Don't take Amphetamines or MDMA if you want to preserve you're brain

[swisscurrie]

Don't take Amphetamines or MDMA if you want to preserve your brain

Hi, I have put this information together to inform anyone who had in the past, or plans to in the future, use substituted amphetamines (MDMA, Amphetamine, Methamphetamine)

MDMA (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine)
MDMA is neurotoxic to both the Serotonin axons of rats, non-human primates, and humans. In non-human primates and rats, this neurotoxicity appears to be only partially reversible. In humans, there is evidence suggesting the same, with some damage being persistent and some being reversible.

http://www.fable.it/ecstasy/MDMA (Ecstasy) neurotoxicity assessing and communicating the risks.pdf

Amphetamine and Methamphetamine
Amphetamine permanently damages the dopamine nerve endings in the Striatum of non-human primates (monkeys) at low doses:

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/315/1/91.full

There is substantial yet inconclusive evidence that permanent damage occurs in humans:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2769923/

Strong link between past amphetamine and methamphetamine use and parkinson's disease:

Amphetamine: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/737998

Methamphetamine: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/747240

For an overall review of the neurotoxicity associated with substituted amphetamines (MDMA, Amphetamine, Methamphetamine), I recommend reading the following article:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile...mechanisms/links/0deec5225fc33c8d95000000.pdf

The only advice that I can give for people who enjoy using stimulants is to use cocaine instead. It has not demonstrated neurotoxicity in animal models or humans, and has one of the most euphoric stimulant highs out there.

Best Regards,
Archie

 

[Dresden]

In real terms, that is such utter bullshit. They must not have considered the brain's incredible plasticity. Anyway, I have taken TONS of methamphetamine, MDMA, and amphetamine, and I'm still brilliant.

 

[swisscurrie]

In real terms, that is such utter bullshit. They must not have considered the brain's incredible plasticity. Anyway, I have taken TONS of methamphetamine, MDMA, and amphetamine, and I'm still brilliant.

I'm not denying you're brilliance Dresden. I just felt obliged to inform the public about the potential risks.

 

[Black]

the mdma part is pretty outdated. we now know that squirrel monkeys or baboons have a totally different metabolism and aren't suitable as a model. rat are our best approximation at the moment. also it speaks of "the well-established principles of interspecies dosage scaling", which is bullshit. if you apply typical intespecies scaling you get huge increases in the plasma levels of mdma and its metabolites in the animals compared to humans. the "well-established principles of interspecies dosage scaling" do not work for mdma.

the human data you cite is all about the often critisized and methodologically flawed studies of ricaurte (who has an agenda of his own). also it asserts that sert-downregulation equals toxicity, which has been disproven. sert-downregulation is transient and reversible.

but it's no wonder. that paper is from 2000 and is missing all the research from the last 15 years, which points a wholly different picture. namely that there is no evidence for neurotoxicity for typical human doses.

I'm not denying you're brilliance Dresden. I just felt obliged to inform the public about the potential risks.

then why don't you look up some information that's up to date? this is about as much use as a paper from the 60s or 70s that talks about the risk of chromosomes breaking from lsd.

 

[JWills20]

So you've come along to a HR forum geared with some select studies that don't really capture the big picture to warn us not to take amphetamines which is entirely against the whole point of HR?

Some quotes from your first reference display exactly why BL is here and of value:

The consistency of the clinical, epidemiological, and neurological studies reviewed strongly suggests that MDMA can produce neurotoxic effects in some recreational users. Those individuals who are at greatest risk are those who use two or more street doses of MDMA at a time, those who use the drug fortnightly or more frequently, those who inject MDMA, and those who use MDMA for 24 h or more.

Basically those who are at risk are those that use it irresponsibly and so:

Current and potential users of MDMA need to be told about these risks by education delivered by peers in the dance-party milieu and through the media used by members of this subculture (eg, videos and the internet).

^ That's exactly why BL is here. Reducing harm through education instead of a 'just say no' attitude which has proven miserable at reducing the harms of drugs.

A non-alarmist and accurate portrayal of the evidence is required if it is to receive the support of influential individuals in the MDMA-using subculture. Such an education campaign should acknowledge uncertainties about the risks of occasional use of “low” doses of MDMA while emphasising the risks that heavier and more frequent MDMA users probably face. It could also include suggestions on how to minimise any neurotoxic effects (such as avoidance of hyperthermia) and the risks of bingeing and injecting MDMA should be highlighted

.

Your own study advocates a harm reduction instead of prohibition approach to drug education.

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/315/1/91.full

That study was lead by ricaurte. Cannot be taken legitimately after his track record.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2769923/[/QUOTE]

This one changes tone from the previous study of ricaurte suggesting that low doses of amphetamine can cause significant neurotoxicity to instead evaluating amphetamine abuse. Abusing amphetamines in regular high doses is not comparable to taking low-dose amounts irregularly. Instead of saying 'don't take amphetamines' we should be saying 'If you do decide to take amphetamines know that there are these risks that you can minimise by following these guidelines'.

Unable to access either of the amps + parkinsons references but usually these studies show weak correlation at best with a large amount of confounds.

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...8d95000000.pdf/QUOTE]

This study is just discussing some of the mechanisms that underlie amphetamine-induced toxicity. As such, it has a strong emphasis on high-dose animal studies which aren't exactly relevant to human usage nor prove the existence of significant neurotoxicity at low-dose therapeutic human doses. Honestly, the only study which strongly suggests that even low-doses of amphetamine can cause neurotoxicity is the ricaurte study and he's known for producing propaganda-fuelled, anti-drug, prohibitionist research.

The only advice that I can give for people who enjoy using stimulants is to use cocaine instead

I guess this is just the cherry on top. The neurotoxic profile of a drug is not the be all and end all of it's danger to the consumer. Cocaine has a whole host of dangers associated with it. Arguably these are higher than amphetamines so I guess I find your advice ironic.

 

[swisscurrie]

"namely that there is no evidence for neurotoxicity for typical human doses". What a load of horseshit.

I fully agree with you're last statement, as classical hallucinogens show no toxicity to any part of the body. That is not the case for MDMA

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419896/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24590542

If those two studies^ aren't up to date enough for you then please find me ones that were published in the last three years and prove your view.

 

[lost-sparkle]

If breast tissue/fat is lost due to the use of amphetamines can it, over time, with discontinued use and a good diet, repair itself?

 

[lost-sparkle]

If breast tissue/fat is lost due to the use of amphetamines can it, over time, with discontinued use and a good diet, repair itself?

 

[mb-909]

There is always some risk by taking drugs in general. For example one of the most toxic substances is totally legal and literally eats holes in your brain. Gues what substance it is? => Alcohol.

Everybody knows it, but still other substances are more "dangerous", because they have not been culturally accepted like alcohol or tobacco. Stress and psychological disorders are "neurotoxic" if you just look at brain scans...

MDMA leads to long lasting changes in your neurochemistry for sure, some of it may be permanent. But used in a acceptable pattern with responsible doses it isn't much of a big deal. I don't want to know what all the chemical byproducts used in the daily food production will cause in the long run.

By the way: My grandpa is other 80 years old drinking his bottle of wine every day for 60 years and he still is a smart fellow.

Well, I will know if there is any permanent damage done after turning 45, which is the age then your brain starts to lose mass and therefor isn't able to totally compensate the damage done by drugs.

 

[swisscurrie]

There is substantial recent evidence that MDMA, even when used in low "responsible" doses, with spacings between use, causes serotonergic deficits in the human brain. The extent of the damage is associated with lifetime extent of MDMA use, with more use leading to larger defecits. As for amphetamine, I agree that the evidence in therapeutic doses in humans is inconclusive. I would go as far as saying that for recreational users of amphetamine, evidence for damage is conclusive:

http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v40/n5/full/npp2014301a.html

Just to add to cocaine's effects on the brain, "studies suggest cocaine abusers do not show normal age-related loss of striatal dopamine transporter (DAT) sites, suggesting cocaine has neuroprotective properties for dopamine neurons" ( Hugo D'haenen-Biological Psychiatry). I am fully aware of the dangers of cocaine abuse (increased risk of hemorrhagic and ischemic strokes and myocardial infarction as well as other risks associated with smoking it), but I still believe that these risks can be minimized through moderation. On the other hand, there is no evidence that amphetamines neurotoxic effects can be prevented through moderation- studies suggest that a single dose is "sufficient to induce long-term behavioural, neuroendocrine, and neurochemical sensitization in Rats". Whether this applies to humans is uncertain, but as Black so wisely stated, rats are afterall our best approximation at the moment. So for someone who has never used an amphetamine drug before, my only advice would be to steer clear

 

[Vikingdancer]

Pretending MDMA does permanent damage to your brain is just as bad as pretending MDMA is completely safe to use. Don't behave like a teacher if you don't know what your talking about. Can't agree more with Jwills20 by the way.

Have a good day!

 

[LucidSDreamr]

The only advice that I can give for people who enjoy using stimulants is to use cocaine instead. It has not demonstrated neurotoxicity in animal models or humans, and has one of the most euphoric stimulant highs out there.

Best Regards,
Archie

except you end up calling prostitutes or masturbating for 8 hours straight, staring out your blinds for another 6 hours then spending your last 2000$ on bags that are 1% cocaine. then afterwards eating the opis or benzos that were supposed to last you a week all at once.

i'll take the brain damage from mdma lol.

 

[swisscurrie]

I'm not stopping anyone from taking MDMA. I'm also not behaving like a teacher. I just wanted people to consider whether the few hours of enjoyment from mdma are worth the potential permanent damage. It's your choice after all.

Hope you have a good day too Vikingdancer!

 

[swisscurrie]

Couldn't agree more mb-909

 

[Dresden]

Do you realize that all these hundreds of methamphetamine and MDMA studies are funded by the U.S. government who for whatever hare brained reason has decided to demonize all drugs of abuse but especially really good ones like MDMA, and the government funds these bullshit experiments with the tacit but unmistakable understanding that the results WILL be bad. If amphetamine (Adderall) and methamphetamine (Desoxyn) are that bad, why are they prescribed daily in the U.S.? As for real, pure MDMA at reasonable dosage levels, the harm is even less than with getting drunk, and the positives FAR outweigh the negatives. It is even highly useful for treating PTSD. Don't believe the hype! Consider the credibility of your sources more next time.

 

[swisscurrie]

I agree that whenever negative effects are discovered about illegal drugs, they are often blown out of proportion. There are many non-US government funded studies on MDMA by independent researchers which show consistent results- persistent serotonergic deficits from MDMA use. I fully agree with you though, that using MDMA carries less of a risk than getting drunk. Ethanol is a neurotoxin capable of destroying the body/mind of anyone who uses it in excess.

For methamphetamine, sorry Dresden, but there is no refuting the evidence supplied by thousands of non-government funded studies that it causes both serotonergic and dopaminergic defecits, as well as cognitive deficits, in both animals and humans. I think the government, along with the FDA, have approved Adderall and Desoxyn because they do not care about the impact it has on humans- especially children with ADHD. There are hundreds, if not thousands of toxic drugs that the FDA has approved and refuses to withdraw from the market. I'm certain that the long term use of amphetamines and methamphetamine in children and adolescents has permanent effects on their brain. These permanent deficits/effects, well-known by the FDA, have likely been shown to reduce hyperactivity and inattentiveness in animal and long term human studies. Therefore I think that even if permanent deficits occur, the government doesn't mind as these deficits apparently reduces the manifestations of the so called "disease" ADD/ADHD. This is just a guess, no one knows what the intentions of the US government are, apart from the government themselves.

I just wish that psychoative substances that have been proven to be non-toxic and fully safe to the human body, such as Cannabis, Psilocybin, Mescaline, DMT, LSD etc could be legalized, so that we could enjoy these substances without restraint. I think if we could use these substances freely, then we would feel no need to use the more toxic substances that the FDA approves.

 

[Black]

What a load of horseshit.

I fully agree with you're last statement, as classical hallucinogens show no toxicity to any part of the body. That is not the case for MDMA

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3419896/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24590542

If those two studies^ aren't up to date enough for you then please find me ones that were published in the last three years and prove your view.

the first one is just sert density and as i have already stated in my first post, sert density is not a suitable marker for neurotoxicity. ssri's dramatically lower sert density, yet no one speaks about neurotoxicity.

the second one is no study. it's just a comment.
i don't have time to adress the whole thing, as i would have to write an at least equally lengthy piece, but let's look at the main points he makes:
- sert density, we've gone over that before
- hyponataemia can happen during the roll. yes, that's been known for a long time and it isn't related to neurotoxicity at all.
- mdma shouldn't not be taken while pregnant. well, duh.
- altered brain activity. the same is true for lots of things, including learning an instrument.
- performace in some memory tasks is lower in former ecstasy users. ok, but did they control for other substances? alcohol? cannabis? did those people probably take adulterated pills (for instance with meth as is common in the u.s.)? besides: the same is true for cannabis-only users, so no evidence for neurotoxicity again.
- sert density again. ...
- decreased cortisol in current heavy users (not in light users). yes, we see the same in rats, while there's transient serotonin depletion. this occurs in absence of neurotoxicity and returns to normal.
- increased risk for depression in teenagers in the year following use. this can be explained fully well by transient serotonin depletion. also if it's only true for one year, that's another point towards serotonin depletion instead of neurotoxicity. besides, responsible use entails not using when your brain is still developing.
- apoptosis. i've read the original paper a while ago. it's not relevant at all at the concentration we're talking about, but interesting from a drug design standpoint in cancer therapy. there are many compounds, some of which we ingest with our daily diet, that can induce apoptosis and are interesting for the design of new cytostatic drugs.
- elevated levels of superoxide dismutase. yes of couse, mdma does induce some oxidative stress, but enzymes like superoxide dismutase take care of that unless it's really massive as to cross the threshold that our built in defenses cannot handle anymore. if that weren't the case paracetamol (and oxygen) would be deadly in miniscule amounts. again we see the same thing in rats in absence of serotonergic cell or axon death.


if you think i missed something, please choose a single study or two that you think shows that mdma is neurotoxic. give me some evidence in that direction and not something that we could attribute to possible neurotoxicity if we want to (especially when we see the same thing in our best models in absence if neurotoxicity), but something that shows the cell death of neurons.

i'm not saying mdma cannot be damaging, it certainly can (especially when abused) cause dysregulation of the serotonin system that sticks around for a good while - which can be pretty unpleasant to say the least -, i'm just saying there's no evidence of neurotoxicity. depression is not neurotoxicity. neither is bad memory performance, altered brain activity or a decreased serto-concentration. death of neurons, dendrites or axons is neurotoxicity.

 

[Black]

I just wish that psychoative substances that have been proven to be non-toxic and fully safe to the human body, such as Cannabis, Psilocybin, Mescaline, DMT, LSD etc could be legalized, so that we could enjoy these substances without restraint. I think if we could use these substances freely, then we would feel no need to use the more toxic substances that the FDA approves.

fully safe?
let's talk about a whole year i spent in a dissociated daze of derealisation/derpersonalisation due smoking cannabis a few times. or about the memory deficits greater than those that mdma causes in regular cannabis smokers.
or about hppd and panic attacks caused by psychedelics.

don't be a substance-nazi. every drug has its own risks. nothing is fully safe. of course those you mention should be legal, but that doesn't mean that mdma and amphetamines shouldn't. especially with the poor state of purity we often see with party drugs, legalising them would save more lives than by legalising those you mentioned.

 

[JWills20]

I just wish that psychoative substances that have been proven to be non-toxic and fully safe to the human body, such as Cannabis, Psilocybin, Mescaline, DMT, LSD etc could be legalized, so that we could enjoy these substances without restraint. I think if we could use these substances freely, then we would feel no need to use the more toxic substances that the FDA approves.

I think you're making some slightly flawed assumptions in how you interpret the studies you're posting. Like I said before, the toxic profile of a drug is not the be all and end all of the dangers it poses to the user so to say that non-toxic drugs should be legalized is naiive at best. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the legalization of drugs but not on the grounds of their toxicity to the user but instead because 1) prohibition plain and simply doesn't work and causes more harm than it reduces. 2) Lots of illegal drugs are safer than ones which are legal and 3) I'm sure there's lots of illegal drugs that have potential to help society when used correctly - such as psychedelics within therapy.

I think you're also making the flawed assumption that any these studies convincingly prove neurotoxicity in human doses. Black summarises what I mean:

depression is not neurotoxicity. neither is bad memory performance, altered brain activity or a decreased serto-concentration. death of neurons, dendrites or axons is neurotoxicity.

Depression, poor memory performance, altered brain activity can all be caused by mechanisms entirely different to neurotoxicity. I agree with Black that it's far more likely that serotonin depletion is the cause for these effects and not selective brain damage. The evidence that MDMA causes serotonin depletion is pretty convincing.

Just as a side-note, I feel that you need to remain very critical towards Parrot's work on MDMA. In my eyes, he's basically an up-to-date smarter, more manipulative version of Ricaurte conducting studies that 'appear' far more legitimate to demonize MDMA. The Government clearly learnt a thing or two when Ricaurte straight up used methamphetamine instead of MDMA to deceive the scientific community that they needed to take a more subtle approach to scientific propaganda. Parrot is basically that more subtle approach in my eyes.

 

[swisscurrie]

I included the first study because I felt it gave a balanced perspective on MDMA neurotoxicity without too much in depth evidence. I don't know if you fully read the study, but there is strong evidence of neurotoxicity in it. Also, you ask if the use of other substances was taken into consideration. Well, yes, the article mentions that repeatedly which leads me to believe you didn't read or take in the information of the article.
I'm going to quote some key parts of the first study which which are indicative of neurotoxicity of humans, because I know that if I attach any of the thousands fo studies of MDMA neurotoxicity in animals you will disregard it instantly by saying "ohhh its in animals it doesn't apply to humans"

" In a review of this neuroimaging literature, Reneman et al. (2006) concluded that ‘the above-mentioned studies all have found reductions in SERT density in heavy ecstasy users with the use of different techniques and radioligands’. More recently, Erritzoe et al. (2011) reported significantly lower SERT binding potential in the neocortex (−56%), pallidostriatum (−19%) and amygdala (−32%), with the extent of binding correlated with lifetime MDMA usage. Den Hollander et al. (2011) reported a significant reduction in hippocampal volume. Kishet al. (2010) compared 49 moderate Ecstasy/MDMA users with 50 non-user controls, with MDMA usage confirmed via hair analyses. Binding to SERT was significantly reduced in all the cerebral cortices and hippocampus, with group mean SERT reductions ranging from −19% to −46%. The degree of these reductions was significantly associated with the extent of past MDMA usage. The SERT deficits also correlated with the extent of memory task deficits." "They investigated a range of other potential contributory factors, including gender, gene polymorphism and other psychoactive drug usage, and showed that the 5-HT deficits remained after controlling for every ‘potential confound we could address’."

Here is a study showing not only that MDMA is neurotoxic (causing "neuronal damage"), but that THC, the substance that you blame your year long problems on, is in fact neuroprotective, reducing the damage caused by MDMA.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009143

THC has shown to be a neuroprotective and an antioxidant in thousands of studies. The year you spent in a "dissosciated daze of derealization/depersonalization" was not from smoking cannabis. It can cause temporary feelings of depersonalization/ derealization. Chronic cannabis use causes temporary cognitive dysfunction, which resolves in 14 days. If the state you experienced was anything to do with the weed you smoked (which I highly doubt), it wasn't from the weed itself but instead due to being laced with Phencyclidine (better known as PCP) or a derivative of it. PCP is well known for causing long periods of toxic psychosis or other psychiatric effects such as derealisation/depersonalization. If you were using MDMA frequently prior to experiencing depersonalization/derealization, then I highly suspect that chronic MDMA use was the cause of your problems. Look across this forum, there are reports of people having very similar protracted experiences following MDMA use.

Panick attacks are prone to occur in mentally unstable people who use psychedelics. HPPD is exceedingly rare in classical hallucinogen users (less than 1/1000) and results just as often from the use of MDMA (also technically a hallucinogen) as it does from LSD. Less than a decade ago the disorder was only described by a few case reports, until it was classified as an official DSM diagnoses. Guess what happened? The prevalence jumped massively because people who had psychiatric disturbances from other drugs immediately correlated their problems with their past use of classical hallucinogens. Just like you correlated your past cannabis use with causing your year long depersonalization/derealization.