Actually Bob, I find the standard method of examination, acceptance
and "licensure" as conducted by the medical, chemical, scientific,
industrial and regulatory communities in general to be perfectly
flawed for two reasons. The first is precisely due to the premise that
you suggest, that "the onus be on evidence of harm."
As soon as I sent the preceding statement I should not have. I agree
with you that when dealing with the unknown, that the burden of proof
should be to prove safety. That having been said, the context from
which I am talking is simply that I understand the chemistry and
metabolism of the material and from my perspective they raise no flags.
Also, the product has been in use by large numbers of folks for some
time with little evidence of risk. Common sense tells me I am not going
to sweat it. Life is full of risks and I don't see this as a big one.
Is it neccessary to point to the literally thousands of instances
where "evidence of harm" has been discovered long after "absence of
evidence" was sufficient cause for peer/regulatory acceptance and
public release of a material, chemical or drug? Or would you care for
me to point out the literally thousands of instances of effort to
discredit, downplay or hide incidents and/or revelations of harm well
after peer and regulatory acceptance and public release? Or should you
be directed to the literally thousands of instances where evidence of
harm has been manipulated to the appearance of being diminutive, or
"statistically insignificant" or withheld altogether from peer,
regulatory and public review?
Ok, lets say I agree to your standard of absolute proof of safety before
proceeding with anything "new" When do we assume that a particular
activity or exposure posesses a low enough risk to get on with our lives?
No Bob, when delving into the world of the dieties, the onus should be
on proof of absence, not absence of proof. "Proof" all too often takes
far more than a two year clincial study on adulterated lab mice -
frequently years, a generation or more to become self-evident. This,
of course, you well know.
The second flaw is universal embrace of "acceptable risk" (at the
regulatory, industrial and scientific levels) and the
institution/application of both the acceptance and the risk in the
public sector where there is no need for either to be present.
Aspartame, no different than saccharine, became the "cure all" pill
for a complacent society that increasingly has given up on lifestyles
that include moderate amounts of exercise ("hard work" is not a
substitute for physical exertion) and dietary discipline. As a result
of the economic exploitation to be derived from that cash cow, half or
more of a global society has now been and is continually being exposed
to a chemical that is virtually needless and has been proven to be
useless as a curative, in light of the fact that per capita caloric
consumption has risen, not declined, in western societies since the
infusion of aspartame into the marketplace.
you are preaching to choir again, Todd. I agree that it has little or
value. I am trying to address relative risk.
There are actually two other flaws in the logic both you and John
Hayes would apparently care to apply, or perhaps not apply. The first
is that not every person's physiology is duplicit, which in turn
demands that not everyone is going to react duplicitly to the same set
of inputs, much less varying sets of inputs - erego the "practice" of
medicine. Oddly enough, professionals ranging from engineers, to
doctors, to lawyers to science in general attempt to leverage opinion
and acceptance using their supposed vast arrays of knowledge in
comparison to those who have not been inundated under similar
regimens. Yet on the other hand, these same professionals and
institututions of such superior training are the first to fall back on
the excuses that can be derived from the unknown.
I am well aware of idosyncratic reactions.
All rather queer how in one venue/conversation their opinions are to
be accepted as absolute, yet in the very next breath the expectation
is that they be given full lattitude for error based upon what isn't
known.
thats life, its imperfect.
Relative to the gene that converts phenylalanine to tyrosine, there
are over 100 mutations.
actually it is an enzyme , not a gene.
The corresponding conversion rate is zero to normal. For science,
medical, regulatory and industry "professionals" to declare aspartame
as being "safe," when it has the incumbent ability to affect in a less
than positive manner to some degree or another a broad spectrum of the
body public - not just specifically one sector deficient of a precise
amount of ability/inability to process phenylalanine - is
irresponsible, perhaps even criminal.
Gee, that is a pretty broad indictment. The problem is that this
argument is applicable to any substance passing thru the body. How do
we ever determine what is safe?
Even more substantial in this disease of irresponsibilty is the fact
that dosage of phenylalanine (aspartame) is unregulated. It is an
accepted fact (at least amongst those who care to walk through life
with their eyes open) that hundreds of millions of consumers slam
untold quantitiies of aspartame (phenylalanine) daily via "dietetic"
soft drinks and food stuffs. In a world filled with moderate
dis-ability to process phenylalanine suffciently, this can only result
in a compound fracture of unknown proportions - certainly not
proportional to any two year clincal study on lab mice.
Furthermore, to demand that test results be yielded to support any
premise of affects beyond those suffering within the specific range of
Phenylketonuria (PKU), with the full knowledge that by and large the
expense of such testing falls well outside the finacial abilities of
all but the very institutions that hold stake in them not being
conducted, is at best an expression of inhibition to serve the greater
interests of the public. Whether that inhibition is derived from lack
of motivation to think more fully for one's self rather than following
the indoctrinational course of established institutions or as a result
of self-interests is not particularly a matter for me to decide here
and now.
What is inevitable and infinitely amazing is the fact that if and/or
when such sudies are conducted or existing data is sufficiently
amassed and corrolaries drawn, this same body of supposedly learned
professionals and their incumbent groupies will spend inordinate
amounts of time and money attempting to insert their supposition of
"fact" (inclusive of all the unknowns and "statistical insignificance"
embodied within their "facts"), into every crevice of substantiality
in order to relegate any premise to the point of obscurity, or as John
Hayes would care to put it, "psuedo-science."
No Bob. What I find is that people who selectively design their
parameters of acceptance to omit those obvieties that least suit their
convenience, preference, purpose or intent are those who are living
largely in a less than honest world. Those who acknowledge what isn't
known are the ones who living in a spectrum of reality and more prone
to both be believed and seen as serving the public good.
Reason, as well as reality, all too often defies convention, much less
what you may care to call "conventional wisdom."
Finally, there is that small matter of "safe." Unfortunately,
application of the term by the body public is slightly askew from how
it is applied by the scientific, regulatory and industrial
communities. To the average citizen, "safe" implies without risk, harm
or similar dis-benefit. It is interpreted as static and absolute. On
the other hand, "safe" has a relative meaning in the "professional"
world. The sad truth of the matter is the manner in which the
professional, regulatory and industrial sectors exploit this
difference in interpretation in order to sell a product and/or belief
to the consuming public, with full knowledge that a general desception
is being effected.
Pick a field or subject and take notice of how often these truths are
applicable and how frequently the public is mis-lead to its detriment.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree
toodles
Todd Swearingen
----- Original Message ----- From: "bob allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec
Appal Energy wrote:
Bob,
I'm at a bit of a loss with this one. Don't suppose you would care
to qualify your opinion with something more than "quack, quack"
would you? As I recall the last time I visited the aspartame issue
(researched it for several weeks, up one side and down the other)
the problems and concerns were very real. Aspartame hasn't changed.
Human biology hasn't changed.
Neither human biology nor the scientific standards of proof. Let
me say first that I don't use aspertame, don't promote its use, or
even think it has value in our society, oh and I don't hold any stock
in or have any connection with the product. That having been said,
the facts are simple . there is no scientific evidence which shows
harm in the normal use of this product, with the single exception of
infants diagnosed with PKU. Asking me to prove it does no harm is
well nigh impossible. (the old proving a negative problem)
Todd, you said you investigated the issue. What are your findings.
Shouldn't the onus be on evidence of harm? What did you find,
beyond testimonials and feeble speculation? Animal studies, well
controlled laboratory results, Double blind trials? Where is the
evidence? And I don't mean things like "aspertame contains methanol,
methanol is poisonous, therefore Aspertame is poisonous". Or "the
body is not used to amino acids". I have seen these arguments way
too many times. Give me studies in per reviewed journals, and I will
give a look see and let you know of my conclusions.
We both know that just because something has found its way onto the
shelf and been assigned a status of "below regulatory concern" by a
very biased institutional process that doesn't somehow make reality
disappear.
Something a little more "concrete" from someone other than Donald
Rumsfeld would serve well at the moment.
Ok how about this, Some 50 plus million people here in US use it
daily, why hasn't epidemiological evidence turned up harm? I was a
graduate student many years back. I mention this only to point out
that proving that conventional wisdom is wrong is sort of a holy
grail to science researchers across the universe. If there is data
to disprove the conventional wisdom that aspertame is safe as used,
then why hasn't a graduate student in epidemiology found anything?
Todd Swearingen
----- Original Message ----- From: "bob allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec
Nothing personal to you but all I can say about Mercola is QUACK,
QUACK. see for example his totally bogus, nonscientific diatribe
about aspertame. It is right up there with other wackos such as
Betty Martini.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7469/755#76712
Legal Eagle wrote:
Thanks for the links. Dr Marcola is a known specialist in his
field, so this should prove an interesting read.
Luc
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Volker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:18 AM
Subject: RE: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec
Probiotics are something I researched heavily about 6 months ago,
when I
began using what I have found to be by far the best available.
Here is one
link which explains the product well in summary form, and there
are many
sites which explain the homeostatic soil organism concept at extreme
detail..The probiotic I am referring to is called Primal Defense,
made by
"Garden of Life"...visit http://www.risingstarlc.com/pdindex.htm
Also, regarding flu epidemics, shortages of vaccines, and the
foolishness of
using vaccines period, visit
http://www.mercola.com/2004/oct/20/flu_vaccine.htm
Regards,
Dan Volker
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Legal Eagle
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 10:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec
Muchas Gracias Kim;
After having a peruse I may even want to give it a link in
the Oragnics Section of my site or something. We all need to
seek out ways to better our health. No one is going to avoid
dying, but we sure can have a good and long quality of life though.
Luc
PS:Maybe I should be thinking of adding a section only for
probiotics. I already have an article on it, but sources I do
not have.Hmmm, worth a thought.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kim & Garth Travis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] C.Difficile Epidemic in Quebec
> Wonderful advice Luc. I would add that kefir taken daily really
> promotes good health. Kefir grains really are Mother Nature's
best
> defence for health. The nice part, is that one aquires
grains just by
> paying the shipping, then in a couple of weeks, you have lots of
> grains to share with family and friends. Learn more at:
> http://users.chariot.net.au/~dna/kefirpage.html
>
> Bright Blessings,
> Kim
>
> At 07:52 AM 10/27/2004, you wrote:
>>http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/10/26/cdiffici
le_queplan
>>041026.html
>>
>>Check out what they are doing to curb it. Reducing
anti-biotics, duh.
>>Anti-biotics overuse has resulted in many more diseases
than they have
>>"cured". All the while attacking "bad" bacteria they also
eliminate "good"
>>bacteria leaving the immune system depleted of it's
defenses and then
>>along comes Mr. Pathogen (just like in tress) and wreaks a
nightmare,
>>and because these pathogen are so prolific it isn't long
before what
>>was a minor problem becomes a major health concern, just
like over use
>>of fertilizers in soil. Same causation, same effect.
>>When T cells are healthy the immuno functions, including the
lymph,
>>cleans out and purify the blood and move dead cells and other
>>pathogens along to be disposed of, but if the immuno functions
are
>>weakened by anti-biotic overkill then the lymph can't do
it's job properly and you get ... sick.
>>When anti-biotics MUST be used it is recommended that a
probiotic such
>>as acidophilus accompany it to offset some of the negative
effects of
>>the immuno depletion Of course there are exemptions, as in
all rules,
>>but this is the standard, now starting to be admitted by the
>>"community" of those heralding themselves as "health
experts". HRT was
>>a really good earner, I mean solution, until they were
forced to admit
>>it is a carcinogen. Vioxx was a really good earner, oops, I mean
>>solution until people started killing themselves. Lipitor
wa a really
>>good... unti it also proveed to be counter-health producting.
>>Moral of the story ? Live a healthy life and feed your body
with high
>>quality healthy fresh foods and you won't have to worry
about finding
>>a "solution" later.
>>
>>Luc
>
> _______________________________________________
> Biofuel mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
>
> Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
> http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
> Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
> http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
>
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob /bob
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's oldest exercises
in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral
justification for shness
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob /ozarker.org/bob
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The modern conservative is engaged in one of Man's oldest exercises
in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral
justification for selfishness
-------------------------------------------------------------------- ---
[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bob Allen, Professor of Chemistry
http://ozarker.org/bob
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression;
this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference
and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 19 of The Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the
United Nations General Assembly,10 December 1948:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable):
http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
