More To Betty Martini

Rifle River jstream at
Sat Aug 12 11:05:17 EST 1995

In article <Pine.NEB.3.91.950811145640.1871A-100000 at>, Mark
Gold <mgold at> wrote:

>   Walton, Ralph G., et al., 1993. "Adverse Reactions to
>     Aspartame: Double-Blinle Challenge in Patients From a
>     Vulnerable Population," Biological Psychiatry, Volume 34,
>     page 13-17.
> As anyone can see from the title, Dr. Walton was conducted a study on 
> a population which is considered vulnerable to adverse effects from 
> aspartame.  You manage to leave out that fact, pretending that there 
> is something wrong with studying patients who have been diagnosed 
> with depression.

Why is it that every time this study is mentioned, you and Betty manage to
leave out the fact that the adverse reactions causing the study to be
stopped occurred while the subjects in question were on placebo?  Mark, I
am trying to balance your wild claims with other facts from the very
studies you quoted.  I never claimed to be giving a full review of the
study.  You and Betty do so well at pointing out those things which
encourage fear and hysteria that I thought I would temper those comments by
pointing out your errors of omission.  Then you accuse me of errors of
omission?  You do so well at pointing out one side of the story that I
thought I would point out the other.
> The fact that the study was so short relative to real-world use of 
> aspartame (20 days) and that capsules were used which significantly 
> lowers the plasma amino acid spikes means that the danger of 
> long-term use of real-world aspartame-containing products to this 
> vulnerable population may be very serious.

I would conclude exactly the opposite for the same reasons.  Because the
study was done over the short run and because so few subjects were used I
would suspect that it is indicative of nothing.
> talked to the *independent* investigator get quite a different picture.

Unfortunately, Mark that's information I don't have.  Please enlighten me
with his quotes.
> Why beat around the bush?  I posted a detailed description of what 
> you did -- misreading, selective quoting, taking statements out of 
> context, attributing statements to me that I never made, etc.  See 
> enclosed copy of that post.

Mark, I admitted, previously as well as now, that I've quoted the papers
and you selectively.  It was to point out how one-sided your own posts have
been.  When are you going to figure this out?
> : > wonder why Desert Storm Syndrome symptoms are identical to aspartame 
> : Dr. Garth Nicholson directly contradicts your theory.  He states that
> : Desert Storm Syndrome results from mycoplasm infection from biological
> : warfare.
> : However, what evidence have you seen to even indicate that there is such a
> : thing as Desert Storm Syndrome other than mass hysteria?
> : Ever notice how a crackpot doesn't just have one cooky idea to support, but
> : they support every strange idea out there?  :->  Betty, you only harm your
> : credibility further.
> Rifle, do you mind if I quote you on the immune system related groups 
> and the Desert Storm related groups? 

Go right ahead, but under one condition: that you post it to sci.skeptic
and as well.  I wouldn't have to time to deal with all those posts

> I'm sure those people would 
> "love" you characterizations -- "mass hysteria" "crackpot" etc.  I

Do you have absolutely no concept of debate?  I would like to see evidence,
first, showing that there is a desert storm syndrome; second, I would like
to see evidence supporting Betty's claim that it is caused by aspartame
that got too hot.  It's a simple request - I just ask that this evidence be
strong enough to rule out mass hysteria.
> like the the way you managed to imply that Desert Storm exists in your 
> first sentence and imply that it is "mass hysteria" in your second 
> sentence.

Personally, I haven't examined the evidence yet so I wouldn't make
conclusions one way or the other.
More to the point, where did I imply that it exists?  Dr. Nicholson implies
that it exists.  However, Dr. Nicholson has joined the ranks of the
crackpots.  I mentioned it because it happens to be a theory, describing
the same syndrome as Betty, that contradicts Betty's theory.  In the next
sentence I just asked to see evidence for Desert Storm Syndrome that would
rule out mass hysteria.  If Betty is going to make claims about aspartame
causing this then she too has probably joined the ranks of Dr. Nicholson. 
However, if you wish to discuss the potential effects of the pllutants
released as a result of the fires that were set, then that's a different

Mark, please leave science, and its interpretation, to scientists.

Rifle River
jstream at

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list