Rest easy Chemda (or Aspartame wont kill ya)

[DanClass]

cubby is correct

it's not a theory that fat fucks can bring out diabetes earlier in life by being fat fucks

there are people who can be super obese without getting diabetes, ever

but those fat fucks are in the minority

and when i say diabetes, or any medical person says diabetes they are refering to type 2 diabetes unless stated otherwise since as the wise cubby said , they's far more of them than the genetically/virally acquired type 1 DM

why do people like to throw in some odd tidbit about the pathophysiology of something at the end of an incorrect piece of information or opinion?

it would be like throwing out a piece of trivia about the math question but not answering the question on the test
i remember people like that in school

they dont know or understand the answer, but they will fucking jabber on and on about some random piece they memorized

go work in customer service for the IRS

fat fucks

[DJ Trashy]

Originally Posted by jesus

I couldn't find any info on when it was approved in each country of Europe except that the EC's Scientific Committee for Food evaluated it in 1984

US 1981 - approved it for dry food, 1983 for drink, 1996 for anything

UK 1982 - Approved by Paul Turner from the UK Food Standards Agency who got his research funding from a partner company of Searle

The more I read about aspartame the dodgier it is

No one has EVER found linkage to cancer - period. The european rat study was found to be faulty. Please stop the conspiracy paranoia. Here's a list of facts on all FDA-approved artificial sweeteners:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/200...weeteners.html

[Gunderling]

Originally Posted by DJ Trashy

Here's a list of facts on all FDA-approved artificial sweeteners:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/200...weeteners.html

By all means, if the FDA approves it...

[strafer_praha]

Originally Posted by DJ Trashy

No one has EVER found linkage to cancer - period. The european rat study was found to be faulty. Please stop the conspiracy paranoia. Here's a list of facts on all FDA-approved artificial sweeteners:

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/200...weeteners.html

I think this also applies to cigarettes according to a lot of extensive research done by a lot of respectable independant scientists at the behest of Altira Group Inc (formerly Philip Morris) and RJR Reynolds just to name a couple of Fortune 500 companies

[DJ Trashy]

Originally Posted by strafer_praha

I think this also applies to cigarettes according to a lot of extensive research done by a lot of respectable independant scientists at the behest of Altira Group Inc (formerly Philip Morris) and RJR Reynolds just to name a couple of Fortune 500 companies

the FDA doesn't have jurisdiction over tobacco.......

[PsychoTeddy]

Originally Posted by Cubby

Good point. Corellation does not equal causality.

Just because a lot of fat fucks get type II diabetes does not mean that type II diabetes is caused by being a fat fuck.

However, I doubt that type II is genetic unless it is tied to the rumored obesisty gene; that would connect the two together nicely. Otherwise the data is skewed too far toward fatties to be determined before birth.

As far as I understand it (and I figure I understand more than most with a type I father), type I is genetic, type II comes on later in life from having an incorrectly balanced diet. ie. Fuckloads of sugar. It's the excess sugar in the diet, not necessarily the fat that causes type II. So eating artificial sugar = good until there is real evidence that it causes cancer.

[OSLIN]

Aspartame is probably not good for your memory. However, the good news is that Coke and Cargill are in the process of R&D on Stevia, a natural sweetener. Unless they fuck it up by ADDING chemcals (!!) to it, this might be good news for Chemda. Apparently it is already used in the diet Coke sold in Japan, but it's not clear whether they would use it in diet coke here...


http://www.reuters.com/article/busin...24162820070531

[jesus]

Originally Posted by DJ Trashy

Please stop the conspiracy paranoia[/url]

I've known a few people that work for drug companies and according to them this is how they work...
- They create a product and it makes them money
- Someone finds a problem with the product
- The problem is either black and white (it's obvious) or it's grey (not clearly provable)
- If it's an obvious problem they withdraw the product
- If it's grey they defend the product by funding research that they know will be favourable, withholding publication of research (that they funded) that is unfavourable, lobbying political groups and influential people - basically they use whatever legitimate means they can to defend their product (make the problem "greyer"), because it makes them money.

There's no conspiracy and no paranoia - just an understanding based on knowledge and experience that this is the way the world works.

I don't know for a fact whether aspartame is dangerous or not. I do know there's enough doubt about it to make me question it.

Also - what's the point of aspartame? Here's the idea behind it - your body likes refined sugar because it basically gives you a bit of a buzz. Some people eat too much of it because it's a nice little buzz. Problem is, if you eat too much of it, it's bad for you, so someone invents a sugarless sugar (aspartame) that tricks your brain into the same high without the bad health effects. I've got a better idea - how about you just recognise that you're a weak willed sugar addict and stop eating it like like some fat teenager. Problem solved

Eat some fruit, fatty.

[gumby013]

Sipping my Coke Zero...

[OSLIN]

Originally Posted by jesus

I've known a few people that work for drug companies and according to them this is how they work...
- They create a product and it makes them money
- Someone finds a problem with the product
- The problem is either black and white (it's obvious) or it's grey (not clearly provable)
- If it's an obvious problem they withdraw the product
- If it's grey they defend the product by funding research that they know will be favourable, withholding publication of research (that they funded) that is unfavourable, lobbying political groups and influential people - basically they use whatever legitimate means they can to defend their product (make the problem "greyer"), because it makes them money.

There's no conspiracy and no paranoia - just an understanding based on knowledge and experience that this is the way the world works.

I agree. Anyone paying attention has to recognize how contradictory and confusing the 'research' is on important consumer products like food and drugs. Read Collin Campbell's (Ph.D., biochemistry) book about his China study if you want to learn more about how this happens in the food industry. BTW, he studied rural areas before and after they started eating like Americans. Big surprise, guess what diseases they started to get?