Is MDMA as "harmless" as we wish to believe?

[its.euphoric]

Not entirely convinced by your stress hypothesis. If all MDMA-induced damage came from acute stress as a result of little food/drink & excessive dancing, then you could take high doses - stay hydrated and minimize exercise - without experiencing anything negative. It's kind of obvious that is not the case. Enough rats have had their brains fried (5mg/kg - multiple doses), and analyzed, to reveal serotonin abnormalities that usually take 2-3 weeks to recover. The drug itself does produce central toxic metabolites, just like many other substances, and it's certainly not nontoxic. Then again, the neurotoxic effects of MDMA really aren't very prominent at usual recreational doses (1-2mg/kg), so I agree with you somewhat. Not all stress is a bad thing. Exercise is regarded as a 'stressor' yet the neurobiology proffers a paradoxical effect. That is, those that chronically exercise are more psychologically equipped to deal with negative stressors in their life (work deadlines, emotional problems etc).

I do agree that HPA axis dysfunction, caused by high-dose MDMA, could contribute to the hangover. But it's certainly not the only contribution.

The changes in cortisol for a calm setting vs. rave setting are significant. This study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826870/ Shows that in a labratory setting the base cortisol after taking ecstasy increases by about 150%, while in a rave setting it is about an 800% increase. That is a ridiculous amount of cortisol that your body releases to help maintain homoestasis in the body. Without a strong stress response, your body could easily go into a state of dysfunction, or chronic low grade fight or flight response.
I never said all stress is bad, but the stress from the drug is extreme,

I mainly think that the real problem is the amygdala, more specifically, amygdala trauma. The hypofunctioning hpa axis is secondary problem.
When a stressful event occurs the amygdala can become hyper-reactive to any symptoms detected in the body
This conditioning happens unconsciously without a person actually realizing it is happening.
From then on, the amygdala continually over-stimulates the sympathetic nervous system directly
The sympathetic nervous system is the emergency response of the body to threats. When it is triggered, the parasympathetic nervous system is switched off and energy is diverted to the emergency.
It over-stimulates the hypothalamus and the whole HPA (Hypothalamic-Pituitary- Adrenal) Axis, which subsequently downgrades as a result, making it difficult for the body to respond to stress.
The amygdala also over-stimulates the whole brain, keeping many brain circuits in a state of hyper-arousal. This adversely affects the levels of neurotransmitters in the brain, including serotonin and dopamine.

You saying the drug is relatively non toxic is false though. MDMA is well known among most credible researches to be neuro toxic. I mean it is usually one of the first things pointed out with the drug. You don't usually read about neuro toxicity with other drugs when researching them, but with MDMA it always comes up. 90% of my rolls have been at a rave setting so i am sure that caused more stress and over stimulation to my brain, but even if i rolled at home i'm sure i'd run into problems just not to the same degree.

Also people get anxiety , derealization, etc etc because their serotonin system has been altered so quickly. Serotonin has a large role in many brain functions, perception being one of them. If you are perceiving things differently all the time it will cause anxiety and derealization / DP.

Well I answered most your question in my first response. As far as MDMA being toxic, I said relatively because many types of drugs are neurooxic but that doesn't really mean much. Most of the negative effects on the brain that MDMA exhibits are only temporary.

 

[Allein]

I haven't seen a single credible study that has shown significant issues with MDMA, if anyone has a link I'd be interested to read it.

Anecdotal reports are just that and in terms of facts are of no value, I took MDXX almost every week for 8 years ( I estimate over 500 doses) along with many friends, I saw people get into abuse problems with it and suffer the expected problems of stimulant abuse.

Suggesting it causes depression in the long term is an interesting suggestion, I have suffered depression but after years of reflection I believe I have suffered with the condition all my life. My love of MDMA was partly driven by the way it gave me the happiness that had been lacking in my life.

When I stopped using I found it hard to reconcile life without it and things became difficult.

I am always somewhat taken aback by the way people talk about a substance that was taken in massive quantities by millions in the UK and elsewhere with no hard evidence of significant issues.

Safe is a meaningless word in this context and all drugs should be treated with respect, but MDMA has shown itself to have a very good safety profile in a much wider test than any pharmaceutical drug.

 

[JWills20]

The changes in cortisol for a calm setting vs. rave setting are significant. This study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826870/ Shows that in a labratory setting the base cortisol after taking ecstasy increases by about 150%, while in a rave setting it is about an 800% increase. That is a ridiculous amount of cortisol that your body releases to help maintain homoestasis in the body. Without a strong stress response, your body could easily go into a state of dysfunction, or chronic low grade fight or flight response.
I never said all stress is bad, but the stress from the drug is extreme,

I mainly think that the real problem is the amygdala, more specifically, amygdala trauma. The hypofunctioning hpa axis is secondary problem.
When a stressful event occurs the amygdala can become hyper-reactive to any symptoms detected in the body
This conditioning happens unconsciously without a person actually realizing it is happening.
From then on, the amygdala continually over-stimulates the sympathetic nervous system directly
The sympathetic nervous system is the emergency response of the body to threats. When it is triggered, the parasympathetic nervous system is switched off and energy is diverted to the emergency.
It over-stimulates the hypothalamus and the whole HPA (Hypothalamic-Pituitary- Adrenal) Axis, which subsequently downgrades as a result, making it difficult for the body to respond to stress.
The amygdala also over-stimulates the whole brain, keeping many brain circuits in a state of hyper-arousal. This adversely affects the levels of neurotransmitters in the brain, including serotonin and dopamine.




Well I answered most your question in my first response. As far as MDMA being toxic, I said relatively because many types of drugs are neurooxic but that doesn't really mean much. Most of the negative effects on the brain that MDMA exhibits are only temporary.

I was reading the study which was all looking swell and dandy, if not a little biased (but I expected that with Mr.Parrot - the Government's wingman scientist), until I stumbled along the same old horrific methodological flaw.

Cortisol has also been investigated in 2 prospective studies of recreational users at dance clubs and house parties. The ecstasy users were assessed on successive weekends when clubbing or partying on-ecstasy as usual and when completely abstaining from MDMA or other stimulant drugs. The first study involved dance clubbers, with saliva analyses confirming the presence of MDMA during the on-drug weekend and its absence during abstinence [64]. Dance clubbing on ecstasy/MDMA led to an 800% group increase in saliva cortisol, significantly higher than both baseline and dance clubbing during abstinence (fig. ​(fig.1).1). The second study involved a very similar design, with experienced ecstasy users at a house party. At baseline the group mean cortisol level was 0.3 mg/dl; this increased to 1.0 mg/dl after 2 h, 2.3 mg/dl at 4 h and 1.5 mg/dl after 6 h. The cortisol levels while partying without MDMA remained statistically unchanged at around 0.3–0.5 mg/dl. Hence this second study also found a similar peak cortisol increase of around 800% in weekend party goers after taking MDMA

This is retarded. Reviews like this make me want to tear my eyes out. They examined self-administered Ecstasy brought off the street, not MDMA. Ecstasy & MDMA are not the same thing. While it's clear that whatever these users did take contained MDMA, there is no consideration for anything else that might have been with the MDMA. All it says is 'saliva analyses confirming the presence of MDMA' but nothing to confirm the absence of any adulterants, or anything to suggest the dosage consumed. If the Ecstasy was adulterated with another stimulant, as they very commonly are, that would explain the steep & severe increase in cortisol, independent of the environmental situation.

It's funny how the clinically controlled trials in a lab, using 100% confirmed MDMA at reasonable dosages, report increases in cortisol from 100-150% which is modest at best. Suddenly, you remove the clinical control and allow participants to take 'Ecstasy' in random doses at a party and it shoots to 800%. To then conclude that this is soley down to the environment is flawed. But, to be fair though the review does acknowledge this somewhat:

Cortisol is increased by 150% in the laboratory [84] and by 800% in recreational ecstasy users [64]. This may reflect the combined effects of stimulant drug and environmental factors such as loud music, prolonged dancing and social crowding. Alternatively it might reflect other factors such as greater self-dosing

To conclude that the difference is entirely because of 'the environment' is flawed. Mr. Parrot admits that right there. It's a rather clever display of scientific slander. What he's saying isn't exactly incorrect, he acknowledges these methodological flaws, yet still proffers his environmental theory. In fact, the more I read 'combined effects of stimulant drug' the more I think he's only considering the ingestion of MDMA, which is obviously retarded.

I'm sorry but the clinical control isn't there to convince me. If a study provided 1.5mg/kg doses of pure MDMA in a clinical environment without any physical exertion, against a highly stimulated rave environment, and still reported the same results, I'd agree with you. In fact, if you just asked your participants to test there MDMA like we all do and weigh it themselves, I'd probably still accept the results. As it is, like most drugs research, the methodological flaws are horrific considering how rigorous science should be.

EDIT: I had a smidge of respect for Mr. Parrot until I just saw that he's referenced all of Ricaurte's work. This is proof enough that he's out to prove MDMA is dangerous, and not to provide a fair overview. Ricaurte's studies didn't even administer MDMA, every credible drugs researcher knows that...

EDITEDIT: Just out of curiosity, do you have a study that has examined cortisol during stressful activites such as exercise, deadlines etc? It would provide me with a nice basis for comparing drug-induced cortisol. Thanks.

 

[Allein]

^^^
Nice post and great to see a bit more push back on the hysteria from a mod in these parts.

The bottom line for me is the millions here in the UK that took MDMA through the 90s. No evidence has been sound to show this massive group have suffered significant issues. It may not be a controlled experiment but the sheer numbers cannot be argued with, if MDMA were as neurotoxic as some suggest the fallout for this group would have been obvious by now.

I'm sure MDMA can be problematic for some and in ways we may not yet understand, but in comparison to other drugs pharmaceutical and other wise it is relatively benign.

There is no such panic in the UK, it's interesting that the US is so different. I suspect propaganda has been used to spread mis-information

 

[Flailing_Gypsy]

The answer to your question is so big and complex with so many factors to consider, but I'll throw my 2 cents in...

Is MDMA as harmless as many people believe? That depends on so many factors for each person. I would say that real, pure, uncut MDMA in a low-moderate dose is generally harmless for most people, but for those that don't react well to MDMA (I have a friend who gets depressed and only wants to be alone on M), it's obviously not harmless.

I think, like alcohol and most substances, it's not generally the substance itself that's potentially harmful, it's usually one or all of the following factors: a) the users choices around their use, how high of a dose they take, excessive redosing, how well they care for themselves while tripping, how much sleep they've had, food/fluid intake, etc. b)Brain chemistry and mental health history. Everybody is different and the way your brain chemistry will react to any substance can be completely different from another. So while some people can take higher doses of M with little to no rough side effects or depression, some people can end up with shitty side effects for quite some time after tripping. Some people don't tolerate stimulants well and end up with anxiety for long period of time. That's why it's important to know yourself, and start with lower doses until you know how different substances effect you. It's going to be way less tough to deal with those bad side effects after a lower dose than it will be if you took a bunch. and c)the fact that most of the M out there is cut to shit with all kinds of things, harmful and harmless, and unless you test it, you can't ever know what you're actually ingesting or how you'll react to it, or how it might effect you in the long term. A lot of the posts I've seen from people dealing with persistent depression, anxiety, and other issues, seem to be by people who can't actually be sure what they took and judging by the descriptions some have given, I question whether it was MDMA at all.

So, over all, you can't ever really say any substance is "harmless", you can't always predict how your brain or body will react, and that's why harm reduction and using caution is so important. Your choices will generally play a bigger part in whether or not MDMA is harmful for you or not.

 

[Sleaze]

Is MDMA totally 100% harmless? No.
Can it be enjoyed for many years if taken with the respect and discipline it deserves? Yes, I believe so.

I think the vast majority of people who have a 'problem' with MDMA is generally due to a lack of respect and discipline they show for the drug.

• Excessive use. Not used in moderation. 4 weeks should be the bare minimum time between rolls. 12 weeks (+1 each roll) would be more ideal.
• taking what they think is Ecstasy, but is actually a bunch of other junk sold as "Ecstasy". (pretty much anything can be put into pill form).
• mixing their drugs. taking MDMA along with other substances and drinking alcohol like a fish.

I'm not saying every single person falls under this generalisation, there's always going to be the odd unlucky person who has a problem with something.. but overall, i think if most people treated MDMA right, they wouldn't have the problems they talk about.

 

[dpd_mnk92]

^^^
Nice post and great to see a bit more push back on the hysteria from a mod in these parts.

The bottom line for me is the millions here in the UK that took MDMA through the 90s. No evidence has been sound to show this massive group have suffered significant issues. It may not be a controlled experiment but the sheer numbers cannot be argued with, if MDMA were as neurotoxic as some suggest the fallout for this group would have been obvious by now.

I'm sure MDMA can be problematic for some and in ways we may not yet understand, but in comparison to other drugs pharmaceutical and other wise it is relatively benign.

There is no such panic in the UK, it's interesting that the US is so different. I suspect propaganda has been used to spread mis-information

Propaganda has been a major source of misinformation, but so has the naive pro-MDMA raver crowd, which reflexively positions itself on the other end of the spectrum to counteract all the bs coming from the government. It is either poison or it is the safest drug out there.

This leaves a huge grey area in our understanding which is difficult to explore objectively. Every singly study out there has an agenda based on who is funding it and so the studies are pretty much always set up to demonstrate a predetermined conclusion (pro-MDMA/ anti-MDMA). Science is not objective because studies are subjectively designed.

I disagree with the idea that long term effects of MDMA should be obvious by now. How do we objectively measure the extent to which MDMA alters/ damages us. The bulk of the issues people complain about, in relation to mdma, involves some sort of emotional damage/ alteration - but how do we operationalise emotional change? Impossible. I'm currently experiencing HPPD, tinnitus etc - how do we measure these thing scientifically? How do we demonstrate that a generation of ravers have experienced problems when there is no starting reference point (we do not track these ravers over the course of their 20 year rave-span - we just compare them to non ravers, which leads to countless problems).

Most studies end up measuring cognitive decline as this is one of the few areas that science can (still somewhat ineffectively) explore with regards to MDMA, even though most people do not even complain about cognitive issues arising following MDMA use. Nevertheless, several studies have still revealed that MDMA does affect visual memory and verbal recall. A commonly cited recent study, often linked on bluelight, which attempts to refute earlier studies by controlling all extraneous variables (comparing MDMA users and abstinent ravers), unsurprisingly ended up with sample size of roughly 40 people for each group thereby rendering findings borderline pointless. Even in this study, conducted by a clearly pro-MDMA scientist, they had to carefully word their conclusion to explain that they failed to "show a MARKED decline".

If there is a take home point from all of the studies that have been conducted, it is that they don't actually teach us as much as we would like them to. They are constrained by unavoidable methodological issues and political factors. This shows us that, in the absence of reliable "scientific" information, and contrary to your view, anecdotal reports are arguably crucial in improving our understanding of MDMA related damage. While they have their own problems, anecdotes are usually genuine.

My overall view on MDMA is that it can be used safely, but that it is difficult to do so in the modern context. Most people are not educated on harm reduction for a start and the bulk of neurotoxic damage stems from improper use. A huge percentage of MDMA users on bluelight willingly admit that they found their way here as a result of the consequences of improper use - harm reduction usually doesn't come into the fray until people have fucked themselves up first (for some this can be minor, for others like me, life changing). Even those who test and take all necessary precautions aren't exactly purchasing pharmaceutical grade MDMA as it is manufactured in clandestine labs in third world countries with zero regulations. Not to mention, tonnes of studies have actually revealed MDMA's neurotoxic potential. It is a wonderful drug, but benefits MUST be weighed up against numerous risks.

 

[augustaB]

I think it is a relatively harmless drug as long as you keep your dosage low, use only pure mdma, do it in a safe environment, and do not indulge in hazardous combos.

 

[F1n1shed]

Everyone please keep in mind we are on the ecstasy discussion section , of a drug forum site. There are wayyy too many biased users on this section specifically. You guys always say it's government funding bull shit when they say something negative about MDMA. I have news for you... a lot of this stuff is fact, you are the one being in denial.

It's the same thing when i go on a pot video on youtube, and if you said smoking heavy amounts of weed can cause a negative impact on your life you will get thumbed down and your comment will be removed. You guys kind of remind me of those people, it's quite childish.

I've been around these boards for a long time... i have seen first hand what MDMA can do. I have seen posts of people using MDMA only ONCE (tested) and saying they still feel drastically different weeks later. This chemical is extremely potent, and changes your brain chemistry insanely fast.

I have been through a whole array of drugs, including meth... heroin... you name it. I tell you, nothing changed my mood and all around brain/emotional response as quickly as MDMA did. Not even smoking meth all night, and everyone is so afraid of meth... yet they think MDMA is the harmless one.

Do what you want biased users, but know that a lot of these studies aren't out to bash on MDMA users. They are bring real facts, it is up to you to decide if you want to believe it.
My advice, if you wanna roll... keep it to 3 times a year MAX. and only 1 dose per session. As for me, i am keeping it to 0 times a year with a dosage of 0mg. Fuck that shit, there are so many other drugs out there that can give you a fun night ( not as fun as MDMA) but let you wake up with a functioning brain the following weeks.

 

[Folley]

I have seen posts of people using MDMA only ONCE (tested) and saying they still feel drastically different weeks later.

Find one. I dare you. Emphasis added because I HIGHLY doubt you will find even a single post with all three of those parameters.



You talking about bias is laughable to me Finished, you are one of the MOST biased users I've EVER seen around here. On the opposite side, however, but it is a bias none-the-less. You constantly use fear to try and get people to see your way, and when people question that you simply say you "know the truth" or try and discredit them as some kind of "pill popper". It's getting old..

MDMA is not some drug that will alter your brain's chemistry for long periods a single dosage, this is a GROSS over exaggeration. Your brain changes and adapts to those changes every day, in the same way it will adapt after a night out on MDMA. Millions of people take ecstasy every week, you are putting way too much stock into the 3 or 4 people out of that million that end up on BL complaining about a comedown.

 

[ShytK]

There is no single incidence of MDMA that was tested on first try. Searched every hangover thread of this forum when my hangover started. Went years back and did lots of searching.

However there is not a lot of comedown threads to begin with considering how many people use MDMA.

It is also possible that long term comedowns are caused by doing MDMA consecutively and not via a single dosage.

Also, if these terrible long term effects are "other unknown chemicals", then there should be just as many hang over threads for them, because dealers don't just sell 1 and call it quits.

 

[dpd_mnk92]

Find one. I dare you. Emphasis added because I HIGHLY doubt you will find even a single post with all three of those parameters.



You talking about bias is laughable to me Finished, you are one of the MOST biased users I've EVER seen around here. On the opposite side, however, but it is a bias none-the-less. You constantly use fear to try and get people to see your way, and when people question that you simply say you "know the truth" or try and discredit them as some kind of "pill popper". It's getting old..

MDMA is not some drug that will alter your brain's chemistry for long periods a single dosage, this is a GROSS over exaggeration. Your brain changes and adapts to those changes every day, in the same way it will adapt after a night out on MDMA. Millions of people take ecstasy every week, you are putting way too much stock into the 3 or 4 people out of that million that end up on BL complaining about a comedown.

Look no further than the first page: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/threads/688665-When-will-my-MDMA-Hangover-end

Well okay, it was his third time, but the guy took just half of a purple lamborghini, which is supposedly legit, and complained about some pretty common post mdma disturbances - anxiety, mental block, visual disturbance, head aches. This was pretty much the latest comedown thread on bluelight, so I'm sure anyone could dig up a lot more examples with sufficient time.

Obviously not everyone is going to suffer the same fate, but the fact that some people do go through what he has from half a pill would suggest that MDMA can cause more problems, with more intense consumption patterns, in other unfortunate individuals. Is it all in the posters head? This seems to be the natural reaction to most of these threads, but of course this can only ever be mere speculation. Was he just not built to handle MDMA - I guess so, but how are we to identify these people until they've suffered the consequences? Did the drug uncover latent anxiety problems, causing the OP to think up a bunch of symptoms that he wholeheartedly believes are real? Possible, but I do not think this alone applies to most of these cases. Not to mention, we can only guess at the dormant predispositions we have based on family history etc.

Bluelight long term comedown sufferers are probably not representative of the overall MDMA consuming population but I'm also sure a tiny fraction of comedown sufferers come onto bluelight (nevermind take the time, in their state, to create an account and write up a story about their situations). I'll bet that 99.99+% of people take alternative routes (going to a doctor, getting a brain scan, seeing a counsellor, taking various tests, reading bluelight without posting, posting on one of 100s of other drug forums on the web etc). For everyone one person complaining on bluelight there are plenty of people enjoying the benefits of MDMA, but also plenty of people going through the same ordeal.

Yes, you are correct in that Finished has an extreme or biased view of MDMA, and this is unsurprising since he has experienced long term consequences of MDMA abuse. Finished is also correct in saying that most of the moderators are biased and quick to downplay MDMA's neurotoxic potential, despite weekly evidence to the contrary on this forum, and this is unsurprising too. You are hardly going to be a moderator on a forum for something you aren't completely obsessed with.

 

[Folley]

^ If you read on you'll note that the next day he "started to drink [alcohol] that evening and had a great night out", and it wasn't until after that that anything negative was felt.


I too have dealt with long term negative effects from "ecstasy"... I cannot place that blame on MDMA however, as it was my own ignorance and stupidity that caused it. I was able to abuse ecstasy for a LONG time with little negative effects, however. MDMA can be a very forgiving drug for many people, until that day that it no longer is. I try to not downplay the negatives of MDMA abuse, but I believe when used in a responsible manner it can be very safe for the majority of users.

 

[dpd_mnk92]

So his comedown took a while to kick in. This is not uncommon and doesn't change the fact that it took half a legit pill to make this individual experience common MDMA side effects.

Agree with most of things you say. I don't think any drug can be blamed. ANY drug when used in a responsible manner can be safe for the majority of users. Doesn't change the fact that MDMA is one of those drugs which can can have a negative long term effect on SOME users in low doses (not possible to predict who these people are with any accuracy) and can cause damage to lot of people when it is abused. It is also very easy to abuse, unless you frequent a harm reduction forum, as there are not too many other drugs which you have to take 1-3 months apart, not redose with etc. After my first MDMA experience, and all the shit I had read on the internet glorifying the drug and reaffirming the notion that it is a super safe drug my first thought was... "Wow, I need to do this again the next chance I get", not "I can't wait to do this drug in 3 months!"

 

[F1n1shed]

Folley... i like to keep it real. Alright, even though i smoke weed daily atm i still admit that it has its faults.
The people that are biased are the ones saying they have used for x amount of years and NEVER experienced a negative come down or anything negative from MDMA. That seriously does not make any sense, it is not possible to drain your serotonin stores that fast and not feel ANYTHING different.

I actually get PM's a lot by people going through long term problems, and most of these people have used very sparingly. Some of them only a couple times, which confirms.... how damaging this chemical can be. I have yet to see posts about people using opiates, benzos, meth, alcohol,etc etc only a few times and feeling fucked up for months. Yet i see it with MDMA, pretty damn often... meaning something must be happening am i wrong. It is not in their heads, they feel what they feel and if they feel something is off than that means it is.

I am a person that is constantly in his head, i can tell very little differences in mood and such when i use drugs. I noticed how hard MDMA is on the brain, did research and it confirmed that i was right. Dpd is right though.... i am sick of mods always down playing MDMA, it's quite idiotic. They say things like it's probably in your head... and other stupid buffoonery.

I see it time and time again, chilling with friends and them commenting on how fried they feel from the rave(tested mdma). I don't see them using the term fried for ANY other drug, because as i said MDMA is probably on the top of the charts for causing brain damage (excluding weird bath salts and RC's..) Yea most of the time the damage is reversible, but it can take such a long time. Why take a drug that requires that much recovery time?

 

[Folley]

I see people using the term fried all the time from things meth, cocaine, 25i and even LSD. Maybe you just aren't looking for anything other than negativity?


I "keep it real" too. I have OFTEN talked at quite some length of the dangers of abusing "ecstasy" (not MDMA), I won't lie to try and prove a point however.

 

[F1n1shed]

I "keep it real" too. I have OFTEN talked at quite some length of the dangers of abusing "ecstasy" (not MDMA), I won't lie to try and prove a point however.

This is exactly what i am trying to get at... and i don't lie to prove a point. This is all first and personal experience, research, and talking to others...

You don't have to 'abuse' MDMA to run into danger. As i said even using it sparingly can make you run into problems... neuro toxicity at its finest.

 

[severely etarded]

This is exactly what i am trying to get at... and i don't lie to prove a point. This is all first and personal experience, research, and talking to others...

You don't have to 'abuse' MDMA to run into danger. As i said even using it sparingly can make you run into problems... neuro toxicity at its finest.

But you combined a neurtoxic dopaminergic drug [alcohol]. Also you later redosed on untested ills

 

[its.euphoric]

I was reading the study which was all looking swell and dandy, if not a little biased (but I expected that with Mr.Parrot - the Government's wingman scientist), until I stumbled along the same old horrific methodological flaw.



This is retarded. Reviews like this make me want to tear my eyes out. They examined self-administered Ecstasy brought off the street, not MDMA. Ecstasy & MDMA are not the same thing. While it's clear that whatever these users did take contained MDMA, there is no consideration for anything else that might have been with the MDMA. All it says is 'saliva analyses confirming the presence of MDMA' but nothing to confirm the absence of any adulterants, or anything to suggest the dosage consumed. If the Ecstasy was adulterated with another stimulant, as they very commonly are, that would explain the steep & severe increase in cortisol, independent of the environmental situation.

It's funny how the clinically controlled trials in a lab, using 100% confirmed MDMA at reasonable dosages, report increases in cortisol from 100-150% which is modest at best. Suddenly, you remove the clinical control and allow participants to take 'Ecstasy' in random doses at a party and it shoots to 800%. To then conclude that this is soley down to the environment is flawed. But, to be fair though the review does acknowledge this somewhat:



To conclude that the difference is entirely because of 'the environment' is flawed. Mr. Parrot admits that right there. It's a rather clever display of scientific slander. What he's saying isn't exactly incorrect, he acknowledges these methodological flaws, yet still proffers his environmental theory. In fact, the more I read 'combined effects of stimulant drug' the more I think he's only considering the ingestion of MDMA, which is obviously retarded.

I'm sorry but the clinical control isn't there to convince me. If a study provided 1.5mg/kg doses of pure MDMA in a clinical environment without any physical exertion, against a highly stimulated rave environment, and still reported the same results, I'd agree with you. In fact, if you just asked your participants to test there MDMA like we all do and weigh it themselves, I'd probably still accept the results. As it is, like most drugs research, the methodological flaws are horrific considering how rigorous science should be.

EDIT: I had a smidge of respect for Mr. Parrot until I just saw that he's referenced all of Ricaurte's work. This is proof enough that he's out to prove MDMA is dangerous, and not to provide a fair overview. Ricaurte's studies didn't even administer MDMA, every credible drugs researcher knows that...

EDITEDIT: Just out of curiosity, do you have a study that has examined cortisol during stressful activites such as exercise, deadlines etc? It would provide me with a nice basis for comparing drug-induced cortisol. Thanks.

Dude what are you talking about? The drug was mdma, he just put "mdma/ecstasy" because they're known as the same thing. MDMA is ecstasy.. I only mentioned the study as a means of trying to prove that mdma is indeed stressful on the body, it was not the point of my post.... Common sense alone should lead one to the conclusion that high stress environment of a rave IE dancing, low fluid or food intake, high temperatures will result in high cortisol release, one shouldn't really need a study to make sense of that, but I posted it just justify my idea.

Because your body is normally fine at dealing with stressors, I find it interesting that it seems like trauma that is drug induced or psychological many times has longer lasting effects on the mind/ body, than stressors that are actually much greater, like.. maybe a staph infection, or cancer, yet are entirely physical.

I think the psychological/ drug induced stressors have more negative effects on the amygdala. The anxieties and panic attacks that people experience are mediated from the amygdala. Someone without an amygdala would experience no fear, no anxieties or panic. It is clear that there is some type of amygdala trauama that is going on

 

[JWills20]

Dude what are you talking about? The drug was mdma, he just put "mdma/ecstasy" because they're known as the same thing. MDMA is ecstasy.. I only mentioned the study as a means of trying to prove that mdma is indeed stressful on the body, it was not the point of my post....

Well, this is a naiive post. If you think 'Ecstasy' brought off the street is the same as MDMA made in a clinical lab then you're wrong. Sure, ecstasy is meant to be MDMA but in today's market, especially America, this really isn't the case. If only you were right, we wouldn't need test kits.

Common sense alone should lead one to the conclusion that high stress environment of a rave IE dancing, low fluid or food intake, high temperatures will result in high cortisol release, one shouldn't really need a study to make sense of that, but I posted it just justify my idea.

You're right, I'm sure it does cause an increase in cortisol. This is why I asked for a study examining these factors without MDMA. There are so many more variables that need to be controlled before you can conclude, like you are, that the environment alone is causing the cortisol release. Beyond the obvious (stimulant combinations of 'Ecstasy' & uncontrolled dosages), you've then got to consider how vigorous the exercise is, how hydrated was the individual (I'm not entirely sure that would effect cortisol though), etc.

Do you not find it kind of ironic that when MDMA is clinically controlled and administered at reasonable dosages, cortisol release is modest. Then once you remove the controls ensuring that the participants are taking just MDMA at controlled doses, and allow them to self-administer in a rave setting, cortisol then steeply increases. I agree that the rave environment might contribute to that increase, but I'm also pretty certain that the lack of control would also significantly contribute.

Because your body is normally fine at dealing with stressors, I find it interesting that it seems like trauma that is drug induced or psychological many times has longer lasting effects on the mind/ body, than stressors that are actually much greater, like.. maybe a staph infection, or cancer, yet are entirely physical.

Are you suggesting that MDMA causes trauma? I've not heard of one incidence of MDMA-induced trauma. Perhaps if someone had a really bad trip on MDMA, it could happen, but that's extremely unlikey. In fact, there are currently trials examining MDMA as a treatment for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. The preliminary results are promising.

I think the psychological/ drug induced stressors have more negative effects on the amygdala. The anxieties and panic attacks that people experience are mediated from the amygdala. Someone without an amygdala would experience no fear, no anxieties or panic. It is clear that there is some type of amygdala trauama that is going on

Panic attacks from MDMA really aren't that common though. If you're examining the effects of stress, then the HPA axis is more prominent. The amygdala does play a role though. What exactly do you mean by 'Amygdala trauma'?