A poorly written article about MDMA

[wacki]

One thing that rarely mixes well is science and journalism. Journalists understand science about as well as an english major knows math.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg18925393.800.html

For those of you that know a little about biology see if you can figure out what is wrong or horribly misleading about this article.

[wacki]

original science paper is here

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/7/13/abstract

[hmkpoker]

Ugh, Jesus, another attempt to attack MDMA with the rave scene...

Little known fact: ECSTACY IS NOT MDMA!!!!!! Ecstacy, a term coined in the 1990's, refers to a combination of MDMA with another strong CNS stimulant. (People say that this is usually meth, but it's more often caffiene, ephedra, or something cheap.) The reason is obvious: it turns MDMA into something more marketable at clubs and parties.

Anyone who has ever done, or been around people who were doing, pure MDMA (or "molly") knows that MDMA DOES NOT make you want to jump around and dance for six hours straight; it makes people lie down, cuddle, talk about their feelings, kiss, and love each other (although MDMA decreases sexual ability in males during the effects). For a real rave, you need the stuff to be cut with a stimulant, or for everyone to be drinking Red Bull.

What people also fail to realize is that MDMA is one of the most (if not the most) successful drugs to be employed in couples therapy. Its scheduling in 1982 was a reaction to several fatal incidents (mostly in Texas, surprise surprise) that occurred in bars that were marketing the drug over the table. The problem, however, probably had more to do with polydrug complications; alcohol and MDMA is a very dangerous combination that even most hardcore ravers today understand. However, the lack of understanding about the drug at that time kept us from knowing that. The drug was placed on schedule I, claiming that it had no medicinal uses (which is absurd, and only verified by the fact that the drug worked in clinical settings, and there hadn't been any time or incentive to validate it), and thus preventing any further research. (Currently all tests on MDMA come from other countries, like the one on this article)


And any right-wing conservative who thinks that the claims of physics or evolution can be biased by a political agenda must also realize that the same can be true about much of the drug information that is published.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
ECSTACY IS NOT MDMA!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting, but this is not what I was going for.

[Phil153]

The article looks fine to me. The only problem I can find is this contradiction in the results of two different studies:

"His findings echo previous research by Jenny Morton of the University of Cambridge, who discovered that a combination of methamphetamine (or speed) and loud, pulsing music is much more damaging to mice than either stimulus alone (New Scientist, 3 November 2001, p 17). White noise had no effect on the mice in her experiments. "If Iannone's team had used loud, pulsing noise, their effects would probably have been even stronger," she says."

From the way I read it, in the main study they used white noise and ecstacy and produced an effect; in Morton's study white noise showed no effect at all. The bolded bit isn't clear though, it could mean white noise alone or white noise combined with ecstacy. Nor is the study you linked; I assume the "acoustic stimulation" was white noise at 95dB but it's not explicit from the way it's written.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The article looks fine to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too with the exception that the experiment was using noise rather than music. Not sure if it has any relevance. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[wacki]

Here is a hint:

http://www.dancesafe.org/slideshow/index.html

I let this sit for another 24 hours before I give another clue.

[madnak]

Well, I'm not seeing anything blatant. The main area that seems erroneous to me is the assumption that MDMA might cause long-term mental illness, when the temporary period of depression seems to be a clear result of your brain "recharging."

There's also some questionable terminology and a bit of correlation=causation thinking, but I have seen much worse.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The main area that seems erroneous to me is the assumption that MDMA might cause long-term mental illness, when the temporary period of depression seems to be a clear result of your brain "recharging."


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.military-medals-insignia.com/bronze%20star.jpg


The article used the word "damage" which is very different than "recharging". The main scientific article never said it was proof of damage. You may think this is small but I see crap like this all the time which is part of the reason why I hate reporters. They screw everything up.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The article used the word "damage" which is very different than "recharging". The main scientific
article never said it was proof of damage. You may think this is small but I see crap like this all the time which is part of the reason why I hate reporters. They screw everything up.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to scientists? At least reporters took Reading Comprehension 101. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

From the article:

"PARTYGOERS who take the recreational drug ecstasy may face a greater risk of long-term brain damage if they bombard themselves with loud music all night long."

What precisely about this sentence is unreasonable or incorrect? I agree with it 100%, there is nothing iffy here. Overloading of the serotonin receptors (or any part of the brain's mechanisms) increases the risk of long term damage and mental illnesses such as depression. The study clearly shows that exposure to both loud music and ecstacy increases the overload in that area of the brain.

[ QUOTE ]
Those given the highest dose of ecstasy...experienced a slump in electrical power of the cerebral cortex for up to five days [as opposed to no days or 1 day]....Previous studies suggest that such loss of power is related to brain hyperactivity and can ultimately lead to depression.

[/ QUOTE ]
Depression in an otherwise healthy person means that something in the brain has changed for the worse as result of this behavior. How else would you define damage? They didn't say "irreversible damage". They said "long term" damage.

Their is nothing wrong with this article except the ambiguous wording I pointed out in my first post.

[wacki]

I swear I must be dyslexic or multitasking way too much. I read that opening paragraph 3 times and still didn't see the "may". It's the single key word "may" that kills my argument. The article should make it very clear that these are only preliminary findings and it doesn't.

I still think this is far from headline news. I mean reduced activity in an area should be expected when you are using up any neurotransmitter that isn't instantly replenished. What they should of done is taken a brain section of the rat and seen if degenerating axon terminals and cell bodies existed in the striatum and somatosensory cortex. That is some actually useful information. I guess at the same time I'm not thrilled at the researcher because it amazes me people will do research like this and not follow it to completion. I see selective research and reporting like this all the time especially in Iraq, oil, and the drug industry.


Sorry for the screwup guys. I should of picked another article. I guess was up too late, dyslexic,.... whatever. I've done the John Hopkins/Iraq one but that belongs in politics and not here.

[Phil153]

wacki - I agree the article is very misleading. On first read I was left with the impression that ekkies + loud music can cause brain damage - meaning death/degeneration of cells and the like. It was only when I read the second time to pick up flaws that I noticed the clever use of language.

The article's clearly a beatup. Just thought I'd bust your chops on this one as I don't often get the chance. /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
You may think this is small but I see crap like this all the time which is part of the reason why I hate reporters. They screw everything up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, that's what I mean when I say it's not blatant. It's all very normal. I don't argue that there are some very serious errors in reporting regarding many (or most) scientific studies, I just don't see this article as particularly erroneous (relative to other similar articles).

I understand how missing the "may" created a perception of an egregious error, though.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Little known fact: ECSTACY IS NOT MDMA!!!!!! Ecstacy, a term coined in the 1990's, refers to a combination of MDMA with another strong CNS stimulant. (People say that this is usually meth, but it's more often caffiene, ephedra, or something cheap.) The reason is obvious: it turns MDMA into something more marketable at clubs and parties.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never heard this. Everyone I talked to, scientist and drug dealer/user alike says MDMA = ecstasy.

And a lot of the problems associated with ecstasy is because it and/or it's metabolites (especially MDA) are neurotoxic to neurons on their own - separate from the excitotoxic, 5-HT depletion, and dopamine avenues of toxicity.

Man, I take one day off from 2+2 and you start putting good threads in.

[DougShrapnel]

ecstasy includes MDMA. to Say MDMA = ecstasy would be like saying caffine = pepsi. Also MDMA is legal to use in the US, as a sexual aid. XTC is not. XTC includes with MDMA, herion, coke, Lsd, what ever the chemist has handy. If you see a black line in your pill of X, that is way to much herion. Don't buy that [censored]. You can mail order MDMA, and it is not illegal for personal use.

[wacki]

Whatever you guys want to call it, the definitive answer is here:

http://www.ecstasydata.org/results.php

As you can see, it varies a lot.

[Zygote]

i love mdma. dont do it too often, but sure enjoy it when i do.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
ecstasy includes MDMA. to Say MDMA = ecstasy would be like saying caffine = pepsi. Also MDMA is legal to use in the US, as a sexual aid. XTC is not. XTC includes with MDMA, herion, coke, Lsd, what ever the chemist has handy. If you see a black line in your pill of X, that is way to much herion. Don't buy that [censored]. You can mail order MDMA, and it is not illegal for personal use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try posting when you're not high. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
According to NIH MDMA = Ecstasy. According to your roommate or that guy at Mirage or the Basement or whatever - it's not. Who to go with?
MDMA (not MDMA + whatever) became a Schedule I substance under the COntrolled Substances Act in 1988. It's pretty illegal.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ecstasy includes MDMA. to Say MDMA = ecstasy would be like saying caffine = pepsi. Also MDMA is legal to use in the US, as a sexual aid. XTC is not. XTC includes with MDMA, herion, coke, Lsd, what ever the chemist has handy. If you see a black line in your pill of X, that is way to much herion. Don't buy that [censored]. You can mail order MDMA, and it is not illegal for personal use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try posting when you're not high. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
According to NIH MDMA = Ecstasy. According to your roommate or that guy at Mirage or the Basement or whatever - it's not. Who to go with?
MDMA (not MDMA + whatever) became a Schedule I substance under the COntrolled Substances Act in 1988. It's pretty illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

i've done ecstasy and MDMA quite a few a times. trust me, they are not the same thing! I suppose from a legal or scientific perspective, people refer to pure MDMA as ecstacy and that is probably what is causing this confusion. Here's the thing, ecstasy started off as pure MDMA, but dealers found more profit in cutting the drug with all sorts of cheap crap. So now adays, on the street, ecstacy usually means MDMA + some form of speed and if you dont want speed you try get pure MDMA.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ecstasy includes MDMA. to Say MDMA = ecstasy would be like saying caffine = pepsi. Also MDMA is legal to use in the US, as a sexual aid. XTC is not. XTC includes with MDMA, herion, coke, Lsd, what ever the chemist has handy. If you see a black line in your pill of X, that is way to much herion. Don't buy that [censored]. You can mail order MDMA, and it is not illegal for personal use.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try posting when you're not high. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
According to NIH MDMA = Ecstasy. According to your roommate or that guy at Mirage or the Basement or whatever - it's not. Who to go with?
MDMA (not MDMA + whatever) became a Schedule I substance under the COntrolled Substances Act in 1988. It's pretty illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

i've done ecstasy and MDMA quite a few a times. trust me, they are not the same thing! People refer to pure MDMA as extacy also, and that is probably what is causing this confusion. Ecstasy started off as pure MDMA, but dealers found more profit in cutting the drug with all sorts of cheap crap. On the street, extacy usually means MDMA + some form of speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still disagree. I think the confusion is that people call MDMA + whatever just "Ecstasy" rather than "Ecstasy and whatever" and that's where the confusion is.
What I see your post as saying is any pill that has an MDMA component is called ecstasy now, NOT that a MDMA only pill is not ecstasy.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
What I see your post as saying is any pill that has an MDMA component is called ecstasy now, NOT that a MDMA only pill is not ecstasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. but i'm also saying that if you were trying to find an MDMA only pill, you will very, very rarely get one by asking for ecstacy. on the street, they are basically two distinct things and ecstacy most commonly refers ONLY to the combination of ecstacy and some from of speed.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What I see your post as saying is any pill that has an MDMA component is called ecstasy now, NOT that a MDMA only pill is not ecstasy.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes. but i'm also saying that if you were trying to find an MDMA only pill, you will very, very rarely get one by asking for ecstacy. on the street, they are basically two distinct things and ecstacy most commonly refers ONLY to the combination of ecstacy and some from of speed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree then because I've never heard or read that "ecstasy" refers specifically to the combination of MDMA and something else and MDMA alone is not called ecstasy.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Also MDMA is legal to use in the US, as a sexual aid. XTC is not. XTC includes with MDMA, herion, coke, Lsd, what ever the chemist has handy. If you see a black line in your pill of X, that is way to much herion. Don't buy that [censored]. You can mail order MDMA, and it is not illegal for personal use.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please don't post false information about drugs.

MDMA is ecstasy. A tablet sold as ecstasy will obviously not be pure MDMA. (Pure MDMA wouldn't bind together into a tablet -- although sometimes pure MDMA is sold in gel caps. Somebody above mentioned "mollies".) In addition to a binding agent, many (but not all) tablets are also cut with other active ingredients such as caffeine or amphetamine -- sometimes ketamine. (NOT heroin or coke. You can check pillreports.com (http://www.pillreports.com/index.php?page=region_home&region=1) to see the results of lots of tests for ingredients in pills sold as ecstasy.)

MDMA is illegal. It is not legal for personal use, it is not legal as a sexual aid, it is not legal for anything.

[DougShrapnel]

Sorry guys, the info I had was old. In 1990 it was made illegal. I will try not to post drunk.

[brandofo]

[ QUOTE ]
The drug was placed on schedule I, claiming that it had no medicinal uses (which is absurd, and only verified by the fact that the drug worked in clinical settings, and there hadn't been any time or incentive to validate it), and thus preventing any further research.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wrote a paper for my English class on MDMA last year if anyone is interested. It was focused mainly on the above statements.