Scientists admit: we were wrong about 'E'

[shanek]

But will the government?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/drug...1037045,00.html

It was billed as the one of the most dramatic warnings the world has ever received over the dangers of ecstasy. A study from one of America's leading universities concluded that taking the drug for just one evening could leave clubbers with irreversible brain damage, and trigger the onset of Parkinson's disease.

The study, published in the eminent journal Science last September, had an immediate impact. Doctors and anti-drug crusaders spoke of a 'neurological time bomb' facing the young. Others suggested that taking one of the tablets was the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with the brain, and demanded tighter 'anti-rave' laws to deal with it.

But today, scientists are facing up to the humiliation of admitting that the stark results they reported in the study were not a breakthrough but a terrible, humiliating blunder.

The study was based on the fact that laboratory monkeys and baboons had a severe reaction to the drug when it was injected in small doses. But it emerged this weekend that the vials of liquid did not contain ecstasy. Instead, the animals received a dose of methamphetamine, or speed - a drug widely known to affect the body's dopamine system. The tubes had somehow been mislabelled by the supplier.

Oopsie...

People need to realize that science is always learning and changing. And many, many times, initial studies showing one thing end up being wrong, and the opposite is the case. That's exactly why we shouldn't go enacting legislation like the RAVE Act—because Congress doesn't have the same self-correcting mechanisms that science does.

[espritch]

exactly why we shouldn't go enacting legislation like the RAVE Act—because Congress doesn't have the same self-correcting mechanisms that science does.

I tend to disagree with about 80% of what you say but I must admit I rather like that one. :D

[Zep]

Ditto. Someone involved in that needs a good smack on the wrist and a few weeks punishment shovelling monkey-****.

[JAR]

Originally posted by shanek
[snip]
Congress doesn't have the same self-correcting mechanisms that science does.
Very true.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by shanek
People need to realize that science is always learning and changing. And many, many times, initial studies showing one thing end up being wrong, and the opposite is the case. That's exactly why we shouldn't go enacting legislation like the RAVE Act—because Congress doesn't have the same self-correcting mechanisms that science does.

RAVE act? link? thanks.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


RAVE act? link? thanks.

Some people just never learn to use google. :p

RAVE act (http://www.emdef.org/s2633/)

Scroll down a quarter of the page.

[LucyR]

Pretty bad luck for the monkeys too.

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek
But will the government?
Oopsie...

People need to realize that science is always learning and changing. And many, many times, initial studies showing one thing end up being wrong, and the opposite is the case. That's exactly why we shouldn't go enacting legislation like the RAVE Act—because Congress doesn't have the same self-correcting mechanisms that science does.

Hmmm. The paper in question appears to have been published in Science in September 2002, a few months after the RAVE act had been introduced in the Senate. I don't know much (if anything) about the RAVE act or the toxity of ecstacy, but it doesn't seem to me that the rebuttal of the article is in itself an argument against the act.

[Malachi151]

Don't hold you breath on this info getting out.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/crack_baby_myth.htm

The Crack Baby myth

The horrifying story of “crack babies” was used in the 1980s to fuel anti-drug sentiments. In addition there was a decidedly racial element to the stories as well as urban black women, also of course depicted as women abusing the welfare system, were the focus of stories about babies born with no hope, addicted to crack cocaine, and permanently robbed of their mental powers. The story of crack babies was a heavy element of the “Just Say No” campaign of the Reagan administration. The sentiment that was raised by the story was one of outrage towards poor urban blacks and one of outrage at all systems that were designed to help poor urban blacks because it was felt that these people were not capable of helping themselves and they were just abusing the system for selfish purposes and now innocent children were suffering because of it. To top it off it was being said that “crack babies” would never be able to care for themselves and that they would be a significant “tax burden” on the American tax payer.

All of this was used to build support for the War on Drugs and the legislation that took anti-drug action to new levels. The stories of “crack babies” helped to promote the anti-drug movement in general because all drugs were stereotyped together as being similar; the “evils” of one drug were applied to the whole group.

The truth of the matter is that there never was any “crack baby” crisis. In fact later studies have shown that the two “drugs” that are most responsible for the variety of birth abnormalities attributed to crack, including premature birth, low weight birth, and spastic muscle control shortly after birth, are actually alcohol and tobacco. Other related conditions of cocaine users that affect the development of the fetus are poor diet and lack of sleep.

Even though babies born to mothers who use crack are still viewed by the public as the most sever cases of problem births the truth is that fetal alcohol syndrome is a real problem, and the most sever problem in America that is related to chemical use during pregnancy.

In 1985 Ronald Reagan called Carla Hale, the founder of Hale House, a house that cares for “crack babies” and other children born to mothers with drug problems, “an angel and an American heroine” during his State of the Union address for her public efforts in caring for "crack babies".

Once the “crack baby” myth was born, the Reagan administration embraced it and used it to promote its agenda. The issue was used by politicians on all sides, both left and right. The liberals used the issue to try and get more funding for programs to study and care for these children and the conservatives used the issue to stir feelings of hate and disgust at poor inner city minorities. The issue was also used to support stronger anti-drug laws and to support money for international anti-drug programs, such as those that still operate in South America today.

For more information and official statements by the American Medical Association:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/03/27/tech/main282035.shtml

http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/sci-news/2001/snr0328.htm#cocaine

People still believe in crack babies too...

[shemp]

Originally posted by Malachi151
People still believe in crack babies too...

You mean they worship them and pray to them?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
RAVE act? link? thanks.

The Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act:

http://www.emdef.org/s2633/

[Jon_in_london]

The Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act

OMG the ecstacy is coming for me OMG WTF!!! arggghhh!!! keep it away from memeeee!!! noooaaarrgg!!! BLAST E LUKE BLAST E!!!! WHERE!!11 ANYWHERE!!!!!

Evil E!!! its gonna getcha!!!

[Dancing David]

Malachi: I am glad to know that children that were exposed to crack in uetero will not suffer long term disablities, but they do suffer the first two years of thier lifes. they are very unhappy babies, perhaps without a devolopmental disability but still very unhappy.

I also note that the second article is a meta analysis, not a very good form of study if you ask me.


PS Just googles 'crack babies'
It seems that half the sites want to discuss the ills of society from crack babies and half the sites expose the myth of the crack baby.

I am very glad they won't have long term effects, still what a ahrd first year.

[Rayn]

Hrm. What gets me thinking is the amount of red-tape and beauracratic obstacles that stand in the way of reserachers doing legitimate study on Schedule I & II drugs. The medical uses for drugs such as marijuana are relatively untested, and moreover, for a drug that can "trigger the onset of Parkinson's disease" I wonder why more studies are not conducted.

Bah... sorry just a rant for this post, but it still gets my goat.

And, I agree with you on this one shanek.

[DialecticMaterialist]

So are you saying we should legalize ecstacy?

Tell me, have you ever met an E-tard Shanek?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
So are you saying we should legalize ecstacy?

Tell me, have you ever met an E-tard Shanek?

Yes we should legalize excstacy. Legalise, regulate and save lives.

AND WHAT THE FRICKIN HELL IS A FRICKEN E-TARD?!?!

[DialecticMaterialist]

An E-tard is slang for someone that has done so much ecstacy, they behave as if they are mentally handicapped. The word is used among the raver crowd (who I communicate with) because you actually get to meet people who use ecstasy there.. Unlike others who sit in their cozy chairs and for whom the "harmful" effects of E are merely an abstraction. Such people have no life. They are always depressed, very slow in thought and never fully fit in with the rest of society again.

There are of course studies to back this up as well:

http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol14N4/Ecstasy.html

http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/26/1728_59719


Yes regulate it...so the government is now selling poison for profit.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Yes regulate it...so the government is now selling poison for profit.

OK, I thought you were refering to E-tards as a derogatory term for 'ravers' in general.

Better than armed gangs selling worse poison for profit.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Armed gangs do not have the power or moral authority of a nation behind them.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Wait a minute. :mad: The retraction doesn't say that Scientists are admitting they were wrong about Exstacy, it says they were studying the effects of the wrong drug on lab rats. There's a whole world of difference between - our study was based on crank not X so our conclusions in this study were invaled and - Exstacy is safe and fun for teenagers to use at raves.

Let's not be disengenuous about what the news is actually reporting.

We're not Fox for God's sake...

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Armed gangs do not have the power or moral authority of a nation behind them.

And a nation should use its moral authority to deprive such people of their raison d'etre.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I think it can when such a thing would serious harm a citizen's health or sanity due to unwanted side effects. Of course this is a matter of degree. But society and myself have generally agreed that drugs like cocain, heroin, ecstasy, and PCP are where we draw the line. Especially when such are given to children.

And I certainly don't agree with the government now distributing the substance, that to me simply seems like something far too easily corrupted and somewhat immoral.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
An E-tard is slang for someone that has done so much ecstacy, they behave as if they are mentally handicapped. The word is used among the raver crowd (who I communicate with) because you actually get to meet people who use ecstasy there.. Unlike others who sit in their cozy chairs and for whom the "harmful" effects of E are merely an abstraction. Such people have no life. They are always depressed, very slow in thought and never fully fit in with the rest of society again.

Ah. So you're arguing from emotion and not from rationality.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Better than armed gangs selling worse poison for profit.

And responsible, private companies are better than armed gangs or government (and what's the difference between the two, really?).

[Dancing David]

As an aside, this is only the refutation of one study, the studies showing neuro toxicity for Mdma go back to the eighties. Now if they all used the mislabeled drug? We will know in twenty years, if all the ecstasy users develpe neo parkinson's.

By the way the DT's really are horrible, but alcohol is still legal.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by shanek


Ah. So you're arguing from emotion and not from rationality.

This isn't arguing from emotion. It's an anecdote.

I too know people who were heavy E users. Yes, it's an anecdote, but I have also noticed they are often very slow.

I'm not saying that E should be banned, but I think anyone who has been in the club scene and knows people who do/have done Extasy regularly would be amused at the idea that it causes no harm.

[Charles Livingston]

"The liberals used the issue to try and get more funding for programs to study and care for these children and the conservatives used the issue to stir feelings of hate and disgust at poor inner city minorities. The issue was also used to support stronger anti-drug laws and to support money for international anti-drug programs, such as those that still operate in South America today." Quote from Malichi's article.

Geez, is there any bias there? Liberals lie about crack babies for the good of the children, while the conservatives just want to promote hate and disgust at poor inner city minorities. I would say that at best the last sentance was the true motivation for the reagan (read conservatives) admin.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Valmorian



I too know people who were heavy E users. Yes, it's an anecdote, but I have also noticed they are often very slow.



Were your anecdotal group perhaps *always* very slow, rather than that being an effect of E use?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by shanek


Ah. So you're arguing from emotion and not from rationality.

Isn't it ironic, don't you think?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Dancing David
As an aside, this is only the refutation of one study, the studies showing neuro toxicity for Mdma go back to the eighties. Now if they all used the mislabeled drug? We will know in twenty years, if all the ecstasy users develpe neo parkinson's.

By the way the DT's really are horrible, but alcohol is still legal.

Degree David, degree. It's all about avoiding the fruitless either/or's.


As a side note, yes some of my evidence here is anectdotal (some people seem to have overlooked the studies I presented) however my claims are hardly extraordinary. That does make a slight difference.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Valmorian
This isn't arguing from emotion. It's an anecdote.

He related his emotional reaction from his anecdote.

I'm not saying that E should be banned, but I think anyone who has been in the club scene and knows people who do/have done Extasy regularly would be amused at the idea that it causes no harm.

Who's saying it causes no harm? It just doesn't cause the kind of harm they said it did.

Besides, how many of these E burnouts are using other drugs, too?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by shanek

Who's saying it causes no harm? It just doesn't cause the kind of harm they said it did.


That the article had to be withdrawn doesn't tell you this. That only tells you that the conclusions made in the article were not warranted - not that they were wrong. They likely were wrong, but it's not right to say that "Ecstacy doesn't cause as much harm as they thought it did." It's only one study, it's not something that affects the entire body of works.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Valmorian

I'm not saying that E should be banned, but I think anyone who has been in the club scene and knows people who do/have done Extasy regularly would be amused at the idea that it causes no harm.

I have taken it about a half-dozen times, I decided never to take it again after the last time; which was an absolutely splendid trip but I felt like a piece of used toilet paper for an entire week afterwards. I had to go home early from work twice in that week because I felt so bad. Never again.

Also from this thread: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26629


Another thing that this paper emphasizes is the risks facing the consumers who are far more likely to end up with something other than MDMA than research scientists. This is, IMO, one of the greatest problems with popping pills. You just dont know what you are getting, and I suspect this is actually the cause of most 'ecstacy' deaths. I doubt that its MDMA doing the damage but whatever else might be in the pill. I remeber while I lived in Cape Town that several kids died because the pills they took some rather impure DXM http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/dxm.shtml

In addition, a hell of a lot of pills may contain delights such as PMA http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/pma/pma.shtml


My main reason for advocating the legalisation and hence regulation of the excstacy trade is to get stuff like DXM and PMA (and christ alone knows what else) out of the pills that millions of teenagers across the world consume every friday night.