Mdma Therapy. Experiences? Opinions?

[shimmerz]

Look, I am not trying to be a dick here. I get that my opinion on this topic is very unpopular here on the forum. I am passionate about the very positive effects that have been proven to occur for some of us who are suffering from PTSD. I am very concerned about the potential misinformation in the media and popular culture that is causing an almost neurotic denial that this drug can and is very possibly a potential easement for PTSD and CPTSD symptomology. Much of this I put down to the Ecstasy/MDMA confusion. I would love a proper debate on this but am finding it very difficult to find true references to MDMA and not Ecstasy.

Because I researched MDMA so heavily at one time, I knew that your statement about it being an amphetamine was true, but there were other issues that made it not assimilate physiologically as such so I searched for this information again this morning, knowing it was out there somewhere. It took me 6 pages of google search info before I got to this. It is so frustrating to me that one must wade through so many things to get to the truth of the matter. This is why I keep posting on this. My goal is to be able to debate based on actual research/facts, not information garnered from the top ten articles in google.

Friday, I am not saying that there isn't addictive potential, but addictive is a big word. There are all sorts of types of addictions, which is why I made reference to foods being addictive. In this post I am hoping to get to the specific addictive qualities for MDMA from people who have studied it. It is important to realize this to understand the real dangers. I am not saying that this drug is harmless, but I also do not buy into it being a brain eating, crazy making, going to drop dead and be addicted for life drug. Certainly not when used in a therapeutic setting.

This is where this information becomes very important, because given the wrong setting, yes MDMA can be a hindrance rather than an aid , as explained here.

Q. Does the expectation of a drug's effect influence the effect that that drug will have?

A. The expectation of a drug's effect very much influences the effect that drug will have. This was brought out years ago. I think it was Tim Leary who popularized the expression "set and setting". The "set" is what you expect a drug to do and the "setting" is the environment in which you use that drug. A lot of the early work, for example with LSD, was studied by Abramson and others in his living room with music in the background. The interaction between him and the people who were in the experimenting group was largely positive. For another group, in Los Angeles at about the same time, the setting was a hospital room, with stethoscopes and emergency equipment at the ready and a Code Red button to be pushed in case something went wrong. And almost to the person, the same drug was rejected, was found negative in its end results and was not wanted again...You take the same drug in two different contexts and you get two entirely different results.

The above Q&A further Solara's statement that whoever is facilitating the session must be aware of the potential that a knowledgeable therapist is important for a successful experience (success meaning a safe yet productive probing of client issues throughout the session). It is also my assertion that those who say they have experienced MDMA (which was most likely ecstasy), most likely did not experience a cathartic release, most likely due to the set (ecstasy not mdma experience) and setting (not taken therapeutically to address the trauma issues).

As far as it being an amphetamine, at times, things are not always so black and white

Q. You explained how it sits in relation to types of chemicals. Can you put it in context for the non-chemist? What's it related to? Is it a bit of one thing and a bit of another ?

A. The classification of MDMA usually has to go through one vocabulary into another. If you do it through the structure of the molecule, then the molecule quite closely resembles amphetamine itself. It has the same carbon skeleton and type of nitrogen substitution as methamphetamine. But it also has on it a heterocyclic ring, a methylene-dioxy ring, that takes it completely away from the area of pharmacology of the amphetamines. Yet it still bears the skeleton structure of an amphetamine. So yes, chemically it is an amphetamine, although pharmacologically, that's not a good classification.

And why this matters....

Q. Pharmacologically as opposed to chemically means?

A. Pharmacology is what the action on the person is, how it affects the body, how it affects the mind. Chemistry is how the molecules are put together with atoms.
The term 'amphetamine' has three meanings. One definition refers to its structure - this carbon is attached to that carbon; that is the structural fiber of an amphetamine from the chemist's point of view. The pharmacologist's definition is that amphetamine is something that causes stimulation, lack of sleep, rush, cardio-vascular involvement and a passing excitement. The third definition of amphetamine is the legal one, which means it is classified by law under a heading that says amphetamines as opposed to narcotics or sedatives. It has no connection, necessarily, either with the structure or with the pharmacology.

Addictive/Dependency Issues...

Q. There is an assumption by a lot of people that MDMA has tremendous abuse potential and is addictive. Is it?

A. The abuse potential of MDMA is as real as the abuse potential of anything that gives pleasure and satisfaction. This applies to MDMA as much as it does to sky diving, mountain climbing and skiing.
I should also point out that to the authorities, abuse is the use of any illegal drug. It's not how you use the drug. It's the fact that the regulator says you can't use it.
On your second point, addiction, there is a tendency to use the word addiction in an almost pejorative or a socially condemning way. I personally tend to avoid the word addiction because of the baggage it carries with it - social unacceptability, legal involvement, pharmacological dependency. I like the word dependency because for one thing it avoids the addiction word; and secondly, it allows me to define two types of dependency - physical dependency and psychological dependency.
In the case of the former, your body will rebel if it does not get what it has become used to. In the case of the latter, you have the psyche, the spirit, the self image, the good feeling about yourself rebelling if you don't have more of the thing that feeds it. Neither are really addiction...You might have psychological dependency with some drugs in this area, such as Ketamine and marijuana. I know a number of people who use these drugs as a matter of habit and are very uncomfortable if that habit is broken. So there is a psychological component with some of these drugs. MDMA does not have that habit...However MDMA does have a negative aspect. If you do use it with some degree of regularity, for example every week over a period of many weeks, that remarkable empathic magic is lost. Most people only have remarkable experiences with MDMA the first couple of times they use it. After that, the magic is somehow gone.

And this is why ecstasy and other street drugs are so dangerous, especially to us as trauma sufferers:

Q: I was always interested in how, if you move one carbon atom, for example, on amphetamine, you can change it from being a strong stimulant to a psychedelic. How is it that the difference of one atom produces such a dramatically different result in the human?
A: The answer is, nobody knows." If the atoms are tweaked again, the psychedelic can go from being a sparkling hallucinogen to a terrifying mindblower.

This is why therapeutic MDMA is so very important. Do NOT take someone's word that a drug that they are selling is MDMA. If you think you have problems now....

Q&A interview with Dr. Alexander Shulgin
http://www.mdma.net/alexander-shulgin/mdma.html

 

[Friday]

LOL... Yes... But you are arguing to one of the people who not only does support MDMA use in a therapeutic setting, albeit with eyes wide open as to the risks of such an endeavor (of which addiction is the least of them, IMO); but who is also one of the few people here who have actually taken all 3+ MDA, MDMA, & Ecstasy (being included as more than one, since it's a designer drug cocktail of dozens of possible combos).

The OP scoffed at the risks list... And I did not go break those down into their very serious components. She's entitled to her opinion, but she did list them. That's enough for me! No need to be that little bluebird of happiness who runs around telling pregnant women their terrifying birthing stories! All things carry risk. I regularly sign injury, maiming, & death waivers for all of my son's and my sports. I drive a car, one of the more dangerous activities out there (statistically). I do many, many, many things fully aware of the risks involved in doing so. I do not believe that obfuscating the risks makes a person safer. Indeed, the opposite. She made a mistake, however, either in understanding or speech... Easily corrected.

As I said, I do support the use of MDMA... It's been proven to knock years off of the time most people spend highly symptomatic, and that is hands down valuable in too many ways to list. But I support the use of it under a very narrow set of parameters: one of them being informed consent.

 

[joeylittle]

I get that my opinion on this topic is very unpopular here on the forum. I am passionate about the very positive effects that have been proven to occur for some of us who are suffering from PTSD. I am very concerned about the potential misinformation in the media and popular culture that is causing an almost neurotic denial that this drug can and is very possibly a potential easement for PTSD and CPTSD symptomology.

I don't think your opinion on this topic is unpopular on the forum at all. I observe that your passion turns into expressing generalization, and that in turn becomes spreading mis-information.

Addiction is a word people throw around, I suppose. But lets assume that we are using addiction in the medical sense - so, addiction meaning the persistent and compulsive dependence on a substance or process.

And lets also assume that we are talking about the neurological side - that is, the changes that occur in the brain.

So yes, there is a big chunk of science that can show sugar as an addictive substance using the same principles that prove alcohol as an addictive substance. It changes brain function, which cascades into changes in physical sensation. When those sensations fade, they do so rapidly (because they were the result of something we put into ourselves in excessive amounts, so not regulated by the body), and the 'crash' creates a need for more of the substance.

MDMA is a substance that does this, to a significant effect. It yanks your brain around. There are only theories as to why, but there are plenty of scientifically observable measures - the brain changes a great deal when it meets MDMA.

Lots of things yank our brains around. I happen to take nearly 1000mg of brain-yanking chemicals a day. So I'm not anti-substance or anti-chemical.

But any substance that really pulls your brain in one direction or another needs to be treated with appropriate caution. Not fear, and not over-acceptance. Just appropriate caution.

The reason for emphasis on pure MDMA is really simple - it's about drug interaction. You take pure MDMA, you are taking one drug. You take it cut with any other drug at all, and you have 2 drugs. Those drugs will interact chemically. So you are not getting the same chemical reaction as with MDMA alone.

Now, this may or may not make a difference to someone - but if you are interested specifically in the way MDMA chemically interacts with the brain, why would you ever want to take MDMA plus something else? You wouldn't. You don't know what is actually working.

It's the same problem anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, mood stabilizers, etc. have - their actions are not fully understood, and inconsistent, so they are combined with each other in an ongoing game of roulette called "medication management", where the patient and doctor try and put them together in the right combinations for the right purpose. It's really a pain in the ass.

MDMA has a decent amount of science backing up what its potential is - and that is beyond exciting. Advocating for short circuiting that process in an attempt to just get more relief to more people, faster, is (in my opinion) unhelpful. Every time someone tries MDMA obtained from anywhere BUT a verified lab, they are running the risk of serious, negative interaction. And that's just on the science side, not the therapy side.

So: using verified pure MDMA to expedite talk therapy and trauma processing? Excellent!

Using street MDMA with additional unknown substance to try and replicate a therapeutic process? Not a good idea, but have at it if you want to do something very risky and not repeatable.

My two cents.

No compelling evidence exists that taking a single c.125mg dose of MDMA a few times or so a year is likely to cause any long-term harm to the user's mental or physical health. Nevertheless, even pharmaceutical-grade MDMA taken at moderate doses in optimal conditions is not a wholly benign drug. The problem isn't (just) the toxic adulterants used by dance-floor pharmacologists or the botched syntheses of bathtub chemists. Deceptively, and in contrast to most other recreationally used drugs, ingesting pure MDMA can sometimes leave the user feeling better than normal the next day, albeit tired and slightly spaced-out...But two days or so after taking MDMA, most users experience the serotonin dip. The dip ranges from the almost imperceptible to the markedly unpleasant. The functional deficit the dip reflects may last ten days or more - in some cases possibly weeks or months.

also from http://www.mdma.net/index.html, written by David Pearce, Dr. Shuglin's colleague.

 

[shimmerz]

And what will it take for informed consent?

Proper information and opportunity for sufferers to provide such consent. And that is what seems to be so elusive about this topic. Proper information and an ability to have this substance available to consent to. 30 years of study is a ridiculous amount of time to pass a drug that has such a high success rate.

I observe that your passion turns into expressing generalization, and that in turn becomes spreading mis-information.

Sorry, but I don't understand why the quote above this statement is mis-information or a generalization. I feel like I am being pretty specific.

Using street MDMA with additional unknown substance to try and replicate a therapeutic process? Not a good idea, but have at it if you want to do something very risky and not repeatable.

And how did we switch back to getting MDMA/Ecstasy off the street thing? Where did I advocate for that?

I am encouraging proper process, hoping that sufferers will educate themselves, look seriously at the studies of and perhaps even support MAPS.org and rally for some movement for something that is incredibly hopeful in alleviating symptomology.

MDMA is a substance that does this, to a significant effect. It yanks your brain around. There are only theories as to why, but there are plenty of scientifically observable measures - the brain changes a great deal when it meets MDMA.

And the question would be, does the benefit outweigh the yanking? The MAPS organization keeps proving that yes, the benefits are outstanding. Is that a generalization? No. It is science.

Advocating for short circuiting that process in an attempt to just get more relief to more people, faster, is (in my opinion) unhelpful.

I don't recall advocating for short circuiting. I would expect that with 30 years of study and positive results that it should be farther than it is.

 

[Friday]

And what will it take for informed consent?

Outlining the risks involved, without minimizing or obfuscating them, so people can make their own decisions... Not only as to whether or not to participate, but also in how to set things up in their lives to minimize those risks. The same as with any other medical procedure, treatment, or medication.

One doesn't have to go into worst case scenario though, either.

Any EMT can give you bone chillingly gruesome details as to the injuries and deaths sustained from car accidents. Any reasonable person, however, can look at the risks of drinking, see slowed reaction times whilst driving/ connect the dots, and choose to plan to take a cab if they're going to choose to drink. Knowing the risk at least allows for the decision not to drive while drunk. (Or not to drink, if driving is imperative). I could give chapter and verse on "excessive happiness", the same way an EMT can on a fatality accident caused by a drunk driver. That's as unnecessary as sugar coating the risks, IMO. Unless someone asks, because a risk makes no sense to them. That's also part of informed consent; asking about anything which doesn't make immediate sense.

Informed consent is being given all the facts, so that the risk/reward ratio is something they are able to choose is worth it in their own lives. Whether it's MDMA treatment, or a cardiac bypass, or a nose job, a slice of chocolate cake, or going out drinking.

 

[joeylittle]

Let's look at the commonality here. HEAVY mdma (or ecstasy) use leads to potential addiction (notice they don't say consistent). As Anthony suggested, we are speaking about therapeutic usage and very rare consumption. According to studies, therapeutic use, does not lead to mdma addiction.

Sorry, but I don't understand why the quote above this statement is mis-information or a generalization. I feel like I am being pretty specific.

I was talking about your assertion, above, that MDMA is potentially addictive, and that there are studies proving that therapeutic use does not lead to addiction. It's a generalization.

The specific, non-biased way to phrase it would be that:

MDMA is generally recognized as addictive (which is it), but that little is known about the addiction mechanism - so no-one is sure exactly how it works. And there are some studies pointing towards how therapeutic use doesn't automatically lead to addiction.

I know it seems super nit-picky; but we are talking about science, and studies, and unfortunately, it's important to emphasize what has been proven vs. studied vs. hypothesized. A study does not equal proof.

And the question would be, does the benefit outweigh the yanking? The MAPS organization keeps proving that yes, the benefits are outstanding. Is that a generalization? No. It is science.

But MAPS doesn't prove that the benefits outweigh the yanking. That is for the individual to decide. So yes, science shows major benefits. MAPS has a research bias, so they can't be your only source. Science also shows mood changes as a result of MDMA intake. Science does not say that MDMA is without risk - and I don't think you are meaning to say that either, but you inadvertently do when you make leaps like you did in the statement I quoted, above.

I don't recall advocating for short circuiting.

Please people, open your minds. Stop relating ecstasy recreational use with MDMA therapy usage. The two are entirely different animals. Help us help each other gain access to this therapy.

To me, this language is very strong and communicates that we should help each other get MDMA right now, however we can.

Again - we are on the same side here. But MAPS is not the only source for this research, and one needs to be level-headed about the risks and benefits, that's all. That's all I'm trying to point out.

 

[Deleted member 28740]

Regarding trials, 22 US vets commit suicide everyday. If it is a guinea pig issue, have those that want to try sign a waiver. The government put them in harms way and is obligated to help heal them. Perhaps not enough trained therapists to assist? Or therapists worried about dwindling income… planned obsolescence. What is the basis for 30 year hold out, when the FDA approves bad drugs consistently. Big Pharma afraid of losing a captive market brings pressure to bear on the FDA when they rush though their unproven, ineffective and harmful product filling their coffers. Doctors also would loose all the kickbacks. Time to take it into our own hands. I would do it.

 

[Friday]

What is the basis for 30 year hold out, when the FDA approves bad drugs consistently.

Actually, MDMA was first synthesized over 100 years ago. By the Germans, I believe. Like cocaine, heroin, LSD, GHB, etc... It was legal for a looooooong time. It didn't become widely used or available though (it's a stone bitch to manufacture, requiring a barometric chamber -easily $100k or more-, the chemicals are prone to exploding even under laboratory conditions... amongst other things... Never will be a mom & pop organization, like less volatile amphetamines!) until the 1980s.

It was used by a few hundred up to a few thousand psychologists/therapists in the 1970s when LSD was another popular therapeutic tool, but nowhere near as wide spread. Again, manufacture is a pain... And it missed being made illegal when most other psychedelics first became illegal largely due to just that: very very very few people knew about it.

It was made illegal in the 1980's. Someone in Texas was making millions of tabs and selling them by phone off one of those "Call Now! 1-800-555-5555" ads on late night & soap opera TV time slots... Just like GHB was in the late 90s... & The DEA (drug enforcement agency) made them illegal in response. Aaaand it's been under heavy controversy ever since.

Why it took the FDA so long to approve a study (first FDA approved study was early 2000s)... Was because MDMA was tied up in court battles from the mid 1980s (War on Drugs era) until the turn of the millennium when they did approve a study! LOL. One judge would rule Schdule III, another would rule Schedule 1.. Appeals, lawmakers enacting laws regardless of judicial precedent, laws taken to court and challenged under judicial precedent. And every major judicial, state, & federal agency claiming the right to be in charge. Motions, hearings, trials, mistrials, appeals, tens of thousand of people arrested & jailed (so every time a "date" would come up, thousands of lawyers filing motions on behalf of their clients), questions of legality, constitutionality... It was essentially just a legal quagmire, in a swamp, under a sewage treatment facility, with crime tape rung round... For a very long time. Moving at the glacial speed of our court system.

Like a lot of things-medical... It took going to war, and our nation's largest employer (military) being quite desperate... to cut through the red tape.

 

[Deleted member 28740]

Like a lot of things-medical... It took going to war, and our nation's largest employer (military) being quite desperate... to cut through the red tape.

So, the epidemic of war related PTSD is raising the sunken ship? From Buckminster Fuller:

• It seems to demonstrate that periods of industrial activity in technical syntheses of principles, data, free energy and energy as "matter," find highest employment by the fear-amassed credits of warfare. Therefore the assumption approaches fact that war promotes the major technical advances of civilization... What has not been clear is that the potential of this emergency-born technology has always accrued to human's prewar individual initiatives taken in a humble but irrepressible progression of assumptions, measurements, deductions, and codifications of pure science. (1947)
  • Earth, Inc. (1973) In this passage, Fuller begins to explain why technological progress seems to make great gains in war time and states his view that this is a reflection of advances mainly made in peacetime — wars simply force nations to take notice of their advances in the pure science and then they apply those advances to the war effort. Later in the book Fuller will explain why he thinks war is not necessary to bring advances in the pure sciences into actual production. He uses this to advance the notion that humans can very comfortably live at a high standard of living by "doing more with less."

 

[shimmerz]

Yes, and I think what I am attempting to say, although not very well from the looks of it, is that the powers that be have a bias as well. I feel as if those biases are causing unnecessary death and suffering and spin doctoring at the same time to keep people afraid of this drug. And it is my opinion that it comes down to the lack of revenue involved due to patenting issues. I think it is sick. I appreciate your thoughts on safety and would agree, if I hadn't seen two people on the board in the last week and a half talk seriously about suicide due to their prescription drugs. I myself have been driven to feel suicidal due to prescription drugs. That is not a generalization, it is more of an observation, one that I felt to my very core and could well have taken me down. I don't see any reports out there on MDMA (therapeutic usage) driving people to suicide.

And yes, I still implore people to do what they can to help encourage proper studying of this drug and its best usage for therapy so we can get it out there for those that feel they may benefit from it.