reply to post by Astyanax
while we can argue about studies it still does not change the fact that humans are not ment to consume wood alcohol
that you can find tons of material in you local library or better yet just go to a doctor and ask him/her what they think about wood alcohol and human
consumption.
but regarding studies and aspartame www.janethull.com...
try that link and youll find a few studies.
Aspartame has been renamed and is now being marketed as a natural sweetener , page 6
reply posted on 13-2-2010 @ 09:27 AM by StrangeBrew
reply to post by Astyanax
In what zany version of reality do you occupy to believe that the FDA even remotely cares about your well-being?
They exist purely to protect the industries that give it money. It isn't the first time a regulatory body's only purpose is to fool the common citizen into thinking they are there to protect them.
In what zany version of reality do you occupy to believe that the FDA even remotely cares about your well-being?
They exist purely to protect the industries that give it money. It isn't the first time a regulatory body's only purpose is to fool the common citizen into thinking they are there to protect them.
reply posted on 13-2-2010 @ 09:55 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by zerbot565
Thank you for the link. Three studies were mentioned on the page.
One of them, referred to by Janet Hull as the 'Greek Study', actually concludes that aspartame does not cause any of the pathologies investigated at recommended dosages, but did so at what the paper calls 'abuse doses', many times higher than what one might normally expect to consume--in other words, the stuff did no harm if not consumed in unfeasible quantities.
A second, referred to by Hull as the 'Spanish Study', is criticized for its failure to consider and cite earlier work, as well as for methodological flaws, here.
The third, which she calls the Italian Study, seems to have been published in a non-peer-reviewed journal, though I may be wrong on this.
None of the above comments invalidates any of the studies, but I'm sure you'll agree that they do raise disquieting questions about reliability and replicability.
The scientific bona fides of Janet Hull, on the other hand, are highly questionable. I grew suspicious when I read the 'About Dr. Janet Hull' page on her site and found no reference to any medical qualification. Instead, she claims a doctorate in nutrition here but this turns out to be from an unaccredited 'natural health college' peddling alternative medicine degrees. Quackwatch warns the public to beware of the college and its graduates.
'Dr.' Hull is, I learn from Google, the author of a book about the supposed dangers of aspartame. She is, therefore, an interested party, hardly an unbiased source of information. This inclines me to take the studies she cites with a large grain of salt.
I'm afraid we need something a little more definite than this before we get too worked up about the awfulness of aspartame.
Please don't conclude from the above that I'm defending aspartame. Personally, I do not consume artificial sweeteners of any kind; I don't have much of a sweet tooth anyway, and when I do eat or drink something sweet, the sweetening agent is invariably sugar. All I am trying to do is introduce an element of rationality into the present discussion, which seems to me somewhat lacking in it.
Thank you for the link. Three studies were mentioned on the page.
One of them, referred to by Janet Hull as the 'Greek Study', actually concludes that aspartame does not cause any of the pathologies investigated at recommended dosages, but did so at what the paper calls 'abuse doses', many times higher than what one might normally expect to consume--in other words, the stuff did no harm if not consumed in unfeasible quantities.
A second, referred to by Hull as the 'Spanish Study', is criticized for its failure to consider and cite earlier work, as well as for methodological flaws, here.
The third, which she calls the Italian Study, seems to have been published in a non-peer-reviewed journal, though I may be wrong on this.
None of the above comments invalidates any of the studies, but I'm sure you'll agree that they do raise disquieting questions about reliability and replicability.
The scientific bona fides of Janet Hull, on the other hand, are highly questionable. I grew suspicious when I read the 'About Dr. Janet Hull' page on her site and found no reference to any medical qualification. Instead, she claims a doctorate in nutrition here but this turns out to be from an unaccredited 'natural health college' peddling alternative medicine degrees. Quackwatch warns the public to beware of the college and its graduates.
'Dr.' Hull is, I learn from Google, the author of a book about the supposed dangers of aspartame. She is, therefore, an interested party, hardly an unbiased source of information. This inclines me to take the studies she cites with a large grain of salt.
I'm afraid we need something a little more definite than this before we get too worked up about the awfulness of aspartame.
Please don't conclude from the above that I'm defending aspartame. Personally, I do not consume artificial sweeteners of any kind; I don't have much of a sweet tooth anyway, and when I do eat or drink something sweet, the sweetening agent is invariably sugar. All I am trying to do is introduce an element of rationality into the present discussion, which seems to me somewhat lacking in it.
reply posted on 13-2-2010 @ 09:55 AM by moocowman
reply to post by ModernAcademia
Thanks for posting this, I consider it valuable information.
Coincidentally this week I noticed that Asda (the UK arm of Wal Mart) has rebranded its' cola as "Aspartame free" and a couple of months ago Tesco (Uk biggest retailer) were practically giving away Nutrasweet.
Now you posted this info the dots can be connected and I smell a big rat.
Once again thanks for the awareness S&F
Thanks for posting this, I consider it valuable information.
Coincidentally this week I noticed that Asda (the UK arm of Wal Mart) has rebranded its' cola as "Aspartame free" and a couple of months ago Tesco (Uk biggest retailer) were practically giving away Nutrasweet.
Now you posted this info the dots can be connected and I smell a big rat.
Once again thanks for the awareness S&F
reply posted on 13-2-2010 @ 11:58 AM by troubleshooter
reply to post by ModernAcademia
According to Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock Aspartame actually burns out an area of the brain that tells you, 'you have eaten enough'...
...so while marketed as 'diet' it can actually contribute to obesity.
According to Neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock Aspartame actually burns out an area of the brain that tells you, 'you have eaten enough'...
...so while marketed as 'diet' it can actually contribute to obesity.
reply posted on 13-2-2010 @ 03:58 PM by Blaine91555
reply to post by ModernAcademia
Wow, more than 100 flags!!!
If I were to ask you to produce a single peer reviewed published study showing aspartame to be a health risk at levels even higher than could be reasonably consumed; you would not be able to. Why, because none exist. Only studies by people of questionable repute or in some cases sanity can be pointed out.
Why is that? I'm sure there is a financial reason behind all this. Health food product hoaxes, irrational people spreading their own paranoia and most notably a single hoax claiming the studies that lead to its initial approval for sale were rigged somehow. I'm sure somebody had a financial reason to stop the sale of this safe product. Perhaps the hoax was started by the sugar lobby which is very powerful.
In fact I'm fairly positive that is where the truth is and that the sugar industry still has its minions saturating the web with these myths. The phonies posting the so called evidence they fabricate may well be on the sugar industries payroll.
Nobody will ever convince fanatical health food customers of the truth and the health food merchants stock and trade is mislead people into paying huge prices for their so called natural products that are often dangerous themselves. Ironically, many products on these snake oil salesman shelves contain plenty of sugars themselves, so of course they don't want you using a substitute.
People completely close their eyes to the fact that you would have to eat so much aspartame to have a negative effect, you simply could never eat even a small part of that much in a lifetime. Even water is toxic at certain levels.
It's a shame that this anti-aspartame hoax is being pushed on a site like ATS but it is inevitable it would be. One thing is for sure, those clicking on the flag button, have never checked this out for real and are being led around by their nose by liars and hoaxers. How does it feel to be that gullible?
Some wise advice on these health topics -
-Look for peer reviewed studies that are published in recognized journals.
-Be very leary of "Dr." before a persons name. They are not MD's in many if not most cases to do with these topics. Many are Doctors of Divinity from fake Universities and others are Dr.'s but in a subject unrelated entirely. Don't let "Dr." fool you.
-This one I actually did myself. Gather up a list of all the various names of sugar used in labeling. Go to your local health food market. Be ready to be shocked at the number of products spiked with sugar to hook you on them. While your at it check out the health claims on the packaging and be again prepared for a shock when you check them out and find they are pure fiction.
The Health Food and Vitamin / Supplement industry is probably one of the most corrupt industries on this planet. Sadly their own customers do most of the dirty work for them, thinking they are doing right, not knowing they have been tricked. Spreading hoaxes and lies about legitimate products without knowing they are doing it. Harming innocent businesses while helping enrich snake oil salesman.
Remember if somebody you trust tells you a product will do something positive for your health and then hands you a worthless sugar pill, you will experience those results due to the placebo effect. The same also works in reverse. You can have imaginary negative effects to nearly anything if a person you trust says you will. It's imaginary of course, but you don't know that.
I'll get flamed for this, but perhaps some reading will actually check this out themselves and realize what is really going on. If you do, you will never look at the health food, vitamin / supplement industries the same way again.
Before you take a swig of the $60 a pint, nasty tasting /smelling crap you bought from a health food expert who was a Burger King employee just a month ago, check it out. That little boost from the B12, chromium and sugar can be had far cheaper. Realize that when your in a health food store that most items on the shelves are misrepresented, overpriced and for the most part placebo's. Some are even dangerous. Way more dangerous since they never went through the studies that products like the one being lied about in this thread have.
Go ahead and flame me now. Have fun. You can't prove me wrong though. Those paranoid of their health are the easiest targets for con games.
[edit on 2/13/2010 by Blaine91555]
Wow, more than 100 flags!!!
If I were to ask you to produce a single peer reviewed published study showing aspartame to be a health risk at levels even higher than could be reasonably consumed; you would not be able to. Why, because none exist. Only studies by people of questionable repute or in some cases sanity can be pointed out.
Why is that? I'm sure there is a financial reason behind all this. Health food product hoaxes, irrational people spreading their own paranoia and most notably a single hoax claiming the studies that lead to its initial approval for sale were rigged somehow. I'm sure somebody had a financial reason to stop the sale of this safe product. Perhaps the hoax was started by the sugar lobby which is very powerful.
In fact I'm fairly positive that is where the truth is and that the sugar industry still has its minions saturating the web with these myths. The phonies posting the so called evidence they fabricate may well be on the sugar industries payroll.
Nobody will ever convince fanatical health food customers of the truth and the health food merchants stock and trade is mislead people into paying huge prices for their so called natural products that are often dangerous themselves. Ironically, many products on these snake oil salesman shelves contain plenty of sugars themselves, so of course they don't want you using a substitute.
People completely close their eyes to the fact that you would have to eat so much aspartame to have a negative effect, you simply could never eat even a small part of that much in a lifetime. Even water is toxic at certain levels.
It's a shame that this anti-aspartame hoax is being pushed on a site like ATS but it is inevitable it would be. One thing is for sure, those clicking on the flag button, have never checked this out for real and are being led around by their nose by liars and hoaxers. How does it feel to be that gullible?
Some wise advice on these health topics -
-Look for peer reviewed studies that are published in recognized journals.
-Be very leary of "Dr." before a persons name. They are not MD's in many if not most cases to do with these topics. Many are Doctors of Divinity from fake Universities and others are Dr.'s but in a subject unrelated entirely. Don't let "Dr." fool you.
-This one I actually did myself. Gather up a list of all the various names of sugar used in labeling. Go to your local health food market. Be ready to be shocked at the number of products spiked with sugar to hook you on them. While your at it check out the health claims on the packaging and be again prepared for a shock when you check them out and find they are pure fiction.
The Health Food and Vitamin / Supplement industry is probably one of the most corrupt industries on this planet. Sadly their own customers do most of the dirty work for them, thinking they are doing right, not knowing they have been tricked. Spreading hoaxes and lies about legitimate products without knowing they are doing it. Harming innocent businesses while helping enrich snake oil salesman.
Remember if somebody you trust tells you a product will do something positive for your health and then hands you a worthless sugar pill, you will experience those results due to the placebo effect. The same also works in reverse. You can have imaginary negative effects to nearly anything if a person you trust says you will. It's imaginary of course, but you don't know that.
I'll get flamed for this, but perhaps some reading will actually check this out themselves and realize what is really going on. If you do, you will never look at the health food, vitamin / supplement industries the same way again.
Before you take a swig of the $60 a pint, nasty tasting /smelling crap you bought from a health food expert who was a Burger King employee just a month ago, check it out. That little boost from the B12, chromium and sugar can be had far cheaper. Realize that when your in a health food store that most items on the shelves are misrepresented, overpriced and for the most part placebo's. Some are even dangerous. Way more dangerous since they never went through the studies that products like the one being lied about in this thread have.
Go ahead and flame me now. Have fun. You can't prove me wrong though. Those paranoid of their health are the easiest targets for con games.
[edit on 2/13/2010 by Blaine91555]
reply posted on 13-2-2010 @ 07:51 PM by dbloch7986
Originally posted by BenJammin
One more natural sweetener worth looking into is called Xylitol.. it's made from Birch trees and is actually GOOD for you in several ways! It does not affect your blood sugar like cane sugar and agave nectar, thus safe for diabetics, and it protects your teeth from decay if used enough. I bought 2 lbs for $16 but I bet it can be found cheaper.
Wikipedia: Xylitol
However you can't bake with it because yeast won't process it like it does sugar.
I was looking for someone else that uses it. I love xylitol. The only problem is that it can cause diarreah because of the natural antibiotic properties. So eat it in small quantities.
reply posted on 13-2-2010 @ 11:26 PM by Astyanax
reply to post by Blaine91555
A star for your post and a big
too. Your guess is correct.
From last week's Economist:
The 'divine ambrosia', or flavour of the month if you prefer, is... you guessed it.
I notice a lot of health-food freaks on this thread are already pushing stevia like the blazes. No, they aren't 'paid disinformationists'; just dupes who don't realize that whether it's sugar, aspartame, sucralose (Splenda) or stevia makes no difference to the huge food companies that make the processed treats people love to slurp and gobble; all they want is for you to buy their products, and they'll sweeten them with whatever you presently feel comfortable with, so long as it isn't too expensive and cuts into their profits.
More interesting facts from that Economist article:
Are the scales beginning to fall from your eyes, conspiracy-crazed innocents on this thread? Perhaps this Reuters story will bring further illumination:
And why would that be?
Aspartame and Splenda are both corn products. They have become less profitable to their manufacturers--partly because of the recession, as mentioned in the Reuters story, but also because the same people who once bought aspartame and sucralose because they were afraid of real sugar have now developed a fear of those sweeteners too. Coca-Cola, Pepsico and the rest don't want to scare away their customers, so what do they do? They switch to a new brand of sweetener, stevia. That creates an opportunity for entrepreneurs and investors, who promptly begin to talk up the new product in hopes of getting more people to consume it, and also to drive up the share price of the company that produces it.
Right now, the stevia PR machine is in full spate:
The people knocking aspartame and promoting stevia (and Splenda) on this thread are simply doing Big Sugar's work for them--exactly as you said, Blaine91555. Having swallowed the whole bill of goods (but it tasted so sweet!), they are now regurgitating it online for the benefit of Merisant, Tate & Lyle, Cargill and Coca-Cola, who profit from their foolish credulity and entirely undeserved credibility as sources in forums like this one.
I have often wondered the same thing, especially when I see the same usernames popping up time after time on ATS to promote the latest woowoo fad or flavour. Don't these people ever learn?
A star for your post and a big
too. Your guess is correct. From last week's Economist:
Merisant, which makes Equal, an aspartame sweetener, declared bankruptcy in January 2009, having been caught out by changing tastes. This month the firm emerged from bankruptcy ready for a comeback. It is betting heavily on the industry’s new divine ambrosia: a fake sugar that is natural.
The 'divine ambrosia', or flavour of the month if you prefer, is... you guessed it.
The latest pretender is stevia, a shrub, and a sweetener extracted from it that was cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration in December 2008. In some ways stevia is ideal. It contains no calories. It is natural. It also happens to taste like odious liquorice.
Yet America’s food giants have thrown their weight behind it. Merisant, partnered with PepsiCo, and Cargill, with Coca-Cola, promptly introduced PureVia and Truvia, improving stevia’s taste with natural ingredients. In supermarkets, green-and-white boxes of PureVia and Truvia now beckon to shoppers with promises of being “all natural” and “nature’s perfect sweetness”.
I notice a lot of health-food freaks on this thread are already pushing stevia like the blazes. No, they aren't 'paid disinformationists'; just dupes who don't realize that whether it's sugar, aspartame, sucralose (Splenda) or stevia makes no difference to the huge food companies that make the processed treats people love to slurp and gobble; all they want is for you to buy their products, and they'll sweeten them with whatever you presently feel comfortable with, so long as it isn't too expensive and cuts into their profits.
More interesting facts from that Economist article:
- Merisant, which makes Equal (aspartame) is also the maker of PureVia and Truvia (stevia)
- Splenda is marketed by Tate & Lyle Nutritionals, one of the world's biggest sugar companies.
Are the scales beginning to fall from your eyes, conspiracy-crazed innocents on this thread? Perhaps this Reuters story will bring further illumination:
Tate & Lyle Warns of Lower Sweetener Margins
Britain's Tate & Lyle said margins at its U.S. corn sweetener business would fall 10 percent in 2010 and lead to marginally lower profit due to the fall in prices agreed for its sweetener and starches.
And why would that be?
U.S. corn millers such as Tate, privately-owned Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland agree pricing for sweeteners at the start of the year with buyers like drinks makers Coca-Cola Co, PepsiCo and Dr Pepper Snapple.
Aspartame and Splenda are both corn products. They have become less profitable to their manufacturers--partly because of the recession, as mentioned in the Reuters story, but also because the same people who once bought aspartame and sucralose because they were afraid of real sugar have now developed a fear of those sweeteners too. Coca-Cola, Pepsico and the rest don't want to scare away their customers, so what do they do? They switch to a new brand of sweetener, stevia. That creates an opportunity for entrepreneurs and investors, who promptly begin to talk up the new product in hopes of getting more people to consume it, and also to drive up the share price of the company that produces it.
Right now, the stevia PR machine is in full spate:
What's Next for Stevia? Experts from GLG Life Tech Corp Share Views
What's next in Stevia's emergence as a mainstream sweetener? The Stevia World Americas Webinar, "Stevia-Taking the Next Steps" will see Senior Management from GLG Life Tech Corp, one of the world's leading producers of stevia extracts, share on the future of Stevia...
PR Web, 10 February
GLG Life Tech Corporation Announces New Line of Stevia Products
GLG Life Tech Corporation is a global leader in the supply of high purity stevia, an all natural, zero-calorie sweetener used in food and beverages. The Company's vertically integrated operations cover each step in the stevia supply chain... CNN Money, 19 January:
PureCircle Set for Sweet Deal with Major Sugar Company
The product will be a combination of Reb A and ordinary sugar, and its unique selling point is that it will be 100 per cent natural, while offering just half the calories of sugar alone. Reb A is derived from the stevia plant... The Independent on Sunday
The people knocking aspartame and promoting stevia (and Splenda) on this thread are simply doing Big Sugar's work for them--exactly as you said, Blaine91555. Having swallowed the whole bill of goods (but it tasted so sweet!), they are now regurgitating it online for the benefit of Merisant, Tate & Lyle, Cargill and Coca-Cola, who profit from their foolish credulity and entirely undeserved credibility as sources in forums like this one.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
It's a shame that this anti-aspartame hoax is being pushed on a site like ATS but it is inevitable it would be. One thing is for sure, those clicking on the flag button, have never checked this out for real and are being led around by their nose by liars and hoaxers. How does it feel to be that gullible?
I have often wondered the same thing, especially when I see the same usernames popping up time after time on ATS to promote the latest woowoo fad or flavour. Don't these people ever learn?
reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 03:54 AM by v01i0
Okay well, since this thread is some 6 pages long and I don't have time to read through all the replies I have no idea whether this has been already
posted: According to sources, aspartame metabolizes:
Source
Then about toxicity of methanol:
Source
About the 'health effects' of formic acid:
Source
I don't know about others, but for me it clearly says that it is a substance to be avoided.
-v
[edit on 14-2-2010 by v01i0]
Upon ingestion, aspartame breaks down into natural residual components, including aspartic acid, phenylalanine, methanol, and further breakdown products including formaldehyde, formic acid, and a diketopiperazine.
Source
Then about toxicity of methanol:
Methanol has a high toxicity in humans. If ingested, as little as 10 mL can cause permanent blindness by destruction of the optic nerve and 30 mL is potentially fatal, although the usual fatal dose is typically 100–125 mL (4 fl oz).
Source
About the 'health effects' of formic acid:
Formic acid is readily metabolized and eliminated by the body. Nonetheless, it has specific toxic effects; the formic acid and formaldehyde produced as metabolites of methanol are responsible for the optic nerve damage causing blindness seen in methanol poisoning.
Source
I don't know about others, but for me it clearly says that it is a substance to be avoided.
-v
[edit on 14-2-2010 by v01i0]
reply posted on 14-2-2010 @ 09:38 AM by Reevster
Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by ModernAcademia
-Look for peer reviewed studies that are published in recognized journals.
[edit on 2/13/2010 by Blaine91555]
Who pays for the peers research / studies ? Just follow the money ...you can buy off anyone and twist research to make anything look good....
Russia announces enormous finds of radioactive waste and nuclear reactors in Arctic seas
Posted 12 days ago with 49 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 49 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
California wants to treat 'E Cigarettes' like normal cigarettes.
General Conspiracies: 8 hours ago, 17 flags
General Conspiracies: 8 hours ago, 17 flags
AFTER MIDNIGHT: 107: Ridin' Into Town... *** Thanks For Tuning In !!! ***
ATS Live: 14 hours ago, 15 flags
ATS Live: 14 hours ago, 15 flags
Revealed: Obama Donor Sat in on IG Interviews with IRS Employees
Breaking Political News: 16 hours ago, 14 flags
Breaking Political News: 16 hours ago, 14 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.300 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.300 seconds
