Bad references get into good work all the time.<br>
Below is an abstract from another study, 319 cases in 20 months. There is absoultley no causal link between the ingestion of LSD and retinopathy I can find. The Schatz case study may be real, but it is the ONLY reference I can find used to retinopathy being linked to LSD use, and there are too many confounding factors in case studies to really prove to me this was caused directly by LSD's effects.<br><br>
To have any real weight as a reference the author should have pointed out in all the of cases of solar retinopathy that (1?) was related to LSD.<br><br>
Abstract 319 patients with a solar retinopathy were seen in an eye clinic in Nepal within 20 months. All patients had either a positive history of sun-gazing or typical circumscribed scars in the foveal area. In more than 80% of the patients the visual acuity was 6/12 or better and did not deteriorate over time. 126 (40%) patients had a history of gazing at the sun during an eclipse, 33 (10%) were sun worshipers and 4 (1%) were in both categories. Three years later 29 patients were re-examined in a follow-up study. Only 16 had had visual disturbances directly after they had gazed into the sun. No colour vision defects were seen in any of the 44 affected eyes, when tested with Panel D 15, while four patients (6 eyes) had some uncertainty with the tritan plates of the Ishihara test charts. Metamorphopsia were recorded in 11 eyes. Five German patients with solar retinopathy were examined in more detail. Colour contrast sensitivity (CCS) was tested for the central and the peripheral visual field. CCS for tritan axis was raised in all patients for the central visual field, while it was normal for the peripheral visual field.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sunshine Daydream Just look for the peer-reviews. Another thing, the writer of this article would have any information (and more) on the subject than you could come up with, and would not have simply cited something untrue or even questionable without saying that it is questionable (as the author does with a lot of the earlier research done in the field). It sounds as though you are talking about a seperate incedence entirely. Just in the interest of saving you time, I would just take the article's (and the two articles that it cites) word. This is not the mass media; there is clearly no bias. Also if you notice in the abstract that I posted, it is from the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute; the article is merely recording what happened. Why would someone from an eye institute make up a story when his credibility and thus career is at stake?
Hallucinogens rarely have bad consequences, but it does happen. There is no reason to try to disprove one case cited by credible sources.
Take er easy |