What is adrenochrome? Johnny Depp takes a fictional adrenochrome in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998).

SocietyApril 7, 2020

The truth about adrenochrome

Josie Adams

Contributing writer

Share Story

×

Share Story

×

What is adrenochrome? Johnny Depp takes a fictional adrenochrome in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998).

Misinformation about adrenochrome and its supposed links to Covid-19 has gone into overdrive. But what is it? We separate the substance’s literary history from its real-world functions.

If you’ve spent much time online lately, like everyone else in lockdown, you’ve probably fallen down some strange Covid-19 rabbit holes. One word you might have seen is “adrenochrome”. It’s popular with the conspiracy set: it makes you young, or high, or part of a Satanic tribute. Before you become hypnotised by the swathes of Facebook comment threads, you should know how it got its mystical status.

Where have I heard of adrenochrome?

Aldous Huxley’s 1954 essay “The Doors of Perception”, written mostly about his experiences with mescaline, discusses the possibility that adrenochrome is a compound with similar effects to the psychedelic cactus. He has not taken it, and doesn’t know how one would obtain it, saying just that it’s spontaneously produced by the human body. He describes it as “a product of the decomposition of adrenaline”, which is, surprisingly, correct.

There’s a brief mention of “drencrom” in the 1962 novel A Clockwork Orange, where it’s an optional addition to the cocktail (glass of milk) Moloko Plus, but probably the most cited use of the compound is in Hunter S Thompson’s Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. It might be a novel, but many assumed it was a real thing that people really did. Thompson did not explain the adrenochrome buzz in great detail, but this probably isn’t too far from his vision:

It’s important for anyone reading Fear and Loathing to remember that Gonzo journalism, the writing style Thompson invented, is based around fictionalisation and exaggeration of real-life events. In the DVD commentary on the 1998 Fear and Loathing adaptation, director Terry Gilliam said Thompson told him he made the whole adrenochrome thing up.

Does adrenochrome exist at all?

Yes. Just like Huxley said, adrenochrome is a compound formed by the oxidation of adrenaline. Its main medical use is to slow blood loss by promoting clotting in open wounds. It’s available for purchase online by researchers, with most outlets stating its source is synthetic and its uses are the inhibition of COMT (which deactivates certain neurotransmitters), and the synthesis of prostaglandins (fats involved with blood clotting).

When asked for comment, the University of Auckland neuropharmacology and neuroscience departments said it wasn’t on their radar.

It’s got a cool name, and some medical uses, but by and large it’s not a very exciting compound. Sorry.

Is there a hallucinogenic drug called adrenochrome?

In his 1973 book Legal Highs, Adam Gottlieb described adrenochrome as being “physically stimulating” and inducing “a feeling of well-being, slight reduction of thought processes”. It’s unknown whether he ever took the drug or if this was based on hearsay. Legal Highs also contained entries on catnip and guarana, so the bar for a “high” was low.

Most reports of adrenochrome throughout literature sound a lot like DMT — it’s very possible Beatniks just gave DMT the cool name “adrenochrome” and the real compound got caught up in the mix.

Why are people talking about it now?

Adrenochrome is a popular topic in conspiracy circles: it’s a drug of the Hollywood elite, it’s addictive, it’s harvested from tortured children in Satanic rituals, they reckon. The current strain of theory is that a huge amount of celebrities have come down with Covid-19 due to a tainted batch of adrenochrome.

Most celebrities classified as “liberal Hollywood elite” are American or British, two nations that have been struggling to manage the Covid-19 outbreak, so it’s not hugely surprising that many have contracted the virus.

Adrenochrome harvesting, according to the conspiracies, is done by: drinking blood, heart surgery, or tapping into the brainstem. The adrenal glands are located above the kidneys, so that’s probably where you really want to look.

Why does anyone believe children are tortured to harvest adrenochrome?

The blame must land on Hunter S Thompson. In Fear and Loathing, the character Dr Gonzo says: “There’s only one source for this stuff… the adrenaline glands from a living human body. It’s no good if you get it out of a corpse.”

You could also argue that this conspiracy is weirdly similar to the plot of the film Monsters Inc., and maybe that’s part of the cultural background making this theory seem reasonable to some.

Does adrenochrome have anything to do with Covid-19?

No.

Are you, the mainstream media, lying to us about this?

Also no.

A worker on Lambton Quay, Wellington. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

OPINIONSocietyApril 7, 2020

Why danger pay is not OK

Kerry Davies

Guest writer

Share Story

×

Share Story

×

A worker on Lambton Quay, Wellington. (Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty Images)

Our essential workers deserve more than a round of applause, but danger pay is not the answer, writes Kerry Davies from the Public Service Association.

Did you shower this morning? Is the kitchen clean? Have you changed your sheets since we went into lockdown? Have you vacuumed? Are you taking that rubbish out?

For most of us, this reads like nagging or normal domestic banter. But for a lot of New Zealanders this important work gets done only with the help of a paid care and support worker.

And right now, the people who help care for and support tens of thousands of New Zealanders are under extreme pressure. Perhaps they’re caring for their own children, or they’re immunocompromised. Perhaps they’re over 70 themselves. Perhaps they’re at odds with their employer about safe travel, or being paid for the hours they work, or are simply too scared to leave their homes at all.

In recent weeks, my union colleagues and I have spent a lot of time trying to improve safety for the workers facing those kinds of risks.

Many employers have responded by providing flexible working conditions and special leave entitlements. Unions have worked alongside their members to secure access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and with government on the need for greater leave support.

But essential workers are having their heads turned by talk of bonus payments that acknowledge the extremities of the Covid-19 working environment.

The idea that risky work ought to be recognised seems reasonable. Why shouldn’t our essential workers get paid extra for leaving the house at a time like this?

There is a very good reason: employers have a responsibility to acknowledge and act on risk in workplaces, not trade it away. Unions have a responsibility to ensure workers don’t have to settle for sub-standard conditions.

It’s not that danger pay comes from a bad place, it’s that it sets a dangerous precedent.

It can encourage risk-taking and tolerance toward unsafe situations rather than incentivising employers to eliminate, minimise or isolate these unsafe situations.

Danger payments, or hazard payments, play on the desperation of low-paid workers to increase their pay at the expense of their health and safety.

Unions have fought hard against the practice of paying people extra for unsafe or dangerous work for decades. In the 1980s I started as an organiser for the Cleaners Union. At the time, cleaners in schools got an extra allowance if they were exposed to things like used sanitary pads, blood and faeces. It was called an “obnoxious substance” payment.

In 2020, we’re not taking that anymore.

The protection of our workers’ health and safety stands on its own and can’t be sold for higher wages.

It’s fine to have a conversation about increasing people’s base pay – but let’s not muddy the waters by conflating two vital conversations.

For me, at least some good will come out of this lockdown if society ends up placing increased value on essential work.

This crisis is showing us just how skewed our value of work can be if our only measure is the market. The sexism, racism and ageism within our society all get reflected in that market, where power and influence trump actual public value.

Let’s move past those constructs based on societal discrimination. This week, as we gather on driveways applauding essential workers, or whatever the next craze is, let’s also talk about paying people what they’re worth.

Instead of bonuses and allowances that placate and entice people to put up with unsafe, unhealthy environments and abusive behaviours, we should focus on eliminating, minimising or isolating work hazards and compensating people for the true importance of their work.

I would note, however, that Foodstuffs’ decision this week to pay a 10% bonus to workers as a gesture of appreciation to essential staff in our supermarkets should not be confused with danger or hazard pay.

This extra pay acknowledges the very low wages of supermarket workers, less than home support workers, and the higher-than-normal work intensity and greater income and profits by these large companies.

It is only right that those supermarkets give back some of their extra income to those who enabled it to get on the shelves and out the doors.

This is not danger money.