Unfortunately, in itself, that statement means very little to me:
> a stimulant that can produce similar effects to methamphetamine
That can describe many substances, both legal and illegal: street meth, Adderall, Vyvanse, Desoxyn, MDMA - the list goes on. Even caffeine could be said to produce 'similar effects' - both are stimulants and diuretics that have comparable in vivo half-life times (depending on the means of ingestion).
> It is illegal in the United States.
Well, that doesn't mean much. Methamphetamine is illegal, except when it isn't (prescribed). And the US drug scheduling (which determines the degrees of legality) is so nonsensical that it may as well be randomly generated for all it tells us about the relative dangers and harms of a substance.
> The article pretty directly links to MDVP. Go look it up on Erowid
My point is that this is a rather irresponsible journalistic statement. If they want to portray MDVP as a dangerous substance, that's a pretty terrible comparison that fails to get the point across to anybody who knows a thing or two about psychoactive substances.
I'm confused. Are you trying to say that you don't have a background in journalism? Or you do, but it's just decades old from a time when the goal was to inform and not just get page views? Modern journalistic tack is to write sensationalist scare stories targeted at the least common denominator moron, as they'll be the most outraged and hang on every update.