FDA deficiencies, Alexis Jetters, Reader's Digest, Vera Hassner Sharav,
blog, Alliance for Human Research Protection 2008.03.23: Murray 2008.04.02

http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.htm
Tuesday, April 2, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1535

http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2008/03/readers-digest-crisis-in-fda-and.html

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
ahrpblog@...;
http://human-research-protection.blogspot.com/
www.ahrp.org/ahrpspeaks/AnthraxBand0405.php 2005.04.01
Vera Hassner Sharav Tel: 212-595-8974 veracare@...;
____________________________________________________


A catalyst for public debate

* A Must Read Article - Supreme Court Inc.
* Eli Lilly "Smoking Gun" E-mail Promotes Off-Label ...
* Tamiflu recommendations for children disregard sci...
* Hiding of documents - Who Will Prevail? The People...
* State of Connecticut Files RICO Lawsuit v. Eli Lil...
* Drug Firms Woo Democrats - Helping Defeat Their Bi...
* Vaccine-Autism Story: Trust Your Government
* Two stories of concealed data: Eli Lilly and Zypre...
* Congress: Hearing on Psych Drugging of Children
* GAO To Investigate FDA Review Process!

Links

* AHRP Main Website
* PsychRights
* Pharma Marketing Blog
* Integrity in Science
* GoozNews
* Yolande Lucire
* Scientific Misconduct Blog
* Honest Medicine
* Clinical Psychiatry: A closer look
* Furious Seasons
* Health Care Renewal
* Let Them Eat Prozac
* SSRI Reports
* Social Audit
* Pharmalot
* Giu le Mani dai Bambini
* The Bonkers Institute
* Seroxat Secrets
* Carlat Psychiatry Blog


Readers Digest: Crisis in the FDA (and the Democrats)

An excellent overview of FDA's failure to function as a public
interest watchdog -- as is its legal mission -- appears in the
current issue of The Readers Digest (below).

"Lurching from one disaster to another, the 102-year-old agency
learns of dangers too late and then moves too slowly
to remedy them. Instead of depending on the FDA, Americans
are doubting it -- and for good reason."

The greatest concern is drug safety. FDA's financial dependence on
pharmaceutical company user fees has led FDA leadership to
regard industry -- rather than the public -- as the agency's "clients."

The consequences of this mindset can be measured in hundreds of
thousands of preventable tragedies, including deaths.

The author, Alexis Jetters, correctly notes that money alone won't
solve the FDA's morale problem and that without change at the top,
there's no assurance that FDA officials will get tough on industry
scofflaws.

She notes that in recent years, dozens of career scientists and senior
managers have left the agency, a much higher turnover than that of
the National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.

Public trust in the agency has slid from 67 percent in 2001 to
36 percent in 2006.

Furthermore, from 2000 to 2005, FDA enforcement against drug,
vaccine and medical device manufacturers dropped by more than
50 percent, according to a recent investigation by California
Congressman Henry Waxman.

Jetters lists five major problems and what (if anything) is being done
to address them:
1. Pressure from industry ($400 million in user fees buys influence,
if not control);
2. Safety of new drugs (neither companies nor FDA systematically
monitor adverse drug effects after approval);
3. Sloppy record keeping (MedWatch);
4. Conflicts of interest (advisory committees);
5. Muzzled experts
(Dr. Andrew Mosholder -- SSRI-suicide finding;
Dr. David Graham-Vioxx -- heart attack risk;
Dr.Rosemary Johann-Liang -- Avandia cardiac risk.)


Another article in this issue of the Readers Digest:
One Drug, Many Tragedies: A doctor blows the whistle on a
dangerous new drug that wrongfully received FDA approval
By Neena Samuel
http://www.rd.com/national-interest/consumer-safety/fda-approves-harmful-antibio\
tic/article.html


The latest chilling report assessing FDA's performance, this one
commissioned by the FDA's own advisory Science Board,
describes the FDA as an organization nearly out of control:
"We were shocked at the appalling state of science at the FDA,"
says Garret FitzGerald, MD, chairman of the pharmacology
department at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
and an advisor on the report. "The analogy is Katrina. But we have
to fix this before the hurricane hits."

Even the department's champions are worried. "I don't think the
FDA is at a collapse point yet, but it's getting close," says Hubbard,
who retired in 2005 after 26 years at the agency. "In some places,
regulation is so weak that there's nothing left."

It is clear that without Congressional action, the FDA is not likely to
return to its mission of protecting the public health. But Congress,
no less than FDA officials, have become financially dependent
on Big Pharma.

CNN reports (below) that Democratic senators Barack Obama
and Hillary Clinton are the top recipients of donations from the
pharmaceutical industry,
according to The Center for Responsive Politics.

The size of Big Pharma's checks is determined by who's in driver's
seat of power -- not ideology: "Since the Democrats took control
of Congress in 2006, money [from the pharmaceutical industry]
has shifted away from Republicans, to the Democrats who hold
the keys to the kingdom."

Be wary of new drugs. All medicines come with risks.
When a doctor prescribes one, he's making a judgment call that its
benefits outweigh its dangers.

But with newly approved drugs, the risks are not always well
understood at first. That's why Drummond Rennie, MD,
of the University of California, San Francisco, advises sticking to
meds that have been on the market for at least four or five years:
"I never, ever take a new drug. I want to see reports on the toxic
effects after many thousands of people have taken it."
The exception: A patient with a life-threatening condition may be
more willing to accept risks.


http://www.rd.com/national-interest/special-reports-and-surveys/problems-in-the-\
fda/article.html

Reader's Digest
Strong Medicine: What's Ailing the FDA?
An RD special report takes a look at pharmaceutical manufacturing
and how new drugs receive FDA approval.
By Alexis Jetter, April 2008

Crisis in the FDA

Recent headlines have uncovered one shocking lapse after another
at the Food and Drug Administration:
A popular diabetes drug can sharply increase the risk of heart attack,
a finding the agency knew but took two years to reveal.
An FDA-approved antibiotic can destroy your liver in just five days.
And despite mounting concerns about the safety of
Chinese-made drugs, the agency had only enough field inspectors
last year to check a mere 13 of the 714 Chinese factories that
produce medicines for U.S. consumers.

Many of the nation's leading doctors, scientists and lawmakers now
agree that the FDA is in crisis. Lurching from one disaster to
another, the 102-year-old agency learns of dangers too late, and
then moves too slowly to remedy them. Insiders say it's woefully
underfunded, dangerously understaffed and fractured by bitter
internal tensions. Instead of depending on the FDA, Americans
are doubting it -- and for good reason.

The FDA is expected to regulate $1.5 trillion in food, drugs,
vaccines, medical devices, blood and tissues, radiation-emitting
machines, animal feeds and drugs, cell phones, dietary supplements,
biotechnology and gene therapy -- and, post-9/11, sniff out any
food-borne terrorist plot. Yet the agency's annual funding, $2 billion,
is about what Fairfax County, Virginia, pays for its public schools.

"Think your pacemaker, heart valve, microwave oven or morning
vitamin was inspected?" asks former associate commissioner
William Hubbard. "Dream on."
[ www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june07/foodhubbard_06-08.html
2007.06.08 interview, Betty Ann Bowser

http://www.fdacoalition.org/ Coalition for a Stronger FDA
William Hubbard, Senior Advisor
william.hubbard@...;
Ladd Wiley, Executive Director ladd.wiley@...; ]

A chilling new report commissioned by the FDA's own advisory
Science Board describes an organization nearly out of control.
"We were shocked at the appalling state of science at the FDA,"
says Garret FitzGerald, MD, chairman of the pharmacology
department at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
and an advisor on the report. "The analogy is Katrina.
But we have to fix this before the hurricane hits."

Drug safety is perhaps the greatest concern. The respected
Institute of Medicine, created in 1970 by the
National Academy of Sciences, recently labeled the FDA's
drug branch "dysfunctional," saying it muzzles scientific dissent,
inadequately monitors drug safety and relies too heavily on drug
company dollars.

Even the department's champions are worried. "I don't think the
FDA is at a collapse point yet, but it's getting close," says Hubbard,
who retired in 2005 after 26 years at the agency. "In some places,
regulation is so weak that there's nothing left."

The agency's most recent difficulties began in 2004, when officials
came under fire for silencing a staff scientist who had concluded that
antidepressants could increase suicidal behavior in teens. That same
year, the FDA was criticized for not acting quickly to take the
painkiller Vioxx off the market after it was shown to increase the risk
of heart attack and stroke.

"Every generation has required some health disaster to reform the
FDA," says David Graham, MD, a drug safety expert who has
worked at the agency for 24 years. Today, he says, that window
of opportunity has been pried open by debacles such as Vioxx.

Former FDA commissioner David Kessler, MD, agrees:
"These are the times when things get fixed."

Congress has begun that job. Last September, lawmakers did
increase the FDA's funding by $145 million, although only about
one fourth went to the drug-review branch (more on that later)
and boosted its regulatory powers.

Observers hope FDA officials will use their new clout to restore the
agency's lost luster. But they say the public needs to weigh in to
make sure that happens.

Here, the five key problems, what's being done to fix them and
how you can help.

5 Key Problems With the FDA

Problem: Pressure From the Industry

There's pressure to speed decisions, and there's pressure to
soft-pedal problems. That means drugs may go on the market
without adequate vetting -- or follow-up. Critics of the FDA like to
say it's the best agency the pharmaceutical industry can buy.
That's a political jab, and agency advocates say it's unfair.
"The extraordinary efforts of these committed staff members are
the very reason further catastrophic food-and-drug events have
been averted," an otherwise scathing review by the FDA's
Science Board concluded last November.

But most agree that there's at least a problem of perception,
and perhaps more than that, caused by the growing chunk
of the agency's budget that comes directly from drug companies.
Industry dollars now pay for more than half of the FDA's
drug-review budget; in five years, that proportion is
expected to jump to 70 percent.

Called user fees, this $400 million a year is designed to speed
decisions on applications for new drugs. "User fees seem to
save taxpayers money," says Susan Wood, PhD, the former
assistant commissioner for women's health at the FDA and now
a professor of public health at George Washington University.
"But they undermine public confidence in the FDA's
independence and impose time pressures that could end up
costing lives."

[ http://www.defendingscience.org/Susan-Wood-bio.cfm
The Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy

www.center4research.org/news/fda-press-release-03-07.html

www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/gwu-nea031407.php
2007.03.14 Susan Wood eohsfw@...; 202-994-5169 ]


Faster approval of drugs, of course, is a very good thing if you need
a lifesaving medicine. Many patients are clamoring for that speed.
Review times have been cut from 27 months to less than a year.
Vioxx was fast-tracked in just six months. But some argue that the
pendulum has swung too far. "A lifesaving drug should be sped
along," says Steven E. Nissen, MD, chair of the department of
cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic
and a frequent advisor to the FDA. "But with user fees, we've
pressed the accelerator on all drugs, and that's a mistake."
[ (216) 445-6852 ]

Here's the danger: "The easiest way to make those deadlines is
not raise too many questions and just accept what the drug
companies say about safety," says former FDA drug reviewer
David B. Ross, MD. Too often, Dr. Ross says, reviewers tell
their FDA supervisors that a drug doesn't work or has a major
safety problem and "managers come up with contrived reasons
to approve the drug anyway." He says the standards of safety
and efficacy have slipped to the point that the drug reviewers
"can end up approving almost anything."

[ http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/356/16/1601
Dr. Ross is a clinical assistant professor at
George Washington University School of Medicine
and Health Sciences, Washington, D.C. rossdb@...; ]


No one can say that moving drugs more quickly from the
laboratory to the pharmacy always puts Americans at risk.
But there is a smoking gun: an alarming spike in
adverse drug reactions reported to the FDA recently,
from 267,000 in 2000 to over 471,000 in 2006.
And the number of reported deaths has nearly tripled,
from 5,519 to 15,107. That's only part of the story:
The agency estimates that it learns of fewer than one in ten
drug reactions.

Janet Woodcock, MD, the FDA's deputy commissioner and
chief medical officer, flatly denies that user fees and sped-up
approvals compromise safety. "The FDA is legendarily tough --
our requirements are viewed as a really tough bar to get over."

"The review standards have not changed one bit since the
introduction of user fees," says Alan Goldhammer, PhD,
deputy vice president for the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America,
the drug industry lobby. "We've been careful never to
compromise the independence of the FDA.
Congress would not permit it."

Nevertheless, says Dr. Woodcock, "I understand that there's
a perception problem."

What's Being Done

Congress slightly increased the FDA's drug safety budget
last year but accomplished that mostly by boosting user fees
once again. To help offset that influence, and enable the FDA
to tackle all its other responsibilities, reformers say Americans
should pay 3 cents a day to fund the agency, rather than the
1.5 cents we now pay. The agency's Science Board argues,
"That's a great price to pay for the assurance that our food and
drug supply is, indeed, the best and safest in the world."

Problem: Safety of New Drugs

When the FDA approves a drug or medical device, staff
scientists must, in effect, make a judgment call about its safety.

They're relying on industry studies that usually follow between 600
and 3,000 people, often for just a few months. Those small clinical
trials are designed to measure a drug's safety and effectiveness in a
targeted group of patients -- not the dangers the drug might pose
when it's taken by people with a wide variety of backgrounds and
health conditions. "If it kills one in 2,000 people, or makes one go
blind, you may not see that in the trial,"
says Drummond Rennie, MD, a deputy editor of The Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA)
and a professor of medicine at the University of California,
San Francisco. "You start adding that up,
and that's ten in 20,000 going blind, and that's a lot of people."


Those risks are revealed only after a medicine goes on sale and
has been used for months or years by hundreds of thousands or
even millions of people. Keeping track of those reactions is called
post-market surveillance, and experts say it's one of the most
important phases of drug testing.

Historically, user fees were not allowed to go toward checking the
safety of drugs once they were on the market. And until now,
those follow-up reports haven't been mandatory.

A 2006 report found that 65 percent of the studies that drug firms
promised to conduct in recent years hadn't even begun.

What's Being Done

Congress authorized the FDA to spend $25 million from user fees
this year to improve drug safety. But agency insiders say that's not
nearly enough. "You've still got a mismatch," says Hubbard, who
is now a senior advisor for the Alliance for a Stronger FDA,
a group that includes seven former agency commissioners and
three former Secretaries of Health and Human Services.
"You still have all this effort going into getting the drugs on the
market, and not much going into making sure they're safe once
they're out there."

On that issue, Congress got tough last year. The FDA can now
require companies to trace the long-term effects of their drugs.
If firms renege, they face stiff fines, up to $10 million for repeat
offenses.

Another crucial reform: Companies can no longer treat the results
of clinical trials as trade secrets. Until this year, a manufacturer
could cherry-pick what it revealed -- publishing a favorable study
in a medical journal and sticking less rosy findings in a drawer.

A report in the January New England Journal of Medicine
revealed that one-third of antidepressant drug trials are not
published, which can mislead doctors into thinking the drugs
are more effective than they really are.

Here, too, Congress has drawn the line: Companies must post
results of clinical trials on a public database, ClinicalTrials.gov,
within one year of their completion. Independent experts
should soon be able to evaluate the findings and better inform
doctors and consumers about what the studies mean.

Unfortunately, companies can wait three years to post
summaries written for the general public.

That new measure of openness draws kudos from
Dr. Woodcock, the FDA deputy commissioner.
"People volunteered for those trials, and their lives may have
been altered as a result," she says. "They deserve to know that
their information has contributed to society." Having such full
disclosure about a treatment or device is the only way to know
what medical research means for all of us.

Problem: Sloppy Record Keeping

For an organization whose core function is gathering and analyzing
crucial facts quickly, the FDA's partially computerized database
"is like something that came off the ark," says Dr. FitzGerald,
the Penn pharmacologist and agency advisor.

Companies are required to tell the FDA about any severe reactions
they learn of, and do so within 15 days if the injuries are
life-threatening. And the agency operates a website called
MedWatch ([Link] where doctors (and patients) can download a
form to report problems. But few physicians bother to use it.
The result: Only a small fraction of adverse reactions get passed
on. Even more important, the FDA doesn't have the time or money
to make sense of the information it does receive.
[ http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/ ]

The agency is notified of half a million problems each year, a third
of them serious, says Dr. Woodcock. Most of those reports arrive
via paper fax and have to be sorted by hand. More worrisome,
the FDA's skeleton staff of 35 report analysts have only eight
minutes to read even the most serious case, says Hubbard,
who tracked such things as associate commissioner.

"We've never had enough resources to really do the job and hire
the staff," says Dr. Woodcock, who has been at the FDA for two
decades. "And it's not that we didn't try."

What's Being Done

Congress has responded, telling the agency to invest several million
dollars to connect to large medical-records databases run by the
Veterans Health Administration, Medicare and HMOs. Using
these databases will allow the FDA to better track and analyze
adverse drug side effects. That means the FDA will know much
sooner if a newly marketed drug needs to be relabeled or pulled
off the market, even whether one medication works better than
another. And thanks to Congressional intervention, the agency
will now be able to make label changes quickly, without
prolonged negotiations with the drug companies.

Problem: Conflicts of Interest

The FDA's advisory boards, which vote on drugs and devices,
are intended to represent a broad spectrum of physicians,
researchers and patient advocates -- not stockholders.

But a study published in JAMA in 2006 found that in 22 percent
of advisory board meetings, more than half the members had
direct financial interests in the companies whose medical products
they evaluated, or their rivals.

The agency says it's doing the best it can. Because drug companies
underwrite most clinical research, even at universities and hospitals,
some say it's difficult to find top medical experts with no ties to
industry.

What's Being Done

Congress has decided to roll up the red carpet. Over the next five
years, the FDA will have to cut by 25 percent the number of
advisory committee members with financial ties to a product
under review.

Consumer groups had hoped for an outright ban but say this is a
step in the right direction.

Problem: Muzzled Experts

Dr. Graham, in the FDA's drug safety office, says that a few
years ago he was ordered to soften his assessment of a drug he
thought should be withdrawn because it could cause liver failure
and death. "Industry is our client," a supervisor told him.
"It may be your client," Dr. Graham says he replied,
"but it will never be mine."

When told this story, FDA spokeswoman Julie Zawisza said,
"Our client is really the public."

Still, other agency scientists share Dr. Graham's concerns.
Drug reviewer Rosemary Johann-Liang, MD, suggested two
years ago that the diabetes drug Avandia carry a black box on
its label (the agency's strongest warning), alerting patients and
doctors to its cardiac risks. Instead, Dr. Johann-Liang says,
her supervisors reprimanded her and deep-sixed her report.

Last August the agency did finally issue an urgent warning
about the drug and placed a black box on its label. But by
then Dr. Johann-Liang had resigned -- and millions of Avandia
prescriptions had already been filled.

Many agency staffers say they've felt similar pressure to
soft-pedal product dangers. In a poll of 1,000 FDA scientists,
conducted in 2006 by the Union of Concerned Scientists,
20 percent said agency decision makers had asked them explicitly
"to provide incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information
to the public, regulated industry, media or elected/senior
government officials." And 40 percent said they could not
publicly express concerns about public health
"without fear of retaliation."

The tone has been set from the top. Last year Andrew von
Eschenbach, MD, the FDA commissioner, told a roomful of
staffers to stop making their gripes public.
"If they don't follow the team," he said, "the first time, they'll be
spoken to; the second time, they'll be benched; and the third time,
they'll be traded." (FDA spokeswoman Zawisza says Dr. von
Eschenbach has no desire to limit dissent.)

The tangled story of Ketek, a once-promising new antibiotic,
illustrates what can happen when the agency's scientists feel
marginalized.

What's Being Done

Last year Congress created the Office of Chief Scientist of the
FDA, to give staff members a forum for debates and improve the
quality of research. The new law also gives in-house staffers the
right to publish their critiques in medical journals and makes sure
their assessments, even if overruled, are made part of the public
record.

Money alone won't solve the FDA's morale problem. In recent
years, dozens of career scientists and senior managers have left
the agency, a much higher turnover than that of the
National Institutes of Health or the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. Public trust in the agency has slid
from 67 percent in 2001 to 36 percent in 2006.

Without change at the top, longtime agency watchers say, there's
no assurance that officials will get tough on industry scofflaws.

In fact, from 2000 to 2005, FDA enforcement against drug,
vaccine and medical device manufacturers dropped by more than
50 percent, according to a recent investigation by California
Congressman Henry Waxman.

A discouraging sign: One of the first regulations the agency
proposed this year is intended as a shield, according to some
Congressional leaders, designed to protect drug companies
from lawsuits brought by people who believe they've been
injured by drugs or medical devices.

But having stronger tools and the right leadership could
gradually restore the FDA to what it once was -- a highly
respected band of medical detectives, apolitical and immune
to corporate pressure.

There is one bright spot on the horizon, says Jerry Avorn, MD,
a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and an
expert on the drug-approval process. "There is more public
awareness of this issue than I've seen in 30 years," he says.
And that can help put the agency's many smart, dedicated
people back into the driver's seat. Because a lot of this is really
not about very arcane science. It's about common sense.
And that's what's been missing, until now."
[ 617 278 0930 javorn@...; ]

What You Can Do

1. Don't give up on medical research. "Never before have we
had so many scientific advances that need to be evaluated,"
says John Gallin, MD, director of the National Institutes of Health
Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. But there's a serious
shortage of volunteers to help test the potential breakthroughs in
the more than 50,000 clinical trials currently under way around the
world. Some studies do come with risks; others don't. Many
volunteers say they see enrolling in a clinical trial as a kind of
civic duty -- with the potential to do good for all mankind.

2. Be wary of new drugs. All medicines come with risks.
When a doctor prescribes one, he's making a judgment call that
its benefits outweigh its dangers. But with newly approved drugs,
the risks are not always well understood at first. That's why
Drummond Rennie, MD, of the University of California,
San Francisco, advises sticking to meds that have been on the
market for at least four or five years:
"I never, ever take a new drug. I want to see reports on the toxic
effects after many thousands of people have taken it."
The exception: A patient with a life-threatening condition may be
more willing to accept risks. Check your meds at medlineplus.gov.

3. Report your side effects. As a consumer, you can (and should)
report adverse reactions to drugs and medical devices directly to
the FDA. You can submit a form online at [Link]
or call 800-FDA-1088.

4. Pony up. Urge your representatives to support increased
funding for the FDA. Visit strengthenfda.org to find contact
information and to learn what the Alliance for a Stronger FDA
(with more than 100 nonprofit, consumer and industry groups,
as well as former FDA commissioners and Secretaries of
Health) is doing to improve the agency that is entrusted with
America's health.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/04/news/companies/pharma_votes/Big


Pharma opens wallet to Dems -- Liberals have lost their
reputation as the long-standing foes to drug makers as party lines
become blurred with McCain. By Aaron Smith March 7, 2008

NEW YORK ( CNNMoney.com ) -- Democrats have long served
as the traditional enemy of Big Pharma, but in this presidential
campaign, the left is taking the lion's share of drug maker money.

Democratic senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are the
top recipients of donations from the pharmaceutical industry,
according to The Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit,
non-partisan research group in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile,
donations to Sen. John McCain, who was recently endorsed by
President Bush as the official Republican candidate, pale in
comparison.

Obama maintains a slight edge over his Democratic rival, with
$181,000 in Big Pharma donations through Jan. 31, compared with
Clinton's $174,000, according to the center. McCain is far behind
with $44,000. This is in spite of the fact that all three candidates
have consistently bashed the pharma industry and vowed to lower
drug prices, which would take a bite out of corporate profits.

But it wasn't always this way. Big Pharma, voting with its wallet,
used to be more of an enthusiastic supporter for the
Grand Old Party. In the 2004 presidential election, drug makers
donated $516,000 to the Bush campaign, a huge increase over the
$280,000 provided to Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic candidate
from Massachusetts, according to the center.

A changing climate

There are two reasons for the recent shift in funding.
The Bush administration may still control the White House,
but Republicans no longer control Congress. Democrats hold the
majority in the House, and the parties are evenly split in the Senate.
Drug makers could be trying to secure access to the ruling party by
courting their traditional enemies. "Since the Democrats took control
of Congress in 2006, money has shifted away from Republicans,
to the Democrats who hold the keys to the kingdom," said Massie
Ritsch, a spokesman for The Center for Responsive Politics. "The
pharmaceutical industry is one that would lean Republican if it
didn't have to make friends with the party that's in power right now."
[ http://www.opensecrets.org/ The Center for Responsive Politics
info@...; Massie Ritsch press@...; ]


Merck spokesman Ron Rogers said his company has never
announced support for a specific candidate and "has always sought
to work with both Republicans and Democrats on the issues that
affect pharmaceutical innovations whether one party or the other
has controlled the Congress of White House."
[ (908) 423-6449 ]

Schering-Plough spokesman Steve Galpin, Jr. said his company has
not donated to any presidential candidates. Other drug makers
contacted on this issue -- Pfizer and Eli Lilly & Co. -- did not
comment by press time. [ 1-908-298-7415 ]

Secondly, the distinctions have blurred between the two parties'
relationship with big business. Democrats have traditionally been
seen as enemies to the pharmaceutical industry, while
Republicans are supposed to be their allies.

"I think what you can say about the philosophical divide is that
the Republicans as a party believe in free markets and the
Democrats want to socialize our healthcare system," said
Barbara Ryan, pharma analyst for
Deutsche Bank North America.
[ Deutsche Bank AG in Greenwich, Connecticut ]

But with McCain as the conservative contender for the White
House, the issues are no longer black and white. Ryan noted
that the current campaign lacks hard and fast party differences in
healthcare. In fact, the policies from of Clinton, Obama and
McCain are uniformly unfriendly toward Big Pharma.

The high cost of prescriptions

Much of their political ire is focused on drug prices. All the
candidates co-sponsored a bill early last year to allow the
re-importation of U.S.-made drugs back from Canada, where
they're cheaper.

But the bill failed to pass the Senate. McCain, who has
described himself as "the biggest enemy of the pharmaceutical
industry in Washington," has been particularly vocal on
re-importation. "Why shouldn't we be able to re-import drugs
from Canada?" he asked during the New Hampshire Republican
debates in January. "It's because of the power of the
pharmaceutical companies." "Don't turn the pharmaceutical
companies into the big bad guys," countered Mitt Romney, the
former presidential candidate who has since dropped out of the
race. "Well, they are," said McCain.

Campaign crosshairs are also focused on the Bush administration's
ban on drug-price negotiations between the government and drug
companies. This ban was included in the 2003 Medicare
Modernization Act. Removing it could result in lower drug prices,
which would put the squeeze on pharma sales.

Obama and Clinton have clearly stated that they oppose the ban
on price negotiations. "[Clinton] has been very much against the
non-negotiation ban, said Gene Sperling, her economic advisor,
as well as former director of the National Economic Council for
former President Bill Clinton. "She feels that that puts the
government in a worse position than a big company."

Obama, on his campaign Web site, has vowed to repeal the ban
that prevents the government from negotiating with drug
companies, estimating it could result in savings of up to $30 billion
for patients.

McCain's stance on this issue isn't clear. When Democrats failed
to pass a bill last year that would have eliminated the ban, he
wasn't present for the vote. McCain's office did not return calls
and emails asking about his position on this issue.

Business as usual

But even with all the political rhetoric, Wall Street doesn't seem to
be paying attention. Paul Alan Davis, manager of Charles Schwab's
$800 million healthcare portfolio, which includes holdings in
Pfizer (PFE, Fortune 500), Merck (MRK, Fortune 500),
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ, Fortune 500),
Schering-Plough (SGP, Fortune 500) and other major pharma
companies, said he wasn't sure which of the candidates posed
the biggest shake-up for the industry -- if at all. He also said that
the campaign is not a factor in his investment decisions. "I think
it's probably easier to talk about change to get votes than it is to
actually change the system," he said.

Labels: David Graham, Democrats, FDA, Ketek

Posted by Vera Hassner Sharav 3/23/2008 03:44:00 PM
____________________________________________________



formaldehyde from many sources, including aspartame, is major
cause of Allergic Contact Dermatitis, SE Jacob, T Steele,
G Rodriguez, Skin and Aging 2005 Dec.: Murray 2008.03.27
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.htm
Thursday, March 27, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1533

Avoiding formaldehyde allergic reactions in children, aspartame,
vitamins, shampoo, conditioners, hair gel, baby wipes,
Sharon E Jacob, MD, Tace Steele, U. Miami, Pediatric Annals
2007 Jan.: eye contact dermatitis, AM Hill, DV Belsito, 2003 Nov.:
Murray 2008.03.27
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.htm
Thursday, March 27, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1532
____________________________________________________


"It is generally recommended that exposure to products containing
formaldehyde, FRP's, and aspartame (NutraSweet) be avoided
in children."

"Through metabolism, aspartame is converted metabolically
in the liver to methanol,
which is in turn metabolized to formaldehyde. 8"


www.pediatricannalsonline.com/showPdf.asp?rID=21306

Avoiding formaldehyde allergic reactions in children
Pediatric Annals. 2007 Jan.; 36(1): 55-6. PMID: 17269284

Sharon E. Jacob, MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine (Dermatology)
University of California, San Diego 200 W. Arbor Drive #8420
San Diego, CA 92103-8420
Tel: 858-552-8585 ×3504 Fax: 305-675-8317
sjacob@...;

Tace Steele, BA

http://www.aad.org/ American Academy of Dermatology
over 16,000 members
____________________________________________________


two detailed critiques of industry affiliations and biased science in 99
page review with 415 references by BA Magnuson, GA Burdock
and 8 more, Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2007 Sept.: Mark D
Gold 13 page: also Rich Murray 2007.09.15: 2008.03.24

http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.htm
Monday, March 24, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1531
____________________________________________________


"Nearly every section of the Magnuson (2007) review has research
that is misrepresented
and/or crucial pieces of information are left out.

In addition to the misrepresentation of the research,
readers (including medical professionals) are often not told that
this review was funded by the aspartame manufacturer, Ajinomoto,
and the reviewers had enormous conflicts of interest."


[ See also:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1453
Souring on fake sugar (aspartame), Jennifer Couzin,
Science 2007.07.06: 4 page letter to FDA from 12 eminent
USA toxicologists re two Ramazzini Foundation cancer studies
2007.06.25: Murray 2007.07.18


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/957
safety of aspartame Part 1/2 12.4.2: EC HCPD-G SCF:
Murray 2003.01.12 EU Scientific Committee on Food, a whitewash

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1045
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm
Mark Gold exhaustively critiques European Commission Scientific
Committee on Food re aspartame ( 2002.12.04 ):
59 pages, 230 references

bias, omissions, incuriosity = opportunity, aspartame safety
evaluation, Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Williams GM, 7 more,
2007 Sept, Ajinomoto funded 98 pages html [ $ 32 pdf ]:
Murray 2007.09.15
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.htm
Saturday, September 15, 2007 ]

"Of course, everyone chooses, as a natural priority, to enjoy
peace, joy, and love by helping to find, quickly share, and positively
act upon evidence about healthy and safe food, drink, and
environment."

Rich Murray, MA Room For All rmforall@...
505-501-2298 1943 Otowi Road, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505

http://RMForAll.blogspot.com new primary archive

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/messages
group with 120 members, 1,535 posts in a public archive

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/messages
group with 1,087 members, 22,510 posts in a public archive

Hawaii Senate Health Committee will consider resolution SCR191
by Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland, and 10 other of 25 Senators,
to have FDA ban aspartame
and for National Academy of Sciences to review research:
Murray 2008.03.14
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.htm
Friday, March 14, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1527

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1525
House Concurrent Resolution #132 for Health Department panel
to decide aspartame ban by early 2010,
Hawaii Rep. Josh Green MD, Health Committee Chair:
Murray 2008.03.12
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.htm
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
____________________________________________________


Note: many recent aspartame bans.....

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1426
ASDA (unit of Wal-Mart Stores WMT.N) and Marks & Spencer
will join Tesco and also Sainsbury to ban and limit aspartame,
MSG, artificial flavors dyes preservatives additives, trans fats, salt
"nasties" to protect kids from ADHD: leading UK media:
Murray 2007.05.15

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNMmessage/1451
Artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose) and coloring agents
will be banned from use in newly-born and baby foods,
the European Parliament decided: Latvia ban in schools 2006:
Murray 2007.07.12

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1341
Connecticut bans artificial sweeteners in schools, Nancy Barnes,
New Milford Times: Murray 2006.05.25

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1369
Bristol, Connecticut, schools join state program to limit artificial
sweeteners, sugar, fats for 8800 students, Johnny J Burnham,
The Bristol Press: Murray 2006.09.22


bias, omissions, incuriosity = opportunity, aspartame safety
evaluation, Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Williams GM, 7 more,
2007 Sept, Ajinomoto funded 98 pages html [ $ 32 pdf ]:
Murray 2007.09.15
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.htm
Saturday, September 15, 2007

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1491
industry scientists praise aspartame safety and benefits in Paris on
2006.05.30, Herve Nordmann, Andrew G. Renwick,
Carlo La Vecchia, Tommy Visscher, Jaap Seidell, France Bellisle,
Adam Drewnowski, Margaret Ashwell, Anne de la Hunty,
Sigrid A. Gibson, Alan R. Boobis: Murray 2007.11.18

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1070
critique of aspartame review, French Food Safety Agency AFSSA
2002.05.07 aspartamgb.pdf (18 pages, in English), Martin Hirsch:
Murray 2004.04.13

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/957
safety of aspartame Part 1/2 12.4.2: EC HCPD-G SCF:
Murray 2003.01.12 EU Scientific Committee on Food, a whitewash

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1045
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/scf2002-response.htm
Mark Gold exhaustively critiques European Commission Scientific
Committee on Food re aspartame ( 2002.12.04 ):
59 pages, 230 references

http://www.eatright.org/Nutritive(1).pdf
J Am Diet Assoc. 2004 Feb; 104(2): 255-75.
Position of the American Dietetic Association: use of nutritive and
nonnutritive sweeteners. American Dietetic Association.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1068
critique of aspartame review
by American Dietetic Association Feb 2004,
Valerie B. Duffy & Madeleine J. Sigman-Grant: Murray 2004.05.14



http://www.dorway.com/upipart1.txt
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/262
aspartame expose 96K Oct 1987 Part 1/3: Gregory Gordon,
UPI reporter: Murray 2000.07.10

http://www.dorway.com/enclosur.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/53
aspartame history Part 1/4 1964-1976: Gold: Murray 1999.11.06

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/927
Donald Rumsfeld, 1977 head of Searle Corp.,
got aspartame FDA approval: Turner: Murray 2002.12.23

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1483
Donald Rumsfeld CEO 1977-85 G.D. Searle & Co., got new
President Reagan to prohibit FDA opposition to aspartame
1981.01.25, history by lawyer James S. Turner:
Murray 2007.10.29

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/928
revolving door, Monsanto, FDA, EPA: NGIN: Murray 2002.12.23

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/858
Samuels: Strong: Roberts: Gold: flaws in double-blind studies re
aspartame and MSG toxicity: Murray 2002.08.01

"Survey of aspartame studies: correlation of outcome and funding
sources," 1998, unpublished: http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html
Walton found 166 separate published studies in the peer reviewed
medical literature, which had relevance for questions of human
safety.
The 74 studies funded by industry all (100 %) attested to
aspartame's safety, whereas of the 92 non-industry funded studies,
84 (91 %) identified a problem.
Six of the seven non-industry funded studies
that were favorable to aspartame safety were from the FDA,
which has a public record that shows a strong pro-industry bias.

Ralph G. Walton, MD, Prof. of Clinical Psychology, Northeastern
Ohio Universities, College of Medicine, Dept. of Psychiatry,
Youngstown, OH 44501,
Chairman, The Center for Behavioral Medicine,
Northside Medical Center, 500 Gypsy Lane, P.O. Box 240
Youngstown, OH 44501 330-740-3621 rwalton193@...
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/Psychiatry/walton.htm


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1395
Aspartame Controversy, in Wikipedia democratic
encyclopedia, 72 references (including AspartameNM # 864
and 1173 by Murray, brief fair summary of much more research:
Murray 2007.01.01


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1513
metabolic syndrome is tied to diet soda, PL Lutsey, LM Steffen,
J Stevens, Circulation 2008.01.22: role of formaldehyde and
formic acid from methanol in wines, liquors, or aspartame?:
Murray 2008.02.21

"But the one-third who ate the most fried food increased their risk
by 25 percent, compared with the one-third who ate the least, and
surprisingly, the risk of developing metabolic syndrome was 34
percent higher among those who drank one can of diet soda a day
compared with those who drank none.

"This is interesting," said Lyn M. Steffen, an associate professor of
epidemiology at the University of Minnesota and a co-author of the
paper, which was posted online in the journal Circulation on Jan. 22.
"Why is it happening? Is it some kind of chemical in the diet soda,
or something about the behavior of diet soda drinkers?""

"The diet soda association was not hypothesized
and deserves further study."


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1143
methanol (formaldehyde, formic acid) disposition:
Bouchard M et al, full plain text, 2001:
substantial sources are degradation
of fruit pectins, liquors, aspartame, smoke:
Murray 2005.04.02


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1511
vinyl acetate, ethyl alcohol, or aspartame in womb increases later
cancers in adults with lifetime exposure in many studies, M Soffritti
et al, Ramazzini Foundation, Basic Clin. Pharm. Toxicol. 2008 Feb.:
Rich Murray 2008.02.07

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1016
President Bush & formaldehyde (aspartame) toxicity:
Ramazzini Foundation carcinogenicity results Dec 2002:
Soffritti: Murray 2003.08.03 rmforall

p. 88 "The sweetening agent aspartame hydrolyzes in the
gastrointestinal tract to become free methyl alcohol,
which is metabolized in the liver
to formaldehyde, formic acid, and CO2. (11)"
Medinsky MA & Dorman DC. 1994;
Assessing risks of low-level methanol exposure.
CIIT Act. 14: 1-7.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1453
Souring on fake sugar (aspartame), Jennifer Couzin,
Science 2007.07.06: 4 page letter to FDA from 12 eminent
USA toxicologists re two Ramazzini Foundation cancer studies
2007.06.25: Murray 2007.07.18

30 female pet store rats drinking lifelong 13.5 mg aspartame,
1/3 packet of Equal, had 33% with obvious tumors -- also bulging,
sick, and missing eyes, paralysis, obesity, skin sores -- agrees with
Ramazzini Foundation results, Victoria Inness-Brown:
Murray 2008.02.15
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.htm
Friday, February 15, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1521


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1490
details on 6 epidemiological studies since 2004 on diet soda (mainly
aspartame) correlations, as well as 14 other mainstream studies
on aspartame toxicity since summer 2005: Murray 2007.11.27

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1340
aspartame groups and books:
updated research review of 2004.07.16: Murray 2006.05.11


old tiger roars -- Woodrow C Monte, PhD -- aspartame causes
many breast cancers, as ADH enzyme in breasts makes methanol
from diet soda into carcinogenic formaldehyde -- same in dark
wines and liquors, Fitness Life 2008 Jan.: Murray 2008.02.11
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.htm
Monday, February 11, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1517

"Alcohol dehydrogenase ADH is required for the conversion of
methanol to formaldehyde (112).

ADH is not a common enzyme in the human body -- not many cells
in the human body contain this enzyme.

The human breast is one of the few organs in the body with a high
concentration of ADH (190b), and it is found there exclusively in the
mammary epithelial cells, the very cells known to transform into
adenocarcinoma (190c) (breast cancer).

The most recent breast cancer scientific literature implicates ADH
as perhaps having a pivotal role in the formation of breast cancer,
indicating a greater incidence of the disease in those
with higher levels of ADH activity in their breasts (190a)."

role of formaldehyde, made by body from methanol from foods
and aspartame, in steep increases in fetal alcohol syndrome, autism,
multiple sclerosis, lupus, teen suicide, breast cancer, Nutrition
Prof. Woodrow C. Monte, retired, Arizona State U., two reviews,
190 references supplied, Fitness Life, New Zealand
2007 Nov, Dec: Murray 2007.12.26
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.htm
Wednesday, December 26 2007
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1498


Since no adequate data has ever been published on the
exact disposition of toxic metabolites in specific tissues in humans
of the 11 % methanol component of aspartame,
the many studies on morning-after hangover from the methanol
impurity in alcohol drinks are the main available resource to date.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1469
highly toxic formaldehyde, the cause of alcohol hangovers, is
made by the body from 100 mg doses of methanol from
dark wines and liquors, dimethyl dicarbonate, and aspartame:
Murray 2007.08.31

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1052
DMDC: Dimethyl dicarbonate 200mg/L in drinks adds methanol 98 mg/L
( becomes formaldehyde in body ): EU Scientific Committee on Foods
2001.07.12: Murray 2004.01.22

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out96_en.pdf

"...DMDC was evaluated by the SCF in 1990 and considered
acceptable for the cold sterilization of soft drinks and fruit juices
at levels of addition up to 250 mg/L (1)
...DMDC decomposes primarily to CO2 and methanol ...

[ Note: Sterilization of bacteria and fungi is a toxic process,
probably due to the inevitable conversion in the body of methanol
into highly toxic formaldehyde and then formic acid. ]

The use of 200 mg DMDC per liter would add 98 mg/L
of methanol to wine which
already contains an average of about 140 mg/L from natural sources.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1286
methanol products (formaldehyde and formic acid) are main cause
of alcohol hangover symptoms [same as from similar amounts of
methanol, the 11% part of aspartame]: YS Woo et al, 2005 Dec:
Murray 2006.01.20

Addict Biol. 2005 Dec;10(4): 351-5.
Concentration changes of methanol in blood samples during
an experimentally induced alcohol hangover state.
Woo YS, Yoon SJ, Lee HK, Lee CU, Chae JH, Lee CT, Kim DJ.
Chuncheon National Hospital, Department of Psychiatry,
The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.
http://www.cuk.ac.kr/eng/ sysop@...
Songsin Campus: 02-740-9714 Songsim Campus: 02-2164-4116
Songeui Campus: 02-2164-4114
http://www.cuk.ac.kr/eng/sub055.htm eight hospitals

[ Han-Kyu Lee ]

A hangover is characterized by the unpleasant physical and mental
symptoms that occur between 8 and 16 hours after drinking alcohol.

After inducing experimental hangover in normal individuals,
we measured the methanol concentration prior to
and after alcohol consumption
and we assessed the association between the hangover condition
and the blood methanol level.

A total of 18 normal adult males participated in this study.

They did not have any previous histories of psychiatric
or medical disorders.

The blood ethanol concentration prior to the alcohol intake
(2.26+/-2.08) was not significantly different from that
13 hours after the alcohol consumption (3.12+/-2.38).

However, the difference of methanol concentration
between the day of experiment (prior to the alcohol intake)
and the next day (13 hours after the alcohol intake)
was significant (2.62+/-1.33/l vs. 3.88+/-2.10/l, respectively).

A significant positive correlation was observed
between the changes of blood methanol concentration
and hangover subjective scale score increment when covarying
for the changes of blood ethanol level (r=0.498, p<0.05).

This result suggests the possible correlation of methanol
as well as its toxic metabolite to hangover. PMID: 16318957

[ The toxic metabolite of methanol is formaldehyde, which in turn
partially becomes formic acid -- both potent cumulative toxins
that are the actual cause of the toxicity of methanol.]

This study by Jones AW (1987) found next-morning hangover
from red wine with 100 to 150 mg methanol
(9.5 % w/v ethanol, 100 mg/l methanol, 0.01 %).
Fully 11% of aspartame is methanol --
1,120 mg aspartame in 2 L diet soda,
almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg methanol (wood alcohol).

Pharmacol Toxicol. 1987 Mar; 60(3): 217-20.
Elimination half-life of methanol during hangover.
Jones AW. wayne.jones@...
Department of Forensic Toxicology,
University Hospital, SE-581 85 Linkoping, Sweden.

This paper reports the elimination half-life of methanol in human
volunteers.
Experiments were made during the morning after the subjects had
consumed 1000-1500 ml red wine
(9.5 % w/v ethanol, 100 mg/l methanol)
the previous evening. [ 100 to 150 mg methanol ]
The washout of methanol from the body
coincided with the onset of hangover.
The concentrations of ethanol and methanol in blood were
determined indirectly by analysis of end-expired alveolar air.
In the morning when blood-ethanol dropped
below the Km of liver alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH)
of about 100 mg/l (2.2 mM),
the disappearance half-life of ethanol was 21, 22, 18 and 15 min.
in 4 test subjects respectively.
The corresponding elimination half-lives of methanol
were 213, 110, 133 and 142 min. in these same individuals.
The experimental design outlined in this paper can be used
to obtain useful data on elimination kinetics of methanol
in human volunteers without undue ethical limitations.
Circumstantial evidence is presented to link methanol
or its toxic metabolic products, formaldehyde and formic acid,
with the pathogenesis of hangover. PMID: 3588516

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1047
Avoiding Hangover Hell 2003.12.31 Mark Sherman, AP writer:
Robert Swift, MD [ formaldehyde from methanol in aspartame ]:
Murray 2004.01.16

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1048
hangovers from formaldehyde from methanol (aspartame?):
Schwarcz: Linsley: Murray 2004.01.18


Thrasher (2001): "The major difference is that the Japanese
demonstrated the incorporation of FA and its metabolites
into the placenta and fetus.
The quantity of radioactivity remaining in maternal and fetal tissues
at 48 hours was 26.9 % of the administered dose." [ Ref. 14-16 ]

Arch Environ Health 2001 Jul-Aug; 56(4): 300-11.
Embryo toxicity and teratogenicity of formaldehyde. [100 references]
Thrasher JD, Kilburn KH. toxicology@...
Sam-1 Trust, Alto, New Mexico, USA.
www.drthrasher.org/formaldehyde_embryo_toxicity.html full text

http://www.drthrasher.org/formaldehyde_1990.html full text
Jack Dwayne Thrasher, Alan Broughton, Roberta Madison.
Immune activation and autoantibodies in humans
with long-term inhalation exposure to formaldehyde.
Archives of Environmental Health. 1990; 45: 217-223.
"Immune activation, autoantibodies, and anti-HCHO-HSA antibodies
are associated with long-term formaldehyde inhalation."
PMID: 2400243



formaldehyde in FEMA trailers and other sources (aspartame,
dark wines and liquors, tobacco smoke): Murray 2008.01.30
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.htm
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1508

The FEMA trailers give about the same amount of formaldehyde
daily as from a quart of dark wine or liquor, or two quarts
(6 12-oz cans) of aspartame diet soda, from their over 1 tenth gram
methanol impurity (one part in 10,000),
which the body quickly makes into formaldehyde -- enough
to be the major cause of "morning after" alcohol hangovers.

Methanol and formaldehyde also result from many fruits and
vegetables, tobacco and wood smoke, heater and vehicle exhaust,
household chemicals and cleaners, cosmetics, and new cars, drapes,
carpets, furniture, particleboard, mobile homes, buildings, leather ...
so all these sources add up and interact
with many other toxic chemicals.

BN Ames and LS Gold, 1998, have presented detailed information
that there is no increase in recent decades for most cancers,
and that common carcinogens do not result in significant exposures
to the average human population.

However, individuals are not average -- each person has a unique
genetic makeup, resulting in a huge range of variation of vulnerability
to specific chemicals, as is well evidenced in the case of methanol,
formaldehyde, and formic acid, especially with regard
to behavioral effects.

Each is subject to very wide ranges of exposure levels.

Many are in especially vulnerable groups, depending on diet, obesity,
sex, exercise, life stress, age from conception to very old, unusually
severe toxic exposures, injuries, and diseases.

It is clear that a variety of multiple chemical sensitivity syndromes do
exist, often with remarkable hypersensitivity.

Methanol, formaldehyde, and formic acid toxicity are unusual, in that
humans are far more vulnerable than any other mammal, as much as
ten to sixty-fold, which complicates the utility of animal data.

The unusually long human life span also increases the role of long-term
chronic low-level exposure.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1455
FEMA slow to safety test Katrina toxic trailers, Charles Babington,
Associated Press -- 1 ppm formaldehyde in air is about half the daily
dose from 3 cans aspartame diet soda and ten times the 1999 EPA
alarm level for drinking water: Murray 2007.07.23



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1277
50% UK baby food is now organic - aspartame or MSG
with food dyes harm nerve cells, CV Howard 3 year study
funded by Lizzy Vann, CEO, Organix Brands,
Children's Food Advisory Service: Murray 2006.01.13

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1271
combining aspartame and quinoline yellow, or MSG and
brilliant blue, harms nerve cells, eminent
C. Vyvyan Howard et al, 2005 education.guardian.co.uk,
Felicity Lawrence: Murray 2005.12.21


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1373
aspartame rat brain toxicity re cytochrome P450 enzymes,
especially CYP2E1, Vences-Mejia A, Espinosa-Aguirre JJ et al,
2006 Aug, Hum Exp Toxicol: relevant abstracts re formaldehyde
from methanol in alcohol drinks: Murray 2006.09.29


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1463
Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain,
Humphries P, Pretorius E, Naude H, U. Pretoria, South Africa,
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2007 Aug 8: Murray 2007.08.12

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNMmessage/1452
phenylalanine and aspartic acid from low dose aspartame
in rabbits interfere with blood coagulation,
Pretorius E and Humphries P, U. of Pretoria,
Ultrastruct Pathol 2007 March: Murray 2007.07.14



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1459
third study by expert Greek team of neurotoxicity in infant rats by
aspartame (or its parts, methanol, phenylalanine, aspartic acid), KH
Schulpis et al, Food Chem Toxicol 2007.06.16: Murray 2007.08.05

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNMmessage/1447
second study by expert Greek team of neurotoxicity in infant rats by
aspartame (or its parts, methanol, phenylalanine, aspartic acid), KH
Schulpis et al, Toxicology 2007.05.18: Murray 2007.07.04

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNMmessage/1444
expert Greek group finds aspartame (or its parts, methanol,
phenylalanine, aspartic acid) harm infant rat brain enzyme activity,
KH Schulpis et al, Pharmacol. Res. 2007.05.13: Murray 2007.06.23

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/939
aspartame (aspartic acid, phenylalanine) binding to DNA:
Karikas July 1998: Murray 2003.01.05 rmforall
Karikas GA, Schulpis KH, Reclos GJ, Kokotos G
Measurement of molecular interaction of aspartame and
its metabolites with DNA. Clin Biochem 1998 Jul; 31(5): 405-7.
Dept. of Chemistry, University of Athens, Greece
http://www.chem.uoa.gr gkokotos@...
K.H. Schulpis inchildh@... ; G.J. Reclos reklos@...

5 recent aspartame reports by S Tsakiris, KH Schulpis, I Simintzi,
with responses to critiques by AG Renwick and
by EB Abegaz, RG Bursey, 2005-2008 2008.03.05

Pharmacological Research 57 (2008) 89-90
Letter to the Editor
Answer to Letter sent to the Editor by
Drs. E. Abegaz and R. Bursey
(Ajinomoto Corporate Services LLC, Washington, USA)
related to Simintzi et al. report published in
Pharmacol Res 2007; 56: 155-9
Letter to the Editor / Pharmacological Research 57 (2008) 89-90

Stylianos Tsakiris a,? stsakir@...;
Kleopatra H. Schulpis b inchildh@...;
a Department of Experimental Physiology, Medical School,
Athens University, P.O. Box 65257, GR-15401 Athens, Greece

b Inborn Errors of Metabolism Department, Institute of Child
Health, Research Center, Greece
? Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses:
S. Tsakiris stsakir@...;
K.H. Schulpis inchildh@...;

Pharmacological Research 57 (2008) 87-88
Response to "The effect of aspartame on the acetylcholinesterase
activity in hippocampal homogenates of suckling rats"
by Simintzi et al.

Eyassu G. Abegaz ?
Robert G. Bursey
Ajinomoto Corporate Services LLC,
Scientific & Regulatory Affairs,
1120 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 1010, Washington, DC 20036,
United States

? Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 202 457 0284;
fax: +1 202 457 0107.
E-mail addresses: abegazee@...; (E.G. Abegaz),
burseyb@...; (R.G. Bursey)

Keywords:
Aspartame; Aspartate; Phenylalanine; Methanol; AChE activity

Tsakiris S, Schulpis KH.
Answer to letter sent by Professor A.G. Renwick
(University of Southampton, UK)
related to Simintzi et al. report published in Food and Chemical
Toxicology 2007; 45(12): 2397-401.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Mar; 46(3): 1208-9.
Epub 2007 Oct 25. No abstract available. PMID: 18054419
doi:10.1016/j.fct.2007.10.016
Copyright © 2007 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

Renwick AG.
The effect of aspartame metabolites on the suckling rat frontal cortex
acetylcholinesterase. An in vitro study. By I. Simintzi, K.H. Schulpis,
P. Angelogianni, C. Liapi and S. Tsakiris.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2008 Mar; 46(3): 1206-7.
Epub 2007 Oct 26. No abstract available. PMID: 18061330

1: Simintzi I, Schulpis KH, Angelogianni P, Liapi C, Tsakiris S.
The effect of aspartame metabolites on the suckling rat frontal cortex
acetylcholinesterase. An in vitro study.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 Dec;45(12):2397-401.
Epub 2007 Jun 16. PMID: 17673349

2: Simintzi I, Schulpis KH, Angelogianni P, Liapi C, Tsakiris S.
L-Cysteine and glutathione restore the reduction of rat
hippocampal Na+, K+-ATPase activity
induced by aspartame metabolites.
Toxicology. 2007 Jul 31;237(1-3):177-83.
Epub 2007 May 18. PMID: 17602817

3: Simintzi I, Schulpis KH, Angelogianni P, Liapi C, Tsakiris S.
The effect of aspartame on acetylcholinesterase activity in
hippocampal homogenates of suckling rats.
Pharmacol Res. 2007 Aug;56(2):155-9.
Epub 2007 May 13. PMID: 17580119

4: Schulpis KH, Papassotiriou I, Parthimos T, Tsakiris T, Tsakiris S.
The effect of L-cysteine and glutathione
on inhibition of Na+, K+-ATPase activity by aspartame metabolites
in human erythrocyte membrane.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006 May;60(5):593-7. PMID: 16391576

5: Tsakiris S, Giannoulia-Karantana A, Simintzi I, Schulpis KH.
The effect of aspartame metabolites on human erythrocyte membrane
acetylcholinesterase activity.
Pharmacol Res. 2006 Jan;53(1):1-5.
Epub 2005 Aug 29. PMID: 16129618



C. Trocho (1998):
"In all, the rats retained, 6 hours after administration, about 5 % of the
label, half of it in the liver."

They used a very low level of aspartame ingestion, 10 mg/kg, for rats,
which have a much greater tolerance for aspartame than humans.
So, the corresponding level for humans would be
about 1 or 2 mg/kg.
Many headache studies in humans used doses of
about 30 mg/kg daily.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/925
aspartame puts formaldehyde adducts into tissues, Part 1/2
full text, Trocho & Alemany 1998.06.26: Murray 2002.12.22

http://ww.presidiotex.com/barcelona/index.html full text
Formaldehyde derived from dietary aspartame
binds to tissue components in vivo.
Life Sci June 26 1998; 63(5): 337-49.
Departament de Bioquimica i Biologia Molecular,
Facultat de Biologia, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain.
http://www.bq.ub.es/cindex.html Línies de Recerca: Toxicitat de
l'aspartame http://www.bq.ub.es/grupno/grup-no.html
Sra. Carme Trocho, Sra. Rosario Pardo, Dra. Immaculada Rafecas,
Sr. Jordi Virgili, Dr. Xavier Remesar, Dr. Jose Antonio
Fernandez-Lopez, Dr. Mariŕ Alemany [male]
Fac. Biologia Tel.: (93)4021521, FAX: (93)4021559
Sra. Carme Trocho "Trok-ho" Fac. Biologia Tel.: (93)4021544,
FAX: (93)4021559 alemany@...;
bioq@...

Abstract:
Adult male rats were given an oral dose of 10 mg/kg aspartame,
14C-labeled in the methanol carbon.
At timed intervals of up to 6 hours, the radioactivity in plasma
and several organs was investigated.
Most of the radioactivity found (>98 % in plasma, >75 % in liver)
was bound to protein.
Label present in liver, plasma and kidney was in the range
of 1-2 % of total radioactivity administered per g or mL,
changing little with time.
Other organs (brown and white adipose tissues, muscle, brain,
cornea and retina) contained levels of label
in the range of 1/12th to 1/10th of that of liver.
In all, the rats retained, 6 hours after administration,
about 5 % of the label, half of it in the liver.

The specific radioactivity of tissue protein, RNA and DNA
was quite uniform.
The protein label was concentrated in amino acids,
different from methionine, and largely coincident
with the result of protein exposure to labeled formaldehyde.
DNA radioactivity was essentially in a single different adduct base,
different from the normal bases present in DNA.
The nature of the tissue label accumulated was, thus,
a direct consequence of formaldehyde binding to tissue structures.

The administration of labeled aspartame to a group of cirrhotic rats
resulted in comparable label retention by tissue components,
which suggests that liver function (or its defect) has little effect
on formaldehyde formation from aspartame
and binding to biological components.

The chronic treatment of a series of rats with 200 mg/kg of
non-labeled aspartame during 10 days results in the accumulation
of even more label when given the radioactive bolus,
suggesting that the amount of formaldehyde adducts
coming from aspartame in tissue proteins and nucleic acids
may be cumulative.

It is concluded that aspartame consumption may constitute
a hazard because of its contribution
to the formation of formaldehyde adducts. PMID: 9714421

[ Extracts ]
"The high label presence in plasma and liver is in agreement with the
carriage of the label from the intestine to the liver via the portal vein.
The high label levels in kidney and, to a minor extent, in brown
adipose tissue and brain are probably a consequence
of their high blood flows (45).
Even in white adipose tissue, the levels of radioactivity found 6 hours
after oral administration were 1/25th those of liver.
Cornea and retina, both tissues known to metabolize actively
methanol (21,28) showed low levels of retained label.
In any case, the binding of methanol-derived carbon to tissue proteins
was widespread, affecting all systems,
fully reaching even sensitive targets such as the brain and retina....

The amount of label recovered in tissue components was quite high
in all the groups, but especially in the NA rats.
In them, the liver alone retained, for a long time, more than 2 % of
the methanol carbon given in a single oral dose of aspartame,
and the rest of the body stored an additional 2 % or more.
These are indeed extremely high levels for adducts of formaldehyde,
a substance responsible of chronic deleterious effects (33),
that has also been considered carcinogenic (34,47).
The repeated occurrence of claims that aspartame
produces headache and other neurological and psychological
secondary effects --
more often than not challenged by careful analysis --
(5, 9, 10, 15, 48)
may eventually find at least a partial explanation in the permanence
of the formaldehyde label,
since formaldehyde intoxication can induce similar effects (49).

The cumulative effects derived from the incorporation of label in the
chronic administration model suggests that regular intake of
aspartame may result in the progressive accumulation
of formaldehyde adducts.
It may be further speculated that the formation of adducts can help to
explain the chronic effects aspartame consumption may induce on
sensitive tissues such as brain (6, 9, 19, 50).
In any case, the possible negative effects that the accumulation of
formaldehyde adducts can induce is, obviously, long-term.
The alteration of protein integrity and function may needs some time
to induce substantial effects.
The damage to nucleic acids, mainly to DNA,
may eventually induce cell death and/or mutations.
The results presented suggest that the conversion of aspartame
methanol into formaldehyde adducts in significant amounts in vivo
should to be taken into account because of the widespread utilization
of this sweetener.
Further epidemiological and long-term studies are needed to
determine the extent of the hazard that aspartame consumption
poses for humans."



Many scientific studies and case histories report: * headaches
* many body and joint pains (or burning, tingling, tremors, twitching,
spasms, cramps, stiffness, numbness, difficulty swallowing)
* fever, fatigue, swollen glands * "mind fog", "feel unreal",
poor memory, confusion, anxiety, irritability, depression, mania,
insomnia, dizziness, slurred speech, sexual problems,
poor vision, hearing (deafness, tinnitus), or taste
* red face, itching, rashes, allergic dermatitis, hair loss,
burning eyes or throat, dry eyes or mouth, mouth sores,
burning tongue * obesity, bloating, edema, anorexia,
poor appetite or excessive hunger or thirst
* breathing problems, shortness of breath
* nausea, diarrhea or constipation * coldness * sweating
* racing heart, low or high blood pressure, erratic blood sugar levels
* hypothryroidism or hyperthyroidism * seizures * birth defects
* brain cancers * addiction * aggrivates diabetes, autism, allergies,
lupus, ADHD, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome,
multiple chemical sensitivity, multiple sclerosis, pseudotumor cerebri
and interstitial cystitis (bladder pain).


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/870
Aspartame: Methanol and the Public Interest 1984: Monte:
Murray 2002.09.23 rmforall

Dr. Woodrow C. Monte Aspartame: methanol, and the public health.
Journal of Applied Nutrition 1984; 36 (1): 42-54.
(62 references) Professsor of Food Science [retired 1992]
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287
woodymonte@...; woodymonte@...;
The methanol from 2 L of diet soda, 5.6 12-oz cans, 20 mg/can, is
112 mg, 10% of the aspartame.
The EPA limit for water is 7.8 mg daily for methanol (wood alcohol),
a deadly cumulative poison.
Many users drink 1-2 L daily.
The reported symptoms are entirely consistent with chronic methanol
toxicity. (Fresh orange juice has 34 mg/L, but, like all juices, has 16
times more ethanol, which strongly protects against methanol.)

"The greater toxicity of methanol to man is deeply rooted in the
limited biochemical pathways available to humans for detoxification.
The loss of uricase (EC 1.7.3.3.),
formyl-tetrahydrofolate synthetase (EC 6.3.4.3.) (42)
and other enzymes (18) during evolution sets man apart from all
laboratory animals including the monkey (42).

There is no generally accepted animal model
for methanol toxicity (42, 59).

Humans suffer "toxic syndrome" (54) at a minimum lethal dose
of <1 gm/kg, much less than that of monkeys, 3-6 g/kg (42, 59).

The minimum lethal dose of methanol
in the rat, rabbit, and dog is 9.5, 7.0 , and 8.0 g/kg, respectively (43);
ethyl alcohol is more toxic than methanol to these test animals (43)."

Recent research [see links at end of post] supports his focus on the
methanol to formaldehyde toxic process:

"The United States Environmental Protection Agency in their
Multimedia Environmental Goals for Environmental Assessment
recommends a minimum acute toxicity concentration
of methanol in drinking water at 3.9 parts per million,
with a recommended limit of consumption below 7.8 mg/day (8).

This report clearly indicates that methanol:

"...is considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion
once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde
and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic." (8)...

Recently the toxic role of formaldehyde (in methanol toxicity) has been
questioned (34).
No skeptic can overlook the fact that, metabolically, formaldehyde
must be formed as an intermediate to formic acid production (54).

Formaldehyde has a high reactivity which may be why it has not been
found in humans or other primates during methanol poisoning (59)....

If formaldehyde is produced from methanol and does have a
reasonable half life within certain cells in the poisoned organism
he chronic toxicological ramifications could be grave.

Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen (57) producing squanous-cell
carcinomas by inhalation exposure in experimental animals (22).
The available epidemiological studies do not provide adequate data
for assessing the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in man (22, 24, 57).

However, reaction of formaldehyde with deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA) has resulted in irreversible denaturation that could interfere
with DNA replication and result in mutation (37)..."



It is certain that high levels of aspartame use,
above 2 liters daily for months and years,
must lead to chronic formaldehyde-formic acid toxicity.

Fully 11 % of aspartame is methanol -- 1,120 mg aspartame
in 2 L diet soda, almost six 12-oz cans, gives 123 mg methanol
(wood alcohol). The methanol is immediately released
into the body after drinking .
Within hours, the liver turns much of the methanol into formaldehyde,
and then much of that into formic acid, both of which in time
are partially eliminated as carbon dioxide and water.

However, about 30 % of the methanol remains in the body
as cumulative durable toxic metabolites of formaldehyde
and formic acid -- 37 mg daily,
a gram every month, accumulating in and affecting every tissue.

If only 10 % of the methanol is retained daily as formaldehyde,
that would give 12 mg daily formaldehyde accumulation -- about
60 times more than the 0.2 mg from 10 % retention
of the 2 mg EPA daily limit for formaldehyde in drinking water.

Bear in mind that the EPA limit for formaldehyde in drinking water is
1 ppm, or 2 mg daily for a typical daily consumption of 2 L of water.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/835
ATSDR: EPA limit 1 ppm formaldehyde in drinking water July 1999:
Murray 2002.05.30

This long-term low-level chronic toxic exposure leads to typical
patterns of increasingly severe complex symptoms,
starting with headache, fatigue, joint pain, irritability, memory loss,
rashes, and leading to vision and eye problems, and even seizures.
In many cases there is addiction. Probably there are immune system
disorders, with a hypersensitivity to these toxins and other chemicals.

J. Nutrition 1973 Oct; 103(10): 1454-1459.
Metabolism of aspartame in monkeys.
Oppermann JA, Muldoon E, Ranney RE.
Dept. of Biochemistry, Searle Laboratories,
Division of G.D. Searle and Co. Box 5110, Chicago, IL 60680
They found that about 70 % of the radioactive methanol in aspartame
put into the stomachs of 3 to 7 kg monkeys
was eliminated within 8 hours, with little additional elimination,
as carbon dioxide in exhaled air and as water in the urine.
They did not mention that this meant that about 30 % of the methanol
must transform into formaldehyde and then into formic acid,
both of which must remain as toxic products in all parts of the body.
They did not report any studies on the distribution of radioactivity
in body tissues, except that blood plasma proteins after 4 days
held 4 % of the initial methanol.
This study did not monitor long-term use of aspartame.

The low oral dose of aspartame and for methanol
was 0.068 mmol/kg, about 1 part per million [ppm]
of the acute toxicity level of 2,000 mg/kg, 67,000
mmol/kg, used by McMartin (1979).
Two L daily use of diet soda provides 123 mg methanol,
2 mg/kg for a 60 kg person, a dose of 67 mmole/kg,
a thousand times more than the dose in this study.
By eight hours excretion of the dose in air and urine had leveled off at
67.1 +-2.1 % as CO2 in the exhaled air
and 1.57+-0.32 % in the urine, so 68.7 % was excreted,
and 31.3 % was retained.
This data is the average of 4 monkeys.
"...the 14C in the feces was negligible."

"That fraction not so excreted (about 31%) was converted to body
constituents through the one-carbon metabolic pool."
"All radioactivity measurements were counted to +-1 % accuracy..."
This indicates that the results could not be claimed to have a precision of
a tenth of a percent. OK, so this is a nit-pick -- but I believe espousing
spurious accuracy is a sign of scientific insecurity.

The abstract ends, "It was concluded that aspartame was digested to
its three constituents that were then absorbed
as natural constituents of the diet.
Thus, the concept is very subtly insinuated that methanol, as a
constituent of aspartame, is absorbed as a natural constituent
of the diet.
Nowhere in this report are mentioned the dread words,
"formaldehyde" and "formic acid".

Of course, methanol and formaldehyde toxicity studies are highly
relevant to the issue of aspartame toxicity.
[ Aspartame has to be turned into its toxic products,
formaldehyde and formic acid, in the body, before it is toxic,
so some pro-aspartame reseach studies test aspartame outside the
body, and then proclaim that they have proved that it is not toxic. ]



http://www.dorway.com/tldaddic.html 5-page review
Roberts HJ Aspartame (NutraSweet) addiction.
Townsend Letter 2000 Jan; HJRobertsMD@...
http://www.sunsentpress.com/ sunsentpress@...
Sunshine Sentinel Press P.O.Box 17799
West Palm Beach, FL 33416
800-814-9800 561-588-7628 561-547-8008 fax

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/669
1038-page medical text "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic"
published May 30 2001 $ 60.00 postpaid data from 1200 cases
available at http://www.amazon.com
over 600 references from standard medical research

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/790
Moseley: review Roberts "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic":
Murray 2002.02.07 rmforall

Roberts, Hyman J., 1924- ,
Useful insights for diagnosis, treatment and public heath: an updated
anthology of original research, 2002, 798 pages,
aspartame disease, pages 627-685, 778-780

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/859
Roberts: the life work of a brilliant clinician: aspartame toxicity:
Murray 2002.08.02 rmforall



Russell L. Blaylock, MD 601-982-1175 Madison, Mississippi
"Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills", 1977, 298 p., 493 references.
"Health and Nutrition Secrets that can save your life", 2002, 459 p.,
558 + 30 references, $ 30 http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1090
aspartame, MSG, excitotoxins, NMDA glutamate receptors,
multiple sclerosis: Blaylock: Murray 2004.06.09

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/97
Lancet website aspartame letter 1999.07.29:
Excitotoxins 1999 Part 1/3 Blaylock: Murray 2000.01.14
The Medical Sentinel Journal 1999 Fall; (95 references)
http://www.dorway.com/blayenn.html



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/935
Comet assay finds DNA damage from sucralose, cyclamate,
saccharin in mice: Sasaki YF & Tsuda S Aug 2002:
Murray 2003.01.01
[ Also borderline evidence, in this pilot study of 39 food additives,
using test groups of 4 mice, for DNA damage from for stomach,
colon, liver, bladder, and lung 3 hr after oral dose of 2000 mg/kg
aspartame -- a very high dose. Methanol is the only component of
aspartame that can lead to DNA damage. ]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/961
genotoxins, Comet assay in mice: Ace-K, stevia fine;
aspartame poor; sucralose, cyclamate, saccharin bad:
Y.F. Sasaki Aug 2002: Murray 2003.01.27
[A detailed look at the data] ]


MSG and Aspartame -- A Personal Story, TV health reporter
Dick Allgire (vegetarian) healed of migraines and panic attacks:
Murray 2008.02.12
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_02_01_archive.htm
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1520



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartame/messages
group with 1,087 members, 22,510 posts in a public archive
E. Bryant Holman bryanth@...
Carol Guilford CarolGuilford@...
http://www.presidiotex.com/aspartame/
aspartame@...
http://www.presidiotex.com/aspartame/Links/links.html

http://www.HolisticMed.com/aspartame mgold@...
Aspartame Toxicity Information Center Mark D. Gold
12 East Side Drive #2-18 Concord, NH 03301 603-225-2100
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/methanol.html
"Scientific Abuse in Aspartame Research"

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GFCFKids/ excellent group
Gluten Free Casein Free Kids
This list is unmoderated and unrestricted.
The principle aim of this list is to provide a discussion forum for
parents of children on the autism spectrum who are avoiding gluten
and casein and other substances in their children's diets.
9,108 members, 234,968 posts in public archive since Dec. 1998
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GFCFKids/links

A very detailed, highly credible account of the dubious approval
process for aspartame in July, 1981 is part of the just released
two-hour documentary "Sweet Misery, A Poisoned World:
An Industry Case Study of a Food Supply In Crisis"
by Cori Brackett: cori@...
http://www.soundandfuryproductions.com/ 520-624-9710
2301 East Broadway, Suite 111 Tucson, AZ 85719

Mary Nash Stoddard
Toxicology Sourcebook: "Deadly Deception Story of Aspartame"
Aspartame Consumer Safety Network and Pilot Hotline
[since 1987]
P.O. Box 2001 Frisco, Texas 75034 U.S. [ North of Dallas ]
Phone/FAX: 214.387.4001
marystod@... http://www.aspartamesafety.com
http://www.aspartamesafety.com/en_espanol.htm

http://www.sweetpoison.com/ http://www.issplendasafe.com/
http://www.sweetpoison.com/food-additives-to-avoid.html
Dr. Janet Starr Hull, PhD, CN jshull@...
Splenda®: Is It Safe Or Not?

http://www.truthinlabeling.org/ Truth in Labeling Campaign [MSG]
Adrienne Samuels, PhD The toxicity/safety of processed
free glutamic acid (MSG): a study in suppression of information.
Accountability in Research 1999; 6: 259-310. 52-page review
P.O. Box 2532 Darien, Illinois 60561
858-481-9333 adandjack@...

http://www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info/ an excellent group
These web pages provide:
independent information about the effects of food on behaviour,
health and learning ability in both children and adults.
support for families using a low-chemical elimination diet free of
additives, low in salicylates, amines and flavour enhancers
(FAILSAFE) for health, behaviour and learning problems.
Food Intolerance Network, Sue Dengate sdengate@...;
http://www.fedupwithfoodadditives.info/biodata.htm
____________________________________________________