Report of Ecstasy Drug's Great Risks Is Retracted

Jasbird Jasbird#dead-mail-box# at
Mon Sep 8 03:12:08 EST 2003

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:04:18 -0400, "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski"
<rfgdxm at> wrote:

>Masonic wrote:
>>> It's Dr. Q's and Stovall's claim about 'research fraud', it's
>>> up to them to produce the evidence about "whether it's true or
>>> not".
>> Focus on the topic at hand: how you know that Ricaurte did not
>> exaggerate his results.  Nothing that anyone else has said is at
>> issue or in question here.
>> Now, the question that was asked of you is a direct question and is
>> in no way rhetorical: how do you know whether the results of this,
>> now disgraced, paper were not exaggerated by the authors?
>   If so, then why would the authors publicly admit they screwed up and
>gave the monkeys meth instead of MDMA? It looks like an honest mistake.

How do you make that kind of mistake?  These are controlled substances
and are, presumably, kept in locked cabinets or safes.

The only way such a mistake could have occurred is by a) sabotage, b)
fraud or c) an irresponsible disregard for the truth. I don't see how
honest mistakes come into - only dishonest ones.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list