In the above video, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange interviews journalist Charlie Skelton, at the Bilderberg Meeting in Turin, Italy.  Charlie helps decode what is really going on.

Aaron and Mel of Truth Stream Media give some deep insight into what is going on at the Bilderberg meeting.

So who are the four companies that control the world that you’ve probably never heard of

In short: the eight largest U.S. financial companies (JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, U.S. Bancorp, Bank of New York, Mellon and Morgan Stanley) are 100% controlled by ten shareholders and we have four companies always present in all decisions: BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and Fidelity. To see full article, go here

The following was the plan and probably still is, however thanks to Julian Assange and Wikileaks it was brought to light.

Note from Simon Parkes (see below), who is often pretty accurate in predicting what is going to happen, warns us that the current globalist policy will collapse but we are not to become complacent because it seems the globalists are accelerating the push towards Artificial Intelligence to control humanity. This would explain why so much focus is going into 5G and bringing in AI.

BILDERBERG 2018: Rear Guard Action by the Transatlantic Elite in Turin, Italy – Article by 21st Century Wire

Bilderberg 2018: new tech helps oil the wheels of the global elite – Charlie Skelton’s article in the Guardian

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Meanwhile………………

Documentary called ‘Killing Gaza’

 

Vanessa Beeley’s report to Ron Paul on 16th April 2018

 

This was Vanessa Beeley 9 days before the US/UK/French attack on Syria (below)

 

 

Claire Connelly wrote an article:

When the press attacks – the Times’ & BBC’s war on truth

On the morning US and UK forces were bombing in Syria, Piers Robinson and Tim Hayward found themselves on the front page of The Times.

Last week, the Times newspaper attacked professors Piers Robinson & Tim Hayward, using the front page of the paper to admonish the academics & their colleagues for launching a research group examining the true origin of chemical weapons attacks in Syria, libelling them as ‘apologists for Assad working in British universities’.

Professor Robinson says The Times smear piece quite clearly demonstrates the limits of democracy.

“We are not anywhere near as free as we think we are,” he says

Professor Robinson is a propaganda researcher and the chair of politics, society and political journalism at the University of Sheffield. His colleague, Professor Tim Hayward, is a professor of Environmental Political Theory at Edinburgh University and founding Director of the Just World Institute and the Ethics Forum.

Robinson tells Renegade Inc. that The Times’ claims are irrational and illogical because to question the sponsorship of chemical weapons attacks does not logically mean one supports Assad.

To see full article, click here

Listen to the BBC’s response to Admiral Alan West

The following is the letter Mike Wendling, BBC Reporter sent to Vanessa Beeley

Dear Ms Beeley,

My team is currently preparing a report on influential social media commentators on the Syrian conflict and recent alleged chemical weapons attack to be published on the BBC News website, your Twitter account has been identified as a key influencer on Twitter. I’m obliged to give you a further chance to comment and the opportunity to answer some questions and give some contact details.

• Do you believe that the alleged chemical attack at Douma was staged, a false flag event or even faked?
• Do you believe the alleged chemical attack at Kan Shaykhun April 2017 was staged, a false flag event or even faked.
• Would you describe yourself as an ‘independent journalist’?
• Are you in favour of the current military action being carried out by the Syrian Government and its allies?
• In a report, the Syrian campaign stated that you publicly called for white helmets to be considered legitimate military targets seven times, that you are part of a coordinated disinformation campaign, and that you described a meeting with President Bashar al-Assad as your proudest moment. Are these statements true?
• According to the website media bias/FAQ check 21st-Century Wire publishes conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific stories, do you have a response to this analysis?
• Have you or 21st-Century Wire received funding for your work from the Syrian Government or its allies?

We plan to publish this story tomorrow on the BBC News website, so if you could get back to me by the end of the day, I’d appreciate it.

Kind Regards,

Mike Wendling

Vanessa Beeley’s reply to Mike Wendling:

1. My view on the alleged Douma CW attack is clear from my reports and interviews that I conducted on the ground in Syria. Your question clearly implies that the BBC condones the UK’s unlawful military aggression against a sovereign nation on the basis of unsubstantiated evidence, reliant upon social media chatter from compromised sources such as the White Helmets who are funded primarily by the US State Department and the UK Foreign Office and are openly affiliated to extremist groups in Syria, including Al Qaeda. The fraud of the Trump/May/Macron attacks is exposed in today’s Independent report by Robert Fisk, an eminent and higly acclaimed Middle East reporter.

2. The alleged chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun has been debunked by a number of highly respected analysts and experts including Scott Ritter, the UN weapons inspector, in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. Again my opinion is clear from my articles and interviews. Most of the evidence for the Khan Shaykhun attack was provided, again by the White Helmets, whose backers are a roll-call of those seeking to overthrow the government in Syria. When has the BBC reported the evidence that points to the White Helmets as a propaganda construct?

3. Yes, I am an independent journalist, owing no allegiance to any government, unlike the BBC. I was a finalist in one of the most prestigious journalism awards – the 2017 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism – whose winners have included the likes of Robert Parry in 2017, Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk, Nick Davies and the Bureau for Investigative Journalism team.

4. This can only be answered with a question: Does the BBC endorse the UK Government role in fomenting and potentially financing a violent, extremist insurgency inside Syria?

   International law, to which the UK is a signatory, says the following: “International law is indifferent to the perceived legitimacy of the state and to the form of government; both democracies and authoritarian regimes have the right to fight insurgencies and to defend themselves from external powers which aid the insurgents.

   Either way, it falls under the domestic jurisdiction of the state. Foreign powers are prohibited from assisting insurgents.

   General Assembly resolution 2131 (XX) declares that “No State shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.”

   This was reaffirmed by the International Court of Justice in Nicaragua v. USA.

   The injured state is even entitled to adopt counter measures against the intervening state.”

   Juliette Harkin, former BBC Media Action Project Manager and an ‘expert’ on Syria, states, “we [BBC Media Action] worked in 2004 with individuals within the [Syrian] ministry who wanted change and tried to get them to be the drivers of that.”

   All media development work that has been done within Syria has, in my opinion, been predicated upon this idea that there can be change from within – you have an authoritarian regime and you find who the reformers are within that [regime] and work with them.

   “I agree with Julia Harkin. I, too, am a supporter of change from within. However, I do not support “change” that leads to the kind of violence and cynical foreign invasion that has so blighted Syria in recent years.

   Does the BBC endorse this level of infiltration and subversion that has been engineered by BBC Media Action since 2004?

5. The White Helmets are proven to be working in partnership with Nusra Front and a number of extremist factions who operate inside Nusra Front-occupied or controlled areas.

   In my reporting from inside Syria, I have demonstrated that many among the White Helmet leadership, are members of some of the most brutal, extremist, sectarian groups operating in Syria. The White Helmets are armed and have participated in terrorist atrocities against Syrian civilians and POWs, including public executions – their claim to be a “humanitarian” organisation is highly questionable. Does the BBC have access to the documentation of the 100,000 civilians that the White Helmets claim have rescued? If not, how can the BBC support such claims that are made without context, details, names, dates, incident reports? Why has the BBC never carried out an investigation into the White Helmets?

   Why does the BBC not condemn terrorist attacks on the REAL Syria Civil Defence, the authentic SYRIAN volunteer civil defence organisation established in Syria in 1953 and operating in more than 85% of inhabited areas of Syria? In fact, why does the BBC never mention this organisation, the only civil defence organisation to be recognised by the ICDO in Geneva?

   My “proudest moment” was to be a part of the US Peace Council Delegation to Syria to meet with a number of parliamentary members, opposition members, faith leaders, and the elected President of Syria. It was a peaceful fact-find mission – is that an initiative that would be condemned by the BBC, if so, on what basis?

6. The majority of the British people were opposed to their Government’s report attack on Syria. Where are the BBC reports that reflect this? Where are the BBC reports that provided background and context to the UK Government’s conspiracy to overthrow the Syrian government – pre-planned as early as 2009 according to former French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas. Please provide answers to this and other questions raised.

7. Should your BBC “team” seek to impugn my reputation by making unsubstantiated accusations about myself or 21st Century Wire, and should you not publish these answers in full, unedited and with prominence – it will be regarded as slander. The BBC’s reporting of Syria – already notorious, thanks to Panorama’s’ Saving Syria’s Children’, investigated by independent researcher, Robert Stuart – is made even more disgraceful by a blatant attempt, such as this, to silence independent journalism.

    

Another journalist, Carla Ortiz, affirms the White Helmets are working with the terrorists

 

The UK Government carries out a further crackdown on independent media

Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media

 

 

Christine Assange (CA), the mother of Julian Assange was interviewed by Dennis Bernstein (DB) and Randy Credico (RC) on ‘Live on the fly’ in New York on the 5th April 2018.

For a brief summary of the lead up to Julian Assange’s complete isolation, no visitors, no phone and no internet see Free Wikileaks’ Julian Assange

Transcript of interview

DB: Dennis Bernstein with Randy Credico on ‘Live on the Fly’ coming out of New York City, and we’re joined by Christine Assange. Let’s just say she is somewhere very far away in Australia.

Christine Assange, it’s good to have you back again. We were hoping that this would be the occasion on which we would be celebrating, and we’d have Julian on the other line, but that’s not happening.

You wanna bring us up to speed as much as you know, about where the situation is now and the kinds of details you think will help us to understand what’s going on and welcome back.

CA: Thank you, Dennis, and thank you Randy for having me, and thank you for being good journalists in getting all this stuff out to the people.

And a thank you to John Pilger, who is always great to listen to about truth, and a wonderful supporter of Julian, a courageous investigative journalist. They know that the greatest investigative journalists around the world are standing up for Julian and like he said,

“the propaganda journalists / the fake news, are the ones pumping out the smear.”

Now John mentioned that we are at a critical stage, you know, possibly pre-war with Russia, because of the propaganda based around the Skripal poisoning in the UK, which has since been found not to be conclusively related to Russia. And all the diplomats being dispelled.

Now I would say, we are also at a critical stage for Julian’s safety and freedom. They come in together, and they are co-related.

For example, just before Julian’s complete communications with the outside world, were cut off, the day before, one of the lords in the UK Parliament, stated,

“Isn’t it about time, we took some action against the Ecuador embassy”

and that he wasn’t happy about Assange tweeting about the government’s response to the attack in Salisbury.

Now Julian was just merely tweeting facts. And of course, because Julian is known as a journalist who bravely tweets facts, that is very threatening to corrupt power. And the next day his communications were cut off.

And as I’ve said since then, what he said, his doubts about what the UK Government, have come to fruition, and the Lab in Porton Down has categorically stated, there is no evidence to connect Russia with that Skripal attack.

At the same time, what was happening at the same time, was Julian was also invited to give evidence on Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. And the Facebook shares were down 20% and the NASDAQ was down 3-5% affecting the whole U.S. market and global market. So is it a coincidence that also, not only was he tweeting about the Skripal poisoning, but at the same time he is about to give evidence.

And Cambridge Analytica, of course, is then tied into all sorts of dirty plays around trying to defame politicians.

At the same time, we’ve got major delegations from the U.S. military and economic agencies going into Ecuador, and we’ve got no doubt whatsoever, there is incredible pressure on Ecuador to hand Julian over to the U.S..

We know this, because during the Presidency of Rafael Correa, who gave Julian political asylum from U.S. threats against his life and liberty, that it was revealed by the former UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, that the mainly Pentagon funds – up to $87 million – were being used to try and bring down Rafael Correa, which has now happened.

Well, he had to leave the Party because he’d done his term, but now there’s pressure on the new President, Lenin Moreno.

And although we were sort of hopeful prior to Trump getting in, with his “we love Wikileaks”, because Wikileaks was publishing the truth about the corruption coming from the DNC and Hillary Clinton.  Hillary Clinton of “can’t we just drone Assange?”

But by April 2017, the U.S. was firmly in a position of wanting to go after Julian. They were all on the side, like Pompeo on April 13^th, 2017  who connected the Non-State Hostile Intelligence Services. He also said, Julian Assange has no first amendment freedoms, he is not a U.S. citizen.

 

Now he’s been promoted from the CIA to Secretary of State. Jeff Sessions around the same time, April, he wants to arrest Julian Assange once and for all.

You’ve got John Bolton, who was then appointed National Security Adviser, who, March 8^th, 2017, said that the US government should launch a cyberwar attack against Wikileaks, for revealing Clinton’s emails and the CIA hacking scandal.

And looking back, President Trump in 2010, commented on a Wikileaks exposay,

“I think it’s disgraceful, there should be a death penalty or something.”

So there is no doubt that what is actually happening, is that the US wants to shut Julian up. They want to shut him up about corruption, that their allies are cooperating and that everybody is leaning on Ecuador.

DB: Well, that was the voice of Christian Assange, she’s the mother of Julian Assange, a long-time activist, now she’s active, and …

CA: Can I just correct you with that one, Dennis.

DB: Yes, please, go ahead.

CA: I’m not a long-time activist, I’m an accidental activist.

DB: …and with a growing role, in battling for your son’s freedom, as things intensify, and you have taken on that role and done an amazing job. And I think, those of us who believe in journalism and the free flow of information, I really can appreciate your struggle and want to know as much about it as we can.

I mean it is no surprise to Randy and I, that there would be every move made to shut down Julian Assange, right now, in the context of what’s going on with the Salisbury scandal and the way in which really, the Clinton machine has fanned this Russia-gate flame. And that crew, really willing to risk World War 3 to prove that Hillary Clinton didn’t lose the campaign because she was a horrifying candidate.

CA: Yes, well also, Julian also very bravely, as a good journalist should, reporting factually on what was going on in Catalonia, which was absolutely disgraceful.

I mean you don’t have to support either side or Catalonia, to be against the brutal crackdown of their democratic rights.

And, according to Ecuador, the reason they gave for cutting off all his communication – internet, phone and visitor access – was because of the one tweet which was actually a factual tweet about the political prisoner, the elected President of Catalonia.

Now he had previously been reporting factually, where a lot of the world’s media had taken the side of Spain.

And, the word ‘fascism’ is loosely used….. I’m not happy with the way it is being used, it is used against everybody. But I think we can say, that the Spanish oppression of Catalonia can be seen as nothing more than the classical term of fascism. And that should be resisted worldwide in any country.  And leaders of supposed “free” democracies should be standing up against this abuse.

DB: I know Randy is dying to jump in here. Randy?

RC: Hello!  Yes, Good morning! I know it’s morning where you are, wherever you are, Christine. It’s Randy Credico here.

You know you were talking about Catalonia and the arrest by Germany of President Puigdmont of Catalonia. And Julian Assange did tweet something out, he was talking about that again. And you know, the Germans listened.

Today they released Puigdmont and will not extradite him to Spain!

So he does have an effect.

Thousands of people were protesting in Germany, because of the arrest of Puigdmont and they were embarrassed. And so this is the kind of journalism they don’t like. So I don’t know, if its…here are three things:

That happened, that tweet. Also he started talking about Salisbury.

Dennis and I had Craig Murray on the show two weeks ago and he was way ahead of his time on this. And Julian was talking about this. And then this guy in the house of lords, Sir Alan Duncan, comes out and says some nasty things, and said he should be shut up. So these things all happened within days, and then they cut him off.

What is the connection there?

CA: Oh!  Well, the connection is power, isn’t it?  They are a power alliance.

I mean let’s not mince words here. The struggle for freedom throughout the world in every country, for all our ancestors, there’ve been people struggles against corrupt power. That’s what it is.

We’re at a point now, where we need the people power.

I like a quote from George Orwell, if there is any hope, it lies in the proles. That’s us. That’s the ordinary people.

Throughout history, it’s not been, generally speaking, it has not been the leaders of our country that actually ensure our rights. It’s usually the leaders of the country that are preventing our rights and entrenching power. It’s the people who stand up, particularly in democracies, where they can have some sort of a voice, and demand that their leaders act in their interests.

I think, we’re at this critical point in our history again here…. we always get it, we are defending liberty. It’s a constant battle.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, as one of the U.S. Presidents said.

 

As John Pilger has said, we are facing a possible global war, and at the same time, a war on journalism, because obviously they don’t want truthful journalism coming out and stopping any attempts at stopping a lucrative war for defence contractors.

So I think, we have to now step it up, the people have to step it up.  While we must continue to do petitions….there are three that have gone to the President of Ecuador:

One was delivered by a group of ex-CIA, NSA and FBI officers, supporting Julian, delivered by John Kiriakou. Another one was delivered by World Leading Thinkers. And we have one started by the Landless Workers Movement in Brazil, which was a people initiated organization, covering many countries in the Spanish speaking world.

Ok, those are three important petitions. Very important. Alright. But it is also important to get involved in action.

Straight after Julian was silenced, his supporters rallied all around the world, there was a ten hour vigil, an internet vigil, under the #reconnentJulian hashtag, with truthful investigative journalists worldwide and people, free speech, human rights people, ordinary people, all joined together to put worldwide pressure, to stop the U.S. leaning on Ecuador to silence Julian.

DB: Is that still going?

CA: Well, yes..

RC: It’s an online vigil that resumes this week. I know that Suzie Dawson is spearheading that and I’m going to participate in that 48 hour online vigil coming this weekend.

Last time you were on, Christine, you said to me and Dennis, that we need Wikileaks’ warriors, not Wikileaks’ worriers!  So how does that hard core following of his maintain being warriors at this point?

CA: Good question!  Alright. Well, that vigil brought together various people from all around the world, who had individually been speaking up and supporting and defending Julian.

They are now, we are, we are all now working together in a network, to get up a global network of people for the ordinary citizens who haven’t yet been involved but are concerned for Julian’s welfare and safety, to quickly access Assange Action.

And we’ve got up one at the moment, just one Twitter handle: #AssangeAction which will be mirrored in countries around the world.

The #reconnectJulian hashtag and #unifyforJA hashtag will also make inroads to awaken more contacts right now. But we will be building on this, and we need to take it to the streets.

In the same way that any change happens in a country, it’s the people going out into the streets, telling their leaders they are not going to vote for them if they continue down this path of suppressing the media, suppressing the people’s rights to the truth, abusing human rights of award winning investigative journalists who give us the truth.

Now a good example of on the street action is the historic long term vigil outside the Ecuadorian Embassy by UK citizens with Ciaron O’Reilly. It’s been going for years, nearly six years. And people can visit that vigil, any time they want.

If you are in London, go to: 3 Han Crescent, Knightsbridge, London SW1X OLS

Go by Tube to: Knightsbridge, via the Piccadilly line.

Get out there and stand outside the Ecuadorian Embassy with your placard. There are official vigils four times a week, under the hashtag #JA_defence. It’s next to Harrods. Now that is something you can do that is already set up. Ok.

If you are in Australia, follow Support Assange & Wikileaks Coalition @SAWCSydney – that’s already been up for years.

Now the thing is here, Randy, there was a lot of activity worldwide in defence of Julian, and action prior to him going into the Ecuadorian Embassy because he was of imminent risk of extradition to the U.S. via Sweden through their backdoor treason of temporary surrender.

We are very grateful to Ecuador. Ecuador stepped up when none of the others would. They showed sovereignty, principles, ethics and courage in protecting Julian from the U.S., and this went on for several years. They were pestering Ecuador, but they stood strong.

But now with the change of leadership and a problem in the Government and a split in the Party, they now are coming under extreme pressure, and the Ecuadorian Government appears to be wavering. It is critically dangerous for Julian. And because this has happened, now people around the world who were feeling ok, well he’s safe, are now galvanizing and organizing actions.

DB: 30 seconds… we have an outgoing message to Moreno Ok, in 30 seconds, what is your message to him?

CA:  Message to Lenin Moreno

“Stand up for the sovereignty of your country. You’ve got a wonderful country, a fabulous constitution. It is a template for democracy throughout the world. Don’t let down Ecuador. Don’t let down Julian. Don’t let down free press, because the constitution backs free press. Stand strong. The people will stand with you.

Be remembered for the President who carried on Democracy in Ecuador, when it stood strong and tall and didn’t cave. You will be remembered for this. Don’t be remembered for the President who rolled over for yet another U.S. coup of a South American country.”

DB: Perfect. We thank you Christine Assange, Randy Credico in New York. I’m Dennis Bernstein. That wraps it up!

 

 

Dennis J. Bernstein is a host of “Flashpoints” on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom. You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net. Randy Credico is an American perennial political candidate, comedian, radio host, activist and the former Director of the William Moses Kunstler Fund for Racial Justice

Julian Assange Defence Fund (JADF) https://justice4assange.com/Donate.html

The WikiLeaks Official Legal and Public Defence Fund https://www.iamwikileaks.org/donate/

Free Wikileaks’ Julian Assange

The Isolation of Julian Assange is the silencing of us all – John Pilger

The Isolation of Julian Assange Must Stop – by Noam Chomsky, Chris Hedge, John Pilger et al

John Kiriakou Personally Delivers Petition For Assange To Ecuador’s D.C. Ambassador On Behalf Of Intelligence Veterans – Disobedient Media

Elizabeth Lea Vos – Christine Assange speaks out on how we can help

Electronic jammers were placed inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, on Tuesday 27th March, to prevent WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange from having access to the internet and social media. The Ecuadorian Government then took further measures of stopping him from being able to use his phone and/or have any visitors.

He is now in total isolation.

Extreme measures were then brought to bear on Ecuador and they had no choice but to comply.

Dane Wigington – Geoengineering Watch

Jim Lee – Climate Viewer

The Biggest Cause of Climate Change

“It is beyond my comprehension that any humane person would withhold such a beneficial substance from people in such great need simply because others use it for different purposes.“    Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard University

Partial transcription of above video

Ava Marie: From a scientific perspective, can you explain to the average listener how cannabinoid oil works on a cancer cell?

Dennis Hill: First let me talk about the normal system and how it works against cancer. We make cancer cells all the time. You know, just if DNA goes haywire, you get an out of control cell, and if it aggregates, then it forms a tumour. But it starts off as a single cell with an aberrant DNA. Well, the immune system knows about this and the endocannabinoid system, which is part of the immune system, goes to work on it. 

Now an interesting thing about cancer cells is that when a cell goes cancerous, then an increase in the number of receptors for cannabinoids, increases in the cell. So, when the body’s own immune system senses this, then the endocannabinoid that the body uses, called anandomide, mates with these receptors and stimulates the production of a chemical called ceramide, and ceramide is like the seal team. It goes in and kills the target.

When ceramide is produced in the cancer cell, it kills off the mitochondria, and once the mitochondria is dead, the cancer cell can no longer survive.

Now when the immune system becomes overstressed through illness or injury or stress, then it gets behind on killing cancer cells, and it doesn’t take much to get behind on killing cancer cells.

So, if you develop a tumour and there are all of these cancer cells, then you take a cannabinoid supplement, the cannabinoids go into the circulation and mate with these receptors on the cancer cells, which produces a flood of ceramide.

Now because the DNA of cancer cells is distorted / it’s damaged, the body senses this and knows that this cell is sick, and the job of ceramide in the normal body, is to kill damaged and dying cells, so it senses that the cancer cell is abnormal and knows that it needs to die. And so that’s why, there’s an increase in the number of receptors on the cancer cell. So when the additional cannabinoids reach the cancer cell, they lock on to it and send the ceramide out to destroy the mitochondria and together they kill the Cancer. 

Ava Marie: Amazing!

Dennis Hill: It is an amazing process and there is a lot of science on this pathway. There are a lot of researchers that are working on this in Europe.

Ava Marie:  What countries in Europe?  Germany?

Dennis Hill:  Well Italy. I see a lot of publications coming from Italy and and several other countries are doing a lot of research on this, and fortunately a lot of the scientific articles have been translated into English.

Ava Marie:  Marvellous!  Well, we need to get rolling here!  Right?  We need to get on the bandwagon here too, in the United States. 

Dennis Hill:  Well, for three months, I took my daily dose of one drop.

Ava Marie: You took 3 months to get rid of your cancer?

Dennis Hill: Well in three months I went back for my next exam, and they found that the prostate had reduced in size by almost half. So the neurologist told me, he said, “the tumour is gone”. And this is really stunning that in three months, the aggressive metastasising tumour was gone.

Ava Marie: And you had no radiation, no chemo?

Dennis Hill: No radiation, no chemo and no surgery. But I did have another exam, an independent exam, just to make sure, and that doctor found that there were still some tumour cells and so I continued the course. And these were metastatic lesions that had not been killed yet. So I stayed on it for three more months.

So the total course was 6 months and then the biopsy result, after six months, was completely clear of cancer.

Ava Marie: So it really took you six months to be cured of prostate cancer.  What stage cancer were you when you started?

Dennis Hill:  Stage 4.

Ava Marie: Oh, that’s very advanced.

Dennis Hill: It was very advanced and it was very aggressive.

Ava Marie: Weren’t you told by a doctor that you may not be with us much longer if you didn’t start some kind of treatment? I think he wanted to do radiation and cautioned you that you may not be living after about 6 to 8 weeks, if you didn’t start something soon.

Dennis Hill: He was a little nervous about it but I didn’t hold him responsible and if my herbal therapy did not do what we wanted, then we could still go and do the other treatments.

Ava Marie: But you did not elect to do both at the same time?

Dennis Hill: I didn’t see any reason to do that for myself. And I can only talk about myself, I wouldn’t recommend any particular course to anybody.

Ava Marie: Well, we could just continue and continue and continue on this, but this is revolutionary, and if people want to suffer and they want to take the hard road, they can, but if they want to try an alternative route, they have a choice, no matter what kind of cancer you have. You have another choice and it’s pain-free,no side-effects. The cannabinoid oil only targets the cancer cell, it does not weaken the immune system. If anything, it sounds like, it supports it.

Dennis Hill: It does!  It is an immune system support, simply because the endocannabinoid system is already set up. The cannabinoids and the body’s own anandomide are the same, they act on these receptors. So, when the amount that you get from the body is not enough, you can supplement it with its counterpart from the cannabinoids.

Ava Marie: Marvellous!

Dennis Hill: It is marvellous.

Ava Marie: And thank you so much for your testimony and your time and your humanitarian, you coming forward, standing in your truth, you will help a lot of people. Thank you!

Dennis Hill: Thank you! You’re welcome!

---

Links:

Hemp benefits

Cannabinoids -CBDs

Purchasing Natural Hemp Oil etc

---

John & Corinne Malenca’s webinar series – The Sacred Plant

Hemporiium

Cannabinoids – CBDs

Natural Hemp Oil

Dr Stephanie Seneff explains the vaccination autism glyphosate connection

 

Glyphosate: The “Safe” Herbicide that is making us all sick – Dr Stephanie Seneff

Vaccinations cause impaired blood flow or minor strokes to the brain – Dr Andrew Moulden

Vaccines undermine the bodys ability to fight infection

What vaccinations do to the brain

MMR Does Trigger Autism

Aspartame was listed by the Pentagon as a biochemical warfare agent, so why is it now used in so many food and drink products?

How did it become an integral part of our modern diet? It is now found in 1000’s of foods and drinks, flavoured waters, chewing gum, crisps, diet foods and drinks, diabetic foods, breakfast cereals, jams, sweets, vitamins, prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, and so on and on.

Aspartame is sold commercially under names like – Advantame, Acesulfame Potassium, AminoSweet, APM, Aspartyl phenylalanine methyl ester, Benevia, Canderel, Equal, E951, NatraTaste, NutraSweet, TwinSweet, Spoonful, Sugar Twin, Sweet One, Smart Sweet, Twin Sweet, and many others.

Because aspartame contains no calories and was deemed safe by the FDA, it was embraced by health-conscious individuals everywhere. But independent genuine scientists have always said, aspartame can produce a wide range of disturbing adverse effects in humans, including headaches, memory loss, mood swings, seizures, Multiple Sclerosis-like symptoms, Parkinson’s-like symptoms, tumours and even death.

Concerns over aspartame’s toxicity meant that for eight years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denied its approval, effectively keeping it off the world market. It was the first time in the FDA’s history that it requested a criminal investigation into the manufacturer. This caution was based on compelling evidence, brought to light by numerous eminent scientists, litigators and consumer groups, that aspartame contributed to serious central nervous system damage and cancer in animals.

Eventually, however, political muscle won out over scientific rigour, thanks to Donald Rumsfeld, and aspartame was approved for use in 1981 (see timeline below for details).

The FDA’s about-turn opened the floodgates for aspartame’s swift approval by more than 70 regulatory authorities around the world. But, as the remarkable history of the sweetener shows, the clean bill of health given to it by government regulators was simply not worth the paper it was written on.

Aspartame’s Toxic Contents

Each of aspartame’s main constituents is a known neurotoxin capable of producing a unique array of adverse effects.

Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: the amino acids: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. The chemical bond that holds these constituents together is fairly weak and as a result, aspartame readily breaks down into its component parts in a variety of circumstances: in liquids; during prolonged storage; or when exposed to heat (86°F / 30°C (normal body temperature is 97.7°F / 36.5°C).

These constituents then further break down into other toxic by-products, namely formaldehyde, formic acid and aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperazine (DKP).

The manufacturers of aspartame argue that its constituents are all found naturally in food, however, they ignore the fact that in food, amino acids like aspartic acid and phenylalanine are bound to proteins, which means that during digestion and metabolism, they are released slowly into the body. In aspartame, these amino acids are in an unbound or ‘free’ form that releases greater amounts of these chemicals into the system much more quickly. Similarly, the methanol present in natural foods like fruits, for example, is bound to pectin and also has a co-factor, ethanol, to mediate some of its effects. No such chemical “back-stops” exist in aspartame.

Why Glyphosate Is So Bad – Dr Zach Bush

Neuroscientist, Russell Blaylock, says the effect of aspartame’s breakdown components on brain function is central to its known adverse effects. He wrote a book about excitotoxins called: ‘Excitotoxins:The Taste That Kills”. He says:

“Even a minute over-concentration of these chemicals causes the brain cells to become so overexcited that they very quickly burn themselves out and die.”

Phenylalanine

The essential amino acid phenylalanine comprises 50% of aspartame. In people with the genetic disorder Phenylketonuria (PKU) the liver cannot metabolise phenylalanine, causing it to build up in the blood and tissues. Chronically high levels of phenylalanine and some of its breakdown products can cause significant neurological problems, which is why foods and beverages containing aspartame must carry a warning for PKU sufferers.

But according to Dr H J Roberts, sensitivity to aspartame is not limited to PKU sufferers. There is evidence that ingesting aspartame, especially along with carbohydrates, can lead to excess levels of phenylalanine in the brain, even among those not affected by PKU.

Although phenylalanine is sometimes used as a treatment for depression, excessive amounts in the brain can cause levels of the mood regulator, serotonin, to decrease, making depression more serious or likely. A decrease in serotonin levels can result in carbohydrate craving, and a build-up of phenylalanine in the brain can also worsen schizophrenia and make individuals more susceptible to seizures.

DKP

DKP is a breakdown product of phenylalanine that forms when aspartame-containing liquids are stored for prolonged periods. In animal experiments, it has produced brain tumours, uterine polyps and changes in blood cholesterol. Before the FDA approved aspartame, the amount of DKP in our diets was essentially zero.

Aspartic Acid

Aspartic acid (also known as aspartate) is a non-essential amino acid that comprises 40% of aspartame. In the brain, it functions as a neurotransmitter – facilitating the transfer of information from one nerve cell (neuron) to another. But too much aspartate in the brain produces free-radicals (unstable molecules) that damage and kill brain cells.

Humans are five times more sensitive to the effects of aspartic acid than rodents, and 20 times more sensitive than monkeys, because we concentrate these excitatory amino acids in our blood at much higher levels and for a longer period of time.

Aspartic acid has a cumulative harmful effect on the endocrine and reproductive systems. Several animal experiments have shown that excitotoxins can penetrate the placental barrier and reach the foetus.

In addition, as levels of aspartic acid rise in the body so do levels of the key neurotransmitter norepinephrine (also known as noradrenaline), a ‘stress hormone’ that affects parts of the human brain where attention and impulsivity are controlled. Excessive norepinephrine is associated with symptoms such as anxiety, agitation and mania.

Methanol

Methanol (wood alcohol) comprises 10 per cent of aspartame. It is a deadly poison that is liberated from aspartame at temperatures in excess of 86°F / 30°C (normal body temperature is 97.7°F / 36.5°C).

The US Environmental Protection Agency considers methanol to be a “cumulative poison”.

The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision disorders, including misty or blurry vision, retinal damage and blindness. Other symptoms include headaches, tinnitus, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills,, memory lapses, numbness and shooting pains in the extremities, behavioural disturbances, and neuritis.

The EPA tightly controls methanol exposure, however, as Blaylock says: “The level allowed in NutraSweet is seven times the amount the EPA will allow anyone else to use.”

Formaldehyde

The methanol absorbed from aspartame is converted to formaldehyde in the liver. Formaldehyde is a known neurotoxin and known carcinogen. It causes retinal damage and birth defects, interferes with DNA replication, and has been shown to cause squamous-cell carcinoma, a form of skin cancer, in animals.

Several human studies have found that chronic, low-level formaldehyde exposure has been linked with a variety of symptoms, including headaches, fatigue, chest tightness, dizziness, nausea, poor concentration and seizures.

Formic Acid

Formic acid is another “cumulative poison” produced by the breakdown of formaldehyde. It concentrates in the brain, kidneys, spinal fluid and other organs, and is highly toxic to cells. Formic acid can lead to accumulation of excessive acid in the body fluids – a condition known as acidosis.

The History of Aspartame

 1965 

While working on an ulcer drug, a chemist at a pharmaceutical manufacturer, GD Searle, accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar, with no calories.

1967

GD Searle approaches eminent biochemist Dr Harry Waisman, Director of the University of Wisconsin’s Joseph P Kennedy Jr Memorial Laboratory of Mental Retardation Research and a respected expert in the toxicity of phenylalanine (which comprises 50 per cent of the aspartame formula), to conduct a study of the effects of aspartame on primates:

Seven monkeys were fed aspartame mixed with milk:  one dies and the other five have grand mal epileptic seizures.

1968

Searle begins safety tests, necessary for FDA approval.

Dr John Olney, Professor of Neuropathology and Psychiatry at Washington University in St Louis School of Medicine, whose research into the neurotoxic food additive monosodium glutamate (MSG, a chemical cousin of aspartame) was responsible for having it removed from baby foods, informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid, one of the main constituents of aspartame, causes holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle’s researchers, Ann Reynolds, confirms Olney’s findings in a similar study.

Searle applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies, claiming support for aspartame’s safety. Neither the dead monkeys nor the mice with holes in their brains are included in the submission.

Before aspartame can reach the marketplace, Dr John Olney, James Turner’ attorney, consumer advocate and former ‘Nader’s Raider’ who was instrumental in removing the artificial sweetener cyclamate from the US market, and the group Label Inc – Legal Action for Buyers’ Education and Labeling, files a formal objection to aspartame’s approval with the FDA, citing evidence that it could cause brain damage particularly in children.

In a memorandum, Dr Martha M Freeman of the FDA Division of Metabolic and Endocrine Drug Products criticises the inadequacy of the information submitted by Searle with particular regard to one of the compound’s toxic breakdown products, diketopiperazine (DKP). She recommends that marketing of aspartame be contingent upon the sweetener’s proven clinical safety.

FDA commissioner Dr Alexander Schmidt grants aspartame its first approval as a ‘food additive’ for restricted use in dry foods. This approval comes despite the fact that his own scientists found serious deficiencies in the data submitted by Searle.

Concerns about the accuracy of test data submitted to the FDA by Searle for a wide range of products, prompts Schmidt to appoint a special task force to examine irregularities in 25 key studies for aspartame and Searle drugs, Flagyl, Aldactone and Norpace.

Searle agrees to an inquiry into aspartame safety concerns. Searle withdraws aspartame from the market pending its results.

1975

While the grand jury investigation is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins recruitment negotiations with Samuel Skinner, the US attorney in charge of the investigation. Skinner removes himself from the investigation and the case is passed to William Conlon.

The Bressler Report is released and it focuses on three key aspartame studies conducted by Searle.

The report finds that in one study 98 of the 196 animals died, but weren’t autopsied until later dates, making it impossible to ascertain the actual cause of death. Tumours were removed from live animals and the animals placed back in the study. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again.

The final report notes:

“Faulty and fraudulent product testing; knowingly misrepresented product testing;  knowingly misrepresented and ‘manipulated’ test data; and instances of irrelevant animal research in all the products reviewed. Schmidt says: ‘Searle’s studies were incredibly sloppy science. What we discovered was reprehensible.”

FDA chief counsel Richard Merrill formally requests the US Attorney’s office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and “concealing material facts and making false statements” in aspartame safety tests.

This is the first time in the FDA’s history that it requests a criminal investigation into a manufacturer. 

Samuel Skinner leaves the US Attorney’s office and takes a job with Searle’s law firm, and Conlon takes over Skinner’s old job. 

Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as its new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. Donald Rumsfeld, Defence Secretary in the Ford administration, brings several of his Washington colleagues in as top management. 

Donald Rumsfeld vows to ‘call in his markers’ and use political, rather than scientific, means to get the FDA on side in spite of the uncertainties over aspartame’s safety in the US.

The FDA then publishes a report exonerating Searle of any wrong doing in its testing procedures.

The journal ‘Medical World News’ reports that

“the methanol content of aspartame is 1,000 times greater than most foods under FDA control. In high concentrations methanol, or wood alcohol, is a lethal poison.”

Aspartame then becomes available, primarily in pharmaceutical products in France and sold under the brand name ‘Canderel’ and manufactured by the food corporation Merisant.

1977

Despite complaints from the Justice Department, Conlon stalls the grand jury prosecution for so long that the statute of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out and the investigation is dropped.

Just over a year later Conlon joins Searle’s law firm, Sidley & Austin.

The FDA’s PBOI votes unanimously against aspartame’s approval, pending further investigations of brain tumours in animals. The board says it “has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive.”

Jacqueline Verrett will later testify to the US Senate that her team was pressured into validating data from experiments that were “clearly a disaster”.

The FDA finally establishes a public board of inquiry (PBOI), comprising three scientists whose job it is to review the objections of Olney and Turner to the approval of aspartame and rule on safety issues surrounding the sweetener.

1981

Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the US on the 20th January 1981. Reagan’s transition team, includes Rumsfeld, the CEO at Searle, and he nominates Dr Arthur Hull Hayes Jr to be the new FDA Commissioner and Director, a pharmacologist, with no previous experience in food.

On January 21^st 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Reagan issues an executive order, eliminating the FDA commissioners’ authority to take action. Searle then re-applies to the FDA for approval to use aspartame as a food sweetener.

Hayes, the new FDA Director, appoints a 5 person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision but it soon becomes clear that the panel is going to uphold the ban by a 3-2 majority, so Hayes installs a sixth member on the commission. The vote is then dead-locked, so he then personally breaks the tie by voting, himself, in favour of aspartame, that it is safe.

Hayes approves aspartame in dry goods on July 18^th 1981.

1983

Hayes leaves his post at the FDA in November, amid accusations that he accepted corporate gifts for political favors. But just before leaving office, he approves the use of aspartame in beverages.

After Hayes leaves the FDA under allegations of impropriety, he serves briefly as Provost at New York Medical College and then takes a position as a highly paid senior medical advisor with Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and G D Searle.

The FDA then goes on to approve aspartame as a tabletop sweetener, for use in tablets, breakfast cereals, chewing gum, dry bases for beverages, instant coffee, tea, gelatines, puddings, fillings, dairy -product toppings. flavour enhancer for chewing gum. Aspartame is approved for use in carbonated beverages and syrup bases in the US and soon after, in Britain. Canderel tablets are launched in the UK followed by Granular Canderel. The aspartame-based sweetener Equal, manufactured by Merisant, is launched in the US.

Searle’s attorney, Robert Shapiro, gives aspartame its commercial name, NutraSweet, and the name is trademarked the following year. Shapiro later becomes President of Searle and eventually becomes President, then Chairman and CEO of Monsanto.

1984

Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) review

 1985

Monsanto purchases Searle for $2.7 billion and Donald Rumsfeld reportedly receives a $12 million bonus.

The CDC review of public complaints relating to aspartame culminates in a report, Evaluation of Consumer Complaints Related to Aspartame Use, which reviews 213 of 592 cases and notes that re-challenge tests show that sensitive individuals consistently produce the same adverse symptoms each time they ingest aspartame. The reported symptoms include: aggressive behaviour, disorientation, hyperactivity, extreme numbness, excitability, memory loss, loss of depth perception, headaches, change of vision, sleep problems, severe mood swings, convulsions and seizures, hallucination, liver impairment, cardiac arrest, memory loss, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, poor equilibrium, hives, change in heart rate, abdominal cramps, pain, rash, fatigue, weakness, diarrhea, joint pain.

The CDC nevertheless concludes that aspartame is safe to ingest.

On the same day that the CDC exonerates aspartame, Pepsi announces that it is dropping saccharin and adopting aspartame as the sweetener in all its diet drinks. Others quickly follow suit.

The FDA then approves aspartame for use in multivitamins.

A study by the state of Arizona Department of Health into aspartame is published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition, determines that soft drinks stored at elevated temperatures promote more rapid deterioration of aspartame into poisonous methanol.

The FDA denies Turner and Monte’s requests for a hearing, noting that aspartame’s critics had not presented any unresolved safety questions.

Regarding aspartame’s breakdown components, the FDA says that it has reviewed animal, clinical and consumption studies submitted by the sweetener’s manufacturer, as well as the existing body of scientific data, and concludes that ‘the studies demonstrated the safety of these components’.

UPI reports that 10 federal officials involved in approving aspartame have taken private sector jobs linked to the product’s manufacture.

Turner files another citizen’s petition, this time concerning the risk of seizures and eye damage from aspartame. The petition argues that medical records of 140 aspartame users show them to have suffered from epileptic seizures and eye damage after consuming products containing the sweetener and that the FDA should ban aspartame as an ‘imminent hazard to the public health’.

The FDA approves aspartame for non-carbonated frozen or refrigerated concentrates and single-strength fruit juice, fruit drinks, fruit-flavoured drinks, imitation fruit-flavoured drinks, frozen stock-type confections and novelties, breath mints and tea beverages.

An FDA report on adverse reactions associated with aspartame states the majority of the complaints about aspartame, now numbering 3,133, refer to neurological effects.

The US Supreme Court, headed by Justice Clarence Thomas, a former Monsanto attorney, refuses to consider arguments from the Community Nutrition Institute and other consumer groups that the FDA has not followed proper procedures in approving aspartame, and that the liquid form of the artificial sweetener may cause brain damage in heavy users of low-calorie soft drinks.

The FDA declares aspartame safe for use as an inactive ingredient, provided labelling meets certain specifications.

Nutra Sweet’s aspartame patent runs out in Europe, Canada and Japan. More companies are now free to produce aspartame sweeteners in these countries.

United Press International, a leading global news -syndication organisation, reports that more than 1 federal official, involved in the decision to approve aspartame, have now taken jobs in the private sector linked to the aspartame industry.

The FDA denies Turner’s new petition, saying:

‘The data and information supporting the safety of aspartame are extensive. It is likely that no food product has ever been so closely examined for safety. Moreover, the decisions of the agency to approve aspartame for its uses have been given the fullest airing that the legal process requires.”

A US Senate hearing is held to address the issue of aspartame safety and labelling. The hearing reviews the faulty testing procedures and the ‘psychological strategy’ used by Searle to help ensure aspartame’s approval. Other information comes to light includes the fact that aspartame was once on a Pentagon list of prospective biochemical-warfare weapons.

Numerous medical and scientific experts testify as to the toxicity of aspartame. Among them is Verrett, who reveals that, while compiling its 1977 report, her team was instructed not to comment on or be concerned with the overall validity of the studies. She states that questions about birth defects have not been answered. She also states that increasing the temperature of the product leads to an increase in production of DKP, a substance shown to increase uterine polyps and change blood cholesterol levels.

Verrett comments: ‘It was pretty obvious that somewhere along the line, the bureau officials were working up to a whitewash.’

1987

The FDA has received more than 4,000 complaints from consumers about adverse reactions to the sweetener.

1990

The Guardian (UK) publishes a major investigation of aspartame and delivers to government officials ‘a dossier of evidence’ that draws heavily on the transcripts of the Bressler Report and demands that the UK Government review the safety of aspartame.  No review is undertaken. The Guardian is taken to court by Monsanto and forced to apologise for printing its story..

1991

Britain’s National Institutes of Health publishes ‘Adverse Effects of Aspartame’ in January ’86 through December ’90, a bibliography of 167 studies documenting adverse effects associated with aspartame.

1992

NutraSweet signs agreements with Coca-Cola and Pepsi stipulating that it is their preferred supplier of aspartame.

The FDA approves aspartame for use in malt beverages, breakfast cereals, and refrigerated puddings and fillings and in bulk form (in large packages like sugar) for tabletop use. NutraSweet markets these bulk products under the name ‘NutraSweet’ and ‘Spoonful’.

NutraSweet’s US patent for aspartame expires, opening up the market for other companies to produce the substance.

1993

The FDA approves aspartame for use in hard and soft candies, non-alcoholic flavoured beverages, tea beverages, fruit juices and concentrates, baked goods and baking mixes, and frostings, toppings and fillings for baked goods.

1994

Aspartame now accounts for the majority (75%) of all the complaints in the US adverse-reaction monitoring system. The US Department of Health and Human Services compiles a report that brings together all current information on adverse reactions attributed to aspartame. It lists 6,888 complaints, including 649 reported by the CDC and 1,305 reported by the FDA.

John Olney shows that brain-tumour rates have risen in line with aspartame consumption and that there has been a significant increase in the conversion of less deadly brain tumours to much more deadly ones

1995

Consumer activist, and founder of anti-aspartame group ‘Mission Possible’, Betty Martini uses the US’s Freedom of Information Act to force the FDA to release an official list of adverse effects associated with aspartame ingestion.

Culled from 10,000 consumer complaints, the list includes four deaths and more than 90 unique symptoms, a majority of which are connected to impaired neurological function. They include: headache; dizziness or problems with balance; mood change; vomiting and nausea; seizures and convulsions; memory loss; tremors; muscle weakness; abdominal pains and cramps; change in vision; diarrhea; fatigue and weakness; skin rashes; deteriorating vision; joint and musculoskeletal pain.

Drawing on data compiled by the US National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results programme, which collects and distributes data on all types of cancer, Olney publishes peer-reviewed research in the ‘Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology’, showing that brain-tumour rates have risen in line with aspartame consumption and that there has been a significant increase in the conversion of less deadly tumours into much more deadly ones. By the FDA’s own admission, fewer than 1 per cent of those who have problems with something they consume, ever report it to the FDA.

The FDA announces it has no further plans to continue collecting adverse reaction reports or monitoring research on aspartame.

1996

The FDA removes all restrictions from aspartame use and approves it as a ‘general-purpose sweetener’, meaning that aspartame can now be used in any food or beverage.

DECEMBER 1996 – The results of a remarkable study conducted by Dr Ralph G Walton, professor of clinical psychology at North Eastern Ohio Universities, are revealed. Commissioned by the hard-hitting US national news programme 60 Minutes, it sheds some light on the absurdity of aspartame-safety studies.

Walton reviewed 165 separate studies published in the preceding 20 years in peer-reviewed medical journals: Seventy-four of the studies were industry-funded, all of which attested to aspartame’s safety. Of the other 91 non-industry funded studies, 84 identified adverse health effects. Six of the seven non-industry funded studies that were favourable to aspartame were from the FDA.

1998

Monsanto petitions the FDA for approval of a new tabletop sweetener called ‘Neotame’ – around 60 times sweeter than aspartame and up to 13,000 times sweeter than sugar.

Neotame: The Newest Dangerous Sweetener to Hit Your Food Shelves… 

Neotame is less prone to breaking down in heat and in liquids than aspartame because of the addition of 3,3-dimethylbutyl, a poorly studied chemical with suspected neurotoxic effects. Strengthening the bond between aspartame’s main constituents eliminates the need for a health warning directed at people suffering from PKU.

The UK’s Food Commission publishes two surveys on sweeteners. The first shows that several leading companies, including St Wei, Mullerand Sainsbury’s, have ignored the legal requirement to state ‘with sweeteners‘ next to the name of the product. The second reveals that aspartame not only appears in ‘no-sugar added’ and ‘light’ beverages but also in ordinary non-dietetic drinks because it’s three times cheaper than ordinary sugar.

Independent scientists from the University of Barcelona publish a landmark study clearly showing that aspartame is transformed into formaldehyde in the bodies of living specimens (in this case rats), and that this formaldehyde spreads throughout the specimens’ vital organs, including the liver, kidneys, eyes and brain. The results fly in the face of manufacturers’ claims that aspartame does not break down into formaldehyde in the body, and bolster the claims of aspartame critics that many of the symptoms associated with aspartame toxicity are caused by the poisonous and cumulative effects of formaldehyde.

1999

An investigation by ‘The lndependent on Sunday’ reveals that aspartame is made using a genetic engineering process. Aspartame component phenylalanine is naturally produced by bacteria. The newspaper reveals that Monsanto has genetically engineered the bacteria to make them produce more phenylalanine. Monsanto claims that the process had not been revealed previously because no modified DNA remains in the finished product, and insists that the product is completely safe.

2000

Monsanto, under pressure from the worldwide resistance to genetically modified food and ongoing lawsuits – sells NutraSweet to JW ChiIds Associates, a private-equity firm in Boston comprised of several former Monsanto managers, for $440m. Monsanto also sells its equity interest in two European sweetener joint ventures, NutraSweet AG and Euro-Aspartame SA.

2002

The FDA approves the tabletop and general use of Neotame.

The European Commission Scientific Committee on Food publishes its final report on aspartame and concludes, there is no evidence to suggest there is any need to revise the outcome of the earlier risk assessment previously established for aspartame.

As with the FDA, some of the committee members have links with the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), an industry group that funds, among other things, research into aspartame. ILSI members include Monsanto, Coca-Cola and Pepsi.

2003

Members of the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy Committee approve the use of sucralose and an aspartame-acesulfame salt compound (manufactured in Europe by the aspartame-producing Holland Sweetener Company and sold under the name Twinsweet), agreeing to review of the use of both in three years’ time.

At the same time, a request by European Greens, that the committee re-evaluate the safety of aspartame and improve the labelling of aspartame-containing products, is rejected.

2004

The feature-length documentary ‘Sweet Misery’ is released on DVD (sound and fury productions). Part-documentary, part-detective story. It includes interviews with people who have been harmed by aspartame, as well as credible testimony from advocates, doctors, lawyers and long-time campaigners, including James Turner, Hi Roberts and renowned neurosurgeon Dr Russell Blaylock.

US consumer group the National Justice League files a $350m class action lawsuit against the NutraSweet Corporation (the current owner of aspartame products), the American Diabetes Association and Monsanto. Some 50 other defendants have yet to be named, but mentioned throughout the lawsuit is Donald Rumsfeld, who helped to get aspartame approved through the FDA. The plaintiffs maintain that this litigation will prove how deadly aspartame is when it is consumed by humans. Little progress is made so far in bringing the action to court.

2005

The Ramizzini Institute in Bologna, a non-profit, private institution set up to research the causes of cancer, releases the results of a very large, long-term animal study into aspartame ingestion. Its study shows that aspartame causes lymphomas and leukaemia in female animals fed aspartame at doses around 20 mg per kilo of body weight, or around half the accepted daily intake for humans.

The NutraSweet Company reopens its plant in Atlanta, Georgia, (dormant since 2003) to meet increased demand.  

Aspartame, sold commercially as NutraSweet, Equal, Equal-Measure, Spoonful, Canderel and Benevia, is available in more than 100 countries and used in more than 5,000 products by at least 250 million people every day. Worldwide, the aspartame industry’s sales amount to more than $1 billion yearly. The US, the primary consumer, of aspartame, shows a significant spike in blood-plasma levels of aspartate.

2006

NutraSweet Shown to Cause Cancer

2008

How Does Aspartame Damage Your Brain?  

2009

Aspartame, Brain Cancer and the FDA  

New Research Links Nutrasweet to Leukemia and Lymphoma

2010

Aspartame’s Dangers, Side Effects and FDA Approval Explained  

2011

Aspartame – the most dangerous substance added to foods today. 

Self-Funded Study Found HUGE Tumors from Aspartame 

2012

Aspartame Associated with Increased Risk of Blood Cancers in Long-Term Human Study 

2013

New Ad Campaign Defends Aspartame 

In December 2013 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its first full risk assessment of aspartame. The opinion concludes that aspartame and its breakdown products are safe for general population (including infants, children and pregnant women).

• EFSA explains the Safety of Aspartame
• EFSA wraps up aspartame consultation with public meeting

2014

The Aspartame End Game… And What’s Next 

2015

Coke claims diet soda can combat obesity, whilst researchers propose Autism link 

2016

Leaked Podesta Emails Confirm Suspicions About Aspartame Dangers

How Aspartame Causes Obesity 

2017

Aspartame Use Surges in Children’s Drinks 

New Study Shows Artificial Sweeteners Can Lead to Diabetes https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/10/03/artificial-sweeteners-lead-to-diabetes.aspx

Sources:

Complete List of artificial sweeteners to avoid 

The Ecologist 2005 Report by Pat Thomas

 

Dr Mercola – Aspartame

Mission Possible

 

 

 

Links:

Blue Bird Botanicals

Natural Hemp Oil