I have no doubts, and I'm so thankful of the research that MAPS is doing. I haven't even been thru any trauma and MDMA pulled me out of depression and greatly reduced my anxiety. It was an absolute miracle for me. It disgusts me that the stuff is illegal while cigarettes and alcohol are not. AMA.
I went through a similar experience. About 10 years ago I was in a bit of a funk and depressed, anxious etc. and further I think I was in denial about the problem. I was almost completely unproductive for about 6 months.
Went out one weekend and had a mid-range dose of MDMA and with the afterglow in the days later I felt like a new person, complete with a spring in my step.
It felt like I had been hoarding a lot of useless stuff in my mind and never being comfortable in my head, while MDMA was the clear-out I needed.
I wouldn't advocate for each depressed or anxious person to try it as a cure-all, but I definitely advocate for more research (and have donated to the cause) and greatly reducing the stigma around the drug
"It felt like I had been hoarding a lot of useless stuff in my mind and never being comfortable in my head, while MDMA was the clear-out I needed."
I know exactly what you mean. You hit the nail on your head. It's like "Oh, why do I spend so much time worrying about little things". It just grabs the shit and dumps it out. It's the greatest perspective on life and love and the best way to reorder your priorities.
I would barely feel anything at that dose and it would be incredibly short-spanned; more like cocaine. It's literally 75% of the dose for ~20% of the effects.
Besides, if you would have read the article - they are mentioning dosages of 125mg.
I would also be confident enough to say that MDMA is not as linear in dosages against body weight and _almost_surely_ it depends way more on your digestive than your body mass.
PS: to be clear, I did this with people who were multiples of my own weight (68kg) and incredibly petite ladies who were smaller than me. Dosage has little correlation with the effects they would get.
I would suggest the quality of the drug matters far more than the digestive system. And that the difference between first-time experience and hundredth-time (which I don't think is a particularly healthy number of times to hit) is quite large.
I meant that you're in no position to cast judgement on the guys dosage on his first use, especially since you have no idea whether he got very high purity stuff from the dark web or a crushed-up pill, or any idea at all really: and I bet that if you're taking such high doses, half of it is likely speed.
I can't believe I'm saying this on HN, looks like it's finally just another subreddit: I have plenty experience, sure.
I don't mean to be rude, but not only is 1mg not a 'mid-range' dose, but it's not even enough to get effects from the drug. 100mg is ~average for a small/beginner dose (usually cost $5-10), could that be what your thinking?
Source: My own and my friends' experiences.
Edit: my apologies, I didn't see the /kg part of your equation. After doing the math, yes that seems like a reasonable beginner/small dose.
Given the high individual variance, dosing psychedelic substances by bodyweight isn't usually considered very effective at estimating the final effect.
Always start with a low/threshold dose first and go from there (this might be less practical for MDMA, where you want to limit repeated exposure).
Check the links you posted: the association is found in children and those with latent schizophrenic disorders. We also know it is not associated with the causality of schizophrenia, just onset.
Causal association has been ruled out in the case of depression, and in regards to anxiety, the primary mental system it is involved with, the interaction goes both ways, with cost vs benefit unclear and academically unsettled.
Fermentation of grains and fruit is a millennia-old way of preserving food that would otherwise spoil, so it isn’t without merit. The problem today is that alcohol is available so easily and so cheaply in many countries. In Germany, (some) beer costs less than regular milk per liter and hard liquor is available very cheaply as well.
I have seen people that destroyed themselves using alcohol, but most people can deal with it just fine. That’s also the problem when trying to regulate it, as it is not just a drug but a cultural thing in many countries. I have a hard time imagining Germany without its beer culture or France or Italy without their wine culture.
Fermentation and alcohol for consumption are quite different, as you’re probably aware. My kombucha is technically fermented, but good luck getting drunk on it. There is also a sizable difference between more traditional forms of alcohol and cheap high proof spirits harm wise.
Plus since this is a counterfactual, we don't actually need alcohol for preservation anymore. We have refrigeration.
The bit about Germany and beer is merely observational bias. You can’t imagine those countries differently because that’s the way things are for your lifetime. I’m sure in an alternative universe there’s someone talking about German weed culture, or German poppy culture.
Either way, alcohol clearly isn’t going away, and trying to make it go away is foolish. The point is that we’ve normalized a very dangerous compound due to historical reasons, and it’s fascinating.
Sure not all fermentation produces alcohol, but many fermenting organisms do.
And of course it’s observational bias, I said that I personally can’t imagine how the culture of these countries would be without alcohol, though I’m sure people would get along just fine (we don’t need alcohol to survive after all). Just saying that not everything needs to be banned, otherwise we might as well ban sugar and salt as they probably kill just as many (or more) people as alcohol.
I agree that trying to ban alcohol would be a huge mistake. But to be fair on the feasibility of a hypothetical ban, America has spent almost half a century trying to prevent its citizens from growing a plant.
Part of it is that the biochemical processes involved in producing ethanol are so straightforward that they are undergone in almost every fruit bowl and refrigerator, with or without anyone's knowledge.
It certainly seems like that when you are stuck in a deep, dark hole, an altered consciousness might be the best chance to find some motivation. Like realizing that there is good in the world and you can be a part of it.
MDMA brings some health risks that shouldn't be viewed lightly, though. Be careful.
MAPS is one of the few organizations in the USA legally permitted by the FDA & DEA to conduct clinical research into using schedule 1 substances as medicines to assist psychotherapists and other medical professionals. If you genuinely believe that psychedelics hold potential help improve mental health, MAPS is the organization that bringing these ideas to clinical trial.
In addition to clinical research they also do a lot of public education on harm reduction and safety regarding psychedelics, so they’re an excellent resource for people who have questions or could possibly benefit from participating in a clinical trial.
Am very interested in hearing more about the methods you used.
Did you just take MDMA recreationally and your depression got better, or did you do it together with (or at the same time as?) therapy? How many times/over how long time?
Thank you
Recreationally in a pretty stereotypical way. Out in places I was able to meet new people primarily, but it's also very therapeutic to do with a loved one or good friends.
Generally about 200mg in a night, usually at once or 100mg twice an hour apart. That was actually quite alot to start on when you don't have a tolerance (I'm about 60kg), you could definitely start with 100mg and get something out of it. Sometimes I'd do more, sometimes less.
I was able to notice the lowered depression after two or maybe three doses within the span of about six weeks or less. No therapy, except the natural therapy of feeling very comfortable with people and being able to talk to them more honestly. Definitely had some therapy-like conversations while on it.
It felt like I was able to let go of a bunch of stupid stuff and start focusing on things that were more important, especially people. I became less materialistic, started socializing more, and had more confidence in myself and a better outlook on the future. I also seem to enjoy music more even after weeks without drugs, which is nice.
Not the poster, but I did it recreationally and got the benefits the poster is talking about. I've done it since then, each time benefiting, but nothing has really been as noticable as the first two times, the second probably being a couple of months after the first. I was quite shocked at the difference myself - this was a bit before I started seeing research results on MDMA.
And I'd like to clarify: Basically cured. I mean, I'm still a cynical person many times, but I don't have the constant worry (save for once a month, monthly hormones suck). I'm much more positive about life for the most part.
This is a big red flag. You absolutely should have doubts. Our brains are very complicated and poorly understood, and psychoactive drugs are extremely risky. If you really have no doubts you should take a big step back and realize that you are probably wrong about most things and everyone else is too.
I've experienced with a lot of drugs, and it's true that MDMA has some seriously beneficial effects in terms of turning around depression, anxiety, introversion, etc. However I've never used these or other (hard) drugs more than periodically and recreationally.
That's a whole array of pathologies and symptoms, for which there is no single pharmacological solution.
Many comments in this thread are over-standardising mental illness as well as the (supervised administration) therapy presented in the linked article, which is about much more than dosage and frequency. On top of that, the patient in the article expresses many specificities that are unlikely to be matched by most patients.
This is, to me, the first negative aspect of banning a drug -- it suppressed 99% of the potential evidence base and replaces it with poor 'SWIM-based' anecdotes.
I wouldn't agree that your evidence base is replaced with anecdotes (not sure what you mean by SWIM), rather since the drug has been outlawed, all you have left are anecdotes. People will use and describe the effects of drugs with or without the law's discretion, and I would imagine the decriminalization-party should be thankful for the experimentations.
Yeah, there really is no moral excuse for any restriction (or even tax) on the purchase of chemicals which are broadly safe for consumption, completely generic, and of considerable medicinal value. I am convinced that there are more people who would begin to benefit from unprescribed private self-medication with MDMA than who would begin to suffer suffer harm.
> I am convinced that there are more people who would begin to benefit from unprescribed private self-medication with MDMA than who would begin to suffer suffer harm.
conviction |kənˈvɪkʃ(ə)n|
2 a firmly held belief or opinion
belief |bɪˈliːf|
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof
opinion |əˈpɪnjən|
1 a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
I stand corrected, indeed: the OED avoids defining 'to be convinced' as 'to hold a conviction' -- which is what I read in your post: absolute but fundamentally baseless certainty.
MDMA can be extremely dangerous to your long term mental health. I'm not saying it doesn't have valid medical benefits, it certainly seems to, but if you consumed MDMA at any where near the frequency it is safe to consume alcohol it would not go well.
Don't get me wrong, I think it should be legal, but lets not pretend it is comparable to alcohol.
Edit: TL;DR MDMA probably has incredible medical benefits, but this does not mean that it can be safely consumed at the same frequency as alcohol or tobacco.
Pretty much any drug can be extremely dangerous. I see this response often (and I’m not critzizing you here) but look: painkillers, right? Given all the time. Can be EXTREMELY dangerous. Alcohol: CAN BE extremely dangerous. Millions of people die a year in alcohol related death. Nicotine: dangerous. Blood pressure medication: can be dangerous. Birth control pills...also dangerous. Drugs are freaking dangerous. Anything you take, could be dangerous yes. But that does not mean drugs should not be approved. Every drug is dangerous. So I am really sick and tired of people pointing out that “this could be dangerous”. Yes it could. It could also save lives. Might it kill some people due to complications? Yes it might. Lots of drugs have complications that could potentially end in death. Just watch any damn tv ad for a drug in the US!!
Yes but MDMA specifically will mangle your brain after very little recreational usage relative to almost all other drugs. Recreational use of MDMA a few times a week is _very bad_ on the long term health of your brain, very few other drugs are on that level — certainly none of the drugs you’ve listed.
"a few times a week" is considered pretty insane for even heavy users. I don't think that just about anybody is advocating that frequency of use. Regardless of long term effects I think most people would be feeling pretty messed up by the end of that week.
Once a week is sustainable in the short term but I am not recommending that and make no claims as to its safety in the long term. I would have no way of knowing other than googling studies.
That being said I'd still like a source for the claim:
"Yes but MDMA specifically will mangle your brain after very little recreational usage relative to almost all other drugs."
like the other poster said, a few times a week is not recreational at that point. Recreational use tends to be at most every other month, but for many more folks is going to be much less than that - 1 to 3 times a year.
I've known a person or two that simply didn't know how to space out their use, and did wind up with depression as a result. But this is the sort of thing that you can teach so long as you are honest about the rest of your drug education. It is something you can teach when you sell it to people. You can limit what folks can buy and keep a record of when people buy it - we already do this with some decongestants, after all. It isn't that there is not risks, but your comment is misguided on what constitutes more common recreational use of this particular drug and the things we can do to avoid this situation.
Sorry but few times a week is not recreational anymore.
your brain needs rest for some months to rebuild/rest the receptors.
truly these substances are controlled because they need little to get an overdose (at least in developed countries).
It is a risk prevention measure because not everybody has the iq of 100
Recreational usage is not relative to the substance, it’s dependent on behaviour. If you’re dependent on a substance (whether that’s physically dependent or mentally) you’re no longer a recreational user but if you’re using something frequently or infrequently for enjoyment then you are a recreational user — regardless of whether or not that substance is safe to use at your chosen frequency.
MDMA is well understood to have the potential to induce neurotoxicity, so people may want to slow down and learn more about why that is before they take the ‘yolo’ approach.
I completely agree with you. I just don't want to reinforce the impression that MDMA can be treated/used in the same way as tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, or even LSD. I am not opposed to its use, medically or recreationally, I just want to make clear that it is something that should be treated with more care and caution that, say, marijuana.
Two points to note: (a) The study looked at the effect of the 'street' drug Ecstacy - ie. cut with other harmful drugs - not pure MDMA; (b) Perhaps the low 'harm to self' rating is an indirect product of the fact that it is illegal - if it was more widely available people would abuse it much more than alcohol and it would get a higher 'self harm' rating
> It disgusts me that the stuff is illegal while cigarettes and alcohol
Alcohol and cigarettes are not really comparable to MDMA, and I just wanted to make that point. Marijuana? Sure, in much the same category, probably safer. MDMA is a whole different class of chemical.
Of course they're not comparable because MDMA is much, much safer than either alcohol or cigarettes. We're talking millions of deaths a year for alcohol and cigarettes vs. a few isolated deaths with MDMA. Socially, there is no comparison or doubt which of the three is the worst: alcohol by far. Can you even find an instance of domestic abuse or murder facilitated by MDMA? I could find a whole bunch that happened just this past hour.
I can have a beer every night for the rest of my life and experience little to no permanent effects. Long term MDMA use on the other hand has been shown to cause "marked neurodegeneration in striatal, hippocampal, prefrontal, and occipital serotonergic axon terminals. Neurotoxic damage to serotonergic axon terminals has been shown to persist for more than two years."
There's simply no way to substantiate your claim. Plenty of people who drink daily get sick and die from the effects of alcohol, including drinking one beer a day. Also, if you're comparing one beer, you need to compare it to the equivalent MDMA dose which would not cause any psychoactive effects just like one beer typically doesn't.
Safety has more than one axis. Also, if we sold MDMA in pubs, and told everyone "hey, take as much as you like, as often as you like" are you sure things would go swimmingly?
The author was one of the key critics that got that paper withdrawn! From the overview:
> In the fall of 2002 George Ricaurte, the Dark Prince of suspect science, published an article in the prestigious journal Science that claimed that a “common recreational dose” of MDMA caused severe damage to the dopamine systems of monkeys.[26] (Parkinson’s disease involves the death of dopamine neurons, so extensive damage to your dopamine axons could presumably cause symptoms similar to Parkinson’s.) The press and politicians went mad. Draconian new anti-MDMA laws were passed, including the infamous RAVE Act, which made it illegal to throw a party if you “should have known” that some people would be using drugs at it. MAPS, which had been on the verge of finally having its MDMA post-traumatic stress disorder research approved, was stopped cold in the face of the apparent new evidence of MDMA’s horrific dangers.
> More than a year later, after scathing criticism from TheDEA.org, the house of cards collapsed when Ricaurte sheepishly admitted that the experiment never really happened: The monkeys had actually been given massive doses of methampetamine, not MDMA! He also admitted that no matter what they had tried, they had been unable to damage monkey’s dopamine systems with real MDMA.
yes, long-term effects of alcohol are much worse, mostly because it damages the body as well as the brain, is used in larger amounts and through longer periods. Meanwhile people who have used MDMA at parties when young (and then stop using it, as most will) will have mostly no noticeable adverse long-term effects.
Now of course if you consumed alcohol at anywhere near the frequency you consume water that wouldn't be good either, but why would that be a fair comparison?
so you comparing long term heavy alcohol use, vs minimal MDMA use during youth.
Not really comparable. Would be comparing someone who has used MDMA 1-2 a week for 20 years against someone who had a couple of beers a week in college then stopped.
Heavy prolonged use / abuse of MDMA is damaging. Same with any drug
Well exactly, what would be a good comparison here? Why mention heavy long-term abuse of MDMA (which is I think very unusual compared to heavy abuse of alcohol) in an article about MDMA treatment? The MAPS PTSD protocol involves, if I remember correctly, in all cases under 20 doses of MDMA in the whole life, mostly much less.
What frequency is it safe to consume alcohol at? Last I checked, never, unless of course you want to cite studies funded by the alcohol industry. Your opinion is that MDMA is worse than alcohol. I don't even think it's in the same league. In my opinion and extensive experience talking with addicts, alcohol is by far the most destructive drug, worse than heroin (and other opiates/opioids) and even methamphetamine. It is most destructive to the self, mind and body, and it's certainly most destructive to society. MDMA has a handful of deaths over many decades and billions of doses whereas alcohol kills 2.5 million people worldwide every single year. There is no comparison.
Using a famous person's name as your handle is not a good idea on HN, unless it's actually your name as well. I've banned this account, but if you send us a different username at hn@ycombinator.com we can rename it for you and unban it.
Haha, if they were a veterinarian they'd have easier access to treat their depression with the party drug and cat tranquilliser Ketamine, which also actually works[1]
