I’ll look at the link, but right from the start there is a flaw:

“OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration classifies methanol, formaldehyde and formic acid, components of aspartame as hazardous.”

Sodium is hazardous. Chlorine is hazardous. Table salt is not.

That the components of a chemical are hazardous does not imply that the chemical compound is hazardous.

The fact that this is the leading statement on the page indicates to me that they are grasping at straws. But, as I said, I’ll take a look.

I’ll look at the link, but right from the start there is a flaw:

“OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration classifies methanol, formaldehyde and formic acid, components of aspartame as hazardous.”

Sodium is hazardous. Chlorine is hazardous. Table salt is not.

That the components of a chemical are hazardous does not imply that the chemical compound is hazardous.

The fact that this is the leading statement on the page indicates to me that they are grasping at straws. But, as I said, I’ll take a look.

• It’s not easy to create an artificial substance that is safe.

This may or may not be true, but I’m willing to accept this premise for the purposes of this argument. I think that it’s plausible that it’s not easy to create a high-demand artificial substance that is safe.

• It’s not easy to replace natural substances.

Again, I’ll accept this premise for the purposes of this argument.

• It’s lucrative to put something out there that claims to do these things.

True.

From these premises you conclude: Hence, it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe. — This conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

“It’s not easy” means that it will take effort. Do you assert that the companies haven’t put forth the effort to develop such things? If you do not, then your “It’s not easy” statements have no place in your argument.

“It’s lucrative” means that there is money to be made. This justifies the hard work in overcoming the “it’s not easy” does it not? Are there people out to make a quick buck? Sure. Does this mean that “it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe” ? No. Are you so cynical to believe that every time there is money to be made that those making it are doing so at the expense of others? You make money. Do you try to help your clients or do you just want their money? I make money. Do I want to help my students or do I just want a paycheck? (You’re going to accuse me of having the liberal lens problem again .. I just know it.) :)

Take a close look at your closing paragraph:

“I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up.”

This paragraph is devoid of any value as far as supporting your argument is concerned.

Let me put it in a context you will grasp quickly. Imagine that you are in a conversation with someone and are talking about evolution. He claims that the eye could not have evolved and gives the “Blind Watchmaker” analogy. He then says

“I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up.”

This is actually not an uncommon sort of statement. Your reply would be … ?

• It’s not easy to create an artificial substance that is safe.

This may or may not be true, but I’m willing to accept this premise for the purposes of this argument. I think that it’s plausible that it’s not easy to create a high-demand artificial substance that is safe.

• It’s not easy to replace natural substances.

Again, I’ll accept this premise for the purposes of this argument.

• It’s lucrative to put something out there that claims to do these things.

True.

From these premises you conclude: Hence, it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe. — This conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

“It’s not easy” means that it will take effort. Do you assert that the companies haven’t put forth the effort to develop such things? If you do not, then your “It’s not easy” statements have no place in your argument.

“It’s lucrative” means that there is money to be made. This justifies the hard work in overcoming the “it’s not easy” does it not? Are there people out to make a quick buck? Sure. Does this mean that “it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe” ? No. Are you so cynical to believe that every time there is money to be made that those making it are doing so at the expense of others? You make money. Do you try to help your clients or do you just want their money? I make money. Do I want to help my students or do I just want a paycheck? (You’re going to accuse me of having the liberal lens problem again .. I just know it.) :)

Take a close look at your closing paragraph:

“I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up.”

This paragraph is devoid of any value as far as supporting your argument is concerned.

Let me put it in a context you will grasp quickly. Imagine that you are in a conversation with someone and are talking about evolution. He claims that the eye could not have evolved and gives the “Blind Watchmaker” analogy. He then says

“I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up.”

This is actually not an uncommon sort of statement. Your reply would be … ?

Here’s what I’m saying. It’s not easy to make something that gets consumed by millions every day in a lab that’s safe.

It’s also not easy to replace natural substances.

It’s also very lucrative to put something out there that claims to do these things.

Hence, it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe. Again, see the drug market.

I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up.

Here’s what I’m saying. It’s not easy to make something that gets consumed by millions every day in a lab that’s safe.

It’s also not easy to replace natural substances.

It’s also very lucrative to put something out there that claims to do these things.

Hence, it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe. Again, see the drug market.

I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up.

Just don’t use the word “likely” .. why not say something like “the science is still out and they MAY be dangerous” ? It’s the word “likely” that hurts your argument. What if someone on the other side of the argument said “they’re likely safe” ? How would you respond?

Just don’t use the word “likely” .. why not say something like “the science is still out and they MAY be dangerous” ? It’s the word “likely” that hurts your argument. What if someone on the other side of the argument said “they’re likely safe” ? How would you respond?

I appreciate your attempts to keep me cautious with my arguments.

But when I say, “likely dangerous” I do so for a very specific reason. Look at the pharmaceutical industry. The “science” via the FDA says they’re ok. So they’re ok, right?

Why should I wait 10 or 30 years for the cancer institute to do a study of 100,000 people to tell me that something is safe or not?

Why not simply realize that there is billions of dollars in creating something dangerous that will be successful yet will still get by the cursory attempts by the FDA to ensure that it’s safe?

In short, you cant trust “science” to protect you. When you choose to consume chemicals created by companies with something to gain you are likely doing your body a disservice. It’s true that some may prove to be harmless, but I think this is likely the exception rather than the rule.

Again, that’s not based on any study of mine. It’s based on observing big business willing to do anything to make money. And that’s who’s making these chemicals and pushing them on the public as soon as possible.

I appreciate your attempts to keep me cautious with my arguments.

But when I say, “likely dangerous” I do so for a very specific reason. Look at the pharmaceutical industry. The “science” via the FDA says they’re ok. So they’re ok, right?

Why should I wait 10 or 30 years for the cancer institute to do a study of 100,000 people to tell me that something is safe or not?

Why not simply realize that there is billions of dollars in creating something dangerous that will be successful yet will still get by the cursory attempts by the FDA to ensure that it’s safe?

In short, you cant trust “science” to protect you. When you choose to consume chemicals created by companies with something to gain you are likely doing your body a disservice. It’s true that some may prove to be harmless, but I think this is likely the exception rather than the rule.

Again, that’s not based on any study of mine. It’s based on observing big business willing to do anything to make money. And that’s who’s making these chemicals and pushing them on the public as soon as possible.

I’m glad you raised the vital statement concerning this issue, “It means eat differently.”

! Daniel; this means using all the tools as they can be applied, which means you must completely become both fully educated and updated on the tools available.

I stopped drinking caloried sodas and switched to diet for the exact reason ants avoid diet sodas, because diet sodas don’t contain sugars/calories(and caloried sodas do in copious amounts). (Notice how ants also avoid plain water.) In the year that followed, I read various reports from many health magazines raising the issues of aspartame, heard them on the news, and even became aware of such a similar issue with Splenda.

Somewhere in that time I also lost 40 lbs. Since that time I’ve gained alot of it back but the difference is that I’m a little more muscular now. So, it has it’s ups and down.

But the important thing to do is first recognize that yes we do live in a potentially toxic environment, but also arm yourself with information on techniques to be a survivor, and also one who thrives in this modern, much more artificial world we inhabit. Denying ourselves the chance that we could do good with the lab-created, tasty, happy drugs we put in our bodies, (no that doesn’t sound right, but that’s what science is for), is a denial of the opportunity of the basic right for self improvement I’d rather not advise anyone into doing.

Yes, I believe, based on current articles, that a specific load of aspartame will be the direct cause of death for a significant portion of people. Exactly how much has been measured, estimated, applied to rats, then humans in not so nearly a lethal dose, and repeated by other laboratories to not only see if the artificial sweetener was economically viable in terms of safety, but also to see if one lab could find a breakaway series that could even be better and worth patenting.

That why we have government agencies, such as the FDA, (who I will never blindly trust), to follow the adage “everything in moderation”, besides the highly praised marketing motto of “do not kill your customers [until it's more profitable to do so].”

You’ve given me something to think about, though. I’m reminded that celery is a negative calorie food. I wonder what else is.

-=T=-

I’m glad you raised the vital statement concerning this issue, “It means eat differently.”

! Daniel; this means using all the tools as they can be applied, which means you must completely become both fully educated and updated on the tools available.

I stopped drinking caloried sodas and switched to diet for the exact reason ants avoid diet sodas, because diet sodas don’t contain sugars/calories(and caloried sodas do in copious amounts). (Notice how ants also avoid plain water.) In the year that followed, I read various reports from many health magazines raising the issues of aspartame, heard them on the news, and even became aware of such a similar issue with Splenda.

Somewhere in that time I also lost 40 lbs. Since that time I’ve gained alot of it back but the difference is that I’m a little more muscular now. So, it has it’s ups and down.

But the important thing to do is first recognize that yes we do live in a potentially toxic environment, but also arm yourself with information on techniques to be a survivor, and also one who thrives in this modern, much more artificial world we inhabit. Denying ourselves the chance that we could do good with the lab-created, tasty, happy drugs we put in our bodies, (no that doesn’t sound right, but that’s what science is for), is a denial of the opportunity of the basic right for self improvement I’d rather not advise anyone into doing.

Yes, I believe, based on current articles, that a specific load of aspartame will be the direct cause of death for a significant portion of people. Exactly how much has been measured, estimated, applied to rats, then humans in not so nearly a lethal dose, and repeated by other laboratories to not only see if the artificial sweetener was economically viable in terms of safety, but also to see if one lab could find a breakaway series that could even be better and worth patenting.

That why we have government agencies, such as the FDA, (who I will never blindly trust), to follow the adage “everything in moderation”, besides the highly praised marketing motto of “do not kill your customers [until it's more profitable to do so].”

You’ve given me something to think about, though. I’m reminded that celery is a negative calorie food. I wonder what else is.

-=T=-