Smoking is associated with increased risk of many types of cancer, not just lung cancer. For example, it very significantly increases the risk of oral, esophageal and bladder cancer, but is also associated with many others, like colon cancer.
I imagine that if something consumed in such large quantities like aspartame had a clear link to cancer, it would have been noticed by now.
It does, but not to the extent the does lung cancer. It's quite specific.
" Results: Separate analyses conducted with the two control groups produced similar results. Of the many sites of cancer examined, the following were not associated with cigarette smoking: colon, rectum, liver, prostate, kidney and skin (melanoma). Within the lymphoreticular system, there was no excess risk of Hodgkin's lymphoma, although the results for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were weakly suggestive of an association with smoking. The following sites were clearly associated with smoking: lung (odds ratio [OR] = 12.1), bladder (OR = 2.4), oesophagus (OR = 2.4), stomach (OR = 1.7), and pancreas (OR = 1.6). Population attributable risk percentages due to smoking were 90% for lung, 53% for bladder, 54% for oesophagus, 35% for stomach, and 33% for pancreas. "
Yes, the effect is much bigger for lung cancer, but I wouldn't summarize this as smoking is "not much associated with other cancers." Smoking is like the pre-eminent example of something that increases risk for many cancers.
My point was just that specificity of cancer outcome is a hallmark of causation. General increase in risks which are small is a hallmark of confounding.
Yes, it's a good point, but something else might be a better example (like asbestos maybe).
Theoretically, aspartame could cause increased permeability of the gut lining (eg. by causing local inflammation) and that could lead to increased toxins in the circulation, which could lead to cancers in various parts of the body. I don't believe that is true, but it would be a possible mechanism for how it could cause a small general increase in risk, even though it is metabolized in the intestine.
Wasn't there an observation years ago that rats get cancer from consuming dioxin, but guinea pigs don't? Something like that, maybe? (BTW, that's eating or drinking, not much protection against breathing dioxin.)
Yeah, the cancer claim seems overstated. There are other health concerns with more substance, however, ironically including weight gain.
No, reject aspartame. Fake science support aspartame ; fake science supported tobacco Cartels. End of story.
Smoking is associated with increased risk of many types of cancer, not just lung cancer. For example, it very significantly increases the risk of oral, esophageal and bladder cancer, but is also associated with many others, like colon cancer.
I imagine that if something consumed in such large quantities like aspartame had a clear link to cancer, it would have been noticed by now.
It does, but not to the extent the does lung cancer. It's quite specific.
" Results: Separate analyses conducted with the two control groups produced similar results. Of the many sites of cancer examined, the following were not associated with cigarette smoking: colon, rectum, liver, prostate, kidney and skin (melanoma). Within the lymphoreticular system, there was no excess risk of Hodgkin's lymphoma, although the results for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma were weakly suggestive of an association with smoking. The following sites were clearly associated with smoking: lung (odds ratio [OR] = 12.1), bladder (OR = 2.4), oesophagus (OR = 2.4), stomach (OR = 1.7), and pancreas (OR = 1.6). Population attributable risk percentages due to smoking were 90% for lung, 53% for bladder, 54% for oesophagus, 35% for stomach, and 33% for pancreas. "
OR 12 for lung, bladder 2.4, everything else lower. https://twitter.com/KirkegaardEmil/status/1702979942080753728
Yes, the effect is much bigger for lung cancer, but I wouldn't summarize this as smoking is "not much associated with other cancers." Smoking is like the pre-eminent example of something that increases risk for many cancers.
My point was just that specificity of cancer outcome is a hallmark of causation. General increase in risks which are small is a hallmark of confounding.
Yes, it's a good point, but something else might be a better example (like asbestos maybe).
Theoretically, aspartame could cause increased permeability of the gut lining (eg. by causing local inflammation) and that could lead to increased toxins in the circulation, which could lead to cancers in various parts of the body. I don't believe that is true, but it would be a possible mechanism for how it could cause a small general increase in risk, even though it is metabolized in the intestine.
Wasn't there an observation years ago that rats get cancer from consuming dioxin, but guinea pigs don't? Something like that, maybe? (BTW, that's eating or drinking, not much protection against breathing dioxin.)