Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist
Yep, stevia is good for you too. But the FDA doesn't allow it to be sold as a sweetener. But if it's nasty stuff like Splenda, Nutrasweet, Equal, etc., it's A-Ok. So that does sort of indicate just how interested our government is in keeping you healthy. The evidence suggests there's no interest at all, only lip service. It appears that they'd rather you be sick and on prescription drugs. (Oh, don't forget your flu shot.) There's no other conclusion that can be reached based on the evidence, tons of it, in our midst. Peace, D. Mindock Hi Kurt, Table sugar is artificial; it takes 3 feet of the natural sugar cane plant to produce only 1/2 teaspoon of processed sugar. That's how much refining goes on. If you were to eat a natural sugar cane branch you would be full just eating about 6 inches of it because of all the fiber. we strip all that good fiber away. Our bodies do not digest processed sugar well. There is one sweetener that is safe, however, and that is stevia which is actually a herb/ Terry Dyck From: Kurt Nolte [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:10:22 -0500 I personally don't like any of the Artificial sweeteners out there. If you want something sweet, you put sugar in it. If normal table sugar doesn't dissolve well, you go to finely ground confectioner's sugar. This goes for coffee, tea, cookies, cakes, candy; anything that needs sweetening gets real sugar put in it. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't hidden death-agents in the Artificial stuff; all I know is they have all shown to leave a nasty aftertaste that requires consuming incredibly strong-tasting foods to get rid of. I do, however, still drink sodas; everyone needs a vice, after all. I just don't drink any of the diet or low calorie sodas, as they tend to run heavy on the artificials and I'm active enough to burn off calories from the real thing. -Kurt Logan Vilas wrote: Not trying to be too much of a smartass, but 300 million Americans, 187 million annually =623 thousand per an American annually That's a little off somewhere. Logan Vilas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Mindock Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:34 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist By Shane Ellison, M.Sc. Copyright 2006C _www.healthmyths.net http://www.healthmyths.net/ http://www.healthmyths.net/ _ NewsWithViews.com 1-11-7 If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for human life, the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals---makers of Splenda^(TM). Manufacturers of Vioxx^(TM) and Lipitor^(TM) would tie for a very distant second. McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for disguising their drug Splenda as a sweetener. Regardless of its drug qualities and potential for side effects, McNeil is dead set on putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, Vioxx and Lipitor makers can't stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their products are drugs and by definition come with negative side effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe their dangerous goods. A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet, then let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name Splenda in place of real sugar (sucrose). Splenda was strategically released on April fool's day in 1998. This day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil certainly succeeded. The splendid Splenda hoax is costing gullible Americans $187 million annually*^1 *. While many people wonder about the safety of Splenda, they rarely question it. Despite its many unknowns and inherent dangers, Splenda demand has grown faster than its supply. No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all the way to the bank. Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture of sucralose, maltodextrine, and dextrose (a detrimental simple sugar), each of the not-so-splendid Splenda ingredients
Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist
Hi Kurt, Table sugar is artificial; it takes 3 feet of the natural sugar cane plant to produce only 1/2 teaspoon of processed sugar. That's how much refining goes on. If you were to eat a natural sugar cane branch you would be full just eating about 6 inches of it because of all the fiber. we strip all that good fiber away. Our bodies do not digest processed sugar well. There is one sweetener that is safe, however, and that is stevia which is actually a herb/ Terry Dyck Glycerine is also a safe sweetener. Sugar is not a safe sweetener. The Saccharine Disease: Conditions caused by the Taking of Refined Carbohydrates, such as Sugar and White Flour by T. L. Cleave, John Wright, 1974 Surgeon Captain T.L. Cleave (1906-83), Director of Medical Research at the Royal Naval Medical School, whittled down the root cause of dozens of the ills of industrial societies to one simple factor, also noted by nutrition pioneer Sir Robert McCarrison: their dependence on refined carbohydrates -- the master-disease. Full text online. http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#cleave Best Keith From: Kurt Nolte [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:10:22 -0500 I personally don't like any of the Artificial sweeteners out there. If you want something sweet, you put sugar in it. If normal table sugar doesn't dissolve well, you go to finely ground confectioner's sugar. This goes for coffee, tea, cookies, cakes, candy; anything that needs sweetening gets real sugar put in it. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't hidden death-agents in the Artificial stuff; all I know is they have all shown to leave a nasty aftertaste that requires consuming incredibly strong-tasting foods to get rid of. I do, however, still drink sodas; everyone needs a vice, after all. I just don't drink any of the diet or low calorie sodas, as they tend to run heavy on the artificials and I'm active enough to burn off calories from the real thing. -Kurt Logan Vilas wrote: Not trying to be too much of a smartass, but 300 million Americans, 187 million annually =623 thousand per an American annually That's a little off somewhere. Logan Vilas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Mindock Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:34 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist By Shane Ellison, M.Sc. Copyright 2006C _www.healthmyths.net http://www.healthmyths.net/ http://www.healthmyths.net/ _ NewsWithViews.com 1-11-7 If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for human life, the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals---makers of Splenda^(TM). Manufacturers of Vioxx^(TM) and Lipitor^(TM) would tie for a very distant second. McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for disguising their drug Splenda as a sweetener. Regardless of its drug qualities and potential for side effects, McNeil is dead set on putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, Vioxx and Lipitor makers can't stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their products are drugs and by definition come with negative side effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe their dangerous goods. A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet, then let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name Splenda in place of real sugar (sucrose). Splenda was strategically released on April fool's day in 1998. This day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil certainly succeeded. The splendid Splenda hoax is costing gullible Americans $187 million annually*^1 *. While many people wonder about the safety of Splenda, they rarely question it. Despite its many unknowns and inherent dangers, Splenda demand has grown faster than its supply. No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all the way to the bank. Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe
Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist
Let's see. If it cost each American one dollar per year that'd be 300,000,000 dollars annually. I think your math is a little off. Peace, D. Mindock Not trying to be too much of a smartass, but 300 million Americans, 187 million annually =623 thousand per an American annually That's a little off somewhere. Logan Vilas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Mindock Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:34 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist By Shane Ellison, M.Sc. Copyright 2006C _www.healthmyths.net http://www.healthmyths.net/ http://www.healthmyths.net/ _ NewsWithViews.com 1-11-7 If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for human life, the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals---makers of Splenda^(TM). Manufacturers of Vioxx^(TM) and Lipitor^(TM) would tie for a very distant second. McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for disguising their drug Splenda as a sweetener. Regardless of its drug qualities and potential for side effects, McNeil is dead set on putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, Vioxx and Lipitor makers can't stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their products are drugs and by definition come with negative side effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe their dangerous goods. A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet, then let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name Splenda in place of real sugar (sucrose). Splenda was strategically released on April fool's day in 1998. This day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil certainly succeeded. The splendid Splenda hoax is costing gullible Americans $187 million annually*^1 *. While many people wonder about the safety of Splenda, they rarely question it. Despite its many unknowns and inherent dangers, Splenda demand has grown faster than its supply. No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all the way to the bank. Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture of sucralose, maltodextrine, and dextrose (a detrimental simple sugar), each of the not-so-splendid Splenda ingredients has downfalls. Aside from the fact that it really isn't sugar and calorie free, here is one big reason to avoid the deceitful mix . . . think April fool's day: Splenda contains a potential poison---the drug sucralose. This chemical is 600 times sweeter than sugar. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine has a split personality. It can be harmless or it can be life threatening. In combo with sodium, chlorine forms a harmless ionic bond to yield table salt. Sucralose makers often highlight this worthless fact to defend its safety. Apparently, they missed the second day of Chemistry 101---the day they teach covalent bonds. When used with carbon, the chlorine atom in sucralose forms a covalent bond. The end result is the historically deadly organochlorine or simply: a Really-Nasty Form of Chlorine (RNFOC). Unlike ionic bonds, covalently bound chlorines are a big no-no for the human body. They yield insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides---not something you want in the lunch box of your precious child. It's therefore no surprise that the originators of sucralose, chemists Hough and Phadnis, were attempting to design new insecticides when they discovered it! It wasn't until the young Phadnis accidentally tasted his new insecticide that he learned it was sweet. And because sugars are more profitable than insecticides, the whole insecticide idea got canned and a new sweetener called Splenda got packaged. To hide its origin, Splenda pushers assert that sucralose is made from sugar so it tastes like sugar. Sucralose is as close to sugar as Windex^(TM) is to ocean water. The RNFOC poses a real and present danger to all Splenda users. It is risky because the RNFOC confers a molecule with a set of super powers that wreak havoc on the human body. For example, Agent Orange, used in the U.S. Army's herbicidal warfare program, is a RNFOC. Exposure can lead to Hodgkin's lymphoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, as well
Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist
Maybe there are, maybe there aren't hidden death-agents in the Artificial stuff; all I know is they have all shown to leave a nasty aftertaste that requires consuming incredibly strong-tasting foods to get rid of. Yeah -- if it tastes bad, why eat it? I guess it's lucky I like the taste of vegetables. I grew up drinking water - which puts me in a odd situation whenever I visit someone. They always offer you six varieties of soda, and then look at you strange if you only want water. Water is sort of considered the lowest quality drink I guess, sort of like if you went to a restuarant and asked for the food that they were scraping off the plates and throwing in the dumpster. ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist
Yeah, I guess my mind was not working I see that now. Thanks Loagn -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Mindock Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 7:05 AM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Let's see. If it cost each American one dollar per year that'd be 300,000,000 dollars annually. I think your math is a little off. Peace, D. Mindock Not trying to be too much of a smartass, but 300 million Americans, 187 million annually =623 thousand per an American annually That's a little off somewhere. Logan Vilas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Mindock Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:34 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist By Shane Ellison, M.Sc. Copyright 2006C _www.healthmyths.net http://www.healthmyths.net/ http://www.healthmyths.net/ _ NewsWithViews.com 1-11-7 If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for human life, the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals---makers of Splenda^(TM). Manufacturers of Vioxx^(TM) and Lipitor^(TM) would tie for a very distant second. McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for disguising their drug Splenda as a sweetener. Regardless of its drug qualities and potential for side effects, McNeil is dead set on putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, Vioxx and Lipitor makers can't stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their products are drugs and by definition come with negative side effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe their dangerous goods. A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet, then let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name Splenda in place of real sugar (sucrose). Splenda was strategically released on April fool's day in 1998. This day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil certainly succeeded. The splendid Splenda hoax is costing gullible Americans $187 million annually*^1 *. While many people wonder about the safety of Splenda, they rarely question it. Despite its many unknowns and inherent dangers, Splenda demand has grown faster than its supply. No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all the way to the bank. Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture of sucralose, maltodextrine, and dextrose (a detrimental simple sugar), each of the not-so-splendid Splenda ingredients has downfalls. Aside from the fact that it really isn't sugar and calorie free, here is one big reason to avoid the deceitful mix . . . think April fool's day: Splenda contains a potential poison---the drug sucralose. This chemical is 600 times sweeter than sugar. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine has a split personality. It can be harmless or it can be life threatening. In combo with sodium, chlorine forms a harmless ionic bond to yield table salt. Sucralose makers often highlight this worthless fact to defend its safety. Apparently, they missed the second day of Chemistry 101---the day they teach covalent bonds. When used with carbon, the chlorine atom in sucralose forms a covalent bond. The end result is the historically deadly organochlorine or simply: a Really-Nasty Form of Chlorine (RNFOC). Unlike ionic bonds, covalently bound chlorines are a big no-no for the human body. They yield insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides---not something you want in the lunch box of your precious child. It's therefore no surprise that the originators of sucralose, chemists Hough and Phadnis, were attempting to design new insecticides when they discovered it! It wasn't until the young Phadnis accidentally tasted his new insecticide that he learned it was sweet. And because sugars are more profitable than insecticides, the whole insecticide idea got canned and a new sweetener called Splenda got packaged. To hide its origin, Splenda pushers assert that sucralose is made from sugar so it tastes like sugar. Sucralose is as close to sugar as Windex^(TM) is to ocean water. The RNFOC poses a real and present danger
Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist
Hi Kurt, Table sugar is artificial; it takes 3 feet of the natural sugar cane plant to produce only 1/2 teaspoon of processed sugar. That's how much refining goes on. If you were to eat a natural sugar cane branch you would be full just eating about 6 inches of it because of all the fiber. we strip all that good fiber away. Our bodies do not digest processed sugar well. There is one sweetener that is safe, however, and that is stevia which is actually a herb/ Terry Dyck From: Kurt Nolte [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 20:10:22 -0500 I personally don't like any of the Artificial sweeteners out there. If you want something sweet, you put sugar in it. If normal table sugar doesn't dissolve well, you go to finely ground confectioner's sugar. This goes for coffee, tea, cookies, cakes, candy; anything that needs sweetening gets real sugar put in it. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't hidden death-agents in the Artificial stuff; all I know is they have all shown to leave a nasty aftertaste that requires consuming incredibly strong-tasting foods to get rid of. I do, however, still drink sodas; everyone needs a vice, after all. I just don't drink any of the diet or low calorie sodas, as they tend to run heavy on the artificials and I'm active enough to burn off calories from the real thing. -Kurt Logan Vilas wrote: Not trying to be too much of a smartass, but 300 million Americans, 187 million annually =623 thousand per an American annually That's a little off somewhere. Logan Vilas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Mindock Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:34 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist By Shane Ellison, M.Sc. Copyright 2006C _www.healthmyths.net http://www.healthmyths.net/ http://www.healthmyths.net/ _ NewsWithViews.com 1-11-7 If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for human life, the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals---makers of Splenda^(TM). Manufacturers of Vioxx^(TM) and Lipitor^(TM) would tie for a very distant second. McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for disguising their drug Splenda as a sweetener. Regardless of its drug qualities and potential for side effects, McNeil is dead set on putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, Vioxx and Lipitor makers can't stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their products are drugs and by definition come with negative side effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe their dangerous goods. A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet, then let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name Splenda in place of real sugar (sucrose). Splenda was strategically released on April fool's day in 1998. This day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil certainly succeeded. The splendid Splenda hoax is costing gullible Americans $187 million annually*^1 *. While many people wonder about the safety of Splenda, they rarely question it. Despite its many unknowns and inherent dangers, Splenda demand has grown faster than its supply. No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all the way to the bank. Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture of sucralose, maltodextrine, and dextrose (a detrimental simple sugar), each of the not-so-splendid Splenda ingredients has downfalls. Aside from the fact that it really isn't sugar and calorie free, here is one big reason to avoid the deceitful mix . . . think April fool's day: Splenda contains a potential poison---the drug sucralose. This chemical is 600 times sweeter than sugar. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine has a split personality. It can be harmless or it can be life threatening. In combo with sodium, chlorine forms a harmless ionic bond to yield table salt. Sucralose makers often highlight this worthless fact to defend its safety. Apparently
[Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist
Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist By Shane Ellison, M.Sc. Copyright 2006© _www.healthmyths.net http://www.healthmyths.net/_ NewsWithViews.com 1-11-7 If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for human life, the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals---makers of Splenda^(TM). Manufacturers of Vioxx^(TM) and Lipitor^(TM) would tie for a very distant second. McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for disguising their drug Splenda as a sweetener. Regardless of its drug qualities and potential for side effects, McNeil is dead set on putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, Vioxx and Lipitor makers can't stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their products are drugs and by definition come with negative side effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe their dangerous goods. A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet, then let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name Splenda in place of real sugar (sucrose). Splenda was strategically released on April fool's day in 1998. This day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil certainly succeeded. The splendid Splenda hoax is costing gullible Americans $187 million annually*^1 *. While many people wonder about the safety of Splenda, they rarely question it. Despite its many unknowns and inherent dangers, Splenda demand has grown faster than its supply. No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all the way to the bank. Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture of sucralose, maltodextrine, and dextrose (a detrimental simple sugar), each of the not-so-splendid Splenda ingredients has downfalls. Aside from the fact that it really isn't sugar and calorie free, here is one big reason to avoid the deceitful mix . . . think April fool's day: Splenda contains a potential poison---the drug sucralose. This chemical is 600 times sweeter than sugar. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine has a split personality. It can be harmless or it can be life threatening. In combo with sodium, chlorine forms a harmless ionic bond to yield table salt. Sucralose makers often highlight this worthless fact to defend its safety. Apparently, they missed the second day of Chemistry 101---the day they teach covalent bonds. When used with carbon, the chlorine atom in sucralose forms a covalent bond. The end result is the historically deadly organochlorine or simply: a Really-Nasty Form of Chlorine (RNFOC). Unlike ionic bonds, covalently bound chlorines are a big no-no for the human body. They yield insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides---not something you want in the lunch box of your precious child. It's therefore no surprise that the originators of sucralose, chemists Hough and Phadnis, were attempting to design new insecticides when they discovered it! It wasn't until the young Phadnis accidentally tasted his new insecticide that he learned it was sweet. And because sugars are more profitable than insecticides, the whole insecticide idea got canned and a new sweetener called Splenda got packaged. To hide its origin, Splenda pushers assert that sucralose is made from sugar so it tastes like sugar. Sucralose is as close to sugar as Windex^(TM) is to ocean water. The RNFOC poses a real and present danger to all Splenda users. It is risky because the RNFOC confers a molecule with a set of super powers that wreak havoc on the human body. For example, Agent Orange, used in the U.S. Army's herbicidal warfare program, is a RNFOC. Exposure can lead to Hodgkin's lymphoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, as well as diabetes and various forms of cancer! Other shocking examples are the war gas phosgene, chlordane, and lindane*^2 *. The RNFOC is lethal because it allows poisons to be fat soluble while rendering the natural defense mechanisms of the body helpless. A poison that is fat-soluble is akin to a bomb exploding internally. It invades every nook and cranny of the body. Cell walls and DNA---the genetic map of human life---become nothing more than potential casualties of war when exposed. Sucralose is only 25% water-soluble*^3 *, which means a vast majority of it may explode internally. In general, this
Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist
Not trying to be too much of a smartass, but 300 million Americans, 187 million annually =623 thousand per an American annually That's a little off somewhere. Logan Vilas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Mindock Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:34 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist By Shane Ellison, M.Sc. Copyright 2006C _www.healthmyths.net http://www.healthmyths.net/ http://www.healthmyths.net/ _ NewsWithViews.com 1-11-7 If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for human life, the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals---makers of Splenda^(TM). Manufacturers of Vioxx^(TM) and Lipitor^(TM) would tie for a very distant second. McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for disguising their drug Splenda as a sweetener. Regardless of its drug qualities and potential for side effects, McNeil is dead set on putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, Vioxx and Lipitor makers can't stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their products are drugs and by definition come with negative side effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe their dangerous goods. A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet, then let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name Splenda in place of real sugar (sucrose). Splenda was strategically released on April fool's day in 1998. This day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil certainly succeeded. The splendid Splenda hoax is costing gullible Americans $187 million annually*^1 *. While many people wonder about the safety of Splenda, they rarely question it. Despite its many unknowns and inherent dangers, Splenda demand has grown faster than its supply. No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all the way to the bank. Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture of sucralose, maltodextrine, and dextrose (a detrimental simple sugar), each of the not-so-splendid Splenda ingredients has downfalls. Aside from the fact that it really isn't sugar and calorie free, here is one big reason to avoid the deceitful mix . . . think April fool's day: Splenda contains a potential poison---the drug sucralose. This chemical is 600 times sweeter than sugar. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine has a split personality. It can be harmless or it can be life threatening. In combo with sodium, chlorine forms a harmless ionic bond to yield table salt. Sucralose makers often highlight this worthless fact to defend its safety. Apparently, they missed the second day of Chemistry 101---the day they teach covalent bonds. When used with carbon, the chlorine atom in sucralose forms a covalent bond. The end result is the historically deadly organochlorine or simply: a Really-Nasty Form of Chlorine (RNFOC). Unlike ionic bonds, covalently bound chlorines are a big no-no for the human body. They yield insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides---not something you want in the lunch box of your precious child. It's therefore no surprise that the originators of sucralose, chemists Hough and Phadnis, were attempting to design new insecticides when they discovered it! It wasn't until the young Phadnis accidentally tasted his new insecticide that he learned it was sweet. And because sugars are more profitable than insecticides, the whole insecticide idea got canned and a new sweetener called Splenda got packaged. To hide its origin, Splenda pushers assert that sucralose is made from sugar so it tastes like sugar. Sucralose is as close to sugar as Windex^(TM) is to ocean water. The RNFOC poses a real and present danger to all Splenda users. It is risky because the RNFOC confers a molecule with a set of super powers that wreak havoc on the human body. For example, Agent Orange, used in the U.S. Army's herbicidal warfare program, is a RNFOC. Exposure can lead to Hodgkin's lymphoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, as well as diabetes and various forms of cancer! Other shocking examples are the war gas phosgene, chlordane, and lindane*^2 *. The RNFOC is lethal because it allows poisons to be fat soluble
Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist
I personally don't like any of the Artificial sweeteners out there. If you want something sweet, you put sugar in it. If normal table sugar doesn't dissolve well, you go to finely ground confectioner's sugar. This goes for coffee, tea, cookies, cakes, candy; anything that needs sweetening gets real sugar put in it. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't hidden death-agents in the Artificial stuff; all I know is they have all shown to leave a nasty aftertaste that requires consuming incredibly strong-tasting foods to get rid of. I do, however, still drink sodas; everyone needs a vice, after all. I just don't drink any of the diet or low calorie sodas, as they tend to run heavy on the artificials and I'm active enough to burn off calories from the real thing. -Kurt Logan Vilas wrote: Not trying to be too much of a smartass, but 300 million Americans, 187 million annually =623 thousand per an American annually That's a little off somewhere. Logan Vilas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Mindock Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:34 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist By Shane Ellison, M.Sc. Copyright 2006C _www.healthmyths.net http://www.healthmyths.net/ http://www.healthmyths.net/ _ NewsWithViews.com 1-11-7 If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for human life, the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals---makers of Splenda^(TM). Manufacturers of Vioxx^(TM) and Lipitor^(TM) would tie for a very distant second. McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for disguising their drug Splenda as a sweetener. Regardless of its drug qualities and potential for side effects, McNeil is dead set on putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, Vioxx and Lipitor makers can't stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their products are drugs and by definition come with negative side effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe their dangerous goods. A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet, then let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name Splenda in place of real sugar (sucrose). Splenda was strategically released on April fool's day in 1998. This day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil certainly succeeded. The splendid Splenda hoax is costing gullible Americans $187 million annually*^1 *. While many people wonder about the safety of Splenda, they rarely question it. Despite its many unknowns and inherent dangers, Splenda demand has grown faster than its supply. No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all the way to the bank. Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture of sucralose, maltodextrine, and dextrose (a detrimental simple sugar), each of the not-so-splendid Splenda ingredients has downfalls. Aside from the fact that it really isn't sugar and calorie free, here is one big reason to avoid the deceitful mix . . . think April fool's day: Splenda contains a potential poison---the drug sucralose. This chemical is 600 times sweeter than sugar. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine has a split personality. It can be harmless or it can be life threatening. In combo with sodium, chlorine forms a harmless ionic bond to yield table salt. Sucralose makers often highlight this worthless fact to defend its safety. Apparently, they missed the second day of Chemistry 101---the day they teach covalent bonds. When used with carbon, the chlorine atom in sucralose forms a covalent bond. The end result is the historically deadly organochlorine or simply: a Really-Nasty Form of Chlorine (RNFOC). Unlike ionic bonds, covalently bound chlorines are a big no-no for the human body. They yield insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides---not something you want in the lunch box of your precious child. It's therefore no surprise that the originators of sucralose, chemists Hough and Phadnis, were attempting to design new insecticides when they discovered it! It wasn't until the young Phadnis accidentally tasted his new insecticide that he
Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist
My drink of choice used to be Diet C. Artificial sweetners with sodium make you hold water. My intake of Diet C. has been almost entirely replace by nice cold bottled water since June. In that time frame I have lost 40lbs (250 down to 210). That fact alone should speak to the diet factor of artifical sweetners. John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kurt Nolte Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 8:10 PM To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist I personally don't like any of the Artificial sweeteners out there. If you want something sweet, you put sugar in it. If normal table sugar doesn't dissolve well, you go to finely ground confectioner's sugar. This goes for coffee, tea, cookies, cakes, candy; anything that needs sweetening gets real sugar put in it. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't hidden death-agents in the Artificial stuff; all I know is they have all shown to leave a nasty aftertaste that requires consuming incredibly strong-tasting foods to get rid of. I do, however, still drink sodas; everyone needs a vice, after all. I just don't drink any of the diet or low calorie sodas, as they tend to run heavy on the artificials and I'm active enough to burn off calories from the real thing. -Kurt Logan Vilas wrote: Not trying to be too much of a smartass, but 300 million Americans, 187 million annually =623 thousand per an American annually That's a little off somewhere. Logan Vilas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Mindock Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:34 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist By Shane Ellison, M.Sc. Copyright 2006C _www.healthmyths.net http://www.healthmyths.net/ http://www.healthmyths.net/ _ NewsWithViews.com 1-11-7 If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for human life, the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals---makers of Splenda^(TM). Manufacturers of Vioxx^(TM) and Lipitor^(TM) would tie for a very distant second. McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for disguising their drug Splenda as a sweetener. Regardless of its drug qualities and potential for side effects, McNeil is dead set on putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, Vioxx and Lipitor makers can't stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their products are drugs and by definition come with negative side effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe their dangerous goods. A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet, then let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name Splenda in place of real sugar (sucrose). Splenda was strategically released on April fool's day in 1998. This day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil certainly succeeded. The splendid Splenda hoax is costing gullible Americans $187 million annually*^1 *. While many people wonder about the safety of Splenda, they rarely question it. Despite its many unknowns and inherent dangers, Splenda demand has grown faster than its supply. No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all the way to the bank. Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture of sucralose, maltodextrine, and dextrose (a detrimental simple sugar), each of the not-so-splendid Splenda ingredients has downfalls. Aside from the fact that it really isn't sugar and calorie free, here is one big reason to avoid the deceitful mix . . . think April fool's day: Splenda contains a potential poison---the drug sucralose. This chemical is 600 times sweeter than sugar. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine has a split personality. It can be harmless or it can be life threatening. In combo with sodium, chlorine forms a harmless ionic bond to yield table salt. Sucralose makers often highlight this worthless fact to defend its safety. Apparently, they missed the second day of Chemistry 101---the day they teach covalent bonds. When used with carbon, the chlorine atom in sucralose forms a covalent bond. The end result is the historically deadly
Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist
whatever happened to putting honey in your tea? Jason ICQ#: 154998177 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Kurt Nolte [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist I personally don't like any of the Artificial sweeteners out there. If you want something sweet, you put sugar in it. If normal table sugar doesn't dissolve well, you go to finely ground confectioner's sugar. This goes for coffee, tea, cookies, cakes, candy; anything that needs sweetening gets real sugar put in it. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't hidden death-agents in the Artificial stuff; all I know is they have all shown to leave a nasty aftertaste that requires consuming incredibly strong-tasting foods to get rid of. I do, however, still drink sodas; everyone needs a vice, after all. I just don't drink any of the diet or low calorie sodas, as they tend to run heavy on the artificials and I'm active enough to burn off calories from the real thing. -Kurt Logan Vilas wrote: Not trying to be too much of a smartass, but 300 million Americans, 187 million annually =623 thousand per an American annually That's a little off somewhere. Logan Vilas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of D. Mindock Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 11:34 PM To: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: [Biofuel] Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist Splenda Explodes Internally, Says Chemist By Shane Ellison, M.Sc. Copyright 2006C _www.healthmyths.net http://www.healthmyths.net/ http://www.healthmyths.net/ _ NewsWithViews.com 1-11-7 If there were a contest for the best example of total disregard for human life, the victor would be McNeil Nutritionals---makers of Splenda^(TM). Manufacturers of Vioxx^(TM) and Lipitor^(TM) would tie for a very distant second. McNeil Nutritionals is the undisputed drug-pushing champion for disguising their drug Splenda as a sweetener. Regardless of its drug qualities and potential for side effects, McNeil is dead set on putting it on every kitchen table in America. Apparently, Vioxx and Lipitor makers can't stoop so low as to deceptively masquerade their drug as a candy of sort. There is no question that their products are drugs and by definition come with negative side effects. Rather than sell directly to the consumer, these losers have to go through the painful process of using doctors to prescribe their dangerous goods. A keen student in corporate drug dealing, McNeil learned from aspartame and saccharine pushers that if a drug tastes sweet, then let the masses eat it in their cake. First though, you have to create a facade of natural health. They did this using a cute trade name that kind of sounds like splendid and packaged it in pretty colors. Hypnotized, the masses were duped instantly. As unquestionably as a dog humps your leg, millions of diabetics (and non-diabetics) blindly eat sucralose under the trade name Splenda in place of real sugar (sucrose). Splenda was strategically released on April fool's day in 1998. This day is reserved worldwide for hoaxes and practical jokes on friends and family, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible. McNeil certainly succeeded. The splendid Splenda hoax is costing gullible Americans $187 million annually*^1 *. While many people wonder about the safety of Splenda, they rarely question it. Despite its many unknowns and inherent dangers, Splenda demand has grown faster than its supply. No longer do I have to question my faith in fellow Man. He is not a total idiot, just a gullible one. McNeil jokesters are laughing all the way to the bank. Splenda is not as harmless as McNeil wants you to believe. A mixture of sucralose, maltodextrine, and dextrose (a detrimental simple sugar), each of the not-so-splendid Splenda ingredients has downfalls. Aside from the fact that it really isn't sugar and calorie free, here is one big reason to avoid the deceitful mix . . . think April fool's day: Splenda contains a potential poison---the drug sucralose. This chemical is 600 times sweeter than sugar. To make sucralose, chlorine is used. Chlorine has a split personality. It can be harmless or it can be life threatening. In combo with sodium, chlorine forms a harmless ionic bond to yield table salt. Sucralose makers often highlight this worthless fact to defend its safety. Apparently, they missed the second day of Chemistry 101---the day they teach covalent bonds. When used with carbon, the chlorine atom in sucralose forms a covalent bond. The end result is the historically deadly organochlorine or simply: a Really-Nasty Form of Chlorine (RNFOC). Unlike ionic bonds, covalently bound chlorines are a big no-no for the human body. They yield insecticides, pesticides, and herbicides---not something you want in the lunch box of your
