Here's my problem with that article:
Associated Content is an Open Content Network.
Anyone can submit content on any subject in any format.
Believe me that I am more than willing to accept information with an open mind. But if the information isn't from a reliable and documentable source, then it's nothing more than rumor and fear mongering.
This article, for example, says: There are 92 documented symptoms of Aspartame poisoning leading to coma and death.
Ok, so show me the documentation. Real documentation from a reliable, responsible source. The problem is that the author can't because there aren't any.
Or this: The symptoms of Aspartame poisoning are known to mimic Multiple Sclerosis, Lupus, and also Fibromyalgia
That's a scare tactic plain and simple .. because they "symptoms" of those diseases are hugely varied which is what often makes them difficult to diagnose. The symptoms of the FLU also mimic those of MS, Lupus, and FM. As do the symptoms of stroke and brain cancer. And the common cold.
This one cracks me up: Some known effects of Aspartame on diabetic patients are: acute memory loss, confusion, severe vision loss, uncontrollable blood sugar, coma, and death.
Um hello? Those are the effects of DIABETES on diabetic patients. Ever seen a diabetic who hasn't eaten enough? Or one who is going into sugar shock? I have. Yeah, memory loss, confusion, vision loss, uncontrollable blood sugar. That's diabetes for you ... not "aspartame poisoning". (I was a caregiver for an insulin dependent diabetic for 3 years. )
Then there's this: Congressional hearings were held when Aspartame was originally approved for use in 100 different products. Since that initial hearing, there have been two more hearings to try to ban this product, but to no avail
So show me the link to those hearings. All Congressional hearings are logged and are public record. There is no link because there have never been hearings to get Aspartame banned.
OTOH, there's a lot of *reliable* and *reputable* sources that refute most of the information in that article. Start here and move on from that:
This one debunks a lot of those myths:
There's nothing wrong with choosing not to consume any item for any reason. But when someone tries to convince others to adopt the same changes ... I think it's beneficial to have good solid data to support the claims.