Your Brain on Bad Science

LA Weekly ^ | SEPTEMBER 12, 2003 | Judith Lewis

[MrLeRoy]

Wod_list (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/involved?group=124) ping

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[Skooz]

I use MDMA on my plants. Dissolve two teaspoons into a gallon of mushroom tea and spray it across the leaves and they will grow far quicker than anything Miracle Grow ever thought about. Produces bigger fruit, too. If you put the fruit into a juicer, the juice will cure baldness.

It also cured my dog's hip dysplasia. I made a paste of MDMA and covered his hip twice a day for a week and *voila*, my vet lost a patient.

My daughter had a hard time concentrating in school, so I put a teaspoon of MDMA in her Instant Breakfast every morning and now she is a straight A student and has scholarship offers from 25 universities.

If John Ritter would have had some MDMA on hand last night, he could have rubbed some across his chest and healed the rip in his aorta.

A little MDMA on the coax cable will do wonders for your Direct TV signal and will allow you to get HBO for free.

[Mr. Bird]

might undermine his case that even low or occasional doses of MDMA can cause brain damage — an argument that has been used to halt potentially significant research into MDMA’s therapeutic applications.

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that MDMA's therapeutic applications outweigh the significant risks asssociated with its use. Setting aside WOD arguments, MDMA is just regular amphetamine souped up with methyl groups for greater absorption into the system. You won't find too many people claiming that regular amphetamine use is a healthy behavior.

I'm all for debunking the mythical horrors of LSD and pot, but MDMA ain't just a love drug. According to my pharmacology professor (certainly no drug warrior himself), the drugs to avoid were the stimulants. Simply put, the risks far outweigh the rewards.

[Wolfie]

From the Guardian UK (exceprts):

ECSTASY BLUNDER 'WILL ERODE TRUST'

A flawed scientific study which suggested that the "ravers' drug" ecstasy could lead to Parkinson's disease may have damaged the trust of young people in research, one of Britain's leading scientists warned yesterday. Colin Blakemore, of Oxford University and the chairman of the British Association which is holding its annual festival in Salford, said a paper published in the US journal Science last year - and formally withdrawn in the same journal today - had contained errors that should have been spotted before publication.

The research said 40% of the animals had died or been close to death after "weekend raver" doses of ecstasy.

"Clearly 40% of teenagers do not die every weekend. It should have been spotted by any decent refereeing process," he said.

"But what worries me most about this paper is that I suspect it will have an entirely negative effect on the attitude of young people to the evidence that they read about drug risks," he said.

"One has to say: how was this paper reviewed? Was the fact that 'anti-rave' legislation was being discussed in Congress at the time a factor in the deciding whether to publish this paper? Who were the referees?"

[MrLeRoy]

You'd be hard pressed to convince me that MDMA's therapeutic applications outweigh the significant risks asssociated with its use.

Do you think research should be done?

[MrLeRoy]

A little MDMA on the coax cable will do wonders for your Direct TV signal and will allow you to get HBO for free.

What's the point of this moronic twaddle? (I hope you didn't think it was funny.)

[Atlas Sneezed]

Is MDMA (Ecstasy) the same as the MDA I recall hearing about from 20 years ago?

[Skooz]

Oh, chill out. I thought it was funny, in a silly sort of way.

Stop taking everything so seriously. You still get your point across.

[xrp]

I wonder where SinFLA disappeared to, no posts in 1.5 weeks.

[MrLeRoy]

"I suspect it will have an entirely negative effect on the attitude of young people to the evidence that they read about drug risks," he said.

Another victory for the War On Some Drugs.

[Mr. Bird]

Do you think research should be done?

Sure, but at what point will the MDMA supporters finally acknowledge the dangers? It's been around for 30 years, and the only "therapeutic" application anyone claims is that it creates feelings of good will that can help in marriage counseling or other similar endeavors.

MDMA proponents cannot provide one empirical study that shows objective benefits of MDMA use. For me, saying "who cares if it destroys my serotonin receptors as long as my wife and I stay together" is not adequate defense of its use.

If anyone can point me to a study that is more than just a screen for its recreational use, I'd like to see it.

[Skooz]

Is MDMA (Ecstasy) the same as the MDA I recall hearing about from 20 years ago?

No. They are different drugs and produce different effects in the user. I think a molecular diagram would show some similarites, though.

[-YYZ-]

That's like saying that ethyl alocohol is just the same as methyl alcohol except for having two carbons and the attached hydroxl groups. Relatively minor changes in physical chemistry can make a huge difference if how they affect the body's chemical systems.

From what I've read, this substance has been known for a fairly long time, and was used successfully in psychological therapy before it was banned by the government due to its potential for abuse.

[MrLeRoy]

Do you think research should be done?

Sure,

Good.

but at what point will the MDMA supporters finally acknowledge the dangers?

Dr. Charles Grob did so in the article.

[-YYZ-]

Um, ya got any references to show that it destroys serotonin receptors when used in a therapeutic setting (or at all, for that matter)? I don't have a dog in this fight - I've never used the stuff either recreationally or therapeutically. I did do a bunch of acid many years back, which also affects serotonin levels, and it doesn't seem to have done me any permanent harm.

[Mr. Bird]

That's like saying that ethyl alocohol is just the same as methyl alcohol except for having two carbons and the attached hydroxl groups. Relatively minor changes in physical chemistry can make a huge difference if how they affect the body's chemical systems.

You are correct, but the modification of the methamphetamine compound merely increases the effective dosage. The thing that happens when you add methyl groups to the methamphetamine compound is you increase the amount of the drug absorbed into the brain. It's actually an ingenious method of attacking the blood/brain barrier.

[-YYZ-]

I must admit, you sound like you know more about these things than I, but everything I've heard about these two drugs suggests that the users have radically different reactions to them. Methamphetamine is essentially just a stimulant, while MDMA seems to produce quite different reactions, does it not?

[Mr. Bird]

Um, ya got any references to show that it destroys serotonin receptors when used in a therapeutic setting (or at all, for that matter)? I don't have a dog in this fight

No dog for me, for that matter. I have taken it, and quite enjoyed it. I preferred acid in my day, though. My knowledge on the subject comes from pharmacology classes in the early 90's. Unfortunately, I do not have the texts to back my claims up, so I will search the web. I concede that drastic changes in the conventional wisdom may have changed in the past decade, but I haven't heard that.

That said, there should be no difference in effect on the brain whether it is used therapeutically or recreationally. We may be talking about degrees of magnitude but not of the mechanisms of action.