Dedicated to educating the masses on scams, hoaxes, quackery and questionable practices. To provide them with tools to make this a better world!
I tried to post a comment on the science-based medicine blog.Here is a link to a pdf of the most recent aspartame cancer study:http://www.janethull.com/newsletter/0206/bella_italia_the_soffritti_aspartame_study.phpAnd here is an abstract:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418(By the way, Soffritti conducted two long-term studies in recent years). Many studies with dubious funding sources (Anjinamoto, Searle, etc.) will attest to the safety of aspartame. Non-industry funded studies (most showing problems with aspartame) are listed at the following link:http://sweetremedyfilm.blogspot.com/p/dr-ralph-waltons-compiled-list-of-non.htmlThis might help in determining where the actual scam is taking place.Cheers!
Hello Intercept,I have allowed your posting. Thank you for the politeness of your response (I always will allow polite dissent to any information/opinions I have posted)Unfortunately, Janet Hull is a dubious source in my opinion due to the plethora of unfounded pseudo-science that she spouts and sells. Having said that, I am not opposed to looking at the info she has provided. Some info does have some warrant where others do not. I will look into that at another time though, but wanted to get a response to you.Thank you for the Pubmed study. This is of course on rats which are not human so that is of course not conclusive of human exposure. But I agree that Aspartame should be continued to be studied.The funding sources comments are a moot point. It's like me saying that because Janet makes money from alternative products she is biased. Of course this may be so, but the facts should soley be looked at.
You may find this info interestinghttp://18.104.22.168/archive/0001/01/01/acesulfame-k.aspxNow the link in Janet's blog ( http://www.sweetpoison.com/pdf/Soffritti_et_al_in_EHP.pdf ) is flawed to use a proof for various reasons:1. It's just one study (but again I do agree continued studies are continually needed).2. It does not state not to use aspartame. It simply says, base on these results "a re-evaluation of the present guidelines on theuse and consumption of APM is urgent and cannot be delayed." It does not say that is diffinitive nor in response to any other results...just these results.Also notice this "Under particularconditions (extreme pH, high temperature, lengthy storage times) APM may becontaminated by the diketopiperazine cycloaspartylphenylalanine (DKP) (Butchko et al. 2002a)." Intersting. So it's saying that it can be tainted."while methanol is transformed intoformaldehyde and then to formic acid (Opperman 1984)." This may sound alarming, but formaldehyde is a natural occuring chemical found in the body. What matters is the dosage (as with anything and the question about aspartame in particlar here. DiHydrogen Oxide (water) is poison in the right dosage as is just oxygen.Also notice that it mentions the Searle & Co tests. "Brain tumors were observed in 7/155 (4.5%) exposed males vs 1/59 (1.7%)controls, and in 5/158 (3.2%) exposed females vs 0/59 (0%) in controls" Definitely not significant.It is interesting that the Soffritti shows the 0% exposure group with an almost 21% rate of conatining lymphomas and leukemias and the highest dosage group was at 29%. That's only an 8% difference. I would say that is not a huge significant finding. In fact all dosages except the highest (100,000 ppm) all had percentages relatively equal or less than the 0% dosage, including the 50,000ppm which was only at 20%.Also consider that the dosages were administered "until natural death", which suggests that there was a possiblity of other causes of death.Your second link is from Dr. Ralph S. Watson. He is a psychiatrist and not a biologist. His expertise are elsewhere.