CA Prop 37 Scorecard...Devils And Angels

Rense
Editor's Note: Vote with your dollars, folks.

Aspartame is linked to leukemia and lymphoma in new landmark study on humans

Natural News
Ethan Evers

As few as one diet soda daily may increase the risk for leukemia in men and women, and for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men, according to new results from the longest-ever running study on aspartame as a carcinogen in humans. Importantly, this is the most comprehensive, long-term study ever completed on this topic, so it holds more weight than other past studies which appeared to show no risk. And disturbingly, it may also open the door for further similar findings on other cancers in future studies.

The most thorough study yet on aspartame - Over two million person-years

For this study, researchers prospectively analyzed data from the Nurses' Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for a 22-year period. A total of 77,218 women and 47,810 men were included in the analysis, for a total of 2,278,396 person-years of data. Apart from sheer size, what makes this study superior to other past studies is the thoroughness with which aspartame intake was assessed. Every two years, participants were given a detailed dietary questionnaire, and their diets were reassessed every four years. Previous studies which found no link to cancer only ever assessed participants' aspartame intake at one point in time, which could be a major weakness affecting their accuracy.

One diet soda a day increases leukemia, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphomas

The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:

- 42 percent higher leukemia risk in men and women (pooled analysis)
- 102 percent higher multiple myeloma risk (in men only)
- 31 percent higher non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk (in men only)


These results were based on multi-variable relative risk models, all in comparison to participants who drank no diet soda. It is unknown why only men drinking higher amounts of diet soda showed increased risk for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Note that diet soda is the largest dietary source of aspartame (by far) in the U.S. Every year, Americans consume about 5,250 tons of aspartame in total, of which about 86 percent (4,500 tons) is found in diet sodas.

Confirmation of previous high quality research on animals

This new study shows the importance of the quality of research. Most of the past studies showing no link between aspartame and cancer have been criticized for being too short in duration and too inaccurate in assessing long-term aspartame intake. This new study solves both of those issues. The fact that it also shows a positive link to cancer should come as no surprise, because a previous best-in-class research study done on animals (900 rats over their entire natural lifetimes) showed strikingly similar results back in 2006: aspartame significantly increased the risk for lymphomas and leukemia in both males and females. More worrying is the follow on mega-study, which started aspartame exposure of the rats at the fetal stage. Increased lymphoma and leukemia risks were confirmed, and this time the female rats also showed significantly increased breast (mammary) cancer rates. This raises a critical question: will future, high-quality studies uncover links to the other cancers in which aspartame has been implicated (brain, breast, prostate, etc.)?

There is now more reason than ever to completely avoid aspartame in our daily diet. For those who are tempted to go back to sugary sodas as a "healthy" alternative, this study had a surprise finding: men consuming one or more sugar-sweetened sodas daily saw a 66 percent increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (even worse than for diet soda). Perhaps the healthiest soda is no soda at all.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23097267
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16507461
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418


About the author:

Ethan Evers is author of the award-winning medical thriller "The Eden Prescription," in which cutting-edge researchers perfect an effective, all-natural treatment for cancer, only to be hunted down by pharmaceutical interests which will stop at nothing to protect their $80 billion cancer drug cash machine. The Eden Prescription is based on the latest science and draws on real historical events stretching back to the beginning of the "War on Cancer." Ethan has a PhD in Applied Science.

Aspartame: Safety Approved In 90 Nations, But Damages Brain

GreenMediaInfo
Sayer Ji

A new study on aspartame has the potential to reignite the decades-old controversy behind this artificial sweetener's safety, or lack thereof.  As far back as 1996, folks were writing about the potential link between aspartame and increasing brain tumor rates.[i] Indeed, its intrinsic neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity has been confirmed in the biomedical literature. And yet, aspartame has been approved for use in thousands of consumer products in over 90 countries, [ii] and is still being consumed by millions worldwide on a daily basis – despite the fact that over 40 adverse health effects of aspartame have been documented.

The new study, published in the September edition of the Journal of Bioscience and titled, "Effect of chronic exposure to aspartame on oxidative stress in the brain of albino rats," aimed to test the hypothesis that chronic consumption of aspartame may be causing neurological damage in exposed populations.
They found that chronic (90 day) administration of aspartame to rats, at ranges only 50% above what the FDA considers safe for human consumption, resulted in blood and brain tissue changes consistent with brain damage.

Aspartame is metabolized into three distinct components: aspartic acid, methanol and phenylalanine. While aspartic acid is a well-known excitotoxin, phenylalanine only presents a serious health concern to those with a genetic disorder known as phenyletonuria. Methanol, on the other hand, is far more problematic, as it is not naturally found in significant quantities in the human diet.

According to a recent review

Until 200 years ago, methanol was an extremely rare component of the human diet and is still rarely consumed in contemporary hunter and gatherer cultures. With the invention of canning in the 1800s, canned and bottled fruits and vegetables, whose methanol content greatly exceeds that of their fresh counterparts, became far more prevalent. The recent dietary introduction of aspartame, an artificial sweetener 11% methanol by weight, has also greatly increased methanol consumption.[iii]

Moreover, the aspartame metabolite methanol (also known as wood alcohol) is highly toxic and is metabolized into the known human carcinogen formaldehyde and formic acid,[iv] which is known to be highly toxic to the central nervous system. Considering the fact that the normal human body temperature is approximately 98.6 degrees Farenheit, and that aspartame will convert to its toxic metabolites at temperatures as low as 86 degrees Farenheit, the finding that aspartame is neurotoxic to animals is not a surprise. The authors of the new study surmised that the observed adverse brain changes were due to the generation of oxidative stress in brain regions.

Aspartame, of course, is a proprietary synthetic chemical not found in nature, and exists primarily because plants like stevia, which have significant, clinically-substantiated healing properties, can be grown in your back yard for free and are therefore not profitable commodities that can be produced and controlled only by a few.
But, aspartame is not the only toxic sweetener on the market. A growing body of research now shows that sucralose, known by the brand-name Splenda, is also capable of suppressing the immune system, causing inflammatory bowel conditions such as Crohn's and ulcerative colitis, migraine headaches, and DNA damage.[v]

The trick is to stick with naturally occurring compounds, whose sweetness is not associated with adverse health effects. Below is a list of natural alternatives, along with the number of potential health benefits associated with each, as indexed on our website.

80 Percent of Public Schools Have Contracts With Coke or Pepsi

Mother Jones

Tom Philpot

Is your kid's public school a Coke school or a Pepsi school?

If you don't know what I mean, consider yourself lucky. Starting in the early '90s, cash-strapped public schools began selling exclusive "pouring rights" to one or another Big Soda company, which would then supply all the beverages sold in on-site snack bars, stores, and soda machines as well as at sports events. Along with sugary drinks, of course, the companies also stuffed the 

In 2005, according to one survey, nearly half of all public elementary schools and about 80 percent of public high schools operated under pouring rights contracts. It's clear what the schools get for their trouble. It's no wonder that schools turn to selling junky snack food and cutting deals with sugary soda makers to augment stingy school-lunch budgets. As of 2011, we were spending more than twice as much on air conditioning for troops in Afghanistan than we do on feeding public school kids.The soda deals subsidize other aspects of schooling, too. Here's how the Rockford Register Star describes a contract between the Rockford, Illinois school district and Coca-Cola:

Under the existing 10-year contract, Coca-Cola paid the district $4 million upfront and an additional $350,000 a year to sell its beverages in schools. The annual payments have funded field trips, gym uniforms, SMART Boards and other frills that individual school budgets may not otherwise have afforded.

But what are they giving up in return? A just-released study by University of Illinois researchers compares the weight gain of kids in states that limit in-school junk food sales with those of kids in states that don't. The results, summarized by The New York Times:

Students who lived in states with strong laws throughout the entire three-year period gained an average of 0.44 fewer body mass index units, or roughly 2.25 fewer pounds for a 5-foot-tall child, than adolescents in states with no policies. The study also found that obese fifth graders who lived in states with stronger laws were more likely to reach a healthy weight by the eighth grade than those living in states with no laws.

The study didn't definitively prove that unimpeded junk food sales in schools causes the higher weight gain—they established correlation, but not causation. But the researchers did adjust their results to account for other factors that might have influenced kids' weight, including age, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

And their finding come on the heels of another study, released in May and by the same researchers, that found that kids in California schools, where junk food sales are limited, take in significantly fewer total calories than kids in states with no such restrictions. Here's how The Times 

The study found that California high school students consumed on average nearly 160 calories fewer per day than students in other states, the equivalent of cutting out a small bag of potato chips. That difference came largely from reduced calorie consumption at school, and there was no evidence that students were compensating for their limited access to junk food at school by eating more at home.

According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, obesity rates among children ages 6 to 11 have quadrupled over the past four decades, and nearly a third of children and adolescents—more than 23 million kids and teenagers—are obese or overweight.

The latest research on junk food in schools suggests an axiom that I might have hoped would be obvious: It makes no sense to transform public schools into a vehicle for marketing junk food to kids. In 2010, President Obama signed a law requiring the USDA to come up with national standards for snack foods and beverages sold in schools. The agency has yet to complete that task.

IQ Foods: Processed Food Lowers IQ in Children, Nutritious Food Raises It

Natural Society
Anthony Gucciardi

Processed foods are the staple of far too many diets, particularly in the United States where 105 million people have either diabetes or prediabetes. These processed foods are filled with white sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, aspartame, artificial food colorings, and a wide variety of other toxic substances. Interestingly enough, research shows that these are some of the worst IQ foods. Given the makeup of processed foods, is it any wonder that children are suffering from IQ reduction upon introducing these foods into their diet?

IQ Foods: The Findings

British researchers uncovered the connection between processed foods and reduced IQ. They followed what 14,000 children ate and drank at the ages of 3, 4, 7, and 8.5 years of age, with answers submitted via parents through questionnaires. The researchers found that if children were consuming a processed diet at age 3, IQ decline could begin over the next five years. The study found that by age 8, the children had suffered the IQ decline.

On the contrary, children who ate a nutrient-rich diet were found to increase their IQ over the 3 year period. The foods considered nutrient-rich by the researchers were most likely conventional fruits and vegetables. If children were to eat a wide variety of organic produce, superfoods, mineral-rich plants, and perhaps even consume a food-based multivitamin, the researchers would most likely see a substantial IQ increase. This eating plan would also benefit the children — or even adults — in other aspects of their lives as well, such as better overall health & well-being.

Processed foods have been known to wreak havoc on the body for quite some time. One joint American and Spanish study has even found that junk food products, particularly those containing trans fats, can make healthy young men infertile by damaging their sperm. Another study, conducted by scientists from the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria and the University of Granada, reported that both junk food and fast food consumption can bring on depression. The link was so strong, in fact, that those who consumed fast food were 51% more likely to be depressed. It isn’t surprising that some of the worst IQ foods are the same foods that cause numerous health complications.

Study: Lifespan Declined In Hundreds Of U.S. Counties

Free Internet Press

Intellipuke

Americans are living longer, but not in every corner of the country. A new study shows that in hundreds of U.S. counties  - mostly in the South - life expectancy has fallen.
The researchers believe problems like smoking and obesity are partly to blame.

"There are enormous variations within the country" said Dr. Christopher Murray, a University of Washington researcher. He's a study author and an editor of the online journal, Population Health Metrics, which released the study Wednesday.

Overall, life expectancy in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently estimated that a baby born in 2009 could expect to live 78 years and 2 months.

The CDC doesn't calculate estimates by county; Murray's research covers 2000 through 2007 when U.S. life expectancy grew a year to nearly 78.

A federal expert in these kinds of statistics said Murray's methods were sound, but the findings aren't terribly surprising.

The U.S. estimate actually dropped from 2004 to 2005, noted Bob Anderson of the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Given that downward blip - and the fact that statistics fluctuate more when you're dealing with smaller populations - it's not unexpected to see some declines at the local level, he said.

The study found that life expectancy for women fell significantly in 702 of the nation's more than 3,100 counties. The largest declines - by nearly 2 years - were in Mississippi's Madison County, near Jackson, and the adjacent Hughes and Okfuskee counties in eastern Oklahoma.

Life expectancy dropped for men in 251 counties, by more than 2 years in Kentucky's Perry County in Appalachia and Mississippi's Madison.

In 158 counties, it dropped for both men and women. In some cases, counties with plummeting life expectancy were next to or very near counties with rising longevity.

There is some debate about why life expectancy estimates rose and fell more in some counties than others.

Murray and his colleagues said they checked issues like poverty or racial makeup, and those didn't explain the difference. They believe high rates of obesity, smoking and other preventable health problems may be main reasons.

Some experts disagree, saying the findings may be tied to the availability of good health care or with the migration of healthy people from one place to another.

Perhaps young blacks and whites are leaving to go off to college or work somewhere else. "That leaves the least educated and the least healthy" back in the original counties, Anderson said.

Or, in some places, the arrival of healthy Hispanic immigrants may be the reason, said Dr. Roger Rochat, an Emory University public health professor and trained demographer.

But Murray said his research finds migration theories are not the answer; there's been little movement in or out of most places with the lowest life expectancy.

The counties with the largest increases in male life expectancy, though, were metro areas lush with jobs and universities - almost four years in Georgia's Fulton County (Atlanta) and more than three years in New York City, Washington and nearby Alexandria, Virginia.

For women, the biggest jumps - 3½ years - were in Alexandria and a Wyoming County that includes the affluent Jackson Hole.

Curiously, third on that list was Louisiana's Orleans Parish even though it included the 2005 devastation of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina. A large number of healthy women could have stayed in the city or returned the next two years, said Rochat.

"I think it's a change in who's living there," he

Another True Conspiracy Theory: Sweet Misery of Aspartame Hits the Mainstream

Before it is news


Amid health fears, Diet Coke sweetener in safety spotlight

An artificial sweetener used in Diet Coke is to undergo an urgent EU safety review.
Aspartame is ingested every day by millions of people around the world in more than 6,000 well-known brands of food, drink  and medicine.

However, it has been the subject of a number of studies that appear to show harmful effects on human health.

One recent study linked diet drinks containing aspartame to premature births, while another suggested it could cause cancer.

To date, health watchdogs, including the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA), have ruled out any link to ill-health.

But after several MEPs asked for a new investigation following pressure from European health campaigners, EU Commission officials have now asked the EFSA to bring forward a review that had been planned for 2020.

The concern about artificial sweeteners such as aspartame relates to the fact that they contain methanol, a nerve toxin which can be metabolised in the body to form two more nerve toxins: formic acid and formaldehyde, the chemical used to preserve dead bodies.

Earlier this year, experts on Britain’s Committee on Toxicity(CoT) ruled that ‘long-term exposure to methanol consumed through food, including from aspartame, is unlikely to be harmful to health’.
The committee pointed out that methanol is also found in fruit and vegetables.
As a result of the experts’ conclusions, the FSA ruled the consumption of aspartame ‘is not of concern at the current levels of use’.

Despite this verdict, the FSA is currently recruiting volunteers for an investigation into anecdotal reports of ill health, including headaches and stomach upsets, associated with aspartame.
The watchdog announced the research project in 2009, however it has had difficulties recruiting volunteers who claim to suffer problems.

EFSA spokesman, Lucia De Luca, said: ‘Aspartame is one of hundreds of flavourings. It is on the market because it has been assessed in the past and considered safe.

‘We have received an official request for a complete re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame.
‘The re-evaluation is scheduled for 2020 but the Commission asked us to do this re-evaluation now in the light of recent events.

 A study last year of 60,000 mothers-to be found a correlation between the amount of diet drink consumed and an early birth

‘In the past year, there have been a couple of studies looking at aspartame and concerns expressed by consumer groups and others.’

In July last year, EU-funded research by Danish scientists, which looked at almost 60,000 mothers-to-be, found a correlation between the amount of diet drink consumed and an early birth.
Previously, the Independent Ramazzini Foundation in Italy has published research suggesting aspartame caused several types of cancer in rats at doses very close to the current acceptable daily intake for humans.

Both of these have been evaluated by EFSA experts, who have rejected any risk to human health.
Aspartame is manufactured by Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe. The firm said it welcomes the decision to bring forward the safety evaluation.

A spokesman said: ‘EFSA reaffirmed the safety of aspartame in 2006, 2009 and 2010. In addition, recent allegations about the safety of aspartame made in France and by a handful of MEPs have already been dismissed by EFSA.

‘This review of the extensive body of science on aspartame will provide additional confirmation of the ingredient’s safety.

‘By providing an excellent sweet taste, aspartame makes a useful contribution to a healthy, calorie-controlled diet and can help people to avoid overweight and obesity, and their associated diseases.’

 Source

More from Barracuda

Amid health fears, Diet Coke sweetener in safety spotlight

Mail

An artificial sweetener used in Diet Coke is to undergo an urgent EU safety review.
Aspartame is ingested every day by millions of people around the world in more than 6,000 well-known brands of food, drink  and medicine.

However, it has been the subject of a number of studies that appear to show harmful effects on human health.

One recent study linked diet drinks containing aspartame to premature births, while another suggested it could cause cancer.

To date, health watchdogs, including the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA), have ruled out any link to ill-health.

But after several MEPs asked for a new investigation following pressure from European health campaigners, EU Commission officials have now asked the EFSA to bring forward a review that had been planned for 2020.

The concern about artificial sweeteners such as aspartame relates to the fact that they contain methanol, a nerve toxin which can be metabolised in the body to form two more nerve toxins: formic acid and formaldehyde, the chemical used to preserve dead bodies.

Earlier this year, experts on Britain’s Committee on Toxicity(CoT) ruled that ‘long-term exposure to methanol consumed through food, including from aspartame, is unlikely to be harmful to health’.
The committee pointed out that methanol is also found in fruit and vegetables.

As a result of the experts’ conclusions, the FSA ruled the consumption of aspartame ‘is not of concern at the current levels of use’.

Despite this verdict, the FSA is currently recruiting volunteers for an investigation into anecdotal reports of ill health, including headaches and stomach upsets, associated with aspartame.
The watchdog announced the research project in 2009, however it has had difficulties recruiting volunteers who claim to suffer problems.

EFSA spokesman, Lucia De Luca, said: ‘Aspartame is one of hundreds of flavourings. It is on the market because it has been assessed in the past and considered safe.

‘We have received an official request for a complete re-evaluation of the safety of aspartame.
‘The re-evaluation is scheduled for 2020 but the Commission asked us to do this re-evaluation now in the light of recent events.

A study last year of 60,000 mothers-to be found a correlation between the amount of diet drink consumed and an early birth

‘In the past year, there have been a couple of studies looking at aspartame and concerns expressed by consumer groups and others.’

In July last year, EU-funded research by Danish scientists, which looked at almost 60,000 mothers-to-be, found a correlation between the amount of diet drink consumed and an early birth.
Previously, the Independent Ramazzini Foundation in Italy has published research suggesting aspartame caused several types of cancer in rats at doses very close to the current acceptable daily intake for humans.

Both of these have been evaluated by EFSA experts, who have rejected any risk to human health.
Aspartame is manufactured by Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe. The firm said it welcomes the decision to bring forward the safety evaluation.

A spokesman said: ‘EFSA reaffirmed the safety of aspartame in 2006, 2009 and 2010. In addition, recent allegations about the safety of aspartame made in France and by a handful of MEPs have already been dismissed by EFSA.

‘This review of the extensive body of science on aspartame will provide additional confirmation of the ingredient’s safety.

‘By providing an excellent sweet taste, aspartame makes a useful contribution to a healthy, calorie-controlled diet and can help people to avoid overweight and obesity, and their associated diseases.’

Asda settles 'nasty' legal spat with Ajinomoto over sweetener aspartame

Food Manufacture

Asda has settled its long-running legal dispute with ingredient supplier Ajinomoto out of court, FoodManufacture.co.uk has learnt, after the latter took legal action against the retailer for describing aspartame as a ‘nasty’ on own-label product packaging.

Multinational Ajinomoto told FoodManufacture.co.uk that it recently dropped a malicious falsehood claim against the retail giant, which it initially pursued via a High Court action in 2008, after Asda refused to alter wording on own-label product ranges that described the high-intensity sweetener as one of several ‘hidden nasties’.

Asda ditches packaging
 
Asked for an update on the case, a spokeswoman for Ajinomoto (a major supplier of aspartame) said: “Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe and Asda have settled their long-running dispute over the wording on the packaging of Asda's own-brand products that do not contain aspartame.
“Asda has confirmed that the products are due to be repackaged without any reference to aspartame, and in view of that, the aims of Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe have been met and it has agreed to discontinue its claim.”
 
Asda won an initial High Court judgement in July 2009, but the case continued after Ajinomoto’s appeal was upheld by the Court of Appeal last June, when judges agreed that, out of two possible meanings of the word ‘nasty’, Asda’s wording could lead people to understand that aspartame was potentially harmful or unhealthy.

Safe and beneficial
 
As recently as February, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) said that two recent studies linking aspartame with increased cancer rates and pre-term births “do not give reason to reconsider previous safety assessments of aspartame or of other sweeteners currently authorised in the European Union”.
 
So did Ajinomoto believe that the Asda case would lead to a more science-based approach to food marketing in future, given that the retailer justified its use of ‘nasty’ on the basis of consumer concerns, rather than scientific evidence?

The spokeswoman said that beyond the recent action, Ajinomoto “was and is standing up for its ingredients”, and added that aspartame was “not just safe, but has a role to play in health challenges now facing consumers, and in a healthy, balanced diet”.
 
She said Ajinomoto’s rationale for action was, firstly, to stand up for its ingredients, and secondly to target widespread miscommunication, especially given, “a very robust science-based regulatory system … that we should rely on regarding how we communicate and reassure consumers on food safety”.
It was vital, she said, that food manufacturers and consumers understood the science behind the ingredients used in products, with “safe, beneficial ingredients” supported.

Science-based food marketing
 
Reacting to news of the settlement, Patrick Wall, associate professor of health at University College Dublin, and former EFSA chair said he hoped all stakeholders would learn lessons from the incident “and a more responsible science-based, approach to food labelling and marketing will result”.
"Certain consumers worry about additives and flavourings and consider E numbers are something evil, not realising that these are the numbers given to approved products which have had a favourable risk assessment from EFSA," he added.

Describing consumer confidence as a “fragile thing”, Wall said spats between manufacturers and retailers “do nothing to inspire confidence and only provide ammunition to those who denigrate all processed food as unhealthy”.
 
Another source, who wished to remain anonymous, responded to news of the legal settlement by saying that the Asda labelling issue was part of a wider move towards ‘clean label’ products “pedalled” by a food industry that “doesn’t understand the science and role of ingredients used for a long period of time”.
 
‘No nasties’ guarantee
 
Treating the initial order for trial of the case in March 2009, High Court judge Sir Charles Gray said that Asda began a campaign in May 2007 designed to ensure that, by the end of 2009, none of its own-label food and soft drinks would contain any artificial colours, artificial flavours, hydrogenated fat or flavour enhancers.

Gray said Asda launched the campaign via a press release trumpeting its“‘no nasties’ guarantee”, where one the nasties was identified as aspartame, and went on to sell a wide range of own-label goods with packaging including ‘No hidden nasties’.

Beneath that heading, the judge said that one or other of a range of statements was used, such as ‘no artificial colours or flavours, no aspartame and no hydrogenated fat’ and ‘no artificial colours or flavours, no hydrogenated fat and no aspartame’.

FoodManufacture.co.uk contacted Asda for comment but none was forthcoming as we went to press.
Sandwich retail chain Pret A Manger declined to comment on whether, in light of the settlement, it would change a website description of a mango & passion fruit drink, which states: 'This bottle of drink is full of nothing. It contains NO fat. There are NO weird unpronounceable chemicals, NO preservatives and NO aspartame. There are in fact NO nasties at all.

The Truth About Snopes, Obama and Aspartame

Techyum

If you’ve ever received by email a desperate plea for help from the 90-year-old widow of the Sultan of Nigeria to “please to allow as desperate assistance forthwith transfer the sum of US20000000000000000 into your bank account for which you will kindly be entitled to a fidners fee of 23.74% ass establish under INTERPOL and the funds of the legal European Union, praise be God and find you well,” then perhaps you’ve visited Snopes.com. I certainly hope so.


Snopes, as you then probably know, catalogs and debunks (or in some cases verifies) urban legends. Run by a husband-and-wife team, it started out as a way to investigate whether a teenage girl in the ’50s really had her brain eaten by spiders, or whether AIDS Mary was really trolling bars in your neighborhood wickedly seeking to infect you by taking a sip from your Captain Morgan’s and Coke. In the years since its launch, Snopes has migrated into a sort of bullshit-cop role, tracking down and debunking the completely jackass tickets to looneyville that people seem to send out on the internet for God Knows Why.


If you’ve read any significant number of the articles on Snopes, then you may have quibbles with them here and there. But I think it’s unlikely you think husband and wife team of David and Barbara Mikelson are, say, French agents, crypto-Islamist fanatics, Kenyans, or The Devil.
Well, my friend, that’s about to change.

Do you want to know who funds Snopes? The chilling answer is spelled out in a still-circulating email that’s actually old news — from, roughly, the era of the 2008 election. Public-speaker something-or-other sort of garden-variety wingnut Dr. Leonard Coldwell posted it at DrLeonardColdwell.com.
The message, and the post, are helpfully entitled “Snopes Exposed Don’t use snopes – Do not use snopes!” for people who have short attention spans.

In case you missed it in the title of the post, by the way, just remember the helpful URL: http://drleonardcoldwell.com/2010/08/13/snopes-exposed-dont-use-snopes-do-not-use-snopes/ — this guy really means you shouldn’t trust Snopes, shouldn’t trust snopes, no seriously, seriously. Do. Not. Trust. SNOPES. Also, don’t trust Snopes, in case you were wondering.

The gent, Alan Strong, claims to be “CEO/Chairman, Commercial Programming Systems, Inc., 4400 Coldwater Canyon Ave. Suite 200 in Studio City. And whatever they “program,” it sure isn’t HTML — the visible HTML tags below are not mine but those of “Alan Strong,” who, by the way, helpfully repeats himself yet again, after the headline, in the first line of his post — just in case you missed his central message.

Snopes Exposed Don’t use snopes – Do not use snopes!
I might add they have reported to the Justice Department with regard to not telling the truth about aspartame, even after information was given that confirmed they were wrong.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/83/370/Snopes_Exposed.html

Snopes receives funding from an undisclosed source. The source is undisclosed because Snopes refuses to disclose that source. The Democratic Alliance, a funding channel for uber-Leftist (Marxist) Billionaires (George Soros etc.), direct funds to an “Internet Propaganda Arm” pushing these views. The Democratic Alliance has been reported to instruct Fundees to not disclose their funding source.

…several even weirder paragraphs omitted…

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, ‘supposedly’ the Mikkelson’s claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ‘ever’ took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers – and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg that no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm.

Yet, snopes.com issued a statement as the ‘final factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things – not!

Then it has been learned the Mikkelson’s are very Democratic (party) and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the Internet with people pointing out the Mikkelson’s liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock?

So, I say this now to everyone who goes to snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line fact ‘proceed with caution.’ Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus,you can always search a subject and do the research yourself.

I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False. Then they gave their liberal slant! I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder.

I have recently discovered that Snopes.com is owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to You tube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust Snopes.com, ever for anything that remotely resembles truth! I don’t even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.

A few conservative speakers on MySpace told me aboutSnopes.com. A few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. Anyway just FYI please don’t use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still thinkSnopes.com is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself.
[Link.]

Okay, just on a purely I-had-one-semester-of-journalism-school level, when your first line is “I might add,” you’re really asking for Jason Robards’s wingtip so far up your ass that you’ll be sneezing his toes for six months. On an HTML level? WTF is going on there!?!?

That Bud Gregg case referred to by Strong, incidentally, is the one Snopes un-debunked already — the guy who got in trouble with State Farm for holding an anti-Obama sign back during the election.
But who is Dr. Leonard Coldwell, and why does he cut and paste chain letters into his blog without stripping out the HTML tags?

Well, Dr. Coldwell doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, so I have to rely on his bio on his site. I’ll skip all the shit about how he’s a doctor who cures cancer and has some kind of bullshit wingnut magic radio show and all that. I’ll skip right to the weird part:

Dr. Leonard Coldwell is a strong supporter of our troops. He was the keynote speaker at the Rally for the Troops “Let Freedom Ring”. His powerful speech was broadcasted worldwide by Clear Channel Radio and because of popular demand constantly repeated. He is recognized by US President George W. Bush, the US Congress, and the South Carolina Governor, as well as senators, congressmen and the leaders of the veteran organization and churches around the country. His support for the MUSC ended with a standing ovation. President  Barack Obama thanked Dr. Coldwell for his support.
Congressman Joe Wilson presented Dr. Coldwell at the US Congress with a special recognition that stated: “Best wishes to my good friend Dr. Leonard Coldwell, appreciate your promotion of Democracy.” Warmest Regards, Joe Wilson Member of Congress.

…The Honorable Joe Wilson being, of course, the U.S. Congressional Representative who screamed “ You Lie!” during Barack Obama’s healthcare address to Congress, an ejaculation that got him rewarded by a gun manufacturer with his own line of Joe Wilson You Lie Commemorative Receivers for the AR-15.

It’s true: Weird attracts weird, apparently.

Alan Strong does appear to be a real person, and the founder of a company by the name he claims, or at least the website claiming to be for said company.

On this, my usual go-to site, Snopes.com, is no help whatsoever. Sadly, a search on Snopes.com for “Leonard Coldwell” or “Alan Strong” gets me bubba-diddley. Sad face.

Oh, here’s the Snopes post on aspartame, though. It’s awesome.