Probably the best source of good and reliable information on chemical pollution of all kinds is Rachel's. http://www.rachel.org/
Rachel's Environment & Health News is excellent: http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?St=1 Environmental Research Foundation - Rachel's Weekly Try PANUPS/PANNA for pesticide info: http://www.panna.org/ Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) http://www.panna.org/resources/resources.html PANNA: Resource Library Hook line and sinker eh Nancy? You won't manage to tar us so easily with either one brush or the other. Take John's advice, we're a lot more rigorous than you are. It's you who's swallowing it whole and it's the stuff of conspiracy theory, as John says - which, please, is NOT to say that there are no conspiracies, but it is to say that the uncritical and sloppy thinking of conspiracy theorists and the cloud of dust they invariably kick up makes serious investigation much more difficult and probably does more to help hide conspiracies than to reveal them. As for the FDA, there's this, among much else: How a New Policy Led to Seven Deadly Drugs Los Angeles Times Wednesday, December 20, 2000 Medicine: Once a wary watchdog, the Food and Drug Administration set out to become a "partner" of the pharmaceutical industry. Today, the public has more remedies, but some are proving lethal. A good series of articles, no longer available online at the LA Times. The main story is now here: http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/Miscellaneous/122002Howanew.html I'll post it in full along with the individual cases, which I don't think are online anywhere else, they might as well be here, and maybe it'll establish a sort of bottom line on the subject in the archives, which is a pretty good source already. Best wishes Keith >Nancy Canning wrote: > > So you guys are going to believe hook line and sinker all the bs FDA > > passes off. I am laughing so hard at your defending the FDA. > >I'm not "defending" the FDA here (nice red herring/strawman btw) - I >just pointed out that the claim "the FDA listed aspartame as a >neurotoxin" is 100% flat out untrue. > >The "chemicals are bad" schtick gets a little old after you've been on >this list for a while. We get it: > >* "chemicals" are bad >* vaccines cause autism >* mercury leaches out of amalgam fillings >* fluoride is a comunist/NWO plot >* aspartame is poison >* neotame is worse >* rumsfeld and cheney are behind it all >* we're all just blind sheep that are pawns to the "bigs" >* natural is good >* raw is better > >We're heard it all before. > >Maybe you could do us all a favor and actually look in the archives >before you share next time. As Keith likes to point out, there is a >handy dandy link to the archives at the bottom of every message you get. > > > The doctors and hospitals, insurance companies, and drug companies > > can't make any money of a healthy diet, vitamines, and herbal > > remedies. > > > Why do you think that doctors across the country tried to ban > > aspartame before it was released? > >Wait, now I'm confused. Are doctors trying to protect us or are they >trying to poison us to make money. Which side of this epic struggle are >they on? How am I to know if you can't even make up your mind in the >same post? > > > > WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE and the MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS > > FOUNDATION OF D.A. ISSUING FOR COLLUSION WITH MONSANTO > > > > Article written by Nancy Markle Ten FREE Cancer Reports > > > > > > I have spent several days lecturing at the WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL > > CONFERENCE on "ASPARTAME marketed as "NutraSweet", "Equal", and > > "Spoonful". In the keynote address by the EPA, they announced that > > there was an epidemic of MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS and SYSTEMIC LUPUS, and > > they did not understand what toxin was causing this to be rampant > > across the United States. I explained that I was there to lecture > > on exactly that subject. > >Wow Nancy. That's really interesting, especially since: > >a) Nancy Markle doesn't exist, or at least no one by that name is known >to do research on MS, lupus or aspartame. > >In fact, the original source of the document you cut n' pasted is >originally from a Usenet posting in 1995 by Betty Martini that was >modified by an unknown person and attributed to the mythical Ms. Markle. > >Searching groups.google.com will turn up postings from Ms. Martini as >far back as 1996. > >b) Searching the EPA publication archive for World Environmental >Congress returns ZERO hits. > >Go ahead and try it, I just did: > >http://www.epa.gov/epahome/pubsearch.html > >If the EPA gave the KEYNOTE talk at this WORLD conference, why doesn't >anything come up? > >I guess the secret kabal got to them, eh? > > > Analysis Shows Nearly 100% of Independent Research Finds Problems > > With Aspartame October 17, 1996 > >So which is it? 100%? less that 100%? This is sloppy emotional writing. > > > An analysis of peer reviewed medical literature using MEDLINE and > > other databases was conducted by Ralph G. Walton, MD, Chairman, The > > Center for Behavioral Medicine, Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, > > Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine. Dr. Walton > > analyzed 164 studies which were felt to have relevance to human > > safety questions. Of those studies, 74 studies had aspartame > > industry-related sponsorship and 90 were funded without any industry > > money. > >That's interesting too, since a PubMed search for walton and aspartame >brings up exactly two relevent references, neither of which is a >systematic review of literature. > >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Search&db=PubMed&te >rm=walton+aspartame > >The first paper is a experimental study on the effects of aspartame in >psychiatric patients. The study was designed to recruit 40 patients and >40 controls; in reality only 8 patients and 5 controls were enrolled >before the university safety committee (the IRB) shut down the study due >to excessive adverse events in patient population. This could be because >the aspartame truly caused that many problems in the patients, or it >could be because of other serious ethical/methological problems. > >The second reference is first a technical critique of the study and then >a rebuttal by Walton. > >Thus, your faith in Dr Walton is rather interesting since Walton is not >a toxicologist at all, but rather a psychiatrist that has published a >single study on aspartame, and that one study is disputed. > >The fact that he is the Chairman of The Center for Behavioral Medicine >at the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine is, in fact, >completely irrelevent and is nothing more than an appeal to authority, >and a weak one at that. > >Cheers! > >jh _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
