Yes your symptoms seem much much milder than mine and abviously I wish you all the good fortune that you get your old self back.
-
MDMA &
Empathogenic
Drugs
Welcome Guest! -
MDMA Moderators:
Am I permanently damaged
- Thread starter colin681996
- Start date
DeadElvis666
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2015
- Messages
- 222
Yeah me too. I'm sorry you guys have gone through such a bad experience. But you'd be amazed how well the brain can heal. 6 or 7 years ago I was a blathering addict who talked to himself and almost got put into the insane asylum by my own parents. Now I have a job, a girlfriend and a normal life. The human brain can take some serious abuse and still bounce back after a few years. Good luck to you guys.
Cotcha Yankinov
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2015
- Messages
- 2,952
Just throwing my story out here in case it makes someone feel hopeful... I abused hundreds of pills when I was 14, often times 10+ pills at a time and 5 day long binges while mixing things with adderall, cough syrup and mushrooms. Some of the pills tested out as bath salts and I took these anyways, these caused a complete descent into madness with horrible sleep deprivation. I had psychosis/audio hallucinations and my brain felt very fried for the better part of 2 years, but things did get a lot better by the 3 year mark. I really wish I would've started exercising sooner, my biggest regret is probably not start cardio sooner. Cardio is really what started me on my path to recovery, I really can't recommend cardio enough. It has been shown to build new brain cells in a very important area of the brain, it also helps restore blood flow and build new arteries in the brain. Bloodflow is reduced to the front part of the brain for a good couple weeks after MDMA use and I think this is a source of a lot of grief as well.
Anyways, the brain is very incredible and can repair itself, it just takes time. But cardio will speed along the process greatly.
Anyways, the brain is very incredible and can repair itself, it just takes time. But cardio will speed along the process greatly.
Dude I'm there with you, last New Years took just one untested pill while drinking heavily the night before and that day. My friends were all fine and I thought I was too. Thought I was just drained. The day after drank and did cocain haha didn't think anything was wrong all of my friends did the same thing. 2 days after I had a panick attack at a wingstop lol. Been dealing with anxiety depression vertigo and I think depersonalization which is that feeling of disconnect. The only time I feel normal is when I drink but the day after Maybe 2 are hell. But I workout mon- fri eat relatively healthy during the weak. I think we are just fucked to be honest. And it's fucked up our friends don't understand what we are going through haha
colin681996
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2015
- Messages
- 163
Same to you my friend, same to you
colin681996
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2015
- Messages
- 163
I appreciate all the suppourtive messages. They are much appreciated
Kl519
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,150
Yeah, anything taken too high can be poisonous, even water. There's nothing to suggest that mdma is an outlier. It is a strong acting substance.
I hope you aren't deriving your theory from the Ricuarte study again; not only was the dose way too extreme, he was injecting methamphetamine instead of mdma! What kind of study makes that kind of mistake?
I have to contest the claim that "the abstinent human users do have serotonin deficits as well as functional deficits." This is not proven at all, especially with abstinence. (I run and exercise everyday, so need to offer me that advice). There have been studies done that actually prove even with extensive use, those users are not at all damaged to an extent where they cannot live a normal and successful life. To say otherwise is to live in a fantasy; everyone that I know who have 'abused' mdma are not only fine, they would laugh at anyone telling them "mdma damaged you." If anything, the damage is unnoticeable, or nearly enough so.
If the damage is as heavy as some people claim, all of these people wouldn't be taking it. We would see an epidemic because the amount of users of mdma alone is easily millions every single year. Y'all make it sound like mdma is as bad as bath salts.
Also, test my IQ or any other physical ability, and I guarantee you I'm better than before. I don't know why people refer to this (or me) and constantly bring up "abuse abuse abuse" but that was SIX years ago. Not only have I been over it eons ago, I haven't ever felt any perceivable 'damage' the whole time. I didn't quit because I felt terrible or suffered negative effects. I only did so because I wasn't feeling a high, which then makes it completely pointless.
Until a study comes out and unequivocally says that mdma is a neurotoxin (or not) and is peer reviewed by other scientists, then it is all speculation.
Last edited:
Cotcha Yankinov
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2015
- Messages
- 2,952
On the one hand we want to be factual, on the other hand we don't want to discourage someone who is trying to recover from MDMA, so sorry if this gets anyone down. But I find it ironic that we are having this conversation in a thread concerning someone who is having problems after MDMA. These threads are actually very common and I speak for the people who have truly abused MDMA when I say that it does cause long term problems that often don't resolve completely with abstinence if the abuse is severe enough or if the abuser is young enough.
There is evidence that recovery is possible in the subcortical regions (even with abnormal re-innervation/function http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3224864/) but the dorsal neocortex likely remains de-innervated after abuse, it is very far from the original serotonin projections. Some closer parts of the brain are actually hyper-innervated after MDMA recovery, but just because some of the regions recover well doesn't mean we should make assumptions about the other regions. (Here is a study showing recovery of some regions http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16133393/ Mind you those were some of the areas that the monkey models showed hyper-reinnervation of). The monkey models showed that the dorsal neocortex remains de-innervated after abuse and the human studies confirm that there is increased cortical excitability, one study in particular showed increased cortical excitability with fMRI in users who were on average 1 year abstinent. This is likely due to a disinihibtion of the those areas that are normally inhibited by serotonin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21326196/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3521982/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22147810/
I would argue that the users do indeed have deficits. The working and verbal memory deficits are the most consistent. Here are some good studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16510479 - "Ex-ecstasy users' verbal memory showed no sign of improvement even after over 2.5 years of abstinence and thus may represent persistent functional consequences of MDMA neurotoxicity."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23660456
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2789420/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621736/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3224864/ <-- (Thalamus is one of the regions that was shown to be hyper-innervated after MDMA recovery, yet still shows abnormal function)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198867/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047479/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23241648
And here are some studies on the more non petri dish aspects
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10867552
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17082969 <--- Meta Analysis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3604193/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19955499
When I say the poison is in the dose what I really mean is that the dose will decide whether or not there will be any functional consequences, with MDMA (as opposed to water) there will be some degree of damage with any dose. The thing to remember is some people use MDMA for years without problems while others have extreme problems within a couple mild doses, this might be related to a genetic vulnerability (Likely a SERT mutation that has been significantly associated with adverse reactions to MDMA and more behavioral consequences) but to say that MDMA abuse isn't harming people likely isn't true, you just need to look at the studies that really examine memory for example. You might consider that studies are essentially designed to find the small differences amongst different populations, these populations might not be able to spot these deficits on their own, and a deficit in these populations might even make perceiving a deficit even harder for these people. That's great that you exercise btw, keep it up. But I think you might find your friends (even if they are doing okay now) might be at increased risk for neurodegenerative disease. A small effect now might be very large when cells are lost with age, deficits might be revealed with time if they aren't already revealed in the minutiae.
I hope you'll understand that part of my fear of underplaying MDMA's neurotoxicity is that not all use is responsible adult use. If the word going around is that it doesn't insult the CNS then I think more people will be likely to abuse it to the point where it does harm the CNS. I fell into this scenario myself when I was young. My peers were convinced that the serotonin concerns were false (Because they had heard about the Ricuarte/Meth study that everyone holds up so often) so all other concerns vanished essentially, I would compare it to Cannabis actually. The original government studies were so overblown that nobody took them seriously. Fast forward to the present day where we now know that THC is harmful to the adolescent brain. Now we are learning there is much more to MDMA neurotoxicity than the serotonin deficits, and there are indeed many studies out there.
I wouldn't be taking the time to type this if you weren't associated with a harm reduction organization, but I hope you'll find it apparent that admitting that there is some level of harm being done when people abuse MDMA takes us one step closer to being able to do something about reversing the harm and preventing the abuse in the first place.
There is evidence that recovery is possible in the subcortical regions (even with abnormal re-innervation/function http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3224864/) but the dorsal neocortex likely remains de-innervated after abuse, it is very far from the original serotonin projections. Some closer parts of the brain are actually hyper-innervated after MDMA recovery, but just because some of the regions recover well doesn't mean we should make assumptions about the other regions. (Here is a study showing recovery of some regions http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16133393/ Mind you those were some of the areas that the monkey models showed hyper-reinnervation of). The monkey models showed that the dorsal neocortex remains de-innervated after abuse and the human studies confirm that there is increased cortical excitability, one study in particular showed increased cortical excitability with fMRI in users who were on average 1 year abstinent. This is likely due to a disinihibtion of the those areas that are normally inhibited by serotonin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21326196/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3521982/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22147810/
I would argue that the users do indeed have deficits. The working and verbal memory deficits are the most consistent. Here are some good studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16510479 - "Ex-ecstasy users' verbal memory showed no sign of improvement even after over 2.5 years of abstinence and thus may represent persistent functional consequences of MDMA neurotoxicity."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23660456
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2789420/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3621736/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3224864/ <-- (Thalamus is one of the regions that was shown to be hyper-innervated after MDMA recovery, yet still shows abnormal function)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3198867/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047479/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23241648
And here are some studies on the more non petri dish aspects
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10867552
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17082969 <--- Meta Analysis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3604193/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19955499
When I say the poison is in the dose what I really mean is that the dose will decide whether or not there will be any functional consequences, with MDMA (as opposed to water) there will be some degree of damage with any dose. The thing to remember is some people use MDMA for years without problems while others have extreme problems within a couple mild doses, this might be related to a genetic vulnerability (Likely a SERT mutation that has been significantly associated with adverse reactions to MDMA and more behavioral consequences) but to say that MDMA abuse isn't harming people likely isn't true, you just need to look at the studies that really examine memory for example. You might consider that studies are essentially designed to find the small differences amongst different populations, these populations might not be able to spot these deficits on their own, and a deficit in these populations might even make perceiving a deficit even harder for these people. That's great that you exercise btw, keep it up. But I think you might find your friends (even if they are doing okay now) might be at increased risk for neurodegenerative disease. A small effect now might be very large when cells are lost with age, deficits might be revealed with time if they aren't already revealed in the minutiae.
I hope you'll understand that part of my fear of underplaying MDMA's neurotoxicity is that not all use is responsible adult use. If the word going around is that it doesn't insult the CNS then I think more people will be likely to abuse it to the point where it does harm the CNS. I fell into this scenario myself when I was young. My peers were convinced that the serotonin concerns were false (Because they had heard about the Ricuarte/Meth study that everyone holds up so often) so all other concerns vanished essentially, I would compare it to Cannabis actually. The original government studies were so overblown that nobody took them seriously. Fast forward to the present day where we now know that THC is harmful to the adolescent brain. Now we are learning there is much more to MDMA neurotoxicity than the serotonin deficits, and there are indeed many studies out there.
I wouldn't be taking the time to type this if you weren't associated with a harm reduction organization, but I hope you'll find it apparent that admitting that there is some level of harm being done when people abuse MDMA takes us one step closer to being able to do something about reversing the harm and preventing the abuse in the first place.
Last edited:
Hey Colin. The best thing to do with a LTC in my opinion is treat it in the same way as anxiety/depression. Clean diet, cardio, acceptance, meditation. Natural is better for me, but some people benefit from meds - personally I don't believe they are the answer but to each their own. In my opinion it's very very unlikely you damaged yourself, considering you took very little. I'd almost bet money on it even!
Probably sounds rich coming from me cos in the past I was the absolute worst for this, but the absolute worst thing to do is look at LTC threads all day (unless you are getting support/good advice - which is a bit of a catch 22 as you will probably also read stuff that will freak you out), google mdma neurotoxicity etc. These are all things I did and when my anxiety/depression came back in September after a period of feeling relatively good, and this is what fuels my anxiety/depression now. I'm certain that if I didn't go back down that road I'd be in a fucking good place right now! Considering I actually recovered from a LTC for a good 8-9 months (well I was probably 90-95% but at times 100%) which was really just severe anxiety. I still have trouble convincing myself that I didn't fuck myself up with drugs, but if it was then I probably wouldn't be able to sleep 8-9 hours a night, and I'd be dealing with other issues. I literally only experience generalized anxiety and depression that comes and goes.
Check out this website, read the blog etc. You will find great advice on how to get through anxiety/dp etc. Even better, the guy who wrote the books/blog started suffering exactly the way we did! He is now fully recovered.
www.anxietynomore.co.uk
Probably sounds rich coming from me cos in the past I was the absolute worst for this, but the absolute worst thing to do is look at LTC threads all day (unless you are getting support/good advice - which is a bit of a catch 22 as you will probably also read stuff that will freak you out), google mdma neurotoxicity etc. These are all things I did and when my anxiety/depression came back in September after a period of feeling relatively good, and this is what fuels my anxiety/depression now. I'm certain that if I didn't go back down that road I'd be in a fucking good place right now! Considering I actually recovered from a LTC for a good 8-9 months (well I was probably 90-95% but at times 100%) which was really just severe anxiety. I still have trouble convincing myself that I didn't fuck myself up with drugs, but if it was then I probably wouldn't be able to sleep 8-9 hours a night, and I'd be dealing with other issues. I literally only experience generalized anxiety and depression that comes and goes.
Check out this website, read the blog etc. You will find great advice on how to get through anxiety/dp etc. Even better, the guy who wrote the books/blog started suffering exactly the way we did! He is now fully recovered.
www.anxietynomore.co.uk
Kl519
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,150
Hmm, I was only replying because you quoted me. I'll go over your post more later when I have time. I'm not saying it's frowned upon to talk about harm reduction, and my intention wasn't to discourage it. I've seen the state of this board and haven't said anything about it openly so far. My problem is when someone quotes me and wants to bring up this dead discussion over again. This has been talked about rather frequently here, if you search with the search engine. I'm not going to continue this past this post, because you are firm with your belief and that is fine.
It doesn't seem that anyone notable (like say, a BLer) ever asked about help from mdma abuse. I'm certain that I'm the one who brought it up, and tbh I'm annoyed as hell that it keeps being brought back up constantly as if all these GLers suddenly started jumping on the wagon, claiming to have done the same. What is the point of bringing it back up at least weekly? Personally, it feels like I'm being judged to the extreme about something I did six years ago. Think about how long ago that is.
It is extremely easy to just create accounts here and flood this board with the same crap every week, if not everyday. I'm not saying that that's what's going on here, but it does seem like that.
Not only that, I've been aware that the claims of neurotoxicity that are there, and obviously there are studies to back it up. I've seen some of them quite a while back. It's clear that studies on the benefits of mdma are close to zero, and we all know the reason for this. MAPS is the closest there is at the moment. One day, the drug will be fairly studied equally for its positive and negative consequences of usage. Every illegal substance is going to have a ton of studies done to try to rip out every single negative consequence possible. Despite that, I know for sure that I have seen studies claiming the opposite of your argument (that mdma has not been proven to be neurotoxic), so I'll edit this post with the relevant links later on to "back up" my claims. In the mean time, it's probably not hard for anyone to search for themselves either.
It's annoying having to do this because I honestly don't care whether either of us are right or wrong. All I can say with certainty is that, basically, I'm doing fine and so are a few others I know. It's annoying dealing with someone who doesn't even understand me to try to convince me otherwise, given that my life is going well for me. I'm not sure whether you're trying to get a reaction out of me or not, but I honestly don't see anyone but GLers who this might apply to. I'm not going to read something on BL and then automatically think something is wrong, when I don't perceive anything to be wrong. Does that make sense to you? I can only base that off of what I'm able to do, in reality, and the things that I get done in my day-to-day life. That is how I judge myself, every day. That includes my general mood throughout the day, how I feel and whether I have difficulty doing anything I'm supposed to do. (Neither do I concern myself with other people's businesses and judge them negatively, it's just not my thing and it's rude as hell). I also took note of whether anyone, who truly knows me well, can see anything off about me ever since I used to roll too often. No one had a clue. This isn't "scientific" obviously, this is purely based on my own experience.
I know that mdma helped me control my ego, and see my life in a completely different way. I became way more appreciative of people's efforts around me, and tried to see the situation in the other person's point of view, before I think something of them. I talked a lot more and became straightforward. With the way it forcibly showed me my own weaknesses, I don't think such a change would've occurred for a long time and definitely not as easily.
I'm not saying this is aimed at me, but I don't see anyone but myself on who this applies to. You can believe what you want, and I'm not going to try to dissuade you in what you believe. But from what I can discern from myself, others and because of the fact that I know myself better than anyone else, I'm not going to all of a sudden start to freak out about my mdma use from six years ago. I'm not even sure how logical that is, given the fact that so much of life has finally fallen into place and I've honestly been happy IRL, outside of BL. Besides the few diamonds in the rough here, the community, from MY point of view, is extremely negative towards me. All users that I do not recognize their sns are 100% at it, and you are no exception obviously. It's why I do read up on here but I don't post much anymore. There's little point considering what I've been dealing with. It's unlike any other member here, from what I can see.
All that aside, I'll update this post later when I feel like wasting my time doing so. Even when I update this post, I'm not going to think all of a sudden that I'm right and you're wrong. Again, you can believe what you want and I'll do the same.
Edit: http://www.drugtext.org/pdf/Dance/party-drugs-clubbing/why-mdma-should-not-have-been-made-illegal.pdf
I'll find more later on this front...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/sj.bjp.0704825/full
"Though the FDA claims that its refusal to permit experimentation is based on concern for the health of the volunteers, after more than 11 million doses of MDMA have been taken in the United States, the literature does not contain even one case of an individual suffering neurological symptoms linked to MDMA-related brain damage."
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00702-007-0715-7
Pertinent because of the fact that I smoked weed during mdma trips 99% of the time. Perhaps this is why myself and others are doing fine.
Double edit: Didn't think I'd have to clarify this, but I only speak of my own usage/experience. It's not representative of anyone else's, especially the amount, except for friends that none of you know. You weren't there, so you don't know anything that happened, which is why it's useless to guess. The truth always comes out.
Last edited:
Kl519
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,150
This going to be long because this study isn't easily accessible, so I'm going to copy and paste parts of it. All credit goes to the author, obviously.
Author: MICHAEL LYVERS
Title: Recreational ecstasy use and the neurotoxic potential of MDMA: current status of the controversy and methodological issues
Department of Psychology, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Introduction:
"Ecstasy is the popular term for the serotonin-releasing agent 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), a widely abused illicit drug with mixed stimulant and mild hallucinogenic actions. According to the 2001 National Drug Strategy Household Survey [1], 20% of Australians aged 20–29 years have used ecstasy, a significant increase since the previous (1998) survey. The widespread use of ecstasy by young Australian adults naturally raises concern over the health consequences of such behaviour. Ecstasy is commonly taken at dance clubs or ‘rave’ venues, where the mild hallucinogenic effect of the drug enhances the subjective impact of the music and social environment. In contrast to such well-known ‘recreational’ use, some researchers and clinicians in the United States and Europe have quietly supported limited therapeutic applications of MDMA (e.g. for cancer-related anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, severe depression, Parkinsonism [2])and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently granted approval for clinical trials of the drug [3]. Although MDMA-induced fatalities are extremely rare [4], public fears about MDMA-induced brain damage and persistent cognitive dysfunction have been triggered by widely publicised research suggesting that (1) MDMA can cause lasting disruptions to the serotonergic system, and (2) ecstasy use is commonly associated with deficient cognitive and memory performance. The possibility of cumulative brain damage as the drug is used repeatedly or heavily over time presents an alarming prospect. However, the following critical review of the recent research literature on this controversial topic suggests that such alarm may be unwarranted..."
Are ecstasy-associated deficits reversible?:
"One unresolved issue is the degree of reversibility of the reported deficits. Most earlier brain imaging studies compared recently (1–2 weeks) abstinent ecstasy users to non-user controls, leaving open the question of longterm improvement or recovery. More recent brain imaging studies that compared recently abstinent current users of ecstasy versus long-term abstinent former users have reported strong evidence for reversibility of the deficiencies in serotonin transporter densities observed commonly in recently abstinent users [26,31,39], suggesting that such deficiencies are attributable to short-term functional down-regulation rather than neurotoxicity. Serotonergic deficits (including reduction in serotonin transporter densities) are also well-known effects of antidepressant therapy with tricyclics and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) [40], and may reflect brain changes associated with the therapeutic effects of such drugs rather than neurotoxicity..."
Other methodological problems:
"A common methodological criticism of research on recreational ecstasy users concerns the retrospective nature of the reports of ‘MDMA’ use by participants in such studies [4,40,70,71]. The actual content of pills sold as ‘ecstasy’ on the black market has been reported to vary, with some samples containing neither MDMA nor the similar drug MDEA but dissimilar drugs such as methamphetamine (known to be neurotoxic in high doses [72], ketamine (an NMDA antagonist which can be neurotoxic in laboratory animals [73]) or the overthe-counter cough suppressant dextromethorphan (which in large doses is hallucinogenic and probably neurotoxic like other NMDA antagonists). Thus any deficits exhibited by ecstasy users may be attributable to the enduring effects of other neurotoxins sold as MDMA, rather than MDMA itself. However, recent analyses of large seizures of ecstasy in the United Kingdom have indicated that all samples did contain effective doses of MDMA [74], and a recent analysis of blood and urine samples from ‘rave’ party attendees in Australia revealed that all participants who said they had taken ‘ecstasy’ showed high levels of MDMA [75]. A recent review [76] concluded that illicit samples of ecstasy now contain effective doses of MDMA in 90–100% of cases. Thus it is likely that at least some recent samples of ecstasy users included a significant proportion who had been exposed to effective (and even possibly neurotoxic) doses of MDMA rather than, or perhaps in addition to, other potentially neurotoxic substances. Other methodological criticisms of research on ecstasy users include the confounding influence of unequal gender ratios and other demographic differences (such as education level) between user and control groups in many studies. Females have been reported to have 25% lower serotonin transporter densities than males irrespective of drug use [41,77], and show a different brain response to MDMA than males [78], thus brain imaging and other investigations of the serotonin system in ecstasy users should aim to achieve gender balance between user and control groups. Age, education level and general ‘premorbid’ intelligence (e.g. as estimated by reading scores [48]) should also be matched between groups, as should alcohol intake, given the abundant evidence of brain shrinkage and cognitive decline associated with chronic heavy alcohol abuse (see Lyvers [63])..."
Are animal models relevant?:
"A final contentious issue concerns the assumption that animal models of MDMA-induced serotonergic neurotoxicity are actually relevant to typical human use of ecstasy. .."
Conclusion: do we want ecstasy to cause brain damage?:
"Recently a widely publicised claim of severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity induced by MDMA in primates [80] was retracted (to the authors’ credit) when the researchers discovered that the vial supposedly containing MDMA was actually methamphetamine, which is known to be neurotoxic to dopamine neurones at the extremely high doses administered as ‘MDMA’ in the study (the effective dose of methamphetamine is considerably lower than that of MDMA). Subsequent experiments using actual MDMA revealed no signs of dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates, even at very high doses [72]. Other claims of ecstasy-induced Parkinsonism have been refuted convincingly [81,82]. At present the controversy concerning possible neurotoxic sequelae of recreational MDMA/ecstasy use is limited to the drug’s purported actions on the serotonin system, as revealed by high-dose studies in animals, but the Ricaurte et al. mislabelling incident has arguably cast a shadow over all prior claims of ecstasy-induced brain damage. The fact that the prestigious journal Science rushed to publish Ricaurte et al.’s highly implausible initial report has been attributed to the widespread desire of researchers and government agencies to find scientific reasons to condemn ecstasy use [83]. Claims of ecstasy-induced brain damage have all too often been reported uncritically in the popular media and by various ‘experts’ in an effort to generate alarm or scare young people away from using or trying ecstasy. Past experience with claims of ‘reefer madness’ suggests that such an approach to preventing illicit drug use serves only to undermine the credibility of the relevant authorities, a case of ‘crying wolf’ that may later backfire. For this reason, claims of MDMAinduced neurotoxicity and associated cognitive deficits or other problems in ecstasy users must be scrutinised carefully and dispassionately. At present, the accumulated evidence for such claims is not compelling..."
I can find more than this if I want. I know for sure I'm missing a few that I've read last year.
Author: MICHAEL LYVERS
Title: Recreational ecstasy use and the neurotoxic potential of MDMA: current status of the controversy and methodological issues
Department of Psychology, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Introduction:
"Ecstasy is the popular term for the serotonin-releasing agent 3,4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA), a widely abused illicit drug with mixed stimulant and mild hallucinogenic actions. According to the 2001 National Drug Strategy Household Survey [1], 20% of Australians aged 20–29 years have used ecstasy, a significant increase since the previous (1998) survey. The widespread use of ecstasy by young Australian adults naturally raises concern over the health consequences of such behaviour. Ecstasy is commonly taken at dance clubs or ‘rave’ venues, where the mild hallucinogenic effect of the drug enhances the subjective impact of the music and social environment. In contrast to such well-known ‘recreational’ use, some researchers and clinicians in the United States and Europe have quietly supported limited therapeutic applications of MDMA (e.g. for cancer-related anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, severe depression, Parkinsonism [2])and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently granted approval for clinical trials of the drug [3]. Although MDMA-induced fatalities are extremely rare [4], public fears about MDMA-induced brain damage and persistent cognitive dysfunction have been triggered by widely publicised research suggesting that (1) MDMA can cause lasting disruptions to the serotonergic system, and (2) ecstasy use is commonly associated with deficient cognitive and memory performance. The possibility of cumulative brain damage as the drug is used repeatedly or heavily over time presents an alarming prospect. However, the following critical review of the recent research literature on this controversial topic suggests that such alarm may be unwarranted..."
Are ecstasy-associated deficits reversible?:
"One unresolved issue is the degree of reversibility of the reported deficits. Most earlier brain imaging studies compared recently (1–2 weeks) abstinent ecstasy users to non-user controls, leaving open the question of longterm improvement or recovery. More recent brain imaging studies that compared recently abstinent current users of ecstasy versus long-term abstinent former users have reported strong evidence for reversibility of the deficiencies in serotonin transporter densities observed commonly in recently abstinent users [26,31,39], suggesting that such deficiencies are attributable to short-term functional down-regulation rather than neurotoxicity. Serotonergic deficits (including reduction in serotonin transporter densities) are also well-known effects of antidepressant therapy with tricyclics and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) [40], and may reflect brain changes associated with the therapeutic effects of such drugs rather than neurotoxicity..."
Other methodological problems:
"A common methodological criticism of research on recreational ecstasy users concerns the retrospective nature of the reports of ‘MDMA’ use by participants in such studies [4,40,70,71]. The actual content of pills sold as ‘ecstasy’ on the black market has been reported to vary, with some samples containing neither MDMA nor the similar drug MDEA but dissimilar drugs such as methamphetamine (known to be neurotoxic in high doses [72], ketamine (an NMDA antagonist which can be neurotoxic in laboratory animals [73]) or the overthe-counter cough suppressant dextromethorphan (which in large doses is hallucinogenic and probably neurotoxic like other NMDA antagonists). Thus any deficits exhibited by ecstasy users may be attributable to the enduring effects of other neurotoxins sold as MDMA, rather than MDMA itself. However, recent analyses of large seizures of ecstasy in the United Kingdom have indicated that all samples did contain effective doses of MDMA [74], and a recent analysis of blood and urine samples from ‘rave’ party attendees in Australia revealed that all participants who said they had taken ‘ecstasy’ showed high levels of MDMA [75]. A recent review [76] concluded that illicit samples of ecstasy now contain effective doses of MDMA in 90–100% of cases. Thus it is likely that at least some recent samples of ecstasy users included a significant proportion who had been exposed to effective (and even possibly neurotoxic) doses of MDMA rather than, or perhaps in addition to, other potentially neurotoxic substances. Other methodological criticisms of research on ecstasy users include the confounding influence of unequal gender ratios and other demographic differences (such as education level) between user and control groups in many studies. Females have been reported to have 25% lower serotonin transporter densities than males irrespective of drug use [41,77], and show a different brain response to MDMA than males [78], thus brain imaging and other investigations of the serotonin system in ecstasy users should aim to achieve gender balance between user and control groups. Age, education level and general ‘premorbid’ intelligence (e.g. as estimated by reading scores [48]) should also be matched between groups, as should alcohol intake, given the abundant evidence of brain shrinkage and cognitive decline associated with chronic heavy alcohol abuse (see Lyvers [63])..."
Are animal models relevant?:
"A final contentious issue concerns the assumption that animal models of MDMA-induced serotonergic neurotoxicity are actually relevant to typical human use of ecstasy. .."
Conclusion: do we want ecstasy to cause brain damage?:
"Recently a widely publicised claim of severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity induced by MDMA in primates [80] was retracted (to the authors’ credit) when the researchers discovered that the vial supposedly containing MDMA was actually methamphetamine, which is known to be neurotoxic to dopamine neurones at the extremely high doses administered as ‘MDMA’ in the study (the effective dose of methamphetamine is considerably lower than that of MDMA). Subsequent experiments using actual MDMA revealed no signs of dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates, even at very high doses [72]. Other claims of ecstasy-induced Parkinsonism have been refuted convincingly [81,82]. At present the controversy concerning possible neurotoxic sequelae of recreational MDMA/ecstasy use is limited to the drug’s purported actions on the serotonin system, as revealed by high-dose studies in animals, but the Ricaurte et al. mislabelling incident has arguably cast a shadow over all prior claims of ecstasy-induced brain damage. The fact that the prestigious journal Science rushed to publish Ricaurte et al.’s highly implausible initial report has been attributed to the widespread desire of researchers and government agencies to find scientific reasons to condemn ecstasy use [83]. Claims of ecstasy-induced brain damage have all too often been reported uncritically in the popular media and by various ‘experts’ in an effort to generate alarm or scare young people away from using or trying ecstasy. Past experience with claims of ‘reefer madness’ suggests that such an approach to preventing illicit drug use serves only to undermine the credibility of the relevant authorities, a case of ‘crying wolf’ that may later backfire. For this reason, claims of MDMAinduced neurotoxicity and associated cognitive deficits or other problems in ecstasy users must be scrutinised carefully and dispassionately. At present, the accumulated evidence for such claims is not compelling..."
I can find more than this if I want. I know for sure I'm missing a few that I've read last year.
Cotcha Yankinov
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2015
- Messages
- 2,952
I'd like to start off by apologizing if I've offended you, I don't mean to make this into a personal issue, I'm just very interested in neuroscience and interested in helping others who have abused or who might abuse MDMA.
"More recent brain imaging studies that compared recently abstinent current users of ecstasy versus long-term abstinent former users have reported strong evidence for reversibility of the deficiencies in serotonin transporter densities observed commonly in recently abstinent users" -- As I posted evidence of earlier, there seems to be a disconnect between SERT binding levels returning to normal and the actual function returning to normal, there are even areas of the brain that are hyper-reinnervated after MDMA that are dysfunctional http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3224864/ So the function of the brain areas that likely remain de-innervated is really up in the air.
Michael Lyvers also writes "Past experience with claims of ‘reefer madness’ suggests that such an approach to preventing illicit drug use serves only to undermine the credibility of the relevant authorities, a case of ‘crying wolf’ that may later backfire", I must point out that THC has been found to have negative effects on the adolescent mind in various studies, and yes there are human studies showing cognitive effects and increased rates of neuropsychiatric diagnosis. So I find it very ironic that he is comparing MDMA to Cannabis, he really couldn't make a worse comparison.
As I said before, I think a lot of people jump on the Ricuarte/Meth bandwagon (akin to the reefer madness bandwagon) and get this idea that MDMA isn't harmful and it is all a bunch of government BS, well I think if enough kids get wind of this it can be a really bad thing because I think some of them will abuse the drug to the point where they do have negative residual effects, or in the case of THC/schizophrenia, an increased risk. But there's not a classic sort of linear correlation between THC and psychiatric diagnosis, in the sense that use doesn't always correlate to increased diagnosis in the entire population, but rather there are vulnerable individuals. If there was a linear correlation and anybody who abused it enough got schizophrenia there would be a whole lot less "Well it didn't happen to me so it won't happen to someone else", but unfortunately some people are vulnerable, and the people who aren't vulnerable shouldn't set the table for those who are. I hope you see the connection I'm drawing between this and LTCs, though the vulnerability to LTCs likely relates to the SERT mutation.
THC has indeed been shown to be neuroprotective in MDMA models and even prevents some of the behavioral effects in adolescent models, I encourage people to find themselves some cannabis and or an SSRI with MDMA. But I would much rather they eat a couple stems and caps rather than shoot for the MDMA experience.
"More recent brain imaging studies that compared recently abstinent current users of ecstasy versus long-term abstinent former users have reported strong evidence for reversibility of the deficiencies in serotonin transporter densities observed commonly in recently abstinent users" -- As I posted evidence of earlier, there seems to be a disconnect between SERT binding levels returning to normal and the actual function returning to normal, there are even areas of the brain that are hyper-reinnervated after MDMA that are dysfunctional http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3224864/ So the function of the brain areas that likely remain de-innervated is really up in the air.
Michael Lyvers also writes "Past experience with claims of ‘reefer madness’ suggests that such an approach to preventing illicit drug use serves only to undermine the credibility of the relevant authorities, a case of ‘crying wolf’ that may later backfire", I must point out that THC has been found to have negative effects on the adolescent mind in various studies, and yes there are human studies showing cognitive effects and increased rates of neuropsychiatric diagnosis. So I find it very ironic that he is comparing MDMA to Cannabis, he really couldn't make a worse comparison.
As I said before, I think a lot of people jump on the Ricuarte/Meth bandwagon (akin to the reefer madness bandwagon) and get this idea that MDMA isn't harmful and it is all a bunch of government BS, well I think if enough kids get wind of this it can be a really bad thing because I think some of them will abuse the drug to the point where they do have negative residual effects, or in the case of THC/schizophrenia, an increased risk. But there's not a classic sort of linear correlation between THC and psychiatric diagnosis, in the sense that use doesn't always correlate to increased diagnosis in the entire population, but rather there are vulnerable individuals. If there was a linear correlation and anybody who abused it enough got schizophrenia there would be a whole lot less "Well it didn't happen to me so it won't happen to someone else", but unfortunately some people are vulnerable, and the people who aren't vulnerable shouldn't set the table for those who are. I hope you see the connection I'm drawing between this and LTCs, though the vulnerability to LTCs likely relates to the SERT mutation.
THC has indeed been shown to be neuroprotective in MDMA models and even prevents some of the behavioral effects in adolescent models, I encourage people to find themselves some cannabis and or an SSRI with MDMA. But I would much rather they eat a couple stems and caps rather than shoot for the MDMA experience.
Kl519
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,150
I wasn't going to post a response, but I changed my mind.
Quite frankly, I'm not a good person to talk about substance pharmacology. It used to be an area of interest about a decade ago. So yeah, I'm not even interested in talking about it. Did you visit the pharmacology section of this site?
It's fine man. I've been having it rough here, which is the exact opposite of my situation IRL. It's weird. What I say holds so much weight, unfair or not, but it is what it is.
About the post you quoted, it's simple enough. He's just saying that 'jumping the gun' on neurotoxicity is the equivalent of reefer madness (probably from his scientific point of view). Of course, studies are going to incorporate the researcher's opinion, which is why we see conflicting reports; the aim of the study is super important, as well as the methodology. These are serious sources too. I can easily find a dozen more to support my argument, and you would have a much easier time doing the same with yours, as it was explained in one of the sources I put up.
But I'm not here to argue about this. You called me out and I responded, it was simple as that (seems you already knew that I would). Luckily, I was a stoner before I dropped mdma and continued it just to get higher on mdma trips. But right now, and with what myself and others can perceive, I don't think there's anything to worry about. Why would we when everything vastly improved since then? It doesn't make much sense to worry, personally.
I do see the connections, and I do see your point. I am sure there are those that are vulnerable, but like you said, we have to look at the facts as a whole. Then it's up to everyone to make their own decision, because fear mongering really doesn't work. I'm not saying that's your intent, but it does get taken that way. Caution should be taken with all substances, no matter how safe or unsafe they are understood to be at present.
Either way, you could be right and I could be wrong, and I don't really care. If anyone is damaged, it should be just me, however I feel great so I'm not going to worry about it. I don't even use substances anymore (except weed), so that's that.
Anyway, I implore you to seek discussions of this nature with someone else. I'm not a good candidate, seriously.
Edit: Btw, it's not that I don't like reading about this stuff, but I kind of have no comment about it that I'd like to say.
And also, eating healthy, sleeping well, learning and exercise helps regenerate brain cells.
Quite frankly, I'm not a good person to talk about substance pharmacology. It used to be an area of interest about a decade ago. So yeah, I'm not even interested in talking about it. Did you visit the pharmacology section of this site?
It's fine man. I've been having it rough here, which is the exact opposite of my situation IRL. It's weird. What I say holds so much weight, unfair or not, but it is what it is.
About the post you quoted, it's simple enough. He's just saying that 'jumping the gun' on neurotoxicity is the equivalent of reefer madness (probably from his scientific point of view). Of course, studies are going to incorporate the researcher's opinion, which is why we see conflicting reports; the aim of the study is super important, as well as the methodology. These are serious sources too. I can easily find a dozen more to support my argument, and you would have a much easier time doing the same with yours, as it was explained in one of the sources I put up.
But I'm not here to argue about this. You called me out and I responded, it was simple as that (seems you already knew that I would). Luckily, I was a stoner before I dropped mdma and continued it just to get higher on mdma trips. But right now, and with what myself and others can perceive, I don't think there's anything to worry about. Why would we when everything vastly improved since then? It doesn't make much sense to worry, personally.
I do see the connections, and I do see your point. I am sure there are those that are vulnerable, but like you said, we have to look at the facts as a whole. Then it's up to everyone to make their own decision, because fear mongering really doesn't work. I'm not saying that's your intent, but it does get taken that way. Caution should be taken with all substances, no matter how safe or unsafe they are understood to be at present.
Either way, you could be right and I could be wrong, and I don't really care. If anyone is damaged, it should be just me, however I feel great so I'm not going to worry about it. I don't even use substances anymore (except weed), so that's that.
Anyway, I implore you to seek discussions of this nature with someone else. I'm not a good candidate, seriously.
Edit: Btw, it's not that I don't like reading about this stuff, but I kind of have no comment about it that I'd like to say.
And also, eating healthy, sleeping well, learning and exercise helps regenerate brain cells.
Last edited:
Hi Collin, you can check my past messages. I was on a similar situation, i only did MDMA 2 times, and after the second i thought i was brain damaged. I was really depressed, with brain fog, it was like a dream. So i started reading in this forum i found a lot of bad experiences that made me even worse. I thought i would never finish my career, that i was screwd up. But with time i got better and better until ful recovery. I have finished my career ( Im an MD, going to start a Cardiology residency in 3 months) and i wont go with mdma or any drug again. I learned my lesson the hard way. Now im living one of my happiest moments of my life.
As they told you, keep doing healthy things: a good nutrition plan, excercise, use your mind, read, and spend time doing things that make you happy. Stay out of drugs, alcohol, smoking and any bad habit. You will get better, you symptoms are not severe and brain CAN HEAL (and you will).
CHEER UP :D
As they told you, keep doing healthy things: a good nutrition plan, excercise, use your mind, read, and spend time doing things that make you happy. Stay out of drugs, alcohol, smoking and any bad habit. You will get better, you symptoms are not severe and brain CAN HEAL (and you will).
CHEER UP :D
Kl519
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,150
Indeed. When I read studies from both sides of the argument, it becomes clear that certain agendas tend to take over.
I'm actually planning to take a neuropharmacology course online just to become more informed on the subject. All of the formal bio classes I've taken absolutely never touched upon drug interactions within the body, but the course that I can take seems to have a huge emphasis on it. Not sure if I want to take it now or over the summer though.
I'm actually planning to take a neuropharmacology course online just to become more informed on the subject. All of the formal bio classes I've taken absolutely never touched upon drug interactions within the body, but the course that I can take seems to have a huge emphasis on it. Not sure if I want to take it now or over the summer though.
Cotcha Yankinov
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2015
- Messages
- 2,952
Hey KI519 sorry I never got back to you on your post. I'd say before you start interesting yourself in the newer more interesting studies Erowid has a pretty good (albeit a bit old) review of things concerning MDMA https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_neurotoxicity1.shtml#humans
I think you'll like the neuropharmacology class, hopefully they'll go over what addiction really is at the cellular level and the more life relevant information like that, I think you'll find it fascinating. But a good psychoneuropharmacology text book would be just as well if you have a bit of biology understanding. Amazon honestly has super cheap used college textbooks and I snagged two good neuropharmacology texts for like 30$ a piece a while back.
Take care
I think you'll like the neuropharmacology class, hopefully they'll go over what addiction really is at the cellular level and the more life relevant information like that, I think you'll find it fascinating. But a good psychoneuropharmacology text book would be just as well if you have a bit of biology understanding. Amazon honestly has super cheap used college textbooks and I snagged two good neuropharmacology texts for like 30$ a piece a while back.
Take care
Kl519
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2014
- Messages
- 2,150
It's fine. Just the previous year I had consumed for myself many studies regarding mdma. Thanks for the link. I also have access to many other studies through my university, with understandably conflicting results, though I kind of exhausted myself on the subject. I spent a lot of time reading about mdma and various other substances I've tried...while writing paper after paper (ugh, I will soon be doing that again).
I've been depressed before, though that was when I was as clean as a whistle, and going through serious tough times. I can honestly say I haven't ever been depressed since then. I doubt that I seem like it either.
And if anyone were to discuss with me any type of subject in person, I can easily keep up without the aid of any sources; just my brain is enough. If I am supposedly damaged at my current level, well lol, I am totally fine with it. It seems to be enough to impress my professors, though they probably just look at me and think "wtf is this guy doing in my class?"
But yeah, anything less than what I had experienced in adolescence has been a cakewalk for me, though that doesn't mean I enjoy 'hard times' at all. On the memory front, heh, I actually remember a bunch of crap that I don't even want to remember.
I don't look like the type that reads and analyzes many things for the sake of knowledge, but that's because most people didn't know me when I was younger. My parents would literally force myself and my siblings to stay ahead of the pack and study beyond our grade level all throughout elementary, and literally disallowed extracurricular activities. Kind of sad really, because kids need a balance of both to function properly out here.
Honestly though, I'm pretty much done talking about this subject after this post. I'm not going to incessantly hang on to the past; I've resolved myself into being free of all hardcore substances until I'm six feet underneath. It's not only what I desire, it's just the right thing for me to do at my age, at least in my mind. I don't even know what to do with the stuff I have. Though I'm probably going to flush them since they have no value to me now.
Yeah, luckily my school allows online course access to every state university in my state, so that's how I'll be taking the class. It's outside of my current major, but I can take it if I want to.
Thanks for the talk though. Some of your posts challenged me to accept opposing views just to strengthen my outlook and to try to be free from ignorance, but I have to say that there is a serious amount of weight on both sides; frankly, I'm not going to lean on one side more than the other, despite the short-sighted benefits of doing so, because I'd like to keep my view as unbiased as possible. Simply for the sake of furthering myself intellectually, which is a personal motif for me. Though I promise not to judge anyone for doing ANYTHING differently, or at least I'll try my hardest not to do so.
Edit: An emphasis here and there can change everything.
I've been depressed before, though that was when I was as clean as a whistle, and going through serious tough times. I can honestly say I haven't ever been depressed since then. I doubt that I seem like it either.
And if anyone were to discuss with me any type of subject in person, I can easily keep up without the aid of any sources; just my brain is enough. If I am supposedly damaged at my current level, well lol, I am totally fine with it. It seems to be enough to impress my professors, though they probably just look at me and think "wtf is this guy doing in my class?"But yeah, anything less than what I had experienced in adolescence has been a cakewalk for me, though that doesn't mean I enjoy 'hard times' at all. On the memory front, heh, I actually remember a bunch of crap that I don't even want to remember.
I don't look like the type that reads and analyzes many things for the sake of knowledge, but that's because most people didn't know me when I was younger. My parents would literally force myself and my siblings to stay ahead of the pack and study beyond our grade level all throughout elementary, and literally disallowed extracurricular activities. Kind of sad really, because kids need a balance of both to function properly out here.
Honestly though, I'm pretty much done talking about this subject after this post. I'm not going to incessantly hang on to the past; I've resolved myself into being free of all hardcore substances until I'm six feet underneath. It's not only what I desire, it's just the right thing for me to do at my age, at least in my mind. I don't even know what to do with the stuff I have. Though I'm probably going to flush them since they have no value to me now.
Yeah, luckily my school allows online course access to every state university in my state, so that's how I'll be taking the class. It's outside of my current major, but I can take it if I want to.
Thanks for the talk though. Some of your posts challenged me to accept opposing views just to strengthen my outlook and to try to be free from ignorance, but I have to say that there is a serious amount of weight on both sides; frankly, I'm not going to lean on one side more than the other, despite the short-sighted benefits of doing so, because I'd like to keep my view as unbiased as possible. Simply for the sake of furthering myself intellectually, which is a personal motif for me. Though I promise not to judge anyone for doing ANYTHING differently, or at least I'll try my hardest not to do so.
Edit: An emphasis here and there can change everything.
Last edited: