More To Betty Martini

Mark Gold mgold at max.tiac.net
Wed Aug 16 14:40:10 EST 1995


: From: jstream at girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu (Rifle River)
: Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience
: Subject: Re: More To Betty Martini
: Date: 16 Aug 1995 16:32:47 GMT
: 
: > Wow!  It looks like we have a sample size of EIGHT PEOPLE!  I am now 
: > utterly convinced that Aspartame is being used by the Illuminati to bend 
: > the population of the world to their evil will!
: 
: Interestingly, the normal subjects that were studied at the same time as
: the depressed patients showed trends in the data towards improvement in
: most of the categories examined and only one of the categories listed
: actually showed an unfavorable change.  This appears, on the surface, to be
: an overwhelming indication that aspartame may cause numerous benefits for
: normal people.  I wonder if this should be tested further before we draw
: any conclusions?  For some reason we don't see the favorable information
: included by the Illuminati... :-> (smiley included for the humor impaired)

Rifle,

Once again you are making up facts to suit your purpose.  After you 
mentioned the number of subjects in the study, I posted a copy of the
table from the study showing the changes in the depressed subjects.
Interested scientists could then make their own judgement.

Now you are claiming that 1) their was a trend toward improvement in 
the non-depressed subjects when the reality is there was no 
statistical difference in that group, and 2) that only one category 
of the non-depressed subjects taking aspartame worsened when the 
reality is that *five* categories worsened.  Would you like me to 
post the table?  It is not surprising that there was no statistically 
significant change in the non-depressed group given the use of 
capsules and the relatively short length of the study (compared to a 
lifetime of use).

Let me guess.  This is one of your posts that you deliberately post 
false data in order to make a point about being even-handed???  
Please signal us so that we know if your posts contain real 
information or false data in the future.

> By the way, an earlier post mentioned this study having TEN people 
> involved... were two omitted from these statistics to make them appear 
> even MORE *ahem* impressive?

: They intended to have many more people, but it didn't work out.  However,
: they did have very good reasons for eliminating the subjects that were
: taken out.  Of course, the worst "side effects" occurred while the subjects
: were on placebo.

That's also not true.  The table I posted earlier proves that it's 
not true. There was a significant increase in adverse symptoms in 
the aspartame group.  You seem to be referring to why the study was 
stopped by the Institutional Review Board which is a *separate* issue.
Here is the explanation from the publication:

   The severity of some of the reactions is noteworthy; three study 
   participants spontaneously reported that they felt they had been 
   "poisoned." One of the three to use this term felt that her symptoms 
   were so severe that she had to discontinue the capsules -- after 3 
   days of her second week [aspartame]. One patient, a 42-year-old PhD 
   psychologist with a history of recurrent major depression, reported 
   pain in his left eye, followed by retinal detachment requiring 
   emergency surgery. On the day of his surgery (day 4 of his second 
   [placebo] week) he discontinued his capsules and symptoms reporting. 
   Although this event occurred during the placebo week, 6 days after 
   the aspartame had been discontinued, another individual--one of the 
   three to use the term "poisoned"--experienced a conjunctival 
   hemorrhage for the first time in her life during the aspartame week. 
   These events led the Chairman of the IRB to halt the project.

Best regards,
                              - Mark
                           mgold at tiac.net
                  http://www.tiac.net/users/mgold/



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list