Posted: 18 June 2009
While this article is from 1987 its excellent on the approval process. According to the UPI Investigation Dr. Richard Wurtman was threatened by the VP of Searle originally that his research funds would be rejected if he did a study on aspartame and seizures and they were. The UPI Investigation is on the front page of http://www.mpwhi.com Dr. Wurtman said there were enough seizures to take it off the market. However, eventually Dr. Wurtman refused to speak out, and now MIT gets research funds. You will note in this article they were trying to get his records.
Consider if a product is safe you don't have to threaten researchers not to do studies on aspartame because you wouldn't care. Almost 100 per cent of independent studies show the problems aspartame triggers. The reason the FDA wanted Searle indicted in the first place is because they couldn't get aspartame to show safety so they resorted to fraud. So if they couldn't get it to show aspartame in original studies you know the studies that are done today can't show safety either. When independent studies show the problems there is no way for industry studies not to show them unless they are flawed. Mark Gold has pointed this out in many studies on http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame It can't be done. Therefore, industry studies should never be used in a review. They are meaningless. Furthermore, Dr. Ralph Walton did this research for 60 minutes on scientific peer reviewed studies and funding. You will find it on http://www.dorway.com
Dr. Betty Martini, D.Hum.
Founder, Mission Possible World Health International
9270 River Club Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097
Aspartame Toxicity Center: http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame