Diet soda now promoted as medicine to stop kidney stones (opinion)

(NaturalNews) The "most retarded science journal of the year" award goes to the Journal of Urology which has published an article suggesting that diet soda is actually an effective type of medicine for preventing kidney stones (April 19, 2010 issue). The research was led by Dr Brian H. Eisner, a urologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who is apparently completely clueless about human nutrition and the toxicity of aspartame.

According to Dr Eisner, diet sodas are not only good medicine for preventing kidney stones; they're also a good source of water hydration. Noting that patients need to consume 2-3 liters of water each day, Dr Eisner said in a Reuters article, "If drinking these sodas helps people reach that goal, then that may be a good thing." (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...)

If you're thinking this is some sort of April Fools joke, it isn't. Dr Eisner and the Journal of Urology are somehow convinced this is good research and that diet sodas may actually have a positive medicinal effect on the human body. Instances of such "scientific" stupidity appear to be increasing in western medicine where doctors remain wildly ignorant of the effects on the human body caused by processed ingredients or toxic chemical additives.

Aspartame, used as the primary sweetener in diet sodas, is a potent neurotoxin according to experts like Dr Russell Blaylock. Many believe it promotes headaches, vision problems, endocrine system problems and nervous system disorders. It has never been proven safe for human consumption by any honest testing.

Most diet sodas also contain alarmingly high levels of phosphoric acid, a substance that causes a huge increase in acidity throughout the body, suppressing immune function, weakening bones and contributing to kidney stones (not preventing them).

The truth about diet soda

There is absolutely no question that drinking diet soda is atrocious for your health. That a mainstream western doctor would somehow conclude diet soda to be a medicine for preventing kidney stones is equivalent to declaring "pizza prevents heart disease" or that smoking cigarettes prevents cancer. It shows not merely the shocking nutritional ignorance of Dr Eisner himself, but the utter lack of nutritional knowledge among his peers at the Journal of Urology who somehow saw fit to publish his study.

This is called science? Keep in mind that the entire claim is based on the idea that certain diet sodas contain citrate and that frequent consumption of citrate from natural sources (lemonade, lime juice, etc.) is well known to prevent kidney stones. Consuming natural lemonade actually does prevent kidney stones, but you can't extrapolate from that and claim a lemon-flavored diet soda will accomplish the same thing. That's like saying that since fruit helps prevent cancer, then drinking fruit punch must prevent cancer, too.

This research, by the way, never even tested diet sodas on human subjects. It's really just a "thought experiment" from someone who isn't even very good at thinking. The entire paper is the scientific equivalent of saying, "Hey, I betcha that thar diet soda might prevent them kidney stones 'cuz there's citrate in it!"

And the Journal of Urology was just silly enough to actually publish it as science. It makes you wonder: What are the requirements for having a scientific paper rejected by the Journal of Urology?

No coverage of medicinal herbs

I bet a paper touting the very real benefits of the Amazon rainforest herb Chanca Piedra would be rejected by the journal. Chanca Piedra is known as the "stonebreaker" herb throughout South America. It really works to dissolve and eliminate kidney stones, but you'd never see that in a science journal in North America. No, they're too busy touting the "medicinal benefits" of diet soda, if you can believe that.

At this point in the article, I would normally point out how little credibility remains in the world of western medicine and its loony research conclusions. This is an industry that calls homeopathy "witchcraft", that thinks medicinal herbs are dangerous, and that now apparently believes diet sodas are a form of medicine. Any discussion of "credibility" about such an industry is frankly just pointless.

If aspartame and phosphoric acid was somehow good for you, America would be the healthiest nation in the world! And if diet sodas actually worked, then all the people drinking them wouldn't be so obese, would they?

And if diet soda prevents kidney stones, they why are most of the people suffering from kidney stones the very same people who drink a lot of soda? If anything, diet soda causes kidney stones. But I suppose the Journal of Urology can print exactly the opposite and call it "science" if they want, right?

That's exactly why modern "science" has lost so much credibility these days. Because practically any corporate-sponsored idea, no matter how ridiculous, can end up being printed in a "scientific journal" even if its conclusions violate the laws of the known biological universe.

If diet soda prevents kidney stones, then mammogram radiation prevents cancer, too.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...

Aspartame alert: Diet soda destroys kidney function

(NaturalNews) Scientists from Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston have revealed results from a study outlining some of the effects of artificial sweeteners on the body. Conducted on a group of 3,000 women, the results indicated that those who drank two or more artificially-sweetened beverages a day doubled their risk of more-rapid-than-normal kidney function decline.

The study accounted for various other risk factors including the woman's age, her blood pressure, if she smoked, and if she had any other pre-existing conditions such as heart disease or diabetes. The 11-year study evaluated the effects of all sweetened drinks on progressive kidney decline and discovered that two or more diet drinks leads to a two-fold increase in rapid kidney decline incidences.

Though study results did not show any correlation between sugar- or corn syrup-sweetened drinks and the onset of rapid kidney decline, these ingredients are implicated in causing diabetes and obesity and should not be perceived as safe merely because they did not have a direct correlation in this particular study topic.

High sodium intake was also implicated in the study as promoting progressive kidney decline. Since diet soda contains excessive amounts of sodium, higher than sugar soda, it is no surprise that diet sodas were the primary offenders in the study. However it is unclear from this particular study which ingredient plays the larger role in progressive kidney decline, the artificial sweeteners or the sodium content.

Studies on aspartame

When aspartame was first approved in the 1970s under the name "NutraSweet", studies were submitted as supposed proof that the artificial chemical was safe. The FDA initially approved the chemical in 1974 for use in a limited number of foods based upon the studies submitted by G.D. Searle Co., the company that invented aspartame.

Following a discovery made shortly thereafter by a research psychiatrist who found that aspartic acid, a primary ingredient in aspartame, caused holes to form in the brains of mice, the FDA decided to form its own internal task force to investigate the initial claims made by the Searle Co.

What the agency discovered was a series of falsified claims, compromised study results, and missing information. The claims made in favor of aspartame were so dubious and the evidence so faulty that the FDA decreed that a grand jury should investigate Searle Co.'s claims. Unfortunately, the case failed to move forward when U.S. Attorney Thomas Sullivan and Assistant U.S. Attorney William Conlon failed to initiate any legal action. Conlon was later hired by the law firm that represented Searle Co.

Investigation revealed that aspartame had caused tumors, seizures, brain holes, and death in many of the studies. All negative findings had been altered or scrubbed from the final reports delivered to the FDA when aspartame was first reviewed.

Time and time again the question over whether aspartame is safe has led to investigations that never go anywhere. Studies are continually released in support of the chemical's safety even though they fail to address the results of other studies that show it to be harmful.

Other artificial sweeteners

A study published in the January, 2008 issue of the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health revealed that the newer artificial sweetener, sucralose, alters gut microflora and inhibits the assimilation of dietary nutrients.

Commonly marketed as being "made from sugar", sucralose had undergone no long-term human studies to verify its safety in humans. Like aspartame, initial studies revealed negative reactions by lab animals on whom it was tested, indicating that there could be the same potential problems in humans.

The EU Food Commission, Canadian health officials, and the U.S. FDA all rejected the initial studies submitted by McNeil Nutritionals, the marketers of sucralose, because of the negative results. However they encouraged the company to continue researching until they "got it right". McNeil simply lowered the levels of sucralose used in their studies until an acceptable limit was found. After several tries, sucralose was finally approved.

Stevia, a safe alternative

A great many varieties of artificial sweeteners have been approved, many scandalously, despite the fact that safe, natural alternatives exist. Stevia, for instance, is a sweet herb from South America that is up to 300 times sweeter than sugar. Claiming inadequate safety research, the FDA has long refused the herb from being included on the "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) list.

Up until last year, all forms of stevia could only be sold as dietary supplements. The extract could not be labeled as a "sweetener" and it could not be included in any food items.

Once the parent companies of both Pepsi and Coca-Cola discovered how to manipulate and patent a segment of stevia, however, it suddenly became safe to use as a sweetener and is now sold on grocery store shelves in packets similar to the artificial sweeteners. The FDA reluctantly added the natural stevia extract to the GRAS list as well.

Stick with natural and unprocessed
When it comes to health, a person's best bet is to avoid artificial sweeteners altogether. There are plenty of preferable, safe alternatives such as stevia which will allow for a little extra sweetness without all the harmful side effects.

Sources for this story include

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009...

http://www.holisticmed.com/aspartame/

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/co...