Talk:MDMA/Archive 3

message: I quickly rewrote this section to reflect the ambiguity of the scientific and medical literature.  It could probably use some smoothing.  Some of the points may be controversial to some.
--Mattbagg 15:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addiction and Tolerance 

message: This has been hanging atounf for way too long without any verification. Sections may be returned if they're documented:
:Pills sold illegally on the street do not always contain MDMA as the only active ingredient.  In British Columbia, Canada, recent government tests showed that some of the pills tested contained methamphetamine in doses as high as 20 milligrams . Analogues of MDMA such as MDEA, MDA and MBDB are often found, and more rarely other psychoactive additives such as amphetamines (speed), DXM, ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine,  PMA, 4-MTA, caffeine, ketamine (Special K), 2C-B, 2C-T-7 or other compounds may be present . In addition to MDMA ecstasy pills may contain  cocaine, heroin, or mescaline ; Mescaline is an especially unlikely contaminant, as a large amount is required for an effective dose .  There have been a few cases where an extremely potent synthetic opiate, Fentanyl, has been identified in pills , which could potentially be very dangerous if people took several of them thinking that they only contained MDMA . 
:Aspirin, paracetamol (acetaminophen), or even canine heartworm tablets have had the letter E scratched into them and have been sold as ecstasy , for enormous profit. While overdose from MDMA itself is rare, many more toxic substances are often sold as ecstasy , and overdose or other adverse reaction to adulterants is not uncommon . 
__meco 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify that this moving is according to Wikipedia policy, WP:V states "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the  template, or tag the article by adding  or ." As this unverfied information has been in the article for some time it is my prerogative to move the text here pending verification of these numerous unsourced statements. And I might add what Jimmy Wales is quoted qith stating on this same subject (also at WP:V): ""I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." __meco 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On that basis, you could probably delete a large proportion of anything outside the top 100 articles on Wikipedia.  I'm in the camp that believes that some information is better than none, and that the Wikification process will take place naturally over time.  If we remove stuff, aggressively, it (i) annoys people and (ii) makes the Wikification process a lot less likely, because people tend to edit what's in front of their noses, rather than copying stuff between pages which takes longer.  Just my view, but there's lots written about this topic elsewhere.
Most of all, though, the sections you have removed are objective, verifiable facts, and not POV.  Links may be missing but they will surely be added over time.  Punanimal 14:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And then they will be reintroduced into the article, one by one. __meco 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On that basis, would you therefore please delete almost the whole article on England, which is largely unsourced.  Feel free. Punanimal 23:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving unsourced information to talk page 

message: Anyone know of any statistics on Hyponatremia and Ecstasy use?  It is quoted often as a possible negative side effect of E use, but is much rarer than most people think I believe.  I saw some statistics on this before from UK or US but can't remember where from.  That stupid British girl is the only case I can remember where it happened, and I don't think there were that many more instances of it as it isn't too hard to avoid if you have a brain in your head.
Really? and how do you know this? There is actually a lot of reason to believe that MDMA specifically interferes with normal regulation of salt balance. And there is not just one case report, there are many in which hyponatremia is an associated factor of medical emergency. Try using PubMed once in awhile, it is very simple to search. What is unknown is if water chugging is required to produce a dangerous hyponatremia or if individual sensitivity is involved but the evidence (i.e., lots of uninformed water chugging, relatively few hyponatremic deaths) leans toward individual sensitivity. So hyponatremia may indeed be easy to avoid, but only if you have the right genetic endowment.Blackrose10 17:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyponatremia? 

message: This article could do with a section / expansion of a section to incorporate the effect that Ecstasy has on Body temperature. i.e. Details on how this effects the UCP3 in skeletal muscle to produce hypothermia etc
Genomaniac 15:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never heard it affected skeletal muscle, but rather the hypothalamus, which regulates body tempurature and thirst. I haven't found that seratonins affect it, but steroids do.  While hyperthermia is mentioned briefly in the article, I'd like to find the specifics and then list them near the beginning with the other side effects. Gaviidae 13:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heres an article which describes Mdma's affect on mdma and on the UCP3 proteins largely found in skeletal muscle. “Uncoupling the agony from ecstasy” by Mills et al in Nature (2003), 426: 403-404.Genomaniac 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing effects 

message: Did anyone notice that this is in "other putative uses" in the infobox? It sounds like vandalism to me. mrholybrain's talk 13:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before it's scheduling a small group of psychologists did use MDMA for Marriage Counseling Cloaked Dagger 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage Counseling 

message: A lot of people claim that MDMA creates a heightened sexual experience, while other say it actually makes sex near impossible because of factors such as erectile dysfunction while on it. Are there any studies or research that have any information towards proving one, both, or none to be true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.20.224.240 (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the literature and a wide sample of annecdotal evidence suggests that - inevitably - it's complicated. Some men experience erectile dysfunction, other do not, while of the latter, some can acheive ejaculation and some can't. However, it seems that the latter - and even not getting an erection in the first place - is not necessarily a "problem," since the other influence of MDMA is to put the user in a state of mind that the simple aim penetration and ejaculation seems far less important. Saunders (various, but certainly in Ecstasy Reconsidered) reports something along the lines of sex that is more prolonged and tender - sensual, rather than sexual. Nick Cooper 13:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's original research, but I can tell you having a girl chewing on your neck feels absolutely amazing while rolling.  As said above, it's complicated, some people have sexual disfunctions while on it and others don't, but ecstasy most certainly does increase tactile(touch) sensations and sexual activity most definitely is a tactile sensation.  So it stands to reason that of course ecstasy would increase sexual pleasure, erectile disfunction can be a side effect yes(and some combine it with viagra for this very reason), but also as said there are other things you can do that are sexual while not needing to involve penetration and not everyone has these side effects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.8.109.202 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super sex myth or true 

message: i dont think we can include every pet name that comes along for mdma on the main page...the only of the four i would accept that tipton prisoner offered would be "rolls"...as it is used more widely and isnt just a local phenomenon...and people in some quarters use the term "rolling" to describe using it...these others i have never heard...yet "E" or sometimes "X" are the most frequently i have heard and are the term i use when talking of this subject...perhaps tho if tipton prisoner wishes to create a linked page with all the thousands of names that people come up for E then this would be interesting as a side article...all they let u use is wikipedia hugh???...well it could be worse...you can get to all sorts of interesting stuff at least on wikipedia...wikipedia may have found its highest function yet: in helping maintain the sanity of a few unfortunate trapped mdma users...Benjiwolf 11:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've been thinking that it's getting particularly pointless to have so many variations listed, especially since some are claimed to be essentially local variations without any evidence that they are even real. Nick Cooper
If someone wants some reference for some of the names, I was trying to find the source for a comment above about the Florida penal code (could not find it, only references and florida.gov was down) and ran across an article from Dept of Justice which mentions two more names, Beans and Adams http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugs_concern/mdma/mdma.htm  Of course, as soon as adults and cops begin to use the slang terms, the kiddies will think up new ones.  But USDOJ is a decent source if someone's worried about geography or whatnot.  Gaviidae 14:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pet names for mdma 

message: Section attacking Ricaurte under Parkinson's needs to be removed. It wasn't MDMA so what is the relevance? If the "holes in the brain" thing creates an inaccurate portrayal, why discuss it?Blackrose10 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs including because it - like much of Ricuarte's previous (at times also misrepresented) work - was featured heavily in government propaganda, and continues to be alluded to, despite the retraction. It's entirely probable that some people will come to this page and, having heard of the "holes in the brain" nonsense, will wonder why it's missing. It needs including precisely because its initial publicity was far greater than the retraction. Nick Cooper 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Herein lies the problem. "propaganda" shows your slip a bit. One of the things that needs to be cleaned up on this page, imo, is this fascinating belief that an encyclopedia entry is the place to advance an opinion, a rebuttal to perceived "propaganda". This seems inappropriate. it is inconsistent with neutral point of view. Perhaps there should be a "controversies" section or something for MDMA. But an encyclopedia is, to me, a source for what IS, not a place for discussing what IS NOT if you see my point. A good section on possible lasting consequences should simply omit a link to parkinson's. Encyclopedias would be unbelievably unwieldy if they were diatriabes against rumour and misconception. Now, if you can show, with citations, that misunderstanding of a given point is rampant, than there would be a point of discussing things. but you can't possibly address every erroneous thing that someone somewhere might believe about each and every topic of encyclopedic interest. so it is an inappropriate general defense.  and finally, the inclusion of Ricaurte's name is a personal attack and irrelevant if your real issue is something related to "government propaganda", is it not? Blackrose10 18:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, you'll have to forgive me if I equally have suspiscions about the motives of someone using an account that has never been used for editing Wikipedia until this article on this day. I also fail to see how the section of Ricuarte's self-acknowledged discredited work constitutes an "ad hominem" "attack". Ricuarte's study failed due to fundamental errors and that is a fact, as is that his earlier work was misrepresented. We are not talking about some vague and inconsequential "rumour" here, but work that were widely publicised and cited in support of government policies. Nick Cooper 18:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it takes little time at all for you to go ad hominem towards me in preference to addressing the issues. out of curiosity, why is it relevant that I begin my wikiness today and on this topic? should I go over and bash around on THC and Meth and, oh say, "garden gnome" a bit? be that as it may, i never said "rumour" applied to the facts of the Ricaurte affair. the point is that if one's real target is the misuse of science by "government propaganda" there is little need to bring in his name. if one's point is to further the sort of personal vilification practiced over at MAPS, mission accomplished but this is no way to get the entry back into some reasonable semblence of neutral. there is an advocacy position for MDMA, clearly. some in this position feel that a sort of "drugs are bad, m'kay" position is the only position in the scientific literature and therefore it is all suspect. this is not justifiable and an uncritical approach to the advocacy side is just as bad as an uncritical approach to the science or even the public policy side.Blackrose10 20:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for proving the point by totally sidestepping the Ricuarte issue. Nick Cooper 22:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really taking your point here. what sidestep? if you can show that there is an area  of consistent misunderstanding (and i happen to agree that this is likely the case but you need harder evidence than opinion) than it should be addressed. I don't, however, see any point in making this personal. Especially if one's real target is "government propaganda". There is also no reason to go through the whole "claims were hotly disputed" business- what's the point other than to say "nah, nah we were right all along"? why the comment about Ricaurte failing to "follow up" with RTI? it is sophomoric at best. an encyclopedia entry is just not the place for some he said/she said debate, nor even for a very high level academic debate over the totality of available evidence for that matter! it is a place for the neutral presentation of verifiable information, is it not? now how about you stop sidestepping and address my actual point?Blackrose10 17:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I just had an interesting read of the discussion and history of the page on Ricaurte himself. very fascinating. I suppose I have a little more insight as to "why" there is so much personalization of this page. similar comments on his page keep getting booted so someone goes ahead and puts it in over here, hoping to avoid the living-person policies. this doesn't make it appropriate. Blackrose10 19:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ricaurte 

message: Continuing on a theme here. Why is all this comparison with other drugs here? Why does the death rate need to be compared with anything else? And if it needs to be so compared, how do you select the list of comparators? second hand smoke and generic "alcohol" are particularly bogus because it is not comparing acute reponses. why not focus on chemicals or toxins that produce acute fatality? 
The section on hyperthermia is unbelievably speculative and behind the times. I direct you to Freedman et al 2005. Human skin temperature increases in concert with body temperature, cutaneous vessel constriction is not likely to be the issue. Changes in sweating are more likely to contribute but the same study (which was conducted in hydrated, non-dancing subjects) showed that this is because of a delay in the triggering of sweating not because of dehydration! There is no evidence, as yet, that high ambient temperature adds risk in humans or monkeys (rats another story) and in fact there is evidence that it does not. Single study in each case and the jury is still out. but it is interesting that the entry is simultaneously skeptical to the nth about studies concluding risk from MDMA itself and totally accepting of speculative and unproven hypotheses which suggest that all MDMA-related fatality can be attributed to nonMDMA situational factors!Blackrose10 19:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: people want to see the toxicity of this chemical in comparison to other commonly used drugs...it is a valid comparison to look at commonly used drugs such as alcohol and tobacco in comparison to mdma...we instantly see the acute and also lethal risk and threat of this compared to other things so we have a frame of reference...it would be nice to factor in though acute alcohol poisonings per year if someone finds that stat...from the stats we see quite clearly it is not a serious societal source adding to death rates...comparing mdma to botulism toxin has little meaning...comparing it to dioxin or arsenic has little meaning...it should be compared to other recreationally used chemicals like nicotine so we see a presentation and comparison of its lethal effects on the human population...the fact that many more people die of second hand smoke each year or even fetal deaths from smoking mothers is a very nice fact to have to put things in perspective in this section of acute/toxic & lethal effects...Benjiwolf 19:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if the goal is to compare toxicity versus other common drugs than it should be more comprehensive. Also, the chosen comparisons should be direct- acute versus acute, not a comparison of acute MDMA fatality with deaths attributable, say to cirrhosis consequent to lifetime alcohol abuse or cancer subsequent to lifetime living with a smoker. I suspect you'd be all over it if a similar apples to oranges contrast was used to argue that MDMA is dangerous. i'm suggesting that it is not merely "nice" to compare apples to apples, it is essential for this to attain a neutral point of view. Blackrose10 21:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to ONS figures, ICD-10 codes denoting "accidental poisoning by and exposure to alcohol" (as opposed to all the other alcohol-related causes) accounted for 160 deaths in England & Wales in 2004. Figures for "deaths from drug-related poisoniongs" for the same year show 48 where MDMA was present, 25 of which involved no other drugs. A combination of alcohol and MDMA, either in isolation or with other drugs, accounted for 14 deaths. Nick Cooper 13:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: perfect. exactly the type of approach I would agree with. like to like comparisons and preferably presented directly without editorializing on the relevance or application to public policy. and it would be better still if you included the denominator, you know just like all other legitimate risk statistics one has to present an estimate not of raw rates but of rates relative to some standard of use. per capita users, per dose episode, something along those lines. global stats, presented without denominator may possibly be useful for public policy but tell the individual essentially nothing about relative risk which i assume is what benjiwolf meant by "people want to see the toxicity..."Blackrose10 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: look, i understand the public policy debate issues. your points are pertinent to such a question. my view is that an encyclopedia entry is not the place for what would necessarily be a very lengthy debate. a place for the hard information relevant to such a debate, such as  fatality rates, sure. but even if you limit it to "recreational drugs" the list is still to long for a concise entry, imo. so you have to select your comparisons. and doing so leads to a loss of neutrality unless you adhere to some semblence of rational rules. overall cumulative death rate versus acute toxicity doesn't make the grade as i see it. ignoring drugs more commonly abused with minimal tox (cannabis) is peculiar. Blackrose10 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, for England & Wales, for the 12 years 1993-2004 there were 8 in total where only cannabis was implicated - never higher than 2 in a single year, and seven years with none at all - average of 0.6 per year. Cannabis + alcohol 57 over the same period, with a low of 2 and high of 8 - 4.75 per year on average. Cannabis + at least one other drug is 147 - 12.25 per year on average. Nick Cooper 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acute toxic/dangerous effects 

message: well i go to the shellfish page and see two sentences describing toxicty and death...why is it we even have an mdma section on lethal effects??? and not just a single sentence, "there have been a few reported cases of people dying from mdma similar in number to yearly shellfish deaths"...why is it we dont???...because we want as much info as possible...yet when creating a long section on mdma deaths we need to put this in perspective as to how much of an issue it really is for society...if someone (anonymous user???blackrose???)...wants to remove the sentences putting this topic in perspective..then im going to eliminate the entire section to make it as long as the shellfish article on deaths: one sentence on mdma deaths...i dont like deleting info though, so please dont delete cited factual information and i wont have to...Benjiwolf 16:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mdma deaths in perspective 

message: have there been any studies in mice/rats that use a high zinc+ high vitamin C multi-vitamin/mineral coating on an adjusted standard mg/kg dose that a human responsible-user would employ (eg. a 75mg, 100mg, 125mg, 150mg??? human mg/kg))...what would the tests show 1 dose in a year, 2 in year, 4 in a year, 6 in a year, 12 in a year??? etc.)...how about human test with one dose with the coated pill, that have never used any drugs and dont thruout the study???...how would that affect memory tests and such???...someone please if these types of tests havent been carried out on various animals subjects and humans, do some so we start to get an accurate idea of the toxicity of mdma...both with control, normal pill, and vit/min. coated pill...its time the propaganda wars ended and the public gets accurate information on substances they might voluntarily use or see others voluntarily use...its time we establish a clear toxicty threshhold for mdma & humans...its time we see exactly what it takes to block any possible toxicty...Benjiwolf 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: first of all, i'd suggest you become familiar with PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) if you are genuinely interested in navigating what is / is not known about various topics of concern to health. this assumes that you are indeed honestly interested in 
an accurate idea" of anything in particular. second, it is almost categorically the case that the exact perfect study that you dream up to answer your own question has not been done, this is the beauty of being in science as it happens. there is always lots more to accomplish. but it is also the case that you have to apply what is, at the core, basic common sense. That is, science arrives at some approximation of what is likely to be so by....approximation (and replication). by the totality of the evidence and by converging evidence. not by one study which either proves or disproves something categorically. so don't fall into the intellectually lazy position of finding an objection to a single paper and concluding that you know what is true. This is what is so bizarre about the obsession with the Ricarute 2002 Science paper- as if the fact that this even occurred questions the dozens of studies conducted previously by many investigators showing lasting serotonergic alterations produced by MDMA. This is also what is so bizarre about the unending stream of allegedly informed critique of the scientific literature by the MAPS group. One gets the impression that the advocacy position never met a scientific study that they agree actually demonstrated anything. For those of us that tend to understand the benefits and limitations of the scientific process, this appears to be a theological process. One driven by pre-existing belief rather than a quest to find out what might be so. If one is inclined to read the scientific literature carefully, one tends to find that it is not consistent with belief of a monolithic government propaganda enterprise, but rather clearly identifies consistencies and gaps in existing knowledge. Yes, and identifies limitations to specific experiments and whole approaches as well. so there is lots of information on what "people might actually use". the question is whether is it communicated effectively. there are three major barriers in this area that I see. first, trust (see "government propaganda" verbiage), two, education (i am dismayed at the general lack of understanding of the scientific process and the concept of probability and variance-this goes waaaaaay beyond the topic at hand) and third, what might be termed advocacy propaganda which attempts to advance a theological agenda, part of which is intentionally misrepresenting scientific observation. Blackrose10 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: On the issue of "clear toxicity threshold" one needs to consider a few things. First, the concept of a "clear threshold" does not exist, period. In pharmacology there is a truism that everything is toxic, all you are discussing is the dose. I would add that there is also the issue of individual susceptibility to various insults and, of course, environmental or situational contributors. Second, any approximation of a threshold is going to depend on outcome of interest. Mortality? Permanent effects on cognitive function? Effects which last X amount of time? interaction with other natural or exogenous insults? The "threshold" is going to vary so you have to be clear on outcome measure. Third, from a public policy perspective there is a further issue of cost/benefit meaning that idea of "threshold" for various outcomes is further varied. Take the 3.75 mg/kg cumulative dose in current clinical trials (that's right, add it up for 50kg adult women). It likely has some nonzero risk value that can be attributed to it. Now if the benefit is relief from a lifetime of PTSD symptoms (per the claims) or if the benefit is one good night of psychotropic drug use, the equation is substantially different even if the direct physiological drug risk is the same. Governments take additional steps of dealing with the legal issues associated with criminalization, civic approaches to liberty/privacy, broad scale public health issues, etc as you well know. I happen to agree with much of what seems to be your public policy agenda, however I emphatically disagree that the public policy debate is some sort of integral part of an encyclopedia entry on MDMA. And I particularly object to an approach that seems to willfully downplay or misrepresent established knowledge on the toxic effects.Blackrose10 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  does anyone know? 

message: people consistently try and remove (usually anonymous users) the death figures from alcohol or tobacco, they know that to put things in perspective really hurts anti-mdma lobbys & ridiculous propaganda, and hurts pro-alcohol pro-tobacco lobbys...yet it is only in there to give a referenced perspective about the seriousness of the problem, i am reinstating factual information from the DEA itself!!! the simply fact is that 80,000+ people die from alcohol each year, 440,000+ from tobacco, 10 perhaps from mdma alone, maybe 100 with mdma but other things in their blood, mdma causing a similar amount of deaths to shellfish and nut poisonings, on the other hand alcohol & tobacco are lethal substances, I will begin deleting all information about deaths and mdma to a similar length as is for shellfish in line with how wikipedia presents things that cause a dozen deaths a year if people do not desist from blocking referenced material of valid comparisons to other commonly used drugs like alcohol and tobacco! 83.79.136.221 23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the hell would you use threats like "i am hitting their page on prozac hard with some stating 25,000 deaths by suicide if people dont lay off this page and stop removing statistics!" on Wikipedia?! If you haven't noticed: this site is about neutral information. If you feel the urge to put whatever neutral information you want on any page, go ahead and do it. It makes no sense whatsoever to threaten people that you are going to put information about something anywhere if they do/don't do something... Navmans 06:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  people dont like those factual statistics 

message: The "Poly substance use" section was copied from this page:
http://thegooddrugsguide.com/ecstasy/mixing.htm
Sigh...
GarconDansLeNoir 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright Infringement 

message: Come down currently redirects here: ...The Dandy Warhols Come Down. I am thinking maybe a new article should be created for come downs (3 mentions here isn't enough), after all even Suicide Tuesday has a page of its own. Alternatively Come down could become a disambiguation page with a definition of come down and links to MDMA and other related pages, as well as a link to '...The Dandy Warhols Come Down'. This is also mentioned here: Talk:...The_Dandy_Warhols_Come_Down Any comments? 86.27.109.100 10:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem a rather poor use of the Come Down page. That said, I'm not sure whether the MDMA context is enough to "claim" it. I also think Suicide Tuesday is a rather tenuous article in itself, and that both aspects - and others - would be better served by a Recreation use of MDMA (or similar) page. Nick Cooper 09:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope for new article for 'come down'. 

message: The contraindications infromation for extacy should include any drug that acts on dopamine receptors, in particular cocaine, as cocaine will overwhelm the physical euphoria due to increased dopamine levels and thus take away from the "hug drug" aspect of MDMA
(www.erowid.org)
Also, most tabs currently on the streets contain Methamphetamine despite the fact that it is specifically mentioned on the contraindications bar (information gained by surveying tested pills on pillreports.com)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.81.16 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 16 April 2007
:"Most tabs currently on the streets" where, exactly? If even a sizable minority of street pills contained methamphetimine in any particular area, the appropriate local/national press would be all over it like a rash. Cherry-picking write-ups of rogue tablets on pillreports.com doesn't count. Nick Cooper 13:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point, however, listing "contraindications" tends to suggest that there are well-established connections between MDMA and some other factor (Meth, high ambient temperature, dehydration due to physical activity) in medical emergency/death and that avoiding said interaction of conditions is likely to be "safer". This is not clear at all. As the advocates like to point out, the number of acute deaths from MDMA are small in terms of overall use-episodes. What they don't like to point out is that this means that the underlying causation of death is uncertain. The case reports do not support an exclusive role of any single factor, including excessive MDMA dose. Blackrose10 00:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contraindications 

message: Today I restored the template:verylong on this page, as its length is getting a little bit out of hand.  The "Acute toxic/dangerous effects" section alone is 17500 characters long, without any subsections, and the total article length is over 76k.  It and the intro are getting a little too lengthy & repetitive.  See the manual of style and either deal with the situation or discuss before removing the template.  Here's the relevant section of the manual: Wikipedia:Article size.  MrZaiustalk 14:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Very long

message: Per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, I have commented out the following section of this article:
:=== MDMA may help Parkinson's disease ===
:Research at the University of Manchester indicates that MDMA dramatically reduces tremors in patients receiving L-DOPA treatment for Parkinson's disease. 
:In a now-retracted study, a research team led by Dr. George A. Ricaurte at Johns Hopkins University implicated MDMA as a cause of Parkinson's-like brain abnormalities in monkeys, suggesting that a single use of MDMA caused permanent and serious brain damage.  These claims were hotly disputed by physicians, therapists, and other experts in the field, including a team of scientists at New York University. Criticisms of the study included its use of injection rather than oral administration; that this type and scale of damage (>20% mortality) would translate to hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths which had not materialized in the real world amidst extremely broad global MDMA usage; and, most importantly, that other research teams could not duplicate the study's findings. 
:On September 6, 2003, Dr. George A. Ricaurte and his team announced that they were retracting all results of their commonly cited and controversial study. The researchers said that the labels on the drugs had been somehow switched, and they had inadvertently injected their experimental monkeys and baboons with extremely high doses of methamphetamine instead of MDMA.  The chemical supplier, Research Triangle Institute, has publicly claimed that the proper drug was supplied, and Ricaurte has yet to pursue them for their alleged error. 
:Ricaurte had also come under fire for supplying PET scans to the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy that were used in anti-drug literature (Plain Brain/Brain After Ecstasy) that seemed to suggest MDMA created holes in human brains, an implication that critics called misleading.  Ricaurte later asked the Agency to change the literature, citing the "poor quality" of the images. These images are still circulating in educational systems across the U.S., however, and the myth that ecstasy users develop "holes in their brains"  remains quite popular and government funded.
According to the verifiability policy, "articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." Further "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it."
⟳ausa کui × 04:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About a week ago, I commented out unsourced claims from the infobox concerning care: End of Life & Marriage counselling were both removed (Originally said as much in the Marriage counseling section above). Neither is explained in the article, but both should explained and sourced before removing the comments. Note that the Anxiety infobox entry is also a little vague & requires verification.  Was it used as a normal anti-anxiety medication, or is that a duplicate reference to PTSD treatment? Finally, should Parkinsons also be listed in the "Other putative uses" section? MrZaiustalk 12:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited claims 

message: This article is seriously long. I intend to break some of this stuff out into separate articles, but I will begin by trimming the lead by moving some of that stuff into the body. The lead also strikes me as a little too sympathetic; a number of specious comparisons are made to alcohol and various parts of the lead sound like excuses. Simishag 01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am basically done with the lead. I moved or deleted a bunch of stuff that didn't really belong in the lead, and added some details about the association with the rave culture, a brief summary of legality, and a brief summary of the health effects. It could still be trimmed down, but I think this lead is a better introduction to this topic. Simishag 03:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This will be hard to do. I'll help, if you would like! Each section is fairly short, but there are so many sections, which is what makes it long. This will be a "toughy". hmwithtalk 22:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Did it. hmwithtalk 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of article, especially lead 

message: It is rather long. I think that the external links adds to it. There is no way this many is necessary. Anyone support my sifting through them, deleting some? hmwithtalk 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it. hmwithtalk 22:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: What are thedens?  I see this word used in this article, seeming to mean "effects", but it is not in Webster's dictionary, nor on dictionary.com, nor have I heard of any reference to it.  Could someone tell me where this word came from? murftown 15:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thedens?

message: I've made an MDMA metabolism pathway image, and feel there should be a section on this page about it. I'm torn, however, between placing it on this page or the Effects of MDMA on the human body page. It seems more appropriate here, but at the same time this chart is also about the Toxicity of the metabolites on the human body. There is no true chemistry/pharmacology section on here though. Just a little confused but would like to add in this image. The metabolism image can be found here Ccroberts( t · c · g ) 04:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is 'methylenation' without the 'e'. The diagram also misses N-demethylation, a major pathway. Cacycle 04:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing the typo out. I was planning on discussing the parallel N-demethylated metabolism in the section rather than including it in the image just for the sake of space. I was a bit worried about this part myself. Will correct in the morning. What are your thoughts on placement for a metabolism section? Ccroberts( t · c · g ) 05:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metabolism Pathway Image and Toxicity of MDMA Metabolites 

message: The link I used is to a Reuters Health News article, but I am concerned that their articles are not accessible for long.  I am noting their source here for your reference: SOURCE: British Journal of Pharmacology, online May 29, 2007, perhaps somebody can bring this closer to the primary source.   The UCP link is interesting.  Perhaps there is potential as a diet drug for this or a related compound.  Here are quotes from the
story that should pique interest:
*Dr. Jon E. Sprague of Ohio Northern University in Ada and colleagues conduction experiments with rats fed either a high- or low-fat diet for four weeks. The researchers found that animals on the high-fat regimen were more susceptible to ecstasy-induced hyperthermia. 
*The fatty diet appears to raise blood levels of free fatty acids, which are known to affect body temperature regulation, according to the researchers.
*In earlier research, Sprague and his colleagues had found that a muscle protein called uncoupling protein (UCP) appears key in the hyperthermic response to ecstasy. Mice that don't have the protein don't overheat.
--Africangenesis 09:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  linking hyperthermia to uncoupling protein and high fat diet 

message: I think it would be best if we turned every major section into its own article so that the different subjects could be elaborated upon, while having at least a brief summary or the most important facts being left on this article.
Basically, I think we should make liberal use of this template: 
.
And in siphoning off the major content into its own articles, we should at least include some things from Effects of MDMA on the human body.
Blueaster 02:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the article overall... 

message: could we get one or two instances of this changed. Its POV, and 4 times is a bit much for it in this article.--Crossmr 04:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's currently used three times, but I fail to see why you think it's POV. Do you know of any non-clandestine production, supply, etc.? Nick Cooper 12:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  clandestine 

message: The recently added paragraph is poorly written and uncited. The chemical synthesis of MDMA is already covered under "Synthesis" and the metabolic breakdown of MDMA is well-covered in Effects of MDMA on the human body. The claims of hallucinogenic properties are belied by the literature; see for example the relevant section of the "Effects" article, or read Shulgin. There is, at the least, a debate over whether MDMA is properly termed a "hallucinogen." The claim about the "Indole Ring" is uncited, and from a quick search, appears more related to psylocibin than MDMA. I really don't see anything worth keeping in that paragraph, which is why I've removed it twice now. Simishag 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chemical Effects

message: While the article does mention rave culture and it's heavy use of MDMA, I think the article should also contain at least some reference to the "hyphy movement" in the California Bay Area.  The rapid expansion of this culture and prevalence in music (Mac Dre, E-40 et al)indicates some need to mention this cultural movement in this article.  Thoughts? Kafkadreams 22:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need for the article to get bogged down in documenting every single obscure localised music phenomenon that just happens have some degree of MDMA use. Nick Cooper 08:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded discussion of culture 

message: People don't use menthol products because they think it gets them higher or enhances the effects. It just feels like you're breathing in a mentholated cloud and the sensation is pleasurable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.2.128 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 17 July 2007
::Which would be enhancing the effects, genius.67.133.212.21 20:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Menthol