Home Drink & Drugs
Take part in our next Watch Club on 2nd Feb at 7.30pm. We'll be talking about the film In the Heights! Sign up to take part and receive your free NOW TV pass!
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

E causes parkinsons???

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Who heard on the news that E causes parkinsons? Wasnt payin full attention to it coz my m8s mum was giving me the 3rd degree about drugs at the time :(

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    man e makes holes in your brain. i guess it could also cause parkinson
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,249 Skive's The Limit
    Originally posted by Grapefruity
    man e makes holes in your brain. i guess it could also cause parkinson

    That's bullshit. That myth came about from brain scans which apperantly showed areas of inactivity (not physical holes) in people who had taken ecstasy. This research though has recently been discredited by a number of other research groups.

    Unfortunately the media reports what they want, they'll quite happily report all shit that makes ecstasy looks bad but they'll try and make a mockery of research that suggests ecstasy isn't as dangerous as some like to believe.


    Unless you have something worth contributing to this topic I'd shut up!
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fucking hope not after last night.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    How come when there is a smal news story saying that E has been proved to be harmless there is rejoicing of this fact finally being brought to light, and when there is an equally short news story about it causing parkinsons it gets branded as "shit" and people comment on how the media has hidden agendas?


    What did one story have to make it believeable that the other didn't?
    Or was it just that one was saying something you liked and the other wasn't?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ostrich?

    :confused: I have noticed the same head in the sand attitude from lots of you pill heads. Take responsibility for your habits and understand the risks your taking. I can never understand why your so keen to be the pilot research study group for the chemicals you imbibe. At least i know the risks for weed cause its been taken for millennia. The defensive attitude shows how worried you all are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Ostrich?
    Originally posted by The Witness
    :confused: I have noticed the same head in the sand attitude from lots of you pill heads. Take responsibility for your habits and understand the risks your taking. I can never understand why your so keen to be the pilot research study group for the chemicals you imbibe. At least i know the risks for weed cause its been taken for millennia. The defensive attitude shows how worried you all are.

    I know the risks I'm taking, flame me if you want, but quite frankly I don't care.

    Oh, by the way, just because cannabis has been smoked for millena (a slight exaggeration on your part) doesn't mean the full effects of it are yet understood.

    I'm not saying cannabis is anywhere near as dangerous as ecstacy, but I bet that you don't know the full effects of cannabis, as do none of us. You probably know the known effects, but not the currently undiscovered ones.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Dude

    I hope your wasted cos that last sentence is a doozy. You are of course correct i do only know the known effects but i never claimed to be priescient. But you make my point for me, weeds been smoked since yer basic dawn of time ( evidence for use in egyptian mummys) so the know effects are pretty much all the effects. No buggers gonna say "oh smoking weed causes you to grow two heads" cos if it did we would already know, the same goes for coke and H but the chemicals you guys are neckin' have at best been about for a couple of decades. So you cant claim to know the risks since the study group is tiny. You know the "troof" as peddled by other scared users who refuse to accept science as being independant. I dont do the flaming thing i prefer to fall back on reasoned argument.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Granted, there won't be effects so radical as growing a second head, or ones of much significance to you or I, but there will be some undiscovered ones, or ones unrecognised by scientists as of yet, most likely to do with the brain.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ok ok, glad someone brought this subject up - i read it in the metro this morning, small little article, about page 9, so yes you are right, they are being very conservative about these results, and there a reason why.

    Me personally, i have/do and probably will take pills. The main issue i have is that i dont _really_ have any idea what i am ACTUALLY taking. One thing i have noticed over the past year, is that after 'avinit quite heavily for serveral weekends on the trop result in me getting what i can only describe as wobbly head. Its a very unpleasant, uncomfortable movement of my brain/soul something. It has sometimes got close to the point where i nearly pass out, and is encouraged by lack of eating/smoking too much etc etc. Its seems to be alieviated quite conviently by alcohol but i _know_ thats not really the answer ;-)

    Anyway this article:

    US experts found ecstacy damaged brain cells called dopamine neurons. Dr George Ricaurte, of John Hopkins University Washington DC, gave squirrel monkeys a dose of the drug three times over the course of a day, each at three-hourly intervals. The dose was the same as that generally taken by clubbers. Many users take more than one pill during an evening. Tests on the monkeys' brains showed their serotonine levels had dropped. This chemical plays a key role in regulating mood, emotions, sleep and appetite. Esctacy's affect on serotonin is well known - but the study also revealed a severe and long-lasting fall in dopamine, which helps to control movement, emotional and cognitive responses and the ability to feel pleasure. A substantial loss of dopamine can cause Parkinson's. Dr Ricaurte told the journal Science: 'We do not yet know if our findings in non-human primates will apply to humans but needless to say this is a major concern. The most troubling implication is that young adults using esctacy may be increasing their risk for developing Parkinson's as they get older.'

    So theres a few things worth noting here before jumping to any conclusions.

    Firstly they have noted that seratonin levels are reduced, but not whether this is permanent. My understanding (my opinion from what i have read) is that this is NOT permanent condition. The body will re-balance seratonin levels restoring the body back to its original state. The length of time take to achieve this is related to many factors such as age, health, length of esctacy use etc etc.

    Secondly its not clear whether the affect on dopamine levels is permanent either.

    Thirdly the statement "A substantial loss of dopamine can cause Parkinson's" - i dont know if this is fact, or speculation. I'm simply questioning it, i'm not disputing it. I will accept it if it is proven to be fact.

    And finally these tests were carried out on monkeys. Monkeys are not human. Only very recently scientists reveals that Chimps DNA are only 95% the same as humans, not the 99.5% or whatever previously thought. It is my opinion that much of that 5% difference will be related to brains, because physically monkeys are not that vastly different (arms, legs head heart etc etc) however mentally they are quite different. And seretonin, dopamine, emotional and cognitive responses and the ability to feel pleasure are all related to the brain. I'm not dissmissing these findings, i am simply highlighting the very obvious need for further more accurate research in this field.

    Really what i'm highlighting here is the fact that much of this IS speculation right now, and i suspect that is why the media have chosen not to shout about it right now. They have learnt their lesson about jumping the gun with esctacy, drugs ARE part of society whether we like it or not. The effects are largly unknown.

    As a user I sincerely hope one day the world will conduct proper and conclusive tests on recreational drugs. Currently drugs companys are very much interested in commercial applications, and while estacy and other soft drugs remain illegal, they will never recieve the attention they deserve.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,249 Skive's The Limit
    Originally posted by cokephreak
    there is an equally short news story about it causing parkinsons it gets branded as "shit"

    I hope that wasn't in reply to what I said. I mentioned that the myth of ecsasty causing physical holes in your brain was bullshit. I said nothing about parkinsons in my post. :confused:

    Originally posted by cokephreak
    What did one story have to make it believeable that the other didn't?
    Or was it just that one was saying something you liked and the other wasn't?

    It's all to do with the way in which these stories are reported.

    The US research that showed us users suffer irreversible brain damage after just one pill got loads more coverage than the studies that declared it safe. We continue to get headlines like 'Heroin Britain' (Daily Mail) or 'Don't let drug dealers drag our kid's into hell' (The Sun) when most of the reports contain sensationalist bollocks with so called 'facts' that are often later proved to be wrong or other facts merge whcih contradict them.

    In some circumstances this irresponsible reporting can be dangerous. Consider the amount of people who've died after drink 'too' much water. I remember when the media was reporting that people who don't drink plenty of water will most likely die from taking ecstasy. As a result you have relativley in experienced users (like Leah Betts) drinking themselves to death. Then the papers have the cheek to go and blame it all on bad pills.

    Over the years I've read that pills contain rat poison, coke and even heroin to get them addicted, and even that pushers sit outside schools to give them to little kids, free at first, hoping to get them addicted for future business. :rolleyes:

    No wonder clubbers choose to learn from there own experience's with the drug. Problkems arise however when talking about long term effects. Theses newspapers whould gain a lot more credibility if they started to report these issues properly and with proper facts. Unfortunately I don't see this ever happening, after all it's all this bollocks and sensationalist reporting that seems to sell the news. £££££
    Originally posted by The Witness
    The defensive attitude shows how worried you all are.

    I AM worried about what effects ecstasy will have on me in late life, but that doesn't mean that I should believe every story that gets printed in the Mail or Sun. I just want some info that is to be believed. I doubt the papers will ever give me that, the government is our biggest hope but at the moment they're just as bad for reporting shit as the newspapers and they still refuse to do any proper research on ecstasy and it's long term effects.
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive : I was quoting you saying the report was shit its true, buti now see how you could have been refering to other things in that post.

    The sentiment is staill true though, even if not true of yourself then its true of a lot of users. In fact its true of human beings : Belioeve the news that you like and declare the news that you don't like crap.

    the truth is we really don't know what the effect of taking E are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Skive
    Consider the amount of people who've died after drink 'too' much water. I remember when the media was reporting that people who don't drink plenty of water will most likely die from taking ecstasy.

    I know what you mean. When I first started to research into drugs I read such reports, and thought the more water you drank the better.

    Good thing I found places like this before I started taking pills, eh?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No one is disputing as to whether mdma is a dangerous drug, it is.
    The problem lies with the fact that most drugs are illegal. Virtualy no-one knows whats in the pills they are taking so any tests on pure mdma may well not represent a big chunk of pill users.
    Heroin as a small example is physicaly a very safe drug and has almost no harmful effects on the body if taken safely. Its because people dont know the strength of what they are taking that they kill themselves.

    Also going back the the mdma research, it seems strange to me that chemicals that produce a LOT of dopamine, ie; meth and aphetamine havent been linked to parkinsons but mdma which has a smaller effect has.
    Meth and aphet are both still prescribed in the US and have been for about 50 years plus.

    I suspect that the researchers gained the funding and permission to do this research based on the fact that they were looking for dangers rather than seeing if there were dangers. There a BIG difference.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,249 Skive's The Limit
    Originally posted by bongbudda
    I suspect that the researchers gained the funding and permission to do this research based on the fact that they were looking for dangers rather than seeing if there were dangers. There a BIG difference.

    Exactly!

    If these scientists look for something hard enough they will find it.


    I don't doubt that ecstasy is dangerous, and I am worried that it may cause me problems in later life but what credible evidence is there to support it at the moment. NONE!

    This is why we need proper research and why articles in the paper's shouldn't be believed. Although I welcomed the report on the research which declared ecstasy safe I didn't for one minute believe it to be totally true. At the moment I don't know what to believe, this is the problem!
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
    I suspect that the researchers gained the funding and permission to do this research based on the fact that they were looking for dangers rather than seeing if there were dangers. There a BIG difference.

    That statement is exactly what i meant earlier. Why do you suspect that ? Do you have any evidence or is it you who suffers from a persecution complex? This research was done by doctors at Johns Hopkins University Hospital which is one of the most respected medical centres in the world. But despite this you "Suspect" that these scientists had an ulterior motive. You sound kinda like the tabacco executives of years ago. Blindly ignoring the evidence and claiming its tainted by special interest
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,249 Skive's The Limit
    Originally posted by The Witness
    .

    That statement is exactly what i meant earlier. Why do you suspect that ? Do you have any evidence or is it you who suffers from a persecution complex? This research was done by doctors at Johns Hopkins University Hospital which is one of the most respected medical centres in the world. But despite this you "Suspect" that these scientists had an ulterior motive. You sound kinda like the tabacco executives of years ago. Blindly ignoring the evidence and claiming its tainted by special interest

    Well how do you explain the differences betweeen different research groups, often saying almost exactly opposite things. At the end of the day funding for such research is more likely to come from anti drug agencies and the government who are looking for more ammunition against legalising the drug.

    The only people who are going to supply money for research of this kind are people who have an intrest to research it, that means people looking to keep it illegal or people who want to do the opposite and legalise it. Unfortunately research is always going to be biased, and that is exactly what I have a problem with.

    I don't have the answer to it, but wouldn't it be nice to have the truth one day!
    Weekender Offender 
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It seems to me that that governments and anti-drug establishments are trying to demonise something that they can't. I think i'm correct in saying that in 2001 32 people died from ecstacy related deaths. Most of those deaths were people taking too much or overheating or drinking way too much water, as opposed to the actual drug killing them like taking a cyanide tablet. Not that dangerous then! For every professor that finds something in a study, there'll be 5 who'll contradict it. So i think i'll follow my little heart and keep my dealer happy and keep taking them. And if i do get Parkinson's then i'll get a friend to get my pills else i'll end up chucking them all over the dance floor:D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    that that??????? can't be arsed editing:)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i <3 ecstasy
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yaaaaaaaaaaaay. There's thread in anything goes with a link, saying that the boffins think tea prevents Parkinson's, so hurrah for tea.:) A cuppa when we get back from clubbing and all's hunky dory :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The reason that I belive that the research has a slight bias towards looking for dangers rather than seeing if there are any is simple.

    As in the UK researchers have to apply for permission to conduct research on retricted chemicals such as MDMA, cocaine etc.

    Now the researchers have to put forward a proposle to the government department which over sees these things and depending on where the research is going to go the grant will be given or not.

    This way the government can regulate the information available about restricted chemicals.

    Seeing as the US has declared an all out war on MDMA because it is the fastest growing drug in the US at the moment it would be very folish for them to allow research to go ahead that they felt might under mine they're possition, wouldnt it.
Sign In or Register to comment.