Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[05omegav6]

A slight digression, but it's from 2007 so must be relevant and accurate

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2007/03/car-and-driver-road-track-motor-trend-automobile-americas-buff-books-laid-low/

 

[D]

and here is my link which you claim is bollix


http://drbenkim.com/articles-artificialsweeteners.html

So why continue to post 'dangle berries'?

That website is an opinion, not a single drop of evidence. The references I posted to are real studies/research/evidence. Make your mind up. But dont force opinions on others. Give people real facts and let them decide. Yes?

And is response to your other question, yes I have a degree with distinction in biochemistry. Thanks for asking. Would you also like to see my degree certificate?
[ /quote]

you claim its dangle berries .. where is your evidence ? those people dont have another trouble and write/list all sorts of long bollix to deceive people ..  now thats real bollix!

Are you actually reading what I have written? I have linked the research references in my post. You can access them via libraries and the internet(may have to pay for it though).

In case you missed it, here you go:

Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J et al. (2007). "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies". Critical Reviews in Toxicology 37 (: 629–727

Feel free to criticise the research methodology used after you have actually read the article!

[SIR Philbutt]

Let put this all in perspective 

Eat and drink as much of the stuff you like no matter how bad it is for you 

Why 

Because who wants to get old in this country and end up being treated as a lesser person than an immigrant, refugee or prisoner

   

[D]

Interesting link:

http://acsh.org/1999/01/acsh-debunks-internet-health-hoax-2/

Guess who's name is mentioned in the article. Dr Russell Blaylock!

I rest my case.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I have been reading with interest the comments made by Cem, D, and Chris in particular on "qualified" opinion as stated on the internet.

I know nothing about this subject, other than living 60 years and, as I stated before, 'surviving'on the diet of the 1950s and 1960s which was full of everything now condemned by the "exprts" and yet we are the generation set to live longer than any before.

 I would also support Cem in one aspect at least; how experts can be 'persuaded' by financial incentives as to how they express their findings. That is due to me remembering the time when highly qualified scientists and other 'experts' we're stating smoking was very BENIFICIAL to one's health!! They stated a good smoke did your health no harm at all!!

The tobacco giants were pulling the strings, and big companies still do!

[cem_devecioglu]

and here is my link which you claim is bollix


http://drbenkim.com/articles-artificialsweeteners.html

So why continue to post 'dangle berries'?

That website is an opinion, not a single drop of evidence. The references I posted to are real studies/research/evidence. Make your mind up. But dont force opinions on others. Give people real facts and let them decide. Yes?

And is response to your other question, yes I have a degree with distinction in biochemistry. Thanks for asking. Would you also like to see my degree certificate?
[ /quote]

you claim its dangle berries .. where is your evidence ? those people dont have another trouble and write/list all sorts of long bollix to deceive people ..  now thats real bollix!

Are you actually reading what I have written? I have linked the research references in my post. You can access them via libraries and the internet(may have to pay for it though).

In case you missed it, here you go:

Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J et al. (2007). "Aspartame: a safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies". Critical Reviews in Toxicology 37 ( : 629–727

Feel free to criticise the research methodology used after you have actually read the article!

here is your famous article
http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/aspartame912.pdf


this is done.. this done.. etc etc..


no detailed charts, explanations, notes.. believe me I can prepare a report like that just by copy pasting for free


""By 1853, Parliament began passing laws to make the untested vaccine compulsory
throughout the British Empire. Other countries of Europe followed suit. Once the
economic implications of compulsory vaccinations were realized, few dared to
disagree. Then, as now, the media were controlled by the vaccine manufacturers and
the government, who stood to make huge money from the sale of these spurious
vaccines."... Tim O'Shea, D.C. "

as seen , its just matter of earning more money..

http://www.wakenews.net/The_Truth_about_the_Flu_Shot.pdf


and about Dr Blaylock
"Dr. Blaylock serves as the medical consultant for the ]Fluoride Toxicity Research Collaborative He was recently awarded the Integrity in Science award by the Westin Price Foundation. Presently, he is a visiting professor in the department of biological sciences at Belhaven College in Jackson, Mississippi.At present he is a member of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, the American Nutraceutical Association, the International and American Associations of Clinical Nutritionist, American College of Nutrition, American Association for Health Freedom, National Health Federation, American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine and the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation. He was recently appointed as a member of the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Life-Extension Foundation"
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

interestingly,he doesnt seem to be shady as you /others claim

[bigegg]

 I would also support Cem in one aspect at least; how experts can be 'persuaded' by financial incentives as to how they express their findings. That is due to me remembering the time when highly qualified scientists and other 'experts' we're stating smoking was very BENIFICIAL to one's health!! They stated a good smoke did your health no harm at all!!

The tobacco giants were pulling the strings, and big companies still do!

Whilst I agree with the above, I would also point out that some big companies will have a vested interest in pointing out the downsides of aspartame.
I, personally, would assume that if there were any opposing *scientific* studies, they would be sponsored by the sugar companies - or manufacturers of other artificial sweeteners.
Since no such scientific, peer-reviewed studies have apparently been published ANYWHERE - I am going to assume they don't exist, and thus aspartame is safe.

[cem_devecioglu]

I have been reading with interest the comments made by Cem, D, and Chris in particular on "qualified" opinion as stated on the internet.

I know nothing about this subject, other than living 60 years and, as I stated before, 'surviving'on the diet of the 1950s and 1960s which was full of everything now condemned by the "exprts" and yet we are the generation set to live longer than any before.

 I would also support Cem in one aspect at least; how experts can be 'persuaded' by financial incentives as to how they express their findings. That is due to me remembering the time when highly qualified scientists and other 'experts' we're stating smoking was very BENIFICIAL to one's health!! They stated a good smoke did your health no harm at all!!

The tobacco giants were pulling the strings, and big companies still do!

bang on Lizzie

[cem_devecioglu]

 I would also support Cem in one aspect at least; how experts can be 'persuaded' by financial incentives as to how they express their findings. That is due to me remembering the time when highly qualified scientists and other 'experts' we're stating smoking was very BENIFICIAL to one's health!! They stated a good smoke did your health no harm at all!!

The tobacco giants were pulling the strings, and big companies still do!

Whilst I agree with the above, I would also point out that some big companies will have a vested interest in pointing out the downsides of aspartame.
I, personally, would assume that if there were any opposing *scientific* studies, they would be sponsored by the sugar companies - or manufacturers of other artificial sweeteners.
Since no such scientific, peer-reviewed studies have apparently been published ANYWHERE - I am going to assume they don't exist, and thus aspartame is safe.

   go on.. you know you want to..

[bigegg]

and about Dr Blaylock
"Dr. Blaylock serves as the medical consultant for the ]Fluoride Toxicity Research Collaborative [1] He was recently awarded the Integrity in Science award by the Westin Price Foundation.[2] Presently, he is a visiting professor in the department of biological sciences at Belhaven College[3] in Jackson, Mississippi.At present he is a member of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, the American Nutraceutical Association, the International and American Associations of Clinical Nutritionist, American College of Nutrition, American Association for Health Freedom, National Health Federation, American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine and the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation. He was recently appointed as a member of the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Life-Extension Foundation"
http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

interestingly,he doesnt seem to be shady as you /others claim

[1] No hits on google for this organisation.
[2] Have a google about the "Weston A Price Foundation" - hardly a role model for "intergrity in scientific research"
[3] Belhaven College is a religion-dominated Christian college (think "creationism") which only offers Biology and Chemistry to undergraduate level - hardly a world leading institute for the study of nutrition or medicine (neither of which it offers)

[Kevin Wood]

now ,  if we think logically , any product selling in high amounts and returning high sums of money is an industry itself..

so the producer will pay any amount to "hired" scientists and take positive reports.. also its valid for the competing sugar sector..  however, even without experience in chemistry labs (I have) , you can easily "feel" those chemicals are not "friendly"..

You read it here first! Capitalism causes cancer!

Not sure even the Daily Fail have run that headline yet?

In all seriousness, if you're concerned about what you should / shouldn't be eating, speak to your GP. 99% of what's on the internet is sh1te and you can always find something that backs up your irrational fears there.

[Stemo]

Just preparing todays unhealthy lunch. Hard boil two eggs, grill four rashers of bacon until crispy. Let eggs cool and mix with bacon (snapped in to bite size pieces), salad cream/mayo, black pepper, chilled and served on crusty bread. Yum.

[cem_devecioglu]

now ,  if we think logically , any product selling in high amounts and returning high sums of money is an industry itself..

so the producer will pay any amount to "hired" scientists and take positive reports.. also its valid for the competing sugar sector..  however, even without experience in chemistry labs (I have) , you can easily "feel" those chemicals are not "friendly"..

You read it here first! Capitalism causes cancer!

Not sure even the Daily Fail have run that headline yet?

In all seriousness, if you're concerned about what you should / shouldn't be eating, speak to your GP. 99% of what's on the internet is sh1te and you can always find something that backs up your irrational fears there.

unfortunately ,I have discovered that even the shitiest pages of tinternet are more trustable

[05omegav6]

As a rule of thumb, if an internet search produces no hits then the thing being searched either doesn't exist, fact or fiction, or it has been erased by persons unknown for reasons unknown.

Something fictional such as a hoax will probably produce more links than any genuine article could ever manage


This is the current top result when you search 'aspartame side effects'. It might sound familiar...

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx

This is the fourth listing. And contains, shock horror, rational and balanced information  ...

http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/additivesbranch/aspartame/

You will note that the 1 in 10,000 people have an issue with phenylketonuria.

And finally, good old Wikipedia, the fifth listing. You will note the use of 'conspiracy theories' and 'email hoax' within the first paragraph...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

 

[cleggy]

Just preparing todays unhealthy lunch. Hard boil two eggs, grill four rashers of bacon until crispy. Let eggs cool and mix with bacon (snapped in to bite size pieces), salad cream/mayo, black pepper, chilled and served on crusty bread. Yum.

I'm having Pork Dripping sarnies with loads of salt and copious Peroni.