Talk:Aspartame controversy

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)
 * 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)
 * - 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)
 * 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)
 * Well, for one, there are at least 17 peer-reviewed citations (in publications considered good enough for Google Scholar) for the Malton study dismissed here as "unlocatable", at least half of which are affirmative citations:


 * 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 serious consideration or any cause for self-criticism, by virtue of simply calling them just "reviews, presenting no new scientific [= empirical bio-chemical] evidence" or mere "opinion pieces": 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.


 * 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)

Removal from the alternative medicine navbox
@AndyTheGrump

The navboxes have long included a variety of topics related to alternative medicine, including general controversies, purported poisons, or related people. Altanner1991 (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Possibly. However, given that Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, inclusion of an 'alternate medicine' navbox in an article on aspartame would seem to require a better justification than that. Can you point to sources that describe aspartame as an 'alternative medicine'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you then also suggest the removal of Big Pharma conspiracy theories, Oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis, Vaccines and autism, MMR vaccine and autism, and GMO conspiracy theories from Template:Alternative medicine sidebar? Because like Aspartame controversy, those articles also don't directly mention "alternative medicine", per-se. Altanner1991 (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you answer the question I actually asked. Citing external WP:RS sources that describe aspartame as 'alternate medicine'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here are a couple: Altanner1991 (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked for WP:RS sources stating that aspartame is an alternative medicine. As far as I can see, neither of the sources you cite states anything of the sort, instead (correctly) describing it as an artificial sweetener. I also doubt either would meet WP:RS criteria anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand: the Aspartame controversy is about aspartame being called a poison by alternative medicine practitioners. I also don't see why those sources would fail WP:RS. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it is (amongst other things) about aspartame being called a poison by conspiracy theorists. Some may well be alternative medicine practitioners, a great many clearly weren't. And I'm sure, given the scope of 'alternative medicine', there are practitioners who have no opinion about aspartame, one way or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable; so it will stay with conspiracy theories but not alternative medicine. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP considers (at least atm) altmed and Pseudomedicine to be pretty much the same, so vaccine stuff fits pretty well IMO. Aspartame is less obvious, I think, afaik it isn't used to treat patients. In the past there have been discussions at Chemtrails that concluded that the sidebar didn't fit there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well in this case vaccine hesitancy and aspartame controversy are both recommended by alternative medicine practitioners, so the topics should equally qualify for the navboxes. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I would like to the take the opportunity and propose the removal of Oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis, Vaccines and autism, MMR vaccine and autism, and GMO conspiracy theories from the alternative medicine navboxes for the same reason as was given aspartame in this discussion. Altanner1991 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This is the talk page for the aspartame article, not the alternate medicine navbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

new link
here is an interesting link.

https://www.endalldisease.com/aspartame-linked-to-leukemia-lymphoma-in-groundbreaking-study/ Claustro123 (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Nothing remotely relevant to article content: see WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)