New Study Reveals: Aspartame Damages The Brain at Any Dose!

page: 4
52
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Pagedisciple
 


Your last bit has misrepresented my stance. Shame on you! Same for thd beginning statement. I specificappy mentioned to look online.




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


I quoted you directly & you say I misrepresented you? LOL --


Look online where? I gave you links? You stinks.
TELL ME WHAT OTHER GUM YOU HAVE SEEN IN ANY CHECK OUT ANYWHERE THAT HAS SUGAR??? I have NOT -- I want store names/addresses, product identification, etc,... GIVE ME ONE OTHER NAME BRAND OTHER THAN FRUIT F%$#ING STRIPE IF I AM MISREPRESENTING YOUR STATEMENTS!!!

Krizzist on a krizzacker man!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by moniesisfun
Assumptions made in this thread:

1. All gum contains aspartame.

Incorrect. The last time I looked at gum from the local market, this was correct. It doesn't mean you can't find gum that doesn't contain aspartame. A quick google search proves this to be true.


reply to post by Pagedisciple
 


To put it lightly, you're an idiot.

link

edit on 10-10-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


Lol, Name calling now? What is it they say about those who use name calling in an argument? Remember this folks, money=love started the name calling.. you loser.

Ha, to put it simply -- you STILL haven't named ONE F%$#ING gum,..in a store that you frequent -- come on Einstein, you have "the google."

My cursory glance turns up Big Red,.. www.google.com...:en-US
fficial&client=firefox-a there, was that so hard to do?

Oh and, you haven't named one gum, because you either can't or won't,.. you're an assoul who's user name here easily identifies you as someone who is a sell out.

You haven't the acumen to call me names or educate me, you blathering fetid arse-bonnet.

Your BS is stinking up the place,.. NAME ONE STORE YOU'VE BEEN TO THAT HAS ALL THIS SUGARY GUM!!!!!
Or STFU -- it's easy really. When one isn't wearing their anus as a hat that is.

MODS -- he started it, I just won't put up with it!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by UziLiberman
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


your math is correct and looking at it like that it would be easy to dismiss.

yet you are neglecting the fact aspartame as well as other artificial sweeteners are ever more present in processed foods and general consumption items. small doses do stack up

you are also ignoring the fact that aspartame is highly addictive.

when i was growing up one chewing gum would entertain you for an hour, these days people go over one entire pack in an hour. as with other examples of junk food filled with it.

all those small and harmless doses stack up and are not easily flushed by the organism, add that to other chemicals and poisons present in food and you still want to bypass this toxic cocktail as harmless?



There is NO WAY that, if you follow the FDA guidelines, the amount of aspartame you consume, in a long long lifetime, will come within even 2-3% of what they gave rats, in six months.

That's got to be the point.

If you use a study to prove a point, make sure it's a reasonable study. If it's not than you're only undercutting your point, as have happened here.

If they had given a rate a relative amount of aspartame, relative to safe human levels, as determined by the FDA, and the rats had developed side effects, sure, that's a huge worry, even give them 50x the normal limit, sure, let's all freak out, but giving the thousands of times more, for months on end, that's not a cause for alarm.

Shouting that it proves aspartame is deadly poison only shows either a) an agenda not based on the study and based on some other interest, or b) a complete misunderstanding of the study.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
So, five minutes of googleing and guess what...

There is a wide-spread internet hoax, based on an unscientific report, that started most of this nonsense.

en.wikipedia.org...

Aspartame has been approved not just by the FDA, but by the food and drug testing authorities in 90+ countries.

I can't get milk with BGH in Europe, but I can easily get aspartame, because no reputable scientific evidence exists that it is harmful, even cumulatively, at the levels humans can reasonably ingest.

That's the result of literally dozens of peer reviewed papers, from around the world.

Go read that link, follow the sources out and read them as well... note however that a simple search for aspartame is going to turn up dozens of fringe blogs all pushing completely nonsensical claims.... learn to separate science from fearmongering.

Deny some actual ignorance.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


Great,
I'll stick to sugar in small amounts & watch what I eat, thanks.
grist.org...
Sugar just tastes infinitely better anyway, imho.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 


oi' - I'm getting sleepy,..

I'm done for now,.. goodnight civil folks, I thank you for not getting my blood pressure up.
edit on 10-10-2012 by Pagedisciple because: cuz I'm falling asleep at my keyboard.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Pagedisciple
 


that's the best plan any way...



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kluute

New Study Reveals: Aspartame Damages The Brain at Any Dose!


www.collective-evolution.com

Did you know that Aspartame has been proven to cause brain damage by leaving traces of Methanol in the blood? It makes you wonder why Aspartame has been approved as “safe” and is found in thousands of food products. Currently more than 90 countries have given the artificial sweetener the “OK” to be used in foods.

Formaldehyde is what is causing the brain damage.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.uabmedicine.org
www.mpwhi.com
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov







Just wanna bookmark this topic so i can read later



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I cannot ingest products that use Nutra Sweet. Never have. It tastes horrid; like an aspirin-y after-taste.

Seems like my body was telling me something it took science a lot longer to ascertain...



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Oh our beloved rats ! The funny thruth is that many diseases has be cured many many times on rats and same cure has no effect on us humans.

Wouldn´t rely only on rat tests.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Kluute
 


Do you know that MSG (Mono Sodium Glutamate) under specific heat condition will transform to aspathame!!

MSG is prettymuch an advanced variant of Asparthame. Except that instead of triking your brain into thinking it's sweet. It meerly is a favour enchancer for anything salty!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by dollukka
reply to post by adjensen
 


Splenda has organochlorine compounds, your body can´t detoxify it.


Well, thanks a lot, killjoy. Now what am I going to do with my redundant soda maker?


Actually, I'm not too concerned with my body not detoxifying something, whatever that means.



This is what i do with mine and my kidz LOVE it:
Take oranges squeese the juice, apple cut in pieces
and get rid of the "nuts"? speeling, put in a boilingpan
with some water, cook it and add sugar, cook it like you
would do LEMONADE.

Use your sodastream with your newly fresh additive..

BTW: Make sure your "lemonade" is cold before adding
to the soda...
edit on 2012/10/10 by Miccey because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Was reading Lenny Mcleans book recently (the enforcer for the main bad guy in the film lock stock and two smoking barrels) and he died if brain cancer aged 48 I think it was. He after being drunk and hurting a lad badly who he was ejecting form a club he felt so bad he stopped drinking for good. He starting drinking diet lemonade at work all night instead. He started this late in his life and I thought of aspartame right away. Just check out what it actually is! It's insane that it is not illegal along with fluoride, total poison!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dollukka
 


It's ridiculous to use rats in that way, they have a very good resistance to all kinds of things and are a totally different creature to us. However testing on them is cheap. Many companies do these pointless tests all year to save money and then when they get the next years budget they combine the money together to spend on more expensive and useful tests that are far more expensive.

Animal testing is almost totally redundant in many circumstances it seems.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I'd add to this list of problems with artificial sweeteners by pointing out that they have also been found to "thicken" the stomach lining. This leads to less digestive juices, mucus (protects the lining) and less absorption of nutrients. It's tied together with losing the probiotic bacteria our body needs.

Donna Gates has been talking about the issue with artificial sweeteners and "high fructose" sweeteners that are broken down in the liver and thus are the cause of the increase in Fatty Liver disease. Here's some good advice comparing the safe and unsafe sweeteners

The best alternative out there is Stevia -- so use it and never touch any of the commercial artificial sweeteners again.

I used to think that Agave was OK -- but it turns out greedy bastards dilute it with HFC syrups -- you get the same problem with Honey and Olive Oil -- it's often not pure, because someone wants to make a buck and we don't have any organization out there that shuts down companies that lie to our face about what is in our food. I actually had to read an article from cracked.com to learn that Olive Oil is mostly diluted with other, non healthy oils because the Mob likes the extra money, and they've been doing this for years. So if you get guaranteed Agave -- you might be OK. But it's still a risk.

It just makes me angry that there is so little we can trust. You pay extra money to get a healthier product, and some food company gets to commit fraud for decades because they are in bed with the regulators.

>> NONE of these artificial sweeteners should have ever been approved. The worst is Nutrasweet and two of the people who approved it ended up consulting for the agency that first patented it.

>> And a lot of our Organic Health food companies are owned by the same major food conglomerates that give us the crap food. When we pay extra for "organic" -- what are the chances we aren't getting chumped again? Wouldn't it be more profitable to bribe whomever is regulating you and just CLAIM something is wholesome?

There is too much money involved and no system for punishing anyone RICH who is defrauding people. Just another sign of the crumbling integrity of our country, which is dying from a thousand cuts.
edit on 10-10-2012 by VitriolAndAngst because: grammar



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by longlostbrother
 



Originally posted by longlostbrother
So, five minutes of googleing and guess what...

There is a wide-spread internet hoax, based on an unscientific report, that started most of this nonsense.

en.wikipedia.org...

Aspartame has been approved not just by the FDA, but by the food and drug testing authorities in 90+ countries.

I can't get milk with BGH in Europe, but I can easily get aspartame, because no reputable scientific evidence exists that it is harmful, even cumulatively, at the levels humans can reasonably ingest.

That's the result of literally dozens of peer reviewed papers, from around the world.

Go read that link, follow the sources out and read them as well... note however that a simple search for aspartame is going to turn up dozens of fringe blogs all pushing completely nonsensical claims.... learn to separate science from fearmongering.

Deny some actual ignorance.


Five minutes of googling... right. Well, five minutes on Google and one reference to Wikipedia - which anyone who logs in can edit!!!- prove only how gullible you are. And your five stars demonstrates how susceptible people are to wanting to believe you are right.

The peer reviewed papers you talk about are not for the use of Aspartame in food, they are against it!

You want evidence to prove you don't know what you are talking about? Easy done. Here is a response published in BMJ: British Medical Journal February 5, 2005, to those shill corporate researchers whose work you so blindly endorse.



Aspartame and its effects on health Independently funded studies have found potential for adverse effects Editor?Lean and Hankey's editorial on the effects of aspartame and health gives this artificial sweetener a clean bill of health. However, it seems they have ignored or dismissed a wealth of evidence, which shows that aspartame can provoke a wide range of symptoms including depression and head aches. Other studies (a total of 91) that attest to aspartame's potential for harm can be found in an online review of peer reviewed literature.5 This review is particularly worrying as it shows that, although 100% of industry funded (either whole or in part) studies con clude that aspartame is safe, 92% of independently funded studies have found that aspartame has the potential for adverse effects.


This is stating 92% of the peer reviewed studies show Aspartame is not safe. These are research NOT funded by industry and therefore not interested in any particular end result (such as this product is safe and we can profit from it).

On the other hand, funnily enough all of the corporate funded research claim Aspartame is safe. This is exactly as you would expect. The very reason research on issues of public health and good should not be funded by corporations. Remember that all of the tobacco industry research found there to tobacco also to be safe to consume. Corporations have as their aim to profit.


Reference for excerpt from article:

Aspartame And Its Effects On Health Author(s): John Briffa, Ian J. Gordon, Nick Finer, Michael E. J. Lean and Catherine R. Hankey Reviewed work(s): Source: BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 330, No. 7486 (Feb. 5, 2005), pp. 309-310 Published by: BMJ Publishing Group Stable URL: www.jstor.org... .
Accessed: 10/10/2012 18:16



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I have nothing to add with regards to artificial sweeteners. Nothing new on that front, but I would like to take the opportunity to post a link showing you it's possible to grow your own sugar substitute.

www.westcoastseeds.com...

I didn't get a chance this season to grow it, as the store carrying it here sold out before I could grab some.

You can buy the processed form in stores as well though.

100% natural!




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tallone
You want evidence to prove you don't know what you are talking about? Easy done. Here is a response published in BMJ: British Medical Journal February 5, 2005, to those shill corporate researchers whose work you so blindly endorse.



This needs to go in its own thread, since its not what this thread is about.

The thread we are reading now is based on the claims of a collective-evolution.com article that Methanol builds up in the body, is "cumulative", and the body cannot remove it. That, over time, Methanol "build up" in the brain, as does Formaldehyde. This, as well as the insistance, that the FDA put a Zero limit on the allowed level of Methanol in food.

All of these claims are rubbish and the entire basis of this particular thread has no credibility at all.

I personally would be willing to further debate the dangers/safety of aspartame, but each aspect really needs its own thread so good arguments dont get diluted by the ignorant garbage written by Joe Martino, quoted in the opening post.

But
if we wish to discuss the British Medical Journal article in this thread then you should know that it is hardly a knockout punch.
When it was published, it created a storm of letters (also published in the BMJ) damming the claims of Briffa et al.
Worth reading...
here
and here.
to just list two of them.





new topics
top topics
 
52
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join