Why is Aspartame still on the market?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 11-2-2005 @ 01:08 PM by Off_The_Street
Wow, zabilgy, you certainly take comments personally!

"Pardon me your highness..."

Please. Either "your Excellency" or "Honorable Sensei Street" will be sufficient. My good looks, musical talent, sex appeal, and intelligence are equalled if not surpassed by my modesty and humility, an assertion to which almost everyone here can attest.

"... if my link didn't satisfy your colleague's wishes. Check out this whole thread."

I did. As I said, I'm not denying that Aspartame could be dangerous -- maybe it is (although I haven't seen any hard evidence, just anecdotal stuff).

And I'm not saying that there aren't any real scientific studies out there (although I haven't seen any and you haven't showm me any -- not yet, anyway).

"There has been tons of data posted regarding the fact that Aspartame is a known poison."

I guess it depends on how you -- or the authors of your "research" -- define "poison".

What I'm trying to find here -- as I thought I had stated in my previous post -- are some scientific studies.

You know, the ones where they publish the methodology, including control groups, good statistical analyses in the reduction of the data, names and data about the authors, and a reasonably good journal where it was published.

"If you don't like what I posted or what others have posted, then look up your own information. There's plenty out there."

Does that mean you can't find any data that fulfills the requirements of a sound scientific study? If not, shouldn't you, well, say so?

"Why don't you post some "SCIENTIFIC STUDIES" that prove Aspartame to not to be the poison it is."

Because that's not the way that science works, Zabilgy. If I want to convince the world that I am really the Long-Lost King of France, I'm kind of expected to give some good evidence that I am. No one will buy my assertion if I were to say, "I'm really the Long-Lost King of France, and if you can't prove I'm not, then I really am. nyaah nyaah nyaah!"

No. That won't convince anyone, will it? It is up to the people making the assertion to come up with sound evidence that their assertion is true, valid, or both. Maybe yours is, but you haven't shown me any acceptable evidence.

"By the way your snooty attitude is funny!"

So are my one-liners and some of my monologues. However, personal attacks will hardly advance your cause or your credibility on this issue.


reply posted on 11-2-2005 @ 05:12 PM by sardion2000
Heh, people want some scientific studies, I'll give you some studies!

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


In the past two decades brain tumor rates have risen in several industrialized countries, including the United States. During this time, brain tumor data have been gathered by the National Cancer Institute from catchment areas representing 10% of the United States population. In the present study, we analyzed these data from 1975 to 1992 and found that the brain tumor increases in the United States occurred in two distinct phases, an early modest increase that may primarily reflect improved diagnostic technology, and a more recent sustained increase in the incidence and shift toward greater malignancy that must be explained by some other factor(s). Compared to other environmental factors putatively linked to brain tumors, the artificial sweetener aspartame is a promising candidate to explain the recent increase in incidence and degree of malignancy of brain tumors. Evidence potentially implicating aspartame includes an early animal study revealing an exceedingly high incidence of brain tumors in aspartame-fed rats compared to no brain tumors in concurrent controls, the recent finding that the aspartame molecule has mutagenic potential, and the close temporal association (aspartame was introduced into US food and beverage markets several years prior to the sharp increase in brain tumor incidence and malignancy). We conclude that there is need for reassessing the carcinogenic potential of aspartame.


Link

Got these links from Google Scholar.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 11-2-2005 by sardion2000]


reply posted on 13-2-2005 @ 07:42 AM by cavscout
Originally posted by cybertroy
Honest people would cancel the progression of known potentially harmful substance from entering the market.


Why? Look at what you just said. You said "known." If it is "known," then why do you drink it? You probably don’t, so there is your answer; if you think it is bad, no one is forcing you to drink it! Don’t buy it, but don’t worry about those that choose to ignore the possibility that it is harmful in small doses. Stay out of my kitchen, and I in turn will stay out of yours.

BTW, you said "potentially." You would advocate hurting people over something that is "potentially harmful," and that is wrong. If you shut down the makers of aspartame, people will loose jobs; there is no potentially about it. Without controlled studies, you cannot say for sure that it is harmful. Every cancer patient breaths air and drinks water, but that is not enough evidence to say that air and water cause cancer; to get to that conclusion, you have to do a controlled study and rule other things out.

Now I will admit that it may be harmful, however if you start banning harmful foods, why not start with fast food? I guarantee more people die because of hamburgers than Diet Cokes. In fact, let’s ban all foods except little pills from Taco Bell; let life imitate art so we can fry up nice rat burgers in a sewer. Not what you want? Well, where do you draw the line? Today its aspartame, in few years its "all restaurants are Taco Bell."
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



First Heartless Man - You Don\'t Really Need A Heart or A Pulse
  Posted 7 days ago with 51 member flags
Doctor Uses Coconut Oil to Reverse Husband\'s Alzheimer\'s Disease
  Posted 13 days ago with 28 member flags
A brief look at water fluoridation and the insanity of it
  Posted 10 days ago with 28 member flags
Brains of Addicts Are Inherently Abnormal
  Posted 7 days ago with 20 member flags
FDA say body is a drug and has the right to regulate it!
  Posted 10 days ago with 18 member flags
MPD/DID and Quantum Psychiatry
  Posted 14 days ago with 12 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 17 hours ago, 117 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 13 hours ago, 65 replies
I saw a cat turn into a bag..
  The Gray Area, Posted 17 hours ago, 42 replies