Well, I have no idea personally about MDMA, but many, many drugs are very dangerous to those organs and neurons. For example, any anti-fungal is pretty toxic to you too. Or Chemo. Acetaminophen (Tylenol) is not easy on your liver.
Everything in medicine has a risk factor that must be weighed against the benefits.
Comparing it to chemotherapy doesn't really undermine my point, does it? And the ultimate goal of the proponents is not just to get these drugs made available via prescription, but to make them as legal as marijuana.
Please read the original Phase III and earlier studies where they thoroughly address these questions under the treatment modalities being tested.
The process for drug approval is extremely rigorous for a reason, and does have some downsides as a result. Let's not negate that work please by ignoring all of the hard work that's already been done to show exceptionally safe viability within the context it's being used in.
As noted above/below in different comments, the dose/dosing period/etc always makes a difference in whether a drug is harmful or helpful. In this case, the benefits strongly outweigh the downsides within this particular narrow kind of usecase, and of course hopefully we'll be able to get an even better handle on that in a broader set of examples in the ongoing Phase IV studies.
Plus, it's not like MDMA is some new chemical or anything like that. It's pretty darn well characterized under a variety of treatment/usage conditions at this point.
> Please read the original Phase III and earlier studies where they thoroughly address these questions under the treatment modalities being tested.
The problem is these drugs aren't being presented as dangerous pharmaceuticals that still have worthwhile cost-benefit ratios for certain serious conditions. Instead the "drugs are good" crowd actually argues, laughably, that they're completely safe, and safer than alcohol (I don't drink, btw), despite extremely good observational data suggesting moderate drinking doesn't increase all-cause mortality, while no similar data at present exists for these drugs.
The "microdosing" fad is one of the best examples of how uninformed people are about the dangers of psychedelics, thanks to the propaganda. If I polled 100 of these microdosers at random and asked them about 5HT2B, do you honestly think more than half would know what I was talking about, and what my concerns are? Yeah, some are highly informed and know what risks they're taking, but they're the exception.
This is a rather opinionated take, to be honest. For sure, there are dangers, but I find this to be a rather extreme view.
Some drugs have a narrow dosing window. Some have a wider dosing window. Some have serious dangers associated with them. This is a core part of psychopharmacology, as you likely well know.
Strawmanning and extremifying arguments can perpetuate an echo chamber but not much else. Most people I talk to who support psychedelics seem to have a very reasonable and mature approach to the topic. Some people of course will have extreme views on either side but that is bound to happen.
Also, safer than alcohol is a... horrendously poor comparison to use. Alcohol actually is quite a dangerous drug, and MDMA I'd put up there but one step below if misused. I'm not sure where you anchored alcohol's safety here, it's very much implicated in a number of very bad things healthwise, not to mention addiction. The withdrawal syndrome alone is fatal in the wrong circumstances, something even drugs like heroin can't claim.
Once again on the microdosing side, I'm not sure what "propaganda" you're referring to. There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies on the topic. MDMA of course is not microdosed, though LSD and psilocybin still could be candidates on the table for that.
However, as far as I understand from the literature, the concerns you presented strongly are still based on theoretical evidence. It's not guaranteed, and as in all things, it for now is in the realm of "we don't know". Caution is good.
All in all, every drug class has problems and potential issues. We find those out with time and studies. Using caution as we figure that out is good. Strongly bashing things or putting down entire cultures of people with opinions that they generally don't hold is less so.
I can't speak to much more than that, and these are just my own personal opinions after all. Extremely selective-to-5ht2a ligands will likely be something that gains momentum over the coming decades unfortunately, but thankfully at least so far with the history of use that we see, so far there's not necessarily a clear smoking "negative gun" as far as I personally see. But tools are tools, and different tools have different risks, and I personally believe/feel that we should treat them as such.
