5 ms·
> If it were meaningless, FDAs and other regulatory bodies would not even accept it during the clinical trial design review phase. Go look up how many corporat
by RobertRoberts 7y ago
> If it were meaningless, FDAs and other regulatory bodies would not even accept it during the clinical trial design review phase.
Go look up how many corporate stooges are in the place in the FDA over the years.
A good starting point is the history of Aspartame, I'd link some articles, but I suspect the sources would be shot down and evidence ignored. The people at the FDA were complicit in its approval, despite scientific evidence showing it was dangerous.
- abrichr 7y agoI would appreciate links to articles on the subject, if you have them handy!
- Alex3917 7y agoThe tl;dr is that the same guys who fabricated the evidence about Saddam Hussein having WMDs also fabricated evidence for aspartame being safe. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_8...
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ben_w 7y agoDid Donald Rumsfeld also convince the European Union, who have their own interests and a similar sized economy, that it was safe? https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/131210 https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/131210 or the “more than 90 countries worldwide” [1] that the Canadian government refers to on their own website? https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/food-additives/sugar-substitutes/aspartame-artificial-sweeteners.html https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutriti... There are certainly cases where I don’t trust USA regulations. This just isn’t one of them. [1] number includes EU and US, but that still leaves more than sixty others.
- darkpuma 7y agoPerhaps they consulted with somebody who's an expert at lying to Europeans, such as Tony Blair. ;)
- Pimpus 7y agoMost of these same countries also outlawed dmt ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Your argument is basically just an appeal to authority. As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical.
- ben_w 7y agoAuthorities are called such for a reason. It is only a fallacy to invoke an authority who is unrelated to the subject, or if your opponent is also an authority. > As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical. On the subject of fallacies, this one is called the “appeal to nature”.
- donatzsky 7y agoIf said authorities were infallible, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately that is rarely the case.
- AstralStorm 7y agoNature is full of poisons too. Sugar is one! (In the right big and/or chronic dose. Organisms have to deal with glycation damage all the time.)
- TeMPOraL 7y ago"Not infallible" doesn't mean "always wrong". Just because FDA made some mistakes, doesn't mean you can start doing the opposite of everything they say and live a happy and healthy life. Authorities may be "in the pocket of Big Pharma", but by default, I'd still trust them much more than yours or mine non-expert opinion.
- 7y ago
- Nasrudith 7y agoAspartame is ironically a substance we are most sure of its safety because of how fixed many were on the idea it was dangerous. Few substances were given such exhaustive testing. The sources would be shot down for a reason and not some vast conspiracy but because the hill they chose to die on wasn't even real. I would draw the opposite conclusion - safety analysis by whatever becomes a cause is a very poor way to both allocate resources.
- astazangasta 7y agoErr, have you acually read the studies they used to approve? They are not unequivocal, and the final approval of it as a drink additive was thanks to Donald Rumsfeld, who was CEO of Searle at the time and had a hand in selecting Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to head the FDA.
- andreareina 7y ago> I'd link some articles, but I suspect the sources would be shot down and evidence ignored Why would you say that? This is a serious accusation made without offering evidence and the only effect it can have is to greatly diminish the probability of having a productive debate.
- RobertRoberts 7y agoIf you feel like it, look at my previous comments, I post something with evidence and ad hominem attacks ensue. It's exhausting. I figure some people don't know about this, so they will look it up. People who are reactive will vote me down regardless of what I say or proof I provide. There is so much evidence of corporate manipulation of the high level government posts is nauseating.
- andreareina 7y agoI suspect that the sort of person who would be convinced to look it up and decide for themselves would be less likely to do so after reading the sort of comment I replied to.
- ekianjo 7y agoAssuming the FDA is corrupted is one thing, assuming regulatory bodies ACROSS the world are all corrupted at the very same time is just very close to being a ridiculous claim.
- marcus_holmes 7y agoit's known as "regulatory capture" and it's extremely common. Most planning authorities worldwide are captured by property developers. The more money involved in an industry, the more likely it is that the industry regulator is captured.
- andrewla 7y agoRegulatory capture will mean that outsiders - small companies without big pharma connections - will find it difficult to get effective drugs approved. Similarly, innovative ways of proving drug effectiveness, even if they are more efficient and accurate, will be difficult to bring into practice.
- RobertRoberts 7y agoHumans are the same everywhere. Corruption is universal.