Talk:Monosodium glutamate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Monosodium glutamate/archive1 - 19 July 2006

Contents 1 Misinformation 2 Fair use of "MSG intolerance" section? 3 Revert on July 13,2006 4 Removed or Purged Information 5 Meaning reversed 6 New Information 7 Misinformation and a rewrite 8 Sidebar 9 Abandon 10 Vaccines 11 First main contributor? 12 depiction of molecule wrong?

[edit] Misinformation

Somebody is tastelessly (excuse the pun) vandalising this article and thank you to whoever just fixed that, I was going to. - solieus

Misinformation is being introduced and corrupting this article. I've read alot about MSG and can see obfuscation creeping in. The most recent edit added information that is wholey one-sided and is adding to the contradiction that tagged this article.

I'm not in a position to edit or clean up this article, I'm very busy with a re-write of salmon. Is there a tag that we can put on this or perhaps revert some of this FUDD being introduced?

--meatclerk 05:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I volunteer to defend this article for a while. I reverted and warned the anon that changing statements to disagree with the corresponding references is a no-no. —Keenan Pepper 05:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

If you want, I can watch this article and let you know. I can't revert, nor do I wish to have the responsibility. Sometime in the future I plan to clean out this discussion (alot of stuff is dated).

You don't have to be an admin to revert. See Wikipedia:Reverting. For admins it takes one click, for regular users three or four. No big deal.

In the meantime, I plan to continue my research, extend my list of current articles and help with a bit of editing. BTW, is there a list for the last item? That is, a list of article which the author wish some edit or reviews? I've done a few searches, but have not found anything yet. --meatclerk 08:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:Peer review what you're looking for? —Keenan Pepper 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've bookmarked both. As for reverting, I note that much of the misinformation about MSG is being place by annoynmous IP and they are very old, some back to May. One set was done by [222.229.46.29] Any suggestions on how to proceed? --meatclerk 18:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm cleaning out dated paragraphs and useless information. --meatclerk 17:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of "MSG intolerance" section?

I don't usually edit entries but I have a few issues with the "MSG intolerance" portion of the page. Most importantly is the copying of the entire section from an FDA release without propper references given to the source. Check http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/msg.html under the heading "1995 FASEB Report" for evidence. Origionally published in 1995, it clearly predates the copy here.

Perhaps a quick search of PubMed for peer reviewed papers could be used to rebuild this section (as well as provide it with a more diverse set of references, as Olney is hardly a credible glutamate researcher given his questionable methodologies). --APM 7:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've been watching this article since I noted that several annoymous IPs have been spiking the article clearly biased as pro-industry. My own website [1] notes the "1995 FASEB Report" as suspect itself. Right now I'm awaiting some help in how to clean up some of the spikes. None yet. I'm going to the discussion board next.

The section you mention, as I recall, is one of the spike areas.

As to your question about fair use. Yes, just about anything written by a public (government) agency can be used verbatim. However, these sources are hardly interesting reading and don't conform to wikipedia styles and, at times, do not have a NPOV.

--meatclerk 10:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert on July 13,2006

After reviewing edits by 222.229.46.29 (on May 14, 2006) and 159.134.245.210 (on Feb 7, 2006), it is clear that theses edits were done with the intent of biasing the entire article. Further, the additions created conflicts with Glutamic acid. Those conflicts should now be resolved. One point to note is that both of these annonyous IP edits paid no attention to Glutamic acid. Another point is that while these edits looked authoratitive, they were in fact "cut and pasted" from "pro-MSG" websites.

The revert, which I will let sit for a few days, will allow me to watch any additions and check there valitity - something that did not happen when the annonyous IP edits were made. At that time, I will clean out this discussion section for outdated material.

--meatclerk 11:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, are you sure that was necessary? You realize it's a logical impossibility to revert things that happened a long time ago without destroying productive edits that have been made since then? For example, you trashed all the references, which now link to a deleted template. I think it's your responsibility to fix the problems you caused by reverting to such an old version. If you don't do something I'll have to revert your big revert. —Keenan Pepper 16:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly what was causing me to delay. I've been aware of this for more than a month. Before I started in May, 2006, I noted some issues, but thought that the stuff I read earlier was something I read at another website. Once I went back to the edits of 159.134.245.210 (on Feb 7, 2006), it was clear.

My logic is as such. Before Feb 7, 2006 it was somewhat a NPOV article, after that a hodge-podge of pro-MSG began to be added wholesale by 159.134.245.210 then later 222.229.46.29. Given that, a review of the logs will support my points.

What's left is the corrections to be made. I note that most, if not all, information of any worth was added by non-annoymous IP - wikipedians. By that I estimate they will slowly add about a dozen (12) small changes which will make the article worthy again.

But I wholey agree with your comment. It's a big mud hole I'm in, but someone must take the responsibility to get it done and correct again. I'll give it about 7 - 10 days, then I'll start adding stuff back a little at a time.

--meatclerk 19:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed or Purged Information

This information was removed or purged because it was added for questionable purposes. These records are for the purpose of restoring those information at a future date.

See Reason for more information.

Reason: Dead Link. Following link produces a 404 error.

SECTION: Discovery About 1.5 million metric tons were sold in 2001, with 4% annual growth expected. [1]

[edit] Meaning reversed

The article contains the following sentence:

"Scientific evidence suggests that dietary MSG or glutamate contributes to Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's chorea, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, AIDS dementia complex, or any other long-term or chronic diseases."

As the last clause suggests, the sentence was originally negative ("does not contribute to Alzheimers..."). This can be seen in earlier versions of the page. These two sentences are copied directly from the FDA report ( http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdacmsg.html ) and then changed to say the precise opposite.

I take this to be vandalism. I have no strong opinions on MSG and no objection to information suggesting that MSG is problematic, but simply changing the FDA report to its precise opposite is not reasonable.

Eggsyntax 19:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks as if this edit here [2] changed it. I haven't looked at the reference, but elsewhere Olney's work has been characterized as less reliable. (Causing AIDS? Huh? Very strange.) Dr Zak 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As per APM's comment, I'm also removing the references on these two sentences; they don't apply (in fact, they seem to contradict these sentences as now written). The entire section is a summary of key points from the FDA report, so no further reference is needed. I'm not trying to censor these references (I'm not in a position to judge the validity of Olney's work); they just don't apply here.

Meatclerk questions the validity of the report; I would certainly expect some very solid evidence against it before removing it from the entry, since it's a major report by an independent scientific body.

Eggsyntax 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The report can be summarized to highlight the facts AND reference the FDA, which it does not do now. As for issues with the work, the FDA is just covering their butts. If you read the report, in entirety, it states something like, "this reports confirms what we have been saying." Reading the report, it says they do nothing new, just review old data. As such, the rehash of an old report. Further, the older reports (1970s) ignores many key data points.

However, if you read the FAO report, circa 1970, you'll see human nausia reported by an MFG test. However, the FDA report completely ignores this.

My website/page has lots of information, however, nothing conclusive. Hence, I have not, and cannot, apply any evidence that supports MSG intolerance, other than suggestive data listed in the FAO report. --meatclerk 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Information

This was deleted from the talkpage, but I adding it back in. MSG and Aspertame are both excitotoxins. David O. Rietz, the late master of dorway.com collected valueable information. It should not be discounted offhand.

http://www.dorway.com/blayautism.txt

For further reading on this subject, The Second Brian (c) 1998 by Dr. Michael D. Gershon, M. D. (well respected and noted work on gastroenterology)

[edit] Misinformation and a rewrite

This article continues to be source of irriataion. I just cleared up another reversal of meaning.

As such, I'm taking real action. Something that cannot be objected to. I've creating a new Sandbox to rewrite the article and remove all objectionable material. I'm doing line be line. This will be a complete rewrite. /rewrite meatclerk 23:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sidebar

User:67.188.206.207 left this in the intro to the article - I thought I'd better move it here:

needs science sidebar about molecular buildup and all that, not just a picture. someone get on this please or leave a note on the talk page (won't load for me)

--Pinnerup 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this request is? I don't.meatclerk 04:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abandon

After some thought and reflection I am abandoning any work, at the present time, on this article. As such, I am deleting the re-write and removing this article from my watch. I do this with some regret and the full realization that this article is highly erroneous, but a time sink with no hope of real resolution in the near future. As such, should other persons at a future time take a real interest and do real research, the I may return. Until then you may check my personal page for current projects. Respectfully meatclerk 06:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccines

I read (in a 2003 report) that MSG's were used in vaccines. I don't know about you, but I think that is actually planting an addiction in small children and everyone who gets "regular vaccines" Tinlv7 00:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation please? Brythain 15:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

chickenpox vaccines. Tell me if you find more. --Striver 22:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Foreign body granuloma caused by monosodium glutamate after BCG vaccination.--Striver 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Addiction, food additives, and vaccination in one conspiracy theory? That has to be a first. Sockatume 22:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, ain't it cool? --Striver 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First main contributor?

This article uses a mix of different Englishes- some pieces are in British English, some pieces are in American English. In accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, I'd like to do my best to harmonise this article, using the style employed by the first main contributor. If you're still around, FMC, which English did you employ? Liam Plested 19:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The earliest version of the article appears to use British English (flavour is used) - American English is then introduced (recognized is used) in a quote from an American source a few edits later. Kierongreen 07:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] depiction of molecule wrong?

10/21/06 - I believe that the molecular structure shown is incorrect. According to Lehninger (ed 3) the pKa's of the ionizable groups of free glutamate are 2.19 for the carboxyl group off of the alpha carbon, 4.25 for the carboxyl group in the side chain, and 9.67 for the amino group. Thus at neutral pH all three ionizable groups will be in a charged state. This would give the molecule an overall charge of -1 which is balanced by a single sodium ion. Currently, the picture just shows one negative charge. I have no idea how to fix this, but I just figured I'd let y'all know.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.32.49.123 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 October 2006.

All the amino acids are shown like that. Apparently some illustrator has a thing against zwitterions. —Keenan Pepper 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's because its monosodium, in solution all three groups are ionised but the solid (as stored) has the most acid proton substituted by a sodium cation and not the other one Knights who say ni 16:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it does have all ionisable groups in the charged state even in the solid. I had been taught in school that this is true, and causes amino acids to have a very high melting point. Chemguide backs me up here as well: "This is the form that amino acids exist in even in the solid state. If you dissolve the amino acid in water, a simple solution also contains this ion." --137.222.132.67 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to sign and log on. I'm PhiJ