Aspartame has been given a 'posh' new name, but don't be fooled, this stuff is toxic.

[solo]

I don't know how many other parents ban this stuff from their Dc's diet.
I don't let it pass my Dc's lips if I can help it.
The link makes some interesting reading.

TOXIC

But DBennett clearly has and has come to a different conclusion. From what I am reading here, jojo234, yours is the mind closed to any conclusion but one, in the face of evidence (or the lack of it).

Yes, I avoid it wherever possible. Most "no added sugar" drinks have it. I'd rather have the suger, thanks very much!

I'm curious which of the studies I've linked to are "coporate/controlled media".

And even if they were, I wonder how it would detract from the findings.

The scientific method is designed to eliminate the effect of bias.
Personnel or financial.

And it is very effective at doing so.

dbennett you need to come here more often

DBennett, if you read my post I did not say that the studies you linked to were 'corporate/ controlled media.'

I said that MsHighwater should do some research, not via the corporate / controlled media i.e. don't just believe what is presented in the mainstream media (TV / Newspapers) as they are controlled by the corporations that own them, and therefore reflect those corporations agenda.

And please don't give me the nonsense about the scientific method being "designed to eliminate the effect of bias. Personnal or financial". In the SURVEY OF ASPARTAME STUDIES: CORRELATION OF OUTCOME AND FUNDING SOURCES, "One hundred percent of the industry funded research attested to aspartame's safety, whereas 92% of the independently funded research identified a problem."

In the article Aspartame - What you don"t know can hurt you - Why isn"t the FDA protecting your health? Dr. Mercola provides "an in depth look at the history of aspartame approval" and "reveals a trail of suspicious methods and possible collusion between the FDA and the G. D. Searle company, manufacturer of aspartame."

Please read the above article, but here's some snippets for those too busy to click on the link and read it:

"Falsified data, unscientific lab practices, and a history of problems with some of their other products makes it hard to believe that Searle's concern for the public's health takes precedence over financial gains."

"In April of 1981, Dr. Arthur Hayes became the new FDA Commissioner. Searle applied again for approval of aspartame. A few months later, Dr. Hayes approved aspartame for use in dry foods. In 1983, he approved aspartame for use in diet soft drinks. One month later, Dr. Hayes left the FDA and within three months he was working for Searle's advertising agency, Burson-Marsteller."

"Brain tumors and seizures in aspartame-fed animals indicate a possible risk to humans. The dictionary definition of safe means "not presenting or involving any danger or risk" (Webster's 877). Does this mean aspartame is not safe? The answer lies in the hands of the public. Although aspartame was not tested on humans before its approval, it now has been tested on the public by default. Over 200 million Americans consume aspartame products (Weininger 1/ZZ1). We have been the guinea pigs in the testing of aspartame without even knowing it. A look at aspartame's ingredients and its devastating effects on human beings provide the evidence for avoiding all aspartame products."

Ms Highwater "You see, jojo234, that's why I'm not convinced by your argument. When you start on about "the powers that be" wanting a docile and quiescent populace I just know you have to be talking c**p"

'Too ill and too dumb-down through chemicals in our foods, to know exactly what's going on' - Examples:

• Fluoride in water (first used in water in Nazi Concentration camps) - captured in the phosphate fertiliser industry and an accummalitive poision - can affect bone structure and strength, impairs immune system, linked to some cancers, can effect brain function.

• Aspartame - contains phenylalanine, Aspartic acid (aspartame) and glutamate, methanol, better known as wood alcohol, a "deadly poison" - Causes a huge number of sypmtoms Official FDA document

• Mercury used as a preservative in vacinactions - linked with autism

• Chemicals and artificial flavours and additives in foods

• Genetically Engineered foods - contain less nutrients and, most importantly, they are ?chemical-friendly?

• Prescription drug abuse i.e. Ritalin, anti-depressants

This quote is a good summary from Dumbing Down Society Part I: Foods, Beverages and Meds:

"The consumption of the products stated above will probably not cause an immediate and noticeable effect. But, after many years of ingesting those substances, one?s thoughts become increasingly clouded and foggy, the ability to concentrate becomes hindered and judgment becomes impaired. In other words, the once sharp mind becomes dull. What happens when a population is heavily sedated and poisoned on a daily basis? It becomes numb, zombie-like and docile. Instead of asking important questions and seeking a higher truth, the dumbed-down mass simply accomplishes its daily tasks and absorbs whatever the media tells them. Is this what the elite is looking to create?"

Watch this video to help understanding - Chemical Dumbing Down of America

And this video: The Complete Idiot's Guide to the New World Order

If you have to stoop to youtube videos as your primary source of evidence, I think you need to reassess your convictions.

As for the more verifiable claims you make:

Fluoride: No evidence of increased risk of cancer or bone disease. No plausability of effect on cognition or immune function. No compelling evidence on adverse effects.

Aspartame: already discussed ad nauseam.

Mercury: Tricky one. High dosage acute exposure is obviously bad. Certain populations who have high enviromental exposure suffer effects. Little evidence of risk of low levels of exposure but probably sensible to limit risk.
What is very clear is that there is no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism.

All your other claims are too inprecise for me to be able to find evidence for them quickly.
And I'm beginning to think that providing you with evidence is just hardening your unwillingness to listen to reason.

DBennett's advice:

"It's ok citizens....go back to sleep....there's nothing to concern you here....Big Brother is looking after you just fine....don't ask too many questions...I've got a NCBI study here to prove that questioning is bad for you"

P.S. Dbennett, Youtube is a fantastic source of information in a multimedia format, and as yet, it is not controlled like mainstream media.

You should check it out...you might learn something other than constantly repeating "there's no compelling evidence , there's no compelling evidence , there's no compelling evidence..."

Nowhere have I said that vigilence isn't important.

But how is it possible to be vigilent when you have already decided on the outcome before the question has been asked.

And will not reconsider this opinion in the face of better information.

I'm complaining to the Food Standards Agency about ROBINSONS NO ADDED SUGAR squash, there is nothing on the front of the label to advise customers that this product contains Aspartame or artificial sweeteners, but for some reason they make it clear on the front label that there are no artificial colours or flavours, why dont they put that it does contain artificial sweeteners on the front. Anyway here is a list of whats in this rubbish:

WATER
ORANGE FRUIT FROM CONCENTRATE (10%)
CITRIC ACID
SWEETENERS (ASPARTAME, SACCHARIN)
PRESERVATIVES (POTASSIUM SORBATE, SODIUM METABISULPHITE)
NATURAL FLAVOURING
ACIDITY REGULATOR (SODIUM CITRATE)
STABILISER (CELLULOSE GUM)
NATURAL COLOUR (CAROTENES)
and after this it states that this product contains a source of PHENYLALANINE

crickey what a cocktail of ingredients, have been giving this to my DD for years she loves it, I did not realise it was toxic wish I had never bought the stuff now, have poured it down the toilet.

DBennett : "Nowhere have I said that vigilence isn't important."

I was illustrating that you seem to 'poo poo' everything. Just because you can google some study on NCBI that says a substance is safe, doesn't mean that's the full story, far from it.

You see yourself as the voice of 'reason'. I see your posts as coming from someone who is probably in the world academia, who believes that if a scientific study has said that a substance is safe, 'they are right - end of'.

DBennett : "But how is it possible to be vigilent when you have already decided on the outcome before the question has been asked."

Que?

I have asked the question - Is Aspartame good for me or not?

I have done the research - using a wide variety of sources.

I have come to the conclusion - it's a dangerous substance that has no place in food or drinks.

DBennett : "And will not reconsider this opinion in the face of better information."

What you consider 'Better Information', I do not. I'm not getting my information from one source but many independant sources.

Dbennett: "If you have to stoop to youtube videos as your primary source of evidence, I think you need to reassess your convictions.

You seem to consider Youtube to be a source of information for people with lower intelligence. I view this as the thinking of someone who is 'out-of-touch' with what's really going on. For example:

If you want to know what's really happening with the Gulf Oil spill, go to Youtube (search Kindra Arnesen / Alex Jones for example)

If you want to know what's really happening with the ecomomy, go to Youtube (search Max Keiser / Gerald celente for example)

If you want to know what's really happening with Aspartame, go to Youtube and you will get access to information such as this Fox News artcle:The Dangers of Aspartame (Artificial Sweeteners Sugarfree Diet Coke Zero No Sugar Added E951), showing the corruption that got Aspartame approved and keeps it approved.

Beeaware: "I'm complaining to the Food Standards Agency about ROBINSONS NO ADDED SUGAR squash"

Absolutely agree Beaware, absolute load of c**p in that drink, and totally marketed to children.

Watch out for E951 as Aspartame can also be listed in this form.

Parents should vote with their shopping trolleys by not buying this stuff.

"I was illustrating that you seem to 'poo poo' everything"

I would draw your attention to my response to the issue of mercury.
It is markedly different from my responses on the subject of aspartame.

I just find the evidence, evaluate it and move on.
A week ago I didn't have any knowledge of the safety aspects of aspartame at all.
But it took me less than 20mins to realise that what you were saying was demonstrably out of line with the best avaialble evidence.

How do you decide what sources to use?
And how reliable/relevent they are?

You obviously disagree with my conclusion yet you seem to have very little to say regarding the quality of the studies I point to.
Your response seems to revolve around non peer-reviewed opinion peices or discredited/out od date journal articles.

Why do they hold so much weight with you?

On a final, barely relevent note, I have never said, nor have I thought that Youtube is for "people with lower intelligence".
Youtube is like any social media site, of widely variable quality.
However, it is not peer-reviewed, you can't hold the people behind it to account, you have no basis on which to assess their bias or qualifications and for those reasons, it is a bad source for scientific information.

And the risks/benefits of aspartame consumption is a scientific question.

Beeaware, perhaps you'd care to clarify why you think that list of ingredients makes the drink "toxic"?

MsHighwater: "Beeaware, perhaps you'd care to clarify why you think that list of ingredients makes the drink "toxic"?

em...number one, because it's got aspartame in it

Aspartame's Toxic Contents:

"Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: the amino acids aspartic acid and phenylalanine, and methanol. The chemical bond that holds these constituents together is fairly weak. As a result, aspartame readily breaks down into its component parts in a variety of circumstances: in liquids; during prolonged storage; when exposed to heat in excess of 86° Fahrenheit (30° centigrade); and when ingested. These constituents further break down into other toxic by-products, namely formaldehyde, formic acid and aspartylphenylalanine diketopiperazine (DKP)."

jojo234, that's why I asked Beeaware. The "toxicity" of aspartame is, to say the least, disputed and your "evidence" has been called into question. Beeaware's post listed all the ingredients in the drink suggesting that she has a problem with all of them or with them in combination. Since she didn't elaborate and because there are all sorts of foods sold containing similar ingredients or similar combinations of ingredients, I wondered what, specifically, she thought was the problem.

By the way, why should I believe that youtube will show me what's "really happening" with anything any more than Wikipedia is to be regarded as an unimpeachable source i.e. not?

MsHighwater: "By the way, why should I believe that youtube will show me what's "really happening" with anything any more than Wikipedia is to be regarded as an unimpeachable source i.e. not?"

You shouldn't believe.

You should do your own research and come to your own conclusion.

jojo, I've learned a lot from reading this thread and I'm going to carry on drinking Diet Coke.

MsHighwater: "jojo, I've learned a lot from reading this thread and I'm going to carry on drinking Diet Coke."

Then you will be consciously poisoning yourself. Is that smart?

In an earlier post you were saying I was full of c**p for believing that there is a conspiracy to make us ill and dumbed down. Here's an interesting video about Fluoride, Aspartame and Agenda 21

Why do you believe the content of that video?

Few of the speakers are identifiable.
Little of the data or science they talk about is verifiable.
The language/images used is designed to be emotive and manipulating.
Irrelevent themes (such as WW2 atrocities) are promoted as reasons to doubt modern day science.

They give you so litte reason to trust them and yet you put this 10min video above easily findable and checkable peer reviewed research.

And even go so far to criticise those who do not trust these uncheckable videos.

"DBennett: Why do you believe the content of that video?"

Because I have researched these issues I have come to the same conclusion.

"DBennett: Few of the speakers are identifiable."

It's a video to give you an overview. There are plenty of experts saying the same thing - you just have to research it yourself.

"DBennett: Little of the data or science they talk about is verifiable."

Wrong.

"DBennett: The language/images used is designed to be emotive and manipulating."

It is emotive because this issue should stir the emotions - it is very important stuff about the long-term health of humanity. It's not Coronation Street.

It is not manipulative. A merriam webster's definition of 'to manipulate' is "to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage" - what advantage do you think the makers of the video are going to get by putting this information out?

Then reverse that and think about the advantages that the makers of aspartame get when they fund scientists that give them the scientific conclusions they want, or try to discredit researchers that come to an opposing conclusion ...Kerching ££££££££££££££

Dbennet: "Irrelevent themes (such as WW2 atrocities) are promoted as reasons to doubt modern day science."

The WW2 image is to illustrate, as I've said previously, that fluoride was first used in water in Nazi Concentration camps, with a view to subduing their prisoners.

Dbennett: "They give you so litte reason to trust them and yet you put this 10min video above easily findable and checkable peer reviewed research."

I'm offering this video as an interesting overview on the topics. Readers of a forum do not always want to read through a research study's abstract, but they may do if they think there's something there that needs looking into further. Anyone can google more info, videos, studies, research and experts saying the same thing.

Dbennett: "And even go so far to criticise those who do not trust these uncheckable videos."

I've said previously that no one should trust any source until they've checked it out themselves.

In my opinion, if you do the research then continue to drink diet coke, then you are consciously poisoning yourself. In my book, this isn't smart.

However, it's a free world (well so far), and as the saying goes, 'knock yourself out'.

So the video is the tip of evidence iceberg.
Would be able to link to the best evidence that supports this viewpoint.

As you know, I've linked to the most recent peer reviewed literature summary on the topic which seems not to support the videos assertions.

So, as I ask you again, what research convinced you that aspartame/fluoride is so dangerous.
Do you seem convinced by it and such powerful evidence would be something I'd like to consider.

I will not be consciously poisoning myself. I will be toasting you with my next drink of Diet Coke. Cheers, jojo. You might be barking but you are, at least, entertaining (for a while).

MsHighwater: "I will not be consciously poisoning myself. I will be toasting you with my next drink of Diet Coke."

What will your toast be? Ignorance is bliss?

Tescos Hi Juice - the non 'no added sugar' stuff, i think Blackcurrant and Apple, Orange and Pineapple dont have it in.

I will activley avoid it at home as it sends the kids loopy in large amounts, if they go to a party or something which isnt to often i let it slide.

Unfortunatley my DS has so many chemicals and unknows tings pumped into him just to keep him alive so i figure a vary rare Aspartame laced drink inst going to do much worse.