Surprise - We were wrong about Ecstasy (MDMA) (guardian.co.uk)

[bananas]

Someone sent me this from reddit. The Guardian article is from 2003, don't know why it appeared on reddit today. Maybe it's because today is Memorial Day, and ecstasy is a treatment for PTSD. This is another example of how conservatives use bad science to make bad policy.

http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/8myli/surprise_we_were_wrong_about_ecstasy_mdma/

Surprise - We were wrong about Ecstasy (MDMA) (guardian.co.uk)

submitted 16 hours ago by StCosmo
* 38 comments

<snip>

Surprise - Article from 2003.

it's from 2003 yet the typo in the first line still isn't corrected.

Were there dinosaurs back then?

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/sep/07/drugsandalcohol.science

Scientists admit: we were wrong about 'E'

Experts who gave a dramatic warning that ecstasy led to brain damage based their study on a huge blunder, reports health editor Jo Revill

* The Observer, Sunday 7 September 2003

It was billed as the one of the most dramatic warnings the world has ever received over the dangers of ecstasy. A study from one of America's leading universities concluded that taking the drug for just one evening could leave clubbers with irreversible brain damage, and trigger the onset of Parkinson's disease.

The study, published in the eminent journal Science last September, had an immediate impact. Doctors and anti-drug crusaders spoke of a 'neurological time bomb' facing the young. Others suggested that taking one of the tablets was the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with the brain, and demanded tighter 'anti-rave' laws to deal with it.

<snip>

Yesterday, Ricaurte was attempting to put a brave face on the calamity. He is under attack from all sides, and has already been accused of rushing his study into print because Congress was looking at a bill known as the Anti-Rave Act, which would punish club owners who knew that drugs such as ecstasy were being used on their premises.

Ricaurte has denied political bias. He said yesterday that his laboratory made 'a simple human error', adding: 'We're scientists, not chemists.' Asked why the vials of liquid were not checked before being used on the animals, he replied: 'We're not chemists. We get hundreds of chemicals here - it's not customary to check them.'

<snip>

[grannie4peace]

1. i've never taken it but i have a sound respect for the use of psychedelics in

personal growth & healing:hippie: :headbang:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. As fine a "tell"...

On the inherent quality of ANY research of ANY substances which have the potential for recreational use and, yes, abuse as I have yet seen.

While I use nothing stronger than the medications I must take(quite benign) and Coffee, I have long noticed that any new "research" into potentially recreative substances inevitably turn out to be the work of fabulists, hucksters and those with socio-political agendas.

Meanwhile, were I of the mind, I could trot right down the street and buy enough ETOH to kill myself in a half-hour. And the long-term effects of it are hardly undocumented.

We are a strange bunch, we humans.

[Richard D]

3. Research

Here's several current and recently completed research studies on the use of MDMA for cancer related anxiety, PTSD, and others:

http://www.maps.org/mdma/

[lapfog_1]

4. "We're scientists, not chemists."

Oxymoron. Or just plain moron.

[n2doc]

5. Gotta be the latter n/t

[angstlessk]

6. yeah, 'political scientists' not chemists...who the hell investigates the properties of chemicals??

I always suspected chemists..now I know...NOT!!!!!

[caraher]

7. You do realize that "chemist" is what the Brits call what we call a "pharmacist"

At best a huge blunder on the researchers' part, but the statement is not as silly as it looks in American eyes...

[TZ]

8. heroin and cocaine have medicinal properties

But that doesn't mean they are cure alls or are safe for use. I think the dangers of E are well documented. As someone else said ususally studies like this have a political agenda.