News Ecstasy... A Possible Treatment For PTSD

[freefloat]

Anthony LSD is non addictive. So the MDAMA trials should stop, as with the ketamine studies and anything to do with cannabis?

Just as its an uninformed opinion that states MDMA would be used on a dialy basis to treat PTSD so is it with Ketamine and LSD. Its obsured to think those drugs could be used on a daily basis with a net benefit to the person. Side effects need to be looked at as a level of severity that may harm the patient. They are also determined, within that context, of injesting an appropriate dose. If you give someone a non therputic dose of any med you wont yield the best results. If it's to high a dose you will not yield reliable results.

That woman said she took LSD once and it cured her migraines. Why would anyone dream of repeating that success with daily high doses of LSD? No reposnbible person would as its just plain stopid to do that.

Whole point was that others had a similar effect. That woman states she has had no relief since the LSD. So therefore the other meds dont work so therefore the side effects of the Rx meds out weigh the benefits.

I didnt read the whole article as it wasn't necessary to validate her experince as she was wondering if that was perhaps causal.

Still unsure of what you mean by narcotics. Drugs are used as they have shown to have efficacy in treating the condition. Opiates have already been explored for treatment of migraines and are used for that purpose(IM Demerol). By most definitions opiates are a narcotic, not sure of how you define it.

 

[anthony]

Ok, the study you cited mentions more than LSD... yes, LSD itself is not addictive. Narcotics (legal context: illegal by law).

Addiction is measured behaviourally, not just chemically. LSD's affect is behaviourally addictive, more so than alcohol, whilst not chemically addictive if referring to its active ingredient, ethanol.

Saying that, all substances possess the ability to be chemically addictive to a minority vs. behaviourally. Most narcotics contain addictive chemical ingredients, topped of by behavioural.

The MDMA studies for limited use in therapy sessions with selective clientele, note this exact addictive quality of MDMA, being the instant behavioural euphoric effect.

Still, this does not negate the severity of short-term or long-term side effects, which no study to date has classified acceptable for legalisation, being your point to legalise hard drugs.

 

[freefloat]

Well that helps as the term narcotic here means opiates and in a legal context cociane but not illicit amphetamines.

Just for the record I never stated all drugs should be legal. Pot yes, others no. That is why I was defining the diffrences in illicit, decrimalisation, legal and illegal. The intervention needs to substance specific. Once its laid out in detail.

It's moot as any changes to the Single Convetion are blocked by the US unilaterally. In 2005 the US wanted to make syringes for illict use considered, in effect a drug. Luckily the UN and member countries told them to shove it. As it would have made all needle exchanges in the world illegal. Member nations would face sanctions if they didnt have criminal consequences for the Manufacture/distibution/possesion of those syringes. In other words all needles exchanges/dispensories in the world would close. HIV rates would obviolously soar. At the same time all the other member countries voted to have pot decriminalised except the US with Britan abstaining.

To much detail in the argument for me to prove everything as you request. The burdeon of proof being soley on my shoulders doesn't interest me. Better suited to a public forum, eh?

factoid: Peyote is legal in Canada with no concerns from health or law enforcement officals. You may maunfacture, sell, posses and use. Odd though as it contains the banned substance mescaline.

 

[Bachall]

To address the original post, about ecstacy elevating oxytocin levels. A non addictive, healthy alternative might be close at hand - recent research on interacting with your dog, specifically, looking into his or her eyes raises oxytocin serum levels significantly.

[DLMURL]http://www.theotherendoftheleash.com/oxytocin-increases-when-your-dog-looks-at-you[/DLMURL]

I had no idea there was a benefit to oxytocin for PTSD sufferers.

 

[heidi]

Yeah, you know, I never really think about it. But really it would be nice if some more research would go into these drugs. Long term use of Imitrex (sumitriptan) can't be much better health wise.

 

[712xx]

I had considered entering clinical trials related to this study, but then remembered reading that back in the 1800's doctors used to use cocaine to treat morphine addiction, and also use it as a pain killer and numbing agent. This started sounding a lot like that and decided against it. Using synthetic drugs as a tool to help with ptsd symptoms has never done anything for me except create more problems. Sure, it can make my behavior better (less problematic for society), but it doesn't help me.

I'm sick of all the attention on the external behaviors and getting them to acceptable levels -- then, they do nothing else. I spent a lot of time waiting for it to be my turn; when will this start to help me? They must have thought those things they were doing were going to eventually help me (at least I hope that was their goal, but my paranoid mind has a hard time believing it.) Talking about outsider actions against me ... then the T's become another 'them' and me.

It was like talking was the agent that made people turn; the goal to help decomposed and became managing my behavior without helping 'me' at all. They wouldn't tell me why they changed -- or I could have only imagined it.

 

[Girl3]

712xx - all trials have a goal, but not all clinical trials have been based on really good science - and sometimes even really go theories based on really good science don't pan out. Also - all drugs -legal or not - have side effects - some of which are not readily known because they look like the disease in question.

For instance - if you have withdrawal from an SSRI or SNRI - they don't say much about it in the prescribing literature. Some of those side-effects are you body reacting to receptor changes and may take days to weeks - even if the drug is gone from your system in hours to days.

As for the ketamine study that I participated in, the talk therapy was pre-infusion and post infusion for days/weeks after. The ketamine infusion lasted 45 minutes, the effect for about 4 hours. The infusion was done in hospital with both a PhD student and an anesthesiologist MD monitoring both physical and mental/emotional status. During the infusion, blood pressure can skyrocket so you need someone there who can manage your heart and blood pressure during those hours. The mental emotional effect during the infusion was one of fear/panic/paranoia - and both the PhD and the anesthesiologsit spoke to me, we went through some mental drills that were part of the study, and we chatted to keep me from freaking out completely. I wanted to get up, rip out both IV's and run - but physically could not coordinate that due to the ketamine. A nurse took blood samples from the non-infusion IV. After the infusion, my psychiatrist came to talk. Another psychiatrist affiliated with the study came a few hours later. Still another psychiatrist came just before bedtime for more talk/mood scales/etc. The next morning I was seen before breakfast by a psychiatrist and then around 11 am before discharge, my psychiatrist. I met with my psychiatrist again the next morning. We had several one hour appointments over the next week. Then once a week plus lots of paperwork/homework stuff that I then had to fill out a certain intervals.

Doing a clinical trial can be very involved sometimes - but not all of them are. It's very important to ask questions about the trial as it pertains to you - including side effects, emergencies, drug interactions. It is also most important that you don't participate if you can't follow the study guidelines. If you aren't supposed to take any street drugs or alcohol for instance - not only does that jeopardize the study results, but it can hurt or kill you the patient.

No study is going to cure anyone at this time - but the data has to be obtained and it needs to be gotten from real patients of all kinds. One of the worst things about studies is that often the only people who participate are those who want the money and have the time on their hands. So the trials I have done - the doctors involved are always amazed when I'm participating because "like hey - people with PTSD don't have jobs and don't suceed" - but I tell them there are alot of us who have hidden behind a successful facade but the person living behind the facade is a messed up individual whose inner life is often more shocking and disgusting than anything they could imagine.

I've had the opportunity to participate in a drug that is related to MDMA, but the side effect profile was too iffy for me. When I have to sign a consent that says I could have permanent brain damage, I won't.

 

[Girl3]

Another thing that has come out - just published in the past month - is that the risk of dying goes up with meds used for sleep - even the short acting ones. And we all know, PTSD destroys sleep - so a lot of us are on medication for sleep - whether nightly or as needed.

As an anesthesiologist, I see people on medication for sleep who after talking with them have sleep apnea, or they take more than one medication for sleep, or they mix over-the-counter stuff with their sleep med, or they use street drugs or alcohol or they mix more than one prescription med...so yeah, it increases the risk of dying. Because when you look at using benzos for anxiety - that doesn't increase your risk of dying.

Moral of the story - people need to be wary of mixing things together or taking things prescribed with things not prescribed. A "coma" isn't sleep - and not having any nightmares may be a coma - and that isn't what we are striving for when we want sleep...even though the nightmares may be so distressing. (Ask anyone who works with me - my nightmares scare them, let alone me.) But I put the positive spin - nightmare = sleep, so it's all good.

Freefloat - opiates are morphine-like drugs (Dilaudid, Demerol, Fentanyl, Sufentanyl, Methadone, etc.) Narcotics are things that induce sleep - so benzos, opiates, non-benzo soporifics, barbiturates, ketamine - etc. Whether or not something is legal or illegal is a matter of law, not medicine. For instance - if my doctor prescribes alprazolam for panic attacks and I take 3 of them to get wasted - THAT is illegal. Even though I have a prescription, I am not using it legally.

As for illegal drugs - many/most drugs on the street have been otherwise tested in some way for a medical use - be it human or vetinary. When they fail phase I testing for side effects or phase II testing for efficacy - they often become street drugs. Classic example is PCP - it came out of the search for something chemically useful - ketamine is chemically useful but PCP is not. DMT also fell out of that 'medically useful' research. (DMT was popular in the early 70's - it was awful -AWFUL- to the point where a popular comedian then had a routine about it - but only those of us who smoked it knew why it was really so funny.) Street drugs have known chemical 'equations' and everyone who was good at organic chemistry can produce some pretty cool stuff. The problem is always purity - because if your temperature of cooking apparatus is off - well, you've got something a bit different; or it's the person cooking - are they high? did they measure right? did they use substance A or substance X which is close but not really a substitute in a Grinard reaction.

OK and finally - when I say that 2 out of 3 means you have coronary artery disease - it is still a relativity - because let's say you have high blood pressure, chest pain, and high cholesterol...your chest pain could still just be a gall stone in your common bile duct, or a sliding hiatal hernia, or an infection around your lung - but you need to be "ruled out" for cardiac disease because a heart attack will kill you, whereas the other things can go on for awhile and you'll wish you were dead, but you're not going to drop dead immediately. My point being, that screeening tools are just that: are you likely or not to have the problem in question. It still takes an expert to make the diagnosis - so if you have 9 out of 12 on your PTSD screening exam, you might have PTSD....but you need someone who can make a diagnosis.

 

[Girl3]

Dear heaven that was long. Sorry. Been out of it for a couple of weeks due to work and family issues.

 

[712xx]

Don't worry about the length; sometimes explaining takes up space. It was good info. I always appreciate these kinds of posts full of factual morsals with experience backing up the data. :tup: And, gave me a laugh remembering my own undergrad organic chem experiences. I learned very early on I was not made to work in anything related to chemistry, lol.

 

[saffy]

HI all, Ive jsut found this thread, thank you Anthony.
Please remember that MDNA is NOT the same as street Es, which have been proven to actually contain no MDNA in 99% of cases.

There has a been a ive drugs trial on Tv lately with MRI scanners that show that MDNA shuts of the part of the brain that causes negative emotions. Without negative emotions the person feels more open and 'trusting' if you want to call it that. It allows counsellors ect to encourage the person with PTSD to talk about what happened without the negative emotional stepback.

By all means they are not looking at recommending street Es, far from it, but are looking into new ways of helping people who suffer from PTSD, as until now no other 'legal, pharmacutical drugs are effective enough. Chucking out anti depressants like they were sweeties is not the answer, in my view.

[DLMURL]http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/[/DLMURL] upto date research.

Very interesting to hear everyones comments on this thought.

Best wishes
Saffy

 

[anthony]

Saffy, it is MDMA, not MDNA.