Are you exaggerating or do you have actual sources? I did some searching around and can’t verify your claims.

The choice to reject new information just because something has been studied a lot is a very anti-science take.

People should understand aspartame, and understand sugar, as much as they can and make their own choices for their health.

Neither Coke nor Diet Coke are nutritious. Whether one or the other is a risk is specific to a person, and aspartame as well as other sweeteners aren’t fully understood in terms of risk.

I think these kind of simplistic statements serve to stoke fears around food than actually help people understand them. Added / excess sugar is associated to health risks but ultimately people need to understand their own health as individuals.

Here’s a Healthline article (by no means an authority but still fairly informative) to help expand.

https://www.healthline.com/...

I split up with my wife last year and we co-parent an almost-3-year old. Also the hardest year of work in my life. Have never watched so much office in my life. It’s absolutely my safe space.

Maybe a name like Aurora or Nova could work. Like it is still space / celestial themed but both symbolize “new” (aurora - new morning after nighttime, nova, explosion of light / pent up energy), and can work as a spiritual successor paying homage to Apollo. Great idea btw I just signed up.

I split up with my wife last year and we co-parent an almost-3-year old. Also the hardest year of work in my life. Have never watched so much office in my life. It’s absolutely my safe space.

And even more good news: vaccines have never been the subject of controversy!

That’s fair! I was giving examples but you’re right this and what another user mentioned about Nova make them imperfect choices. I like the idea of paying homage to Apollo somehow.