Pill Testing: What’s the evidence?

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Denialism, Drug Free Australia, Health, Human Rights, Illicit Drug Policy, Legal, Media, Science by Paul Gallagher

Critical overdose events at three Australian dance parties in January this year, have led to more calls for Pill Testing (PT) to be introduced as part of our nation’s effective Harm Minimisation drug policy. Harm Minimisation consists of three prongs: Demand Reduction, Supply Reduction and Harm Reduction.

Strong evidence

Pill testing is an evidence-based, harm reduction initiative backed in peer reviewed literature. It reduces drug harms and protects the health of those who access the service. Whilst Australian drug markets are uniquely sourced and specifically affect Australians, Harm Reduction Australia cites Harm Reduction International, in answering the question, What is harm reduction?

Harm reduction refers to policies, programmes and practices that aim to minimise negative health, social and legal impacts associated with drug use, drug policies and drug laws. Harm reduction is grounded in justice and human rights. It focuses on positive change and on working with people without judgement, coercion, discrimination, or requiring that they stop using drugs as a precondition of support.

PT has been demonstrated via live trials at Canberra’s Groovin The Moo festival in 2018 and 2019, to be effective in positively changing behaviour related to drug use. The trials were conducted by Pill Testing Australia, and resulting evidence greatly contributed to the fixed-site testing facility CanTEST, an ongoing trial in Canberra, introduced in July 2022. Indicating the controversy of PT, days before a third dance festival trial was scheduled to begin in 2022, Pill Testing Australia had public liability insurance withdrawn, without explanation.

A 2019 election study found two thirds of Australians support PT at music festivals. Examining deaths, PT initiatives, the success of harm reduction and drug user responses, Andrew Groves wrote in The Harm Reduction Journal in 2018:

Using a theoretical frame of pragmatism and drawing from national and international research evidence, this paper recommends the integration of pill testing into Australia’s harm minimisation strategy.

Australia’s Alcohol and Drug Foundation have published an excellent summary of the evidence supporting PT, and provide data on its successful international uptake. They also point out that public health experts have demonstrated support for PT. These include:

Queensland

In February 2023, directly citing the success in Canberra, the QLD Palaszczuk government announced plans to develop Drug Checking at fixed and mobile sites. This very shortly followed the state’s plans to reduce penalties for illicit drug possession, including heroin, ice and cocaine. More so, use of the term “drug-checking” is more realistic, inclusive and in line with international practice, as summed up in this opening paragraph from the QLD Network of Alcohol and other Drug Agencies (QNADA):

Drug checking – also sometimes referred to as ‘pill testing’ – involves members of the public voluntarily providing samples of suspected illicit substances they are intending to consume (e.g. tablets, capsules, powders, tabs/blotter paper etc) for chemical analysis.

Test results are provided back to the individual by health professionals as part of a personalised health and harm reduction intervention. The purpose of the intervention is to increase the person’s awareness of the risks associated with the substance with the aim of effecting behaviour changes that result in fewer harms or incidences of drug-related death.

In September last year the QLD government sought private providers to offer plans for two fixed drug-checking sites and mobile services. Of course, great strides like this rarely escape unhelpful politicisation. It was impossible to miss that when announced, the decision was called “soft on drugs” by QLD opposition health spokeswoman, and registered nurse, Ros Bates. It’s been a long time since I’ve heard that phrase used seriously.

Victoria

It is Victoria, to where we must turn our attention to partly examine the recent overdose events. RACGP reported eight people, most in their 20s were intubated and placed in induced comas after MDMA overdose at the Hardmission dance party in early January. Jollyon Attwooll reported:

Chair of RACGP Specific Interests Addiction Medicine Dr Hester Wilson described the introduction of festival pill testing as ‘a no-brainer’.
‘[Pill testing] actually does change people’s behaviour, and therefore it makes it safer,’ she told newsGP. Dr Wilson said that pill testing is ‘not a silver bullet’ but should be used as part of a range of measures to address drug use.

Following the Hardmission OD events, two women were taken to hospital on January 12 after suspected drug use at Juicy Fest. Current Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan initially stated she had no plans to introduce PT. Not long after, Allan advised that she would seek more information from the health department. The Premier sensibly observed:

I think it’s important to examine the evidence and advice and consider that in the policy setting that we have across all of our alcohol and drug policy measures, which is taking a harm minimisation approach, looking at the safety of people going to events.

The ACT

The evaluation document of the 2019 ACT Pill Testing trial is a lengthy read, with confirmation of Dr. Hester Wilson’s words coming through in data and discussion. I won’t copy/paste quotes from patrons who attended the PT facility, but I do recommend skimming through to appreciate that PT, like other harm reduction initiatives, changes drug users behaviour for the better. I did appreciate the graphs on self-reported knowledge of harm reduction before and after having a drug tested. Likewise, when it came to choice of information source, positive changes are evident.

Detailed explanation of the slides below can be found at section/s 6.1 (fig. 1), 6.4.1. (fig. 3) and 6.4.5. (fig.4).

Sydney

At the end of January a challenging scenario unfolded at Sydney’s HTID festival. Having taken what he thought was MDMA, an attendee fell unwell. Ultimately he responded to naloxone, a drug that reverses the effect of opioids. He had taken a tablet cut with nitazene, which is a synthetic opioid reported as “stronger than” fentanyl or heroin. Health workers and members of drug safety volunteers DanceWize, worked to advise the crowd. No doubt they saved lives. It turned out others from around Sydney had been hospitalised that weekend. One pill analysed, contained nitazene and no MDMA. Guardian reported:

Chris Gough, chief executive of the nation’s only pill testing venue in Canberra, said the detection of nitazenes in pills sold as MDMA showed the need for similar services in other states.

“In this case, where a nitazene has been sold as MDMA and therefore people are completely unprepared and potentially opioid naive, the risk of overdose is extreme,” said Gough, who is the executive director of the Canberra Alliance for Harm Minimisation and Advocacy.

“As we have now seen nitazenes in several jurisdictions in Australia it is time to act swiftly to provide drug-checking services throughout Australia so that we can respond to these drug trends as they emerge and thereby save lives and inform the community.”

Canberra

Saving lives is far more about probability than possibility. Indeed that’s been the case with MDMA overdose, MDMA pills cut with N-ethylpentalone or other adulterants. Early last year the Canberra walk-in site CanTEST discovered a pill cut with metonitazene; a synthetic opioid with a potency up to 200 times that of morphine. The owner chose to dispose of the drug on site. In January this year, ANU chemists made an Australia-first discovery of three new recreational drugs. All came from preparations sold as something else. CanTEST staff were able to discern the drugs were not what they were supposed to be, but tests were inconclusive. They were however, able to warn the community. One substance thought to be a derivative of Ritalin was in fact a new variant of cathinone, commonly known as “bath-salts”.

ACT Health have also developed a comprehensive document for festival planners. The Festivals Pill Testing Policy, examines PT options as a service available for festival attendees and how it relates to harm minimisation. Advice on general and specific health and safety measures, the importance of peer support, relaxation areas, emergency services and how PT works with providers and the event itself, is only part of the clear information presented.

Coronial support

A number of fatalities, and the fact that PT promotes positive decision making led to multiple calls to introduce the practice as a policy initiative. Over the last six years, four state coroners have spoken out. A 2020 inquest into five deaths from July 2016 to January 2017, led Victorian coroner Pares Spanos to urge the Victorian government to “urgently” introduce drug checking and a system to warn the community about dangerous substances sold as MDMA. The males aged from 17 to 32 died in a variety of tragic ways after taking what they believed was a modest dose of MDMA. Autopsy revealed the substances 25C-NBOMe and 4-Fluoroamphetamine in their systems. The cluster was discovered after 20 hospitalisations stemming from the Chapel Street nightclub district in January 2017. Victoria Police knew of the dangerous drug’s presence and later defended their decision to not warn the community.

In September last year, Victorian coroner John Cain also called on the government to introduce PT after the death of a man from an MDMA overdose in March 2022. The man had been observed taking a Blue Punisher, a pill with dangerously high levels of MDMA. He was admitted to the Royal Melbourne with brain swelling and multi-organ failure and died four days later. In his findings Cain wrote:

It is impossible to know whether, had a drug checking service existed, [the man] would have submitted a sample of an MDMA pill for testing before taking it at Karnival […] Notwithstanding this, a drug-checking service would have at least created the opportunity for him to do so, and for him to receive tailored harm reduction information from the drug-checking facility.

It is likewise impossible to know whether, had [the man] been provided information of this type, he would have changed his drug consumption behaviour; but likewise, in the absence of a drug checking service, this was not a possible outcome.

Politics

NSW and Victoria have established histories of resisting PT. After the death of a 26 year old at a Sydney music festival in February 2023, Dominic Perrottet mused about his government’s inquiry into methamphetamine and, rejecting any notion of PT offered a most unhelpful contribution:

But my clear message to people right across NSW [is] stay safe, and don’t take drugs and you will be safe.

Associate Professor David Caldicott, one of the driving minds behind CanTEST, suggested Perrottet had engaged in “magical thinking”. In Victoria we have the legacy of Dan Andrews who, citing the demonstrably false [HRJ] claim that PT encouraged pill taking (a belief favoured by Craig Kelly), insisted that under his leadership PT would never be introduced. The state opposition has been steadily opposed to harm reduction measures for conservative political reasons. Ignoring evidence, consecutive opposition leaders have opposed Safe Injecting Facilities and PT alike. I do acknowledge however, that the Victorian opposition has lobbied the state government for more effective emergency drug alert systems.

Recent research

A recent paper Drug-related deaths at Australian music festivals, was published last month in the International Journal of Drug Policy. Examination of the National Coronial Information System (NCIS) yielded the following results about fatalities at music festivals between 2000 and 2019:

There were 64 deaths, of which most involved males (73.4%) aged in their mid-20s (range 15-50 years). Drug toxicity was the most common primary cause of death (46.9%) followed by external injuries (37.5%). The drug most commonly detected or reported as being used was MDMA (65.6%), followed by alcohol (46.9%) and cannabis (17.2%), with most cases reporting the use of two or more drugs (including alcohol) and 36% reporting a history of drug misuse in the coroner’s findings. Most deaths were unintentional, with less than a fifth of cases (17.2%) involving intentional self-harm. Clinical intervention was involved in 64.1% of cases and most festivals occurred in inner city locations (59.4%).

There are complex factors identified in the paper, such as inner city events and multi-day events being more likely to be the site of a fatality. This may reflect policing strategies and the need for harm reduction strategies, respectively. Alcohol is known to be a compounding factor and its use is clearly identified as the second most prevalent substance (see bar graph below). Males are more likely to drink and use MDMA and this is reflected in them making up just under three quarters of deaths. Of 2000 festival goers surveyed, 52% were male. Poor decision making associated with alcohol intake is always a potential factor with illicit drug use.

*Total number of drug-related deaths, deaths primarily attributed to MDMA, and deaths primarily attributed to alcohol, at music festivals in Australia by year ranges (n=64)*

Harm reduction flexibility

What I took away from this paper was the recommendation that a range of harm reduction measures would each have something to offer in solving this persistent, multifactorial problem. More so, understanding data yielded by such research is vital to establishing the correct harm reduction approach for the Australian population in these instances. In conclusion, the authors write:

Harm reduction strategies such as roving first aid volunteers, mobile medical care, spaces to rest, hydration stations, and drug checking services, may best address some of the risks associated with illicit drug use at festivals, in addition to increased consumer education and awareness. It is important to understand the factors involved in these incidents in order to inform policies around harm reduction and law enforcement at music festivals in future to prevent further deaths.

Just as is the case with injecting facilities, substance checking is a successful, global health policy dynamic. Like all aspects of harm reduction the evidence supporting it is strong, persisting through variations specific to where it is a reality. In Canada, Toronto ran a comprehensive trial from 2019 to 2023. Switzerland has had drug checking available since the 1990’s. Now in a number of cities, the past decade saw a 250% increase in samples tested there. The UK has drug checking services, as does New Zealand.

Despite certain dynamics in NSW and Victoria leaving state governments out of touch with most Australians, there are cabinet ministers and cross-bench teams respectively, raising awareness and pushing for change in each state. When we look at arguments for and against PT, it appears arguments against, lack realistic substance. Indeed these documents recognise the importance of harm minimisation and its place in the National Drug Strategy. The most comprehensive argument “against” is criticism of the limitations of on-site drug checking, compared to laboratory testing. This is well understood and has been directly addressed by Dr. Monica Barratt. Of course the inevitable case that flexible harm reduction measures encourage or create the illusion of safety around illicit drugs is always mentioned. The evidence simply does not support this.

Drug Free Australia

This brings us to the anti-drug lobby. Certain groups contend that law enforcement and zero tolerance are superior in managing drug related harms. Stridently anti Harm Minimisation, they promote the ideology of a drug free world, consistently undermining evidence. In fact my own interest in the anti-vaccination lobby, began in 2009 and I was struck by similarities between their tactics, and those of the more lethal anti-drug lobby, I was long familiar with.

One group, Drug Free Australia (DFA), operate similarly to The Australian Vaccination-risks Network (AVN). DFA aggressively lobby government and an unsuspecting public, frequently using alarming irrelevant information. They attack the media, use meaningless or decontextualised data to dispute published evidence or argue that acknowledging a need for more research, reveals lack of any research. DFA dismiss harm reduction techniques by highlighting the ongoing presence of harm (eg; MDMA has caused deaths, thus no rationale for PT exists) or blame harm reduction for drug user risk-taking, and the familiar contention that PT “green lights” the taking of MDMA.

Such contentions stem from ignoring that high risk behaviour via illicit drug use continues all day, every day in Australia. Harm reduction aims to reduce the harms associated with this behaviour. It provides education, promotes safe choices, saves our health-system money, and yes, saves lives. One way DFA contend PT actually kills, is by misrepresenting the PT card system. A drug found to contain what the owner expected is “white-carded”; as is say, an MDMA pill free of any pollutant. Yet, MDMA causes most overdoses say DFA, so a white-card result must be potentially lethal. Well, no. The drug is what the person expected. Not double or five times the amount. So the patron may take the drug they bought and, remembering the slide show above, will henceforth access reputable information on harm reduction.

Those slides are from the ACT Pill Testing Trial 2019. DFA attack those findings in a deceptive piece, arguing the opposite to accepted findings. On page 7, they selectively quote from evaluators who discuss that someone who discovers that the drug is what they thought, “…are likely to take as much or more” (p.33). And that “…concordance between expectation and identification is associated with stable or increased intention to take a substance” (p.34). DFA use this to extrapolate to the conclusion that PT will lead to more use and thus, more death. This requires logical fallacies: Decontextualisation and cherry picking of data. Reading the full sentences and paragraphs in which those terms appear leaves the reader with a positive, not negative view of the evaluation. See pp. 33-34, and consider Table 5 from p. 32, below:

When read in context we see that patrons intent to use drugs did not dramatically change, but their intent to engage in harm reduction behaviour notably increased. Eg, also on p.33 (bold mine); Many interviewees reported that the quantity of drugs that they intended to use did not change after testing, as the drug was identified to be what they expected. And, Many interview patrons indicated that their intention to use did not change, but their intention to engage in harm reduction behaviours did increase. Also, this and other evaluations have found non-concordance between patrons’ expectation of what a substance is and what a substance is identified to be, commonly leads to reduced intention to take that substance.

So, the comment pulled from p. 33 by DFA, omits crucial clarification from the evaluation. Some was printed on the same page, just two paragraphs above. For example:

Interview data suggests that this group were looking for confirmation of the contents of the presented drug, and information about how to reduce potential harms. Many interview patrons indicated that their intention to use did not change, but their intention to engage in harm reduction behaviours increased.

Prior research also indicates concordance is associated with an increased likelihood of taking the drug, and non-concordance with a decreased likelihood (Valente: 2019, and Measham: 2018). More so, the evaluators stress that modification of drug consumption can’t be measured alone. Contextual factors, such as type of festival influencing available drugs, need to be considered during interpretation of results and future study design.

Finally, the insistence by DFA that MDMA, not impurities, lead to most fatal overdoses is fashioned only to discredit PT. Still, five deaths in the six months leading up to January 2017 and investigated by Coroner Pares Spanos involved 25C-NBOMe and 4-Fluoroamphetamine. Recent discovery of potent opioids nitazene and metonitazene raise further concern. N-ethylpentalone is regularly found in so-called MDMA pills. But why get hung up on MDMA? Drug checking can check any drugs and CanTEST discovered three unknown substances, later confirmed at ANU. This is how a new type of cathinone (bath salt) was found. Supposed ketamine was actually a new type of benzylpiperazine (BZP) stimulant. The third find was propylphenidine.

Conclusion

Pill testing or drug checking is a harm reduction measure supported by consistent evidence in peer reviewed literature. Globally, where introduced, it has demonstrated success and improved understanding of behaviour. It is supported by most Australians, where valuable data has been gathered from on-site testing at music festivals, and the fixed site CanTEST, in Canberra.

This has expanded the nation’s understanding of drug user insight into, and uptake of harm reduction dynamics. QLD is the most recent state to confirm permanent drug testing. Arguments against the initiative are morally subjective and/or deceptive, leading to their swift deconstruction.

Drug checking saves lives and is supported by public health experts across Australia. As a dynamic, expanding, harm reduction initiative, it should be introduced nation-wide into Australia’s harm minimisation strategy.

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

Originally published as Pill Testing: The harm reduction initiative supported by strong evidence

31Jan2023

Dr. Albert Stuart Reece again restricted by medical authorities

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Drug Free Australia, Drug Free Australia, Health, Human Rights, Illicit Drug Policy by Paul Gallagher

The Medical Board of Australia has placed fifteen limitations on the practice of Dr. Stuart Reece of Highgate Hill QLD. The conditions, enforced on 21 December 2022, have resulted in the temporary closure of the Southcity Medical Centre where Reece practices.

Reece (pictured) is a controversial figure in addiction medicine and a vocal critic of Australia’s successful policy of harm minimisation. He holds no formal qualifications in addiction medicine, but has authored or coauthored extensively on the subject, presently as an adjunct professor at UWA. Almost exclusively, his writings link illicit drug use, methadone and medical cannabis to death and disease.

Experts have refuted certain works as “reefer madness”. Reece has long associated his Christian faith with treating addiction. His book, titled “Let My People Go: A Theology of Addiction”, was published in 2016. His work is favoured by extreme anti-drug pressure group, Drug Free Australia, and frequently cited by them in lobbyist material, media replies and parliamentary submissions.

This is not the first time regulators have acted to ensure the safety of his patients. An article published on this blog in December 2011 examined his use of unapproved naltrexone implants and the deaths of 25 patients who had undergone the treatment. In 2009 Reece was suspended from practice for supplying morphine to opiate dependent patients and falsifying records to disguise the fact. This was because of his ideological opposition to evidence backed methadone maintenance therapy. That suspension was in turn suspended for three years.

The Medical Board of QLD, Health Practitioners Tribunal observed at the time that Reece:

… has a somewhat evangelical approach to this area of medicine and because of that he does appear to lack a degree of insight and objectivity in relation to the treatment of his patients. Furthermore, he seems to feel that the ends justify the means in terms of treatment of patients.

Today, the catalyst for intervention includes the number of patients being bulk billed per hour and quality of care. This is reflected in the limitations on practice (complete list in slideshow below).

1. The Practitioner must not exceed four (4) of patient consultations in any one hour (60 minutes). […]

5. The Practitioner must only practise as a general practitioner when supervised by another registered medical practitioner with knowledge and experience in addiction medicine (the supervisor).
For the purposes of this condition, ‘supervised’ is defined as:
The Practitioner must consult with the supervisor who is always physically present in the workplace and available to observe and discuss the management of patients and/or performance of the Practitioner when necessary and otherwise at weekly intervals. […]

7. In the event that no approved supervisor is willing or able to provide the supervision required the Practitioner must cease practice immediately and must not resume practice until a new supervisor has been nominated by the Practitioner and approved by the Board.

A search for general practitioners providing services in addiction medicine in the Brisbane area yields modest results. There just isn’t enough practitioners providing these select services across Australia. If one adds the fact that such providers have often taken on all the patients they can, it isn’t beyond comprehension that Dr. Reece is unable to find a supervisor. Reece has loyal supporters amongst his patients, who have a Facebook page here. They have argued in a petition that finding a supervisor is “an impossibility”. The petition, “Reinstate Dr. Stuart Reece Immediately”, contends that the predictable lack of a supervisor indicates that the action taken is about the control of services offered under bulk billing.

AHPRA is also advising that Dr Reece must have another Doctor with him for consultations into the future to oversee his work to their satisfaction. This requirement is an impossibility. AHPRA and Dr Reece both know that this doctor does not exist. There is not a ‘spare doctor’ lying around that is available for this. […]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT PATIENT CARE OR BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES. THIS APPEARS TO BE ABOUT CONTROL OF THE TYPE OF SERVICES OFFERED TO PATIENTS WHO NEED BULK BILLED DOCTORS.

The petition is a long heartfelt plea seeking to justify the way Reece operates his practice. It makes the point that certain appointments, particularly prescription refills, may require only five minutes. The petition also notes that Reece would be forced to close his doors in part because, “his practice would be limited dramatically by the immediate reduction of the number of patients he is able to see daily…”. Whilst I empathise greatly with these patients and find removal of any addiction treatment services troubling, one cannot escape the fact that such a huge patient load should never have eventuated. Health Practitioner Regulations state, “A Practitioner must NOT exceed four (4) patient consultations in any one hour (60 minutes)”.

There’s no doubt that Medicare is not meeting the needs of Australian General Practitioners. The patient rebate is beyond inadequate, being markedly out of step with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This manifests in significantly fewer consultations being bulk billed, and in many practices fees now apply to concession card holders. For Australians surviving on the aged or disability support pensions a visit to their GP is now financially prohibitive. The end result is a health system under strain. However there comes a point where increased patient quantity, means decreased quality of care. Let’s remember that the Health Practitioners Tribunal observed in 2009 that when it came to treating patients Reece lacked insight and objectivity, and felt the ends justified the means. The same document notes (point 22):

He does provide care to a large number of detoxifying and drug dependent patients. In June 2009, alone, he had 409 Subutex patients in Queensland and I understand the numbers are larger at the moment. From 2001 to 2007 he was responsible for 8681 registrations of opiate withdrawal registrations in Queensland.

Arguably, Reece is the architect of his own professional distress. As noted above, in November 2009 the practice suspension applied to Reece was itself suspended for three years. Yet less than two years later there was no tone of contrition for falsifying medical records to supply opioid dependent patients with morphine. The occasion was a Senate Inquiry into the Professional Services Review (PSR) Scheme, to which Reece, representing the now defunct Australian Doctors Union, made a submission. Bear in mind Reece has today been saddled with limitations to prevent excessive bulk billing at the expense of Medicare. The PSR “aims to protect the Australian public from the risks and costs associated with inappropriate practice within Medicare…”. Reece began his submission:

Prof. Reece: The Australian Doctors Union is a nascent union which has come together to support each other through the nightmare experience of PSR’s incompetence, lies, intimidation and bullying. In addition to doctors damaged by—

CHAIR: Hang on please. That is making accusations and it is not the way that we take evidence. If you could please refrain from using that sort of language, that would be appreciated.

Reece continued for a full five minutes explaining why he believes the PSR “has been shown to be waging a very successful war against general practice in this country”. He blamed the PSR for doctor suicides, marriage breakdowns, a lowered bulk billing rate, marginalisation of women, being racist, sexist and for damaging “many excellent doctors”. One of these was his ideological colleague, “Dr George O’Neil of naltrexone implant and detox fame”. Despite the fact naltrexone implants are not TGA approved Reece felt O’Neil should have been assisted by Medicare. Perhaps most alarming was when Reece included himself as one of those excellent doctors. Referring to himself in the third person, he humbly submitted:

Associate Professor Stuart Reece, one of the foremost detox doctors in the nation and a world authority on the long-term effects of opiate addiction.

This dear reader, is the crux of the matter. Stuart Reece is not a world authority on the long term effects of opiate addiction. In 2007 he opposed needle-syringe programmes, methadone maintenance therapy and the policy of harm minimisation in general. He informed a parliamentary inquiry that condom use was linked to AIDS deaths. Yet in June 2009 Reece was managing 409 Subutex patients. Buprenorphine is the opioid in Subutex and today it is distributed in combination with naloxone under the brand name Suboxone. It is a successful mainstay of substitution therapy for opioid dependent patients seeking to manage addiction and eventually cease opioid use. It is a key element of harm minimisation.

Exactly how a strident opponent of harm minimisation has today found himself with so many opioid substitution patients that Ahpra require supervision and auditing of him, is baffling. It may however have something to do with the attitude toward Medicare and the PSR Scheme reflected in his 2009 submission. Or his 2012 comment, What is wrong with medicare? (p. 170) bemoaning the PSR and Medicare audits. It may also have something to do with the disdain Reece has for evidence based health policy and genuine, original research. Reece has spent a career convinced he simply knows better. Better than the bulk of his colleagues, better than global research trends and better than health authorities. In short, Stuart Reece is the cause of the dilemma faced by so many of his patients.

Having said that, one cannot deny that Reece and Southcity Medical Centre have been accomodating the needs of a great many patients. An excessive number of patients. However accounts such as this on reddit aren’t isolated. They suggest the practice is busy, waiting times are high but Reece is attentive and compassionate. Google reviews are more varied. According to the petition there are 1100 patients in need of treatment. Over the last 18 days, 224 people have signed. The goal is presently 500.

Ultimately this situation doesn’t bode well for these patients. It is doubly sad that many are not able to see that the cause of their problem is Stuart Reece himself and not Ahpra. Funnelling high numbers of vulnerable in-need, at-risk patients through the surgery is far from acceptable. The only way forward is to abide by the limitations. Anything less is to abandon his patients.

Stuart Reece must accept that the ends do not justify the means. It is time to place patients first.

Medical Board of Australia restrictions imposed on Dr. Stuart Reece

♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎ ♠︎

Latest update: 3 January 2023

30Aug2019

International Overdose Awareness Day – August 31st

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Drug Free Australia, General, Health, Human Rights, Illicit Drug Policy, Science by Paul Gallagher

Time To Remember Time To Act

August 31st is International Overdose Awareness Day.

Access the IOAD link above to find an activity, get resources or make a donation. On the main page just under a couple of videos, we read;

International Overdose Awareness Day is a global event held on 31 August each year and aims to raise awareness of overdose and reduce the stigma of a drug-related death. It also acknowledges the grief felt by families and friends remembering those who have died or had a permanent injury as a result of drug overdose.

International Overdose Awareness Day spreads the message that the tragedy of overdose death is preventable.

Thousands of people die each year from drug overdose. They come from all walks of life.

Do you recognise the signs and symptoms of overdose? What is the impact of drug use and overdose on family, friends and those experiencing it?

These videos include people affected by the impact of drugs use and overdose who share some of their stories.

Australia’s Alcohol and Drug Foundation have a comprehensive site set up for IOAD. There’s helpful information here such as Signs and Symptoms of an Overdose, Harm Minimisation, How to Help in an Emergency, along with references and resources.

This morning on ABC Melbourne Jon Faine ran a great interview. The info’ paragraphs run as follows;

Cherie Short’s son Aaron died of a drug overdose in 2015. She tells Jon Faine we need to change drug policy and “make humane decisions” to stop others from dying.
“This tragedy is preventable, I believe overdose is preventable,” she said.

Ms Short is joined by Kayla Caccaviello, who dated Aaron and has overcome her own addiction to drugs to become a drug and alcohol counsellor.

The interview is titled “Humane drug policy could have saved my son”: Mum

You can download the 8 minute mp3 file here.

Activities for this year globally and across every state in Australia can be accessed on this page. Fortunately Australia is second from the top and easy to access. But of course please use the drop down menu for fast access to the area of your choice. Australia has 79 activities with 48 in Victoria, 11 in NSW, 7 in WA, 4 in QLD and TAS, 3 in NT and 2 in ACT.

Activities are varied ranging from O.D. prevention training, to art display, to group naloxone (opioid antidote) training, to afternoon tea – followed by naloxone training and a free kit, remembrance events to de-stigmatise overdose, etc.

Australia has only two supervised injecting centres. One, the MSIC in Kings Cross Sydney opened in May 2001 and after more than 11 years of successful trial moved to permanent basis. The MSIC in Richmond, Melbourne commenced on a trial basis at the beginning of 2018. Whilst it is running successfully and saving lives daily the entire concept is a punching bag for conservative politicians.

Regrettably whilst it is easy to manufacture the illusion of government funded drug induced harm and negative community appearances the peer reviewed evidence, globally, supports the health benefits of Safe Injecting Facilities. Always be aware of the myth of a Drug Free Australia.

This notion is pushed on the back of pseudoscience, the rejection of peer reviewed evidence and moral panic. You can read up on the antics of Drug Free Australia Ltd via their tag here.

Evidence backed themes that are often presented on IOAD support the fact that prohibition and the “war on drugs” waste money, ruin and cost lives. Harm minimisation practices such as harm reduction approaches like needle exchange and injecting facilities, prevent overdose, the spread of blood borne diseases and community dysfunction.

Evidence supports harm minimisation and particularly harm reduction.

Prescription Drug Overdose

One area to receive increasing attention again this year is that of prescription opioids. According to this ABC article OD fatalities have risen almost 40% in the last decade.

A constant concern for those who need adequate pain management via prescription, is that the “war on drugs” mentality may permeate policy modification under the belief it is a sensible solution. Once again the political conservative gravitates to this mode of moral dictation.

Overseas activity suggests that those who are denied prescription medication for prolonged pain management may find their way to illicit opioid abuse and inherit all the problems of crime, disease, socioeconomic stress and violence that come with such abuse.

We must yet again be careful that in managing this emerging problem we do not allow the denial of rights and an ignorance of incumbent facts such that we see punishment and manipulation of those in need.

15Dec2012

Cannabis misinformation and the anti-drug lobby

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Health, Illicit Drug Policy, Legal, Science by Paul Gallagher

The most dangerous aspect of drug use is that the chemical becomes the centre of life, leads to physical debilitation after tolerance is reached, and no amount of drug produces the necessary euphoria – only coma or suicide are left

– Herschel Mills Baker (Drug Free Australia)

“Suicide/Schizophrenia: Consequences of acute and chronic cannabis use” –

A recent thread on Facebook gave me cause to reflect upon the impact that the anti-drug lobby has had upon community perception of evidence specific to cannabis, its use, abuse and potential.

This perception of course can be traced in part to sensational media headlines following the release of research into the effects of chronic cannabis abuse. Yet the anti-drug lobby has been willingly involved in the perpetuation of self serving and frequently egregious falsehoods that have left inhumane policy sabotage and damaged individuals in their wake. Worse, the very real and well understood problems associated with cannabis abuse have been scattered by the gale of “cannabis psychosis”.

I should stress this is not a pro-drug nor pro-cannabis post. If anything it is a pro-evidence post and I would hope readers can reflect upon the value of evidence in a human rights manner, much as we do in a consumer rights manner. As I suggest under my “About” tab, skeptics make excellent agents of morality because they are agents of evidence. This isn’t to suggest one is endowed with superior morale. Rather, one is bound to reject subjective and predisposed constraints in favour of evidence.

An effective informed policy on cannabis use should not slant only toward the harms caused by its use but also by the harms caused by the social measures/existing policies designed to control or prevent its use. Cannabis is not a hard drug. Cannabis is not a soft drug. Cannabis is a drug, and as such deserves the respect that science and apolitical critiques can bring.

The nonsense above was originally written in 1988 and has been continually polished and rephrased over the years. Its most recent incarnation was Cannabis – suicide, schizophrenia and other ill effects, uproariously tagged “First Edition, March 2009”. Subtitled A research paper on the effects of acute and chronic cannabis use, it is in fact a biased selection of literature. Not research, nor literature review.

Cannabis “potency” is a key driver of fear and a launch pad for ongoing misinformation. This area is fraught with notable disrespect for variables involved. Is “potency” THC content per volume? If so, what strains grown under what conditions provide conclusive answers? Or does one compare the hashish and hash oil of the 1970s and 1980s (at around 20% THC content) with todays plants? If so, what of the famed sinsemilla grown for decades?

DFA choose to refute Australia’s peak illicit drug body, the ANCD, and their “Evidence-based answers to cannabis questions: a review of the literature” (2006), which concluded no significant increase in THC content had occurred. This was challenged by the unqualified lobbyists with a preposterous figure of 30% THC content from an apparent – and unsourced – 1993 Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence claim. Readers were to be very afraid as the equally preposterous and unsourced joint potency from the 1960s was 0.5%

Could this even be true?

In THC content of cannabis in Australia: evidence and implications, Wayne Hall and Wendy Swift reported in 1999:

The major obstacle to testing these claims is that the THC content of cannabis products has not been systematically tested by any Australian police force over the period in which average THC content has been claimed to have increased.

Well, no, it appears to be fiction.

So why are DFA misleading the public this way? A primary area of community confusion and angst is the poorly reported association between psychosis and cannabis. The most fallacious is the “puff-puff, go mad” claim. It terrifies parents and this fear can persist in the absence of evidence. I must stress that negative experiences associated with ingesting THC can certainly be exacerbated by ingesting a volume of cannabis that contains more THC than a user is accustomed to. I’m not attempting to refute this possibility. I would add however, that user titration gives control to the cannabis user over the amount ingested. In this light a number of claims pushed by DFA demand criticism.

Primary is that DFA claim that the introduction of hydroponic cannabis (itself a spin-off of prohibition’s failure) brings with it [page 11]:

…a well demonstrated dose-response relationship between cannabis and its related drug-induced psychosis, where the greater amount of cannabis consumed correlates to a higher degree of risk of psychosis any three to fourfold increase is absolutely critical in any assessment of cannabis harms. When it is further considered that changed usage patterns, whereby users smoke only the multiple potent heads of the cannabis plant… the ANCD paper’s approach to potency is of concern.

Again, as we shall see below, this is not backed by evidence. What is drug-induced psychosis in this context? Sure, hydroponic production has provided the equivalent of sinsemilla-type product to users. Yet DFA then go on to cite the ANCD paper which confirms a tripling of THC figures in the USA. Quite correctly there is no reason to suggest this hasn’t occurred here, yet as the paper notes:

…the majority of THC levels in studies of [USA] cannabis seizures have remained under 5%.

So the ANCD conclusion that no evidence exists for huge THC increases in recent decades is valid. If anything users have more of the THC rich component of the plant, and less of the THC poor component. Hydroponics ensures rapid maturation and more flowering (head). Per plant there is more THC rich matter. But that matter is not notably more THC potent.

I hate to excessively mull this over, so to speak, but once again prohibition has placed better drugs for the same price into the hands of Aussie kids.

Let’s consider DFA’s claim that, “users smoke only the multiple potent heads of the cannabis plant”. They are challenging figures from 1970 to 1997. Returning again to Hall and Swift 1999, we see on page 8:

So consumption of “skunk” or “super-skunk” that DFA claim is driving kids insane increased as much as leaf in the 14-19 year old group, from 1995-1998. Yet head seems to be the main product. Nonetheless users are not “smoking only multiple potent heads”. Which sounds more scary than just “heads”, one presumes.

Under Changing Patterns of Cannabis Use, Hall and Swift write on page 7:

The media preoccupation with the THC content of cannabis has distracted attention from other causes for concern about changing patterns of cannabis use among Australian adolescents and young adults. These patterns of cannabis use, which may encourage younger users to use more potent forms of cannabis, may also increase their chances of developing problems as a consequence of their cannabis use.

This is of course, exactly the point. By pursuing sensationalism, co-morbid health problems and negative lifestyle changes are frequently ignored. That this has been willingly and eagerly encouraged by groups such as DFA as part of their agenda to encourage blanket illicit drug zero tolerance and the public health damage this brings, is deeply concerning.

In 2009 this manuscript of misinformation was used to lobby independent conservative QLD MP, Peter Wellington to push for the old DFA staple of School Drug Testing. Such tactics are typical of the evangelical crusade waged by this conservative Christian group. The Australian National Council on Drugs concluded in 2007 that SDT was technically unreliable, cost prohibitive, morally and legally problematic, prone to exacerbate problems faced by at-risk children, designed to normalise punitive measures and fraught with false positives.

You can read more here about Drug Free Australia and their campaign against evidence. Or just marvel at a school kid’s drawing of God espousing “be drug free and you’ll be with me”. It isn’t just punitive policies DFA seek but a quite inhumane roll back of Harm Minimisation strategies, particularly those involving harm reduction. Whilst it is unacceptable for young Aussies to be under the impression cannabis is entirely safe, we can see without much effort how a spike in reports on cannabis and psychological harm has been exploited.

Claims that cannabis is supposedly endowed with benign or even beneficial properties because it is “natural” are equally concerning. The notion that if something comes from the earth it’s therefore by default superior to a manufactured pharmaceutical analogue is certainly not backed by evidence.

In fact this point is ripe for confusion about the role of evidence, its import and what might be termed insults from intuitive reasoning. Cannabis use as a recreational drug is defended at times with argument from antiquity. Combined with the “mother earth” line it may sound quite compelling. Like many alternatives to medicine (such as TCM), cannabis is also subject to further defence with argument from antiquity. According to The Mayo Clinic medicinal use can be traced back 5,000 years. Yet a crucial distinction is made here.

Research into the medicinal benefit of cannabinoids or their application as medication is quite different from inhaling cannabis smoke and expecting better health. There is quite a lot of rot about cannabis being medicinally magical. Whilst there is some potential for a rather large range of symptoms and side effects, grasping impact on actual pathologies demands extensive investment in research.

As abundantly hinted at above, perhaps the most alarming and challenging theme I’ve faced in recent years is the media construct that cannabis “causes” psychosis or schizophrenia. The primary reason this created so much angst in the illicit drug policy and discourse deconstruction fields was the immediate negative impact on management of the many known psychological issues. The 2007 meta-analysis by Moore et al published in The Lancet was seized upon as conclusive evidence.

It remains an excellent review, and fortunately drew much needed explanation about the nature of meta-analyses and in particular that of Moore et al. Amidst the frustrating and very disappointing bad science reporting to follow (including one of the worst by Australia’s own Jonica Newby on ABC’s Catalyst), were calmer voices such as that found on Storied Conduct: Resources and News in Psychology.

Correlation, as our basic research theories tell us, can never prove causation. All of the studies examined by Moore et al. (2007) were correlational in nature. Further, the additional use of meta-analytic grouping techniques cannot turn correlational data into experimental data no matter how sophisticated the statistics. This means that, while the trends and the thrust of the data seems to make marijuana a very promising explanatory causal factor in the development of some of the psychoses that these research participants developed, such a link has not been conclusively demonstrated. And, while the gross odds ratio speaks of a 41% increased risk, the authors themselves acknowledge the impact of confounding and other variables in lowering the risk percentage in the studies they examined. Hence, we are left without a good estimate of what the actual increased risk might be.

The number of media articles poorly reporting findings grew steadily over three to four years. Diligently a steady number of D&A workers, bloggers and independent media contributors used a dual method of exposing predetermined agendas and explaining the results in proper context. Generically speaking – and I stress generically – the headline “Cannabis induced psychosis increases 300% in two years scientists find”, might pop up. On examination it reflects that a sample with 0.2% predisposition to psychotic episodes had two years later, under different methodology, been found to present a 0.6% prediction to experience the transient psychosis they are genetically predisposed to, had they continued to smoke cannabis heavily for another decade.

One of the sadder developments was the establishment in 2008 of the National Cannabis Prevention and Information Centre. The NCPIC. Coined the National Cannabis Propaganda and Infotainment Centre by a contributor to a professional e-list, it regretfully offers themes well documented as not being efficacious in reducing cannabis abuse. In 2009 NCPIC head Jan Copeland was pulled up by the same publication for dodging the need to publish bipartisan research.

The NCPIC is in the habit of presenting the style of faux science we see above from DFA and also using alarming distortion of facts in their supposed quest to “prevent”. The public is seemingly deemed at risk from balanced information which is substituted with bias and deception. In view of the documented harm this approach leads to it is not good enough for a tax payer funded organisation.

One of the best papers I’ve read is Continued cannabis use and the risk of incidence and persistence of psychotic symptoms: 10 year follow up cohort study, by Kuepper et al. This paper controlled very well for baseline incidence (Eg: self medication of psychosis/schizophrenia, supplementation of low cerebral anandamide [thus proposed alleviation of psychotic symptoms] via cannabis, cumulative effect of CBD’s anti-psychotic properties, other drugs, unstable lifestyle, etc.

In doing so, they thus also controlled for the host of suspected [exact cause remains unknown] causes of psychosis (stress, genetic predisposition, changes at puberty, assault, major life changes, biological causes, neuroses etc). This was itself arguably misused by Professor Jan Copeland who we’ve just met.

Wayne Hall and Louisa Degenhardt contributed an excellent review [BMJ 2011;342:d719] at the time. They noted the superior methodology and also that:

In the light of these findings and those of earlier studies, it is likely that cannabis use precipitates schizophrenia in people who are vulnerable because of a personal or family history of schizophrenia… A modelling study suggests that we would need to prevent 2018-4530 young people in the United Kingdom from becoming regular cannabis users to prevent one case of schizophrenia, or to prevent four to five times as many (10,000-23,000) from light cannabis use to achieve the same result.

Of course schizophrenia is a disease with a clear diagnosis. Psychosis is a transient symptom with a much less clear delineation. What’s certain is that the term is misused and frequently in the manner suggesting cannabis use/abuse leads to a permanent state of psychosis.

Copeland is quoted in an article for The Drum by Quentin Dempster:

Professor Jan Copeland, director of the NCPIC a government-backed preventative agency, told 7.30 NSW that if cannabis was taken out of the picture the incidence of schizophrenia in Australia could be reduced by 8 to 14 per cent. She could not be more specific. That guesstimate was based on overseas studies. There have been no studies in Australia. This is revealing.

I had seen the report and was stunned. Copeland had failed to grasp the import of incident cannabis use to incident psychotic symptoms. More so she had failed to appreciate the basics of the different time periods. What she had messed up re 8% and 14% from the Kuepper et al study came from this line in the Abstract under Results:

The incidence rate of [sub threshold] psychotic symptoms over the period from baseline to T2 was 31% (152) in exposed individuals versus 20% (284) in non-exposed individuals; over the period from T2 to T3 these rates were 14% (108) and 8% (49), respectively.

The paper cited mentions “schizophrenia” twice. Once in describing instruments used to collate data and again under “methodological issues”.

I wrote to Jan and rather comprehensively outlined the incident specific nature of the results, to seek clarification. I received no reply. For the record here is the conclusion from this sterling study.

Cannabis use is a risk factor for the development of incident psychotic symptoms. Continued cannabis use might increase the risk for psychotic disorder by impacting on the persistence of symptoms.

It’s important to realise that this association is emerging as a very small but very significant issue for individuals predisposed to psychotic episodes. “Cannabis induced psychosis” is thus better viewed as schizophrenia. To date new trends and good research has been seized or sabotaged for political gain. There are areas in need of research dollars wherein we should despise bad science or exploitation of good science. Illicit drug policy is one of them.

As I mentioned way above this is not a pro-cannabis post. There are a host of reasons including psychological, physical and social to not use cannabis. Although I note it is Australia’s most popular illicit drug.

Which reminds me. There are no reasons to not use and respect evidence.

30Oct2012

Naltrexone implants backed by zealotry but not evidence

Posted in Anti-Drug Lobby, Drug Free Australia, Health, Human Rights, Illicit Drug Policy, Science by Paul Gallagher

Less than a month after Sydney coroner Mary Jerrum referred a provider of naltrexone implants to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission, the Christian Democrats’ Reverend Fred Nile revealed he wants them used as compulsory treatment for opioid addicts.

Naltrexone implants are not backed by any convincing evidence but the rapid opioid detoxification [ROD], opioid blocking properties they offer appeal greatly to anti-drug crusading Christian evangelists. Long opposed to harm reduction measures and evidence based treatment of addiction, such as methadone maintenance, far right Christians and conservatives see naltrexone implants as a moral masterstroke. Muscling into the action in recent years are the profit-focused, such as Sydney’s Ross Colquhoun, director of Psych ‘n’ Soul.

I’ve previously written about Dr. Stuart Reece, who features in the video below with the same title as this post. His abuse of patients with naltrexone and Jesus saw 25 of them die in 20 months. His career is the epitome of callous faith based pseudoscience which uniquely targets evidence based harm reduction measures. When I posted on a faux “research” paper he had co-authored with other members of Drug Free Australia, I referred to an exchange on an email list hosted by the Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia. It was on this list years ago that I first read Ross Colquhoun defend naltrexone implants as “common sense”. Indeed his evidence free defence of implants led me to conclude that his “common sense” was the equivalent of the religious zealots’ “belief”.

Both individuals are signatories to Drug Free Australia’s so-called position statement which includes funding of naltrexone implants as an “urgent pro-active change to our illicit drug policies”.

DFAposition_statement_sigs1

Handing down scathing findings into three deaths, the coroner recommended that the HCCC consider proceedings against a doctor working at Colquhoun’s Pysch ‘n’ Soul, Dr. Jassim Daood. According to the ABC she noted, “a number of disciplinary cases have already been completed about some of the clinic’s other staff”. The scale of potential problems becomes clear when one considers the implants have never been approved for use, eager staff have little or no training and post-implant support regimes are entirely absent. For over a decade these implants have been available via the TGA’s Special Access Scheme, which is designed to allow patients access to otherwise unavailable drugs to treat conditions deemed potentially fatal in the absence of that drug.

In this case the Scheme is being exploited as a loophole whilst the implant option itself has left in it’s wake a litany of failure and fatalities. Colquhoun is unlicenced to perform ROD but ignored requests from the NSW Health Department in mid 2010. SMH wrote on October 20:

Despite this direction, Colquhoun resumed the treatments while still unlicensed between July and September of that year, only desisting when Grace Yates, a 23-year-old with a five-month-old baby, was given ROD and naltrexone at the clinic on September 29, 2010. She suffered a heart attack and died two months later, having never regained consciousness.

It’s worth considering this failed treatment option is likely to be expanded under a coalition government. As health minister in the Howard Government, Tony Abbott provided the funding for the launch of the evangelical Drug Free Australia from the Tough on Drugs/Assets of Crime kitty. Describing themselves as “Australia’s Peak Drugs Body” they failed to meet the conditions of the funding, choosing instead to sabotage related health policy basics. Without doubt they have proven to be to addiction treatment what the Australian (anti) Vaccination Network is to the management of vaccine preventable disease.

Abbott also sent $50,000 they way of Psych ‘n’ Soul in the same year, showing exceptionally poor judgement. There is little doubt with enemies of Harm Minimisation such as Bronwyn Bishop, Sophie Mirabella and Christopher Pyne on his proposed front bench, Australia’s strong evidence based approach to addiction management would suffer. As the coroner noted:

It appears that a patient only had to present at the clinic to be enthusiastically recommended for rapid opioid detoxification, no matter what their history or situation, without alternatives being discussed or considered or any information given out of the risks involved.

Another death related to the attempts at ROD Psych ‘n’ Soul is now infamous for, involved Michael Poole, 48. He was described as “delirious and delusional” after ROD and died at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney two days later. The third death involved James Unicomb, 23 who died from drug toxicity following a poly-drug overdose, which followed the ROD and occurred whilst an implant remained active. This lack of appropriate follow up of patients is perhaps the most appalling failure related to the practice of ROD and implants.

Rapid detox’ doesn’t treat addiction. It removes cravings and leaves patients open to the possibility of overdose. Often they are dependent upon high doses of benzodiazapines which raises the risk of opioid induced respiratory depression. As addiction is not treated, behaviour cannot be expected to change. It is for this reason follow up should form the most important aspect of rapid detoxification. It is for the same reason that implants have such a high failure rate in “curing” addiction.

One can only imagine the profit made and moral crusading accomplished from treating now dead addicts who were essentially exploited, not treated. Of course, testimonials abound. Whether it’s those who adore Reece for showing them the way to Jesus or Colquhoun’s (third time lucky) performer in the below video, let’s not kid ourselves. The dead cannot speak.

Alex Wodak, director of Sydney’s St. Vincents Hospital Alcohol and Drug Service observed:

How they are allowed to be used for routine purposes in several states in this country beats me. It goes against all the normal regulations and I think the only explanation I can understand is that this is allowed in this case because they’re only drug addicts. […] We really need a national independent inquiry into the regulatory failure, the serious regulatory failure that’s gone on with Naltrexone implants for over a decade.

Indeed we do.