‘Ecstasy Use, by Itself, Does Not Result in Residual Neurotoxicity’– A Powerful Argument?

Rodgers, Jacqui; Buchanan, Tom; Heffernan, Tom; Ling, Jonathan; Scholey, Andrew

doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03460.x

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For this study, as with others, 22 one of the primary limitations is relatively low numbers and lack of statistical power to detect effects. A corollary of this is that the effect sizes of ecstasy on cognitive functioning and/or mental health-should they exist at all-must be minimal to begin with.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Adolescent ecstasy use and depression: cause and effect, or two outcomes of home environment?

McCann¹,

Higgins²,

Perra³

et al. 2014

European Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Adolescent ecstasy use and depression: cause and effect, or two outcomes of home environment?

McCann¹,

Higgins²,

Perra³

et al. 2014

European Journal of Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mention should also be made of Halpern et al (2011), since this study has often been cited as finding no cognitive deficits in Ecstasy/MDMA users. Indeed their Abstract suggested only slight deficits: 'We found little evidence of decreased cognitive performance in ecstasy users, save for poorer strategic self-regulation', althought they also noted: 'This finding contrasts with many previous findings including our own', However close examination shows that there were significant performance deficits on several cognitive measures; these were debated in the following commentaries (Fisk et al, 2011;Parrott, 2011;Rodgers et al, 2011). Recent neuroimaging studies have increased our understanding of how MDMA may alter cognitive function.…”

Section: Neurocognitionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…Indeed their abstract suggested only slight deficits: ‘We found little evidence of decreased cognitive performance in ecstasy users, save for poorer strategic self-regulation’, although they also noted: ‘This finding contrasts with many previous findings including our own’. However close examination shows that there were significant performance deficits on several cognitive measures; these were debated in the following commentaries (Fisk et al, 2011; Parrott, 2011; Rodgers et al, 2011).…”

Section: Neurocognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recreational 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or ‘ecstasy’: Current perspective and future research prospects

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, three commentaries published by the same journal offered rather different explanations (Fisk et al ., ; Parrott ; Rodgers et al . ). My own commentary (Parrott, ) offered the following conclusion: ‘Halpern et al .…”

Section: Halpern Et Al (): How Many Significant Cognitive Deficits?mentioning

confidence: 97%

MDMA is certainly damaging after 25 years of empirical research: a reply and refutation of Doblinet al. (2014)

Parrott

2014

Hum. Psychopharmacol Clin Exp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human Psychopharmacology recently published my review into the increase in empirical knowledge about the human psychobiology of MDMA over the past 25 years (Parrott, 2013a). Deficits have been demonstrated in retrospective memory, prospective memory, higher cognition, complex visual processing, sleep architecture, sleep apnoea, pain, neurohormonal activity, and psychiatric status. Neuroimaging studies have shown serotonergic deficits, which are associated with lifetime Ecstasy/MDMA usage, and degree of neurocognitive impairment. Basic psychological skills remain intact. Ecstasy/MDMA use by pregnant mothers leads to psychomotor impairments in the children. Hence, the damaging effects of Ecstasy/MDMA were far more widespread than was realized a few years ago. In their critique of my review, Doblin et al. (2014) argued that my review contained misstatements, omitted contrary findings, and recited dated misconceptions. In this reply, I have answered all the points they raised. I have been able to refute each of their criticisms by citing the relevant empirical data, since many of their points were based on inaccurate summaries of the actual research findings. Doblin and colleagues are proponents of the use of MDMA for drug-assisted psychotherapy, and their strongest criticisms were focused on my concerns about this proposal. However, again all the issues I raised were based on sound empirical evidence or theoretical understanding. Indeed I would recommend potentially far safer co-drugs such as D-cycloserine or oxytocin. In summary, MDMA can induce a wide range of neuropsychobiological changes, many of which are damaging to humans.

show abstract

‘Ecstasy Use, by Itself, Does Not Result in Residual Neurotoxicity’– A Powerful Argument?

Cited by 5 publications

References 3 publications

Adolescent ecstasy use and depression: cause and effect, or two outcomes of home environment?

Adolescent ecstasy use and depression: cause and effect, or two outcomes of home environment?

Recreational 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or ‘ecstasy’: Current perspective and future research prospects

MDMA is certainly damaging after 25 years of empirical research: a reply and refutation of Doblinet al. (2014)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About