• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Olney's Lesions - An Examination of the Article

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, I am simply saying White's articles are scientifically weak and I choose not to believe weak science. Ok? I prefer to take my information from reliable sources.
This does not mean i take DXM every day and think it's safe. There is a difference. Please try and grasp this simple fact.
 
Oh... now you're saying that White's comments are only "weak science". Funny, but I could have sworn that you made some sort of comment that went something like:
"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."
Well, we need to first see what data White based his findings on. Calling someone a charlatan or accusing a researcher of "spreading lies" when simply trying to raise awareness for the potential of discociative induced neurotoxicity is just not right... nor is it constructive.
SG
 
I don't know what you are talking about but when someone is using bad science and cloaking it with definitive statements like "The bad news is in", they are obviously charlatans. They are making statements which have no supporting evidence.
In science if you arn't able to quote your sources of your information so others can inspect them you arn't even considered a scientist. You are considered a fraud. Evidence such as "I have had a lot of anonymous people tell me this" is worthless on every level. Please familarise yourself with the basics of the scientific method and you'll be able to grasp my point.
 
Just ignore him, you can tell he even realized how dumb his point was - now he's just switching it around and trying to rationalize it for the sake of not being wrong.
 
Yes moron. How old are you? 11? 12 at most?
Now run along before i muss up your hair.
 
MoFo_S - I've done a bit of research. I've determined that during periods when vanilla ice cream consumption rises, on average more damage is done to outer-layer skin cells. As vanilla ice cream consumption decreases, so does the rate of damage.
Now, I haven't actually SEEN the damage, I've mostly just talked to people who tell me about itchiness and a general darkening of the skin.
My conclusion, after much research - vanilla ice cream causes skin cancer.
THAT is a misapplication of the scientific method. The real cause - that vanilla ice cream consumption rises for the same reason that damage rises (it's SUMMER and people wear less) is missed because the author decided beforehand what the end result should be, and interpreted the data to arrive at that conclusion.
That type of analysis is found in the Olney's Lesion article.
Now, that's not to say there isn't a danger to be wary of. But we should spend our time worrying about the real dangers associated with DXM/Ketamine abuse (the symptoms noted) and quit harping about little holes in our brains.
[ 10 April 2002: Message edited by: Cokeboy ]
 
But cokeboy, he's just trying to spread "awareness" by spreading stories with no scientific basis whatsoever. He should be applauded.
All we need is that "evidence" he's based his olneys conclusions on...if only he'd let someone see it...
 
Originally posted by mll:
Yes moron. How old are you? 11? 12 at most?
Now run along before i muss up your hair.
LOL.
Um... MORON... he was refering to YOU, not me!
ANYWAY... first let me say that I actually AM a scientist - verifiable both by my profession and by my education. (No, I am not bullshitting you... ask around the board). I live, eat and breathe the scientific method and actually spend the better part of my days sorting through clinical data in the field of neurology and immunology determining primary and secondary endpoints, P values, specific study design and execution to analyze the potency of the data at hand. Part of my job as a research consultant is to work closely with physicians and present such data so that they can best understand its implications and effectively use it to optimize how, when and to what extent they treat their patients. From here, the physician takes the data and explains in layman's terms what it means to their patient.
Physicians don't give you a clinical study along with your Rx for erythromycin. Physicians also dont take the time to explain the statistical significance of the figures for recurrent myocardial infarctions in post stroke patients when they tell your dad to take an aspirin once a day to prevent future ischemic events.
This is how we need to look at William White's FAQ. It is NOT a clinical study. It is an essay that is based upon the research that White has reviewed, as well as his first hand experience (Which ANY physician will tell you is an important part of gauging both the pathology of a disease as well the efficacy of a medication). There is nothing wrong with questioning White's comments - just like there is nothing wrong with questioning your doctor when he writes you a Rx for Zoloft instead of Paxil or Prosac. It IS however, wrong to walk away from the doctor thinking he is an idiot/charlatan/part of some grand conspiracy simply because he didnt take the opportunity (and you never asked him/her)to share with you the scientific "nuts and bolts" of his conclusions.
Think of who that FAQ was meant for. If I handed 99% of the members of this board a copy of a peer reviewed scientific paper from the Archives of Neurology journal they wouldn't even know which way to hold it, let alone decifer it's key points. If you want to know what science White based his FAQ on I suggest you email him - it would be a whole lot more constructive and it would make you look a lot less ignorant that choosing to call him an idiot and carelessly attempting to discredit his overall message of caution and moderation.
SG
Click to expand...
 
LOL.
Er..are you tripping? (why do you think I called him a moron?)
Doh!
 
You are missing the point. No doctor would say "the bad news is in" without having damn good information to back his statement up. White doesn't do this. He says "the bad news is in" and then never delivers any science to back it up.
 
Why haven't the studies done that showed that Olney's lesions don't form in primates been published? Hmmm... Maybe those studies were "less than scientific".
Pure
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top