• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

Oprah Winfrey - Ecstacy Special

P

Pringles

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 30, 2000
Messages
51
Well I know people are wondering what I'm doing watching the Oprah show but I was just at home and stumbled on this very interesting special on Ecstacy use in the US.
Being a person who is more and more believing that Ecstacy is REALY REALY harmful to your brain, I still saw this special with an open mindedness it deserved.
The show was in my opinion biased in displaying the physical side effects of ecstacy, although if this was the intention, then it really isnt biased.
One of the most horrifying images I saw was a 3D scan of a person who had been using Ecstacy (length and duration was not mentioned). Basically, the 3D image compared a brain scan of a normal person and the scan of the ecstacy user.
The difference was astounding, with huge consistent holes all over the brain. The neurologist even went further in saying that the brain looked like a 60 year old's.
That scared the crap out of me. I dont care if the intention was to scare people watching out there but it served its purpose. The program is trying to communicate that ecstacy use is not as harmless as we like to believe (that short term physical harm is the only side effect).
Regardless of how long that girl had used ecstacy for and how much she used, the physical proof was there. There was no scientific proof that it does do damage because studies have been so inconsistent. But that does not leave me to ignore the images or make excuses about ecstacy's side effects. I dont need cold hard evidence. And neither should anyone else reading this. If your brain was normal before, and after taking MDMA holes started appearing, then it is a cause for concern.
Now I know what mindset some of you may be in because I was in the exact kind of mindset a few years back when I first found this site. I found myself making up excuses for every possible negative side effect. What has changed in me recently I dont know, but I am less accomodating of any arguments for the use of Ecstacy.
I hope my thread isnt turning into a lecture. I am usually a lurker and have been that compelled to write about this topic. My point in writing this is to hopefully make someone think about their next pill.
I know that people will continue to take pills and I have always believed in harm minimisation.
Next time, maybe take 1 pill per night or take a rest and pill once a month or less. Anything! I dont want to sound like your mummies but listen up and you might have a brain left when you are over the this stage of your life.
Pringles
 
yes and they also didn't release information regarding the scale used on the 3d model.. the difference could be 0.001% but since thats the scope of their scale it appears to be a huge difference.
they also didn't say (from memory) when the test was taken regarding to the girls drug use.. was it the morning after? a few weeks after? a year after?
and yes her usage would also be important to know..
might watch it again.. im in perth so it hasnt been on yet today
 
I didn't personally see the show, but keep in mind that PET/SPECT scans of the brain in general show functional information rather than physical structures.
If these kinds of scans were used, then the images probably represent functional changes, rather than physical ones. This is to say, the "holes" aren't really tunnels through the grey matter that you could see, but more likely changes in the way the brain functions (or more appropriately, changes in the way the brain distributes the radioisotope-labelled glucose spatially).
I realise this description is grossly simplified, but if anyone wants a full description on how PET scanning works, I'm happy to provide one.
BigTrancer :)
 
BT: You lost me at hello...
Anyways, I have an announcement. Pills are dangerous and harmful. If you don't accept that then you shouldn't be taking them. Minimising harm means you have to acknowledge the harm to begin with.
 
Its understandable to to question the type of scans they are. What you have to question is the intent of the conclusions given from the scans. If the neurologist was out to mislead, and let the subject sleep before hand, then it would obviously be misleading.
The fact is NO one is out to mislead us. The point of showing these specials is to educate the masses. Not sensationalise. The Oprah winfrey show is not exactly 'Sixty Minutes' but it isnt Ricky Lake either. So my point is, the information is there, its how sceptical you want to be. You CAN make up any excuse to diminish the validity of the claims or you can think about the reasoning behind the claims (which is Ecstacy does cause brain damage although the extent of which is not net scientifically known).
I am not a neurologist and I will not attempt to understand CAT scans. Thats the job of the neurologist. I would rather listen to someone who has been educated for a significant part of their life than read an article on scans and make conclusions from them.
The second point is if a brain specialist has made these conclusions (being that he saw similarities with the brain with a 60 year old) is alarming! This is coming from someone who looks at these images everyday. Does that not validate the claims?
For once, look at the substance rather than the form
 
The point of the matter is that Oprah is an entertainment show. She uses the show to press certain points across.
If she provided a whole lot of scientific information rather than lots of "pretty pictures" then it would become a science lecture, not an 'entertainment' show.
Until that happens, although the points may have some substance, I don't really think they should be taken as gospel.
 
not trying to claim that ecstasy isnt harmful to your brain, but pringles, i believe you've gotten one thing wrong. the 'oprah winfrey show' isn't out to 'educate the masses', its a POPULAR show, and that means one thing, ratings. The majority of the population, aren't very informed on illegal drugs, and for whatever reason, dislike their use. An episode on oprah presenting any teensy bit of pro-ecstasy information is not likely to please many people.
So it's simple, and logical, for 'oprah' to spread misinformation and make uneducated comments, as long as the people watching the show are happy with what they are seeing :)
 
^^^
but it was so bad, so very lame.
i had to keep leaving the room... i just wanted to hate her so bad.
 
how about b4 & after scan
has this chick done any other drugs(of course she has even if she didnt know 100% pure mdma pills everytime as if)
medical history mental history
sounds like media propaganda 2 me
just because summfin on tv doesnt make it true
if it was true it would be headline news by now
:D
[ 15 March 2002: Message edited by: eckhead ]
[ 15 March 2002: Message edited by: eckhead ]
 
Originally posted by Pringles:
I am not a neurologist and I will not attempt to understand CAT scans. Thats the job of the neurologist. I would rather listen to someone who has been educated for a significant part of their life than read an article on scans and make conclusions from them.
I'd rather listen to BT who is exceptionally intelligent and has formed his own opinions than someone whose being PAID to be on Oprah...
Click to expand...
 
I didn't see the show, but I believe it was on before. Here are some old threads on it:
http://www.bluelight.ru/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=29&t=002214 (includes a link to the scans)
http://www.bluelight.ru/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=35&t=001183&p=
The problem with most research on MDMA related brain damage is that most users take other drugs too, so it's hard to say what damage is caused by MDMA. Also, there is no control scan, ie: a scan before the girl used drugs, for all we know she may have had pre-existing damage.
I have no doubt that heavy use of MDMA causes some sort of brain damage, and indeed lots more research needs to be done. But I doubt these scans are an accurate image of the damage. Of course, any damage will be minimised by using MDMA only occasionally and not in large quantities.
[ 16 March 2002: Message edited by: babydoc_vic ]
 
well if you won't believe BT, have a read of this. it is a response to a different show but they are talking about exactly the same image.
On November 30, 2000, 48 Hours (CBS) and MTV aired back-to-back shows on ecstasy. Fairly comprehensive and much less sensational than previous shows like 60 Minutes II and 20/20, these two prime time hours mark a turning point in mainstream media coverage of the drug. Effective public policy regarding the regulation of ecstasy and other illicit drugs can come about only in a climate of rationality and calm, open dialogue. By reducing hysteria and presenting multiple perspectives on the drug, those who use it and why, as well as the very real problems that can result from overuse and abuse, MTV and 48 Hours have done a great service.
One issue, however, must be clarified. The MTV program profiled a young woman who had been a frequent user of ecstasy and a number of other drugs. On the program, the woman's doctor displayed a brain scan which suggested that her brain was full of holes, implying that the "holes" resulted from ecstasy use. Below is a clarification of the meaning of the brain scan written by Rick Doblin, Ph.D. President of MAPS.
Commentary by Rick Doblin, Ph.D.:
"The recent MTV special on MDMA showed the results of a SPECT scan of a young woman, Lynn Smith, who had used a very large amount of MDMA. Lynn's doctors reported that her SPECT scan showed "holes in the brain" similar to what a scan would look like of an elderly woman who had had multiple small strokes.
The graphic image shown on the MTV special was a 3-D reconstruction of the SPECT image, which clearly showed dramatic and frightening holes throughout her brain. However, this image was in no way a visual representation of the structure of her brain The SPECT scan actually measured the variation in cerebral blood flow in Lynn's brain. The 3-D image was then created by assigning a different color to different amounts of blood flow. How the graphic image looks is a matter of threshold effect on the image processing.
One can take any normal brain SPECT and lower the threshold (lower areas of blood flow assigned a low or zero level of color) , and one will see "holes" on the 3-D image. Conversely, you can also take the same image and adjust (increase) the threshold to "remove the holes". These are not absolute blood flow measurements. The "holes" simply demonstrate relatively lower blood flow compared to the entire brain. One cannot make any statements about whether it's normal or abnormal unless absolute blood flow measurements are made, which requires more sophisticated scanning procedures than were conducted on Lynn Smith.
Dr. Linda Chang, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, has conducted a scientifically rigorous, controlled SPECT study in 21 MDMA users compared to 21 controls. [Chang, L. et al, Effect of Ecstasy ( 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA]) on cerebral blood flow: a co-registered SPECT and MRI study. Psychiatry Research-Neuroimaging, Section 98 (2000) 15-28.]
The MDMA users in Dr. Chang's study averaged 211 exposures to MDMA, with a range of from 6-1500 exposures. The average amount of MDMA consumed was 13.1 grams. There were no significant differences in amount of cerebral blood flow between the MDMA users and the controls, either globally or in specific brain regions. Furthermore, none of the MDMA users showed any signs of stroke, as measured by MRI scans.
In Dr. Chang's study, 10 of the subjects were scanned again, after the administration of two doses of MDMA. Cerebral blood flow was reduced somewhat in some brain regions at two weeks after the last dose of MDMA. 2 subjects were scanned again after 10 weeks and were found to have elevated cerebral blood flow in some regions. Dr. Chang reported, "Our findings suggest that the initially decreased rCBF normalizes with time and may even increase above baseline at later time points."
In order to diagnose a stroke, or strokes, one can simply do an MRI and even lesions as small as 1-2 millimeter will be visible. MAPS has offered to pay for the costs of an MRI scan on Lynn. Even if there is evidence of stroke, which is highly unlikely, it would be possible to say whether this was from MDMA or from other drugs that Lynn had taken. Cocaine or methamphetamine both can cause strokes in some individuals.
No drug is completely safe and MDMA is no exception to this rule. However, the claim that MDMA causes "holes in the brain" is not backed up by scientific research. Such claims are irresponsible and serve to further reduce the credibility of anti-MDMA warnings. If MAPS arranges for Lynn to receive an MRI scan and/or another SPECT scan, MAPS will report accurately and honestly what the results show."
Click to expand...
 
I think the show was great! i mean think about it. People who die from E's don't know anything what is in them and shit, or, do not have the knoledge to take it safe.. So the way i see it, is that a lot of people will see this show and think, "Fark.. i'm not doing that.. look at the brain!" I mean.. I don't think that kid's in 8th grade should be touching the stuff..
People who know about it won't listen to POP hype.. but people who don't will and that just may save there life...
-acell
[ 16 March 2002: Message edited by: acell ]
 
Id believe BT over an dolt paid by Oprah. Anybody notice how fat her arms were?
The jury is still out on the potential harmful health risks on MDMA
 
Guys, do you not understand the point these people are trying to make?
Being anti-MDMA is not evil. The reason people are anti-MDMA is they care for your and the publics health. Its as simple as that.
They are mounting further evidence that the shit is damaging. Now if it were a conspiracy by all these people, can you explain their motive for doing so?
Whats the POP hype for? No one wants to take our fun away from us if its harmless. People arent there to make our lives harder because they are jealous or because they can't relate to us and undestand why we take the stuff. I cant see a plausible explanation other than there are mounting health fears. Nor is there a political or moral motive.
I for one dont need any experiments or scientists making conclusions from studies that MDMA is damaging. Hell, I AM the guinee pig and I can come to conclusions that my brain has been severely fucked and will be so for god knows how long (sorry for being so blunt). And I dread what my brain will be like in 20 years time. I wonder if anyone here, after 2 years (more or less) use can confidently say 'my brain is OK'. Think about it.
"How does your brain feel, now do you need scientific proof?"
Pringles.
P.S. Before people start questioning my usage levels, for 2 years, averaged about 2 pills a month. I usually take stuff once a month but in 2 pill averages. And NO, I'm not coming down right now.
[ 16 March 2002: Message edited by: Pringles ]
 
I don't need cold hard evidence.
Come the FUCK ON!!
Stick to sensationalistic media coverage, therein lies the truth!
I think everyone can accept that ecstacy causes brain damage, as does alcohol, car fumes, probably even watching american talk shows. I have no qualms with scientific results showing damage, what i take issue with is the "drug-bashing" that goes on in the name of "informative appraisal". So it was objective? Did you see all the anit-drug propaganda lined through it? The testimonials from kids about having unprotected sex then just "waking-up" the next morning and regretting it? The doctor telling everyone it IS addictive? Each week in the US hundreds of thousands of people use ecstacy - a small percentage show the signs of addiction - hence addiction is likely! I'd like to bet that alcohol has a higher addiction rate per drinker than E, if not at least equal - people in society with addictive personalities that can't control their urges.
The program can't be balanced when the agenda is to discourage use. That's not impartial information - it's the war on drugs.
I can concede the possibility of brain damage, i won't wallow in pity, if at 40 i develop alzheimers and parkinsons, i chose to take the drug, to injure myself. But having the whole show stacked with people only telling one side of the story is trying to "scare" you off the substance. A little bit of knowledge goes a long way to looking through some of the bullshit that gets thrown up by talkshows. Bring back DONOGHUE!! :D
Click to expand...
 
It was interesting to hear the girl say that if she had her time again she wouldnt change a thing becauase the xtc had opened up her mind to alot of things and now she looks at life with a different perspective. Just proves in some cases the good can outweigh the bad. BTW that scan was taken 3 weeks after her last use.
 
If everyone had MDMA once or twice in their life and that was all, I think everyones minds would be opened up and the world would be a better place. It's not that way though. Everyone is greedy, and the feeling is just too nice to not want to do it again. Too much use of the drug fucks your head up big time. I know a guy who is only about 23 and he is a mess, he doesn't even know who I am anymore when I say hi to him, now that's scary. He probably drops about 15 strong MDMA pills each week though.
 
15 MD pills a week is ridiculous...and for sure a shrink would soon be your only friend!
 
Great discussion!
For an easy analogy of the thresholding of PET and SPECT images, think of taking a picture of stars. If you take a picture at night, there are many stars to be seen, because the background level is low (that is, the intensity level of the image background is far below the level of the objects of interest). If instead, you take a photograph of the sky during the day, you don't see the stars, because the background level is higher than the level of the objects of interest. It doesn't mean the stars are not there.
It's kind of the converse for these SPECT images, where we're looking at dark spots that they want to call "holes"... if they bring up the lower level of the image then the dark spots are more apparent; if they reduce the lower level then the dark spots are harder to see. The 'real images' that the scientists generate are often far removed from the contrast-adjusted, threshold-level-and-windowed, pseudo-coloured, and (in some highly dodgy cases) photo-shopped images that are presented for publication, grant proposals, and press releases.
By the way, S.P.E.C.T. stands for single photon emission computed tomography, which essentially involves putting a short-lived radioisotope into the body and monitoring where it travels. Radiation emitted by the marker is measured and a computer program reconstructs the location from where the radiation was most likely emitted. In this way the image shows a map of where the radioisotopes have travelled.
Thanks for the MAPS clarification JB, it pretty much sums up just what I was trying to say.
BigTrancer :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top