Jhons Hopkins University

GreyPaws · September 2003

<div class="IPBDescription">Retraction of MDMA study findings</div> <a href='http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/2003-09-08-science-retract_x.htm' target='_blank'>Text Article from USA Today</a>

<a href='http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=ATC&showDate=09-Sep-2003&segNum=12&mediaPref=WM' target='_blank'>NPR Audio </a> <-- hope the link works sorry if it doesnt

<a href='http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Johns+Hopkins+University+retract+&sub=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-top' target='_blank'>Yahoo Search Results</a> If you want to browse yourself

Basically they finally admitted to using the wrong drug in the first study. Now this doesnt mean that you should go out and pop MDMA every day, but hopefully it will raise more awareness.

DOOManiac · September 2003

...

Sooo...

now because of one study with animals a bunch of teenyboppers are going to go use Esctasy cause its obviously safe now? heh.

GreyPaws · September 2003

no but everyone based what they knew about the neurotoxicity of MDMA off of this study.. I can drop a few more links to well respected medical journals on this topic, or you can refer to my posts in Discussion in the Legalization threads, MDMA has been demonized by American scientists, there is a backlash against it now, the Journal For Mental Health and Disease published some research on this matter, the drugs therapeutic value needs to be researched further It was only tested on humans in 1972 - 1985(when it became illegal) and the results of the tests were stunningly good, especially with severely ill patients.

If the War on Drugs propaganda machine stops perpetuation lies about this drug it can go back to the labs where it belongs. And if people still choose to abuse it at least it will be clean. Less than 1% of all emergency room visits in the US that are supposedly related to MDMA are actually caused by the drugs, its the things that drug dealers cut the MDMA with that kills people (that and general stupidity, like driving while high)

SoulSkorpion · September 2003

It's still dangerous, misunderstood and unpredictible.

MonsieurEvil · September 2003

Since when did using drugs make you a <b>better</b> person? This research is just saying 'oh, it's not as awful as we thought', not 'OMG GETTING HIGH MAKES YOU SMARTER!!!'. The same can be said for alcohol or cigarrettes (both of which I have used far too much of, to my irritation).

Bah. I'm for legalising a fair number of drugs, and then taxing the living **** out of idiot kids that want to use them so that they can't afford to go to college and end up digging ditches where they belong.

GreyPaws · September 2003

I never said drug use would make you better person, however research shows dramatic improvements in people with severe mental health problems that use MDMA as part of their treatment. The only thing I was alluding to was the fact that because it became illegal under FALSE pretences (as did many other drugs in the US) many people who could have benefited from its clinical use have not. Furthermore, scientists can not freely experiment with the substance, means that they cant prove or disprove its medicinal value.

Taxing drugs would definitely work, however no matter how much tax you place on drug you will never be able to compete with the 40 BILLION dollar budget of the "War on Drugs" the majority of which is pocketed by the bureaucrats that perpetuate its existence. So in short, they take all that money for themselves, and until you can show them how to do that through legalization it will never happen.

edit: <a href='http://www.drugtext.org/library/research/mdma/archive/14/default.htm' target='_blank'>This is a quick read</a>

Melatonin · September 2003

monse, you really hate these kids eh? such venom.

the report that was published in the first place was basically science to order, government gives 'scientist' a grant, and gets the results they wanted. Im all for idiot researchers being outed as idiots (a certain Mr. Ricaurte in particular). False information does no one any good, and serves only to make people feel other information may not be true when they learn of its inaccuracies.

im still not sure wether lying to kids about drugs is a good idea (cos lets face it, this 'research' isnt intended for adults anyway).
on the one hand theyll probably be put off them untill they are grown up enough to decide for themselves (ive nothing against informed adults experimenting, but kids and drugs shouldnt mix), but on the other hand it totally destroys any trust they may have in such 'research'.

hmmm.

Nemesis_Zero · September 2003

<span style='color:white'>***Moved.***</span>

CommunistWithAGun · September 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Sep 10 2003, 08:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Since when did using drugs make you a <b>better</b> person? This research is just saying 'oh, it's not as awful as we thought', not 'OMG GETTING HIGH MAKES YOU SMARTER!!!'. The same can be said for alcohol or cigarrettes (both of which I have used far too much of, to my irritation).

Bah. I'm for legalising a fair number of drugs, and then taxing the living **** out of idiot kids that want to use them so that they can't afford to go to college and end up digging ditches where they belong.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
That happens anyway, except they reproduce instead of be worked in a labor camp as they deserve

Euoplocephalus · September 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Sep 10 2003, 10:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
[/QUOTE]
Bah. I'm for legalising a fair number of drugs, and then taxing the living **** out of idiot kids that want to use them so that they can't afford to go to college and end up digging ditches where they belong. [/QUOTE]
That happens anyway, except they reproduce instead of be worked in a labor camp as they deserve

 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Ow......Social Darwinism makes my head hurt. Just becasue someone decides to use drugs doesn't make them bad, nor a lesser specmin of humnaity. Granted that many drugs, and the accompanying addiction, do horrible things to people, twist them into husks of their former selves. But the are still human, and stilll deserve respect and help.

Personanly I do think a couple drugs should be legalized, so teh government could exercise more control over them and cut down a bit on drug related crimes.

alius42 · September 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Euoplocephalus @ Sep 10 2003, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [QUOTE=CommunistWithAGun,Sep 10 2003, 10:28 AM]
[/QUOTE]
Bah. I'm for legalising a fair number of drugs, and then taxing the living **** out of idiot kids that want to use them so that they can't afford to go to college and end up digging ditches where they belong. [/QUOTE]
That happens anyway, except they reproduce instead of be worked in a labor camp as they deserve

[/QUOTE]
Ow......Social Darwinism makes my head hurt. Just becasue someone decides to use drugs doesn't make them bad, nor a lesser specmin of humnaity. Granted that many drugs, and the accompanying addiction, do horrible things to people, twist them into husks of their former selves. But the are still human, and stilll deserve respect and help.

Personanly I do think a couple drugs should be legalized, so teh government could exercise more control over them and cut down a bit on drug related crimes.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Hes not speaking of drug users persay but of people who abuse drugs and get into financial ruin because of it.

dr_d · September 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ Sep 9 2003, 10:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> ...

Sooo...

now because of one study with animals a bunch of teenyboppers are going to go use Esctasy cause its obviously safe now? heh.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
No it means that a major scientific journal posted a mistake as an accurate scientific finding and is now correcting that mistake.

As far as this meaning people will do the drug more is irrelevant because A.) Science is science and doesn't affect law in anyway B.) The likelyhood someone will actually find pure MDMA is very unlikely so they will just buy the chemical cocktails sold on the streets C.) The drug is still facing a lot of anti-ecstasy legislation so users still won't feel safe using it.

Rat · September 2003

As far as drugs and their ilk go, my grandmother (mother's side) has an MBA in Psychology and teaches as well as works a drug rehabilitation clinic. Yea, Ex is harmless....until you burn out your seritonin receptors and you lose a lot of the things that define "personality" or "uniqueness" about you. She deals with cases of od'd kids on many types of drugs, but the cocaine and ecstasy kids she says are by far the worst when it comes to overusage. She was scared enough to have a long talk w/ my around the age of 16 where she described in lurid detail just how messed up that stuff can make you. If you've ever seen the effects first hand, the vast majority of controlled substances are disturbingly dangerous and haunting. I've had friends OD on tainted stuff or on too large of a hit. None of those things listed by the government as controlled substances should be toyed with (with the possible exception of marijuana as overdosing on it takes an insanely large amount of ingestion). As far as medical experimentation goes, I think there should be relaxed strictures on that to allow retesting and researching for medicinal purposes. Granted, the potential for abuse of that sort of system is enormous, but the potential medical payoff on the other side outweighs the majority of the abuse potential in my book.

dr_d · September 2003

Well Rat what you are referring to is just common sense, and any drug is dangerous when abused and the fact that these kids are using these drugs irresponsibly just shows the need for education, not blanket propeganda and sweeping prohibition.

And denying the ability for even private medical research groups to test the substance is more than overkill. No one is saying these drugs aren't dangerous but they become ultimately more dangerous when there is a lack of knowledge about them and no regulation.

GreyPaws · September 2003

rat: an MBA is a Masters of Business Administration, they dont give those out in Phsycology. The very thing you are randomly spouting off about (MDMA destroing ceratonin receptors) is exactly was was just retracted by the University in question. Please take the time to read what a thread is about instead of smapping in it.

Melatonin · September 2003

i thought the downgrading of serotonine receptors was accepted fact, and neurotoxicity was to do with oxidants left in the brain?
[/anal]

GreyPaws · September 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Sep 10 2003, 04:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> i thought the downgrading of serotonine receptors was accepted fact, and neurotoxicity was to do with oxidants left in the brain?
[/anal]

 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
It only takes ten minutes to read <a href='http://www.drugtext.org/library/research/mdma/archive/14/default.htm' target='_blank'>this</a> and it will answer your own question, I've already posted this so I dont know why you would even bring this up again

Euoplocephalus · September 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (alius42 @ Sep 10 2003, 11:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [QUOTE=Euoplocephalus,Sep 10 2003, 04:49 PM] [QUOTE=CommunistWithAGun,Sep 10 2003, 10:28 AM]
[/QUOTE]
Bah. I'm for legalising a fair number of drugs, and then taxing the living **** out of idiot kids that want to use them so that they can't afford to go to college and end up digging ditches where they belong. [/QUOTE]
That happens anyway, except they reproduce instead of be worked in a labor camp as they deserve

[/QUOTE]
Ow......Social Darwinism makes my head hurt. Just becasue someone decides to use drugs doesn't make them bad, nor a lesser specmin of humnaity. Granted that many drugs, and the accompanying addiction, do horrible things to people, twist them into husks of their former selves. But the are still human, and stilll deserve respect and help.

Personanly I do think a couple drugs should be legalized, so teh government could exercise more control over them and cut down a bit on drug related crimes. [/QUOTE]
Hes not speaking of drug users persay but of people who abuse drugs and get into financial ruin because of it.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Well, what ever his intentions were my point stands. Just because someone is addicted to a drug and it drives them to finacial ruin doesn't make them bad people, or lesser people. They just happen to people with a problem. They still should have all the rights any other human should have.

Aegeri · September 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Sep 10 2003, 05:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It only takes ten minutes to read <a href='http://www.drugtext.org/library/research/mdma/archive/14/default.htm' target='_blank'>this</a> and it will answer your own question, I've already posted this so I dont know why you would even bring this up again  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
And I put <a href='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12921915&dopt=Abstract' target='_blank'>this</a> on the table <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2003 Aug;27(5):819-27.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Our results indicate primary memory dysfunction in heavy ecstasy users, which may be related to a particularly high vulnerability of the hippocampus to the neurotoxic effects of MDMA. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Now this doesn't say directly what the neurological damage is a result of, but it does indicate that damage occurs through use of this drug. That hardly makes it safe.

Please be aware this is a 2003 Journal too BTW, yours is rather out of date at 1992 <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> I do agree that many many of the immediately LETHAL effects of ectasy are the additive stuff that's put with it, but there are STRONG indications that pure ectasy does do damage (Look at the references say for the above paper and several other modern, ie post 2000 papers). Then again, I'm not sure if you will have access to the pub med stuff D: But there is a lot of evidence to suggest Ectasy does a lot of harm in 'average' people.

I do agree that tentative results indicate that people with neurological disorders could get some benefit, but how big this benefit is, and if it outweighs potential problems is very much a debate.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Other studies also have reported on the brain hazards of Ecstasy, and the researchers said the problems with their work did not call into question the earlier findings. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

From your first source. They admitted they were wrong, but it doesn't change earlier report findings.

Zel · September 2003

The only deaths in relation to MDMA that i have ever seriously read about were when the user was overheated and dehydrated and dancing for hours. (or when the dose of ecstacy was not pure MDMA) The only evil the drug played was to make them NOT NOTICE IT. Hence ravers always carrying water bottles. if its in your hand you will instinctively drink it often enough to survive.

Most narcotics are safe in small doses. In large doses they can become psycologically addicting. Some chemicals become physically and psycologically addicting, and then all sorts of problems arise. Added is the problem of legality. if you have to hide fromt he cops and are phsyically addicted to a substance its gets to be hell on earth.

MDMA is not chemically or physically addictive. Some reports that people who use it too much feel depressed when they are not on it, but i believe it is a relative down-time from this happy-pill. If you get used to super happy mode, normal life will sure seem dismal.

anyway, i say drugs are good in small safe and controlled quantities, like vacations. just dont get lost on that vacation in jamaica, you can get mugged and beaten to death.

GreyPaws · September 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Sep 10 2003, 07:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
And I put <a href='http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12921915&dopt=Abstract' target='_blank'>this</a> on the table <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2003 Aug;27(5):819-27.

 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Unfortunatley I couldnt find a single PHD mentioned in that entire paragraph, and anything after september 2002 was influanced by that Jhons Hopkins finding in the Journal Scientce. If you would like I will post more links when I get to work.

Melatonin · September 2003

just because someone has a PHD doesnt mean they cant be wrong, it also doesnt mean their judgement wount be swayed by large sums of money.
anyway, before we start argueing too much, can someone (preferably the threads creator) give this thread an actual topic, since it was phased here were kinda just throwing in random facts at the moment.

dr_d · September 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Sep 10 2003, 07:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Please be aware this is a 2003 Journal too BTW, yours is rather out of date at 1992 <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> I do agree that many many of the immediately LETHAL effects of ectasy are the additive stuff that's put with it, but there are STRONG indications that pure ectasy does do damage (Look at the references say for the above paper and several other modern, ie post 2000 papers). Then again, I'm not sure if you will have access to the pub med stuff D: But there is a lot of evidence to suggest Ectasy does a lot of harm in 'average' people.

 </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
The link was to a 2003 news article and the research they were retracting was done in 2002.

....Nope I'm not going to say it.

GreyPaws · September 2003

This really doesn’t need to be discussed further, the topic was about Johns Hopkins University retracting the findings the published in a MAJOR Scientific Journal "Journal Science" which a lot of other researchers look into for the basis of their studies, when they published this in September 2002 all the major new sources jumped on it and began to demonize MDMA, when they published the retraction the only people who reported on it were NPR (national public radio) and some on-line publications like dailynews.com and haroldsun.com

It was obvious that the only thing people cared about was demonizing a drug which has major beneficial value to mentally ill patients.

The neurotoxicity issue is a MAJOR topic of debate amongst respected scientific sources, most of the research that points to MDMA having nuerotoxicity is based on the finding of the Johns Hopkins people (the ones that posted the retraction)

And yes, a PHD does not automatically make your opinion correct, but the sources I link to have what’s called a "works cited" page, which allows you to do follow up research, the German site that was posted above had a paragraph with no authors or works cited.

Rhuadin · September 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>demonizing a drug which has major beneficial value to mentally ill patients</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Mr. Ricaurte definitely is very guilty of this. Since the government likes to pay researchers to find bad things about drugs, he's been sort of a 'Government's Pet' so to speak, blowing the smallest thing out of proportion.

As for demonizing drugs despite their beneficience, I'm surprised *you're* surprised about this. The US Government doesn't care about our well being -- that's not why they banned certain drugs. Each drug that was banned had a clear political agenda behind it. If they really cared about our well being they'd unban marijuana (which has potent medicinal effects with possibly the least undesirable (or at least permanent) side effects of any medicine known to mankind today) and revise that stupid food pyramid. The only reason it is as it is now is because the food companies love making tons of money selling carbohydrates (lowest production cost/profit ratio) to us. Legalizing marijuana could potentially save thousands of cancer patients who are too sick to take their conventional treatments.

Rhuadin

Aegeri · September 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And yes, a PHD does not automatically make your opinion correct, but the sources I link to have what’s called a "works cited" page, which allows you to do follow up research, the German site that was posted above had a paragraph with no authors or works cited.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Actually, not German site, it is pub med perhaps you need to use pubmed a bit more <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'> Pubmed is a massive collection of scientific papers from all over the world from nearly every journal. That paper IS in a scientific journal. And yes, there are authors, and there is a paper but it isn't easily accessed online. I can get it because I use my university proxy to do so.

Second, qualifications don't determine the relevance of scientific research, because much of the real scientific grunt work is often done by phD or Honors students anyway <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>. Not everyone even has a Ph.D that has made some of the most important observations in science. Or do you think Gregor Mendel did nothing of any importance (now THAT is an argument I'd like to see you try)?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Unfortunatley I couldnt find a single PHD mentioned in that entire paragraph, and anything after september 2002 was influanced by that Jhons Hopkins finding in the Journal Scientce. If you would like I will post more links when I get to work. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

I forgot that you cannot access the entire paper (whereas, I can). If you find the entire paper it will be more useful <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'> What you saw there is just the abstract. I see you are not very familiar with reading scientific journals (which would indicate to me you really haven't researched this as much as you've claimed <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>)

They have a lot of references though, if I have time I'll drag some out of the paper for you. Perhaps you should actually LOOK FOR the journal, IE paper ones, like this. I've already given you the journal, date etc it came from. It should be easy to find at your local university :/

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It was obvious that the only thing people cared about was demonizing a drug which has major beneficial value to mentally ill patients. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You've so far presented little evidence for this, and I have seen mixed support myself for it. I'm not overly worried about it myself, but frankly I don't see the point in making definite conclusions as you are while there is such a debate about it.

Finally dr.d

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The link was to a 2003 news article and the research they were retracting was done in 2002.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

The paper I quoted was from a 2003 paper, not a news article, where the news are concerned that SARS is going to wipe off all of mankind <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>. The research was indeed being retracted from their 2002 findings, the link he posted in what I quoted referenced a paper from 1992. This still doesn't indicate anything overly much, just that one group made a mistake. It doesn't all of a sudden invalidate all of the other scientific research done on it <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>....Nope I'm not going to say it.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Say what? I know you didn't read what I wrote correctly <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'> Honestly, I reply to what is IN QUOTES, if you go back to my original post and have a look at the LINK IN THE QUOTE, you will find it is from a paper from 1992. That is what I was commenting on, and not the news article, of which I rarely bother with the news for various scientific news. Two reasons: A it is out of date and B the media is stupid. For evidence of B look at the whoopla over SARS, while emerging Tuberculosis estimated at 2,000,000,000 (2 billion!) potential carries and a death rate of 3,000,000+ a year... Well...

Make sure you read what is quoted as well as the reply, you might not look silly next time <img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'>

Rat · September 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (GreyPaws @ Sep 10 2003, 04:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> rat: an MBA is a Masters of Business Administration, they dont give those out in Phsycology. The very thing you are randomly spouting off about (MDMA destroing ceratonin receptors) is exactly was was just retracted by the University in question. Please take the time to read what a thread is about instead of smapping in it.  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Sorry, meant MA. No more posting here while I'm that tired again <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'>

GreyPaws · September 2003

Aeg: Ok, so post the "works cited" for that paper please. The journal I linked was a collaboration between 2 influential schools in California, and it had extensive citing. I don’t need to do your work for you if YOU are the one trying to prove a point.

Therapy: <a href='http://thedea.org/docs/MAPS_MDMA_Manual.pdf' target='_blank'>complete</a> with works cited

I've already posted links to extensive discussions on the neurotoxicity issue, the only reason it is still being debated has a lot to do with dosage and frequency. Since its safe to assume that under controlled conditions dose and frequency would cease to be a factor, then it is also safe to assume that under said conditions no neurotoxicity would occur (in case you are lazy, nuerotoxicity occurred when subjects were given 3 times the normal dose up to 10 times per week)

Melatonin · September 2003

alot of legal DEA approved drugs have similar effects at extreme doses
that said anyone who wouldnt expect to 'burn out' on 4+ doses a day, needs to seriuosly consider ANY research into the subject.
its important that people realise just beacause there is apparently no threat of neurotoxicity, people tend to go a bit nutty with too much MDMA...

GreyPaws · September 2003

I mentioned in my very first post that this is not an excuse to go all slap-happy with MDMA, in fact I went even further later on by stating (for the sake of this argument) that I was talking about controlled conditions. (labs or other places where intake, dose, and frequency could be monitored)

Jhons Hopkins University

Comments