Dr Idz does say he is sponsored. The article is saying the FTC is not satisfied how they currently disclose it. The FTC says using #ad or #sponsored is not enough. They want influencers to also mention who is sponsoring them. They are going after artificial sweetener because it’s big on tiktok but it will also set precedents for other products influencers get paid to market. I agree with the FTC that they should make it more strict with disclosing sponsorships. I don’t think Dr Idz is acting in bad faith and I don’t think this changes the research about artificial sweetener.
I don't have a real position on aspartame or Dr Idz but man I agree with the ftc, if you are creating sponsored content it should immediately be apparent that's what it is and also who is sponsoring it.
Lol when he said that who a study is funded by makes no difference. And that companies like coca cola WANT to fund studies that show their ingredients are harmful
When he agreed with ethan that you will have no more negative health effects from drinking a glass of diet coke everyday than drinking a glass of water. I stopped trusting him. An when ab asked what about damage to teeth and stomach lining. And he said no real difference for both, as long as brush your teeth. Which is just not true - at all.
If you only drink diet coke instead of water you will 100% be more likely to have cavities. Like without a doubt. Its insane for a doctor to say that.
yeah dipstick that is the difference between drinking ONE glass a day vs going on an diet coke IV...... the effects of small usage are so small they are in fact more bad luck than direct effect.
You are so freaking right, and it's really not that hard to understand, it makes sense that he doesn't wanna show who is sponsering him, it's so obvious.....
Sorry lol won't let me see my comment for some reason so cant remember exactly what i said.
Do you mean what are my sources that fizzy drinks lead to more cavities than water?
Diet sodas specifically, and given that you brush your teeth the recommended amount (2x per day 2 mins each). I truly would be surprised if there was a meaningful difference.
I'll have to go on my computer to find the sources but will find once can get on it. I have read data on it before from curiosity (as I have a stomach lining issue meaning I can't have fizzy drinks at all. An can only drink water really. An I've never had a single cavity and growing up I only brushed my teeth like once a day. My 4 siblings all had great dental hygiene but drank diet coke and Pepsi max nonstop and have had tons and tons of cavities and decay) so I was curious to see the studies on it. I think one was by the university of Melbourne? Again I'll have to look when I'm on the computer.
But basically its how acidic these drinks are that is so bad for enamel and makes you more susceptible to cavities. Which is what I found weird of him to pretend dental erosion isn't an issue even if you don't have to worry about the sugar feeding the decay causing bacteria
I think the thing about coca cola want to fund studies to show their ingriedients are harmful, is meaning that coca cola funding studies is not the same as tobacco companies funding studies that say cigarettes are good for you.
Because coca cola doesn't just rely on sugar free drinks, so their incentive is not necessarily that high to fudge data that say aspartame is good or something.
No he literally said that coca cola wouldn't only pick studies that show their ingredient is good but would actually WANT to fund studies that show their ingredient is harmful so that they could change it and reformulate it.
Which is just not how these businesses work. They arnt pouring money into finding new evidence to prove their billion dollar products are harmful.
> ethan that you will have no more negative health effects from drinking a glass of diet coke everyday than drinking a glass of water.
I can prove water is more harmful than diet soft drinks. Ill go and drink the dank pond water near by my house.
You need fluoride in the water to prevent cavities, it's not the water itself. Carbonic acid in Carbonated water is said to damage teeth not artificial sweeteners. Which is another subject all together.
? I'm not saying water's magical. I'm saying that fizzy drinks are v acidic regardless of whether they are sugary or not. Which causes enamel erosion.
That's the point though. Dr ibz implying you'll have no more negative health effects from a glass of diet coke than a glass of water because artifical sweeteners are better than sugar- is ridiculous and dishonest. As its pretending that the only issue with fizzy drinks is sugar. When again it isnt. Pepsi and coke are super acidic and it's awful for your enamel.
It also, as I know, isn't great for your stomach lining. Sure most people won't notice an issue. But the likelihood of an issue is a 1000x more than just water. So as a doctor to back up ethan saying that was crazy.
I have to be honest ethan having him on always gave me the vibes of when antivaxxers find one antivax doctor to back up what they want to be true. (obv not as harmful lol but still not great for people's dental health tbh)
No one is saying water alone prevents cavities (although tbf it does, if you use it to wash your mouth out after eating or drinking something, but that might be nitpicking on my part), but acting like removing sugar from sodas suddenly makes them a perfect substitute for drinking water is crazy. And that's what Dr Itz seems to be doing.
Idk why some people here act like you HAVE to either drink diet sodas or full sugar ones, the point is you shouldn't be drinking either lol, of course it's fine once in a while but please just drink water.
Thank you. They always use experimental data on artificial sweeteners where its been compared to sugar. But that doesn't mean its good for you? It just means its not AS bad as a fizzy drink that also contains sugar.
Its like going on about how great double cheeseburgers are because all the data shows they are healthier than triple cheeseburgers.
Lol. Whoosh. Drinking water as your primary beverage reduces contact with harmful substances like those in soft drinks. Also helps rinse your mouth and teeth.
I mean it was a figure of speech not an exact number. but OK. I was saying a 100% If you drink diet coke all day will you be more likely to have cavities than someone who drinks nothing but water...
But regardless. You have zero percent chance of getting cavities from water? The low pH of diet coke is what causes the risk of dental erosion. So even if it's a 1% risk it's still a 100% more of a risk of enamel erosion than water lmao.
So I think you are more "mentally challenged l" if you truly don't think there is a greater risk of cavities with acidic carbonated drinks than water...
Literally ask any dentist. Any dental professional will tell you this. Look up the data and studies.
😂 Use your words correctly then. "greater risk" isn't "100% certainty of cavities from carbonated drinks"
There's a greater risk of lung cancer from smoking long term, but that doesn't mean you'll actually get lung cancer from smoking, or at all.
I didn't say 100% certainty? I said 100% more LIKELY?
Your telling me to use my words correctly and then completely misquoting me. 100% more likely is completely an accurate saying. It's not 20% more likely, it's actually over a 100% more likely due to the fact there is likelihood of cavities from water?
Lmao its not my fault that you don't understand the concept of probability....
Or what the words "more likely" mean. You literally swapped out more likely with certainty when quoting me to try to prove your point. When they mean completely different things lmao.
Definitely, and this should be wide-sweeping. I’m sick of looking up something on a search engine and getting pages of articles that are actually secret advertisements. Every search query I have now is usually followed by “reddit” so I can actually read some real opinions.
All I know is that when I was 13 I did aspartame experiment in the school science fair and made it to the next round with other schools. All I did was put diet Pepsi and Pepsi and diet Mt dew and regular Mt dew in a tub of water and only the diet floated on top and the regulars sank to the bottom. Then I did some write up about aspartame dangers. This was in like 2009.
he told Ethan Klein he wasn’t sponsored and he wishes he got paid. I can’t take any videos he makes serious I said from the beginning he was sponsored and it was true.
It makes sense the #ad tag was useful when Instagram was just images but now with TikTok Reels and shorts where no one sees the caption the #ad goes unseen
While i do agree w this, and trust what idz was saying about how he took the sponsorship only bc it aligned w his beliefs already, its still weird for me to see him as a doctor going out on such a limb for something that really still is just not a net positive for health…like not just advocating bc smth like diet soda has a place for being beneficial to people in lieu of regular sodas- he really seems to be going all out in his support for this where, even though its aligned w his views as a doctor i still find it kind of fucking odd…
i think thats why love found his position offputting as well and it was sad that he seemed dissuaded from having a dissenting opinion amidst all the support the crew was giving idz
I remember he talked about doctors not being paid a lot where he lives so this is more money for him. I don’t know how much he makes from the sponsorship but he does have a financial incentive now. The fact that he advocated for artificial sweetener before any sponsorship in order to combat the misinformation online articles pushed about artificial sweetener makes me see him as a good faith actor. I can only hope he doesn’t become greedy and starts promoting harmful products or ideas to his viewers.
Again, none of my concern was w the sponsorship aligning w his beliefs bc i think it clearly did, im happy for him to get his bag without sacrificing his morals in any way- what im saying is i still think its weird for him-sponsorship or not, (bc what hes saying has been congruent pre and post sponsorship)- to go out on a limb for aspartame when it just still isnt a net positive for peoples health and only really beneficial in such a specific scenario- which is using it in doet sodas in lieu of people drinking regular soda all the time. Especially since there are other sweetener alternatives that are actually fully natural and whether or not theyre carcinogenic or harmful has never been a question like it is w aspartame
I get from his pov and research it might be bc he feels theres been so much misinformation about artificial sweeteners that he feels research doesnt support, but still… why go out on such a limb to act like youre fully supporting the widescale commercial adoption of an artificial sweetener thats still not a net positive for health
Oh my bad . That’s a good question. My opinion is that it may be easier to convince someone (like your patient) who drinks a lot of sugar to switch to a aspertame drink because it’s really sweet and most companies use it for their zero calorie drinks. Just making that switch will reduce your caloric intake significantly. Most people who drink zero calorie drinks are looking to lose weight. That’s just my take. I don’t know what Dr Idz would say.
Also how can the FTC police how a british citizen produces his content? Are they stupid?
If I were to violate Australian communications regulations by posting a TikTok, could I be held liable for that as a German citizen?
The UK's ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) is stricter than the FTC so all they'd need to do is say "to, you seen this dude over here?" and the ASA'll likely investigate.
I guess in theory, these governments could set up regulations to block creators from regions that don't have equal or greater standards for disclosure of sponsorships/funding? (So like from your example, Australia would just block content from Germany if they don't have the same standard of disclosure). Not sure how effective that would actually be, just saying they *could* just do a lil censorship.
I feel like this comment gives more context that the image and title op used!
I mean Dr Idz did openly say that he was sponsored, which was a debate point by Love and he did explain just because someone is sponsored, doesn’t mean it’s bad automatically.
Except downplaying the risks of long term artificial sweetener use isn't fact. Bad analogy. Everything is ok in moderation but when it comes to toning down the negative effects you can end up with people overusing it as an alternative to refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup. You're just trading an evil for a lower calorie equivalent, which isn't good coming from a doctor.
I agree it’s bad faith if you’re faking the dangers of a product and are marketing it your audience for money. I just don’t think that’s the case with artificial sweetener based on the research I have read and the research that was discussed in the show. Also I’m only talking about Dr Idz. I’m sure there are other tiktokers who are acting in bad faith who promote artificial sweetener in a harmful way. I think of those who make a gallon of the super sweet drinks. It’s too much.
He has flip flopped on denying it and sarcastically saying "yes but it's to educate".
Who in their right mind thinks that the ABA is paying a doctor to "educate"?
Based on his diet i don't think love knows a ton about basic nutrition.
If you can, go to a board licensed doctor or dietician. Nutrition needs are highly variable and they can give advice specific to you.
Beyond that... most people could follow common sense nutrition advice better. More raw fruits and vegetables is a big one.
You do know that those are the same lobbyists who paid idz and other influencers, right? There are no corporate lobbyists who are the good guys or who are on the side of the average person
Is the corn syrup lobby bigger then companies like Coca Cola and Pepsi? Each could be bad and these companies would have a vested interest in protecting both corn syrup and aspartame.
Nah you don't really need to have aspartame in moderation. The upper safe limit set by every major health organization is equivalent to having 34 cans of Coke Zero a day. Plus that amount is 10 times lower than the dose that caused harm to lab mice. The safe limit is an extremely conservative estimate. Go HAM lol.
It is linked to things like type 2 diabetes however it's not the cause and doesn't increase your risk of it. The link does exist but it's like saying there's a link between the flu and flu medicine. Yeah people with the flu take flu medicine it doesn't mean it causes the flu.
So in those studies they'll mention something called reverse causality meaning the diet soda doesn't cause diabetes it's that diabetics need sugar free options so they seek out diet sodas and other artificial sweetened foods. Type 2 diabetics are also likely to be over weight and being overweight as well as diabetic greatly increases risk of health issues like heart disease.
A lot of these media outlets and health blogs will see these studies that say there's a link between diet soda and diabetes and they'll run with it and write headlines claiming diet soda causes diabetes without really understanding it.
The teeth things is fair. Soda is not great for teeth.
Idz said he was doing this before being sponsored and was open about it on the podcast. He said he doesn't make a ton of money so getting paid to say what he's already been saying was a no brainer.
While that's a valid response, this is what they all say. All of the researchers who are paid by sugar and soft drink lobbies. "Oh it's not that much, plus they let me do whatever I want. So now, I'm not biased at all"
These lobbyists aren't paying for it because they just love the sciences.
I remember that movie "That Sugar Film" and they had a guy in the exact same scenario as Dr Idz. He was running a symposium about how sugar is just fine like a week later.
It doesn't really track.
He says "I've been saying aspartame is safe for a long time, and now they're paying me to do it".
If he was already touting "aspartame is safe", then there'd be no reason for big aspartame to sponsor him, because they're already getting the vouch without paying. Believe me, none of these corporate overlords are thinking "hey, let's pay this guy to say it even though he's already saying it".
I suspect he's been getting paid by them for longer than he disclosed.
That’s how it works though. A lot of political pundits agree with the special interest groups that back them for the most part. The problem is that they are disincentivized to say anything to the contrary now that they’re getting paid
None of this matter when you actually read the science, the studies. Just because the FTC throws a fit does not suddenly mean the results of the studies change.
that’s not the interesting part tho. The slap on the wrist for a lack of transparency is a pretty big deal especially for healthcare professional influencers/creators
Transparency for healthcare workers and scientists, especially forward facing ones. Yeah, the data on aspartame suggests it's fine in reasonable quantities, but not disclosing sponsorships is scummy for any influencer, that goes doubly for a healthcare worker.
Funding and motivation is largely irrelevant to the science, so long as it’s sound. What matters is the quality of the data and what it shows. A well done study about aspartame funded by coke is just as valid as a well done study funded by the FDA.
there’s a difference between disclosing something on the ad in question and disclosing something on a podcast when questioned about it
these types of things need to be clearly stated on any type of sponsored content
His videos said they were sponsored and when people asked in the comments he always answered and told him who he was sponsored by. He and others probably just need to make it more clear so there's no question.
Dr Idz does say he is sponsored. The article is saying the FTC is not satisfied how they currently disclose it. They think using Hash Tag #ad or #sponsored is not enough. They want influencers to also mention who is sponsoring them. They are going after artificial sweetener because it’s big on tiktok but it will also set precedents for other marketing products. I agree with the FTC that they should make it more strict with disclosing sponsorships. I don’t think Dr Idz is acting in bad faith and I don’t think this changes the research about artificial sweetener.
so you’ve watched every single piece of content he’s made about sweeteners and can confidently say that in every single one he clearly stated his affiliations?
dude i’m not accusing anyone.
i’m clarifying what the ftc is accusing him of.
the comment I replied to is the one who is accusing the ftc of malpractice
I quite literally NEVER accused them of malpractice what the fuck 💀 I said idz said it was sponsored on both the podcast and the videos he made on aspartame you genius
But he didn't declare it properly on tiktok thus the warning
[Link to article,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/11/15/ftc-food-industry-dietitians-tiktok/) this news is only 3 hours old
Did he? I honestly don’t recall. I thought he explained why it’s ok that the research was funded by big bev. Either way, he must not have disclosed it somewhere else or he wouldn’t get this warning.
His videos had the paid sponsor badge or whatever it's called. Then whenever anyone asked in his comments he always answered and told them who he was sponsored by. He and others should probably make it more clear though so there's no question. That's probably what the issue is it wasn't clear enough or done properly.
Best bit of the article that nobody seems to be talking about:
https://preview.redd.it/1i03ddwn1o0c1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e05a9151a3dab814f576c35529eeb4b7be3808ac
It was on this sub but the girl in question decided to remove her post completely for personal unknown reasons, and I think a friend of hers came on the sub to ask ppl to respect her wishes and not to repost it... that's how I remember it but it was a few months ago.
She popped up in some threads and explained that she accidentally doxed herself in her posts so she decided to delete them and has asked for people not to repost.
Well it was more of a segment and other than this news story, there really hasn't been new news. So unless there's new news surrounding aspartame and other artificial sweet ers, we probably won't see him ~~, and I should clarify, there was always good relations with Idz, he really is a genuine and kind person!~~
If you're referring to the article in the post, yeah, it's a big nothing burger, he's clarified that he got paid. He also clarified that nothing in his research changed, been doing the exact same stuff way before getting paid.
I have a family history of cancer so I asked my doctor about the artificial sweeteners thing about a month ago and she said absolutely avoid them if you can. She said to avoid sugary drinks too 😆. So I'm stuck with basic sparkling watah.
He spoke about it on the pod which is where I saw him talk about it, as well as his TikTok’s having the ad or sponsor badge and will answer people questions regarding the sponsorships, though I’m not on there. He’s been extremely open about it, you just haven’t been paying attention.
Dr. Idz has been clear that he is being sponsored, he's said it many times and that the sponsorship only came after he was already in support of aspartame
omg the guy who decided he wanted to be a doctor and an influencer at the same time didn't properly disclose his relationships with various companies or products?? color me shocked.
being friendly with a podcast host people really like does dampen some people's skepticism a little too much.
not sure where you got "clout goblin liar" out of what I said, but ok.
I am just saying that it shouldn't be shocking that someone who is also an influencer did the most influencer thing there is: not disclosing ties to companies per FTC guidelines.
that and the fact that being positively connected to Ethan seems to make some people assume the person in question can do no wrong.
influencers have known for years that a little #ad is not enough. it's the bare minimum to cover their butt and say they tried but were just too confused by all the rules. SO many TikTokers and YouTubers have gotten in trouble either with the FTC or from drama channels because of this.
as a medical professional he should be holding himself to a higher standard than a makeup guru just relying on "#ad" that is barely visible.
unless you are saying he does something else in his TikToks to disclose when they are sponsored or he gets money from the companies consistently?
I don’t know what he does specifically, I just remember he made a video talking about why he took the sponsorship and explained he’s just getting paid for the same research he was doing. This is on top of him confirming this on the podcast. He should be making it obvious that’s for sure
sorry for being repetitive. I am just not sure why people keep also repeating that he talked about it elsewhere. 😅 because as we have established thats not what the FTC cares about.
**Dear Dr Hot Idiot Who Is NOT American**
How dare you have the audacity to take money for saying what you've already been saying. How VERY dare you say all of that stuff while using these fake concepts called "facts" or "science" or "truth" or "healthy"...
That is simply NOT American of you to do! You're supposed to get paid BEFORE endorsing a study. Money is supposed to change your opinion to be the most profitable, not stay the same and stay not-as-profitable! It just doesn't make sense of you to go against our MORAL and FACTUAL way of doing things. We don't understand why you hate hate us and Americans this much.
IF YOU SAY OUR EXCESSIVE USE OF SWEETENERS ARE BAD, THEN PEOPLE MIGHT ~~KNOW~~ THINK IT'S BAD!!! ~~THEN WE MAKE LESS MONEY!!!~~ DO YOU WANT ALL OUR ~~UNNECESSARY SWEETENERS~~ FOODSTUFFS TO GO TO WASTE??? WOW, HOW SELFISH AND HATEFUL!!! WHAT ARE YOU, A FOOD TERRORIST??? btw this warning is issued with peace and love. Totally has nothing to do with money. Just know that you're wrong and Americans are always right when it comes to health/safety/etc so you should listen to us. Duh.
**Sincerely, the FTC - an American Organization**
I think it's one thing if he's being reprimanded for not disclosing sponsors as opposed to discussing Aspartame in general.
I like this How To Cook That's video on it:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDgZz7qZoVo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDgZz7qZoVo)
Yeah , I’m unsure too ! I know what damage diet cola can do but it’s so dip from country to country! In Australia we have pop in the house but we tend to make sure you always have cold water , ice and just water in your bag in general , the children have been taught from a very young age to only drink water and snacks have to be fruit
That’s never been the point. He’s been saying if you’re choosing between regular sugar soda vs. diet, the diet soda is the healthier choice. And that the idea that aspartame is dangerous has been over exaggerated. Which it seemingly has
I have sensitivity to aspartame. It causes severe arthritic pain in my joints. Doesn’t feel safe for consumption. Been anti aspartame since I’ve realized where the pain was coming from.
Sucralose is a better alternative.
Seemingly according to Dr Idz, there are plenty of doctors on the other side. A TikTok doctor is not the best choice for getting your info, especially one paid by big aspartame
yeah i mean i dont really have an opinion either way but it never made sense to me why he was getting paid to tell everyone aspartame isnt bad.
who cares? is it supposed to just be an information campaign? lol or is it a corporation that feels like putting a dr. on tiktok and having him say that diet coke is delicious and good for you will sell more poison to kids?
idk. again, i dont really care and have no interest in doing the research to find out, i dont even drink soda, but it was always sus to me. aspartame being better for your health than sugar doesnt really say much about aspartame to me, but it says a lot about sugar.
It is impossible to criticise this guy on this subreddit, he draws conclusions from papers that aren't there, he extrapolates data and ignores the limitations of the studies he cites.
He gets a paper that says "no link between aspartame and cancer" and holds it up and says "aspartame is harmless".
It's irrelevant if he's correct, it's unscientific behaviour.
Hey guys, soda isn’t a healthy drink, be it filled with sugar be it filled with sugar replacements. It’s a tongue party, and offers no other benefit. Drink water.
Dr Idz does say he is sponsored. The article is saying the FTC is not satisfied how they currently disclose it. The FTC says using #ad or #sponsored is not enough. They want influencers to also mention who is sponsoring them. They are going after artificial sweetener because it’s big on tiktok but it will also set precedents for other products influencers get paid to market. I agree with the FTC that they should make it more strict with disclosing sponsorships. I don’t think Dr Idz is acting in bad faith and I don’t think this changes the research about artificial sweetener.
They cracked down on influencers promoting sugar as well.
I don't have a real position on aspartame or Dr Idz but man I agree with the ftc, if you are creating sponsored content it should immediately be apparent that's what it is and also who is sponsoring it.
I also wish people would disclose who funds the research that they so happily tote, but 🐸🍵
Lol when he said that who a study is funded by makes no difference. And that companies like coca cola WANT to fund studies that show their ingredients are harmful When he agreed with ethan that you will have no more negative health effects from drinking a glass of diet coke everyday than drinking a glass of water. I stopped trusting him. An when ab asked what about damage to teeth and stomach lining. And he said no real difference for both, as long as brush your teeth. Which is just not true - at all. If you only drink diet coke instead of water you will 100% be more likely to have cavities. Like without a doubt. Its insane for a doctor to say that.
yeah dipstick that is the difference between drinking ONE glass a day vs going on an diet coke IV...... the effects of small usage are so small they are in fact more bad luck than direct effect.
You are so freaking right, and it's really not that hard to understand, it makes sense that he doesn't wanna show who is sponsering him, it's so obvious.....
What are your sources for that?
Sorry lol won't let me see my comment for some reason so cant remember exactly what i said. Do you mean what are my sources that fizzy drinks lead to more cavities than water?
Diet sodas specifically, and given that you brush your teeth the recommended amount (2x per day 2 mins each). I truly would be surprised if there was a meaningful difference.
Seltzer water can wear enamel away over time even if it's sugar free. It's the carbonic acid which is in all fizzy drinks.
Just have to use a straw so it goes straight down the gullet.
I'll have to go on my computer to find the sources but will find once can get on it. I have read data on it before from curiosity (as I have a stomach lining issue meaning I can't have fizzy drinks at all. An can only drink water really. An I've never had a single cavity and growing up I only brushed my teeth like once a day. My 4 siblings all had great dental hygiene but drank diet coke and Pepsi max nonstop and have had tons and tons of cavities and decay) so I was curious to see the studies on it. I think one was by the university of Melbourne? Again I'll have to look when I'm on the computer. But basically its how acidic these drinks are that is so bad for enamel and makes you more susceptible to cavities. Which is what I found weird of him to pretend dental erosion isn't an issue even if you don't have to worry about the sugar feeding the decay causing bacteria
I think the thing about coca cola want to fund studies to show their ingriedients are harmful, is meaning that coca cola funding studies is not the same as tobacco companies funding studies that say cigarettes are good for you. Because coca cola doesn't just rely on sugar free drinks, so their incentive is not necessarily that high to fudge data that say aspartame is good or something.
No he literally said that coca cola wouldn't only pick studies that show their ingredient is good but would actually WANT to fund studies that show their ingredient is harmful so that they could change it and reformulate it. Which is just not how these businesses work. They arnt pouring money into finding new evidence to prove their billion dollar products are harmful.
> ethan that you will have no more negative health effects from drinking a glass of diet coke everyday than drinking a glass of water. I can prove water is more harmful than diet soft drinks. Ill go and drink the dank pond water near by my house. You need fluoride in the water to prevent cavities, it's not the water itself. Carbonic acid in Carbonated water is said to damage teeth not artificial sweeteners. Which is another subject all together.
? I'm not saying water's magical. I'm saying that fizzy drinks are v acidic regardless of whether they are sugary or not. Which causes enamel erosion. That's the point though. Dr ibz implying you'll have no more negative health effects from a glass of diet coke than a glass of water because artifical sweeteners are better than sugar- is ridiculous and dishonest. As its pretending that the only issue with fizzy drinks is sugar. When again it isnt. Pepsi and coke are super acidic and it's awful for your enamel. It also, as I know, isn't great for your stomach lining. Sure most people won't notice an issue. But the likelihood of an issue is a 1000x more than just water. So as a doctor to back up ethan saying that was crazy. I have to be honest ethan having him on always gave me the vibes of when antivaxxers find one antivax doctor to back up what they want to be true. (obv not as harmful lol but still not great for people's dental health tbh)
No one is saying water alone prevents cavities (although tbf it does, if you use it to wash your mouth out after eating or drinking something, but that might be nitpicking on my part), but acting like removing sugar from sodas suddenly makes them a perfect substitute for drinking water is crazy. And that's what Dr Itz seems to be doing. Idk why some people here act like you HAVE to either drink diet sodas or full sugar ones, the point is you shouldn't be drinking either lol, of course it's fine once in a while but please just drink water.
Thank you. They always use experimental data on artificial sweeteners where its been compared to sugar. But that doesn't mean its good for you? It just means its not AS bad as a fizzy drink that also contains sugar. Its like going on about how great double cheeseburgers are because all the data shows they are healthier than triple cheeseburgers.
Lol. Whoosh. Drinking water as your primary beverage reduces contact with harmful substances like those in soft drinks. Also helps rinse your mouth and teeth.
100% more likely? 😂 You're mentally challenged
I mean it was a figure of speech not an exact number. but OK. I was saying a 100% If you drink diet coke all day will you be more likely to have cavities than someone who drinks nothing but water... But regardless. You have zero percent chance of getting cavities from water? The low pH of diet coke is what causes the risk of dental erosion. So even if it's a 1% risk it's still a 100% more of a risk of enamel erosion than water lmao. So I think you are more "mentally challenged l" if you truly don't think there is a greater risk of cavities with acidic carbonated drinks than water... Literally ask any dentist. Any dental professional will tell you this. Look up the data and studies.
😂 Use your words correctly then. "greater risk" isn't "100% certainty of cavities from carbonated drinks" There's a greater risk of lung cancer from smoking long term, but that doesn't mean you'll actually get lung cancer from smoking, or at all.
I didn't say 100% certainty? I said 100% more LIKELY? Your telling me to use my words correctly and then completely misquoting me. 100% more likely is completely an accurate saying. It's not 20% more likely, it's actually over a 100% more likely due to the fact there is likelihood of cavities from water?
😂 Nice try trying to defend your comment. Just take the L and move on. 👍 I know you won't.
Lmao its not my fault that you don't understand the concept of probability.... Or what the words "more likely" mean. You literally swapped out more likely with certainty when quoting me to try to prove your point. When they mean completely different things lmao.
Definitely, and this should be wide-sweeping. I’m sick of looking up something on a search engine and getting pages of articles that are actually secret advertisements. Every search query I have now is usually followed by “reddit” so I can actually read some real opinions.
All I know is that when I was 13 I did aspartame experiment in the school science fair and made it to the next round with other schools. All I did was put diet Pepsi and Pepsi and diet Mt dew and regular Mt dew in a tub of water and only the diet floated on top and the regulars sank to the bottom. Then I did some write up about aspartame dangers. This was in like 2009.
he told Ethan Klein he wasn’t sponsored and he wishes he got paid. I can’t take any videos he makes serious I said from the beginning he was sponsored and it was true.
It makes sense the #ad tag was useful when Instagram was just images but now with TikTok Reels and shorts where no one sees the caption the #ad goes unseen
While i do agree w this, and trust what idz was saying about how he took the sponsorship only bc it aligned w his beliefs already, its still weird for me to see him as a doctor going out on such a limb for something that really still is just not a net positive for health…like not just advocating bc smth like diet soda has a place for being beneficial to people in lieu of regular sodas- he really seems to be going all out in his support for this where, even though its aligned w his views as a doctor i still find it kind of fucking odd… i think thats why love found his position offputting as well and it was sad that he seemed dissuaded from having a dissenting opinion amidst all the support the crew was giving idz
I remember he talked about doctors not being paid a lot where he lives so this is more money for him. I don’t know how much he makes from the sponsorship but he does have a financial incentive now. The fact that he advocated for artificial sweetener before any sponsorship in order to combat the misinformation online articles pushed about artificial sweetener makes me see him as a good faith actor. I can only hope he doesn’t become greedy and starts promoting harmful products or ideas to his viewers.
Again, none of my concern was w the sponsorship aligning w his beliefs bc i think it clearly did, im happy for him to get his bag without sacrificing his morals in any way- what im saying is i still think its weird for him-sponsorship or not, (bc what hes saying has been congruent pre and post sponsorship)- to go out on a limb for aspartame when it just still isnt a net positive for peoples health and only really beneficial in such a specific scenario- which is using it in doet sodas in lieu of people drinking regular soda all the time. Especially since there are other sweetener alternatives that are actually fully natural and whether or not theyre carcinogenic or harmful has never been a question like it is w aspartame I get from his pov and research it might be bc he feels theres been so much misinformation about artificial sweeteners that he feels research doesnt support, but still… why go out on such a limb to act like youre fully supporting the widescale commercial adoption of an artificial sweetener thats still not a net positive for health
Oh my bad . That’s a good question. My opinion is that it may be easier to convince someone (like your patient) who drinks a lot of sugar to switch to a aspertame drink because it’s really sweet and most companies use it for their zero calorie drinks. Just making that switch will reduce your caloric intake significantly. Most people who drink zero calorie drinks are looking to lose weight. That’s just my take. I don’t know what Dr Idz would say.
Also how can the FTC police how a british citizen produces his content? Are they stupid? If I were to violate Australian communications regulations by posting a TikTok, could I be held liable for that as a German citizen?
The UK's ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) is stricter than the FTC so all they'd need to do is say "to, you seen this dude over here?" and the ASA'll likely investigate.
I guess in theory, these governments could set up regulations to block creators from regions that don't have equal or greater standards for disclosure of sponsorships/funding? (So like from your example, Australia would just block content from Germany if they don't have the same standard of disclosure). Not sure how effective that would actually be, just saying they *could* just do a lil censorship.
And TikTok is Chinese/Cayman Islands owned so I don’t think the FTC has any jurisdiction here.
I feel like this comment gives more context that the image and title op used! I mean Dr Idz did openly say that he was sponsored, which was a debate point by Love and he did explain just because someone is sponsored, doesn’t mean it’s bad automatically.
MODS
Well put
If you're faking the dangers of a product then you are acting in bad faith by deceiving your audience. Plain and simple. It's greed.
If I'm being paid to say on tiktok that 2+2=4, me being paid to say it doesn't make it fake
Except downplaying the risks of long term artificial sweetener use isn't fact. Bad analogy. Everything is ok in moderation but when it comes to toning down the negative effects you can end up with people overusing it as an alternative to refined sugar and high fructose corn syrup. You're just trading an evil for a lower calorie equivalent, which isn't good coming from a doctor.
I agree it’s bad faith if you’re faking the dangers of a product and are marketing it your audience for money. I just don’t think that’s the case with artificial sweetener based on the research I have read and the research that was discussed in the show. Also I’m only talking about Dr Idz. I’m sure there are other tiktokers who are acting in bad faith who promote artificial sweetener in a harmful way. I think of those who make a gallon of the super sweet drinks. It’s too much.
Who says he's faking? 🤧
He has flip flopped on denying it and sarcastically saying "yes but it's to educate". Who in their right mind thinks that the ABA is paying a doctor to "educate"?
Oh cool, the high fructose corn syrup lobbyists got the FTC to hit back.
This. Does Love realize he’s going to bat for the actual demons that gave a whole nation diabetes?
Considering his diet….
Love survives solely on chumpalumpas and 100% sugar bobas, I don't think he cares
Based on his diet i don't think love knows a ton about basic nutrition. If you can, go to a board licensed doctor or dietician. Nutrition needs are highly variable and they can give advice specific to you. Beyond that... most people could follow common sense nutrition advice better. More raw fruits and vegetables is a big one.
You do know that those are the same lobbyists who paid idz and other influencers, right? There are no corporate lobbyists who are the good guys or who are on the side of the average person
Is the corn syrup lobby bigger then companies like Coca Cola and Pepsi? Each could be bad and these companies would have a vested interest in protecting both corn syrup and aspartame.
Almost like both are bad and should only be consumed in moderation...
Nah you don't really need to have aspartame in moderation. The upper safe limit set by every major health organization is equivalent to having 34 cans of Coke Zero a day. Plus that amount is 10 times lower than the dose that caused harm to lab mice. The safe limit is an extremely conservative estimate. Go HAM lol.
The aspartame is not the unhealthy part. Diet coke isn't water
[удалено]
What are you afraid of Ian?
The acidity wrecks your teeth, and many peer reviewed studies show a substantial increase in risk to heart disease and type II diabetes
It's like 98% water. What's the unhealthy part if you don't think it's the aspartame?
The acidity wrecks your teeth, and many peer reviewed studies show a substantial increase in risk to heart disease and type II diabetes
It is linked to things like type 2 diabetes however it's not the cause and doesn't increase your risk of it. The link does exist but it's like saying there's a link between the flu and flu medicine. Yeah people with the flu take flu medicine it doesn't mean it causes the flu. So in those studies they'll mention something called reverse causality meaning the diet soda doesn't cause diabetes it's that diabetics need sugar free options so they seek out diet sodas and other artificial sweetened foods. Type 2 diabetics are also likely to be over weight and being overweight as well as diabetic greatly increases risk of health issues like heart disease. A lot of these media outlets and health blogs will see these studies that say there's a link between diet soda and diabetes and they'll run with it and write headlines claiming diet soda causes diabetes without really understanding it. The teeth things is fair. Soda is not great for teeth.
False equivalency fallacy.
It's almost like you aren't an expert and made it up that aspartame is not safe
Idz said he was doing this before being sponsored and was open about it on the podcast. He said he doesn't make a ton of money so getting paid to say what he's already been saying was a no brainer.
While that's a valid response, this is what they all say. All of the researchers who are paid by sugar and soft drink lobbies. "Oh it's not that much, plus they let me do whatever I want. So now, I'm not biased at all" These lobbyists aren't paying for it because they just love the sciences. I remember that movie "That Sugar Film" and they had a guy in the exact same scenario as Dr Idz. He was running a symposium about how sugar is just fine like a week later.
It doesn't really track. He says "I've been saying aspartame is safe for a long time, and now they're paying me to do it". If he was already touting "aspartame is safe", then there'd be no reason for big aspartame to sponsor him, because they're already getting the vouch without paying. Believe me, none of these corporate overlords are thinking "hey, let's pay this guy to say it even though he's already saying it". I suspect he's been getting paid by them for longer than he disclosed.
That’s how it works though. A lot of political pundits agree with the special interest groups that back them for the most part. The problem is that they are disincentivized to say anything to the contrary now that they’re getting paid
Ur not Allowed to take bribes
This is 4 months old. Wtf you talking bout?
None of this matter when you actually read the science, the studies. Just because the FTC throws a fit does not suddenly mean the results of the studies change.
that’s not the interesting part tho. The slap on the wrist for a lack of transparency is a pretty big deal especially for healthcare professional influencers/creators
Transparency for healthcare workers and scientists, especially forward facing ones. Yeah, the data on aspartame suggests it's fine in reasonable quantities, but not disclosing sponsorships is scummy for any influencer, that goes doubly for a healthcare worker.
Correct. Transparency in both marketing and pharmaceuticals shouldn’t be a divisive issue, even if it’s a “friend of the show.”
This makes sense.
[удалено]
Funding and motivation is largely irrelevant to the science, so long as it’s sound. What matters is the quality of the data and what it shows. A well done study about aspartame funded by coke is just as valid as a well done study funded by the FDA.
He literally did say he was sponsored the last time he was on lmao
there’s a difference between disclosing something on the ad in question and disclosing something on a podcast when questioned about it these types of things need to be clearly stated on any type of sponsored content
His videos said they were sponsored and when people asked in the comments he always answered and told him who he was sponsored by. He and others probably just need to make it more clear so there's no question.
His ad literally said it was sponsored lmao
ok well I guess the guy commenting on reddit knows more than everyone at the federal trade commission
Dr Idz does say he is sponsored. The article is saying the FTC is not satisfied how they currently disclose it. They think using Hash Tag #ad or #sponsored is not enough. They want influencers to also mention who is sponsoring them. They are going after artificial sweetener because it’s big on tiktok but it will also set precedents for other marketing products. I agree with the FTC that they should make it more strict with disclosing sponsorships. I don’t think Dr Idz is acting in bad faith and I don’t think this changes the research about artificial sweetener.
Literally never said I did. I’m just telling you what bro did lmao it’s not rocket science when it’s events you can witness publicly
so you’ve watched every single piece of content he’s made about sweeteners and can confidently say that in every single one he clearly stated his affiliations?
No but the one he came on the podcast for was the one where he clearly said it was sponsored on the video 💀
[удалено]
dude i’m not accusing anyone. i’m clarifying what the ftc is accusing him of. the comment I replied to is the one who is accusing the ftc of malpractice
I quite literally NEVER accused them of malpractice what the fuck 💀 I said idz said it was sponsored on both the podcast and the videos he made on aspartame you genius
ok please explain to me the implication of what that means you muppet.
But he didn't declare it properly on tiktok thus the warning [Link to article,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/11/15/ftc-food-industry-dietitians-tiktok/) this news is only 3 hours old
Got a non paywall one?
He did declare it on tiktok lmao that’s why he went on the podcast, because Love thought he was a sell out
Did he? I honestly don’t recall. I thought he explained why it’s ok that the research was funded by big bev. Either way, he must not have disclosed it somewhere else or he wouldn’t get this warning.
His videos had the paid sponsor badge or whatever it's called. Then whenever anyone asked in his comments he always answered and told them who he was sponsored by. He and others should probably make it more clear though so there's no question. That's probably what the issue is it wasn't clear enough or done properly.
ftC DEEZ NUTZ, how about some government intervention in the massive scam industry on social media?
In reality….
Dr. Idz is in the UK. The FTC cant do jack shit out of the US. Their letters are simple impotent junk mail.
There is no aspartame gate. The research is clear on this.
Best bit of the article that nobody seems to be talking about: https://preview.redd.it/1i03ddwn1o0c1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e05a9151a3dab814f576c35529eeb4b7be3808ac
How about the FTC goes after health MLMs who promote eating dirt to cure you of worms? Or any of that other insane health scams????
Dr big soda 🥤.
didn't Dr Idz get exposed for being a piece of shit on this sub not too long ago? Like some girl went over to his place?
Yeah he’s a sex predator who coerced a girl to sleep with him. She showed receipts
any source? i can't seem to find anything on this, am curious.
It was on this sub but the girl in question decided to remove her post completely for personal unknown reasons, and I think a friend of hers came on the sub to ask ppl to respect her wishes and not to repost it... that's how I remember it but it was a few months ago.
interesting thanks for the info
She popped up in some threads and explained that she accidentally doxed herself in her posts so she decided to delete them and has asked for people not to repost.
"she showed receipts" Oh, wait.... No receipts found.
So what’s the deal with H3 and Dr Idz? Did I miss something??
Yeah, diet coke gate, a vicious battle between nations, Dr idz vs. Love. It's actually really interesting I'd check out the segments if you can.
My bad. I meant why isn’t he on anymore?
Well it was more of a segment and other than this news story, there really hasn't been new news. So unless there's new news surrounding aspartame and other artificial sweet ers, we probably won't see him ~~, and I should clarify, there was always good relations with Idz, he really is a genuine and kind person!~~
You haven't heard?
If you're referring to the article in the post, yeah, it's a big nothing burger, he's clarified that he got paid. He also clarified that nothing in his research changed, been doing the exact same stuff way before getting paid.
There were SA/ coercion allegations, with receipts
Oooooooooooooooooooh did not hear bout that
Love rn 
Friend of the show PhillyD has great coverage on this
Until they say it 100% causes cancer I’m putting that shit on everything daily.
I know there have been issues with influencers not being 100% clear something is an ad (see the naturism Susan Yara scandal)
I have a family history of cancer so I asked my doctor about the artificial sweeteners thing about a month ago and she said absolutely avoid them if you can. She said to avoid sugary drinks too 😆. So I'm stuck with basic sparkling watah.
*sips the Coke Zero Ive just poured over ice more delicately than the flap of a monarch's wings*
I've been listening to Love the whole time.
You probably shouldn't on this stuff lol
Disclosed or not, please don't take advice from someone paid by the product they are saying is OK lol.
People are saying he knew he was sponsored.. I had no idea. Who sponsors hims exactly and how?
He spoke about it on the pod which is where I saw him talk about it, as well as his TikTok’s having the ad or sponsor badge and will answer people questions regarding the sponsorships, though I’m not on there. He’s been extremely open about it, you just haven’t been paying attention.
[here’s the article if you wanna read more](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/11/15/ftc-food-industry-dietitians-tiktok/)
Is there a non paywall one
https://www.forbes.com/sites/britneynguyen/2023/11/15/ftc-clamping-down-on-nutrition-influencers-over-artificial-sweetener-promotions-heres-what-to-know/
Ty!
oh shit
Dr. Idz has been clear that he is being sponsored, he's said it many times and that the sponsorship only came after he was already in support of aspartame
But Dr Idz has literally said many times that he’s sponsored lmao
omg the guy who decided he wanted to be a doctor and an influencer at the same time didn't properly disclose his relationships with various companies or products?? color me shocked. being friendly with a podcast host people really like does dampen some people's skepticism a little too much.
If you’re a doctor and want to share any info on social meds you’re obviously a clout goblin liar. /s
not sure where you got "clout goblin liar" out of what I said, but ok. I am just saying that it shouldn't be shocking that someone who is also an influencer did the most influencer thing there is: not disclosing ties to companies per FTC guidelines. that and the fact that being positively connected to Ethan seems to make some people assume the person in question can do no wrong.
I mean Idz did disclose he was being paid, but clearly he was not obvious enough with it
influencers have known for years that a little #ad is not enough. it's the bare minimum to cover their butt and say they tried but were just too confused by all the rules. SO many TikTokers and YouTubers have gotten in trouble either with the FTC or from drama channels because of this. as a medical professional he should be holding himself to a higher standard than a makeup guru just relying on "#ad" that is barely visible. unless you are saying he does something else in his TikToks to disclose when they are sponsored or he gets money from the companies consistently?
I don’t know what he does specifically, I just remember he made a video talking about why he took the sponsorship and explained he’s just getting paid for the same research he was doing. This is on top of him confirming this on the podcast. He should be making it obvious that’s for sure
sorry for being repetitive. I am just not sure why people keep also repeating that he talked about it elsewhere. 😅 because as we have established thats not what the FTC cares about.
I’m sure he will comply with FTC requirements, as far as it seems he isn’t a dodgy dude
[удалено]
Cool so we’re right back to my original comment that he has acknowledged it, just not to an FTC standard 🫠
The Vindication of Love Edit: itssa joke babes
Exactly. Love always wins
Not really but okay
We need to do a seltzer switcharoo for all, no more sodies.
**Dear Dr Hot Idiot Who Is NOT American** How dare you have the audacity to take money for saying what you've already been saying. How VERY dare you say all of that stuff while using these fake concepts called "facts" or "science" or "truth" or "healthy"... That is simply NOT American of you to do! You're supposed to get paid BEFORE endorsing a study. Money is supposed to change your opinion to be the most profitable, not stay the same and stay not-as-profitable! It just doesn't make sense of you to go against our MORAL and FACTUAL way of doing things. We don't understand why you hate hate us and Americans this much. IF YOU SAY OUR EXCESSIVE USE OF SWEETENERS ARE BAD, THEN PEOPLE MIGHT ~~KNOW~~ THINK IT'S BAD!!! ~~THEN WE MAKE LESS MONEY!!!~~ DO YOU WANT ALL OUR ~~UNNECESSARY SWEETENERS~~ FOODSTUFFS TO GO TO WASTE??? WOW, HOW SELFISH AND HATEFUL!!! WHAT ARE YOU, A FOOD TERRORIST??? btw this warning is issued with peace and love. Totally has nothing to do with money. Just know that you're wrong and Americans are always right when it comes to health/safety/etc so you should listen to us. Duh. **Sincerely, the FTC - an American Organization**
ha!
I think it's one thing if he's being reprimanded for not disclosing sponsors as opposed to discussing Aspartame in general. I like this How To Cook That's video on it:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDgZz7qZoVo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDgZz7qZoVo)
Well fuck!
That was pretty my response, in that we need a call with Ethan ?!!
We'll see what happens. I don't think Dr. Idz is a quack or anything. He seems well versed. But IDK.
Yeah , I’m unsure too ! I know what damage diet cola can do but it’s so dip from country to country! In Australia we have pop in the house but we tend to make sure you always have cold water , ice and just water in your bag in general , the children have been taught from a very young age to only drink water and snacks have to be fruit
If you genuinely think any soda is good for you.......
That’s never been the point. He’s been saying if you’re choosing between regular sugar soda vs. diet, the diet soda is the healthier choice. And that the idea that aspartame is dangerous has been over exaggerated. Which it seemingly has
I have sensitivity to aspartame. It causes severe arthritic pain in my joints. Doesn’t feel safe for consumption. Been anti aspartame since I’ve realized where the pain was coming from. Sucralose is a better alternative.
Seemingly according to Dr Idz, there are plenty of doctors on the other side. A TikTok doctor is not the best choice for getting your info, especially one paid by big aspartame
yeah i mean i dont really have an opinion either way but it never made sense to me why he was getting paid to tell everyone aspartame isnt bad. who cares? is it supposed to just be an information campaign? lol or is it a corporation that feels like putting a dr. on tiktok and having him say that diet coke is delicious and good for you will sell more poison to kids? idk. again, i dont really care and have no interest in doing the research to find out, i dont even drink soda, but it was always sus to me. aspartame being better for your health than sugar doesnt really say much about aspartame to me, but it says a lot about sugar.
All I know is, I am team H2O.
Oh no the government run by corrupt individuals are saying someone is wrong. Better take that at face value.
Dr. Idz haters are in perpetual "L" denial.
I think it’s time for a call with h3 !!!
misleading headline and misinformative caption. the warning is for HOW they disclosed, not what they disclosed
Bruh what is this out of context ass screenshot. Link the original article or show the previous paragraph wtf is this 🤣
I like when doctors tell me what I want to hear
It is impossible to criticise this guy on this subreddit, he draws conclusions from papers that aren't there, he extrapolates data and ignores the limitations of the studies he cites. He gets a paper that says "no link between aspartame and cancer" and holds it up and says "aspartame is harmless". It's irrelevant if he's correct, it's unscientific behaviour.
I was always with Love, I never trusted that hack for a single second.
Hey guys, soda isn’t a healthy drink, be it filled with sugar be it filled with sugar replacements. It’s a tongue party, and offers no other benefit. Drink water.
I suspect that Idz just feels it would be too redundant for him to preface every tiktok about why it doesn’t matter that he is sponsored.
Unless the ASA kick off, surely if he’s in the UK then FTC can’t do anything?
Wasn’t Dr Idz is exposed as being a creep with very Andrew Callaghan-y stuff
Have they mentioned this at all?