SODA CONSUMPTION IS DECREASING BECAUSE THE POPULACE HAS RECOGNIZED THAT SOFT DRINKS HAVE BEEN WEAPONIZED AGAINST THEM
Diet Soda builds desire and decreases satisfaction. Flies given Splenda in an experiment ate 30% more calories than the control. Daily diet soda drinkers have waistlines 287% larger than those who do not drink diet soda.
Beyond the spectacular confidence game of a drink that’s supposed to help you get thin in fact making you far fatter, the shit is straight-up deadly. Drinking one artificially sweetened beverage a day increases your risk of stroke and dementia by three-fold compared to drinking less than one a week
Aspartame breaks down in part into phenylalanine, which interferes with the action of the metabolic syndrome-preventing enzyme intestinal alkaline phosphatase (IAP). Metabolic syndrome is a group of symptoms associated with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. IAP’s protective effects in regard to the metabolic syndrome is inhibited by phenylalanine, a metabolite of aspartame.
Consumption of diet soda at least daily is associated with a 67 percent increased risk of type 2 diabetes compared with not consuming any.
Consumption of diet soda at least daily is associated with a 36 percent increased risk of metabolic syndrome compared with not consuming any.
Those who drink four or more cans of diet soda per day are 30 percent more likely to develop depression than non-soda drinkers.
Among people who consumed diet soda, the ends of their chromosomes, known as telomeres, were shorter among people who drank more sugar-sweetened beverages. The shorter the telomere, the less a cell can regenerate thus aging the body, and raising the risk of disease and early death.
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “alarmed”.
“This finding is ‘alarming’ because it ‘suggests’ that soda ‘may’ be aging us, in ways we are not even aware of,” said Dr. Epel.
Three of the leading artificial sweeteners produce an increase in blood-sugar levels in both mice and humans, by disrupting the balance of helpful gut bacteria. High blood-sugar levels, in turn, are the telltale sign of glucose intolerance, a condition which can evolve into diabetes and metabolic disease.
So-called “natural” sugar substitutes, such as stevia and monk fruit impair glucose tolerance just as much as Aspartame.
If you go out seven years, 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, the cohorts of individuals who are consuming diet sodas have much worse health outcomes,”Diet soda drinkers are 31% more likely to have a clot-based stroke, have a tripled risk of deadly stroke, are 29% more likely to have heart disease, and are 16% to 26% more likely to die from any cause. Women Drinking Two Diet Sodas Per Day Are 50 Percent More Likely to Die from Heart-Related Disease.
Americans trying to avoid soda increased from 41% in 2002 to 63% in 2014.
Soda consumption in the U.S. has dropped for 13 straight years.
In April 2012, the Hollywood Reporter said “Diet Coke by Jean Paul Gaultier”.
Hollywood takes its name from the human sacrifice groves of the Druids, specifically Oaks, hence “Holy Wood”.
The article says that “The ‘provocative’ bottle is perfect for after dark – the lace and fishnet design highlights the female-like silhouette of the iconic bottle shape and adds ‘a never-before-seen edginess’ to the Diet Coke limited edition collection.
It’s edgy to drink something that you know is deadly.
In October 2012, Mouthpiece of the State NPR said “ ‘Study’ Results Linking Diet Soda To Cancer ‘Fall Into The 'Gray Zone’ “.
They led the headline with “study results” to give your subconscious the green light to say “oh, but that’s just one study!”
“Fall into the gray zone” is general, pseudoscientific Middle-Ages talk from the Trusted Authority Figure, which allows the wholly-credulous-rube reader to turn the page without any guilt.
Coca Cola shares dropped 3%, and soda sales dropped 4% in the second quarter of 2013. cbsnews.com said “profit ‘dipped’ in the latest quarter, and attributed it “bad weather and challenging economic conditions”. Where “bad” and “challenging” are both general.
Overall soda volumes fell an estimated 3% in 2013, the ninth straight yearly contraction and more than double the 1.2% decline in 2012.
Diet soda sales dropped 6% in 2013.
In January 2013, the unbelieving Smithsonian gasped “ ‘Could’ Diet Soda Cause Clinical Depression’?’
The article says “In a ‘preliminary release’ of a ‘study’ to be published by Honglei Chen and colleagues from the National Institutes of Health, a survey of 263,925 adults nationwide indicated that consumption of sweetened drinks—especially diet sodas—was associated with an ‘increased’ chance of a depression diagnosis.
They kicked off the article with “release of ‘a study’ ” to give your subconscious the green light to say “oh, but that’s just one study!” As a bonus, they hedged again with “ ‘preliminary’ release of a study”.
The author said there was an ‘increased’ chance of a depression, where “increased” is used as a hedge against a far more impactful statistic. Propagandists know that sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, so this tactic “compartmentalizes” the data with an effectiveness shown by the spectacular, conditioned ignorance of the majority of the populace.
The article continues: “They found that those who drank four or more cans of sweetened drinks (whether soda, diet soda or fruit punch) had a significantly higher chance of being among the 11,311 study participants who were later diagnosed with clinical depression that those who didn’t. For sodas as a whole, there was a 30 percent greater chance of depression, but diet sodas carried a further 22 percent increase as compared to regular ones. Interestingly, regular coffee consumption was associated with a 10 percent lower chance of depression.”
They cut it up to make it more confusing: “For sodas as a whole, there was a 30 percent greater chance of depression, but diet sodas carried a further 22 percent increase as compared to regular ones.”
I’m pretty sure I’m reading “drinking diet soda increases your chance of depression by 52%.
An article from March 2013 reads “Recommended: Who owns Gatorade: Coke or Pepsi? Take our 'parent company' quiz! For more than two decades, soda was the No. 1 drink in the U.S. with per capita consumption peaking in 1998 ‘at 54 gallons a year.”
While another article from March 2017 reads “Americans drink less soda. In fact, per-capita consumption for carbonated soft drinks peaked in the United States in 1998 at ‘nearly 53 gallons’, dropping to 41 gallons in 2015
While a third article from June 2017 reads “In 2016, each person in the United States drank 39.3 gallons of bottled water, compared with 38.5 gallons of carbonated soft drinks, according to data from Beverage Marketing Corp., Reuters reported. That's a dramatic drop for soda consumption from its heights in the late 1990s and early 2000s of ‘over 50 gallons’ per person.”
Where the Ministry of Truth took the peak 1998 soda consumption number from “54 gallons a year” in 2013 to “nearly 53 gallons” in March of this year and “over 50 gallons” in June.
You can see them carefully “walk it back” from the earliest, specific example (“54 gallons”) through “nearly 53 gallons” to “Over 50 gallons”, the latter which are both general, which, as you may recall, is a hallmark of propaganda. And they’ve made the number smaller each time, to try via subterfuge to minimize the magnitude of the horrible problem that consumers have realized the manufacturers deliberately created, and also that of the epochal positive change underway.
And while they all gave you the numbers – sort of – they also all deliberately hedged by omitting the percentage of the decrease, as providing it would be much more impactful. Going from 54 gallons in 1998 to 39.3 in 2016, is a 35% percent decrease in per capita soda consumption in just under two decades (and that’s 18 years, to be exact). The 35% decrease was described generally only as “a ‘dramatic’ drop”.
The dramatic but general word “dramatic” is less dramatic than the far more impactful 35% drop which the author carefully neglected to mention.
The “nearly 53 gallons” article is headlined, hilariously, “Americans drink ‘less’ soda.”
Where “less” is general, a hallmark of propaganda; it’s used here to avoid writing the more impactful, specific headline “American soda consumption drops 35% in two decades.”
Coca-Cola’s annual revenue decreased 38% from 2014 to 2018.
Diet soda sales in the U.S. decreased 7.3% from mid-February to mid-march 2014.
In April 2014, Maria Rickert said “Diet Soda Sales Are ‘Falling’, and That's a ‘Good’ Thing’!’ “ Where they used “falling” as a kinder, softer alternative to the stronger “dropping” or “decreasing”, and also as a thinly-veiled reference to the fallen Lord Lucifer. The general “falling” is used as a hedge against a far more impactful statistic. Propagandists know that sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, so this tactic “compartmentalizes” the data with an effectiveness shown by the spectacular, conditioned ignorance of the majority of the populace.
Maria hedged “that’s great!” Back to “that’s a great ‘thing’ “, which she then hedged that back one more level to that merely being a ‘good’ thing. And the exclamation point she added at the end is sickly, and protests, too much.
In April 2014, ABC news wept that “Soda ‘Losing’ Its Grip on ‘America’ “.
Where the Mouthpiece of the State has hedged by saying that soda was merely ‘losing’ its grip, and “on ‘America’ “ hedges against “all the nations on Earth”.
The article continues: “A ‘possible’ reason for the ‘decline’ in consumption of diet sodas is that consumers don't ‘seem to be’ convinced that Aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are safe, even though there is ‘no’ scientific evidence that they cause any harm.”
Beginning the article with “a ‘possible’ reason” gives the subconscious of the reader immediate license to reject the reason about to be presented. Don’t ‘seem to be’ convinced” hedges back a step from “aren’t convinced”. The author used “decline” because it’s a softer hedge against the stronger “drop” or “decrease”, and because it reminds the reader of “reclined”, and because declines are shallow, and smooth, and gradual.
“No scientific evidence” is a bullshit plausible-deniabity excuse and a bald-faced lie.
Soda consumption in the U.S. decreased 6% from 2015 to 2016.
In March 2015, mysanantonio.com said “San Antonio-based ‘study’ links diet soda consumption to ‘increased’ abdominal fat in ‘seniors’
They led the headline with “study links” to give your subconscious the green light to say “oh, but that’s just one study!”
The general “increased” is used as a hedge against a far more impactful statistic, which, in journalistic parlance, the author has “buried” in the article below. Propagandists know that sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, so this tactic “compartmentalizes” the data with an effectiveness shown by the spectacular, conditioned ignorance of the majority of the populace.
The article continues: “Sharon Fowler, an author of the study and adjunct assistant professor at UTHSC at San Antonio, pointed out that the study is observational and therefore cannot prove causation but did say there was a “‘tremendous’ increase in waist circumferences.”
Where “tremendous increase” is increased” is used as a general hedge against a far more impactful statistic, which, in journalistic parlance, the author has “buried” below.
The article continues. “Fowler ‘delved deeper’ into the findings and shared that the abdominal girth of participants who never drank diet sodas increased by 0.8 inches throughout the span of the study. Occasional diet soda drinkers also saw a 1.8 increase in their waistline circumference. Lastly, participants who drank diet sodas daily saw an increase of over 3 inches on their waist.”
Where the author has provided statistics, but carefully hedged once again by not mentioning the far more impactful percentage increases between them. So, I had to do the math. Those who drank diet soda occasionally had waists 125% larger than those who did not drink diet soda. Those who drank diet soda daily had waists that were 287% larger than those who did not drink diet soda. Actually, we can’t actually know the second statistic, because the author hedged yet again by saying “an increase of over three inches”. (I used the most-conservative 3.1 inches as “over three inches”.)
They hedged back yet another step with “ ‘saw’ an increase of over three inches”. Where “saw” takes it back a step from actually experiencing it.
“Delves deeper” falsely assures that the Trusted Authority Figure isn’t lying to you pathologically and continuously.
“I ‘think’ ‘acidity’ (of the drinks) is a big problem,” Fowler added. “Each of us has our own private rainforests within our bodies, what we eat and drink affects the organisms in the rainforest.”
She used a crunchy, New Age, pseudoscientific reference to the general “acidity” “affecting” “organisms in the rainforest” as a bullshit plausible deniability excuse.
The fact of the matter being that that Aspartame breaks down in part into phenylalanine, which interferes with the action of an enzyme intestinal alkaline phosphatase (IAP) previously shown to prevent metabolic syndrome, which is a group of symptoms associated with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. IAP’s protective effects in regard to the metabolic syndrome is inhibited by phenylalanine, a metabolite of aspartame.
As a bonus, she starts the paragraph with the dim-bulb “I ‘think’ “, which shows this is just her throwing something general and pseudoscientific against the wall (“acidity”) to see if it will stick, because propagandists know that the subconscious of many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how thin, to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.
She “thinks”? She’s an author of the study and adjunct assistant professor at UTHSC at San Antonio. It took me six seconds to look up the actual driver of how it makes the wholly-credulous rubes fat. She’s the author of the study, an adjunct assistant professor, and a bloodline generational Satanist. Not all assistant professors are generational Satanists, but all of those who are quoted in mainstream news articles are.
In April 2015, the Los Angeles Times said “Diabetes ‘rises’ with daily soda -- including diet soda -- consumption”.
The author said ‘rises’ because it’s a softer, kinder hedge against the stronger “increase”, and also as a thinly veiled reference to the Atonist Black-Sun cult that’s run things in all the nations, well, all the way back to Babylon, and before. The general “rises” is also used as a hedge against a far more impactful statistic. Propagandists know that sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, so this tactic “compartmentalizes” the data with an effectiveness shown by the spectacular, conditioned ignorance of the majority of the populace.
I can’t get to the article anymore to review what the percentage increase actually was, because now there’s a paywall in front of it. That’s another example of a the propaganda technique called “compartmentalization”.
In June 2015, inc.com said “8 Studies That Prove ‘Diet Soda Is Actually Making You Fat, Not Helping You Lose Weight’ ”.
Soda consumption fell to an all time low in the U.S. in 2016.
In March 2016, mic.com said “Diet Soda, the Timeless Health ‘Scam’ That People Will ‘Seemingly’ Always Fall For”.
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “unknown”.
That’s why an article from the New York Times from 2017 says “people who drank one to six artificially sweetened drinks a week had twice the risk of stroke. There were similar, although weaker, associations for dementia risk. The reasons for the link remain ‘unknown’.”
As a hedge against the statistic that those who drink diet soda daily have waistlines, nearly three times the size of those who do not drink diet soda, a July 2016 article said “ ‘Here’s’ Proof That Diet Soda ‘Can’ Make You ‘Hungrier’ “ Where “ ‘can’ make” is hypothetical, and holds out the fantasy that it won’t happen to you, specifically. Then the vigorous word “hungrier” is put in place of the far more unfortunate “fatter”.
The article continues: “Did you hear that? That was the collective shriek of diet-soda drinkers after reading about the latest study linking artificial sweeteners to ‘hunger’. The Splenda flies ate 30 percent more calories than the control, and when they took away the artificially sweetened food, the effect ‘vanished’.”
Where “vanished” keeps things in that Middle-Ages headspace that’s so vital to the success of a regime such as that under discussion here.
In October 2016, medicalnews.com said “ ‘Research Finds’ Drinking Diet Soda ‘Decreases’ Fertility”.
While they’re pretending to be an informative medical website, they’re actually a devious Mouthpiece of the state, who have used the general “decreases” fertility in the headline is used as a hedge against a far more impactful statistic. Propagandists know that sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, so this tactic “compartmentalizes” the data with an effectiveness shown by the spectacular, conditioned ignorance of the majority of the populace.
Here are the statistics, which, in journalistic parlance, the author has “buried” in the body of the article: “Women who drank at least one soda per day demonstrated a ’25 percent lower’ monthly probability of conception, while men who drank at least one soda per day had a ’33 percent lower’ probability of successfully conceiving with their partner”.
In journalism, there’s a strict rule that you list the highest percentage first, and then the rest in descending order. Here, the author Satanically inverted it, so the more impactful, larger statistic is once again “buried” as far down as possible.
The headline kicks off with “Research Finds” to give a green light to the subconscious to say “oh, that must have been faulty research”. It’s a constantly-used tactic whose variants include “study says” and “report says”.
Prices drop when supply increases, or demand decreases, or both. That’s why a money.com story from October 2016 says “Coke ‘Raised’ Prices to Make Up for ‘Lower’ Soda Consumption”.
Where “raised” and “lower” are both general. They’re used as a hedges against far more impactful statistics. Propagandists know that sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, so this tactic “compartmentalizes” the data with an effectiveness shown by the spectacular, conditioned ignorance of the majority of the populace.
As a bonus, there’s no data in the article that relates to those items.
In November 2016, medicalxpress.com said “Sugary drink sales drop nearly 20 percent after multi-faceted campaign”.
Where the Mouthpiece of the State has put forward the bullshit plausible-deniability excuse “after multi-faceted campaign” and postured as if the wider, ongoing trend I’m documenting here didn’t exist.
In November 2016, the U.K.’s Telegraph said “Diet drinks may be ‘preventing’ you from ‘losing’ weight”.
Which is a straight-up Satanic inversion, in that they don’t prevent you from losing weight, but in fact drive you to gain weight.
“Many people ditch ‘sugary fizzy drinks’ in favour of ‘low-calorie alternatives’ when they are trying to lose weight, but a study has found that diet drinks could actually make it harder to shift the pounds. ... have found that mice who were given aspartame in their drinking water gained more weight than those on a similar diet, but without the sweetener.”
Since I originally researched the article, a paywall has been put in place, so I can’t get to it again without paying. That’s a recent gambit on the part of the folks in charger to further compartmentalize the situation, ensuring that you only consume your news from a fixed set of “Trusted Sources”.
I think that, before too long, they’re going to try to drop the Internet completely, to get us back to a more Middle Ages way of life. The research power that I’ve got at my disposal via the Internet is spectacular, as evidenced by this rapidly growing book.
“Sugary fizzy drinks” is a highly negative way to say “soda”. “Dizzy broads” drink “sugary fizzy drinks”. While “low-calorie alternative” seems saintly. “ ‘could ‘ make it harder” gives your subconscious the out that it might not happen to you, and “harder to ‘shift’ the pounds” is a deviant, disingenuous way to avoid saying “lose” them. If someone ever called them on it, they’d say “we said ‘shift’…we never said anything about ‘losing’ pounds!”
In 2017, the National Institute of Health said “Sugar-sweetened beverages were ‘not associated’ with stroke or dementia”, which squarely proves that it’s the Aspartame, stupid. But I shouldn’t be so coarse, as most of the rubes have already gotten wise to the con, as demonstrated in a 2017 article from marketplace.org, which says “Diet soda sales ‘fizzle’ as health-conscious consumers turn to ‘other’ drinks.”
In February 2017, Marketing Week said “Coca-Cola preps Diet Coke ‘push’ with advertising ‘shift’.”
In March 2017, the abusively-named “The Motley Fool” promised “Coca-Cola Has ‘a’ Plan to ‘Improve’ Soft-Drink Sales”.
Where “a plan” and “improve sales” are both general. Propagandists know that sixty to seventy percent of readers only read the headlines, so this tactic “compartmentalizes” the data with an effectiveness shown by the spectacular, conditioned ignorance of the majority of the populace.
In April 2017, Bloomberg said “Drinking ‘Too Much’ Soda ‘May Be’ Linked to Alzheimer’s.
Since I originally researched this article, a paywall’s been put in place. It’s coming into prominence as a compartmentalization tactic, and I believe it may presage an attempted dropping of the Internet, to get us back a far more Feudal and ensheepling way of living. The amount of damage I’ve done just with this single publication is extraordinary.
“Too much” soda plays that you should still keep drinking it, only less, and “soda” hides the particularly virulent and deadly diet soda whose Aspartame is causing the seven-fold increase in Alzheimer’s among diet soda drinkers, versus those who did not drink diet soda. Sugar-sweetened beverages are not associated with stroke or dementia, which shows how Aspartame’s the deadly key, and Bloomberg bald-fadedly lied about it by saying “soda” in the headline.
“May be” gets the subconscious off the hook by letting it believe it probably won’t happen to you.
In April 2017, WebMD asked “ ‘Do’ Diet Sodas Pose Health Risks’?’ ”.
Which is more than curious, in that, in April 2017, the very same month, the National Institute of Health wrote of “Sugar- and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and the ‘Risks’ of Incident Stroke and Dementia”.
Where they used the general “risks” in the headline, to avoid telling you that, after adjustments for age, sex, education (for analysis of dementia), caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity, and smoking, higher recent and higher cumulative intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks were associated with an ‘increased’ risk of ischemic stroke, all-cause dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease dementia.”
Where they’ve used the general “increased” to avoid telling you that the risk of stroke close to tripled, and the risk of Alzheimer’s increased sevenfold.
I listed them in inverted order like that because that’s how the National Institute of Health brazenly had them ranked. There’s a strict rule in journalism in which you list the largest percentages first, and then the others in descending order. The NIH flipped them to spin it as best they could.
Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia which shows how Aspartame’s the deadly key. Not even high-fructose corn syrup can mess you up like Aspartame does.
You can see how WebMD, which poses as an “independent” website, is in fact a wholly-controlled-and-coopted Organ of the State, questioning if Aspartame were bad for you to blunt and defray against the epochal NIH article released at the same time.
In April 2017, Moneyish said “Here's a scary new reason to stop drinking diet soda”
“New health studies link ‘sugary drinks’ to brain damage - and diet sodas in particular to almost tripling stroke ‘and dementia risk’.”
Since we’re studying the subject as scholars, we can see how the propaganda Organ “Moneyish” says “almost tripling stroke and dementia risk”, where they wiped out the seven-fold increase in dementia we learned of moments ago.
And they’ve lied bald-fadedly a second time leading with “studies link ‘sugary drinks’ to brain damage, when we learned moments ago that the National Institute of Health said the very same month “Sugar-sweetened beverages were not associated with stroke or dementia”.
The culprit is Aspartame, which was hidden behind “sugary drinks” for the credulous-rube masses by ‘Moneyish’, an “Intelligence” organization masquerading as a bunch of innocent businesspeople.
An article from the New York Times from April 2017, said “The study, from the journal Stroke, found that compared with those who did not drink diet soda, people who drank one to six artificially sweetened drinks a week had twice the risk of stroke. There were similar, ‘although weaker’, associations for dementia risk.”
In April 2017, the NIH said 2.9, or very close to three times he risk, which the journal “Stroke” promptly downgraded to twice the risk. The NIH said “seven times the risk of dementia, and the esteemed journal “Stroke” said “weaker then twice the risk”.
Wild, bald-faced, pathological lying, by the esteemed medical journal. They thought they’d lived past the days of fact-checking, and then I showed up to kick their ass and throw them out of the saloon.
In April 2017, Fortune said “Pepsi vs Coca-Cola: U.S. Soda Sales ‘Decline’ For 12th Consecutive Year”.
The author used “declined” because it’s a softer hedge against the stronger “dropped” or “decreased”, and because it reminds the reader of “reclined”, and because declines are shallow, and smooth, and gradual.
In April, 2017, jjvirgin said “Deadly News Confirmed: Diet Soda ‘Linked to’ Strokes and Dementia
The words “mystery”, “baffled” and “puzzled” are memes, used, among numerous similar variants, whenever anyone in the wholly-controlled-and-coopted Political, Academic, Scientific and Media establishments wants to lie about, well, basically anything. One of those variants is “shocking”.
That’s why the article continues to say “The results were ‘shocking’: those who drank diet soda were nearly three times as likely to experience strokes ‘and dementia’ as people who skipped the diet soft drinks.”
As students of the subject, we know that they’ve just lied bald-fadedly by claiming that those who drank diet soda were nearly three times as likely to experience dementia, when in fact they are seven times as likely. The Trusted Authority Figure author is pretending to be filling you in, but is in fact a con artist who is lying pathologically on the behalf of the manufacturers.
Dementia is a way bigger problem, societally, than strokes. There aren’t “stroke care buildings” in every city, town and village in the land. The more horrible of the two plagues is put second, and the far more gigantic risk is also placed second. That’s called “hedging”.
In June 2017, organic consumers.org said “Mounting Evidence Grows Against Diet Soda”.
In June 2017, the trenchantly-named “fool.com” said “The biggest losers, Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi, ‘may seem like healthy alternatives to their full-sugar sister brands’, but ‘changing attitudes’ has led them to being America's fastest-declining soda brands at a time when the overall market for sodas in general has ‘declined steeply’.
They’ve flipped it so you are to imagine that Aspartame is healthful, but that the fickle public doesn’t know what’s good for them. Since it’s put forward with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty, some unimaginable subset of wholly-credulous rubes chug it right down. The propagandists know that the subconscious of many or most readers will grasp virtually any straw, no matter how think to remain off the hook of personal responsibility.
In July 2017, foxnews.com said disdainfully “Diet drinks ‘may’ cause weight gain, new research ‘suggests’ “.
They’ve ended the headline with “suggests” because it’s easy enough to shrug off a suggestion that you find unpalatable, as if someone said “get the pasta”, and you replied “I’d prefer the steak”.
The fact that millions have been addicted to a horrible neurotoxin on the promise that it would make them thin, and that it in fact makes them fat, is one of the more terrible things I’ve ever learned.
In August 2017, popsugar Middle East pretended that the were news reporters as opposed to ad writers by saying “Why Diet Coke Is Hard to Pour on Planes”.
In August 2017, Livestrong.com fought the rearguard action and asked “ ‘Does’ Soda Increase the Risk of Pancreatic Cancer’?’”
The article is from disgraced generational Satanist blood-doper Lance Armstrong’s “Livestrong” website.
To maintain current programming levels, stop reading immediately, breath through your mouth and affirm “His heart is a third larger than the average male’s.” That’s from an article from 2005 from Science/The Guardian, headlined “What ‘is’ Lance Armstrong's secret’?’ “
In October 2017, CBS News said “Diet soda makers sued over "misleading" ads”.
“The suits allege that the companies' use of the word "diet" in the beverages' "false misleading and unlawful" marketing could make a "reasonable consumer" think the drinks are a diet aid.”
As students of the subject, we know that the waistlines of daily diet soda drinkers are 287% larger than those who did not drink diet soda. The lawsuit cheeringly shows that there are people doing things more aggressive than write articles such as this to harry the opposition
In October 2017, FoodNavigator-USA saluted and said “Coca-Cola blasts 'meritless' diet soda lawsuit”.
“As described in the US Right to Know citizen's petition, these studies suggest linkage or association between use of 'diet' sodas and weight gain.”
In the face of diet soda sales dropping at the fastest rate in history, a Washington Post article from October 2017 brazenly lies “ ‘How’ Coca-Cola got Americans to drink diet ‘soda’ again”.
They used the general “diet ‘soda’ “ in place of the specific and correct “Diet Coke” to give a false, exaggerated image of the corporation’s success. Which purported success is also a bald-faced lie, in that diet soda sales have been and are continuing to drop, into and through the time this article was written. The article is a whole shitcan full of Big Lies, told by a Trusted Authority Figure with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
In December 2017, Grub Street said “President Trump Reportedly Drinks 12 Diet Cokes Per Day “. Trump is an alcoholic, who no longer drinks alcohol. Aspartame breaks down into Methyl Alcohol in your blood stream, which is in turn broken down into Formaldehyde. So there’s a “dry drunk” effect.
In January 2018, the empoweringly-named SheFinds said “9 Reasons Why You Should Stop Drinking Diet Coke ‘In 2018’ “.
Where “in 2018” is a hedge, against a headline that should have been written “9 Reasons Why You Should Stop Drinking Diet Coke”.
They’re pretending to have written a self-help article, which is actually subconsciously trying to get to blow it off, as you have all of 2018 to do so.
In January 2018, “Patch” pretended to be a news outlet as opposed to an advertising agency by saying “Diet Coke, ‘Facing’ Sales ‘Drop’, Tries Out New Flavors, ‘Sleek Can’ ”.
Where the sly, sexy “sleek can” is glosses over the fact that the corporation they’re shilling for is selling you less soda for more money because they have to juice the remaining addicts harder to stay in business. It’s also inferring to your subconscious that your “can” will be “sleek” - that your ass will look good in those jeans. Versus the truth, that your ass will be 283% larger if you drink diet soda.
“Facing” sales drop is brave, and false. The sales drop began long ago, and the shill is trying to make you think it hasn’t started, yet, but will at some point in the near but unspecified future.
In January 2018, a propagandist from the herald-review.com pretended to be a reporter and not an ad writer by saying “104-year old woman ‘owes it all’ to Diet Coke”.
In January 2018, the U.K.’s Independent shows the global reach of the propaganda organization with “Key to long life is drinking lots of Diet Coke, says 104-year-old woman”.
In January 2018, the devilishly-named “ ‘hell’ogiggles.com” pretended to be a news outlet and not an ad agency by saying “Diet Coke's new flavors and makeover have a total La Croix vibe”.
“Hellogiggles” features the word “hell”, and also triple Masonic G’s. The use of the word “hell” in advertising had a vogue around this time, with another example of many being the salad chain “ ‘Hell’o Fresh”. “ ‘Hell’o Kitty” kicked it all off many years previously.
In January 2018, itsnicethat.com said “Although the ‘fizzy drink’ still dominates the ‘zero-calorie’ soda drinks category, Diet Coke's dollar sales ‘fell’ by 3.7% in 2017”.
Where they used “fell” as a kinder, softer alternative to the stronger “drop” or “decrease”, and also as a thinly-veiled reference to the fallen Lord Lucifer.
Can you see how they walked the “ ‘diet soda’ drinks category” back to being the “zero-calorie’ soda drinks category? Earlier in the sentence, “ ‘fizzy’ drink” also hedges back from “diet”. Their position is collapsing.
In January 2018, huffpost.com said “Diet Coke's Millennial-Inspired Makeover Leaves People ‘Befuddled’ ”.
Where the shill has done what little they could to hedge by saying the people consciously choosing to not drink poison are “confused”.
In January 2018, the Trusted Authority Figure the Daily Mail pretended to be a news organization as opposed to an advertising agency when they said “Lord Falconer: my diet left me addicted to diet coke”.
The article continues: “Lord Falconer (pictured after his diet in 2016) has been left with ‘a much trimmer figure’ after his crash diet - but he revealed that it has also left him 'completely addicted' to Diet Coke and drinking vast quantities of the caffeinated drink.”
As students of the subject, we know that the waistlines of diet soda drinkers are 287% larger than those of people who don’t drink diet soda, and that the Daily Mail just told a Big Lie with the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
In January 2018, kfmx said “The ‘Real’ Reason You Should Be Worried About The New Diet Coke”.
To the child-like, get-out-of-jail-free subconscious, all the other reasons (obesity, three times the stroke risk, a sevenfold risk of dementia, et al) are “unreal”.
The article continues: “The Diet Coke you're used to is going to be the exact stuff you're drinking now, with one exception: the new can. The new Diet Coke can is going to be ‘taller and slimmer’. I actually like the idea because that should make it a little ‘grippier’, but there's one problem; ‘how will it fit in your drink holders’?
Grade-schoolers in the future are going to study the populace of the early 21st Century in dumbfounded amazement. Livestock in a farm pen have a higher level of intellectual development than the person ignoring the poisonousness of what’s in the can and focusing on the taller, slimmer, grippier can, itself, while drinking the poison.
To add to the levity, the shill “kfmx” is cunningly distracting the reader from the real problem with the can - the fact that it contains less soda and costs more. Because the corporation is having to juice the dwindling pool of addicts harder to stay in business.
In January 2018, cheatsheet.com did a sideshow barker credit with the headline “2 of the 3 Richest People in the World Drink This First Thing in the Morning”.
In Mike Judge’s “Idiocracy”, Frito says “I like money”.
It’s that level of intellectual development that gets a populace in which 70% only read headlines to actually read this article, and find out what “drink” the barker is mysteriously referring to.
When we step inside cheatsheet’s tent, we learn “Worth $90.3 billion, Buffett just barely falls short of Gates' fortune (if there is a way for a billionaire to “fall short,” that is). The 87-year-old ... ‘He used his Diet Coke consumption as an example of why increasing efficiency allows us to consume more’ (soda, in this instance) rather than less.”