>From: rsweeney at icon-stl.net (Robert M Sweeney)
>Subject: Re: THEY KNEW THE GUN WAS LOADED! NUTRASWEET
>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 17:54:59 -0500
>>This long dissertation on the dangers of nutrasweet is interesting buy
>also overstated. I do not quite understand how this drug can cause all the
>sympoms you say it can, and yet has never affected a single person I know.
I get letters from people stating that "everybody" they know has been
adversely affected by aspartame. There's bound to be some people who
have not seen people suffering *obvious* side effects. I've never
met anyone who has suffered from lung cancer from cigarettes, so I
guess that's not a problem. :-)
Aspartame can cause a wide variety of symptoms because it can affect
brain chemistry. I believe it can also affect peripheral glutamate
receptors that are not in the brain. The methanol/formaldehyde can
causes changes in immune system response (especially when the
aspartame formaldehyde load is added to the significant exposure that
already occurs for many people).
>I would have to assume that when you mention these effects you are talking
>about people with metabolic difficulties dealing with aspartame or some
>allergy to it. There are nearly allways some people out there who suffer
>negative effects from any drug -- and quite a few natural foods as well.
It is nearly impossible to be allergic to aspartame according to
NutraSweet theories. I agree that reactions and long-term damage
from aspartame is probably not due to allergic reactions. If there
were an allergic reaction, it would have to be due to the
beta-aspartame or an impurity. More likely, these are toxicity
reactions and/or changes in brain chemistry over time.
>Note: sugar can kill diabetics. Yet is sugar considered a toxic substance?
>Should I stop eating it because some people (and no doubt a more
>significantly sized population than your nutrasweet sufferers) can be
>blinded, crippled, or killed by it? Alcohol is even worse....
I'm more concerned with the long-term damage from aspartame. I
believe that the people who have acute reactions to the drug and get
off of it are much better off than the people who stay on it out of
the misguided belief that no short-term reactions means it's not
Your argument could be used as reasoning for dosing the whole
population with a slow poison that initially affects only a subset
of people, as most poisons do at low doses. Alcohol *when abused* is
dangerous -- probably more dangerous than exposure to dioxin,
formaldehyde, mercury, etc. However, I don't think it's a good idea
to abuse alcohol, nor do I think it's a good idea to expose people
to chemical toxins in signicant doses from the environment or from
mgold at tiac.nethttp://www.tiac.net/users/mgold/health.html
(Web articles on Food & Nutrition, Yoga, aspartame/NutraPoison,
sweetener resources, stevia, toxic carpeting, rBGH, fluoride, MSG
detoxification, mental health resources. Much more to come.
Lots of links to medical and holistic healing sites.
Will email articles if you do not have WWW access.