It uncovered eight WHO panelists involved with assessing safe levels of aspartame consumption who are beverage industry consultants who currently or previously worked with the alleged Coke front group, International Life Sciences Institute (Ilsi).

Their involvement in developing intake guidelines represents “an obvious conflict of interest”, said Gary Ruskin, US Right-To-Know’s executive director. “Because of this conflict of interest, [the daily intake] conclusions about aspartame are not credible, and the public should not rely on them,” he added.

    • RegularGoose
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You heard it here guys, this dude is pretty sure it never happened to him, so it’s definitely fine.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s just as valid, if not maybe a little more, than the guy claiming it is the reason. People are allowed to discuss their personal opinions and they should need to include that it’s only a sample size of one and not independently verified. No one should be stupid enough to think they’re claiming otherwise and need to say it out loud that they don’t trust it.

        • RegularGoose
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Anecdotes are not “personal opinions” and they certainly aren’t valid or valuable in the context of evaluating scientific claims.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, it isn’t valuable for scientific evaluation. They are valid though. Anyway, the other comment was just a claim without any supporting evidence for it but no one felt they needed to point that out.