4 ms·

Yes and I'll stand by that statement. I think you'll find, once again, that nothing I said contradicts the statement you made, which is: > There are studies fo

Yes and I'll stand by that statement. I think you'll find, once again, that nothing I said contradicts the statement you made, which is: > There are studies for and against artificial sweeteners. There are studies funded by industry. There is such a thing as corruption in science and corruption in regulatory agencies. The global artificial sweetener market size is $7 Billion. I get that you're on the "okay, they're not" side of that divide that we all find themselves on. That's fine, and you are welcome to come to that conclusion. It's not one I've come to, but that's why the world is made up of different people. Remember, what I actually said was: > These artificial sweeteners are among the most studied chemicals in the world. At some point you've gotta say okay, they're fine, or okay, they're not. as well as the post you quoted. So I'm really not sure what you're arguing about here. Nothing I said contradicts your statement of "There are studies for and against...". Indeed, there are. Decades of them.

xcv123 3y ago
You wrote > there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose Well, there are studies showing that there is something wrong with consuming sucralose. I posted a link to such a study. That contradicts your statement.
- Blackthorn 3y ago
  You actually posted a link to a news article about a study, not a link to a study. And no, it doesn't contradict my statement that there's nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. It by itself is a piece of evidence, and doesn't by itself override decades of evidence.
  - xcv123 3y ago
    The article contains direct links to studies https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2... https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204 https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.848392/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.84839... https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/434 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/434 This obviously logically contradicts your statement. Your sophistry is incredible. Let's see how you bullshit your way out of this one.
    - Blackthorn 3y ago
      There's no sophistry here. I simply find the FDA's GRAS finding, and the EU SCF's findings, to be much more convincing than a handful of restricted studies. You, clearly, do not feel the same, but given that you feel that my position on this is "sophistry" and "bullshit", it is obvious that we are incapable of having an actual discussion on it.
      - xcv123 3y ago
        This is simple logic. It seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word "contradiction" "a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another." You wrote that there is no problem with sucralose. I showed studies indicating a problem with sucralose. That is a contradiction. Then you gaslight us saying there is no contradiction. Sophistry and gaslighting. This is basic english and logic.
        Blackthorn 3y ago
        Words like "gaslight" must have no meaning anymore. All of my comments are here for reading. If you think I'm lying...I don't know what to tell you. There's no contradiction. The FDA marks sucralose as GRAS, which means "generally recognized as safe". There's a study you found that disagree. There's other studies over the decades that disagree as well. You may choose to believe the body of evidence gathered by the FDA that made it make its recommendation, or you may choose not to. It appears that you do not wish to engage in good faith here, and prefer to make attacks against me and claim that I am gaslighting you, so I will not be continuing this conversation further.
        xcv123 3y ago
        Referring to the FDA is an appeal to authority. Yet another logical fallacy from you. They are a regulatory agency and are part of the most corrupt government on earth (US Government). You are outsourcing your thinking to a corrupt government agency staffed by extremely mediocre people who are not intellectually capable of doing the research themselves. You stated there is no problem with sucralose. I referred to studies showing that there is indeed a problem. Then you say there is no contradiction, but this is a contradiction by definition. To insist that there is no contradiction is blatant stupidity at best, and gaslighting at worst. I am sorry that you get personally offended by English dictionary definitions and basic logic.

xcv123 3y ago

You wrote > there's absolutely nothing wrong with consuming sucralose Well, there are studies showing that there is something wrong with consuming sucralose. I posted a link to such a study. That contradicts your statement.

Blackthorn 3y ago
You actually posted a link to a news article about a study, not a link to a study. And no, it doesn't contradict my statement that there's nothing wrong with consuming sucralose. It by itself is a piece of evidence, and doesn't by itself override decades of evidence.
- xcv123 3y ago
  The article contains direct links to studies https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2213903 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10937404.2023.2... https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204 https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-071204 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.848392/full https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.84839... https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/434 https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/2/434 This obviously logically contradicts your statement. Your sophistry is incredible. Let's see how you bullshit your way out of this one.
  - Blackthorn 3y ago
    There's no sophistry here. I simply find the FDA's GRAS finding, and the EU SCF's findings, to be much more convincing than a handful of restricted studies. You, clearly, do not feel the same, but given that you feel that my position on this is "sophistry" and "bullshit", it is obvious that we are incapable of having an actual discussion on it.
    - xcv123 3y ago
      This is simple logic. It seems that you don't understand the meaning of the word "contradiction" "a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another." You wrote that there is no problem with sucralose. I showed studies indicating a problem with sucralose. That is a contradiction. Then you gaslight us saying there is no contradiction. Sophistry and gaslighting. This is basic english and logic.
      - Blackthorn 3y ago
        Words like "gaslight" must have no meaning anymore. All of my comments are here for reading. If you think I'm lying...I don't know what to tell you. There's no contradiction. The FDA marks sucralose as GRAS, which means "generally recognized as safe". There's a study you found that disagree. There's other studies over the decades that disagree as well. You may choose to believe the body of evidence gathered by the FDA that made it make its recommendation, or you may choose not to. It appears that you do not wish to engage in good faith here, and prefer to make attacks against me and claim that I am gaslighting you, so I will not be continuing this conversation further.
        xcv123 3y ago
        Referring to the FDA is an appeal to authority. Yet another logical fallacy from you. They are a regulatory agency and are part of the most corrupt government on earth (US Government). You are outsourcing your thinking to a corrupt government agency staffed by extremely mediocre people who are not intellectually capable of doing the research themselves. You stated there is no problem with sucralose. I referred to studies showing that there is indeed a problem. Then you say there is no contradiction, but this is a contradiction by definition. To insist that there is no contradiction is blatant stupidity at best, and gaslighting at worst. I am sorry that you get personally offended by English dictionary definitions and basic logic.