Guest guest Posted May 16, 2001 Report Share Posted May 16, 2001 Caroline, Sometimes an aricle that " debunks " a supposed hoax can be a possible hoax itself. I'm not saying that I know the thruth of the aspartame issue but the " facts " are suggesting that there are some possibly serious health risks involved with the consumption of it. Why do I think that? I first went to the site you recommended. There was only ONE persons opinion on this aspartame article and even he said that he THINKS that it is most likely a hoax (check the Q & A in the end) Then I read the aspartame article again. Then I ckecked what Google knows about dr. Russell Blaylock (one of the 2 dr's that was referred in the end of the article). There seems to be 3000+ sitings of dr. Blaylock. Then I did a search of " aspartame university study " . It gave me 4000+ sitings. Then I checked every site on the first page. All adviced strongly against the use of aspartame (except one, but that too was at least critical ). And this was only the first page of 4000+ sites!!! Here's some basic " facts " I found in these pages: - there have been several studies done by several reputable researchers in several different universities of aspartame. All these studies show some link between aspartame and some health problem/disease. - there has been at least one " counterstudy " that maintains aspartame as being a safe and natural additive, but this study has been proven to be fraudulent. - people previously using aspartame have recorded their own experiences: when on aspartame=several different symptoms, when off =less/no symptoms - there are several dr's helping people to get well simply by making them quit the use of aspartame. - when aspartame was approved by FDA it's approval was based on " misinformation " from persons/researchers who had contacts to aspartame industry - Monsanto owns both Searle Pharmaceuticals (the company of the inventor of aspartame) and NutraSweet (a multinational and huge manufacturer that uses aspartame) My own comments to the end: 1. People who have done critical studies on aspartame don't do them to get $$$ 2. Monsanto does everything to get as much $$$ as possible to keep their stock rates up and stock holders happy. This has nothing to do with " evil " motives. It is pure business as it is today. I believe that reasonable caution with every new " unnatural " substance is better than " there's no danger whatsoever " attitude. And who needs something like aspartame anyway!? What do you think? Harri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2001 Report Share Posted May 16, 2001 Harri: I think you are going to have to decide for yourself, after reading the information from the MS Foundation and the FDA, as well as the other information. The About.com site is in general very well researched, as well as cross referenced to other sites that are well researched. That's what I think of that. I think you should think for yourself. Personally, as I said, I do not eat artificial sweeteners; but I have my own reasons that are not grounded in myth or speculation or drawing erroneous conclusions from unrelated data. Mostly the fact that I don't like the taste of any of them, or the aftertaste. I'd rather have something with no sweetener, than fake sweetener. Why drink a diet soda, when water is available? As far as the *idea* that something may be harmful, well an idea is fine, but you don't tout it as a scientific fact until you can prove it scientifically. You can speculate all you want, but you have to bear in mind that science may prove your speculation to be just that... or not. And then, there is also the factor of personal intention, in which you can kill yourself with anything if you believe it will kill you or you consume enough of it. Even water will kill you if you drink too much of it. I think people should choose to use things because they have all the facts they can get, not because they read an email with a lot of sensational caca in it spiced up with fake authorities, capital letters, exclamation points and several hundred people's emails encased in the amber of forwarded mail headers. Using this format to " inform " others is no better than spamming people with advertising or bearing false witness against your neighbor in court... unless you know the truth, don't spread the rumor. I'm sure that there are a lot of semi-factual items that are lost in the shuffle of these kind of " informative " posts, written by well-meaning, earnest people. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of them written by people who have too much time on their hands, an axe to grind, or too many marbles rolling around on their Chinese Checker board. I have been seeing most of these things on the Net since I got on it in 1996, and before that they were faxes, and before that, xerox copies on bulletin boards. It is your job as a consumer to evaluate that and not take everything that is written down as some sort of breathless message from the gods... and heaven forbid you should just send it to everyone you know, just because the author encourages you to do so. Of course, I'm the kind of woman who would rather skinny dip in the North Atlantic than pass along a chain letter. I'm just not easily frightened by baloney. So... that's what I think about that. More to follow. Caroline Harri Kantele wrote: > Caroline, > > Sometimes an aricle that " debunks " a supposed hoax can be a possible hoax > itself. I'm not saying that I know the thruth of the aspartame issue but the > " facts " are suggesting that there are some possibly serious health risks > involved with the consumption of it. Why do I think that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2001 Report Share Posted May 16, 2001 One way of assessing the potential validity of these kind of posts is to look at the writing. Frankly, the person who wrote the aspartame article does not appear to me to be terribly literate. Their arguments were poorly organized and she seemed to be referring to events that we were supposed to know about. That, combined with the periodic use of CAPITOLS to EMPHASIZE points that could have been made using effective language, causes me to take this article with a grain of salt. >Caroline Abreu <carocrow > > >Re: Vs: [ADMIN] Re: Fwd: A must to read >Wed, 16 May 2001 12:15:17 -0400 > >Harri: > >I think you are going to have to decide for yourself, after reading the >information from the MS Foundation and the FDA, as well as the other >information. >The About.com site is in general very well researched, as well as cross >referenced >to other sites that are well researched. That's what I think of that. I >think you >should think for yourself. > >Personally, as I said, I do not eat artificial sweeteners; but I have my >own >reasons that are not grounded in myth or speculation or drawing erroneous >conclusions from unrelated data. Mostly the fact that I don't like the >taste of >any of them, or the aftertaste. I'd rather have something with no >sweetener, than >fake sweetener. Why drink a diet soda, when water is available? > >As far as the *idea* that something may be harmful, well an idea is fine, >but you >don't tout it as a scientific fact until you can prove it scientifically. >You can >speculate all you want, but you have to bear in mind that science may prove >your >speculation to be just that... or not. And then, there is also the factor >of >personal intention, in which you can kill yourself with anything if you >believe it >will kill you or you consume enough of it. Even water will kill you if you >drink >too much of it. > >I think people should choose to use things because they have all the facts >they >can get, not because they read an email with a lot of sensational caca in >it >spiced up with fake authorities, capital letters, exclamation points and >several >hundred people's emails encased in the amber of forwarded mail headers. >Using >this format to " inform " others is no better than spamming people with >advertising >or bearing false witness against your neighbor in court... unless you know >the >truth, don't spread the rumor. > >I'm sure that there are a lot of semi-factual items that are lost in the >shuffle >of these kind of " informative " posts, written by well-meaning, earnest >people. >Unfortunately, there are also a lot of them written by people who have too >much >time on their hands, an axe to grind, or too many marbles rolling around on >their >Chinese Checker board. I have been seeing most of these things on the Net >since I >got on it in 1996, and before that they were faxes, and before that, xerox >copies >on bulletin boards. It is your job as a consumer to evaluate that and not >take >everything that is written down as some sort of breathless message from the >gods... and heaven forbid you should just send it to everyone you know, >just >because the author encourages you to do so. > >Of course, I'm the kind of woman who would rather skinny dip in the North >Atlantic >than pass along a chain letter. I'm just not easily frightened by baloney. > >So... that's what I think about that. More to follow. > >Caroline > _______________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.