There’s nothing to trust about Doctor Oz. The idiot landed himself in hot water a few times for touting “miracle pills” and the like. Every doctor worth their training knows not to use words like “miracle” or “magical” because such words grant a hope that’ll likely never be fulfilled, even (or especially) by medication.
Plus he neglected to mention side-effects all the time, one of the most important things that a patient looking for a new medication should know.
The whole point I was trying to make that no evidence has been published that I’m aware of that makes any indication that aspartame is damaging at dietary levels.
Which is what I meant with ‘the science states’, which is the whole sum of experimental results we currently have (publicized) access to. Not ‘this person says’ or ‘that article says’, just the whole I am familiar with. Maybe tomorrow, evidence will surface and I’ll have to turn my position a full 180, but for now, with all the experiments and biochemical knowledge we have pointing to ‘safe within limits’, I feel it’s fairly unreasonable to assume unsafe.
Of course it’s fine to doubt, healthy skepticism is an important step towards truth in any matter. But… it seems a bit silly to include it in your image then.
Science is not human. Science doesn’t speak. Whenever you say “Science says” or “Scientists say” you’re making a huge generalization.
Whenever “Science says” something, it’s really just some person saying something. It’s adherence to authority, and it’s - ironically - the very thing science is meant to combat. Science is about finding out facts, not what someone says is fact.
Here, for example, you’re most likely dropping every piece of evidence or every scientific article or a scientist’s opinion or inconvenient facts contradicting your point in favor of what “science says” - and by “you”, I mean both kinds of posters we’ve seen here, for and against.
The only honest way to talk about it is “This article says” or “This person says” or “This experiment says” or something similar, which is also how things are cited in scientific literature.
>A quick question then: What is your position in regards to aspartame?
I think I said it a few times, but it hasn’t changed: I’ve done a small amount of research on the subject and I didn’t find anything that would constitute proof one way or the other. The only thing that became obvious is the huge conflict of interest involved.
So, my opinion is that I don’t have enough knowledge of the subject to have an opinion.
That is true, and the science states that there is currently no evidence for aspartame being harmful in dietary quantities.
So I’m not sure what you’re arguing. In fact, are we even arguing the same points?
A quick question then: What is your position in regards to aspartame?
The image and some of your replies seem to imply that you’ve condemned it as dangerous despite the complete nonexistence of evidence to the contrary, but I could be wrong and it’s rather difficult to argue effectively if we don’t know each other’s stances.
@Velcro
It takes to know science to decide what is science, yes.
>Well, we do have a system of accreditation.
I was more talking about “experts” you see on news and magazine covers, but that’s a fairly similar case: it’s relegating judging credibility of a person to someone else, and it’s relegating credibility of facts to that of a person in a suit.
Authority has no relationship to whether what it says is true. Only facts matter. Check the facts and you’ll know the truth. Check credentials and you’ll only be relying on faith in that person.
@Background Pony #A9C9
You don’t have to try it to know the effects, but it helps. It seems quite accurate to me even though the worst I’ve tried is a glass of wine.
Was looking around for a new wallpaper and came across this. It’s interesting in a way that makes me want to understand the concept (but not try everything on the list). But I’m only familiar with a bare few things on it.
Did the artist actually try all of these substances themselves? I ask because it just seems like it would be easier to recreate it that way.
@Draco_2k
It helps to have a bit of a biochemical background so you actually understand what they’re talking about, or if their points actually make sense.
‘The people who say they’re scientists and experts’. Well, we do have a system of accreditation. It’s not perfect, of course, but it might help.
@Velcro
>this testing only spans from the time of introduction to ’now’
No way. That’s not how studies work, results aren’t published before a set end date. I think you meant to say that any studies performed up until now haven’t shown any adverse effects, but you can’t add the test times together.
I don’t really remember any long studies off the top of my head. Anything below two years you can safely throw out of the window.
>Deciding, based on there being no evidence of damage, that it must secretly be a conspiracy…
>going from ’on the fence’ to ’it must be destroying your brain!’ seems like a bit of a big step to take on pure faith…
That’d be pretty stupid, yes. I don’t remember anyone saying that though.
>I… don’t seem to understand the last statement you made in regards to tabloids.
I was continuing your thought: when people with an agenda want to argue their cause, they rarely take their fight to the academia and the scientific publications. They go to the media and spin their truth as “Scientific”.
The fun thing about it, you think of it as blatantly obvious, but so do your opponents. You’ll both assume it’s the other side that’s pushing their cause through tabloids and shills pretending to be scientific figures.
In the end we often let authority do our thinking for us, and we call it “Trust”. It’s reasonable to trust people who say they’re scientists and experts, isn’t it?
@Draco_2k
We do have statistical models - even for aspartame. Sofar nothing has indicated aspartame can cause damage at dietary levels, although it should be noted that this testing only spans from the time of introduction to ‘now’. There have been tests with rats at 4000+ times the concentration found in normal use, but sofar nothing specific has come up in regards to damages from normal use.
Deciding, based on there being no evidence of damage, that it must secretly be a conspiracy to hide how horrible the product is seems a bit… premature to me.
I can understand if you wish to avoid something you don’t feel you can trust and waiting to see if more data becomes available, but going from ‘on the fence’ to ‘it must be destroying your brain!’ seems like a bit of a big step to take on pure faith.
I… don’t seem to understand the last statement you made in regards to tabloids. Bad/pseudo- science is often found in tabloids, yes, mostly by people who care nothing for actual truth. That is where you’ll find your latest health-scare conspiracy or the latest herbal remedy siphoned from the brains of psychics in mental contact with aliens from the sixth dimension(,etc).
But despite the appalling treatment of science by such magazines (and the clickbait science journalism found in many other sources) I don’t see what it has to do with, you know, actual science..?
@patachu
Nah, Derpibooru mods are cool. Besides, your art is awesome.
@Velcro
Well, you can use your knowledge of a mechanism to test whether it’s true, by creating conditions where you get positive results majority of the time. So yes.
But whether something is fact is verified using standard statistical protocols, regardless of speculation or evidence regarding what causes it, what affects it, what follows it, so on. It’s not that it’s important or not, it’s that it’s irrelevant to whether something exists in the first place.
When you’re dealing with dietary advice you’re almost always dealing with speculation, because biological systems are too complex to create even approximate models of. Even ordinary citric acid which is easily studied and very well-understood and absolutely essential to all life can have unpredictable results when ingested. Like, say, rotting your teeth and stomach lining when taken in excess (because it’s an acid so, duh).
I’m guessing the same applies to aspartame: no matter how well it’s understood and how simple it is to model, only statistical observation can tell about its effects on humans. I presume such studies exist as well, I don’t really remember.
>And they were discovered, eventually.
Ah, they were discovered, but if something else wasn’t… How would you know about it?
(Also known as the “perfect crime” argument: they say no one ever committed the perfect crime… But if they did, how would you know about it?)
It’s wishful thinking to assume all scientific frauds will eventually be discovered simply because you know several examples of those that were. The price of safety is eternal vigilance, and all that.
>There’s also another tactic we occasionally see…
Yep. Science is just a small part of the PR machine of the modern age. Ultimately, “Science” is often decided in the tabloids, not science journals, and often even scientists themselves believe it.
@Draco_2k
Well, in regards to mechanism: Proposing and testing a mechanism allows people to verify verify a claim. Same with cocaine and its smoked ‘crack’ variant, we know how and why it does what it does.
This can be a bit complicated for complex molecules and require much in the form of research, but in the case of aspertame, the molecule is simple, small, and all the products of its digestion easily found.
That means that we know what aspertame becomes when it enters the human body… and none of these things can do significant damage to peoples’ health. That’s kindof the point - what we know about aspertame says that the things it dissolves into aren’t things that can harm you in small amounts.
That’s why I used the Abraham Lincoln-as-murderer example earlier. It’s rather like getting told that Abraham Lincoln murdered a woman who lived in 2014. It seems like an impossible claim…
…but it could still be possible that Abraham Lincoln popped out of his grave, took an AK47 out from under his hat and blew that woman away with a rata-tat-tat.
As for research biases: True, we have had a fair bit of those too. Financial interests have hired scientists for tobacco and leaded fuels to convince governments of their products’ safety.
And they were discovered, eventually. Scientists proposed and tested mechanisms, discovered links, approached fellow scientists, and eventually the government to expose what they’d learned.
There’s also another tactic we occasionally see: Instead of approaching other scientists to test and verify their work, the ‘discoverer’ instead spreads the news to non-scientist civilians in order to convince them and make them apply political pressure to the government for change. Think of media appearances, chain-Emails, etc etc. This particular tactic is used when the evidence doesn’t stand up to scientific scrutiny very well but might pass muster among those who don’t have scientific backgrounds: Creationism, anti-vax, anti-fluoride, and yes, the aspartame scare.
like on furaff, everytime i post a drawing, i get banned! no!
anyways,
yes i keep aspartam as a drug, google is your friend and don’t stick with the CDC or the PasteurIsRollingInHisGrave Institute’s facts on this drug, along with all the rest and a lot i have not mentioned.
Tobacco is alarming. we know it’s cancerous and addictive, and I am certain that soon or late, some other drugs INCLUDING VACCINES (which contains adjuvents and other kind of useless boosters instead of just the molecule with saline solution) will also be reconsidered as not healthy at all. the FDA issued a report about Aspartame a while ago but is now lowering their consideration.
Why? because it sells. it’s sweet and companies like Pepsico , Coca, Nestlé, Bayer, Monsanto, Unilever have something called lobbies. Regardless if you accept that truth or not, it remains real and your denialism will not change the fact your Pepsi Max can or Monster, Brawndo, whatever thing you drink everyday is filled of that piss you enjoy to drink.
you all need to keep in mind that in this system, you must NEVER trust what the officials are promising you or encouraging you to consume or buy or whatever ideology to support.
of course there are retards in all sides, ‘tarded conspirationists who will mix everything and clutter the true aspect of a more dramatic reality, and look like loonies - what they are.
but there is a part of truth that can not be removed either.
I received just an email asking me to edit this picture minus the caffeine and aspartame part. Oh yeah you consume less calories! Sugar is essential for you if you are not a fatass neckbeard sitting in front of his compu all day and night watching dumb pony drawings and doing nothing, you are a whole thing.
Caffeine remains a stimulant, it’s a drug I actually use and yes I am dependent of it. I did coke once, which is an even more intense stimulant. it was not trippy but is a good solution against drunkness and employment opportunities. i would believe that one is addictive but i think it’s actually a retarded drug. Altough it is naturally a good thing, just like alcohool.
Aspartame, neotame just like painkillers, antidepressants and their emulated opiates, and e621 (monosodium glutamate) is not like coke or even, smoking weed, but a pure biochemical product, present and legal in all kind of junk. these are on the opposite spectrum, like the opiates you’ll find in Ritalin, Prozac, Lexomil and various “legal” medecines, those are aiming at your braincells. you feel good, you want more of it. you think less too.
So i’m not gonna argue further and stop the experiments on that poor cartoon horse since it is strictly against my morals, but a brain is a biological machine that operates on chemicals, that is powered by things that are circulating in your blood. from there, you can now reconsider whatever you inject into it.
