![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 72. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by becksA on August 28, 2004, at 20:56:23
In my college days I did Ecstasy a couple times and it is a failsafe drug if you want to feel the effects. That's why so many kids spend their few bucks on it...why isnt there a way to recognize and harness the MDMA in such a way that it isn't harmful in the long run? Maybe this is a dumb question, I've just never thought about it.
Posted by chemist on August 28, 2004, at 21:11:33
In reply to Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed?, posted by becksA on August 28, 2004, at 20:56:23
> In my college days I did Ecstasy a couple times and it is a failsafe drug if you want to feel the effects. That's why so many kids spend their few bucks on it...why isnt there a way to recognize and harness the MDMA in such a way that it isn't harmful in the long run? Maybe this is a dumb question, I've just never thought about it.
hello becksA, chemist here..let us nip this in the bud, shall we? MDMA has been shown to be a useful drug in combination with therapy. it was first synthesized in 1914, and one of the stereomers - (S) - is more potent than the other, (R). it was criminalized in the u.s. in 1985 because it became a drug of abuse. there is currently a trial ongoing (MAPS) for use of MDMA along with therapy for patients suffering from PTSD. therapeutic benefits have been reported for the numerous years it was used in some therapeutic sessions. the best way to determine the purity of MDMA is by IC-TOF-MS. whether or not the use of pure MDMA over long time is detrimental, that depends on frequency of use, concommitant use of other drugs (legal or not), and of course, time. another way is to evaluate the source: if it is prescribed - and in the u.s., it is a schedule 1 substance, so forget it for now and perhaps for a long time - it is likely the real-mccoy. if the drug has been prepared from pharmaceutical (or at least spectrographic) quality reagents by a person who very truly knows what they are doing, you will likely receive a product that is safe, and you will also receive a federal charge guaranteeing that the next 25 years of your life will be spent in a known location should you be caught with the substance. in keeping with Dr. Bob's policy of not exchanging information pertaining to illicit substances, i will not make any further comments in re: synthesis or ``cleaning up'' a ``dirsty'' product. all the best, chemist
Posted by linkadge on August 29, 2004, at 11:16:53
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? » becksA, posted by chemist on August 28, 2004, at 21:11:33
MDMA, even in its purest form is not ideal for the daily treatment of depression. I think their is sufficiant and substantial evidence to show that MDMA is not harmless to the brain.
Linkadge
Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 16:27:38
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed?, posted by linkadge on August 29, 2004, at 11:16:53
I agree! I think you are a little off here chemist, no offence. I have seen reports that E uses up serotonin as opposed to what ssri meds do. So, after much usage you no longer have serotonin to work with anymore. Giving you untreatable depression, which is what the danger of this drug is all about! Long term use can lead to this! Not to be messed with!
Posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 16:59:21
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed?, posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 16:27:38
> I agree! I think you are a little off here chemist, no offence. I have seen reports that E uses up serotonin as opposed to what ssri meds do. So, after much usage you no longer have serotonin to work with anymore. Giving you untreatable depression, which is what the danger of this drug is all about! Long term use can lead to this! Not to be messed with!
hello there, chemist here...becksA asked if there was a way to harness the potential good from MDMA and render it safe for long-term use. if you read my reply, you will notice that i did not assert directly or indirectly that long-term use was either good or bad. i did mention that the drug was used for numerous years in conjunction with therapy and positive results have been reported. i made it very clear that MDMA was not legal in the u.s., and outlined the punishment for possession of the drug. i did not offer information related to synthetic routes, and did (accurately) comment that if one were prescribed the drug - as the participants of, say, the MAPS study are - or if someone who is a skilled synthesist made the substance from pure precursors, that the MDMA would be of high-quality (free of impurities). i did not endorse or recommend daily or long-term use. i have stated during my time on PB on several occasions that i do not endorse the use of this drug. that is my opinion, and there are data that do exist (mostly archival, but many recent) that indicate that in a therapeutic setting MDMA can be a useful adjunct to therapy, especially in cases of PTSD. i implore all people who respond to my posts to read them. in this manner, you can address my post directly. by indirectly asserting that i endorse long-term and frequent use of MDMA - which is an erroneous assumption made by linkadge - you are not only guilty of not gathering all the facts but continuing to propagate a false chain of thought attributable to me. all the best, chemist
Posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 17:21:07
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? » becksA, posted by chemist on August 28, 2004, at 21:11:33
hello all, chemist here. comments delineated with asterisks. all the best, chemist
> > In my college days I did Ecstasy a couple times and it is a failsafe drug if you want to feel the effects. That's why so many kids spend their few bucks on it...why isnt there a way to recognize and harness the MDMA in such a way that it isn't harmful in the long run? Maybe this is a dumb question, I've just never thought about it.*** above is where becksA asks two questions: why is there no way to recognize MDMA so that it is not harmful in the long run; and why is there no way to harness MDMA so that it is not harmful in the long run.***
>
> hello becksA, chemist here..let us nip this in the bud, shall we? MDMA has been shown to be a useful drug in combination with therapy. it was first synthesized in 1914, and one of the stereomers - (S) - is more potent than the other, (R). it was criminalized in the u.s. in 1985 because it became a drug of abuse. there is currently a trial ongoing (MAPS) for use of MDMA along with therapy for patients suffering from PTSD. therapeutic benefits have been reported for the numerous years it was used in some therapeutic sessions.*** this paragraph, above, was my factual response, detailing the history of MDMA in an abbreviated form. my opinions are not included therein. ***
the best way to determine the purity of MDMA is by IC-TOF-MS.
*** this is my opinion, based on what i know about analytical chemistry and techniques. there are certainly other ways to assess the purity and identity of a compound. ***
whether or not the use of pure MDMA over long time is detrimental, that depends on frequency of use, concommitant use of other drugs (legal or not), and of course, time.
*** the above statement is my opinion. please note that i single-out the variables frequency of use, whether or not other drugs are being taken as well, and the time course over which one would take MDMA. this is my opinion, and i can just as easily apply it to Effexor, water, lithium carbonate, and so on. i am entitled to my opinion. you are entitled to disagree. ***
another way is to evaluate the source: if it is prescribed - and in the u.s., it is a schedule 1 substance, so forget it for now and perhaps for a long time - it is likely the real-mccoy.
*** note my use of the word ``likely'' in qualifying that *if* one were prescribed (this indicates that a medical professional is involved, and that a reputable/FDA-approved manufacturer is involved as well) MDMA, the drug supplied would be MDMA + inert ingredients, which i equate to ``the real mccoy,'' pardon my use of a hypen. this is my opinion, and not an endorsement either way of how/when/why one should use MDMA. ***
if the drug has been prepared from pharmaceutical (or at least spectrographic) quality reagents by a person who very truly knows what they are doing, you will likely receive a product that is safe,*** alternatively, i mention that given the proper reagents and knowledge, that a skilled person could produce MDMA of the quality that a pharmaceutical company could. this is not my opinion: this is a fact. ***
and you will also receive a federal charge guaranteeing that the next 25 years of your life will be spent in a known location should you be caught with the substance.
*** here, i offer a warning that is reflective of the U.S. government's stance on possession/manufacture/distribution of MDMA. my facts might indeed be wrong: the mandatory 25 year sentence could in fact be less. the point is that it is presently illegal in the U.S. ***
in keeping with Dr. Bob's policy of not exchanging information pertaining to illicit substances, i will not make any further comments in re: synthesis or ``cleaning up'' a ``dirsty'' product.
*** above, i acknowledge Dr. Bob's guidelines and note that i will not be party to any details involving synthesis of MDMA. ***
all the best, chemist*** finally, there is my sign-off, devoid of any mention that MDMA should be shunned or used. ***
Posted by linkadge on August 29, 2004, at 18:39:07
In reply to addendum to all... » chemist, posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 17:21:07
When I made the comment, I was simply saying that MDMA as we have it now is not fit for daily use.
I was not implying that you were implying it was, I was just making a statement to direct the conversation.
Linkadge
Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 18:46:09
In reply to to all... » flmm, posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 16:59:21
There is an implication that used correctly, MDMA possibly is safe, according to your post. I believe this is not the case and feel it is reckless to imply this.
Posted by linkadge on August 29, 2004, at 18:53:26
In reply to Re: to all..., posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 18:46:09
There was a big argument about this about 3-4 weeks ago.
My stance was that the mood dip experienced POST-E would be more than enough for an indevidual to seriously reconsider/doubt any positive perpectives asserted during a therapy session.Mood improvement has to be sustained in my oppinion, in order for progress to be made.
Ecstacy is 2 steps forward, 2 steps back.
Linkadge
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 29, 2004, at 18:56:58
In reply to Re: to all..., posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 18:46:09
> There is an implication that used correctly, MDMA possibly is safe, according to your post. I believe this is not the case and feel it is reckless to imply this.
There is a fairly substantial literature supporting the therapeutic use of MDMA (from around fifteen years ago?), but the appropriation of the substance by the club scene forced the government to take some serious steps restricting it. A lot of the "MDMA causes brain damage" reports have been retracted, as they were seriously flawed. Chemist's description of the circumstances surrounding MDMA, and its chemistry, are very similar to my own knowledge of it. I believe his statements are fully valid.
Lar
Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 18:59:03
In reply to Re: to all..., posted by linkadge on August 29, 2004, at 18:53:26
I think it is more like 2 steps forward, 4 steps back! Burned up serotonin is gone! Poof! History! You only have so much to work with. SSRI meds do not burn it up, only enhance what is available, that is why I felt it reckless to even remotely imply MDMA can be used safely under any circumstances. Big difference between drugs that enhance serotonin versus MDMA which depletes it!
Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 19:06:08
In reply to Re: to all..., posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 18:59:03
Again, my "limited" understanding is that the basis for the drugs action is greater release of serotonin. I have read many reports confirming this and it makes sense to me. What the drug is "cut" with and the brain damage that may occur from that are two different things! If you are depleting serotonin it is going to go away, common sense tells you that! All I can tell you is I do not want to have "untreatable" depression 15 years from now so I can feel good today!
Posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 19:24:35
In reply to Re: to all..., posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 19:06:08
hello there, chemist here. i agree with your subjective assessment of your knowledge of the subject being discussed in this thread - limited - and applaud the depth of your self-realization. i am interested - as an academic matter - in the materials you possess that support your claim. you mention ``many reports'' that implicate that the mechanism of action of MDMA is via release of serotonin. hence, you have identified MDMA as a drug that is a very potent serotonin receptor agonist: can you please provide the appropriate citations? the conclusions that make sense to you may or may not make sense to the rest of us. if i understand your reasoning correctly, MDMA agonizes the release of serotonin, and is also responsible for depleting serotonin. i assume you are implicating serotonin receptors in different physiological areas, but again, this is not stated and i do request clarification, preferably in one of the ``many'' reports you have read and can cite. this dual-action property of MDMA that you report below is quite fascinating, and i do look forward to reading about it. all the best, chemist
> Again, my "limited" understanding is that the basis for the drugs action is greater release of serotonin. I have read many reports confirming this and it makes sense to me. What the drug is "cut" with and the brain damage that may occur from that are two different things! If you are depleting serotonin it is going to go away, common sense tells you that! All I can tell you is I do not want to have "untreatable" depression 15 years from now so I can feel good today!
Posted by verne on August 29, 2004, at 19:50:19
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? » becksA, posted by chemist on August 28, 2004, at 21:11:33
There's nothing "safe", "useful", or "positive" about ecstasy as the chemist suggests.
I don't know the chemistry but ecstasy uses up something in the brain having to do with the capacity to feel pleasure. "Holes" in the brain are readily visible in those who've taken even a few doses.
And as pointed out already in this thread, untreatable depression is the result.
Posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 20:07:25
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed?, posted by verne on August 29, 2004, at 19:50:19
hello there, chemist here....thank you for sharing your opinions. mine are delineated by asterisks, below. all the best, chemist
> There's nothing "safe", "useful", or "positive" about ecstasy as the chemist suggests.
*** is this your opinion, or is this a factual statement? further, you refer to ecstacy, and hence by using the ``street'' name, i conclude you are referring to the illicitly and often contaminated substance sold as pure 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine: am i correct? ***
>
> I don't know the chemistry but ecstasy uses up something in the brain having to do with the capacity to feel pleasure.*** the above statement does not lend credence to your opening salvo: you deny knowledge of the chemistry involved and implicate depletion of a substance you are unable to name. ***
"Holes" in the brain are readily visible in those who've taken even a few doses.
*** are you sure? please do point me in the direction of the source(s) of this claim. thanks in advance. ***
>
> And as pointed out already in this thread, untreatable depression is the result.*** again, please provide some references. i am obviously very interested in this topic - as are you - and i look forward to adding your supporting materials to my files. ***
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 29, 2004, at 20:31:34
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed?, posted by verne on August 29, 2004, at 19:50:19
> There's nothing "safe", "useful", or "positive" about ecstasy as the chemist suggests.
>
> I don't know the chemistry but ecstasy uses up something in the brain having to do with the capacity to feel pleasure. "Holes" in the brain are readily visible in those who've taken even a few doses.
>
> And as pointed out already in this thread, untreatable depression is the result.The two factors which must be present, for brain damage to occur, are either or both of, a very high single dose, and repeated dosing without a recovery period between doses.
The first abstract below demonstrates this relationship nicely. Note that the threshold for brain damage, or even abnormal brain chemistry post-use, is greater than 4 mg/kg (by interperitoneal injection, not oral), a dose three times the typical human dose, employing a route of intake not normally employed by humans. Only repeated use, far in excess of that frequency used by any but the most committed clubbers, caused measurable changes in brain chemistry. The authors conclude, "We suggest that damage occurs when endogenous free radical scavenging mechanisms become overwhelmed or exhausted." In other words, antioxidant levels can be used up, if you overdo it. That's what leads to the damage, not the acute drug effects.
The second one makes two very clear points. Prior to its publication, only two studies had shown neurological damage from MDMA, and only following *very high doses*, not specified in the abstract.
By no means am I saying that makes MDMA safe, but dose (and frequency of dose) make the poison. The post-MDMA depletion of serotonin is not permanent. Your body will make as much as it needs, within no more than 48 hours.
Lar
Neuropharmacology. 1998 Jul;37(7):919-26.
The relationship between the degree of neurodegeneration of rat brain 5-HT nerve terminals and the dose and frequency of administration of MDMA ('ecstasy').O'Shea E, Granados R, Esteban B, Colado MI, Green AR.
Departamento de farmacologia, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
The effect of varying the dose and frequency of administration of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or 'ecstasy') on both the acute hyperthermic response and the long term neurodegeneration of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) nerve terminals in the brain has been studied in Dark Agouti rats. A single injection (4-15 mg/kg i.p.) of MDMA produced immediate dose-related hyperthermia and a dose-related decrease in 5-HT, 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) and [3H]paroxetine binding in regions of the brain 7 days later, with a dose of 4 mg/kg having no degenerative effect. This dose was also without effect when given once daily for 4 days, but produced a marked loss of [3H]paroxetine binding and indole concentration ( approximately 55%) when given twice daily for 4 days. When a dose of 4 mg/kg was given twice weekly for 8 weeks it had no effect on these serotoninergic markers, despite a clear anorectic effect of the drug being seen. These data demonstrate that MDMA-induced neurodegeneration is related to both the dose and frequency of administration and indicate that damage to 5-HT neurones can occur in the absence of a hyperthermic response to the drug. We suggest that damage occurs when endogenous free radical scavenging mechanisms become overwhelmed or exhausted.
Brain Res. 2003 Jun 6;974(1-2):127-33.
Demonstration and localization of neuronal degeneration in the rat forebrain following a single exposure to MDMA.Schmued LC.
Department of Neurotoxicology, National Center for Toxicological Research/FDA, Jefferson, AR 72079, USA. lschmued@nctr.fda.gov
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, Ecstasy) is a powerful releaser of serotonin. Increasing recreational use of this stimulant and hallucinogenic drug has raised concerns about its potential to produce brain damage. The vast majority of previous research studies have focused on the compound's ability to deplete serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine, 5-HT) from axon terminals. Despite extensive research on this '5-HT terminal neurotoxicity', a much less studied aspect of MDMA toxicity involves its ability to actually kill nerve cells. Only two prior studies mention the existence of MDMA-induced neuronal degeneration, as reflected by a limited number of argyrophylic neurons within the somatosensory cortex, following very high doses of MDMA. The development of Fluoro-Jade B as a simple and reliable marker of neuronal degeneration has allowed us to conduct the first comprehensive localization of MDMA induced neuronal degeneration throughout the entire rat forebrain. In addition to the previously reported neuronal degeneration within parietal cortex, degenerating neurons were also observed in the insular/perirhinal cortex, the ventromedial/ventrolateral thalamus, and the tenia tecta. The extent of neuronal degeneration observed generally correlated with the degree of hyperthermia achieved.
Posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 20:38:13
In reply to Re: Ecstasy safely converted and prescribed? » verne, posted by Larry Hoover on August 29, 2004, at 20:31:34
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 29, 2004, at 21:09:25
In reply to Re: to all..., posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 18:46:09
> There is an implication that used correctly, MDMA possibly is safe, according to your post. I believe this is not the case and feel it is reckless to imply this.
Well, your position probably arises from a much-publicized paper in the prestigious journal Science, which was later subject to a much less-publicized full retraction. The study had used the wrong drug! The primates had received no MDMA at all! See the first abstract, along with a link I've added, which gives the full-text of the retraction.
Also, that prestigious researcher, Ricaurte, later gave MDMA to monkeys for eighteen months, as much as they wanted. Following two months of withdrawal, there was no change in brain neurotransmitter levels from normal levels. "Further, there were no measurable decrements in serotonin (5-HT), 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), dopamine (DA), 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (DOPAC) or VMAT in any brain regions assayed."
There goes another myth.
Lar
Science. 2002 Sep 27;297(5590):2260-3.Retraction in:
Ricaurte GA, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, Cord BJ, McCann UD. Science. 2003 Sep 12;301(5639):1479.
See:http://mdma.net/toxicity/retracted.htmlComment in:
Science. 2002 Sep 27;297(5590):2185-7.
Science. 2003 Jun 6;300(5625):1504-5; author reply 1504-5.
Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA ("ecstasy").Ricaurte GA, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, Cord BJ, McCann UD.
Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. Ricaurte@jhmi.edu
The prevailing view is that the popular recreational drug (+/-)3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, or "ecstasy") is a selective serotonin neurotoxin in animals and possibly in humans. Nonhuman primates exposed to several sequential doses of MDMA, a regimen modeled after one used by humans, developed severe brain dopaminergic neurotoxicity, in addition to less pronounced serotonergic neurotoxicity. MDMA neurotoxicity was associated with increased vulnerability to motor dysfunction secondary to dopamine depletion. These results have implications for mechanisms of MDMA neurotoxicity and suggest that recreational MDMA users may unwittingly be putting themselves at risk, either as young adults or later in life, for developing neuropsychiatric disorders related to brain dopamine and/or serotonin deficiency.
Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004 Jul;29(7):1270-81.
Behavioral and neurochemical consequences of long-term intravenous self-administration of MDMA and its enantiomers by rhesus monkeys.Fantegrossi WE, Woolverton WL, Kilbourn M, Sherman P, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, Ricaurte GA, Woods JH, Winger G.
Department of Pharmacology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48101-0632, USA. billfan@umich.edu
The effects of self-administered 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) on behavior and neurochemistry have not been previously studied in laboratory primates. We investigated the capacity of MDMA and its enantiomers to maintain contingent responding over an extended duration, whether any decrements in the reinforcing effects of these compounds would be observed over time, whether such decrements would be MDMA-selective, and whether any neurochemical correlates could be identified. Animals were previously trained to self-administer cocaine, then exposed to periodic substitutions of various doses of racemic MDMA and its enantiomers; full dose-effect curves were generated for each MDMA compound repeatedly over the duration of the study. After approximately 18 months of MDMA self-administration, drug exposure was halted and after at least 2 months drug abstinence, animals were scanned using positron emission tomography (PET) with the vesicular monoamine transporter (VMAT) ligand dihydrotetrabenazine (DTBZ). Shortly thereafter, animals were euthanized, brains were dissected, and samples were assayed for brain monoamines and their metabolites using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and for VMAT using DTBZ binding. The reinforcing effects of racemic and R(-)-MDMA were reduced over a long series (months) of individual self-administration access periods; the reinforcing effects of S+-MDMA were more resistant to this effect, but were attenuated for one animal. The reinforcing effects of cocaine were not altered by chronic MDMA self-administration, nor was the VMAT binding potential as assessed by PET. Further, there were no measurable decrements in serotonin (5-HT), 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), dopamine (DA), 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (DOPAC) or VMAT in any brain regions assayed. The reinforcing effects of MDMA are selectively attenuated by chronic MDMA self-administration, although this behavioral change appears to occur in the absence of any frank neurochemical correlates of toxicity. Copyright 2004 Nature Publishing Group
Posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 21:20:00
In reply to Re: to all... » flmm, posted by Larry Hoover on August 29, 2004, at 21:09:25
hello there, chemist here....as a bonus to larry's post - and given that other contributions to this thread have been ill- or non-informed, and hence i suspect that further investigation will not be persued with vigor - i'll take the liberty of spoiling the surprise in re: the Science pub of last september: the drug administered to the primates was in fact pharmaceutical-grade methamphetamine. oops. all the best, chemist
> > There is an implication that used correctly, MDMA possibly is safe, according to your post. I believe this is not the case and feel it is reckless to imply this.
>
> Well, your position probably arises from a much-publicized paper in the prestigious journal Science, which was later subject to a much less-publicized full retraction. The study had used the wrong drug! The primates had received no MDMA at all! See the first abstract, along with a link I've added, which gives the full-text of the retraction.
>
> Also, that prestigious researcher, Ricaurte, later gave MDMA to monkeys for eighteen months, as much as they wanted. Following two months of withdrawal, there was no change in brain neurotransmitter levels from normal levels. "Further, there were no measurable decrements in serotonin (5-HT), 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), dopamine (DA), 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (DOPAC) or VMAT in any brain regions assayed."
>
> There goes another myth.
>
> Lar
>
>
> Science. 2002 Sep 27;297(5590):2260-3.
>
> Retraction in:
> Ricaurte GA, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, Cord BJ, McCann UD. Science. 2003 Sep 12;301(5639):1479.
> See:http://mdma.net/toxicity/retracted.html
>
> Comment in:
> Science. 2002 Sep 27;297(5590):2185-7.
> Science. 2003 Jun 6;300(5625):1504-5; author reply 1504-5.
>
> Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA ("ecstasy").
>
> Ricaurte GA, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, Cord BJ, McCann UD.
>
> Department of Neurology, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. Ricaurte@jhmi.edu
>
> The prevailing view is that the popular recreational drug (+/-)3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, or "ecstasy") is a selective serotonin neurotoxin in animals and possibly in humans. Nonhuman primates exposed to several sequential doses of MDMA, a regimen modeled after one used by humans, developed severe brain dopaminergic neurotoxicity, in addition to less pronounced serotonergic neurotoxicity. MDMA neurotoxicity was associated with increased vulnerability to motor dysfunction secondary to dopamine depletion. These results have implications for mechanisms of MDMA neurotoxicity and suggest that recreational MDMA users may unwittingly be putting themselves at risk, either as young adults or later in life, for developing neuropsychiatric disorders related to brain dopamine and/or serotonin deficiency.
>
>
> Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004 Jul;29(7):1270-81.
>
> Behavioral and neurochemical consequences of long-term intravenous self-administration of MDMA and its enantiomers by rhesus monkeys.
>
> Fantegrossi WE, Woolverton WL, Kilbourn M, Sherman P, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, Ricaurte GA, Woods JH, Winger G.
>
> Department of Pharmacology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48101-0632, USA. billfan@umich.edu
>
> The effects of self-administered 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) on behavior and neurochemistry have not been previously studied in laboratory primates. We investigated the capacity of MDMA and its enantiomers to maintain contingent responding over an extended duration, whether any decrements in the reinforcing effects of these compounds would be observed over time, whether such decrements would be MDMA-selective, and whether any neurochemical correlates could be identified. Animals were previously trained to self-administer cocaine, then exposed to periodic substitutions of various doses of racemic MDMA and its enantiomers; full dose-effect curves were generated for each MDMA compound repeatedly over the duration of the study. After approximately 18 months of MDMA self-administration, drug exposure was halted and after at least 2 months drug abstinence, animals were scanned using positron emission tomography (PET) with the vesicular monoamine transporter (VMAT) ligand dihydrotetrabenazine (DTBZ). Shortly thereafter, animals were euthanized, brains were dissected, and samples were assayed for brain monoamines and their metabolites using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and for VMAT using DTBZ binding. The reinforcing effects of racemic and R(-)-MDMA were reduced over a long series (months) of individual self-administration access periods; the reinforcing effects of S+-MDMA were more resistant to this effect, but were attenuated for one animal. The reinforcing effects of cocaine were not altered by chronic MDMA self-administration, nor was the VMAT binding potential as assessed by PET. Further, there were no measurable decrements in serotonin (5-HT), 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), dopamine (DA), 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (DOPAC) or VMAT in any brain regions assayed. The reinforcing effects of MDMA are selectively attenuated by chronic MDMA self-administration, although this behavioral change appears to occur in the absence of any frank neurochemical correlates of toxicity. Copyright 2004 Nature Publishing Group
>
>
>
>
Posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 21:21:52
In reply to Re: to all... » Larry Hoover, posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 21:20:00
Posted by verne on August 29, 2004, at 21:52:52
In reply to Re: to all... » Larry Hoover, posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 21:20:00
Hoover and the Chemist have quite the "tag team" act on this board. I've seen this routine used on other boards in an attempt to bully and silence other posters. One supports the other as they gang up on any perceived opposition.
What purpose, for example, does one of their comments, "given that other contributions to this thread have been ill- or non-informed" serve? Let each reader decide for themselves how informed a post is.
Sadly,this sort of tag-team bullying is usually successful. Many posters, often hurting, in need of help and real answers, instead are drowned out unless they have sufficient references and meet the chemists' level of proof. Worn down, they leave.
And in the end, the chemists prevail - at least, in their own minds.
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 29, 2004, at 22:08:07
In reply to Re: to all..., posted by verne on August 29, 2004, at 21:52:52
> Hoover and the Chemist have quite the "tag team" act on this board. I've seen this routine used on other boards in an attempt to bully and silence other posters. One supports the other as they gang up on any perceived opposition.
I speak up when misinformation is being given. I'm a toxicologist. I study this sort of thing both vocationally and avocationally. I read it as part of my job, and I read it for fun.
I'm not trying to bully or silence anybody. I'm trying to inform. I think I'm a decent judge of quality information, but please feel free to disagree, or post a dissenting position.
I don't know that chemist and I have joined our voices together on a single issue before this time, so I cannot say it is either a pattern, nor a planned act. I had the references available to me, to back up the simpler statements he had made. I'd be happy to back you up, too, if the opportunity arises.
Lar
Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:17:36
In reply to Re: to all..., posted by verne on August 29, 2004, at 21:52:52
oh great chemist, flmm here!
You remind me of the many shrinks I have seen in my life who say things like.."it should not do that", or "I don't think it caused that, must have been something else!" How very patronizing of you to include my "limited knowledge" quote! Oh well, we all can't be the all knowing "Chemist" Well you can take all your knowledge and it does not add up to a hill of beans in the real world. I know more about meds than my shrink does and he has a degree, what he lacks is street smarts. You may have issues here as well. Regardless, I think your advice is of very little value and probably can get some people hurt if they listen to you. Sorry if I don't consider you the "Genius" of chemistry that you are in your own mind. For now i will get my advice elsewhere, but thanks anyways, oh great "CHEMIST"
Posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:21:44
In reply to Re: to all... chemist, posted by flmm on August 29, 2004, at 22:17:36
By the way, I speak from experience when it comes to E and what it can do top your loved ones! Great advice "CHEMIST"
Posted by chemist on August 29, 2004, at 22:33:34
In reply to Re: to all..., posted by verne on August 29, 2004, at 21:52:52
hello there, chemist here....my comments below, delineated by asterisks....all the best, chemist
> Hoover and the Chemist have quite the "tag team" act on this board. I've seen this routine used on other boards in an attempt to bully and silence other posters. One supports the other as they gang up on any perceived opposition.*** this statement is untrue, and unless you have archived URLs for threads that show the contrary - and i cannot recall a single event - i stand firm in this regard. either produce the evidence that Larry Hoover and myself act as you assert, or retract your assertion. the burden of proof is on you. please supply it. ***
>
> What purpose, for example, does one of their comments, "given that other contributions to this thread have been ill- or non-informed" serve? Let each reader decide for themselves how informed a post is.*** i ask, what purpose do blanket statements that are in fact untrue serve, especially when the people making them cannot and/or do not provide evidence that their assertions are true? this falls under the category of ill-informed and/or non-informed. i repeatedly asked for peer-reviewed information supporting various claims, and none was provided. if you have some, by all means, support your claims. until then, your assertions are opinions not founded in fact nor supported by objective evidence. period. ***
>
> Sadly,this sort of tag-team bullying is usually successful. Many posters, often hurting, in need of help and real answers, instead are drowned out unless they have sufficient references and meet the chemists' level of proof. Worn down, they leave.*** again, please provide evidence that i - chemist - have been the sole cause of any person leaving the psycho-babble community. the reason i ask for references (and my willingness to provide or make clear that i am not informed in many cases) from posters who make grandiose statements that are all-encompassing is that such sweeping arguments need to be supported.. ***
>
> And in the end, the chemists prevail - at least, in their own minds.
>
>
*** i hold a doctorate in chemistry, and have been a post-doctoral fellow/lecturer at 2 medical schools and a top-ten university. i have published in the esteemed journal Science (my 10th publication). i have held a position as an assistant professor of chemistry, have collaborated in the past and present with a molecular design group at a privately-held pharma, and currently lecture in the 13th-ranked chemistry/biochemistry department in the nation, for whatever good the u.s. news and world report rankings do us. larry hoover is at least as educated as i am and, further, knows more about the stuff on this and other boards than i do. i am a chemist, and like larry, it is the way i pay the bills. it is also my passion. i look forward to your response. ***
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.