Truth Media: Aspartame (REDUX) ~ Jean-Roge's: Lack of Boundaries

Further to the initial Truth Media: Aspartame post there was still some concern that I had missed several important studies that would dramatically change my stance on the issue. In short, and after a lot of reading, the answer was I still can’t find a credible study that points in that direction.

Whatever.

You know, I have nothing vested in this. I don’t own shares in any connected entity and I don’t have an opinion one way or the other as to whether the shit causes cancer in humans. I’m also not a scientist and don’t have any medical training whatsoever. Science to me is where some guys in white lab coats ask a question then do lots of terribly inhumane things to rats to see what the answer is. Then other people in lab coats look at the study and if it follows whatever rules these people have they give it an approval. I imagine they have a red stamp that says “Totally-Fucking-Science” which they slam down on the study while giving their pet lab chimp devil-fingas.

I haven’t been able to track any specific study that demonises aspartame apart from the Ramazzini Foundation one and this is a problem for me. That study sure looks sciency but my issue is that while it was reviewed and published by EHP it was reviewed and discarded by the FDA. So we come down to bias and trust. At this point I’m willing to admit that everything is biased to some extent. I’m definitely willing to admit that I am biased to trust some crusty old person who makes judgements from a position of experience and intellect over some idealistic Health Ranger who makes judgements based on the will of the earth mother.

My point is that the support and advocacy for the Ramazzini Foundation study is from those in the natural/alternate/environmental side of science. The FDA (a bunch of crusty old person science) disregarded the study because the underlying data didn’t support the conclusion. If the aspartame-UNCLEAN lobby was to produce a similar group of crusty old person science and gave the study the thumbs up, now I would see two competing credible and trustworthy sources of information. But they don’t. We have Betty Martini who may or may not be a doctor slobbering all over it with stupid.

Credible.

In a deadlocked situation of equally trustworthy sources competing for my belief, I’d be hard pressed to choose. I suppose, like horse racing, I’d have to choose the group with a logo that is the most pleasing shade of blue. Or if their logo was a snooty French duck. So my answer when presented with the question of whether aspartame causes cancer is not “yes”, or “no”, or even “fuck off I’m eating a hot dog”. It’s “I don’t fucking know, but there are a bunch of people who put the science in scientific and there is another bunch made up of environmental dreamers and idealistic whackjobs”. If you still looked confused about my answer at that point I would say your god damn problem isn’t aspartame.