MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I would not be surprised at all if there is something there. Some interesting work coming out with psilocybin and ketamine as well. I have no earthly idea what the purported mechanism would be, but we also barely know how approved drugs work. Extending beyond the VA is important. There certainly "could" be substantial variation in response as a function of index trauma. Don't know that there would be, but that is one major concern I'd have before blanket approval for a diagnosis. I'm not sure a narrower approval could be given.

I think its incredibly unlikely the FDA is going to approve this by 2021 even if the data strongly supports it. If the data support it though, I am all for it. Our drug policy in this country is not terribly science-driven. Illicit drugs and addiction are not as mysterious as many make them out to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
I'd like to see the replications in non-VA samples.

There may be something to it. We are still in the 'exploratory/discovery' stage at this point. Confirmatory science is more rigorous. Time will tell. I'm always leery of miraculous physiologically based cures for mental illnesses when there's no decent body of theory or basic science that rationally supports a mechanism of action (e.g., 'black box' therapy: 'inject/swallow X' ----> 'get better' {no idea how it works, though}). Remember the cautionary tale of the early reported miraculous successes of 'stellate ganglion nerve blocks' to cure PTSD a couple years ago. To my recollection, later sham studies with inert injections as a control confirmed that the 'treatment' did nothing beyond placebo effect. Until methodologically rigorous controls are implemented as part of the treatment design and multiple research groups replicate, assume placebo effect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Do you think the results would be different in non-VA samples?

Very much so. There are plenty of VA patients in PTSD studies who do not have PTSD. Also, any outcome measure of symptoms that does not take into account validity (a lot of VA research), is in question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Very much so. There are plenty of VA patients in PTSD studies who do not have PTSD. Also, any outcome measure of symptoms that does not take into account validity (a lot of VA research), is in question.
This...x1000.

After working in the VA system as an inpatient psychologist, a full-time compensation & pension examiner, and a full-time outpatient psychotherapist in a post-deployment clinic, my impression is that the entire research and clinical database regarding PTSD is hopelessly corrupted by this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm not sure if any of the sites run by this organization are at VA locations but I do know that at least most of them aren't. I know a researcher involved with this work and haven't heard mention of veteran recruitment or focus. I was pretty skeptical at first but their prior phases seem promising. We'll see as the work goes forward.
 
Some interesting work coming out with psilocybin and ketamine as well.

Yes.. the psilocybin study confirmed a 100% recovery from OCD, followed up even after one year. It was a very small sample size, but still 100% reported significant improvement in symptoms. Exciting stuff
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Yes.. the psilocybin study confirmed a 100% recovery from OCD, followed up even after one year. It was a very small sample size, but still 100% reported significant improvement in symptoms. Exciting stuff

I am very skeptical of this. Of anything that touts a 100% cure rate, even with small sample size. What's the citation for this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Yes.. the psilocybin study confirmed a 100% recovery from OCD, followed up even after one year. It was a very small sample size, but still 100% reported significant improvement in symptoms. Exciting stuff
Do they have to keep taking psilocybin to maintain the 'therapeutic effect' in that study? "I no longer feel the overwhelming compulsion to wash my hands every 5 minutes, Doc...the Clockwork Elves and the clowns do it for me." Proposed mechanism of action? From a less silly angle, is the hypothesis that the patients have some sort of 'aha' cognitive reorganization about the absolute nature of reality or something? Do they undergo some sort of cognitive restructuring exercises after the trip? I could see it helping to lower death anxiety, perhaps (or at least provide one hell of a distraction), for terminally ill patients in the few weeks and days before death, but the 100% efficacy for treating OCD seems a stretch. The only intervention with a 100% 'cure' rate for mental illness is a guillotine. And I wouldn't recommend it.
 
This seems to a be a "neuro-cure" for a largely learned/behavioral disorder.

This does not address most of the behavioral mechanisms that allow a stress reaction (however understandable and normal within itself) to morph into a chronic psychiatric disorder.

I still believe people are largely resilient to impactful trauma, but modern culture/society also fosters behaviors and lifestyles that feed the narrative of "disability" from any number of events.

I mean come on folks....adults that request Teddy Bears (ESAs and "service dogs"). WTF?!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
@erg923

But we can ignore the entire post traumatic growth literature, right? Because even though we know many people grow after being out through a challenge in an empirical basis and literal centuries of literature, it’s probably not true. Right?


@clausewitz2 i have some extended social acquaintances that were cured of many of the ills of life through overuse of lsd. I mean, they’re also never gonna adult. Or manage their own money. Or be allowed to rent an apartment in the neighboring states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'd love to see a credible placebo-controlled study of this. If I get high and get therapy, after 12 months my PTSD may go away. Let's compare pot and therapy to MDMA and therapy, for example.
 
I'd love to see a credible placebo-controlled study of this. If I get high and get therapy, after 12 months my PTSD may go away. Let's compare pot and therapy to MDMA and therapy, for example.
Let's go one step further and do dismantling designs examining some of the more politically-driven 'interventions' implemented in recent years through (or supported by) the VA system such as full-time adult 'caregivers' for those with PTSD, service dogs, support animals, various percentages of service-connection (and associated monthly income), suicide 'awareness' campaigns (walking around in circles trying to dispel suicide as a human phenomenon), etc. Increasingly, the particular 'interventions' (at the individual or group/organizational level) that are being offered appear to be driven more by politics, public relations, and Facebook/Twitter popularity than by established clinical science or common sense. Instead of hiring and supporting more front-line providers (psychotherapists (with caseloads), physicians, etc.), the VA is creating new specialty niche (non-provider [i.e., people who don't carry caseloads or see veterans for treatment]) positions for 'champions' for 'awareness' of interpersonal/domestic violence, say. As a practicing clinician, I'm quite enough 'aware' of domestic violence in the lives of the patients I see and its impact on those around them. I don't need more 'awareness' of this issue. I don't need another set of mandated forms, policies, procedures, checklists, or points of failure surrounding this particular clinical issue (in the forest of the 50+ important clinical issues that veterans presenting for mental health care are struggling with). I need other people employed by the VA who have clinical licenses to roll up their sleeves and join me in the trenches and carry a caseload of clients and provide treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
This is far from a one-off and most trial samples were not VA based. MAPS has been studying MDMA for PTSD for years and has repeatedly replicated this result, always with large effect sizes.

MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy

All of the US studies except for 1 on that site are VA, the 1 non-va sample was 19 people. I can't find the data on the non US samples, it seems that they are just proposals and need more money. And, there does not seem to be control groups in many of the studies. Are there other citations that can detail this a bit more?
 
I am very skeptical of this. Of anything that touts a 100% cure rate, even with small sample size. What's the citation for this?

The conference I went to was referencing a current ongoing study, and can be viewed here: Psilocybin in the Treatment of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder

To my knowledge, results are not yet published officially. This was of a one time psilocybin "trip" coupled with CBT assisted therapy throughout the duration of the trip in a hospital. Just a one-time use has so far lead to 100% recovery (10 patients as a sample size).

This is the only completed article on OCD and psilocybin, dates back to 2006. This is the literature they were going off of that calls for more research:

https://psilosybiini.info/paperit/S...compulsive disorder (Moreno et al., 2006).pdf
 

I mean it's interesting in a small sample of patients. But it's a 24 hour outcome study, and I get that it's proof of concept, but we need more. I'm still skeptical of the 100% recovery claim until I see the data. How are they quantifying that, because I really doubt it's a complete amelioration of symptoms as measured by the YBOCS. Maybe it's "no longer meeting diagnostic criteria," but to claim that is 100% recovery is misleading.
 
Maybe it's "no longer meeting diagnostic criteria," but to claim that is 100% recovery is misleading.

This is probably the wording they did use. It has been awhile since I went to the conference and my memory is not always accurate when it comes to the specifics.
 
This is probably the wording they did use. It has been awhile since I went to the conference and my memory is not always accurate when it comes to the specifics.

If so, I would not say 100% recovery, that to me, entails someone who is symptom free. Someone who is depressed, can move into subclinical depression, which, while it can be a significant improvement, they may still have enough symptoms to be mildly impairing and negatively impact their QOL. Like I said, interesting area that needs more work, but hyperbolic or misleading statements turn me off immediately in research findings.
 
All of the US studies except for 1 on that site are VA, the 1 non-va sample was 19 people. I can't find the data on the non US samples, it seems that they are just proposals and need more money. And, there does not seem to be control groups in many of the studies. Are there other citations that can detail this a bit more?

Published randomized dose-response trials:
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted psychotherapy for treatment of chronic posttraumatic stress disorder: A randomized phase 2 controlled tr... - PubMed - NCBI

3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)-assisted psychotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder in military veterans, firefighters, and police o... - PubMed - NCBI

Published randomized trials with placebo control:
A randomized, controlled pilot study of MDMA (± 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine)-assisted psychotherapy for treatment of resistant, chronic Post-... - PubMed - NCBI

The safety and efficacy of {+/-}3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted psychotherapy in subjects with chronic, treatment-resistant posttraumati... - PubMed - NCBI

Long-term persistence of benefit in follow-up of subjects from pilot study:
Durability of improvement in post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and absence of harmful effects or drug dependency after 3,4-methylenedioxymeth... - PubMed - NCBI

Meta-analysis showing superiority of MDMA to PE:
Treating posttraumatic stress disorder with MDMA-assisted psychotherapy: A preliminary meta-analysis and comparison to prolonged exposure therapy. - PubMed - NCBI

Animal data: MDMA enhances extinction of conditioned fear responses via a BDNF-dependent mechanism
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine facilitates fear extinction learning. - PubMed - NCBI

Human fMRI data: MDMA attenuates negative valence of recalled memories in healthy volunteers
The effect of acutely administered MDMA on subjective and BOLD-fMRI responses to favourite and worst autobiographical memories. - PubMed - NCBI
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If so, I would not say 100% recovery, that to me, entails someone who is symptom free. Someone who is depressed, can move into subclinical depression, which, while it can be a significant improvement, they may still have enough symptoms to be mildly impairing and negatively impact their QOL. Like I said, interesting area that needs more work, but hyperbolic or misleading statements turn me off immediately in research findings.
Agreed. I'm skeptical of anything that claims to be 100% in any field of medicine. I don't know the literature on MDMA, but to make a claim that anything results in removal of symptoms or diagnostic classification with 100% accuracy is an extremely high bar that nothing else has yet to meet in psychological treatments - with the exception of EMDR from the practitioners I talk to about their use of it o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Agreed. I'm skeptical of anything that claims to be 100% in any field of medicine. I don't know the literature on MDMA, but to make a claim that anything results in removal of symptoms or diagnostic classification with 100% accuracy is an extremely high bar that nothing else has yet to meet in psychological treatments - with the exception of EMDR from the practitioners I talk to about their use of it o_O
I tend also to resort to the basic logic of...if any claimed 'miraculously successful cure' were truly that successful...why isn't it more widely disseminated and practiced? I mean, if someone showed me a technique that doubled my response rate in the folks who have PTSD and come to see me for therapy, I'd be pretty damn motivated to migrate into that approach. Any truly successful technique that beats what's currently utilized and called 'best practices' or 'first-line treatments' for X condition would not remain 'fringe,' or restricted to a sliver of the practitioners in the field for very long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Agreed. I'm skeptical of anything that claims to be 100% in any field of medicine. I don't know the literature on MDMA, but to make a claim that anything results in removal of symptoms or diagnostic classification with 100% accuracy is an extremely high bar that nothing else has yet to meet in psychological treatments - with the exception of EMDR from the practitioners I talk to about their use of it o_O

Ahem, actually nobody said that about MDMA for PTSD. The posters above were discussing a small trial of psilocybin for OCD in which all ten patients benefited. OP quoted 76% remission rate for the latest MDMA for PTSD trial.
 
Last edited:
I tend also to resort to the basic logic of...if any claimed 'miraculously successful cure' were truly that successful...why isn't it more widely disseminated and practiced?

Because of the DEA.
MDMA was being explored in many therapeutic contexts in the 70s and 80s, before the war on drugs shut down that line of inquiry. People were afraid to study anything about recreational psychotropics in the 90s and 00s, unless it was to demonstrate harm. Now we have a lot of catching up to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Ahem, actually nobody said that about MDMA for PTSD. The posters above were discussing a small trial of psilocybin for OCD in which all ten patients benefited. OP quoted 76% remission rate for the latest MDMA for PTSD trial.

Well, they did say that all patients had "100% recovery." And yes, it was for OCD, but it also sounds like an outlandish claim, which is why we were curious how recovery was operationalized. Because, usually fad treatments tend to rely on hyperbole and bad methodology to hype their claims (see EMDR), so we are generally skeptical when we hear more of the same. I'm willing to give the MDMA lit a chance when I get some time to delve in, but I am still highly suspect of that "100 claim."
 
Because of the DEA.
MDMA was being explored in many therapeutic contexts in the 70s and 80s, before the war on drugs shut down that line of inquiry. People were afraid to study anything about recreational psychotropics in the 90s and 00s, unless it was to demonstrate harm. Now we have a lot of catching up to do.

My suspicion is that criminalization has done more to keep a mythology alive than to keep highly effective treatments out of the hands of the people. However, I would love to be pleasantly surprised by well designed RCTs with rigorous endpoints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I think skeptical but hopeful is the most justifiable approach at this point. I'll be the first to admit the results are far from convincing and I'd want to see tremendously more data before anything moved into regular practice. I'm not sure these ever could (or should) become first-line treatments. I'm far from convinced they are effective at all.

However, I think the main thing is to encourage the FDA/DEA/etc. to get out of the way of human trials. There is absolutely no reason for it to be as difficult as it is to run tightly controlled studies on drugs of abuse. Part of the reason trials are small is because of the huge amount of effort/dollars that needs to go towards excess monitoring. The other part is that many of the main funding bodies won't consider the work. The fear of Schedule I drugs vastly exceeds the data and we do boatloads of research that is infinitely higher risk than administering small quantities of psilocybin in a controlled environment. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't but give scientists the opportunity to find out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Regarding ptsd, I have done research with this population in the va and otherwise (probably to the surprise of wis). I include symptom validity testing in all studies. Out of 100s, I’ve had one failure.

Surprised on both counts, actually. For different reasons. As to the latter, if you've ever only had one failure on PVTs ever in VA based PTSD studies, then I honestly question either the PVT/SVT used, or the veracity of that statement. Because, in years of research at 4 different sites, and my own publishing and review of VA based studies, that would be the lowest failure rate, by exponential magnitude.
 
Surprised on both counts, actually. For different reasons. As to the latter, if you've ever only had one failure on PVTs ever in VA based PTSD studies, then I honestly question either the PVT/SVT used, or the veracity of that statement. Because, in years of research at 4 different sites, and my own publishing and review of VA based studies, that would be the lowest failure rate, by exponential magnitude.
Agreed.

From a 2 national sample of MMPI-2-RF profiles, rates of invalidity range from 37.6% (Polytrauma) to 56.8% (PCT; 540 stopcode). If you are wondering how many over-scales are invalidated as a whole in the sample (n = ~18,000): 1 = 12.6%, 2 = 9.0%, 3 = 7.9%, 4 = 6.2%, and all 5 = 1.5%, for a ~37% with identified patterns of over-endorsement. Increased pathology may play some role, but the RF tends to have far less false positives than false negatives for feigning and the patterns of mean scores seen broadly across feigning studies don't support it (a DOD sample with multiple PVT I'm working with now rarely invalidates the validity scores despite having clear,repeated evidence of feigning). So I'm not buying that as the major driving factor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I was also surprised. Part of the rationale for my approach was to avoid self-report to the extent possible and rely on neurophysiology. Malingering on my outcomes measures isn’t typically straight forward. But, obviously, diagnosis is a problem area. I am doing lab based work, not clinic. This reduces secondary gain motives dramatically.

I think we are in some ways benefiting from the nature of the research. There’s little to no benefit to malingering. Also, we tell people up front that there’s no possible change to their medical care from participation. Our data cannot be used for service connection. Many of those who volunteer are already service connected.

If I recall correctly, being solely a research vs clinical eval has only minimally affected PVT/SVT performance in VA settings. I'll try to track down the several papers on this, I think Armisted-Jehle has one. I think you underestimate the pervasiveness in the system. Also, level of SC also does not significantly affect the rate of PVT/SVT failure. I am highly suspect of your data/claims from the mountains of evidence that would suggest otherwise.
 
Sc would in comp and pen evals effect pvt:svt failure.

As far as tomm/rds, the data are the data. Could be lucky I suppose, but given the numbers I’d guess it’s something systematic.

In comp and pen, yes. In research studies, it almost never does. Look to Armisthed-Jehle and the FORT data in the VA.
 
The tomm is a compromise. I know a bunch of the researchers cited in the quoted study. Trivia, not germane, I suppose. In the quoted study, it didn’t perform horribly, it was perhaps less sensitive in that it was never the single failure pvt. But, wmt is too long. It’s impractical except in forensic settings, basically. As I said, I try to have at least two. We also do skid style interviews, substantial medical record reviews, talk to clinicians for clarification and do consensus conference discussions. Still, I think diagnosis in this population is difficult.

I know them as well. I've trained with, under, or worked with almost all of them. But not germane except that I've actually played with that dataset at one point in time. As ffor the TOMM, I guess it depends on our definition of "horribly." In that study, it's worse than the CVLT FC, which sucks for sensitivity. The only time people fail those things is when they are "all in" on the malingering train in most contexts. The TOMM with all trials is longer than the WMT using IR and DR, which are all that are necessary. As for it's impracticality on all but forensic settings, that is simply untrue. I have a hard time thinking of boarded individuals in clinical practice who don't use it.
 
The tomm is a compromise. I know a bunch of the researchers cited in the quoted study. Trivia, not germane, I suppose. In the quoted study, it didn’t perform horribly, it was perhaps less sensitive in that it was never the single failure pvt. But, wmt is too long. It’s impractical except in forensic settings, basically. As I said, I try to have at least two. We also do skid style interviews, substantial medical record reviews, talk to clinicians for clarification and do consensus conference discussions. Still, I think diagnosis in this population is difficult.

How in the hell is the wmt long?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Been a long time since I’ve bothered looking at it.. like say, I don’t know, 2007 or so. But I seem to remember the full thing taking 45 minutes.

With this and the previous post, I don't know where to start. As for expensive, it's like $180 for unlimited use for the year. A pack of 25 TOMM forms is what, $50 something? For the added sensitivity, it's actually cheaper and far superior than the TOMM for people in general clinical practice. As for the time, 45 minutes?!? Not even close. Have you ever actually administered any of these tests?

As for the other post, a 49 on the TOMM does nothing to "rule out overt malingering issues." That's exactly the point of the paper I cited, almost everyone passes the TOMM and fails better tests. Obviously the caveats apply. The person with advanced dementia is going to bomb everything you put in front of them. But, we're not talking about them at the moment. We're talking about the VA samples, of which a lot of garbage data is coming from. Especially since people are using inadequate PVT/SVT testing. Just look at all of the early "PTSD causes memory issues research." Garbage in, garbage out. It's true for data, and it's true for ****ty researchers/clinicians who don't know what they're doing.
 
You are conflating actual effort, with "effort tests"/PVTs. These are not the same thing. One does not need to put forth any effort to pass the TOMM/WMT/MSVT/etc. So, comparing those to the effort needed to complete the PASAT is just misleading or ignorant of the function of PVTs.

As for overstating the case, it is not WMT or bust, it is acknowledging that PVTs are not created the same. They have different sensitivities and specificities and cannot be used interchangeably. To continue to use inadequate methods in clinical work is either simple ignorance/poor training, or wllfull ignorance. I'm not sure which is worse. As for me being Paul Green, I wish, he's done quite well for himself financially. Probably a 1%er in our field. And additionally, I've published research critical of some parts of the WMT profiles.

But yes, a 49 on the TOMM is next to irrelevant in VA samples, among other populations with high failure rates. I bring the TOMM out with trainees on malingering cases to show them how people can fail a multitude of PVT/SVT indices, and still pass the TOMM, all the time.
 
You are misinterpreting my point. I understand that one need not put forth much effort to pass a pvt. Some effort. But not much. Why I thought it was interesting is that if someone is not trying, the pasat is an obvious test to fail.

Yes. I get that the tomm is less sensitive. I do not agree that it is next to irrelevant and when combined with another pvt, it’s helpful in a va sample.

The research would suggest otherwise. It is specific to malingering, but its sensitivity is terrible. There are quicker PVTs to give with better psychometrics in that population. In fact, going to the "WMT is too long comment." I'm pretty sure I could give the WMT, DCT, and RDS in the same time that the TOMM takes. And those all have equal to much better sensitivities in many large studies.

As to the PASAT being not as different in the samples, we've had a lot of discussions on why that is the case, but the research would also suggest otherwise there in terms of it being all that related to failing most PVTs, an interesting discussion for another thread.
 
In general, one should give multiple PVT. I wouldn't be comfortable relying on a single instrument, no matter the instrument. They tend to all vary in their sensitivities depending on the samples and individuals taking the tests. This is true in Armisted-Jehle's database, as well as others. The TOMM even picks up some obvious effort problems in Pat's database. It may not be the best, but patterns of over-reporting vary by scale/instrument on a regular basis and so I don't object to people using most measures. I'm more concerned with people using only one measure and concluding the respondent has provided sufficient effort. I rarely worry worrying about over-identifying insufficient effort because of the nature of most effort tasks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
In general, one should give multiple PVT. I wouldn't be comfortable relying on a single instrument, no matter the instrument.

Wholeheartedly agree. In my typical batteries, I have 2 standalones, and a variety of embedded indicators. If there are obvious potential secondary gain issues, those numbers increase. Haven't had to deal with that nearly as much outside of the VA, with my current PVT/SVT failure rate <10% as opposed to my 40-50% VA clinical cases.
 
Effort testing has never been much of an interest of mine other than I know it is important to consider so I always consider it. I appreciate the prompt to go examine the lit on the issue again.

For anyone doing research in the VA, it should be an interest considering the threat to data. As for the TOMM, that one is on my list for VA samples. We've had psychometrists who have been Veterans who have told us about their VSOs describing the TOMM as one thing to look out for when going in for their C&P. It seems to be becoming a very known quantity in that sample. Additionally, we have lawyers in our area who we know coach their clients on it specifically. Same thing could eventually happen to other PVTs, we'll just have to stay ahead of the curve and leave the chaff tests behind.
 
Has anyone had a chance to look at those MDMA studies by MAPS? Was reminded of this topic again.

I read the PE vs. MDMA one and thought it was pretty hilarious that they compared dropout rates (PE did worse, isn't that surprising?)

Edit: Looking at the research more, it seems like this would be MDMA administered during psychotherapy, which is thought to help facilitate extinction of the fear-based learning. That at least makes sense in terms of the proposed mechanism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Has anyone had a chance to look at those MDMA studies by MAPS? Was reminded of this topic again.

I read the PE vs. MDMA one and thought it was pretty hilarious that they compared dropout rates (PE did worse, isn't that surprising?)

Edit: Looking at the research more, it seems like this would be MDMA administered during psychotherapy, which is thought to help facilitate extinction of the fear-based learning. That at least makes sense in terms of the proposed mechanism.
Yes! Let's bump this thread :)

To answer someone's thought process from a few years ago: MDMA reduces activity in the limbic system-it basically shuts off the fight/flight response so the person can remember the bits of fragmented trauma and construct them into a coherent narrative and then boom, sleep and put those memories into long-term storage. It's like exposure therapy with a neurochemical safety net. Anyway that is a VERY basic description of the process....suffice it to say I am privileged enough to know people for whom this has worked.
 
Yes! Let's bump this thread :)

To answer someone's thought process from a few years ago: MDMA reduces activity in the limbic system-it basically shuts off the fight/flight response so the person can remember the bits of fragmented trauma and construct them into a coherent narrative and then boom, sleep and put those memories into long-term storage. It's like exposure therapy with a neurochemical safety net. Anyway that is a VERY basic description of the process....suffice it to say I am privileged enough to know people for whom this has worked.
To add to that, the MDMA is simply the catalyst, the person the active inner healer, as supported by the psychotherapy, which is the container. Thus, I would suggest editing the thread to show as MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy for PTSD to be accurate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
To add to that, the MDMA is simply the catalyst, the person the active inner healer, as supported by the psychotherapy, which is the container. Thus, I would suggest editing the thread to show as MDMA-Assisted Psychotherapy for PTSD to be accurate.

I edited it, although it's a bit late. Lol.
 
I'm glad the FDA—and the U.S. government generally—are slowly changing course re: research on psychoactive drugs. We still have a long way to go, but at least there's some movement in the right direction.

Re: MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD, Wikipedia's summary at MDMA § Research seems accurate to me:

[The article], and a second corroborating review by a different author, both concluded that because of MDMA's demonstrated potential to cause lasting harm in humans (e.g., serotonergic neurotoxicity and persistent memory impairment), "considerably more research must be performed" on its efficacy in PTSD treatment to determine if the potential treatment benefits outweigh its potential harm.

MDMA in combination with psychotherapy has been studied as a treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, and four clinical trials provide moderate evidence in support of this treatment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top