Ecstasy trials for combat stress

[jose]

American soldiers traumatised by fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be offered the drug ecstasy to help free them of flashbacks and recurring nightmares.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...416073,00.html
What a long strange trip it's been

[giuliano]

i've taken a fair bit of E in my time.

while i am in favour of legalisation, i am not convinced about the validity of this trial. one reason i would have reservations is that E can exacerbate emotions, including stress. i would almost describe it as a threshold, where if you can get over it, the euphoria will wash your stress and trauma away (temporarily), but if you don't, it can exaggerate them.

the best time to take E is when you are in a relaxed, peaceful mood. it is also unnecessary to take it under these conditions.

the key difference between E and other drugs such as weed and heroin is that E is an upper and that doesn't always mix well when you are already anxious or stressed.

[Richard 23]

Before it became a "party" drug (even legally sold in Texas clubs as I recall), was made illegal and regained popularity as a "rave" drug, MDMA was found to be useful in therapy. It was described as an "empathy" drug. It seemed to help patients open up and be more receptive to therapy.

As far as it's use for treating PTSD, it seems plausible enough, but not as a solution or cure by itself. That would be stupid and wouldn't be addressing the underlying problems. Its use in conjuntion with therapy might make a bit of sense. Just throwing a drug bandaid at the problem is no solution.

The best cure for PTSD would be prevention. War should be used only when necessary and as a last resort. War for conquest, empire or profit should not be tolerated.

IMHO, the government should reconsider the wisdom of outlawing recreational drugs in general and filling prisons with non-violent otherwise useful members of society. It just criminalizes a lot of people and encourages more disrespect for the rule of law. Drug laws do more harm than the drugs themselves and a war on drugs is really a war on people.

[Richard 23]

Quote by: giuliano i've taken a fair bit of E in my time. while i am in favour of legalisation, i am not convinced about the validity of this trial. .... the key difference between E and other drugs such as weed and heroin is that E is an upper and that doesn't always mix well when you are already anxious or stressed.

Yes it is an "upper" (stimulant) because it's chemically related to the fine family of "speed" (amphetamine) products. There are two main variants: MDA and MDMA. The "A" is Amphetamene (speed), "MA" is MethAmphetamine (crystal meth). The full names are methylene-dioxy-amphetamine and methylene-dioxy-methamphetamine.

MDA and MDMA were both pretty easy to find in the US during the 1980s, ecstasy (MDMA) in the 1990s esp popular in raves. I recall [someone] enjoying MDA much more than MDMA because it was more intense and seemed more potent. This seems odd because methamphetamine's effect is more powerful than amphetamine. But then since it was never available at the local pharmacy and labelling laws didn't apply, it was hard to know what you actually were getting. A little bit of everything.

As far as legalization, ecstasy would be a hard sell (at least to the DEA) in the states. Well anything would, sadly. Even medical marijuana or hemp faces major challenges and disinformation. Speed in general has a bad name: "speed kills" although doctors were prescribing it to housewives as a weight loss product for years. Probably helped with the housework too! Unlike cocaine, extracted from the coca plant (South America), speed can be made right at home. It's patriotic! Or so the ad would go...

Amphetamine is a synthetic drug based on ephedrine which comes from the herb Ephedra. Methamphetamine was fed to German soldiers in WWII from what I have read. Hitler shot it up. Kamikaze pilots received it. American soldiers may have been given something similar, pep pills of some kind. The US Air Force offered Adderall ("go pills") as stimulants for pilots. Actually, it sounds like everybody did it until the party legally ended by the 1960s through force of law. Amphetamine was invented or patented in Germany in the 1930s I think.

Just a little background. Play safe.

[rmnunez]

So are they going to be issuing the stuff to soldiers in combat?

[Richard 23]

Quote by: rmnunez So are they going to be issuing the stuff to soldiers in combat?

Har har. No, that would probably be disasterous. Although it's a stimulant (keeps one awake 6-8 hours) the effect on mood and emotion is mellow and relaxing. Not the right frame of mind for combat.

From the Guardian Article:

The US food and drug administration has given the go-ahead for the soldiers to be included in an experiment to see if MDMA, the active ingredient in ecstasy, can treat post-traumatic stress disorder.

This seemed surprising at first except that regulatory agencies under Bush have been converted into rubber stamps for industry. Vioxx for instance, despite being linked to tens of thousands of heart attacks (some fatal) and yanked by Merck, is being recommended by FDA advisory panel to be put back on the market. Other similar pain relievers which have similar dangers are not being reviewed. FDA was more hardass when I worked at a medical device manufacturer in the 1990s. They shut us down for nearly a year for paperwork problems.

If MDMA is deemed useful for veterans there's going to be a lot of money for the pharmaceutical company involved. I don't know who holds the patent since I never saw any bottles in my local drug store when it was legal. Heh. Don't think it was ever widely available in stores. But for some reason it was being pressed into tablets in Texas. It wasn't illegal but I don't know who was manufacturing the stuff.

Scientists behind the trial in South Carolina think the feelings of emotional closeness reported by those taking the drug could help the soldiers talk about their experiences to therapists. Several victims of rape and sexual abuse with post-traumatic stress disorder, for whom existing treatments are ineffective, have been given MDMA since the research began last year. Michael Mithoefer, the psychiatrist leading the trial, said: "It's looking very promising. It's too early to draw any conclusions but in these treatment-resistant people so far the results are encouraging. "People are able to connect more deeply on an emotional level with the fact they are safe now."

The last sentence is consistent with statements made by therapists experimenting with ecstasy in the mid 1980s before it was rescheduled as a Schedule II (high potential for abuse, potential medical value) substance by the DEA.

Dr Mithoefer said the MDMA helped people discuss traumatic situations without triggering anxiety. "It appears to act as a catalyst to help people move through whatever's been blocking their success in therapy." The existing drug-assisted therapy sessions last up to eight hours, during music is played. The patients swallow a capsule containing a placebo or 125mg of MDMA - about the same or a little more than a typical ecstasy tablet.

This is all consistent with earlier studies. Psychiatrists begged the DEA to reconsider but it was already gaining popularity for recreational uses. Typical.

At least they're using it in conjunction with therapy. They must've read Ecstasy: The MDMA Story, that came out just as the DEA was slamming the door shut back in the 1980s.

The study has provoked controversy, because significant doubts remain about the long-term risks of ecstasy. Animal studies suggest that it lowers levels of the brain chemical serotonin, and some politicians and anti-drug campaigners have argued that research into possible medical benefits of illegal drugs presents a falsely reassuring message.

This is probably garbage. The last part about a "falsely reassuring message" is telling: that's why a falsely scarifying message is sent out about potentially "recreational" drugs. It's also why drug users have additional contempt for drug laws when they find out a puff of pot doesn't flatten their brain waves or send them howling into the street.

This is also why the "gateway drug" crap about marijuana is a misleading half-truth. Someone tries pot, discovers the drug propaganda about pot is bullcrap, makes the logical leap that they're lying about all drugs, determines the laws are stupid restrictions on personal freedom, and is therefore more open-minded about experimenting with other substances. Other people drink, smoke or dose up on pharmaceuticals, or give their maid a cigar box full of cash to score oxycontin and host a radio program pontificating that drug users need to have the book thrown at them until caught and then they suddenly discover the value of privacy rights. Oops, wrong topic. And too little, too late, Rush. But I hope you speak out about privacy rights for all people using your big soapbox.

Government drug studies performed for the purposes of rescheduling "recreational" drugs have typically been misleading or even fraud. The goal is known in advance: make it illegal. The goal of the study is to justify the DEA's decision.

The LSD studies that led to scare stories about broken chromosomes and the potential for birth defects is a prime example. When the flower children became yuppies with children we should have seen a spike in birth defects. Turns out the chromosomes that were being touted have nothing to do with reproduction and the link to micrograms of LSD is not demonstrated. It was crap.

Contrast this with the horrors of thalidomide ("flipper babies"). Thank God the FDA had balls back then. It wasn't fast tracked for approval like it might be today. Despite pressure from the US Marketer for approval, the FDA reviewer held out for better toxicity info and effects on pregnancy. When the birth defects started showing up in other countries the pressure was off. In 1962, President Kennedy awarded the gutsy FDA reviewer, Frances Oldham Kelsey, the distinguished Federal Civilian Service (the highest civilian award in the US). I love a happy ending. Of course the tragic birth defects should be a reminder that a toothless FDA is a danger to all Americans.

Marijuana studies were similar tripe. As I recall, primate studies supposedly demonstrated that marijuana smoke contained a high level of carcinogens and was a significant cancer risk. Never mind that the poor monkeys were smothered in the smoke, much more than even Cheech and Chong could possibly inhale in multiple lifetimes.

I also recall MDMA studies trying to make a link to reduced spinal fluid using spinal taps which by their very nature...reduce spinal fluid levels. Or something like that. I'll look it up if someone wants more precise info. The MDMA studies were disputed by doctors but the DEA would have none of it. Even Schedule II drugs are very hard to get permission to use in research.

The South Carolina study marks a resurgence of interest in the use of controlled psychedelic and hallucinogenic drugs. Several studies in the US are planned or are under way to investigate whether MDMA, LSD and psilocybin, the active ingredient in magic mushrooms, can treat conditions ranging from obsessive compulsive disorder to anxiety in terminal cancer patients.

This should be good news but it probably is not. The U.S. Government's interest in mood and mind altering substances is typically for the wrong reasons. The Defense Department is always interested in obtaining substances that will reduce fear and increase agression and endurance. Intelligence agencies are looking for the ultimate "truth" serum. LSD was used on civilians without their knowledge with nasty results. It wasn't effective for extracting information.... There isn't any part of government that is interested in mind altering drugs for self improvement or recreation. Mind altering drugs are probably considered a risk because they change how people think. Control is easier when there is predictable uniformity of thought (my opinion).

[giuliano]

interesting stuff richard.

MDMA might increase a tendency towards truth-telling, but it certainly won't increase agression :)

it would be interesting to see the results of such a trial. i think it really does speak volumes about the agenda of an organisation such as the DEA if they won't even consider a trial, let alone final approval. many senators have complained that attempting to act as the voice of reason against the crusading war against drugs is political suicide, and they feel forced to drink the Kool-Aid with the rest of congress.

sad indictment really.