MDMA loss of "magic". Is it in your head, or in your MDMA?

[Swim15]

I’m pretty sure I’ve got some good MDMA but I’ve only had limited experiences and almost solely from one batch I’ve held onto. Mostly just wanna hear where this magicMDMA is to compare lmao

 

[Sqqlut]

And, we have a large amount of anecdotal evidence - more than you

I get that you would be annoyed people wouldn't try such an easy and available solution. And, I totally don't get your resentment or aggression towards a, quite well researched at this point, theory.

Your message is the exact reason why this will be my last message here. To be clear, I'll explain it for the last time. This thread offers some nice perspectives, but this is the absolute opposite of something "well researched". First of all, in research, you try to demonstrate/understand the effects of X when Y. In research, you do not try to prove an assumption right, you rule every assumtpions one by one. You do not start by "I think this is this thing, so we only focus on this thing".

This "more than you" bullshit has been explained by myself in the other thread but since you seem not to understand something as simple, I'll try to explain it in a more understandable way. I don't give a damn about how many you are to experience this, and science doesn't give a damn too. You can be a million, it does not matter. What matters is the amount of people who actually got this issue, divided by the total amount of MDMA users. In my sample size, it's about 90% of the sample which experiences positive effects, in yours, you never took the time to know this percentage, but it's how science works. If you actually are 200, maybe even 1000 to experience this over the years, but the whole sample size is 10 times bigger, then I let you do the math and understand what I mean for once. This is how science works, this is called "epistemology". You have to make numbers matter, and in order for the numbers to matter, they have to be related with other numbers, and you also have to use a control-group. You don't seem to know or understand what a control-group is since you wrote a whole big paragraph about how you are healthy and how it happened to you too. This is a subjective experience, you can;t do that, especially to monitor something as "how you feel" or you gonna obtain the most biased results. All these people comming here (some of them taking MDMA for the first time), reading about this MDMA thing and having a meh roll because they ate before, because they were tired, because they have low CYP450 inhibior concentration because of genetics, because they abused MDMA in the past, because they take medications, because whatever the fuck is possible, but no, everything is not even discussed anymore in this thread, it is from the MDMA.

You also have to understand that because of the human nature, the great MehMDMA/MDMA result will be obviously biased because, like on Amazon.com, people who are pleased with the product usually don't come here to tell the tale, whereas the disappointed ones will come (almost all of them actually). This is completely biased by every possible way I can imagine, but no, better say I'm agressive because I disagree with your methods lmao. I guess it's easier to do that.

I'd also speak about placebo and the lack of double-blind experimentation, but this is just a waste of time here. And I've said it already in the other tread, only to get fallacious arguments back.

I'm not even annoyed that people don't try "my" solution, it's more about how alternative thinking is received. To be honest, I expected way more openness to criticism on a forum where a lot of people shatter their egos regularly. You can say that I'm the one not open or whatever, but to say that, you better start to consider what I'm trying to say.

Please re-read the story of Kevin I wrote on the other thread about statistic bias if you tell me one more time that "my theory does not work since people who never took MDMA are experiencing this". Because this is the only argument I've ever received against my theory.

 

[psy997]

but this is the absolute opposite of something "well researched". First of all, in research, you try to demonstrate/understand the effects of X when Y. In research, you do not try to prove an assumption right, you rule every assumtpions one by one. You do not start by "I think this is this thing, so we only focus on this thing".

I certainly did not start my exploration of this topic with the assumption "There is something wrong with MDMA today." In fact, most of the contributors to the thread did not either, from what I remember about their stories. I had multiple Meh experiences that I couldn't pin down until I found the theory/thread, and many other posters had the same experience.

I don't give a damn about how many you are to experience this, and science doesn't give a damn too. You can be a million, it does not matter. What matters is the amount of people who actually got this issue, divided by the total amount of MDMA users. In my sample size, it's about 90% of the sample which experiences positive effects, in yours, you never took the time to know this percentage, but it's how science works. If you actually are 200, maybe even 1000 to experience this over the years, but the whole sample size is 10 times bigger, then I let you do the math and understand what I mean for once. This is how science works, this is called "epistemology". You have to make numbers matter, and in order for the numbers to matter, they have to be related with other numbers, and you also have to use a control-group.

Great, so you're aiming for a dogmatically scientific approach, then?

You don't seem to know or understand what a control-group is since you wrote a whole big paragraph about how you are healthy and how it happened to you too.

That's rich coming from the man fighting behind an acnedotal study without a control group.

This is a subjective experience, you can;t do that, especially to monitor something as "how you feel" or you gonna obtain the most biased results.

Remind me of your own study again?

This is completely biased by every possible way I can imagine, but no, better say I'm agressive because I disagree with your methods lmao. I guess it's easier to do that.

Your research is just as biased, if not more. I tried to explain how in my last post. It's obvious one or both of us are not being heard here. And in regards to aggressiveness, you're the one with a raised temper here. Though I will own I've been quite snarky in the above replies in this post

I'd also speak about placebo and the lack of double-blind experimentation, but this is just a waste of time here. And I've said it already in the other tread, only to get fallacious arguments back.

Again, we're a ragtag group of users united in a common experience, attempting to make sense of said experience using whatever we can. Your desire to dismiss all of our work as biased and unreliable is as dogmatic as dogma comes.

I'm not even annoyed that people don't try "my" solution, it's more about how alternative thinking is received. To be honest, I expected way more openness to criticism on a forum where a lot of people shatter their egos regularly. You can say that I'm the one not open or whatever, but to say that, you better start to consider what I'm trying to say.

Again, your alternative thinking is received how it's received because of your certainty, seeming inability to understand our perspectives, and seeming predisposition to our theory being wrong. Multiple posters here have stated that either A) they've tried it and it didn't work, or B) they're open to it and will test when they can. How do you expect to be received when you enter a conversation aggressively with the predisposition that everyone you're talking to is wrong? Maybe a little harshly? Yea...

Please re-read the story of Kevin I wrote on the other thread about statistic bias if you tell me one more time that "my theory does not work since people who never took MDMA are experiencing this". Because this is the only argument I've ever received against my theory.

I will re-read it! And the only argument you've ever received against your theory? Let me correct that for you. The only argument you've received against your theory that you're willing to listen to. See cognitive bias et al.

 

[indigoaura]

It is really unfortunate that you were incapable of just being nice. It is a really simple thing.

I hate to bring age into this - but from the way you write and argue, I would guess you are probably in your 20s. I am not one to think younger people do not have valuable comments to add, but I do think inexperience sometimes clouds approach. Why? Youthful ego.

I was very open to your idea and your comments. I had already been to your Reddit thread, bought and tried NAC earlier this year, and was eager to try again and get some feedback from you. You completely ignored most of my questions, and instead leveled personal attacks against me, because I pointed out the confrontational nature of your writing style.

The inferences you make from people's comments are very skewed. You read things into comments that are just not there, and you constantly embed these little insults into your words.

Dude, for real. You came up in here like: "Hi, I am from Reddit! I am here to build a bridge! You guys don't understand science and are biased and dumb! You will now be graced with knowledge of the error of your ways! Be grateful!"

How did you think that was going to go? Does that typically work for you?

I doubt you will truly "hear" anything that I write in this thread, but if you are finding a lot of resistance in your life to your ideas, your words, your comments, then maybe you should consider the style of your approach. People are reacting to YOU.

 

[indigoaura]

All these people comming here (some of them taking MDMA for the first time), reading about this MDMA thing and having a meh roll because they ate before, because they were tired, because they have low CYP450 inhibior concentration because of genetics, because they abused MDMA in the past, because they take medications, because whatever the fuck is possible, but no, everything is not even discussed anymore in this thread, it is from the MDMA.

Actually, all of this stuff has been discussed in the other thread. We have discussed the impact of food, how long before the roll you have eaten, what type of gel cap you used with your product, what other medications/supplements you were taking, as well as genetic data. Shit, we even talked about location and the influence of cellular towers. One of the reasons these factors are not discussed anymore is that they has already been discussed at length previously.

 

[Swim15]

Man am I the only one wondering why people get so butt hurt and gotta argue so much? Fuck guys, we’re all just here to try to make sense of stuff that there’s zero quantitative information about lol

 

[Phobos]

I really value the information brought by @Sqqlut in this thread and in the "what is wrong with the MDMA available today" thread, and I'm a bit sad it went this way.
Apparently NAC can at least for some reverse some damage, making experiences with many stims better, but I fail to see his points about MDMA being just fine as many drugs have been passed as or mixed with MDMA for more than 2 decades now.
Also the damage NAC is supposed to reverse is not going to come and go in a matter of days yet many users experience Magic and Meh rolls within this type of time frame.

 

[indigoaura]

I also appreciate @Sqqlut 's research and input. He had a lot of valuable insight. Just wish he would have been more open to discourse.

 

[AutoTripper]

Man am I the only one wondering why people get so butt hurt and gotta argue so much? Fuck guys, we’re all just here to try to make sense of stuff that there’s zero quantitative information about lol

So true man. We are all in this together right? I mean life guys. We are all on the same side just trying to to live the best life we can.
Simply no need for Attitude and aloofness or being offended over nothing.

Respect for all I say. We can put our heads together much better @Sqqlut . Say what you have to say by all means and express your views, which would be much better received and considered if you could do it in a slightly nicer and less aggressive and aloof tone.

 

[Phobos]

So true man. We are all in this together right? I mean life guys. We are all on the same side just trying to to live the best life we can.
Simply no need for Attitude and aloofness or being offended over nothing.

Respect for all I say. We can put our heads together much better @Sqqlut . Say what you have to say by all means and express your views, which would be much better received and considered if you could do it in a slightly nicer and less aggressive and aloof tone.

I think part of this is possibly being used to the general attitude that is prevalent in a different community, the way I see it in here we are mostly happy to argue/debate at length, but it doesn't automatically mean that there is a feeling of hostility, we are simply trying to get to the bottom of it.

 

[AutoTripper]

I think part of this is possibly being used to the general attitude that is prevalent in a different community, the way I see it in here we are mostly happy to argue/debate at length, but it doesn't automatically mean that there is a feeling of hostility, we are simply trying to get to the bottom of it.

Yes totally, just to be clear as well, I wasn't referring or gesturing towards yourself in this or any other thread by the way in relation to my comments. The way you post an Express and debate is spot on however not everybody understands to follow suit.

I just want to encourage that, that balance and sense of good will. Nothing wrong with a bit of banter and passion. Sometimes you really need a little bit of heat or friction to get somewhere and get a point across or or realise or process something in the process of doing so.

 

[Niro007]

I did MDMA so i was told i never bought a test kit and wish i did but the years i was on it, it was almost every week to every two weeks and i got to the point to popping up to 8 to 12 pills on one night just to feel the rush i was expecting i had back when i started.

Yes, the magic does go down considerably which is why i highly recommend to back off a few months... i know that it's hard but one has to give it's system time to recovery, that's it. Just pull back and you'll see so don't worry.

 

[Rectify]

The Loss Of Magic Is In Your Head (literally). Dendritic Pruning. However, I Did Get 200 to 300 Solid Good Rolling Sessions In Before The Loss Of Magic Occurred.

 

[scatterday]

Piracetam, Thank me later.

I know when I was taking piracetam regularly rolling once it had built up in my system was a completely different experience. Very similar to my first one!

 

[kinkyjohn]

I've done MDMA hundreds of times (thousands of pills) .. and it bores the crap out of me now .. but man did I have some fun in my 20s.

Obviously it's in your head .. as the mental and physical realm aren't magically separated. Maybe the more pertinent question is whether it is a learned response. I doubt that though as you don't see it with other stimulant class drugs.

 

[G_Chem]

You can disagree with what I said, but you can't disagree with people's reports.

I find it kind of disappoiting that most people here still rely on some kind of million-dollar equipments for MDMA analysis while rejecting NAC and its $0.05 a day treatment. I mean, you disagree and repeat the same thing than in the other thread, which is you had decent MDMA then now it's MehMDA, and all these things again and again, actually believing to detain the truth which is still certainly not understood well enough at all, rejecting some informations, reports and a research paper that I both didn't even show you.

Also a lot of Argumentatum Ad Populum claiming that, if a lot of people claim it's the MehDMA, then it's true. I wish I was making this up. This is just newbie scientist mistakes here. Along with impossible-to-verify analogies of what tolerance is and how it works for MDMA or a movie. You are way more likely to research about loss of effects from the MDMA, end here and share your story that you are if the MDMA works just perfectly. I mean, most of us have started to come on internet speaking about drugs to seek about drugs knowledge because we had a personal problem/question, and this behavior is biasing all you are thinking when you say "a lot of people have the very same issue". It's a forum to speak about how MDMA doesn't work, you can't expect people claiming it works, so all you obtain is a biased sample size of people who have some weird MDMA experiences and try to find some explanations. You hop on the first, or most relayed one, rejecting the other(s) and this is exactly what's happening here.

To the many claiming it's the tolerance of the feeling, like a movie, a video game or whatever. Neuroscience is an interesting subject that you should understand first. There is something different with MDMA, it's that the feeling is forced. Why is the movie less interesting when it's your second time watching? Because your brain works like that. When you saw something, you now have a memory of it, and the stimulus that triggers the emotional response is now ruined by lack of novelty. Some people are better than others on how to make abstraction of the memories when they rewatch a movie, and this is why they are more likely to rewatch it, like they replay a music. But you can't have a memory of a feeling, you have memories about what your senses sent to your brain, but it does not work for emotions, you can only retain some abstracts versions of it, but not the emotion itself. You just can remember that it was great, but you can't replay the greatness feeling of it, else you'd only need MDMA once, like you usually want to see most movies once, because there is no external stimulus.

It's way too easy to fall in these traps.

False. I can tap into the emotion of past experiences sometimes even allowing a semi-roll type experience, over the years I believe this has allowed the MDMA to rub off on me making me a better person.

Also it’s a newbie scientist mistake to self experiment with very uncontrolled parameters as well as compile a relatively small population of reports from even more uncontrolled experiments. Funny how you seem to be doing the exact same thing you talk down on in this post, your taking your theory with very limited data to back it up and dismissing the others in this thread who actually tried your method and noticed no results.

-GC

 

[G_Chem]

Your message is the exact reason why this will be my last message here. To be clear, I'll explain it for the last time. This thread offers some nice perspectives, but this is the absolute opposite of something "well researched". First of all, in research, you try to demonstrate/understand the effects of X when Y. In research, you do not try to prove an assumption right, you rule every assumtpions one by one. You do not start by "I think this is this thing, so we only focus on this thing".

This "more than you" bullshit has been explained by myself in the other thread but since you seem not to understand something as simple, I'll try to explain it in a more understandable way. I don't give a damn about how many you are to experience this, and science doesn't give a damn too. You can be a million, it does not matter. What matters is the amount of people who actually got this issue, divided by the total amount of MDMA users. In my sample size, it's about 90% of the sample which experiences positive effects, in yours, you never took the time to know this percentage, but it's how science works. If you actually are 200, maybe even 1000 to experience this over the years, but the whole sample size is 10 times bigger, then I let you do the math and understand what I mean for once. This is how science works, this is called "epistemology". You have to make numbers matter, and in order for the numbers to matter, they have to be related with other numbers, and you also have to use a control-group. You don't seem to know or understand what a control-group is since you wrote a whole big paragraph about how you are healthy and how it happened to you too. This is a subjective experience, you can;t do that, especially to monitor something as "how you feel" or you gonna obtain the most biased results. All these people comming here (some of them taking MDMA for the first time), reading about this MDMA thing and having a meh roll because they ate before, because they were tired, because they have low CYP450 inhibior concentration because of genetics, because they abused MDMA in the past, because they take medications, because whatever the fuck is possible, but no, everything is not even discussed anymore in this thread, it is from the MDMA.

You also have to understand that because of the human nature, the great MehMDMA/MDMA result will be obviously biased because, like on Amazon.com, people who are pleased with the product usually don't come here to tell the tale, whereas the disappointed ones will come (almost all of them actually). This is completely biased by every possible way I can imagine, but no, better say I'm agressive because I disagree with your methods lmao. I guess it's easier to do that.

I'd also speak about placebo and the lack of double-blind experimentation, but this is just a waste of time here. And I've said it already in the other tread, only to get fallacious arguments back.

I'm not even annoyed that people don't try "my" solution, it's more about how alternative thinking is received. To be honest, I expected way more openness to criticism on a forum where a lot of people shatter their egos regularly. You can say that I'm the one not open or whatever, but to say that, you better start to consider what I'm trying to say.

Please re-read the story of Kevin I wrote on the other thread about statistic bias if you tell me one more time that "my theory does not work since people who never took MDMA are experiencing this". Because this is the only argument I've ever received against my theory.

In your sample size of 20... I’ve seen 3 people in this thread say your method does t work buddy. Also I’d argue your not taking quality MDMA by your reaction compared to the others in this thread. You seem “heated” and emotional, not conducive for proper research and often leading to bias.

-GC

 

[Dexta]

Interesting. Will try this, little to lose I guess.

 

[wenluojia]

It is quite sad that this thread devolved into this unproductive argument so quickly, on both sides.

I tried the NAC thing. My background: Mid-30s, took MDMA about 12 times in two years, 93kg. I have noticed that my rolls were getting "weaker". One part of that, I'm sure of that, is that I am becoming more used to the substance and when you do something repetitively, the novelty of it wears off. I experience the same with LSD. Or scuba diving. But my last experiences were kind of mellow. I was quite sure I had good MDMA, but while the rolls were nice, they lacked the "punchy" quality of my first rolls.

Previous rolls:
150mg+100mg+small dip (early September)
150mg+100mg (mid October)

After, I started taking 600mg NAC, about 40 times, daily. Stopped for a week and then I took 160mg +80mg a couple of days ago. I upped the dose a bit because I felt the MDMA I was having was rather impure. I was a very nice, clean roll. Definitely more pronounced than the last two (all three were from different batches). It did not feel like the first time, but there was a noticeable difference to the last two rolls. We took it in a group of five, and the two newcomers found it fantastic, while two oldtimers found it to be "good MDMA". People chewed their cheeks, I got crazy eye wiggles at times. It was interesting as everyone was affected by the same batch completely differently. We ate a bit too late (2-3 hours before). One was up in 15 minutes, with me it took a full 90 minutes (!). We took it in pills which I had measured beforehand.

I think there is something to the NAC theory. Will take for one more month now and then check the next roll, too.
But there is clearly also a difference in MDMA batches and all the other things around a roll (set, setting, eating, how you take it, etc.).