Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / April 2008
Is Stevia Safe?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
noSugar - 21 Apr 2008 22:37 GMT http://www.fitsugar.com/1501647 If you're trying to eat more healthy, you may be trying to ditch foods made with white sugar and artificial sweeteners. What about the sweetener stevia? Have you ever heard of it? People are adding it to their coffee, flavoring their iced tea, and baking with it.
Julie Bove - 21 Apr 2008 22:54 GMT <spam snipped>
> If you're trying to eat more healthy, you may be trying to ditch foods > made with white sugar and artificial sweeteners. What about the > sweetener stevia? Have you ever heard of it? People are adding it to > their coffee, flavoring their iced tea, and baking with it. No it is not safe and it tastes bad. Now run along.
Cheri - 21 Apr 2008 23:01 GMT Julie Bove wrote in message ...
><spam snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >No it is not safe and it tastes bad. Now run along. I can't speak to the safety of it, but I think it tastes nasty. I have tried the powdered form and the liquid form, and I don't like either.
Cheri
ted rosenberg - 22 Apr 2008 15:17 GMT > <spam snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > not only that Idiot child also recites the crap about "food made with white sugar and artificial sweeteners"
We should instead all go out and eat pasta covered with brown sugar !!
Julie Bove - 22 Apr 2008 16:30 GMT >> <spam snipped> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > We should instead all go out and eat pasta covered with brown sugar !! I just saw something on a restaurant menu last night that was bruschetta with brown sugar. Eeeew.
Susan - 21 Apr 2008 23:54 GMT > http://www.fitsugar.com/1501647 > If you're trying to eat more healthy, you may be trying to ditch foods > made with white sugar and artificial sweeteners. What about the > sweetener stevia? Have you ever heard of it? People are adding it to > their coffee, flavoring their iced tea, and baking with it. Yes, it's safe, no it doesn't taste very good.
Susan
Uncle Enrico - 23 Apr 2008 17:48 GMT > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Susan The "NOW" brand tastes good. It's sold at Whole Foods.
MaryL - 22 Apr 2008 01:16 GMT > http://www.fitsugar.com/1501647 > If you're trying to eat more healthy, you may be trying to ditch foods > made with white sugar and artificial sweeteners. What about the > sweetener stevia? Have you ever heard of it? People are adding it to > their coffee, flavoring their iced tea, and baking with it. It is supposed to be safe, but I went "cold turkey" and eliminated *all* refined sugar and also all artificial sweeteners. I soon adjusted and found that I don't miss it. I love fresh fruit (especially berries). Fortunately, I seem able to eat as many of them as I want. I eat them plain or with some plain yogurt on top, and that serves to satisfy my "sweet tooth."
MaryL
Evelyn Ruut - 22 Apr 2008 04:00 GMT >> http://www.fitsugar.com/1501647 >> If you're trying to eat more healthy, you may be trying to ditch foods [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > MaryL Yes, me too. Once I gave up almost all sweets, I found that my tastebuds adjusted, and now even a little sweetening of any kind tastes TOO sweet to me! The subtle sweetness of fruit is wonderful, but the taste of actual sugar is cloyingly sweet and I actually don't like it anymore.
(excepting in a bit of very dark chocolate occasionally, and even then, few brands are sufficiently un-sweetened enough for me. I do like a little piece of Trader Joes 72% though once in a while)
 Signature Best Regards,
Evelyn
Màck©® - 22 Apr 2008 17:15 GMT >http://www.fitsugarscams.com/1501647 >If you're trying to eat more healthy, you may be trying to ditch foods >made with white sugar and artificial sweeteners. What about the >sweetener stevia? Have you ever heard of it? People are adding it to >their coffee, flavoring their iced tea, and baking with it. In the USA it is illegal to sell stevia as a sweetener.
Stevia is banned in many countries world wide and is most commonly used in countries with NO consumer protections in place.
 Signature Måck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
Susan - 22 Apr 2008 17:48 GMT > In the USA it is illegal to sell stevia as a sweetener. Stevia is sold on all the store shelves in my area as a sweetener. You're misconstruing the fact that it's permitted for sale as a supplement in the USA, hasn't applied to be listed as a GRAS sweetener, but it's clearly labeled on packaging, legally so, as a sweetener, and that's where it appears on store shelves. That's a bureaucratic distinction, not a health one.
Susan
ted rosenberg - 22 Apr 2008 22:16 GMT > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Susan Susan, Miss Information AGAIN, AND AGAIN, AND AGAIN hey Twit, it is ILLEGAL to sell Stevia as a sweetener in the US (and most of the world).
you can easily buy crack on the street in your area, but that neither makes it safe, or legal
Andy - 25 Apr 2008 04:13 GMT >hey Twit, it is ILLEGAL to sell Stevia as a sweetener in the US (and >most of the world). > >you can easily buy crack on the street in your area, but that neither >makes it safe, or legal Bull. There is nothing illegal about Stevia being used as a sweetener. Many people use it and there is nothing illegal about it.
Only the artificial sweetener industry wants to make Stevia illegal - do you own any stock in Aspartame by the way, or Splenda?
Stevia is a natural sweetener - Splenda and Aspartame are just chemicals.
So stop saying is ILLEGAL to use Stevia period. The fact that the FDA did not approve Stevia to be used as a sweetener does not make it illegal. And more important, we know why it is not approved, don't we? Splenda, Aspartame etc are making sure Stevia is not approved as a sweetener.
Andy
Julie Bove - 25 Apr 2008 05:24 GMT >>hey Twit, it is ILLEGAL to sell Stevia as a sweetener in the US (and >>most of the world). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sweetener. Many people use it and there is nothing illegal > about it. Not USED as a sweetener, but you can not legally sell it as one. I know I have seen it sold with the sweeteners, but it must be a matter of what the wording is on the box.
> Only the artificial sweetener industry wants to make Stevia illegal - > do you own any stock in Aspartame by the way, or Splenda? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > approved, don't we? Splenda, Aspartame etc are making sure > Stevia is not approved as a sweetener. He never said it was illegal to use it. It is legal to sell it as a supplement but not as a sweetener.
Andy - 26 Apr 2008 01:47 GMT >He never said it was illegal to use it. It is legal to sell it as a >supplement but not as a sweetener. What he is doing is called SPIN. He makes a big deal about, nothing really, but he is leaving the impression that Stevia is illegal to use and this is not true. The man is a shill, no doubt about it.
Stevia is a natural sweetener just like sugar - except it does not contain sugar and it is the ideal sweetener for diabetics - and everybody on a diet. And this is what scares the artificial sweetener industry - they would rather feed us chemicals than something natural like Stevia.
By the way: Stevia is about 300 times sweeter than sugar - and if you try to put a spec in your coffee, chances are you will put too much. That is why people say it has an after taste.
Andy
Wes Groleau - 26 Apr 2008 05:42 GMT > What he is doing is called SPIN. He makes a big deal about, > nothing really, but he is leaving the impression that Stevia > is illegal to use and this is not true. The man is a shill, no > doubt about it. I have plenty of doubt. He is an often reasonable person who happens to overreact when people promote things that should not be promoted. And everything I read about Stevia either has absolutely no evidence to back it up or suggests it should not be promoted.
 Signature Wes Groleau
Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Màck©® - 26 Apr 2008 14:55 GMT >>He never said it was illegal to use it. It is legal to sell it as a >>supplement but not as a sweetener. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Andy No Andy, Ted is not a shill. He is a known long time diabetic and poster here. There is no "spin" except from the stevia scammers.
The fact is that in the USA the supplement industry is largely if not wholly unregulated. The FDA does not allow stevia to be sol,d as a sweetener at this time. It can be sold as a supplement, even though it actually does NOT supplement anything in the human diet.
Stevia was banned in many EU countries because it failed their safety testing.
Do your research before you make false assumptions.
 Signature Måck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
Andy - 26 Apr 2008 17:06 GMT >No Andy, Ted is not a shill. He is a known long time diabetic and >poster here. There is no "spin" except from the stevia scammers Fine - but given the context he is decidedly against Stevia and the case against Stevia is questionable at best. And FWIW, there is no such thing as Stevia scammers - the money and the special interests are from the artificial sweetener industry. Bottom line: Stevia is natural and has been used by humans for thousands of years.
" In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) performed a thorough evaluation of recent experimental studies of stevioside and steviols conducted on animals and humans, and concluded that "stevioside and rebaudioside A are not genotoxic in vitro or in vivo and that the genotoxicity of steviol and some of its oxidative derivatives in vitro is not expressed in vivo."[31] The report also found no evidence of carcinogenic activity."
>The fact is that in the USA the supplement industry is largely if not >wholly unregulated. The FDA does not allow stevia to be sol,d as a >sweetener at this time. It can be sold as a supplement, even though >it actually does NOT supplement anything in the human diet. 1. The FDA banned Stevia by violating its own rules on the subject. See Wikipedia: "The FDA's stated reason was "toxicological information on stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety."[34] This ruling was controversial, as stevia proponents pointed out that this designation violated the FDA's own guidelines under which any natural substance used prior to 1958 with no reported adverse effects should be generally recognized as safe (GRAS)."
2. Stevia has been used for thousands of years by humans: "For centuries, the Guaraní tribes of Paraguay and Brazil used Stevia species, primarily S. rebaudiana which they called ka'a he'ê ("sweet herb"), as a sweetener in yerba mate and medicinal teas for treating heartburn and other ailments. The leaves of the stevia plant have 3045 times the sweetness of sucrose (ordinary table sugar).[6]"
This is laughable! It is like banning lettuce because we do not have enough toxicological information on lettuce!
All quoted material from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia
Andy
Oleg Lego - 27 Apr 2008 04:26 GMT >Bottom line: Stevia is natural and has been used by humans for >thousands of years. Without weighing in on one side or the other, I would like to point out that Belladonna, arsenic and radon gas are also natural. I do wish people would stop trotting out the "It's natural so it must be good for us" crap.
 Signature Larry, T2, Saskatchewan, Canada. DX 24 Aug 07. D&E Metformin 2000mg, Ramipril, Simvastatin Dx A1c 8.1 : Latest 5.1 (4 Mar 08)
Andy - 27 Apr 2008 05:45 GMT >Without weighing in on one side or the other, I would like to point >out that Belladonna, arsenic and radon gas are also natural. I do wish >people would stop trotting out the "It's natural so it must be good >for us" crap. IF it has been consumed by humans for thousands of years - meaning before 1958 - THEN, according to our own FDA rules, IT IS SAFE! Your comparison to Arsenic and Radon gas is nonsense.
The FDA violated its own rules when they went looking for toxicological data on Stevia:
"The FDA's stated reason was "toxicological information on stevia is inadequate to demonstrate its safety."[34] This ruling was controversial, as stevia proponents pointed out that this designation violated the FDA's own guidelines under which any natural substance used prior to 1958 with no reported adverse effects should be generally recognized as safe (GRAS)."
Stevia is not arsenic or radon gas. It is a food item for God's sake that has been used by humans for thousands of years and which can be very beneficial to diabetics! And if Stevia has a chance to help those who suffer from Diabetes why are you guys opposing it? What are you advocating here?
Andy
ted rosenberg - 27 Apr 2008 06:19 GMT > >> Without weighing in on one side or the other, I would like to point [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Andy > right AND where did you find this Rick or Betty f.ck OFF SCAMMER
-=Andy=- - 27 Apr 2008 18:29 GMT On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:19:19 -0400, ted rosenberg
>right >AND where did you find this >Rick or Betty >f.ck OFF SCAMMER Is this an argument aginst the use of Stevia and in support of artificial sweeteners - and in a diabetes forum of all places?
-=Andy=-
Alan S - 27 Apr 2008 23:09 GMT >Is this an argument aginst the use of Stevia >and in support of artificial sweeteners - and in >a diabetes forum of all places? While I don't completely agree with Ted on this - I think you have finally understood his message.
The answer to your question is yes.
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Valderee, Valderah. Or, I love To Go A-wandering...
ted rosenberg - 28 Apr 2008 01:08 GMT > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:19:19 -0400, ted rosenberg > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No, it is an Aspartame troll trying to scam the newsgroup
Oleg Lego - 27 Apr 2008 07:06 GMT >>Without weighing in on one side or the other, I would like to point >>out that Belladonna, arsenic and radon gas are also natural. I do wish [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >before 1958 - THEN, according to our own FDA rules, IT IS SAFE! Your >comparison to Arsenic and Radon gas is nonsense. Welcome to my TROLL file, Andy.
 Signature Larry, T2, Saskatchewan, Canada. DX 24 Aug 07. D&E Metformin 2000mg, Ramipril, Simvastatin Dx A1c 8.1 : Latest 5.1 (4 Mar 08)
ted rosenberg - 27 Apr 2008 06:14 GMT > >> No Andy, Ted is not a shill. He is a known long time diabetic and >> poster here. There is no "spin" except from the stevia scammers >> Well we now know that "andy " hawe is a Stevia spammer fresh from Momma Betty and crew
> Fine - but given the context he is decidedly against Stevia and the > case against Stevia is questionable at best. And FWIW, there is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > thousands of years. > Look you scamming piece of wet fecal matter. there is nothinag good about natural, only a scammer uses it that way
> " In 2006, the World Health Organization (WHO) performed a thorough > evaluation of recent experimental studies of stevioside and steviols [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > generally recognized as safe (GRAS)." > Another typical sca\mmer trick Wikiipedia s NEVER acceptable as a source, and it is KNOWN to be totally fraudulent in all posted about artificial sweetners
> 2. Stevia has been used for thousands of years by humans: > "For centuries, the Guaraní tribes of Paraguay and Brazil used Stevia [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Go back to Momma Betty and telll her that we STILL don't scare Then shove your head back up your anus
Wes Groleau - 29 Apr 2008 01:22 GMT > Well we now know that "andy " hawe is a Stevia spammer fresh from Momma > Betty and crew "We" don't know any such thing.
"we" think he's wrong, but "we" have seen plenty of evidence in "our" own posts (as well as yours) that Mama Betty is not a prerequisite for being wrong.
 Signature Wes Groleau
Don't get even -- get odd!
Màck©® - 28 Apr 2008 16:53 GMT >>No Andy, Ted is not a shill. He is a known long time diabetic and >>poster here. There is no "spin" except from the stevia scammers [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >Andy you are aware that wiki articles are NOT required to be accurate or truthful and are written by anyone with a web browser.
as far as there being no stevia scammers, Mad Betty Mercle aka Betty Martini is one such loony, Rich Murray is another.
 Signature Måck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
Susan - 28 Apr 2008 17:14 GMT > you are aware that wiki articles are NOT required to be accurate or > truthful and are written by anyone with a web browser. That wiki contains links to peer reviewed studies.
Susan
Cheri - 27 Apr 2008 17:56 GMT Màck©® wrote in message
>The fact is that in the USA the supplement industry is largely if not >wholly unregulated. The FDA does not allow stevia to be sol,d as a >sweetener at this time. It can be sold as a supplement, even though >it actually does NOT supplement anything in the human diet. On the box that I'm looking at, it says..."don't sweeten your coffee, supplement it." LOL On the drops I'm looking at it says..."add to beverages or food." No where does it say that it is a sweetener. Ted, Mack, and a host of others are right about that, at least on the stuff that I have which is quite old now, since I don't like it.
Cheri
ted rosenberg - 28 Apr 2008 01:07 GMT > Màck©® wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Cheri > Yep, that is legal - scammym, but legal, it also tells you that they are under NO obligation to actually have Stevia in the box, they can (and many do) have plain sugar with anise added/
Màck©® - 28 Apr 2008 16:57 GMT >Màck©® wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Cheri why would anyone trust something sold under false pretenses?
 Signature Måck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
Susan - 28 Apr 2008 17:14 GMT > why would anyone trust something sold under false pretenses? Because it's supported by a large body of objective science as safe?
Susan
Màck©® - 30 Apr 2008 02:38 GMT >x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Susan so false advertising to sell it is okay?
 Signature Måck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
Alan S - 28 Apr 2008 22:53 GMT >why would anyone trust something sold under false pretenses? Mack - if you used that criteria then nothing advertised in the media would have a buyer:-)
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Valderee, Valderah. Or, I love To Go A-wandering...
Priscilla Ballou - 29 Apr 2008 01:23 GMT > >Màck©® wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > why would anyone trust something sold under false pretenses? It's not sold under false pretenses. If it didn't sweeeten and was sold as a sweetener, *that* would be false pretenses.
Priscilla
ted rosenberg - 27 Apr 2008 06:07 GMT > >> He never said it was illegal to use it. It is legal to sell it as a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > G]Hey stupid 1) Stevia is dangerous, which is why it is banned in the US and most of the world 2) It is ILLEGAL to sell it as a sweetener, food product, or drug 3) It is illegal to import it 4) It is generally illegal to sell anything as a food product if it contains stevia
if caught, you WILL be prosecuted
The Pure Food and Drug act has a huge hole in it for the frauds and quacks.
If you call something a "supplement" (t is not covered under the act - I can sell pure sugar, and if I label it :Stevia supplement" them I can still sell it.
In fact if I package a poison like Ephedra and call it a supplement, I can sell it, I can even sell it as "Stevia" because there are no standards on supplements. If I sell lettuce, it is a food and has to actually be pure lettice, and safe. If I sell Stevia SUPPLEMENT, it can be ANYTHING. If I sell Stevia Sweetener, I can go to jail
But people like you are to stupid to know that "natural" does not mean "safe" or "effective", and "chemical": is only used by frauds and quacks - EVERYTHING is made of chemicals
So stupid, which are you >? a fraud or a quack? or merely stupid?
Andy - 25 Apr 2008 09:23 GMT Andy said...
>>hey Twit, it is ILLEGAL to sell Stevia as a sweetener in the US (and >>most of the world). [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Andy Keep in mind he's not Andy <q>
Andy
-=Andy=- - 27 Apr 2008 05:51 GMT >Keep in mind he's not Andy <q> > >Andy I will change mine to -=Andy=-
-=Andy=-
Andy - 27 Apr 2008 09:31 GMT -=Andy=- said...
>>Keep in mind he's not Andy <q> >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -=Andy=- Mighty neighborly of ya!
Much appreciated.
Best,
Andy
Sleepyman - 27 Apr 2008 18:40 GMT >-=Andy=- said... > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Andy Well that clears up a little confusion that I had. Nice to see you are not Stevia Andy.
Sleepy ---------------------------------
Perfect order is the forerunner of perfect horror.
-Carlos Fuentes (b.1928)
-=Andy=- - 27 Apr 2008 19:11 GMT >Well that clears up a little confusion that I had. Nice to see you are >not Stevia Andy. > >Sleepy Sleepy,
I don't have any financial interest in Stevia what-so-ever. To me Stevia - given what we know today - is undermined by the artificial sweetener industry who stand to lose billions if Stevia is approved as a sweetener. Just look at the FDA violating its own rules in order to give Stevia a black eye.
Bottom line, if it can improve our diabetic condition, then we should promote it.
FWIW, I am new to this newsgroup and it is alredy very obvious to me that a lot of shills are running around defending their special interests - from artificial sweeteners to brand-name pharmaceuticals (against the generics) and everything in between.
-=Andy=-
Tiger_Lily - 27 Apr 2008 19:21 GMT >> Well that clears up a little confusion that I had. Nice to see you are >> not Stevia Andy. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > -=Andy=- bwha ha ha ha
shills running around defending brand-name pharmaceuticals??? show me ONE post doing that
shills defending artificial sweeteners??? i certainly use Splenda and Equal, with NO negative affects, and i certainly would NOT use Stevia.. i guess that makes me a 'shill' in your books......... pretty interesting that someone can come to a newsgroup, be totally new there, and be able to determine wisely who is a shill
the scams for fake watches and running shoes are shills, Andy, in case you need to figure out the difference
 Signature kate type 1 since 1987 www.diabetic-talk.org
-=Andy=- - 27 Apr 2008 20:54 GMT >shills defending artificial sweeteners??? i certainly use Splenda and >Equal, with NO negative affects, and i certainly would NOT use Stevia.. It is your choice - you can choose Splenda or Equal or whatever. But when you attack one of the options, without rhyme or reason then your motives come into question.
So far in this thread, the side against Stevia is resorting to name calling, four letter words and ridicule - a fact that takes me back to the motive of these people.
>i guess that makes me a 'shill' in your books......... pretty >interesting that someone can come to a newsgroup, be totally new there, >and be able to determine wisely who is a shill > >the scams for fake watches and running shoes are shills, Andy, in case >you need to figure out the difference No Kate - the authors of posts about fake watches and running shoes are not shills. They are spammers. A shill on the other hand is a con artist or a plant. Here is a definition of a shill from Wikipedia:
"A shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services or a political group, who pretends no association to the seller/group and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage others unaware of the set-up to purchase said goods or services or support the political group's ideological claims. Shills are often employed by confidence artists."
Again, if something like Stevia has the potential of helping diabetics, then lets give it a chance. Why attack it without a basis of fact?
-=Andy=-
Alan S - 27 Apr 2008 23:12 GMT >It is your choice - you can choose Splenda or Equal or whatever. But >when you attack one of the options, without rhyme or reason then your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >calling, four letter words and ridicule - a fact that takes me back to >the motive of these people. I've been away a while so I don't know the history here.
Your position on Stevia is now known. So is mine if you bother to read that old post of mine. So is Ted's. Time to move on; the horse is not only well and truly flogged it has become glue and furniture stuffing.
Now, have you any other aspects of diabetes management to discuss here?
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. -- http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com Latest:Valderee, Valderah. Or, I love To Go A-wandering...
ted rosenberg - 28 Apr 2008 01:14 GMT > >> shills defending artificial sweeteners??? i certainly use Splenda and [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > -=Andy=- > Gee a.shole Youy and your fellow spammers have pushed Stevia on theis NG for years\ You post false information] You have a complete set of false entried you maintain on Wikopedia You constantly lie and attack artificilal sweetne\\rs\ why? so we can buy STEVIA
so as I said befre- f.ck OFF
Tiger_Lily - 28 Apr 2008 02:43 GMT >> shills defending artificial sweeteners??? i certainly use Splenda and >> Equal, with NO negative affects, and i certainly would NOT use Stevia.. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > -=Andy=- so, are you saying that you are a shill, not a spammer?
 Signature kate type 1 since 1987 www.diabetic-talk.org
-=Andy=- - 28 Apr 2008 05:29 GMT >>> shills defending artificial sweeteners??? i certainly use Splenda and >>> Equal, with NO negative affects, and i certainly would NOT use Stevia.. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > type 1 since 1987 > www.diabetic-talk.org I am a diabetic and I came to this forum to get information about diabetes and find out what other people do and think. I didn't come here to get misinformation from shills who defend the artificial sweetener industry while pretending they are diabetics.
Now, I see that you sign your name with "type 1 since 1987." Does that mean that you are a diabetic or do you think its cute? You idiot!
If you don't like Stevia then don't use it and stop making a big freaking deal about it and pretending that you know what is best for the rest of us.
-=Andy=-
ted rosenberg - 28 Apr 2008 15:27 GMT > <snip;> > I am a diabetic and I came to this forum to get information [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -=Andy=- > look assh ole you and your Stevia pushiong friends all speak the same language now, take your scam and f.ck off we do NOT need scammers OR shills pushing poison
Evelyn Ruut - 28 Apr 2008 21:55 GMT >> <snip;> >> I am a diabetic and I came to this forum to get information [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > now, take your scam and f.ck off > we do NOT need scammers OR shills pushing poison Ted, Ted, Ted.......
I can't believe that you are still going off half cocked over this bullshit.
Stevia is an herbal product. It probably is safe enough, but NOTHING, even aspirin or tylenol is safe to be consumed in huge quantities.
Assuming that every person who comes in here to ask a simple question that triggers your personal hot button, is a shill of some kind, is a special kind of sickness, Ted. Do you remember you did the same thing to me years ago??????????
I am no shill nor was I ever, and time has proven me out. But Ted my dear, you need to catch a nice big breath and get real about this. Not every stranger is bugaboo Betty the aspertame troll...... and by the way, as I understand it, aspertame is actually proving to be a little less safe than we imagined previously, but surely nothing like the monstrous evil touted by Betty and her troll sock puppets.
Perhaps we need to keep an open mind, and regard that anything we put into our systems can have bad effects if not kept in moderation. For us diabetics, sugar, honey, maple syrup and all the nice natural sweet stuff, which is perfectly fine for most people is POISON. Maybe even worse of a poison than stevia...... which, by the way.... tastes DISGUSTING to me. I tried it once and threw the whole bottle out.
Speaking of trolls, I find the Chung troll to be infinitely more annoying than even if 10 strangers a day came in here and asked about Stevia. He is aggravatingly bad for all our health, far worse than Stevia is! Don't get me started on the fake watch peddlers.
Peace......
 Signature Best Regards,
Evelyn
Mike - 30 Apr 2008 03:54 GMT SNIP>>
> look assh ole > you and your Stevia pushiong friends all speak the same language > now, take your scam and f.ck off > we do NOT need scammers OR shills pushing poison >> >> Nor do we need cheap, foul mouthed imitators of the "speaker to minerals" from the good old days. (Yeah, I have been around here that long.) You and your aspartame pushing friends all speak the same language, now take your own scam ...
May you take only FDA approved substances--you deserve them.
Rich Murray - 30 Apr 2008 10:23 GMT British Columbia guidelines against "any drinks with artificial sweeteners" in January 2008 in school vending machines, stores, cafeterias or fundraisers -- also recently in Ontario and Quebec, Janet Steffenhagen 2007.12.28 Vancouver Sun: Murray 2008.04.10
http://rmforall.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.htm Thursday, April 10, 2008 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aspartameNM/message/1537 ____________________________________________________
"The province has distributed rules [ given ministry guidelines ] indicating which foods are no longer allowed to be sold in schools through vending machines, stores, cafeterias or fundraisers.
The rules [ guidelines ] divide foods into two categories -- those that are considered healthy and may be sold in schools and those that are considered generally unhealthy and are off-limits.
The latter category includes highly processed foods and those with large amounts of sweetener, salt, fat and calories relative to their nutritional value.
In some cases, the ban [ ministry guideline ] is clear: schools are not to sell crackers, muffins, cakes, cookies, doughnuts, pastries, croissants, sugary cereals, popcorn, chips, cheesies, cream cheese, fries, candy, chocolate, pop, coffee and any drinks with artificial sweeteners."
"...Ontario and Quebec joined B.C. in legislating bans. Alberta is leaving decisions on junk-food sales to individual schools."
www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=99a35e92-3484-46a9-a271-052ffb120281
Main Switchboard 604-605-2000 Mailing address: #1 - 200 Granville Street, Vancouver BC V6C 3N3 CANADA
Fundraising parents wonder what to sell as junk-food ban looms New rules mean those who sell snacks to raise money for schools will have to re-examine their products Janet Steffenhagen, Vancouver Sun Published: Friday, December 28, 2007
Elementary schools say they're ready for new rules [ ministry guidelines ] in January prohibiting [ advising ending ] junk-food sales to students, but parents who peddle hot dogs, pizzas and chocolate to raise money for their schools are still grappling with the change.
The province-wide push to get junk food out of schools means parents who raise money by selling goodies will have to re-examine their products to ensure they meet provincial guidelines. The campaign starts in elementary schools and moves into middle schools and high schools in September.
Some foods will have to be dropped altogether while others will have to be modified, which could make them less appealing. "It's a lot easier when you sell chocolate," Phil Moses, principal of Captain Cook elementary school in Vancouver, said in an interview. "Making a profit on whole wheat pizza could be difficult."
[ Will that be juice or water? That's what students at Bayview elementary and all other elementary schools will be offered. Photo Glenn Baglo/Vancouver Sun ]
The province has distributed rules [ given ministry guidelines ] indicating which foods are no longer allowed to be sold in schools through vending machines, stores, cafeterias or fundraisers.
The rules [ guidelines ] divide foods into two categories -- those that are considered healthy and may be sold in schools and those that are considered generally unhealthy and are off-limits.
The latter category includes highly processed foods and those with large amounts of sweetener, salt, fat and calories relative to their nutritional value.
In some cases, the ban [ ministry guideline ] is clear: schools are not to sell crackers, muffins, cakes, cookies, doughnuts, pastries, croissants, sugary cereals, popcorn, chips, cheesies, cream cheese, fries, candy, chocolate, pop, coffee and any drinks with artificial sweeteners.
But in other cases, the ban [ ministry guideline ] depends on the ingredients. For example, it includes many -- but not all -- fruit juices, tomato and vegetable juices, pasta salads, stir-fries, sandwiches with deli or processed meats, sausage or vegetable rolls, tuna salads, wieners and sausages, meat pies and pizzas.
Geoff Burns, vice-principal at a Nelson school that was one of the first to experiment with B.C.'s new rules, said one of the biggest challenges was deciphering labels to determine which foods were in the "unhealthy" category but could still be okay given that they contained unusually low amounts of salt, sugar or fat.
"It was crazy," he said in an interview, describing how staff at Trafalgar middle school pulled items from vending machines to examine labels and make a judgment.
That process is easier now that the government has expanded its Dial-A-Dietician service ( 604-732-9191 or 1-800-667-3438 ) to help schools determine which foods are still okay and which ones are not.
The discussion about ending junk-food sales in Canadian schools began almost 10 years ago, but there was little action until recently when Ontario and Quebec joined B.C. in legislating bans. Alberta is leaving decisions on junk-food sales to individual schools.
The B.C. government first promised to stop junk-food sales in October 2004 but delayed implementation until 2009, saying it wanted to give schools a chance to adjust and fulfil contractual obligations with suppliers.
Recently, however, Education Minister Shirley Bond moved the deadline forward by a year, noting that one of every four children in the province is overweight. She also announced plans to require students to engage in 30 minutes of daily physical activity starting next fall.
Many schools worried a junk-food ban would result in a loss of revenue, especially in large high schools where vending machines dispensing pop, candy and chips can bring in $30,000 a year or more.
But Burns said the change won't necessarily mean less money. In his school, vending machine revenue rose slightly after healthy products were introduced. Students spent more on drinks when the offerings changed from sodas to power drinks and later to water and fruit juice, boosting revenues to an average of $150 a month from $70.
But they bought fewer snacks, and food revenues fell to $225 a month from $290. Trafalgar is not yet fully in compliance with provincial rules because of the difficulty in finding healthy snacks, Burns said.
Asked about the students' reaction to the change, he said: "I have heard no complaints whatsoever. The kids get it. They understand that selling candy at lunch is probably not the best thing for them."
The change did not affect the school's parent advisory council because unlike most PACs in B.C., it does not engage in fundraising -- for philosophical reasons, he added.
Although Trafalgar now offers healthier choices, Burns told the annual teachers' congress last month that it still has a way to go to satisfy all provincial rules. There continues to be a debate about whether schools should be selling any foods or bottled water to students, especially given the environmental effects of the packaging, he said.
Susan Lambert, vice-president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation, won applause from about 100 teachers from around the province attending the congress when she stated emphatically that schools should not sell any such products to students.
"I don't think there is room in our schools for any vending machines -- whether they sell Coke or water," she said.
Sun Education Reporter, jsteffenhagen@png.canwest.com;
Visit Janet Steffenhagen's education blog The Report Card http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/reportcard/default.aspx
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070914/charest_junkfood_07 0914?s_name=&no_ads=
Quebec to eliminate junk food in schools Updated Fri. Sep. 14 2007 6:14 PM ET The Canadian Press
MONTREAL -- French fries, soft drinks and other types of junk food will soon be gone from Quebec schools as the province joins other jurisdictions in Canada taking aim at childhood obesity.
Premier Jean Charest announced Friday that food with little nutritional value will stop being offered in pre-, elementary and high schools starting in January 2008.
The policy is already being implemented in many school across the province, which Charest acknowledged will help the policy gain traction.
"Many schools and school boards have preceded us in this policy,'' he said while announcing the policy at a local school. "We're not starting from zero today.''
School vending machines will have their sugary sweets replaced by healthier fare, such as yogurt, fruits and juice.
Quebec's education minister said the government's policy should have an impact on students' performance.
"A child who is well fed, that has a balanced diet, increases their capacity to concentrate, increases their intellectual capacity to absorb information and certainly improves their memory,'' said Michelle Courchesne.
But Charest also pointed out that the policy has its limits, given that 80 per cent of students bring a lunch from home.
Charest said in order to attack what he called an obesity problem, schools not only have to offer healthy food and exercise but parents need information to make the right choices for their children.
The premier also moved to correct the perception that cutting junk food from the province's schools will come at a cost.
"It's not true that it costs more,'' Charest said.
However, officials with Quebec's Education Department admitted that the healthier options may cost slightly more in certain cases, parents have expressed their willingness to take the hit for the sake of their child's diet.
The Liberal government will add $11 million to an existing $5-million program to allow schools to develop programs for exercise and healthy food choices.
Schools in British Columbia and Nova Scotia are among those to have already instituted similar policies.
[ Premier Jean Charest announces that food with little nutritional value will stop being offered in schools at a press conference in Montreal, Que. Friday, Sept. 14, 2007. Photo]
http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/reportcard/archive/2008/02/04/d oes-tilma-support-junk-food-in-schools.aspx
Does TILMA support junk food in schools?
First a confession: I have reported that B.C. banned junk-food sales in schools and as products for parent fundraisers. That's inaccurate.
There is no legislated ban, only ministry guidelines for food and beverage sales in B.C. schools.
Boards of education have been told they must report their progress in implementing these guidelines when they file annual achievement contracts -- and I would be surprised if any of them flout the rules. They have told elementary school principals to comply and will extend that advice to middle and secondary schools for September.
Does it matter if the ministry has issued guidelines rather than a ban? Some critics suggest B.C. is not allowed to ban junk-food sales under TILMA, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. (See comment from BC Fed president Jim Sinclair here and the Centre for Policy Alternatives here.)
Education Minister Shirley Bond was asked at the recent Teachers' Congress if TILMA tied her hands in dealing with junk-food sales. She replied with an emphatic no. I filed a freedom-of-information request for any reports, documents or communications that mention the impact of TILMA on junk-food sales in schools and was told by the ministry that none exists.
But Vancouver school trustee Ken Denike said he was told by Christy Clark that indeed government decided to regulate rather than legislate because of TILMA. (It's Denike's view that the end result will be the same.)
UPDATE -- April 10th news release from the Stop Tilma campaign:
"A legal opinion released today finds that the B.C. government's guidelines on junk food in schools could be challenged under the terms of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA).
The opinion by lawyer Steven Shrybman of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell says that TILMA, the trade deal between BC and Alberta, could impact decisions like the junk food ban in schools to the point where the initiative could be scrapped if it restricts investment."
Published Monday, February 04, 2008 11:45 AM by JSteffenhagen Filed under: shirley bond, schools, B.C., ken denike, trade, mobility, TILMA, Christy Clark, junk food, guidelines, investment, Jim Sinclair, fundraisers, PAC
Comments
Caelie Frampton said:
Another interesting point is that the British Columbia School Trustees' Association (BCSTA) passed a resolution last year at their AGM requesting that school boards be exempt from TILMA. An exemption would protect measures passed at the school board level that "restrict or impair" investment. Any measure passed at the school board level in relation to these new guidelines could be in violation of the agreement.
In Oct. 2007, the BCSTA released their analysis of TILMA. It is disappointingly pro-TILMA, written with the help of Robert Muskgrave, one of the TILMA authors. The BCSTA does not even mention the NAFTA-style private enforcement process set up under the agreement. To see the BCSTA analysis go here www.bcsta.org:8080/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-27551/BCSTA_Paper_TILMA.pdf
Further, this paper is vastly different from the one commissioned by SD 63 trustee Joan Axford. You can read her paper here: www.civicgovernance.ca/node/198
Axford warns that TILMA could have great impacts on public policy decision making at the school board level.
For more information I can be contacted at stoptilma@gmail.com; February 5, 2008 7:12 PM
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=544828&in_p age_id=1770
Junk food vending machines to be banned from NHS hospitals Last updated at 22:04pm on 25th March 2008
Comments Comments (13) Junk food has been banned from vending machines in 130 NHS hospitals.
Chocolate, crisps and fizzy drinks will be replaced by muesli bars, nuts and fruit juices.
Vending machine
Vending machines in hospitals won't be stocking crisps and chocolate in the future
Hospital shops, including those run by the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, will also be encouraged to provide healthier food.
The transformation will take place over the next six months in hospitals in Wales, with sugary, fatty and salty snacks in vending machines replaced with a range of Government-approved healthy alternatives.
If the trial proves successful it could be extended to cover hospitals in England within two years.
Wales has an alarmingly high rate of diet-related illness. Sixty per cent of adults are overweight or obese.
But the drive is also being aimed at children after it was revealed 20 per cent of six to 13 year-olds in Wales are overweight or obese, the highest rate in the UK.
Muesli and juice
A couple of the healthier options that could replace junk food in hospital vending machines
Welsh health minister Edwina Hart said: "The public sector should be setting a good example, particularly our hospitals.
"We need to create an environment where it is easier for people to make healthy choices.
"Diet has an important role to play in the prevention of obesity and chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers.
"This is the first stage of our plans to improve hospital food."
The Welsh Assembly will meet with vending machine providers to find ways of introducing the healthier snacks.
It will also publish clear definitions of what will be allowed in the machines.
But Vanessa Bourne, of the Patients Association warned the healthy foods should not be too expensive.
She said: "We need to be aware that the healthy option shouldn't become the expensive option because if it is, it won't work.
"A choice is the obvious way to go and to educate people in the most meaningful sense."
The ban was not well-received by some patients in Welsh hospitals yesterday.
Bill Lyons, 75, who is in the Princess of Wales Hospital in Bridgend, said: "I think they should keep chocolate. "It's a real bind being in hospital and it is something to look forward to."
http://abc26.trb.com/news/health/wgno-sns-ap-latvia-junk-food-ban,0,2965630.story
Latvia Bans Junk Food Sales in Schools By Associated Press,
November 1, 2006, 10:31 PM CST
RIGA, Latvia --
A comprehensive ban on the sale of junk food in Latvia's state schools went into force Wednesday as part of the country's drive to improve children's diets.
European health experts have said Latvia is the first EU country to introduce a sweeping ban on junk food sales in public schools.
School shops and cafeterias in the country of 2.3 million will no longer be able to sell soft drinks, candy bars, potato chips and chewing gum.
Items containing artificial flavorings and colorings will also be banned from sale in primary and secondary schools.
Officials said school children would still be able to bring junk food into schools, but the Health Ministry is hoping teachers will encourage pupils not to do this.
As part of the program, the ministry will also promote healthy foods such as milk, juice and fruits.
The government adopted the ban in August based on reports from doctors that an increasing number of Latvian children were overweight and seeking medical help due to digestive problems.
Many school kids were skipping the cafeteria and using their lunch money to buy carbonated soft drinks and potato chips.
Latvia joined the EU in 2004.
Many other EU member states offer a set of recommendations but have stopped short of prohibiting sales of junk food.
Copyright © 2008, The Associated Press
Màck©® - 30 Apr 2008 15:03 GMT murray is a nutter and spammer.
 Signature Måck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
Màck©® - 30 Apr 2008 15:02 GMT >SNIP>> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >May you take only FDA approved substances--you deserve them. no one is pushing aspartame. please stick to honesty if at all possible.
 Signature Måck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
Mike Donnelly - 30 Apr 2008 23:07 GMT >>SNIP>> >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > no one is pushing aspartame. please stick to honesty if at all > possible. Et tu Brute!
Tiger_Lily - 28 Apr 2008 15:55 GMT >>>> shills defending artificial sweeteners??? i certainly use Splenda and >>>> Equal, with NO negative affects, and i certainly would NOT use Stevia.. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > the artificial sweetener industry while pretending they are > diabetics. oh, this is a matter of YOU are MORE diabetic than i am......... i see
> Now, I see that you sign your name with "type 1 since 1987." Does > that mean that you are a diabetic or do you think its cute? You > idiot! idiot? oh really, this just goes to show that YOU haven't read this newsgroup for very long....... as a courtesy we state what type of diabetes we have, and how long........ why do you think it's cute? why do you call me an idiot?
> If you don't like Stevia then don't use it and stop making a big > freaking deal about it and pretending that you know what is best for > just me. > -=Andy=- and conversely, if you don't like artificial sweeteners then don't use them and stop making a big freaking deal about it and pretending that you know what is best for the rest of us.
 Signature kate type 1 since 1987 www.diabetic-talk.org
-=Andy=- - 29 Apr 2008 02:09 GMT > as a courtesy we state what type of >diabetes we have, and how long........ why do you think it's cute? why >do you call me an idiot? As a courtesy to whom? To other diabetics? The ones you are are trying to betray?
Your signature says:
> kate > type 1 since 1987 > www.diabetic-talk.org And it is a lie! It is a lie because you do not care about diabetes and you don't give a damn about those who suffer from diabetes. And frankly, you don't even try. Your only obsession is to protect a shill whose full time occupation is to go from forum to forum and badmouth Stevia - how much more trivial can you get?
So, "type 1 since 1987?" Meaning what? That I should feel sorry for you and follow your lead in condemning Stevia? Are you for freaging real? Is that why you wrote that phrase under your name as if it is a badge of honor?
And that URL you have underneath is for what? To impress people that "you are involved" in this thing called diabetes and that we should follow your lead and take your advice? That kate is the very definition of a shill - to pretend that you are one of us.
You know, in the grand scheme of things, compared to the problems we face in dealing with diabetes, Stevia is a very minor issue - so minor in fact, that it shows the true colors of shills in a diabetes group. The people who are the most bent out of shape at the mention of something trivial as Stevia are the shills. And evidently, you are one of them. Spammers, one can filter out but shills, are like snakes.
-=Andy=-
Tiger_Lily - 29 Apr 2008 03:48 GMT >> as a courtesy we state what type of >> diabetes we have, and how long........ why do you think it's cute? why [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > -=Andy=- wow, you sure have a paranoia issue Andy
i don't have to prove to you that i've been diabetic for over 20 years, and YOU are the first person to have ever called me a shill in all the years i have been on usenet
the length of time i have been diabetic simply is the length of time i have been diabetic........... no need for sympathy there
can i suggest counselling for you, you really seem to have a few problems
take care kate (stevia free!)
 Signature kate type 1 since 1987 www.diabetic-talk.org
Cheri - 29 Apr 2008 04:26 GMT -=Andy=- wrote in message ...
>one of them. Spammers, one can filter out but shills, are like >snakes. Actually, one can filter out anybody they choose to, even annoying people.
Cheri
Oleg Lego - 29 Apr 2008 05:28 GMT >-=Andy=- wrote in message ... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Actually, one can filter out anybody they choose to, even annoying >people. Indeed. I have an extensive list of trolls and twits, of which -=Andy=- and ted are but two. It is SO nice to be able to eliminate everything but the quotes of those answering them.
 Signature Larry, T2, Saskatchewan, Canada. DX 24 Aug 07. D&E Metformin 2000mg, Ramipril, Simvastatin Dx A1c 8.1 : Latest 5.1 (4 Mar 08)
Robert Miles - 30 Apr 2008 05:41 GMT > -=Andy=- wrote in message ... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Cheri Depends on what newsreader you are using. I'm using Windows Mail under Vista, which allows me to filter out most of what they post, but not any replies they post in a thread I started, and not simply any messages crossposted to a specific newsgroup such as the cardiology newsgroup. That's better than what many people using Google Groups encounter, but still not as good as I would prefer.
Màck©® - 30 Apr 2008 02:45 GMT >> as a courtesy we state what type of >>diabetes we have, and how long........ why do you think it's cute? why [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >-=Andy=- after that rant, you shot any chance of credibility all to hell.
 Signature Måck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
Nick Cramer - 29 Apr 2008 05:31 GMT > >>> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:21:14 -0600, Tiger_Lily <me@privacy.net> [ . . . ]
> and conversely, if you don't like artificial sweeteners then don't use > them and stop making a big freaking deal about it and pretending that > you know what is best for the rest of us. A reminder of why I've kf'd Andy everywhere I've come across him!
 Signature Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families! I've known US vets who served as far back as the Spanish American War. They are all my heroes! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not forgotten. Thanks ! ! ~Semper Fi~
Wes Groleau - 29 Apr 2008 01:29 GMT > I am a diabetic and I came to this forum to get information > about diabetes and find out what other people do and think. It looks like you came here with your head full of Stevia. You found out what other people do and think and you did NOT like it.
 Signature Wes Groleau
Change is inevitable. Liberals need to learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "good." Conservatives should learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "bad." -- WWG
Priscilla Ballou - 29 Apr 2008 01:29 GMT > I am a diabetic and I came to this forum to get information > about diabetes and find out what other people do and think. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > freaking deal about it and pretending that you know what is best for > the rest of us. Andy, if you're for real you're getting off on way the wrong foot. Now, that wouldn't be entirely your fault because being attacked by Ted the Delusional on one's first outing could throw one off one's stride, but I recommend you killfile Ted (and maybe Mack) for at least a while and then try again.
Priscilla, T2 who gets lousy aftertastes from all artificial sweeteners except for sugar alcohols
Màck©® - 28 Apr 2008 17:02 GMT >>shills defending artificial sweeteners??? i certainly use Splenda and >>Equal, with NO negative affects, and i certainly would NOT use Stevia.. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the motive of these people. >-=Andy=- but it is okay when resort to that behavior.
that's called hypocrisy.
 Signature Måck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
Susan - 27 Apr 2008 19:33 GMT > FWIW, I am new to this newsgroup and it is alredy very obvious to me > that a lot of shills are running around defending their special > interests - from artificial sweeteners to brand-name pharmaceuticals > (against the generics) and everything in between. They're not shills. Ted is just the Lunatic Fringe and Mack has some sort of obsession with demonization of stevia, though often on point on other issues. Ted's a full time crackpot.
Susan
Màck©® - 28 Apr 2008 17:00 GMT >x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Susan please do not lie Susan. I never even implied that stevia was a demon or demon like or in anyway demonized.
If the only way to sell something is to produce false and misleading advertising, why would anyone trust it?
 Signature Måck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
Susan - 28 Apr 2008 17:15 GMT > please do not lie Susan. I never even implied that stevia was a demon > or demon like or in anyway demonized. I never lie.
Susan
ted rosenberg - 28 Apr 2008 22:26 GMT > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Susan Well Miss misinformation keeps up her drumbeat hey Susan how come you claim that there are real reputable peer reviled research when you can't see\jn to find any? and how come you keep using Betty's Wiki crap as a source?
are you Rick's sock puppet? or another of Betty's phony names?
c
Evelyn Ruut - 28 Apr 2008 23:16 GMT >> x-no-archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > c Ted,
That is total nonsense.
Susan is anything BUT! She has been posting here for years and I personally think she is extremely careful about what she demonizes or recommends, and takes GREAT pains to document what she says. Just because she hit your personal hot topic, doesn't mean you have to turn her into some monster! Please get real!
 Signature Best Regards,
Evelyn
Wes Groleau - 29 Apr 2008 01:34 GMT > hey Susan > how come you claim that there are real reputable peer reviled research > when you can't see\jn to find any hey Ted how come you claim Susan can't find any "peer reviled" research? Aren't you her peer? You've certainly reviled her research.
As for peer-reviewed, do us all a favor. Find just ONE of Susan's many citations and prove it was not peer-reviewed.
Post knowledge, not vitriol.
 Signature Wes Groleau
Pat's Polemics = http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/barrett
Susan - 29 Apr 2008 02:06 GMT > Post knowledge, not vitriol. He can't. He has to go with what he's got, and it ain't knowledge.
Susan
Màck©® - 30 Apr 2008 02:43 GMT >x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Susan and this is different from vitriol? how?
 Signature Måck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper Type 1 since 1975 http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org http://www.diabetic-talk.org http://www.insulin-pumpers.org http://diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/type1and2/ http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco" http://www.ratbags.com/dechunging/
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." ...Theodore Roosevelt
(o ô) --ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." ....Bilbo Baggins
DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... .
ted rosenberg - 29 Apr 2008 13:49 GMT >> hey Susan >> how come you claim that there are real reputable peer reviled [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Post knowledge, not vitriol. I h haven't gotten ANY citations, except to Betty's WikkiWakki
Wes Groleau - 30 Apr 2008 03:28 GMT > I h haven't gotten ANY citations, except to Betty's WikkiWakki !?!?!? Then you _have_ _not_ _read_ the posts you are condemning.
|
|