• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

News: Ecstasy damages complex memory: study

2sleepy

Greenlighter
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
29
Helen Carter
ABC
Ecstasy tablets, Tuesday, 16 February 2010.

The researchers found ecstasy takers performed worse than other groups as tasks became harder or more complex.

Ecstasy users have more trouble with difficult memory tasks than non-drug takers and even cannabis users, according to new Australian research.

The study provides further evidence that the 'party drug' causes brain damage in regions relating to memory and suggests it also affects learning.

Australian National University http://www.anu.edu.au/ psychologists Dr John Brown, Dr Elinor McKone and Dr Jeff Ward wanted to determine why some studies had found an association between ecstasy use and memory deficits, but others had not.

Their study, which appears in the online ahead of print issue of Psychopharmacology http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=100390, found the key was task complexity - ecstasy users performed worse than other groups as tasks became harder.

Researchers studied three groups of people aged in their early 20s from the general population in 2002, 2003 and 2004-05. Fifty-nine were ecstasy users, 65 non-drug users and 32 cannabis users. Some participants overlapped in the different years.

The participants were asked to complete a number of verbal tasks, ranging from easy to difficult in cognitive complexity. When recalling words from simple tests, memory deficits were similar across the groups, regardless of whether lifetime ecstasy use was rated as low (23 tablets) or high (384).

But as the tasks became harder, ecstasy users performed worse.
Worse than cannabis

McKone, says the simple tasks might compare with your boss asking you to remember one thing, while the hardest task is similar to being in a meeting discussing complex issues.

"When significant differences were found between ecstasy and non-drug users, both groups were compared with cannabis users, as cannabis is associated with short-term memory loss," she says.

"In the hardest task - recalling groups of three unrelated words - ecstasy and cannabis users did very poorly compared with non-drug users.

"When users were given five chances to learn and remember the sets, cannabis users eventually improved and caught up to non-drug users, but ecstasy users never caught up, meaning they can't learn as well as others."

The tests also found ecstasy users failed to implement memory strategies for performing well in the tasks.

During an intermediate test of repeating 16 words in four categories, they were worse than non-drug and cannabis users at recognising and using the categories to help in recalling words.

"Our results support the hypothesis that behavioural deficits of memory in human ecstasy users are more marked on tasks that are more cognitively complex and which heavily load many brain areas including the frontal lobes," the researchers write.

"This could arise because such tasks require a greater contribution from the frontal lobes or greater interaction between multiple brain regions."
Serotonin levels

Previous neuroimaging studies suggest ecstasy causes lasting brain damage, with regions such as the hippocampus, frontal lobes and sensory areas damaged; all critical to the encoding and retrieval of memories.

Researchers say methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) - the main psychoactive ingredient of ecstasy - also causes lasting changes to levels of serotonin, a neurochemical which transmits messages in the brain.

"The message is ecstasy is a lot more damaging than people assume it is," says McKone. "When John [Brown] started the study five years ago, drug users knew cannabis was bad for you and that it could set off schizophrenia, but tended to think ecstasy was fun and made you happy and feel great. That isn't the case.

"It definitely damages your memory, particularly when dealing with challenging areas, and is likely to affect you in the workplace. It also damages people socially because it changes the serotonin system, which makes you feel good in the first place."

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/02/16/2820167.htm

Unfortunately, i don't have access to springlink but for those who do the link to the study is at - http://www.springerlink.com/content/nx20364w5336/?p=fa05e5c7a6c3400d99c09f14a3a20eb9&pi=0
 
Hardly anything groundbreaking :/ we've known this for ages.

And just because it needs to be said, I'd like to see how well heavy alcohol users compare to non-drinkers. Neurotoxicity is hardly an argument for prohibition, or for anything except spending more money on researching prevention & recovery methods.
 
I was gonna tell every one this but I forgot.

Poor jokes aside, + 1 to the above comment.

I would also like to add from experience to the young 'uns out there that this will most likely be GREATLY increased by using and abusing ecstasy at a young age. Trust me on that one.




"When John [Brown] started the study five years ago, drug users knew cannabis was bad for you and that it could set off schizophrenia, but tended to think ecstasy was fun and made you happy and feel great. That isn't the case."

What idiot thought it wouldn't come without risks?
 
Last edited:
I'm a big fan of doing research on classic compounds such as MDMA and LSD etc. but most RCs, now those are the bad boys you have to do some reading on.
 
Yeah i think it's about time to drop the fuss over mdma neurotoxicity. Because it just isn't an important issue. Less people are taking MDMA, therefore make it alot less of a concern to the public. They need to do some research on Mephedrone, Piperazines and common adulterants found in street E. Because this is why the deaths are occuring.

Anyone who assumed that E would not incite some form of a problem short term or long term was stupid - it should be obvious to anyone that einsteins theory of relativity is also applicable here (in relation to long term cognitive function).
 
For another interpretation see the article below. I really like New Scientist and tend to trust their articles.

It is also interesting to note that in the UK study/the article they point out that while the variance in test scores is statistically signifigant, the difference is so small that it has almost no impact on 'real life' functioning. For example the deficit of Ecstasy users in the verbal test score was 1/4 of a word.

On the other hand, I think I was still living in a fantasy where I thought Ecstasy would have NO long term effects (like weed or alcohol use), and I am particularly sad to hear it has/will impact my cognition on some level....see I am terrible with my hands and I need this brain to be at the top of its game!
:(

FROM: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126954.500-ecstasys-longterm-effects-revealed.html?full=true
*READ COMMENTS ON THE WEBSITE FOR INTERESTING DISCUSSION

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.

The review was carried out by the UK Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), an independent body that advises the UK government on drug policy. Its headline recommendation is that, based on its harmfulness to individuals and society, MDMA should be downgraded from a class A drug - on a par with heroin and cocaine - to class B, alongside cannabis.

Read the full report

Nobody is arguing that taking ecstasy is risk-free: its short-term effects are fairly uncontroversial. MDMA is toxic, though not powerfully so - an average person would need to take around 20 or 30 tablets to reach a lethal dose. And for a small fraction of people, even small amounts of ecstasy can kill. For example, around half a million people take ecstasy every year in England and Wales, and 30 die from the acute effects, mostly overheating or water intoxication.

What has been unclear, however, is whether ecstasy use causes long-term health problems and if so, how much you would need to take to be at risk.

In animal studies the drug has been shown to inflict lasting damage to the brain's serotonin system, which is involved in mood and cognition. Imaging studies have found signs of similar damage in human users, but there are debates over whether this is caused by ecstasy use and whether the damage has any real-life consequences.

The ACMD based their review largely on a study they commissioned from Gabriel Rogers and Ruth Garside of the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter, UK. They pulled together all the research from around the world that attempted to assess the health of people who have taken ecstasy, and reanalysed the data from the 110 studies that dealt with long-term effects.

They found that compared with non-users, people who took even a small amount of ecstasy at some point consistently performed worse on psychometric tests, which measure mental performance, especially memory, attention, and executive function, which includes decision-making and planning.

The most pronounced effects are on memory, mainly verbal and working memory. While the ability to plan is somewhat affected, other aspects of executive function are not. Focused attention - the ability to zoom in quickly on a new task - suffers too, though sustained attention does not.

It is a similar story with depression. "There's a small but measurable effect," says Rogers.

These effects appear not just in current users but also in ex-users who haven't touched the drug for at least six months, suggesting that the problems are long-lasting. Strangely, there seems to be no link between the quantity taken and the severity of cognitive problems, suggesting that even a few doses can lead to these deficits.

Superficially, this adds up to a pretty depressing outlook for the e-generation, especially those who dabbled years ago but have since quit. Not so, says Rogers. Subtle differences in lab tests do not necessarily translate into real-life problems: "They're statistically significant, but whether they are clinically significant is another matter."
Subtle differences on lab tests do not necessarily translate into problems in real life

For example, there is little evidence that people are actually affected by the memory and attention deficits picked up in the lab tests. "They don't seem to be very big and it is not clear that they have much effect on day-to-day functioning," he says.

Meanwhile, people who have taken ecstasy are, on average, still within the normal bounds on standard depression tests. Although they score worse than people who haven't taken ecstasy, the scores aren't bad enough to warrant a diagnosis from a doctor. "There's no indication that they are drifting out of normal functioning," says Rogers.

He also warns that his results need to be taken with a pinch of salt because most studies are based on self-reports of ecstasy use, often combined with other drugs and alcohol, from people who have volunteered to take part. These confounding factors make it impossible to determine whether you have a representative sample of users, whether people's reported use correlates with how much they actually took and what effects can be blamed on MDMA.

Psychopharmacologist Val Curran of University College London says Roger's analysis "is about the best you can make of the overall mishmash". She agrees with his conclusion that on average there seems to be no evidence of any meaningful effects on daily life.

Others have a different take on it. Andrew Parrot of the University of Swansea, UK, who has been studying the health of ecstasy users since the mid-1990s says: "We see users who have taken bucket-loads and they have very severe problems." These include memory deficits, sleep disturbances, depression, weakened immunity and sexual dysfunction, he says.

Based on his own studies, he believes that almost everyone who has taken 20 tablets in total, or more, reports niggling problems in daily life. "All fairly minor on their own, but you're ending up with someone who is not as healthy as they ought to be," he says.

Rogers admits that because he took averages of such large numbers of users, his analysis may have "ironed out" some of the effects Parrot describes.

Parrot also calls ecstasy a "gateway" drug. "Former users are often heavy users of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis. When you move off ecstasy, you look for other drugs. Ecstasy use leads to other, more problematic drugs."

Despite this, however, results from the first "prospective" studies are more encouraging. 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. Brain imaging revealed no changes to the serotonin system, although there were signs of damage to white matter and blood vessels. The practical significance of this is not yet known (Brain, DOI: 10.1093/brain/awn255).
On all the tests except those for verbal memory, ecstasy users performed on a par with abstainers

Rogers cautions that it is too soon to give ecstasy the all-clear in the long term, not least because some effects on health might simply kick in even later. "It's possible that ecstasy has horrific consequences later in life. Only time will tell."
The low-down on ecstasy

* Ecstasy usually refers to a compound called MDMA or 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine.
* MDMA was first synthesised by German firm Merck in the early 20th century but only started to be used as a recreational drug in the 1980s.
* There are around 450,000 regular users in the US; half a million people take it each year in the UK. A seriously heavy user might take up to 40,000 tablets in a lifetime.
* Drug dealers originally wanted to call MDMA "empathy" because of the powerful feelings of "loved up" warmth it induces. MDMA is also a stimulant and a mild psychedelic.
* 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.
* A single ecstasy tablet used to cost £15. Now they cost just £2.30.
 
As someone returning to study after a few years off who took a whole lot of ecstasy/meth in the intervening years, I can't help but feel that the 3 years off study and the 5 years of not applying myself even slightly in highschool have hurt my intellectual performance a lot more than the drugs ever did.
 
Damn, guess that puts me in the HIGH use category :/

Oh well, least i had fun :P Least from what i can remember of it :/

I like that they said a pill contains only 40MG of MDMA? :/ sounds about right for whats going around atm lol.
 
yeah i dont like this

"Toxic impurities are often said to be common, but there is very little evidence that this is the case."
 
* 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.

If only...
 
156 people is a pretty small sample size.

And who knows, perhaps with those three options (pot, E, straight) it was a bit like "Talkin' 'bout my generation".

Having said that, MDxx certainly does seem to interact with my memories in an odd way. Often it pops up a really old memory I'd long forgotten.
 
Who says the e users weren't idiots in the first place?

the majority of users that i know aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed plus all my anti-drug friends are the ones who study real hard and get good grades.

I'm not denying MDxx substance's neurotoxicity, just saying that it's hard to get accurate results with these types of studies.
 
Last edited:
The only truly accurate study would require before/after testing, or progressive testing over the period of their drug use and for some time afterwards, as well as somehow guaranteeing that MDMA is the only potentially relevant chemical being consumed.
 
True crank. That was sort of what i was getting at.

Even then, though, there are still way to many variables that could affect the outcome of such a study
 
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.
This comment is entirely true. I have been telling you all for ages but no one accepts it. There is no doubt there would be toxic impurities, in the sense of by products from the reactions to produce MDMA present in pills, but toxic impurities in the sense of adulterants being deliberately included in pills sold as ecstasy as opposed to MDMA, and this being the norm, is a myth.

In a recent sample of 26 different pills which were quantitatively analysed by a laboratory, 21 were MDMA only, 1 was MDMA and caffeine, 1 was MDA, 1 was 2-CB, 1 was meth plus other chemicals commonly found in cold and flu medications, 1 was BZP/TFMPP and 1 was PMA (brown mitsis, some 31 mg of it!) - I believe likely to be the ones discussed here.

http://www.pillreports.com/index.php?page=display_pill&id=19232

The highest MDMA content was 92mg and the lowest 15mg. Of the MDMA only, 60mg was about the average, which seems to be a slight improvement in recent times.

The quality and the dosage of the MDMA is what has gone downhill since the early 2000's. MDMA only pills remain the norm. The above sample is from a 2 month period, relatively recently, but the results have consistently been like this over a number of years.

No I cannot give you anymore info than that, but believe me, it is accurate.
 
Last edited:
Pillreports is a relatively unreliable source but there does seem to be numerous adulterated reports on there.
 
^ if I buy a pill and on pillreports there are several users saying they were sick following consumption, there's only one place I'm putting my pills - the bin
 
Biscuit, why is that nearly every pill lately in SA has been a dud or pipe?

Different areas are obviously have different pills and therefore contents.

What about MDA, or MDEA? Which are both seen frequently in pills?

A year ago pipe pills were unheard of here, now every second pill is pipes.
 
Yeah, I wish it were true, but that's BS. Literally every pill I've seen in SA over the last 6 months, bar 1, hasn't contained MDMA.
 
Top