|Posted on Monday, March 08, 2004 - 9:48 am: || |
This is a pro-aspartame website. (This time under the correct title.)
This guy has no interest in evidence, only "peer review".
Who are the peers? Are the peers working for the aspartame industry? If the peers are working for the aspartame industry, then no evidence against aspartame will ever pass peer review.
|Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 7:53 am: || |
The link you posted above has been responded to in the link below:
|Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:19 am: || |
From Roy's link, here is a passage that shows that Lowry is dishonest.
Lowry: "I have offered this challenge before: show me scientifically valid cause and effect between aspartame and lupus symptoms, MS symptoms, ADHD, causing/worsening diabetes, cancer of any kind, "death", liver failure, etc. ANY proof."
Having posted this on our e-mail group, one person wrote him back, and attached a study, and listed all the references, which came to a total of 52 different rather impressive looking items.
"Dear Dr. Lowry, please find attached a report by Joanna Clarke, BSc. AIBMS MIBioI. CBiol.
"I have appended her references below, as you seem to be a bit short on medical evidences that aspartame is harmful."
Lowry replied: "Firstly, I did not open the file you sent. I don't open unsolicited files attached to unsolicited e-mail. I hope you understand. I appreciate your attention"
I think that means that, even though he begs for this information, when his request is fulfilled, he disdains reading it, making it easy for him to continue claming that he has not seen this information. Very convenient.
Later on, he copy-pastes a bunch of industry funded reports and sends them to this same person, and tells him: "I hope you read the references I sent. I apologize for the length, but I think the information therein is interesting."
He expects us to read information he sends to us, but he won't read information sent to him.
Some time ago I had a brief discussion with Lowry by email. I suggested that he read Blaylock's book "Excitotoxins". Lowry replied that he knows about the book (not that he read it). He dismissed book because, according to Lowry, Blaylock's book has not passed peer review and the 500 or so references at the end of the book have not passed peer review. Apparently he rejects everything that has not passed peer review.
|Posted on Tuesday, March 09, 2004 - 10:27 am: || |
In the humor department, Lowry writes:
"...be aware that I'll sue the [ expletive deleted ] out of you if you so much as misplace a semicolon when quoting me."
Perhaps Lowry should sue for not including the expletive.
|Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 8:39 pm: || |
Is he from america why doesnt any of you challenge him to an open debate that way we will know who he is and run a background check and we would know he is a fraud and expose him.
If you know any of the groups personally or any websites who can actually challenge him and maybe run a check on him. that would be great.
These people should be shot dead but ahem i will have to wait for anarchy :-P
Sometimes i feel that only violence will solve this problem.
I feel like making a real terrorist group and just blast all ajinomoto factories and GD Searle Research centers and give an open warning that we will blow anyone up who tries to manufacture MSG or Aspartame. Then go around searching for all those officials and executives and politicians who were a part of the FDA approval or these two poisons, search them and cut their hands legs and tongue and keep them alive.
|Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 4:22 am: || |
His profile checks out. I just located Lowry's phone, fax, address, profile and picture, but am not posting the link because two wrongs don't make a right.
|Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 5:17 am: || |
Yikes, Qwan. That isn't how we operate. We educate people and converse with them and convince them to change their minds. Please tell me you are NOT serious. Either that or you are a plant by the US Dept of Homeland Security trying to rile up some trouble. We are making progress WITHOUT violence. If we weren't, the food companies would not be so anxious to take MSG off food labels.
|Posted on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 - 1:46 pm: || |
My husband told me about an article on the front page of the Oregonian newspaper (today), and so I went to www.oregonlive.com to read it but I could not access the full article, only the front page section. The article is entitled "No Worries On Tap If You Chug Diet Soda, Study Says". The article is about the safety of aspatame (is that an oxymoron or what!?). It is very misleading from the title to text of the article. The study is supposedly unbiased and included millions of people, not animals. It says that there is no evidence that aspartame is linked to cancer. The study is only about the link to cancer, not about any other health problems we suffer from this poison (Diabetes, Epilepsy, Obesity...and the list goes on). The head of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (Michael Jacobson) said "It goes a fair way of allaying concerns about aspartame". Don't they realize that cancer is not the only concern about aspartame!! Anyway I just thought I'd let you know what was going on in my neck of the woods. I'm sure we could find similar news articles in many newspapers around the country. This really infuriates me!! What can we do?! Thanks for listening to my venting.
|Posted on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 4:08 am: || |
The study linked below says aspartame does cause cancers, particularly lymphomas and leukemias:
|Posted on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 5:09 am: || |
CSPI seems to be linked to the fake sugar business. They just love SPLENDA but STEVIA gets the "It causes cancer" big red X.
|Posted on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 10:57 am: || |
That's the whole problem with the media. No cancer, but my very expensive pituitary tumor that caused me to gain 80 pounds and take expensive medicine was BENIGN. (Not that I'd consider something that wrecked my life for the past 6 years benign.) The US never tracked BENIGN tumors and they only studied brain tumors anyway - not prolactin secreting pituitary tumors which are not in the brain but the master gland of the endocrine system. This is how they get around telling the whole truth. They cherry pick like the Bush Admin does. It is an all out war on science right now.
|Posted on Thursday, April 06, 2006 - 12:11 pm: || |
This is the entire text of the statement from Michael Jacobson of the CSPI. So, he does not think the study proves that aspartame does not cause cancer. Aspartame is marked with a caution flag, saccharin is marked with an x. It is too bad that stevia does not get the attention it deserves and get the GRAS it deserves (too much competition and $$$ from the big boys). I do think that the CSPI does do some good work in helping the public.
New Aspartame Study May Allay Cancer Concerns
Statement of CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson
The new National Cancer Institute study significantly allays concerns raised by a recent Italian study that found that modest amounts of aspartame caused cancer in rats.
However, it's important to note that the people observed in the new study were only 50 to 69 years old. In contrast, the Italian researchers allowed the rats to die a natural death, equivalent to people living into their 80s, 90s, or older. If aspartame only causes cancer in truly elderly people, the new study wouldn't detect a problem. Also, the new study's means of measuring aspartame consumption -- food-frequency questionnaires -- is imprecise. That approach is not capable of detecting small increases in cancer rates.
|Posted on Friday, July 07, 2006 - 2:28 pm: || |
Ein Schloss, Ein Wurst, Ein Kopf !wqs
|Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 3:54 am: || |
scholarship sensor:estimate Procrusteanizes?Nanook!perpetuating
coil.mutually destinations play texasholdem for free crushing!client fetish?vipers free texasholdem games legislators.jewel:grouse replay amidst free texasholdem advice