Aspartame & Cancer?

[KembroResearch]

An acquaintance of mine was speaking to me this week and informed me that a person we both know mutually, has been diagnosed with cancer. They are saying it's directly related to her drinking diet sodas because of aspartame. This girl has been relatively healthy her entire life, and I've been doing some reading out of curiosity and can't find any studies or hard proof that Aspartame is in fact a cause of cancer.

Does anyone have any studies linking cancer to aspartame/diet sodas? I personally love diet dr pepper, but I'm not trying to get cancer from drinking it.

 

[bigboy101]

I hope to see the the fuck that invented this shit open the gates of hell with their face, I am speaking from personal cancer experience!

 

[KembroResearch]

I hope to see the the fuck that invented this shit open the gates of hell with their face, I am speaking from personal cancer experience!

Very sorry to hear.

Can you share your experience? I'm assuming it was directly related to aspartame? I'm just really wanting to learn more about this. Seems like the FDA is all so hush hush on this topic

 

[Press]

all artificial sweetners are completely garbage. they are all damaging and yes this includes stevia. sucralose is put in foods you wouldnt even think would be in there. why every protein company uses them when the people buying a protein supplement is trying to be healthy is beyond me. steer clear!

 

[thebrick]

Who is they? Friends or doctors? Speculation or facts?

I am NOT saying that any of this chemical crap we ingest or are around (and there is a hell of a lot MORE than just artificial sweeteners) is good or benign, because its certainly not, but having dealt with cancer myself, I have learned that cancer is a very complex disease and to pin it on any one thing may be a long shot.

i hope she beats this and has a good future cancer-free

 

[ALLEX]

No one can really put a finger on what exactly caused cancer on someone. It's usually a combination of factors, many hereditary.

But yes, aspartame, just like most sweeteners is very harmful to our bodies. I wouldn't touch any of this crap with a 10ft pole.

 

[Press]

Who is they? Friends or doctors? Speculation or facts?

I am NOT saying that any of this chemical crap we ingest or are around (and there is a hell of a lot MORE than just artificial sweeteners) is good or benign, because its certainly not, but having dealt with cancer myself, I have learned that cancer is a very complex disease and to pin it on any one thing may be a long shot.

i hope she beats this and has a good future cancer-free

good point, but the less harmful stuff we ingest or are around the better.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

Proof? Works cited? Why aren't there very specific cancers like most other environmental factors that express cancer genes?

The studies that exist are poor. Many claims are out of emotion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Press]

Proof? Works cited? Why aren't there very specific cancers like most other environmental factors that express cancer genes?

The studies that exist are poor. Many claims are out of emotion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well, the problem is artificial sweeteners is still relatively new. long term human studies are still needed. tho short term studies do show quite a few side effects from digestive problems to rashes. most protein companies use sucralose and its seems to be the most widely used in foods. sucralose contains chlorine which is a carcinogen. it is a fact that carcinogens cause cancer. id say if you dont cut it out atleast limit it as much as possible. then on top of that they have a horrible effects on the environment. they pass threw the body unchanged you piss it out and it ends up in the ocean where it also cant be broken down.

 

[summersgold]

There are many billions of dollars spent on cancer research every year. Some people seem to have a genetic pre-disposition to develop cancer. That is why some people can smoke all their life and never develop lung cancer. Some people can use these artificial sweeteners all their life and never develop cancer. Others use them for a couple of years and develop some type of cancer. You just have to keep your fingers crossed and hope you are one of the lucky ones.

 

[nategeezy82]

all artificial sweetners are completely garbage. they are all damaging and yes this includes stevia. sucralose is put in foods you wouldnt even think would be in there. why every protein company uses them when the people buying a protein supplement is trying to be healthy is beyond me. steer clear!

This is why I stopped buying protien powders, plus the way it's produced is scary

 

[nategeezy82]

There are many billions of dollars spent on cancer research every year. Some people seem to have a genetic pre-disposition to develop cancer. That is why some people can smoke all their life and never develop lung cancer. Some people can use these artificial sweeteners all their life and never develop cancer. Others use them for a couple of years and develop some type of cancer. You just have to keep your fingers crossed and hope you are one of the lucky ones.

Cancer research or cancer treatment? They're not in the business of curing people, they're in the business of treating people. Cancer is becoming a lot more common. When you put all that garbage in your body your damaging DNA, then you pass that damaged DNA to your offspring. So each successive generation is worse off.

 

[Themoderator]

well, the problem is artificial sweeteners is still relatively new. long term human studies are still needed. tho short term studies do show quite a few side effects from digestive problems to rashes. most protein companies use sucralose and its seems to be the most widely used in foods. sucralose contains chlorine which is a carcinogen. it is a fact that carcinogens cause cancer. id say if you dont cut it out atleast limit it as much as possible. then on top of that they have a horrible effects on the environment. they pass threw the body unchanged you piss it out and it ends up in the ocean where it also cant be broken down.

Sorry bro, artificial sweeteners do have very in debt study and they aren't found to b poisonous or otherwise..... Aspartame is a neurotoxin used in truth serum back during WW11, but in small amounts it's completely harmless.....

Now, I do believe unwilling always have that very small percentage (1%)that gets affected in some way

 

[Press]

Sorry bro, artificial sweeteners do have very in debt study and they aren't found to b poisonous or otherwise..... Aspartame is a neurotoxin used in truth serum back during WW11, but in small amounts it's completely harmless.....

Now, I do believe unwilling always have that very small percentage (1%)that gets affected in some way

i never said that they werent well studied. i said there needs to be long term studies done on human. your definition of poisonous must be different then mine.

im not trying to force anyone to stop. thats is their choice. for me ill stay away.

 

[Big Dave Smith]

well, the problem is artificial sweeteners is still relatively new. long term human studies are still needed. tho short term studies do show quite a few side effects from digestive problems to rashes. most protein companies use sucralose and its seems to be the most widely used in foods. sucralose contains chlorine which is a carcinogen. it is a fact that carcinogens cause cancer. id say if you dont cut it out atleast limit it as much as possible. then on top of that they have a horrible effects on the environment. they pass threw the body unchanged you piss it out and it ends up in the ocean where it also cant be broken down.

Sounds like some are sensitive to it, others aren't.

How much chlorine? Chlorine or Chloride? If Chlorine causes cancers, how do we eat table salt (NaCl)?

The answers/arguments against it simply suck, or lack real science.

If you drink way more diet soda or crystal light than water, logic would dictate that it's probably not a bad idea.

Drinking diet soda with a meal at a restaurant, or making a pitcher of crystal light, probably isn't bad.

When enough questions are asked, the arguments fall apart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Big Dave Smith]

Also to note...

A poison is relative. It's also a buzz word.

Water can be poisonous. Salt has an actual LD50 measurement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Reno911]

Not sure of they can link the cancer to the diet soda. There are just so many variables involved. I drink my gallon a Crystal Lite daily and I'll take my chance with that rather than breathing diesel bus fumes standing on the corner in the city. I know some retired electricians in their 60's and 70's and those guys use to rip thru asbestos on a weekly/monthly basis back in the 1960-1970's. I'd say that's a little more high risk than drinking diet soda.

 

[Press]

Sounds like some are sensitive to it, others aren't.

How much chlorine? Chlorine or Chloride? If Chlorine causes cancers, how do we eat table salt (NaCl)?

The answers/arguments against it simply suck, or lack real science.

If you drink way more diet soda or crystal light than water, logic would dictate that it's probably not a bad idea.

Drinking diet soda with a meal at a restaurant, or making a pitcher of crystal light, probably isn't bad.

When enough questions are asked, the arguments fall apart.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

simply put the characteristics are different.when sodium and chlorine combine they are relatively stable chemically. chemically stable elements tend to be less harmful as they dont chemically react much with their environment. you obviously like your artificial sweeteners and thats fine, enjoy. what arguments are falling apart i dont understand why you keep saying that?

 

[cauthen96]

I drink Crystal Light daily.. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist but do you not think "BIG SUGAR" would want these studies/rumors/stories out saying how bad artificial sweeteners are.. If i sell 100 billion a year in hfcs and sugar and my bff at xyz university can do a "study" why wouldnt he? Everyone has an agenda and MONEY TALKS especially in the USA..

 

[emeric delczeg]

The production process.

The artificial sweetener aspartame, a dipeptide with the formula Asp-Phe-me, is produced using a cloned micrcorganism [sic]. A DNA which codes for a large stable peptide comprised of the repeating amino acid sequence (Asp-Phe)n is inserted into a cloning vehicle which in turn is introduced into a suitable host microorganism. The host microorganism is cultured and the large peptide containing the repeating Asp-Phe sequence is harvested therefrom. The free carboxyl group of the large peptide is benzylated and then hydrolysed to benzyl Asp-Phe dipeptides. This dipeptide is methylated and then debenzylated to form aspartame."

This scientific jargon obfuscates (perhaps deliberately) a truly disturbing process:

1.) 'Cloned microorganisms' (which the patent later reveals to be genetically modified E. coli) are cultivated in tanks whose environments are tailored to help them thrive.

2.) The well-fed E. coli cultures defecate the proteins that contain the aspartic acid-phenylalanine amino acid segment needed to make aspartame.

3.) The proteins containing the Asp-Phe segments are 'harvested' (i.e. lab assistants collect the bacteria's feces).

4.) The feces are then treated. This includes a process of methylation (adding an excess of the toxic alcohol, methanol, to the protected dipeptide).

While common sense dictates that this abomination doesn't belong anywhere near our bodies, the patent's authors made no secret about their belief that aspartame constitutes a safe and nutritious sweetener: