Talk:Effects of MDMA on the human body

A bellend?

Anyone find this line in the effects list rather... inappropriate?

there is a chemical in MDMA that makes you dance like a bellend

--66.214.156.171 01:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

would be Da Ali G Show, and i'm not quite sure that's a reputable source, although the DEA agent on the show with him tended to agree with the statement hahaha.67.133.212.21 21:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"People who are grossly obese, or who have diabetes, high blood pressure or heart conditions have a greater risk of overdose death from any stimulant, and should generally avoid MDMA and similar drugs. "

It sounds as if other people should not necessarily avoid drugs...83.85.40.203 23:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Why should Wikipedia, as a reliable source of objective information, advise against using MDMA? It's up to a person to decide whether or not to take MDMA.

Restate not as advice but as indicating an increased risk of death associated with those sensitive to stimulants with comorbid conditions (or whatever it happens to be). It is not an advisory statement, but one of fact.67.174.202.231 (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Why is this not part of the MDMA article? Alvis (talk) 06:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a merge would appear to be appropriate. Jadine (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it needs to be better integrated. This material was once part of the same article and currently as far as I can tell the main article does not even link to it and is increasingly redundant. 67.101.149.176 (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some discussion of this topic of merger on the discussion page of that article. Consensus by editors of both pages should be reached before any merger is attempted. Dan88888 (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I split this article from MDMA (the main article) about a year ago because the main article was just too long. At the time I added a link from MDMA to Effects_of_MDMA_on_the_human_body and there are now additional links to here within the main article. Even now, the main article is about 62k, and this article is about 43k. Merging the two is not likely to result in any significant reduction in total size, so we'd just be back to a massive 100k article at MDMA. However, aside from size, my opinion is that the split is justified. The main article has a broad focus, covering history, legality, supply, chemical synthesis and general health concerns. This article has a much more specific and detailed focus. Simishag (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I got linked here from MDMA and I totally agree with Simishag, the articles are too long for a merge. Drxenocide (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge This appears to be a cotract. It needs to be trimmed and referenced per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Neurotoxicity

I'd like to add a couple more references on recent neurotoxity research, e.g. http://jhs.pharm.or.jp/53(1)/53_31.pdf http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/reprint/316/1/53.pdf

Does anyone know of an even better summarising article?

Urination

I'd like to add something about the reasons for difficulty urinating from MDMA's which I believe is due to reduced norepinephrine to the inner sphincter which is in turn caused by high norepinephrine and dopamine levels in the brain. If I was more sure of this, I would edit the main article.

Some References and a Quick Interpretation from the Abstract

I am not going to edit the article because I know the edits would be blanked. Most of the people who watch these articles are WAY worse than any evangelical christian or scientologist. (I actually edited this page with information I literally pulled out of my ass just to see if anyone would notice and it has been up here for a week or so now).let me go on to say that the research done by groups/institutes whose sole research goal is "promote" psychedelic drugs is way more suspect than any research funded by even the most evil of american anti-drug organizations. Believing whole heartedly in this "pro-drug" research is like believing in research done directly by anti-drug groups, rather than research FUNDED by them. think about it. would you believe research about the effects of global warming if it was funded by Exxon, or if it was done by exxon itself. In the same manner, I believe research done at say university of massachussetts over some research done at the "center for research on psychedelic drugs" any day of the week. propaganda and bias works both ways. if the government works "against" drugs, then these groups work "against" the "against drugs." They are just as suspect and make just as much of a mockery of science. I therefore completely avoid any references from these questionable sources.

Let me also say that criticizing these links because you do not have access to them is simply stupid. you cannot criticize a reference because you are not a researcher or because you do not have journal access. go to a library and read the links if you cant do it from home. most of the REAL research is not free to the public, and you will not find any of the REAL facts that way. you will actually need to pay or to find a place that pays for them.

http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/e5u5fxjaqlkmr944/ - From Abstract: "Conclusions These results suggest that ecstasy use is not associated with clinical depression (CIDI). However, the number of ecstasy tablets taken lifetime was associated with higher BDI scores for depressive mood, and this relationship seemed to persist after ecstasy use had stopped." My take: Heavy, chronic, or possibly often repeated use increases the likelihood of "self diagnosed" depression

http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1074/1/365 - The quotes from Abstract would be too long: the ratio of N-acetylaspartate to creatine was significantly reduced in the hypothalamus using both a low and high dose regime suggesting a particular vulnerability of this structure to MDMA-induced damage. ALSO: "These results... they further suggest that even recreational doses of MDMA may have adverse consequences as indicated by the reduced hypothalamic NAA/creatine ratio." (the ... removes a section detailing that this study was, essentially one of the first to study non-human primate brains)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T63-4KJ74WX-1&_user=112642&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059608&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=112642&md5=21f8e6a11c12cdb711f0aee7c7bdf294 - A quote from the abstract: "These results indicate that although chronic, intermittent exposure to MDMA, METH or their combination, may not lead to significant long-term monoamine depletion, lasting adverse behavioural effects may persist, especially those related to social behaviour."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WB0-4M8775P-6&_user=112642&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059608&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=112642&md5=4b196f17047986910931f581f95d121c From the abstract: Female sex was associated with increased odds of hyponatremia and increased odds of hyponatremia-associated coma among persons with ecstasy intoxication and a documented serum sodium level reported to the California Poison Control System from 2000 to 2005.

This one mentions how MDMA affects the production of amyloid precursor protein, suspected to be a player in the development of alzheimers. in a dumbed down sense: MDMA bad, morhpine no effect: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=716740 :These results indicate that the chronic use of ‘ecstasy’, but not morphine, may be harmful via a novel mode of action, i.e. by altering the APP expression and processing in the brain.

This one studies the affects on young people (pubescent included) - results are not "good" http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T9X-4M57J2K-1&_user=112642&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059608&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=112642&md5=e0affcab21d62c95eed2efc1d2e12c51--128.111.61.23 (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your points about biases on both sides are well taken. But it appears to me that you haven't read the article lately. I think it addresses several of the scientific findings you cite. For example, findings of poor (depressed) mood in ecstasy users and risk of hyponatremia (particularly in females) are both noted. Although it admittedly does not cite these specific papers, it cites reviews, meta-analyses and key papers that say most of these things. I think the MRI primate paper you cite (which is not the first MDMA study involving the primate brain) should be placed in the context of MRS studies performed on humans exposed to MDMA if we are going to add it. Similarly, I suggest if we discuss the single study of amyloid precursor protein, we should try to determine the ;context and what is known about it as a marker for eventual neurological disease. To deal with some of these areas (and address a few others) I have tentatively added the sentence "In addition to these main areas of research, there have been a number of animal studies suggesting MDMA can cause other possible neurological changes, including apoptosis, non-serotonergic neurotoxicity in the somatosensory cortex, and increased expression and altered processing of amyloid precursor protein." But I haven't put in the refs yet, feel free to do so. --71.158.243.2 (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your sound reasoning and lack of bias towards the subject. I think, for now, your edit is perfectly adequate. I dont really have time to read these articles in depth, but I will slowly digest them. Once I feel I can make some good claims I will edit, but for now the points stand.70.177.16.146 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Antioxidants

This article mentions antioxidants as chemicals that have a spare electron to donate to free radicals, making the antioxidant and the free radical more stable. I know that the stability of the free radical is increased, but I think that antioxidants are in some cases merely sufficiently stable, and not more stable after interacting with a free radical. For example vitamin C is not more stable having been oxidized, as it will undergo redox cycling quite easily to return to its previous state. Melatonin on the other hand is an antioxidant that makes stable chemicals when oxidized. 24.65.95.239 (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor/Missing Citations

Can the authors please cite the paragraphs indicated with proper references. If you can't find any, flag it as in need of expert opinion. I agree with previous statements that one cannot only include free references since this will severely bias the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloupikkewyn (talk • contribs) 13:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Solid reference on the animal and human data regarding potential neurotoxicity and anxiety following MDMA administration or use

I think that the following review article (book chapter) presents a good summary of the animal and human literature concerning the potential development of neurotoxicity and anxiety following MDMA administration or use:

http://www.maps.org/w3pb/new/2007/2007_Guillot_22962_1.pdf

68.54.107.114 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)MDMAreferenceobserver

Flagged Article For POV

This article is missing an incredible amount of citations as previously stated. Flagrant opinions, I've gone through an flagged citations needed but someone keeps reverting them. It even cites some studies that are merely prospective to support the claim that MDMA, though an amphetamine is not addictive. This viewpoint is similarly expressed in the main MDMA article. It's extremely bizarre. There is basically two citations being used about twenty times to support a repeated utterance that MDMA is not addictive.

I would ask that JOHN stop reverting any changes any insulting me, and stop removing the POV flag before this issue is resolved. Prospective cohort studies being used throughout this page as your basis is merely analytic and not proactive. One prospective is enough, we don't need five or six poolings of the same historical studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeyfaces (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please don't remove any more cited information. Please propose your changes here, and please accompany them with the reliable sources you wish to use to support your changes. --John (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of either some specific concerns or some reliable sources on which to base them, I will now remove the tag. --John (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)