18 Sep 14
1 edit
I think this is a surprising discovery. I would have thought artificial sweaters that replace sugar would surely reduce the risk of diabetes because, after all, they contain no sugar! But apparently, according to this study, they have the opposite effect because of the way they interact with microbes in our gut:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-09-artificial-sweeteners-linked-abnormal-glucose.html
I sometimes have been drinking sugar-free soft drinks thinking they couldn't possibly increase my risk of developing the dreaded diabetes. Now I think I should quite drinking them!
18 Sep 14
Originally posted by humyImagine that. Next they are going to tell us pesticides are giving us cancer. Who would have thought new science had unintended consequences?
I think this is a surprising discovery. I would have thought artificial sweaters that replace sugar would surely reduce the risk of diabetes because, after all, they contain no sugar! But apparently, according to this study, they have the opposite effect because of the way they interact with microbes in our gut:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-09-artifici ...[text shortened]... y increase my risk of developing the dreaded diabetes. Now I think I should quite drinking them!
I have been avoiding artificial sweeteners for years. The FDA is a joke.
18 Sep 14
5 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou couldn't have possibly rationally knew that artificial sweaters increase the risk of diabetes. All rational minds would find this discovery slightly surprising and thus, no, this isn't the FDA's fault.
Imagine that. Next they are going to tell us pesticides are giving us cancer. Who would have thought new science had unintended consequences?
I have been avoiding artificial sweeteners for years. The FDA is a joke.
If it wasn't for science, we wouldn't have, for example, antibiotics, which has already saved millions of lives -including myself I should add and not just once but twice!
Pesticides have saved millions of lives by reducing the population of the malaria spreading mosquito and also by reducing crop loss through pests and thus preventing many famines. Overall, far more lives have been saved by insecticides than lost by them.
18 Sep 14
Originally posted by humyWhen we were arguing about GM crops I was advocating Randomised Controlled Trials (R.C.T.s) for novel foods. While researching a point, I wanted to check that none had been done, I found out that they had done a tiny R.C.T. on aspartame. It was a phase I trial and checked for acute effects, as I remember it had 10 people in it, and they declared aspartame safe on the basis of the results of that trial. Had they done a phase III trial with a decent follow up with large numbers of volunteers they could have picked this up earlier. So I'd argue the FDA's food vetting procedures are at fault.
You couldn't have possibly rationally knew that artificial sweaters increase the risk of diabetes. All rational minds would find this discovery slightly surprising and thus, no, this isn't the FDA's fault.
If it wasn't for science, we wouldn't have, for example, antibiotics, which has already saved millions of lives -including myself I should add and not just ...[text shortened]... venting many famines. Overall, far more lives have been saved by insecticides than lost by them.
18 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOK, point taken. But Metal Brain presumably didn't know that thus that wasn't his likely premise for is criticism of the FDA and he would have said they were at fault even if they had done a phase III trial with a decent follow up with large numbers of volunteers!
When we were arguing about GM crops I was advocating Randomised Controlled Trials (R.C.T.s) for novel foods. While researching a point, I wanted to check that none had been done, I found out that they had done a tiny R.C.T. on aspartame. It was a phase I trial and checked for acute effects, as I remember it had 10 people in it, and they declared aspart ...[text shortened]... could have picked this up earlier. So I'd argue the FDA's food vetting procedures are at fault.
That's because he is generally anti-science (note his moronic comment of "Who would have thought new science had unintended consequences?" -as if we never consider "unintended consequences"! and why cannot, say, organic farming also have "unintended consequences"? and would "unintended consequences" be a reason to, say, not make antibiotics that save millions of lives? -that is why that is such a stupid comment! ) and has an irrational paranoia about any man made chemical so he will simply refuse to believe that any such man made chemical could be safe even if rigorous scientific method was used to check that it was indeed safe.
18 Sep 14
Originally posted by humyI agree that MetalBrain seems to have a liking for conspiracy theories. Unintended consequences are a problem, but that's not a problem with the science so much as with its application in industry, where the chase for profits tend to make them ignore potential downsides.
OK, point taken. But Metal Brain presumably didn't know that thus that wasn't his likely premise for is criticism of the FDA and he would have said they were at fault even if they had done a phase III trial with a decent follow up with large numbers of volunteers!
That's because he is generally anti-science (note his moronic comment of "Who would have though ...[text shortened]... ical could be safe even if rigorous scientific method was used to check that it was indeed safe.
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by humyThere you go again making false statements about me. You are an exceedingly ignorant man who sooner resorts to slander than admit the truth.
OK, point taken. But Metal Brain presumably didn't know that thus that wasn't his likely premise for is criticism of the FDA and he would have said they were at fault even if they had done a phase III trial with a decent follow up with large numbers of volunteers!
That's because he is generally anti-science (note his moronic comment of "Who would have though ...[text shortened]... ical could be safe even if rigorous scientific method was used to check that it was indeed safe.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
I avoid artificial sweeteners because of Donald Rumsfeld and Monsanto. As for my conspiratorial thinking, I simply know the facts that you and deepthroat choose to ignore.
For the record, I am very open to science and the benefits that come with it. I am not open to obvious corruption. You need to open your eyes.
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI embrace science. You need to stop listening to humy's slander. My comment about science was a jab at humy because he embraces science so much he turns a blind eye to the corruption. So do you.
I agree that MetalBrain seems to have a liking for conspiracy theories. Unintended consequences are a problem, but that's not a problem with the science so much as with its application in industry, where the chase for profits tend to make them ignore potential downsides.
You don't need to do a lot of research to see Monsanto is a corrupt corporation that stops at nothing to make a profit, even when it kills people and harms the environment.
19 Sep 14
9 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brainyou had just said:
I embrace science. You need to stop listening to humy's slander. My comment about science was a jab at humy because he embraces science so much he turns a blind eye to the corruption. So do you.
You don't need to do a lot of research to see Monsanto is a corrupt corporation that stops at nothing to make a profit, even when it kills people and harms the environment.
Who would have thought new SCIENCE had unintended consequences? (my emphasis)
Oh right! So you are saying SCIENCE is to blame here; and no mention of Monsanto or company corruption in that above quote.
Perhaps I misread that? I read it a few more times over to check....
Nope! -sorry! I think you definitely did simply say “SCIENCE” is to blame!
(have absolutely no idea whatsoever what possible relevance you think how 'new' science is here so I ignored the word 'new' you said here. Can't 'old' science have "unintended consequences"? There is just so many things wrong with your quote! )
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by humy
you had just said:
Who would have thought new [b]SCIENCEhad unintended consequences? (my emphasis)
Oh right! So you are saying SCIENCE is to blame here; and no mention of Monsanto or company corruption in that above quote.
Perhaps I misread that? I read it a few more times over to check....
Nope! -sorry! I think you definite ...[text shortened]... d' science have "unintended consequences"? There is just so many things wrong with your quote! )[/b]Don't you get sarcasm? 🙄
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainDo I ignore corruption?
I embrace science. You need to stop listening to humy's slander. My comment about science was a jab at humy because he embraces science so much he turns a blind eye to the corruption. So do you.
You don't need to do a lot of research to see Monsanto is a corrupt corporation that stops at nothing to make a profit, even when it kills people and harms the environment.
Also you do have a liking for conspiracy theories. You should realise that they are all put about by the government to stop you finding out what's really going on.
19 Sep 14
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI wouldn't worry about it. Also, the study didn't include stevia, which at any rate can't really be called an "artificial" sweetener.
I think this is a surprising discovery. I would have thought artificial sweaters that replace sugar would surely reduce the risk of diabetes because, after all, they contain no sugar! But apparently, according to this study, they have the opposite effect because of the way they interact with microbes in our gut:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-09-artifici ...[text shortened]... y increase my risk of developing the dreaded diabetes. Now I think I should quite drinking them!
19 Sep 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtDo you?
Do I ignore corruption?
Also you do have a liking for conspiracy theories. You should realise that they are all put about by the government to stop you finding out what's really going on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
20 Sep 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainI'm British old boy, so what Donald Rumsfeld gets up to is a problem for you not me. I avoid additives such as aspartame for the same reasons you do. This doesn't mean that every conspiracy theory is true. I wasn't entirely joking when I said conspiracy theories are put about by the government to stop you finding out what's really going on. You need to check who benefits from the conspiracy theory before believing it, c.f. all that nonsense about flying saucers, the DoD admitted it was to cover up US stealth plane projects. Most of the true evils in the world are perpetrated in broad daylight.
Do you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robbie-gennet/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581.html
20 Sep 14
Originally posted by DeepThought"You need to check who benefits from the conspiracy theory before believing it"
I'm British old boy, so what Donald Rumsfeld gets up to is a problem for you not me. I avoid additives such as aspartame for the same reasons you do. This doesn't mean that every conspiracy theory is true. I wasn't entirely joking when I said conspiracy theories are put about by the government to stop you finding out what's really going on. You need ...[text shortened]... S stealth plane projects. Most of the true evils in the world are perpetrated in broad daylight.
I'm pretty sure I know who benefits if I believe it. I don't waste my time with UFO crap and moonlanding denial nonsense. I have standards.
If you have aspartame in the UK it isn't just an American problem old boy.