This may be a load of rubbish but worth posting

professorRAT aren't you just the special snowflake. Since this poison does not affect you, it should not be posted? What if someone reads this post and realizes they are one of the 'non-special snowflakes' that this poison does affect?

This makes no sense at all. You clearly have a problem understanding scientific evidence.

Also, I never said it didn't affect me. I have never consumed anything with aspartame in it. If you read my posts you would have known that. The post implies removing this from your diet will cure you if you have an autoimmune disease. That is completely unfounded and irresponsible (not to mention lazy not to do a 5 second google search on the post) to make this claim. So, yes, if a claim suggesting a cure for a serious disease is unjustified via scientific evidence it should not be posted. Did you even read this thread at all?

To be slightly less mean (but only slightly), aspartame has been proven safe for use (except by phenylketuronic-sensitive folks) in over 90 countries, it has been proven safe in innumerable studies over many decades, and the only time its safety was every called into question was not because of negative reactions, but because of a formality (the FDA wasn't satisfied with the methodology of the original safety studies).

Yeah Aspartame has been proven safe by the very people who are MAKING MONEY FROM IT. The Soda companies do studies that have proven sodas don't cause obesity, same with the corn industry, and the sugar industry.
Independent studies tend to be a little different. Personally, I developed bad reactions to the stuff over time.

Not that I'm looking to provide a bunch of sources as to why people are right or wrong.. as it's been pointed out, this is the argument that won't die, and there is plenty of written material providing support for either side, but there are things on the market now that are killing people and big companies don't really care. If you sue them for a wrongful death, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the total amount of money they're making, and that's the bottom line.

For those of you who think your government knows best: www.foodpolitics.com. Get educated!

.

I DON'T AGREE...MY GRANDMA WAS DIAGNOSED WITH MS AT 64 AND SHE WASN'T A DIET SODA DRINKER...

In the 1950s, ads in peer-reviewed journal, JAMA proudly proclaimed: ‘More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Brand.’ At one time, the now-debunked theory (espoused by many supposedly-intelligent-at-the-time-humans), that the planet earth was flat, was an undisputed fact. Just because we think we are so superior and highly-evolved with our science at this time does not mean we are unequivocally correct. Add billions of dollars at stake for the gigantic sweetener industry, and you may begin to have a tiny glimmer of understanding about the futility of asking any governmental agency anywhere in the world to go against the USFDA in asking for a recall and retesting of Aspartame as a drug, as our Aspartame Consumer Safety Network and Pilot Hotline all-volunteer organization has consistently done since 1987. This is a campaign that will be won or lost at the checkout stand. If consumers cease to use a product, whether for safety or lack of effectiveness, it will be history. It took decades for smoking to be declared an issue of gravest importance. Aspartame was approved in 1981. Do the math.

Your slating this women for advising you not to consume artificial sweeteners that have been proven to destroy brain cells in unborn children? That triggers many auto immune disease flare ups? Shame on you. For somebody that claims to live by science based research .... Your not very educated in the matter!

No. You are incorrect. This is a well studied issue and the scientific community has arrived at a consensus.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/aspartame-truth-vs-fiction/
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/faqs/faqaspartame.htm#3
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/artificial-sweeteners/MY00073

Also, concluding that something that may be bad for unborn children is bad for adults to consume suggests quite strongly that you do not understand how to correctly examine scientific evidence and draw conclusions from it. Sorry, but i am educated in that matter.

You state that I don't understand how to analysise a study and yet you supplied links that weren't even research papers. Try again!

Your slating this women for advising you not to consume artificial sweeteners that have been proven to destroy brain cells in unborn children? That triggers many auto immune disease flare ups? Shame on you. For somebody that claims to live by science based research .... Your not very educated in the matter!

No. You are incorrect. This is a well studied issue and the scientific community has arrived at a consensus.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/aspartame-truth-vs-fiction/
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/faqs/faqaspartame.htm#3
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/artificial-sweeteners/MY00073

Also, concluding that something that may be bad for unborn children is bad for adults to consume suggests quite strongly that you do not understand how to correctly examine scientific evidence and draw conclusions from it. Sorry, but i am educated in that matter.

You state that I don't understand how to analysise a study and yet you supplied links that weren't even research papers. Try again!

LOL. You have just proven my point. Cherry picking research papers is NOT how to properly analyze scientific evidence. Experts in scientific areas conduct meta-analysis. This means they look at MANY studies on the topic, discuss them, examine the quality of the studies and panels of experts arrive at a consensus. In some cases, the evidence is in-conclusive, and they state this. In other cases, this meta-analysis points fairly strongly in one direction or another. Then , they will state their consensus view on the topic. That is what I provided in the links, which IS the proper way to analyze scientific evidence. They discuss the research in the meta-analysis and these are sites that represent panels of experts. The first link is a scientist who generally does a good job at providing this type of information on various topics. I sure wish they would teach scientific method and the proper way to examine evidence in schools these days. But, alas.

I really wonder why none of my many doctors (some are experts in autoimmune liver diseases) have never recommended that I avoid aspartame or any other artificial sweetener. I mean, if there was a scientific consensus that it could flare up autoimmune disease, and they know a flare up could kill me outright, you would think they might have mentioned it.

If you don't like the taste of the stuff, don't use it.
If the stuff makes you feel bad, don't use it.
If you believe the bad stuff you read about it, don't use it.

If you like it, don't believe the bad stuff, have at.

This started happening to me in my late 30's, stomach pains, couldn't figure it out. I was lucky early on because a gal-friend of mine, who experienced the same, awful stomach pains, asked me if I was eating anything diet or sugar-free and I said no. Then at work the next day I realized what I was putting in my coffee, it was Sweet and Low, those little pink packets (with sacharin). That was my "culprit" and glad I discovered it early on. Anyone that poopoo's this topic hasn't experienced being ill and not knowing it was actually something poisoning them.

Denise
PS different substances/chemicals, effect people differently. One person it doesn't hurt at all, but it can kill another.