This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 46.93.153.58 (talk) at 18:39, 30 April 2022 (→Meta analysis about research outcome related to industry funding). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:39, 30 April 2022 by 46.93.153.58 (talk) (→Meta analysis about research outcome related to industry funding)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| 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 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 |
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)
- On the other hand, while PMID 27606602 *IS* a general review of sweeteners, this peer-reviewed source (which is PLOS One) also goes into detail on the aspartame controversy, on why the peer-reviewed article considers the methodology of the FDA *AND* the EFSA seriously flawed in regards to aspartame, both in how aspartame was originally introduced and in how studies corroborating harm of aspartame are dismissed as supposedly unsound, and cites a number of scientific and peer-reviewed sources who agree on that both the FDA and the EFSA exhibit gross disregard for proper methodology on the issue.
- FYI, the EFSA themselves officially consider any critiques of their methodology as entirely irrelevant and not even worthy of consideration or cause for self-criticism, by virtue of simply calling them "reviews, presenting no new scientific evidence": Report on the meetings on aspartame with National Experts, 2009 (see Appendix 1: Papers considered by the Organising Team but not included in the Report, pp. 58-62). In other words, the EFSA doesn't give a damn about methodology, they just need an excuse to only support studies funded by aspartame manufacturers and industry utilizers. Their other trick, as openly outlined in the 2009 report, is to declare any peer-reviewed study corroborating harm and its observed biomolecular paths of action which they can't explain away with "flawed methodology" (on which they are critizized by all the above considerable sources as mentioned in the peer-reviewed PLUS One article) as "just anecdotal", no matter the amount of case studies presented in the given peer-reviewed source or the sound plausability of the biomolecular observations in accordance with what is scientifically known for certain about molecular biology in regards to the aspartame-related components and substances discussed (such as metabolites of aspartame after it's been broken down by the human organism, for instance).
- In short, all of this reeks strongly of the grave misconduct in regards to the other industry-sponsored supposed remedy to caries and obesity, which was dental fluorosis that led to phenomena such as Colorado brown stain (see photos for it in the dental fluorosis article, namely the "severe" cases), where supposed caries resistance was a trade-in for considerable other damage to human teeth integrity, bone structure, the central nervous system, liver, kidneys, and thyroid (see the general article on fluoride toxicity on that), and where all criticisms of it from within the scientific community and research into it was for a long time considered some laughable "conspiracy theory" supposedly related to the Red Scare. --46.93.153.58 (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
death
Here is a 16 year study reported by the New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/06/health/diet-soda-health-death.html?searchResultPosition=1
Claustro123 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- That is hardly usable here. Let's look at the title and a few sentences from the article. They tell us that this is a very general study not applicable to Aspartame specifically.
Death by Diet Soda?
A new study that links artificially sweetened beverages to premature death is prompting public angst. Some scientists say it has significant flaws.
... a new study that found prodigious consumers of artificially sweetened drinks were 26 percent more likely to die prematurely than those who rarely drank sugar-free beverages.
The study, published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, followed 450,000 Europeans over 16 years and tracked mortality among soft-drink consumers of all persuasions — both those with a fondness for sugary beverages and those who favored sugar-free drinks.
- The rest of the NYT article also refers to "other research in the United States has found a correlation between artificially sweetened beverages and premature death." Again, not specific to Aspartame and the number of confounders is enormous. The lifestyles of people who tend to drink large amounts of soft drinks, sugary or otherwise, isn't good, so there is no surprise here. Are large quantities of artificial sweeteners not good for our health? Probably. Large quantities of junk food and empty calories are not good. Large quantities of unsweetened fruit juices isn't good either. When free from the slowing effects of their natural fibers, they assault the pancreas and can cause blood sugar spikes. Any diabetic knows this. Too high a percentage of even "natural" sugars in the diet isn't good, and one can get far too much compared to what one would get just eating fruit as is. It's hard to "overdose" on apples or oranges in their natural state.
The stomach can only hold so much at a time. -- Valjean (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)