Re: Digest Number 268
Dear friend
I think I am no longer interested in this group mainly because the
informaton you send me is always advertisement of some sort.
I sincerely hope you can de-register me.
Dr G.J. Njau
_
Send blank message to this e-mail address if you want to:
TO UNSUBSCRIBE !!!!!!!!! :
By reading the messages of this group you agree to hold yourself FULLY
responsible FOR yourself.
To unsubscribe, send blank message to
There are 7 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Diabetes Rates Soaring and Occurring at a Younger Age
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is rising rapidly and is striking people
at
much younger ages, according to a just-published study from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
· Researchers looked at data from 1990 and 1998 and found that the
overall
rate of diabetes increased 33% during that time
· Even more significant was the finding that the rate of diabetes
among
people in their 30s increased nearly 70%.
· Researchers found increased rates among all ages, races, and
educational
levels.
According to endocrinologist Frank Vinicor of the CDC "We’re seeing the
greatest increase in obesity and lack of physical activity" in people in
their
30’s, so therefore it is not surprising to find the 70% increase in just 8
years. "We are now beginning to see the consequences of physical inactivity
and
weight gain that go well beyond feeling good about yourself or cosmetic
issues."
The following is a summary of their findings for the percent of the total
poulation that has been diagnosed with diabetes:
· Caucasian
1990 - 4.6%
1998 - 5.9%
· African-American
1990 - 7.0%
1998 -8.9%
· Hispanic
1990 - 5.6%
1998 - 7.7%
The researchers also note that their results probably significantly
underestimate the percentage of people with diabetes, since it is not
uncommon
for the disorder to be present for as long as 12 years before being
properly
diagnosed.
Diabetes Care September, 2000, as reported by Anita Manning, USA Today,
August
24, 2000
COMMENT: Sugar is clearly one of the most devastating physical contributors
to
disease in our country. Unfortunately, most of us are addicted to sugar
which
complicates the issue of avoiding it. My experience as a physician has been
that the threat of a distant disease, such as diabetes, is frequently
ineffective at motivating behavioral change.
Related Articles:
Type 2 Diabetes Rising Dramatically Among Youth
Exercise Reduces Diabetes by Reducing Insulin Resistance
Vitamin E May Reduce Heart Disease in Diabetics
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Larger Babies at Higher Risk of Type 1 Diabetes
According to results of a new study, children who gain a lot of weight in
the
first year of life may be at increased risk of type 1 diabetes. To
summarize:
· The study included 91 children aged 4 to 15 with type 1 diabetes,
125 of
their siblings, and more than 2,000 healthy Dutch children.
· The researchers analyzed their past health records and found that
children who became diabetic tended to gain more weight by the age of 1
than
their siblings or other children.
· The diabetic children and their healthy siblings also tended to be
taller between the ages of 1 and 3 compared with children in the general
population.
· The investigators also found the children with diabetes who were
heavier
and taller at a young age tended to have a specific type of autoantibody,
which
is antibody that mistakenly recognizes an enzyme normally found in the
insulin-producing cells of the pancreas.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system
mistakenly
destroys the pancreatic cells that produce insulin. As a result, blood
glucose
levels rise to dangerous levels, resulting in a life-long dependence on
insulin
injections for survival. The disease is most commonly diagnosed in children
or
young adults, and therefore is often referred to as Juvenille diabetes,
despite
the fact that it can occur at any age.
The authors believe that increased growth in infancy, which is associated
with
a higher insulin secretion, could lead to more rapid decay of
insulin-producing
cells if the antibodies develop.
The Lancet 2000;356:655-656.
COMMENT: This study is important for a number of reasons. Bottle-fed babies
tend to grow faster. Faster and bigger is not necessarily better,
especially
when it means increasing the risk for one of the most devastating long-term
chronic illnesses around, diabetes. Additionally, drinking milk and
consuming
grains that distort the carbohydrate/protein/fat ratios will contribute to
an
accelerated growth rate. This distortion will also increase more immediate
problems like ADHD (attention deficit disorder).
One of the largest misconceptions I find that contribute to this problem is
the
inclusion of milk and grains (gluten and casein) into a child’s diet. Most
children benefit from avoiding these foods. For the most part children
should
follow the diet I outline for adults once they wean off the breast. The
only
caution is that if they are below their ideal body weight, healthy grains
need
to be added to maintain optimal weight.
Milk consumption has also been linked to an increased incidence of Type 1
Diabetes, and this is just 1 more reason on a very long list of reasons to
stay
away from dairy. In addition to the fact that milk is just an unhealthy
food to
begin with, today we have the additional problem of cow’s being injected
with
genetically engineered growth hormones to make them produce more milk.
Unfortunately, this causes increased levels of Insulinlike Growth Factor-1
(IGF-1) in the milk, which could have some physiological effects on people,
particularly children.
Related Articles:
Milk Increases Risk of Type 1 Diabetes
Cows’ Milk, Diabetes Connection Bolstered
INGESTION OF COW’S MILK IN EARLY INFANCY MAY LEAD TO DIABETES
No Benefit Seen In Routine Growth Monitoring Of Children
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
How To Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations Of All Kinds
As you read this work and put its principles into practice, there are two
basic
axioms you never want to forget. They are the rock upon which all your
actions
are based.
Nobody, anywhere or any time and under any circumstances has the right or
power
in this country to immunize you or your children against your will and
conviction. If they attempt to do so, you can legally charge them with
"assault
with a deadly weapon" and have the full resources of our laws behind you.
At all times in attempting to avoid unwanted immunization, you have the Law
of
the Land behind you. Those who would try to vaccinate you against your will
are
on very shaky ground. Into every compulsory immunization law in America are
written legal exceptions and waivers which are there specifically to
protect
you from the attempted tyranny of officialdom. It is not only your right,
but
your obligation to use them, if this is what your conscience tells you.
Article I
In all your contacts with any member of the school, public health, or legal
establishment, always remain calm, courteous, and humbly reverent toward
their
position. You are only asking of them that which the law duty binds them to
give you. There is no reason, or advantage, to be gained by antagonizing
them.
Most of these officials believe they are discharging their trust as
outlined by
law. If they are overstepping the law, then you must very diplomatically
bring
the true facts to their attention, but without attempting to belittle them.
The
more you can preserve their ego, the more easily and quickly you are likely
to
get what you desire - a waiver of immunization.
Rule No. 1: Do not harass, belittle, or antagonize officials unnecessarily.
Article 2
All compulsory laws concerning vaccination (including the military) contain
exceptions and waivers. It is these protections placed in the laws that you
may
legally use to exclude yourself and your children. Surprisingly, these
exceptions were placed there, not for your sake (although you may take
advantage of them), but for the protection of the establishment. How is
this?
Let us assume that these exceptions were not there and everyone was
actually
forced to be immunized. Should a child die or become mentally or physically
disabled, the parent would have the perfect case to sue the doctor, the
school,
the health department, and even the state legislature for enormous damages.
Since they allowed no exceptions, they must accept full responsibility for
all
the adverse consequences of the law. However, if exception waivers are
placed
in the law, the responsibility is then transferred back to the parent. If a
child should be injured by immunization, the officials can say, "Well, the
parent should have exempted him if they thought there was any danger."
Therefore, there is in truth no such thing as a compulsory vaccination law
in
this country. They are ALL, in essence, voluntary. The problem is that
practically no one in authority will let you know this fact.
Rule No. 2: There are no compulsory vaccination laws. All are voluntary,
and you
are held responsible for the adverse results upon you or your children.
Article 3
While all immunization laws have exceptions you can use, the wording in
each
state differs, and you must know the exact wording for your state to make
the
proper request of waiver. This information can be obtained in one of two
ways.
Go to the reference section of your local library- look in the State
Statute
Revised Law Book under Public Health Law or Communicable Disease sections.
The
list of immunization requirements will appear first and then the exemptions
will be given. Usually one or two provisions will be listed: either on
religious or medical grounds or both.
You may call or write your state representative and ask for a copy of the
immunization laws in your state. Making this available is part of his job,
and
it will be sent promptly.
Rule No. 3: Know your own state law so that you can conform to its exact
requirements for exemption.
Article 4
There are two basic reasons for exception - medical or religious. Which one
you
choose will often depend upon the wording of the law in your state and your
personal convictions. We shall discuss medical exemption first. While laws
do
vary, nearly all states require that a note or certificate of waiver be
submitted by a physician licensed in the state of residence. In some areas
where states are small and people continually travel from one to another
for
business, a statement from a physician in a contiguous state will be
accepted.
In this letter it is usually necessary to state the reason for the
requested
waiver and the length of time it should extend. Many laws limit all such
letters to a school year and they must be renewed each fall. The two most
valid
reasons for medical waiver are "the fear of allergic reaction in a
sensitive
child" and "to prevent possible damage to a weakened immune system." Both
of
these can occur in a child who has been immunized, and since no one but the
physician and the parent will be held responsible for their consequences,
it is
up to them to protect the child.
It is possible that some states may require the letter from an M.D. or
D.O.,
but many will allow an exemption letter from a chiropractor if it is
courteously and properly written, as outlined above.
Rule No. 4: Medical waivers are always valid but must be written to fit
each
state law and often need to be renewed annually.
Article 5
Most people will be best served by a religious exemption unless the state
law
is so restrictive as to make this nearly impossible to obtain. The only
church
that is legally opposed to vaccination is the Christian Science Church.
They
took the matter to the courts and obtained a legal ruling of exemption. It
is
because of this that state laws recognize the religious exemption.
Another church, The Church of Illumination, is also by its tenets opposed
to
immunization for its adherents, and they are encouraged to go to jail if
necessary before submitting to this procedure. Since it is a "Church at
Large,"
they are able to enroll members throughout the entire United States and
would
be pleased to consider any applicant who is without present church
affiliation
and who desires the legitimate support of others in his convictions.
In some states an official letter from a church authority is required
before
exemption will be give.;In others, it is only necessary to submit a
notarized
letter that you ADHERE to religious tenets which hold vaccination against
God’s
laws. All officialdom becomes a little shaky when you mention religious
freedom, as it is one of our basic American rights and no one wants to be
made
the "heavy" in denying anyone religious freedom.
The general desire of most health officials is to exert as much control as
possible, while assuming as little responsibility as possible. If you place
them in a position in which they must either give you a waiver or assume
additional responsibility, you will usually get your waiver.
Rule No. 5: Waivers can usually be obtained by a letter from a church
official
certifying that you are a member of a church that recommends against
immunizations for its adherents. Many states will also allow exemption on
religious grounds if you send them a notarized letter stating that you
ADHERE
to the beliefs of such a church, even if you are not an official member.
Article 6
The foregoing may work for school exemptions, but are there any such
waivers in
the Armed Forces? Yes. All branches of the Service provide "immunization
waivers." Again, if they did not you could sue them for millions of dollars
if
a reaction occurred from their immunizations. Because of these waiver
provisions, you become responsible if you react.
When you first sign up or enlist, you must state your objection to the
vaccinations and tell whether it is "religious conscience" or medical
reasons,
such as allergies or a low tolerance to medication of any kind. If you do
not
show objection at this time, you have given the military the right to do
what
they will with you. If there is any difficulty, the same rules apply here
as in
the school program. Never forget, even though you may be in the Service, no
one
has the right to immunize you against your will. You do not give up your
constitutional rights when you join the Armed Forces.
Rule No. 6: The rules that govern school vaccination exemption also apply
to the
military. Never let anyone tell you otherwise. They do not know, or are
hiding,
the facts of the law.
Article 7
What about international travel? May I go around the world without
vaccination?
The World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva grants American visitors the
right to REFUSE shots when traveling internationally. However, if an area
you
wish to enter is infected, you may be detained until the public health
servant
gives you the "go" (at his discretion). Thousands travel world-wide each
year
without shots - so you may if that is your choice. Many of our co-workers
have
traveled over much of the world and have never taken any immunizations, nor
were they ever detained.
It would be wise to request a copy of Foreign Rules and Regulations, Part
71,
Title 42, on immunization when you receive your passport. Never forget the
basic rule, "No one will vaccinate you against your will because by doing
so
they assume full responsibility for the consequences both legal and
medical."
Rule No. 7: You may travel wherever you wish in the world without
vaccination.
The worst that can happen is that in very rare circumstances you may be
detained temporarily.
Some Important Details
The above seven articles constitute all the basic rules. However, there are
many important little "tricks of the trade" to having your legal requests
honored. These will now be discussed.
While waivers and exemptions are written into all laws on immunization,
most
public health officials, doctors, and especially school officials are
loathe to
discuss their existence when questioned, and rarely, to our knowledge,
volunteer such information. A top Philadelphia school official was on the
radio
with the unequivocal statement, "NO SHOTS, NO SCHOOL." This statement is of
course completely counter to state law, with which presumably he is
familiar.
Such unwarranted dogmatism is common in the people you will encounter. Once
the
end of their legitimate authority has been reached, they will use their
next
most powerful weapon - INTIMIDATION. They will threaten to keep your child
out
of school, take him from you, or send you to jail. These are all idle
threats
because they can do none of these thing, if you follow our simple
instructions.
The basic rules have been given to you, but there are a few important
details
to be considered if the officials start on this course of unlawful
intimidation.
You must send a letter to the school to inform the education officials of
your
stand. A phone call is not legal. It can be a note from your doctor,
minister,
or a notarized letter from you stating your sincere objections to the
immunization. If you do not do this and fail to have your child immunized,
it
could be construed as negligence on your part and in some states there is a
possibility of legal action against you.
If the school should refuse to honor your letter, request that they give
you a
statement in writing outlining their reasons for refusal. If they won’t,
their
refusal is legally invalid, and your letter stands; they must enroll your
child. If they do (they rarely will) they take the risk of incriminating
themselves, especially if they are acting contrary (as is common) to what
is
specified in the law concerning your rights for exemption. Remember they
are on
tenuous ground, not you. They are your servants, you are not their servant.
If
worst comes to worst and you have a very knowledgeable official who writes
you
a refusal and states accurately the lawful reasons for refusal, he will
also in
a negative way tell you what the accepted exemptions are, and then you can
go
about meeting them, by one of the routes suggested in this handout.
Child neglect is the one legal point you want to avoid at all costs. No
legal
parent or guardian can be charged with neglect unless he shows complete
lack of
concern or action to be more informed. Stripped of legal jargon, this
simply
means that if you can show that you have investigated the situation, have
come
to a specific decision concerning immunizations, and have informed the
authorities of the same, no neglect charge can be brought. Neglect can be
brought only when it can be shown that you have failed to have your
children
immunized, not out of respect for their medical or spiritual integrity, but
only because you were too concerned with other matters.
At times there may be a question of whether you have given or withdrawn
legal
consent. Legal consent is dependent upon being properly informed on both
the
advantages and the risks in any choice or decision you make. In other
words, if
a physician were to tell you that vaccination is perfectly safe and
effective
to obtain your consent, such consent would not be legal because he lied and
you
have not been properly informed. Conversely, it could be argued that
non-consent is not legal if you are not fully informed about the risks and
advantages of immunizations.
What do I do if everyone refuses to give me a waiver?
This would be an extremely rare circumstance. But should it happen, you are
not
left without resources. Here is where we pull out one of our big guns. Send
notarized letters by certified mail to the vaccine laboratory which makes
the
shot (ask your doctor for the address), to the doctor who is to administer
the
shot, to your school principal,to the school board, and to your local
health
department. In these letters make it clear that since they have refused to
give
you a duly requested waiver, you can no longer be held responsible for what
may
happen to your child if they force these shots upon him. You then state
that
you will allow immunization if each will present you with a written signed
guarantee of safety and effectiveness of the vaccine and that they will
consent
to assume full responsibility for any and all adverse reactions that your
child
may develop from the required shots. Of course none will give you such a
guarantee. They cannot do so because all vaccines are considered
potentially
highly toxic. We have yet to hear of an instance of further harassment of
parents after such letters have been sent.
That’s about all that is needed to obtain the necessary exemptions for your
children. All that has been said in this last section (1 to 5) is also
applicable to the military and international travel, if required.
Potpourri of Ammunition
There were several good tips in Mrs. Girdwain’s original manuscript which
were
not included in the body of this thesis, but are too good to omit, and so
we
have placed them here for your perusal.
"As long as each individual who opposes vaccines has sincere objections,
states
them in writing, and signs his name - it is considered legal and proper
action
and must therefore be honored."
"Since many medical controversies exist surrounding immunization, drugs,
and
various other medications, it mandates that each individual have the right
to
control his own decisions and freedom of choice; anything less would be
contrary to the constitutional laws that protect the citizens’ rights. "
"When you deal with school officials and lawyers, you are playing with
legal
terminology - move the wrong words around and you get hung." The
terminology
used in this booklet has worked before and should work again.
"It is important to state your objections in such a way that it complies
with
your state’s exemption provisions. They must then accept your request; if
they
do not, they are breaking their own law." That is why it is absolutely
essential that you know your own state law word for word before submitting
your
objection.
"According to CDC (the federal Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta,
Georgia), physicians are required to first inform their patients of the
risks
involved before they consent to vaccines." If they do not do so, it is
prima
facie evidence of deceit or negligence on the part of the physician. This
regulation by the federal government would also seem to assume that the
patient
has the right to refuse if he feels that the risks are too great. If this
is
so, is not the federal government on record as supporting voluntary
immunization and, by obvious implication, against state-enforced compulsory
immunization?
Should you ever have to go to court, or what is more likely, to appear
before a
"kangaroo" court of school and health department officials, here is some
class
A evidence you might find useful to mention.
· No vaccine carries any guarantee of protection from the laboratory
that
produced it or the doctor who administered it.
· The U.S. military allows no-nonsense "immunizations waivers."
· There is NO FEDERAL LAW on immunizations. They don’t dare. Their
lawyers
know the consequences.
· Your rights have been infringed upon by officials attempting to use
force against your will.
Most state officials like a nice, stress-free job. When you send in your
objections and refuse to fit their ordered world by not having your
children
immunized, you make waves. This rocks their quiet existence, and there are
only
two ways their life can become orderly again: either by forcing you to
their
will or acquiescing to yours. What you must do to obtain an early waiver is
to
make the latter the easiest path for them.
At first, however, an attempt will usually be made to bend you to their
will by
some form of intimidation. Many uninformed parents give in to this tack,
and so
it is tried again and again. If you are adequately informed, as a reader of
this publication should be, you will let the officials know in no uncertain
terms that you understand your rights under the law and will not stand for
any
such shilly-shallying. Invariably, once they discover you are adamant and
acquainted with the state law, your waiver will be rapidly forthcoming.
A Final Word
While the situation we are discussing here can be a matter of life and
death,
you never want to lose your sense of humor. Let the opposition huff and
puff;
you hold all the trump cards. If you observe the few, simple suggestions
made
here, the law is all on your side. You are the good guy; they the villains.
You
wear the white hats; they, the black. Even in late 20th century America,
the
just will triumph under the law. They have only trickery, lies, and
intimidation; justice, truth, and honor lie entirely with you. So have fun
and
bless God every day for placing you under the Free American System.
American Medical News
August 14, 1995 pages 32-34
Short time from DPT to death doesn’t prove link.
Parents of an infant who died within hours of receiving a DPT vaccination
failed to prove her death was caused by a reaction to an endotoxin in the
vaccine, a federal appellate court ruled. The parents of a healthy baby
born
Dec. 2, 1982, brought her in for her first diptheria-pertussis-tetanus shot
on
Feb. 23, 1983. Shortly after returning home, the infant had two screaming
and
crying episodes. The mother put her in her crib to cry herself to sleep;
when
she checked 30 to 45 minutes later, the baby was limp, pale, unresponsive
and
not breathing. She was taken to the hospital by ambulance, but could not be
revived. An autopsy listed sudden infant death syndrome as the cause of
death.
The parents petitioned for compensation under the National Childhood
Vaccine
Injury Act; the trial court denied their petition. On appeal, the parents
argued the fact the child had been found found unresponsive and in cardiac
and
pulmonary arrest was clear evidence of hypotonic- hyporesponsive collapse
from
an endotoxin in the vaccine. HHC is compensable under the act.
The court said the parents must present a medical theory causally
connecting
the vaccination with the child’s cardiac and pulmonary arrest. Evidence in
the
record failed to support the parent’s theory that death was caused by a
reaction to endotoxin in the vaccine. The court concluded that a causal
link
between the vaccination and death could not be based merely on the short
time
between the events.
Hodges v. Secretary of Dept. of HHS, 9F.3d 958 (C.A. Fed. Cir., Nov. 15,
1993)
SIDS doesn’t prove DPT vaccine-injury claim.
The parents of a child who allegedly died as a result of a vaccination were
not
entitled to compensation, ruled a federal appellate court. The child was
born
by routine C-Section in December 1983. Starting in her second month of
life,
she was given phenobarbital for colic. In her fourth month, she received a
DPT
vaccination and, the same day, a few hours later, a dose of phenobarbital.
She
awoke two hours later, at 9:30 p.m., and took some but not all of her
bottle
and cereal. The next morning between 6 and 6:30 she was found dead in her
crib.
An autopsy later classified her death as sudden infant death syndrome.
The parents sought compensation under the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation
Act. In their action filed in the federal claims court, they asserted the
child
died from either anaphylactic shock or hypotonic-hyporesponsive collapse,
both
compensable under the program. In the alternative, the parents claimed the
child had died from some other injury caused by the DTP vaccination.
The special master assigned to the case determined that neither cause was
responsible for the death. He concluded the parents had failed to establish
by
a preponderance of evidence the vaccination was the cause of death.
Reversing
this decision, the claims court held that the undisputed evidence of
respiratory or cardiovascular failure required a determination that HHC was
present. As the precise cause of death was unknown, it was necessary to
accept
as a matter of law that symptoms of HHC, including respiratory and cardiac
arrest, constituted the presence of HHC.
On appeal, court reversed. The claims court had made two errors, it
explained.
The first was in ignoring the plain language of the Vaccine Act, which
required
establishment of cause of death by a preponderance of the evidence. The
second
was in failing to recognize that nothing in the act supported the
conclusion
that when cause of death was unknown, the presence of symptoms such as
cardiovascular or respiratory arrest superseded the requirement of a
preponderance of evidence.
Hellebrand v. Secretary of Dept. of HHS, 999 E2d 1565 (C.A., Fed. Cir.,
July
23, 1993)
These articles are an amazing demonstration that the federal government
does
not believe DPT can kill your baby even if death occurs within hours of
receiving a vaccine shot!!!
An Acknowledgment
The greatest part of the material on the first four pages is taken from the
work of Mrs. Grace Girdwain, of Burbank, Illinois. Our staff has rearranged
and
edited the information, but we wish the full credit for its existence to go
to
this courageous woman who has for twelve years worked arduously, without
compensation, to help her fellow Americans obtain their legal rights.
Illinois Administrative Code Title 77: Public Health
Chapter I: Department of Public Health
Subchapter i: Maternal and Child Health
Part 665 Child Health Examination Code
Subpart E: Exceptions
Section 665.510 Objection of Parent or Legal Guardian
Parent or legal guardian of a student may object to health examinations,
immunizations, vision, and hearing screening tests, and dental health
examinations for their children on religious grounds. If a religious
objection
is made, a written and signed statement from the parent or legal guardian
detailing such objections must be presented to the local school authority.
General philosophical or moral reluctance to allow physical examinations,
immunizations, vision and hearing screening, and dental examinations will
not
provide a sufficient basis for an exception to statutory requirements. The
parent or legal guardian must be informed by the local school authority of
measles outbreak control exclusion procedures per IDPH rules. The Control
of
Communicable Diseases (77 Ill. Adm. Code 690) at the time such objection is
presented.
Section 665.520 Medical Objections
a) Any medical objections to an immunization must be:
1) Made by a physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches
indicating what the medical condition is.
2) Endorsed and signed by the physician on the certificate of child health
examination and placed on file in the child’s permanent record.
b) Should the condition of the child later permit immunization, this
requirement will then have to be met. Parents or legal guardians must be
informed of measles outbreak control exclusion procedures when such
objection
is presented per Section 665.510.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Umm, ahhh…..
What a crock.
Bottom line is…the benifits of immunizations far, far, far outweigh the
risks.
Mercola.com seems to do a GREAT job of spreading
half truths and paranoia.
For instance, there first article on Asparteme…
Umm, how long are people going to be circulation that batch of lies and
misinformation? Its already been debunked many, many times. The only
legacy of the asparteme issue is the amoung of money people have made in
keeping it alive.
Oh, wait….the debunking is probably part of a govt coverup.
Mercola = Quack…..
Have a good day. 
Karl
How To Legally Avoid Unwanted Immunizations Of All Kinds
As you read this work and put its principles into practice, there are two
basic
axioms you never want to forget. They are the rock upon which all your
actions
are based.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________