On MSG and Genetically Modified plants
Replies
-
Are you a sheople?
How did the government interfere with their employees health care? have you read GAO reports on the unsustainable business model the USPS has? Not just recent ones but ones for years that have warned about their model
SHEOPLE DEFINED:
The definition of a sheople: NOUN (plural only) Hybrid of sheep and people. One who mindlessly follows others like a herd of sheep. (derogatory slang) People who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leaders say or who adopt popular opinion as their own without scrutiny. Unable to think freely, kin to a Zombie, brain dead. Possibly make a good politician.0 -
Are you a sheople?
How did the government interfere with their employees health care? have you read GAO reports on the unsustainable business model the USPS has? Not just recent ones but ones for years that have warned about their model
SHEOPLE DEFINED:
The definition of a sheople: NOUN (plural only) Hybrid of sheep and people. One who mindlessly follows others like a herd of sheep. (derogatory slang) People who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leaders say or who adopt popular opinion as their own without scrutiny. Unable to think freely, kin to a Zombie, brain dead. Possibly make a good politician.
So anyone with an ounce of critical thinking you call sheep? As opposed to someone who believes every crackpot conspiracy theory that comes around?
How about actually answering the question?0 -
Yes, there are genetically modified wheats. A quick search confirmed that. I don't know if they are in the food supply yet, but they are certainly in development.
Here's a good article from PLOS (a solid journal): http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011405
They look at some environmental concerns for a strain of transgenic wheat.0 -
Are you a sheople?
How did the government interfere with their employees health care? have you read GAO reports on the unsustainable business model the USPS has? Not just recent ones but ones for years that have warned about their model
SHEOPLE DEFINED:
The definition of a sheople: NOUN (plural only) Hybrid of sheep and people. One who mindlessly follows others like a herd of sheep. (derogatory slang) People who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leaders say or who adopt popular opinion as their own without scrutiny. Unable to think freely, kin to a Zombie, brain dead. Possibly make a good politician.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_23/b4231060885070.htm0 -
Are you a sheople?
How did the government interfere with their employees health care? have you read GAO reports on the unsustainable business model the USPS has? Not just recent ones but ones for years that have warned about their model
SHEOPLE DEFINED:
The definition of a sheople: NOUN (plural only) Hybrid of sheep and people. One who mindlessly follows others like a herd of sheep. (derogatory slang) People who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leaders say or who adopt popular opinion as their own without scrutiny. Unable to think freely, kin to a Zombie, brain dead. Possibly make a good politician.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_23/b4231060885070.htm
You don't actually believe that propaganda, do you?
YOU MUST WATCH THIS VIDEO!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPMS6tGOACo 0 -
Abstract
Human pharmacokinetics data indicate that i.v. ascorbic acid (ascorbate) in pharmacologic concentrations could have an unanticipated role in cancer treatment. Our goals here were to test whether ascorbate killed cancer cells selectively, and if so, to determine mechanisms, using clinically relevant conditions. Cell death in 10 cancer and 4 normal cell types was measured by using 1-h exposures. Normal cells were unaffected by 20 mM ascorbate, whereas 5 cancer lines had EC50 values of <4 mM, a concentration easily achievable i.v. Human lymphoma cells were studied in detail because of their sensitivity to ascorbate (EC50 of 0.5 mM) and suitability for addressing mechanisms. Extracellular but not intracellular ascorbate mediated cell death, which occurred by apoptosis and pyknosis/necrosis. Cell death was independent of metal chelators and absolutely dependent on H2O2 formation. Cell death from H2O2 added to cells was identical to that found when H2O2 was generated by ascorbate treatment. H2O2 generation was dependent on ascorbate concentration, incubation time, and the presence of 0.5-10% serum, and displayed a linear relationship with ascorbate radical formation. Although ascorbate addition to medium generated H2O2, ascorbate addition to blood generated no detectable H2O2 and only trace detectable ascorbate radical. Taken together, these data indicate that ascorbate at concentrations achieved only by i.v. administration may be a pro-drug for formation of H2O2, and that blood can be a delivery system of the pro-drug to tissues. These findings give plausibility to i.v. ascorbic acid in cancer treatment, and have unexpected implications for treatment of infections where H2O2 may be beneficial.
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/38/13604.full
This is a pretty interesting article, but I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say about it. They're basically saying that ascorbate can kill 5 out of the 10 type of cancer cells they tested. It reacts with something in serum to produce hydrogen peroxide (don't know what from the abstract and didn't pull up the whole paper) and the hydrogen peroxide causes cell death.
It's not a 'cure' but it certainly could help cancer patience with those 5 types of cancer.
However, this has nothing to do with GMOs or nitrates.
Science doesn't mean anti-nature. On the contrary- we spend our lives trying to understand it, and if by understanding it we can use that knowledge to better the lives of man-kind, that's just all-around cool.
Citric acid is good. I'd have no problem injecting a bunch of citric acid into cancer patients if these particular studies hold up and show results in clinical trials.0 -
Let's not forget nitrates. Cured meat is the devil, but nitrates are found in much higher concentrations in vegetables.
Hot Dogs/Cured meat 10ppm
arugula 4,677 ppm
basil 2,292 ppm
butterhead lettuce 2,026 ppm
beets 1,279 ppm
celery 1,103 ppm
spinach 1,066 ppm
pumpkin 874 ppm
I knew there was a reason I didn't like arugula
Damn nitrates.
It's been my understanding that it isn't nitrates that are the problem in cured meats but rather the nitrosamines that they form in your stomach when mixed with your stomach acids. the nitrosamines are the suspected cancer causing agents. Nitrosamines are neutralized by Vitamin C, so I imagine arugula and some of these other things mentioned above would not form nitrosamines due to the vit C content. If you have a BLT, the Tomato neutralizes the nitrosamine effect of the bacon. Orange juice with bacon will do the same thing.
as for GMO's, they need to label them. I am reading the book "Wheat Belly" and there are some very interesting things about today's wheat, which is a GMO product and does not resemble the wheat we grew and consumed just 50 yrs ago. My daughter has developed wheat/gluten allergy and it is becoming very common. Those gluten free isles in the regular grocery stores that are becoming all too common are not just the fad of the moment. (by regular grocery store, I mean not health food, whole foods etc, but Giant foods, Safeway, etc.)
This is why. She talked about cancer causing agents and it shows that nature has just as many possibilties as Pharma if not more. I think the article I found, but couldn't find the info I had read about a couple weeks ago, talks about how Vit. C is a catalyst for cancer cell death. But if you concluded 5 of 10 then isn't that an amazing discovery if these kind of results continue0 -
This is why. She talked about cancer causing agents and it shows that nature has just as many possibilties as Pharma if not more. I think the article I found, but couldn't find the info I had read about a couple weeks ago, talks about how Vit. C is a catalyst for cancer cell death. But if you concluded 5 of 10 then isn't that an amazing discovery if these kind of results continue
To me, Pharmacology IS nature, just distilled into micromolecules that we can manipulate and use to our advantage. Where do you think we get our ideas? Nature. They almost always start with something we observe from nature. It might be a compound we see in nature that has a pharmacological effect, or we might find a man-made compound that fits in the binding pocket of a protein that's part of our natural make up. Who knows? But it's all nature in my mind. I'm working with compounds designed to mimic testosterone.
And yes, it's pretty cool that ascorbic acid can kill cancer cells, even if it has to be administered I.V. I do not recommend injecting orange juice directly into your veins though
That would sting a little. 0 -
But we also have to ask ourselves (especially since Big Pharma has big investments in Big Food and Big Ag, as well as Monsanto), would we need to have all of these therapies to cure breast cancer if we had taken steps to prevent it in the first place? Not allowed our environment and our food to be contributing to disease? Who's spending money on that? Certainly not Big Pharma. We most definitely do not have a good system in place to properly treat and cure disease, and our efforts are focused far too much in one direction.
Also, someone mentioned there was GM wheat, which is not true (that I know of). No one has developed it (yet).
The greatest risk factor for breast cancer? ESTROGEN.
I don't think an environmental link has been proven, at least not definitively. There's some hints here and there, but if you suggest that we take steps to eliminate breast cancer, the most logical step would be an ovariectomy before we hit puberty.
There are so many things in our environment that mimic estrogen. Many pesticides for example, have estrogenic effects. BPA has estrogenic effects, even in the body. Hormones in our milk and meat. And the greatest risk factor for breast cancer is lifestyle choices. Being obese, smoking, drinking a lot, not exercising, and not eating enough plants are risk factors. Producing estrogen is not a risk factor. If that were true, then Asian women would have the same rates of breast cancer as we do, because they also produce estrogen. Except that they don't get hormone-dependent breast cancer at the same rate as we do. But, when Asian women move to the U.S., their risk seems to go up, statistically speaking. Their daughters have somewhere around a 30% greater risk of breast cancer. Their daughters' daughters have an even greater risk. I have a feeling they all produce estrogen, even in Asia.0 -
There are so many things in our environment that mimic estrogen. Many pesticides for example, have estrogenic effects. BPA has estrogenic effects, even in the body. Hormones in our milk and meat. And the greatest risk factor for breast cancer is lifestyle choices. Being obese, smoking, drinking a lot, not exercising, and not eating enough plants are risk factors. Producing estrogen is not a risk factor. If that were true, then Asian women would have the same rates of breast cancer as we do, because they also produce estrogen. Except that they don't get hormone-dependent breast cancer at the same rate as we do. But, when Asian women move to the U.S., their risk seems to go up, statistically speaking. Their daughters have somewhere around a 30% greater risk of breast cancer. Their daughters' daughters have an even greater risk. I have a feeling they all produce estrogen, even in Asia.
And I think that this is evident with the fact that males are getting breast cancer a little more frequently. All those common sense preventative measures gladus says plus discerning wisely aspects of ones life are the keys avoiding probably most health problems0 -
Are you a sheople?
SHEOPLE DEFINED:
The definition of a sheople: NOUN (plural only) Hybrid of sheep and people. One who mindlessly follows others like a herd of sheep. (derogatory slang) People who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leaders say or who adopt popular opinion as their own without scrutiny. Unable to think freely, kin to a Zombie, brain dead. Possibly make a good politician.
So anyone with an ounce of critical thinking you call sheep? As opposed to someone who believes every crackpot conspiracy theory that comes around?quote]
No. It's anybody with critical thinking you call a conspiracist or a crack pot, not the other way around0 -
I have used MSG in my foods for at least 42 years. It is a flavor enhancer and it doubles as salt for me. It is a lot lower in sodium. As for GMO, if you farm it is very difficult to find anything that isn't. Those chickens and turkey we get from the stores a GMO. I raise chickens and turkeys and they are no where near as tender or juicy as what they sell in the store.0
-
There are so many things in our environment that mimic estrogen. Many pesticides for example, have estrogenic effects. BPA has estrogenic effects, even in the body. Hormones in our milk and meat. And the greatest risk factor for breast cancer is lifestyle choices. Being obese, smoking, drinking a lot, not exercising, and not eating enough plants are risk factors. Producing estrogen is not a risk factor. If that were true, then Asian women would have the same rates of breast cancer as we do, because they also produce estrogen. Except that they don't get hormone-dependent breast cancer at the same rate as we do. But, when Asian women move to the U.S., their risk seems to go up, statistically speaking. Their daughters have somewhere around a 30% greater risk of breast cancer. Their daughters' daughters have an even greater risk. I have a feeling they all produce estrogen, even in Asia.
You cannot prove definitively that any of those compounds have a negative impact on human health at the concentrations consumed. If you could prove it, then the FDA would have yanked them from the market by now. Of course at high concentrations... well sure... if you drink a bottle of pesticide, you're probably going to get sick. By the time the food gets to the market, there's residual pesticide on it, not a lot, certainly not enough to damage your health in any measurable degree.
And the increased risks for breast cancer in asian women that have relocated to the United States cannot be linked with any certainty to the estrogen-like compounds that you say are in pesticides, etc... I won't argue with you that obesity and smoking probably increases the risks of breast cancer. But you can live a healthy life-style while eating genetically modified plants. And you can be obese while still eating "organic/non-GMO".
For the record, there are plenty of estrogen-like compounds in nature. You've heard of phytoestrogens, right? They were all the rage a few years back.
See... this is why I get frustrated with the anti-GMO stuff. There is NO PROOF that they harm humans. All you have is extrapolation, correlation, speculation, superstition, but no proof. And those things are very compelling. They are compelling enough that I might switch to organic one day (the negative environmental stuff is more likely to get me to switch than anything else). However, until there is proof, I'm not going to council anyone else to avoid GMOs.
And even if they do have a negative effect on health, it is infinitely more important that people eat their veggies than it is that they eat their organic veggies. It's much more important for people to get a complete diet, rich in essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals. The source of those nutrients is significantly less important. Organic/Non-GMO foods supply them, so if you want to support organic GMO-free, great! But you can be healthy without eating organic! And that's my take-home message. That's why I started this thread in the first place.
One last thought, and then I must get to work: Only in America and other 1st world countries do we have the luxury of obsessing over organic vs. non-organic, GMO vs. non-GMO. In other countries, they are worried about food, period. And when we fear-monger about GMO foods, those other countries do stupid things like burn fields and refuse seeds while their people starve. Starvation? Very bad for your health. Way worse than eating GMOs.0 -
In general, rather than quoting quotes, one thing I know a lot about is breast cancer, as I have survived it and have been researching it for years. I am currently on Aromasin (thank you Big Pharma) and I just had my oncology visit yesterday. I thought I would be able to come off this drug, which has not been studied long term for serious side effects. My onco told me I should take it for a full five years and I told him that studies say a combo of Tamoxifen and Aromasin for a total of five years. He said I was wrong and where did I read that. I told him multiple sources and he asked me to bring him a copy. I looked last night. Found it on breastcancer.org, komen.org, cancer.gov AND Aromasin.com. I don't want to have a recurrance, but even on the Aromasin website they say that it hasn't been in use long enough to know what future problems may occur from long time use. So following 2 1/2 years on Tamoxifen and switching to Aromasin, I should be done in May of next year. If you look at the side effects these drugs can cause, it is not rocket science to see why I don't really want to take this stuff longer than necessary.
The thing that makes me most aggravated, is that all the studies show that cancer in it's many forms is largely a product of factors that can probably be controlled by natural methods, such as natural anti-inflammatories, etc. The problem is, they haven't really spent any time doing the studies of these natural cures because there was no $$ in it and the Pharma's fund the studies of their expensive drug trials. They are now starting to do trials on curcumin/turmeric, because they are seeing that it seems to have promising results on treating cancer, RA, Alzheimers, and anything that has to do with inflammatory factors. Oh and yeah, no side effects, isn't even toxic in really high doses, although may cause some stomach upset in sensitive people. In a prostate cancer trial, they found that even small does of curcumin caused tumors to shrink. NCI.gov is now doing some research and trials on non-pharma/natural products that show great promise. So my point is, these government agencies get a lot of the funding from Big Pharma and Corporations like Monsanto. As a result, they may be favoring cures/treatments that come with big serious side-effects instead of looking at the root causes and trialing natural cures. Natural *free cures that don't involve the huge money making "cancer cash cow" (think of all the institutions in this country that are just about cancer), I think natural cures may not be in the best interest of the present economy. Our lives are in the hands of the insurance companies and the medical and drug industry. I have tried to follow all my oncologists recommendations. He wouldn't let me take CoQ10 for my heart or Silimarin for my liver while I was in chemo, even though multiple studies show it does not weaken the success of the chemo agents. They don't like to skew their results with extraneous data. So I waited till I was out of treatment and hope I can repair/strenghthen the damage these strong chemicals may have done. One opinion that weighted heavily me that was against the current chemo regime compared it to trying to get rid of mice by blowing up your house. Well, most of us feel like we have to trust our doctors, so we follow what they dictate. Based on the four reports I found yesterday, I will not be continuing the Aromasin past May of next year.
As for today's wheat, it is called "Super Wheat", "dwarf or semi-dwarf wheat" or by some "frankenwheat", haha. "According to Allan Fritz, PhD, professor of wheat breeding at Kansas State Univ., dwarf and semi-dwarf wheat now comprise more the 99 % of all wheat grown worldwide". Proteins expressed by a wheat hybrid show a 5% unique strain of protein found in neither parent. "Wheat gluten proteins, in particular, undergo considerable structural change with hybridization." In one experiment they found 14 new gluten proteins related to neither parent. "And note that the genetic modifications created by hybridization for the wheat plants themselves were essentially fatal, since the thousand of new wheat breeds were helpless when left to grow in the wild, relying on human assistance for survival." (quotes from Wheat Belly, by William Davis, MD). Some scientists believe that GMO's are the greatest experiment ever undertaken on mankind, as once the genetic codes are changed, nature then goes forward to make it's own changes and who knows what will result. Yes, Monsanto has combined a DNA strand from a pesticide into a wheat or corn natural DNA strand to require the plant to need less topically applied pesticide. Pesticide built into the plant's DNA. Gluten allergies or auto-immune disorders anyone? hmmmm Yes, they are on the rise and I think we may living in a petri dish these days.
Anyway, we are all trying to be healthy. So here is to our best efforts. Cheers. Slainte! Prost! whatever.0 -
BANKER: David Rockefeller Sept. 23, 1994 "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long — We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
How To Wake UP Your Sheople Friends & Family
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q84_RZcscJE0 -
On MSG
"Scientists have known about the MSG problem for quite a while. They frequently study obesity by poisoning rats with MSG until they become obese. Naturally, this is called the MSG obese rat. There are over 100 studies on this rat in scientific literature.
MSG causes glutamate neurotoxicity. It causes an obese rat because the glutamate toxicity destroys the leptin message written on the blackboard in the subsconscious brain that directly controls appetite or it destroys the blackboard so no message can be written". "Children and adults consuming MSG, especially in large amounts, can create a neurotoxic brain response in the appetite control center that could easily tilt them toward obesity. MSG should be completely avoided by everyone". from "Mastering Leptin" by Byron J. Richards, CCN
and msg is disguised under several other names in food such as hydrolized protein
"Betcha can't eat just one', takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight?
The MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance! Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago, MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals, soups, snacks and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. How can they claim it safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these? :-
'The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity'. GobattoCA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA.Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002." from Rense.com - MSG, the slow poisoning of America0 -
There are so many things in our environment that mimic estrogen. Many pesticides for example, have estrogenic effects. BPA has estrogenic effects, even in the body. Hormones in our milk and meat. And the greatest risk factor for breast cancer is lifestyle choices. Being obese, smoking, drinking a lot, not exercising, and not eating enough plants are risk factors. Producing estrogen is not a risk factor. If that were true, then Asian women would have the same rates of breast cancer as we do, because they also produce estrogen. Except that they don't get hormone-dependent breast cancer at the same rate as we do. But, when Asian women move to the U.S., their risk seems to go up, statistically speaking. Their daughters have somewhere around a 30% greater risk of breast cancer. Their daughters' daughters have an even greater risk. I have a feeling they all produce estrogen, even in Asia.
You cannot prove definitively that any of those compounds have a negative impact on human health at the concentrations consumed. If you could prove it, then the FDA would have yanked them from the market by now. Of course at high concentrations... well sure... if you drink a bottle of pesticide, you're probably going to get sick. By the time the food gets to the market, there's residual pesticide on it, not a lot, certainly not enough to damage your health in any measurable degree.
And the increased risks for breast cancer in asian women that have relocated to the United States cannot be linked with any certainty to the estrogen-like compounds that you say are in pesticides, etc... I won't argue with you that obesity and smoking probably increases the risks of breast cancer. But you can live a healthy life-style while eating genetically modified plants. And you can be obese while still eating "organic/non-GMO".
For the record, there are plenty of estrogen-like compounds in nature. You've heard of phytoestrogens, right? They were all the rage a few years back.
See... this is why I get frustrated with the anti-GMO stuff. There is NO PROOF that they harm humans. All you have is extrapolation, correlation, speculation, superstition, but no proof. And those things are very compelling. They are compelling enough that I might switch to organic one day (the negative environmental stuff is more likely to get me to switch than anything else). However, until there is proof, I'm not going to council anyone else to avoid GMOs.
And even if they do have a negative effect on health, it is infinitely more important that people eat their veggies than it is that they eat their organic veggies. It's much more important for people to get a complete diet, rich in essential amino acids, essential fatty acids, vitamins and minerals. The source of those nutrients is significantly less important. Organic/Non-GMO foods supply them, so if you want to support organic GMO-free, great! But you can be healthy without eating organic! And that's my take-home message. That's why I started this thread in the first place.
One last thought, and then I must get to work: Only in America and other 1st world countries do we have the luxury of obsessing over organic vs. non-organic, GMO vs. non-GMO. In other countries, they are worried about food, period. And when we fear-monger about GMO foods, those other countries do stupid things like burn fields and refuse seeds while their people starve. Starvation? Very bad for your health. Way worse than eating GMOs.
Agree. You have way more trust in the FDA than I do. I work in the regulatory field of research, and I have to say, it’s a pretty terrible system even at the site level. Knowing all of the conflict of interest and lobbying that goes on with folks at the FDA, and with the ridiculous “regulations” in place for the review, approval, and safety monitoring of food (especially GMOs), there is no way. If only I was permitted to tell stories about the IRB I used to work for. That should tell you enough. It is an utterly terrible system.
I don’t know if I mentioned before that the potential *long-term* adverse health effects of GMOs is at the very bottom of my list of reasons to avoid GMOs, but it is. And the reason is because we don’t know the long-term effects. It’s not about a conspiracy, superstition, or some paranoia. It’s because there is no evidence out there that tells me they don’t cause negative, long-term health consequences, and I am a skeptic. I am skeptical of the research out there because of the names on the research papers. I am skeptical of corporations who send people to work for the FDA while their product is being reviewed for approval. I am skeptical because it’s the only approach that makes sense. It doesn’t make sense to me, if I have the information and means to avoid GMOs, that I shouldn’t. I agree completely that there are other ways of being healthy, and eating organic/non-GMO is certainly not the only way. If I thought that, I would be all over my friends’ diaries here going, “OMG you ate GMOs you are going to get CANCER!!” I don’t support that kind of approach, thinking, or fear-mongering. I merely want to present the information I know, and encourage others to be skeptical. I also like to wear my funny GMO shirt sometimes because I think it’s clever.
I do want to thank you for being open to the discussion and debate on it. It has been difficult to have an adult conversation on here on the issue of GMOs. It encourages me to do more research and be able to articulate my position better each time someone asks. If you find good research articles, I would love to read them if you want to post them here or PM them to me. You may find some I haven’t read yet.0 -
Are you a sheople?
SHEOPLE DEFINED:
The definition of a sheople: NOUN (plural only) Hybrid of sheep and people. One who mindlessly follows others like a herd of sheep. (derogatory slang) People who unquestioningly accept as true whatever their political leaders say or who adopt popular opinion as their own without scrutiny. Unable to think freely, kin to a Zombie, brain dead. Possibly make a good politician.
So anyone with an ounce of critical thinking you call sheep? As opposed to someone who believes every crackpot conspiracy theory that comes around?quote]
No. It's anybody with critical thinking you call a conspiracist or a crack pot, not the other way around
Calling someone "sheople" as a derogatory insult instead of answering a valid question that requires critical thinking, and may cause someone to change or adjust their view if given an answer, doesn't show you to have any critical thinking, it shows you to just be blindly parroting whatever it was you were told to say. You made some (in my opinion) pretty wacky claims that don't seem to have a basis in any real fact, and when someone asked you to explain in more detail, you resort to calling that person a sheep, instead of actually trying to answer the question, and maybe try and make your position seem at least a little more credible.
Insults and name calling are what people resort to when they don't have any actual facts or reasoning to support their position.0 -
BANKER: David Rockefeller Sept. 23, 1994 "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long — We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
How To Wake UP Your Sheople Friends & Family
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q84_RZcscJE
Do you know the difference between "quote mining" and "evidence"?0 -
On MSG
"Scientists have known about the MSG problem for quite a while. They frequently study obesity by poisoning rats with MSG until they become obese. Naturally, this is called the MSG obese rat. There are over 100 studies on this rat in scientific literature.
MSG causes glutamate neurotoxicity. It causes an obese rat because the glutamate toxicity destroys the leptin message written on the blackboard in the subsconscious brain that directly controls appetite or it destroys the blackboard so no message can be written". "Children and adults consuming MSG, especially in large amounts, can create a neurotoxic brain response in the appetite control center that could easily tilt them toward obesity. MSG should be completely avoided by everyone". from "Mastering Leptin" by Byron J. Richards, CCN
and msg is disguised under several other names in food such as hydrolized protein
"Betcha can't eat just one', takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight?
The MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance! Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago, MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals, soups, snacks and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. How can they claim it safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these? :-
'The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity'. GobattoCA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA.Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002." from Rense.com - MSG, the slow poisoning of America
Rats =/= Humans. And correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't DNL occur at a much greater rate in rats then humans?
and do the above authors state why MSG is so evil, but regular old, naturally occurring glutamates found in food are alright, or are they also evil? Why has there not been rampant obesity in Asia who consume lots of MSG and glutamate containing foods?0 -
Agree. You have way more trust in the FDA than I do. I work in the regulatory field of research, and I have to say, it’s a pretty terrible system even at the site level. Knowing all of the conflict of interest and lobbying that goes on with folks at the FDA, and with the ridiculous “regulations” in place for the review, approval, and safety monitoring of food (especially GMOs), there is no way. If only I was permitted to tell stories about the IRB I used to work for. That should tell you enough. It is an utterly terrible system.
I don’t know if I mentioned before that the potential *long-term* adverse health effects of GMOs is at the very bottom of my list of reasons to avoid GMOs, but it is. And the reason is because we don’t know the long-term effects. It’s not about a conspiracy, superstition, or some paranoia. It’s because there is no evidence out there that tells me they don’t cause negative, long-term health consequences, and I am a skeptic. I am skeptical of the research out there because of the names on the research papers. I am skeptical of corporations who send people to work for the FDA while their product is being reviewed for approval. I am skeptical because it’s the only approach that makes sense. It doesn’t make sense to me, if I have the information and means to avoid GMOs, that I shouldn’t. I agree completely that there are other ways of being healthy, and eating organic/non-GMO is certainly not the only way. If I thought that, I would be all over my friends’ diaries here going, “OMG you ate GMOs you are going to get CANCER!!” I don’t support that kind of approach, thinking, or fear-mongering. I merely want to present the information I know, and encourage others to be skeptical. I also like to wear my funny GMO shirt sometimes because I think it’s clever.
I do want to thank you for being open to the discussion and debate on it. It has been difficult to have an adult conversation on here on the issue of GMOs. It encourages me to do more research and be able to articulate my position better each time someone asks. If you find good research articles, I would love to read them if you want to post them here or PM them to me. You may find some I haven’t read yet.
I probably AM more optimistic/trusting of the FDA than I should be :P I know the system isn't perfect. It never will be. Politics ruin everything... but its the system we've got and it does alright. I'm a bit distance from the ... "battlefield" I guess you might call it. I work in the lab, with cells in a dish, with little mice, and I don't do any of that clinical stuff, any of the marketing, non of the politicking to get the FDA to approve my golden egg. I have no desire to ever do that. There's too much pressure to sell all the good and hide the bad. Example: These new-and-improved androgen mimics WILL cure Alzheimer's disease. When I know damn good and well that they might only help a little and that the side-effects might be seriously nasty.
And likewise, I appreciate your openness as well. You have made some good points and I will be doing more research... it's probably not happening right away. I've got a grant application due and a paper that I'm trying to write for publication. I pop over to MFP when I need a distraction... but I just don't have time to do the real digging that I need to do to answer my own questions regarding GMOs. I'll need to go back and refresh my molecular biology knowledge too before I dive too deep.
I'll let you know what I find. I've already found a few things to back up some of the stuff you and others have said about unintended consequences of gene modification. That article I linked is pretty interesting, actually. The wheat behaved one way when it was in a controlled environment, but when they planted it in the field, it behaved much differently. I've come across other things that suggest we could be playing with fire when it comes to GMOs I'm still totally in favor of playing with it. Look at all the good things fire can do!! 0 -
I only avoid MSG because it triggers horrible migraines for me. I certainly wouldn't avoid it otherwise!0
-
On MSG
"Scientists have known about the MSG problem for quite a while. They frequently study obesity by poisoning rats with MSG until they become obese. Naturally, this is called the MSG obese rat. There are over 100 studies on this rat in scientific literature.
MSG causes glutamate neurotoxicity. It causes an obese rat because the glutamate toxicity destroys the leptin message written on the blackboard in the subsconscious brain that directly controls appetite or it destroys the blackboard so no message can be written". "Children and adults consuming MSG, especially in large amounts, can create a neurotoxic brain response in the appetite control center that could easily tilt them toward obesity. MSG should be completely avoided by everyone". from "Mastering Leptin" by Byron J. Richards, CCN
and msg is disguised under several other names in food such as hydrolized protein
"Betcha can't eat just one', takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight?
The MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance! Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago, MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals, soups, snacks and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. How can they claim it safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these? :-
'The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity'. GobattoCA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA.Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002." from Rense.com - MSG, the slow poisoning of America
Rats =/= Humans. And correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't DNL occur at a much greater rate in rats then humans?
and do the above authors state why MSG is so evil, but regular old, naturally occurring glutamates found in food are alright, or are they also evil? Why has there not been rampant obesity in Asia who consume lots of MSG and glutamate containing foods?
The thing about rats not being humans is actually pretty damned important and I'm glad to see you bring it up. You won't believe how many pharmaceuticals people have found that work wonders in rats but don't do a damned thing for people, or worse, actually have unexpected consequences in people. There's a reason why drug development is so expensive. If rats were the perfect model for human physiology, we could save a ton of money.
What do you mean by DNL? I'm not familiar with that acronym.0 -
I only avoid MSG because it triggers horrible migraines for me. I certainly wouldn't avoid it otherwise!
A perfectly good reason to avoid it
Sorry about the migraines. Those suck.0 -
The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity'. GobattoCA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA.Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002."
From the abstract:
"Obesity was induced by MSG administration (4 mg/g, each other day, from birth to 14 days old)"
Scale this to human size and this would equate to a 150lb man eating over 1/2lb of MSG every other day.
Not really relevant.0 -
On MSG
"Scientists have known about the MSG problem for quite a while. They frequently study obesity by poisoning rats with MSG until they become obese. Naturally, this is called the MSG obese rat. There are over 100 studies on this rat in scientific literature.
MSG causes glutamate neurotoxicity. It causes an obese rat because the glutamate toxicity destroys the leptin message written on the blackboard in the subsconscious brain that directly controls appetite or it destroys the blackboard so no message can be written". "Children and adults consuming MSG, especially in large amounts, can create a neurotoxic brain response in the appetite control center that could easily tilt them toward obesity. MSG should be completely avoided by everyone". from "Mastering Leptin" by Byron J. Richards, CCN
and msg is disguised under several other names in food such as hydrolized protein
"Betcha can't eat just one', takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight?
The MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance! Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago, MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals, soups, snacks and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. How can they claim it safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these? :-
'The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity'. GobattoCA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA.Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002." from Rense.com - MSG, the slow poisoning of America
Rats =/= Humans. And correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't DNL occur at a much greater rate in rats then humans?
and do the above authors state why MSG is so evil, but regular old, naturally occurring glutamates found in food are alright, or are they also evil? Why has there not been rampant obesity in Asia who consume lots of MSG and glutamate containing foods?
The thing about rats not being humans is actually pretty damned important and I'm glad to see you bring it up. You won't believe how many pharmaceuticals people have found that work wonders in rats but don't do a damned thing for people, or worse, actually have unexpected consequences in people. There's a reason why drug development is so expensive. If rats were the perfect model for human physiology, we could save a ton of money.
What do you mean by DNL? I'm not familiar with that acronym.
De Novo Lipogenesis: the metabolic pathway that converts dietary carbohydrate to adipose tissue.0 -
Here... I'll counter the study that says MSG promotes obesity in rats with one that says it reduces weight gain:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19587084 0 -
De Novo Lipogenesis: the metabolic pathway that converts dietary carbohydrate to adipose tissue.
Thanks! I'll try to find out.0 -
On MSG
"Scientists have known about the MSG problem for quite a while. They frequently study obesity by poisoning rats with MSG until they become obese. Naturally, this is called the MSG obese rat. There are over 100 studies on this rat in scientific literature.
MSG causes glutamate neurotoxicity. It causes an obese rat because the glutamate toxicity destroys the leptin message written on the blackboard in the subsconscious brain that directly controls appetite or it destroys the blackboard so no message can be written". "Children and adults consuming MSG, especially in large amounts, can create a neurotoxic brain response in the appetite control center that could easily tilt them toward obesity. MSG should be completely avoided by everyone". from "Mastering Leptin" by Byron J. Richards, CCN
and msg is disguised under several other names in food such as hydrolized protein
"Betcha can't eat just one', takes on a whole new meaning where MSG is concerned! And we wonder why the nation is overweight?
The MSG manufacturers themselves admit that it addicts people to their products. It makes people choose their product over others, and makes people eat more of it than they would if MSG wasn't added.
Not only is MSG scientifically proven to cause obesity, it is an addictive substance! Since its introduction into the American food supply fifty years ago, MSG has been added in larger and larger doses to the pre-packaged meals, soups, snacks and fast foods we are tempted to eat everyday.The FDA has set no limits on how much of it can be added to food. They claim it's safe to eat in any amount. How can they claim it safe when there are hundreds of scientific studies with titles like these? :-
'The monosodium glutamate (MSG) obese rat as a model for the study of exercise in obesity'. GobattoCA, Mello MA, Souza CT, Ribeiro IA.Res Commun Mol Pathol Pharmacol. 2002." from Rense.com - MSG, the slow poisoning of America
Rats =/= Humans. And correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't DNL occur at a much greater rate in rats then humans?
and do the above authors state why MSG is so evil, but regular old, naturally occurring glutamates found in food are alright, or are they also evil? Why has there not been rampant obesity in Asia who consume lots of MSG and glutamate containing foods?
Article that discusses your DNL question
http://www.jlr.org/content/44/11/2127.full.pdf
If there was no reason to test this out on rats in the first place, not sure why they are doing so many studies. What I do know is most of the diet guru's suggest that we eat a clean diet, which means eliminating all the food additives and overly processed foods, preservatives, chemicals etc. I try to do that as best I can, though I admit it isn't easy unless you make everything from scratch and buy everything fresh. My goal is to be as careful as I can in eliminating all this stuff I consider "crap" from my diet.
To each his own though. Whatever works for you is what is important. I personally do believe what we eat plays a big part in our health along with a miriad of other things.
Oh and regarding the FDA. While in treatment for BC, I was asked if I would participate in a study. I believe it was FDA conducted but if not, one of the other agencies, (not NCI, pretty sure FDA) Anyway you agree that they can have a piece of your biopsied tissue and you sit for a questionnaire. The questions were so ludicrous that I was scratching my head and saying to myself, is this some kind of a sham just so they can get a piece of your tissue. The questions asked you to remember how many times you ate or drank alcohol in the decades of your life. As if at age 52 you could remember how many times a week you ate what or drank what and even if somewhat accurate, how could you use results like that in a study. Also, they lumped nuts in with candy. How many times a week did you eat candy or nuts???? That is nuts!!! I feel like it was some kind of sham. Totally weird. haha0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions