• BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    When we see a long term study which is double blinded in humans

    For several generations like the this one this would be 60 years minimum. Basically can’t be done.

    • rowinxavier@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see what you are saying but I disagree. The changes that we would consider important for aspartame should happen over a reasonable period of time. If it takes 100 years to have an impact then we probably don’t care because most people won’t live that long. What we care about is whether it has an impact over meaningful lengths of time in a human life, say over a decade or two.

      If I have tobacco every day for a year will I have cancer? Unlikely. But if I give a large number of people who are well randomised tobacco or tobacco substitute I will see changes in their outcomes in a short time, even as little as a year.

      So for aspartame, we already know it is not a massive signal. If it were then people who find the taste acrid would be better off than those who do not. But is there a possible issue there? Sure, it is possible, but it will very likely be a mild issue over a long time at a high dose, not at small doses over a short time, so this study design is not fit for purpose and it should be ignored.

      • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        reasonable period of time.

        That misses the entire point of studying multi generational effects.

        we probably don’t care because most people won’t live that long.

        Again, misses the entire point of studying multi generational effects.

        meaningful lengths of time in a human life, say over a decade or two.

        Again.

        even as little as a year.

        Again.

        not a massive signal.

        Again.

        will very likely be a mild issue over a long time at a high dose, not at small doses over a short time,

        That’s the whole point of the study, to do a low dose over a super long time over generations. Not a high/med dose over a short time.

        not at small doses over a short time,

        Again, misses the entire point of studying multi generational effects.

        so this study design is not fit for purpose and it should be ignored.

        And a final: Again, misses the entire point of studying multi generational effects.

        I think I’m going to say cheers since sorry to say you missed the entire point, objective, and goal of the study and you want to study something else entirely. Cheers.