Nature =! safety. Nature makes lots of things that kill us. To take a leaf from @rob’s blog, “All-natural, fresh, organic, gluten-free scorpion venom would still be quite deadly.”
Scientific laboratories making something intended to go in to people, however, have it written explicitly into their job description “do not make poison; make a useful thing.” Sucralose has been pretty extensively studied. Studies may not be perfect, but “because it’s artificial” is becoming more and more of a fallacy as humans get better at this whole “science” thing. We’re not taking an unknown and hoping our bodies “know” how to deal with it. We looked at our bodies, and then designed something based on the things we do know, to solve a problem more effectively. Or as analogy, is a horse better transport than a car because it’s naturally-occuring?
As far as research bias, I’m pretty sure a great deal of the research provided has been independent, not provided by the “companies that sell this stuff”. Although on the topic of spending money to convince consumers of your product, “big sugar” companies have quite a lot of propaganda of their own.
To address your linked article, I’m aware that everything I’m saying is anecdotal. I was only responding to the assertion that nature implies safety. More research and peer-reviewed science however, is always good to add to the discussion - I don’t personally have the bandwidth or knowledge to reply directly to the information you’ve provided, but I’m sure it merits response by someone who does, and I do hope someone can/will address the concerns contained within.