Long term comedowns - UK vs US?

[dan88]

I've never seen those long term horror stories here in holland. This goes for the people i hang around with. But here in holland we only produce good quality pills as far i know, ofcourse somtimes there are some bad pills in there now and then but mostly not. So i guess its the bad shit people take that get those nasty term comedowns... seen people take 4-5 200mg pills in 1 night 2-3 days they are fine again.

Thats exactly it, I've never known anybody have a 3 month comedown etc off mdma, and I've seen some people do stupid doses. The last gram of mdma I got I was chatting with my dealer, telling him where I was off too, and he goes "fuck me, if I was going there I'd need at least 3g's" haha. And that stuff was hands down the best stuff I've ever had

 

[Vikingdancer]

Though pills in Holland are pretty pure (I'm Dutch to), I suffered from a longtermcooldown and MDMA is definately one of the causes. All the symptoms some other BL'ers wrote caused by MDMA I've been through as well. I'm feeling oke now but it took me almost a year. Didn't took too much M around 25 pills in a space of 2 years. Now I only drink en on parties cigarettes. Be careful with M because on the longterm it can fuk u up.

 

[Folley]

I've never seen those long term horror stories here in holland. This goes for the people i hang around with. But here in holland we only produce good quality pills as far i know, ofcourse somtimes there are some bad pills in there now and then but mostly not. So i guess its the bad shit people take that get those nasty term comedowns... seen people take 4-5 200mg pills in 1 night 2-3 days they are fine again.

You know everyone from the Netherlands? That's weird.... because I can think of a few right now who have gone through hell from MDMA abuse. There is no single country where everyone developed an immunity to MDMA abuse, people are largely the same no matter where you look.

To be honest my worst comedowns were from MDMA mixed with other drugs, mainly speed. Piperazines and such were awful, but had no where near the long lasting side effects that MDMA abuse has... it was a hangover, not a comedown.



You also have to realize, even in the US you don't hear people saying how depressed those pills make them.. people keep that shit to themselves up until the point that they are shoving a gun into their mouth. Just because someone says they are fine doesn't mean there isn't some serious damage being done on the inside, both emotionally and physically.

 

[F1n1shed]

You know everyone from the Netherlands? That's weird.... because I can think of a few right now who have gone through hell from MDMA abuse. There is no single country where everyone developed an immunity to MDMA abuse, people are largely the same no matter where you look.

To be honest my worst comedowns were from MDMA mixed with other drugs, mainly speed. Piperazines and such were awful, but had no where near the long lasting side effects that MDMA abuse has... it was a hangover, not a comedown.



You also have to realize, even in the US you don't hear people saying how depressed those pills make them.. people keep that shit to themselves up until the point that they are shoving a gun into their mouth. Just because someone says they are fine doesn't mean there isn't some serious damage being done on the inside, both emotionally and physically.

Very good post Folley, and i do admit my worst come downs were MDMA mixed with a piperazine or MDMA mixed with meth. But regardless pills that i had tested as just MDMA and caffeine still caused noticeable changes that took a long time to reverse.

I felt like i was the only one going through these issues with my friends, but truth be told no one likes to talk about it. They'd rather lie and say they feel fine now, so they can believe it them selves.
I mean a good amount of my friends moved on to heroin a year later.... me included. Someone who is feeling just fine with them self, wouldn't move on to full blown heroin addiction. I'm not saying MDMA caused that , but it may have pushed them into a very dark place in their lives.


You guys also have to realize long term comedown doesn't mean three months later you feel like you did after waking up from a heavy night of MDMA and speed. It means you still notice lingering effects 3 months later or how ever long it may be. Everyone has their own effects, anxiety attacks, sleep issues, perception problems, DR/DP , memory/cognitive problems etc. Not everyone is keen enough to notice it , but fact is it does happen to a lot of people and the proof is in all the the come down threads.

 

[dpd_mnk92]

f1n1shed, when making claims, it's perfectly reasonable to be asked to substantiate your claims. when you are unable or unwilling to do so, it speaks to the veracity of the claims and people will tend to draw the obvious conclusion.

laugh, f1n1shed, you can't seem to communicate without without insulting each other. you're both disrupting the forum. consider putting each other on ignore.

alasdair

I disagree. People can and should make claims based on their own experiences, especially when the research conducted on MDMA so far tells us so little. I can dig up a tonne of research to support the claim that MDMA is extremely harmful. The same can be done to prove that MDMA is completely safe. Pretty much any MDMA-related claim can be "substantiated" if you look hard enough.

If we were all a bit more open-minded, we could learn something from each others experiences. Inherently flawed and biased studies, which often come to completely different conclusions, prove very little.

 

[JWills20]

I disagree. People can and should make claims based on their own experiences, especially when the research conducted on MDMA so far tells us so little. I can dig up a tonne of research to support the claim that MDMA is extremely harmful. The same can be done to prove that MDMA is completely safe. Pretty much any MDMA-related claim can be "substantiated" if you look hard enough.

If we were all a bit more open-minded, we could learn something from each others experiences. Inherently flawed and biased studies, which often come to completely different conclusions, prove very little.

I don't exactly disagree with your post. But if you're somehow suggesting that personal experience is less 'flawed and biased' than a study, then I would disagree.

The exact same point you make could be applied to personal experience. I know lots of people who take loads of MDMA far too often and 'report' (they may be lying) that they are fine. Then you hear on here about people who tried it 2-3 times and report a disgusting long comedown. If I based my experiences of MDMA to be the dangers, then I'd probably go out taking it every weekend because it hasn't caused me any problems (or perhaps I'm just not 'in touch with my self').

As human beings, we are more flawed and biased than a study. So studies, while still pretty shit, are more useful.

 

[dpd_mnk92]

Also - excellent post folley.

My natural reaction when someone asks me how I am is to tell them I am completely fine, even when this couldn't be further from the truth. I have so far only shared the unadulterated truth with my girlfriend and mother and even this seems to be a bit much as my difficulties have been a bitter pill for them to swallow.

Anyone else who asks will get a fake smile and fake response. No one can really understand the nature of such problems unless they've experienced it, so I can't expect anyone to empathise and provide any sort of meaningful help. In addition, people generally hate listening to other people's problems when they have their own to deal with, so "I'm doing great" just seems to roll off the tongue when asked how things are.

 

[dpd_mnk92]

I don't exactly disagree with your post. But if you're somehow suggesting that personal experience is less 'flawed and biased' than a study, then I would disagree.

The exact same point you make could be applied to personal experience. I know lots of people who take loads of MDMA far too often and 'report' (they may be lying) that they are fine. Then you hear on here about people who tried it 2-3 times and report a disgusting long comedown. If I based my experiences of MDMA to be the dangers, then I'd probably go out taking it every weekend because it hasn't caused me any problems (or perhaps I'm just not 'in touch with my self').

As human beings, we are more flawed and biased than a study. So studies, while still pretty shit, are more useful.

I don't exactly disagree with your post. But if you're somehow suggesting that personal experience is less 'flawed and biased' than a study, then I would disagree.

The exact same point you make could be applied to personal experience. I know lots of people who take loads of MDMA far too often and 'report' (they may be lying) that they are fine. Then you hear on here about people who tried it 2-3 times and report a disgusting long comedown. If I based my experiences of MDMA to be the dangers, then I'd probably go out taking it every weekend because it hasn't caused me any problems (or perhaps I'm just not 'in touch with my self').

As human beings, we are more flawed and biased than a study. So studies, while still pretty shit, are more useful.

Our personal experiences are all we can reliably contribute imo. When someone "substantiates a claim" with a study, they are merely cherry-picking one study, from a wide range of different studies (coming to all sorts of different conclusions), which happens to support their personal experience or their beliefs. What does this really add to ones argument? Your personal experience still ends up driving your argument in this situation, so what's the point of linking some study, which happens to agree with your viewpoint (when the reality is that there are likely just as many studies which contradict your viewpoint).

Something can definitely be learnt from studies if they are critically analysed by someone with a lot of knowledge about MDMA research, but we don't learn ANYTHING when an anonymous forum member "supports" a point by chucking in the link for an abstract without any knowledge of the study's underlying methodology, funding body etc.

 

[laugh]

social desirability bias seen a lot particularly by those with a mod tag.

people tend to find what they want to see.

 

[MagickalKat777]

social desirability bias seen a lot particularly by those with a mod tag.

people tend to find what they want to see.

You have got to be one of the most negative people I've ever seen in this part of the forum...

Anyway, no matter where you are, if you abuse MDMA, you will do damage. In some people, that's short term damage but in others, it is long term damage.

How do you think that MDMA works? It depletes the cathecholamines and indolamines MUCH faster than normal in order to produce the effects of the drug. It takes a long time to restore the catecholamines and indolamines to their pre-MDMA level.

Think about it this way - if you weren't depleting something, you could roll indefinitely. We all know that is impossible with MDXX and related chemicals. Each dose after the initial one brings about diminishing returns and more negative effects.

Also, why do you think MDMA causes a "crash" while most psychedelic drugs do not? Because most psychedelic drugs do not deplete catecholamines and indolamines. The ones that do all have a crash associated with them.

It isn't rocket science. It really isn't. Anyone that wants to argue that abuse of MDMA doesn't cause issues is completely in denial about how these drugs work. End of story. What goes up, must come down. In the case of chemicals that use up neurotransmitters, you end up being lower than where you started at.

As to the part about US vs UK. Who cares? There really is no point of this thread except for dicksizing between countries. If you put the exact same usage patterns, exact same chemicals, and exact same dosages, there would be no real difference unless there is some unknown genetic difference that has established between the populations that shows the issue.

 

[alasdairm]

I disagree. People can and should make claims based on their own experiences, especially when the research conducted on MDMA so far tells us so little. I can dig up a tonne of research to support the claim that MDMA is extremely harmful. The same can be done to prove that MDMA is completely safe. Pretty much any MDMA-related claim can be "substantiated" if you look hard enough.

If we were all a bit more open-minded, we could learn something from each others experiences. Inherently flawed and biased studies, which often come to completely different conclusions, prove very little.

where did i suggest that people should substantiate their claims with "Inherently flawed and biased studies"? when you have to move the goalposts like that, it speaks to the strength of your point.

while my comments were certainly inspired by laugh and f1n1shed's exchange, they were made in a more general sense. i agree with you that people can and should make claims based on their own experiences but i often see people do that in a way that attempts to give the claim more weight or authority than a subjective, personal experience affords. further, i also see people extrapolate person experience to the population and make claims about the population as a result. you know what i'm talking about - "5 of us went out and 4 people had no shitty comedown, but 1 did have a shitty comedown. therefore, 20% of people who use mdma have shitty comedowns." it's a silly, exaggerated example but it's designed to quickly illustrate the point.

there's generalisation, embellishment, supposition, exaggeration and even fabrication in this and other bl forums and it's in our best interests to not do that and to encourage others to not do it.

alasdair

 

[laugh]

You have got to be one of the most negative people I've ever seen in this part of the forum...

NSFW:

It isn't rocket science. It really isn't. Anyone that wants to argue that abuse of MDMA doesn't cause issues is completely in denial about how these drugs work. End of story. What goes up, must come down. In the case of chemicals that use up neurotransmitters, you end up being lower than where you started at.

totally agree. its funny, most people with a brain in their head (and a minute amount of common sense, experience) agree but everyone wants to be the one claiming they said it first, or just like the sound of their own voice in stating the obvious in over embellished technical jargon, wait, did i just say that. you and the monkey bloke would be great mods.

 

[augustaB]

I disagree. People can and should make claims based on their own experiences, especially when the research conducted on MDMA so far tells us so little. I can dig up a tonne of research to support the claim that MDMA is extremely harmful. The same can be done to prove that MDMA is completely safe. Pretty much any MDMA-related claim can be "substantiated" if you look hard enough.

If we were all a bit more open-minded, we could learn something from each others experiences. Inherently flawed and biased studies, which often come to completely different conclusions, prove very little.

Well there we are stuck with anecdotal information. A mountain of anecdotal information still does not constitute evidence. It has to be checked and controlled and kicked around to turn into evidence. Only evidence can be disputed and its only when dispute is possible that critical appraisal and prediction on the basis of hypothesis can take place.

 

[MagickalKat777]

NSFW:

totally agree. its funny, most people with a brain in their head (and a minute amount of common sense, experience) agree but everyone wants to be the one claiming they said it first, or just like the sound of their own voice in stating the obvious in over embellished technical jargon, wait, did i just say that. you and the monkey bloke would be great mods.

I had to LOL at the NSFW tag. XD

You know, I went into rolling with that knowledge - it was passed down to me by ravers who had been around longer than myself. I didn't learn about the scientific reasoning until much later but it was pretty much a total consensus that if you overdo rolling, you pay for it. I don't understand where that started to be questioned. I don't know a single person who went wild with ecstasy that didn't pay for it, myself included (panic disorder, agoraphobia, GAD, and when I was in the thick of it, unrelenting depression were my consequences). The amount and frequency of use that constitutes overdoing it is variable but everything in individual chemistry is a variable in and of itself to begin with.

Well there we are stuck with anecdotal information. A mountain of anecdotal information still does not constitute evidence. It has to be checked and controlled and kicked around to turn into evidence. Only evidence can be disputed and its only when dispute is possible that critical appraisal and prediction on the basis of hypothesis can take place.

It is better than nothing. Scientific studies are pretty hard to conduct working around a scheduled and stigmatized substance like MDMA.

 

[dpd_mnk92]

where did i suggest that people should substantiate their claims with "Inherently flawed and biased studies"? when you have to move the goalposts like that, it speaks to the strength of your point.

while my comments were certainly inspired by laugh and f1n1shed's exchange, they were made in a more general sense. i agree with you that people can and should make claims based on their own experiences but i often see people do that in a way that attempts to give the claim more weight or authority than a subjective, personal experience affords. further, i also see people extrapolate person experience to the population and make claims about the population as a result. you know what i'm talking about - "5 of us went out and 4 people had no shitty comedown, but 1 did have a shitty comedown. therefore, 20% of people who use mdma have shitty comedowns." it's a silly, exaggerated example but it's designed to quickly illustrate the point.

there's generalisation, embellishment, supposition, exaggeration and even fabrication in this and other bl forums and it's in our best interests to not do that and to encourage others to not do it.

alasdair

ALL studies on MDMA are inherently, and unavoidably, flawed for ethical, political, economic and methodological reasons. What knowledge can we really gain from rats exposed to ridiculous doses (conclusion: MDMA is dangerous!), people given pure MDMA in laboratory settings over limited time spans (conclusion: MDMA is safe!) and studies comparing regular MDMA users and MDMA non users (either ignores extraneous variables such as polydrug use, dehydration, sleep deprivation or accounts for them and produces tiny sample sizes. conclusion dependant upon treatment of variables and sample size).

Having said that, I do see where you are coming from. Outrageous, far-fetched claims should certainly be challenged and on a forum, which should represents a broad spectrum of view points on most subjects, this will, and does anyway, occur (this conversation is an example of that, I suppose). I just don't see the point of challenging someone to substantiate their claims with "evidence" when ALL existing evidence is so flawed. On top of this, very few people are knowledgable and capable enough to tease out useful tidbits of information that do actually exist beneath all the crap.. In most cases, a cited example may only serve to create the illusion of truth. When ridiculous claims are made and numbers are created out of thin air, I can see why one might ask for some sort of evidence as an act of highlighting the bullshit, though.

 

[dpd_mnk92]

Well there we are stuck with anecdotal information. A mountain of anecdotal information still does not constitute evidence. It has to be checked and controlled and kicked around to turn into evidence. Only evidence can be disputed and its only when dispute is possible that critical appraisal and prediction on the basis of hypothesis can take place.

A mountain of anecdotal information constitutes a mountain evidence. More so if it is controlled and kicked around, but they still represent the very real experiences of people. They tell us, in great depth, what MDMA can do to human beings in real situations and reveal our perception of our issues. Think about all the unquantifiable aspects of a long term MDMA comedown that no study can ever hope to accurately measure: emotional instability, anhedonia, irritability, depression, anxiety, HPPD, tinnitus and the list goes on. The anecdotal reports on this forum alone have lead to some excellent, practical advice about recovering from these issues as well. If we paid more attention to people's experiences, we could really learn a lot.

 

[dpd_mnk92]

to provide a another, pro-MDMA example: MDMA's efficacy as a treatment for PTSD has been recognised based on victims of the disorder feeling qualitatively better after treatment. Without anecdotes, MDMA would never be considered for use in psychotherapy.

 

[JWills20]

A mountain of anecdotal information constitutes a mountain evidence. More so if it is controlled and kicked around, but they still represent the very real experiences of people. They tell us, in great depth, what MDMA can do to human beings in real situations and reveal our perception of our issues. Think about all the unquantifiable aspects of a long term MDMA comedown that no study can ever hope to accurately measure: emotional instability, anhedonia, irritability, depression, anxiety, HPPD, tinnitus and the list goes on. The anecdotal reports on this forum alone have lead to some excellent, practical advice about recovering from these issues as well. If we paid more attention to people's experiences, we could really learn a lot.

They really don't tell us about what 'MDMA' can do to people. They tell us what 'street-regulated ecstasy' can do to people. Everybody knows that ecstasy is notoriously impure/ not even MDMA. This is why it is hard for me to extrapolate anecdotes to myself (although I do take alot more caution than I would have). When my usage has all (bar my first time) been with tested MDMA, and I experience no negative side-effects, it leads me to the conclusion (perhaps falsely) that it is the adulterants mixed with MDMA that are the main dangers. Further, positive anecdotal evidence from users taking untested 'Mandy' which is, usually, just MDMA (or at least every batch I have tested was just MDMA) still report nothing negative despite taking it far more than once a month and often in high doses. But, as you quite rightly point out social bias is real and it would be unlikely for them to say what is really happening, so I would not hold that as 'strong' evidence. Despite taking more precautions than the average user, I still wouldn't hold my experiences as 'strong' evidence either. Arguably more valid? Maybe. But certainly not the truth.

Either way, it appears pretty clear that MDMA abuse can cause issues for those prone to it. But, it appears highly unlikely that once a month usage is going to realistically cause anything detrimental. Which is what the critics here seem to suggest as the global 'truth'. It's all fine and dandy reporting your own experience, but to suggest that it is the truth is too far. I mean I even read one paper regarding its use in therapy and they consider administering 2 times a month for a study, so unless they have seriously missed something, it appears unlikely. In their eyes, clinical use of doses ranging between 80-150mg appear safe enough two times a month. Sure, you could argue that the study is inherently flawed and biased toward MDMA, but I don't think they would have passed the stringent ethics procedure otherwise.

 

[dpd_mnk92]

They really don't tell us about what 'MDMA' can do to people. They tell us what 'street-regulated ecstasy' can do to people. Everybody knows that ecstasy is notoriously impure/ not even MDMA. This is why it is hard for me to extrapolate anecdotes to myself (although I do take alot more caution than I would have). When my usage has all (bar my first time) been with tested MDMA, and I experience no negative side-effects, it leads me to the conclusion (perhaps falsely) that it is the adulterants mixed with MDMA that are the main dangers. Further, positive anecdotal evidence from users taking untested 'Mandy' which is, usually, just MDMA (or at least every batch I have tested was just MDMA) still report nothing negative despite taking it far more than once a month and often in high doses. But, as you quite rightly point out social bias is real and it would be unlikely for them to say what is really happening, so I would not hold that as 'strong' evidence. Despite taking more precautions than the average user, I still wouldn't hold my experiences as 'strong' evidence either. Arguably more valid? Maybe. But certainly not the truth.

Either way, it appears pretty clear that MDMA abuse can cause issues for those prone to it. But, it appears highly unlikely that once a month usage is going to realistically cause anything detrimental. Which is what the critics here seem to suggest as the global 'truth'. It's all fine and dandy reporting your own experience, but to suggest that it is the truth is too far. I mean I even read one paper regarding its use in therapy and they consider administering 2 times a month for a study, so unless they have seriously missed something, it appears unlikely. In their eyes, clinical use of doses ranging between 80-150mg appear safe enough two times a month. Sure, you could argue that the study is inherently flawed and biased toward MDMA, but I don't think they would have passed the stringent ethics procedure otherwise.

I wasn't really arguing about the dangers of pure MDMA here, was just highlighting our over reliance on MDMA research and stating the importance of anecdotal experiences. Regardless of whether or not people think these individual cases can be generalised to the small section of the population that takes verified pure MDMA every time, these anecdotes are helpful because MOST people do take street regulated MDMA. In fact, I barely know anyone (bluelight members excluded) that does test their shit. Peoples anecdotes have helped me immensely.

I agree that a lot of issues people face stem from bad mixes. I think these bad mixes are more likely to cause an acute reaction from a single dose. I think this is a lot less likely to happen with pure MDMA, but possible if a stupid dose is taken or if it is taken frequently enough, for a long enough period. It just doesn't happen as quickly/ easily. Also, everyone is different. One in a million may drop dead from a single dose, some can go on for decades without noticeable changes.

One of the things science has actually been able to tell us so far about MDMA is that neurochemical stores do not, for all people, completely regenerate after a month. This is why taking MDMA every month for an extended period of time just seems silly to me, but to each their own. At a physiological level, those who roll once a month are also constantly living at suboptimal levels between rolls, whether they realise it or not. Low serotonin means you are a different person as it is linked to almost everything that makes as human. Once a month usage being safe is not a "global truth", this is an example of impatient ravers living by what they perceive is a minimum "safe" break, despite experts such as sasha shulgin saying that MDMA is a 4-times-a-year drug.

To administer twice a month for therapy would be reckless IMO, but in severe cases of PTSD, maybe the potential downsides don't outweigh the immediate benefits in the eyes of the researchers. I don't know if I would buy too much into the stringent ethics procedure bs tbh. We live in a world where pharmaceutical companies are inextricably connected to the bodies that regulate them. Kids with "ADHD" are being force fed a daily dose of speed. SSRIs and Benzos are handed out like candy despite the havoc they wreak for so many.