The Aspertame Lawsuit (Equal Sugar Sweetener Is Toxic!)

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


The chemicals in the food started over a hundred years ago and they are constantly being increased. The increase in the chemicals correlate with the increase in illness and disease over those last hundred years. Here is some information from "The Hundred Year Lie":



At least 70 percent of the processed foods in your local grocery store contain at least one genetically engineered ingredient that has never been tested for its potential harm.

More than 3,000 synthetic chemicals are regularly added to U.S. food products and hardly any have been tested for their synergistic (interactive) toxin producing effects in the human body.

Most vitamins and supplements sold in the U.S. that are advertised as natural are actually synthetic chemical concoctions that contain coal tars, preservatives, artificial colorings and a vast range of other potentially harmful additives.

More than 25,000 chemicals are in the cosmetics sold in the U.S., yet less than 4 percent of these ingredients have ever been tested for toxicity and safety.

Within the nine or so vaccines given your children before entering school are additives and preservatives that can include mercury, aluminum, MSG, formaldehyde and others linked to disorders ranging from brain and nerve damage to autism and attention deficit disorder.


Source: www.hundredyearlie.com...

The biggest problem is that the public education system doesn't teach people this information, but not all of us are ignorant. If you want to ingest chemicals and feed them to your kids... go ahead. You and yours can be the ones who die an early death. The rest of us would prefer to live long and healthy lives in spite of the corrupt government attempting to reduce the population.




posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
If people would just wake up and NOT live, then they could avoid illness and eventually death. Don't dwell on aspartame people, there are plenty of other grocery store horrors, remember margarine is only ONE molecule away from plastic. Doesn't that frighten you guys? It scares the living crap out of me! Anyway, seriously, why does nobody ever bring up that our life expectancy is higher now than ever?

[edit on 15-10-2007 by 27jd]


Oh dear, did someone really post this?!

Are you inferring that to really LIVE, one must drink diet soda?

yes, you are right about margerine and other hydogen treated fats - trans fatty acids - being detrimental to health, but just because x may be more dangerous than y, doesn't make it sensible to consume y.

re the life expectancy question, why WOULD someone bring that up regarding a discussion on aspartame?

You can thank the majority of increased life expectancy on the engineers (sewage and fresh water) and the availablility of natural nutrition, not food chemicals (or medicine for that matter, which is usually falsely credited for this fact).

You go ahead and continue to consume your synthetic chemical based diet, we'll enjoy our apples and bananas and fresh juices. Judging from the irrelevance and bizarre reasoning in the majority of your post, it looks like the neuro-toxins are doing their job nicely.

If that's the best argument you can put forward for defending aspartame and given your convenient ignoring of the multiple links to scientific studies already posted, then I won't be taking you up on your challenge.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by annestacey
reply to post by 27jd
 


The chemicals in the food started over a hundred years ago and they are constantly being increased. The increase in the chemicals correlate with the increase in illness and disease over those last hundred years. Here is some information from "The Hundred Year Lie":


Are you serious??? That site is somebody selling a book. Sorry, that's NOT peer reviewed medical literature and is nothing more than ANOTHER ploy to sell copies of a scary book to scared people. Notice there is NO concrete evidence of anything, just alot of the word "potentially". That clears the author of the need to back anything up.



The biggest problem is that the public education system doesn't teach people this information, but not all of us are ignorant.


You're right. You appear to be several steps ahead of me. I'd better start buying and reading every sensational scare book I can find and believing every word of it in order to not be ignorant.



If you want to ingest chemicals and feed them to your kids... go ahead. You and yours can be the ones who die an early death.


Wow, I actually feel pretty sorry for you. I know you don't care, but I do. Must suck to be that scared of everything around you. You are aware of all the radiation you're soaking up just reading this right now, I'm sure you are cuz you're NOT ignorant....


The answer is almost certainly no. But the fact that such a question is being asked at all shows how worried many of us have become about the danger of radiation coming from our computer screens and VDT monitors. The radiation from monitors and video display terminals may cause cancer and other diseases -- and then again it may not. Nobody knows for sure. But what is known is that everybody should avoid unnecessary risks from this sort of radiation, called VLF and ELF (very low frequency and extremely low frequency) emissions.
aroundcny.com...




The rest of us would prefer to live long and healthy lives in spite of the corrupt government attempting to reduce the population.


Right. There it is. The government is attempting to reduce the population, but we all know they NEVER ingest the same food and medicines we do, right? They NEVER get ill, have heart attacks, get Alzheimers, etc. They protect their families from eating the food that we sheep are fed, and all this time we have just missed it, right? Wow, that's ALOT of people to keep such a BIG secret, isn't it? Give me a break. You continue to be afraid of your own shadow, and THINK you're gonna lead a healthy life, in spite of the stress you're putting on yourself thinking the government is out to kill you. Stress is one of the leading causes of illness and early death, and that really is true.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
Are you inferring that to really LIVE, one must drink diet soda?


Um, no. Is sarcasm a language you don't speak? I was being sarcastic, basically saying that LIFE kills us. Everybody spending all this time and energy trying to find little pieces of our lives here and there that will contribute to our death is just silly and a waste. There are some things that are very unhealthy, smoking, drinking, regularly eating unhealthy (and that doesn't mean EVERYTHING at the store), not excercising, etc. Avoiding those types of things, as well as too much stress is about all we can do to live as long as we can.

And no, I NEVER implied that to live one must drink diet soda. Read it again, this time bear in mind I was being sarcastic.



yes, you are right about margerine and other hydogen treated fats - trans fatty acids - being detrimental to health, but just because x may be more dangerous than y, doesn't make it sensible to consume y.


I was ALSO being sarcastic about margarine. It was another subject of an internet email scare hoax. Sure, margarine has unhealthy points, so does butter, but the key is moderation either way. Or don't eat any of it, doesn't matter to me. It's just retarded when people picture a tub of margarine and a diet pepsi next to Bin Laden and grizzly bears in their minds when they are shivering in their beds at night thinking about what is out to kill them.



re the life expectancy question, why WOULD someone bring that up regarding a discussion on aspartame?


Um, because so many on this thread are freaking out about how we're being exposed to ALL these horrible chemicals that are causing diseases that people have died from LONG before diet soda. The problem back then was you usually died from the flu long before you got old enough to die of cancer. The aspartame scare was based on a study of rats that were given LARGE amounts of aspartame their whole lives and developed tumors. I've had several rats as pets, and they pretty much ALL developed tumors when they got old.



You can thank the majority of increased life expectancy on the engineers (sewage and fresh water) and the availablility of natural nutrition, not food chemicals (or medicine for that matter, which is usually falsely credited for this fact).


Um, no again. We can thank modern medicine, which is NOT falsely credited by any means, and the vaccines that you guys all rail against. People used to live off the land, didn't sleep in their feces, and they usually died of common viruses long before they got old enough to have a heart attack or get cancer. Eating healthy is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but that in conjunction with modern medicine and excercise is the key.



You go ahead and continue to consume your synthetic chemical based diet, we'll enjoy our apples and bananas and fresh juices. Judging from the irrelevance and bizarre reasoning in the majority of your post, it looks like the neuro-toxins are doing their job nicely.



That's a good one. Yup, the neurotoxins are coursing through my veins and I love it. You go ahead and continue to assume you know my health status and what I eat. If you saw me in the gym you'd probably feel pretty silly. But judging from the pompous nature of you post, I doubt you are ever wrong. How do your farts smell? Do you drive a hybrid? Thaaaanks.



If that's the best argument you can put forward for defending aspartame and given your convenient ignoring of the multiple links to scientific studies already posted, then I won't be taking you up on your challenge.


I figured as much.

ezinearticles.com...

extension.oregonstate.edu...

www.snopes.com...



[edit on 16-10-2007 by 27jd]



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


I'm not putting you on ignore.... but I'll be simply overlooking your posts from here on out on every single topic. Your input is completely useless to me.

The only way we can find out the truth is from grassroots health organizations and people who do research and write books because god knows we will never hear the truth from the government or the FDA or the pharmaceutical companies or the food companies.

What I know for sure is that I cured my own depression by removing chemicals from my diet and my household. That's proof enough for me to know I shouldn't be eating them or touching them.



posted on Oct, 16 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by 27jd
 


Yes I completely understand that, I have indeed researched the topic and had a feeling my post would come off as if I haven't.

Basically I've read the research, completed the reading, seen the charts, read the articles, and frankly I'm still just not buying it. What would someone pay to see America lose weight and stop being known for obesity? I mean people pay millions to ensure much simpler events take place.

Regardless of the possibility of disinformation ( highly possible in America at least ), it's obviously incredibly synthetic and composed of god knows what. It's relatively new (like a coupel of years i think?) how could they have really done extensive long-term exposure research like they say they did in such a short time? They just can't.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
You go ahead and continue to assume you know my health status and what I eat. If you saw me in the gym you'd probably feel pretty silly.


Never assumed anything about your health status, it was your mental status I commented on. About your diet, you were the one recommending diet soda remember.

Yes, the gym. I did have you pictured as the 'all brawn and no brain' type, so thanks for confirming that one


I'll admit my post is arrogant, although I doubt it holds a candle to the level of arrogance in your posts, but we can take a vote if you like. If you'd like to look in the mirror some more, I can crank the sarcasm and arrogance a few notches.

Oh, and just to remind you that you still seem to be ignoring the links already posted to scientific studies concluding that aspartame is harmful. Not that we expected anything else frankly.

If I thought you really wanted to engage in open minded debate, I'd take the time to review your links, but so far you just seem bent on throwing your weight around.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   
ok, more fool me, but I did click on the first link you posted. Regarding aspartame, from Jeff Harding the muscle man, I found this:


Aspartame: review of safety.

Butchko HH, Stargel WW, Comer CP, Mayhew DA, Benninger C, Blackburn GL, de Sonneville LM, Geha RS, Hertelendy Z, Koestner A, Leon AS, Liepa GU, McMartin KE, Mendenhall CL, Munro IC, Novotny EJ, Renwick AG, Schiffman SS, Schomer DL, Shaywitz BA, Spiers PA, Tephly TR, Thomas JA, Trefz FK.

Medical and Scientific Affairs, The NutraSweet Company, Mt Prospect, Illinois 60056, USA. harriett.h.butchko@nutrasweet.com

Over 20 years have elapsed since aspartame was approved by regulatory agencies as a sweetener and flavor enhancer. The safety of aspartame and its metabolic constituents was established through extensive toxicology studies in laboratory animals, using much greater doses than people could possibly consume. Its safety was further confirmed through studies in several human subpopulations, including healthy infants, children, adolescents, and adults; obese individuals; diabetics; lactating women; and individuals heterozygous (PKUH) for the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU) who have a decreased ability to metabolize the essential amino acid, phenylalanine. Several scientific issues continued to be raised after approval, largely as a concern for theoretical toxicity from its metabolic components--the amino acids, aspartate and phenylalanine, and methanol--even though dietary exposure to these components is much greater than from aspartame. Nonetheless, additional research, including evaluations of possible associations between aspartame and headaches, seizures, behavior, cognition, and mood as well as allergic-type reactions and use by potentially sensitive subpopulations, has continued after approval. These findings are reviewed here. The safety testing of aspartame has gone well beyond that required to evaluate the safety of a food additive.

CONCLUSION

When all the research on aspartame is examined as a whole, it is clear that aspartame is safe, and there are no unresolved questions regarding its safety under conditions of intended use.


Now, are you trying to pass this off as peer reviewed science? It's just a flippin statement, no references at all. And am I wrong or is this from "The NutraSweet Company, Mt Prospect, Illinois 60056, USA. harriett.h.butchko@nutrasweet.com" as it says in the title. Perhaps I didn't give this the time it needs, but if so, then it's no more than a PR news release.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Here's a collection of studies from 1970 - 1998. It doesn't look too good to me: psycotoxicity, brain damage, liver damage, neurological changes, seizure, mania, panic attacks, carbohydrate consumption (this is why people get fat while drinking diet drinks), migraines, blood pressure, neurobiochemical alterations, brain serotonin, fetal damage, retinal damage, brain cancer, EEG spike wave, dizziness, cell aging, hives, brain tumors, and more.

Notice in this list all the studies by universities, medical institutes, research centers, etc. finding adverse effects, but the FDA studies repeatedly do not. Who do you believe? I should think a reasonable person would be very suspicious at the very least considering the information presented. Those who become aware of this issue and still choose to cast caution to the wind, well, they've only themselves to blame if something goes wrong. But it's too bad that the FDA is willfully putting children at risk rather than play it safe, because even if their own tests indicate aspartame is safe, don't they, as scientists, feel obliged to give credence to other reputable research? Apparently not.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by annestacey
I'm not putting you on ignore.... but I'll be simply overlooking your posts from here on out on every single topic. Your input is completely useless to me.


Alrighty, that's probably a good idea. But I must say, overlooking my posts on "every single topic" simply because we disagree on nutritional issues is a bit over the top isn't it? Oh well, whatever.



The only way we can find out the truth is from grassroots health organizations and people who do research and write books because god knows we will never hear the truth from the government or the FDA or the pharmaceutical companies or the food companies.


Or independent health organizations such as the American Diabetes Association, the American Dietetic Association, the MS foundation, the American Medical Association, etc.? What about other regulatory agencies besides the FDA such as the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives, Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization, Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission?

You come across as the type who would deny your children proven medicine and rub garlic on them in the event of a serious illness. Sorry to make assumptions, but you made some about me previously, so it's fair.



What I know for sure is that I cured my own depression by removing chemicals from my diet and my household. That's proof enough for me to know I shouldn't be eating them or touching them.


Well, that's good. I'm glad you were able to overcome it, and I'm not being sarcastic. I've never had to battle with depression but I'm sure it sucks. If that's what makes you feel better than more power to you, I just hope you don't shun proven medicine all together in the event you or a loved one really need it. Like I've said a million times, a carefully researched combination of proven medicine and natural medicine is the best way to go. I may have typed all this in vain since you say you're gonna bypass it anyway, lol.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by blowfishdl
Regardless of the possibility of disinformation ( highly possible in America at least ), it's obviously incredibly synthetic and composed of god knows what. It's relatively new (like a coupel of years i think?) how could they have really done extensive long-term exposure research like they say they did in such a short time? They just can't.


The FDA approved it in 1981. It's derived from the amino acid we were discussing earlier. There were over a hundred studies done before it was approved. But it doesn't matter, if somebody is convinced it's bad, as you can see, there is no arguing otherwise. Doesn't matter though, I have nothing to gain by you guys using it whatsoever. But it's just another email hoax that people won't let go of.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
Never assumed anything about your health status, it was your mental status I commented on. About your diet, you were the one recommending diet soda remember.


Oh. My bad then. Silly me to think a 'neurotoxin' would affect one's health.


And once again, I don't care if anybody drinks diet soda, it was a sarcastic comment. With such a sharp, toxin free brain you should be able to grasp that, no?



Yes, the gym. I did have you pictured as the 'all brawn and no brain' type, so thanks for confirming that one


Yeah, you have me pegged there. Funny though how you pictured me as "all brawn" even before I mentioned the gym. Guess I can't hide my "alpha-maleness" even over the internet.



I'll admit my post is arrogant, although I doubt it holds a candle to the level of arrogance in your posts, but we can take a vote if you like. If you'd like to look in the mirror some more, I can crank the sarcasm and arrogance a few notches.


I'm glad you can admit that. And yes, brawny narcissistic types like myself LOVE to look in the mirror, so let's crank up the sarcasm and arrogance as many notches as you wish.



Oh, and just to remind you that you still seem to be ignoring the links already posted to scientific studies concluding that aspartame is harmful. Not that we expected anything else frankly.


Just as I expected you to ignore the scientific studies concluding that it's safe. What does it matter anyway? It's not like there is some magic study I can link that will change your mind, and vice versa. We're all dug into our beliefs too deeply I guess.



If I thought you really wanted to engage in open minded debate, I'd take the time to review your links, but so far you just seem bent on throwing your weight around.


Throwing my weight around? Have you really been bullied that much in life? I'm very sorry to hear that, but all I was trying to do was to maybe help some people realize that stressing about internet hoaxes, and even going so far as to believe the government, the medical community, and even academic universities are all teamed up and conspiring to KILL us with hidden chemicals is no way to live. Sorry about that, didn't mean to interrupt your fear. I know some people LOVE to be scared. Carry on.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
Now, are you trying to pass this off as peer reviewed science?


Nope, I wasn't. But try this...

www.greenfacts.org...



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Nope, I wasn't. But try this...

www.greenfacts.org...


Oh dear, those are your sources. Let's take a quick look at the ECSCF, your prime source (or at least the prime source of your source).

www.bevnet.com...


1. Members of the European Commission Scientific Committee on Food
have ethical and financial conflicts of interest with the food industry
that should have disqualified them from participation on the Committee.

2. Members of the Scientific Committee on Food did not read
some or most of the research papers they cited.

A significant amount of independent research was ignored, and when
independent studies were mentioned, they were quickly labeled as flawed.
There is evidence that the Committee did not read some or most of the
research they cited and is only familiar with
aspartame-related research from the aspartame manufacturer's
perspective.


Waiting for your next industry sponsored study link.....

I think you misunderstand the concept of unbiased peer reviewed science that you claim to love so much. Perhaps you will now retract this link as invalid, like the last one, and post yet more Monsanto/Searle PR.

Nice job.

By the way, you STILL have not responded to the SCIENTIFIC STUDIES PROVING ASPARTAME DANGEROUS that have been linked to in this thread as you earlier promised. How many times do I have to call you on your integrity? Are you a man of your word or not?

PS. I'd leave off the sarcasm if I were you. You lack the linguistic subtlety to pull it off


edit for tags.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by RogerT]

*Mod Edit - Trimmed Quotes.*



[edit on 10/22/07 by niteboy82]



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Um, no again. We can thank modern medicine, which is NOT falsely credited by any means, and the vaccines that you guys all rail against.


I'd be happy to start another thread on this one. I've nearly 20 years of personal research in this to pit against your body building books.

In fact we can start a thread on the health dangers any of the following:

Trans Fatty Acids (margerine)
Vaccines
Medical Drugs
Allopathic Doctors
Steroids (just for you
)

and if you really want to make my year, we can debate natural healing vs modern medicine.

You can be Alpha Male Meat Eating Muscle Man, I'll be the intelligent but fragile and puny vegetarian nerd


[edit on 18-10-2007 by RogerT]



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
Like I've said a million times, a carefully researched combination of proven medicine and natural medicine is the best way to go.


If the research you've presented so far in this thread is your example of 'carefully researched', I'd suggest throwing out your 'proven medicine' and using snake oil



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by Outlawstar
You say life expectancy is up but death from cancer, heart disease, alzheimers and parkinsons is WAY UP.
Hmm..and they all just happen to be diseases linked to aspartame and other sweeteners


Um, no...those are ALL illnesses linked to BEING OLD!!! We're just living long enough these days that ONE of those HAS to kill us eventually. Jeez people...




I think the "non-belevers" are taking for granted just the kind of people that are running this world.
And dont give me this prove it crap, Ive done the research, if you want to find out get up off your ass and do it yourself.


I've seen the research too, and it's crap. I'm out of here (work) right now, but tomorrow we can go round and round if you guys wish. So present me a nice list of peer reviewed research, and we can go over it all, k? I'm looking forward to it...



Who said anything about old people.
To my mind 30 -40 most certainly isint old.

And dont tell me youve seen the research too, just the fact youre calling it crap is all I need to hear to tell me you dont have the slightest clue as to what I am refering to.



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
You guys are right, I'm wrong. I'd better start being scared of food too. After all, I don't want to die and it's obvious that aspartame, along with everything else is going to kill me. Your fear is far more dedicated than my desire to change any minds. I know, I'll be sorry when I'm dying from some aspartame induced illness, while you all live to be 300. So with that, I concede defeat. You can all get back to your paranoia now.



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd
So present me a nice list of peer reviewed research, and we can go over it all, k? I'm looking forward to it...


Yeah right.


Originally posted by 27jd
You guys are right, I'm wrong. I'd better start being scared of food too. After all, I don't want to die and it's obvious that aspartame, along with everything else is going to kill me. Your fear is far more dedicated than my desire to change any minds. I know, I'll be sorry when I'm dying from some aspartame induced illness, while you all live to be 300. So with that, I concede defeat. You can all get back to your paranoia now.


You see there's that playground sarcasm again


Is that really all you've got? Mouth and muscles.

Where's the debate on the research? Where's the defence of the rebuttals? Where's the intelligent discourse? Where's the denial of ignorance?

My guess is your favorite body builder is pro aspartame, and you want to be just like him, so you can't consider the possibility that he's wrong. Maybe you need a new role model - try Tom Venuto.



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
You see there's that playground sarcasm again


Yup, and it's no match for your far superior intellect. Too bad the playground was such a traumatic place for you, huh?



Is that really all you've got? Mouth and muscles.


As well as all the usual body parts that go with those. Except for a brain, right? Apparantly it's been eaten away by all those deadly sugar substitutes the government is so hell bent on forcing us to consume.



Where's the debate on the research? Where's the defence of the rebuttals? Where's the intelligent discourse? Where's the denial of ignorance?


I guess I'm just not that passionate about this subject anymore. I've lost interest. I can admit it. Have you never just lost interest in a debate? There's no point, I really don't care if you use substitute sweeteners or not. And what's the point of scientific publications when the source can always be attacked based on who funded the study, etc. I've honestly lost interest. Like I said, you win. Doesn't that make you feel vindicated?



My guess is your favorite body builder is pro aspartame, and you want to be just like him, so you can't consider the possibility that he's wrong. Maybe you need a new role model - try Tom Venuto.


Actually, I don't even follow pro bodybuilding, nor am I a "bodybuilder", I just like to work out, makes me feel good. Bodybuilders are usually obsessed and miserable, not to mention destroying their bodies with steroids and starving themselves and even limiting fluids to a minimum before contests so they have less water weight. So your guess was quite wrong, a bodybuilder would be the last person I'd take health advice from.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join