Krispy, I have to doubt the source of the information. Mr. Gold is clearly a bias researcher(note the name of his center), and the information is posted on the Sightings web site. Why wouldn’t you think people would have reservations about the information given? Now, if other researchers without a bias against aspartame confirm his test results, it would be interesting. Right now though, it has been accused of too many things in too many areas, as Cecil himself has pointed out. Are there any double-blind studies out there to confirm Mr. Gold’s rather harsh suspicions?
…er…like Monsanto isn’t biased?..
What do you think about his points about methanol conversion to formaldehyde in terms of alcoholic beverages having ethanol as a protective factor and fruits having protective factors as well? …and his observation about Aspartame having nothing standing in the way of conversion of methanol to formaldehyde?
I’ve asked you a direct question.
I have tried to be as subtle as I can, but you leave me no choice.
Until Mr. Gold’s obviously biased research is confirmed by other scientists in well thought-out double-blind studies, and posted on a website that has a history of good science, or at the very least, good reporting, I will probably dismiss his work.
IMHO, there are too many people spreading too much rumor, innuendo, and bitterness. When good, solid, confirmable information comes up on this topic, I will of course listen, but do not expect me to accept on sight info gathered from Jeff Rense’s Sightings websight.
Slythe,
Some of out here have been trying to discuss the topic in earnest. You on the other hand have done nothing but try to sabatoge this thread from the beginning.
Perhaps you might want to stay out?
…or you could just answer the question…
sigh
I’m not going down this road again.
You just keep posting information and innuendo from U.F.O. sites. I’ll leave you alone. If it would help your ego any, you have my permission to declare a “victory” against logic and reason.
For anyone else out there: Please consider the source when information is presented. Not all websites are reliable sources of fact and research, and some have a rather obvious bias towards one side or the other.
Oh, and Krispy? I thought I answered your question when I told you that I dismissed Mr. Gold’s research until it was confirmed by other, non-biased, scientists.
…and who exactly would those un-biased scientists be?..the ones hired by Monsanto?..or the FDA officials that left the FDA for cushy Monsanto jobs immediately after approving Aspartame for public consumption?
Did you ever step back and ask yourself why…out of all the man-made food additives out there…there must be thousands…why would people like Mark Gold and many, many others be putting all this time and energy into warning the public about Aspartame?
Are they disgruntled stockholders in a sugar plantation? …or maybe they threw a dart at a list of food additives and just happened to hit Aspartame?
Nah…
And while I’m at it, your logic seems to suggest that if a particular website that you don’t respect, in this case the Sightings website, would publish the theory of relativity, you’d dismiss it out of hand…well…just because…
Hi, Connie.
Krispy,
I’m curious about Mark Gold’s mysterious “Protective Factor” in fruits that prevents the transformation of methanol into formaldehyde. This smacks of arguing for the introduction of an unproven entity to support another idea, and flies in the face of parsimony and generally weakens the idea, since two ideas must now be proven.
Also, I don’t think slythe was arguing that any information thrown around at Sightings should be dismissed. Rather, I believe he said that any information there that hasn’t already been corroborated by other scientists should be questioned. Your example of relativity doesn’t fit here since it’s been tested and confirmed by decades of research by hundreds of unassociated scientists. This is much more impressive than one lone, shrill voice on Sightings arguing that fruit have a mysterious benefactor.
Okay, that’s putting a decidedly cynical face on things. In fact, I routinely steer clear of all artificial sweeteners. I’m sure alot more research needs to be done, and maybe someday some research will agree that Aspartame is the sweetener of the Devil. There may already be some results out there that indicate this. I doubt, however that their first appearance will be on Sightings.
tracer wrote:
Your logic is flawed. Just because the testing practices of these chemicals is suspect, doesn’t mean the chemicals are safe. Plus, your claim that “ANY chemical to be a mrudering [sic] carcinogen” is absurd. Thousands upon thousands of these same tests have been conducted on many, many products and quite a few frequently make it through without poisoning laboratory animals… Does that mean the tests are valid? No. Does it mean the test results might be an indicator? Maybe.
I don’t know about aspertame or cyclamates, but I have seen real world, correlative evidence against saccharin. The initial findings were that saccharin caused cancer in rats. As a result of this, Canada banned saccharain; the U.S. chose to require warnings, but didn’t ban the substance; the U.K. decided to do nothing and actually promoted the use of saccharin in a large number of products. After a number of years, can we look back and see a correlation? Yep. The incidence of bladder cancer in Canada since 1977 has gone down slightly. The incidence of bladder cancer in the U.S. went up markedly, but has been going down in recent years. The incidence of bladder cancer in the U.K. has been steadily increasing at alarming rates. I’d say, pretty direct correlation…
“But what about the fact that the incidence of bladder cancer in the U.S. is now on the decline?”, you ask. Look at the products on the shelves in your supermarket. Due to increasing public awareness and availability of alternative artificial sweeteners (that sounds redundant), there are fewer saccharin products still available. Americans have been quietly boycotting saccharin.
“So why did the U.K. not experience the same switchover?”, you ask. Public opinion. I spent quite some time in the U.K. and found it difficult to avoid saccharin products. When I asked why, the response I got was overwhelming. "Everyone in the U.K. knows that aspertame causes brain cancer and that the U.S. paranoia regarding saccharin is based on faulty research…"
BTW, I don’t use ANY artificial sweeteners. Not, so much because they may or may not cause cancers, but because the products that contain these sweeteners simply taste bad. If I decide that I need to consume a refreshing, low calorie drink, I always opt for water!
Oops! I wrote:
That should have read:
The initial findings were that saccharin caused bladder cancer in rats.
Yes, saccharin causes bladder cancer in rats. However, experiments on species other than mice and rats failed to produce increased incidences of any kind of cancer, including bladder cancer. Rat and mouse liver/kidneys seem to lack certain detoxifying capabilities present in other mammal species, which allows the mildly carcinogenic by-products of saccharin breakdown to reach their bladders. http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/0403/rodent.html .
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.
I looked into the Aspartame quantities at one time. Most like none of the substance survives as dipeptide. That leaves methanol(not an uncommon food component), phenylalanine and aspatic acid. The two amino acids are in the quantity yuo would get from one or two eggs.
So aspartame is about as natural as you could get with an artficial sweetener.
I don’t use it anymore. I don’t need it. The three teaspoonfulss of sugar I drink in three cups of tea do not amount to any significant number.
For my kids, I don’t allow diet drinks, for now. They can decide later on their own.
It should be studied some more.It is a food additive, as such it should have continued scrutiny. Drugs are taken with known risks and for short periods, usually. Food additives need more control. Health foods I’m even more critical of.You don’t need ANY fucking protein and amino acid additives that add “stamina”. Think of those people that got the bad Tryptophane a few years back.
tracer,
You wrote:
That may very well be. I was just pointing out that there seems to be a strong correlation in the incidence of bladder cancer in humans, relative to the exposure of the general population to saccharin. The statistics I quoted, BTW, came from independent studies of the rate of bladder cancers in Canada, the U.S., and the U.K… I should also note that none of the sources that I checked made any mention of a connection between these cancer rates and the use of saccharin. Nevertheless, acknowledging that my observations are far from being a controlled medical/scientific study, there does seem to be a strong correlation…
You can also find some info. on the debate about health effects of aspartame if you do a search at www.snopes.com.