PSYCHOLOGISTS CLAIM ECSTASY MAY NOT BE DANGEROUS

THREE experts have suggested ecstasy may not be dangerous and people were
being misled about the drug, findings which sparked a furious reaction.

The psychologists strongly criticised animal and human studies which say
the drug causes long-term brain damage and mental problems.

But other scientists insisted the harmful effects of ecstasy were
undeniable, and Paul Betts, whose daughter, Leah, died after taking the
drug in 1995, described their claims as "despicable".

The researchers claimed many psychological problems started in adolescence
anyway, ecstasy users invariably took other drugs as well, and some of the
symptoms reported mirrored those caused by staying awake all night and dancing.

Most study participants were self-selected and from universities, raising
doubts about how well they represented the general population, according to
the report in The Psychologist magazine, published by the British
Psychological Society.

Two of the experts are from Liverpool University: Jon Cole, a reader in
addictive behaviour, and Harry Sumnall, a post-doctoral researcher. The
third author is Charles Drob, director of the division of child and
adolescent psychiatry at the Harbour-UCLA Medical Centre, California.

Ecstasy achieved nationwide notoriety with the death of Leah Betts. Her
death was one of 72 attributed to ecstasy between 1993 and 1997 and the
widespread publicity has prompted a plethora of research into its effects.
Dr Cole and his colleagues claim much of it is flawed.

Ecstasy is said to affect brain cells which produce serotonin, a chemical
known to influence mood. However, these changes cause only the degeneration
of nerve fibres, which can be regrown, and not the cell bodies themselves,
according to the report. It suggested the long-term effects might be
"iatrogenic" - the result of auto-suggestion caused by a widespread belief
in the dangers of the drug.

The report said: "Given the high media profile of the long-term effects of
ecstasy, one must question whether the participants are coming forward to
confirm their fears about any adverse reactions that they may have suffered."

Some papers minimised the impact of data suggesting that ecstasy exposure
had no long-term effects, while numerous studies on volunteers reported
positive results in detail, and negative data was ignored, the report said.

The researchers' claims were dismissed by victims' relatives and other experts.

Mr Betts said the harmful effects of ecstasy were well known and claimed
there was a hidden motive behind The Psychologist article. He pointed out
that ecstasy was originally invented as a potential therapeutic tool for
psychiatrists, and said some experts would still like to be able to use it
on patients. "It has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that every
single ecstasy tablet destroys parts of the brain," he said.

Alistair Ramsey, director of Scotland Against Drugs, said that, while
dehydration and over-heating caused by all-night partying clearly added to
the harmful effects, the drug itself had been shown beyond doubt to be very
dangerous.

The Psychologist also published articles by three other ecstasy experts
which dismissed the claims. Michael Morgan, a lecturer in experimental
psychology, said he had found "overwhelming evidence" that regular ecstasy
use caused impulsive behaviour and impaired verbal memory. He did not
believe this could be due to "auto-suggestion".