
Many people responded with more anecdotal stories; I think its safe to
say the original poster is already familiar with such stories.
Presumably, he wants hard info to substantiate or refute claims about
MSG making people ill. 

Similarly, debunking such claims without doing research (whether
literature and lab), is equally beside the point. The original poster
no doubt already knows that some people think 'Chinese Restaurant
Syndrome' is bogus.

Placebos are all very interesting, but irrelevant to the question of
what effects MSG has. You could have real effects *and* placebo
effects; people may have allergies in addition. 


Have you read Olney's work? I fail to see how citing results from
peer-reviewed studies qualifies as "bizarrely cracked".


Tests have been done on Rhesus monkeys, as well. I have never seen a
study where the mode of administration was intra-ventricular.  The Glu
and Asp were administered orally. Some studies used IV and SC.
Intra-ventricular is not a normal admin. method for food tox. studies,
for obvious reasons. You must not have read the peer-reviewed works
that I referred to or you would never have come up with this brain
injection bunk.


Pardon me, but where are you getting this from? Have you read the
journals? Have you done a thorough literature search?

But, you're right, mice aren't the best to study this on. They're four
times less sensitive than humans to MSG.


The point is exceeding the window. Of course, they're amino acids.
Note that people with PKU cannot tolerate any phenylalanine.

Olney's research compared infant human diets. Specifically, the amount
of freely available Glu in mother's milk versus commercial baby foods,
vs. typical lunch items from the Standard American Diet such as packaged
soup mixes. He found that one could exceed the projected safety margin
for infant humans by at least four-fold in a single meal of processed
foods. Mother's milk was well below the effective dose.



Between who? Over what? I would be most interested in seeing you
provide peer-reviewed non-food-industry-funded citations to articles
disputing that MSG has no effects whatsoever. 


Hmm. ".com". Why am I not surprised?