Think you're doing a body good by drinking diet sodas, juices, sugarless gums or foods containing artificial sweetners? Well, think again, especially if you happen to be one of those diagnosed as being diabetic or pre-diabetic.
Have you checked into the side effects of Splenda? It was making my husband very ill; body aches, a general feeling of unwell, an enlarged liver and elevated enzymes. He quit using the Splenda and he was feeling better by the end of the first day. Within a month all symptoms were gone, his liver was back to normal and so were his enzyme levels.
Now, I just need to work on getting him to give up the other diet stuff in his life. His mom and her mom are/were diabetics. I know he's going to end up with it one day. That will be tough on him.
Without a doubt, it's still legal because it makes money. It's not a matter of whether lots of people become ill or die from complications involving this toxin, it's that it makes money, period.
Indeed, Splenda's ingredients are just as toxic as aspartame. Too many people get off one thinking they're "saving" their lives, only to hop on one just as deadly. Here's a great link for others on aspartame and other artificial sweetners and the toxicities and "non"science behind them: www.naturalnews.com, www.dorway.com (the gentleman who started this site died from complications from aspartame toxicity) and http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/.
Sorry - I did not realize that I needed to hit reply before writing a comment to you. So this makes number three:)
Also, I am sorry that the man who started this group died from the complications.
Many years ago I heard Pat Robertson on TV telling people that aspartame was too dangerous to use. But until there is a public outcry about it, it will probably stay around, unfortunately.
The story behind aspartame, its lethality, and how--with the aid of Donald Rumsfeld (you know, our former Secretary of Defense)--the product was allowed to enter American's food chain is really quite astonishing.
As long as the industry can successfully rebut scientific revelations, one at a time, the belief continues that "the product is safe because it has government approval."
What I would love to see is a joint effort that places undeniable, evidence-based research on a larger platform regarding the toxicity of the majority of these drugs: insulin, AZT, protease inhibitors, vaccines, interferon--just to name a few. We seem to lose the battle when we only concentrate on one front.
I know pulling something like that together would be difficult, but it's really one of the only ways, because as you said, they'll come with their crock of unfounded bull to attempt to rebut whatever information we reveal. And because the media in entangled in a long-term "marriage" with these corporate interests, anyone that shows Big Pharma for the fraud it is either gets suppressed or fraudently discredited.
Referring to the e-mail you sent earlier--you're right. My mother's story would be considered an anomaly. To be considered anything else would be to lend credence to the possibility that diabetes does NOT have to be a life-long sentence for Type 2'ers. And it may lead a whole lot of Type 1's to also question their status and the validity of their diagnosis. It could also lead more to question the role that vaccines might play in diagnosis of Type 1. Big Pharma can't have that happen, especially after what looks like a loss for them in the recent autism/vaccine causal link lawsuit that found in favor of the little girl from Georgia. And they're still fighting and denying that there is a correlation. And they use their puppets with acronyms at the ends of their names to lend legitimacy to their lies, fraud and deceit--your husband excluded from present company. ;-)
While I can't say with certainty that my mother's kidney failure was caused by the ingredients in the insulin or the aspartame, such toxic chemicals would have to be considered, if we were to conduct a double-blind clinical trial WITHOUT flaws or bias--which Big Pharma and government seem to have a hard time doing.
I'd also have to consider the other large doses of chemicals my mother has ingested over the years stemming from various prescriptions, foods and drinks, right down to the impure air we breathe. When you add together the entire spectrum, you've basically got a human body attempting to run off chemicals versus nutrients. Depending on how much is ingested and the person's immune response, genetic makeup and other environmental hazards, it's only likely that some people will suffer "dis"eases and "dis"orders due to the accumulation of poisons in the system.
Now, one of their acronym holders might try to argue that, but I wouldn't give their words much weight considering quite a bit of them that stand before us and outright lie don't do much independent research. They don't because their continued funding and paychecks require of them to turn a blind eye, not to mention the money made on kickbacks and investments.
Sadly, it is people like us who dig deep and ask the "real" questions that are seen as non-credible sources of information, radicals, conspiracy theorists or noisemakers because we didn't obtain the proper acronym. I stand on my oft-spoken quote: A degree does not an educated person make. ;-)
Alert! Hidden dangers. Those who feel aspartame or splenda (sucralose) are dangerous need to take inventory of their foodstuffs. My husband is a long-time diabetic. For quite some time, he has had as a 'staple'--small cans of 'lite' fruit cocktail. I'm sure when he incorporated this into his dietary plan, he DID read the label, which included 'light corn syrup.' Recently, he noted that the label on the can had changed a bit . . . so he brought out his magnifying glass. The label is touting the 100-calorie serving size as a convenience. "Need a 100-calorie pick-me-up . . . here's the product." But a careful examination of the label (and I mean magnifying glass required) showed that 'sucralose' is now a component of the mix. This may not be important for everyone . . . but for those who recognize inherent dangers in chemically-derived sweeteners, it may be helpful to understand that small changes in labels should merit investigation as to why such changes were necessary.
Comments
Aspartame,
why it is still legal, I cannot understand. It does so much harm to so many.
Have you checked into the side effects of Splenda? It was making my husband very ill; body aches, a general feeling of unwell, an enlarged liver and elevated enzymes. He quit using the Splenda and he was feeling better by the end of the first day. Within a month all symptoms were gone, his liver was back to normal and so were his enzyme levels.
Now, I just need to work on getting him to give up the other diet stuff in his life. His mom and her mom are/were diabetics. I know he's going to end up with it one day. That will be tough on him.
Sorry - I did not realize that I needed to hit reply before writing a comment to you. So this makes number three:)
Also, I am sorry that the man who started this group died from the complications.
Many years ago I heard Pat Robertson on TV telling people that aspartame was too dangerous to use. But until there is a public outcry about it, it will probably stay around, unfortunately.
A comprehensive look at the battle against aspartame can be found at http://mpwhi.com/main.htm
The story behind aspartame, its lethality, and how--with the aid of Donald Rumsfeld (you know, our former Secretary of Defense)--the product was allowed to enter American's food chain is really quite astonishing.
As long as the industry can successfully rebut scientific revelations, one at a time, the belief continues that "the product is safe because it has government approval."
What I would love to see is a joint effort that places undeniable, evidence-based research on a larger platform regarding the toxicity of the majority of these drugs: insulin, AZT, protease inhibitors, vaccines, interferon--just to name a few. We seem to lose the battle when we only concentrate on one front.
I know pulling something like that together would be difficult, but it's really one of the only ways, because as you said, they'll come with their crock of unfounded bull to attempt to rebut whatever information we reveal. And because the media in entangled in a long-term "marriage" with these corporate interests, anyone that shows Big Pharma for the fraud it is either gets suppressed or fraudently discredited.
Referring to the e-mail you sent earlier--you're right. My mother's story would be considered an anomaly. To be considered anything else would be to lend credence to the possibility that diabetes does NOT have to be a life-long sentence for Type 2'ers. And it may lead a whole lot of Type 1's to also question their status and the validity of their diagnosis. It could also lead more to question the role that vaccines might play in diagnosis of Type 1. Big Pharma can't have that happen, especially after what looks like a loss for them in the recent autism/vaccine causal link lawsuit that found in favor of the little girl from Georgia. And they're still fighting and denying that there is a correlation. And they use their puppets with acronyms at the ends of their names to lend legitimacy to their lies, fraud and deceit--your husband excluded from present company. ;-)
While I can't say with certainty that my mother's kidney failure was caused by the ingredients in the insulin or the aspartame, such toxic chemicals would have to be considered, if we were to conduct a double-blind clinical trial WITHOUT flaws or bias--which Big Pharma and government seem to have a hard time doing.
I'd also have to consider the other large doses of chemicals my mother has ingested over the years stemming from various prescriptions, foods and drinks, right down to the impure air we breathe. When you add together the entire spectrum, you've basically got a human body attempting to run off chemicals versus nutrients. Depending on how much is ingested and the person's immune response, genetic makeup and other environmental hazards, it's only likely that some people will suffer "dis"eases and "dis"orders due to the accumulation of poisons in the system.
Now, one of their acronym holders might try to argue that, but I wouldn't give their words much weight considering quite a bit of them that stand before us and outright lie don't do much independent research. They don't because their continued funding and paychecks require of them to turn a blind eye, not to mention the money made on kickbacks and investments.
Sadly, it is people like us who dig deep and ask the "real" questions that are seen as non-credible sources of information, radicals, conspiracy theorists or noisemakers because we didn't obtain the proper acronym. I stand on my oft-spoken quote: A degree does not an educated person make. ;-)