Does ecstasy use render users more susceptible to Parkinsons and brain (neuronal) damage? Or are studies that have drawn such conclusions methodologically flawed and/or biased because they are government funded?
Both sides of the argument are laid out in detail in today's Washington Post. The point of the article seems to be that there is no consensus.
Those who think the drug is dangerous argue "Studies in animals have suggested it may be toxic to brain cells that help regulate mood. It's been linked to memory impairment in some users. And rarely the drug triggers a mysterious reaction in which the body becomes radically overheated, causing sudden death."
Add to that a new study appearing in the Sept. 27 edition of Science that says "in monkeys, at least, even one night's indulgence in the drug may increase the odds of getting Parkinson's disease. "
On the other side, critics charge:
"Parkinson's symptoms have never been associated with Ecstasy users -- even those who have been taking it regularly for years. Some [experts] called the new work the latest in a string of biased studies sponsored by the federal government."
"Federally funded research on Ecstasy is 'an egregious example of the politicization of science'," according to Charles Grob, a neuropsychiatrist at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, in testimony last year before the U.S. Sentencing Commission. "Much of the NIDA-promoted research record . . . suffers from serious flaws in methodological design, questionable manipulation of data, and misleading and deceptive reporting in the professional literature and to the media."
"Results in animals have varied so much from species to species -- and the doses given the animals have been so high -- that extrapolation to humans is unreliable. Moreover, [experts] say, human studies have rarely controlled for concomitant use of other drugs (some scientists think the small memory decline seen in some Ecstasy studies is actually due to participants' use of marijuana)."
"The few human brain scan studies that have been published used old and untrustworthy imaging technology. 'In my opinion . . . these studies are so flawed in terms of the technology used that one cannot derive any conclusion from them at all,' said Stephen Kish, another leading Ecstasy researcher and chief of the human neurochemical pathology laboratory at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto."
Regarding the newest study, in which human-equivalent doses were given to monkeys and baboons at 3 hour intervals as if they were at an all-night rave, "critics, however, noted that the drug was given in human-equivalent doses but was injected into the animals, a route that Ricaurte [the head of the study] himself has shown to be twice as potent as taking the drug orally."
Clearly, more research is needed. What happens if the results "amount to something less than an indictment"? According to the Post, "then scientists will have to consider whether the potential psychological benefits might in some cases be worth the risks. That will require a new batch of studies, looking not for damage but for evidence of healing."
"Last fall, the Food and Drug Administration gave the green light to the first such study, which would test Ecstasy's usefulness as an adjunct to therapy for people with post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of sexual or other violent assaults."
