• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

NEWS: Report of Ecstasy Drug's Great Risks Is Retracted 06/09/03

En_warp said:
Does that mean they beleive one dose of methamphetamine can cause brain damage?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Wait until you cite a paper with this conclusion where the research involves specific aims e.g. "The longterm effects from a single administration of methamphetamine on dopaminergic neurons in the basal ganglia" or something like that, but not as a side conclusion to already flawed study observing the actions of another substance.


From the article:

His laboratory made "a simple human error," he said. "We're scientists, not politicians."
Click to expand...

Either way his credibility is shot now .....hmmph...methamphetamine...wrong vial... call yourself scientists...bah!

So let's now get on with the REAL research
 
Last edited:
Hehe, my favourite line
Asked why the vials were not checked first, he answered: "We're not chemists. We get hundreds of chemicals here. It's not customary to check them."
Click to expand...
HAHAHHAHAHAH@!!@#!@$(*
 
"We're not chemists. We get hundreds of chemicals here. It's not customary to check them."
Click to expand...

- wish I could use that same excuse to explain why I haven't bothered to buy a pill tester yet!
 
I know all about how this happens. Recently while in the Uni lab I grabbed a jar of KOH instead of NaOH, which meant my molar concentration of OH- was low and the reaction didn't go as expected. Still, rather than assume something had been discovered, I backtracked and the error was easy to find.

I don't wish to imply my research was in this class, but if a researcher finds results other than those expected, especially if an anomaly occurs, mistakes as "picking up the wrong bottle" should be easily verified. I find it a little hard to believe it was missed altogether, but if it was, what does this say for their team's other lab procedures?

Nope, Mr Ricaurte and his team are finished amongst credible circles IMO. Hopefully the publishers also have red faces, which will likely mean he'll never receive endorsement again.
 
The damage has already been done. More people in the public would have read the article claiming how MDMA causes brain damage and have that fixed in there head.
 
^^^^ OT: It happens in politics every day. eg. A while back, during a massive Israeli incursion into the Jenin refugee camp to round up terrorists, Palestinians claimed something like 500 innocent people were killed. This was all over the news, all over the world. Sometime later when an unbiased international investigation team was put together, it was discovered that something like 50 people were killed, more than half of which were armed terrorists. This finding was hardly publicised. Obviously because it does not carry a dramatic enough ring to it.
 
it gets even more rediculous.......

according to the herald today (havent read the original report myself), 2 of the 10 baboons died after the second dose. 2 more were too sick to take the 3rd dose.
hmmmm, maybe one of the reasons is because they INJECTED it as well.

so forgetting the "mislabeling" part, 4 of the animals tested couldnt even complete the 3 "average" doses that the test was meant to, umm, test.


Does this seem like a fair test for the average Joe Ravers night out? Ive never died or injected, so i have my suspicions!



Wanna know what i think happened? some students from the John Hopkins university thought the best way to get some decent pills was to fake a nice study, and swap the good shit for some crap they had themselves. Lets face it, the test was flawed from its very inception. And the fact that the results were apparently used in debates in the US congress only adds to my suspicions.

Makes u wonder, doesnt it?
 
don't wish to imply my research was in this class, but if a researcher finds results other than those expected, especially if an anomaly occurs, mistakes as "picking up the wrong bottle" should be easily verified. I find it a little hard to believe it was missed altogether, but if it was, what does this say for their team's other lab procedures?
Click to expand...

IMHO: ... also if a researcher finds they get results that ARE expected, or that prove a hypothesis, then they should triple-check.

BigTrancer :)
 
Is the issue 'should a mistake like that have happened' or 'why wasn't a mistake like that realised before the study was published'?
Human error is always going to occur, but come on.....
 
IMO everyone wants to make a big call, and get credit for it. Especially with MDMA, where there is more speculation than proof. We truly are a generation of guinea pigs I guess.

The best way to determine how damaging MDMA can be in the long-tem would be to come back to this forum in about 20 or 30 yrs and check out the general coherency of all the posts ;)

=D
 
Lady on the radio - neurological researcher

"The damage of MDMA on the human brain has still not been conclusively proven."

- ill use that as my excuse to keep poppin!
 
Just to keep things in perspective: There is little doubt MDMA is neurotoxic. This was concluded way before Ricaurte. The fundamental unanswered questions at present are:
  • Just what are the exact mechanisms involved in the toxicity?
  • What amount is a toxic dose?
  • What does long term, heavy or binge use do?
  • How long does the damage last - is it permanent?
 
Talk about a death sentence!

No wonder the poor baboons died or were extremely sick!!

As I understand it, for an average sized person the dose given would have been around 120-130mg of PURE methamphetamine INJECTED into them, 3 times over 9 hours.
Assuming they had little to no tolerance it is a given that some died.
Who is running around injecting half a gram of street grade crystal meth (e.g the recent ice rumoured to be around 80% pure) over only a third of a day!?

That sort of initial dose injected would kill the majority of people on this site. And for those troopers that did survive good luck dealing with the second or third round when the initial dose would still be powering on!
It also is not suprising that severe dopamine damage may have been done - because methamphetamine severely effects dopamine! MDMA does not.

Really it just blows the whole experiment out of the water and any alternate value to methamphetamine it may have as there is no way those sort of doses would be used for meth if you were trying to be realistic - even with MDMA it is too high.


What a deplorable error.
 
Lets not all forget that every drink of alcahol also causes permanant brain dame. They prefer to call it "loss of brain cells" but its the same thing...

Its media scaremongering......... a lot of things kill your brain..... alcahol, drugs, time....
 
Yes but there has been a lot more research done with legal drugs especially alcohol. MDMA is a very new drug in this respect.

But little human research has been on most rec. drugs with the exception of LSD and possibly DMT. Cannabis of course has received more attention recently but no studies have been done on long term effects of MDMA as even the few early pill gobblers who still regularly indulge have only been doing it for ~25 years. Lots yet to discover.
 
in regards to that study - wtf?

i thought successful experimental design concentrated on REPEATABILITY. Why the fuck didn't they repeat the exp a few times before telling the world that shit? and if they did, how could they have picked up the wrong bottle like five times?? Fucking retards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top