fascinating & practical in general, very informative specifically regarding this old wheeze:
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/special_initiatives/wa_resources/wa_shared/tipsheets/deconstructing_webpages.cfm

Charles-- regarding the "Dr. Betty Martini" claim and the manufacturer (much) later funding a study: put yourself briefly in the position of the owners of aspartame. You developed and tested a food additive which is designed to substitute for sugar; the FDA passes it, and, against all odds, you make money at it. It tastes better than previous substitutes (thereby incurring the wrath of your competition), it catches on... then someone with extremely dubious professional credits starts cicrculating a wacky and emotionally-charged email claiming your stuff causes everything from hyperspace brain cancer to Mogo on the Logo. This circulates for years and years, spreading across world human consciousness like measels, though the claims in it are clearly the rantings of a loon. Legitimate news agencies start picking it up, and the rantings somehow become accepted as fact.
"But it's crazy! Nothing in her original letter is scientifically accurate, nothing is verified. How can people believe this?" Because it's repeated by well-meaning folk who distrust anything said in the world by "authorities." You can probably thank everyone from Richard Nixon through George Bush for that, but that is the way the world works.

Is it now worth it to spend several million dollars to defend your properly from internet madnesses? Yep.

Last Edited By: Ted Newsom Dec 31 07 12:02 PM. Edited 1 times.