[echochartruse]

OK truce?

what is trolling?
 
but if you had read my post with the link I especially asked you to read until the end, you would have seen the video expressing scientific evidence that artificial sweeteners are poison.
Did you read the 80 page scientific report on artificial sweeteners and the problems they cause?
Life threatening diseases!

aspartame = as·par·tame 

NOUN:

  An artificial sweetener, C14H18N2O5, formed from aspartic acid.

www.dorway.com = 80 page scientific report on artificial sweetener aspartame.

But you need to provide proper evidence of your idea being better than mine.
For example, rather than citing silly websites that say that
"Artificial sweeteners are extemely toxic"
you should actually show some evidence that they have ever caused harm to someone.
Until you do that you are never going to convince me or anyone else.

In much the same way I am not going to be influenced by an hour and a half video from a guy who is trying to sell a book (for a profit- I mention that since you seem to hate profits so much when pharmaceutical companies make them).

I'm also not going to take you seriously when you say anyone interested in saccharin should look here.
http://www.dorway.com/
because it's a website about aspartame.

Are you trying to look foolish?

OK, OK I mentioned a brand of artificial sweetener but all artificial sweeteners should be avoided.

The link to the scientists speaking out about artificial sweeteners is in your mind rubbish because one of the scientists or more wrote a book about it. Is that right?

Yes aspartame is an artificial sweetener and that is what the report is about and what I am speaking of here.

What i am trying to say about Asprin is we have substituted an artificial "willow bark" that had adverse effects but is natural for a product manufactured from the components of willow bark (I think from what you say)creating other risks such as internal bleeding, due to it thins the blood.

more health problems arising from Asprin
Constipation; diarrhea; dizziness; drowsiness; headache; indigestion; lightheadedness; nausea; mild stomach pain or upset; vomiting. Severe allergic  reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); black, tarry, or bloody stools; blurred vision; fainting; fast heartbeat; fever, chills, or persistent sore throat; loss of coordination; mood or mental changes (eg, agitation, depression, irritability); ringing in the ears; seizures; severe or persistent dizziness, drowsiness, or stomach pain; severe or persistent trouble sleeping; shallow or very slow breathing; tremors; unusual bruising or bleeding; vomit that looks like coffee grounds; wheezing.
to read more see link.
Read more: http://www.drugs.com/sfx/aspirin-side-effects.html#ixzz12eg0QFmt

So i think you are getting me wrong. either I am not writing it incorrectly for you to understand or you don't want to read the proof I submit.

Saccharin
Products: Hermesetas, Sweet'N Low, Sugar Twin
Sweetness: 300 times sweeter than sugar
Pregnancy: Avoid when pregnant
Fun fact: Saccharin has been banned as a food additive (but not as a tabletop sweetener) from Canada since the '70s.

Discovered in 1879, saccharin is the oldest of sugar substitutes; however, its use only became widespread following the sugar shortage during World War II. While early lab studies showed that saccharin caused cancer in rats, numerous organizations, including the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. National Toxicology Program, have since removed saccharin from their list of suspected cancer-causing chemicals. Their reasoning: The process by which saccharin causes cancer in rats is not applicable to humans. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=artificial-sweetener-linked-weight-gain
BC here is another link you refuse to read or maybe you have read it but disagree.

Calorie-Free Natural Sweetener Moves One Step Closer To Use In U. S.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080922104906.htm

if you want to be healthy and not have sugar why substitute for something that may have more health problems associated?

abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/story?id=3191903&page=1
good for sales not for health.

It seems to happen particularly with diet versions. A quick search on the Internet reveals a disparate group of mostly young addicts who regularly congregate online to share their battle with their drug of choice: Diet Coke.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/16/1032054760242.html

Stevia is natural and yet it is more profitable to use man made sweeteners.

When you buy your natural medication or synthesised medication you need to find out what other additives are included.
After all natural is not natural if manufactured and processed using non natural products.

http://dorway.com/dorwblog/aspartame-one-mans-poison-another-mans-profit/

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/abuse/

They’ll call it AminoSweet. The public has learned aspartame is deadly, an excitoneurotoxic, carcinogenic, addictive genetically engineered drug that damages the mitochondria and interacts with drugs and vaccines. It is also an adjuvant, an immune stimulator put in vaccines to activate them. The outcry against this poison is worldwide as educated consumers reject it. Ajinomoto’s deceit is to change names so people will think its a new and safe sweetener

sorry for the extreamely long post I didn't want to multi-post.

[Bored chemist]

So, no answer then.
Since you cannot answer a simple question but seek to distract from it with a double posting that ends "sorry for the extremely long post I didn't want to multi-post." I think you have proved that you are trolling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Bye.

[echochartruse]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0910-unraveling_brain_tumors.htm

Brain tumor researchers have found that brain tumors arise from cancer stem cells living within tiny protective areas formed by blood vessels in the brain. Killing those cells is a promising strategy to eliminate tumors and prevents them from re-growing.

Now science has found that cells can change their genetic profile to stop the blood flow to tumors.

The research shows that cells are able to switch their genetic profile -- turning off genes expressed by blood vessel cells and turning on genes specific to lymphatic cells.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101014083343.htm

[Bored chemist]

Still no answer.
Not very good at this thing called science are you? If you were then you would answer the question.

Incidentally why would I accept a truce from someone who is plainly defeated? (if you want to put it in those terms)

[echochartruse]

BC since you assumed I was trolling, but cleartly I wasn't, just replying to your posts, I refuse to go back there and want to move on. should you persist in not reading my posts but persist in continuing to encourage me to continue on a subject wherby you can bully me and accuse me of things I have no intention to do, I shall not be answering your posts as there is no point if you don't read them or the links I submit to answer your questions.

[Bored chemist]

As I said before,
You are showing all the signs of being a troll.


You refuse to answer questions asked bout your drivel.
Here's yet another question you won't bother to answer.
when you say "I do know that there is still negative effects and risks of the manufactured aspirin ( Still NOT eliminated) with brand new health risks."

WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?

[echochartruse]

Ok If I wrote something you didn't understand then I will try to do better here.

what I am saying is,

I never knew I had the option of using willow bark.

You say there are health risks with willow bark, a natural tree and therefore it is better science creates a manufactured version to be able to control the dosage, and whatever.

Manufacturing Aspirin which does the job which it is intended for but creates a "brand new set of risks", one example: internal bleeding.

I don't want to harp on this subject. but I know that my posts are related. I don't start these post subjects.

In regard to cancer, a lot of things are connected to cancer. We seem to be more concerned with what is at the tail end of cancer rather than finding ways to eliminate the causes. Science is encouraged to create new methods, drug components rather than find the cause of the disease and eliminate it. This is not just my view.

My view is that we should all have a truthful, well educated choice on the environment we live in, the remedies we take and the procedures we require throughout our lifetime.
Science should be forefront in defending our natural right to decide and make the right choice.
If willow bark is never offered to me and I don't know about it I am misinformed about the options I have.

too many times some 'product' is created in science but the end product, such as waste, run off, etc are not thought about.

in regard to MG food, Tassie devils, it is all relevant.

you say so what more people are getting cancer
fat people drink diet coke. So what.
maybe not in those words but....

if you look at the other end to see that Saccharin is not a food substance and reminds me of melamine.
Saccharin passes through us unchanged, what goes in comes out. But is known to cause cancer in rats, obesity in people and can be fatal for fetus of mother as it transfers. Saccharin is just one sugar substitute. Sugar substitutes cause known health problems, other substitute sweeteners can be worse for your health, changing chemicals in your body that will eventually poison you. Why substitute. I have posted links to scientific sites for this.

Run off from plantations have been known to cause cancer both natural fields using chemicals and GM fields with rotting produce falling into our streams and in the soil. We should all have a choice in our environment, in our own health and we should look at elimination rather than finding a cure for cancer.

[Bored chemist]

"Manufacturing Aspirin which does the job which it is intended for but creates a "brand new set of risks", one example: internal bleeding. "
Nope, as I explained, the willow bark has that problem too.
I said "Willow bark works as a painkiller because it contains salicylic acid. The same salicylic acid is produced in the body from aspirin. and it's what gets rid of headaches.
However, the free acid is rather toxic at high concentrations- in particular the phenolic hydroxy group damages the proteins in the stomach."



"My view is that we should all have a truthful, well educated choice on the environment we live in, the remedies we take and the procedures we require throughout our lifetime. "
Yet you cite web pages that are about the wrong materials and talk nonsense anyway.

You don't even notice the contradiction when you say
"Saccharin passes through us unchanged, what goes in comes out. But is known to cause cancer in rats, obesity in people and can be fatal for fetus of mother as it transfers. "

Meanwhile you refuse to answer questions and you refuse to listen to answers given to your points.

Why can you not admit you were simply wrong ?
and, before you waste bandwidth with anything else, let's see your answer to this

WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?

[BenV]

Bored Chemist is quite right to accuse you of trolling.  You are making blanket statements and then refusing to back them up with evidence, clearly ignoring his questions and comments.  Please answer his question, or at least acknowledge that your comments (in this case, on aspirin) are merely your opinion.  You are usually very good at finding sources to quote, please do so to answer his question.  After which, this thread can return to it's original topic.

[echochartruse]

Bored Chemist is quite right to accuse you of trolling.  You are making blanket statements and then refusing to back them up with evidence, clearly ignoring his questions and comments.  Please answer his question, or at least acknowledge that your comments (in this case, on aspirin) are merely your opinion.  You are usually very good at finding sources to quote, please do so to answer his question.  After which, this thread can return to it's original topic.

I have answered the questions if you care to read the forum. I have included scientific evidence which has been described as "Rubbish" without providing any evidence of why it is deemed to be rubbish.

Yes I may mentioned Saccharin when I meant all artificial sweeteners and I have corrected this in my previous posts.

Saccharin = Cancer in offspring of breast-fed animals, low birth weight, bladder can¬cer, hepatotoxicity
http://www.nursing.upenn.edu/ahnp/Documents/whitehouse_the%20potential%20toxicity%20of%20artificial%20sweeteners.pdf

I've already submitted links to scientific sites that clearly state all sugar alternatives cause health problems.

You only need to look at the material safety data sheet to find the problems caused by Aspirin
if you look at the material safety data sheet for Saccharin you will find the document is mostly stated as "information not provided"

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
(MSDS)
Aspirin
1. Product Identification
Synonyms: 2-Acetoxybenzoic acid CAS No.: 50-78-2 Molecular Weight: 180.16 Chemical Formula: C9H8O4 Urgent contact: Shanghai Sunivo Supply Chain Management Co., Ltd.
Tel: +86 21 3393 3299 Fax: +86 21 5830 7878
URL: www.sunivo.com
Address: Room 502, Building 5, Lane 289 Bisheng Rd., Pudong District, Shanghai, 201204 - P.R. of China
2. Composition/Information on Ingredients
Ingredient CAS No Percent Hazardous
Maleic Anhydride 50-78-2 99.5% No
3. Hazards Identification
EMERGENCY OVERVIEW
Toxic if swallowed. Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin.
Potential Health Effects Eye:
Causes eye irritation.
Skin:
Causes skin irritation. May cause dermatitis. May be harmful if absorbed through the skin.

Ingestion: May cause irritation of the digestive tract. May cause liver and kidney damage. Ingestion may cause high blood pressure, labored breathing, unsteady gait, lung edema, and coma. Human systemic effects include acute renal failure, acute tubular necrosis, cough, diarrhea, dyspnea (labored breathing), headache, hypermitility, nausea, vomiting, ulceration or bleeding from stomach. Toxic if swallowed.

Inhalation:
Causes respiratory tract irritation. Aspiration may lead to pulmonary edema. May be harmful if inhaled. | MSDS | Page

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/04/980422065353.htm

NTP said in one notice it is "especially interested in obtaining additional relevant scientific information in support of or against the petition to delist saccharin" because the three reviews split in their recommendations. Two scientific reviews favored removing saccharin from the Report but an October 30-31 advisory panel -- the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors Subcommittee for the Report on Carcinogens -- recommended by a narrow margin that the sweetener continue to be listed as an "anticipated" carcinogen.

Shouldn't we have an informed choice on rememdies available?

it is apparent that people here are unaware of the danger of taking Aspirin but fully know the dangers of taking natural remedies. how can anyone make the right decision about their cancer therapy?

http://www.drugs.com/npc/willow-bark.html
I have since found Willow bark.
and now that I know about Willow Bark I am not interested in taking that either. At least that is my decision. It could be different for some others.

BC, You may like to provide evidence why you stated what I say is "Rubbish"

[Bored chemist]

"BC, You may like to provide evidence why you stated what I say is "Rubbish""
Because we are not rats.

At high doses saccharin causes cancer in rats- but through a mechanism that doesn't exist in humans.

In the meantime, rather than lying about having already answered it,
WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?

[echochartruse]

BC still not reading my posted links.

Please read the link associating artificial sweeteneers with obesity previously posted.
You are aware that Obese men are at increased risk for erectile dysfunction.
So its proven that artificial sweeteners cause obesity which in turn cause other illnesses and sometimes can be fatal.
Hang on isn't that why people take artificial sweeteners? So they don't get fat?
so now we find the very thing they take the artificial sweetener for to avoid is exactly what the artificial sweetener casues.

does that make sense to you. please read the scientific proof already posted.

Susceptible Populatations
Susceptible populations for the potential deleterious effects of artificial sweeteners include diabetics, children, pregnant women, women of childbearing age, breastfeeding mothers, individuals with low seizure thresholds, and individuals at risk for migraines. More studies are required for these susceptible populations. A focus on children is important because they have a higher intake of foods and beverages per kilogram of body weight (Renwick, 2006). Also, more research on the effect of artificial sweeteners on diabetic clients is needed because this population is likely to ingest larger quantities of sugar substitutes.
Because artificial sweeteners are in more than 6,000 products, including foods, medications, and cosmetics, it is impossible to completely eradicate them from daily encounters. Controversy exists over the toxicity of the artificial sweeteners presented in this article. Replication studies and long-term assays are required to decrease fear resulting from the limited research that currently exists.

'Replication studies and long-term assays are required to decrease fear resulting from the limited research that currently exists.'

"Fears resulting from limited research?"

Isn't Saccharin the most tested artificial product in our food on the market? with over 6,000 products including it I would hope so, but apparently Not.

Doesn't the FDA ban substances for human consumption that cause cancer in rats?

This paper will examine the FDA’s role in the four most contentious artificial sweetener
 In 1972, the FDA was faced with two studies suggesting saccharin caused cancer in laboratory animals.5 Rather than issuing an immediate and complete ban under the Delaney Clause, however, then- FDA commissioner Charles Edwards removed saccharin from the list of GRAS substances and issued an interim food additive regulation permitting continued its continued limited use pending further studies of its safety.6 Edwards candidly explained the reasoning behind his actions, admitting “Technically, I could have banned saccharin immediately under the Delaney Clause. in 1972,” but that he had elected not to because “saccharin was, at that time, the only remaining nonnutritive sweetener on the market. American consumers demand the availability of diet food products.
The American public proved to be considerably less alarmed than Commissioner Kennedy at the evidence of saccharin’s carcinogenicity. 

Congress not the FDA had the warning lifted from Saccharin because people wanted it..
Since the benefits of Saccharin is supposedly weight loss or non weight gain and artificial sweeteners has been scientifically proven to cause obesity then shouldn't Saccharin be taken out of our food chain as it is proven that it doesn't do what it has been approved for.

Saccharin is another sweetener found in some soft drinks.  It has been found to have teratogenic (causing abnormal fetal development and birth defects) effects in rats. It has also been shown to cause cancer in rats as well.  Human studies have not found these effects.  However, it is probably best to err on the side of caution when it comes to Saccharin.

.................."continued its continued limited use pending further studies of its safety"!

Doesn't the FDA ban substances tested on rats that cause cancer?
Please inform me.

please find the Saccharin MSDS posted separatly due to being so long and it is usless of me to just inclue the link if no one reads it and still wants proof. actually the MSDS basically states that not enough research has been undertaken, in my opinion. please see additional post.
Would you take something that has not been tested correctly for adverse human conditions and the evidence for its safety could not be provided?

here is the link to Saccharin msds
http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Calcium_saccharin-9923272
for those who want to know

[BenV]

Echo, please don't post anything more about saccharine.  Are you intentionally misunderstanding what Bored Chemist asks of you?

What are the brand new health risks that you claimed are associated with aspirin once it's purified from willow bark?

You made this claim without being aware of the side effects of either.

[echochartruse]

maybe no one understood me.

You assume I was not aware of the side effects of either -WRONG

Please don't assume that I have intentionally misunderstood what bored chemist asked.

BC wanted to know what health risks are associated with the new product that replaces Willow bark.
at least that is my interpretation. New health risks to replace the old health risks. At least that is my impression of his question coming from my statement in that post.

What I am saying is that we have a natural product that does the job. possibly some natural products have side effects and some are not worthy of taking causing adverse reations.

aspirin I was told was invented to substitute Willow bark because of the adverse health risks willow bark contributed too.

willow bark has adverse effects, But so does Aspirin.

Aspirin is a product created to substitute willow bark I am told here.
Yet aspirin creates a whole new lot of adverse effects.

I dont think i have to explain any further. I have listed the problems associated with taking aspirin. We have substituted a natural product with adverse effects for another with adverse effects.

I know the side effects of Aspirin, I had never heard of willow bark before this forum.

If I had the chance of deciding myself which side effects I wanted to take I would hope that science has made it available to me freely.

It appeared that no one knew of the side effects of Aspirin here, which I find amazing that people can take a drug that they are unaware of the problems it causes.

so the manufactured version of willow bark does not exclude health problems.

I would be very interested if anyone will answer my questions.

also please dont write for BC I am sure he can write his own posts, and I dont remember him asking that particular question in those words.

[BenV]

So what are the new health risks? What are the risks of aspirin that are not found in willow bark?  You still claim this to be true, despite admiting that you knew nothing of willow bark mere days ago.

This is your last chance to answer this question that has been repeatedly asked of you.

[Bored chemist]

"Yet aspirin creates a whole new lot of adverse effects.

I dont think i have to explain any further. "
Yes you do.
You need to tell us what those new adverse effects are.
I have been asking you to do this, as clearly as I could, in big letters for some time now and you have refused to answer it.

"and I dont remember him asking that particular question in those words."

These are the exact words, and I like an answer.

WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?

[echochartruse]

The first mention of Willow bark was by Bored chemist post 325380 2/10/10. without evidence in support of his statement.

Ben V, I asked you in my post 326286 10/10/10 “Has cloves ever been responsible for tumors?” in response to your statement that cloves contain a tumour promoting chemical that the medicalised version would have removed. Your comment came without supporting evidence and without replying to my question.

My statement was  - why synthesise/create a product when we can use the natural form that is freely available?

Bored chemist’s statement “I said that it would make sense to use a purified product rather than the mixture of compounds formed in a plant... The other thing I said was that you can take something from a plant and modify it to make it more effective.”

OK answered in simple terms.

My next question was if the plant is easily available and works without adverse effect why do we need to synthesise it, such as Radium weed and Cloves.
Not once did I say that natural things are good for you as BC assumed.
When i said “then we should be well informed about our choices and the positive effects and negative effects of all natural and synthetic remedies. to make their own informed choice.”

Natural medication should be ‘prime’ I meant that take away the natural component and some medical therapies may not exist.  Natural components which have been proven to be effective should not need to be synthesised. As this synthesisation creates a whole new set of health risks which I have posted here again....(see my previous post 327823)
“Toxic if swallowed. Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin.
Potential Health Effects Eye:
Causes eye irritation.
Skin:
Causes skin irritation. May cause dermatitis. May be harmful if absorbed through the skin.
Ingestion: May cause irritation of the digestive tract. May cause liver and kidney damage. Ingestion may cause high blood pressure, labored breathing, unsteady gait, lung edema, and coma. Human systemic effects include acute renal failure, acute tubular necrosis, cough, diarrhea, dyspnea (labored breathing), headache, hypermitility, nausea, vomiting, ulceration or bleeding from stomach.
Toxic if swallowed.
Inhalation:
Causes respiratory tract irritation. Aspiration may lead to pulmonary edema. May be harmful  if inhaled.”

Bored Chemist's quote

Modern drug design looks at the molecular level at parts of the body- for example the phosphodiesterase enzyme.
Then it produces chemicals (that are entirely synthetic) which will bind to that molecule - for example, the enzyme and inhibit it.
then they check to see if that compound actually does inhibit the enzyme in a chemical assay.
If it does they test it in animals.
If it's not too toxic and it does its job they test it in humans..

Are you saying if it kills aminals then it can be tested on humans? such as Saccharin?

In regard to Aspirin/willow bark.

you are asking me to compare the 2 even though I was not the person who firstly stated Willow bark.

Well I have and it appears to me that all the synthesisation to create the purified product and the modification of the substance to make it more effective has not been proven but Aspirin's toxicity is apparently higher or the same as Willow bark.

unless you can prove different and since BC introduced Willow bark into this forum I think it's his duty to back up his statement not me.

I ask again... If the natural product is no different in effectiveness, toxicity etc, Why do it?
is it just another  'political dogma'?

[Variola]

I ask again... If the natural product is no different in effectiveness, toxicity etc, Why do it?
is it just another  'political dogma'?

And you have been told why, repeatedly by both BC and myself.

Why do you keep ignoring the answers? Why keep asking the same question over and over to get mileage out of your anti-pharma stance.

This is why you have been accused of trolling Echo.

[rosy]

OK, Echo, please read this summary of the willow bark/aspirin question. It is merely a summary of information other people have posted elsewhere in this thread.

Dried, powdered willow bark has been used for thousands of years to treat pain and fever. Dried, ground-up willow bark was reasonably effective, but since the amount of the active ingredient (in this case salicylic acid) in any plant is very variable, depending on the growing conditions, time of year, etc., it was impossible to know exactly what dose was being administered on any given occasion. (This is a problem with "herbal" medicines generally.)

In the 19th century it became possible to isolate salicylic acid, and accurate doses could be given, but the side effects, notably a tendency to cause gastric bleeding, were a major problem.

It was discovered that salicylic acid could be chemically modified to form acetylsalicylic acid, and that this had similar pain and fever suppressing properties but a markedly improved side effect profile. This acetylsalicylic acid is commonly known as aspirin. Aspirin still has some side effects, most drugs do. We can chose to take them or not (that's what the information leaflet in the packaging is for).

[rosy]

If the natural product is no different in effectiveness, toxicity etc, Why do it?

That's one hell of an "if".

Using the ground-up, crude plant material is foolhardy, because one doesn't know from one batch to the next what the concentration of the different ingredients may be. That being so, an overdose, or an insufficient dose, becomes not so much a risk as a likelihood.

Isolating a pure chemical compound from a natural source is certainly sometimes a useful way of obtaining a drug (penicillin, from mould, is a case in point). But once we know the chemical structure of a particular drug molecule, it makes not a shred of difference whether we isolate it from a plant (or whatever) or whether we synthesise it in the lab. So we do whatever is the most efficient (it may not be possibly to harvest sufficient of the plant of interest for example).

Beyond that, modifications to the molecular structure are all aimed at making the drug better, either by improving its efficacy, or reducing its side effects. The advantage of aspirin over salicylic acid is that it has fewer side effects. Many drugs used against bacteria or parasites (for example penicillins antibiotics or artemisinins for malaria are used initially in their natural form, but as the target infectious agents develop resistance chemically modified versions are often used because whereas the original drug is no longer effective, the modified version is.

So no. Not a political dogma. I hope that answers your question.