{"id":1008,"date":"2002-04-22T16:33:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-22T20:33:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles-wp\/?p=1008"},"modified":"2002-04-22T16:33:00","modified_gmt":"2002-04-22T20:33:00","slug":"well-thats-a-relief","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.meehawl.com\/Blogfiles\/2002\/04\/22\/16\/33\/well-thats-a-relief\/","title":{"rendered":"Well, That’s A Relief"},"content":{"rendered":"

The weirdly-casual-yet-authoritative Ananova carries a story about New Scientist<\/a> declaring that previous studies of ecstasy’s “bad <\/a>effects” in users were flawed<\/a>, and probably “worthless”, due to political meddling. Apparently, researchers have been motivated by large sums of cash to find some or any deleterious effects from ecstasy uses. This is just bad science. In the absence of unbiased information the street, as usual, continues to make up its own mind.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The weirdly-casual-yet-authoritative Ananova carries a story about New Scientist declaring that previous studies of ecstasy’s “bad effects” in users were flawed, and probably “worthless”, due to political meddling. Apparently, researchers have been motivated by...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t