Professional MDMA psychotherapy seems to work really well for these kinds of things, though it is quite hard to come by in legal form. Just taking MDMA and then having an intimate/therapeutic conversation with a close friend might work just as well.
Really. MDMA is way more effective than anything else for this kind of thing.
The study cited does not show that MDMA is the most effective therapy. It shows that MDMA can be useful in patients for whom conventional therapy has failed. There is a difference.
Statement by the leadership of MAPS at their recent conference that they were solidly on track with regards to the FDA approval process. They are doing it by the book, are getting results showing high safety/efficacy, and the FDA is probably not going to be able to defy the data and keep MDMA illegal.
MDMA may well turn out to be highly safe and effective, but MAPS is excessively optimistic in this assessment. See, for instance, their characterization of Dr. Halpern’s response to the NHS critique as a “careful and well-reasoned response”. In many of the instances, Halpern invents defenses to legitimate criticism. For instance:
*They reported his study was underpowered. His response should have been a power calculation demonstrating adequate study power; instead he simply noted that his was the largest study yet performed.
*NHS noted a lack of followup over time to investigate cognitive decline, and he claimed that the includion of only long-term users solved this problem. It does not, because he looked at current ravers only. Had he looked at “people who raved 5 years ago, regardless of current multidrug use, current death or disability, etc” this would be acceptable.
*Asking participants to refrain from taking ecstasy is nonstandard in a medical study. I understand that he did it to distinguish between acute and chronic effects, but it’s not nearly as easy as that.
*Exclusion of polysubstance users is totally unacceptable in a study of drug safety. If MDMA and cocaine used together lead to more cognitive decline than cocaine alone, then that must be counted as “MDMA causes cognitive decline”.
In order to obtain FDA approval despite multiple small studies showing a poor safety profile, a much larger and better-designed safety study will be required. Even then, the FDA has a history of rejecting medications that really ought to be approved. See Sugammadex.
Professional MDMA psychotherapy seems to work really well for these kinds of things, though it is quite hard to come by in legal form. Just taking MDMA and then having an intimate/therapeutic conversation with a close friend might work just as well.
Really. MDMA is way more effective than anything else for this kind of thing.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100719082927.htm http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/
(Should be about 10 years before MDMA makes it through the FDA approval process)
A much less effective recommendation is compassion/lovingkindness meditation.
The study cited does not show that MDMA is the most effective therapy. It shows that MDMA can be useful in patients for whom conventional therapy has failed. There is a difference.
(Also meant to link to this but apparently that didn’t happen. http://www.maps.org/research/mdma/ )
Yes, that’s true. I’m intuitively inferring from the data and personal experience.
What makes you think the FDA would approve MDMA at all (if that’s what you meant)?
Statement by the leadership of MAPS at their recent conference that they were solidly on track with regards to the FDA approval process. They are doing it by the book, are getting results showing high safety/efficacy, and the FDA is probably not going to be able to defy the data and keep MDMA illegal.
MDMA may well turn out to be highly safe and effective, but MAPS is excessively optimistic in this assessment. See, for instance, their characterization of Dr. Halpern’s response to the NHS critique as a “careful and well-reasoned response”. In many of the instances, Halpern invents defenses to legitimate criticism. For instance:
*They reported his study was underpowered. His response should have been a power calculation demonstrating adequate study power; instead he simply noted that his was the largest study yet performed.
*NHS noted a lack of followup over time to investigate cognitive decline, and he claimed that the includion of only long-term users solved this problem. It does not, because he looked at current ravers only. Had he looked at “people who raved 5 years ago, regardless of current multidrug use, current death or disability, etc” this would be acceptable.
*Asking participants to refrain from taking ecstasy is nonstandard in a medical study. I understand that he did it to distinguish between acute and chronic effects, but it’s not nearly as easy as that.
*Exclusion of polysubstance users is totally unacceptable in a study of drug safety. If MDMA and cocaine used together lead to more cognitive decline than cocaine alone, then that must be counted as “MDMA causes cognitive decline”.
In order to obtain FDA approval despite multiple small studies showing a poor safety profile, a much larger and better-designed safety study will be required. Even then, the FDA has a history of rejecting medications that really ought to be approved. See Sugammadex.