Overstated, it's an outright fabrication based on extrapolation from shitty animal models.I think the neurotoxicity thing is often a bit overstated. You gotta go HARD to incur long-term physiological damage as a result of methamphetamine usage, and even then if you abstain from use for a protracted period of time you can probably return to where you were before things went to shit with your brain, more or less. People who use at that level don’t like to quit for the length of time for their feel-good chemicals to return to baseline (which can take years depending on the severity of the habit)
There is zero evidence of neurotoxicity of MDMA or MDA at recreational doses. There is zero evidence in humans.
Now there are studies that had a cumulative subcutaneous dose of 160 mg per kilogram over 4 days that resulted in 5-HT, axonal and neuronal damage.
Considering that equates to two to three grams for a human, maybe a little bit more, I think you'd agree that using studies like that to support claims of neurotoxicity is ridiculous.
People asserting things have to prove it. The only thing they got is FMRIs that show a lowered sert binding affinity and or lower sert densities.
These are phenomena that occur during long-term SSRI treatment for depression. As MDMA is also a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Among other things, it's easy to see why such a sequelae would occur.
When it happens from SSRI treatment, it's good.
When it's associated with MDMA use, it's neurotoxicity.
Give me a fucking break.
And as far as methamphetamine, it's interesting that the methamphetamine researchers are a little bit more trustworthy because they explicitly identify the molar concentrations or the doses that don't result in any changes that could result in neurotoxicity.
Normal recreational doses of methamphetamine do not cause neurotoxicity.
Binging on half a gram a day or more. Obviously may cause you issues.