It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Natural and Artificial flavors?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

As for not trusting anything that's FDA approved...that would mean virtually all ingested, topical, and otherwise applied drugs sold anywhere in the United States are suspect.


[edit on 26-12-2005 by bsl4doc]


None for me please.....




posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 12:17 AM
link   
So, if you were to be diagnosed with meningitis, a fairly common but deadly infection which is very easily treatable, you would turn down the drug? Or even better, when I was 5, I developed Scarlet fever from a streptococcus infection. My mother rushed me to the hospital that night when my temp his 112, I was given an inoculation, and I was fine. One day longer, and I mostly likely would have gone into viremia induced shock and died. Now, should she have shyed away from the FDA approved shot for Scarlet fever and let me die as she fed me herbal tea?



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   
www.mbm.net.au...

My Favourite website

I'll often check up what it is I'm eating, and try to moderate my dose of it. Not the the extreme or anything, I just feel that negligable ammounts of anything will do little harm, I encourage others to do the same, not to restrict their diets, but to be aware of what they are eating.


The Following was sent to me by my Local Member of Parliament in regards to concerns I raised about Aspartame(I love Australian Politicians
)




Dear Mr Chubb

I must apologise for my delay in getting back to you further. I have had
my staff research the issues you raise, and they have found out the
following:

There has been a great deal of controversy over the effects of some agents
such as ASPARTAME in the recent past and whether its effects are harmful to
humans or not. ASPARTAME is found in amongst over things, chewing gums, it
has been found that aspartame can degrade into DIKETOPIPERAZINE, of which
some are considered to be carcinogenic, i.e. cause cancer.

There has been research done to study the effects of aspartame, the most
recent done in 2005. Researchers with the Cancer Research Centre in
Italyreported that aspartame "causes a dose-related statistically
significant increase in lymphomas and leukemia’s in female [rats] at dose
levels very near those to which humans can be exposed". However, the report
also found that "no statistically significant increase in malignant brain
tumors was observed”.

One concern is that on the Department of Human Services Victoria website,
their food safety link, which contains limited information on such issues,
had to be found from the site map, there was no direct link on the main
page. Food Safety, and the Food Act 1984, is the responsibility of the
Minister for Health, Bronwyn Pike.

It is ultimately the responsibility of the Australian New Zealand Food
Regulation Council, which is an independent bidy, to develop domestic food
regulatory policies. Although, the Health Minister still has responsibility
over the Food Act in Victoria,

This also brings up the issue of making the public more aware of additives
in foods, and some of their harmful effects.

I hope this information is of assistance.

Regards


Robert Clark
Member for Box Hill.



and Since then I'm off the Chewing gum for good



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
I agree whole heartedly with Azza as far as the moderation, not restriction, of one's diet. As to the aspartame-cancer link, yes, there has been corroboration of such a link in American studies, but not in reasonable amounts to compare. The exact wording Azza presents in the letter is "aspartame causes a dose-related statistically significant increase in lymphomas and leukemia’s in female [rats] at dose levels very near those to which humans can be exposed". Now, realistically, humans CAN be exposed to any amount of aspartame. However, in all American and UK studies I have read, the amount it took to show an sort of carcinogenic effect was 1g/day. Now, this is equivalent to about 16 cans of diet soda a day, which, if one consumed that much diet soda in one day for an extended amount of time, cancer would not be the person's main concern, no?

~MFP



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   


The "poisons" in aspartame though aren't really poisons, per se.



WOW....bsl.....did you say this? Poisons aren't poisons?
LMAO!



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
No, I didn't say that, Jensouth did. And I think what she was getting at was the idea that the things considered "poisonous" in aspartame are actually naturally occuring chemicals made by our body, just in high amounts. Please read through a thread if you are going to ridicule someone.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Here's a little tid-bit from Georgetown University's website:



RDIG Shines Light on Overlooked Grant Opportunities
The 31st monthly meeting of the Research Development Group (RDIG) group will take place at noon on Tuesday, Feb. 1 in the Research Building auditorium. The main topic will be research support via Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants. These often-overlooked NIH, CDC and FDA grant mechanisms are funded through set-aside funds. Two faculty members who were recently awarded small business grants will share their experiences: Kevin Cleary, associate professor and deputy director of Imaging Science and Information Systems (ISIS); and Stanley Fricke, assistant professor of neuroscience. For more information, get in touch with Bill Sansalone at ws23@georgetown.edu or 687-2891.


from: gumc.georgetown.edu...

It seems the FDA offers grants to Georgetown University. The FDA are the ones that approved Aspertame. That is, after Reagan fired the head of the FDA that consistently denied it approval because he knew how horrible it was for humans. Then Reagan fired him, put in his own man and POOF....magically it became safe and was approved. I wonder how much money Reagan and his cronies made off that deal? MILLIONS!

The CDC also offers grants to Georgetown University. The CDC. That organization is scarier than the FDA. The CDC are at the center of the depopulation program going on today in the world!...started by the Nixon administration and set in motion by his boys Kissinger and Rockefeller.

A study by Georgetown University must be true.....LMAO!


Here's an excerpt from the above quote that I think needs to be read again:

"Two faculty members who were recently awarded small business grants will share their experiences: Kevin Cleary, associate professor and deputy director of Imaging Science and Information Systems (ISIS); and Stanley Fricke, assistant professor of neuroscience."

Stanley Fricke, an assitant professor in NEUROSCIENCE received one of these grants!

[edit on 27-12-2005 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 06:06 PM
link   
And I've said before, do you honestly think Georgetown would be able to keep it's reputation of highly regarded and outstanding research if another laboratory not funded by the FDA or CDC could easily disprove Georgetown's research? It seems you fail to realize that the world of biotechnology is incredibly competitive and cutthroat. If, as a researcher, an opportunity arises to put one of your betters down a notch or two, you do it. Sooo...why aren't we seeing any research from foreign countries, domestic independant labs, and private researchers that contradicts the Georgetown research?

Oh, and as for the CDC being part of the "population control" thing, my father actually works for the CDC, and I happen to know several doctors who work in viral research there who have travelled on good will missions from the CDC to Africa, Asia, etc. They are amazing and outstanding individuals, and it saddens me to see your own paranoia blind you to the fact that the CDC has made amazing contributions to the wellness of mankind.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 06:03 AM
link   


And I've said before, do you honestly think Georgetown would be able to keep it's reputation of highly regarded and outstanding research if another laboratory not funded by the FDA or CDC could easily disprove Georgetown's research?


YES. Have you noticed how many medical researchers have died in the last year or two of mysterious circumstances? as in, they were murdered. It's over stuff like this.

And I'm not paranoid friend, I'm just not a zombie to the system! A zombie to the system denies information that is right in his face. Companies like the FDA and CDC love zombies.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Can you give me a few names of medical researchers who have "died under mysterious circumstances" ??

I certainly can't recall or find any myself. Oh, and, just curious, why would the CDC want to spend so much time doing humanitarian work domestically and overseas if it's trying to kill us? And you do realize there are branches of the CDC other than disease prevention, right? There's accident prevention, epidemiolgic studies, disabilities, birth defects, workplace safety, etc. Wow, they must REALLY be trying to screw us over be helping improve workplace safety, huh? Man, I must really be a zombie if I believe OSHA and the CDC are merely trying to make sure people don't cut their hands off at work. There must be an insidious plot behind it all...

Now please, Excitable Boy, can we stick to the topic, which is "Natural and Artificial Flavors" ? Time to take your tinfoil hat off and think a little.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   


Now please, Excitable Boy, can we stick to the topic, which is "Natural and Artificial Flavors" ? Time to take your tinfoil hat off and think a little.



You are quite insulting, but I guess you can't help yourself. Some character defect requires you to do such things. I'll provide a whole thread on the missing and dead researchers....I think there's at least 50.

Be back shortly to edit this post with a link to the thread!

Edit to add: www.abovetopsecret.com...

and: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why don't you read these threads....then talk to me *SNIP*.

And lastly, some wonderful information on the FDA...which you are so fond of: www.atsnn.com...

[edit on 28-12-2005 by Excitable_Boy]

[edit on 28-12-2005 by Excitable_Boy]

[edit on 28-12-2005 by Excitable_Boy]

[edit on 28-12-2005 by Excitable_Boy]

Mod Edit: Removed Baiting.

[edit on 29/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   
The man who wrote this article, Steve Quayle, is a personality who if, you go to his website www.stevequayle.com, is obviously selling webspace and books, including one on giants which I find humourous. Wouldn't it be hard for a giant to hide in a city? lol. Anyways, back to my point. This guy has no more evidence to back up his claim of a worldwide disease conspiracy than you or anone else does.

Now, this is the interesting part. I read the article you cited. Another article on the same subject said that many of the American microbiologists who were "killed" including Que and Wiley, were working out of Miami. Now, if you do a pubmed or scholar.google.com search for any research published by these men within the years 2001 (the year Que and Wiley were supposedly killed), you can find a literal plethora of research by these men published in mostly 2003. Donald Wiley even published some work on conformation changes of the flu virus in 2005! Wow! That's amazing for a dead man! I didn't try googling any of the others after I found these results for the first two, but I can if you want. Do you?



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   


Now, this is the interesting part. I read the article you cited. Another article on the same subject said that many of the American microbiologists who were "killed" including Que and Wiley, were working out of Miami. Now, if you do a pubmed or scholar.google.com search for any research published by these men within the years 2001 (the year Que and Wiley were supposedly killed), you can find a literal plethora of research by these men published in mostly 2003. Donald Wiley even published some work on conformation changes of the flu virus in 2005! Wow! That's amazing for a dead man! I didn't try googling any of the others after I found these results for the first two, but I can if you want. Do you?


Articles can't be published after the fact? Come on, that was easy.



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
So how would you account for these:

Some of Ian Langford's studies (supposedly killed in Feb 2002) include statistical data post-2/02
www.uea.ac.uk...

Schwartz gave a speech at Tufts in May 2002
www.nemc.org...

Not to mention the names and titles vary from source to source on this urban legend. I can't even find any research or mention of half of these people except on conspiracy theory websites or on someone's personal dot com site. Considering the recent capitolism inspired gas attack in Russia and also that the field of biomedical research can often be cutthroat, pardon the pun, isn't it just as likely that, assuming these men even really met dishonest deaths, that it could have been to quash research or to secure grants? Surely you don't feel Monsanto, Searle, Merck, or Pfizer would be above this? You certainly demoninzed Monsanto earlier, so wouldn't you see it within your grasp to claim a company like them wanted to silence researchers who maybe were going to disprove a drugs effectiveness or such work? Really, why would the government care if a scientists lives or dies? Let's say that these guys really were working for the government on some super bug. Now, would the government really want to kill off the guys who would be the only ones who could realistically produce a cure? And would these people honestly be able to work on a project like this in a UNIVERSITY laboratory? Have you ever been to Harvard's genetics and microbiology labs? It's nice, but definitely not the place you would want to conduct top secret laboratory work. (Harvard, by the way, is where some of these men are supposed to have done research). Wouldn't that be done in your imaginary demonic CDC somewhere in the bowels of hell, also known as Atlanta in your world?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 06:56 AM
link   


Let's say that these guys really were working for the government on some super bug. Now, would the government really want to kill off the guys who would be the only ones who could realistically produce a cure? And would these people honestly be able to work on a project like this in a UNIVERSITY laboratory? Have you ever been to Harvard's genetics and microbiology labs? It's nice, but definitely not the place you would want to conduct top secret laboratory work. (Harvard, by the way, is where some of these men are supposed to have done research). Wouldn't that be done in your imaginary demonic CDC somewhere in the bowels of hell, also known as Atlanta in your world?


*SNIP* Obviously, all these "super bugs" as you call them aleady have cures produced for them. Top secret work can be done right out in the open *SNIP* especially if laymen like yourself walk through. What are you going to detect? Nothing. How would you know anything top secret was going on? There is no demonic lab in the bowels of hell *SNIP*. You must read too many graphic novels.

Atlanta? I have family in Atlanta. Is this some backhanded insult to people in Atlanta? Can't you have a discussion without insulting everyone in your path? You need to learn some social skills, but if you are in fact some kind of doctor, then you probably don't have any as most doctors don't. They don't know how to come off of their superiority complex clouds.

These are facts *SNIP*: The FDA and CDC are bad. The CDC especially. They create diseases in their quest to lessen the population. i.e. Legionaires Disease...that's just one they tested on unknowing humans. HIV was created in a lab at Fort Detrick in Maryland. Why? For the same reason: POPULATION CONTROL.

These companies you mention: Monsanto, Searle, and I'll add others: Dupont, Dow, Merck, Roche, etc etc. These companies aren't out to help man. They are out to make billions upon billions of dollars and they don't care how many people they kill to do it. Example: Roche with this Tamiflu for the Avian Flu.....it's been proven that Tamiflu won't even work for it, but they've sold an ass-load of that crap to countries all over the world and why? Because they are wonderful humanitarians? NO. Becuase they made BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars. That's the bottom line and always will be.

There are cures out there right now *SNIP* for Heart Disease, Cancer, Diabetes, etc....that have been suppressed because there is more money in maintenance than cures.

Mod Edit: Baiting Removed.

[edit on 29/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Oh

My

God.

I don't even know where to start on this one.

"Top secret work can be done right out in the open Dr. Insults especially if laymen like yourself walk through. What are you going to detect? Nothing. How would you know anything top secret was going on?"

So...you don't think a grad student doing his or her thesis in the mico lab of Stanford would notice the professor wearing a bio suit and workin with viruses all the time? How would the professor keep themselves from being infected? And how would they explain it to the inquiring students? And where would the get the negative air flow chambers required to do such research and prevent it from getting all over the lab and building? And how would they explain the massive amounts of blood agar plates needed to produce these viruses or bacteria?

"Atlanta? I have family in Atlanta. Is this some backhanded insult to people in Atlanta? Can't you have a discussion without insulting everyone in your path? You need to learn some social skills, but if you are in fact some kind of doctor, then you probably don't have any as most doctors don't. They don't know how to come off of their superiority complex clouds"

You DO realize the CDC is in Atlanta, right? I was referring to you saying the CDC was evil by asking if you thought they worked in the bowes of hell that you thought was in Atlanta. Read the whole post next time, Mr.Limbaugh.

"These are facts Dr. Insults: The FDA and CDC are bad. The CDC especially. They create diseases in their quest to lessen the population. i.e. Legionaires Disease...that's just one they tested on unknowing humans. HIV was created in a lab at Fort Detrick in Maryland. Why? For the same reason: POPULATION CONTROL."

Cite, cite cite. I can't find a single source, resource, even another dot com that says the CDC has cause Leginnaires disease. Do you understand the technology involved in created a new species of bacteria? We can genetically alte a species through plasmids, but it still remains that species. Any attempts to create a new species would have hit the news, as independant labs would have done it as well as private. Not to mention, as you said, they wouldn't be hiding their research for some reason, so a student would see this new species of bacteria and spread the word.

"These companies you mention: Monsanto, Searle, and I'll add others: Dupont, Dow, Merck, Roche, etc etc. These companies aren't out to help man. They are out to make billions upon billions of dollars and they don't care how many people they kill to do it. Example: Roche with this Tamiflu for the Avian Flu.....it's been proven that Tamiflu won't even work for it, but they've sold an ass-load of that crap to countries all over the world and why? Because they are wonderful humanitarians? NO. Becuase they made BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars. That's the bottom line and always will be"

I totally understand that. Corporations DON'T care about people, but why would they go out of their way to kill the people they are making money off of? They don't care if a product of theirs kills people due to fault testing, i.e. Vioxx, but they don't want to unleash something that will be made solely to kill their consumers. Also, Tamiflu was and still is an amazing drug. The fact that it doesn't work on avian and two other uncommon strains of the flu doesn't mean it's not good. It wasn't even developed for avian flu. Get your facts straight.

"There are cures out there right now Dr. Insults for Heart Disease, Cancer, Diabetes, etc....that have been suppressed because there is more money in maintenance than cures."

Okay, so you're saying there are cures for heart disease? You do realize that heart disease is a general term for about 10 different conditions? And that not every cancer behaves the same? And that diabetes is a condition caused by an organ failure due to poor life decisions, not any sort of "disease"?

All in all, I think I'm done arguing with you Excitable_Boy. All you do is bash people (a la "Dr. Insult") and come up with uncited, easily toppled ideas that have no bearing in reality.

I vote you get modded and this thread is closed.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:29 PM
link   


I vote you get modded and this thread is closed.



*SNIP wants to take his ball and go home.


Mod Edit: Removed Baiting

[edit on 29/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Ok....please stay on topic....no more "baiting" and/or insulting other members.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Here is an article about the term "Natural flavors" in foods.

www.vegsource.com...

It seems they use the term to disguise some key ingredients that make a product unique. However, this could possibly allow some companies to put whatever they want in foods. Its covered under the term.

An excerpt from " Fast Food Nation" which explains more on Natural and Artificial flavors

"According to the FDA, natural flavors must be derived entirely from natural sources- from herbs, spices, fruits, vegetables, beef, chicken, roots, etc. The distinction between artificial and nautral flavors can be somewhat arbitrary and absurd..."A natural flavor...is a flavor that's been derived with an out-of-date technology". Natural flavors and artificial flavors sometimes contain exactly the same chemicals, produced through different methods.

Amyl acetate, for example, provides the dominant note of banana flavor. When you distill it from bananas with a solvent, amyl acetate is a natural flavor. When you porduce it by mixing vinegar with amyl alcohol, adding sulfuric acid as a catalyst, amyl acetate is an artifical flavor. Either way it smells and tastes the same. A natural flavor is not necessarily healthier or purer than an artifical one.

When almond flavor (benzaldehyde) is derived from natural sources, such as peach and apricot pits, it contains trace hydrogen cyanide, a deadly poison. Benzaldehye derived through a different process- by mixing oil of clove and the banana flavor, amyl acetate- does not contain any cyanide.

Nevertheless, it is legally considered an artifical flavor and sells at a much lower price. Natural and artificial flavors are now maufactured at the same chemical plants, places that few people would associate with Mother Nature. Calling any of these flavors "natural" requires a flexible attitude toward the English language and a fair amount of irony."

Any comments?



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Sources on the amyl acetate/amyl alcohol?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join