On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 11:01:57 GMT, "Mike Muth"
> wrote:

>
>On 17-Sep-2014, Janet Bostwick > wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you would prefer to read the article in Forbes
>> http://www.forbes.com/sites/fayeflam...ndly-bacteria/
>> or go to the original article in Nature
>
>The article in Forbes is just an article. I did drill through to
>"Nature". $32 for the article. I think not.
>
>Still, it appears that it has been submitted to a peer-review
>journal, although not the one I would expect for something
>medical. Now to wait for responses as people review the data, if
>they can get it..
>
>I do like the skeptical tone in the last part of the Forbes
>article.
>
>> I merely provided an article for thought
>
>I understand and have no problem with that or you.
>
>> But I appreciate the time you took to lay out your criteria for
>> research approbation.
>
>I'm sorry if I cam across as critical of you. I did not intend
>to. I was a bit disturbed by the way so many on-line
>publications and new sources jumped on this without seeing or
>citing the study. One publication seems to have published a
>somewhat informed article and the herd of "journalists" jumped on
>the band wagon.
>
>It's ineresting that Atkins (40 years ago) recommended
>supplementation (particularly acidophilus) to maintain gut
>bacterial health and balance.
>
>I'm still put off by most of the points I mention, though -
>especially the conclusions drawn about artificial sweeteners in
>general when the study was essentially focused on saccharine
>after the initial rounds of tests on mice. This is pretty
>obvious from the data points shown below abstract of the article.
> The supplementary data make no mention of artificial sweeteners
>other than saccharine.
>
>My point about the maltodextrin used in the sweeteners still
>remains. The study used commercially available sweeteners.
>
>Also, no word of who funded the study. Weizmann Institute is a
>for-profit research organization. Money for this came from
>somewhere.
>
>[on a personal note: Studies like this and the publicity they
>receive always remind me of the 7 nations study (the flawed study
>which used cherry-picked data and led to the present low-fat
>dietary guidelines) and the "study" which linked Autism to
>vaccines.]

You and I looked at different things. I immediately noticed how often
the word 'may' or similar was used. That made me comfortable. No one
was telling me this was ironclad fact. Then, I was fascinated by the
idea that gut bacteria populations may be altered and thus may cause a
problem with certain individuals of the human population. Of course,
I have no problem accepting gut bacteria alteration when taking
medication. But, soda?
However, last month? there was a study that purported that diet soda
may lead to heart disease. It seems diet soda is under scrutiny.

Janet US