Diet soda's contain Aspartame in it. Even though there are no calories, fat or anythin in it to make you gain weight, it is considered a "Sweet Poison".
Please read below:
Aspartame Is Dangerous For Everyone
-----------------------------------
"I know that the average consumer has a devil-may-care
something-is-gonna-kill-me attitude... but they don't
realize that before THIS stuff kills they are going to
have a miserable declining existence with LOTS of pain
and other problems (not to mention cancer, tumors, and
maybe even alzheimer or similar things) before death
solves the problem."
- An Aspartame Victim
Long-Term Damage
----------------
It appears to cause slow, silent damage in those unfortunate enough
to not have immediate reactions and a reason to avoid it. It may take
one year, five years, 10 years, or 40 years, but it seems to cause
some reversible and some irreversible changes in health over long-term
use.
Brain Cancer
------------
Aspartame caused large brain tumors in life-long animal experiments
at a dose that could be considered within the "Acceptable Daily
Intake" limit after adjusting for differences in metabolism of
aspartame's breakdown products between humans and rodents.
Not long after the FDA Commissioner went to work as a consultant
for the
PR firm of the aspartame manufacturer, FDA Investigator
and Toxicologist, Dr. Adrian Gross stated the following:
In view of all these indications that the cancer-
causing potential of aspartame is a matter that
had been established way beyond any reasonable
doubt, one can ask: What is the reason for the
apparent refusal by the FDA to invoke for this
food additive the so-called Delaney Amendment to
the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act? Is it not clear
beyond any shadow of a doubt that aspartame had
caused brain tumors or brain cancer in animals,
and is this not sufficient to satisfy the
provisions of that particular section of the law?
Given that this is so (and I cannot see any kind
of tenable argument opposing the view that
aspartame causes cancer) how would the FDA justify
its position that it views a certain amount of
aspartame (50 mg/mg body-weight) as constituting
an ADI (Allowable Daily Intake) or "safe" level of
it? Is that position in effect not equivalent to
setting a "tolerance" for this food additive and
thus a violation of that law? And if the FDA
itself elects to violate the law, who is left to
protect the health of the public?
Uterine Polyps
--------------
Pre-approval experiments showed that an aspartame breakdown product
caused uterine polyps in experimental animals.
Not long after the FDA Commissioner went to work as a consultant for
the
PR firm of the aspartame manufacturer, FDA Investigator, Dr.
Jacqueline Verrett stated the following:
"This (DKP) is the famous study with the uterine
polyps, and it is also the study in which there
were changes in serum cholesterol, significant
changes over the dose range.
"Now, we still are not sure exactly how much of
DKP each group of animals or any individual animal
got; they may not have gotten what would be
calculated on the basis of daily consumption had
the diet been homogeneous.
"The fact is, in spite of that, there were
significant increases--and I think everybody
agrees with that--of uterine polyps and also
changes in blood cholesterol.
"When that was then taken into consideration, they
said, oh, well, obviously, they must have gotten
the diet, because we have these changes. But then
they disregarded the changes as being significant-
-you know, uterine polyps were not pre-
carcinogenic. Well, I can rustle up 15 million
women by this afternoon who will disagree with
that."
Other Hazards
-------------
The following is a selection of other hazards from long-term use of
aspartame. Once these effects are seen clinically, the internal
damage has often been done. Removing aspartame from the diet may
clear up some of the symptoms but the damage from the breakdown
products such as methanol may be permanent.
Seizures and convulsions, arthritic and joint pain, chronic fatigue,
depression, memory loss, vision damage and loss, tingling in the
extremities, slurring of speech, irritability, severe anxiety
attacks, menstrual problems, blood sugar control problems, symptoms
similar to multiple sclerosis, worsening of fibromyalgia, parkinson's
tremors, etc., etc.
Internet
PR
-----------
It appears that the
PR firms for the chemical company "selling"
aspartame (i.e., slowing poisoning people), Monsanto Chemical Company
are desparate to rescue their junky product despite the growing
evidence of its dangers. On the Internet, there are many nonsensical
and scientifically indefensible posts by persons who are only
interested in confusing the issue and creating havoc.
For example, one person recently claimed that orange juice releases
400 times more methanol than aspartame upon ingestion. The
scientific facts are that aspartame has much more methanol than
orange juice. (Many store-bought orange juices have 10-30 times less
methanol.) In addition, the methanol from aspartame is converted to
the extremely toxic formaldehyde and formic acid in the body, while
protective factors in the orange juice may prevent this conversion to
formaldehyde and formic acid. An avid aspartame consumer will be
getting the equivalent amount of methanol as a person working
part-time and inhaling methanol fumes in a methanol-laden chemical
plant. Other aspartame breakdown products may potentiate the
methanol/formaldehyde toxicity.
Another standard
PR technique is the following:
1. Hire people to join Internet groups and become a "regular"
poster. At least one report of recruitment has been published
recently. Such a recruited individual can have almost any email
address from a company name to a university email address.
2. When honest, legitimate concerns about a toxic product are
posted, respond with a large number of angry, "knee-jerk"
responses attempting to paint the persons posting as "radicals"
when they are simply one of many, many concerned citizens.
These large numbers of postings will flood the group(s) and get
the legitimate participants angry.
3. There may be many postings about people who have had "no
problems" with the toxic product even though, in the case of
aspartame it has been on the market and used in significant amounts
for such a short period of time. There may be postings trying
to claim that their freedoms are being taken away even though
by allowing the sale such a toxic product when there are many
healthier alternatives, the FDA is clearly violating their own
safety statutes. Most of these posts are probably legitimate,
but there is not way to know for certain.
4. Some people and possibly some
PR persons will post
demanding that the "concerned citizens" (although they will not
use that term) stop posting to the group. The reality almost
always is that there were relatively few posts by concerned
citizens and endless "knee-jerk" posts.
5. Finally, please be aware that posts from the International Food
Information Council (IFIC), the
PR organization for junk food
companies (in the guise of an independent "nutrition" organization)
and the American Dietetic Association (which received $75,000 from
Monsanto and an offer to help write their "fact" sheets) often put
inaccurate
PR on the Internet.
This is simply a modification for the Internet of very common unethical
PR techniques that are sometimes applied by companies trying to
rescue the image of a toxic product like aspartame. A new, extremely
well-researched and well-documented book about these techniques (and
a "must-read") is:
Toxic Sludge is Good For You! (Lies, Damn Lies and the
Public Relations Industry)
by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton
Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine (USA), c1995
ISBN 1-56751-061-2 or ISBN 1-56751-060-4 (pbk.)
This book will help you understand what tricks to expect from
Monsanto as scientists and the general population recognizes the
dangers of aspartame. It is a real eye-opener and I highly
recommend it.
