It turns out Prof. Carl Hart did not say there is no evidence that shabu leads to violence or causes brain damage.
Well, this is what La Salle Professor Antonio Contreras divulged on his Facebook post on Sunday, February 7, 2017.
Contreras uncovered the truth after dissecting the study of Prof. Carl Hart about amphetamines or shabu in local parlance which turned out to be different from what Callamard posted on Twitter.
I don’t want to prolong the suspense so I am asking you to direct your attention the post below.
After all the rage and the hate, it turns out that Prof. Carl Hart did not say that there is no evidence that shabu leads to violence or causes brain damage.
That statement was taken from the Twitter post of Agnes Callamard, who was live tweeting while listening to Prof. Hart’s lecture. Hence, it was not a direct quote, and was in fact just a reading by Callamard of what she thought was said by Prof. Hart.
Such was not also mentioned by Callamard in her plenary lecture in the drug forum held at UP Diliman.
I read the article which Prof. Hart discussed in his lecture, and while he pointed out that concerns have been raised about interpretations drawn from the published literature, HE DID NOT CATEGORICALLY SAY THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.
Now, if you have time, below is the full text of the conclusion and implications of Prof. Hart’s study.
Let us read the comments of netizens and seen how they react on Contreras’ revelation.
Billy Almarinez remarked: “Neither Prof. Hart’s paper nor his presentation in that forum had any categorical statement to the effect that “there is no evidence that [‘shabu’] causes violence or brain damage” as tweeted by Madam Agnes Callamard. So, I guess it was Madam Callamard who (arguably inadvertently) put words in Prof. Hart’s mouth. How she came up with that misinterpretation when in fact it was clearly “cognitive functioning” in meth-exposed subjects and not “violence” (or the tendency for it) was discussed in Prof. Hart’s paper and possibly his lecture, IMHO, could speak of either a problem in Madam Callamard’s quick comprehension skills, or her bias(es).”
Mitra Molina Alecs Lorraine wrote: “Hala!.. She Misquoted?!.. Look at the ruckus she made.. Hayyy.. and she even works for UN?.. She made Dr. Carl Hart look an idiot…”
Justin Claravall said: “kudos to honest intellectual investigation and clarification. sadly, intellectual honesty and clarity arent as fun and polemic.”
By the way, Contreras ended the Facebook post by urging the public to read Prof. Hart’s ‘CONCLUSIONS’ of the study about shabu.
Your thoughts, please!
Source: Prof. Antonio Contreras