Peyote Studied; found to be safe!

[Amapola]

The thread about "natural substances" made me remember this article in the local paper, and of course there were a bunch of articles written about it.

Some people studied peyote use among Navajos in the Native American Church and found they did not suffer brain damage or other harmful effects: Global Health News article. Now the guy is even contemplating a study to determine if the anecdotal stories the Navajos tell about peyote curing their alcoholism are true.

The study was partly funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, but they did not wish to comment on the study at this time:

The project was funded in part by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A NIDA spokeswoman would not comment on the study.

Lester Grinspoon, a Harvard Medical School psychiatry professor who was not involved in Halpern's research, said the study lends scientific weight to a long-held belief that peyote is not harmful.

"The thing that excites me most about the paper is that the study was actually done," he said. "The U.S. government -- and NIDA, in particular -- has been rather balky about allowing studies of psychedelic drugs of any kind."

This quote comes from another article about the study: source.

Think we'll see more cactus gardens now?

 

[Starthinker]

I would be suspicious of a study done where the people who did the study will not comment on it. To me this reeks of someone screwing up and others trying to do damage control. No study should be relied on without independent confirmation.

The Harvard guy's comments are useless in this context as he says it only lends weight to a belief. He doesn't say it backs up someone else's study, nor if there were any other studies at all.

 

[Beth]

I would be suspicious of a study done where the people who did the study will not comment on it. To me this reeks of someone screwing up and others trying to do damage control. No study should be relied on without independent confirmation.

The Harvard guy's comments are useless in this context as he says it only lends weight to a belief. He doesn't say it backs up someone else's study, nor if there were any other studies at all.

Actually, it says the people who funded the study would not comment on it. That isn't uncommon and I usually interpret it to mean that the results were not what the funders expected or wanted. When the sponsor is a private organization, they may refuse to allow unwanted results to be published at all. It depends on the contract that the researcher agreed to when they accepted funding; they may or may not retain the right to publish results that are not to the sponsors liking. My perception is that government funded studies, such as this one, usually do not require the researcher to obtain permission from the funding agency before publishing results.

You're right that one unreplicated study isn't sufficient to draw firm conclusions, but it's better than no studies at all.