Dr. Shulgin

[punkanini]

If Dr. Shulgin worked for the DEA throughout most of his drug designing, why do him and the DEA differ on the effects of MDMA? The DEA and seemingly all mainstream media seem to constantly stress that repeated MDMA use can cause brain damage and serotonin depletion/serotonin syndrome. Shulgin himself believes (and repeats often, like some sort of mantra) that the MDMA-related brain damage research is inconclusive, since it was done on mice. Has he gone senile in his old age, or is it actually worth listening to him?

[PenguinPhreak]

Most of the tests done on MDMA were extremely flawed. In some the
research was misinterpreted, and in one notorious study they used
methamphetamine instead of MDMA.

[Nagognog2]

Rather similar to the "scientific study" that proved that LSD causes chromosone damage. What they told you was that chromosones placed in a test tube with a solution of LSD would break. What they did NOT tell you was that the test tube also contained a solution of sodium hydroxide - that's drain cleaner, folks - and was brought to a boil for 6 hours! Er...um...yeah! Here - have a Vioxx!

[transit]

In order to do full blown scientific research on substances such as MDMA one needs a lot
of money. Typically such money comes from government funding agencies. If you ask what they consider to be the “right” questions (e.g., In what ways does MDMA damage the brain) you are much more likely to get funding than if you as the “wrong” questions (e.g., what are the effects of taking MDMA on self esteem). Such a process obviously biases in favour of results which will be negative to MDMA.

I’ve included an article below about the notorious study that Penguin referred to.


Newsbrief: Ecstasy Scandal Grows as Second Study Retracted</span>

Phillip S. Smith



As DRCNet reported last week (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/302/oops.shtml), researchers at Johns Hopkins University led by Dr. George Ricaurte had to retract sensational research findings published in the journal Science that a single dose of MDMA (ecstasy) could lead to Parkinson's Disease. Ricaurte, who has made a career out of federally-funded studies highlighting the supposed dangers of ecstasy, is getting into deeper trouble this week. The Baltimore Sun reported Monday that Ricaurte and company have now retracted a second study linking ecstasy to brain damage.


Dr. Una McCann, a neuroscientist involved in both experiments, told the Sun she sent a letter of retraction last week to another medical journal, which she declined to identify. But an online publication of the British journal the Scientist reported the following Wednesday: "The European Journal of Pharmacology has received an e-mail from George Ricaurte, principal author of the recently retracted Science paper on the effects of the recreational drug Ecstasy (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA), which may indicate that another paper will have to be retracted. Editorial representatives of the journal would not describe the contents of the e-mail, but told The Scientist that a decision on the matters therein will be taken at tomorrow's (September 18) editorial board meeting."


McCann said the discovery occurred as the researchers rechecked lab records after it was discovered they had inadvertently substituted methamphetamine for ecstasy in the experiment that was publicized in the first retracted article. "As you might imagine, we systematically went through the books to find out which, if any, of our published studies involved the same [vial]," she said Thursday. "We did find one, and a letter of retraction was sent out to the journal today." More studies may have to be retracted, Dr. McCann conceded.


Ricaurte's ecstasy research has been controversial, with other researchers charging that they overplayed their findings. Now, the criticism is mounting. "This doesn't help their credibility and goes to the whole question of what else they know," Rick Doblin, founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, told the Sun.


But that was nothing compared to the reaction of Leslie Iversen, prominent British pharmacologist who holds professorships at King's College London and Oxford University and reviewed the effects of cannabis for a House of Lords select committee report. Iversen, who with other British scientists had exchanged letters with the editors of Science over Ricaurte's results months ago, was outraged. "It's an outrageous scandal," Iversen told the Scientist. "It's another example of a certain breed of scientist who appear to do research on illegal drugs mainly to show what the governments want them to show. They extract large amounts of grant money from the government to do this sort of biased work... I hope the present retraction and embarrassment to the people involved will be some sort of lesson to them."

[punkanini]

Alright, but just because a certain study is flawed, doesn't mean MDMA won't lead to brain damage. Do you guys not think it's a little strange that Shulgin's position on certain drugs differs from that of the company he worked for? I don't know if that means HE or the DEA is wrong, I just think it's extremely weird that even though they both have very different opinions, they still work together.

[transit]

As for whether MDMA causes brain damage, I’d agree with the position that you attributed to Shulgin in your first post above: the research is inconclusive. My impression is that with
large amounts there is the potential for damage. </span>Keep in mind, however, that by drinking sufficient water one can throw off one’s ionic balance and kill oneself. As for whether taking a moderate amount of MDMA one in a while cause damage, my impression is probably not. </span>Take a look at MAPS MDMA Research Page http://www.maps.org/mdma/ and in
particular at their Comprehensive Review of the Scientific Literature on MDMA http://www.maps.org/mdma/protocol/litreview.html.</span>

As for people in an organization holding views different that those of others in the organization or than those officially held by the organization, such goes on all the time. Scientists may be pleased to receive funding to conduct research which they consider valuable/interesting, even though the funding source is doing things which the scientist might not agree with.</span>

Perhaps you are aware of things that I don’t know (seems likely), but I doubt that Shulgin is currently working for the U.S. DEA.

[transit]

If you are interested in a quick easy intro to the state of MDMA research and government attempts at control you might want to watch the U.S. ABC TV program Ecstasy Rising.
If I recall correctly, Shulgin appears in the program. </span>There is a copy available online at: </span>http://pot.tv/archive/shows/pottvshowse-2610.html

[moeBius]

Has he gone senile in his old age, or is it actually worth listening to him?

when i saw him last year in berlin he seemed really fit for his age, almost too fit for 80 years.

[serpent]

cheers for the link,interesting programme.

[Hyperreal]

Originally Posted by moeBius

when i saw him last year in berlin he seemed really fit for his age, almost too fit for 80 years.

Agreed. He's not in the least bit senile or fried. He's still very sharp and has this aura of wisdom about him.


As for him and the DEA differing on the neurotoxicity of MDMA, it's not all that surprising. The question is one which has yet to be conclusively answered, and different scientists will have different opinions on any open question. Not to mention the fact that the DEA and Shulgin have opposing views on drugs, which might bias their interpretation of evidence.

[drwoo]

Speaking of Shulgin there is a relatively new ask dr shulgin out from like April 3 about meth/ice

[Hyperreal]

Thanks for that.


If any of you don't already know about 'ask Dr. Shulgin', here it is: http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/shulgin/blg/index.html

[allyourbase]

well, shulgin seems very grounded. I highly doubt hes senile. he synthesized it, I think I believe him when he says it doesnt cause brain damage. to me, that is not the real issue with MDMA. the problem with MDMA, to my mind,is that it isan empathogen. I think it would be better suited in the psychiatric feild, than in the urban jungles of raves and wall licking morons. It would probably be an amazingly effective mood lifter for short term bouts of severe depression. one must also consider the vast amounts of fake tabs on the market. those or the addatives in them, might very well have some neurotoxicty related to them. consider the morons who put the boy/girl mix in their tabs (some opiate, coke or meth)

[seren]

rarely is their coke/opiates in pills

[allyourbase]

really now? 3 personal acquaintances of mine have had to go to the hospital after taking "x" from the street. one was diagnosed with astimulant overdose(was a stimulant but apparently NOT any sort of amphetamine), another had taken some "X" that was nothing but asuperlative dose of meperidine binded with anhydrous caffeine, while yet another had taken a pill that contained both a morphine derivative and some derivative of amphetamine. I advise that no one consume anything proffered to them as "x" without knowing the source.

[Softrat]

I don't know all the facts about just how involved Shulgin is with the DEA, but my guess is that it is simply a necessary evil in order for him to be able to do the kind of work he must do. I don't know about funding but I know that Shulgin had to have special permits to work with the chemicals he worked with in many casses.


As far as differing views go I will say this. The DEA and the rest of the government has 0 credibility on issues of mind altering drugs. These are the same people that said, a long time ago, that smoking just one puff of marijuanna would cause you to go insane and axe murder your entire family. The fact that the DEA says exctasy cause brain damage does not give you an reason to believe it does. Their statement should carry no weight of evidence in your mind cause these people are fundamentaly at odds with reality on such issues. As such you should regard such statements as if nothing has ben said. For that is the value of their statements.Edited by: Softrat

[Pentachoron]

So, I thought that I should write about Shulgin. Although, not my favourite chemistry topic, it is probably one that people here are interested in.


--


Alexander Shulgin is known for synthesising a large number of of psychoactive drugs using phenethylamine and tryptamine as a structural basis. The list of molecules in PiHKAL and TiHKAL is 247 long and to the layman this number may seem large. This number may seem even larger when it is realised that these are mainly novel, never-made-before molecules. This unfortunately leads to a common misconception that Shulgin's contribution was merely 'making a whole load of drugs'.


Today, Shulgin's efforts are put to shame (numerically) by combinatorial methodologies and off-the-shelf robots devoted to producing such chemical libraries; Yet his work is still highly regarded amongst sympathetic groups. If it's not the number of different molecules - What made his work special? The first reason is that he chose a very good place to begin his work:


Shulgin used the monoamine neurotransmitters dopamine and serotonin as a structural template for his research. Monoamine neurotransmitters are stable molecules in comparison with many other neurotransmitters, e.g. the rapidly metabolised purine neurotransmitter ATP or the nitric oxide radical. This means they can be effectively administered as a drug. They also fall nicely into the definition of a good drug using the 'Rule of Five' – a poorly named predictive measure of a drugs effectiveness. Serotonin and dopamine also are not major players in the vital organs (with minor exceptions), nor are they major players in the 'essential' functioning of the brain. In other words, if we disturb the systems that use them, it probably wont kill anyone. This is all looking promising...


It was here Shulgin found a unique niche for what we would now call a Structure Activity Relation (SAR) study. This type study involves synthesising many similar molecules and relating some biological activity or physical property to aspects of the structure. In this case, the activity was judged by a group of trusted friends. This activity was fairly difficult to objectively quantify but was however noted in a reasonably effective way, along with reams of comments. THIS my friends is the real contribution. A contribution determined by choosing the right question and following it though with dedication and rigour.


Noting the effects of such a large group of molecules has provided an invaluable resource, more so as it would now be illegal to make such a study again. It would not have been considered bad practice had he been less thorough with the testing stage; inadvertently ruining the one chance the world would have to gain such an insight.


To this day, for legal and 'ethical' reasons there has not been another study directly linking the structural properties of a molecule and it's effect on subjective experience which has not been based on the data obtained by Shulgin. Basically, this whole thing is to say, 'Good job Shura!', for making the most of what could be a once in a lifetime-of-a-civilisation opportunity.


A scientific study of the subjective is brave in itself. Especially in the pragmatic and materialistic science of chemistry. I doubt there are many chemists who have managed to conduct an experiment which addresses subjectivity; it is probably the worst discipline for tackling such questions. This is why I have quit chemistry and now work in a cognitive science lab. If I had Shulgin's opportunity and tenacity, I may not have made such a decision.


--


I hope this is good enough for your essay thing, not very technical I guess. I have stuff that no-one here would want to read if that would be better – it would definitely be more technical. Anyway, I havn't really proof-read this, hope it makes sense...


Lucas