Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Telephone: 770-242-2599

Posted: 09 April 2015

This is in response to the article, ďAspartame Sensitivity? A Double Blind Randomised Crossover Study,Ē which may be found at:

Aspartame is in thousands of products, many of these do not reveal it on their labels, although laws require a PKU warning because the phenylalanine in aspartame damages ones who cannot metabolize it. So the poison is nearly unavoidable. The late Dr. H. J. Roberts and other experts declare its hard to avoid. His medical text, "Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic", is over 1000 pages of symptoms and diseases. I've been tested and informed that there is aspartame in my body (it's a cumulative poison) and I suspect itís in most everyone.

I've been taking the case histories for 25 years, and I can tell you some of the reports are hideous. Because its so poisonous it causes chemical hypersensitization and I assure you some of the cases are devastating. One man was given a cookie baked with aspartame and the tachycardia (fast heart rate) was so severe they had to stop his heart to save his life. It can cause sudden cardiac death which Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock has carefully explained, as has been verified by other renowned physicians.: (Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills,

One of these articles describes the rise of fatal allergies, including polychemical sensitivities which often brings sudden death. Many aspartame victims carry epi-pens in case they receive some accidentally so they can avoid severe reaction. A ten year old in Alaska simply drank a Diet Coke before bedtime and never woke up. There are SIDS cases. Read the report on one well discussed case:

The point is if someone is chemically hypersensitive to aspartame they not only react but often will end up in the hospital, as many have told me. In the documentary "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World" ( you will find the case of Cheryl Kemptner who was in the hospital for some surgery. She is chemically hypersensitive to aspartame and had suffered severe joint pain. I told her to advise the hospital that she was chemically hypersensitive and make sure she was not given aspartame. She did everything right and they marked her file "no aspartame" and even gave her a bracelet that said no aspartame. Along comes a dietitian with some Crystal Lite with aspartame and gives her a glass. She became a Code Blue and required resuscitation to save her life. This illustrates severely chemically hypersensitive aspartame victims may react when accidently receiving it. Everyone should see this movie. Get a copy from Cori Brackett, producer, at Cori innocently consumed diet soda until it put her in a wheelchair for years, hardly able to walk or talk. The medical professionals, unaware of the aspartame toxicity, diagnosed her with MS which aspartame can mimic and precipitate. She had a huge lesion in her brain. I had given Alex Constantine data on aspartame which he included in a book Cori read. She cut the poison and began to live again; walked out of her wheelchair off this poison and in 8 months the lesion all but disappeared. She then produced the documentary, "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World" featuring medical experts and case examples of aspartame victims. Anyone seeing the movie who values life will terminate aspartame immediately. Like many criminals, aspartame has aliases: NutraSweet, Equal, AminoSweet, Canderel, E-951, Benevia, Naturataste, Neotame, Spoonful, etc. Now the FDA has approved Advantame, another aspartame product:

So along comes Food Standards in the UK who says they will do a study on those who have reacted to aspartame. First understand that the manufacturers of aspartame have strong relationships with government agencies. Aspartame was approved in England through one Paul Turner of the FS Agency, without anyone knowing about it. Parliament had a big blow out about it, the story was in the Guardian, but they never rescinded the order. No studies were done. Here is the Guardian article: It was done undercover to hide the facts that the American FDA tried to have the manufacturer of aspartame indicted for fraud, but both US Prosecutors hired on with the defense team and the statute of limitations expired. Don Rumsfeld, CEO of aspartame's producer, got it on the market through political chicanery. Then FDA's approval was rubberstamped around the world. When I was in New Zealand Food Standards there tried to tell me aspartame was safe until I showed their information was incorrect. They then admitted no studies were ever done in New Zealand just as none were done in England. They relied on the FDA who after it was approved through the efforts of Rumsfeld and President Reagan who fired the honest FDA Commissioner the night he was inaugurated as President, and installed a A.H. Hayes as the new FDA commissioner, one of Rumsfeld's friends. Hayes subsequently hired on with NutraSweet's PR firm on a ten year contract for $1,000/day as a public relations consultant. Nobody has heard from Hayes since. He was the PR guy with Lockjaw!

Food Standards was set up to isolate the agency from industry, but they're back in bed together. I tried to work with Food Standards some years ago. They said they put the facts on their web site. It blathered the usual propaganda such as: there is methanol in oranges. I explained to them that fruits and vegetables also contain ethanol, the classic antidote to methanol, which takes it safely out of the body. I told them that telling people there is methanol in oranges misleads the public and if they really wanted to provide the facts they should remove that statement and other propaganda which, of course, they wouldn't do. I sent them Dr. Woodrow Monte's peer reviewed paper: "Aspartame: Methanol and the Public's Health": Don't fail to read his new book on the methanol in aspartame: "While Science Sleeps: A Sweetener Kills".

In 1920 a misguided United States Congress outlawed alcoholic beverages. Then bootleggers produced a flood of toxic drinks which included methanol, wood alcohol. It killed or blinded thousands of Americans. Well, aspartame has a methyl ester which immediately becomes wood alcohol! In 1986 the Community Nutrition Institute petitioned the FDA to ban aspartame because so many were going blind and having seizures. This was before I got involved. I was informed it went all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court, but politics beat the rap. In a meeting the FDA had stated they were prepared to remove aspartame from the shelves because it causes seizures, blindness and cancer. So they have always known.

I had a long discussion with Food Standards in England. While I was there I noticed a mother bought a product called Bubbleee. It had brilliant carcinogenic blue dye. The FDA knows it. An old article states they have postponed the issue 27 times. This is one of their modus operandi's. If you run out of excuses not to act simply postpone the issue. FDA toxicologist, Dr. Jacqueline Verrett even wrote a book against the FDA called "Eating May be Hazardous To Your Health". It's out of print but you can still get it on the Internet and she goes into the issue that these dyes have been proven to be carcinogenic and the FDA does nothing. So what else is in this product being fed to toddlers? If you think they used sweeteners because they wanted to avoid sugar forget it, it also contains sugar. Other ingredients are saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame potassium (caused cancer and leukemia in original studies so violated the Delaney Amendment like aspartame) and citric acid. Where is the food in this drink? There is none - just carcinogenic chemicals! The manufacturer is insane with GREED! Why would a company promote a product for children that is only chemical poisons? MONEY! In England there is a regulation that you can't sell products for toddlers with artificial sweeteners. Was Food Standard concerned? Not in the least!

If a government agency has strong ties to manufacturers of the products it regulates, it can become a public relations agency for the producers, assuring the world that deadly products are safe as rain. Dr. Ralph Walton, psychiatrist, who did an honest study on aspartame (problems were so severe the institution had to stop it), did research for 60 Minutes some years ago. He showed that 92% of independent scientific peer reviewed studies revealed problems with aspartame; In fact, Dr. Walton said if you eliminate 6 studies the FDA had something to do with because of their loyalty to the manufacturer and one pro-aspartame summary 100% of independent studies show aspartame dangers. Yet 100% of studies paid for by the manufacturers say it's safe. Who would you believe?

In original studies G. D. Searle was unable to prove aspartame is safe. FDA once tried to have Searle indicted for fraud and revoked the petition for approval until Don Rumsfeld got the poison on the market. Industry studies are often proven to be simply a cover-up. As an example, Dr. Diana Dow Edwards was asked by Monsanto to do studies on aspartame and birth defects. When the studies showed what they didn't want the public to know they withdrew their funding.

So here we are about to review the Hull study. First of all they had a hard time trying to get anyone to sign up. Imagine if you were chemically hypersensitive and an aspartame victim and suffered aspartame seizures, do you really think someone would sign up to have another seizure. They would have to use people who wouldn't drop dead on a taste of aspartame.

Also, we know all the tricks of the trade. Some years ago the late Jack Samuels ( http:// ) sued the FDA on the MSG issue and labeling. In going through FDA records he found that for 25 years (a quarter of a century no less!!!!!) the glutamate folks had been using aspartame for the control. They knew they couldn't prove MSG was safe, but this way they could say it didn't react any more than the placebo.

With the Hull study the only aspartame the subjects were given was a cereal bar containing aspartame equal to the amount in a Diet Coke. A week later they got another one without aspartame. Since we are talking about Food Standards sponsoring this study do we really know what was in the other bar. Could there have been MSG, for instance? After taking case histories for two decades and dealing with aspartame victims I seriously doubt they used aspartame victims who were seriously chemically sensitive because they wouldn't want people to know what happens if they accidently get aspartame. Someone who goes into anaphylactic shock would never sign up. They would have to have paramedics there and epi-pens.

If you read all the articles on google news on the Hull study you will notice Food Standards mentions they worked with EFSA, European Food Safety Authority. That's like working with the garbage department to determine what food is healthy. When Dr. Herman Koeter who headed the committee that reviewed aspartame resigned from EFSA he put out a notice that "They were pressured by industry to hijack science". So you can't take anything they say seriously. He mentioned the 3-year Ramazzini Study which proved aspartame is a multipotential carcinogen. Why would that even be questioned as the FDA has always known aspartame is a carcinogen and the top scientist and toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross, in 1985 told Congress (Senate) that aspartame violated the Delaney Amendment because beyond a shadow of a doubt it causes cancer, and "if the FDA violates its own laws who is left to protect the public." Jerome Bressler who did the famous Bressler Report told me the very same thing. He said in his report which we have on at the FDA even removed studies keeping serious problems aspartame causes from the public. He pleaded with me to find these studies and return them to his report. It took me 8 years and I'm glad I could return them to him, and his report, before he died. When I saw them I was horrified - they were teratology studies and showed neural tube defects - autism, spina bifida and cleft palate, for starters. No wonder autism has spread throughout the world! Who would ever believe anything the FDA says? They would tell a lie if the truth would do. Now Dr. Ralph Walton is doing a study on birth defects and aspartame. If anyone has given birth after 1984 please go to, my web site, and complete a short form to be sent to Dr. Walton.

Since Dr. Morando Soffritti released his study in 2005 he has done two more studies on aspartame again and again showing it to be a multipotential carcinogen. Even Harvard did a study that linked aspartame with cancer and they said it was the longest and strongest.

When Parliament insisted EFSA review aspartame because the studies coming in from independent research show aspartame is unsafe and dangerous EFSA was in a precarious position, - almost 100 per cent of independent studies show aspartame triggers or precipitates everything from preterm birth, obesity, diabetes, myocardial infarctions (heart attacks), strokes, seizures, psychiatric problems to cancer and blindness. What to do, what to do!! Ah, EFSA found the solution they simply took many of these scientific peer reviewed studies by unbiased independent researchers and threw them out, stating they were unreliable. Once you get rid of the evidence you can sell any lie!

The Hull study is a counterfeit that does not go into the problem itself. It's all about psychology not toxicity! It does not address the problem itself.

To find differences in personality in people with known sensitivity to controls -- in this case, a chemical agent -- the Authors reverted to analyze glucose, insulin, a few lipids and a number of psychological tests. Compared with a study of why some people develop an allergy to nuts, controls are checked, then the affected persons for diabetes and hypertension are analyzed for different psychological traits between both groups. In the Hull study, none were found. An acute dose of the agent was given and checked again. No differences were found. In fact, differences in lipids were found but dismissed as not explainable with the psychological tests and most other analyses? Conclusion: the allergy does not exist, or if it exists it is not caused by aspartame. Thus aspartame is "safe" and everything said contrary to that is false because the study scientifically proved (again) that aspartame is safe. Using this approach, it an be proven that warts don't exist, that blindness is not a disease (it doesn't affect most of the parameters studied...), BUT, the psychological tests had to be written in Braille.

Recognize the devious intelligence in the use of this new tool by the World Poisoners for Profit (WPP). A good PR firm may do wonders with this "study". But it has nothing to do with the question being under investigation. Their hunt was to find aspartame-sensitive individuals with psychological traits against the poison: but they found none! Why study glucose and insulin? Has somebody related aspartame with diabetes? or an immune reaction (this is what sensitivity is) with diabetes. Yes, that last part is true.

Why carry out a panoply of studies on the immune defense system, on autoimmunity, just check immunitary reaction to aspartame, not diabetes. The study was "acute", not chronic, and most of the problems caused by aspartame are chronic. Why was this line of research used? Did they try to find things or just give aspartame another official benediction?

They did not get the results they wanted, because the holes in the paper are too large, the Journal used do not support any conclusions, just says that the methodology has been correctly used, not even that it is the correct methodology or that it was adequate. And it is not.

You don't analyze psychologically different traits in people with breast cancer versus unaffected women to learn about cancer. You check whether the tumors are sensitive to estrogen or whether they metastasize. Why in a case of poisoning they use modern biochemical techniques and psychological tests to look elsewhere except where everybody says the problem is, the KNOWN mechanism of action of the poison. They put the emphasis in "acute" effects, which are not the mainstay of aspartame effects.

The scientists involved are from several different laboratories, and the funding is an official State Agency of the UK. It has taken years to do the study (which needs less than 6 months), and the conclusions are shaky despite all the precautions taken not to focus on the real question (theoretically) under study. This just another corrupt whitewash to stem the loss of customerís aspartame suffers everywhere.

Jim McDonald, founder of the UK Anti-Aspartame Campaign mentioned that first applications to relevant scientific journals to peer review the study were rejected on the basis that it did not add anything to scientific knowledge. Curiously, the Hull Study has been published in a prestigious Journal, PLOS ONE, but this is a rather peculiar Journal: The subject, objective, novelty and transcendence of what is published are not factors determining publication. What is required is just that it has a clear objective, the results are clear (independently of their significance) and have been obtained using proven methodology, the text is coherent, does not affect the ethics rights of the subjects, has not been previously published and the conclusions are coherent with the results. Publication is NOT a guarantee of relevance or scientific significance; it only allows the reader to draw its own conclusions.

I hope that in the end the WPP will sink and the truth prevail. The parallelisms with the tobacco industry are too many to be forgotten. Let's hope it won't take as long to get out the facts. I was discussing this with Mark Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Center, one day and he explained the entire study in one word: "useless"! We're talking about subjects consuming two cereal bars at least a week apart. Who could really be sure what was in either based on the way industry and its protectors do studies. My all time favorite is the Rowen Study by Monsanto on seizures. Without telling anyone they gave 16 or 18 subjects anti-seizure medication and then only one capsule of aspartame for a one day study, sort of tantamount to smelling the container! Then they had the power to get it peer reviewed. Be sure to check out Mark's excellent web site for his research on industry's studies and loyal agencies reviews.

In reviewing some of the articles written about the Hull Study I saw a comment that said that aspartame was proven safe and they didn't have to worry about taking it off the market. What about the over 900 independent scientific peer reviewed studies that we know about that have proven the deadly effects of this addictive, excitoneurotoxic, carcinogenic, genetically engineered drug, adjuvant and teratogen that damages the mitochondria or powerhouse of the cell and even interacts with drugs and vaccines? What about the original manufacturer's own studies, G. D. Searle, that showed neural tube defects - autism, spina bifida, and cleft palate for starters, cancer and seizures? Just because some people consumed one (1) cereal bar with aspartame is it to negate or nullify over three decades of studies showing it to be a chemical poison - a killer that put the die in diet!

Dr. Maria Alemany's Trocho Study showed the formaldehyde converted from the free methyl alcohol embalms living tissue and damages DNA. It turns the tissues to plastic. In Barcelona some years ago he told me aspartame would kill 200 million people. Because of getting the truth to the people the aspartame industry tried to assassinate his character!

When the FDA called me in 2009 and I said that in lecturing throughout the world people were sick and dying on aspartame I was told, "So what, we have to depopulate!" You can understand why I call them the Fatal Drugs Allowed folks! Aspartame at one time was listed with the pentagon in an inventory of prospective biochemical warfare weapons submitted to Congress. (Ecologist, 2005).

For a copy of the Aspartame Resource Guide email Betty at the below address

Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Founder, Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097

Aspartame Toxicity Center: