Correction. The study included 381 non-diabetic participants (healthy people). [http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-obesity-epidemic-scientists-say-1.2769196] In that study "Artificial sweetener consumers showed "markers" for diabetes, such as raised blood sugar levels and glucose intolerance."
AFTER THAT, seven of those who did NOT consume the Artificial sweeteners "...blood glucose levels rose and the makeup of their gut bacteria changed in half of the participants, just as in the mice experiment." That happened in 4 days... just 4.
Artificial sweetener producers have deep hands in government policy. So the hordes of mice that contracted cancer throughout their organs were easily dismissed as coincidental lung infection: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
Then this news came along: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
But this news is troublesome to the profits of Artificial Sweetener producers. A followup article is needed: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
I find this oddly misguided when the adoption of DRLs is mirky at best, and the use of amber turn signals still remains optional. The DOT should act on the items previously recognized as serious safety issues — rather than targeting diminishing returns from less serious issues.
Is podcasting now a ubiquitous form of internet communication — much like emoji is to messaging? To that, who invented email or the QR code? From where I'm sitting, the podcasting medium has been well established as a form of speech — much like a webpage. If episodic content over the internet is the property of a single individual, then where will all the news agencies, bloggers and the like stand? Is free speech subject to someones interpretation of digital communication? I think the comment of intent is a curious topic. No, I feel distinction of technology verses use of technology is needed. If I own a car, do I pay royalties to the inventor every time I use it — or do I pay royalties to the inventor for every car I manufacture and sell? This seems to me more software related. Is Adam Carolla developing podcasting software with the intent to sell as a podcasting software package? — or is he a user of an established technology not unlike Adobe Dreamweaver? Sounds like a lot of overlap in communications technology to me. I'm now more curious than ever on how a patent was allowed as leverage for legal action to established users so long after the world adopted its use. Someone tell me how close to racketeering is this example?
Slashdot Mirror
Correction. The study included 381 non-diabetic participants (healthy people). [http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/artificial-sweeteners-linked-to-obesity-epidemic-scientists-say-1.2769196] In that study "Artificial sweetener consumers showed "markers" for diabetes, such as raised blood sugar levels and glucose intolerance." AFTER THAT, seven of those who did NOT consume the Artificial sweeteners "...blood glucose levels rose and the makeup of their gut bacteria changed in half of the participants, just as in the mice experiment." That happened in 4 days... just 4. Artificial sweetener producers have deep hands in government policy. So the hordes of mice that contracted cancer throughout their organs were easily dismissed as coincidental lung infection: http://www.newscientist.com/ar... Then this news came along: http://www.newscientist.com/ar... But this news is troublesome to the profits of Artificial Sweetener producers. A followup article is needed: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
I find this oddly misguided when the adoption of DRLs is mirky at best, and the use of amber turn signals still remains optional. The DOT should act on the items previously recognized as serious safety issues — rather than targeting diminishing returns from less serious issues.
Is podcasting now a ubiquitous form of internet communication — much like emoji is to messaging? To that, who invented email or the QR code? From where I'm sitting, the podcasting medium has been well established as a form of speech — much like a webpage. If episodic content over the internet is the property of a single individual, then where will all the news agencies, bloggers and the like stand? Is free speech subject to someones interpretation of digital communication? I think the comment of intent is a curious topic. No, I feel distinction of technology verses use of technology is needed. If I own a car, do I pay royalties to the inventor every time I use it — or do I pay royalties to the inventor for every car I manufacture and sell? This seems to me more software related. Is Adam Carolla developing podcasting software with the intent to sell as a podcasting software package? — or is he a user of an established technology not unlike Adobe Dreamweaver? Sounds like a lot of overlap in communications technology to me. I'm now more curious than ever on how a patent was allowed as leverage for legal action to established users so long after the world adopted its use. Someone tell me how close to racketeering is this example?
Is this the start of something more serious?