SCIENCE PROVES THAT INSITE WORKS

Supervised Injection Site Critics Present Fiction As
Fact

Never has the research been clearer about the benefits provided by
Insite, the supervised injection site in Vancouver's Downtown
Eastside. Insite prevents drug overdoses, increases uptake into
addiction treatment, reduces public drug use, and prevents the
transmission of deadly diseases such as HIV. Research by recognized
and respected organizations such as the University of Toronto, Simon
Fraser University, the University of B.C. and the BC Centre for
Excellence in HIV/AIDS is in agreement.

Yet some still try to make fiction fact by dredging up discredited
reports that even those most opposed to Insite have long ago abandoned.

Case in point: an Insite critique penned by Colin Mangham of the Drug
Prevention Network of Canada. His report was published in an online
journal, not in a recognized peer-reviewed journal. Remarkably, media
reports often fail to note that this was an essay rather than an
actual study and that this online "journal" is, in fact, a website
operated by the law enforcement lobby group known as the Drug Free
America Foundation.

Rather than a forum for unbiased research, this website has the stated
goal of "creating and strengthening international laws that hold drug
users and dealers criminally accountable for their actions" as well as
"efforts to oppose policies based on the concept of harm reduction."

Mangham's "research" was originally paid for by the RCMP and
commissioned after the RCMP had already paid for two consultant
reports on Insite. Interestingly, while the two earlier reports
validated the peer-reviewed research showing that Insite and other
supervised injection sites were working, the Mangham paper offers a
number of factually incorrect criticisms.

Virtually no one is taking the Mangham paper seriously anymore. Even
though the RCMP paid for the research, it has since admitted that the
report was commissioned to "provide an alternative analysis" to
existing research and that the Mangham paper "did not meet
conventional academic standards."

Tony Clement, when he was the federal health minister, frequently
cited the Mangham report. However, on May 12, 2011, during the Supreme
Court of Canada hearing, lawyers representing the federal government
admitted they did not have any research indicating that Insite is not
working. Even the Harper government's hand-picked supervised injecting
facility "Expert Advisory Committee" rejected the Mangham report as
unsuitable for its consideration.

Despite the failure of the Mangham report, the Drug Prevention Network
of Canada continues to oppose Insite. A lawyer affiliated with the
lobby group recently declared that drug overdose deaths in Vancouver's
Downtown Eastside had increased since the facility opened.

This claim stands in stark contrast to a recent study published in the
medical journal, The Lancet, which showed that overdose deaths around
Insite had declined by 35 per cent.

How could such a discrepancy exist? In citing data from the B.C. Vital
Statistics agency, the Drug Prevention Network of Canada
representative lumped all drug-related deaths together, including many
causes of death that bear no relevance to Insite, including suicides
and alcohol-related deaths. Conversely, The Lancet study
systematically reviewed each recorded death and only considered those
from drug overdoses.

There is always potential for bias in science, so a range of
safeguards exist and were put in place in the case of Insite's
evaluation. For instance, before Insite opened, a provincial Insite
steering committee was developed that included senior members of all
stakeholder groups, including local law enforcement. This committee
agreed that the research methodology and all subsequent findings of
the evaluation should be subject to external peer review and published
in academic literature prior to dissemination in the public domain.

We are unaware of any similar evaluation that has gone to these
lengths to ensure scientific rigor and fair interpretation of research
results.

A scientific journal's reputation depends on the quality of the
research it publishes, which is why academic journal editors solicit
external peer-review of research by experts who have the familiarity
to be able to critically evaluate a study's quality. Research is then
further critically evaluated by the scientific community at large,
when a study is published and subject to international scrutiny. In
this context, to imply that Insite research has not been critically
appraised is preposterous.

Given the public health emergency presented by injection drug use and
the Harper government's aim to close the Insite program, fair media
reporting is required. But the few columnists and commentators citing
the Drug Prevention Network of Canada's work make baseless accusations
seemingly aimed to entertain and rally the entrenched opponents of
Insite rather than enlighten or inform.

Because the public may be misled regarding Insite's success in
improving community health and safety, it's essential to set the
record straight and ensure that the facility gets a balanced and
rational hearing in the court of public opinion.