No Brain Damage From Ecstasy, New Research Shows

Contrary to long-held opinion, ecstasy, the popular rave-culture drug, may not harm your brain.

This is according to one of the largest studies ever conducted on the illegal drug's effect on cognition, published last week in the journal Addiction.

Though former studies have concluded quite the opposite about the drug (technical name 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA) there's been concern that these conclusions were overstated and reached through faulty methods.

The latest research, a $1.8 million study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), set out to correct these methods by eliminating all other factors that could possibly contribute to mental impairment: 1) sleep deprivation and dehydration commonplace in rave culture, 2) previous habitual drug or alcohol use, or 3) former cognitive damage for any reason.

After screening subjects for these factors (even testing hair samples to make sure they weren't lying about drug use) researchers whittled down the initial pool of 1,500 people to just 52 cognitively clean subjects, the Guardian reports.

John Halpern, lead researcher from the Harvard Medical School team, told Addition:

Researchers have known for a long time that earlier studies of ecstasy use had problems that later studies should try to correct. When NIDA decided to fund this project, we saw an opportunity to design a better experiment and advance our knowledge of this drug.

Ecstasy is most commonly associated with the 1980s and 90s rave scene -- all-night dance complete with strobe lights and glow sticks to enhance the drug's effect. Ecstasy's symptoms include a feeling of euphoria, a heightened sense of intimacy and pleasure, and decreased anxiety. Negative side effects include blurred vision, and in rare cases overdoses can be fatal.

The common understanding, and certainly the argument from the anti-drug camp, has been that ecstasy can cause memory loss, pose a serious brain damage risk, and have long-lasting effects on behavior.

Researchers are quick to point out that despite the study's conclusion, ecstasy is still a dangerous drug. The illegal pills have no warning labels, and can contain a number of harmful contaminants.

Studies have also looked into MDMA-assisted psychotherapy as a possible treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The idea is to provide at least a brief experience of what life feels like without the aftermath of trauma, to provide a state in which learning can occur.

Comments

[realitytrumpsbull]

01:47 AM on 04/09/2011

I think the pharmaceuticals industry needs a LOT more government regulation. Ecstasy? One more way of getting 'high'. Reality sucks, sometimes, but at least you know what's really going on, even if it isn't 'fun'. Who honestly cares if the stuff causes brain damage? The fact that the government is conducting drug studies is kind of spooky, all by itself, and with a name that long, including the last part, 'methamphetamine', well, isn't it just dressed-up 'speed'? That kind of stuff has been around since they were selling it in the back pages of Hustler magazine to truckers back in the 70's and 80's. Big whoop-de-do, amphetamine and methamphetamine came from Germany, and Japan, respectively. People that take stuff like that, are still just speed freaks. And, that includes the people taking that ADD medication. Reportedly, Hitler was a speed freak, too. I say take ALL that stuff, and have it incinerated/destroyed, and try sobriety, for a change. Sure, it's a big come-down, but it's how most everyone else lives...

[Andrew Cho]

10:04 PM on 04/10/2011

so what if it's how everyone else lives. maybe all you guys are just missing out

[MerrieWay]

04:31 AM on 04/05/2011

Are we going to buy into another Pharma type study...Did you ever see the aftermath personally of an Ecstasy user? Maybe the brain doesn't show deterioration..but common sense and logic are often altered and sacrificed with artificial bonding.

[roudy]

08:25 PM on 02/27/2011

Heck, I get the blurred vision from overwork, without any of the offsetting benefits.

[Margie Kronewitter]

03:44 PM on 02/26/2011

I think Ecstasy makes you "high" by releasing all the neurotransmitter SERETONIN at once. Therefore, seretonin should be replenished afterward with a regime of 5HTP or tryptophan.

[rickdoblin]

02:58 PM on 02/23/2011

By "this study", I meant the one posted by NGC224, "3,4-Methyl enedioxyme thamphetam ine (MDMA, “Ecstasy”) Induces Fenfluramine-Like Proliferative Actions on Human Cardiac Valvular Interstitial Cells in Vitro

http://mol pharm.aspe tjournals. org/conten t/63/6/122 3.short

NGC224 made the claim that

Heart damage isn't a realistic risk of MDMA.

[rickdoblin]

02:53 PM on 02/23/2011

This study from 2003 claims that MDMA hurts the heart.

This data was used in 2003 by the Western IRB to revoke its permission for Dr. Michael and Annie Mithoefer to start MAPS' initial MDMA/PTSD study. I've had extensive communications with the person whose lab conducted this study, Dr. Bryan Roth, and he has acknowledged that the therapeutic use of MDMA does not carry the risks he worried about, which were from daily administration of the other drugs over extended periods of time. In addition, there have been studies directly in heavy Ecstasy users that found no heart problems. The concern that MDMA hurts the heart is hypothetical, contradicted by direct evidence, and doesn't apply to the therapeutic use of several doses of MDMA.
For more information on MAPS' MDMA/PTSD research, see http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/

Also, MAPS funded the Ecstasy/neurocognitive effects pilot study that led to Dr. John Halpern having the data for his NIDA grant application, for which he received $1.8 million for the study that was just published in Addiction. MAPS is committed to being a leader in the study of the risks as well as the benefits of MDMA.

[Brad Burge]

01:49 PM on 02/23/2011

This news does seem to be making a lot of people nervous, but only because of a simple misunderstanding: The research does NOT show that recreational Ecstasy use is risk-free. What it does show is that any cognitive risks that are associated with the drug are not likely to be due to the drug itself. Ecstasy is not risk-free, especially when laws are in place that force people (who are going to use it anyway) to use it too much and in the wrong settings. What the research really reminds us is that it's both necessary AND possible to find ways to use Ecstasy safely and responsibly. At this point, arguments to the contrary are based on irrational fears.

[purenergy]

08:04 AM on 02/23/2011

Ecstasy saved my life.

"The common understanding...from the anti-drug camp, has been that ecstasy can cause memory loss, pose a serious brain damage risk, and have long-lasting effects on behavior."

Memory loss, yes, it allowed me to forget all those horrible things that happened to me as a kid and gave be a space in which I could deal with the pain and let it go.

Serious Brain Damage, yes, it allowed me to completely re-wire my brain from negative depressed feelings to happy positive ones.

Long lasting effect on behavior, yes, THANK GOD! I am a much happier, calmer, more tolerant person who is no longer afraid to engage life.

The only lasting "side effect" I can think of is that I still love techno music! But to be honest, I loved it before :)

Ecstasy was originally designed as a psychotherapy drug used very successfully, especially in marital counseling. The widespread use of it in the 80's made the FDA panic and pull it off the market, not only for over-the-counter sales, but for medical use and research as well. Thankfully, it is now being brought back into the pill box of the psychiatrist where maybe it can do others as much good as it did me. Peace.

[sabelmouse]

12:05 PM on 02/23/2011

my son just told me he had similar experiences with ecstacy. very interesting.

[purenergy]

11:13 AM on 02/24/2011

I love to tell people about my experience. To be sure it is not the norm, but if used properly can be a highly effective tool for conscious mind expansion. Probably why it has been proven effective for PTSD.

[NGC 224]

11:11 PM on 02/22/2011

3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, “Ecstasy”) Induces Fenfluramine-Like Proliferative Actions on Human Cardiac Valvular Interstitial Cells in Vitro

http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/63/6/1223.short

[Rory14]

10:12 PM on 02/22/2011

Drugs like these can exacerbate underlying mental disorders one may be predisposed to. So while that may not be "brain damage", it certainly has very adverse effects on the quality of your life.

[hatfinch]

08:29 AM on 02/24/2011

[CITATION NEEDED]

[CaliKingsley]

01:33 AM on 02/25/2011

@Rory14, please point to any research that might support your claim.

[Paul Robertson]

05:49 PM on 02/22/2011

While far from a clean bill of health for E, this does show that the harm of using has been overstated. At what point is the harm of prohibition greater than the harm it seeks to prevent?

[NGC 224]

11:21 PM on 02/22/2011

MDMA has a strong potential to produce valvular heart disease due to it's ability to activate 5-HT2B receptors. Fenfluramine (FenPhen) was pulled from the market for the same reason.

The damage to your heart is irreversible.

[Doc Robles]

02:29 AM on 02/23/2011

Makes me think of alcoholic cardiomyopathy. There really is no justification for the prohibition of drugs like this while drugs like alcohol and tobacco, which both have disastrous health consequences, remain legal.

[Paul Robertson]

10:33 PM on 02/23/2011

To prove harm is not to enough to make a case for illegality. The following excerpt suggests a set of criteria which I support.

http://www.qccl.org.au/documents/Sub_JER_4Oct93_Cannabis_and_Law_in_Queensland.pdf

3. Therefore, adapting Ostrowski's argument, a drug should only be declared illicit if ALL THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITIONS are satisfied (Ostrowski, 1989, p9):

(a) prohibition substantially decreases the level of illicit drug use.

(b) prohibition results in a substantial reduction in drug-intrinsic harm (arising from the properties of the drug) because of the decreased level of illicit drug use.

(c) the reduction in drug-intrinsic harm is NOT EXCEEDED BY the prohibition-harm caused by the following:

* a substantial rise in black market harm (by making drug use far more dangerous);

* a substantial increase in the use of dangerous licit drugs (e.g. substitution of alcohol for cannabis);

* the creation of a lucrative demand-driven black market that leads to a substantial increase in crime and corruption;

* the transfer of millions of dollars from other government programs into drug law enforcement;

* criminalisation of large numbers of otherwise law-abiding citizens; and

* the introduction of legislation that results in substantial erosion of long-standing civil liberties.

(d) prohibition does not result in the banning of a drug whose intrinsic dangers are no worse than the intrinsic dangers of alcohol and tobacco.

[john outlaw]

11:56 AM on 02/22/2011

Wow. After reading several posts here there seem to be a couple people well versed in science and a couple hundred addicts trying to justify their addictions. People tearing apart other peoples posts because of spelling and grammer because of their own feelings of inadequacy - there's good journalism and blogging. Ecstasy is bad. I actually called LSU and spoke with their clinical research lab people and they would be willing to go on record confirming the heart disease issue, but they were worried that any comments that didn't go through the universities official channels would get them in trouble. So what do you say, folks? How about some REAL journalism?!? I've got a contact name at LSU!! Anyone else want to call and talk to them?

[Paul Robertson]

05:47 PM on 02/22/2011

"Real" in the sense that it confirms your preconceived opinions? Risk is a relative thing. One person may consider sky diving to be irresponsibly dangerous. Another will think nothing of it. Facts help assess that risk. There is, however, no such thing as "bad".

[NGC 224]

08:53 PM on 02/22/2011

Would it be "bad" to not have all the "facts" that would help you "assess the risk"? I would argue that most users don't have all the facts.

[Claire clair Lay]

03:41 PM on 02/28/2011

The following are rounded numbers:

There are roughly 6 substance-related deaths per 100,000 users of ecstasy aged 16-24, only 1.67 of which can be directly attributed solely to Ecstasy (other substances include heroin, alcohol, and cocaine). In comparison, there are roughly 5 non-traffic deaths per 100,000 Americans (users and non-users) aged 18-24 directly caused by alcohol each year (mainly alcohol poisonings). When traffic accidents are included, the number of deaths caused by alcohol in that group jumps to over 20 (per 100,000 people aged 18-24).

So, the risk of dying from alcohol among young adults is at least FOUR TIMES that of the risk of dying from ecstasy use in any given year. Does that mean ecstasy is safe? No. But neither is alcohol. Misinformation is bad.

Magnitude of and Trends in Alcohol-Related Mortality and Morbidity Among U.S. College Students Ages 18-24, 1998-2005. J Stud Alcohol Drugs Suppl. 2009 July; (Supplement no. 16): 12–20. Ralph W. Hingson, Sc.D., M.P.H.,† Wenxing Zha, Ph.D., and Elissa R. Weitzman, Sc.D., M.Sc.†

Schifano F, Corkery J, Naidoo V, Oyefeso A, Ghodse H (2010) Overview of Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Mortality Data - UK, 1997-2007. Neuropsychobiology 61: 122-130

[Austin Cardona]

11:15 AM on 02/22/2011

As conflicted as i am by this article, i believe that this (unproven) information in the hands of the typical user is a dangerous thing. The typical user has problems with moderation as is.

[JeremyByTheSea]

06:42 PM on 02/22/2011

"The typical user has problems with moderation as is."
This is based on ... what?
The typical MDMA user takes it once or twice a year.
You're not actually looking at the "typical user". You're looking at the "problem user", who has ... a problem.
That's like saying "Because some people are alcoholics, the typical alcohol user has a problem with moderation". So we should ban people from having a glass of wine with their dinner?

[purenergy]

08:07 AM on 02/23/2011

good point, even at my height of play I was only taking it a few times a month. Its not a drug you become addicted to per say, though I am sure some can develop a psychological addiction to most anything.

[gambleriver]

10:08 AM on 02/22/2011

Having had experience with the effects of MDMA (once), bottomless traumatizing loss (my wife's sudden death) and protracted suicidal grief, words can't even begin to describe my outrage that MDMA is controlled in such a way that the medical community can't even prescribe it for what it's obvious practical use is: enabling a frame of mind where traumatized individuals can begin to face and deal with the source of the trauma, even if only in temporary sessions.

[purenergy]

08:08 AM on 02/23/2011

I have also used MDMA successfully as a therapeutic drug. Peace

[Marvin Hinton]

08:08 AM on 02/22/2011

well I guess that I am partying this weekend then

[JoyIsGwenNYC]

09:16 PM on 02/23/2011

HOLLAH! lol