re is msg sensitivity superstition smjeff lerc lerc nasa gov jeff miller writes even properly controlled studies e g double blind studies are almost useless if you are trying to prove that something does not affect anyone and in article qnns l agate berkeley edu spp zabriskie berkeley edu steve pope writes the mass of anectdotal evidence combined with the lack of a properly constructed scientific experiment disproving the hypothesis makes the msg reaction hypothesis the most likely explanation for events good grief has no one ever heard of biostatistics the university of washington plus or others harvard unc has a department and advanced degree program in biostatistics my wife has an ms biostat and there are plenty of mds phds and postdocs doing biostatistical work people do this for a living really bright people study for decades to do this sort of study well anecedotal evidence is worthless even doctors who have been using a drug or treatment for years and who swear it is effective are often suprised at the results of clinical trials whether or not msg causes describable reportable documentable symptoms should be pretty simple to discover the last study on which my wife worked employed nurses doctors and a dozen ph ds at one university and at hospitals in five nations i would think the msg question could be settled by one lowly biostat ms student in a thesis bruce
