If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
recreational drugs during pregnancy
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Hello posters,
I started a thread some months ago, trying to inform people who might be interested of a new study taking place in London.
I am part of a team looking at the effects (if there are any) of recreational drugs taken during pregnancy on the infant.
This is the first study of it's kind, to look at the effects of recreational drugs from nicotine though ecstasy, acid, speed to cocaine and heroin. Therefore, we simply do not know what the outcome of this research will be, but I believe that it is extreemely important to find out.
So, if you or anyone you know has taken drugs during pregnancy (even if this was before you knew you were pregnant)and would like to find out more or participate in this study which will follow the development of your baby through the first 2 years of life, visit our website:
http://www.uel.ac.uk/psychology/research/daisy/
or write to: daisy@uel.ac.uk
or give a ring: 020 8223 4587
I'd like to point out that we definitely do not encourage drug use during pregnancy, but as a group hold a non-judgemental and open-minded outlook to the use of substances.
thanks for yer time..
I started a thread some months ago, trying to inform people who might be interested of a new study taking place in London.
I am part of a team looking at the effects (if there are any) of recreational drugs taken during pregnancy on the infant.
This is the first study of it's kind, to look at the effects of recreational drugs from nicotine though ecstasy, acid, speed to cocaine and heroin. Therefore, we simply do not know what the outcome of this research will be, but I believe that it is extreemely important to find out.
So, if you or anyone you know has taken drugs during pregnancy (even if this was before you knew you were pregnant)and would like to find out more or participate in this study which will follow the development of your baby through the first 2 years of life, visit our website:
http://www.uel.ac.uk/psychology/research/daisy/
or write to: daisy@uel.ac.uk
or give a ring: 020 8223 4587
I'd like to point out that we definitely do not encourage drug use during pregnancy, but as a group hold a non-judgemental and open-minded outlook to the use of substances.
thanks for yer time..
0
Comments
Here's the original thread, started by Dom:
http://www.thesite.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34611
all my kids are cannabis babies. there mums took to eating it instead of smoking. my kids are inteligent and well together people. none of them lead unhealthy or criminal lifestyles.
all the cannabis babies i know, all grown up adults now seem to be very laid back and together people.
That must account for me then
I think its ridiculous to say that its even slightly possible to be able to tell if a condition is down to recreational drug use. I mean, who's to say that you weren't gonna be like that anyway. Perhaps you were genetically predisposed? and what about the social and enviromental factors? Think about it... the same argument can be put down to the supposed link between cannabis use and schizophrenia. Why would some develop it and not the millions of people who use it daily if it was a direct cause of cannabis smoking. May be it was down to too much coffee, too much parecetomol, eating the wrong kind of bread?? You can draw correlations from all types of things. For example, the rise in the price of bin liners could have a direct correlation with the number of rising births in say...egypt! Yeah, sure it may correlate but it doesnt mean its a cause now does it!?? Whoever is actually doing this research obviously hasn't thought it through properly, for the results will never be fact and more than likely will only be results that you expect to find. REMEMBER ALL variables must be the same for ALL subjects that you test, otherwise you can not fairly generalize the results and your research would have been a comlet waste of time. So the only way to have TRUE non-bias results would be to research identical triplets who have ALWAYS made the same decisions, had the same friends, had the same education, lived in the same room, had the same family, had the same emotions, had EXACTLY the same life including ALWAYS eating or drinking EXACTLY the same things at EXACTLY the same time..... I'm sorry to say that I think you are wasting your time!
It's like that programme "Cannabis Psychosis" on Horizon not long ago, they totally disregarded the social background of the people who supposedly had schizophrenia due to cannabis. Why do they do this? My poor mate will only get better as soon as the shrinks realise that cannabis isnt his problem..his whole background and family life is!
i've been smoking for 35yrs mr wabbit as have most of my friends.
amazingly were all fit and healthy. our old class mates from way back when who chose the work and drink regime are all fat and nackered.
out of interest how old are you. i'm 50 in june.
Thats an outrageous thing to say, should all researchers across the country just pack up and bugger off home now then ? Thats the very point of research you muppet, maybe they will, maybe they won't, in much the same way fleming may or may not have discovered penicillin, in the same way all the people around the world looking for an AIDS cure may or may not find one. I'm not entirely sure how this study works, but for the record I'm currently (by coincidence) revising an aspect of my course 'teratogenesis' which is linked to this topic. The advancements made in this area since William Harvey got the ball rolling are vast, many chlidern are now born perfectly normally, whereas without research they would of been born with allsorts of defects.
When you also consider research into the use / effects of drugs is an area where little research is done for various obvious reasons, then the majority of people using this particular forum should be even more supportive of this work, one day it may be your partner who is pregnant and wanting to neck a few pills......
This 'daisy person' as you call her, is spending part of her life trying to find out information that could benefit us all. Its intresting how your sitting at home diagnosing your mates problems when you blatantly haven't got a clue other than a few theories floating around in youir mind, whereas all those useless doctors with years of studying and knowledge, all that experience know nothing it would seem ? Maybe it is to do with his social background, but then plenty of people with an unconventional background don't develop mental health problems, so that fucks up your argument as much as yours fucks up theirs.
Knowledge is power.
No, you don't seem to Ebb.
Obviously you seem to think that bacteria and antibodies have social lifes... The point I'm making is that fact that in a lab you alter one variable at a time (be it temperature, volume, chemical structure)and keep the others constant and all done in a germ free isolated area to get the most reliable results. So how does this relate to testing people? In a certain sense the world isn't a germ free isolated area, but is the petri dish we are living in.
Germs, viruses, vaccines and bacterium dont have thoughts, or emotions, or choices, or families or jobs, so the reseach is never going to be as complex. These are all variables that need to be taken into account when doing this kind of research. I'm not saying don't do the research, I just think it needs to be thought through better. Biology is an exact science, social science is not. So that kinda fucks up your arguement.
Just to clear a few things up:
DAISY stands for Development And Infancy StudY. We're a group of 7 researchers at the University of East London working in collaboration with Case Western Reserve in America. And a great deal of thought has already gone into the design and planning of this project.
Obviously, infant behaviour and development is influenced by a huge number of variables. To add to this, drugs and behaviour research is plagued with doubts about predisposition and questions of causality. But I don't think this is a reason not to do the research at all. It would all be nice and neat if we isolated people in "germ-free environments" and gave them exact amounts of known substances and fed them this and that at temperature so-and-so. We could publish fantastic research like that, but that wouldn't tell us anything about the effects of recreational drugs on real people in the real world. Besides, these are people not amoebas...
So, all we can do is get as large a sample of people as possible to participate in the study (HENCE THIS THREAD, AHEM!), and collect as many co-variables as we can and bear in mind that we're not interested in knowing what happens to amoebas, but humans.
Your first post seemed pretty negative towards the whole idea, comments such as :-
My point regarding fleming and AIDS was that all research is vital, even if you find something out which has no relevance to what your actually researching, as was the case with Fleming. Whether you prove or disprove something, find a link or don't find a link, its all important.
The way in which you dismiss this research is wrong, to describe their work as a 'waste of time', is outright ridiculous. You have spent a fair amount of time in your posts banging on about your mate and you seem to of diagnosed his problem with your own wealth of knowledge. Is it the case that 'white rabbit' is the definative encyclopedia of knowledge on drugs and the effects of drugs ? Or is it the case your sat on your arse speculating whilst other people are actually trying to gather evidence, rather than deciding things on a whim ?
I'm not disputing research of this nature is both complex and unlikely to produce definative conclusions, but that doesn't make it a waste of time.
In your world of definative knowledge you compelety missed the point of my argument :rolleyes: Whilst also failing to respond to my point on your diagnosis of your mates troubles :rolleyes:.
Research of any kind is never a waste of time.
To answer your first question...no. Second, well a great deal of time has been spent on my arse working in the office at "rethink: severe mental illness" (formerly know as the NSF) , dealing with people who suffer from mental health problems. This involves a great deal of research and its main aim is to get rid of the stigma that many people have with these problems.
I obviously have been greatly misunderstood as this is the EXACT point that I am trying to make! In psychiatry, there is a big emphasis on the biological model of treatment. (This is not to say that all psychiatrists are like this however). This means that they look at the mind as an organ, which is polluted through chemical imbalance and treatable through drug therapy and perhaps with a little counselling. My point is that the mind (not to be confused with the brain) is NOT an organ and therefore chemical "treatment" will only try to supress the problem and not deal with it first hand. Furthermore, there are two diagnostical manuals that are used by psychologists and psychiatrists. These are DSM and ICD 10. These manuals are the guidelines by which members in the mental health profession work. They are used to define different "illnesses" and to categorise them into specific disorders. Did you know that until recently homosexuality was described as a "mental illness" in DSM III? Just goes to show how little we know about the mind and how it works. In fact knew disorders are made up all the time (e.g. ADHD). Whats even more interesting is that there are TWO manuals, which goes to show that there is even disagreement over the definition of a "disorder" that a person may have.
Ebb talks about speculation but that is also the point. Psychology is pure theory, thats why there are somany, be it cognitive, behaviourist, humanistic, psychoanalytical etc. Ok, I guess I should withdraw my statement as it was a bit harsh. I do agree with you that well thought out research is never a waste of time, but research results can be totally irrelevant so therefore in a certain way it has consumed time just to draw light on nothing. But I do understand the point you are making..... Can I ask ebb, what line of work/study are you in?