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.
**
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?
**
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.”
**
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:
**
And I said:
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.
**
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.
**
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.
**
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://www.csdl.tamu.edu/FLORA/Wilson/pp/f97/lec21.htm
**
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?
**
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.
**
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.
**
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.
**
If you’ll be so kind as to explain the joke, I’d be glad of a hearty laugh, too. 
**
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
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”.
**
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
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
**
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.
**
Um, there are standard methods for finding chemicals in things. See above, the Scott reagent test, etc.
**
Tsk tsk. You dint read far enough, cutie pie.
**
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.
**
No, research is meaningless unless a lot of people think it’s correct.
**
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.
**
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.
**
Already covered this.
**
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.
**
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. 
) 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?).