ETabductedME
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2001
- Messages
- 16
indeed, thank you all for the excellent thread. i will be sure to pick up mr jansen's book.
Olney's Lesions - An Examination of the Article
- Thread starter Cokeboy
- Start date
Now, if you want to say that the opinion of the world's most experienced independent DXM researcher is "completely discardable", because his experience isn't "Official scientific experience", then go ahead. Sure, he could be totally insane. He could have just spent years making up shit about DXM for fun, and not know anything about it. The famous drug celebrity who wrote that kick ass book about ketamine, says he must be totally wrong(To find out why, buy his book!). The FDA probably has lots of expensive scientific studies about it, and that White guy doesn't even have a cool title like PHD. Professor doesn't count.
There is no evidence to show DXM causes Olney's Lesions. It's totally harmless from an official scientific viewpoint. Go wild! Rat brains are not at all like human brains, chug that cough syrup every morning!
Oh, he knew hundreds of users over many years, a bunch of them happened to be really fucked up in a bizarre way, blah blah blah. Does knowing about the moon make you an astronaut? NO! Ha. Case closed.
So to all heavy drug user scientists, best wishes. I'm sure you'll go on to have absolutely no Real Scientific Official Government Confirmed 100% Quantifiable brain damage. (And have lots of Official Fun in the process!)
You're the redneck snowmobiling accross The Pond From Which No Snowmobile Has Ever Returned, because he didn't see a Danger: Thin Ice! sign. So confident and safe!
What's that you say? You don't ever get those things...what's the name for them... Methafors... Can't quite find the word you're looking for?
It's OK, you just need some time to calm down.
I'll stop bothering you with all this crazy mumbo jumbo so you can go back to playing with your shoelaces.
There is no evidence to show DXM causes Olney's Lesions. It's totally harmless from an official scientific viewpoint. Go wild! Rat brains are not at all like human brains, chug that cough syrup every morning!
Oh, he knew hundreds of users over many years, a bunch of them happened to be really fucked up in a bizarre way, blah blah blah. Does knowing about the moon make you an astronaut? NO! Ha. Case closed.
So to all heavy drug user scientists, best wishes. I'm sure you'll go on to have absolutely no Real Scientific Official Government Confirmed 100% Quantifiable brain damage. (And have lots of Official Fun in the process!)
You're the redneck snowmobiling accross The Pond From Which No Snowmobile Has Ever Returned, because he didn't see a Danger: Thin Ice! sign. So confident and safe!
What's that you say? You don't ever get those things...what's the name for them... Methafors... Can't quite find the word you're looking for?
It's OK, you just need some time to calm down.
I'll stop bothering you with all this crazy mumbo jumbo so you can go back to playing with your shoelaces.
No shit mll! Of course he must be totally insane. It's all lies! He just made it all up! Those people who made him a professor are clearly totally insane too. And those people on erowid.org, they're fucking communists! What do they know? NOTHING! All that crap about "NGMDA Recepters" or whatever they are is BULLSHIT man! Don't let them tell you this shit man. You should fight back. Drink cough syrup with five grams of APAP, that'll show 'em! Make sure to eat another five grams of DXM every morning, just to spite them!
Imagine how William White will react when he hears about your opinion:
WHITE: Oh god no! I knew this day would come! All those years spent weaving my web of deceit, leading along the sheep-like masses, who was I kidding? Damn you mll, damn you! Can nothing escape your all-seeing eye? Curses!
*Shoves revolver into mouth, pulls the trigger*
NARRATOR: The world may now sleep soundly. Those everywhere who would seek to opress the innocent with their Evil Information may learn a valuable lesson: Your days are numbered!
Imagine how William White will react when he hears about your opinion:
WHITE: Oh god no! I knew this day would come! All those years spent weaving my web of deceit, leading along the sheep-like masses, who was I kidding? Damn you mll, damn you! Can nothing escape your all-seeing eye? Curses!
*Shoves revolver into mouth, pulls the trigger*
NARRATOR: The world may now sleep soundly. Those everywhere who would seek to opress the innocent with their Evil Information may learn a valuable lesson: Your days are numbered!
NOW HOLD ON.
I don't much care for this article - but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, people. The DXM FAQ does in fact contain lots of useful information.
I do not, under any circumstances, claim that dissociative abuse is free of health consequences - I just don't buy this article.
William White is not uninformed, nor is he stupid.
I don't much care for this article - but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, people. The DXM FAQ does in fact contain lots of useful information.
I do not, under any circumstances, claim that dissociative abuse is free of health consequences - I just don't buy this article.
William White is not uninformed, nor is he stupid.
MoFo_S - You can sit around feeling smug about your acerbic wit if it makes you happy. Does it?
I've pointed out various points where the article fails due to poor analysis, false logic, and bad data - care to attack those points instead of just suggesting everybody check their brain at the door?
Tell me where my analysis is incorrect. Try exercising your brain by doing something other than coming up with sarcasm.
I've pointed out various points where the article fails due to poor analysis, false logic, and bad data - care to attack those points instead of just suggesting everybody check their brain at the door?
Tell me where my analysis is incorrect. Try exercising your brain by doing something other than coming up with sarcasm.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1999
- Messages
- 84,998
Hold on, people!
Let's first get some things straight. White's article bother's me for a number of reasons... none of which are the one's you people seem to be focusing in on. White makes a number of statements, but unfortunately does not post his proof sources. I do not think that White is "anti-drug", nor do I feel that he is by any means ignorant. We just need to see the data from which he has based his FAQ on (Unless of course, he fabricated the whole thing... but I would tend to doubt this is the case). It amazes me that to this day, people take offense to his article simply because of it's implications (i.e. that chronic use of discociatives may very well be harmful). If you want to know what data William White based his FAQ on I would go ahead and email him... instead of automatically ASSUMING that just because the essay he wrote was writen as a FAQ aimed at an audience that would most likely not be composed of Ph.D. candidates, and neglected to cite it's sources that it HAS to be anti-drug propaganda. This also, is a foolhearty conclusion.
(Ooooh, William White... won't you please post to this forum and once and for all set the record straight?!?!?)
Lastly, I am equally disturbed and baffled by some of your posts that would seem to construe Dr. Karl Jansen as someone who has deemed Ketamine to be harmless, or endorses Ketamine as a drug that is somehow "safe" - and free any sort of potential for neurotoxicity. I suggest you all read his book again. (If you ever read it to begin with). I also suggest you read the following interview with Dr. Jansen in which he addresses the issue of Ketamine's potential neurotoxicity:
http://www.tripzine.com/features.asp?id=jansen
Keep in mind that this interview was actually conducted by MAPS, so if anything I would expect it to have a "pro-drug" bias. The following is an excerpt that I hope will finally lay to rest any assumption that Dr. Jansen considers ketamine to be a neurologically benign chemical:
Let's first get some things straight. White's article bother's me for a number of reasons... none of which are the one's you people seem to be focusing in on. White makes a number of statements, but unfortunately does not post his proof sources. I do not think that White is "anti-drug", nor do I feel that he is by any means ignorant. We just need to see the data from which he has based his FAQ on (Unless of course, he fabricated the whole thing... but I would tend to doubt this is the case). It amazes me that to this day, people take offense to his article simply because of it's implications (i.e. that chronic use of discociatives may very well be harmful). If you want to know what data William White based his FAQ on I would go ahead and email him... instead of automatically ASSUMING that just because the essay he wrote was writen as a FAQ aimed at an audience that would most likely not be composed of Ph.D. candidates, and neglected to cite it's sources that it HAS to be anti-drug propaganda. This also, is a foolhearty conclusion.
(Ooooh, William White... won't you please post to this forum and once and for all set the record straight?!?!?)
Lastly, I am equally disturbed and baffled by some of your posts that would seem to construe Dr. Karl Jansen as someone who has deemed Ketamine to be harmless, or endorses Ketamine as a drug that is somehow "safe" - and free any sort of potential for neurotoxicity. I suggest you all read his book again. (If you ever read it to begin with). I also suggest you read the following interview with Dr. Jansen in which he addresses the issue of Ketamine's potential neurotoxicity:
http://www.tripzine.com/features.asp?id=jansen
Keep in mind that this interview was actually conducted by MAPS, so if anything I would expect it to have a "pro-drug" bias. The following is an excerpt that I hope will finally lay to rest any assumption that Dr. Jansen considers ketamine to be a neurologically benign chemical:
I think we need to move this thread away from bizarre personal attacks (I'm not mentioning any names!) and focus more on the actual issue.
Sebastians_ghost, if you would like to see the data from which he has based his FAQ on, you could try looking at the 'References' page:
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/faq/dxm_refs.shtml#toc.17
cokeboy, I'd attack your 'analysis' of 'This is your brain on dissociatives', if there was really much to attack. Here's what I can get from it:
1. Jansen is totally sure DXM does not cause brain damage in humans.
2. He has perfect evidence to prove this, but you have to go buy his book first to see it.
3. The FDA did not remove Ketalar from the market.
4. They might have done this because Ketalar didn't damage the brains of monkies.
Conclusion: Therefore, Olney’s Lesions are sure to not exist!
White says:
1. I've talked to several hundred DXM users, and a large number reported disturbing symptoms after long term DXM use.
2. The symptoms they reported were incredibly simillar.
3. Many reported that the symptoms went away after they stopped using DXM.
Conclusion: "Anyone who has had firsthand contact with enough dissociative users will eventually run across the casualties..."
Even if you dismiss everything else in the article, I think that part speaks for itself...
All your other complaints about 'measurements' and 'Where is the control group, huh???' are cute, really, your heart is in the right place, but this isn't eighth grade science class where the teacher chastises you for not using the Scientific Process, it's real life. Take what the guy is saying for what it's worth. If to you, it's clearly "Totally BS man", that's wonderful, but please don't pretend like your opinion is any better.
If you'll excuse me, all this Advanced Scientific Thought is hurting my feeble brain. Shit, I'm running out of things to say here - Can you put some more words in my mouth for me? Oh, looks like you did already. Good work! Now, back to feeling smug...
Sebastians_ghost, if you would like to see the data from which he has based his FAQ on, you could try looking at the 'References' page:
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/dxm/faq/dxm_refs.shtml#toc.17
cokeboy, I'd attack your 'analysis' of 'This is your brain on dissociatives', if there was really much to attack. Here's what I can get from it:
1. Jansen is totally sure DXM does not cause brain damage in humans.
2. He has perfect evidence to prove this, but you have to go buy his book first to see it.
3. The FDA did not remove Ketalar from the market.
4. They might have done this because Ketalar didn't damage the brains of monkies.
Conclusion: Therefore, Olney’s Lesions are sure to not exist!
White says:
1. I've talked to several hundred DXM users, and a large number reported disturbing symptoms after long term DXM use.
2. The symptoms they reported were incredibly simillar.
3. Many reported that the symptoms went away after they stopped using DXM.
Conclusion: "Anyone who has had firsthand contact with enough dissociative users will eventually run across the casualties..."
Even if you dismiss everything else in the article, I think that part speaks for itself...
All your other complaints about 'measurements' and 'Where is the control group, huh???' are cute, really, your heart is in the right place, but this isn't eighth grade science class where the teacher chastises you for not using the Scientific Process, it's real life. Take what the guy is saying for what it's worth. If to you, it's clearly "Totally BS man", that's wonderful, but please don't pretend like your opinion is any better.
If you'll excuse me, all this Advanced Scientific Thought is hurting my feeble brain. Shit, I'm running out of things to say here - Can you put some more words in my mouth for me? Oh, looks like you did already. Good work! Now, back to feeling smug...
Well put, Sebastians_ghost.
I did not mean to portray Dr. Jansen as somebody who has claimed Ketamine to be harmless. Far from it. If that is the impression I gave, I apologize.
As stated several times, my post only intended to address "Olney's Lesions".
I did not mean to portray Dr. Jansen as somebody who has claimed Ketamine to be harmless. Far from it. If that is the impression I gave, I apologize.
As stated several times, my post only intended to address "Olney's Lesions".
"White says:
1. I've talked to several hundred DXM users, and a large number reported disturbing symptoms after long term DXM use"
This is such bad science. Talking to people isn't a reliable way of getting useful information abouat drugs. They may be poly users, they may be teenagers lying to impress their friends. Would you take seriously most of the information you read on the internet from people on message boards? Many people are certain that LSD stays in your spine and when you bend over you start tripping again. It doesn't make it true.
1. I've talked to several hundred DXM users, and a large number reported disturbing symptoms after long term DXM use"
This is such bad science. Talking to people isn't a reliable way of getting useful information abouat drugs. They may be poly users, they may be teenagers lying to impress their friends. Would you take seriously most of the information you read on the internet from people on message boards? Many people are certain that LSD stays in your spine and when you bend over you start tripping again. It doesn't make it true.
zorn
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2001
- Messages
- 5,636
Cokeboy, I have to disagree. While Mr. White's article indeed isn't a referenced scientific article (neither are our posts!) he does come to a fairly justified conclusion.
There aren't any case reports of Olney's lesions in humans, but this means little. You might notice that NMDA antagonist excitoxicity and the corresponding lesions were only really worked in 1987 -- dissociatives have been around a lot longer than that. You have to be looking especially for this type of damage to find it. And moreover I'd imagine there's no way to see it short of cutting open the brain and examining tissue slices, meaning it can't be done in live animals, let alone live humans.
And AFAIK, no one has bothered studying the brains of dead heavy K users...
I can tell you, though, that NMDA antagonist neurotoxicity IS considered a real problem, applicable to humans, in the medical research community. NMDA antagonists look exceedingly promising as possible treatments for brain trauma (stroke), and there's a lot of concern that they might be neurotoxic. There are an astounding number of articles on the mechanisms behind this neurotoxicity and possible ways of blocking it. See [1-3] for example.
From my reading, I would say that it's actually quite likely that "Olney's lesions" show up in the human brain as well. From Kornhuber and Weller below:
There aren't any case reports of Olney's lesions in humans, but this means little. You might notice that NMDA antagonist excitoxicity and the corresponding lesions were only really worked in 1987 -- dissociatives have been around a lot longer than that. You have to be looking especially for this type of damage to find it. And moreover I'd imagine there's no way to see it short of cutting open the brain and examining tissue slices, meaning it can't be done in live animals, let alone live humans.
And AFAIK, no one has bothered studying the brains of dead heavy K users...
I can tell you, though, that NMDA antagonist neurotoxicity IS considered a real problem, applicable to humans, in the medical research community. NMDA antagonists look exceedingly promising as possible treatments for brain trauma (stroke), and there's a lot of concern that they might be neurotoxic. There are an astounding number of articles on the mechanisms behind this neurotoxicity and possible ways of blocking it. See [1-3] for example.
From my reading, I would say that it's actually quite likely that "Olney's lesions" show up in the human brain as well. From Kornhuber and Weller below:
I'm not saying everyone should have some deep fear of Olney's Lesions. I'm saying White clearly has greater experience in this area than any of us, and I think it would be foolish to so casually dismiss everything he has written as 'bad science'.
I don't see how you can say talking to drug users isn't a valid way of getting information about drugs and their effects; by that logic, why should I even listen to what you're saying? Maybe you're just saying it to "be cool"...
Am I the only one that statement seems rediculous to?
This guy has talked to many, many people, he has been researching this stuff for a long time, and it's clear he takes what he tells people seriously. That's one of the main reasons I am inclined to respect what he has to say: he presents the information based on everything he's seen, and lets people draw their own conclusions. If this method of communication is considered flawed and unscientific, I am unable to understand why. Don't fall victim to thinking that because you cannot explain something, it can't be true; the whole cannot be whole because the pieces don't seem to add up. The more sure you are of an unknown based on past experience, the more you simply highlight your own ignorance.
Though it can be comforting to have unwavering faith in science, that comfort is ultimately an illusion. Science is no more objective than opinion, and in many ways far less. You can't reduce the world down to an unchanging model, you can't credit any one type of perception with more validity than any other without bias to begin with.
With that said, I still think White is more thoroughly scientific in his writing than any of us are. If you apply the criticisms used here against him to this very discussion, is it just me, or does it seem like the joke is on us?
I don't see how you can say talking to drug users isn't a valid way of getting information about drugs and their effects; by that logic, why should I even listen to what you're saying? Maybe you're just saying it to "be cool"...
Am I the only one that statement seems rediculous to?
This guy has talked to many, many people, he has been researching this stuff for a long time, and it's clear he takes what he tells people seriously. That's one of the main reasons I am inclined to respect what he has to say: he presents the information based on everything he's seen, and lets people draw their own conclusions. If this method of communication is considered flawed and unscientific, I am unable to understand why. Don't fall victim to thinking that because you cannot explain something, it can't be true; the whole cannot be whole because the pieces don't seem to add up. The more sure you are of an unknown based on past experience, the more you simply highlight your own ignorance.
Though it can be comforting to have unwavering faith in science, that comfort is ultimately an illusion. Science is no more objective than opinion, and in many ways far less. You can't reduce the world down to an unchanging model, you can't credit any one type of perception with more validity than any other without bias to begin with.
With that said, I still think White is more thoroughly scientific in his writing than any of us are. If you apply the criticisms used here against him to this very discussion, is it just me, or does it seem like the joke is on us?
As any doctor will tell you, taking peoples word for what is wrong with them isn't a very reliable way of diagnosing. Especially self-diagnosed "brain damage".
Taking Whites word is like taking the word of L Ron Hubbard or any other charlatan. Buried beneath a thousand lies you may find a word of truth. I'd rather just read someone who knows what they are talking about.
Taking Whites word is like taking the word of L Ron Hubbard or any other charlatan. Buried beneath a thousand lies you may find a word of truth. I'd rather just read someone who knows what they are talking about.
Jabberwocky
Frumious Bandersnatch
- Joined
- Nov 3, 1999
- Messages
- 84,998
^
|
Charlatan? Dude... what the heck are you talking about? How on earth can you believe that somehow William White benefits from what he wrote in his FAQ? What is this conspiracy you imagine he is attempting to spread?
Long ago, the tobacco industry also made statements that concluded that there had yet to be any "Hard" data suggesting a health risk associated with smoking... Some physicians actually bought into it, most new better from what they observed in there clinical practice. Keep this in mind before you choose to blindly believe in the safety of something simply because it has not yet been unequivocally proven damaging.
Caution, moderation, and commonsense may save you a lot of grief down the road.
SG
|
Charlatan? Dude... what the heck are you talking about? How on earth can you believe that somehow William White benefits from what he wrote in his FAQ? What is this conspiracy you imagine he is attempting to spread?
Long ago, the tobacco industry also made statements that concluded that there had yet to be any "Hard" data suggesting a health risk associated with smoking... Some physicians actually bought into it, most new better from what they observed in there clinical practice. Keep this in mind before you choose to blindly believe in the safety of something simply because it has not yet been unequivocally proven damaging.
Caution, moderation, and commonsense may save you a lot of grief down the road.
SG
You're insane. Where you come up with this shit, I have no idea.
Don't stop writing it though, it's fucking hillarious!
Here's an idea for your next post: Shulgin is secretly in league with the ghost of Adolf Hitler, who has plans to create a new super compound 2G-Z-9 .... but why?
Don't stop writing it though, it's fucking hillarious!
Here's an idea for your next post: Shulgin is secretly in league with the ghost of Adolf Hitler, who has plans to create a new super compound 2G-Z-9 .... but why?