UK - Scientific evidence that Ecstasy damages brains

E

edgarshade

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
1,954
Location
UK
Telegraph

7:00AM BST 08 Oct 2012

With reader comments

SIR – I agreed to take part in the recent Channel 4 programme about Ecstasy (MDMA) with the proviso that I would be given time to summarise the scientific evidence on the damaging effects of the drug on the human brain. Unfortunately this did not occur.

Professor Leslie Iversen (Letters, September 28th) was correct in noting more than 60 previous studies on the effects of MDMA on brain activity. At Swansea University we have found reduced brain activity in MDMA users now free from drugs. Memory continues to be impaired for months and years afterwards. In very heavy users, “word recall” can be reduced to 50 per cent of normal levels.

Researchers at Northumbria University have found reduced social intelligence, along with other mental or cognitive deficits. Other groups have found reduced “problem solving” abilities.

At the University of East London and Case Western Reserve University, Ohio, its recreational use during pregnancy has been found to impair the development of the emergent babies.

The mood gains of MDMA are short-lived, and followed by a longer period of negative moods – such as irritability, paranoia and depression. Hence the average weekly moods of MDMA users are significantly worse than non-users.

At Swansea University we have been researching the damaging effects of recreational MDMA on the stress hormone cortisol. This neurohormone is increased by 800 per cent in dance clubbers, and is also markedly raised in abstinent users, helping to explain why recreational users suffer from impaired sleep and can develop clinical sleep apnoea.

Finally, MDMA has weak hallucinogenic properties and can cause mental confusion. Hence it is unlikely that it could help resolve complex mental health problems.

Professor Andy C. Parrott
Department of Psychology
Swansea University
Click to expand...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ech-will-guarantee-David-Cameron-victory.html
 
MDMA has weak hallucinogenic properties and can cause mental confusion. Hence it is unlikely that it could help resolve complex mental health problems.
Click to expand...

This doesn't really make sense. There is some evidence that drugs like LSD and mushrooms ("strong hallucinogens", if you will) can help resolve complex mental health problems, including depression and addiction, so why would a "weak hallucinogen" not be able to solve complex mental health problems due the the "mental confusion" it creates?

Despite all the negatives associated with MDMA in the article, I still don't see a reason why it shouldn't be used sparingly in order to address certain types of mental health problems, especially with a therapist. The research seems (this is my general impression that should be checked) to be based on people who have used MDMA many, many times, as well as on people who have taken "ecstasy" without knowing exactly what was in it.

Based on this, it seems that taking pure MDMA a small number of times may not lead to any of the problems the article discusses.

I have taken (pure) MDMA 4 times in my life, over the past 20 years, and 2 of the experiences were absolutely stunning. They got me back on track in life, when I had been moving in a not-so-good direction. If I experienced any damage, mental or emotional, from my 4 experiences, it is not noticeable.

With that kind of cost-benefit profile, at least in my case, it doesn't make sense to scream that MDMA should be illegal due to the damage it does (assuming also that said damage is only shown with heavy users or users of "ecstasy"). Instead, save those billions of dollars on cops and jails and courts, and invest them in research to create a chemical similar to MDMA that doesn't cause damage. Maybe do some more research on MDA, and others that already exist.
 
I think its fair to say that heavy recreational users probably have had a lot of other drugs in their pills which could have caused damage.
As for the depression etc. it might just be me but I feel amazing for a good week or 2 after using MDMA.
I still dont think these are valid reasons to keep it illegal, and especially invalid to deny a treatment for PTSD.
 
I thought we solved this debate a year or so ago with articles on debunking the BS studies produced in the nineties showing damage to the brain.
 
Professor Andy C. Parrott, the miserable looking thing on the channel 4 program?

Your not taking into account dose etc.
If you abuse it sure its like any other drug.

I do not think that personally that Recreational use of mdma in suitable and sensible doses (and no redosing) as well as spacing out the times of taking mdma are spaced out to at least 60 days that it causes damage.

How comes i can remember chords and tunes ive played on the piano and learnt over 10 years ago, do mdma and i can still remember how to play them years later?

Miserable B********.
lol
 
I believe that it is to be expected that any drug which directly affects any part(s) of the brain may cause varying degrees of short and long term changes to those areas as well as indirect changes to other parts, functions or organs in the body and mdma is not exempt from that.

As an example:

Neuroleptics - tardive dyskinesia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, type 2 diabetes

Antidepressants - sexual dysfunction, tardive dysphoria, akathisia

Benzodiazepines - memory impairment, depression, altered sleep cycles

Amphetamines - dopamine neuron damage, psychosis, possible cardiac damage

MDMA - memory impairment, depression

The bullshit that I'm noticing more and more however is that the term "brain damage" is conveniently tossed around, particularly when it comes to drugs with an abuse liability. And it seems that the opposite is the case when discussing antipsychotics, SSRIs, TCAs, MAOIs, etc.

Maybe it's just me.
 
wait antidepressants can cause sexual dysfunction? Damn, that's something I'd be depressed about :/

saw it was that parrott guys name at the bottom and discounted it immediatly. I'm a pretty firm believer that proper spacing and dosages, no mixing if possible and no redosing is very much 'safe' but I bet most regular users don't pay attention to any of those things.
 
I know people , but think how often you take anti depressants? Everyday for most of them , and im sure they are neurotoxic.
How frequent are responsible users taking mdma? every 60-90 days ideally
 
MDMA is an extremely damaging drug. When used irresponsibly...

If you use it safely, there is literally no lasting damage. But just because you don't get damage from one use, doesn't mean you can use it every week safely.


Plus, one of the metabolites of MDMA is alpha-methyldopamine. It literally destroy serotonin and dopamine terminals... so saying MDMA is safe is just a lie... but also completely true at the same time.

It all comes down to how much/often you use
 
Your definition and science's definition of "pretty clear" are very different.
 
^ I agree that MDMA may be more damaging than alcohol.
I wasn't trying to say that alcohol was worse, though reading back I can easily see why you interpreted it that way.
I was simply trying to say that there are many chemicals that damage our brains, and for some of them, we consider it to be worth it to take them regardless.
Just because something damages our brains doesn't mean it should therefore be made illegal.
Effective, science-based education is essential in such cases, but it lies within our human rights to have the freedom to choose to take such chemicals.
 
Ohhh, yeah I get your point now. I'd definitely agree with that, I mean I know virtually all the dangers of MDMA use, I still choose to do it. In fact, in knowing those dangers I can do it in a much safer way than compared to the average kid with DARE info


Education is certainly key to any effective anti-drug campaign. That's why none of the current ones work :\
 
Then, by all means, share the studies that made this brain damage clear. Lets make sure we specifically define "brain damage", as well. It would be best if the studies that you share used "moderate doses", as you said, and that they made at least a token effort to control for the countless other variables and to remove the "correlation/causation" question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top