French Drug Trial Leaves One Brain Dead and Five Critically Ill (theguardian.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

French Drug Trial Leaves One Brain Dead and Five Critically Ill (theguardian.com)

Posted by Soulskill on Friday January 15, 2016 @04:45AM from the stick-with-the-placebo dept.

jones_supa writes: One person is brain dead and five others are seriously ill after taking part in a phase one drug trial for an unnamed pharmaceutical firm at the Biotrial clinic in France. In medicine, phase one entails a small group of volunteers, and focuses only on safety. Phase two and three are progressively larger trials to assess the drug's effectiveness, although safety remains paramount. The French health ministry said the six patients had been in good health until taking the oral medication. It did not say what the new medicine was intended to be used for, but a source close to the case told AFP that the drug was a painkiller containing cannabinoids, an active ingredient found in cannabis plants. Mishaps like this are relatively rare, but in 2006 six men fell ill in London after taking part in a clinical trial into a drug developed to fight auto-immune disease and leukaemia. All trials on the drug at the French clinic have been suspended and the state prosecutor has opened an inquiry.

42 of 232 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Naughty cannabis by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-15 04:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Waiting for all the morons to blame cannabis. It's Friday, work's done, I'm stoned. Love you all x
1. Re:Naughty cannabis by Fwipp · 2016-01-15 04:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The article clarifies:
  
  Touraine said the drug was meant to act on the body’s endocannabinoid system, which deals with pain. Earlier reports had suggested that the drug contained cannabinoids, an active ingredient found in cannabis plants, but the minister said it did not contain the drug or any derivatives of it.
2. Re:Naughty cannabis by SJHillman · 2016-01-15 05:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It appears to alter the subject's ability to spell simple words, even when the word is emboldened and all caps.
3. Re:Naughty cannabis by fahrbot-bot · 2016-01-15 05:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Also reported in the NY Times:
  
  Contrary to several reports in the French news media, the drug was not a cannabis-based painkiller, Ms. Touraine said.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
4. Re:Naughty cannabis by OakDragon · 2016-01-15 05:15 · Score: 2
  
  Simple misunderstanding. It wasn't a cannabis based drug, it was cannibal based.
  
  --
  Dark Reflection
5. Re:Naughty cannabis by orledrat · 2016-01-15 05:18 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Endocannabinoid system is modulated by more than just THC, CBD and the regular ol' cannabinoids in ganja. It's a rather complex system whose functional mappings and tructure-activity relationships are not very well understood.. yet. It offers incredible potential for modulation, far beyond what cannabis can do, and I for one welcome our Pharma Overlords to throw their resources at these problems.. provided that they don't botch things up like this, for fucks sake.
6. Re:Naughty cannabis by cayenne8 · 2016-01-15 05:24 · Score: 2
  
  LOL...yep, need to start reviewing before hitting submit...
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
7. Re:Naughty cannabis by cyberchondriac · 2016-01-15 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  Now you just sound kinda Scottish. Which is cool.
  
  --
  
  Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
8. Re:Naughty cannabis by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-15 06:38 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Why not just let people consume the plant pretty much in its natural state?
  Because that the endocannabinoid system can't be fully manipulated in all ways possible by just using naturally occurring stashes of THC.
  The brain contains two primary receptors (CB1 and CB2) and a few minor G protein receptors as the trigger points of the endocannabinoid system.
  The remainder of that system is the parts of the brain that generate THC to fill those receptors.
  The system as a whole has a cascading effect on things in the brain everywhere from pain control to required memory forming processes to mood control.
  Cannabis as found in plants is of forms not generated in the brain, and typically only stimulate one of the two major receptors, and rarely the G protein receptors at all.
  From those that enjoy THC use recreationally, CB1 stimulation manifests as a "sleepy relaxed pain-killing high" where CB2 stimulation manifests as a "creativity and energy boost high"
  But other than various amounts of receptor stimulation and thus various "how high" levels, you don't get much more out of it than that.
  There are fully synthetic versions of chemicals designed specifically to stimulate both CB1 and CB2 (sometimes completely) as well as designed to hit the G protein receptors in various ways and by various methods.
  These chemicals are usually called "THC equivalents" but the vast majority are anything but equivalent when looking at what they do and how they go about doing it in comparison to natural THC.
  Did you know if you stimulate CB2 at 95%+, CB1 at anything over 50%, and block GPR18 uptake from the brains natural sources, you can induce a full sensory pathway failure for a few minutes?
  The chemical JWH-210 was designed to do just this, and in effect causes a 10-15 minute "trapped in" coma with all the effects of sensory deprivation and decoupling the differentiation between sensory input and your memories of past sensory input.
  The recreational crowd usually describes this as forced lucid dreaming.
  The chemical AM-2232 stimulates CB1 partially and completely overloads CB2 beyond 100%, while also doing "something" to the Ki receptors previously thought unrelated to THC usage.
  It has been described as "Imagine the highest high you have had, and multiply that by a hundred. Once you are high enough, keep going because it doesn't stop there"
  The idea of AM was to provide pain control on the level of opiates, but without the dependency and withdraw issues opiates have. That part didn't quite work out in earlier versions of the chemical however (the withdraws were quite different from opiates, but there were still withdraws) and the chemical made a schedule 1 banned substance before further research could be done.
  None of this is possible to obtain from THC in naturally growing plants.
  The brain is much more complex than that, and can be "hacked" in many more ways and combinations using chemicals designed for that explicit purpose that have no naturally occurring equal.
  If you'd like to kill a couple days with further reading, I submit to you the following research:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWH-018
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_JWH_cannabinoids
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AM_cannabinoids
9. Re:Naughty cannabis by DarkOx · 2016-01-15 07:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It offers incredible potential for modulation, far beyond what cannabis can do, and I for one welcome our Pharma Overlords to throw their resources at these problems.. provided that they don't botch things up like this, for fucks sake.
  That's great in the meantime I wish we could get nice legal packaged THC/CBD products to market. Its clear of the centuries (maybe longer) of not exactly controlled application of these compounds on human test subjects they are pretty darn safe, and at least not chemically habit forming. They are also at least somewhat effective in many people with a wide variety of chronic pain conditions.
  Meanwhile our various overloads continue pushing a condition where the widely available strong pain killers are opiate. Which are highly habit forming, tend to negative side effects for the liver and kidneys when over used and have a much much narrower therapeutic dose than THC/CBD. So we have all kinds of people over dosing on them all the gwad damn time, others becoming addicts and shifting to their street drug relatives when they can no longer get them and subsequently over dosing on those. In short the irrational resistance to cannabis is killing lots of people.
  As a libertarian I am generally in support of letting people do what they want. Letting a doctor prescribe medical cannabis is a no brainier. I have some reservations about it being totally legal for recreational use although I lean in favor; at the vary least it should be fully decriminalized. Being caught with or even selling weed should be like getting a parking ticket.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
10. Re:Naughty cannabis by orledrat · 2016-01-15 07:39 · Score: 2
  
  True, but you are talking politics now.
  
  I have had a cannabis prescription for over 3 years now (in the Netherlands) and it's far from optimal as analgesic medicine, especially in crude form when vaporizing or even smoking the flower or concentrated "oil". Distilling the good bits and selectively hitting the relevant receptors sounds promising to me, and I appreciate that the development of such a distillate takes time because there is a lot of unknown terrain involved.
11. Re:Naughty cannabis by bondsbw · 2016-01-15 07:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Or Slashdot could step into the 21st century and provide an edit mechanism.
  Even if is timed to a few minutes, it would be very helpful.
  
  --
  All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
12. Re:Naughty cannabis by DroolTwist · 2016-01-15 08:07 · Score: 2
  
  Even if is timed to a few minutes, it would be very helpful.
  Actually, timed edits never help. The amount of time needed to proofread your post is invariably "time of the edit function + 1 second". All timed editing does is frustrate you.
13. Re:Naughty cannabis by h4ck7h3p14n37 · 2016-01-15 08:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Lighten up Francis. It may be psychotomimetic for some, but those sensations go away when the user comes down. If you experience this, then the simple solution is to not consume cannabis again.
  As for psychological dependency, many things can lead to that. Typically people that become burnouts already had the type of personality to begin with. There are many brilliant people that use cannabis without issue.
  
  Oh, some people are allergic to marijuana to the degree that smelling second hand smoke can kill them.
  You need to provide a citation for this. You are not going to be able to find a report of someone dying from inhaling second-hand weed smoke because it doesn't happen.
14. Re:Naughty cannabis by h4ck7h3p14n37 · 2016-01-15 08:32 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's not a good source. No one has ever died from consuming cannabis, yet you claim multiple people have. I'm curious, what were there names, where were these deaths reported?
15. Re:Naughty cannabis by Darinbob · 2016-01-15 12:34 · Score: 2
  
  I think Scots sound like Scots because they're also kinda stoned.
16. Re:Naughty cannabis by rahvin112 · 2016-01-15 12:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's what preview is for. A timed edit doesn't help anything other than those who are in such a hurry to reply they don't actually read their post in the preview pane. And someone that careless should be allowed to demonstrate it.
17. Re:Naughty cannabis by Maxo-Texas · 2016-01-16 20:49 · Score: 2
  
  Let's see. I've been irritated by the lack of editing (conservatively) fifty to eighty times. No.. really probably over 100 times over the last 6 years. And I can't even quickly post a correction note.
  The number of times someone has edited their post to make me look like a troll on ANY SITE that allows edit... is zero times.
  What is it with this concern? Did that used to happen somewhere a lot? I've seen that objection before but I've never seen the problem occur.
  Usually there is an "edited X times" inline text at sites that allow editing.
  If you are really concerned put the changes in colored text. Perhaps indicate how much the article was changed with a percentage.
  Include the original text at the bottom of the message in italics.
  I hate the current system.
  
  --
  She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
System working as planned. by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2016-01-15 04:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

>> 1 dead 5 wounded in a drug trial
That's why they call it a trial and limit who can be in it (so it's not 1,000 dead and 5,000 wounded).
1. Re:System working as planned. by vux984 · 2016-01-15 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly right. And its also exactly right that the prosecutors office investigate to make sure that all protocols were followed.
  This sort of thing is rare because the protocols to get a drug approved for human testing generally work. We know occasionally there will be events like this and its a risk we take. But in an event like this we need to establish that nobody was playing fast and loose with the protocols. Make sure data wasn't faked, make sure anything that might have predicted this wasn't suppressed or concealed, make sure the test subjects were being properly monitored, etc.
2. Re:System working as planned. by Sarten-X · 2016-01-15 07:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Morally, justifying something by putting the good of mankind over an individual leads to all kinds of truly ugly nastiness.
  Bullshit. As a society, we routinely engage in self-sacrificing activities for "the good of mankind". We donate our time to charities. We donate money. We even donate our very blood, which can have some serious (though rare) consequences.
  It's a matter of risk perception. Donating time or money are perceived as being no risk, even though charities are very often the target of homocides and other violent attacks, and monetary donations have an obvious economic detriment for the donor. Blood drives make a big show of their safety procedures, and continuously promote the benefits that are enabled by such donations. There are no advertising campaigns for clinical trials, though.
  Stories like this play on fear, promoting the idea that pharmaceutical companies are careless and cavalier about running harmful clinical trials, when the reality is that of the tens of thousands of drug trials run every year, this one is notable specifically because it had a bad outcome.
  
  And medical testing in particular preys on those who are desperate, or financially in need already. They may not have a gun to your head, but in most cases its not like they'd be taking the drugs if they had better choices.
  Also bullshit. Medical testing "preys" on mostly-healthy individuals who meet a particular set of criteria and, most importantly, can be found. That last part is often the most difficult. VERY few people go to their doctors and ask what they can do to help others, except for folks who are looking for unconventional ways to make money. Pharmaceutical researchers usually go to hospital networks and run queries against the hospital databases. Those databases are huge, and not tuned for such queries, so the queries take several months. Ultimately, there are very few qualified candidates returned, and they can be approached and asked to participate.
  Unfortunately, most patients, unless they actually need a treatment, will not join a trial. They're under the impression that trials are unnecessarily risky, and usually won't try to understand the risk analysis before rejecting it. Out of a few hundred candidate subjects in the US, only a few dozen will actually participate. Those who are "desperate, or financially in need" are the ones who have enough incentive to overcome the prejudice and consider the actual risks.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
3. Re: System working as planned. by vux984 · 2016-01-15 07:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your implicit assertion is that it's fine to sacrifice the few for the many, anyway.
  No. It wasn't. The opposite generally.
  
  What is actually fair, just, free, and utilitarian is giving individuals the right over their own body to volunteer for drug trials for the compensation they demand.
  
  Sure. But that's not reality. Negotiation is never on equal footing. The poor and sick don't have the freedom to just walk away from the table if their compensation demands aren't met... they don't have a gun to their head, but they do not have good options. They cannot negotiate good deals for themselves.
  And worse, if negotiation itself isn't one of their skills, they lack the resources to hire one to represent their interests better than they could.
  Meanwhile, the person on the other side of the table, still eats and lives if they don't close the deal; and in many cases recruitment is their actual job -- this act of negotiation is the specific thing they are trained to do, and they are successul at their job because they are good at it.
  To call it a 'free, just, and fair' when one side is severely handicapped is ridiculous bullshit.
  Might as well put a guy who only plays poker once a year and barely knows the rules against a guy who plays poker professionally. On top of that the casual player will lose his apartment or be forced to drop school if he doesn't take home some winnings so he's under a lot of pressure to win, to take unnecessary risks, while the pro is financially secure, doesn't need to win, and can easily afford to lose and can make the best decision based purely on the odds (which he actually knows, while the other party is just roughly guessing at them). That's a fair match right? I mean... the deck itself is only metaphorically stacked against the poor guy, its not literally stacked against him. So ... fair?
  Bullshit.
  And THAT is how fair the average negotiation between a poor person and a corporation is, for anything.. .a job, a dispute, a settlement, anything.
  I'll give you a no strings attached voluntary negotiation between parties for compensation for medical testing or anything else, when it's actually a level field.
  
  Worried that poor people will disproportionately sign up for
  drug trials because it pays well? Poor people are already at higher risk for injury and death and so for them it makes financial sense to better their lives at a small risk compared to their overall risk due to poverty.
  The point being that the risk small to sign up precisely because of the controls in place. If we removed those controls, the risk goes up. Given that the poor do not have good options in the first place, upping the risk just forces them to assume more risk. They don't have the bargaining power to negotiate for more compensation to offset that risk. That becomes exploitation.
One thing's for sure by Nidi62 · 2016-01-15 04:55 · Score: 4, Informative

You know the other 2 are suddenly REALLY happy they got the placebo

--
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
1. Re:One thing's for sure by plcurechax · 2016-01-15 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  You know the other 2 are suddenly REALLY happy they got the placebo
  Expect that in Phase 1 trials, no one is given a placebo. The purpose of Phase 1 trial is testing for safety, not efficacy, and is given to a very small number of healthy test subjects.
2. Re:One thing's for sure by Nidi62 · 2016-01-15 05:16 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You know the other 2 are suddenly REALLY happy they got the placebo
  Expect that in Phase 1 trials, no one is given a placebo. The purpose of Phase 1 trial is testing for safety, not efficacy, and is given to a very small number of healthy test subjects.
  It has been reported in several media outlets that 6 were given the trial medication and 2 were given placebos in this particular round. In all around 90 people have participated in the Phase 1 trial so far, The article in the summary specifically states that some of the 90 were given placebos while the rest were given differing strengths of the drug. Everything I've read states that this particular round used the highest concentration of the drug and implies that with the other rounds the dosage increased with each round. So sounds like they were trying to find a maximum safe dosage. Basically they were looking for side effect or potential harm, in which case you certainly need a placebo group in each round to determine a baseline. And I would say they were wildly successful at determining the dosage at which the drug is unsafe.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
3. Re:One thing's for sure by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-15 05:30 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Expect that in Phase 1 trials, no one is given a placebo.
  This is entirely incorrect.
  Dose-ranging is usually a phase I or early phase II clinical trial. Typically a dose ranging study will include a placebo group of subjects, and a few groups that receive different doses of the test drug. For instance, a typical dose-ranging study may include four groups: a placebo group, low-dose group, medium-dose group and a high-dose group.
4. Re:One thing's for sure by Anonymous Coward · 2016-01-15 05:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  According to French website Figaro,
  
  [C]es essais de phase 1, après avoir été menés sur des chimpanzés, ont débuté le 9 juillet 2015 dans les locaux de Biotrial. 128 hommes et femmes participent aux essais. 90 personnes se sont vu administrer cette molécule à des doses variables, les autres ont pris une dose placebo , a indiqué la ministre.
  
  "The phase-1 tests, after having been done on chimpanzees, started on July 9 2015 at Biotrial. '128 men and women participated in the tests. 90 were administered the drug at different doses, while the others took placebo', said the minister (of Health, Marisol Touraine)"
5. Re:One thing's for sure by PRMan · 2016-01-15 09:17 · Score: 2
  
  Leading to 38 VERY happy people, who now feel so lucky that they are going to celebrate at Chipotle.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Blame... cannabis? by Ecuador · 2016-01-15 04:59 · Score: 2

I thought it went "Blame Canada".
But if it was natural cannabinoids we have to "congratulate" the lab for producing something deadly from a relatively benign plant...
Also, I am curious how this can happen. Before starting such trials they are supposed to give huge doses of the "new" stuff to some unfortunate non-human mammals. I didn't know there could be a fatal compound that is non-fatal for e.g. rats in larger doses (if it was, it would have raised many flags I assume).

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Facts would be welcome by orledrat · 2016-01-15 05:13 · Score: 2

I am keeping an eye on these things as a chronic pain patient who is prescribed cannabis, but I am not 100% sure exactly WHICH drug this is about... It might have been BIA 02-093, aka Eslicarbazepine, from looking at earlier trials for painkillers by this company. Anyone know for sure?
1. Re:Facts would be welcome by gstoddart · 2016-01-15 05:26 · Score: 2
  
  TFA is short on facts, the claim it was cannabis derived is being rejected.
  Short answer, it doesn't look like anybody has said anything meaningful yet about the actual drug in question.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Drug trials by swb · 2016-01-15 05:27 · Score: 2

Of course we do, all the truly effective ones now are opioids and they get you high, too, and our Calvinist morality and repressive drug control regime hates this, so we are desperately trying to find something, anything, that actually works as a painkiller without any euphoric side effects.
True, there are some alternatives, but all the really heavy anti-inflammatories have nasty cardiovascular risks and the others, like gabapentin do some nasty things to neurotransmitters and really only have marginal effectiveness (in addition to getting you weirdly high the first few days you take them, I know first hand).
We *could* just try to figure out tests that help sort out why some people are prone to addiction from opioids and make sure to monitor their therapies more closely (or come up with ways to augment them to reduce addiction risk), but that would mean allowing the rest of the population pain relief and euphoria, and that's just not right with God's Plan.
Re:Drug trials by Tranzistors · 2016-01-15 06:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

> and our Calvinist morality and repressive drug control regime hates this
Oh please! Problem with all current pain killers is that they are NOT EFFECTIVE for chronic pain. Opioids require ever bigger dosage to get the same effect, and your plan to "monitor their therapies" just mean that if the source of the pain is not dealt with, treatment will not be effective. But sure, blame Calvinists.
Re:So... by Hognoxious · 2016-01-15 06:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Maybe the people running the study screwed up and dosed people at one hundred times the recommended amount.

That happened at a homoeopathic clinic once. Instead of getting 0.0 of the active ingredient they got 000.0.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Would animal testing on chimps or monkeys help? by gstoddart · 2016-01-15 06:23 · Score: 2

Then use lawyers and politicians.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Coming to a Headline Near You by FreeUser · 2016-01-15 06:24 · Score: 2

Waiting for all the morons to blame cannabis.

API: Dozens of school children were murdered by a deranged gunman in YourCity, USA earlier today. Governor Dumbshit (R|D) deplored the loss of life, but reminding voters that "at least we can rest easy in the knowledge that the gunman's second amendment right to bear arms was in no way abridged." Early reports that the bullets contained cannabis, and that medical marijuana lies at the heart of the tragedy, have been debunked, although Governor Dumbshit (D|R) has promised voters a thorough investigation "to get to the real facts." After wiping drool from his chin, the Governor went on to say, "If cannabis bullets weren't responsible for the loss of life, then why did investigators feel the need to deny cannabis was involved? Clearly, where there's smoke, there's cannabis."

--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Watched it today by Hognoxious · 2016-01-15 06:55 · Score: 2, Funny

"Just fix the fucking leak already, you blind bastard."
D.Troi, ST:TNG Thine Own Self

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Correlation... by Dunbal · 2016-01-15 07:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Thus proving time and time again that mouse biochemistry != human biochemistry. "But it was working fine in the lab!"

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
BIA 10-2474 by orledrat · 2016-01-15 07:11 · Score: 5, Informative

The drug in question appears to be a FAAH inhibitor named BIA 10-2474.
1. Re:BIA 10-2474 by pesho · 2016-01-15 09:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is still a speculation. The drug does seem to be called BIA 10-2474, according to recruitment materials from the drug testing company. There is only circumstantial evidence that this is a fatty acid amide hydroxylase (FAAH) inhibitor. The speculations are based on patent filings by the pharmaceutical company which ordered the trial (Bial) and the general description that the drugs was "meant to act on the body’s endocannabinoid system". FAAH is an enzyme that among other things degrades endocanabinoids. The rational is that if you slow the degradation of endocanabinoids you will experience less pain (works on mice). So far nobody who is in position to know it has made a statement as to the specific mode of action of the drug or its chemical structure.
  According to fairly vague statements it seems that they were doing a dose escalation study, where different groups of people are given increasing doses of the compound in order to determine the point where the side effects start to show up. The people who got injured were in the group that received the highest dose. Usually this is done very carefully so you can stop before the side effects become severe. However, the response to drugs is not always in linear relationship with the dose and a small increase over a certain threshold may produce very severe adverse effects. This is always worked out in advance on lab animals (mice, rats, rabbits, etc). In the patent application they only cite testing in mice. Subtle differences in the biology of lab animals and humans have caused at least one other clinical trial to turn into a disaster. Of course there is always the possibility that somebody screwed up the dosing and gave them more than they should have received.
Re:The drug concerned by h4ck7h3p14n37 · 2016-01-15 07:23 · Score: 2, Informative

I also believe BIA 10-2474 is the compound based on what I've been able to piece together via web searches.
Here are the sources I located:
http://www.biocentury.com/prod... http://www.insurancejournal.co...
This is truly tragic, God help the people affected.
Re:So... by hublan · 2016-01-15 07:45 · Score: 2

That happened at a homoeopathic clinic once. Instead of getting 0.0 of the active ingredient they got 000.0.
And they drowned?

--
My spoon is too big.