Talk:MDMA

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Wrong text, totally unscientific

"Use of MDMA individually or in small groups in a quiet environment and when concentrating, is associated with increased lucidity, concentration, sensitivity to aesthetic aspects of the environment, enhanced awareness of emotions, and improved capability of communication."

This is complete and utter BS.

"In our opinion, the most interesting and specific potentiality of MDMA is its capability, in certain situations, to "open the center of the heart" and therefore in the rest of this article this state will be mainly dealt with."

Its trash with three citations. Unscientific trash. Fix it, please. 2A02:2121:61B:75DD:790D:87CA:AC33:F03E (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The first quote is not complete and utter BS if a significant number of subjects in a study of MDMA’s effects cited those effects mentioned. I can certainly attest that they were all on my own list of experiences on MDMA. The only thing I would disagree with is the need to be alone or in a small group. I watched the premiere of The Matrix in a crowded theater while taking my first dose of “E” as it was named by the friend who purchased the pill for me. Imagine our surprise when pills became a significant part of the story. We walked along the beach in San Francisco among a large number of others and noticed amazing natural patterns in the sand we’d never noticed before. We realized a generous enhancement of our ability to associate positively with everyday things, some which previously only held negative responses. One example was an overflowing trashcan. We agreed that it represented both the thoughtfulness of a society to provide the trashcan and the willingness by the public at large to responsibly use it, though it had not been emptied promptly. You could call it the “bright side effect” in that we were able to see the beauty in everything. 2601:647:8582:3950:5493:AC60:C7DE:9C86 (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

lol. Angry gatekeeper with an agenda obviously in action here. This is far from b/s as most UK population probably by now know. If you havent tried or know someone who tried mdma, in the anglosphere, then you live under a rock. The stuff does precisely that and if the science isnt there, then fuck science. ~2026-55077-1 (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2026

Remove 3.4 because readers have to scroll to the bottom ~2026-19590-3 (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 16:49, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

"Oreo Exstacy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Oreo Exstacy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 18 § Oreo Exstacy until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Suicide Tuesday (DJ Hyper album) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:06, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Moncrieff's opinion in the section on research

Most of the section on Research is given to Joanna Moncrieff's opinions. At the least, this is WP:UNDUE weight, and, IMO, Moncrieff shouldn't be cited at all, because she's outside the mainstream and is a contrarian - her opinions are WP:FRINGE. I propose deleting the paragraph from the article. Woofboy (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

There is no broad scientific consensus that MDMA is a clinical treatment, that her opinions on that would even be considered fringe.

The article you are giving (which is on the internet archive) also quotes the opinion of only one single other psychiatrist, and it actually says her views on serotonin are mainstream: "In fact, the chemical imbalance theory of depression was already falling out of favour among psychiatrists and researchers, even before Dr Moncrieff’s review."

Here is another article where Andrea Cipriani says about her:

“I think what [Moncrieff] is doing is very important, to challenge the evidence and ask questions that are key for clinical practice,” Andrea Cipriani, a psychiatrist at Oxford University, told me when I phoned him for his perspective. In 2018 Cipriani led the largest ever review of antidepressant effectiveness, which found all 21 drugs it included were more effective than placebos. “My interpretation is the effect of the active ingredient of the antidepressant, as opposed to a sugar pill, is not big – I agree,” he said [...].

ShiveryPeaks (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Undue weight guideline also does not dictate removal of minority opinions, but rather "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". ShiveryPeaks (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

The policy that might hint at removal would be WP:PRIMARY, because Moncrieff's book is cited for her own opinion, rather than WP:SECONDARY coverage (which would demonstrate her opinion is noteworthy). However, as far as I can tell, citing her book is legitimate because Moncrieff is actually not considered a quack among respectable people in her field. (I mean other researchers, for example, who understand her viewpoint.)

Moncrieff's publishing history in major journals (The Lancet, Molecular Psychiatry) with large-scale funding (e.g. RADAR study) demonstrates that she is a real, competent researcher, and comments on her such as the one I quoted by Cipriani actually demonstrate she has opinions worth considering. When it comes to antidepressants, it's her view that they have not much use at all which departs from the "mainstream" view. She's not like a flat-Earther or something. If you find somebody saying something like that, it's going to be a PCP or something who has no idea who she is or what the research actually says.

So you wouldn't just remove her opinions on MDMA research by claiming she has no idea what she's talking about, or might be misinterpreting studies. Reliable sources demonstrate that she is actually competent and informed. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Moncrieff would be compared to somebody like Irving Kirsch, who is also an actual decorated researcher (who shares her views on antidepressants - Moncrieff is citing Kirsch's research). This is contrasted with somebody like Thomas Szasz whose views are largely unscientific and sometimes counterfactual. This is a difference between "critical psychiatry" and "anti-psychiatry". ShiveryPeaks (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Here is another article stating that Moncrieff's scientific views are actually mainstream.

Within the medical community, the paper’s conclusions were nothing new. David Hellerstein, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University Medical Center and director of Columbia’s Depression Evaluation Service, explains that the serotonin hypothesis — i.e., the idea that depression is caused by low serotonin levels — is a “quaint and oversimplified shorthand that has been superseded by other explanations in clinical practice for a decade or more.” He says that the review was largely met with yawns from the psychiatric community. “In reading it, I was kinda thinking, ‘Wow, next she’ll tackle the discrediting of the black bile theory of depression,” he tells Rolling Stone.

Again, the issue her contemporaries have with her largely has to do with her personal clinical recommendations, that antidepressants are not useful. Other psychiatrists maintain that they are still useful, despite the controversy over research.

Moncrieff's views are also based on real scientific studies. Note that she is a co-author on the STAR*D re-analysis. ShiveryPeaks (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)