# Deaffectualisation, desomatisation, basically dead inside.



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

Hi, I'm Kitty.

My diagnosis is complex PTSD but my symptoms are mostly dissociative, though I do have certain hyperarousal ones as well. My experience is very similar to the depersonalisation one and my therapist seems to think that I have this form of dissociation.

I feel like a blank, not like a real person. It feels like I have no personality any more. I don't recognise a self. I have also lost my emotions almost entirely, but I still have completely normal affect as far as facial expressions are concerned. 

I've lost my body signals like hunger and thirst too. My memory and concentration have deteriorated. It's rather like a living death. I'm just a shell going through the motions.

I developed these symptoms after experiencing sexual violence a few times in my 30s, but my therapist believes there are roots in childhood trauma as well, and I tend to agree.

I'd love to know if anyone has successfully treated any of these symptoms, and, if so, how.


----------



## Aridity (Jun 12, 2011)

You seem like a great candidate for MDMA therapy, have you looked in to that? It's something that I am looking in too myself as well.


----------



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

Aridity said:


> You seem like a great candidate for MDMA therapy, have you looked in to that? It's something that I am looking in too myself as well.


I'd love to try MDMA therapy but so far haven't managed to get into a study, and it's not available in Australia outside of trials.


----------



## Aridity (Jun 12, 2011)

Kittymoo said:


> I'd love to try MDMA therapy but so far haven't managed to get into a study, and it's not available in Australia outside of trials.


You can't get it illegally? It won't be that hard to find a dealer won't it... or is it different in Australia. I live in The Netherlands, that shit is pretty much made here haha.


----------



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

Aridity said:


> You can't get it illegally? It won't be that hard to find a dealer won't it... or is it different in Australia. I live in The Netherlands, that shit is pretty much made here haha.


I wouldn't know where to find it. I don't think it's such a common drug here any more.


----------



## Aridity (Jun 12, 2011)

I think if you're in this horrendous state, and you have nothing to lose. I would try if you can manage to get some. Just ask around, I know a lot of exctacy is getting exported to Australia.. or try the dark web? You can do MDMA solo, or with an underground therapist. You need to release a lot of stuck trauma from your body.


----------



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

Aridity said:


> I think if you're in this horrendous state, and you have nothing to lose. I would try if you can manage to get some. Just ask around, I know a lot of exctacy is getting exported to Australia.. or try the dark web? You can do MDMA solo, or with an underground therapist. You need to release a lot of stuck trauma from your body.


I've written to a couple of people again about getting into a trial, so we'll see if that goes anywhere. I'd rather not have to use the dark web tbh. That's potentially a big risk to take.


----------



## Aridity (Jun 12, 2011)

Kittymoo said:


> I've written to a couple of people again about getting into a trial, so we'll see if that goes anywhere. I'd rather not have to use the dark web tbh. That's potentially a big risk to take.


A risk legally wise? Or quality? quality is pretty good if you have a good vendor. But I understand. Stay strong! Psilocybin could be an option as well.. if that's easier to get your hands on.


----------



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

Aridity said:


> A risk legally wise? Or quality? quality is pretty good if you have a good vendor. But I understand. Stay strong! Psilocybin could be an option as well.. if that's easier to get your hands on.


Legally it's a big risk to take, especially for anything imported.

There are two potential studies coming up that I know of. I hope I can get into one of those.


----------



## leminaseri (Jul 1, 2020)

Aridity said:


> A risk legally wise? Or quality? quality is pretty good if you have a good vendor. But I understand. Stay strong! Psilocybin could be an option as well.. if that's easier to get your hands on.


bro dont get me wrong why do you advice people drugs?


----------



## Aridity (Jun 12, 2011)

leminaseri said:


> bro dont get me wrong why do you advice people drugs?


Because something like MDMA especially after all the studies that has been done and is still ongoing. It looks to be a great treatment for PTSD/CPTSD, and perhaps also dp/dr. End of 2023 it will be a legal treatment, you are not aware of that? We can't really call it drugs anymore it's not different than an any other pharmaceutical.. they're all drugs.


----------



## leminaseri (Jul 1, 2020)

Aridity said:


> Because something like MDMA especially after all the studies that has been done and is still ongoing. It looks to be a great treatment for PTSD/CPTSD, and perhaps also dp/dr. End of 2023 it will be a legal treatment, you are not aware of that? We can't really call it drugs anymore it's not different than an any other pharmaceutical.. they're all drugs.


i know minimum 2 people who got schizophrenia due to mdma.


----------



## Aridity (Jun 12, 2011)

leminaseri said:


> i know minimum 2 people who got schizophrenia due to mdma.


lol.... Oke so? I know 4 people who died from paracetamol.


----------



## leminaseri (Jul 1, 2020)

Aridity said:


> lol.... Oke so? I know 4 people who died from paracetamol.


nevermind dude you dont want to get it


----------



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

leminaseri said:


> i know minimum 2 people who got schizophrenia due to mdma.


I've used MDMA recreationally when I was younger. I tolerate it well. I'm not worried about a bad reaction. Also, the dose is carefully controlled when it's used therapeutically, as is the environment.


----------



## Aridity (Jun 12, 2011)

Kittymoo said:


> I've used MDMA recreationally when I was younger. I tolerate it well. I'm not worried about a bad reaction. Also, the dose is carefully controlled when it's used therapeutically, as is the environment.


Exactly,set and setting are very important. And the quality and dosage is controlled in a random rave in the woods from a shady dealer without a scale, and combined with alcohol and other drugs and lack of sleep. Yes then definitely it can have adverse effects. Also there are supplements to prevent most of the neurotoxicity from MDMA. In all of the studies no one had long lasting adverse effects.


----------



## Trith (Dec 31, 2019)

Aridity said:


> lol.... Oke so? I know 4 people who died from paracetamol.


Seriously? Or do you imagine you could have known four people who died from paracetamol? It's very different.
If you did, how did it happen? Was it with the normal prescribed dosage?


----------



## Aridity (Jun 12, 2011)

Trith said:


> Seriously? Or do you imagine you could have known four people who died from paracetamol? It's very different.
> If you did, how did it happen? Was it with the normal prescribed dosage?


Of course not, I just gave a dumb answer back.. 2 people getting schizophrenia from mdma is so anecdotal bro.


----------



## leminaseri (Jul 1, 2020)

Aridity said:


> Of course not, I just gave a dumb answer back.. 2 people getting schizophrenia from mdma is so anecdotal bro.


do you think i lie? and even if, it is still a very dumb thing to advice people on the internet drugs especially if it is mdma. you dont know the person at all.


----------



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

Suggesting people do MDMA therapy where everything is properly controlled isn't the same as telling them to go and score street drugs.


----------



## Aridity (Jun 12, 2011)

Kittymoo said:


> Suggesting people do MDMA therapy where everything is properly controlled isn't the same as telling them to go and score street drugs.





leminaseri said:


> do you think i lie? and even if, it is still a very dumb thing to advice people on the internet drugs especially if it is mdma. you dont know the person at all.


You have a very hostile presence, I don't know what you are on about mate. I am not suggesting getting a quick fix by using MDMA. After alll these years and research we can definitely conclude that MDMA can be seen as a medicine. I am suggesting trying MDMA therapy, and I am not responsible for anyone. This is an Internet forum where people share their experiences and knowledge just like I do. Take care.


----------



## Trith (Dec 31, 2019)

Aridity said:


> Of course not, I just gave a dumb answer back.. 2 people getting schizophrenia from mdma is so anecdotal bro.


I agree absolutely, anecdotal evidence has poorer value than an actual study.
But there are scientific reports linking psychotic episodes with taking MDMA just like there are scientific reports linking DPDR with smoking weed. There are also scientific reports linking MDMA with DPDR, by the way.
I will just copy and paste some piece of article below for other risks of MDMA.
But if you are saying that there is less risk when MDMA is taken at very low dose then yes, why not bro.
Also you are talking about taking MDMA in a "controlled setting", and at the same time you advise someone to buy it from a drug dealer. This is not a "controlled setting". You are saying that there are little risk if it comes from a "good vendor". What is a good vendor according to you? Is it someone who give a good product? If yes, then its like a snake biting its own tail. If someone has health issues because they bought it from a drug dealer, you will not even say it proves you wrong, you will just say it's their fault because they picked a bad vendor and could not tell the difference. It's as if I said that all scotsmen were redheads and if someone brings me a scotsman that's not a redhead I will say he is not a real scotsman so that I can still be right.


_Subjective effects of MDMA include elevated mood, increased self-confidence and sensory sensitivity, and a peaceful feeling coupled with insight, empathy, and closeness to persons.2 It has gained a deceptive reputation as a “safe” drug among its users. MDMA use has been associated with various medical complications such as renal and liver failure, rhabdomyolysis, disseminated intravascular coagulation, hepatitis, cerebral infarction, seizures, delirium, fulminant hyperthermia, intracranial bleed, cerebral edema, and coma.3–6 Adverse psychiatric symptomatology associated with MDMA includes panic attack, depression, suicidal ideation, flashbacks, rage reactions, psychosis, and severe paranoia.3 Persistent psychosis after even a single use has been reported.1,4,__7_

_








Persistent Psychosis After a Single Ingestion of “Ecstasy” (MDMA)







www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov




_


----------



## Trith (Dec 31, 2019)

Aridity said:


> You have a very hostile presence, I don't know what you are on about mate. I am not suggesting getting a quick fix by using MDMA. After alll these years and research we can definitely conclude that MDMA can be seen as a medicine. I am suggesting trying MDMA therapy, and I am not responsible for anyone. This is an Internet forum where people share their experiences and knowledge just like I do. Take care.


Yes, but if it's their own experience it's anecdotal too.


----------



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

I won't be buying it from the dark web in any case. That seems like a very silly risk to take.

As for the risks of MDMA, there are risks associated with all drugs, legal and not. The risks you list are relatively rare. 

Taking MDMA on an occasional basis and under controlled conditions poses less of a risk to health than taking neuroleptic drugs daily, and there are plenty of posts on here which recommend neuroleptics with no objections from anybody.


----------



## Trith (Dec 31, 2019)

Kittymoo said:


> I won't be buying it from the dark web in any case. That seems like a very silly risk to take.
> 
> As for the risks of MDMA, there are risks associated with all drugs, legal and not. The risks you list are relatively rare.
> 
> Taking MDMA on an occasional basis and under controlled conditions poses less of a risk to health than taking neuroleptic drugs daily, and there are plenty of posts on here which recommend neuroleptics with no objections from anybody.


Maybe the risks are rare, but how rare are they? How do you know that? You say that neuroleptics have risks as well, how rare are those? And what are those? I am not assuming you don't have the answers to these questions, but if you have them please give them because these are the only important points.
You talk about "controlled conditions", what do you mean? In what "controlled conditions" are you going to take MDMA today if it's not in a study (which I think would be the best, ok), and in what controlled conditions are you going to take neuroleptics? You take neuroleptics with a psychiatrist who has done extensive studies to understand to the best possible way what he is doing, who knows alternative solutions, and who is going to examine you regularly and is going to be available relatively quickly if things go wrong for you. And I am not an advocate of neurloptics and psychiatrists in any circumstance, I did try several neuroleptics and had shitty side effects with little to no advantages and my psychiatrist was a complete asshole. But you can't just say "this has negative aspects and people accept it, so now you have to accept anything that has negative effects as well just so that you sound consistent".


----------



## Aridity (Jun 12, 2011)

Trith said:


> I agree absolutely, anecdotal evidence has poorer value than an actual study.
> But there are scientific reports linking psychotic episodes with taking MDMA just like there are scientific reports linking DPDR with smoking weed. There are also scientific reports linking MDMA with DPDR, by the way.
> I will just copy and paste some piece of article below for other risks of MDMA.
> But if you are saying that there is less risk when MDMA is taken at very low dose then yes, why not bro.
> ...


This report is talking about a pill, MDMA is not a pill but crystal, in it's purest form. So again we can't know what was in it. Also when I talk about a controlled setting I mean, you know what you've bought, you tested it (preferably in a lab, we in Holland can send our drugs for free testing) but you can do a home test would also be oke. You scale it, ingest it with some supplements preferably to prevent some of the neurotoxicity (which is also debatable) because the study that has been done on that, was done in mice with not only MDMA but another compound combined). I have many friends and know a lot of people have done MDMA so much, even the most fucked up people, and none of them are psychotic. I even know one guy who ingested like 100grams in a few months which is beyond ludacris. Are you aware of the current studies around MDMA?


----------



## Trith (Dec 31, 2019)

Aridity said:


> This report is talking about a pill, MDMA is not a pill but crystal, in it's purest form. So again we can't know what was in it. Also when I talk about a controlled setting I mean, you know what you've bought, you tested it (preferably in a lab, we in Holland can send our drugs for free testing) but you can do a home test would also be oke. You scale it, ingest it with some supplements preferably to prevent some of the neurotoxicity (which is also debatable) because the study that has been done on that, was done in mice with not only MDMA but another compound combined). I have many friends and know a lot of people have done MDMA so much, even the most fucked up people, and none of them are psychotic. I even know one guy who ingested like 100grams in a few months which is beyond ludacris. Are you aware of the current studies around MDMA?


I don't think that because when it is pure it is a crystal really means that if it is a crystal then it must be pure. Many things that are not MDMA are crystals too, and crystals can be mixtures of different things as well. But maybe it is still easier to lace the product with something else when it is in a pill form.
I agree with the controlled setting. I was aware that it was possible to send drugs to be tested and indeed I guess it reduces the risk of ingesting something else than MDMA. However, the references that are cited in the abstract I copied seem to talk about the toxicity of MDMA itself.
Then you talk about your friends who have done a lot of it and are not psychotic. These are anecdotal evidence too and have the same value as the anecdotal evidence given by leminaseri who knows two people who got psychotic from MDMA. That value is non-zero in my opinion but I encourage you to put them on the same level and have the same level of criticism towards each of them.
The fact that some people are ok with huge doses doesn't mean that lower doses are safe for everyone. There are a lot of people who smoke tons of weed and will never have DPDR. But that still doesn't mean the risk of getting DPDR from smoking weed is negligible. When reading testimonies here, it really doesn't seem that people who get DPDR from weed are heavy smokers. So it doesn't always easily scale with dosage.
Then no, i am not into studies about MDMA therapy, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could show some positive effects, just like microdosing LSD or psylocibin can. After all, they increase serotonin levels just like SSRI antidepressants do. One major difference could be that when taking a recreational drug as a therapy people feel more in control and more anti-system, while with legal medication they have the impression it's the system which is trying to control them, even if chemistry is the same. That's why people are much more dismissive of side effects from recreational drugs than they are of medicines I think. Perhaps if Prozac had started as a street drug and not as a medicine people would think it is a miracle cure with almost no side-effects.


----------



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

Trith said:


> Maybe the risks are rare, but how rare are they? How do you know that? You say that neuroleptics have risks as well, how rare are those? And what are those? I am not assuming you don't have the answers to these questions, but if you have them please give them because these are the only important points.
> You talk about "controlled conditions", what do you mean? In what "controlled conditions" are you going to take MDMA today if it's not in a study (which I think would be the best, ok), and in what controlled conditions are you going to take neuroleptics? You take neuroleptics with a psychiatrist who has done extensive studies to understand to the best possible way what he is doing, who knows alternative solutions, and who is going to examine you regularly and is going to be available relatively quickly if things go wrong for you. And I am not an advocate of neurloptics and psychiatrists in any circumstance, I did try several neuroleptics and had shitty side effects with little to no advantages and my psychiatrist was a complete asshole. But you can't just say "this has negative aspects and people accept it, so now you have to accept anything that has negative effects as well just so that you sound consistent".


Neuroleptics have terrible side-effects in pretty much everyone when taken daily over long periods, which they generally are. They also shorten people's lives significantly.

MRNA is generally not taken daily over long periods, so negative effects are uncommon. I would expect them to be more common if it was.

I'm not going to take neuroleptics at all, because I'm aware of how toxic and harmful they are. I don't believe they should be prescribed as commonly as they are. They frequently cause an iatrogenic form of Parkinson's disease, they cause organ damage, brain damage, diabetes, massive weight gain, they shave an average of 25 years off people's lives. Doctors have no business handing them out like candy to be taken every day. This "treatment" is worse than what it purports to treat.


----------



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

Trith said:


> I don't think that because when it is pure it is a crystal really means that if it is a crystal then it must be pure. Many things that are not MDMA are crystals too, and crystals can be mixtures of different things as well. Also you can grind a crystal into a powder and turn it into a pill and it will still be pure, plus some irrelevant excipients.
> I agree with the controlled setting. I was aware that it was possible to send drugs to be tested and indeed I guess it reduces the risk of ingesting something else than MDMA. However, the references that are cited in the abstract I copied seem to talk about the toxicity of MDMA itself.
> Then you talk about your friends who have done a lot of it and are not psychotic. These are anecdotal evidence too and have the same value as the anecdotal evidence given by leminaseri who knows two people who got psychotic from MDMA. That value is non-zero in my opinion but I encourage you to put them on the same level and have the same level of criticism towards each of them.
> The fact that some people are ok with huge doses doesn't mean that lower doses are safe for everyone. There are a lot of people who smoke tons of weed and will never have DPDR. But that still doesn't mean the risk of getting DPDR from smoking weed is negligible. When reading testimonies here, it really doesn't seem that people who get DPDR from weed are heavy smokers. So it doesn't always easily scale with dosage.
> Then no, i am not into studies about MDMA therapy, but I wouldn't be surprised if it could show some positive effects, just like microdosing LSD or psylocibin can. After all, they increase serotonin levels just like SSRI antidepressants do. One major difference could be that when taking a recreational drug as a therapy people feel more in control and more anti-system, while with legal medication they have the impression it's the system which is trying to control them, even if chemistry is the same. That's why people are much more dismissive of side effects from recreational drugs than they are of medicines I think. Perhaps if Prozac had started as a street drug and not as a medicine people would think it is a miracle cure with almost no side-effects.


I see the opposite with most people. Dismissive or ignorant of the risks associated with legal medications while exaggerating the risks of drugs that the government has decided to ban, primarily for political reasons.

They assume that if a doctor prescribes it, it must be good for you and aren't interested in pursuing the matter further. Conversely, they think if the government bans something, it must be very harmful in all circumstances.


----------



## Trith (Dec 31, 2019)

Kittymoo said:


> Neuroleptics have terrible side-effects in pretty much everyone when taken daily over long periods, which they generally are. They also shorten people's lives significantly.
> 
> MRNA is generally not taken daily over long periods, so negative effects are uncommon. I would expect them to be more common if it was.
> 
> I'm not going to take neuroleptics at all, because I'm aware of how toxic and harmful they are. I don't believe they should be prescribed as commonly as they are. They frequently cause an iatrogenic form of Parkinson's disease, they cause organ damage, brain damage, diabetes, massive weight gain, they shave an average of 25 years off people's lives. Doctors have no business handing them out like candy to be taken every day. This "treatment" is worse than what it purports to treat.


Well it depends what the treatment purports to treat. Whether or not it's given for a lifetime depends on the disease it's supposed to treat, not on the medication itself. If you microdose for depression you can stop microdosing when your depression is over. If you take neuroleptics for psychosis, psychosis usually never goes away. And I know that for a lot of people neuroleptics are like a gift of god for them. Not because they have few side effects, but because what it is usually there to treat is a living nightmare and DPDR pales in comparison. And neuroleptics do work in many cases to remove psychosis. As far as I know, the high doses who have important consequences on health are given to psychotic people who's life can be threatened by their disease.
Neuroleptics can also be prescribed temporarily to suicidal people, and it can save their lives.
I am aware that neuroleptics can have serious side effects and even other psychiatric medications. Some people never get their sex life back to normal after taking SSRI's, I've read some accounts of people who think their memory is impaired on the long term as it is still the case for me so far, some studies seem to show that frontal lobe mass reduction that is generally attributed to the disease could (also) be attributed to medication. This is very serious, and of course if i had known that neuroleptics, anti-depressants and mood regulators would not help me I wouldn't have taken them. But that still doesn't mean that microdosing is any better until it is proven to be any better. I kept hearing that microdosing LSD, for example, had almost no side effects, and now I find this long list: Microdosing LSD: Benefits, risks, and more .

And you are right in your other post. I can easily imagine that people can also put too much trust into doctors and reject drugs that have been banned for political reasons. Both biases probably exist and occur in different social groups.


----------



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

Trith said:


> Well it depends what the treatment purports to treat. Whether or not it's given for a lifetime depends on the disease it's supposed to treat, not on the medication itself. If you microdose for depression you can stop microdosing when your depression is over. If you take neuroleptics for psychosis, psychosis usually never goes away. Neuroleptics can also be prescribed temporarily to suicidal people, and it can save their lives.
> I am aware that neuroleptics can have serious side effects and even other psychiatric medications. Some people never get their sex life back to normal after taking SSRI's, I've read some accounts of people who think their memory is impaired on the long term as it is still the case for me so far, some studies seem to show that frontal lobe mass reduction that is generally attributed to the disease could (also) be attributed to medication. This is very serious, and of course if i had known that neuroleptics, anti-depressants and mood regulators would not help me I wouldn't have taken them. But that still doesn't mean that microdosing is any better until it is proven to be any better. I kept hearing that microdosing LSD, for example, had almost no side effects, and now I find this long list: Microdosing LSD: Benefits, risks, and more .
> 
> And you are right in your other post. I can easily imagine that people can also put too much trust into doctors and reject drugs that have been banned for political reasons. Both biases probably exist and occur in different social groups.


20% of study participants had these mild side-effects. That's nothing compared to psychotropic medications prescribed daily at higher doses. 

Even my low dose naltrexone, which I get at a very small dose, caused mild side effects for the first two weeks, and then again for two weeks every time I had a dosage increase. Oh and LDN is spoken about as something that essentially has no side effects too. Which, in fairness, it doesn't outside of the adjustment periods.


----------



## Trith (Dec 31, 2019)

Kittymoo said:


> 20% of study participants had these mild side-effects. That's nothing compared to psychotropic medications prescribed daily at higher doses.
> 
> Even my low dose naltrexone, which I get at a very small dose, caused mild side effects for the first two weeks, and then again for two weeks every time I had a dosage increase. Oh and LDN is spoken about as something that essentially has no side effects too. Which, in fairness, it doesn't outside of the adjustment periods.


As I said, high doses are for psychotic people who's lifes are at risk (I was probably editing my post while you were answering). One should ask them if they feel better before or after medication, and if there exists any alternative. I don't believe any hallucinogen has been shown to help with psychosis.
Paracetamol has much less side effects than chemotherapy, but it doesn't cure cancer so why should we compare them?


----------



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

Interestingly, psychosis is generally a temporary phenomenon in poor countries where psychiatric medications are not used. 

Many of those countries view psychotic symptoms in a spiritual rather than a medicalised light, also, which could potentially be a factor. The nocebo effect might well mean that many people live up to pathologisation by the medical profession.


----------



## Kittymoo (10 mo ago)

Trith said:


> As I said, high doses are for psychotic people who's lifes are at risk (I was probably editing my post while you were answering). One should ask them if they feel better before or after medication, and if there exists any alternative. I don't believe any hallucinogen has been shown to help with psychosis.
> Paracetamol has much less side effects than chemotherapy, but it doesn't cure cancer so why should we compare them?


Neuroleptic drugs are frequently used off-label and many people with psychosis are not at risk of physical harm. It is always a dilemma with them, though, because these symptoms can really leave them and their lives out of control.

I think there needs to be more research into treatments. The fact that psychosis is a stigmatised condition means that the medical profession is happy to administer toxic substances to these people, against their will if they won't comply, and there's very little interest in looking for other options that won't destroy these people's health.

Many people in this forum are using neuroleptics for their condition. MRNA may also be used for PTSD, which can also cause strong dissociative symptoms. Hence the comparison, as I said in my earlier post comparing them.


----------

