Ecstasy does not wreck the mind, study claims

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

There is no evidence that ecstasy causes brain damage, according to one of the largest studies into the effects of the drug. Too many previous studies made over-arching conclusions from insufficient data, say the scientists responsible for the research, and the drug's dangers have been greatly exaggerated.

The finding will shock campaigners who have claimed ecstasy poses a real risk of triggering brain damage. They have argued that it can induce memory loss, decrease cognitive performance and has long-lasting effects on behaviour.

But experts who have argued that the drug is relatively safe welcomed the new paper. "I always assumed that, when properly designed studies were carried out, we would find ecstasy does not cause brain damage," said Professor David Nutt, who was fired as chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs by Alan Johnson, then home secretary, for publicly stating alcohol and tobacco were more harmful than ecstasy.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/19/ecstasy-harm-brain-new-study

[Ian David]

1. There's still the racing heartbeat and jaw-clenching stuff to worry about. n/t

[old mark]

2. I believe it all depends on the person taking the drug. I know one individual in particular,

and I have heard that E is what pushed him off the cliff...but the illness was there waiting to manifest itself, and actually there is no way to really tell if it made any difference at all.
You can't really say that a drug is "responsible" for something that is probably there since before birth, although it may be a catalyst or a trigger. It may not even be that.


mark

[provis99]

3. no surprise there.

The drug banners are never opposed because it might damage the drug user; their real concern is that people might be enjoying the drugs. Same bunch of clowns who want to ban alcohol, smoking, rock music, and dancing. Bunch of grim Baptists and Puritans.

[harmonicon]

4. that's nice to know in theory, but you have no idea what's in those pills.

Sure, most will have some MDMA in them, but they'll be cut with other things, usually just speed, and maybe smack, and any number of other things to get people fucked up which may be incredibly harmful.

[onehandle]

5. Great. Let's put it in kids' juice boxes. nt

[former9thward]

6. Very poor study.

They did not control for drug use. The only controlled for use of ecstasy and the groups were very small at 50 each. The study does not say there was no brain damage. It says the use of ecstasy did not impair the brain compared to a group of non ecstasy users but may have been on other drugs.

[Vattel]

16. I think they did control for drug use

The users in the study took no other drugs. I assume that is true of the non-users as well. Otherwise why the hair samples?

[former9thward]

18. According to the article the hair samples were for ecstasy use.

Not other drugs. I know that this article is not the study but it is all we have. No indication that the control group were non drug users. Especially since the control group were rave goers.

[Vattel]

32. No, the article says:

"We even took hair samples of participants to test whether they were telling the truth about their drug and alcohol habits," said Halpern. "Essentially we compared one group of people who danced and raved and took ecstasy with a similar group of individuals who danced and raved but who did not take ecstasy."

[former9thward]

36. Right, read closely, they controlled for ecstasy. That's it.

That is the only truth the researchers wanted.

[Maine_Nurse]

7. Anything has dangers, but this might be good news for medicine

There are potential therapeutic uses and it would appear that it is as safe or safer than many current prescription drugs. Obviously street drugs could contain anything and abuse of anything, including water, can be dangerous.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

8. Hell, Peter Jennings told me that years ago.

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/mdma/mdma_media1.shtml

[d_r]

9. want to give those researchers a big hug

a big long slow hug

[IcyPeas]

28. LOL

:grouphug:

you're funny

[bhikkhu]

10. Ridiculously flawed study - read the article

Beginning on the assumption that ecstasy causes no damage, they "whittled down" the potential testing sample from 1500 "potential participants" to 52 "selected users" who fit the criteria of the results they were looking for. And then claim that previous studies were flawed because they failed to be so selective.

These guys should be fired, rather than have their work published.

[Vattel]

17. Huh? The study wasn't aimed at any conclusions,

and selected users weren't chosen on the basis of the results they were looking for.

[bhikkhu]

19. Not according to the article

If you read what the researcher's said, they designed the study to support a conclusion they had already made. The whole issue is the selectivity they applied to the data - its a rotten way to do science.

[Vattel]

31. quote please

[bhikkhu]

34. You could read the article, but here's some:

'"I always assumed that, when properly designed studies were carried out, we would find ecstasy does not cause brain damage," said Professor David Nutt'. Why a person would assume that when clinical studies point to the opposite is beyond me.

' However, Halpern was sharply critical of the quality of the research that had linked ecstasy to brain damage. "Too many studies have been carried out on small populations" '
.
then - "Halpern's study only ecstasy users who took no other drugs and who had suffered no previous impairment were selected. " How exactly do you weed out previous impairment?

"The resulting experiment whittled down 1,500 potential participants to 52 selected users, whose cognitive abilities matched those of a group of 59 non-users." Which contradicts his own suggestion of needing a large population,

Most critically - and this goes for any study of any kind - when the researcher begins with an assumption and a result in mind, begins with a large pool of subjects, then proves his case by studying only a carefully selected 3% of those subjects, then any result that one desires might be arrived at.

If you look at statistics, a generality about a sample based on a 3% selection is useless unless the selection is randomly chosen. That 3% demonstrate a desired characteristic says nothing about the sample.

...and then if you go back and look at 20 year + of research, there is abundant evidence that ecstasy does cause changes to the nervous system, specifically effecting the neural receptors it bonds to. Its idiocy to say its alcohol - as if that hasn't been studied enough to recognize its characteristic effects - or sleep deprivation, another well studied area...

[Vattel]

38. Where do I begin?

You: "I always assumed that, when properly designed studies were carried out, we would find ecstasy does not cause brain damage," said Professor David Nutt'. Why a person would assume that when clinical studies point to the opposite is beyond me.

Me: Davis Nutt didn't conduct this study!

You: "However, Halpern was sharply critical of the quality of the research that had linked ecstasy to brain damage. "Too many studies have been carried out on small populations" . . . "The resulting experiment whittled down 1,500 potential participants to 52 selected users, whose cognitive abilities matched those of a group of 59 non-users." Which contradicts his own suggestion of needing a large population,

Me: Was Halpern's population relatively large? I see no reason to think it wasn't.


You: Most critically - and this goes for any study of any kind - when the researcher begins with an assumption and a result in mind, begins with a large pool of subjects, then proves his case by studying only a carefully selected 3% of those subjects, then any result that one desires might be arrived at.

Me: Again, what makes you think he had a result in mind? Whittling down his initial pool to the 3% was good scientific methodology because the goal was to weed out variables that might distort the results.

You: ...and then if you go back and look at 20 year + of research, there is abundant evidence that ecstasy does cause changes to the nervous system, specifically effecting the neural receptors it bonds to. Its idiocy to say its alcohol - as if that hasn't been studied enough to recognize its characteristic effects - or sleep deprivation, another well studied area...

Me: Of course ecstasy causes changes to the nervous system. The issue was whether it causes cognitive impairment, and alcohol does cause that!

[eggplant]

11. As a theraputic agent, it works great for PTSD treatment. n/t

[Haole Girl]

12. But... but...

"But the taking of ecstasy has also been linked to damage to the central nervous system and research in recent years has suggested that long-term changes to emotional states and behaviour have been triggered by consumption of the drug. "

Not, exactly, what I would call a "safe drug" (if there is such a thing).

[BenzoDia]

13. It might not wreck your brain, but numerous studies have shown that it will

wreck your wallet.

[Swampguana]

14. well

I think most study's in the end want to advertise Ecstasy has a negative effect just the same a lot of people believe Marijuana has a negative effect on your body. Its hard to believe any study that comes out but I find it interesting there's finally one saying the opposite of what you would usually expect to hear on Ecstasy.

[quakerboy]

29. Wouldnt it be nice if we could get actual scientists

to do actual studies, with double blind and no axe to grind, on MJ, E, and the gamut of drugs used?

[Cirque du So-What]

15. I wonder if Dr. Drew Pinsky (pop schlock doc)

will alter his stance on ecstasy, claiming that it blows out the serotonin transmitters in the brain - preventing a person from ever experiencing pleasure again.

"I have patients, particularly those who used ecstasy and LSD, coming in with profound brain damage who are going to be depressed the rest of their lives," says Pinsky, who also hosts Loveline. "Somebody who's had 20 or 30 hits of ecstasy is going to be on anti-depressants. If I don't do something to correct that biology with something pharmacological, I am impairing them. These people cannot stay sober without medication."

Pinsky adds that education, understanding, and support groups — like 12 Step programs — are also critical in helping people who are addicted stay "clean and sober." And realistic entertainment programs can play a major part in the drug education and awareness process.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/hsphoto.htm

He claims that they're effectively brain-damaged for life, but they'll be alright with a 12-step program :eyes:

[tavalon]

20. Hmmm, in my wild youth I took lots of Ecstasy and while there was an aftereffect

We attributed. To seratonin dump, a few days rest with reflection on the great trip was enough to get seratonin receptors pumping again, Hyperbole is what's passed for actual drug information these days. That why I can't recommend Erowid vaults enough. They are a bastion of accurate information in repudiation of the drug war zealots.

[On the Road]

25. Well, I Heard Similar Things About Ecstacy Destroying Serotonin Cells

from a post-doc in addiction studies at Johns Hopkins I was dating at the time. She was not a drug warrior in the slightest.

It would be nice if Ecstacy turns out to be relatively harmless, because it sounds like it has some nice effects are that there are some legitimate uses. Personally, I wouldn't start using without a greater scientific consensus.

[Cirque du So-What]

26. I would never use ecstasy either

as I believe there is no such thing as a 'safe' drug. It's been a lot of years since I heard Dr. Pinsky relay those cautionary tales, so it seems as though there's more need for research when contradictory results emerge all these years later.

[On the Road]

27. It's Certainly Possible That There Were Studies

taken seriously within the scientific community that turned out to be false. Happens all the time. Now that the scientific method is so universally accepted, we're seeing the limits of that in practice, at least in the short term. Look at the bewildering mix of results on everything from nutrition to cell phone radiation.

In the late 60s, the White House apparently convinced NIH to adopt the position that LSD caused genetic damage and could result in birth defects.

Despite that, I would trust LSD more than ecstasy until the science settles down in a few years.

[nebenaube]

30. Well,

If I recall correctly from my college years; methylenedioxy-methamphetamine has six isomers, five of which are toxic. Nasty problem about synthetic street drugs is the chemistry. Or so I was taught.

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. The author of the MDMA study is styling himself as a modern day Timothy Leary

He claims his study is more valid because his control group contained Rave attending non-Ecstasy users, where other studies didn't .

I have worked with numerous teens who use ecstasy for several years now, and only 1 or 2 of them have ever attended a rave, most just "Pop" while hanging out with friends, not dancing all night.

Regardless of whether it causes lasting "brain damage" (the article doesn't go into detail on how brain damage was defined), I have seen ecstasy using teens develop depression, anxiety, memory problems, and motor tics after even a small number of doses. These symptoms often persist for months after they stop using. Complicating matters is the fact that many pills sold as ecstasy have little or no MDMA in them, but contain "mimic" drugs such as the Phenylpiperazines BZP, TFMPP, and McPP. Go to www.ecstasydata.org to see the variety of substances in pills sold as ecstasy. Last time I checked, it was about 50% of samples tested had no MDMA at all.

In 2010, at least 7 people from the Silicon Valley (Santa Clara County) died from ecstasy related causes. I know it was ecstasy (and not other substances in pills sold as ecstasy) because I have spoken to the coroner who performed the autopsies.

I am concerned that the publicity over this study will lead some to believe the MDMA is "safe", and this study will overshadow the information out there about the real dangers of this drug.

[blogslut]

22. I don't know about permanent damage

All I know is that I was there in Dallas when X first hit the scene. I saw a whole lot of bright, shiny people turn into water-chugging zombies. I took it a few times. It made my brain feel dirty.

[intaglio]

23. Some people are criticising the study on false grounds

Claiming it is "Flawed" on the restriction of the comparative groups.

Read the article

The previous paragraph gives a good run down of why that methodology was chosen
1) Quote from Halpern "Too many studies have been carried out on small populations, while overarching conclusions have been drawn from them,"
2) Edited quote from body of article "...previous research ... Non-users were not selected from those from a similar background, which therefore skewed results."
3) Quote from body of article "Halpern's study only ecstasy users who took no other drugs and who had suffered no previous impairment were selected."

The population for the experiment was 1500. To isolate the effects of MDMA from other drugs and alcohol, questioning and hair analysis whittled that sample down to 52 users of MDMA and 59 non-users. These were the comparison groups.

[jmowreader]

24. Apparently it's the bad music that does it

On a different note, I read some research many years ago that studied the drinking habits of people who went to different kinds of bars. They found the people who attended country and western bars were more likely to get drunk and they got drunker than people who went to rock bars or jazz bars. The conclusion was country music is so depressing you have to get hammered to deal with it.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[discocrisco01]

35. Drop to Schedule A

It is time that the government make it a Schedule II drug. Posession of the drug without a prescription is considered a misdemeanor that is punishable for up to year in the country jail if the person has multiple drug possession cases.

This drugs helps autism and therefore it should be a schedule II drug

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CD4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fnews%2F2010%2F12%2F17%2Fdrug-%25E2%2580%2598ecstasy%25E2%2580%2599-may-help-individuals-with-schizophrenia-autism%2F21876.html&ei=zYlhTZ2dKYrGgAfDmeyzAg&usg=AFQjCNGGZ5cZOeoB3q42mX7Gxqa46NxnmA&sig2=NOWidDvczmr4a5wspofVEQ

[War Horse]

37. E and MDMA is not the same thing, necessarily...

E can be a number of things, often it's bad speed mixed with some MDMA, lactose, even rat poison or worse. That would account for the jaw-clenching etc...

MDMA has (or should have, rather) its uses. I'm sure it could be useful in a PTSD setting, for example.

Having said that, it's insanely irresponsible to claim that abuse of MDMA won't wreak havoc on serotonin levels. Just try it for an extented period of time and see what it does to you (seriously, don't...).

[Throd]

39. Then why does it make people gyrate for 10 hours to music that sounds like an unbalanced dryer?