Viral

[I.Muir]

Nah slender man should be on the other team
You gonna die anyway
May as well get the real thing
Now with 50% less bone dust and bleach
Then slender man

 

[TotallyTroll]

As for the Aspartame thing: If it takes decades to start causing deterioration, I'm not sure you can claim any sort of meaningful link. After all, I'm pretty sure I can provide scientific evidence to prove that people who drink water are significantly less fit forty years later than they were at the beginning of the study.

In fact, I'm not sure you'd be able to prove that something as common among older people as worsened eyesight is linked to any specific item. This is especially true given how universal artificial sweeteners such as Aspartame are these days. It's not like smoking where the effects are obviously connected and there's an obvious delineation between smokers and non-smokers. Even if you did try to compare the general health of people who do consume aspartame and those that don't, the simple fact that anybody willing to take the effort to avoid aspartame (See the bit about it being incredibly prevalent these days) is also probably the sort of person who in general pays more attention to the quality of their food and thus will likely be healthier regardless of what aspartame does or doesn't do.

A side note: No, I didn't watch the video. It's an hour and a half long. I'm not in the habit of wasting an hour and a half of my time to watch a biased video in order to continue an internet argument.

How very... Paradigmatic of you. Your unfounded self assurances are as phony as that Wikipedia article. Give the video a watch, or a listen, you might(would) learn something.

The only reason that you can, in rare cases, casually link smoking to health issues is that the act of smoking is very overt. I remind you that it took decades of studies/lies/evasions from the Cigarette industry for people to become informed about the health dangers. It will take some time for the facts to make their way into general public forums.

It's a product of the era/country we live in, that we endure countless fraudulent studies and defenses on behalf of things like Cigarettes, Leaded Gas, & Asbestos (to name just a few) before the truth wills out.

But i can understand why someone wouldn't want to spend more than an hour watching a video, so let me summarize a few key points.
*There were conclusive reports linking Aspartame to the formation of brain tumors long before the product was even approved for market. The Affected companies simply withheld those studies until after the product was approved.
*Aspartame is produced as the fecal like secretion of a genetically modified e-coli virus.
*Aspartame was stumbled upon during the manufacture of a an ulcer treating drug. It was only suggested for market when one of the scientists realized how sweet it was.
*Consuming aspartame in the form of chewing gums, & any form that encourages contact with the Gums for extended periods of time, will cause the substance to go directly into your bloodstream.
*The side effects of aspartame are primarily related to the nervous system. In the first years that aspartame was released, over 80% of volunteered food complaints to the FDA were aspartame related.

There's plenty of information available. The internet certainly isn't suffering for lack of it.

 

[TraderJimmy]

As a marketer, I don't have any emotions, and that makes me very sad.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Maybe RS readers were just taking the piss out of that poll? ...Atleast i can hope so.

 

[beefpelican]

As for the Aspartame thing: If it takes decades to start causing deterioration, I'm not sure you can claim any sort of meaningful link. After all, I'm pretty sure I can provide scientific evidence to prove that people who drink water are significantly less fit forty years later than they were at the beginning of the study.

In fact, I'm not sure you'd be able to prove that something as common among older people as worsened eyesight is linked to any specific item. This is especially true given how universal artificial sweeteners such as Aspartame are these days. It's not like smoking where the effects are obviously connected and there's an obvious delineation between smokers and non-smokers. Even if you did try to compare the general health of people who do consume aspartame and those that don't, the simple fact that anybody willing to take the effort to avoid aspartame (See the bit about it being incredibly prevalent these days) is also probably the sort of person who in general pays more attention to the quality of their food and thus will likely be healthier regardless of what aspartame does or doesn't do.

A side note: No, I didn't watch the video. It's an hour and a half long. I'm not in the habit of wasting an hour and a half of my time to watch a biased video in order to continue an internet argument.

How very... Paradigmatic of you. Your unfounded self assurances are as phony as that Wikipedia article. Give the video a watch, or a listen, you might(would) learn something.

The only reason that you can, in rare cases, casually link smoking to health issues is that the act of smoking is very overt. I remind you that it took decades of studies/lies/evasions from the Cigarette industry for people to become informed about the health dangers. It will take some time for the facts to make their way into general public forums.

It's a product of the era/country we live in, that we endure countless fraudulent studies and defenses on behalf of things like Cigarettes, Leaded Gas, & Asbestos (to name just a few) before the truth wills out.

But i can understand why someone wouldn't want to spend more than an hour watching a video, so let me summarize a few key points.
*There were conclusive reports linking Aspartame to the formation of brain tumors long before the product was even approved for market. The Affected companies simply withheld those studies until after the product was approved.
*Aspartame is produced as the fecal like secretion of a genetically modified e-coli virus.
*Aspartame was stumbled upon during the manufacture of a an ulcer treating drug. It was only suggested for market when one of the scientists realized how sweet it was.
*Consuming aspartame in the form of chewing gums, & any form that encourages contact with the Gums for extended periods of time, will cause the substance to go directly into your bloodstream.
*The side effects of aspartame are primarily related to the nervous system. In the first years that aspartame was released, over 80% of volunteered food complaints to the FDA were aspartame related.

There's plenty of information available. The internet certainly isn't suffering for lack of it.

Splenda isn't aspartame. It's sucralose mixed with dextrose and maltodextrin.

 

[TotallyTroll]

As for the Aspartame thing: If it takes decades to start causing deterioration, I'm not sure you can claim any sort of meaningful link. After all, I'm pretty sure I can provide scientific evidence to prove that people who drink water are significantly less fit forty years later than they were at the beginning of the study.

In fact, I'm not sure you'd be able to prove that something as common among older people as worsened eyesight is linked to any specific item. This is especially true given how universal artificial sweeteners such as Aspartame are these days. It's not like smoking where the effects are obviously connected and there's an obvious delineation between smokers and non-smokers. Even if you did try to compare the general health of people who do consume aspartame and those that don't, the simple fact that anybody willing to take the effort to avoid aspartame (See the bit about it being incredibly prevalent these days) is also probably the sort of person who in general pays more attention to the quality of their food and thus will likely be healthier regardless of what aspartame does or doesn't do.

A side note: No, I didn't watch the video. It's an hour and a half long. I'm not in the habit of wasting an hour and a half of my time to watch a biased video in order to continue an internet argument.

How very... Paradigmatic of you. Your unfounded self assurances are as phony as that Wikipedia article. Give the video a watch, or a listen, you might(would) learn something.

The only reason that you can, in rare cases, casually link smoking to health issues is that the act of smoking is very overt. I remind you that it took decades of studies/lies/evasions from the Cigarette industry for people to become informed about the health dangers. It will take some time for the facts to make their way into general public forums.

It's a product of the era/country we live in, that we endure countless fraudulent studies and defenses on behalf of things like Cigarettes, Leaded Gas, & Asbestos (to name just a few) before the truth wills out.

But i can understand why someone wouldn't want to spend more than an hour watching a video, so let me summarize a few key points.
*There were conclusive reports linking Aspartame to the formation of brain tumors long before the product was even approved for market. The Affected companies simply withheld those studies until after the product was approved.
*Aspartame is produced as the fecal like secretion of a genetically modified e-coli virus.
*Aspartame was stumbled upon during the manufacture of a an ulcer treating drug. It was only suggested for market when one of the scientists realized how sweet it was.
*Consuming aspartame in the form of chewing gums, & any form that encourages contact with the Gums for extended periods of time, will cause the substance to go directly into your bloodstream.
*The side effects of aspartame are primarily related to the nervous system. In the first years that aspartame was released, over 80% of volunteered food complaints to the FDA were aspartame related.

There's plenty of information available. The internet certainly isn't suffering for lack of it.

Splenda isn't aspartame. It's sucralose mixed with dextrose and maltodextrin.

Yeah because Sucralose is totally safe... (it's not)

The consistency actually depends on where you get it. Different countries have different laws on what they allow, so the ingredients/makeup of a product will differ. Since the US allows pretty much anything so long as it kills people slowly, we get chlorine.

1.) Instead of being stumbled on while making an ulcer drug, this was found while creating an insecticide.
2.) The FDA themselves noted a casual link between Sucralose & Migraines, never following up with studies.
3.) It's not actually a "no calorie sweetener"; it contains 98 calories per cup. Less than 5 calories per serving qualifies it for the "no calories" label. Thanks FDA!
4.) Long term cumulative effect has not been determined, however data submitted to the FDA (the same data used to approve Sucralose) showed that a fantastic intake (1200x EDI) caused multi-generation degenerative effects in rats.
5.) The structure of Sucralose is basically chlorinated sugar. This makes it inherently toxic (it was created to be an insecticide remember).
6.) It has calories & it is absorbed by the body (current studies say up to 40%).

 

[beefpelican]

As for the Aspartame thing: If it takes decades to start causing deterioration, I'm not sure you can claim any sort of meaningful link. After all, I'm pretty sure I can provide scientific evidence to prove that people who drink water are significantly less fit forty years later than they were at the beginning of the study.

In fact, I'm not sure you'd be able to prove that something as common among older people as worsened eyesight is linked to any specific item. This is especially true given how universal artificial sweeteners such as Aspartame are these days. It's not like smoking where the effects are obviously connected and there's an obvious delineation between smokers and non-smokers. Even if you did try to compare the general health of people who do consume aspartame and those that don't, the simple fact that anybody willing to take the effort to avoid aspartame (See the bit about it being incredibly prevalent these days) is also probably the sort of person who in general pays more attention to the quality of their food and thus will likely be healthier regardless of what aspartame does or doesn't do.

A side note: No, I didn't watch the video. It's an hour and a half long. I'm not in the habit of wasting an hour and a half of my time to watch a biased video in order to continue an internet argument.

How very... Paradigmatic of you. Your unfounded self assurances are as phony as that Wikipedia article. Give the video a watch, or a listen, you might(would) learn something.

The only reason that you can, in rare cases, casually link smoking to health issues is that the act of smoking is very overt. I remind you that it took decades of studies/lies/evasions from the Cigarette industry for people to become informed about the health dangers. It will take some time for the facts to make their way into general public forums.

It's a product of the era/country we live in, that we endure countless fraudulent studies and defenses on behalf of things like Cigarettes, Leaded Gas, & Asbestos (to name just a few) before the truth wills out.

But i can understand why someone wouldn't want to spend more than an hour watching a video, so let me summarize a few key points.
*There were conclusive reports linking Aspartame to the formation of brain tumors long before the product was even approved for market. The Affected companies simply withheld those studies until after the product was approved.
*Aspartame is produced as the fecal like secretion of a genetically modified e-coli virus.
*Aspartame was stumbled upon during the manufacture of a an ulcer treating drug. It was only suggested for market when one of the scientists realized how sweet it was.
*Consuming aspartame in the form of chewing gums, & any form that encourages contact with the Gums for extended periods of time, will cause the substance to go directly into your bloodstream.
*The side effects of aspartame are primarily related to the nervous system. In the first years that aspartame was released, over 80% of volunteered food complaints to the FDA were aspartame related.

There's plenty of information available. The internet certainly isn't suffering for lack of it.

Splenda isn't aspartame. It's sucralose mixed with dextrose and maltodextrin.

Yeah because Sucralose is totally safe... (it's not)

The consistency actually depends on where you get it. Different countries have different laws on what they allow, so the ingredients/makeup of a product will differ. Since the US allows pretty much anything so long as it kills people slowly, we get chlorine.

1.) Instead of being stumbled on while making an ulcer drug, this was found while creating an insecticide.
2.) The FDA themselves noted a casual link between Sucralose & Migraines, never following up with studies.
3.) It's not actually a "no calorie sweetener"; it contains 98 calories per cup. Less than 5 calories per serving qualifies it for the "no calories" label. Thanks FDA!
4.) Long term cumulative effect has not been determined, however data submitted to the FDA (the same data used to approve Sucralose) showed that a fantastic intake (1200x EDI) caused multi-generation degenerative effects in rats.
5.) The structure of Sucralose is basically chlorinated sugar. This makes it inherently toxic (it was created to be an insecticide remember).
6.) It has calories & it is absorbed by the body (current studies say up to 40%).

Sucralose is created by replacing several of the -OH groups in sucrose with chlorine atoms. This is different from mixing sucrose with chlorine, which i'm sure we can agree would be a silly idea! To say that they are the same is kind of like saying that since sucrose has alcohol groups (that's what -OH means), it should get you drunk.

In 4, you mention that a 'fantastic intake' would cause multi-generation degenerative effects in rats. This is okay because we do not eat a fantastic amount of sucralose. The FDA determined that a safe amount was 1.1 mg/kg/day, or (for an average adult north american weight of 80.8 kg) 88 mg/day. Since very little of splenda is sucralose, if you do the math out, you can eat 0.6g of splenda per day without any averse effects.

Sucralose is one of many things that can be dangerous if you eat too much of it, but is safe in the doses you actually would. Did you know that there is arsenic in almonds? That's pretty crazy, but don't throw out your almonds, because it's in such small quantities that your body can purge it without averse effects. It's the same way with small quantities of sucralose.

As for things that kill you slowly, you are right to be worried about some things that stay in the body and build up to be dangerous, like lead in lead painted walls. When things like that happen, it's important to expose them! Luckily, sucralose is not one of these things.

I hope this addresses some of your concerns.

 

[TotallyTroll]

Sucralose is created by replacing several of the -OH groups in sucrose with chlorine atoms. This is different from mixing sucrose with chlorine, which i'm sure we can agree would be a silly idea! To say that they are the same is kind of like saying that since sucrose has alcohol groups (that's what -OH means), it should get you drunk.

Different molecules break down in different ways. The chlorine atoms in the failed pesticide/sweetener Sucralose become free, while the methyl groups do not, and can therefore become toxic.

In 4, you mention that a 'fantastic intake' would cause multi-generation degenerative effects in rats. This is okay because we do not eat a fantastic amount of sucralose. The FDA determined that a safe amount was 1.1 mg/kg/day, or (for an average adult north american weight of 80.8 kg) 88 mg/day. Since very little of splenda is sucralose, if you do the math out, you can eat 0.6g of splenda per day without any averse effects.

Like i said. Although no long-term studies have been done, many scientists believe that the short term, and high intake effects, of Sucralose indicate what effects would be felt from long term cumulative effect. Iffy, but it certainly warrants study considering how frequently these sweeteners are used.

Sucralose is one of many things that can be dangerous if you eat too much of it, but is safe in the doses you actually would. Did you know that there is arsenic in almonds? That's pretty crazy, but don't throw out your almonds, because it's in such small quantities that your body can purge it without averse effects. It's the same way with small quantities of sucralose.

I agree with you almost completely. Many of the pure substances we know to avoid (methanol,arsenic,cyanide) are present in natural foods in such a way that our bodies can process them. Our bodies evolved in order to be able to process very specific foods, in very specific ways; significant deviance from this without time to adapt causes harm. Just look at what is happening with gluten allergies (wheat hybrids that we consume now are about 50% gluten, while wheat of old was about 10%. Letting the wheat sprout before grinding it also metabolized most of that 10%).

As for things that kill you slowly, you are right to be worried about some things that stay in the body and build up to be dangerous, like lead in lead painted walls. When things like that happen, it's important to expose them! Luckily, sucralose is not one of these things.

Cough Cough... Fluorides, Cough Cough...

The Utter lack of long-term study concerns me. The question that you should be asking yourself is this. Am i the kind of person who informs him/herself about potential dangers, or am i the kind of person who waits for those dangers to be confirmed (by responsibility shirking agencies) before taking any action?

There are people who honestly believe that if something was dangerous for them, that it simply would not be available for sale. Are you one of them?

 

[beefpelican]

There are people who honestly believe that if something was dangerous for them, that it simply would not be available for sale. Are you one of them?

No, the existence of cigarettes and fast food means that wouldn't be very reasonable.

Sucralose is temperature stable. It also doesn't interact with the digestive system, instead passing through the body. This is what makes it an effective diet sweetener. The chlorines will not detach from the molecule and kill you.

Which "many scientists" believe that sucralose has cumulative effects? I could point you to a quote from wikipedia, specifically:
"Results from over 100 animal and clinical studies in the FDA approval process unanimously indicated a lack of risk associated with sucralose intake. However, some adverse effects were seen at doses that significantly exceeded the estimated daily intake (EDI), which is 1.1 mg/kg/day. When the EDI is compared to the intake at which adverse effects are seen, known as the highest no adverse effects limit (HNEL), at 1500 mg/kg/day there is a large margin of safety."
Please resist the temptation to say that everything on wikipeida is a lie. This quote includes citations, if you go to the page itself, so you can check out the studies and see if they match your demands for proof.

Unfortunately, you include in your post the belief that fluoride in the water is going to kill us. This does not make you seem like a very reasonable person. However, if you search wikipedia for 'List of Conspiracy Theories' I am sure you can find plenty of other things to agree with because you read them on the internet.

 

[TotallyTroll]

No, the existence of cigarettes and fast food means that wouldn't be very reasonable.

Fair enough, and i guess my jibe was unwarranted. I'm sorry.

Sucralose is temperature stable. It also doesn't interact with the digestive system, instead passing through the body. This is what makes it an effective diet sweetener. The chlorines will not detach from the molecule and kill you.

Oooooh, Wikipedia facts again?
1.) Although the chlorine atoms probably won't kill you, they do become free during digestion. This makes Sucralose potentially toxic.
2.) Although the sweetener was/is marketed on the grounds that it is not digested & therefore a no-calorie food, the facts (from the FDA's own data) dispute this. The most recent studies show that about 40% of consumed Sucralose is absorbed during digestion; the FDA also lists Sucralose as having 98 calories per cup, compared to about 300 in regular sugar.
3.) Temperature stable is a very relative phrase. Although the molecule will not break down while cooking with it, exposing Sucralose to high temperatures has been shown to increase the amount absorbed by the body (relevant only while consuming hot foods).

Bear in mind that this was originally manufactured to be a pesticide. A chemical designed to poison, that you are saying has no effect on the human body...

Which "many scientists" believe that sucralose has cumulative effects? I could point you to a quote from wikipedia, specifically:
"Results from over 100 animal and clinical studies in the FDA approval process unanimously indicated a lack of risk associated with sucralose intake. However, some adverse effects were seen at doses that significantly exceeded the estimated daily intake (EDI), which is 1.1 mg/kg/day. When the EDI is compared to the intake at which adverse effects are seen, known as the highest no adverse effects limit (HNEL), at 1500 mg/kg/day there is a large margin of safety."
Please resist the temptation to say that everything on wikipeida is a lie. This quote includes citations, if you go to the page itself, so you can check out the studies and see if they match your demands for proof.

Temptation resisted; it wasn't very strong anyways. Like any source of information, Wikipedia should be considered carefully. Many people seem to treat Wikipedia as all encompassing, simply because of the shear breadth of information it covers. I take serious issue with people who use Wikipedia as their primary source for fact checking.

Citations are worthless if you don't authenticate each one. Instead of counting each citation in a vain effort to quantify the legitimacy of an article, you should be comparing the information in the article to the source.

Unfortunately, you include in your post the belief that fluoride in the water is going to kill us. This does not make you seem like a very reasonable person. However, if you search wikipedia for 'List of Conspiracy Theories' I am sure you can find plenty of other things to agree with because you read them on the internet.

Unfortunate huh...? I forgot that "reasonable" people confine their views to somewhere between CNN and Cracked. Silly me...

How convenient that label is... To toss it at something and simply dart away. Throwing it around like a piece of rancid meat, hoping people will shy away from the smell.

The fluoride debate is raging, now more than ever, and not because all of the concerned parties are somehow misinformed or unreasonable. I mentioned it only because it is bio-accumulative, many people are not educated about it, and most people don't have a choice about drinking it.

P.S. You are quoting Wikipedia as a source for what is and is not an acceptable view, while discrediting info because it was found on the net... Do you really see no problem with that?

 

[Trilliandi]

This commercial needs to be made... like now...