August 5, 2024 • 22 mins
What if the very strategies intended to reduce harm from drug use are actually endangering the very people they aim to protect? This episode of the Drug Report promises to tackle the complexities and controversies surrounding research into harm reduction in drug policy. With significant federal funding now backing harm reduction research, we stress the critical importance of reputable science in shaping effective policies. Hear our nuanced critique on the growing influence of drug normalization in policy-making, through revealing case studies like the Greater Harlem Coalition's experience with pro-drug Yale researchers.
But that’s not all. We dive into the murky waters of ethical concerns surrounding drug research, spotlighting the scandal involving Lykos (formerly MAPS) and its contentious clinical trials for psychedelic drugs. The Wall Street Journal's reports on unreported suicidal ideation among trial subjects raise alarming questions about participant safety and research ethics, echoing historical parallels with the tobacco industry. Finally, don't miss out on our exciting announcement about the TDR newsletter, brimming with insightful articles and a compelling editorial piece. Your feedback is invaluable to us, and we hope you find this episode as thought-provoking as we do.
Follow the work of SAM and FDPS below:
https://learnaboutsam.org/
https://gooddrugpolicy.org/
https://thedrugreport.org/
On X:
https://twitter.com/learnaboutsam
https://twitter.com/GoodDrugPolicy
https://twitter.com/KevinSabet
https://twitter.com/LukeNiforatos
On Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/learnaboutsam
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Yes or no?
Do you believe nicotine is notaddictive?
I believe nicotine is notaddictive.
Yes, congressman, cigarettesand nicotine clearly do not meet
the classic definitions ofaddiction.
I don't believe that nicotinefor our products are addictive.
I believe nicotine is notaddictive.
I believe that nicotine is notaddictive.
I believe that nicotine is notaddictive.
(00:21):
Good morning everyone.
This is Luke Nicferratis.
I'm your host of the DrugReport podcast.
Please check out our website,thedrugreportorg, where you can
sign up for our twice-weeklynewsletter giving you all the
latest news and analysis of justeverything going on in drug
policy.
And I would encourage you to dothat today, because tomorrow we
have an exclusive the DrugReview.
(00:42):
That's our editorial sectionwith original content from the
Drug Report.
We have an exclusive piece thatwe are going to be releasing
tomorrow and you don't want tomiss it.
It's actually a really big deal.
It's going to add a lot ofclarity to some big drug policy
news a few weeks ago.
So make sure that you aresubscribed so you can get that
email to your inbox first thingtomorrow morning and before we
(01:06):
get into the rest of thispodcast.
I also want to thank our twoco-sponsoring organizations,
that is, sam, smart Approachesto Marijuana at learnaboutsamorg
, as well as FDPS, theFoundation for Drug Policy
Solutions, which you can find atgooddrugpolicyorg.
Well, today I want to talk aboutresearch, research in the field
(01:27):
of drug policy, researchspecifically looking at this new
trend line that we're seeing indrug policy, which is harm
reduction.
The idea that, while I thinkyou know, obviously the
well-intended version of harmreduction is while we are trying
to get someone towards a lifethat is free from drugs and free
(01:47):
from addiction, acknowledgingthat they are where they are in
their addiction, and reducingthe harm of that addiction, so
things like naloxone, forexample, so they don't die from
an overdose, so they can getinto recovery.
I think those are things thatmost people agree with into
recovery.
I think those are things thatmost people agree with.
Then there's the extreme formsof harm reduction, with what I
(02:08):
think is a dystopian philosophythat there are always going to
be people who use drugs insociety and we just need to make
them as safe and comfortable aspossible as they are addicted,
and the way to do that is tomake their drug use safer with
things like crack pipes andchapstick.
I wish I was kidding Forchapped lips, as they're using
(02:29):
the crack pipes and smoke-freeforms of drug use, etc.
So ways to reduce the harm.
And so we're seeing this trendtowards harm reduction, whether
it's extreme, whether it's morenormal and directed towards
recovery, and so this is areally relatively new phenomenon
.
Whether it's more normal anddirected towards recovery, and
so this is a really relativelynew phenomenon.
The Office of National DrugControl Policy, only in the last
(02:52):
year, started dedicatingsubstantial funds to this
paradigm.
It's a substantial paradigmshift to shift federal funds
towards this.
There's a lot of grants thatare being made towards research
and harm reduction, and sothere's a lot of research
happening on harm reduction andlooking at these new
interventions at least new forthe United States and seeing if
(03:14):
they're actually effective, ifthey actually do what they
intend to do.
And so obviously we at ourorganization, sam and FDPS,
believe that we absolutelyshould follow the science and
that the science leads ustowards the truth, whether it's
on marijuana's harms or otherdrugs harms, or on what policies
are best in order to protectthe public health.
(03:35):
We need solid and reputablescience and there's a lot of
that out there.
But, as we've seen, this growthof, first of all, harm reduction
and a lot of the extreme formsof harm reduction are getting a
lot of the press and narrative.
These days.
We have seen this push for alsopeople to be at the table,
(04:08):
driving the policy conversations, driving the research, even
that have lived experience ormaybe even are current users of
these drugs, as if that is arequirement in order to have an
objective and effectiveperspective on what research
should be done or an effectiveperspective on what policies
should be passed that thesepeople should actually be using
drugs.
And it's a little bit crazy tothink about, because I think we
all intuitively understand thatwhen you are intoxicated or when
(04:29):
you are addicted, your abilityto use your reason is impaired,
and it's sad that I even have tosay that today.
But let's just remind ourselvesthat when someone is addicted,
their ability to use reason isimpaired.
When someone is intoxicated,their ability to use reason is
impaired.
When someone is intoxicated,their ability to use reason is
further impaired.
They're not able to makesensible decisions, at least not
(04:51):
consistently, not even in theirown self-interest, let alone in
the interest of the broaderpublic, which is what we are
supposed to be looking at whenwe're looking at policy.
So we are in a period of timewhere lived experience which, by
the way.
Lived experience is absolutelyimportant and people with lived
experience need to have a seatat the table Absolutely, but
(05:11):
there is an emphasis that'sbeing placed on people who use
drugs PWUDs, that they should bedriving the research, and
people who are normalizing theuse of these substances are
often the ones that are involvedin the research.
And so why am I talking aboutthis?
Well, there's two case studiesof why this is a really bad
(05:32):
direction for the research.
The idea that we should haveobjective research is not
controversial in basically anyother field of research, but
let's look at what's beenhappening recently in the field
of drug policy research.
So there's two case studies Iwant to give you.
The first case study is onethat broke two weeks ago and
(05:55):
that is with the Greater HarlemCoalition.
So they're a very diverse groupof people representing,
obviously, the Greater Harlemarea in New York City, of people
representing, obviously, thegreater Harlem area in New York
City.
They are trying to protecttheir communities from being
overly saturated withdrug-related response
organizations and services.
(06:16):
Okay, and so there was a pair ofresearchers from Yale, ryan
McNeil, the director of harmreduction research at Yale
School of Medicine, and hiscolleague, gina Bonilla, and
they're conducting Zoominterviews with stakeholders in
the area to look at.
This is what they say.
(06:37):
This is what the study says.
Mcneil is working on a fundedstudy and, by the way, nih has
funded his work and funded thework, obviously, of these
researchers before they'reworking on a funded study that
started in 2022, it ends in 2027, looking at both fentanyl and
polysubstance use, using drugcombinations to increase or
decrease the impact of the drughigh or to experience the
(07:00):
different effects produced bythe combination and how those
intersect with homelessness.
The research plan is to pay andfollow unhoused drug users in
order to develop anunderstanding of their needs and
how they're using services.
So they propose to include thetwo researchers McNeil and
Bonilla propose to includeinterviews that establish
(07:20):
perspectives on service gaps,neighborhood dynamics and
community priorities.
So that led them to reach outto the Greater Harlem Coalition
and so in this interview.
So again, these two researchersthey're working at the behest of
Yale and they're fundedresearch, looking at, basically,
the efficacy of a number of theharm reduction efforts going on
(07:41):
in the area, including, by theway, the fact that the drug
injection site in New York isthere in the Harlem area, and
this group, the Greater HarlemCoalition is opposed to having
the drug injection site, whichagain is a form of extreme harm
reduction, basically saying youcan use drugs safely if it's
under supervision, which iscrazy.
(08:02):
You can never use drugs safely.
They're dangerous, no matterwhich way you use them.
But that's what this kind ofphilosophy is, is normalizing
the use.
So the Greater Harlem Coalitionhasn't really taken a stance
fully against injection sites,but the position that they
communicated in this interviewwith these researchers, which
was done on Zoom, done with anAI note taker, so take special
(08:24):
note of that.
We're getting to the point ofthis story here.
They communicate that socialservices should be equitably
distributed throughout New YorkCity so all communities have
local access to services and soneighborhoods of color don't
continue this is their words ontheir website continue to suffer
the effects of redlining byserving as a municipal or
regional containment zone.
(08:45):
And they noted the GreaterHarlem Coalition noted the
importance of working towardstheir goal of equity by locating
small-scale addiction treatmentprograms throughout all New
York neighborhoods.
Okay, so I love this becausebasically what they're saying is
sure, okay, if you want to doinjection sites, if you want to
have all of these forms of theseextreme services, harm
(09:06):
reduction, et cetera.
Also, you know proven programslike addiction treatment et
cetera, which all are needed.
Sure, let's have those, butdon't just focus them in
communities of color, don't justfocus them in Harlem, don't
don't just put these placeswhere you know, basically the
NIMBYs don't want them.
So putting them in Harlem,equitably distribute these
(09:27):
throughout the city.
Addiction is affecting theentire city.
No-transcript.
And it's so interesting thatthat's even controversial,
because the whole idea isequitable access, expanding
access, and yet that wasn't agood, this equity which is so
popular today.
Everyone wants to be in supportof equity.
(09:48):
It's so interesting theresponse that the researchers
had.
So they conclude the Zoom andthe two researchers, ryan and
Gina they didn't notice that theAI note taker, which is
listening to their conversationon the Zoom, taking notes and
then going to send those notesto all the participants,
including the Harlem Coalition.
(10:09):
Ok, so this is happening.
They don't know it.
So they conclude the Zoom andthen the researchers begin to
talk about you know how theythought the interview went, and
so these are some of the justawful quotes from the
researchers.
Okay, so Gina says that dudesucked.
That's a quote.
And this person and she alsosaid it's interesting that his
(10:30):
solution is for us to talk tothe community.
She says they just want thesepeople dead.
And the website says Gina'sspeculating on the Harlem
residents' thoughts Because theydon't want all the services
only concentrated in Harlem,where the communities of color
are.
They want them equitablydistributed throughout the city.
That, in their mind, is oh, youjust want these people dead
(10:53):
Because you don't want some ofthese extreme services that
they're also looking at.
And so they speculate again onthe views of the subject.
Ryan says that obviously meansarresting people, which he
probably wants.
So they're saying, basically,if you don't want an injection
site in your community, thatmeans you obviously just want to
(11:15):
arrest people with an addiction.
So it's kind of this falsedichotomy we so frequently talk
about.
They also said and this is thefinal quote I'll read to you
this is what Ryan said Again, heis the lead investigator for
the University School ofMedicine Yale.
This is a quote.
Let's try to get some moreinterviews with people who suck.
I want to find someone who cangive enough rope to hang
(11:38):
themselves with.
So these are the researchersthat we have entrusted that are
being funded to the tune ofmillions of dollars to assess
whether or not these new, novelharm reduction interventions
work like injection sites.
Certainly in the future it'llbe the safe supply, the
(11:58):
quote-unquote safe supply, thedrugs that are, you know, in
their pure forms, not taintedwith fentanyl, so to speak.
So they're supposedly safer?
Obviously not true.
But you know, these are theresearchers we're going to
entrust to study the outcomesand they so clearly have so much
bias that they see those whodisagree with them as just
(12:18):
wanting to kill or lock awaypeople who have addiction.
It's nuts.
It's nuts.
They think these intervieweessuck.
And yet these are the folks whoare going to be publishing
research from Yale that then aregoing to be cited by the
American Medical Association,then are going to be cited by
the American Society ofAddiction Medicine, by other
(12:39):
major medical institutions, assaying this is evidence-based,
this intervention injectionsites, for example that is an
evidence-based intervention.
They're going to base thatassertion off of evidence from
researchers like this and wecan't trust them.
They are clearly doing thisresearch with the end in mind
that these interventions work,that people who don't think they
(13:00):
work are literally basicallymurderers, just want people to
die in the streets, which isjust insane.
They're not looking at thiswith a nuanced perspective.
They're not going into theseresearch studies with an open
mind of what the result is goingto be, and I'll tell you what
folks.
You can stack any kind ofresearch any which way you want
it to get the outcome you want,and I think we hopefully all
(13:23):
understand that by now.
So they speculated about theirinterviewees' opinions about
things they didn't ask about,showing a preconceived bias.
Again, these are all hugeno-nos in the field of research,
in the field of academics,completely huge no-nos.
And so, by the way, I mean thereason why we know all this
information is because all thenotes on everything they said
(13:45):
were sent out to all theattendees, including the Greater
Harlem Coalition, after theconclusion of their Zoom
interview.
So that's how we have all thisinformation.
You can check out their websiteat thegreat Harlem coalition
dot.
Nyc to see all this foryourself.
But their unprofessionalconduct was on full display.
It was fully noted by this AInote taker.
So the research has zerointegrity.
(14:06):
I mean it is a giant ethicalbreach that this research is
being done by folks with such astrong level of bias.
And you know we still live in acountry where the expectation
is that research is done withoutbias.
So that's case study number oneof what we're seeing in this
trend of harm reduction research.
(14:27):
Now let's go to case studynumber two.
So there's a huge write-up inthe Wall Street Journal looking
at this company that used to becalled MAPS.
It's now called Lycos.
They have been pushing andboosting psychedelics as
supposed medicine for decades.
Their founder is somebody who'sbeen accused of a whole litany
(14:48):
of crimes and issues sexualassault.
He's obviously a user of thesesubstances, supposedly for
medicinal purposes, but clearlyjust an enthusiast, and so that
was his company, maps.
He changed the company's nameto Lycos in an attempt to do a
PR makeover so they could getproducts actually legitimized by
the FDA and approved by the FDAand basically join the ranks of
(15:11):
big pharma, even though they'restill running their company in
exactly the same kind of crazyway.
We'll get into that in a second.
So MAPS's new name is Lycos.
They are psychedelicsenthusiasts.
They have been doing drugtrials of their psychedelics
products psilocybin, for example, and ecstasy and others to try
(15:35):
to get them approved by the FDA.
And so, for those of you wholistened to this podcast a few
weeks ago, we talked about thefact that Lycos' products were
not up to snuff.
Excuse me, their clinicaltrials were not up to snuff,
that there were allegationsagainst the way the company was
(15:56):
conducting their trials andultimately, an FDA panel
rejected their psilocybin drugfor approval.
Now, obviously, the FDA canstill there's going to be a
broader, more official FDAreview of their trials, in which
case their products could beapproved.
I think it's highly unlikely,though, given this new news.
(16:19):
So in the Wall Street Journaltoday, they talked about their
ecstasy drug and how researchersfor Lycos I think that's a
loose term, but we'll run withwhat they're being called
Researchers for Lycos failed toreport suicidal ideation,
suicidal thoughts, among theirtrial subjects for this ecstasy
(16:42):
drug trial.
So I mean that is a hugeomission huge omission that they
did not report that findingamong their subjects, and that's
a huge issue for people who aretaking ecstasy with a lot of
trauma.
And what's really sad is a lotof the people who you'll read in
(17:02):
this article, a lot of peoplewho are experiencing this, are
people who are victims of priorvictims of sexual assault, and
so the idea that they couldrelive this while taking this
substance and then potentiallyhave worse outcomes suicidal
thoughts and other awfuloutcomes is a really scary thing
.
We need to be very careful, aswe're going through these trials
, in looking at what the impactcould be on victims of trauma,
(17:26):
so they underreported thiseffect, as well as other adverse
effects, in this trial.
So, yet again, lycos isselectively stacking the books
of their research.
So they're not really alegitimate company.
I mean, they're being run bysomebody who uses these drugs.
A whole bunch of people in thecompany probably do.
They have rebranded, but theycertainly have not changed their
(17:49):
pattern of behavior, and sotheir results highlighted
obviously the positive findingsminimize the negative findings
several ethical violations interms of their selection of
clinicians, in terms of theirreporting I mean, I could go
through the list.
You can read this in thearticle in the Wall Street
Journal today.
It's just unbelievable.
And so they didn't payattention to, among many things,
(18:12):
participant safety, and so thatis another big concern.
There were multiple allegationsthroughout this process that
people were being assaulted bythe clinicians that were doing
the research.
So we haven't had any of thesesubstantiated yet, but that's
going to be working itself outin the days and months to come.
So, once again, lycos,psychedelics, ryan and Gina Yale
(18:35):
, researchers looking at harmreduction interventions and drug
policy interventions in general, research bias People coming
into these studies with apreconception of how they should
work out and what the resultsshould be.
And once again, science isscience.
Truth is truth.
You can't create your own truth.
(18:56):
The truth is the truth.
Right, we know that.
But people can set thesestudies up to get the outcome
that they want.
And if we have people goinginto the research hoping for a
certain outcome, you betterbelieve that they will find a
way to make the research fittheir narrative, and any
interpretation of results thatdon't fit their narrative will
(19:16):
then be spun back into theirnarrative.
That's just how this works.
We've seen this time and againacross many other industries and
research areas and, speaking ofindustry, that's one of the
things we have to think about.
We know that in the history ofbig tobacco, they paid
researchers to get the researchthat they wanted.
That confused the public.
(19:38):
It sent an opposing message tothe science-based studies that
were saying tobacco and nicotinewere harmful and addictive,
that smoking was causing cancer.
They were paying for studiesthat said the opposite, that
casted doubt upon this and thatgave them a runway of decades to
hurt and addict a lot of people.
So we know industries do this.
They've done it in the past.
(19:58):
It's a very, very profitableploy.
Do this.
They've done it in the past.
It's a very, very profitableploy, and so we should be very
concerned by A the bias that'samongst a lot of the researchers
right now in drug policylooking at these new and
innovative approaches as well,as we should be wondering who
benefits financially, whatprofit incentives are there at
play?
What industries may be lookingto influence this?
(20:21):
Because you need to look nofurther than just over the
northern border of the UnitedStates and Canada, where they
are contending with even muchmore extreme harm reduction in
the form of safe supplies.
I mentioned before quote unquotethe safe supply of literal
opioids to sustain people'saddiction, and what they found
is there are people, obviously,who's producing and providing
(20:44):
this supply?
There are companies that aredoing that.
There are people who are inleague with those companies who
are then writing the rules as tohow safe supply should work,
who are then advocating andsaying that it should remain in
place even though it's notworking, even though Vancouver,
the place with the most of allthese extreme harm reduction
policies, has the worst rate ofopioid overdose deaths in the
(21:05):
world or, excuse me, in thiswhole continent.
So, again, thinking about theprofit, incentives and the
motivations of those who wouldbe wanting to influence.
This adds a whole other layerof concern to this discussion.
So you know, wrapping this upvery concerned.
We are very concerned about thetrend of biased research using
(21:26):
bogus protocols, clearly goinginto studies with a preconceived
notion about how they shouldend up and what the results
should be.
We should be tackling theseharm reduction interventions and
the way we tackle any otherintervention in drug policy,
which is that we should haveobjective research being done
that does not have objectiveresearch being done that does
not have a predetermined outcomethat tells us whether or not
these interventions work.
(21:47):
And, yes, it's not completelydevoid of values.
The core value and this is whatFTPS has constantly said is
meet people where they are, butdo not leave them there.
The core value has to begetting folks into a life of
long-term recovery.
Meeting them where they're at,but getting them and pushing
them towards recovery, andthat's what we really need the
(22:08):
research to help us understandis do any of these interventions
help us get any closer to asociety that is more free from
drugs tomorrow than it is today?
So I hope you found this useful.
Check out these articles Again.
They will be in our TDRnewsletter tomorrow, along with
the extremely exciting originaleditorial piece from a guest
author that we are excited toshare as well.
(22:29):
Thank you, leave us a review.
Five stars, please.
We would really appreciate that.
That goes a long way.
Have a great rest of your week.
Yes or no?
Do you believe nicotine is notaddictive?
I believe nicotine is notaddictive.
Yes, congressman, cigarettesand nicotine clearly do not meet
the classic definitions ofaddiction.
I don't believe that nicotinefor our products are addictive.
I believe nicotine is notaddictive.
I believe that nicotine is notaddictive.
I believe that nicotine is notaddictive.
(00:21):
Good morning everyone.
This is Luke Nicferratis.
I'm your host of the DrugReport podcast.
Please check out our website,thedrugreportorg, where you can
sign up for our twice-weeklynewsletter giving you all the
latest news and analysis of justeverything going on in drug
policy.
And I would encourage you to dothat today, because tomorrow we
have an exclusive the DrugReview.
(00:42):
That's our editorial sectionwith original content from the
Drug Report.
We have an exclusive piece thatwe are going to be releasing
tomorrow and you don't want tomiss it.
It's actually a really big deal.
It's going to add a lot ofclarity to some big drug policy
news a few weeks ago.
So make sure that you aresubscribed so you can get that
email to your inbox first thingtomorrow morning and before we
(01:06):
get into the rest of thispodcast.
I also want to thank our twoco-sponsoring organizations,
that is, sam, smart Approachesto Marijuana at learnaboutsamorg
, as well as FDPS, theFoundation for Drug Policy
Solutions, which you can find atgooddrugpolicyorg.
Well, today I want to talk aboutresearch, research in the field
(01:27):
of drug policy, researchspecifically looking at this new
trend line that we're seeing indrug policy, which is harm
reduction.
The idea that, while I thinkyou know, obviously the
well-intended version of harmreduction is while we are trying
to get someone towards a lifethat is free from drugs and free
(01:47):
from addiction, acknowledgingthat they are where they are in
their addiction, and reducingthe harm of that addiction, so
things like naloxone, forexample, so they don't die from
an overdose, so they can getinto recovery.
I think those are things thatmost people agree with into
recovery.
I think those are things thatmost people agree with.
Then there's the extreme formsof harm reduction, with what I
(02:08):
think is a dystopian philosophythat there are always going to
be people who use drugs insociety and we just need to make
them as safe and comfortable aspossible as they are addicted,
and the way to do that is tomake their drug use safer with
things like crack pipes andchapstick.
I wish I was kidding Forchapped lips, as they're using
(02:29):
the crack pipes and smoke-freeforms of drug use, etc.
So ways to reduce the harm.
And so we're seeing this trendtowards harm reduction, whether
it's extreme, whether it's morenormal and directed towards
recovery, and so this is areally relatively new phenomenon
.
Whether it's more normal anddirected towards recovery, and
so this is a really relativelynew phenomenon.
The Office of National DrugControl Policy, only in the last
(02:52):
year, started dedicatingsubstantial funds to this
paradigm.
It's a substantial paradigmshift to shift federal funds
towards this.
There's a lot of grants thatare being made towards research
and harm reduction, and sothere's a lot of research
happening on harm reduction andlooking at these new
interventions at least new forthe United States and seeing if
(03:14):
they're actually effective, ifthey actually do what they
intend to do.
And so obviously we at ourorganization, sam and FDPS,
believe that we absolutelyshould follow the science and
that the science leads ustowards the truth, whether it's
on marijuana's harms or otherdrugs harms, or on what policies
are best in order to protectthe public health.
(03:35):
We need solid and reputablescience and there's a lot of
that out there.
But, as we've seen, this growthof, first of all, harm reduction
and a lot of the extreme formsof harm reduction are getting a
lot of the press and narrative.
These days.
We have seen this push for alsopeople to be at the table,
(04:08):
driving the policy conversations, driving the research, even
that have lived experience ormaybe even are current users of
these drugs, as if that is arequirement in order to have an
objective and effectiveperspective on what research
should be done or an effectiveperspective on what policies
should be passed that thesepeople should actually be using
drugs.
And it's a little bit crazy tothink about, because I think we
all intuitively understand thatwhen you are intoxicated or when
(04:29):
you are addicted, your abilityto use your reason is impaired,
and it's sad that I even have tosay that today.
But let's just remind ourselvesthat when someone is addicted,
their ability to use reason isimpaired.
When someone is intoxicated,their ability to use reason is
impaired.
When someone is intoxicated,their ability to use reason is
further impaired.
They're not able to makesensible decisions, at least not
(04:51):
consistently, not even in theirown self-interest, let alone in
the interest of the broaderpublic, which is what we are
supposed to be looking at whenwe're looking at policy.
So we are in a period of timewhere lived experience which, by
the way.
Lived experience is absolutelyimportant and people with lived
experience need to have a seatat the table Absolutely, but
(05:11):
there is an emphasis that'sbeing placed on people who use
drugs PWUDs, that they should bedriving the research, and
people who are normalizing theuse of these substances are
often the ones that are involvedin the research.
And so why am I talking aboutthis?
Well, there's two case studiesof why this is a really bad
(05:32):
direction for the research.
The idea that we should haveobjective research is not
controversial in basically anyother field of research, but
let's look at what's beenhappening recently in the field
of drug policy research.
So there's two case studies Iwant to give you.
The first case study is onethat broke two weeks ago and
(05:55):
that is with the Greater HarlemCoalition.
So they're a very diverse groupof people representing,
obviously, the Greater Harlemarea in New York City, of people
representing, obviously, thegreater Harlem area in New York
City.
They are trying to protecttheir communities from being
overly saturated withdrug-related response
organizations and services.
(06:16):
Okay, and so there was a pair ofresearchers from Yale, ryan
McNeil, the director of harmreduction research at Yale
School of Medicine, and hiscolleague, gina Bonilla, and
they're conducting Zoominterviews with stakeholders in
the area to look at.
This is what they say.
(06:37):
This is what the study says.
Mcneil is working on a fundedstudy and, by the way, nih has
funded his work and funded thework, obviously, of these
researchers before they'reworking on a funded study that
started in 2022, it ends in 2027, looking at both fentanyl and
polysubstance use, using drugcombinations to increase or
decrease the impact of the drughigh or to experience the
(07:00):
different effects produced bythe combination and how those
intersect with homelessness.
The research plan is to pay andfollow unhoused drug users in
order to develop anunderstanding of their needs and
how they're using services.
So they propose to include thetwo researchers McNeil and
Bonilla propose to includeinterviews that establish
(07:20):
perspectives on service gaps,neighborhood dynamics and
community priorities.
So that led them to reach outto the Greater Harlem Coalition
and so in this interview.
So again, these two researchersthey're working at the behest of
Yale and they're fundedresearch, looking at, basically,
the efficacy of a number of theharm reduction efforts going on
(07:41):
in the area, including, by theway, the fact that the drug
injection site in New York isthere in the Harlem area, and
this group, the Greater HarlemCoalition is opposed to having
the drug injection site, whichagain is a form of extreme harm
reduction, basically saying youcan use drugs safely if it's
under supervision, which iscrazy.
(08:02):
You can never use drugs safely.
They're dangerous, no matterwhich way you use them.
But that's what this kind ofphilosophy is, is normalizing
the use.
So the Greater Harlem Coalitionhasn't really taken a stance
fully against injection sites,but the position that they
communicated in this interviewwith these researchers, which
was done on Zoom, done with anAI note taker, so take special
(08:24):
note of that.
We're getting to the point ofthis story here.
They communicate that socialservices should be equitably
distributed throughout New YorkCity so all communities have
local access to services and soneighborhoods of color don't
continue this is their words ontheir website continue to suffer
the effects of redlining byserving as a municipal or
regional containment zone.
(08:45):
And they noted the GreaterHarlem Coalition noted the
importance of working towardstheir goal of equity by locating
small-scale addiction treatmentprograms throughout all New
York neighborhoods.
Okay, so I love this becausebasically what they're saying is
sure, okay, if you want to doinjection sites, if you want to
have all of these forms of theseextreme services, harm
(09:06):
reduction, et cetera.
Also, you know proven programslike addiction treatment et
cetera, which all are needed.
Sure, let's have those, butdon't just focus them in
communities of color, don't justfocus them in Harlem, don't
don't just put these placeswhere you know, basically the
NIMBYs don't want them.
So putting them in Harlem,equitably distribute these
(09:27):
throughout the city.
Addiction is affecting theentire city.
No-transcript.
And it's so interesting thatthat's even controversial,
because the whole idea isequitable access, expanding
access, and yet that wasn't agood, this equity which is so
popular today.
Everyone wants to be in supportof equity.
(09:48):
It's so interesting theresponse that the researchers
had.
So they conclude the Zoom andthe two researchers, ryan and
Gina they didn't notice that theAI note taker, which is
listening to their conversationon the Zoom, taking notes and
then going to send those notesto all the participants,
including the Harlem Coalition.
(10:09):
Ok, so this is happening.
They don't know it.
So they conclude the Zoom andthen the researchers begin to
talk about you know how theythought the interview went, and
so these are some of the justawful quotes from the
researchers.
Okay, so Gina says that dudesucked.
That's a quote.
And this person and she alsosaid it's interesting that his
(10:30):
solution is for us to talk tothe community.
She says they just want thesepeople dead.
And the website says Gina'sspeculating on the Harlem
residents' thoughts Because theydon't want all the services
only concentrated in Harlem,where the communities of color
are.
They want them equitablydistributed throughout the city.
That, in their mind, is oh, youjust want these people dead
(10:53):
Because you don't want some ofthese extreme services that
they're also looking at.
And so they speculate again onthe views of the subject.
Ryan says that obviously meansarresting people, which he
probably wants.
So they're saying, basically,if you don't want an injection
site in your community, thatmeans you obviously just want to
(11:15):
arrest people with an addiction.
So it's kind of this falsedichotomy we so frequently talk
about.
They also said and this is thefinal quote I'll read to you
this is what Ryan said Again, heis the lead investigator for
the University School ofMedicine Yale.
This is a quote.
Let's try to get some moreinterviews with people who suck.
I want to find someone who cangive enough rope to hang
(11:38):
themselves with.
So these are the researchersthat we have entrusted that are
being funded to the tune ofmillions of dollars to assess
whether or not these new, novelharm reduction interventions
work like injection sites.
Certainly in the future it'llbe the safe supply, the
(11:58):
quote-unquote safe supply, thedrugs that are, you know, in
their pure forms, not taintedwith fentanyl, so to speak.
So they're supposedly safer?
Obviously not true.
But you know, these are theresearchers we're going to
entrust to study the outcomesand they so clearly have so much
bias that they see those whodisagree with them as just
(12:18):
wanting to kill or lock awaypeople who have addiction.
It's nuts.
It's nuts.
They think these intervieweessuck.
And yet these are the folks whoare going to be publishing
research from Yale that then aregoing to be cited by the
American Medical Association,then are going to be cited by
the American Society ofAddiction Medicine, by other
(12:39):
major medical institutions, assaying this is evidence-based,
this intervention injectionsites, for example that is an
evidence-based intervention.
They're going to base thatassertion off of evidence from
researchers like this and wecan't trust them.
They are clearly doing thisresearch with the end in mind
that these interventions work,that people who don't think they
(13:00):
work are literally basicallymurderers, just want people to
die in the streets, which isjust insane.
They're not looking at thiswith a nuanced perspective.
They're not going into theseresearch studies with an open
mind of what the result is goingto be, and I'll tell you what
folks.
You can stack any kind ofresearch any which way you want
it to get the outcome you want,and I think we hopefully all
(13:23):
understand that by now.
So they speculated about theirinterviewees' opinions about
things they didn't ask about,showing a preconceived bias.
Again, these are all hugeno-nos in the field of research,
in the field of academics,completely huge no-nos.
And so, by the way, I mean thereason why we know all this
information is because all thenotes on everything they said
(13:45):
were sent out to all theattendees, including the Greater
Harlem Coalition, after theconclusion of their Zoom
interview.
So that's how we have all thisinformation.
You can check out their websiteat thegreat Harlem coalition
dot.
Nyc to see all this foryourself.
But their unprofessionalconduct was on full display.
It was fully noted by this AInote taker.
So the research has zerointegrity.
(14:06):
I mean it is a giant ethicalbreach that this research is
being done by folks with such astrong level of bias.
And you know we still live in acountry where the expectation
is that research is done withoutbias.
So that's case study number oneof what we're seeing in this
trend of harm reduction research.
(14:27):
Now let's go to case studynumber two.
So there's a huge write-up inthe Wall Street Journal looking
at this company that used to becalled MAPS.
It's now called Lycos.
They have been pushing andboosting psychedelics as
supposed medicine for decades.
Their founder is somebody who'sbeen accused of a whole litany
(14:48):
of crimes and issues sexualassault.
He's obviously a user of thesesubstances, supposedly for
medicinal purposes, but clearlyjust an enthusiast, and so that
was his company, maps.
He changed the company's nameto Lycos in an attempt to do a
PR makeover so they could getproducts actually legitimized by
the FDA and approved by the FDAand basically join the ranks of
(15:11):
big pharma, even though they'restill running their company in
exactly the same kind of crazyway.
We'll get into that in a second.
So MAPS's new name is Lycos.
They are psychedelicsenthusiasts.
They have been doing drugtrials of their psychedelics
products psilocybin, for example, and ecstasy and others to try
(15:35):
to get them approved by the FDA.
And so, for those of you wholistened to this podcast a few
weeks ago, we talked about thefact that Lycos' products were
not up to snuff.
Excuse me, their clinicaltrials were not up to snuff,
that there were allegationsagainst the way the company was
(15:56):
conducting their trials andultimately, an FDA panel
rejected their psilocybin drugfor approval.
Now, obviously, the FDA canstill there's going to be a
broader, more official FDAreview of their trials, in which
case their products could beapproved.
I think it's highly unlikely,though, given this new news.
(16:19):
So in the Wall Street Journaltoday, they talked about their
ecstasy drug and how researchersfor Lycos I think that's a
loose term, but we'll run withwhat they're being called
Researchers for Lycos failed toreport suicidal ideation,
suicidal thoughts, among theirtrial subjects for this ecstasy
(16:42):
drug trial.
So I mean that is a hugeomission huge omission that they
did not report that findingamong their subjects, and that's
a huge issue for people who aretaking ecstasy with a lot of
trauma.
And what's really sad is a lotof the people who you'll read in
(17:02):
this article, a lot of peoplewho are experiencing this, are
people who are victims of priorvictims of sexual assault, and
so the idea that they couldrelive this while taking this
substance and then potentiallyhave worse outcomes suicidal
thoughts and other awfuloutcomes is a really scary thing
.
We need to be very careful, aswe're going through these trials
, in looking at what the impactcould be on victims of trauma,
(17:26):
so they underreported thiseffect, as well as other adverse
effects, in this trial.
So, yet again, lycos isselectively stacking the books
of their research.
So they're not really alegitimate company.
I mean, they're being run bysomebody who uses these drugs.
A whole bunch of people in thecompany probably do.
They have rebranded, but theycertainly have not changed their
(17:49):
pattern of behavior, and sotheir results highlighted
obviously the positive findingsminimize the negative findings
several ethical violations interms of their selection of
clinicians, in terms of theirreporting I mean, I could go
through the list.
You can read this in thearticle in the Wall Street
Journal today.
It's just unbelievable.
And so they didn't payattention to, among many things,
(18:12):
participant safety, and so thatis another big concern.
There were multiple allegationsthroughout this process that
people were being assaulted bythe clinicians that were doing
the research.
So we haven't had any of thesesubstantiated yet, but that's
going to be working itself outin the days and months to come.
So, once again, lycos,psychedelics, ryan and Gina Yale
(18:35):
, researchers looking at harmreduction interventions and drug
policy interventions in general, research bias People coming
into these studies with apreconception of how they should
work out and what the resultsshould be.
And once again, science isscience.
Truth is truth.
You can't create your own truth.
(18:56):
The truth is the truth.
Right, we know that.
But people can set thesestudies up to get the outcome
that they want.
And if we have people goinginto the research hoping for a
certain outcome, you betterbelieve that they will find a
way to make the research fittheir narrative, and any
interpretation of results thatdon't fit their narrative will
(19:16):
then be spun back into theirnarrative.
That's just how this works.
We've seen this time and againacross many other industries and
research areas and, speaking ofindustry, that's one of the
things we have to think about.
We know that in the history ofbig tobacco, they paid
researchers to get the researchthat they wanted.
That confused the public.
(19:38):
It sent an opposing message tothe science-based studies that
were saying tobacco and nicotinewere harmful and addictive,
that smoking was causing cancer.
They were paying for studiesthat said the opposite, that
casted doubt upon this and thatgave them a runway of decades to
hurt and addict a lot of people.
So we know industries do this.
They've done it in the past.
(19:58):
It's a very, very profitableploy.
Do this.
They've done it in the past.
It's a very, very profitableploy, and so we should be very
concerned by A the bias that'samongst a lot of the researchers
right now in drug policylooking at these new and
innovative approaches as well,as we should be wondering who
benefits financially, whatprofit incentives are there at
play?
What industries may be lookingto influence this?
(20:21):
Because you need to look nofurther than just over the
northern border of the UnitedStates and Canada, where they
are contending with even muchmore extreme harm reduction in
the form of safe supplies.
I mentioned before quote unquotethe safe supply of literal
opioids to sustain people'saddiction, and what they found
is there are people, obviously,who's producing and providing
(20:44):
this supply?
There are companies that aredoing that.
There are people who are inleague with those companies who
are then writing the rules as tohow safe supply should work,
who are then advocating andsaying that it should remain in
place even though it's notworking, even though Vancouver,
the place with the most of allthese extreme harm reduction
policies, has the worst rate ofopioid overdose deaths in the
(21:05):
world or, excuse me, in thiswhole continent.
So, again, thinking about theprofit, incentives and the
motivations of those who wouldbe wanting to influence.
This adds a whole other layerof concern to this discussion.
So you know, wrapping this upvery concerned.
We are very concerned about thetrend of biased research using
(21:26):
bogus protocols, clearly goinginto studies with a preconceived
notion about how they shouldend up and what the results
should be.
We should be tackling theseharm reduction interventions and
the way we tackle any otherintervention in drug policy,
which is that we should haveobjective research being done
that does not have objectiveresearch being done that does
not have a predetermined outcomethat tells us whether or not
these interventions work.
(21:47):
And, yes, it's not completelydevoid of values.
The core value and this is whatFTPS has constantly said is
meet people where they are, butdo not leave them there.
The core value has to begetting folks into a life of
long-term recovery.
Meeting them where they're at,but getting them and pushing
them towards recovery, andthat's what we really need the
(22:08):
research to help us understandis do any of these interventions
help us get any closer to asociety that is more free from
drugs tomorrow than it is today?
So I hope you found this useful.
Check out these articles Again.
They will be in our TDRnewsletter tomorrow, along with
the extremely exciting originaleditorial piece from a guest
author that we are excited toshare as well.
(22:29):
Thank you, leave us a review.
Five stars, please.
We would really appreciate that.
That goes a long way.
Have a great rest of your week.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!