California Proposition 65 - Aspartame, Cancer, methanol, formaldehyde, etc. (and your info below)

[Guest guest]

Dear Cynthia,

 

I not only sent you the letter by email and then posted it to our web

site later, but also sent it by two day priority with lots of reports

and records enclosed. In fact, Dr. Ken Stoller said he referred to

it when he wrote. He also filed a Citizens Petition for ban of

aspartame with the FDA which hasn't been answered. The law is it must

be answered in 180 days but the FDA operates above the law. Mine was

petitioned over 7 years ago. They find it hard to answer a petition

to ban when you're using their own words about how dangerous it is,

and how the FDA Board of Inquiry revoked the petition for approval,

until Don Rumsfeld used political chicanery to get it on the market.

 

What can be done now? There is no medium to aspartame - its high

priority, a deadly chemical poison. It has caused a global plague,

and the last two Ramazzini Studies peer reviewed by 7 world experts

show not only is aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen but even in

small amounts and can be passed on to the offspring of a pregnant

woman if the baby survives. Aspartame is an abortifacient and

teratogen causing birth defects and mental retardation. Remember

from my letter, URL below, that even the FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian

Gross, told Congress that aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment

which forbids adding anything that causes cancer, and that the FDA

should not have been able to even set an allowable daily dose. So

the FDA has always known that aspartame causes cancer. The Ramazzini

Studies confirmed to FDA what they had always known, but proved it in

two very prestigious studies. Dr. Gross ended by saying: " If the

FDA violates the law who is left to protect the public " ? So the only

reason aspartame is on the market today is because FDA violated the

law, and continues to do so.

 

People are literally dropping dead of aspartame. Three marathon

runners just dropped dead the other day all within 16 minutes in

Detroit. You can't help wondering if they were all using

aspartame. Here are two reports on aspartame and sudden death

including a study showing the formaldehyde from the free methyl

alcohol embalms

you: http://www.mpwhi.com/formaldehyde_from_aspartame.pdf Is there

anything of more priority than a chemical poison whose manufacturers

have knowingly allowed people to be embalmed without their knowledge,

and which causes consumers to drop dead?

 

Dr. H. J. Roberts: http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_and_arrhythmias.htm

 

Dr. Russell Blaylock: http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_msg_scd.htm

 

In Dr. Roberts medical text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic,

www.sunsentpress.com he tells the story of the runner, Flo Jo, who

was often seen with her Diet Coke containing aspartame. She dropped

dead after having a seizure. There are four different types of

seizures on the FDA list of 92

symptoms: http://www.mpwhi.com/92_aspartame_symptoms.pdf

 

You may remember when Athlete Steve Belcher dropped dead in West

Palm Beach. Dr. Roberts immediately called the medical examiner to

see how many diet pops he was drinking. As it turned out he was

drinking Diet Coke on one day and then fasting on another. Because

he dropped dead they took ephedra off the market but the culprit was

aspartame: http://www.wnho.net/ephedrastory.htm Aspartame is

considered to be in 10,000 products and now Mr. Pape of the National

Yogurt Association has petitioned the FDA to allow aspartame in

yogurt unlabeled and want it in all dairy products unlabeled. The

FDA is only loyal to industry, so what do you think will happen?

 

Consider that every single person who is using aspartame doesn't have

a chance when it comes to drug treatment because aspartame interacts

with drugs and vaccines because of damage to the mitochondria. Not

only that aspartame is added to the very drugs used to treat the

problems it causes. For instance, headache is #1 on the FDA

list. Go to your physician with a headache and he may put you on

Maxalt. Yet aspartame is in the product. So a study was done on

Maxalt and aspartame and it showed aspartame caused more headaches

but Merck refused to remove it. An informant from Pfizer said they

reformulated Dilantin for seizures to add aspartame, yet its not

labeled. Aspartame interacts with anti-seizure

medication. Aspartame very badly reacts with L-dopa, yet they put

aspartame in Parcopa.

 

Did you know aspartame is an adjuvant, an immune

stimulator? http://www.rense.com/general/asp.htm

Experts warning about the swine flu vaccine admit that those with

mitochondrial dysfunction will be harmed the most. Dr. Russell

Blaylock says that all adjuvants cause the same thing like MS, ALS

and lupus. Aspartame triggers or precipitates MS, ALS and lupus big

time. Adjuvants and mitochondrial dysfunction linked to

autism: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/111643

Vaccines and aspartame are known to cause autism. How many would

have even known what autism is before aspartame was approved and so

many vaccines started to be given to children? Now its epidemic.

 

I'm so sorry you didn't get the material but at least pass this

on. This should be the chief priority #1. When the Ramazzini

Studies were done on aspartame there was so much formaldehyde the

rats hair even turned yellow.

 

Consider the epidemics; autism, MS, lupus, sudden cardiac death, male

sexual dysfunction, seizures, diabetes, obesity, drug interaction,

ALS, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia and birth defects. They are all

listed in Dr. H. J. Roberts medical text, Aspartame Disease: An

Ignored Epidemic, and many, many more .. www.sunsentpress.com

 

Keep in mind that aspartame is also a chelating agent!

 

Please advise regarding any updates to this.

 

All my best,

Betty

 

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder

Mission Possible International

9270 River Club Parkway

Duluth, Georgia 30097

770 242-2599

www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com, www.wnho.net

Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

 

 

At 06:29 PM 10/20/2009, Cynthia Oshita wrote:

>Dr. Martini -

>

>At its May 29, 2009 meeting, the Carcinogen Identification Committee

>recommended that aspartame be included in the medium priority

>grouping. [see at

><http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/cic060509.html>http://www.oehha\

..ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/cic060509.html.]

>Chemicals identified as high priority will be considered before

>those in the medium or low priority groups. Within the 9 chemicals

>identified as high priority, requests for relevant information on 5

>of the chemicals (as noted in the October 15, 2009 OEHHA posting you

>included below) is currently open. For the remaining 4 chemicals

>opportunities for public input will be solicited via future public notices.

>

>Because aspartame is in the medium priority group, it is not under

>further consideration at this time. I will however forward your

>note to our staff in the Reproductive and Cancer Hazard Assessment

>Branch for their review. I took notice of the letter you addressed

>to me that it says it was posted on " 18 March 2009 " ; it should be

>noted I have not previously received this letter. Thank you for

>your interest in Proposition 65.

>

>

>

>Cynthia Oshita

>Proposition 65 Implementation

>

>

>

> >>> " Dr. Betty Martini,D.Hum. " <bettym19 10/16/2009

> 8:47 AM >>>

>Dear Cynthia:

>

>I submitted this information to you on

>aspartame:

><http://www.mpwhi.com/letter_to_cynthia_oshita.htm>http://www.mpwhi.com/letter_\

to_cynthia_oshita.htm

>What

>is being done about this addictive excitoneurotoxic, genetically

>engineered, carcinogenic drug that interacts with drugs and vaccines

>because of mitochondrial damage. The free methyl alcohol converts to

>formaldehyde and embalms living tissue and damages DNA as we have

>always known and now proven by the Trocho

>Study:

><http://www.mpwhi.com/formaldehyde_from_aspartame.pdf>http://www.mpwhi.com/form\

aldehyde_from_aspartame.pdf

>

>Methanol and formaldehyde are on the list requiring a cancer warning.

>

>Glad to see other information about these other chemicals. Remember

>that aspartame interacts with not only drugs and vaccines but also

>has a synergistic and additive effect with MSG and interacts with

>other neurotoxins like

>fluoride:

><http://dorway.com/dorwblog/doctors-speak-out/aspartame-msg-other-excitotoxins-\

the-hypothalamus/>http://dorway.com/dorwblog/doctors-speak-out/aspartame-msg-oth\

er-excitotoxins-the-hypothalamus/

>

>and

><http://dorway.com/dorwblog/doctors-speak-out/neurotoxic-interaction-of-msg-asp\

artame-other-toxins/>http://dorway.com/dorwblog/doctors-speak-out/neurotoxic-int\

eraction-of-msg-aspartame-other-toxins/

>

>This last article mentions fluoride.

>

>Also note aspartame is a chelating agent and adjuvant, the reason it

>is used in

>vaccines:

><http://www.rense.com/general/asp.htm>http://www.rense.com/general/asp.htm

>

>According to Dr. James Bowen if you go from aspartame to Splenda you

>can maintain the reactions to aspartame and pick up those from the

>chlorocarbon poison Splenda, and that's what we are seeing in the

>complaints that continue to come in. One victim almost died recently

>when he did this.

>

>Can you please give me an update on this issue. The FDA

>toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, told Congress that aspartame violated

>the Delaney Amendment because it caused brain tumors and no allowable

>daily intake should have been able to be set. Two Ramazzini Studies

>peer reviewed by 7 world experts have shown aspartame to be a

>multipotential carcinogen.

>

>All my best,

>Betty

>

>Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Founder

>Mission Possible International

>9270 River Club Parkway

>Duluth, Georgia 30097

>770 242-2599

>www.mpwhi.com, www.dorway.com, www.wnho.net

>Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame

>

>

>

>Proposition 65

>

>

>

>

>

>Announcement of Chemicals Selected by OEHHA for Consideration for

>Listing by the Carcinogen Identification Committee and Request for

>Relevant Information on the Carcinogenic Hazards of These Chemicals

>[10/15/09]

>

>The California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of

>Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is the lead agency for

>the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement

>Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). The Carcinogen Identification

>Committee (CIC) of OEHHA's Science Advisory Board serves as the

>State's qualified experts for rendering an opinion whether a chemical

>has been clearly shown through scientifically valid testing according

>to generally accepted principles to cause cancer. The chemicals

>identified by the CIC are added to the Proposition 65 list, which

>must be updated annually.

>

>On

><<http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/cicagenda051509.html>http://ww\

w.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/cicagenda051509.html>May

>

>29, 2009, the CIC considered the priority ranking of 38 chemicals of

>which they recommended that nine of the chemicals be placed in the

>High priority category. OEHHA has initially selected five of the

>nine chemicals for the CIC's review for possible listing under

>Proposition 65 and is initiating the development of hazard

>identification materials for these chemicals. [The remaining four

>chemicals will be the subject of a future public notice or

>notices.] The five chemicals are listed in Table 1 below.

>

>Table 1. Chemicals Selected for Preparation of Cancer Hazard

>Identification Materials and Review for Possible Listing by the

>Carcinogen Identification Committee

>

>Chemical

>

>CAS No.

>

>3-Monochloropropane-1,2-diol

>

>96-24-2

>

>1,3-Dichloro-2-propanol

>

>96-23-1

>

>Fluoride and its salts

>

>---

>

>Diisononyl phthalate (DINP)

>

>---

>

>Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and its salts and transformation and

>degradation precursors

>

>---

>

>These chemicals were selected using the procedure described in the

>document entitled: " Process for Prioritizing Chemicals for

>Consideration under Proposition 65 by the State's Qualified Experts, "

>adopted in 2004, and available on the Internet at

><<http://www.oehha.ca.gov/>http://www.oehha.ca.gov/>www.oehha.ca.gov.

>

>OEHHA identified 38 chemicals through application of an epidemiology

>data screen and an animal data screen, and a preliminary

>toxicological evaluation of the available overall evidence of

>carcinogenicity, as outlined in the 2004 prioritization

>process. These 38 chemicals were

><<http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/state_listing/prioritization_noti\

ces/prior030509.html>http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/state_listing/p\

rioritization_notices/prior030509.html>presented

>

>and released for public comment on March 5, 2009, along with a

>separate listing of the relevant studies identified for each

>chemical. These materials were provided to the Committee and also

>made available on OEHHA's Web site at

><<http://www.oehha.ca.gov/>http://www.oehha.ca.gov/>www.oehha.ca.gov.

>The Committee met to

>consider the materials for all 38 chemicals at a public meeting on

>May 29, 2009. At this meeting, the Committee advised OEHHA by

>majority vote that nine chemicals be given high priority

>consideration for preparation of hazard identification

>materials. The five chemicals identified in Table 1 are a subset of

>the nine high priority candidates. The hazard identification

>materials for the five chemicals will be presented at a future

>meeting for Committee review for possible listing of the chemical

>under Proposition 65. OEHHA anticipates announcing a similar request

>for relevant information on the remaining four chemicals at a future date.

>

>By this notice, OEHHA is providing the public an opportunity to

>provide information relevant to the assessment of the evidence of

>carcinogenicity for any of the chemicals listed in Table 1. Relevant

>information includes but is not limited to: cancer bioassays, cancer

>epidemiological studies, genotoxicity testing, and other pertinent

>data on pharmacokinetics, biomarkers, and effects on biochemical and

>physiological processes in humans for any of the five

>chemicals. Interested parties or members of the public wishing to

>provide such information should send it to the address given below.

>

>The publication of this notice marks the start of a 60-day data

>call-in period. This period will end on Tuesday, December 15,

>2009. The information received during this data call-in period will

>be reviewed and considered by OEHHA as it prepares the cancer hazard

>identification materials on these chemicals. This request for

>information is the next step in the process described in the 2004

>prioritization procedure.

>

>Notification of the availability of the hazard identification

>materials and of the time, date, location, and agenda of the meetings

>of the Carcinogen Identification Committee where these chemicals will

>be considered will be provided in subsequent notices published in the

>California Regulatory Notice Register and will also be posted on

>OEHHA's website. It is anticipated that the hazard identification

>materials will be made available for a 60-day comment period prior to

>the Committee meetings at which these chemicals will be considered.

>

>Relevant information on these chemicals should be submitted to:

>

>

>

>Cynthia Oshita

>Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

>Proposition 65 Implementation

>P.O. Box 4010

>1001 I Street, 19th Floor

>Sacramento, California 95812-4010

>FAX: (916) 323-8803

>Or via e-mail to <coshitacoshita

>

>Submittal of materials in electronic form is encouraged. It is

>requested that all hard-copy materials be submitted in triplicate.

>

>Submissions may also be delivered in person or by courier to the

>above address. In order to be considered, the relevant information

>must be received at OEHHA (if delivered in person or sent by FAX) by

>5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 15, 2009.

>

>

>

><<http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/state_listing/data_callin/sqe1015\

09.html>http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/state_listing/data_callin/sq\

e101509.html>http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/state_listing/data_call\

in/sqe101509.html

>

>

>New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

><<http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof>http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof>http://ww\

w.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

>

>Follow NYSCOF On Twitter:

><http://www.twitter.com/nyscof>http://www.twitter.com/nyscof

>

>Fluoridation News Releases

><<http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu>http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu>http://tinyurl.com/NewsRele\

ases

>

>Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas

><<http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/>http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/>h\

ttp://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/

>

>Fluoride Action Network

><http://www.FluorideAction.Net>http://www.FluorideAction.Net

>

>Fluoride Journal

><http://www.FluorideResearch.Org>http://www.FluorideResearch.Org

>

>Fluoride in the News:

><<http://www.topix.net/drug/fluoride>http://www.topix.net/drug/fluoride>http://\

www.topix.net/drug/fluoride

>_

>

>

>--- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---

>

>

>

>--- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---