Science vs the Fructose/HFCS Conspiracy

Ask and answer questions, discuss research and applications

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward

Peter Rouse
Novice
Novice
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Post by Peter Rouse » Fri Apr 09, 2010 10:01 am

Ironman wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:People have short memory, remember Aspartame.

You say to trust the studies. They claimed the studies said that it was safe. They lied and falsified studies, this has been proven.

You trusted FDA when their own scientists said that it should not be approved and needed more testing. Instead political favors were called in by Donald Rumsfeld to get it approved.

http://www.wnho.net/history_of_aspartame.htm

You see similar story with HFCS. How many times does this need to happen before people realize the FDA is not there to protect the public but rather to service industry.
Oh give me a break. That is typical conspiracy theory bull$h17. It is a verbose, red herring laden, pile of fluff. It also use the proof by authority fallacy. It conflates different chemicals. It uses guilt by association to sucker people who believe in other "food toxin" nonsense. It uses the word "toxin", which is a dead giveaway for bollocks in this context. It tries to spin this web of intrigue. The motive of which, is also the conclusion. This the logical fallacy called "begging the question".

Some of the quotes in there don't even support the conclusion. A doctor is quoted saying something negative but it included these words "high dosage levels for prolonged periods" and the study was on rats.

It also ignores negative studies done on people, which is confirmation bias.

I could go on, but frankly I see no point.
How many of the over 300 studies have you actually read? I'm not talking about abstracts either. Have you also read the studies claiming it to be safe?


User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:23 pm

Peter Rouse wrote:
Ironman wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:People have short memory, remember Aspartame.

You say to trust the studies. They claimed the studies said that it was safe. They lied and falsified studies, this has been proven.

You trusted FDA when their own scientists said that it should not be approved and needed more testing. Instead political favors were called in by Donald Rumsfeld to get it approved.

http://www.wnho.net/history_of_aspartame.htm

You see similar story with HFCS. How many times does this need to happen before people realize the FDA is not there to protect the public but rather to service industry.
Oh give me a break. That is typical conspiracy theory bull$h17. It is a verbose, red herring laden, pile of fluff. It also use the proof by authority fallacy. It conflates different chemicals. It uses guilt by association to sucker people who believe in other "food toxin" nonsense. It uses the word "toxin", which is a dead giveaway for bollocks in this context. It tries to spin this web of intrigue. The motive of which, is also the conclusion. This the logical fallacy called "begging the question".

Some of the quotes in there don't even support the conclusion. A doctor is quoted saying something negative but it included these words "high dosage levels for prolonged periods" and the study was on rats.

It also ignores negative studies done on people, which is confirmation bias.

I could go on, but frankly I see no point.
How many of the over 300 studies have you actually read? I'm not talking about abstracts either. Have you also read the studies claiming it to be safe?
That has nothing to do with my critique of the website. I'll answer your question, but it is a red herring. The website being total baloney for all the reasons I listed has nothing to do with the studies. Neither does the website being crap have any reflection on the studies.


I have no idea, how many of the studies I have looked. It's been quite a few over the years. On the negative side, everything I have seen that has been put out there as "evidence" has been total junk science. The one exception was the rat study testing safety, which was flawed in different ways but not total junk. Still inconclusive though.

On the positive side I have seen a few, including some with humans that were properly done.

However instead of insinuating that I have to read all 300 studies to call someone out on their BS, why don't you instead give me a specific study as evidence?

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:24 pm

By the way, I have talked about this WAY more times than I care to remember. As of yet NOBODY has presented any evidence proving their case.

Jebus
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:04 pm

Post by Jebus » Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:37 pm

"Aspartame is made up of three chemicals that are all naturally found in foods and can be found in the body. "

-Cancer Society
(Couldn't find the exact reference but found a study to support it, kinda)
Here's the study, http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/40.full

Artificial Sweeteners are not harmful, but sugar is.

I would normally search for a study proving the harmful effects of sugar, but we agree on that here, hopefully lol.

Peter Rouse
Novice
Novice
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Post by Peter Rouse » Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:17 am

Dr. Schwartz was asked to elaborate on a statement attributed to former Senator Metzenbaum, now of the Consumer Federation of America in Washington, DC who said, "The approval process of aspartame has had a questionable history."

Dr. Schwartz: "When aspartame was first introduced for approval by the FDA, it was considered to be a sweetener, not an additive or a drug, and with a great deal of lobbying, the discussions were propelled through the approval proceedings, and the numerous case reports from individuals with adverse reactions were ignored."

From Dr. Blaylock's book we learn that, "In 1975 the drug enforcement division of the Bureau of Foods investigated the G. D. Searle company as part of an investigation of "apparent irregularities in data collection and reporting practices." The director of the FDA at that time stated that they found "sloppy" laboratory techniques and "clerical errors, mixed-up animals, animals not getting the drugs they were supposed to get, pathological specimens lost because of improper handling, and a variety of other errors, (which) even if innocent, all conspire to obscure positive findings and produce falsely negative results."

"The drug enforcement division carried out a study under the care of agent Jerome Bressler concerning Searle's laboratory practices and data manipulation. This important report was buried in a file cabinet, never to be acted on by the FDA.


Peter Rouse
Novice
Novice
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Post by Peter Rouse » Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:18 am

Mary Stoddard says, "It's well documented that excitotoxins like aspartame have the reverse affect on weight. People drinking diet drinks and eating diet food will get more hungry. The FDA no longer allows manufacturers of diet supplement drinks and foods containing aspartame to label them as weight reduction products, but requires that they be labeled as diet drink or diet food. A study of 80,000 women who use sweeteners were evaluated through the Centers for Disease Control. It was found that they gained rather than lost weight using artificial sweeteners."

Peter Rouse
Novice
Novice
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Post by Peter Rouse » Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:18 am

In the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Donald R. Johns reported what appeared to be a connection between a case of migraine and the consumption of large amounts of a beverage containing NutraSweet™. A thirty-one-year-old woman with a known history of well-controlled migraine headaches began drinking six to eight 12-ounce cans of diet cola sweetened with NutraSweet, 15 tablets of aspartame, and other foods containing aspartame (approximately 100 to 1500 mg) daily. About two hours after ingesting the drinks, she noticed stomach upset and a throbbing headache. When taken off aspartame, she noticed steady improvement and eventually the headaches disappeared altogether.

In the May 1988 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, two letters appeared from the following physicians regarding headaches and aspartame. In the first, Dr. Richard B. Lipton and coworkers at the Montefiore Headache Unit reported that, in their studies using 171 patients, 8.2 percent of the patients who had headaches were sensitive to aspartame. They found that stress and tension also trigger migraines and other headaches. Dr. Lipton concluded that "sufferers of migraines or other vascular headaches should be warned to avoid NutraSweet." If you are a person who suffers headaches from low blood sugar levels, you also should avoid excitotoxins, including aspartame, because they aggravate hypoglycemia."5

A group of headache sufferers who have identified aspartame as the trigger setting off their headaches where given 30 mg/kg/day to study their aspartame sensitivity under double-blind controlled conditions. Of a total of 32 subjects, randomized to receive aspartame and a placebo in a two-treatment, four-period crossover design, "18 completed the full protocol, and 7 completed part of the protocol before withdrawing due to adverse effects. Three withdrew for other reasons. Two were lost to follow-up; one was withdrawn due to noncompliance, and one withdrew and gave no reason. Each experimental period lasted 7 days. Individuals receiving aspartame reported having headaches on 33 percent of the days as compared with 24 percent for the placebo treatment group (p = 0.04)."6

Individual subjective evaluation of aspartame versus placebo was shown to be statistically significant. It appears that some people are particularly susceptible to headaches caused by aspartame and may want to limit their consumption."6

Peter Rouse
Novice
Novice
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Post by Peter Rouse » Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:19 am

In 1985, Dr. Richard Wurtman reported several cases of seizures brought on by drinking too many diet drinks. The first case involved a woman with no previous seizure activity who developed seizures after drinking seven liters of NutraSweet-containing beverages per day.

In the second case, a woman 27 years old had a grand mal seizure after drinking 4 to 5 glasses of Crystal Light™ containing NutraSweet. This patient experienced twitching, trembling, jerking, and hyperventilation.

The last case was a 36-year-old male professor who drank one liter of ice tea sweetened with NutraSweet every day and developed grand mal seizures after several days. He had no previous history of seizures nor of aspartame consumption."10


Peter Rouse
Novice
Novice
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Post by Peter Rouse » Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:34 am


Peter Rouse
Novice
Novice
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Post by Peter Rouse » Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:36 am


Peter Rouse
Novice
Novice
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Post by Peter Rouse » Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:38 am


Peter Rouse
Novice
Novice
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Post by Peter Rouse » Sat Apr 10, 2010 12:53 am

Ironman wrote:On the positive side I have seen a few, including some with humans that were properly done.
Can you provide these few studies that you mention were properly done on humans.

Peter Rouse
Novice
Novice
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Post by Peter Rouse » Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:22 am


Peter Rouse
Novice
Novice
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Location: Santa Monica, CA

Post by Peter Rouse » Sat Apr 10, 2010 11:35 am



Locked