Topic: Honest representation of splenda and 'toxicity'

First, let me make myself clear that I'm not a fan of splenda or artificial sweeteners in general. I get joint pains and cramps from a lot of things and they appear to be on the list.

My post concerns the representation of case histories on Dr. Hull's website. The title text for the pages says "Splenda (Sucralose) Toxicity."

This makes me wonder: do any of you, and especially Dr. Hull, actually think these case histories are adequate evidence that people are experiencing sucralose toxicity? By using the word "toxicity" in the "user-friendly" way in which the website is written, the designer or webmaster implies that chemical toxicity is happening.

Many substances have a chemical toxicity above a certain threshold, and sucralose surely has one. Even sugars like glucose do, but most people without metabolic problems probably will never see an organotoxic dose.

You can argue that there is toxicity on a cellular level, and I have no concept of what sucralose does on a cellular level - but the usage of the word on your site implies you can get up to a lethal dose. Which I'm sure you can, as you can with - again - glucose.

I don't think any of us have any evidence that "toxicity" proper is happening in any way that is applicable to the public at large, and it doesn't help the "cause" of demonstrating that people having very bad reactions to artificial sweeteners.

Representing it that way, even by subtle implication in the page title text, weakens your argument, Dr. Hull, and I'd like to ask you to stop doing it just that way - and to solicit opinions to see if my other ex-splenda-ers here agree with me.

Sincerely,
Paul
[on this forum, now 'toxic']

Last edited by Toxic (05-02-2010 2:37 am)

Re: Honest representation of splenda and 'toxicity'

Whoa dude. Your post doesn't even make sense. Why don't you read her books and all the articles she has written before you make such statements, as unclear as they are.

People like Dr. Hull are helping us; wuz up with you?

Re: Honest representation of splenda and 'toxicity'

I'm arguing that her argument is weakened by calling splenda toxic, when it's not, not by any definition of the word. I give several definitions above. What part did you have trouble with?

Re: Honest representation of splenda and 'toxicity'

To clarify, 'Splenda Toxicity' appears repeatedly in the title-text of most of the static parts of her website, including the homepage of splendaexposed.com. The title-text is what you see at the top of your browser window and the links you click in Google or your search engine of choice. This is mostly what I was referring to, although I wouldn't be surprised if it were used elsewhere.

EDIT: To be fair, I suppose I didn't get to the point fast enough in the original post. I'll clarify further: there is no definition of 'toxicity' that matches Dr. Hull's usage and it makes the site look very disingenuous. This is a shame, because it's the best resource online for people who have a sensitivity to artificial sweeteners.

Last edited by Toxic (05-02-2010 2:58 am)

Re: Honest representation of splenda and 'toxicity'

I believe sucralose in Splenda to be toxic and unsafe for human consumption. If you read my book, Splenda: Is It Safe Or Not? you will read why. Do you also feel aspartame is not toxic?

Read my book and then get back to me.

Re: Honest representation of splenda and 'toxicity'

I agree. Why are people so up on bashing people who try to help, instead of supporting the positive zen of helping others?