Study suggests little evidence Ecstasy causes brain damage

[MasterSplinter]

(-_-)..

 

[Keaton]

Let's keep discussion on track and not get into analyzing each other's intelligence?

 

[shiznik]

Let's keep discussion on track and not get into analyzing each other's intelligence?

Really? Moderators are supposed to police a discussion so strictly that even harmless tangents are not allowed? Man...

IMO MasterSplinter is a perfect example of the benefits of a good loooonnngggg break from MDMA.

It's quotes like this that made me want to write about MasterSplinters intelligence in the first place.

 

[Keaton]

All I'm saying is that if you want to talk about each other's intelligence, take it to PM's. That way you don't clog up the thread with that unnecessary babble.

 

[shiznik]

Well the way I see it a discussion of his intelligence was relevant given that in this thread (that includes "brain damage" in the title) he was claiming that his intelligence has suffered as a result of use.

Please don't make me go through your posts and quote every time you've provided "unnecessary babble" to a thread. I know you're excited you just got "promoted" to moderator but come on...

 

[F1n1shed]

Meh alright, so it probably doesn't cause brain damage ( as in permanent ) . But i firmly believe from personal experience and countless reports that each usage causes long term 'damage'. Meaning not taking the drug for a LONG time will probably repair your brain to the 98% ish level. But during that time where your your brain is replenishing itself you will be faced with that 'damage'. Meaning all the things associated with low levels of serotonin. ( anxiety, depression, confusion, disorientation, sleep problems, cognitive problems, memory problems ) I'm not saying you will face all of those, i am just saying be prepared to deal with some of those while in repairing mode.
Bottom line, mdma may not be a permanent brain damaging drug but it can definitely put you through some long term problems faster than most other drugs. I don't think anyone can disagree with that : P
I'm just kind of mad back when i was reading this website 2 years ago it was basically said by everyone that it is okay to roll every month. So there i went rolled every 2 months or so and i felt like a fucked up zombie who thought i would never be better. I'm just trying to get the information out now so someone doesn't do what i did, even though you could call me a moderate user. Rolling every month on MDMA is NOT okay bluelighters.

 

[Deleted member 137730]

You could also point out that in that documentary it is listed at number 18 of 20, behind alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.

all those listing with mdma lower than alcohol and tobacco are lol and cant be taken seriously at all. They were basing it on lethality, not brain damage.

 

[socalthizzn]

 

[3rd_I_blind]

What exactly is up with people starting up a discussion and then ignoring your reaction? Does is really mean you cannot come up with a decent respons i.e. that I am 'victorious'? Does it mean that you are truly too ignorant to respond to argumentation providing evidence for the contrary to your own opinion? Is it an indication the level of this forum really is becoming so sad that one-sentence replies and posting 'funny' images are considered top notch in a discussion on a scientific article? It sure as hell does not mean that you did not have the time to respond, since you have enough time going 'round moderating or lecturing other BL'ers about their perceived intelligence/stupidity.

 

[MasterSplinter]

What exactly is up with people starting up a discussion and then ignoring your reaction? Does is really mean you cannot come up with a decent respons i.e. that I am 'victorious'? Does it mean that you are truly too ignorant to respond to argumentation providing evidence for the contrary to your own opinion? Is it an indication the level of this forum really is becoming so sad that one-sentence replies and posting 'funny' images are considered top notch in a discussion on a scientific article? It sure as hell does not mean that you did not have the time to respond, since you have enough time going 'round moderating or lecturing other BL'ers about their perceived intelligence/stupidity.

Chill out bro. We are past the Point of no return here. This is a debate that Has raged across multiple threads on bluelight for half a decade.

Need I state the obvious? This is a harm reduction site and due to the lack of real scientific evidence we can all only speak from experience. Jurys in...abusing MDmA will fuck you up. I intend to stand by my arguement and support harm reduction.

This thread should have stayed closed from the begining. I stand behind socal in that these arguements are leading nowhere. I dont see what good can come out of arguing "mdma doenst cause damage." thats bullshit.

Mods end this nightmare or merge it with an older thread...

 

[interleukin]

Wow! Can't believe people are still defending this drug after it has caused them trouble. There is soooo much scientific evidence that MDMA is a potent serotonin neurotoxin that it is ridiculous to even have this argument. A simple pubmed/google scholar search spits out hundreds of papers on the topic and it is simply considered a fact among the scientific community. It is impossible to "fully" recover from axonal damage (in the brain). Most of the axonal pathfinding happens very early in development.
In terms of levels of cognitive impairment, my memory is much worse than it was before I used MDMA but obviously statements like that don't seem to count towards this discussion.

 

[Deleted member 137730]

Why don't people ever bring up the fact that MDMA users are often users of speed/meth (in pills)? I mean it should be obvious that THOSE are responsible for the brain damage. How many users of pure MDMA are as messed up as those who take pills? Every time I think of someone messed up from the use of E, they just take E pills all night, which contain speed, meth, whatever. So you can't directly blame MDMA for those when there's another factor in the user vs control group.

They dont bring it up because meth and especially speed dont cause these particular sorts of issues ever really, let alone with 5-15 doses as people report. Plus people get their shit tested and still get bad effects.

I always LOL at people blaming other drugs and not mdma. Other drugs arnt going to cause the permanent issues regularly seen with mdma, other drugs are just a scape goat.

speed isnt really neurotoxic, and meth only is in repeated and high doses. Even then it simply doesnt cause the same issues seen with mdma.

 

[3rd_I_blind]

speed isnt really neurotoxic

I totally agree with your post, but this little part of it is definitely not true. That said, it always seems that people forget the fact that MDMA is a (meth)amphetamine too. So effects seen with methamphetamine and amphetamine are always expected to be seen with MDMA also, although the level of severity will differ.

 

[shiznik]

3rd I you don't have a stance to argue with. You wrote about some errors you found in the study, and that there was a selection bias and then because you think I'm an idiot you wrote me a nice little paragraph about how one would be made in a study with cancer patients. Thanks! I'm done with you. You should know that people you have discussions with on the internet are not bound to the rules of verbal exchange you attempt to govern. Because I'm feeling nice I will write you a paragraph attempting to describe what I believe you have contributed to this thread:

It is as if there were a log laying on the ground in the forest and some people were talking about whether or not they should sit on it. You came along and said "I wouldn't sit on it. Some of the bark is missing and it used to be an oak tree."

There you are!

I never posted in this thread to "defend MDMA" because it has caused me plenty of problems in the past. I posted because you all do not know what the fuck you are talking about and claim this and that about the "severe damage" it has caused you and will be damned if ANYONE suggests otherwise because you KNOW IT FOR SURE. You are an EXPERT because you took MDMA. When people make suggestions about how you do not know that for sure because you haven't got a professional opinion on it and have no brain scans or before and after documentation you have a pink panty fucking meltdown.

This whole discussion is full of whiny little pseudo-experts quick to blame MDMA for every single fucking problem they have ever had. Has MDMA caused you some neurological damage? Yes. Do you or even any scientists/neurologists/whatever fully know how this damage effects your cognitive future? NO. So why are you all such know it all's CONVINCED you have done PERMANENT IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE that even the people who study this sort of thing can't even fucking measure? Cool, you read online that axons are destroyed! You're a genius! How does that effect your day to day life? You have no fucking clue, but you're going to log on here and call everyone else an idiot because you think you do. It's pathetic. Like I said, the people who study this sort of thing do not know the exact relationship between the neurological damage and cognitive impairment, so why would you? You simply wouldn't, end of story.

 

[Evad]

Straight methamphetamine is vastly more neurotoxic than MDMA

Oh OK, Mate would it not still be possible to just provide a direct link?

direct links aren't possible because membership is required for resources that host such studies, it needs to be downloaded and rehosted (as was done on sendspace) but there may be copyright issues with its reproduction (I am not sure of this at all as copyright law is not my forte).

 

[3rd_I_blind]

I never posted in this thread to "defend MDMA" because it has caused me plenty of problems in the past. I posted because you all do not know what the fuck you are talking about and claim this and that about the "severe damage" it has caused you and will be damned if ANYONE suggests otherwise because you KNOW IT FOR SURE. You are an EXPERT because you took MDMA. When people make suggestions about how you do not know that for sure because you haven't got a professional opinion on it and have no brain scans or before and after documentation you have a pink panty fucking meltdown.

Understandable this frustrates you. But you direct a large portion of this frustration to me, while I am one of the few people that has not resorted to n=1 experiments or subjective reports from my social circle.

I merely explained the whole selection bias since you gave the impression that my mentioning of selection bias was not enough of an argument to undermine the articles conclusion. Perhaps you should read THIS report by the NHS; seems (some of) the experts do agree that this study is not the holy grail some people claim it to be.

BTW, seems like you are resorting so sophism and ad hominem tactics. Too bad, since I was hoping to have a nice discussion with you (since the OP is infamous for ignoring the fuck out of anyone countering his believes).

 

[thomas2laylum]

for a thread about a love drug it has become ironically argumentative...

 

[3rd_I_blind]

for a thread about a love drug it has become ironically argumentative...

Definitive evidence past MDMA-use increases tendency for agressive verbal behavior.

 

[shiznik]

Definitive evidence past MDMA-use increases tendency for agressive verbal behavior.

HAHA please tell me this is a joke.

 

[shiznik]

I didn't think that the selection bias was enough to undermine the conclusions because, like I already said, inclusion of those subjects I feel would undermine them further. I don't feel like having a discussion with you about anything else because this study means nothing to me. You seem to think that because I quoted you out of context and made a witty remark to leverage my intelligence I am somehow bound to have a proper argument with you... Why? You go on to discredit the way I write and draw comparisons to political tactics. Fair enough, are we done?

I already outlined the biggest issue I have with remarks made in this thread. I'm not interested in debating you over how questionable the logistics of the study were because I have nothing to say.