yo_yo_girl wrote:Is snopes the hand Bible of all information on the net, or life? Ever wonder who controls snopes.com..etc. The fact that anything artificial, not natural, can be harmful to the body-- is basic common sense. I'll trust my own knowledge and not depend on a info/disinfo site run by who knows?
Snopes is a tool for sniffing out hokum, snake oil and bovine faeces that finds its way onto the net and emails. In the case of aspartame, they list a few sources that contradict some of the "findings". I agree that the FDA has lost a modicum of credibility, but not everything they say is a lie (Even Al Franken and Rush Limbaugh tell a story straight, at times). The Lancet, however is a well respected science journal. MIT studies has also found it innocuous. In the interest of being open-minded, please read the snopes link provided and the links offered to debunk the danger of aspartame. It did alter my perception.
The artificial vs natural is a long standing philosophic debate.
Yes, some artificial things are bad. By the same token, some artificial things are good. The same thing can be said for natural things. As examples, cobra venom, coniotoxin, botulin, ricin and cyanide are all as natural as sucrose. It has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with subjectivity and as has been said previously, moderation. Understand, I have been an ethical vegetarian for over twenty years. It should then be evident were my sentiments lie, however it is crucial to be as objective as possible regarding the facts. I wish like anything that the removal of amalgam restorations would proffer the cures promised by so many charlatans, but in my 17 years of experience, I have yet to ameliorate a single case of MS by performing such a procedure. Forgive me, but tempting prose can often masquerade as "common sense".
be well,
david