Study suggests little evidence Ecstasy causes brain damage

[Ismene]

As expected, all the scare stories about brain damage turned out to be a load of fucking horseshit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/19/ecstasy-harm-brain-new-study

There is no evidence that ecstasy causes brain damage, according to one of the largest studies into the effects of the drug. Too many previous studies made over-arching conclusions from insufficient data, say the scientists responsible for the research, and the drug's dangers have been greatly exaggerated.

The finding will shock campaigners who have claimed ecstasy poses a real risk of triggering brain damage. They have argued that it can induce memory loss, decrease cognitive performance and has long-lasting effects on behaviour.

But experts who have argued that the drug is relatively safe welcomed the new paper. "I always assumed that, when properly designed studies were carried out, we would find ecstasy does not cause brain damage," said Professor David Nutt, who was fired as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs by Alan Johnson, then home secretary, for publicly stating alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than ecstasy

 

[MasterSplinter]

Are you sure someone acting like a fucking idiot is evidence that the cause is "E related brain damage" tho? Couldn't the explanation just be that they are a fucking idiot?

look I aint tryin to say that there arent "strupid people" who do "stupid things", but it seems like everytime there is a study done to defend MDMA or provide evidence/research that it "doesnt cause braindamage", everyone starts going:

"Oh ecstasy is safe! I can eat all the beans I want...I saw it on the news and it was a study done by scientest. Lets go to EDC and take ecstasy pills all night,not drink water and get lightshows until we pass out" 8)

To those foolish enough to not heed the warnings of MasterSplinter, dont say I told you so when you are in a dark depression, have poor memory and optimism, are slurring your words and making typos, and have loss the magic for permantely.

be warned, stay safe. test and moderation is the key to a long life of ecstasy use

-peace

 

[Keaton]

Reopened at the request of the other mods.


Be warned:
The use and abuse of MDMA is in fact harmful. It's a drug and just like every other drug it must be respected.

 

[AfterGlow]

Be warned:
The use and abuse of MDMA is in fact harmful. It's a drug and just like every other drug it must be respected.

I contend that the use of MDMA when taken in moderation is relatively harmless for most people. The abuse of MDMA will typically result in emotional and mental distress, which could be short term or long term depending on the extent of the abuse.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

I contend that the use of MDMA when taken in moderation is relatively harmless for most people. The abuse of MDMA will typically result in emotional and mental distress, which could be short term or long term depending on the extent of the abuse.

No offense, but if you think twice about it this is really a blank statement that goes for literally all chemical compounds. Dose defines the poison; I bet even a substance like strychnine might have beneficial effects if your dosage and frequency of intake is adequate.

Since the OP is blaming everyone for not reading the original article, I will do so first before further commenting.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

First of all, the article linked by the OP is really shitty in that it does not even contain a direct link to the original scientific artifcle. But then again, we should not judge the original research by the shittyness of the Guardian. After reading the original article, I can quote some interesting parts, let us start with the participant selection:

NSFW:

We recruited participants aged 18–45 years who reported (1) at least 17 life-time episodes of ecstasy use or (2) no life-time ecstasy use. These participants represented a fresh sample, not including any participants from the prior pilot study [15]. Participants in both groups were required to be native speakers of English and to report experience in the rave culture, as demonstrated by having attended at least 10 all-night dance parties, defined as staying awake until at least 4.30 a.m. We excluded participants reporting: (1) more than 100 life-time episodes of using cannabis or more than 10 episodes of using any other class of illicit drugs other than ecstasy (cocaine, stimulants, opioids, hallucinogens, sedative-hypnotics, gamma hydroxybutyrate, phencyclidine, ketamine or hydrocarbon inhalants); (2) more than 50 life-time episodes of alcohol intoxication, defined as consuming at least four drinks (defined as 12 ounces of beer, 4 ounces of wine or 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits) within a 4-hour period; (3) history of head injury with loss of consciousness judged clinically significant or history of other medical illnesses that might affect cognitive function; or (4) current use of psychoactive medications, such as antidepressants or benzodiazepines.

So people on antidepressants and benzodiazepines are excluded. This is understandable, but nonetheless creates selection bias since XTC users with altered brain function are quite likely to be on antidepressants or benzodiazepines, and thus will - in part - be excluded from the study.

NSFW:

Although our multiple comparisons increased the likelihood of type I errors, there was no good way to correct for this, as methods such as Bonferroni correction are too conservative and inflate type II error rates [42]. Hence, following the advice of some prior authorities [43,44], we present results without correction, but caution readers to consider this issue when interpreting the findings.

For those not familiar with statistical language: Type I error is an error where the hypothesis is dismissed while it should actually be considered correct; the hypothesis in this case was 'MDMA causes brain damage', so the probability of this hypothesis to be dismissed is increased by the statistic test they used; this is acknowledged by the authors themselves. (This probably means the article was first rejected in the process of peer-review; you do not add remarks like this unless explicitly requested by the journal.)

NSFW:

One meta-analysis of 26 studies found a substantial association between ecstasy use and lowered verbal memory, but noted that the life-time number of ecstasy tablets consumed did not predict memory performance [63]. Another recent meta-analysis concluded that ecstasy was associated with lowered cognitive performance but found only small to medium effect sizes [12]. Other recent reviews have concluded that ecstasy-associated cognitive effects are probably modest or subtle [11,13], and have noted that confounding effects of pre-morbid traits and other illict drug use cannot be excluded [11].

This last section speaks for itself I guess.

 

[amanda_eats_pandas]

First of all, the article linked by the OP is really shitty in that it does not even contain a direct link to the original scientific artifcle. But then again, we should not judge the original research by the shittyness of the Guardian. After reading the original article, I can quote some interesting parts, let us start with the participant selection:

NSFW:

We recruited participants aged 18–45 years who reported (1) at least 17 life-time episodes of ecstasy use or (2) no life-time ecstasy use. These participants represented a fresh sample, not including any participants from the prior pilot study [15]. Participants in both groups were required to be native speakers of English and to report experience in the rave culture, as demonstrated by having attended at least 10 all-night dance parties, defined as staying awake until at least 4.30 a.m. We excluded participants reporting: (1) more than 100 life-time episodes of using cannabis or more than 10 episodes of using any other class of illicit drugs other than ecstasy (cocaine, stimulants, opioids, hallucinogens, sedative-hypnotics, gamma hydroxybutyrate, phencyclidine, ketamine or hydrocarbon inhalants); (2) more than 50 life-time episodes of alcohol intoxication, defined as consuming at least four drinks (defined as 12 ounces of beer, 4 ounces of wine or 1.5 ounces of distilled spirits) within a 4-hour period; (3) history of head injury with loss of consciousness judged clinically significant or history of other medical illnesses that might affect cognitive function; or (4) current use of psychoactive medications, such as antidepressants or benzodiazepines.

So people on antidepressants and benzodiazepines are excluded. This is understandable, but nonetheless creates selection bias since XTC users with altered brain function are quite likely to be on antidepressants or benzodiazepines, and thus will - in part - be excluded from the study.

NSFW:

Although our multiple comparisons increased the likelihood of type I errors, there was no good way to correct for this, as methods such as Bonferroni correction are too conservative and inflate type II error rates [42]. Hence, following the advice of some prior authorities [43,44], we present results without correction, but caution readers to consider this issue when interpreting the findings.

For those not familiar with statistical language: Type I error is an error where the hypothesis is dismissed while it should actually be considered correct; the hypothesis in this case was 'MDMA causes brain damage', so the probability of this hypothesis to be dismissed is increased by the statistic test they used; this is acknowledged by the authors themselves. (This probably means the article was first rejected in the process of peer-review; you do not add remarks like this unless explicitly requested by the journal.)

NSFW:

One meta-analysis of 26 studies found a substantial association between ecstasy use and lowered verbal memory, but noted that the life-time number of ecstasy tablets consumed did not predict memory performance [63]. Another recent meta-analysis concluded that ecstasy was associated with lowered cognitive performance but found only small to medium effect sizes [12]. Other recent reviews have concluded that ecstasy-associated cognitive effects are probably modest or subtle [11,13], and have noted that confounding effects of pre-morbid traits and other illict drug use cannot be excluded [11].

This last section speaks for itself I guess.

Do you have a link to the study itself?
Excellent job actually explaining what each part means.
What I gather from this is that there is a noticeable lower score of verbal and memory tests due to mdma usage? And if that is correct then how does the article posted by the OP claim that there is no ill effects?

 

[MasterSplinter]

Ismene So what are you trying to argue exactly?

We all speak from first hand experience. If MDMA wasn't damaging to the brain in some way I am sure we would all abuse the fuck out of it.

YO. Reality Check -

This article makes no mention of heavy use...it was probably done off a single event, with a follow up a few days later. I dont think you would see damage from cocaine or meth if you did a lite control like that either....

Nobody takes the drug just once

E does cause damage at high or regular doses. So does rat poision, Meth, asprin, etc etc etc.

This article is misleadin cause it doesn't talk about moderations and it dosen't talk about studies done on active users who continually use the drug.

But believe what you will. I dare you to take beans multiple times a week for months and come back here and tell me you feel normal. Yeah thats what I thought...

Guranteed you wont attempt somethin so stupid..and why?

BECAUSE IT WILL FUCK YOU UP.

Get real.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

Do you have a link to the study itself?

Yes I do, but I am afraid it is not publicly available. I could send you the PDF if you send me a private message?

What I gather from this is that there is a noticeable lower score of verbal and memory tests due to mdma usage? And if that is correct then how does the article posted by the OP claim that there is no ill effects?

Well, the fucked up thing is that the original article does not really make a bold claim that MDMA is harmless. Those retards at the Guardian make it sound that way, but that is just based on leaving out the nuance and selective quoting. The article provides results that they do not see siginificant cognitive impairment in regular MDMA users, when compared to non-users, where all participants are members of the so-called rave scene. The quality of this study lies in the use of a representative control group - ravers.

This article makes no mention of heavy use...it was probably done off a single event, with a follow up a few days later.

This is not a correct assumption. The article was based on non-users, light users (I believe between 17 and 50 reported instances of MDMA use) and heavy users (more than 50 reported instances of MDMA use). I believe follow-up was 121 days after the event, but I don't really feel like diving into the whole article again just to give the precise number...it was somewhere around 4 months.

That said, I agree with the tone of your post that the world would be better off if OP would leave science to the scientists.

 

[Bsiren]

Considering the long-term reported effects many people suffer from after abuse + the fact that MDMA has not been widely used for than long, it's outrageous to claim there is no possibility of permanent harm from using MDMA. We are still learning much about how the drug functions on the body, so it stands to reason no one can claim it's damage is completely reversible or irreversible.

Though I have to correct many misinformed people (not here, in every day life) who say ridiculous things of the other extreme like "MDMA causes Parkinsons and holes in the brain", and I'm constantly informing them of the incorrect studies done on rats with methamphetamine that were widely sensationalized by the media, it's just as wrong to claim all harm is absolutely reversible. I have many friends still suffering from MDMA abuse 2 years after abstinence.

I don't like this thread, simply because any statements supporting that MDMA causes 0 damage are quite honestly not supporting harm reduction, and I don't like to see any statements on here that gives someone looking for an excuse to use MDMA too often to do so.

 

[F1n1shed]

Mdma does in fact cause long term damage, each time you use it its kind of like setting the cycle over again. It wipes out most of the serotonin connections that are made when good events happen in your life. Its like massive branches all connected, when you roll many of the branch endings get cleaved (serotonin axon terminals). Some evidence says they do come back, but come back in different areas and are abnormal. Please do not be fooled by the few studies and reports saying there may be damage, because i have done enough research and others have to, to know that it definitely is a damaging drug. I have personal experience as well, and i was not even an abuser.

Now the second part of the story is, yes there is long term damage but i do not believe it is permanent. People think that the damage stays with them for life, when they are in the phase of recovering from their last dose. I was one of those people, and a lot of the emotional problems associated with ecstasy does clear up with a lot of time. Now my question is how much of that clears up, because we are sure that there is some damage that may be there for ever although it may be minimal.

 

[saturatedlies]

Bsiren is bang on. To claim that MDMA does not cause brain damage is like claiming that fishermen never die at sea. We've all seen the reports that have been thoroughly discredited (MDMA causes holes in the brain) and even retracted (MDMA causes Parkinsons's) and the media loves a scare story just like a businessman loves a profit. What does long-term use or short term abuse do? Who knows. My best friend is a pharmacology graduate and he tells me that you are far more likely to damage you liver or heart then your brain. But if your taking mdma frequently, over many years, or in large doses in the space of a small time, it's going to catch up with you. The reports that lend themself to any sort of real evidence show that in animals, damage can and indeed will happen. MDMA's breakdown in the body is, at higher and frequent doses, neurotoxic. To err on the side of caution is the safest bet.

 

[amanda_eats_pandas]

Yes I do, but I am afraid it is not publicly available. I could send you the PDF if you send me a private message?

PM sent

Well, the fucked up thing is that the original article does not really make a bold claim that MDMA is harmless. Those retards at the Guardian make it sound that way, but that is just based on leaving out the nuance and selective quoting. The article provides results that they do not see siginificant cognitive impairment in regular MDMA users, when compared to non-users, where all participants are members of the so-called rave scene. The quality of this study lies in the use of a representative control group - ravers.

Alright, I see that now. This alleged news source wanted something that seemed like a story and would get attention with only loosely held together facts. I feel that the fact significant impairment was not seen though is a good step forward. The Gaurdian article was terribly written, that has already been pointed out, which lends a discrediting light to the study which does have useful information in it.

By selecting against people who had used other drugs we are able to get a clearer picture of the effects of MDMA on top of what we already know from our own experience. Had people with recent use of other drugs been sampled we wouldn't be able to associate the differences in scores with the MDMA. But because they sampled only members of the rave culture there could be a bias within that group that stems from (or leads to) them spending nights at a rave and taking care of their body and mind in that manner.

I feel that the study's findings should be presented in a different way so that no incorrect conclusions are drawn about MDMA.

Considering the long-term reported effects many people suffer from after abuse + the fact that MDMA has not been widely used for than long, it's outrageous to claim there is no possibility of permanent harm from using MDMA. We are still learning much about how the drug functions on the body, so it stands to reason no one can claim it's damage is completely reversible or irreversible.

Though I have to correct many misinformed people (not here, in every day life) who say ridiculous things of the other extreme like "MDMA causes Parkinsons and holes in the brain", and I'm constantly informing them of the incorrect studies done on rats with methamphetamine that were widely sensationalized by the media, it's just as wrong to claim all harm is absolutely reversible. I have many friends still suffering from MDMA abuse 2 years after abstinence.

I don't like this thread, simply because any statements supporting that MDMA causes 0 damage are quite honestly not supporting harm reduction, and I don't like to see any statements on here that gives someone looking for an excuse to use MDMA too often to do so.

We, well the majority of us on here, are aware that yes MDMA is harmful and can be extremely dangerous if used without care and I agree that the way this thread and even this article is presented can be misleading. Perhaps changing the title around or starting another thread on this? Its interesting but presented wrongly and not in the interest of harm reduction.

 

[F1n1shed]

Bsiren is bang on. To claim that MDMA does not cause brain damage is like claiming that fishermen never die at sea. We've all seen the reports that have been thoroughly discredited (MDMA causes holes in the brain) and even retracted (MDMA causes Parkinsons's) and the media loves a scare story just like a businessman loves a profit. What does long-term use or short term abuse do? Who knows. My best friend is a pharmacology graduate and he tells me that you are far more likely to damage you liver or heart then your brain. But if your taking mdma frequently, over many years, or in large doses in the space of a small time, it's going to catch up with you. The reports that lend themself to any sort of real evidence show that in animals, damage can and indeed will happen. MDMA's breakdown in the body is, at higher and frequent doses, neurotoxic. To err on the side of caution is the safest bet.

A lot of your information is spot on but i must say, it doesn't even take years and high doses or real small gaps. You can notice negative changes with using 1 pill every month for a year. And yea your liver and heart are affected to, but trust me when dropping mdma the main thing being targeted in a bad way is your brain.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

A lot of your information is spot on but i must say, it doesn't even take years and high doses or real small gaps. You can notice negative changes with using 1 pill every month for a year. And yea your liver and heart are affected to, but trust me when dropping mdma the main thing being targeted in a bad way is your brain.

The main target is definitely the brain, but that doesn't exclude the liver from doing the dirty work: cleaning up the fucking mess. Some real nasty radicals are formed when breaking down MDMA, combine that with a significant rise in body temperature and your liver is definitely under heavy attack. But the thing is...the liver is very resilient; it can take a whole lot of punishment before you notice the effects.

There's little question deaths caused by MDMA are mostly caused by hyperthermia, hyponatremia or serotonin syndrome - none of which is directly tied to the main target organ: The brain.

 

[saturatedlies]

it doesn't even take years and high doses or real small gaps. You can notice negative changes with using 1 pill every month for a year.

Would say that these negative changes are more psychosomatic then permanent damage?

The main target is definitely the brain, but that doesn't exclude the liver from doing the dirty work: cleaning up the fucking mess. Some real nasty radicals are formed when breaking down MDMA, combine that with a significant rise in body temperature and your liver is definitely under heavy attack. But the thing is...the liver is very resilient; it can take a whole lot of punishment before you notice the effects.

There's little question deaths caused by MDMA are mostly caused by hyperthermia, hyponatremia or serotonin syndrome - none of which is directly tied to the main target organ: The brain.

Definetely true. The liver is the only organ in the body that can regenerate new cells and can cope with taking a fair amount of damage until you can develop more serious conditions such as cirrhosis. What do these radicals even do?

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

news articles are not really a reliable source when it comes to physiological psychology and psychopharmacology.

 

[Evad]

3rd_I_blind and those that actually read the study or even the abstract thank you for doing so. There's a lot of ill informed, reactionary nonsense in this thread .

So people on antidepressants and benzodiazepines are excluded. This is understandable, but nonetheless creates selection bias since XTC users with altered brain function are quite likely to be on antidepressants or benzodiazepines, and thus will - in part - be excluded from the study.

Benzo use causes pretty heavy cognitive impairment as far as memory etc goes so including them in the study would have created a significant bias in the other direction.

Has this study received no publicity in the USA? A bit like the WHO gag on that cocaine report there if so isn't it? (The report for those interested)

 

[atara]

Original paper:

http://www.addictionjournal.org/viewpressrelease.asp?pr=147

First, the non-users in the experiment were members of the "rave" subculture and thus repeatedly exposed to sleep and fluid deprivation from all-night dancing -- factors that themselves can produce long-lasting cognitive effects.

Hey, kids, see this? This bit right here?

Sure, ecstasy might be safe. Sleep deprivation is not. Think twice before you stay up all night: unlike ecstasy, it is known to cause problems.

Same goes for not eating.

 

[MazDan]

Ismene, Is it possible to get a link to the original study results.

Currently all anyone can comment on is a news article. That in itself is far from any reliable means of determing the accuracy of a study.

News reports are pretty much the most unreliable source known to man.