PDA

View Full Version : Aspartame-Neurotoxin



electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-31, 09:13 PM
I just found out that Aspartame is a neurotoxin that can cause things from epilepsy to brain tumors. For years i've had people trying to get me off the normal coca-cola and start drinking the diet kinds.
I always knew there had to be a catch to all the "diet" sugar stuff i didnt know it was put on a little weight or give yourself cancer. If i wanted to lose weight that badly i would start smoking.

Did anyone else know about this? i just found out from one of my mums medical journals... im glad im unhealthy!

SciFi Chick
2004-Oct-31, 09:33 PM
I just found out that Aspartame is a neurotoxin that can cause things from epilepsy to brain tumors. For years i've had people trying to get me off the normal coca-cola and start drinking the diet kinds.
I always knew there had to be a catch to all the "diet" sugar stuff i didnt know it was put on a little weight or give yourself cancer. If i wanted to lose weight that badly i would start smoking.

Did anyone else know about this? i just found out from one of my mums medical journals... im glad im unhealthy!

I would be interested in any evidence regarding this. What medical journal would this be?

It's been the subject of much debate. Check out the bad medecine thread...

Gullible Jones
2004-Oct-31, 09:37 PM
Uhh... That happens to be completely bogus. Aspartame is toxic if you happen to have phenylketonuria (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disease/Phenylketo.html), since it contains the amino acid phenylalanine, but to most people it is not toxic in the doses in which it is normally consumed. AFAIK, there is almost no evidence indicating that it causes brain tumors or epilepsy in individuals not afflicted with PKU.

BTW, what "medical journal" was this? Who wrote the article in question?

Maha Vailo
2004-Oct-31, 09:38 PM
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, electro, but you're wrong (http://www.snopes.com/toxins/aspartame.asp) there. [-X

BTW, where did you hear that rumor?

- Maha "sweet rumors" Vailo

SciFi Chick
2004-Oct-31, 09:42 PM
I'm sorry to burst your bubble, electro, but you're wrong (http://www.snopes.com/toxins/aspartame.asp) there. [-X

BTW, where did you hear that rumor?

- Maha "sweet rumors" Vailo

He said he got it from one of his mother's medical journals. :D

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-31, 09:45 PM
I didn't hear a "rumor" i read that there are independent studys been performed with it. It was only a little article to the back of the british nursing journal.

Also this "rumor" is actualy known to most of the nursing staff in the area as they all don't drink diet drinks because of it, i talked to my neighbour who's a nurse at hull royal and her brother (who lives with her) both know it and my mother knows it and apparently everyone on the staff knows it aswell.

Rumor or not when medical staff are refusing to drink things with them in i think i'll stick with them. I couldn't give a damn what evidence you show because they have their reasons and they usualy turn out to be right.

SciFi Chick
2004-Oct-31, 09:48 PM
Oh, I see. Evidence is meangingless to you. Well, why didn't you just say so? :roll:

You do realize the evidence you're being offered is from studies like the ones you claim to be citing.

Not only that, we have qualified medical personnel on this board that will disagree with you. What makes your medical staff more knowledgeable?

And by the way, that's called an argument from authority. Being a nurse and being a chemist are two entirely different things. Nurses do not know everything.

TrAI
2004-Oct-31, 09:59 PM
I just found out that Aspartame is a neurotoxin that can cause things from epilepsy to brain tumors. For years i've had people trying to get me off the normal coca-cola and start drinking the diet kinds.
I always knew there had to be a catch to all the "diet" sugar stuff i didnt know it was put on a little weight or give yourself cancer. If i wanted to lose weight that badly i would start smoking.

Did anyone else know about this? i just found out from one of my mums medical journals... im glad im unhealthy!

Hmm... I think aspartame is broken down into phenylanine, aspartic acid and methanol when digested. Aspartic acid is used by the body to synthesize other amino acids, phenylanine is used to make some neurotransmitters, but some people are not capable of metabolizing it, and should avoid foods that contain it, protein rich foods for example. Methanol is a poison of course, but you probably get more of it by drinking fruit juice or alcoholic drink than an equal amount of diet soda, though I expect drinking a lot of such soda might give one a hangover... A problem with artificial sweeteners is that they will trigger the release of insulin(unless you are incapable of producing insulin or are used to ingesting much artificial sweeteners(the body adapts the response, apparently)), I expect that will drop the blood glucose level, I think that may be a reason why such sweeteners can cause headaches, and it would make one hungry too, I guess..

I don't think it is more dangerous than other drinks, but I do try to avoid sodas with artificial sweeteners as I just do not like the taste ...

Gullible Jones
2004-Oct-31, 10:01 PM
EMP, I would think that you of all people would know that claims must be backed up with evidence to hold any water.

(And here's a good place to start looking: www.pubmed.org)

frogesque
2004-Oct-31, 10:55 PM
Has this research (http://www.dorway.com/invivo.txt) (1998) been discredited?

I always thought that it was the liver that was most at risk of aspartame poisoning.

Anecdotal I know but in my own case if I drink a lot (more than 4 x 330ml cans) of carbonated diet drink I end up with a metallic taste in my mouth for a couple of days afterwards. At the time of consumption I also get a slight high feeling. I do not get these effects from sugar based carbonated drinks. Since I learned of the Barcleona Report I have avoided aspartame.

Gullible Jones
2004-Oct-31, 11:08 PM
Umm... Frogesque, check out your link's main page. The site looks pretty woo-woo to me.

What I'd like to know is how you'd end up with methanol from the breakdown of aspartame - that would require a carbon, an oxygen, and 4 hydrogen atoms to pop into existance out of nowhere. The peptide bond looks like this:



- C - N -
| |
H H


Add a water molecule and let certain enzymes do their job, and it splits open, becoming:



- C - OH H - N -
| |
H H


So would someone mind telling me where the methanol comes from? And please, let's not violate any basic laws of physics...

Edit: Corrected stupid errors due to bizarre behavior of text. :-?

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-31, 11:11 PM
Not only that, we have qualified medical personnel on this board that will disagree with you. What makes your medical staff more knowledgeable?

What makes our medical staff more knowledgeable is that anything passed over from america's IIRC 5 year testing on medical products in another 10 years before it passes ours. We have 10 years clinical trials before things can be approved while last time i was informed it was about half the time for america. I can't be 100% sure on this so don't take my word for it but i do know we will second test any kind of medicine over here but food chemicals don't get tested because we trust the american FDA aproval.

Before anyone starts jumping to the wrong conclusion on this. I never said it WAS a neurotoxin Have you seen me write an article in a nursing journal no did i claim it was no. I read that independent studys are been performed with it to find out if it is one.

The above coming to any follow on posts from GJ because i just know its going to happen that people will accuse me of saying it is because im not i read that it may be one and that a lot of nursing staff in my local area believe it is.

I also know that nursing staff are just ordinary people and that chemists will know more about the chemical compositions. This being said Chemists have less knowledge about the effects of certain drugs then nurses or doctors. I worked with one she used to be a nurse but not anymore she's no longer an active one, she was pregnant while i worked with her so she basicly didn't drink anything that wasn't natural.

Also im going through the whole index of the pubmed site. I did find this page but the claims are unproven but the sheer volume is shocking.
http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/adverse.txt
Note: do not use mouse wheel to get to the bottom it will take you forever.

Gullible Jones
2004-Oct-31, 11:17 PM
Hey EMP, check out the names of websites you link to. Holisticmed.com doesn't back up its claims for a very good reason. :roll:

And yes, you did indeed say that aspartame is a neurotoxin. Well, that's what the text said anyway; I'm guessing that you didn't meant to put it that way.


I just found out that Aspartame is a neurotoxin that can cause things from epilepsy to brain tumors.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-31, 11:21 PM
Hmm... I think aspartame is broken down into phenylanine, aspartic acid and methanol when digested. Aspartic acid is used by the body to synthesize other amino acids, phenylanine is used to make some neurotransmitters, but some people are not capable of metabolizing it, and should avoid foods that contain it, protein rich foods for example. Methanol is a poison of course, but you probably get more of it by drinking fruit juice or alcoholic drink than an equal amount of diet soda, though I expect drinking a lot of such soda might give one a hangover... A problem with artificial sweeteners is that they will trigger the release of insulin(unless you are incapable of producing insulin or are used to ingesting much artificial sweeteners(the body adapts the response, apparently)), I expect that will drop the blood glucose level, I think that may be a reason why such sweeteners can cause headaches, and it would make one hungry too, I guess..

I don't think it is more dangerous than other drinks, but I do try to avoid sodas with artificial sweeteners as I just do not like the taste ...

The change in insulin levels does cause cancer. The cells have a little on off switch for glucose which is insulin and this been continually turned on and off damages the cell. It only takes so many cells to get damaged before one of them turns into a cancerous one.
The less erratic your eating is (IE not snacking) the less likely you are to get cancer from insulin and also less likely to get insulin. If you need to snack then your not eating right.

And i have to agree on the taste side especially with the drinks like vanilla and lemon diet coke as its sickly.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-31, 11:24 PM
Hey EMP, check out the names of websites you link to. Holisticmed.com doesn't back up its claims for a very good reason. :roll:

And yes, you did indeed say that aspartame is a neurotoxin. Well, that's what the text said anyway; I'm guessing that you didn't meant to put it that way.


I just found out that Aspartame is a neurotoxin that can cause things from epilepsy to brain tumors.

The "i just found out" was based on no other information i wanted to rectify that. Its like when i did my BMI and found out that i was obese and my GP started laughing. BTW im no way near obese or i would have never ran into Aspartame :D

Edit: Also i didn't think the follow up was going to be GJ :lol:

TrAI
2004-Oct-31, 11:31 PM
.
What I'd like to know is how you'd end up with methanol from the breakdown of aspartame - that would require a carbon, an oxygen, and 4 hydrogen atoms to pop into existance out of nowhere. The peptide bond looks like this:

I am not realy versed in chemical stuff, but as I understand it, the methyl ester part(O-CH3?) is involved in making the methanol..

frogesque
2004-Oct-31, 11:32 PM
electromagneticpulse this page (http://www.aspartame.ca/page_a14.html) seems to be the full text of the Barcelona Report but I'm no chemist so perhaps you could scan for its validity.

Thanks

Gullible Jones
2004-Oct-31, 11:34 PM
The change in insulin levels does cause cancer. The cells have a little on off switch for glucose which is insulin and this been continually turned on and off damages the cell. It only takes so many cells to get damaged before one of them turns into a cancerous one.
The less erratic your eating is (IE not snacking) the less likely you are to get cancer from insulin and also less likely to get insulin. If you need to snack then your not eating right.

Evidence? I've heard of stuff like this being linked to Type 2 diabetes, but never to cancer...

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-31, 11:43 PM
The change in insulin levels does cause cancer. The cells have a little on off switch for glucose which is insulin and this been continually turned on and off damages the cell. It only takes so many cells to get damaged before one of them turns into a cancerous one.
The less erratic your eating is (IE not snacking) the less likely you are to get cancer from insulin and also less likely to get insulin. If you need to snack then your not eating right.

Evidence? I've heard of stuff like this being linked to Type 2 diabetes, but never to cancer...

Paper Evidence im afraid, i Read it in a journal at college hopefully it hasn't been taken out since then as they can be taken for months at a time if their not the new one. If i can find it i'll quote the main parts of the article as it was a double page spread and i'll give you the name of the journal. I'll get it ASAP :D

electromagneticpulse
2004-Oct-31, 11:48 PM
electromagneticpulse this page (http://www.aspartame.ca/page_a14.html) seems to be the full text of the Barcelona Report but I'm no chemist so perhaps you could scan for its validity.

Thanks
Im in no way a chemist so not 100% certain but i am interested in it and i do find it kind of simple. I do remember carbon chains in a program i saw about the hostage situation in the russian theatre in which they used a knockout nerve gas of a composition like ibuprofen or asperin (i forget which) but the chemical was to concentrated and killed people. But Carbon chains are used in many chemicals and im no way saying there is any relation i just remember watching a program where the word carbon chain was said so many times.

And i've just been browser hijacked so this many not post :evil:

VTBoy
2004-Oct-31, 11:50 PM
Hell nutmeg is more toxic to the body than Aspartame I think. While you would have to ingest large amount of Aspartame to die, only a relativly small amount of nutmeg can kill.

TrAI
2004-Oct-31, 11:51 PM
The change in insulin levels does cause cancer. The cells have a little on off switch for glucose which is insulin and this been continually turned on and off damages the cell. It only takes so many cells to get damaged before one of them turns into a cancerous one.
The less erratic your eating is (IE not snacking) the less likely you are to get cancer from insulin and also less likely to get insulin. If you need to snack then your not eating right.

Indeed, it is not good for you, but the question was not if it was unhealthy to drink soda, you all ready implied you were going to drink the soda, and so it is the relative danger between artificial and natural sweeteners that is important.


And i have to agree on the taste side especially with the drinks like vanilla and lemon diet coke as its sickly.

The worst part is the aftertaste I think, it does seem sweet, but not like sugar, it is more bitter...

Gullible Jones
2004-Oct-31, 11:58 PM
You would happen to be right VTBoy, at least about nutmeg's toxicity - it contains a hallucinogenic alkaloid (which I forget the name of at the moment). Not sure about the lethal dose of nutmeg though.

As for the methyl ester part being converted to methanol, are you telling me that the human body is designed in such a way as to convert a safe amino acid into a dangerous compund? If that is the case, that is one of the biggest and most utterly stupid biological screwups in existance.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 12:02 AM
You would happen to be right VTBoy, at least about nutmeg's toxicity - it contains a hallucinogenic alkaloid (which I forget the name of at the moment). Not sure about the lethal dose of nutmeg though.

As for the methyl ester part being converted to methanol, are you telling me that the human body is designed in such a way as to convert a safe amino acid into a dangerous compund? If that is the case, that is one of the biggest and most utterly stupid biological screwups in existance.

I would have to second this. If the body is designed to do this if it simply happens through chemical degredation because of the temperature it is stored at in the body, etc, then it is the chemical not a biological action.

Also don't eat raw kidney beans their poisonous. I was hit when i tryed when i was 4, stupid parents been too over controlling :lol:

Gullible Jones
2004-Nov-01, 12:28 AM
Yep, you'd be correct about the kidney beans. Unfortunately for his devotees, Steven Mayorowitz (www.sproutman.com) is not.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 12:43 AM
Okay i have read about half of the page that frogesque has posted and i'll read the rest tommorow as its getting late and the words are blurring but i can't find any flaws in what they are saying and it sounds well written to me. One paragraph that caught my eye was this:


The cumulative effects derived from the incorporation of label in the chronic administration model suggests that regular intake of aspartame may result in the progressive accumulation of formaldehyde adducts. It may be further speculated that the formation of adducts can help to explain the chronic effects aspartame consumption may induce on sensitive tissues such as brain (6,9,19,50). In any case, the possible negative effects that the accumulation of formaldehyde adducts can induce is, obviously, long-term. The alteration of protein integrity and function may needs some time to induce substantial effects. The damage to nucleic acids, mainly to DNA may eventually induce cell death and/or mutations. The results presented suggest that the conversion of aspartame methanol into formaldehyde adducts in significant amounts in vivo should to be taken into account because of the widespread utilization of this sweetener. Further epidemiological and long-term studies are needed to determine the extent of the hazard that aspartame consumption poses for humans.
(Label is where the carbons are carbon 14 and radioactive)

Accumulation may be extreamly dangerous and worse then anything else as it has unseen side effects. Its like drinking a pint of beer every hour you get two units of Alcohol but you only break one down.
As the breakdown of formaldehyde is surgested to be quite long then if i was to drink diet drinks on my days in college i would get atleast 4 doses between when i get up and 4pm. I would also have 2 or 3 more doses after this so say 6 doses every weekday. If it takes a long time to break down by the end of the week i would have 30 doses in me (not including weekends) so you see where the problem could be for it.

Im in no way validating any of this but i can't find a flaw with the site and if the accumulation is true people having Aspartame could be at risk. Safe dosages may not be as safe as we think they are 8-[

Gullible Jones
2004-Nov-01, 12:53 AM
Umm...

First of all, we are talking extremely small amounts of methanol here. Stuff that the body can handle with no problem at all.

Second of all, formaldehyde doesn't "build up". It's reactive stuff, and therefore doesn't stick around very long.

TrAI
2004-Nov-01, 01:07 AM
You would happen to be right VTBoy, at least about nutmeg's toxicity - it contains a hallucinogenic alkaloid (which I forget the name of at the moment). Not sure about the lethal dose of nutmeg though.

As for the methyl ester part being converted to methanol, are you telling me that the human body is designed in such a way as to convert a safe amino acid into a dangerous compund? If that is the case, that is one of the biggest and most utterly stupid biological screwups in existance.

Well, It seems we are quite used to getting low level exposure to metanol through our food and you would have to ingest a few hundred liters of sodas worth of aspartame to get to a toxic level of methanol...

aspartame.net FAQ (http://www.aspartame.net/media/info/faq6.html)
perhaps you can figure out something from this (http://elvis.engr.wisc.edu/UER/uer98/author2/content.html)

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 01:08 AM
okay keeping that in note GJ.

http://www.aspartame.info/aspartame_news.html
Does this info sound a lot like the smoking advertisements to anyone? To me all their answers give a spin on the first line they say to try and throw the reader off. For example:

"Methanol can be toxic at very low levels and there has been no extensive testing of the effects of chronic, long-term exposure."

Methanol is not toxic at the levels found in fruit juices or food and drinks sweetened with aspartame.

It is not true that there has been no long term testing. In a study conducted by Professors Leon and Hunninghake, participants consumed an amount of aspartame equivalent to that found in 30 cans of soft drink sweetened only with aspartame every day for six months. There were no adverse effects whatsoever.

As noted above, small amounts of methanol are present in fruit juices. Other dietary sources include jam, beer and wine, and methanol is present in human breath, produced by normal metabolism.

How is the first and 3rd paragraph even relevant with talks about aspartame producing ethanol in the body. Yes we all know it does, these are psychological tricks they are pulling here and they don't give any hard facts themselves. I'll give you another example here:


A can of soft drink contains about one two-thousandth (1/2,000) aspartame.
Okay, 400ml 330ml 300ml 150ml, which can size are they talking about here? I have no clue and they don't say either.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 01:12 AM
Okay before i go i just saw TrAI post a link to the same site as i did but on a .net, odd #-o

Anyway i'll just give you a little overview of one of their prestine "clean bills of health"
http://www.aspartame.net/media/news/french.html

Yeah and they did BSE infected meat. They just stopped taking ours because we got rid of BSE from our cows but they didn't do proper checks and when we did we found BSE so they shouldn't really be using the French Food Safety Agency as one of their safetys as they have been majorly wrong before. Unless mad cow disease isn't a majorly wrong thing to give people. 8-[

Sammy
2004-Nov-01, 04:46 AM
Facts about aspartame--from a source supported by sellers of aspartame--but facts which no reputable scientist has ever disputed:


Aspartame (L-alpha-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methyl ester) is a low-calorie sweetener used to sweeten a wide variety of low- and reduced-calorie foods and beverages, including low-calorie tabletop sweeteners. Aspartame is composed of two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, as the methyl ester. Amino acids are the building blocks of protein. Aspartic acid and phenylalanine are also found naturally in protein containing foods, including meats, grains and dairy products. Methyl esters are also found naturally in many foods such as fruits and vegetable and their juices. Upon digestion, aspartame breaks down into three components (aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methanol), which are then absorbed into the blood and used in normal body processes. Neither aspartame nor its components accumulates in the body. These components are used in the body in the same ways as when they are derived from common foods.

Further, the amounts of these components from aspartame are small compared to the amounts from other food sources. For example, a serving of no-fat milk provides about 6 times more phenylalanine and 13 times more aspartic acid compared to an equivalent amount of diet beverage sweetened 100% with aspartame. Likewise, a serving of tomato juice provides about 6 times more methanol compared to an equivalent amount of diet beverage with aspartame. (emphasis added)

The following regulatory bodies, with significant professional staff and scientific resources, have studied data on aspartame and endorsed its use as a food additive:

Brazilian Health Ministry
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
Health Canada
French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA)
Scientific Committee on Food of the European Commission
U.K. Food Standards Agency
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
U.S. FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
World Health Organization

So have the following professional, scientific, and public interest organizations:

Science and Professional Organizations
Alzheimer’s Association
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Cancer Society
American Council on Science and Health
American Diabetes Association
American Dietetic Association
American Heart Association
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
British Medical Journal (editorial)
Columbia University
Lupus Foundation of America
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mayo Clinic
Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada
Multiple Sclerosis Foundation
National Cancer Institute
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
National Parkinson Foundation
The Nemours Foundation
U.K. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)
U.S. Consumer Information Center
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I'll trust THEM, not a bunch of woo woo web sites with an agenda, or well-meaning, but definitely mis-informed, nurses and technicians.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Nov-01, 04:56 AM
EMP, you said here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=357671#357671):


Before anyone starts jumping to the wrong conclusion on this. I never said it WAS a neurotoxin

But in your first sentence opening this thread you said (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=357619#357619)



I just found out that Aspartame is a neurotoxin that can cause things from epilepsy to brain tumors.


Also, quoting anecdotes from nurses is not evidence. Most nurses in the US, for example, "know" that the full Moon means more emergency room visits, more craziness, etc., but it's not true. There is ample evidence that there is no rise in such things around the full Moon (except from people who think the legend is true and self-fulfill it).

One control-tested study is worth all the anecdotes you'll ever hear.

sarongsong
2004-Nov-01, 06:00 AM
Here's the FDA's 1996 FDA Statement on Aspartame (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00772.html).
Then, there's the flip-side (http://dorway.com/).

snowcelt
2004-Nov-01, 12:53 PM
Sorry. Never read the whole thread. But I do see that Aspartame thing is causing a stir.

Back in the early 70s there was an other artificial sweetener scare. I can not remember the name. But I remember the scare. I do remember that what ever that sweetener was, it was proven to be bad for the health.

Wally
2004-Nov-01, 01:12 PM
A can of soft drink contains about one two-thousandth (1/2,000) aspartame.

Okay, 400ml 330ml 300ml 150ml, which can size are they talking about here? I have no clue and they don't say either.


I'm guessing they're talking about a standard 12 oz. can here (355 ml).

snowcelt
2004-Nov-01, 01:29 PM
A can of soft drink contains about one two-thousandth (1/2,000) aspartame.

Okay, 400ml 330ml 300ml 150ml, which can size are they talking about here? I have no clue and they don't say either.


I'm guessing they're talking about a standard 12 oz. can here (355 ml).

Call me mathematically challenged, but it matters not want the volume is: it is a ratio of 1 in 2000.

If this crap is so harmless, why does it taste like the droppings of a fairly large ferret?

SciFi Chick
2004-Nov-01, 01:41 PM
If this crap is so harmless, why does it taste like the droppings of a fairly large ferret?

Are you in the habit of eating animal droppings? I mean, how do you know what they taste like?

As to taste being an indicator of harmlessness, if that's your deciding factor, everyone should quit eating turnips immediately, 'cause they must be toxic. :wink:

snowcelt
2004-Nov-01, 01:46 PM
If this crap is so harmless, why does it taste like the droppings of a fairly large ferret?

Are you in the habit of eating animal droppings? I mean, how do you know what they taste like?

As to taste being an indicator of harmlessness, if that's your deciding factor, everyone should quit eating turnips immediately, 'cause they must be toxic. :wink:

You have indulged in turnips eh? Now you can say you have tasted ferret droppings.

Sammy
2004-Nov-01, 03:55 PM
Here's the FDA's 1996 FDA Statement on Aspartame (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00772.html).
Then, there's the flip-side (http://dorway.com/).
(empahsis added)

Come on, Sarongsong, you must have learned by now that you can't get away with posting full woo woo sites as relevant information. The "flip-side" is pure ** with NO scientific basis whatsoever.

Stuart
2004-Nov-01, 04:08 PM
Back in the early 70s there was an other artificial sweetener scare. I can not remember the name. But I remember the scare. I do remember that what ever that sweetener was, it was proven to be bad for the health.

Do you mean cyclamates?

As far as I can determine, there is still no proof that cyclamates cause cancer in humans - the evidence used to ban them was based on extrapolation form animal research. I believe the ban has been lifted in some parts of the world following evidence that the original research was flawed. I don't know enough about this area to give a meaningful opinion though.

sarongsong
2004-Nov-01, 04:21 PM
Here's the FDA's 1996 FDA Statement on Aspartame (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00772.html).
Then, there's the flip-side (http://dorway.com/).
(empahsis added)

Come on, Sarongsong, you must have learned by now that you can't get away with posting full woo woo sites as relevant information. The "flip-side" is pure ** with NO scientific basis whatsoever.
That's both sides of the argument---or is only one allowed now?

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 05:14 PM
EMP, you said here (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=357671#357671):


Before anyone starts jumping to the wrong conclusion on this. I never said it WAS a neurotoxin

But in your first sentence opening this thread you said (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=357619#357619)



I just found out that Aspartame is a neurotoxin that can cause things from epilepsy to brain tumors.


I also said this:

Have you seen me write an article in a nursing journal no did i claim it was no. I read that independent studys are been performed with it to find out if it is one.

I made a wrong choice of words on what i had heard i admit that, but i have not gone about saying that aspartame is going to kill every last person that drinks it. Also Botox is a Neuro-Toxin the injections they give are only about 0.01% potency (IIRC) of the real chemical was designed to be used at. Botox would also be known as Botulinum Toxin Type A.
Its a NeuroToxin that is widely used and accepted but you get the wrong dose you end up paralized or dead. If it gets into the brain it stops the communication between each cell and would act like the person was suffering from the after effects of a stroke.

I personaly am in no way trying to prove or disprove the notion that it could possibly be a neurotoxin.



One control-tested study is worth all the anecdotes you'll ever hear.
As you have disproved many woo-woo theorys you should know that scientific data only holds weight when it has been reproduced and you should be stating "Three control-tested study's are worth all the anecdotes you'll ever hear". Because all tests have to be backed up and one control-test could simply be a false positive. Also they have to be performed by different people/companys/agencies (as it wouldn't be credible otherwise). Just thought i would correct that little mistake you made there :wink:



Call me mathematically challenged, but it matters not want the volume is: it is a ratio of 1 in 2000.

I was trying to point out that the evidence they give isn't backed up in their replys. How many 2000's are there in the 355ml can?
Say theres only 1 1/2000 in a can and it would require 10 molecules of 'quizblarg' to kill you so that would mean i could drink 9 cans in a day and be fine. If theres say one thousand 1/2000 i would be dead and gone from one can. If aspartame is a toxin then this would matter greatly.

Also i find it rather insulting that things like Slim-Fast has it in and Diet soda's do aswell when their saying things methanol is in fruit and vegetables. I somehow think they have one messed up view of a diet if their diet drinks aren't meant to be taken while on a diet which they clearly label them as.
So im going to go on a diet and me switching to a diet drink that has methanol in, food that has methanol in and some slim-fast that has a lot in (as it has no sugar yet it is extreamly sweet from aspartame). I believe the context in which the products are used should be taken into acount. IE if i eat no vegetables or anything that would contain methanol the drinks and slim fast stuff would do nothing, if im using all that and having a salad in both meals a day then i have a lot more methanol in my diet then before which is a problem as we all know what methanol does.


Also, quoting anecdotes from nurses is not evidence. Most nurses in the US, for example, "know" that the full Moon means more emergency room visits, more craziness, etc., but it's not true. There is ample evidence that there is no rise in such things around the full Moon (except from people who think the legend is true and self-fulfill it).

Well most nurse's here have been telling pregnant women not to touch alcohol while pregnant but doctors have been saying its fine its not that harmful in moderation. Now the doctors are saying women shouldn't touch a drop of alcohol while pregnant.
Anecdotes can be wrong but they can also be more right then all the clinical trials you do as i have just given an example.
Or maybe i should give you another one, "all british nurses know that there are more accidents on bank holidays, weekends and holidays. They also know the upside to a night shift is that there is less work to do." Yes anecdotal but also again very true. A persons home is the most dangerous place for them (on average) and when they are at home they are more at risk of taking a trip to the A&E.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Nov-01, 05:21 PM
My points were that

1) anecdotes are only good as a place to start testing; they are not evidence in and of themselves. All the anecdotes in the world are not worth a single good, well-done test (which I didn't say outright, but is what I meant, being a scientist); and

2) I never said all things nurses know are wrong; I would never say that. I meant that just because a nurse (or cop or doctor or whatever) says something, does not mean it's right. You still need to back it up with evidence.

John Jones
2004-Nov-01, 05:30 PM
Umm... Frogesque, check out your link's main page. The site looks pretty woo-woo to me.

What I'd like to know is how you'd end up with methanol from the breakdown of aspartame - that would require a carbon, an oxygen, and 4 hydrogen atoms to pop into existance out of nowhere. The peptide bond looks like this:



- C - N -
| |
H H


Add a water molecule and let certain enzymes do their job, and it splits open, becoming:



- C - OH H - N -
| |
H H


So would someone mind telling me where the methanol comes from? And please, let's not violate any basic laws of physics...

Edit: Corrected stupid errors due to bizarre behavior of text. :-?

IIRC, aspartame contains the methyl ester of phenyalanine, which could hydrolyse to yield methanol

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 05:31 PM
My points were that

1) anecdotes are only good as a place to start testing; they are not evidence in and of themselves. All the anecdotes in the world are not worth a single good, well-done test (which I didn't say outright, but is what I meant, being a scientist); and
I agree the fact that people are getting sick when drinking things with aspartame in could purely be a coincidence like the controvosy over MMR and Autism. The MMR jab is given ASAP for a small child (about 3 years old) and Autism kicks in at about 3 years. The anecdotal evidence shows the correlation between them but its also got one underlying thing that can disprove it all, Autism doesn't show until the child is of about 3 years. They are still debating over it now.
Also i find some of the anecdotes a joke like "i was eating a packet of sugar free gum and i got head achs". The first thing i would surgest is go to the dentists not its the artifical sugar on the chewing gum.


2) I never said all things nurses know are wrong; I would never say that. I meant that just because a nurse (or cop or doctor or whatever) says something, does not mean it's right. You still need to back it up with evidence.
Yes you do need to back it up with evidence but things like when cops say "i can always tell a crook" or what not are sometimes very true. I could find out who on this board played guitar regularly to me its rather simple it can be wrong but theres several ways to check if they do or not. I can't back it up with evidence other then show that i can tell who's extreamly likely to be a guitarist against who isn't.

John Jones
2004-Nov-01, 05:39 PM
electromagneticpulse this page (http://www.aspartame.ca/page_a14.html) seems to be the full text of the Barcelona Report but I'm no chemist so perhaps you could scan for its validity.

Thanks
Im in no way a chemist so not 100% certain but i am interested in it and i do find it kind of simple. I do remember carbon chains in a program i saw about the hostage situation in the russian theatre in which they used a knockout nerve gas of a composition like ibuprofen or asperin (i forget which) but the chemical was to concentrated and killed people. But Carbon chains are used in many chemicals and im no way saying there is any relation i just remember watching a program where the word carbon chain was said so many times.

And i've just been browser hijacked so this many not post :evil:


They used fentanyl, IIRC. It's an anesthetic, and these can be deadly for a variety of reasons, including the fact that people can aspirate, and stop brething under anaesthesia. That's why we have anaesthesiologists in operating rooms

tuffel999
2004-Nov-01, 05:46 PM
Ohhhh.....man how did I miss this thread? Someone has to PM when these come up :x

We have already done this song and dance EMP. Use the search pm the board. IT IS SAFE. POST THE SUPPOSED JOURNAL ARTICLE INFO.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 05:48 PM
electromagneticpulse this page (http://www.aspartame.ca/page_a14.html) seems to be the full text of the Barcelona Report but I'm no chemist so perhaps you could scan for its validity.

Thanks
Im in no way a chemist so not 100% certain but i am interested in it and i do find it kind of simple. I do remember carbon chains in a program i saw about the hostage situation in the russian theatre in which they used a knockout nerve gas of a composition like ibuprofen or asperin (i forget which) but the chemical was to concentrated and killed people. But Carbon chains are used in many chemicals and im no way saying there is any relation i just remember watching a program where the word carbon chain was said so many times.

And i've just been browser hijacked so this many not post :evil:


They used fentanyl, IIRC. It's an anesthetic, and these can be deadly for a variety of reasons, including the fact that people can aspirate, and stop brething under anaesthesia. That's why we have anaesthesiologists in operating rooms

Thats the one! The russians didnt account for the time it would take to spread so the people sat closer to the air ducts OD'd on it while the people in the middle got none. The problem with anasthetics is what they do to your head, alcohol would be the best anasthetic ever created... if it didn't kill off your brain cells. But then again some people hardly use any as my day has proved so i vote yes on alcohol anasthetics :wink:

tuffel999
2004-Nov-01, 05:51 PM
Thats the one! The russians didnt account for the time it would take to spread so the people sat closer to the air ducts OD'd on it while the people in the middle got none. The problem with anasthetics is what they do to your head, alcohol would be the best anasthetic ever created... if it didn't kill off your brain cells. But then again some people hardly use any as my day has proved so i vote yes on alcohol anasthetics :wink:

Wait so you are claiming that you know how anesthesia works?

What receptor on the cell allows anesthesia into the cell?

Alcohol works better than any other? You of course have proof? No?

John Jones
2004-Nov-01, 06:07 PM
Sorry. Never read the whole thread. But I do see that Aspartame thing is causing a stir.

Back in the early 70s there was an other artificial sweetener scare. I can not remember the name. But I remember the scare. I do remember that what ever that sweetener was, it was proven to be bad for the health.

That would be either cyclamates or saccharine. If I'm not mistaken, the FDA relented on saccharine and re-approved it.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 06:11 PM
Wait so you are claiming that you know how anesthesia works?

What receptor on the cell allows anesthesia into the cell?

Alcohol works better than any other? You of course have proof? No?

Yes i know how anasthetics work they block the transmission of neurotransmitters between the synapses and also make the reception of it seem weaker so their is a total effect of the signal being much weaker when or if it is recieved. If it is sufficiently blocked the reciever cell wont carry on the signal. An anasthetic can either simply absorbe the ions that are passed between the synapses and causes an electrical signal in the post-synaptic neurone.

Alcohol is actually one of the best and if you've got drunk you would know this. Also it has been used as an anasthetic since practicly its creation for its ability to block neurotransmissions between the synapses. Do i have to go over how those work again to prove to you i know how they work tuffel?

John Jones
2004-Nov-01, 06:25 PM
Wait so you are claiming that you know how anesthesia works?

What receptor on the cell allows anesthesia into the cell?

Alcohol works better than any other? You of course have proof? No?

Yes i know how anasthetics work they block the transmission of neurotransmitters between the synapses and also make the reception of it seem weaker so their is a total effect of the signal being much weaker when or if it is recieved. If it is sufficiently blocked the reciever cell wont carry on the signal. An anasthetic can either simply absorbe the ions that are passed between the synapses and causes an electrical signal in the post-synaptic neurone.

Alcohol is actually one of the best and if you've got drunk you would know this. Also it has been used as an anasthetic since practicly its creation for its ability to block neurotransmissions between the synapses. Do i have to go over how those work again to prove to you i know how they work tuffel?

I've gotten drunk, and I seriously doubt (even dispute) your claim that ethanol is one of the best anesthetics. How drunk would you have to get to have your leg amputated without feeling it?

If it's the best, why was it quickly abandoned in favor of ethyl ether or cloroform when their anesthic properties were discovered?

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 06:25 PM
Ohhhh.....man how did I miss this thread? Someone has to PM when these come up :x

We have already done this song and dance EMP. Use the search pm the board. IT IS SAFE. POST THE SUPPOSED JOURNAL ARTICLE INFO.

Actualy i never said it was an article (period) i read it in a medical journal. It was one of the small pieces at the back which was what some of the new research is, i've seen ones saying their looking into hypnosis/gold salt x-rays to help radiotherapy in cancers. These aren't posted by an author as they are simply written to inform of some of the research that is coming up.
I have already mentioned what it said that they were independent studys into it. Sorry if you was hoping for a big article tuffel but i never called it an article till everyone had already started mentioning it. Or maybe i should tell you all the information on the clipping, how about the chemotherapy article in which was the reason i took the clipping as it was for my college course.
Where i learnt how neurotransmitters work would you believe it or not im studying biology while training to become a health carer, its a miracle what they teach you in colleges today isn't it. I mean you just finish school and you get the ability to jump 2 years in your training because of your grades.

Oh and BTW tuffel anaesthetics aren't absorbed into the cells. They don't enter the cells they can either block of the transmission of neurotransmitters after they are transmitted or they can join with the synapses themselves which prevents neurotransmissions. If it is absorbed into the neurone it isn't an anaesthetic also anaesthetics are usualy long chemicals which are too big to be absorbed into a cell anyway.

John Jones
2004-Nov-01, 06:28 PM
Ohhhh.....man how did I miss this thread? Someone has to PM when these come up :x

We have already done this song and dance EMP. Use the search pm the board. IT IS SAFE. POST THE SUPPOSED JOURNAL ARTICLE INFO.

Actualy i never said it was an article (period) i read it in a medical journal. It was one of the small pieces at the back which was what some of the new research is, i've seen ones saying their looking into hypnosis/gold salt x-rays to help radiotherapy in cancers. These aren't posted by an author as they are simply written to inform of some of the research that is coming up.
I have already mentioned what it said that they were independent studys into it. Sorry if you was hoping for a big article tuffel but i never called it an article till everyone had already started mentioning it. Or maybe i should tell you all the information on the clipping, how about the chemotherapy article in which was the reason i took the clipping as it was for my college course.
Where i learnt how neurotransmitters work would you believe it or not im studying biology while training to become a health carer, its a miracle what they teach you in colleges today isn't it. I mean you just finish school and you get the ability to jump 2 years in your training because of your grades.

Oh and BTW tuffel anaesthetics aren't absorbed into the cells. They don't enter the cells they can either block of the transmission of neurotransmitters after they are transmitted or they can join with the synapses themselves which prevents neurotransmissions. If it is absorbed into the neurone it isn't an anaesthetic also anaesthetics are usualy long chemicals which are too big to be absorbed into a cell anyway.

You're sure of that?

John Jones
2004-Nov-01, 06:32 PM
BTW EMP, I missed it the first time, but I especially enjoyed this comment of yours:

"Im in no way a chemist so not 100% certain but i am interested in it and i do find it kind of simple."

Chemistry is simple? That's fairly humorous.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-01, 06:32 PM
Actualy i never said it was an article (period) i read it in a medical journal. It was one of the small pieces at the back which was what some of the new research is, i've seen ones saying their looking into hypnosis/gold salt x-rays to help radiotherapy in cancers. These aren't posted by an author as they are simply written to inform of some of the research that is coming up.
I have already mentioned what it said that they were independent studys into it. Sorry if you was hoping for a big article tuffel but i never called it an article till everyone had already started mentioning it. Or maybe i should tell you all the information on the clipping, how about the chemotherapy article in which was the reason i took the clipping as it was for my college course.

Ehem.......



Paper Evidence im afraid, i Read it in a journal at college hopefully it hasn't been taken out since then as they can be taken for months at a time if their not the new one. If i can find it i'll quote the main parts of the article as it was a double page spread and i'll give you the name of the journal. I'll get it ASAP :D

[emphasis mine]

Care to backtrack some more?

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 06:34 PM
I've gotten drunk, and I seriously doubt (even dispute) your claim that ethanol is one of the best anesthetics. How drunk would you have to get to have your leg amputated without feeling it?

If it's the best, why was it quickly abandoned in favor of ethyl ether or cloroform when their anesthic properties were discovered?

IIRC they enhance the effects of GABA which has an inhibitary effect on neurons, this is what reduces the neurones ability to pick up the electrical signal. Alcohol inhibits cognitive function as it blocks off the outer neurones of the brain through blocking the neurotransmitters between the synapses. Increasing the effectiveness of GABA means that the neurone is getting weaker electrical impulses so it doesn't send on the message.
I broke a rib while drunk and i didn't find out till the next day. Also would you believe it or not but getting you leg amputated would be less painful then kidney stones as this is the only thing that is consided excruciating pain by most doctors and is given a high dose of morphine (which is why drug addicts fake them to try an get some morphine common here). Your leg getting cut off could be fairly pain free infact, people with deep burns often dont feel them because of where the sensory neurones are.

Humphrey
2004-Nov-01, 06:38 PM
Your leg getting cut off could be fairly pain free infact, people with deep burns often dont feel them because of where the sensory neurones are.

I call bull on this. Ive read about and attended Civil war re-enactments that multiple times mentioned the fact that there were accounts of it being very common for men to pass out from the pain of amputation.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 06:38 PM
Actualy i never said it was an article (period) i read it in a medical journal. It was one of the small pieces at the back which was what some of the new research is, i've seen ones saying their looking into hypnosis/gold salt x-rays to help radiotherapy in cancers. These aren't posted by an author as they are simply written to inform of some of the research that is coming up.
I have already mentioned what it said that they were independent studys into it. Sorry if you was hoping for a big article tuffel but i never called it an article till everyone had already started mentioning it. Or maybe i should tell you all the information on the clipping, how about the chemotherapy article in which was the reason i took the clipping as it was for my college course.

Ehem.......



Paper Evidence im afraid, i Read it in a journal at college hopefully it hasn't been taken out since then as they can be taken for months at a time if their not the new one. If i can find it i'll quote the main parts of the article as it was a double page spread and i'll give you the name of the journal. I'll get it ASAP :D

[emphasis mine]

Care to backtrack some more?

That was a reply to a quote. READ THE QUOTE

You will find it is addressed to insulin not aspartame.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 06:39 PM
The change in insulin levels does cause cancer. The cells have a little on off switch for glucose which is insulin and this been continually turned on and off damages the cell. It only takes so many cells to get damaged before one of them turns into a cancerous one.
The less erratic your eating is (IE not snacking) the less likely you are to get cancer from insulin and also less likely to get insulin. If you need to snack then your not eating right.

Evidence? I've heard of stuff like this being linked to Type 2 diabetes, but never to cancer...

Paper Evidence im afraid, i Read it in a journal at college hopefully it hasn't been taken out since then as they can be taken for months at a time if their not the new one. If i can find it i'll quote the main parts of the article as it was a double page spread and i'll give you the name of the journal. I'll get it ASAP :D

There you go Humphrey :D

Humphrey
2004-Nov-01, 06:41 PM
Ahhh yes i am sorry. I take back my thoughts on that subject. It was a while since i read the specific post.

John Jones
2004-Nov-01, 06:44 PM
I've gotten drunk, and I seriously doubt (even dispute) your claim that ethanol is one of the best anesthetics. How drunk would you have to get to have your leg amputated without feeling it?

If it's the best, why was it quickly abandoned in favor of ethyl ether or cloroform when their anesthic properties were discovered?

IIRC they enhance the effects of GABA which has an inhibitary effect on neurons, this is what reduces the neurones ability to pick up the electrical signal. Alcohol inhibits cognitive function as it blocks off the outer neurones of the brain through blocking the neurotransmitters between the synapses. Increasing the effectiveness of GABA means that the neurone is getting weaker electrical impulses so it doesn't send on the message.
I broke a rib while drunk and i didn't find out till the next day. Also would you believe it or not but getting you leg amputated would be less painful then kidney stones as this is the only thing that is consided excruciating pain by most doctors and is given a high dose of morphine (which is why drug addicts fake them to try an get some morphine common here). Your leg getting cut off could be fairly pain free infact, people with deep burns often dont feel them because of where the sensory neurones are.

1) That doesn't answer my question.


2) Breaking a rib while drunk is not in the same order of magnitude as getting your leg amputated.

3) If kidney stones is the only thing considered excruciating pain, why don't doctors prescribe ethanol as a pain killer?

ASIDE: My wife is a Nurse, my doctor is an endocrinologist, and I'm a survivor of acute pancreatitis. We all agree it is one of the most excruciating pains you can have. The gave me hydromorphone pump for it (AKA Dilaudid). My wife treats opiate addicts, and a large number became addicted because of pancreatitis.

Edit to add: Actually, my doctor said pancreatitis is the worst pain in the world

tuffel999
2004-Nov-01, 07:16 PM
Yes i know how anasthetics work they block the transmission of neurotransmitters between the synapses and also make the reception of it seem weaker so their is a total effect of the signal being much weaker when or if it is recieved. If it is sufficiently blocked the reciever cell wont carry on the signal. An anasthetic can either simply absorbe the ions that are passed between the synapses and causes an electrical signal in the post-synaptic neurone.

You might want to recant that. The cellular action of general anesthesia is NOT known. Among other references:

http://anesthesiologyinfo.com/articles/01062002c.php
http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/molecular-mechanism.html


You need to go read Molecular Bases of Anesthesia by Moody and Skolnick before you talk about this subject. And you might want ot look up how K+ are involved, as opposed to the classic lipid interaction idea.

You should also start reading the Journal Anesthesiology.


Alcohol is actually one of the best and if you've got drunk you would know this. Also it has been used as an anasthetic since practicly its creation for its ability to block neurotransmissions between the synapses.

Show me the data! BTW, Ethanol interacts with the voltage sensitive K+ channels.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=8346202
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/270/33/19408


Do i have to go over how those work again to prove to you i know how they work tuffel?

So yes EMP you do....because you haven't yet.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 07:20 PM
1) That doesn't answer my question.


2) Breaking a rib while drunk is not in the same order of magnitude as getting your leg amputated.

3) If kidney stones is the only thing considered excruciating pain, why don't doctors prescribe ethanol as a pain killer?

ASIDE: My wife is a Nurse, my doctor is an endocrinologist, and I'm a survivor of acute pancreatitis. We all agree it is one of the most excruciating pains you can have. The gave me hydromorphone pump for it (AKA Dilaudid). My wife treats opiate addicts, and a large number became addicted because of pancreatitis.

Edit to add: Actually, my doctor said pancreatitis is the worst pain in the world

well pain is relative to the person also somewhat the gender and even your colour hair believe it or not. I'll try dig up what i read on that a while back.

3) because ethanol only blocks the transmissions enhancing the effects of GABA do infact make drugs a some what "better" anasthetic. But they can also have more adverse effects in which the body produces less GABA because it is used to having it injected into them (physical addiction).
If you walked into Hull Royal complaining of kidney stones the doctors wouldn't give you anything because theres a high chance your an addict looking for a free score. Also would you want to be drinking while your renal system isn't working properly. I think a problem with any organ is going to be hundreds of times worse then a broken arm or leg etc.

Also ethanol isn't perscribed because of its negative side effects like heart disease, neuron degredation, liver diseases like alcoholic hepatitis... the list goes on. If these kinks where sorted out and just the neurotransmitter blocking effect was useable it would be better then any of the anasphetics that increase GABA like you said many become addicts because of the anasphetics used.
If the body produces less GABA then when they are off the drug the messages seem much bigger so for a little pin prick it could be like getting hit on the hand with a hammer.

2) Depends on the reason your getting your leg amputated.

John Jones
2004-Nov-01, 07:30 PM
1) That doesn't answer my question.


2) Breaking a rib while drunk is not in the same order of magnitude as getting your leg amputated.

3) If kidney stones is the only thing considered excruciating pain, why don't doctors prescribe ethanol as a pain killer?

[...]


well pain is relative to the person also somewhat the gender and even your colour hair believe it or not. I'll try dig up what i read on that a while back.

3) because ethanol only blocks the transmissions enhancing the effects of GABA do infact make drugs a some what "better" anasthetic. But they can also have more adverse effects in which the body produces less GABA because it is used to having it injected into them (physical addiction).
If you walked into Hull Royal complaining of kidney stones the doctors wouldn't give you anything because theres a high chance your an addict looking for a free score. Also would you want to be drinking while your renal system isn't working properly. I think a problem with any organ is going to be hundreds of times worse then a broken arm or leg etc.

Also ethanol isn't perscribed because of its negative side effects like heart disease, neuron degredation, liver diseases like alcoholic hepatitis... the list goes on. If these kinks where sorted out and just the neurotransmitter blocking effect was useable it would be better then any of the anasphetics that increase GABA like you said many become addicts because of the anasphetics used.
If the body produces less GABA then when they are off the drug the messages seem much bigger so for a little pin prick it could be like getting hit on the hand with a hammer.



That would seem to contradict your claim that ethanol is one of the best anesthetics going.

BTW, ether is explosively flammable, and chloroform had an annoying habit of causing heart failure, yet these both quickly supplanted ethanol.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 07:33 PM
You might want to recant that. The cellular action of general anesthesia is NOT known. Among other references:

http://anesthesiologyinfo.com/articles/01062002c.php
http://www.general-anaesthesia.com/molecular-mechanism.html


You need to go read Molecular Bases of Anesthesia by Moody and Skolnick before you talk about this subject. And you might want ot look up how K+ are involved, as opposed to the classic lipid interaction idea.

You should also start reading the Journal Anesthesiology.


Alcohol is actually one of the best and if you've got drunk you would know this. Also it has been used as an anasthetic since practicly its creation for its ability to block neurotransmissions between the synapses.

Show me the data! BTW, Ethanol interacts with the voltage sensitive K+ channels.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=8346202
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/270/33/19408


Do i have to go over how those work again to prove to you i know how they work tuffel?

So yes EMP you do....because you haven't yet.

True its not known and im talking from a strictly medical point of view which i am being taught so i can infact help treat a patient, if you want to discuss K+ chanels and ion transmission be my guest do it somewhere else!.

Ethanol blocks the transmissions if they block the K+ chanels they are blocking the transmissions or don't you understand that.

So tuffel this is a discussion about aspatame go hijack another thread!

Anything you post about this will be ignored because it isn't in the context of the thread so leave it out.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 07:48 PM
That would seem to contradict your claim that ethanol is one of the best anesthetics going.

BTW, ether is explosively flammable, and chloroform had an annoying habit of causing heart failure, yet these both quickly supplanted ethanol.

Yes it would because of the negative side effects. It has the ability to be a non addictive anesthetic which we need. People can get addicted to alcohol but thats only certain types of people (IE people can get addicted to chewing gum its a non addictive substance).
Ethanol is a good anasthetic but using it (like in your example) to amputate a leg is probably a bad idea, it would be more likely knock the person out with the bottle.

The enhancement of GABA means that anasphetics WORK better but also gives them MORE side effects. So its really that GABA enhancing anasphetics is the current lesser of two evils.

Actualy a lot of anasphetics have the ability to cause systems to fail mainly by their effects some drugs also cause systems to fail by over sending messages they keep the signal from the neurone going which could be one thats making the heart beat faster or slower, either way its not good for you. A Hyperactive or Hypoactive heart while you need a steady one is bad.

Anyway can we get back onto the aspatame discussion.

If you want to carry on this discussion John i would be happy to as this is starting to interest me more... could help with my work :D


Ahhh yes i am sorry. I take back my thoughts on that subject. It was a while since i read the specific post.

Its okay everyone makes mistakes :)

tuffel999
2004-Nov-01, 07:52 PM
True its not known and im talking from a strictly medical point of view which i am being taught so i can infact help treat a patient, if you want to discuss K+ chanels and ion transmission be my guest do it somewhere else!.

Ethanol blocks the transmissions if they block the K+ chanels they are blocking the transmissions or don't you understand that.

So tuffel this is a discussion about aspatame go hijack another thread!

Anything you post about this will be ignored because it isn't in the context of the thread so leave it out.

I am not the one who brought up anesthetics.

So you get proven wrong and so instead of learning something you try and squash it....nice.

Ohhh....and as for this being about aspartame how about you actually look at the data not woo-woo sites and a suppoosed article(which you have conveniently not provided)?

Like this for instance:

-JAMA. 1985 Jul 19;254(3):400-2.
Aspartame. Review of safety issues. Council on Scientific Affairs.

-Diabetes Care. 1989 Jan;12(1):67-74.
Aspartame metabolism in normal adults, phenylketonuric heterozygotes, and diabetic subjects.
Filer LJ Jr, Stegink LD.

-Am Fam Physician. 1989 Feb;39(2):201-6.
Clinical safety of aspartame.
Yost DA.

-Arch Intern Med. 1989 Oct;149(10):2318-24.
Safety of long-term large doses of aspartame.
Leon AS, Hunninghake DB, Bell C, Rassin DK, Tephly TR.

- Hum Genet. 1994 Apr;93(4):369-74.
Neuropsychological and biochemical investigations in heterozygotes for phenylketonuria during ingestion of high dose aspartame (a sweetener containing phenylalanine).
Trefz F, de Sonneville L, Matthis P, Benninger C, Lanz-Englert B, Bickel H.

-J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003 Aug 1;223(3):301.
Wants to clear up Internet misinformation regarding aspartame.
Carakostas M.

And these are just from my first page of bookmarks on the subject.

This horse is dead. You are wrong. Aspartame is NOT dangerous, and you DO NOT know how anesthetics work.

beskeptical
2004-Nov-01, 08:13 PM
I found some pretty good sources on the aspartame question, with an interesting twist.

I started by checking if the Trocho article Frogesque cited was legit and got this on answers from google. (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=31953)

Which contained the following literature review at this site. (http://www.dorway.com/peerrev.html)


SURVEY OF ASPARTAME STUDIES:
CORRELATION OF OUTCOME
AND FUNDING SOURCES

Ralph G. Walton, M.D.
Chairman
The Center for Behavioral Medicine
Forum Health
Professor and Chairman
Department of Psychiatry
Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine

ABSTRACT

Studies of aspartame in the peer reviewed medical literature were surveyed for funding source and study outcome. Of the 166 studies felt to have relevance for questions of human safety, 74 had Nutrasweet® industry related funding and 92 were independently funded. One hundred percent of the industry funded research attested to aspartame's safety, whereas 92% of the independently funded research identified a problem. A bibliography supplied by the Nutrasweet® Company included many studies of questionable validity and relevance, with multiple instances of the same study being cited up to 6 times. Questions are raised both about aspartame's safety and the broader issue of the appropriateness of industry sponsorship of medical research. (Emphasis mine, and the Frogesque article was there, BTW.)

Of course the FDA site has already been mentioned. (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qa-adf9.html)


Is aspartame safe?

After reviewing scientific studies, FDA determined in 1981 that aspartame was safe for use in foods. In 1987, the General Accounting Office investigated the process surrounding FDA's approval of aspartame and confirmed the agency had acted properly. However, FDA has continued to review complaints alleging adverse reactions to products containing aspartame. To date, FDA has not determined any consistent pattern of symptoms that can be attributed to the use of aspartame, nor is the agency aware of any recent studies that clearly show safety problems.

Carefully controlled clinical studies show that aspartame is not an allergen. However, certain people with the genetic disease phenylketonuria (PKU), those with advanced liver disease, and pregnant women with hyperphenylalanine (high levels of phenylalanine in blood) have a problem with aspartame because they do not effectively metabolize the amino acid phenylalanine, one of aspartame's components. High levels of this amino acid in body fluids can cause brain damage. Therefore, FDA has ruled that all products containing aspartame must include a warning to phenylketonurics that the sweetener contains phenylalanine.

So here's my point of view:

There is some risk in almost all, if not everything, we do. For some, there is no need for artificial sweeteners, so don't use them. For others, the added calories from sugared sodas or other foods contributes to obesity. It is not easy to just drink water. Aspartame seems far less hazardous than excessive sugar. Drink in moderation if you can, but if not, drink to your heart's content. Once you have decided, don't stress over it as stress is also harmful to some people.

I thought it a bit disturbing that the literature review above had such differing results between the industry funded studies and the non-industry funded studies. But one must also keep in mind the industry studies may have focused on general safety while the other studies may have looked at more specific outcomes. Those outcomes may have indicated potential harm, but didn't take that potential one step further and measure if actual harm occurs. One would have to look more closely at the variables between the two groups of studies and I didn't have time to pursue that angle.

An additional note on the nursing journal this whole thread started from, I hate to say it but there are only a few nursing journals that have a good track record for well supported conclusions. Anecdotal evidence from nurses is sadly unreliable. I'm glad the BA mentioned anecdotal evidence from doctors was also often unreliable.

I have been on a mission to educate health care workers on the basics of interpreting evidence for much of my almost 30 years in the field. It is sad that nurses remain one of the least consistently professional of the professional groups of health care workers. Part of the problem is we have nurses with 2 yr, 4 yr, masters, and hospital based training programs, all functioning with similar titles. The other part of the problem is the lack of scientific education in the population in general.


PS, Tuffel, once again instead of just sharing information and/or informing someone of an error, you post condescending statements that do not communicate anything other than your contempt. If you feel so superior to folks, why not show it by just providing your information without all the sarcasm? Then the thread can continue without deteriorating into a slug fest.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 08:31 PM
I am not the one who brought up anesthetics.

No you didn't John did and it was a private discussion on what the russians used in the chechen seige of the moscow theatre. This was brought up because i remembered talk about carbon chains in what they used and they looked similar to the one in aspartame. So i see no reason at all of your needed to post anything about this. Please tell me the relevance of your butting into a discussion between two posters, there is enquiring or bringing up a point and then complete arrogance as you displayed apparently not knowing what we was talking about.

An OD is an OD i know that and i know how you can OD on things its an over dose and as the chemical was airborn the people near the air ducts OD'd because of the rate of diffusion. the workings of how anesthetics are not needed in the slightest other then the knowlidge that over dosing kills as it did because people died.


This horse is dead. You are wrong. Aspartame is NOT dangerous, and you DO NOT know how anesthetics work.
Thankyou for proving your arrogance here. There was lots of evidence to show that tabbaco products where not dangerous but infact we now know they cause you cancer. Infact there are some benifits to smoking just their are a lot more problems that it causes.

I would also preffer if you dont make your comments a personal attack on me. I dont know how anesthetics work? when the sites you so kindly provided say:

The molecular basis of general anesthetic action on membrane proteins that control ion transport is not yet understood.

If you have a problem with what i have learnt go argue with the NHS because their the ones who made the information for this health care course im taking. Your points are personal attacks on me and you can't back up your points for them "You are wrong" and "you DO NOT know" are and lets get technical a form of emotional and verbal abuse, your point of view to say i do not know and i am wrong are ungrounded as your information provided clearly states even the best biologists do not know how it works and i am learning from the british NHS's courses so infact i am right because i have the whole of the british health systems training and at the end of this year i will have a piece of paper saying this so what you say is both invalid and wrong yourself.

Like i said if you have a problem go take it up with the NHS

tuffel999
2004-Nov-01, 08:32 PM
PS, Tuffel, once again instead of just sharing information and/or informing someone of an error, you post condescending statements that do not communicate anything other than your contempt. If you feel so superior to folks, why not show it by just providing your information without all the sarcasm? Then the thread can continue without deteriorating into a slug fest.

I have been trying to think of a tactful way to respond to this that won't interfer with the thread more but there really isn't, so I can only assume it was meant as a trap. So will instead invite to come over to FWIS, where we can discuss thios interesting....Pot meet kettle moment.

tuffel999
2004-Nov-01, 08:40 PM
Please tell me the relevance of your butting into a discussion between two posters, there is enquiring or bringing up a point and then complete arrogance as you displayed apparently not knowing what we was talking about.

Because other people read it and they may assume what was stated was correct.


I would also preffer if you dont make your comments a personal attack on me. I dont know how anesthetics work? when the sites you so kindly provided say:

The molecular basis of general anesthetic action on membrane proteins that control ion transport is not yet understood.

You claimed to know how they work. When in fact noone does know how excactly they work. What do you want me to say? That you do know how they work?


If you have a problem with what i have learnt go argue with the NHS because their the ones who made the information for this health care course im taking.

No I take it up with the person providing it here as fact.


Your points are personal attacks on me and you can't back up your points for them "You are wrong" and "you DO NOT know" are and lets get technical a form of emotional and verbal abuse, your point of view to say i do not know and i am wrong are ungrounded as your information provided clearly states even the best biologists do not know how it works and i am learning from the british NHS's courses so infact i am right because i have the whole of the british health systems training and at the end of this year i will have a piece of paper saying this so what you say is both invalid and wrong yourself.

You are wrong is not a personal attack, you do not know is not a personal attack they are statements about the validity of your claim and position. You might not like them but I supported why they where wrong.

electromagneticpulse
2004-Nov-01, 08:57 PM
Because other people read it and they may assume what was stated was correct.
Then they could have brought it up.


You claimed to know how they work. When in fact noone does know how excactly they work. What do you want me to say? That you do know how they work?
No but then you should apologise for stating i am wrong when i am getting medical training which BTW doesn't tell you in detail how they work just that they do and how they think it works. I would rather go with the NHS's opinion then someone who has no right to make accusations on this point if you infact aknowlidge your information is wrong while mine is a medical training. Like i said argue it with the people who teach it not the students.


No I take it up with the person providing it here as fact.
Thank you again for been arrogant, like i said argue it with the people who teach it and give a damn about your "supiriority".


You are wrong is not a personal attack, you do not know is not a personal attack they are statements about the validity of your claim and position. You might not like them but I supported why they where wrong.
Actualy in the context you are wrong is a personal attack. You do not back up why, you make it condescending and belligerent. Which is a personal attack.

Also i find the notion foolish that you wish to argue with me about how i was taught. You here are the Woo-Woo theorist by saying the british health service is wrong with no evidence what ever to your claim. Call me wrong all you want but it doesn't stop the fact that it is a foolish attempt and a personal attack when you call me wrong and its cowardice not to confront the teachers.

So either drop your supiriority on this and stop arguing with me about it because i know i am in the right here because i have been taught this by qualified NHS staff. Until you are running the NHS or make them change your ignorant.

tuffel999
2004-Nov-01, 09:09 PM
You claimed to know how they work. When in fact noone does know how excactly they work. What do you want me to say? That you do know how they work?
No but then you should apologise for stating i am wrong when i am getting medical training which BTW doesn't tell you in detail how they work just that they do and how they think it works. I would rather go with the NHS's opinion then someone who has no right to make accusations on this point if you infact aknowlidge your information is wrong while mine is a medical training. Like i said argue it with the people who teach it not the students.

Wait I am supposed to apologize because I said you are wrong and you are wrong? And I am arguing with the person who is trying to teach it, YOU.





You are wrong is not a personal attack, you do not know is not a personal attack they are statements about the validity of your claim and position. You might not like them but I supported why they where wrong.
Actualy in the context you are wrong is a personal attack. You do not back up why, you make it condescending and belligerent. Which is a personal attack.

I did back up why. you said you knew I said you were wrong because the information you claimed to know is not known. That isn't a personal attack.


Also i find the notion foolish that you wish to argue with me about how i was taught.

Not how you were taught for the last time, what you were attempting to teach here.


You here are the Woo-Woo theorist by saying the british health service is wrong with no evidence what ever to your claim.

I provided my evidence. It is right there in the book I provided, and the links from the peer reviewed journals.


Call me wrong all you want but it doesn't stop the fact that it is a foolish attempt and a personal attack when you call me wrong and its cowardice not to confront the teachers.

You were the one attempting to teach, but if it will make you happy post theri email addressses and I will.

Round and round we go if you have anything else to say I will be at FWIS.

The Bad Astronomer
2004-Nov-01, 09:09 PM
I'll decide what's a personal attack and what isn't on this board.

tuffel, I find your posts to be too antagonistic. If you think EMP is wrong, say so, but do it politely.

EMP, some people are getting upset here because this topic was discussed before, you linked to iffy sites, and you have made claims that are not consistent with previous posts you made. You need to be more careful when you post here. People here don't suffer such things gladly.

I've seen enough here. No more good will come of this, if there ever was any. Locked.