[kube-system]

Someone who chooses not to do something over a 0.000000001% risk is either irrationally bad at math and statistics or needs to get some help with their anxiety. Experts would call things with a 0.000000001% risk "extremely safe" because in comparison to other daily risks inherent to existing as a human, that number is much much lower.

The risk of dying in a car in the US is 12,890,000 times higher.

[hankchinaski]

The problem with academics and people that reason this way is that they put themselves on a pedestal and assume that their model represents reality 1:1 with a zero margin of error. You must trust the model otherwise you are labeled a conspiracy theorist. I don’t just distrust the study, I distrust the model and the risk assumptions put in place. I don’t need a nanny state to shove down my throat things I don’t want. For what it’s worth, I’d be happy for everything to be deregulated and everyone taking their own decision. Calling people conspiracy theorist or stupid because they don’t agree with you is just bizarre.

[kube-system]

> I don’t just distrust the study, I distrust the model and the risk assumptions put in place.

We're talking about the most studied food additive in history. There isn't a single study or single model we're talking about here, it's a large body of evidence.

> I don’t need a nanny state to shove down my throat things I don’t want. For what it’s worth, I’d be happy for everything to be deregulated and everyone taking their own decision.

Then be comfortable making your decision that way. There's no need to misrepresent scientific consensus to justify a dislike for aspartame.

The fact of the matter is that "aspartame causes cancer" is a claim which is not supported by any rigorous science by anyone with any "model".