[jeromegv]

There’s a long history of racism against Chinese immigrants in America. Among the only jobs they were allowed to have was having restaurants. Of course this led to rumours of Chinese restaurant being dirty and their MSG causing sickness. It’s a very long history and it’s well documented. While you’re at it, read on the Chinese exclusion act.

And now you’re saying that people who call this racism for what is is are the ones responsible for the racism. You’ve got to be kidding.

[BurningFrog]

The Chinese Exclusion Act was 1882.

If that's the most recent example, I'd call it an "ancient history of racism", not a "long history of racism".

[ceejayoz]

You probably should look at more than just the start date for that act.

> Exclusion was repealed by the Magnuson Act on December 17, 1943, which allowed 105 Chinese to enter per year. Chinese immigration later increased [to 2000/year from the "Asiatic barred zone"] with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which abolished direct racial barriers, and later by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished the National Origins Formula.

[BurningFrog]

Fair enough. That's still over half a century ago.

Everyone involved in setting these barriers are dead.

[ceejayoz]

Some of the technical debt in my codebase at work was put there by programmers who have long since left the company, too.

It still has significant impact.

[dotancohen]

So does COVID-19 not exist because someone called it Chinese Flu? The phenomenon can exist despite the racist connotations.

[bobthepanda]

MSG sensitivity has never been shown to be true in a replicable clinical environment in humans. The few studies that have shown this to cause symptoms use extremely large doses of MSG that aren't used in food (for one thing, the dosages involved would be unpalatable even for those without the symptoms; overseasoning is generally unpleasant)

[dotancohen]

  > MSG sensitivity has never been shown to be true in a replicable clinical environment in humans.

Actually, it has been. The fine article even mentions that.

  > The few studies that have shown this to cause symptoms use extremely large doses of MSG that aren't used in food (for one thing, the dosages involved would be unpalatable even for those without the symptoms;

So you do accept that some studies have demonstrated MSG sensitivity? So why the lie in the previous sentence? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I just don't see how you claim the former statement given this statement.

In any case, yes, you are correct here. As per the fine article, the dose at which symptoms become common is six times the normal dose. Do you find it utterly impossible that some people could be sensitive at one-sixth the dose that "most people" become sensitive at?

[dragonwriter]

> So you do accept that some studies have demonstrated MSG sensitivity

No, some studies have shown that high doses or unusual methods of introduction (e.g., IV) of MSG can cause symptoms; no properly controlled studies have shown sensitivity (i.e., a trait in which people are prone to symptoms at lower thresholds that are typical, such that they might experience symptoms with doses that might actual be encountered outside of deliberate mass ingestion.)

> Do you find it utterly impossible that some people could be sensitive at one-sixth the dose that "most people" become sensitive at?

“It’s not utterly impossible” is not the same thing as “clinical studies have provided evidence for it”.