The ignorance gene : Our buddies at Merck***Please Read this****

rollwitit

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 14, 1999
Messages
305
Since I am pursuing a clinical degree I am required to purchase lots of stupid ass books on Mental Health. This semester I had to purchase a manual called "The Merck Manual of Medical Information" I just wanted to let you all know what Merck has to say about MDMA.
If you all remember correctly E or MDMA was first re-synthesized by the Merck Pharmaceutical Corporation in 1914. This drug was primarily used at first for a appetite suppressant and later to be used in psychotherapy situations. Merck who sold this drug (by prescription only)until it was made illegal has this to say about E now-
(Note: this was copied directly from the manual on page 491-492 of the paperback copy)
Under a heading that reads:
Amphetamine Abuse
Among the drugs classified as Amphetamines are amphetamine, methamphetamine(speed), and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA,Ecstasy, or Adam).
Amphetamines may be chronically abused or used intermittently. Dependence is both psychologic and physical. Years back, amphetamine dependence may have started when the drugs were prescribed for weight loss, but most abuse now begins with illegal distribution of the drugs. Some Amphetamines are not approved for medical use and some are manufactured and used illegally. Methamphetamine is the most commonly abused amphetamine in the United States. The abuse of MDMA, widespread in Europe for the past few years, has now reached the United States. Users often take this drug and go to "RAVE DANCES," where they dance and socialize in after-hours clubs. MDMA interferes with the reputake of serotonin (one of the brains neurotransmitters) in the brain and is thought to be toxic to the nervous system.
Symptoms
Amphetamines increase alertness(reduce fatigue), heighten concentration, decrease the appetite, and enhance physical performance. They may induce a feeling of well-being or euphoria.
(I am skipping a few Paragraphs here)
In addition to stimulating the brain, amphetamines increase the blood pressure and heart rate. Fatal heart attacks have occured, even in healthy young athletes. The blood pressure may become so high that a blood vessel in the brain ruptures, causing a stoke or paralysis and death. Death is more likely when drugs are used in warm rooms with little ventilation, when user is very active physically (for example dancing fast), or when the user sweats heavily and doesn't drink enough water to restore lost fluids.
Note to the reader in the Preface section
The authors, reviewers,editors,and publisher have made extensive efforts to ensure that the information is accurate and conforms to the standards accepted at the time of ppublication.
****there is more here but I think you get the point*******
So the question I am posing is this. Since Merck researchers advised the Government on the scheduling this drug as type I, what's the catch. Why would a company who could stand to make millions off this drug (sold in regulated prescription form) introduce this specific information to the government? Also I like it how they say shit like "Users often take this drug and go to "RAVE DANCES," where they dance and socialize in after-hours clubs." And also "Death is more likely when drugs are used in warm rooms with little ventilation, when user is very active physically (for example dancing fast), or when the user sweats heavily and doesn't drink enough water to restore lost fluids."
WTF??????
What about smoking cigarettes? The numbers of mortality and morbidity related to smoking blow the single digit numbers of Morbiditity and Neurotoxicity of MDMA use. Anyone have any idea's about this or is the Government just assuming we are all a bunch of ingnorant kids who go to "Rave Dances" in warm rooms with little ventilation, when user is very active physically (for example dancing fast).....I think Not. Just trying to make sense out of this seeming organized chaos we call government and politics.
And as for the note to the reader I would like to volunteer my time to help them create an addendum to their subjective BS and should be read like this.
The authors, reviewers,editors,and publisher have made extensive efforts to ensure that the information is accurate and conforms to the standards of the fucking democratic, loop hole, Political Bullshit that happens to be accepted as the norm 'please bend over so I can fuck you up the ass' laws because you are all ignorant bastards. Thank you and please suck my dick.Merck co. MWWWWUUUUUAAAAAAhhhhhAAAAAUUUUUHHHHHH Peace
------------------
"if man is ever to solve that problem of politics in practice he will have to approach it through the problem of the aesthetic, because it is only through beauty that man makes his way to freedom."
~Schiller
[This message has been edited by rollwitit (edited 22 January 2000).]
 
Merck AG is a German company. They patented MDMA. Merck, Inc is not affiliated with them.
 
In fact it states in the Manual that it is a Merck Affiliate.......funded by the same company. Merck inc.
------------------
"if man is ever to solve that problem of politics in practice he will have to approach it through the problem of the aesthetic, because it is only through beauty that man makes his way to freedom."
~Schiller
 
Merck (the German company that pattented MDMA) was doing research with apetite supressants. But they never sold the drug. "Merck who sold this drug (by prescription only)until it was made illegal has this to say about E." This isnt true. And Merck did not stand to make a ton of money before it was criminalized.
------------------
a pH phenomenonAcidBurn
 
Well, think about the fact that patents run out after 17 (?.. is it 20 now?) years... No one wants to spend the $300 million+ US to do the paperwork, etc. for FDA approval at this time because the drug isn't patentable. As soon as it would have been approved, it would have been marketed generically by lots of other companies. The fact that it wasn't being actively pursued/researched by any companies (because of this) was used as an argument against MDMA when it was scheduled as class I instead of II...
 
Wow----
thanks for the help guys I just thought that this information was interesting and once again led me to the ominous WHY questions. Peace
------------------
"Without any intentional, fancy way of adjusting yourself, to express yourself as you are is the most important thing"
 
They [pharm companies] could get around the patent BS. MDMA doesn't appeal to fatass lawmakers because it would put to much strain on their tickers and actually make them LOVE people.
------------------
Brock
"Pray, think, fight, believe."
 
See my write up on GBL SCARE. I am 52 years old and I worked in mental health 10 years and I was a lawyer for 5 years....MDMA I am not commenting on...I haven't tried it yet........ is to paranoid of getting busted( probably a well founded fear in our society, and not just today.
[This message has been edited by vietvet (edited 23 January 2000).]
 
Oh, And those books you bought are not a waste!!!!!!At least you are still permitted to buy them...........PLUR
 
just fyi, i believe the patent for mdma expired after 75 years after which it cannot be renewed. this would explain why no pharm companies are willing to go to bat for mdma and try to get it rescheduled since they have no way of making money off of it. for more info go to www.maps.org
 
I'd like to bring up two points.
First, it's not likely Merck could make hefty profits off MDMA sale, were it legal. For one, Merck is a huge company, one that makes so much money off other products that they can easily pass up any oppurtunity that MDMA presents for profits.
Second, were MDMA a legal prescription, it's likely that the market would remain largely illegal. The illegal market is just too quick and easy to be ousted by a more complicated process of faking doctor's orders and the like, even with the DEA putting the crunch on it. In fact, by the very fact of it being legal in prescription form only would be an automatic incentive to continue illegal manufacture and sale. It would still no doubt be heavily monitored, with all sorts of certifications. To the average drug user/dealer, it wouldn't be worth it.
Second, it's perhaps a little hasty to compare MDMA to tobacco. True, tobacco has lead to the deaths of millions, while MDMA has only been linked to a relative few. Keep in mind, though, that:
1.) Tens of millions of people are smokers in America alone.
2.) People have been smoking for hundreds of years, so there has been plenty of time to assay consequences.
3.) Tobacco use is frequent among smokers, easily going through a pack a day.
So what I'm sayin is, if MDMA were used by as many people as there are smokers, for as long as tobacco has been used, and as often as tobacco is used by smokers, who's to say that the effects wouldn't be just as bad? As I said in an earlier post, we don't know that much about MDMA. Same deal with alcohol.
 
No company is going to want to be associate making a drug available upon prescription that has recently made its way into the hands of teenager at all night dance/drug playgronds. MDMA is illegal cigarrettes are not. Its that simple and no matter what your arguement is no goverenment would approve of using any drug that will alter behavior like this drug, in the exception of alcohol, which is so widely consumed that, even though there are thousands of vehicle accidents every year, it is too socially acceptable to prohibit (exception is some Arab countries). In the governemts eyes, what benefit would they get from approving such a drug that is at the moment only supported by: Teenagers who use it for fun and the select few in the mental health field who feel it has promissing benefits? MDMA is made only for licensed studies as well as LSD, Cocaine, Heroin, etc. But of course this is not widely known and I'm sure they want it too stay that way. The point is that its a drug, a strong drug, moreso than tobacco, maybe not so much as alcohol but alcohol has been here for hundreds of years before drug laws even existed. With many countries forbidding use of such drugs why should Merck even jump into a situation where 95% of the popular belief is that this drug is not socially acceptable, particulary to the older people carrying most of the political influence who have never even been exposed to the mdma experience?
 
Top