This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 20 January 2013 (→birth defects: preterm delivery is not a birth defect). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:31, 20 January 2013 by AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) (→birth defects: preterm delivery is not a birth defect)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aspartame controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | Skepticism B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Medicine B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
|
 | Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article seems biased. (I am 76.171.244.110)
for example here's an opinionated statement: "These health risk claims have been examined and debunked by numerous scientific research projects" Rather then saying "this is fact" please present the facts or word it more appropriately like, "These health risks claims have been examined by numerous scientific research projects, the majority of which concluded these claims to be false." but please take into account valid evidence when deciding upon the majority: http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm#aspartame The center of science for the public interest, a reputable non-profit organization concluded that aspartame is one of the few food additives that should be completely avoided due with the following statement relevant to their decision: "The bottom line is that three independent studies have found that consumption of aspartame causes cancer in rodents. However, the questions raised by government and industry reviewers about this important food additive can only be solved by new reliable, high-quality studies by other independent scientists." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.177.144 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- This has been discussed extensively in the past. There have been isolated studies that showed aspartame might cause cancer in rodents, but they have not been replicated and are ignored by the scientific community, so we cannot give any credence to claims based on their results. TFD (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- "discussed extensively in the past" is not on the talk page, why don't you provide some references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.177.144 (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- The first discussion thread on this page is about POV issues and if you go to the top of the page you can read through 9 pages of archived discussions mostly raising the same issues. TFD (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, my apologies, I missed that because it was titled "michael newton reference". I would still like to see more information in this article though, particularly links to the data used in the ramazzini studies (the data that was provided). I have to wonder where the rise in carcinogenesis came from in the rats used in the ramazzini studies, even though they used some flawed practices that doesn't seem like it's basis enough to throw their entire study out the window, I think the data should be linked to in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.177.144 (talk • contribs)
- The first discussion thread on this page is about POV issues and if you go to the top of the page you can read through 9 pages of archived discussions mostly raising the same issues. TFD (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- "discussed extensively in the past" is not on the talk page, why don't you provide some references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.177.144 (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Did they release data to the public? I'm not aware of any. --Six words (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Even if the raw data are out there I don't think linking to them is a good idea without expert commentary. I think it would violate WP:OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Did they release data to the public? I'm not aware of any. --Six words (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, I was just curious. I think they didn't even give EFSA and FDA all their data so the suggestion that they released data to the public was surprising. --Six words (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. In my profession you are supposed to keep your raw data for 7 years, and give them to anyone who asks, not sure how it works in other sciences. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- You're right, I was just curious. I think they didn't even give EFSA and FDA all their data so the suggestion that they released data to the public was surprising. --Six words (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
On Betty Martini's "Conspiracy Theory"
This article states that "critics such as activist Betty Martini have promoted claims, undocumented in the medical literature, that numerous health risks (such as multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, methanol toxicity, blindness, spasms, shooting pains, seizures, headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss, birth defects and death) are associated with the consumption of aspartame in normal doses. ... Betty Martini's widely circulated conspiracy theory. Her undocumented claims are still repeated by thousands of self-published Web sites." This is a false claim. Her claims come from FOIA requests like the following: 1) The following FDA report received via FOIA request on aspartame symptoms - cynically, on the upper right hand corner of the fourth page, it states, "92 documented symptoms on the FDA report - from coma and seizures to blindness and death": http://www.mpwhi.com/92_aspartame_symptoms.pdf
2) The following FDA report showing aspartame toxicity, including data omitted from the standard rhetoric that pushed the product into the market, the last part beginning at p. 81, the result of a FOIA request by Dr. John Olney, is important, as it shows discrepancies between stated and actual data, and obfuscation on the part of Searle (and poor quality controls), and how this was kept under wraps by the FDA: http://www.dorway.com/bresslercomplete.pdf
Many studies also show toxic effects from Aspartame. From them we find that:
Artificial sweetener consumption is associated with urinary tract tumors: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18495230
Aspartame may be linked to increasing brain cancer rates: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8939194
Consumption of greater than 2 servings per day of artificially sweetened soda is associated with a 2-fold increased odds for kidney function decline in women: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20884773
In men, greater than 1 daily serving of diet soda increased risks of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myleoma: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23097267
The elimination of MSG and Aspartame from the diets of patients with fibromyalgia is a successful treatment option: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11408989
Aspartame administered in feed, beginning prenatally through life span, induces cancers of the liver and lung in male Swiss mice: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20886530
Aspartame affects genes associated with cancer and may increase gene expression in organs with a high proliferation rate (even at the recommended daily maximum dose): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17354619
Aspartame appears to adversely affect spatial cognition and insulin sensitivity, especially in males:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22509243
Aspartame consumption may constitute a hazard because of its contribution to the formation of formaldehyde adducts: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9714421
Aspartame intake corresponding to common doses results in signs of neurotoxicity in rats:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18343556
Aspartame is associated with neurological dysfunction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17673349
Aspartame produces methanol as a metabolite, which can be converted into the cytotoxic chemicals formaledhyde and formate: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11991085
This important one - Chronic exposure to aspartame results in oxidative stress in the brain of albino rats, as well as methanol formation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22922192
Life-span exposure to low doses of aspartame beginning during prenatal life increases leukemia and lymphoma rates in rats: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805418
Long term consumption of aspartame causes liver injury and oxidative stress in the rat liver:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21376768
Aspartame and L-glutamic acid work synergistically with food coloring agents to induce neurotoxicity:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16352620
Saccharin and aspartame, compared with sucrose, induce greater weight gain in adult Wistar rats, at similar total caloric intake levels: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23088901
Aspartame contains 11% methanol by weight, which converts to formaldehyde in organs other than the liver: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19896282
Aspartame is broken down into formaldehyde in various tissues and may contribute to migraines: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18627677
Aspartame may be associated with certain mental disorders, compromised learning and emotional functioning: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17684524
Aspartame metabolites have an adverse effect on human red blood cell enzyme activity: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16129618
Aspartame bioassay findings portend human cancer hazards: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18085058
Individuals with mood disorders are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of aspartame: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8373935
The consumption of aspartame is associated with higher serum levels of a benzene metabolite associated with blood disorders and leukemia: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16484134
Among other things. Pottinger's cats (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you check the archives you will see that dorway is not a reliable source, I am pretty sure mpwhi.com would not be an RS either. The article is well sourced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- The two items I linked to contain the scanned copies of articles from FOIA requests that refute the notion that Martini's claims are undocumented. Those websites are used for no other purpose. Those scanned copies substantiate the claims of the person being critiqued.Pottinger's cats (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Pottinger - no historian worth his or her salt would accept a pdf posted on an activist organization website as reliable. Maybe a historian would use that as a basis to make his or her own FOIA request. But it is laughably unreliable on its own.Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Cherry picking individual primary studies won't be of much use either. (Some of which don't even mention aspartame, but instead mention just 'artificial sweeteners') Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- The two items linked to above, from dorway and Martini's site, show that her claims are documented, and thus refute the claim in this article. If you critique a person for having a view contrary to mainstream institutions, but will not allow that person's documentation substantiating that view to be reproduced, then that is hardly neutral. This is not any article from those sites - it is clear FOIA scanned request copies substantiating the claims of the promoter of the idea, who is attacked. The urinary tract tumor artificial sweetener study mentions Cyclamate, Saccharin, Aspartame, and Acesulfame-K. Aspartame is the artificial sweetener of choice for diet sodas, hence the second study.Pottinger's cats (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Now, I understand wikipedia's policy on primary sources vs. secondary sources, but the point of that was to show that there are more then a few studies that come up with adverse effects, hence this is not an anomaly. My main point though relates to the two items of Martini substantiating her claims.Pottinger's cats (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- The two items linked to above, from dorway and Martini's site, show that her claims are documented, and thus refute the claim in this article. If you critique a person for having a view contrary to mainstream institutions, but will not allow that person's documentation substantiating that view to be reproduced, then that is hardly neutral. This is not any article from those sites - it is clear FOIA scanned request copies substantiating the claims of the promoter of the idea, who is attacked. The urinary tract tumor artificial sweetener study mentions Cyclamate, Saccharin, Aspartame, and Acesulfame-K. Aspartame is the artificial sweetener of choice for diet sodas, hence the second study.Pottinger's cats (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- The two items I linked to contain the scanned copies of articles from FOIA requests that refute the notion that Martini's claims are undocumented. Those websites are used for no other purpose. Those scanned copies substantiate the claims of the person being critiqued.Pottinger's cats (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- You need to provide review studies that look at all studies and determine whether the findings above have been repeated in other studies. Many adverse studies have been found to have poor methodology. Statistically, there is a high probability that if thousands and thousands of studies are conducted with small populations that some will provide adverse results. The FDA report btw "documents" the 7,232 reports of adverse reactions to apartame received between 1980 and 1995, of which 92 were of the serious nature you mentioned. Compare that with 6,000 UFO sightings in 2011. TFD (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- The number 92, as it pertains to the FDA report, documents a list of symptoms, not the number of people with those symptoms, which is spread across the symptoms listed.Pottinger's cats (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please review WP:MEDRS. None of these sources qualify for inclusion in this article. There is a clear scientific consensus that aspartame is safe for consumption at current doses, you will need more than individual primary studies to overturn this; if you find secondary reviews that state otherwise, we can consider, otherwise we are spinning our wheels here. Yobol (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- The number of symptoms is meaningless. When something is associated with 92 or 10,000 symptoms in a few individuals each, it is meaningless from an epidemiological standpoint. The CDC investigation of the complaints turned up nothing. That is the content of the medical literature.
- Please review WP:MEDRS. None of these sources qualify for inclusion in this article. There is a clear scientific consensus that aspartame is safe for consumption at current doses, you will need more than individual primary studies to overturn this; if you find secondary reviews that state otherwise, we can consider, otherwise we are spinning our wheels here. Yobol (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- The number 92, as it pertains to the FDA report, documents a list of symptoms, not the number of people with those symptoms, which is spread across the symptoms listed.Pottinger's cats (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Willful misinterpretation of the medical literature is not documentation. Take the study that shows "aspartame may be linked to increasing brain cancer rates"; that one was debunked years ago. The trend started before aspartame was introduced and was already leveling off. Despite increased consumption, the incidence of brain tumors has been tailing off since 1987. In a study of pediatric brain tumors, controls were more likely to drink diet soda more than weekly and maternal consumption was higher in the control group (although neither at a statistically significant level). Anyone making the claim that the medical literature supports the notion of an association with brain tumors is not using the medical literature. Or take the claim that "in men, greater than 1 daily serving of diet soda increased risks of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myleoma". That was a negative study. There was a control for lifestyle: regular soda consumption. While there was a slight increase in risk in the group consuming diet soda, barely over the threshold of statistical significance, the regular soda group showed a higher risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Calling this an adverse effect is not supported by the medical literature. What you are describing is a WP:FRINGE interpretation of the medical literature, the cherry-picking of tidbits and passages to create an illusion, not documentation in the medical literature.Novangelis (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give me the original source this comes from?: http://img.medscape.com/fullsize/migrated/540/146/nf540146.fig3.gif
- Here. The brain tumor opinion piece was problematic from the day it was published (that whole effect-preceding-cause thing). The fringe theorists cling to it, even though the medical literature has dismissed it.Novangelis (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- And with the exception of what you pointed out, which did show adverse effects from aspartame (though it also noted adverse effects with the soda), what was described was pretty consistent with the abstracts. (I find this one interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17354619)Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- An association is not an effect. That conflation of correlation and causation is the stock and trade of fringe advocates. An extremely weak association between diet soda and a condition is not a demonstration that aspartame causes the condition, especially when the condition appears at a higher rate in a group not receiving aspartame. This disconnect between the activists and the medical literature has been well demonstrated in this thread. You don't have to make that point any more times. This article and its talk page are not the place for trying to interpret animal studies which may or may not have physiological significance; this article (and the rest of Misplaced Pages) uses high-quality reviews to interpret that data.Novangelis (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- And with the exception of what you pointed out, which did show adverse effects from aspartame (though it also noted adverse effects with the soda), what was described was pretty consistent with the abstracts. (I find this one interesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17354619)Pottinger's cats (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Here. The brain tumor opinion piece was problematic from the day it was published (that whole effect-preceding-cause thing). The fringe theorists cling to it, even though the medical literature has dismissed it.Novangelis (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Can you give me the original source this comes from?: http://img.medscape.com/fullsize/migrated/540/146/nf540146.fig3.gif
- Willful misinterpretation of the medical literature is not documentation. Take the study that shows "aspartame may be linked to increasing brain cancer rates"; that one was debunked years ago. The trend started before aspartame was introduced and was already leveling off. Despite increased consumption, the incidence of brain tumors has been tailing off since 1987. In a study of pediatric brain tumors, controls were more likely to drink diet soda more than weekly and maternal consumption was higher in the control group (although neither at a statistically significant level). Anyone making the claim that the medical literature supports the notion of an association with brain tumors is not using the medical literature. Or take the claim that "in men, greater than 1 daily serving of diet soda increased risks of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myleoma". That was a negative study. There was a control for lifestyle: regular soda consumption. While there was a slight increase in risk in the group consuming diet soda, barely over the threshold of statistical significance, the regular soda group showed a higher risk for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Calling this an adverse effect is not supported by the medical literature. What you are describing is a WP:FRINGE interpretation of the medical literature, the cherry-picking of tidbits and passages to create an illusion, not documentation in the medical literature.Novangelis (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The high quality reviews you mention are industry funded, with conflict of interest. The following echoes my concerns PMID 18085058 The statement "especially when the condition appears at a higher rate in a group not receiving aspartame" is incorrect - the abstract states, comparing it to the group that did not receive diet soda "in men, ≥1 daily serving of diet soda increased risks of NHL (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.72) and multiple myeloma (RR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.20, 3.40) in comparison with men who did not consume diet soda." Here are independent human studies showing negative effect, where this is clear from the abstract - PMID 8373935, PMID 7936222, PMID 1579221, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2524.1988.hed2801010.x/abstract I have highlighted many others. Of these, the most interesting to me is the following - PMID 11408989 Independent studies keep coming up, year after year, showing problems - like this most recent one, which is not at all ambiguous PMID 23280025 Now, where Betty Martini comes in is that she has done the work in obtaining the copies of the congressional documents and FDA investigations noting that during the approval process, toxicity was known, and obfuscated. How the CDC put up a summary on the report that contradicted the investigation, then left the investigation off their web site, etc. I do not have the time to engage in a further in depth debate on this. Obviously, somebody like her would have to take up the mantle.Pottinger's cats (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
- It does not matter whether studies are industry funded, but the degree of acceptance they have obtained in academic writing. Companies often fund studies outside academic research that are published by thinktanks, which are not reliable. TFD (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
EFSA re-evaluation: draft scientific opinion published
Last week, EFSA published a draft report as part of a call for public consultation. From what I see (haven't had the time to read the whole report) they're going to reconfirm EU's ADI of 40 mg/kg bw per day. --Six words (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
in spite of this
You say,
"In 1987, the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded that the food additive approval process had been followed properly for aspartame. In spite of this, critics such as activist Betty Martini have promoted claims, undocumented in the medical literature,"
Your statement "in spite of this" is illogical. The Government Accountability Office never ruled on the health of aspartame. They never ruled even on the creditability of the data presented They only said proper procedures had been followed.
If i follow proper procedures to buy a gun and then shoot someone should i be let off because I "followed proper procedures"
You should correct this. Arydberg (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is fine the way it is. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
BLPN thread started by a frequent contributor to this talk page
Some editors here might find this thread of interest (I follow BLPN, though some of you may not). http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#aspartame_controversy Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Nancy Markle emails
In the lead it states: "The unsubstantiated claims are still repeated by thousands of self-published Web sites." This is unsourced. No one knows what is still repeated on the Internet. My guess is that someone used Google (which is against Misplaced Pages's rules). I get 590 actual hits of links that contain the name Nancy Markle and "aspartame". This is not thousands if one even used this. These are all sites, pro and con, self-published and not self-published. Please remove this sentence. Immortale (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- good point.
Arydberg (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
birth defects
I suggest the words "birth defects" be removed from the following line "In spite of this, rumors, unsupported by medical evidence, propagate that numerous health conditions (such as multiple sclerosis, systemic lupus, methanol toxicity, blindness, spasms, shooting pains, seizures, headaches, depression, anxiety, memory loss, birth defects and death" be removed. The following link shows there was medical research devoted to birth defects.
Arydberg (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- The MailOnline Website isn't remotely a reliable source per WP:MEDRS, and even if it was, it doesn't say anything about birth defects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- The author writes, "we urge cautious interpretation until further studies have been conducted. Indeed, as with any other observational study, we cannot exclude the role of bias or unadjusted confounding. This is why we encourage replication of our findings." TFD (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
You are correct on the Daily Mail here is the real link, http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/3/626.full] Also your statement implies there exists no research on birth defects. You state, in effect, that rumors are unsupported by ANY medical evidence. This is not true regardless of wether the study is replicated.
Arydberg (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah but you see, there is no evidence, the authors practically admit that. You have been grasping at straws for years now, you might consider moving on. Seriously. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- And this is no small study either. Almost 60,000 pregnant women took part. Interesting that they write: "the safety of artificial sweeteners has been disputed". According to the Misplaced Pages Controversy article, it's undisputed. No evidence? The researchers came to this conclusion: "Daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may increase the risk of preterm delivery." We are not looking for evidence, we are simply here to report the controversy. Why are you attacking anyone who tries to make the article more neutral? Immortale (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- 'May' is not 'does' Please also see the quote from TFD above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- And this is no small study either. Almost 60,000 pregnant women took part. Interesting that they write: "the safety of artificial sweeteners has been disputed". According to the Misplaced Pages Controversy article, it's undisputed. No evidence? The researchers came to this conclusion: "Daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may increase the risk of preterm delivery." We are not looking for evidence, we are simply here to report the controversy. Why are you attacking anyone who tries to make the article more neutral? Immortale (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Preterm delivery is not a birth defect.--Six words (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- On a pack of cigarettes, it says: Tobacco MAY harm your health. Are you going to hide behind legal terms now? We are here to report the controversy, nothing else. Leave the rest to lawyers. This is getting too ridiculous again. Immortale (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct, it is getting ridiculous. Please move on. This is the longest case I have ever seen of WP:IDHT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- On a pack of cigarettes, it says: Tobacco MAY harm your health. Are you going to hide behind legal terms now? We are here to report the controversy, nothing else. Leave the rest to lawyers. This is getting too ridiculous again. Immortale (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- If there's a request that says "Please remove birth defects because this study says there's a correlation between premature birth and diet soda consumption", how is it "ridiculous" or "hiding behind legal terms" if I point out that premature birth is not a birth defect? --Six words (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. Please stop wasting our time with this pointless nonsense. If people can't be bothered to read the article (which doesn't say what the OP claims), the sources they link, or the Misplaced Pages policies - which make entirely clear that rubbish like Mail Online isn't a reliable source anyway - why the heck should we bother responding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand. This is what the journal article says.
"Results: There was an association between intake of artificially sweetened carbonated and noncarbonated soft drinks and an increased risk of preterm delivery (P for trend: le 0.001, both variables). In comparison with women with no intake of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks, the adjusted odds ratio for women who consumed ge 1 serving of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks/d was 1.38 (95% CI: 1.15, 1.65). The corresponding odds ratio for women who consumed ge 4 servings of artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks/d was 1.78 (95% CI: 1.19, 2.66). The association was observed for normal-weight and overweight women. A stronger increase in risk was observed for early preterm and moderately preterm delivery than with late-preterm delivery. No association was observed for sugar-sweetened carbonated soft drinks (P for trend: 0.29) or for sugar-sweetened noncarbonated soft drinks (P for trend: 0.93).
Conclusions: Daily intake of artificially sweetened soft drinks may increase the risk of preterm delivery. Further studies are needed to reject or confirm these findings."
Please tell me why this is ridiculous Arydberg (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Because studies may produce all kinds of finds, but require interpretation, replication of findings and acceptance in the academic community. BTW the U.S. stopped saying that smoking may be hazardous to health in 1970. TFD (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly. Arydberg, you do not understand how science works. Many things are found, once, they have to be replicated. That is precisely why 'Further studies are needed to reject or confirm these findings' is in the paper. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- It is ridiculous because preterm delivery is not a birth defect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)