Affect of Alcohol (Beer) on Soaring and Soaring Racing

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
snip

For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.

A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.

Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.


Yet another aspartame hoax:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130505...health-hoax-2/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ews-180961880/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/as...-sweet-poison/

Reply to 2G:

You're joking, right? You cite Snopes as a reputable fact-checker? LOL. And you cite the ACSH (American Council on Science and Health)? What do you know about the ACSH? Who started it and who funds it, eh? It has been funded from the get-go by big agri-business and trade groups such as Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association, among others. That's open source. The entire concept of ACSH was commissioned by Pfizer in response to the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, which restricted the use of cancer-causing chemicals in food. Propaganda is very effective in protecting corporations' profits.

The ACSH has been active in downplaying the risks from DDT, dioxin, asbestos, and other polluting chemicals. Shortly after ACSH's founding, it abandoned even the appearance of independent funding. In a 1997 interview, the ACSH's founder explained that she might as well take industry money without restrictions, as ACSH was already being touted as a "paid liar for industry". It's a good-paying gig, if you can get it.

During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote: "ACSH is a consumer front organization for its business backers. It has seized the language and style of the existing consumer organizations, but its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it."

Those big pharma, agri and chemical companies are getting good bang for their propagandistic buck when people like you cite them as a definitive source to convince consumers to ignore independent scientists' findings and warnings and instead treat them as a "hoax". A dude named Gilbert Ross was acting prez and exec director of ACSH as of 2015. His medical license was revoked for professional misconduct in 1995 after it was revealed that he had been involved in a scheme that defrauded the New York State Medicaid system of $8 million. He was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and didn't regain his med license until 2004. But, hey, that's good enough for the corporations that fund ACSH. He's their kinda guy! And you can imagine just how much money is being made by the sale of aspartame. Those profit margins are huge and well worth protecting, right?

If you read Dr Woodrow Monte's book _While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills_, you'll see to what lengths these corporations will go to silence or even incapacitate independent scientists (who have nothing to gain from their whistle-blowing, but everything to lose, including their lives). Read. The. Book. Dr Monte is the worldwide expert on aspartame, and it has cost him plenty to take on the powerful corporations and try to warn the public. I admire his courage. He's published his findings on his website and has given plenty of interviews (YouTube), too, so it's free to the public. And then come back to RAS and set me straight, 2G.

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 1:09:52 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
snip

For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.

A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.

Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.


Yet another aspartame hoax:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130505...health-hoax-2/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ews-180961880/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/as...-sweet-poison/

Reply to 2G:

You're joking, right? You cite Snopes as a reputable fact-checker? LOL.. And you cite the ACSH (American Council on Science and Health)? What do you know about the ACSH? Who started it and who funds it, eh? It has been funded from the get-go by big agri-business and trade groups such as Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association, among others. That's open source. The entire concept of ACSH was commissioned by Pfizer in response to the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, which restricted the use of cancer-causing chemicals in food. Propaganda is very effective in protecting corporations' profits.

The ACSH has been active in downplaying the risks from DDT, dioxin, asbestos, and other polluting chemicals. Shortly after ACSH's founding, it abandoned even the appearance of independent funding. In a 1997 interview, the ACSH's founder explained that she might as well take industry money without restrictions, as ACSH was already being touted as a "paid liar for industry". It's a good-paying gig, if you can get it.

During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote: "ACSH is a consumer front organization for its business backers. It has seized the language and style of the existing consumer organizations, but its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it."

Those big pharma, agri and chemical companies are getting good bang for their propagandistic buck when people like you cite them as a definitive source to convince consumers to ignore independent scientists' findings and warnings and instead treat them as a "hoax". A dude named Gilbert Ross was acting prez and exec director of ACSH as of 2015. His medical license was revoked for professional misconduct in 1995 after it was revealed that he had been involved in a scheme that defrauded the New York State Medicaid system of $8 million. He was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and didn't regain his med license until 2004. But, hey, that's good enough for the corporations that fund ACSH. He's their kinda guy! And you can imagine just how much money is being made by the sale of aspartame. Those profit margins are huge and well worth protecting, right?

If you read Dr Woodrow Monte's book _While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills_, you'll see to what lengths these corporations will go to silence or even incapacitate independent scientists (who have nothing to gain from their whistle-blowing, but everything to lose, including their lives). Read. The. Book. Dr Monte is the worldwide expert on aspartame, and it has cost him plenty to take on the powerful corporations and try to warn the public.. I admire his courage. He's published his findings on his website and has given plenty of interviews (YouTube), too, so it's free to the public. And then come back to RAS and set me straight, 2G.

The only good science is bro science. Harvard medical school has over a hundred year history of taking money to cook results in favor of industry. Sugar industry a 100 years ago, recent one was relevant to this topic. a researcher soliciting money from the alcohol industry to downplay the effects of chronic drinking. Go look up the math on those one drink a day s=is good for you studies and see just how big that one drink should be.
You can't believe science from universities, trade associations are worse.

Dump the diet sodas.Â* Drink Jolt - Twice the sugar, Caffiene - the real
thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jolt_Cola

You'll be buzzing out on course, probably ****ing a lot, too!

On 2/24/2019 9:24 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
2G wrote on 2/24/2019 7:53 PM:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8,
wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
snip

For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking
enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood
alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.

A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet
soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable).Â*
Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a
former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous
food additive on the market today.Â* It changes the ratio of amino
acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin,
tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline..Â* Even though it
is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the
amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol).
According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in
the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in
humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards
related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human
studies.Â* Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a
"Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts
rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.

Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but
there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly
binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and
be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to
break that bond.Â* If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or
uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or
her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com.Â* Or get a
copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.

And, for the record (being as I am P7 SCUM), Gary quaffs more of his
own brew on both contest days and rest days than does any other
competitor.Â* Perhaps there's a *secret ingredient* in Papa 7 Brewery
kegs that confers a competitive advantage.

Yet another aspartame hoax:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130505...health-hoax-2/


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ews-180961880/


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/as...-sweet-poison/

There are scientific studies showing more than two diet drinks a day
are linked to some health issues, including strokes. This new article
by Consumer Reports covers some them:

https://www.consumerreports.org/suga...223_nsltr_food






--
Dan, 5J

Jolt......mmmmmmm.......I remember when we could find it in NJ easily. Never had much affect on me, but I liked it better than 2nd choice Pepsi followed by others.....

Back to original question, if you are fairly hydrated, a beer, "maybe" 2 may be fine at the end of a flight, same for wine.
Dehydrated,or more volumne, likely to degrade next contest day. If nothing else, likely to mess with sleep.

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 10:09:52 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
snip

For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.

A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.

Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.


Yet another aspartame hoax:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130505...health-hoax-2/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ews-180961880/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/as...-sweet-poison/

Reply to 2G:

You're joking, right? You cite Snopes as a reputable fact-checker? LOL.. And you cite the ACSH (American Council on Science and Health)? What do you know about the ACSH? Who started it and who funds it, eh? It has been funded from the get-go by big agri-business and trade groups such as Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association, among others. That's open source. The entire concept of ACSH was commissioned by Pfizer in response to the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, which restricted the use of cancer-causing chemicals in food. Propaganda is very effective in protecting corporations' profits.

The ACSH has been active in downplaying the risks from DDT, dioxin, asbestos, and other polluting chemicals. Shortly after ACSH's founding, it abandoned even the appearance of independent funding. In a 1997 interview, the ACSH's founder explained that she might as well take industry money without restrictions, as ACSH was already being touted as a "paid liar for industry". It's a good-paying gig, if you can get it.

During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote: "ACSH is a consumer front organization for its business backers. It has seized the language and style of the existing consumer organizations, but its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it."

Those big pharma, agri and chemical companies are getting good bang for their propagandistic buck when people like you cite them as a definitive source to convince consumers to ignore independent scientists' findings and warnings and instead treat them as a "hoax". A dude named Gilbert Ross was acting prez and exec director of ACSH as of 2015. His medical license was revoked for professional misconduct in 1995 after it was revealed that he had been involved in a scheme that defrauded the New York State Medicaid system of $8 million. He was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and didn't regain his med license until 2004. But, hey, that's good enough for the corporations that fund ACSH. He's their kinda guy! And you can imagine just how much money is being made by the sale of aspartame. Those profit margins are huge and well worth protecting, right?

If you read Dr Woodrow Monte's book _While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills_, you'll see to what lengths these corporations will go to silence or even incapacitate independent scientists (who have nothing to gain from their whistle-blowing, but everything to lose, including their lives). Read. The. Book. Dr Monte is the worldwide expert on aspartame, and it has cost him plenty to take on the powerful corporations and try to warn the public.. I admire his courage. He's published his findings on his website and has given plenty of interviews (YouTube), too, so it's free to the public. And then come back to RAS and set me straight, 2G.

LOL! You don't accept the opinion of the FDA, but you DO accept that of a QUACK! Snopes merely published a response to these aspartame hoaxes by David Hattan, Acting Director of the Division of Health Effects Evaluation in the United States Food & Drug Administration (USFDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. You obviously didn't read it.

On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 10:09:52 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
snip

For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.

A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.

Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.


Yet another aspartame hoax:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130505...health-hoax-2/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ews-180961880/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/as...-sweet-poison/

Reply to 2G:

You're joking, right? You cite Snopes as a reputable fact-checker? LOL.. And you cite the ACSH (American Council on Science and Health)? What do you know about the ACSH? Who started it and who funds it, eh? It has been funded from the get-go by big agri-business and trade groups such as Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association, among others. That's open source. The entire concept of ACSH was commissioned by Pfizer in response to the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, which restricted the use of cancer-causing chemicals in food. Propaganda is very effective in protecting corporations' profits.

The ACSH has been active in downplaying the risks from DDT, dioxin, asbestos, and other polluting chemicals. Shortly after ACSH's founding, it abandoned even the appearance of independent funding. In a 1997 interview, the ACSH's founder explained that she might as well take industry money without restrictions, as ACSH was already being touted as a "paid liar for industry". It's a good-paying gig, if you can get it.

During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote: "ACSH is a consumer front organization for its business backers. It has seized the language and style of the existing consumer organizations, but its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it."

Those big pharma, agri and chemical companies are getting good bang for their propagandistic buck when people like you cite them as a definitive source to convince consumers to ignore independent scientists' findings and warnings and instead treat them as a "hoax". A dude named Gilbert Ross was acting prez and exec director of ACSH as of 2015. His medical license was revoked for professional misconduct in 1995 after it was revealed that he had been involved in a scheme that defrauded the New York State Medicaid system of $8 million. He was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and didn't regain his med license until 2004. But, hey, that's good enough for the corporations that fund ACSH. He's their kinda guy! And you can imagine just how much money is being made by the sale of aspartame. Those profit margins are huge and well worth protecting, right?

If you read Dr Woodrow Monte's book _While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills_, you'll see to what lengths these corporations will go to silence or even incapacitate independent scientists (who have nothing to gain from their whistle-blowing, but everything to lose, including their lives). Read. The. Book. Dr Monte is the worldwide expert on aspartame, and it has cost him plenty to take on the powerful corporations and try to warn the public.. I admire his courage. He's published his findings on his website and has given plenty of interviews (YouTube), too, so it's free to the public. And then come back to RAS and set me straight, 2G.

And concerning your indictment of the ACSH, this is from their website (https://web.archive.org/web/20130503...sh-come-from/), which disputes EVERYTHING you claim:

Where Did ACSH Come From?
ACSH’s founder, Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, described ACSH’s origins, mission, and detractors in this essay written on the occasion of ACSH’s twenty-fifth anniversary in 2003:

A 25th Anniversary Commentary
from Dr. Elizabeth Whelan
President, Co-Founder
American Council on Science and Health:

After I received my doctorate from the Harvard School of Public Health in 1971, I began writing on health issues for consumer magazines — Harper’s Bazaar, Glamour, and others — and found it fascinating that these magazines focused so heavily on purely hypothetical health risks and totally ignored real health hazards, like smoking. (Indeed, the editors I worked with regularly spiked my articles highlighting smoking as a risk, saying they would anger advertisers. I protested about this constantly.)

On April 3, 1973, I accepted a freelance writing assignment from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer: they wanted a background paper on something called “the Delaney Clause� — which I had never heard of.

I was soon to learn that the Delaney Clause was part of the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, and it banned any food additive that caused cancer in laboratory animals. That brief, isolated, assignment prompted me (on my own time, at my own expense) to write a book on the history of food scares: Panic in the Pantry.

Origins

When the manuscript was drafted, I asked Dr. Fredrick Stare, founder of the Harvard Nutrition Department, to write a preface. He liked the manuscript so much that he became involved as a co-author. The book argued that our food supply was safe and that banning chemicals “at the drop of a rat� had no scientific basis. When it was published in 1976 it shocked many, particularly those in the media, as the prevailing popular wisdom was that organic, “chemical-free� food was superior. And no one else had then prominently challenged that misconception.

Panic in the Pantry, which was listed by The Wall Street Journal editorial page as one of the best books of 1976, was the first consumer-oriented book to challenge the popular wisdom that “chemicals� were inherently dangerous and that natural was better. Dr. Stare and I later wrote books that elaborated on that same theme, including The l00% Natural, Purely Organic, Cholesterol-Free, Megavitamin, Low-Carbohydrate Nutrition Hoax. I later took on the issue of chemicals in the general environment with books like Toxic Terror.

At the same time, I wrote and published books dealing with real health threats, including A Smoking Gun? How the Tobacco Industry Gets Away with Murder.

The ACSH is legit. Legit sellers of science fiction. Plenty of BS on the other side but that doesn't make these clowns honest.
https://usrtk.org/hall-of-shame/why-...ce-and-health/
A series of emails about the American Council on Science and Health released via lawsuits against Monsanto reveal that Monsanto paid ACSH on an ongoing basis to help defend its embattled products. Monsanto executives described ACSH’s materials promoting and defending agrichemical products as “EXTREMELY USEFUL� [sic] and noted that ACSH was working with Monsanto to discredit the World Health Organization’s cancer panel report about the cancer risk of glyphosate (read more about Monsanto PR strategy to discredit IARC here).

The emails show that ACSH staff wrote to Monsanto requesting “Monsanto’s continued, and much needed, support in 2015.� Some Monsanto staffers were uncomfortable working with ACSH but decided to pay them anyway, according to the emails. Monsanto’s senior science lead Daniel Goldstein wrote to colleagues: “I can assure you I am not all starry eyed about ACSH- they have PLENTY of warts- but: You WILL NOT GET A BETTER VALUE FOR YOUR DOLLAR than ACSH.�

On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 10:09:52 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, February 25, 2019 at 4:53:42 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 3:34:30 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 5:32:51 AM UTC+13, Papa3 wrote:
snip

For the hangover condition, they flew 14 hours after drinking enough ethanol mixed with diet soft drinks to attain a blood alcohol concentration of 100 mg/dl.

A questionable study, if in fact the ethanol was "mixed with diet soft drinks" that contained aspartame (a confounding variable). Aspartame, according to retired food scientist Dr Woodrow Monte (a former neighbor of mine in the South Island), is the most dangerous food additive on the market today. It changes the ratio of amino acids in the blood, blocking or lowering the levels of serotonin, tyrosine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and adrenaline. Even though it is touted as natural, it has a synthetic methyl group on one of the amino acids that rapidly breaks down to methanol (wood alcohol). According to Dr Monte, methyl alcohol is metabolized differently in the human body compared to other animals, and is far more toxic in humans, which is why studies have trouble nailing down the hazards related to aspartame, because most rely on animal, not human studies. Methyl alcohol, after it is taken up by the body as a "Trojan horse" into susceptible tissues such as the brain, converts rapidly into formaldehyde, causing serious damage to proteins and DNA.

Fresh fruits and veggies contain minute amounts of methanol, but there's a natural mechanism that makes it harmless. Pectin firmly binds to methanol, allowing it to simply pass through your body and be excreted, because the human body does not have the enzymes to break that bond. If you or anyone you know drinks diet sodas (or uses NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, Equal-Measure), then have him or her look at Woody's website -- WhileScienceSleeps dot com. Or get a copy of his book, as I did -- While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills.


Yet another aspartame hoax:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130505...health-hoax-2/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ews-180961880/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/as...-sweet-poison/

Reply to 2G:

You're joking, right? You cite Snopes as a reputable fact-checker? LOL. And you cite the ACSH (American Council on Science and Health)? What do you know about the ACSH? Who started it and who funds it, eh? It has been funded from the get-go by big agri-business and trade groups such as Kellogg, General Mills, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association, among others. That's open source. The entire concept of ACSH was commissioned by Pfizer in response to the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, which restricted the use of cancer-causing chemicals in food. Propaganda is very effective in protecting corporations' profits.

The ACSH has been active in downplaying the risks from DDT, dioxin, asbestos, and other polluting chemicals. Shortly after ACSH's founding, it abandoned even the appearance of independent funding. In a 1997 interview, the ACSH's founder explained that she might as well take industry money without restrictions, as ACSH was already being touted as a "paid liar for industry". It's a good-paying gig, if you can get it.

During its first 15 years of operation, ACSH published the names of its institutional funders, but it has stopped doing this, making it harder to identify where all of its money comes from. As consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote: "ACSH is a consumer front organization for its business backers. It has seized the language and style of the existing consumer organizations, but its real purpose, you might say, is to glove the hand that feeds it.."

Those big pharma, agri and chemical companies are getting good bang for their propagandistic buck when people like you cite them as a definitive source to convince consumers to ignore independent scientists' findings and warnings and instead treat them as a "hoax". A dude named Gilbert Ross was acting prez and exec director of ACSH as of 2015. His medical license was revoked for professional misconduct in 1995 after it was revealed that he had been involved in a scheme that defrauded the New York State Medicaid system of $8 million. He was sentenced to 46 months in federal prison and didn't regain his med license until 2004. But, hey, that's good enough for the corporations that fund ACSH. He's their kinda guy! And you can imagine just how much money is being made by the sale of aspartame. Those profit margins are huge and well worth protecting, right?

If you read Dr Woodrow Monte's book _While Science Sleeps, a Sweetener Kills_, you'll see to what lengths these corporations will go to silence or even incapacitate independent scientists (who have nothing to gain from their whistle-blowing, but everything to lose, including their lives). Read. The. Book. Dr Monte is the worldwide expert on aspartame, and it has cost him plenty to take on the powerful corporations and try to warn the public. I admire his courage. He's published his findings on his website and has given plenty of interviews (YouTube), too, so it's free to the public. And then come back to RAS and set me straight, 2G.

And concerning your indictment of the ACSH, this is from their website (https://web.archive.org/web/20130503...sh-come-from/), which disputes EVERYTHING you claim:

Where Did ACSH Come From?
ACSH’s founder, Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, described ACSH’s origins, mission, and detractors in this essay written on the occasion of ACSH’s twenty-fifth anniversary in 2003:

A 25th Anniversary Commentary
from Dr. Elizabeth Whelan
President, Co-Founder
American Council on Science and Health:

After I received my doctorate from the Harvard School of Public Health in 1971, I began writing on health issues for consumer magazines — Harper’s Bazaar, Glamour, and others — and found it fascinating that these magazines focused so heavily on purely hypothetical health risks and totally ignored real health hazards, like smoking. (Indeed, the editors I worked with regularly spiked my articles highlighting smoking as a risk, saying they would anger advertisers. I protested about this constantly..)

On April 3, 1973, I accepted a freelance writing assignment from the pharmaceutical company Pfizer: they wanted a background paper on something called “the Delaney Clause� — which I had never heard of.

I was soon to learn that the Delaney Clause was part of the 1958 Food Additive Amendment, and it banned any food additive that caused cancer in laboratory animals. That brief, isolated, assignment prompted me (on my own time, at my own expense) to write a book on the history of food scares: Panic in the Pantry.

Origins

When the manuscript was drafted, I asked Dr. Fredrick Stare, founder of the Harvard Nutrition Department, to write a preface. He liked the manuscript so much that he became involved as a co-author. The book argued that our food supply was safe and that banning chemicals “at the drop of a rat� had no scientific basis. When it was published in 1976 it shocked many, particularly those in the media, as the prevailing popular wisdom was that organic, “chemical-free� food was superior. And no one else had then prominently challenged that misconception.

Panic in the Pantry, which was listed by The Wall Street Journal editorial page as one of the best books of 1976, was the first consumer-oriented book to challenge the popular wisdom that “chemicals� were inherently dangerous and that natural was better. Dr. Stare and I later wrote books that elaborated on that same theme, including The l00% Natural, Purely Organic, Cholesterol-Free, Megavitamin, Low-Carbohydrate Nutrition Hoax. I later took on the issue of chemicals in the general environment with books like Toxic Terror.

At the same time, I wrote and published books dealing with real health threats, including A Smoking Gun? How the Tobacco Industry Gets Away with Murder.

At some point around 1978, Dr. Stare and I asked the question: why are there not more scientists speaking out to counter misinformation about the relationship between chemicals, nutrition, the environment, and health? Twenty-five years ago, we wrote to fifty scientists — including Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug, who was among ACSH’s founding directors — asking them to join an effort to bring the message of sound science to consumers, via the media. And the blueprint of ACSH came into being.

With the legal and financial assistance of two attorneys — my father and my husband — ACSH’s non-profit, tax-exempt status was secured. And with assistance from former Secretary of the Treasury William Simon, ACSH was introduced to the Scaife Foundation and John M. Olin Foundation, which provided ACSH with its first financial support.

Critics

ACSH adversaries have over the years referred to ACSH as a creation of “the petrochemical industry.� In fact, though, ACSH did not accept funding — even general operating funding — from any corporation or trade association for the first two years of operation. I initially ran things that way because, when we wrote Panic in the Pantry (Atheneum, 1976), I was regularly called a “shill� for the food industry. Barbara Walters, for example, canceled a TV appearance by me, calling me a “paid liar for industry� — even though I had no support whatsoever from the food industry or any other industry in writing and promoting the book.

So I convinced the original Board of Directors that ACSH should only accept funding from private foundations. For two years we tried that, but the media still regularly implied that ACSH had industry support. When we released a report saying that New Jersey’s so-called “cancer alley� was not a real case of industrial chemicals raising cancer rates, the Star-Ledger called ACSH a surrogate for the petrochemical industry. The ACSH Board of Directors concluded that what critics objected to was not ACSH’s funding but ACSH’s views — and that in avoiding corporate donations we were limiting ACSH’s fundraising potential to no avail. So the Board voted to henceforth accept funding from corporations as long as no strings were attached. This remains the fundraising policy today, with about 40% of ACSH funding coming from private foundations, about 40% from corporations, and the rest of the sale of ACSH publications..[1]

Sometimes, if reporters complain about our corporate funding, I remind them that they are funded by corporations and advertisers as well. Phil Donahue was stunned into silence when I pointed that out on his show, and Ed Bradley once threw down his microphone and stormed out of an interview with me.. The important thing, though, is not the source of your funding but the accuracy of the points you make, and ACSH’s scientific advisors and use of peer review keep us honest.

Growth

Since 1978, ACSH has grown from fifty scientists to nearly 400. In the past quarter century, on a budget that has never exceeded $l.5 million (compared to our adversaries in the so-called consumer advocacy/environmental movement, with budgets of $20 million or more annually), ACSH has entered public debates on issues ranging from food safety to cigarette smoking, environmental chemicals to bioterrorism. Enter terms like “cancer epidemic,� “cranberry scare,� “lead and health,� “junk food tax,� “cigarette warning label,� and many more into the Internet search engine Google and you will find that ACSH comes up #l each time.

As ACSH begins its second quarter of a century, its missions remain the same: a) promote sound science in regulation, in public policy, and in the court room; and b) assist consumers, via the media, in distinguishing real health threats from purely hypothetical ones.

1. As of today, ACSH’s funding continues to come from individuals across the country, as well as private family foundations and corporations — although the percentages fluctuate from year to year.

From the Oxford Dictiornary:
thread drift
Digression from the topic of a thread or forum. See alsooff-topic. ...

RAS is both informative and entertaining! LOL

WH

An add on spellcheck and grammar check is a nice thing.....

Thread drift....who woulda thunk this on RAS......
LOL.......hi Bill......how is your wife doing? One broken back to another.....

On Tuesday, February 26, 2019 at 4:53:07 PM UTC+13, 2G wrote:

LOL! You don't accept the opinion of the FDA, but you DO accept that of a QUACK! Snopes merely published a response to these aspartame hoaxes by David Hattan, Acting Director of the Division of Health Effects Evaluation in the United States Food & Drug Administration (USFDA) Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. You obviously didn't read it.
_____

For those concerned about thread drift, go ahead and scroll on by. It's easy! I do it all the time ...

You can't be that naive, 2G. The FDA has long been referred to as the "Fraud and Death Administration". Its head is a political appointee. The FDA serves the bottom lines of Big Food and Big Pharma, and the "revolving door" spins from the FDA to industry and back again at an alarming pace. Simply google FDA and "revolving door" to get quite an eyeful.

For 16 years G.D. Searle, now part of Monsanto, tried to get approval for aspartame, but it had been denied by FDA scientists. Why? Because three independent scientists found that aspartame came with a high danger of inducing brain tumours. "The FDA's own toxicologist, Dr Adrian Gross, told Congress that without a shadow of a doubt, aspartame can cause brain tumours and brain cancer."

Donald Rumsfeld, the CEO of Searle at the time, managed to use his transitional federal government position to place a crony in charge of the FDA -- Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr. Rumsfeld's man helped push aspartame through while hiding the results of certain tests before 1970, where monkeys either died or had grand mal seizures. No FDA Commissioner in the previous 16 years had allowed aspartame on the market. Dr Monte goes into the whole sordid story in his book, as do other scientists and journalists online. Rumsfeld reportedly received a $12 million bonus from Monsanto (which absorbed Searle) for his "efforts".

Soon after that successful dirty deed, Rumsfeld's useful crony Hayes went to work for Burson-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and G.D. Searle. The revolving door keeps on spinning.

Are you going to smear neurosurgeon Russell Blaylock as a quack, too? In his book _Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills_, he details the relationship between aspartame and macular degeneration, diabetic blindness, and glaucoma.

And good luck in blithely dismissing the medical text _Aspartame Disease: An Ignored Epidemic_ by Dr H. J. Roberts. Another quack in your estimation? These docs weren't rewarded with millions for their "efforts". On the contrary, taking on Big Pharma is time-consuming, costly, and dangerous.

Gotta love the FDA. Our tax dollars at work, serving corporate interests and not the public the FDA purports to protect.

So, have at it, 2G. Guzzle that aspartame. You might just be the lucky one, inured to the damage it does to the rest of us mere mortals. Interestingly, in a story for your "karma's a bitch" file, an employee working for the Searle family reported that, despite being warned by others of the dangers of aspartame, Bill Searle and his brother Fred continued to drink Diet Coke. (Bill was the driving force behind the approval for aspartame.) "Perhaps they were trying to justify themselves," the employee opined. Both died of brain cancer, but the employee reported that it was "hushed up".