|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.206.205
In Reply to: RE: Coca Cola knows how to count! posted by RGA on March 18, 2014 at 22:19:30
"Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame's safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."
The FDA on aspartame
Follow Ups:
The link is a 2007 FDA knock down of a poorly done study relating aspartame to cancer in rats.
2011-2013 (There are other ingredients in there not just aspartame) - This is about diet pop not aspartame itself.
Two-fold increased risk for kidney decline (Harvard) - I mean if Harvard med is wrong then the best University in your country may as well just close for being incompetent boobs.
Then again Harvard is overrated as I studied under a Harvard professor and I asked him "I guess this A- would be a C at Harvard" and he replied "No at Harvard it would be an A+" I had that confirmed years later with a Harvard Grad who got a B on an assignment and she said "so in other words I failed." The reasons are interesting but off topic.
University of Minnesota study -- just one diet soda a day is linked to a 34% higher risk of metabolic syndrome.
"Artificial sweeteners can disrupt the body's natural ability to regulate calorie intake based on the sweetness of foods, suggested an animal study from (Purdue University)"
It's great if Diet Soda doesn't cause cancer - but cancer isn't the only thing that can kill you.
I'm not taken to worrying about having "all my precious bodily fluids sapped and impurified". :)
There are other ingredients in there not just aspartame
I'll ask the question again:
And exactly which would those {*brain rotting chemicals*} be?
Edits: 03/20/14
Is there a reason you rely 100% on what the FDA says in 2007 but not what Harvard says in 2011?
Do you think the US Food and Drug Administration chartered to "Protecting and Promoting Your Health" doesn't continually review credible claims as they come along?
Sorry, I just don't share your paranoia. :)
Start with this article.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Some of the claims in that link seem very far fetched, however. I won't touch the stuff. I decided on the available evidence that Aspartame is something that is very likely unhealthy and that I should not consume it.
Dave
I don't hear the Black Helicopters circling.
That is because they are the secret invisible silent helicopters.
Just kidding! I couldn't help myself!
Dave
The black helicopters are attacking!!! My security software lists the linked page as an "attack page". :-(
Stay healthy. You are on the right track. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Considering results from the large number of studies on aspartame's safety, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies, a recently reported large epidemiology study with negative associations between the use of aspartame and the occurrence of tumors, and negative findings from a series of three transgenic mouse assays, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."
This is all BS. The use of statistics where results are done at the typical 5% level is subject to all kinds of selection problems. There is an obvious economic motive to do this selection. Real science, e.g. physics, uses statistics properly (e.g. 5 and 6 sigma) and even then runs into the occasional problem of screw ups (e.g. CERN "faster than light" neutrinos, but these results didn't survive peer review).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Sorry, but I'm not finding the source of your assumptions.
If you followed the link, it relates to their review of the European study. FDA's own studies date back twenty years and are quite numerous.
I haven't read, nor am I going to read, government statistical studies. The phrase "government statistics" is itself an oxymoron where regulatory agencies are involved. Any intelligent person understands that regulatory agencies are captured by the industries they are regulating.
As I said, I tried aspartame. It didn't work and it made me ill. That's good enough for me.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I haven't read, nor am I going to read, government statistical studies.
I guess there's nothing to discuss. :)
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: