http://cosmicconvergence.org/?p=12229
http://psychicfocus.blogspot.nl/2016/07/pokemon-go.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/FIfAtv+(Focus+Sessions)
Posts tonen met het label Politics. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Politics. Alle posts tonen
woensdag 27 juli 2016
The Economist Magazine 2016 Front Cover - Altijd vol met occulte berichten. Hidden in plain sight!
http://cosmicconvergence.org/?p=12229
http://psychicfocus.blogspot.nl/2016/07/pokemon-go.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+blogspot/FIfAtv+(Focus+Sessions)
zondag 1 maart 2015
Nemtsov false flag Russia - demonising Putin and escalating the political situation in Russia to destabilize Russia for ww3
Wat denken jullie van de moord op Nemtsov? Dit komt Putin niet goed uit zeker gezien het huidige vaarwater waar we internationaal inzitten dus het lijkt mij zeer stug dat dit vanuit de Russische overheid komt. Uiteraard is het niet uitgesloten maar wel zeer onwaarschijnlijk.
Het zal eerder een aanval zijn vanuit het westen om onrust te zaaien in het Russische landschap om Putin en daarmee Rusland verder te demoniseren en de westerlingen klaar te stomen voor een oorlog of de volgende ronde sancties...
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/28/who-killed-boris-nemtsov/
http://www.martinvrijland.nl/2015/03/02/de-moord-op-boris-nemstov-een-theo-van-gogh-herhaling/
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.nl/2015/02/breaking-news-false-flag-in-moscow.html?m=1
http://www.globalresearch.ca/false-flag-in-moscow-the-boris-nemtsov-assassination-the-anti-putin-demonization-campaign/5434146
http://thesaker.is/nemtsov-murder-putin-warned-about-exactly-this-type-of-false-flag-two-years-ago/
Het zal eerder een aanval zijn vanuit het westen om onrust te zaaien in het Russische landschap om Putin en daarmee Rusland verder te demoniseren en de westerlingen klaar te stomen voor een oorlog of de volgende ronde sancties...
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/28/who-killed-boris-nemtsov/
http://www.martinvrijland.nl/2015/03/02/de-moord-op-boris-nemstov-een-theo-van-gogh-herhaling/
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.nl/2015/02/breaking-news-false-flag-in-moscow.html?m=1
http://www.globalresearch.ca/false-flag-in-moscow-the-boris-nemtsov-assassination-the-anti-putin-demonization-campaign/5434146
http://thesaker.is/nemtsov-murder-putin-warned-about-exactly-this-type-of-false-flag-two-years-ago/
vrijdag 28 november 2014
The Holocaust Narrative: Politics trumps Science
“The fastest way to get expelled from a British university is by saying you are looking at chemical evidence for how Zyklon was used in World War II, with a discussion of how delousing technology functioned in the German World War II labour camps”—Nicholas Kollerstrom
The author of this refreshing scientific study of the Holocaust, Nicholas Kollerstrom, may be the most honorable man whom I have ever had the pleasure to know.
In response to PM David Cameron’s denunciation of 7/7 and 9/11 skeptics as on a par with ISIS, he went to Scotland Yard with a copy of Terror on the Tube (3rd ed., 2011) and turned himself in.
Scotland Yard declined the honor, but this act–which symbolically castrated the PM’s outrageous stance–was a striking illustration of his ability to tackle a problem by going right at it.
A distinguished historian of science with multiple degrees, including from Cambridge, he has published on 9/11 and especially 7/7, about which he appears to be the world’s leading expert.
When his attention turned to research on the use of Zykon B as a delousing agent in the labor camps run by the Germans during World War II, however, he was treated as an outcast.
He lost his position at University College London, which he had held for 15 years, where university officials did not bother to extend the opportunity of a rebuttal before they sacked him.
He and I both spoke at the recent conference, “Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust”, where this book reports the results of the research for which he was banned. The book, a stunning historic expose, has just appeared. I endorse it with my highest recommendation.
The Holocaust – Myth and Reality
The situation is completely absurd. No subject generates responses as extreme and irrational as what has come to be known as “the Holocaust”. Unlike any other event in human history, including even the most sacred religious beliefs, for anyone to question, dispute or deny its occurrence qualifies as “a hate crime,” where Holocaust denial is even a prosecutable offense in certain jurisdictions. Unlike any other, this crime involves the expression of forbidden thoughts about a subject that has become taboo.
The underlying desideratum is whether history is supposed to be accurate and true or, as Voltaire has put it, be merely “a pack of lies the living play upon the dead”. Just so we know what we are talking about: In its broadest outlines, “the Holocaust” can be defined by means of its three 
primary elements, which I shall designate here as hypotheses (h1), (h2) and (h3):
primary elements, which I shall designate here as hypotheses (h1), (h2) and (h3):
(h1) that Hitler was attempting to exterminate the Jews and succeeded by putting around 6,000,000 to death;
(h2) that many of those deaths were brought about by the use of cyanide gas in chambers for that purpose;and,
(h3) that the chemical agent that brought about those deaths was Zykon B, to which the victims were subjected.
The science of the Holocaust does not leave any room for doubt about (h2) and (h3), since laws of biochemistry and of materials science—laws which cannot be violated and cannot be changed—entail that the bodies of those who are put to death using cyanide turn pink, while the walls of chambers used for that purpose would turn blue. But none of the bodies from those camps has been reported to have been pink; and examination of the “gas chambers” has determined that none of them turned blue. Which means that (h2) and (h3) are not simply false but have been scientifically refuted.
Holocaust science “cut and dried”
As Nicholas Kollerstrom documents in this astonishing and brilliant book, the science of the Holocaust is this “cut and dried”. To the extent to which the Holocaust narrative depends on (h2) and (h3), therefore, it cannot be sustained. The questions that remain about (h1) are a bit more complex but appear to be equally contrived. There are more than 236 references to 6,000,000 Jews who are either in acute distress or about to be assailed in the newspapers of the world prior to the Nuremberg Tribunal— the first of which appeared in 1890. The number seems to have no basis in fact but to have theological origins—from a disputed passage in Leviticus—as to how many Jews must perish before they can return to “The Promised Land”.
To the extent to which the number of Jews who died in the camps can be objectively determined, the most reliable numbers appear to come from the records of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which visited the camps and kept meticulous records of the identities of those who died and their cause of death. Not one is reported to have been put to death in gas chambers, and the total it reported in 1993 for all of the camps was 296,081 combined. Even rounding up to an even 600,000 victims—gypsies, Jews and the mentally and physically infirm—the empirical evidence thus contradicts the contention that 6,000,000 Jews were put to death and thereby falsifies hypothesis (h1).
Counting deaths attributed to the Holocaust—apart from the records of the International Committee of the Red Cross—turns out to be an exercise in “fuzzy math”, because none of them add up. As Faurisson observed during an interview on 13 December 2006, the Yad Vashem database was built up by “simple unverified declarations emanating from unverified sources and processed in such a way that one and the same person can be recorded as having died several times, even, it seems, as many as ten times”.[1] And even the most complete archives are not collated to make total numbers accessible but only individual cases—which appears an obvious measure to preserve the untestability of (h1), the hypothesis that 6,000,000 Jews had perished.
Holocaust story falsified
So, insofar as we depend upon empirical evidence and laws of science, the Holocaust story appears to be false and cannot be sustained. The question that therefore arises is how the Nuremberg Tribunal—widely cited as a paragon of intellectual integrity and of the application of moral principles to historical events—could possibly have produced such a highly misleading account of crucial events at the conclusion of World War II. The answer to this, I believe, has been provided by Robert Faurisson in his paper “Against Hollywoodism, Revisionism,” who explains the daunting task confronting the Allies to conceal or justify war crimes that they had committed in winning the war.[2]
The Allies’ systematic and massive destruction of German cities not only brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of German civilians but also interdicted the railroad lines that would have re-supplied those camps, which were located near major industrial plants and whose inmates were providing labor to run them. It would have been poor business practice to exterminate the work force, but the large number of deaths from starvation because the Third Reich could not re-supply them provided an opportunity to deflect responsibility from the Allies onto Germany, which the Allies seized. A Hollywood director was brought in and shot 80,000 feet of film at the camps, where 6,000 feet (7.5% of the total) was used to shift the blame for those deaths onto Nazi Germany, which was an easy sell, all things considered.
As Kollerstrom explains, Zyklon B was used at the labor camps, not as a method of extermination but for the sake of maintaining hygiene among the inmates. Typhus and dysentery were omnipresent problems, where Zyklon B was applied in copious quantities—but as a disinfestant, not as an agent for bringing about the deaths of millions of inmates. And in response to the color pink-and-blue findings, an alternative explanation has been given that they were killed using diesel exhaust fumes, but unlike carbon monoxide, diesel exhaust fumes bring about nausea and severe headaches but usually do not bring about death by asphyxiation.
Classified British documents
Among the most valuable contributions of this study derives from Nick’s use of classified records acquired by British authorities, who were skeptical of claims that mass gassings were being carried out and had reports in hand of the use of Zyklon for the purpose of delousing the inmates, where infestations had become alarming. Many tons of Zyklon were consumed at Auschwitz-Birkenau from the summer of 1942 on, as Kollerstrom reports, which is easy to confirm because it soaked into the walls of the disinfestation chambers and is still there. His essays on the subject—“The Walls of Auschwitz”, “Leuchter Twenty Years On” and “The Auschwitz Gas Chamber Illusion”[3]—would become the cause of his removal from a post-doctoral post he had held for 15 years!
As a professional philosopher of science, I appreciate Nick’s references to Sir Karl Popper, who advocated the method of falsificationism, whereby the truth of theories in science and in history can be tested by attempts to falsify them. When they resist our best efforts to refute them, then we have good reason to believe they might be true. But equally applicable here are the reflections of Imre Lakatos, who discussed research programs with hard cores of claims,[4] such as Newton’s laws of motion or, in the case we are considering, the above-mentioned hypotheses (h1), (h2) and (h3). When the defenders of these hypotheses are confronted by the risk of refutation, they can appeal to auxiliary hypotheses in an attempt to deflect the refuting data and thereby preserve their theory.
A stellar example arises in the context of the attempt to explain away why the number of those who died as substantiated by the meticulous records of the Red Cross supports the inference that less than 10% of the 6,000,000 claimed actually died from all causes—and none from death in gas chambers. To cope with that finding, the claim has been made that the records are incomplete because large numbers of Jews were taken directly to the gas chambers and never registered—not even by name. Not only are contentions of this kind unfalsifiable, untestable and hence unscientific, but they reflect the degenerating character of the Holocaust paradigm, which has spawned no new data or research that could possibly overcome the mountain of evidence against it.
Excluding falsifying data
Another method for immunizing a hypothesis from refutation is by the exclusion of falsifying data.[5] The defenders of hypotheses (h1)-(h3) have committed a mind-boggling example of fallacious science, which further manifests their commitment to a degenerating research program. When the Auschwitz museum was confronted with the fact that the innocuous delousing chambers at Auschwitz have blue walls—due to being saturated with blue iron cyanide compounds—but the alleged homicidal gas chambers have not, they commissioned their own chemical research. Instead of testing wall samples for the chemicals that had caused the blue stains, the researchers they commissioned simply excluded those chemicals from their analysis by employing a procedure that could not detect them.[6]
They justified this measure with the claim that they did not understand exactly how these compounds could form and that they might therefore be mere artifacts. Researchers who don’t understand what they are investigating have no business becoming involved. In this case, however, it appears to be deliberate. They have deliberately ignored an obvious explanation—that Zyklon B was only used for delousing—which would have remedied their lack of comprehension.[7] As a result of this failure to adhere to the principles of science, they produced a report of no scientific value, which they used to arrive at a predetermined conclusion.[8]
That Nicholas Kollerstrom was booted from his post at University College, London—and without any hearing or opportunity to present his defense, where the truth of his observations, one might have thought, would have made a difference—is one of a large number of indications that even our best academic institutions and societies are not capable of dealing objectively with the history of World War II. Indeed, it struck me like a bolt of lightning out of the blue when, during a talk by Gilad Atzmon in Madison, Wisconsin, about Jewish identity politics, I realized that the Holocaust mythology benefits Zionism and the government of Israel by playing, in the promotion of its political agenda, upon a Western sense of guilt for the death of 6,000,000 Jews during World War II.
The claim that someone is “anti-Semitic” or a “Holocaust denier” is taken to be the most severe form of ethical damnation possible in this time and age. But distinctions must be drawn between criticism of the acts and policies of the Israeli government anddiscounting the worth or value of human beings on the basis of their ethnic origins or religious orientation. Condemning the Israeli government for its vicious and unwarranted onslaught of the people of Gaza, for example, is not “anti-Semitic”. And if exposing the Holocaust narrative as political propaganda makes one a “Holocaust denier,” all of us who put truth before politics ought to wear that label as a badge of honor.
The ISIS fiasco
As an illustration of the depths of depravity of those who would uphold the myth, consider that, as an historian of science, Kollerstrom was invited to contribute three entries—including that on Sir Isaac Newton, which is the most important—to the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers (2007), which has more than 1550 entries by some 400 authors from 40 countries. Yet Noel M. Swerdlow of the University of Chicago, a reviewer for Isis, the journal of America’s History of Science Society, recommended that the book be sent back to the publisher andpulped because Kollerstrom had been involved in research on the Holocaust! This was such an outrage that I wrote to the editorial board of Isis, which allowed a Letter to the Editor to appear.
Something is terribly wrong, when the world’s leading society on the history of science does no more to correct a grotesque abuse by one of its reviewers on a book that involved so many contributors and an enormous investment in time and money, where the moral issues are so blatant and obvious. It is ironic that the Nuremberg Tribunal would declare “collective punishment” a war crime. The Allies were responsible for the collective punishment of German civilians by their systematic bombing of German cities. Isis has committed a comparable intellectual crime by tolerating collective punishment of 400 scholars for the purported offenses of one. By acquiescing to its reviewer’s abuse, Isis has committed the fallacy of guilt by association and has displayed an appalling lack of journalistic ethics.
Nick Kollerstrom is the only party here who has displayed a commitment to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths. His defense is very simple: the hypotheses on which the Holocaust narrative has been based are provably false and not even scientifically possible. I have written about this in my articles “The War on Truth: Research on the Holocaust can end your career,”[9] “ISIS trips, stumbles and falls,”[10] and discussed it during my presentation at the 2014 conference “Academic Freedom: Are there limits to inquiry? JFK, 9/11 and the Holocaust,” at which Nick and I both spoke.[11]
But far better than reviewing them, read this brilliant study by the world’s leading iconoclast, Nick Kollerstrom, my dear friend, whom I admire beyond words as a splendid example of what historians should be doing in their professional work by getting history straight—lest Voltaire’s admonition continue to apply—including about the atrocities of World War II. There were real atrocities committed by all sides, just not the ones about which we have been told.
References
[1] “Interview with Professor Robert Faurisson at the Guest House of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” www.robertfaurisson.blogspot.com, December 13, 2006.
[2] Ibid., February 3, 2012.
[3] See Nick’s online papers at www.codoh.com/library/authors/1580/
[4] Imre Lakatos, Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, London, 1965, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1970.
[5] Sir Karl Popper systematically investigated the diverse methods of immunizing theories in his The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Hutchinson & Co., London 1968, pp. 82-97.
[6] Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Łabędź, “A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps,” Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych, Vol. XXX (1994) pp. 17-27 (www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report).
[7] They quoted but ignored a book which had exposed their fallacious approach (Ernst Gauss, Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte, Grabert, Tübingen 1993; Engl.: G. Rudolf, Lectures on the Holocaust, 2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2010).
[8] See Germar Rudolf, “Polish Pseudo-Scientists,” in: G. Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz-Lies, 2nd ed., The Barnes Review, Washington, DC, 2011, pp. 45-67.
[9] Veterans Today, February 4, 2012; www.veteranstoday.com.
[10] On my blog at www.jamesfetzer.blogspot.com, June 13, 2011.
Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer, has published widely on the theoretical foundations of scientific knowledge, computer science, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and evolution and mentality. McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota Duluth, he has also conducted extensive research into the assassination of JFK, the events of 9/11, and the plane crash that killed US Sen. Paul Wellstone. The founder ofScholars for 9/11 Truth, his latest books include The Evolution of Intelligence (2005), The 9/11 Conspiracy (2007), Render Unto Darwin (2007), and The Place of Probability in Science (2010).
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=332859
woensdag 4 juni 2014
181 people killed, 293 injured in Kiev military op in eastern Ukraine
Kiev’s military operation in eastern Ukraine has left 181 people killed, including 59 of ruling regime troops, and 293 injured, according to the country’s Prosecutor General.
Oleg Makhnitsky announced the recent figures at a press conference. However, it was not clear whether the death toll included casualties among self-defense forces.
The Prosecutor General has also added that over 220 people have been abducted, including 12 foreign citizens, since the uprising started in Lugansk and Donetsk Regions.
"Six hundred and seventy-five criminal enterprises connected with subversive activities, terrorist acts, and violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine are currently being investigated,” Makhnitsky told the media.
The spokesman for the anti-terrorist operation, Vladislav Seleznev, put the number of self-defense force personnel killed at 300, according to RIA Novosti.
Kiev has been conducting its “anti-terrorist operation” in eastern Ukraine since April, following a mass uprising against the coup-appointed government, demanding broader independence from the capital.
Following the May 11 referendums, in which the Lugansk People’s Republic and Donetsk People’s Republic voted for the two regions’ independence and proclaimed themselves sovereign states, the military operation by Kiev troops has intensified.
The day after the presidential elections on May 25, the likely winner, billionaire Petro Poroshenko, announced that the military operation in the southeast of the country would continue, demanding “it must be more effective, and military units must be better equipped."
This is despite Kiev’s troops already actively using heavy artillery units, mortars, aviation, fighter jets and helicopters, APCs and tanks in their operation in the south-east.
Just a few hours after the early results of the elections were announced, Ukrainian troops stepped up its military activity and deployed fighter jets and helicopters at Donetsk International Airport in an attempt to win it back from self-defense forces.
More than 50 civilians and as many self-defense troops were killed in the subsequent clashes, local militia estimated.
On Wednesday, May 28, Kiev troops targeted civilian quarters of Slavyansk, for the first time shellingone of the city’s schools and a kindergarten.
All the pupils and teachers were quickly evacuated from the school as the shell hit the roof and exploded right above the hall where children played.
The shelling also damaged a block of flats and a dormitory in the city’s teachers’ college, shattering glass in the windows of the college.
Shortly afterwards, the Ukrainian military shelled a children’s hospital, also in Slavyansk.
This past weekend, over a thousand people rallied in Donetsk demanding that children be protected from Kiev’s assault.
The Kiev forces quickly blamed the violence on self-defense units, which they refer to as “terrorists.”
In a recent move, Kiev deployed fighter jets to the city of Lugansk, eastern Ukraine, where eight peopledied after an explosion in a regional administration building on June 2. Wounded people were trapped inside the administration HQs, which caught on fire. Locals outside the building were urged to flee the area as unexploded shells were found in the park nearby.
“Ukraine’s Air Force struck Lugansk downtown at 4pm. Military aircraft made a targeted strike, deploying cluster bombs. The administration building is partially destroyed,” the government of the self-proclaimed Lugansk People’s Republic (LNR) said.
While Kiev has denied launching the fatal attack and blamed on the explosion on “terrorists” trying to launch an anti-aircraft missile, the leader of the ruling Party of Regions, Aleksandr Efremov, has called it “unprecedentedly” cruel crime and demanded it be investigated in The Hague court.
Source: http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/181-people-killed-293-injured-in-kiev-military-op-in-eastern-ukraine/#channel=f11e89d686d3679&origin=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidicke.com
maandag 31 maart 2014
The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became Legal
Did you know that Aspartame was banned by the FDA twice? How is this product legal now?
The bittersweet argument over whether Aspartame is safe or not has been going on for a long time. On one side we have medical evidence that suggests we should avoid using it and on the other side we lean on the FDA’s approval that suggests it is safe. Since generally that seems to be the factor that many continue to hold trust based upon, I thought we could look into the Aspartame story to find out how it came to be accepted as safe by the FDA. You would think that something so widely used and so well accepted would have quite the pristine story leading to its acceptance. I imagine one will discover otherwise after reading this post.
It all starts in the mid 1960′s with a company called G.D. Searle. One of their chemists accidentally creates aspartame while trying to create a cure for stomach ulcers. Searle decides to put aspartame through a testing process which eventually leads to its approval by the FDA. Not long after, serious health effects begin to arise and G.D. Searle comes under fire for their testing practices. It is revealed that the testing process of Aspartame was among the worst the investigators had ever seen and that in fact the product was unsafe for use. Aspartame triggers the first criminal investigation of a manufacturer put into place by the FDA in 1977. By 1980 the FDA bans aspartame from use after having 3 independent scientists study the sweetener. It was determined that one main health effects was that it had a high chance of inducing brain tumors. At this point it was clear that aspartame was not fit to be used in foods and banned is where it stayed, but not for long.
Early in 1981 Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (who is a former Secretary of Defense.. surprise surprise) vowed to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle took the steps to re-apply aspartame’s approval for use by the FDA. Ronald Reagans’ new FDA commissioner Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It did not take long for the panel to decide 3-2 in favor of maintaining the ban of aspartame. Hull then decided to appoint a 6th member to the board, which created a tie in the voting, 3-3. Hull then decided to personally break the tie and approve aspartame for use. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller. Burstone-Marstella is the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.
It is clear to this point that if anything the safety of aspartame is incredibly shaky. It has already been through a process of being banned and without the illegitimate un-banning of the product, it would not be being used today. Makes you wonder how much corruption and money was involved with names like Rumsfeld, Reagan and Hull involved so heavily. In 1985, Monsanto decides to purchase the aspartame patent from G.D. Searle. Remember that Arthur Hull now had the connection to Monsanto. Monsanto did not seem too concerned with the past challenges and ugly image aspartame had based on its past. I personally find this comical as Monsanto’s products are banned in many countries and of all companies to buy the product they seem to fit best as they are champions of producing incredibly unsafe and untested products and making sure they stay in the market place.
Since then, aspartame has been under a lot of attack by scientists, doctors, chemists and consumers about it’s safety and neurotoxic properties. Piles of comprehensive studies have been completed that show aspartame is a cause for over 90 serious health problems such as cancer, leukemia, headaches, seizures, fibromyalgia, and epilepsy just to name a few. We have written several articles discussing various affects of aspartame. Aspartame Leukemia Link. Aspartame and Brain Damage.
The bittersweet argument over whether Aspartame is safe or not has been going on for a long time. On one side we have medical evidence that suggests we should avoid using it and on the other side we lean on the FDA’s approval that suggests it is safe. Since generally that seems to be the factor that many continue to hold trust based upon, I thought we could look into the Aspartame story to find out how it came to be accepted as safe by the FDA. You would think that something so widely used and so well accepted would have quite the pristine story leading to its acceptance. I imagine one will discover otherwise after reading this post.
It all starts in the mid 1960′s with a company called G.D. Searle. One of their chemists accidentally creates aspartame while trying to create a cure for stomach ulcers. Searle decides to put aspartame through a testing process which eventually leads to its approval by the FDA. Not long after, serious health effects begin to arise and G.D. Searle comes under fire for their testing practices. It is revealed that the testing process of Aspartame was among the worst the investigators had ever seen and that in fact the product was unsafe for use. Aspartame triggers the first criminal investigation of a manufacturer put into place by the FDA in 1977. By 1980 the FDA bans aspartame from use after having 3 independent scientists study the sweetener. It was determined that one main health effects was that it had a high chance of inducing brain tumors. At this point it was clear that aspartame was not fit to be used in foods and banned is where it stayed, but not for long.
Early in 1981 Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (who is a former Secretary of Defense.. surprise surprise) vowed to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle took the steps to re-apply aspartame’s approval for use by the FDA. Ronald Reagans’ new FDA commissioner Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It did not take long for the panel to decide 3-2 in favor of maintaining the ban of aspartame. Hull then decided to appoint a 6th member to the board, which created a tie in the voting, 3-3. Hull then decided to personally break the tie and approve aspartame for use. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller. Burstone-Marstella is the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.
It is clear to this point that if anything the safety of aspartame is incredibly shaky. It has already been through a process of being banned and without the illegitimate un-banning of the product, it would not be being used today. Makes you wonder how much corruption and money was involved with names like Rumsfeld, Reagan and Hull involved so heavily. In 1985, Monsanto decides to purchase the aspartame patent from G.D. Searle. Remember that Arthur Hull now had the connection to Monsanto. Monsanto did not seem too concerned with the past challenges and ugly image aspartame had based on its past. I personally find this comical as Monsanto’s products are banned in many countries and of all companies to buy the product they seem to fit best as they are champions of producing incredibly unsafe and untested products and making sure they stay in the market place.
Since then, aspartame has been under a lot of attack by scientists, doctors, chemists and consumers about it’s safety and neurotoxic properties. Piles of comprehensive studies have been completed that show aspartame is a cause for over 90 serious health problems such as cancer, leukemia, headaches, seizures, fibromyalgia, and epilepsy just to name a few. We have written several articles discussing various affects of aspartame. Aspartame Leukemia Link. Aspartame and Brain Damage.
Timeline
December 1965– While working on an ulcer drug, James Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle, accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar yet has no calories.
Spring 1967– Searle begins the safety tests on aspartame that are necessary for applying for FDA approval of food additives.
Fall 1967– Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin, conducts aspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of the Searle Company. Of the seven monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal seizures.
November 1970– Cyclamate, the reigning low-calorie artificial sweetener — is pulled off the market after some scientists associate it with cancer. Questions are also raised about safety of saccharin, the only other artificial sweetener on the market, leaving the field wide open for aspartame.
December 18, 1970– Searle Company executives lay out a “Food and Drug Sweetener Strategy’ that they feel will put the FDA into a positive frame of mind about aspartame. An internal policy memo describes psychological tactics the company should use to bring the FDA into a subconscious spirit of participation” with them on aspartame and get FDA regulators into the “habit of saying, “Yes”.”
Spring 1971– Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney (whose pioneering work with monosodium glutamate was responsible for having it removed from baby foods) informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid (one of the ingredients of aspartame) caused holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle’s own researchers confirmed Dr. Olney’s findings in a similar study.
February 1973– After spending tens of millions of dollars conducting safety tests, the G.D. Searle Company applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies they claim support aspartame’s safety.
March 5, 1973– One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states that “the information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame”. She says in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests are needed.
May 1974– Attorney, Jim Turner (consumer advocate who was instrumental in getting cyclamate taken off the market) meets with Searle representatives to discuss Dr. Olney’s 1971 study which showed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of infant mice.
July 26, 1974– The FDA grants aspartame its first approval for restricted use in dry foods.
August 1974– Jim Turner and Dr. John Olney file the first objections against aspartame’s approval.
March 24, 1976– Turner and Olney’s petition triggers an FDA investigation of the laboratory practices of aspartame’s manufacturer, G.D. Searle. The investigation finds Searle’s testing procedures shoddy, full of inaccuracies and “manipulated” test data. The investigators report they “had never seen anything as bad as Searle’s testing.”
January 10, 1977– The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorney’s office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and “concealing material facts and making false statements” in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA’s history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.
January 26, 1977– While the grand jury probe is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins job negotiations with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation, Samuel Skinner.
March 8, 1977– G. D. Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as the new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. A former Member of Congress and Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfeld brings in several of his Washington cronies as top management.
July 1, 1977– Samuel Skinner leaves the U.S. Attorney’s office and takes a job with Searle’s law firm. (see Jan. 26th)
August 1, 1977– The Bressler Report, compiled by FDA investigators and headed by Jerome Bressler, is released. The report finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searle’s studies and weren’t autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again; a mass, a uterine polyp, and ovarian neoplasms were found in animals but not reported or diagnosed in Searle’s reports.
December 8, 1977– U.S. Attorney Skinner’s withdrawal and resignation stalls the Searle grand jury investigation for so long that the statue of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out. The grand jury investigation is dropped.
June 1, 1979– The FDA established a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to rule on safety issues surrounding NutraSweet.
September 30, 1980– The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it “has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive.”
January 1981– Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.
January 21, 1981– Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan’s transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.
March, 1981– An FDA commissioner’s panel is established to review issues raised by the Public Board of Inquiry.
May 19, 1981– Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.
July 15, 1981– In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its’ proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.
October 15, 1982– The FDA announces that Searle has filed a petition that aspartame be approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages and other liquids.
July 1, 1983– The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) urges the FDA to delay approval of aspartame for carbonated beverages pending further testing because aspartame is very unstable in liquid form. When liquid aspartame is stored in temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it breaks down into DKP and formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins.
July 8, 1983– The National Soft Drink Association drafts an objection to the final ruling which permits the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages and syrup bases and requests a hearing on the objections. The association says that Searle has not provided responsible certainty that aspartame and its’ degradation products are safe for use in soft drinks.
August 8, 1983– Consumer Attorney, Jim Turner of the Community Nutrition Institute and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University’s Director of Food Science and Nutritional Laboratories, file suit with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on unresolved safety issues.
September, 1983– FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle’s public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet’s major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.
Fall 1983– The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame are sold for public consumption.
November 1984– Center for Disease Control (CDC) “Evaluation of consumer complaints related to aspartame use.” (summary by B. Mullarkey)
November 3, 1987– U.S. hearing, “NutraSweet: Health and Safety Concerns,” Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, chairman.
Sources:
http://dorway.com/
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)