Splenda ain't so Splenda-rific! !

January 6, 2007

In a message dated 1/6/07 5:29:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

maggiemacg writes:

> Where are the scientific studies on Splenda? Right now, to me, this

> seems to have all the hallmarks of an urban legend, right up there with

> nutrasweet causing all kinds of problems, and originally being

> developed as rat poison!

>

CSPI (Center For Science In The Public Interest) gives Splenda a safe rating.

I have found them to be pretty conservative when it comes to food additives

and they're always on someone's case for one food related thing or another.

I think we all have to do what we're comfortable with. No one lives forever.

TM

January 6, 2007

Splenda ain't so Splenda-rific! !

ARTIFICIAL SWEETENER EXPLODES INTERNALLY - AVOID IT IN 2007

Shane Ellison M. Sc.

January 4, 2007

NewsWithViews. com

If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for

human life the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals makers of

SplendaT. Manufacturers of VioxxT and LipitorT would tie for a very

distant second.

McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for

disguising their drug SplendaT as a sweetener. Regardless of its

drug qualities and potential for side-effects, McNeil is dead set on

putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, VioxxT and

LipitorT makers can't stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade

their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their

products are drugs and by definition come with negative side-

effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers

have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe

their dangerous goods.

A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from

aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet then

let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to

create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade

name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty

colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As

unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and

non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name SplendaT

in place of real sugar (sucrose).

SplendaT was strategically released on April fools day in 1998. This

day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends

and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil

certainly succeeded.

The splendid SplendaT hoax is costing gullible Americans $187

million annually.[1] While many people " wonder " about the safety of

SplendaT they rarely question it. Despite its many " unknowns " and

inherent dangers, SplendaT demand has grown faster than its supply.

No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a

total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all

the way to the bank.

Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture

of sucralose, maltodextrine and dextrose (a detrimental simple

sugar), each of the not-so-splendid SplendaT ingredients has

downfalls. Aside from the fact that it really isn't " sugar and

calorie free, " here is one big reason to avoid the deceitful

mix.Think April fools day:

SplendaT contains a potential poison.

SplendaT contains the drug sucralose. This chemical is 600 times

sweeter than sugar. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine

has a split personality. It can be harmless or it can be life

threatening.

In combo with sodium, chlorine forms a harmless " ionic bond " to

yield table salt. Sucralose makers often highlight this worthless

fact to defend its' safety. Apparently, they missed the second day

of Chemistry 101 the day they teach " covalent " bonds.

When used with carbon, the chlorine atom in sucralose forms

a " covalent " bond. The end result is the historically

deadly " organochlorine " or simply: a Really-Nasty Form of Chlorine

(RNFOC).

Unlike ionic bonds, covalently bound chlorines are a big no-no for

the human body. They yield insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides

not something you want in the lunch box of your precious child. It's

therefore no surprise that the originators of sucralose, chemists

Hough and Phadnis, were attempting to design new insecticides when

they discovered it! It wasn't until the young Phadnis accidentally

tasted his new " insecticide " that he learned it was sweet. And

because sugars are more profitable than insecticides, the whole

insecticide idea got canned and a new sweetener called Splenda got

packaged.

To hide its origin, SplendaT pushers assert that sucralose is " made

from sugar so it tastes like sugar. " Sucralose is as close to sugar

as WindexT is to ocean water.

The RNFOC poses a real and present danger to all SplendaT users. It

is risky because the RNFOC confers a molecule with a set of super

powers that wreak havoc on the human body. For example, Agent

Orange, used in the U.S Army's herbicidal warfare program, is a

RNFOC. Exposure can lead to Hodgkin's lymphoma and non-Hodgkins

lymphoma as well as diabetes and various forms of cancer! Other

shocking examples are the war gas phosgene, chlordane and lindane.

[2] The RNFOC is lethal because it allows poisons to be fat soluble

while rendering the natural defense mechanisms of the body helpless.

A poison that is fat soluble is akin to a bomb exploding internally.

It invades every nook and cranny of the body. Cell walls and DNA,

the genetic map of human life, become nothing more than potential

casualties of war when exposed. Sucralose is only 25% water soluble.

[3] Which means a vast majority of it may explode internally. In

general, this results in weakened immune function, irregular heart

beat, agitation, shortness of breath, skin rashes, headaches, liver

and kidney damage, birth defects, cancer, cancer and more cancer

for generations! [1]

McNeil asserts that their studies prove it to be safe for everyone,

even children. That's little assurance. Learning from the VioxxT

debacle (and many others highlighted in my book, Health Myths

Exposed) which killed tens of thousands, we know that studies can be

bought and results fabricated.

Some things are worth dying for. Splenda is not one of them. What

people think of as a food is a drug or slow poison--little

distinction there. It wouldn't be wise to bet your health on it. If

safe, sucralose would be the first molecule in human history that

contained a RNFOC fit for human consumption. This fact alone makes

sucralose questionable for use as a sweetener, if not instantly

detrimental to our health. Only time will tell. Until then, Ill

stick to the safe and naturally occurring stevia plant to satisfy my

occasional sweet tooth in 2007.

Be forewarned though, as long as drugs can be legally disguised as

sweeteners, watch out for drugs being disguised as vitamins.Oh wait,

they are already doing that think Lipitor.

Footnotes:

1, Joseph Mercola, Kendra Pearsall. Sweet Deception. Nelson Books.

2, Agent Orange

3, Caroline W. Sham. Splenda A Safe and Sweet Alternative to Sugar.

Nutrition Bytes. 2005. Vol. 10. Issue 2. Article 5.

" I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of

fools.

Let's start with typewriters. "

- Frank Lloyd Wright

January 6, 2007

Where are the scientific studies on Splenda? Right now, to me, this

seems to have all the hallmarks of an urban legend, right up there with

nutrasweet causing all kinds of problems, and originally being

developed as rat poison!

By the way - I take Lipitor for high cholesterol. No side effects

whatsoever, and it reduced my total cholesterol from 713 (yes, you did

read that correctly) to 175 over a period of about two years.

Lipitor had double blind, placebo controlled trials carried out before

it was approved. If it's so dangerous, why hasn't it been recalled?

Vioxx was, as I remember.

Margaret

San Ramon

January 6, 2007

DW has been using Splenda for a few years now, and she's no crazier than she was

when

we first met.

This screed sounds a bit like pseudoscience by any measure. Nothing wrong with

that, I

suppose. Crackpots got rights, too.

, " Guru K " <greatyoga wrote:

>

> Splenda ain't so Splenda-rific! !

> ARTIFICIAL SWEETENER EXPLODES INTERNALLY - AVOID IT IN 2007

>

> Shane Ellison M. Sc.

> January 4, 2007

> NewsWithViews. com

>

> If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for

> human life the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals makers of

> SplendaT. Manufacturers of VioxxT and LipitorT would tie for a very

> distant second.

>

> McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for

> disguising their drug SplendaT as a sweetener. Regardless of its

> drug qualities and potential for side-effects, McNeil is dead set on

> putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, VioxxT and

> LipitorT makers can't stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade

> their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their

> products are drugs and by definition come with negative side-

> effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers

> have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe

> their dangerous goods.

>

> A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from

> aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet then

> let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to

> create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade

> name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty

> colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As

> unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and

> non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name SplendaT

> in place of real sugar (sucrose).

>

> SplendaT was strategically released on April fools day in 1998. This

> day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends

> and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil

> certainly succeeded.

>

> The splendid SplendaT hoax is costing gullible Americans $187

> million annually.[1] While many people " wonder " about the safety of

> SplendaT they rarely question it. Despite its many " unknowns " and

> inherent dangers, SplendaT demand has grown faster than its supply.

> No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a

> total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all

> the way to the bank.

>

> Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture

> of sucralose, maltodextrine and dextrose (a detrimental simple

> sugar), each of the not-so-splendid SplendaT ingredients has

> downfalls. Aside from the fact that it really isn't " sugar and

> calorie free, " here is one big reason to avoid the deceitful

> mix.Think April fools day:

>

> SplendaT contains a potential poison.

>

> SplendaT contains the drug sucralose. This chemical is 600 times

> sweeter than sugar. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine

> has a split personality. It can be harmless or it can be life

> threatening.

>

> In combo with sodium, chlorine forms a harmless " ionic bond " to

> yield table salt. Sucralose makers often highlight this worthless

> fact to defend its' safety. Apparently, they missed the second day

> of Chemistry 101 the day they teach " covalent " bonds.

>

> When used with carbon, the chlorine atom in sucralose forms

> a " covalent " bond. The end result is the historically

> deadly " organochlorine " or simply: a Really-Nasty Form of Chlorine

> (RNFOC).

>

> Unlike ionic bonds, covalently bound chlorines are a big no-no for

> the human body. They yield insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides

> not something you want in the lunch box of your precious child. It's

> therefore no surprise that the originators of sucralose, chemists

> Hough and Phadnis, were attempting to design new insecticides when

> they discovered it! It wasn't until the young Phadnis accidentally

> tasted his new " insecticide " that he learned it was sweet. And

> because sugars are more profitable than insecticides, the whole

> insecticide idea got canned and a new sweetener called Splenda got

> packaged.

>

> To hide its origin, SplendaT pushers assert that sucralose is " made

> from sugar so it tastes like sugar. " Sucralose is as close to sugar

> as WindexT is to ocean water.

>

> The RNFOC poses a real and present danger to all SplendaT users. It

> is risky because the RNFOC confers a molecule with a set of super

> powers that wreak havoc on the human body. For example, Agent

> Orange, used in the U.S Army's herbicidal warfare program, is a

> RNFOC. Exposure can lead to Hodgkin's lymphoma and non-Hodgkins

> lymphoma as well as diabetes and various forms of cancer! Other

> shocking examples are the war gas phosgene, chlordane and lindane.

> [2] The RNFOC is lethal because it allows poisons to be fat soluble

> while rendering the natural defense mechanisms of the body helpless.

>

> A poison that is fat soluble is akin to a bomb exploding internally.

> It invades every nook and cranny of the body. Cell walls and DNA,

> the genetic map of human life, become nothing more than potential

> casualties of war when exposed. Sucralose is only 25% water soluble.

> [3] Which means a vast majority of it may explode internally. In

> general, this results in weakened immune function, irregular heart

> beat, agitation, shortness of breath, skin rashes, headaches, liver

> and kidney damage, birth defects, cancer, cancer and more cancer

> for generations! [1]

>

> McNeil asserts that their studies prove it to be safe for everyone,

> even children. That's little assurance. Learning from the VioxxT

> debacle (and many others highlighted in my book, Health Myths

> Exposed) which killed tens of thousands, we know that studies can be

> bought and results fabricated.

>

> Some things are worth dying for. Splenda is not one of them. What

> people think of as a food is a drug or slow poison--little

> distinction there. It wouldn't be wise to bet your health on it. If

> safe, sucralose would be the first molecule in human history that

> contained a RNFOC fit for human consumption. This fact alone makes

> sucralose questionable for use as a sweetener, if not instantly

> detrimental to our health. Only time will tell. Until then, Ill

> stick to the safe and naturally occurring stevia plant to satisfy my

> occasional sweet tooth in 2007.

>

> Be forewarned though, as long as drugs can be legally disguised as

> sweeteners, watch out for drugs being disguised as vitamins.Oh wait,

> they are already doing that think Lipitor.

>

> Footnotes:

>

> 1, Joseph Mercola, Kendra Pearsall. Sweet Deception. Nelson Books.

> 2, Agent Orange

> 3, Caroline W. Sham. Splenda A Safe and Sweet Alternative to Sugar.

> Nutrition Bytes. 2005. Vol. 10. Issue 2. Article 5.

>

> " I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of

> fools.

> Let's start with typewriters. "

> - Frank Lloyd Wright

>

January 6, 2007

Meh, i will keep my real sugar thanks

January 6, 2007

WOW! I had no idea!!

Jen

Guru K <greatyoga wrote:

Splenda ain't so Splenda-rific! !

ARTIFICIAL SWEETENER EXPLODES INTERNALLY - AVOID IT IN 2007

January 8, 2007

, " maggiemacg "

<maggiemacg wrote:

>

San

I am glad Lipitor helps you. EVERY single drug has side effects.

That is the nature of the drugs. However in your case, it seems to

help more than hinder. You just do not notice the side effects. Your

liver is evidently strong enough to detoxify. The following is from

Pfizer's own site. It lists side effects and these are just the ones

they admit to having.

http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/are/news_releases/2005pr/mn_2005_0927.jsp

GB

FDA Approves Pfizer's Lipitor® to Reduce Risk of Strokes and Heart

Attacks in Patients with Diabetes

Also Approved to Reduce Stroke Risk in People with Several Other Risk

Factors for Heart Disease

NEW YORK, September 27 -- Pfizer Inc announced today that the U.S.

Food and Drug Administration has approved its cholesterol-lowering

medicine Lipitor® (atorvastatin calcium) to reduce the risk of stroke

and heart attack in people with type 2 diabetes without evidence of

heart disease but with other risk factors. Lipitor also received

approval to reduce the risk of stroke in people without evidence of

heart disease but with multiple risk factors other than diabetes.

Common risk factors for heart disease include high cholesterol, high

blood pressure, family history, age over 55, smoking, diabetes and

obesity.

The FDA's decision was based on the findings of the Collaborative

Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS), a landmark trial of more than

2,800 patients with type 2 diabetes, near normal cholesterol, and at

least one other risk factor, such as high blood pressure or smoking,

that showed patients on Lipitor experienced nearly 50 percent fewer

strokes than those on placebo. The CARDS trial was stopped nearly two

years earlier than planned by the study's Steering Committee because

of the strong benefits among patients who took Lipitor.

The additional approval of Lipitor to reduce the risk of stroke in

patients with multiple risk factors reflects findings from The

Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial: Lipid-Lowering Arm

(ASCOT-LLA) another landmark trial which was also halted nearly two

years earlier than planned. The trial found that Lipitor reduced the

relative risk of stroke by 26% percent compared to placebo. The study

involved more than 10,300 people with normal or borderline cholesterol

and no prior history of heart disease, but with controlled high blood

pressure and at least three other risk factors for heart disease, such

as family history, age over 55, smoking, diabetes and obesity.

" Patients with multiple risk factors, including diabetes, face a

greater threat of heart attack and stroke, so reducing their risk is

critical, " said David Waters, M.D., F.A.C.C., Chief of Cardiology, San

Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA. " The idea that we can

reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke even in this high-risk

population with a drug like Lipitor is important. "

The American Heart Association (AHA) estimates that 700,000

Americans—or one person every 45 seconds—will experience a stroke in

2005. Stroke is more prevalent in adults age 65 and older, and the

incidence of stroke continues to rise as age increases. According to

the AHA, stroke is a leading cause of major disability in the United

States. Direct (medical) and indirect (disability) costs related to

stroke are anticipated at $57 billion in 2005.

The 2004 update to guidelines issued by the National Cholesterol

Education Program confirms the added benefit of prescribing

cholesterol-lowering medication like Lipitor, along with diet

modification and exercise, to patients at risk for cardiovascular disease.

More than 18 million Americans suffer from diabetes, which is a

leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The majority of people

with diabetes—roughly 65 percent—will suffer a heart attack or stroke,

a rate that is up to four times higher than in adults without

diabetes. According to the American Diabetes Association recommended

treatment guidelines, adults with type 2 diabetes should be considered

for statin therapy regardless of their LDL levels.

" With this FDA approval, we're pleased that a broad range of patients,

in addition to effectively lowering their cholesterol with Lipitor,

will be able to derive the significant cardiovascular benefit of

reducing their chances for suffering a stroke or heart attack, " said

Gregg Larson, Ph.D., Pfizer's U.S. medical vice president. " Even

patients who have relatively low cholesterol levels, but who are at

high risk due to multiple risk factors, have been shown to benefit

from treatment with Lipitor. "

Since the introduction of Lipitor eight years ago, its safety and

efficacy have been supported through an extensive clinical trial

program with more than 400 ongoing and completed trials involving more

than 80,000 patients, Lipitor is the most prescribed

cholesterol-lowering therapy in the world with over 100 million

patient years of experience.

Lipitor® (atorvastatin calcium) is a prescription drug. It is used in

patients with multiple risk factors for heart disease such as family

history, high blood pressure, age 55 or older, low HDL cholesterol or

smoking, to reduce the risk of heart attack or stroke and, along with

a low-fat diet, to lower cholesterol.

Lipitor is used in patients with type 2 diabetes and one other risk

factor such as high blood pressure, smoking, or other complications of

diabetes, including eye disease and protein in urine, to reduce the

risk of stroke and heart attack.

Lipitor is not for everyone. It is not for those with liver problems.

And it is not for women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant.

If you take Lipitor, tell your doctor if you feel any unusual muscle

pain or weakness. This could be a sign of serious muscle side effects.

Tell you doctor about all medicines you take. This may help avoid

serious drug interactions. Your doctor should do blood tests to check

your liver function before and during drug treatment and may adjust

your dose. The most commonly side effects are gas, constipation,

stomach pain, and heartburn. They tend to be mild and often go away.

For additional important information about Lipitor, visit

www.lipitor.com or 1-888-LIPITOR.

http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/are/news_releases/2005pr/mn_2005_0927.jsphttp://www\

..pfizer.com/pfizer/are/news_releases/2005pr/mn_2005_0927.jsp

> Where are the scientific studies on Splenda? Right now, to me, this

> seems to have all the hallmarks of an urban legend, right up there with

> nutrasweet causing all kinds of problems, and originally being

> developed as rat poison!

>

> By the way - I take Lipitor for high cholesterol. No side effects

> whatsoever, and it reduced my total cholesterol from 713 (yes, you did

> read that correctly) to 175 over a period of about two years.

>

> Lipitor had double blind, placebo controlled trials carried out before

> it was approved. If it's so dangerous, why hasn't it been recalled?

> Vioxx was, as I remember.

>

> Margaret

> San Ramon

>

January 10, 2007

Here's some real information on the hype that people are trying to feed

about the " dangers " of this chlorine thing:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=196

On 1/6/07, Guru K <greatyoga wrote: