Small ecstasy use 'harms brain'

Shit e might cause brain damage, better stick with shooting dope. Would anyone really be all that surprised if it did cause damage, shit I would be more surprised if they found out it didn't. This study does have a lot of variables, and should probally have more participants, and span a longer period of time but I would bet that even then the results would be the same. Whatever damage they do find has already been done though, so fuck it. I'll worry about long term damage tommorow.
 
aanallein said:
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...

A post I fully agree with.. :)
 
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.





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.
Click to expand...


...SPECT

Are we in the 80's?
 
Church said:
Bahahaha! You're joking, right? 8(
Click to expand...

No i wasn't joking.

I know there are tests done on the effects/damage of MDMA, however this article happens to be to do with Ecstasy.

I guess the purpose of the test was to show that the use of Ecstasy can be damaging in small doses. Which is most likely true (of course in small doses that damage may not even be noticeable). Basically, MDMA isn't legal, most people can't get their hands on pure MDMA, so what good would a test on the damage of pure MDMA be to them when they can only get Ecstasy. The test/research shouldn't be used as a case for why MDMA should remain illegal, but it did attempt to provide some insight into an activity which millions of people are doing (at various rates) wordlwide.

I would personally like to see a fair test performed on the damage of Ecstasy compared to the damage of MDMA, then possibly used as a case for legalisation.
 
Hmmm that's certainly a disturbing result.

go-ee, would you be kind enough to provide a link to the study?
 
Makes you worry considering loads of people I know (including me for a couple of years) take 5 or 6 pills a week, almost every week.
 
i think a lot of the info in this study is debateable. a lot of it is based on correlations.

just sounds like something used to present yet another negative look on drugs so people dont argue about it when they feel unjustly denied the experience.
 
im so sad all the time....oh no my heart is beating quickley.........where am i anyway im lost.....yawn im so tired i havnt slept in forever......what was i doing..............,,,,,,,...i guess its to late for me
 
what?? that's crazy

i haven't read the origional article, but i did see this program on ABC news about a couple years ago that said that all the origional data about exstacy that was found was fake, that they just made it up to scare the public, and that it was perfectly safe to use.
it's not my favorite, but from my experience i think it's fine to use as long as you have some 5-htp to use afterwards to rebuild the ceratonin in your brain that was lost tripping. Just as long as you use it right, you know?
i think that after using any drug you should also drink a lot of water and exercise too. as long as you do that, i don't think there's any lasting effects, unless you've way overdone it.
 
I am not going to provide a link, because I only have it as a pdf file and it is pretty expensive to buy if you are not a member of an online journal system. Here are the statistics used in the experiment.

Statistics

Power analysis

Single photon emission connputed tomography, 'HMRS,
DTI, PWI, and memory performance
Previous SPECT findings (Reneman et al., 2001a)
indicated that 8 females (effect size d= 0.16) and 31
males (d=0.08), thus a group of 39 subjects per group,
would provide ample power to demonstrate a difference
in SERT densities between pre-post assessments
(prospective study) and between lifetime ecstasy users
and ecstasy-naive controls (retrospective studies), if
such a difference exists. This power estimate is in general
agreement with two other imaging studies
conducted with ecstasy users, which showed that 25
subjects were needed per group to demonstrate a difference
in serotonergic transporter densities using PET
(males and females together) (McCann et al., 1998)
and 32 using SPECT (only males) (Semple et al.,
1999). The sample sizes in all three substudies would
also be big enough to detect effect sizes of 28%, 21%,
and 31% on outcome parameters measured with 'HMRS,
PWI, and memory performance (especially on
RALVT) respectively, as indicated by previous studies
(Reneman et al., 2001b; Reneman et al., 2001c;
Reneman et al., 2002b).

Eunctional MRI

Previous studies indicated that changes in cognitive
abilities are small but significant after moderate ecstasy
use. For reliable measurement of cognition-related
functional brain activity patterns a sample size of
about 10 to 12 subjects is required. To detect differences
reliably between ecstasy users and controls,
10-12 subjects would be required per group. As brain
activity patterns might differ between male and female
ecstasy users, 20 to 24 subjects per group would be
required in order to obtain representative samples for
both genders.

Statistical analyses

We hypothesized a priori that if ecstasy use is indeed
neurotoxic, ecstasy users would differ on various imaging
parameters (for example, increase of ADC, rCBV,
Cho, ml and decrease of ['^^I]|3-CIT uptake ratios, FA,
NAA), on BOLD fMRI parameters (increased activity
or alterations in patterns of activation), as well as on
parameters of neurocognitive functioning (such as
decreased memory) and psychopathology (such as
increased depression, impulsivity, sensation seeking)
compared with non-users (cross-sectional substudy and
retrospective cohort substudy) or compared with their
own baseline values prior to first ecstasy use (prospective
cohort substudy).
For the cross-sectional substudy among subjects
with variations in amount and type of drugs used, parameters
of neurotoxicity will be assessed using linear
multiple regression analysis with lifetime use of ecstasy.

Neurotoxicity of ecstasy
179 cannabis, amphetamine, and cocaine as separate
regressors. It is expected that this will provide information
about the relative contributions of the various
drugs on the main outcome parameters. The regression
model will also control for factors other than drug use,
such as gender, age, and DART-IQ.
For the prospective cohort substudy, follow-up data
will be compared between incident ecstasy users and
persistent ecstasy-naive subjects using (multivariate)
analysis of variance (ANOVA/MANOVA), including
baseline measurements and significant confounders
(such as age, gender, use of cannabis, amphetamines
and cocaine) as covariates (ANCOVA, MANCOVA).
In order to prevent the loss of subjects due to incomplete
data, general linear mixed models could be
applied in the analysis of the longitudinal data.
For the retrospective cohort study, parameters of
neurotoxicity will be compared cross-sectionally
between lifetime ecstasy users and matched non-users.
An analysis of covariance will be used with main confounders
(such as age, gender, cumulative dose of
ecstasy, use of cannabis, internalizing and externalizing
psycbopathology at age 4-16 measured with tbe
CBCL, prior to first ecstasy use in tbe group of lifetime
ecstasy users) as covariates. Correlations between
characteristics of ecstasy use (sucb as lifetime CD,
duration of abstinence) and outcome parameters will
be analysed using a linear regression analysis.
Click to expand...

This study was conducted in the Netherlands, not exactly the capital of drug propaganda. More so, don't feel this is an isolated study, there are literally thousands upon thousands of studies on MDMA's negative effects that never make it into the popular press or past the eyes of bluelighters. As hard as it is for many of you to accept, the scientific literature seems to be pointing to the conclusion that MDMA is neurotoxic and can cause maladaptive symptoms. Stop the "in my experience" arguments - they do not mean anything. While the evidence isn't set in stone, the evidence that is forming and that will continue to form in future years - is that MDMA frequently leads to memory problems and mood problems.

I'm not saying don't take it at all. It obviously has its highlights as a substance - the empathy and euphoria are second to none. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it is a harmless substance. Accept the research that comes out (don't assume its anti-drug propaganda by the U.S government), recognise flaws in the studies, recognise conclusions in the studies and decide what it means to you. Weigh it up..do the benefits of MDMA outweigh the costs for you? In the short-term? In the long-term? Maybe they do for some of you. Just don't automatically jump on the "i've read erowid, i've taken pills, i'm on bluelight, ecstasy is fine, studies are garbage propaganda" bandwagon.
 
As far as I can tell so far this study hasn't been published in the peer reviewed literature
Click to expand...

No surprise as it's sloppy as hell - ie badly structured therefore the results are almost meaningless. It does not address other illicit drug consumption, alcohol consumption (which will cause cognitive damage) or a myriad of other contributing factors such as co-administerd drugs or conditions under which it was taken. Also (for go-ee) you cannot automatically extrapolate animal data to humans, especially when it come to neuropharmacology (MPTP - the stuff that caused the 'frozen addicts' due to being an impurity in 'designer heroin' only causes severe Parkinsons in primates; rats can eat it till the cows come home and it does diddly squat to their substantia nigra).

Basically this reads like another piece of sensationalist propaganda based on sloppy science. I'm not doubting that heavy MDMA use can cause damage, but most studies that are well designed seem to link neurotoxicity to elevated body temp. Small doses in the absence of raised body temp only seem to lead to short term depression due to serotonin depletion, nothing else has been proved (and depression has a huge effect on cognative abilities etc)

I think we might have the George Ricuarte of Europe here.
Click to expand...

Considering they have a past record for 'dodgy' results & conclusions, you start to think what sort of organization is going to fund people with a suspect past record... I'll let the non-cognitively impared among you draw your own conclusions


PS I'm not a fan of MDMA by any stretch of the imagination, so it's hardly like I'm defending my own use because I don't have anything to do with it these days & when I did I maybe took it 6-8 times and always at a dosage of no more than one pill
 
Last edited:
mushis said:
i haven't read the origional article, but i did see this program on ABC news about a couple years ago that said that all the origional data about exstacy that was found was fake, that they just made it up to scare the public, and that it was perfectly safe to use.
it's not my favorite, but from my experience i think it's fine to use as long as you have some 5-htp to use afterwards to rebuild the ceratonin in your brain that was lost tripping. Just as long as you use it right, you know?
i think that after using any drug you should also drink a lot of water and exercise too. as long as you do that, i don't think there's any lasting effects, unless you've way overdone it.
Click to expand...

uhhh...:\

Not all the info was fake. Some of it may have been fake, and alot of it probably exaggerated. But i seriously wouldn't recommend having the mindset that its "perfectly safe to use".
 
The substudy that the BBC article is focusing on is where they wanted to see the effects of before and after MDMA use. It may be sloppy but it is the only way you can effectively do a before and after study. The other substudys (all part of the NeXt program) address all the things everyone in this thread has mentioned, such as controlling for other drugs (legal and illicit). Many MDMA studies aren't perfect, but they are all painting a picture which isn't too pretty.

I think Ricaurte and a few other researchers have caused many people to simply deny any new MDMA research that comes out. Not that many people on here are familiar with much of the research, besides the typical internet sites that are very pro-MDMA. I have chosen a small (and I mean very small) handful of studies that all show MDMA to cause damage. I have only selected human studies and tried to make sure all control for other drug use (legal and illicit) and other possible confounds (intelligence between users, etc). I am sure I will get the same generic replies...differences between users...poor use of statistics..."it hasn't done me any damage"...animal studies can't be applied to humans...Ecstasy is made up of other compounds...All valid points but the huge bulk of research on MDMA has always found impairments between users and non-users, before use and after use, between marijuana users and MDMA users, between alcohol users and MDMA users...Animal studies have shown significant damage to serotonergic regions of the brain...what possible research could convince any of you that MDMA is damaging to the brain? My analogy before about tobacco, was that it took a very long time to sufficiently prove tobacco was responsible for a variety of lung and throat cancers (although it seems painfully obvious now). The early studies were plagued by similar claims to that, that are made against MDMA. Indeed, people would always spout the line "my grandpa has been smoking tobacco for 90 years..he's fine! Smoking causes caner..what a load of crap".

It seems quite obvious to me it can cause memory and mood problems. Of course, all this is my interpretation. You don't have to take my word for it. I mean I am just a generic internet stranger..like most of us. It's possible I am wrong and MDMA is harmless and causes no changes in the brain - besides depression that simply returns to normal once your serotonin is replenished. However, this is not consistent with much (if any) scientific research conducted on MDMA. Here are some articles you can check out. Alternatively, go to a University and ask anyone in the neuroscience department.


J.H. Halpern, H.G. Pope Jr., A.R. Sherwood, S. Barry, J.I. Hudson and D. Yurgelun-Todd, Residual neuropsychological effects of illicit 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in individuals with minimal exposure to other drugs, Drug Alcohol Depend 75 (2004), pp. 135–147.

McCardle et al., 2004 K. McCardle, S. Luebbers, J.D. Carter, R.J. Croft and C. Stough, Chronic MDMA (ecstasy) use, cognition and mood, Psychopharmacology (Berl) 173 (2004) (3–4), pp. 434–439

Bhattachary and Powell, 2001. S. Bhattachary and J.H. Powell, Recreational use of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or “ecstasy”: evidence for cognitive impairment. Psychol. Med. 31 (2001), pp. 647–658.

Wareing et al., 2000. M. Wareing, J.E. Fisk and P.N. Murphy, Working memory deficits in current and previous users of MDMA (“ecstasy”). Br. J. Psychol. 91 (2000), pp. 181–188.

Verkes et al., 2001. R.J. Verkes, H.J. Gijsman, R.C. Pieters, S. de Visser, M. Kuijpers, J.M. Pennings, D. de Bruin, G. Van de Winjngaart, J.M.A. Van Grven and A.F. Cohen, Cognitive performance and serotonergic function in users of ecstasy. Psychopharmacology 153 (2001), pp. 196–202.

Reneman et al., 2000. L. Reneman, J. Booij, B. Schmand, W. van den Brink and B. Gunning , Memory disturbances in ‘Ecstasy’ users are correlated with an altered brain serotonin neurotransmission. Psychopharmacology 148 (2000), pp. 322–324.

H.V. Curran and R.A. Travill, Mood and cognitive effects of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, ecstasy): weekend high followed by mid-week low. Addiction 92 (1997), pp. 821–831.

Zakzanis et al., 2002. K.K. Zakzanis, D.A. Young and N.F. Radkhoshnoud, Attentional processes in abstinent methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy) users. Appl. Neuropsychol. 9 (2002), pp. 84–91

Wareing et al., 2000. M. Wareing, J.E. Fisk and P.N. Murphy, Working memory deficits in current and previous users of MDMA (“ecstasy”). Br. J. Psychol. 91 (2000), pp. 181–188.

Gouzoulis-Mayfrank et al., 2000. E. Gouzoulis-Mayfrank, J. Daumann, F. Tuchtenhagen, S. Pelz, S. Becker, H.-J. Kunert, B. Fimm and H. Sass, Impaired cognitive performance in drug-free recreational ecstasy (MDMA) users. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 68 (2000), pp. 719–725.
 
It's possible I am wrong and MDMA is harmless and causes no changes in the brain - besides depression that simply returns to normal once your serotonin is replenished.
Click to expand...

No, it's obviously harmful under certain conditions, both in a temp. and perm. way, it's just the idea that a few doses of the drug under conditions that are not those implicated in it's neurotoxicity (mainly hyperthermia & other dopaminergic drugs) seems a bit on the 'going over the top' side w.r.t. it's actual dangers. If it were as toxic as this report states, surely you'd expect to see a deluge of human cabbages turning up in psychiatric hospitals considering the extent that some people (some of them BLers) use ecstacy/MDMA. Many years ago there were lots of studies linking LSD with chromosomal damage - yes it does cause said damage, but so does just about every other drug going (even such innocuous compounds as aspirin). I think a little bit of the same sort of thing is going on with MDMA at this moment in time.

In the long run, MDMA will be proved to be linked with some psychiatric/neurological damage, but that the amounts needed to cause a significant degree of damage will be much, much more than this report is claiming. It's presently the 'bogey-man' drug so there are obviously going to be exaggerated claims in both the pro and anti camps.


The only way you'll actually get to the truth about MDMA is to wait 10-15 years when all the hysteria about it is just a memory and hindsight can point to the cases of pro & anti hype by both scientists and politicians
 
I would agree with those accusing many users of trying to find some grounds to justify their use. That's probably true, and to me it seems reasonable to conclude that ecstacy is unwise if your end-all perogative is keeping your brain and body at 110% health status every moment of your existence. Thing is, that is not what I would choose for myself anyhow; the experiences I get through these drugs are valuable enough that I wouldn't give them up just for the sake of perfect health, which is a relative concept at best. Quantifying 'health' means using objective scales to measure countless physiological and psychological factors which all contribute in some way to a person's well-being. I see people everyday who have taken plenty of ecstacy who are not impaired in any meaningful way. Most will tell you that its helped them in living their lives, so how do you quantify that? Western society is always so obsessed with empirical data, as a civilization we need to get off that shit and stop trying to control everything. We assume that because experience isn't quantifiable, it must have no value, whereas a 2% loss of word recall or whatever is the ace of spades.
 
This is fucking bullshit.

One time use of ecstasy affects your verbal memory? Who are they trying to kid?

"We know long-term use has a lasting impact, so it makes sense that damage starts as soon as someone starts to use the drug.

What the fuck? Where did he pull this from? His arse? Long term abuse of alcohol is damaging, occasional use of red wine is healthy. The effects of long-term abuse and the effects of your first drink have absolutely nothing to do with one another. He is talking out the back of his arse.
 
But you guys, it only harms the brain 59% of the time!
That means your chances of coming out ok are actually pretty decent!
And by decent I mean fairly good!
And by fairly good I mean this study really didn't discover anything and it's a piece of horseshit, yes horseshit, which I would gladly eat if only it affected me like ecstasy!
 
a lot of shit can happen to 59 people in 18 months. the article is pretty shitty for the BBC... either that or the study itself was shoddily done because it's really VAGUE. sounds pretty incredible. but hey, there's "new research" contradicting whatever came before it every few months about alcohol so i wouldn't trust the scientists eager to get their names in the paper talking about drugs that they can't even accurately test because it's illicit. fuck that shit they just want an excuse to blow their own horn, public safety isn't their concern if they do inconclusive shoddy studies like this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top