• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | someguyontheinternet

Is mdma more neurotoxic than amphetamine?

There are a ton of different ways to reduce (if done right, almost eliminate) neurotoxicity from meth useage.

Sorry to get slightly off topic, but could you elaborate a little on this?

I don't use meth, but I take dextroamphetamine for ADD, and apparantly there is some evidence that d-amp can cause some brain damage (even at therapeutic doses), so naturally this makes me interested in these methods for reducing neurotoxicity that you referred to.
 
Yeah, with SO many kids/teens/adults on "Adderall" or other amphetamines for "ADHD", and money hungry drug companies that would rather develop another Strattera or whatever, there's gotta be a way to make a drug that works as good as the amphetamines but just ....isn't neurotoxic like they are.

Sure, they can call Strattera the "non stimulant" ADD med, market it like its new (even though Reboxetine elsewhere has been around for a long while), and even though most people apparently think it sucks and makes them sleepy etc well thats what we're stuck with, for legally prescribed stims, amphetamine, methylphenidate (oh, and the "NEW" d-methylphenidate haha), maybe RARELY pemoline. Strattera probably does have a lot more chance of working in people who have not used any stims before, but for someone who's already used Adderall, dexedine, meth, for years, well of course its not (most likely..) going to work any better.

There's so many possible potential non (or at least way less) toxic stimulants, MDPV for example.. but thats just one out of an infinite number. Do we know if there is any real bad long term effects of, MDPV, or Strattera, or any other molecules they can easily whip up thats more selective, maybe better, works as good as amphetamine or methamphetamine (well didnt mean to include strattera in there), no, but we don't know the long term effects of almost all new drugs coming to the market either.

Also if its possible to reduce or prevent neurotoxicity and maybe tolerance from amphetamine/meth with NMDA antagonists/things to stop free radicals/whatever but haven't been prescribing these things along with amph's for years well no wonder i've heard from countless other people "my max dosage of adderall doesn't do shit anymore but if i don't take it i just sleep" (i can relate to that, Adderall was just horrible, switched to plain d-amph and i dont have the crazy insane tolerance problem anymore, but thats just me).

I also would like to know whats the best thing I could take with d-amph. to help block any/some damaging effects, maybe reduce tolerance, etc. Magnesium, low doses of DXM, other NMDA antagonists, i've read that memantine (i think?) has been prescribed and seemed to work (only the couple people i saw posting about it on the net though).

I personally do feel using amph. for years has done 'permanent' damage ("theraputic" doses) with me, or at least, damage or whatever that only years of total non use of it could repair (if ever..).
 
BilZ0r said:
Am I going to have to institute a rule saying "No discounting studies just because they are funded by the government". Who do you think the studies your text book cited Twacked out, are funded by? Either the gov or the pharmacuetical industry, and I'd trust the government funded before I trust in-house pharm research. I'm funded in part by a government, but they've never said shit to me about my results, and they don't give a shit either, so long as I complete the research that I said I was going to do in my grant proposal.

Still, meth is patently more neurotoxic than MDMA, if produces neurotoxicity in animals at 10x less a dose that MDMA, it is pharmacologically active at 10x less a dose and you can show actual organic lessions in meth users (though theres no proof this is actually meth related - correlation not causation), thats something no one has ever claimed to show for MDMA users.


pharm companies for gov review for dispensing and prescribing, big difference than goverment paying for a study to say illegal drugs are harmful, do you think they are gonna report the benefite of meth or xtc? come on dude, so basically what your saying is that mdma gives you parkinsons and irreversible brain damage, marijuana kills and makes people insane, speed causes extremely violent behavior in users, and so on and so on and so on, all of these are false, all are propaganda, all these myths are backed by years of goverment research, so what do you say we do, pick and choose the research that suits us best, oh I like this so I'll believe it but that I dont like so it must not be true, because its all coming from a source whose policy it is(this is actual policy too, not just my theories) exxageration and demonization of illegal substances, the same substances that the same goverment says are safe to give for kids for ADD are backed by studies funded by the goverment demonizing those same drugs, so which is it do you believe them or not, you simply cant pick and choose what sounds good to you, otherwise you just became just like them, a propaganda machine


EDIT:I never claimed all gov studies in all areas be negated, or at least thats not how I ment it, but I do firmly believe that all goverment funded studies on illegal drugs should not be trusted, and while the pharmers arent much better, they have less reason to exaggerate the bad effects of these drugs, and more reason to play them down, so its a pick a side kinda thing with no where to go but our own personal experiences, have you seen lately where public schools are actually teaching students that mdma eats large holes in your brain, but you trust that goverment backed info so it must be true right
 
Last edited:
yaesutom said:


There's so many possible potential non (or at least way less) toxic stimulants, MDPV for example.. but thats just one out of an infinite number. Do we know if there is any real bad long term effects of, MDPV, or Strattera, or any other molecules they can easily whip up thats more selective, maybe better, works as good as amphetamine or methamphetamine (well didnt mean to include strattera in there), no, but we don't know the long term effects of almost all new drugs coming to the market either. "


******************************************************
by Twacked
exactly my point, amps are pretty safe in the long term, they've been around for a long time, you can see the effects of long term use on a population in Japan, 50 years of use and no known long term effects, except the most rapidly modernized country ever

*******************************************************


"Also if its possible to reduce or prevent neurotoxicity and maybe tolerance from amphetamine/meth with NMDA antagonists/things to stop free radicals/whatever but haven't been prescribing these things along with amph's for years well no wonder i've heard from countless other people "my max dosage of adderall doesn't do shit anymore but if i don't take it i just sleep" (i can relate to that, Adderall was just horrible, switched to plain d-amph and i dont have the crazy insane tolerance problem anymore, but thats just me).

I also would like to know whats the best thing I could take with d-amph. to help block any/some damaging effects, maybe reduce tolerance, etc. Magnesium, low doses of DXM, other NMDA antagonists, i've read that memantine (i think?) has been prescribed and seemed to work (only the couple people i saw posting about it on the net though). "



read WhoMe's post above, he knows his shit



and would one of you please take a dose of mdma every day for a month and let us know how you feel, I'd like to know
 
If you're gonna come in here, and say that the government creates fraudulent research in order to keep illicit drugs illegal, in order to secure some clandestine profit, you're paranoid to the point active avoidance of logic.

While it may be possible that you might be asked to change the focus of your research, if your working in-house at NIDA, and you start showing things like "all drugs are good".. if you recieve a grant from NIDA or NIH they wouldn't really care what you showed, so long as it made sense, didn't show anything crazy and got published in J neurosci or nature or something like that.

These bodies fund research on drug abuse because they believe that it is a public health issue, and they are absolutely right to. If drug abuse was to be stopped, that would be a good thing. They are hired by a prohibitionist government, which was elected by a prohibitionist nation. It is there job to be prohibitionists. But that doesn't mean that go out of their way to show drugs are bad. There's more than enough evidence that drugs are bad allready. NIDA funded AC Scallet for nearly a decade and he concluded that cannabis is probably not neurotoxic.

If the government worked like that they would stop funding people who showed that alcohol and smoking were bad for you, cause the government makes more than enough money of alcohol and tobacco taxes to cover health sector costs caused by them.
 
BilZ0r said:
Amphetamine is a more potent neurotoxin than MDMA too.

I was reading through this thread and noticed that nobody had references for neurotoxicity of low dose (not-recreational) amphetamine use. I realize that amphetamine has been shown to be more neurotoxic than MDMA, but dextroamphetamine is used at a dosage that is at least an order of magnitude lower than MDMA. Obviously 150 mg amphetamine will be much more neurotoxic than the same dosage MDMA.

yaesutom said:
I personally do feel using amph. for years has done 'permanent' damage ("theraputic" doses) with me, or at least, damage or whatever that only years of total non use of it could repair (if ever..).

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you have done a ridiculous number of drugs over the years ... how can you tell it was amphetamine that has caused damage?

I'm not trying to prove anything here, but I'd like to gather more information if there is some data out there. I'm thinking of taking d-amphetamine at a low dose (10mg) somewhere between once weekly or maybe once daily. I'll probably stick to caffine for my daily stimulant and just use the d-amphetamine to get some serious work done occasionally. It doesn't seem like kids treated for ADD with amphetamines are reporting permanent damage from daily doses (sometimes fairly high doses) ... at least not yet.

who mE? said:
I would be very curious about this though, because I did my own research before taking any stimulants for my ADD, and learned that low-dose amphetamines are thought to be neurotoxic entirely through oxidative stress. Thus, I took ~300mg of R-ALA, 200mcg of selenium, 500mg of Vitamin C, 400IU of Vitamin E, 25mg of Zinc, 50mg of Pyridoxamine (Vitamin B6) and a multivitamin to alleviate this, in hopes that my brain would be spared.

... good info. Do doctors ever suggest antioxidants to kids taking adderall in moderate to high doses? It seems like it would make sense if they are indeed neurotoxic through oxidative stress.
 
1: Neurotoxicology. 2006 Mar 28; [Epub ahead of print] Links
Amphetamine exposure is elevated in Parkinson's disease.Garwood ER, Bekele W, McCulloch CE, Christine CW.
Pennsylvania State University School of Medicine, United States.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1930's, amphetamine drugs have been used therapeutically and recreationally. High doses are associated with acute injury to axon terminals of dopaminergic neurons. It is unknown whether low dose exposure to amphetamine over a prolonged time period is associated with the development of Parkinson's disease (PD). METHODS: A telephone survey of drug and chemical exposure was administered to patients from three faculty practice clinics at UCSF. Patients were asked to participate if they had been diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy (PN), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or PD between the ages of 40 and 64. Spouses or caregivers were also asked to participate. "Amphetamine exposure" was defined as a prior use of amphetamine, methamphetamine or dextroamphetamine. "Prolonged exposure" was defined as amphetamine use that occurred more than twice a week for >/=3 months or weekly usage for >/=1 year and had to occur before diagnosis of the neurological condition. RESULTS: Prolonged exposure to either prescribed or non-prescribed amphetamine was common, occurring in 15% with PN (11/76), 13% with ALS (9/72), and 11% with PD (17/158 ). Prolonged amphetamine exposure was more frequent in diseased patients compared to spouses when all diseases were combined (adjusted OR=3.15, 95% CI 1.42-7.00, p=0.005). When tested alone, only the Parkinson's disease group retained statistical significance (adjusted OR=8.04, 95% CI 1.56-41.4, p=0.013). For most individuals, exposure occurred long before diagnosis (averages: PN 25 years, ALS 28 years, and PD 27 years). CONCLUSIONS: The elevated rate of prolonged amphetamine exposure in PD is intriguing and bears further investigation.

PMID: 16620991 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Well, here's one study, but it groups meth use with racemic and d-amphetamine and it doesn't differentiate between heavy use and prolonged moderate use. Whether or not that matters, I suppose this at least shows that amphetamine use isn't going to prevent Parkinson's. ;)
 
BilZ0r said:
If you're gonna come in here, and say that the government creates fraudulent research in order to keep illicit drugs illegal, in order to secure some clandestine profit, you're paranoid to the point active avoidance of logic.

Well, I doubt they would publish totally fraudulent research, but it's possible they may publish skewed research (extreme experimental conditions, bent claims). Alcohol companies do profit from other drugs being illegal. I mean, if you were to make imported cars illegal in America, certainly the sales of domestic cars would be astronomical. Not to mention the enormous amount of funding that goes to law enforcement organizations to defend the laws, and the amount of money that people expend going to private doctors to obtain psychoactives like stimulants, pain medications, etc.

History has very often shown money to be a powerful motivator against honesty.
 
I once heard of an amateur researcher with an agenda. This researcher often cited a mysterious Ochem type book (note: not that PDR bullshit, which is full of lie....LIES!). This book revealed the truth about neurotoxicity.
 
does anybody know if MDMA is more neurotoxic than MDA?

my knowledge on this matter aint to deep but when i look at the substances from a chemical point of view i guess that MDMA is more neurotoxic.
The addition of a methyl group on the amine group of amphetamine (aka Meth) increases the 'psychoactive potency' of the stimulant but it also increases neurotoxicity from what i have read on this forum.

i guess it should be the same in MDA since it differs from amphetamine by a methylenedioxy group which is found on the opposite side of the molecule from the amine region, so technically the amine group acts inividually on an opposite region of the receptor.
So the presence of a methyl group on the amine should show the same neurotoxic changes in both amphetamine and MDA (always talking about d isomers of course).

this is just a supposition....forgive me if i'm wrong.
 
I believe the animal studies show MDA is a more potent neurotoxin than MDMA, but don't quote me on that.
 
MDA is more neurotoxic than MDMA, and since rats convert MDMA into MDA in their bodies at a higher proportion than humans do, interspecies extrapolation may be somewhat skewed. (Vollenweider, F.X. (2001). Caveat emptor: editors beware. Neuropsychopharmacology, 24(3), 333-334.)

i did a paper on MDMA therapy for PTSD patients and, judging from the relevant literature, concluded that MDMA administered in therapeutic doses (1.5-1.7 mg/kg or so) a couple times in a clinical setting is safe. it's almost impossible to say conclusively that this administration would be 100% non-neurotoxic, but one can say with confidence that it won't have a lasting negative impact, either. however, MDMA therapy is different than recreational MDMA use...recreational users run the risk of overheating (causing greater oxidative stress), getting a pill that's not only MDMA, mixing MDMA with other substances, using a larger dose, etc etc. most studies on recreational drug users show serotonin abnormalities...however, the neurofunctional/bheavioral impact of these abnormalities isn't clear (that is, the serotonin abnormalities may not manifest as a cognitive deficit, mood irregularity, etc.)

i am very surprised to read that amphetamine is considered to be more neurotoxic than MDMA. does anyone have a reference to any studies on people using therapeutic doses over a long period of time?
 
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/1/91

http://www.breggin.com/Newstimulants.pdf (search for neurotoxicity)

from the second file:
"AMPH (Dexedrine, Adderall) is another FDA-approved drug for treating behavioral problems in children.
Yet the existence of AMPH neurotoxicity has also been documented for more than thirty years and
the mechanism continues to be refined (Huang, Wan, Tseng, and Tung, 1997).
Wagner et al. (1980) found that treating rhesus monkeys with AMPH leads to a long-lasting loss of
dopamine and dopamine uptake sites (receptors). Juan, McCann, and Ricaurte (1997) confirmed that
AMPH produces a depletion of striatal dopamine that is measurable on autopsy of mice at 5 days and
2 weeks (the final experiment). The animals were administered 4 doses of 10 mg/kg spaced 2 hours apart.
Robinson and Kolb (1997) treated rats with AMPH twice a day for 5 days a week for a total of 5 weeks
with a dose that was gradually increased from 1 to 8 mg/kg. Thirty-eight days later, they found lasting
structural modifications in the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex neurons, including increased
length of dendrites and density of their spines. In a microdialysis study, Weiss, Hechtman, Milroy, and
Perlman (1997) treated rats with AMPH (1.5 mg/kg injected twice a day for 14 days). Seven days after
withdrawal, the animals continued to show a reduced dopamine release in the ventral striatum in response
to stress.
Camp, DeJonghe, and Robinson (1997) administered a rising dose of AMPH (1 to 10 mg/kg over
10 days) to rats and then withdrew the animals for 1 to 30 days. Using in vivo microdialysis, they
found changes lasting 1 month in norepinephrine concentrations in the hippocampus as well as altered
responses to AMPH challenge. They concluded that AMPH produces biochemical adaptations that far
outlast the acute drug effects and may account for both transient and more persistent discontinuation
effects in humans.
Melega et al. (1997b) used PET in vervet monkeys to determine presynaptic striatal dopamine function
following the administration of AMPH with small acute doses. The animals were given two doses
of 2 mg/kg, 4 hours apart. These doses produced marked decreases in dopamine synthesis (25% at
10–12 weeks) with a 16% reduction in one AMPH-treated animal at 32 weeks. Biochemical analysis
showed decreased striatal dopamine concentrations of 55% at 10–12 weeks. They concluded that acute
AMPH doses produce long-lasting “neurotoxicity”. In another study using larger, more chronic doses (4–
18 mg/kg over 10 days), Melega, Raleigh, Stout, Huang, and Phelps (1997a) found a gradual recovery
from neurotoxicity in the striatum over a two-year period after termination of treatment.
Addressing the use of stimulants for the treatment of children, Ellinwood and Tong (1996) concluded:
“Drug levels in children on a mg/kg basis are sometimes as high as those reported to produce chronic
CNS changes in animal studies” (p. 14). Juan et al. (1997) warned that when psychostimulants are indicated
as in ADHD, “it would seem prudent to prescribe methylphenidate rather than AMPH, since
methylphenidate appears to lack the DA neurotoxic potential that has been well documented for amphetamine”
(p. 174).
AMPH, like M-AMPH, has been demonstrated to be irreversibly neurotoxic and, on this basis alone,
should not be prescribed for children."

the thing about amphetamine is that it seems to more exclusively cause neurotoxicity to dopaminergic terminals, rather than both that and serotonergic axons like methamphetamine or MDMA.
 
the doses used in those animal trials are much larger than what would generally be administered in a therapeutic setting...the lowest dose i see on there is 1 mg/kg...i suppose i could imagine an extreme situation in which a 30 kg child was on 30 mg of adderall...but that would be on the high end. i spend some time reading a forum on conduct disorders in children, and the younger kids there tend to be on 5-15 mg of adderall, the older ones 15-30 mg, but they most likely they weigh more than 30 kg. also, none of the studies really mimic day in and day out use of lower doses of stimulants...i realize this is difficult with rats bc they have such short life spans. and then, of course, there is the question: do any of these dopamine irregularities they have found actually correspond to any marked behavior/cognitive dysfunction?
 
rashandreflex said:
the doses used in those animal trials are much larger than what would generally be administered in a therapeutic setting...the lowest dose i see on there is 1 mg/kg...i suppose i could imagine an extreme situation in which a 30 kg child was on 30 mg of adderall...but that would be on the high end. i spend some time reading a forum on conduct disorders in children, and the younger kids there tend to be on 5-15 mg of adderall, the older ones 15-30 mg, but they most likely they weigh more than 30 kg. also, none of the studies really mimic day in and day out use of lower doses of stimulants...i realize this is difficult with rats bc they have such short life spans. and then, of course, there is the question: do any of these dopamine irregularities they have found actually correspond to any marked behavior/cognitive dysfunction?

I know they do with methamphetamine, not sure with amphetamine.
 
Thanks Nuke. I have no doubt in my mind that amphetamine abuse (1 - 2 mg/kg in humans) would have significant neurotoxicity. This still doesn't really say much for low doses. I have definitely decided that I'm going to stay away from daily use, but I haven't been convinced that there's high risk with the occasional boost.


For the ridiculously high dose trials:
"... found a gradual recovery from neurotoxicity in the striatum over a two-year period after termination of treatment."

Published the same year:
"... demonstrated to be irreversibly neurotoxic ... "

Hmm... :\
 
who mE? said:
I can attest that desoxyn has significantly fewer side effects than dexedrine, focalin, ritalin or adderall, having been prescribed each for at least a couple months each. That said, the side effects were still unpleasant despite the fact that I was only taking 2.5mg/day. My current regimin is NOTHING, but I got a bottle of 2.5mg focalin in case of emergency.

I would be very curious about this though, because I did my own research before taking any stimulants for my ADD, and learned that low-dose amphetamines are thought to be neurotoxic entirely through oxidative stress. Thus, I took ~300mg of R-ALA, 200mcg of selenium, 500mg of Vitamin C, 400IU of Vitamin E, 25mg of Zinc, 50mg of Pyridoxamine (Vitamin B6) and a multivitamin to alleviate this, in hopes that my brain would be spared.

What research have YOU been reading FairNymph? (I'm genuinely curious - do you have any links? I don't mean to sound like I doubt you, I just thought this would be a funny way to phrase my question!)
Jesus, I used to do a MINIMUM of a 1/4 g/day...100 times your therapeutic dose. No wonder I started to lose it! ~AIC
 
nuke said:
Well, I doubt they would publish totally fraudulent research, but it's possible they may publish skewed research (extreme experimental conditions, bent claims). Alcohol companies do profit from other drugs being illegal. I mean, if you were to make imported cars illegal in America, certainly the sales of domestic cars would be astronomical. Not to mention the enormous amount of funding that goes to law enforcement organizations to defend the laws, and the amount of money that people expend going to private doctors to obtain psychoactives like stimulants, pain medications, etc.

History has very often shown money to be a powerful motivator against honesty.
So true, so true.
 
I don't think government research produces false data, but they only publish the worst possible scenario. For example, for lsd: http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/LSD.html

the corny kid version:http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/straight/lsd.htm

Anyone who has experience with the drug of choice, will probably know that the government findings are true, but only show the rare/worst side of the effects.
I know this isn't mdma, but this was just to show how the government can skew/filter information.
 
Top