Update 2:38pm — it has been brought to my attention that Ricaurte’s screw up was a “mistake,” rather than an intentional, precalculated deception. As you may well know by now, intent matters to me, so incompetence is sort of a defense in this case, I suppose, but it still sounds pretty shaky at best.
Here’s a great synopsis about it by Derek Lowe. (Note that Derek also agrees with me — that the original results should not have been published at all without first being repeated!)
It’s still irresponsible to publish information that could have such a profound impact on the population without qualifying it first at least twice in one’s own lab. Sloppy research at best. But the stuff I say below was said when I thought there was a deliberate misconception going on. Here’s the original retraction article. Nuff said. There’s more important stuff going on.
So the bozo that scared the world into thinking that one Ecstasy trip could scar your brain for life has admitted that he lied about his test results. (He has officially “retracted” them — and admitted to using other substances on the subjects involved than the substances that were supposed to be the focus of the study. That’s lying!)
Yeah I’ll say it’s “a major flaw in his research” that the research was absent of the the drug he’s supposedly testing.
This guy shouldn’t even be allowed to do research anymore. We don’t need big fat liars like you in Academia buddy. Away with you!
Leave your beaker at the door!
Here’s ABC World News on the subject.
Here’s the report containing some of the lies.
I hope it goes without saying that anything else this guy’s done should be considered suspect as well.
Here’s a clip from the summary I quote above:
But all that said, I have to then turn around and wonder why the original paper was published at all. I was surprised to learn that their results hadn’t been repeated beforehand. You’d think that this would be necessary, given the public health implications of the work and its variance with the results of others in the field. I can’t help but think that the researchers got their original data, thought they had a hot result that would make everyone sit up straight, and got it into publication as fast as they could.
I’m really taken aback to learn that they hadn’t looked at the original monkeys for MDMA levels before. Getting blood samples from monkeys is no easy task, but why wait until there’s a problem to do the post-mortem brain levels? Those numbers really would have helped to shore up the original results – and would have immediately shown that there was a problem, long before the paper was even published. I don’t like to sound this way, but it’s true: in the drug industry, we consider pharmacokinetic data like this to be essential when interpreting an animal study.
http://www.corante.com/pipeline/20030901.shtml#51811
Backing Down, in Public
There’s been a very public retraction of a controversial paper from last year, one which linked MDMA (Ecstasy) to dopamine-linked neuronal damage (and thus possible Parkinson’s disease.) The researchers (at Johns Hopkins) injected monkeys with what they thought was a sample of MDMA and saw clear signs of neurotoxicity.
But the next study, this time via oral dosing with another sample of MDMA, failed to show the effect. So they went back and tried the injection route again, and this time it showed no dopamine-neuron toxicity, either. The discrepancy in the oral versus i.v. dosing would be unexpected, but you could find ways to explain it, if it were a real and reproducible effect. But when the i.v. experiment failed that second time, the authors must have known that they had a real problem.
The vial that the MDMA came from in the first experiment had long since been discarded, but they had a sample of methamphetamine that had been received from the same source at the same time – and it proved, on examination, to contain MDMA instead. That led to suspicions of a label-swapping mistake, and sure enough, examination of the brain samples from the original monkey experiment showed the presence of methamphetamine, but not MDMA. It all fits, and it’s all wrong.
Doubts were expressed, very loud doubts, about the results of the study when it first came out. Other research groups in the field were sceptical, pointing out that there should be a lot more cases of Parkinson’s showing up in the ecstasy-using population, especially considering the doses that some of these folks were exposing themselves to. Those sceptics have been vindicated more thoroughly than they ever could have hoped.
I have several comments on all this. The first thing I need to do is commend the Johns Hopkins people for doing the right thing and retracting their paper. It must have been mighty quiet around the lab for a while after they got the results from that repeat i.v. study. The thought of something like this happening can really keep you up at night.
I’m sure that some people are going to point the finger at this group for not checking the samples of MDMA and methamphetamine. But I can’t fault them so much on that point. In vivo pharmacologists are not chemists, and aren’t expected to assay the samples that they’re dosing. In every drug research project I’ve been on, the animal folks make it clear that they depend on compounds being what the label says they are. They have no way to confirm it themselves. (In this case, Research Triangle Institute, the source of the samples, says that things were fine on their end, as you’d figure they would. Depends on where the label came from on that remaining methamphetamine sample, doesn’t it?)
But all that said, I have to then turn around and wonder why the original paper was published at all. I was surprised to learn that their results hadn’t been repeated beforehand. You’d think that this would be necessary, given the public health implications of the work and its variance with the results of others in the field. I can’t help but think that the researchers got their original data, thought they had a hot result that would make everyone sit up straight, and got it into publication as fast as they could.
I’m really taken aback to learn that they hadn’t looked at the original monkeys for MDMA levels before. Getting blood samples from monkeys is no easy task, but why wait until there’s a problem to do the post-mortem brain levels? Those numbers really would have helped to shore up the original results – and would have immediately shown that there was a problem, long before the paper was even published. I don’t like to sound this way, but it’s true: in the drug industry, we consider pharmacokinetic data like this to be essential when interpreting an animal study.
It’s even more vital when you’re trying to figure out brain effects, since the levels of compounds in the CNS can only be determined by specifically checking there. So, you see brain damage? The next question is “How much compound was there in the brain?” And you don’t go on until you’ve answered it. Perhaps the authors decided to rely on known brain exposures when they ran the study. But those known exposures would have been from studies that didn’t show the neuronal damage. I just can’t find a good excuse here.
The further experiments that disproved the original results are the sort of thing that should have been done before the first paper was published, frankly. Like anyone else in the drug industry, I understand that monkey studies are slow, costly, and hard to get started. But this was an extraordinary claim, and should have been held to a higher standard of evidence. If you live by making a big splash in Science, you may die by the same route.
posted at 9:17 pm
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/references/journal/2002_ricaurte_science_1/2002_ricaurte_science_1_retraction1.shtml
Erowid operates on visitor contributions. Please donate to help support our work.
Retraction of Research Findings
Severe Dopaminergic Neurotoxicity in Primates After a Common Recreational Dose Regimen of MDMA (
Please read that retraction again.
You are deeply mistaken concerning the reasons for the retraction. The use of d-methamphetamine instead of racemic MDMA was due to a labeling mistake with the bottle. This man and his team went to great lengths to discover why their research results did not correspond with others. Have you ever been involved with a drug study on humans? Do you even have any idea of the complexity of such research? Do you have any idea what it takes for an eminent scientist to publically retract their research? For shame.
Dr. Ricaurte and his team are guilty of jumping the gun with their results. A serious charge for sure but not lying. They should have verified their results with another study or waited for another lab to confirm their results. They are guilty of exuberance; of having stars in their eyes. Yet rather than criticize contradictory evidence they did the right thing and retracted their research.
I strongly suggest you follow Dr. Ricaurte’s example and retract your ill-informed statements immediately. The only thing that is obvious here is that you failed to read the entire retraction. Here is an informed comment from someone with actual experience in area.
Backing Down, in Public
Lisa Rein needs to apologize
Lia Rein makes some really imflamatory and deeply misguided statements concerning Dr. Ricaurte’s recent retraction of his study into the long-term neurologic effects of Ecstacy. This guy shouldn’t even be allowed to do research anymore. We don’t need b…
not that big science has ever been truly objective, but the current Bush administration is forcing science to fit its moral and economic agenda. the Bush administration fired as many NSF scientists as it could and replaced them with people that would carry out their agenda. at the current time, drugs, er drugs that don’t make a profit for major campaign donors and friends, are bad so science that shows that drugs are bad is most likely to be funded and see the light of day.
what ever happened to no victim, no crime. why can informed, consenting and responsible adults do whatever they want? the idea that Republicans are for getting the government off our backs is ludicrous. they’re as deep into our brains, bedrooms and behavior as they can get.
Lisa, thank you for amending your statements. It’s vital that we accurately asses Dr. Ricaurte’s inaccuracy. It’s also important that we acknowledge that he did the right thing by retracting his research. You can be sure that Dr. Ricaurte’s reputation has taken a huge hit. The Retraction of peer-reviewed work is very serious thing.
Jeff, your hindsight is somewhat myopic. The pressure on government researchers to avoid studying the positive effects of classified-controlled substances pre-dates the current administration by several presidents. Such pressure is usually quietly applied through the grant process, though. I would agree with you that the current administration has applied more pressure more openly than past administrations.
Is everyone forgetting about the multiple studies that show ecstasy causes significant, long-lasting depletions of brian serotonin neurons in multiple animal species. So what if ecstasy does not cause parkinsons disease, people may still be putting themselves at risk from things such as severe depression just in order to get high. Is that a risk you are willing to let your children make????
Is everyone forgetting about the multiple studies that show ecstasy caused significant, long-lasting depletions of brian serotonin neurons in multiple animal species. So what if ecstasy does not cause parkinsons disease, people may still be putting themselves at risk from things such as severe depression just in order to get high.
Search any engine on the net for “Genocide in America by American Home Products” people! 400 people on the website testify that they have brain damage form taking phen/fen which is the same as ecstacy! I happen to be one of those people who is now be tested for Parkinsons Disease. I have had severe depression and have been suicidal. I was a non-traditional student at one of the top schools in the country. I’ve gone from being nominated for the Truman Award to being unable to follow directive for an exam by my professor because of the memory and cognitive DAMAGE. Dr. Ricaurte was dead on has data to prove that. Continual studies are currenlty going on. Don’t take these drugs!
need more ecstacy? try this:
i was an ecstacy user up until about a year and a half ago. when i first was turned onto it, i guess it was probably around late 1998, i would take one pill not very often (between 1-3 months time). as 1999 wore on, my intake increased to one pill a month or so. as 2000 pushed on, my intake increased to multiple pills (typically 2) in the same night. soon enough i was into many pills in a night… and then again the following weekend… and then the following weekend. then, one night in april 2002, (according to my girlfriend) i had gulped down more than 8 pills in one night. that’s a pill every hour or hour and a half or so for the entire party night and next day. i’m told my final tally was 12 that night and day. trouble.
dehydration, trouble going to sleep (which doesn’t sound so bad, but i’m telling you the experience sucked), couldn’t urinate (because of the dehydration i was sucking down a lot of water, but i couldn’t pee no matter how long i stood at the toilet, no matter how hard i grunted and tried… it was hours and hours into the next day before i was able to pee and i pissed a river that seemed like it wouldn’t ever end), panic attacks, and a ringing in my skull that i have to this day. this ringing sensation will not go away.
so one day not long after that terrible experience i took myself to the local ER. what fun. i checked in at 6PM, didn’t leave until about 2 or 3 in the morning; i was dead last in line. i had x-rays, blood tests and a CT scan… all these tests showed nothing abnormal, yet the ringing in my head was still there. i got a quack doctor who must’ve thought i was deaf because of the ringing; he spoke with an elevated voice, whioch did nothing but aggrevate me. he also spoke loud enough to include the entire floor on what was happening with me.
i’ll be having a brainscan- MRI- done soon. hopefully this will be done by a competent doctor and hopefully we’ll be able to determine what the ringing sensation is and whether or not it can be corrected. i’m thinking i have really screwed myself, so i’m prepared for the worst. alongside this i now have another problem: i call it ‘brain tremors’. i get this split second ‘tremor’, which i can only describe as a sort of pressure in the area of my brain between my ears and temples or just around where my ears are. it feels like a pressure that only lasts a split second, but it’s effect on me is beginning to take it’s toll. it also leaves me with a feeling of having my hearing suddenly dulled for that split second. it’s not really painful, but it is uncomfortable and nerve-wracking, bringing to mind the panic attacks of last year (panic attacks- when i’d lay myself down to sleep, just as i begin to cross from conscious to subconscious, i get a panic attack, which shakes me awake… this would go on for hours each night until i was so tired of trying to sleep that i simply couldn’t sleep). hopefully the MRI will reveal what’s happening in my brain. is this how you want to spend the rest of your life? trust me, i never thought it would come to this. i should have known better than to be eating pills like candy, but when it feels that good you just want more and more. well, it appears as though ‘more and more’ has screwed my skull.
don’t you believe that ecstacy won’t harm you. it will. yes, i abused it and most likely a large percentage of others who use it ‘occasionally’ will find themselves doing what i did and then be sorry about it later. this ringing in my head hasn’t gone away. this is no doubt brain damage and it appears to be permanent. if you are taking ecstacy now, do yourself a favor and stop. the sooner the better. you don’t need it. save yourself some heartache and headache: give it up. just give it up and tell anyone who offers it to you to fuck off.