Talk:George A. Ricaurte

message: 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).
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV-check 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  attacks??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on George A. Ricaurte. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified