The Aspertame Lawsuit (Equal Sugar Sweetener Is Toxic!)

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Friendly reminder... please discuss the issues and not personalities

Also... a note to those discussing medical issues -- you might want to look up some of the studies and cite those to prove your point rather than linking to opinion videos.

(www.pubmed.gov is the site that lists all the research papers available. It looks like there's also a way for the public to get the results of unpublished trials and material on the FDA's approval list, but I have to do more digging to find the link.)




posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


reply to post by Byrd
 


Agreed Byrd
Issues over personalities every time


However, I don't agree that a source ending in .gov is a good and proper source....Regardless of whether it is only a list of links to various research papers on given subject...I'd rather do my own grunt work...

Me personally, I don't trust it...

But as I said, the first part of Your post was most relevant


Thanks and Peace


EDIT -- for clarity

[edit on 14-10-2007 by Rilence]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I prefer not to use sugar actually because I think it's too refined. I have no problem with sweeteners( I just had a glass of extra cold cream soda..diet.mmmm..).

To be honest I prefer using pure honey as a sweetener anyhoo.It's just a bit hypocrital to stick it in coffee..Yummy though



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by anhinga
 



Thank you for posting all the links and for sharing your findings.

I never could drink anything that had obvious asparteme in it anyway because it tastes awful!! Give me a coke and I'll pass on the fries for the caloric exchange!

I see people are talking about fresh fruit instead. Great idea. Make sure and find a local farmer because their is scare there, too, with all the genetic modification, but that is another thread............................

Anyway I just wanted to say that I feel my info is increased reading your thread.

There is so much of the stealth virus, not quite defineable ailments effecting many and at all ages that we really do need to look at our diets and the effect it is having on us. We are guinea pigs to all these *solutions* to combat another ailment.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Aspartame is a toxic substance that no one should be consuming (along with all the other artificial sweeteners). It's linked to alzheimers, brain tumors and parkinsons disease. In my opinion, any information to the contrary are lies, propaganda or disinformation. Why would ANYONE want to consume chemicals? Why would anyone want to give it to their children?



Aspartame is a chemical that was once on the congressional list of biowarfare agents. It was refused a place in our food supply for sixteen years by the FDA because it was and is a well-known toxic agent. Aspartame was finally approved by a new FDA commissioner put in place by the political influence of Donald Rumsfeld who, as president of the company that owned the patent on Aspartame, wanted to get it approved. This event is a case study in criminal politics and an eye opening view of how corporate America really works.


Source: www.foodfactor.com...

This website is a wealth of information. It shows how your body really is affected by everything that we put into it (or on it). If you want to be super healthy the way nature intended, stay away from chemicals and eat a raw diet.

There are natural sweeteners that can be used in place of the deadly stuff being pushed in the media (agave, stevia, xylitol, etc. are natural sweeteners that anyone can use and have no chemicals in them).

I've actually made a new rule for myself... don't buy anything advertised in the mainstream media. If I see it on TV, it goes on the black list of things NOT to purchase.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by annestacey
In my opinion, any information to the contrary are lies, propaganda or disinformation.







Please don't forget the motto of this site.. Refusing to accept new information, regardless of the source, simply because of what it says, is being 100% willingly ignorant. There seems to be a lot of this (on both sides) going on in this thread.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke

Originally posted by annestacey
In my opinion, any information to the contrary are lies, propaganda or disinformation.







Please don't forget the motto of this site.. Refusing to accept new information, regardless of the source, simply because of what it says, is being 100% willingly ignorant. There seems to be a lot of this (on both sides) going on in this thread.


Believing that toxic chemicals in our food and water are good for us when there is evidence to support that it causes illness and disease... that is being willingly ignorant.

I went through 20+ years of severe anxiety and depression and then over 6 years of antidepressants that caused even more problems such as memory, focus and motivation issues). I feel pretty certain that alzheimers would be in my future if I stayed on that path. Getting off the chemicals and onto organic food and chemical-free products is the best decision I ever made for my health.

Sorry... but no. I have done enough research to know that foods from nature are what our bodies need and I will never believe that toxic chemicals are safe.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by annestacey
Sorry... but no. I have done enough research to know that foods from nature are what our bodies need and I will never believe that toxic chemicals are safe.


This is the most intelligent conclusion on this entire thread.

We are born from nature, we must return to it. Creating fake foods, sweeteners or otherwise, is greatly harming our health.

GO BACK TO NATURE. If for nothing else, for your own health (plus it tastes better than mcdonalds cheeseburgers and coca colas
).



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I don't' see any discussion of the voracity of these lawsuits?

There are constant commercials and ads by Attorneys looking for people willing to sue for about any reason. In fact these commercials plant the idea in peoples minds. Tell them a product will hurt them it will have a Placebo Effect and they know that. Plant that fear in a person who already suffers from anxiety or depression and they will for sure have symptoms even if none exist. That is what the lawyers want to happen. Lawyers sue over lies all the time and make millions and often billions for their dishonesty.

One of my employees has a real problem with this. He actually thinks that the Food Industry, Pharmaceutical Industry and Medical Science are all trying to kill him. Why? Because he believes every negative thing he reads or hears from people hawking phony books or pushing phony lawsuits. The whole concept is ridiculous. Dead people don't buy food. Dead people don't buy drugs. Dead people don't pay for medical care. There is no profit in harming customers, period end of subject. Follow the money. If there is no money it is generally nothing but a hysterical response.

These lawsuits are causing great harm to our society. The cost of defending against them is added into the cost of the products or services and we get stuck with the bill as consumers. The only people profiting off this nonsense are the attorneys and the phony book writers who profit off of peoples fear and radio talk show appearances. Those are the people trying to hurt us. They do profit from their lies and misinformation.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Dead people don't buy food. Dead people don't buy drugs. Dead people don't pay for medical care. There is no profit in harming customers, period end of subject. Follow the money. If there is no money it is generally nothing but a hysterical response.


Tell that to the cigarette companies then. Is there no link to cancer in smoking tobacco laced with countless other carcinogens? If a majority of customers don't die, or use a lot of the product before they die it really doesn't matter if they pass over.

This is about money, plain and simple.

There is a large amount of money to be made in sweeteners, artificial or natural.

We are a culture addicted to artificiality anyway, so it would make a lot more sense for the average American to consume fake food. What do you think most preservatives are, salt? HA!

Whether or not aspartame is as bad as formaldehyde or arsenic is a non-issue.

Putting the MOST natural foods in your body is simply the smartest thing to do.

Can't consume raw sugar, well don't eat it. Use honey instead. There are other natural sweeteners derived from plant materials that do not need to be synthetically made. I'd stick with those.

Natural Sweeteners

Conspiracy of Stevia vs Aspartame

[edit on 14-10-2007 by biggie smalls]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by biggie smalls
 


I don't use sweeteners including sugar. Nobody should. I always get suspicious when an attorney or a class action suit is involved. I trust them even less than the government


When the food industry inadvertently sells a product that may cause harm they of course defend themselves. To say that they include harmful ingredients on purpose is paranoid in my opinion. If they based what they sell on the hysteria on the Internet and the viral marketing of the natural and health food industry there would be nothing on the shelves. If you want to see an example of purposeful lying about food products; read the ingredients at your local natural health food store. They lace everything with sugar and call it health food. I just did that and I was shocked. Sugar in everything in the health food store. Who is fooling who here. They scare you to get you to buy from them and then put sugar in everything to hook you.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by biggie smalls

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Dead people don't buy food. Dead people don't buy drugs. Dead people don't pay for medical care. There is no profit in harming customers, period end of subject. Follow the money. If there is no money it is generally nothing but a hysterical response.


Tell that to the cigarette companies then. Is there no link to cancer in smoking tobacco laced with countless other carcinogens? If a majority of customers don't die, or use a lot of the product before they die it really doesn't matter if they pass over.

This is about money, plain and simple.

[edit on 14-10-2007 by biggie smalls]


Yes it is most definitely about money. The food industry adds chemicals to the food in order to get people addicted to it so they buy more of it. And it's not healthy because if it were, they wouldn't hide the chemicals in other ingredients. The pharmaceutical companies then profit (hugely) from the drugs people are on because of the chemicals in the food.

It's true that dead people don't spend money. That's why they make sure they drag it out and keep people sick for very long periods of time. The "smart" people will figure it out and live. The ones who are not quite as smart or simply can't afford the healthier foods will be the ones who die the quickest. In the end when the sick are dead, they've achieved another goal of reducing the population.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
To say that they include harmful ingredients on purpose is paranoid in my opinion.


Actually, they do include harmful ingredients on purpose. MSG is one of the most harmful ingredients that exists. They DO add it to the foods, they've been doing it for decades and they are constantly increasing the amount added. Plus... they hide it in other ingredients so you won't see it on the label. So yes... they know it's dangerous and they still do it because it's profitable and they know that no one will stop them.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by NRen2k5

I’d say the same, but my father’s diabetic, and I’ve gotten used to Diet being the only thing in the house.



Hi NRen2k5

I recognised your posting style before I read the post name
Nice to see you're still here, was beginning to miss you after Wade got canned.

I recommend your dad take a look at Stevia as a replacement to sugar. It's natural, virtually no cals and doesn't mess with BS. Several hundred times sweeter than sugar and has a slight liquorice flavor. I hear Coke is trying to patent it or something like that


On topic, I did a huge amount of research on Aspartame a while back. This nasty chemical has a very dubious history, especially the way it got its FDA approval. Some interesting names involved too, Rumsfeld for one - now there's a name we can trust


Europe initially resisted the substance but pressure from the Money got it through. In 2005 Roger Williams, a UK Member of Parliament, called for emergency action to ban the artificial sweetener Aspartame, questioning its safety. The MP said that there was "compelling and reliable evidence for this carcinogenic substance to be banned from the UK food and drinks market altogether". It's been in and out of the UK press since, but unfortunately, people are just not waking up yet.


the original Board of Inquiry report of the FDA revoking the petition for approval, along with the famed Dr. John Olney's testimony to the Board on the damage aspartame would do to the brains of our children if approved and especially in combination with glutamate. Dr. Olney is one of the most renowned neuroscientists in the world today. You can go to dorway.com and read his CV. He founded the field of neuroscience called excitotoxicity after doing studies on aspartic acid, 40% of aspartame, and found it caused lesions in the brains of mice. Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock, M.D, wrote the book on it, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills. An excitotoxin is a product that literally stimulates the neurons of the brain to death. The FDA agreed with Dr. Olney, no doubt one of the reasons they revoked the petition for approval. Aspartame was finally approved through the politics of Don Rumsfeld who at the time was CEO of Searle, the original manufacturer.



Dr. Ralph Walton's research on scientific peer reviewed studies and funding which showed 92% of independent, unbiased research shows the aspartame problems. If you remove 6 studies done by the FDA because after approval they became loyal to the manufacturer, and one proindustry summary, 100% of independent scientific peer reviewed studies showed the problems. Only studies funded or controlled by industry ever said it was safe.


There is SOOOO much damning evidence on this neurotoxin, and direct research by reputable scientists, I find it amazing that people still drink the stuff, let alone defend it, especially when several natural alternatives are available for those that cannot use sugar.

You'll find several hundred links to start your research here: www.wnho.net...

Or the Ramazzini Foundation Studies:
www.ramazzini.it...

Apoligies if these are duplicate links or posts, as I am responding to the first page of this topic.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I have a big problem with any artificial sweetner personally, that's because all of them that I've ingested have caused a migrane style headache and will put me down for the rest of the day.

I've tried various different substitutes and all of them have the same headache inducing results with some making the headache more intense then others.

I'm also hypoglycemic and enjoy my normal sugar fix with lifesaver mints and whatnot throughout the day, but have been worried by the fact that all of the candy manufacturers seem to be replacing or supplementing the sugar in the product with aspartame or saccharin. Even gum that I have enjoyed for many years like juicy fruit is no longer natrual.

General rule of thumb I follow is, if I see that bold faced "Phenylketonurics: contains phenylalanine" then I don't touch it. Seems to appear on every package containing artificial sweeteners. I've even noticed that the Tang and ready mix iced tea now has sugar AND artificial sweeteners in them. Sigh...



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by anhinga
 


I've read conclusive studies about artificial sweetners and haven't uncovered one good thing about them. Our body doesn't know how to effeciently digest them. I'm with you on this one. Just make sure your sources aren't questionable. There's a lot of extremists when it comes to Vegan or at least "organics" that my try and deterr you without giving you die hard evidence. But there is a pretty amazing case against all artificial sweetners.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I hear you, the vegans get pretty "reich" about some of their ways, I don't
eat meat and DO eat organic milks/cheese since it's a good way to protein.

Regardless, this is a topic that needed the attention. I get the warning in the process, so what, the argument was at first about b/w issues, then they mention diabetes and we all try to chill. I should mention Stevia (natural sugar substitute) is good for them as an alternative. Let alone the fact that they should be using insulin and naturally-occurring foods like OJ, any fruits and more healthy products then people are aware of.

Either way, at that point, it's not an argument -- this is your long-term health in question.

(also, microwave ovens, they CHANGE the molecular structure of your food and turn it into a lump of fat. The popcorn case is a side-note. All of it should not be used. These are important issues that need attention.)

[edit on 14-10-2007 by anhinga]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
STEVIA is the sweetner that both the sugar and aspartame industries don't want you to know about. The fact that the FDA tried to ban Stevia without any supporting medical abstracts speaks volumes about the money interest in this issue.

As most of you have probably heard, Michael J. Fox not only did Diet Pepsi commercials but was, and possibly still is, a diet soda addict.


The path aspartame has taken to participate in Fox's degeneration is very complex, yet supported by peer-reviewed science. In essence, aspartame inhibits the body's ability to produce dopamine. Dopamine is essential for the proper functioning of the brain which in turn controls the body's many systems.

Dr. Bowen explained that Fox has apparently recognized his decreased capacity to produce dopamine and has reportedly taken therapeutic levels of pharmaceutical dopamine to combat his degenerative condition. According to Dr. Bowen, “The use of aspartame completely defeats this therapeutic endeavor.”


www.proliberty.com...



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I have had alot of aspertame and I know people say its bad but until it really hurts me im drinking stuff with aspertame same with splenda.



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   
There has been a lot of things written about this topic. I can tell you one fact though. I was a huge Diet Coke drinker for a very long time. After hearing all these stories i quit the stuff. For two weeks i was depressed, cried a lot, got serious headaches, stomach aches and felt all round terrible. And it's not the caffeine. I still drink coffee. There is something wrong with it, don't know what, but its nasty.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join