LSD “helps alcoholics to give up drinking”, BBC News has today reported.
This unusual claim is based on a review examining research into the powerful hallucinogenic and its potential to treat alcoholism. The review analysed the results of six medical trials performed between 1966 and 1971, a time when LSD was still used for the treatment of some psychiatric conditions. Although it seems unthinkable now, the drug was prescribed to some patients until evidence began to suggest that it could cause long-term harm, leading it to be withdrawn.
Although the review suggested that LSD could help dependent people to stop drinking, the limitations of the quality, methods and age of the research gathered mean that the researchers cannot support using the drug to treat alcohol misuse or dependency. Since the research was conducted, social and medical perceptions of drug harms have changed considerably, and it is highly unlikely the benefits - if any - would outweigh the risks, particularly as there are now many options for helping people with alcohol problems.
LSD is a class A drug that is illegal to possess or sell. The effects of taking LSD are highly unpredictable, and while some individuals may experience enjoyable hallucinations it carries high risk of considerable personal and psychological harm, both at the time of taking the drug and in the longer-term.
Where did the story come from?
This study was carried out by researchers from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU and Harvard Medical School. It was funded by the Research Council of Norway and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Psychopharmacology.
The Daily Mail gives slightly overinflated coverage of this story, which doesn’t take into account the review’s numerous and significant limitations. BBC News does make it clear that the review looked at trials from the 1960s and 1970s.
What kind of research was this?
LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide was first created in a lab in the 1930s, and in the decades that followed there was great interest in whether the psychedelic chemical could have medical uses. As the drug significantly alters how people think and perceive their surroundings, there was some speculation that it could open patients’ minds to psychotherapy.
This speculation centred on whether the substance could help people with severe mental health problems, although it was also considered as a potential treatment for more minor conditions, such as anxiety and phobias. Given its perceived benefits, LSD was administered to psychiatric patients for several years; but as it became associated with recreational use and negative effects for patients, it was withdrawn from medical use.
According to the authors of this new research, numerous clinical investigators have claimed that treating alcoholics with individual doses of LSD in combination with psychosocial interventions may help prevent further alcohol misuse. They suggested this could work by allowing patients to understand better their behavioural patterns and therefore become motivated to build and maintain a sober lifestyle.
This was a systematic review and meta-analysis, which aimed to combine the results of all relevant trials that have used LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide to treat alcoholism. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs is the best way of reviewing the available evidence on the health effects of a particular intervention. Systematic reviews are, however, often inherently limited by the different methods of the individual trials that they combine, including the populations they studied, how the intervention is given (such as frequency, dose and duration and outcomes measured.
What did the research involve?
The researchers searched PubMed and PsycINFO databases to identify any published trials that included key terms relating to LSD, alcohol and dependence. They included any RCTs of LSD treatment for alcoholism. In RCTs, an intervention such as LSD-use is compared with a “control treatment”, such as standard treatment or no specific treatment. The researchers described that the control treatments in eligible trials could involve any type of other treatment, including using “low doses” of LSD (up to 50 micrograms, which was lower than the intervention doses . Two reviewers analysed the studies and extracted data.
Primary outcomes of interest were alcohol misuse, which was defined as “alcohol use or consequences of alcohol use, as systematically measured by interview or self-report at the first reported follow-up”. Secondary outcomes of interest were alcohol misuse in the short-term (approximately three months , medium-term (approximately six months and longer-term (approximately 12 months . They also looked at reports of abstinence and adverse events. Where possible, they pooled the results of individual studies. If any trials had included people with psychiatric conditions such as schizophrenia or psychosis, the researchers excluded these from their analyses.
The researchers identified six eligible trials, all of which were dated between 1966 and 1971. Five trials were conducted in the USA and one in Canada. The trials included 536 individuals (general age range 30s-50s; all male except two females , of whom 61% were randomly assigned to receive “full-dose” LSD and 39% a control treatment or no intervention. The trials all gave a single oral dose of LSD as the intervention, with doses ranging between 210 and 800 micrograms (average 500 . Control conditions included “low-dose” LSD (25 or 50 micrograms , amphetamines, ephedrine sulphate (a stimulant drug or no drug treatment. All participants were said to be seeking treatment for alcoholism and had been admitted to alcohol-focused treatment programmes before being recruited to the trials.
The researchers said that the individual trials varied in their preparation for the LSD treatment session, with most studies providing only brief participant information, with often little or no description of the possible effects of LSD. During treatment, the most common procedure was described to be “simple observation with brief reassurance by clinical staff”. In only three studies did the treatment groups also receive clinical interviews, psychotherapy or active guidance. After the experimental drug session, only one study included multiple review sessions that reviewed the experiences during the drug session. The other five studies provided either only one brief review session or no review session at all.
All of the trials defined their methods for assessing the effects of the drug on alcohol use, but these varied between trials (such as using rating scales on alcohol use, assessing abstinence or using social adjustment rating scales .
What were the basic results?
Five trials gave “categorical” data (for example, whether a patient was improved or unimproved , and in these five trials 59% of those taking LSD (185 of 315 and 38% of controls (73 of 191 had improvements in their alcohol use at first follow-up. The pooled results of all six trials demonstrated increased odds of improvement in alcohol misuse, with LSD treatment compared to control ( odds ratio 1.96, 95% confidence interval 1.36 to 2.84 . This, they calculated, meant six people would need to be treated with LSD for one person to gain benefit at the time of first follow-up.
When the researchers divided the trials up into those assessing short-term (two to three months , medium-term (six months and longer-term effects (12 months , significant improvements were only seen at short- and medium-term follow-up.
Three trials reported on abstinence rates but only found a benefit of LSD at short-term follow-up.
In total the trials reported eight adverse reactions at the time of taking the drug. These included becoming agitated, acting “bizarrely” and having a seizure.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers concluded that “a single dose of LSD, in the context of various alcoholism treatment programmes, is associated with a decrease in alcohol misuse”.
Conclusion
Fifty years ago, researchers and doctors considered LSD to be a possible treatment for patients with mental health problems, until evidence showed that it could cause long-term psychological problems in some people. This review of six previous trials cannot be considered to provide evidence that LSD could be beneficial for people with alcohol problems. This is in no small part due to the questionable methods of the reviewed trials, the most recent of which was carried out 41 years ago.
Although LSD may have been considered suitable for testing in a trial at a time when its recreational use was quite common, it is highly unlikely that it would be considered now, given how considerably social and medical perceptions of drug harms have changed since then. This is notable by the attitudes displayed in the previous trials, which reportedly gave the participants very little information ahead of their LSD treatment session: most studies provided only brief participant information with often little or no description of the possible effects and risks of taking LSD. This would be considered unethical and unacceptable in trials today.
There was also very little follow-up of patients to see the long-term effects of taking LSD. Only one study included multiple review sessions assessing the individual’s experiences of taking the drug; the other five studies provided either only one brief review session or no review session at all. Therefore, how individuals are affected by taking LSD – regardless of its effects on their subsequent alcohol use - are unknown. At the time of taking the drug, there were eight reports of participants being agitated, acting “bizarrely”, having a seizure or having other “unspecified” adverse reactions.
LSD is a class A drug that is illegal to possess or sell. The effects of taking LSD are highly unpredictable, and while some individuals may experience “pleasant” hallucinations, the individual is putting themselves, and potentially others, at high risk of considerable personal and psychological harm, both at the time of taking the drug and in the long term.
Given the potential danger, it seems unlikely that LSD would be considered for future testing in people with alcohol dependence. It’s particularly important to note that we now have a range of medicines and psychological interventions for treating alcoholism that weren’t available at the time of this previous research.
Links To The Headlines
LSD 'helps alcoholics to give up drinking'. BBC News, March 9 2012
LSD could treat alcoholism because 'trips' make you reassess addiction. The Daily Telegraph, March 9 2012
Can LSD cure alcoholism? Trials show 59 per cent of problem drinkers improve after a single dose of powerful hallucinogen. Daily Mail, March 9 2012
Links To Science
Krebs TS, Johansen PO. Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD for alcoholism: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Psychopharmacology. Published online March 8 2012
A team of researchers at Duke University has determined the structure of a key molecule that can carry chemotherapy and anti-viral drugs into cells, which could help to create more effective drugs with fewer effects to healthy tissue.
"Knowing the structure and properties of the transporter molecule may be the key to changing the way that some chemotherapies, for example, could work in the body to prevent tumor growth," said senior author
Seok-Yong Lee, PhD, assistant professor of biochemistry at Duke.
The article was published in
Nature online on March 11.
The transporter molecule, called a concentrative nucleoside transporter, works by moving nucleosides, the building blocks of DNA and RNA, from the outside to the inside of cells. It also transports nucleoside-like chemo drugs through cell membranes.
Once inside the cells, the nucleoside-like drugs are modified into nucleotides that are incorporated into DNA in ways that prevent tumor cells from dividing and functioning.
"We discovered the structure of the transporter molecule, and now we believe it is possible to improve nucleoside drugs to be better recognized by a particular form of the transporter molecule that resides in certain types of tissue," Lee said. "Now we know the transporter molecule has three forms, which recognize different drugs and reside in different tissues."
The team determined the chemical and physical principles a transporter molecule uses to recognize the nucleosides, "so if you can improve the interactions between the transporter and the drug, you won't need as much of the drug to get it into the tumor cells efficiently," Lee said. "Knowing the shape of the transporters will let scientists design drugs that are recognized well by this transporter."
Because the drugs enter healthy cells as well as tumor cells, giving a lower dose of drug that targets tumor tissue would be the best scenario, said Lee, who is also a member of the
Duke Ion Channel Research Unit. "Healthy cells don't divide as often as tumor cells, so lowering the amount of drug given overall would be an effective approach to killing tumors while protecting patients."
The researchers studied transporter molecules from
Vibrio cholera
, a comma-shaped bacterium. The bacterial transporter serves as a good model system for studying human transporters because they share similar amino acid sequences. They found that both the human and bacterial transporter use a sodium gradient to import nucleosides and drugs into the cells.
The next step will be to try to understand which features of the transporter confer the ability to recognize certain chemo drugs and ultimately to design drugs that can easily enter the cells.
This work won a prize for Dr. Lee, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences Award, which he will receive at the Biophysical Society meeting in February.
The work was funded by the McKnight Endowment Fund for Neuroscience, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Klingenstein Fund, the Mallinckrodt Foundation, the Basil O'Connor Starter Scholar Research Award from the March of Dimes Foundation, and the NIH Director's New Innovator Award, in addition to start-up funds from the Duke University Medical Center.
Other authors include Zachary Lee Johnson and Cheom-Gil Cheong also of the Department of Biochemistry and the Ion Channel Research Unit.
“Stem cells beat kidney rejection,” says BBC News. The broadcaster says that an injection of stem cells given alongside a kidney transplant could remove the need for a lifetime of treatment to suppress the immune system.
The news is based on research detailing the outcomes of eight experimental kidney transplants where the organ came from a living donor. In addition to having their kidney removed, the donor also donated blood stem cells, which can develop into any type of blood cell, including immune system cells. After the recipient patient had received chemotherapy and radiotherapy to suppress their own immune system, the donor kidney and stem cells were transplanted. The aim was to help prevent the organ from being rejected by altering the recipient’s immune system to match that of the donor kidney. Five of the eight patients were able to have their immunosuppressant drugs reduced within one year. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the donor’s transplanted immune cells had started to attack the recipient’s healthy tissue, a possible complication of this type of treatment.
Although this is only early-stage research, the results of this small case series are promising and could have implications for the future of organ transplants, particularly in those cases where the donor and recipient are not an immunological match to each other.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago and other institutions in the US. Funding was provided by the US National Institute of Health; the Department of the Army, Office of Army Research; the National Foundation to Support Cell Transplant Research; the WM Keck Foundation; and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons Collaborative Scientist Award. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Science Translational Medicine.
The BBC News website provides good coverage of this research.
What kind of research was this?
This was a case series reporting on the results of eight patients receiving kidney transplants alongside haematopoietic stem cells (HSCs – cells that can develop into any type of blood cell . These were taken from “mismatched” donors (either related or unrelated to the recipient . If they are “mismatched”, the donor and recipient do not share the same human leukocyte antigens (HLAs , which are proteins located on the surface of immune cells and other cells in the body. The immune system recognises “foreign” HLAs and will attack cells that carry them, potentially leading to rejection. If donor cells carry the same HLAs there is less chance that the host’s immune cells would recognise the transplant tissue as foreign. This is why the ideal situation is to find a suitable HLA-matched donor for individuals awaiting a transplant, although this is often not possible.
The research investigates a theory known as “chimerism” (named after a mythical creature made up of parts of different animals , where the transplant recipient has both their own immune cells and those that come from the donor. The hope is that this will prevent the body from rejecting the transplant. However, there is a chance that this could increase the risk of what is known as graft versus host disease (GVHD , which is where the donor’s immune cells instead attack the healthy tissue of the host. HSC transplant also carries a risk of what is known as “engraftment syndrome”, which is characterised by a fever, skin rash and other symptoms.
What did the research involve?
This case series reported the outcomes of eight adults (age range 29-56 years who were receiving a kidney transplant from a living, unmatched donor. A special technique was used to retrieve relevant cells from the donor’s blood, including both HSCs and “graft facilitating cells” (FCs – which are a type of immune cell derived from HSCs .
Prior to transplant of the donor kidney and HSCs/FCs, the recipients were first treated with chemotherapy and radiotherapy to suppress their own immune system and reduce the chance of rejection. After the transplant they received continued treatment with two drugs to suppress their immune system and reduce the chance that their bodies would reject the transplant. They were discharged from hospital two days after the transplant and managed as outpatients.
The researchers monitored the patients to look at how the procedure was tolerated and whether GVHD or engraftment syndrome occurred.
What were the basic results?
By one month after transplant the level of chimerism in the recipients’ blood (where they demonstrated cell lines coming from both their own stem cells and the donor’s stem cells was reported to vary between 6 and 100%.
One patient developed a viral blood infection and blood clot in one of their kidney arteries two months after transplant. Two patients demonstrated only slight chimerism and were maintained on low-dose immunosuppressive treatment. However, five patients demonstrated “durable chimerism” and were able to be weaned from immunosuppressive treatment by one year. None of the recipients developed GVHD or engraftment syndrome.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers conclude that transplant of HSCs is a “safe, practical, and reproducible means of inducing durable chimerism”. It also appeared to be tolerated with no signs of GVHD or engraftment syndrome.
If confirmed in larger studies, the researchers say that this approach to transplantation could free some patients from the need for immunosuppressive treatment within one year of transplantation.
Conclusion
This research reported on the cases of eight patients who were receiving a kidney from an unmatched living donor. Alongside the kidney transplant, to the recipients were also given a transplant of the donor’s haematopoietic stem cells, which have the ability to transform into a range of blood cell types. The aim was that slightly altering the recipient’s immune system to produce cells that “matched” those of the donor kidney would help prevent the organ from being rejected. Five of the eight patients were able to have their immunosuppressant drugs reduced within one year. Furthermore, no patients developed a serious condition called graft versus host disease (where the donor’s transplanted immune cells start to attack the recipient’s healthy tissue , and no patients developed another complication of HSC transplant, known as engraftment syndrome, which includes fever, skin rash and other symptoms.
Importantly, this is only early-stage research, reporting the results of treatment in only eight people. Further follow-up in these patients will be needed, in addition to study in much wider groups of patients. However, the results are promising and could have implications for the future of kidney transplant and the transplant of other organs, particularly in people for whom it has not been possible to find a suitable matched donor.
Analysis by Bazian
Links To The Headlines
Stem cells beat kidney rejection. BBC news, March 9 2012
Breakthrough in kidney transplant 'could cut waiting list'. The Daily Telegraph, March 9 2012
Links To Science
Krebs TS Johansen PO. Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD for alcoholism: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Psychopharmacology, published online before print March 8 2012
SALT LAKE CITY — After years of delays, Dr. Daniel Simmons, a longtime professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at Brigham Young University, is about to get his day in court.
In October 2006, Simmons and BYU sued drug giant Pfizer, claiming the pharmaceutical company unfairly profited from his discovery and cheated the professor out of professional credit and compensation. The lawsuit involves potentially millions, perhaps even billions of dollars in royalties for BYU and has resulted in more than five years of legal wrangling.
The dispute revolves around the drug Celebrex, a revolutionary drug to treat arthritis and inflammation. The so-called “super-aspirin” blocks the COX-2 enzyme, reducing pain and inflammation without triggering the sometimes deadly gastrointestinal effects of some other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, including aspirin. COX is scientific shorthand for the enzyme cyclooxygenase.
Back in 1991 and into 1992, Simmons and BYU had a research agreement with Monsanto, later acquired by Pfizer.
According to BYU, Dr. Simmons' research about the COX-2 enzyme was critical in the development of Celebrex, yet Monsanto ended the agreement, without including him or the university in the credit or compensation.
"The agreement was to share his discovery with the company and to share in any reasonable royalties that resulted from their collaboration,” BYU said in a prepared statement. “The company then used Dr. Simmons' work as a road map to develop the blockbuster drug Celebrex."
Pfizer claims the company met all of its obligations under the agreement. In a prepared statement it said, “Many years ago, Monsanto had a research agreement with BYU and Dr. Simmons, and the company met all of its obligations under the agreement. Years later, BYU and Dr. Simmons made unfounded allegations against Pfizer in an effort to capitalize on the company’s commercial success. The lawsuit has no merit.”
Brent Hatch, an attorney for Pfizer, said, "It's a big case and the judge was exceptionally well-prepared. He was very thorough in his questions. We're very much looking forward to receiving his decisions."
Judge
Ted Stewart will rule on pretrial motions submitted Friday in anticipation of a May 29 trial date. Both sides will then take jurors down a road two decades in the making, unveiling documents, detailing science, and relying on expert witnesses and patent law to reach a decision.
BYU officials previously said it worked for years to reach an agreement before heading to court, but to no avail. Pfizer was penalized in October 2009 for causing unnecessary delays in the case, and was ordered to pay BYU $825,315 for costs that included attorney fees.
The trial is scheduled to last six weeks.
E-mail:
spenrod@ksl.com
statement posted on its website today, Coca-Cola said that it is in fact not changing its world-famous formula. “The caramel color in all of our products has been, is and always will be safe, and The Coca-Cola Company is not changing the world-famous formula for our Coca-Cola beverages. Over the years, we have updated our manufacturing processes from time to time, but never altered our Secret Formula,” Coca-Cola said on its website. The No. 1 soft drink maker said they have asked its caramel suppliers to modify their production process to reduce the amount of 4-MI in the caramel, but that it will not have any effect on the formula or the flavor of its products. “These modifications will not affect the color or taste of Coca-Cola,” it said. The company added it is committed to the “highest quality and safety” of its products, and it will “continue to rely on sound, evidence-based science to ensure that our products are safe.” --------- A specific caramel coloring found in Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and other popular soft drinks that a consumer watchdog said contain high levels of a chemical linked to cancer in animals has now been deemed safe by US regulators. Despite this, PepsiCo and Coca-Cola both decided to adjust the formula of their caramel coloring across the US so they do not have to label their products with a cancer warning to comply with additional regulations enforced in California. The recipe has already been changed for drinks sold in the Golden State and the companies said the changes will be expanded nationwide to streamline their manufacturing processes. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI
reported earlier this week that it found the unsafe levels of the chemical 4-methylimidazole (4-MI -- used to make caramel color -- in cans of Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, and Whole Foods’ 365 Cola. Coca-Cola confirmed that changes were being made at its facilities to keep within the law but argued that the CSPI’s allegations on the dangers the ingredient posed on humans were false. “The company has made the decision to ask its caramel suppliers to make the necessary manufacturing process modification, to meet the specific Californian legislation,” A spokesperson for Coca-Cola told
Daily Mail Online. “Those modifications will not change our product.” California added 4-MI to its list of carcinogens, after studies showed high levels of the chemical led to tumors in lab animals. However, the studies were inconclusive on whether the chemical was dangerous to humans or not. “Caramel is a perfectly safe ingredient and this has been recognized by all European food safety authorities,” the spokesperson added. “The 4-MEI levels in our products pose no health or safety risks. Outside of California, no regulatory agency concerned with protecting the public’s health has stated that 4-MEI is a human carcinogen.” “The caramel color in all of our ingredients has been, is and always will be safe. That is a fact,” the spokesperson said. This had been the CSPI’s second go-around with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA over the dangers of 4-MI in soft drinks. It first petitioned the regulator last year, but the FDA has continually maintained that the claims were exaggerated. “It is important to understand that a consumer would have to consume well over a thousand cans of soda a day to reach the doses administered in the studies that have shown links to cancer in rodents,” said FDA spokesman, Doug Karas to the Daily Mail's Laura Pullman. CSPI maintains that the regulator is allowing soft drink companies to needlessly expose millions of Americans to a chemical that is known to cause cancer. “If companies can make brown food coloring that is carcinogen-free, the industry should use it,” CSPI’s executive director Michael Jacobson told
Reuters. The FDA said it will review the watchdog’s petition, but that the soft drinks in question were still safe. CSPI took cans from stores in the Washington DC area, where they found some had levels of 4-MI near 140 micrograms per 12-ounce can. California has a legal limit of 29 micrograms of 4-MI per 12 ounces, it noted. The FDA’s limit for 4-MI in caramel coloring is 250 parts per million (ppm . Once the caramel is mixed in with the soda it becomes diluted. According to calculations by Reuters, the highest levels of 4-MI found in the soft drinks were about 0.4 ppm, significantly within the safe zone. “This is nothing more than CSPI scare tactics,” the American Beverage Association (ABA told Reuters in a statement. “In fact, findings of regulatory agencies worldwide ... consider caramel coloring safe for use in foods and beverages.” ABA said its member companies will continue to caramel coloring in certain products but that adjustments were being made to meet California requirements. “Consumers will notice no difference in our products and have no reason at all for any health concerns,” the ABA said. Diana Garza-Ciarlante, a representative for Coca-Cola, said its suppliers would modify the manufacturing process used to reduce the levels of 4-MI, which is formed during the cooking process and as a result may be found in trace amounts in many foods. “While we believe that there is no public health risk that justifies any such change, we did ask our caramel suppliers to take this step so that our products would not be subject to the requirement of a scientifically unfounded warning,” she said in an email to
The Telegraph. --- On the Net:
CANNABIS CULTURE - Watch
Cannabis Culture News LIVE
for the latest news and views on pot politics and the marijuana community. In this episode: Dan Werb of the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy and Stop the Violence B.C. discusses Bill C-10, the draconian Conservative crime bill about to become law in Canada.
- Today's
comic by Matt Bors is
Santorum go bye bye:
- What's coming up on Sunday Kos ...
- Mitt Romney, incompetent campaigns, and anti-Southern elitism, by Steve Singiser
- Teacher job satisfaction drops as school budget cuts and layoffs rise, by Laura Clawson
- The PVI/Vote Index: Quantifying good Dems, bad Dems and ugly Republicans, by David Jarman
- The Obama administration steps up for bullied kids in Minnesota, by Scott Wooledge
- Women of color in women's history. Part two: Latinas, Denise Oliver Velez
- The danger of the current arguments on contraception, by Dante Atkins
- Mitt Romney, incompetent campaigns, and anti-Southern elitism, by Steve Singiser
- Rage against the
Rush:
To Rush Limbaugh: Hey Jackass, stop using our music on your racist, misogynist, right wing clown show. Sincerely, Rage Against The Machine
—
@tmorello via
Twitter for BlackBerryA®
- Fox News somehow manages to
bury today's report on improving job numbers. What a shock.
- Bitter, party of
one?
Dennis Kucinich said today that he has no plans to endorse his former friend and the winner of Ohio's 9th Congressional District seat, Marcy Kaptur.
"I haven't done that and I'm not sure I will," he said. "The problem is in politics if someone runs a gutter-level campaign, you're just expected to say it's OK and you move on. Marcy's been my friend for 30 years and I have to tell you, it was pretty surprising to me the kind of campaign that was run, it was more worthy of Karl Rove than Marcy Kaptur."
- On the bright side, after resigning earlier today, he'll have
more time to hike the Appalachian Trail ... or not:
Former South Carolina Lt. Gov. Ken Ard has pleaded guilty to seven counts of violating the State Ethics Act.
- Proof that Haley Barbour will
never run for national office:
Mississippi's Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the controversial pardons of more than 200 convicts that former Gov. Haley Barbour granted on his way out of office, rejecting a challenge by the state's attorney general. [...]
One of the pardoned trusties was David Gatlin, who had been serving a life sentence for killing his estranged wife Tammy while she held their 6-week-old baby.
- A Republican New York Assemblyman, Teresa Sayward,
doesn't like any of the GOP presidential candidates:
SAYWARD: I do not have a favorite in the presidential race, if I had to vote today, I’d vote for Obama.
INTERVIEW: Really?
SAYWARD: Absolutely… Because I really, truly think that the candidates that are out there today for the Republican side would take women back decades.
Also:
Did D.C’s political and media elite find Hollywood’s portrayal of “Game Change” and Sarah Palin fascinating? You betcha.
HBO’s “Game Change” had its star-studded — for Washington, at least — premiere Thursday night in the Newseum with some of the town’s political and media VIPs in attendance alongside star Julianne Moore and producer Tom Hanks. Once the credits rolled to applause, guests milled around the lobby and offered their snap judgments on the film and its take on the former Alaska governor and vice presidential nominee to POLITICO.
The overall feeling? Moore got it darn right.
- The New York Times is
reporting that Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes is buying The New Republic.
- I'm pretty sure the researchers were
high:
Alcoholism could be treated using the mind-bending drug LSD, as the hallucinogenic trips it creates alter the drinker's perception of their habit.
Researchers at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU in Trondheim, central Norway, assessed the results of controlled trials that took place during the 1960s and 1970s in the US and Canada, the study published Thursday showed.
- A
funny take on the "comment section for every article ever written about PETA."
Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are rich enough to never work again – but who has the talent and ambition for adult success?
Three weeks after its release, The Woman in Black has claimed a remarkable achievement: it is by some distance the most successful homegrown horror film ever released in Britain.
Equally significantly, perhaps, it marks the transition of the Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe – playing the lead role of widowed solicitor Arthur Kipps – from one of the most successful, well paid child stars of all time to something approaching a grown-up acting career.
For all the fame and money the bespectacled Hogwarts schoolboy has brought Radcliffe over the eight-film franchise, he could provide a straitjacket for the 22-year-old actor. Radcliffe's Potter co-stars, Emma Watson, 21, and Rupert Grint, 23, face a near-identical dilemma. All three spent their teenage years in front of the cameras, becoming solidly identified with a single character. In short, do they have a future?
"It's a tough question," said Charles Gant, film editor of Heat magazine. "They've all got pluses and minuses. Radcliffe is good casting in The Woman in Black, even if he's arguably a little young to play a grieving father. But to be honest, it's a struggle to see him playing a lead role in a lot of popular genres, like, say, a contemporary romance. Or an action movie. He hasn't got a heavily masculine persona, and that's what you need to be a leading man in Hollywood."
Steven Gaydos, executive editor of Variety magazine, suggests Hollywood has its eye on him all the same. "Daniel has established himself as a first-rate actor," he said. "I'm sure he and his handlers are looking for that Bafta/Oscar role to further prove this."
Radcliffe's most obvious comparison is to another young English actor, 25-year-old Robert Pattinson, also a franchise veteran (of the Twilight films and who is also negotiating a similarly tricky transition. Pattinson has done period too – the forthcoming Bel Ami – but his status as a teen idol means that he can land sexier projects, such as David Cronenberg's adaptation of Don DeLillo's Cosmopolis.
According to Gant: "The real money in Hollywood is for guys who, as the cliche has it, men want to be, and women want to be with. I don't know if Radcliffe is quite in that bracket. But people have grown up with him and have a great deal of affection for him. A good chunk of Woman in Black's success was down to their desire to see him move on from Harry Potter."
Watson, on the other hand, is taking things more carefully. While Radcliffe demonstrated his acting ambition by taking theatre jobs and the like during breaks in the Potter schedule, Watson opted to take a degree course at university and sign up for modelling and design work. She had occasional acting roles – the most recent of which was the small part of a costume assistant in My Week with Marilyn.
Gaydos says she "is under the most pressure as lovely young actresses all face the most career pressure", while for Gant, she "looks like a movie star". "But in terms of her inheritance from the Potter franchise, she hasn't got the same level of fan love as the other two: maybe it's because Hermione just wasn't as endearing as Harry and Ron."
Glamour
Watson's route out of Potter would seem in keeping with her predilection for intellectualised glamour: she has just finished filming the US indie The Perks of Being a Wallflower, the adaptation of Stephen Chbosky's spiky novel about a high-school student discovering sex and drugs, and has signed up for Sofia Coppola's The Bling Ring, about teens who break into celebrities' houses in LA.
In neither film does she play a lead; that will only come with Your Voice in My Head, drawn from journalist Emma Forrest's account of her relationship with her psychiatrist.
"She hasn't tried to be the centre of anything yet," said Gant. "It's a smart move, but it means there's a massive question mark as to her USP. We're waiting for something that defines her. She needs a role where you get a strong flavour of who she is."
Watson's nearest contemporary is probably Carey Mulligan, whose career has been ballasted by her star-making lead role in An Education. Watson would probably be envious of Mulligan's ability to move between British psychodramas including Shame, Hollywood noirs such as Drive, and romantic epics such as the forthcoming Great Gatsby.
The third member of the Potter trio, Grint, is the one who looks like he'll be most up against it now that Potter has finished. During the series, his popularity among the franchise's fans meant he could take a string of roles, from Northern Irish indie Cherrybomb to the Viz-esque Thunderpants. Now, however, his Ringo Starr-ish position is perhaps becoming apparent, with no clear future as a solo performer mapped out.
"He's a conundrum," said Gant. "He was impressive in the first Potter films, with good comic timing, but as an actor he's grown the least. He's not natural casting for leading man roles, and could only have a career as a sidekick, really. He can be quite funny, but when you look at the wealth of comedic actors in the US – Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, Seth Rogen – they seem much bigger talents somehow. I'm not struck by his ambition, unlike the other two."
Ambition, indeed, is the issue – after the hefty pay deals offered to keep the Potter films motoring along, all three never need to work again. In the
2011 Sunday Times Rich List, Radcliffe's worth was estimated at ?48m, and Watson and Grint at ?24m apiece.
Gaydos points out that "successful young actors and successful young athletes have a lot in common", adding: "Huge salaries, great fame, great temptations, brief careers."
Time will tell if the Potter kids have whatever it is that drives on the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio and Ryan Giggs. It has to be more than simply money.
Terms & Conditions |
More Feeds
No comments:
Post a Comment