No. Any kind of regular use of mdma, assuming what you get is actually mdma, with a frequency that would supplant an alcohol habit, would FRY your noggin quickly, dude.
Actually, there's zero evidence to support that statement and loads of evidence to the contrary.
"However, the lowest MDMA dose which was shown to produce longterm neurotoxic effects that persisted over months and years has been 5 mg/kg given parenterally twice daily over 4 days, ie, 40 mg/kg overall in 4 days."
Ecstasy (MDMA, 3,4-methylendioxymethamphetamine) and the stimulants methamphetamine (METH, speed) and amphetamine are popular drugs among young people, particularly in the dance scene. When given in high doses both MDMA and the stimulant ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
So injected into the body cavity 10 mg per kilogram per day for 4 days.
The only study that has any pre and post-use data is out of the Netherlands and it has severe issues with respect to the conclusions stated by the authors.
For example, the paper states that there is a significant difference in the globus pallidus among ecstasy users compared pre-to-postuse.
Yet when you look at the data, the group that went on to become Ecstasy users had a value of 314 with a standard deviation of 72 (pre-use) ; The same group had a value of 323 with a standard deviation of 70 (post use) comparing the mean values, the study authors say 3% difference, yet the control group had a 3% difference in the negative.
Then the study author states that a 2.9% increase is something to be concerned about when the controls had a 2.9% decrease over the same time. A reasonable scientist would say the variability in the FA of the globus palidus in humans seems to be 2.9%. However, the authors decided to simply ignore the variance and state that since it was different or in the other direction from the controls, it must be bad.
"whereas, they showed a significant increase of FA in the globus pallidus (+2.9% in XTC+, −2.9% in XTC−;
P = 0.020) and of ADC in the thalamus (+1.6% in XTC+, −4.0% in XTC−;
P = 0.017)"
My question would be "why did the ADC in the thalamus of the control group drop 4%?"
The study authors should be commended for the day to they collected and ridiculed for the completely biased and scientifically unfounded conclusions they stated.
All the study authors did was show that in ecstasy naive control group the metrics they measured varied as a percentage in amounts greater than the the same measures varied in ecstasy users.
As far as the statistical issues with the paper.
Let us look at the pre and post use values for rrCVB for the putamen
Pre use 1.34 SD .15 Post-use 1.28 SD .18 -- the Z value is ~.25,
which means it comes from the same distribution. Yet the study authors try and take the mean values as a percentage variance.
In fact, every single metric they measured has a z value less than one if you compare any of the two samples regardless of whether it was naive users or pre or post use meaning statistically they came from the same distribution.
Those of you that understand statistics. Here is the link
Abstract. Previous studies have suggested toxic effects of recreational ecstasy use on the serotonin system of the brain. However, it cannot be excluded th
academic.oup.com
Again, zero evidence that recreational use of MDMA causes any neurotoxic effects on the human brain.
he would always be high on ecstasy pills a decade straight. He was like twitching, incoherent, in his own world. Back then we didn't know much about this thing called MDMA other than something you may take at a rave, but we could not believe it could do that to a person.
