Absurdism corner

Why?


  • Total voters
    202

Well, looks like the MSG debate is settled. Let’s start a gluten debate.

My thinking is that gluten sensitivity is BS, but gluten does make you fat, so if you avoid it, more power to you.
 
As kid I was told MSG caused baldness so I avoided it. Now that baldness is no longer a risk I don't rule out MSG. It's acceptable in a pinch. I actually introduced my daughter to MSG and explained it is a drug for your tongue. That was a gateway conversation. I had to explain drugs.

I had gluten free pizza once and it resulted in a terrible hangover. Avoid!
 
Well, looks like the MSG debate is settled.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/it-really-fda-approved said:
Companies that want to add new food additives to food are responsible for providing FDA with information demonstrating that the additives are safe. FDA experts review the results of appropriate tests done by companies to ensure that the food additive is safe for its intended use. An approved food additive must be used in compliance with its approved uses, specifications, and restrictions.

So in order for the FDA to mark your food additive as safe, you have to perform your own research, and then pick the results that you want to submit, and then the FDA will choose whether to approve your food additive based on those results. Think about how easy to cheat this is. Even assuming that all big companies are honest (huge assumption there), they could just perform 20 tests and then cherry-pick the 3 tests with the most favourable results. You think that they would not do that to get MSG, one of their most profitable additives, approved?

In fact, Prozac has been approved this way (https://www.fda.gov/drugs/informati...s/drugs-medical/zyprexa-misconduct-00567.html). And that is a drug, which has far stricter approval requirements than food additives. Even with drugs the FDA is extremely lenient and easy to cheat.

A bunch of pages which rely on FDA as their source is not credible at all. The FDA is just a marketing organisation. People who would otherwise worry about the safety of MSG due to the abundance of anecdotes and trials where MSG was linked with various ailments, now just look at that FDA approval and assume that those other trials and those anecdotes must all be wrong. But in reality the FDA approval process is easy to cheat so vendors of unsafe additives can get FDA approval if they fudge their results enough. The result is that the FDA actually helps organisations to sell dangerous additives by providing them with great marketing. The FDA does the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do.
 
So in order for the FDA to mark your food additive as safe, you have to perform your own research, and then pick the results that you want to submit, and then the FDA will choose whether to approve your food additive based on those results. Think about how easy to cheat this is. Even assuming that all big companies are honest (huge assumption there), they could just perform 20 tests and then cherry-pick the 3 tests with the most favourable results. You think that they would not do that to get MSG, one of their most profitable additives, approved?

I highly doubt that a Japanese university professor cared about hoodwinking a US based organisation. Especially one that had only existed for two years prior to his discovery.
 
I highly doubt that a Japanese university professor cared about hoodwinking a US based organisation. Especially one that had only existed for two years prior to his discovery.
I never said that he did. A lot of your sources relied on the FDA, so I addressed that. In fact, even the article that you linked which mentions Ikeda relies on the FDA and not Ikeda to support it's safety claims.

As for Ikeda, he would also have had a conflict of interest. He had a patent on a method of refined MSG production and has made a huge profit on MSG. I said "would" because there is no mention of Ikeda performing any health or safety testing at all.
 
I know exactly why you're trying to discredit the FDA and Dr. Ikeda + other professionals, it's because they show that you may just be wrong about your MSG is bad stance and you can't tolerate that. Also since you'd mention it if I didn't, I don't have a horse in this race or care whether I'm right or wrong,, all I did was post links to information without commentary by myself for people to make up their own minds.
 
I know exactly why you're trying to discredit the FDA and Dr. Ikeda + other professionals, it's because they show that you may just be wrong about your MSG is bad stance and you can't tolerate that.
I only discredited the FDA. I have seen no health statements of Ikeda to discredit.

And my motives are irrelevant. I backed my statements with evidence, not with authority.

Also since you'd mention it if I didn't, I don't have a horse in this race or care whether I'm right or wrong,,
I would not have mentioned it. I have no evidence of you having a conflict of interest.
Also, your evidence were the pages that you posted, not your own authority. So if the sources were reliable then you would have been likely right regardless of your motives for posting them.

all I did was post links to information without commentary by myself for people to make up their own minds.
I did make up my own mind.
 
I only discredited the FDA.

In your own mind, what actually occurred was you attempting to do so.

And my motives are irrelevant.

People's motives are never irrelevant they colour every situation.

I backed my statements with evidence, not with authority.

I could have sworn I noticed you making an appeal to authority, it was to the FDA wasn't it?

I would not have mentioned it.

I think we both know that's not true.

So if the sources were reliable

Looks like someone is saying they know more than professionals talking about something in their field of expertise.

I did make up my own mind.

I know, you did that before I even made my first post. I also knew that you wouldn't change your viewpoint on the subject no matter what anyone posted. People like you are so fun to mess with because it's so easy to set you off, all you have to do is make a post (not even aimed at them) that questions their beliefs and they instantly go into someone is wrong on the Internet mode.
 
I could have sworn I noticed you making an appeal to authority, it was to the FDA wasn't it?
Me quoting them was not an appeal to authority because it does not matter whether they are right or not. If they are right then there is a conflict of interest making them unreliable, if they are wrong then it is them spreading misinformation about their own approval process that makes them unreliable.

People like you are so fun to mess with because it's so easy to set you off, all you have to do is make a post (not even aimed at them) that questions their beliefs and they instantly go into someone is wrong on the Internet mode.
Telling people that MSG is completely safe just to troll is dangerous because if anyone believes you then that may cause them to take a health risk that they otherwise would not have taken.
 
because it does not matter whether they are right or not.

Says the person whose narrative is highly dependent upon the FDA being wrong.

If they are right then there is a conflict of interest making them unreliable, if they are wrong then it is them spreading misinformation about their own approval process that makes them unreliable.

Now you're just making stuff up as you go along.

health risk

It's MSG not something actually dangerous like unsoaked kidney beans.
 
oXe1s9KX.png
 
something actually dangerous like unsoaked kidney beans.
When I was little, I but a bean in my nose. The moisture made it swell and it got stuck there. So it had to be removed surgically. So I agree, like C4, it's dangerous if handled improperly.
 
Just an ordinary day out walking the dog.

 
Back
Top