Category Archives: toxins

The Metal in your mouth

morebooks-2

The Metal In Your Mouth by Dr K. Hajikakou Bsc BDS LDS RCS(Eng) DIHom LFHom (Dent) Dip Clin Hypnosis PGCE
Introduction
This article looks at the effects of dental materials on the health of the individual. There are many dental materials in use to restore broken teeth. The main criteria considered by the dental materials experts have been their physical characteristics, e.g. coefficients of expansion and contraction, compressive and shear strengths. Little, if any, thought has been given to the biological effects of these materials. In particular it now appears that metals used to restore teeth can have profound effects on the physical, mental and spiritual health of patients. Present day non-metal or white filling materials, i.e. composites and porcelains appear, at present, to be safer alternatives. The main emphasis of the-is article will be on amalgam but some discussion will also be given to the metals used in crowns (caps).
Broadening the field of dental toxicity would include some things that I cannot go into here, such as dental hygiene products, e.g. toothpaste, antiseptic mouthwashes, impression materials, rubber products and acrylate resins used in dentures and root canal medications. The effects of ionising radiation from dental x-ray machines could also be included, not to mention fluoride, which calcifies the pineal gland, accumulates in the pituitary and has a marked hypothyroid action! It is no wonder that Professor Vimy (Professor of Oral Medicine, Calgary University, Canada), referring to the dental profession, said “Never has so much harm been done to so many by so few” (Vimy, 2000).
Metals used in crowns (caps)
Gold is becoming more popular with many dentists in this country. Dental gold is an alloy made of gold, silver, copper, palladium, platinum and zinc. The following metals are to be found in dental casting alloys used to make crowns and bridges: beryllium, cobalt, cadmium, gallium, nickel, rhodium, iridium and indium. Unfortunately, these alloys release metal ions into the body. Is there any evidence that metal ions can cause harm? According to Professor John Wataha (Professor of Oral Rehabilitation at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, USA), the answer is a resounding yes. In sufficient concentrations and in certain forms metal ions can kill tissues, cause allergies, inflammatory reactions and cancer (Wataha, 1999).
Swelling and irritation with redness and pain in the region of a metal crown could well signify an allergic reaction to one or more of the metals. Dermatitis having a perioral distribution (around the mouth) is also suggestive of allergy originating from a dental source. Palladium and nickel are highly allergenic metals.
Amalgam fillings
Before considering the effects of mercury, let us look at the electrical activity of amalgam fillings. Each filling acts like a battery (Certosimo, 1996). As the filling is an alloy and is bathed by an electrolyte, i.e. saliva, a potential difference arises leading to electrical currents being generated. These currents are of an order of magnitude 1,000 times greater than those generated by nerve cells. This can lead to the impairment of nerve functioning and neurotransmitter release (Sheppard, 1997). The proximity of the brain to oral amalgam fillings can, in some patients, lead to neurological problems such as “brain fog” (the inability to think clearly, and depression). From my clinical experience patients have reported being”clear-headed”, as if a fog has lifted, after having had their amalgam fillings removed. This effect is experienced rapidly, whereas mercury toxicity effects take longer to resolve.
The safe protocol to adopt for the removal of amalgam fillings and corresponding homeopathic and nutritional support is shown below.
When is a poison not a poison?skull3-2
The answer to this riddle is, of course, when it is in your mouth! Amalgam (a mixture of mercury with another metal) or “silver” fillings contain silver, copper, tin, zinc and mercury. Amalgam fillings are made up of 50% mercury and should be known as mercury fillings, not silver fillings.
It is ironic that waste amalgam (i.e. outside the body) must be stored in secure conditions owing to the release of mercury vapour and has to be disposed of by licensed disposal companies.
However, when it is placed in people’s teeth it “miraculously” transforms itself into a complete inert material, which is perfectly safe! At least that is the official line. “It is generally agreed that if amalgam was introduced today as a restorative material, it would never pass FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval” (Wolfe et al, 1983). The case against using amalgam is, in my opinion, overwhelming.
Amalgam some facts
When I was studying dentistry I was told that mercury was “locked into” the filling and, therefore, was not released. This is totally untrue (Jones et al, 1983). Mercury vapour is released during the entire life of the filling. As mercury vapour is colourless, odourless and tasteless it escapes undetected by the recipient of that filling. More vapour is released each time your chew, drink anything hot or brush your teeth. The more fillings you have, the larger the surface area of the fillings the more vapour you will be exposed to, and the greater the health risk. The vapour is rapidly absorbed via the lungs and nasal mucosa and accumulates in areas of high metabolic activity, e.g. brain, gut, kidneys, liver and heart. The toxicity of mercury is well documented: it is more toxic than lead and arsenic combined. The toxic threshold, i.e. the level below which it is considered safe has never been established. The World Health Organisation states “No level of exposure to mercury can be considered harmless”. WHO also states that dental amalgam is the single largest source of mercury exposure for the public, contributing upto 84% of daily intake:
• mercury from fillings (average of 8) 17 mcg/day
• mercury from all other sources: seafood, air and water 2-6 mcg/day (WHO, 1991)
Autopsy studies confirm that the brain is the critical target organ for mercury. Brain tissue mercury levels are far higher in patients with amalgam fillings than in the patients having no fillings present. Professor Boyd Haley (Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Kentucky, USA) has demonstrated the effects mercury has on brain biochemistry. Structures known as microtubules found in nerve cells,w which are essential for transportation of substances along the nerve are greatly affected by the presence of mercury. This may be a key contributory factor in Alzheimer’s disease. Haley has also demonstrated hat in the presence of cadmium, another widely present pollutant, mercury toxicity is greatly increased. Mercury is found in structures associated with memory, e.g. the hippocampus, amygdala and nucleus basalis.
Experiments in sheep and monkeys clearly show that when mercury fillings are place, the mercury deposits in the brain, kidneys and liver. Kidney function determined by albumin excretion (albumin is a normal blood protein) is greatly reduced in those animals receiving amalgam fillings (Vimy et al, 1990). Another worrying fact is that mercury crosses over the placenta into the foetus within two days of amalgam placement, accumulating in the fetal brain and liver (Vimy et al, 1990). Breast milk has also been found to contain significant levels of mercury.
Oral and gut bacteria can metabolise inorganic mercury to organic mercury, e.g. methyl mercury, another powerful toxin. And if this is not bad enough the presence of mercury has been shown to increase the resistance of oral and gut bacteria to antibiotics within two weeks of amalgam placement (Summers et al, 1993). Ampicillin, tetracyclin, streptomycin, erythromycin, kanamycin and chloramphenicol are all antibiotics whose effects are greatly reduced in the presence of mercury.
Oral lichen planus, a condition where the oral mucosa changes to form white patches with a lacy pattern has now a well-established link with mercury containing amalgam fillings. This is seen in those individuals who have sensitivity to mercury and where amalgam filling is in direct contact with the oral tissue. Is this a hazard to health professionals who deal with amalgam fillings?
Dentists have four times more mercury in the urine compared with the rest of the population and a suicide rate two to six times greater than average. Is this due to a stressful job or is it, perhaps, mercury related? I feel it is the latter. Female dental personnel have twice the rate of infertility, miscarriage and spontaneous abortion compared to the rest of the female population.
Symptoms of mercury toxicity
Acute
metallic taste – due to electrical activity and corrosion
burning pains – mouth, throat and stomach
increased salivation
swollen salivatory glands
abdominal pains
diarrhoea and vomiting
Chronic
Nervous system
irritability
anxiety/nervousness, often with difficulty in breathing
restlessness
exaggerated response to stimulation
fearfulness
lack of self-control
fits of anger, with violent irrational behaviour
loss of self-confidence
indecision
shyness or timidity, being easily embarrassed
loss of memory
inability to concentrate
lethargy/drowsiness
insomnia
mental depression, despondency
withdrawal
suicidal tendencies
manic depression
numbness and tingling of the hands, feet, fingers, toes and lips
muscle weakness progressing to paralysis
ataxia
tremors/trembling of hands, feet, lips, eyelids or tongue
incoordination
myoneural transmission failure resembling myasthenia gravis
motor neurone disease
multiple sclerosis
Oral disorders
bleeding gums
alveolar bone loss
loosening of teeth
excessive salivation
foul breath
metallic taste
burning sensation, with tingling of lips and face
tissue pigmentation (amalgam tattoo of gums)
leukoplakia
ulceration of gingiva, palate and tongue
Gastro-intestinal
food sensitivities, especially to milk and eggs
abdominal cramps, colitis, diverticulitis or other GI complaints
chronic diarrhoea/constipation
Systemic effects
chronic headaches
allergies
severe dermatitis
unexplained reactivity
thyroid disturbance
subnormal body temperature
cold, clammy skin, especially hands and feet
excessive perspiration, with frequent night sweats
unexplained sensory symptoms, including pain
unexplained numbness or burning sensations
The earliest symptoms of long-term, low-level mercury poisoning are extremely subtle and easily misdiagnosed. Certain idiosyncrasies may develop or subtle psychiatric, neurological problems may begin to show. Mercury from dental amalgam does, in my opinion, constitute a significant health hazard. Controlled scientific studies looking at the effects on the health of patients of mercury from dental amalgam fillings have never been conducted. The scientific experts say that there is no evidence to show that mercury from amalgam does any harm. Does this, therefore, mean it is safe? I think not. Bertand Russell, the philosopher, once said “Even when all the experts agree, they may well be wrong”.
References
Certosimo, A.J. and O’Connor, R.P. (1996) “Oral electricity”, General Dentistry, July/August: 324-326
Conference of IAOMT (International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology) Oxford, June, 2000
Hansen, K. et al (1984) “A survey of metal induced mutagen in vitro and in vivo”, Journal American Coll. Toxicology, 3: 381-430
Jones, D.W. et al (1983) “Mercury leaves dental amalgam continuously throughout the lifetime of the filling”, Canadian Dental Association Journal, 4906: 378-395
Sheppard, A.R. and Eisentod, M. (1997) Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields in Extremely Low Frequency, New York: New York University Press
Summers, A.O. et al (1993) “Mercury released from dental “silver” fillings provokes an increase in mercury and antibiotic resistant bacteria in oral and intestinal floras of primates”, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April: 301-323
Vimy, M.J. et al (1990) “Maternal fetal distribution of mercury released from dental amalgam fillings”, The American Physiological Society, R939-R945
Vimy, M.J. et al (1990) “Whole-body imaging of the distribution of mercury released from dental fillings into monkey tissues”, FASEB Journal, Vol.4: 3256-3260
Wataha, J. (1999) “Biocompatability of dental alloys”, The Probe, March: 21-32
World Health Organisation Criteria, 1991:118, Geneva, Switzerland
Further Reading
Huggins, H. (1993) It’s all in your head: the link between mercury amalgam and illness. New York: Avery Publishing Group Inc.
October 2004
Protocol for safe removal of amalgam fillings
There are many protocol regimes to aid mercury elimination during and after amalgam removal. The cost of supplements and the complexities of taking certain products can be a major barrier for some patients. I suggest a fairly simple regime with costs kept at a reasonable level:
• before amalgam removal: Mercurius solubilis 30c or Amalagam 30c, 2 doses a day for one or two days before treatment
• after amalgam removal: one dose of Mercury solubilis 30c immediately after treatment.
Sulphur naturally binds free mercury and thus aids its elimination. Foods rich in sulphur should be eaten plentiful and as often as possible for at least one week post-amalgam removal. Such foods are onions, garlic, eggs (yolk), pulses and brassicas, e.g. sprouts, cabbage and broccoli. A selenium supplement with vitamins A, C and E is beneficial taken for one week after removal. The patient should drink plenty of good quality water.
It should be noted that amalgam fillings must be removed in a set sequence depending upon their electrical activity. In each quadrant of the mouth the filling having the highest negative charge should be removed first and so on. Remove the fillings in descending order of negative charge, until a filling with a positive reading is reached. If such a filling is present it would be removed but only after the negative charged fillings have gone.

It is essential that amalgam fillings are removed using a rubber dam and high volume suction. I think it sensible that patients should use a dentist committed to amalgam free dentistry with experience of amalgam removal and composite placement. A dentist still using amalgam might not have the experience necessary to undertake this procedure to ensure the best outcome for the patient. Patients are sometimes told that composite is not strong enough, long lasting enough or suitable for large fillings. My experience has taught me that this is completely untrue. In 15 years in practice I have never yet had to replace a composite filling which has failed and some have been very large.
There are two ways of tackling amalgam removal. One is (as I would term it) “kill or cure”, whereby all amalgam fillings are removed within one week. The other method I call a “softly softly” approach whereby amalgam fillings are removed one by one at intervals of at least four weeks. This has the advantage of allowing the body to recover between each “assault on the system”, which is how I imagine the body perceives the process and to which it would react accordingly. I favour the latter method as being gentler and kinder for the patient.
Because of the time and expense involved I recommend that amalgam removal should only be undertaken as a last resort once the patient’s practitioner has exhausted all other avenues towards the patient recovery.
Once all amalgams have been removed it is important that no more mercury enters the body as this would defeat the detoxification process. Fish should not be eaten while there is still evidence of mercury toxicity, possibly indefinately. Patients should take saunas regularly for several months as this encourages waste products, including mercury, to be eliminated via the skin.
Finally, the two most powerful natural products for mobilising and eliminating stored mercury from body tissues are Cilantro (Chinese parsley) and Chlorella (green algae). Cilantro is taken as drops (orally) or rubbed into the wrists or ankles. Chlorella tablets are taken orally in an ascending dosage scheme to suit the patient, starting at 1g three times daily for one week only. Initially, careful supervision is necessary.

Advertisements

Pet Vaccinations what your vet wont tell you……………

Adverse Reactions to Pet Vaccines

From rashes and behavioral issues, to seizures and even vaccine injection site tumors, the list of adverse vaccine related health complications is long and varied. However, because many people don’t make the connection between the administration of a shot and subsequent symptoms, and because the veterinary industry at large often does not acknowledge such a connection, adverse vaccine reactions often go unreported.

For these reasons and because many people have been erroneously conditioned to believe that vaccines are completely safe and effective, there’s a serious lack of understanding about the issue of vaccine damage among the general population.

There needs to be more awareness about this problem and people need to know that besides acute conditions, the damage caused by vaccines can also be implicated in longer term, chronic ailments.

Some of the more progressive vets who are at the forefront of researching vaccine damage, including Dr. Patricia Jordan, author of the book Vaccinosis: Hidden in Plain Sight, are discovering evidence that vaccines actually cause damage at a genetic level.

If true, this means that vaccine damage not only occurs to those pets that are vaccinated, but that such damage occurs to their DNA, which is then passed onto their offspring and so on down the line, potentially conveying inherited vaccinosis to many more individuals in future generations.

Pet Vaccines a Toxic Chemical Cocktailresearch

One of the reasons why vaccines can cause damage to our pets is because of the toxic ingredients they often contain. Among these are:

  • Thimerosal — Thimerisol is an organic compound often found in pet vaccines and used as a preservative that contains mercury, which is an extremely toxic heavy metal.Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin and is one of the most potent poisons known to man. Mercury has been shown to impair the function of many internal systems including the brain, central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs.
  • Aluminum — Aluminum is another metal used in vaccines that has been implicated in neurological ailments in humans. Aluminum is added to vaccines as an adjuvant, which means its purpose is to enhance or boost the effectiveness of those shots containing killed viruses.
  • Formaldehyde — Formaldehyde is classified by the EPA as a probable carcinogen, and is used as a tissue fixative in some vaccines.
  • Phenol — Phenols are highly poisonous, caustic substances derived from coal tar which are used as preservatives in vaccines.
  • Viruses — Viruses are microscopic infectious agents containing genetic material which can only replicate within the tissues of living organisms.
  • Animal organ tissue — Cell tissue derived from all manner of animals, including monkeys, rabbits, cows, sheep and pigs, are used to culture viruses contained in vaccines.

Huge or Tiny Pet — Same Dosagemorebooks-2

Many pet owners would be surprised to learn that the dosage contained in one vaccine is the same regardless of the size or weight of the pet. This means that a 5 lb Chihuahua is given the exact same dosage as a 100 lb German Shepherd.

Insanity of Yearly “Boosters” for Pet Vaccines

Despite the fact that most all specific vaccines designed for people are generally only administered
once rather than repeatedly year after year, it has become common practice in the veterinary industry to vaccinate pets with the same vaccine over and over again – often on a yearly basis – in the form of what are called booster shots.

Because each individual vaccine triggers a firestorm of activity within the immune system, vaccinating pets repeatedly like this over time can end up eroding the animal’s immune function.

It’s important to understand that routine vaccinations are a source of considerable financial revenue for both veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies. However vaccinating our pets repeatedly year after year is, in my opinion, most definitely not in the best interest of the animals.

Bypassing the Body’s Natural Immunity

Our pets’ bodies are equipped with a very sophisticated array of innate immunological mechanisms that are specifically designed to defend against pathogenic exposure.rgans such as the skin, nose, respiratory system, mouth, and digestive tract are all common pathways through which potentially harmful microbes must pass before they have the opportunity to become infectious. These organ systems work in concert to identify incoming pathogenic threats and either neutralize and/or create effective defenses against them.

However, most all pet vaccines administered by vets are done so via subcutaneous injection. This means that such shots deliver viruses, which are pathogenic materials, along with other toxins directly through the skin into the body’s underlying tissues, unnaturally forcing these substances to bypass some of the body’s most important and effective natural defense systems.

This circumvention and short circuiting of the immune system can trigger chronic autoimmune disorders, including the kind of ongoing inflammatory response present in conditions such as IBD (inflammatory bowel disease), arthritis, skin rashes and others.

Make an Informed Decision on Your Pet’s Behalf

More and more evidence is coming to light these days showing that pet vaccines are a scientific fraud and that they’re little more than a huge money making scam because they are neither safe nor effective.

Due to such evidence, I can’t urge people strongly enough to do their own research in order make an educated decision before choosing to have their pets automatically jabbed simply as a matter of course.

Additional Resources 

http://dr-jordan.com/downloads/
http://www.animaltalknaturally.com/past-programs/ (scroll down page slightly)
http://rawfed.com/vax/vax.html#other
http://www.rawfedcats.org/vaccinosis.htm
http://www.rawfedcats.org/links.htm
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/TruthAboutVaccines/


Hippocratic oath and the Nuremberg code -Every patient should be familiar with these

Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code

Evelyne Shuster, Ph.D.

N Engl J Med

The Nuremberg Codeimg_8866

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.

2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.

4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.

5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.

6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.

8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.

9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.

10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill, and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

The Nuremberg Code is the most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research.1-6 The Code was formulated 50 years ago, in August 1947, in Nuremberg, Germany, by American judges sitting in judgment of Nazi doctors accused of conducting murderous and torturous human experiments in the concentration camps (the so-called Doctors’ Trial).7 It served as a blueprint for today’s principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research. Because of its link with the horrors of World War II and the use of prisoners in Nazi concentration camps for medical experimentation, debate continues today about the authority of the Code, its applicability to modern medical research, and even its authorship.1,2,4,5,8 The chief prosecutor at the Doctors’ Trial, General Telford Taylor, believed that one of the three U.S. judges, Harold Sebring, was the author of the Code.2 Two American physicians who helped prosecute the Nazi doctors at Nuremberg, Leo Alexander and Andrew Ivy, have each been identified as the Code’s author.5,8-11 A careful reading of the transcript of the Doctors’ Trial, background documents, and the final judgment reveals that authorship was shared and that the famous 10 principles of the Code grew out of the trial itself.

In this article I will explain the important role that physicians had in the prosecution of the Nazi doctors and in the formulation of the Nuremberg Code and summarize how medical researchers have used the Code as a guide over the past five decades.

The Doctors’ Trial

The main trial at Nuremberg after World War II was conducted by the International Military Tribunal. The tribunal was made up of judges from the four allied powers (the United States, Britain, France, and the former Soviet Union) and was charged with trying Germany’s major war criminals. After this first-of-its-kind international trial, the United States conducted 12 additional trials of representative Nazis from various sectors of the Third Reich, including law, finance, ministry, and manufacturing, before American Military Tribunals, also at Nuremberg. The first of these trials, the Doctors’ Trial, involved 23 defendants, all but 3 of whom were physicians accused of murder and torture in the conduct of medical experiments on concentration-camp inmates.7

The indictment of the defendants was filed on October 25, 1946, 25 days after the conclusion of the first Nuremberg trial by the International Military Tribunal. The Doctors’ Trial began on December 9, 1946, and ended on July 19, 1947. The case was heard by three judges and one alternate. Thirty-two prosecution witnesses and 53 defense witnesses, including the 23 defendants, testified. A total of 1471 documents were introduced into the record. Sixteen of the 23 defendants were found guilty; 7 of them were sentenced to death by hanging, 5 to life imprisonment, 2 to imprisonment for 25 years, 1 to imprisonment for 15 years, and 1 to imprisonment for 10 years. Seven were acquitted. The sentences were confirmed by the military governor, and, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case, the executions were carried out at the Landsberg prison.

For the United States and its chief prosecutor, Telford Taylor, the trial was a murder trial (and murder had been identified by the International Military Tribunal as a crime against humanity). Nonetheless, as Taylor pointed out in his opening statement, this was “no mere murder trial,” because the defendants were physicians who had sworn to “do no harm” and to abide by the Hippocratic Oath.12 He told the judges that the people of the world needed to know “with conspicuous clarity” the ideas and motives that moved these doctors “to treat their fellow human beings as less than beasts,” and that “brought about such savageries” so that they could be “cut out and exposed before they become a spreading cancer in the breast of humanity.”12 One recurring theme was the relevance of Hippocratic ethics to human experimentation and whether Hippocratic moral ideals could be an exclusive guide to the ethics of research without risk to the human rights of subjects. In the trial’s exploration of ideas that shaped medical-research ethics, three physicians had central roles: Leo Alexander, an American neuropsychiatrist, Werner Leibbrand, a German psychiatrist and medical historian, and Andrew Ivy, a renowned American physiologist.

Leo Alexander

Leo Alexander, a Viennese-born American physician, had joined the U.S. Army Medical Corps in 1942, before being stationed in England at the American Eighth Air Force base. At the end of the war, Alexander was sent on a special mission under the Combined Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee, an intelligence organization with members from several nations, and charged by orders from Supreme Headquarters of Allied Expeditionary Forces to gather evidence for the Nuremberg trials. Two days before the opening of the Doctors’ Trial, Alexander gave Taylor a memorandum entitled “Ethical and Non-Ethical Experimentation on Human Beings,” in which he identified three ethical, legal, and scientific requirements for the conduct of human experimentation.9 The first requirement established the right of the competent experimental subject to consent or refuse to participate in these terms: “the subject should be willing to undergo the experiment of his own free will. . . .” The second focused on the duty of physicians as expressed in the Hippocratic Oath, which Alexander restated in research terms: “the medical Hippocratic attitude prohibits an experiment if the foregone conclusion, probability or a priori reason to believe exists that death or disabling injury of the experimental subject will occur.” The third characterized good research practices.

On April 15, 1947, Alexander gave Taylor a second memorandum.9,11 In it he set forth in greater detail six specific conditions for ethically and legally permissible experiments on human beings. The first stated that

the legally valid voluntary consent of the experimental subject is essential. This requires specifically the absence of duress, sufficient disclosure on the part of the experimenter and sufficient understanding on the part of the experimental subject of the exact nature and consequences of the experiment for which he volunteers, to permit an enlightened consent.

The five other conditions established the humanitarian nature and purpose of the experiment and the scientific integrity and obligations of the investigator to the welfare of the subject.

Werner Leibbrand

On January 27, 1947, Werner Leibbrand, a German psychiatrist and medical historian at Erlangen University, opened the debate on medical ethics at Nuremberg.12 He explained to the court that German physicians at the beginning of the 20th century had adopted a “biologic thinking” according to which a patient was a series of biologic events, and nothing more than “a mere object, like a mail package.”12 Leibbrand insisted that such a view precluded any human relation between physicians and their patients and that it represented a perversion of Hippocratic ethics and “a lack of morality and reverence for human life.”12 He strongly condemned physicians who conducted experiments on subjects without their consent, and testified that this was also the result of biologic thinking.

During cross-examination, defense lawyers asserted that “civilized” nations such as France, the Netherlands, Britain, and the United States had performed dangerous medical experiments on prisoners, often without their consent. They cited American malaria experiments12-14 to argue that Nazi physicians had followed common research practices. Leibbrand replied that this American research also was wrong because “prisoners were in a forced situation and could not be volunteers.”12 Leibbrand insisted that “the morality of a physician is to hold back his natural research urge which may result in doing harm, in order to maintain his basic medical attitude that is laid down in the Oath of Hippocrates.”12 This strong accusation of American research by the prosecution’s first medical-ethics witness created major unanticipated problems for the prosecution. It therefore became necessary to broaden the scope of the trial by defining the conditions under which risky human experimentation is ethically permissible.

Defense lawyers explained that Nazi doctors were ordered by the state to conduct such experiments as the high-altitude, hypothermia, and seawater experiments on inmates at the Dachau concentration camp to determine how best to protect and treat German fliers and soldiers. They contended that these experiments were necessary and that the “good of the state” takes precedence over that of the individual.12 Leibbrand replied that “the state could order deadly experiments on human subjects, but the physicians remained responsible for [not] carrying them out.”12 Once these physiologic experiments became the centerpiece of the trial, reliance on psychiatrists alone was not possible. The prosecution needed a prestigious medical scientist who was an authority on research physiology and whose wartime scientific interests corresponded to those of the Nazi doctor defendants. This expert was Andrew Ivy.

Andrew Ivy

Andrew Ivy was an internationally known physiologist and a noted scientist. He also had first-hand knowledge of the Stateville Penitentiary experiments on malaria12,13 in his home state of Illinois, which the Nazi defendants attempted to liken to those performed on concentration-camp inmates. When the secretary of war, through the surgeon general of the army, asked the board of trustees of the American Medical Association to nominate a medical advisor to the Nuremberg prosecution, Ivy emerged as the natural nominee. On June 12, 1947, Ivy came to Nuremberg for the third time, this time to testify in rebuttal for the prosecution. His testimony, the longest of the trial, lasted four days.12

In direct examination, Ivy presented to the judges three research principles that he had formulated at the request of the American Medical Association and which, he said, reflected common research practices.12 His document entitled “Principles of Ethics Concerning Experimentation with Human Beings,” adopted by the American Medical Association House of Delegates in December 1946, read in part:

1. Consent of the human subject must be obtained. All subjects have been volunteers in the absence of coercion in any form. Before volunteering, subjects have been informed of the hazards, if any. Small rewards in various forms have been provided as a rule.

2. The experiment to be performed must be based on the results of animal experimentation and on a knowledge of the natural history of the disease under study, and must be so designed that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. The experiment must be such as to yield results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods of study, and must not be random and unnecessary in nature.

3. The experiment must be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons and so as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury and only after the results of adequate animal experimentation have eliminated any a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur. . . .15

Ivy explained that these common-sense principles mirrored the understanding shared by everyone in practice in the medical community.12 The first principle was that a physician would never do anything to a patient or subject before obtaining his or her consent. Ivy also asserted that, unlike Leibbrand, he did not consider prisoners to be in an inherently coercive situation and thus unable to give consent, because in democratic countries where the rights of individuals are respected, prisoners can always say yes or no without fear of being punished.12 He testified:

The American malaria experiments with 800 or more prisoners were absolutely justified, scientifically, legally and ethically even if they bring with them danger to human life. To treat malaria was an important scientific problem, and so long as the subjects volunteer and are explained the hazards of the experiments, there is no ethical reason against it. . . . If prisoners condemned to death are volunteers, then it was ethical to do just that.12

During cross-examination, Ivy acknowledged that there were no written principles of research in the United States or elsewhere before December 1946 and that the principles adopted by the American Medical Association were expressly formulated for the Doctors’ Trial.12 Ivy also recognized that the right of the research subject to withdraw from an experiment may not always exist, as in the malaria experiments in which the subjects had already been infected, or in dangerous experiments in which the subjects could be severely injured or fatally harmed. Ivy agreed with Leibbrand that researchers must refuse to conduct experiments on human beings when ordered by the state in order “to save lives,” because in such cases subjects would not be volunteers. He declared that “[t]here is no justification in killing five people in order to save the lives of five hundred” and that “no state or politician under the sun could force [him] to perform a medical experiment which [he] thought was morally unjustified.”12 Ivy also stressed that the state may not assume the moral responsibility of physicians to their patients or research subjects, arguing that “[E]very physician should be acquainted with the Hippocratic Oath [which] represents the Golden Rule of the medical profession in the United States, and, to [his] knowledge, throughout the world.”12 When, finally, defense counsel asked Ivy to reconcile the Hippocratic moral maxim that forbids physicians to “administer a poison to anyone even when asked to do so” with conducting potentially lethal experimental interventions on volunteer subjects, Ivy replied, “I believe this Hippocratic commandment refers to the function of the physician as a therapist, not as an experimentalist, and what refers to the Hippocratic Oath is that he must have respect for life and the human rights of his experimental patient.”12

Medical Ethics and Human Rights

The judges at Nuremberg, although they realized the importance of Hippocratic ethics and the maxim primum non nocere, recognized that more was necessary to protect human research subjects. Accordingly, the judges articulated a sophisticated set of 10 research principles centered not on the physician but on the research subject. These principles, which we know as the Nuremberg Code, included a new, comprehensive, and absolute requirement of informed consent (principle 1), and a new right of the subject to withdraw from participation in an experiment (principle 9). The judges adopted much of the language proposed by Alexander and Ivy but were more emphatic about the necessity and attributes of the subject’s consent and explicitly added the subject’s right to withdraw.

In the traditional Hippocratic doctor–patient relationship, the patient is silent and dutifully obedient to the beneficent and trusted physician.16-18 Obviously, the patient must seek the physician’s help and initiate the therapeutic relationship with the physician.17 But once patients agree to be treated, they trust that the physician will act in their interest, or at least will do no harm.17,18 In research, which is outside the beneficent context of the physician–patient relationship, this trust may be misplaced, because the physician’s primary goal is not to treat; rather, it is to test a scientific hypothesis by following a protocol, regardless of the patient-subject’s best interest. It is therefore only through a conflation of treatment and research that Alexander and Ivy believed they could expand on Hippocratic ethics to protect the rights of subjects in human experimentation.19,20 Their Hippocratic view of medical research may have prevented them from adequately appreciating the risks to research subjects, which are many times greater than the risks to patients who are merely being treated.21 Hippocratic ethics, even when supplemented with informed consent, tend to submerge the subject’s autonomy into what the physician-investigator thinks is best for the subject.

Informed consent, the core of the Nuremberg Code, has rightly been viewed as the protection of subjects’ human rights. The key contribution of Nuremberg was to merge Hippocratic ethics and the protection of human rights into a single code. The Nuremberg Code not only requires that physician-researchers protect the best interests of their subjects (principles 2 through 8 and 10) but also proclaims that subjects can actively protect themselves as well (principles 1 and 9). Most strikingly, for example, in Hippocratic ethics the subject relies on the physician to determine when it is in the subject’s best interest to end his or her participation in an experiment. In the Nuremberg Code, the judges gave the subject as much authority as the physician-researcher to end the experiment before its conclusion (principle 9).

50 Years after Nuremberg

The Nuremberg Code has not been officially adopted in its entirety as law by any nation or as ethics by any major medical association. Nonetheless, its influence on global human-rights law and medical ethics has been profound.6 Its basic requirement of informed consent, for example, has been universally accepted and is articulated in international law in Article 7 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).6,22 Informed consent, with specific reliance on the Nuremberg Code, is also the basis of the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, the most recent guidelines promulgated by the World Health Organization and the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (1993).23

The World Medical Association, established during World War II, has been accused of purposely trying to undermine Nuremberg in order to distance physicians from Nazi medical crimes.24 The election of a former Nazi physician and SS member, Hans-Joachim Sewering, to the presidency of that organization in 1992 added credibility to that accusation.24 (Because of public criticism, Sewering later withdrew.) Nonetheless, the various versions of the Declaration of Helsinki promulgated by the World Medical Association since 1964, although attempting to have peer review supplement informed consent and even supplant it as their central principle in the context of “therapeutic research,” all implicitly acknowledge Nuremberg’s authority. Both the Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki served as models for the current U.S. federal research regulations, which require not only the informed consent of the research subject (with proxy consent sometimes acceptable, as for young children), but also prior peer review of research protocols by a committee (the institutional review board of the hospital or research institution) that includes a representative of the community.25

The Nuremberg Code focuses on the human rights of research subjects, the Declaration of Helsinki focuses on the obligations of physician-investigators to research subjects, and the federal regulations emphasize the obligations of research institutions that receive federal funds. Nonetheless, by insisting that medical investigators alone cannot set the rules for the ethical conduct of research, even when guided by beneficence and Hippocratic ethics, and by adopting a human-rights perspective that acknowledges the centrality of informed consent and the right of the subject to withdraw, the Nuremberg Code has changed forever the way both physicians and the public view the proper conduct of medical research on human subjects. Fifty years after Nuremberg, we recognize the human-rights legacy of the Nuremberg Code and are better able to face the critical challenge of applying the Code in its entirety and enforcing its human-rights provisions.


SIDS and the DPT vaccine

SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME (SIDS)

written by Dr. Mendelson

The dreadful possibility that they may awaken some morning to find their baby dead in his crib is a fear that lurks in the mind of many parents. Medical science has yet to pinpoint the cause of SIDS, but the most popular explanation among researchers appears to be that the central nervous system is affected so that the involuntary act of breathing is suppressed.14537_lores

That is a logical explanation, but it leaves unanswered the question: What caused the malfunction in the central nervous system? My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the United States each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given children. The pertussis vaccine is the most likely villain, but it could also be one or more of the others.

Dr. William Torch, of the University of Nevada School of Medicine at Reno, has issued a report suggesting that the DPT shot may be responsible for SIDS cases. He found that two-thirds of 103 children who died of SIDS had been immunized with DPT vaccine in the three weeks before their deaths, many dying within a day after getting the shot. He asserts that this was not mere coincidence, concluding that a “causal relationship is suggested” in at least some cases of DIPT vaccine and crib death. Also on record are the Tennessee deaths, referred to earlier. In that case the manufacturers of the vaccine, following intervention by the U.S. surgeon general, recalled all unused doses of this batch of vaccine.

Expectant mothers who are concerned about SIDS should bear in mind the importance of breastfeeding to avoid this and other serious ailments. There is evidence that breastfed babies are less susceptible to allergies, respiratory disease, gastroenteritis, hypocalcaemia, obesity, multiple sclerosis, and SIDS. One study of the scientific literature about SIDS concluded that “Breast-feeding can be seen as a common block to the myriad pathways to SIDS.”image4


Important list of Vaccination ingredients your doctor wont share with you

Vaccine Ingredients;image
In the first 6 years of life your child receives the following:
• 17,500 mcg 2-phenoxyethanol (antifreeze)
• 5,700 mcg aluminum (a known neurotoxin)
• Unknown amounts of fetal bovine serum (aborted cow blood)
• 801.6 mcg formaldehyde (carcinogen, embalming agent)
• 23,250 mcg gelatin (ground up animal carcasses)
• 500 mcg human albumin (human blood)
• 760 mcg of monosodium L-glutamate (causes obesity & diabetis)
• Unknown amounts of MRC-5 cells (aborted human babies)
• Over 10 mcg neomycin (antibiotic)
• Over 0.075 mcg polymyxin B (antibiotic)
• Over 560 mcg polysorbate 80 (carcinogen)
• 116 mcg potassium chloride (used in lethal injection to shut down the heart and stop breathing)
• 188 mcg potassium phosphate (liquid fertilizer agent)
• 260 mcg sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
• 70 mcg sodium borate (Borax, used for cockroach control)
• 54,100 mcg of sodium chloride (table salt)
• Unknown amounts of sodium citrate (food additive)
• Unknown amounts of sodium hydroxide (Danger! Corrosive)
• 2,800 mcg sodium phosphate (toxic to any organism)
• Unknown amounts of sodium phosphate monobasic monohydrate (toxic to any organism)
• 32,000 mcg sorbitol (Not to be injected)
• 0.6 mcg streptomycin (antibiotic)
• Over 40,000 mcg sucrose (cane sugar)
• 35,000 mcg yeast protein (fungus)
• 5,000 mcg urea (metabolic waste from human urine) —

MERCURY- know toxinSyringe vacc


Gardasil HPV vaccine =infertility

Does the HPV Vaccine LITERALLY Mean “One Less”?

Marketing geniuses are known to play on words and create slogans with quirky double meanings, and if you’ve been tracking the concerns raised about the potential hazards of Gardasil and Cervarix, the potential for these HPV vaccines to cause infertility – whether purposely or inadvertently – is being heard with ever increasing frequency.

The federal government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received over 9,000 reports of problems since the vaccine’s introduction in 2006, which include at least 28 spontaneous abortions, and 27 deaths. 14537_lores

Is it possible that Gardasil’s cry to fame, ‘One Less’, is turning out to be nothing but a sick, ironic play on words?

Anti-Fertility Vaccines

The World Health Organization (WHO) and its subsidiaries have been actively researching and funding the development of contraceptive / anti-fertility vaccines that prevent full-term pregnancies to take place, for over 20 years. There’s even a Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the WHO!

However, no anti-fertility vaccine has ever been placed on the market and promoted as such as of yet.

Instead, as described in a 1993 journal paper published in The British Medical Bulletin, anti-fertility vaccines were being engineered “incorporating tetanus or diphtheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides.”

The authors of this article state,

“The fundamental principle behind this approach to contraceptive vaccine development is to prevent the maternal recognition of pregnancy by inducing a state of immunity against hGC, the hormone that signals the presence of the embryo to the maternal endocrine system.”

Free tetanus vaccines that were offered to young women of childbearing age for years in countries such as Tanzania, Nigeria, Mexico, and the Philippines, were found to contain human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG), which causes spontaneous abortions if the woman becomes pregnant.

While the woman is not technically sterilized, once injected with hCG, she may never be able to carry a child full term thereafter.

HCG-containing anti-fertility vaccines have also been pursued for more than two decades by the Indian National Institute of Immunology, and The Population Council of the Rockefeller University, among others.

In fact, there are no less than 50 research papers detailing research on “contraceptive vaccines” in the PubMed database.

One disturbing paper published in the FASEB Journal in 1993 states:

“… we initiated studies relating to possible mechanisms of action and potential side effects of this vaccine, which should be relevant to world-wide regulation of population growth.”

So again, why the frantic push for the HPV vaccine, created for young, fertile women, when there’s NO solid, rational basis for its use?

Massive Brazilian Vaccination Program Raises Suspicions of Covert Sterilization Plans

A much more recent case of illogical mass vaccinations against a minor health problem is that of the massive, mandatory vaccination program in Brazil, which has raised suspicions among international pro-life activists, who note that the program is similar to other vaccination programs in recent years that have included a hidden sterilizing agent in the vaccines.

The campaign to “annihilate rubella” began in early August this year, mandating rubella vaccinations for all women ages 12 to 49, and 12 to 39 for men; a total of 70 million people, despite the fact that only 17 Brazilian children per year suffer birth defects from the disease.

Adolfo Castañeda of Human Life International notes that just two years ago, researchers found that the rubella vaccine used in a similar campaign in Argentina was laced with human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG).

“The suspicion that brought about the investigation [into the rubella vaccine] was caused by the fact that there were very few cases of the disease in Argentina, which didn’t merit a large-scale campaign,” Castañeda said, adding, “The ages for women are the same as those who received the vaccines in Nicaragua, where they included a hormone that sterilizes the woman who receives it, and similar to the age of those who received another sterilizing hormone in the Philippines.”

Polysorbate-80 – One Less Mouse, Researchers Found

Now, let me state clearly that there’s no proof of hCG being present in any of the current HPV vaccines.

I am merely playing devil’s advocate as I examine the similarities between these other irrational vaccination programs in other countries for relatively minor public health concerns — that turn out to have far more sinister agendas than mere greed – compared to the fervent, irrational push behind the HPV vaccine here in the U.S.

However, Gardasil does contain Polysorbate-80 – a surfactant used in pharmacology to deliver certain drugs or chemical agents across the blood-brain barrier — which has been linked to infertility in mice.

Researchers Gajdova et.al. found that administration of Polysorbate-80 decreased the weight of the uterus and ovaries, and caused chronic estrogenic stimulation. The ovaries of the mice were also without corpora lutea (a mass of progesterone-secreting endocrine tissue that forms immediately after ovulation) and had degenerative follicles.

So what might the estrogenic effects of Polysorbate-80 be on pre-adolescent girls and pregnant women?

Anti-Fertility Vaccine Ingredient Also Has Clinical Application in Cancer Vaccines…

A potential coincidence I find most disturbing is some of the more recent research detailing the use of hCG, and other molecules, in vaccines against hCG-producing cancers, such as – certain cervical cancers.

One 2005 paper titled, Recent advances in contraceptive vaccine development: a mini-review published in the journal Human Reproduction concludes:

“At the present time, studies are focused on increasing the immunogenicity and efficacy of the birth control vaccine, and examining its clinical applications in various HCG-producing cancers.”

But research published just a few months ago in the journal Molecular Cancer states that the free ?-subunit of hCG (hCG?) – which was originally considered biologically non-functional — has recently been shown to stimulate tumor growth, and lead to more aggressive tumors that are more resistant to therapy.

Again, I’m mentioning all of this because it just goes to show that pharmaceutical companies have little or no clue of the extent of harm these vaccines might cause, especially long-term. Something believed to be completely non-functional or harmless can turn out to be a MAJOR cause for concern after more thorough investigation.

For example, Gardasil also contains L-histadine, and histamines have been found to increase clot production five-fold when combined with, guess what? Surfactants! (L-histidine can also pass through your placental wall to your fetus.)

Granted, this laboratory investigative report titled Surfactants Attenuate Gas Embolism-induced Thrombin Production used surfactants like Perftoran, not Polysorbate-80, in their trials, but could Polysorbate-80 have a similar effect?

Could this explain why death from blood clots within hours or days is the MOST COMMON form of death after receiving Gardasil?

The HPV vaccine clearly has a lot of questions left to be answered. And those questions should be answered BEFORE pushing Gardasil on an unsuspecting public at the rate that it’s being done.

Be One Less to Get Gardasil

I think this would be a more appropriate message to send out to young women: There is absolutely no reason to risk the serious side effects of this vaccine to prevent an infection that goes away on its own 90 percent of the time. And there’s no guarantee that you’ll be protected anyway, since you can still get HPV once you’ve had the vaccine. It’s really a no-win situation for those who receive it.

Of course, you can radically reduce your risk of getting HPV in the first place if you follow safe-sex practices, or wait to have sex until you’re in a committed relationship. Then, keep your immune system in tip-top shape, and it will be more than able to shake any HPV virus that comes its way.


Infant Vitamin K shots important warnings

Vitamin K given to infants-what you may not know…..

PHYTONDIONE VITAMIN K INJECTION14537_lores

Aqueous solution containing fat-soluble vitamin K

An aqueous solution containing fat-soluble vitamin K is prepared by adding vegetable oil(s), gycerol fatty acid ester(s) or sorbitan fatty acid ester(s) in an amount of 0.004 to 5% by weight, based on the whole aqueous solution, to an aqueous solution containing menatetrenone (vitamin K2) or phytonadione (vitamin K1) and hydrogenated lecithin.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5021570.html

 

MULTTVITAMIN PREPARATION AND METHOD
US Pat. 2980588 – Filed Jul 18, 1957 – Les Labora
120; 100 mg. vitamin BI, 100 mg. of acetylated vitamin K This is brought up
to exactly 100 cc. by the addition of gelled peanut oil.

 

STABILIZATION OF FAT-SOLUBLE VITAMIN
US Pat. 2973266 – Filed Feb 5, 1958 –
vitamin E in an edible oil solvent, and vitamin K in an edible Limpid
peanut oil 94 Hydrogenated cottonseed oil Hydrogenated soybean oil 35 43 70 68

Aqueous solution containing fat-soluble vitamin K
US Pat. 5021570 – Filed Jul 7, 1989 – Eisai Co., Ltd.
ing fat-soluble vitamin K, which solution contains speci- The term “residual
peanut and corn oils, thin is used together with an adjuvant (cf.

Oxidative stabilization of omega-3 fatty acids in low linoleic acid …
US Pat. 7344747 – Filed Apr 29, 2004 – GFA Brands, Inc.
19 20 Percentage Flax Oil Added to Peanut Butter 10 The blend of 8 percent flax
oil and vitamin K, and a carotenoid that is a carotene or a xanthophyll.

METHOD OF MAKING SAME
US Pat. 2937091 – Filed Jul 2, 1953 –
vitamin E in an 10 15 oe- 40 70 edible oil solvent, and vitamin K in an
edible .oil vehicle or in crystalline form. Hydrogenated peanut oil 45 55.

 

Vitamin K –Is this really safe and necessary?  Bronwyn Hancock October 2003

…The vitamin K injections administered by hospitals and manufactured by Merck and Roche and Abbott contain benzyl alcohol as a preservative. … Roche’s vitamin K product KONAKION contains ingredients such as phenol (carbolic acid-a poisonous substance distilled from coal tar), propylene glycol (derived from petroleum and used as an antifreeze and in hydraulic brake fluid) and acetic acid (an astringent antimicrobial agent that may drastically reduce the amount of natural vitamin K that would have otherwise been produced in the digestive tract). As reported in the PDR and as published in the IM vitamin K packet inserts for Merck, Roche and Abbott, “Studies of carcinogenicity, mutagenesis or impairment of fertility have not been conducted with Vitamin K1 Injection (Phytonadione Injection, USP).” · The Vitamin K injection can be in a base of polyethoxylated castor oil. · Vitamin K injections also contain hydrochloric acid and lecithin. Effects of Vitamin K administration · The manufacturers warn on the product insert: “Severe reactions, including fatalities, have occurred during and immediately after intravenous injection of phytonadione even when precautions have been taken to dilute the vitamin and avoid rapid infusion..” …· According to the product insert, adverse reactions include hemolysis (or hemolysis – American spelling) (meaning breakdown of red blood cells), hemolytic anemia (a disorder characterized by chronic premature destruction of red blood cells), hyperbilirubinemia (too much bilirubin in blood) and jaundice (yellow skin and eyes resulting from hyperbilirubinemia), and allergic reactions include face flushing, gastrointestinal upset, rash, redness, pain or swelling at injection site and itching skin. ...

As early as April 17, 1977, an article in one of the world’s most esteemed medical journals, the Lancet, discredited the policy of routine vitamin K injections. “We conclude that healthy babies, contrary to current beliefs, are not likely to have a vitamin K deficiency.. the administration of vitamin K is not supported by our findings..” Van Doorm et al stated in the Lancet article. VKR cited 21 peer-reviewed reports that had been published in prominent medical journals. All of them concur that policies that mandate the universal injection of newborn babies are not based on sound science. There has been much peer-reviewed evidence generated which questions the efficacy of routine vitamin K injections as sound public health policy. ·

http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/VitaminK.html

From the July 1999 Idaho Observer: National standard mandates newborn vitamin K injection

Ignorance becomes tacit consent for the questionable neonatal procedure by Don Harkins In cooperation with a “national standard,” most, if not all states have mandated that U.S. hospitals routinely administer to all newborns a synthetic, fat-soluble vitamin K injection (generic name phytonadione) that exceeds an infant’s recommended daily dietary intake of the vitamin by 100 times…

Five post partem nurses from hospitals in Idaho, Washington and Oregon stated that they “routinely administer vitamin K injections to newborns,” as if all of them were reading from the same script. According to a seasoned Sacred Heart Medical Center (Spokane, WA) Birthplace nurse named Terri, “Routine vitamin K injections are in cooperation with the federal standard.” She also said that Washington hospitals are mandated by state code to provide the injections to all newborns. Terri acknowledged that parents who wish to refuse the shot must present the refusal to the hospital in writing before the baby is born.

…Babies who have been identified as being at risk for vitamin K deficiency include those born to mothers who took drugs or antibiotics during pregnancy, premature babies and babies who are born cesarean. Mothers who had maternity diets low in high vitamin K foods or had diets that were low in fat have also been identified as being more likely to bear vitamin K deficient babies.

…Commonsensically, VKR poses the question, “…how could God (or nature) have erred so badly as to give all newborn babies only an infinitesimal fraction of their required vitamin K? Surely the human race could not have survived to this point if all newborns were born with this deficiency and none being administered at birth until very recently.”

…The body less readily utilizes synthetic vitamins and minerals. The vitamin K administered by hospitals to newborns is the synthetic phytonadione.

…The purpose of this article is to alert expectant parents that their ignorance of federally-suggested, state mandated hospital policy is enough assent to authorize health care professionals to administer what may be a lethal or damaging overdose of a synthetic substance that comes with the following warning from the manufacturers: “Severe reactions, including fatalities, have occurred during and immediately after INTRAVENOUS injection of phytonadione even when precautions have been taken to dilute the vitamin and avoid rapid infusion…” Please pass the preceeding information onto anybody you know who is expecting a baby. Afterall, we have the right to know what substances are being injected into our babies within the first hour of their lives. If we feel that a substance may be injurious to our baby, we have the right to refuse it.

 http://proliberty.com/observer//19990710.htm

Phytonadione Therapy in a Multiple-Drug Overdose: Adverse Effects of Vitamin K Severe adverse effects are associated with intravenous phytonadione, such as cardiac irregularities, chest pain, cyanosis, decreased level of consciousness, circulatory collapse, rapid weak pulse, hypotension, and cardiac or respiratory arrest.[13] It is not known if these reactions are due to the drug or the injection vehicle.[13] Earlier reactions to vitamin K were thought to be due to polyoxyethylated castor oil (cremophor).[29-32] The literature contains numerous cases of anaphylactic reactions[29, 30, 32-38] as well as fatalities[34, 35] with parenteral phytonadione. The recommended infusion rate of vitamin K is no faster than 1 mg/minute[13]; however, anaphylactic reactions have occurred with slower infusion rates[33, 37] as well as with repeated exposure to intravenous vitamin K.[30, 33, 34, 37] Dermatologic reactions were reported after intravenous, subcutaneous, and intramuscular administration of vitamin K.[39] Two distinct types of local cutaneous reactions have been described. The more common one is a pruritic, erythematous, eczematoid, indurated plaque measuring 6-20 cm around the site of injection.[39-52] The acute reaction may resolve in 2-4 weeks with treatment with high-potency corticosteroids (e.g., fluocinonide, betamethasone dipropionate). The second type appears as a scleroderma or morphea-like reaction.[53-56] The onset can be weeks to months, and the skin change may last for years.[39] Dose does not appear to bear a relationship to the onset of these reactions. Liver disease was associated with most reports of vitamin K cutaneous hypersensitivity,[39, 41] but the pathophysiology is unclear.

 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/409632_7

Anaphylactoid Reactions to Vitamin K

Louis D. Fiore1, Michael A. Scola1, Colleen E. Cantillon1 and Mary T. Brophy1 (1) Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 South Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02130

Abstract

Anaphylactoid reactions in patients receiving intravenously administered vitamin K have been reported in the literature. To summarize the known data on anaphylactoid reactions from administration of vitamin K, we reviewed all published and unpublished reports of this adverse reaction. Published reports were obtained through medline (1966–1999) and EMBASE (1971–1999) searches of the English language literature and review of references from identified case reports. Unpublished reports were obtained using the Spontaneous Reporting System Adverse Reaction database of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between August 1968 and September 1997. All adverse drug reactions to vitamin K were categorized by route of drug administration, dose and standard adverse reaction code. In the FDA reports, we defined anaphylactoid reactions as any adverse drug reaction coded as either anaphylaxis, allergic reaction, apnea, dyspnea, death, heart arrest, hypotension, shock or vasodilatation. Additionally, all fatal and life-threatening FDA reported reactions were reviewed to determine if they could represent an anaphylactoid reaction missed by the above definition. The literature review uncovered a total of 23 cases (3 fatal) of anaphylactoid reactions from intravenous vitamin K. The FDA database contained a total of 2236 adverse drug reactions reported in 1019 patients receiving vitamin K by all routes of administration. Of the 192 patients with reactions reported for intravenous vitamin K, 132 patients (69%%) had a reaction defined as anaphylactoid, with 24 fatalities (18%%) attributed to the vitamin K reaction. There were 21 patients with anaphylactoid reactions and 4 fatalities reported with doses of intravenous vitamin K of less than 5[emsp4 ]mgs. For the 217 patients with reactions reported due to vitamin K via a non-intravenous route of administration, 38 patients had reactions meeting the definition of anaphylactoid (18%%), with 1 fatality (3%%) attributed to the drug. The absolute risk of an anaphylactoid reaction to intravenous vitamin K cannot be determined by this study, but the relatively small number of documented cases despite widespread use of this drug suggest that the reaction is rare. Anaphylactic reactions and case fatality reports were found even when intravenous vitamin K was given at low doses by slow dilute infusion. The pathogenesis of this reaction is unknown and may be multifactorial with etiologies including vasodilation induced by the solubilizing vehicle or immune-mediated processes. We conclude that use of intravenous vitamin K should be limited to patients with serious hemorrhage due to a coagulopathy that is secondary to a relative or absolute deficiency of vitamin K.

 http://www.springerlink.com/content/v16l551682716431/

Neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, shares the science on how particular vaccine ingredients lead to convulsions, seizures, ADD, ADHD, autism…etc.

Vitamin K and Hepatitis B are mandated in most states to be given to newborns before they go home with mom. This has been proven to be a dangerous procedure at best. Potentially lethal.

Vitamin K

The marketed purpose of the Vitamin K injection is that newborns have very little to begin with. Vitamin K is essential for the ability of blood clotting should any injury occur. Another marketed purpose is the prevention of hemorrhagic diseases of the newborn (HDN). HDN is a bleeding disorder associated with low levels of vitamin K in newborn babies. It was first defined in 1894 by Townsend as spontaneous external or internal bleeding occurring in newborn infants. Diagnosis was based solely on the opinion of the attendant medical personnel because there was no criteria in determining the cause of hemorrhaging. Townsend did not label hemophilia as a cause of HDN. The vaccine is also marketed to be essential prior to surgery. Thus, supposedly prevents excessive bleeding. Vitamin K is naturally stored and metabolized by the liver. The cell division that rapidly continues after birth depends on precise amounts of vitamin K to proceed at the proper rate. Introduction of levels that are 20,000 times the newborn level, the amount usually injected, can have devastating consequences. Nursing naturally raises the infant’s vitamin K levels very gradually after birth so that no disregulation occurs that would encourage leukemia development. This is the way the Creator designed it to be. The clotting system of the healthy newborn is well planned, and healthy breastfed infants do not suffer bleeding complications, even without any supplementation. While nursing infants demonstrate lower blood levels of vitamin K than the “recommended” amount, they show no signs of vitamin K deficiency. This can only lead to the question of how and where the “recommended” amount was brought about….

The only known reported cases of vitamin K toxicity result from having used the synthetic inoculated form. Vitam K inoculations can cause possibly fatal allergic reactions even during injection. The risks of injecting vitamin K into a newborn baby are nerve or muscle damage because it is injected deeply into the muscle, not subcutaneously under the skin. wpe49F.jpg (16360 bytes)

On the product insert, some reactions are listed:

You may notice pain, swelling and tenderness at the injection site for a few days. Notify your doctor if you experience any of the following while taking this drug: chest pain, flushing, strange movements, rapid pulse, tightness of the chest, cramps. In the unlikely event you have an allergic reaction to this drug, seek medical attention immediately. nerve and muscle damage as the Vitamin K injection must be given deeply into the muscle. However, should a newborn experience any of these, it is incredibly difficult for them to “notify” anyone, difficult for the parents to see or understand the reason behind a newborns cries, and difficult for physicians to see these signs in infants. Majority of physicians are not educated or trained to fully examine an infant in discomfort for vaccine related symptoms. Instead, they are most likely to dismiss any vaccination link.

The following are from the vaccine product insert:

* Clinical Pharmacology: “little is known about the metabolic fate of Vitamin K”. * Contraindication: “Hypersensitivity to any component of this medication”. * Precautions: “Studies of carcinogenicity, mutagenesis, or impairment of fertility have not been conducted with phytonadione.” * Pediatric Use: “Hemolysis, jaundice, and hyperbiliruminemia in newborns, particularly in premature infants, may be related to the dose of phytonadione.” * Adverse reactions: “Deaths have occurred after intravenous administration…The possibility of allergic sensitivity should be kept in mind…Hyperbilirubinemia has been observed in the newborn following administration of phytonadione…” Newborns are not pre-screened for allergic hypersensitivity….

 http://poisonevercure.150m.com/vaccines7.htm

Update, new information. Added 2/16/2015

The rise in life-threatening food anaphylaxis in children coincided with significant changes to the pediatric injection and vaccination schedules of the affected countries: injection of the Vitamin K1 prophylaxis (containing legume oil) became routine in the mid-1980s; the novel conjugate vaccine Hib B that was soon rolled into an unprecedented 5 vaccines in one needle and delivered to babies without benefit of long term study.  The injected adjuvants and toxoids and food proteins designed to provoke the immune system also increased the risk of provoking allergy.  Allergy is an evolved defense against acute toxicity.

 http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73%3Avaccine-induced-allergies
http://www.smartvax.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73%3Avaccine-induced-allergies

 

This information was taken from Merck vaccine manufacturer, who also make this injection.

Ingredients: Phytondione 2 or 10mgs, polyoxyethylated fatty acid 70mgs (the data sheet didn’t say where the fatty acid was derived from, but one type of oral brand has bovine gall bladder fatty acid in it, so I assume similar here), dextrose, benzyl alcohol and water.

Other brands such as the one by Roche Pharmaceuticals, may have varying ingredients. Roche’s also contains hydrochloric acid.

Hospira Inc’s version contains aluminium.

Warnings: This injection should be administered subcutaneously (just under the skin) because severe reactions including fatalities have occurred immediately after intramuscular (deep muscle) and intravenous injection (via a drip). Those reactions include hypersensitivity, anaphylactic shock, and cardiac and respiratory arrest.

Benzyl Alcohol as a preservative as been associated with toxicity in newborns (Writer’s comment: why are they then using it in an injection meant for newborns?)

 

Adverse Reactions: Deaths have occurred after intramuscular and intravenous injection, ‘flushing’ sensations, dizziness, rapid and weak pulse, profuse sweating, hypotension, dyspnea, cyanosis, pain, swelling at the injection site, allergic sensitivity, scleroderma like skin lesions that persist for long periods. Hyperbilirubinemia has occurred in newborns following the administration of vitamin K injection (jaundice).

This drug has not been tested to see if it is carcinogenic (causes cancer),whether it mutates or if it impairs fertility. It is not known whether it can cause fetal harm or whether it is excreted in human milk.

 

Contraindication

 

Hypersensitivity to any of the injection’s ingredients. (Writer’s comment: how would they know, since they give it to newborns with no medical history?).

It is interesting to note that vitamin K injections are given intramuscularly even though some manufacturer’s such as Merck say this is dangerous.

Hospira’s data sheet also says this:

‘Benzyl alcohol has been reported to be associated with a fatal “Gasping Syndrome” in premature infants.

WARNING: This product contains aluminium that may be toxic. Aluminium may reach toxic levels with prolonged parenteral administration if kidney function is impaired. Premature neonates are particularly at risk because their kidneys are immature, and they required large amounts of calcium and phosphate solutions, which contain aluminium.

Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminium at greater than 4 to 5 mcg/kg/day accumulate aluminium at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates of administration.’

 

Childhood Leukaemia

 

In 1970, a study was undertaken to see what the risk factors were for childhood cancers. 16,193 babies were studied who had all been born in April 1970. 99 children developed cancer by the age of 10 in the control group and 33 children in the other group. The researchers found that when babies had received vitamin K in the first week of life, their risk of cancer increased three fold. They had not been looking at vitamin K specifically and did not expect to see such an association, so they approached Roche Pharmaceuticals, asking them to do a further trial. They initially refused, until stories about vitamin K and cancer forced them into a corner, and, determined to prove the safety of their product, they began a new study.

588 healthy children and 195 children with cancer were studied. All of these children had been born at one of two hospitals in Bristol. One hospital used oral vitamin K drops and the other used the injection. The researchers found a two fold increase in childhood Leukaemia among those who had received the injection and stated that as many as 980 cases of childhood Leukaemia were caused by the vitamin K injection every year in the UK alone.

Newer studies have been done as recently as 1998 which seem to confirm this. Two studies in the British Medical Journal in that year found that there was a two fold risk of Leukaemia among 1-6 year old’s who had been given the injection at birth, and that there was a ‘significant risk’ of all cancers after the shot.

 

An Alternative View Of Vitamin K Deficiency

 

Some medical professionals question whether newborns are actually deficient in vitamin K or whether in fact this is their normal level. Levels have been described as low due to the comparison with adult levels of the vitamin, but this doesn’t make a lot of sense, since newborns and adults are not compared in other areas. For instance, in weight and nutritional requirements. Drugs are also measured differently with lower amounts given to babies.

All babies have this universally ‘low’ level of vitamin K, so surely that would point to it being normal? Normality is based on what is seen in the majority of cases. Perhaps babies need less vitamin K than we do?

According to Archives of Disease in Childhood, 1997, a baby given a vitamin K injection receives 300 times more vitamin than is recommended for an adult and has a 9000 times higher blood plasma level. This may be why some babies then develop jaundice, as an overdose effect of the drug. Bilirubin is a natural by-product which is formed during the body’s normal break down of red blood cells. It is excreted by the liver. Jaundice happens when there is an excess of bilirubin and the liver is unable to properly cleanse the blood, i.e. liver overload. As babies receive such a huge dose of vitamin K, combined with other toxic ingredients in the shot, this liver overload isn’t surprising.

In turn, jaundice can cause kernicterus (brain damage from high bilirubin levels) and haemolysis (destruction of red blood cells), as reported in journals such as the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1996.

 

The Truth About Breast Milk

 

Breast milk undoubtedly gets a bad press in the vitamin K deficiency argument, with doctors and drug manufacturer’s both suggesting that breast milk is ‘too low’ in vitamin K. Just as with vaccines, it is another step to undermine the mother, by suggesting that she is not good enough for her baby, and in ensuring reliance on drugs from birth.

There are many other factors to consider, such as whether the baby has fed and how often he has breast fed, what his overall condition is like, whether he has been exposed to antibiotics.

 

Studies have shown that:

• Breast fed babies whose mothers ate leafy green vegetables while pregnant, did not get VKDB

• Breast fed babies whose mothers were supplemented with vitamin K tablets while pregnant did not get VKDB

• There are higher levels of vitamin K in colostrum, the baby’s first milk, so it is really important that he gets to drink colostrum as soon as possible. A study in the British Medical Journal in 1992 showed that babies who had unrestricted access to the breast immediately after birth, and who had breast fed before they were 24 hours old, did not get VKDB.

 

Protecting Your Baby From Vitamin K Deficiency Bleeding

 

To summarise:

1. Don’t take medications while pregnant. If you are epileptic and on anti-seizure medication, talk to your doctor to see if it is possible to alter your drugs. Don’t take antibiotics unless there is a life threatening emergency.

2. Don’t drink alcohol during pregnancy.

3. Eat plenty of leafy green vegetables and fresh foods.

4. Avoid junk foods, and in particular, fats and margarine. Margarine contains butylated hydroxytoluene, which is an inhibitor of vitamin K.

5. Opt for a natural birth. Drugs in childbirth can make the baby unwell or drowsy, interfere with breast feeding and increase the risk of VKDB. Say no to a forceps delivery. You don’t have to have them, even in difficulty, there are other ways to help the baby into the world.

6. Delay the cord clamping. Leave your baby attached to his cord until it has stopped pulsing, or longer.

7. Breast feed your baby immediately after he is born. If he won’t feed, keep offering. If he is ill and cannot suckle, ensure he gets breast milk through a tube soon after he is born.

8. If you have a son, DON’T circumcise him! Research has shown that circumcision can cause heavy bleeding and lead to VKDB.

9. If you are considering giving artificial vitamin K supplementation, choose an oral brand rather than the injection. It is less stressful for the baby and it hasn’t been linked to cancer. Check ingredients carefully. Some may contain animal products, phenols or aluminium.

10. Consider having a natural vitamin K supplement in pregnancy and while you are nursing your child, as this won’t have the same risk of side-effects as the ones manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Sources used for this article:

Information on VKDB came from source 1.

1. Joint statement and recommendations on

Vitamin K administration to newborn infants to prevent vitamin K deficiency bleeding in infancy.

National Health and Medical Research Council

Paediatric Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners

Australian College of Midwives Inc

 

2. Merck and Co. Manufacturers data sheet for Aquamephyton vitamin K injection, dated February 2002. http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/SAFETY/2003/03Jun_PI/AquaMEPHYTON_PI.pdf

3. Hospira Inc manufacturer’s information http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?id=1448

4. Roche Phrmaceutical’s Manufacturer’s data sheet, dated July 2006. http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcmed.nsf/pages/rockonmm/$File/rockonmm.pdf

5. Golding J, Paterson M and Kinlen L. Factors associated with childhood cancer in a national cohort study. Brit. J Cancer 1990;62:304-8.

6. Greenwood R. Vitamin K and childhood cancer. MIDIRS 1994;4(3):258-9.

7. Greer F, Marshall S, Cherry J and Suttie J. Vitamin K status of lactating mothers, human milk, and breast-feeding infants. Pediatrics 1991;88(4);751-6.

8. British Medical Journal, 316:189-193, Jan 17, 1998

9. Passmore S, Draper G, Brownbill P, Kroll M. Ecological studies of relation between hospital policies on neonatal vitamin K administration and subsequent occurrence of childhood cancer. BMJ 1998;316:184-9

10. Meyer T and Angus J. The effect of large doses of Synkavit in the newborn. Arch Dis Child 1956;31:212-5 in, Ruby, C. Vitamin K: a historical perspective. MIDIRS 1997;7(3):362-4.

11. New Ethicals Compendium; 3c: 303-304.

12. Hall M. and Pairaudeau P. The routine use of vitamin K in the newborn. Midwifery 1987;3(4):170-7

13. O’Connor M. and Addiego J. Use of oral vitamin K1 to prevent hemorrhagic disease of the newborn infant. J Pediatr 1986;108:616-9.

14. Hathaway W. New insights on Vitamin K. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 1987;1(3):367-379.

15. Golding J, Greenwood R, Birmingham K. et al. Childhood cancer, intramuscular vitamin K and pethidine given during labour. BMJ 1992;305 (6849):341-6.

16. Henderson-Smart, D. Giving vitamin K to newborn infants: a therapeutic dilemma. MJA 1996;165:414-5.

 

Written by Joanna Karpasea-Jones.


Diet soda= formaldehyde,rat poison see why

FDA Lists 92 Symptoms from Nutrasweet (Aspartame)
(including Death!)photo by ginatyler

Please Note: Nutrasweet is in Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi

Update: Aspartame – NutraSweet – Is now called AminoSweet

Article courtesy of: Mark Gold mgold@tiac.net
(researcher for twenty years on such subjects)
This article originally appeared on http://www.dorway.com

Note: This information required a Freedom Of Information Act request to pry it from the reluctant hands of the FDA.

Nutrasweet (brand name for Aspartame) was not approved until 1981, in dry foods. For over eight years the FDA refused to approve it because of the seizures and brain tumors this drug produced in lab animals. The FDA continued to refuse to approve it until President Reagan took office (a friend of Searle) and fired the FDA Commissioner who wouldn’t approve it. Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes was appointed as commissioner. Even then there was so much opposition to approval that a Board of Inquiry was set up. The Board said: “Do not approve aspartame”. Dr. Hayes OVERRULED his own Board of Inquiry.

Shortly after Commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., approved the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages, he left for a position with G.D. Searle’s Public Relations firm.

Long-Term Damage. It appears to cause slow, silent damage in those unfortunate enough to not have immediate reactions and a reason to avoid it. It may take one year, five years, 10 years, or 40 years, but it seems to cause some reversible and some irreversible changes in health over long-term use.

METHANOL (AKA WOOD ALCOHOL/POISON) (10% OF ASPARTAME) Methanol/wood alcohol is a deadly poison. People may recall that methanol was the poison that has caused some “skid row” alcoholics to end up blind or dead. Methanol is gradually released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounter the enzyme chymotrypsin.

The absorption of methanol into the body is sped up considerably when free methanol is ingested. Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). This would occur when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is heated (e.g., as part of a “food” product such as Jello).

Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. An EPA assessment of methanol states 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.” The recommend a limit of consumption of 7.8 mg/day. A one-liter (approx. 1 quart) aspartame-sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol. Heavy users of aspartame-containing products consume as much as 250 mg of methanol daily or 32 times the EPA limit.

The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication, and causes birth defects. Due to the lack of a couple of key enzymes, humans are many times more sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol than animals. Therefore, tests of aspartame or methanol on animals do not accurately reflect the danger for humans. As pointed out by Dr Woodrow C. Monte, Director of the Food Science and Nutrition Laboratory at Arizona State University, “There are no human or mammalian studies to evaluate the possible mutagenic, teratogenic, or carcinogenic effects of chronic administration of methyl alcohol.”

It has been pointed out that fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol. It is important to remember, that the methanol in natural products never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an antidote for methanol toxicity in humans.

The troops of Desert Storm were “treated” to large amounts of aspartame-sweetened beverages which had been heated to over 86 degrees F. in the Saudi Arabian sun. Many of them returned home with numerous disorders similar to what has been seen in persons who have been chemically poisoned by formaldehyde. The free methanol in the beverages may have been a contributing factor in these illnesses. Other breakdown products ofaspartame such as DKP, may also have been a factor.

In a 1993 act that can only be described as “unconscionable”, the FDA approved aspartame as an ingredient in numerous food items that would always be heated to above 86°degrees F (30°Degrees C).

Much worse, on 27 June 1996, without public notice, the FDA removed all restrictions from aspartame allowing it to be used in everything, including all heated and baked goods.

The truth about aspartame’s toxicity is far different than what the NutraSweet Company would have you readers believe. In February of 1994, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released the listing of adverse reactions reported to the FDA (DHHS 1994). Aspartame accounted for more than 75% of all adverse reactions reported to the FDA’s Adverse Reaction Monitoring System (ARMS). By the FDA’s own admission fewer then ONE PERCENT of those who have problems with something they consume ever report it to the FDA. This balloons the almost 10,000 complaints they once had to around a million.

However, the FDA has a record keeping problem (they never did respond to the certified letter from the WEBMASTER of this site a major victim!) and they tend to discourage or even misdirect complaints, at least on aspartame. The fact remains, though, that MOST victims don’t have a clue that aspartame may be the cause of their many problems! Many reactions to aspartame were very serious including seizures and death.

Those reactions included:

Abdominal Pain
Anxiety attacks
arthritis
asthma
Asthmatic Reactions
Bloating, Edema (Fluid Retention)
Blood Sugar Control Problems (Hypoglycemia or Hyperglycemia)
Brain Cancer (Pre-approval studies in animals)
Breathing difficulties
burning eyes or throat
Burning Urination
can’t think straight
Chest Pains
chronic cough
Chronic Fatigue
Confusion
Death
Depression
Diarrhea
Dizziness
Excessive Thirst or Hunger
fatigue
feel unreal
flushing of face
Hair Loss (Baldness) or Thinning of Hair
Headaches/Migraines dizziness
Hearing Loss
Heart palpitations
Hives (Urticaria)
Hypertension (High Blood Pressure)
Impotency and Sexual Problems
inability to concentrate
Infection Susceptibility
Insomnia
Irritability
Itching
Joint Pains
laryngitis
“like thinking in a fog”
Marked Personality Changes
Memory loss
Menstrual Problems or Changes
Migraines and Severe Headaches (Trigger or Cause From Chronic Intake)
Muscle spasms
Nausea or Vomiting
Numbness or Tingling of Extremities
Other Allergic-Like Reactions
Panic Attacks
Phobias
poor memory
Rapid Heart Beat
Rashes
Seizures and Convulsions
Slurring of Speech
Swallowing Pain
Tachycardia
Tremors
Tinnitus
Vertigo
Vision Loss
Weight gain
Aspartame Disease Mimics Symptoms or Worsens the Following Diseases

Alzheimer’s Disease
Arthritis
Birth Defects
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Diabetes and Diabetic Complications
Epilepsy
Fibromyalgia
Lupus
Lyme Disease
Lymphoma
Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS)
Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Parkinson’s Disease
How it happens:

Methanol, from aspartame, is released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounters the enzyme chymotrypsin (Stegink 1984, page 143). Free methanol begins to form in liquid aspartame-containing products at temperatures above 86 degrees F. also within the human body.

The methanol is then converted to formaldehyde. The formaldehyde converts to formic acid – ant sting poison. Toxic formic acid is used as an activator to strip epoxy and urethane coatings. Imagine what it does to your tissues! (Note from Stephanie Relfe – Even the Australian Cancer Council says that there are NO safe levels of formaldehyde).

Phenylalanine and aspartic acid, 90% of aspartame, are amino acids normally used in synthesis of protoplasm when supplied by the foods we eat. But when unaccompanied by other amino acids we use [there are 20], they are neurotoxic.

That is why a warning for Phenylketonurics is found on EQUAL and other aspartame products. Phenylketenurics are 2% of the population with extreme sensitivity to this chemical unless it’s present in food. It gets you too, causing brain disorders and birth defects! Finally, the phenyalanine breaks down into DKP, a brain tumor agent.

In other words: Aspartame converts to dangerous by-products that have no natural countermeasures. A dieter’s empty stomach accelerates these conversions and amplifies the damage. Components of aspartame go straight to the brain, damage that causes headaches, mental confusion, seizures and faulty balance. Lab rats and other test animals died of brain tumors.

Despite the claims of Monsanto and bedfellows:

1. Methanol from alcohol and juices does not get converted to formaldehyde to any significant extent. There is very strong evidence to confirm this fact for alcoholic beverages and fairly strong evidence for juices.

2. Formaldehyde obtained from methanol is very toxic in *very small* doses as seen by recent research.

3. Aspartame causes chronic toxicity reactions/damage due to the methanol to formaldehyde and other break down products despite what is claimed otherwise by the very short, industry-funded experiments using a test substance that is chemically different and absorbed differently than what is available to the general public. “Strangely enough”, almost all independent studies show that aspartame can cause health problems.

4. A common ploy from Monsanto is to claim that aspartame is “safe” yet a few select people may have “allergic” reactions to it. This is typical Monsanto nonsense, of course. Their own research shows that it does not cause “allergic” reactions. It is there way of trying to minimize and hide the huge numbers of toxicity reactions and damage that people are experiencing from the long-term use of aspartame.

Summary

Given the following points, it is definitely premature for researchers to discount the role of methanol in aspartame side effects:

1. The amount of methanol ingested from aspartame is unprecedented in human history. Methanol from fruit juice ingestion does not even approach the quantity of methanol ingested from aspartame, especially in persons who ingest one to three liters (or more) of diet beverages every day. Unlike methanol from aspartame, methanol from natural products is probably not absorbed or converted to its toxic metabolites in significant amounts as discussed earlier.

2. Lack of laboratory-detectable changes in plasma formic acid and formaldehyde levels do not preclude damage being caused by these toxic metabolites. Laboratory-detectable changes in formate levels are often not found in short exposures to methanol.

3. Aspartame-containing products often provide little or no nutrients which may protect against chronic methanol poisoning and are often consumed in between meals. Persons who ingest aspartame-containing products are often dieting and more likely to have nutritional deficiencies than persons who take the time to make fresh juices.

4. Persons with certain health conditions or on certain drugs may be much more susceptible to chronic methanol poisoning.

5. Chronic diseases and side effects from slow poisons often build silently over a long period of time. Many chronic diseases which seem to appear suddenly have actually been building in the body over many years.

6. An increasing body of research is showing that many people are highly sensitive to low doses of formaldehyde in the environment. Environmental exposure to formaldehyde and ingestion of methanol (which converts to formaldehyde) from aspartame likely has a cumulative deleterious effect.

7. Formic acid has been shown to slowly accumulate in various parts of the body. Formic acid has been shown to inhibit oxygen metabolism.

8. The are a very large and growing number of persons are experiencing chronic health problems similar to the side effects of chronic methanol poisoning when ingesting aspartame-containing products for a significant length of time. This includes many cases of eye damage similar to the type of eye damage seen in methanol poisoning cases.

Note: It often takes at least sixty days without any aspartame NutraSweet to see a significant improvement. (Note from Stephanie Relfe: Drink plenty of good water. Preferably water filtered by reverse osmosis. If not that, spring water. Not tap, distilled or mineral water).

Check all labels very carefully (including vitamins and pharmaceuticals). Look for the word “aspartame” on the label and avoid it. (Also, it is a good idea to avoid “acesulfame-k” or “sunette.”) Finally, avoid getting nutrition information from junk food industry PR organizations such as IFIC or organizations that accept large sums of money from the junk and chemical food industry such as the American Dietetic Association.

If you are a user of any products with aspartame, and you have physical, visual, mental problems take the 60-day no aspartame test. If, after two months with no aspartame your symptoms are either gone, or are much less severe, please get involved to get this neurotoxin off the market. Write a letter to the FDA, with a copy to Betty Martini (for proof of how the FDA doesn’t keep proper records). Write your congressmen. Return products containing aspartame to the point of purchase… for a FULL refund. Make a big stink if they WON’T give you a full refund! Tell all your friends and family… and if they stop using aspartame and also “wake up well”… get them involved in the same way.

Aspartame is an “approved sweetener” because of a few greedy and dishonest people who place profits above human life and well-being. With the FDA and our Congress culpable, only an INFORMED and ACTIVE public will affects its reclassification from “food additive” to TOXIC DRUG, and removed from the human food chain.

From Stephane Relfe: Note that Michael J. Fox, who was spokesperson for Pepsi, has an old man’s disease (Parkinson’s Disease) at only 30 years old!

Also Note: Aspartame has one use that I know of – it makes an EXCELLENT ant poison. Put a few tablespoons on a nest of fire ants and see how long before they disappear.

Please visit the Home Page for Latest News

For more information:

See What Ants Do to Aspartame!

My wife is not sick anymore – She gave up Aspartame

http://www.aspartamekills.com

List of Foods Containing Aspartame

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

http://www.heall.com/body/askthedoctor/nutrition/artificialsweeteners.html

Addresses:

Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, Maryland 20857

Mrs. Betty Martini
Mission Possible International
9270 State Bridge Road Suite 215
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Internet E-mail: bettym19@mindspring.com

NOW… that you are aware of the 92 FDA recognized symptoms (that required a Freedom Of Information Act request to pry from their reluctant hands) and HOW aspartame does its dirty work, change to Dorway’s Official Dogma page.

http://www.dorway.com/offasprt.html

On this page Mark Gold has taken the IFIC “Official” aspartame safety myth and


%d bloggers like this: