Posted on 09/02/2002 10:16:14 AM PDT by Texaggie79
Three leading psychologists have provoked an outcry by claiming that the dance drug ecstasy may not be dangerous and that some of its ill-effects may be imaginary. The drug has been blamed for causing deaths and permanent brain damage, but the psychologists are strongly critical of animal and human studies into its effects, claiming that they are misleading and overestimate the harm ecstasy - scientifically known as MDMA - can cause. Other scientists insisted that those who took ecstasy were undoubtedly risking their health and their life. Two of the scientists challenging the established view are British and the third is American. Dr Jon Cole is a reader in addictive behaviour and Harry Sumnall is a postdoctoral researcher, both at Liverpool University. Professor Charles Grob is director of the division of child and adolescent psychiatry at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Centre in California. Writing in the magazine the Psychologist, published by the British Psychological Society, they claim that many of the studies since 1995 have been flawed. They also accuse researchers of bias. Ecstasy is said to affect cells in the brain which produce serotonin, the chemical known to influence mood. But the changes observed involved the degeneration of nerve fibres, which can be regrown, and not the cell bodies themselves, the psychologists say. They accuse other scientists of minimising the impact of data suggesting that ecstasy exposure had no long-term effects. Although numerous tests were run on volunteers, only positive results were reported in detail, they say. "This suggests that hypotheses concerning the long-term effects of ecstasy are not being uniformly substantiated and lends support to the idea that ecstasy is not causing long-term effects associated with the loss of serotonin," write the authors. The article is critical of the way studies involving young users have been conducted. They point out that many psychological problems start in adolescence anyway, ecstasy users invariably took other drugs as well, and some of the symptoms reported mirrored those caused by simply staying awake all night and dancing. Most of the young people in the studies were volunteers from universities which raised questions about how representative they were of the population, the article says. Most studies have failed to pinpoint ecstasy as the cause of problems, they say, and the animal studies were flawed and inconclusive. They suggested that the long-term effects of the drug might be "iatrogenic", which is defined by the New Webster's dictionary as "caused by the mannerisms or treatment of a physician, an imaginary illness of the patient brought about by the physician". Paul Betts, whose daughter, Leah, died after taking the drug in 1995, called the article "despicable". Three other ecstasy experts writing in the Psychologist dismissed the notion that symptoms of long-term ecstasy use were all in the mind. Dr Rodney Croft, a research fellow at the Swinburne University of Technology in Hawthorn, Australia, said: "There is strong evidence that ecstasy does cause impairment... although conclusions drawn from such evidence cannot be infallible, I believe the strength of this evidence makes 'danger' the most reasonable message for the researchers to be broadcasting." About two million ecstasy tablets are believed to be taken by clubbers in the UK every weekend. Deaths linked to the drug have risen in the past decade. Between 1993 and 1997, there were 72. In 2000, there were 27, although 19 had other drugs in their system. The exact cause of death cannot always be established, but where it has been, it was often dehydration.
But it's illegal...so it's baaaaaaaaaaaaad even if there are fewer deaths!
Uh, yeah, it does. Not only does X cause the release of serotonin and dopamine, but it also acts as an SSRI. Look it up before making blanket statements.
Hey, I go to a Christian Bible teaching church that has an awesome Rock N Roll band. My kids actually like going to services with me....
Personally, I believe anyone should be able to choose what they eat or drink. However, as a taxpayer I don't want to fund the federal and state sponsored programs for those individuals who claim that drugs screwed their lives up.
How many drug treatment programs are there in this country that rely on taxpayer $$$'s? I'll support your right to use any drug you want as soon as all state sponsored drug treatment programs are defunded.
Really?
Really! Legalise all drugs. We have a need for a "slave" class in America who will willingly endure working at menial tasks just as long as they make enough money to smoke the best pot or take the latest designer drug. Religion used to be the opiate of the masses. Now, opiates are the opiate of the masses.
We need a complacent populace of stoned indiduals in order that the freedoms granted us by God are taken from us by a benevolent government. As long as we are allowed the "freedom" to ask for better drugs and fewer drug laws we have Paradise!
Seems tha CNN and NY Times and public school is doing quite the adequate job, don't you think?
Damned public schools!
I don't drink.
My comments WERE on topic, as you would have seen if you had taken any care in reading my comments.
I am not homophobic -- I don't fear sodomites -- I am repulsed by their behavior and their attempts to force validation of their lifestyle from others -- especially amongst the children in schools.
So keep your unrequested freeking advice to yourself...
Semper Fi
To the Editor: Judging from the content of Mr Vastag's Medical News & Perspectives article,1 it appears that he missed the big-picture message from the 60 researchers who presented the latest science findings on MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine; "ecstasy") at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The overarching message from this international conference with over 500 attendees was that MDMA is quite dangerous both in the short term and in the long term.
There is substantial scientific and clinical evidence to show that MDMA damages brain cells, which may account for the long-lasting behavioral effects that users report, such as memory loss and mood changes. Admittedly, there is still much that is not known about the consequences of using this drug; however, the conclusion from this NIH conference is that ecstasy is clearly anything but benign. Because of its stimulant properties MDMA can dangerously increase heart rate, blood pressure, and body temperature. Scientific experts at the conference have confirmed that it damages brain cells, even in occasional users. This is a message that the public needs to hear.
There is no disputing that MDMA use is increasing and that effective prevention messages must be matched with the appropriate population. The NIH will continue to support and disseminate research on this important topic as the science continues to unravel the consequences of this drug.
Alan I. Leshner, PhD
National Institutes of Health
Washington, DC
MDMA is the son of MDA, crank. The data on crank is in. A nono for neurons.
Its my understanding that alcohol dosn't damage brain cells but kills them. If this is true, which is worse, alcohol or ecstacy?
LOL....I suppose if you enjoy incoherent rants it was well said?
I have no actually knowledge of the amount of money put into "drug treatment," but I'll agree with you here. If one wants to imbibe, then they should pay for any necessary treatment that comes a long with their freedom.
I didn't accuse LindaSOG of being a drunk, pothead, sodomite or anything else, I simply pointed out that following the advice of "Three leading psychologists" may not be a prudent act --- yet she immediately accused me of being a ranting homophobe.... Jeeeze, I believe some doth protest too much..
Hell, maybe that's it --- perhaps LindoSOG is a psychologist! Perhaps that's why she made an immediate attempt to psychoanalyze me as a homophobe....
Or, it may be as simple as her having had a bad experience with a plumber... I suggested a plumber would be a better source of information on the hazzards of the homosexual lifestyle than a psychologist.
--- Semper Fi
The difference between MDMA and MDA is a single methyl group and niether is "crank". "Crank" is a generic term applied mostly to "dirty" methamphetamines (as opposed to the crystal variety). MDA and MDMA are amphetamine derived, but neither is "crank".
I think crank refers to crystal methamphetimine. MDMA and MDA are both refered to as ecstasy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.