• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!

New Scientist article. MDMA Research.

X

xgal

Greenlighter
Joined
Sep 7, 2005
Messages
13
FYI----Below is a link to a recent study regarding the long term effects of ecstasy use. The research is still a little sketchy (small sample size, confounding factors) but the bottom line seems to be that ecstasy use does have some effect on memory, particularly verbal, but the effect is very small. The authors make note of the difference between statistically significant and clinically signifiicant; pointing out that a statistical effect does not necessarily translate to real world effect.



http://tinyurl.com/bgefsx
 
Wow great article thanks for posting!

With my ecstasy use I can really only see a difference for about a week or so after I roll and after that I am in the clear. The only people I see that seem really etared in day to day activities are the kids who are eating them once a week or more.

FM
 
FlowMotion said:
Wow great article thanks for posting!

With my ecstasy use I can really only see a difference for about a week or so after I roll and after that I am in the clear. The only people I see that seem really etared in day to day activities are the kids who are eating them once a week or more.

FM
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also, sometimes I get the impression the Etards weren't so smart to begin with.
 
Good read.

Made me wonder though, with all the pipes in the market, what would be the legacy of the current E users? Sure, there's the testing kit, pill reports and other harm reduction measures. But we are all aware that a lot of people still eat pipes and think it's mdma.

Pipes are supposed to be a bitch for the liver right? So does that mean that aside from memory deficit and other common E problems, we'll have a bucket of ex-users with fried livers in say 10-20 years?
 
I read the entire article and found this almost at the very end..........


# Recent research suggests that most ecstasy pills on the market contain MDMA as their only active ingredient. Toxic impurities are often said to be common, but there is very little evidence that this is the case.


Somehow that statement makes the rest of the document look like its probably not worth the paper its not even written on.

If they managed to determine that the number of impure pills is insignificant then you cannot possibly believe a single thing written in the rest of it.
 
MazDan said:
I read the entire article and found this almost at the very end..........


# Recent research suggests that most ecstasy pills on the market contain MDMA as their only active ingredient. Toxic impurities are often said to be common, but there is very little evidence that this is the case.


Somehow that statement makes the rest of the document look like its probably not worth the paper its not even written on.

If they managed to determine that the number of impure pills is insignificant then you cannot possibly believe a single thing written in the rest of it.
Click to expand...

I was just about to post something similar before you point it out.

This article aint scientific, its more like something for entertainment purposes
 
MazDan said:
I read the entire article and found this almost at the very end..........


# Recent research suggests that most ecstasy pills on the market contain MDMA as their only active ingredient. Toxic impurities are often said to be common, but there is very little evidence that this is the case.


Somehow that statement makes the rest of the document look like its probably not worth the paper its not even written on.

If they managed to determine that the number of impure pills is insignificant then you cannot possibly believe a single thing written in the rest of it.
Click to expand...

...hmm... it depends what he means by 'toxic impurities'.
To us.. that might mean ketamine or pipes.
To him.. that might mean safrole (which is carcinogenic) .. or a heavy metal used as a catalyst during synthesis.

.. so.. i wouldn't discount the whole article just yet.

zurich :)
 
These paragraphs are key.. i think:

These studies follow a group of people over many years and watch the effects of ecstasy unfold over time. Crucially, they are more reliable than "retrospective" studies because they don't rely on people remembering what they did in the past.
In 2002 a group in the Netherlands recruited 188 young people who had never taken ecstasy but were likely to in the future. When they retested them on a battery of psychometric tests three years later, 58 said they had taken ecstasy at least once, giving the researchers an opportunity to compare cognitive performance before and after ecstasy.
They found that on all the tests except for verbal memory, ecstasy users performed just as well as before, and on a par with abstainers (Archives of General Psychiatry, vol 64, p 728). The results chime with Rogers's conclusions: because the effect was so small - a difference of a quarter of a word on average from a list of 15 - the real world implications are questionable.


I think the drugs that present real problems are the potential nasty ones: meth, heroin and crack.

Ecstasy is fine in moderation....

zurich :)
 
MazDan said:
I read the entire article and found this almost at the very end..........


# Recent research suggests that most ecstasy pills on the market contain MDMA as their only active ingredient. Toxic impurities are often said to be common, but there is very little evidence that this is the case.


Somehow that statement makes the rest of the document look like its probably not worth the paper its not even written on.

If they managed to determine that the number of impure pills is insignificant then you cannot possibly believe a single thing written in the rest of it.
Click to expand...

Although if you look, that's New Scientist saying that, it's not actually from the research that they're reporting.

Would be good to read the original research. I wonder what 'long-term' was defined as?
 
zurich, even if you take the first sentence only of the two i quoted then its wrong wrong wrong.





Infinite Jest said:
Although if you look, that's New Scientist saying that, it's not actually from the research that they're reporting.

Would be good to read the original research. I wonder what 'long-term' was defined as?
Click to expand...

You could be right mate............I guess that im rather sceptical until some serious studies are done and not the hodge podge that seems to be thus far.

By the way, I should say that i am sceptical both that the results are suggesting mdma is OK and also from the opposite side suggesting they are not.


I think that only a fool should think they can use mdma and not be risking future problems and that the more you use the bigger the risk and greater likelhood of problems. The concept of 20 pills being some sort of threshold of problems vs no problems is just a work of fiction Might as well believe in the boogie man.. Once again that suggests strongly to me that there is little value in the paper.

Having said all that, I have no doubt that in many situations, the bad effects of mdma are way overstated. In many cases I have no doubt that they are in fact a complete figment of the users imagination.



One thing i did like about that was the acceptance they have that its hard to get an seriously definitive data.
 
Biggest ecstacy review - "slight memory difficulties and mild depression"

newscientist.com said:
THEY called it the second summer of love. Twenty years ago, young people all over the world donned T-shirts emblazoned with smiley faces and danced all night, fuelled by a molecule called MDMA. Most of these clubbers have since given up ecstasy and are sliding into middle age. The question is, has ecstasy given up on them?

Enough time has finally elapsed to start asking if ecstasy damages health in the long term. According to the biggest review ever undertaken, it causes slight memory difficulties and mild depression, but these rarely translate into problems in the real world. While smaller studies show that some individuals have bigger problems, including weakened immunity and larger memory deficits, so far, for most people, ecstasy seems to be nowhere near as harmful over time as you may have been led to believe.
Click to expand...

Full artice:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126954.500-ecstasys-legacy-so-far-so-good.html?page=1

Interesting read. Sorry if it is a repost, memory isnt what it used to be ;)
 
Although I am not too sure about the `lowdown on ecstacy´

Recent research suggests that most ecstasy pills on the market contain MDMA as their only active ingredient. Toxic impurities are often said to be common, but there is very little evidence that this is the case.
Most of the ecstasy on the market is in pill form, with each pill containing around 40 milligrams of MDMA. But very pure MDMA powder accounts for around 30 per cent of drugs seized, which is worrying because of the potential for taking very large doses
Click to expand...
 
This makes me happy. There needs to be more "positive" research about this wonderful drug. Too many people still think it puts holes in your brain.
 
MazDan said:
zurich, even if you take the first sentence only of the two i quoted then its wrong wrong wrong.
.
Click to expand...

you're right.. if you *only* take the first sentence... then it's wrong.

however, i didn't address the first sentence.. i addressed the second sentence.. And i'm right, the second sentence hinges on what is meant by 'toxic impurities'

but i wouldn't completely dismiss the whole article for getting both points wrong... but.. admittedly.. .. it would somehow downgrade quality of the article for me.

best wishes :)
 
MazDan said:
I read the entire article and found this almost at the very end..........


# Recent research suggests that most ecstasy pills on the market contain MDMA as their only active ingredient. Toxic impurities are often said to be common, but there is very little evidence that this is the case.


Somehow that statement makes the rest of the document look like its probably not worth the paper its not even written on.

If they managed to determine that the number of impure pills is insignificant then you cannot possibly believe a single thing written in the rest of it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you ought to have read the article with better care; you would have seen that the people being tested started using MDMA back in the early 80s when the pills were pure MDMA. The people sampled were middle-aged, early adopters of MDMA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top