|
|
|
|
|
|
by hankchinaski
1010 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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".