1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Artificial Sweeteners Part 1- a slow death! Please read if you use them

Discussion in 'Health and Fitness' started by ToddsPhins, Aug 19, 2010.

  1. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Just to be clear, you are in no way affiliated with Global Health Trax?

    Do you also maintain that GST is not a MLM?

    And no I don't believe what I hear. I believe what my uncle, a neuro surgeon says. When I emailed him this morning on this topic his immediate reply was to ask what was being sold.

    I think the real question is, do you believe everything the Internet tells you? Do you buy everything the Internet sells? Do you believe you can make thousands a month working from the convenience of your home???
     
  2. Den54

    Den54 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    19,680
    31,349
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    AMERICA!
    Great thread TP, I love talking and hearing about this stuff.
    A couple of years ago Nabo either started a thread or mentioned in a thread the evils of HFCS. I took note of it and started paying attention to labels more closely then I already did and was stunned by how that crap was put into almost every thing it seemed. Needless to say I've stayed cleared of it as much as possible.

    Another thing I have stayed clear of is aluminum. Antiperspirants to be more precise. Most have aluminum in them as the active ingredient. I stick with regular deodorants.
     
    gunn34, NaboCane and ToddsPhins like this.
  3. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Are you serious? doctors and surgeons can be the WORST when it comes to this stuff b/c they are biased to what they are taught in Med school etc. They're controlled by the AMA..... and if you never put 2 and 2 together, the AMA is greatly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. The AMA, Big Pharma, and the FDA are all 1 nice happy family. The AMA makes sure Big Pharma is a major part of the medical industry and the FDA protects it all and tries to keep out competition, while the AMA does virtually nothing to endorse natural health methods either.

    What happens when you go to the doctors for an illness? The doctor (or nurse practitioner nowadays with the Dr making a brief guest appearance) runs through his checklist of stuff he was taught in med school to do. Most of them are friggin puppets!! They scroll through your list of symptoms..... and then what? Then they "prescribe you a pharmaceutical drug" to alleviate the symptom. Symptoms, much of the time, are merely manifestations of an underlying problem. Often the drugs don't treat the actual problem itself; rather they just mask the fact that it's there.

    Do the doctors teach you how to be healthy? Do they teach preventative health care? F no they dont b/c there's no money in that!! ..... and there's certainly no money for Big Pharma if people are healthy. This country thrives off of us being sick. Do you know how much money That's how the system is set up!! The public finding out ways to become healthy (in a preventative manner or through natural methods) is this country's mortal enemy b/c Pharma, Tobacco, Alcohol, Corn, and Fast Food run the friggin show, and they pay good money to make sure they keep running the friggin show. This conglomerate does NOT want to have a separate entity infringing on their turf and disrupting their power or minimizing their profits. These people are ruthless and stop at nothing to blast and slander anyone or any product that they deem a threat. Open an AMA magazine and see how many pharmaceutical ads it has...... and then compare that to the goose-egg of natural natural supplements they contain. The entire system would flip upside down if we all of a sudden became healthy!! You think the Big 5 bast@rds care about our health or cures for cancer etc? NO f'n way!! They only want one thing..... your money!! We're one of the most diseased non-3rd world countries on the planet. The corruption involved has driven sooooo far off course that they can't even see the original path anymore!!! If you don't believe this, then I truly feel sorry for you.

    The docs are for the most part controlled and limited to only being able to treat stuff that they can write a prescription for. That's a load crap!!! We're natural. Our bodies are natural. Man made chemicals/drugs were not meant to be the answer. Proper health can cure and prevent almost everything, but good luck finding a doctor to forget about prescriptions and teach you natural health measures to treat your condition!! They don't make money off it either!! The kickbacks from Big Pharma would disappear. Do you think physicians push the heck out of a $500/bottle cancer cream when a $100 generic is available if they weren't getting kickbacks? If you're lucky enough to find a doctor who knows about natural methods and preventative health care, you'll be even luckier if he tells you b/c preaching natural over pharmaceutical is a quick way for a doctor to either get his license taken away or fall under extreme scrutiny.

    Anything a doctor tells me I take with a giant grain of salt b/c, even though his lips are moving, it's the AMA and Big Pharma doing the talking. :wink2: (not to mention, when I was going through SERIOUS health issues, they couldn't do crap for me..... told me I'd have to just cope with it the best I could...... but then I took matters into my own hands and did years of research etc the natural way and cured my own f$#%ing self.)
     
  4. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    and no.... I'm not affiliated with them.

    But they did help cure my systemic candidiasis along with their "threelac" probiotic supplement which is the ONLY.... I repeat ONLY product on the market that worked for me..... and has also been the ONLY product that has worked for thousands of others who suffered from systemic candidiasis, fibromyalgia, digestive disorgers and so on and so on. I never pegged you for the ignorant type String.

    And by the way..... your uncle is a neuro surgeon. "SURGEON". That's his job- surgery, not preventative health care. Let me know when he becomes a noted nutritionalist. ;)
     
  5. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,072
    22,828
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    I'm not trying to offend here, but the original article is based on ZERO facts and the opinions formed are based on ignorant assumptions and scare tactics. I have some expertise in this area and can tell you that it's all paranoia . Yes, if you consume huge doses multiple times a day, you will be hurting yourself, but as any toxicologist will tell you, even water is toxic at high enough doses. Sucralose is not fat soluble so the one statement in the article is false. Plus the chloroalkyl functionality has been shown to be ver stable. The only relevant question is how the liver processes this substance and what the potential metabolites are.
     
  6. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
     
  7. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,072
    22,828
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    One more follow-up point. Insurance companies (which I am not supporting) are changing their methods of reimbursements and it does affect the strategy moving forward for pharma and prescribing doctors. In order for doctors to actually get paid, they now have to think twice about prescribing the more expensive medicine, unless they have justification that it works better. (i.e., if they want to get paid, it's in their best interest to prescribe the generic). Furthermore, with respect to pharma, pharma companies are finding that they are getting less reimbursement of their expensive drugs unless they actually show an improvement over the current standard of care. The days of pharma coming out of drugs that are the same and just paying doctors extra money to switch to their drugs is coming to an end. Finally, with regards to the last point, there are new regulations in place that prevent pharma from paying physicians lavish gifts to bribe them to prescribe their drugs. That multibillion dollar industry is also coming to a close. There are some ways around it, but nothing so lavish.
     
  8. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Yeah.... and it's also an NCAA violation for college athletes to get paid and taken care of. :wink2: Cmon now.... tell me you're not that gullible.

    My wife works at UNC hospital and is good friends with a LOT of doctors and surgeons (and stays in touch with her past docs from hospitals in Orlando and Ft Lauderdale). The physicians might not get openly bribed like they used to, but they still get compensated. When I mentioned a $500 cancer cream being pushed when a $100 generic is available, I'm not pulling that out of my arse. I brought my mother up here (UNC) a few months ago to be treated for serious melanoma (skin cancer on much of her body).

    Her doc told her the ONLY treatment is a $560/container of topical cream that she would have to use over her entire body (roughly 13 containers of it!). She couldn't afford that even after insurance b/c the premium was so high. Here she is with a cure in front of her, but still cant be treated. She made it very clear that the cost was unaffordable and basically pleaded for another option that she COULD afford. Doc said "sorry that's your ONLY option".

    I spoke to my wife about the dilemma b/c she has 1st hand knowledge of how this corrupt, ruthless system works. She made a few calls on my mom's behalf, and by the following day, (wouldn't you know it) my mom's doc was prescribing the $100/container of generic that he initially said didn't exist. One of the oncologists that my wife works for told her that the doc was getting a big kickback to push the $560 cream, to the extent that affordable "generics" and his patient's well-being played second fiddle to his kick backs. Her friend said this is routine practice. My wife has a TON of medical connections. I could give examples like these ALL DAY LONG. You can preach that "regulations" have been established, but that doesn't mean a hill of beens if there's still corruption..... b/c until there's ZERO corruption, corruption still exists. It ALL revolves around money!!....NOT health. :wink2:

    Case in point (example): When you tweak a shoulder (maybe some tendonitis or a mild rotator cuff tear), do the physicians give you what they know will most likely take care of it within minutes? Do they go the short, cost efficient route first? Nope..... b/c there's no money to be made from a shot of cortisone. They send us to physical therapy for a few weeks. <Time to open the wallet.> Then we're sent for an MRI <open the wallet again, bigger this time>. Then it's back for more physical therapy <wallet time>. Then it's a follow up with the doc to discuss MRI results <yes, wallet again>. Doc discusses your options. He will undoubtably throw in the "surgery is an option if physical therapy doesn't work" <dollar signs>. And then he'll throw in the "we could always try a cortisone shot" once you balk at the thought of more therapy or surgery. At this point it's now ok to give the shot b/c the system has already rifled through your bank account. Please don't tell me this isn't how it is, b/c it's EXACTLY how it is. Only when you know the system or the docs involved can you skip the first steps and go right to the shot, and even then it's like pulling teeth. I know this for a fact.

    And guess what...... govt officials aren't supposed to take money either. Does that stop them?
     
  9. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    No offense to you, but I highly doubt that your "some expertise in this area" is superior to this author who's entire career has been dedicated to the study of molecules...... who received the prestigious Howard Hughes Medical Institute Research Grant twice..... and who holds a master's degree in organic chemistry and has first-hand experience in drug design. For a person of this stature to say the following is no small potatoes.
    He's not saying "be careful; this stuff may harm you. Try not to drink too much of it." He's saying that it is far worse than Vioxx or Lipitor. That's a serious f#%^ing statement by a serious expert.

    There's always risk when going against the system and standing up against the giants. People like this don't put themselves out there for NO reason. The author has seen first hand the effects of created drugs. Sometimes people actually develop morals and go against everything they once stood for in order to serve the greater good. People like this typically have strong principles and want to see positive change, even if it's at their own sacrifice. Yet we as a society are convinced that THESE people are the quacks, the bad guys, who make unfounded claims and risk their careers & lively-hood for no apparent reason. Give me an f'n break! When you show some credentials that are superior to Ellison's, then you can debunk him and this thread all you want.

    I've done enough research and used enough NORMAL COMMON SENSE to see how backwards and corrupt our system is. The system and the FDA continually assert that health supplements, vitamin & minerals etc are toxic to us and that there is no research to support the "health-benefitical" claims of the health companies (b/c the FDA doesn't make any money off these results, nor does the FDA allocate much funding towards these studies). There is no money to be made by the FDA etc in regards to natural products. Why do you think they're slandering Stevia?! B/c it's natural, and it's a threat to the artificial sweetener industry. Seriously!! Get a clue here! Until something becomes public common knowledge, then the FDA will continue to turn a blind eye. These schmucks are the REAL people practicing the scare tactics- trying to scare the public away from natural health products while advocating pharmaceutical drugs and medical practices that kill thousands of Americans annually and create health problems for millions more. There has been something like 1 nutritional supplement related death over the past 5 or so years. However, one person dies every 3-5 minutes from approved and properly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs, and every year there are over 2.2 million adverse drug reactions in the U.S alone. Splenda, Equal, and Nutrasweet are much a part of this cutthroat drug cartel.

    I also think you need to re-read the article. The author didn't say it was "fat soluble". He said it's "25% water soluble". The last I checked 25% water soluble is not the same as 100% water soluble. And if you want to ascertain that covalently bound chlorine is harmless to the body, then I think you'll be hard pressed to find evidence to support your claim. Give me some unbiased data that here. Your word is not good enough.

    Further more, please tell me who it's "been shown to be very stable by". I bet you also believed that Vioxx was safe b/c it was approved for worldwide distribution....... and then proceeded to kill an estimated 150,000+ people globally. :wink2:
     
  10. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Just gonna add in 1 point: The United States accounts for almost half of the world's annual pharmaceutical sales!.... roughly $300 BILLION worth. AND Splenda is Johnson & Johnson's product..... the same J&J pharmaceutical company with $63 billion a year in revenue.

    The COMBINED revenue for the US dietary supplement industry is only $24 billion annually. Hmmmmm....... $63 billion from ONE company....... or $24 billion from an entire industry? Gee, I wonder who has the power and influence here. Of course, that would mean that people are bought off and tests/studies are manipulated for the good of company profit...... but that NNNNEVER happens b/c our govt, FDA, and AMA are straight as an arrow and ONLY interested in the greater good of the population! :glare:

    McDonalds and the rest of the fast food industry lower our health..... Tobacco lowers it even more...... The Corn industry and it's high fructose corn syrup then adds further to the health demise...... what Mickey D's doesn't accomplish, the rest of the processed foods industry will...... then we have 35 million pounds of antibiotics consumed annually (80% from farm animals, live stock etc) that greatly increase or risk for disease & can destroy our immune systems, as well as costs us about $20 billion annually to treat (can we say "someone's pockets are filling up here!!" ....... then alcohol consumption from many of these unhealthy depressed (and non depressed drinkers as well) does it's job to also impair our health. Why stop there? I mean, you have the non-health aspect covered right? So why not try to capitalize on the dietary, health-conscious, weight-loss piece of the pie by pushing man-made, artificial sweetener drugs as zero calorie alternatives that are either made of chlorine or converted to formaldehyde and are horrible for blood glucose levels and dehydrate your body?!! The only thing that's left is for the pharmaceutical/medical industry to swoop in and reap the benefits/profits from our poor health.

    It's a perfect symbiotic relationship!... and they're ALL in bed together. The FDA is their paid-off sheriff who protects their transgressions.... and the AMA is the Sales Manager who teaches its med students (I mean sales associates) how to sling the goods for profit.

    They make money off of us becoming sick and diseased..... then they make even more money by "treating" our lifetime of symptoms.
     
  11. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,072
    22,828
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    Hard for me to compare myself to your "expert" when you don't have a link to your article. I'd like to see this person's credentials before I crown him a better expert in the field of drug design than myself.

    And your conspiracy theories that all these corporations are in it together to make us sick so the pharma can sell us drugs to make us better is absolutely absurd.
    Are all these things bad for us? yes. Do drugs cost WAY TOO much? Yes.
    These corporations are driven by nothing else except profit. Food companies don't care about big pharma and hospital bills. There's no coercion between tobacco and pharma. You may think that they sit in dark rooms discussing these conspiracies, but you would be quite silly.
     
  12. my 2 cents

    my 2 cents Well-Known Member

    4,090
    2,337
    113
    Dec 10, 2007
    NC Mountains
    LOl....uhhhh..."interesting" thread...........you make sucralose by adding 3...yeah....3 molecules of chlorine to sugar.....#2 it is debatable how much if any is absorable in your system but WORST case scenario is 35% ...maybe 10% iof that is metabolozed (keeping in mind that is total sucralose has 3 chlorine molecules of chlorine on it) ............... unless you get soemthing NO ONE has EVER gotten from Bisulfite or other declorination methods then you consume about 100 times more than that of actual CL2 molecules that "naturally" bond with other chemicals in your body every day if and/or when you drink city water..............so if you buy into this then my advice would be do not drink water either unless it is from a spring that has been tested for minute levels of wellllll....everything known to man............

    I think there is a lot more "unknowns" about Artifically manufactured complex carbohydrates (Aspartame) with regard to chemical interactions in your body than sucralose...................IMHO........
     
    AbideN703 and Ohio Fanatic like this.
  13. my 2 cents

    my 2 cents Well-Known Member

    4,090
    2,337
    113
    Dec 10, 2007
    NC Mountains
    OK....we have a population that will approach 9 billion by 2045 and 19% of the land is tillable OR can support livestock..........which is just simple FACT......

    So.............what happens to crops in your world, when you do not use pesticides or biocides to ensure crops are not destroyed...what happens when you do not use urase inhibitors to advance fertilizers.....how do you propose dealing with pesticide resistance? What about life cycle degredation of non injected swine and beef? How do you deal with the myriad of pathogens that are passed from milk cow to off spring ...without treating them? How do you porpose we increase yields from vegfgies and from swine/beef/poultry to meet the demands of a high income society without further segregating the low income society and sending them into famine?....those would just be a few of the questions that I would have before moving to fantasyland where there are 9 billion people eating organic granola and drinking organic grape juice whilke it is raining BJ's and celestial virgins...........
     
  14. my 2 cents

    my 2 cents Well-Known Member

    4,090
    2,337
    113
    Dec 10, 2007
    NC Mountains
     
  15. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    I didn't realize that ThePhins.com comprised 9 BILLION people.

    Am I talking to 9 billion people? No.

    Does any of what you are saying change the fact that we as a people have the right to choose what we want to eat? No.

    Do we, as Americans, have options when it comes to what we eat? Yes.

    Your long tangent about how to solve problems has absolutely nothing to do with practicing healthy living while we have the option to do so. I still don't understand the point to your post. And by the way, if people demand it, change will happen. If the general public is content with how things are, then industries will continue to cut costs and give us crappier, unhealthier products. That's an economic fact. Ask Walmart what happened when they saw a growing demand for organic dairy. :wink2: They found a way to get it in their stores...... but they said they previously did NOT do so b/c demand wasn't high enough to meet revenue goals. IF 9 billion people DEMANDED organic, chemical free, antibiotic free foods, then I promise you that companies would find ways to make it happen. However, there is little urgency for them to do so right now.
     
  16. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    I would agree with you entirely..... that people working for companies like Johnson & Johnson (Splenda) or the FDA (who makes millions off J&J) would definitely have an agenda.

    So would you like to be our guinea pig and drink 3-4 sucralose sweetened sodas every day for a few months and see how you feel, as well as your before and after blood workup? And then try it again with aspartame? My wife and I have been there once, but you wouldn't take our word for it to save your life. No pun intended. LOL.

    So basically you're saying that all the individuals coming forward with health related issues from sucralose and aspartame have hidden agendas?..... and that independent chemists with no ties to any of it also have hidden agendas?..... but the one's who don't are the one's working for these companies or for the FDA?
     
  17. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Please tell me you're not that naive. Do they sit together at a round table with bottles of Petrus while sipping Louis xiii and smoking Gurkha Black Dragons? Probably not.... but they don't need to. Their existence alone allows ALL of them to profit more while sitting atop the food chain. PERIOD. They all pay off the FDA, politicians, and the AMA. NONE of them are hurt by any of the other's existence. It allows for total power on their part.

    No offense, but you should wake up to how this country works. It's not all dandelions and daffodils. These industries want to retain power and money. That's it! With these scoundrels on top, they can continue having all the power while making gobs of money. They all share a common interest and have similar goals that aren't jeopardized by each other. These bullies have 1 main thing in common: they're bad for our health!! And who makes money when our health is poor?-- The medical and pharmaceutical industry of course. Do they practice preventative medicine or attempt to make us healthy? No. They merely treat symptoms and send us on our continued unhealthy way so that we can keep spending money on the crap above. They thrive together EXACTLY how they are. If you don't believe me, look at what their combined share of the pie is.

    Add to it, there's more power in numbers, so of course they'd have each other's interest in mind and somewhat coerce together. The longer they can keep marijuana from being legalized and the longer they can fight off natural medicine, health food, and the nutrition supplement world, the longer they will ALL retain their power and profits. Because as soon as any of the aforementioned break through and begin seeing serious revenue, then they begin to develop power..... and with power comes a say so.... and with a say so comes influence and potential for change..... and with a potential change comes a threat to tobacco, fast food, alcohol, Pharma, Corn, Processed foods etc. You can say whatever you want, but these companies do NOT want to see their power and profits reduced..... and a threat to one of them is threat to ALL of them (b/c they share the common element of unhealthy products). Not to mention with a threat like this, the FDA and AMA would lose money and they don't want to see that happen either. The AMA attempted to stall the health risks associated to smoking for years when it was first brought up. Now they rake in cash from Big Pharma. The FDA ignored independent studies that emphatically stated Vioxx will cause heart problems (b/c the FDA is virtually controlled and run by Big Pharma). Nothing has changed since then. Money is still money, and power is still power..... and if you have enough of it you can pretty much get what you want no matter how many people your product kills. (or at least stall long enough to continue gaining revenue).

    That's why pot won't be legalized. B/c it would be too much of a revenue producer which will in turn give the pot industry power...... which would in turn give them a voice..... and such a voice could disrupt the monopoly of power we currently face.
     
  18. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Added, I'm not sure how you can say even say that when we can play 6 degrees of separation with these guys all day long. They sell to each other and buy from each other and are probably each other's largest revenue producers.

    Let's play along shall we:

    Big Pharma makes 50 million pounds of antibiotics per year, of which 36 million pounds is sold to be pumped into animals which will be sold to Fast Food. Pharma, say hello to Fast Food. This leaves 14 million pounds to be purchased and used against disease etc. There are also 5000 deaths and 76 million food borne illnesses annually (thanks in part to antibiotic usage in food). These deaths and illnesses may result in medical treatment, hospital visits, etc. Big Pharma, say hello to the medical/health industry (and to the AMA who train physicians to sell your products). Big Pharma is sucralose (Splenda). It's purchased by virtually every fast food company in the country to use in coffee and tea. It's also purchased by the Crap Food Industry to sweeten their products. These products are in turn sold to Fast Food. Big Pharma, meet crap foods AND Fast Food. How about Corn and high fructose corn syrup? The corn is fed to the animals that are being pumped full of antibiotics which are sold to Fast Food. The high fructose corn syrup is sold to the entire Crap Food Industry as a cheaper sweetening alternative, which is in turn also sold to Fast Food. They buy and sell to & from each other in bulk.... of course they're in bed together.

    Only tobacco and alcohol don't share ties with them, but T&A will side with the industries who makes money off poor health. And T&A are basically 2 peas in a pod b/c if one is finally eliminated, then the other one immediately becomes in jeopardy. So these 2 are linked to the others b/c they all share a common interest and sell products that are bad for our health.

    As far as Tobacco and Big Pharma together....... do you know how much money Pharma and the medical industry profit from tobacco related health issues!! I don't know the exact dollar amount, but it's a massive. Ditto goes for alcohol. The AMA "is" basically married to Big Pharma...... so when the AMA fought to keep Tobacco a float for years, it was in essence Big Pharma also fighting for Tobacco's rights. How about all the money that is brought in for cancer research b/c of what all these products do to our health? Cmon now, it's an endless money pit at the expense of general public.

    And food companies most certainly DO care about Pharma and hospital bills. If their unhealthy products are NOT being opposed, then they absolutely care. When the FDA and AMA (who are puppets of Big Pharma) try to fend off all opposition to the Crap Food Industry, then the care 100%. The FDA and AMA do the Crap Food Industry a major service by keeping their products a top the food chain for as long as they possibly can, while they attempt to hold off the natural health industry's advancement.... b/c the Natural Health industry is the mortal enemy of the Crap Food industry. As people become more and more aware of the related health issues, then they will continue switching to healthier ways away from the Crap Food industry (just as we're seeing happen now). The FDA and AMA are making every attempt to prevent this..... going to the extreme as attempting to push a bill that would make vitamins and minerals available by prescription only. The Crap Food industry is as dependent on Big Pharma via the FDA and AMA as Big Pharma is dependent on Crap Food to keep people sick and needing treatment. :wink2:
     
  19. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Some questions for you:

    1. Would you argue that these chemicals do not dehydrate human cells?


    2. Do you oppose the evidence that sucralose negatively effects blood glucose levels, hence taxes the pancreas and exposes an individual to risk for diabetes?


    3. How do you think these chemicals affect a fetus's development when consumed by a pregnant female?


    4. How about when the sucralose hydrolyzes? What then?


    5. How do you feel about the following: Despite the manufacturer's claims to the contrary, sucralose IS significantly absorbed and metabolized by the body. According to the FDA's "Final Rule" report, 11% to 27% of sucralose is absorbed in humans, and the rest is excreted unchanged in feces. According to the Japanese Food Sanitation Council, as much as 40% of ingested sucralose is absorbed. ?????


    6. If I said that only 20% to 30% of absorbed sucralose is metabolized.... and that parts of the remaining absorbed sucralose has been found to concentrate in the liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract..... what would you say to that? (According to The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center, sucralose is broken down "into small amounts of 1,6-dichlorofructose, a chemical which has NOT been adequtely tested in humans." Although a compound chemically related to sucrose, 6-chloro-deoxyglucose, is known to have anti-fertility and neurotoxic effects)


    7. The FDA acknowledges that sucralose "is produced at an approximate purity of 98%." While that may sound pretty pure, that still leaves out 2%? It turns out that the final sucralose product contains small amounts of potentially dangerous substances such as:

    Heavy Metals (e.g., Lead)
    Arsenic
    Triphenilphosphine Oxide
    Methanol
    Chlorinated Disaccharides
    Chlorinated Monosaccharide

    How do you feel these in small/trace amounts affect the body since they are/can be a sucralose ingredient?


    8. Because a percentage of the sucralose is excreted out of the body, what kind of future affects will this have on the environment?... and would say for certain that it wouldn't have an effect?


    9. Lastly..... would you disagree with the following statement made by "The Sucralose Toxicity Information Center":
    While it is unlikely that sucralose is as toxic as the poisoning people are experiencing from Monsanato's aspartame, it is clear from the hazards seen in pre-approval research and from its chemical structure that years or decades of use may contribute to serious chronic immunological or neurological disorders.

    As an "expert", would you take your chances to see if serious illness comes to fruition?
     
  20. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,072
    22,828
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    ToddsPhins, I respect your desire to get everyone here to eat/drink with a healthy lifestyle in mind, but your over-the-top, melodramatic, conspiracy theories are not the way to do it. It quickly becomes boy-who-cried wolf, IMO.

    Will cutting diet sodas out of your diet completely improve your health? I can agree with that.
    But, it's where you start trying to draw on expertise that simply isn't there or paraphrasing one single opinion of a man who's alarmist attitude towards sucralose may or may not hold any weight erodes your position.

    First of all, when you ingest sucralose, you are not ingesting chlorine. If/when your body breaks down sucralose, it will generate incredibly small amounts of "CHLORIDE", not chlorine. Chlorine is indeed toxic, chloride is not. Chloride is an ion that makes up table salt. In very large quantities, chloride upsets the biochemical balances in your body, but if you're smart enough to do the math, any chloride generated (even if all the sucralose is broken down to generate 3 atoms of chloride) is a minute amount of your daily intake. As far as formaldehyde, our body produces formaldehyde naturally, in greater quantities than what you'll see from ingesting a bunch of sucralose. ANd it small amounts, most of the tissues in the human body have a very easy time breaking down formaldehyde. So, this whole idea that drinking diet sodas poisons you because you're ingesting chlorine and formaldehyde is just plain ignorant. Not trying to offend you here, but you are paraphrasing an alarmist scientist who simply does not represent the scientific community. (You still haven't told me the author, who I bet is trying to make money off this alarmist attitude).

    The real question you should be asking: what else might sucralose be doing? because I do agree with one thing, it's not healthy, and probably does contribute to weight gain. My guess is that even though the body does not process sucralose like sugar (hence the ability to call it sugar free) somewhere along the digestive process, some sort of Phase II metabolic product probably does cause some biochemical imbalances that lead to these health problems.

    And finally, I will stack my credentials against anyone you want to put me up against. I have a PhD in organic chemistry from what was a world class institute in my field. I have a 2nd degree in biochemistry. And I've been a practicing, highly regarded, highly successful, medicinal chemist for about 15 years now. I respect that your wife is/was a nurse or nutritionalist, so she obviously knows the difference between what is healthy for her patients and what is bad for them. But, I have a basic understanding of the biochemical processes that naturally occur in the body, as well as the bodies ability to break down xenobiotics or what happens when the body can not break these down to metabolites that can be excreted. So, your debating that diet soda is really bad for you is valid, but arguing with me on a scientific level to prove your point is, well pointless.
     
  21. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,072
    22,828
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    SIGH
    1) no, sucralose and other sugars do not "dehydrate human cells". if a chemical causes a biochemical imbalance, their exists the possibilities that the salt channels in cells can be imbalanced and result in poor cell health.

    2) I won't argue this point, this could actually be true, but I haven't seen the evidence either way

    3) I'm sure it at best doesn't effect it, at worst, it could have some bad effects. But, my friend, there are just as many naturally-occuring substances that can hurt a fetus. IMO, no pregnant woman in this country is able to eat/drink healthy with respect to their fetus. Our best hope is that the mother's body is able to break down the foreign substance before they get to the fetus.

    4) If sucralose is "hydrolyzed" it is transformed, via Phase I metabolism, to a product that can likely be glucorinodated to something the body can expel rapidly. That's the liver's natural clearance mechanism. hydroxylate a substance the body can not identify and conjugate it to expel it out.

    5) 11-27% absorption is something that you have to think about, but if it were a drug, that absorption level would be considered piss-poor at best. combined with the fact that there is much less sucralose in diet soda than what you see sugar in normal soda, the overall amount of sucralose being absorbed into your body isn't a large amount.

    6) Two parts to answer this question. First of all, yes, this would be the primary concern, if sucralose is indeed accumulating in the kidney. This could have all sorts of repercussions I'm not going to bother getting into, because it's the one point I do agree with you. but then you lose some credibility with the 2nd part. while dichlorofructose has not been properly characterized, it is nothing like 6-chloroglucose. 6-chloroglucose has a MUCH more reactive chlorosubstituent, while dichlorofructose is a much milder source of chloride, very similar to sucralose

    7) Hate to tell you ToddsPhins, but all those natural supplements that you espouse, that are NOT regulated by the FDA, likely have MANY more of these 1-2% impurities than sucralose.

    8) and finally, the statement about worrying about sucralose that isn't metabolized being excreted into the environment is a reach at best. If this is a substance you're really worried about, then the manufacture of sucralose probably releases more of this substance into the environment in a week than all the diet-soda induced pee from all the diet soda drinkers in this country in a day. Absolutely absurd to even think about worrying about statement #8

    I'm done arguing this subject. I really hope you're not quoting Dr Janet Hull on this subject. Because she's just out to make money by getting good people like yourself alarmed over something that might be real, but not nearly as life threatining as 1 million other issues that are probably more toxic to us.

     
  22. my 2 cents

    my 2 cents Well-Known Member

    4,090
    2,337
    113
    Dec 10, 2007
    NC Mountains
    There are a lot of fringe issues that people do not understand when talking about food production, and I was pointing that out. You are posting here about what foods are good or bad for you which is fine, you post your personal experience which is fine...but you are quoting some guy with some article that is absoluetly not based ion science and quoting him like he is gospel...and his infoirmation is inaccurate........you can believe you can feed the world pop0ulation on organic natural foods if demand dictated it,,,,but you would be wrong.......IMHO...and yopu never answered my questions.
     
    Ohio Fanatic and ToddsPhins like this.
  23. my 2 cents

    my 2 cents Well-Known Member

    4,090
    2,337
    113
    Dec 10, 2007
    NC Mountains
    No thanks...I do not think Sucralose or Aspartame are good for you. I also think many on both sides have agendas and lobbyists....we agree on a lot here...BUT....you are quoting as guy woi is full of male cow feces as far as his science is concerned..the things he is saying and the leaps yopu are making are simply not true or based on scientific evidence.....you might want to look up some of the studies from the American Progressive Food Safety and Standards Institute....there is a chemist there that has vast industry experience in this subject area.
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  24. my 2 cents

    my 2 cents Well-Known Member

    4,090
    2,337
    113
    Dec 10, 2007
    NC Mountains
     
    Ohio Fanatic and ToddsPhins like this.
  25. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,072
    22,828
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    Yeah, concept behind Olestra was that it was supposed to just slip through. Unfortunately, it also made all your poop slip through too. A side effect that many thought wasn't worth it. Plus, I thought it made the food taste funny.

    As far as your second point, you're right. People who argue that the FDA is this evil machine are off base IMO. If anything, the strict regulations that make it almost impossible to get a drug to market due to the safety bar that the FDA has set is the main driving force for the high cost of prescription drugs. Yes, the evil pharma will always look to get 20% profit on their drugs (much higher for cancer drugs), but the 1 billion dollars it costs to get a drug to market has to be paid somehow.

    I imagine many natural products would not pass the required tests. THe popular story in our industry is that if you tried to push tylenol (a drug that we all freely give to our babies and little children) then it would absolutely NOT make it through clinical trials today due to potential liver tox.
     
  26. AbideN703

    AbideN703 Yes, I'd hit it

    2,532
    925
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Springfield, Virginia
    I've never had a single one of those side effects and I drink diet soda every day. I'm either the Hulk or this is all bull****.
     
  27. AbideN703

    AbideN703 Yes, I'd hit it

    2,532
    925
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Springfield, Virginia
    So these were all b/c of drinking soda/diet soda and nothing else? Really?
     
  28. AbideN703

    AbideN703 Yes, I'd hit it

    2,532
    925
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Springfield, Virginia
    Well damn man I feel bad that drinking half a bottle does immediate physical damage to you but I and others have probably never had the same reaction to it. Maybe you're allergic? There's definitely something going on with you/wife and your reaction to these products.
     
  29. AbideN703

    AbideN703 Yes, I'd hit it

    2,532
    925
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Springfield, Virginia
    But seafood rules man! How can you not like salmon with rice and asparagus? :knucks:
     
  30. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007

    Haha, I've tried eating seafood but it just doesn't appeal to me. For everyone who does like it, kudos.
     
  31. AbideN703

    AbideN703 Yes, I'd hit it

    2,532
    925
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Springfield, Virginia
    Not even crunchy shrimp?
     
  32. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    It would be a valid theory, but nope..... not allergic. I drank diet mountain dew consistently for maybe a year. It was my ONLY true vice b/c I practiced an immaculately healthy diet and was the poster boy for great health prior to using it. I didn't feel anything in the beginning except for my morning caffein pick-me-up, although I did notice it was making me gassy and bloated from time to time (my wife was the same way). This gradually increased to feeling this way after each meal, even when no diet soda was involved. Then I began developing food allergies that I previously never had. (nothing else in my diet or living had changed) Then lethargy became more noticeable. Then my skin began looking blotchy and less "clean". I developed bad irritable bowel and insomnia. Lethargy grew into extreme fatigue. Then night sweats. Then swollen glands and a weakened immune system. Fibromyalgia symptoms began developing. It manifested to the point that it was extremely affecting my work performance.

    When I finally couldn't handle the fatigue, I saw a physician about it. First thing he did was try to rule out advanced stages of Hodgkin's disease b/c that's what he thought I had. Blood tests came back with liver, kidney, and thyroid problems to name a few. The stress my body was enduring had severely compromised my immune system and blood tests also showed Epstein Barr Virus at levels commonly seen in AIDS patients who are near death (Epstein Barr is like an adult form of mono that can last up to 6 months at a time). Lastly was systemic candidiasis (which is most likely the main cause of the above mentioned health issues). Doc also diagnosed me with chronic fatigue syndrome which usually goes hand in hand with Epstein Barr.

    To make a long story short, using modern medicine, neither he nor the specialists he referred me to were able to diagnose me..... hence nor were they able to offer me any sort of cure. They prescribed pharmaceutical drugs to alleviate symptoms, but that does nothing to eliminate the actual cause. They basically wished me the best of luck coping with it and to continue taking my prescriptions to attempt to keep it from getting worse. LOL. Doc prescribed a heavy hitting Flucazonol to attempt to kill the candida yeast that causes systemic candidiasis, but it had no affect b/c once the yeast turns into its fungal form, it becomes resistant to the drug. Hmmmmm..... so the only means of treatment that "modern medicine" is allowed to use (or should I say "prescribe") doesn't work. I didn't accept that! I also didn't accept that ONLY man-made chemical drugs were the answers! Since the best drug available (Flucazonol) didn't work, the doctor said there were no other treatments. That's when i began studying and researching it..... hours and hours a day for months. I knew that if my poor health could be "done" that quickly, then it could be "undone" that quickly too. Keep in mind, the entire lapse of time for my downward spiral from amazing health to resembling advanced stages of Hodgkins disease was over a matter of months. There is a point to all this rambling that I'm getting to.

    Unlike what some were saying that my negative health could've possibly being caused by other sources (asbestos, bad drinking water, radiation etc), I know it was due in part to the diet sodas b/c the effects would appear shortly after drinking it. Same for my wife. I'm actually smart enough to have the capacity to put 2 and 2 together (when I do "x", then "y" is the result). LOL. I know that it wasn't from a list of other culprits b/c I ended up treating myself on my own, and I did it by stopping my artificial sweetener consumption while addressing the systemic candidiasis (yeast overgrowth). Addressing these precise issues changed my health back to being good. If my self-diagnosis was wrong, then I most likely would still be sick b/c I would've been focuses on treating the wrong underlying problems. IMO it's like a car. If my brakes are bad but I change the timing belt instead, then my brakes will still be bad.

    There is nothing going on with me and my wife's reaction to this stuff b/c THE STUFF is the problem, not us. :wink2: I was just giving people a head's up on here. I'm not going to post ALL the research etc that I actually did on this chemical garbage. I didn't just randomly come across this article and pronounce it as the word of God, even though the author is highly reputable. I merely chose this article as one of the many examples just so it wouldn't be "only me" saying the stuff is bad for you.
     
    AbideN703 likes this.
  33. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    I'll just be blunt. You appear to be so clouded by your background that you've ENTIRELY forgotten one little detail: THE HUMAN ELEMENT. It blows my mind how chemists, scientists, etc always seem to friggin leave this major detail out of the equation b/c "the science aspect is/was overwhelmingly conclusive" when tested or studied. Sighhhh. If we could make chemicals healthy for us, then we WOULD, but we simply can not effectively reproduce what nature intends us to have.... nor can we effectively fool it by introducing things we're not supposed to have.

    If My 2 Cents and yourself want to assert that sucralose does not harm your body once ingested, then you are ONLY looking at it from a chemist's standpoint and are completely ignoring the human element. Have you considered the fact that digestion begins in the mouth, long before anything even reaches the stomach? How does your expertise respond to the enzymes in our saliva that initiate the break down process as soon as the liquid hits our mouth?

    Riddle me this hugely important point as well: A sprinkle of sugar (sucrose) that hits the intestines enters the bloodstream almost immediately. That's a fact, and I'll get to the importance of this in a minute. After the refined sugars RUSH INTO THE BLOODSTREAM, blood sugar levels rise, pressuring the pancreas to release insulin, the hormone needed to escort these sugars into the body's cells. This is evident by testing A1C levels. On the other hand, complex carbs aren't absorbed quickly; hence they do NOT spike blood sugar levels.

    Now, if refined sugars increase blood glucose levels (A1C) b/c they are absorbed virtually immediately, then what does that say about sucralose when it shows a "statistically significant increase in A1C levels? I'll answer that. It says that there is a high probability (almost to the degree of certainty) that part of the sucralose IS quickly absorbed in the intestines long before it has a chance to be excreted..... b/c if it weren't, then the A1C levels shouldn't have any reason to rise. To prevent any arguing, let's better understand this: First off, sucralose is made from sucrose, the same sucrose that is quickly absorbed and increases A1C levels. Secondly, sucralose is NOT natural. IE: Like sucrose from refined table sugar, sucralose does not possess all the elements found in natural sucrose that you'd find in a plum per say..... meaning sucralose doesn't have the vitamins, minerals, fiber and other complex carbohydrates in the package that steady or slow the absorption rate. Therefore, like refined table sugar, sucralose contains nothing to prevent it from being rushed into the blood stream, proven by the fact that sucralose consumption increases blood glucose levels. What does your chemistry background say about this? On top of this, does the carbonation from the soda not work to expedite sugar, caffeine, alcohol etc into our blood stream faster?

    How about the massive amounts of drinkers who experience diarrhea? Experiencing the runs is one of the body's natural responses and defense mechanisms of attempting to rid something that's NOT supposed to be there, something toxic. Will you attempt to quantify this amount as being "just enough to initiate an intestinal response, but not not enough to harm one's health"? If our digestive systems knows that sucralose is not supposed to be there, then apparently something is going on inside us in regards to sucralose that science can not put a grasp on or comprehend. :wink2:

    How about the fact that sucralose effects intestinal flora by up to 50%? Duke University did a study on Splenda. They concluded that Splenda effects your gut flora by up to 50%. We need every bit of our good intestinal bacteria to help absorb nutrients and maintain intestinal balance and fight off yeast, parasites etc. It's also important because 70% of your immune system is situated in your intestinal wall. If you alter the balance of good intestinal bacteria, or worse still, kill off some of it, this can directly affect your immune system, as well as interfere with nutrient absorption ability. Our foods that are pumped with antibiotics don't help this situation either. If it persists and becomes systemic (where the candida yeast becomes its fungal form and enters the blood stream), then you're in for a WORLD OF PROBLEMS!!!!... and for a LONG TIME! The other thing that Duke University found is that Splenda makes the pH level in our intestinal tract a lot more acidic, which I've already spoken in great detail about. Altering gut flora by up to 50% can lead to SERIOUS health complications ALL BY ITSELF! Your chemistry background doesn't take this aspect into consideration. Good health begins in your digestive system. When this begins experiencing problems, then the REST of you can and will begin experiencing problems too- including all your systems, brain, heart, organs etc. I didn't want to have to go into ALL this detail to get people to realize how bad this stuff is for you, but I didn't realize a few of you "chemistry experts" on here would oppose the health risks and basically attempt to debunk the fact that these chemicals are a major health risk.

    This isn't just a chemistry experiment where you "take some liquid sucralose and squeeze it out of a dropper into it's final destination" and then run some tests on it. Heck, if that's the case, why not just skip the middle man and just drop it right in the toilet? Then you don't even need to study it. :glare: Your argument does not take into account the affects on health that these artificial sweetener drugs have throughout the body's entire process.

    To be honest, I don't care what you guys do with your own health. If you want to ingest these chemicals and risk your health, then that's your choice. But in 20 years when it becomes common knowledge that these chemicals have been a direct cause of fun stuff like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancer, Fibromyalgia, heart and brain disease, serious intestinal problems leading to systemic candidiasis, etc, you won't be able to blame anyone but yourself. Initial studies also showed that aspartame was fine.

    Splenda was tested on humans; HOWEVER, the tests were NOT long term. In fact, the longest trial at this time had lasted only four days and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.

    These health issues are already happening and rising by the day, but they're not really being documented or studied to show the correlation. The FDA in fact tries to ignore it. However, the fact remains that sucralose was initially developed as a pesticide. It is a man-made chemical that contains chlorine and has a chemical structure that is closely related to DDT, an extremely toxic pesticide. And while some industry "experts" claim the sucralose is similar to table salt or sugar, other independent researchers say it has more in common with pesticides. Initially the McNeil Corporation, the company that markets and distributes Splenda, claimed that sucralose was NOT absorbed by the body, however they now admit that at least 15% of it is in fact absorbed. Independent studies show that up to 45% of sucralose is absorbed by the body.


    Just some extra fun stuff: (The United States is by far the largest consumer of soft drinks, which in turn probably makes us the largest consumer of diet soft drinks by default.)

    1. The incidence of Parkinson's disease in the US is increasing at a rate that is faster than the population is aging, and one major hypothesized reason is pesticide exposure. (I won't even get into stats about Alzheimer's, Autism, Fibromyalgia, Tourette's, Cancer, or Intestinal disorders etc b/c we'd be here all day)

    2. Currently, the US is the king of Parkinson's with the highest prevalence rate of any country. And it's no shocker that the amish of the northeast US has the highest prevalence rate in the world at 970 per 100,000 because of how heavily they've used and relied on pesticide rich agriculture. The 3rd highest world rate is Nebraska at 329 per 100,000.... which, coincidentally, is largely a massive farming area that uses high amounts of pesticides.
     
  34. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    I tremendously respect My2Cents and your knowledge in the field of science, but now all you're doing is misleading other Phins members and setting them up for poor health if they believe you.

    Diet sodas and sucralose/other sugars ABSOLUTELY can dehydrate human cells. If you don't want to take my word for it, just say so and I'll willingly prove you wrong (not to be a prick, but only b/c we're dealing with health related issues and I don't want members taking the wrong advice.

    Quick question first if you dont mind: Would you argue that alcohol doesn't dehydrate the body?
     
  35. AbideN703

    AbideN703 Yes, I'd hit it

    2,532
    925
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Springfield, Virginia
    I respect the heck out of you for sticking in this thread and giving us some information, I really do. It's true that some things affect people in different ways so for you and your lady, aspartame, soda, HFCS, whatever it is, is like the devil to your health. If I was you, I'd definitely steer clear of that stuff as well.

    None of my specific soda drinking has bitten me in my butt yet. I'm not saying it will be that way forever but all I can speak about is what's current in my life.

    Myself I've actually gone from 239 lbs in mid-Feb to 193.5 (current as of last week). I drink diet soda about once maybe twice a day but the weight loss has little to do with that. It's been much more of calories counting, more cardio and consistently lifting weights.

    Of course it might take others a lot longer/much less longer to lose the same amount of weight. Point is, we're all different in our own unique ways. Just stay safe from the **** that makes you go haywire and that'll be A-OK by me :hi5:
     
    ToddsPhins likes this.
  36. Ohio Fanatic

    Ohio Fanatic Twuaddle or bust Club Member

    32,072
    22,828
    113
    Nov 26, 2007
    Concord, MA
    Two final points, because this is getting old.

    1) Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it's good for you. Just because something is chemical and man-made, doesn't mean it's bad for you. To assume otherwise is just plain stupid.
    2) No one here is arguing that diet soda and sucralose doesn't harm you. I go out of my way to never drink more than one can a day. The other parts of the day I mix it up with tea and coffee. We just don't share your idea on how deadly it is.

    I said it once, I'll say it again. Almost every substance in the world is deadly enough in high doses. For yourself and your wife, obviously you developed a sensitivity towards diet soda, so it was very smart to quit drinking the crap. Don't assume that everyone has this same sensitivity. It it much more likely that people who consume one can/bottle per day can process the small amount of sucralose that is absorbed. It's those nutcases that drink multiple cans per day. just like the crazies that drink RedBull or any of that other crap.
     
    Stitches likes this.
  37. Sethdaddy8

    Sethdaddy8 Well-Known Member

    13,006
    6,368
    113
    Dec 6, 2007
    NJ

    oh say it aint so!:pity:
     
  38. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    No offense but this is a cop out response to divert the argument to something else. A. I never said that ALL natural things are good for you. B. I never said that ALL man-made things are bad for you.

    I said "we simply can not effectively reproduce what nature intends us to have.... nor can we effectively fool it by introducing things we're not supposed to have." Man-made stuff was not "meant" for us consume.... b/c if it were "meant" for us to consume, then nature would've already created it. Natural for the most part WILL BE better for us b/c it will typically contain all of nature's little secret ingredients that allow it to be processed, absorbed, broken down, digested, assimilated blah blah blah. A little common sense comes into play. Spring water (not gathered from a nearby power plant, pesticide rich crops, or feces laden live stock facility) is natural and will be better for you than any soda or artificial drink will. Natural brown rice will ALWAYS be better for you then enriched long grain. 100% wheat bread is better for you than white made with bleached flour. Fruit or veggies grown organically are undeniably better for you than ones treated with pesticides. An organic vitamin-mineral supplement made from raw ingredients will be better for you than man-made pharmaceutical vitamins that don't possess natures keys to unlock their full potential. How long would you like me to make this list of examples?

    NO...... YOU shouldn't assume that just b/c some people don't have immediate reactions to a chemical that it makes it ok for the general public to consume and ignore potential health risks from it. :wink2:

    "SENSITIVITY"? :huh1: Is that what they're calling it now a days? I really need to catch up. I guess sensitivity does sound a LOT BETTER than breast cancer, systemic candidiasis, poor liver & kidney functioning, Epstein Barr virus, IBS, Chronic Fatigue, passing out and having a concussion, or extreme mental fog!!! I'm glad I ONLY had a "sensitivity"!! Gheesh, I would've really hated for it to have been serious!! :shifty:

    You can "say it again" till you pass out. Who cares if everything in the world is deadly in high doses? Does that mean we should throw utter regard for health out the window? B/c that's what you're saying. I'll say it again, it's YOUR choice what to do with your own health.... but dont come in here denouncing everything I've said as if there are no serious health risks involved. Just b/c they might not happen to EVERYONE in the same manner or timeframe does NOT mean that there isn't a health risk. People deserve to know the facts about this crap so that THEY (not you) can make up their own mind about whether or not THEY (not you) want to play Russian roulette with their health. Sure..... go ahead..... drink the stuff. Maybe you never experience the related health problems. Then again, maybe the bullet is in the chamber. But again, that's for EACH person to decide for THEMSELVES.

    And please stop this "It it much more likely that people who consume one can/bottle per day can process the small amount of sucralose that is absorbed" talk. As a science guy you should know better than to speak against things when you can't support your argument with facts. All you're doing now is speculating, and I don't think it's wise to influence other's decisions when you're not entirely certain what happens. Until you have solid evidence to speak in terms of absolutes, please don't talk about it as if it is an absolute.

    By the way, you're also ignoring the affects sucralose has on the body's intestinal flora which is entirely UNRELATED to any arguments about sucralose being processed or not. Even if it were hypothetically 100% processed, it still poses an extreme health risk b/c it greatly effects your intestinal flora. :wink2: Downplay this all you desire, but negatively altering your intestinal flora isn't a joke. It's probably the worst aspect of sucralose. I would guess that hundreds of thousands of Americans are experiencing health problems due to an impaired intestinal system from yeast overgrowth or its systemic fungal form, many of these problems become very serious b/c the general population does not know now to treat it, nor are they told by physicians etc how to treat it. Systemic candidiasis can NOT be effectively treated with modern medicine and/or pharmaceutical drugs; therefore the modern medical community does not speak of it. Actually, very few doctors are even aware of it b/c it's not taught in med-school, which I find worrisome and alarming. And like I mentioned before, it can onset and become serious within what seems to be a matter of months. Of the doctors I've seen and the large number of docs that I've taken my step daughter to see (b/c of her severe diabetes due past brain surgery), NONE of them knew a SINGLE thing about systemic candidiasis, how it affects the body, and how to treat it. NONE of them. If I listened to what they told me (basically scare tactics against natural treatments), then I'd probably still be sick right now.
     
  39. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Added: I really didn't want to bring other individuals into this (Was hoping my experiences would be enough). My step-daughter drank diet sodas for a few years as a sugar alternative (due to becoming a diabetic- a nice side affect thanks to her seizure medication). About 2 years ago she developed systemic candidiasis as well. It very much affected her studies and grades. Her diabetes went out of control, and her life has been a complete mess b/c of it. She's 19 and probably has the virtual health age of a 40 year old. Once the yeast overgrowth becomes systemic, it's EXTREMELY hard to treat and cure. This isn't some "no big deal; we'll just pop a few pills for a week and it'll be gone" type of condition. This is something that can take months (to even a year to fix) and it takes EXTREME dedication to do so, meaning EVERY day and virtually EVERY meal.... an insanely strict diet with literally no cheating allowed. Not to mention, you also need the "know-how" to treat it, which as I've stated isn't something physicians are reliable for. Adding insult to injury, when you're chronically fatigued, it becomes incredibly difficult to focus on anything or have the energy to obtain goals or carry out tasks. It took me about 6 months to truly get back to normal, but I was dedicated 100% in my efforts. My step daughter on the other hand...... well.... let's just say she's having serious difficulty kicking it.
     
  40. ToddsPhins

    ToddsPhins Banned

    29,125
    7,721
    0
    Mar 15, 2009
    Sorry Seth ole buddy!!!!! And aspartame too I believe. :console:

    However, I'm not sure if the acid in it can clean out an engine like coke can...... so maybe that's encouraging. :shifty:
     

Share This Page