Right. I don't have time to educate you, just know that everytime you pop open a diet soda, you're ingesting neurotoxins.
Trying to spread the word...
- Thread starter jtprin
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
In the opinion of one sensationalist milking his credentials. Guy's selling a book. cn
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/9-ingredients-to-avoid-in-processed-foods-1268429.html
Dude, it doesn't matter how many references I give you. You are going to say they are all wrong and you are right. The reason it's not banned is because the Bilderberg Group controls the FDA, so the FDA approving it means nothing.
Dude, it doesn't matter how many references I give you. You are going to say they are all wrong and you are right. The reason it's not banned is because the Bilderberg Group controls the FDA, so the FDA approving it means nothing.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I would ask that references be from the primary literature. You cannot use the Web for those. cn
You can think it's an opinion all you want. But aspartame and many other toxic ingredients used in everyday foods and products is 100% factual. You question how I know it's toxic, well there are many sources who agree it does. You want a "respected" source such as the FDA... but the Bilderberg Group (or certain people in it) controls the FDA and of course they would keep it legal if they want it to harm you.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I want a "respected" source such as J. Biol. Chem or Chemische Berichte. The primary literature. FDA pubs are digests at best, secondary lit.
I have not seen confirmation of aspartame's toxicity outside the popular press which is not peer-reviewed. And you cannot know it's toxic because many say so. That is argumentum ad populum. cn
So some people randomly decided one day that they wanted to label certain ingredients as toxic and make up side effects? Sure.
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/aspartame.php#links
Aspartame, in 1996 "was approved for use in all foods and beverages, including products such as syrups, salad dressings and certain snack foods where prior approval had not yet been obtained". Same year GMO's came out. Coincidence or planned by them to start more extreme poisoning?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-r4DGx04gI - Watch this. Some well-respected people making similar statements. Even Ron Paul acknowledges their existence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plo-1rLZ3Jo
He responds to the question "What do you think they're doing there?", talking about the Bilderberg Group meetings. He says "well they probably get together and talk about how they're going to control the banking systems of the world and natural resources, and we get together and talk about how we're going to get our freedom back!"
He responds to the question "What do you think they're doing there?", talking about the Bilderberg Group meetings. He says "well they probably get together and talk about how they're going to control the banking systems of the world and natural resources, and we get together and talk about how we're going to get our freedom back!"
Yes he is. But not because of the G3, G7, Mason's or Bilderberg's or whatever the current name is. The reason cn is right is because he's asking you for peer reviewed primary source material of Aspartame's harmful effects.
He's wanting references to things like this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21783841
This doesn't show a positive correlation but it shows the science was done. Now I can criticize it in that it was a single source, small sample. So then someone else replicates the study further fleshing out our legitimate understanding.
Not all sources are equal and part of critical thinking is assigning higher values to primary scientific sources and lesser value to tertiary or non attributed source such as you find all over the internet.
So you want me to find a government source of why the Bilderberg Group is harming us, when the government is controlled by the Bilderberg Group? Why on Earth would they publish something like that when it's used in so many items and foods? As a result, they get fools like you to think "Oh, the government said it's ok" and continue to consume harmful ingredients. Come on, you're not that easy to fool, are you?
So you didn't bother to actually click on the link and read the abstract. Since when does the US Government have anything to do with the Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology Journal.
Ok let me break down how this game is played for you. You post something and we read it, we read your sources and we respond. YOU then read our response, read our sources and then YOU respond. You missed the step of reading the source.
I was trying to show you the type of source that another scientist would accept. To make points in the game you are playing with the person you are attempting to sway (CN in this case). Mere hyperbole and youtube video's won't work. You need primary source, peer reviewed (ie juried), professionally accepted journals in the field in question. The field for knocking Aspartame is the Chemistry journals, Pharmacology journals and Toxicology journals to name the more important sources.
Now slightly less acceptable sources would be the Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Journal of the American Medical Association etc... Why? Because these aren't pure science they are practitioner sources so they do not have as high a bar for publishing.
Then you have to vette the science that was done. That requires some basic understanding of of statistics and probability. You have to look at sample sizes, controls etc... That will get you as far as any other educated adult. The problem is if you end up in an argument with the rare individual that is a peer in the field you are airing your opinion about. Then you simply don't have a ticket to the argument and you need to politely pick up your toys and go home.
I would not think of arguing with someone who can mix his own nutrients from source elements and read the German Chemistry journals in their native language (Chemische Berichte) because that is what he told you by telling you he would accept any source from the Chemishe Berichte.
Hope that helps you,
It is a .gov website, meaning it is administered by the U.S. federal government. And I did read your source. It's your life. If you want to keep consuming aspartame and other toxic ingredients and eating GMO foods, by all means, keep doing so.
Again I'm asking you what does the Journal of Toxicology and Pharmacology have to do with the US Government. It's really hard to believe any of your assertions when you can't see the difference between a Government search engine, that merely lists a journal, and the journal itself. That's a serious flaw in critical thinking.
Approval? Ok, now we are dealing with reading comprehension issues. I discussed the method for having a rational, adult, scientific discussion with people. It has zero to do with popularity etc... but everything to do with having critical thinking skills and excellent reading comprehension.
It's also a weakness in critical thinking to make assumptions regarding people's personal habits based on the arguments they propound.
If the entire website is administered by the U.S. federal government, that means they control what you read on the website. They aren't going to publish something that can lead to their exposure.
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/history.faq - This is probably what you're looking for? Either way, just another source for me.
http://www.lovethetruth.com/truth_about_aspartame.htm
In 1969, former Commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Herbert L. Ley
was quoted as follows (Griffin 1974):
"The thing that bugs me is that people think the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is protecting
them -- it isn't. What the FDA is doing and what
the public thinks it's doing are as different as
night and day."
Different quote from site:
"Seven infant monkeys were given aspartame with milk. One
died after 300 days. Five others (out of seven total) had
grad mal seizures. The actual results were hidden from the
FDA when G.D. Searle submitted its initial applications
(Stoddard 1995a, page 6; Merrill 1977; Graves 1984, page
S5506 of Congressional Record 1985a; Gross 1976b, page 333
of US Senate 1976b)."
was quoted as follows (Griffin 1974):
"The thing that bugs me is that people think the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is protecting
them -- it isn't. What the FDA is doing and what
the public thinks it's doing are as different as
night and day."
Different quote from site:
"Seven infant monkeys were given aspartame with milk. One
died after 300 days. Five others (out of seven total) had
grad mal seizures. The actual results were hidden from the
FDA when G.D. Searle submitted its initial applications
(Stoddard 1995a, page 6; Merrill 1977; Graves 1984, page
S5506 of Congressional Record 1985a; Gross 1976b, page 333
of US Senate 1976b)."
Also, this is just my personal experience w/ making the lifestyle change to all natural products. Ever since I started eating organic only, I have an overall sense of well-being and my body feels more fresh (if that makes sense). My skin used to get dry after taking showers and using Dial soap, now my skin is perfectly fine and smooth. And it wasn't just that brand either. They put chemicals in these non-natural appliances that harm you! It's clearly not needed and yet they do it anyways.