JBroll
I MIX WITH PHYSICS!!!!
One-by-one...
The original source you posted was, as far as any sane person can tell, ramblings of a quack.
The first new source, Joseph Mercola, is noted for being another snake-oil salesman with a strong 'alternative medicine' bias and clashes with established science based on entirely nonscientific ideas.
The second source... seriously, just look at the root domain and anything you can find on the author. (What could possibly be more plausible than aspartame being the sole cause for someone's prostate cancer?)
The bias of sources three and six is evident from the domain name. This is no way to inspire confidence, especially when a nonscientific argument on a scientific matter is at hand.
The fourth source is yet another 'alternative medicine' nuthouse - ordinary ignorance of the scientific method is one thing, but that movement's adherence to the cause of *completely contradicting everything that makes science work, from methodology to accurate reporting* is beyond stupid and straight into disgusting.
This leaves the fifth link, whose problems seem to revolve around the growth hormones that can already be avoided by careful shopping in many areas and are cause for concern regardless of one's stance on milk.
Come back with 'scientific info' or not at all - you're falling into an even worse trap than JayB, since instead of just being poorly-cited these sources are linked to movements that are actively dishonest and disgusting.
Jeff
The original source you posted was, as far as any sane person can tell, ramblings of a quack.
The first new source, Joseph Mercola, is noted for being another snake-oil salesman with a strong 'alternative medicine' bias and clashes with established science based on entirely nonscientific ideas.
The second source... seriously, just look at the root domain and anything you can find on the author. (What could possibly be more plausible than aspartame being the sole cause for someone's prostate cancer?)
The bias of sources three and six is evident from the domain name. This is no way to inspire confidence, especially when a nonscientific argument on a scientific matter is at hand.
The fourth source is yet another 'alternative medicine' nuthouse - ordinary ignorance of the scientific method is one thing, but that movement's adherence to the cause of *completely contradicting everything that makes science work, from methodology to accurate reporting* is beyond stupid and straight into disgusting.
This leaves the fifth link, whose problems seem to revolve around the growth hormones that can already be avoided by careful shopping in many areas and are cause for concern regardless of one's stance on milk.
Come back with 'scientific info' or not at all - you're falling into an even worse trap than JayB, since instead of just being poorly-cited these sources are linked to movements that are actively dishonest and disgusting.
Jeff