# Thanx for the Cocaine Mummies column, Cecil! :) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [January 27, 2001, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003 "2001-01-27T14:19:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/41 "2001-01-30T23:06:43Z")
Eh, **Espresso,** I’m not trying to make a federal case out of this, 'kay? 😉 I thought I was making the point that simple common sense, a sort of Internet “alert consumerism”, and a little healthy skepticism would lead one to discount the “cocaine mummies” theory. Common sense: Websites run by fringe groups do tend to latch onto lots of junk science, and post it prominently. Junk science means science that doesn’t have a lot of scientific confirmation, from many other branches of Science. Homeopathy is a good example of junk science. Alert consumerism: It is a given that all websites out there are out there because they have an agenda. When a website with an agenda finds some information that confirms its agenda, it posts it. When a sensible website with a worthy agenda (the FDA, NORML, the Centers for Disease Control) finds some information that confirms its agenda, it not only posts the tiny snippet of info, it also goes and finds confirming data, and posts that, too, and lots of subsidiary links. I am wary of websites that post only the tiny snippets of information. The cites that Jill gave were only tiny snippets of information. Also, sensible websites usually have altruistic agendas. “We’re posting this information on canker sores and herpes because we want to get the information out.” I saw nothing altruistic in either of Jill’s cites. They’re not there to help people, just to beat their own drum. Healthy skepticism: The first rule is, “Consider the source.” Who is telling me this? The second rule is, “Look for his motive.” Why is he telling me this? The third rule is, “Who gains?” What does he get out of telling me this? George Foreman tells me his grill is the greatest invention since the wheel. I consider the source–a former boxer. Is he an expert on grills? Not necessarily. I look for his motive, and I ask myself how he gains. Well, he’s telling me this because–he wants me to buy one of his grills. Same thing for Jill’s cites. Neither of the sources were sensible websites. One was a humor site, the other was an anti-drug website. One was trying to entertain me, the other was trying to enlist my aid in their cause. Neither website was posting their tiny snippets of information out of altruism. > [@](#): > > \*\*My argument about bone samples still stands. I would, again, very much like to see a specific breakdown of samples, origin, current location, and results. \*\* Well, gee whiz, so would I, dear heart! Why don’t you be the one to go down to the library and look it up? 😉 > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Duck Duck Goose:_ > If they had muscle, then they tested muscle. If they had hair, then they tested hair. But it actually doesn’t say that–you’re just assuming that. > [@](#): > > \*\*Er, please be careful assuming what I’m assuming here. \*\* Well, perhaps I should have said, “_One_ is just assuming that…” Beg pardon for attempting to read your mind, it was only my common sense whispering in my ear. “Oh, he’s assuming that they must have tested everything for everything.” > [@](#): > > \*\*how come the correlation was in country of origin, and not in where they ended up? \*\* I still don’t understand where you’re getting the idea that the article mentioned where the mummies ended up. You were the one who mentioned it. You said: > [@](#): > > \*\*In addition, a large number of mummies were tested, and they showed regional differences not related to where the mummies wound up, but related to where they were found. \*\* And I said: > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Duck Duck Goose:_ > Um, I don’t see any mention in the article of any distinguishing between “where the mummies wound up”, by which I presume you mean which museums, and “where they were found”, by which I presume you mean their original location. They’re all just lumped in together, “Sudanese”, “Peruvian”, etc. I don’t see where you’re getting the information that there’s some kind of difference in correlation between the mummies’ country of origin, and where they ended up. > [@](#): > > \*\*And how could bone samples get “contaminated”? \*\* Well, I dunno how S.B.'s “innovative” testing process works, but AFAIK most of the the tried and true testing procedures involve grinding up the bone into a very fine powder and then doing various things to it. In such procedures it’s hysterically easy to contaminate your samples, as any lab technician can tell you. Even a few microscopic tobacco crumbs on your fingers, not to mention tobacco ash dropping from your cigarette, can mess up your results. > [@](#): > > \*\*I’m not sure any other explanation fits the available evidence \*\* And my point that I’m trying to make is that there’s such a tiny amount of evidence, and that suspect, that there’s really no point in looking for a sensible explanation in the first place. Let them produce some more evidence; then I’ll be interested. > [@](#): > > \*\*However, I’m pretty certain that cocaine in particular does not correspond to much else in nature, and certainly little or nothing in Egypt. \*\* The alkaloid contained in cocaine is something called a tropane alkaloid. Other tropane alkaloids are nicotine and atropine (a.k.a. datura or belladonna). Belladonna was almost certainly well-known in Egypt. [http://daphne.palomar.edu/wayne/ww0703.htm](http://daphne.palomar.edu/wayne/ww0703.htm) > [@](#): > > The leaves, stem, root and fruits of Datura contain a battery of tropane alkaloids, the most potent of which are atropine, hyoscyamine and scopolamine. > > Tropane alkaloids are found in many other poisonous plants, including henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), pituri (Duboisia spp.), and mandrake (Mandragora officinarum), all of which were used extensively in witches’ brews and folk medicines. > > It is interesting to note that the infamous tropane alkaloid, cocaine, is also a local anesthetic when injected into skin or muscle tissue. This property led to the discovery and synthesis of the more potent compound, novocain, widely used in dentistry. > > Clay tablets from Babylonian and Assyrian ruins indicate that Datura was used medically in ancient civilizations several thousand years ago. Greek and Roman physicians used Datura mixed with opium as a sedative and general anesthetic during surgery. In fact, the use of scopolamine (one of the alkaloids in Datura) plus morphine as an effective pain reliever and sleep inducer was common practice until the nineteenth century. [http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/Wilson/pp/f97/lec21.htm](http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/Wilson/pp/f97/lec21.htm) > [@](#): > > Nicotine is a tropane alkaloid typical of many others found among taxa of the Solanaceae: Datura (New World native - scopolamine - most hallucinogenic (and dangerous but also used as a medicinal - seasickness) of the solanaceous alkaloids, also atropine, found in belladonna (Atropa belladonna) and many other Old World species of the family produces intoxicating effects that have produced a rich lore (witchcraft, medicine, herbals, etc.). > [@](#): > > \*\*One of those sites goes into more detail about the method and how it eliminates outside contamination to whatever degree. It would have to be detailed in The Lancet’s article. \*\* Um, well, unless I overlooked a link or something, no, actually, I didn’t see anything on either website that “goes into more detail about the method”. Perhaps you’d care to direct my attention? > [@](#): > > \*\*Since she was apparently studying mummies, I’m not sure how your confusion indicates anything about the veractity of her results, and it’s quiet logical to think she would be investigating them. \*\* Um, I thought the whole point of the research was to prove there were traces of cocaine and nicotine in _Egyptian_ mummies. I thought that was S.B.'s whole premise. And since, yes, she was studying mummies, why add earth-buried remains (skeletons) to your study group? All I can figure is that they roped in the Sudanese and Germans to provide some sort of control group, although Lord knows what. > [@](#): > > \*\*What’s your point? Are you implying they made up The Lancet article? \*\* No, I’m saying they only posted the tiny snippet of information that confirmed their agenda. There was no discussion of it, no links to other information, just the factoid. > [@](#): > > \*\*I admit freely that I don’t have the knowledge or resources to “prove” anything here. It sounds like you’re so interested in being right that you are ignoring the evidence and its source. You seem to have quite already discounted it in toto. Your skepticism isn’t a basis of “proof”, either, you know. \*\* Well, you’re new here. This is a website devoted to Fighting Ignorance. Around here, all factoids are supposed to be officially Guilty Of Being Junk Until Proven Innocent. We’re supposed to have Google and Snopes and the Encyclopedia Britannica on our toolbar. All Dopers are supposed to be from Missouri–“Show me!” we’re supposed to demand. That’s how it works. I don’t ignore evidence that makes sense. I don’t ignore evidence that comes in by the truckload. I don’t ignore evidence about which other people whose opinions I respect say, “Yes, that’s good evidence.” I do ignore “evidence” that triggers my “oh, come on!” alarm. That’s how I’ve managed to avoid sending Alex Chiu money for a pair of Immortality Shoes. 😉 > [@](#): > > \*\*_laughs_ You know a lot of museums with mummies in the Sudan? Yeah, I didn’t think so \*\* If you’ll be so kind as to explain the joke, I’d be glad of a hearty laugh, too. 😕 > [@](#): > > \*\*The Lancet is the journal of the American Medical Association. It is one of the most heavily peer-reviewed documents in the world. > > The results have been reproduced by the only person to have retested the samples. > > I’m not sure how else to disuade you from your pre-formed belief that there’s nothing to the results. I’m a skeptic, myself, but I don’t let it get in the way of learning new things. \*\* Well, bless your little pea-pickin’ heart, darlin’, Mommy knows what _The Lancet_ is. It’s perfectly simple to dissuade me from my pre-formed belief–show me some good evidence that makes sense, that other reputable scientists have confirmed. And the thing about peer review is, see, the way it works is, first the people with the research publish it in the _Lancet_. Then their peers read it. Then their peers go out and try to reproduce the results with their own tests. Then their peers write up their own results and publish it in the _Lancet._ Only after you’ve had that happen can you say that the research was peer-reviewed. **That’s** the research that will convince me. “Peer-reviewed” doesn’t necessarily mean “the editors submitted this article to a jury of their peers and it was reviewed and then printed, so therefore it must be true.” Here’s a website that discusses _The Lancet’s_ decision to publish a controversial paper. [http://www.gene.ch/info4action/1999/Oct/msg00057.html](http://www.gene.ch/info4action/1999/Oct/msg00057.html) > [@](#): > > Friends of the Earth has welcomed the top British medical journal Lancet’s decision to publish research today by Drs. Ewen and Puzstai that concluded the feeding of genetically engineered (GE) potatoes to rats resulted in severe health impacts including inhibited growth rate, immune system suppression and tissue damage. The publication of the research letter follows a 14 month debate on the validity of the results. Friends of the Earth backs the Lancet’s criticism of prominent scientists and medical societies for “berating critics rather than engaging them” and for “criticizing reports of research … before those data were reviewed and published in the proper way.” Although Friends of the Earth agrees that the results are “preliminary and non-generalisable” (1), Ewan and Pusztai’s conclusions should not be ignored by the American public and federal regulators. “We applaud Lancet’s decision to publish this research. The debate generated by this issue clearly shows that there is no scientific consensus about the safety of genetically engineered (GE) food or the methods used to research it,” said Dr. Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth. The publication of these scientific tests highlights the potential impacts of GE food. So just because it’s in the _Lancet_ doesn’t mean it’s true. Sometimes they publish controversial and possibly erroneous papers for their own reasons. I draw your attention to this quote: “The publication of the research letter follows a 14 month debate on the validity of the results.” The trouble with peer review is it takes time for the peers to do their research and get it written up and published. So we may just have to put the whole “cocaine mummies” issue on hold for the next five years, until it’s been “peer reviewed”. > [@](#): > > \*\*Pray tell, do enlighten us on the “tried and true” testing methods for finding those drugs in tissue and bone samples. \*\* Um, well, basically, they grind the stuff up and add chemicals to it and see what happens. I’m not a chemist, or a forensic pathologist, but I do know that certain chemicals react in the presence of certain other chemicals. There’s a thing called a Scott reagent test. [http://www.nylj.com/decisions/00/08/080700b6.htm](http://www.nylj.com/decisions/00/08/080700b6.htm) > [@](#): > > : the field test performed by Officer Cohan on the substance recovered from the defendant was a cocaine/cocaine salts and base reagent test, the equivalent of the Scott-Reagent test. This particular version of the Scott-Reagent test is manufactured by ODV, Inc., which distributes the test under the brand name “Narco-Pouch.” Then there’s a thing called a spectrometer. That’s how they test paper money to find cocaine residue on them. [http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97.n425.a06.html](http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v97.n425.a06.html) > [@](#): > > Researchers performed two analyses on the bills one in which filter paper was wiped on each side of the bill and examined by spectrometer for cocaine. The other process called for soaking strips of the bill in methanol, from which the cocaine was distilled and measured. > [@](#): > > \*\*. But unless you’re far more expert than you seem, you’re not really in much of a place to be discounting procedures or results. What’s your background in drug analysis? \*\* Um, I don’t need a background in drug analysis to discuss whether research results were discredited in the scientific community. This is a message board populated by Regular People, who are here to discuss the Fighting of Ignorance, not to show off their professional credentials. Are you saying that only child molesters may participate in a thread about child molesters? I read books. I watch TV. I watch movies. I talk to people. I post on this message board. And, finally, last but by no means, least _I know how to use a search engine._ Specifically, Google. That’s how I just got all those cites above, in the last 20 minutes or so, on testing for cocaine, and belladonna, and stuff like that. I don’t need an background in chemical analysis as long as I can go look stuff up on the Web. I’m not aiming at presenting myself as an expert. I’m just trying to fight a little ignorance. > [@](#): > > \*\*She is apparently the first person to attempt to isolate druglike compounds from mummies. How could there be “standard” methods to do what she has been the first to do? \*\* Um, there are standard methods for finding chemicals in things. See above, the Scott reagent test, etc. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Duck Duck Goose_: > Um, no, actually, I was just about to say, “This is looking more and more INcredible all the time,” now that I’m actually devoting time to sitting down and thinking about it, instead of merely allowing myself to be guided by the facts that (a) only one person has ever found these results, > [@](#): > > \*\*This isn’t true. \*\* Tsk tsk. You dint read far enough, cutie pie. 😉 > [@](#): > > - originally posted by Duck Duck Goose\*: > that she did so while using her own personal method of testing, > [@](#): > > \*\*You haven’t found fault with them, and there appear to curerntly be no alternatives \*\* I haven’t found fault with them because there isn’t enough information to judge, and since I don’t have enough information to judge _in their favor_, my “default” setting is “not proven”. I don’t know what you mean by “no other alternatives”. No other alternative theories? Nonsense, both **Eohippus** and **John Kennedy** offered perfectly reasonable alternative theories. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Duck Duck Goose:_ > (c) that so far only one set of researchers has tried to duplicate her results, > [@](#): > > \*\*_blink_ So research is meaningless unless a lot of people think it’s important just then? \*\* No, research is meaningless unless a lot of people think it’s **correct**. > [@](#): > > \*\*That’s not science. That’s prejudice. \*\* No, thinking that research is meaningless unless a lot of people think it’s correct IS science. And it has to be reputable, well-respected scientists who think it’s correct, too. Not so long ago, a lot of people thought it was correct that the Sun went around the Earth. After enough evidence accumulated that it was the other way around, they changed their minds. But it wasn’t just because Galileo said so–it was because after a while it became obvious that thoughtful, intelligent people realized that that must be how it worked. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Duck Duck Goose:_ > (d) that they did so while using her own personal method of testing, (e) that while supposedly confirming S.B.'s results, they also got some rather odd results (the German mummies with nicotine in them), > [@](#): > > \*\*All of the results are odd. Why else would they be discussed here? \*\* I meant that it was odd, when they were supposed to be testing Egyptian mummies for cocaine and nicotine, in order to confirm S.B.'s theory, to suddenly find out that they were also testing Sudanese and German skeletons. > [@](#): > > \*\*IF you have a better testing methodolgy, or find fault with hers, let’s hear your suggested alternative. \*\* Already covered this. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Duck Duck Goose:_ > (f) that there’s only the one report on the Web covering all this (the BBC video), > [@](#): > > \*\*If scientists have chosen to ignore it, and it has no useful bearing on modern life, why would the media bother with it? \*\* Oh, good heavens. :rolleyes: You mean you didn’t realize that the BBC is in the business of selling entertainment? Why would the media bother with it, indeed? It couldn’t be for some filthy vulgar reason like Nielsen ratings, could it? Naw, it must be because it’s The Truth, and if Science is going to ignore it, to the detriment of the populace, why, the Beeb will ride to the rescue and Get The Word Out. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Duck Duck Goose:_ > (g) that it’s linked to every “Atlantis” and “ancient mariners” website there is (which ought to be a dead giveaway). > [@](#): > > \*\*Let me get this straight; something that is latched onto by fringe people must be bunk? Please elaborate on your use of scientific method to prove that. \*\* No, what I meant was, something that is latched onto by fringe people _and does not appear anywhere else in reputable scientific circles_ must be bunk. That’s just common sense–I don’t need a scientific method to prove that. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2001, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/42 "2001-01-30T23:52:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\* > > And the thing about peer review is, see, the way it works is, first the people with the research publish it in the _Lancet_. Then their peers read it. Then their peers go out and try to reproduce the results with their own tests. Then their peers write up their own results and publish it in the _Lancet._ Only after you’ve had that happen can you say that the research was peer-reviewed. **That’s** the research that will convince me. > > “Peer-reviewed” doesn’t necessarily mean “the editors submitted this article to a jury of their peers and it was reviewed and then printed, so therefore it must be true.” > > \ > > The trouble with peer review is it takes time for the peers to do their research and get it written up and published. So we may just have to put the whole “cocaine mummies” issue on hold for the next five years, until it’s been “peer reviewed”. \*\* [nitpick] I apologize for coming in during the middle of this, and I don’t wish to seem obtrusive, but since I am involved at least on a small level with the peer-review process I do want to clarify a little, if possible. Most peer-reviewd journals work like this: The author or authors submit a paper to the journal’s editor. (In some cases the managing editor, in others the topical editor. In any event, someone in the respective field.) That editor then recruits at least two (and usually three) experts in the field to read the paper. This is all well before the research is ever published. The reviewers get a copy of the manuscript and rip it to shreds, attacking its scientific plausibility. I’ve seen these reviews. The reviewers - referees - return the manuscripts to the assigning editor a month or two - sometimes quite a bit longer, as schedules tend to get muddled - with their critiques. These referees will recommend that the paper be accepted or rejected or that it be accepted only with minor or major changes. Then these reviewed manuscripts wind their way back to the original authors, who make the suggested changes (or don’t, if they feel strongly about it), and then return the paper to the editor, where it’s finally accepted or rejected. I do not want to misinterpret anything you may have said (and forgive me if I seem patronizing, because I don’t mean to give that impression). For most journals, the peer review process is a long one, and you can rest assured that when that paper is published - and yes, this does depend on the publisher, as some are more reputable than others - it has been looked at by quite a few people in that field. I personally doubt that any journal of even the tiniest good standing would knowingly print information it knew to be erroneous. Controversial, you bet. Dead wrong, no way. I realize it is possible **The Lancet** might not employ this methodology, however. I can only tell you that the journals I work on do what I outlined above. Anyway, just trying to help. Don’t hurt me! \ ---
**Author:** ![JillGat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9fc29f/32.png) [@JillGat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JillGat)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/43 "2001-01-31T04:53:09Z")
[[Same thing for Jill’s cites. Neither of the sources were sensible websites. One was a humor site, the other was an anti-drug website.]] At least one of those sites was an Indian newspaper and one referred to an article in the Lancet (which I wasn’t able to find), a reputable journal. I’m sorry I haven’t been able to find the article I saw originally that described the methodology they used to test the hair shafts. I’m not saying I believe that ancient Egyptians snorted coke or that they visited the New World, btw. I don’t. But I agree with Cecil that there has been no official debunking or explanation to clear this all up. What’s up with that? ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 8:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/44 "2001-01-31T08:45:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by espresso \* > However, I’m pretty certain that cocaine in particular does not correspond to much else in nature, and certainly little or nothing in Egypt. \*\* Why would that be? Cocaine is simply a derived from alkaloids in the Coca plant, naturally occuring compounds. As far as I recall from the (serious) discussions in sci.archaeo (1) the tests were for the basic alkaloid active in Cocaine. (2) the same or similar occurs in several old world species of plants, at least one of which is indigenous to East Africa. I see that DDG has helpfully provided further information so I’ll leave off. (Of course, DDG has quite correctly raised the issue of contamination is testing --why didn’t I think of this: Serious problem really. A little error in cleanliness…) ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/45 "2001-01-31T11:34:59Z")
I certanly root for the concept of contamination- there are many old B&W pics of "diggers’, all with cigs in their mouths. There also could be that sort of contamination at the lab. However, the egytians used a mixture of herbs & natural chemicals that is unknown to us. Since nicotine is a great insecticide- why could they not have found some similar plant and mixed some of it into the “mix”? But- cocaine- and in so many samples? Were all the egyptians loaded all the time? (but the mystery of those tiny spoons, and how they built the pyramids is solved 😃 ) And, if they were- why does the plant not show up in the sacred writings & pictures- as so many others do? The Lotus is there, for EG. And, LOTS of stuff on beer. (Umm, there is no chance that the Lotus has a similar spectroline to cocaine, is there?). So- here is what needs to be done. There are still many “lesser” mummies un-dug. Dig a couple up- and take samples right then & there. Next- test other “mummies”- and more recent bodies. If they found “traces” on some 80% of bodies in pre-1800s europe, that would be odd. Or better- pre-columbian European remains. If 'cocaine" or ‘nicotine’ shows up in the “fresh-dug” mummies- contamination is out. Then they will have to go thru places where they mixed or stored some of the mixtures used to preserve. If a huge proportion of ALL bodies- no matter from when or where, come up positive for cocaine- then the test is screwed up. ---
**Author:** ![Eohippus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Eohippus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eohippus)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/46 "2001-01-31T13:18:08Z")
Neutron activation analysis is an effective method for the identification of trace elements in hair shafts. IIRC, it was used to determine the cause of death of three members of the ii-fated ship, the Franklin, who were buried (and mummified) in permafrost and thus were found in an excellent state of preservation. I’m familiar with NAA, having worked with it for a year at Brookhaven Nat’l Labs under an NSF grant. The technique has drawbacks, however, in that it’s expensive (requires irradiation in the chamber of a high-flux beam nuclear reactor) and not contamination-proof. We analyzed literally thousands of samples before we could determine a correction factor for the contaminants. So I still hold, doubtful origin plus (relatively) small sample size plus very limited peer review equals inconclusive, equals prove it to me before I believe it. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/47 "2001-01-31T14:39:41Z")
Sword sheathed, Dantheman. 🙂 Yes, that was my basic understanding of how the peer review process works, too, depending on the magazine. Maybe I shouldn’t have used the word “erroneous”, maybe “suspect” would have been better. I got the impression from the Friends of the Earth quote that the Lancet had gone ahead and published the paper even though a lot of people disagreed strongly with it. I had the impression from **Espresso’s** post that he was under the impression that “if it’s in the Lancet, it must be the Straight Dope”. If it had appeared in, say, _Discover_ magazine, or the _National Geographic_ or even _Smithsonian_, then you’d know it was pretty certain to be the Straight Dope. They’re magazines that have built their reputations on credibility. But the Lancet, by its very nature, probably tends to publish more “fringe” stuff, just because the “fringe” stuff is still experimental. **Jill,** I think the reason nobody’s done more research on this is because (a) it’s expensive to rent a neutron activiation analyzer and (b) nobody really cares that much. And I’m sorry but I don’t see where either of your links is an “Indian newspaper”. 😕 One link is [http://www.parascope.com/](http://www.parascope.com/) subtitled, “Something Strange is Happening!” and seems to deal with American issues. The other link is [http://www.ndsn.org/](http://www.ndsn.org/) the National Drug Strategy Network. Their website says: > [@](#): > > NDSN is made up of individuals and organizations around the world, and is supported by the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a privately funded, non-profit educational charity working on innovative solutions to problems facing the criminal justice system. Here’s the [http://www.cjpf.org/](http://www.cjpf.org/) website. Both the NDSN and the CJPF appear to address American issues. If I’ve missed something that indicates they’re Indian newspapers, please direct my attention to it. 🙂 I didn’t address your Science Frontiers link [http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf111/sf111p01.htm](http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf111/sf111p01.htm) (home page ) [http://www.science-frontiers.com/index.htm](http://www.science-frontiers.com/index.htm) because it was only a short squib reporting the factoid. But it doesn’t look like an Indian newspaper to me, either. And I still can’t find your Yahoo link at all, not even with a Google search. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/48 "2001-01-31T15:03:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > \*\*If it had appeared in, say, _Discover_ magazine, or the _National Geographic_ or even _Smithsonian_, then you’d know it was pretty certain to be the Straight Dope. They’re magazines that have built their reputations on credibility. But the Lancet, by its very nature, probably tends to publish more “fringe” stuff, just because the “fringe” stuff is still experimental. \*\* Fair enough, although I’m still a little skeptical of _Discover_ or even _Smithsonian_. Not that they don’t have the necessary credibility, but I’m more inclined to go with journals whose names begin with “Journal,” as in “_Journal of Cryogenics_.” To me, anyway, the benchmark for a reputable journal is that the journal should be archival. Most mass-publication journals are not. _Science_ and _Nature_ both are. While it’s a nitpick, I kind of lend more credibility to those publications than I would to the ones you just mentioned. Suspect data rarely makes it past the peer-review stage. In fact, what usually seems to happen is that the reviewers will ask the authors to conduct further research before submitting the paper. Understandably, most scientists would prefer not to do this, since it means another group might steal their ideas and get published first based on its own research. _The Lancet_ does publish experimental material, but it is widely recognized in the medical and research communities as being highly reputable. I think that if a research were that loopy, then the authors would have better luck simply shopping it to a mass publication, like _Science News_. But, as you have said, it’s always safe to be skeptical, no matter the source. What the source is will only change the degree to which you’re skeptical. I’d be very skeptical if this research appeared in _MAD Magazine_, but not very skeptical if it appeared in _JAMA_. It’s all relative. (I should update my sig to read: **DDG** validated my existence! Cause now I actually have someone agreeing with me, a longtime Doper, no less.) ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/49 "2001-01-31T15:06:48Z")
Daniel, leaving aside our small disagreement, I think you raise some good issues/questions/concerns here, one comment: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > (Umm, there is no chance that the Lotus has a similar spectroline to cocaine, is there?). > \*\* I wish I could recall the plant from East Africa which does indeed have the same alkaloid as cocaine, but it wasn’t lotus. --tried searching for the info but found nothing so far-- (I assume that would have come up in the discussion, but then its dangerous to assume). Still, the presence of the plant suggests that one can not conclude ipso-facto that the alkaloid proves cocaine. anyways, seems like we’re all more or less on the same train of thought on this. (barring a notable kooky exception) ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2001, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/50 "2001-01-31T17:29:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > If it had appeared in, say, _Discover_ magazine, or the _National Geographic_ or even _Smithsonian_, then you’d know it was pretty certain to be the Straight Dope. Am I going to have to be the one that mentions the [gentle Tasaday](http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/Tasaday/Tasaday.htm) ? ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/51 "2001-02-01T03:36:57Z")
Collounbury- well, i tried- there are a LOT of ancient egyptian pics of the lotus, and so i thought… However, i still think my “experiments” are the way to go. It is an interesting theory, and if true will certainly change some things- so it must be treated seriously. However, I have my doubts. We short not REJECT the experiment because of who did it- but we should certainly ask for more tests first. \ **Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/52 "2001-02-01T12:48:47Z") > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\*Collounbury- well, i tried- there are a LOT of ancient egyptian pics of the lotus, and so i thought… However, i still think my “experiments” are the way to go. It is an interesting theory, and if true will certainly change some things- so it must be treated seriously. However, I have my doubts. We short not REJECT the experiment because of who did it- but we should certainly ask for more tests first. Oh sure, I’m not excluding the Germans have stumbled on something interesting, but this needs to be nailed down. > [@](#): > > you have explained that HOW many times so far? 😃 Oh, enough so my fingers and toes no longer suffice! ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/53 "2001-02-01T15:00:51Z")
Okay, Arnold, I’ll grant you the Tasaday hoax. 😉 But that was kind of a “once in a blue moon” experience. I mean, how many times are you going to have that peculiar concatenation of circumstances, where a Third World dictator sees a way to exploit the First World’s gullibility, and decides to go for it? And where an organization with the resources and credibility of the National Geographic Society is available to him? And where said organization, for reasons best known to itself, also decides to “go for it”? I bet somebody would have a much harder time pulling off something like that nowadays. “Once burned, shame on you; twice burned, shame on me”. But I will admit that the _National Geographic_ isn’t really a serious scientific journal. Maybe what I should have said was “mainstream”. Here’s what I meant: if I saw an article about “cocaine mummies” in the _National Geographic_ or _Discover_ or _Smithsonian_, I would believe that there was such a thing (of course, depending on how the article was written–if it was a debunking article, that would be different). I would think, “Well, huh, how about that…”, rather than, skeptically, “Oh, really?” [insert emoticon for delicately raised eyebrow] One tends to assume that mainstream magazines such as these aren’t interested in publishing fringe theories (except in a finger-pointing, fun-making, or debunking sense.) > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Dantheman:_ > Fair enough, although I’m still a little skeptical of Discover or even Smithsonian. Not that they don’t have the necessary credibility, but I’m more inclined to go with journals whose names begin with “Journal,” as in “Journal of Cryogenics.” Hee. Sorry, I can’t resist. [http://www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/store/3/0/4/0/7/](http://www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/store/3/0/4/0/7/) Yep, that’s Real Science, all right. Ah kin tell, 'cause it’s got all them big fifty-cent words in it, like “liquefaction technology” and “thermodynamics”. Yee-haw! 😃 But, um, what about the the _Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research_? [Journal of the ASPR](http://www.aspr.com/jaspr.htm) Well, hey, they must be Real Scientists, too, 'cause they got all them big fifty-cent words, like "experimental parapsychology " and “dominant participant effect”. Woo-hoo! 😃 [_sorry. i’ll go back to work now…_] > [@](#): > > _originally posted by Collounsbury:_ > I wish I could recall the plant from East Africa which does indeed have the same alkaloid as cocaine, but it wasn’t lotus. --tried searching for the info but found nothing so far– Um, datura? A.k.a. belladonna? [http://members.nbci.com/curse/The%20UseofHyoscyamineasaHallucinogenandIntoxicant.htm](http://members.nbci.com/curse/The%20UseofHyoscyamineasaHallucinogenandIntoxicant.htm) > [@](#): > > Datura stramonium (one of the ingredients of Asthmador), of which hyoscyamine is the principal alkaloid, was used in the Middle Ages in demonology, and to evoke hallucinations. It was smoked by the Arabs and Swahili of East Africa and in the Bengal legion of India in recent times. [http://daphne.palomar.edu/wayne/ww0703.htm](http://daphne.palomar.edu/wayne/ww0703.htm) > [@](#): > > There are approximately 25 different species of Datura throughout the world, including Europe, Africa, southeast Asia, Central and South America, Mexico and the United States. > > The leaves, stem, root and fruits of Datura contain a battery of tropane alkaloids, the most potent of which are atropine, hyoscyamine and scopolamine. > > Tropane alkaloids are found in many other poisonous plants, including henbane (Hyoscyamus niger), pituri (Duboisia spp.), and mandrake (Mandragora officinarum), all of which were used extensively in witches’ brews and folk medicines. > > It is interesting to note that the infamous tropane alkaloid, cocaine… ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/54 "2001-02-01T15:49:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose \* > Hee. Sorry, I can’t resist. > [http://www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/store/3/0/4/0/7/](http://www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/store/3/0/4/0/7/) > > Yep, that’s Real Science, all right. Ah kin tell, 'cause it’s got all them big fifty-cent words in it, like “liquefaction technology” and “thermodynamics”. Yee-haw! 😃 > > But, um, what about the the _Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research_? [Journal of the ASPR](http://www.aspr.com/jaspr.htm) > > Well, hey, they must be Real Scientists, too, 'cause they got all them big fifty-cent words, like "experimental parapsychology " and “dominant participant effect”. Woo-hoo! 😃 Is your point that beginning a journal title with “Journal” means nothing? Can’t agree with you there, not completely. You implied (in what appeared to me to be a somewhat patronizing tone, although that’s certainly tough to discern online ;)) that those pubs you named must be “Real Science” journals because they have big words :). I know, I know, you’re teasing. But I’m hardly saying that if a journal has ‘big words’ in it, it must therefore be a reputable journal. That’s a little too broad of a criterion, in my opinion. But by and large, beginning your journal’s title with “Journal” is a way to distance yourself from the mainstream press and _to lend credibility to your publication_. I will never sit here and tell you that all “Journal” publications are perfect and all non-“Journals” are wrong. Sure, there are some loons out there with far-out premises, but I don’t see why the whole lot should be damned. Go to [http://www.publist.com](http://www.publist.com) and do a search on journals beginning with “Journal” and you’ll see about eleventy gajillion of them. I’d wager than fewer than 1% were suspect or disreputable journals. ---
**Author:** ![Eohippus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Eohippus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eohippus)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/55 "2001-02-01T17:03:23Z")
Irrespective of the reputability of the publications, I’d still like to get a plausible explanation as to why a society which documented every aspect of daily life (and afterlife) would not even once mention the use of the substances being debated. Mind you, we even have records of Egyptian formulas for eye makeup, facial creams, and all kinds of crap: stimulants and hallucinogens would likely have been included, too, if they were actually used. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/56 "2001-02-01T18:33:10Z")
I stumbled across all this while looking for something else (ain’t it always the way?) So I can’t take any credit for fearsome research. Poo. 😃 You can test hair for both cocaine and nicotine by using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and by using radioimmunoassay techniques. [http://www.healthy.net/clinic/lab/labtest/00a.asp](http://www.healthy.net/clinic/lab/labtest/00a.asp) > [@](#): > > Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS) > Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) is a combination of two different analytical techniques, gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry is the current state-of-the-art technique in analytical toxicology…_more…_ > > Radioimmunoassay (RIA) > In the RIA method, radioactively labeled drug, referred to as the tracer, is added to the mixture which competes with the drug for binding sites on the antibody. The degree to which the tracer displaces drug bound to the antibody depends on the concentration of the drug present. Therefore, in high drug concentrations, very little tracer is bound. Radiation emitted by the antibody bound tracer, which is proportional to the amount of drug present in the specimen, is measured using a gamma counter. Nicotine found in hair isn’t necessarily the result of smoking. You can test newborn babies’ hair for evidence that their mothers smoked while they were pregnant. [http://www.cma.ca/cim/vol-19/0231.htm](http://www.cma.ca/cim/vol-19/0231.htm) > [@](#): > > Nicotine and cotinine in maternal and neonatal hair > as markers of gestational smoking > Chrisoula Eliopoulos, MSc > Julia Klein, MSc > David Chitayat, MD > Mark Greenwald, MD > Gideon Koren, MD, ABMT > Hair collected from mothers and neonates shortly after birth was analysed by radioimmunoassay. > Conclusions: Hair concentrations of nicotine and cotinine are a powerful biological marker of the extent of intrauterine exposure to tobacco smoke. [http://www.health.gov.au/hfs/nhmrc/advice/nhmrc/chap2/sec1.htm](http://www.health.gov.au/hfs/nhmrc/advice/nhmrc/chap2/sec1.htm) > [@](#): > > As nicotine and cotinine are incorporated in the shaft of growing hair [Kintz et al. 1993]… > > Cotinine is a specific metabolite of nicotine. In most settings, there is no appreciable source of cotinine or nicotine for the non-smoker other than ETS. The concentration of cotinine in various bodily fluids (serum, urine, saliva) changes in direct proportion to the recent dose of nicotine [Vine et al. 1993, Jarvis et al. 1985, Tunstall-Pedoe et al. 1991, Cummings et al. 1990]. (That’s “Kintz” as in Kintz, P., Kieffer, I., Messer, J., and Mangin, P. Nicotine analysis in neonates’ hair for measuring gestational exposure to tobacco. J Forensic Sci 38:119-123, 1993. ). Literally, everything you always wanted to know about analyzing hair samples for cocaine. [http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/cocaine/cokehair.htm](http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/cocaine/cokehair.htm) > [@](#): > > ANALYSIS OF HAIR FOR COCAINE > Gary L. Henderson, Martha R. Harkey, and Reese T. Jones Balabanova is mentioned in this paper, as doing research on cocaine in hair, using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, and another method called “acid extraction”. However, she’s not credited with having invented either of these two methods of analysis. And there’s no mention of any “innovative” method she may have come up with. Henderson et al note in their conclusion: > [@](#): > > Finally, the effectiveness of washing procedures in removing cocaine absorbed or incorporated from the external environment remains controversial. This has important implications for the forensic application of cocaine hair testing results. At the very least, the lack of standardized washing procedures continues to make interlaboratory comparisons of data problematic. > > In conclusion, there are several sensitive methods now available for the analysis of cocaine and metabolites in hair. However, until the testing technology is standardized, the mechanisms of cocaine incorporation into hair better understood, and unequivocal procedures for distinguishing between drug ingestion and external contamination developed, the results from hair tests for cocaine should be interpreted with caution. Here’s her bibliography at the end. Balabanova, S., Brunner, H., and Nowak, R. Radioimmunological determination of cocaine in human hair. Z Rechtsmed 98:229-234, 1987. Balabanova, S., and Homoki, J. Determination of cocaine in human hair by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry Z Rechtsmed 98:235-240, 1987. Balabanova, S., and Wolf, H.U. Methadone concentrations in human hair of the head, axillary and pubic hair. Z Rechtsmed 102(5):293-296, 1989. And, finally, unbidden, appears an apologist for Balabanova. [http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/courses/en570/papers\_2000/wells.html](http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/courses/en570/papers_2000/wells.html) His name is Samuel A. Wells. He has posted his document on the Colorado State’s Entomology Department website under the heading of the Entomology 570 course, under “Papers”. “American Drugs in Egyptian Mummies: A Review of the Evidence” by Samuel A. Wells. He is not listed as a faculty member. [http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/](http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Entomology/) He is not listed as a graduate student, at least not this year. We may never know why Samuel A. Wells has posted his defense of the “cocaine mummies” theory as a “Paper” for Entomology 570. Well, whoever he is, he is hardly unbiased. His conclusion is that there must have been prehistoric Atlantic trade routes. > [@](#): > > Surprising at it may seem, evidence for early ocean voyages to America from the Old World is not lacking - nor is it negligibly verifiable. > \< snip \> > And the list goes on and on - some evidence being better than others - but as a whole it seems pretty much irrefutable. Claims to the contrary seem to be made by individuals with a vested interest in the isolationist position. The evidence, pro and con, when evaluated objectively, would seem without question, to favor the diffusionist position (which claims that pre-Columbian contacts took place). Um, well, no, I’d have to disagree. But it’s interesting to listen to. And at least he doesn’t sound like a raving lunatic, just someone who likes to generalize. “Pretty much irrefutable”? I don’t think so. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/57 "2001-02-01T18:43:04Z")
Eh, Dan, watch out your leg don’t come off in my hand.\* 😉 - 'cause I’m pulling it so hard. Get it? More smilies, we need more smilies! [kind-hearted members of Truckers Local 3142 form caravan to truck extra 😃 and 🙂 and 😉 smilies to underprivileged Dopers in Maryland] [_beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep_] [_sound of hydraulic truck lifts_] [_roaring noise as 20,000 pounds of “smilies, mixed, Maryland Dopers, for the use of” go cascading down into Dan’s driveway_] All right, bub? Whaddaya mean, “What am I supposed to do with 20,000 pounds of smilies?” Hey, we just deliver 'em–distribution’s _your_ problem. Have a nice day… ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/58 "2001-02-01T18:50:14Z")
And, you know, I’ve got a cousin works in the Secretary of State’s office, I can get you on the list for the sense of humor distribution…I know, I know, it’ll be government issue and prolly suck, but hey, it’s better than nothing, right? 😃 [_yanking hard on Dan’s leg_] Oops. Sorry. Didn’t realize it was a prosthesis…Here, let me help you…okay, _okay,_ sheesh, don’t be so touchy, I’m only tryin’ to help… ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/59 "2001-02-01T18:59:37Z")
I’m gonna need those! Every! One! Of! Them! Man, I tell ya. I have that e-mail notification thingy clicked so I know when there’s been a response in this thread, and when I got one a few minutes ago, I thought, “[Expletive]! Now I’m in trouble! She’s gonna eat me alive! Yikes!” And, of course, those fears were unfounded. Darn! Too bad this is a “serious” forum, **DDG** - I’d start a-flirting, cause… \ I think I love you! 😃 I feel all warm and fuzzy and stuff. I’ll lie down now. You smart people, please continue this fine discussion, mkay? 🙂 🙂 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2001, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003/60 "2001-02-01T19:07:04Z")
Admittedly, those don’t **look** like a simulpost, but because I’m at work and intermittantly ALT-TABbing between applications to avoid detection, I sometimes take a lot longer to post a short message than I oughta. I mean really… nine minutes? I’m slow in my old age… 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thanx-for-the-cocaine-mummies-column-cecil/52003.md?page=4)