OT - Pick Your Poison - aspertame or splenda? - rant on quality of internet information

[Guest guest]

This may be too off topic, or otherwise.. unwanted.. If so, I'll

keep my rants about the allopathic/alternative(many flavors) " war " to

myself Is there another list that talks about stuff like this -

not just (or even so much) about what's good and bad, but how to try

(I know, tilting windmills..) to change the prevailing attitudes,

among doctors, researchers, politicians, and the public - on both

sides of the allopathic/alternative " war " ?

Because in my mind, it HAS to change. It is, but too slowly, and

I think it's not only causing misery to millions of people (and

medical ruin in some cases), it's also going to bleed our economy dry

(US economy, British economy, world economy, whatever) if it isn't

changed - between diabetes, hypoT, and things that could be treated

so well with small doses of cortisol.. I think some kind of " post-

graduate " education program is a good idea - along the lines of the

kind of " medical cruises " that Dr. Bernstein is having for doctors

who want to learn his methods. But to convince doctors to DO this,

you first need a bunch of patients that are doing real well, and

brave doctors willing to speak up about it (one chapter-opening quote

from Uffe Ravsknv's Cholesterol Myths comes to mind, " Only dead fish

swim downstream " )

Do people avoid both, or one more than the other? Dr. Bernstein

says in his book that he thinks both are relatively harmless (along

with Stevia, which is harmless as far as we know), and that he'd

probably use Splenda more than aspertame. What I have seen that on

Aspertame looks quite bad - I'm surprised we haven't seen more things

happening given how much of it is out there - or maybe we do and just

don't notice it because " well, everyone is like that.. " - comparing

our own health to *others* health (no good when dealing with

ubiquitous chemicals) Or is based on the " cancer assumption " that

small doses won't necessarily cause problems - I'd be interested to

know what would happen if aspertame was found to be an inter-uterine

endocrine disruptor. Then there is a *clear* danger not just to

people, but to their children as well potentially. And it will be

interesting to see what will happen (or has something/nothing already

happened) with the recent reports of cancer in lab animals, and the

invocation of the " Delaney ammendment " .. Then the question is - is

Splenda really any better?

But looking at the various anti-sweetener pages and am rather

annoyed by most of them. First of all, none of the ones I've seen

don't look all that professional, or organized in terms of the

studies they cite (with the exception of http://www.holisticmed.com/

aspartame/). But I haven't looked at too many site yet.

For a " field " (food toxicity) that is cluttered with books and

such that are (or are said to be) utter junk - bad science, bad

inferences, too-broad inferences, misleading with statistics - you'd

think that someone would put up a *really* professional site that

lists and rates articles it cites, indicates amount of peer review.

One site said that the Sugar Association of America (or whatever the

umbrella group is called) gets huge subsidies, and is rather fighting

against the artificial sweetener makers. *They* should certainly

know the benefit of making a site *look good* (I figured this out

doing lab reports in 8th-grade physics class - on a computer where

everyone else was doing it in pencil) And even the National

Association of Soft Drink Manufacturers (I forget the exact name)

went *against* aspertame - but one wonders, if they were so

concerned, why didn't they just NOT USE IT?

Secondly, the " 92 symptoms of aspertame poisoning " is thrown

around a lot. Heck, I bet you could find at least half that number

for almost anything - including aspirin, and probably even water!

And the data that is given does not give any indication of how bad

the symptom was, or how much aspertame was ingested. I have no idea

whether there is a dose-response curve here - there might, or there

might not as in the case of endocrine disruptors - and aspertame is

said to break down into a neurotransmitter than will stimulate the

brain, which makes it more like an endocrine disruptor.

The other thing that isn't ever put (and can't) is that yes, there

ARE thousands of complains to the FDA every year about aspertame.

But there are also probably more people who *don't* complain. I'm

sure there are people who are sensitive to aspertame in various ways,

but I'm also sure that there are people (perhaps more) who aren't -

there's probably some genetic variation at work here. No mention of

that.

People say that the methanol in aspertame causes problems because

its " protective factor " of ethanol is not there. I don't quite

understand *how* ethanol is protective of methanol (implying that the

best way to drink your Diet Coke might be with rum as well), but not

many of the cites seem to point out exactly how. And they say that

methanol (in small concentrations even) is not well broken down by

the body - it obviously IS broken down somehow (or stored) as people

aren't keeling over dead from their diet cokes (we hope not - perhaps

they are). But why is methanol not broken down well - and are there

perhaps people who differ in this regard? It probably has something

to do with liver enzymes, which can be measured? Needless to say, I

still don't like the idea of an alcohol in my Diet Ginger Ale, nor do

I understand why methanol is needed to make it sweet at all.

And if so many people are up-in-arms about aspertame (and

Splenda), then why isn't there a really big group calling for the FDA

to grant GRAS (generally recognized as safe) status to Stevia, as it

is in most of the rest of the world. As far as I know, the ONLY

reason the FDA didn't do this (other than commercial pressure from

the artificial sweetener industry and perhaps the sugar industry) was

ONE study that showed sterility in rats - a study that was later

retracted by it's own author! Although I wouldn't think the sugar

industry should be too worried - Stevia does have an aftertaste that

sugar doesn't. Or why don't people push for erithytol? It's the

only sugar alcohol other than xylitol that doesn't seem to raise my

BG much. Mannitol, which is what every uses, does, as the $#%@ GI

index is calculated using non-diabetics, not type 1's exclusively

(too many things would get a GI index of 85-100 I think if it were

calculated that way). True, it's only 70% as sweet as sugar I think,

but somehow tastes a bit sweeter (I don't think it dissolves quite as

well and leaves bigger crystals), and I think has baking properties

that are close to sugar.

<rant on state of the " medicine war " (good book title I think)>

Another thing that bothers me A LOT is when I see sites like

crystalsalt.co.nz (look at their " Common Salt " page). The page has

some things on it that I know are true, some things that are either

outright falsehoods or confusing scientific statements, such as this:

Sodium chloride is an aggressive substance [ " how exactly? " ], which

biochemically is perpetually seeking an equalizing counterpart so

that the body's ph can always remain neutral " - I thought that salt

(in a chemical sense) was neither acidic nor basic, and that salt

(again in the chemical sense) was a required part of a buffer

solution, along with the salt's acid. In this sense, perhaps it is

" seeking an equalizing counterpart " in that it is neutralizing the H+

of OH- ions that are added to the buffer.

Or probably psudo-scientific gibberish or misleading statements, like

" The result of consuming common table salt is the formation of overly

acidic oedema, or excess fluid in the body tissue, which is also the

cause of cellulite " How can salt (a neutral substance) make the body

acidic or basic - at least by direct effect? And what exactly is

" acidic oedema " ? Myxoedema? (the retention of water made me think

that) Does this mean that salt causes hypoT (wouldn't be surprised

if something in common salt does, but probably not the NaCl

portion). Then there's the statement that, " The body now tries to

isolate the over dose of salt. In this process, water molecules

surround the sodium chloride in order to ionise it into sodium and

chloride to neutralize it .. water is taken from the cells .. body

has to sacrifice it's perfectly structured cell water in order to

neutralize [NaCl] "

This makes it sound like it's an active process. I thought

ionization was a process that happens automatically when ionic

compounds are put into solutions like water have slightly polar

molecules and so tend to dissociate the + and - ions. As far as I

know, the body does not " use up energy " to do it, unless you want to

get really technical about possible ATP-driven Na and Cl channels,

and possibly aquiporins.. Water is used ( " sacrificed " ) , but not to

" neutralize " the salt in an active sense, but this probably refers

mainly to osmosis, and it may put strain on cell membranes and alter

the water balance of cells (which then needs to be restored, which

would use energy to do it as it's against the osmotic gradient).

That is if the salt is even take in to cells at all - if it isn't,

then the cells ARE actively using energy to either push ions out as

soon as the come in, or somehow block the cell membrane from taking

them in in the first place. But none of that is mentioned. And what

exactly is " structured water " anyway? The only structured water I

know about is in the form of ice - which is not at all good inside

cells (at least not human cells. I think I read a long time ago that

some frogs may be able to deal with it because they can apparently be

frozen and then thawed - and stay alive).

Then there are typos and what I think are fragments/run-ons in the

page, and things that say " studies have shown that.. " and then NO

REFERENCES. Come on - if these say that studies have shown something

(especially something that sounds quite non-mainstream, like that Sea

Salt lamps will help with ADHD or stuff about " salt vibrational

patterns " ), I want a reference - if they want to be taken seriously.

At the least, I want to know the names and organization of scientists

who are researching this stuff.

This all reminds me of Carl Sagan's book " The Demon Haunted World "

about the attractions and perils of psudo-science. I can see two

groups of people who read this stuff. The first group will simply

take it all in as truth, without a single pinch of (unrefined sea)

salt. I think this group of people can be kind of ignored. This

isn't good for them, but I don't think they're dangerous to " larger "

things in society that Sagan was talking about.

But it's the second group - a group that seems to include my

parents - which concerns me. They seem (if my parents are

indications) to take allopathic medicine (any of it) as gospel, and

don't generally know the difference between naturopathic,

homeopathic, integrative, CAM, etc - and glump them all together.

This group I think is going to read something like this, and if they

recognize part or all of it as misleading or outright garbage (or

possibly unproven effects, but with no reference to people actually

studying it), they are going to tar the entire " alternative medicine "

field with that brush and discount it ALL. If this second group does

" turn off " to all " alternative " medicine (and moves further toward

blindly embracing anything and everything allopathic), this is NOT

good - not medically, not personally, not politically, and not

economically - I don't want to think about how much money could be

saved every year simply by properly diagnosing and treating hypoT and

AF - to say nothing of diagnosing early and properly treating with a

LC-diet diabetes - and abandoning the cholesterol hypothesis as

said we should have done 30 years ago. But that's not going

to happen until you have a LOT of people who KNOW how to interpret

good or bad science, and are PRESENTED with good science, and not the

ad-mixture out there today of truths, half-truths, and (possibly)

lies (or just unknown science).

Scientific American has an editors' opinion this month about the

need for a revitalization of a Congerssional program based on finding

'evidence based medicine' and incorporating that into Medicare

reimbursement decisions, and the various semi-socialized healthcare

plans being batted about by the US presidential candidates. I am

going to write in something about hypoT, physiologic cortisol usage,

Safe Uses of Cortisol, and how ALL of this has been forgotten (in

favor of more expensive drugs), and perhaps ask that they do one of

their " special issues " on " forgotten medicine " - focusing on hypoT,

arteriosclerosis research, adrenal insufficiency and cortisol

usage, and diabetes (remember Dr. and his low-carb, high fat

diets around 1920 before insulin.. Banished is the very idea now)

Then there are people like me, who recognize the misleading

statements in various places, and because of that, won't trust them

about things they say that *might* be true. The crystalsalt page

said the body uses 23 ml water to get rid of 1 mg salt (as they say

" or 23 times the amount of its own cell water " - a cell contains a

whole ml of water? That's gotta be one BIG cell I think ) Is

this true? I have no idea - 27 mg sounds a bit high to me, but then

I don't know. Am I going to believe *them*, after seeing the typos,

inaccuracies, and misleading statements? No, I'm not. I might do

research on it - probably won't as I don't really care. But someone

who isn't as scientifically minded as me - they won't even try to do

research, and discount everything - possibly on the whole site, or on

the whole topic of sea salt in general.

I looked at the reviews for " The Whole Soy Story " (Kayyla )

about it's " dark side " . Specifically I read the 1-star reviews and

the comments - they always seem the most interesting. While a lot of

them said that she does seem rather polemical and less open-minded

(or at least writing as if she were, or thoroughly backing up her

facts), one of them condemned the book solely because of it's

association with the Weston Price Foundation (as a publisher) - and

the association of " The Cholesterol Myths " with that publisher as

well. One person said something about the " proven fact that of

course cholesterol causes heart disease " This is not in any way

critical (I doubt this person has even SKIMMED Chol.Myths, just gone

along with Jarvic (gotta trust him - he's a DOCTOR and he

invented an artificial heart! And he takes the stuff!). And the are

being just as polemical as they (presumably) think that K. is

being. Perhaps she IS being a bit arrogent-sounding and high-handed

in her " alternative " treatment of the soy-issue. But the " pro-soy "

side seems little better - if these reviews are any indication. This

isn't good, on either side.

I wonder how many *other* fields of medicine (other than

endocrinology, cardiology, general practice, toxicology [medicine/

science]) this kind of " medical ignorance " goes on in? Does the

problem go further than our (rather) little endocrine corner of the

medical world?

Sorry for the rant.. Perhaps it's low cortisol/Armour/T3, or

hearing AGAIN of how my grandmother is doing so badly and thinking,

" PLEASE - have her #$@! thyroid number checked? " (and having my

mother ignore me - " I don't think that's it " . She can't give me a

reason why other than " I just don't think so " . That's not a reason -

it's a polemic. I even called my cousin (the R.NP) asked

specifically about the possibility of hypoT - no response. I think

I'll just have to buy a ZRT kit and go over to get a drop of her

blood MYSELF! It just tears me up to think that MAYBE at least some

of her problems with memory, concentration, perhaps even her contrary

personality traits are due to something so SIMPLE as a thyroid

problem, and when the solution is so simple (that is, if she

remembers to take the pill, and if her adrenals aren't in bad

shape). And to hear my mother go on about her problems, while

completely discounting my ideas and requests to at least have a

thyroid panel DONE (saying she doesn't want ANOTHER problem to deal

with - yeah, but this might just make it easier).

Jim

(.. off to have some fluoridated water posion and sea salt. Next is

a reverse-osmosis filter. And wondering if I'm killing myself with

the ginger ale and Torani [splenda] syrups ..)