Talk:George A. Ricaurte

POV-check

I think anyone reading this article would agree it has some huge problems. From typos, to basically not making much sense. It needs looked at and fixed by someone familar with the article's topic and some free time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.35.11.13 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Dr. Ricaurte received his M.D. and Ph.D. from University of Chicago, not a pharmacology Doctorate (pharm.D.) This article has been edited numerous times by animal testing critics (I'm niether condoning or condemning) as well as MDMA proponents. Though the research may be controversial on many levels, this is a researcher that is trying to determine whether this drug harms or alters humans brains. Please search for Una McCann and/or George Ricaurte in PUBMED for numerous and consistent findings of significant effects of MDMA. 69.251.55.57 02:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally am the user that added the paragraph on various factors regarding animal testing and i am myself a proponent of responsible animal testing and its great value... so nominating this article for dismissal as it defends anti-vivisectionism is ridiculous... The last paragraph clearly defends animal testing if one bothers to read or understand it. So this actually calls into question even the designation of any article on wikipedia being perused for non-neutrality for "anti-animal testing". Can only the animal testing proponents have our say? And always someone against be prevented from having their say on wikipedia? I would say yes, partially at least, this should be the case...yet i firmly believe in the scientific value of responsible animal testing...this last paragraph was an attempt to bring the two sides more together and get the animal testers to better use their animal experimentees properly and wisely so as to provoke less controversy...Benjiwolf 14:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

there is no getting around the fact that mdma was switched for crystal meth in the one experiment he is really known to people for...and there are only three possiblilies...deliberate error...or accidental error on the part of supplier or scientist...to list the three possibilities is totally legitimate...yet most all as regards mr ricaurte is being removed as what is of interest and importance is what relevance this has to the scientific community...he himself is totally irrelevant...issues of bias in pharamcology or as to better research protocols for toxicity testing are invaluable to dwell upon...and should remain...to remove them is pure politics and a blow to science...

I had never heard of Ricaurte until I read this article, and have no position either way on his work. What I had heard of is our policy on writing about living people. To quote from that, "Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately". Unless and until reliable sources are added, I will continue to revert this article back to the stubbed version. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

not to mention Wikipedia is not a battle ground and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. i don't really care so much about this page on Ricaurte but these attacks are also being promulgated over on the MDMA entry. that's a problem. on the other hand i do concur about Ricaurte's academic credentials, you might as well get it right. a PhD is a doctorate of philosophy, in his case awarded for studies in the pharmacology graduate program, a PharmD is different. and yes it is relevant that he's an MD. it is just petty not to get this right, esp since you link to his CV.Blackrose10 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

attacks???

the fact is no one attacked ricaurte until his studies showed they were falsified whether deliberate or intentional is a matter of public debate...and anyways they didnt attack him, just his work and studies...no one is making claims about his personal life or something...it is entirely appropriate after a publicized scandal to mention it on his wikipedia page or on the mdma page...in fact it is mandatory...head over to Lisa Nowaks page now and say it is all an attack, that tag up above belongs on her page, and not this page which has always only discussed his work & studies...wikipedia has an obligation even to bring these high profile scandals to light...they are not attacks...and no one, including ricaurte, or the supplier reasearch triangle, or the DEA that oversaw his supply, has a right to block this public information from being also on wikipedia, that is reminiscent of some Nixon era cover-up & wikipedia is not a stooge...when a highly publicized scandal comes to light wikipedia can report on it...even if its a personal one such as lisa nowaks...Benjiwolf 17:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

you (and i take it you are taking credit for this stuff) are attacking his professional conduct, not merely his findings and mistake. the tone is to question his veracity. hence "ad hominem attacks". this is perhaps relevant on this page, not at all so over on the MDMA page. I agree with you that there is no reason to "block this information". The problem is that it is irrelevant/inappropriate over on the MDMA page and no matter where presented needs to be in NPOV. I'll use your example of Lisa Nowaks. note that the entry presents her pre-scandal professional behavior neutrally, as it does the scandal itself. admittedly her defense is not available yet, for obvious reasons, but Ricaurte's IS. Presentation of NPOV fact stops there. Where one tends to err is concentrating on one side of things to present a view of Ricaurte as if he is defined only by the scandal and a "suspicion" of all of his work, see the Doblin thing that remains in there for some odd reason.Blackrose10 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

in fact his page has been watered down so that it is a very weak page, one could easily justify a long discussion about his work and its potential illegitamcy...im not interested right now...when he dies off then we can actually say what we think of his research i suppose...until then...boooo...hands off...PS...im removing the "article supports anti-animal testing" tag...that is ridiculous, and it always was just an attempt to deflect all crtical review on this page...Benjiwolf 17:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

and what on earth relevance is an animal rights' debate here? goodness gracious do you even read the documentation on what Wikipedia is supposed to do and accomplish and, especially, What-Wikipedia-Is-Not?Blackrose10 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

i dont think you follow...try and understand...its simple...someone placed an "this article supports anti-animal testing tag" on this page...so i was forced to argue stating that this was ridiuclous..i just removed that tag as it was ridiculous...if you feel it should go back in then be my guest...if you do (a more coherrent tag would be "this article is anti-vivisectionist")... if you wish to replace that tag i just removed, and wish to continue the argument someone started, that this article somehow denounces animal testing...Benjiwolf 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

as to ricaurte being mentioned on the mdma page...i havnt really looked closely at what it says...i will...yet the fact that he is one of the main scientists that came out with anti-mdma studies means it should mention him...that it was later found the test material was switched in one of his studies also deserves mention as its casts at least some doubt on all his studies...bottom line is this...he used massive doses of mdma to try and state normal doses would be harmful...this apparently wasnt enough for that side and test material was switched (by him? by someone else?...an honest mistake that just worked out in his favor to show it really was so deadly??...i dont know...you have to judge that)...anyways the rick doblin critique of ricaurte is weak...i can find you all sorts of other critiques of ricaurte that are much firmer in totally denouncing him...we just kept the doblin critique as it was the weakest one there...and bottom line: .....for your chems that end up in my water, sure i want severe testing methods, i want to know if there is the slightest chance that crap will damage me...for chems u take voluntarily that arent aerially sprayed its time to get real and use appropriate doses in looking for damage, the heavy doses just point out possible pathways, they tell you little to nothing about actual damage from typically used dose...anyways this page was heavily watered down and articles critical of ricaurte were removed...doblin is the last to stand...and you want to remove it???...personally i dont care about ricaurtes page much...no one will hardly ever look at it...yet this incident from one of the main anti-mdma people (ricaurte) stays on the mdma page...yet i dont need to defend that...you have a bunch of editors there already that will...and i want valid scientific critique of mdma on its page...i want to see exactly its possible toxicities and how these are effected from its biochemical nature...because bottom line is this: it has minor toxicity in just a few pathways...we can easily engineer around that and block any possible toxic effects...its not like alcohol where people are getting into fights and beating their wives and husbands on it and which will be more complicated to block the toxicity of...once any possible mdma toxicty is blocked...it becomes completely innocuous...and people arnt going to spray it by the millions of pounds all over the place either...Benjiwolf 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

many of the major conclusions that might be drawn from Ricaurte's work with MDMA in animal models have been supported by independent replications in other research groups. thus it is not legitimate to suggest that his one screw up questions the outcome of such prior work. This applies to the Ricaurte entry. A similar approach is even worse on the MDMA page because it further creates the impression that either all of that other work doesn't exist or should be questioned. There is not even a hint of neutrality in such an approach. A critique of Ricaurte's work might be "firm" in "denouncing" him but for it to be anything other than a personal attack there had better be some evidence. You want to question his veracity as a scientist, fine, show the misrepresentation. In the case of the 2002 paper, he would have known that lots of labs would have immediately tried to replicate, failed and called his paper out. That's the way the scientific system works. So I think it highly unlikely this was a deliberate fraud of the type you suggest. There are likely questionable behaviors in this whole thing, intentional drug switching by Ricaurte was very unlikely to be one of them. nevertheless, you, me, his friends or enemies....nobody can prove exactly what occurred. luckily, we have NPOV to fall back on. keep it neutral is my suggestion. present facts. all of them. leave the interpretation and opinions to the reader. Blackrose10 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i agree on keeping a neutral presentation...as we simply wont, and will never, know exactly what happened with that experiment...and at least he came out and retracted it and admitted mistake...as to his other experiments...i dont really think its the actual outcomes & reproduceability people are questioning...its his conclusions...and his tailoring of his studies...sure...if i repeatedly overdose a rat with mdma using massive doses its not gonna be too good for the rat...im not questioning the reprouceability of that...just like if i repeatedly overdosed it with aspirin it would be toxic to the rat...i think what people are saying is that this ultimate example of just switched test material (no matter who or accident)...somehow leads to the conclusion that ricaurtes work is biased somehow...my own conclusion???...of course its biased, ive seen his studies, he argues for one side in the debate, and i dont think he tries to hide that either, yet that doesnt mean all of his conclusions are wrong, or he doesnt have some good work, or that hes not a decent guy...hes helped elucidate the pathways mdma toxicity might occur and how it achieves its medicinal effects...thats great...hes helped show that too much mdma is definitely neurotoxic at some level (no one is quite sure of though)(likely certainly toxicity begins above a 200mg human dose for adult male, 150 mg dose for female, yet of course weight is a factor and individual biochemistry of the individual is a factor, if you just ate, etc etc, and anyways really we dont exactly know what size dose is completely non-toxic even to a standard weight & biochemistry type, mainly because not many people have carried out enough experiments yet, especially trying to prove position of it not being toxic)(i would say anyone taking more than 150mg is flirting with danger, and its unecessary anyways to exceed such a level, unless your a 500 pound giant, if you need much greater than this it means u have likely just recently taken mdma and should give urself some rest, your better off with a five course dinner than another mdma pill, & for most people a 100-125mg dose achieves full effect, most info and study i have seen states 100-150mg achieves full effect, more than that even just can impair effect)...anyways his research can in turn give us ideas of how to block toxicty or prevent it, or give antidotes to an overdose...the bulk of his research should stand...yet people have to realize that he comes out trying to prove it is toxic even at low levels...thats his bias...and thats what science is all about...you either believe something...or doubt something...then you set out to prove your position...sometimes you are correct...sometimes you are wrong...sometimes you are actually pleased with the fact you are wrong...thats science...yet a switched study???, that helps no one, and can waste peoples time on all sides doing studies that follow the false results, i tend to think maybe it was an accident or overzealous DEA person rather than ricaurte himself when i think of it now, yet i really just dont know...Benjiwolf 14:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i have a problem with your use of "bias". the fact of the matter is that you could level a similar charge against just about every scientist who has been active long enough to generate a research program. science proceeds by testing hypotheses, meaning the individual scientist say "I think X is so, now how can I test this". The "think" is based on prior evidence including that from their own work. After a while and with enough support hypotheses come to be viewed as nearing an approximation of fact by varying numbers of people. Meanwhile there is usually a debate coming from other scientists who believe some other hypotheses which may be overlapping or exclusive, creating competing studies. eventually, much is understood about a given topic because of different people pursuing different approaches and hypotheses. this is a good process. but to say that someone is "biased" because they happen to believe their own results and are trying (in a presumed good faith) to further explain the "how" and "why" is unfair. there are a couple of groups that, at the moment, are pursuing effects of MDMA that occur at much lower doses in animal models. are they "biased" because their studies are based around thought similar to yours, i.e., that it is important to study effects at human-identical doses? laboratory science is, at heart, motivated by a personal decision as to what is interesting. it may not coincide with your opinion. this doesn't mean it is "biased", "flawed" or any other such pejorative. your statement above suggests you understand this. if so, why is it so critical to focus on this one part of Ricaurte's record? he obviously believes that MDMA is toxic. he's essentially dedicated his life to provide evidence for this and the mechanisms by which toxicity might occur. those that want to create internationally available critique of him might want to ask themselves what they've contributed to the question of MDMA toxicity other than carping from the sidelines. let's take a flip-side example, Rick Doblin. You might say that he's the mirror of Ricaurte, firmly convinced that MDMA is perfectly safe under certain use conditions and obsessed with turning it into an FDA-approved medication. there are a ton of behaviors he engages in, statements on MAPS sites, etc that could be viewed as "bias". yet are there personal attacks on his wikipedia entry? suggestions that his approach is all cynically motivated by a "legalize- eeet, mon" approach? obsessively identifying where his beliefs and statements are clearly at odds with good data? if some anti-MDMA type were to get a bee in the bonnet about Doblin would you support including such "relevant information" on his entry?Blackrose10 17:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on George A. Ricaurte. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,62506,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)