MDMA neurotoxicity study on humans (finally)

The article is a bit thin. It barely touches the surface of the debate.
What kind of damage was observed I wonder.
 
Moderation is the key to prevent such loss in brain function.
Party responsibly and listen to what ur body tells u!
PLUR
------------------
"Dance w/ the devil, the devil don't change. The devil changes you!"
 
Oh for g#d's sake!!!! Are they kidding?
An exert in case you don't get to the site
"Researchers used advanced technology to scan the brains of 14 men and women who, on average, had taken ecstasy 200 or more times. Their brains were compared with those of subjects who had never used the drug".
I don't need my 8 yrs plus of uni to tell me that the sentence:
"Ecstacy may lead to eventual brain damage" is - in a word - MEANINGLESS.
It may - therefore - it MAY not. SO WHAT???? The question is - does it?????? Journos (and dare I say scientists) love the word 'may'. It can take a non event and really create something. Like. 'The world may come to an end at new years eve this year' is a true and correct statement. So is 'pigs may fly backwards in summer.' Trust me - I am not looking out for pigs flying backwards.
AND a few questions. Were the 14 HUMANS screened for:
All used no other drug
All had no emotional disturbances
None were more depressed individuals to begin with
Sensible / responsible drug taking (200 doses I rather guess not)
I mean 14 people is hardly a HUGE sample space..... come on!!!!! This alone makes it a STUPID STUDY. 14!!!!! vs the world!!!
How much damage? And what loss of function did this produce. Did we test their memory before and after the 200 doses were taken?
Over how many years/ months were the 200 doses taken? My questions go on and on.........
What is there to substantiate the claim that Ecstacy is a
'highly toxic drug of abuse'
I see nothing to convince me.
And.... could we run similar tests on viagra, prozac, alcohol, etc etc and compare the results!!! (No - cause you would get sued printing 'viagra may lead to brain damage...')
Did they (the whole 14) roll every weekend or once every three months? (this would make them VERY old - unless they started at birth). Of course they could have been really responsible and taken 6 doses at once! That will do it for you!!! Yah I could see a bit of brain damage resulting. 200 doses is over $8000 worth of pills!!!!
I mean for goodness sake. Scientists have a lot to answer for. I wonder who funded the research? Obviously not a large company making lost of money out of 'E' and needing to prove how safe it is.
Who has a vested interest in taking 'may lead to eventual brain damage' to read as therefore....E is a 'highly toxic drug of abuse'. mmmm Could it be a government dedicated to the vietnam war on drugs???? Could this government have actually funded the research??????
I know...let's get a government to rule that if a large pharmeceutical company can be the first to prove E is safe for recreational use that they can soley distribute it...watch how quickly they prove how safe it is...
Please excuse my over zealous scepticism but I am so sick of bias reporting and propagander and too old to not believe the world is full of people with (not so hidden) agendas.
We know alcohol in excess is bad for the brain but.... a wine a day is now reported as a good thing. Again, maybe E is good therapy in moderation.
Who were these human subjects????? That is a lot of E!!!!!! $8000 on Es - can't tell me they were doing it sensibly. They probably rolled every weekend and didn;t give their brains time to recover.
Please.....you can prove anything with science
give me a break!!!!!
I am sooo over it. If this is the best they can come up with after 80 years and 10 years of heavy usage I feel as safe as all hell!!!!!!!
 
Helski is so right. This study is meaningless. You cannot make a claim like that based on a sample size of 14 people. It's absurd.
This is just another propaganda attempt by the DEA (et al) to convince Americans that The War on (some) Drugs must continue. Ignore the fact that it's a failed war, costing BILLIONS of dollars, not to mention the heartache and disrupted lives that it results in. (Remember: The US Govt. CANNOT keep drugs out of their Federal Prison system -- HOW THE HELL can they expect to keep drugs out of the ENTIRE country??)
This stupid study makes it all that much easier for the US fed. govt. to tell boobus American's (AKK the "Sheeple" of the United States) how benovelant they are and how continuation of The War on (some) Drugs is necessary.
And you know what, the majority of Americans will hear this 3 second sound byte on CNN and not question a word of it. They will believe it on blind faith. The Propaganda machine that fuels the War on (some) Drugs is very powerful and I believe it is our responibility to dispel the myths and ask the questions that need to be asked. This is a war and what comforts me is that we have reason on our side. The downside to that is the American Govt. ignores reason and truth. The questions that Helski posed, MUST be asked. Why weren't they??
Additionally, John Hopkins gets a TON of federal funding, as do most (all) American research Universities/hospitals -- Are they going to say or do anything that will upset that cash cow?? Not on your life.
Think for yourself. End the War on (some) Drugs.
PLUR
MikE
------------------
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." -- Ayn Rand
 
Here's the link and actual research. http://hopkins.med.jhu.edu/NewsMedia/press/1998/OCTOBER/981030.HTM
Hopkins Study Shows Brain Damage Evidence In "Ecstasy" Users
The common street drug "ecstasy" causes brain damage in people, according to a new Johns Hopkins study. In a report in The Lancet released this week, Hopkins scientists show that the drug -- known chemically as MDMA -- damages specific nerves in the brain that release serotonin, the nerve transmitter thought to play a role in regulating mood, memory, pain perception, sleep, appetite and sexual activity.
"We had long suspected MDMA was dangerous, based on our earlier studies in primates that showed nerve damage at doses similar to those taken by recreational drug users," says neurologist George Ricaurte, M.D., Ph.D., who led the research team. Additional studies by the team examined drug users' spinal fluid for levels of a serotonin by product; reduced amounts strongly suggested brain damage in humans.
"But this is the first time we've been able to examine the actual serotonin-producing nerve cells directly in the brain," Ricaurte says. Using a nerve-specific technique that took more than five years to develop, the scientists took PET scans of 14 men and women who reported heavy use of ecstasy. With a radio-labeled probe, the team targeted molecules -- serotonin transporters -- that normally reabsorb serotonin into nerve cells after it has done its job.
Like certain antidepressants, MDMA also attaches to serotonin transporters. The transporters lie embedded in the membranes of nerve cells, at the tips of fingerlike extensions called axons.
In the study, the PET scans showed MDMA users had far fewer serotonin transporters than controls who didn't use the drug. Also, the greater the use of MDMA -- some of the subjects had used it 200 or more times -- the greater the loss. "These losses are significant, and, along with our early studies in animals, suggest that nerve cells are damaged," says Ricaurte. Whether or not the cells are permanently damaged, he says, is uncertain. But in studies in animals, including primates, the losses are long-lasting and may be permanent in some brain regions.
The area of brain damage is diffuse but involves the endings of serotonin-releasing nerves that reach throughout the forebrain -- the "higher" brain that includes the cerebral cortex and adjacent areas, parts of the brain involved in thought, memory and emotion.
Ecstasy is a designer drug hybrid of the hallucinogen mescaline and the stimulant amphetamine. Users report a heightened sense of closeness with others, increased awareness of emotion and ability to communicate.
"They find these effects unique," says Ricaurte, "and we hope to use this new technique to explore the basis for good feelings, as well as for depression and anxiety. But our immediate concern is that people who use MDMA recreationally are unwittingly putting themselves at risk of developing brain injury."
As for direct behavioral signs of brain damage in heavy users of the drug, Ricaurte says, studies to evaluate possible differences in thought and behavior are well under way. "We have some early indications there may be changes in memory and cognition."
The PET technique in this study is the first that allows researchers to pick serotonin-producing nerves out of millions of others in the brain and view them directly, says Ricaurte. The team is already looking into applications of the method to study depression and Parkinson's disease.
Ecstasy is especially popular at "raves," the late-night, music-driven parties that attract hundreds of young adults.
Other researchers on the team are Robert Dannals, Ph.D., Ursula Scheffel, Ph.D., and Zsolt Szabo, M.D., Ph.D., of Hopkins; and Una McCann, Ph.D., of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).
Funding for the study was from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
>>>>>>>>>NOTE LOOK WHERE RICUARTE'S $ COMES FROM!<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
 
George Ricaurte is the most biased, corrupted researcher in the field.
Any of his work is hellbent on proving that Satan himself makes ecstasy.
I'm not asking for someone to validate it but I am asking for some degree of scientific objectivity.
------------------
d e e p .
"Deep, I can't help but notice that everything you say in here is either negative, rude or just plain stupid" - Freaky Candy Monkey
 
In reading the entire 'study' I am even more concerned (pls forgive me I have no time to do research but I hope my points raise questions nonetheless).
The references to animal studies: the only studies I have read involved incredibly large doses of the drug far greater than anything I have ever seen used by a human (comparativley). Most of the studies had the animals intraveneously injected continuously for long periods. Not surprisingly there was damage to the brain. Many other legal drugs taken this way would have killed the poor animals not just left them with a couple of crumpled nerve endings!
And what of the assumption that damage of these sections of brain will lead to altered behaviour etc? What proof is there of this? Humans can lose a lot of brain with little or no affect on thinking, feeling etc. We only use a small portion of a brains anyway. What level of damage occurs? This must be proved. The brain is incredibly adaptive.
Also, there is the possibilty that loss of these sections is a result of dopamine activity resulting from taking large MDMA doses at once. This would (so one theory goes) only occur if people took huge doses (the 14 taking on average 200 doses would probably qualify as heavy users).
### There still needs to be proof that loss of these sections results in altered behaviour (or at least noticible altered behaviour). My only altered behaviour since taking E have been really positive. Foe example I learnt to appreciate little things and was happier with cuddling and showing affection. Also after my first two ecstacy experiences I learnt to enjoy sex much more than ever before. I have never looked back. Prior to taking ecstacy I used to lay back and think of England (if you know what I mean)...no longer. I wonder which part of my brain was affected? Actually I don't care. My life has dramatically improved as a result of a less inhibited sex life. If something in my brain was affected - good. Many others in society could do with it. They may keep all their nerve endings in tack but at what price - a firmly placed anal probe????? To live a boring, dull, unadvnturous life. Well good idea. They should keep they nerve endings in tact so that if they ever did have a heap of fun they could atually call on them. Hey - they will probably be 6 ft under before they ever get a chance to use them! Perhaps damage to these parts of the brain is a result of HAVING A GOOD TIME. Maybe those that were not the ecstacy users (in the study) have just never had a good enough time to require using that part of their brain so it sits in pristine condition waiting......
Apparently other experiements are showing that exercise and increased oxygen intake MAY BE HARMFUL and MAY lead to shorter lives long term. mmmmm Would our sports stars stop using muscles due to potential long term damage and loss of longevity as a result of over exposure to oxygen? Better warn them. I should try and find one of these studies. It was a scream. They put flies in jars with heaps of oxygen and looked at effects. Quite amusing. The type of experiment to make all couch potatoes feel justified.
I still can't see how one can prove anything (using correlation techniques / patterns) with a sample space of 14.
This reminds me of a couple of other studies:
1) Studies demonstrating that cellular phones may cause brain damage
2) EMF from electricity/ power lines
Now in the case of 1) the studies have sooo many flaws in them and wide leaps of faith to prove they are incredible. Cause and effect should NOT be assumed upon seeing a few instances of one event followed by another (basic stuff!!!!!). Night does not CAUSE day for example. Still, the evidence to suggest that mobile phones may cause brain damage is more convincing than the ecstacy research sooooo... why not ban and make illegal use of mobile phones? It is not so easy to wield the witch doctor power of science at large corporations. Of course what power do we druggies have? Not much.
2) EMF: I suppose this is seen as a necessary evil. I guess we could ban electricity for use in any recreational activity leaving its use for business only???? (To minimise risk) Would this make the wowsers in our society happy?
Now science is truly producing today's witch doctors. Instead of bending and distorting religious texts they bend and distort observation and predictions.
Science - the new religion of our age (it's just not called so).
Studies like this that are given credence only confirm my view that scientists should be held more accountable. When CNN/ abc (whoever) did their recent story on cellualar phones their reporting presented no facts or evidence warrenting their conclusions or inuendo. They were still at the stage of hypothesis when the story finished!!! Nevertheless the reporters spoke as if something was concluded. It is a worry. Oh...and I believe cellulars are probably dangerous (more dangerous that E for sure) however I think scientists and reporters should be more honest. At least say they have an hypothesis based on strong 'gut' feeling but are having trouble proving it. At least you would respect them more. But - of course - they wouldn't get any funding with wimpie honest statements like that - would they?
I apologise for sounding 'full on' but I just want to be able to ingest whatever I like without someone else telling me 'they know what is good for me'. It really pisses me off.
 
In response to Helskis above post about the brain adapting to certain chemicals, there is a term for something the grape does to ward off any damage that may incur from something it's already been exposed to. It's not tolerance, someone posted about it on the old bluelight.ru eons ago in response to my post about death chemical release theory . [i hear you snickering]
Ha, 200 times? Candy asses.
peace
Brock
 
200 times = candy ases!!! My goodness. I can only imagin 200 times.
Anyone out there rolled more than 200 times and able to report they feel fine? Behaviour changes? grown two heads?? Extra nipples?
I wonder if drinking alcohol is better or worse for you than E?
 
Yes Brock! K DOES cause damage to the brain. It is in the same class of drugs as PCP, except that PCP is very dangerous. Heavy users of K have actually reported damage to the brain. Not to mention heavy K use leads to neurological and psychological problems.
 
Side effects from people who have done more than 200 doses: twitching, anxiety/panic attacks, manic depression, major insomnia.. I would consider those all functions of the brain.
That is after irresponsible use, but then again, who uses MDMA like it was clinically intended?
I see what you were talking about Helski about other drugs, chances are if one does 200+ beans they will bump into ketamine [pun intended] somewhere along that trip. I'd bet my weight in bills K does more grape damage than ecstasy.
One would like to think that researchers maybe looking into the future of eliminating severe depression by doing more extensive long term research on MDMA. The gubbamint may realize Prozac isn't the answer docs are throwing out nowadays for anyone who feels like pulling somebody's hair out [it works for some, definitely not for others]. Prozac patients who discontinue use have tendency to become a danger to themselves and society. You go on Prozac for life if I understand correctly? There's no mandates[yet] for ensuring that Prozac patients take their medication daily. (in my opinion there should be)
I wonder how many clinics have the funding or the equipment necessary to conduct such experiments without federal assistance?
Maybe this was all scripted out. Maybe the man put out some hot shit 5-7 years ago in abundance and now are raking in the rats for testing. Remember, 10 years ago there were no known long term side effects from MDMA. Any substance that is even considered being made legal must go through channels funded by uncle sam. I think the fact that the gubbamint is spending $$$ on MDMA research is a good thing. They could keep telling us how bad it is without doing any research and keep sweeping it under the carpet.
[This message has been edited by Brock (edited 06 November 1999).]
 
Brock
I would be happier if the research was fair - even handed. There is no large organisation/ group with money able to defend MDMA or look at it from the point of view of a cost vs benefits (cost/ benefits analysis I think accountants would call it).
I am a bit sceptical at the opportunity for the scientists to report fairly on MDMA.
The safest thing anyway would be to make the drug legal. Once legal the black market would disappear and at least one would have a doctor's input and monitoring of usage etc. This has got to be safer than individuals buying god knows what on the black marjet and hoping for the best.
I think truying to stop people taking drugs (illegal) is like trying to stop sin - impossible. Prohibition in the 1920s only CREATED problems. Anyone who reads about what happended will notice, how I did, how similar the problems and issues were in the 1920s re alcohl as they are now re drugs. The only sensible thing is to admit people will choose to do drugs (like drink alcohol) and then set about making it available but with regulation and heaps of EDUCATION.
Prior to drug prohibition in the 1920s Americans with drug addictions were becoming less per capita (based on % of population). The only time addiction was increasing without prohibition was before the governmnet legislated to make companies display what was in cough syrups etc. When people didn't know they became addicted. Once informed that cocaine or heroin was in something the great majority steered clear!!
I say we have to look at past experience. "Those who forget history are ...." you know.
So I say we allow people access to things they are after and then use education and regulation (eg must be prescribed and physical done first etc) to do what we do with alcohol and barbituates - catch the ones with a problem (it will not be all of them).
Then we may find studies become more even handed. yes E can be bad for you but perhaps like alcohol where aglass a day has proven a good thing, it too can be used RESPONSIBLY.
 
Sunday recovery, so I wouldn't even dare an attempt to join this discussion in my current state. Suffice to say I am impressed. You all give me hope that the pop - culture recepiticals I associate with daily are not all I have to look forward to for the next 60 to 80. Helski - you're a friggin' legend. Keep up the good work and don't be told... ever.
 
It's sad that it's all about money. I think the benefits greatly outweigh the risk.
After the opium based/cocaine elixirs were banned, there were detox houses set up for addicts. This did not impose a crisis on the country at that time. There would be a need for detox houses for people suffering dt's from MDMA as much as there would be a need to buy a telescope to view pigs flying backwards.
Fucking patents.
 
rollerderby - this one is for you!!!
Please read the above thread......
Brock - you are again correct. What was really awful - as you may know - is when the Govern. put pressure on doctors and clinics to close down providing no access to help for addicts. A health issue for many became a criminal issue.
At least it provided a whole big new industry - law enforcement!!!
One thing however Brock. I don't think itis just about money but also POLITICS!!!
Unfortunatley I believe the only way to get the focus of this great Vietnam 'War on Drugs' is to find the pollies another scape goat to bully during elections. The communists were handy for this but they have gone.... do you know what I mean????
Itis a pity that peole need to have someone to pick on...It is particularly sad when you consider most of our countrys are christian based. A religion which teaches not to judge, not to bully but to help others and be compassionate. Really sad.
 
Do ThE GoVeRnMEnT & ThE CoMpAnIeS BeAt Up AlCahol BrAiN DaMaGe -WhIch In My ExPeRenCe Is TwIcE As BaD ANd It AlSo MaKeS PoEpLe AggReSiVe? NO WAY >ThE BiG BrEwrieS WoUlD NeVeR HaVe ThAT
frown.gif

LIsTeN To YoU HeArt AbOuT WhAt suBstAnCe To TaKe! Do Not LisTen To A GoVeRnMaEnt ThAt BoUgHT You SuCh Open MindeD WoNdErs As >THe viEtnAm WAr,'The commision into un american actvites'and >the worst ronald regan *yuk*
Listen to you inner spirt it is the most important thing that all of us have glowing inside us
wink.gif

Do You think ThAt If Alcahol nEvEr existed AnD It WaS InVenTed TommOrow, ThAt It WoUld Be Legalised StRaight AwAy>NEVER! ThErE WoUld Be A WhIcH HuNt JuSt LikE DrUgS> The MORe YOu Are InFLuenced By FoRcEs OUTsIDE youRSelF The MORe You Are cONTRoLLeD BY THEM
Peace,LOve ANd GReEn MUnG BEaNS FoReVer
biggrin.gif

------------------
 
200 DOSES IS NOT THAT MANY for those of you who are doing it every week/other week etc.
If you drop twice a week then thats over a hundred doses a year.
200 sounds high, but I know a lot of people who do three pills nearly every week. Or at least six a month....
It soon adds up!
Jase.
 
Top