| Revision as of 14:03, 22 April 2020 editMikeschaerer (talk | contribs)52 edits →Meta analysis about research outcome related to industry funding← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:34, 22 April 2020 edit undoZefr (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers69,619 edits →Meta analysis about research outcome related to industry funding: rNext edit → | ||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
| :{{u|Mikeschaerer}} also, your first link seems incomplete. However, lightenyourtoxicload.com seems unlikely to be a ]. ] (]) 09:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC) | :{{u|Mikeschaerer}} also, your first link seems incomplete. However, lightenyourtoxicload.com seems unlikely to be a ]. ] (]) 09:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{u|Mikeschaerer}} - I made at the Aspartame article. The "lightenyour..." source is not ], and the PMID 27606602 review is ] for aspartame itself, but rather is a review of bias in research. In my opinion, it doesn't meet ] as an "aspartame controversy". ] (]) 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC) | ::{{u|Mikeschaerer}} - I made at the Aspartame article. The "lightenyour..." source is not ], and the PMID 27606602 review is ] for aspartame itself, but rather is a review of bias in research. In my opinion, it doesn't meet ] as an "aspartame controversy". ] (]) 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{u|Zefr}} Could you elaborate why the |
:::{{u|Zefr}} Could you elaborate why the source "lightenyour..." is not compliant with ]. Also what about this review? http://www.laleva.org/it/docs/Millstone_EFSA_Aspartame_9Jan2014.pdf --] (]) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC) | ||
| ::::The "lighten..." source has no bibliographic information, such as when/where it was published, whether it was peer-reviewed, etc., so remains without ]. For an encyclopedia, we need high-quality reviews by authoritative sources, ]. - mentioned in the first sentence of the Millstone paper (which also has no bibliographic info) - states, as does the FDA, that there is no concern about the safety of aspartame. These are acceptable ] sources, which confirm there is no scientifically-validated "controversy". --] (]) 14:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:34, 22 April 2020
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
|
|
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
more on aspartame
see:
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/189/28/E929
Claustro123 (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
/* Ramazzini studies */
Without altering the intent, I reworked this section significantly to:
♦ improve source material referencing; restructure in-line citations for clarity;
♦ improve syntax, diction, and grammar for readability/aesthetics/neutral voice (i.e. – although possible/probable, concluding the ERF refused to cooperate is not justifiable on the record while their ineptness is on many counts);
♦ changed the content to better reflect the issues (e.g. – overcrowding of the animals was interpretable as an ethical issue not an elementary method breech and confound; "possibly carcinogenic infections" was too short, abstract and insufficient to convey the problem; etc...).
More can be done here and in several other pages as the ERF and CSPI continue to campaign on remarkably poor research. Interestingly, a newer investigation, including information from an on-site NTP inspection, found that with the exception of the lymphoma/leukemia bioassays (Soffritti's work regarding sucralose, aspartame, etc...) the ERF adheres to best-practices and produces reliable research (Gift et al. 2013) harv error: no target: CITEREFGift_et_al.2013 (help). I find parenthetical citations vastly more aesthetically pleasing and compositionally functional. Please let me know if I have over-stepped by making the changes contemporaneous to this post.
Gift, Jeffrey S.; Caldwell, Jane C.; Jinot, Jennifer; Evans, Marina V.; Cote, Ila; Vandenberg, John J. (2013). "Scientific Considerations for Evaluating Cancer Bioassays Conducted by the Ramazzini Institute". Environmental Health Perspectives. 121 (11–12): 1253–1263. doi:10.1289/ehp.1306661. ISSN 0091-6765. Retrieved 2019-01-16. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
BiosocialPolymath (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Sources
I do a great deal of technical research and writing, and appreciate the caution about primary sourcing. However, research done and communicated well, by truly professional principles not attached to the outcomes, often within themselves meet the exception in Misplaced Pages:MEDREV, " Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources." That is, the primary source will conduct a scathing critique of itself with reference to extant work and standards within the field. In case you missed it I noted these were exceptional, as such they are worthy of being included amongst other rigorous sources.
BiosocialPolymath (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Starting work on Merkle email refs
I noticed that some of the references are now dead links and some of the references are not as robust as they should be around the Nancy Merkle email hoax. It isn't a quick fix, so I just wanted potential editors to know that I am starting an edit that will span sections but focus on the Merkle email.
Tpanagos (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that we do not remove deadlinks. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Meta analysis about research outcome related to industry funding
I would like to add a few meta analysis about aspartame and the research outcome in relation to industry funding. It seems odd to me that nearly every industry funded study is in favor of aspartame while most independently funded studies are not. Any objections to include these meta analysis in the article? https://lightenyourtoxicload.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Dr-Walton-survey-of-aspartame-studies.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5015869/ --Mikeschaerer (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I moved your thread to the bottom of the page, which is where new threads go. It increases the chance other editors will see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mikeschaerer also, your first link seems incomplete. However, lightenyourtoxicload.com seems unlikely to be a WP:RS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mikeschaerer - I made this revert at the Aspartame article. The "lightenyour..." source is not WP:RS, and the PMID 27606602 review is WP:OFFTOPIC for aspartame itself, but rather is a review of bias in research. In my opinion, it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT as an "aspartame controversy". Zefr (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Zefr Could you elaborate why the source "lightenyour..." is not compliant with WP:RS. Also what about this review? http://www.laleva.org/it/docs/Millstone_EFSA_Aspartame_9Jan2014.pdf --Mikeschaerer (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- The "lighten..." source has no bibliographic information, such as when/where it was published, whether it was peer-reviewed, etc., so remains without WP:V. For an encyclopedia, we need high-quality reviews by authoritative sources, WP:MEDASSESS. The 2013 EFSA assessment of aspartame - mentioned in the first sentence of the Millstone paper (which also has no bibliographic info) - states, as does the FDA, that there is no concern about the safety of aspartame. These are acceptable WP:MEDRS sources, which confirm there is no scientifically-validated "controversy". --Zefr (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Zefr Could you elaborate why the source "lightenyour..." is not compliant with WP:RS. Also what about this review? http://www.laleva.org/it/docs/Millstone_EFSA_Aspartame_9Jan2014.pdf --Mikeschaerer (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Mikeschaerer - I made this revert at the Aspartame article. The "lightenyour..." source is not WP:RS, and the PMID 27606602 review is WP:OFFTOPIC for aspartame itself, but rather is a review of bias in research. In my opinion, it doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT as an "aspartame controversy". Zefr (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)