Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
52
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

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.


So, what do you think? just for posterity.




posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
What I notice is overweight people drinking diet drinks.

Clearly it does not do what is says on the tin.

Personally I avoid sweetners of any sort partly because of the awful taste and partly because of what I read about them. The scare stories are enough to put me off enjoying the drink.

Kinda like when I gave up smoking it was more to do with the amount of tax I was paying and the stories of corruption at government level rather than the medical information about the bad effects on health.

I'm so glad I gave up smoking and I'm also glad I gave up sweetners.

I don't take additional sugar either, and another thing folk need to reduce is salt.

Guess I should live to about 150 now .... well thats if I can cut down on food and alcohol somehow



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 

Originally posted by alfa1

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.

You are trying to frame a strawman argument of your own. Won't work.

Below is a quote from the top of the OPs second post, which continued from the first, the one with the article excerpt you are complaining about. The OP cited that article as evidence to support the argument he/she is making and posed as the question. I am addressing the OPs argument. See below the underlined bit I am talking about from the second part of the thread lead-in by the OP.
reply to post by Kluute
 



Well I think we all knew the dangers of aspartame already but I thought I would post this latest study concerning how and why this drug is so dangerous to the average human.
With all of the research about Aspartame and its dangerous effects, even in small quantities, why is it still approved by the FDA and other health agencies as being safe for human consumption?


BTW I am citing evidence that directly contradicts your 'longlostbrother's
claim that "of dozens of peer reviewed papers", which is of course completely misleading. Peer reviewed journals are the battle grounds on which arguments fight for supremacy (temporary). There are almost always contradicting sides on any issue of importance.

Sure the OP has picked on a less than authoritative source and an excerpt that is an easy target for anyone with knowledge on the subject - and access to a database. That doesn't mean the evidence to back up the argument made doesn't exist though, does it? In fact it does exist. Plenty of it and particularly in the last couple of years.

The excerpt I give is from a peer reviewed journal and it reveals very clearly how the corporate shills go about making their case for Aspartame. Corporate sponsored research of which 100% claims Aspartame is safe, is countered by the INDEPENDENT research from academics and practicing doctors (not being paid of by industry), 92% of which is warning Aspartame is NOT safe.

Try smoking that!

On issues of health what data would your rather rely on? That put out by corporations who want only to profit, or by research aiming to get at the truth, rather than come to a conclusion that serves the goal of their employers and their own interests (i.e. puts money in their pocket)?

I would go with the independent researchers everytime, particularly when it comes to my health. But hey that is just me.

edit on 10-10-2012 by Tallone because: Added original quote



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tallone
... is countered by the INDEPENDENT research from academics and practicing doctors (not being paid of by industry), 92% of which is warning Aspartame is NOT safe.



Bogus claim.
There is in fact no such warning.

You are referring to the text by John Briffa, which is in fact not a scientific article, but is a NON peer reviewed one page letter to the editor (in the same way that you or I can send a letter to the editor).

Briffa says ...

...92% of independently funded studies have found that aspartame has the potential for adverse effects.​


"Potential".
Not a warning, no claim of "unsafe".
"Potential". The same word that can be used of any substance you can think of, from water to table salt.

But in any case, where did Briffa get this information from?
He cites a web page!
for this claim.

The web page is a survey done around 1998 by a Ralph G. Walton, M.D.
As far as I can tell, it isnt peer reviewed either, nor has it ever been published on paper in any journal, nor does he explain exactly how he decided if a study resulted in a positive or negative result.
All he says is that he decided it was negative if...

...an adverse reaction to aspartame was identified.

Rather vague, considering a lot of the studies are performed on animals (which usually involve massive abnormally high doses).
Really its the kind of lack of detail that would be a FAIL if submitted as a college paper.

Now of course I'm not going to make the claim thast aspartame is safe.
My position on this has been consistent all along
If it is dangerous, it wont be for the reasons listed in the article, since they're rubbish.
If it is dangerous, it will be for different reasons altogether.

And the Briffa letter to the editor isnt it either.
edit on 10-10-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
dang

I thhought letting my 12 year old have sierra mist soda as an occasional treat was ok

no longer

txs for posting



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Tallone
... is countered by the INDEPENDENT research from academics and practicing doctors (not being paid of by industry), 92% of which is warning Aspartame is NOT safe.

Bogus claim.
There is in fact no such warning.

Bogus claim?
You are sounding a little shrill.

The fact more than 90% of independent research is saying Aspartame is not safe is a warning, or it should be warning enough. It is me using the word 'warning', I never said nor intended you to understand the word was used by the independent researchers. But you know, there goes another of your strawmen arguments.


Originally posted by alfa1
You are referring to the text by John Briffa, which is in fact not a scientific article, but is a NON peer reviewed one page letter to the editor (in the same way that you or I can send a letter to the editor).

The letter is part of the debate centering on an editorial published by the journal which is peer reviewed. It matters not one jot if the letter is peer reviewed or not, just that the journal itself has that standing and as such is read by folk are each others peers and presumably do know what they are talking about - even if they don't agree with one another on particular issues (for various reasons particularly the one I am focusing on, researchers in the paid employment of the corporations).

Briffa's letter is entirely valid and does in fact cite verifiable sources. He is responding to an editorial...

Editor—Lean and Hankey's editorial on the effects of aspartame and health gives this artificial sweetener a clean bill of health.1 However, it seems they have ignored or dismissed a wealth of evidence, which shows that aspartame can provoke a wide range of symptoms including depression2 and headaches.3,4 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.



Originally posted by alfa1
"Potential".
Not a warning, no claim of "unsafe".
"Potential". The same word that can be used of any substance you can think of, from water to table salt.

'Potential' in the sense used in this and other articles you find in any peer reviewed journal is a hedging word, like 'possibly'. Authors in peer reviewed journals are unlikely to say anything outright. It is the way they argue their case based on their evidence. 'Potentially unsafe' when talking about the toxicity of a chemical (like Aspartame) is not at all the same as talking about a mineral, an element actually, like salt. Yes, large quantities of salt can be toxic, but the body does require it. The body does not require Aspartame nor should we be putting it in our bodies to begin with!


Originally posted by alfa1
But in any case, where did Briffa get this information from?
He cites a web page!
for this claim.

Dude, you are way too eager to dispatch the messenger. You seem to miss the rest of his references at the end of the article.

References 1. Michael Lean, Catherine Hankey. Aspartame and its effects on health. BMJ 2004;329: 755-6. (2 October.) [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2. Walton RG, Hudak R, Green-Waite RJ. Adverse reactions to aspartame: double-blind challenge in patients from a vulnerable population. Biol Psychiatry 1993;34(1-2): 13-7. [PubMed]
3. Van Den Eeden SK, Koepsell TD, Longstreth Jr WT, van Belle G, Daling JR, McKnight B. Aspartame ingestion and headaches: a randomized, crossover trial. Neurology 1994;44: 1787-93. [PubMed]
4. Lipton RB, Newman LC, Cohen JS, Solomon S. Aspartame as a dietary trigger of headache. Headache 1989;29(2): 90-2. [PubMed] 5. Walton RG. Survey of aspartame studies: correlation of outcome and funding sources. www.dorway.com/peerrev.html (accessed 18 Nov 2004).

Let's see, that is three PubMeds and one "web page". But a web page is totally acceptable in a peer reviewed journal providing it meets the criteria required. Not Wikipedia though, so you had better leave off referring to that web page when you want to support your own 'argument'.
Dorway.com is a publication from 'The Center for Behavioral Medicine'. That's the The Center for Behavioral Medicine, Forum Health, Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine.
The Professor and Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry is the fella fronting that one. Yep. Its an independent research institution, not only that but a college producing America's doctors. You missed all that though, didn't you?

Here is the abstract from the published study on that web page.

Studies of aspartame in the peer reviewed medical literature were surveyed for funding source and study outcome. Of the 166 studies felt to have relevance for questions of human safety, 74 had Nutrasweet® industry related funding and 92 were independently funded. One hundred percent of the industry funded research attested to aspartame's safety, whereas 92% of the independently funded research identified a problem.

I think you are way too eager to dispatch the messenger. Way too committed to doing it also. Does the company pay you well to write these posts?
edit on 10-10-2012 by Tallone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I looked into the references of this Woodrow Monte's "article": None of them talks about Methanol and Aspartame directly and they're all 30 Year + papers.

www.sweetpoison.com...


References

1. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, portion sizes and days intakes of selected foods. ARS-NE-67 (1975)

2. Bartlett, G.R., Inhibition of Methanol Oxidation by Ethanol in the Rat. Am. J. Physiol., 163:619-621 (1950).

3. Braverman, J. B. S. and Lif#z, A., Pectin Hydrolysis in Certain Fruits During Alcoholic Fermentation. Food Tech., 356-358. July, (1957).

4. Browing, E., Toxicity and Metabolism of Industrial Solvents. New your: Elsevier Publishing Company, (1965).

5. Bylinsky, G., The Battle for America's Sweet Tooth. Fortune. 28-32, July (1982).

6. Campbell, L.A., Palmer G.H., Pectin in topics in Dietary Fiber Research, Edited Spiller, G.A. and Amen. R.J. Plenum Press, NY (1978).



I feel like this guy is just trying to make people "Purchase" his DVD.

thetruthaboutstuff.com...
edit on 10/11/2012 by die_another_day because: (no reason given)





0 Experiments done here:
thetruthaboutstuff.com...

The other papers I would actually have to read to determine validity.
edit on 10/11/2012 by die_another_day because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Okay, I'm going to get lambasted for this, but fortunately, I usually just throw in my two cents and move on, so I won't have to (figuratively) listen to it. I grew up on tea with saccharin. In my early 20's I drank a moderate amount of soda, and put on a less than moderate amount of weight. I started drinking diet pepsi when they changed to aspartame, because while the tea was palatable with the saccharin, soda was definately not. I started having problems with my stomach whenever I drank tea, so I dropped that habit and pretty much have drank nothing but water and diet pepsi since. I'm about to turn 51, and for the last 30 years I've been drinking at least a two liter bottle of pepsi a day, and that's being conservative. I'm also in perfect health, every time I go to the doctor they tell me I must be doing something right. I find all of this to be hogwash. Oh, and my memory is still quite good, and my last iq test was 140.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
P.S. When I started drinking diet pepsi, I dropped 30 lbs. in something like 3 months. Now as I've aged, that weight has been harder to maintain, but if I exercise, it stays off.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
interestingly enough aspartame's status for consumption is being re-evaluated by the EFSA European Food and Safety Authority, even though the deadline for the results keeps being extended.

at least europe seems to be adressing the issue, what will come out of it i don't know.

www.efsa.europa.eu...

it just bugs me that these agencies and studies are focusing majorly on aspartame on beverages.

meanwhile we are being assaulted with aspartame everywhere else, making it easier to push the 40mg/kg limit for adult consumption.
thing is while the studies focus on adults i see aspartame predominantly in food or drinks aimed for kids.

where there's smoke there's fire and all this debate around aspartame has to lead somewhere.

and between the refined sugar lobby and the aspartame lobby, let the devil take your pick..
edit on 11-10-2012 by UziLiberman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Aspartame: neuropsychologic and neurophysiologic evaluation of acute and chronic effects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1998 Sep;68(3):531-7.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Conclusion: Large daily doses of aspartame had no effect on neuropsychologic, neurophysiologic, or behavioral functioning in healthy young adults.

Effect of aspartame and protein, administered in phenylalanine-equivalent doses, on plasma neutral amino acids, aspartate, insulin and glucose in man. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1991 May;68(5):408-12.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Conclusion: Protein causes insulin increase, aspartame has no effect whatsoever.

Aspartame ingestion with and without carbohydrate in phenylketonuric and normal subjects: effect on plasma concentrations of amino acids, glucose, and insulin. Metabolism. 1990 Apr;39(4):391-6.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Conclusion: Aspartame has no effect on insulin response, whether alone or in conjunction with CHO.

Aspartame and its constituent amino acids: effects
on prolactin, cortisol, growth hormone, insulin,
and glucose in normal humans. Am J C/in Nuir 1989;49:427-32.
www.ajcn.org...
Conclusion: "We conclude that these doses of aspartame do not alter secretion of prolactin, cortisol, growth hormone, or insulin in normal individuals."

next.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by UziLiberman
interestingly enough aspartame's status for consumption is being re-evaluated by the EFSA European Food and Safety Authority, even though the deadline for the results keeps being extended.

at least europe seems to be adressing the issue, what will come out of it i don't know.

www.efsa.europa.eu...

it just bugs me that these agencies and studies are focusing majorly on aspartame on beverages.

meanwhile we are being assaulted with aspartame everywhere else, making it easier to push the 40mg/kg limit for adult consumption.
thing is while the studies focus on adults i see aspartame predominantly in food or drinks aimed for kids.

where there's smoke there's fire and all this debate around aspartame has to lead somewhere.

and between the refined sugar lobby and the aspartame lobby, let the devil take your pick..
edit on 11-10-2012 by UziLiberman because: (no reason given)


"Where's there's smoke there's fire" is one of the most inane saying ever and this is a great example of it's misuse.

Most of the "smoke" about aspartame came from a single debunked source. That has spread all over the internet, giving the appearance of a legitimate problem.

The smoke here is ACTUALLY:

- There's no good scientific evidence that shows a reasonable amount of aspartame is harmful, even cumulatively, and there's a lot of lies about it online.

The fire would be - don't trust what you read online about aspartame's danger, it's probably BS.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by UziLiberman
 


Originally posted by UziLiberman
interestingly enough aspartame's status for consumption is being re-evaluated by the EFSA European Food and Safety Authority, even though the deadline for the results keeps being extended.

at least europe seems to be adressing the issue, what will come out of it i don't know.

www.efsa.europa.eu...

it just bugs me that these agencies and studies are focusing majorly on aspartame on beverages.

meanwhile we are being assaulted with aspartame everywhere else, making it easier to push the 40mg/kg limit for adult consumption.
thing is while the studies focus on adults i see aspartame predominantly in food or drinks aimed for kids.


You hit the nail squarely on the head right there. What we have is a situation where a chemical /drug is being consumed with no medical supervision what so ever. It is not only unethical from the point of view of medical professionals, it is out and out irrational for a public health department to sanction this situation in the first place.

Here is a sample of the results of some of the more recent PEER REVIEWED research on Aspartame the public does not generally know of. Except for the 2008 article the others are very recent, one or two years old. Funny how these researchers are for the most part from institutions outside of the US. Makes you wonder about the kind of control and constraints being exerted over medical research in the USA, doesn't it?

Aspartame and the brain

Many controversial reports are available on the use of aspartame as it releases methanol as one of its metabolite during metabolism. The present study proposed to investigate whether chronic aspartame (75 mg/kg) administration could release methanol and induce oxidative stress in the rat brain... [An increase in indicative enzymes was observed]... Moreover, the increases in some of these enzymes were region specific. Chronic exposure of aspartame resulted in detectable methanol in blood. Methanol per se and its metabolites may be responsible for the generation of oxidative stress in brain regions.
Source:
Journal of Biosciences; Iyyaswamy and Rathasamy, Sep2012, Vol. 37 Issue 4, p679-688, 10p



Previous studies have linked aspartame consumption to impaired retention of learned behavior in rodents. Prenatal exposure to aspartame has also been shown to impair odor-associative learning in guinea pigs; and recently, aspartame-fed hyperlipidemic zebrafish exhibited weight gain, hyperglycemia and acute swimming defects. We therefore investigated the effects of chronic lifetime exposure to aspartame, commencing in utero,... data suggest that lifetime exposure to aspartame, commencing in utero, may affect spatial cognition and glucose homeostasis in C57BL/6J mice, particularly in males.
Source:
PLoS ONE; Collinson et al; Apr2012, Vol. 7 Issue 4, p1-13, 13p
1Cell Biology and Diabetes Research Unit, Department of Cell Biology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2Al-Faisal University Medical School, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia



The aim of this study was to discuss the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain, and we propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR 2000) and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning.
Source:
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Humphries et al; (2008) 62, 451–462; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866; published online 8 August 2007 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]


Aspartame and the liver

The present study evaluates the effect of long term intake of aspartame, the artificial sweetener, on liver antioxidant system and hepatocellular injury in animal model... Histopathological examination revealed leukocyte infiltration in aspartame-treated rats (1000mg/kg b.wt.). It can be concluded from these observations that long term consumption of aspartame leads to hepatocellular injury and alterations in liver antioxidant status mainly through glutathione dependent system. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]
Source:
Food & Chemical Toxicology; Abhilash et al; Jun2011, Vol. 49 Issue 6, p1203-1207, 5p
School of Biosciences, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala 686560, India


...
edit on 11-10-2012 by Tallone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tallone
reply to post by UziLiberman
 


Originally posted by UziLiberman
interestingly enough aspartame's status for consumption is being re-evaluated by the EFSA European Food and Safety Authority, even though the deadline for the results keeps being extended.

at least europe seems to be adressing the issue, what will come out of it i don't know.

www.efsa.europa.eu...

it just bugs me that these agencies and studies are focusing majorly on aspartame on beverages.

meanwhile we are being assaulted with aspartame everywhere else, making it easier to push the 40mg/kg limit for adult consumption.
thing is while the studies focus on adults i see aspartame predominantly in food or drinks aimed for kids.


You hit the nail squarely on the head right there. What we have is a situation where a chemical /drug is being consumed with no medical supervision what so ever. It is not only unethical from the point of view of medical professionals, it is out and out irrational for a public health department to sanction this situation in the first place.

Here is a sample of the results of some of the more recent PEER REVIEWED research on Aspartame the public does not generally know of. Except for the 2008 article the others are very recent, one or two years old. Funny how these researchers are for the most part from institutions outside of the US. Makes you wonder about the kind of control and constraints being exerted over medical research in the USA, doesn't it?

Aspartame and the brain

Many controversial reports are available on the use of aspartame as it releases methanol as one of its metabolite during metabolism. The present study proposed to investigate whether chronic aspartame (75 mg/kg) administration could release methanol and induce oxidative stress in the rat brain... [An increase in indicative enzymes was observed]... Moreover, the increases in some of these enzymes were region specific. Chronic exposure of aspartame resulted in detectable methanol in blood. Methanol per se and its metabolites may be responsible for the generation of oxidative stress in brain regions.
Source:
Journal of Biosciences; Iyyaswamy and Rathasamy, Sep2012, Vol. 37 Issue 4, p679-688, 10p



Previous studies have linked aspartame consumption to impaired retention of learned behavior in rodents. Prenatal exposure to aspartame has also been shown to impair odor-associative learning in guinea pigs; and recently, aspartame-fed hyperlipidemic zebrafish exhibited weight gain, hyperglycemia and acute swimming defects. We therefore investigated the effects of chronic lifetime exposure to aspartame, commencing in utero,... data suggest that lifetime exposure to aspartame, commencing in utero, may affect spatial cognition and glucose homeostasis in C57BL/6J mice, particularly in males.
Source:
PLoS ONE; Collinson et al; Apr2012, Vol. 7 Issue 4, p1-13, 13p
1Cell Biology and Diabetes Research Unit, Department of Cell Biology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2Al-Faisal University Medical School, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia



The aim of this study was to discuss the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain, and we propose that excessive aspartame ingestion might be involved in the pathogenesis of certain mental disorders (DSM-IV-TR 2000) and also in compromised learning and emotional functioning.
Source:
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition Humphries et al; (2008) 62, 451–462; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866; published online 8 August 2007 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]


Aspartame and the liver

The present study evaluates the effect of long term intake of aspartame, the artificial sweetener, on liver antioxidant system and hepatocellular injury in animal model... Histopathological examination revealed leukocyte infiltration in aspartame-treated rats (1000mg/kg b.wt.). It can be concluded from these observations that long term consumption of aspartame leads to hepatocellular injury and alterations in liver antioxidant status mainly through glutathione dependent system. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]
Source:
Food & Chemical Toxicology; Abhilash et al; Jun2011, Vol. 49 Issue 6, p1203-1207, 5p
School of Biosciences, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala 686560, India


...
edit on 11-10-2012 by Tallone because: (no reason given)


75 mg/kg?

for the average adult male that's about 400oz of diet coke, or 6 2 liter bottles.

lol



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
The first time I tried Aspartame in a drink I had headache and weird aftertaste in my mouth. At least we can ID when it is present in what we consume. However Monsanto does not want labeling for GMO products. WHY?



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by tintin2012
 


Same reason as Phillip Morris didn´t want the truth out regarding tobacco.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by dollukka
 




Same reason as Phillip Morris didn´t want the truth out regarding tobacco.
When their pockets were full and the other "players" (Medical Insurance Corporations) were losing money the Game had to be stopped. Now fewer smokers but the price for those still foolish to smoke is reaching the sky.



posted on Oct, 11 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
the only problem I have from drinking things that have sucrolose in it, is nothing. LMAO. sure i get headaches, but who doesn't get them? Other then that though, nothing else that is listed happens to me. Even if it did though, eh its my choice. We all have our own poisons. Mine just happen to be energy drinks. Hell you could ask "why is alcohol legal? it causes so many deaths each year!" if the FDA is gonna make anything illegal i would think alcohol should be the number one target. As far as brain damage goes. My brain isn't damaged at all. I still know as much as i've known if not more then when I went to school. Hell, i've been learning better being out of school then in school. I consume so much sucrolose its not even funny. So these studies are a crock of BS if you ask me. Most Studies are based off of 1 person anyways, most likely the person they based it off of had other problems. Anyways thats my view on it. If it does damage your brain, oh well. I haven't noticed. I mean look at how coherent I am. If I was brain damaged could I make complete sentences with full on punctuation? Nope.



posted on Oct, 12 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   


Famous Deli owner said "You can't make chicken salad from chicken s**t."
edit on 12-10-2012 by tintin2012 because: complete quote






top topics



 
52
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join