Injecting Rooms

Examining the Evidence on Supervised Injecting Facilities

Supervised injecting facilities are frequently described as life-saving harm-reduction measures. The picture that emerges from the data is far more contested.

This collection brings together evidence and peer-reviewed correspondence questioning the claimed benefits of injecting rooms in Sydney, Melbourne, and Vancouver, including a detailed critique of the influential Lancet research on Vancouver's Insite facility.

Injecting Rooms

Data, reports, and published correspondence challenging the effectiveness and safety claims made for supervised injecting facilities.

• Damning Results of Sydney and Melbourne Injecting Rooms
• Over-representation of Overdose in the Melbourne Injecting Room
• Early Damning Data on the Sydney Injecting Room
• Falsifying the Reduced Ambulance Callout Claims of the Sydney Injecting Room
• Lancet 2011 Study on Vancouver Shown to be Fraudulent or Inept
• First Letter Published in Lancet January 2012
• Lancet Author’s Spurious Reply to First Lancet Letter
• Second Letter to Lancet on Study Fraud or Ineptitude

Reading the Evidence Carefully

Policy on injecting facilities should rest on rigorous, independently verified evidence rather than advocacy. The documents gathered here invite a closer look at the data behind the headlines, and at the methods used in the studies most often cited in their favour.