Report of Ecstasy Drug's Great Risks Is Retracted

GEM webmaster at
Mon Sep 8 15:00:16 EST 2003

"Peter H. Proctor" <drp at> wrote in message
news:2tiplv0femu5ralteh8e35u3c710c3ero6 at
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:09:31 GMT, Jasbird
> <> wrote:
> >On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 12:42:51 -0400, "rfgdxm/Robert F. Golaszewski"
> ><rfgdxm at> wrote:
> >
> >>   Consider the following possibility. A shipment of 200 mg of MDMA, and
> >>200 mg of methamphetamine, comes in the same say. They are mislabeled
> >>and stored.
> >
> >How could they have been mislabeled?  The bottles containing the drugs
> >already had labels on them when they left the manufacturer. It would
> >be an offence to supply them otherwise - would it not?
>       Absolutely.   The bottles would have been labled at the
> manufacturer.  None of this stuff moves without a label and all sorts
> of paperwork,  particularly a class-1 drug like ecstasy.
>      E.g., someone at the manufacturer would have had to fill a
> mislabled bottle of _both_ products separately.   The chances of this
> are small.   The only other possibility is that the bottles were
> filled before the labels were attached and the labels were attached
> (and interchanged) at the same time.   Otherwise,  the interchange
> happened at the laboratory level.
> >The only mystery is how one mislabels a controlled substance - unless
> >one does so deliberately.  There are major safeguards at the
> >manufacturing site to prevent mislabelling - there would have to be,
> >otherwise they'd not be given a contract to make these drugs.
> We can probably safely assume that the confusion happened at the lab,
> not the manufacturer.   Too many coincidetal things would have had to
> happen for it to be the manufacturer.
> Dr P

The primary reason I think its just plain fraud - timed to allow the Rave
law to pass, then admitted as an "error" - is not the mislabelling, but the
obviously erroneous results.

This man has been studying this drug for how many years - he's been actively
working to demonize the drug - so I find it absurd that he would not
recognise the utterly NEW results from this one test and not realize there
was something amiss.

In my opinion, its the inability to recognize that the test results were
completely different than any similar tests to date that constitutes his
fraud. Its like he had used sulphuric acid instead of Ecstacy and concluded
that Ecstacy disssolves tissues, even while knowing all other tests ever
made showed nothing at all similar. When the finding is completely unlike
all other findings done to date, it behooves the scientist to check his data
and his techniques as well as his ingredients, before announcing the new
findings as factually arrived at.

Mislabelling is merely the "best defense available", and was probably
decided on before the phony experiment even took place, since nobody could
possibly prove otherwise.

This guy is just the government's new Doctor Nahas.
Professional credentials do not imply or imbue a person with honesty.


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list