Home | Community | Message Board

MushroomMan Mycology
Please support our sponsors.

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
 User Gallery

Registered: 06/02/02
Posts: 1,462
Loc: East Anglia UK
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Second ecstasy paper retracted
    #1932477 - 09/19/03 03:03 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

Independent inquiry demanded into Ecstasy affairBlakemore demands independent inquiry from Science, second paper also retracted | By Robert Walgate

An editor of the European Journal of Pharmacology, F.P. Nijkamp of Utrecht University, confirmed today that a paper published by George Ricaurte and colleagues last year in the journal would be retracted.

"Dr Ricaurte has recently asked us to retract his paper Europ. J. of Pharmacol. 453, 239-244, 2002, which will be done," said Nijkamp in an e-mail to The Scientist.

Ricaurte and colleagues last week retracted a paper published in Science September 2002, which purported to show that the recreational drug Ecstasy (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA) had a destructive effect on the dopaminergic neurons of primates' brains, and could therefore predispose takers to Parkinson's disease. The European Journal of Pharmacology paper concerned research in rats, and looked at serotonin receptor densities.

In a separate development, Colin Blakemore, who is to become Chief Executive of the UK's Medical Research Council, wrote yesterday (September 17) to the editor-in-chief of Science, Donald Kennedy, to renew his demand for publication of the referees' reports for Ricaurte's retracted paper, published there last September.

Blakemore also made a new request: that there be an independent inquiry into the whole affair.

The two retractions came about after Ricaurte and his group from Johns Hopkins University discovered that two vials of reagents, one containing MDMA and the other methamphetamine ("speed"), had been mislabelled.

But Blakemore, explicitly supported by the Oxford pharmacologist Les Iversen, takes the issue well beyond this apparently simple misfortune, as The Scientist reported on September 16.

In his latest letter to Kennedy, Blakemore asked some hard questions:

"Since the study was so obviously flawed that even I (not a pharmacologist) picked up the problems as soon as I saw the paper, why were they not detected by the expert peer review that Science employs?

"If the reviewers did express any such concern, why was it overridden by Science? I should mention that Les Iversen, who is, of course, expert in the field, even suggested last September that the results looked more characteristic of amphetamine than of MDMA: the flaw was that obvious to an expert.

"Were mechanisms put in place to check the veracity of press releases associate with papers in Science, after your admission that the release for this paper had been altered in a way that mispresented the findings? If not, will Science now state what mechanisms it will institute to protect the media and the public from mischievous use of media releases in the future?

"Did the fact that 'anti-rave' legislation was being debated in Congress at the time play any part in the editorial decision to publish this paper?

"Will Science itself issue a statement regretting the contribution that this flawed and hyped study must have played in that debate?

"What efforts are being made to discover the true reasons for the use of the wrong drug, and whether any other studies from the Ricaurte lab used the apparently mislabelled drug? When can we expect a public statement from Science on how the group came to use the wrong drug?

"Will Science agree to an independent inquiry into this affair, and make available to that inquiry all the correspondence and other evidence concerning this paper?"

Blakemore goes on to ask Kennedy to publish the referees' reports, and points out a precedent?the so called Puztai affair. "May I mention that the Lancet published all the referees' reports alongside the controversial paper by Arpad Puztai on the claimed toxicity of genetically modified potatoes? That is surely an appropriate precedent for the disclosure of reviews in cases of serious controversy."

Iversen also wrote yesterday in support of Blakemore's stance. "I believe that some further action by Science is needed to disassociate your journal more emphatically from this poor science," he wrote. "Even in the retraction statement published recently the authors continue to maintain that they will in future show that they were right after all, and ecstasy does cause Parkinson's disease!"


B.P Boot et al., "MDMA- and p-chlorophenylalanine-induced reduction in 5-HT concentrations: effects on serotonin transporter densities," Europ. J. Pharmacol. 453:239-244, 2002.

R. Walgate, "Second ecstasy paper to be retracted," The Scientist, September 17, 2003.

G.A. Ricaurte et al., "Retraction," Science, 301:1479, September 12, 2003.

G.A. Ricaurte et al., "Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA ("ecstasy")," Science, 297:2260-2263, September 27, 2002.

R. Walgate, 'Retracted Ecstasy paper "an outrageous scandal'," The Scientist, September 16, 2003.

:sleepingcow:  :penguinmonkey: :blah:


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
creator ofworlds

Registered: 04/11/03
Posts: 693
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Second ecstasy paper retracted [Re: MetaShroom]
    #1935849 - 09/20/03 05:51 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

The sad thing is that this retraction will never get nearly the press coverage of the original article. So the general public is still just going to go around claiming that ecstasy causes parkinsons. The original report will never get lived down and now we have to deal with this rumor just like the ones about how acid has strychnine and rat poison in it.

Just another animal embeded in a technological coral reef extruded psychic objects...

Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top

Registered: 02/28/02
Posts: 2,030
Loc: sailing the seas of chees...
Re: Second ecstasy paper retracted [Re: Demiurge]
    #1945444 - 09/23/03 07:51 PM (18 years, 2 months ago)

at least they are trying to make something big out of this, even if the media is unwilling to cover it properly.

Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Call for legal ecstasy AnnomM 3,050 10 03/10/04 07:35 PM
by DailyPot
* Three charged over $4.5m ecstasy seizure [AU] veggieM 800 0 09/19/05 05:37 AM
by veggie
* Research on Ecstasy Is Clouded by Errors cybrbeast 2,070 3 12/16/03 06:36 AM
by zeta
* Post deleted by Administrator Alien 4,152 9 09/11/03 04:27 PM
by Seuss
* The Peace Drug: Ecstasy (Long but Amazing) wireless 4,483 6 11/26/07 08:16 PM
by wireless
* Ecstasy Is the Key to Treating PTSD veggieM 2,923 6 06/28/08 12:49 AM
by Thrax
* Ecstasy is the key to treating PTSD veggieM 1,864 3 05/04/08 03:15 AM
by Coaster
* Prescription Ecstasy Idiot 2,113 12 12/02/07 11:12 PM
by 2FiNiTe

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: motaman, veggie, karode13, Alan Rockefeller, naum, Mostly_Harmless
1,306 topic views. 2 members, 5 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.