Let's get to the bottom of the issue on why these people died. Just find out which of these diabetic patients were using aspartame. Aspartame marketed as NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, E951, Canderel, etc. first of all can precipitate diabetes. It simulates and aggravates diabetic retinopathy, destroys the optic nerve, causes diabetics to go into convulsions and even interacts with insulin. In fact, aspartame interacts with drugs. Read some of the comments from physicians on aspartame in this post about Heath Ledger's death having to do with drug interaction, and the information I quoted from the medical text, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, http://www.sunsentpress.com by world aspartame expert and diabetic specialist, H. J. Roberts, M.D., F.A.C.P. F.C.C.P. http://www.mpwhi.com/heath_ledger.htm
Aspartame can actually induce hypoglycemia. Dr. Roberts in his medical text says on page 555:
"Despite his longstanding interest in this subject, the author remained baffled by the failure of patients with hypoglycemia to respond - or continue to respond - to diet and other conventional measures in the mid-l980s. Their cessation of aspartame products often solved this puzzle. Unbeknown to me at the time, several patients with severe hypoglycemia had concluded that aspartame made them ill, and resumed sugar-containing products or took saccharin. When sugar was taken in small amounts, along with adequate protein and fat, most fared well."
Vicious Cycles: "Severe vicious circles involving aspartame may be generated by the consumption of excessive calories, sugar intake, the habitual use of large amounts of aspirin, caffeine, nicotine and alcohol, and various drugs taken to combat headache, fatigue, sweats, tremors and other symptoms. For example, testosterone enhances insulin biosynthesis and secretion, as demonstrated by the hyperinsulinemia encountered in hyperandrogenic syndromes.
"Aspartame reactions are better understood in this context. They represent not only deranged physiology (especially within the brain), but also the impact of hypoglycemia insults inflicted on weight and fashion conscious persons. Of special interest are the severe reduction of carbohydrate and calories, and forced feeding (eating only one meal a day) when coupled with vigorous exercise. Some of the catastrophic consequences include attacks of RAPID HEART ACTION (PAROXYMAL TACHYCARDIA), ANGINA PECTORIS, convulsions, nonthrombotic stroke, multiple sclerosis, various thyroid disorders, and severe personality changes.
"As noted, the brain is almost totally dependent upon an adequate supply of glucose for proper function under ordinary circumstances. When aspartame is substituted for carbohydrate or food in persons having diabetogenic hyperinsulinism, it and other vital organs may be deprived of glucose. They then do what car engines do when running out of fuel .... make warning noises or stop."
Page 556: MECHANISMS
I "Reflex Hypoglycemia. Intense sweetness without sugar invites "reflex hypoglycemia" The cephalic phase of insulin release initiated by introducing food or sweet in the mouth is neurally mediated. It "prepares" the body to receive glucose and other nutrients. This occurs before the blood glucose increases. The afferent limb of this reflex involves olfactory, visual, taste and oropharyngeal receptors (Projetto 1987). The vagus nerve mediates its efferent limb.
"Powley and Berthoud (1985) emphasized the critical nature of this cephalic phase because it represents the first rapid physiological response to food. It is influenced by color, appearance, flavor, aroma and texture. This phenomenon also has been demonstrated in rats using water sweetened with saccharin. The insulin response could be correlated with the concentration of saccharin solution.
I "A NutraSweet Company scientist noted that the cephalic reflex increased insulin release in mice after tasting aspartame at The First International Meeting on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function (Washington, D.C., May 9, 1987).
II "Aspartame-Induced Insulin Release. Studies by Melchior et al (1991) indicate the impressive rise of both insulin and beta endorphins after aspartame consumption. They administered two chocolate drinks - one sweetened with 50 g sucrose; the other with 80 mg aspartame - to 10 subjects of normal weight who averaged 21.7 years. Plasma beta endorphin concentrations were more elevated after the aspartame drink than after sucrose or fasting, while insulin increased as much after the aspartame drink as with sucrose. The beta endorphin rise after aspartame may represent increased insulin secretion or a direct effect of aspartame on the liberation of beta endorphins."
III "The Insulin-Glucose Effects of Amino Acids. A number of investigators have conclusively shown that insulin secretion is stimulated by certain essential amino acids - both when given individually, and as mixtures. The released insulin then facilitates utilization of amino acids in protein synthesis within cells. Concomitantly, blood glucose and free fatty acid concentrations decline.
"These observations are germane in view of the phenylalanine and aspartic acid components of aspartame.
There are many more pages in this medical text having to do with aspartame and hypoglycemia and a chapter on diabetes as well as one on drug interaction.
So who is responsible here? The vice-chairman of the study's steering committee is the president of medicine and science at the American Diabetes Association, The ADA emphatically knows aspartame is an addictive excitoneurotoxic carcinogenic drug that interacts with drugs, can precipitate diabetes, simulating and aggravating diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy, destroying the optic nerve and interacting with insulin. Not only have doctors like Dr. Roberts written them for years but in 2004 Racketeering charges were filed against them for pushing this chemical poison on diabetics. They did get out of the suit, but instead of wanting to help diabetics they continue to push the manufacturers propaganda. I answered one of their letters last on January 20, 2008: http://www.mpwhi.com/answer_to_the_ada.htm
Under Title 18, Section 1001 its a crime to stumble the public with full knowledge. But to the ADA and other professional organizations accepting funding from industry its more important to get the green back dollar than protecting the health of diabetics. Dr. Roberts was a member of the ADA for 35 years and no amount of information would get them to protect diabetics that they sacrificed in order to continue funding. The diabetic is already compromised so to push a poison simply damages them more. The free methyl alcohol causes them to lose limbs.
There is certainly a safe product for them to take like "Just Like Sugar" which is sold in Whole Foods, Wild Oats and such which is made from chicory and orange peel. Chicory has been used for 70 years to improve the health of diabetics.
Then you have the FDA who have given their loyalty to the manufacturer, the front groups like Calorie Control Council and such, so the physician who has to treat the diabetic as well as the patient never gets the truth. It appears most of these patients died from heart attacks. Just recently a new study came out by Dr. Lyn Steffen linking diet soda with heart disease and diabetes. http://www.rense.com/general80/meat.htm Below this article I typed in Dr. Roberts paper on cardiac problems attributed to aspartame including sudden death. In July, 2007 Boston University did a similar study linking diet soda to heart problems and diabetes.
Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D. wrote Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills, http://www.russellblaylockmd.com He also discusses aspartame and its many problems, and effect on the brain. Over a decade ago he wrote me and said, "The more we learn about these substances the more frightening the picture becomes. What really concerns me about aspartame is its association with brain tumors as well as pancreatic, uterine and ovarian tumors. Also, the fact that so many develop an Alzheimer's - like syndrome with prolonged exposure." In his CD, The Truth About Aspartame, he discusses at length the Ramazzini Study which shows aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen which the FDA knew over 25 years ago.
Aspartame is a killer, and there is not one single reason not to ban it. The FDA was asked after the Ramazzini Study why they had not banned it. Their reply was the economics to the manufacturers. The manufacturers knew it was poison. In their secret trade information submitted during congressional hearings they said they had to consider almost complete conversion to DKP (a brain tumor agent) and if they told the FDA they wouldn't approve it. Yet the FDA who has given its loyalty to the manufacturers and betrayed the public trust have no concern for the consumer as long as the company keeps making money.
Listen to Lane Shore's interview on how aspartame is killing his diabetic wife piece by piece: http://www.mpwhi.com/lane_shore_all_jacked_up.htm If you wondering how it got approved when the FDA revoked the petition for approval see the aspartame documentary, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, http://www.soundandfury.tv
When those responsible to solve the problem ARE the problem its an abomination. The House Committee on Health should give this bill a "due pass" and save the people of Hawaii. After taking the case histories for 17 years the only use I know of for aspartame is as a killer of rats and fire ants. Page Kaiser of Augusta, Georgia some years ago did tell me the NutraSweet people were using their toxic waste to spray on crops to kill bugs. Even the prestigious Ecologists who did a 17 page cover story on aspartame started out with "Once upon a time there was a biochemical warfare weapon." http://www.mpwhi.com/ecologist_september_2005.pdf All they have to do is change the label and add a skull and crossbones. It should say: Genocide: Keep out of reach of humans.
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Founder, Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Aspartame Toxicity Center: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame
The New York Times
February 7, 2008
Diabetes Study Partially Halted After Deaths
By Gina Kolata
For decades, researchers believed that if people with diabetes lowered their blood sugar to normal levels, they would no longer be at high risk of dying from heart disease. But a major federal study of more than 10,000 middle-aged and older people with Type 2 diabetes has found that lowering blood sugar actually increased their risk of death, researchers reported Wednesday.
The researchers announced that they were abruptly halting that part of the study, whose surprising results call into question how the disease, which affects 21 million Americans, should be managed.
The study's investigators emphasized that patients should still consult with their doctors before considering changing their medications.
Among the study participants who were randomly assigned to get their blood sugar levels to nearly normal, there were 54 more deaths than in the group whose levels were less rigidly controlled. The patients were in the study for an average of four years when investigators called a halt to the intensive blood sugar lowering and put all of them on the less intense regimen.
The results do not mean blood sugar is meaningless. Lowered blood sugar can protect against kidney disease, blindness and amputations, but the findings inject an element of uncertainty into what has been dogma that the lower the blood sugar the better and that lowering blood sugar levels to normal saves lives.
Medical experts were stunned.
"It's confusing and disturbing that this happened," said Dr. James Dove, president of the American College of Cardiology. "For 50 years, we've talked about getting blood sugar very low. Everything in the literature would suggest this is the right thing to do," he added.
Dr. Irl Hirsch, a diabetes researcher at the University of Washington, said the study's results would be hard to explain to some patients who have spent years and made an enormous effort, through diet and medication, getting and keeping their blood sugar down. They will not want to relax their vigilance, he said.
"It will be similar to what many women felt when they heard the news about estrogen," Dr. Hirsch said. "Telling these patients to get their blood sugar up will be very difficult."
Dr. Hirsch added that organizations like the American Diabetes Association would be in a quandary. Its guidelines call for blood sugar targets as close to normal as possible.
And some insurance companies pay doctors extra if their diabetic patients get their levels very low.
The low-blood-sugar hypothesis was so entrenched that when the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases proposed the study in the 1990s, they explained that it would be ethical. Even though most people assumed that lower blood sugar was better, no one had rigorously tested the idea. So the study would ask if very low blood sugar levels in people with Type 2 diabetes the form that affects 95 percent of people with the disease would protect against heart disease and save lives.
Some said that the study, even if ethical, would be impossible. They doubted that participants whose average age was 62, who had had diabetes for about 10 years, who had higher than average blood sugar levels, and who also had heart disease or had other conditions, like high blood pressure and high cholesterol, that placed them at additional risk of heart disease would ever achieve such low blood sugar levels.
Study patients were randomly assigned to one of three types of treatments: one comparing intensity of blood sugar control; another comparing intensity of cholesterol control; and the third comparing intensity of blood pressure control. The cholesterol and blood pressure parts of the study are continuing.
Dr. John Buse, the vice-chairman of the study's steering committee and the president of medicine and science at the American Diabetes Association, described what was required to get blood sugar levels low, as measured by a protein, hemoglobin A1C, which was supposed to be at 6 percent or less.
"Many were taking four or five shots of insulin a day," he said. "Some were using insulin pumps. Some were monitoring their blood sugar seven or eight times a day."
They also took pills to lower their blood sugar, in addition to the pills they took for other medical conditions and to lower their blood pressure and cholesterol. They also came to a medical clinic every two months and had frequent telephone conversations with clinic staff.
Those assigned to the less stringent blood sugar control, an A1C level of 7.0 to 7.9 percent, had an easier time of it. They measured their blood sugar once or twice a day, went to the clinic every four months and took fewer drugs or lower doses.
So it was quite a surprise when the patients who had worked so hard to get their blood sugar low had a significantly higher death rate, the study investigators said.
The researchers asked whether there were any drugs or drug combinations that might have been to blame. They found none, said Dr. Denise G. Simons-Morton, a project officer for the study at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Even the drug Avandia, suspected of increasing the risk of heart attacks in diabetes, did not appear to contribute to the increased death rate.
Nor was there an unusual cause of death in the intensively treated group, Dr. Simons-Morton said. Most of the deaths in both groups were from heart attacks, she added.
For now, the reasons for the higher death rate are up for speculation. Clearly, people without diabetes are different from people who have diabetes and get their blood sugar low.
It might be that patients suffered unintended consequences from taking so many drugs, which might interact in unexpected ways, said Dr. Steven E. Nissen, chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
Or it may be that participants reduced their blood sugar too fast, Dr. Hirsch said. Years ago, researchers discovered that lowering blood sugar very quickly in diabetes could actually worsen blood vessel disease in the eyes, he said. But reducing levels more slowly protected those blood vessels.
And there are troubling questions about what the study means for people who are younger and who do not have cardiovascular disease. Should they forgo the low blood sugar targets?
No one knows.
Other medical experts say that they will be discussing and debating the results for some time.
"It is a great study and very well run," Dr. Dove said. "And it certainly had the right principles behind it."
But maybe, he said, "there may be some scientific principles that don't hold water in a diabetic population."