Pepsi Max Back At Makro Hd (And You Can Thank My Wife!)

[rijb]

I like Pepsi Max and Diet Coke. Unfortunately, they have no food value whatsoever. They're just expensive poluted water.

Edited July 19, 2012 by rijb

[barefoot1988]

just like msg but lets stop this before all the closet chemists and nutritionists start to roll in

the thing about diet coke is the shltty aftertaste. the best diet soda i tried is in malaysia called kickapoo, too bad they don't do the sugar free version anymore, i swear i will bring in a crate if they still do. taste like mountain dew without the sugar and the aftertaste arent that bad at all!

Edited July 19, 2012 by barefoot1988

[Greenside]

the thing about diet coke is the shltty aftertaste.

That's why many people prefer Pepsi Max - they seem to have largely got round the aftertaste problem that Coke is stuck with.

[femi fan]

But daily drinking of any kind of coke or pepsi is a disaster for one's internal organs and immune system, and there really is reams of research and studies that demonstrate this.

Just one convincing piece of properly conducted research, peer reviewed and acknowledged by any credible branch of the scientific community? Consuming loads of sugar daily, sure but nothing conclusive on artificial sweeteners in realistic quantities as far as I know.

"It's not about evidence...." . It is about evidence.

Well, you may want to rely upon evidence, but there is none out there save for your own experience.

What really does help is reading up on the issues and gaining one's own understandings. I'm personally convinced of the appalling nature of this product and will not touch it with a bargepole. That however has no bearing on anybody else. Perhaps this article will:

http://www.naturalnews.com/034320_aspartame_sweetener_side_effects.html

This is a quality website, read by millions. It's not the evidence you call for, but you'll never get that. It really is a poisonous substance. These companies only know one thing: profit. They simply don't give a hoot for anybody's health.

As for some posters using the fda's approval of this substance, forget that please!! The fda is hijacked by the industry. Plenty in the fda have spoken out that they are there for the industry, not the health of the american citizens. The fda are not to be trusted in any way.

[bobl]

This is a quality website, read by millions.

Oh, my word. I don't know where to begin.

The very first sentence - "Over a billion people consume aspartame". Then several pages of chemobabble followed by facebook anecdotal "evidence".

It reminded me of the Dihydrogen Monoxide trick where the guy got a very high percentage of people to sign a petition calling for a ban of the stuff after detailing it's dangerous effects.

Note also all the snake oil advertisements on the right. The very first one - "cure almost any cancer at home (for $5.15 a day)".

I mean seriously, this is what you offer up in support of your "poison" claim?

[hellodolly]

But daily drinking of any kind of coke or pepsi is a disaster for one's internal organs and immune system, and there really is reams of research and studies that demonstrate this.

Just one convincing piece of properly conducted research, peer reviewed and acknowledged by any credible branch of the scientific community? Consuming loads of sugar daily, sure but nothing conclusive on artificial sweeteners in realistic quantities as far as I know.

"It's not about evidence...." . It is about evidence.

Well, you may want to rely upon evidence, but there is none out there save for your own experience.

What really does help is reading up on the issues and gaining one's own understandings. I'm personally convinced of the appalling nature of this product and will not touch it with a bargepole. That however has no bearing on anybody else. Perhaps this article will:

http://www.naturalne...de_effects.html

This is a quality website, read by millions. It's not the evidence you call for, but you'll never get that. It really is a poisonous substance. These companies only know one thing: profit. They simply don't give a hoot for anybody's health.

As for some posters using the fda's approval of this substance, forget that please!! The fda is hijacked by the industry. Plenty in the fda have spoken out that they are there for the industry, not the health of the american citizens. The fda are not to be trusted in any way.

The FDA took 15 years of studding this product before they OK ed it. Haven't read your report but I am willing to bet it was put together with a heck of a lot evidence than the FDA had.

If you really want to know about some thing you will have to know what is on the other side of the coin and I doubt very much you have looked at any of that research.

If the FDA are not trusted they are only for business how come they pulled Viox off the market and a couple of months later the one that doctors were using to replace it? I am quite sure there were many such things. I am just familiar with that one because I had been on it for 5 years. They also force drug companies in their advertisements to warn if there is any side effects.

Does your report follow up with more evidence years after it was made or is it not like the FDA who continue to monitor things and when the evidence proves them wrong they change there decision.

The bottom line is Pepsi Max does not hurt my diabetes one little bit and I do not gain weight from drinking it. As a matter of fact it helps me to lose weight as when I drink it at night it takes away the craving for a snack. Bonus I like it and it helps me lose weight.

One more little thing that some people over look they are going to die any how weather they drink Pepsi Max or not. To be or not to be that is not the question. It will be.

In parting I have good news I saw some Pepsi Max in the big bottles in a 7 11 today.

Edited July 20, 2012 by hellodolly

[Joop50]

http://aspartame.mercola.com/sites/aspartame/studies.aspx

[femi fan]

This is a quality website, read by millions.

Oh, my word. I don't know where to begin.

The very first sentence - "Over a billion people consume aspartame". Then several pages of chemobabble followed by facebook anecdotal "evidence".

It reminded me of the Dihydrogen Monoxide trick where the guy got a very high percentage of people to sign a petition calling for a ban of the stuff after detailing it's dangerous effects.

Note also all the snake oil advertisements on the right. The very first one - "cure almost any cancer at home (for $5.15 a day)".

I mean seriously, this is what you offer up in support of your "poison" claim?

To repeat, this is a quality website read by millions. Your reaction does not change that fact. For people who wish to pursue healthy living practices it is an excellent resource. The big trouble is that the fda, and all major authorities cannot be trusted because of the influence of big ag and big pharma in shaping research and the curriculum of practising doctors. In addition in the US these companies vigorously push hard to block any natural cures from becoming known. Nobody is allowed to make any health claims except big pharmaceutical companies. How democratic is that?!! Amazing. Especially when their products are american citizens' third biggest killer.

I could offer reams more support, but i'm not here to do that. What on earth is the point of you or anyone out there believing what i, some unknown stranger on a forum boar, am saying?? I'm simply here to act as a voice that might prod people into doing their own research. If you don't want to, fine, that's your prerogative. But don't sit there expecting me to do loads more work on your behalf when the first bit of work i do you dismiss.

[femi fan]

The FDA took 15 years of studding this product before they OK ed it. Haven't read your report but I am willing to bet it was put together with a heck of a lot evidence than the FDA had.

If you really want to know about some thing you will have to know what is on the other side of the coin and I doubt very much you have looked at any of that research.

If the FDA are not trusted they are only for business how come they pulled Viox off the market and a couple of months later the one that doctors were using to replace it? I am quite sure there were many such things. I am just familiar with that one because I had been on it for 5 years. They also force drug companies in their advertisements to warn if there is any side effects.

Did you ask yourself how it was that the fda approved viox in the first place? Can you remember thalidomide? And how years after it was pulled the first time, they brought it back, but to treat a different health problem? Yes, approved by the fda. The fda have a simply appalling disregard for the health of people. Perhaps i should note that i'm talking about the political decision-making they employ. There is a culture within the organisation that they work for the industry, not the health of the citizen.

Are you aware of the statins wonderdrug that these companies make billions of dollars from? Fda approved. People on pills for life when, for most people put on these statins, all they need do is cut out white sugar and other refined carbohydrates. But no, that would strangle the money-making business in a massive way.

And since you mentioned it, i've been researching food and medicine for nearly four years now. When one embarks on the journey one simply has no idea of the scale of bullshit we're exposed to. Illness is extremely profitable, and that's why we have it. If you seriously ask yourself about it, you will realise that our health 'care' approach is simply to fight the symptom. Fixing the root cause of illhealth and promoting a preventative health care approach are not on the radar.

No money in it.

[bobl]

To repeat, this is a quality website read by millions

of gullible people. There, ftfy.

And, so what? Millions of people believed the world was flat.

"I could offer reams more support"

Please, don't. I entered this discussion with an open mind, believe me. I had no idea it was Aspartame that was in Pepsi Max, nor did I know anything about the chemical itself other than its' name.

I've done all the reasearch I care to on the subject and as far as I'm concerned, I stand by my first instinct - your website is full of FUD fuelled in no small part by the lunatic ravings of a quack (Dr Mercola). For those who haven't dug as deep as I have, Dr Mercola is the same person who questions whether AIDS is a result of contracting HIV (and says that AIDS maybe caused only by the psychological stress from the fear of having HIV).

If you start digging and clicking even ONE hyperlink deep into many of these sites, you will plunge headlong into the world of fully paid up tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

[femi fan]

Please, don't. I entered this discussion with an open mind, believe me. I had no idea it was Aspartame that was in Pepsi Max, nor did I know anything about the chemical itself other than its' name.

...

If you start digging and clicking even ONE hyperlink deep into many of these sites, you will plunge headlong into the world of fully paid up tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists.

Well then bobi, what did you find out about aspartame once you got past its name?

And even though you may have entered the discussion with an open mind, you seem to have firmly shut it since then. I say this because you're finding people in hyperlinks that can be found nowhere on the streets of any city or nation.

Now, if we disagree, then leave it at that. You like eating this aspartame stuff because it's not bad for you, whereas i don't. Meanwhile i shall continue to contribute here about what is a proven toxin, hopefully without you projecting your conspiracy theory stuff onto me as a tangent.

Again, naturalnews is an excellent source of health information and research, with lots of citizen writers (ie writers without corporate agendas to fulfill) contributing to the site, and millions of people using it as the health resource it's intended to be.

[haybilly]

Just to add to the discussion---

I just copied this from Google+--

This is what happens to your body within one hour of drinking a can of soda.

10 minutes: 10 teaspoons of sugar hit your system, which is 100 percent of your recommended daily intake. You'd normally vomit from such an intake, but the phosphoric acid cuts the flavor.

20 minutes: Your blood sugar skyrockets. Your pancreas attempts to maximize insulin production in order to turn high levels of sugar into fat.

40 minutes: As your body finishes absorbing the caffeine, your pupils dilate, your blood pressure rises, and your liver pumps more sugar into the bloodstream. Adenosine receptors in your brain are blocked preventing you from feeling how tired you may actually be.

45 minutes: Your body increases dopamine production, causing you to feel pleasure and adding to the addictiveness of the beverage. This physical neuro response works the same way as it would if we were consuming heroin.

60 minutes: The phosphoric acid binds calcium, magnesium and zinc in your lower intestine, which boosts your metabolism a bit further. High doses of sugar and artificial sweeteners compound this effect, increasing the urinary excretion of calcium. The caffeine’s diuretic properties come into play. (You have to GO!) Your body will eliminate the bonded calcium, magnesium and zinc that was otherwise heading to your bones. And you will also flush out the sodium, electrolytes and water. Your body has eliminated the water that was in the soda. And in the process it was infused with nutrients and minerals your body would have otherwise used to hydrate your system or build body cells, bones, teeth.

The sugar crash begins. You may become irritable and/or sluggish. You start feeling like crap. Time to grab another?Collapse this post

More photos from John Cassone, Ph.D.

I, personally, don't drink this stuff other than occasionally, and my daughter is none too keen either, thankfully--

but, I suppose we are all free-ish to use whatever 'legal' poisons that we want.

Edited July 21, 2012 by haybilly

[femi fan]

Well, i decided to do some specific research on aspartame, in light of this thread. I knew it was to be avoided at all costs (clearly a bit will do only a little damage, but regular consumption is what i'm talking about), but here is a history of the product and it's an absolute horror story. It's very long, so perhaps people should skim it as i have done. But it's a tale of woe about:

• a company called G D Searle, itself acquired by Monsanto in the 1980s
  
• donald rumsfeld
  
• corrupt research studies carried out by Searle itself, exposed as thus, yet ultimately accepted by the fda as 'evidence' that aspartame causes no harm
  
• politics and big business joining hands to make heaps of money while damaging the health and lives of citizens
  
• a product that has clearly been shown to damage and kill off living organisms
  

As usual with these 'foods', millions are spent to hoodwink us into believing what we consume is not bad for our health, and millions are spent on corrupting people to get things approved, and millions are spent on 'persuading' us to buy their dangerous products.

The big problem we have as consumers is that we don't get the health problems today, but rather they simply accumulate over the years, then wham bam, a cancer is diagnosed here, a diabetes there, or we wake up in a hospital after a heart attack. Understandably what we don't see we don't think about in life, until it's too damned late.

And because of that these arch criminals get away with poisoning hundreds of millions of people, and causing all the untold misery that results. But no worries eh, they're making billions for their companies, and millions for themselves. All is okay with the world. After all, it's just a conspiracy theory (sic).

http://www.wnho.net/history_of_aspartame.htm

[femi fan]

I, personally, don't drink this stuff other than occasionally, and my daughter is none too keen either, thankfully--

but, I suppose we are all free-ish to use whatever 'legal' poisons that we want.

What a horrific picture that is! That baby is not free or freeish to consume it!!

Yes, such legal poisons are not normally forced down us, we do 'choose' to take them. But only after concerted campaigns to persuade us to make that choice. I know that's why you said free'ish', but thought i'd add to your comments.

Thank you for adding some weight to what i'm trying to say on this thread.

[haybilly]

I forgot to add the link to the GooglePlus page--just so that people can draw their own conclusions--I am not trying to inflame the situation, just including someone else's research/opinion.

[Greenside]

What a horrific picture that is! That baby is not free or freeish to consume it!!

Yes, such legal poisons are not normally forced down us, we do 'choose' to take them. But only after concerted campaigns to persuade us to make that choice. I know that's why you said free'ish', but thought i'd add to your comments.

Thank you for adding some weight to what i'm trying to say on this thread.

The picture is a set up stock shot provided by Mr Cassone who, unsurprisingly, happens to run an outfit called "Cassone Wellness". There is no liquid in the cup or the straw that you can see and yet you (and I suppose many others with entrenched views) take it at face value. I too followed up a couple of the links given in the article you cited as being authoritative and was particularly impressed with the following (you may want to sit down and take a deep breath before you read it):

Adverse reactions and side effects of aspartame include:

Eye

blindness in one or both eyes

decreased vision and/or other eye problems such as: blurring, bright flashes, squiggly lines, tunnel vision, decreased night vision

pain in one or both eyes

decreased tears

trouble with contact lenses

bulging eyes

Ear

tinnitus - ringing or buzzing sound

severe intolerance of noise

marked hearing impairment

Neurologic

epileptic seizures

headaches, migraines and (some severe)

dizziness, unsteadiness, both

confusion, memory loss, both

severe drowsiness and sleepiness

paresthesia or numbness of the limbs

severe slurring of speech

severe hyperactivity and restless legs

atypical facial pain

severe tremors

Psychological/Psychiatric

severe depression

irritability

aggression

anxiety

personality changes

insomnia

phobias

Chest

palpitations, tachycardia

shortness of breath

recent high blood pressure

Gastrointestinal

nausea

diarrhea, sometimes with blood in stools

abdominal pain

pain when swallowing

Skin and Allergies

itching without a rash

lip and mouth reactions

hives

aggravated respiratory allergies such as asthma

Endocrine and Metabolic

loss of control of diabetes

menstrual changes

marked thinning or loss of hair

marked weight loss

gradual weight gain

aggravated low blood sugar (hypoglycemia)

severe PMS

Other

frequency of voiding and burning during urination

excessive thirst, fluid retention, leg swelling, and bloating

increased susceptibility to infection

Additional Symptoms of Aspartame Toxicity include the most critical symptoms of all

death

irreversible brain damage

birth defects, including mental retardation

peptic ulcers

aspartame addiction and increased craving for sweets

hyperactivity in children

severe depression

aggressive behavior

suicidal tendencies

Aspartame may trigger, mimic, or cause the following illnesses:

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Epstein-Barr

Post-Polio Syndrome

Lyme Disease

Grave’s Disease

Meniere’s Disease

Alzheimer’s Disease

ALS

Epilepsy

Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

EMS

Hypothyroidism

Mercury sensitivity from Amalgam fillings

Fibromyalgia

Lupus

non-Hodgkins

Lymphoma

Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)

These are not allergies or sensitivities, but diseases and disease syndromes. Aspartame poisoning is commonly misdiagnosed because aspartame symptoms mock textbook ‘disease’ symptoms, such as Grave’s Disease.

I fell about until I remembered that somewhere out there are vulnerable and possibly truly sick people who actually believe these wild allegations and will be tempted to reach for their credit cards to buy the detox manual ("Sweet Poison"!) that the author of this junk is promoting. This is reprehensible in my book and really no better than selling miracle cancer cures to those stricken with the disease or cold calling the recently bereaved with personal clairvoyant readings and messages from the departed.

Small ads from the Health Basics site apparently "read by millions". Makes me shudder to think about it.

Of course you are absolutely entitled to your view but claiming that scientific evidence is unimportant and referring to at best dubious (I'd say deliberately misleading and scaremongering) sources won't carry much weight with anyone not already of the same persuasion.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Greenside

[bobl]

Of course you are absolutely entitled to your view but claiming that scientific evidence is unimportant and referring to at best dubious (I'd say deliberately misleading and scaremongering) sources won't carry much weight with anyone not already of the same persuasion.

I'm reminded of a quote by Stuart Chase:

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

[femi fan]

Of course you are absolutely entitled to your view but claiming that scientific evidence is unimportant and referring to at best dubious (I'd say deliberately misleading and scaremongering) sources won't carry much weight with anyone not already of the same persuasion.

Sorry? I've made no claims that scientific evidence is unimportant. I would never do that. And you'll never find me doing it. Why are you focusing on me rather than the stuff that's in your drink?

You say 'sources', so i assume you mean the one i posted up from natural news AND the one that carries the full sorry history of aspartame?

[femi fan]

I'm reminded of a quote by Stuart Chase:

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

There is just so much evidence in the link i gave to the history of aspartame that i guess your irrelevant quote is a mirror to yourself. Since you've come here you've come to ridicule me rather than focus on the issue of whether aspartame is ruinous to one's health or not. If you carry on at this rate with your obfuscation you should apply for a salary from monsanto for your work.

[Greenside]

You did say:

"It's not about evidence, it's about understanding what certain 'foods' do to the human body. And since i do understand that, I found it difficult to keep myself silent."

The website you referred us to used the "Sweet Poison" author and site in it's tirade against aspartame and I do feel very strongly about all manner of movements that favour anecdotal evidence and "just knowing" over the scientific method. While certainly not wishing to ridicule you personally, the symptoms list I quoted above doesn't really need any comment to show it for what it is.

We can agree to differ but please don't let's confuse faith as evidence.

[hellodolly]

I'm reminded of a quote by Stuart Chase:

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."

There is just so much evidence in the link i gave to the history of aspartame that i guess your irrelevant quote is a mirror to yourself. Since you've come here you've come to ridicule me rather than focus on the issue of whether aspartame is ruinous to one's health or not. If you carry on at this rate with your obfuscation you should apply for a salary from monsanto for your work.

I earlier asked you a few questions. I would appreciate an answer

If the FDA are not trusted they are only for business how come they pulled Viox off the market and a couple of months later the one that doctors were using to replace it? I am quite sure there were many such things. I am just familiar with that one because I had been on it for 5 years. They also force drug companies in their advertisements to warn if there is any side effects.

Does your report follow up with more evidence years after it was made or is it not like the FDA who continue to monitor things and when the evidence proves them wrong they change there decision.

[femi fan]

You did say:

"It's not about evidence, it's about understanding what certain 'foods' do to the human body. And since i do understand that, I found it difficult to keep myself silent."

The website you referred us to used the "Sweet Poison" author and site in it's tirade against aspartame and I do feel very strongly about all manner of movements that favour anecdotal evidence and "just knowing" over the scientific method. While certainly not wishing to ridicule you personally, the symptoms list I quoted above doesn't really need any comment to show it for what it is.

We can agree to differ but please don't let's confuse faith as evidence.

We can agree on the latter comment no worries. I have no time for belief or faith and it is that which prompted my 'no evidence' comment. What i meant behind this was that often evidence that is shown to us (eg aspartame is not dangerous to our health) turns out to not be evidence even when presented by medical doctors and researchers. My research into foods has shown so many conflicting messages, often presented as 'evidence', so i now have cause to distrust even 'evidence'. What i have found is that trying to understand how the body works, how foods react in our bodies, and using my own experiences, including keeping food diaries, is the best way forward in trying to maintain my health so i can have a quality life as i age. Upon entering this new world to me, i have found so many others on the same path, and one of the first and key findings is that mainstream media, mainstream health 'care', and government advice cannot be trusted.

A key word for me when reading up on things is 'agenda'.

I understand from my readings, without looking anything up now, that aspartame is an excitotoxin which has negative implications for the body's cells which literally become excited. I have read countless personal anecdotes which i invest time in. Personal people normal relate personal stories about their health and what works for them. They don't have an agenda to fulfill.

I don't know if you mean the natural news website or the other one which was the history of aspartame, clearly written by someone not kindly disposed towards the product.

This is the problem when asked to provide evidence, and is why i made my earlier comment: how can i find any evidence when i'm not involved in creating it? And i do know for an irreversible fact the long history of big business controlling medical authorities and their research funds and controlling agencies like the fda through corruption.

It would seem i've rather badly hijacked your thread. I might go back to your original post and say well done for your wife finding the courage to fight the face instincts she was brought up with!

Whether you choose to do some research into aspartame is your choice of course. I frequently run into problems when i speak out after doing my four years of food research, so it's nothing new to me. But i've vowed to speak out when i can. I feel i have no other choice.

[femi fan]

I earlier asked you a few questions. I would appreciate an answer

If the FDA are not trusted they are only for business how come they pulled Viox off the market and a couple of months later the one that doctors were using to replace it? I am quite sure there were many such things. I am just familiar with that one because I had been on it for 5 years. They also force drug companies in their advertisements to warn if there is any side effects.

Does your report follow up with more evidence years after it was made or is it not like the FDA who continue to monitor things and when the evidence proves them wrong they change there decision.

I don't know why they pulled viox off the market. I did reply to you though, i asked you to consider why they allowed it in the first place, and why they allowed thalidomide back onto the market years after it was pulled because it had led to so many thousands of deformed babies from women persuaded to take it for their pregnancy. When it came back onto the market it was for a new health problem. I used these as examples to show how the fda do not work for the public, even though that's what they're mandated to do.

The fda are compromised by the big pharmaceutical companies and politicians who get into high positions within the organisation. They will pull a drug when enough people have been shown to suffer from side-effects that are serious enough to gather the attention of the mass media.

The side-effects that companies have to warn consumers about are either written in very small print, or, so i'm told because i've not been to america for many years, are read out at a superfast speed on the ad.

But why promote, and allow to be promoted, drugs that cause all these side-effects when nutritional remedies virtually always can work? The answer is big money.

[hellodolly]

I earlier asked you a few questions. I would appreciate an answer

If the FDA are not trusted they are only for business how come they pulled Viox off the market and a couple of months later the one that doctors were using to replace it? I am quite sure there were many such things. I am just familiar with that one because I had been on it for 5 years. They also force drug companies in their advertisements to warn if there is any side effects.

Does your report follow up with more evidence years after it was made or is it not like the FDA who continue to monitor things and when the evidence proves them wrong they change there decision.

I don't know why they pulled viox off the market. I did reply to you though, i asked you to consider why they allowed it in the first place, and why they allowed thalidomide back onto the market years after it was pulled because it had led to so many thousands of deformed babies from women persuaded to take it for their pregnancy. When it came back onto the market it was for a new health problem. I used these as examples to show how the fda do not work for the public, even though that's what they're mandated to do.

The fda are compromised by the big pharmaceutical companies and politicians who get into high positions within the organisation. They will pull a drug when enough people have been shown to suffer from side-effects that are serious enough to gather the attention of the mass media.

The side-effects that companies have to warn consumers about are either written in very small print, or, so i'm told because i've not been to america for many years, are read out at a superfast speed on the ad.

But why promote, and allow to be promoted, drugs that cause all these side-effects when nutritional remedies virtually always can work? The answer is big money.

Sorry I had missed that post.

The answer for allowing it on the market was because all the evidence pointed to it's being no threat to health. Not being a employe of big business as you suggest when they got evidence to the contrary they did not cover it up such as a big business would have done they published it and pulled it off the market like a good public servant would do.

The same was true for thalidomide. When they let it back on the market it was for a completely different purpose and pregnant people were warned to not take it and doctors were informed of the down side as if they had to be told and did not prescribe it for pregnant women.

But I am betting you already knew that.

Was not your research carried out by a competitor for the patent on this product?

[bobl]

Thank you for adding some weight to what i'm trying to say on this thread.

Oh, wow. Really I'm surprised. If you're adding this article to your list of supporting articles, I think I'm going to have to bow out of the discussion.

Did it escape your attention that they're talking about the effects of sugar (and caffeine)? Aspertame doesn't even get a mention although they do toss "artificial sweeteners" in at the 60 minute mark for no apparent reason.

As for your more recent link - I looked up the author. Here's a few of the gems I found...

http://www.wnho.net/letter_concerning_carbon_tax_and_global_warming.htm

http://qualityassurance.synthasite.com/

http://www.icwseminary.org/evil_abomination.htm

Yes, he doesn't come across like a nutcase with an axe to grind against the FDA...

You also seem somewhat critical of the FDA - but conveniently failed to mention the 100+ other regulatory bodies around the world who have approved the chemical. The Japanese, for example, in this delightfully succinct document: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7245229 or the Italians in this one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2974654

By far the most informative I have found so far:

http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/search/r?dbs+hsdb:@term+@rn+22839-47-0

[Ricardo]

This won't go down well here

Spreading FUD rarely goes down well, anywhere...

What is fud?

The sound when something is dropped, and fumps on the ground, I fink ?

Edited July 21, 2012 by Ricardo

[femi fan]

Oh, wow. Really I'm surprised. If you're adding this article to your list of supporting articles, I think I'm going to have to bow out of the discussion.

Yes, that's an excellent idea.

[femi fan]

Sorry I had missed that post.

The answer for allowing it on the market was because all the evidence pointed to it's being no threat to health. Not being a employe of big business as you suggest when they got evidence to the contrary they did not cover it up such as a big business would have done they published it and pulled it off the market like a good public servant would do.

The same was true for thalidomide. When they let it back on the market it was for a completely different purpose and pregnant people were warned to not take it and doctors were informed of the down side as if they had to be told and did not prescribe it for pregnant women.

But I am betting you already knew that.

Was not your research carried out by a competitor for the patent on this product?

Come on mate!! Thalidomide was causing misery to human beings, and then they allowed it back on the market!!! Frequently drugs are approved for this illness or health problem, but then without any problems from the fda these same drugs get prescribed by doctors for other health problems for which the drug was not approved.

Look, i'm not researching aspartame, i've only done a bit today because of this thread. The product is a danger to human beings' health. I just suggest that anybody regularly consuming it does research for themselves. Don't believe me!!

Do remember that these pills and drugs that are all approved by the fda are the cause of the THIRD biggest killer in the states. This is a dreadful indictment of the whole system - big pharma who make them, doctors who prescribe them, fda who approve them. What a mess! I know from my own research and experience that food causes illness, and foods correct illness. We're given these poisonous foods and we're given drugs that kill us. It won't be long before the whole system is overhauled.

If you want a decent health care system, read up on ayurveda which is equally preventative and curative.

[Greenside]

If you want a decent health care system, read up on ayurveda which is equally preventative and curative.

I've never heard of ayurveda but a quick trip to Wikipedia doesn't instil much confidence....

"According to a 1990 study on ayurvedic medicines in India, 41% of the products tested contained arsenic, and 64% contained lead and mercury.^[32] A 2004 study found toxic levels of heavy metals in 20% of ayurvedic preparations made in South Asia and sold in the Boston area, and concluded that ayurvedic products posed serious health risks and should be tested for heavy-metal contamination.^[59] A 2008 study of more than 230 products found that approximately 20% of remedies (and 40% of rasa shastra medicines) purchased over the Internet from both US and Indian suppliers contained lead, mercury or arsenic.^[8][60][61]

Ayruvedic proponents believe that the toxicity of these materials is reduced through purification processes such as samskaras or shodhanas (for metals), similar to the Chinese pao zhi, although the ayurvedic technique is more complex and may involve prayers as well as physical pharmacy techniques. However, these products have nonetheless caused severe lead poisoning and other toxic effects.^[8][6"

Of course the writer may have his/her own agenda and work for one of the big pharmaceutical companies. Yes, I know there's more to it than my extract but on balance I think I'll stick to the aspartame!

......or maybe the beer.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Greenside

[femi fan]

Of course the writer may have his/her own agenda and work for one of the big pharmaceutical companies. Yes, I know there's more to it than my extract but on balance I think I'll stick to the aspartame!

......or maybe the beer.

Well, i think the beer's a much better idea...

Ayurveda is about 5000 years old. It and yoga go hand in hand, so if the latter's not for you, nor will ayurveda be. Pity because it's a simply amazing body of knowledge and understanding when it comes to living a quality life. If you're lucky it might even allow you to eat aspartame... it would depend on the constitution you were born with!