Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer identified a possible link between aspartame and a type of liver cancer called hepatocellular carcinoma.
To be fair the vast majority of scientists will take other factors into account. If you thought of “this could also be because of that” then you can be sure that the scientists and the ones reviewing the publication also thought about it and addressed it.
There are exceptions, sure, but don’t just assume everyone is bad at their job.
My assumption isn’t completely absent of context. From the article: “The FDA reviewed the the same evidence as IARC in 2021 and identified significant flaws in the studies, the spokesperson said.”
But that’s not really what I meant. The issue I have is about language and presentation of info, not research methodology. Most people aren’t going to read WHO’s ~100 pages of recommendations on aspartame. We get CNBC’s interpretation, and some clickbaity editor has left their stink on it.
“WHO says soda sweetener aspartame safe, but may cause cancer in extreme doses” is both a more pertinent headline for countries in the west and from what I can tell, closer to being in alignment with what the WHO are actually saying.
This is absurdly stupid. I’m sorry… But it is. The naivety involved in this comment is staggeringly rough.
Even if we pretend what you’re saying is true, it suggests that scientists are not prone to error or tunnel vision. What do you believe scientists are funded by? Knowledge? No… Not in this shitty world… They’re funded by money here, something Coke has plenty of.
To be fair the vast majority of scientists will take other factors into account. If you thought of “this could also be because of that” then you can be sure that the scientists and the ones reviewing the publication also thought about it and addressed it. There are exceptions, sure, but don’t just assume everyone is bad at their job.
My assumption isn’t completely absent of context. From the article: “The FDA reviewed the the same evidence as IARC in 2021 and identified significant flaws in the studies, the spokesperson said.”
But that’s not really what I meant. The issue I have is about language and presentation of info, not research methodology. Most people aren’t going to read WHO’s ~100 pages of recommendations on aspartame. We get CNBC’s interpretation, and some clickbaity editor has left their stink on it.
“WHO says soda sweetener aspartame safe, but may cause cancer in extreme doses” is both a more pertinent headline for countries in the west and from what I can tell, closer to being in alignment with what the WHO are actually saying.
You’re right on the spot with media reporting on this.
This is absurdly stupid. I’m sorry… But it is. The naivety involved in this comment is staggeringly rough.
Even if we pretend what you’re saying is true, it suggests that scientists are not prone to error or tunnel vision. What do you believe scientists are funded by? Knowledge? No… Not in this shitty world… They’re funded by money here, something Coke has plenty of.