Report of Ecstasy Drug's Great Risks Is Retracted
Peter H. Proctor
drp at drproctor.com
Mon Sep 8 17:35:35 EST 2003
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:00:16 -0400, "GEM" <webmaster at gemsgallery.org>
>"Peter H. Proctor"
>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.
Perhaps he was just delusional. The results were so "right" that
they must be right. Or perhaps somebody else did the switch from the
same motives. There are a lot of true-beleivers in this area, if
you haven't noticed...
>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.
My wild guess is that it was not that well planned.
Remember, this researcher has a long history of putting out stuff on
ecstasy that nobody can replicate.. Perhaps he thought he could get
away with it one more time. Meanwhile, it was bringing lots of
grant money, public attention, etc..
You can do this for quite a while. Look at the case of Heirick
Schon at Bell labs. That was in physics, where stuff is much easier
to replicate than in neurobiolgy.
Schon published for years, was in line for a Nobel, and was
caught almost accidentally. And even then, it took a while to work
out the details. See my webpage on this case at
This page also has several links to discussions on Science fraud in
general. Just perhaps, this is going to be another one. It sure
has similarlities to some others. Unlike Schon, this guy did real
harm to real people by his misrepresentations.
More information about the Neur-sci