Aspartame linked to Leukaemia and Lymphoma

How the hell am Im going to drink my coffee now? If I use sugar I might get diabetic, if I use aspartame I might have cancer! bah...

As far as sweeteners go, I pretty much don't use ANY sweeteners. Not sugar, not honey, no fructose, no stevia, no aspartame (it makes me pee something awful...if I ever needed a diuretic, there's nothing like some nutrasweet for me), no sucralose.

Why? Every damned one of them causes insulin secretion. Your brain thinks it's incoming sugar to be dealt with, and away go the pancreas and liver.

If you actually ATE some sugar, you at least give your system something to work with. If not, then it's sort of a headfake and you have this up and down boinging with the blood sugar as your body tries to figure out what happened to all the honey you just put in your mouth, then has to backpedal frantically when it doesn't show up.

They make me crabby and distracted whilst the insulin gets tucked away again. Had I known as a yoot that was why I felt tired and sleepy after the caffeine wore off in the soft drink, I wouldn't have had any.

If nothing else, it's a good reason not to have some. Unsweet tea is better. Except for the fluoride.

side note - Dogs don't have the ability to check up the insulin response. If a dog gets an artificial sweetener that tastes sweet to him/her, (apparently not all do with dogs) then they just...die, from hypoglycemia.

originally posted by: Substracto
How the hell am Im going to drink my coffee now? If I use sugar I might get diabetic, if I use aspartame I might have cancer! bah...

You sweeten coffee? Eww.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I knew I smelled something when the OP's article mentioned "naturalnews". So, I decided to keep reading the article and found they provided three linked studies.

The conclusion from the study about the nurses or whatever over 22 years they are talking about:

Although our findings preserve the possibility of a detrimental effect of a constituent of diet soda, such as aspartame, on select cancers, the inconsistent sex effects and occurrence of an apparent cancer risk in individuals who consume regular soda do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And in one of the other "studies" found in the OP's article, the scientists don't even say how MUCH aspartame was given to the rats. Just "up to 2,000 ppm". Okay, so was that all they were given to eat/drink or what?

Just because you don't like something or have a pre-existing bias doesn't make something true. It feels good to jump on the "down with this or that!" train, being an "insider" to the truth about something the masses are apparently asleep to. Well, it pays to actually look at the studies and the methodology.

Just because a study was conducted doesn't mean it has any validity or is taken by the scientific community at-large with any credibility.

Strange that you are not following your own advice

Some minor details you might want to incorporate into your thoughts that you have not come across and have not researched yourself.

here is a letter outlining the case history for the years that the FDA was doing its research into the approval of using aspartame archive.gao.gov...

I believe when Ronald Reagan got into office he sacked the FDA director who had rescinded the approval of aspartame and replaced him with a yes man called

Hayes[/ url]

this book also states many of the lab rats contained brain tumours. but the animals have a mechanism that deactivates the toxicity of formaldehyde so cannot be taken with any relationship to humans at all but that does not make it safe for humans as we can not turn formaldehyde into formic acid like animals.

the outline of the letter states that they could not prove aspartame does not cause brain tumours 12 of the 70 scientists originally asked of their thoughts by the independent enquiry were concerned with its use.
the final panel in 1981 advising the new commissioner that composed of 5 scientists 3 of which opposed the allowance of the use of aspartame but Hayes ignored them and reinstated the use of aspartame.

Initially aspartame was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974; however, problems with Searle's safety testing program, including testing of aspartame, were discovered subsequently. The approval was rescinded the following year, but after outside reviews of the problematic tests and additional testing, final approval was granted in 1981

this is what it says on wiki,

notice they only talk about it's relationship in blood and not the brain which the scientist I link to below states is the real worry and also notice it states it is safe in a wide range of populations well again stating it is safe is a lie as People that suffer from PKU have to be notified of its inclusion in products as it can kill them in the worst case scenario, also high phenylalanine ingestion can cause mental retardation in under 5 year olds and they do not need to have PKU
en.wikipedia.org...

Aspartame is rapidly hydrolyzed in the small intestines. Even with ingestion of very high doses of aspartame (over 200 mg/kg), no aspartame is found in the blood due to the rapid breakdown.[8] These metabolites have been studied in a wide range of populations including infants, children, adolescents, and healthy adults. In healthy adults and children, even enormous doses of aspartame do not lead to plasma levels of metabolites that are a concern for safety.

Yet our doctor who has studied it has proved this statement incorrect as when there is ethanol in the blood (our bacteria in our stomachs release around a half pint a day of ethanol)

"The literature will also point to the fact that small amounts of methyl alcohol that are consumed, that are breathed in or consumed during the day, will all be processed by your liver. This is not true," Dr. Monte says.

and here the comparison between a natural product in fruit against the synthetic aspartame two completely different products due to the valence of the atoms basically it vibrates at a different rate

In some fruit juices, higher concentrations of methanol can be found than the amount produced from aspartame in beverages

and one other point is that once aspartame gets into your system it breaks down and produces formaldehyde this guy has studied it for 30 years
this is why all the diet drinks that have aspartame in it have to have a warning on the can/packet saying it contains PKU you do not want formaldehyde in you as It Is so toxic to your body it can cause leukaemia by binding your DNA together this is how the vaccines are giving children leukaemia.

originally posted by: jinni73

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I knew I smelled something when the OP's article mentioned "naturalnews". So, I decided to keep reading the article and found they provided three linked studies.

The conclusion from the study about the nurses or whatever over 22 years they are talking about:

Although our findings preserve the possibility of a detrimental effect of a constituent of diet soda, such as aspartame, on select cancers, the inconsistent sex effects and occurrence of an apparent cancer risk in individuals who consume regular soda do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

And in one of the other "studies" found in the OP's article, the scientists don't even say how MUCH aspartame was given to the rats. Just "up to 2,000 ppm". Okay, so was that all they were given to eat/drink or what?

Just because you don't like something or have a pre-existing bias doesn't make something true. It feels good to jump on the "down with this or that!" train, being an "insider" to the truth about something the masses are apparently asleep to. Well, it pays to actually look at the studies and the methodology.

Just because a study was conducted doesn't mean it has any validity or is taken by the scientific community at-large with any credibility.

Strange that you are not following your own advice

Some minor details you might want to incorporate into your thoughts that you have not come across and have not researched yourself.

here is a letter outlining the case history for the years that the FDA was doing its research into the approval of using aspartame archive.gao.gov...

I believe when Ronald Reagan got into office he sacked the FDA director who had rescinded the approval of aspartame and replaced him with a yes man called

Hayes[/ url]

this book also states many of the lab rats contained brain tumours. but the animals have a mechanism that deactivates the toxicity of formaldehyde so cannot be taken with any relationship to humans at all but that does not make it safe for humans as we can not turn formaldehyde into formic acid like animals.

the outline of the letter states that they could not prove aspartame does not cause brain tumours 12 of the 70 scientists originally asked of their thoughts by the independent enquiry were concerned with its use.
the final panel in 1981 advising the new commissioner that composed of 5 scientists 3 of which opposed the allowance of the use of aspartame but Hayes ignored them and reinstated the use of aspartame.

Initially aspartame was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974; however, problems with Searle's safety testing program, including testing of aspartame, were discovered subsequently. The approval was rescinded the following year, but after outside reviews of the problematic tests and additional testing, final approval was granted in 1981

this is what it says on wiki,

notice they only talk about it's relationship in blood and not the brain which the scientist I link to below states is the real worry and also notice it states it is safe in a wide range of populations well again stating it is safe is a lie as People that suffer from PKU have to be notified of its inclusion in products as it can kill them in the worst case scenario, also high phenylalanine ingestion can cause mental retardation in under 5 year olds and they do not need to have PKU
en.wikipedia.org...

Aspartame is rapidly hydrolyzed in the small intestines. Even with ingestion of very high doses of aspartame (over 200 mg/kg), no aspartame is found in the blood due to the rapid breakdown.[8] These metabolites have been studied in a wide range of populations including infants, children, adolescents, and healthy adults. In healthy adults and children, even enormous doses of aspartame do not lead to plasma levels of metabolites that are a concern for safety.

Yet our doctor who has studied it has proved this statement incorrect as when there is ethanol in the blood (our bacteria in our stomachs release around a half pint a day of ethanol)

"The literature will also point to the fact that small amounts of methyl alcohol that are consumed, that are breathed in or consumed during the day, will all be processed by your liver. This is not true," Dr. Monte says.

and here the comparison between a natural product in fruit against the synthetic aspartame two completely different products due to the valence of the atoms basically it vibrates at a different rate

In some fruit juices, higher concentrations of methanol can be found than the amount produced from aspartame in beverages

and one other point is that once aspartame gets into your system it breaks down and produces formaldehyde this guy has studied it for 30 years
this is why all the diet drinks that have aspartame in it have to have a warning on the can/packet saying it contains PKU you do not want formaldehyde in you as It Is so toxic to your body it can cause leukaemia by binding your DNA together this is how the vaccines are giving children leukaemia.

PKU is a disease, not an ingredient so aspartame does not contain phenylketonuria.
I'm guessing you mean it contains phenylanaline?
Phenylanaline isn't formaldehyde nor does it produce it or even metabolise into it.
Pheneylanaline is an essential amino-acid and people with PKU cannot metabolise phenylanaline which is why it is mentioned on the label.

Can you cite a robust link between vaccines and childhood leukaemia please?

Formaldehyde, as well as being found in many foods, is also produced naturally in the body and dealt with accordingly.
Can you tell me how the valencies of an atom vary in the exactly the same molecule because it's natural or man-made please as that's what you've posted?
And you mentioned vibrations...
It would be very interesting to hear how this happens as pretty basic physical chemistry says it can't.
Please go into as much depth as possible.

Talking out of your bumper again?