More To Betty Martini

Rifle River jstream at
Thu Aug 17 09:53:47 EST 1995

In article <Pine.NEB.3.91.950816153931.22030A-100000 at>, Mark
Gold <mgold at> wrote:

> 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.

I wasn't arguing with that.  One interested scientist did draw a conclusion
based on the numbers.  He correctly surmised that the analysis was on 8
subjects.  Did you notice he was making fun of that point?
> 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,

Mark, you idiot, that is exactly why I said "trend in the data". 
Scientists often use the phrase trends in the data to discuss
nonsignificant changes.  I did not claim it was significant.  However, I
was making the point that, based on the trends, the potential beneficial
effects of aspartame for normal subjects should be examined further in
future studies.  If you had any mental capabilities at all you would
realize that I'm making the exact same argument you are, but in the
opposite direction, based on inadequate data.  Feeling foolish yet?  Or,
are you still confused?

> and 2) that only one category 
> of the non-depressed subjects taking aspartame worsened when the 
> reality is that *five* categories worsened.

This is from my memory, so I could be wrong here.  But, I remember that,
for the normal subjects, 1 category worsened (nonsignificantly), 3 or so
categories remained the same, and somewhere around 6 categories improved
(nonsignificantly).  I was trying to humorously point out that these trends
should be examined further.

> 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.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list