3 ms·

I don't think the point was whether or not it is unhealthy. It asserts most definitely that it is not. The story was about how the claim went viral. The stor

by starkd 6y ago

I don't think the point was whether or not it is unhealthy. It asserts most definitely that it is not. The story was about how the claim went viral. The story was introduced in 1968 by the New York Times picking up on the NEJM article. It's an amusing tale, but rather unsettling how easily fooled we can be. I remember (growing up as late as the '80s) people legitimately wondering whether an MSG allergy was responsible for their loaginess and fatigue. A number of tv news programs like 20/20 ran cover stories about it. To hear it was all bunk is a sobering reminder to take what we read with a grain of salt. Even much of the hysteria surrounding coronavirus and the like. I don't have an answer to this, but these publications take a serious long term credibility hit with stories like these. And rightfully so.

cnst 6y ago
> The story was introduced in 1968 by the New York Times picking up on the NEJM article. And I think that's ultimately the culprit for this hoax. Just because a reporter at a NYTimes lacks the most basic scientific knowledge to understand that this "letter to the editor" was merely a joke, doesn't mean that it's the fault of the scientific/medical journal -- with a very specific audience, mind you -- for taking a comedy minute. What's next? We're not allowed to talk in our professional roles and circles using the long established terms for technical concepts, just because the jargon could be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with the field and the subject matter? Oh... Nevermind...
- starkd 6y ago
  Oh, of course, they are allowed mistakes and an occasional humourous aside. But it did say in the article that the NEJM refused to correct it or elaborate upon it for quite some time. Probably just an oversight, in my opinion, but was posed as a serious letter to the editor, and in order to get the humor, you had to be able to pick up on the subtle clues. What the motivations were for the New York Times Reporter were can only be guessed here. Probably just eagerly looking for some novel bit of news that would be interesting. Based on how these things generally go viral, I think it's unfair to blame any single person or entity.

by starkd 6y ago

cnst 6y ago

> The story was introduced in 1968 by the New York Times picking up on the NEJM article. And I think that's ultimately the culprit for this hoax. Just because a reporter at a NYTimes lacks the most basic scientific knowledge to understand that this "letter to the editor" was merely a joke, doesn't mean that it's the fault of the scientific/medical journal -- with a very specific audience, mind you -- for taking a comedy minute. What's next? We're not allowed to talk in our professional roles and circles using the long established terms for technical concepts, just because the jargon could be misinterpreted by people unfamiliar with the field and the subject matter? Oh... Nevermind...

starkd 6y ago
Oh, of course, they are allowed mistakes and an occasional humourous aside. But it did say in the article that the NEJM refused to correct it or elaborate upon it for quite some time. Probably just an oversight, in my opinion, but was posed as a serious letter to the editor, and in order to get the humor, you had to be able to pick up on the subtle clues. What the motivations were for the New York Times Reporter were can only be guessed here. Probably just eagerly looking for some novel bit of news that would be interesting. Based on how these things generally go viral, I think it's unfair to blame any single person or entity.