Nick Norwitz

And what they showed in mice, and also they had some monkey data, was that it can spike glucose and insulin. And what this did was increased plaque progression in susceptible mice, admittedly susceptible mice. However, the mechanism had to do with increasing certain molecules on the endothelial lining.

Basically, there were like baseball gloves for rolling around immune cells, the baseball that sucked them into the arterial lining and caused plaque to grow.

Basically, there were like baseball gloves for rolling around immune cells, the baseball that sucked them into the arterial lining and caused plaque to grow.

Basically, there were like baseball gloves for rolling around immune cells, the baseball that sucked them into the arterial lining and caused plaque to grow.

So there is a very clear physiological model with data in mice and primates showing how this could negatively impact heart health in conjunction with associational data saying artificial sweetener intake is associated with cardiovascular disease. Does this prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that diacocardial heart disease?

So there is a very clear physiological model with data in mice and primates showing how this could negatively impact heart health in conjunction with associational data saying artificial sweetener intake is associated with cardiovascular disease. Does this prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that diacocardial heart disease?

So there is a very clear physiological model with data in mice and primates showing how this could negatively impact heart health in conjunction with associational data saying artificial sweetener intake is associated with cardiovascular disease. Does this prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that diacocardial heart disease?

No, but you shouldn't need those data to incorporate the existing literature, which is of concern into your individual algorithm of whether or not you want to make the decision. So, and artificial sweeteners, to be clear, in humans have been shown to cause insulin resistance. Sometimes it takes longer than a day or so.

No, but you shouldn't need those data to incorporate the existing literature, which is of concern into your individual algorithm of whether or not you want to make the decision. So, and artificial sweeteners, to be clear, in humans have been shown to cause insulin resistance. Sometimes it takes longer than a day or so.

No, but you shouldn't need those data to incorporate the existing literature, which is of concern into your individual algorithm of whether or not you want to make the decision. So, and artificial sweeteners, to be clear, in humans have been shown to cause insulin resistance. Sometimes it takes longer than a day or so.

There was one study out of the Weizmann Institute, I think it was Nature, where they showed that it was saccharin in this case caused insulin resistance by changing the microbiome. In this case, it was a majority, but not all people had a response. There might be individualistic elements. It may take time to result. The data are not

There was one study out of the Weizmann Institute, I think it was Nature, where they showed that it was saccharin in this case caused insulin resistance by changing the microbiome. In this case, it was a majority, but not all people had a response. There might be individualistic elements. It may take time to result. The data are not

There was one study out of the Weizmann Institute, I think it was Nature, where they showed that it was saccharin in this case caused insulin resistance by changing the microbiome. In this case, it was a majority, but not all people had a response. There might be individualistic elements. It may take time to result. The data are not

absolutely proven without a shadow of a doubt, but there's enough there to say, this is concerning. And then the question is, where do you put the burden of proof? Is the burden of proof defined the implausible study that proves it without a shadow of a doubt? Or can you just say, you know, these literature are concerning enough for me to be like, I might be okay with freaking water.

absolutely proven without a shadow of a doubt, but there's enough there to say, this is concerning. And then the question is, where do you put the burden of proof? Is the burden of proof defined the implausible study that proves it without a shadow of a doubt? Or can you just say, you know, these literature are concerning enough for me to be like, I might be okay with freaking water.

absolutely proven without a shadow of a doubt, but there's enough there to say, this is concerning. And then the question is, where do you put the burden of proof? Is the burden of proof defined the implausible study that proves it without a shadow of a doubt? Or can you just say, you know, these literature are concerning enough for me to be like, I might be okay with freaking water.

It's funny because you actually hit on a broader point about this burden of proof. Because if you don't have evidence to say this is very harmful, and sometimes the harms manifest over a long period of time, then should you be allowed to introduce a substance into the food supply? And the fact of the matter is right now, the way it is, the answer is you are allowed. You are allowed, yeah.

It's funny because you actually hit on a broader point about this burden of proof. Because if you don't have evidence to say this is very harmful, and sometimes the harms manifest over a long period of time, then should you be allowed to introduce a substance into the food supply? And the fact of the matter is right now, the way it is, the answer is you are allowed. You are allowed, yeah.

It's funny because you actually hit on a broader point about this burden of proof. Because if you don't have evidence to say this is very harmful, and sometimes the harms manifest over a long period of time, then should you be allowed to introduce a substance into the food supply? And the fact of the matter is right now, the way it is, the answer is you are allowed. You are allowed, yeah.

And then after the fact, we might do some assessment.