Me?;1470878 wrote:but the aspartame in the Diet will make damn sure you are riddled with cancer.

False.

[url]http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame

that there is no indication of any genotoxic or carcinogenic potential of aspartame and that there is no reason to revise the previously established ADI for aspartame of 40 mg/kg [body weight].

[/URL]

Me?;1470878 wrote:aspartame in the Diet will make damn sure you are riddled with cancer.

Yes, because there was a study forever ago where they fed rats nothing but sweet-and-low and they got cancer. That means if some shmuck has a diet Coke they're going to get cancer too.

Oblivious.

justincredible;1470885 wrote:Big K.

You're a Faygo guy. Don't lie.

Back when I drank pop, I tended to drink diet, mainly because I prefer the taste of anything (chemicals, whatever) over pure sugar water. Now, I don't drink pop unless I'm chasing a shot, so fuck it. Fuck it all.

dlazz;1470897 wrote:You're a Faygo guy. Don't lie.

my step mom buys Faygo Cream soda by the case!!!

lhslep134;1470894 wrote:False.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/aspartame


[/I]

Pure propaganda from the ACS. An organization that relies on the existence and spread of cancer to exist. I can find you hundreds of studies that PROVE otherwise, rather than just saying "there is no indication". I suggest you start by reading the history of aspartame and the FDA. Crony capitalism is the only reason it's even approved for use in our products.

Me?;1470928 wrote:Pure propaganda from the ACS. An organization that relies on the existence and spread of cancer to exist. I can find you hundreds of studies that PROVE otherwise, rather than just saying "there is no indication". I suggest you start by reading the history of aspartame and the FDA. Crony capitalism is the only reason it's even approved for use in our products.

WOAH! you really smart talking!

Me?;1470928 wrote:Pure propaganda from the ACS. An organization that relies on the existence and spread of cancer to exist. I can find you hundreds of studies that PROVE otherwise, rather than just saying "there is no indication". I suggest you start by reading the history of aspartame and the FDA. Crony capitalism is the only reason it's even approved for use in our products.

Here we go. I'll bet this guy also believes there's a 9/11 conspiracy.

vdubb96;1470930 wrote:WOAH! you really smart talking!

*WHOA!

dlazz;1470933 wrote:Here we go. I'll bet this guy also believes there's a 9/11 conspiracy.

wait, what...that didn't really happen?

Yeah, well, don't any of you notice how cancer rates just grow and grow and grow--right along side our "improving" standard of healthcare? No way that could be caused by unnatural chemicals that we're ingesting in our food on a daily basis. I suppose you also think GMO plants are awesome. Ever notice how there is ALWAYS some major organization right there to deny any theory of what is causing cancer rates to grow? How many have you ever seen come up with another answer for why it's happening? They just use their influence and money to shut down any "conspiracy theory". I guess the idea that the people who sit on the boards of these organizations, who also sit on boards with people who own subsidiaries that produce things like aspartame, or the Diet Coke itself, couldn't possibly being paid off or influenced by their friends to pass through a certain narrative. Oh wait...those same people sit on boards with the media folks too. So I guess if you choose to believe what they tell you and not do any of your own research, other than researching in areas that are producing that same narrative, you would think I'm crazy. That's fine.

Me?;1470946 wrote: you would think I'm crazy. That's fine.

well, you're right about that

The Center for Disease Control also wants you to believe that vaccines don't cause autism. Regardless of the fact that the increase in autism rates mirror the increase in vaccines offered and given to children. Or the thousands of cases of perfectly healthy babies who were vaccinated only to become autistic shortly after. NO WAY THAT COULD BE CONNECTED, I'M JUST A NUT JOB THAT WON'T JUST LISTEN TO WHAT THEY TELL ME! LOCK ME UP!

Me?;1470928 wrote:Pure propaganda from the ACS.

Except the quote I posted was from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Nice fail there smartass.

Me?;1470949 wrote:The Center for Disease Control also wants you to believe that vaccines don't cause autism. Regardless of the fact that the increase in autism rates mirror the increase in vaccines offered and given to children. Or the thousands of cases of perfectly healthy babies who were vaccinated only to become autistic shortly after. NO WAY THAT COULD BE CONNECTED, I'M JUST A NUT JOB THAT WON'T JUST LISTEN TO WHAT THEY TELL ME! LOCK ME UP!

**** is getting real in here right meow!

lhslep134;1470953 wrote:Except the quote I posted was from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Nice fail there smartass.

Ohhhhhh...I'm sorry. The link you posted isn't a link to the American Cancer Society website?

The EPA also used to have a standard that no amount of radiation was safe. Then they realized that people were being exposed to radiation. So they changed the standard that SOME radiation is fine...

Kind of like how the FDA said aspartame can't be used in food and drink. And then later, when they got a new appointed director from a new regime in Washington, they said it can be used because it's fine...because they say it is.

Straight from the horse's mouth:

[URL="http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/faqs/faqaspartame.htm#22"]22. What about the second study that looked at long-term carcinogenic effects?

The ANS Panel considered findings from long-term studies conducted in experimental animals related to toxicity and carcinogenicity on the developing fetus. In its review of the Soffritti et al. (2010) publication, EFSA’s scientists concluded that, on the basis of the information available in the publication, the validity of the study and its statistical approach cannot be assessed and its results cannot be interpreted. Regarding the design of the study, and in line with the global scientific consensus, EFSA advised that experimental studies carried out over animals’ lifetimes can lead to erroneous conclusions. Older animals for instance are more susceptible to illness and when a carcinogenicity study in mice is extended beyond the recommended 104 weeks, age-related pathological changes (such as spontaneous tumours) can appear which may confound the interpretation of any compound-related effects. Furthermore, EFSA noted that Swiss mice (used in this study) are known to have a high incidence of spontaneous hepatic and pulmonary tumours and that the increased incidence of these tumours reported in the study fall within the historical control range recorded in this laboratory for these tumours in these mice.

In other words, we didn't like the results of that study, so we're discrediting it based on nothing but not liking the results.


http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/faqs/faqaspartame.htm#22


[/URL]

I usually only drink pop when I'm tired at work. Maybe 2-3 times per month. I've been binge drinking about four nights a week this summer, though.

GOONx19;1471022 wrote:I usually only drink pop when I'm tired at work. Maybe 2-3 times per month. I've been binge drinking about four nights a week this summer, though.

I binge drink Shandys like a mofo in the summer!

Me?;1470946 wrote:Yeah, well, don't any of you notice how cancer rates just grow and grow and grow--right along side our "improving" standard of healthcare? No way that could be caused by unnatural chemicals that we're ingesting in our food on a daily basis. I suppose you also think GMO plants are awesome. Ever notice how there is ALWAYS some major organization right there to deny any theory of what is causing cancer rates to grow? How many have you ever seen come up with another answer for why it's happening?

Off the top of my head?
Well, #1 type of cancer in the United States is skin cancer. Relatively harmless if caught early, and a heavy majority of the cases can be contributed to idiots who use tanning beds and/or don't use sunscreen.

#2 is lung cancer, which is almost completely from smoking and people who worked in coal mines and such. It wasn't always common knowledge that smoking is bad for you, and by the time they finally figured it out, people that had been smoking for decades sealed their fate. Lung cancer is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better, by the way.

#3, #4, #5 are prostate, breast, and colon. This probably boils down to people just not taking the proper precautions and getting examined. I don't know about you, but I'm certainly not looking forward to getting a prostate exam or a colonoscopy.

SnotBubbles;1470768 wrote:I don't drink soda.

Beer, Water, Gatorade, Coffee or Iced Tea for me.

This minus the tea.

I work in the Soda/Pop industry. All you people need to start consuming it, like right now.

The autism/vaccine link is very sketchy. Of course there are more cases of autism now. Until recently, most doctors didn't even know what it was -"we'll ma'm, you have a quiet and intelligent son who is simply awkward. Now that its a known thingy, the "instances" of it have gone way up.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1471285 wrote:The autism/vaccine link is very sketchy. Of course there are more cases of autism now. Until recently, most doctors didn't even know what it was -"we'll ma'm, you have a quiet and intelligent son who is simply awkward. Now that its a known thingy, the "instances" of it have gone way up.

That, and the guy who originally published the study, later said he made it up.