Bad ‘science’ from Harvard
It isn’t very often that a world-renowned, respected teaching facility, such as Harvard University’s Brigham and Women’s hospital, publicly apologizes for promoting bad research — but that is exactly what they did. The so-called study, led by Dr. Eva Schernhammer and her team of researchers at Brigham and Women’s hospital, concluded that those who drink a daily diet soda sweetened with aspartame could have an increased risk of leukemia, lymphoma or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Aspartame, an artificial sweetener, is an ingredient in some 6,000 products, especially diet soda. Despite literally hundreds of human and animal studies showing no ill effects from aspartame and other artificial sweeteners, Dr. Schernhammer and colleagues looked through the records of more than 77,000 women and 47,000 men in their nurses and health professional’s studies.
Brigham and Women’s was poised to promote the study with a sensationalist press release headlined, “The truth isn’t sweet when it comes to artificial sweeteners.” But about a half-hour before the paper was published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the senior vice president of communications at Brigham and Women’s Hospital walked back the press release. “Upon review of the findings, the consensus of our scientific leaders is that the data is weak,” Erin McDonough wrote to reporters, “and that BWH Media Relations was premature in the promotion of this work. We apologize for the time you have invested in this story.”
The caveats of the study include the fact that the results differed between women and men, and there also seemed to be a risk among people who drank mostly sugared soda. The study was so flawed, and showed such unconvincing results that it had been turned down for publication by six other journals, including the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet and the British Medical Journal.
While the first six journals that rejected the study deserve credit, ACSH advisor Dr. Adam Drewnowski, professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington, noted, “the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition — the flagship publication of the American Society for Nutrition — is one of the most prestigious journals in the field. Not only that,” he continues, “but Walter Willett, the best-known U.S. epidemiologist, was among the study co-authors. There ought to be MAJOR fallout from this and calls for accountability in science.”
“This is simply embarrassing,” says ACSH’s Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. “This only illustrates perfectly the sad path that science has taken. Much of the scientific research we see has become an ideologically driven agenda against aspartame and artificial sweeteners, based on fear of ‘chemicals’.” She continues, “It can even be seen in this month’s issue of Harvard Magazine, which carries a story on ‘Soda and Violence.’ It truly is sad when institutions of higher learning take a turn from sound science to political correctness.”
ACSH’s Dr. Josh Bloom adds, “It is virtually impossible to find anything safer than aspartame. It consists of two amino acids, which are both part of your normal diet anyhow, plus a tiny amount of methanol — far less than you would get from consuming fruit or juice. About the only way it could hurt you (phenylketonurics excluded) is if you were run over by the truck that was delivering it.”
“Again,” commented ACSH’s Dr Ruth Kava, “this is clear evidence that one should not base health care changes on single studies — replication is essential.”
Pingback: Harvard affiliate apologizes for promoting "weak" study linking aspartame to cancer | The Skinny on Low CalThe Skinny on Low Cal
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That? | costs-of-a-wind-turbine
I am an individual, not a medical specialist, who read the negative findings many years ago about Aspartame. The whole business of the formaldahyde, and took it as gospel, based on the statements given by those who, I believed to be knowledgeable and have not used it since. I also read that Equal wss dangerous based on a study of rats being given it, and I later found out that they had been given a significant amount to ingest, I believe 900 times, but I could be wrong about that figure. I later heard that these figures were used to discredit Equal so that their competitors could sell their products consisting of Aspartame. Then I heard a similar thing as to the toxicity of this product. Frankly, I use Equal often as a sugar substitute as well as Xylitol, another sugar substitute which wasn’t mentioned in your studies. I have used Stevia as well, and as your studies indicate it does not taste as sweet as some of the others, but Xylitol requires more as well to enjoy the sweetness.
I tend to feel that competitors will do anything to promote their product to be better, safer than the competitor’s product in order to provide it to the major producers of dietetic foods and drinks. In this day and age where we are being told of being poisoned by the spraying of chemicals in the stratosphere which, in turn fall to the ground, affecting our natural resources; GMO products where the seeds are controlled to produce only once so they may sell more to producers, and the fact that the stuff that falls to the ground is ingested by animals which we eat, and whose byproducts are also ingested by other animals, chickens, turkeys, etc which we eat on a daily basis. Considering all this, who really cares which is safer. If we are being poisoned through natural products why consern ourselves over what is in a tiny packet that we may or may not use regularly. Personally I do not trust the FDA, mostly due to the fact that most of the Scientists are former employees of many of the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals or these other products. When doctors who come up with sound cures for many of our major ills and they cannot get approval from the FDA, I recognize they will do what the other industies want to keep selling their products. Who wants cures if it will affect their bottom line?
We are just human cattle for the benefit of commerce. One man’s opinion.
I’m gone to say to my little brother, that he should also visit this webpage on regular basis to obtain updated from latest information.