| Revision as of 18:54, 21 June 2011 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,904 editsm Signing comment by Quione - "→reference 15: "← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:57, 21 June 2011 edit undoQuione (talk | contribs)47 edits →re: Neurological and psychiatric symptoms sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
| ::If I recall correctly, the ] is wrapping up a study based on these types of testimonial results. It might be best to wait for the results before commenting. ] (]) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | ::If I recall correctly, the ] is wrapping up a study based on these types of testimonial results. It might be best to wait for the results before commenting. ] (]) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::It's like the whole MSG controversy (which, if you just change the names of the chemical, sound very much alike). People complain about effects, yet in a blinded study, the placebo group exhibits the effects at the same rate as the MSG group. People make their decision on anecdote, yet the cause of someone getting headaches or whatever from drinking a soda could result from the carbonation, colorings, sodium content, etc. etc. etc. This is why we should make decisions on what we consume and how we treat our health on solid evidence. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | :::It's like the whole MSG controversy (which, if you just change the names of the chemical, sound very much alike). People complain about effects, yet in a blinded study, the placebo group exhibits the effects at the same rate as the MSG group. People make their decision on anecdote, yet the cause of someone getting headaches or whatever from drinking a soda could result from the carbonation, colorings, sodium content, etc. etc. etc. This is why we should make decisions on what we consume and how we treat our health on solid evidence. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::This subject is about people/s health and laboratory tests have determined that any who professes to be sick from aspartame is faking. The government knows best what is good for you. ] (]) 18:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Allergies? == | == Allergies? == | ||
Revision as of 18:57, 21 June 2011
| 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 |
On scientific review. Also, scientific error in "Government action and voluntary withdrawals" section.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- This began a a discussion of potential new lines of research. It developed into a rehash of previously rejected sources without any evidence that anything had changed and synopsis of the archives. As such, this thread should be closed as it is not advancing the article. A new thread may be started when new material is ready for discussion.Novangelis (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand this article is highly controversial. I am not sure myself if aspartame could be harmful: no longer term studies exist. I personally assume that it is not harmful. I acknowledge this as taking a risk, nonetheless.
To make a quick comment on the discussions below, research reviews can differ between author and cannot be taken as an absolutely correct answer. However, for sake of NPOV and writing articles with limited expertise on each subject, I think research reviews over individual studies can be a reasonable standard. Keep in mind that sometimes the conclusions of research reviews can be addressed in individual studies, however. Whether this is true or not requires careful examination of the research. It is not true that any given individual study will address the problems. It should also be noted that the research published after a review should be examined, that reviews may not include every study, and that reviews may also have flawed methodology.
On to the "Government action and voluntary withdrawals" section. It is stated that "A significant proportion of volunteers participating in the study are those who have claimed to experience side-effects. The results will therefore have added significance." While it is true that such a study may illuminate possible causes of side effects in those whom are reporting them, "added significance" could suggest that the proportion of the population that suffers side effects is any less significant. Therefore, I propose a change of wording. It should simply say that "Therefore, the results will better allow us to understand possible causes of side effects in those whom are reporting them." Either that, or the evaluative statement should be removed entirely.
If this should be split into two new sections, I would appreciate that correction. Nikurasu (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- The source does not say that and therefore I will remove this speculation. Aspartame is the most studied food additive in history and no research which could be replicated has indicated harmful effects. Nonetheless a section of the public continues to press the case against the product, but that is the nature of irrational belief systems. TFD (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your edit to the article, but you're pushing your luck here, saying "no research which could be replicated has indicated harmful effects" - which is untrue, I.e. the harmful effects to suffers of PKU, to say the least! Also, it's uncivil and belittling to label a section of editors as having irrational belief systems, we are all trying to improve the article (regardless of belief). КĐ 14:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- PKU sufferers are unable to metabolize phenylalanine, which is found in meat, dairy and nuts. They are advised to avoid aspartame in order to limit their overall exposure. I am not attacking editors merely pointing out the irrationality of the anti-aspartame movement. TFD (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, there is insofar no evidence indicating injury by aspartame. Again, to the best of my knowledge, longer-term studies have not been performed. It would also be specious to claim that we know what the long term effects may or may not be. I do not expect negative effects given the short term data, but it is possible. Similar things have been true before. Nikurasu (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- We cannot and should not predict the future. No one has died from a Ferrari falling out of an airplane and crashing into a house. But I can't say it won't happen, so because of that, we should put a comment in the Ferrari article that you may die from one falling out of a plane. There's a logical fallacy there, that's basically the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." There is NO evidence that aspartame is harmful none. It is possible, some day, in some clinical trial, we will discover some harm, but after this much testing, the probability is vanishingly small. Of course, in science, there is no black and white, just conclusions supported by evidence. Nevertheless, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball.. OrangeMarlin 19:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Irrelevant conclusion fallacy on multiple levels. It is plausible that any untested substance could be poisonous. It is unlikely that a Ferrari will fall out of an airplane. Also, again, given an evident differentiation between the short-term and long-term effects of other substances, it would not be reasonable to state short-term research alone as so conclusive about the long-term. The possibility is hardly vanishingly small (though, there is also nothing in particular that makes it likely). If you are thinking I am making an argument for aspartame skepticism, keep in mind, it is also possible that aspartame has long term positive benefits that have not been discovered. That is the original hypothesis, in fact, and the generating drive for the marketing of aspartame: to replace sugar, which is known to be a harmful substance in large enough quantities. There is also nothing crystal-ball-like about my statement. It is a common way in some sciences of stating that something is untested. I already stated my personal doubt that it is harmful. Perhaps that statement was in lieu of a proper articulation of my thoughts. It is, in fact, more doubtful that it is harmful long-term. The short-term studies show no effects. Nikurasu (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- I actually have to add something, however. From what I have seen of the research and the summaries here, it is not harmful. Regardless, I have not read the research in depth to the degree that is necessary to truly gauge the validity of each side of the argument. I am not stating this in support of aspartame skepticism. If anything, the research most apparently leans in the other direction. I have to state the uncertainty of my judgment, nonetheless. Nikurasu (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody gives a crap about what you think or what you conclude or what you believe. Here on Misplaced Pages, it is what is verifiable. If you think you're smarter than the researchers out there, and by your comments you assume that you are, then I would suggest that you publish some research in the field, and we will consider including it in this article. I look forward to reading your peer reviewed publications.OrangeMarlin 23:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's another red herring (though, given how I wrote, one I pretty much was setting you up for, even if I didn't mean to). There are sources in the research that substantiate what I said. I know that Misplaced Pages policy only allows writing from references. I was not going to violate that rule. I also firmly believe that Misplaced Pages content does have some root in the editor's judgments. No editor here has escaped acknowledging this, even if it is implicit for some. I wanted to make sure the judgments were coming from as evenhanded and scientific standpoint as possible. I wanted to reduce the banter and make progress. You are right, though. I should have included the references and spoken more in Misplaced Pages policy terms. Nikurasu (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you can provide sources that should be included in the article, this conversation will be unproductive. TFD (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will include sources. I don't think that's true, though. My point is that if we are going to make things fit Misplaced Pages policy, why don't we do so from an unbiased point of view rather than trying to skew Misplaced Pages policy to fit a certain viewpoint? Is there anything terribly wrong with trying to bring the discussion away from one of that nature? The purpose of many of the rules in the first place is to ensure accuracy. Nikurasu (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- We fit the 'viewpoint' of the sources. The stuff is safe. Unless you can find sources that are of a very high quality, that contradict this, this discussion will continue to be, at best, an academic one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- The OP obviously has an opinion. He has yet to provide on reliable source supporting that opinion. Nor any substantive suggestions for changes. Given those two points, I vote this thread to be a soapbox, and it's time to move on. OrangeMarlin 15:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- So much for Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith. I take more than a day or so in finding the studies I had read, so you assume I am posting based on opinion? Or, is the fact that I said I had not read everything what made you think that? As Dbrodbeck said, when I post the sources (if, from his perspective), this will be an academic discussion rather than a Misplaced Pages editing one. It's also clearly a way to try to shut me down to say I offered no good suggestions. It's not a huge jump to go from "there may be contradictory research reviews" to "more research reviews should be searched for and added." The top 3 Google results for "aspartame research review" are not enough. Perhaps I have even given myself too little credit. I believe many of the criticisms I offered are valid and actionable. I would also again like to point out that, as far as I know, the research does indicate that aspartame is safe. All research is limited, however. If I were able to get a full text even of the scientific studies cited on this page, it is likely that the limitations would be mentioned. Regardless, I would appreciate no hostile, snide remarks this time, or I won't try to help out at all. I came here only looking to improve the article. Instead, I've gotten obstructionism and negative assumptions about my character, neither of which is condoned in Misplaced Pages policy. Nikurasu (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources you wish to present? TFD (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do. It requires physically going to the library in some cases, however. I need a week or two. Nikurasu (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- You should do your research before you comment. TFD (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do. It requires physically going to the library in some cases, however. I need a week or two. Nikurasu (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any sources you wish to present? TFD (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- So much for Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith. I take more than a day or so in finding the studies I had read, so you assume I am posting based on opinion? Or, is the fact that I said I had not read everything what made you think that? As Dbrodbeck said, when I post the sources (if, from his perspective), this will be an academic discussion rather than a Misplaced Pages editing one. It's also clearly a way to try to shut me down to say I offered no good suggestions. It's not a huge jump to go from "there may be contradictory research reviews" to "more research reviews should be searched for and added." The top 3 Google results for "aspartame research review" are not enough. Perhaps I have even given myself too little credit. I believe many of the criticisms I offered are valid and actionable. I would also again like to point out that, as far as I know, the research does indicate that aspartame is safe. All research is limited, however. If I were able to get a full text even of the scientific studies cited on this page, it is likely that the limitations would be mentioned. Regardless, I would appreciate no hostile, snide remarks this time, or I won't try to help out at all. I came here only looking to improve the article. Instead, I've gotten obstructionism and negative assumptions about my character, neither of which is condoned in Misplaced Pages policy. Nikurasu (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- The OP obviously has an opinion. He has yet to provide on reliable source supporting that opinion. Nor any substantive suggestions for changes. Given those two points, I vote this thread to be a soapbox, and it's time to move on. OrangeMarlin 15:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- We fit the 'viewpoint' of the sources. The stuff is safe. Unless you can find sources that are of a very high quality, that contradict this, this discussion will continue to be, at best, an academic one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- I will include sources. I don't think that's true, though. My point is that if we are going to make things fit Misplaced Pages policy, why don't we do so from an unbiased point of view rather than trying to skew Misplaced Pages policy to fit a certain viewpoint? Is there anything terribly wrong with trying to bring the discussion away from one of that nature? The purpose of many of the rules in the first place is to ensure accuracy. Nikurasu (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you can provide sources that should be included in the article, this conversation will be unproductive. TFD (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's another red herring (though, given how I wrote, one I pretty much was setting you up for, even if I didn't mean to). There are sources in the research that substantiate what I said. I know that Misplaced Pages policy only allows writing from references. I was not going to violate that rule. I also firmly believe that Misplaced Pages content does have some root in the editor's judgments. No editor here has escaped acknowledging this, even if it is implicit for some. I wanted to make sure the judgments were coming from as evenhanded and scientific standpoint as possible. I wanted to reduce the banter and make progress. You are right, though. I should have included the references and spoken more in Misplaced Pages policy terms. Nikurasu (talk) 06:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nobody gives a crap about what you think or what you conclude or what you believe. Here on Misplaced Pages, it is what is verifiable. If you think you're smarter than the researchers out there, and by your comments you assume that you are, then I would suggest that you publish some research in the field, and we will consider including it in this article. I look forward to reading your peer reviewed publications.OrangeMarlin 23:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- We cannot and should not predict the future. No one has died from a Ferrari falling out of an airplane and crashing into a house. But I can't say it won't happen, so because of that, we should put a comment in the Ferrari article that you may die from one falling out of a plane. There's a logical fallacy there, that's basically the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." There is NO evidence that aspartame is harmful none. It is possible, some day, in some clinical trial, we will discover some harm, but after this much testing, the probability is vanishingly small. Of course, in science, there is no black and white, just conclusions supported by evidence. Nevertheless, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball.. OrangeMarlin 19:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, there is insofar no evidence indicating injury by aspartame. Again, to the best of my knowledge, longer-term studies have not been performed. It would also be specious to claim that we know what the long term effects may or may not be. I do not expect negative effects given the short term data, but it is possible. Similar things have been true before. Nikurasu (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- You should at least be open to the view that aspartame might be harmful. see,http://ps.columbia.edu/news/diet-soda-deadly same study Government view
- http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docID=649733%20Arydberg (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Find me a reliable secondary source, that meets WP:MEDRS and we can talk. (This might sound familiar). I need not be very open to it any more, the stuff has been tested quite a bit. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is frustrating. All of the reliable evidence, that is, studies done so well that they are published in peer reviewed journals, show no effects. Basic biochemistry tells us it's two amino acids that have no effect, except for those with a genetic disease that can metabolize those amino acids. This is just like monosodium glutamate which is a simple salt of an amino acid, which can have no physiological effect after consuming. If the clinical science says there's no effect AND there is no imaginable pathway for the compounds to have an effect, then the only controversy is an invented one. OrangeMarlin 15:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Haven't you heard? Amino acids are CHEMICALS, which humans just plain don't understand. Only NATURAL processes can make them safely. When HUMANS put them together, we use bleach and sterno as bonding agents. --King Öomie 17:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, why didn't you say that before??? Now I have to cut out my 6 kilograms (13 lb) daily aspartame habit. Do you think we can find a reliable source on the internet to support that statement? OrangeMarlin 01:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Haven't you heard? Amino acids are CHEMICALS, which humans just plain don't understand. Only NATURAL processes can make them safely. When HUMANS put them together, we use bleach and sterno as bonding agents. --King Öomie 17:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Orange, The articles are in response to your statement "There is NO evidence that aspartame is harmful none" Also where is the peer review for the article reference #15. I am sorry but this is a controversy with a large number of people claiming to have been harmed by aspartame That you choose to ignore them is your choice but they still do exist. Arydberg (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Large number of people claim that the world is 6000 years old, that MSG is harmful, that vaccines cause autism, and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Your commentary that I ignore these "claims" is correct, because my opinion, nor yours, has any relevance. Where are the reliable sources? Where??? And reliable means peer reviewed, repeated, accepted, and repeated again. So, your personal attack...ignored, as I ignore most things like that. OrangeMarlin 08:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Unacceptable. You ignored my suggestions, claimed I had none, and then collapsed the discussion. On the very page you cited (Misplaced Pages:TALK#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable), it is stated: "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. This usually means: Be precise in quoting others." I understand that you are escalating in order to circumvent discussion. I find your argument just above to be relatively convincing, but this article still needs more sources (especially non-government scientific research reviews). As I said, I will also be going to the library to find some of the sources I had read. You can't consider the discussion closed after a few days. All scientific sources also state limitations. This article does not. I have seen many articles on Misplaced Pages that do. I understand the need to exclude unreliable sources, but that does not mean you make a case for aspartame safety that exceeds the research. That said, this discussion has become full of forum-like posts. Should it stay collapsed? I was not sure what to do, but I reopened this for now. We should come to a consensus before such action is taken. I understand that you reserve that right if you are an admin. Whether or not you are is not clear to me from your user page. Regardless, I would still ask that you be somewhat more patient, and ask for more explanation if you really do not understand what I am trying to say. That seems to be the case. Nikurasu (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- We've been going at this for a week. You have yet to propose anything, bring any citations, or state anything but your opinion, which, as I have said, means nothing on Misplaced Pages. I think this thread should be deleted as a soapbox, and we move on. You've wasted our time. OrangeMarlin 03:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not easy to get up motivation to go to the library for Misplaced Pages, and you aren't helping. If you don't understand, stop now. It's not my fault that you are wasting your time by not listening to me. Though, maybe we're just having a major misunderstanding (one half of us at this point maybe). At least, read User_talk:Nikurasu#Aspartame_Controversy for more clarification. Nikurasu (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
To add a reply to TFD, I have done the research in the past, but did not keep a record. Perhaps I should have had it on hand or found it again before I commented. Nikurasu (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Bring some sources, without a solid source back suggestion, this is a waste of time and space, and should be collapsed . Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am going to have to disagree. The sources are evidently sparse even if I do not provide more, for example. By Misplaced Pages rules, I should not have to argue for you what I have already said just because you are misrepresenting it. I will not any longer. Please stop. If the incivility continues, I will have to leave. This is far too unpleasant. Perhaps it is a mutual misunderstanding. however. Nikurasu (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing you have said refers to any sources or explains specific changes you want made to the article. I notice that you are a pyschology student, and that may be a good place for you to look for an explanation of the anti-aspartame movement. TFD (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I could elaborate a bit more if it is unclear to the other editors what I am suggesting. I suppose without some background in science that should be expected. I appreciate the civil reply. Nikurasu (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I await sources, and, suggestions, oh, and I have quite a fine background in science (and, I make a killer martini), thank you. However, backgrounds are immaterial, we have policies here, and one is that you need sources to back up what you say. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think asking you to re-examine current articles for mentioned research limitations is outside of your scope. I could see why you would want me to point out specific articles, however. I have also agreed that for some of my criticisms it would be helpful to post sources. At least, I would be sharing in the work then. I don't understand the hardline given this.Nikurasu (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why don’t you try www.dorway.com here are three articles from dorway http://www.dorway.com/92symptomsfotocopy.html
- http://www.dorway.com/bresslercomplete.pdfhttp://www.dorway.com/raoreport.pdf Arydberg (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think I remember that these 'articles' from an anti aspartame site were determined not to be reliable sources. Indeed, I am pretty sure we had a very long discussion about that site. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think asking you to re-examine current articles for mentioned research limitations is outside of your scope. I could see why you would want me to point out specific articles, however. I have also agreed that for some of my criticisms it would be helpful to post sources. At least, I would be sharing in the work then. I don't understand the hardline given this.Nikurasu (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I await sources, and, suggestions, oh, and I have quite a fine background in science (and, I make a killer martini), thank you. However, backgrounds are immaterial, we have policies here, and one is that you need sources to back up what you say. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I could elaborate a bit more if it is unclear to the other editors what I am suggesting. I suppose without some background in science that should be expected. I appreciate the civil reply. Nikurasu (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I would like to remind Arydberg that the dorway website is not a reliable source, not to mention a reliable source for medical claims, as has been discussed numerous times. If anyone wants to make changes, make specific recommendations of wording changes and note which sources are being used as sources for that change. Hand-waving about changes before you do the actual research and have sources to discuss is not what this page is for. Yobol (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is one of the problems with the current Post-Modernist anti-science attitude. Claims based on intuition, opinion and anecdote apparently must hold equal weight to reliable sources based on research, double-blinded clinical trials, publication in peer-reviewed journals, and the repetition of the same results. None show a negative effect, or where they were found, they were discounted for all kinds of things like experimental design. OrangeMarlin 08:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Bressler report is a government report. Here it is from a different source http://www.scribd.com/doc/42960461/Bressler-Report-Aspartam also once again reference 15 is not a peer reviewed journal I respectfully request you replace or remove it. Arydberg (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ref 15 is about the hoax, just like everyone told you 3 months ago. Secondary sources show aspartame to be safe. Again, this has been explained to you on a number of occasions. This sort of disruptive editing is just another example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Please stop this behaviour. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not being around until a few weeks ago, I needed to catch up on all the wiki-drama. I didn't realize that Arydberg had been topic banned here for three months. Not seconds after that expired, he's back, pushing the same old same old. OrangeMarlin 03:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- He was topic-banned for directly attacking other editors (accusations of industry-sponsored editing), so this isn't strictly a resumption of the behavior that got him topic banned. It was, however, a factor. --King Öomie 16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- You must have missed his comment where he said that I ignored the evidence. I don't particularly care about WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, I just think he's a POV pusher. That's why he should be topic banned. OrangeMarlin 16:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Nikurasu (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
- You must have missed his comment where he said that I ignored the evidence. I don't particularly care about WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, I just think he's a POV pusher. That's why he should be topic banned. OrangeMarlin 16:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- He was topic-banned for directly attacking other editors (accusations of industry-sponsored editing), so this isn't strictly a resumption of the behavior that got him topic banned. It was, however, a factor. --King Öomie 16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Bressler report is a government report. Here it is from a different source http://www.scribd.com/doc/42960461/Bressler-Report-Aspartam also once again reference 15 is not a peer reviewed journal I respectfully request you replace or remove it. Arydberg (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
This has been hijacked by a pure POV discussion. This should be obfuscated as it had been before I undid it. Nikurasu (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.reference 15
Would someone please respond to my asking why reference 15 is considered a peer reviewed journal. I understand it does not deal with health issues but it could be construed as damaging someone's character and thus should be (I think) be a reliable source. Arydberg (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
- MEDRS has the peer-review requirement. WP:RS doesn't. Atlanta Magazine meets WP:RS, but obviously not MEDRS. The article isn't furthering medical claims, though, so there's no problem with this link from a policy perspective. And by the way, I don't know if you've read it, but the article in ref 15 is not a negative portrayal of Betty Martini at all. --King Öomie 19:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
No it is not a negative portrait at all but the actions taken like sending thousands of e-mails or posting to many list serves and web pages require advanced hacker skills and I find it difficult to believe a person like Martini who had a background in health care would have those skills. I believe it is an example of a third party trying to destroy the creditability of Martini This makes it contentious and as is stated in WP:RS,
“Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is an article in the Atlantic Monthly and easily meets rs for BLP. TFD (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Moreover, that article was balanced and neutral. It did not call her a "raving lunatic" or anything of the sort. It said that she had a belief, unsupported by real science, and she was dogged in her pursuit of attempting to persuade people that her opinion is more valid that real science. If we were to write a BLP about Ms Martini, this article would meet all of the standards. Of course, I also know that the science speaks for itself, and her pushing on a myth, like the vaccine denialists, is amusing and doesn't mean much other than being a cute story about how people go about these conspiracy theories. OrangeMarlin 17:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your concern is noted, however, the source is fine, oh and the idea that you have to be a 1337 HaX0r to send a lot of email is not germane to this. This source has been discussed before, and I for one am quite tired of your antics. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Moreover, that article was balanced and neutral. It did not call her a "raving lunatic" or anything of the sort. It said that she had a belief, unsupported by real science, and she was dogged in her pursuit of attempting to persuade people that her opinion is more valid that real science. If we were to write a BLP about Ms Martini, this article would meet all of the standards. Of course, I also know that the science speaks for itself, and her pushing on a myth, like the vaccine denialists, is amusing and doesn't mean much other than being a cute story about how people go about these conspiracy theories. OrangeMarlin 17:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- Arydberg, we had pretty much the same discussion a few months ago, and things haven't changed since then. Atlanta magazine is still a reliable source. There's no need to ask the same thing twice - if you've forgotten the answer, you can always check the archive (or you can click through the talk page history, starting here). --Six words (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The magazine is not the Atlantic Monthly. It is the Atlanta magazine , a city wide magazine published by one person consisting mostly of advertisements. The quote is perfectly clear. The problem is that Misplaced Pages does not follow it’s own rules. Arydberg (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- The source appears reliable by WP standards, BLP or not. Clearly no consensus that it isn't reliable, and the issue about being peer-reviewed is clearly a red herring. Yobol (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yobol, Arydberg has been doing this for a few months. I think we should consider shunning him. OrangeMarlin 19:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- If his WP:IDHT behavior continues, certainly WP:SHUN or another topic ban may be in order. Yobol (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yobol, Arydberg has been doing this for a few months. I think we should consider shunning him. OrangeMarlin 19:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if i offended someone. I felt it was important that we all discuss the same magazine. There is a world of difference between the Atlantic Monthly and the Atlanta Magazine. Arydberg (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's very simple really. The Atlanta Magazine is a peer reviewed journal because we say it is. End of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quione (talk • contribs) 18:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
re: Neurological and psychiatric symptoms section
From the previous article page- "Numerous allegations have been made on the Internet and in consumer magazines purporting neurotoxic effects of aspartame leading to neurological or psychiatric symptoms such as seizures, headaches, and mood changes.
I do not know about mood changes or seizures, but if i just SIP a diet soda, within a couple minutes a massive migrane behind the eyeball headache hits me. IF I eat something low-cal diet food containing this, i get violently ill and spend the next day ill as well.
A friend thought i was BS'ing and mixed me a drink of diet cola and rum. One sip and I had a massive headache. This is not BS.
I have never heard from or been contacted for any study related to NutraSweet/Aspartame. I have talked to other people who have this same sensitivity or allergy to the neutra sweet. So we read labels to make sure we just AVOID it.
I had to complain to a soft drink manufacturer once because I opened a can of regular soda, took one sip and after a minute the migraine headache started. They confirmed that the diet and regular were bottled on the same line. They sent me a free coupon for a 12 pack, and an apology promising to review their cleaning process between production change over. Since that time I have drank their product and had no further issues.
Why am I writing this? Because the previous article page makes it sound like NOBODY has a problem with this stuff when that is BS. I DO. I welcome anyone to contact me about it. This is not an internet smear campaign. This is a fact of life I have to deal with every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.123.59 (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- This talk page is not a place for discussing your personal opinion about the topic, but how to improve the article using reliable sources. Your personal testimonial does not qualify, and any further off-topic discussion should be removed. Yobol (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- You mean you don't believe in the n=1 research study????? You skeptic you. OrangeMarlin 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- "I know a guy" is not a source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- You mean you don't believe in the n=1 research study????? You skeptic you. OrangeMarlin 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- A number of people do report this type of reaction, but that when they are entered into studies the effects cannot be replicated. They only react if they know or believe they are consuming aspartame. Perhaps the article could explain it better. TFD (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, the Food Standards Agency is wrapping up a study based on these types of testimonial results. It might be best to wait for the results before commenting. Yobol (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's like the whole MSG controversy (which, if you just change the names of the chemical, sound very much alike). People complain about effects, yet in a blinded study, the placebo group exhibits the effects at the same rate as the MSG group. People make their decision on anecdote, yet the cause of someone getting headaches or whatever from drinking a soda could result from the carbonation, colorings, sodium content, etc. etc. etc. This is why we should make decisions on what we consume and how we treat our health on solid evidence. OrangeMarlin 20:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, the Food Standards Agency is wrapping up a study based on these types of testimonial results. It might be best to wait for the results before commenting. Yobol (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
- This subject is about people/s health and laboratory tests have determined that any who professes to be sick from aspartame is faking. The government knows best what is good for you. Quione (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Allergies?
I've seen copious allegations of "allergies" to aspartame (which I take with a small salt mine, all things considered, especially how easily people confuse psychosomatics with an allergy - or assume that any reaction to a meal was both an allergy and caused by one specific ingredient, like aspartame).
However, if any actual scientific studies have been done on the possibility, they really ought to be linked in here, with a section about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.189.232 (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, because we need to show that scientific studies can be replicated. If we have a study for example of people claiming allergy to aspartame, and 11 out of 20 people fed aspartame report an allergic reaction compared to only 10 out of 20 people fed a placebo, then find the results reversed in the next study, we see the first study as unconfirmed. TFD (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)