51–60 of 110 posts
I've been hearing about this for a long time - probably since the late 1990s, so I'm surprised to see that it seems only in the last couple of years that there are phase three trials. I would imagine that the safety profile of MDMA is already well understood / fairly well researched in the 1950s and 1960s
Not really. Research almost entirely paused until the last few years.
Even as someone who has used this recreational, I'm very sceptical about mdma for medical treatment. I have seen smart people needing professional help for a very long time after using this too often. And too often is already every second weekend, because the body needs so long to restore the serotonine. But maybe they are using very little doses? I can still not believe that taking this regularily is a good idea. Ed…
Get some 5HTP in you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Research almost entirely paused until the last few years.
aah research impeded by morality police, understand now, thanks
After our current opioid crisis, it's not unreasonable to assume research on opioid medical usage will decline or stop - outside what has already been studied, for example.
Overall seems positive, some interesting pieces: > The only measured exploratory covariate with a significant interaction with treatment was lifetime history of SSRI use, which was associated with improved efficacy of MDMA-AT (P = 0.02; Supplementary Table 5). Covariates significantly impacting the main effect were sex assigned at birth and baseline Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)-II score; female sex assigned at bir…
> That being said, for people with severe PTSD this is surely a godsend. This seems a bit of a premature statement. The long term usage affects of MDMA use can be very costly, and I suspect long term use of something that provides artificial "feel good" emotion will have a tremendous downside for people who are already struggling with normality. > sex assigned at birth... female sex assigned at birth As an aside - in…
Expectations of eg emotional stoicism in men preclude eg certain platonic intimacies that are common among women. Gendered relationship norms significantly influence our mental and physical health. It would be unscientific to presume they were physiologically congenital. For that reason, it makes sense to refer to study participants by their "sex assigned at birth," rather than presuming any overlap between socialized gender and congenital sex. Remember, in scientific inquiry, precision is key.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> sex assigned at birth... female sex assigned at birth > As an aside - in a scientific article, this is insane language to use and really calls into question the assumptions and conclusions. i'm not really familiar with scientific writing, but why would that be insane language to use? what would be better?
It's not a scientific statement, it's a political statement. It doesn't matter if you agree with that political statement or not - it simply has no business being in a scientific report. Injecting political ideology into what is supposed to be factual findings is wrong. In scientific writing, such as studies like this - just the facts please. Anything else opens questions about motivations, conclusions, etc.
But those are just very precise facts? Clarifying that they refer to "female sex assigned at birth" is strictly less ambiguous than "female".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not like "I know a guy". Its like common knowledge for people who do this stuff that it seriously fucks you up if you do this too often. Its like 100% guaranteed. I would not take this every day for a month even if you offer me a years salary. Every medic who thinks this is a good idea should do the self test in my opinion. The same goes for giving ritalin to kids, but that is a different story...
> Its like common knowledge Why don't you just say folk wisdom? Commonly rumored? Calling something "knowledge" doesn't make it such. The entire point of science, and the reason it's so ridiculously hard, is that common knowledge is so frequently wrong. > I would not take this every day for a month even if you offer me a years salary. Then don't? No one is asking you to, nor is this trial nor the proposed line of tre…
You know the story of mdma? It was developed for medical use...
And I sayd im skeptical of this, because I cannot imagin, that any serious study, considering the risks comes to this conclusion. Unless it literally stops people from suicid. But as far as I know it's more probable to increase this risk so idk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a scientific statement, it's a political statement. It doesn't matter if you agree with that political statement or not - it simply has no business being in a scientific report. Injecting political ideology into what is supposed to be factual findings is wrong. In scientific writing, such as studies like this - just the facts please. Anything else opens questions about motivations, conclusions, etc.
> In scientific writing, such as studies like this - just the facts please. But those are just very precise facts? Clarifying that they refer to "female sex assigned at birth" is strictly less ambiguous than "female".
I will not engage any further in a political debate about this subject here. My point was political ideology statements should not be in scientific writing because they are political, the language changes with the political climate, and the language is imprecise. People reading scientific writings 100 years in the future should not have to wonder what political climate the paper was written in.
Scientific writing should not be a product of it's date and political climate.
I’m skeptical that a placebo control for MDMA can be valid. The effects of MDMA are pretty noticeable. The study actually asked participants if they thought they were on MDMA, and most answered correctly. If the participants can tell, it somewhat defeats the purpose of having a placebo control group.
Overall seems positive, some interesting pieces: > The only measured exploratory covariate with a significant interaction with treatment was lifetime history of SSRI use, which was associated with improved efficacy of MDMA-AT (P = 0.02; Supplementary Table 5). Covariates significantly impacting the main effect were sex assigned at birth and baseline Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)-II score; female sex assigned at bir…
> That being said, for people with severe PTSD this is surely a godsend. This seems a bit of a premature statement. The long term usage affects of MDMA use can be very costly, and I suspect long term use of something that provides artificial "feel good" emotion will have a tremendous downside for people who are already struggling with normality. > sex assigned at birth... female sex assigned at birth As an aside - in…
Springer Nature would appear to disagree with your assertion.
"Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully in order to avoid confusing both terms. Article titles and/or abstracts should indicate clearly what sex(es) the study applies to. Authors should also describe in the background, whether sex and/or gender differences may be expected; report how sex and/or gender were accounted for in the design of the study; provide disaggregated data by sex and/or gender, where appropriate; and discuss respective results. If a sex and/or gender analysis was not conducted, the rationale should be given in the Discussion. These guidelines apply to studies involving humans, vertebrate animals and cell lines."
https://www.springernature.com/gp/policies/book-publishing-p....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That being said, for people with severe PTSD this is surely a godsend. This seems a bit of a premature statement. The long term usage affects of MDMA use can be very costly, and I suspect long term use of something that provides artificial "feel good" emotion will have a tremendous downside for people who are already struggling with normality. > sex assigned at birth... female sex assigned at birth As an aside - in…
> in a scientific article, this is insane language to use and really calls into question the assumptions and conclusions. Springer Nature would appear to disagree with your assertion. "Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully in order to avoid confusing both terms. Article titles and/or abstracts should indicate clearly what sex(es) the…