NEW! Self-Funded Study Found HUGE Tumors from This Everyday Food - Cause For Alarm!

reply to post by boncho

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by beckybecky

 

Question is what are you going to do about it?


I urge everyone to print this out and spread it around via facebook and twitter,etc as the mainstream media will not mention this at all.

I urge everyone to recreate the experiment in their homes, because this is not ironclad proof. The experiment needs to be recreated. Spamming unverified information around the internet as fact will not help anyone.

It is not expensive to do a test like this, two mouse cages, a bunch of mice and some artificial sweetener.

why not buy [or torrent if you're cheap] the book and then post a complete debunking instead?

oh wait....

that would interfere with you're regular job

"Victoria Inness-Brown conducted a personal two and a half-year experiment on the effects of aspartame, probably the worst of the artificial sweeteners on the market.

I urge everyone to recreate the experiment in their homes, because this is not ironclad proof. The experiment needs to be recreated. Spamming unverified information around the internet as fact will not help anyone.

It is not expensive to do a test like this, two mouse cages, a bunch of mice and some artificial sweetener.

suuurrrre dude,
let's waste 2.5 MORE years so that the monsters can keep on poisoning people


USDA Certified Organic’s Dirty Little Secret: Neotame

I was wrong about having to run your own experiments anyway. There has been some studies out there done to show cancer rates rise in mice and rats when given aspartame. Good thing I don't eat things that contain aspartame.

okay never mind


i read somewhere [probably here] that aspartame will kill ants

reply to post by boncho


SIGH!!!!

that's the same attitude Siddhartha had when he became enlightened.
he almost didn't bother. however. a voice from heaven told him to never mind all the ignorant folks and to teach his message for the few that would understand. the rest is history.


ps that's a hint by the way

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


I think people misunderstand me in this forum. For some reason it seems like a lot of people think I'm trying to "debunk" stuff.

Nowhere in this thread did I advocate eating aspartame. But if it is ever to be removed from the market, bunk information is not going to help that cause. That is why I feel whenever dealing with something that is misrepresented, the data that contradicts the current perception should be ironclad.

I appreciate that you changed your tone of post near the end. But I do want to add just one thing:

A chemist I used to work with sat around with me while we perused conspiracy sites and ideas. We used to get a great laugh out of some of the info posted. One of the most common themes we had amongst ourselves though, was how we could make up hundreds of different theories and/or false data that people would buy into.

We joked about it continuously, so much that it was a ongoing routine in the office. In fact, we joked about monetizing the ideas and how we could rally thousands into believing ideas that were completely made up.

The ideas we had never went past anything than cooler talk, but my point is, is how should we treat emotional accounts and data created by emotional people? How should we treat all data that is released on the net? (especially youtube and blogs....)

While I personally believe aspartame serves no reasonable purpose, unless there are unbiased studies to support my ideas I will not come out and say word for word what some people claim on the net. I will also, seldom support people with agendas.

I make all my foods from vegetables, meat and flour. No processed and no manufactured food for me. I recommend the same for everyone else. As far as aspartame goes, it's the tip of the iceberg. Instead of getting mad about everything, I just recommend people research for themselves and make their own decisions. It is up to the individual to choose what to eat, but sometimes they have to read between the lines, and sometimes they have to ignore the sensationalists.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibits the use of benzene in foods.

Coca-Cola "oops"

Baby food "oops".

Food products containing carrots were analyzed for benzene contamination using headspace gas chromatography with mass spectrometric detection. Of 82 commercial samples, 88% contained benzene above the detection limit of 0.04 µg/kg. Canned and jarred carrots contained 0.2 µg/kg of benzene on average.

If you consume one, you may not want to consume the other?

Benzene in soft drinks.

Have you had your daily dose of vitamin C today?

Canada

Samples of 118 different soft drink and beverage products containing benzoates (used as a preservative) were analyzed for levels of benzene, and results are provided in Survey of Benzene in Soft Drinks and other Beverage Products. The results from 67 of the samples (representing 63 unique products) were available for assessment at the time of writing this report, and are shown in Appendix 2. Five samples of cherry-flavoured Kool-Aid Jammers "10" (Kraft) and one sample of tropical punch-flavoured Kool-Aid Jammers "10" (Kraft) contained elevated levels of benzene (14.0 to 17.6 ng/mL). The manufacturer has reformulated these products. Of the remaining 14 positive samples, three were concentrates that require dilution prior to consumption, and contained between 6.3 and 10.3 ng/mL benzene, three were samples of various flavours of Kool-Aid Jammers (sweetened with glucose-fructose as opposed to Kool-Aid Jammers "10" which are sweetened using sucralose and acesulfame-potassium) that contained between 3.1 and 3.8 ng/mL benzene, and the remaining positive samples contained less than 3 ng/mL.

Health Canada has concluded that soft drinks and other beverages available for sale in Canada are safe, based on these findings and on the actions taken by the producers to reformulate products where necessary.

Comforting really....

1


As I said earlier, it's up to the customer to choose what they eat. Even though there are some 'slip ups' in the food industry. I should remind everyone that even with direct exposure to some of these noxious chemicals, a lot of people are resistant. The old saying "mad scientist" was from researchers directly exposing themselves to some pretty serious stuff. While technology has improved, many lab workers are still exposed to high amounts of volatiles yet go on to live a normal healthy life.

It is all up to you and how good your system is at dealing with poison. It is everyone's choice what they eat. And it is up to them to get info and make choices accordingly.

reply to post by boncho


to paraphrase:

I think people misunderstand me in this forum. For some reason it seems like a lot of people think I'm trying to "troll" stuff .

no problem, and thanks for the links

benzene

i have to admit to some emotionality re what seems to be a systematic agenda to poison people, i had to watch as my grandma who was always a strong willed person literally fall apart before my eyes. at 95 she had six massive strokes; the doctors who over the years had given up on her on many an occasion only to miraculously bounce back gave her a month she spent the last nine months in agony as a mindless,gibbering shell of what she was. so i guess it bothers me to see that while "poison x" is recognized as dangerous it's still in a product and there seems to either be no effort to deal with the problem, or "the authorities are working with private industry to deal with this problem expeditiously" we all know how that "works out". just like the GOM.
y'know what i mean, i read once that a can of corned beef has to have at least 5 bits of rat crap in it, for it to be deemed unsafe...

WTF!!!!!!!

why not 0 lumps of crap? what is wrong with these a-holes!!!

and mind you, i'm open minded to consider the possibility that it may not be a conspiracy at all, it could simply be the general sloppiness/incompetence/laziness/no pride in ones work that has been on the rise for decades, Ayn Rand explains it much better IMO, [though i disagree with her "calvinistic" view of "the poor"]

of course it doesn't really matter if it's intentional or not,
if the final results are the same.

as for me " that which does not kill me makes me stronger", [my studies on these things have actually shown me that i must have a monster immune system like Wolverine's or The Midnighter ] but i still feel that there are more than enough poisons in a completely natural environment, why add more? and how much healthier would i be if i weren't "strengthening my immune system"

can't wait to get back to the states and grow my own food myself.


from the shadows,
DLE

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Here is an interesting perspective for everyone:
Aloe Vera gives rats tumors.

Uh oh...

reply to post by boncho


i suppose this is an example of what you mentioned you and your freind discussing.

from their fact sheet:

www.niehs.nih.gov...

Why did the NTP study Aloe?
The nomination to study Aloe
vera came from the National
Cancer Institute, because of Aloe’s
widespread use and concern that
some components may cause cancer.
The NTP studies on Aloe vera were
conducted in collaboration with the
Food and Drug Administration’s
National Center for Toxicological
Research.

interesting that the National Cancer Institute [and the usual suspects i might add] is "concerned that
some components may cause cancer."

when quite a few studies indicate the contrary:

Aloe Vera:Cancer Tumors Regress...in 29/30 Participants curezone.com...

Several scientific studies have found evidence that aloe may have anti-cancer abilities.
Shamaan et al.12 found that vitamin C and Aloe vera extract were able to reduce the severity of chemical hepatocarcinogenesis, which is the development of liver cancer. In this study, the researchers chemically induced liver cancer in rats and then examined the severity of the process of cancer development. When vitamin C or Aloe vera supplements were given to the cancer-induced rats, these previously increased biochemical indicators of cancer were suppressed. In particular, plasma levels of the enzyme gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase were found to be "reduced as early as 1 month with Aloe vera gel supplementation and 2 months with vitamin C supplementation."

European Journal of Cancer Prevention:
April 2007 - Volume 16 - Issue 2 - pp 151-157
doi: 10.1097/01.cej.0000220642.54094.16
Research papers: Other Cancers
Effect of Aloe vera leaf pulp extract on Ehrlich ascites tumours in mice

Akev, Nuriyea; Turkay, Gulhanb; Can, Aysea; Gurel, Aydnci; Yildiz, Fundac; Yardibi, Hasretb; Ekiz, Elif Erguld; Uzun, Hafizee
Collapse Box
Abstract

Among the various known therapeutic effects of Aloe vera (L.) Burm. fil., a few recent studies have shown that preparations of the plant leaves can prevent or regress the growth of certain tumours. In this study, undertaken with A. vera leaf pulp extract against Ehrlich ascites tumours in mice, the animals were separated into five groups: I - healthy control, II - tumour control, III - experiment 1 (extract given before tumour inoculation), IV - experiment 2 (extract given with tumour inoculation) and V - experiment 3 (extract given after tumour inoculation). Ehrlich ascites tumours (0.33 ml) were injected subcutaneously into groups II-V. Aloe extract was injected at 55 mg protein/kg, twice a week for 21 days. Tumour size, thymus and spleen weights were measured, as well as leucocyte count, tumour necrosis factor-a and sialic acid as tumour markers. The best inhibitory effect on tumour growth was obtained with the extract given prophylactically before tumour implantation (experiment 1), although Aloe extract also regressed tumour sizes when given simultaneously with (experiment 2), or therapeutically after (experiment 3), tumour implantation. Accordingly, serum sialic acid and tumour necrosis factor-a levels, chosen as tumour markers, which were raised in the tumour control group, were significantly decreased by the prophylactic administration of the extract. The increase in leucocyte count seen in experiment 1 and 2 groups, along with lymphoid hyperplasia observed in spleen and thymus necroscopy, lead us to think that the tumour preventive effect of Aloe could be due to its immunomodulatory activity. According to our results, A. vera could be proposed as a prophylactic for cancer prevention.

Source: journals.lww.com...

again from the fact sheet:

The two-year NTP study of a
non-decolorized whole leaf extract
of Aloe vera given in an animal’s
drinking water found clear evidence
of carcinogenic activity in male and
female rats, based on tumors of the
large intestine. There was no evidence
of carcinogenic activity in mice.

NTP did not conduct two-year
studies of ingestion of the Aloe vera
gel or of the plant’s decolorized
whole leaf extracts

The difference between decolorized
and non-decolorized whole leaf
extracts is mostly in how the leaf
is processed or filtered. In many
cases, manufacturers of oral
products containing Aloe vera
use a charcoal filtration process to
decolorize and remove some of the
components from the leaf, including
anthraquinones. Anthraquinones act
like laxatives. Some anthraquinones
have previously been shown to be
carcinogenic

it sort of reminds me of the thc-solvent mix "experiment" that "proved" that THC could damage your genes.

why can't they use the original substances? why is it always an analog or reasonable facsimile that is used?

sorry dude, i know you're just kidding around and i understand and agree that we have to investigate ourselves and not take anybodys word for it, but i can't help it when i see this kind of cherry-picking,sloppy science as promoted by government.

just to show that i see your point:

from your new scientist article:

Lois Swirsky Gold at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies cancer hazards, notes that about half of all chemicals tested in rodents at high doses cause cancer, whether natural or synthetic.
"People are consuming herbal supplements with the idea that they're beneficial," she says. "The truth is that we know very little about their benefits or their risks. Just because they are 'natural' does not make them safe."

which would apply to aspartame as well.

as all things in excess are bad for you.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

Lois Swirsky Gold at the University of California, Berkeley, who studies cancer hazards, notes that about half of all chemicals tested in rodents at high doses cause cancer, whether natural or synthetic. "People are consuming herbal supplements with the idea that they're beneficial," she says. "The truth is that we know very little about their benefits or their risks. Just because they are 'natural' does not make them safe."

This quote that you posted is exactly what I was talking about. Informed choices don't have to be made out of fear or emotional reaction.

It's just a matter of being calculated. If you want to look at a very interesting take on nutrition, look up the Gracie family. Well known in the Jujitsu community. I am not saying their methods are 100% accurate, but a very healthy family that basically made a martial art form what it is today, done through a strict lifestyle.

Gracie was able to utilize the same Jiu-Jitsu techniques which he helped to develop until his death. He was 95 years old, and was teaching/training on the mat until 10 days before his death, when he became ill.

Diet

Ok so why not do something productive....like for example compiling a list of drinks, juices, sodas, water cources that aren't poisoned.

As of now diet soft drinks will kill you, regular soft drinks will kill you, the powdered drink mixes like Crystal Light contain aspartame and other chems, the water if filled with flouride and animal waste and who knows what, bottled water is found in many cases to be stagnant and contain harmful microbes.


Just what are we supposed to drink?

It sounds like by comparison malt liqour may be the safest beverage on the market.

reply to post by beckybecky


#1

Mecrola isn't a good source. He's too out there.

#2

Neither is this woman.

Aspartame is still bad for you.

So what do I do? I don't drink, or eat it.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

 

Here is an interesting perspective for everyone:
Aloe Vera gives rats tumors.

Uh oh...

edit on 11-4-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Tumors in rats are the most common medical problem rats and mice have behind respiratory ailments. Esp., as pets. Where as medical facilities take precautions towards conflicts in the study, one might say a self study may not be conclusive...

I'm not dismissing her claims and I do believe aspartame is very harmful. Though, if a study is not performed correctly, ex. not meeting the dietary needs of the laboratory animals and such in the case with rats, they may develop tumors not related to the chemical or test in question. With the aspartame study study,The picture shown of the rat, shows a tumor similar or not just like in observation to a female rat's mammary tumor(very common in unspayed females). Though, a paragraph states that the Vet found tumors not noticeable on the outside of the rat's body.
Can hope her studies prove to be conclusive so aspartame companies don't try to dismiss her findings.

reply to post by dreamingawake


Lets also note that affiliation is important..

It's much less likely that data obtained in a private home by one person doing an experiment is going to given any time of day in this instance by anyone that makes decisions.

However if there had been a rigorous laboratory or university group that performs a similar study, then it my actually even be considered.

Our dear made a valid point earlier... I don't think you can generalize this sort of thing, but that still makes me concerned that so- called experts and health departments can label something good or bad.

It's like there's no real interest in what components cause damage to which set of dna combinations which would be far more interesting.