Pubdate: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 Source: Wall Street Journal (US) Copyright: 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Contact: http://www.wsj.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/487 Authors: Julie Holland MD, Michael Mithoefer MD Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mdma.htm (Ecstasy) Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n1894/a09.html TAKE THE EMOTION OUT OF ECSTASY Regarding Your Nov. 6 story "FDA Permits Test of Ecstasy as Aid in Stress Disorder": The reason Alan Leshner of the National Institute on Drug Abuse knows "of no evidence in the scientific literature that demonstrates the efficacy of Ecstasy for any clinical indication" is because that is what happens when there is political influence on the scientific process. Millions of people around the world are taking the drug Ecstasy, but precious little clinical research is being done to learn more about this drug. NIDA, with a clear political agenda, is the leading financial supporter of America's research on illicit drugs. Suggesting that MDMA (Ecstasy) "competes head on" with Zoloft is misleading. MDMA has already been patented, and it is typically given once or twice in a patient's lifetime. This is not about money. There is an international group of scientists, physicians, psychotherapists and political activists who believe that psychoactive drugs deserve to be explored for their benefit as well as their harm. The ultimate goal is knowledge, and improved therapies. Ecstasy is a complex, multifaceted issue. There is too much sensationalism and binary thinking in the media. Labeling it a demon drug, or a "love drug" is inflammatory and inaccurate. We need to have clear heads to make a thorough evaluation and a rational diagnosis of the pros and the cons of MDMA. All medicines have a dose that is more safe and one that is more toxic, and all medicines come with various levels of utility and risk. Clearly there is abundant misuse of this drug. Ecstasy is a public health concern, and the priority needs to be thorough clinical understanding. I applaud the FDA for having the courage and political independence to let this study get underway; I hope the Medical University of South Carolina will follow suit. Julie Holland, M.D. New York (Dr. Holland is an attending psychiatrist at Bellevue Hospital and the editor of "Ecstasy: The Complete Guide, A Comprehensive Look at the Risks and Benefits of MDMA.") - ---- I would like to offer a clarification. Your story about the study for which I have received FDA approval is generally accurate; however, in the early editions of the paper, which were distributed in this area, there is one seriously misleading statement. It states that my wife and I are "psychedelic psychotherapists," implying that we use psychedelics in our practice. This is not true. As part of my psychiatric practice we do use a number of nondrug techniques of experiential therapy to work with patients in deep emotional states for the treatment of post-traumatic stress syndrome and other problems. These techniques are quite similar to the approach we are proposing to take in MDMA-assisted therapy in our research. In regard to Dr. Gualtieri's characterization of our hypothesis as "a quaint idea": Dr. Gualtieri goes on to point out that for the 30% of people with PTSD who do not respond to existing treatments, PTSD can be one of the most "debilitating of psychological conditions." MDMA is a drug about which there have been a number of published reports by psychiatrists and other therapists who used it therapeutically before it became illegal. Although they did not do controlled studies, their clinical impression was overwhelmingly that it was a useful clinical tool. It seems to me that it now behooves us to do careful scientific research to determine whether MDMA in fact might be a helpful treatment for some of our patients who are suffering daily. This is more than a "quaint idea." Michael Mithoefer, M.D. Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry Medical University of South Carolina Charleston, S.C. - --- MAP posted-by: Josh