I have known for a long time that aspartame is a dangerous substance to put in your body. Nevertheless, I succumb far, far too often to it.
What I didn't know is that THE Donald Rumsfeld was key to getting this poison in our foods.
In fact, in a 1996 report compiled from 10,000 consumer complaints obtained during the pre-marketing testing period, the FDA listed 92 aspartame-related symptoms, ranging from seizures to death! Still, the tenacious Searle, led by its cunning management team, refused to give up its effort to obtain FDA approval and denied that they had a sweet poison on their hands.
Interestingly, Searle's CEO at the time was Donald Rumsfeld (which is why some prefer to call Aspartame Disease Rumsfeld's Disease).
Duty to Warn: Diet Coke is Poison By Gary G. Kohls MD, Posted by Stephen Fox
UPDATE: Comments below doubt the reliability of the links I posted which include quotes about the poison aspartame is. I make no claims in this diary for aspartame causing brain tumors or MS or anything else. What is clear to anyone who cares to google or read is that aspartame breaks down into formaldehyde and formaldehyde is an incredible poison. I have no intention of using my time to prove that!! The google is your friend as much as mine. The point of the diary is that Rumsfeld got this into our food chain by working Reagan!!!
UPDATE TWO: Some people are never satisfied. I must post links to the toxicity of formaldehyde in order to make my diary believable even though that is not the point.
UPDATE THREE: So the 'controversy' below about the demerits of claiming aspartame is a toxic substance continues. I have no idea why I care, having better things to do with my time, but I did find the following article which most of you will not be able to access without some sort of subscription:
Is the acceptable daily intake as presently used an axiom or a dogma?
Corrado Lodovico Gallia, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Marina Marinovicha and Marcello Lottib
available through: Toxicology Letters
Volume 180, Issue 2, 15 August 2008, Pages 93-99
Multiple Facets of Human Risk Assessment of Chemical Exposures: Recognising the late Professor Robert Kroes
The above article specifically mentions formaldehyde as an example, but that is not its focus. Its focus is debating whether Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is axiom or dogma. Its conclusion is:
Pythagoras’ theorem, a proposition that is provable on the basis of explicit assumptions, is deducible from the axioms of Euclidean geometry. Thus, an axiom is a set of accepted principles presumed to be true from which all other propositions that the system endorses as true, are deducible. Given the uncertainties of risk assessment that have been outlined in this paper, it is difficult to accept that all steps of the procedure are true and, consequently, thus derivation of an ADI would not be deducible. Neither is the ADI an axiom, because, as stated, it does not guarantee 100% for possible hypersusceptible individuals.
Dogma is a term used in different ways because it sanctions not only belief unjustified by reason or scientific evidence, but also intolerance characterised by an authoritative assertion of unproven or improvable principles considered to be truth. The description of the process of risk characterisation illustrates that, by no means, an ADI can be considered a dogma, though in some settings it has been considered as such.
So, what is an ADI? Perhaps the sceptical conclusion is that it is a craft procedure, based upon both science and postulates, and which has invaluable practical significance. The Greek word skeptikoi refers to those philosophers who refused to take dogmatic positions, but rather claimed to be always engaged in ‘investigation’ or ‘consideration’ (skepsis) of questions believing that absolute knowledge is impossible and that inquiry must be a process of doubting in order to acquire approximate or relative certainty. emphasis mine
ADI is neither axiom or dogma according to the conclusion of this article. It is simply a guideline.
I maintain that the potential damage of ingestion of formaldehyde or any other number of substances is relative to an individual's tolerances. Some people can thrive in horribly toxic environments of all sorts.
I certainly can't and I know lots of people who can't.
SCIENCE IS JUST AS MUCH IDEOLOGY AS ANY OTHER HUMAN ENDEAVOR. IT TRIES, BUT FAILS, IN ITS OBJECTIVITY. THAT IS OKAY, AS LONG AS EVERYONE REALIZES THAT SCIENCE CANNOT ESCAPE IDEOLOGY.
So here we go:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...
http://www.cdc.gov/...
http://www.holisticmed.com/...
None of these links will probably satisfy those below because they want peer reviewed studies proving which levels of a cancer causing substance are safe within the body. I would maintain, as would my very smart doctors, that no levels of cancer causing chemicals are SAFE. The question of how much is a question of factors which cannot be measured in any individual. We are all exposed to cancer causing substances all the time. And the cumulative effects of all these substances, many of which humans were never exposed to before the modern age to any significant degree, will remain unknown for a long time. It is my contention that we all must limit our exposure to toxic substances as much as humanely possible and that their is no safe level. There are always risks. The question is what is an acceptable risk. Drinking formaldehyde is not an acceptable risk. It adds to other exposures individuals have no control over such as going to a doctor's office which is outgassing formaldehyde in its building, a proven issue also. I myself was asked as a freshman in college to prepare a formaldehyde solution for our labs. I had to dilute it. I can remember how sick it made me forty years later.
Do those below really suggest a peer reviewed diary of a study in which people drank formaldehyde is a good idea??? I think not. As someone who once had the career goal of doing medical research, I would consider such a study unethical. Could we take persistent aspartame drinkers and do a study? Sure. But who is going to fund such a study? A quick search of articles I could not link anyway to because they are behind firewalls did not turn up any such studies. I may stop looking, or I may not. My position wouldn't change in any case. Don't drink artificial cancer causing substances. Period.
Here is an excerpt from an article entitled: Aspartame (NutraSweet)-- no link in original source --
For 16 years the FDA refused to allow it on the market. When Reagan was elected, Don Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, said he'd call in his markers to get aspartame approved. This is documented by a UPI investigation and congressional record. The day after Reagan took office Arthur Hayes was appointed as FDA Commissioner to get it approved.
/snip
In 1981 the Reagan FDA approved aspartame in dry food and in 1983 aspartame was approved for use in soda pop. In 1985 Rumsfeld's Searle was acquired by Monsanto, making Rumsfeld rich and Searle Pharmaceuticals and The NutraSweet Company separate subsidiaries! And the rest, as they say, is history.
/snip
Each molecule of NutraSweet, when it reaches a temperature of 86 degrees F (recall that the body's normal temperature is 98.6 and warehouses in the summer's sun can reach temperatures far higher than that)) breaks down into its two amino acids (a molecule each of phenylalanine and aspartic acid, both excitotoxins) and a molecule of methanol (wood alcohol!) which then metabolizes into formaldehyde (embalming fluid and a known carcinogen), formic acid (the acid that causes the intense itching from the prickles of burning weed) and diketopiperazine (a known carcinogen).
/snip
The long list of neurodegenerative, psychological and other health problems aspartame can cause can be found at: They include seizures, multiple sclerosis, headaches, lupus, insomnia, fibromyalgia, arthritis, depression, anxiety and dozens more. If that isn't enough to convince readers to gradually withdraw (Diet Coke is also addicting) from your NutraSweet habit, it might give you extra motivation if you recall the list of evil geniuses listed above that have played a part in this tragedy.
It would appear that Rumsfeld is a pure genius at mass murder. He somehow finds any and all ways to destroy his fellow human beings.
Well, the planet is overpopulated and the oligarchs need some way to get rid of the rest of us.
At the moment, I am on a special elimination diet prescribed by my Chronic Fatigue doctor and have to stay away from all sugar and all sugar substitutes except Stevia.
But I know in my heart that I will never, ever be able to refuse Classic Coke, no matter how bad it is for me, forever. That drink is pure ecstasy for me. Diet Coke is disgusting, but I drink it to somehow assuage my desire for The Real Thing.
It never ends. Their evil is an oncoming train with all of us stalled on the tracks trying to unlock the car door.
We must all pledge to stop poisoning ourselves at the behest of these mass murderers.