Saturated vapour pressure for water at 180 degree C is 144 psi or about 9.8 atmospheres. A typical home pressure cooker is only 15 psi over sea or 2 atmospheres. So that is an incredible pressure/temperature combination not typically found around the home as far as I can see. Espresso machine pumps will use high pressures in the pumps but that is pumping hot water as a liquid through the coffee grindings not heating the water (or coffee) to high temperatures and so causing a high vapour pressure. Even the McDonalds coffee case had their coffee at 80 or so degree C (180 F).

RichMurray, that study seems to be irrelevant for the typical coffee drinking person.

I will take it for granted that competent, expert participants here, rather than attempt to judge me and my very introductory and scattered attempts to attract curious brilliance to check out a major breakthrough paradigm, will prefer to examine his 2010 [ NOT PEER REVIEWED ] introductory publication, which gives a thorough summary in just 4 pages, citing from the current archive of online references.

http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/586.pdf
5.93 MB

Med Hypotheses. 2010 Mar;74(3):493-6. Epub 2009 Nov 5.
Methanol: a chemical Trojan horse as the root of the inscrutable U.
Monte WC.
Arizona State University (retired), 470 South Rainbow Drive, Page, Arizona 86040, United States. woodymonte@gmail.com

Abstract

Until 200 years ago, methanol was an extremely rare component of the human diet and is still rarely consumed in contemporary hunter and gatherer cultures.

With the invention of canning in the 1800s, canned and bottled fruits and vegetables, whose methanol content greatly exceeds that of their fresh counterparts, became far more prevalent.

The recent dietary introduction of aspartame, an artificial sweetener 11% methanol by weight, has also greatly increased methanol consumption.

Moreover, methanol is a major component of cigarette smoke, known to be a causative agent of many diseases of civilization (DOC).

Conversion to formaldehyde in organs other than the liver is the principal means by which methanol may cause disease.

The known sites of class I alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH I), the only human enzyme capable of metabolizing methanol to formaldehyde, correspond to the sites of origin for many DOC.

Variability in sensitivity to exogenous methanol consumption may be accounted for in part by the presence of aldehyde dehydrogenase sufficient to reduce the toxic effect of formaldehyde production in tissue through its conversion to the much less toxic formic acid.

The consumption of small amounts of ethanol, which acts as a competitive inhibitor of methanol's conversion to formaldehyde by ADH I, may afford some individuals protection from DOC.

Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
PMID: 19896282

[ Note: NOT PEER REVIEWED (except by thyself...) -- check out his 740 free full text medical research references...

Note: Prof. Resia Pretorius, a published expert on aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde) toxicity, went well out of her way to publish a letter recently in a mainstream medical journal to cite his 2012 January text "While Science Sleeps"... ]

More fucking SPAM.

byofrcs -- thanks for the vivid info on 24 atmospheres of pressure of coffee brew at 190 deg C.

However, they also found at 90 deg C, the methanol was 29.2 microg/ml, instead of 38.3 at 190 deg C., so instead of 50 mg fresh Brazil coffee powder with 200 ml water at 180 deg C giveing 38.3 microgram/ml methanol = 7.66 mg/200 ml -- so 12
of coffee has 13.6 mg methanol in 355 ml, 62% of the 22 mg methanol from 200 mg aspartame in a 12-oz can of diet drink, we have the value reduced by 29.2/38.3 = .762, giving 10.4 mg methanol in 12 oz, 47% of the 22 mg methanol in a diet drink.

I apologize for thoughtlessly picking the higher figure, which indeed has little relevance for cooking.

However, Houston, we still have a problem...

Current human safety levels for methanol are this very day are wildly inaccurate and a hazard to the health and lives of people all over Earth.

We cannot ignore or trivialize the fact that one competent, well published team has decided to hide this very crucial information about a hugely popular beverage within a table in the middle of a short article in an obscure journal in 2009 -- not even cited by PubMed.

The clue cries out for a full crime scene investigation: what varieties of coffee -- whether the beans were fermented, or dried or roasted, being exposed to methanol from wood smoke, as in the case of cigarette tobacco -- the effects of methods of canning, brewing, caffeine removal -- how quickly methanol evaporates from coffee before consumption -- population studies -- pregnancy and birth defects -- also double check cocoa products...

Coffee would boil at approximately 100 C, unless you put it in a closed container and superheat it you ain't gonna get it to 180, no way, no how.

RichMurray wrote:
http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/586.pdf
5.93 MB

Ok, I read that article and my first response is to ask for that 30 minutes back. However, in the interests of discussion, I shall post some more detailed comments.

Firstly, as has been mentioned, the article is not peer-reviewed. It is however heavily referenced but this is not actually a good thing.

The author makes several claims which are not supported by primary, peer-reviewed literature or well-supported case studies:

The author lumps many diseases under the heading "diseases of civilization" without showing a common thread between them. The closest that he comes is when he refers to the commonality of tobacco smoke as a potential causative (or exacerbative) agent. Unfortunately, the author cites such studies and claims that the methanol in tobacco smoke is the underlying aetiological factor. He does this via a highly ambiguous sentence where he correctly states that cigarette smoke is a primary route for methanol entry and then segues into claiming [it] as a causative agent for a variety of diseases. The sentence (first paragraph, 2nd page) is misleading at best.

One of the key assertions made in the paper is that the methanol moiety of aspartame somehow bypasses 1C metabolism and is instead converted directly to formaldehyde which subsequently attacks proteins. The reference for this major assertion is itself a non-peer reviewed letter sent to the journal Life Sciences in 1999. Until this claim is substantiated, it is difficult to accept Dr Monte's claims of acute formaldehyde toxicity resulting from aspartame.

His discussion of the chemistry of formaldehyde contains a reference to a reaction product with water - "formal hydrate" - itself mentioned in a 1971 article. I can find no reference to formal hydrate and the reaction product of formaldehyde with water is methylene glycol (see here) but is a slow reaction. Formaldehyde is shipped dissolved in water. I find this section of chemistry highly dubious.

It should be noted that key articles which were cited to support other chemistry (41-43) are all at least 50 years old and therefore cannot possibly have included a treatment of aspartame.

Secondly, in paragraph 2 on page 2, Monte notes that there is a weakness of animal models (when compared to human toxicity) of the effects of methanol yet cites a (ref 33) study from 1937 in dogs as evidence for the ease of methanol crossing the blood/brain barrier. While yours truly would not dare to accuse Monte of cherry-picking data and studies to support his claims, others may not be so charitable.

Thirdly, in general, Dr Monte does not cite current or even relevant literature. Many papers included in the bibliography are several decades old and are extremely tangential to the line of reasoning employed in the paper. Without an exhaustive review, it is impossible to determine if Monte is cherry-picking, but it certainly would appear that way to a skeptical observer. Certainly the citation of papers from the early 20th century, especially the key reference #56 which is used as the basis for ethanol-as-a-panacea, invites the diligent researcher to immediately question if there are more modern sources for such important biochemial questions.

Finally, Dr Monte repeatedly accuses researchers of being influenced by vested interests which has led to suppression of data and misdirection of research efforts. In particular, he cites a 20+ year old newspaper article on NutraSweet to immediately accuse references 28 & 29 of being influenced by industry. Such serious allegations demand positive support.

RichMurray wrote:byofrcs -- thanks for the vivid info on 24 atmospheres of pressure of coffee brew at 190 deg C.

However, they also found at 90 deg C, the methanol was 29.2 microg/ml, instead of 38.3 at 190 deg C., so instead of 50 mg fresh Brazil coffee powder with 200 ml water at 180 deg C giveing 38.3 microgram/ml methanol = 7.66 mg/200 ml -- so 12
of coffee has 13.6 mg methanol in 355 ml, 62% of the 22 mg methanol from 200 mg aspartame in a 12-oz can of diet drink, we have the value reduced by 29.2/38.3 = .762, giving 10.4 mg methanol in 12 oz, 47% of the 22 mg methanol in a diet drink.

I apologize for thoughtlessly picking the higher figure, which indeed has little relevance for cooking.

However, Houston, we still have a problem...

Current human safety levels for methanol are this very day are wildly inaccurate and a hazard to the health and lives of people all over Earth.

We cannot ignore or trivialize the fact that one competent, well published team has decided to hide this very crucial information about a hugely popular beverage within a table in the middle of a short article in an obscure journal in 2009 -- not even cited by PubMed.

The clue cries out for a full crime scene investigation: what varieties of coffee -- whether the beans were fermented, or dried or roasted, being exposed to methanol from wood smoke, as in the case of cigarette tobacco -- the effects of methods of canning, brewing, caffeine removal -- how quickly methanol evaporates from coffee before consumption -- population studies -- pregnancy and birth defects -- also double check cocoa products...

If you mean the study, "Effect of the Temperature and pH on Methanol Release in Coffee Brew Sweetened with Aspartame.
Acta Alimentaria 2009;38(3):303-7." that you posted to a few posts back then they said that the "Our data revealed a protective effect of the pH of coffee on the degradation of aspartame and formation of methanol; an important fact, mainly for specific populations that use aspartame, like diabetics."

I've never worked out why people want sweetness in coffee (or tea) but the study seems superfluous as the aspartame is what is being examined and we know that metabolises to methanol. I assume by protective action it slows the metabolising. That is probably a good ting or bad. As a baseline of a soda drink the percentages are still lower so we are still after decades of research no further forward.

The problem is that coffee has been consumed for hundreds of years and there are remarkable country differences. Same with diet soda with the US consuming a vast amount.

Just by correlating drink consumption with birth defects at a country scale anyone should using public data show a X-Y plot of this data and it should show a blip when aspartame was approved.

Has it ? Well I would have thought this would have been noticed given that in 2009 researchers found the period for increase risk of birth defects correlated with increased levels of pesticides in surface water across the United States.....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 130235.htm

That study is from 1996 and 2002 which 1996 being the date that aspartame was allowed to be used in all foods so are you saying that this study, which found correlation with pesticides expressly ignored aspartame when working out controls ?

I think not. So your study has indirectly been done and nothing has been found.

So yeah, Houston we have a problem - you.

Just A Theory wrote:

RichMurray wrote:
http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/586.pdf
5.93 MB

Finally, Dr Monte repeatedly accuses researchers of being influenced by vested interests which has led to suppression of data and misdirection of research efforts. In particular, he cites a 20+ year old newspaper article on NutraSweet to immediately accuse references 28 & 29 of being influenced by industry. Such serious allegations demand positive support.

Just A Theory, thanks for the detailed specific critical points. It's bedtime for me at PST in Imperial Beach, California,
so just now I will offer indisputable evidence for suppression of research by FDA, described in detail in WSS with a zerox copy of the long hidden memo in the FDA files on aspartame, that tells of two animal studies that show birth defects from aspartame, recovered by WC Monte in January 2011 by a Freedom of Information request after long delays -- download free Chapter 12 "Autism and Other Birth Defects", second page, reference 677 gives the two studies:

677. Collins TFX. Memorandum: Aspartame shown to cause nural tube birth defects in the New Zealand rabit, an animal very resistant to methanol poisoning. Freedom of information: Department of Health Education and Welfare, Food and Drug Administration; 1978. [ I don't know where the typos originate... ]

I'll take up your other points soon.

within mutual service, Rich

RichMurray wrote:
Just A Theory, thanks for the detailed specific critical points. It's bedtime for me at PST in Imperial Beach, California,
so just now I will offer indisputable evidence for suppression of research by FDA, described in detail in WSS with a zerox copy of the long hidden memo in the FDA files on aspartame, that tells of two animal studies that show birth defects from aspartame, recovered by WC Monte in January 2011 by a Freedom of Information request after long delays -- download free Chapter 12 "Autism and Other Birth Defects", second page, reference 677 gives the two studies:

677. Collins TFX. Memorandum: Aspartame shown to cause nural tube birth defects in the New Zealand rabit, an animal very resistant to methanol poisoning. Freedom of information: Department of Health Education and Welfare, Food and Drug Administration; 1978. [ I don't know where the typos originate... ]

I'll take up your other points soon.

within mutual service, Rich

Hi Rich

It appears that Dr Monte (and you) did not peruse the linked memo before skipping to the section which he believes supports his claims. If he (and presumably you) had read the memo then it would have been immediately apparent that the dosage given to the rabbits was between 750mg and 2000mg/kg/day - for reference, the US FDA sets the maximum safe dosage at 50mg/kg/day. In other words, the researchers fed the rabbits between 15 and 40 times the maximum safe dosage.

On top of that, as the memo goes on to note (and which is even underlined by Dr Monte), "At the high dose level, there was an increase in the number of fetuses with abnormalities". Dr Monte's underline - note how he omits the qualification that the dose that caused such defects was the high one (40 times the maximum safe dose).

I therefore reiterate my demand for positive support of the claim that research into the harmful effects of aspartame is being influenced or controlled by industry.

Hi Just A Theory,

Uh, the minimum amount per kg body weight that harms an animal has to be divided by a factor of 100 to 1000 to set the safe human dose, so 4 g/kg dose for rabbits means human dose should be set higher then .04 to .004 g/kg = 40 to 4 mg/kg .

Humans are the only animals that have a nonfunctioning catalase enzyme system in cells to properly and safely process methanol without releasing rampant, free floating formaldehyde -- due to a unique human mutation long, long ago -- so rats and rabbits actually are so immune to methanol being made by the ADH1 enzyme into free floating formaldehyde right inside the cell, that the only way WC Monte could cause birth defects in mice in his research lab at Arizona State University was to squirt so much methanol into the rat's stomach as to saturate the catalase system, so then the excess methanol was available to react with the ADH1 enzyme in the cells to make formaldehyde.

That's why the Searle Co. labs inadvertently managed to reach a level so high in 1974-5 as to start producing birth defects -- a mistake they soon learned to never replicate -- it's hard to believe that they actually passed this kind of data up on to the FDA -- maybe they were overconfident about their influence, or the researchers had enough conscience to actually sneak the hot potato past their masters -- nowadays, the orchestration of industry propaganda is virtually flawless...

Just Google "ethanol, methanol, formaldehyde, ADH1" to find plenty of references that ethanol blocks methanol being made into formaldehyde by the ADH1 enzyme --

This is what WC Monte's paradigm clears up -- the mystery in recent years of the U curve for harm from ethanol for many major diseases: symptoms are high for zero daily ethanol use, much lower for 1 to 3 shots daily ethanol, and then higher and higher for more and more daily ethanol, as the ethanol toxicity starts to operate at very high daily doses -- the low doses of daily ethanol completely prevent any methanol from being made into toxic formaldehyde right inside any cells that have high levels of the ADH1 enzyme... So, as a rule, if a disease has the U shape curve for ethanol, then probably it is a methanol/formaldehyde toxic process inside some specific tissue, such as the milk ducts in the human breast that develop breast cancers after years of low-level methanol/formaldehyde toxicity. So, that's a confirmation of his paradigm, as he lists 19 diseases for 19 tissues with high ADH1 levels -- a great pleasure to read, like reading Darwin's "Origin of Species"...

I got busy for about 8 hours the last two days, copying by hand the 5-page badly typed memo, and adding references and quotes from WC Monte, and just finished:

WC Monte finally got secret FDA memo 37 years after Searle Co. labs
found birth defects in rabbits from aspartame (methanol, becomes
formaldehyde via ADH1 enzyme within human cells) and its
phenylalanine: Rich Murray 2012.06.02
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2012/06/wc ... emo-37.htm\
l
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/as ... ssage/1650


Monte, Woodrow C. (2011-12-30). While Science Sleeps (Kindle
Locations 5542-5612). Amazon. Kindle Edition.

free Chapter 12 "Autism and Other Birth Defects" with 100 free online
full text pdf medical research references

http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/While ... er%2012%20\
(ref).pdf

within mutual service, Rich

So what would it cost to get a few dozen or so rabbits, tank them up on whatever you want and then terminate and dissect ? This isn't rocket science.

With suitable protocols to make sure that the observer bias doesn't ruin the experiment then you have your answer. A 35 year old study that is on a page that can't even establish the diet for the control bunnies is useless.

How about this - stop wasting everyone's time spamming forums with the same material post after post after post and actually get out and do the science ?

My earlier post about Aspartame and Stute products was incorrect. They use Sorbitol (54%) - totally different. Their diabetic products still taste crap, though .

RichMurray wrote:Hi Just A Theory,

Uh, the minimum amount per kg body weight that harms an animal has to be divided by a factor of 100 to 1000 to set the safe human dose, so 4 g/kg dose for rabbits means human dose should be set higher then .04 to .004 g/kg = 40 to 4 mg/kg .

Please provide a citation for this assertion.

Humans are the only animals that have a nonfunctioning catalase enzyme system in cells to properly and safely process methanol without releasing rampant, free floating formaldehyde -- due to a unique human mutation long, long ago -- so rats and rabbits actually are so immune to methanol being made by the ADH1 enzyme into free floating formaldehyde right inside the cell, that the only way WC Monte could cause birth defects in mice in his research lab at Arizona State University was to squirt so much methanol into the rat's stomach as to saturate the catalase system, so then the excess methanol was available to react with the ADH1 enzyme in the cells to make formaldehyde.

Humans have a functional catalase system. Please provide a citation which contradicts this.

I have no idea what sort of drugs Monte is smoking but they are seriously impairing his critical thinking abilities. Catalase also has nothing to do with methanol or formaldehyde metabolism.

That's why the Searle Co. labs inadvertently managed to reach a level so high in 1974-5 as to start producing birth defects -- a mistake they soon learned to never replicate -- it's hard to believe that they actually passed this kind of data up on to the FDA -- maybe they were overconfident about their influence, or the researchers had enough conscience to actually sneak the hot potato past their masters -- nowadays, the orchestration of industry propaganda is virtually flawless...

This paragraph would score about 400pts on the crackpot index. Seriously, please either provide a citation supporting your allegation of scientific collusion, fraud and industry influence or shut the fuck up about it.

Just Google "ethanol, methanol, formaldehyde, ADH1" to find plenty of references that ethanol blocks methanol being made into formaldehyde by the ADH1 enzyme --

Except that (uncontroversial) fact is not where the problem lies with Monte's guff.

And I'll just ignore the rest of the spam in that post.

Hi byofrcs -- a private citizen actually went ahead and did her own experiment with rats:

Victoria Inness-Brown, 3 books and 5-part video on 2.5 year study on
many large tumors in 60 rats fed NutraSweet (aspartame, dextrose,
maltodextrine): Joseph Mercola: Rich Murray 2011.06.23
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_06_01_archive.htm
Thursday, June 23, 2011
[ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
http://health,groups.yahoo.com/group/as ... ssage/1627
[ you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser ]

An intelligent citizen videotaped her own study at home, feeding 30
male and 30 female rats NutraSweet, at the US FDA human limit of 50 mg
aspartame per kg body weight -- 3,000 mg (3 grams) for humans, about
15 12-oz diet drinks daily -- a level reached by some users.

Rodents are about ten or more times resistant to methanol
(formaldehyde, formic acid) toxicity as humans -- this is why a
century ago animal tests led scientists to decide that methanol was
safe for humans.

http://www.ihealthtube.com/aspx/viewvid ... d064bf79a1

Information
From: iHealthTube Admin
Added: 6/21/2011
Time: 14:17
Views: 52
Dr. Joseph Mercola speaks with Victoria Inness-Brown about artificial
sweeteners, particularly aspartame.
She looks at the negative effects of aspartame and why it should be avoided.
This is part one of a five-part video series.
Contributor(s): Mercola, Joseph D.O.
Tags: artificial sweeteners, aspartame
Transcript: None

http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_study_fe ... tumors.pdf
3 page summary 2011.03.03 color photos
Aspartame Study: 67% of Female Rats Developed Visible Tumors
By Victoria Inness-Brown, M.A.

aspartameexperiment.com
links automatically to
http://www.writerswithoutborders.net/vib/aspartame/

hi guys, rather than descend into desperate ad hominems invective and blind refusal to read, why not enjoy with open curiosity the carefully crafted text by WC Monte -- the electronic Kindle version is only $ 10, a 5 MB download along with a Kindle reader software, amazon.com ?

Monte, Woodrow C. (2011-12-30). While Science Sleeps (Kindle Locations 772-803). Amazon. Kindle Edition.

in Chapter 3, "Man and Methanol: A Tragic History of Mutation and Deceit"

What Is the Meaning of This Human Mutation?

The first step in the digestion of methanol is always the production of formaldehyde, a very dangerous compound which, if not carefully controlled, can wreak great harm within a living cell.

The two most important enzymes in the animal kingdom that are responsible for metabolizing methanol are catalase and ADH.

But man’s catalase enzyme cannot metabolize methanol,* leaving only ADH to do the job.

The most important difference between these two enzymes is their precise locations within the cell.

It is this, and this alone, that accounts for the great disadvantage that man has compared to all other animals.

It also accounts for why animals can use methanol as a food and energy source, while for humans it is a deadly poison and etiologic agent of disease.

Let me explain.

The ADH enzyme is found dissolved in the cell’s fluid, or cytosol. 531

This makes ADH a free agent that can float around the cell unencumbered, releasing formaldehyde from methanol wherever it happens to be within the cell at the time.

Nothing can then restrain the reactive formaldehyde;

it is free to leave the cell or travel to the nucleus or other sensitive areas within the cell, where serious damage (such as methylation) can be done.

Whether within the cell or outside it, the necessary enzyme that would convert formaldehyde to the next metabolite, formic acid, is, at the very least, a considerable distance away.

The odds are quite slim that the very reactive formaldehyde will somehow avoid doing damage before reaching that enzyme.

A Scientific Aside

In an attempt to make the well known inability of human catalase to metabolize methanol more understandable to the designated readership of this book, I have pointed to a possible deformation of the human catalase.

This issue has not been laid to rest.

The mutation may possibly be due to the genes responsible for the production of the peroxide-generating enzymes that must function with catalase to metabolize methanol.

Urate oxidase can be found in rats and monkeys but not in the human, while xanthan oxidase is only found in rats but not in monkeys or humans.

The issue is complex, and though I do not have time to deal with it here, you can read an interesting review in the Biochemical Toxicology of Methanol. 665

Unlike humans, animals utilize catalase to metabolize methanol.

Catalase is an enzyme associated with the detoxification of many poisons, which is likely why nature locates it in a special structure inside the cell, called a peroxisome.

It is within the structure of the peroxisome that catalase transforms methanol into formaldehyde, thereby limiting its travel and keeping it retained long enough to allow for further metabolism.

These peroxisomes are linked closely with another very important cell body that we will discuss later, the mitochondria, 664 a cigar-shaped cell body found in extremely high concentration in liver cells (they are what give the healthy liver its dark color).

Mitochondria are the powerhouse of the living cell, containing in separate compartments the enzymes necessary to convert formaldehyde to formic acid and then to produce energy (in the form of ATP) and carbon dioxide, among other things.

The loss of the ability of human catalase to metabolize methanol put humans at very great risk by passing off the job to ADH, an enzyme not meant to do that work which is located in some very compromising parts of our anatomy.

We understand very little about all the uses of ADH in the human body or why the distribution of this enzyme varies greatly by race and sex and heredity.

But we do know that the locations within the human body where ADH is found have a great deal to do with the origin and epidemiology of disease. 216, 501

Unfortunately, epidemiologists studying this well-known phenomenon give no credence to the fact that every site of ADH in the body is capable of producing formaldehyde....

http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/references/

free full text pdf...

665. Tephly TR., Watkins WD, Goodman JI. [ pro aspartame industry scientists ]
The Biochemical Toxicology of Methanol.
[ Chapter 6, pages 149-177, 98 references ]
New York and London: Acidemic Press; 1974.
(Hayes JH., ed. Essays In Toxicology; vol. 5).

RichMurray wrote:Hi byofrcs -- a private citizen actually went ahead and did her own experiment with rats:

.....

I was replying to some hyperbole claims about a very old study on birth defects in rabbits. I don't know if repeat testing has been done - you should or would know this if you are that interested but you reply back with a study about tumours in rats.

OK so lets move on to rats and science is always about reproduction of the results. One study on its own is untrustworthy until someone else can reproduce the results that are claimed.

Has a similar rat study been done ? When you have two and more studies all coming up with the same or similar increases in female (67 %v 21% in control) and male rats (23% v nil in control) then that is the evidence that would work and once universities pick it up then it would get published in peer journals and then the shit hits the fan.

Science works but you will not get anywhere by posting links to standalone studies until you can post links to peer reviewed metastudies that make robust claims.

Heck it is not like it is that hard to get rats/rabbits/the chemicals and a suitable accredited university to run the studies to gateway you into the journals.

We don't really care what the results are only that they can be trusted.

RichMurray wrote:hi guys, rather than descend into desperate ad hominems invective and blind refusal to read, why not enjoy with open curiosity the carefully crafted text by WC Monte -- the electronic Kindle version is only $ 10, a 5 MB download along with a Kindle reader software, amazon.com ?
.....

I don't need to read the car manual to understand car accident rates: I'm not the one fixing the human body. You need a different strategy that is made up of studies that have good methodology and provide all the data to verify what is claimed.

Lets just wait for the EFSA to come out with its review of current data sets http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/dataclosed/call/110601.htm There is about 500 Mbytes of dataset there so bit heavygoing.

WTF is this Lunacy?

Hello byofrcs,

I have a free online archive of 1,650 reviews with references since October, 1999:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/as ... M/messages

This rabbit study is not about cancer or methanol/formaldehyde:

phenylalanine and aspartic acid from low dose aspartame in rabbits interfere
with blood coagulation, Pretorius E and Humphries P, U. of Pretoria, Ultrastruct
Pathol 2007 March: Murray 2007.07.14
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/as ... ssage/1452

" The authors conclude by suggesting that aspartame usage
may interfere with the coagulation process
and might cause delayed fibrin breakup after clot formation.

They suggest this,
as the fibrin networks from aspartame-exposed rabbits
are more complex and dense,
due to the netlike appearance of the minor, thin fibers.

Aspartame usage should possibly be limited
by people on anti-clotting medicine
or those with prone to clot formation. "

Ultrastruct Pathol. 2007 Mar-Apr; 31(2): 77-83.
Ultrastructural changes to rabbit fibrin and platelets due to aspartame.
Pretorius E,
Humphries P.
Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine,
University of Pretoria, South Africa.
[ Humphries P also at
Department of Anatomy, University of Limpopo.
Medunsa Campus, Garankuwa. South Africa ]

email: E. Pretorius resia.pretorius@up.ac.za

*Correspondence to E. Pretorius,
BMW Building, PO Box 2034,
Faculty of Health Sciences,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0001, South Africa


The prestigious Ramazzini Foundation in Italy has been doing large studies on many toxins with hundreds of mice or rats for lifetime exposure for decades -- including ethanol, methanol, acetylaldehyde, formaldehyde, aspartame -- finding cancers in many tissues -- still being published in peer reviewed mainstream journals, despite industry sponsored critical rejection by some teams:

careful expert lifetime study on mice shows liver and lung cancers
from aspartame, M Soffritti et al, Ramazzini Institute, Italy, checked
by US National Toxicology Program experts, confirms many previous
studies from 2001 on: Rich Murray 2011.02.27
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.htm
Sunday, February 27, 2011
[ at end of each long page, click on Older Posts ]
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/as ... ssage/1619
[you may have to Copy and Paste URLs into your browser]

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/as ... ssage/1441
Lifetime exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal
life increases cancer effects in rats, Morando Soffritti et al,
European Ramazzini Foundation, USA EPA Environmental Health
Perspectives 2007.06.13 free full text 24 pages: Murray 2007.06.16

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/as ... ssage/1447
second study by expert Greek team of neurotoxicity in infant rats by
aspartame (or its parts, methanol, phenylalanine, aspartic acid), KH
Schulpis et al, Toxicology 2007.05.18: Murray 2007.07.04

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/as ... ssage/1444
expert Greek group finds aspartame (or its parts, methanol,
phenylalanine, aspartic acid) harm infant rat brain enzyme activity,
KH Schulpis et al, Pharmacol. Res. 2007.05.13: Murray 2007.06.23

aspartame (methanol, phenylalanine, aspartic acid) effects,
detailed expert studies in 2005 Aug and 1998 July, Tsakiris S,
Schulpis KH, Karikas GA, Kokotos G, Reclos RJ, et al,
Aghia Sophia Children's Hospital, Athens, Greece:
Murray 2005.09.09
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/as ... ssage/1213

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/as ... ssage/1143
methanol (formaldehyde, formic acid) disposition:
Bouchard M et al, full plain text, 2001: substantial
sources are degradation of fruit pectins, liquors,
aspartame, smoke: Murray 2005.04.02
[ careful neutral expert review ]

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/as ... ssage/1286
methanol products (formaldehyde and formic acid) are main
cause of alcohol hangover symptoms [same as from similar
amounts of methanol, the 11% part of aspartame]:
YS Woo et al, 2005 Dec: Murray 2006.01.20

Is it getting uncomfortably spammy in here, or is it just me?