This email is to inform you that one of our favourite films, Tears for April, has been accepted into the BRAND NEW Reel Recovery Film Festival which is being held at District 319 (319 Main Street, Vancouver) between October 21-23, 2011. For those of you who are not familiar with the venue, Lyn Vince and District 319 kindly donated this private theatre as a filming location for our latest film ‘Riding With Madonna’.

About the Festival:
The REEL Recovery Film Festival is an exciting three-day weekend celebration of visual media, the arts, writing and creativity. We showcase local filmmakers and experienced pros who make honest films about addiction and recovery. It’s inspiring to gather with other individuals to share these new and classic films. The realistic portrayal of these issues in cinema is invaluable for the honest conversation that can occur.

This year represents the Canadian debut of this festival presented by The Orchard Recovery Center and Writers in Treatment. All proceeds will be split between Writers in Treatment and Intersections Media. Tears for April will be screened on Saturday October 22 @ 3:30 pm @ District 319 followed by a Q&A with our very own Retired Cst. Al Arsenault.

For more information on the various organizations affiliated with this festival, please see links for each listed below the email signature. Please note: Venue’s regulations require minimum age of 19 for attendees.

Thank you Al for bringing this festival to our attention. Given that this is the festivals first year in Canada, we look forward to working with them for many years to come.

Enjoy and feel free to pass this on.
—
Dani Elias
Director, Web Development & New Media
Odd Squad Productions Society
website: www.oddsquad.com
E dani@oddsquad.com
O 604.408.9945
C 604.809.9200

Martinuk: Some insight into Insite – the data don’t hold up

By Susan Martinuk, Calgary HeraldOctober 14, 2011

Susan Martinuk’s Photo

On Sept. 30, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Insite, Vancouver’s drug injection site for addicts, is exempt from the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. The site can therefore continue to provide drug addicts with a safe place to inject themselves with illicitly obtained heroin and cocaine; that is, they can continue to shoot themselves into pharmaceutical oblivion on the taxpayers’ dollar.

As has been widely reported by the media, the Court supported this ruling by reasoning that: “Insite saves lives. Its benefits have been proven.”

Thus, Insite advocates and its media supporters are claiming that the medical science they cite has won out over the ridiculous ideology of those who think society has a moral responsibility to help addicts by providing them with a second chance at life and a way out of addiction.

But it’s highly misleading for the media or Insite to state that scientific fact has gained any kind of victory at all. Facts can always be twisted to suit one’s purposes and, in this case, it’s clear that scientific contradictions – not facts – reign supreme. In the end, it’s apparent that ideology drives those who favour harm reduction just as much as those who oppose it. It just depends if your ideology leans toward helping addicts or giving in to their need for a fix.

Last week, in these same pages, Peter Stockland challenged erroneous statements that have been perpetrated by the media

in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment. For example, the ruling doesn’t guarantee that the injection facility can now operate permanently. Rather, it states that “the granting of a permanent constitutional exemption” was not appropriate and it allows the health minister to withdraw the exemption “should changed circumstances at Insite so require.”

Further, while the media is reporting that the ruling establishes legal grounds for the creation of injection sites in other Canadian cities, the ruling clearly states that further decisions about applications for exemptions are up to the health minister and his “discretion.” So the judgment is hardly an invitation for drug injection facilities to proliferate across the country.

But nowhere has there been more confusion and misinformation than in the media’s interpretation of the medical data that supposedly underlies the legal decision. In the past days, much has been made of a scientific article on Insite published in The Lancet this spring. It claims that Insite reduced drug overdose deaths in the area around Insite by 35 per cent, and by nine per cent in the rest of Vancouver.

But those numbers simply don’t mesh with the raw data available from the British Columbia coroner’s office or an analysis of The Lancet article commissioned by the Drug Prevention Network of Canada and REAL Women of Canada. Rather than showing a decrease in the deaths in the area around Insite, the analysis found that the number of drug overdoses increased between 2002 and 2007 (note that Insite was established in 2003).

The data from the B.C coroner’s office show 49 illicit drug deaths in 2002, followed by 51, 67, 55, 54 and 56 in each of the years that followed until 2007.

The Lancet analysis further states that 41 per cent of B.C.’s overdose fatalities are not injection-related and are therefore not relevant to the impact by Insite on fatal drug overdoses.

A further contradiction to the 35 per cent figure comes from a 2008 expert advisory committee that evaluated Insite for the Canadian government: It calculated that Insite saved 1.08 lives per year. That’s it – at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $3 million per year.

There are about 5,000 addicts in Vancouver’s downtown eastside (DTES), yet less than 10 per cent use Insite for all injections. In fact, the expert advisory report showed that the injections at Insite account for only five per cent of all drug injections in the DTES, and 18 per cent of Insite users accounted for 86 per cent of all Insite visits. In other words, a small number of addicts are making use of Insite for only some of their injections.

Al Arsenault is a former Vancouver police officer who walked a beat through the DTES. Rather than support Insite, he is a member of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada and Odd Squad Productions, a group that makes films based on life in the DTES as a means of promoting drug prevention and treatment.

In considering the Supreme Court decision and the abundant contradictions in medical evidence, he says, “These harm reduction follies are the longest-standing failed social experiments that I know of. Shame on us.

. This is quite the legacy to cheer about – the continuing loss of human potential all facilitated by statistic twisted researchers .”

Indeed. The Supreme Court may have made a legal determination about Insite, but there’s no clear victory for science and no clear science to back up its comment that the “benefits have been proven.” If anything, the benefits remain highly doubtful. The legal ruling does nothing to change that.

Susan Martinuk’s column

appears every other week.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald

FROM DPNC BOARD MEMBER, ANDY BIGRAS:

Here’s the response to my letter direct from the director of Insite. He is playing games with what I said. The evidence I was referring to was never presented which means they didn’t miss it, they never had it presented. His statistics are as mis-informing.

Numbers show Insite works

BY RUSSELL MAYNARD, OTTAWA CITIZENOCTOBER 12, 2011 3:10 AM

Re: Nothing safe about injecting drugs, Oct. 8.

Letter-writer Andre Bigras tries to leave the reader with the impression that three Supreme Courts (a total of 13 Supreme Court judges) could not adjudicate the copious research on Insite correctly.

Bigras is with the Drug Prevention Network of Canada (DPNC). The DPNC’s website tells readers that one of those key pieces of evidence that the judges missed is that “The impartial federal government’s Expert Advisory Committee in its report in March 2008 concluded that the drug injection site, which costs three million dollars annually to operate, only (refers) three per cent of its attendees for treatment, the latter is the only way that an addict can regain his/her health and dignity and return to a normal life.”

If the DPNC had called me I would have clarified that three per cent was in the first couple of years of operation. That percentage has grown every single year of Insite’s operation. It is now approximately 30 per cent of the monthly visits to Insite. To clarify: close to 30 per cent of visits to Insite are to inquire, apply for, or access recovery services. Conversely, the number of people coming to Insite to use the injection services has dropped from approximately 90 per cent in 2004 to approximately 60 per cent now.

There is no other public health project in this country, on this continent, that even approaches that volume of referrals to recovery services. Insite works!

Russell Maynard,

Director, Insite Vancouver, B.C.

The ORCHARD RECOVERY CENTER, on Bowen Island, BC, has put together a three-day celebration of the arts, showcasing honest films about addiction and recovery.

All of the information and details can be found on our DPNC BLOG.

Check it out now, ad plan to attend!

ANDY BIGRAS IS THE TREASURER OF THE DPNC BOARD OF DIRECTORS. HE HAS WRITTEN AN EXCELLENT RESPONSE TO A JOURNALIST’S WOEFULLY IGNORANT RANT.

Dan Gardner wrote the following article after the decision on Insite. My response to his letter was printed in Saturday’s Citizen. I hope people will follow up.

Mayor and chief have made up their minds

BY DAN GARDNER, OTTAWA CITIZENOCTOBER 8, 2011

Let’s compare and contrast statements about Insite, the supervised injection centre in Vancouver’s downtown eastside neighbourhood.

“The decision to implement a supervised safe injection site was the result of years of research, planning, and intergovernment co-operation,” the Supreme Court of Canada wrote in a unanimous judgment. “It was launched as an experiment. The experiment has proved successful. Insite has saved lives and improved health. And it did those things without increasing the incidence of drug use and crime in the surrounding area.”

The court’s decision – effectively ordering the federal health minister to allow Insite to stay open – was released Friday. Across the country, reaction from politicians and police chiefs was immediate.

“I do not support locating a safe injection site in Ottawa, and was very clear about that in the last election,” said Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson. Any such facility would have “an extreme negative impact” on the area it was located in, said Ottawa Police Chief Vern White.

He knows this because he visited Insite, White said. “I certainly didn’t feel as safe in that area of Vancouver as I did in other areas of Vancouver. I’ve spoken to police officers who will say the same thing.”

For the purposes of our compare-and-contrast exercise, recall that Vancouver’s downtown eastside is a small neighbourhood that has been a disaster for decades. Lots was tried. Nothing worked. Police sweeps, high-level drug busts, treatment, social welfare. Things only got worse.

By the mid-1990s, HIV and hep C were epidemic and overdoses soared. In 1993 alone, 200 people died.

So Vancouver considered alternatives, including a safe injection site. It was a radical idea in Canada but scores of such facilities operated in cities across Europe. Research suggested it could make a difference.

Insite opened in September, 2003. It immediately became one of the most scrutinized and studied social policy experiments in Canadian history.

Researchers produced a tall stack of studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals, including some of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. The cumulative conclusion? Insite worked.

The Supreme Court’s statement above summarized that evidence exactly. Insite curtailed overdose deaths. It cut blood-borne disease transmission. And it did that without increasing crime or disorder in the neighbourhood.

So the Supreme Court’s statement was logical, informed, and supported by an abundance of topquality evidence.

It’s safe to say the same cannot be said about the reaction of the mayor and the police chief.

The mayor’s statement is nothing more than the sort of peremptory hand-wave a politician does when he wants to change the subject. The chief at least attempted to support his conclusion with evidence, but look at the evidence he cited.

Vern White is sure that supervised injection sites ruin neighbourhoods because he felt less safe in the neighbourhood where Insite is located than he did in other parts of Vancouver. Other cops feel the same, he said.

I agree, incidentally. I’ve been to that neighbourhood many times. It’s not a pleasant place.

But this proves precisely nothing. That neighbourhood was riddled with addiction, disease, and crime long before Insite opened its doors. In fact, Insite was put there because it was riddled with addiction, disease, and crime. Blaming Insite because the neighbourhood is dodgy is as silly as saying “wet streets cause rain.” Vern White should be embarrassed.

But that – believe it or not – is not the most appalling part of the chief’s comments.

We’ve got HIV and hep C in Ottawa now. We’ve got overdose deaths. And we’ve got heaps of research from Europe and Australia, and heaps more from Vancouver, which tell us that a supervised injection site could help reduce the toll without jeopardizing community safety.

But the chief is opposed. Period. Doesn’t want to talk about it. Case closed.

Ditto for Jim Watson. His mind is made up. As he said, he was “very clear about that in the last election.” So that’s the end of it.

To be clear, skepticism is fine. You’re not sure a supervised injection facility is a good idea? You want to see more evidence and think carefully about it? Good.

That’s reasonable. But the mayor and the chief aren’t skeptical. Their minds are welded shut. They don’t want the evidence gathered, reviewed, and discussed. They want people to shut up about it.

For almost a century, mayors and police chiefs have enthusiastically supported drug-law enforcement, no matter how much research showed that enforcement is futile and destructive, while they arbitrarily rejected alternatives supported by solid evidence.

Open the yellowed pages of a newspaper from the 1980s or 1970s. Or the 1950s. Even the 1920s. You’ll find mayors like Jim Watson taking the easy way out. You’ll find police chiefs like Vern White insisting that wet streets cause rain.

You’ll find federal ministers who refuse to question their politically convenient beliefs. You’ll find ordinary people angry that the status quo has produced disease, crime, and death – and who demand that officials do more of what they have always done and not try anything new.

On and on it goes, down through the years, and decades. Only the names change.

Dan Gardner’s column appears Wednesday and Friday. Email: dgardner@ottawacitizen.com

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Nothing safe about injecting drugs

OTTAWA CITIZENOCTOBER 8, 2011

Re: Mayor and chief have made up their minds, Oct. 5.

In response to Dan Gardner’s article, article, I fully support the chief and the mayor.

The Supreme Court arrived at their decision but unfortunately without all the evidence for them to make an informed decision. I would have arrived at the same conclusion as them, but unfortunately they did not have the evidence that showed the opposing view even though they are available.

I would ask Gardner and your readers to examine the Drug Prevention Network of Canada website and read the article on “Erroneous Study on Insite Exposed” and the “Analysis of the 2011 Lancet Study on deaths from overdose in the vicinity of Vancouver’s Insite Supervised Injection site and the Supreme Court Decision,” a media response from Real Women of Canada, and you will see clearly that there are scientific reports showing an opposing view – with them, the Supreme Court might have arrived at a different conclusion.

Another critical report that was not presented is the federal government Expert Advisory Report of 2008 that clearly demonstrates that Insite was not meeting their own objectives.

The Supreme Court decision has rendered Insite legal but that doesn’t necessarily make it right. If people would investigate and research further, they might arrive at a different conclusion. This is not a safe injection site, as Gardner states, but a supervised injection site. There is nothing safe about injecting drugs.

Congratulations White and Watson for taking a stand and knowing that the Drug Prevention Network of Canada also stands with you given we are basing our response based on all the facts and evidence that demonstrate clearly that this program is not working.

Andre Bigras,

Executive Drug Prevention Network of Canada, Gatineau

I was asked recently to write a short piece for ROGERS HEALTH as a counterpoint to a nurse who is in favor of Insite.

This is my submission:

Would you knowingly cross the street to give a drunk a clean shot glass? If you knew that your teenage daughter was self-mutilating, would you sharpen her razors for her?

Then, what human impulse would propel you to give a heroin addict a so-called “safe” place to continue his life in hell?

“Insite,” the safe injection Ground Zero in Vancouver’s disastrous Downtown East Side, has now been cleared by a Supreme Court decision to continue its deeply misguided mission. This ruling is based on bad science and very bad public policy.

Understand the Mechanics of Addiction. Drug addicts want more. They don’t covet more library cards, children, bicycles, digital SLR’s, bridge games or tennis partners. They want more drugs. They don’t crave relationships, enterprise or engagements. They want more drugs. Dope fiends shoot dope. Drunks drink. Why is this so difficult to accept? So, go ahead. Give them a clean, well lighted place in which to maintain their dependence and misery. At 10 am, Jake will avail himself of your wooly-headed kindness (the kindness that kills). And at 2:15, he will return to the back alley where he shoots up every day with his crew, using dirty needles and tainted waters in the only camaraderie he understands. Ask any cop on the beat and he or she will confirm this dark reality. Yes, the Vancouver Police Department supports Insite, but that is a political position and has nothing to do with what any member of the force really thinks.

Understand also that the Supreme Court decision and all the editorials that have fallen into line with it are based on a study published in the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet. There are two small problems with that study. The first is that it was created and managed by the very people who originated the Insite program. That’s not how science works. In legitimate science, we examine what is. We do not try to prove something we want to promote. That study has since been repudiated by a cleaner study by other scientists who have pointed out that overdose deaths have in fact increased since the arrival of Insite, not decreased as reported in the tainted report. The claim that Insite saves lives is false.

As for bad public policy, look at the way we spend our tax dollars. I know many treatment programs that daily send former addicts back into the community as clean and sober citizens. One typical program has an annual budget on $6 Million for a resident client population of 136 people.

Insite produces no clean and sober citizens and it costs us more than $3 Million a year. Do the math.

It is not popular these days to speak of morality or ethics.

However, it is important to remind ourselves that addiction issues are about human dignity. They are about families and pain and criminality and dishonor.

It is more humane and compassionate to help one addict recover than to enable ten addicts in their sad enslavement to stupidity.

503 words

David Berner is the Executive Director of the Drug Prevention Network of Canada, He started the first residential treatment program for addicts in Canada in 1967. The program continues to thrive.

Barbara Kay, National Post · Oct. 5, 2011 | Last Updated: Oct. 5, 2011 3:05 AM ET

In 2003, Insite, the first experimental supervised injection site in North America, was installed in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside (DTES), Canada’s poster district for entrenched substance abuse and addiction. At Insite, addicts may legally shoot up illegal drugs in hygienic, medically protective and non-judgmental circumstances. The controversial clinic instantly became, and remains, a crucible for passionate social and legal debate about public policy in dealing with drug addiction.

Those who argue for Insite believe that its governing philosophy of “harm reduction” for what they regard as an incurable affliction, is both ethical and efficacious in reducing disease and deaths. Opposed to Insite are those who support what one might call the “moral agency” model. This redemptive perspective, which favours pro-active strategies of treatment and prevention, has the support of the federal government, which has tried to close Insite down since 2006.

On Sept. 30, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered the Minister of Health to permanently exempt Insite from the provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and, by implication, all other applicants for drug injection sites elsewhere in Canada. In their ruling, the Supreme Court justices explicitly linked the decision to their belief that, “Insite saves lives. Its bene-fits have been proven.”

How did they come to that understanding? Well, the Insite hearings were held on May 12. On April 18, a population-based study conducted by University of British Columbia (UBC) researchers and published in the leading medical journal The Lancet was conveniently distributed to the media. The study claims that over the period 20027, drug overdose deaths within a 500-metre radius around Insite reduced by 35%, while the rest of Vancouver reduced by 9%. Lead researcher Dr. Thomas Kerr announced that, “the evidence is clear, Insite saves lives.” His words were immediately hailed by Insite’s many supporters in the media as proof of the site’s success.

However, an anti-drug watchdog group vigorously contests these findings. In an analysis of The Lancet study commissioned by the Drug Prevention Network of Canada and Real Women of Canada, an international team including three Australian doctors, B.C. drug-prevention expert Colin Mangham and Dr. Robert Dupont, president of the U.S. National Institute of Drug Abuse, allege that The Lancet study’s findings of decreased deaths in the Insite area are not supported by data from the British Columbia Coroner’s office, which indicate that deaths from drug overdoses in the area around Insite not only did not decrease, they in fact increased between 2002-2007 (see graph to the left).

Amongst other allegations, the watchdog group contends that the Lancet researchers, some of whom have advocated for Insite since the 1990s, manufactured an appearance of overdose mortality reduction by including 2001 data in their pre-Insite comparison years, without stipulating that 2001 was a year of unusual heroin availability. They were well aware of the anomaly, since it was the subject of two previous journal articles by three of The Lancet article’s researchers. The analysts further maintain that the UBC researchers failed to note that 41% of B.C.’s overdose fatalities are not even injection-related.

More significantly, they affirm, is the UBC researchers’ disclaimer of any knowledge of “confounder” policing changes around Insite between 2001 and 2005 that might have affected the rates of overdose deaths. But according to the analysts, the researchers had to have known that since April 2003, 50-66 police officers were added for patrol duties, specifically to a 12-block radius of Insite, where the contested 35% decrease is alleged to have occurred. As evidence, they point to a 2004 journal article, a “detailed analysis of the effects of the changed policing,” on which three of the UBC researchers collaborated, which showed a 46% evacuation of drug users from the area as a consequence of the police crackdown.

The analysts conclude that Insite, hosting about 144,000 opiate injections annually, saves 1.08 lives per year, a statistically negligible outcome, but a figure that is proportionally consistent with a 2008 Canadian Government Expert Advisory Committee’s international review of injecting sites worldwide. In Germany’s 25 injecting rooms, hosting 500,000 annual opiate injections, for example, the cumulative number of lives saved is estimated at about 10 per year.

A complaint about The Lancet study research has been filed with UBC. The question now arises: If it is found, as their critics charge, that serious errors undermine the credibility of the research, invalidating The Lancet study’s claims, then the Supreme Court’s justification for their ruling in favour of Insite, that it “saves the life and health” of addicts, is also void. In that case, unless the court can point to another source of credible evidence to support it, it should take the honourable course of action and annul its ruling.

DRUG OVERDOSE DEATHS

bkay@videotron.ca

The following Media Release was posted today by DPNC President Gwen Landolt.

M E D I A   R E L E A S E

For Immediate Release                                                                      October 3, 2011

A DRUG ADDICT’S DESTINY

Drug addicts are human beings.  They deserve better than being shuffled off to a drug injection site, which will only deepen their addiction and hasten their inevitable and terrifying death.

The Supreme Court of Canada based its decision to legalize the operation of the site on the supposed premise that it “saves lives and health of the addicts”.  This conclusion, however, was based only on the flawed evidence of the activist researchers who had a conflict of interest in that they were also the lobbyists for the establishment of the site a decade ago.

The impartial federal government’s Expert Advisory Committee in its report in March 2008 concluded that the drug injection site, which costs three million dollars annually to operate, only refer 3% of its attendees for treatment, the latter is the only way that an addict can regain his/her health and dignity and return to a normal life.

The happiest people in Canada with this decision will be the drug traffickers whose business will boom by way of the addicts obtaining the drugs from them to bring onto the site to inject themselves.

Conversely, the unhappiest individuals will be the police who will have to deal with the inevitable increase in crime due to the criminal activity caused by addicts who require a minimum of $35,000 annually to feed their addiction.  This is one of the reasons why Vancouver has one of the highest crime rates in North America.

The compassionate and humane solution for drug addicts is to help the addicts, not kill them by allowing them to inject more and more of the drugs into their system facilitated by the drug injection site.

The organization, REAL WOMEN OF CANADA, was one of the official intervenors before the Supreme Court in the matter of the so-called “safe” injection site known ironically as “Insite.”

Here is their response to the Court’s decision.

“Women Building a Better Society”

NGO in SPECIAL consultative status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations

M E D I A   R E L E A S E

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECIDES

CANADA’S NATIONAL POLICY ON DRUGS

RE: VANCOUVER DRUG INJECTION SITE

The Supreme Court of Canada in its decision handed down today on the legality of the Vancouver drug injection site, has arrogantly decided that it is more capable of determining Canada’s national drug policy than the elected government.

It has ordered the Minister of Health to continue the operation of this controversial drug injection site, even though, under the Controlled Drug and Substances Act (CDSA), this is supposed to be a matter for the Minister’s discretion.

In its judgment, the court talks on both sides of its mouth by claiming it is not interfering with the exercise of ministerial discretion but then goes on to state that the Minister must grant the exemption not only for the Vancouver site, but also generally for all other applicants for drug injection sites in the country, on the grounds, that to do otherwise, would deprive [addicts] of their  “life and security of person” under Section 7 of the Charter.

The practical effect of this decision is that the court has exempted the Vancouver drug injection site from the criminal provisions on illicit drug use and has only graciously allowed the federal government to “regulate” these sites, thus fundamentally changing our national drug policy by widening the use of illegal drugs.

The court has made the decision despite the fact that Canada has been criticized numerous times by the UN’s International Narcotic Drugs Control Board (INCB), for establishing this site, the first in North America, as it contravenes UN drug treaties ratified by Canada.  Apparently, the Supreme Court is of the view that the UN drug treaties ratified by Canada are not binding on us.

The Supreme Court gave as its reasons to exempt the drug injection site from the provisions of the CDSA the fact that it supposedly “saves the lives and health” of drug addicts.

This is highly questionable since this conclusion is based on the flawed research provided by a group of advocates and promoters of the Vancouver drug injection site who have a conflict of interest in this research, since they were also the lobbyist and advocates for the establishment of the drug injection site over a decade ago.

This points out that judges are ill positioned to make national policy decisions.  They have limited access to social data, depend on biased and narrow arguments of the litigants, and also on unreliable information in the media.  They are Isolated from society, and are not exposed to differing perspectives, since there is no public debate, such as occurs in Parliament.

This decision by the Supreme Court on the Vancouver drug injection site stands as a monument to the determination by the Supreme Court to control Canada’s national agenda, not Parliament, presumably on the basis that it believes it knows what is best for the Canadian public.

This decision directly attacks the democratic process and is a flaunting of the power and influence of the courts using the vague words of the Charter to promote their own ideological perspective.

M E D I A   R E L E A S E

For immediate Release                                                                      September 22, 2011

ERRONEOUS STUDY ON VANCOUVER INJECTION SITE EXPOSED

Three Australian doctors, a Canadian Ph.D., and Dr. Robert Dupont, the President of the US National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), are part of an international team, which has exposed major, inexcusable errors in a highly influential 2011 Lancet study on Vancouver’s Insite injecting facility.  The study had claimed that the site has reduced overdose deaths in the immediate surrounding area (Down Town East Side-DTES). This recent analysis nullifies the Lancet study’s claims, which are found to be unsustainable.  According to data from the British Columbia’s Coroner’s office, the number of deaths from drug overdose in the drug injection area has not decreased, but increased each year from 2002 – 2007, despite Insite’s commencement in 2003 (see endnote).

See analysis at www.drugfree.org.au/fileadmin/Media/Global/Lancet_2011_Insite_Analysis.pdf

The erroneous Lancet study was conducted by the same researchers who had previously completed over two dozen other, well publicized, positive, studies on the drug injection site.  These researchers however, have a conflict of interest, in that they were also the lobbyists for the establishment of the drug injection site over a decade ago.

A complaint about this questionable research has now been filed with the University of British Columbia, who employs the Lancet study researchers.

The Lancet article, published on 18 April 2011, may be influential in the Canadian Supreme Court hearings on the drug injection site held on May 12 this year, having been strategically timed to be distributed to the media the week the case was argued before the court. The Court reserved its decision on whether the Canadian government can close the facility, having been hampered from doing so by the court action launched by the operators and supporters of the site.

This exposure of the erroneous study points out that activists cannot be relied on to provide objective science.  The dozens of other studies on Insite provided by these activists are now also under a cloud, as a result of the errors found in 2011 Lancet study.

Contact:

C. Gwendolyn Landolt                                            Chuck Doucette

President                                                                   Vice President

(905) 787-0348                                                         (778) 838-0201

Al Arsenault

Board Member

(604) 788-7051

MR 2011-01

BACKGROUNDER

The Lancet article on Insite by Brandon D L Marshall, M-J Milloy, Evan Wood, Julio S G Montaner and Thomas Kerr  titled “Reduction in overdose mortality after the opening of North America’s first medically supervised safer injecting facility: a retrospective population-based study” can be found at http://www.communityinsite.ca/injfacility.pdf.

The Coroner’s data for British Columbia, Vancouver and the Downtown Eastside (where Insite is located) is as follows:

Coroner’s data for BC and Vancouver: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/coroners/publications/docs/stats-illicitdrugdeaths-1997-2007.pdf

DTES data only for each year at Table 45, BC Vital Statistics Agency, Annual Reports: http://www.vs.gov.bc.ca/stats/annual/