Jump to content

Talk:Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(William M. Connolley 08:47, 2004 May 14 (UTC)) I split this from the Science (journal) page because it was unbalanced there.

I've also edited para 1 somewhat, to point out that this is not really a peer review problem.

And I've deleted the Blakemore "quote" because as written its impossible to tell whether its a quote, paraphrase, or where Blakemores words end and the editors opinion begins.


"The Ricaurte article was not sensationalized by Science for its implications concerning any pending anti-rave legislation before Congress." This is a POV statement without any qualifications. Or was it supposed to be a quote? 80.203.115.12 13:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article needs renaming

[edit]

The article refers not to the general controversy about MDMA neurotoxicity but a specific issue of "the retracted finding of dopaminergic MDMA toxicity in primates". It should be renamed. I'm not sure how one goes about doing that.

--67.101.96.107 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about supplier

[edit]

As quoted in the article, Holden wrote that the MDMA was supplied by Research Triangle Institute. But in the supporting material by Ricaurte et al.[1] they write that MDMA was obtained from the National Institute of Drug Abuse. Any explanation for this discrepancy?--Custoo (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NIDA presumably does not manufacture chemicals itself. RTI may have been the supplier for NIDA. I haven't looked deeply into this, however. Sizeofint (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]