Report of Ecstasy Drug's Great Risks Is Retracted
Jasbird#dead-mail-box# at myrealbox.com
Mon Sep 8 08:58:52 EST 2003
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 05:47:03 -0400, "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski"
<rfgdxm at vivisectSPAMMERSmochamail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:04:18 -0400, "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski"
>> <rfgdxm at vivisectSPAMMERSmochamail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>> 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.
> Both would have been locked in the same safe. Someone grabbed the
: Professor Ricaurte admitted that their Ecstasy sample had arrived
: at the laboratory in the same package as another, more potent form
: of amphetamine.
More information about the Neur-sci