• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!
  • MDMA Moderators:

MDMA neurotoxicity

BilZ0r said:
That's probably the silliest thing I think I've ever seen you say.
Click to expand...


:)

Yes, Most would be an exaggeration, but some certainly do. Anybody who has done their homework on MDMA neurotoxicity and it's history in the media should see that. It does not seem too difficult for the peer review process to break down when the "peers" reviewing a paper are on one side of a debate...

Anybody remember when Ricaurte injected his monkeys with Meth on accident, reported the neurotoxicity results in a major peer-reviewed journal, and subsequently his backers (NIDA et al) spent $40+ million on an anti ecstacy campaign based on the results? I sure didn't see $40+ million worth of public retractions when Ricaurte was forced to publish his.

How in the heck does one of the longest standing researchers mix up his meth and MDMA vials for multiple doses on multiple subjects? A tad suspicious, as most impartial researchers seemed to agree in their statements on the matter.

Oh, and one more argument to add to this threads maylay of posts about dosing. Anyone remember none other than Ricaurte, who we all know is the DEA and NIDA's pet researcher, establishing a no effect level in primates that is theoretically equitable to around a 300+ mg dose for an 80kg human?

Nothing's sure because not all primate results do carry over to humans, but I do remember Ricaurte being quoted as saying that his own research suggests that humans could use moderate doses a few times a year with no measurable effects.

Oh well, no real human studies so we really don't know a damn thing. Except alcohol causes real brain damage to the dopeaminergic tracts, measured in humans, which has been linked to parkinsonism. Nobody seems to give a damn about that. F*** this chat, let's all relax and go have a pint.

Cheers!
 
Most scientific studies give a result the way the funder wants it

That's probably the silliest thing I think I've ever seen you say.

It's not silly at all. You get hired by the government to do research into Ecstasy and get back to them saying "We believe E can have massive benefits and recommend it's immediate legalisation". Just see whether you ever receive government funding again.

Here's a little clue. You won't.
 
Yes, if you said that you wouldn't get funding, because that's not research, thats a matter of public policy. If you were working for NIDA, and you said that, you would get fired (or sanctioned), because government employees in the US aren't allowed to make statements on policy, it doesn't matter whether it's NIDA or NASA.

Finally, if you were being funded by NIDA, they wouldn't care so long as you don't make a mission of it, and you make it obvious you are just making a personal statement. Check out Lester Grinspoon and whether or not he gets NIDA funding.
 
BilZ0r said:
That's probably the silliest thing I think I've ever seen you say.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but for every study I read about MDMA there could be one that says the opposite.
What I meant to say is it's not hard to prove something out of a bunch of statistics, without saying the whole truth, as that would/might give a conflicting end result. There aren't many studies that are both pro and contra. It seems as if the scientists think there's only one truth possible.
 
Well, it is hard to prove someting out of a bunch of statistics, that's why they do statistical tests.

While of course I don't think that all studies find the truth, or necessarily tell it, just that saying that research finds the answer that "funders want" is absurd. If it was proven you falisfied results, your carrier would be over.

And just because my research today didn't work, I though I'd look up some famous pro-cannabis NIDA funded researchers, like DI Abrams, who got a NIDA grant to see what effects cannabis would have on HIV patients in general, in regards to cannabis treatment [1]. And those studies have been published with pro-cannabis endpoints

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=12412840&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=11872997&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=12412840&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=12965981&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15154108&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum

Indeed, this author has published anti-government articles in pro-drug journals [2].
 
i hate researchers jobs, do they feel no remorse when injecting those little rats with neurotoxic doses of MDMA?

i would gladly let the researchers inject me with endless amounts of MDMA... but these poor rats, they dont get a choice!
 
Last edited:
^ Yeah, well they probably feel bad when they have to do the euthanasia... but those rats aren't little... they'll be 100-200g big fat bastards. But there wont be too much suffering involved... rats wont quite administer 10mg/kg doses, but I don't think they find them aversive (though I could be wrong).
 
BilZ0r said:
How is Ricuarte the DEAs pet researcher?
Click to expand...


NIDA funding, brother. He was, at one time, at the forefront of honest and unbiased research in this field, but I am sure you know of some of his more recent studies.

I have read much skeptical analysis of his results by other researchers, questioning the methodology of his studies and thus the accuracy of the results. DEA loves anything that sways public opinion in the favor of their budget, and considering what NIDA has done with some of Ric-ie's results, I therefore make the assumption that they love him. As a matter of fact, they plur him.

It is too bad that this has happened to the man, he was at one time a great researcher, a pioneer in the field. Nothing worse than a scientist selling out to a special interest. He still turns out some good work, but a little bullshit goes a long way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top