I know multiple people that have had problems on the "other" list, and a few people have mentioned their own problems on this list.
According to the summary, the studies showing those side effects are universally on the list due to lack of funding on follow ups, not due to the effects disappearing when the studies were repeated with larger sample sizes.
Witholding funding and spamming inconclusive results is a common playbook for industries that are trying to slow down scientific consensus. The tobacco industry did the same thing to get an extra 50-100 years of "cigarrettes are probably good for you" to be the public consensus, despite scientists calling for additional study.
Are you aware you've sent a link of side-effects, including interactions with medicine? That doesn't mean a substance is unsafe, all substances, including water, have side-effects. I've never known anyone to have any side effects from aspartame. I've never known anyone who has known anyone who has had side-effects from aspartame.
> "cigarettes are probably good for you"
The difference is Tobacco is a Group 1 Carcinogen - definitely carcinogenic. Along with processed red meat and alcohol.
Red meat is group 2B, possibly carcinogenic. This is also where Aspartame resides. Which means there are SOME studies showing carcinogenic effects, and other's which do not. Please note that the studies which showed carcinogenic effects in Aspartame used many hundreds or thousands of times the dose found in human food and beverage. The great thing about Aspartame is that it's not actually zero calorie - it's just very potent, so we put next to nothing in our food and beverage.
For all intents and purposes, Aspartame is completely safe. When compared to sugar, Aspartame is much, much safer. I mean, it's not even close.
I know multiple people that have had problems on the "other" list, and a few people have mentioned their own problems on this list.
According to the summary, the studies showing those side effects are universally on the list due to lack of funding on follow ups, not due to the effects disappearing when the studies were repeated with larger sample sizes.
Witholding funding and spamming inconclusive results is a common playbook for industries that are trying to slow down scientific consensus. The tobacco industry did the same thing to get an extra 50-100 years of "cigarrettes are probably good for you" to be the public consensus, despite scientists calling for additional study.