the bullshit train trudges on

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Below is an article written by an anti-GMO website. This has me raging just looking through it at the misdirection and lies pisses me off. These people have no idea what these chemicals are they just here that it is incorporated in tires and there is "evidence" that it gives you diabetes. What it seem to me is a war on scary words not artificial products.

So an example where scary words really don't mean shit. ethylene glycol was commonly found in anti-freeze, it's technically "organic" yet highly toxic, would you want put that in your all organic herbal tea? Bet not.

Now Polyethylene glycol a polymer commonly used in medical applications, sutures, and one of the most biocompatibile polymers in existence. Yet produced from ethylene glycol. Yet you'd have to dump a gallon worth of this stuff down your throat to get a bad reaction and the worst thing that would happen is you'd get sick to your stomach.

Also I love how they use the word organic, it's completely based on opinion. Factually it's a low bar to be organic, Cheetos would qualify while water wouldn't.

Another, finding chemical from round up in your pee after eating the produce. What everyone immediately thinks is oh my god i've been basically sucking on a round up bottle every time I eat. Well I'd like to inform you that there is a far worse chemical to find in your pee and if it is there it means you will die within a couple weeks to months without proper medical treatment and lifestyle changes... it's ... glucose. That's right if you find sugar in your piss you will die, without some artificial insulin. If an artificial chemical is leaving your body through your pee guess what? that is usually what it's supposed to do, yeah it's going through your body but the fact that it leaves chemically intact usually means it hasn't had a chance to cause any problem.

Stop getting bullshited by these anti-gmo groups the truth is the products produced via chemical engineering are forced to a higher standard than any all natural herbal remedies and food producers. Don't believe me check out the compliance rate of companies that produce all natural stuff. They may be using all natural herbs and products but the way their manufacturing them is putting everyone that takes them at risk.

So i want to know your thoughts on this escapist but most of all I want to know if looking on the back of a package and seeing chemical names makes you not want to buy a product? Do you agree with the Organics point of view? I see this thread more as an open topic for anything relating to GMO's or organic products.

I'm confused, I thought GMO's where Genetically Modified Organisms. I don't understand what that has to do with gum.

Although I do get annoyed at some naturalistic bullshit. There is a soap advert at the moment, which talks about how other brands are full of chemicals (visualised by someone rubbing paint over their skin), whereas theirs is made from 'natural ingredients'. The depressing thing is that these adverts work, because most people don't know what the fuck 'chemical' means.

It's probably best not to dismiss it out of hand, as no doubt people would fill food with crap if the think they wont get caught (see, horsemeat), but it also pays to be cautious and sceptical, especially of the more strident claims.

Yes, I do read the packaging and yes, it does determine whether or not I will eat the product. Not because I don't understand " scary words" but because I do. One word that is particularly scary to me is " Aspartame". You see, it does have side effects, and some people are more prone to those side effects than others. I happen to be in the group that cannot have it at all. Even if dining out and they accidently send me a diet coke instead of a regular coke, after only a few sips, my eye starts to twitch, then my hands start to shake. Since I do not drink sodas on a regular basis, and only order them while out occassionaly, I don't always notice the flavor difference so I keep drinking it. This does not happen with non aspartame products, and even the mints and gum have made my mouth go numb, like I had been injected with novocaine. I did try Splenda for a while, but it had a weird aftertaste, so it really wasn't worth it to me to buy it after that. Also, the diet Chocolates act as a laxative, since they contain xylitol so I don't buy those either after the reaction I had to those. I just stay away from artificial sweeteners for the most part because of the way my system reacts to them. I also have other conditions though that make it difficult for me to eat many other foods, most people can flush out toxins quite easily, my system however does not, and it is much harder for me to get them out of my system than others. My Lymph nodes swell up all the time and are quite painful, and I have to be very careful what I eat to prevent that from happening. I do actually have to eat an all natural diet, and even then I have to watch very carefully to what I eat that is natural due to my health, natural does not mean it still can't hurt you, it completely depends on your system and what you are putting in it.

ClockworkPenguin:
I'm confused, I thought GMO's where Genetically Modified Organisms. I don't understand what that has to do with gum.

Perhaps this particular website is broadening its profile.

Anyway... as you know, I'm a diagnostician who handles microbes. Seeing scary-sounding names for chemicals, diseases and whatnot is really not worrying to me, certainly not in itself just because it sounds strange or foreign or complicated. Now, if particular words were to be there, I might get worried, but I don't really make a habit of checking. I'm generally rather... indolent, as they say... which to be fair isn't necessarily always a good thing.

ClockworkPenguin:
I'm confused, I thought GMO's where Genetically Modified Organisms. I don't understand what that has to do with gum.

Although I do get annoyed at some naturalistic bullshit. There is a soap advert at the moment, which talks about how other brands are full of chemicals (visualised by someone rubbing paint over their skin), whereas theirs is made from 'natural ingredients'. The depressing thing is that these adverts work, because most people don't know what the fuck 'chemical' means.

It's probably best not to dismiss it out of hand, as no doubt people would fill food with crap if the think they wont get caught (see, horsemeat), but it also pays to be cautious and sceptical, especially of the more strident claims.

Correct, however for the most part anti-gmo's and natural remedy groups go hand in hand. It's what could be described as a natural life style so when something comes up saying this medical product is dangerous it's posted and an alternative of healthy eating(via organics) is then proposed. For that particular article they seem to be selling is organic peppermint oil, the peppermint being a non-gmo plant.

No doubt chemical companies need to be kept in check however without self reflection on your own products(organics) you effectively cut off all good debate.

dmase:
Also I love how they use the word organic, it's completely based on opinion. Factually it's a low bar to be organic, Cheetos would qualify while water wouldn't.

Every time my mum hears something like that, she points out that hemlock is natural.

Personally, I think that's a bit boring.

This is a blue ring octopus:

It's a weird looking thing, and is rather nastily venomous. Totally organic.

For that matter, under the technical definition, the pools of hydrocarbons on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn are organic. Likewise petrol, napalm etc

Lil devils x:
Yes, I do read the packaging and yes, it does determine whether or not I will eat the product. Not because I don't understand " scary words" but because I do. One word that is particularly scary to me is " Aspartame". You see, it does have side effects, and some people are more prone to those side effects than others. I happen to be in the group that cannot have it at all. Even if dining out and they accidently send me a diet coke instead of a regular coke, after only a few sips, my eye starts to twitch, then my hands start to shake. Since I do not drink sodas on a regular basis, and only order them while out occassionaly, I don't always notice the flavor difference so I keep drinking it. This does not happen with non aspartame products, and even the mints and gum have made my mouth go numb, like I had been injected with novocaine. I did try Splenda for a while, but it had a weird aftertaste, so it really wasn't worth it to me to buy it after that. Also, the diet Chocolates act as a laxative, since they contain xylitol so I don't buy those either after the reaction I had to those. I just stay away from artificial sweeteners for the most part because of the way my system reacts to them. I also have other conditions though that make it difficult for me to eat many other foods, most people can flush out toxins quite easily, my system however does not, and it is much harder for me to get them out of my system than others. My Lymph nodes swell up all the time and are quite painful, and I have to be very careful what I eat to prevent that from happening. I do actually have to eat an all natural diet, and even then I have to watch very carefully to what those are due to my health, natural does not mean it still can't hurt you, it completely depends on your system and what you are putting in it.

To be clear I don't judge people with allergies, having a grandma that has severe respiratory problems whenever she is exposed to the dye in gel capsules. But it's just like a food allergy. If organics where seen as alternatives to people with these allergies I wouldn't give a shit about it but when it's seen as the only way to be healthy, to rid yourself of all artificial consumables your going too far.

My point is these chemicals aren't poisons as so many naturalists choose to label them. They are artificial products that are just a new useful chemical compound not the devil.

thaluikhain:
It's a weird looking thing, and is rather nastily venomous. Totally organic.

My favourite organic substances are organophosphates... particularly the V group of nerve gases.

dmase:

Lil devils x:
Yes, I do read the packaging and yes, it does determine whether or not I will eat the product. Not because I don't understand " scary words" but because I do. One word that is particularly scary to me is " Aspartame". You see, it does have side effects, and some people are more prone to those side effects than others. I happen to be in the group that cannot have it at all. Even if dining out and they accidently send me a diet coke instead of a regular coke, after only a few sips, my eye starts to twitch, then my hands start to shake. Since I do not drink sodas on a regular basis, and only order them while out occassionaly, I don't always notice the flavor difference so I keep drinking it. This does not happen with non aspartame products, and even the mints and gum have made my mouth go numb, like I had been injected with novocaine. I did try Splenda for a while, but it had a weird aftertaste, so it really wasn't worth it to me to buy it after that. Also, the diet Chocolates act as a laxative, since they contain xylitol so I don't buy those either after the reaction I had to those. I just stay away from artificial sweeteners for the most part because of the way my system reacts to them. I also have other conditions though that make it difficult for me to eat many other foods, most people can flush out toxins quite easily, my system however does not, and it is much harder for me to get them out of my system than others. My Lymph nodes swell up all the time and are quite painful, and I have to be very careful what I eat to prevent that from happening. I do actually have to eat an all natural diet, and even then I have to watch very carefully to what those are due to my health, natural does not mean it still can't hurt you, it completely depends on your system and what you are putting in it.

To be clear I don't judge people with allergies, having a grandma that has severe respiratory problems whenever she is exposed to the dye in gel capsules. But it's just like a food allergy. If organics where seen as alternatives to people with these allergies I wouldn't give a shit about it but when it's seen as the only way to be healthy, to rid yourself of all artificial consumables your going too far.

My point is these chemicals aren't poisons as so many naturalists choose to label them. They are artificial products that are just a new useful chemical compound not the devil.

Of course not all chemicals are bad for you, and just like everything else these days you have people looking to profit at the expense of others ignorance, just as you have many with the " green movement" not selling products that are better for the environment, they are just looking to make a buck at the expense of others.

As for my issues, Part of my problem is food allergies, the other part is my body just responds quicker to the damage being done than others. Yes, they actually do put a lot of stuff in our foods that is actually harmful to our health, damaging our organs, nervous system and other bodily functions it just differs in the amount of damage being done and how long it takes for your body to respond to that due to everyones immune system functioning different. You also should realize that just because we do not know what causes everything and why, that is does not mean that it is not directly related. The truth is we are still quite ignorant to the causes of many diseases and the how and why these things happen, and how to prevent them from happening. We have very limited information on how to solve these things, and can only use what we do have.

Take Cancer for example. Most think of Cancer as something that happens to someone else, however, EVERYONE has cancer at some point. It is just a cell that is supposed to die, but instead does not behave accordingly. The difference between someone with cancer who is well and someone who gets sick, is in the person who does not get ill from it, their immune system attacks the cells that are supposed to die and solves the problem. In someone who gets sick, their immune system doesn't do that and they quickly start filling up with these abnormal cells.Cancer is really just an immune system malfunction that can happen to anyone. We do not yet fully understand what causes an immune system to malfunction, or what causes cells to " not die" when they are supposed to. We do have information that things can increase the odds of this happening, or decrease the odds so we address those issues in order to reduce the number of people this happens to.

So we can promote this being good or bad based on what we do know, however, that doesn't suddenly rule out other things that may be good or bad simply because we do not have that information yet.

Also, yes of course just because something is " natural" it does not mean it is good for you.

The only downside to chewing gum that is valid is aspartame, as it's a source of phenylalanine. And that's a very specific chemical that is only going to harm sufferers of phenylketonuria.

I don't really get the fuss over artificial sweeteners, there's no real evidence they're bad for you, whereas there's plenty of evidence that sugar is. I guess it's just because it has artificial in its name.

RhombusHatesYou:

thaluikhain:
It's a weird looking thing, and is rather nastily venomous. Totally organic.

My favourite organic substances are organophosphates... particularly the V group of nerve gases.

Good point. If you start getting a runny nose and funny vision or tightness of breathe, mask up and take atropine.

...

As an aside, apparently in the 50s if a US force didn't have a chemical testing kit, to see if the danger was passed, they planned to have three guys crack the seals of their masks for a bit and see if symptoms developed. If they didn't, they took their masks off for a bit and see what happened.

Um...I suppose that would work, but...

Esotera:
The only downside to chewing gum that is valid is aspartame, as it's a source of phenylalanine. And that's a very specific chemical that is only going to harm sufferers of phenylketonuria.

I don't really get the fuss over artificial sweeteners, there's no real evidence they're bad for you, whereas there's plenty of evidence that sugar is. I guess it's just because it has artificial in its name.

I do not have phenylketonuria, yet I also have an strong reaction. To say anything is " only going to harm this group" is false, since much research is still needed in many areas.

Too much sugar is terribly bad for you as well, I like mint so much I finally gave up on buying them and decided to grow my own plants and make my own form of mints using neither. I think unsweetened fresh mint is far better than either of them. It isn't like we need sweeeteners at all really, we could just eat it the way it comes to begin with. That seems to work better for me than drwoning myself in artificial sweeteners or sugar. I am sweet enough without all that :p

The only sugars I really get are from fruits and veggies, I don't see the need for adding them to everything.

Lil devils x:

Esotera:
The only downside to chewing gum that is valid is aspartame, as it's a source of phenylalanine. And that's a very specific chemical that is only going to harm sufferers of phenylketonuria.

I don't really get the fuss over artificial sweeteners, there's no real evidence they're bad for you, whereas there's plenty of evidence that sugar is. I guess it's just because it has artificial in its name.

I do not have phenylketonuria, yet I also have an strong reaction. To say anything is " only going to harm this group" is false, since much research is still needed in many areas.

Too much sugar is terribly bad for you as well, I like mint so much I finally gave up on buying them and decided to grow my own plants and make my own form of mints using neither. I think unsweetened fresh mint is far better than either of them. It isn't like we need sweeeteners at all really, we could just eat it the way it comes to begin with. That seems to work better for me than drwoning myself in artificial sweeteners or sugar. I am sweet enough without all that :p

The only sugars I really get are from fruits and veggies, I don't see the need for adding them to everything.

What reaction do you get out of interest? I'm sure artificial sweeteners probably have loads of minor effects on health (most things do) but compared to excessive intake of sugar, they're way better. My original post missed that, I should have qualified it better...

Esotera:

Lil devils x:

Esotera:
The only downside to chewing gum that is valid is aspartame, as it's a source of phenylalanine. And that's a very specific chemical that is only going to harm sufferers of phenylketonuria.

I don't really get the fuss over artificial sweeteners, there's no real evidence they're bad for you, whereas there's plenty of evidence that sugar is. I guess it's just because it has artificial in its name.

I do not have phenylketonuria, yet I also have an strong reaction. To say anything is " only going to harm this group" is false, since much research is still needed in many areas.

Too much sugar is terribly bad for you as well, I like mint so much I finally gave up on buying them and decided to grow my own plants and make my own form of mints using neither. I think unsweetened fresh mint is far better than either of them. It isn't like we need sweeeteners at all really, we could just eat it the way it comes to begin with. That seems to work better for me than drwoning myself in artificial sweeteners or sugar. I am sweet enough without all that :p

The only sugars I really get are from fruits and veggies, I don't see the need for adding them to everything.

What reaction do you get out of interest? I'm sure artificial sweeteners probably have loads of minor effects on health (most things do) but compared to excessive intake of sugar, they're way better. My original post missed that, I should have qualified it better...

With Asparatame mints and gum my mouth goes numb like being given a shot of novacaine, yes with even the drooling, and then often become nauseous unless I spit it out quickly. With Aspartame ingested, such as in diet drinks, my eye twitches then my hands shake, then I become nauseous and ususally get sick and have to lay down after. Sometimes it would cause muscle spasms elsewhere, in leg, or arm. I do not have this reaction with regular sodas, or with coffee or tea so that ruled out the caffeine. It only happens with Aspartame products, and before I started looking to see if it was in there, I wouldn't know it was in there until it happened. It actually ruined a date once when they mistakenly gave me a diet coke instead of a regular one while dining. It is frustrating and embarrassing because you can't make it stop. I do not have any shaking or twitching reactions to anything else in my life ever, and all tests came up negative because I had my Physician check it out to be sure. Just that, which was so strange because I would have never thought something so simple could cause that to happen. They certainly did not cover that in med school. The truth is there is still much we have to learn about our bodies and this world we live in, and much is still very experimental.

dmase:
Below is an article written by an anti-GMO website. This has me raging just looking through it at the misdirection and lies pisses me off. These people have no idea what these chemicals are they just here that it is incorporated in tires and there is "evidence" that it gives you diabetes. What it seem to me is a war on scary words not artificial products.

So an example where scary words really don't mean shit. ethylene glycol was commonly found in anti-freeze, it's technically "organic" yet highly toxic, would you want put that in your all organic herbal tea? Bet not.

Now Polyethylene glycol a polymer commonly used in medical applications, sutures, and one of the most biocompatibile polymers in existence. Yet produced from ethylene glycol. Yet you'd have to dump a gallon worth of this stuff down your throat to get a bad reaction and the worst thing that would happen is you'd get sick to your stomach.

Also I love how they use the word organic, it's completely based on opinion. Factually it's a low bar to be organic, Cheetos would qualify while water wouldn't.

Another, finding chemical from round up in your pee after eating the produce. What everyone immediately thinks is oh my god i've been basically sucking on a round up bottle every time I eat. Well I'd like to inform you that there is a far worse chemical to find in your pee and if it is there it means you will die within a couple weeks to months without proper medical treatment and lifestyle changes... it's ... glucose. That's right if you find sugar in your piss you will die, without some artificial insulin. If an artificial chemical is leaving your body through your pee guess what? that is usually what it's supposed to do, yeah it's going through your body but the fact that it leaves chemically intact usually means it hasn't had a chance to cause any problem.

Stop getting bullshited by these anti-gmo groups the truth is the products produced via chemical engineering are forced to a higher standard than any all natural herbal remedies and food producers. Don't believe me check out the compliance rate of companies that produce all natural stuff. They may be using all natural herbs and products but the way their manufacturing them is putting everyone that takes them at risk.

So i want to know your thoughts on this escapist but most of all I want to know if looking on the back of a package and seeing chemical names makes you not want to buy a product? Do you agree with the Organics point of view? I see this thread more as an open topic for anything relating to GMO's or organic products.

There's plenty of reasons to be anti-GMO or anti-heavily processed foods from a social or economic standpoint (see: Monsanto), without having to resort to bullshit "Chemtrails" boogeymen.

Though they sort of have a good point with the 'chewing gum' thing. Not that it destroys your stomachs via enzymes, but that it does mentally prepare you to eat at all times which will cause you to be hungry more often.

Ingredient #2: Aspartame.

The controversy surrounding this substance is widespread. It is one of the most body toxic substances we can consume. The political corruption and money trail behind this agent of disease is a mile long. Aspartame has been linked to all of the major brain diseases including Alzheimer's and ALS. It is also considered a prime contributor to many other diseases such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis, asthma, obesity, and many others. It is in many diet products on the market today, but in the long run actually contributes to obesity due to his extreme acidity. Aspartame is an excitotoxin, which over excites neurons in the brain until they burn out and die. Dr. Russell Blaylock is the leading expert on Aspartame and other excitotoxins and I would highly encourage you to see the documentary entitled "Sweet Misery: A Poisoned World".

Lovely, not enough that it leads to cancer despite what numerous studies on animals and humans have shown and the FDA, EFSA and NCI says but it also causes pretty much every other bad-word illness.
DON'T LISTEN TO BIG COMPANIES, ONLY INTERNET ARTICLES KNOW THE TRUTH!

#3: Hydrogenated Coconut Oil and Starch.

Hydrogenation is chemical process that adds hydrogen across a double bonded carbon. This is done to increase the shelf life of a product, turning oil into a more plastic like substance. This process also creates Trans fats, which are now known to be very harmful to health.

Let's get this clear:
1) Hydrogen is bad
2) adding Hydrogen turns products into plastic
3) adding Hydrogen (to a fat or just to any substance?) leads to trans-fats, despite the fact that when it bonds with a double-bonded Carbon it breaks that double bond into a freely turnable single bond, eliminating the trans properties
4) trans-fats are bad, like the ones in butter and milk
Mind = blown

And because I'm bored I will now take down the entire British sweets industry. Stand back, I'm going to try pseudo-science!

Did you know that jelly babie contained Sodium? Do you want that happening in your stomach every time you eat one? Ban jelly babies!
Terry's Chocolate Orange contains orange oil, which is flammable and has been shown to cause cancer in rats and Cadbury Cream eggs contain Yellow 6, which is made from petroleum, and calcium chloride, which also sounds like a bad word. Surely you don't want to give that to your children.
image

Lil devils x:

As for my issues, Part of my problem is food allergies, the other part is my body just responds quicker to the damage being done than others. Yes, they actually do put a lot of stuff in our foods that is actually harmful to our health, damaging our organs, nervous system and other bodily functions it just differs in the amount of damage being done and how long it takes for your body to respond to that due to everyones immune system functioning different. You also should realize that just because we do not know what causes everything and why, that is does not mean that it is not directly related. The truth is we are still quite ignorant to the causes of many diseases and the how and why these things happen, and how to prevent them from happening. We have very limited information on how to solve these things, and can only use what we do have.

Obviously eating twinkies till you explode is going to give you diabetes and massive health problems but saying it's poison is false. By the same logic every food eaten to it's logical extreme is a killer.

While we may not be able to directly know what every disease is caused by we have strong indications one way or another. However that doesn't mean we don't know why a problem is occurring, we have a test for almost every biochemical component in the body and we can measure whether it's going up or down. While the body is still a mystery it's not nearly as much as you seem to indicate.

Without a method of action any studies correlating a chemical with disease is incomplete at best.

Take Cancer for example. Most think of Cancer as something that happens to someone else, however, EVERYONE has cancer at some point. It is just a cell that is supposed to die, but instead does not behave accordingly. The difference between someone with cancer who is well and someone who gets sick, is in the person who does not get ill from it, their immune system attacks the cells that are supposed to die and solves the problem. In someone who gets sick, their immune system doesn't do that and they quickly start filling up with these abnormal cells.Cancer is really just an immune system malfunction that can happen to anyone. We do not yet fully understand what causes an immune system to malfunction, or what causes cells to " not die" when they are supposed to. We do have information that things can increase the odds of this happening, or decrease the odds so we address those issues in order to reduce the number of people this happens to.

Cancer is caused by mutations in DNA. And while the immune system does fight off cancer it doesn't fight off every cancer it's not possible. In cases of cancer that needs treatment there are multiple variations of the same cancer within micrometers of each other. The immune system isn't equipped to combat an ever changing structure like most cancers. And no amount of vitamin C is going to boost the lymphatic system to a level where it can target serious cancerous cells. There is however medicine being developed that does this.

Just because the body does fight off cancer does not mean it can do so every time and assuming that there is a problem whith the lymphatic system when cancer can't be fought off isn't factual.

Damien Granz:

There's plenty of reasons to be anti-GMO or anti-heavily processed foods from a social or economic standpoint (see: Monsanto), without having to resort to bullshit "Chemtrails" boogeymen.

Though they sort of have a good point with the 'chewing gum' thing. Not that it destroys your stomachs via enzymes, but that it does mentally prepare you to eat at all times which will cause you to be hungry more often.

Yes I get it Monsanto is the evil corporate empire with their patenting of plants and their putting out of farmers but GMO's and modern farming is the only reason we can over eat in a country of over 300 million. Despite what they say organic farming is not sustainable and open to a wide variation of problems that we can't even conceive of yet. GMO's are built to be resistant to those problems.

To include, the FDA hates GMO's and all the hype around the problems they cause are just hype. The FDA has a hard on for that type of crop and if there was a problem they would be all over it.

If the whole organic industry decided they really wanted to bring down monsanto they could. The industry is worth over twice as much as Monsanto and Monsanto controls 90% of the seed market so taking them down isn't a matter of money. It's possible it's organization but considering the rapid growth in the organic industry in a couple very short years I don't think that is likely. Instead the real reason Monsanto isn't begging the organics not to push them out the market is because organics need a boogeyman to help sell their product and it's definitely Monsanto.

dmase:

Lil devils x:

As for my issues, Part of my problem is food allergies, the other part is my body just responds quicker to the damage being done than others. Yes, they actually do put a lot of stuff in our foods that is actually harmful to our health, damaging our organs, nervous system and other bodily functions it just differs in the amount of damage being done and how long it takes for your body to respond to that due to everyones immune system functioning different. You also should realize that just because we do not know what causes everything and why, that is does not mean that it is not directly related. The truth is we are still quite ignorant to the causes of many diseases and the how and why these things happen, and how to prevent them from happening. We have very limited information on how to solve these things, and can only use what we do have.

Obviously eating twinkies till you explode is going to give you diabetes and massive health problems but saying it's poison is false. By the same logic every food eaten to it's logical extreme is a killer.

While we may not be able to directly know what every disease is caused by we have strong indications one way or another. However that doesn't mean we don't know why a problem is occurring, we have a test for almost every biochemical component in the body and we can measure whether it's going up or down. While the body is still a mystery it's not nearly as much as you seem to indicate.

Without a method of action any studies correlating a chemical with disease is incomplete at best.

Take Cancer for example. Most think of Cancer as something that happens to someone else, however, EVERYONE has cancer at some point. It is just a cell that is supposed to die, but instead does not behave accordingly. The difference between someone with cancer who is well and someone who gets sick, is in the person who does not get ill from it, their immune system attacks the cells that are supposed to die and solves the problem. In someone who gets sick, their immune system doesn't do that and they quickly start filling up with these abnormal cells.Cancer is really just an immune system malfunction that can happen to anyone. We do not yet fully understand what causes an immune system to malfunction, or what causes cells to " not die" when they are supposed to. We do have information that things can increase the odds of this happening, or decrease the odds so we address those issues in order to reduce the number of people this happens to.

Cancer is caused by mutations in DNA. And while the immune system does fight off cancer it doesn't fight off every cancer it's not possible. In cases of cancer that needs treatment there are multiple variations of the same cancer within micrometers of each other. The immune system isn't equipped to combat an ever changing structure like most cancers. And no amount of vitamin C is going to boost the lymphatic system to a level where it can target serious cancerous cells. There is however medicine being developed that does this.

Just because the body does fight off cancer does not mean it can do so every time and assuming that there is a problem whith the lymphatic system when cancer can't be fought off isn't factual.

I think you misunderstood what I was discussing here. Only 5-10% of cancers are heriditary. I was discussing the majority of cancers and how they start. I also never said that " just because the body does so most of the time that it can every time", nor does everyones body respond the same way.
Here is more information on exactly what I was discussing here, to clarify:
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/geneticsandcancer/heredity-and-cancer
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cancer/HO00033/NSECTIONGROUP=2
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/questions-people-ask-about-cancer
http://drozbest.com/2011/06/17/dr-oz-the-biggest-cancer-myths-exposed/

My issues with my Lymphatic system are a separate issue.

The truth in medicine is we treat symptoms as they arise for the most part. Treating the cause is much more difficult. We have some strong indictaions, however, more is unknown than known at this point. I would very much like to see that change in my lifetime, but I wouldn't hold my breath. You are incorrect about the body not being as mysterious as I make it out to be. Ask any Physician practicing for any length of time an they will tell you the same as I have experienced. It is an amazing and strange thing. Much happens we have not yet been able to explain. Sure we can help with what we understand but there is still a long way to go before we can factually state " We understand the human body". We are far from that. All we can state for now is " from what we understand about the human body" and go from there.

When Sweet & Low came out (I think it was S&L) in the early 80's as the first big sugar substitute certain elements in the food industry went after it like zealous witch hunters. They viewed S&L as a major threat and paid for research to prove that S&L was harmful.

After years of studies researchers found that if you fed a lab rat 600 times its body weight in S&L the rat could develop cancer. The witch hunters had found their Grail and pushed for S&L to be outlawed. Politicians weighed in and the FDA did its (lobbied for) duty and S&L was pulled.

Only years later when several other sugar substitutes had been released on the market were the results from the S&L researches acknowledged as total BS.

Invested industries tend to war against anything that can upset their bottom dollar. In America it happens all the time, unfortunately.

Big words are scary. That's about all I got from this article. Yes, gum is a processed food. Most adults know this from the outset, in that we spit the remnants out when it ceases being enjoyable. This will not stop people from chewing it. On aspartame, in concentrated enough doses, it's like chewing on an ex-lax tablet for me. If I need a colon cleansing, it's great. I cannot chew Extra gum but however can chew most other brands for this reason. The combination of bubblegum and sodapop - adhesiveness combined with high acidicy - is the bane of dentists everywhere. It will literally pull your teeth apart in chunks. Still, good luck in stopping people from consuming either. Habits are habits so until a gum is created that's laced with ebola, people will continue to chew it.

Damien Granz:

There's plenty of reasons to be anti-GMO or anti-heavily processed foods from a social or economic standpoint (see: Monsanto), without having to resort to bullshit "Chemtrails" boogeymen.

Though they sort of have a good point with the 'chewing gum' thing. Not that it destroys your stomachs via enzymes, but that it does mentally prepare you to eat at all times which will cause you to be hungry more often.

Chewing gum also has health benefits as well. The chewing action caused by its texture has been proven to stimulate the parts of the brain that regulate serotonin making you much calmer. It was and still is used by the army to reduce combat stress because it can buffer the effects of adrenaline crashes. That's why infantry soldiers tend to be damn near addicted to the stuff. It also improves dental health by inhibiting tartar build up because its structure vacuums out the pores in your teeth. It also reduces the effect of dry mouth by stimulating saliva production making your mouth a slightly more hostile place for harmful bacteria.

If you wanted to avoid the less healthy effects, avoid any of the fruit flavored gums and stick with the mint and spice flavored ones, because those flavor tend to have far less sweeteners added to them.

And that bit about titanium dioxide is just bullshit as titanium dioxide will just pass right through the body because the body quite literally can't absorb it. That's why it's metallic form is used for surgical prosthetics. The human body has no mechanism to break it down.

Don't even get me started on the enzyme thing,because that bit just fails even high-school level biology. Digestive enzymes are not a finite resource, dammit. -_- The body produces them as needed and will actually increase production over time if constantly stimulated not decrease. You will never "run out" of digestive enzymes, period.

Lil devils x:

I think you misunderstood what I was discussing here. Only 5-10% of cancers are heriditary. I was discussing the majority of cancers and how they start. I also never said that " just because the body does so most of the time that it can every time", nor does everyones body respond the same way.
Here is more information on exactly what I was discussing here, to clarify:

Now correct me if I'm wrong but from your statement here and your earlier statement you seem to indicate you believe cancer happens because of continued action by a chemical/process of some kind on a cell(s)?

The truth in medicine is we treat symptoms as they arise for the most part. Treating the cause is much more difficult. We have some strong indictaions, however, more is unknown than known at this point. I would very much like to see that change in my lifetime, but I wouldn't hold my breath. You are incorrect about the body not being as mysterious as I make it out to be. Ask any Physician practicing for any length of time an they will tell you the same as I have experienced. It is an amazing and strange thing. Much happens we have not yet been able to explain. Sure we can help with what we understand but there is still a long way to go before we can factually state " We understand the human body". We are far from that. All we can state for now is " from what we understand about the human body" and go from there.

The human body works on several physical, chemical, and electrical principles. We understand how things are pieced together very well in that regard. The only thing we are missing are things we can't yet separate reliably from living cells. DNA is a bit more difficult to put a finger on but what your suggesting are methods of action and happen within the body not a single cell.

dmase:

Lil devils x:

I think you misunderstood what I was discussing here. Only 5-10% of cancers are heriditary. I was discussing the majority of cancers and how they start. I also never said that " just because the body does so most of the time that it can every time", nor does everyones body respond the same way.
Here is more information on exactly what I was discussing here, to clarify:

Now correct me if I'm wrong but from your statement here and your earlier statement you seem to indicate you believe cancer happens because of continued action by a chemical/process of some kind on a cell(s)?

The truth in medicine is we treat symptoms as they arise for the most part. Treating the cause is much more difficult. We have some strong indictaions, however, more is unknown than known at this point. I would very much like to see that change in my lifetime, but I wouldn't hold my breath. You are incorrect about the body not being as mysterious as I make it out to be. Ask any Physician practicing for any length of time an they will tell you the same as I have experienced. It is an amazing and strange thing. Much happens we have not yet been able to explain. Sure we can help with what we understand but there is still a long way to go before we can factually state " We understand the human body". We are far from that. All we can state for now is " from what we understand about the human body" and go from there.

The human body works on several physical, chemical, and electrical principles. We understand how things are pieced together very well in that regard. The only thing we are missing are things we can't yet separate reliably from living cells. DNA is a bit more difficult to put a finger on but what your suggesting are methods of action and happen within the body not a single cell.

This is exactly what I was referring to:
"All cancers begin in cells, the body's basic unit of life. To understand cancer, it's helpful to know what happens when normal cells become cancer cells.

The body is made up of many types of cells. These cells grow and divide in a controlled way to produce more cells as they are needed to keep the body healthy. When cells become old or damaged, they die and are replaced with new cells.

However, sometimes this orderly process goes wrong. The genetic material (DNA) of a cell can become damaged or changed, producing mutations that affect normal cell growth and division. When this happens, cells do not die when they should and new cells form when the body does not need them. The extra cells may form a mass of tissue called a tumor."
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancerlibrary/what-is-cancer

"Apart from infectious diseases, most illnesses (including cancer) are multifactorial. This means that there are many factors involved. In other words, there is no single cause for any one type of cancer."
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/causes-symptoms/causes/what-causes-cancer

As for a process within the cell itself, that is cell metastasis, not the cause and how it actually goes from being nonmalignant to metastatic is still not well understood and still needs much research. We also do not understand or know all of the causes that can cause the change in the first place. We still have a long way to go before we will be to that point. Of course I would love to see some major breakthroughs soon, so we can address the cause and hopefully find a better way to solve this because our current methods are crude and barbaric and very much lacking.

Lil devils x:

This is exactly what I was referring to:
"All cancers begin in cells, the body's basic unit of life. To understand cancer, it's helpful to know what happens when normal cells become cancer cells.

The body is made up of many types of cells. These cells grow and divide in a controlled way to produce more cells as they are needed to keep the body healthy. When cells become old or damaged, they die and are replaced with new cells.

However, sometimes this orderly process goes wrong. The genetic material (DNA) of a cell can become damaged or changed, producing mutations that affect normal cell growth and division. When this happens, cells do not die when they should and new cells form when the body does not need them. The extra cells may form a mass of tissue called a tumor."
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancerlibrary/what-is-cancer

"Apart from infectious diseases, most illnesses (including cancer) are multifactorial. This means that there are many factors involved. In other words, there is no single cause for any one type of cancer."
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/causes-symptoms/causes/what-causes-cancer

As for a process within the cell itself, that is cell metastasis, not the cause and how it actually goes from being nonmalignant to metastatic is still not well understood and still needs much research. We also do not undersatnd or know all of the causes that can cause the change in the first place.

This part is important, "The genetic material (DNA) of a cell can become damaged or changed, producing mutations that affect normal cell growth and division"

I was in no way referring to hereditary cancer when I said, cancer results from mutations in DNA, yet for some reason you assumed I did. Which makes no sense how you could confuse what I was talking about with hereditary cancer. A chemical causes faulty dna replication or damages the a cells current dna. After the initial introduction of a chemical the chemical is then irrelevant to the whole process the cell(s) infected now reproduce beyond their usual limit.

And when someone says we don't know the exact method of action that means they don't know the exact signal being produced by the cell they do however no it's a signal from transcription of damaged dna and expression of modified genetic material. They also know that portions of tumor end up traveling into regular circulation and being deposited elsewhere to form other malignant sites. What your suggesting is unknown is a very small fraction of the whole process, and while it's important it isn't some great mystery, it's just an important unknown because of it's possible applications.

dmase:

Lil devils x:

This is exactly what I was referring to:
"All cancers begin in cells, the body's basic unit of life. To understand cancer, it's helpful to know what happens when normal cells become cancer cells.

The body is made up of many types of cells. These cells grow and divide in a controlled way to produce more cells as they are needed to keep the body healthy. When cells become old or damaged, they die and are replaced with new cells.

However, sometimes this orderly process goes wrong. The genetic material (DNA) of a cell can become damaged or changed, producing mutations that affect normal cell growth and division. When this happens, cells do not die when they should and new cells form when the body does not need them. The extra cells may form a mass of tissue called a tumor."
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/cancerlibrary/what-is-cancer

"Apart from infectious diseases, most illnesses (including cancer) are multifactorial. This means that there are many factors involved. In other words, there is no single cause for any one type of cancer."
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/causes-symptoms/causes/what-causes-cancer

As for a process within the cell itself, that is cell metastasis, not the cause and how it actually goes from being nonmalignant to metastatic is still not well understood and still needs much research. We also do not undersatnd or know all of the causes that can cause the change in the first place.

This part is important, "The genetic material (DNA) of a cell can become damaged or changed, producing mutations that affect normal cell growth and division"

I was in no way referring to hereditary cancer when I said, cancer results from mutations in DNA, yet for some reason you assumed I did. Which makes no sense how you could confuse what I was talking about with hereditary cancer. A chemical causes faulty dna replication or damages the a cells current dna. After the initial introduction of a chemical the chemical is then irrelevant to the whole process the cell(s) infected now reproduce beyond their usual limit.

And when someone says we don't know the exact method of action that means they don't know the exact signal being produced by the cell they do however no it's a signal from transcription of damaged dna and expression of modified genetic material. They also know that portions of tumor end up traveling into regular circulation and being deposited elsewhere to form other malignant sites. What your suggesting is unknown is a very small fraction of the whole process, and while it's important it isn't some great mystery, it's just an important unknown because of it's possible applications.

I apologize for my misunderstanding, I have not had much sleep and feel like a Zombie about now, but will be able to hopefully get some rest in a few hours. From what you are stating here, we are not in disagreement in regards to the what cancer is, however, I do disagree with the amount of unknowns involved here.

The initital reaction may or may not be be irrelevant after the fact, we are still learning, but we do know it is most relevant to the prevention. Until we understand what causes this, we will not be able to prevent it from happening in the first place. As far as treatment goes, at this time prevention is the best tool we have due to how damaging our current treatments are and their ineffectiveness.

When we start looking at how adipocytes can possibly fuel tumor growth by secreting endotrophin we cannot simply dismiss the initial reaction when we do not know what caused the initial reaction in the first place.

I don't really think much more can be said about the anti-GMO zealots. They do not understand that of which they speak. They'd rather see the world starve.

As far as sweeteners go, I am more concerned with this natural one than any of the four major artificial ones.

Also I think soft drinks sweetened with it have a nasty aftertaste.

c0nc0rdance on youtube has some good, well-researched videos on artificial sweeteners, GMO foods, and HFCS. I highly recommend them.

Anything can sound scary if you phrase it in the right terms.

Also, everything causes cancer, if you want it to

My mum is a bit of an organic foodie, and I remember when I was a a kid she developed this thing about monosodium glutamate. Whenever I wanted to buy processed food she'd scour the ingredients list to see if there was MSG on it. I'm pretty sure she had absolutely no idea what it was, I can only assume she believed based on the name that it was some kind of bubbling green liquid extracted from the runoff from nuclear power plants.

Then one day I found out that MSG (or rather, glutamic acid) exists naturally in many basic foods such as cheese, meat and fish. Unfortunately, my mum proved to be too proud to admit she was wrong and simply continued the routine of checking everything for MSG, albeit in a kind of tokenistic fashion.

The irony is, of course, that foods without MSG often add more salt to compensate. Salt, as we all know, is body toxic and extremely harmful for you, but my mum had spent years overlooking it in favor of focusing on substances with scary sounding names.

As a result, I think I've overcompensated by living on sweeteners.

Damien Granz:

There's plenty of reasons to be anti-GMO or anti-heavily processed foods from a social or economic standpoint (see: Monsanto), without having to resort to bullshit "Chemtrails" boogeymen.

Why is that a reason to be anti GMO/processed food? It seems to me to be a reason to be anti-Monsanto. We don't turn anti-software because of EA's practices, do we?

Batou667:
Anything can sound scary if you phrase it in the right terms.

Beat me to it, add the warning 'may contain Dihydrogen Monoxide' to anything and people go mental, in fact I'm pretty sure a radio dj got the sack for causing a panic by playing this trick on people one April fools day.

Your average person on the street knows jack shit about science - especially chemistry due to the naming systems. It's something that is always going to exist to some degree because some people find it boring and don't bother to learn anything except the buzzwords you see in newspapers.

As I described the article to someone earlier, it's nothing but someone yelling "Scary word! Word you can't pronounce! Dangerous thing you know about! Diseases! Artificial! CHEMICALS!!!!" It's nothing but playing on fears and ignorance to sell products, we see it with food, with beauty products and dozens of other products. Use the words 'Scientists' or 'Experts' and you can convince people that the moon is made of cheese and gremlins control gravity.

dmase:

Yes I get it Monsanto is the evil corporate empire with their patenting of plants and their putting out of farmers but GMO's and modern farming is the only reason we can over eat in a country of over 300 million.

That's already a large load. The problem with feeding people, worldwide hasn't been one of lack of manpower or food, it's been an economic problem. We don't need GMOs to feed people. If anything monopolistic economic policies in the food market starve more people than a lack of food. "Putting farmers out of business" is in itself an economic and legal problem that contributes to people starving.

If somebody starves, especially somewhere like America, it's certainly not because supermarkets are bare of food.

Frankly, these policies are not making food cheaper, they're doing the opposite. And we're not in a situation where we 'have' to make food more expensive because we've run out of world or something. So basically it's making food more expensive so some guys can get rich.

Ergo, in their present state, I'm against GMOs.

dmase:
Despite what they say organic farming is not sustainable and open to a wide variation of problems that we can't even conceive of yet. GMO's are built to be resistant to those problems.

That's the thing: No they're not. Oh, I'm sure they could be built to do all that, but that's not even remotely what the technology is being used for.

dmase:
To include, the FDA hates GMO's and all the hype around the problems they cause are just hype. The FDA has a hard on for that type of crop and if there was a problem they would be all over it.

You're putting a lot of faith in an organization that hasn't had proper staffing, funding or sane laws regarding what it should do for basically the last forever. Monsanto pays the FDA to get off its balls and funds the research into whether or not their foods are safe, so you're basically saying "I'm sure Monsanto research team would tell me if there was a problem with Monsanto".

McMullen:

Damien Granz:

There's plenty of reasons to be anti-GMO or anti-heavily processed foods from a social or economic standpoint (see: Monsanto), without having to resort to bullshit "Chemtrails" boogeymen.

Why is that a reason to be anti GMO/processed food? It seems to me to be a reason to be anti-Monsanto. We don't turn anti-software because of EA's practices, do we?

I'd turn anti-software I guess if that's what all the software in the world was. Or at least I wouldn't singing the praises of software or talking about how it's saving us all from boredom or whatever. At least not until somebody actually used it to make something decent.

Damien Granz:

dmase:
Despite what they say organic farming is not sustainable and open to a wide variation of problems that we can't even conceive of yet. GMO's are built to be resistant to those problems.

That's the thing: No they're not. Oh, I'm sure they could be built to do all that, but that's not even remotely what the technology is being used for.

Sooo... you're saying all the herbicide- and pesticide-resistant high-yield crop varieties are in no way superior to organic farming? I'm not sure I can follow you there.

Damien Granz:

I'd turn anti-software I guess if that's what all the software in the world was. Or at least I wouldn't singing the praises of software or talking about how it's saving us all from boredom or whatever. At least not until somebody actually used it to make something decent.

You seem to be implying that you're anti-GMO because all GMOs are produced by Monsanto, or that they are all produced by unethical corporations. I suspect that you don't actually believe this and simply didn't realize what you were implying.

If you do believe that, well, there are many companies working with genetically modified foods and organisms. There are actually six major corporations and likely thousands of smaller or startup companies in this field, which should not be surprising because the capabilities of this technology are just starting to be explored. They will all have their own priority on ethics. The fact that the largest is the worst is no reason to dismiss the entire field, nor is it anything unusual for any category of business. As I mentioned above, we don't dismiss software just because the largest companies have shady practices.

Another implication you're making is that no one has made anything decent with the technology. That is simply not true. One of the biggest ethical failings of the anti-GMO crowd is the obstruction they've created for existing technologies that could mitigate famines, such as a genetically modified Cassava that, unlike its natural variety, has enough nutritional value to sustain villages through droughts and shortages. There is also great potential for non-food applications, such as plants that efficiently produce pharmaceuticals or biofuels.

By obstructing the implementation of these technologies, the anti-GMO movement is causing real harm, and it's frustrating to see it happening. It's made even more frustrating by the poorly-considered reasons most of the opposition uses, such as consumers growing extra arms (genetic modified food doesn't work that way), business practices (that's a business law issue, not a GMO issue), or because it's not natural (hydroflouric acid is more terrifying than most of the chemicals you'll ever hear of, and it and thousands of other horrific compounds, extracts, venoms, and ingredients are very natural).

evilthecat:
My mum is a bit of an organic foodie, and I remember when I was a a kid she developed this thing about monosodium glutamate. Whenever I wanted to buy processed food she'd scour the ingredients list to see if there was MSG on it. I'm pretty sure she had absolutely no idea what it was, I can only assume she believed based on the name that it was some kind of bubbling green liquid extracted from the runoff from nuclear power plants

Mom logic, right? When I was a kid I wasn't allowed cola because apparently it would dissolve my teeth on contact and corrode my stomach lining because "acids". I wasn't allowed a game console because she thought I would "catch epilepsy". Disney was also banned in our house because she didn't want us "learning violence and American accents".

Karma168:
Your average person on the street knows jack shit about science - especially chemistry due to the naming systems. It's something that is always going to exist to some degree because some people find it boring and don't bother to learn anything except the buzzwords you see in newspapers.

Exactly. "Processed". "Acids". "Chemicals" "Fats". Scary shit! Never mind that goddamn bread is processed, our DNA contains acid, water is a chemical, and without fat you'd die.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked