Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

Diet Coke

Reply
Created by petermac33 > 9 months ago, 11 Oct 2010
petermac33
WA, 6415 posts
11 Oct 2010 8:56AM
Thumbs Up

In July, the Fox News host admitted that he is suffering from macular dystrophy, an eye disorder that causes vision loss. "Yes, I have a problem with my eyes," Beck told an audience of 6,000 in Salt Lake City. "A couple of weeks ago, I went to the doctor because I can't focus my eyes . So I went to the best doctor I could find. he did all kinds of tests, and he said I have macular dystrophy."

Glenn Beck may not know it, but it is almost certain he is another victim of Rumsfeld Plague. On September 29, the New York Times published a long article about Beck. "His Mormonism forbids coffee, but he consumes a lot of Diet Coke and chocolate," writes Mark Leibovich.

Coca-Cola began putting the "sugar substitute" aspartame in Diet Coke in 1982. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death.

In 1999, the Independent on Sunday discovered that the maker of aspartame, Monsanto, uses genetically engineered bacteria to produce the "sweetener" at its U.S. production plants. Aspartame is made by combining phenylalanine, which is naturally produced by bacteria, with another amino acid. To make the bacteria produce more phenylalanine, Monsanto has genetically engineered them. "Increasingly, chemical companies are using genetically engineered bacteria in their manufacturing process without telling the public," said Dr. Erik Millstone, of the Science Policy Research Unit at Sussex University, and a member of the National Food Alliance, told the newspaper.

Here's what Glenn Beck needs to know - aspartame is linked to blindness. It is made up of 50% phenylalanine, 40% aspartic acid and 10% methyl alcohol. Methyl alcohol inevitably affects vision. Back when the government imposed prohibition on the country, thousands of people went blind due to the use of wood alcohol/methanol in spirits.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t
The late Dr. Morgan Raiford, a specialist in methanol toxicity, warned about the danger of blindness associated with the consumption of aspartame. "This product [NutraSweet] has some highly toxic reactions in the human visual pathway and we are beginning to observe the tragic damage to the optic nerve, such as blindness, partial to total optic nerve atrophy. Once this destructive process has developed there is no return of visual restoration," Raiford wrote in an aspartame factsheet. "When this drug enters the digestive tract, largely the upper portion [the] aspartame molecule spins off a by product known as methanol or methyl-alcohol."

Methanol "is an extremely powerful neurotoxin. It can produce blindness, it can produce cellular destruction in the brain and spinal cord in particular the optic nerves that has to do with our vision," the neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock explained during a radio interview. In his book, Health and Nutrition Secrets That Can Save Your Life, Dr. Blaylock discusses a study explaining why diabetics who drink large amounts of aspartame drinks are more likely to go blind. Diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of blindness.


In addition to blindness, a report produced by the Department of Health and Human Services lists over 90 symptoms related to aspartame, including: migraine headaches, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain. The following chronic illnesses are triggered or worsened by ingesting aspartame: Brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, mental retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia, and diabetes.

It is now estimated that over 6,000 food and drink products worldwide contain aspartame. "You might be surprised to learn about some of the foods you consume that contain aspartame. Besides the obvious products like diet sodas, there are many brands of chewing gum that contain aspartame. Most non-fat diet foods contain an amount of aspartame and the same goes for most sugar-free candy," reports the FoodFacts website. Many brands of cereal, ice cream, yogurt, iced tea, powdered power drinks, nutritional bars, pudding, vegetable drinks, and many more food products contain aspartame.

Earlier this year, Glenn Beck talked about eugenics on his show, but he only scratched the surface. There is a mountain of evidence confirming that the globalists are cynical eugenicists. They are now using food as a soft kill weapon to reduce the population of the planet.

"People the world over, but especially in the United States are under chemical attack," Alex Jones and Aaron Dykes wrote in July. "Deadly and dangerous toxins ranging from aspartame to fluoride, GMO, mercury-tainting, pesticides, cross-species chimeras, plastic compounds in chicken, high fructose corn syrup, cloned meat, rBGH and new aggressive GM species of salmon have all entered into our diets and environments - whether we want it or not."


www.infowars.com/warning-to-glenn-beck-dont-drink-diet-coke/


Bigwavedave
QLD, 2057 posts
11 Oct 2010 11:09AM
Thumbs Up

Here we go again...... cut and paste man strikes again!!




knigit
WA, 319 posts
11 Oct 2010 9:24AM
Thumbs Up

S'all goood (hiccup).

The way to treat methanol poisoning is with alcohol.

A shot of whisky alongside your artificial sweetener makes for a good morning coffee, and the only way that diet coke is even potable is when it's mixed with rum.

Problem solvered. (Hiccup)

maxm
NSW, 864 posts
11 Oct 2010 12:33PM
Thumbs Up

Elroy Jetson said...

The following is cut and pasted from: www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.


#2, #3, #6, #7, #10

Do you have anything real to say Peter or do you just continue to bleat this ****e like a sheep?

poor relative
WA, 9089 posts
11 Oct 2010 10:11AM
Thumbs Up

Why do you only see obese people drinking diet coke.
Go figure?

superlizard
VIC, 702 posts
11 Oct 2010 1:57PM
Thumbs Up

so i can see a lot of red thumbing here.... is this just coz y'all annoyed with peter's conspiracy topics, or is it because you genuinely believe coke or diet coke is good for you?

Mobydisc
NSW, 9027 posts
11 Oct 2010 2:50PM
Thumbs Up

Diet coke tastes aweful.

However just because it contains some toxic chemical doesn't mean drinking it every now and then is going to make you sick.



theDoctor
NSW, 5778 posts
11 Oct 2010 3:01PM
Thumbs Up



yeah toxic chemicals should be a part of every well rounded diet

doggie
WA, 15849 posts
11 Oct 2010 12:06PM
Thumbs Up

superlizard said...

so i can see a lot of red thumbing here.... is this just coz y'all annoyed with peter's conspiracy topics, or is it because you genuinely believe coke or diet coke is good for you?


PM33 is a dick

maxm
NSW, 864 posts
11 Oct 2010 3:06PM
Thumbs Up

I agree with you doc. I've tried giving up sodium chloride but decided that chips and eggs are just no good without it. Now it's toxic chemicals for me

poor relative
WA, 9089 posts
11 Oct 2010 12:15PM
Thumbs Up

theDoctor said...



yeah toxic chemicals should be a part of every well rounded diet


They are, right down to the neat and tidy plastic or metal containers they come in.

Carantoc
WA, 6494 posts
11 Oct 2010 12:23PM
Thumbs Up

So - Glenn Beck's early demise isn't divine retribution for working for the evil Fox corporation, but a direct effect of partaking in and supproting the NWO masterplan.

Ohh Petermac, you must be sooo smug right now.

How foolish I have been. This appears to be the decisive evidence I had to be shown to incite me to go grab my pitchfork and start the revolution.



Carantoc
WA, 6494 posts
11 Oct 2010 12:24PM
Thumbs Up

Bugger it - my pitchfork has a broken handle.

The revolution will have to wait 'till I have fixed it.

Carantoc
WA, 6494 posts
11 Oct 2010 12:28PM
Thumbs Up

petermac33 said...


Methanol “is an extremely powerful neurotoxin. It can produce blindness, it can produce cellular destruction in the brain and spinal cord in particular the optic nerves that has to do with our vision,”


hang on -

I have just been told that Carbon Dioxide is a very powerful asphixiant - but it is in the air I breathe.

So, something is not true. I have to either :
Consume more carbon dioxide as the scientists are lying to me
Remove all carbon dioxide from the air I breathe as it is killing me

The revolution is going to have to wait until I have sorted this one out.

poor relative
WA, 9089 posts
11 Oct 2010 2:46PM
Thumbs Up

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/factsheets/factsheets2007/aspartameseptember203703.cfm

Food Standards says.....

Is aspartame safe?
Yes. FSANZ and other international regulatory agencies have concluded that aspartame is safe.

Studies have been conducted that have assessed the potential for aspartame to produce both short-term (acute) and long-term adverse effects in animals and humans. In particular, the ability of aspartame in the diet to produce structural changes or genetic mutations in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of cells (genotoxicity) and/or cancer causing abilities in animals has been studied in rats and mice. Genotoxicity tests and long-term cancer causing studies have showed no evidence of a genotoxic or cancer causing potential when administered at very high doses in the diets of rats and mice. A number of studies in human volunteers, including individuals with diabetes, have demonstrated that aspartame is a safe food additive.

In 1994, FSANZ (when it was the National Food Authority) commissioned research to investigate consumption patterns in the general Australian population of eight food groups containing intense sweeteners. For a selected subgroup of consumers of these products, estimated intakes of the four most commonly available intense sweeteners (aspartame, saccharin, cyclamate and acesulphame-K) were compared with the relevant acceptable daily intake (ADI). For average consumers of aspartame, intakes were low compared to its ADI (7% of the ADI). At a higher range of intakes (90th percentile intake for high consumer subgroup), reported aspartame intakes were less than 30% of the ADI.

A more recent survey in September 2003 was undertaken which looked in detail at current intake levels of aspartame for average and high consumers. The survey found that for average consumers of aspartame the intakes were low (6% of the ADI) as per the previous survey; however, for high consumers the exposure had decreased to 15% of the ADI.

In summary, FSANZ has concluded that, in Australia, aspartame levels are well below those at which adverse health effects might be observed.

poor relative
WA, 9089 posts
11 Oct 2010 2:50PM
Thumbs Up

Food Standards also goes on to say.......

Has the safety of aspartame been considered by other regulatory agencies or expert Committees?
Yes. Aspartame has been a very extensively studied food additive. International regulatory bodies charged with reviewing safety data on food additives have evaluated numerous studies performed with aspartame in both experimental animals and humans and concluded that it was a safe food additive.

The Joint (FAO/WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives evaluated aspartame in 1980, establishing an ADI for aspartame. The ADI is the amount of a food additive that can be consumed over an entire lifetime without any appreciable health risks. The ADI for aspartame is 40 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (40 mg/kg bw/day) based on the highest level causing no effect in a long-term rat study.

The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) published an updated opinion on the safety of the sweetener aspartame in December 2002. After an extensive review of more than 500 pieces of research, the Committee concluded on the basis of its review of all the data available that there was no need to revise its earlier risk assessment, which concluded that aspartame is safe. The SCF also concluded that there is no need to revise the previously established ADI calculation for aspartame of 40 mg/kg bw/day, which is consistent with the ADI established by JECFA.

A study in the USA in 2006 by the National Cancer Institute involving 340,045 men and 226, 945 women (aged 50 to 69) found no statistically significant link between aspartame consumption and cancer.

A recent review carried out by a panel of internationally recognised scientists evaluated more than 500 studies, articles and reports conducted over the last 25 years on aspartame, including unpublished works submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for approval of aspartame [1] . It was concluded that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption. No credible evidence was found that aspartame could cause cancer, affect the nervous system function, learning or behaviour or has any adverse effect on health when consumed at quantities many times the established ADI.



Food Standards uses this as a reference

[1] Magnuson BA, Burdock GA, Doull J et al (2007) Aspartame: A safety evaluation based on current use levels, regulations, and toxicological and epidemiological studies. Critical Reviews in Toxicology , Volume 37 , Issue 8 September 2007 , pages 629 – 727



Sailhack
VIC, 5000 posts
11 Oct 2010 5:58PM
Thumbs Up

PRs cut'n'pasting now too!!!

'They' must've got to him!

Oh, the (in)humanity!

GalahOnTheBay
NSW, 4188 posts
11 Oct 2010 7:37PM
Thumbs Up

^^^ Yes but at least he quoted a reference, so I'll allow it...

Mark _australia
WA, 22234 posts
11 Oct 2010 5:53PM
Thumbs Up

poor relative said...

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/factsheets/factsheets2007/aspartameseptember203703.cfm

Food Standards says.....

Is aspartame safe?
Yes. FSANZ and other international regulatory agencies have concluded that aspartame is safe.

Studies have been conducted that have assessed the potential for aspartame to produce both short-term (acute) and long-term adverse effects in animals and humans. In particular, the ability of aspartame in the diet to produce structural changes or genetic mutations in the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of cells (genotoxicity) and/or cancer causing abilities in animals has been studied in rats and mice. Genotoxicity tests and long-term cancer causing studies have showed no evidence of a genotoxic or cancer causing potential when administered at very high doses in the diets of rats and mice. A number of studies in human volunteers, including individuals with diabetes, have demonstrated that aspartame is a safe food additive.

In 1994, FSANZ (when it was the National Food Authority) commissioned research to investigate consumption patterns in the general Australian population of eight food groups containing intense sweeteners. For a selected subgroup of consumers of these products, estimated intakes of the four most commonly available intense sweeteners (aspartame, saccharin, cyclamate and acesulphame-K) were compared with the relevant acceptable daily intake (ADI). For average consumers of aspartame, intakes were low compared to its ADI (7% of the ADI). At a higher range of intakes (90th percentile intake for high consumer subgroup), reported aspartame intakes were less than 30% of the ADI.

A more recent survey in September 2003 was undertaken which looked in detail at current intake levels of aspartame for average and high consumers. The survey found that for average consumers of aspartame the intakes were low (6% of the ADI) as per the previous survey; however, for high consumers the exposure had decreased to 15% of the ADI.

In summary, FSANZ has concluded that, in Australia, aspartame levels are well below those at which adverse health effects might be observed.




Oh geez, don't post scientific facts - that is not what this thread is about!

Best thing about diet coke is the aluminium cans are recycled to make aluminium chemtrails and aluminium gives you Alzheimers so you forget all about the aspartame and drink more diet coke - supporting all the shareholders in Coke who are mostly banks and they can run the world and cause wars.
Sweet

ginger pom
VIC, 1745 posts
11 Oct 2010 9:15PM
Thumbs Up

petermac33 said...

A d v e r t i s e m e n t



you lazy bastard. You can at least cut and paste accurately even if your thinking is slack.

ginger pom
VIC, 1745 posts
11 Oct 2010 9:15PM
Thumbs Up

wow!

You can say bastard

bastard

bastard

poor relative
WA, 9089 posts
11 Oct 2010 6:22PM
Thumbs Up

ginger pom said...

wow!

You can say bastard

bastard

bastard


Cant say **** tho. which is a ****.
**** diet coke.

getfunky
WA, 4485 posts
11 Oct 2010 6:23PM
Thumbs Up

Glenn Beck was born and raised one-eyed.

It's his head up his @rse that is his most serious affliction.


Seriously pm33 - isn't there another site that would be better suited to a theory a day keeps the doctor at play?


Hey can't doesn't get asteristed tho!

Poooof Really says cr@p like:

I am a stoopid can't.




Noice of you to share a pic from your private collection PR.

poor relative
WA, 9089 posts
11 Oct 2010 6:35PM
Thumbs Up

getfunky said...
[

Select to expand quote
Poooof Really says cr@p like:

I am a stoopid can't.


getfunky
WA, 4485 posts
11 Oct 2010 6:36PM
Thumbs Up





Thought ya might like this PR.

Mark _australia
WA, 22234 posts
11 Oct 2010 7:03PM
Thumbs Up

getfunky said...





Thought ya might like this PR.


Is that blondie on the left Tiffy from The Unit?

GalahOnTheBay
NSW, 4188 posts
11 Oct 2010 10:15PM
Thumbs Up

^^^ The kid in the bottom left of the picture looks like that image has been burned in to the back of his brain for life! lol

ginger pom said...

You can say bastard


Right now yes, but not for long I suspect...

maxm
NSW, 864 posts
11 Oct 2010 10:29PM
Thumbs Up

GalahOnTheBay said...

^^^ The kid in the bottom left of the picture looks like that image has been burned in to the back of his brain for life! lol

ginger pom said...

You can say bastard


Right now yes, but not for long I suspect...


In that case...

bastard

bastard

bastard

Whew! In before asterisk...

japie
NSW, 6811 posts
11 Oct 2010 10:39PM
Thumbs Up

I am going to bed now.

ginger pom
VIC, 1745 posts
11 Oct 2010 10:40PM
Thumbs Up

bastard

bastard

bastard

getfunky
WA, 4485 posts
12 Oct 2010 7:22AM
Thumbs Up

Mark _australia said...

getfunky said...





Thought ya might like this PR.


Is that blondie on the left Tiffy from The Unit?




Not sure - but I'd like to tiffy her unit.



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"Diet Coke" started by petermac33