I would love to hear other's ideas about the research that MAPS does.

It seems that the group is really interested in MDMA therapy? I think this is strange. Two years ago, In an entry level psychology course, I learned about how neuro-toxic MDMA is, how it essentially degrades/kills neurons and receptors in the brain--mostly serotonergic--and in the end it takes years for only 70% of partial neurogenesis.

Has anyone else been following MAPS and why this important fact has been overlooked? It seems a bit peculiar to me.

One step at a time...

i wouldn't necessarily believe everything i heard in an 'entry level' course. propaganda rears it's ugly head everywhere. the fact is - the results just aren't in yet on the neurotoxicity studies - and there are ongoing studies concerning this issue.

Recent studies show MDMA does in fact cause damage. See attached.



The question is, if you just came back from a brutal tour in Afghanistan and now suffer from PTSD are you willing to give up a few neurons (probably comparable to a heavy night of drinking) for a significant relief of symptoms and maybe even returning to a normal functioning life?

OR

A cancer patient awaiting death needing some kind of relief from the pain and suffering?

I think this is the focus of MAPS at the current moment.

AFAIK, the neurotoxicity of MDMA had not been proven yet... Ricaurte et al. did an infamous experiment which showed brain damage, but later they retracted their results because they found out that the drug they used was not MDMA but methamphetamine (the vials got mislabeled :roll. Other studies showed no detectable impairment on brain functions. You can find all the references on the MAPS website.

I believe that MAPS chose MDMA because they use it as a "gateway drug" towards real psychedelics. They wanted to show the promise of psychedelic drugs to as many people as possible, and for this they needed a drug which is relatively easy to handle for the average human being. MDMA has a remarkable "instant ecstasy" feature which makes it quite easy to work with compared to the traditional psychedelics.

My apologies if I came off as saying it does cause damage. I meant only to say the recent studies I've seen show that it causes damage. Regardless, whether or not it causes damage was not the subject of my post. I was bringing up the issue that given the fact it causes damage there are still clinical uses for the drug in treatments (e.g., the cancer patient with nothing to lose or the PTSD survivor with a whole lot to gain).

I am a MAPS supporter and have wondered something similar. It has always seemed to me they place a (somewhat) excessive emphasis on marijuana studies. I don't dispute that marijuana can have medical benefits, but to me marijuana is not really a full-fledged psychedelic drug and does not offer nearly as many potential benefits as other more "hardcore" substances.

I actually had a chance to chat with Rick Doblin once, and he asked for my opinion on what areas of research I would like to see MAPS conduct. I told him I was most interested in seeing them conduct studies where psychedelics can be used to improve functioning. PTSD research seems like one of the most obvious ideas for this, at least initially. In the long run, I would like to see psychedelics used (legally) for psychotherapy once again.

I'm pretty conservative about what I put into my body (for example, I decided that smoked DMT was too high of a risk for me, at least without a sitter which I am unlikely to find). I've never used MDMA, but I would have no hesitation if I suffered from PTSD or other anxiety and thought it would help me. I would agree with a1pha that the risks would be minor compared to the benefits of having a good possibly recovering from something like PTSD.

elphologist

To HBFrank: You missed the point of my text. The point wasn't to point out an inferiority and nullify my idea. The point was to look into the scientific research available about MDMA and its effects on human neuroplasicity and toxicity.

When I specified that I learned a simple fact in an entry-level course, it was only meant to reinforce a well-known fact about MDMA and neurotoxicity. To refresh, when you go to lecture or do a reading for lecture (in college), what you are actually reading is based off of published scientific research, and is referenced as so in the book in some section..."references" "sources cited". Each and every sentence in a textbook is a complied theory/fact based on average outcomes of usually 100 different research teams' efforts to hypothesize ideas about existence and neurobiochemistry.
I attended UConn (Dog help me!), which is a university heavily involved in its research and my professor Dr. Miller is head of the department and has been teaching for almost 30-40 (?) years, and most certainly didn't just make up our lectures out of his own crazy delusions...well, you never know, but, as far as the other 2000 kids who took the course, it's very accurate data from collected and published research. The point is, he got those figures from SOMEWHERE...SOME RESEARCH...WHERE????!!

I was curious to get one's perspective on this particular research. I can hear a fact, but I'm more in tune to want to hear from someone who actually researches this compound and knows more about it than me. I am more heavily involved in researching psilocybin, psilocin, dmt, mao-is so my MDMA knowledge and any depth of knowledge in the realm of neurotoxicity is limited to basic understandings of published research.

Just looking for a more detailed perspective is all.

I am not opposed to this research in any way, as I do acknowledge its benefits for those in transition who are trying to heal themselves, at older, deeply stressed states of mind.

It's not a well known fact that MDMA is neurotoxic [at normal doses]. It may be, it may not be.

Keep in mind that pretty much the same was/is said about LSD, shrooms, weed.
There is a tendency for exaggeration and fear mongering.

Regardless, for anyone who's ever had MDMA, it should be obvious why it's great for therapy