DRUG STUDY IS BEING 'SHAMELESSLY DISTORTED' BY HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

Weekend reports on a new study of Vancouver's safe-injection site
(SIS), done for the federal government by a committee of independent
experts, suggested the findings were highly favourable.

Just about everybody from Mayor Sam Sullivan on down thought the study
justified Insite, the experimental Downtown Eastside facility where
addicts inject illegal drugs under supervision.

I can only assume they read what they thought the study should say,
not what it said.

Let's look at the findings of the Expert Advisory Committee (EAC),
appointed by Health Minister Tony Clement to advise him on the merits
of continued support for Insite.

One of the oft-trumpeted claims of its proponents is that Insite saves
lives -- one every year, according to "mathematical modelling."

The EAC, however, found such modelling is "based on assumptions that
may not be valid" and "there is no direct evidence that [injection
sites] influence overdose death rates." To prove such claims,
"large-scale and long-term, case-controlled studies" would be needed.

Another mantra is that Insite helps control the spread of HIV. But
only five per cent of all addicts in the Downtown Eastside ever use
Insite, meaning most drug-taking happens beyond its doors. As the EAC
notes, "this limits the likelihood of significant direct impact from
Insite on the DTE."

More striking is the committee's conclusion that "there is no direct
evidence that safe-injection sites reduce rates of infection" and that
"more objective evidence" is needed "to confidently state that Insite
. . . [has] a significant impact on needle-sharing and other risk[y]
behaviours."

Glowing endorsements of Insite in earlier studies are based on
"assumptions" that the committee says it is not convinced are
"entirely valid."

Another myth-busting conclusion concerns the alleged financial
benefits of Insite, which costs $3 million a year to run. The EAC
found that models used to estimate the benefits "have not been locally
validated."

And it says that, until the necessary studies are done, "it will not
be possible to show with any certainty that Insite is cost-effective,
or . . . that the economic benefits exceed the costs."

The EAC questions the community's allegedly "positive" views on
Insite, noting that the public has "little direct experience" of the
facility and "would not be able" to assess its effectiveness.

It's a pity the EAC study is being so shamelessly distorted by health
professionals wedded to the Insite philosophy. At least the Vancouver
Police Union isn't fooled.

Union president Tom Stamatakis says the study exposes Insite as a
"well-intentioned but expensive failure."

He's got that right. As top Glasgow drug researcher Prof. Neil
McKeganey says, it has yet to be spelled out how agencies can achieve
"the almost magical aims of both facilitating drug users' continued
drug use and encouraging drug users in becoming drug-free."

Not at Insite, that's for sure.