FDA approves Ecstasy : New treatment of Iraq war veterans with resistant PTSD

[exarkann]

from what I understand it is more like the "lay on the couch and talk" type of thing.

 

[molly897]

Does anyone know how in the past or present they administer this drug? In the article it says a combination of MDMA and physical monitoring. Does this mean they give the patient the drug then watch him through a glass window in another room?

I'd like to know this too

IMO giving it as a recreational dose is dumb, I figured it'd just be another ssri.

 

[LSDMDMA&AMP]

theyd administer 100-150mg then ahve a therapy session.
thats how it was when it was illegal.

 

[avrolling]

That's totally awesome! But fuck that I'd rather NOT almost die to get it....

 

[HerrSchnaufer]

I'd like to know this too

IMO giving it as a recreational dose is dumb, I figured it'd just be another ssri.

It's not meant to be just another SSRI though. It's not so much about a direct mechanism of action, as the whole experience, and being able to open up and share the psychological trauma.

Think of it as the psychedelic it really is rather than the stimulant it's been popularized as.

 

[seep]

Good for the FDA. Hopefully they grow a pair and tell the DEA to butt out, otherwise this'll take a century to reach mainstream psychiatry.

The US needs a process for fast-tracking a substance out of schedule 1, otherwise every MD who wants to run human trials on a schedule 1 substance has to apply for a schedule 1 DEA license for each drug every time. How absurd is it that a doctor to has to get a cop's permission to administer a medicine?

This therapy may allow the brain to “re-boot” and have a fresh start in a way that no current treatment or medication can do.

This metaphor is getting a bit worn.

 

[Bardeaux]

Not sending people overseas to get PTSD in the first place would be more effective IMO.

This is not a good thing.

But through these studies maybe one day mdma treatment will be common practice for regular civilians suffering with PTSD. This is a great thing imo. People arent going to war in order to get PTSD so that they can participate in these studies. The damage has been done already and mdma is showing positive theraputic results.

But on a totally unrelated note: I agree war is bad.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I agree about not sending them overseas but how is this treatment not a 'good' thing? It's one step in the right direction for illicit drugs to become more acceptable like they should be, plus MDMA in particular has been known for a while now to be effective with PTSD cases.

There's more drugs that should be legalized first for more obvious reasons (i.e. physical health).

Additionally, I think LSD and mushrooms would be a better place to start (seeing as they are not neurotoxic). As much as I do think MDMA, MDA, other phenethylamines have the ability to help people with PTSD, I don't think that war veterans are the people most deserving of this. I think by selectively giving one group of people with PTSD a specific treatment while ignoring others is biased, and is basically going to lead to quantifying of people's suffering. This is horrendous IMO. This would be like me sitting here telling you all that the real sufferers are not those who went into the military, but those who were sexually abused, raped, etc. That is unfair for me to say, and I'm not supporting such a bias either. I think all people with PTSD deserve this, and it would only be fair to open up the trials to all serious cases of PTSD, irregardless of the cause. You want a variety of people when running a study. Using only one sub-group of PTSD victims for a study, in my opinion, is going to help bring about a bias towards MDMA, it will be easy for these people (who are probably not as heavy drug users as the normal population - save for alcohol and tobacco...) to have adverse effects (especially if they are not used to psychedelics) and negative experiences, including some people reliving trauma. Enough cases of people who had a negative experience with it will be enough evidence to make MDMA look bad, and unusable for the general public.

If I continue along the line of thinking that not all soldiers were drug users before they became afflicted with PTSD, how many people will become drug-seekers as a result of their MDMA experience? Maybe not many, but just a few people in this situation who may become drug addicts (probably more of a result of PTSD than the MDMA experience) may look the treatment look bad to people. The government also has a great way of using CI drugs and then finding lots of problems with them that I certainly don't find (other people have brought up similar ideas).

Then again there are also *much worse* mental disorders (and diseases) than PTSD. If we were going to start giving CI drugs to people, in trials, I think PTSD is a great first place to start but it's definitely not the only one.

 

[MMMMKAY?!]

Thats pretty cool I bet it will help them.

 

[CaseFace]

Im gonna laugh when it totally backfires because all the soldiers refuse to ever kill in combat again from their new found love for everyone.

Seriously though, glad this is happening. Baby steps become leaps once they get old enough.

 

[Vaya]

Thoughts

Captain.Heroin, you make solid (and, in this context, unexpected) points; it is for such reasons I explore websites like BL; not everyone is stark raving mad about the solidarity of legalizing restricted access to schedule I drugs.

That said, I do believe this new psychotherapeutic intervention is a positive step for our humanistic culture. To me, it is representative of the changing tides and public opinion that swath our everyday lives.

The Food and Drug Administration is not one of the more admirable subdivisions of the U.S. government IMO; the FDA is, however, penultimate when it comes to chemical influence and public opinion. Consider, for example, the exorbitant number of people who actively abstain from purchasing nutritional supplements and herbal dietary pills because the FDA can not legally endorse them. Billions of dollars annually, lost to public influence as mediated by the FDA - and I am only restricting my focus to hocus-pocus "dietary supplements," and not clinically active drugs.

The FDA's concession that therapeutic use of MDMA is not one hundred percent bad, and may even be good in extenuating circumstances, represents an admirable advance from the days of the Kefauver-Harris Amendment of 1962 - that is, those days when the FDA had to merely demonstrate the efficacy of a drug before bringing it to market.

The fact that MDMA can be used recreationally is an entirely different matter than its use as a therapeutic adjunct to psychotherapy, and this is not a positive thing. I think you make an extremely valid point when you mention that soldiers who return from prolonged active combat may be at higher risk for abusing such therapeutic techniques because of their acquired condition. That said, that risk runs deep for any such pharmacotherapeutic treatment whereby the chemical at hand can, potentially, be used for "fun." I do not deny the stapled medical values of Cannabis, opiates and synthetic opioids, and benzodiazepines - yet, they comprise a sizable portion of the illicit discussion occurring on these very boards. To suggest the introduction of yet another CI substance into mainstream culture as "not a good thing" based on its potential for abuse is limiting at best. It is my opinion that your logic is sound (and firmly rooted in realistic thinking) but may be too stringent for the movement of modern times. I would never support depriving a rape victim, or the victim of a brutal crime, or a war veteran suffering from PTSD from MDMA-adjunct therapy; I would, however, support the extradition of such individuals who exploit the valid use of such substances. There are always two sides to any coin (I suppose by definition, eh? )

My eternal love goes out for all those who have witnessed their closest compatriots' heads exploding from enemy shrapnel not less than one foot from their own; I have several close friends who are permanently scarred (physically and/or mentally) as a result of such ordeals. I cannot even imagine. Their lives have been forever marred by MMT due to extensive employment of painkillers after bullet fragments have been removed from tender ligaments. Yet, my own experience with MDMA tells me that its empathogenic properties may well truly help them in ways so far beyond pain management - and I cannot muster the courage to propose SSRI's as valid proponents of such shell-shock (I realize this is not what you were implying - I may be off on an theoretical rant by this point!)

Additionally, I think LSD and mushrooms would be a better place to start (seeing as they are not neurotoxic).

An EXTREMELY valid point - although, I believe so for somewhat different reasons. I concede the neurotoxicity of conventional psychedelic drugs is markedly lower than that of pseudo-psychedelic stimulant phenethylamines like MDMA. My personal argument in favor of the use of psychedelic phenethylamines/tryptamines is that they are far more psychologically revealing than MDMA, whose 'sweetness' is limited in large part to its empathogenic qualities. To truly recover from clinically diagnosed PTSD, I firmly believe one's psyche needs to be ripped open - as only 'true' psychedelics can do - and subsequently re-established from the ground up. Therefore, I think your argument for using psychedelics more favorably than psychedelic amphetamines is truly solid. The Aztecs, Mayans, Incans, Amazonians and Native Americans had tuned in (NOT a reference to Leary!) to this notion centuries, perhaps millennia ago; yet we, in our self-proclaimed 'Age of Enlightenment,' seem to struggle with such fundamental principles of using nature synergistically with our conscious experience.

It is truly a sorrow to know that the slip-shod job that the Central Intelligence Agency performed between 1954 and 1967 with LSD in human trials forever destroyed public confidence in its therapeutic characteristics. Such a shame, indeed. Remarkable, isn't it, how such a governmental move can spur such philosophical introspections?

Alas - I think the temazepam just kicked in, and so I will bring my statements (hopefully) to a gracious close.

In short, Captain.Heroin, I both agree and disagree with that which you have stated in response to this fascinating news; that which I disagree with, however, is not to be disrespected, because your very intelligent mind contrived it and your thoughts are just as deserving of philosophical vivisection as any others. Thank you for returning to support your initial assertions. Quite thought-provocative.

~ vaya

 

[Liquid Sunshine]

Step by step, progress will be made or we will die. Looks like (for now) progress wins.

 

[Wizzle]

There's more drugs that should be legalized first for more obvious reasons (i.e. physical health).

Additionally, I think LSD and mushrooms would be a better place to start (seeing as they are not neurotoxic). As much as I do think MDMA, MDA, other phenethylamines have the ability to help people with PTSD, I don't think that war veterans are the people most deserving of this. I think by selectively giving one group of people with PTSD a specific treatment while ignoring others is biased, and is basically going to lead to quantifying of people's suffering. This is horrendous IMO. This would be like me sitting here telling you all that the real sufferers are not those who went into the military, but those who were sexually abused, raped, etc. That is unfair for me to say, and I'm not supporting such a bias either. I think all people with PTSD deserve this, and it would only be fair to open up the trials to all serious cases of PTSD, irregardless of the cause. You want a variety of people when running a study. Using only one sub-group of PTSD victims for a study, in my opinion, is going to help bring about a bias towards MDMA, it will be easy for these people (who are probably not as heavy drug users as the normal population - save for alcohol and tobacco...) to have adverse effects (especially if they are not used to psychedelics) and negative experiences, including some people reliving trauma. Enough cases of people who had a negative experience with it will be enough evidence to make MDMA look bad, and unusable for the general public.

If I continue along the line of thinking that not all soldiers were drug users before they became afflicted with PTSD, how many people will become drug-seekers as a result of their MDMA experience? Maybe not many, but just a few people in this situation who may become drug addicts (probably more of a result of PTSD than the MDMA experience) may look the treatment look bad to people. The government also has a great way of using CI drugs and then finding lots of problems with them that I certainly don't find (other people have brought up similar ideas).

Then again there are also *much worse* mental disorders (and diseases) than PTSD. If we were going to start giving CI drugs to people, in trials, I think PTSD is a great first place to start but it's definitely not the only one.

The Phase two pilot was almost exclusively conducted on people with trauma caused by criminal violence (rape, abuse, assault). In this group there was only one (of twenty) that was affected by war trauma. Also, as some here pointed out, there is the political reality that in the past decisions on allowing this kind of research have been based on drug war politics. Using servicemen and women makes it that much more acceptable for the fox news crowd. Is this bullshit? Depends on how you look at it, sometimes you've got to be diplomatic and in that sense I think MAPS is doing a great job.

You basically argue that you don't want this study to happen because it will make mdma look bad.. Well, if it is, it is! Why shouldn't it be held to the same scrutiny as any other psych med? To be honest, I'm not too worried, I have a lot of faith in this chemical.

If you read the paper on the pilot trial you'll see that the limited research pool is seen as a limitation, because most were white females with crime related trauma. A military sample will likely include a relatively high percentage of males and people of other ethnicity, with war trauma, making the total research pool more representative.

 

[thebay420]

Hmmm I remember the government telling us that xtc burned holes in our brian and made us retarded... Now their giving it to our soldiers as treatment for PTSD. The Government never lies though.

 

[TearItDown]

Good news

 

[Nick_Djinn]

Not sending people overseas to get PTSD in the first place would be more effective IMO.

This is not a good thing.

No kidding.

But medical use for MDMA is a good thing despite the trauma which obviously is not worth it....I wouldnt put someone in harms way to get drugs, but if the drugs can help I wouldnt deny them.

 

[matt2012]

Since MAPS has been working so hard to get this approved, I would suspect the treatment is virrtually the same to the one they pioneered. I don't know much about it (doses and the like) but its MDMA assisted psychotherapy.

 

[jaguraguguru]

First of all, I think this is great news. I applaud the FDA on their newfound pair of nuts!

Next, CH, I think your point about the neurotoxicity of MDMA is irrelevant. Use of MDMA at recreational or sub-recreational doses spaced apart by at least a month is not significantly neurotoxic, probably not even as much as smoking a couple puffs once.

Also, you say that there are "*much worse*" mental disorders and diseases that should be addressed. You say that it's unfair to distinguish between the intensity of PTSD between for example rape victims and soldiers, but then say that other mental disorders are much worse than PTSD. I think it's an unfair and also invalid statement. PTSD can be as bad as any mental illness or disease you can think of, it just depends on the person. Maybe the average person isn't as much affected by it as the average cancer or AIDS patient, but that's not to say that it can't be as bad. You might also argue that it's not a physical threat to them, which is also false, being that the physical state is so closely coupled to the psychological state and then the fact that PTSD sufferers are much more likely to commit suicide or harm themselves otherwise.

Lastly, you say that we should start with mushrooms/lsd before going to MDMA. I don't know if you mean to say that we should try using mushrooms and LSD for psychotherapy before using MDMA or if you mean they should be allowed to be tested for different disorders first, but if you mean the former, I have reason to disagree. As you know, mushrooms and LSD can cause incredibly intense negative experiences and they can be immersive and visual; bad trips are much more likely to happen in people with a lot of psychological problems. Yes, often they can help a person very much to get over a problem or to heal in some way, but it's MUCH more risky to give someone an exceptionally powerful psychedelic when they have severe psychological problems and may not be any more beneficial. The great thing about MDMA is that there is essentially no risk of a "bad trip" and it's a much easier drug on the mind. It's a psychologically calming drug and can be very comforting, in contrast to LSD and mushrooms, which are very powerful stress-producing agents. I'm not saying for sure that MDMA is more effective, but it's definitely less risky and less likely to cause negative effects. It's also much more likely to be approved and accepted.

Anyway, no disrespect man, but I just disagree on some of your points. I agree with all your other points though. Anyway, two thumbs up for progress, babysteps or not.

 

[rollingstoned!]

Well, it's the safest way to start bringing it in. I don't understand why people don't get the point that we, as a country, cannot just flat out switch from a drug being completely illegal and seen as destructive, to suddenly being ok to do and available at the pharmacy. Let's be real, if MDMA were available for the general public for PTSD, how many of those scripts would be diverted? Marijuana dispenseries are the same way. Some people give/sell their marijuana away to others who don't need it for "legitimate" reasons. However, the government doesn't much care about this because marijuana use is already quite high so they can generally see how freely available marijuana would affect the whole country. Not so with MDMA. You may be wondering why this isn't done with drugs like amphetamine, alprazolam, or fluoxetine. Simply put, these drugs don't have the capacity to change society, they only keep it running. MDMA does.

There has to be a gradual "bringing in" of the drug. For marijuana, it was a general lowering of priority for marijuana offenses, then came medical dispenseries. For a more serious drug like MDMA (and it is a serious drug), you can't push it out to the general public. Change would come far too fast and fast change is extremely risky for a country. I whole heartedly believe that all drugs should be able to bought at the liquor store. However, if tomorrow that were true, I think there would a lot of serious problems for a lot of people, and possibly the whole country. Hence, we make small progress for long periods of time, and one day drugs will be legal and we won't even know when they became so.

 

[lyXw33d]

I quite simply don't believe that the psychological addiction some people experience with MDMA can be anything like the crippling physical (and psychological) addiction so many people experience with SSRIs and benzos.

You're joking right? Chronic MDMA use, even if it's "only" 1-2 times a week, is scores of times worse for your brain than ssri's or benzos, and especially so from a 'psychological' standpoint - regular use of e can very much and very easily put people into situations of cyclical depression and actually exacerbate the symptoms that would normally be treated with the use of SSRIs. I have many a friend who have been placed under such circumstances with no easy way out..