PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues New Study of Splenda Reveals Shocking Information About Potential Harmful Effects


KILLER_CLOWN
10-09-2012, 11:11 AM
James Turner, the chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health, has expressed shock and outrage after reading a new report from scientists outlining the dangers of the artificial sweetener Splenda (sucralose).

In animals examined for the study, Splenda reduced the amount of good bacteria in the intestines by 50 percent, increased the pH level in the intestines, contributed to increases in body weight and affected P-glycoprotein (P-gp) levels in such a way that crucial health-related drugs could be rejected.

The P-gp effect could result in medications used in chemotherapy, AIDS treatment and treatments for heart conditions being shunted back into the intestines, rather than being absorbed by the body.

According to Turner, "The report makes it clear that the artificial sweetener Splenda and its key component sucralose pose a threat to the people who consume the product. Hundreds of consumers have complained to us about side effects from using Splenda and this study ... confirms that the chemicals in the little yellow package should carry a big red warning label."

Dr. Mercola's Comments:



It’s very important to realize that Splenda (sucralose) is actually NOT sugar, despite its marketing slogan “Made from sugar, so it tastes like sugar”. Rather it’s a chlorinated artificial sweetener in line with aspartame and saccharin, and with detrimental health effects to match.

Splenda was approved by the FDA in 1998 as a tabletop sweetener and for use in products such as baked goods, nonalcoholic beverages, chewing gum, frozen dairy desserts, fruit juices, and gelatins. Sucralose is also permitted as a general-purpose sweetener for all processed foods.

The approval was given after the FDA supposedly reviewed more than 110 animal and human safety studies, but as you’ll soon find out, out of these 110 studies, only two were human studies, and the longest one was conducted for four days!

There’s overwhelming evidence that consuming artificial sweeteners will likely wreak havoc on your body. Previous news has centered mainly around artificial sweeteners’ ability to impair your appetite regulation and leading to weight gain.

For example, it’s been discovered that diet soda increases your risk of metabolic syndrome and, ultimately, heart disease.

However, the study mentioned above, published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, found even further disturbing news besides weight gain. Splenda:

reduces the amount of good bacteria in your intestines by 50 percent
increases the pH level in your intestines, and
affects a glycoprotein in your body that can have crucial health effects, particularly if you’re on certain medications

They also found unmistakable evidence that Splenda is absorbed by fat, contrary to previous claims.

It’s truly disturbing that Splenda can destroy up to 50 percent of your healthy intestinal bacteria, as these bacteria help maintain your body's overall balance of friendly versus unfriendly micro-organisms, and support your general health. Many people are already deficient in healthy bacteria due to choosing highly processed foods. This is why a high quality probiotic is one of the very few supplements I highly recommend for nearly everyone.

The Diet Fallacy

The belief that consuming artificially sweetened foods and drinks will help you to lose or maintain weight is a carefully orchestrated deception. So if you are still opting for diet choices for this reason, please understand that you have been sorely misled.

In reality, these diet foods and drinks can cause serious distortions in your biochemistry and ruin your body's ability to control calories. As a matter of fact, it’s been shown that diet soft drinks can double your risk of obesity!

Nearly a decade ago, studies were already revealing that artificial sweeteners can:

Stimulate your appetite
Increase carbohydrate cravings
Stimulate fat storage and weight gain

Unfortunately, most public health agencies and nutritionists in the United States still recommend these toxic artificial sweeteners as an acceptable alternative to sugar.

Now, I am definitely not a fan of sugar, but if I had to choose between sugar and any artificial sweetener, I would choose sugar, hands down, without question. I strongly believe artificial sweeteners are even more dangerous to your health than an excess of sugar.

The Health Dangers of Splenda

According to James Turner, the chairman of the national consumer education group Citizens for Health:

"This report followed accepted policies and procedures and the results make clear the potential for disturbing side effects from the ingestion of Splenda.

It is like putting a pesticide in your body. And this is at levels of intake erroneously approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

A person eating two slices of cake and drinking two cups of coffee containing Splenda would ingest enough sucralose to affect the P-glycoprotein, while consuming just seven little Splenda packages reduces good bacteria."

The web site www.truthaboutsplenda.com lists a variety of consumer complaints from Splenda consumption, such as:

Gastrointestinal problems
Migraines
Seizures
Dizziness
Blurred vision
Allergic reactions
Blood sugar increases
Weight gain

My site also contains a long list of personal testimonials from readers who have suffered side effects from Splenda. In fact, we have more people on our site that have reported adverse reactions to Splenda than were formally studied in the research submitted for FDA approval!

The symptoms are so numerous I can’t include them all here, but the following are common symptoms, usually noticed within a 24-hour period following consumption of Splenda products:

Skin -- Redness, itching, swelling, blistering, weeping, crusting, rash, eruptions, or hives (itchy bumps or welts). These are the most common allergic symptoms that people have.
Lungs -- Wheezing, tightness, cough, or shortness of breath.
Head -- Swelling of the face, eyelids, lips, tongue, or throat; headaches and migraines (severe headaches).
Nose -- Stuffy nose, runny nose (clear, thin discharge), sneezing.
Eyes -- Red (bloodshot), itchy, swollen, or watery.
Stomach -- Bloating, gas, pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, or bloody diarrhea.
Heart -- Palpitations or fluttering.
Joints -- Joint pains or aches.
Neurological -- Anxiety, dizziness, spaced-out sensation, depression.

Beware – You Could be Consuming Splenda Without Your Knowledge

You also need to be aware of the fact that although the bulk of Splenda is sold to processed food manufacturers and soft drink bottlers, it could turn up in your medicine as well, as nearly 10 percent of all sucralose is sold to drug companies.

Many times sucralose (Splenda) will not be listed in the drug information, so there simply is no way you would know you are consuming a potentially dangerous artificial sweetener. However, if you experience any of the symptoms above even though you’re avoiding Splenda and other artificial sweeteners, then it may be worth investigating the ingredients of any medications you’re taking as well.

Splenda Has NEVER Been Proven Safe for Human Consumption

As of 2006, only six human trials have been published on Splenda. Of these six trials, only two of the trials were completed and published before the FDA approved sucralose for human consumption, and the two published trials had a grand total of 36 total human subjects.

36 people sure doesn't sound like many, but wait, it gets worse: only 23 total were actually given sucralose for testing, and here is the real kicker -- The longest trial at this time had lasted only four days, and looked at sucralose in relation to tooth decay, not human tolerance.

Even more shocking, the absorption of Splenda into the human body was studied on a grand total of six men! Based on that one human study, the FDA allowed the findings to be generalized as being representative of the entire human population. Including women, children, the elderly, and those with any chronic illness -- none of whom were ever examined.

The FDA claims they reviewed over 100 studies conducted on Splenda. What they don't tell you is that most of the studies were on animals. And, those animal studies reveal plenty of problems, such as:

Decreased red blood cells -- sign of anemia -- at levels above 1,500 mg/kg/day
Increased male infertility by interfering with sperm production and vitality, as well as brain lesions at higher doses
Enlarged and calcified kidneys (McNeil stated this is often seen with poorly absorbed substances and was of no toxicological significance. The FDA Final Rule agreed that these are findings that are common in aged female rats and are not significant.)
Spontaneous abortions in nearly half the rabbit population given sucralose, compared to zero aborted pregnancies in the control group
A 23 percent death rate in rabbits, compared to a 6 percent death rate in the control group

Chemically, Splenda is More Similar to DDT Than Sugar

Yes. Splenda bears more chemical similarity to DDT than it does to sugar.

Sucralose is in fact a synthetic chemical that was originally cooked up in a laboratory. It does start off as a sugar molecule. Then, in a five-step patented process of making sucralose, three chlorine molecules are added to a sucrose (sugar) molecule. The chemical process to make sucralose alters the chemical composition of the sugar so much that it is somehow converted to a fructo-galactose molecule.

This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature, and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it. As a result of this "unique" biochemical make-up, McNeil Nutritionals makes its claim that Splenda is not digested or metabolized by the body, hence it has zero calories.

But, if you look at the research (which is primarily extrapolated form animal studies) you will see that in fact an average of 15 percent of sucralose IS absorbed into your digestive system, and according to this latest study, it is also absorbed into your fat cells.

Unfortunately, if you are healthy and your digestive system works well, you may be at HIGHER risk for breaking down this product in your stomach and intestines!

Your Healthiest Alternatives

If you have a craving for sweets, rather than trying to find "healthier" ways to continue indulging in them, it is in your best interest to learn ways to relieve your cravings.

The obvious one would be to stop eating any of the products to begin with. But sweets are powerfully addictive – sugar has even been shown to be more addictive than cocaine. Stevia is a preferable natural substitute, which can be used in making most dishes and drinks.

However, complete avoidance of sweets is often necessary to break your addictive cycle, as your hormones insulin and leptin likely play an important role in your cravings.

If you are unable to achieve abstinence from sweets, your emotional connection to cravings might be an important factor for you. One of the most profound methods I know of for diminishing the effects of food cravings is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT). EFT is the psychological acupressure technique routinely used in my practice to help people reduce their cravings.

There is enough evidence showing the dangers of consuming artificial sweeteners to fill an entire book -- which is exactly why I wrote Sweet Deception. If you or your loved ones drink diet beverages or eat diet foods, this book will explain how you've been deceived about the truth behind artificial sweeteners like aspartame and sucralose -- for greed, for profits ... and at the expense of your own health.

Sources and References

http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=150785
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?orig_db=PubMed&db=pubmed&cmd=Search&TransSchema=title&term=Journal%20of%20toxicology%20and%20environmental%20health.%20Part%20A%5BJour%5D%20AND%202008%5Bp dat%5D%20AND%20splenda

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/10/new-study-of-splenda-reveals-shocking-information-about-potential-harmful-effects.aspx

Saul Good
10-09-2012, 11:28 AM
No way this one gets debunked.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-09-2012, 11:29 AM
No way this one gets debunked.

Not from Mercola, feel free though.

ClevelandBronco
10-09-2012, 11:41 AM
It would be very embarrassing to die of nothing at all.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-09-2012, 11:45 AM
It would be very embarrassing to die of nothing at all.

LMAO That's awesome!

NewChief
10-09-2012, 11:49 AM
Isn't there some weirdo Splenda white knight doctor that shows up every time Splenda's bad name is dragged through the mud? Or maybe it's aspartame?

KILLER_CLOWN
10-09-2012, 11:50 AM
Isn't there some weirdo Splenda white knight doctor that shows up every time Splenda's bad name is dragged through the mud? Or maybe it's aspartame?

Not sure who it would be, but Aspartame has always been the worst thought of artificial sweetener. There really hasn't been much of a defense of it, but Splenda was thought to be somewhat safe.

bevischief
10-09-2012, 11:54 AM
Wow!

Chiefnj2
10-09-2012, 11:58 AM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18800291

It's been known for years that it wreaks havoc on the digestive system.

Aspengc8
10-09-2012, 11:59 AM
Curious how something with literally no caloric value can contribute to weight gain or illicit fat storage.

Saul Good
10-09-2012, 12:01 PM
Isn't there some weirdo Splenda white knight doctor that shows up every time Splenda's bad name is dragged through the mud? Or maybe it's aspartame?

That's aspartame.

qabbaan
10-09-2012, 12:01 PM
Maybe this fatass country should try to live without pouring sugar, butter, salt or bacon on everything - if we are concerned about it, which people ingesting copious amounts of Splenda are not

Fish
10-09-2012, 12:04 PM
Curious how something with literally no caloric value can contribute to weight gain or illicit fat storage.

It's a bit of a shady description from both sides, but this is what they mean..

This type of sugar molecule does not occur in nature, and therefore your body does not possess the ability to properly metabolize it. As a result of this "unique" biochemical make-up, McNeil Nutritionals makes its claim that Splenda is not digested or metabolized by the body, hence it has zero calories.

But, if you look at the research (which is primarily extrapolated form animal studies) you will see that in fact an average of 15 percent of sucralose IS absorbed into your digestive system, and according to this latest study, it is also absorbed into your fat cells.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-09-2012, 12:13 PM
I used Aspartame back in the early 2000's and initially lost around 30lbs, but after continued use I can say I craved carbs like no other time in my life and henceforth gained about 75 lbs before coming to the conclusion that my diet must exclude anything unnatural(genetically modified) and losing 90 lbs. Also of note many organic products contain Canola oil which is horrible for you and will cause heart problems 100% guaranteed. You have to read the labels and if you're avoiding Splenda you must also look on the label for Sucralose which sounds like Sucrose but is indeed Splenda.

jiveturkey
10-09-2012, 12:14 PM
Curious how something with literally no caloric value can contribute to weight gain or illicit fat storage.

Insulin is the hormone that tells your body to store fat. I'm guessing that Splenda produces a small increase in insulin production (but I didn't actually read the entire article).

KILLER_CLOWN
10-09-2012, 12:15 PM
Maybe this fatass country should try to live without pouring sugar, butter, salt or bacon on everything - if we are concerned about it, which people ingesting copious amounts of Splenda are not

Butter and Salt are fine and have been unfairly demonized.

Aspengc8
10-09-2012, 12:36 PM
Insulin is the hormone that tells your body to store fat. I'm guessing that Splenda produces a small increase in insulin production (but I didn't actually read the entire article).

Everything you eat that has an energy value releases insulin. The problem is certain foods induce a higher insulin response than others.. and insulin is a storage hormone after all.

My issue with these claims is that people have downed 18oz of Coke Zero, and took a blood sugar monitor (glucometer), and there was no rise.

Interesting article nonetheless.

blaise
10-09-2012, 01:12 PM
Splenda tastes like poison.

NewChief
10-09-2012, 01:39 PM
Splenda tastes like poison.

This. I freaking hate all artificial sweeteners. Just horrible.

I know it's probably anti-progress or Luddite, but I have a healthy suspicions of just about every "synthetic" replacement for something natural.

Saul Good
10-09-2012, 02:40 PM
This. I freaking hate all artificial sweeteners. Just horrible.

I know it's probably anti-progress or Luddite, but I have a healthy suspicions of just about every "synthetic" replacement for something natural.

Admit it. You're talking about store-bought titties, aren't you?

fan4ever
10-09-2012, 03:12 PM
Didn't saccharin (Sweet and Low) have cancer claims swirling around it the whole time it was the only diet sweetner? Now it's considered safe after decades of scrutiny.

alnorth
10-09-2012, 04:23 PM
This is one of those times where I strongly doubt that the OP is legit, but they are basically correct for a different reason (you swap out sugar for splenda, you are still used to and craving sugar, so very likely to cheat and fail whatever diet you try).

So, the ends justify the means. Feel free to toss anything you want at Splenda, true or not, we probably shouldn't be using it.

Saul Good
10-09-2012, 05:34 PM
This is one of those times where I strongly doubt that the OP is legit, but they are basically correct for a different reason (you swap out sugar for splenda, you are still used to and craving sugar, so very likely to cheat and fail whatever diet you try).

So, the ends justify the means. Feel free to toss anything you want at Splenda, true or not, we probably shouldn't be using it.

Isn't this true of anything sweet?

HonestChieffan
10-09-2012, 07:56 PM
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f267/jd19welder/water_zps40e01251.jpg

tiptap
10-09-2012, 08:27 PM
Just for the record, as a chemist, I would restrict artificial sugars, and sugar itself from it monumental place in our diet regimen. It would be nice if we could do it easily but there is a high degree of innate dependence on these chemicals.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-09-2012, 09:46 PM
This is one of those times where I strongly doubt that the OP is legit, but they are basically correct for a different reason (you swap out sugar for splenda, you are still used to and craving sugar, so very likely to cheat and fail whatever diet you try).

So, the ends justify the means. Feel free to toss anything you want at Splenda, true or not, we probably shouldn't be using it.

Dr. Mercola is very legit, this isn't rainbows and unicorns.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-09-2012, 09:47 PM
Didn't saccharin (Sweet and Low) have cancer claims swirling around it the whole time it was the only diet sweetner? Now it's considered safe after decades of scrutiny.

Just because the FDA declares something safe doesn't make it so.

Iowanian
10-09-2012, 10:29 PM
With all of these scary, deadly foods polluting our system, you should stay safe and stop eating all together.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-09-2012, 10:31 PM
With all of these scary, deadly foods polluting our system, you should stay safe and stop eating all together.

Polluting our system? maybe yours but I don't eat this shit.

Iowanian
10-09-2012, 10:32 PM
I put food into the system Today.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-09-2012, 11:02 PM
I put food into the system Today.

This kind?

Scientists Create GM Corn Which Prevents Human Conception

Robin McKie
Science Editor
The Observer - London
September 9, 2001

Scientists have created the ultimate GM crop: contraceptive corn. Waiving fields of maize may one day save the world from overpopulation.

The pregnancy prevention plants are the handiwork of the San Diego biotechnology company Epicyte, where researchers have discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm.

By isolating the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies, and by putting them in corn plants, the company has created tiny horticultural factories that make contraceptives.

"We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies," said Epicyte president Mitch Hein.

"We have also created corn plants that make antibodies against the herpes virus, so we should be able to make a plant-based jelly that not only prevents pregnancy but also blocks the spread of sexual disease."

Contraceptive corn is based on research on the rare condition, immune infertility, in which a woman makes antibodies that attack sperm.

"Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surface receptors on the sperm," said Hein. "They latch on and make each sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakes about as if it was doing the lambada."

Normally, biologists use bacteria to grow human proteins. However, Epicyte decided to use corn because plants have cellular structures that are much more like those of humans, making them easier to manipulate.

The company, which says it will not grow the maize near other crops, says it plans to launch clinical trials of the corn in a few months.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. **

http://www.biotech-info.net/conception.html

Iowanian
10-10-2012, 10:20 AM
Soybeans, but I wish your parents had eaten significantly more of this contraception corn.

boogblaster
10-10-2012, 10:26 AM
well isnt this news splended ...

KILLER_CLOWN
10-10-2012, 11:13 AM
Soybeans, but I wish your parents had eaten significantly more of this contraception corn.

Soy reduces sperm count, no wonder.

Bump
10-10-2012, 11:17 AM
lol.

Saul Good
10-10-2012, 11:24 AM
lol, the lobbyists will just pay off the gov't to shut their mouth. Then the lobbyists for health care will come in and lobby it and have doctors on commercials telling everyone how great splenda is, to improve their occupancy rate.

Everybody's out to get us, yet we keep living longer and longer. What does cognitive dissonance feel like?

KILLER_CLOWN
10-10-2012, 11:27 AM
Everybody's out to get us, yet we keep living longer and longer. What does cognitive dissonance feel like?

Bullshit.

Bump
10-10-2012, 11:30 AM
Everybody's out to get us, yet we keep living longer and longer. What does cognitive dissonance feel like?

lol

Saul Good
10-10-2012, 11:36 AM
Bullshit.

You're actually disputing the statement that people are living longer? In 1900, life expectancy was 49. In 1950, it was 68. In 1980, it was 74. Today, it's 78.

Life expectancies are increasing by about a month per year. I have a five year old and a newborn. The younger's life expectancy is almost half a year longer just from an actuarial standpoint.

KILLER_CLOWN
10-10-2012, 11:37 AM
You're actually disputing the statement that people are living longer? In 1900, life expectancy was 49. In 1950, it was 68. In 1980, it was 74. Today, it's 78.

Pre flood people lived to be 900, so what is the point?

Also taking into account minus infant mortality back in the 1800's, people were living into their 80's.

Fish
10-10-2012, 11:46 AM
Pre flood people lived to be 900, so what is the point?

:facepalm:

Here we go.....

BWillie
10-10-2012, 11:58 AM
Pre flood people lived to be 900, so what is the point?

Also taking into account minus infant mortality back in the 1800's, people were living into their 80's.

900??? Are you f*cking with us? Got to be trolling.

fan4ever
10-10-2012, 12:09 PM
Just because the FDA declares something safe doesn't make it so.

Well sure, but I'd say after 40 years of examination, it probably is.

Saul Good
10-10-2012, 12:11 PM
Pre flood people lived to be 900, so what is the point?

Also taking into account minus infant mortality back in the 1800's, people were living into their 80's.

Ignoring the pre-flood statement, the life expectancy of a 65 year old in the year 1900 was 12 years. Today, it's almost 20.

Brock
10-10-2012, 12:14 PM
Pre flood people lived to be 900, so what is the point?
.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
10-10-2012, 12:33 PM
Everybody's out to get us, yet we keep living longer and longer. What does cognitive dissonance feel like?

We live longer and we've conquered most infectious diseases largely due to cleanliness. What we now need to work on is degenerative diseases which stem from lifestyle choices. This would be one.

If one wants to live longer in a healthier more comfortable fashion, instead of being on $1,600 worth of pharmaceuticals in our older age then what is wrong with that?

Inspector
10-10-2012, 12:35 PM
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f267/jd19welder/water_zps40e01251.jpg

I have a can of dehydrated water at home but haven't figured out what I need to add.

theelusiveeightrop
10-10-2012, 12:41 PM
Scary

Saul Good
10-10-2012, 12:45 PM
We live longer and we've conquered most infectious diseases largely due to cleanliness. What we now need to work on is degenerative diseases which stem from lifestyle choices. This would be one.

If one wants to live longer in a healthier more comfortable fashion, instead of being on $1,600 worth of pharmaceuticals in our older age then what is wrong with that?

Did cleanliness cure polio? Is Magic Johnson still alive because he uses Purell?

I don't care how you live. I do care about people who slander others with wild claims that people are poisoning us with our food, which is being covered up by bribes to our politicians who then allow pharmaceutical companies to poison us with harmful medication in exchange for more bribes.

Our food suppliers are trying to kill us, our pharmaceutical companies are trying to kill us, and our government is trying to kill us, yet we keep living longer and longer. If they're trying to kill us they're doing it wrong.

Brock
10-10-2012, 12:46 PM
From what I've seen, that extra 10-20 years of life ain't worth it.

Saul Good
10-10-2012, 12:48 PM
From what I've seen, that extra 10-20 years of life ain't worth it.

It's not the 20 years on the back end, it's the extra 20 before you break down that are great.

BucEyedPea
10-10-2012, 12:59 PM
Did cleanliness cute polio? Is Magic Johnson still alive because he uses Purell?
Purell had nothing to do with it. If you research it you'd find that cleanliness and improved standard of living was the largest factor in reduction of infectious diseases. We already covered the polio issue in the many vaccination threads.

So I'll pick a few other examples:

Horses would leave feces on the street. It would rain and melt into the puddles. Then the heat would dry turning it to dust which people then breathed in leading to lock-jaw.

Dr. Semmelweis discovered that childbed fever, often fatal and common mid-19th-century illness, could be drastically reduced by the use of hand washing with a disinfectant. Doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and felt this conflicted established scientific opinions of the time resulting in the rejection of Dr. Semmelweis by the medical community. Of course, it is accepted today and I've seen medical professionals make similar claims about cleanliness being the biggest reason for our improved health. We've pretty much conquered the infectious diseases—NOT the degenerative ones yet. That's the next puzzle to solve. New ones have appeared.

Horse and Buggy—> greater bacterial contamination—> more lock jaw
Automobiles —> less lock jaw
Chamber potties tossed onto streets—>greater bacterial contamination
Cleaner Water—> cholera gone
Modern plumbing—> less bacterial contamination
Modern refrigeration —> less food poisoning
doctor's washing hands—> safer medical practices for more lives saved

I don't care how you live. I do care about people who slander others with wild claims that people are poisoning us with our food, which is being covered up by bribes to our politicians who then allow pharmaceutical companies to poison us with harmful medication in exchange for more bribes.
It isn't slander if it is true. Overuse of antibiotics wasn't known about at one time. Yet, these were considered miracle drugs.

Vested interests do stand to lose a lot of money when someone comes forward about something not being healthy. We need people like that. Just look at both sides and make your own decision. For me, if there's too much contrary facts then I err on the side of caution. I let competition sort it out so I use stevia which is now catching on. See what a free society can do?

Saul Good
10-10-2012, 01:04 PM
[QUOTE=Saul Badguy;8998729]Did cleanliness cute polio? Is Magic Johnson still alive because he uses Purell?
Purell had nothing to do with it. If you research it you'd find that cleanliness and improved standard of living was the largest factor in reduction such diseases. We already covered the polio issue in the many vaccination threads.

So I'll pick a few other examples:

Horses would leave feces on the street. It would rain and melt into the puddles. Then the heat would dry it with the particles spreading into the air which people then breathed in leading to lock-jaw. Dr. Semmelweis discovered that childbed fever, often fatal and common mid-19th-century illness, could be drastically reduced by the use of hand washing with a disinfectant. Doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and felt this conflicted established scientific opinions of the time resulting in the rejection of Dr. Semmelweis by the medical community. Of course, it is accepted today and I've seen medical professionals make similar claims about cleanliness being the biggest reason for our improved health. We've pretty much conquered the infectious diseases—NOT the degenerative ones yet. That's the next puzzle to solve. New ones have appeared.


It isn't slander if it isn't true. Overuse of antibiotics wasn't known about at one time. Yet, these were considered miracle drugs.

Vested interests do stand to lose a lot of money when someone comes forward about something not being healthy. We need people like that. Just look at both sides and make your own decision. For me, if there's too much contrary facts then I err on the side of caution.

My data is from the last hundred years or so. Your examples are from the mid 1800s back to colonial times. While fascinating, they are completely irrelevant to the current, constant increase in life expectancy.

BucEyedPea
10-10-2012, 01:07 PM
From what I've seen, that extra 10-20 years of life ain't worth it.

Depends on how old you get I guess. You will feel better and operate better and even look younger.
I see people in their forties and fifties on too many pharmaceuticals which will increase the breakdown of their bodies even faster. Suckas!

Calcountry
10-10-2012, 02:17 PM
I have a can of dehydrated water at home but haven't figured out what I need to add.Hey, there is an Obama commercial in there somewhere?

LMAO

Brock
10-10-2012, 02:30 PM
Depends on how old you get I guess. You will feel better and operate better and even look younger.
I see people in their forties and fifties on too many pharmaceuticals which will increase the breakdown of their bodies even faster. Suckas!

If you're 85 or 90 years old, life sucks. Everything hurts, nothing works, it sucks.