Artificial Sweeteners: Danger Part IV

Ran across an article written by Noah Hittner. Not sure if anybody has heard of this guy (I haven't), but he seems like a fruit loop. The article is titled "Dear God, Don't Eat That!". I'll post a link here in a second but first I'm gonna post what he has to say about Aspartame and Splenda.

ASPARTAME:
The FDA’s approval of this chemical has been labeled by experts as “troubling” at best. This approval, like many, was financially motivated. Unfortunately, the public is dealing with the repercussions. Aspartame breaks down into wood-alcohol (methanol) which is essentially EMBALMING FLUID at just over 100 degrees in the human body. "Diet" products (I.E. Nutra-sweet, Equal, sodas, chewing gums, diet drinks, sugar free snacks/drinks, diet foods, supplement bars/powders, etc.) containing the chemical sweetener aspartame can have multiple neurotoxic, metabolic, allergenic, and carcinogenic effects.(35) Some of these are: the initiation or aggravation of diabetes mellitus, hypoglycemia, convulsions, headache, depression, other psychiatric states, hyperthyroidism, hypertension, arthritis, the simulation of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, lupus erythematosus, and carpal tunnel syndrome - to name only a few. This stuff is no joke, stay away from it. Oh, and by the way, “diet” sodas containing aspartame have recently been found to cause weight GAIN in MANY individuals. This is due to the fact that this chemical’s powerful effects on the brain alter communication with the liver, ultimately causing potentially serious blood sugar problems.

SPLENDA:
“Splenda,” or “Sucralose,” may be one of man’s worst inventions to date (next to aspartame). Splenda, or sucralose, is a MAN-MADE combination of sugar and chlorine - otherwise know as a Chlorocarbon. Chlorocarbons have long been known for causing organ, genetic, and reproductive damage, and up to 40% shrinkage of the thymus: a gland that is the very foundation of our immune system. Sucralose also causes swelling of the liver and kidneys, and CALCIFICATION of the kidneys.(19) A good rule of thumb: “If you can’t pronounce the ingredient’s name, and/or you’ve no idea what it is - DON’T EAT IT.”


LET THE FLAMING BEGIN!!!

Here's another on protein supplements:

5. PROTEIN SUPPLEMENTS

Folks, this is a no-brainer. Whey protein (bars, powders, shakes, etc.), like soy, was originally an industrial waste product. It’s processing involves extremely high temperatures which render the product nutritionally void. The vitamins, minerals and any other nutrients added back in are synthetic, and potentially toxic. In essence it’s DEAD. Exposure to this processed “food product,” just as previously noted with flour and processed carbs, forces the body to tap into its own reserves of vitamins, minerals, and enzymes just to process and eliminate what your body perceives as “garbage.” Whey can also seriously dehydrate its consumers as the average powder form of this product will absorb many times its own weight in water. To get your protein - EAT REAL MEAT!

:1laugh: :1laugh:

I'll take that into deep consideration. *puts a packet of splenda into whey shake*

1buffsob

For the rest of the article :
http://www.d y n a m i c s p o r t s.net/fitness/article_dont_eat_that.htm

He criticizes everything from refined salt to tap water. I would take this guys word with a grain of salt but thought you guys might find it interesting. I'm gonna do a little more research and see how much truth there is to this guys claims.

F--k, people will come out with anything. I heard the other day the broccoli may cause cancer! Broccoli?!?

I have heard lots of stuff about artificial sweeteners, and as such I don't use them.. I don't use sugar at all other than dex. I don't know who this guy is though... I mean, soda causing weight gain.. doesn't really surprise me if you drink enough of it... if you consume too much of anythign you're prolly gonna do some sort of damage.

And not being able to pronounce thename? what if the person has the IQ of a nymph? they aren't supposed to eat anything? LOL, I know what he's getting at but still. Some things that are very good for you have complicated names..

Been going on for years.......

~SC~

the stuff regarding aspartame and splenda are unquestionably true. this information can be found from numerous other sources. however, the protein comment he made is ridiculous. whey used to be a "waste product" cause they failed to notice it's nutritional value.

according to his "dead food" comments, that would apply to everything cooked as well. i've heard that kind of reasoning before, but it obviously doesn't apply to everyday life and has many questionable flaws. if whey protein is worthless like he tries to make it seem, why do we get such great results off of supplementing with it?

some things that sound theoretically correct on paper don't always hold their ground in practical application in everyday life. according to people like this guy, we'd have to live in a bubble and not eat or drink anything to stay healthy. in other words, following all of his advice will do far more harm than good. do additional research, compare the results, and come to your own conclusions.

i must say though that tap water is indeed very bad for you. i never drink from a tap when i can avoid it. tap water is very high in fluoride and chlorine, both of which are toxic to the body. though chlorine gets rid of bacteria in the water, it also destroys good bacteria in our bodies. you can even find info that says tap water should not be used for certain pets because of the chlorine content, yet it's ok for us? again, do the research and you'll find getting a simple faucet-attached filter can save you a lot of health problems down the road.

Department of Internal Medicine I of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. [email protected]

Artificial sweeteners are added to a wide variety of food, drinks, drugs and hygiene products. Since their introduction, the mass media have reported about potential cancer risks, which has contributed to undermine the public's sense of security. It can be assumed that every citizen of Western countries uses artificial sweeteners, knowingly or not. A cancer-inducing activity of one of these substances would mean a health risk to an entire population. We performed several PubMed searches of the National Library of Medicine for articles in English about artificial sweeteners. These articles included 'first generation' sweeteners such as saccharin, cyclamate and aspartame, as well as 'new generation' sweeteners such as acesulfame-K, sucralose, alitame and neotame. Epidemiological studies in humans did not find the bladder cancer-inducing effects of saccharin and cyclamate that had been reported from animal studies in rats. Despite some rather unscientific assumptions, there is no evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic. Case-control studies showed an elevated relative risk of 1.3 for heavy artificial sweetener use (no specific substances specified) of >1.7 g/day. For new generation sweeteners, it is too early to establish any epidemiological evidence about possible carcinogenic risks. As many artificial sweeteners are combined in today's products, the carcinogenic risk of a single substance is difficult to assess. However, according to the current literature, the possible risk of artificial sweeteners to induce cancer seems to be negligible.

And another...



Pine Court, Fairbourne, Cobham, Surrey KT11 2BT, UK.

Two tolerance studies were conducted in healthy human adult volunteers. The first study was an ascending dose study conducted in eight subjects, in which sucralose was administered at doses of 1, 2. 5, 5 and 10mg/kg at 48-hour intervals and followed by daily dosing at 2mg/kg for 3 days and 5mg/kg for 4 days. In the second study, subjects consumed either sucralose (n=77) or fructose (50g/day) (n=31) twice daily in single blind fashion. Sucralose dosage levels were 125mg/day for weeks 1-3, 250mg/day during weeks 4-7, and 500mg/day during weeks 8-12. No adverse experiences or clinically detectable effects were attributable to sucralose in either study. Similarly, haematology, serum biochemistry, urinalysis and EKG tracings were unaffected by sucralose administration. In the 13-week study, serial slit lamp ophthalmologic examination performed in a random subset of the study groups revealed no changes. Fasting and 2-hour post-dosing blood sucralose concentrations obtained daily during week 12 of the study revealed no rising trend for blood sucralose. Sucralose was well tolerated by human volunteers in single doses up to 10mg/kg/day and repeated doses increasing to 5mg/kg/day for 13 weeks. Based on these studies and the extensive animal safety database, there is no indication that adverse effects on human health would occur from frequent or long-term exposure to sucralose at the maximum anticipated levels of intake.

If warnings about artificial sweeteners by the FDA scare you, why would you come into a forum about anabolic agents? There is much more scary propaganda put out by the FDA about anabolics than there is about Nutrasweet ! Are you for real? I rarely flat out flame a post but come on dude.

MMMMM...enjoying my splenda infused coffee as we speak. I read an article like this on PTonthenet.com. Is it true?? Maybe, but if artificial sweeteners are bad then I guess I'm just gonna die....hey I dont smoke and rarely drink, I need some vices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ascendant

the stuff regarding aspartame and splenda are unquestionably true. this information can be found from numerous other sources. however, the protein comment he made is ridiculous. whey used to be a "waste product" cause they failed to notice it's nutritional value.

according to his "dead food" comments, that would apply to everything cooked as well. i've heard that kind of reasoning before, but it obviously doesn't apply to everyday life and has many questionable flaws. if whey protein is worthless like he tries to make it seem, why do we get such great results off of supplementing with it?

some things that sound theoretically correct on paper don't always hold their ground in practical application in everyday life. according to people like this guy, we'd have to live in a bubble and not eat or drink anything to stay healthy. in other words, following all of his advice will do far more harm than good. do additional research, compare the results, and come to your own conclusions.

i must say though that tap water is indeed very bad for you. i never drink from a tap when i can avoid it. tap water is very high in fluoride and chlorine, both of which are toxic to the body. though chlorine gets rid of bacteria in the water, it also destroys good bacteria in our bodies. you can even find info that says tap water should not be used for certain pets because of the chlorine content, yet it's ok for us? again, do the research and you'll find getting a simple faucet-attached filter can save you a lot of health problems down the road.

---

The Flouride in tap water is beneficial, which is why you see bottled water companies adding it to their water. It's very good for your teeth, which is why some arguw that tap ia better than bottled.

And I'm not sure how you can say that his comments for Aspartame and Splenda are unquestionably true. They are very questionable.

Each day before i leave for work i give a big kiss on both of my cats noses.

Theses lame ass pencil necks make me puck to my ass with all there crap, its even funnier when you see them on talk shows with there bit bald head and educated asses that dont know shit.

Artificial sweetners have helped me lose weight while still getting my sugar fix, i dont abuse i just have 1-2 cups of coffee with some in it.

Whey protein has been a great breakfast for me for the last 2 months mixed with crystal light in flaxoil, i add some crucumin (cancer prevention), and fiber.

The worst idiot of the whole bunch is this guy www.mercola.com

Staring at this monitor reading this post is giving me cancer...i gotta go as i just read a study that said that. Bye

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STAYHUNGRY

If warnings about artificial sweeteners by the FDA scare you, why would you come into a forum about anabolic agents? There is much more scary propaganda put out by the FDA about anabolics than there is about Nutrasweet ! Are you for real? I rarely flat out flame a post but come on dude.

---

Perhaps you missed the purpose behind this post, it is merely food for thought. I never agreed with this guys article, in fact, I posted medical studies completely disproving the article. There are many different opinions out there, I was merely playing the devils advocate to let people sort through the "propoganda", form their own opinions, and share them. I for one continue to use artificial sweeteners despite outrageous claims such as the ones posted above. And why come to a forum about anabolic agents? Come on guy, this forum has much more to offer than that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsd67

MMMMM...enjoying my splenda infused coffee as we speak. I read an article like this on PTonthenet.com. Is it true?? Maybe, but if artificial sweeteners are bad then I guess I'm just gonna die....hey I dont smoke and rarely drink, I need some vices.

---

PTonthenet is where it came from. I feel you, I throw some in my coffee and oatmeal every morning. I'm slowly trying to lower the amounts in my coffee because I don't want cancer
:wg: I used to like my coffee black, but can't go back because it taste to damn good with Splenda. Maybe sprinkle crack in it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giants11

The Flouride in tap water is beneficial, which is why you see bottled water companies adding it to their water. It's very good for your teeth, which is why some arguw that tap ia better than bottled.

And I'm not sure how you can say that his comments for Aspartame and Splenda are unquestionably true. They are very questionable.

---

Agree completely! You are just as likely to get diabetes from REAL sugar and a poor diet than you are from eating artificial sweetners. I only drink tap water personally. Where I am it's all glacier fresh mountain water:7up: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Giants11

The Flouride in tap water is beneficial, which is why you see bottled water companies adding it to their water. It's very good for your teeth, which is why some arguw that tap ia better than bottled.

And I'm not sure how you can say that his comments for Aspartame and Splenda are unquestionably true. They are very questionable.

---

fluoride is good for your teeth when ON the teeth, but it is not beneficial when ingested. i'll have to get the info later, cause i'm about to have dinner, but why ingest something that's supposed to only be good when applied topically to the teeth? doesn't make sense. also, you failed to address the chlorine issue, which without question is harmful. even the makers of chlorine will say the stuff is harmful to just about anything, except for humans of course cause that's who they want to sell to. they'll tell you it's not safe for plants, pets, etc, but it's supposed to be ok for humans?

the reason i said the comments about aspartame and splenda hold ground is because he pointed out 2 different studies which show it was safe. however, taking all things into consideration, there is far more research from highly credible sources indicating it's dangerous than there is it being beneficial. fox5 even has a video on the net from a prior broadcast that you can download about them doing their research on aspartame and it's highly questionable release to the general public, despite all researchers advising against it. now, are you going to dismiss information from one of the most highly regarded newsgroup out there too? there is also thousands of complaints going into the fda each year about health issues related to aspartame consumption and the subsiding of symptoms after stopping it's intake. i know of 2 people personally who had health problems that they know, without question, were related to aspartame consumption.

you also have to take into consideration that even if some of the research shows it's safe, think of how much money is riding on those claims and how much the makers of these products are willing to slip under the table to make sure the research works in their favor? some of those studies are even directly funded by the companies making it. so of course there will be info saying it's safe, think of the money they can afford to toss around reassuring people it's safe. remember when studies on cigarettes used to say they were safe? think about that.

go ahead and call the FDA and ask them if animal studies had been done with aspartame, and they'll admit it. also, ask them if the animal studies showed aspartame intake produced fermaldehyde in the brains of those rats, cancer throughout their bodies, seizures, and numerous other health problems. i know they will answer yes, cause legally, they have to. i even called them about this myself and they admitted it. however, when asking why it was put on the market, they say the studies didn't indicate that it was not safe for human consumption, their reasoning being humans have more of a tolerance to substances like this. my question then that never got answered was then what the hell is the point of animal testing if not to determine if it's safe for human consumption?! so right there, even the FDA gives evidence from the animal testing that this stuff is no good.

if all the chemical additives in the food nowadays is safe, then why are more people proportionately than ever getting sick, cancer, and other health problems? next, you guys will be saying cigarettes are safe, and that the health problems are all hyped up lies. don't forget people used to think MSG was safe, even though numerous scientific research studies indicated otherwise. but, the big companies making the stuff have more money than research facilities, and therefore drown them out, but it can only last so long. you'll see.

im confused! so what am i allowed to eat?

look, if you guys don't want to believe me, i understand. but if you're going to dismiss this information, at least do it with good reasoning. i can post up plenty of info from credible sources about how bad aspartame is, and others can post up plenty of info about how it's supposed to be safe. what it comes down to though is that if it truly were so safe, why is the issue so controversial? if there were nothing to be concerned about, it wouldn't be such a controversial issue.

you will always find tree-huggers that say just about everything is bad for you. however, discriminating between what is legitimate claims and what isn't is about researching from numerous sources and making your own educated decision on the matter.

you will find without question though people have more health problems and children are born with more health issues now than ever in the history of our planet. i'm not speaking numbers, cause obviously increases in population have to be factored in, but proportionately, the number is going up significantly. now, if it isn't what we're consuming, what could it be? though there is other reasoning, including electromagnetic chaos from cell phones and the like, this cannot account for the diversity in health issues that are increasing anually.

the biggest problems you have with tracing the issues with food additives is the companies making the products have so much money, they can buy their way out of just about any problem. just as people buy their way out of jail every day, big businesses buy their credibility through research labs and the FDA. if you think the FDA doesn't care more about money than your health, then start smoking, cause remember the FDA is the ones allowing not only cigarettes to be on the market, but allowing the tobacco companies to add all the toxins to them as well, including tar, carbon monoxide, arsenic, ammonia, etc.

based on my personal research, the things i personally avoid when at all possible are: hydrogenated oils, chlorine (in drinking water), fluoride (in drinking water), aspartame (nutrasweet), sucralose (splenda), and msg (monosodium glutamate). this isn't to say i never take those things in, but i try to keep it to a minimum. have i noticed a difference since i have? absolutely.

those chemicals are things i have found from my research to be highly credibly dangerous to a persons health. i'm sure there are plenty of other things as well, but these are some of the worst, and i simply can't be so obsessive about it as to avoid everything i think might be bad for me. but, i think taking the minimal precautions as for things that severely affect health should at least be researched before dismissed. i can also assure you i would not be making these claims had i not thoroughly researched this information from numerous sources prior to coming to my conclusions, and i would advise anyone prior to coming to a conclusion on the matter to do the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ascendant

look, if you guys don't want to believe me, i understand. but if you're going to dismiss this information, at least do it with good reasoning. i can post up plenty of info from credible sources about how bad aspartame is, and others can post up plenty of info about how it's supposed to be safe. what it comes down to though is that if it truly were so safe, why is the issue so controversial? if there were nothing to be concerned about, it wouldn't be such a controversial issue.

you will always find tree-huggers that say just about everything is bad for you. however, discriminating between what is legitimate claims and what isn't is about researching from numerous sources and making your own educated decision on the matter.

you will find without question though people have more health problems and children are born with more health issues now than ever in the history of our planet. i'm not speaking numbers, cause obviously increases in population have to be factored in, but proportionately, the number is going up significantly. now, if it isn't what we're consuming, what could it be? though there is other reasoning, including electromagnetic chaos from cell phones and the like, this cannot account for the diversity in health issues that are increasing anually.

the biggest problems you have with tracing the issues with food additives is the companies making the products have so much money, they can buy their way out of just about any problem. just as people buy their way out of jail every day, big businesses buy their credibility through research labs and the FDA. if you think the FDA doesn't care more about money than your health, then start smoking, cause remember the FDA is the ones allowing not only cigarettes to be on the market, but allowing the tobacco companies to add all the toxins to them as well, including tar, carbon monoxide, arsenic, ammonia, etc.

based on my personal research, the things i personally avoid when at all possible are: hydrogenated oils, chlorine (in drinking water), fluoride (in drinking water), aspartame (nutrasweet), sucralose (splenda), and msg (monosodium glutamate). this isn't to say i never take those things in, but i try to keep it to a minimum. have i noticed a difference since i have? absolutely.

those chemicals are things i have found from my research to be highly credibly dangerous to a persons health. i'm sure there are plenty of other things as well, but these are some of the worst, and i simply can't be so obsessive about it as to avoid everything i think might be bad for me. but, i think taking the minimal precautions as for things that severely affect health should at least be researched before dismissed. i can also assure you i would not be making these claims had i not thoroughly researched this information from numerous sources prior to coming to my conclusions, and i would advise anyone prior to coming to a conclusion on the matter to do the same.

---

I completely respect your opinion. This is the intelligent debate I had hoped for when beginning this thread. As far as your sources, could you post the studies you are referring to? I can't imagine the sources of the studies I posted where paid off or motivated by money. (Department of Internal Medicine I of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany - Have to find the other source), although it is possible. Also, what changes have you noticed since limited your consumption of the listed above?

As far as the ratio of people getting sick more than ever in the history of earth, I have to disagree. The average lifespan for men and women has increased dramatically since as recently as the early 20th century. I don't have exact figures but I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find those facts.

Aside from that, I do agree there are def scandolous activites going on as far as companies paying others off (Tobacco). I'd say consume in moderation. I've been using Splenda with no issues for about a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DNoMac

I completely respect your opinion. This is the intelligent debate I had hoped for when beginning this thread. As far as your sources, could you post the studies you are referring to? I can't imagine the sources of the studies I posted where paid off or motivated by money. (Department of Internal Medicine I of the University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany - Have to find the other source), although it is possible. Also, what changes have you noticed since limited your consumption of the listed above?

As far as the ratio of people getting sick more than ever in the history of earth, I have to disagree. The average lifespan for men and women has increased dramatically since as recently as the early 20th century. I don't have exact figures but I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find those facts.

Aside from that, I do agree there are def scandolous activites going on as far as companies paying others off (Tobacco). I'd say consume in moderation. I've been using Splenda with no issues for about a year.

---

i'll compile a list of my studies i've researched and post them up here. don't have all of them off-hand, but one place to start with is a book by Kevin Trudeau titled "Natual cures they don't want you to know about". i'd suggest just going into your local barnes n nobles, having a seat in their reading area, and read the book a bit. that way, the only thing it will cost you is a little of your time. i can assure you though, there are plenty more resources than him to rely on, and i'll get them up here hopefully by tomorrow.

as far as the changes i've noticed, improved immunity system (sick less often, symptoms tend to be less severe, and typically subside within a day), my allergies bother me far less, my asthma hardly bothers me at all anymore whereas i used to have to take an inhaler almost every night right before bed. since i've stopped taking all that stuff, i've not once had heartburn, indigestion, diarrhea, or any other digestive problems. i've had increased energy levels, improved mood, improved mental clarity, and those are just what i've noticed physically, let alone the improvement internally that you don't see.

though many would say much of that could be psychological, i was very skeptic at first when trying to eat more natural, healthy foods, and was not expecting any results considering i never found any from homeopathic remedies i've tried. so going into something expecting it to not work would not attribute to having positive results as those listed above. placebos only work if you expect it to be effective.

in regards to your statements on people getting sick, are you taking into account those on medications? though the average lifespan of people have improved, it's only through pumping meds into people. it's almost impossible to find anyone past their 50's nowadays who isn't dependent on at least one medication for the rest of their lives. the health of people hasn't improved, the medical industries techniques for keeping people alive has. however, there is more alzheimers, more autism, more cancer, and more of many other diseases in our world today than ever. just because people are living longer doesn't mean they're healthier. my grandmother is alive at 85 right now, but she's in a retirement home and does nothing all day but sit and watch tv. she really can't do much of anything else cause of all her health problems, and is on 8 meds she has to take several times a day just to stay alive. is that living? i think not. also, many older people complain of all kinds of pains, and say it's something you have to get used to as you get older. again, that's not quality living, that's simply keeping a body alive.

also, look on those medication labels and you'll see a sentence or two about the ONE symptom they treat. however, read the side-effects label, and it will be like reading a novel. there are far more negatives to most drugs than benefits (excluding a very small handful), hence when you become dependent on one drug, it usually causes a cascade effect.

that is, the one med you take after a period of time causes a negative side-effect. since the side-effects don't happen till months or sometimes even years after beginning the medicine as a long-term negative side-effect, many people will fail to relate their new symptom to the intake of the original med and think they have a new problem.

saying as the doctors say you need that first med, or if at all possible will avoid blaming it on the med altogether, their only alternative (at least the only one they give you) is to take another med to treat the ailment the first one is giving you. you see where i'm going with this?

the medical industry is designed to not only make you dependent, but to make that dependency cause you to continually take more and more drugs to alleviate symptoms which are all caused from the drugs themselves! do you really think that a treatment for one symptom should have a LIST of side-effects that go with it? i personally think it's very well possible for them to make safer drugs, but they prefer to do what's in their best financial interest. if you don't think so, i have plenty of informative resources on how big business works, which is all about continually making more and more money, with no regard to the consumer save for customer satisfaction.

as far as you using splenda for a year and having no problems, that's great, and i'm truly very happy to hear that. however, my father has been smoking for over 50 years now, and since the doctor tells him he's fine, he thinks all is good and dandy. however, by the time he finds out what the cigarettes in the long run have done to him, which will most likely be either terminal lung cancer or emphysema, it will be too late, and deaths from cigarette related diseases tend to be very slow and very painful, particularly the slow suffocation of emphysema. not saying splenda is that bad, but saying as WE are the guinea pigs right now, you really don't know.

one thing i can tell you is that autism is rising at a preposterous rate. my wife is an autism teacher, and almost every school is starting to have an autism classroom now because it's becoming so prominent, yet they don't know what's causing these kids to be autistic. though not definite, i question the possibility of food additives being the culprit here, as do many others who are theorizing possibilities as to the cause? you really can't say for sure, but all those chemicals we're ingesting that our bodies simply weren't created to digest are bound to have some kind of effects in the long run one way or another.

That was quite a post. Where to begin...

As far as the increase in lifespan, how could you attribute that to simply pumping people full of meds? I'm no expert in pharmacology, but to say that meds cause more negative effects than positive seems ludicrous. I'll take a little indigestion or constipation to lower blood pressure, cholesterol, cure erectile dysfunction (not an issue for me but none-the-less), treat diabetes, ect, ect, ect. Would you suggest let nature take it's course or to act on basic human instinct and attempt to survive?

Sure some elderly people are gonna rely on meds, but that doesn't mean it reduces there quality of life. My mom relys on steroids for the rest of her life because her adrenal glands don't work, doesn't mean she enjoys life any less. She pops a pill or two and continues on with her daily routine.

Also, you can't attribute prolonged lifespan entirely on meds. Many variables will increase lifespan including something as simple as diet and excercise.

As far as more cancer, and other illnesses, I can't really comment on that as I have never seen data on this claim. I could see that perhaps there is an increase in illnesses. On the otherhand perhaps they are more widely documented/understood than they were previously thus creating the sense that they are occuring more frequently. Again, I have never seen data to prove or disprove the claim.

I can see some of your points, but some of the others seem a bit too speculative.

ok, well if we all think like this, then,....

we must stop eating meat, its all steriod injected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wtf are we suppose to do?

just live life, eat diff things in modereation... done............... f this post:asskiss:

"Trudeau's legal problems are long-standing. In 1990, he posed as a doctor in order to deposit $80,000 in false checks, and in 1991 he pled guilty to larceny after he had provided false information to obtain credit cards which he used for his own purposes. He spent two years in prison because of this conviction.(Choi, 2005) Most people in opposition to Trudeau's claims point to this felony conviction as a good reason not to trust him.
[edit]"

Not to sure about the credibility of this guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jakt

ok, well if we all think like this, then,....

we must stop eating meat, its all steriod injected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wtf are we suppose to do?

just live life, eat diff things in modereation... done............... f this post:asskiss:

---

Well said:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DNoMac

"Trudeau's legal problems are long-standing. In 1990, he posed as a doctor in order to deposit $80,000 in false checks, and in 1991 he pled guilty to larceny after he had provided false information to obtain credit cards which he used for his own purposes. He spent two years in prison because of this conviction.(Choi, 2005) Most people in opposition to Trudeau's claims point to this felony conviction as a good reason not to trust him.
[edit]"

Not to sure about the credibility of this guy.

---

right, that's the kind of reasoning i'm talking about when you need to verify infmormation through more than one source.

the reason trudeau has so much inside information in his book however is cause he had been there, that is, he had been all about the money and been around others who were the same. in that perspective, you can see where he has the advantage over other tree-hugger books which are very one-sided. i know trudeau's credibility is very questionable, but so are many of the actions of the FDA and the rest of our government. however, in researching further into many of trudeau's claims, i find many to be based on very credible evidence. i will admit though, i find some of his info to be ridiculous as well, and i do dismiss some. nobody has all the answers, which is why i always cross-reference information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DNoMac

As far as the increase in lifespan, how could you attribute that to simply pumping people full of meds? I'm no expert in pharmacology, but to say that meds cause more negative effects than positive seems ludicrous. I'll take a little indigestion or constipation to lower blood pressure, cholesterol, cure erectile dysfunction (not an issue for me but none-the-less), treat diabetes, ect, ect, ect. Would you suggest let nature take it's course or to act on basic human instinct and attempt to survive?

Sure some elderly people are gonna rely on meds, but that doesn't mean it reduces there quality of life. My mom relys on steroids for the rest of her life because her adrenal glands don't work, doesn't mean she enjoys life any less. She pops a pill or two and continues on with her daily routine.

Also, you can't attribute prolonged lifespan entirely on meds. Many variables will increase lifespan including something as simple as diet and excercise.

As far as more cancer, and other illnesses, I can't really comment on that as I have never seen data on this claim. I could see that perhaps there is an increase in illnesses. On the otherhand perhaps they are more widely documented/understood than they were previously thus creating the sense that they are occuring more frequently. Again, I have never seen data to prove or disprove the claim.

I can see some of your points, but some of the others seem a bit too speculative.

---

before even getting into all the med stuff, let me just say that the point of my comments about meds in regards to lifespans seems to have been misinterpreted. let me put it this way... if the quality of life were being improved, there'd be no need for all the meds as we get older, cause we'd be healthy. taking meds is not a sign of health, it's a sign of declining health which requires treatment with the medications. the fact that the majority of the population over 50 is DEPENDENT on at least one kind of medication is a clear indication of health decline that is only kept maintained by meds, NOT an improvement in the quality of health.

i'd also like you to show me where any people who are living med free in their later years are the kind of people consuming processed food additives, aspartame, splenda, and the like? actually to make it easier, show me a person past 50 who listens to what the FDA tells them is ok to eat that ISN'T on medication? the fact is, almost every single person that is in their senior years and isn't dependent on meds avoided processed chem additives and eats more natural foods. the improvement in their health and longevity was not from meds, it was from healthy eating and an active lifestyle. you compare the people who are alive in their senior years because of meds and the ones who are alive because of eating better and being more active and you'll notice a significant difference in the quality of life each has. i've witnessed it personally time and time again with clients, family, friends, etc. also, as far as just giving credit to their more active lifestyles, compare an active person who consumes processed chem additives and one who doesn't and you'll see a very significant difference there. it's not just the active lifestyle, it's the food as well.

i'm not saying meds don't have a place in helping society, but oftentimes there are far safer alternatives to the meds prescribed to people. for example, when you have acid reflux, a doctor will prescribe a med for it that will unquestionably have a list of side-effects on it's label. though not all people will experience them, just like with smoking, eventually you're bound to have negative sides if they're taken long-term, but you simply may not blame the med you're taking for the new symptom you encounter.

anyway, my wife has problems with acid reflux after certain meals, and used to take a med for it. the med would usually give her bad headaches and loose stools afterwards, which in my opinion could potentially be doing more harm than good. after speaking with one of our friends who is into more natural medicines, she told my wife all she needed for the acid reflux was papaya enzyme, so we bought it from the local health food store, and for far less than the meds cost. well, the papaya enzyme not only treats her acid reflux, but doesn't give her any other negative side-effects in it's treatment of her condition. it also works immediately, whereas the med took about 15-20 mins to kick in.

now why does the med industry not just tell you to take papaya enzyme? for starters, it's a natural extract, which means it can't be patented, so that means competition, which leads to innevitable lower prices to compete. a synthetically made chem can be patented, which is why they choose that method. that way, they can charge far higher prices since they basically have a monopoly on that product for a number of years. even after that, they can still charge far more because it's synthetically made, so they can get far more tax write-offs for expenses at the end of the year than a simple extraction of a naturally found product.

also, papaya has no ill side-effects, which means if a doctors tells you to take it, you're not coming back cause your problem is solved. it also means he gets no bonus incentive, cause the companies making papaya enzyme are not sending him incentive programs for recommending a certain number of people a month to their treatment. however, with their meds, the chems can potentially cause other health problems, in which case you'll be coming back for additional meds or another treatment if you find the sides intolerable. again, it's all about the money when it comes to the big businesses.

take a look at jack lalane. i don't even know how old that guy is, and he takes no meds and is still in great shape. his advice he gives to others for a long and healthy life? "if it's made by man, don't eat it." his exact words.

I can see both sides of the arguement. I agree with you 100% that there is plenty of shady business going on among these big pharmecuticla companies. I can't remember exactly, but just recently I believe a law was passed so that companies couldn't make generic meds so that the bigger companies can hold monopolies on specific drugs.

As far as the herbal meds go, I've read studies supporting both arguments. I'm sure there are plenty of herbs that do work, and just as many that don't. However, in comparison to regular meds, herbal supplements pose risks as well. I don't agree with the claims, but the guy who wrote the article I orginially posted went on to say how bad caffeine (a natural herb) is, and likewise we all know about ephedra. Regardless of origination, there will always be negatives and positives. I wouldn't completely abandon synthetic products because there are some negative aspects. Under this ideology, herbal supplements could be considered harmful as well.

Btw, if you could post some info on some herbal supplements, I would be interested in some of the proven effects. Speaking of, I've been meaning to try out Tribulus or Tongkat. Now I must attend to my all-natural potato-distilled beverage. Cheers.

The amount of wood alcohol that comes from the breakdown is minuscule. There's more wood alcohol naturally occurring in a peach! Don't sweat it, use it in moderation if you must.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronAdam

The amount of wood alcohol that comes from the breakdown is minuscule. There's more wood alcohol naturally occurring in a peach! Don't sweat it, use it in moderation if you must.

---

you focused on one of about a dozen issues. you need to look at this from all perspectives. do the research and you'll see what i mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ascendant

you focused on one of about a dozen issues. you need to look at this from all perspectives. do the research and you'll see what i mean.

---

I addressed the point made in the first posted article...if I cared to comment on the other topics raised in the thread I would have. For now I'll just watch :?:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronAdam

I addressed the point made in the first posted article...if I cared to comment on the other topics raised in the thread I would have. For now I'll just watch :?:

---

ok, all good bro. just wanted to make sure you were aware that the issue mentioned in the initial post wasn't the only problem with that stuff. it converts into several different chems when broken down in the body, and sadly enough, as far as i know every single one is harmful to the body in one way or another.