MDEA less neurotoxic than MDMA?

[MollyFein74]

Skip to bold bit at bottom of post for main point...

With one of the suspected pathways of potential neurotoxicity with MDMA is dopamine somehow finding its way into serotonin channels, oxidising and thus burning out the serotonin receptors, taking into account that MDEA is less potent comapred to MDMA in terms of dopaminergic activity and the same (roughly?) in serotonergic acivity, wouldn't it make sense that MDEA is less neurotoxic than MDMA due to less dopamine being released ultimately meaning less oxidative stress in particular the serotonin channels?

Not sure if its just me, but I have rolled with what I suspect to be MDEA, sometimes MDEA+Meth with an afterglow to die for each time and no comedown/depression at all during the week, 6 weeks in a row all pretty hard (yeah, I know I know I am now using resposibily but lets not go off-topic here).

Taking into account I do not pre/post load with any dopamine/serotonin precursors, rolling consectuviely for 6 weeks... with no comedown this theory does make a bit of sense. If i had rolled each of those times with MDMA, could that extra dopamine-induced oxidative stress burnt out enough serotonin receptors to have a negative impact in that I would have comedowns?

All in all, im putting it down to a few things. 1; I am immune to it and have a strong serotonin system that can handle that stress, 2; my heavy antioxidant use (2 hours before rolling pre load with 600mg Vit E + 2000mg Vit C, post-roll when comming down 400mg Vit E + initall 4000mg vit c, top of 500mg every hour for next 6 hours) has prevented most of the oxidative stress related neurotoxicity, 3; mdea is less neurotoxic due to reduced dopamine-breakdown induced oxidative stress, Thoughts?? Has anyone noticed less of a comedown using MDEA over MDMA/MDA?

EDIT: taking into account the 4, 5th, and 6th rolls were mdxx+meth based and the 5th roll being a combo of meth and mdxx+meth rolls and I do not feel a comedown at all... this could point to the antioxidant use preventing possible neurotixicty, of course, im going against how I am feeling there is no real way to know basing on that

 

[MollyFein74]

No?

 

[matt2012]

MDEA is so rare in the general drug scene that this question is almost invalid. Most people here have never tried MDEA specifially and the people that got it without knowing beforehand probably chalked the difference in feeling to a bad/weak/adulterated pill. I ate somewhere aroound 200+ pills in my 2 years rolling and only cam across 1 pill I suspected of being MDEA (didn't test so I don't know for sure)....I just don't think there is enough people that know they used MDEA enough to judge for sure.

 

[futura2012]

Hello Molley

I do have some experience of taking MDEA pills in the 90s. Matt is correct I doubt you will encounter this drug intentionally unless you are sourcing online.

In which case I have seen it for sale in powder format along with MDA, MBDB etc.

I have heard of some users now designing their own 90s style coctails using high dose dutch pills plus the extra relevant powders.

Its going back a while but I would describe MDEA as less headey than MDMA, more speedy and a much clearer head space.

I have copied the EVE section from Shulgins book PIHKAL that gives you the drug experience.

The description below is a very analytical version of an MDEA experience. As I am sure you know the chemicals are made by Shulgin so you can be sure what he describes IS MDEA

Ignore the chat about Isomers you will likely only come across the RACE variety.

Hope this info helps you in your quest.

DOSAGE: 100–200 mg.

DURATION: 3–5 h.

QUALITATIVE COMMENTS: (with 100 mg) “There was a warm light all about me. And a gentle, almost alcohol-like, intoxication. The drug seems to change my state of awareness, but it does nothing else. The world is as intense or as dull as I choose to make it. At the 1.5 hour point I was clearly dropping, and an hour later yet, completely without residue.”

(with 160 mg) “The first effects were felt in forty minutes and I seemed to be completely there by the end of that first hour. There was an initial slightly dizzy intoxication, and then I felt very nice. A good intoxication, with maybe a little motor incoordination. There was absolutely no appetite at all. The next morning there was still some feeling of elation but I was still very relaxed. High marks for the quality of the experience.”

(with 160 mg) “Overall this was a wonderful experience. I felt that the effect was stronger and smoother than MDMA, but perhaps the group enhancement may be partly responsible. I felt definitely fewer physiological side-effects than with MDMA, particularly the urinating problem; although there was dehydration, there was less burning annoyance.”

(with 160 mg) “I was hard hit, to the extent that there was difficulty in verbalizing and following other people’s thoughts. I entered the experience with some cold symptoms, and my sore throat disappeared. I felt quite intoxicated and tranquilized.”

(with 200 mg) “Very stoned. There was some nausea in the beginning of the experience. As it developed I found it very difficult to concentrate on what I was thinking or saying simply due to the extraordinary nature of coming on to this material. There is noticeable jaw-clenching and rice crispies in the ears. This is a meditative material not unlike MDMA except there are more difficulties in forming words. And there is a problem in focusing the eyes, what I want to call ‘eye-romp.’ My anorexia was extremely long-lived—perhaps a total of 72 hours. This may have been too high a dosage.”

EXTENSIONS AND COMMENTARY: This immediate homologue of MDMA has a very similar chronology but requires a slightly larger dose. Another similarity is the occasional report of teeth clenching, especially following the use of supplemental dosages intended to extend the effects of the drug. These supplements have been explored in the 50 to 75 milligram range, usually at the two hour point. In one unpublished clinical experiment with MDMA, an extension was attempted at the 1 hour 45 minute point with MDE rather than with MDMA, to see if there was any change in the qualitative character of the experience. The effective time of intoxication was extended, but the group fell surprisingly quiet, with a drop in the usual urge to converse and interact.

The effects of MDE are similar in many ways to those of MDMA, but there are believable differences. The particular magic, and affective transference, does not appear to be there. There is a stoning intoxication, as there is with MDA, and there is a seemingly unrewarding aspect to the upping of the dosages, again similar to MDA, and the properties of unusually easy communication and positive self-viewing of MDMA seem to be absent. Maybe the “S” isomer would have these properties, and they are lost in the racemate due to something coming from a more potent “intoxicating” “R” isomer. The optical isomers have never been evaluated separately in man.

There are only two ways in which two drugs can interact to produce a result that is not obvious from the summing of their individual actions. One is the process of synergism, where two active materials are allowed to interact within a single individual and at one time, and the consequence of this interaction is different than that which would have been expected. The other is the process of potentiation, where only one drug is active, but the presence of the second (and inactive) drug enhances the observed action of the first. MDE seems to fall in the first category.

The “piggy-back” or “window exploitation” studes were first discovered and explored with MDE, and have subsequently been extended most successfully with MDMA. The earliest procedure used was to assay modest quantities of active materials at the drop-off period of MDE, to exploit the open and benign state that was present. Usually, only a fraction of the standard dosage of the following drug was necessary to evoke a full experience. In psychotherapy applications, this sequence has been frequently used with MDMA followed by a second material that has been chosen to modify and expand the opening that the MDMA produced.

With the placement of MDMA under legal control in 1985, MDE occasionally appeared in the illicit street trade. It had been called EVE, which carries some perverse logic in light of the nickname used occasionally for MDMA, which was ADAM. The term INTELLECT has been used for it as well, but there has been no apparent reason advanced for this. And a final note on nomenclature. An old literature use of the code MDE was for the compound 3,4-methylenedioxyethanolamine. See the discussion on this under the recipe for DME.

 

[futura2012]

Sorry I didnt answer your question directly.

Yes I remember the comedown being less depressive than MDMA.

It cleared quicker.

If I have read the Shulgin report right you can take a smaller dose than MDMA and get an equiviliant high.

I would say in terms of HR MDEA is a better choice.

However this is only an educated estimation be sure to do further research before making decisions about taking this drug.