Roberts talks about the role of the pancreas, the chemical aspartame, and how sweeteners containing aspartame affect the pancreas, in support of the Senate Concurrent Resolution 191, by Senator Suzanne Chun Oakland, asking FDA Commissioner to Rescind Approval for Aspartame, and this Resolution remains stalled in the Senate Health Committee, with hearing yet to be scheduled.
Q. What is the role of the pancreas? A. The pancreas is a vital organ with several major functions. It has a digestive function by virtue of making the pancreatic enzymes that digest the food and an important endocrine function by virtue of having the islets that secrete insulin and other hormones.
Q. What are some of these hormones? A. In addition to insulin, there is glucagon, along with several others.
Q. What is aspartame? A. Aspartame is a chemical that originally was conceived as a treatment for peptic ulcer. The molecule closely simulates the hormone gastrin, which is involved with hydrochloric acid secretion. Aspartame consists of three components-phenylalanine and aspartic acid (both amino acids) and a methyl ester, which becomes free methyl alcohol when it enters the stomach. The combination is approximately 50 percent phenylalanine, 40 percent aspartic acid, and 10 percent methyl alcohol. Around 1965, this chemical was found to taste sweet. It was therefore submitted as a sweetening supplement and the drug application with-drawn.
Q. Was aspartame ineffective as a drug? A. It was never really marketed as a drug for a peptic ulcer, although that was the original intent.
Q. Are artificial sweeteners that contain aspartame safe? A. A number of artificial sweeteners, including saccharin, have been around for a long time. In my opinion, aspartame has many hazards. Saccharin is essentially safe. The sweetener called stevia, which is increasingly being used, comes from a shrub found in Paraguay, South America. It tastes very sweet. In my experience, it is also safe. I have reservations about the other sweeteners, such as acesulfame-K (e.g., Sunette, Sweet One(R)), sucralose (Splenda(R) No Calorie Sweetener), and the cyclamates. Then there are the analogues of aspartame, such as the high-intensity product Neotame(R). For example, acesulfame-K induces chromosomal aberrations; sucralose is associated with several effects in animals, is weakly mutagenic, and increases the glycosylated hemoglobin in diabetic patients. The cyclamates were initially withdrawn in the U.S. because of concern about bladder tumors. The National Academy of Science has subsequently concluded that cyclamates were not carcinogenic in humans. However, there is a great deal of concern in Europe about their wide-spread use, especially in children. As for Neotame(R) and other analogues of aspartame, they pose problems similar to those of aspartame. Again, stevia and saccharin appear to be safe.
Q. How do sweeteners affect the pancreas? A. They can have direct and indirect effects. One result, of course, is the secretion of insulin. When humans take something that is sweet, the body infers that sugar is being ingested. In anticipation of its arrival, pancreas reflexively releases insulin. This is one way in which aspartame affects the pancreas. It can also cause considerable stimulation of the exocrine part of the pancreas that involves the pancreatic juices. This may even produce pancreatitis-inflammation of the pancreas-which in the process might disturb the islet cells.
There is an enormous reserve of pancreatic juices. At least 60 percent or more of the pancreas would have to be destroyed before interfering with pancreatic function would occur. One way to stimulate the pancreas to produce its secretions is to give amino acids, including phenylalanine, with or without another amino acid.
In my experience, aspartame products have produced clinical pancreatitis. To my knowledge, neither the long-term effects to the secretory pancreas nor the relationship to the subsequent overstimulation of the pancreas, in terms of tumors, has been studied.
Q. If the safety of aspartame has been questioned, why has no one been able to prove the dangers? A. To me, it is quite clear that aspartame products can cause severe illness. Indeed, I feel that this product should not have been approved for human consumption, as it was in 1981. The sweetener was released over the violent objections of in-house FDA [Food and Drug Administration] scientists, consultants for the General Accounting Office, and even a public board of inquiry in 1980-all of whom were emphatic that it should not be released, especially in light of the high incidence of brain tumors in animals.
I have repeatedly listed and detailed the many complications and side effects of aspartame products. My recent book, Aspartame Disease, has more than 1000 pages of what I consider direct complications of the use of these products.
In regard to those who say this is not so, it seems to be a phenomenon of denial on the part of the FDA. This is a multibillion-dollar industry that has proponents for self-serving economic interests who maintain that all reservations are nonsense. There is an overwhelming input of complaints indicating that this is a frequent and severe disorder, which I call "aspartame disease." Now the problem with many of these studies they refer to is that protocols were flawed in terms of how the product was prepared and administered and how subjects were followed. It has been very difficult to detail these objections about published studies asserting that aspartame is safe for various reasons, including the power of this industry.
In my opinion, those "negative studies" all require confirmation by corporate-neutral investigators using real-world products taken from market shelves that have been exposed to excessive temperatures or prolonged storage. Indeed, that is currently the subject of considerable interest by the European Parliament as to whether aspartame should be considered unsafe.
Q. What do you think will come about from that? A. Ultimately, I think there will be no question-with the anecdotal information that has already been accrued-that aspartame products are found unsafe for many individuals. These products are being consumed by more than two thirds of the population. This is a very large number in terms of the many neurologic and neuropsychiatric problems, the allergic problems, the effects on patients with diabetes and hypoglycemia, and the long-term effects in pregnancy and infants... along with numerous other problems, including the issue of brain tumors in humans.
Q. Should diabetic patients, in particular, be concerned about aspartame? A. Yes. I believe that aspartame can aggravate diabetes and its complications, especially eye problems and neuropathy, or it can simulate the complications of diabetes. In other words, aspartame disease can simulate diabetic retinopathy or peripheral neuropathy. When patients discontinue these products, they usually get better. In terms of aggravating diabetes, consuming aspartame either can bring out latent diabetes clinically or can lead to insulin resistance, which would require patients to take oral drugs to increase the amount of insulin required. The bottom line is that when people stop ingesting these products, the symptoms usually improve.
Q. Have there been cases in which people did not improve after discontinuing aspartame? A. There are certain criteria for diagnosing aspartame disease...similar to the Koch postulates for infection:
* Patients either took or increased the amount of aspartame products, such as drinking more presweetened iced tea in hot weather.
* Patients then experienced symptoms and realized that they might be related to aspartame.
* When the aspartame products were discontinued, these features either totally subsided or improved in a relatively short period of time.
* Finally, patients re-challenged themselves, either knowingly (saying it was just a coincidence) or inadvertently (with a prompt return of symptoms).
This sequence would happen five, ten, or twenty times, and the patients realized a cause-and-effect relationship. These criteria hold true for many of the disorders related to aspartame. In most instances, there would be marked improvement. If there were severe ocular or other damage, especially in the nervous system, much of the harm might have already been done.
Q. How does aspartame affect the pancreas in diabetic patients? A. There can be several outcomes. First, patients might be making too much insulin and can have severe hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) attacks. Aspartame can release almost as much insulin as glucose. It has been known for many years that oral and intravenous phenylalanine and other amino acids cause marked elevation of insulin. In my books, I go into this in great detail. On the one hand, we are talking about the stimulation of more insulin and hypoglycemia. Further study is needed to determine whether, over the long term, this will overstimulate the islets that make insulin. The other aspect is the diabetogenic state and loss of diabetic control through various mechanisms that include the wasting of insulin, the impairment of glucose transport, the increase of the growth hormone and glucagon, and perhaps blocking insulin receptors.
Inform, Yes, but Do Not Make Choice for Individuals
Dr Roberts was doing just fine in his informational article until he gave his answer to the question , "Q. What can be done to protect the pancreas from aspartame?" Instead of simply replying, "Don't use it or at least only occasionally and sparingly", he wrote: "I think that aspartame products should be taken off the market because of my belief this artificial sweetener is an imminent public health hazard. I have stated this recommendation to Congress and have mentioned it in many articles and texts."
Roberts shows his paternalism by wanting to make decisions for people, not simply providing them with information which they then use in deciding how to live their lives - including how to sweeten those foods/drinks they choose to have at some level of sweetness. Of course he won't himself remove the items from store shelves, but he lends his government-granted credentials to the government agencies and their enforcers to the prohibition of sales of particular sweeteners that he concludes are "an imminent public health hazard".
Now in this day and age of so many expecting that government plans will create mechanisms by which everyone will have their health protected (100% safe products) or corrected (state or national health insurance), it is not surprising to read statements like Robert's above in a supposedly purely technical article about a laboratory created sweetener (or anything else potentially affecting a person's body). Self-responsibility for one's own health is given little if any attention in both mainstream and "progressive" media. However, the more governments, like poor parents, do for the citizens of a locale, the less those individuals will do for themselves and their offspring. And self-responsibility as well as initiative are consequently literally bred out of much of the population - there is increasingly less stimulus to be self-responsible or have initiative and actually far more to be the opposite. But the resulting obedient and dependent population is increasingly manipulatable by government - politicians, bureaucrats and their enforcers. This easily allows for an ever bigger and ever more intrusive government, both within and outside its borders..........
BTW, I do not use any man-made sweeteners nor do I add glucose or fructose to anything I eat or drink, except that which is contained in the fruits themselves that are part of a recipe. For example the cranberry sauce I and husband Paul Wakfer eat with poultry (when we eat it, since we only consume meat twice weekly) is made only with cranberries and raisins.
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness, individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
by
Kitty Antonik Wakfer (10 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 60 comments)
on Sunday, March 30, 2008 at 10:31:58 PM
Actually, this stuff is so toxic that it is not a matter of "personal preference."
If it were an arsenic lollipop in your child's mouth who was about to consume it, would you stop your intercession?
Dr. Roberts is one of the two top physicians in the world on this subject; the other is Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D., author of the book, Excitotoxins: the Taste that Kills. Read a synopsis of it on line, to educate yourself and others.
Diabetics are the last people who should be ingesting aspartame/methanol/formaldehyde/diketopiperazine (the last is a proven cause of brain tumors and results when diet sodas are left out in the sun, or when Equal is put into hot coffee). Yet, diabetics are always recommended to take these products by stupid doctors who also have bought the corporate line that these poisons are somehow "safe," according to 200 industry paid for studies.
by
Stephen Fox (38 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 45 comments)
on Monday, March 31, 2008 at 10:23:41 AM
Properly, Individual Informed Choice NOT Govt Prohibition
Roberts supplied no references in his interview nor was any list provided by Stephen Fox supporting statements that "In my opinion, aspartame has many hazards." And also: "To me, it is quite clear that aspartame products can cause severe illness." Lack of such substantiation renders this interview merely opinion, though maybe his articles and/or books present actual facts with citations.
The article reprinted is about aspartame danger claims. Using aspartame (or even arsenic) for one's self and dependents is properly one's own choice, no one else's. In conjunction with this is that each individual is properly the responsible party for hir own health and that of hir dependents. If individual self-responsibility were actually upheld by governments, rather than the paternalism so rampant, there would soon be far better levels of individual health at far less average expenditure. Prevention of disorder would become the norm, rather than treatment after the fact, the current common practice.
There is a very true maxim, "the dose makes the poison". Those who are ingesting very large amounts of aspartame on a regular basis may be introducing additional risk factors into their lives for health damage (but this is not at all proven). They likely are reducing other health risks, if by eliminating large amounts of previously ingested glucose, sucrose and/or fructose they have reduced their body weight to a BMI in the low 20s. There is considerable evidence that the most common causes of disability and death - cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and many cancers - are associated with being overweight. (Once again, I do not use artificial and contend that weight reduction can be done without them. In Jan 2000 I had a BMI of 23.4, by January 2002 it was 19.2 and has been not been above 19.0 since then. All that I do to maintain my excellent state of help is public.)
Most important and what appears to be totally lost here - and with all who want to make decisions for others who are not their own children or dependents - is that determination of risk vs benefit can only properly be a personal decision. Only the person hirself has the intimate knowledge of hirself and what will optimize hir lifetime happiness (the goal of each individual's life, whether or not fully recognized). Physicians and researchers can - and properly should - inform, and do so making all the known evidence clear. And with the abundance of information easily available, any person in the industrialized world can make an informed decision - if s/he wants and is allowed to. But the making of the decision to consume/use some item properly must always be that of the person hirself. It is those who want to control the lives of others who encourage the creation of government laws/regulations and their enforcement by those who would do harm - by not letting individuals make their own decisions and be responsible for the consequences.
Two fairly recent review papers regarding aspartame worth reading as part of being fully informed on the subject, listed in PubMed:
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness, individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
by
Kitty Antonik Wakfer (10 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 60 comments)
on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 1:20:13 AM
Oh noooo .....that would be bad for business. Keep Americans dumb, goes the Profit Motive!
Just like Americans STILL have no clue how bad the food you cook in your micro-wave is for you, even though studies back from the 80's indicate that microwaves not only ALTER your food at a molecular level, they create CARCINOGENS that actually change your blood chemistry! The first scientist discovering this, who worked for the Swiss appliance industry, was immediately FIRED and his research hidden, but a German scientist followed up on it and found it was not only true, but worse, as did a Russian group. The findings were so bad that the Russians actually BANNED micro-wave ovens in Russia! (say what you will about their system, but they obviously care more about the well-being of their citizens than our government does!)
,,,and they wonder why there are so many early-onset chronic diseases these days? There are kids who have grown up on nothing BUT micro-waved food!
But..God forbid that the Truth cut into any big corporations' profits!
That's Un-Amurkan!
Same stuff is now going on with the Toxic toys issue in states like my own Maine. ( I can introduce you a real Neanderthal from my home town; you'd probably get on famously!)
by
Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 170 comments)
on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 9:49:08 AM
As a general rule, I don't think it is safe to assume the accuracy of honesty of any government decision made since 1980.
They simply can't be trusted to put the interest of the people above those of their corporate bosses.
The sad thing is that Americans WANT to believe that they can have sweet or fattening things and not suffer the consequences. They believe they should be able to ingest as much of whatever they want, sit around for 6 hours at night after sitting around 8 hours at work each day, never walk, never do any workout, and take a pill that will keep them thin and healthy.
Eat a vegetable for a snack? Are you kidding, when there are cheetos and Diet Coke available? Hey, isn't it time for AMERICAN IDOL or DANCING WITH THE STARS? Bring that bowl of potato chips over here, and get me another beer.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 586 comments)
on Monday, March 31, 2008 at 6:08:20 PM
You have a great sense of humor, and an even keener sense of the Reagan Years.
To me, the most horrifying thing is who they got to be FDA Commissioner: Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes, who had been out in Maryland as I recall at could it be Ft. Detrick, doing mind control experiments on US Military in brigs, against their wills, and since this is the only guy would Rumsfeld could find who would agree in advance, in my hypothesis, to approve aspartame.
[Horrifying that such a person would be put in charge of the United States Food and Drug Administration! This typifies the Reagan Years at their WORST! and this is why people should be writing to Obama, Clinton, and McCain, asking who THEY would appoint to the FDA Commissioner job, a real consumer protectionist, or another corporate-serving hack....]
This is what Rumsfeld meant by his often-quoted comment saying he would "call in his markers" to get it approved. There is a lot more information in the googleable article, "Rumsfeld's Bioweapon Legacy."
One of the best sources, btw, of articles corroborating all of this mayhem, was the Chicago Tribune, since Rummy had been a Congressman from the Chicago suburbs, and so was G.D. Searle, the pharmaceutical company, based in the Chicago area. Many of these article are posted at:
<MISSION POSSIBLE INTERNATIONAL>
by
Stephen Fox (38 articles, 1 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 45 comments)
on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 at 10:10:24 AM
One of the main reasons there are so many FAT people and diabetics these days..Unlike plain fructose, HGH is a totally UN-natural sweetener that the body cannot properly metabolize, and since it also does not satiate the sweet tooth, either, more and more is consumed.
Go read those labels, if you don't already: it's in just about EVERYTHING, from sodas and juices (even the ones claining to be healthy, like the V-8 juice mixes) to catsup and canned tomato soup!
Why? Only ONE reason: it's much CHEAPER than real sugar.
I rest my case.
by
Bia Winter (1 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 170 comments)
on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 9:58:05 AM
Logical Schools in British Columbia/Dr. Roberts on Diabetics
British Columbia now bans "any drinks with artificial sweeteners" in school vending machines, stores, or cafeterias
from Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun
Elementary schools say they're ready for new rules prohibiting junk-food sales to students. The campaign starts in elementary schools and moves into middle schools and high schools in September. Some foods will have to be dropped altogether while others will have to be modified, which could make them less appealing. The province has distributed rules indicating which foods are no longer allowed to be sold in schools through vending machines, stores, or cafeterias. The rules divide foods into two categories -- those that are considered healthy and may be sold in schools and those that are considered generally unhealthy and are off-limits. The latter category includes highly processed foods and those with large amounts of sweetener, salt, fat and calories relative to their nutritional value. In some cases, the ban is clear: schools are not to sell crackers, muffins, cakes, cookies, doughnuts, pastries, croissants, sugary cereals, popcorn, chips, cream cheese, fries, candy, chocolate, pop, coffee and any drinks with artificial sweeteners. In other cases, the ban depends on the ingredients. For example, it includes many -- but not all -- fruit juices, tomato and vegetable juices, pasta salads, stir-fries, sandwiches with deli or processed meats, sausage or vegetable rolls, tuna salads, wieners and sausages, meat pies and pizzas.
Geoff Burns, vice-principal at a Nelson school that was one of the first to experiment with B.C.'s new rules, said one of the biggest challenges was deciphering labels to determine which foods were in the "unhealthy" category but could still be okay given that they contained unusually low amounts of salt, sugar or fat. The discussion about ending junk-food sales in Canadian schools began almost 10 years ago, but there was little action until recently when Ontario and Quebec joined B.C. in legislating bans. Alberta is leaving decisions on junk-food sales to individual schools. The B.C. government first promised to stop junk-food sales in October 2004 but delayed implementation until 2009, saying it wanted to give schools a chance to adjust and fulfil contractual obligations with suppliers. Recently, however, Education Minister Shirley Bond moved the deadline forward by a year, noting that one of every four children in the province is overweight. She announced plans to require students to engage in 30 minutes of daily physical activity. Many schools worried a junk-food ban would result in a loss of revenue, especially in large high schools where vending machines dispensing pop, candy and chips can bring in $30,000 a year or more. Burns said the change won't necessarily mean less money. In his school, vending machine revenue rose after healthy products were introduced.
Asked about the students' reaction to the change, he said: "I have heard no complaints whatsoever. The kids get it. They understand that selling candy at lunch is probably not the best thing for them." jsteffenhagen@png.canwest.com
_________________________________________________ They are terribly quiet and stupid about all of this in almost all USA Schools, as if that speaking up would somehow violate that cardinal rule for obsequiousness, a trait desired in American Educators..... I am told that only Connecticut has banned aspartame in their schools entirely. We certainly failed to do so in New Mexico, but we may still yet prevail in Hawaii, where the strongest statement ever presented to any legislative body anywhere in the world is the SCR 191, described below, but sadly, it remains to be scheduled in the Senate Health Committee, who mused to the Senate Sponsor: "How do I know this isn't all fake?"(He drinks diet sodas himself, so he must be naturally really skeptical, right?)
