There are 6 systemic variables that determine what we put into and onto our bodies.

First, our parents and caregivers control what we put into our bodies from conceivement to adolescence. Second, the food and personal care products industries research, develop and produce the processed choices for us. Third, our culture and life experience, media and education contribute to our programming. Fourth, our body has specific and general programming, usually subconscious, that influence our choices. Fifth, we can exert a continuum of conscious control over what we put in and on our bodies, ranging from all to none. Sixth, the collective marketplace, including regulation, determines the dynamics of availability, composition, labeling, price and accountability. 

We believe that a comprehensive Nurture, Equality, Truth and Systems viewpoint of ingredients requires a proof process that assesses each person’s body specifically, that tracks the quantity of the product ingested or absorbed, that identifies accurately all ingredients- the processes, mechanisms and secondary resources used to produce the ingredients, the availability of alternatives and the judgement across a spectrum of multivariate factors as to whether any ingredient, or any mix of ingredients within the product or associated with application, has the relative and absolute probability to cause harm that reduces the potential of a component or system in a human body.

We believe that any product placed in or on our body that our body has not been programmed to exchange with poses an unacceptable risk. We believe that we do not adequately understand our bodies and the complete systemic consequences across time of using most ingredients, including raw unprocessed products.

What we present to you is a tiny beginning effort to initiate what we call a proof process. This is a diligent, comprehensive effort to understand systemically what we know about ingredients, and what we think poses risk. All of the stakeholders, including the consumer, can then make their own decisions about what to put in and on their bodies.

Our hypothesis, based upon patterns of information but not yet realized with a comprehensive proof process, is that many ingredients that we use, including some flagged in this analysis, contribute to damage to human beings that can be most easily recognized as autoimmune diseases, cancers, heart (arterial) disease and brain disease. Further, our hypothesis is that nanoparticles pose risk, petrochemicals pose risk, certain genetic alterations pose risk, and no amount of these ingredients are safe. Not only do ingredients interact with what we think of as our bodies, but these ingredients also interact with the human biome and with each other, and often carry trace amounts of the chemicals used to process them that are not accounted for on labels.

The following is a simple beginning. If you like the direction we are headed, join in.


Headaches, pains, strains, fevers and much more can be alleviated by painkillers. The health effects of painkillers are normally left unquestioned. However, when you systemically look at the chemicals and ingredients that make up painkillers it paints a different picture.

Aspirin, acetylsalicylic acid, is the desired active ingredient but pharmaceutical companies pack into their formula a wide range of additives that are unnecessary and potentially harmful.

To fully appreciate the health effects of painkillers, I examined the ingredients that make up Aspirin.

Aspirin, Black Iron Oxide, Colloidal Silicon Dioxide, Corn Starch, FD&C Yellow 6 Aluminum Lake, Hypromellose, Microcrystalline Cellulose, Polydextrose, Polyethylene GlycolPolyvinyl Acetate PhthalatePropylene Glycol , Shellac Wax, Sodium Alginate, Sodium Bicarbonate, Stearic Acid, Talc, Titanium Dioxide, Triethyl Citrate

Colloidal Silicon Dioxide, Polyethylene Glycol, Polyvinyl Acetate Phthalate, Propylene Glycol, Shellac Wax, Talc and Titanium Dioxide all raise health concerns when you consider what they are, how they are processes and how they are ingested, inhaled, absorbed, or in any way consumed.

Below you will find the beginnings of a detailed proof process of the health concerns for the ingredients that make up Aspirin.


Colloidal Silicon Dioxide (Silica) when inhaled in very small quantities over time can lead to silicosis, bronchitis, or cancer, as the dust becomes lodged in the lungs and continuously irritates them, reducing lung capacities. Silica dust is labeled as a Group 1- “Carcinogenic to Humans” by the IARC.

Polyethylene Glycol: a polymer of Ethylene Oxide is a known human carcinogen. Polyethylene Glycol is a possible toxin to our organ system as well.

Polyvinyl Acetate Phthalate is manufactured with vinyl acetate. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research arm found evidence suggesting that vinyl acetate caused tumors in rats. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) believed that trace amounts of vinyl acetate could make it into the material. Phthalates can disrupt hormonal systems, which can cause harm during critical periods of development and in adult males phthalates are associated with poor sperm quality and infertility.

Propylene Glycol is produced from propylene oxide, which is labeled as a Group 2B- “Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans” by the IARC. Propylene Glycol that is the active component in anti-freeze, and constant and/or excessive contact can lead to increased risk of respiratory and immune disorders like asthma, hay fever, eczema, and allergies.

Shellac Wax is produced when Shellac is scraped from the bark of the trees where the female lac bug (Kerria lacca) secretes it while it moves on the tree. It is then processed (heated) to remove impurities, like bark and insects.

Talc can cause pulmonary issues, and it is also linked with lung and ovarian cancer. Talc is labeled as a Group 2B carcinogen- “Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans.”

Titanium dioxide has been associated with lung cancer and the IARC labels it as a Group 2B carcinogen- “Possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Titanium dioxide may contain nano particles that are potentially highly damaging to genetic and cellular material but little research has been conducted on how nanoparticles disperse and interact in the human body.

It is important to note that there is a substantial lack of research and knowledge when dealing with what ingredients, chemicals and products actually do to and in your body when consumed, inhaled, or absorbed.

At Y Worlds, we hope that these models will inspire others to investigate what they are putting in their bodies and investigate other systemic questions using a proof process.

Dan Wich has through his research website identified the CVS brand of aspirin and several others to be the pills with the least additives with harmful properties that deliver acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) to us. Enteric coatings contain harmful additives and are more expensive than uncoated aspirin. The benefit of enteric coatings for aspirin has been questioned in recent studies that challenge the idea that large numbers of people are sensitive to aspirin (the numbers may be extremely small) and present the idea that the coatings may not only interfere with the functions of aspirin but may introduce new reactions to the chemicals found in the coatings.

You are the owners and scientists of your own body and the determination of whether enteric coatings benefit your health should depend upon your own body research and your public knowledge research. Check out Dan’s site and those below and let us know about other resources that help us understand and avoid toxins in man made and natural foods:

You can read a more detailed document displaying our Aspirin research here.

Join Y Worlds.
Sign up to receive a fresh Daily Y in your inbox.

3 thoughts on “Aspirin

  1. What are the labels for the horizontal rows? If they don’t have specific labels, what is the dynamic arrangement or process of placement of information in the array?

    What is the systematic relationship between the upper triangles (with 6 hexagons)
    and the medium-size triangles below them (how does the placing work)?

    Same question for the transition to the large triangle.

    Just looking at it without this information tells me that for example, the dangerous factors have been aggregated along the lower right faces, and signify a lot of danger in that area, but there is no readily apparent way of interpreting it precisely.

  2. Thanks for the questions Mark. Here is a description of the proof process model we used. There are many ways to imagine a proof process – this is one of our earliest versions. First, there are 5 colors: 2 negatives, bright red — and light red/pink -, neutral/uncertain grey, and 2 positives light blue + and bright blue ++. White indicates missing or no information. Each colored pixel in our flat proof process model represents the point of a detailed proof process pyramid that exists perpendicular and beneath the plane of the model, culminating at the point with the summary color pixel that you see in the model. When you see any color, it means there is a point of knowledge that we report as part of the systemic collection of all available knowledge. Every bright red pixel indicates validated evidence that the variable is highly likely to cause significant harm. A light blue pixel indicates validated evidence that the variable initiates positive exchanges in the body that outweigh evidence of harm. If there is conflicting data, you will see multiple color pixels representing the tip of each derived proof process point of information. To answer your specific questions:

    Every proof process array is constructed from raw first principles empirical, experiential, observational, scientific evidence at the base, moving toward processing and synthesis and systemic constructions in the middle and finally toward consilience and conclusions near the peak. Every Proof Process array has beneath it a pixel by pixel documentation and detail Proof Process array and every Proof Process array has a corresponding validation pixel model that portrays all pixels according to their replicated scientific validation (using a green + and yellow – validation color scheme), their validation from people with knowledge to contribute on the topic, and the curated representation of all necessary points of derivation according to whether there is or is not ample evidence to support an understanding. Proof Processes can also be constructed according to viewpoints and perspectives, according to hypothesis, and according to all forms of alternative Proof Processes.

    The triangles are constructs that represent from a curated viewpoint all of the necessary points of validation to support knowledge at a level of detail in the model. So, for a specific ingredient such as propylene glycol, we would want to know such things as longitudinal studies isolating this particular chemical in terms of biological interactions and chemical interactions, we would want to know experiential reports of impacts, we would want to follow the chemical throughout the body with many many systemic measures, we would want to know the necessity of the chemical as an ingredient, we would want to know of simulations and similar compositions and their health results, we would want to know if the ingredient contains trace elements of other ingredients, we would want to know how the ingredient affects the environment that then affects humans, we would want to know if the ingredient is safe to ingest, breath in, absorb etc., at what amounts, we would want to know if the chemical breaks down and changes into other compositions over time or through interaction, we would want to know if the human body has ever had the opportunity to experience the chemical to the degree it has programming to safely interact with it, we would want to know if it is safe for fetuses or people with certain predispositions, etc., etc., etc. repeated for every product humans interact with. Wow. A lot of data points, shaped into systemic knowledge, and ultimately, a conclusion. Our curators lean toward identifying the potential for harm when any untested composition comes in contact with the human body, especially when the body has never experienced the composition before, especially when the base understandings of the composition suggest likely imbalances between the body’s nano to macro programming and the effects of any and all subcomponents of the composition.

    So, the first triangles closest to the base represent first order, first level, data collection and evaluation. Each pixel color represents contributing points of information as judged by curators with a transparent documentation sub Proof Process showing the derivation.

    The second group of connected triangles represents ontologically grouped variables from the first set of triangles, and attempts to identify evidence that the components of that grouping do or do not cause harm, do or do not benefit the body. This is a synthesis phase, attempting to move beyond individual components into ontological constructs that group the variables according to certain features that appear to drive the analysis of good and bad.

    The large triangle at the peak of the model attempts to represent whether taking the specific Walgreens aspirin portrayed in the model is or is not the one a person with full knowledge would want to choose. You can compare this culminating Proof Process triangle with those of other aspirins to determine what pills are most likely to benefit you and most likely to harm you. If we portrayed the CVS aspirin with only starch and the active aspirin ingredient, there would be very little red in the final triangle, with the red linked to damage to children and to the digestive system of some people. Remember, these models are dynamic and interactive – click on any pixel and you can view the complete derivation proof process with all research and citations.


    Also, we have other models in our 9 model language that must also be used to assess aspirin as to alternatives, environmental and ethical considerations, human rights considerations, corporate source considerations, energy and waste and pollution costs, risks and rewards, cost vs benefit etc.

    Our concept is to be precise on every pixel, and discover the systemic understandings by looking at the patterns of known information and the gaps and fallacies of current knowledge. Our version of the truth is not simple. Some of the constructs driving decisions however become clear. We need to avoid unnecessary manufactured ingredients, untested ingredients foreign to the body, untested natural ingredients, and need to become the scientists for our own specific body mechanisms since we are not all the same. Stress can change the way your body processes anything. Biome changes can affect the way your body processes anything.

    In summary, all knowledge can and must be packaged in a systemic comprehensive form that enables users to quickly process the data for synthesis and meaning and accuracy. The Proof Process is the beginning of that journey, along with our other complementary models. We all need to become the scientists, observers and contributors to the body of knowledge, and we all need to share and benefit from that knowledge freely and transparently.

  3. Wow! Fabulous work!

    So I just did an evolution of my health care knowledgebase concept after listening to the Food Revolution Summit. I have pasted a copy of it and what I was able to document so far from the Summit, and from websites linked in it, below these notes.

    Reading your work, I definitely think we can merge them. I also think that (through geocoding) we could work out a sort of interlacing in which everything in each proof process that applies in a particular eco-region or ecosystem shows up there, and each culture has an affordance for creating their own version, adding or modifying the processing, curating, and conclusions to reflect their world view.

    I just now realized that the same affordance could be ideal for inventors, technology startups, and people working out production and re-use ‘ecosystems’ to work out their relationships with all their stakeholders.

    While I was reading it I realized that it could be a tool of engagement for all students and activists, and a crowd-sourcing platform, which would have the power to swamp the inadequate and biased efforts of the FDA, USDA, and other regulatory agencies which are contaminated by the revolving door.

    Also, we could design a facet of YWorlds to be the citizen communication platform that I wrote about in my comment to Ocean Robbins. A facet, because that evokes the idea of a core representation of reality and potential (the knowledgebase), with ways of presenting it which are tailored to the needs of each set of stakeholders (the graphic user interface).

    14-4-28_Food System & Envir. Info Resources for Consumer Choice, Food Policy, & Accountability

    Food Revolution Network: John and Ocean Robbins
    My comment after the Food Revolution Summit, May 4, 2014:
    I’ve had an idea for a health care knowledgebase for a long time, and it would be a very powerful step toward it for you to create alternative pathways through the speakers and content so that some are taxonomies of categories, and some are pathways through steps to healing various conditions, and you could even enable, instead of shopping carts, personal collections of ‘mission maps’ that are offered as suggestions, which can be modified or entirely replaced by personally customized learning and practice journeys. It would be good to do this in a way that can readily be ported to different database structures. And, it would be fabulous to start providing lay language and technical language general articles, formal literature review articles, full text research articles, and professional complementary and alternative medicine protocols (including yours, Joel Fuhrman’s, and many others) in multiple layers of ‘for more information …’ ‘underneath’ the brilliant interviews (and the books many of them represent). That is an evolution of the multi-layer plan I developed while I was selling the Natural Health Information System, which was an extended version of a database put together by Alexander Schauss, Michael Murray, Joe Pizzorno, and other pioneering naturopaths. I would also like to see you reach out to Senator Elizabeth Warren and her staff, and invite her to delegate a staff member to work with you to develop national and global policy in advance of the 2016 primaries, and to do the same for Dr. Jill Stein, the 2012 Green Party candidate for President (and a physician who has joined the food revolution), and the Health department secretary of the Green Shadow Cabinet. Along the way you might suggest people you know in other movements who share your levels of capacity and commitment, and ways to integrate them into a common platform for progressive democracy. This is a path which can rise above the polluted broadcast television airwaves, by bringing people together to learn, to organize, and to act. I have a lot more ideas to structure that, and to flesh it out. Check for a taste, and please feel free to contact me through the email address I used to register for the Summit.

    [Then I found this Ted Talk: ]

    True Food Shoppers Guide to Avoiding GE Food January 01, 2014
    Which supermarket foods are genetically engineered? This is probably the most urgent question the public has about these novel foods. Opinion polls show that up to 90 percent of the American public wants GE foods labeled. But despite this overwhelming demand, almost no foods on U.S. grocery shelves reveal their secret, genetically engineered ingredients.
    We’ve seen that our government, under pressure from the biotechnology industry, has not required the labeling of GE foods. And the biotech industry does not voluntarily identify them, fearing, probably correctly, that the majority of Americans would avoid GE foods if given a choice. As a result, the U.S. public has been deprived of its right to choose whether to buy and consume these engineered foods. However, this is not the case with most of our major trading partners around the globe who have instituted mandatory labeling of all GE foods and ingredients.
    Our True Food Shoppers Guide to Avoiding GE Foods was the first of its kind, first published in October of 2000. In fact, the Shoppers Guide is what launched the True Food Network! The Guide is designed to help reclaim your right to know about the foods you are buying, and help you find and avoid GMO foods and ingredients.
    How do you get our free Shoppers Guide to Avoiding GE Foods?
    You can download the Shoppers Guide as a PDF
    You can get the iPhone app for iPhone or iPad
    You can get the Android app
    You can browse the Shoppers Guide online
    Or you can email us at to order a printed pocket Guide
    Last updated: January 2014
    This Guide was compiled based on company statements sent to CFS and consumers; statements posted on company websites; and companies enrolled in the Non-GMO Project’s Non-GMO verification program. As ingredients change frequently, always check the packages–even of foods you buy often–to be sure to avoid non-organic at-risk ingredients on products not labeled as Non-GMO.
    Download the Guide

    Ken Cook, Environmental Working Group Shoppers’ Guide Dirty Dozen and Safest 15 (re residual pesticides on foods)

    League of Conservation Voters tracks all Congressional floor votes important to environmental movement. Comprehensive national policy scorecards for Congress

    Coalition for Safe Affordable Food is an industry front group pushing legislation to allow companies with GMO ingredients as natural, and would prohibit states from requiring labeling of GMO foods.

    This dramatically increases the need for the REACH / Pharos pie-chart database.
    EWG is working on this; over 60 countries require GMO labeling, so very little GMO food is purchased in them.

    People don’t want their tax dollars squandered, do want to provide support for hungry people, etc. across the political spectrum. Organic farmers should not have to pay for certification, and industrial ag should have to pay for its externalities.

    Caldwell Esselstyn, M.D. – How You Can Be Heart-Attack Proof

    Caldwell Esselstyn, M.D.
    Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn is a surgeon and author of the bestselling book, Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease. He has produced more than 150 scientific publications, and conducted a series of groundbreaking studies that have rocked the nutritional world.

    Caldwell has served as President of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons, and as President of the Staff and as a member of the Board of Governors at the Cleveland Clinic.
    He explains, with irrefutable scientific evidence, how you can become “bullet-proof” to heart disease by changing what you eat. Find out more about Caldwell’s work by clicking here.

    His Cleveland Clinic team delivers a 5.5 hour seminar and comprehensive notebook, plus 1.5 hour counseling session on food preparation by an expert, plus video of earlier seminar and a plant-based lunch with the team, to cardiac patients, and it saves their lives and their health.

    Plaque is a pro-oxidant cauldron; need the natural antioxidants from foods with high ORAC score, especially green leafy vegetables – eat one serving the size of your fist after cooking for 5.5 to 6 minutes in boiling water, with a few drops of balsamic vinegar, six times a day. That will restore the endothelial cells’ ability to generate nitric oxide, a key antioxidant for the circulatory system.

    We should make his program contents available in the knowledgebase, along with
    Urvashi Rangan, Ph.D. leads and directs the Consumer Safety and Sustainability Group for Consumer Reports. She is responsible for managing risk analysis, policy assessments, label evaluations and consumer advice for tests, reports, and related advocacy work. Urvashi joined Consumers Union in 1999 and developed the ratings system, database, and Web site, for evaluating environmental and food labels. In 2005, she managed the launch of GreenerChoices,org, which covers green aspects over a wide range of products and services.
    Dr. Rangan serves as a primary, national spokesperson for Consumer Reports in the areas of sustainable production/consumption practices, food safety, and product safety issues related to chemical and contaminant hazards.
    She continues to decode the meaning of eco-labels for consumers and advocates for credible labeling in the marketplace, including influencing government policy decisions at the state and federal level. In 2011, she helped lead a decisive victory in a widely publicized debate on the benefits of organic production. She was also part of the teams that worked on the Sigma Delta Chi award winning food and supplement magazine reports, highlighting public health concerns.
    Dr. Rangan received her Ph.D. in Environmental Health Sciences from Johns Hopkins University in 1995 and conducted her post-doctoral work at the Environmental and Occupational Health Science Institute. She was a National Institutes of Health fellow from 1990-97.
    Dr. Rangan works in the Yonkers, NY office of Consumers’ Union
    Dr. Rangan’s direct phone line is 914-378-2211. Back in office May 5. Lmtcb 4-29-14.

    Consumers Union
    101 Truman Avenue
    Yonkers, NY 10703-1057
    Phone: (914) 378-2000
    Southwest Office
    Consumers Union
    CU Action Fund, Inc
    506 West 14th St.,
    Suite A Austin, Texas 78701
    Phone: (512) 477-4431
    Fax: (512) 477-8934
    Washington DC Office
    Consumers Union
    1101 17th Street NW, Suite 500
    Washington, DC 20036
    Phone: (202) 462-6262
    Fax: (202) 265-9548
    West Coast Office
    Consumers Union
    1535 Mission Street
    San Francisco, CA 94103-2512
    Phone: (415) 431-6747
    Fax: (415) 431-0906

    To give you an idea of the power of the Food Revolution Summit, it had 24 exceptional interviewees, 2 extraordinary hosts, and over 100,000 listeners. Food and health make up the single most widely cross-cutting interest among humans, just ahead of shelter and energy, so a coordinated movement (and social platform), across all sectors, to reclaim our planet, would have them as the ‘anchor tenant’, so to speak.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>