[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
[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.[/quote]
When I see an intelligent discussion, I will respond to it. You seem to be having a very hard time following Lonnie’s logic. I can’t really help you there. Maybe you should go back over to the GAL and SAMA forums where you perpetually hang out. This science stuff isn’t really for you.
[/quote]
Nice excuse for not understanding whats being discussed, esp. since your argument is poor. I guess you can just keep doing more of the same. The point about the science being discussed in those points is that there is so much evidence for it, it is taught UN-REFERENCED to undergrads. Kinda like people being told the world is round.
Would anyone else like to continue the discussion intelligently along the lines of the points raised? Lonnie has actually had some good things to say, as have most other people on here.
[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Would anyone else like to continue the discussion intelligently along the lines of the points raised? Lonnie has actually had some good things to say, as have most other people on here.
[/quote]
Not sure what else there is to discuss. You’ve outlined your hypothesis - now the next step is to go and actually do the research and present findings, having used sound scientific method. Anything else is just navel-gazing speculation at this point.
Most of us have said we just don’t see any evidence of the sucralose molecule being especially predisposed to enter the cell and even further to pass the nuclear envelope to get at genetic material…
What else is there to discuss on the matter? Unless you have some specific insight as to why sucralose would damage DNA (besides the whole alkylation argument, which we’ve been over exhaustively) I don’t know where else you want to go…
[quote]MODOK wrote:
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]
LOL No. Your fall back position is you were just being brief. This claim is about as believable as MG claiming he was just testing us on that other thing a few pages back. Ironically that means MG is probably the only one here who believes you. LOL
What’s ridiculous is you claiming we are being trolls. There is nothing far fetched being claimed here. We know some sucralose can enter cells. We know enough of it can cause DNA damage. It’s not far fetched to believe that small amounts over years could cause DNA damage. Just because a bunch of rat studies and a few short term human studies didn’t find adverse affects it’s still reasonable for people to have a long term concern. If you don’t have such a concern, great. I think it’s great MG brought this topic up for people to decide for themselves.