Small ecstasy use 'harms brain'

*shrug* I look back at my use of MDMA, which was usually 400 to 600mg a night (once a month or so, off and on for 8 years), and then look at my grades in university... it sure hasn't hurt my intellect as measured by my GPA. I definitely experienced symptoms which only abated after 6 months of stopping MDMA, but I haven't noticed any permanent changes in my personality or memory...
 
Last edited:
felixdahousekat said:
I would like to see it compared to alcohol use, to put things into perspective. :\
Click to expand...

I would also like to see that.

I have a friend who is a really heavy binge drinker. He generally just drinks friday and saturday nights (with some exceptions). He's known to get blind drunk. Throws up at least once during the night more often than not. Sometimes gets twitches on sunday afternoon/night because he's drunk so much (i've had this before with alcohol and e). Anyway, my ecstasy use came up as a topic of discussion,

i said:
"i've been good lately, i seriously wouldn't be worried about me, last time i used was over 5 weeks ago (its been 7 now:)) and i've been taking breaks between each use, i've never taken more than 2 in a night. Basically im a responsible user in my opinion. I don't mean to offend but you (directed at my heavy binge drinking friend) have probly done more damage in the last few months with your drinking than i have with e use" (a problem with this theory is that i also drink and smoke weed, so technically i've probly done more damage with general drug use).

He said:
"Yea your probably right, but thats just my body thats getting damaged though. Ecstasy fucks with with your head".

I couldn't be bothered arguing so i just said "yea i guess" grabbed another beer then we went outside and smoked a ciggarrette, haha.
 
lifeisforliving said:
*shrug* I look back at my use of MDMA, which was usually 400 to 600mg a night (once a month or so, off and on for 8 years), and then look at my grades in university... it sure hasn't hurt my intellect as measured by my GPA. I definitely experienced symptoms which only abated after 6 months of stopping MDMA, but I haven't noticed any permanent changes in my personality or memory...
Click to expand...


same here man
 
In my ecstacy consumption experience i've found it does more good than bad to your brain and it's awesome power...8o
I consume about 100 pills in 18 months and my head is fine.. if anything bongs have the worst affect on the brain.. (they make you paranoid, bummed out and fuked). (I know that from experience)
The way myself as a person has changed in the past few years i have been popping is a positive experience..
I am more confident in many ways, i am more care free and find it easier to relax in situations i might have otherwise stood back n been an outsider.. i do more things 'in the spirit of the moment' which creates a better and more exciting life.. but most of all i am far more crazy (in a good way) which makes me VERY VERY happy!!=D =D =D - i also seem to get along with more people and feel happy with myself.
My opinion is do what feels good to you at the time, if you like it or LOVE IT the why the fuk not!! - let loose and go all out i say!!8)
 
While I appreciate the fact that you guys are scrutinizing the article (which should be done upon presentation of any scientific paper). I think many of you are missing the point and trying to justify your usage of MDMA. There is a huge amount of scientific literature on MDMA and its maladaptive effects on memory and moods. Occasionally one study will make it to the media (not always the best either) and countless drug-informed internet users will make claims about how rubbish the study is and continue to pop pills. This study didn't prove anything! They didn't control for this, they didn't control for that! Haha fools! Munch Munch Gurn Gurn!

I am under the impression that many of you believe that MDMA isn't very harmful and that the governments are all part of a worldwide conspiracy to protect us from empathy and peace, etc. As fun as it is, you are deluding yourself if you think it is all harmless fun.

While it isn't conclusive, the overwhelming scientific consensus does seem to attribute MDMA usage to negative effects on memory (forming new memories, verbal fluency, short term recall) and mood (such as depression and anxiety). As time progresses, the picture will be much clearer. However, a simple search on a journal such as Science will return hundreds of articles regarding MDMA's negative effects. I can't find any studies that do not show differences between subjects (or between usage) for MDMA. While many of these studies may have flaws (which studies don't?) they are definitely lend support to the idea MDMA has negative effects on the brain.

I think discrediting studies because we do not know if the users were obtaining pure MDMA (when is meth, cocaine or heroin pure?) or because we do not know of their polydrug use is foolish. Combine all the animal studies, human studies which have controlled for polydrug use (including marijuana and alcohol) and unique side effects of MDMA - the picture that emerges is that MDMA has the potential for damage. Even for not as strictly controlled studies - the side effects MDMA users are suffering from are not like those of marijuana or alcohol. Like most substances, this level of damage is dependent on the frequency of use, the quantity used, method of administration, combining with other drugs, and what you do whilst on the drugs (staying hot on MDMA has been proposed to lead to significantly higher neurotoxicity).

Please don't think I am some narc trying to ruin your fun :) I've been there done that. I just think it is foolish to instantly dismiss studies showing negative effects on MDMA and instantly praise studies that are inconclusive.
 
Last edited:
go-ee is totally right. Eating beans is a really positive experience for most people overall but it is absolutely insane to think they are harmless. There is a price to pay for most any drug. E is worth it if you use moderately IMO but you are no doubt doing damage. The sheer number of studies all showing at least some damage that may or may not be permanent is enough mounting evidence to gain most any educated persons attention. The real question is over cognitive impairment. I do not really give two shits about receptor density, blood flow, or memory tests but cognitive impairment that effects your everyday life is a huge issue. However all of those statistics can lend us a hand in determining if we are on the road to cognitive impairment.
 
^ sure but the article was not even close to being resonable or fair. There was no suggesting about moderation or any steps of the well known steps one can utilise to mitigate the side-affects of MDMA.

The article came out categorically claiming MDMA caused memory loss.

Now if the media and for that matter the scientist had been responsible and provided sufficient information for a proper review then fair enough you could argue that said bluelighters were unfounded in their jumping up and down.

The war has been set, the sides are clearly defined and its the dark side that is using misinformation and emotional headlines against our cold hard logic.
 
I exercise a healthy dose of skepticism when concerning these recent scientific discoveries about the "dangers" of illicit drugs. At one point, the article maintains that the drug is dangerous in excessive volume. It went on to say that heavy and consistent dosage can incur damage to neurons and severe mood fluctuations. I believe this is fundamental reasoning concerning any substance--be it intoxicating, mind-altering or simply nourishing (i.e. the exhausted old platitude, "All Things In Moderation").
 
Chugs,

You're a prime example of what I am talking about. Firstly, what is so unfair about the article? Bear in mind that the link posted was a BBC article, rather than an actual journal article. Secondly, your suggestion for the article to write steps on how to avoid the side effects of MDMA is laughable and not the researchers obligation. Say for instance, an article comes out saying alcohol can cause liver damage, do you expect them to say here are some steps to avoid hangovers? Maybe if it was in Dolly or New Weekly? Would you criticize the article on alcohol because it failed to mention steps to avoid hangovers? Harm minimization is important, but you are simply discrediting studies because you do not believe in what they conclude. Yes, people are bias against drugs - but this goes both ways!

The war has been set, the sides are clearly defined and its the dark side that is using misinformation and emotional headlines against our cold hard logic.
Click to expand...

You are only one using emotional language here... "the war has been set"..."the dark side"...."cold hard logic"..
No offense but I put my faith in educated scientists that consistently obtain the same results across the globe. Rather then a bunch of internet ecstasy users who say the same generic remarks about every ecstasy study that comes out. Would you ever be happy with any study that came out showing negative effects of MDMA? No it must be the biased researchers! Poor design methodology! While I have a lot of experience with MDMA - this means nothing scientifically so I am not going to use it to back up what I am saying (although I noticed significant changes in my many areas of my functioning following MDMA use). As a psychologist still doing research at University, I have worked with people that have abused MDMA (some even exclusively). The damage these people have done to themselves in a few years of abuse is detrimental. Furthermore, I have spoken to many academics doing research on MDMA and what they think. They aren't all the biased anti-drug demons you believe them to be. While using it once or twice is hardly going to cause you noticeable cognitive impairment, the potential definitely is there (provided certain factors, of course). To think it is not a damaging substance to the brain is like thinking tobacco smoke isn't harmful to the lunges (the correlation is merely coincidence!).

I exercise a healthy dose of skepticism when concerning these recent scientific discoveries about the "dangers" of illicit drugs. At one point, the article maintains that the drug is dangerous in excessive volume. It went on to say that heavy and consistent dosage can incur damage to neurons and severe mood fluctuations. I believe this is fundamental reasoning concerning any substance--be it intoxicating, mind-altering or simply nourishing (i.e. the exhausted old platitude, "All Things In Moderation").
Click to expand...

While it is good you have skepticism - your bias is clearly showing. MDMA is far more neurotoxic than most drugs. The line between moderation and damage in regards to MDMA is very fine, far more than that of alcohol. More so, serotonin is not a neurotransmitter you won't to be getting out of whack at regular intervals - especially considering its important role in regulating mood and behaviour.

I can feel I am going to get the same generic replies regarding these "biased studies" against "illegal drugs". Suit yourself guys - your mind is already made up.
 
go-ee said:
While I appreciate the fact that you guys are scrutinizing the article (which should be done upon presentation of any scientific paper). I think many of you are missing the point and trying to justify your usage of MDMA.
Click to expand...
^ Yep, you got me. :o

Great post(s). :)
 
I am no apolgist for MDMA, but I think that in an area as controversial and with such huge and significant implications the science should be absolutely rigerous.
the study protocol shows a flaw which hasn't been addressed and therefore is not as rigerous as it should be.
Essentially 188 people were scanned and memory tests were carried out, statistical analysis was used to give a mean, then 18 months later the same 188 people were divided into those who reported MDMA use, 59 people, and those that hadn't. the two groups were then scanned and given memory tests. those that reported ecstacy use had showed a poorer response and reduced blood flow as a group than those who hadn't reported ecstacy use as a group. the ecstacy reporting group showed diminished performance compared to, and here is the kicker, the original 188 people. Oh dear.
this, claim the researchers woud enable causality to be determined. this is rubbish. a longitudinal study where before and after data was carried out on an individual basis would but the data presented is not based on this.
If you want me to fully explain the flaw which is a common flaw found in epidemilogical studies PM me. for the abstract showing protocol of the NeXT study see
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/112475861/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

The tobacco lung cancer link was a very thorough and rigerous piece of research it had to be becuse the stakes and significance was so high. If the tobacco studies are the benchmark, they have survived intense well funded scrutiny by the tobacco industry, the the current MDMA ecstacy studies are falling well short of this bench mark.
I personally made a descision over a decade ago not to explore MDMA due to the unique pharmacology of the substance and the lack of any similarly acting substances with long term safety data.
I have no personal interest in whether MDMA is or isn't neurotoxic. My interest is in showboating of science and the misrepresentaion of science, unfortunately the group of researchers behind this study have form for showboating and making elemental errors. I await the peer review with interest.
 
Church said:
Bahahaha! You're joking, right? 8(
Click to expand...

I don't think he was joking.

mdma = mdma

ecstacy = sometimes mdma, sometimes meth, sometimes mda, mde, ketamine etc etc etc
 
I have no cognitive impairment from light E use over a 2 year period 4-6 years ago. I used approximately 20 pills over 12 experiences in that 2 year period. I used moderately at times and binged at others (4 pills in a night at one point and 3 in 2 days at another, while only taking 1/2 a pill in a 6 month period at others). I have limited experience with other drugs but overall have maintained a relatively healthy diet and exercise program over the course of those 6 years.

I feel completely fine. I feel I have the same intellectual capacity and actualy an improved ability to recall certain events than I did prior to use.

I don't know all the details of the study but I think the long term effects of ecstasy use is going to be extremely hard to quantitize. Every user has a different history. Some used lightly, some moderly, and some just went crazy. Some people used a lot of other drugs in conjunction with ecstasy, some did not. Some abused their body by maintaining an unhealthy diet throghout their period of use, worsening the side effects. Some people pre and post load and space their rolls to maximize the body's regenerative capacities.

Lastly, the brain regrows. You have to use it though! If you challenge yourself intellectually you will always be improving your cognitive function. If you binge hard on drugs, fall into a lifestyle devoid of intellectual stimulation, and have a terrible diet, is it any surprise your brain will atrophy? Any brain would in such a situation, with or without the ecstasy.

Anyway that's just how I feel about the subject. I never felt like ecstasy impaired me long term but it did leave me feeling emotionally fragile for a few weeks after use and I think it has a higher potential for damage than say, marijuana or alcohol or even cocaine.
 
I have a copy of the full actual article (it is in several journals) and here is the design section for the sub-section we are talking about. The actual experiment is very large and had several sub-sections. More so, it controls for a huge variety of factors. The section we are talking about (and is the focus in the BBC study) is the prospective substudy. I have no idea what you are talking about Vecktor, your idea of what they did in the experiment is not what was performed.

To study the causal nature of ecstasy use on neuroimaging, neurocognitive, and clinical abnormalities observed in ecstasy users and to determine the effect of relatively low cumulative dosages of ecstasy, a sample of 188 ecstasy-naive young adults (aged 18 to 35 years) with a relatively high probability to start using ecstasy in near future was followed during a period of 12 to 24 months (Figure 2). They were actively recruited between March 2002 and April 2004, using a combination of targeted site sampling at locations such as dance events, discotheques, youth fairs, universities, colleges, and parks; advertisement through a Web site on the project and an Internet campaign; and snowball sampling referrals. Main criteria for inclusion were intent (probable or certain) to use ecstasy for the first
time in the near future (3-5 points on a 5-points scale; 1 = certainly not; 2 = probably not; 3 = undecided; 4 = probably yes; 5 = certainly yes) and/or having one or more friends who already use ecstasy.
After baseline examination subjects had to complete questionnaires sent to them by mail about their drug use every 3 months during a follow-up period of 1 year.

Besides assessing drug use through these questionnaires, the main outcome parameters were assessed up to three times: (Tl) directly following recruitment, i.e. before first ecstasy use, in the total cohort (N = 188); (T2) soon after first ecstasy use in the first 30 incident ecstasy users; (T3) between 12 and 24 months after baseline assessment in (T3a) all incident ecstasy users (N = 50-60), and in (T3b) an individually matched (gender, age, DART-IQ, cannabis use) control group of persistent ecstasy-naive subjects (N = 50-60). Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging was only performed twice because of radiation exposure (at the first and third session). Follow-up measurements were finished in June 2005.

To study whether a low dose of ecstasy use is neurotoxic, outcome parameters of neurotoxicity will be compared between the first follow-up session soon after first ecstasy use in 30 incident cases (T2) and their baseline sessions before first ecstasy use (Tl). We
will also investigate whether ecstasy users differ from ecstasy-naive subjects on indicators of neurotoxicity and if so, whether differences were present before or developed after the first use of ecstasy. In order to examine this, indicators of neurotoxicity of incident ecstasy users (T3a) will be compared with persistent ecstasy-naive subjects (T3b) and both groups will be compared with their own baseline data (Tl).
Moreover, to assess whether certain variables (such as higher levels of depression, impulsivity and sensation seeking) can be considered as risk-factors for future ecstasy use in ecstasy-naive young adults, baseline data of incident ecstasy users (i.e. before first ecstasy use)
will be compared with baseline data of persistent ecstasy-naive subjects. Finally, dopamine transporter (DAT) densities will be compared before and after ecstasy use in a subgroup of incident ecstasy users to specify possible effects of ecstasy use on the dopamine
neurotransmitter system.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was joking.

mdma = mdma

ecstacy = sometimes mdma, sometimes meth, sometimes mda, mde, ketamine etc etc etc
Click to expand...

Fortunately the study was conducted in the Netherlands. Where 95% of the tablets sold as ecstasy in 2002 were predominately MDMA. This research was conducted by the Drugs Informatie en Monitoring Systeem in 2003. The percentages and purity are said to be even higher now.
 
Last edited:
I have no cognitive impairment from light E use over a 2 year period 4-6 years ago. I used approximately 20 pills over 12 experiences in that 2 year period. I used moderately at times and binged at others (4 pills in a night at one point and 3 in 2 days at another, while only taking 1/2 a pill in a 6 month period at others). I have limited experience with other drugs but overall have maintained a relatively healthy diet and exercise program over the course of those 6 years.

I feel completely fine. I feel I have the same intellectual capacity and actualy an improved ability to recall certain events than I did prior to use.

I don't know all the details of the study but I think the long term effects of ecstasy use is going to be extremely hard to quantitize. Every user has a different history. Some used lightly, some moderly, and some just went crazy. Some people used a lot of other drugs in conjunction with ecstasy, some did not. Some abused their body by maintaining an unhealthy diet throghout their period of use, worsening the side effects. Some people pre and post load and space their rolls to maximize the body's regenerative capacities.

Lastly, the brain regrows. You have to use it though! If you challenge yourself intellectually you will always be improving your cognitive function. If you binge hard on drugs, fall into a lifestyle devoid of intellectual stimulation, and have a terrible diet, is it any surprise your brain will atrophy? Any brain would in such a situation, with or without the ecstasy.

Anyway that's just how I feel about the subject. I never felt like ecstasy impaired me long term but it did leave me feeling emotionally fragile for a few weeks after use and I think it has a higher potential for damage than say, marijuana or alcohol or even cocaine.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Light use is hardly going to cause significant cognitive impairments, alongside a healthy lifestyle. Unfortunately, people like you do not make up the bulk of ecstasy users.

That said, I believe with all the research we have at current. MDMA has the potential (and is highly likely at frequent usage or excessively high doses) to cause disturbances in mood (depression, anxiety and paranoia), sleep problems and memory problems. The line between "recreational fun doses" and "recreational fun frequency" appears to be very close to their "neurotoxic" counterparts.
 
go-ee said:
I have a copy of the full actual article (it is in several journals) and here is the design section for the sub-section we are talking about. The actual experiment is very large and had several sub-sections. More so, it controls for a huge variety of factors. The section we are talking about (and is the focus in the BBC study) is the prospective substudy. I have no idea what you are talking about Vecktor, your idea of what they did in the experiment is not what was performed.
Click to expand...

OK because I am lazy I took the numbers from the BBC report, but the principle is the same and it is a statistical mathematical and philosophical problem that plagues epidemilogical studies, send me the paper and I will walk you through the point a step at a time. it is all to do with cause and effect 'causality' and has lead to the power line leukemia scares the mobile phone brain tumour scares, the mmr autism scares etc etc.
I am not saying MDMA is safe, I am pointing out a flaw in epidemiology which is often not adequately addressed.
as the adage goes lies, damn lies and statistics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top