Just like every other drug in existence
-
DPMC Moderators: tryptakid
UK - Scientific evidence that Ecstasy damages brains
- Thread starter edgarshade
- Start date
Just like every other drug in existence
Its usually only illegal drugs that get portrayed as evil and deadly in the media.
Last edited:
Folley
Bluelighter
Repeated administration of MDMA causes transient down-regulation of serotonin 5-HT2 receptors.
The Acute and Chronic Effects of MDMA (“Ecstasy”) on Cortical 5-HT2A Receptors in Rat and Human Brain
Decreased social behaviour following 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is accompanied by changes in 5-HT2A receptor responsivity
Increased anxiety in rats after 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine: association with serotonin depletion
You're welcome.
I get the feeling you just did a quick search and picked 4 articles at random. Did you even bother to read the abstracts? They very clearly don't say what you think they're saying, and even more so don't fit the category of "moderate doses" and "controlled for variables."
Relevant portions:
1st link's abstract:
"The MDMA (8 doses; 5-20 mg/kg each) was administered to rats over a period of 4 days."
For an average-sized human (we'll be generous to your side of the argument and call average weight 140lbs), this would be equivalent to 318mg to 1.27g doses, twice a day, for 4 days. Moderate doses? I don't think so.
"Twenty-one days after administration of MDMA however, the number of binding sites for [125I]MIL was back to control levels."
I don't think that one needs any further explaining.
2nd link, body of paper:
"Groups of rats (n 4–5) were given either a vehicle or a neurotoxic regimen of MDMA which consisted of a subcutaneous dose of 10 mg/kg (in 0.5 ml saline) MDMA given twice daily for four consecutive days."
Again, monster doses, with twice daily repetition for 4 days. Not moderate doses.
"Binding ratios of rats with a 30 day survival period were comparable or higher compared with control rats."
and
"binding ratios were lower in recent MDMA users compared with control subjects, and higher in ex-MDMA users as compared with the control and MDMA group"
Just as before, this study shows that with a short period of abstinence (30+ days in this case) the subjects had returned to control conditions. More specifically, in this study, post-synaptic 5-HT receptors had returned to normal levels or had compensatorily upregulated to have a higher-than-normal density.
3rd link, from abstract:
"Wistar rats (post-natal day (PND) 28) received either MDMA (5 mg/kg i.p.) or saline (1 ml/kg i.p.) hourly for 4 h on 2 consecutive days."
The PND part means this was done 28 days after the birth of the rat. This type of rat has an average lifespan of around 3 years, and is generally weaned at 17-19 days after birth. Put into human equivalent ages (based on an average 70-year lifespan), this would be equivalent to giving a 21-month old a dose of 200mg MDMA over 4 hours, two days in a row. I realize that comparing ages is not that clear-cut, but it is still very significant that these doses are being given to rats that are still in a VERY early stage of development.
4th paper, abstract:
"Rats were given MDMA (5 mg/kg i.p. once per hour for 4 h)"
and
"These results are consistent with human studies suggesting that exposure to high doses of MDMA may predispose to long-term psychological problems such as anxiety and depression."
You're welcome.
Let me know if you need me to read any more papers for you.
Last edited:
thiz master
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2011
- Messages
- 130
^^ snap son
Folley
Bluelighter
Yes, as a matter of fact, I did. I'm not going to spend hours searching for something I know to be true.
and I never said anything about moderate doses, because what E Tards do you know that take moderate doses? No, they're all "rolling ballz" every week on a gram of MDMA in 100+ degree raves without water.
That's the most variable environment out there..
I really don't know why your trying to argue that MDMA isn't neurotoxic. In safe doses, yeah, it's negative effects can't be noticed. But if you kept taking those "safe" doses, month after month... it's going to catch up with you.
I've personally seen probably a hundred people coming through Ecstasy Discussion of people complaining of the truly awful side effects that MDMA can, and will, cause when abused. Long lasting depression and anxiety are the two most recurring traits in users, but it can get as bad as multiple year long depersonalization in some.
MDMA is damaging, and no one else would argue that fact. You can take ways to minimize those risks, but to say there are none is just plain foolish. I really don't give a shit what any study says... as stupid as that obviously sounds... I've seen far too many people get completely fucked over by MDMA abuse to believe anything over than it can be extremely damaging to the serotonin system, among other things.
slimvictor
Bluelight Crew
I am very interested in the issue of whether and to what extent MDMA is neurotoxic if used carefully (say, 100mg doses once a year), and would like to get to the bottom of it.
So, I will throw out there what I can find, despite my weak ability to read biology / neurology literature.
There is this article, which shows that one single dose of MDMA results in a depletion of 5-HT (serotonin) and 5-HIA in the cortex and hippocampus one week later.
Q: Is this a type of "brain damage"? It seems to be considered equivalent, but I need more info. (Again, we need a definition of "brain damage").
Q: Was the dose very large? I can't tell.
This study relates to the previous one, in several ways. Most important:
1) It appears that one can take drugs to prevent (some?) of the neurotoxicity:
This article looks at the protective effects of certain chemicals - can they be taken in order to prevent neurotoxicity? The answer is generally yes, except that none of the chemicals prevented 5-HT (serotonin) loss 4 hours after a single dose of MDMA was administered.
It may just come down to not having enough evidence, as the authors say here:
Or it may ultimately be a question of dosage and frequency, as many here have noted.
If a lot of MDMA really messes with your brain, maybe a little just messes with it a little, as they found in this paper:
So, I will throw out there what I can find, despite my weak ability to read biology / neurology literature.
There is this article, which shows that one single dose of MDMA results in a depletion of 5-HT (serotonin) and 5-HIA in the cortex and hippocampus one week later.
Q: Is this a type of "brain damage"? It seems to be considered equivalent, but I need more info. (Again, we need a definition of "brain damage").
Q: Was the dose very large? I can't tell.
This study relates to the previous one, in several ways. Most important:
1) It appears that one can take drugs to prevent (some?) of the neurotoxicity:
2) It says that this is a species-specific thing, and that rats and guinea pigs suffer, but mice are not effected by it.
This article looks at the protective effects of certain chemicals - can they be taken in order to prevent neurotoxicity? The answer is generally yes, except that none of the chemicals prevented 5-HT (serotonin) loss 4 hours after a single dose of MDMA was administered.
It may just come down to not having enough evidence, as the authors say here:
Or it may ultimately be a question of dosage and frequency, as many here have noted.
If a lot of MDMA really messes with your brain, maybe a little just messes with it a little, as they found in this paper:
When you quoted my post, with your childish "You're welcome." you mentioned moderate doses. You were directly responding, with a quote to make it extra clear, to a request for studies demonstrating that ecstasy caused brain damage in moderate doses.
What e-tards do has nothing to do with whether moderate doses cause brain damage or not. Science answers questions in a very specific scope because that is the only way that the answers are meaningful. If you are going to claim that dosing and re-dosing all night may cause brain damage, you aren't going to hear any argument from me. The studies clearly support that statement, as well. But you are CONSTANTLY going around preaching from a moral high-horse about how dangerous MDMA is in any dose, peddling half-assed evidence to "prove" it.
Yes, there are some people on ED who have had some major damage, and I also don't doubt you when you say that you know people who've caused themselves a lot of damage. But the fact remains that so far, the scientific evidence does not show that moderate doses taken by adults causes lasting damage.
I never claimed that there are no risks. My original statement was directed as Ho-Chi-Minh's claim that it was "pretty clear" that moderate doses caused brain damage. I simply challenged his claim by asking for some evidence of it. I'm actually not even proclaiming that moderate doses DON'T cause harm (I don't have a lot of evidence to demonstrate that), I'm just pointing out that there isn't solid evidence proving that it does.
It really sucks, too, because researchers' hands are tied in that regard because of governmental restrictions on asking/answering any meaningful questions about the relative harms of drugs. The only sort of studies they'll get permission and funding for are the sort where they already know the answer (drugs are bad) and are, from the outset, trying to produce evidence that points to that answer, instead of approaching the question open-endedly. That's why all of those rat studies use such ridiculous dosing schemes - so they can produce the results that they are "supposed" to produce.
What e-tards do has nothing to do with whether moderate doses cause brain damage or not. Science answers questions in a very specific scope because that is the only way that the answers are meaningful. If you are going to claim that dosing and re-dosing all night may cause brain damage, you aren't going to hear any argument from me. The studies clearly support that statement, as well. But you are CONSTANTLY going around preaching from a moral high-horse about how dangerous MDMA is in any dose, peddling half-assed evidence to "prove" it.
Yes, there are some people on ED who have had some major damage, and I also don't doubt you when you say that you know people who've caused themselves a lot of damage. But the fact remains that so far, the scientific evidence does not show that moderate doses taken by adults causes lasting damage.
I never claimed that there are no risks. My original statement was directed as Ho-Chi-Minh's claim that it was "pretty clear" that moderate doses caused brain damage. I simply challenged his claim by asking for some evidence of it. I'm actually not even proclaiming that moderate doses DON'T cause harm (I don't have a lot of evidence to demonstrate that), I'm just pointing out that there isn't solid evidence proving that it does.
It really sucks, too, because researchers' hands are tied in that regard because of governmental restrictions on asking/answering any meaningful questions about the relative harms of drugs. The only sort of studies they'll get permission and funding for are the sort where they already know the answer (drugs are bad) and are, from the outset, trying to produce evidence that points to that answer, instead of approaching the question open-endedly. That's why all of those rat studies use such ridiculous dosing schemes - so they can produce the results that they are "supposed" to produce.
Folley
Bluelighter
lol what the fuck? I've said many times in this same thread that, when used safely, MDMA causes little to no damage. I say the exact opposite when you start talking about abuse of the drug, though.
The studies that are testing "moderate doses" are only testing one, maybe two doses. Even the most responsible MDMA user won't use just once... I mean, if someone was taking 100mg, a very moderate dose, every week, that's obviously not safe, and is very likely to cause some major damage. The way you worded that sounds a lot like you can take moderate doses often without problems.
That's why I never put too much stock in these studies, if people aren't taking one small dose in a controlled environment and never dosing again, then a study based around that isn't much help.. to the average user, at least. Obviously your a lot smarter than me in the chemical department, so I'm going to lose any argument against you about it.. I just want to make sure the E Tards that will inevitably read this don't get the wrong idea from your posts. They would suffer the same fate I did when I first came on here... doing 5 minutes of research, seeing someone say it's safe to use, and then they're popping pills every week.
Last edited:
That paper says that with a 5mg/kg dose, the change wasn't statistically significant, but for a 10mg/kg dose, it was a pretty big drop. They measured the levels 7 days after the dose. To relate the dosing to dosing for yourself, take your weight in pounds, divide by 2.2 to get your weight in kg, then multiply by the mg/kg dose to get the human dose in mg. For me, at 140 lbs, that would be 140/2.2 = 63.63kg * (5mg/kg or 10mg/kg) = 318mg or 636mg. So, the 5mg/kg is a big, but all that uncommon dose, and the 10mg/kg is a dose that would have most people laying in a puddle if their stuff was pure.
One important thing to note is that this paper only measured the levels at 7 days after the dose. Most other papers I've read measure once shortly after the dosing, and again much later, such as 30 days or more. When they are measured later, the levels have generally returned to normal. The 4th article you posted reflects that.
If I had been part of the research group doing that study, I would have done a few more trials of the experiment that produced figure 4. If they all looked like that, I would have said "Well guys, I'm out. I don't want my name on this paper." The levels of the "control" group are all over the chart - some are higher than the users, others are lower than the users. With data that variable, a much, much larger sample size is needed to draw any meaningful conclusions.
ro4eva
Bluelighter
^^ Kinda off-topic but you guys should check out the Channel 4 documentary "Drugs Live - The Ecstasy Trial." Really good stuff.
Darksidesam
Bluelight Crew
^ seemed rushed, but
anywho
notice how the priest got very effected by it, maybe alcohol abstinence?
id say the ex-sas guy probably drinks loads. "You know what i mean"
lol
anywho
notice how the priest got very effected by it, maybe alcohol abstinence?
id say the ex-sas guy probably drinks loads. "You know what i mean"
lol
ro4eva
Bluelighter
Yeah, I'm really glad that the ordained priest had a profound experience while on it.
I believe that the ex-sas guy wasn't affected because he's rather large in both ways and he was dosed only with 83mg.
Also, the other guy (the actor?) - I think he wasn't affected because over the past decades, he's probably treated his brain like an amusement park. Extra crispy.
It did seem rushed, I agree. However, it's still a really good ecstasy documentary (if you wanna call it that) if only because of the fact they recorded five peeps being trialed and also because that one bloke who was anti-ecstasy was seemingly constantly called "a minority" by both hosts. I had a good laugh seeing the look on his face afterwards.
slimvictor
Bluelight Crew
Thanks for your help understanding the articles, scureto.
Good to understand. Thank you.
But their stats seem to say that the sample size is sufficient, don't they?
The data on that graph has a good p value, and a so-so r value. I think it does a good job of proving that there is diminished binding for some users of MDMA, but the not-so-great r value is a shaky foundation for their conclusion that there is a strong correlation between total number of MDMA uses and the degree to which binding is diminished. Based on other data out there, I would say that context of the uses (total dose, redosing, oxidative stress, etc) has a lot more to do with it than the total numer of MDMA uses.
Also, a little later in the conclusions they do say :
Other papers that specifically address whether there is a return to normal levels have found that given enough time, binding appears to return to normal or above-normal levels.
Also, a little later in the conclusions they do say :
Other papers that specifically address whether there is a return to normal levels have found that given enough time, binding appears to return to normal or above-normal levels.
edgarshade
Bluelighter
Daily Telegraph
7:00AM BST 11 Oct 2012
With reader comments
(Scroll down to see quoted letter)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...s-to-traditional-Conservative-supporters.html
7:00AM BST 11 Oct 2012
With reader comments
(Scroll down to see quoted letter)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...s-to-traditional-Conservative-supporters.html
ro4eva
Bluelighter
^^ It's not just Professor Parrott who was cut off. Many others were as well - pro-mdma and anti-mdma.
This may sound biased, but as I sat on my couch watching and listening to Dr. Parrott express his anti-mdma opinions, citing various studies done as far back as 20 years ago from what I recall him saying; I couldn't help but wonder if his opinions were in fact based on a hidden agenda which, ultimately, probably had to do with money from a pharmaceutical giant or a conglomerate. It's no secret many of these companies have tried to increase a novel drug revenue by hiding or exaggerating facts relating to adverse effects, dosing frequency, abuse liability and so forth. Money under the table to protect their investments - for example - in a newly patented drug indicated for PTSD would be nothing new to them.
I'm not a bona fide conspiracy theorist - however, again, his opinions were based on old research with subjects which were/are probably poly-drug users, combining mdma with other recreational drugs such as meth, mda, alcohol, etc. Many etards - I find - tend to love to smoke while rolling. I don't have any proof, but perhaps even tobacco use combined with ecstasy may increase neurotoxicity.
Lastly, I found it quite interesting that none of the subjects involved in the trial - who ingested mdma rather than placebo - reportedly experienced 'the Tuesday blues' according to Professor David Nutt.
This may sound biased, but as I sat on my couch watching and listening to Dr. Parrott express his anti-mdma opinions, citing various studies done as far back as 20 years ago from what I recall him saying; I couldn't help but wonder if his opinions were in fact based on a hidden agenda which, ultimately, probably had to do with money from a pharmaceutical giant or a conglomerate. It's no secret many of these companies have tried to increase a novel drug revenue by hiding or exaggerating facts relating to adverse effects, dosing frequency, abuse liability and so forth. Money under the table to protect their investments - for example - in a newly patented drug indicated for PTSD would be nothing new to them.
I'm not a bona fide conspiracy theorist - however, again, his opinions were based on old research with subjects which were/are probably poly-drug users, combining mdma with other recreational drugs such as meth, mda, alcohol, etc. Many etards - I find - tend to love to smoke while rolling. I don't have any proof, but perhaps even tobacco use combined with ecstasy may increase neurotoxicity.
Lastly, I found it quite interesting that none of the subjects involved in the trial - who ingested mdma rather than placebo - reportedly experienced 'the Tuesday blues' according to Professor David Nutt.
Last edited:
I don't think your reactions and analysis of Dr. Parrott's opinions sound conspiracy theorist-y at all. I think you are spot on. If MDMA did not exist before today, and a pharmaceutical company developed it today, with a patent, and with an onslaught of money to protect it and test it under rigorously protected conditions, I have very little doubt that it would end up approved for use. But because of its already-stigmatized status and the fact that there is no profit motive to investing much money into proper research into its safety or lack thereof (only the lack is researched now), it will remain as it is indefinitely.
Totally unrelated note: I think both Dr. Parrott and Dr. Nutt both have comical names, considering their stances. Dr. Parrott repeats the usual "drugs are bad" line, and Dr. Nutt has a crazy new idea that "drugs aren't as bad".
Totally unrelated note: I think both Dr. Parrott and Dr. Nutt both have comical names, considering their stances. Dr. Parrott repeats the usual "drugs are bad" line, and Dr. Nutt has a crazy new idea that "drugs aren't as bad".