URGENT: NutraSweet(tm) Destroys Usenet!!!!

f:WINSOCKKA9QSPOOLMAIL lys at adflex.demon.co.uk
Fri Aug 4 10:06:01 EST 1995

27177G-100000 at noel.pd.org> <3vnltv$ks3 at info.epfl.ch> <Pine.SUN.3.91.950802224917.3189H-100000 at noel.pd.org> <3vpmie$hbv at crl7.crl.com> <DCqo1M.CD5 at news.cua.edu> <Pine.SUN.3.91.950803113332.6088D-100000 at noel.pd.org> <3vs39m$au8 at crl12.crl.com> <Pine.SUN.3.
1.950804023317.10184K-100000 at noel.pd.org>
Message-ID: <104504174wnr at adflex.demon.co.uk>
Date: Friday, Aug 04, 1995 10.41.22
Organization: None
Reply-To: lys at adflex.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
Lines:  67

I'm afraid I'm taking this opportunity to say what many others have said but 
seemingly with little impact on and certainly no response from our Betty. If 
you wish to enter into a scientific debate then you need to try and be a 
little scientific about it. 

1/ anecdotal evidence is pretty meaningless to those trained to evaluate on 
the basis of statistics and to always consider as many variables as possible 
that might contribute to or explain a given set of data or outcomes. Here's 
a great example:

In article: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950804023317.10184K-100000 at noel.pd.org>  Betty 
> And John I was in emergency medicine - I worked with diabetics also!....
and another...
> There are so many diabetics going blind because of aspartame and its just 
> criminal. 

You worked with diabetics and so did John - yours went blind and his didn't.
They both used nutrasweet containing products. So now what? A session of 
"I'm right and you're wrong"? The fact here, and with other anecdotes you 
use, is that you do not consider any other possible causes of pathology - of 
which there are probably thousands. What were the DIFFERENCES between these 
groups that might make one develop optic neuropathies and the other not, 
given that their aspartame intake may have been similar? I don't think 
anyone on this newsgroup is either persuaded by, or interested in, these 
case reports.

2/ Stop citing publications as though anything printed is gospel. Just 
because Dr. Authority wrote it down  -  don't make it true. Plenty of 
rubbish finds it's way into print. Sure, those reports finding nutrasweet 
safe might ultimately be subject to the same criticism - time will tell.

> > :I mentioned that menthanol is a narcotic.  John Vogel 
> > : made this comment that it wasn't.  I then came back and gave the 
> > : reference which is:
> > : Louis, R.J.  Sax's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 
> > : Eighth Edition, New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold (1992) pp.2251-2252.

> >   You still haven't made any effort to back up your single reference.  

3/ For crying out loud please cut the hysteria!! How can we take this debate 
seriously (and it would be nice) when things like this... 

> And John if you want to fight for this poison so much go right on and 
> drink it.  I'm only here to warn the ones who want to maintain good 
> health without the complication of a chemical poison!     

......turn up on our screens. John wasn't "fighting" for anything. He was 
just commenting on the validity of some of your evidence. This type of 
hysterical response does not help your case.

Most people (as has been pointed out ad nauseum) are aware of alcohol's 
toxic properties as well as its addictive nature. Folk the world over set 
themselves up for heart disease and lung cancer with their little 
indulgences. IF aspartame is source of self-damage (and that's a big IF) 
then it has many others to line up with. If we campaigned to get rid of all 
of them - we'd have very little left to eat and indulge in.

I know this has all been said before, but can't you try and tailor your 
writing style for the newsgroup and at least make yourself seem a little 
more credible. Then perhaps we can all stop going round in circles,


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list