There are quite a few articles saying otherwise.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/201...ian-health-official-says-pure-ecstasy-is-safe
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ecstasy_safer_than_peanuts/
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2008/sep/05/australia_drug_researcher_says_e
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/mar/23/constitution.drugsandalcohol
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rse-riding-says-Governments-drug-advisor.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1574273/Ecstasy-is-a-safe-drug-says-police-chief.html
Now, there are just as many saying the exact opposite. Probably a lot more, really. Saying it is safe or unsafe is a load of horse shit, though. It's both. It is an EXTREMELY safe drug when used responsibly, if you read the Six Simple Rules To MDMA and follow them, there is really not much harm that can come to you.
Adulterants are the main source of harm in "ecstasy" abuse, although I can't deny that the drug it self can be quite damaging. In fact, I would also argue it is one the the most damaging drugs out there. I have made that argument before. This is only with serious abuse, though. There is a key difference between use and abuse, just as there is a difference between someone using Desoxyn for severe ADD and someone smoking crystal for days on end chasing the shadow people.
I could continue, but honestly I think you already understand that a responsible 150mg (~1.1mg per kg for human) dose once every month or two is not the same as the 3000mg (I've seen up to 15mg/kg) a day doses they are injecting into mice for 3 consecutive days for weeks on end to display this neurotoxicity.
Meth and heroin can also be used safely, but due to their strong reinforcing properties and addictive nature this is MUCH, MUCH harder than using MDMA in such a manner.
As regards to the first article, "may not have negative long-term health effects" is about as vague as you can get. And he's talking about pure MDMA, which how many people actually get?
The second: "A much larger percentage of people suffer a fatal acute reaction to peanuts than to MDMA." is their only claim. Fatal. What a trash-piece of writing.
The third: "Drug Researcher Says Ecstasy Safer Than Binge Drinking". He notes that the ecstasy dose is very small. Duh. Again, I'm not comparing copious amounts of heroin to small amounts of ecstasy. And he doesn't say it doesn't cause damage, only that its safer than binge-drinking. And that's one researcher's opinion. You get all kinds of opinions in academia.
Fourth: Yeah, ask addiction specialists to evaluate physical damage. They should have gotten neurologists. Again, they indicate that they're judging ecstasy based on deaths, not long-term physical damage which doesn't result in death.
Fifth: Nutthead again. He is one opinion. And the daily mail is not a good source.
Sixth: Did you really just cite an opinion of a police officer?
So far you've cited all of three opinions that ecstasy is safer in use that doesn't result in death, and I doubt they take into account pills/powders that were ingested and have been found to have no MDx in them. And I can guarantee you that though the proportion of people who die from alcohol abuse is higher that in low-moderate amounts its much much more safe than the neurotoxin you're defending.
Your sources are pretty much moot, in other words. You need to cite scholarly articles, like this one: http://www.jneurosci.org/content/15/8/5476.short
and this: http://jnnp.bmj.com/content/68/6/719.short
and this: http://stke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;297/5590/2260
Notice how two of them don't have to do with mice, nor at ridiculous doses.
Your only point (which you didn't fully flesh out) was the last thing you said. And I counter with even a moderate recreational dose is much harder on the brain than a high recreational dose of the others, making you not need to binge to get such negative effects.
I hope you now understand that MDx is a neurotoxin.