I've been wondering about the origins and development of this compound and the reasons why it's not 'on the market' are unusual but are mainly to do with 'costs and profits' 
what's new?
MDMA is known to be a very popular drug. You would think IF money could be made from it by Mercke (it's original patent holder) some way, OR by another company they would have long ago.
The 'positive' effects were well known before it was criminalized, so why wasn't it marketed? That's a good question with some unusual answers!
"Big pharma" are the 3rd most profitable 'private'(non govt) business in the world after banking and oil, with IT (hard and soft) not far behind.
(tobacco WAS the most profitable throughout the 20th century with profit margins up to 85%)
GSK turned over $40.424 billion in 2009 with nearly 25% ($10,432,000,000,000) in NET profits!!!
These dudes (big pharma) are the greatest 'supporters' of the WoDs-in ALL ways!
They spend huge amounts lobbying washington and the media (with lies and false data!) as well as providing large amounts of money to Universities and research groups who either provide or 'support/validate' studies (which are often biased with researchers having used 'dubious' methods to obtain and process the data to suit! ) and 'support their position'
Big pharma are, if not the biggest, then very close to being the biggest advocate and supporter for the continued criminalisation of 'recreational drugs' especially marijuana.
The 'criminalisation' of XTC was massively supported by these companies especially as 'anecdotal' reports started to arise, of this "wonderful drug" having profound and POSITIVE EFECTS on MOST of the people who took it, and it had few if any negative effects.
I'm sure many were kicking themselves afterwards for not having properly tested and produced this drug. It may no have been the best 'appetite suppressant' drug but it's empathano/enactogenic effects had been noted.
It was tested by the US army in 1953 but they wouldn't say why, possibly as a 'truth serum' but I have NO doubt the effects of this drug have were well documented.
The last thing they want is for people to be able to 'self medicate' successfully! Imagine how much money they would 'lose' if cannabis (and/or xtc) were decriminalised, AND considered as an 'effective' treatment for depression and generalized anxiety issues? LOTS!
As the success of the fairly recent 'medical marijuana' use in the US, has clearly shown that many people would 'prefer' to take marijuana, than many of the 'other drugs' available to treat their conditions, especially prescribed pharmaceuticals.
Sure, it's not for everyone but I have NO doubt it would be effective for a huge proportion of people currently taking SSRIs and other types of antidepressants which are VERY difficult to stop!
Unfortunately, Since MDMA has already been patented in 1913, it holds no profit potential for a drug company to attempt to put it on the market today becoz....
A drug cannot be patented twice and before marketing a new drug, a company has to show that the potential side effects are justified by the drug's benefits as a medicine, and this involves long and expensive trials. The only way of recouping that expense is by obtaining exclusive rights to sell the drug through holding its patent. Only a few experimental therapists researched and tested the drug (between 1977 to 1985) for use during psychotherapy sessions.
The classic Catch 22 ... maybe the Gates Foundation would finance trials
maybe not 
BTW The archives of Merck KGaA alone contain over 700 shelf-metres of documents. However, company historians of neither Merck KGaA, nor Merck and Co, Inc, give the synthesis or patenting of MDMA any great prominence. Little is known about G. Mannish and W. Jacobsohn, the Merck chemists who stumbled on MDMA. No purpose was specified in Merck's patent filing of December 24, 1912. Merck's patent application was for a styptic medication, a vasoconstrictor known as hydrastinin. MDMA is listed in the application only as a chemical intermediate.
Then, In 1985, MDMA/Ecstasy received massive media attention when a group of people sued the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to try to prevent them from outlawing the drug by placing it on Schedule 1. The US Congress had passed a new law allowing the DEA to put an emergency ban on any drug that it thought might be a danger to the public. On July 1st 1985, this right was used for the first time to ban MDMA.
A hearing was held to decide what permanent measures should be taken against the drug. One side argued that MDMA caused brain damage in rats, the other side claimed this might not be true for humans and that there was proof of the beneficial use of MDMA as a drug treatment in psychotherapy. The residing judge after weighing the evidence, recommended that MDMA be placed on Schedule 3, which would have allowed it to be manufactured, used on prescription, and subject to further research. However, the DEA decided to place MDMA permanently on Schedule 1..
Trial research into the effects of MDMA on human volunteers resumed in 1993 with the approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The first psychoactive drug approved for human testing by the FDA.
Which is news to me!
If mdma HAS FDA 'approval' doesn't this mean the drug IS (or could be) 'available' to a suitably qualified practitioner for 'trial use' ? I don't understand?
(this^^ was taken from a mixture of sources)
what's new?MDMA is known to be a very popular drug. You would think IF money could be made from it by Mercke (it's original patent holder) some way, OR by another company they would have long ago.
The 'positive' effects were well known before it was criminalized, so why wasn't it marketed? That's a good question with some unusual answers!
"Big pharma" are the 3rd most profitable 'private'(non govt) business in the world after banking and oil, with IT (hard and soft) not far behind.
(tobacco WAS the most profitable throughout the 20th century with profit margins up to 85%)
GSK turned over $40.424 billion in 2009 with nearly 25% ($10,432,000,000,000) in NET profits!!!
These dudes (big pharma) are the greatest 'supporters' of the WoDs-in ALL ways!
They spend huge amounts lobbying washington and the media (with lies and false data!) as well as providing large amounts of money to Universities and research groups who either provide or 'support/validate' studies (which are often biased with researchers having used 'dubious' methods to obtain and process the data to suit! ) and 'support their position'
Big pharma are, if not the biggest, then very close to being the biggest advocate and supporter for the continued criminalisation of 'recreational drugs' especially marijuana.
The 'criminalisation' of XTC was massively supported by these companies especially as 'anecdotal' reports started to arise, of this "wonderful drug" having profound and POSITIVE EFECTS on MOST of the people who took it, and it had few if any negative effects.
I'm sure many were kicking themselves afterwards for not having properly tested and produced this drug. It may no have been the best 'appetite suppressant' drug but it's empathano/enactogenic effects had been noted.
It was tested by the US army in 1953 but they wouldn't say why, possibly as a 'truth serum' but I have NO doubt the effects of this drug have were well documented.
The last thing they want is for people to be able to 'self medicate' successfully! Imagine how much money they would 'lose' if cannabis (and/or xtc) were decriminalised, AND considered as an 'effective' treatment for depression and generalized anxiety issues? LOTS!
As the success of the fairly recent 'medical marijuana' use in the US, has clearly shown that many people would 'prefer' to take marijuana, than many of the 'other drugs' available to treat their conditions, especially prescribed pharmaceuticals.
Sure, it's not for everyone but I have NO doubt it would be effective for a huge proportion of people currently taking SSRIs and other types of antidepressants which are VERY difficult to stop!
Unfortunately, Since MDMA has already been patented in 1913, it holds no profit potential for a drug company to attempt to put it on the market today becoz....
A drug cannot be patented twice and before marketing a new drug, a company has to show that the potential side effects are justified by the drug's benefits as a medicine, and this involves long and expensive trials. The only way of recouping that expense is by obtaining exclusive rights to sell the drug through holding its patent. Only a few experimental therapists researched and tested the drug (between 1977 to 1985) for use during psychotherapy sessions.
The classic Catch 22 ... maybe the Gates Foundation would finance trials
maybe not BTW The archives of Merck KGaA alone contain over 700 shelf-metres of documents. However, company historians of neither Merck KGaA, nor Merck and Co, Inc, give the synthesis or patenting of MDMA any great prominence. Little is known about G. Mannish and W. Jacobsohn, the Merck chemists who stumbled on MDMA. No purpose was specified in Merck's patent filing of December 24, 1912. Merck's patent application was for a styptic medication, a vasoconstrictor known as hydrastinin. MDMA is listed in the application only as a chemical intermediate.
Then, In 1985, MDMA/Ecstasy received massive media attention when a group of people sued the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to try to prevent them from outlawing the drug by placing it on Schedule 1. The US Congress had passed a new law allowing the DEA to put an emergency ban on any drug that it thought might be a danger to the public. On July 1st 1985, this right was used for the first time to ban MDMA.
A hearing was held to decide what permanent measures should be taken against the drug. One side argued that MDMA caused brain damage in rats, the other side claimed this might not be true for humans and that there was proof of the beneficial use of MDMA as a drug treatment in psychotherapy. The residing judge after weighing the evidence, recommended that MDMA be placed on Schedule 3, which would have allowed it to be manufactured, used on prescription, and subject to further research. However, the DEA decided to place MDMA permanently on Schedule 1..
Trial research into the effects of MDMA on human volunteers resumed in 1993 with the approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The first psychoactive drug approved for human testing by the FDA.
Which is news to me!
If mdma HAS FDA 'approval' doesn't this mean the drug IS (or could be) 'available' to a suitably qualified practitioner for 'trial use' ? I don't understand?
(this^^ was taken from a mixture of sources)
