Sucralose is Poison

Nutrition
81

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
I know the first part is complete rubbish. I deliberately put it in there to see if there are any chemists reading this and to get them involved.
[/quote]

Honestly, just stop the thread right here. Here you have someone claiming to want to engage in civil discourse and scientific discussion about a topic, and then he admits flat out to deliberately putting false information into his posts “to get the chemists involved”

Your intellectual honestly just killed itself suicide in public and sent the suicide note to CNN for public airing. This basically calls into questions everything you have said in this thread and anything else you will say.

82

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Cartman8675 wrote:
MassiveGuns- You’re a fucking tool. That last post is hilarious, I’m not even going to correct it. Everything you wrote is wrong. You obviously don’t know chemistry. I’d bet my money that you’ve never taken organic chem either. It’s like you googled for an hour, and took random key words like, nucleophile, carbocation, carbonyl, and constructed them to make some kind of shit sense your pea-sized brain.

Why aren’t you listening? You don’t fool anyone here. You are not a chemist, STOP trying to have a debate involving chemistry.

[/quote]

I know the first part is complete rubbish. I deliberately put it in there to see if there are any chemists reading this and to get them involved.

Since you know the real answer to the above, you’ll probably also realise my thoughts on those two drugs, particularly since long term carcinogenity studies are never done in humans.

Now I’d like to hear your opinion on sucralose and whether or not you think its safe and why.
[/quote]

The first part? No. It’s all wrong. And I’m not about to engage a moron in a discussion in a subject he’s trolling about. Nice try, ass clown.

83

so wait…guys…can I still put splenda in some of my food?? lol.

84

I really need to take a chem class. This whole thread read like fucking jibberish to me.

I just found a store that carried Diet Arizona Green Tea(made with splenda), so I’m glad that the majority of people in this thread think sucralose probably won’t do any damage.

85

Jesus Christ - seriously?

Unreal.

86

[quote]Cartman8675 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Cartman8675 wrote:
MassiveGuns- You’re a fucking tool. That last post is hilarious, I’m not even going to correct it. Everything you wrote is wrong. You obviously don’t know chemistry. I’d bet my money that you’ve never taken organic chem either. It’s like you googled for an hour, and took random key words like, nucleophile, carbocation, carbonyl, and constructed them to make some kind of shit sense your pea-sized brain.

Why aren’t you listening? You don’t fool anyone here. You are not a chemist, STOP trying to have a debate involving chemistry.

[/quote]

I know the first part is complete rubbish. I deliberately put it in there to see if there are any chemists reading this and to get them involved.

Since you know the real answer to the above, you’ll probably also realise my thoughts on those two drugs, particularly since long term carcinogenity studies are never done in humans.

Now I’d like to hear your opinion on sucralose and whether or not you think its safe and why.
[/quote]

The first part? No. It’s all wrong. And I’m not about to engage a moron in a discussion in a subject he’s trolling about. Nice try, ass clown.[/quote]

Well considering you know enough about chemistry to know what was complete rubbsih, why have you failed to give an opinion on sucralose? You know enough to understand its potential as an alkylating agent, so wheres your voice? It got you to voice an opinion on something which you had otherwise failed to venture. Know enough about chemistry to pick that post apart, sure, then you know enough to make an intelligent commentary. The fact you only choose to wait till you can attack me when says more about your willingness to debate than anything else.

And for the record, carbonyl groups on the beta carbon atom STABILIZE the carbocation intermediate through pi orbital resonance, making the nucleophilic centres orders of magnitude more reactive. On the face of it that would suggest that those two drugs mentioned should be even better alkylating agents.

Having thought about it though, the fact that those carbon centres so so reactive probably means that the chloroalkane group never makes it near DNA. Those drugs might well turn out not to be carcinogenic.

In sucralose on the other hand, that carbon centres bonded to cholorine are still in the reactivity range for similar haloalkanes known to be alkylating agents to DNA.

Attack me all you want but my knowledge is sound, and if you think I am a troll your nuts. I genuinely think splenda is the most dangerous compound to have ever been allowed in the human food chain. So far, no one has given any convincing evidence against the possiblity of splenda causing DNA damage in humans. The chemistry suggests otherwise.

87

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Peter Orban wrote:
Your wrong.

Primary alkyl chlorides with the second carbon from chlorine bonded to nitrogen are irreversible inhibitors or mustard based alkylating agents, this does not extend such properties too all constituents of the organochloride or organohalide groups. As stated previously, there are many structural and and atomic effects in sucralose that stabilize the compound.

Didn’t even have to widen the net to organohalides, was able to stay within the organochloride category. Gave up after the D’s:

Beclamide (anticonvulsant):

N(4)-Chloroacetylcytosine arabinoside (GABA agonist):

Clobetasol propionate (corticosteroid):

Clomethiazole (sedative/hypnotic):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clomethiazole[/quote]

I’ve been busy but I have time to reply now. These are bad examples and if anything help the argument against splenda.

Both clobetasol and clomethizine have a carbonyl group adjacent to the chlorine alpha carbon atom. This makes both of these compounds POOR nucleophiles since these destabilise the carbocation intermediate and are therefore much less likely to be alkylating agents. Comparing these to splenda is like chalk and cheese.

Any electron withdrawing groups (oxygen) in the sucralose molecule are nowhere near as destabilising since a hydroxyl group two carbon atoms away does not have anywhere near the same effect.

All primary alkyl halides with stable carbocation intermediates are good nucleophiles and can irreversibly react with nitrogen in DNA.

Clomethaziole is also likely a carcinogen.

[/quote]

LOL! I knew it was just a matter of time before this dumb ass hung himself. It was worth being patient.
[/quote]

It was a mock execution for the haters. Dumbass.

88

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

And for the record, carbonyl groups on the beta carbon atom STABILIZE the carbocation intermediate through pi orbital resonance, making the nucleophilic centres orders of magnitude more reactive. [/quote]

You aren’t worth teaching, son. But I will correct this sentence of filth.

  1. The hypothetical carbocation you’re describing wouldn’t be stabilized through resonance from the carbonyl. Only hyperconjugation.

  2. Strength of the nucleophile has nothing to do with carbocation stability. None.

You fail.

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

Having thought about it though
[/quote]

ROFL

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Attack me all you want but my knowledge is sound,
.[/quote]

BAHAHAHAHA!

89

[quote]Cartman8675 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

And for the record, carbonyl groups on the beta carbon atom STABILIZE the carbocation intermediate through pi orbital resonance, making the nucleophilic centres orders of magnitude more reactive. [/quote]

You aren’t worth teaching, son. But I will correct this sentence of filth.

  1. The hypothetical carbocation you’re describing wouldn’t be stabilized through resonance from the carbonyl. Only hyperconjugation.

  2. Strength of the nucleophile has nothing to do with carbocation stability. None.

You fail.

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

Having thought about it though
[/quote]

ROFL

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Attack me all you want but my knowledge is sound,
.[/quote]

BAHAHAHAHA!

[/quote]

Excellent.

  1. Guess you didnt pay attention in class dude. Both hyperconjugation and resonance structures possible from the pi orbitals play a part in increasing the reactivity of the haloakane with carbonyl group attached at the beta position, but in the case of those compounds, the stability gained by resonance with the pi system is the overriding factor in the vast increase in reaction rate of carbocations with only hyperconjugation. Look up some reactivity tables.

  2. You misread me and I guess its my fault. I said nucleophilic centre, actually referring to the the carbon atom at the centre of the substitution. I should have said electrophilic carbon centre. My bad.

Are you going to post an opinion on sucralose or not?

90

[quote]blake2616 wrote:
I really need to take a chem class. This whole thread read like fucking jibberish to me.

[/quote]

One class and it would still be jibberish. I took 10 units General Chem, 6 units organic and 9 units Biochem and I know exactly jack. Granted, that was about 25 years ago but still, you’ve got to know your shit to follow the points and know what’s bull and what’s not in such a conv.

91

Massive, you had it won when you produced the study showing sucralose does penetrate the cell membrane and causes DNA damage, and that the FDA does indeed get it wrong sometimes. Ending at that it’s up to every reader to decide for themselves if they want to gamble whether or no the FDA got it right this time.

Continuing and pretending to be something you’re not was just pathetic.

But not as pathetic as all the posters who know Modok is a Pharmacist so they just followed in line agreeing with him when they, like me, know exactly jack. That was really pathetic. At least you’ve got some balls to try to pass your self off that way. I don’t respect it but it does take balls.

92

I can’t tell if this guy is trolling or just an idiot. Both?

93

[quote]on edge wrote:
Massive, you had it won when you produced the study showing sucralose does penetrate the cell membrane and causes DNA damage, and that the FDA does indeed get it wrong sometimes. Ending at that it’s up to every reader to decide for themselves if they want to gamble whether or no the FDA got it right this time.

Continuing and pretending to be something you’re not was just pathetic.

But not as pathetic as all the posters who know Modok is a Pharmacist so they just followed in line agreeing with him when they, like me, know exactly jack. That was really pathetic. At least you’ve got some balls to try to pass your self off that way. I don’t respect it but it does take balls.[/quote]

Dude, I really am qualified. I am not trolling or passing anything off. I know my shit. If anyone wants to continue talking science I’m happy to go as deep as anyone wants. By giving people shit to jump on me for, I actually got them to agree with my original argument, because I put forward the exact opposite one for them to jump on me for. Everyone whos had a pop and agreed that those points were wrong has agreed that sucralose does indeed have the chemistry of an alkylating agent.

Lets see who’s intellectually honest about it now then…

94

[quote]Varitek86 wrote:
I can’t tell if this guy is trolling or just an idiot. Both?[/quote]

Maybe thats because you don’t understand whats being written. Thank you for your helpful contribution.

95

[quote]on edge wrote:
But not as pathetic as all the posters who know Modok is a Pharmacist so they just followed in line agreeing with him when they, like me, know exactly jack. That was really pathetic. [/quote]

Pathetic, eh? That’s a pretty broad generalization. As I stated earlier in the thread, I’ve had a full run of chem courses. If you took all that chem and still don’t know shit, as you’ve admitted, I can’t see how you can claim that anyone who agreed with Modok is full of shit and pathetic, since - by your own admission - you understand none of this.

I aced my chem courses and can definitely follow the conversation in this thread. We did a lot of stuff on carbocations and alkylation and acylation in my O-chem courses. I’m not as educated as Modok, and I’m a nutritionist, not a chemist, but I think you’ve overstepped your bounds trying to characterize everyone who agreed with Modok as pathetic and clueless.

96

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Varitek86 wrote:
I can’t tell if this guy is trolling or just an idiot. Both?[/quote]

Maybe thats because you don’t understand whats being written. Thank you for your helpful contribution.[/quote]

Maybe not, but I do understand that you posted false information to sound more intelligent and back your argument, which failed miserably. Really, I thank you for this wonderful thread and the pleasure I had laughing at you.

97

[quote]Varitek86 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]Varitek86 wrote:
I can’t tell if this guy is trolling or just an idiot. Both?[/quote]

Maybe thats because you don’t understand whats being written. Thank you for your helpful contribution.[/quote]

Maybe not, but I do understand that you posted false information to sound more intelligent and back your argument, which failed miserably. Really, I thank you for this wonderful thread and the pleasure I had laughing at you.[/quote]

I posted incorrect information to get other people to back my argument by arguing against me and to draw anyone in who does know what they are talking about, it actually worked quite well. And since pharmacists are now considered authorities on chemical safety, I guess they can sling all the insults they like too.

Why does everyone think that we are always at the cutting edge of knowledge. In 50 years time we’ll be looking back at some of the things we did like we do now at medical practices in victorian times. Its intellectual arrogance that makes us make mistakes, and believing thst science, especially capitalist industrialist science is without fault is naive at best and negligent at worst.

Anyone that feels like it, can go eat their splenda as far as im concerned. Unless they want to talk sensible instead of acting like children.

98

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

Why does everyone think that we are always at the cutting edge of knowledge. In 50 years time we’ll be looking back at some of the things we did like we do now at medical practices in victorian times. Its intellectual arrogance that makes us make mistakes, and believing thst science, especially capitalist industrialist science is without fault is naive at best and negligent at worst.
[/quote]

Where did anyone say this? Please show me one example of someone in this thread saying "We absolutely know everything there is to know about Sucralose and there will never be any evidence to contradict our current information. "

What was actually stated was that based on the BEST, CURRENTLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE Sucralose is generally regarded as safe for consumption by humans in certain doses.

Of course we don’t know what we will know in 50 years, nor did anyone say that. If science knew everything already, it would cease to happen since it is a system used in the pursuit of knowledge.

I know absolutely nothing about the chemistry lingo flying around in this thread which is why I haven’t commented on it, but I certainly do know logical fallacies and made up statements when I see them.

Then again, maybe you just made those up to test us…

99

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

Why does everyone think that we are always at the cutting edge of knowledge. In 50 years time we’ll be looking back at some of the things we did like we do now at medical practices in victorian times. Its intellectual arrogance that makes us make mistakes, and believing thst science, especially capitalist industrialist science is without fault is naive at best and negligent at worst.
[/quote]

Where did anyone say this? Please show me one example of someone in this thread saying "We absolutely know everything there is to know about Sucralose and there will never be any evidence to contradict our current information. "

What was actually stated was that based on the BEST, CURRENTLY AVAILABLE EVIDENCE Sucralose is generally regarded as safe for consumption by humans in certain doses.

Of course we don’t know what we will know in 50 years, nor did anyone say that. If science knew everything already, it would cease to happen since it is a system used in the pursuit of knowledge.

I know absolutely nothing about the chemistry lingo flying around in this thread which is why I haven’t commented on it, but I certainly do know logical fallacies and made up statements when I see them.

Then again, maybe you just made those up to test us…[/quote]

You are talking some sense. I agree with you that according to the best available evidence sucralose appears to be safe. The reason I brought up the future was not a logical fallacy. My point is that the by trumpeting the BEST evidence available for sucralose as the one stop shop saying its safe IS an act of intellectual arrogance, since the evidence IMO is woefully inadequate, for the reasons I mentioned earlier regarding sweetener legislation.

From a biochemical persepective, theres no way in hell sucralose is safe for human consumption. And redarging the FDA, of course its ridiculous to assume that they are deliberately out to harm the end consumer. Thats insane.

The FDA does two things and in this order:

  1. Protect industrial Interests
  2. Protect the general public

There is plenty of evidence that this is the case. The end result is a fine balance between the interests of the consumer on one level and the interests of big business on another. The vast amount of money at stake in the artificial sweetener industry has waved its magic wand before when aspartame got approved.

100

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
You are talking some sense. I agree with you that according to the best available evidence sucralose appears to be safe. The reason I brought up the future was not a logical fallacy. My point is that the by trumpeting the BEST evidence available for sucralose as the one stop shop saying its safe IS an act of intellectual arrogance, since the evidence IMO is woefully inadequate, for the reasons I mentioned earlier regarding sweetener legislation.
[/quote]

Again, no one is trumpeting anything as a one stop shop. That is what YOU are saying we are doing. Saying that the best, currently available evidence shows Sucralose is safe is in no way arrogant, as any scientist knows that all scientific “knowledge” is provisional, meaning that is has the possibility to turn out wrong in the future given better evidence.

It is, however, arrogant to assume AS A MATTER OF FACT that Sucralose will eventually turn out to be unsafe. Maybe it will, maybe it wont. Only time and sound science will tell.

Hows this for intellectual arrogance: If a time comes in the future where Sucralose is proven unsafe (again, provisionally) than I will be more than happy to accept that conclusion and will avoid its consumption. Until then I will side with the best, currently available evidence, and the scientific consensus that currently shows that it is safe for human consumption at the recommended doses.