Should Everyone Use ADHD Pills As Brain Boosters?
48 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 8th, 2008 // 7:48 am
Here’s an idea to debate: Healthy people should have the right to boost their brains with the same kind of pills that are prescribed for hyperactive kids or older adults with memory problems, several scientists contend in a commentary written in Nature. Part of the justification - college students already illegally use stimulants such as Ritalin to help them study.
“We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function,” they write. “In a world in which human workspans and lifespans are increasing, cognitive enhancement tools - including the pharmacological - will be increasingly useful for improved quality of life and extended work productivity, as well as to stave off normal and pathological age-related cognitive declines. Safe and effective cognitive enhancers will benefit both the individual and society.”
They acknowledge a need to manage benefits against risks, such as long-term side effects on children, the possibility that children or military personnel will be coerced into taking such meds, and the fairness issue - some people can afford the pills, while others can’t. At the same time, they attempt to debunk arguments that the using these drugs for such purposes would be cheating, unnatural and amount to drug abuse. Boosting the brain, they maintain, is no more morally objectionable than using nutrition and exercise to eat right or get a good night’s sleep.
And as more effective brain-boosting pills are developed, demand for them is likely to grow among middle-aged people who want youthful memory powers and multitasking workers who need to keep track of multiple demands, according to one of the authors. “Almost everybody is going to want to use it,” Martha Farah of the University of Pennsylvania tells the Associated Press.
“I would be the first in line if safe and effective drugs were developed that trumped caffeine,” another author, Michael Gazzaniga of the University of California, tells the AP. He and the others say laws should be rewritten to avoid making felons out of those who use the pills safely. And regulatory agencies should allow drugmakers to market cognitive-enhancing drugs to healthy adults provided they have supplied the necessary regulatory data for safety and efficacy.
Some health experts agreed the issue deserves attention, but the commentary didn’t impress Leigh Turner of the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics. “It’s a nice puff piece for selling medications for people who don’t have an illness of any kind,” he tells the AP. There is more to read below. But first, what do you think?
Should everyone use brain-boosting pills?
- No (60%, 165 Votes)
- Yes (40%, 112 Votes)
Total Voters: 277
Loading ...
The commentary cites a 2001 survey of about 11,000 American college students that found 4 percent had used prescription stimulants illegally in the prior year. But at some colleges, the figure was as high as 25 percent. “It’s a felony, but it’s being done,” Farah tells the AP.
Adderall and Ritalin are prescribed mainly for people with ADHD, but the authors write that the pills can help other people focus their attention and handle information. They also cite Provigil, which is approved for sleep disorders but is prescribed for healthy people who need to stay alert when sleep-deprived. Lab studies show it can also perk up the brains of well-rested people. And some drugs developed for Alzheimer’s disease also provide a modest memory boost.
Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, agreed with the commentary that the nonprescribed use of brain-boosting drugs must be studied, but expressed concern that wider use of stimulants could lead more people to become addicted, noting that happened decades ago when the drugs were widely prescribed for a variety of disorders. “Whether we like it or not, that property of stimulants is not going to go away,” she tells the AP.
Erik Parens, a senior research scholar at the Hastings Center bioethics think tank, says the authors make a convincing case that “we ought to be opening this up for public scrutiny and public conversation.” But one challenge will be finding ways to protect people against subtle coercion to use the drugs, such as what parents feel when neighbor kids sign up for SAT prep courses, he tells the AP.
And if the US moves to providing a basic package of health care to all its citizens, Parens adds that including such drugs may not be affordable, he adds, raising the issue of societal inequalities if people are then left to decide whether to pay individually.
The seven authors include ethics experts and the editor-in-chief of Nature as well as scientists. They developed their case at a seminar funded by Nature and Rockefeller University in New York. Two said they consult for drugmakers, although Farah says she has no financial ties.
Anne
My own opinion is that these drugs should be banned altogether. They are unsafe. Just google ritalin death.
http://www.ritalindeath.com/
http://www.wnho.net/deathfromritalin.htm
http://www.audiblox2000.com/learning_disabilities/ritalin.htm
etc
Doc
Should everyone use benzos in the evening to relax after their day of stimulant use?
harpy
How is this any different than performance enhancing drugs for athletes? It’s ok to boost mental ability but not physical?
Lisa Van S
They must be sniffing carbona!
Nathan
It seems to me that the good outweighs the bad here. I’d be happy to pay $ to be a smarter scientist, to have a better memory, etc. The danger is that if the performance enhancement is quite significant, you could pretty soon get to a society of the “haves” and the “have-nots”.
As for harpy’s question, I don’t see anything wrong with performance enhancing drugs. It seems to me that the only reason they are banned is for the sake of “fairness” of the competition. If someone wants to take a performance enhancing drug to be a better runner or swimmer, that’s fine with me too — they just shouldn’t compete with those that choose not to do so.
We began down the road of “lifestyle enhancing drugs” with Viagra. This is the logical next step. As opposed to “sexual enhancing drugs”, these new “cognitive enhancing drugs” will at least be (hopefully) benificial to more than just the individual.
Salmon
Nathan,
The question will be who really are the haves and have nots.
The people who indulge while they’re growing up and die from tumors, heart disease, etc. by the time they’re forty or those who don’t and enjoy their golden years.
I just realized that sounds like tobacco doesn’t it.
I also just realized some of these proposed new compounds are nicotine like.
Salmon
Justice in Michigan
To me, this is more reefer madness. As someone who spends a lot of time with college students, the last thing they need to “boost their brains” is another pill/supplement.
What, precisely, are the abilities that this stuff presumably enhances?
Nathan
Salmon - what about Ritalin? It’s been approved for decades, is generally safe, long-term effects are generally known. It’s been shown to increase brain efficiency by up to 50%. If I choose to do so, why shouldn’t I be able to take this drug in order to enhance my cognative function? (assuming that studies show that it can do so - but those should be pretty easy studies to conduct)
Salmon
Nathan
Please point me to the data about long term safety for Ritalin other than long term suppression of growth. Plus even though it’s generally thought to be due to decreased appetite (stimulant effect) I’m not so sure that’s the full story and think that more recent data suggests it may be due to effects on BMRP2 or SMAD so we really don’t have a lot of long term data following people into their 30’s and 40’s or even 20’s and seeing if they keel over with heart attacks, or having hepatic fibrosis, or their bones start breaking.
Looking at Ritalin’s history it was originally approved in 1956, and approval for Minimal Brain Dysfunction in 1963 based on a few days of observations in 13 kids (largely mildly mentally retarded kids with attention problems if I recall correctly). Use was not that great until the last decade or so when Concerta was approved in 2000 (Alza sold to JNJ for $14 billion headed up by Ernest Mario ex-CEO of Glaxo who helped develop Lamictal (Bipolar) and recent head of PPD Pharmaco - Ketek scandal, on board at Reliant - Omega 3 fatty acid for mitochondrial heart problems and schizophrenia, and Prestwick - tetrabenazine for Huntington’s Chorea another mitochondrial disorder and offlabel for tardive dyskinesia but causes really nasty depression and likely suicide - just approved in August) and there was a big marketing push for Concerta. Then Novartis and Shire and others jumped on the band wagon and played catch up. In addition, when you look at the post approval regulatory history there was a PREA 1 year post marketing AC meeting in June 2006 where Shirley Murphy head of OTS at FDA (and ex-head of pediatric marketing strategy for Glaxo hired while Lamictal was under review) made a big push for it inducing psychosis (which of course our KOL’s are any continued irritability on Concerta means they really have Bipolar and recent labeling changes over the last few months pointing out addictiveness as it’s going off patent and pointing out how irritability on Concerta and Ritalin may be a harbinger of Bipolar). Thus reinforcing the need to consider drugs and switch to drugs like lamictal (SJS in kids - but don’t worry we will have new genetic tests and orphan drugs to treat the toxicities) and antipsychotics (but don’t worry we’ll soon have new cardiac imaging agents for CAD like the one turned by FDA today (Acusphere) due to toxicity and of course we can treat with Revatio (Viagra) which we just got approved now that Viagra is going off patent.
Now remember last June when Grassley pointed out the costs of Medicaid possibly breaking the bank if costs don’t level out like projected (Thank you Condor for the graph) and at the same time complaining about GE’s new million dollar scanner where cardiologists were saying let up scan people every 3 months at $1000/pop and even though there’s no known utility if you let us do it maybe we’ll find one.
Now do you want me to go into the the details on the other CNS activating agents that the original post was about Nathan, or are you afraid I might be able to point out other possible hidden agendas.
Salmon
My mistake the 1 yr Pediatric Advisory Committee meeting on Concerta was June 30, 2005.
Plus how do we have a 1 year safety ped safety AC meeting when it was approved in 2000, because JNJ added another strength.
In fact it’s interesting because they originally didn’t even ask for approval of a low strength which you would need for the 6 year olds. Instead they only went after higher doses because it didn’t pay to manufacture the lower dose instead initially they only went after taking patients away from Ritalin and then when they increased the market by promoting the disease and pediatricians complained did they finally say it was worth it to make a strengths that were appropriate for the entire age range in which Concerta was approved.
Salmon
Nathan
Salmon,
You’ve clearly demonstrated your superior knowledge - but you’ve completely missed my point. My point is that **IF** there were a cognitive enhancer (possibly like Ritalin) that is shown to be safe enough for FDA approval, then I’d be in the market to take it. Maybe I could be as smart as you… (just kidding)
You are arguing about the safety of a particular drug. I’m saying that I find nothing morally objectionable about a safe cognition enhancing drug. Do you disagree?
Salmon
Nathan,
The problem is that nothing is 100% safe and companies are so good at pulling fast ones past the FDA that it may seem safe but that there are really nasty side effects that may not be apparent for years.
Look at cigarettes. In fact this is a really good example because some of the same people who are working on these cognitive enhancers are the very same people who for years worked on addictive additives to put into cigarettes. Now why don’t we have the same degree of lung cancer in cigar smokers as we do with cigarette smokers, and why is there this big push all of a sudden to have FDA regulate tobacco products right when preemption is around the corner.
No thank you. I’ve been in this business for too long to know how the questions are set up to pull you into a trap.
Steve
I’m with Nathan. Salmon, you have just as much of an agenda as the drug companies.
Salmon
Steve,
Do you agree is a blatent red flag in this business that a company has got something to hide and wants to trap someone.
Yes I’ve got an agenda but I’m open about it. It’s to protect people.
The toxicities that I’ve pointed out with olanzapine and other antipsychotics will cause heart and lung problems in 100% of people eventually. We’ve already got 500,000 kids on these drugs and even more adults and the companies are pushing more indications. Quicker onset of of antidepressive effects, Generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar spectrum disorder, and so on. They expect the market to grow to several percent of the population and then they’re selling the treatments and the tests for this and other side effects.
Pharmacologically it’s clear that this is intentional chronic poisoning with a predictable outcome. Legally it can’t be considered poisoning because they’re medications and you can’t be convicted of poisoning if you’re using something as a medication.
How many people in the work do you think there are with my knowledge, background that I’ve mentioned, and obviously in the industry. I fully believe that my bosses suspect who I am and are simply waiting for the right time to pull something based on my post here. I’m certain I’ll never work again.
I’m a Salmon. I swim upstream against all odds and am willing to die (or lose my career or even be put in jail) to give the kids a chance.
There that’s my agenda.
Nathan
Derek Lowe has some interesting comments, as usual, on this issue. It’s a complex issue, that’s for sure. His commentary touches on more of the societal impact of such a drug…
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/12/08/enhancing_the_brain_here_we_go.php
Nathan
One more thing:
Derek correctly notes that there is a perfectly safe cognitive enhancing drug is already on the market. In fact, I’m using it as we speak: Caffeine.
What would be morally objectionable about marketing something that improves upon the efficacy of caffeine?
Jim
Salmon, thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy and death, now and in the future, of Zyprexa and the other atypical antipsychotics. Another opportunity for drug pushing and sales brought to you by the greedy folks at Pharma. This one is a real crisis - but I don’t expect it to go away under Obama.
Jim
Salmon, thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy and death, now and in the future, of Zyprexa and the other atypical antipsychotics. Another opportunity for drug pushing and sales brought to you by the greedy folks at Pharma. This one is a real crisis - but I don’t expect it to go away under Obama. Our children!
Justice in Michigan
Could someone tell me how “brain efficiency” and its increase (or decrease) is measured?
Salmon
Nathan,
I thought of caffeine when I was posting before.
The structure is somewhat similar to sertonin but with obvious differences and the positions of the Nitrogens suggest it might even have direct effects on mitochondria. We have many years of using caffeine yet even now we are just beginning to realize that it has effects on the growing fetus that are similar to the effects with the antipsychotics.
Even a single atom change can make a huge difference as to the safety and toxicity of a compound. so even if we took caffeine and tweaked it just a tiny bit to make a patentable compound the toxicity profile might change in ways we don’t expect. Pharmacology and the use of drugs isn’t rocket science. It’s actually way more complex. You’re proposing a huge market with huge incentives to do unethical things and it might take decades for people to figure out that they’ve been had.
I’m not against development of cognitive enhancers. They might be useful in dementia, in chronic schizophrenics, or even the severely mentally retarded. You need to balance the risk vs. benefit, but will we be able to truly asssess the risks for the typical person. Maybe with time after they’ve been on the market for decades.
One of these cognitive enhancers has already gone through FDA review, modafinil and armodafinil, and it was already on the market for narcolepsy. It was turned down for pediatric use in ADHD, surely in ADHD the potential benefit is more than in the general population. However there was an advisory committee and you should watch the tape and see how the company executives change their story about safety everytime FDA of the AC members caught them in an apparent untruth or internal contradiction in their story. Finally over nearly 18 months later FDA actually made them put in big black bold letters DO NOT USE IN CHILDREN.
In the interim the company went and complained in the New York Times and the Seattle Post Intelligencer about the big mean old FDA and how they were being excessive cautious and it was a poster child for overcautiousness. Well the company has since been fined $485 million for illegal marketing practices for off-label uses.
The paper articles from the drug companies and their front organizations and even blog posts from their point men make everything seem to make the drug company’s positions so reasonable.
I can point out many things that are currently on the market and approved that based on structures etc. I think we’re going to have problems with. Industry of course works by what you don’t know won’t hurt you and if it does well we’ll have preemption.
Salmon
Nathan
Justice,
All I know about it is what I read on Wikipedia. Here’s what I read:
—————-
One study finds that methylphenidate [Ritalin] reduces the increases in brain glucose metabolism during performance of a cognitive task by about 50%. This suggests that, similar to increasing dopamine and norepinephrine in the striatum and prefontal cortex, methylphenidate may focus activation of certain regions and make the brain more efficient. This is consistent with the observation that stimulant drugs can enhance attention and performance in some individuals. If brain resources are not optimally distributed (for example, in individuals with ADHD or sleep deprivation), improved performance could be achieved by reducing task-induced regional activation. Stimulant delivery when brain resources are already optimally distributed may then adversely affect performance.
Ed Silverman
To Nathan and everyone else,
In the interest of full disclosure, I often reach for that stimulant you mentioned - caffeine. As some of you may recall, this is what I refer to as my cup of stimulation during my morning greeting. This is not to say I do or do not endorse the opinions in this essay. I simply admit to enjoying myself - this week, my preferred flavor is Southern Pecan. And I do not complain when it helps me motor through the many hours spent in front of the laptop. Am I cheating somehow? You decide. For now, I get to pay the bills.
Cheers
ed
Justice in Michigan
OK. It was a serious question. As the Lowe piece seems to suggest, just what capacities are enhanced, and for how many, is itself quite uncertain. For example, I would be interested to know how any of this is correlated with measures of practical intelligence like logic (as in Miller Analogy Test), reading comprehension, interpretive capacities, and various measures of creative intelligence one sometimes finds on IQ tests.
I understand this does not address the ethical question of whether marketing drugs for whatever “enhancement”, assuming relative knowledge of risks/benefits, ought to be OK. I am ready to leave that open depending on the likelihood of our really _knowing_ relevant risks and benefits.
Still, everything happens in a context. Running a faster 5K or getting it up are fairly clear performance measures. Still not chearl what anyone is supposed to do better when “this is your brain on drugs.’
harpy
I don’t know if it answers your question, Justice, but I recall reading an article on identity theft and law enforcement blamed the rise in some areas on the availability of methamphetamines. Meth addicts, the hypothesis went, were ideally suited to the task because the drug gave them the ability to focus fully on the task of connecting the dots for hours or days at a time. I’ve also known people who have had problems with meth or other types of speed and their ability to focus on one thing to the exclusion of all else is quite remarkable - until they go over the edge. I don’t know the long-term effects of “safe” speed, such as Ritalin or Adderall, but I assume the overall effect of the drug is the same.
harpy
“The drugs and the crime fit neatly together; addicts strung out on meth can stay awake and focused for days at a time, making them expert hackers and mailbox thieves. And ID theft is easy money, the perfect income for drug addicts who have no other way to fund their habit.
Last year, police busted 9,300 meth labs, and the Federal Trade Commission says 10 million consumers were hit with ID theft. It’s not clear which came first, the addiction, or the criminal explosion, but increasingly, authorities believe the struggle against meth use and fight against ID theft are largely the same battle.” Link
Justice in Michigan
Fascinating. Hyper-vigilant paranoids can do the same thing. I can see an Olympic event brewing here - Beach Hacking.
It also leads us to the old conundrum - all that thinking could lead these speedsters to second-guess the FDA.
And then what? Infernal chaos and the end of days.
Just A Thought
You need to take into account the long term effects of endorphine over-stimulation.
One ex-addict explained that you get to where you feel no emotion on these drugs. It doesn’t get better when you stop taking them so you reach for them again and again in an attempt to allow yourself to feel something. He was trying to describe the emptiness. He was talking about how an addict can commit crimes and how it isn’t always that they commit crimes to obtain their next hit. They just don’t feel remorse- anymore than they feel happiness or sadness.
He was raised on ADD drugs and went to street drugs. He told me that he’s discussed it with people in prison- how taking ADD drugs, as a kid, lead to street drugs in the same way that smoking marijuana can lead to harder drugs. He’s spoken with doctors and rehabilitation workers in great depth and is writing a book on the subject.
It is neither funny or ironic that, with the war on drugs, there is often a D.A.R.E. officer at the school in front of a ~Just Say No~ sign while dozens of kids line up for the school nurse who is dispensing their amphetamines.
atlex
Ed,
I don’t know if you saw this report about caffeine. But, it may not be doing you much good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/health/research/02regi.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=caffeine&st=cse
“A cup of strong coffee might make you feel wide awake, but a small study suggests that for improved physical and mental performance, an afternoon nap works better….Those who had caffeine had worse motor skills than those who napped or had a placebo. In the perceptual task, the nappers did significantly better than either the caffeine or placebo group. On the verbal test, nappers were best by a wide margin, and the caffeine consumers did no better than those given a placebo. Despite their mediocre performance, caffeine takers consistently reported less sleepiness than the others.”
Atlex
Ed Silverman
Hi Atlex,
Maybe it’s true, but who has time to nap? I would if I could, but I can’t. So I settle for the stimulation any way I can get it, legally, of course. Next time Pharmalot is quiet for a stretch, though, chalk it up to a snooze. I will say that, so far, the caffeine does not appear to have impaired my typing skills.
Bottoms up,
ed
wizened
This entire argument is academic. Methylphenidate is a Schedule II drug with high abuse potential. It will never be approved for widespread use unless it is de-scheuled, which will never happen.
Lance
Purported “brain enhancement” drugs such as Ritalin, Modafinil, and Cephalon have seen a 300% rise in use in the United States during the past decade according to the National Institute of Mental Health. This dramatic rise in use is driven by healthy individuals seeking to gain a competitive edge and boost performance at work or in school, undeterred by potential long term risks. A company based in Phoenix, Arizona is promoting a safer, more effective means of achieving these brain enhancement performance goals: a treadmill desk.
Most people focus on the significant weight loss that can be achieved on a treadmill desk but the positive effects on the brain are extraordinary In an opinion piece published in the journal Nature several scientists and professionals are arguing for the recognition and promotion of these drugs as brain enhancers despite the potential risks of dependency and lack of long term health impact studies.
“This commentary ignores recent studies that show Ritalin to be ineffective in performance enhancement over a three year period and harmful to growth and development in children, yet somehow these drugs are now considered the magic bullet for adults? It should raise alarm bells,” states Steve Bordley, President of TrekDesk, a treadmill desk manufacturer. “None of these medications can make the claim that they boost memory and cognitive abilities, increase the amount of small blood vessels in the brain as much as 43%, or reduce the incidence of stroke, dementia or Alzheimer’s over the long term. But a daily walking regimen accomplishes this without any potential risks and a long list of additional health benefits as well. You hear very little about this because no one makes any money telling you walking is the answer.”
Categorizing these drugs as “smart drugs” seems to be both an oxymoron and a brilliant marketing ploy, exploiting American’s drive to be at the top of their game.
So, if walking far exceeds the brain boosting abilities of these drugs, why aren’t more American’s changing their behavior? Bordley offers a few explanations. “Most people are unaware how powerful daily walking is for their health. If they were given the information it would change their priorities and motivations. Second, most adults are stressed for time already and and are strapped in a desk and a car for most of their day. Walking 3-6 hours a day is simply out of the question. The third reason is the lack of motivation at the end of an exhausting workday to get out and move.”
Treadmill desks offer a solution to these challenges. Employees walk while they work at very slow speeds without sweating. At the end of the day they will have walked between 3-8 hours and gained energy and brain enhancing benefits naturally without pills and without any additional time burden.
Johnny Stettin
posted by Salmon 3.14:
Link to this comment
“Nathan,
I thought of caffeine when I was posting before.
The structure is somewhat similar to sertonin but with obvious differences and the positions of the Nitrogens suggest it might even have direct effects on mitochondria. We have many years of using caffeine yet even now we are just beginning to realize that it has effects on the growing fetus that are similar to the effects with the antipsychotics.”
Just thought that I would point out that serotonin, rather than sertonin, which doesn’t exist, has a very different structure from caffeine as, no doubt, you can find out by looking at wikipedia. I would like to see scientific articles that describe the things in your post.
truthman30
“We began down the road of “lifestyle enhancing drugs” with Viagra. This is the logical next step. As opposed to “sexual enhancing drugs”, these new “cognitive enhancing drugs” will at least be (hopefully) benificial to more than just the individual.”
Nathan..
Just because you work for the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t mean your views are right for everyone..
“cognitive enhancing drugs”"?!?
Are you out of your mind ?..
Nathan
truthman30 writes: “Just because you work for the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t mean your views are right for everyone..”
Did I write otherwise? I have an opinion, and I wrote it. My opinion is no more (and no less) valuable than yours. I assume you are opposed? Can you elaborate why?
The key question here is whether or not such a drug could be made safe. I’m assuming that it can (with enough work). As I posted above, caffiene is considered a pretty safe drug…
harpy
The dangers of caffeine are becoming more apparent, Nathan, especially with the rise of energy drinks. It used to be more difficult to consume enough caffeine to actually hurt you (in coffee or sodas), but energy drinks have made it a lot easier to overdose. Johns Hopkins called for a warning earlier this year.
Chewing coca leafs isn’t very dangerous, but cocaine can be a different story, and crack is downright madness. It’s all a matter of degree.
Salmon
Johnny,
While I may have been sloppy with my words (direct instead of indirect) and spelling (problems with the computer and internet connection) in the previous post my general thought remains and is simply a hypothesis at this point based on reading a great deal of science. I suggest that if you’re interested that you look into the literature and businesses looking at mitochondrial drug toxicites and structure activity relationships.
Your question aobut reference articles however brings up an interesting aside. In 1993 the US Supreme Court got involved in the Bendectin fetal toxicity case in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. They basically said that there’s too much science being thrown around and we’re lawyers and can’t interpret what’s valid and isn’t so we’ll base what science is admissable based on if the expert key opinion leaders say it is and what the scientific conferences on the subject are saying.
Boy did Pharma take this ruling to the bank. They put their own people into FDA to be the FDA experts on various scientific and safety issues. They have meetings between FDA and Pharma and issue white papers on things like hepatotoxicity, and cardiac safety testing, and quality by design and so on. This way if any lawyer in a case or even an FDA reviewer raises a safety issue based on basic science. Well but the M.D. experts aren’t all saying it, (except maybe one M.D. who doesn’t quite understand the more basic research or who’s just pushing his own research who’s brought to the meetings so everyon else can say look we looked at all views and we shot it down), and the FDAs own expert isn’t saying it. So too bad it’s not admissible in court. Or even at the FDA where its dismissed as pseudoscientific.
Salmon
Opinions are my own and do not represent the opinions of the FDA
Salmon
The dose makes the poison.
Salmon
The dose makes the poison.
Paracelsus 1493 - 1541
truthman30
Did I write otherwise? I have an opinion, and I wrote it. My opinion is no more (and no less) valuable than yours. I assume you are opposed? Can you elaborate why?
The key question here is whether or not such a drug could be made safe. I’m assuming that it can (with enough work). As I posted above, caffiene is considered a pretty safe drug…
Nathan it seems to me that you are always so quick to jump on anything which might bring a profit to the industry!
That’s why I view your comments with cynicism ..
The industry which you work for has proven itself to be corrupt to the core..
This concept of “brain boosting pills” is yet another fad and marketing angle, and if these drugs were to come to market , how can we trust that they will be safe and not create dependence, abuse and intolerable side effects?…
We have seen this time and time again in the ndustry, they create these drugs and create markets to sell them to, and they suppress or lie about the side effects and efficacy , it seems to be the standard phrama business model now.. How very sad …
oh don't mind me
Sympathomimetics and eugeroics; big difference.
And Truthman, “brain boosting pills” are, eh, not the new kid on the block here. I suggest you do some homework on my aforementioned chemical goodness and add the word “nootropic”, m’kay?
Eames
I’m a graduate student studying full time, working part time, and helping my mother, who is single and has some financial problems. Constantly multi-tasking has left me utterly exhausted, but this is the nature of American society - we are all required to do everything that is asked of us RIGHT NOW. If I need to get through three finals in one week and try to get to work so I can pay my bills, you damn right I’m going to pop an Adderall so I can get shit done.
Listen, I’m as upset as anyone that the pharmaceutical industry is full of a bunch of money-grubbing jerks, but is it really in my best interests to avoid a med that might help me because I can’t be assured of its absolute safety? As long as our society revolves around God-almighty capital, we can never distinguish between products that will help and those that will hinder. All we can do is make the decision that we think is best for ourselves. And if I think that I’ll benefit more from an amphetamine to help me buzz through 30 pages of essays so I can have a decent career someday and keep helping my mom, so be it.
truthman30
“Sympathomimetics and eugeroics; big difference.
And Truthman, “brain boosting pills” are, eh, not the new kid on the block here. I suggest you do some homework on my aforementioned chemical goodness and add the word “nootropic”, m’kay?”
Pfffff…
Yeah sure..
Whatever..
MG
I’m a little surprised no one has mentioned the long-term effects of chronically high blood levels of catecholamines. Higher baseline sympathetic activity increases adverse cardiac events in those with obstructive sleep apnea. Why would we want to raise sympathetic tone in healthy individuals? Or worse, in those who might be better off trading their stimulant drugs for a little beta *blockade*? Atrial fibrillation, anyone?
lou
My nephew is on ritalin for ADHD (has been for years). There are definitely undesirable side effects to this drug and I think Nature has lost its conscience when it promotes such drugs for everyone. This is nuts.
Person
Advertizing Drugs Hype Disorder
Daniel Dansak
Human beings have been trying to enhance their performance or self-medicate in many ways since time began, starting, perhaps, with alcohol, even cosmetics. Whether you are talking about enahancement of sexual performance, athletic performance, cognitive functioning, increasing beauty, or treating illness, popular demand exists for products, legal or illegal, to meet these individually perceived needs. Side effects have always been a risk that some people were willing to risk for the promised benefits. Snake oil purveyors have morphed into pharmaceutical companies that can be regulated by governments. Both governments and pharmaceutical companies perform research on products to meet what their customers and constituents demand. So I look at this issue as one of demand. If people don’t want cognitive enhancement they don’t have to buy it. But if they want it, it will be available with at least some statements about risk and benefits built on what can be reasonably known. I won’t rant against the scientists who raise questions; it is their task in life. Nor will I put down the pharmaceutical companies who are in the business of meeting people’s demands. I’d much rather deal with them, than the street drug pusher or the snake oil purveyor. What I do see as my goal is to educate people about their choices, not to make my choice their choice or to protect them from bad choices. I have seen many people given appropriate information who then made a bad choice despite the information. I still do not believe I should have made them make the decision I would want them to make. Sometimes, in the long run, their mistaken judgment turns out better than my short-run good judgement.
Steven E. Curtis, Ph.D.
This is scary stuff but I certainly see that we are going in the direction using these psychiatric medications for the general practice. I have been practicing as child clinical psychologist for many years. When I was first trained in the 1970s, you had to convince teachers and parents to have their child take Ritalin. Now, you have to convince teachers and parents that medication is not always appropriate. Our world is changing. I just hope we don’t forget what a natural state of consciousness is.
Steve Curtis, Ph.D.
Author, Understanding Your Child’s Puzzling Behavior
BrainCootie
What I want to know is, why does everyone else get to get a leg up when us ADDers are just trying to get on their level? For the lucky people who are not attention disordered, these pills give them a “rush” and a boost of some sorts. For the people who are attention-disordered, these meds enable us to slow down. Imagine turning the heat on in the bathroom and putting your clothes in there to take a shower, and then going to the kitchen, and three hours later you realize you were going to take a shower. Now imagine that happening in every aspect of every moment of your life.
These medications are not just “brain pills.” I can’t even express how exasperated I am right now after reading people’s comments. The person who mentioned everyone using benzos to calm them down at night, they’re on the right path. So now let’s give everyone a Xanax when they don’t feel like dealing with life. People who have debilitating panic attacks get to have them, so why can’t everyone else? That lady going through chemotherapy gets Phenergan for her nausea, how ’bout I go get some for my hangover?
C’mon people, use some common sense.