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.

 

MP calls for ban on 'unsafe' sweetener

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
So you're against all cigarettes, then? And alcohol? And what about certain medications like AZT, chemotherapy, etc. ? You're against them, too? You know, there are a lot of things considered "poisonous" that people ingest everyday, because in small amounts, our body can handle them (minus cigarettes, never a good idea). Believe or not, the human body has an amazing recuperative ability.

Ciao
~MFP




posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:36 PM
link   

I'm looking to have it one way. I'm looking for an organization like the FDA to protect us not to cause us harm - not to commit genocide. ONE WAY!


Remind me again when the FDA held a gun to your head and force fed you aspartame, or anything, for that matter?

~MFP



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
It is a natural water extract (tea) of the leaves of the Stevia plant.

40% of all sweetener sales in Japan are Stevia or steviosides. One drop of this stuff does a cup of coffee for me. Zero side effects, zero calories.

Available in dropper bottles at Whole Foods and other organics places.

[edit on 3-1-2006 by Chakotay]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Anyone with any sense would understand that it is wrong for our government to KNOWINGLY allow poisons ... to commit genocide.


There probably are people who can be convinced not by logic or reason but by words with high emotion content, like "GENOCIDE!!!" or "POISON!!!"...

...but you won't find too many of them on this board, as you'll find out once you've been here a couple of months.

If you believe that the government should have the power to tell us what we can or can't put into our own bodies, then come out and say so.

And, on two un-related notes:

(1) Are you a long-distance runner?

(2) members7.clubphoto.com...



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I think stevia is a great alternative for some people. However, I don't like the taste of stevia in my cappucino. It is good in cold drinks, however. It all boils down to a cost/efficiency issue for businesses, I guess. It's much less time and energy efficient to grow stevia plants when you can create vats of aspartame from simple reagents. Now, I know Excitable_Boy is going to jump on that last comment by saying "Oh, so a little time and energy is worth dieing". Well, no one has conclusively gotten an illness, cancer, or died from aspartame. So, until it is proven, I'd rather pay less for my sugar alternatives. I'm a poor medical student who would rather buy nice shoes and dresses than more expensive alternatives.

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   


If you believe that the government should have the power to tell us what we can or can't put into our own bodies, then come out and say so.

And, on two un-related notes:

(1) Are you a long-distance runner?


Street, I don't believe the government should tell us what we can or can't put in our bodies, but I do think they have an obligation to keep poisons like Aspartame from ever getting to the market place and ever giving anyone a chance to put it in thier bodies.

Anyone on here that wants to ingest that poison, be my guest....it's your funeral.

On your unrelated note: Yes, I'm a runner and do run marathons. I'm running in the Boston Marathon in April and some shorter races throughout the year. That's the only big marathon I run. I ran new York once, but I don't like NYC much and didn't enjoy my time there.

Right now I'm running about 60 - 80 miles/week.....

edit to add: Street...just noticed you live in Mesa (after I checked out the link you provided of pics of Sedona). I came out here to get married five years ago....and within a year, moved out here. My hands used to hurt all the time when I lived in the northeast (due to the humidity)...they haven't hurt a bit since I moved here. We almost were going to move to Jerome, but thought better of it. But, we love that little town!....and we love Sedona.....


[edit on 3-1-2006 by Excitable_Boy]



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Street, I don't believe the government should tell us what we can or can't put in our bodies, but I do think they have an obligation to keep poisons like Aspartame from ever getting to the market place and ever giving anyone a chance to put it in thier bodies.


See, Excitable_Boy, you're using double speak. You're saying "No, the government should not tell us what we can and can't put in our bodies" and then following it with the idea that the government should control what is on the shelves, thus controlling what we buy and then put into our bodies. You know, iron, like aspartame, is not produced by our bodies and in large amounts can kill us. Does the FDA need to ban it, as well?

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:00 AM
link   

BSl4doc
Whoa whoa whoa, acetaminophen? Are you seriously calling that into question? You do know acetaminophen is Tylenol, right? I don't see how anyone could ever consider Tylenol dangerous. A line from my one of my favorite shows, Scrubs, sums up the medical philosophy on Tylenol: "Did you seriously just page me to see what dosage of Tylenol to give? Oh...my god. It's non-prescription, Tylenol. Open her mouth, empty the bottle into your hand, and throw it at her mouth. Whatever sticks, that works. It won't hurt anyone."



Woah Woah Woah, was that supreme example of ignorance an attempt to bait me, was it sarcasm, or are you really serious? I'll let the people handle this one, for I will not deign to respond to this crap, and know I'm insulted that you're even trouncing around my thread.

P.S. I hope that really wasn't a joke on Scrubs, for all the impressionable minds out there. And stop quoting Darwin people, natural selection stopped after we conquered nature. Besides, we're supposed to "shepherd" the weak, whether weak of mind or body, not just for their good but for our own as well. This idea that stupid people kill themselves off and thus the human gene pool is better for it is stupid in itself, because it fails to compensate for the many variables that exist in our world, including the inferior's interactions and effects on the superior. Stupid people in large groups can tear the world apart without knowing what they're doing, back their stupid selves up into any sort of metaphorical "corner" and then lash out at the nearest person if they do, or nullify your vote, get degrees and appear smart, allow themselves to fall apart and become burdens on society, or anything like that and that screws all of us. Don't use Darwin as an excuse to let stupidity prevail.

P.P.S. I got mad for a moment, after I previewed my post real quick and read that quote again.

[edit on 4-1-2006 by bigpappadiaz]

[edit on 4-1-2006 by bigpappadiaz]



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
That quote from Scrubs, bigpappadiaz, was attempt at humour that I'm sorry you didn't get. The line from Scrubs isn't meant to lead "impressionable" minds to believe that's how you administer Tylenol. I was meant to show the intern who paged the attending physician the harmlessness of the medication and that it won't hurt the patient if you give a dose that's a little too high, which is true.

You also mention that natural selection stopped when we "conquered nature" ? You do realize that we are a part of nature and that everything we do is within the bounds of nature, yes? Natural selection is present everyday. It's called risk-benefit. Take, for example, the miners in West Virginia. Those brave men went into that mine everyday and accepted a very high risk. As a result, that risk eventually claimed their lives. Meanwhile, someone who teaches high school works in a classroom, virtually no threat present. THAT is natural selection. Another good example would be medication. Someone who takes no medicines at any point in their life is much more likely to die sooner than one who accepts and uses modern medicine. That is natural selection.

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   


Whoa whoa whoa, acetaminophen?


Acetaminophen...is toxic. It is quite well known to be toxic. Mixed with alcohol, it is even worse. There are people addicted to pain pills like Percosets and Vicodins, and it's not the opiates in them that damage their bodies, it's all the acetaminophen that these pain pills are laced with. It causes massive liver damage. Toxic is toxic, no matter what the amount.

I would think this would be taught in Drug Toxicology 101.....



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I did learn about it in pharmacology. The toxicity level is near or above 10g per diem in adults or 7g per diem in chronic use. This is equivalent to 20 capsules or 14 capsules of extra strength tylenol, respectively. This is no where near the normal dosage (no more than 4 capsules, or 2g, per diem). If you take double the recommended dosage of any medication, you should expect toxic effects. That's why it's called a RECOMMENDED DOSAGE. It's no more a suggestion than speed limit signs are a suggestion. Both carry risks if they are exceeded. As for the effects of alcohol on acetaminophen, it's just common sense not to take alcohol with drugs. That's because the liver, which processes the drugs, is too busy processing alcohols, thus the drug sits in tissue and collects where it shouldn't. Does it seem like a good idea to you to knock back a few shots when every drug ever given to any patient ever in the history of medicine has said "Do not take with alcohol"??

As for the percocet and vicodin you mentioned...you do know that it contains oxycodon and hydrocodon, right? Those have been shown to be highly addictive. If it's acetaminophen causing the damage and addiction, how would you explain the fact that people abuse and try to purchase percocet and vicodin from other people, but I have never heard of someone needing a "tylenol" fix, or try to get me to write them a prescription for tylenol in the emergency room? Please, do some research or provide sources on this "dangerous drug" acetaminophen, as well as the research you have on the harmlessness of opiates. I'd really like to read them.

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:10 AM
link   

As for the percocet and vicodin you mentioned...you do know that it contains oxycodon and hydrocodon, right? Those have been shown to be highly addictive. If it's acetaminophen causing the damage and addiction, how would you explain the fact that people abuse and try to purchase percocet and vicodin from other people, but I have never heard of someone needing a "tylenol" fix, or try to get me to write them a prescription for tylenol in the emergency room? Please, do some research or provide sources on this "dangerous drug" acetaminophen, as well as the research you have on the harmlessness of opiates. I'd really like to read them.


Does anyone really believe you're a doctor? What Excitable Boy was trying to explain is that people who don't know any better take Vicodin and Percocet because they're addicted to the Opiates, and the Acetaminophen in the pills is what is doing most of the damage. Not all, since we're sure the Opiates aren't good for you, but the majority comes from the Acetaminophen.

Yes I got the Scrubs joke, and I'm sure I would of laughed if I were you, too. No, the joke isn't intended to lead impressionable minds to believe that is how you administer Tylenol. It's an unintended (or maybe not) consequence that people are led to believe it's completely safe when that is obviously not the case.

You'd be amazed at how many liver failures occur each year because of accidental overdoses like someone having a constant toothache and taking extra strength tylenol over an extended period. They take a couple more than the recommended each time they do, because hey, it's OTC and the label doesn't have any stern warnings. "RECOMMENDED DOSAGE" isn't very strong, since eeevvveryone (the ignorant) knows they just put that there to protect their own ass. Should it say "DO NOT EXCEED" in big red letters, people might not buy it and sales would go down. Comparing exceeding a dosage to exceeding the speed limit is pure crap-logic, since (A)people "need" to drive, and no one needs to take acetaminophen since there are better alternatives, and (B) taking a double-dose of Tylenol appears safer to most than going twice the speed limit. Besides, they're two completely different things, they're nothing alike. Damn.

People drink, get hung over, take Tylenol for it and then need a new liver. Many preparations intended for use in children come in liquid, tablet and capsule form, and a parent may accidentally give all of these to their child for various symptoms, not knowing they all contain this crappy ingredient.


An article from the Life Extension Foundation, found when I did a simple search on Google for acetaminophen poisoning.

An article on emedicine.com when I did a simple search for acetaminophen toxicity. It's well known.

Anyways, my point is that if weaker people are harmed by these products, I believe that that is an indication that they do harm in healthy individuals as well. Regardless if a person can handle it without noticing its effects, it causes harm nonetheless. Why take something like that, when there are better alternatives out there.

And Risk-Benefit is not natural selection. We got ourselves into a position where we can manipulate nature as much as we want (and we do). Since we did this, we've discovered and created many things that don't also don't occur in nature. Natural selection no longer applies to us. We got guns that level the playing field if # ever hits the fan and social order breaks down. Or someone who was once "superior" to someone "inferior" can spend their life unknowingly exposing themselves to all the gene-crappifying chemicals in our water or shampoos or soft drinks. Animals in nature know what to avoid in nature. We very obviously don't know which of our creations we should avoid.

P.S. Please remove your avatar, or change it anyways. You're not a doctor like it leads people to believe, and it could be hazardous for some impressionable idiots health if they think you are.

[edit on 5-1-2006 by bigpappadiaz]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Does anyone really believe you're a doctor?


How kind of you to insult me. Also, I've never said I was a doctor. I'm a medical student. Keyword student. As in, still learning.


What Excitable Boy was trying to explain is that people who don't know any better take Vicodin and Percocet because they're addicted to the Opiates, and the Acetaminophen in the pills is what is doing most of the damage.


I'm sorry, I didn't understand his original post. English is not my first language (Italian is). Now that you have restated his original idea, yes, I can understand the idea that someone who is addicted to a drug that contains opiates will eventually begin to overdose on said medication once their tolerance to the opium leads them to increase their dosage. That makes sense and still fits within the constraints of my point that acetaminophen is not harmful when taken in regular dosage.


You'd be amazed at how many liver failures occur each year because of accidental overdoses like someone having a constant toothache and taking extra strength tylenol over an extended period.


Now, honestly, I think you need to admit a bit of exaggeration here. A capsule of extra strength Tylenol contains 500mg of acetaminophen. The border for toxic levels that can cause liver damage is 10g. That means a person would have to take 20 capsules in order to even reach that border dosage. Assuming they are up for 15 consecutive hours (wake up at 7, asleep by 10) and are taking two capsules at each administration, that would mean a dose every 1.5 hours. That's assuming that take a dose as soon as they wake up and take one right as they fall asleep. Now, when someone has a toothache, two to three doses in a 10 hour period should cover it. I've had a crown come off a tooth, causing immense pain, and 4 capsules of extra strength Tylenol in about 6 hours was enough to subdue it. Now, I'm a fairly small woman, so even compensating for someone larger than me, let's say 10 capsules in 6 hours. That's still only half the dosage that is on the border of toxicity.


They take a couple more than the recommended each time they do, because hey, it's OTC and the label doesn't have any stern warnings. "RECOMMENDED DOSAGE" isn't very strong, since eeevvveryone (the ignorant) knows they just put that there to protect their own ass. Should it say "DO NOT EXCEED" in big red letters, people might not buy it and sales would go down.


In my hand right now, I am holding a bottle of generic 500 mg extra strength acetaminophen (Equate brand, to be exact so you can check for yourself the next time you are at the supermarket). On the label it states, and I quote:
"WARNINGS: Overdose warning: Taking more than the recommended dose can cause serious health problems, including liver damage. In case of overdose, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away. Quick medical attention is critical for adults as well as for children even if you do not notice and signs or symptoms.
Alcohol warning: If you consume 3 or more alcoholic drinks every day, ask your doctor if you should take acetaminophin or other pain relievers/fever reducers. Acetaminophen may cause liver damage.
Directions: Do not use more than directed (see overdose warning). Adults and children 12 years and over: take 2 caplets every 6 hours as needed. Do not take more than 8 caplets in 24 hours. Children under 12 years: do not use this adult Extra Strength product in children 12 years of age; this will provide more than the recommended dose (overdose) and could cause serious health problems."

Emphasis theirs. Now, how could these be any less clear? They are in fairly large bright blue letters displayed prominently on the label for all to see.


Comparing exceeding a dosage to exceeding the speed limit is pure crap-logic, since (A)people "need" to drive, and no one needs to take acetaminophen since there are better alternatives, and (B) taking a double-dose of Tylenol appears safer to most than going twice the speed limit. Besides, they're two completely different things, they're nothing alike. Damn.


First, no one "needs" to drive. When I lived in Firenze, I rarely drove. I took the bus, the metro, or walked. Fairly easy to do. Obviously, for long distance travel, driving is often cheaper than train, bus, or flying. As far as "better alternatives" for acetaminophen, often they are more expensive, less effective, or simply not available to some. And finally, when you say taking a double dose of Tylenol is safer than doubling the speed limit, well obviously that is safer, because taking a double dose of Tylenol is not exceeding the "speed limit" so to speak, of Tylenol. Now, if you compare doubling the maximum dosage of Tylenol, 10g, and doulbing the speed limit, I would think the Tylenol would be more harmful since you are not guaranteed harm to your liver if you drive 90 in a 45. I've done that a few times and come away from it fine. I have, however, seen someone who had taken a large dosage of acetaminophen, a case study from percocet overdose, and they most certainly were harmed. So really, my analogy works quite well I imagine.


Many preparations intended for use in children come in liquid, tablet and capsule form, and a parent may accidentally give all of these to their child for various symptoms, not knowing they all contain this crappy ingredient.


Now come on, can you really blame the medication for that? It's sad to think children are being harmed somewhere, but you would almost have to be intentionally harming a child to give them liquid pain reliever, tablet pain reliver, and then choke a capsule down their throat. I have never heard of a case like this except in abuse. If the parent is perceptive enough to realise that they themselves would not take three medications at once, why would they do this to a child of their own? Really, I can see this example as credible whatsoever.

As far as your sources go, they only seem to backup my original point that acetaminophen in proper dosage is harmless, if not beneficial, but in excess, like any other drug, is harmful. Here are some quotes from your sources:
First source:

In adults, dosages exceeding 10 to 15 grams can produce liver failure and dosages exceeding 25 grams can be fatal.

Second source:

The toxic dose of APAP after a single acute ingestion is 150 mg/kg or approximately 7 g in adults.


Case series report that fewer than 4% of patients who suffer severe hepatotoxicity develop hepatic failure; fatalities or liver transplantation occurs in less than one half of these patients.


Now, these would seem to support what I was saying. I never denied that acetaminophen poisoning happened. I merely explained that it only occurs in very high doses. I would imagine the reason it is seen as the most common overdose drug is because percocet, vicodin, and other opiates are often the most accesible drugs for addicts, and they will eventually take higher doses due to tolerance, leading to an overdose. Seems logical to me.


And Risk-Benefit is not natural selection. We got ourselves into a position where we can manipulate nature as much as we want (and we do). Since we did this, we've discovered and created many things that don't also don't occur in nature. Natural selection no longer applies to us. We got guns that level the playing field if # ever hits the fan and social order breaks down. Or someone who was once "superior" to someone "inferior" can spend their life unknowingly exposing themselves to all the gene-crappifying chemicals in our water or shampoos or soft drinks. Animals in nature know what to avoid in nature. We very obviously don't know which of our creations we should avoid.


So we can manipulate nature as much as we want now? Wow, so, can we create matter? I was under the impression this was a law of science in some form or fashion. Also, I wasn't aware we were able to manipulate nature to the extent that all disease was eridicated and life never ended for us. Well, I guess I'm out of a job now, huh? As for guns "leveling the playing field", is that why your country is having so much trouble in Iraq? I freely admit that America has the biggest guns, the best technology, and the most money, that's a given. However, just like America did in the revolutionary war, the insurgents in Iraq know the territory, know the people, and can work effectively with low-technology. Interesting. Face it, humans, as much as they like to deny it, are part of nature. Our drugs and our guns are just glorified stickes chimps use to extract termites from their nests. They are advanced tools created by homo sapiens. We even gauge other animals intelligence on their ability to create and utilize tools. Yes, we create things that are harmful to our health. Here's an interesting example from a virology book read once. I don't own the book, and I can't recall the exact title. I want to say it was "The Coming Plague" or something like that, I'm sure they have it on Amazon. Basically, it's a tome that gives the history of many of the worst diseases ever to plague man, such as Ebola (my favorite). One outbreak of Ebola was believed to have been cause when a small village, which customarily eats chimpanzees, found one either dieing or dead and ate it. It was dieing from the Ebola virus, thus passing it on to the villagers and beginning an outbreak. Now, how is eating a dangerous food like this not natural selection? And how is that any different that you me standing in the supermarket trying to decide between water (healthy) and soda (not healthy)? The fit will naturally eat healthier, their fitness being directly caused by their healthy eating style. This is environmental to an extent, their environment being cultured from their srroundings such as home and friends, which they can either emulate or rebel against. This is the heart of natural selection, actions reflecting well-being and strength as seen in an individual and reflected in the individuals family or community.


.S. Please remove your avatar, or change it anyways. You're not a doctor like it leads people to believe, and it could be hazardous for some impressionable idiots health if they think you are.


The avatar was actually a gift from someone, and although I am a year short of being a licensed physician, I am much more knowledgable about medicine than the average person, whom you called "ignorant", and I don't feel the avatar in any way leads people to believe I'm a doctor, nor is it hazardous. If someone takes medical advice from someone on a conspiracy theory forum, their physical health is the LEAST of their problems.

Buona notte,
~MFP

[edit on 1/5/2006 by bsl4doc]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 07:24 AM
link   


If it's acetaminophen causing the damage and addiction,


Med student....re-read my post. I never said acetaminophen caused addiction. I did say it caused damage because it does. Abuse of Percosets and Vicodin over time causes liver damage because of the high amounts of acetaminophen in them, not because of the opiates. In this scenario, the acetaminophen is more dangerous than the opiates. It might help you to read and comprehend a post before you comment on it. That may also help you in school.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   
OK. Lets quit with the personal attacks and snipes, NOW.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I agree wholeheartedly with you, Excitable_Boy, on the idea that the acetaminophen in vicodin and percocet is the mechanism that causes damage in the overdose of these drugs. It is the opiates, however, that lead to the overdoes due to addiction.

And thank you for bolstering the idea that Americans become hostile to people who don't have a native understanding of English. I already stated it is not my first language, and I feel that one miscommunication out of several threads is understandable. Apparently you feel otherwise. Perhaps you'd rather converse in Italian? hehe.

Ciao,
~MFP



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join