“A zealot is someone who can’t change his mind, and who won’t change the subject.” --- Sir Winston Churchill
John Lauritsen’s claim, in his “Poppers Bibliography”, that “It is a matter of grave concern that there has been, in the past few years, a resurgence of drug use among gay men”, would seem to indicate he’s not aware of what’s been going on. Though rampant drug use in the gay community is indeed a matter of grave concern, data shows that there has been no ‘resurgence’ of drug use. The fact is, that drug use has been a part of the gay party scene for decades. The only changes during that period of time have been the drugs of choice. Lauritsen does get it right when he points out that the fashionable gay drugs seem to be crystal meth, ecstasy, and Special K, as well as such standbys as alcohol, poppers, and cocaine; he misses the mark somewhat with quaaludes, and either forgets or purposely omits cigarettes, one of society’s most dangerous products, widely used in the gay community. (While there is some illicit manufacture of qualudes today, most of what is found on the street sold as qualudes is likely either a benzodiazepine or a weak opiate.)
Where Lauritsen really starts to go astray, is when he begins harping on his tired, and long-discredited theories about poppers. He points out that, in 1983, he began trying to “warn gay men about the dangers of poppers” (volatile nitrites), in collaboration with Hank Wilson of San Francisco”, who in 1981 founded the one-man Committee to Monitor Poppers. He claims his and Wilson’s efforts were largely successful, taking credit for laws banning poppers that were passed by local and state governments, and finally by the U.S. Congress. He goes on to claim that “many gay men stopped using poppers, as they became aware of their immunosuppressive and carcinogenic properties.”
Lauritsen’s and Wilson’s theories have long been thoroughly discredited by mainstream researchers. These men are part of what are called the AIDS ‘denialists’, or as some say, the ‘flat-earth society’. Accurate information by genuine experts can be found here: Poppers Myth. But, for the record, poppers are not proven to be immunosuppressive or to have carcinogenic properties in humans.
Lauritsen goes on to say that, “in New York City, poppers are sold openly, despite the fact that they are illegal by both state and federal law.” What he fails to mention is that there are various formulations of poppers, and those that are sold in New York City are most likely the legal versions. His comment that, “the miasma of popper fumes has again become a taken-for-granted aspect of the "gay lifestyle" is cute, but hardly true. Poppers have never ceased to be part of the sexual arsenal of many gay men, because they’ve been shown to be the closest thing to a true aphrodisiac and have been safely used since the 1950’s to enhance sexual pleasure. As for the “miasma” reference, Miasma comes from Greek miasma, "pollution," from miainein, "to pollute" – it’s quite a stretch for the author to claim that a tiny bottle of nitrites could produced a cloud of ‘fumes’ anywhere, let alone in the ‘gay lifestyle’ (whatever that means).
Sir Winston Churchill once said that “a zealot is someone who can’t change his mind, and who won’t change the subject”. So it is with Lauritsen’s ongoing and relentless efforts at trying to convince people that poppers are hazardous to the health. Despite the large body of data proving otherwise, along with the anecdotal data that has proven poppers to be extremely safe for over 200 years, he continues to claim health hazards associated with the alky nitrites. He claims they are “hazardous to the health in many different ways”, and then spews out a laundry list of what he claims are dangers to people who use poppers: “They damage the immune system. They reduce the ability of blood to carry oxygen. They cause anemia (both Heinz body hemolytic anemia and methemoglobinemia). They damage the lungs. They cause cellular changes. Poppers are strongly mutagenic (that is, they cause genes to mutate), and they have the potential to cause cancer by producing deadly N-nitroso compounds. Poppers can cause serious skin burns and death or brain damage from cardiovascular collapse or stroke. Poppers have been used successfully to commit suicide (by drinking) and murder. (The victim was gagged with a sock soaked with poppers.)”
All of this, of course, has long been discredited by credible research. What may happen in vitro is not the same as what will happen in the human being.
As far as his claim that someone committed suicide by drinking poppers, there’s no mention of that in the literature anywhere; however, in his effort to support his already weak positions, Lauritsen apparently uses this claim to attempt to further vilify poppers.
With regard to the “murder” statement, according to the court records from the trial in Wisconsin, the victim accidentally died of suffocation, during a sexual encounter where he demanded to be tied up, with a popper-soaked sock in his mouth, and left alone. There was no ‘murder’. (Though, even if one murder and one suicide had been associated with poppers in their 200 year history, what’s that got to do with their alleged hazards? Or, is this yet another attempt to boost the author’s already weak support for their dangers, by again trying to further vilify poppers?)
Lauritsen goes on to say that “there are strong epidemiological links between the use of poppers and the development of AIDS, especially Kaposi's sarcoma (KS). In AIDS cases, KS is found almost entirely among gay men who used poppers, not among members of other "risk groups".
His shameless attempts to distort the data have been going on, unchecked, for many years. However, recently some experts decided to look more carefully at what he’s been saying.
For example, one science writer and researcher has reviewed every study Lauritsen claims makes his case that poppers are hazardous.
“I approached these studies with an unbiased mind, searching for both solid and faulty logic, and for strength and weakness in experimental design. I urge you to do the same as you follow me through this further analysis of the AIDS-alkyl nitrite hypotheses. First on the list is the hypothesis that alkyl nitrites suppress the immune system, thereby either encouraging the development of AIDS in HIV-positive individuals or increasing the likelihood that an individual will become infected with the AIDS virus in the first place.
How does the data either support or refute this hypothesis? The first thing that struck me in researching the numerous studies on this topic was that while some immune suppression was found, numerous factors have confounded these findings to the point where they cannot be considered scientifically valid. On first glance, a large number of studies seem to support the immune suppression hypothesis, but further study of the experimental design used in these studies, as well as other shortcomings reveal these claims are on very shaky ground. I began my analysis by looking more closely at a problem found in most of the studies I came across, that of proper dosing.
Not surprisingly, most of these studies are experiments where either mice or cells were exposed to varying concentrations of alkyl nitrites, through various means of delivery. The first question that popped into my mind was how relevant are these experiments to real life? While helpful information is sometimes gained from these types of studies, more often, the findings cannot be transferred to human beings. Many new drugs are studied outside of the human context and, while the lab reports show they are a promising means of treatment, the drug fails to act the same way in human patients (Voeller 1986). Contrasting these experiments to the MACS Project and other studies where humans were studied, I found it impossible to compare the two. The next question that came to mind was how did the researchers adjust for the fact that they are using mice or cells, which differ from human subjects in many ways? Perhaps the most obvious difference is one of scale. Mice and cells are much smaller than human beings. How were doses adjusted to account for this size difference? Most frequently, I discovered, they weren’t.”
Among the many problems associated with Lauritsen’s hyposotheis, and the ‘studies’ he bases his long-discredited claims on, includes the fact that many of the standards of experimental design are simply not upheld. Most experiments are in vitro (test tube) or involve mice. Results of these studies are then used by advocates to support the poppers-AIDS hypotheses, and other claims, disregarding the fact that doses were not adjusted for body weight and lung size in mice, and were often administered at near toxic levels over a duration that failed to reflect human alkyl nitrite use. Under these conditions, it is simply impossible to extrapolate the findings to human beings. Not to mention that results derived from the same experimental design were often inconsistent. Even if one fails to consider these experimental design flaws, the small number of studies supporting a connection between poppers and AIDS or KS still do not stand up under the tremendous weight of the large number of well-designed research studies incriminating viruses, not poppers or other compounds, as the causal agent in both AIDS and KS. Advocates of the poppers hypotheses seem to want to sweep this burgeoning body of research under the carpet. To prove something is true in science, you also need try to show that the alternative is false.”
Lauritsen conviently provides what he claims is support for his tied and discredited theories, when he offers, “for those who want further information, I have prepared the following bibliography.” They are provided below for anyone to more closely examine.
Toxicities of Poppers (Nitrite Inhalants)
A Brief Bibliography
BOOKS:
Harry W. Haverkos and John A. Dougherty (editors).
*Health Hazards of Nitrite Inhalants*.
NIDA Research Monograph 83, 1988.
National Institute on Drug Abuse.
John Lauritsen and Hank Wilson.
*Death Rush: Poppers & AIDS*.
New York 1986.
(out-of-print)
ARTICLES:
E.M. Dax, W.H. Adler, et al.
"Amyl Nitrite Alters Human In Vitro Immune Function".
Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology
13(4), 577-587 (1991)
Adi A. Gerblich, Ann E. Campbell, et al.
"Changes in T-cell Lymphocyte Subpopulations After Antigenic
Bronchial Provocation in Asthmatics".
New England Journal of Medicine, May 1984.
David A. Guss, Sven A. Normann, et al.
"Clinically Significant Methemoglobinemia from Inhalation of
Isobutyl Nitrite". American Journal of Emergency Medicine, January 1985.
Thomas H. Haley.
"Review of the Physiological Effects of Amyl, Butyl, and Isobutyl
Nitrites". Clinical Toxicology, pp. 317-329, 1980.
Evan M. Hersh, James M. Reuben, et al.
"Effect of the Recreational Agent Isobutyl Nitrite on Human Blood
Leukocytes and on in Vitro Interferon Production".
Cancer Research, March 1983.
McDonald K. Horne, III, Michael R. Waterman, et al.
"Methemoglobinemia from Sniffing Butyl Nitrite".
Annals of Internal Medicine, September 1979.
Richard F. Jacobs, Daniel J. Marmer, et al.
"Cellular Immunotoxicity of Amyl Nitrite".
Journal of Toxicology- Clinical Toxicology, pp. 421-449 (1983).
Karl A. Jo/rgensen and Sven-Olov Lawesson.
"Amyl Nitrite and Kaposi's Sarcoma in Homosexual Men".
New England Journal of Medicine, 30 September 1982.
John Lauritsen.
"NIDA Meeting Calls For Research Into The Poppers-Kaposi's Sarcoma
Connection".
New York Native, issue 582, 13 June 1994.
(available via e-mail: request from laurit@panix.com).
Eva Lotzova, Cherylyn A. Savary, et al.
"Depression of Murine Natural Killer Cell Cytotoxicity by Isobutyl
Nitrite".
Cancer Immunology Immunotherapy, pp. 130-134, vol. 17, 1984.
D.J. Marmer, R.F. Jacobs, et al.
"In Vitro Immunotoxicity of Amyl Nitrite".
Clinical Research, vol 30, no. 5, 1982.
J.R. Neefe, A. Ganjii, et al.
"Daily Amyl Nitrite Inhalation Decreases Mouse Splenocyte Response
to Concanavalin A".
Federation Proceedings 42 (abstract 3850), 5 March 1983.
Guy R. Newell, Stephen C. Adams, et al.
"Toxicity, Immunosuppressive Effects and Carcinogenic Potential of
volatile Nitrites: Possible relationship to Kaposi's
Sarcoma".
Pharmacotherapy, September 1984.
Jesse S. Ortiz and Vilma L. Rivera.
"The Effect of Amyl Nitrite on T-Cell Function in Mice".
(Presentation to the American Public Health Association
convention, November 1985).
Reprinted in Haverkos, op. cit.
J. Osterloh and D. Goldfield.
"Butyl Nitrite Transformation in Vitro, Chemical Nitrosation
Reactions, and Mutagenesis".
Journal of Analytical Toxicology, July/August 1984.
I. Quinto.
"The Mutagenicity of Alkylnitrites in the Salmonella test".
(Translation from the Italian).
Bolletino Societa Italiana Biologia Sperimentale, 1980, 56:816-
820.
K.R. Romeril and A.J. Concannon.
"Heinz Body Haemolytic Anaemia after Sniffing Volatile Nitrites".
The Medical Journal of Australia, March 1981.
Lee S.F. Soderberg and John B. Barnett.
"Exposure to Inhaled Isobutyl Nitrite Reduces T Cell Blastogenesis
and Antibody Responsiveness".
Fundamental and Applied Toxicology.
17, 821-824 (1991).
©virusmyth.net
