The Aspertame Lawsuit (Equal Sugar Sweetener Is Toxic!)

Ok, after trying to look at all the links offered, i don't think i have seen this one.
Is the New York Times ok with all of you saying the other sources are biased?

The Lowdown On Sweet?

Originally posted by blowfishdl
reply to post by NRen2k5

 

Dude you are so ignorant. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Thanks for adding to the discussion (only your not).

This is NRen's style. Contradiction without backup argument, a challenge to prove, or claiming a source is biased. Once in while, he'll post a fair point, but it's quite rare

dorway.com is of course bias, what resource isn't. however, it's the most authoritative site on the net for anti-aspartame info, and thank god someone has made it their life work to do something we don't have the time, inclination or commitment to do.

You will find 100's of links there to studies conducted by scientific bodies, universities, independents and govt bodies.

I did post a list of around 100 studies, but it seems to have been ignored, and the thread continues with anecdotes and vague references which are still being bashed.

Here is the post - if you still want to refute the validity of anti-aspartame evidence after making your way through even 10% of that, then I'll respect the persistence of your commitment, even though I'm still unlikely to agree this chemical substance is universally harmless.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

100 studies needed two posts

Originally posted by Doug Weller
Personally I've drunk little but diet drinks for a couple of decades and at 65 am in very good health.

My grannie smoked 40 non-filter cigarettes a day between the age of 20 something and 70 something, originally recommended by her doctor She died in her own home, at the age of 97.

By your reasoning, that means that cigarettes are not harmful to health.

"I don't care what your relatives, neighbors or friends eat or do, they are not you, and some people have stronger constitutions and can get away with more than others. Who cares what George Burns does; his lifestyle would have killed me by 20." Dr Richard Schulze

BTW, what you consider very good health may not be someone else's idea of very good health

Originally posted by RogerT

Originally posted by blowfishdl
reply to post by NRen2k5

 

Dude you are so ignorant. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Thanks for adding to the discussion (only your not).

This is NRen's style. Contradiction without backup argument, a challenge to prove, or claiming a source is biased. Once in while, he'll post a fair point, but it's quite rare

It’s a shame you don’t understand.

When you get down to the level of black and white facts – the question of whether something did or didn’t happen – is possible or is impossible – that’s when you need to prove something.

And that’s all I’m asking. Prove it. Some people are arguing that aspartame shouldn’t be used in foods because it’s harmful. I say sure, if it’s harmful, it shouldn’t be used, but we need to know whether it’s harmful or not!

Now, it’s next to impossible to prove a negative. I couldn’t in a million years with a million studies prove conclusively that aspartame doesn’t cause harm to someone on some kind of level. But the burden of proof for the “aspartame is harmful” side is much, much lighter. All that needs to be proven is that aspartame is harmful to the average person. That burden has not yet been met. All they’ve brought to the table are opinions with little to no basis in reality.

dorway.com is of course bias, what resource isn't. however, it's the most authoritative site on the net for anti-aspartame info

Your opinion. Mine is that dorway.com is one of the more prolific sites for anti-aspartame propaganda.

and thank god someone has made it their life work to do something we don't have the time, inclination or commitment to do.

No.

A noble cause would be to dedicate one’s life to answering the question as to whether aspartame is harmful or not.

NOT to assume that it is harmful and base your life’s work on that assumption.

You will find 100's of links there to studies conducted by scientific bodies, universities, independents and govt bodies.

And you will find that they don’t prove your hypothesis.

I did post a list of around 100 studies, but it seems to have been ignored, and the thread continues with anecdotes and vague references which are still being bashed.

That’s right.

Show me any of those studies and I can show you where they jump to a conclusion, or start off with a false assumption, or how they are irrelevant to “normal” aspartame consumption.

Here is the post - if you still want to refute the validity of anti-aspartame evidence after making your way through even 10% of that, then I'll respect the persistence of your commitment, even though I'm still unlikely to agree this chemical substance is universally harmless.

I already know it isn’t universally harmless. Like many other chemicals, there will be people who are sensitive to it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You published just the names. No text. Nice try. I call a fallacy of proof by verbosity on this one.

Originally posted by RogerT

Originally posted by Doug Weller
Personally I've drunk little but diet drinks for a couple of decades and at 65 am in very good health.

My grannie smoked 40 non-filter cigarettes a day between the age of 20 something and 70 something, originally recommended by her doctor

She died in her own home, at the age of 97.

By your reasoning, that means that cigarettes are not harmful to health.

"I don't care what your relatives, neighbors or friends eat or do, they are not you, and some people have stronger constitutions and can get away with more than others. Who cares what George Burns does; his lifestyle would have killed me by 20." Dr Richard Schulze

BTW, what you consider very good health may not be someone else's idea of very good health

Sure. Now take a look at the big picture.

Most people who smoke suffer ill effects from it. Anybody care to argue against this?
Most people who consume aspartame do not suffer ill effects from it. Anybody care to argue against that?

[edit on 31-10-2007 by NRen2k5]

reply to post by NRen2k5


The thing that strikes me as odd thru your posts to this thread is why you are sticking up for aspartame ?

Are you an industry person who benefits from its sales ? Is it purely cos your dad has diabetes and has developed a taste for the stuff ?

I mean, nowhere in what you have posted have you given me an idea for where you a truly coming from...

If you did, perhaps we could debate the issue reasonably...But nothing of what you have posted has been reasonable over the last 10 days...

Its all been one sentence stuff like you'd expect on a playground of 8 yr olds, stuff like "prove it", "how do you know for sure"...

All without posting any CREDIBLE evidence to support your position...

Now...If you can post without getting all hot and antsy an almost abusive to your fellow posters, I'd be happy to debate this further...

But thus far, whenever anyone posts something you don't agree with, the response has been borderline abuse, or something along the lines of "prove it to my satisfaction"...

The world alone, including ATS does not rely on links alone to prove or disprove a position....Its all about arguing a position as emotionless as possible...

This far, you have failed....Hence my desire as to why you are posting the way you are...

Now, in order for a proper debate to happen, YOU MUST answer my questions first...

If you do not, that indicates either:

A) You are posting purely from an emotional un-scientific POV

or

B) Your are deliberately clouding this issue with your own totally unfounded POV's...

So...

What's it gonna be ? Come clean as to the real reasons you're posting along these lines (u2u is fine) and I'm happy to debate you as per ATS rules....

Or...Look like you really don't look like you don't know what you are talking about, as you have thus far...

Your choice...

HOWEVER...

In order for said debate to proceed...You have to acknowledge where you stand on this issue up to now...Either its a personal thing, perhaps blidned by the science as part of the industry you belong to, or its a case of posting your own personally opinions which are thus far unfounded by the science concerned...

Your choice...

Peace

Originally posted by NRen2k5
Most people who consume aspartame do not suffer ill effects from it. Anybody care to argue against that?
[edit on 31-10-2007 by NRen2k5]

There are also a LOT of documented cases of people getting migraines from ingesting aspartame. And for those who do not suffer immediate effects, that doesn't mean it's not harming them because these chemicals embed themselves into the internal organs and cause damage later in life. They also cause neurological damage that is not noticed until late in life when people start developing alzheimers and other related neurological diseases.

There are thousands of chemicals that have never been fully tested (or never tested) but are used in everyday products. Can you say that because we handle plastic trash bags everyday without suffering ill effects that plastic trash bags are safe? No. They contain dangerous chemicals that combine in your body with all the other dangerous chemicals that will more than likely cause multiple illnesses at some point in a persons life.

It has been well-documented that most all of today's diseases have increased over the years as chemicals have been increasingly added to our food, water and products.

Just because we cannot fully prove that these products are unsafe doesn't mean that they're safe. And there is enough documented evidence to show that we cannot trust what we read on a product label or what the FDA claims.

Maybe some people on this board are smart enough to come to common-sense conclusions based on past history. Anyone who would continue to consume aspartame because they are waiting for the "proof" that it's unsafe is being one of the "sheep" that this government wants us to be. But when they have alzheimer's, they probably won't remember any of it, which is probably also what the government wants because then they can microchip you, which is what they are doing to alzheimer's patients in Florida.

Sorry but some of us are smart enough to refuse to play along with the game... proof or not.

Here's a little "proof" to the argument:

Quote: "According to researchers and physicians studying the adverse effects of Aspartame, the following chronic illnesses can be triggered or worsened by ingestion of aspartame: Brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, parkinson's disease, alzheimer's, mental retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia, and diabetes."

There is a very large and informative website on the dangers of Aspartame (marketed as 'NutraSweet', 'Equal', and 'Spoonful" etc.), www.dorway.com, whose owner and webmaster David Rietz has just (December 2003) passed away, apparently from the sequelae of earlier long-time Aspartame ingestion...

Two introductory quotes:
'We are talking about a plague of neurological diseases caused by this deadly poison". ~ Conference of the American College of Physicians

"The ingredients stimulate the neurons of the brain to death, causing brain damage of varying degrees." ~ Dr. Russell Blaylock, neurosurgeon

The Board of Inquiry of the FDA said aspartame was not safe and to revoke the petition for approval. CEO of Searle at the time, Don Rumsfeld, said he would call in his markers and get it approved.

It didn't matter to him that aspartame was a deadly poison. He was on President Reagan's transition team and the day after Reagan took office he appointed Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes as FDA Commissioner because no FDA Commissioner in 16 years would approve aspartame. Dr. Hayes over-ruled this Board of Inquiry of the FDA and then went to work for the PR firm of the manufacturer and has refused to talk to the press ever since.

www.healingcancernaturally.com...


[edit on 31-10-2007 by anhinga]

Or how about this:

"Aspartame is well recognized among its victims for causing connective tissue diseases in their body. Since much of the aorta consists of fibroelastic connective tissue it would only be logical aspartame would also cause degeneration of this vital tissue....

Aspartame really doesn't spare any structure or system in the body so it‘s not logical to try and mentally isolate it to a few structures or few systems of the body. In fact, the FDA identified 92 documented symptoms triggered by aspartame including death, the ultimate symptom." ~ Dr. Bowen

Sudden Cardiac Death or SCD, according to the US Centers for Disease Control, is the number one killer, having ended the lives of close to half a million Americans in 1999.

Sudden Cardiac Death is not a "heart attack" or myocardial infarction, caused by clogged arteries. It's an electrical problem in which the cardiac conduction system that generates the impulses regulating the heart suddenly outputs rapid or chaotic electrical impulses, or both. The heart ceases its rhythmic contractions, the brain is starved of oxygen and the victim loses consciousness in seconds, says Betty Martini of Mission Possible, an Aspartame Consumer Awareness group.

ASPARTAME, a sweetening substance that is generally touted as innocuous by our health authorities, is implicated in the epidemic of unusual sudden deaths.

I'd like to see ALL the cases of heart condition death and ALL the reasons behind the person dying of the heart "condition". This IS the proof! Why are people so addicted to poison? I don't know but when you're supporting war machines/mongers, unhealthy living and defending the latter -- something is wrong w/ the individual. And the only reason I can fathom is addiction to this garbage.

And parents, check all packaging -- this isn't JUST a sugar substitute -- it's in all kinds of FOOD besides SODA and fake, poisonous sugar.



[edit on 31-10-2007 by anhinga]

Originally posted by Rilence
reply to post by NRen2k5

 

The thing that strikes me as odd thru your posts to this thread is why you are sticking up for aspartame ?

Are you an industry person who benefits from its sales ? Is it purely cos your dad has diabetes and has developed a taste for the stuff ?

No, it’s because I hate misinformation in any form. Misinformation serves as a basis for further information and leads to bad decisions. How many diabetics are you going to kill by telling them they shouldn’t consume sugar substitutes? Are you going to tell them their insulin is poisonous next? How about telling someone with Crohn’s disease that bread is just fine? Or that allergies don’t exist?

How much garbage are you going to stand up for, knowing that it could make the difference between life and death?

I mean, nowhere in what you have posted have you given me an idea for where you a truly coming from...

Reason and proper science aren’t enough?

If you did, perhaps we could debate the issue reasonably...But nothing of what you have posted has been reasonable over the last 10 days...

What I’ve posted in the last 10 days has been ENTIRELY reasonable and nothing but.

Its all been one sentence stuff like you'd expect on a playground of 8 yr olds, stuff like "prove it", "how do you know for sure"...

Because that’s how science works. And it’s how the courts work. It’s the way rational people think. You look at the evidence, and reach the most logical conclusions. You don’t form a hypothesis and then just cherrypick data to support it.

All without posting any CREDIBLE evidence to support your position...

Do you even know what my position is?

Now...If you can post without getting all hot and antsy an almost abusive to your fellow posters, I'd be happy to debate this further...

Then go ahead.

But thus far, whenever anyone posts something you don't agree with, the response has been borderline abuse, or something along the lines of "prove it to my satisfaction"...

No. I just don’t take anything as fact until it’s proven. The other side has been posting an awful lot of opinion and trying to pass it off as fact.

The world alone, including ATS does not rely on links alone to prove or disprove a position....Its all about arguing a position as emotionless as possible...

Which I’m doing. But other members like annestacey are assuming point-blank that aspartame is a poison and moaning about perceived injustices and corruption based on that assumption.

This far, you have failed.

Failed at what? Encouraging rational debate? You’re right.

Now, in order for a proper debate to happen, YOU MUST answer my questions first...

If you do not, that indicates either:

A) You are posting purely from an emotional un-scientific POV

or

B) Your are deliberately clouding this issue with your own totally unfounded POV's...

So...

What's it gonna be ? Come clean as to the real reasons you're posting along these lines (u2u is fine) and I'm happy to debate you as per ATS rules....

Or...Look like you really don't look like you don't know what you are talking about, as you have thus far...

Your choice...

HOWEVER...

In order for said debate to proceed...You have to acknowledge where you stand on this issue up to now...Either its a personal thing, perhaps blidned by the science as part of the industry you belong to, or its a case of posting your own personally opinions which are thus far unfounded by the science concerned...

Your choice...

Peace

I want to find the truth, not convince anybody of any opinions. I’m well aware that most people have a hard time changing theirs. And I don’t appreciate people trying to pass off their opinions as fact.

Originally posted by NRen2k5
Some people are arguing that aspartame shouldn’t be used in foods because it’s harmful. I say sure, if it’s harmful, it shouldn’t be used, but we need to know whether it’s harmful or not!

I already posted ample evidence, you just need to care enough to look.

All that needs to be proven is that aspartame is harmful to the average person.

If aspartame is proven harmful to the non-average person, then this fact should be made very public, given the widespread use of the chemical in our everyday foods.

All they’ve brought to the table are opinions with little to no basis in reality.

No, they've brought lots of evidence too, which you aren't interested enough to read.

A noble cause would be to dedicate one’s life to answering the question as to whether aspartame is harmful or not.

Yes, that would be a noble cause, and once you've discovered that it is, who's going to get your discovery to the general public?

You will find 100's of links there to studies conducted by scientific bodies, universities, independents and govt bodies.

And you will find that they don’t prove your hypothesis.

How many did you read then? Did you read any at all?

Show me any of those studies and I can show you where they jump to a conclusion, or start off with a false assumption, or how they are irrelevant to “normal” aspartame consumption.

Duh, I already showed them to you. But at least you answered my last question - you read zero. Qu'elle surprise!

I already know it isn’t universally harmless. Like many other chemicals, there will be people who are sensitive to it.

Yet you won't find a single warning on any food containing this chemical. BTW, Monsanto doesn't agree with you.

You published just the names. No text. Nice try. I call a fallacy of proof by verbosity on this one.

Whatever you call it, you are just letting everyone know that you aren't really interested in the evidence, you're just playing DA, as usual. The studies are all referenced properly on dorway, as I already told you.

Seems like you're dying to get the last word in on this all the time Ren -- there's a BARRAGE of information in here, studies, PROOF of people dying from it, and you're rationale is a diabetic relative? I know a slew of diabetics who won't touch the stuff. Alternatives exist -- many of them.

The CDC reports that Sudden Cardiac Death, the nation's #1 killer ended the lives of 460,000 Americans in 1999. SCD is a catastrophe in which the heart stops abruptly without warning. It kills its victims within minutes. It is estimated that 95% of victims die before reaching the hospital. Often SCD happens to outwardly healthy people with no known heart problems; high school, college and professional athletes and thousands of children.

"Both the shock from strenuous athletics in combination with aspartame consumption, and stresses lead to activation of shock mechanism including the elaboration of Arginine vasopressin in the hypothalamus which results in cerebral edema and cardiac congestion and pulmonary edema in combination with severe potassium wastage which is a sure ticket to sudden death, especially in the face of the many damages inflicted by aspartame.

Since aspartame is already well known for causing neuroendocrine abnormalities such serotonin elevations and suppression in various areas of the brain, along with depletion of dopamine, due to its phenylalanine isolate poisoning and hypothalamic damage from its extreme neuroexcitotoxin effect and formaldehyde formic acid poisoning especially focused in the hypothalamus, I would expect anyone with expertise in these areas could verify the direct effect of aspartame poisoning in producing the fatal aberrant shock mechanism in those exposed to it. The mere occurrence of severe athletic stress does not do so by itself."

Aspartame triggers an irregular heart rhythm, and interacts with cardiac medication. It damages the cardiac conduction system and causes sudden death.

"Aspartame really doesn't spare any structure or system in the body so it‘s not logical to try and mentally isolate it to a few structures or few systems of the body. In fact, the FDA identified 92 documented symptoms triggered by aspartame including death, the ultimate symptom."

[edit on 31-10-2007 by anhinga]

reply to post by NRen2k5


In that case your biases are not worth debating in a public forum....They seem to be driven by the fact as said by you that your father is a diabetic and a user of aspartame...

As I've said in previous posts early in this thread, I am sorry for your dad to be diabetic...Its a rotten disease to be sure...

However, as we have already debated in previous pages....Perhaps your dad might live longer if he chose a more natural sweetener than aspartame...?

My personal hope is he and you (and the rest of your family would choose the option that extended his life as much as possible)

Again, there is a huge body of evidence to suggest aspartame is neurotoxic
as are the substances which are generated when aspartame breaks down in the blood stream...

I truly hope your Dad lives a long and fulfilling life, and enjoys its to the max

Peace

Originally posted by RogerT

Originally posted by NRen2k5
Some people are arguing that aspartame shouldn’t be used in foods because it’s harmful. I say sure, if it’s harmful, it shouldn’t be used, but we need to know whether it’s harmful or not!

I already posted ample evidence, you just need to care enough to look.

No.

All that needs to be proven is that aspartame is harmful to the average person.

If aspartame is proven harmful to the non-average person, then this fact should be made very public, given the widespread use of the chemical in our everyday foods.

Agreed.

All they’ve brought to the table are opinions with little to no basis in reality.

No, they've brought lots of evidence too, which you aren't interested enough to read.

Yes, I have. Their evidence consists of opinions of other people, which in turn have little to no basis in reality.

A noble cause would be to dedicate one’s life to answering the question as to whether aspartame is harmful or not.

Yes, that would be a noble cause, and once you've discovered that it is, who's going to get your discovery to the general public?

Yourself, and those who verify it.

You will find 100's of links there to studies conducted by scientific bodies, universities, independents and govt bodies.

And you will find that they don’t prove your hypothesis.

How many did you read then? Did you read any at all?

No. You didn’t post any at all. You just posted a list, and I can tell very little from the titles alone.

Show me any of those studies and I can show you where they jump to a conclusion, or start off with a false assumption, or how they are irrelevant to “normal” aspartame consumption.

Duh, I already showed them to you. But at least you answered my last question - you read zero. Qu'elle surprise!

Jumping to conclusions as always I see.

I already know it isn’t universally harmless. Like many other chemicals, there will be people who are sensitive to it.

Yet you won't find a single warning on any food containing this chemical.

Because none is needed. Reactions to aspartame are neither common nor fatal.

BTW, Monsanto doesn't agree with you.

Good for them.

You published just the names. No text. Nice try. I call a fallacy of proof by verbosity on this one.

Whatever you call it, you are just letting everyone know that you aren't really interested in the evidence, you're just playing DA, as usual. The studies are all referenced properly on dorway, as I already told you.

Then I might as well check it out. They’d better be reproduced there. It would be too funny if you didn’t read them yourself either.

reply to post by NRen2k5


Given your unwillingness to debate any issue further than a single sentence at a time, I don't honestly see the point of debating you on any issue, at any point...

You have proved yourself to be on of those ........4 paragraphs supporting and argument.....

your response.....Prove it...

Bravo !!! *golf clap*

You have proven yourself throughout this thread an others that you are an apologist for the pharma industry...

Now...

You can either keep on posting the stuff you do and keep getting cut down by the good members of ATS who can smell it from 5 miles away...

or you can

A) Keep posting what you do, in denial


or

B) Settle down, and take a good look at what ATS is really all about...And practice same...That is denying ignorance...

Your choice, but either way....ATS you are the stuff !! nowhere on the net do we have the opportunity to examine such out there subjects and look at them in a fair and unbiased way...

Peace

clearly, everyone missed the link to a New York Times article that is at the top of this page.

you try to be helpful

[edit on 31-10-2007 by geek101]

Originally posted by geek101
clearly, everyone missed the link to a New York Times article that is at the top of this page.

you try to be helpful

Nothing at that link but a box asking me to subscribe.

Originally posted by Rilence
reply to post by NRen2k5

 

Given your unwillingness to debate any issue further than a single sentence at a time, I don't honestly see the point of debating you on any issue, at any point...

I know, people hate being wrong.

You have proved yourself to be on of those ........4 paragraphs supporting and argument.....

your response.....Prove it...

Bravo !!! *golf clap*

Yeah, seems like you have a real problem proving things.

You have proven yourself throughout this thread an others that you are an apologist for the pharma industry...

BZZT!!! Wrong! But you get a post report as a consolation prize.

Now...

You can either keep on posting the stuff you do and keep getting cut down by the good members of ATS who can smell it from 5 miles away...

Hasn’t happened yet.

or you can

A) Keep posting what you do, in denial

It’s the anti-aspartame crowd that’s in denial.

or

B) Settle down, and take a good look at what ATS is really all about...And practice same...That is denying ignorance...

Which is exactly what I’m doing. Unfortunately with some here the ignorance is very deep rooted.

Your choice, but either way....ATS you are the stuff !! nowhere on the net do we have the opportunity to examine such out there subjects and look at them in a fair and unbiased way...

True. All the bias here is brought to the table by the members.

Here's an "interesting" flyer -- it claims that aspartame can WORSEN the diabetic condition:

www.mpwhi.com...

What does it do to your health?
According to independent (non-industry funded) doctors and researchers, aspartame can cause a range of symptoms ranging from mild and transitory to debilitating and life-threatening, eg headaches, memory loss, vision loss, depression, seizures, coma and cancer. It can worsen or mimic the symptoms of such diseases and conditions as MS, lupus, ADD, diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson’s. It interacts with drugs & MSG, and induces carbohydrate cravings (= weight gain). The methanol in aspartame affects the dopamine system of the brain causing addiction. Methanol, or wood alcohol, is classified as a severe metabolic poison and narcotic.

It has some other stats within that SHOULD also be up here for those looking for the easy way out of researching it's ingredients. Also, it ranges from 120 times (FDA) to 200 (indy research) sweeter then sugar:

What's in it?
It comprises two amino acids — aspartic acid and phenylalanine, bound together with methanol. Occurring in natural form, these are bound up, but in aspartame they are not, breaking down readily to formaldehyde (accumulative and known to cause cancer), formic acid (venom in ant stings) and DKP (known brain tumour agent).

What's it in?
More than 6000 products worldwide: sugar-free and diet products, eg
NutraSweet & Equal packs & sachets, chewing gum, sweets eg Mentos, Extra & Smints, some Eta potato chips, Yoplait Diet-Lite & Weightwatchers products; Jarrah, Nestle & Ovaltine drinks; sports drinks; dietary supplements eg Redoxon, silver top Berocca, Healtheries products incl. chewable children’s vitamins; 124 medicines incl. 81 for children eg Lemsip, Panadol

How can you tell?
Products containing aspartame often don’t mention it. They might just
have the warning “Phenylketonurics, contains phenylalanine” or its
food number, 951. Dietary supplements and medicines don’t have to
be labelled with their ingredients in NZ.

If you are having aspartame regularly and have unexplained symptoms, try the 60-day no-aspartame test and see what happens.
See www.safefood.org.nz, www.mpwhi.com

[edit on 31-10-2007 by anhinga]

Originally posted by geek101
clearly, everyone missed the link to a New York Times article that is at the top of this page.

Didn't miss it bro', but the Ramazini studies have already been referenced earlier in the thread. Add to that, it's a study of rats, so some won't consider it is relevant

Originally posted by NRen2k5

Originally posted by geek101
clearly, everyone missed the link to a New York Times article that is at the top of this page.

you try to be helpful

Nothing at that link but a box asking me to subscribe.

What a pity! I don't think they ask you to subscribe, they ask you to register, if you wanna read articles in NYT.

All they want is your e-mail address. The information in linked article is worth it, especially for one like you hungry for scientific prove. Here you might have it. Disproving your believes.

No one really wants that, but for the debate here's a snippet

WHEN Dr. Morando Soffritti, a cancer researcher in Bologna, Italy, saw the results of his team's seven-year study on aspartame, he knew he was about to be injected into a bitter controversy over this sweetener, one of the most contentiously debated substances ever added to foods and beverages.
[---]

The research found that the sweetener was associated with unusually high rates of lymphomas, leukemias and other cancers in rats that had been given doses of it starting at what would be equivalent to four to five 20-ounce bottles of diet soda a day for a 150-pound person. The study, which involved 1,900 laboratory rats and cost $1 million, was conducted at the European Ramazzini Foundation of Oncology and Environmental Sciences, a nonprofit organization that studies cancer-causing substances; Dr. Soffritti is its scientific director.