Cancer

[sillykitty 10,708]

9 minutes ago, James Marusek said:

So do any of the researchers have stocks in artificial sweetener companies?

I'm all for healthy skepticism, but there are 25, researchers named on this study.

[James Marusek 5,244]

Which is exactly the point. Healthy skepticism is not bad. But look at both sides of the picture. Do not automatically dismiss a study because of where some of the funds came from. Just keep an open mind. And science is generally not based on one study alone but the replication of research findings by other independent research groups.

So the authors of the original article that I cited came to the following conclusions:

However, the one thing that the authors cannot overcome is the fact that food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) are notoriously unreliable. People regularly underreport how much alcohol they consume, for instance. I barely remember what I ate for lunch, and that was just a few hours ago. There's simply no good way to get around this shortcoming, though the fact that the authors detected something of a dose-response (i.e., the more artificial sweeteners a person consumed, the less likely he or she was to develop cancer) strengthens their case.

Additionally, there is the nagging issue of confounding. People who drink artificially sweetened beverages may have other health habits that are responsible for lowering the recurrence of cancer. Perhaps people who drink more Diet Coke also eat more celery. The authors did their best to adjust for such confounding, but there's always the possibility that something goes undetected.

Overall, I find the result interesting but unconvincing. If artificial sweeteners really do decrease the recurrence of cancer by more than 20%, then they should begin a clinical trial pronto.

That is why I thought the authors of the article presented a well balanced article. And also their conclusion was to target more research to prove whether these findings were real or due to other confound issues.

[Deemar007 244]

Good post James. Something else to consider.

[jess9395 5,448]

On 08/11/2018 at 11:10, Deemar007 said:

Exactly what I was getting at Jess9395. Follow the money, because it's always about the money.

No you were saying that the money was coming from the sweeteners. It’s not.

They do not have any vested interest in these results and the actual disclosures on the article show that.

This is real science in a peer reviewed journal with no money trail to follow.

[jess9395 5,448]

On 08/12/2018 at 09:51, James Marusek said:

But it should cut both ways. If you are leery of any research published by those who receive funding from pharmaceutical companies then one should also be leary of any research published by those who receive money from environmental groups. It cuts both ways. Environmental groups receive large amounts of money based on the fear that they generate about the impact of chemicals and also by their ability to bring those fears into the courtroom to support large jury awards to plaintiffs. It is the research that they pay for that underpins their claims of harm.

Although in this particular case the real companies that have a financial interest are those companies that produce artificial sweeteners not the pharmaceutical company. So do any of the researchers have stocks in artificial sweetener companies?

Exactly and NO they do not.

[pugmom234 30]

Interesting....