MDMA neurotoxicity study on humans (finally)

Yeah, i agree with Jase, I mean, I must of rolled about 200 times now. Not dropping two pills a weak though. I could have no pills for two weaks and then drop 10 pills in the space of a week.
I have to say though that I have recently noticed some changes in myself mentally. Nothing stupid like what Helski talks about but things like being unable to concentrate aswell and having a shorter attention span. I also feel less confident when not rolling and more withdrawn (but only on a small scale). In the last few days people have also noticed that I seem to be going in to trances only for a few seconds. I reckon it's just because I'm so board at work bu other people think it's a problem.
Does any one else get this?????
By the way, you'll have to excuse me cause I British but what are candy asses?
I think they might just be the equivelant to what we call pill 'eads.
------------------
HAPPY HARDCORE WILL LIVE FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<~p-E-achy~> -=+PLUR+=-
 
Now, I'm going to write a few things in this post that will probably anger a few of the more zealous people on this thread..but I think it needs to be written.
First, in defense of the scientists...
Neurotoxicity from MDMA has been supported by many studies, in both animals and humans. The first objection to this is: Hey, those animals were given MDMA intravenously! It isn't the same! True, but one can just make an IV dose of MDMA equal to so many oral doses. So, whether you shoot it or drop it, it's conceivable that you can establish equivalence.
Another argument MDMA proponents use is that animal brains aren't human brains. Really? Draw the line for me between the brain of a chimp and the brain of a man; when is one not the other, and vice versa? Their functions are basically the same. Chimps share 99% of our DNA. Even mice and guinea pigs aren't too distant from us for equivalence--all have serotonin and dopamine receptors. As for the drug-interaction argument--"they don't know if those test subjects were using any other drugs", they DO know that those test animals WEREN'T using any other drugs, and the results are basically the same.
Scientists don't have an agenda in the WOD. Scientists aren't the ones busting manufacturers, locking people up, or spending billions on raids. Scientists don't care one way or the other--their job is only to look for facts that can be corroborated. Admittedly, there are some people out there who are biased, but they are the exception rather than the rule--and in any case, any biased scientist is much less biased against the drug than an E-head is for the drug, no offense intended.
So now we have that animal brains are roughly equivalent to human brains, and that scientists working on MDMA studies want only to corroborate facts. Many studies corroborate brain damage from MDMA use in humans and animals--if it doesn't prove neurotoxicity from the drug, it at least strongly supports that conclusion. Any reasonable neurologist would take the test results on MDMA thus far, weigh the results, and favor the conclusion that MDMA is very likely neurotoxic.
Finally, good scientists don't pull stuff out of their ass. A good scientist would never say "pigs may fly backwards", or the like.
The only reason scientists use terms like "may", "probably", "likely", etc. is because scientists realize that nothing is certain.
Scientists hate blanket statments (though they are guilty of them). The hot theory of today could be tomorrow's lab joke. Ever heard of spontaneous generation? Phlogiston? HOWEVER, they do recognize probability. Test results indicate a high probability that MDMA is neurotoxic. Indeed, it may not be, or may be more benign than test results suggest--but the evidence says otherwise. It's purely a matter of inductive reasoning--look at the facts, and draw likely conclusions.
Now...why MDMA should remain stalled for now.
First, because many studies indicate that MDMA truly does cause brain damage, legalizing it would be highly irresponsible.
Think, MDMA users may not exhibit any signs of brain damage now, because as you all said the brain IS highly adaptable. However, thirty or forty years down the road, they may wish they had more "money in the bank" than long-term MDMA use left them, once their minds start to go downhill...more now, less later.
Everybody likes to bring up the "alcohol argument" at this point--that alcohol is just as, or even more damaging than MDMA, and it's legal.
True, alcohol does cause brain damage, but the damage seems to not only be of a lower order to that caused by MDMA, but also more cumulative. Most people don't outwardly show brain damage from alcohol abuse unless they've been heavy users for a long time. I admit I don't know much about this subject, but I'm fairly confident that if alcohol were as neurotoxic as MDMA seems to be, it would be outlawed as well.
People seem to forget that MDMA is a drug of an entirely different class than alcohol. Alcohol is a drug that just loosens you up and gives you a buzz. MDMA is a more potent and aggressive drug that can cause dramatic psychological and emotional change by even a single dose. I think widespread availability of MDMA would cause some problems, problems not evident when it was legal the first time, but which could eventually materialize given time. You can probably infer what kind of problems I mean.
Finally, I agree that the WOD is a lost cause...but only because humans crave a high, not because of any incompetence on the DEA's part. To paraphrase one of Deep's posts, the consumer is ultimately more important the dealer.
So in conclusion:
1.) The scientists aren't to blame.
2.) The tests are sound.
3.) MDMA shouldn't be legalized until more research is done. I strongly support a search for a more benign analogue.
 
now, I'm not ordinarily one to flame... but here goes:
in responce to Belisarius's post...
Long words, and statistics can make ANYONE look like they know what they are talking about....
if you have done any research into the research (bad sentance structure) on MDMA, you would KNOW that EVERY SINGLE published work on MDMA use, and ab-use is bunk.
with refrence to this specific experiment...
1) there were NO controls. Joe blow off the street "reported high use of the drug" or whatever... ok.. I just as easily as anyone else can SAY that I have done e 200 times... On top of that, these people could have been shooting BLEACH for all we know, they obvioulsy didn't do any background checks whatsoever.
2) like everyone else has said, doing ONE sample of 14 people, (even if it WERE a simple random sample, which it obviously wasn't) and then making claims like "MDMA may cause brain damage" is completely unprofessional, and totaly WRONG. there could have been any number of lurking variables... not to mention (ok, so this is the second time I have mentioned) that the sample wasn't even RANDOM.
and with reference to other studies that I have read up on... there was one publish study by whom, I can't remember, but the fact of the matter is, the conclusion was the same... MDMA may cause brain damage...
now, what this study actualy WAS, was they took one little white lab mouse... (isn't he cute?) and intervenously pumped the little thing FULL of MDMA (the equivelant of THIRTY street tabs) and then they were SUPRISED when some of it's brain cells died... lest we forget that taking a bottle (less than 30) pain killers, or anti-depressants would kill a HUMAN, this little white mouse didn't even DIE. admitedly, it's brain was RUINED, but it was still alive.
Every single study on MDMA goes this way... I can assure you.
I am not going to say that it should be legalized... I'm not even going to say that it doesn't cause brain damage... becasue we all KNOW that with irresponcible useage, it DOES. I'm not even going to say that with "responcible" use it isn't damaging, becasue we don't know that for sure. and we don't even know the end result of the "axon trimming" that is "caused by" MDMA useage.
if anyone is going to TEST something, it is their professional, and moral responcibility to do it CORRECTLY... anyone who has taken a first year statistics class, or even anyone who has half a brain, can spot a bunk experiment... but how much of the experiment do we hear? we hear the LAST LINE, of the LAST PAGE of the report, which claims that MDMA "may" cause brain damage.
it sounds to me like Belisarius is a good example of the brainwashing that is happening all over our contries. good, decent intelegent people who have been utterly convinced that the government, and scientists are working FOR them, and would NEVER lie, falcify information, or do a totaly bunk, pointed study on something.
I think I am done now... and apologies to Belisarius I don't mean any offence to you.
------------------
"Like a shooting star,
Accross the midnight sky!"
-BANG!
PaRaDoX -and PLUR for all!
 
This study was done by George Ricaurte, which basically means that it's about as useful as a bicycle for a fish.
 
Until 1985, when the DEA won the legal battle against psychologists in this country and made MDMA an illegal, shcedule I controlled substance, it had been used by hundreds of therapists in their practices. Wouldn't studies have been done at that time as to wether or not the drug caused brain damage? Isn't the FDA in charge of testing such pharmaceutical substances for the safety of the patients? Interesting that only after the drug is made illegal and use skyrockets they choose to come out with a federally funded study that SUGGESTS it "may" lead to brain damage. What about all those patients who were taking it in the 70's and 80's in therapy sessions? Why not do a study on the long term effects it has had on them, when our country condoned the use of this drug? Wouldn't they make more reliable test subjects? Please...
 
Hey whats up. This is a really long thread and I'm not even sure if anyone is going to read down this far. There is just something funny I noticed- when I clicked on the link, a little ad for Vicks popped up too. Did this happen to anyone else? haha
 
Peachy: I used to get those symptoms when I was doing a lot of acid in high school. They went away when I stopped
smile.gif

I heard something a while ago on the radio (so there might be maybe 20% truth in it) about some research that found brain cells can actually regenerate (maybe the alcohol manufacturers funded this study?
smile.gif
).
Could the receptors that are supposedly being damaged be MDMA regenerate? Would reversible damage be less-illegal?
Research needs to furnish us with facts, plain and simple. When we have facts, we can make choices. If I wish to take the risk and kill part of my brain, I should have a right to do so. I'm not hurting anyone else, but the government won't let me have that choice, because they feel they need to save me from myself or the devil or something.
Something that has really come to my attention over the last few years is how much people rely on the government for everything. It used to be life essentials like unemployment benefits and healthcare, but now people are screaming for legislation covering just about every aspect of life (so they don't have to take any responsibility for anything?).
They're trying to pass a law here in australia to sensor the internet and close down any undesirable sites in the country. They're taking away our right to free speach, education (and porn
wink.gif
), all to protect the children. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the responsibility of parents to supervise their children and make sure they're not exposed to anything they shouldn't? The parents support this move because it lets them sit on their fat arses in front of the tv instead of having to keep an eye on their kids (the internet could then replace the tv as the ultimate babysitter).
Maybe the whole thing is the government trying to control what we read, hear and see. It most probably is. But they give a reason that will appeal to the masses of people who feel they need the government to mother them through life, and so they're applauded for it.
I'm rambling a bit here....but my point is that the government can continue to try and control our lives as long as there are "sheeple" out there who are happy to accept it. The general population don't want drug users in society, because they're led to believe we're all criminals, lacking in moral fibre, out to steal everything they own and corrupt and molest their children.
If the general population were educated, exposed to the truth, they wouldn't be so accepting of whatever the government says and does. But it'll never happen, simply because most people won't go out of their way to find the truth. Why bother when you can just sit back and believe the media and the government? To educate the general population, the truth would have to be forced onto them, by the government, via the media, and I can't see that happening in my lifetime.
Ermm....I'll stop now before I completely lose the plot.
(And I'm not even a conspiracy theorist
smile.gif
)
 
I think that, unfortunately, the sad fact for now is that there are NOT going to be any satisfactory clinical studies done on the effects of MDMA on humans. The drug IS Schedule I, which means that the government has decided that there is absolutely no redeeming value in the chemical, and therefore any research into the chemical would be pointless. Basically putting MDMA on the same level as crack cocaine.
Of course, the problem here is that, in deciding that there's no redeeming value in the drug and forbidding true clinical research, they've pre-empted any possible revelations that, indeed, there may be benefits to the drug that could quite possibly outweigh any negative side-effects.
Frankly, the best research on the drug is done by the people using it. After all, who else is going to do it? We might not have access to PET and CAT scans, and complicated chemical analysis of spinal fluids and whatnot, but we do have the 'real world' effects right in front of us.
Someone posts that they've been doing pills for several years, averaging one or two a week, and lately they've not been feeling quite up to par even on their breaks, then there's one bit of evidence. Someone else says says, hey, they've been doing 3 pills a weekend for just as long and they feel just peachy, there's another bit of evidence. Sure, we don't know their brain chemistry's prior and post, we don't know what their definition of par and peachy is, but you put that together in the hundreds or even thousands of anecdotal reports of this kind, then I think you just might get a reasonable approximation of the drug's long-term effects upon human beings.
No, it's not something you can publish in a paper with any bit of scientific accuracy much less present to the government in a petition for the removal of MDMA from Schedule I status, but still... It gives us something with which to judge, as rational thinkers, the values and costs of pursuing this way of life. Certainly more than our Big Brother wants us to know.
Keep the masses in ignorance, they're much easier to control. Critical thinking is dangerous.
That said, and maybe understood, it still doesn't make it any less frustrating. Yes, we know there are dangers to what we do, especially if we do it irresponsibly. But most of the obvious side-effects are known to intelligent rollers. That's why we talk about pre- and post-loading with 5HTP and other things of the sort. Ricaurte's study just told us what we already figured out, that there may be a reduction in seratonin after prolonged use. Worried about that? Go down to GNC.
If in ten years a definite and well-researched study comes out that says that MDMA use causes mass-murders and exploding eyeballs after prolonged use, then maybe it'll be time to reconsider my choice of lifestyle. But the evidence gathered from both sites like Bluelight as well as the researchers own work kinda makes me doubt that something of that magnitude is gonna be discovered. Show me proof that it can lead to brain cancer, I'll have already done my last roll.
The government just doesn't want to admit it's wrong. Perish the thought that an illegal substance could actually have beneficial effects. Like, oh, a greater feeling of connection to surroundings and fellow human beings, no hangover, and little to no physical withdrawl effects after prolonged use. Can't really say that about alcohol, nicotine, or even caffeine, can you?
Someone posted an article about Australia's NYE being much more pleasant than usual in terms of violence and ER visits and the direct link being the decline in consumption of alcohol and the increase in E use. Even if this would be odd for the Ozzie press, that article still would never be found in a US paper.
In fact, US papers are still crowing about several big E busts.
Critical, analytical thinking is a danger to most governments, good or bad. But I don't think it's that much of a danger to ours at the moment. The War on Drugs is still going strong. It may not have the momentum it did in the Regan Era (back when I too fully bought into the whole DARE thing), but it's still taboo to suggest that perhaps it's a waste of time, money, and lives. Just look at how the brave few who say 'yes, Marijuana should be legalized' are ridiculed. And not elected.
So, no, our little lifestyle choice here is going to remain illegal for awhile yet. Even for badly-needed clinical use by the psychiatry society. (Imagine making more progress in one session with a little pill than in a whole year without.) And, along with silly 'I was rolling so hard last night' stories, we'll have 'Got some serious legal problems' stories on our board. And some 'Got something real bad in my pill' stories.
Meanwhile, the 'legal' drugs put out by the pharmaceutical companies will often do a whole lot more damage for a whole lot less benefit (though it'll all be nice and documented in legal clinical trials). Damage that will have to be compensated for with yet more pills that will have yet other side effects. But, hey, there's money to be made. And if someone ODs by eating 15 of those legal pills in a weekend, it's the person's fault, not the drug's.
Frustrating. Unfair. Real Life.
Loupy - Peace, Safety, Intelligence, Responsibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top