Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayflowers
|
I understand your concern over "artificial sweeteners" but basing those concerns on unscientific information is... foolish.
I have been following the aspartame situation since the '80s and I have probably read dozens of similar articles. But instead of reading the article and blindly believing it's true you may want to be more skeptical. That article is full of generalities, truths, untruths, half-truths and hyperbole that you really cannot believe a word of it. The author has a clear agenda to shock people into thinking the worst. But where is the actual science?
Here's a good example, a study done by the NIH on rats specifically to determine if aspartame causes brain tumors in rats:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7245229
This is an example of actual science. Have you ever read a science article in a magazine or newspaper and then actually read the study? You will find news stories to be gross misrepresentations of the science probably 99% of the time. Take all those stories over the years on cohort studies on Olive Oil. News articles will have headlines such as:
People Who Use Olive Oil Have Less Wrinkles
Here are the problems with articles like that:
1) It was a cohort study with no control. So the study is a possible CORRELATION between olive oil and wrinkles and does NOT show CAUSATION. It's an indication that a randomized, double blind control trial may be done to determine if it's TRUE
2) The cohort study does not actually say that olive oil reduces wrinkles.
3) People who use olive oil tend to be more wealthy and tend to eat more vegetables and not work outdoors (white collar and not blue collar). So the cohort may have nothing to do with olive oil.
4) It is written by a journalist who has a vested interest in having people read their articles and NOT actually producing scientific data.
I chose this particular example because this guy gives a good TED Talk which contains that example:
https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_golda...nce?language=en
In the article you linked, it tells the story of the approval process, possible flaws in studies, investigations and how a prosecuting attorney was hired by the law firm that was defending the main researcher. These circumstances are true. BUT THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE SCIENCE AND HAS NO EFFECT ON OUTCOMES.
That all being said, aspartame is bad for the human body. But so is sugar, bread, fruit... Why aren't you out there raging against sugar? Why aspartame? Because you read some alarming articles about it.
Science rule no. 1:
If you read an alarming scientific news article, you must investigate the source yourself and/or look for contrary data.
Be skeptical. Don't hijack my forum thread asking a simple question to blast your opinions and hysterical views.