Thanks for posting the links.
That one is pretty dense, but the abstract has most of the relevant points. Of particular note is the mention of dosing. Their research indicates that the same dose that typically causes a noticeable effect in humans, 1-2mg/kg, is also a good dose at which to measure neurotoxic effects in rats. Most studies that found easily measurable neurotoxicity have used doses ranging from 15 to 80mg/kg. I wonder why they do that? I wonder if they might have tried "normal, recreational doses" first and didn't get the desired results and went back to try again, then only published the results they found to be relevant. THAT sort of cherry-picking of what data is published is what I was referring to in the pharmaceutical industry, it does and is happening, rampantly, not just in a few isolated cases.
Not sure why you linked this one as none of the studies I had linked to even featured any rats with high dosing schedules. The quote about the high dose study is often quoted in this forum to defend pro MDMA studies but there are so many more out there that use either different dosing schedules or human studies.
Comparing a human brain to a rats brain is still quite a difficult theory to prove and whether one should adapt a similiar dosing regime to simulate a human is definitely a difficult theory to validate. However, logic I suppose dictates what your putting into a human on a kilo/weight ratio follow the same pattern in the rat and see what happens.
I was interested to see they had this to say in the final summary despite the lower dose regime. This illustrates to me there is once again an element of risk even at moderate dose.
"The clinical relevance of preclinical findings is often uncertain, but the fact that MDMA can produce persistent increases in anxiety-like behaviors without measurable 5-HT deficits suggests that even moderate doses may pose risks."
In the Addiction journal, surprisingly. A well-controlled study, specific to effects of MDMA and not polydrug use. Sample size is a little small, but that's pretty typical in studies of recreational drug users.
This one made me chuckle to myself I noticed this in the design section:
We compared illicit ecstasy users and non-users while (1) excluding individuals with significant life-time exposure to other illicit drugs or alcohol; (2) requiring that all participants be members of the ‘rave’ subculture;
So they went out and found ravers who had been exclusively taking ecstasy with no significant life time exposure to either other illicit drugs or alcohol. Well good luck with that one LOL.
The word significant would have to be questioned.
The lifestyle of your average pill popping raver would have to be questioned.
Although it sounds plausable and scientific I suspect in reality its far from it and actually a lot of the subjects have likely taken other drugs and alcohol.
Also noted this in the findings section:
We found little evidence of decreased cognitive performance in ecstasy users, save for poorer strategic self-regulation, possibly reflecting increased impulsivity. However, this finding might have reflected a pre-morbid attribute of ecstasy users, rather than a residual neurotoxic effect of the drug.
There not entirely convinced no cognotive changes have happened and do refer to a possibilty of behavioural changes. A few other studies mention this too. Its certainly possible definitely a potential risk worth thinking about.
Another study suggesting that the symptoms usually attributed to MDMA use are also observed in a cannabis + non-ecstasy polydrug group.
There not talking about all the symptoms but mainly anxiety and depression. It doesnt surprise me to hear cannabis and general polydrug use can also cause anxiety and depression.
The fact is most ravers / e users do consume cannabis and other drugs it kind of goes with the lifestyle.
This one demonstrates results which indicate that, in rats, frequent intermittent doses of MDMA protect against neurotoxicity from large doses in adulthood. Where does that fit into the consensus?
Certainly an interesting study. Not sure what can be concluded from this. I guess a sence of tolerance could theoretically be built up based on a system of pretreatment in your teens prior to exposure.
I dont think this deviates from any of the potential risks however.
The group cut off at the lower dosing-cutoff showed no measurable decrease in 5HT in any brain region. The higher-cutoff group showed a decrease of 30-35% 2 weeks after the last dose, but none at 10 weeks after the last dose.
I am not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this study. My main concern would be its a one off test so doesnt really address any of the potentail long term issues.
No denying that the 5HT does return to its base level but the big question I would ask is how and if this would change over a more long term schedule of drug abuse.
"dose of MDMA (15 or 30 mg kg−1, i.p.)" The equivalent of giving a 150 pound human either a 1gram dose all at once, injected into a body cavity (rather than a vein), or a 2gram dose all at once. Yes, this dose was found to cause damage, HOWEVER: "These data provide evidence that 6 months after MDMA-induced damage serotonergic axons show recovery in most brain areas". So, even with this ridiculous monster-dose, the damage was temporary.
Some but not all the damage was temporary. I dont think there is any denying some axon regrowth does occur and recovery is possible but not so sure 100% recovery is.
Why is this hard to believe? All modern scientific research of a quality fit for journal publication requires a great deal of funding and the approval of administrators who are very, very much a part of "the system". Who is going to fund research that goes so strongly against the status quo that has absolutely no potential to gain them either money or prestige? There are some, yes, but this is a very big hurdle to get over. Then, to even further confound the problem, since MDMA is a schedule I drug, any researcher who is doing anything beyond bullshit self-administration of street drugs that may or may not be MDMA and self-reported results by users will have the additional hurdle of getting permission from the DEA to have actual MDMA.
Part of the DEA's "mission statement" includes this paragraph:
I do find this very hard to beleive as there are just so many studies out there. I cannot see how every single study that is negative towards MDMA is somehow going to be because of funding and all the scientists being part of the system thats just too far fetched.
Anyway schedule 1 and the DEA only applies to America there are many other places that are more liberal in their approaches to drugs and many of the studies are not USA based or funded.
Wouldn't you think that throwing up any blockades they could to research which might suggest a schedule 1 compound was safer than previous information suggested would fall under their mission of "taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use"?
Once again a conspiracy theory that would only apply to the USA.
You're operating under the mistaken impression that there is a consensus and that all of the people involved in the debate (both the researchers and the lay-people reading the studies) are using the same terminology in the same way. There is not a consensus, there is a body of data with a lot of conflicting results, as I hope I have somewhat shown above. These mixed results are further confounded by the fact that a lot of the terms used such as "recreational dose", "typical user's dosing pattern", "heavy use", "abuse", "long-term" while defined strictly in the context of the paper they are in often mean different things in different papers, and VERY different things to the end reader.
I think you have misunderstood me here the only message that seems to repeat many times is that MDMA can cause memory damage. I wasnt commenting on how terminology is interpreted.
The data you have presented above sais very little about potential memory damage. Some of it does suggest types of damage might be possible.
Sure many of the terms you list can be interpreted differently and I suppose what makes a good paper is one that states these definitions however, my point was that despite what limitations a particular paper may have there seem to be many reports all suggesting similiar findings about memory. Certianly something to be aware of if we keep hearing the same message again and again.
I agree that there is potential to do harm with MDMA, and that, in rare cases, the harm may be permanent. I qualify that by echoing what another poster said, though. I also agree that there is potential to do harm with Paracetamol, and that, in rare cases, the harm may be permanent, even fatal. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate this and there is definitely a consensus there. Use of most drugs far outside of the generally accepted range of safety can cause serious harm.
I agree all drugs can do harm if used in a particular way paracetamol included. I guess the question is how likely are you to encounter this potential harm.
I do not think that dosing in the 100-250mg range on a monthly or even bi-weekly basis is likely to lead to serious or irreversible damage and do not feel that ANY of the research presented adequately demonstrates this to be true.
No I dont agree with this. Sure you can pick holes in papers but there is a lot out there suggesting this isnt such a good plan. Im not sure even the majority of the forum would agree taking 100-250mg every two weeks is such a hot idea.
I think that warning people on the basis of "some people are susceptible to ___ condition and it might happen to you!" basis is right up there with reefer madness and think that the time might be better spent warning people about the hazards of peanut butter sandwiches to those with undiagnosed allergies.
I am assuming your referring to myself when you make this sarcastic statement? My point is simply if you follow the rules ie dose, redosing, testing then any potential dangers from MDMA are greatly reduced but there are still some potential dangers out there. Its not 100% safe.
Judging by some of the suffering seen on the website im not so sure about your comparisons to MDMA dangers vs peanut allergies. It kind of makes a mockery of things. You are fortunate to not have suffered in this way but I think if you had of suffered some of these horrible conditions then I think you might refrain from this type of comment. Very easy to be complacent about something you have no experience of.
When you make the argument that MDMA is dangerous, are you arguing that it is dangerous to every person in every context ? If not, then to who is it dangerous and in what context?(remember, no ambiguous phrasing)
What exactly are you saying here? Is this some kind of trick question??
This is, perhaps, the best post I've read on this subject. You have summarized many, many key criticisms about the research. I was going to reply to Futura with something similar, but you've nailed everything.
@Futura: The point regarding studies that do not control MDMA exhibiting no validity is because you quite simply cannot, with absolute certainty, attribute any 'cognitive deficits' exhibited to MDMA. Not to mention all of the sound criticisms raised by Scureto1 - its basic scientific rigour & control. If you committed any of the methodological mistakes seen in drugs research, in a different bioscience field, the leading researchers would ridicule your study and completely disregard your results. Lets say paracetamol was illegal and the only way you could buy it was on the street, where it went by the slang name of 'pain killers'. Adopting the same style as that study you linked: 'We got 10 healthy participants to ingest painkillers sold by criminals on the street. We then examined cognitive functioning 3 days later. Participants exhibited memory deficits on this test and thus, paracetamol could impair memory.' You would be laughed at by anyone even slightly knowledgable and your results would never be taken seriously. So why this is somehow accepted within the drugs literature is beyond me. The problems in the research aren't just slight methodological constraints that can be shrugged off like 'well, lots of studies share this consensus, so it must hold some relevance.' They are, within the realm of sciences, completely void. This is not arrogance, this is science.
Other than congratulating Scure im not sure what additional point you are making here. So are you still saying that any scientific study of MDMA users unless made using clinical grade MDMA is null and void?
What about the studies that you were so impressed by that scure linked to? none of those were using clinical grade MDMA. All the categories listed were effectively hear say.
Does this mean all the findings are null and useless until users are locked in a lab for several years to ensure "scientific" conditions. What you are asking is impossible.
All the data submitted by its very nature will be open to interpretation but as the studies increase in volume and variations are conjured up a general conclusion is reached. There certainly seems to be a lot of data out there suggesting memory defects are possible.
Could all this data be DEA corruption and scientists only following "the system" possible I guess but highly unlikely in my opinion.
