When are journals going to demand more rigor before allowing publications? An n=3 and it's declared that Ibogaine leads to Mania? What?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih....med/?term=ibogaine+mania

Where do they say that Ibogaine leads to Mania?



It's just 3 cases, so what? Don't publish it? I think the old saying goes like: one swallow does not make a spring. And 3 cases don't make an impactful paper.

I forget where, but there's a new law in one state that is introducing a bill to jail all mothers of newborns for having: cocaine, meth, heroin, LSD, mushrooms and/or marijuana in their system.

This bothers me greatly considering there are no controlled scientific observations that conclude that lsd, mushrooms, or marijuana have any negative affect on pregnancy or delivery, for the baby or for the mother.

A study was done long ago about how a certain range of drugs was bad for pregnancy, but there was never any isolated control for marijuana. There was no distinction made between mothers who used marijuana only, and mothers who used marijuana in conjunction with other more serious drugs like meth and cocaine.

The results of the study, though, 'concluded' that marijuana was harmful - that dogma still lives on today.

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but I'm with Joe. The scientific community has the ability to literally make people believe things that aren't true. It just depends on what type of press it gets.

But I don't think journals are going to 'require more rigor' anymore than law enforcement will 'crack down on police brutality'.

No, it's not the scientific community, it's the dummies who present a paper in a false way. No scientist in their right mind would take a sample of n=3 seriously. That's why most popular 'science' outlets are complete garbage. Reading the paper =! reading the dumbed down version on MSNBC/you name it.

Case series are nothing new, they do it all the time, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22205276

Btw, it's useful to know that there may be a certain danger associated with Ibogaine intake. Like it is useful to know, that certain individuals are sensitive to hallucinogens and may develop a temporary psychosis. So if you have a n=3 case study with your newest hallucinogenic RC e.g. "3 guys fell into a coma when they OD on 2C-XYZ", that doesn't mean that all users of 2C-XYZ will fall into a coma. But a certain danger may be given under certain circumstances, hopefully presented in an exhaustive manner in the paper.

But of course, news outlet GARBAGE-KTL will trumpet: 2C-XYZ, the new killer drug.

So who's to blame? GARBAGE-KTL or the scientist/journal makers?

Actually, you probably should avoid LSD if you're pregnant - LSD, like other ergotamine derivatives can trigger uterine contractions.

I get your larger point, just throwing a fun fact out there.

Joedirt: I feel you, I really do, and I feel like those of us interested in psychedelics are exposed to more than our fair share

Blessings
~ND

I was a sucker for the longest time for popularised science, and have held many masters degrees in pseudoscience

It's difficult, but not impossible to break free from that kind of programming. Reading helps a lot. Cut back on the Youtube binging (those algorithms that recommend the next video are so judgemental).
It's a laborious task for the ley-person to become literate in the scientific method, but so important. So very important.