If you look at the genotoxic Multiflow results (tables 3-4), the genotoxic signals only showed up at the highest concentrations (>300 ug/mL).
Peak concentrations of sucralose in blood after consumption is ~300 ng/mL, so about 1000x fold less.
Also note the paper showed non-mutagenicity in the bacterial reserve mutation test (Ames Test).
So the results are interesting, but I'm not sure how applicable they are to actual exposure in humans.
If you consider it on a particle scale, there's 4.5x(10^23) particles/mL. That's about 15 particles per cell per mL, and there's 3^13 cells in the body. Some of which are protected, others susceptible.
I'd take a risk, just not one for funky tasting sweets. Of course I don't do it for regular sweets, either, which possess their own dangers.
In general, they cause your metabolism to slow down, and make you feel hungrier. Giving them to mice on calorie restricted diets causes weight gain and lethargy in the mice.
Giving a subjectively identical amount of sugar to the mice (on top of the calorie restricted diet) causes less weight gain than the artificial sweeteners. (Because the mice stay active.)
While your claims are fairly popular, AFAIK there is no evidence to suggest that non-nutritive sweeteners cause weight gain in humans. They are highly associated with weight gain, likely because people likely to choose diet beverages are people who have difficulty with weight gain in the first place.
Murine models are not particularly generalizable to humans, particularly when it comes to diet and nutrition.
Its suraclose, known as Splenda.
You know the type, generic domain name that sounds vaguely news-related, cheap-looking logo, suspicious by-lines...
Edit: well the content is legit, but since it's stolen from [1], that proves this "SciTechDaily" is a content farm..
[1] https://bme.unc.edu/2023/06/chemical-found-in-common-sweeten... - an .edu URL is more trustworthy...
