4 ms·

I very clearly mentioned in my original comment that there are other studies that show no effects. My point was and still is that if there are some studies that

by hristov 13y ago

I very clearly mentioned in my original comment that there are other studies that show no effects. My point was and still is that if there are some studies that show negative effects and some studies that show no negative effects, the latter do not (for me at least) cancel out the former. It is entirely possible that there are negative effects that are not picked up by some studies. The fact that the FDA believes that MSG is "generally recognized as safe" does not guarantee it is safe. To use my previous example, the FDA also used to believe that trans fats were safe. So all my comments have been logically consistent with each other and my actual honest opinion. Thus they are quite undeserving of your half thought out response.

gaadd33 13y ago
So essentially there's no way for you to ever feel that MSG is safe because the normal outcome is "no negative effects" which, for you, will never counterbalance the few studies that have shown negative effects. I suppose someone would have to publish a study that shows positive effects for you to consider it?
sjwright 13y ago
Your attempt at a rationalization is logically flawed to the point of embarrassment.
- hristov 13y ago
  If you think there is a logical flaw in my argument say what it is. If you do not feel like saying what it is, then do not post. You must be very proud of yourself for composing a sentence with several big words in it, but it means absolutely nothing.
  - sjwright 13y ago
    The logical flaw is that you assume that all studies are worthy of consideration, and the hidden inference that equal weight should be given to a study regardless of its methodology or rigor. Good information generally cancels out bad information. I have no particular opinion about the veracity of any MSG claim, but there have been so many bad dietary studies published. I would urge a skeptical default position on any result, and only moderate skepticism based on evidence of sample size, methodology and rigor.

by hristov 13y ago

gaadd33 13y ago

So essentially there's no way for you to ever feel that MSG is safe because the normal outcome is "no negative effects" which, for you, will never counterbalance the few studies that have shown negative effects. I suppose someone would have to publish a study that shows positive effects for you to consider it?

sjwright 13y ago

Your attempt at a rationalization is logically flawed to the point of embarrassment.

hristov 13y ago
If you think there is a logical flaw in my argument say what it is. If you do not feel like saying what it is, then do not post. You must be very proud of yourself for composing a sentence with several big words in it, but it means absolutely nothing.
- sjwright 13y ago
  The logical flaw is that you assume that all studies are worthy of consideration, and the hidden inference that equal weight should be given to a study regardless of its methodology or rigor. Good information generally cancels out bad information. I have no particular opinion about the veracity of any MSG claim, but there have been so many bad dietary studies published. I would urge a skeptical default position on any result, and only moderate skepticism based on evidence of sample size, methodology and rigor.