared - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/bwsrx]

Is dealing with anger really one of the ''great challenges'' of anyone seeking political change today? Or is this a banal diversion, a liberal herring to replace serious analysis of concentrated power and the problems it creates?

Kampfner insists the status quo should never be accepted at face value. But he presents this as a kind of clarion call to ''good journalism'', with the implicit suggestion that it might be heeded. There is no sense whatever that Kampfner is writing about and from a fundamentally mendacious system of media power that has evolved precisely to filter +out+ serious challenges and good journalism. Imagine if a Soviet journalist had written in the newspaper Pravda under Stalin: ''Soviet journalism must always challenge. It should never accept the status quo or take answers from officialdom at face value.''

WOULD WE NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THIS A SHAM, AT BEST AN IRRELEVANT DENIAL OF REALITY?

Kampfner explains the kind of challenges he has in mind: ''At a time of high anxiety, how should the less pliant end of the media behave? It is easiest to define first what its role should not be - bland reassurance. My impression of the past couple of weeks is that some newspapers have adopted several of the characteristics of the prime minister himself. They have known when and how to emote, to good effect. They have allowed a combination of hubris and naivety to get the better of rational judgment...''

Anyone looking for coherent argument flowing from the need to challenge the status quo now finds themselves lost in trivia: ''Public transport-using readers and listeners are more open about expressing their fears than car-driving media commentators. The stoicism that was largely a media-political construct is already turning to frustration.''

Kampfner recognizes some of the achievements of the New Statesman under his predecessor, Peter Wilby: ''We reported before, during and after the war the misgivings of the senior intelligence operatives, police chiefs, military chiefs, diplomats and politicians. This was based on evidence, not on the anti-Americanism of which we were accused.''

This was mostly down to the articles written by John Pilger - courageous and honest work surrounded on every side by media title-tattle. [FPF-Pilger Url.: http://pilger.carlton.com/]

Having declared his radical credentials, while instantly muddying the waters, Kampfner now sends the all-important signals to the gatekeepers. Blair's refusal to engage in a serious debate about ''what went wrong in Iraq'' has prolonged the problem, he insists:

''Voters were not as ready to 'move on' as he claimed. And yet both sides bear their responsibilities for the dialogue of the deaf.''

This again communicates ''nuanced'' and ''measured'' to the people that matter. What could be more ''balanced'' than recognizing the 'failings' on both sides - that is, on the side of war criminals responsible for mass killing, and of the anti-war opponents who tried to stop them?

Last August, Kampfner went further still, writing in the Guardian that ''a truce'' should be called over Blair's ''botched war'': ''Blair has belatedly acknowledged some mistakes over Iraq. His critics should then agree, as the boss would say, to 'move on'. (Kampfner, ''Brown blew it. So stop moaning and start talking.'' The Guardian, August 23, 2004)

IN HIS LATEST ARTICLE, KAMPFNER SAYS OF BLAIR:

''Sure, most level-headed people around him would now privately accept that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, but they would ask, quite reasonably, in which circumstances it would be justified in the future to take military action against a sovereign state either for humanitarian or security reasons. These debates have yet to be engaged in properly.''

After all the lies, all the cynicism, all the unrelenting misery and carnage, the invasion of Iraq was a ''mistake''. Not a vast crime, not an atrocity, but a mistake. As Chomsky observed many years ago: ''+their+ terror and violence are crimes, +ours+ are state craft or understandable error''. (Chomsky, op. cit, p.380)

The real issue, then, is not how on earth Blair can still be in office rather than in jail, or what this tells us about our 'democracy'. It is not how to stop the diabolic slaughter in Iraq, how to replace the illegal US-UK occupation with a solution acceptable to Iraqis. Instead, the ''level-headed people'' - [FPF - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/8njks] - around Blair - state officials also complicit in major war crimes - ask, ''quite reasonably'', when it might be proper for them to launch another attack in the future.

What could be more vital than a debate of this kind, when popular opinion has so recently and so casually been dismissed as utterly irrelevant by our political masters? This from the editor of the country's premier 'left' magazine.

All around the country the gatekeepers will have received Kampfner's message loud and clear.

SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. When writing emails to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to John Kampfner, editor of the New Statesman - Email: john@newstatesman.co.uk

Ask him why he wrote that Blair's war on Iraq is a ''terrible mistake'', rather than a terrible crime, or a terrible atrocity.

[enditem]

Visit the Media Lens website: www.medialens.org

* FPF - FOOTNOTES & LINKS:

* The D-Notice as 'garotte' for the UK? - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/pv2r

* DA-Notice Website - The official site of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting
Advisory Committee - Url.: http://www.dnotice.org.uk/

Mailer background - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/9gxct

Fwd. in agreement with MediaLens by:

FOREIGN PRESS FOUNDATION
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/6v8ru
Editor : Henk Ruyssenaars
http://tinyurl.com/amn3q
The Netherlands
FPF@Chello.nl

*Corporate News Media: Incompetent, Criminally Negligent or Complicit? - Url.: http://tinyurl.com/cqpfe

* This is the official website of the UK 'Security Service' - Url.: http://www.mi5.gov.uk/ - And this is part
of the work they - and some others like the CIA/Mossad etc. - do: Url.: http://tinyurl.com/becg7

FPF-COPYRIGHT NOTICE - In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107 - any copyrighted work in this message is distributed by the Foreign Press Foundation under fair use, without profit or payment, to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the information. Url.: http://liimirror.warwick.ac.uk/uscode/17/107.html

-0-