• MDMA &
    Empathogenic
    Drugs

    Welcome Guest!

Study Questions Toxic Effects of MDMA in Monkeys

Brian Oblivion

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
2,353
Location
Atlanta, GA
This originally appeared on the BL front page. But this study is so important that I would like to suggest including it in this forum as an announcement.


http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?postid=1794705#post1794705
EvoldicA said:
New findings suggest that when use patterns are more similar to humans, brain toxicity no longer detectable

It appears that MDMA may be far less toxic than previous research may have led people to believe. Rhesus monkeys that regularly pressed levers to receive i.v. injections of MDMA for eighteen months had little to no signs of harm to brain serotonin or dopamine neurons. However, they did work less hard for MDMA over the course of the study, even while they continued to work for cocaine injections. The researchers measured harm to the brain in several ways, including measuring levels of a protein associated with neurons and measuring brain levels of serotonin and dopamine, and none of these methods detected signs of obvious neurotoxicity. These findings also suggest that apparent tolerance to the effects of MDMA (seen here as reduced interest in taking more of it) does not occur as a result of damage to serotonin or dopamine neurons.

The seven monkeys in this study were all experienced with the basics of drug-self administration procedures, wherein pressing a lever a certain number of times is rewarded with a drug injection. Four of the monkeys had a chance to get MDMA injections, and three were never given the opportunity to receive MDMA. Monkeys had the chance to self-administer drugs during two hour-long sessions each day, one in the morning and one in the afternoon, and the sessions took place in a comfortably warm room (22 degrees C, or about 72 degrees F). In this study, the monkeys first learned to self-administer cocaine. Then, every third to fourth session, they would receive racemic MDMA, or one of its enantiomers (forms), R-(-)-MDMA or S-(+)-MDMA) instead of cocaine, in doses ranging from 0.003 to 3 mg/kg per injection. Every now and then, the monkeys were given saline instead of any drug, to make sure they were pressing levers for the drugs, and not for some other reason.

On average, the monkeys self-administered between 2 and 4 mg/kg MDMA during a session, though in some cases a monkey might self-administer up to 15 mg/kg MDMA, or one of its forms. As time passed, monkeys in this study did not work as hard to get MDMA, even though they did not stop working to receive cocaine when it was available. By the end of the study, they self-administered less MDMA than at the start of the study. This suggests that like some Ecstasy users, the monkeys may have been growing tolerant to the desirable subjective effects of MDMA (the effects that kept them pressing the lever for more). Monkeys grew tolerant to the effects of racemic MDMA and to the R-(-) form of the drug over time, but findings supporting tolerance to S-(+)-MDMA were less certain. This is because one of the monkeys self-administered less S-(+)-MDMA over time, but another monkey self-administered more of it over time.

Two months after monkeys in the MDMA group received their last dose of the drug, six of the seven monkeys (three in the MDMA group and three controls) underwent PET scans with a radioactively labeled drug called DTBZ. This compound is used to measure VMAT, a protein associated with axon terminals, with reduction in DTBZ binding considered a sign of neurodegeneration. Seven to ten days after undergoing the PET scan, MDMA and control monkeys were killed by pentobarbital overdose, and brains were removed and divided, and studied with separate measures. The researchers measured levels of the neurotransmitters serotonin (5-HT) and dopamine, and their respective metabolites 5-HIAA and DOPAC in many brain areas, including frontal, temporal, parietal and occipital areas, hypothalamus and hippocampus. Researchers used more radioactive DTBZ to measure VMAT in a brain area called the striatum. If the researchers found differences in PET scans between the MDMA and control monkeys, or lower rates of DTBZ binding in striatal areas, or if they found lower levels of brain serotonin or dopamine, then they would consider these findings signs that MDMA had harmed the brain (neurotoxicity).

Even though monkeys reduced their intake of MDMA over time, PET scans showed no differences in binding for radioactively labeled DTBZ, a sign that MDMA self-administering and control monkeys still had the same amounts of VMAT in their brains, and that no harm had come to serotonin or dopamine axons. When striatal tissue was examined in more detail with DTBZ, the researchers still found no differences between slices from monkeys with access to MDMA and controls. Furthermore, the two groups of monkeys did not have significantly different levels of brain serotonin, dopamine, or metabolites for these two neurotransmitters in any of the areas studied. Though there were decreases in serotonin in frontal, parietal and temporal cortex, these decreases were not statistically significant, were below levels seen in other studies in non-human primates, and did not affect the hippocampus, a brain area implicated in learning and memory. Taken together, these findings suggest that these monkeys, like some regular Ecstasy users, "lost interest in" MDMA after prolonged access to it, but that this apparent tolerance to MDMA effects did not arise from harm to serotonin or dopamine neurons. Eighteen months of approximately 120 to 139 separate exposures to doses of MDMA similar to those used by human Ecstasy users produced tolerance to drug effects, but did not produce serotonin or dopamine toxicity, since markers for this toxicity were absent or nearly absent.

There are a number of methodological problems with this study. For instance, the sample size in this study is very small, and all measures of neurotoxicity were made at least two months after the last dose of MDMA. However, other studies reporting signs of serotonin neurotoxicity in non-human primates have used equally small or smaller sample sizes, and one study found signs of neurotoxicity seven years after the last dose of MDMA (Hatzidimitriou et al. 1999). It is true that the monkeys that self-administered MDMA were also trained to self-administer the psychostimulant methamphetamine, while control monkeys never had the opportunity to take this drug, opening up the possibility that methamphetamine might have produced effects of its own, or altered MDMA effects. But exposure to methamphetamine occurred after monkeys learned to take MDMA, and one of the monkeys was removed from the study before any exposure to methamphetamine had begun, so results from this animal would not be affected by exposure to methamphetamine.

So, why didn't the monkeys in this study show any signs of damage to serotonin or dopamine axons after they took an average of 2 to 4 mg/kg MDMA on 120 to 139 separate occasions, even though other studies have found signs of damaged serotonin neurons after repeated doses of MDMA (see for example Hatzidimitriou et al. 1999; Taffe et al. 2002; Winsauer et al. 2002). One important difference between this study and previous research is that doses of MDMA the monkeys self-administered were lower and less frequent than in studies that found serotonin neurotoxicity. Doses of MDMA were generally higher than those self-administered by the monkeys in this study. Researchers used higher doses because according to an "interspecies scaling" model of drug metabolism, these doses were supposed to produce the same levels of MDMA seen in humans taking lower doses. Critics of this model have argued that interspecies scaling may not be the best model for computing doses of MDMA in other animals intended to match doses in humans (Vollenweider et al. 2001). A recent study also performed in rhesus monkeys lends support to this criticism (Bowyer et al. 2003). In this study, researchers examined the amount of the S-(+) form of MDMA seen in a monkey's bloodstream after a 10 mg/kg injection of MDMA. They found that this dose, commonly used in studies of MDMA toxicity, produced ten times the MDMA levels seen in the range of doses given to humans in research studies (Bowyer et al. 2003), suggesting that MDMA doses used in earlier studies were not equivalent to most doses taken by most Ecstasy users. Non-human primates in previous studies also received MDMA several times a day rather than only once a day, and MDMA was administered over at least two consecutive days rather than every three to four days. This means that non-human primates in earlier studies also received MDMA more often than they did in this study. It still may be the case that more frequent or higher doses of MDMA could harm brain serotonin neurons, but not at the doses self-administered in this study. Since Ecstasy users rarely report use more often than once a week, it seems that most Ecstasy users operate on schedules of use closer to those experienced by the monkeys in this study than to dose regimens used in earlier studies, so this study may be a better approximation of human Ecstasy use in terms of frequency as well as in terms of drug dose.

Another major difference between this study and studies that have found signs of harm to brain serotonin neurons is that MDMA was self-administered in this study, and not given to subjects by the researchers. This is referred to as "contingent" administration, in contrast to "noncontigent" administration, and the authors note that studies with other substances suggest that drug effects, even effects on brain chemistry, can depend on whether non-human animal subjects self-administer the substance, or are given it independent of their actions. To date, no research has studied differences in effects of contingent and noncontingent administration of MDMA, but this study raises the possibility that such differences exist. It may be the case that MDMA is only harmful to serotonin cells when it is given noncontingently, but that such effects are greatly reduced when doses are self-administered.

If the findings uncovered by Fantegrossi and colleagues can be generalized to humans, then it appears that anecdotal reports of tolerance to MDMA, or its "loss of magic" over time cannot be treated as indicators of harm to the brain. It is not clear what lies behind reduced rates of MDMA self-administration. It is possible that MDMA changes the number or level of activity of specific serotonin receptors, perhaps as a result of repeated stimulation of affected receptors. If the "loss of magic" in humans is analogous to reduced self-administration in rhesus monkeys, then the cause or causes of long-term tolerance to MDMA effects cannot be harm to serotonin or dopamine neurons. Findings reported in this study also suggest that regular ingestion of MDMA may not harm serotonin axons. If this is the case, then taking a few doses of 125 mg (approximately 1.8 mg/kg) MDMA at three to five-week intervals seems especially unlikely to pose any risks of harm to these neurons.

Reference
  • Fantegrossi WE, Woolverton WL, Kilbourn M, Sherman P, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, Ricaurte GA, Woods JH, Winger G. (2004) Behavioral and Neurochemical Consequences of Long-Term Intravenous Self-Administration of MDMA and Its Enantiomers by Rhesus Monkeys. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004 Feb 16 [Epub ahead of print] Full Text in PDF Format

Further Reading
  • Bowyer JF, Young JF, Slikker W, Itzak Y, Mayorga AJ, Newport GD, Ali SF, Frederick DL, Paule MG (2003) Plasma levels of parent compound and metabolites after doses of either d-fenfluramine or d-3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) that produce long-term serotonergic alterations. Neurotoxicology 24: 379-390.
  • Hatzidimitriou G, McCann UD, Ricaurte GA (1999) Altered serotonin innervation patterns in the forebrain of monkeys treated with (+/-)3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine seven years previously: factors influencing abnormal recovery. J Neurosci. 1999;19,12:5096-107.
  • Taffe MA, Davis SA, Yuan J, Schroeder R, Hatzidimitriou G, Parsons LH, Ricaurte GA, Gold LH (2002) Cognitive performance of MDMA-treated rhesus monkeys: sensitivity to serotonergic challenge. Neuropsychopharmacology 27; 993-1005.
  • Vollenweider FX, Jones RT, Baggott MJ. (2001) Caveat Emptor: Editors Beware (reply) Neuropsychopharmacology 24; 461-463.
  • Winsauer PJ, McCann UD, Yuan J, Delatte MS, Stevenson MW, Ricaurte GA, Moerschbaecher JM (2002) Effects of fenfluramine, m-CPP and triazolam on repeated-acquisition in squirrel monkeys before and after neurotoxic MDMA administration. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 159: 388-396
Author: Fantegrossi WE, Woolverton WL, Kilbourn M, Sherman P, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, Ricaurte GA, Woods JH, Winger G

Title: Behavioral and Neurochemical Consequences of Long-Term Intravenous Self-Administration of MDMA and Its Enantiomers by Rhesus Monkeys.
Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology
Date: 2004 Feb 16
Issue: Published Online first ( )

MAPS Literature Update

Moderator note: edited for Front Page viewability only :)
 
These studies are always so damn interesting to peruse..I just can't help but feel bad for the rhesus's though..Since studying primates, some seem more human than human if you know what I mean...(Even if the primate isn't a great ape and is far less intelligent than the apes)
 
Oacosta said:
This was already posted here:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?threadid=130484&r=9
But, thanks any ways, it is an intruiging study, if only because they say what I want to hear, and they're much more accurate than Ricaurte =D
The test results of the study are very good news. Not only from the standpoint of harm reduction concerns, but also to help ease the minds of those worried that they may have harmed themselves in the past.

I've seen many people living in fear that they've damaged themselves, when it is very likely that the problems they are dealing with have no relationship to past MDMA usage. And the belief that "MDMA has harmed me" makes it more difficult for them to simply deal with the problem and move on.

This study is, by no means, the "final word" on MDMA. But I think, that together with the Germany study last year, that it pretty much invalidates all of the politically driven studies which have gone on until now. That's why I think it is important for this one to appear at the top of the forum as an announcement so that it doesn't get lost in the pile of ever increasing threads.

At high doses everything is toxic (water, oxygen, everything). And the research model that has been used in previous testing could just as easily prove that Tylenol (Acetaminophen) or Advil (Ibuprofen) are toxic. Both can severely damage your liver at much lower dose ratios than they've been testing MDMA at.


I'll bet Ricaurte's professional life has been more then interesting over the past several months. =D

John Hopkins' likes to be ranked among the world class medical research institutes. And Ricaurte's little "stunts" to gain notoriety and funding has embarrassed John Hopkins. The fact that Ricaurte's PET studies alone showed that some test subjects had over 40 times the normal amount of SERTs would have caused any true scientist to throw the whole study out, and start over again until the results could be trusted (so John Hopkins has a lot more to be embarrassed about than just new conflicting test results and "mixed up" samples).

It looks to me that someone else lead this study, and that Ricaurte was forced to sign on as one of its authors in support of it. :p
 
Last edited:
Orpheus420 said:
These studies are always so damn interesting to peruse..I just can't help but feel bad for the rhesus's though..Since studying primates, some seem more human than human if you know what I mean...(Even if the primate isn't a great ape and is far less intelligent than the apes)
I agree with you, these little guys are so close to humans that it may someday be illegal to perform such destructive testing on them. :)
 
Brian Oblivion said:
At high doses everything is toxic (water, oxygen, everything). And the research model that has been used in previous testing could just as easily prove that Tylenol (Acetaminophen) or Advil (Ibuprofen) are toxic. Both can severely damage your liver at much lower dose ratios than they've been testing MDMA at.

It looks to me that someone else lead this study, and that Ricaurte was forced to sign on as one of its authors in support of it. :p [/B]

What do you mean by dose ratio?

And of corse Ricaurte didn't lead the experiment. But I doubt anyone forced his name onto it, he would have done some of the work on it.
 
I think these studies are by no means anything positive yet. There are now 2 studies right lol? Thats ridiculous. to discredit all the previous studies is also kind of irrational because they seem logical in some way, although exagerated. Personally i used MDA once and have been recovering for 5 days. Now is that fucked up or what? From my personal experience i believe its harmful even if you use it once. This is MDA im speaking of not MDMA. i ahve heard better things about MDMA. The truth is studies are kind of meaningless as every indevidual is different, so knowing the risks by having like 1000 studies is very important and can give us a general idea of the effects, but by no means can say that it is safe. Any chemical that affects your body like that and makes you that happy and than crash, cant possibly be good for and most likely is bad.
 
BilZ0r said:
What do you mean by dose ratio?
This is from memory, so if I am off a bit I apologize. If I remember correctly, Ricaurte was administering 4.2~4.8 mgs MDMA per kilogram of body weight in his test subjects. And his readministration at those same dosages were closer together than the self administration performed by the monkeys in this study. 3 to almost 4 times the self administered dosage, and at much closer intervals.

If you were to administer Acetaminophen at 3 to 4 times the recommended dosage, and continued to do so often for an extended period of time it will produce liver damage. The extent of the damage depends on the individual.

Short periods of higher dosages of Acetaminophen have a minimal effect, but long term high dosages produce an accumulative effect on the liver.


And of corse Ricaurte didn't lead the experiment. But I doubt anyone forced his name onto it, he would have done some of the work on it.
I'm not saying that he wasn't a part of the test series, putting someone's name on the study who wasn't actually involved would be unethical. But he definitely wasn't a part of the study's design. And having him on the same team appears to be more political (on the scientific side of politics) in nature.

In any case, I would be willing to bet that this is a study that Ricaurte had no choice but to be a part of.
 
Are you trying to defend the dude lol? what you say about acetemenophin is interesting. i have been on percocet for like 3 weeks for my neck injury in a car accident... now i stopped using it for a couple days now, but my liver combined with the MDA on monday seems to be relaly fucked up? i would take 2-3 percs a day with sometimes taking 4 a day, would this lead to damage? thx if you can offer any help man.
 
Antonmesc said:
I think these studies are by no means anything positive yet. There are now 2 studies right lol? Thats ridiculous. to discredit all the previous studies is also kind of irrational because they seem logical in some way, although exagerated.
The problem is that the previous studies were more than "exagerated," they were bad science. Some of Ricaurte's (non-MDMA using) subjects showed that they had more than 40 times the number of SERTs than a normal human. But that is impossible, and demonstrates that this PET measurements were bad. That's not an exaggeration, it is bad science. Any ethical researcher would have thrown out the entire study and started from scratch (and solved the PET measurement problems that they were having first).

What is even worse is that all of this faulty data was published as demonstrating damage, even though these measurement flaws were blatantly obvious. (Personally, I don't understand how Ricaurte even made it through grad school.)

Anyway, no one is saying that this study is the final word on the subject. But these findings are consistent with what we are seeing occur in the public health sector. There are millions of doses of MDMA taken every weekend with no long term side effects. If there were such side effects, we would see a lot of people ending up in neurological wards. But this just isn't happening.

The small percentage of people who are reporting disturbances seem to be consistent with the same disturbances occurring out side of the MDMA drug culture. And I suspect that some of the reported MDMA side effects are the result of a reverse placebo effect. Just like the "flash back" reports of the 1960 were due to the Nixon administration's rumor of flash backs, not due to an effect resulting from LSD usage.

MDA is NOT MDMA, it is a different compound with its own properties.


Antonmesc said:
The truth is studies are kind of meaningless as every indevidual is different, so knowing the risks by having like 1000 studies is very important and can give us a general idea of the effects, but by no means can say that it is safe.
And that is exactly what agencies like the NIDA and DEA who's livelihood rides on keeping such substances illegal would like everyone to believe. Given the number of medical emergencies which have resulted from MDMA use, it is far safer than many commonly used pharmaceuticals (especially if the individual is informed about issues such as proper hydration and electrolyte balancing - something as simple as drinking sports drinks will address this).

Perhaps there have not been enough "valid" scientific studies obtain a full spectrum of effects. But the anecdotal experiments which have been performed every weekend by the public (millions of them every weekend) for years, provides a strong indication as to the overall dangers involved. And to add to the mix, is the fact that some people have been taking the drug for as much as 20 years without any noticeable side effects.

And sure, some people experience a hangover afterwards (due to their serotonin depletion). Taking 5HTP the next day helps a great deal in reducing or eliminating the after effect. On the other side of the coin, nothing that I can take for an alcohol hangover seems to make a difference. :D


The argument that "anything which feels this good must be bad for you" is largely based on our cultural beliefs, but has absolutely nothing to do with real science.
 
Last edited:
Antonmesc said:
Are you trying to defend the dude lol? what you say about acetemenophin is interesting. i have been on percocet for like 3 weeks for my neck injury in a car accident... now i stopped using it for a couple days now, but my liver combined with the MDA on monday seems to be relaly fucked up? i would take 2-3 percs a day with sometimes taking 4 a day, would this lead to damage? thx if you can offer any help man.
One of the reasons that Percocet is used more commonly over Percodan is because Percodan contains asprin. And if the physician wishes to include another analgesic (asprin, Ibuprofen, etc.) then the overall dosage would exceed a safe level.

Since Percocet is buffered with Acetaminophen it allows him or her the option to add an additional analgesic.

As far as you're being in any medical danger, the main problem is sustaining a high dosage of Acetaminophen for an extended period of time. 3~4 Percocets per day for a month or so is not that much. What is important is that you are currently under the observation of a physician, and he will be examining you for medication problems as a part of each visit.

But regarding your taking MDA along with your pain management, I can't really say. I don't know anything about MDA's impact on the liver. My honest guess is that you are alright, but you really need to talk with your doctor about this. If you feel that your liver has been injured then definitely talk to him about this. Even if you don't feel comfortable about discussing your MDA usage, at least let him know what your symptoms are and that you are concerned. At least, that way he will be able to examine you with the thought in mind that you could be experiencing a problem.

Again, my guess would be that you are alright. But talk it over with your doctor, and stay away from any substances which you are not sure of in their effects on your liver. There's no sense taking any chances, when within a few weeks of going off of the pain management meds you'll be back to normal again.

Hope that helps. :)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I thought thats what you mean Brian Oblivion, theres several problems with making that comparison, a) what is the normal dose of MDMA in monkeys and b) what is the normal dose of APAP in monkeys? and c) how much would a human self administer? And don't even begin to argue that pills are a good analogy.
 
Last edited:
BilZ0r,

And don't even begin to argue that pills are a good analogy.
I'll set my own parameters for arguing, thank you. ;) :D :D


I am not suggesting that there is medical relationship between APAP and MDMA. For one thing, the LD50 of MDMA is much higher than the LD50 for Acetaminophen. Also, MDMA does not appear to cause liver damage, whereas APAP does.

My point was simply to point out that it is possible to demonstrate that any compound is deadly. Name one compound which can not produce death (or induce death) at some high dosage. Oxygen, H20, even helium, will all induce death (even if it is at the expense of preventing other required compounds from being present).

An overzealous reseacher can easily prove that any compound is deadly by skewing the parameters of an experiment. And my statement is intended to show that.

Perhaps, ultimately, it is NIDA funding which causes brain damage in monkeys. It seems that when you eliminate the NIDA funding the experiments are producing a whole different set of results. :D
 
But MDMA causes cardiac damage. I mean, a low LD50 doesn't even really mean its more toxic, the question is what is it's therapeutic index, and that, we don't really know.
 
It's a good study, but it's also only a start.... The low number of monkeys used is a significant problem.

and re the alcohol hangover - I find piracetam and vitamin b tablets work quite well :D
 
BilZ0r said:
But MDMA causes cardiac damage. I mean, a low LD50 doesn't even really mean its more toxic, the question is what is it's therapeutic index, and that, we don't really know.
I've never seen MDMA induced cardiac damage documented anywhere. Do you have an authorative scientific reference citing this as a known MDMA effect?
 
Hey, i just read this, and its a very good discussion. I completely agree... i think that this recent study does mirror whats happening in the medical world, but what pisses me off most, is that for 30 years.... the dea has dont nothing but spread propganda about this shit... and not donated once sent to the nonbias research of this compound. what the fuck are we paying our taxes for?? offcourse this may seem highly idfealistic of me and i know this so... but seriously this is fucked. This is an issue of our world trully going straight to hell. as for most else of what you said i will get back to you in pieces cause i cant analyze more than jsut a bit of it at a time. you simply have too much to say (if that can be a bad thing).

Most importantly... are you saying that the expected effects of MDA and their outcome, cannot be mirrored at all by the study or anactodal experience of MDMA. they are 2 different compounds and even the seratonin thing and all that cannot be attributed to MDA also? i was under the impression that they were very very related.

also, thx a lot for the percocet info. offcourse since this is about my health, i owe you the most appriciation for that bit.

Are you a doctor or work in the medical community? because you mentioned "We" when you refered to the medical community,
 
Badon LA, Hicks A, Lord K, Ogden BA, Meleg-Smith S, Varner KJ.
Changes in cardiovascular responsiveness and cardiotoxicity elicited during binge administration of Ecstasy.
J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2002 Sep;302(3):898-907

It's not uncommon for serotonergics to be cardiotoxic in one form or another.. fenfluramine/phentermine....
 
Top