Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US could soon approve MDMA therapy

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 406 posts

Re: US could soon approve MDMA therapy

#321

Post by musictubes »

fallingknife wrote: post #112
thejackgoode wrote: post #7

Can someone share any relevant experience with this? Best would be if you did it properly under supervision of clinical professional, or if you are a professional here, by any chance. Doesn’t matter if it’s US or not.

Have done it recreationally, and I can't imagine doing molly "under the supervision of a clinical professional." Seems like it would be absolutely awful. Don't recommend. I mean I really hope this helps a lot of people, but it's a hard pass from me. Would definitely recommend getting your hands on some and trying it with friends, though.

Therapeutic and recreational doses are very different. As are the goals. Rolling at a festival is very different than trying to open up to a therapist about past trauma.

Therapeutic doses aren’t designed to be fun, they are there to stop you from being afraid and willing to talk to someone. In addition, the subjects are only occasionally using MDMA in context of extended therapy. It’s not like they give you molly and see how you feel afterwards. MDMA is a tool for making therapy better or even possible for people with entrenched issues that couldn’t be solved with conventional treatments.

Re: US could soon approve MDMA therapy

#322

Post by musictubes »

photochemsyn wrote: post #83

I'd imagine pharmaceutical interests in the USA in the mental illness treatment & maintenance field are depressed by this news - it's going to crush their profit model if successful: > "And it’s unclear whether approving MDMA on the basis of MAPS’s data would ease the way for other companies hoping to study and develop the drug, or whether anyone would even want to. MDMA has been around since 1912 and cannot be paten…

MDMA will never be prescribed for ADHD for the same reason that Desoxyn (aka methamphetamine) is almost never prescribed for it. It is way too easy to use those for recreational purposes and have a high risk of being abused.

Re: US could soon approve MDMA therapy

#323

Post by cpncrunch »

starkd wrote: post #87
cpncrunch wrote: post #15

“blinding was not formally assessed during the study”

I did not notice that. So, then it really doesn't tell us anything new. The article gives away the game here: >> But Doblin still envisions treatment centres sprouting up around the world — he predicts that more than 6,000 will emerge in the United States alone — where people with PTSD and other psychiatric illnesses can safely and legally use MDMA and other psychedelics under the guidance of therapists. Beyond this,…

>I did not notice that. So, then it really doesn't tell us anything new.

It was in the linked article:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01336-3

It's always good to go to the sources when looking at these potentially overhyped news articles. I would love this to be the answer to depression, but I'm somewhat skeptical. I'm also cognizant of the power of the placebo effect (and related psychological factors) in changing the brain, having fully recovered from ME/CFS and severe depression/anxiety myself.

Re: US could soon approve MDMA therapy

#324

Post by chimeracoder »

opportune wrote: post #319
chimeracoder wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the brown powder which is typically considered less likely to be adulterated This is a very common misconception. Just because MDMA is sold in powder form does not make it less likely to be adulterated, and color is a misleading (and easily manipulated) heuristic. You can test for the presence of hypothesized adulterants, though most people unfortunately don't, and tests will fail to detect heterogeneous adulterant…

I am sure everyone is well aware that MDMA can be adulterated and that physical presentation can be misleading. Sure, we can clinically study it to confirm or deny what I’m saying. But you’ve still never admitted that you’ve taken it (I suspect you haven’t) and I stand by my assertion that nobody who has would consider it suitable for ADHD - even if you can’t rule out that a random commenter like me may have had an a…

> I stand by my assertion that nobody who has would consider it suitable for ADHD

If you modified that superlative to read "Most people who have taken MDMA would not consider it suitable for ADHD", then yes, I would agree with that statement.

I just don't find it a particularly profound or useful one, because most people have a particularly bad understanding of how recreational experiences translate to therapeutic ones.

(Most recreational methamphetamine or cocaine users would find it hard to imagine therapeutic uses for either drug, for example, even though both are well-established.)

Re: US could soon approve MDMA therapy

#325

Post by musictubes »

55555 wrote: post #74

Sweet I can't wait until I can get it prescribed online by answering a questionnaire for $25 and have some shady doctor in Florida ship me a gram of molly in the mail. Sorry autocorrect I mean I can't wait for more startup innovation in the telehealth space.

It will most likely be approved as a schedule 2 drug only used in a doctor’s office. MDMA isn’t what is helping people, it is the therapy made possible by the MDMA that causes people to no longer have PTSD.

Re: US could soon approve MDMA therapy

#327

Post by DiggyJohnson »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #287
Starcrunch wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad to hear from someone else who's honest about their negative experience. Psychedelics seem to somehow have simply amazing PR: plentiful testimonies of their life-changing abilities, encouraging us to try them, but very little acknowledgement of their dark side. The subculture is very quick to brush away anything that goes against the narrative of the "mind-opening wonder drugs that big pharma doesn't want you…

> The subculture is very quick to brush away anything that goes against the narrative of... Oh here we go again. Give me three comments below (in direct links) that "brush away" the obvious risks. I think you just made stuff up. Of course there are risks. Maybe the reason a whole lot of people are not complaining about bad experiences is that they are maybe, maybe, not as common as you want them to be. If you want ra…

This content and tone of this comment is completely out of place, and a perfect example of what GP is criticizing.

Re: US could soon approve MDMA therapy

#328

Post by chimeracoder »

projectazorian wrote: post #307
caseyohara wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you mean serotonin. MDMA causes greater release of serotonin and norepinephrine than of dopamine, and dopamine resets to baseline much faster than serotonin. > MDMA-exposed primates showed reduced numbers of serotonergic neurons 7 years later, indicating that some of MDMA’s effect on the brain can be long lasting. > Low serotonin is associated with poor memory and depressed mood, thus these findings are consi…

While doing MDMA in excess is a bad idea, it's worth noting that these studies have a lot of potential confounders. One example is that PTSD also causes "confusion, depression, anxiety, paranoia, and impairment of memory and attention processes." And it's likely that some people with PTSD are self-medicating with MDMA.

> While doing MDMA in excess is a bad idea, it's worth noting that these studies have a lot of potential confounders. > > One example is that PTSD also causes "confusion, depression, anxiety, paranoia, and impairment of memory and attention processes." And it's likely that some people with PTSD are self-medicating with MDMA.

The longer-term effects of MDMA are actually fairly well-established, in part because the mechanism of action is known and the relevant effects can be directly measured. It's not just a matter of symptomatic evaluation.

Re: US could soon approve MDMA therapy

#329

Post by taeric »

Alupis wrote: post #291
taeric wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is hunting with handguns or high powered rifles with high capacity magazines. Back when I did bird hunt, the entire community would jump on any fool that fired more than the allowed shells in a gun in rapid fire. It is obvious when it happens, and hilarious with how regulated guns actually are in hunting communities. So, I reiterate. Nobody gives a shit about those. They are instead trotted out as a straw man…

> high powered rifles with high capacity magazines And you'd be wrong with this assertion again, because the definition of "high powered" and "high capacity" are vastly different for your anti-gun advocates versus reality. A .223 Remington cartridge is not "high powered". A 20 round magazine was what the gun was designed for, making that the standard capacity magazine, not 10 rounds like some advocate for. A .50 BMG…

I'm not wrong, you are just looking to nitpick your way to success here. You are the one poisoning the conversation with supposed mistakes and nitpicks. I could as easily nitpick that arsenic is perfectly fine to feed to people, so that we should not have laws against poisoning.

The statement on hollow and incendiary isn't ignorance, it is somewhat flat disbelief that it is typically successful at the things you put forth. I'm well aware of the reasons to try and use them. That said, I'm also well aware that that is never what is accomplished with them. Though, again, I had a question mark on that sentence as I really don't care too much about those. They are, for all practical purposes a side show.

And I want you to reread the "that is for safety reasons, nothing else." What the flying fuck do you think we are talking about? Gun safety regulation. Fucking period.

Re: US could soon approve MDMA therapy

#330

Post by taeric »

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #311
taeric wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is hunting with handguns or high powered rifles with high capacity magazines. Back when I did bird hunt, the entire community would jump on any fool that fired more than the allowed shells in a gun in rapid fire. It is obvious when it happens, and hilarious with how regulated guns actually are in hunting communities. So, I reiterate. Nobody gives a shit about those. They are instead trotted out as a straw man…

I don't know what you're considering "high powered", but hunting rifles actually tend to be on the larger caliber side of things. If you're shooting a large mammal, using something like a 22 is just unnecessary cruelty. You want a round that will kill as fast as possible, so .338 in, .30-06 or 7.62 mm are the calibers of choice. If you're talking about .50 BMG as "high powered", then lucky for you, "high powered" rif…

I'm almost swayed by the animal cruelty argument, at the same time, the best hunters I know are all bow hunters. Such that, yes, it will be harder; but hunting isn't supposed to be easy.

Guns are largely fun for most that have them. Little else. Such that I don't think that changes things.

I should note that I've probably owned more guns than makes sense. Had friends with desert eagles. There is basically no reason for any high school age kid to have access to the kind of crap I had access to. It isn't so much ignorance as flat disregard for the bullshit reasons so many pro gun folks put forth. Including here. Your "need this for self defense" is a large part of the reason folks "need them for self defense." It is circular at best, and you can only make it work by poisoning the conversation with pulling in hunting.

Post reply on HN