Question:
Hello sioban, you write your responses with such a cavalier attitude– disregarding any of the possibilities that could have occurred.
Hmm. I thought I had conveyed myself differently than that, than being ‘cavalier’ about it, perhaps I did better in my post to Peter et al. i would question credentials of anyone who would suggest that a client use an illicit substance–i don’t care if they used the substance before when it was "legal" or not.
I understand your logic. Thanks for explaining it to me. We obviously have different approaches to this and that’s kewl. one of the most famous poems written by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, "Kubla Khan"–was written during an opium high–and the poet claims the poem was never finished because he could not attain the state again. at that time, opium was legal. that does not mean that someone now should take opium to write poetry.
For me, it doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t either. in the same sense, medications which are not safe are not legal for reasons.
Afaic, many medications which are deemed safe really aren’t and they remain legal to script and use; you can add me to the statistics of those who’ve been severely and permanently damaged by a legally obtained medicine. Can I ask you something? Do you equate legal with safe and illegal as unsafe? we know there are often political forces at play as well,
Definitely. but given the reactions to ecst*cy such as heart attacks and d*ath–this one is probably for one’s good.
Me, I’d rather make my own decisions about what is for my own good and not subjegate myself to a political establishment who thinks they know me better than I know myself. YMMV. About reactions like heart attacks and d*ath, I’ll use the same approach the FDA and drug companies use in order to legalize a drug … and it’s simple, the number of heart attacks and d*aths is low compared to those who’ve taken the drug and did not experience a heart attack nor did it incur their d*ath. What the FDA recently approved was the research to show therapeutic benefit esp as there has been at least two decades of anedoctal use through various psychiatrists and ppl in the Experimental Psychology field. If a therapeutic benefit is found to tx PTSD, pain conditions, etc, then the numbers start crunching around risk factors, etc and a drug like MD*MA may still get FDA approval even if it has shown to cause d*ath or heart attacks in a small sample. Does this make any sense? I don’t know what you know so I’m just sharing what I know and understand. and unless your therapist is a licensed physician or PA (in some states) or a nurse practitioner (if you live in new mexico) s/he had no legal authority to prescribe medication– legal or otherwise.
Tis true, the therp had no state-recognized legal authority to script MD*MA and this person didn’t. in addition, was s/he prepared to admit to giving you an illegal substance in the event something had happened that necessitated a medical hospitalization or emergency room visit?
I think it likely that if a medical h*spitalization were needed, that the therp would have given them all the information they needed.to assist bringing me out of an emergency, should that be the case. is s/he is credentialed/licensed by the state, that license could have been suspended or permanently taken away.
Perhaps. of course, sadly a lot of "quacks" practice without a license– so i guess that would not make a difference–
I think it would make a difference to hire someone who is not educated and trained in assisting other ppl’s processes versus one who does. and many people do not investigate their therapists/counselors as they should.
Can’t speak for others on this one, we did investigate. i guess we just have difficulty with a credentialed therapist (and not some new age kook) distributing illicit drugs in the supposed practice of therapy.
I understand your discomfort, siobhan. Thanks for sharing what you think. I know I posted several months ago on the topic and your reaction would be right up there with those I received back then, so it’s ok. I’m sharing the experience we had and I’m not advocating that others try it; I would, however, advocate an investigation and to keep a lookout for the research that the FDA approved. Thanks again. SofT – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hello michelle & siobhan (& the rest), Our latest journey towards healing was to use ecst*sy as a therapeutic agent with a t’pist assist; I know this is prolly considered by most here and elsewhere as controversial, unconventional and whatever else ppl wish to call its use, particularly as any kind of therapeutic agent. I can only speak from the experience of having tried it and so far, I really think it worked wonders to get us through our latest PTS reaction with no measureable negative side effect, which afaic, is great! i have to wonder about the credentials of the therapist who would give you an illegal substance to use. Just curious, what is it about the t’pist’s credentials that makes you wonder? not only is s/he risking licensure (if s/he is licensed) We used a licensed, well practiced and skilled t’pist who has done this kind of assisted therapy well before the drug became illegal. but also risking legal ramifications–as are you–for using illicit drugs. For us and the t’pist, the drug being illegal is near moot next to the therapeutic benefit, and any possible legal ramifications as a result was something we were all willing to consider and risk. while we understand that there are alternative treatments that may be beneficial–i would think someone who suffers from anxiety (and PTSD is an anxiety disorder) would not need the added anxiety of worrying about the side effects of untested medications–even if they are "pure". We didn’t have a lot of undue or added anxiety nor worry about the potential for side effects. Sh*t, take any medication currently being legally scripted for PTSD, anxiety, depression, psychosis, etc and you’ll find a sh*tload of side effects, including those that can cause lifelong damage to any number of organs, CNS, neurological, etc and some can even k*ll and that doesn’t stop professionals from scripting nor from ppl taking them. We really don’t think we took any greater a risk than the risk we took in ingesting legal Thorazine and ending up with Lupus or say, the risk that any number of ppl here who are currently taking by ingesting certain legally scripted drugs. Thanks for your thoughts, michelle & siobhan (& the rest). SofT — For info about this service, see http://anon.twwells.com/help/ or
– For info about this service, see http://anon.twwells.com/help/ or e-mail:
Response:
. Can I ask you something? Do you equate legal with safe and illegal as unsafe?
== not necessarily. there are side effects to many medications that are legal, and most people are aware of these when they take the medications–if they are working with their doctors. however, the side effects are usually far better defined and quantified and the medications are far more likely to be pure, if obtained from a reputable source. illegal drugs or medications if you prefer that term, are less likely to be pure as they are by nature, more difficult to obtain–therefore making reactions less predictable. the reactions known to be associated with the medication itself can be and often are altered and/or exacerbated by the impurities that exist within the drug. {snip} About reactions like heart attacks and d*ath, I’ll use the same approach the FDA and drug companies use in order to legalize a drug … and it’s simple, the number of heart attacks and d*aths is low compared to those who’ve taken the drug and did not experience a heart attack nor did it incur their d*ath. What the FDA recently approved was the research to show therapeutic benefit esp as there has been at least two decades of anedoctal use
== the problem with anecdotal research (in a scientific sense) is that it is anecdotal and cannot be proven. it is not replicated. it has no controls, it does not show what other variables existed, there are no operational definitions that are used across research and more. it is similar to self report studies, which are biased to begin with, and cannot be replicated. through various psychiatrists and ppl in the Experimental Psychology field. If a therapeutic benefit is found to tx PTSD, pain conditions, etc, then the numbers start crunching around risk factors, etc and a drug like MD*MA may still get FDA approval even if it has shown to cause d*ath or heart attacks in a small sample. Does this make any sense? I don’t know what you know so I’m just sharing what I know and understand.
== the numbers will have to be extremely small compared to the benefits, since there the fda may be gun shy given the phen-phen issue and the possible problems with meridia that may result in it being pulled off the market (as it was pulled in italy.) and other drugs that have been rushed and shown to be detrimental when used as prescribed. == the current fda website does not have anything on md*ma that indicates current research–or at least they are not advertising it. http://www.fda.gov/ at least nothing we could find in a twenty minute search and a search for the drug itself only resulted in older articles published there. good luck–hope there are no long term effects, as there are many possibilities…… "MDMA users also may suffer from psychological difficulties, including confusion, depression, sleep problems, drug craving, severe anxiety, and paranoia–during and sometimes weeks after taking the drug. Physical symptoms of MDMA use include muscle tension, nausea, blurred vision, rapid eye movements, faintness, chills or sweating, and increased heart rate and blood pressure–a special risk for people with heart disease." Medical Possibilities for Psychedelic Drugs by Paula Kurtzweil FDA Consumer magazine (September 1995) wishing you the best with your choices… siobhan
Response:
Hello siobhan, Can I ask you something? Do you equate legal with safe and illegal as unsafe? == not necessarily.
Ok, just thought I’d ask so I’d be clearer about where you’re coming from. there are side effects to many medications that are legal,
And boy are there ever! and most people are aware of these when they take the medications–if they are working with their d*ctors.
Hmm, I think plenty of ppl attempt to work with their d*ctors and I know in my reading here that there have been loads of ppl who’ve come through whose d*ctors don’t tell them much of anything on side effects, usually only hearing about the more common ones, etc. I’m a prime example of someone who was informed of the more common ones and was not told about the possibility of developing an autoimmune disease. however, the side effects are usually far better defined and quantified and the medications are far more likely to be pure, if obtained from a reputable source if obtained from a reputable source
*nodding* Tis prolly true. if you prefer that term, are less likely to be pure as they are by nature, more difficult to obtain–therefore making reactions less predictable. the reactions known to be associated with the medication itself can be and often are altered and/or exacerbated by the impurities that exist within the drug.
*nodding* I would say this is prolly most true for designer drugs and yes, there certainly are ppl out there who are making designer MD*MA and all that you said above would likely apply about variations, impurities, etc. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – {snip} About reactions like heart attacks and d*ath, I’ll use the same approach the FDA and drug companies use in order to legalize a drug … and it’s simple, the number of heart attacks and d*aths is low compared to those who’ve taken the drug and did not experience a heart attack nor did it incur their d*ath. What the FDA recently approved was the research to show therapeutic benefit esp as there has been at least two decades of anedoctal use == the problem with anecdotal research (in a scientific sense) is that it is anecdotal and cannot be proven. it is not replicated. it has no controls, it does not show what other variables existed, there are no operational definitions that are used across research and more.
Uh huh, which may be why the FDA has finally approved a scientific study with controls, etc. it is similar to self report studies, which are biased to begin with, and cannot be replicated.
I think anedoctal reports has its place. Did you know that psychiatrists often report their anedoctal observations of their patients on certain medications and that these observations do in fact have an influence on later production and distribution? through various psychiatrists and ppl in the Experimental Psychology field. If a therapeutic benefit is found to tx PTSD, pain conditions, etc, then the numbers start crunching around risk factors, etc and a drug like MD*MA may still get FDA approval even if it has shown to cause d*ath or heart attacks in a small sample. Does this make any sense? I don’t know what you know so I’m just sharing what I know and understand. == the numbers will have to be extremely small compared to the benefits,
Wish I knew what numbers are that the FDA uses. since there the fda may be gun shy given the ph*n-ph*n issue and the possible problems with m*ridia that may result in it being pulled off the market (as it was pulled in italy.) and other drugs that have been rushed and shown to be detrimental when used as prescribed.
*nodding* They may well be g*n shy due to this, don’t know. I think the research into MD*MA for its therapeutic benefit is -long- overdue. Based on our experience of combining this drug with a t’pist assist to deal with a PTS reaction and the overwhelming beneficial outcome that we’ve had, I’d really like to see the drug approved for this use, to have drug companies make purer strains and to see more t’pists trained. == the current fda website does not have anything on md*ma that indicates current research–or at least they are not advertising it. http://www.fda.gov/ at least nothing we could find in a twenty minute search and a search for the drug itself only resulted in older articles published there.
Try a websearch using "ecst*sy, therapeutic" without the asterisk of course. *g* I used google.com for a search engine. I’ll give you one site that came up for me as at least a dozen or more sites came up on my search about the FDA’s approval of research protocol. http://www.nzdf.org.nz/update/messages/1643.htm good luck–hope there are no long term effects, as there are many possibilities……
Thanks. I wish the same hope for those here who are taking a whole host of drugs that can also bring about longterm as well as, lifelong effects. "MDMA users also may suffer from psychological difficulties, including confusion, depression, sleep problems, drug craving, severe anxiety, and paranoia–during and sometimes weeks after taking the drug.
*nodding* We haven’t experienced any of these symptoms and neither did the ppl we spoke to. I don’t doubt that this may be the experience for some and sure, taking any drug is a risk, legally or illegally obtained. Ever read a pamplet on some of the legal neuroleptics (anti-psychotic meds), on anxiety-depression meds? Just about everything you listed is relevant too, except maybe the drug-craving. Physical symptoms of MDMA use include muscle tension, nausea, blurred vision, rapid eye movements, faintness, chills or sweating, and increased heart rate and blood pressure–a special risk for people with heart disease."
Ppl with heart disease prolly shouldn’t take anything that would increase their heart rate, bl**d pressure, etc. I personally, wouldn’t keep a drug off the market and thus deprive others of some therapeutic benefit simply bc someones with a heart condition shouldn’t take it. Take Thorazine for example, it’s pure poison for me but for someone else it’s not and they may receive some benefit from its use. wishing you the best with your choices…
Thanks, siobhan. Wishing you the same. SofT — For info about this service, see http://anon.twwells.com/help/ or e-mail:
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.