Is aspertame dangerous?
Anonymous
>I've been looking up information on aspertame (Nutrasweet) and most of
>it seems negative. The list of symptons is so wide ranging it seems
>unlkely.
>
>They include:
>
>Headaches/Migraines
>Dizziness
>Seizures
>Nausea
>Numbness
>Muscle spasms
>Weight gain
>Rashes
>Depression
>Fatigue
>Iritability
>Tachycardia
>Insomnia
>Vision Problems
>Hearing Loss
>Heart palpitations
>Breathing difficulties
>Anxiety attacks
>Slurred Speech
>Loss of taste
>Tinnitus
>Vertigo
>Memory loss
>Joint PainIs
>
>Is there any validity to the accusations of aspertame having such an
>ill effect on people. Personallt I do get fatigued now and then and
>I've gained a lot of weight since college. Since I've been drinking a
>lot of diet soda over the years perhaps my continued weight gain is
>caused by aspertame and not the lack of excercise and eating too much
>as I had previously suspected. Maybe I can blame aspertame for all my
>problems from now on.
That aspartame is dangerous is pretty much debunked as an urban legend.
Kind of like MSG getting blamed for young girls reaching puberty earlier.
The weight gain thing is the exception, though. Wierdly enough, aspartame,
used in diet sodas, *is* a known appetite enhancer.
>I shouldn't be too quick to joke though. I've known quite a few people
>over the years that have stated how diet drinks give tem terrible
>headaches.
Lack of caffein probably
claudia
the wild accusations required be tested yet again and could find nothing
that supported the claims of it's danger. Some people may very well be
sensitive to it, just like others are sensitive to shell fish etc. But if
you look at the list of symptoms, it credits aspartame with every typical
symptom for loads of other medical conditions. It's like saying that
everyone who has these symptoms also has socks so the socks are the culprit.
Stupid yes, but then so is most of the anti-aspartame theories out there.
The one thing that I do hear a lot is headaches. So if you use it and you
get a headache, stop using it. As for diet sodas, the headaches could be
the aspartame, the caffeine or lack there as well. Bottom line for me is
that I have used a ton of the stuff since it became available. I am still
living and that's enough proof for me!
claudia
550/386/157 A malcontent and proud of it! Low fat rocks!
I prefer carrots, so please remove the potatoes to reply.
For Claudia's Cooking Newsletter celebrating low fat, sugar free cooking and
living
visit http://cookingnewsletter.ecorp.net
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote in message
news:1999030120...@replay.com...
Steve Wood
about it.
Personally, I cannot stand the taste of aspartame. To me, it tastes awful
(not artificial--awful). Sort of like what I imagine model airplane glue
might taste like if it were a hard candy.
I have been told by non-medical types that this is a genetic trait, like
people who can't stand the smell of post-asparagus-eating urine (ahem!).
According to these folks, about 10% of people don't like the taste of
aspartame, and that the diet-soda manufacturers are well aware of this
problem with the product. Supposedly, they (the soda co.s) would all like
to go back to using saccharine, which doesn't taste bad to 10% of their
potential customers. Unfortunately, saccharine supposedly causes cancer in
rats, so the pop manufacturers are stuck with safe and un-tasty (to some)
aspartame.
Comments?
Anonymous wrote in message <1999030120...@replay.com>...
rich
>Comments?
Wait for Splenda-sweetened drinks. Ocean Spray sells Lifestyle brand
cranberry juice cocktails sweetened with Splenda now. Reportedly, Diet
RC Cola is sweetened with it too but I've never seen the product.
In my coffee, I mix one aspartame and one sweet and low packet. It's to
nurse my splenda supply along till it hits store shelves.
--
If I wanted your opinion, I'd take you off my killfile.
Pete
> Aspartame is one of the most tested substances on earth. The FDA, after all
> the wild accusations required be tested yet again and could find nothing
--------
Claudia, I recommend (becasue I'm doing it myself) that you don't
blindly believe any single source but gather info from all sources
and back this up by your own long term study.
In my case, I have family members who believe in aspartame safety
and use it on a regular basis, whereas, I personally decided to
eliminate aspartame from my diet. Now, we continue on living and
consuming and in 10 years or so I revaluate the data as compared
to history of illness between people of the same basic gene pool.
Claudia, I'll meet you here in 10 years! <grin>
---pete---
kim...@aol.com
>Kind of like MSG getting blamed for young girls reaching puberty earlier.
>The weight gain thing is the exception, though. Wierdly enough, aspartame,
>used in diet sodas, *is* a known appetite enhancer.
enough truth to it to give it holding power. *Some* of the symptoms I've
seen attributed to aspartame are more likely low blood sugar or caffeine
withdrawl.
Think of it this way, some folks are deathly ... literally ... allergic
to peanuts. This does not mean peanuts are "dangerous" to those who are
not allergic. Sensititivity to aspartame is the same sort of thing,
although it isn't an allergy.
-- Kim
George
<pfeder...@erols.com> struck their keyboard in the following
manner:
Pete, I'll bet that Aspartame is going to be used much less 10 years
from now. Splenda and other sweeteners that are being developed will
eat into Aspartame's market dominance, especially if they taste better
(and I expect they will). I use Aspartame now because there isn't much
of an alternative here in the US. I also use Saccharin too, but that
has it's own health risks. When something new comes along, I'd drop
these two in a heartbeat. I'm sure many others feel the same.
George
335/312/ask me when I get to 200
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself
into in the first place." - Jonathan Swift
Douglas S. Caprette
In a previous article, nob...@replay.com (Anonymous) says:
>mse...@onramp.net (Michael Selby) wrote:
>
>>I've been looking up information on aspertame (Nutrasweet) and most of
>>it seems negative. The list of symptons is so wide ranging it seems
>>unlkely.
>>...
>
>Lack of caffein probably
>
>
Caffein has no nutritional value, i.e. no calories. Diet beverages are
sugar-free, not caffein-free. To be precise, some diet beverages are
caffein-free, like ginger ale, but the point is that caffein-free and
diet are two different things. A diet beverage can be caffeinated or
not.
If a person has reduced both the sugar and the caffein in their diet,
then either or both effects could be causing headaches--as opposed
to adding aspartame to their diet.
--
Douglas S Caprette
"That the average human being only uses about 10% of their brain is
quite evident from even the most casual perusal of Usenet postings."
jamie
the plasticky aftertaste of non-dairy creamer and Cool Whip (even sugar
sweetened).
I don't taste any aftertaste in Sweet-One (acesulfame-K), but some
people do.
Miche wrote:
>It also goes along with whether or not you think celery tastes bitter or
>not. I do taste the bitterness in celery; to me it's just off
>unbearable. I wonder if there's a correlation.
I find bitter celery to be a sometime thing. I suspect it has to do
with the quality of water it was grown in, and varies like saltiness,
or perhaps it gets bitter when picked late, like lettuce does.
I always taste a bit of celery before I buy.
--
jamie (mj...@austin.rr.com)
"There's a seeker born every minute."
jamie
>According to these folks, about 10% of people don't like the taste of
>aspartame, and that the diet-soda manufacturers are well aware of this
>problem with the product. Supposedly, they (the soda co.s) would all like
>to go back to using saccharine, which doesn't taste bad to 10% of their
>potential customers. Unfortunately, saccharine supposedly causes cancer in
>rats, so the pop manufacturers are stuck with safe and un-tasty (to some)
>aspartame.
I find it difficult to believe that only 10% dislike the saccharin taste.
I think a much larger percentage find it nastier. (although I dislike
the aspartame taste myself, also.)
I predict that sucralose (Splenda) and acesulfame-K (Sweet-One)
will replace aspartame in most diet sodas in the next couple of years
not because of real or perceived risks of aspartame, but because the
newer two sweeteners are not subject to the sort of heat breakdown that
aspartame is. There is nothing nastier than opening a can of diet soda
and finding it has no sweetness at all left in it, after it travelled
in hot trucks and spent time in hot warehouses.
Convenience stores here in the south seem to be very aware of the problem.
12-packs of Coke and other sodas are always in large stacks outside the
front door, but never any of the diet soda.
George X. Kambic
Pete wrote:
> claudia wrote:
> > Aspartame is one of the most tested substances on earth. The FDA, after all
> > the wild accusations required be tested yet again and could find nothing
> > that supported the claims of it's danger. [snip]
> --------
> Claudia, I recommend (becasue I'm doing it myself) that you don't
> blindly believe any single source but gather info from all sources
> and back this up by your own long term study.
Look clueless one, if you have a better way of doing science by other surveying
sites and then doing an unblinded study on your family, please tell us. I
recommend
that you examine the quality of the work done by these various sources, rather
than
just "gathering" information. Your family may have a genetic disposition to react
to
(or not react to ) aspartame. Have you controlled for that? Will you be the one
to make the independent observations of your family's health? How will you
control
for other factors such as alien abductions and implantations, and the effects of
low
frequency EM fields?
The FDA has evidence. What do you have?
bachcole
the test can test every single individual under all circumstances.
Since the FDA in its infinite wisdom has those who have major
financial interests in whatever substance is under study, ALL tests
for drugs are automatically suspect.
Roger
bachcole
>
>The FDA has evidence. What do you have?
>
All FDA evidence is suspect because all so-called evidence is gathered
by those with billions of dollars at stake.
Roger
Dimitri G Criona
>>it seems negative. The list of symptons is so wide ranging it seems
>>unlkely.
>>
First, have to courage and common decency to put you name on your post and
not list it as anonymous are you afraid to let people know who you are????
Second, if you want to find something 100% safe, drink water only and starve
to death. Some people are allergic to almost everything.
Third, exercise your economic power if you don't like something don't buy
it -NEXT ISSUE PLEASE.
Fourth, realize that people are human and have frailties - some people use
products and some people abuse products that is our nature.
Fifth, your stealth fools no one - if you have something to say then say
it - START WITH I BELIEVE - state your opinion then GO Away!
Dimitri
Ray Depew
I think you're in the wrong neighborhood.
Regards
Ray D.
Michael Selby
<DIMI...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Anonymous wrote in message <1999030120...@replay.com>...
>>>I've been looking up information on aspertame (Nutrasweet) and most of
>>>it seems negative. The list of symptons is so wide ranging it seems
>>>unlkely.
>>>
>
>
>
>First, have to courage and common decency to put you name on your post and
>not list it as anonymous are you afraid to let people know who you are????
I did NOT post anonymously. The cross posting mess that the thread
winded up in screwed up my original header. My name IS on the first
message in the thread posted in sci.skeptic and sci.med in message
<5D1BD8E333C7B5D0.4CF1E113...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
>
>Second, if you want to find something 100% safe, drink water only and starve
>to death. Some people are allergic to almost everything.
I have found conflicting reports on aspertame and I am in the practice
of looking into these things rather than believing the first opinion I
come across. This thread has shown me one thing and that is that there
are a lot of people in disagreement with each other on this issue. Is
this a cover similar to the smoking industries insistence that links
to cancer weren't proven or is it alarmist BS? I still don't know for
sure. All I do know for sure is that aspertame hasn't had any apparent
ill effects on me.
>
>Third, exercise your economic power if you don't like something don't buy
>it -NEXT ISSUE PLEASE.
Whatever.
>
>Fourth, realize that people are human and have frailties - some people use
>products and some people abuse products that is our nature.
Whatever.
Are you just padding this out to make five points and appear more
legit?
>
>Fifth, your stealth fools no one - if you have something to say then say
>it - START WITH I BELIEVE - state your opinion then GO Away!
I BELIEVE you are getting paranoid. I had a legitimate question and if
it has come up before than excuse me for not lurking 24 hours a day in
order to see similar information being posted.
I posted the symptoms I found on a web site, and I even stated my
skepticism about the whole "Is it dangerous?" question. The fact that
it looks overblown and is developing into yet another government
conspiracy only makes me more skeptical. If I hear about black
helicopters delivering aspertame to Coca Cola bottling plants I will
write off the whole thing as sensationalist tripe.
The problem with just writing it off is that one can find alarmist
sites that have a real point to make. The anti - DIVX sites are a good
example. You'd think Circuit CIty and the Hollywood lawyers were about
to kick in door and beat the hell out of you from reading some of
these sites, but I sure as hell am not going to side with DIVX because
their detractors got overzealous.
For now I will keep an eye open for any relevant information on
aspertame. In any case it looks like may be beaten in the sweetner
market before any dangerous side effects may ever be proven.
>
>Dimitri
>
Should you decide to further state any more of your opinions please
feel free to stick around afterwards.
Mike
David Wright
bachcole <bach...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"George X. Kambic" <kam...@ct.picker.com> wrote:
>
>>The FDA has evidence. What do you have?
>
>All FDA evidence is suspect because all so-called evidence is gathered
>by those with billions of dollars at stake.
Translation: "I don't have any evidence, but I'm really suspicious
anyway. And besides, the FDA are all doo-doo heads because one of
their employees told me something dumb once."
-- David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Few things give a greater feeling of security than a full gas tank."
David Wright
Steve Wood <scw...@home.com> wrote:
>I don't know if it's harmful or not, but I've heard another bit of folklore
>about it.
>
>Personally, I cannot stand the taste of aspartame. To me, it tastes awful
>(not artificial--awful). Sort of like what I imagine model airplane glue
>might taste like if it were a hard candy.
>
>I have been told by non-medical types that this is a genetic trait, like
>people who can't stand the smell of post-asparagus-eating urine (ahem!).
>aspartame, and that the diet-soda manufacturers are well aware of this
>problem with the product. Supposedly, they (the soda co.s) would all like
>to go back to using saccharine, which doesn't taste bad to 10% of their
>potential customers. Unfortunately, saccharine supposedly causes cancer in
>rats, so the pop manufacturers are stuck with safe and un-tasty (to some)
>aspartame.
>
If I recall correctly:
* saccharine has been suspected of being carcinogenic, but a special
exemption passed by Congress allows it to be sold anyway
* saccharine can be used in soft drinks legally. Tab contained the
stuff for many years. Maybe it still does. I haven't seen it in
a while.
* saccharine tastes pretty bad to most people.
I'd like to see them bring back cyclamate, since it's starting to look
as though the original reports that said *it* was carcinogenic were
wrong. But, they still exist, and the bureaucratic mindset will say
"let's keep it off the market because then if later on it turns out to
be carcinogenic after all, we won't get in trouble."
bachcole
>>
>>All FDA evidence is suspect because all so-called evidence is gathered
>>by those with billions of dollars at stake.
>
>Translation: "I don't have any evidence, but I'm really suspicious
>anyway. And besides, the FDA are all doo-doo heads because one of
>their employees told me something dumb once."
>
Dear David,
LOL. Your insults are so funny that they do not sting.
Actually, I have nothing much to say about aspertame except that I
naturally stay away from anything unnatural. Now, if that word does
not sit well with you, it sits well with me, and that is your problem.
The concept works for me.
The FDA condemns all alternative healing, and since I know of my own
experience that some of it works, I distrust them. They have done so
many evil and stupid things that I could not begin to list them all.
It is amazing to me that seemly sane and intelligent people who
otherwise distrust the military procurement office and Bill Clinton
and other government people should trust the FDA so blindly. It seems
to me that there is some emotional agenda that is impelling trust when
no government agency is worthy of such trust.
About the prune juice, I actually had heard that they said that prune
juice is not a laxative prior to my testing the FDA idiot. So that
would be two sources.
Roger
deke
wrote:
>All FDA evidence is suspect because all so-called evidence is gathered
>by those with billions of dollars at stake.
Therefore we should believe the anti-aspartame faction. Because they
completely lack any evidence whatsoever, it isn't suspect.
deacon b.
Dimitri G Criona
Michael Selby wrote in message ...
>Should you decide to further state any more of your opinions please
>feel free to stick around afterwards.
>Mike
Thanks I think I will, since you invited me.
Maybe you just don't have the perspective of time. As far as I can remember
we have been through the following;
Fluoridated water was considered to be a communist conspiracy to poison our
drinking water. Of course now the ADA is warning people not to drink too
much bottled water because they are not getting enough Fluoride to keep
their teeth healthy.
The Black Listed Hollywood writers were subverting our culture. - No comment
Cyclamates caused cancer and diabetics suffered. - Ask a diabetic what he
thinks?
Fried foods are bad for your health. Unless you live in So. California
where the SCAQMD is trying to shut down all commercial char-broilers so that
we can have fried hamburgers again. They would like to ban all lawn mowers
and BBQ's too.
Americans ate too much beef and not enough carbohydrates so we started carbo
loading and 10 years later as a nation we're heavier - Now the marathon
runners are fat loading.
Ewell Gibons <sp> remember him he touted Grape Nuts - I seem to remember he
died of stomach cancer.
Alcohol (wine) was bad for your health you could become an alcoholic - Now
the French paradox.
Aspirin and coke caused Teens to get high and.......... well you know.
Don't forget "Reefer Madness"
I have a serious problem understand why people continually blame others
(companies and products) for their problems (behavior) and seem to refuse to
take responsibility for their actions. As example if you (anyone) has
problems they think is associated with aspartame - don't use it for a period
of time! If the problem goes away maybe there is a cause and effect for
that person.
Oh yes, I almost forgot - Grilled food causes cancer - so I think I'll have
a *Healthy* Grilled Chicken Caesar Salad for lunch!
Then again maybe its just a bad day.
Dimitri
John Francis
Miche and Dave <miche_c...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <52KC2.99$_t2....@news.rdc1.ab.wave.home.com>, "Steve Wood"
><scw...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know if it's harmful or not, but I've heard another bit of folklore
>> about it.
>>
>> Personally, I cannot stand the taste of aspartame. To me, it tastes awful
>> (not artificial--awful). Sort of like what I imagine model airplane glue
>> might taste like if it were a hard candy.
>
>
>> I have been told by non-medical types that this is a genetic trait, like
>> people who can't stand the smell of post-asparagus-eating urine (ahem!).
>
>not. I do taste the bitterness in celery; to me it's just off
>unbearable. I wonder if there's a correlation.
Well, anecdotally:
o I don't think aspartame has a metallic taste. But Saccharin(sp?) does.
And while I like my coffee with two (or more) sugars, I'll drink it
unsweetened rather than put sweet-and-low in it.
o I can detect the ketones in my urine after eating Asparagus.
o I am very sensitive to the taste of celery. I often find that even a
small amount of celery completely dominates the taste of a dish. It's
not that I dislike it - I can enjoy fresh celery. But it can often be
the only thing I taste in a dish.
My wife reacts in a similar fashion to mustard. So I could create a
dish that I wouldn't eat because it tasted solely of celery, while my
wife wouldn't eat it because all she could taste would be mustard.
claudia
That way it does not get as green a it could. The least bitter stalks are
those that are white. Up in Amish country they actually bury the celery for
a portion of it's growing cycle in order to stop the bitterness from
farming. It is wonder ful stuff. However, around where I live now you can
only get the big green, woody stalks which are quite bitter.
--
claudia
550/386/157 A malcontent and proud of it! Low fat rocks!
I prefer carrots, so please remove the potatoes to reply.
For Claudia's Cooking Newsletter celebrating low fat, sugar free cooking and
living
visit http://cookingnewsletter.ecorp.net
jamie <ja...@bozo.local.net> wrote in message
news:slrn7do1ji...@bozo2.local.net...
>I find aspartame to have a plasticky aftertaste, myself, similar to
>the plasticky aftertaste of non-dairy creamer and Cool Whip (even sugar
>sweetened).
>I don't taste any aftertaste in Sweet-One (acesulfame-K), but some
>people do.
>
>Miche wrote:
>>It also goes along with whether or not you think celery tastes bitter or
>>not. I do taste the bitterness in celery; to me it's just off
>>unbearable. I wonder if there's a correlation.
>
>I find bitter celery to be a sometime thing. I suspect it has to do
>with the quality of water it was grown in, and varies like saltiness,
>or perhaps it gets bitter when picked late, like lettuce does.
>I always taste a bit of celery before I buy.
>
claudia
not cross over and happen in rats, so the move to ban saccharin has quietly
died with out being done.
--
claudia
550/386/157 A malcontent and proud of it! Low fat rocks!
I prefer carrots, so please remove the potatoes to reply.
For Claudia's Cooking Newsletter celebrating low fat, sugar free cooking and
living
visit http://cookingnewsletter.ecorp.net
Steve Wood <scw...@home.com> wrote in message
news:52KC2.99$_t2....@news.rdc1.ab.wave.home.com...
>I don't know if it's harmful or not, but I've heard another bit of folklore
>about it.
>
>Personally, I cannot stand the taste of aspartame. To me, it tastes awful
>(not artificial--awful). Sort of like what I imagine model airplane glue
>might taste like if it were a hard candy.
>
>I have been told by non-medical types that this is a genetic trait, like
>people who can't stand the smell of post-asparagus-eating urine (ahem!).
>According to these folks, about 10% of people don't like the taste of
>aspartame, and that the diet-soda manufacturers are well aware of this
>problem with the product. Supposedly, they (the soda co.s) would all like
>to go back to using saccharine, which doesn't taste bad to 10% of their
>potential customers. Unfortunately, saccharine supposedly causes cancer in
>rats, so the pop manufacturers are stuck with safe and un-tasty (to some)
>aspartame.
>
>Comments?
>
>Anonymous wrote in message <1999030120...@replay.com>...
jerry and judy
>I don't know if it's harmful or not, but I've heard another bit of folklore
>about it.
>
>Personally, I cannot stand the taste of aspartame. To me, it tastes awful
>(not artificial--awful). Sort of like what I imagine model airplane glue
>might taste like if it were a hard candy.
>
>I have been told by non-medical types that this is a genetic trait, like
>people who can't stand the smell of post-asparagus-eating urine (ahem!).
>According to these folks, about 10% of people don't like the taste of
>aspartame, and that the diet-soda manufacturers are well aware of this
>problem with the product. Supposedly, they (the soda co.s) would all like
>to go back to using saccharine, which doesn't taste bad to 10% of their
>potential customers. Unfortunately, saccharine supposedly causes cancer in
>rats, so the pop manufacturers are stuck with safe and un-tasty (to some)
>aspartame.
>
>Comments?
>
This might help someone:
>>jerry and judy wrote:
>>>
>>> For ten or so years, I've had a slight headache (more than a twinge) in
>>> the right side toward the top of my head (an inch and a half above the
>>> leading edge of the ear), that would come and go daily. It would last a
>>> few hours and then just as quickly be gone. Aspirin etc. didn't seem to
>>> have the normal effect on this pain, because after an hour or two of
>>> taking something or not taking something for it, it would be gone, so I
>>> don't really know.
>>> Recently I bought some vitamins for my wife, she generally buys her own
>>> but she asked me to pickup some calcium/magnesium complex and a
>>> multivitamin. After wading through all the prices and choices, I couldn't
>>> decide and I ended up buying 3 different types of multivitamin.
>>> After that experience, I started an experiment of my own, taking a
>>> different multivitamin every day to see with which or if I might notice
>>> the biggest slight increase in energy. I think I did (with no difference
>>> between the brands), but the more important outcome was that my pain
>>> didn't come back!
>>> Today when I feel the first twinge of that very familiar discomfort I
>>> reach for the vitamins and it's been like magic! Not simply a
>>> diminishment in pain, but no onset, no residual feeling, nothing. Does
>>> this sound like an alleviated deficiency?
>>> I thought that I would just have to live with my quirky pain, I hope this
>>> helps someone else!
>>> Jerry
>>
>>why don't you try avoiding chocolate, aged cheese, wine, canned fish.
>>keep a diary of what you eat each day and note when you get the pain.
>>you might discover you are allergic to some foods. also note if you get
>>any immediate feeling in your gut when you eat something - like raw
>>broccoli. note the outcome.
>>regards.
>
>Thanks for taking the time to write.
>
>It was the 'pink stuff', calcium saccharin, Sweet and Low in this case. I
>only used it in coffee. When I cut down on coffee I noticed a big relief
>of my symptoms, so I figured the pain was caused by too much caffeine or
>withdrawal from caffeine. Just in case, I thought I'd try less Sweet and
>Low. When I cut down on Sweet and Low, the pain lessened and when I cut
>out Sweet and Low completely (but not coffee) the pain was gone
>permanently (so far).
>
>That saccharin is nasty stuff and I never used more than a half a packet
>-three times a day, at most.
>
>Jerry
claudia
>are a lot of people in disagreement with each other on this issue. Is
>this a cover similar to the smoking industries insistence that links
>to cancer weren't proven or is it alarmist BS?
You had my interest and possible support until you wrote the above. If you
think that a usenet thread is actually part of a cover-up by the government
and Monsanto, then YOU are the one who is paranoid, no one else.
--
claudia
550/386/157 A malcontent and proud of it! Low fat rocks!
I prefer carrots, so please remove the potatoes to reply.
For Claudia's Cooking Newsletter celebrating low fat, sugar free cooking and
living
visit http://cookingnewsletter.ecorp.net
Michael Selby <mse...@onramp.net> wrote in message
news:CDAD9E55D062E45B.ED460778...@library-proxy.airnew
s.net...
>On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:51:41 -0800, "Dimitri G Criona"
><DIMI...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Anonymous wrote in message <1999030120...@replay.com>...
>>>>I've been looking up information on aspertame (Nutrasweet) and most of
>>>>it seems negative. The list of symptons is so wide ranging it seems
>>>>unlkely.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>For now I will keep an eye open for any relevant information on
>aspertame. In any case it looks like may be beaten in the sweetner
>market before any dangerous side effects may ever be proven.
>
>>
>>Dimitri
Dr H
On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Steve Wood wrote:
}I don't know if it's harmful or not, but I've heard another bit of folklore
}about it.
It's not, unless you suffer from a rare condition known as phenylketonuria.
}Personally, I cannot stand the taste of aspartame. To me, it tastes awful
}(not artificial--awful). Sort of like what I imagine model airplane glue
}might taste like if it were a hard candy.
}
}I have been told by non-medical types that this is a genetic trait, like
}people who can't stand the smell of post-asparagus-eating urine (ahem!).
}According to these folks, about 10% of people don't like the taste of
}aspartame, and that the diet-soda manufacturers are well aware of this
}problem with the product. Supposedly, they (the soda co.s) would all like
}to go back to using saccharine, which doesn't taste bad to 10% of their
}potential customers. Unfortunately, saccharine supposedly causes cancer in
}rats, so the pop manufacturers are stuck with safe and un-tasty (to some)
}aspartame.
But then what about the 10% of the population that can't stand the taste
of saccharine?
Anybody remember sodium cyclamate?
Dr H
Simon Slavin
Anonymous <nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> [reposting the previous post and appending a one-line followup]
When replying to this post, please make sure your reply goes only to
newsgroups which are interested.
Simon.
--
No junk email please. | What a story !
<http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk> | I can't wait to embellish it.
| -- Elaine from _Ally McBeal_
Cat & Kevin Jackson-Mead
experience bad side effects while others do not. There is also evidence that
aspartate (one of the ingredients of aspartame/NutraSweet) can cause damage to
neurons that would not be immediately apparant like headaches, etc., would be.
I don't want to horribly mangle the explanation, so I'll leave you with my
reference - "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills", by Russell Blaylock. I
haven't done much research into whether or not the adverse side effects are
really related to aspartame or not; the practical solution seems to be to avoid
the stuff if you are worried about it, and if you don't want to go back to
non-diet sodas because of the calories, drink something else, like water.
Cat
Anonymous wrote:
> mse...@onramp.net (Michael Selby) wrote:
>
> >I've been looking up information on aspertame (Nutrasweet) and most of
> >it seems negative. The list of symptons is so wide ranging it seems
> >unlkely.
> >
> >They include:
> >
> >Headaches/Migraines
> >Dizziness
> >Seizures
> >Nausea
> >Numbness
> >Muscle spasms
> >Weight gain
> >Rashes
> >Depression
> >Fatigue
> >Iritability
> >Tachycardia
> >Insomnia
> >Vision Problems
> >Hearing Loss
> >Heart palpitations
> >Breathing difficulties
> >Anxiety attacks
> >Slurred Speech
> >Loss of taste
> >Tinnitus
> >Vertigo
> >Memory loss
> >Joint PainIs
> >
> >Is there any validity to the accusations of aspertame having such an
> >ill effect on people. Personallt I do get fatigued now and then and
> >I've gained a lot of weight since college. Since I've been drinking a
> >lot of diet soda over the years perhaps my continued weight gain is
> >caused by aspertame and not the lack of excercise and eating too much
> >as I had previously suspected. Maybe I can blame aspertame for all my
> >problems from now on.
>
> That aspartame is dangerous is pretty much debunked as an urban legend.
> Kind of like MSG getting blamed for young girls reaching puberty earlier.
> The weight gain thing is the exception, though. Wierdly enough, aspartame,
> used in diet sodas, *is* a known appetite enhancer.
>
> >I shouldn't be too quick to joke though. I've known quite a few people
> >over the years that have stated how diet drinks give tem terrible
> >headaches.
>
> Lack of caffein probably
Bart Lidofsky
>problem with the product. Supposedly, they (the soda co.s) would all like
>to go back to using saccharine, which doesn't taste bad to 10% of their
>potential customers. Unfortunately, saccharine supposedly causes cancer in
>rats, so the pop manufacturers are stuck with safe and un-tasty (to some)
>aspartame.
>
Actually, the most sane course would be to go back to cyclamates.
In spite of the widespread publicity when they were banned back in the
early 70's, the experiments which supposedly showed they caused cancer
have never been successfully duplicated, in spite of numerous attempts. By
the current standards of the scientific community, cyclamates are probably
the safest artificial sweetener. Unfortunately, lawmakers are frequently
ignorant of scientific method, and do not require that an experiment be
duplicated to cause a substance to be banned.
--
Bart Lidofsky
Systems Administrator
New York Theosophical Society
ny...@dorsai.org (official)
ba...@sprynet.com (personal)
TJ
>
> In article <miche_campbell-...@dialup110.albatross.co.nz>
> >It also goes along with whether or not you think celery tastes bitter or
> >not. I do taste the bitterness in celery; to me it's just off
> >unbearable. I wonder if there's a correlation.
>
>
> o I don't think aspartame has a metallic taste. But Saccharin(sp?) does.
> And while I like my coffee with two (or more) sugars, I'll drink it
> unsweetened rather than put sweet-and-low in it.
>
> o I can detect the ketones in my urine after eating Asparagus.
YOU DRINK YOUR URINE?
tj
READ+POST=ROSIE
dark green stalks is a big benefit! otherwise, we get celery, here is
wisconsin that is light green and very sweet!
READ AND POST, EVERYDAY!
ROSIE
ALT.SUPPORT.DIET.LOW-CARB FAQ
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/
CHOCOLATE IS MY KRYPTONITE
http://members.aol.com/saguaropub/website/htmls/chocolate.html
LC/LC/LF
….chao ku kua t'ou
( if your crabby, use your killfile ! )
claudia wrote in message <7bhihf$1q...@news3.newsguy.com>...
>The key to good celery is to have it buried for part of it's growing time.
>That way it does not get as green a it could. The least bitter stalks are
>those that are white. Up in Amish country they actually bury the celery
for
>a portion of it's growing cycle in order to stop the bitterness from
>farming. It is wonder ful stuff. However, around where I live now you
can
>only get the big green, woody stalks which are quite bitter.
>
>--
>claudia
>
>550/386/157 A malcontent and proud of it! Low fat rocks!
>I prefer carrots, so please remove the potatoes to reply.
>For Claudia's Cooking Newsletter celebrating low fat, sugar free cooking
and
>living
>visit http://cookingnewsletter.ecorp.net
>
>jamie <ja...@bozo.local.net> wrote in message
>news:slrn7do1ji...@bozo2.local.net...
>>I find aspartame to have a plasticky aftertaste, myself, similar to
>>the plasticky aftertaste of non-dairy creamer and Cool Whip (even sugar
>>sweetened).
>>I don't taste any aftertaste in Sweet-One (acesulfame-K), but some
>>people do.
>>
>>Miche wrote:
>>>It also goes along with whether or not you think celery tastes bitter or
>>>not. I do taste the bitterness in celery; to me it's just off
>>>unbearable. I wonder if there's a correlation.
>>
READ+POST=ROSIE
didn't the studies about the rats and the saccharine point out how much
saccharine these rats were fed, in order to produce a cancer?
remember that scandal?
READ AND POST, EVERYDAY!
ROSIE
ALT.SUPPORT.DIET.LOW-CARB FAQ
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/
CHOCOLATE IS MY KRYPTONITE
http://members.aol.com/saguaropub/website/htmls/chocolate.html
LC/LC/LF
….chao ku kua t'ou
( if your crabby, use your killfile ! )
claudia wrote in message <7bhi82$1q...@news3.newsguy.com>...
>Saccharine does cause cancer in rats, but it has been proven that this
does
>not cross over and happen in rats, so the move to ban saccharin has
quietly
>died with out being done.
>
>--
>claudia
>
>550/386/157 A malcontent and proud of it! Low fat rocks!
>I prefer carrots, so please remove the potatoes to reply.
>For Claudia's Cooking Newsletter celebrating low fat, sugar free cooking
and
>living
>visit http://cookingnewsletter.ecorp.net
>
>Steve Wood <scw...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:52KC2.99$_t2....@news.rdc1.ab.wave.home.com...
>>I don't know if it's harmful or not, but I've heard another bit of
folklore
>>about it.
>>
>>Personally, I cannot stand the taste of aspartame. To me, it tastes
awful
>>(not artificial--awful). Sort of like what I imagine model airplane glue
>>might taste like if it were a hard candy.
>>
>>I have been told by non-medical types that this is a genetic trait, like
>>people who can't stand the smell of post-asparagus-eating urine (ahem!).
>>According to these folks, about 10% of people don't like the taste of
>>aspartame, and that the diet-soda manufacturers are well aware of this
>>problem with the product. Supposedly, they (the soda co.s) would all
like
>>to go back to using saccharine, which doesn't taste bad to 10% of their
>>potential customers. Unfortunately, saccharine supposedly causes cancer
in
>>rats, so the pop manufacturers are stuck with safe and un-tasty (to some)
>>aspartame.
>>
>>Comments?
>>
>>Anonymous wrote in message <1999030120...@replay.com>...
Pete
> YOU DRINK YOUR URINE?
---------
TJ, this is a bit off topic but it would certainly
be good candidate for another lively posting.
Go for it dude! ---pete---
Pete
> I posted the symptoms I found on a web site, and I even stated my
> skepticism about the whole "Is it dangerous?" question. The fact that
> it looks overblown and is developing into yet another government
> conspiracy only makes me more skeptical.
I'd say its a mistake to get thrown off track just because
you you hear the word "conspiracy". A study of history proves
that conspiracies have always existed and will always continue
to do so. Many times it is not a matter of *if* but rather
a question of *why* or what motivation. Careful study on any
such issue will usually lead you to motivational factors
related to money or power.
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying that the aspartame issue
is a cover-up or conspiracy, but if there is money involved
as exists in this multi-million low fat sugar substitute
industry you can bet there is planty of MOTIVATION to keep
the industry alive.
> If I hear about black
> helicopters delivering aspertame to Coca Cola bottling
> plants I will write off the whole thing as sensationalist
> tripe.
---------
As for "Black Helicopters", dont get thrown off track
by what you hear on TV. I have studied this topic too
and in recent years there are definately un-clearly marked
military type helicopters flying at low alttitudes and
unusual flight patterens over many civilian areas in the USA.
Waaaaay off topic for this thread but if you think the
aspartame issue is interesting, try investigating the the
"Black Helicopters" issue. When you have done your homework
and can tell me who and what the "MJT" is, I'd be willing
to discuss the matter further. Until then you would not be
qualified to make judgement or discuss the matter in an
informed manner.
---pete---
Pete
> Pete, I'll bet that Aspartame is going to be used much less 10 years
> from now. Splenda and other sweeteners that are being developed will
> eat into Aspartame's market dominance, especially if they taste better
> (and I expect they will). I use Aspartame now because there isn't much
> of an alternative here in the US. I also use Saccharin too, but that
> has it's own health risks. When something new comes along, I'd drop
> these two in a heartbeat. I'm sure many others feel the same.
--------
Hey, I'm not knocking anyone for using sugar subtitutes.
All I am doing (myself) is NOT using them while I watch
the health patterns of those who do use them.
You may very well be correct about aspartame being replaced
by another product, which indicates to me that there is
something not quite right with aspartame. In due time, Splenda
will also be replaced with something else. I personally do not
desire to include myself in the experiment and use natural
honey as my preferred sweetner. This HONEY product has gone
though THOUSANDS of years and MULTITUDES of generations of
testing which makes me feel most comfortable. Besides, I'd
rather support USA & LOCAL Beekeepers than some chemical
company who will likely sell out the country for profits
in a global market. See my points?
Hopefully, you will continue to use the substitutes and we
can compare notes in 10 or 20 years. so.. I'll meet you
here in 10 years or so. OK? <big smile>.
---pete---
Miche and Dave
> I don't know if it's harmful or not, but I've heard another bit of folklore
> about it.
>
> Personally, I cannot stand the taste of aspartame. To me, it tastes awful
> (not artificial--awful). Sort of like what I imagine model airplane glue
> might taste like if it were a hard candy.
Yep. To me it doesn't taste sweet at all but kinda metallic.
> I have been told by non-medical types that this is a genetic trait, like
> people who can't stand the smell of post-asparagus-eating urine (ahem!).
It also goes along with whether or not you think celery tastes bitter or
not. I do taste the bitterness in celery; to me it's just off
unbearable. I wonder if there's a correlation.
MIche
--
DO NOT USE REPLY to send me email!
The address in my From: line is a spam trap.
My real email address is:
dhmec at albatross dot co dot nz
http://www.xenu.net
deacon b.
<cookingnews...@chef.net> wrote:
>The key to good celery is to have it buried for part of it's growing time.
>That way it does not get as green a it could. The least bitter stalks are
>those that are white. Up in Amish country they actually bury the celery for
>a portion of it's growing cycle in order to stop the bitterness from
>farming. It is wonder ful stuff. However, around where I live now you can
>only get the big green, woody stalks which are quite bitter.
Having experimented a little, I suggest that by doing that, the white
stalks become less bitter, but also markedly less flavorful.
Celery seems to have a lot in common with radishes and onions - it
needs a lot of water and fast growth in order to have good flavor and
texture. When it gets dry, radishes and onions get extremely hot and
celery gets far more bitter.
Of course, all the celery gets ready at once, a fact that did not
occur to me the first time I raised it (and silly me, I started out by
raising an entire flat!). You can chop up the meaty parts of the stalk
and freeze them, putting the frozen pieces in baggies so that you can
remove as many or as few as you need for soup.
Strip the leaves off and dehydrate them simply by keeping them in a
paper grocery bag in a fairly dry room of the house, and shaking it
vigorously a couple of times a day to keep the drying even. Once
dried, simply close them up in mason jars.
If you have white stalks, there's virtually no flavor in either the
stalk or the leaves, so you better get out the peanut butter and the
cheeze whiz and invite over the neighbors - there's no point in
preserving the harvest.
BTW, I'm not sure what mean when you refer to as "up in Amish
country." Are you referring to upstate NY, Lancaster PA, Kidron Ohio,
Shipshewana Indiana, Grabill Indiana, southern Indiana, or what? There
are a *lot* of Amish communities....
deacon b.
Kevin D. Quitt
>The FDA condemns all alternative healing, and since I know of my own
>experience that some of it works, I distrust them.
Some of them work sometimes. That's why the FDA condemns them. None of them
work all the time, few work even most of the time. (Those that do get turned
into drugs that are more effect and have fewer side effect.) THAT is why the
FDA condemns them: they are unreliable at best and their side effects are
unknown.
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list
deacon b.
> Actually, the most sane course would be to go back to cyclamates.
>In spite of the widespread publicity when they were banned back in the
>early 70's, the experiments which supposedly showed they caused cancer
>have never been successfully duplicated, in spite of numerous attempts. By
>the current standards of the scientific community, cyclamates are probably
>the safest artificial sweetener.
Cyclamates were certainly better-tasting than saccharine, aspartame,
or acesulfame K (as far as I know, I've never had sucralose, and my
use of ace-K has been pretty limited.) Canada did not ban calcium
cyclamate at the same time as the US, and thus many of us got diet pop
that was smuggled north across the border from Ontario into Michigan
and thence south into Ohio.
I shared your opinion that cyclamates were relatively safe until a
couple of years ago, when I learned that Canada *did* ban cyclamates a
couple of years later and the scientific community *does* consider
cyclamate to be cancer-causing.
While I don't have any cites handy that directly address the issue, a
medline search shows
"Alteration of intercellular communication in a human urothelial
carcinoma cell-line by tumor-promoting agents.: by S. Morimoto in Int.
J. Urol, 3(3):212-7 1996 May The six tumor-producing agents used in
that study were DDT, BHA, saccharin, cyclamic acid, phenobarbital, and
DL-tryptophan.
http://www.medscape.com/server-java/MedPage?med95-97+995421+(cyclamate)
By the standards of the scientific community, the safest artificial
sweetener is undoubtedly table sugar. But then, you knew that; you
meant the safest non-nutritive sweetener.
The ADA figures that saccharin, aspartame, acesulfame K, and sucralose
are safe, even if used at 100 times the level a person is likely to
consume over a lifetime.
http://diabetes.org/DiabetesCare/Supplement199/S42.htm
deacon b.
Kevin D. Quitt
>> o I can detect the ketones in my urine after eating Asparagus.
>
>YOU DRINK YOUR URINE?
When there are ketones in your urine, you don't need to drink it to find out.
Jonathan W Hendry
> On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 16:34:30 -0800, TJ <gara...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> >> o I can detect the ketones in my urine after eating Asparagus.
> >
> >YOU DRINK YOUR URINE?
> When there are ketones in your urine, you don't need to drink it to find out.
What's the trick? How do you tell?
Happy Dog
> It is the nature of tests that they can never be definitive, unless
> the test can test every single individual under all circumstances.
This is lunacy. For the benefit of other posters, Roger is a rabid
antiscience right brain bigot. Humans are more alike than different.
That's why controlled testing almost always yeilds subsequently
predictable results. But some deluded people think that this doesn't
apply to alternative medicine. Substences, in Roger's world, can have
such different results in different people that no testing can be
definitive. Now, Roger will calm down and see just how idiotic his
statement is. At least before he starts experimenting with drain
cleaner on his kids. But he'll respond with a personal attack and then
beg the question of what a test really is. I've tested for this. BTW,
I'm not usually so personal. So don't flame me. Rog started this in a
new thread. I'm on to you Roger.
> Since the FDA in its infinite wisdom has those who have major
> financial interests in whatever substance is under study, ALL tests
> for drugs are automatically suspect.
I'm a skeptic Roger. Thus everything is a target for suspicion. You're
paranoid though. And abusive. And like most delusional paranoids, you
don't know how to evaluate evidence.
hd
Ken
doubt anyone has posted the chemical breakdown of aspartame.
If I'm being repetitive, sorry.
Simple chemistry says:
Methyl group hydrolyzed ---> Methanol oxidized --->
Formaldehyde oxidized ---> Carbon dioxide
Methanol is potentially toxic, and formaldehyde is definetly toxic.
What more needs to be said? Oh wait, somebody wants to SELL
this stuff. Hmmmm
Tests say:
3000mg's a day in infant monkeys for nine months showed no
ill effects on growth, development, health, or behavior, either
during the test or on the withdrawal.
Conclusion of the *experts*:
Aspartame is safe, except for people with PKU. Of course, the
FDA has a limit, an "Acceptable Daily Intake" of 50mg/kg body weight.
My conclusion:
Why in the world would you drink a diet soda, when you could
have a nice glass of water, and get some guarana from your local
herb store if you want caffeine. Or, try some Darjeeling or
Earl Grey tea. You can make up a batch and drink it cold if you
want and it has plenty of caffiene in it.
If you want some thing that tastes sweet, eat an apple!
Believe it or not, you can even eat 2 apples!
Or a bananna, or an orange, or a kiwi, or a watermelon....
See where this is heading?
I'd love to respond to all the nice replies I've gotten to
my other messges, but I need to sleep!
Cat & Kevin Jackson-Mead wrote:
> I suppose it depends on how you define "dangerous" - some people seem to
> experience bad side effects while others do not. There is also evidence that
> aspartate (one of the ingredients of aspartame/NutraSweet) can cause damage to
> neurons that would not be immediately apparant like headaches, etc., would be.
> I don't want to horribly mangle the explanation, so I'll leave you with my
> reference - "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills", by Russell Blaylock. I
> haven't done much research into whether or not the adverse side effects are
> really related to aspartame or not; the practical solution seems to be to avoid
> the stuff if you are worried about it, and if you don't want to go back to
> non-diet sodas because of the calories, drink something else, like water.
>
> Cat
>
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > mse...@onramp.net (Michael Selby) wrote:
> >
> > >I've been looking up information on aspertame (Nutrasweet) and most of
> > >it seems negative. The list of symptons is so wide ranging it seems
> > >unlkely.
> > >
George
<pfeder...@erols.com> struck their keyboard in the following
manner:
That sounds good to me Pete. I like honey and would use it if I wasn't
using the artificial stuff. Unfortunately, I'm a diabetic and that
means I have to be careful of my glucose intake. So I use Aspartame
despite my misgivings about Monsanto. I never have forgiven them for
inventing Astroturf. <big smile>
Anyway, I'll be keeping notes and I'll try to remember to check back
in 10 years.
George
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself
into in the first place." - Jonathan Swift
bachcole
>On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 18:57:28 GMT, bach...@mindspring.com (bachcole) wrote:
>
>>The FDA condemns all alternative healing, and since I know of my own
>>experience that some of it works, I distrust them.
>
>Some of them work sometimes. That's why the FDA condemns them. None of them
>work all the time, few work even most of the time. (Those that do get turned
>into drugs that are more effect and have fewer side effect.) THAT is why the
>FDA condemns them: they are unreliable at best and their side effects are
>unknown.
And this is not the case with conventional medicine, with its 106,000
deaths from drugs in just hospitals. MD intervention is the third
leading cause of death in this country, behind cancer and heart
disease.
I use alternative healing with great efficacy.
Roger
bachcole
>bachcole wrote:
>
>> It is the nature of tests that they can never be definitive, unless
>> the test can test every single individual under all circumstances.
>
>That's why controlled testing almost always yeilds subsequently
>predictable results.
It is the nature of inductive thinking that it cannot reach absolutes.
And in this case, this means that not everything is going to work for
everyone, and not everyone is going to be safe taking a drug that is
harmless for most people.
>Substences, in Roger's world, can have
>such different results in different people that no testing can be
>definitive.
Definitive in this case means that the substance will do the same
thing to everyone. I suppose Drano will do the same thing to
everyone, but most drugs and herbs cannot be depended upon to do the
same thing to everyone. That is why my wife was almost killed by
TheraFlu and other people can take it without any problems.
Roger
Michael Sierchio
...
> If you want some thing that tastes sweet, eat an apple!
> Believe it or not, you can even eat 2 apples!
> Or a bananna, or an orange, or a kiwi, or a watermelon....
> See where this is heading?
Except that the apple and orange will raise blood methanol more
than a drink containing aspartame! OH NO! TOXIC METHANOL!
Kevin D. Quitt
>You may very well be correct about aspartame being replaced
>by another product, which indicates to me that there is
>something not quite right with aspartame.
Then your indicator is broken. Aspartame will be replaced for three reasons
only:
* Another (equally acceptable from a taste standpoint) sweetener will be
significantly cheaper
* Another sweetener will taste so much better that everybody will want to use it
in spite of the increased price
* Another sweetener will be more stable for cooking and/or storage.
None of these requires or implies there's anything 'wrong' with aspartame. I
suspect Splenda will fall into at least two of these categories (#3, #2, and #1,
in that order).
>I personally do not
>desire to include myself in the experiment and use natural
>honey as my preferred sweetner.
That's very nice for you, but there are a lot of people who don't have that
option. Your smugness ill suits you, though.
Kevin D. Quitt
>Cyclamates were certainly better-tasting than saccharine, aspartame,
>or acesulfame K
You'll forgive me if I disagree about aspartame; I much prefer it to cyclamates.
Kevin D. Quitt
>> When there are ketones in your urine, you don't need to drink it to find out.
>
>What's the trick? How do you tell?
By the odor. It doesn't take very much for you to be *very* aware of it.
Jeremy Burgeson
>In sci.skeptic Kevin D. Quitt <Ke...@Quitt.net> wrote:
>> When there are ketones in your urine, you don't need to drink it to find out.
>What's the trick? How do you tell?
Just off the top of my head, I can think of three ways to detect
ketones in urine without drinking it. The first one is to collect
it and send it off to a lab. Most people probably don't have a
really compelling reason to do that. The second way is to just
put it in your mouth and swish it around without drinking. Again,
most people aren't inclined to be a part of that activity.
Kevin was probably refering to the ability some have to detect
airborne chemicals. I have been told that this sense is often
refered to as the "Sense of Smell."
Jeremy
bachcole
>bachcole wrote:
>
>> It is the nature of tests that they can never be definitive, unless
>> the test can test every single individual under all circumstances.
>
>This is lunacy. For the benefit of other posters, Roger is a rabid
>antiscience right brain bigot.
I rabidly oppose left-brain bigots. Calling me a right-brain bigot is
like calling the NAACP anti-white bigots. And neo-Nazis do call the
NAACP anti-white bigots. I oppose anyone who insists that only double
blind crossover randomized studies (preferably those done by big drug
companies that support their materialistic, grinch perspective) have
validity.
>Humans are more alike than different.
So how come some people have allergic reactions and other people do
not?
Michael Selby
<cookingnews...@chef.net> wrote:
>This thread has shown me one thing and that is that there
>>are a lot of people in disagreement with each other on this issue. Is
>>this a cover similar to the smoking industries insistence that links
>>to cancer weren't proven or is it alarmist BS?
>
>You had my interest and possible support until you wrote the above. If you
>think that a usenet thread is actually part of a cover-up by the government
>and Monsanto, then YOU are the one who is paranoid, no one else.
I was recalling the smoking industries long insitence that smoking and
cancer are not linked. That is not paranoia, it's a matter of history.
I never said that this particular usenet thread is part of a cover-up.
I was speaking of the entire is it or is it not dangerous debate and
from a skeptical point of view DOUBTING that it is. Perhaps I should
clarify that BS stands for 'bullshit'. I am asking is it all bullshit
or is the sweetner industry actually avoiding criticism of their
product strictly to protect profits at the possible cost of peoples
health.
Michael Selby
_____________________________________________________
"Green means go." - anonymous
claudia
more formaldehyde in an orange then a diet soda. I drink a lot of water 64
+ ounces a day. But I enjoy a diet coke now and then. You suggest herbs
for caffeine, yet just because it is natural, doesn't mean it is safe. With
most herbal supplements, you have no idea just how much of the active
ingredient you are getting. Just because it is considered "natural" doesn't
mean it is safe.
I also like desserts. I eat lots of apples and other fruits, but I also
enjoy cake, pie, cookies, puddings, custards, candy etc. I make all this
with aspartame. At 50mg / kg you could use a lot of aspartame.
--
claudia
550/386/157 A malcontent and proud of it! Low fat rocks!
I prefer carrots, so please remove the potatoes to reply.
For Claudia's Cooking Newsletter celebrating low fat, sugar free cooking and
living
visit http://cookingnewsletter.ecorp.net
Ken <ir...@iname.com> wrote in message news:36DCA03A...@iname.com...
>I haven't read every post in this thread, but I seriously
>doubt anyone has posted the chemical breakdown of aspartame.
>If I'm being repetitive, sorry.
>
>Simple chemistry says:
>
>Methyl group hydrolyzed ---> Methanol oxidized --->
>Formaldehyde oxidized ---> Carbon dioxide
>
>Methanol is potentially toxic, and formaldehyde is definetly toxic.
>What more needs to be said? Oh wait, somebody wants to SELL
>this stuff. Hmmmm
>
>Tests say:
>3000mg's a day in infant monkeys for nine months showed no
>ill effects on growth, development, health, or behavior, either
>during the test or on the withdrawal.
>
>Conclusion of the *experts*:
>Aspartame is safe, except for people with PKU. Of course, the
>FDA has a limit, an "Acceptable Daily Intake" of 50mg/kg body weight.
>
>My conclusion:
>Why in the world would you drink a diet soda, when you could
>have a nice glass of water, and get some guarana from your local
>herb store if you want caffeine. Or, try some Darjeeling or
>Earl Grey tea. You can make up a batch and drink it cold if you
>want and it has plenty of caffiene in it.
>
>If you want some thing that tastes sweet, eat an apple!
>Believe it or not, you can even eat 2 apples!
>Or a bananna, or an orange, or a kiwi, or a watermelon....
>See where this is heading?
>
>
claudia
a lot of Amish communities As for you supposition that the celery has less
flavor just doesn't mesh with what my experience has been. Celery grown as
I explained is full of flavor, just not bitter.
--
claudia
550/386/157 A malcontent and proud of it! Low fat rocks!
I prefer carrots, so please remove the potatoes to reply.
For Claudia's Cooking Newsletter celebrating low fat, sugar free cooking and
living
visit http://cookingnewsletter.ecorp.net
deacon b. <dea...@generous.net> wrote in message
news:36dca878...@news.earthlink.net...
John Francis
George <gperryS...@pressroom.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 16:34:30 -0800, it is alleged that TJ
><gara...@halcyon.com> struck their keyboard in the following manner:
>
>>John Francis wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <miche_campbell-...@dialup110.albatross.co.nz>
>>> >It also goes along with whether or not you think celery tastes bitter or
>>> >not. I do taste the bitterness in celery; to me it's just off
>>> >unbearable. I wonder if there's a correlation.
>>>
>>>
>>> o I don't think aspartame has a metallic taste. But Saccharin(sp?) does.
>>> And while I like my coffee with two (or more) sugars, I'll drink it
>>> unsweetened rather than put sweet-and-low in it.
>>>
>>> o I can detect the ketones in my urine after eating Asparagus.
>>
>>YOU DRINK YOUR URINE?
>>
>
>Ugh! I hope not.
>
>I expect that he's using test strips that can detect ketones in urine.
Nope - there's a very distinctive smell. (I'm assuming it's due to ketones).
Note for the original (half-)wit: Spot the deliberate use of the word 'detect'.
If I'd meant 'taste', I'd have said 'taste'. Sorry if that was too subtle -
next time perhaps I'll use CAPITAL LETTERS.
--
John "Or perhaps not" Francis
Happy Dog
> >> It is the nature of tests that they can never be definitive, unless
> >> the test can test every single individual under all circumstances.
> >
> >That's why controlled testing almost always yeilds subsequently
> >predictable results.
>
> It is the nature of inductive thinking that it cannot reach absolutes.
> And in this case, this means that not everything is going to work for
> everyone, and not everyone is going to be safe taking a drug that is
> harmless for most people.
Roger, you will narrow the definition of "definitive" until it meets your
narrow criteria. There is no way to guarantee that ANYTHING will have
EXACTLY the same effect on EVERYBODY. Even distilled water. But you use
this as an excuse to dismiss almost all drugs as unnecessary and, often,
dangerous. You ignore the fact that life is full of trade offs and that,
for this reason, people must use the tricky science of odds to determine a
course of therapy. You use painfully obvious truisms like the above to
make a case ofr your own personal paranoia and antiscientific bias.
> >Substences, in Roger's world, can have such different results in
> different people that no testing can be definitive.
>
> Definitive in this case means that the substance will do the same
> thing to everyone.
Not it doesn't! Snipped from my last post: "(Roger will) beg the question
of what a test really is". A definitive test of a drug could state that
its effects are so unpredictable that it is unapproved for use. Again,
you demand a perfect description of the effects of a drug. An
impossibility for ANYTHING. Then, when this impossible thing fails to
materialize, you use it as a basis for an attack.
> I suppose Drano will do the same thing to everyone, but most drugs and
> herbs cannot be depended upon to do the same thing to everyone. That is
> why my wife was almost killed by TheraFlu and other people can take it
> without any problems.
Even Drano won't do the same thing to everyone. You don't understand how
drug testing works or how to evaluate an analysis. And your use of straw
men is getting tedious. Not for you though.
hd
Happy Dog
> >>The FDA condemns all alternative healing, and since I know of my own
> >>experience that some of it works, I distrust them.
> >
> >Some of them work sometimes. That's why the FDA condemns them. None of them
> work all the time, few work even most of the time. (Those that do get turned
> >into drugs that are more effect and have fewer side effect.) THAT is why the
> >FDA condemns them: they are unreliable at best and their side effects are
> >unknown.
>
> And this is not the case with conventional medicine, with its 106,000
> deaths from drugs in just hospitals. MD intervention is the third
> leading cause of death in this country, behind cancer and heart
> disease.
Right Roger. You miss the obvious point that drugs save far more people than they
kill. More people are alive today because of drugs than would be without them.
It's a trade off. Get it? If there comes a time when there are drugs to cure
everything, then almost ALL deaths will be from drugs. They will be the #1
killer. But this obvious conclusion to your silly statement requires that one
reduce the level of paranoia to the point where rational thought becomes possible.
> I use alternative healing with great efficacy.
Your usual egotistical conclusion. You know it works because it works for you.
By your idiotic definition of "definitive" your advice should be ignored more than
the FDA's. But your narcissistic nature won't let you see this.
arf
Happy Dog
> >> It is the nature of tests that they can never be definitive, unless
> >> the test can test every single individual under all circumstances.
> >
> >This is lunacy. For the benefit of other posters, Roger is a rabid
> >antiscience right brain bigot.
>
> I rabidly oppose left-brain bigots. Calling me a right-brain bigot is
> like calling the NAACP anti-white bigots. And neo-Nazis do call the
> NAACP anti-white bigots.
No, Roger. You rail against people who are skeptical of the conclusions
of your muddled conclusions. You compared a few posters here to Nazi's
for their views. Show me where all those posters have dismissed
alternative meds in toto.
> I oppose anyone who insists that only double blind crossover randomized
> studies (preferably those done by big drug companies that support their
> materialistic, grinch perspective) have validity.
Show me where ANY of the posters you personally slagged with irrellevant
ad hominems in your original "Confused" post have made this ludicrous
claim. I certainly don't believe this. Show some evidence or shut up.
Of course, your ego won't let you do the latter. And you don't have the
former.
> >Humans are more alike than different.
>
> So how come some people have allergic reactions and other people do
> not?
Good question Roger. Easy to answer, except if your paranoid. You can't
see that though. So I'll explain again. "more alike than different",
even "much more alike than different" clearly acknowledge that there are
differences between people. Even healthy ones. Sick ones even more so.
But you live in a world where applying this fact to drug therapy is
unacceptable. You want a world where EVERYONE will be almost equally
affected by a drug. This is where you think herbs and alt meds come in.
But there is NO reason why this should be so. You just imagine it is
because you believe that it's worked with you and your family. But your
ego won't let you see that there is another side to this story.
ldg
JoAnne Schmitz
[stuff]
Anonymous is back to its old tricks.
This message was crossposted to the following newsgroups:
sci.skeptic
sci.med
alt.folklore.urban
alt.support.diet
rec.food.cooking
misc.health.alternative
in the hopes of starting a massive crossposted flame war. A look at the groups
selected shows that the members of some groups are unlikely to ever agree with
the members of some others, and the choice of subject is another clue that this
poster is not interested in spreading light, but rather in generating heat.
Because this may well be a topic of interest to you I won't ask that you not
respond. But I do suggest that you consider posting your reply only to the
newsgroup you are reading this in.
If you do wish to send your reply to more than one group, I ask that you
consider removing alt.folklore.urban from the newsgroups line. Those on AFU are
not interested in participating in widely crossposted discussions like this.
If your belief is that there is some "common misconception" about this subject,
please be aware that common misconceptions and urban legends are not the same
thing. Those people who read alt.folklore.urban are perfectly cabable of
subscribing to health-related newsgroups if they wish to discuss health issues
and common misconceptions thereof.
To try to be a good example I am setting followups to this message to go to
alt.folklore.urban only, because further discussion of what is or is not of
interest or on-topic on alt.folklore.urban is almost certainly off topic and
rightly irritating to those on other newsgroups.
Thank you,
JoAnne "asking sweetly" Schmitz
+-------------------------------------------+
| Search! Learn! Find references! Plotz! |
| Visit my new Urban Legends Info Page at |
| http://www.qis.net/~jschmitz/afu/ |
+-------------------------------------------+
Steve Caskey
alt.folklore.urban (for me)]
Dimitri G Criona <DIMI...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Anonymous wrote in message <1999030120...@replay.com>...
> >>I've been looking up information on aspertame (Nutrasweet) and most of
> >>it seems negative. The list of symptons is so wide ranging it seems
> >>unlkely.
>
> First, have to courage and common decency to put you name on your post
and
> not list it as anonymous are you afraid to let people know who you
are????
Dimitri smells a rat; there is nothing wrong with Dimitri's nose.
This particular incarnation of anon...@replay.com is carrying out a
systematic harrassment of alt.folklore.urban by crossposting disingenuously
inflammatory messages to sets of newsgroups calculated to initiate lengthy
and heated threads.
His name is David Greene, and in addition to his pathetic vendetta he is
also a proven liar. The best action to take is to ignore him, as I normally
do.
> [...]
> Fifth, your stealth fools no one - if you have something to say then say
> it - START WITH I BELIEVE - state your opinion then GO Away!
See above. Mr Greene's agenda is purely mischievous; he has absolutely no
real interest in the topic.
Steve "internym suspended for crosspost" Caskey
--
Just another mindless public servant at the Ministry of Education
"If you want to go to sleep,
get a New Zealander to read to you." -- Katherine Mansfield
See the alt.folklore.urban FAQ and archive at http://www.urbanlegends.com
Steve Caskey
Kevin D. Quitt <Ke...@Quitt.net> wrote:
> On 3 Mar 99 05:12:20 GMT, Jonathan W Hendry <jhe...@shrike.depaul.edu>
wrote:
> >> When there are ketones in your urine, you don't need to drink it to
find out.
> >
> >What's the trick? How do you tell?
>
> By the odor. It doesn't take very much for you to be *very* aware of it.
Wait a minute. Isn't the ability to detect the smell genetic - some can,
some can't?
Steve "as quick as boiled asparagus" Caskey
Douglas S. Caprette
In a previous article, gperryS...@pressroom.com (George) says:
>On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 16:34:30 -0800, it is alleged that TJ
><gara...@halcyon.com> struck their keyboard in the following manner:
>
>>John Francis wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> o I can detect the ketones in my urine after eating Asparagus.
>>
>>YOU DRINK YOUR URINE?
>>tj
>>
>
>Ugh! I hope not.
>
>I expect that he's using test strips that can detect ketones in urine.
>You pee on them and the ketones turn the strip purple. People on low
>carbohydrate diets use them to see if their body is putting out
>ketones like they want it to. It signifies that the body is utilizing
>fat as it's fuel.
Oh, so he's testing his urine, not tasting his urine...
--
Douglas S Caprette
"That the average human being only uses about 10% of their brain is
quite evident from even the most casual perusal of Usenet postings."
Michael Sierchio
>
> If your belief is that there is some "common misconception" about this subject,
> please be aware that common misconceptions and urban legends are not the same
> thing. Those people who read alt.folklore.urban are perfectly cabable of
> subscribing to health-related newsgroups if they wish to discuss health issues
> and common misconceptions thereof.
There are common misconceptions that are the product of cognitive illusion
supported by urban legend. The Aspartame Loonies (tm) are one group
promulgating this. The "Satanic Origin of the Proctor and Gamble Logo" is
another example. And whaddabout the effort to ban dihydrogen monoxide?
Dr H
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Ken wrote:
}I haven't read every post in this thread, but I seriously
}doubt anyone has posted the chemical breakdown of aspartame.
}If I'm being repetitive, sorry.
}
}Simple chemistry says:
}
}Methyl group hydrolyzed ---> Methanol oxidized --->
}Formaldehyde oxidized ---> Carbon dioxide
}
}Methanol is potentially toxic, and formaldehyde is definetly toxic.
}What more needs to be said? Oh wait, somebody wants to SELL
}this stuff. Hmmmm
The body routinely metabolizes small amounts of methanol.
The body also routinely metabolizes ethanol (the alcohol in
alcoholic beverages). With either substance there are non-toxic
doses and toxic doses.
The fact that one stage in methanol metabolism is the production of
formaldehyde is not significant unless a toxic dose of methanol has
been consumed.
A metabolic byproduct of ethanol is acetaldehyde, which is also highly
toxic, but if you haven't ingested a toxic dose of ethanol, the
acetaldehyde isn't going to kill you. (Will give you a nasty hangover,
though.)
}Tests say:
}3000mg's a day in infant monkeys for nine months showed no
}ill effects on growth, development, health, or behavior, either
}during the test or on the withdrawal.
}
}Conclusion of the *experts*:
}Aspartame is safe, except for people with PKU. Of course, the
}FDA has a limit, an "Acceptable Daily Intake" of 50mg/kg body weight.
Which translates into about 20-12oz softdrinks (nearly 2 gallons) or
97 sweetener packets (over 1 pound), per day, for a 150 lb. adult.
Anyone who is drinking that much softdrink or eating that much sweetener
every day has a lot of problems to deal with before worrying about
aspartame. [International Food Information Council: ifc.health.org]
}My conclusion:
}Why in the world would you drink a diet soda, when you could
}have a nice glass of water, and get some guarana from your local
}herb store if you want caffeine. Or, try some Darjeeling or
}Earl Grey tea. You can make up a batch and drink it cold if you
}want and it has plenty of caffiene in it.
Or even some nice sassafras tea, highly prized for centuries for its
health benefits. Except they didn't know it contained the carcinogen
safrole until a few years ago. Oops.
}If you want some thing that tastes sweet, eat an apple!
}Believe it or not, you can even eat 2 apples!
}Or a bananna, or an orange, or a kiwi, or a watermelon....
}See where this is heading?
These will also put methanol into your body -- which will be routinely
metabolized.
Dr H
Dr H
I worry about that hydrogen hydroxide, myself. ;)
Dr H
Dr H
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Michael Selby wrote:
}On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:50:43 -0500, "claudia"
}<cookingnews...@chef.net> wrote:
}
}>This thread has shown me one thing and that is that there
}>>are a lot of people in disagreement with each other on this issue. Is
}>>this a cover similar to the smoking industries insistence that links
}>>to cancer weren't proven or is it alarmist BS?
}>
}>You had my interest and possible support until you wrote the above. If you
}>think that a usenet thread is actually part of a cover-up by the government
}>and Monsanto, then YOU are the one who is paranoid, no one else.
}
}I was recalling the smoking industries long insitence that smoking and
}cancer are not linked. That is not paranoia, it's a matter of history.
Then there were the studies supposedly linking "second-hand smoke"
to a wide variety of ills -- studies which have since been showed
to be seriously flawed.
}I never said that this particular usenet thread is part of a cover-up.
}I was speaking of the entire is it or is it not dangerous debate and
}from a skeptical point of view DOUBTING that it is. Perhaps I should
}clarify that BS stands for 'bullshit'. I am asking is it all bullshit
}or is the sweetner industry actually avoiding criticism of their
}product strictly to protect profits at the possible cost of peoples
}health.
It is bullshit. Aspartame has been highly researched, and has not
been connected with any of the ailments listed in the hoax-scare
messages circulating aroung the internet.
Dr H
ridin_free
anyone with Graves Disease <a form of hyperthyroidism>, and indeed is viewed
as a potential *cause* of Graves.
claudia
those with graves disease and is a possible cause? I would love to read the
research that proves that.
--
claudia
550/386/157 A malcontent and proud of it! Low fat rocks!
I prefer carrots, so please remove the potatoes to reply.
For Claudia's Cooking Newsletter celebrating low fat, sugar free cooking and
living
visit http://cookingnewsletter.ecorp.net
ridin_free <bag...@evilpeople.net> wrote in message
news:36DDCA0E...@evilpeople.net...
ridin_free
to be frank. I have never used it. I worked for the M.O.D. for four years
(1983 to 1987) and it was listed thru them as a teratogen then, kinda warned me
off of it I must say.
ridin_free
Dr H
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, ridin_free wrote:
}look....all I knopw is that aspartame, for whatever reason....is *deadly* to
}anyone with Graves Disease <a form of hyperthyroidism>, and indeed is viewed
}as a potential *cause* of Graves.
Could yo provide a source citation for this claim? It's one which
has not, to my knowledge been addressed in either the aspertame
hoax documents, nor on the aspertame information sites.
Dr H
Simon Slavin
"Dimitri G Criona" <DIMI...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> First, have to courage and common decency to put you name on your post and
> not list it as anonymous are you afraid to let people know who you are????
Because he wants to create cross-posted flame wars -- cause by people
posting to groups where they don't know the culture or the things
which have already been discussed. You, and at least 15 other posters
have already been carrying this thread into the following groups:
sci.skeptic,
sci.med,
alt.folklore.urban,
alt.support.diet,
rec.food.cooking,
misc.health.alternative
I doubt you've read all these groups. I doubt you've read the FAQ for
all these groups. I'm asking you all to take more care about which
groups you post to: post only to those groups where you know your post
is going to be welcome.
> Second, if you want to find something 100% safe, drink water only and starve
> to death.
An excellent example. The FAQ for alt.folklore.urban contains the
information that drinking water is /not/ safe. It is common netiquette
to read the FAQ for a group before posting to it.
Simon.
--
No junk email please. | What a story !
<http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk> | I can't wait to embellish it.
| -- Elaine from _Ally McBeal_
Harry A. Demidavicius
wrote:
>Ke...@Quitt.net (Kevin D. Quitt) wrote:
<snip>
>
>
>And this is not the case with conventional medicine, with its 106,000
>deaths from drugs in just hospitals. MD intervention is the third
>leading cause of death in this country, behind cancer and heart
>disease.
>
>I use alternative healing with great efficacy.
>
>Roger
Eerrmm, so how many die in unjust hospitals, then?
Harry Demidavicius
Kevin D. Quitt
>And this is not the case with conventional medicine, with its 106,000
>deaths from drugs in just hospitals.
As a matter of fact, no it isn't. If you looked at that figure in relation to
the number of people involved, it's really quite minute. This doesn't mean it's
OK and that we shouldn't strive to reduce it. Oh, and over how long a period
was this 106,000 deaths recorded?
>MD intervention is the third
>leading cause of death in this country, behind cancer and heart
>disease.
A neat misapplication of statistics and misinterpretation of facts.
>I use alternative healing with great efficacy.
Since you are your only sample, you can't really be sure that's the case. I
wish you more power and good luck with it.
But you needn't rely on dishonest arguments.
Pete
I.E; Not quite right taste, not quite right cost, not quite right
stability.
Thank you for your support!
---pete---
Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
>
> On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 22:01:35 -0500, Pete <pfeder...@erols.com> wrote:
> >You may very well be correct about aspartame being replaced
> >by another product, which indicates to me that there is
> >something not quite right with aspartame.
>
> Then your indicator is broken. Aspartame will be replaced for three reasons
> only:
> * Another (equally acceptable from a taste standpoint) sweetener will be
> significantly cheaper
> * Another sweetener will taste so much better that everybody will want to use it
> in spite of the increased price
> * Another sweetener will be more stable for cooking and/or storage.
>
> None of these requires or implies there's anything 'wrong' with aspartame. I
> suspect Splenda will fall into at least two of these categories (#3, #2, and #1,
> in that order).
--------
Pittsburgh B.M.E.S.
I was told by my doctor that I am experiencing the symptom before death in
my allergic response. I would consider aspertame very dangerous. (I
don't know if anyone mentioned this because I have not been following the
thread.)
Susan Ney
BMES President
**************************************************
Univ. of Pittsburgh BioMedical Engineering Society
email - biom...@pitt.edu
WWW HomePage - http://www.pitt.edu/~biomdeng/
**************************************************
Jet
>
> I am highly allergic to aspertame. I get migraines if I have it at all.
> I was told by my doctor that I am experiencing the symptom before death in
> my allergic response. I would consider aspertame very dangerous.
I have a friend who is allergic to lemons. She has to take medicine with
her, because even a taste could kill her. But I don't consider lemons
dangerous, in general.
J
--
The human brain is the most incredible structure in the universe.
Yeah, but look what came to that conclusion.
email me at jetgal at earthlink dot net
Paul Sweeney
Jet <jet...@earthling.net> wrote
>I have a friend who is allergic to lemons. She has to take medicine with
>her, because even a taste could kill her. But I don't consider lemons
>dangerous, in general.
You've obviously not seen The Quick and the Dead.
Paul 'or is that a turkey?' Sweeney
Dr H
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, ridin_free wrote:
}no cites...only what my physician told me when I was diagnosed. he stressed it
}to be frank. I have never used it. I worked for the M.O.D. for four years
}(1983 to 1987) and it was listed thru them as a teratogen then, kinda warned me
}off of it I must say.
Ask your physician to provide a cite. If he can't (or won't), then if
I were you I would definitely seek a second opinion.
Dr H
ridin_free
physician told me. I will collect the addys and post them for you.
ridin_free
Dr H wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, ridin_free wrote:
>
ridin_free
Dr H wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, ridin_free wrote:
>
Kevin D. Quitt
wrote:
>I am highly allergic to aspertame. ... I would consider aspertame very dangerous.
It *is* - for you. For every person like you, there are probably 100 who will
die if they eat peanuts. So what?
JoAnne Schmitz
>Pittsburgh B.M.E.S. wrote:
>>
>> I am highly allergic to aspertame. I get migraines if I have it at all.
>> I was told by my doctor that I am experiencing the symptom before death in
>> my allergic response. I would consider aspertame very dangerous.
>
>I have a friend who is allergic to lemons. She has to take medicine with
>her, because even a taste could kill her. But I don't consider lemons
>dangerous, in general.
Surprisingly, alt.folklore.urban is allergic to widely crossposted discussions
about aspartame. Would you be so kind as to leave alt.folklore.urban out of the
discussion?
Followups set to afu because we're the only ones who really care what's on topic
for afu.
JoAnne "thanks for stopping by, though" Schmitz
Dr. John
>Ke...@Quitt.net (Kevin D. Quitt) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 18:57:28 GMT, bach...@mindspring.com (bachcole) wrote:
>>
>>>The FDA condemns all alternative healing, and since I know of my own
>>>experience that some of it works, I distrust them.
>>
>>Some of them work sometimes. That's why the FDA condemns them. None of them
>>work all the time, few work even most of the time. (Those that do get turned
>>into drugs that are more effect and have fewer side effect.) THAT is why the
>>FDA condemns them: they are unreliable at best and their side effects are
>>unknown.
>
>
>And this is not the case with conventional medicine, with its 106,000
>deaths from drugs in just hospitals. MD intervention is the third
>leading cause of death in this country, behind cancer and heart
>disease.
>
>I use alternative healing with great efficacy.
>
Particularly if you don't have to document your cases and just rely on
memory. That's a sure fire way of upping your "efficacy."
Ted Rosenberg
>
> It is the nature of tests that they can never be definitive, unless
> the test can test every single individual under all circumstances.
>
> Since the FDA in its infinite wisdom has those who have major
> financial interests in whatever substance is under study, ALL tests
> for drugs are automatically suspect.
>
> Roger
It is in the nature of tests that this idiot doesn't know what he is
talking about. The only question is: "is he just another Aspartame
Troll, or is he really and truly stupid and uneducated?"
Ted Rosenberg
Cat and Kevin- well well well, what tripe are we pushing today, is it
Stevia?? or are you just another persona for Betty Martini. In any
case I notice that you have the sense not to try to post to any of the
diabetic NG's, at least under this name. What are you going to do
today? plant a phony post from the MS foundation, scare thousands of
people and make the MS and Lupus groups spend lots of money answering
your tripe instead of on research. People like you are beneath
contempt.
Cat & Kevin Jackson-Mead wrote:
>
> I suppose it depends on how you define "dangerous" - some people seem to
> experience bad side effects while others do not. There is also evidence that
> aspartate (one of the ingredients of aspartame/NutraSweet) can cause damage to
> neurons that would not be immediately apparant like headaches, etc., would be.
> I don't want to horribly mangle the explanation, so I'll leave you with my
> reference - "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills", by Russell Blaylock. I
> haven't done much research into whether or not the adverse side effects are
> really related to aspartame or not; the practical solution seems to be to avoid
> the stuff if you are worried about it, and if you don't want to go back to
> non-diet sodas because of the calories, drink something else, like water.
>
> Cat
>
> Anonymous wrote:
>
> > mse...@onramp.net (Michael Selby) wrote:
> >
> > >I've been looking up information on aspertame (Nutrasweet) and most of
> > >it seems negative. The list of symptons is so wide ranging it seems
> > >unlkely.
> > >
> > >They include:
> > >
> > >Headaches/Migraines
> > >Dizziness
> > >Seizures
> > >Nausea
> > >Numbness
> > >Muscle spasms
> > >Weight gain
> > >Rashes
> > >Depression
> > >Fatigue
> > >Iritability
> > >Tachycardia
> > >Insomnia
> > >Vision Problems
> > >Hearing Loss
> > >Heart palpitations
> > >Breathing difficulties
> > >Anxiety attacks
> > >Slurred Speech
> > >Loss of taste
> > >Tinnitus
> > >Vertigo
> > >Memory loss
> > >Joint PainIs
> > >
> > >Is there any validity to the accusations of aspertame having such an
> > >ill effect on people. Personallt I do get fatigued now and then and
> > >I've gained a lot of weight since college. Since I've been drinking a
> > >lot of diet soda over the years perhaps my continued weight gain is
> > >caused by aspertame and not the lack of excercise and eating too much
> > >as I had previously suspected. Maybe I can blame aspertame for all my
> > >problems from now on.
> >
> > That aspartame is dangerous is pretty much debunked as an urban legend.
> > Kind of like MSG getting blamed for young girls reaching puberty earlier.
> > The weight gain thing is the exception, though. Wierdly enough, aspartame,
> > used in diet sodas, *is* a known appetite enhancer.
> >
> > >I shouldn't be too quick to joke though. I've known quite a few people
> > >over the years that have stated how diet drinks give tem terrible
> > >headaches.
> >
> > Lack of caffein probably
Ted Rosenberg
Watch out Pete, the water contains computer chips put there by the CIA,
or maybe the ABC.
Pete wrote:
>
> Michael Selby wrote:
> > I posted the symptoms I found on a web site, and I even stated my
> > skepticism about the whole "Is it dangerous?" question. The fact that
> > it looks overblown and is developing into yet another government
> > conspiracy only makes me more skeptical.
> --------
> I'd say its a mistake to get thrown off track just because
> you you hear the word "conspiracy". A study of history proves
> that conspiracies have always existed and will always continue
> to do so. Many times it is not a matter of *if* but rather
> a question of *why* or what motivation. Careful study on any
> such issue will usually lead you to motivational factors
> related to money or power.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I am NOT saying that the aspartame issue
> is a cover-up or conspiracy, but if there is money involved
> as exists in this multi-million low fat sugar substitute
> industry you can bet there is planty of MOTIVATION to keep
> the industry alive.
>
> > If I hear about black
> > helicopters delivering aspertame to Coca Cola bottling
> > plants I will write off the whole thing as sensationalist
> > tripe.
> ---------
> As for "Black Helicopters", dont get thrown off track
> by what you hear on TV. I have studied this topic too
> and in recent years there are definately un-clearly marked
> military type helicopters flying at low alttitudes and
> unusual flight patterens over many civilian areas in the USA.
> Waaaaay off topic for this thread but if you think the
> aspartame issue is interesting, try investigating the the
> "Black Helicopters" issue. When you have done your homework
> and can tell me who and what the "MJT" is, I'd be willing
> to discuss the matter further. Until then you would not be
> qualified to make judgement or discuss the matter in an
> informed manner.
>
> ---pete---
Ted Rosenberg
Pete wrote:
>
> George wrote:
> > Pete, I'll bet that Aspartame is going to be used much less 10 years
> > from now. Splenda and other sweeteners that are being developed will
> > eat into Aspartame's market dominance, especially if they taste better
> > (and I expect they will). I use Aspartame now because there isn't much
> > of an alternative here in the US. I also use Saccharin too, but that
> > has it's own health risks. When something new comes along, I'd drop
> > these two in a heartbeat. I'm sure many others feel the same.
> --------
> Hey, I'm not knocking anyone for using sugar subtitutes.
> All I am doing (myself) is NOT using them while I watch
> the health patterns of those who do use them.
>
> You may very well be correct about aspartame being replaced
> by another product, which indicates to me that there is
> will also be replaced with something else. I personally do not
> desire to include myself in the experiment and use natural
> honey as my preferred sweetner. This HONEY product has gone
> though THOUSANDS of years and MULTITUDES of generations of
> testing which makes me feel most comfortable. Besides, I'd
> rather support USA & LOCAL Beekeepers than some chemical
> company who will likely sell out the country for profits
> in a global market. See my points?
>
> Hopefully, you will continue to use the substitutes and we
> can compare notes in 10 or 20 years. so.. I'll meet you
> here in 10 years or so. OK? <big smile>.
>
> ---pete---
GEE, I didn't know that Honey didn't contain sugar - oh wow, I can THROW
AWAY my Blood Glucose meter and pig out on HONEY!!
Ted Rosenberg
1) Apples contain MUCH more Methanol that Aspartame
2) Your table is incorrect and downright misleading.
3) Apples contain SUGAR stupid - so do other fruits. If people wanted
(or COULD use) sugar, they could have regular soda.
No one says that YOU have to drink anyone, just stop scaring people who
DO want to use a safe product.
Ken wrote:
>
> I haven't read every post in this thread, but I seriously
> doubt anyone has posted the chemical breakdown of aspartame.
> If I'm being repetitive, sorry.
>
> Simple chemistry says:
>
> Methyl group hydrolyzed ---> Methanol oxidized --->
> Formaldehyde oxidized ---> Carbon dioxide
>
> Methanol is potentially toxic, and formaldehyde is definetly toxic.
> What more needs to be said? Oh wait, somebody wants to SELL
> this stuff. Hmmmm
>
> Tests say:
> 3000mg's a day in infant monkeys for nine months showed no
> ill effects on growth, development, health, or behavior, either
> during the test or on the withdrawal.
>
> Conclusion of the *experts*:
> Aspartame is safe, except for people with PKU. Of course, the
> FDA has a limit, an "Acceptable Daily Intake" of 50mg/kg body weight.
>
> My conclusion:
> Why in the world would you drink a diet soda, when you could
> have a nice glass of water, and get some guarana from your local
> herb store if you want caffeine. Or, try some Darjeeling or
> Earl Grey tea. You can make up a batch and drink it cold if you
> want and it has plenty of caffiene in it.
>
> If you want some thing that tastes sweet, eat an apple!
> Believe it or not, you can even eat 2 apples!
> Or a bananna, or an orange, or a kiwi, or a watermelon....
> See where this is heading?
>
> I'd love to respond to all the nice replies I've gotten to
> my other messges, but I need to sleep!
Ted Rosenberg
bachcole wrote:
>
> Ke...@Quitt.net (Kevin D. Quitt) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 18:57:28 GMT, bach...@mindspring.com (bachcole) wrote:
> >
> >>The FDA condemns all alternative healing, and since I know of my own
> >>experience that some of it works, I distrust them.
> >
> >Some of them work sometimes. That's why the FDA condemns them. None of them
> >work all the time, few work even most of the time. (Those that do get turned
> >into drugs that are more effect and have fewer side effect.) THAT is why the
> >FDA condemns them: they are unreliable at best and their side effects are
> >unknown.
>
> And this is not the case with conventional medicine, with its 106,000
> deaths from drugs in just hospitals. MD intervention is the third
> leading cause of death in this country, behind cancer and heart
> disease.
>
> I use alternative healing with great efficacy.
>
I am SURE, the problem seems that it has caused you to become severely
intellectually impaired. Anybody who makes statements like that
DESERVES Phony and Rumor Based Medicine.
Happy Dog
Neither. He's a paranoid narcissist who has used alternative therapies
to help himself and his family. He thinks that his subjective
experiences with Homeopathy, chiropractic, magnets, herb and a few others
are absolute proof that these things work as claimed. When challenged by
skeptics he howls that they are left brain, closed minded patsies of the
drug/medical establishment. He takes questions about the efficacy of
various alternative treatments as personal attacks on himself and other
believers. He responds with ad hominems and ill informed paranoid crap
like the above. His postings consist almost entirely of: a) Stories
about himself. Sometimes repeated with a note that he likes them so much
he wants to repost them. Sometimes he even responds to his own posts!
b) Paranoid rants against the medical establishment, drug companies, the
FDA and evidence based medicine. c) Congratulations to people who
support his POV. Play with him if you like. You might just want to look
up his posts on dejanews to see if he's worth responding to.
hd
Ted Rosenberg
bachcole wrote:
>
> Happy Dog <happ...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
> >bachcole wrote:
> >
> >> It is the nature of tests that they can never be definitive, unless
> >> the test can test every single individual under all circumstances.
> >
> >antiscience right brain bigot.
>
> I rabidly oppose left-brain bigots. Calling me a right-brain bigot is
> like calling the NAACP anti-white bigots. And neo-Nazis do call the
> NAACP anti-white bigots. I oppose anyone who insists that only double
> blind crossover randomized studies (preferably those done by big drug
> companies that support their materialistic, grinch perspective) have
> validity.
>
> >Humans are more alike than different.
>
> So how come some people have allergic reactions and other people do
> not?
Oh bullshit. You are NOT a bigot, you are just poorly educated and have
impaired reasoning ability. As for Right vs Left - I am sure that with
your putative brain, no one can tell.
Ted Rosenberg
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:50:43 -0500, "claudia"
> <cookingnews...@chef.net> wrote:
>
> >This thread has shown me one thing and that is that there
> >>are a lot of people in disagreement with each other on this issue. Is
> >>this a cover similar to the smoking industries insistence that links
> >>to cancer weren't proven or is it alarmist BS?
> >
> >You had my interest and possible support until you wrote the above. If you
> >think that a usenet thread is actually part of a cover-up by the government
> >and Monsanto, then YOU are the one who is paranoid, no one else.
>
> I was recalling the smoking industries long insitence that smoking and
> cancer are not linked. That is not paranoia, it's a matter of history.
>
> I never said that this particular usenet thread is part of a cover-up.
> I was speaking of the entire is it or is it not dangerous debate and
> from a skeptical point of view DOUBTING that it is. Perhaps I should
> clarify that BS stands for 'bullshit'. I am asking is it all bullshit
> or is the sweetner industry actually avoiding criticism of their
> product strictly to protect profits at the possible cost of peoples
> health.
>
> Michael Selby
If you have been around for very long you will know that ALL
anti-Aspertame crap originates from two sources.
1) Mad Betty Martini - HEAVEN KNOWS what her problem is.
and
2) The people pushing Stevia, a "natural" substance. They are led by a
Mark Gold.
They have always been a problem trolling under many different names,
coming in with the questions which they then answer under another name,
etc.
Their "studies", "Methanol", "the FAA wouldn't let pilots drink Diet
Coke" ALL are provably phony. The funniest one was a few years ago when
Betty found out that an audit of a study found two more cows that
contracted cancer than originally reported. And it was in the CONTROL
GROUP - HEAVENS, She didn't even know that the control group is the
cows that got NO Aspartame!
The FINAL STRAW was last summer when they put out a transcript of a
phony conference, which they claimed was held by the MS foundation which
stated that Aspartame caused MS and Lupus. The MS foundation had to
hire people and put in more phone lines to answer the panic. Now,
anyone who says boo about the subject, if lucky, only gets flamed. They
should hope that they don't run into some people with MS.
Ted Rosenberg
stuff is PKU, and it SURE doesn't cause it, as you have it at birth.
This is another actively malicious post, like the SAME post used about
MS and about Lupus, and about Diabetes, and.....
ridin_free wrote:
>
> look....all I knopw is that aspartame, for whatever reason....is *deadly* to
> anyone with Graves Disease <a form of hyperthyroidism>, and indeed is viewed
> as a potential *cause* of Graves.
>
> Dr H wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Ken wrote:
> >
> > }I haven't read every post in this thread, but I seriously
> > }doubt anyone has posted the chemical breakdown of aspartame.
> > }If I'm being repetitive, sorry.
> > }
> > }Simple chemistry says:
> > }
> > }Methyl group hydrolyzed ---> Methanol oxidized --->
> > }Formaldehyde oxidized ---> Carbon dioxide
> > }
> > }Methanol is potentially toxic, and formaldehyde is definetly toxic.
> > }What more needs to be said? Oh wait, somebody wants to SELL
> > }this stuff. Hmmmm
> >
> > The body routinely metabolizes small amounts of methanol.
> > The body also routinely metabolizes ethanol (the alcohol in
> > alcoholic beverages). With either substance there are non-toxic
> > doses and toxic doses.
> >
> > The fact that one stage in methanol metabolism is the production of
> > formaldehyde is not significant unless a toxic dose of methanol has
> > been consumed.
> >
> > A metabolic byproduct of ethanol is acetaldehyde, which is also highly
> > toxic, but if you haven't ingested a toxic dose of ethanol, the
> > acetaldehyde isn't going to kill you. (Will give you a nasty hangover,
> > though.)
> >
> > }Tests say:
> > }3000mg's a day in infant monkeys for nine months showed no
> > }ill effects on growth, development, health, or behavior, either
> > }during the test or on the withdrawal.
> > }
> > }Conclusion of the *experts*:
> > }Aspartame is safe, except for people with PKU. Of course, the
> > }FDA has a limit, an "Acceptable Daily Intake" of 50mg/kg body weight.
> >
> > Which translates into about 20-12oz softdrinks (nearly 2 gallons) or
> > 97 sweetener packets (over 1 pound), per day, for a 150 lb. adult.
> > Anyone who is drinking that much softdrink or eating that much sweetener
> > every day has a lot of problems to deal with before worrying about
> > aspartame. [International Food Information Council: ifc.health.org]
> >
> > }My conclusion:
> > }Why in the world would you drink a diet soda, when you could
> > }have a nice glass of water, and get some guarana from your local
> > }herb store if you want caffeine. Or, try some Darjeeling or
> > }Earl Grey tea. You can make up a batch and drink it cold if you
> > }want and it has plenty of caffiene in it.
> >
> > Or even some nice sassafras tea, highly prized for centuries for its
> > health benefits. Except they didn't know it contained the carcinogen
> > safrole until a few years ago. Oops.
> >
> > }If you want some thing that tastes sweet, eat an apple!
> > }Believe it or not, you can even eat 2 apples!
> > }Or a bananna, or an orange, or a kiwi, or a watermelon....
> > }See where this is heading?
> >
Pete
> AMAZING: Don't call us, we KNOW who you are!
To learn a bit about ADL check this site out.
Pete
> GEE, I didn't know that Honey didn't contain sugar -
> oh wow, I can > THROW > AWAY my Blood Glucose meter
> and pig out on HONEY!!
Everyone, I (pete) never said that it did.
Who is this Ted Rosenberg dude? ADL?
To learn more about ADL vist site...
http://harvest-trust.org/adltruth.htm
Cat & Kevin Jackson-Mead
Ted- well well well, what's got you so riled up today, is it people trying to make
simple suggestions (i.e., drink water instead of soda - what a novel idea!) and offer
non-Martini-related information (it wouldn't kill you to research a valid source)??
or are you just another person who doesn't want to seriously look into the issue. In
any case I notice that you have not had the sense to stop crossposting this thread
to numerous groups that are probably sick of it, at least under this name (I'll only
continue following this thread on one group after this, if you'd like to continue
this exchange). What are you going to do today? plant another rabid post, tick off
everyone trying to hold a decent conversation about the issue and make sure that
nobody, whether suffering from health problems or not, tries to research ALL the
available information by trying to make the side you disagree with look bad. People
like you, who won't consider both sides of the issue, are beneath contempt.
Ted Rosenberg wrote:
> OH GOT another ASPARTAME TROLL
>
> Cat and Kevin- well well well, what tripe are we pushing today, is it
> Stevia?? or are you just another persona for Betty Martini. In any
> case I notice that you have the sense not to try to post to any of the
> diabetic NG's, at least under this name. What are you going to do
> today? plant a phony post from the MS foundation, scare thousands of
> people and make the MS and Lupus groups spend lots of money answering
> your tripe instead of on research. People like you are beneath
> contempt.
>
Dr H
On Thu, 4 Mar 1999, ridin_free wrote:
}Dr H wrote:
}
}> On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, ridin_free wrote:
}>
}> }no cites...only what my physician told me when I was diagnosed. he stressed it
}> }to be frank. I have never used it. I worked for the M.O.D. for four years
}> }(1983 to 1987) and it was listed thru them as a teratogen then, kinda warned me
}> }off of it I must say.
}>
}> Ask your physician to provide a cite. If he can't (or won't), then if
}> I were you I would definitely seek a second opinion.
}>
}
}His *was* my second opinion....
}
Then call up the *first* physician and ask *him* for a cite. If your own
doctor won't tell you where he got this information from how do you know
he didn't just make it up?
Dr H
K. DASKAWICZ
Dr H wrote in message ...
>Then call up the *first* physician and ask *him* for a cite. If your own
>doctor won't tell you where he got this information from how do you know
>he didn't just make it up?
>
>Dr H
No offense to the medical establishment, but the amount of misinformation
some of these physicians have about things of a medical/health nature is
often scarey (especially outside of their specialty).
I remember years ago, having a conversation about VD with a physician
"friend" of mine. (He also has his MA in Public Health). This was LONG
before AIDS. I was discussing the theoretical possibility that someone
could contract a [blood-born] venereal disease thru other than the obvious
means -- for instance, thru accidental exposure via blood in a laboratory
setting, thru contaminated medical equipment, thru open (non genital)
wounds, etc. I knew this was biologically possible from my own studies.
I will probably never forget the ridicule he heaped on me -- accusing me of
believing stories like "I got it from a toilet seat, doorknob, etc." I
tried to explain the biological facts, even citing the case of a researcher
who contracted syphilis (I think) thru contaminated blood, but he would not
hear it.
I have also had physicians parrot that ages-old myth (PROVEN not true) that
someone (usually the physician himself) has caught a cold due to being
exposed to cold weather. Damn, and here you'd think they knew that it was
microorganisms that cause such diseases.....
Yes, do go to your physician for advice on medical issues. However, keep in
mind that his opinion is just that -- consider other facts and sources
information.
-KD