Reply #31: Just calling it the way I saw it--No harm, no foul. [View All]

You're certainly welcome to reply, and you did so. That's what freedom of speech is all about. I did differentiate between criticism of the Dr.'s advice that I posted from a personal attack, and did not alert. But perhaps I'm sensitive to the issue now that I've experienced you-know-what in The Meeting Room.

I've wondered about Splenda's approval, given the criticism of that particular person. It's posted all over the Internet on other sites as well.

When a loved one developed what for us was a rather acute and severe reaction to it, I can't help but wonder if she had continued taking it if the end result would have been 6 feet under. She was very ill, but didn't want to go to the hospital. That tended to validate the danger of Splenda for us, and now we both avoid it like the plague, and are amazed at the number of products it is an ingredient in. Thank god for labeling.

In point of fact, this was the first time I had heard of Splenda--when it made her ill. It is not easy to find documentation elsewhere on the Internet at either edu or gov sites of the dangers of Splenda, and that *lack of information*, when we well know that it's dangerous, I find curious.

I get really pissed when the government removes a herbal supplement when there's *any danger* to *any individual* whatsoever, but allows products that have passed testing that are in fact dangerous. They certainly haven't removed all the oleander from freeways in California. Peanuts, as you pointed out, haven't been removed, either.

At least peanut allergy information is to be found.

What was the name of the recent anti-depressant that was pulled because of suicides and the pharmaco had doctored the test results to the FDA? Remember, these are scientists with an axe to grind--their paychecks, and perhaps their overblown egos.

I also agree with you that some of the "health related" sites can be simply selling their own religion, as well.