Don't consume NutraSweet/Aspartame/Equal/Spoonful !!!

[nath]

Nice to see Wij/Tom yet again and now Mystic G demonstrating their obnoxiousness by being total and utter *****. Had your era been back in the day, I've no doubt you'd be harking on about how cigarettes don't kill - there's nothing wrong with them. It's absurd to think differently and totally reasonable to belittle anyone who thinks otherwise!

Honestly, grow the fuck up.

 

[Wij]

Pardon ?

I thought I was being quite reasonable. In fact the only person I thought you could have had a beef with was Bodhi cos he spoke his mind unapologetically, but you didn't even mention him. Need a fluffle ?

 

[Tom]

Gosh, I'm not afraid to air my views, and put others down when I think its deserved, and that makes me obnoxious. Hey nath, guess what - your post is obnoxious!

Well fuck me sideways with a warm poker.

 

[nath]

Well, Bodhi actually put forward an opinion and backed up his reasons. Of course they were all utter bollocks, but that's fine. You and your wijettes seem to assume that anything that's not aired on fox news is a crock of shit. That's fine but the constant condescending obnoxiousness that it goes with is getting a little fucking dull.


edit: Tom, yes it does given who you decide to put down and on what grounds.

 

[Bodhi]

My reasons were not bollocks. That's it, no more mansechs for you!


Paradroid you clearly haven't read my post properly. Read it again, ignore your poly upbringing and come talk to me again when you have a clue. Until then, you will only get one response.

You can guess what that is.

 

[Uncle Sick]

Feel the lurve, eh?

I (personally [\disclaimer]) think any artificialness in food is bad... I still do consume large amounts of it, though, since I live in the US of Artificial Sweeteners as some of you might know.

It's pretty much impossible to get food without artificial sweeteners, weird radio-active colors or other gimmicks devised by some crazy food scientist.

tbh, the sweetener story makes alot of sense considering that I recently read an article about the FDA being too much 'You rub my back, I rub yours' with pharmacy/food producing companies.

But who knows!? The intarweb said so! Actually... does the Reg always tell the truth? Does the BBC? Because they are on teh intaarweb!11 (to get back to the original point).

And Seal, Toto, dead seal... isn't drinking alcohol bad if you are a diabetic?
I think I read something about that on some shady website the other day...

 

[Paradroid]

Obviously that makes you such an expert on the subject you can disregard the thousands of hours of research done over the past 50 or so years by minds greater in intellect than yours, mine, or anybody elses whom you know.

By the way, do you know the back of a typical CRT has around 9600 volts buzzing away in there? Its killing me as I type. Oh, and don't forget to hold your mobile phone away from your head, after all, its the microwaves that heat your head up (or perhaps its just the heat from your own body that warms the phone up).

"Disregard thousands of hours of research done over the past 50 years" - What do you think I studied from Tom? Do you think I sat in a room, in splendid isolation, and reinvented the wheel? The main reason I didn't get into the nitty-gritty (apart from bring busy earlier) is that you said:

What a load of cock tbh. There is absolutely nothing unhealthy in the slightest respect about Microwave transmitters or electricity pylons. To believe there is, is merely demonstrating a person's ignorance of the mechanics of such things.

...I sited my qualifications to highlight (and try to convince you) that I have an intricate and detailed knowledge "of such things" - kind of put your foot in it, so to speak. You merely demonstated your own ignorance "of such things".

And watching pseudo science programmes don't qualify you to change the laws of physics, as I said, thermoelastic expansion of the brain is one obvious side effect (hearing fizzles & pops etc). Never heard of hot-spots brainy act?

Electropollution - The exposure of living organisms to abnormal electromagnetic fields results in significant abnormalities in physiology and function. Our bodies receive signal energy from all the TV stations, FM and AM radio stations, short-wave transmitters, radar devices, electric power transmission lines, etc., some of which produce both thermal and non-thermal effects on biological tissue. At least 30% of genetic developmental defects are externally related, e.g. from ionizing radiation (X-ray e.g.). Children born to fathers who were military radar operators had significantly higher Down's. Some towns are microwave "hot-spots" (Vernon, N.J.) with Down's at 1000% higher incidence.

High-tension 60 Hz power lines and distribution lines have both genetic and carcinogenic effects. (In both cases thru confusion of the natural communication systems of the animal or human). ELF (extremely low field) magnetic fields as small as 1 milligauss have the potential to produce developmental abnormalities in growing embryos. The effect of man-made electromagnetic fields, regardless of their frequencies, create alterations in neurochemicals, resulting in behavioural abnormalities such as suicide; alteration of biological cycles; stress responses which lead to declines in immune-system efficiency; alterations in learning ability; embryo abnormalities; effect on growing cells, e.g. increase in rate of cancer cell division; increase in incidence of certain cancers - lymphoma, myeloma and melanoma 100% (1975 - 1990); breast cancer - 31%; testicular cancer - 97%; pancreatic - 20%; kidney - 142%; colon - 63%. All these cancers are in tissues with continuous rates of cell division. Some cancers have declined - cervix because of earlier diagnosis/treatment, stomach cancer (change in diet) but overall the war against cancer is being lost.

...but of course you haven't! So they mustn't exist! But in your own words (quite correctly) your monitor is hurting you! That's why pregnant woman should restrict useage....

The official justification for all this? Acceptable risks. What would be the cost to society (and your pocket) to change all this? The cost of burying powerlines (especially now that they're already in place) would be astronomical.

But, hey! Ignore the above extract (and link) it's only a doctor who's been twice noinated for the nobel prize! What does he know! He's obviously ignored 50+ years of scientific research and came to these conclusions entirely on his own, in a laboratory where our normal laws of physics don't apply!

...where's that warm poker?

 

[Bodhi]

You can't say you went to a poly (yes a polytechnic - Paisely is the arsehole of humankind, you expect us to take you seriously cos you got a degree from there? Catch yourself on) and expect us to take you seriously. Just cos you're the most paranoid motherfucker on the planet doesn't mean we have to take you seriously does it?

 

[Paradroid]

You can't say you went to a poly (yes a polytechnic - Paisely is the arsehole of humankind, you expect us to take you seriously cos you got a degree from there? Catch yourself on) and expect us to take you seriously. Just cos you're the most paranoid motherfucker on the planet doesn't mean we have to take you seriously does it?

Funny, I never mentioned it being a polytechnic - which is was for about 1 or 2 years during it's transition to a Uni. You honestly believe that where you study makes a difference? You're deluding yourself on that one. It also tells us quite a bit (again) about your values in life. I sited an extract from an acclaimed doctor (twice nominated for the nobel prize), and you decide to ignore that and say that you can't take me seriously?

So, yeah, Paisley Tech/Uni didn't (and doesn't) have the worlds best facilities or libraries, but, they have a large dedicated Electro-Magnetic (EM) lab in which I did my experiments (my tutor was developing a piece of software that was an early EM simulator), and I used this marvelous invention called the telephone & a wonderous piece if technology called a fax machine to receive all of the scientific/engineering books and experimental extracts I needed to complete my studies - back in the days before the internet was widely available to tards like yourself.

Now, even you must see that you're just being silly.

Got any astonishing insights yourself on the EM effects on humans? Got a molecular biology degree so you can shed more light on poisonous food addititives? How about a working knowledge of Racketeering lawsuits in the US?

Until then, you will only get one response.

You can guess what that is.

 

[Driwen]

Oh, and don't forget to hold your mobile phone away from your head, after all, its the microwaves that heat your head up (or perhaps its just the heat from your own body that warms the phone up).

uhm there have been tests with radiation which was stronger than that of a mobile phone on rats and they did get more cancer than was normal. Reasonably proving I think that, while mobile phones might not be unsafe (as the dosis and length arent even close to what the researchers used), that the phones arent completly safe. Allthough this was done a few years ago and even then experts (i think) said that the radiation might not even get through to your brain, but it still shouldnt be so laughed about.

PS: I really cba to check wether paradroids post with info about it actually said the same thing as I didnt have time to read it before I had to go to play sports (which someone can probably explain to me isnt healthy to do at all ).

 

[Tom]

[B...I sited my qualifications to highlight (and try to convince you) that I have an intricate and detailed knowledge "of such things" - kind of put your foot in it, so to speak. You merely demonstated your own ignorance "of such things".

But, hey! Ignore the above extract (and link) it's only a doctor who's been twice noinated for the nobel prize! What does he know! He's obviously ignored 50+ years of scientific research and came to these conclusions entirely on his own, in a laboratory where our normal laws of physics don't apply!

I wouldn't call myself ignorant. Going to college/uni for 5 years studying electrical systems as part of my courses gives me a good grounding, enough to hold my own in a debate. I understand how electromagnetic waves propogate, how they're received, I learnt the science of the relationship between electricity and magnetism nearly 15 years ago, although its not something I use everyday and therefore I've forgotten quite a lot of it (but not the principles).

Whats the point in quoting examples of 'incidence' and 'potential', without actually demonstrating the mechanism by which these supposed mutations occur? Perhaps because its not understood? Or perhaps it doesn't exist? Prove me wrong and I'll gladly retract what I've said, but I want proof, not just quotes from recognised figures.

You can quote all you like, but until somebody come up with a real, proveable link between electromagnetic waves, radiated energy fields, etc, and illness or deformity in biological systems, I'm going to take it all with a pinch of salt. The internet is a very good tool for those wishing to dispense rumours and half-truths.


PS Paradroid please don't take any of this personally, unlike some forum freaks you haven't resorted to personal insults, and I respect that. I just enjoy a good debate, and I don't mind using provocation to get that.

 

[Jonaldo]

I'm not a part of this argument but Tom I think the patronising manner in which you have posted all (ok maybe just most) of your replies in this thread does pretty much borderline on insulting. The 'provocation' that you speak of was just saying he doesn't know what he's talking about and then when he shows he does then people just dismiss what he says. How is he not going to take anything seriously when everything he's studied and where he studied it is basically being called crap. That's not a debate it's just petty squabbling.

If there were some other evidence presented that does contradict what he's posted then maybe we could have a debate and discuss both sides of the argument, but as it stands now he's just banging against a wall that is the cliqué of Freddyshouse General forum and he stands no chance of getting his point across. This whole discussion is pretty much pointless now as no-one will take any of it seriously.


I hope no-one takes these comments personally as they're just observations from outside of the aforementioned petty squabble.

Bunch of arse. (imo tbh fyi etc.)

 

[nath]

"I'm not touching you, you can't tell mum you can't do anything I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you!"

As Jonaldo said, you're being patronising and insulting Tom - you're just not being honest about it. Get a clue, get a life and grow up you fucking child.

 

[Tom]

Nice contribution there. I don't give a shit if I'm patronising and insulting. I think its pretty insulting to stir up people's emotions with conspiracy theories.

Anyway, go fuck yourself nath. Does that make you feel better?

 

[Tom]

I was talking about the bagged stuff - cane sugar...?

Zero nutritional content, and quite addictive once its been processed into what you buy from the shops.

 

[nath]

Oucho. I think I need to find a quiet place to go and cry.

I've made my point, I'll leave you guys to it.

 

[leggy]

High powered microwave radiation is bad for you. Therefore I assume microwave transmitters (mobile phone masts) are also bad for you. If you think otherwise I'd like to see you tell the families of the people who have died at my work from microwave exposure that it is "utter cock".

And Nath, have I told you that I love you recently?

 

[nath]

Not recently enough my little sex muffin with cheese.

 

[old.Tohtori]

And Seel, Toto, dead seal... isn't drinking alcohol bad if you are a diabetic?
I think I read something about that on some shady website the other day...

No no no! It's only if you drink like, umm, lots. I drink very reasonably... until the point i loose all judgement, try to hit on something that is borderlining shemale, drink more to make the alcohol go away and then fall safely on my own bed(gods know how i got home) whilst allready ouching quietly 'cause i know i'll be hurting all over tomorrow.


But seriously, it might be more unhealthy but modern day medicine/science can prolong a humans life to over a 100 years, when as 10 years ago the expected lifespawn was only 80 so...i got like 20 years to drink away!

 

[Bodhi]

Funny, I never mentioned it being a polytechnic - which is was for about 1 or 2 years during it's transition to a Uni. You honestly believe that where you study makes a difference? You're deluding yourself on that one. It also tells us quite a bit (again) about your values in life. I sited an extract from an acclaimed doctor (twice nominated for the nobel prize), and you decide to ignore that and say that you can't take me seriously?

So, yeah, Paisley Tech/Uni didn't (and doesn't) have the worlds best facilities or libraries, but, they have a large dedicated Electro-Magnetic (EM) lab in which I did my experiments (my tutor was developing a piece of software that was an early EM simulator), and I used this marvelous invention called the telephone & a wonderous piece if technology called a fax machine to receive all of the scientific/engineering books and experimental extracts I needed to complete my studies - back in the days before the internet was widely available to tards like yourself.

Now, even you must see that you're just being silly.

Got any astonishing insights yourself on the EM effects on humans? Got a molecular biology degree so you can shed more light on poisonous food addititives? How about a working knowledge of Racketeering lawsuits in the US?

Until then, you will only get one response.

You can guess what that is.

Heh I think I struck a nerve. Ah well, once a poly, always a poly. They didn't get any better when they changed their names to unis you know. I live right next to an ex-poly (Staffs Uni) - it's still a toilet. the Times league tables show this - people get excited when an ex-poly breaks into the top 30, which I find rather sad. Anyway I digress...

My degree was in business (from a proper uni in the Times top 10 and everything!), so I know next to F.A about EM radiation poisoning or chemical food additives, and if you'll notice, I didn't comment on either. All I commented on was the organisational thinking behind some of the more dubious business decisions that have come up on this thread. Something you don't really seem to have a clue about (typical scientist, good enough ideas, very little grounding in the real world). But then if you can't use someone's insult back at them in context without looking like it's just been tacked on the end I can't really expect you to understand simple business decisions either.

 

[amobea]

Most of you all have very valid points

Despite all the utter wak thrugh out this is quite a decent read...

I can sympathise with the "theres no proof" arguments, as there isn't any CONCRETE proof in alot of these cases, though there are strong enough indications that it makes sense to assume a relationship.

 

[Paradroid]

Heh I think I struck a nerve. Ah well, once a poly, always a poly. They didn't get any better when they changed their names to unis you know. I live right next to an ex-poly (Staffs Uni) - it's still a toilet. the Times league tables show this - people get excited when an ex-poly breaks into the top 30, which I find rather sad. Anyway I digress...

My degree was in business (from a proper uni in the Times top 10 and everything!), so I know next to F.A about EM radiation poisoning or chemical food additives, and if you'll notice, I didn't comment on either. All I commented on was the organisational thinking behind some of the more dubious business decisions that have come up on this thread. Something you don't really seem to have a clue about (typical scientist, good enough ideas, very little grounding in the real world). But then if you can't use someone's insult back at them in context without looking like it's just been tacked on the end I can't really expect you to understand simple business decisions either.

I think I understand where you're coming from with your business degree background, but I think I do have a good understanding of business (studing recently at Strathclyde Graduate Business School - not an MBA though! My degree included 2 years of Finance & Marketing). I mentioned the cost to big business of burying powerlines etc. (it aint going to happen is it?) My viewpoint on the natural selection argument goes in favour of erring on the side of caution. I know big business is all about the dollar - because our whole financial system is geared towards the markets and short-term turn-over. But I don't think this is right - but I know I can't change this myself. Throughout my degree we were warned, on many ocassions, that anything we design which turns out to be faulty (and causes people harm), we're personally responsible (legally/financially). I understand most designs go through a period of peer review, and have to comply with rigourous safety standards etc etc but now and again there's collective responsibility (ie something happens that no-one expected, so we're all to blame) - and at this point compensation payments to customers are needed.

But this whole FDA racketeering law suit is underlining, it appears, that the system failed us. The designers couldn't guarantee it's safety, so the FDA (quite rightly) knocked it back for 16 years - until a political/commercial appointment changed everything (probable curruption?).

When I said earlier "it's not natural selection it's man-made" I meant this on two fronts: it's a man-made additive, and, there was no real compeling reason to introduce it into our food supplies - hence, man forced it onto the market. It's not like it's a necessary vaccine for a new disease, and certain people will have adverse side-effects etc. It was purely for profit, at the expense of the public. It seems completely viod of moral responsibility or ethics - which I believe should be (are) intergral to business decisions. But you know this already, since you've studied business - or is an optional topic for business degree students?

Look at GM crops! Are we all happy with that? In recent news, the Chineses government said they have no idea how many GM trees they've planted, and their exact location!?!

I think we should come first, with business & money a poor second & third. I'd give up whatever was necessary too! PC included!

 

[Tom]

Most people dislike the idea of GM crops out of sheer ignorance. At least the ones reading the Daily Mail, anyway. We like to think we live with nature, but most people can't even chop vegetables these days.

I take your point about business and possible corruption, but at the end of the day, there is still no proof of any harm caused by Aspartame.

And Bodhi, I have to disagree with you on the business front. No matter how large an organisation, its still run by people, and the majority of those people hold moral values. It wasn't Ford who took the decision not to move the fuel tank on the Pinto, it was a few people sat around a table, taking a vote. Not that it makes a difference, but the vast majority of Ford employees wouldn't have voted to go the route they did.

 

[leggy]

On the gulf war syndrome note. It wasn't specifically the aspartame that was thought to have contributed to the syndrome. It was the fact that diet coke contains aspartame which breaks down to formaldehyde (amongst other things) at around 80C. Now imagine that diet coke in a blistering hot desert.ys

Formaldehyde is highly toxic.

 

[Tom]

The thing is, the temperature of the human body doesn't ever reach anywhere near 80C. Or you'd be dead.

 

[Tom]

Aspartame, a dipeptide composed of phenylalanine and aspartic acid linked by a methyl ester bond, is not absorbed, and is completely hydrolysed in the intestine to yield the two constituent amino acids and free methanol. Opponents of aspartame suggest that the phenylalanine and methanol so released are dangerous. In particular, they assert that methanol can be converted to formaldehyde and then to formic acid, and thus cause metabolic acidosis and neurotoxicity.

Although a 330 ml can of aspartame-sweetened soft drink will yield about 20 mg methanol, an equivalent volume of fruit juice produces 40 mg methanol, and an alcoholic beverage about 60-100 mg. The yield of phenylalanine is about 100 mg for a can of diet soft drink, compared with 300 mg for an egg, 500 mg for a glass of milk, and 900 mg for a large hamburger (1). Thus, the amount of phenylalanine or methanol ingested from consumption of aspartame is trivial, compared with other dietary sources. Clinical studies have shown no evidence of toxic effects and no increase in plasma concentrations of methanol, formic acid, or phenylalanine with daily consumption of 50 mg/kg aspartame (equivalent to 17 cans of diet soft drink daily for a 70 kg adult) (1, 2).

I'm no chemist, but that sounds quite simple to me.

 

[Trem]

Not recently enough my little sex muffin with cheese.

Ffs Nath have you learnt nothing??

DO NOT PUT CHEESE ON A SCOTSMAN!!

 

[Paradroid]

I'm no chemist, but that sounds quite simple to me.

It appears that the whole "but it's in fruit" argument is flawed, yes it may take 80C in a lab (burning tests etc) but the complex chemicals in fruit combined with the human digestive system serve to counterbalance the harmful effects from methanol in fruit - benefits which you don't get from taking Aspartame as an additive chemical. Here's a fuller explanation.

It has been pointed out that some fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol. It is important to remember, however, that methanol never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an antidote for methanol oxicity in humans. In aspartame there is no ethanol.

And here's a another explanation of the politics surrounding the whole debacle.

"Pro" aspartame people point to industry sponsored short term tests, ignoring independant tests. They point to "reliable" health sites, organizations, foundations etc. that are sponsored, funded & fed "facts" by companies that profit from aspartame. And of course, the FDA approved it so "it must be safe", neglecting to mention that the FDA denied aspartame approval for over 8 years until the newly appointed FDA commissioner Arthur Hull Hayes overruled the final scientic review panel, approved aspartame, and then went to work for G.D. Searle's (initial owner of aspartame) public relations firm at $1,000 a day. Hayes has refused all interviews to discuss his actions. The FDA also urged Congress to prosecute G.D. Searle for "specific false statements or concealed facts" stemming from Searle's testing of aspartame. However, the 2 government lawyers assigned to the case decided against prosecuting G.D. Searle and then joined G.D. Searle's law firm! Even the National Soft Drink Assn. filed a strong protest letter (available below) in 1983 against the approval of aspartame for use in beverages, saying "aspartame is inherently, markedly and uniquely unstable in aqueous media." Also, the FDA still allows hydrogenated oils to be used, does that make them safe?

Which brings us back to the racketeering law suit....

The lawsuit contains the following counts:

1. R.I.C.O. (racketeering charges)
2. Unfair Competition
3. False Advertising
4. Consumer Remedies Act
5. Fraud
6. Breach of Warranty
7. Breach of Merchantability
8. Filed as a Class Action representing the People as a whole and Joe Bellon's personal injuries as well.

....

According to the press release issued on this RICO lawsuit: "On or about September 8, 2004 an affidavit was signed describing the initial third world studies and the health hazards of aspartame. These studies conducted in 1983/84 by the J.D. Searle Company were translated to English from Spanish by a translator in 1984. The "double blind" studies showed conclusive evidence that aspartame caused severe health problems and even death to the exposed study group. According to the Affidavit, the doctor directing the studies has been missing since the approval of aspartame in 1984. The affidavit also describes how the affiant was directed by J.D. Searle officials to destroy all records of the studies - including filed notes and/or translations - possessed by the affiant. The affiant describes in detail how the translations were forwarded upon completion to J.D. Searle corporate offices in Illinois.

...

Further allegations include, "G.D. Searle denied knowledge of/or involvement with the initiation, design or performance of the study. Yet, the false results were submitted to the FDA like the rest of the 150 G.D. Searle studies (on aspartame and other products), bearing a Searle Pathology-Toxicology project number. Both Dr.Waisman and G.D.Searle were responsible for the study design. A number of false statements were made by G.D. Searle, including that reported the animals were unavailable for purchase for autopsy after the termination of the study.

It's worth noting that all favourable studies were industry funded (with Searle's experiments being slated for numerous irregularities), and all non-favourable studies were independantly funded.

Interesting to see what the outcome of the law suit will bring, apparenty it's now $100M dollar industry - with this additive showing up in 5000+ foodstuffs.

 

[Tom]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1998/sep16/aspartame.html

 

[Paradroid]

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1998/sep16/aspartame.html

Tom, Tom, Tom...you've given us a link that Snopes referred to from the first page of this thread - and one that I immediately rubbished? Have a read through it yourself...right down the bottom of the page it says:

...
This work was supported by a grant from the NutraSweet Co.
...

You seem to have missed the repeating theme here. As I said in my last post:

It's worth noting that all favourable studies were industry funded (with Searle's experiments being slated for numerous irregularities), and all non-favourable studies were independantly funded.

Who can you trust? Who do you trust? The "research" by the company that's selling the product, or, independant research?




If a car manufacturer (say, Volvo) said to you that they've done scientific research and it proves that their car is the safest in the world, would you trust that? Or would you rather trust an independant survey (i.e. not funded by Volvo)?