Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 'Crack baby' study ends with unexpected but clear result [View all]Chellee
(2,300 posts)34. So your suspicion
is that more than two decades ago a group of researchers wanted to prove that cocaine exposure wouldn't ruin a child for life. So they cherry-picked participants to fit that conclusion by eliminating premature births?
And the studies from Atlanta and Boston that mirror these results are...cohorts?
I'm not trying to be difficult, I simply don't understand why you believe the study is so flawed. It seems to me that the researchers wanted to study the effects of crack only, so they eliminated factors, like prematurity, that would exacerbate problems.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
50 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
This is an honest researcher, to go where the data leads. "Poverty is a more powerful influence...
Hekate
Sep 2013
#1
Not really--over half the participants aren't accounted for, and when you eliminate preemies from
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#6
I agree. Crack babies are more likely to be born prematurely so it skews the data
pnwmom
Sep 2013
#26
Illicit drug use, alcohol & tobacco, are significant risk factors for pre-term delivery and
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#29
What happened to the other half of the kids in the original study? If you started with 224, but
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#5
Well, one expects answers to easy questions in the study itself. I find the whole "crack baby"
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#12
One is expected to provide proof of one's questions? That's an awfully authoritarian
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#14
Wait, what? I am a bully now? For asking questions? Somebody better tell Hekate below that she is
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#17
It's possible some would question my motivations for asking said questions. Fair enough, but
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#25
Good question--but sometimes subjects move away or drop out. It is voluntary, after all....
Hekate
Sep 2013
#9
Oh--I agree that "crack baby" was as valid as "welfare queen" but what I am wondering about
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#11
Yeah--but the kids we are discussing are 25 plus years old, not part of the current
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#18
You can probably track down other studies that specifically target them. Researchers really do want
Hekate
Sep 2013
#19
You bring up a good point about "level of exposure." Other than a blood test
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#21
Not surprising at all. One of the constants we see with the rapid advancement of scientific
Egalitarian Thug
Sep 2013
#7
Poverty and unemployment are the worst drugs of all, drugs forced onto the poor.
ck4829
Sep 2013
#47