This conversation is closed.

Evidence aspartame is poison

Aspartame (NutraSweet/Eqkual/AminoSweet/Canderel/Benevia/951) is masquerading as an additive. In reality it is an addictive, excitoneurotoxic, carcinogenic , genetically engineered drug and adjuvant that damages the mitochondria and interacts with drugs and vaccines. The evidence for this is the 1000 page medical text "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic" by H. J. Roberts, M.D. , www.sunsentpress.com

The Trocho Study in Barcelona showed that the formaldehyde converted from the free methyl alcohol embalms living tissues and damages DNA. In a conversation with Dr. M. Alemany he said "Aspartame will murder two hundred million people. In Dr. Woody Monte's recent book "While Science Sleeps" explains how the formaldehyde turns the tissues to plastic.

In the 2005 Ecologist it explains that aspartame at one time was listed with the pentagon in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons submiotted to Congress. Alex Constantine who wrote NutraPoison also gives information on this. Both can be googled or you can check under aspartame news on my web site, www.mpwhi.com

The FDA report lists 92 symptoms triggered by aspartame from blindness and seizures to coma and death. Aspartame also triggers an irregular heart rhythm and interacts with all cardiac medications as the medical text explains. It damages the caradiac conduction system and causes sudden death.

The FDA and G. D. Searle, kthe original manufacturer made a deal to never let the public see the teratory studies which showed neural tube defects accounting for the epidemic of autism. We have secured those studies no0w and the last chapter in Dr. Monte's book is free on www.whilesciencesleeps.com discussing the epidemic of autism.

You can join the Aspartame Information list for continued updates like the new Purdue Study with 40 years of research showing you how deadly this toxin is.

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum, Mission Possible Intl

  • thumb
    Jul 19 2013: Yes I read those. There was a whole bunch of papers that involve giving huge doeses of aspartame to rats. The lowest dose was the equivalent of drinking a gallon of diet soda in one sitting and was followed up with the equivalent of 20 gallons of diet soda. The only one I found on humans involved a reduction in kidney function in women in their 60s associated with prolonged use of diet soda. It wasn't however restricted to aspartame. The sodas were also sweetened with other sweeteners. Because of this the researchers state that no solid association between aspartame and kidney function can be made in their own discussion. It would be helpful if your links went to the actual papers rather than just a one page abstract. Every paper I found the original of stated there were no indications regarding the use of aspartame as a sweetener.
    http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2089.htm
    Read this it explains quite clearly why the Sofritti study is irrelevant and why the danish study is inconclusive. Much of the increase in pre-term delivery was due to medically induced early delivery so what they actually prove is that women who drink diet soda are more likely to request an induced delivery rather than just wait it out.
    • thumb
      Jul 19 2013: I bet you are an excellent physics teacher, Peter.
      • thumb
        Jul 19 2013: Thanx Fritzie. The most important thing I try to teach is that science isn't really a subject area, it's a method of investigation that seeks the truth no matter what that truth turns out to be.
  • thumb
    Jul 18 2013: I've just spent the last two hours looking for any scientific papers that connect aspartame with any negative health effects. The only ones I can find are the Ramazzini papers which are widely held to be flawed methodologically and also involved unrealistically high doeses. I can however find many websites that assure me aspartame is very dangerous and most of these websites are hosted by people who use the title doctor even though they are neither an M.D. nor hold a PhD in a relevant field. In fact one of them has an honorary PhD in a completely unrelated field but still calls themselves doctor.
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: After reading all the "evidence" on the website, here's what I have concluded.

    1. Every single "damning" piece of evidence either has methodological flaws, was done on rats, or at the end blatantly state that further tests need to be carried out on humans to examine the LONG TERM effects.

    2. Way too much correlation vs. causation. Lots of articles aren't even peer reviewed by reputable scientists. They don't even follow any sort of method!

    3. Tons of "research" says: lots of people died in this country and the headline she puts for the link is "aspartame causes blah blah blah."

    4. With the amount of research done on aspartame, it's incredible how LITTLE of it gets cited in any of the papers.

    5. This Purdue Study: I've talked to a couple professors about this over email the last few hours. It's not a big deal guys.

    Conclusion: This stuff is all sensationalist stuff that's left over from a giant hoax that was carried out a few years ago.

    This might pass off as being rude: but such is the nature of science :)
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: "Both can be googled or you can check under aspartame news on my web site..."

    Oh dear. Is this a cleverly disguised advertisement for you web site? I see GMO alarmism on your web site too. Imagine that!
  • Jul 16 2013: While good debates should be encouraged, presenting this kind of sensationalist misinformation as if it was legitimate is an abuse.
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: I just want to make sure Entropy knows that his comment was replied to by OP so I'm posting here.

      This is a reply to Betty.

      I'm not immediately disagreeing with your comment, but I just want to point something out.

      With all the numbers, I have yet to see an empirical study that shows causation rather than correlation. I mean actual dependent variable controlled lab tests.

      Otherwise, I can throw out this claim: IBM Personal Computers (PCs) were introduced in 1981. Since then, Alzheimers....q.v. above.

      So. I'm not at all educated in this topic. All I'm saying is that to an extent Entropy Driven is correct in that because you present no evidence of causality, the statistics seem VERY sensationalist to me.
      • Jul 17 2013: Thanks for your comment Michael.
      • Jul 17 2013: Dear Michael,

        We have all the evidence you would ever need. For instance, here is peer reviewed research: http://www.mpwhi.com/peer_reviewed_research.htm This goes back to 2011, but on some URL's there will be many studies. http://www.mpwhi.com/peer_reviewed_research.htm

        To help you understand why two components isolated are excitotoxic and neurotoxic read this report by James Bowen, M.D. and Arkthur Evangelista (worked for the FDA but quit because of the corruption): http://www.mpwhi.com/amino_acid_isolates.htm Dr. Bowen is a physician and biochemist. Took four years of chemistry and graduated #1 in his class.

        Be sure to read the Trocho Study. AIt was so damning the aspartame industry tried to assaassinate the researcher's character. http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_and_preembalming.htm

        There is a new damning study based on 40 years of research, Purdue University. that you can google. I don't believe we have it on web as yet.

        Regards,
        Betty
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2013: I really don't want to get into an argument so this will be my last post on this thread.

          However, after a quick scouring of the research.

          First link (Ramazzini Institute): Independent peer review analysis flaws: "comparing cancer rates of older aspartame-consuming rats to younger control rats; unspecified composition of the "Corticella" diet and method of adding aspartame, leading to possible nutritional deficiencies; unspecified aspartame storage conditions; lack of animal randomization; overcrowding and a high incidence of possibly carcinogenic infections; and the U.S. National Toxicology Program's finding that the ERF had misdiagnosed hyperplasias as malignancies."

          Other stuff: All correlation. Half the stuff literally says "People died." No methodology. No causality link. This stuff can't possibly be peer reviewed by reputable scientists. The evidence just doesn't match up with the headlines. In debate, we call this "power-tagging." Also, I don't see a test where the scientific process is carried out all the way through, nor do I see any studies having to do with humans (limited) proving long term effects. Short term effects are easy. Ex. Caffeine is a diuretic. Makes you expel more water. Doesn't entail kidney malfunction...

          Bowen: Don't see sufficient evidence. Theoretical metabolic hypothesis. Plus, the amount aspartame has been studied, I should see lots of concurrences and lots of citations....

          Trocho: "Damage to nucleic acids." Well ok. We have checkpoints leading to apotosis.
          At the end of the study, he concludes that we need further study. Hardly damning at all.
          Also, the formaldehyde formation is from very high concentrations that won't be reached in the human bloodstream.
      • Jul 17 2013: Here is an article I wrote for the National Health Federation titled "No Safe Dose of Aspartame". Note that theFDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, admitted to Congress that aspartame causes cancer, and dtherefore no one should be able to set an allowable dose. Notice he said aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment because it causes cancer. His last wordds to Congress were, "If the FDA violates its own laws who is left to protect the public." Dr. Gross was behind the indictment of the manufacturer for fraud but both US Prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statutes of limitation expired. http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=3442

        Betty
  • Aug 6 2013: This reply is to Peter Lindsay.

    OK Peter, to put into perspective the severe poisoning effects of unnatural METHANOL ingestion in humans, you only need to remember the tragic deaths and injuries suffered every year by people who unintentionally or otherwise consume adulterated alcoholic drinks - Ethanol substituted by METHANOL.

    It is generally accepted that the acute dose of Methanol that renders an adult human blind is one tablespoonful 10ml (114mg/kg) and three tablespoons 30ml (343mg/kg) is likely to be fatal. Check out Methanol poisoning on the web to find out just how devastating even lesser amounts can be without blinding or killing. The power of the methanol molecule to cause harm is in its formidable 1st Metabolite Formaldehyde.

    Methanol is the smallest of all the alcohol molecules and can easily by-pass all of our biological barriers. Formaldehyde is by comparison a very large molecule which does not travel very far. Awaiting contact with the enzyme ADH1 (alcohol dehydrogenase) which is necessary for the metabolism of METHANOL to formaldehyde. The little methanol molecule is likely to be found right inside a cell or next to DNA within the brain or any other major organ when formaldehyde is formed, causing organ tissue and neurological damage over time – METHANOL carries formaldehyde to parts of the body it would not otherwise have access to.

    Methanol poisoning is at the molecular level, very slowly one molecule at a time, daily aspartame consumption keeps this process going. As you are probably aware a tumour or other DOC (Diseases of civilisation) MS, Alzheimer’s, Autism, Parkinson’s disease etc. all take years and sometimes a lifetime to appear. The anecdotal cases of aspartame harm report the same pattern.

    I hope you find this interesting.
    • thumb
      Aug 7 2013: 114mg/kg you say. Why that's only 70 can of diet coke. All at once. I think methanol poisoning would be the least of your worries. And please stop using terms like UNNATURAL, I have a chemistry/physics degree so dividing chemicals on the basis of their source is like talking to me about Holy Water.
    • Aug 13 2013: "Methanol is the smallest of all the alcohol molecules and can easily by-pass all of our biological barriers."
      That's interesting.
      "The little methanol molecule is likely to be found right inside a cell or next to DNA ..."
      That's also interesting.
      Thanks
      • Aug 13 2013: Hi Steve C many thanks for your comments; I find the word “interesting”, Interesting, it has many connotations.

        EG here it diverts attention away from the really important message in the passage, that METHANOL, when it metabolises to formaldehyde within a cell, that formaldehyde has reached a part of the body it would never on its own ever have access to, it is too big. METHANOL is the Trojan horse for formaldehyde which is the real danger in METHANOL Poisoning.

        Formaldehyde disappears from the bloodstream within minutes of appearing during METHANOL metabolism – can you answer the question please; “WHERE DOES IT GO?”
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2013: It's funny cause I can't find anything on the American chemical societies website about the dangers of aspartame.
  • thumb
    Jul 26 2013: It would be very helpful if people cited papers from respected research facilities. A single MD working out of his own garage as Dr Roberts did is in no position to do real research. The "Palm Beach Institute for Medical Research" was his garage. Truly astounding!
  • Comment deleted

    • Jul 20 2013: Dear Kate,

      Interestingly, I just answered this post to you and it disappeared right before my eyes. So this time I'm copying to the people on this list, so if it disappears again they can resubmit it. When I joined I checked to get a copy of every post. All I do is answer and click on submit or reply. Maybe you need to make sure your settings are correct. I have nothing to do with it on my end. Secondly, you say you no of no deaths?! Simply go to www.mpwhi.com and click on FDA Report of 92 symptoms and you'll see death. In fact, in 2010 I met Reginall Bundrage who worked for the EPA as a pathologist in the early 1990's. I had no idea they had such a department since it comes under FDA. He worked on those who died from aspartame and told his superiors with this many dying how could they keep it on the market. His superiors told him FDA would have to remove it but they never did.

      As to the World Environmental Conference post, often called the Nancy Markle post, go to www.dorway.com/nomarkle.html and you'll see my invitation to speak and even the confession of the EPA.
      It went viral and people walked out of wheelchairs as they got off of aspartame, had their sight returned and symptoms they had suffered with for years just disappeared. Having gotten well they set up operations of Mission Possible in their countries to help others. The manufacturer set up front groups and got dietitians and others to try and defend them. They couldn't put out the fire and sold the NutraSweet Co. Hard to tell someone its a hoax when their problems vanish off this poison. We're now in over 48 countries and I've been doing this 20 years, working with world experts. Regards, Betty (Note to Ted, please do not delete this message again)
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jul 20 2013: "...all FOUR of you have only commented on this topic!"

      Yes, I noticed that too. I also noticed that Betty and Barbara both joined TED the day this conversation was first posted, and that Betty shamelessly promotes her web site in each and every reply. In the comments below, Betty confesses that Barbara is one of her own people. This entire conversation is spam to promote their agenda and web site. I urge you to flag the conversation as spam, like I did, the bring it to the attention of the administrators.
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: Can someone please reference a study from an accepted scientific journal, please!
    By the way, the stuff in fly spray that kills the flies is also used by the military as a nerve agent, but luckily using scientific studies the regulators found a safe amount that could be used for the purpose of killing flies in a domestic setting.
    • Jul 17 2013: Exactly. People are easily mislead into thinking in an either/or fashion. But reality is different. Some substances are labeled as toxic, but only because we are familiar to them in high concentrations, yet our metabolisms normally produce some of them. Some chemicals necessary for our health can be dangerous when present in excessive amounts. We really need to be much better informed. Today it's easy to load the web with misinformation. Therefore we need to be better educated to avoid falling prey of such misinformation and from snake-oil salespeople.
  • Aug 13 2013: To the one who posted where does the methanol go from the blood stream if it doesn't convert to formaldehyde:. Dr. Woodrow Monte responds if it doesn't turn into formaldehyde it is lost to the body in the Urine, sweat, breath and tears.

    Everyone should get a copy of this outstanding book, "While Science Sleeps: A sweetener kills" by Dr. Monte"
    You won't be able to put it down. Go to www.whilesciencesleeps.com

    All my best,
    Betty
  • Aug 13 2013: Sorry, Will do.
  • Aug 13 2013: Hi Steve C many thanks for your comments; I find the word “interesting”, Interesting, it has many connotations.

    EG here it diverts attention away from the really important message in the passage, that METHANOL, when it metabolises to formaldehyde within a cell, that formaldehyde has reached a part of the body it would never on its own ever have access to, it is too big. METHANOL is the Trojan horse for formaldehyde which is the real danger in METHANOL Poisoning.

    Formaldehyde disappears from the bloodstream within minutes of appearing during METHANOL metabolism – can you answer the question please; “WHERE DOES IT GO?”
    • thumb
      Aug 13 2013: If you want Steve C to see this response to him, you might want to go down to his comment, hit the reply button, and paste your reply there.

      Instead it has landed here at the top of the thread.
  • thumb
    Aug 12 2013: Ted Admin I have flagged this conversation as spam as there have been numerous factual rebuttals of claims made by the OP and the OP continues to refer to "evidence" that is unsubstantiated and make claims that are factually innaccurate including describing editorial content as "peer reviewed research". I have no arguement with people expressing their opinion in a discussion as long as they describe it as such. I would also suggest that if a poster describes themselves as a "doctor" perhaps some explanation of their use of the title would be helpful.
    Thankyou Peter
    • Aug 12 2013: I flagged it the very day it appeared.

      If anything, the conversation might help highlight the problem of scientific illiteracy and other problems about how people think and buy into such charlatanry as the propaganda against aspartame or against GMOs.
    • thumb
      Aug 13 2013: Peter, I think it is always okay to ask people who use titles like doctor or scientist to ask them the area of their professional education. People might choose not to answer, to protect their privacy, but I think it's typically reasonable to ask.

      Obviously just because someone has a doctorate, one should not assume that he is an expert in every area in which he may express an opinion. People are typically quite narrowly specialized.

      In terms of claims that editorial content is peer reviewed research, it is a great service within community to call attention to such misleading claims when they occur.
  • Aug 11 2013: Dear Charlene,

    Go to www.mpwhi.com and under aspartame videos see the movie, "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World" and you wll hear from the world experts and attorney James Turner who with the famed Dr. John Olney tried to prevent approval. On the banners read the UPI Investigation. At the top read the FDA's eown report of 92 documented symptoms, and you wil also see peer reviewed research. Almost 100 per cent of independentstuies have shown the problems. The medical text, "spartame Didease: An Ignored Epidemic" by the late world expert H. J. Roberts, M.D. is 1000 pages of horrors, and gives the mechanism b which aspartame causes the neurodegenerative diseases and cancers. Google: "No Safe Dose of Aspartame, "National Health Federation" and hear whaet the FDA toxicologist told Congress. The congressional records and even the UPI Investigation are on the banners on www.mpwhi.com along with the Board of Inquiry revoked petition for approval and Dr. John Olney's 50 page testimony to the FDA. The new book, "While Science Sleeps: A Sweetener Kills by Dr. Woodrow Monte explains so perfectly why it kills and reaqd neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock's , "Excitotocins: The Taste That Kills. On www.whilesciencekills.com you can read the last chapter in Dr. Monte's book and how the FDA ended up making a deal with the original manuacturer never to allow the public to see the teratology studies and why it is responsible for the autism epidemic. All my best, Betty
  • Aug 10 2013: I have no idea what courses you take but I pity your audience. If your course is on how wonderful aspartame has been for the world and they are of the faithful you might just get some sympathy. A normal switched on independent bunch of listeners who can think for themselves, will easily see through your arrogant, bigoted, indoctrinated clap trap.

    As a parting gesture I give you permission to use any information I have provided in my posts, provided it is quoted verbatim and is not subjected to your interpretation.

    Cheers.
    • Aug 10 2013: The courses I teach are on science, and I touch a lot on scientific illiteracy. They are not about the wonders of aspartame. For one, I don't think that aspartame is wonderful. I actually think that we could do mostly without it. But my reasons are different to yours. I prefer educated people with a well developed character who can control excessive cravings for sugary flavours, rather than producing false impressions, like those coming from alternative sweeteners, whichever they are, natural or unnatural. The only reason I show your propaganda for what it is is because it is propaganda. Scientifically illiterate propaganda.

      Thanks for the permission. I commonly mention no names, but I do use complete sentences and paragraphs. All will be verbatim. Not to worry.

      Cheers.
  • Aug 10 2013: You’ve missed the point again, listen carefully. MeOH is handled differently BY THE BODY, when it encounters it naturally and when it is introduced via aspartame unnaturally. What part of that don’t you understand. Clearly you have been indoctrinated to object to anything outside or challenging the standard aspartame propaganda.

    By the way, the stomach-ache you experience comes from consuming unnatural MeOH; We all know that the body protects us from natural MeOH and we suffer no ill effects from that.
    • Aug 10 2013: No Jim, the stomachache comes from thinking about what it would feel like if I was ignorant enough to think that natural and unnatural methanol have any differences. It hurts to see someone claiming with so much confidence that the body would know the difference between two identical molecules just because one was produced "unnaturally."
  • Aug 9 2013: I hope with GMO’s they are acting on the precautionary principle and actually putting the UK population before Monsanto greed. The aspartame saga is as I have described it is a special case; having made a monumental mistake 32 years ago and supported aspartame ever since, they will no doubt find it uncomfortable to backtrack now – but they will.

    Regarding the dodgy scientific studies EFSA relies on. Science is but one tool in the box, to rely on clearly controversial data full of holes is unsustainable. I would suggest it is not the quantity of studies they can field at any time that is important; it is the quality of the work that counts. Observation, Intuition, common sense and answering ALL the Questions successfully however controversial they may be, wins the day for me.

    Regarding the Hull pilot study, I would caution, you cannot believe what the FSA reports on its website on this study. Fully funded by the FSA, it was to last 18 months and cost £150,000. I can report its results are 3 years late and the budget will be 250% over spent. This is the study I mentioned in my last post EFSA were waiting for to conclude their 2010 review!

    At a meeting in February 2013 in the London offices of the FSA, in answer to a direct question from me, the Chief scientist Andrew Wadge said “the results of the Hull Pilot study would be published in JUNE”- they weren’t. . Answering a direct question from a colleague of mine at the FSA Board Meeting on 16th of JULY Andrew Wadge stated the results were at that moment being typed up. No mention of when they will be ready. Here is a transcript of the meeting, go to point 246.

    https://registration.livegroup.co.uk/fsaboardmeetings/Downloads/Embed.aspx?dfid=6397

    This Hull Study is a complete disgrace, FSA will have to answer for it soon.
  • Aug 7 2013: Ah Peter you are now entering my territory; I am based in Scotland and quite familiar with the FSA and EFSA and the long history of their Literary Reviews of aspartame, which they sometimes refer to as testing. My opinion of our safety authorities where aspartame is concerned is, they are not fit for purpose.

    Ok that out of the way, your post. Don’t be surprised if I suggest that any aspartame studies referenced by FSA/EFSA or FDA must be regarded at first look with deep suspicion. Their studies of aspartame on animals go back to the 1970’s and Fully 75% of them are predominantly aspartame manufacturers studies commissioned to get aspartame approved and have been heavily criticised by good independent scientists ever since. In the game of who has the most studies “proving aspartame safe” the deep pockets of the manufacturer and sweeteners industry wins every time.

    I am very familiar with the report you refer to which is the standard EFSA set piece conclusion they come up with time after time; by the way, if you read the same studies every time you do a literary review, is it any surprise that you get the same conclusion – “they found nothing to alter their previous opinion, therefore no need to alter the ADI. Strangely this report is not dated and there is the normal disclaimer on every page.
    EFSA do not decide whether a product/chemical is safe, their job is only to provide a risk assessment (your attached report) which then goes to the AF (Advisory Forum) for ratification.

    The AF is a meeting of representatives from each European Country. This is normally a rubberstamp job confirming their acceptance of their experts risk assessment – NOT THIS TIME. the 36th AF meeting did not accept (took note) of the experts opinion but deferred making a decision until the UK HULL Pilot Study results were available. Below are the minutes of the 36th AF meeting point 6.4 disusses aspartame.

    http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/events/event/af100519-m.pdf
    • thumb
      Aug 9 2013: If the EFSA are so easily influenced by industry why did they ban GMOs?
      Regarding the 75% it matters not who funded the study, if it appears in a journal (as the majority do) and is peer reviewed (as the majority are) then the science is sound. For a journal to be taken seriously it has to defend its scientific reputation with great vigor.
    • thumb
      Aug 9 2013: From what I can gather the UK Hull pilot study concluded about a year ago but I can't seem to find any results. Maybe you'll have better luck.
  • Aug 7 2013: Thank you Peter you are quite right, anyone drinking 70 cans of coke even without METHANOL would probably feel very ill, however that would take a long time and is not very realistic. (114mg/kg) is Methanol’s blinding dose, I imagine them consuming one tablespoon of Pure Methanol (taking seconds) and being blind and suffering many other symptoms within 24 hrs. Now that is realistic.

    I keep saying “unnatural” when referring to aspartame’s methanol because the distinction is very important – this is not what the aspartame industry wants to hear.

    Methanol outside the body or a living plant etc. is a manmade industrial chemical, produced primarily from Methane Gas or coal at 99.9% purity (pure Methanol) This is what goes directly into aspartame as methyl ester, then straight into our bloodstream as methanol.

    Natural methanol is present within the fibres and structure of fruits and vegetables at an indeterminable strength, to get into the bloodstream natural methanol has to be extracted from its source. After chopping and cooking (where significant amounts of Methanol can be lost to the atmosphere) the fruit/veg. is then masticated and digested. Some of this methanol is used by the body for its own purposes but is very tightly controlled.

    Clearly the body does not handle natural and unnatural methanol in the same way nor can the strengths of methanol the same.
    • Aug 10 2013: James,

      While your comment here is a prime example of scientific illiteracy, useful for my curses, it gives me something of a stomachache to think that you really think that there's a difference between natural and unnatural methanol. Are you serious?
  • Aug 6 2013: Entropy?? I checked the meaning of that word in my little dictionary and got two definitions:

    1. Measure of the unavailability of a systems thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work.
    2. Measure of the disorganisation of the universe.

    That’s for other readers who might be interested.

    Stubborn? Never / determined? unquestionably. - You have found I am not easily intimidated by your predictable methods - I’m sure you must be getting paid for this.

    Why do I continue? When someone tells me I am wrong without offering a shred of substance to back it up and uses the anonymity of the internet to take every opportunity to insult and cast aspersions, I carry on, trying to bring the discussion back to intelligent Q &A’s but I fear you have almost reached your limit.

    I trust other readers of this subject will be able to decide for themselves, whether you have made the case for the world to continuing to consume METHANOL in aspartame, at the levels demonstrated here to be well in excess of what is safe. I hope I have supplanted some doubt their minds and they will they look past all the normal aspartame rhetoric you have been spouting here to explore the truth further.
    • thumb
      Aug 7 2013: If you look further down yiou will find a link to a page that lists over 1000 peer reviewed studies into the effects of aspartame ingestion. None of them indicate it represents a danger.
      http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/doc/1641.pdf
      Here I found it for you.
    • Aug 10 2013: James,

      I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I doubt that anything I've done would look, even remotely, as attempts at intimidating you. I doubt anything would look as if I'm using any rhetorics, since it has been you who has "forgotten" a few details here and there. Your insistence and stubbornness despite being so basically wrong (yes basically: elementary-school level wrong) are astounding to say the least. That you would not even care to check, for example, that methanol, from whatever source, is still methanol is of the most astounding proportions. Epic. I will use that in my courses as example of how scientifically illiterate people can be even when dealing with very basic knowledge. What you wrote above about how methanol is made artificially and bound to aspartame is beautiful in how much it reveals, not just of your scientific illiteracy, but on how complicatedly and spectacularly wrong someone can be in such illiteracy. If anything, I have to thank you for such examples.

      Since it is clear that you failed at many things, all at very basic levels, I doubt that there's anything I can add. It won't help you, and anybody who paid attention at elementary school will be able to understand that far from trying to intimidate you, I was just pointing to the obvious flaws in your illiterate rhetoric.

      Ciao.
  • Aug 5 2013: I find this topic very intriguing and obviously, by the numerous comments, highly debatable. I would like to see some more solid evidence on this topic. I've done my research and I can't find a really solid resource stating that aspartame is harmful. I'm sure our bodies are better without an unnatural substance, but where are the studies proving all of the harm?
    • Aug 5 2013: Hello Charlena,

      One of the problems with the propaganda against aspartame, is the myth that whatever is "unnatural" has to be harmful, and whatever is natural has to be good. However, for example, a bunch of hungry tigers around me would not be good for my health no matter how naturally and organically they were grown. Another example, a piece of pointy wood from an organically grown tree submerged in organically produced curare would be lethal, while a metallic syringe with artificially produce water would do you no harm.

      But you don't need to believe me. Just make sure to learn to distinguish propaganda from actual scientific data and you'll be all right.

      Best,
      N.E.
    • Aug 5 2013: Hi Charlena, The first thing you need to realise is that aspartame is harmless. It ceases to exist in the GI tract after swallowing. It does not enter the bloodstream so cannot be held responsible for any harm observed, what actually happens is this.

      Aspartame is a compound of three chemicals; two amino acids, 50% Phenylalanine and 40% Aspartic acid and 10% METHANOL. Apart from being by far aspartame’s most dangerous ingredient, METHANOL also provides the sweetness in aspartame and binds the two amino acids to it to form the aspartame molecule.
      Aspartame’s work is done at the taste receptors in the mouth, its toxic waste (METHANOL) is then discharged into our gut for our body to get rid of. The bond with the two amino acids is a weak one, at a temperature of 86 degrees f in the GI tract the bond breaks, aspartame is no more and the 3 individual components are free to enter the bloodstream separately and metabolise. Any resulting harm must be caused by one or other of these components – not aspartame.

      To attribute the results of studies good or bad to aspartame is at the very least misleading. You need to go back to the very beginning of the sordid aspartame story to get a flavour of the animal.

      Aspartame was first “discovered” in 1965. It was so unsafe it took 16 years for it to be “Approved” by the FDA, following manipulations by the Reagan Government in 1981. 16 years is a long time to get all your ducks in a row and establish a powerful source of “scientific evidence” of aspartame’s safety NOTE it is the manufacturers responsibility to provide this evidence – you should be aware of relying entirely on aspartame industry studies, they have been heavily criticised by independent scientists.

      My interest is in getting unnatural METHANOL out of our daily diet, If that takes aspartame down so be it. They always have the option to reformulate to exclude the METHANOL. Aspartame is the only significant source of unnatural METHANOL in the modern diet.
      • Aug 13 2013: "Any resulting harm must be caused by one or other of these components – not aspartame."
        Wow, so it's not the gun that kills, but the bullet fragments.
        • Aug 13 2013: You got it in one Steve, Somewhat crude and on a very basic level, somewhere it might just have a faint parallel with the subject in hand.

          Just for the record our gun (aspartame) has disappeared when the harm takes place.
  • Aug 2 2013: Ah the truth hurts. It is not me who is out of words it is merely the limit of your website comments facility.

    The fallacious case is obviously yours, I can fully justify my position (maths and all) when I state aspartame has never been safe. Regarding the 6 can consumption, halve it if you must - 3 years is still a very short period in anyone’s lifetime, by the way they are not MY children and it is disingenuous of you to suggest they are.

    We were not talking about “sugar-loaded cans of soda” they were aspartame, loaded with methanol cans of soda; Your further comments - my maths have been proven and you have no idea what I know about metabolism, I can only guess what “and much more” means.

    This is fairly normal I find. When anyone from the aspartame camp is losing the argument they resort to bullying, casting aspersions and become insulting - no change here then.

    I have to comment on the non-sense that is your last paragraph; you need to get out a bit more.
    1) Reaching the “dangerous levels” does not suggest anything other than the facts, in a mathematical exercise.

    2) We would die of methanol poisoning out of eating fruit” the unpalatable truth is we don’t. No one to my knowledge has ever come close to dying from fruits and vegetables, even at the huge amounts of METHANOL claimed to be in them. Methanol in nature is protected by nature; Methanol from aspartame is unnatural, our bodies have no protection from unnatural methanol.

    3) Methanol produced by our bodies for its own use is tightly controlled by the body and is never is a danger.

    4) The METHANOL released from aspartame is unnatural and quickly enters the bloodstream to metabolise. The 1st metabolite is Formaldehyde which disappears within minutes of appearing. If you can tell me where the formaldehyde goes and why it is not a threat I will be happy to discuss this item further.

    5) Not properly taking into consideration the countless cases of anecdotal evidence against aspartame is disgrace
    • Aug 4 2013: James,

      I truly don't know why you insist after been proven so wrong. The rhetorical and fallacious case has always been yours. It was you who started by conveniently ignoring the proper math about how much soda you would have to consume before reaching a dangerous concentration of methanol. It was you who after confirming my math started adding nonsense to your claims.

      I didn't say those were your kids. I used an "if" and a generic "your," neither is disingenuous. I suggest you to take reading comprehension lessons.

      Of course we were talking about diet soda. My point was that sugared soda at those levels produces well established problems, and thus, your complain should not be about aspartame but about exaggerated consumption of soda, diet or otherwise.

      1. As I said, your "facts" ignore many things: that methanol and formaldehyde are metabolized, excreted, secreted, breathed out, shitted, etc. Therefore there's no way they would accumulate to dangerous levels in 222 days of six-cans-a-day consumption.

      2. You make my point. If we don't die of methanol poisoning out of fruit consumption, those six cans of soda a day should be no problem, since fruits increase methanol concentration in blood more than diet soda. Your ignorance of chemistry is showing: there's no difference between artificial and natural methanol. They are identical molecules.

      3. Maybe. But it is still a fact that methanol is always detected in our breath and blood. Therefore methanol produced from aspartame should be as metabolized as that produced by our metabolism, and/or as that produced from fruits and such.

      4. That it is "unnatural" has no weight on what will happen to it in the body. Methanol is methanol. Learn some basic chemistry.

      5. I told you that they have been taken into consideration and found lacking. Anecdotes are not proofs. Learn some logic.

      Man learn to read properly. I had answered all this already.
      • Aug 4 2013: Enthropiers:
        Who are you people? do any of you have a name? What do you do? I refuse to communicate with people I don’t know who persist in rubbishing everything I say at slightest opportunity: my claims are nonsense, My maths don’t add (up even when they agree with yours) I need comprehension lessons, Learn some basic chemistry, Learn some Logic. Don’t you have anyone prepared to have a sensible discussion on what is actually a very serious subject I assume you do have some discerning members out there who can make their own mind up?- Here is a copy from my post a day ago:-

        “This is fairly normal. I find. When anyone from the aspartame camp is losing the argument they resort to bullying, casting aspersions and become insulting - no change here then.”

        Is this site financed by the aspartame industry? I can find no other explanation for the rubbish you keep coming out with (my apologies for falling to your level)

        Here is a recap - None of this has been refuted by you so I assume you must agree:-

        a.The NOAEL of aspartame is not safe - the METHANOL in it will kill you.
        b. If the NOAEL of aspartame is unsafe so is the ADI.
        c. A NOAEL of aspartame in rats is not a NOAEL of METHANOL in humans.
        d.The blinding dose of METHANOL in humans is (114mg/kg)
        e.The Fatal dose of METHANOL in humans is (343mg/kg)
        f. The ADI of aspartame (50mg/kg) = (5mg/kg) is 44 times higher than is demonstrated to be safe.

        I asked you specifically to explain where the Formaldehyde went – you side stepped that one.

        The only thing the same about natural and unnatural METHANOL is its chemical name MeOH

        Your point 3. “Should be as metabolized” not very scientific show me what you mean?

        Unnatural has everything to do with METHANOL in the body.

        Anecdotal evidence unfortunately does not fit scientists little tidy format so is deemed unreliable; remember tobacco. – That’s what was said there also - no smoke without fire; no pun intended
    • Aug 4 2013: James,

      I'm not part of TED. I'm not funded by the aspartame industry either. Anyway, so far I have been far from losing any argument. You have done nothing but rhetorical and ignorant claims. That's far from being a winning argument.

      I did not say that your math did not add up. I said that you had to be bad at it since you did not attempt to calculate how much you would have to drink before getting that dangerous dose you claimed. So, I showed you the math. Basic arithmetic. What proves that you are playing rhetorics is that you conveniently did not show any of that in your first post. Then you attempted to salvage your case by adding claims that ignore the most basic knowledge about metabolism and chemistry for starters. If what I said was rubbish you would have shown that my math was wrong, yet you had no option but to admit that my math was right, then add to your rubbish. I'm never sorry to call a spade a spade.

      a. Maybe, but to reach those concentrations via diet soda is impossible.
      b. Maybe, but to reach those concentrations via diet soda is impossible.
      c. Maybe, but to reach those concentrations via diet soda is impossible.
      d. Maybe, but to reach those concentrations via diet soda is impossible (you would need to consume twice your weight of diet soda in one go).
      e. Maybe, but to reach those concentrations via diet soda is impossible (you would need to consume ~6.7 times your weight in diet soda in one go).
      f. Since when have 50mg/kg being equal to 5mg/kg? And your math is good?

      I told you where formaldehyde goes. What part of metabolized, breathed out, shitted, secreted, did you not understand? Oh, sorry. I was forgetting that you have no idea about metabolism, chemistry, and now we can add human physiology.

      Why do you insist on showing that ignorance of chemistry. Natural and unnatural methanol are atom-by-atom identical, otherwise they would not be both methanol.

      Man really. Learn some basic science, math, and reading comprehension.
      • Aug 5 2013: I find it difficult to believe you are not part of the aspartame industry or perhaps one of the authorities who have kept METHANOL shamelessly in our food all these years. You continuously trot out the standard aspartame blurb and misinformation; by the way, Misinformation is the international by word for Aspartame.

        You may not believe this but I am not in the least interested in aspartame, save for its ability to deliver METHANOL into our bodies in quantities that are demonstrably unsafe (see my last post) Methanol is aspartames best kept secret, the data you see there is definitely not what the aspartame industry wants to see or debate they can’t, it comes from their own data.

        Have you any idea what an NOAEL or and ADI is? Check out my first post and see if you can explain away, how they managed to convince us, scientists and all, that aspartame is safe, with methanol at a level that would kill us. I know I would like to hear what you say.

        My case is simple; aspartame is not safe due to its METHANOL content. I have justified that in my posts, you on the other hand have not questioned refuted nor intelligently debated anything, except your fixation on diet soda. Who cares whether someone can drink enough diet soda to kill themselves that is not real life, real life is looking at what the authorities say is safe for us to eat and checking it out. When we do that we find the ADI of aspartame is much too high to be safe.

        You obviously know nothing about the metabolism of METHANOL in the human body nor that formaldehyde, (a well known carcinogen) is the hidden danger.

        I have already said that natural and unnatural METHANOL share the same chemical name MeOH the difference is how the body handles them. Natural methanol does us no harm protected by nature. Unnatural METHANOL has no option but to metabolise to formaldehyde.
    • Aug 5 2013: James,

      Once more. The math shows you wrong. Your lack of knowledge of chemistry, biochemistry, human physiology and metabolism don't help your case.

      Once more, since natural and unnatural methanol are atom-to-atom identical, the body has no way of telling them apart. They don't just share a chemical name, they are identical. So they are metabolized identically, etc.

      Truly amazing how little you understand and how stubborn you are despite being shown so obviously and openly wrong. Weird if, as you say, you are not interested in aspartame.

      I really don't understand why you continue despite being shown so wrong at the most basic level. Go finish elementary school, continue on to middle school, and maybe you'll start understanding why you're wrong. (If you already went through school, pay attention this time around.)
  • Aug 2 2013: Thank you Jim. The reason aspartame is addictive is the methyl ester immediately becomes free methyl alcohol which is classified as a narcotic. This causes chronic methanol poisoning which effects the dopamine system of the brain and causes the addiction. So many of these victims go through horrible withdrawal getting off of it. So often these victims end up with cancer from the formaldehyde. Plus it breaks down to DKP, a brain tumor agent. Betty
  • Aug 2 2013: I wish you guys would stop trying to do maths; you are not very good at it.

    Presumably what you are struggling with is; how many 335ml cans of soda containing 18mg of METHANOL would a 70kg adult need to consume before the METHANOL killed them.

    What do we know? The lethal dose of Methanol in humans is an acute dose of 24,000mg and the Methanol in your can is 18mg; the answer is 24000/18 = 1333 cans of soda; no argument there.

    Converting this to litres of aspartame is a pointless exercise and is irrelevant. What might be more helpful is to ascertain how long it would take, for an adult consuming the modest amount of say 6 cans of soda per day, to consume the lethal dose of METHANOL; the answer is – 1333/6 = 222 days or 18 .5 months. You may not know it but many of our youngsters today are addicted to diet carbonated drinks – 18 .5 months is an incredibly short time - Aspartame is not safe because of the METHANOL it carries daily into our bodies.

    Let’s have another reality check.
    What we have been discussing here is the severe metabolic toxicity of METHANOL and its ability to kill us (case proven) Aspartame is the only significant source of unnatural METHANOL in our diet today and has been for the last 32 years; since we are not all dead yet what can be the problem?

    The problem is METHANOL and it’s 1st metabolite Formaldehyde are cumulative poisons; very small amounts delivered daily (Via aspartame) build up over time (0-20 yrs) causing severe neurological, organ and tissue damage, This is testified by the vast numbers of anecdotal cases naming aspartame, which unfortunately science ignores.

    We are assured by our health authorities time and again that aspartame is safe to consume for a lifetime at their ADI (50mg/kg) - we will stay in the US; that is where it all began - we need to examine that ADI.

    Sorry run out of words,
    • Aug 2 2013: I'm not struggling with anything. It's all clear cut. It is you who wants to present a fallacious case. There's nothing modest about consuming six cans of soda per day. If your youngsters do that then the problem is not aspartame, but mindless consumption. Consuming sugar-loaded cans of soda has consequences that have been detailed by scientific evidence, while your case against aspartame remains being bad math, ignorance about metabolism, and much more.

      For 222 days to be needed for someone to reach those "dangerous levels" you are assuming that the methanol stays forever in your blood. If that were the case then we would die of methanol poisoning out of eating fruit, which increase methanol concentrations in our blood by at least an order of magnitude more than aspartame-containing soda. It methanol stayed in we would not be able to detect methanol in our breath (that's methanol leaving the body). But methanol is produced by our own metabolism, and metabolized, secreted, exuded, shitted, and breathed out. It does not stay forever, otherwise those concentrations, just from our own metabolism, would lead to increases in methanol in our blood with time, and no experiments show such a thing.

      So, no, neither methanol, nor formaldehyde are "cumulative poisons." Both are produced by our own bodies, yet their concentrations do not increase with the age of the individual.

      Anecdotal cases have been taken into consideration for further experimentation and have been found to be unsound. If anecdotes were all that there is to it, then we would have an endless list of contradictory stuff that we would have to believe because those anecdotes suggest so.

      It's good that you ran out of words. Otherwise we would be reading much more misinformation.
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2013: How is 222days 18.5 months?
      How can you have a cumulative poison that is water soluble?
      • Aug 5 2013: James has a hard time with math and chemistry Peter. That's how.
      • Aug 5 2013: Hello Peter, You are absolutely correct it should be 7.5 months (infinitely worse) I do make maths mistakes therefore I am human – well spotted.

        Like Ethanol when broken down with water, the METHANOL molecule is still intact. What makes unnatural Methanol a cumulative poison, Is the body’s inability to clear methanol quickly from the bloodstream. Following zero order of kinetics irrespective of the amount of METHANOL ingested it takes the same amount of time to clear the system. It clears through the breath, urine and sweat.

        Consuming daily doses of aspartame is the worst case scenario for a cumulative poison, some or all of yesterday’s consumption could still be in the system, when today’s lot arrives.

        Please check out the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet) for Methanol. It is the Methanol producer’s legal responsibility to keep details for this sheet up to date. Employers prepare their own MSDS according to the type of use they have for the methanol, they are duty bound to make the MSDS available to all their who may come into contact with METHANOL.

        For 150 years the methanol producers have known METHANOL to be a severe cumulative, metabolic toxin in man and even today warn; “Don’t drink it”, “Don’t breath it in” and “Don’t get it on your skin” Yet in 1981 FDA approved aspartame containing 10%w/w METHANOL for use in our food??
        • thumb
          Aug 5 2013: It only accumulates if your daily dose exceeds the bodies ability to remove it. just like any other chemical. For this to happen from aspartame ingestion you would have to eat grams of it. It's been shown experimentally that even after unrealistically high doses of aspartame are given to humans it only takes a few hours for methanol levels to return to baseline, so the is no residue.
          Cumulative poisoning is generally used to describe poisoning by fat soluble chemicals or substances that are fixed in some way like strontium 90. While it is possible to accumulate methanol you need to be exposed to it in levels that are close to causing acute poisoning.
  • Aug 1 2013: Hi Guys?

    You see; this is what I mean by a reality check I set it out nice and simpl so it would be easily understood but you still don’t get it. Step back for a minute and concentrate.

    1) I assume since you did not mention it, you agree aspartame per sae can do us no harm? So what is the point of using it to test reactions in the rats, if you don’t know which component might be causing it, what the relative toxicity of each component is or what tolerance the rats might have for each?

    2) 10% of the NOAEL of aspartame did go to methanol in the rats. if you were paying attention, you would see I indicated that Searle failed to take into account that the LD50 of methanol in rats is (5286mg/kg) feeding the rats (500mg/kg) is not likely to produce any reaction; the rats use it as food at that level.

    3) Nothing wrong with my maths, this task is so easy. What I don’t do is mix up my units of measurement. Step back again.

    The NOAEL of aspartame contains (500mg/kg) of METHANOL, the lethal dose of METHANOL in humans is (343mg/kg).

    The result found with the rats is supposed to be directly transferrable to humans?? if a human consumed (500mg/kg) of METHANOL it would kill him. The NOAEL of aspartame is not safe.

    A NOAEL of aspartame in rats – is NOT an NOAEL of Methanol in humans. You must try and understand this.

    4) You are assuming the ADI of aspartame is safe I have indicated here it is not and your math’s are way of line. The lethal dose of METHANOL in a human is (343mg/kg) if that human weighed 70kg the amount of METHANOL that would kill him is 343 x 70 = 24,000mg (24gm)

    I hope this clears things up.
    • Aug 1 2013: I noticed that you edited your original post where you were claiming that 500mg/kg of aspartame would kill a human. But even now you still make very basic mathematical mistakes. In order for a 70Kg human to be able to get 24,000mg of methanol from aspartame this human would have to consume 240,000 mg of aspartame. Since a can of 355ml of diet soda has 180 mg of aspartame this person would have to drink: 240,000/180 = 1,333 cans of soda in one go. That's 1,333 times 355 ml = 473,215 ml or 473.2 litres of diet soda. That's again more than 6 times the volume of the person in question.

      Again, nice rhetoric and very poor math.
  • Aug 1 2013: Hi there, glad to be joining this discussion; I believe a reality check is needed here.

    ASPARTAME is the name of a product which is designed to convince our taste buds that we are consuming sugar when we are not; this of course takes place in the mouth. The aspartame molecule then proceeds to the GI tract where it disappears; it separates into its 3 component parts Methanol, Phenylalanine and Aspartic Acid which separately enter the general circulation and are metabolised. Aspartame per sae cannot enter the bloodstream, cannot metabolise, so is incapable of causing us any harm, by default therefore any harm must come from one or a combination of its three components.

    Logic tells us that if we are constructing a product for human consumption, it would be wise to establish a toxicity level for each component to ensure complete safety; not so with aspartame. After 35 years in the methanol industry I knew that methanol was by far the most dangerous component (10% w/w of aspartame) and to ignore that was wrong. - How did they get away with it?

    G.D. Searle tested rats on aspartame to achieve an NOAEL of 5000mg/kg. When questioned why they used the whole aspartame molecule they said “if there was anything wrong with the product it would show up in the testing” they also failed to take into account the LD50 for methanol in rats which is 5286mg/kg. The methanol in the aspartame NOAEL is 500mg/kg; the rats would not show any observable adverse effects at that level, they would treat the methanol as food.

    Let’s look at the amount of each constituent in the NOAEL of aspartame (5000mg/kg)
    50% Phenylalanine - (2500mg/kg)
    40% Aspartic Acid – (2000mg/kg)
    10% Methanol – (500mg/kg)
    The generally accepted fatal chronic dose of methanol in humans is 30ml - (343mg/kg)
    If a human consumed the methanol in the NOAEL of aspartame (500mg/kg) it would kill them.

    A NOAEL of aspartame in rats – is NOT an NOAEL of Methanol in humans.
    • Aug 1 2013: Nice rhetoric James. A reality check is indeed needed:

      1. There's nothing wrong with using the whole molecule of aspartame to test whether aspartame is bad for those rats. You said that 10% of the molecule would go to methanol, therefore this should have happened in those rats. Otherwise your whole theatre fall apart.

      2. It seems that you can't count very well. If accepted fatal chronic dose of methanol in humans is 343mg/kg, and humans consumed 500mg/kg of aspartame, the methanol would reach 50mg/kg, which would only be around 15% of your dangerous concentration.

      3. A can of a common diet soda has 180mg of aspartame. That would make, in your own scenario, 18mg of methanol. So, to achieve that concentration that you consider bad for humans, a human weighting only one kg would have to consume 19 cans of diet soda (343/18=19). So, that means that you need 19 diet sodas per kg in order for the methanol to be at a dangerous level. Do you really think that a person can drink 19 diet sodas per kg of their weight? Let's see: if a diet soda can contains around 355ml of liquid, then 19 diet soda cans would make 6745ml. 6.7 litres per kg! That's more than six times the volume of the human in question! I bet that consuming six times your weight of anything would achieve dangerous concentrations of anything even if it was all "organic."

      Where do you guys learn arithmetic?
  • Jul 30 2013: You got it Aarthi. At one point Wikipeia let you add the facts but something changed and all of a sudden they started deleting what was accurate. A lot of people got involved. It's difficult to find out who is responsible so you can correct the information. When there was a question of whether I lectured for the World Environmental Conference I tried to get the letters asking me to speak and then thanking me for speaking, it wasn't accepted. Others have tried to correct them without success. Here is the history of aspartame: http://rense.com/general50/KILLER.HTM If you go to my web site, www.mpwhi.com and click on aspartame videos see "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World". It has the experts in it and an attorney who explains how Don Rumsfeld got it on the market after the FDA tried to have them indicted for fraud and revoked the petition for approval. Then Rumsfeld went into action. It's all in the movie. All my best, Betty www.mpwhi.com
  • Jul 30 2013: I've always had my own doubts about such products and hence I do not consume any flavored drink, aerated waters or other food items containing other chemical preservatives. But wikipedia seems to be very convinced with the fact that aspartame is very safe and is the most rigorously tested chemical. I do not buy this, but it makes me question the content of wikipedia. I hope it is not like news, where these agencies want us to read what they want us to believe :)

    Here is the link to the wiki page :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame
  • Jul 30 2013: Maybe they did no studies,
  • Jul 30 2013: Yes, Dr. Walton is a psychiatrist. He did his own aspartame study because he knew aspartame triggers psychiatric and behavioral problems and interact with all antidepressants. Yet, there are people who suffer depression and other problems. He wondered if people were already depressed what would happen if they used aspartame. Monsanto would't even sell him the aspartame because they could not control the study, so he got it elsewhere. In th healthy group the adminnistrator lost his vision in one eye from a retinal detachment, another had conjunctival bleeding. Those in the compromized group said they were being poisoned. Dr. Walton didn't even use a high ADI. The institution stopped the study because of the reactions. Shows you when you do an honest study aspartame always shows the problems. Dr. Walton did the research for 60 Minutes as well on funding and scientific peer reviewed research.

    Betty
  • Jul 30 2013: The blunders are yours, not Dr. Monte. Methanol being bound to pectin is as well known as 2 plus 2. Dr. Monte is known te world over and is highly respected. I'm familiar with his knowledge of chemistry but not yours. I know methanol binds to pectin because I've heard it from world experts on aspartame. From a TV interview here is what Ralph Walton, M.D. " Walton explained why he disagrees. "In fruit you have the antidote along with it. And also the methanol component is bound to something called pectin, in fruit. We humans don't
    have the enzyme to split methanol off from pectin. So, in fruit it's perfectly harmless, but that's not the case in aspartame," he said." You simply didn't know all the facts.

    Betty
    • thumb
      Jul 30 2013: A Psychiatrist?
    • Aug 1 2013: So some psychiatrist repeats verbatim what he read from Monte and therefore Monte was right?
      • Aug 1 2013: Silly remarks like this don't need answering. Dr. Walton has been researching aspartame since his patients began having aspartame symptoms.
  • Jul 29 2013: Dear Peter, Most of what food science and nutrition is... is chemistry. Dr. Monte has had more classes in chemistry and biochemistry than most chemistry majors. His VC plainly shows that he was a professional member of the American Chemical Society. Are you?

    Betty
    www.mpwhi.com
    • Jul 30 2013: Hi Betty,

      Then his teachers, if still alive, must be quite disappointed that he could make such blunders as stating that methanol binds to pectin, when pectin's fermentation produces methanol, and this methanol does get into the blood stream, as demonstrated by experiment (I gave you links before). And that's but one of many blunders.

      Being a member of the american chemical association means that you pay your membership, and have some job that somehow might relate to chemistry. It is no guarantee that you know everything there is to know about chemistry. The blunder I mentioned above will not disappear by the magic of credentials. Other blunders will not disappear either. Blunders are blunders even if committed by Stephen Hawking.

      Most sincerely,
      Entropy (not Peter)
  • Jul 29 2013: Dear Peter,

    Most of what food science and nutrition is... is chemistry. Dr. Monte has had more classes in chemistry and biochemistry than most chemistry majors. Note from his CV that it plainly shows he was a professional member of the American Chemical Society. Are you? .

    All my best,
    Betty
    www.mpwhi.com
  • Jul 27 2013: Obviously you are trying to defend industry. If you say Mercola is misinformed than you would show where, but he is not misinformed so you just make a statement that proves nothing. Monte makes no mistakes. Stating he does withoput proof shows you are somebody in this forum who is trying to misinform the public. I gave you the facts on EFSA which I have always used. Parliament made EFSA go back and redo their review on aspartame because all studies coming in show aspartame unsafe. Now that Jim McDonald has provided EFSA with proof that the methanol in aspartame in the UK is 35 times too high EFSA themselves have put off the review.

    All you have done is make statements with no proof and shows you have none. My sources have been researching aspartame since approval. Anyone can use a source that is paid to mislead. Your paragraph proves nothing as anyone can read. Betty
  • Jul 26 2013: You make my point when you quote EFSA. Over half the committee has a conflict of interest. Industry has close relations with them. It use to be the EU Commission on Food who made an earlier review of aspartame trying to say it was safe. It was found out that there was no committee making the decision, but one person, obviously a flack. So ther is no more Commission on Food, and EFSA was born. People like myself who have been researching aspartame for over 20 years know all the tricks of the manufacturer. We know the flacks they pay to say aspartame is safe and write papers that are simply bogus. That's why Dr. Ralph Walton pointed out to 60 Minutes that in doing research on scientific peer reviewed reseach only the aspartame industry has said any studies showed safety. He showed in "independent" scientific peer reviewed studies 92% showed the problems, and if you eliminated 6 the FDA had something to do with because of their controversy and one pro aspartame summary, 100% of independent studies show the problems.

    G. D. Searle. the original manufacturer, couldn't get aspartame to show safety so they used fraud. They were caught by the FDA who tried to have them indicted under Title 18, Section 1001 of the crminal code. However, both U.S. Prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired. Power they have. Then the FDA Board of Inquiry revoked the petition for approval because they said it couldn't be proven safe and it caused brain tumors. The whole report is on the front of www.mpwhi.com So G. D. Searle hired Don Rumsfeld to get it approved. He was on President Reagan's transition team. The day after he took office the transition team called at 3:00 AM and fired Dr. Goyan, the FDA Commissioner who was going to sign the revoked petition into law. President Reagan then wrote an executive order making the FDA powerless to sign the revoked petition into law until he got Arthur Hayes there to overrule. Betty
    • Jul 27 2013: I'm sorry Betty, but I have found problems myself in your sources. For one, Monte shows very basic mistakes, as I have been repeating, on chemistry, biochemistry, metabolism, and etc. Then Mercola is evident propaganda. Mercola gets so many things wrong that it's painful to see people buying into that snake-oil salesmanship. I also showed you that your claims about the EFSA about concentrations of methanol from aspartame been too high was false. Plainly false, and your answer is that EFSA was half corrupted? But you cited them in the first place! I show you wrong, then you contradict yourself by saying that they are half corrupt. I also showed you that the claim that pectin binds methanol was false, but you rather ignore that I pointed that out. So, you make lots of mistakes, then you are unable to see your mistakes and admit to them. You just move to other targets as if hoping that nobody noticed. How many of your mistakes will it take for you to change your mind? More modestly, how many of your mistakes will it take for you to start suspecting that your sources don't know what they are talking about? Will you be able to understand and accept any of your mistakes?

      I am done with this useless conversation. Be well.
  • Jul 26 2013: The interesting thing about your writing is you make statements and prove nothing. You talk about reality but give none. You just want to disagree and spread doubt but the government records and studies prove aspartame is a poison. You can't even argue about aspartame causing cancer. The FDA admitted it does to Congress. So if you want to consume this addictive, excitoneurotoxic, carcinogenic, genetically engineered drug and adjuvent that damages the mitochondria and interacts with drugs and vaccines, it's your life.

    All my best,
    Betty
    www.mpwhi.com
  • Jul 26 2013: First of all, I just tried to send you Dr. Monte's Bio. Please let me know it went to you. Dr. Blaylock in a lecture said, "Understand the reactions to aspartame are not allergic but toxic like arsenic and cyanide." Don't get confused with just something artificial with a deadly poison like aspartame. The reason for the so-called aspartame wars in the early l980's was because people were getting seizures, strokes, myocardial infarctions, going blind and suffering drug interactions, etc. Senator Hatch put off congressional hearings until 1985 and I have the TV shows where Senator Howard Metzenbaum says to Senator Orin Hatch, "It's going to be too late." The teratology studies alone showed birth defect horrors. The FDA and G. D. Searle made a deal to seal them so nobody would know. That's a heinous crime and autistic children are paying for it. Methanol binds to pectin, and this is well known, like 2 + 2 equal; 4. Here is an excellent article on it - http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Sep02/092502/02P-0317_emc-000020.txt There are over 7 million hits on google about this. There are entire front groups to try and deceive the public.

    Using gas chromatographic methods, Lund et all (1981) and Nisperos-Carriedo and Shaw (1987) clarified the methanol, ethanol and acetylaldehyde concentrations of citrus products.

    ..Orange juice and grapefruit juice average as much as ten times more ethanol than methanol and from two to ten times more acetylaldehyde.

    ..The concentration of methanol is higher in fresh squeezed orange juice compared to the small amounts ini[pasteiurized orange juice (22 mg/liter) frozen concentrate (3.4mg/liter),reconstituted juice from concentrate (trace/one glass), and orange juice in tin cans (trace). The former probably reflects persistence of the pectinmethlesterase enzyme in unpasterized juice. (It demethylates some pectin, and liberates methanol in the process.)

    Betty
    www.mpwhi.com
  • Jul 26 2013: Dea
    CURRICULUM VITAE
    Woodrow C. Monte, Ph.D.
    3575 Rocky Creek Avenue
    Depoe Bay, Oregon
    Academic Preparation:
    1979 Ph.D. - Food Science and Nutrition, Colorado State University
    1975 M.S. - Food Science and Nutrition, Colorado State University
    1967 B.S. - Major: Biology; Minor: Microbiology, New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology, President of the Student Body.
    Employment History:
    Present Professor Emeritus of Food Science and Nutrition, Arizona State University
    1979-2004 Professor of Food Science, Department of Nutrition, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
    1990-95 Courtesy Professor of Food Science, Department of Food Science and Technology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. (Summer Terms)
    1981-90 Director, Food Science and Nutrition Laboratories, Arizona State University
    Duties: Direct all research and teaching activities, supervise technical staff, and perform independent research.
    1979-84 Director Dietetic Program, Arizona State University
    Duties: Coordinate course work, advisement and competency requirements for the American Dietetic Association approved program, 150 undergraduates. One of only programs throughout the United States approved for all emphasis areas of Dietetics; General, Management, Clinical and Community.
    1976-79 Assistant Professor of Foods and Nutrition, Central Washington, University Ellensburg, Washington
    Dietitian for the Student Health Center Hospital (1978-1979).
    1975-76 Municipal Judge Wellington, Colorado
    Duties: Serve as presiding magistrate/ revise court system procedures and policies to conform to state statutes/ supervise court clerk, bailiff.
    1974-76 Director of Rehabilitation Wellington Urban Renewal Authority, Wellington, Colorado
    Duties: Writing of grant proposals to the Department of Housing and Urban Development/ supervision of all rehabilitation projects, employees and contractors.
    1973-74 Trustee Wellington, Colorado
    Duties: Serve as a voting member of the town council. Responsibilities included organizing
    • Jul 26 2013: List as many things as you want betty. No amounts of titles will fix those basic mistakes in chemistry, biochemistry, metabolism, physics, plant biology, fermentation, etc. Reality is reality, and titles can't change reality. If it was all about titles, then pointing to the many titles, all much more appropriate for evaluating whether aspartame is a poison or not, of scientists who have found no problems with aspartame, or who have shown that one of the products of pectin fermentation is methanol, or that methanol concentration increases in the blood stream after fruit consumption, etc, etc, etc, would do the job. But I don't need to. I know enough about chemistry, biochemistry, metabolism, physics, and such to notice those mistake myself, and mistakes are mistakes no matter how many titles someone holds. Believe me, my titles would not make any mistakes I have made in my garden any less bad for my garden.
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: The one thing missing from this CV is any training in chemistry, which is what this discussion is actually about.
  • Jul 25 2013: Dear Entrophy Driven, Do you have a name? It is well known that the methanol in nature binds to pectin. Here is an article about it.

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/11/11/aspartame-dangers.aspx Where is your evidence?

    Regards,
    Betty
    www.mpwhi.com
    • Jul 26 2013: Dear Betty,

      Mercola is sensationalism. What about you show me something from a reputable source.

      The claim that methanol binds to pectin and stays there is bogus. See for example these studies:
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.1997.tb03862.x/abstract
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.1995.tb01593.x/abstract

      So, there's methanol produced naturally by our metabolism, and its concentration increases with fruit consumption. Not only that, pectin is a substrate whose fermentation can produce methanol, rather than being some "trap" that keeps methanol from entering into the blood stream.

      Look, some people do have metabolic problems that can cause problems. not only with aspartame (in the case of phenylketonuria, for example), but almost with anything. Only, aspartame is much easier to demonize than, say, peanuts. Yet, much more people can be harmed by peanuts than aspartame. Only aspartame is "artificial", and people love demonizing whatever is artificial. It's easy to forget that tigers are natural. Yet, I doubt that being in the middle of a bunch of tigers would be good for anybody's health.
  • Jul 25 2013: Dr. Monte was a professor of a food laboratory in Arizona and has studied aspartame and the methanol for over 30 years. This article is peer reviewed. When someone wants to know about the methanol in aspartame they look up Dr. Monte because he is an expert. He has written the new book on the methanol in aspartame called "While Science Sleeps", www.sciencesleeps.com The FDA made a deal with the manufacturer never to let the public see the birth defect (teratology) studies which showed neural tube defects and is behind the epidemic of autism. Finally after 8 years I was able to find two of them and Dr. Monte four of them. The last chapter of the book is free on www.whilesciencesleeps.com and explains the epidemic of autism. Dr. Monte also explains because the formaldehyde from the free methyl alcohol embalms living tissue, it turns the tissue to plastic. He has excellent credentials and anyone who has researched aspartame and the methanol issue for 30 yeqars is an expert. His mateiral goes along with what other expects have written like Dr. H. J. Roberts, Dr. Russell Blaylock, and Dr. Ralph Walton, etc.

    You write like someone who wants to put doubt in people when the material is by experts who know the issue and have fought for years to get the facts to the public. Somebody thought Dr. Monte knew too much, in fact. You will note in the last chapter his house was blown up with him in it, but he survived and hasn't stopped getting facts to the public.

    Betty www.mpwhi.com
  • Jul 25 2013: Dear Peter
    You do not seem to have done any research on Aspartame.
    Drinking an alcoholic substance with diet coke may stop the action of methanol from Aspartame however, it will add the effects of ethanol poisoning to the other disassociation products of aspartame.
    manufacturers state that aspartame is made up of forty per cent aspartic acid, fifty per cent phenylalanine, and ten per cent methanol;
    WHEREAS, aspartic acid is a nonessential amino acid that is used by the body to initiate apoptosis or cell death in aging cells, and that excess aspartic acid from aspartame consumption causes apoptosis in healthy cells that can destroy healthy tissue, especially in the brain; and
    WHEREAS, phenylalanine is an essential amino acid found naturally in protein but when isolated becomes neurotoxic, lowers the seizure threshold, depletes serotonin triggering psychiatric and behavioral problems, and interacts with antidepressants and other drugs; and
    WHEREAS, methanol is a severe metabolic poison classified as a narcotic that converts to formaldehyde and formic acid, and can embalm living tissue and damage DNA; and aspartame metabolites include formaldehyde, a "class A" carcinogen, diketopiperazine, a brain tumor agent, and formic acid; and Various doctors have suggested Aspartame poisoning may be responsible for cases mis-diagnosed as: (In some cases, when the aspartame is withdrawn the patient feels better.)
     Brain tumours
     Multiple sclerosis
     Epilepsy
     Chronic fatigue syndrome
     Parkinson's Disease
     Alzheimer's
     Mental retardation
     Lymphoma
     Birth defects
     Fibromyalgia
     Diabetes
     Arthritis (including Rheumatoid)
     Chemical Sensitivities
     Attention Deficit Disorder
     Reduced fertility in men
     Decreased vision and/or other eye problems (blurring, "bright flashes," tunnel vision, protruding, bleeding)
     Pain (one or both eyes)
     Decreased tears, trouble with contact lens
    Blindness (one or both eyes)
     Tinnitus ("ringing," "buzzing")
    etc
  • Jul 25 2013: Peter
    Had your government done safety checks on aspartame, there is no way in which they would have approved it!
    Even FDA tried to sue Searle (Dom Rumsfeld) for giving them false and incomplete information.
    Please buy it yourself and check it out! The fact that you have to buy it, makes me think that there is something in it that they do not want you to know.
    • Jul 25 2013: I don't know about Australia, but here a report from Europe: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/aspartame.htm

      They did a recent full investigation due to the sensationalism spread by people who know no better. They did not find anything to reconsider about aspartame's safety.
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2013: We may be wasting our time here. I had a look at the report in your link and it indicates over 1000 papers that were considered. One of them even showed that a dose of aspartame equivalent to 4 cans of diet coke in one go produced an increase in serum methanol of less than double the background level and that this methanol was eliminated too quickly to do any damage. But even a thousand papers from internationally respected research facilities won't be enough to disprove the theories of some guy working out of his garage.☺
        • Jul 26 2013: Oh, don't forget a nutritionist who published one opinion article that contains errors in basic chemistry, basic biochemistry, basic metabolism, basic physics ... oh, but that nutritionist beats 1000 actual research articles because sensationalism is much more appealing than science to these anti-aspartame people.
  • Jul 25 2013: Dear Peter, Researchers and physicians use the word free so people will know in aspartame it is not attached or shall I say bound. It's the difference! In nature ethanol is bound to pectin. In aspartame it is free and unbound. Also, in oranges for instance the methanol is always accompanied by ethanol, the classic antidote for methanol toxicity. A clear understanding ddexposes the propaganda they use.

    Betty
    www.mpwhi.com
  • Jul 25 2013: Dear Peter, I didn't say it was a study, but a scientific peer reviewed journal article. It is definitely one of the best journal articles that describes the dangers of the methanol in aspartame. At the end there are a lot of references.

    All my best,
    Betty
    www.mpwhi.com
    • thumb
      Jul 25 2013: Please look up the term "Peer Review" it has a very specific meaning in science as does "Free" both are being used outside their scientific meanings to try to make a scientific arguement. They are both terms I teach the meanings of to my chemistry and physics classes and have been doing so for 15 years now. The word "Free" when used in Chemistry implies a higher energy state so it's use in another context within a scientific artical is unacceptable.
  • Jul 24 2013: Hi Soroush, Here is the scientific peer reviewed journnal confirming what you said: http://www.mpwhi.com/aspartame_methanol_and_public_health.pdf

    All my best,
    Betty
    www.mpwhi.com
    • thumb
      Jul 25 2013: The link is to an opinion piece not scientific paper. There are no references to experiment and no results, just an expression of concern.
    • Jul 25 2013: The opinion article shows that the author is not very well informed about chemistry, biochemistry, molecular biology, gene regulation, and much more. Not a reliable source of information.
  • Jul 24 2013: Whether it is nascent/radical methanol or common methanol, the end result is the same - it goes on to do gross damage over time.

    What is the natural antidote to methanol?
    As a science teacher you should know that it is ethanol.
    The methanol in food and drinks is always antidoted by a huge amount of ethanol present present in that food item. For example for every molecule of methanol in an orange, it is estimated that there are 500 molecules of ethanol.
    Wine of course has a small amount of methanol compared to the huge amount of ethanol that it carries. This is the nonsense that the manufacturers used to fool some people about aspartame methanol toxicity. The problem which you have ignored is that when methanol is released from the disassociation of aspartame, there is no ethanol to antidote it.
    In fact the European Food Standards Agency is now considering the amount of methanol from Aspartame as the current safe level is now regarded to be some 40X too great.
  • Jul 24 2013: I note that you did not give any references to testing in your country. I very much doubt if it was officially tested. If so, please give references.
    • thumb
      Jul 25 2013: I couldn't find any local papers on the internet, but this was 30 years ago. I am however sure the approval in Australia was independant of the FDA as it pre-dates the FDA approval by some six months.
      http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1802190
      This is a link to the last review of aspartame safety done in Australia. It's only available in hard copy but you can order one if you think it will help your cause. It will include a full bibliography of the papers on which the decision was based.
  • Jul 24 2013: Dear Peter, I did answer this but can't seem to find t. I was taught by Dr. H. J. Roberts world expert on aspartame who dedicated his 1000 page medical text to me, Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic. On page 679 Dr. Roberts says: There are limited data from the FDA about the "free" methanol content of fruits, friuit juices, alcoholic beverages and other products, based on current sensitive assays." He uses the term to distinguish the difference in methanol which in nature is bound to pectin, taken out of the body safely. In aspartame it is not bound to anything but is free and converts to formaldehyde and formic acid. In the Trocho Study which showed the formaldehyde embalms living tissue: http://www.mpwhi.com/formaldehyde_from_aspartame.pdf you read on page 338, "free methyl alcohol". So you see researchers use the term as well. All my best, Betty www.mpwhi.com
    • thumb
      Jul 25 2013: The use of the word free on page 338 was in the common usage as in not attached(The author is afterall an MD not a chemist). This is the normal state for methanol so is not chemically significant. Unlike a free radical where the word free is used to describe a radical who's usual state is to be attached to somthing so it is chemically relevant as it implies a higher energy.
    • Jul 25 2013: Methanol concentrations do increase after consumption of fruits and such. It is false that it is trapped in pectin and that it passes through.
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2013: Dude, one word: stevia.
  • Jul 24 2013: Thank you for your reply. The problem is aspartame is addictive. The methyl ester immediately becomes free methyl alcohol classified as a narcotic. It causes chronic methanol poisoning. This affects the dopamine system of the brain and causes the addiction. Aspartame makes you crave carbohydrates so you gain weight. The formaldehyde converted from the methanol embalms living tissue as the Trocho Study discussed. The formaldehyde causes the tissues to turn to plastic. All this is discussed in Dr. Woodrow Monte's book, "While Science Sleeps", www.whilesciencesleeps.com Aspartame is so poisonous that victims even when they get off of it find themselves chemically hypersensitive. Even the late FDA toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross told the Senate that because of the brain tumors and brain cancer it violates the Delaney Amendment which forbids putting anything you know will cause cancer in food. He said therefore how could the FDA give an allowable daily intake. The toxin is cumulative. Go to www.mpwhi.com and click on the button for aspartame videos and watch "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World". Attorney James Turner will explain how it got approved through the political chicanery of Don Rumsfeld after the FDA tried to have the manufacturer indicted for fraud and revoked the petition for approval. There simply is no way to show that aspartame is safe. Almost 100% of independent, peer reviewed studies show the problems. Betty
    • thumb
      Jul 24 2013: As I have discussed with Soroush below, there is no such thing as "free" methanol. The break down of the ester bond by esterase catalysed hydrolysis produces just plain methanol, the simplest of the alcohols, it naturally occurs in much higher quantities in fruit juices and enormously higher quantities in any alcoholic beverage, especially red wines where it is a by-product of fermentation. Please stop using words you don't know the meaning of. Perhaps study a chemistry degree.
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2013: As I have tracked this conversation, it seems that aspartame is not good. I have often held that any food additive including those I can pronounce are questionable. There are dyes, sweeteners stabilizers, etc.
    It seems there is a particularly troubling additive "aspartame" that is the center of this conversation. There are people that have been troubled with any number of ill effects attributed to this substance and these problems have not been recognized by those responsible for food safety...
    That's what I've read.
    It's a food additive for artificial sweetness. It is in processed food, and oral care products, even over the counter medications, for the most part it is listed in ingredients, of not by name by effect.
    So, the question begs, why are these products used and I will suggest that some of the most ill have used them to excess. I am not being unkind as pragmatic. No one is forced to purchase and use these products... that I know of.
    There is no reason I know for any one to eat or use anything with elements you can't pronounce or don't know why they are in the product.
    How many people ore overweight due to excessive consumption of high fructose corn syrup? In the last 50 years there has be an explosion of conditions and illnesses and conditions that have appeared and what is a common factor...
    all the additives... now are there causal relationships as described in this conversation, I am not sure, but ....
  • Jul 22 2013: Dear Peter Lindsay
    What you suggest is good but extremely costly and well beyond the means of Betty and myself. It needs government involvement.
    One good indication however is the fact that we see these cases improve when they completely abstain from Aspartame.
    The interesting point is that we advise GPs to do the same with any of their chronic patients and if they find out that they are taking aspartame ask them to abstain for 60 days and retake the case. The sad thing is that a lot of GPs would think that the Government would not allow such a material into the food chain if it was not safe. This was exactly my thought before I saw a blind man gain his sight!
    I wrote to the Food Standards Agency and asked if they had ever tested aspartame for safety. The answer was "NO - we have relied on literature reviews." When I asked for a copy, one duly arrived. To wards the end it had words to effect "Although the experiments were flawed, the results are acceptable." Now by your own admission you are a scientist - what does that mean?
    Then when I delved into FDA's behaviour and the involvement of Don Rumsfled, enough was said. All the evidence is on the sites that Betty had given. Please read them and check them out yourself.

    I am so glad that you do not take artificial sweeteners, But when aspartame is in 5,000+ products including medicines, vitamins etc, how sure are you? Where we see them prominently is in DIET drinks and also most of the sugar free chewing gums (where aspartame gets absorbed through the tongue and then can cause lots of damage. I came across a lady with a brain tumour who consumed a few packs a day and bought them by the bulk pack!
    • thumb
      Jul 23 2013: Over here we do our own testing, there are plenty of things that have FDA approval but are unavailable in Australia. (For example in Australia margarine isn't bad for you because you can't sell it if it contains trans fats) I don't really see how a US based conspiracy involving Don Rumsfeld is in any way relevant. Aspartame is approved for human consumption here as we have found no reason not to use it.
      Regarding incidental ingestion, in Australia any product meant for human consumption must have a complete list of ingredients on the packaging so it would be highly unlikely for accidental exposure to occur.
      If you want to get interest in your concerns by the science community you need to collate all your anecdotal evidence. There is no point talking about "A lady" as it is not statistically relevant, but if you find 1000 ladies that all have the same symtoms you might get somewhere. You just need to document it properly.
      • Jul 23 2013: Dear Peter
        Please let me know who in Australia tested the safety of aspartame and especially who paid for it.
        Bets are that they relied on FDA approval!

        How many people read the ingredients list and how many people understand what it means?
        • thumb
          Jul 23 2013: Over here the decisions are made by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand. They make decisions based on international and local testing. The FDA has no standing here, there are many drugs and food additives with FDA approval that are unavailable in Australia. Over here we have nationalised healthcare so big business doesn't play any real part in it. Local testing is generally done in either state funded hospitals or Universities or by the CSIRO which is a state funde research organisation. I think you will find our food and drug standards are much more stringent than in the US. For example Mcdonalds burgers are different here as some of the US burgers don't meet local nutrition requirements.
          Now just to be clear about the FDA. Approval by the FDA has no legal standing in Australia, in some cases that is a bad thing because it normally takes a year or two for new drugs to get on the Australian market after FDA approval, but generally it gives us another level of testing which is a good thing.
  • Jul 22 2013: When the term 'FREE' is used in relation to a chemical, it indicates that it is a radical.
    When aspartame breakdown in the body at 31 C, 10% by weight is 'free' methanol.
    As with all radicals, this is able to cause additional damage!
    • thumb
      Jul 23 2013: That's my point Soroush. A free radical formed from methanol isn't methanol. In the twenty years that I have been either studying or teaching organic chemistry I have never heard of a free radical form of methanol and can find no mention of it it any of the room full of text books I own.
      • Jul 23 2013: And that is what you teach then that nascent hydrogen ( a radical) is not hydrogen? What do you teach it to be?
        • thumb
          Jul 24 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nascent_hydrogen An old theory that is no longer in use in modern chemistry. Nascent hydrogen has been shown not to exist, there's molecular hydrogen and there's atomic hydrogen. It was a nice theory but then we worked out that it was wrong. That's how science works.
          The methanol produced by the digestion of aspartame is just regular methanol and there's more methanol in a glass of red wine than is produced by the consumption of a litre of diet soda, and red wine is good for you.
  • Jul 21 2013: Dearest Betty Martini - never fret - we are winning this war and the world will be amazed that those who we have entrusted with our health issues have failed us!

    We just carry on telling the truth and show evidence to back our statements.

    BUT you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink!
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: For the record, I teach science and I have looked over all the evidence presented in this discussion. I am yet to read a paper where the writer concludes there is evidence to support claims made by the OP. I have no barrow to push here. I wouldn't use any artificial sweetener because I see them as unnecessary. If you and Betty and Barbara are so confident you are correct, why don't you do the study to find scientifically a connection between aspastame and MS or Lupus?
  • Jul 21 2013: Dear Kate, Since you live in Australia why not contact Dr. Sanddra Cabot, Mission Possible Australia. Even if you don't want to read what others ask you to read, the best thing to do is research aspartame dangers by simply typing it into google. Instead you tried to find a controversy. What my web site has on it is scientific peer reviewed research, FDA and congressional documents, the Unnited Press Intl 8 month investigation, testimony of FDA toxicologists that aspartame is not safe, experts reports, etc. Look at the resources button. Can you imagine physicians and experts writing medical books about aspartame dangers and what it causes if it wasn't true. Consider all the documentaries made exposing how it was approved through political chicanery of Don Rumsfeld after the FDA Board of Inquiry revoked the petition for approval and tried to have the manufacturer indicted for fraud. No way to get a poison to show safety. All my best, Betty
  • Jul 21 2013: When my daughter started drinking diet soda,
    she had epileptic-type seizures, and
    she began to lose her vision in both eyes.
    Many other members of our family also have noticed a reaction to NutraSweet.
    I get severe classic migraines from diet soda – my son, who is a physician and pharmacist,
    can’t see to drive if he drinks diet soda – another young man in the family,
    a lawyer, had double vision. His ophthalmologist thought he had a brain
    tumor, but all the tests were negative. He stopped drinking diet soda, and
    within 3 months, the double vision was gone. My sister-in-law acted like a
    “raving maniac” when she drank diet soda.

    And, by talking to others in my community for 20+ years, I have learned that
    reactions to NutraSweet are quite common.

    Unfortunately, most physicians are clueless when it comes to connecting the
    many symptoms of NutraSweet poisoning/toxicity with the consumption of what
    is supposedly a safe substance.

    By approving NutraSweet, the FDA caused many problems for many innocent
    people.
  • Jul 20 2013: Dear Kate,

    Interestingly, I just answered this post to you and it disappeared right before my eyes. So this time I'm copying to the people on this list, so if it disappears again they can resubmit it. When I joined I checked to get a copy of every post. All I do is answer and click on submit or reply. Maybe you need to make sure your settings are correct. I have nothing to do with it on my end. Secondly, you say you no of no deaths?! Simply go to www.mpwhi.com and click on FDA Report of 92 symptoms and you'll see death. In fact, in 2010 I met Reginall Bundrage who worked for the EPA as a pathologist in the early 1990's. I had no idea they had such a department since it comes under FDA. He worked on those who died from aspartame and told his superiors with this many dying how could they keep it on the market. His superiors told him FDA would have to remove it but they never did.

    As to the World Environmental Conference post, often called the Nancy Markle post, go to www.dorway.com/nomarkle.html and you'll see my invitation to speak and even the confession of the EPA.
    It went viral and people walked out of wheelchairs as they got off of aspartame, had their sight returned and symptoms they had suffered with for years just disappeared. Having gotten well they set up operations of Mission Possible in their countries to help others. The manufacturer set up front groups and got dietitians and others to try and defend them. They couldn't put out the fire and sold the NutraSweet Co. Hard to tell someone its a hoax when their problems vanish off this poison. We're now in over 48 countries and I've been doing this 20 years, working with world experts. Regards, Betty (Note to Ted, please do not delete this message again)
  • Jul 20 2013: Dear Kate, just a PS. If anyone knows about aspartame its the EPA. I met Reginall Bkundrage, a pathologist who worked for the EPA in the early l990's. I had no idea there was a department at EPA, as it comes under the FDA. He worked on the bodies of those who died from aspartame. He said he told his superiors that when something is killing as many people as aspartame is, it shouldn't be on the market. He was told the FDA would have to in the end remove it. I met Reginall in 2010 and he said, "Here it is 2010 and this poison is still on the market. He gave me a telephone number, 678 466 5406, where I could reach him with permission to tell the story but he is no longer working there.

    It is of interest that when Dr. Adrian Gross, FDA toxicologist, exposed aspartame and spoike out, they sent him to the EPA. He was working there when he testified before Congress that aspartame is illegally on the market because it violates the Delaney Amendments that states you can't add anything in food if you know it causes cancer. His last words were "And if the FDA violates its own laws who is left to protect the public? Dr. Gross is dead now but I wondered if he had anything to do with setting up that department. Even the FDA admits to death on their report. Click on FDA 92 symptoms at the top of my web site, www.mpwhi.com If you want to talk to someone who has lost 8 members of his family from aspartame contact me through my web page. It will give you my email. I started Mission Possible Intl after Joyce Wilson died. She had her own operation warning people off aspartame. When she died I inherited the records. I've written the obituaries fro years on those who have passed away because of aspartame. Regards, Betty
  • Jul 20 2013: Dear Kate, Every time I get a message I try to answer it but I have no idea what you're talking about as far as notification. In the beginning I clicked something so I would get notified of anyone posting so I could answer them. Did you click on that point so you can get notified too when a post is made? I have nothing to do with it. When someone posts and I click on the forum this box appears. I comment like I'm doing now and click submit. If you are signed up to get replys you will get them k automatically. I have nothing at all to do with it. It's on your end.

    As to the World Environmental Conference post you sent, go to http://www.dorway.com/nomarkle.html and you will get all the information you want. I was on a forum with neurologists and mentioned I had just lectured for the World Environmental Conference. Put a post on it on web and never thought anything about it. However, somebody named Nancy Markle disorganized it a bit and sent it out with a radical headline under her name. It went viral around the world. People got off aspartame just because of the report and when they found their symptoms disappeared wrote to start Mission Possible operations in other countries. It's now over 43 nations.

    Notice on the web site is even the confession of the EPA. All of the conversations with Dr. Clarice Gaylord are on this web site. She said the department didn't pass information on because it was funded by grant. REally quite silly. The aspartame industry set up front groups and fed information to hoax organizations. They couldn't put the fire out, however, because people were walking out of wheelchairs who had been diagnosed with MS, had regained their sight and other woke up well from other horrors off aspartame. This is 18 years from the time I first lectured and I still get posts and calls from it. The first year the phone rang around the clock. I even had to turn off "call interruption" and have never added it back. Betty www.mpwhi.com
  • Jul 20 2013: Dear Kate,

    I don't understand your post. Nobody is selling anything. We give the truth away free. The mission of Mission Possible Intl is to notify everyone on planet earth that aspartame is a deadly chemical poison as the facts bear out. We all work free. In 20 years I've taken the case histories of about 50,000 of the sick and dying on aspartame. I work with the world experts who have trained me, and act as a messenger so their material will be known the world over. We have operations in over 43 countries and they all work free as well.

    All my best,
    Betty
    www.mpwhi.com
  • Jul 19 2013: Mike you are so right.
    Just look at all the obese people in US now. Food has always been plenty in US! So why the rise in weight from mid 80's onwards?
    Yes you guessed it - Aspartame came on the market and you see these fat people drinking more and more diet stuff and getting no where - for it interferes with the stomach full signal and increases carbohydrate demand so the person is always hungry!
  • thumb
    Jul 19 2013: Yes Aspartame and any other number of additives are.... not good. The FDA determined that small quantities of these chemicals were not "that" harmful and long term effects were probably not significant. Testing done at the levels of studies undertaken shows that in quantities this stuff will take the paint off your car. Nuff said.
    The problem is not about toxicity, it is about the taste buds of most Americans who are addicted to sugar free soft drinks and drink them by the gallon.
    To resolve this problem is not a Purdue study on toxicity but a Purdue study that shows that artificial sweeten soft drinks causes: acne, fat thighs, under developed breast, premature ejaculation, and genital under development... and baldness. People don't care about what's going on inside.... they care about what they can see on the outside.
  • Jul 19 2013: Thanks to Betty Martini, it is not until one starts to treat patients who have been poisoned by aspartame that one begins to understand the scale of the problem. We must of course realise that this is multi-billion dollar business - but it is based on pain and death.
    How do we know that the symptoms the patients are suffering from is caused by Aspartame? Simple, one instructs the patient NOT to take anything with aspartame and soon the symptoms start go away.
    My very first experience was a with a diabetic 78 year old who had had LASER treatment for bleeds in his eyes for years.
    He had gone blind and needed to be helped across the road. He was taking a candrel pill with every cup of tea and he would have about 10 day! When he stopped taking aspartame, within 3 months I was surprised to see that he had his sight back. He said to me that shortly after stopping aspartame the bleeds stopped!
    Note that the basis of science is observation. Luckily this was repeated in a hospital in India and similar results were about to be published where the guys behind changing the boss of FDA managed to threaten the doctor in charge not to report for fear of death.
    I have had people diagnosed with diabetes who on having given up aspartame have normal blood sugars and are no longer regarded as diabetic. Ditto migraine sufferers of people suffering from arthritis that no longer suffer pain within a short period of giving up aspartame.
    Then we have the Kings College London study which looked at the effect of aspartame on brain cells in vitro and abnormalities soon started.
    We also have evidence before the European Food Standards Agency that the 'free' methanol that is produced when aspartame molecules disassociate in the body is far higher than the safe limits for methanol.
    So wise up guys - do not try and defend the indefensible and pass the word on. Just try it - give up aspartame for 60 days and see what happens to your health and for once do not defend the indefensible.
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: What is "free" methanol. All methanol is free otherwise it isn't methanol.
  • Jul 18 2013: At the top of my web page, www.mpwhi.com you will see a button for peer reviewed research. You might have to click on each individual URL, some are very long with different studies. In fact, because study after study after study came in showing the horrors Parliament told the Ekuropean Food Safety Authority they would have to do the aspartame review over. In the last years besides three studies by Ramazzinithere is one by Harvard the authors said was the longest and strongest on cancer. Incidently, the only people who attempt to rebut the Ramazzini Studies appear to be flacks. You remember that Dr. Koeter who headed the committee (EFSA) resigned putting out a press release saying they were pressured by industry to hijack science.

    You have the recent Purdue Study based on 40 years of research. The Denmark Study showed aspartame can jump preterm births by 78%. There is one that showed aspartame cause heart attacks and strokes, one in Boston showing heart problems and obesity. Sharon Fowler in Texas did a 7 year epidemiological study proving aspartame triggers obesity. There is a new study showing aspartame raises blood sugar and on and on. You have put to access them. Also check out www.holisticmed.com/aspartame, the Aspartame Toxicity Center and you'll see a lot of the studies there too. The Trocho Study I've mentioned several times that showed the formaldehyde embalms living tissue and damages DNA. The studies by G. D. Searle showing aspartame causes neural tube defects accounting for the epidemic of autism we've added back to the Bressler Report on my web site. All my best, Betty
  • Jul 17 2013: Thank you for giving me this information. Usually when you start a forum on aspartame the first thing that happens is flacks come on defending the poison. There are front groups all over the Internet and so much propaganda. I'm very happy to educate people who may not know how deadly aspartame is and in that case they can contact me from the web site, www.mpwhi.com and I'll send them the Akspartame Resource Guide which has how aspartame got approved through the political chicanery of Don Rumsfeld, medical texts, movies and even how to get aspartame out of your state. The week after Labor Day weekend is Aspartame Awareness Weekend. This year we will notify the public that the FDA sealed the birth defect (teratory) studies with no warning to pregnant women their children could have birth defects from autism to cleft palate. On www.mpwhi.com you will also see the famed Dr. John Olney's 49 pages to the Public Board of Inquity of the FDA admitting that birth defects are a given. Aspartame destroys the brain as found on a study at the University of Norway. It also said especially in the area of learning. A new study is being done by Dr. Ralph Walton on birth defects. You can email me for the form or can fill it out on web and send it to me.

    Betty
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: #21 9:42 PM PST Tuesday 2013.07.16

    "However, the volume of distribution of formate was larger than that
    of methanol, which strongly suggests that formate distributes in body
    constituents other than water, such as proteins."

    http://www.toxsci.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/64/2/169
    free full text

    Toxicological Sciences 64, 169-184 (2001)
    Copyright © 2001 by the Society of Toxicology
    BIOTRANSFORMATION AND TOXICOKINETIC
    A Biologically Based Dynamic Model for Predicting the Disposition of
    Methanol and Its Metabolites in Animals and Humans.

    Michèle Bouchard michele.bouchard@umontreal.ca

    "The corresponding average elimination half-life of absorbed methanol
    through metabolism to formaldehyde was estimated to be 1.3, 0.7-3.2,
    and 1.7 h."

    "Inversely, in monkeys and in humans, a larger fraction of body burden
    of formaldehyde is rapidly transferred to a long-term component.

    The latter represents the formaldehyde that (directly or after
    oxidation to formate) binds to various endogenous molecules..."

    "Animal studies have reported that systemic methanol is eliminated
    mainly by metabolism (70 to 97% of absorbed dose) and only a small
    fraction is eliminated as unchanged methanol in urine and in the
    expired air ( 3-4%) (Dorman et al., 1994; Horton et al., 1992).

    However, fits to the available data in rats and monkeys of Horton et
    al. (1992) and Dorman et al. (1994) show that, once formed, a
    substantial fraction of formaldehyde is converted to unobserved forms.

    This pathway contributes to a long-term unobserved compartment.

    The latter, most plausibly, represents either the formaldehyde that
    (directly or after oxidation to formate) binds to various endogenous
    molecules (Heck et al., 1983; Røe, 1982) or is incorporated in the
    tetrahydrofolic-acid-dependent one-carbon pathway to become the
    building block of a number of synthetic pathways (Røe, 1982; Tephly
    and McMartin, 1984)."


    The WC Monte paradigm says that formaldehyde directly binds to endogenous molecules...
  • Jul 17 2013: Michael, you could not have read all the information in the matter of ten minutes. Who do you work for? We have 30 years of research and the government documents. You haven't said a thing except you disagree with no evidence. So again I ask you who you work for. You say the Purdue Study which included 40 years of research is no big deal. Then again I ask you who you work for? Betty
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: If you look at Michael's profile, you will see he is a high school student.

      From this I think you can safely assume that he works for no one and is participating here in good faith.
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: #20. 9:16 PM PST Tuesday 2013.07.16

    Chapter 6 "How Methanol Kills", page 73,
    "While Science Sleeps" textbook 2012 January

    If you are a scientist, this paper is a must read.
    While the brain is dependent on oxygen and without it will die within
    a short period of time, cells have alternative methods for generating
    ATP that require no oxygen.

    Both of these forms of energy production are sensitive to -- and can
    be stopped by -- varying but extremely low levels of formaldehyde.
    MM Kini and JR Cooper (1961) establish that formaldehyde, in very low
    concentrations, can cause considerable damage to key enzymes required
    by cellular respiration.

    http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/113.pdf

    Formaldehyde is too reactive to travel far in the blood -- only methanol can reach the brain and eye, to be made by ADH1 enzyme into formaldehyde inside cells.

    They also tested, in an identical manner, formic acid and
    acetaldehyde, demonstrating that between ten and one hundred times
    higher concentration levels would be required to get the same results.

    Kini and Cooper conclude by noting that present evidence shows
    "support for the contention that formaldehyde is responsible for all
    the manifestations of methanol poisoning"

    They continue, "It is our observation that formaldehyde is an
    extremely potent inhibitor of respiration and glycolysis; formate
    exercises only weak respiratory inhibition, and methanol itself has no
    effect."

    Now, just what does this all mean?

    Most significantly, formaldehyde has the power to severely hamper
    aerobic respiration and, in so doing, cause cells that can switch to
    anaerobic respiration to do so.

    In turn, this causes a buildup of lactic acid within the cell, which
    quickly leaks into the blood.

    This partly explains the quick development of acidosis in the blood of
    methanol poisoning victims, a development that occurs long before the
    liver has a chance to produce detectable levels of formic acid in the
    bloodstream. 400
  • Jul 17 2013: Dear Michael there are many citations Dr. Morando Soffritti did the Ramazzini Studies, three in all, showing aspartame to be a multipotential carcinogen and producing everything from lymphoma and leukemia tomammary, liver and lung cancer. He received an award for his the first study which had only been given two times in history. The European Food Safety Authority said "the rats had respiratory problems". We all laughed since respiratory disease is the dying process. Then Dr. Herman Koeter who headed the committee resigned but before he did he wrote EFSA was pressured by industry to hijack science, mentioning the Ramazzini Study. Shills for the aspartame industry, front groups and those paid to defend industry always rebut independent studies because they can't control them.

    As to the Trocho Study it reported that the formaldehyde embalmed living tissue and damaged DNA. The components of aspartame have been found in the blood stream, that's even in a cpr[prate book from industry. I can send you a report with that reference if you would like to see it. It sounds to me like you're trying to defend industry. It won't work. When almost 100% of independent peer reviewed reseaerch shows the problems you get the facts. Physicians and researchers don't author medical texts for fun Who do you work for?
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: http://www.ted.com/conversations/19554/evidence_aspartame_is_poison.html

    #15. 9 PM PST Tuesday 2013.07.16

    Thanks especially, Betty Martini and Barbara Metzger -- you can revisit any of your posts and click on Edit to correct anything -- it will really add to the effectiveness of your sharings.

    Also, try to mention specific fairly recent scientific research papers by author, title, year, and PubMed number.

    "Skeptics" just ignore Bowen and Roberts.

    "Skeptics" are immune to personal testimony -- they may not be honest about their personal testimony about no problems with aspartame.

    Entrophy Driven, I challenge you to provide specific incorrect assertions in WC Monte's 2010 5-page introductory review in Medical Hypothesis (yes, I know, not a peer reviewed journal), and its free online full text medical research references.

    The moderator of last week's TED discussion deleted about 7 of my posts that had copious references, so I will place them here.

    http://www.ted.com/conversations/19403/how_does_aspartame_affect_our.html

    3. ADH1 is "unusually highly concentrated" in the million tiny "isles of Langerhans" in the pancreas, where the beta cells make insulin -- cigarette use correlates with diabetes 2 risk, with a doubling of risk for smoking over a pack daily.
    [ page 172, "While Science Sleeps", 2012 January, Prof. Woodrow C. Monte, Food Science and Nutrition, Arizona State University, retired 2004 ]

    WhileScienceSleeps.com includes free online archive of 782 full text medical research references:

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

    http://www.whilesciencesleeps.com/pdf/637.pdf 5 pages

    Baehler R., Pestalozzi D., Hess M., Von Wartburg JP.
    Immunohistochemical localization of alcohol dehydrogenase in human kidney, endocrine organs and brain.
    Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1983;
    18 Suppl 1:55-9 1983;18(Suppl 1):55-9.
  • Jul 17 2013: Dear Entropy, when someone alleges cancer from the production of organic food, it immediately tells you that person has a conflict of interest, especially to defend poisons. As to these diseases that are epidemic consider when the ADD people, Feingold, was interviewed for the DVD "Sweet Remedy" they admitted that prior to the approval of aspartame they hardly ever used those terms. This business about living longer is an excuse used b industry. Consider Michael Fox, a spokesman for Diet Pepsi with aspartame. He asked "Why would I get the old age disease Parkinson's at age 30.?" Tkhe answer is aspartame damages the mitochondria. As Dr. James Bowen said, "my hair went gray in 6 weeks on aspartame."

    Dr. Monte is Emeritus Professor of Nutrition, Arizona State University. He has been researching aspartame for over 30 years. He has decades of experience in food sciernce and nutrition as a researcher, teacher, inventor, industry consultant and consumer advoccate who is committed to food additive safety and the prevention of food borne diseases. For over 30 years he has studied the link between artificial sweetebers and the diseasesd of civilzstion including Alzheimer's, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, numerous forms of cancer, autism and other ebirth defects.

    Dr. Monte is a dedicated scientist with both a Ph.D and MS in Food Science and nutrition and a B.S. in Biology. He has been a Registered Dietician, Certified Nutrition Specialist AIN, professuonal memger of the American Chemical Society and emeritus member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1985 he was chosen by the Council for Internationl Exchange of Scholars as a Senior Fulbright Scholar.

    Through his research, Dr. Monte has been awarded 22 US patents. He has shared his technical expertise during hundredds of television and radio appearances, including a special feature on CBS Evening News with Dan Rather and on 60 Minutes. He is the author of numerous publications.
    • Jul 17 2013: Hi Betty,

      Actually, you missed the point: the point was not that organic foods cause cancer, but that it's easy to get misinformed from mere coincidence in time of events. My friend was not saying that organic foods cause cancer, he was saying that it's easy to get "data" to reach false conclusions. He also showed us that false conclusions can be rationalized using a few bits of carefully chosen studies and/or phrases from such studies.

      Claim as many titles as you wish for Monte. His article is still betrays a tad of ignorance about metabolism, biochemistry and basic chemistry, and his article still is his hypothesis. One that produced no significant results. What motivates him, I cannot know. But I understand enough chemistry, biochemistry and metabolism to notice those flaws in his claims. Actually, I have never met a nutritionist whose knowledge of metabolism, biochemistry and basic chemistry impressed me.

      Even if those patents you're talking about produced tons of money for Monte, that does not mean that he is right about aspartame. I insist that actual health organizations don't find any of those problems, and I find it very hard to believe that a conspiracy to hide every problem from aspartame could reach so many countries, and so many actually qualified scientists. Much harder to believe that problems for people with phenylketonuria would not be hidden, but other problems would.

      Be well
  • Jul 17 2013: If you wish to drink diet soda, that's not my problem. I could reply all night, but I honestly don't have time.
    • Jul 17 2013: Me neither, I was about to tell you that I have said enough, and that it's up to readers to be careful what they read and believe. My main warning is this: in these times, when it's so easy to flood the web with misinformation, we need to learn to distinguish misinformation from knowledge. Don't just believe everything you read. You don't need to believe what I say either. Just learn to find actual information out of the mess. Remember that "naturists" have an axe to grind too. They can be as bad as the worst corporations. There's a reason "snake-oil salesmanship" has become a referent to charlatanry.
  • Jul 17 2013: Yes, Lawren, it is possible to talk to many people in 25 years when you are trying to help others.
  • Jul 17 2013: I know all about phenylketonuria and my daughter does not have it. And I know that PKU carriers are at risk of varying reactions to aspartame, as are the fetuses of pregnant carriers.
    Methanol, from aspartame, is released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounters the enzyme chymotrypsin. Also, free methanol begins to form in liquid aspartame-containing products at temperatures above 86 degrees F. (Diet soda, for example, is often stored under high temperatures in warehouses and trucks, and even garages.)
    The methanol is then converted to formaldehyde. The formaldehyde converts to
formic acid, ant sting poison. Toxic formic acid is used as an activator to
 strip epoxy and urethane coatings. Imagine what it does to your tissues!
Phenylalanine and aspartic acid, 90% of aspartame, are amino acids normally
used in synthesis of protoplasm when supplied by the foods we eat. But when
unaccompanied by other amino acids we use [there are 20], they are
 neurotoxic.
    In other words: Aspartame converts to dangerous byproducts that have no
 natural countermeasures. A dieter's empty stomach accelerates these
 conversions and amplifies the damage. Components of aspartame go straight to
t he brain, doing damage that causes headaches, mental confusion, seizures,
etc.
    • Jul 17 2013: The symptoms you described are related to phenylketonuria. I would be surprised if you had some good test that showed you definitely that neither you nor your daughter have any level of this metabolic disorder. All depends on how active the problematic enzyme is. If you've got a test, I would wonder what kind of test before jumping to conclusions.

      I think that you have read too much misinformation. The misinformation you are repeating here does not come from reliable resources. For example, yes, methanol can be dangerous, formaldehyde can be dangerous, and formic acid can be dangerous. All if present in excessive amounts. Yet, all of them are normally produced by the metabolism of lots of living organisms, some by our own metabolism. Therefore, the key here is "excessive," and aspartame, in the concentrations present in foods, cannot reach concentrations one tenth as high as those that many natural foods get. Therefore, your claim that there's no natural defences against those chemicals cannot but be misinformed. Otherwise the naturally produced ones would be damaging us much more than a can of diet soda could.
  • Jul 17 2013: After talking to others in my community for 25+ years, and to physicians in many countries and to people on the Internet, I have learned that
    reactions to diet soda are quite common. A young man I know,
    a lawyer, had double vision. His ophthalmologist thought he had a brain
    tumor, but all the tests were negative. He stopped drinking diet soda, and
    within 3 months, the double vision was gone. It never returned.
    I have met hundreds and hundreds of people sickened by diet soda who are not related to me.
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Am I really to believe that you've discussed diet soda with hundreds and hundreds of strangers?
      • Jul 17 2013: Barbara Metzler is Mission Possible New Jersey and yes discuses the aspartame in diet soda daily. She is also a retired teacher and knows how to educate. She is an expert researcher.
        • thumb
          Jul 17 2013: So Betty's one of your own people here to shill for you. I'm sure she's the one who's given your conversation a thumbs up as well. I believe this to be the most absurd and the most self-serving conversations I've ever seen posted here. I've flagged the entire conversation as spam.
    • Jul 17 2013: Well that's curious because a lot of people in my own family drink nothing unless it's diet soda, and they don't have any problems. This is a huge family by the way. Same goes for a lot of my class mates, and most of the people I know have drunk diet soda for quite some years. No problems at all.

      Funny thing is this: I was the one and only one who got headaches from drinking diet soda. So I would avoid it like the plague. Much later I realized that a chocolate pudding I liked a lot also had aspartame. I was also given a new drink to taste as part of a study to see if people would like it. It was great. No headaches. When the drink was finally introduced to the market, I started drinking it from time to time. No headaches. Then I read the label, ups, aspartame. Turns out that my headaches were not caused by aspartame. Either it was some other ingredient in the diet soda, or it was my own conviction that it had to be bad to drink something with an artificial sweetener.

      Also, I was doing some work on carcinogens, which lead me to learn a heck of a lot about substances that could cause cancers and how they are evaluated. To my surprise, given the fantasy that nature=healthy, I learned that many natural substances are much more powerful carcinogens, and can be present in enough amounts to be a problem, than artificial carcinogens. I also learned that synthetic and the length of the names of substances, or difficulty on pronunciation, had nothing to do with carcinogenic potential.

      So, forgive me but I doubt that you have any reliable information against aspartame. Either it's all in your mind and those of the people you have talked to, or you have talked to lots of people with different levels of phenylketonuria.
      • Jul 17 2013: Nobody escapes aspartame rregardless of what they say. When my daughter was about to be married I told her husband to be he couldn't marry my daughter on aspartame, and that I didn't want children with birth defects when they can be avoided. He insisted he had no problems but I refused to change my mind., He returned to Atlanta two weeks later off aspartame. While he reported no problems when he got off of it his joint pain disappeared as did the insomnia and other problems. He said he had no idea these were caused by aspartame and just thought he was getting older. Tkhey waited 5 years to have a child and the baby couldn't speak. My daughter studied day and night with him until he could talk. It doesn't matter if ithe man uses aspartame or the female.

        In fact, an organic market and health food store gave out booklets free on aspartame called Killer Cola. People going to doctors for years got off of it because the reports were so bad. In about sixty days, the owner called and said, "You'll never believe what is going on. People are waking up well from symptoms that disabled them. Fibromyalgia patients are no longer crippled with pain, and MS victims have walked out of wheelchairs. The blind can now see!" I told her I realized that had happened because one woman came to my door and fell into my arms She said, "I was blind and now I can see ". One physician said before Dr. Morgan Raiford died he said, " if anyone is really doing something about aspartame let them iunherit my recorfds." I have them.

        Here is the FDA's 92 symptoms on aspartame: http://www.mpwhi.com/92_aspartame_symptoms.pdf It is obvious at this ipoint you haven't read the recordfs. Click on scientific peer reviewed research at the top of the page www.mpwhi.com

        According to Dr. James Bowen who has Lou Gehrigs from aspartame, aspartame actually causes phenylketonuria. You might want to check the Aspartame Toxicity Center, www.holisticmed.com/aspartame Betty
      • Jul 17 2013: Actually I'm replying to Lawren for mentioning the word shill. Nobody is anybody's employee. We all work free the world over. We have operations in over 43 countries. Nobody gets a cent. The definition of a shill is . One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle. The aspartame industry is full of them. We expose them all. Barbara Metzler's daughter almost went blind and had seizures on aspartame. Off aspartame her daughter's sight improved and her seizures stopped. Since then she has been working "free" as Mission Possible New Jersey to save others from the problems aspartame caused her daughter. She saves lives everyday.
      • thumb
        Jul 17 2013: Hi ED and Betty,

        The only thing I've heard (which doesn't mean I know it for a fact or I know it to be true) is that artificial sweeteners, aspartame among them, tend to get accumulated in the body and it's difficult for the body to get rid of them in a natural digestion process. Is it better than needing insuline after having too much sugar? I don't know. Time will tell. I like neither too much sugar and don't drink too much soda so I have no personal experience.
  • Jul 16 2013: What Entropy Driven is calling misinformation is definitely not misinformation. I have studied the hazards of diet soda for more than 25 years. Diet soda gives me classic optic migraines and it was causing my daughter to have seizures and it was causing her to go blind. She was in a hospital in Boston for special studies on her brain, and
    the doctors confirmed that it was the diet soda that had made her so sick. She also went to a highly-respected ophthalmologist who
    explained why her vision loss was due to diet soda. She stopped diet soda and the seizures stopped and luckily her vision returned. There are many, many studies that prove how dangerous diet soda is. Some people get sick quickly and it takes others years to realize what is causing their problems.
    • thumb
      Jul 17 2013: Can I get more evidence please? I'm genuinely interested with your research/studies but right now it just seems like you have a special metabolic pathway that caused this problem. Essentially can I have statistics or metastatistics? This is just an isolated incidence as far as I see, could be something analogous to allergies...

      Cheers!
      Michael
    • Jul 17 2013: Dear Barbara,

      Your daughter's symptoms were probably due to phenylketonuria, which is a well known metabolic disorder. Depending on the severity of this disorder people can have seizures, headaches and such things. This is due to the phenylalanine in aspartame. Aspartame-containing beverages contain warnings about problems for people with phenylketonuria. However, that does not mean that aspartame is a poison, it means that people who suffer from phenylketonuria should not consume aspartame or any other food rich in phenylalanine. Phenylalanine, by the way, is one of the 20 amino-acids naturally present in proteins.

      Calling aspartame a poison because people with a metabolic disorder should not consume it is like calling peanuts a poison because some people are allergic to peanuts and might die out of eating peanuts. The only reason aspartame is demonized and peanuts are not is because it's easier to misinform people about synthetic substances than about naturally produced food, like peanuts.

      So, while your daughter's problem with aspartame is legitimate, and it's a well-established medical problem, that does not mean that all the sensationalist misinformation listed above is anything else but sensationalist misinformation.

      Best to you and your daughter.
  • Jul 16 2013: Whoever made this comment above about misinformation should check out the records including peer reviewed studies on www.mpwhi.com, top of the page. The medical text, Akspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic, www.sunsentpress.com by world expert, the late Dr. H. J. Roberts, 1000 pages, actually had to be cut down from the original because it was too big to publish. Then Dr. Roberts said he needed to add 200 more pages because of the new studies showing cancer, heart attacks and strokes, jumping preterm birth, by up to 78% (Denmark), raising fasting blood sugar, destroying the kidneys, etc. Everything is a matter of public record. On banners on www.mpwhi.com you can read the congressional records, the Bressler Report (FDA), and even the petition the FDA Board of Inquikry revoked on the approval of aspartame. G. D. Searle hired Don Rumsfeld to get it through or it wouldn't be on the market today. See the movie, Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World, on U-Tube and hear Attorney James Turner tell the whole story. You will also see expertds on aspartame and victims explaining what it did to their lives. In 20 years I personally have listened to at least 50,000 cases, many by email, letter and fax. No sensationalism. These are the facts recorded in government records. Dr. Roberts died in February but before he died he gave me 30 years of research.
    Dr. Woodrow Monte who wrote "While Science Sleeps" www.whilesciencesleeps.com added these statistics to the back of his book:

    "The introduction of aspartame into the food supply of the United States began in the summer of 1981. Since that time, the incidence of Alzheimer's deaths has increased 10,000%. Autism has, with no explanation, increased 2500%. Autoimmune diseases have reached epidemic proportions with Lupus (SLE) up 300% and Multiple Sclerosis, TKype II Diabetes and Rkheumatoid Arkthritis headed out of control. Cancers, the hallmark of formaldehyde exposure, have exploded. Skin cancer has shot iup over 400%,
    • Jul 17 2013: None of those sources look serious. Anybody can buy a web site and call it world-health-whatever, then pour into it all kinds of misinformation. All Monte has to talk for his expertise is a "hypothesis" article that shows Monte to be a tad off about biochemistry, metabolism, and basic chemistry. In the meantime, actual health organizations can't find any problems with aspartame other than those related to people who suffer of a metabolic disorder called phenylketonuria.

      We suffer more and more from cancers, Alzheimer's, and other age-related problems because more of us get to live long enough to get those sicknesses.

      Correlation in time means nothing else but correlation in time. A friend of mine was able to find strong correlations with time between cancer cases and the production of organic food, for example. Another friend concluded that storks bring babies by showing that stork populations have reduced while family sizes also reduced in some parts of Europe. Yeah, I know that's ridiculous, but that's exactly the point: things happen with time, and it's easy to be mislead by correlations that do not mean an actual connection. The exercise was done just to warn people that it's easy to blame almost anything for anything if all we do is correlate them by coincidence in time.