The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
the aspartame data I think was a little less extreme basically this was a paper in 2006 2007 um and it did look at higher rates of cancer in rats that consumed uh you know pretty high amounts of aspartame uh from the day they were born uh right on to you know the duration of their life but you know truthfully they were still consuming the equivalent of 20 cans of diet soda every single day um to to get to some of those outcomes
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the aspartame data I think was a little less extreme basically this was a paper in 2006 2007 — and it did look at higher rates of cancer in rats that consumed — you know pretty high amounts of aspartame — from the day they were born — right on to you know the duration of their life but you know truthfully they were still consuming the equivalent of 20 cans of diet soda every single day