First chlorine displaces iodine, this means that glass you took was ineffective or even pushed more Iodine from your system.
The purple color is usually a binding with starch, however since Splenda isn't supposed to have any of that it shows you haw bad the M* (whatever its called) form of Sugar they added for palatability is.
The gastrointestinal pain I used to get from Splenda came from the M part and its affinity to feed candida. I could find Splenda packets that where pure (grin), without M, and that was OK for a while until I noted that I could NOT keep good intestinal bacteria while using Splenda (Chlorine Kills them).
Splenda is not Splendid
January 25, 2007 Comments (0)
Source : WNHO.net
In a simple word you would just as soon have DDT in your food as Splenda, because sucralose is a chlorocarbon. The chlorocarbons have long been famous for causing organ, genetic, and reproductive damage. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the testing of sucralose, even at less than the level demanded by FDA rules, reveals that it has been shown to cause up to 40% shrinkage of the thymus: A gland that is the very foundation of our immune system.
It also causes swelling of the liver and kidneys, and CALCIFICATION of the kidney. Lying and deceit on the artificial sweetener issue has been the FDA’s Modus Operandi ever since Donald Rummsfeld broke everything decent in the US government to put Aspartame on the market as a “contract on humanity”.
The Lethal Science of Splenda, a Poisonous Chlorocarbon
January 25, 2007 Comments (2)
Source : WNHO.net
James Bowen, M.D., A physician, biochemist, and survivor of aspartame poisoning warns about yet another synthetic sweetener, Splenda.
In test animals Splenda produced swollen livers, as do all chlorocarbon poisons, and also calcified the kidneys of test animals in toxicity studies. The brain and nervous system are highly subject to metabolic toxicities and solvency damages by these chemicals. Their high solvency attacks the human nervous system and many other body systems including genetics and the immune function. Thus, chlorocarbon poisoning can cause cancer, birth defects, and immune system destruction. These are well known effects of Dioxin and PCBs which are known deadly chlorocarbons.”
Splenda sucks up domain names
March 16, 2007 Comments (2)
Source: Here, Here, and Here
Tate & Lyle and Johnson & Johnson have been going on a domain sucking spree to get a variety of domain names that imply a negative association with Splenda, the chemical sucralose artificial sweetener.
The Domain Tools Blog writes, “Splenda wants to shortcut any free speech or backlash to their product by registering all the negative domains.” and explains how and why companies have been pro-active in buying domain names with negative association before any critics do. The list of domain names does indicate that Tate & Lyle and Johnson & Johnson have certain expectations of what that criticism is about given the names of the domains such as splendakills.com, victimsofsplenda.com, splendatoxicity.com, and many others.
And Darren concludes that “Image may be everything, but how does this look? ‘We know our product might be poison, so let’s prevent people from talking about it.’ It’s not an uncommon move by companies, but it’s just a waste of perfectly good corporate dollars.”
The SustainableIsGood Blog wrote “Judging by the domain names Johnson & Johnson and Tate & Lyle own it’s very clear they are concerned about people targeting targeting Splenda itself, or its main ingredient sucralose. The mere fact a major corporation and maker of a product has bought and owns domain names with their product name and the words “poison,” “kills,” and “sucks,” and “victims” is amazing. Under what possible scenario does Johnson & Johnson envision that someone would create the website “victimsofsplenda.com” This domain name and many others seem to go way beyond a company protecting its trademarks or copyright – these domain names imply a very sobering negative fear on the parts of Johnson & Johnson and Tate & Lyle.”
And then concludes with “It’s hard not to wonder – buying a handful of top level domain names to protect a company name or trademark seems reasonable but buying over 200 possibly as high as 300 negative domain names related to a product seems over the top. Is there something these companies know about Splenda that make them feel the need to buy all these domain names before someone else can? Who would ever imagine a website http://www.victimsofsplenda.com
- honestly? Well apparently someone at Johnson & Johnson did because they now own the domain along with a host of others.”
Some of the domains listed include the .net, .org, .biz, .info, and .com variants of;
What none of the blog mention is that there is now a possibility that Johnson & Johnson and Tate & Lyle have not only registered these domain names to prevent others from getting those domains in order to provide information to consumers that may differ from the official and Sugar coated (pun intended) marketing, but that they could be filling up all those domains with more marketing information in order to spam the search engines so that any less than glorious marketing and sales information regarding Splenda and Sucralose become harder to find or requires people to search on further pages.