> That is what they found in this study, but the OP said it was likely "noise" and had no scientific basis for saying that.
It's a small finding in both effect size and statistical significance, and prior probabilities count.
Barely statistically significant findings don't change my beliefs much, because the base rate and prior knowledge matter.
E.g. if you show me a p<0.05 finding that ESP exists, I'm going to dismiss it as statistical noise-- even if the study methodology is perfect it's only 10-20x more likely that ESP works than before, and 20x my prior belief of very near 0 is still very near 0.
If you show me a p<0.05 finding that green jelly beans cause acne, after studying all colors-- I don't care at all.
Here, the commenter you replied to-- api-- suggested that the study clearly indicates that there's reason to be concerned about saccharine and sucralose. It raises a general level of concern about other NNS's, but the data is ambiguous and weak. This is a reasonable reading of the study.
