Sucralose is Poison

Nutrition
101

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Modok overstepped his bounds by stating flatly that sucralose can’t enter a cell therefore can’t cause DNA damage. He had the arrogance of not even checking and was proven to be wrong. 20 to 30 percent according to Wiki does indeed enter the cell and DNA damage does occur. You rode his coattails by agreeing when you didn’t know. You were not only wrong but also pretentious.

I didn’t overstep anything I said what I think. That’s all I ever do, say what I think. I never throw my hat in with anyone because I assume they know what they are talking about. If I did do that I would say I think they know what they are talking about, I wouldn’t pretend I knew something I didn’t.

102

[quote]on edge wrote:
Modok overstepped his bounds by stating flatly that sucralose can’t enter a cell therefore can’t cause DNA damage. He had the arrogance of not even checking and was proven to be wrong. 20 to 30 percent according to Wiki does indeed enter the cell and DNA damage does occur. You rode his coattails by agreeing when you didn’t know. You were not only wrong but also pretentious.

[/quote]

Ehh…not exactly, but nice try.

Only in MASSIVE doses that no human could ever possibly consume. Also, those are rat studies, which are notorious for being piss-poor for comparison with human metabolism.

So, basically that’s the crux of the whole issue - the insane dosage needed to cause the kind of DNA mutations you are talking about. So, Modok is technically not wrong at all.

Also - “20-30% of the absorbed sucralose being metabolized” - that’s from wiki. How do you take that as DNA damage? Just because it is metabolized by the cell doesn’t automatically mean it’s damaging DNA.

Not to mention toxicity in humans involves many vulnerable groups, years of daily use, evolution of hypersensitivity, and complex interactions with a multitude of foods, additives, other toxins, and infections.

So it’s a more complex issue than it’s being made out to be here. And I’m always of a mind that we don’t know any of this for sure - but at this time the evidence for sucralose causing massive DNA mutations in humans is marginal at best.

See what I’m saying? : )

103

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Actually you are trumpeting by saying theres enough out there to make the decision on whether its safe or not. My argument is that there is currently no-where near enough evidence for that decision to be made, and the science points to splenda being very very dangerous.

  1. Splenda is a chlorinated sugar molecule, and in line with other primary alkyl halides SHOULD be capable of damaging DNA.

  2. Splenda has indeed been SHOWN to be capable of damaging DNA, meaning that its toxicity is in line with other members of its chemical family

  3. The other members of the primary alkyl halides are almost all carcinogenic BECAUSE of their ability to damage DNA

  4. Non biased “evidence” for many years suggested that smoking was good for you? I guess we are completely free of all finanical and industrial bias in the 21st century. Fantastic.

  5. If a primary alkyl halide such as splenda was present as an impurity in a drug manufacturing process THEN IT WOULD NOT BE APPROVED because primary alkyl halides are ASSUMED to be carcinogenic. This is not some far cry shot in the dark.

104

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
Modok overstepped his bounds by stating flatly that sucralose can’t enter a cell therefore can’t cause DNA damage. He had the arrogance of not even checking and was proven to be wrong. 20 to 30 percent according to Wiki does indeed enter the cell and DNA damage does occur. You rode his coattails by agreeing when you didn’t know. You were not only wrong but also pretentious.

[/quote]

Ehh…not exactly, but nice try.

Only in MASSIVE doses that no human could ever possibly consume. Also, those are rat studies, which are notorious for being piss-poor for comparison with human metabolism.

So, basically that’s the crux of the whole issue - the insane dosage needed to cause the kind of DNA mutations you are talking about. So, Modok is technically not wrong at all.

Also - “20-30% of the absorbed sucralose being metabolized” - that’s from wiki. How do you take that as DNA damage? Just because it is metabolized by the cell doesn’t automatically mean it’s damaging DNA.

Not to mention toxicity in humans involves many vulnerable groups, years of daily use, evolution of hypersensitivity, and complex interactions with a multitude of foods, additives, other toxins, and infections.

So it’s a more complex issue than it’s being made out to be here. And I’m always of a mind that we don’t know any of this for sure - but at this time the evidence for sucralose causing massive DNA mutations in humans is marginal at best.

See what I’m saying? : ) [/quote]

I thought you said you knew enough to follow the conversation.

105

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Modok overstepped his bounds by stating flatly that sucralose can’t enter a cell therefore can’t cause DNA damage. He had the arrogance of not even checking and was proven to be wrong. 20 to 30 percent according to Wiki does indeed enter the cell and DNA damage does occur. You rode his coattails by agreeing when you didn’t know. You were not only wrong but also pretentious.

I didn’t overstep anything I said what I think. That’s all I ever do, say what I think. I never throw my hat in with anyone because I assume they know what they are talking about. If I did do that I would say I think they know what they are talking about, I wouldn’t pretend I knew something I didn’t.[/quote]

Sucrolose does NOT enter the cell in physiological concentrations high enough to disrupt DNA. A SMALL amount can enter the cell through passive means, but I thought we were all intelligent enough and well-versed enough in biology to understand the base concepts on how and why sugars cross cell membranes through active transport. I was obviously giving some of you too much credit. 20-30% according to Wikipedia huh? lol Edited by “On Edge” on 7/26/2011. For you to use wikipedia as a source of ANY kind sort of says it all. What a joke.[/quote]

MG already referenced studies showing that sucralose does enter cells to some extent and can cause DNA damage. You’ve already been proven wrong on this.

The only debate is whether damage occurs in humans over time. Rats only live a few years so 50 years of exposure can’t be extrapolated. Studies on humans have been short and who knows if there are even any population studies going since it’s been introduced.

106

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Actually you are trumpeting by saying theres enough out there to make the decision on whether its safe or not. My argument is that there is currently no-where near enough evidence for that decision to be made, and the science points to splenda being very very dangerous.

  1. Non biased “evidence” for many years suggested that smoking was good for you? I guess we are completely free of all finanical and industrial bias in the 21st century. Fantastic.

[/quote]

There is never “enough” evidence for anything to say CONCLUSIVELY, 100% that it is safe or not. Especially when you are dealing in biology and the human body where the level of complexity is off the charts, and isolating ALL of the variables becomes next to impossible. Not to mention the fact that the gold standard style studies (a large population taking a consistent dose over a long period of time) are almost impossible to carry out.

In regards to point number 4 (I’m not educated enough to intelligently comment on the other points, forgive my excluding them) this quite obviously shows, to me, several things

  • Science works given enough time. The self correcting machinery built into it eventually work out the right answers, even if you start at the wrong one

  • Political and financial interests can only hide the truth for so long: It is now well established that smoking is bad for you, all the money and power in the world couldn’t stop that information from coming out.

  • Of course the FDA, being made up of humans, is susceptible to bias and fraud. But as you can see, in the long run, the truth comes out. They now make it WELL known that cigarettes are bad for your health and in fact even make the companies advertise against themselves and put deathly warnings on their packages. How is this explained in your “The FDA lies about everything, all the time” hypothesis?

107

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[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. [/quote]

Modok overstepped his bounds by stating flatly that sucralose can’t enter a cell therefore can’t cause DNA damage. He had the arrogance of not even checking and was proven to be wrong. 20 to 30 percent according to Wiki does indeed enter the cell and DNA damage does occur. You rode his coattails by agreeing when you didn’t know. You were not only wrong but also pretentious.

I didn’t overstep anything I said what I think. That’s all I ever do, say what I think. I never throw my hat in with anyone because I assume they know what they are talking about. If I did do that I would say I think they know what they are talking about, I wouldn’t pretend I knew something I didn’t.[/quote]

Sucrolose does NOT enter the cell in physiological concentrations high enough to disrupt DNA. A SMALL amount can enter the cell through passive means, but I thought we were all intelligent enough and well-versed enough in biology to understand the base concepts on how and why sugars cross cell membranes through active transport. I was obviously giving some of you too much credit. 20-30% according to Wikipedia huh? lol Edited by “On Edge” on 7/26/2011. For you to use wikipedia as a source of ANY kind sort of says it all. What a joke.[/quote]

MG already referenced studies showing that sucralose does enter cells to some extent and can cause DNA damage. You’ve already been proven wrong on this.

The only debate is whether damage occurs in humans over time. Rats only live a few years so 50 years of exposure can’t be extrapolated. Studies on humans have been short and who knows if there are even any population studies going since it’s been introduced. [/quote]

Hey dummy…are you illiterate? You just repeated exactly what I fucking said. I don’t know about your sucrolose consumption, but you obviously live under a large quantity of power lines. Now go put your foil hat back on your head and face the wall.
[/quote]

Dude, you can’t say something out loud and expect me to hear it. You’ve gotta type it. LOL What you just typed is directly above what I typed and in that you said nothing like what I said. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and scrolled up looking at all the posts you made on this page and nope you said nothing like what I said.

Now grow up, stop calling names and say something with substance (Or leave it. I’m sure everyone can decide at this point if they want to avoid it, limit it, or all together not worry about it). You’re spending more time trying to belittle others than you are making points.

108

Anyway, does anyone know anything about stevia’s safety? I’ve switched to it b/c it taste a hell of a lot better.

109

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Anyway, does anyone know anything about stevia’s safety? I’ve switched to it b/c it taste a hell of a lot better.
[/quote]

Well, the FDA hasn’t approved it as a sweetener(only as a “food additive” and “dietary supplement”), so my guess is everyone will love it and its 100% safe, in fact it probably even has positive medical value and will lead to a longer, more quality life… Until the FDA approves it at which point the exact opposite will be true.

110

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
Modok overstepped his bounds by stating flatly that sucralose can’t enter a cell therefore can’t cause DNA damage. He had the arrogance of not even checking and was proven to be wrong. 20 to 30 percent according to Wiki does indeed enter the cell and DNA damage does occur. You rode his coattails by agreeing when you didn’t know. You were not only wrong but also pretentious.

[/quote]

Ehh…not exactly, but nice try.

Only in MASSIVE doses that no human could ever possibly consume. Also, those are rat studies, which are notorious for being piss-poor for comparison with human metabolism.

So, basically that’s the crux of the whole issue - the insane dosage needed to cause the kind of DNA mutations you are talking about. So, Modok is technically not wrong at all.

Also - “20-30% of the absorbed sucralose being metabolized” - that’s from wiki. How do you take that as DNA damage? Just because it is metabolized by the cell doesn’t automatically mean it’s damaging DNA.

Not to mention toxicity in humans involves many vulnerable groups, years of daily use, evolution of hypersensitivity, and complex interactions with a multitude of foods, additives, other toxins, and infections.

So it’s a more complex issue than it’s being made out to be here. And I’m always of a mind that we don’t know any of this for sure - but at this time the evidence for sucralose causing massive DNA mutations in humans is marginal at best.

See what I’m saying? : ) [/quote]

MODOKS inital argument was that splenda doesnt even enter cells so is incapable of damaging DNA. For something to be metabolised it needs to enter a cell. If it can enter a cell then thats still no guarantee of interaction with DNA. The large dose study shows that DNA interaction is actually possible. And its important to note it was a large SINGLE dose.

Other alylating agents are no different in this regard. If you consume tiny (and I mean tiny) amounts of large periods of time, then you will likely come to no long term harm. However, there is a point where DNA damage is unavoidable.

If you are exposed to an unusally large dose of any alkylating agent, you will suffer extensive DNA damage and will most likely develop cancer. Alkylating agents are considered CONSISTENT in this regard. Splenda exhibits all these characteristics. It is logical to infer that prolonged intake is very very dangerous.

111

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Actually you are trumpeting by saying theres enough out there to make the decision on whether its safe or not. My argument is that there is currently no-where near enough evidence for that decision to be made, and the science points to splenda being very very dangerous.

  1. Non biased “evidence” for many years suggested that smoking was good for you? I guess we are completely free of all finanical and industrial bias in the 21st century. Fantastic.

[/quote]

There is never “enough” evidence for anything to say CONCLUSIVELY, 100% that it is safe or not. Especially when you are dealing in biology and the human body where the level of complexity is off the charts, and isolating ALL of the variables becomes next to impossible. Not to mention the fact that the gold standard style studies (a large population taking a consistent dose over a long period of time) are almost impossible to carry out.

In regards to point number 4 (I’m not educated enough to intelligently comment on the other points, forgive my excluding them) this quite obviously shows, to me, several things

  • Science works given enough time. The self correcting machinery built into it eventually work out the right answers, even if you start at the wrong one

  • Political and financial interests can only hide the truth for so long: It is now well established that smoking is bad for you, all the money and power in the world couldn’t stop that information from coming out.

  • Of course the FDA, being made up of humans, is susceptible to bias and fraud. But as you can see, in the long run, the truth comes out. They now make it WELL known that cigarettes are bad for your health and in fact even make the companies advertise against themselves and put deathly warnings on their packages. How is this explained in your “The FDA lies about everything, all the time” hypothesis?[/quote]

I admire your honesty in reference to points one to three. I agree science works give enough time. The problem with a carcinogen in the food chain, is that if people do develop cancer as a result of exposure, it would take much much longer to figure it out than it did with smoking. Smoking caused a large jump in cancers related to the route of exposure and many other obvious physiological signs of damage. There was no hiding that long term. Cancer rates could increase from splenda use and never be attributed to it.

Science works because it encourages people to think and not accept everything at face value. I think this is a case where people really need to do that. The risk is too great IMO.

And I at no point said that the FDA lies about everything, nor is this some deliberate “posioning” as may be touted by the tinfoil hat brigade. Those ideas are preposterious. The FDA makes mistakes, and amazingly, it seems to make them when there are large amounts of money at stake.

And btw MODOK, your debating skills and effort towards an intelligent debate are admirable. You do look like a douche holding that sword though. lol

112

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
If you are exposed to an unusally large dose of any alkylating agent, you will suffer extensive DNA damage and will most likely develop cancer. Alkylating agents are considered CONSISTENT in this regard. Splenda exhibits all these characteristics. It is logical to infer that prolonged intake is very very dangerous.[/quote]

According to the research, a considerable amount of it is excreted in feces and by the kidneys. Also, since it would take a MASSIVE single dose to (possibly) cause DNA mutations, why do you think the same thing will also occur from cumulative effects? It’s not a lipid - it’s not going to be placed into long term storage in the body.

Also, as I’m sure you know, DNA resides in the nucleus - and the nuclear envelope completely encloses it and separates the cell’s genetic material from the surrounding cytoplasm. Of course, this creates a barrier to prevent macromolecules from diffusing freely between the nucleoplasm and the cytoplasm.

I understand what you’re getting at regarding Alkylating agents - Electrophilic & soluble alkylating agents can be extremely toxic, due to their ability to alkylate DNA. It’s that exact mechanism of toxicity that makes some of them perform well as anti-cancer drugs.

I just don’t agree with your assertions that the sucralose molecule behaves in exactly the same way…

113

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

I admire your honesty in reference to points one to three. I agree science works give enough time. The problem with a carcinogen in the food chain, is that if people do develop cancer as a result of exposure, it would take much much longer to figure it out than it did with smoking. Smoking caused a large jump in cancers related to the route of exposure and many other obvious physiological signs of damage. There was no hiding that long term. Cancer rates could increase from splenda use and never be attributed to it.[/quote]

Speculating here: Wouldn’t it be possible to track cancer rates (especially the kind of cancer that Sucralose would cause) and see if there was an uptick starting when Splenda was released and started being consumed en masse? (or a sudden jump at a predictable number of years later)

For example: If Splenda started being consumed in 1990 by 100 million people, and alkylating agents typically cause cancer with 5 years of continuous exposure (I’m completely making numbers up here for illustration) wouldn’t there be a noticeable increase in certain types of cancer starting in 1995?

We certainly agree on that. But at a certain point a conclusion must be drawn when you are a big agency that everyone looks to for information. The FDA has chosen to declare certain amounts of Sucralose GRAS. It may change its position in the future, only time will tell.

It’s like the CDC stating Swine Flue was going pandemic, had huge potential for catastrophe, and ramped up vaccine efforts accordingly… At which point everyone accused them of blowing everything out of proportion. The alternative was to “wait and see” and have a body count on their hands… At which point everyone would have accused them of not taking action. (Again, this is an illustration, I dont wish to start a swine flu debate)

The “Risk to Benefit ratio” game is often VERY messy, and if you happen to come out on the wrong side of it you have no choice but to look like a fool to those on the outside who dont understand how amazingly, impossibly complex these issues can be, which often incorporate not just one field of science, but several - each of which require a doctoral level of study to fully comprehend.

If that wasn’t you I apologize for that characterization. Someone earlier in the thread stated that, I will do my homework better next time.

114

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
If you are exposed to an unusally large dose of any alkylating agent, you will suffer extensive DNA damage and will most likely develop cancer. Alkylating agents are considered CONSISTENT in this regard. Splenda exhibits all these characteristics. It is logical to infer that prolonged intake is very very dangerous.[/quote]

According to the research, a considerable amount of it is excreted in feces and by the kidneys. Also, since it would take a MASSIVE single dose to (possibly) cause DNA mutations, why do you think the same thing will also occur from cumulative effects? It’s not a lipid - it’s not going to be placed into long term storage in the body.

Also, as I’m sure you know, DNA resides in the nucleus - and the nuclear envelope completely encloses it and separates the cell’s genetic material from the surrounding cytoplasm. Of course, this creates a barrier to prevent macromolecules from diffusing freely between the nucleoplasm and the cytoplasm.

I understand what you’re getting at regarding Alkylating agents - Electrophilic & soluble alkylating agents can be extremely toxic, due to their ability to alkylate DNA. It’s that exact mechanism of toxicity that makes some of them perform well as anti-cancer drugs.

I just don’t agree with your assertions that the sucralose molecule behaves in exactly the same way… [/quote]

I saw that part too, about the major percentage being excreted un-metabolised. I also know exactly what your saying about the nuclear envelope and cell membranes. Think about this though. Whats the average volume of a lab rat? I don’t know that off hand but I do know that averge bodyweight is about 300g Is even a two gram dosage enough to cause a concentration gradient strong enough to disrupt cell membranes and allow sucralose into the cytoplasm. Take it a step further and is the concentration gradient enough to do this from cytoplasm to nucleus?

Can a molecule such as splenda cross a cell membrane like this without damaging it at any concetration unless it is being transported into the cell. A detailed metabolite study of splenda would give a much better idea of which cellular pathways were involved.

Im sure you can see that as an alkylating agent, splenda is of comparible reactivity to other agents capable of DNA damage. And yes alkylating agents are used as cancer treatment. The side effects of this type fo treatment are secondary cancers. The only reason this is acceptable is that patients with cancer have no alternatives. A variery of other cancer drugs are also highly carcinogenic in themselves. The fact they are used to treat cancer does not change this or make them safe for consumption, but having re-read what you wrote I dont think you were implying that?

115

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
The fact they are used to treat cancer does not change this or make them safe for consumption, but having re-read what you wrote I dont think you were implying that?[/quote]

Right - I wasn’t implying that at all, only using that to illustrate your point about DNA damage since alkylated DNA has coiling issues, and other problems associated with cytotoxicity. Alkylating antineoplastic agents work by attaching an alkyl group to DNA…

Carcinogenic mutations also occur of course. But again, since it’s dose dependent, do you really think that a sufficient concentration gradient could even be achieved? It seems highly unlikely to me.

116

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
The fact they are used to treat cancer does not change this or make them safe for consumption, but having re-read what you wrote I dont think you were implying that?[/quote]

Right - I wasn’t implying that at all, only using that to illustrate your point about DNA damage since alkylated DNA has coiling issues, and other problems associated with cytotoxicity. Alkylating antineoplastic agents work by attaching an alkyl group to DNA…

Carcinogenic mutations also occur of course. But again, since it’s dose dependent, do you really think that a sufficient concentration gradient could even be achieved? It seems highly unlikely to me. [/quote]

That last part is exactly my point. I don’t think that even given the 2g limit dosage that a high enough concentration gradient would be achieved for splenda to enter cells via diffusion alone, implying another mechanism at work. A detailed study of metabolites would be very revealing in this regard, since it would say which metabolic machinery is responsible for processing splenda. And since splenda is metabolised even at low doses, this would likely prove that it can enter the cell via transport and therefore mean that it’s time to shart shitting pants.

117

[quote]MODOK wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]SkyNett wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
Modok overstepped his bounds by stating flatly that sucralose can’t enter a cell therefore can’t cause DNA damage. He had the arrogance of not even checking and was proven to be wrong. 20 to 30 percent according to Wiki does indeed enter the cell and DNA damage does occur. You rode his coattails by agreeing when you didn’t know. You were not only wrong but also pretentious.

[/quote]

Ehh…not exactly, but nice try.

Only in MASSIVE doses that no human could ever possibly consume. Also, those are rat studies, which are notorious for being piss-poor for comparison with human metabolism.

So, basically that’s the crux of the whole issue - the insane dosage needed to cause the kind of DNA mutations you are talking about. So, Modok is technically not wrong at all.

Also - “20-30% of the absorbed sucralose being metabolized” - that’s from wiki. How do you take that as DNA damage? Just because it is metabolized by the cell doesn’t automatically mean it’s damaging DNA.

Not to mention toxicity in humans involves many vulnerable groups, years of daily use, evolution of hypersensitivity, and complex interactions with a multitude of foods, additives, other toxins, and infections.

So it’s a more complex issue than it’s being made out to be here. And I’m always of a mind that we don’t know any of this for sure - but at this time the evidence for sucralose causing massive DNA mutations in humans is marginal at best.

See what I’m saying? : ) [/quote]

MODOKS inital argument was that splenda doesnt even enter cells so is incapable of damaging DNA. For something to be metabolised it needs to enter a cell. If it can enter a cell then thats still no guarantee of interaction with DNA. The large dose study shows that DNA interaction is actually possible. And its important to note it was a large SINGLE dose.

Other alylating agents are no different in this regard. If you consume tiny (and I mean tiny) amounts of large periods of time, then you will likely come to no long term harm. However, there is a point where DNA damage is unavoidable.

If you are exposed to an unusally large dose of any alkylating agent, you will suffer extensive DNA damage and will most likely develop cancer. Alkylating agents are considered CONSISTENT in this regard. Splenda exhibits all these characteristics. It is logical to infer that prolonged intake is very very dangerous.[/quote]

No it wasn’t. I was just being brief for brevity’s sake when I said “It doesn’t enter the cell”. I thought that everyone with an inkling of scientific knowledge knew I was talking about mechanisms other than passive diffusion. I over-estimated my audience’s intelligence…as evidenced by your (and the other numb skull’s) comments. It simply confirms the lack of scientific knowledge that you two have that you think I don’t understand the selective permeability of the cell membrane.

But its all fine and dandy. Yours and On Edge’s agenda is perfectly clear for all to see- keep poking and poking other posters with a ridiculous argument in order to illicit a response. They call that trolling, and everyone sees that is what you two are doing.
[/quote]

In pharmacy you spent more time learning how to formulate suppositories than you did learning science dude so stick to what your good at. Calling us trolls is ironic since you’ve spent more time handing out insults than you have making intelligent discussion and defending your argument. Perhaps thats because you dont know how to, or maybe its because its a poor argument.

118

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
In pharmacy you spent more time learning how to formulate suppositories than you did learning science dude so stick to what your good at. Calling us trolls is ironic since you’ve spent more time handing out insults than you have making intelligent discussion and defending your argument. Perhaps thats because you dont know how to, or maybe its because its a poor argument.[/quote]

Pot, meet kettle…

Way to elevate the debate.

119

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Anyway, does anyone know anything about stevia’s safety? I’ve switched to it b/c it taste a hell of a lot better.
[/quote]

Well, the FDA hasn’t approved it as a sweetener(only as a “food additive” and “dietary supplement”), so my guess is everyone will love it and its 100% safe, in fact it probably even has positive medical value and will lead to a longer, more quality life… Until the FDA approves it at which point the exact opposite will be true.

[/quote]

Ok, As long as I’m not going to get the aids from it I feel alright.

120

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
In pharmacy you spent more time learning how to formulate suppositories than you did learning science dude so stick to what your good at. Calling us trolls is ironic since you’ve spent more time handing out insults than you have making intelligent discussion and defending your argument. Perhaps thats because you dont know how to, or maybe its because its a poor argument.[/quote]

Pot, meet kettle…

Way to elevate the debate. [/quote]

We’ll he’s not responding to intelligent discussion so what else can I say? At least you agree he’s being a douche.