View Full Version : Biohacking ADD via amphetamines


Αλήθεια
08-08-14, 07:02 PM
I hope I've found the right place; this appears to be the part of the forum where the interesting people who would rather not dose themselves with dangerous drugs for the rest of their lives lurk.

So, I'm kinda spergy, always had problems with attention, motivation, and energy levels. I tend to be very sensitive to drugs and even when abusing them am extremely conservative. When I was 15 or so I asked my psychiatrist of the time (who was acting merely as a court-appointed therapist) for an addy script to see whether it could help me become more diligent in school, and he happily obliged. The first dose I took (perhaps 15-20mg of an extended release formula, relatively mild) was way too much, way too jittery, insane hyperfocus, and I completely gave up on the drug as a result.

Ten years later, I've had a few more experiences with Adderall, and while most of them were enjoyable, the drug remains completely useless for treating my symptoms. Recently I became fed up with my own lethargy, boredom and apathy, so I decided to examine the ADD literature a little more carefully than I had. I learned of the differing effects of the levo- and dextro-amphetamine enantiomers, and began to suspect that it was the 25% l-amphetamine content of Adderall that made the drug so problematic for me. I became eager to try Dexedrine.

A few weeks later, I acquired a script, and I took my first 15mg Spansule (Amedra, not Barr, thank god) yesterday. The differences from the Adderall experience were astonishing: no jitters, no restlessness, no bruxism, I was able to eat, and while I didn't feel compelled to get things done, I was able to remain relatively focused on any activity I happened to engage in. I had expected to feel more stimulated, though, and after about six hours I began to come down (as gently as a feather, of course). Considering the intensity or lack thereof of the first dose, I redosed at about 1PM (first dose was at 8AM) with another 15mg. That got me to where I expected to be, and then some. I ended up staying up all night, spending six hours organizing a bunch of computer files I had been meaning to organize for years and years. To my surprise I ended up beginning a few other tasks that had been lingering on my to-do list for several years, as well. I didn't fall asleep until 6AM and only managed 3.5 hours of sleep. Didn't wake up feeling particularly rested, but I've felt fine this whole day.

I haven't had any more today, and I probably won't have any more tomorrow. I'd like to use this drug as a tool to fulfill my dormant potential, but I have reservations about potential harms resulting from chronic use (the literature on this subject is scant and speculative at best), and I don't want to incur any sort of dependence.

What's interesting, I notice, is that even during the comedown and the "hangover" (which has been too mild to justify the use of the word), my ability to focus, to a significant degree, and motivation, to a subtle degree, still seem to be above baseline. What could this mean? Is it possible that one dose of dextroamphetamine is capable of nudging my neurobiology in a healthy direction?

In an ideal world, I'd be able to use a carefully modulated dextroamphetamine treatment to bootstrap myself out of a lifetime of bad habits, neurological and otherwise, and then abstain with no ill effects, a la Eddie Morra after weaning himself off of NZT. I've heard that via neuroplasticity alone it's possible to measurably alter brain chemistry.

What do you guys think? Has anybody got any pertinent anecdotes? Links to research? Bright ideas? I'd love to hear from you. :)

—Steve

sarahsweets
08-09-14, 06:25 AM
I'm having a hard time moving beyond the dangerous drugs comment.




[QUOTE=Αλήθεια;1671083]I hope I've found the right place; this appears to be the part of the forum where the interesting people who would rather not dose themselves with dangerous drugs for the rest of their lives lurk[/quote ]

Kunga Dorji
08-09-14, 07:01 AM
I'm having a hard time moving beyond the dangerous drugs comment.





Fair comment.
I suspect that prescribed stimulants used at treatment doses for ADHD are amongst the safest of medications.

Re the OPs main comment though-
I suspect that the stimulant experience for the ADDer provides a sort of psychological template for focus.

I recall a talk by the psychotherapist Bill O'Hanlon, a man who admits to being ADHD himself, in which he made much the same comment.
Something along the lines of "Oh, that is what being focussed FEELS LIKE".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_O%27Hanlon

My own experience is that repeated use of prescribed stimulants has made it much easier for me to be aware when I am in an unfocussed, disorganised state- and much easier for me to become aware of the causes of (and hence the remedies for-- all of them not just the pharmaceutical ones) unfocussed mental states in myself.

Equally- once I am focussed by a single dose I tend to stay in good shape for the rest of the day.
It is only recovering from sleep- and the associated problem of "rebooting my reality hologram" upon awakening that present significant challenges nowadays.

I really do not think that it is a matter of "wanting to take drugs (dangerous or not) for the rest of our lives.

I do think it is a matter of wanting to be as functional and as happy as we can be.

peripatetic
08-09-14, 07:18 AM
I hope I've found the right place; this appears to be the part of the forum where the interesting people who would rather not dose themselves with dangerous drugs for the rest of their lives lurk.

not only is that un****ingbelievably insulting to a whole lot of people you know NOTHING about, having joined all of a hot minute ago, but it's is a grotesquely narrow and inaccurate characterization of the vast majority of active members here. i don't know why you have to begin a question by putting down others, but that kind of crap is what perpetuates stigma against those with mental illness. it's also shockingly inaccurate.

i dont' know a single person posting actively anywhere on this forum who wants to "dose themselves with dangerous drugs for the rest of their lives". get a grip. you have no ******* idea what challenges others here face and while you may have the option of being unmedicated and functional at even a base level, many do not. what you have the luxury of opting out of might be the only thing that saves someone else's life or keeps them out of the hospital or jail. that doesn't make you more interesting, it makes you fortunate.

having the audacity to claim to know the nature of others' lives and reasons for taking medication is, i mean, do you seriously think you can judge the intentions and motivations of people you don't know....over the internet? what exactly has endowed you with this ability? what are you getting out of being so unkind and offensive and dismissive of others? this is not just a place to request information, but is also a support forum for people with adhd and other mental illness, right? you don't have to be supportive to get the information you seek, but you also don't need to be insulting and rude.

uread2much
08-09-14, 08:03 AM
Seriously? I am tired of the attitude toward those of us that aren't neurotypical..You never hear people dis diabetics for "taking dangerous drugs the rest of their lives". Insulin can kill you if you take too much and it can happen real fast.

Our brains ARE different than the average bears. I have nothing but gratitude for the researchers who discovered the treatment for my untypical brain. Like many ADHDers I have other diagnoses that complicate my social and professional interactions.

Most of us are tolerant of others because we have suffered for being different. I think you must have logged onto the wrong site. Try reddit You'll be right at home.

someothertime
08-09-14, 08:30 AM
Equally- once I am focussed by a single dose I tend to stay in good shape for the rest of the day.
It is only recovering from sleep- and the associated problem of "rebooting my reality hologram" upon awakening that present significant challenges nowadays.


This be truly aware decoding ... like the crank on a spitfire... remarkable.

Lunacie
08-09-14, 10:03 AM
I hope I've found the right place; this appears to be the part of the forum where the interesting people who would rather not dose themselves with dangerous drugs for the rest of their lives lurk.

Ritalin and Adderall have been used for 70 and 50 years respectively.
I think if there were serious concerns about them being dangerous,
they'd have been taken off the market by now.



I haven't had any more today, and I probably won't have any more tomorrow. I'd like to use this drug as a tool to fulfill my dormant potential, but I have reservations about potential harms resulting from chronic use (the literature on this subject is scant and speculative at best), and I don't want to incur any sort of dependence.


What's interesting, I notice, is that even during the comedown and the "hangover" (which has been too mild to justify the use of the word), my ability to focus, to a significant degree, and motivation, to a subtle degree, still seem to be above baseline. What could this mean? Is it possible that one dose of dextroamphetamine is capable of nudging my neurobiology in a healthy direction?

No, it's not likely that you've changed your neurobiology from taking the meds for one day.
However, there has been some research done that indicates stimulant meds used correctly
can change the neurobiology of the brain over time,
maybe from allowing us to practice using the skills we already know.


In an ideal world, I'd be able to use a carefully modulated dextroamphetamine treatment to bootstrap myself out of a lifetime of bad habits, neurological and otherwise, and then abstain with no ill effects, a la Eddie Morra after weaning himself off of NZT. I've heard that via neuroplasticity alone it's possible to measurably alter brain chemistry.

—Steve

Some people do manage to learn skills or change their neurobiology and don't need the meds after awhile.
Maybe those are the ones with better support and less stress, or milder impairment.
Some people need the meds for the rest of their lives. Again, the meds have a good track record.


I take meds for high blood pressure daily.
I tried a beta blocker a dozen years ago and had a bad allergic reaction.
If I'd continued taking the meds I could have died from anaphylaxis.

No med, not even plain old aspirin, is completely safe for everyone.
With doctor's supervision, most are helpful rather than harmful.
Without the meds for hypertension, I could be dead of stroke or heart attack.
It's a matter of weighing the pros and cons on an individual basis, eh?

Αλήθεια
08-09-14, 01:26 PM
Some of you seem to have read a little too far into my wording. Or maybe that's the social ineptness on my part.

Anyway, by "interesting" I meant "unusual"; most people who undergo psychiatric treatment, especially for ADD, seem to go into it with the intention of remaining medicated indefinitely, if not for the rest of their lives, mostly because of the fact that officially there are no "cures" for most of the conditions treated psychiatrically. In saying "interesting" I wasn't implying that the aforesaid population is boring. No judgments here, peripatetic. Everyone's got his own story. If I'm functional at a base level it's only barely; as described I've lacked motivation and focus for my entire adult life. I work as a freelance IT contractor because I can't hold down a real job (not that I'd necessarily want one, but I've had them and can't do it), but even then I can hardly motivate myself to work more than is necessary to remain afloat financially. I can't bring myself to focus on any of the things that bring meaning to my life, which makes me miserable. I've spent so much of my time learning what I should be doing and how to do it effectively, but I struggle with implementation. I wouldn't have begun taking drugs that I consider dangerous unless I felt I had a real problem.

Dose makes poison. That doesn't mean amphetamines aren't dangerous drugs (and I was referring to amphetamines, not methylphenidate); as any psychiatrist will openly admit, they have high abuse potential and must be used very cautiously. Correct me if I'm wrong (and supply me with an external reference if you can, I love to read), but I don't think an ADD diagnosis makes anybody less vulnerable to the potential dangers of amphetamines. Nobody gets bent out of shape when people say meth is a dangerous drug; it's absurd to get uppity about labeling the amphetamines used for treating ADD as "dangerous" when they're virtually pharmacodynamically identical to methamphetamine—meth is a very mild serotonin agonist but otherwise has identical effects on the dopaminergic and norepinephrinergic systems. In calling them dangerous I also wasn't insinuating that they can't be used responsibly (as they obviously are by many patients who see life-changing benefits from them); I was merely calling attention to the very real potential for risk. If you don't consider speed dangerous, then what do you consider dangerous? As I mentioned in my original post, the literature on the potential for long-term cognitive changes is scant, and nobody is really sure what might happen to such patients. Anecdotes are useful but real science is necessary. "Well-tolreated" is not equivalent to "benign when used properly".

uread2much, I'm definitely not neurotypical, and I'm glad not to be. I've lived a lifetime of social alienation for being different. Relax. You've misinterpreted.

It's a matter of weighing the pros and cons on an individual basis, eh?

Absolutely. I just don't think there's enough information about the potential cons, in this case. The literature seems to agree with that sentiment.

Any anecdotes from long-term users who have abstained for long periods?

Lunacie
08-09-14, 03:52 PM
Absolutely. I just don't think there's enough information about the potential cons, in this case. The literature seems to agree with that sentiment.

Any anecdotes from long-term users who have abstained for long periods?

My point was that there surely would be some literature if there was any known danger from long term - supervised - use of stimulants.



Around here we get bristly when we're told our MEDS are "virtually identical" to street meth.

Street meth is cut with any amount of unknown and possibly very dangerous substances.

We know what is in our well tested and carefully prescribed and monitored MEDS.


Those are the scare tactics used by some that frighten parents from giving their children what is most likely to help them. :mad:

Αλήθεια
08-09-14, 04:37 PM
My point was that there surely would be some literature if there was any known danger from long term - supervised - use of stimulants.Unfortunately that isn't the case; the problem is a lack of information. There's no literature ruling out the possibility of lasting cognitive impairments associated with therapeutic use of amphetamines. I've read a few meta-analyses that explicitly mention this problem. For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670101/

"Amphetamine stimulants have been used medically since early in the twentieth century, but they have a high abuse potential and can be neurotoxic. Although they have long been used effectively to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents, amphetamines are now being prescribed increasingly as maintenance therapy for ADHD and narcolepsy in adults, considerably extending the period of potential exposure. Effects of prolonged stimulant treatment have not been fully explored, and understanding such effects is a research priority. Because the pharmacokinetics of amphetamines differ between children and adults, reevaluation of the potential for adverse effects of chronic treatment of adults is essential."

And this was published in 2008.


I've also read a few papers describing sensitization to amphetamines in human subjects. Sensitization produces measurable cognitive changes and can persist for more than one year beyond abstention:

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=211307
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation of the Amphetamine Sensitization Model of Schizophrenia in Healthy Male Volunteers

"Finally, the observed change in prefrontal activity during a high-load WM challenge after only 4 intermittent low-dose exposures to amphetamine suggests that the recent rapid growth in the use of psychostimulants to boost alertness or to enhance cognitive performance may necessitate caution, especially given that sensitization is still evident 1 year after cessation of amphetamine use and preliminary evidence demonstrates cross-sensitization with stress following this dosage regimen."

"The degree to which sensitization alters baseline (ie, drug-free) brain function remains to be explored, although data suggest that sensitized volunteers also display an elevated placebo-induced dopamine release, consistent with a role for conditioning in the effects of sensitization."

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0093955
Amphetamine Sensitization Alters Reward Processing in the Human Striatum and Amygdala

"Dysregulation of mesolimbic dopamine transmission is implicated in a number of psychiatric illnesses characterised by disruption of reward processing and goal-directed behaviour, including schizophrenia, drug addiction and impulse control disorders [e.g., ADD] associated with chronic use of dopamine agonists. Amphetamine sensitization (AS) has been proposed to model the development of this aberrant dopamine signalling and the subsequent dysregulation of incentive motivational processes. However, in humans the effects of AS on the dopamine-sensitive neural circuitry associated with reward processing remains unclear."

"These data show for the first time in humans that AS changes the functional impact of acute stimulant exposure on the processing of reward-related information within dopaminoceptive regions. Our findings accord with pathophysiological models which implicate aberrant dopaminergic modulation of striatal and amygdala activity in psychosis and drug-related compulsive disorders."

As I say, the literature seems to agree that the effects of chronic therapeutic amphetamine use are relatively poorly understood. If you know of any publications that say otherwise, please share. I've been searching and can't find any.


Around here we get bristly when we're told our MEDS are "virtually identical" to street meth.I wasn't referring to street meth, but, although street meth is often cut, it's usually cut with inert substances, as is the case with the majority of street drugs—most dealers aren't morons and wouldn't risk cuts with substances that would noticeably alter the drug experience or induce significant physical symptoms. Users notice such things, and experienced addicts especially so. Also, note the fact that the majority of street meth (upwards of 80%) comes from superlabs, not from amateur cook operations where addicts who have no idea what they're doing poison themselves with some garbage they've ineptly conjured up until they eventually blow themselves to bits. It isn't adulterants that make meth as dangerous as it is, it's heavy, long-term abuse. To be sure, the stigma surrounding meth is hyperbolically inflated, and the horror stories you hear of in propaganda are extreme examples, but the amphetamine class of substances is universally regarded as having "high abuse potential", in the exact words of the psychiatric literature, for a reason. Again I acknowledge the distinction between abuse and responsible use, and the reality of life-changing benefits for many users. That isn't my concern. The possibility of lasting damage in long-term users, according to literature I've read from multiple authoritative sources, remains wide open; I'm only exercising caution here.

meadd823
08-09-14, 06:22 PM
Unfortunately that isn't the case; the problem is a lack of information. There's no literature ruling out the possibility of lasting cognitive impairments associated with therapeutic use of amphetamines. I've read a few meta-analyses that explicitly mention this problem. For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2670101/

"Amphetamine stimulants have been used medically since early in the twentieth century, but they have a high abuse potential and can be neurotoxic. Although they have long been used effectively to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents, amphetamines are now being prescribed increasingly as maintenance therapy for ADHD and narcolepsy in adults, considerably extending the period of potential exposure. Effects of prolonged stimulant treatment have not been fully explored, and understanding such effects is a research priority. Because the pharmacokinetics of amphetamines differ between children and adults, reevaluation of the potential for adverse effects of chronic treatment of adults is essential."

And this was published in 2008.


Please do note the portion you bolded - has not been fully explored - in other words they do not know if harm occurs or not - Please once again note the word harm - Changes are not necessarily harmful, some changes are productive

Just because my brain may have been altered by twenty years of stimulant use does not automatically mean the alterations were "harmful". Had my brain been operating at expected capacity in other words being able to do the things society expects me to be able to do - then I would not be on the medications to begin with


I've also read a few papers describing sensitization to amphetamines in human subjects. Sensitization produces measurable cognitive changes and can persist for more than one year beyond abstention:

http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=211307
Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation of the Amphetamine Sensitization Model of Schizophrenia in Healthy Male Volunteers

"Finally, the observed change in prefrontal activity during a high-load WM challenge after only 4 intermittent low-dose exposures to amphetamine suggests that the recent rapid growth in the use of psychostimulants to boost alertness or to enhance cognitive performance may necessitate caution, especially given that sensitization is still evident 1 year after cessation of amphetamine use and preliminary evidence demonstrates cross-sensitization with stress following this dosage regimen."

"The degree to which sensitization alters baseline (ie, drug-free) brain function remains to be explored, although data suggest that sensitized volunteers also display an elevated placebo-induced dopamine release, consistent with a role for conditioning in the effects of sensitization."

Well if you ring a bell follow it by feeding your dog the canine will learn to associate food with the sound of the bell - After a time every time the bell is rung the dog will salivate - My question is which is harmful dog food or bells?

The study mentioned above - the participants were healthy males - physically healthy, mentally healthy? No ADDers and no females - next. . .


http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0093955
Amphetamine Sensitization Alters Reward Processing in the Human Striatum and Amygdala

"Dysregulation of mesolimbic dopamine transmission is implicated in a number of psychiatric illnesses characterised by disruption of reward processing and goal-directed behaviour, including schizophrenia, drug addiction and impulse control disorders [e.g., ADD] associated with chronic use of dopamine agonists. Amphetamine sensitization (AS) has been proposed to model the development of this aberrant dopamine signalling and the subsequent dysregulation of incentive motivational processes. However, in humans the effects of AS on the dopamine-sensitive neural circuitry associated with reward processing remains unclear."

"These data show for the first time in humans that AS changes the functional impact of acute stimulant exposure on the processing of reward-related information within dopaminoceptive regions. Our findings accord with pathophysiological models which implicate aberrant dopaminergic modulation of striatal and amygdala activity in psychosis and drug-related compulsive disorders."

Okay I had to look up Amphetamine Sensitization because after several decades in the medical profession and an entire life time of being an ADDer I have yet to hear any one use this term - In my quick walk about most studies injected the Amphetamines. I do not inject my medications.

Psychosis as any speed freak can tell you if you go into amphetamine psychosis you are using entirely to much for to long - It isn't the "speed" that causes the psychosis but the lack of normal sleep. One is not going to get so much medication as to be able to produce long term psychosis at least not by a qualified professional who knows the difference between ADD and a tuna sandwich.

I am in no way eliminating the idea that rare few individual who have some sort of weird reaction to stimulants couldn't possibly experience psychosis from ADD medications but those are going to be a rare few not a majority. Any thing that has any type of effect upon the body can have a bad effect however this rule applies to foods, airborne substances as well as medications

- Antibiotics kill hundreds of folks yearly because those folks have adverse reactions to them People who have such a bad adverse reaction to antibiotics are the exception not the rule - Before antibiotics millions died from infections



While apples and oranges are both fruit they are not the same fruit - IN other words ADDers are not schizophrenics, drug induce compulsions have nothing what so ever to do with impulsive behaviors naturally inherent to a persons being.



As I say, the literature seems to agree that the effects of chronic therapeutic amphetamine use are relatively poorly understood. If you know of any publications that say otherwise, please share. I've been searching and can't find any.

Poorly understood isn't the same as dangerous -



I wasn't referring to street meth, but, although street meth is often cut, it's usually cut with inert substances, as is the case with the majority of street drugs—most dealers aren't morons and wouldn't risk cuts with substances that would noticeably alter the drug experience or induce significant physical symptoms. Users notice such things, and experienced addicts especially so. Also, note the fact that the majority of street meth (upwards of 80%) comes from superlabs, not from amateur cook operations where addicts who have no idea what they're doing poison themselves with some garbage they've ineptly conjured up until they eventually blow themselves to bits. It isn't adulterants that make meth as dangerous as it is, it's heavy, long-term abuse. To be sure, the stigma surrounding meth is hyperbolically inflated, and the horror stories you hear of in propaganda are extreme examples, but the amphetamine class of substances is universally regarded as having "high abuse potential", in the exact words of the psychiatric literature, for a reason. Again I acknowledge the distinction between abuse and responsible use, and the reality of life-changing benefits for many users. That isn't my concern. The possibility of lasting damage in long-term users, according to literature I've read from multiple authoritative sources, remains wide open; I'm only exercising caution here.


Your exercising contradiction as well. . . . one hand you say the horror stories of impure street drug is inflated yet you seem to be attempting to link some unrelated research results to prescription stimulant use in ADD adults.


I have been on adderall for almost 20 years yet I still forget to take my medication all the time - Strange things is when I smoked cigarettes I never once forgot to smoke - because the effects of nicotine with draw was a constant reminder of my addiction.

Dependence - I have grown dependent upon my corrective lenses but continue to use them especially when driving - I acknowledge my dependence upon corrective lenses but wear them any way , not only for my safety but for the safety of every living thing with in a ten mile radius of my car!

If you do not need stimulants to function then by all means they are not for you - I do not know of any one who would wear a pair of glasses to dive a car if they did not need them to see.

I am dependent upon adderall to function at the level I do now but I am not addicted to my medication - I do not experience with draws - therefore I forget to take my medications.

Other people notice my unmedicated state before I do - Unmedicated me can most easily be spotted by that trail of unfinished task that tends to follow me where ever I go and or my impulsive honestly that often results in foot-n-mouth syndrome

To the best of my knowledge I am not psychotic despite being on ADD medications for the better part of 20 years.

Lunacie
08-09-14, 07:04 PM
I will repeat myself, it's often a matter of weighing the pros and cons ...

the risks and the benefits.

I wish you good luck whichever you decide, trialing meds or skipping them.

But it sorta sounds like you already have your mind made up. :rolleyes:

Αλήθεια
08-09-14, 07:38 PM
Please do note the portion you bolded - has not been fully explored - in other words they do not know if harm occurs or not - Please once again note the word harm - Changes are not necessarily harmful, some changes are productive

Just because my brain may have been altered by twenty years of stimulant use does not automatically mean the alterations were "harmful". Had my brain been operating at expected capacity in other words being able to do the things society expects me to be able to do - then I would not be on the medications to begin with

Of course changes are not necessarily harmful. My entire hope in treating myself with amphetamines is positively altering my problematic neurobiology. I bolded that text to emphasize the fact of a lack of information in the literature—whether or not therapeutic use of amphetamines can potentially result in harm. There's concrete ambiguity here. Considering the delicacy of neurobiology (a well-established fact) and the crudeness of modern psychiatry (a science in its absolute infancy), it stands to reason that the potential for harm is worth considering.


Well if you ring a bell follow it by feeding your dog the canine will learn to associate food with the sound of the bell - After a time every time the bell is rung the dog will salivate - My question is which is harmful dog food or bells?

The pharmacokinetics of drugs that profoundly affect neurochemistry are not analogous to classical conditioning.

The study mentioned above - the participants were healthy males - physically healthy, mentally healthy? No ADDers and no females - next. . .

Suffering from ADD symptoms doesn't make you any more or less neurologically susceptible to neurobiologically damaging effects such as neurotoxicity. Not a pertinent objection.

Okay I had to look up Amphetamine Sensitization because after several decades in the medical profession and an entire life time of being an ADDer I have yet to hear any one use this term - In my quick walk about most studies injected the Amphetamines. I do not inject my medications.

Apparently you didn't actually read either of the studies I linked on the effects of amphetamine sensitization. In both studies, subjects were orally administered 20mg of dextroamphetamine. It sounds to me like you're reading about studies of animal models of sensitization, of which there are a great deal, but are of limited relevance to human models. For instance, in many mammals, amphetamines are profoundly neurotoxic, but humans seem to tolerate them exceptionally well.

Psychosis as any speed freak can tell you if you go into amphetamine psychosis you are using entirely to much for to long - It isn't the "speed" that causes the psychosis but the lack of normal sleep. One is not going to get so much medication as to be able to produce long term psychosis at least not by a qualified professional who knows the difference between ADD and a tuna sandwich.

I am in no way eliminating the idea that rare few individual who have some sort of weird reaction to stimulants couldn't possibly experience psychosis from ADD medications but those are going to be a rare few not a majority. Any thing that has any type of effect upon the body can have a bad effect however this rule applies to foods, airborne substances as well as medications

I'm not concerned about the possibility of psychosis. I don't understand where you got the idea that I was concerned about it. If you were referring to this mention of psychosis:

"These data show for the first time in humans that AS changes the functional impact of acute stimulant exposure on the processing of reward-related information within dopaminoceptive regions. Our findings accord with pathophysiological models which implicate aberrant dopaminergic modulation of striatal and amygdala activity in psychosis and drug-related compulsive disorders."

then you didn't understand what was being said. The paper's not talking about amphetamine psychosis; it's talking about theoretical models of dopamine dysregulation which are proposed to explain other psychiatric conditions such as psychosis, and how well the results of this study seem to support those models.

- Antibiotics kill hundreds of folks yearly because those folks have adverse reactions to them People who have such a bad adverse reaction to antibiotics are the exception not the rule - Before antibiotics millions died from infections

I'm also not concerned about adverse reactions, which are acute events. As I've said repeatedly I'm concerned about possible effects resulting from chronic use.

While apples and oranges are both fruit they are not the same fruit - IN other words ADDers are not schizophrenics, drug induce compulsions have nothing what so ever to do with impulsive behaviors naturally inherent to a persons being.

No, ADDers are not schizophrenics, but they both suffer from dopaminergic problems, which is why the literature on amphetamine commonly refers to both of these pathologies. Regarding drug-induced compulsions: again, the paper was referring to a model of dopamine dysregulation and the relevance of its results to that model. Read more carefully.

Poorly understood isn't the same as dangerous

That's exactly right, and that's why I'm not going around telling everybody that their chronic use of amphetamines is going to destroy their brains. "Poorly understood" is pretty close to "ambiguous".

Your exercising contradiction as well. . . . one hand you say the horror stories of impure street drug is inflated yet you seem to be attempting to link some unrelated research results to prescription stimulant use in ADD adults.

These results aren't at all unrelated, considering the fact that the methodologies of these studies employ doses within the range of those used in therapeutic treatments: 20mg of oral dextroamphetamine. I don't see how there's a contradiction. "The stigma of meth is inflated" does not also mean "amphetamines are surely harmless". I'm examining amphetamine research precisely because of the fact that it's unclear whether prescription stimulant use in ADD adults is significantly harmful. Once again, the literature explicitly states so:

"Effects of prolonged stimulant treatment have not been fully explored, and understanding such effects is a research priority. Because the pharmacokinetics of amphetamines differ between children and adults, reevaluation of the potential for adverse effects of chronic treatment of adults is essential."

And that's from the piece whose entire focus is ADD patients.

I have been on adderall for almost 20 years yet I still forget to take my medication all the time - Strange things is when I smoked cigarettes I never once forgot to smoke - because the effects of nicotine with draw was a constant reminder of my addiction.

Addiction is not a prerequisite for harm. For example, one dose of MDMA (yet another amphetamine, although admittedly very different from the d- and l-amphetamine in question here) does not an addict make, yet can be excitotoxic enough to produce lasting cognitive deficits. The fact that you occasionally forget to take your medication does not say anything about the potential for harm. If you were to, say, go off of amphetamines for two months, and then evaluate your cognition and compare it to a pre-medicated state, that would be relevant. Unfortunately there probably aren't too many people who can provide such data, and I suspect that has everything to do with why the literature is so lacking.

Dependence - I have grown dependent upon my corrective lenses but continue to use them especially when driving - I acknowledge my dependence upon corrective lenses but wear them any way , not only for my safety but for the safety of every living thing with in a ten mile radius of my car!

If you do not need stimulants to function then by all means they are not for you - I do not know of any one who would wear a pair of glasses to dive a car if they did not need them to see.

Glasses aren't analogous to drugs with "high abuse potential", to use the exact language of ADD literature. Nobody who doesn't need visual correction wears corrective lenses, but lots of people who don't need stimulants to function use them anyway. Why? High abuse potential.

I am dependent upon adderall to function at the level I do now but I am not addicted to my medication - I do not experience with draws - therefore I forget to take my medications.

Other people notice my unmedicated state before I do - Unmedicated me can most easily be spotted by that trail of unfinished task that tends to follow me where ever I go and or my impulsive honestly that often results in foot-n-mouth syndrome

I'll point out the fact that even patients on a therapeutic regimen of amphetamines sometimes spiral out of control into a cycle of abuse and addiction. Many people who never take anything higher than therapeutic doses also report problems with addiction and withdrawal. Go take a look at the abuse subsection of these forums for plenty of examples.

someothertime
08-09-14, 09:29 PM
My entire hope in treating myself with amphetamines is positively altering my problematic neurobiology.

In this case, your most promising avenue is the coupling with intensive and targeted neuroelasticity mechanisms. The harm argument resides fairly far down on the list of contributors.

Behavioral change emanates moreso from re-enforcement and certain altered approach, method and reward... coupled with repetition.

You can crank the spitfire, but it still needs a fearless pilot ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdBglY3yQ64&index=2&list=PL77A7359E49522204

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbBFKuiIAqk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltu1TN8bQj8

vpilar
08-09-14, 10:14 PM
I hope I've found the right place; this appears to be the part of the forum where the interesting people who would rather not dose themselves with dangerous drugs for the rest of their lives lurk.


:scratch::scratch::scratch:

SB_UK
08-10-14, 12:10 PM
+ sympathetic nervous system effect (like dexedrine) through fasting.

Problem - stress (poor weather / problems with money,people) result in reactive desire for food (50:50 carb / fat) resulting in difficulties fasting.

It's my favoured solution (ie silence in the sun) - but is impossible to nail in a cold place where money is absolutely essential for survival.

No problem with people taking dexedrine, or understanding why dexedrine works.
Every problem however with the stressful lives people lead (on account of inequality, money etc) which drives us, them ... .. to the bottle.

Thing is - the world is collapsing under the weight of obesity - but what can anybody do about the easy access to sugar, starch, animal products, industrial oils, dairy etc which is to blame.

If we were to place the amount of suffering caused by dexedrine versus amount of suffering caused by the 'food' which people kill themselves through

- and then to make the connection that dexedrine use is driven / poor food choices are made reactively because of the stress of living in an unequal society
- then we'll see that arguing over whether meds are good or bad in the long run (they could be either!) - is neither here nor there

- that is that we can eliminate the need to take them in the first place by introducing a fair society.

All described in the 'rat park' experiment where simply making the animal's environment better resulted in the animal choosing not to take freely available morphine.

The sedating properties of morphine (narcotic) - contrasted with the awakening properties of stimulants come up frequently here.

Feeling I have is that over-stimulation leads to lethargy eg as described by KD:
ie freeze in:
The fight-or-flight response (also called the fight, flight, freeze ... ...

Bombarded by stimulation - particularly sensitive -
once again - 'silence in the sun' is reported back as my ideal solution to ADHD.

Why ?
In the dark - reactive desire to eat - eliminated in sun.
In the sun - activation of the opioid system - which will suppress hunger.
In the dark - always cold - eliminated in sun.
Reduced eating - fasting supported - increased SNS activity -> stimulant.
In the sun - happier.
In the sun - sensory experience (sensory information) richer ie everything (colours etc) seem more vibrant - useful observation since we're (the ADDer) most likely shifted into the informational reward system (ie explaining away over-stimulation -> chronci SNS activation -> lethargy -> 'need for speed') ... ...

Silence (sensory information upload from the greenery around you) in the sun (whilst exercising and fasting).

As good as it gets - I promise you won't want your dexedrine in that world - as long as we can disarm the people in the land surrounding.
If you listen you can hear them coming with their guns, desire to buy holiday homes, mining equipment, shopping mall complex plans ... ... ...

SB_UK
08-10-14, 12:29 PM
Been watching a TV program about sun people versus people who don't live in the sun.

A very interesting pattern emerges.

It's regularly mentioned that families/community are found more in communities in the sun rather than not.

It feels as though what happens as people move away from the sun, is that they feel a 'hunger' which is fed by working and buying factors which substitute for the sun ie feel good items of consumerism instead of community.

So a shift in the South from laid back living to the North where 'work' becomes of greater importance - and as we travel further from the sun - so alcoholism becomes a concern
- with alcoholism serving as stress relief.

-*-

I'm wondering whether we're all just a lot more dependent on the sun than we'd like to let on - and ever since piling out of Africa - we've (as we've travelled further from the sun) - had to find some way of supplying the opioid shortfall.

Be it morphine, fat/carbs, alcohol or the new Apple iplop.

-*-

So the hypothesis is that silent (stress free) sustainable autonomous clean creative existence in the sun
(without fear of marauding capitalists seeking to eat thy head)
http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/the-walking-dead-rick-grimes-zombie-fence.jpg
is the solution to ADHD; local produce (olive trees rule!) sufficient as food stuff. Oh - and everybody has to have a wife - they're excellent.

SB_UK
08-10-14, 12:46 PM
We are all parasitic off the sun. Humans are just particularly greedy in that department (We use about forty percent of the bio-available sunlight for our own purposes).

Maybe we're a whole lot more dependent than we think.

Personally - sun is the one thing I want. (silence just requires human zombie capitalists to zip it)

Greyhound1
08-10-14, 12:46 PM
Be it morphine, fat/carbs, alcohol or the new Apple Iplop.

Can't wait to get one of those Iplops! Lol.

The Apple Iplop
2334

peripatetic
08-10-14, 01:09 PM
Some of you seem to have read a little too far into my wording. Or maybe that's the social ineptness on my part.

Anyway, by "interesting" I meant "unusual"; most people who undergo psychiatric treatment, especially for ADD, seem to go into it with the intention of remaining medicated indefinitely, if not for the rest of their lives, mostly because of the fact that officially there are no "cures" for most of the conditions treated psychiatrically. In saying "interesting" I wasn't implying that the aforesaid population is boring. No judgments here, peripatetic. Everyone's got his own story. If I'm functional at a base level it's only barely; as described I've lacked motivation and focus for my entire adult life. I work as a freelance IT contractor because I can't hold down a real job (not that I'd necessarily want one, but I've had them and can't do it), but even then I can hardly motivate myself to work more than is necessary to remain afloat financially. I can't bring myself to focus on any of the things that bring meaning to my life, which makes me miserable. I've spent so much of my time learning what I should be doing and how to do it effectively, but I struggle with implementation. I wouldn't have begun taking drugs that I consider dangerous unless I felt I had a real problem.

Dose makes poison.

cheers for attempting to clarify. i do see your point that it's less common that people here treat adhd and co existing conditions without medications and in that sense "unusual". though, this particular section is no less frequented by people who do treat with medications. there's a section in treatments for alternative treatments that might be of interest and other sections for exercise and nutrition. many folks posting there have opted not to take medication or cannot for any number of reasons. it might be worth your while to check it out.

at any rate my issue was more with the term "want", as if people have a desire to take medication (especially given you are saying "dose" means to poison). a lot of us, on the contrary, really do NOT want to take medication at all. personally, i've flushed all of mine, for adhd and other things, multiple times. that, without exception, ends in disaster--though likely less due to the adhd medications not being taken and a lot more due to others not being. i'm not currently on adhd medication, but am on others and the suggestion that those of us who do likely have to take things longterm/lifelong WANT to be forced to was what i took particular issue with. for many of us the option not to doesn't exist as a choice.

all that said, i didn't know the term "spergy" indicated aspergers/autism until a kind friend pointed that out to me and that, in conjunction with you noting social difficulty, which many of us with adhd are prone to (the social concerns) as well, gives me a better idea of where you might've been coming from. again, cheers for addressing.

best wishes to you

SB_UK
08-10-14, 01:27 PM
Can't wait to get one of those Iplops! Lol.

The Apple Iplop
2334

Apparently these are in production.

"Suppose toilets could record health data just as wrist bands now record steps, heart rate, and calories burned, or scales record body fat content and weight. Imagine if they sensed stool density, fat content, solidity, or presence of blood in the stool, performed DNA analysis to screen for polyps or cancer or detected sugar in the urine as a sign of diabetes? Results could be synch'd to the sittee’s phone and relayed to their doctor."

- See more at: http://www.ladydocscornercafe.com/article/marital-harmony-restored--musings-on-a-smart-toilet/#sthash.2xczNYY3.dpuf

Imagine sitting in a bistro with NFC beamed app comparisons of stool density.

Actually could drive kids on to healthier eating habits (cos like the medical community have no clue with their 5 portions rule)
- who'd want to have the lowest density stools in any given social group ?

EXACTLY.

Mind you - there is always the clean living stool pidgeon.

SB_UK
08-10-14, 03:51 PM
the survivors search for a safe haven away from the shuffling hordes of predatory "walkers" or "biters" (as the zombies are referred to in the show), who eat any living thing they catch, and whose bite is infectious to humans. The plot focuses primarily on the dilemmas the group faces as they struggle to maintain their humanity during the day-to-day challenges of surviving in a hostile world.

The 'infection' of capitalism (turning people into monsters)
- and the quest to get away

- only to find that there's nowhere to run from the zombies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walking_Dead_%28TV_series%29

We're living the zombie apocalypse and the ADDer is born without the (necessary zombie) reward system of a neurochemical 'hit' from eating thy neighbour
- we're therefore left in an unenviable situation of battling out in the world of mind for whatever it is that is going on in the head of the capitalist.

I wonder whatever are they thinking ?

They're not, are they ?

It turns out (and as implied by the term 'dragon's den') - that they've discarded all elements of their brain apart from the tiny weeny bit called the reptilian brain
- the bit which makes alligators eat the heads of all that pass by.

ADD forum focuses primarily on the dilemmas the group faces as the ADDer struggles to maintain their humanity during the day-to-day challenges of surviving in a hostile world.

SB_UK
08-10-14, 04:21 PM
I'm wondering whether we're all just a lot more dependent on the sun than we'd like to let on - and ever since piling out of Africa - we've (as we've travelled further from the sun) - had to find some way of supplying the opioid shortfall.

So man + woman in garden with sun.
But it wasn't good enough so they bit an ipod and used the inbuilt GPS to investigate the world.
It was cold.
Made sense of it (there's this simple pattern of self-assembly) and then realised that they were actually a bit dumb to have departed the garden in the sun.
So - they sold their overpriced house in the UK and moved to the South of France where they lived happily ever after in a barn conversion.

mais oui !

(with a dog and a donkey)

Αλήθεια
08-10-14, 05:06 PM
at any rate my issue was more with the term "want", as if people have a desire to take medication (especially given you are saying "dose" means to poison). a lot of us, on the contrary, really do NOT want to take medication at all. personally, i've flushed all of mine, for adhd and other things, multiple times. that, without exception, ends in disaster--though likely less due to the adhd medications not being taken and a lot more due to others not being. i'm not currently on adhd medication, but am on others and the suggestion that those of us who do likely have to take things longterm/lifelong WANT to be forced to was what i took particular issue with. for many of us the option not to doesn't exist as a choice.

"Dose makes poison" is an old adage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison) that means "the amount of a substance determines whether it's poisonous to the body". For example, water can actually become toxic if you consume too much of it. In mentioning the adage, I was trying to express my understanding of the fact that dosage is relevant, i.e., at higher doses amphetamines can be extremely dangerous, but at lower doses are (as far as is presently known) relatively safe.

I don't think I said "want" in reference to anybody taking any medication. I did say "would rather not" referring to people who decide against taking medication, though, and by that I meant that some people seem to express more concern for the potential negative effects of the drugs than others do. Some people cannot function without the drugs, I understand, but I don't think people are as careful or as skeptical as they should be. How many ADDers, for example, bother to exhaust alternative approaches (diet, exercise, therapy, etc.) before turning to prescription drugs? I don't mean to be judgmental here either, but in my experience (i.e., my observations of friends and family members who have undergone treatment with pharmaceutical drugs), it's not many. I feel this is a problem with western medicine in general: zero emphasis is placed on prevention, all emphasis is placed on treatment of symptoms.

This is my third day on Dexedrine, and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. 15mg doesn't seem to stimulate me enough and 30mg is way too much. I might need to adjust the dosage, but I don't have a scale so I can't really do that accurately. I overslept last night and still feel sluggish 3 hours after taking a spansule. It certainly doesn't seem to be the magic pill I was hoping it could be.

peripatetic
08-10-14, 05:25 PM
well, a lot of people here have exhausted other alternatives first. many continue to try to find alternatives to reduce medication or go off it, too. i can't say what percentage, but if you're interested in knowing you could always start a poll and ask. i suspect the number of members who've tried other means for adhd is a lot higher than what it sounds like those you've known has been. i think the number of parents posting who've exhausted other means and/or continue to try other means whilst medicating is also quite high. my reasons for thinking both of those things is due to how frequently i've seen people posting about exactly that on the forums, especially in the treatments section, which i've read rather thoroughly for multiple years now.

personally, i assure you that i'm incredibly concerned about the negative side effects of the medications i take, though i would say that the least of my concerns was adhd medications when i was still taking them.

i appreciate that you aren't trying to be judgmental and see that perhaps it was an issue of semantics. still, far more of those i know have spent considerable time trying to avoid or discontinue medication than not. there's a lot of prejudice against those taking psychopharmaceuticals in society and oftentimes having to take them creates shame and poor self image in those who do. so when i saw your thread i found your wording reinforcing that. i can appreciate though that that wasn't your intention. i still don't understand why you'd say that first line at all instead of just asking your question, but it's prolly a moot point.

at any rate, sorry to hear that you're having trouble finding the best dosage. maybe ask your psychiatrist for 5 mg pills and you can add to the 15 as necessary?

HADDaball
08-11-14, 06:09 AM
Aletheia - thank you for bringing up this topic.

I wouldn't go so far as calling stimulants dangerous in therapeutic doses, but would say there are risks that go with them that are being overlooked.

I don't accept the reasoning 'people have been taking them for years' means 'they are proven safe over the very long term'

People have been eating tallow, lard and butter for thousands of years, but studies have shown that they can be major risk factors for heart disease when eaten regularly over the decades.

I say if smoking, stress and cocaine are risk factors for heart disease over the decades, how can stimulants, which increase the same stress hormones, not be?

As an adult, I've chosen to stop taking them regularly, as I'm still not convinced about their very long term safety.

sarahsweets
08-11-14, 07:04 AM
You've lost me when you said giving dangerous drugs to small children.

SB_UK
08-11-14, 07:46 AM
zero emphasis is placed on prevention, all emphasis is placed on treatment of symptoms.



Nobody maketh the moolah in a world without problems.

Nobody wants to prevent problems arising in the first place - cos if they did they'd find we don't actually need 99.999% tending to 100% of what we manufacture.

Apple want your iplop to go plop so you'll purchase Jobbie's latest overpriced ploppy device.

Money Maketh Moronic Manufacturing Modalities.

SB_UK
08-11-14, 08:28 AM
Nobody maketh the moolah in a world without problems.

World peace is none of your business.

World peace (in a world without problems)
is none of your business (nobody maketh the moolah)

In a world without problems, you'll be chilled and not stressed, will not suffer chronic stress, will not need dexedrine to overcome chronic fatigue/lethargy from spending one's life swimming upstream to fail to get to a destination which you're not actually even interested in arriving at - will be as happy as a Smiths fan with a new album which fits in with the back catalogue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE4xnw8KRfk&index=2&list=RDrcGGojgYZQw

Lunacie
08-11-14, 11:24 AM
Aletheia - thank you for bringing up this topic.

I wouldn't go so far as calling stimulants dangerous in therapeutic doses, but would say there are risks that go with them that are being overlooked.

I don't accept the reasoning 'people have been taking them for years' means 'they are proven safe over the very long term'

People have been eating tallow, lard and butter for thousands of years, but studies have shown that they can be major risk factors for heart disease when eaten regularly over the decades.

I say if smoking, stress and cocaine are risk factors for heart disease over the decades, how can stimulants, which increase the same stress hormones, not be?

As an adult, I've chosen to stop taking them regularly, as I'm still not convinced about their very long term safety.

Very few things are actually dangerous in small doses. However, in large doses even water can be deadly.

HADDaball
08-12-14, 07:43 PM
Very few things are actually dangerous in small doses. However, in large doses even water can be deadly.

That may be true, but there's a broader point here. People are overlooking the long term effects of their choices.

Lots of things aren't going to kill you today, but will effect your health and quality of life in later life if you keep doing them.

I'd prefer finding ways that work today and aren't damaging in the long term.

Lunacie
08-12-14, 08:02 PM
That may be true, but my point is different. People are overlooking the long term effects of their choices.

Lots of things aren't going to kill you today, but will effect your health and quality of life in later life if you keep doing them.

I'd prefer finding ways that work today and aren't damaging in the long term.

I think if there was any evidence of negative long term effects of stimulant meds, we'd have some inkling of that by now.

HADDaball
08-12-14, 08:33 PM
I think if there was any evidence of negative long term effects of stimulant meds, we'd have some inkling of that by now.


The results of population studies suggest associations with adults using stimulants for ADHD and adverse cardiovascular outcomes (see bold emphasis below)





Westover and Halm BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 2012, 12:41
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2261/12/41
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Do prescription stimulants increase the risk of
adverse cardiovascular events?: A systematic
review

Arthur N Westover1,2* and Ethan A Halm2,3

Abstract
Background: There is increasing concern that prescription stimulants may be associated with adverse
cardiovascular events such as stroke, myocardial infarction, and sudden death. Public health concerns are amplified
by increasing use of prescription stimulants among adults.
Methods: The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the evidence of an association
between prescription stimulant use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes. PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google
Scholar searches were conducted using key words related to these topics (MESH): ADHD; Adults; Amphetamine;
Amphetamines; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cardiovascular System; Central Nervous Stimulants;
Cerebrovascular; Cohort Studies; Case–control Studies; Death; Death, Sudden, Cardiac; Dextroamphetamine; Drug
Toxicity; Methamphetamine; Methylphenidate; Myocardial Infarction; Stimulant; Stroke; Safety. Eligible studies were
population-based studies of children, adolescents, or adults using prescription stimulant use as the independent
variable and a hard cardiovascular outcome as the dependent variable.

Results: Ten population-based observational studies which evaluated prescription stimulant use with cardiovascular
outcomes were reviewed.

Six out of seven studies in children and adolescents did not show an association between stimulant use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

In contrast, two out of three studies in adults found an association.

...

Lunacie
08-12-14, 08:49 PM
The results of population studies suggest associations with adults using stimulants for ADHD and adverse cardiovascular outcomes (see bold emphasis below)

I had not seen those. But then it goes back to the idea of risk vs benefit.

If you have a family history of cardiovascular events, take that into consideration.

If you have already had several car crashes, take that into consideration.

Gotta figure out where the biggest risk lies, eh?

peripatetic
08-12-14, 10:04 PM
That may be true, but there's a broader point here. People are overlooking the long term effects of their choices.


you *assume* people are overlooking the long term effects of their choices, but you don't know that at all. who are these "people"? and why what could be the grounds for claiming that taking medication is equivalent to overlooking the long term effects of taking it?

this is the exact problem i had with the thread start. there appears to be this completely unjustified assumption by some who don't take medication that somehow they've thought about the consequences and risks and those who do take it lack the same critical analysis. i don't why people make such huge assumptions about others, but when i read that, it sounds like the credit you give yourself for considering risks, you somehow don't think others deserve.

just because people evaluate risk/benefit differently and opt TO take medications doesn't mean they're uninformed or unthinking. there are many risks to taking ANY medication, prescription, over the counter, stimulants, other psychopharmaceuticals, ANY medication. for many, depending on the impairment and the type of mental illness, there are also risks to NOT taking medication, huge ones, both short and long term. and every psychiatrist i've ever had has discussed them with me and i have had to decide to take or not take, mostly, because some people don't have that option and i'm now one of them. there are countless threads in the medications section, the adult diagnosis section, and the children's treatment sections where people ask about the risks and express concern and so i know i'm not unique in having concerns and considering them.

so, really, the question i have is why do you think your claim is correct that "people are overlooking the long term effects of their choices?" what people? and where's your evidence? because working in these generalizations just makes a judgement about the intentions and thought processes and histories of a significant percentage of just this forum's membership, let alone the millions of people who've faced these decisions, and invalidates the circumstances of countless individuals who take medication as having made an informed choice just because they made a different one than you.

cheers in advance for reading.

HADDaball
08-13-14, 12:34 AM
you *assume* people are overlooking the long term effects of their choices, but you don't know that at all. who are these "people"? and why what could be the grounds for claiming that taking medication is equivalent to overlooking the long term effects of taking it?

this is the exact problem i had with the thread start. there appears to be this completely unjustified assumption by some who don't take medication that somehow they've thought about the consequences and risks and those who do take it lack the same critical analysis. i don't why people make such huge assumptions about others, but when i read that, it sounds like the credit you give yourself for considering risks, you somehow don't think others deserve.

just because people evaluate risk/benefit differently and opt TO take medications doesn't mean they're uninformed or unthinking. there are many risks to taking ANY medication, prescription, over the counter, stimulants, other psychopharmaceuticals, ANY medication. for many, depending on the impairment and the type of mental illness, there are also risks to NOT taking medication, huge ones, both short and long term. and every psychiatrist i've ever had has discussed them with me and i have had to decide to take or not take, mostly, because some people don't have that option and i'm now one of them. there are countless threads in the medications section, the adult diagnosis section, and the children's treatment sections where people ask about the risks and express concern and so i know i'm not unique in having concerns and considering them.

so, really, the question i have is why do you think your claim is correct that "people are overlooking the long term effects of their choices?" what people? and where's your evidence? because working in these generalizations just makes a judgement about the intentions and thought processes and histories of a significant percentage of just this forum's membership, let alone the millions of people who've faced these decisions, and invalidates the circumstances of countless individuals who take medication as having made an informed choice just because they made a different one than you.

cheers in advance for reading.

Thank you. There is a generalization there (about overlooking long term effects).

I do apologize about the inferred invalidation of others judgements.

I'm just saying if I was the CEO of a big pharma company, I wouldn't sign off on stimulants being marketed to adults with ADHD for their lifetimes, without acknowledging them being a plausible risk factor for heart disease and other heart conditions, in the same ballpark as stress, smoking and animal fats.

I say this as in the coming decades, if people with heart conditions at 50 or 60, that had no other risk factors but used stimulants daily, especially at the highest therapeutic dose, may try to sue the company, much like what's happened with smoking.

peripatetic
08-13-14, 01:34 AM
i appreciate the consideration.

i'm unsure there is truly a "general assumption" simply because psychopharmaceuticals are SO heavily stigmatized and demonized in the media and so many people think really negative things about stimulants in the general population.

however, if you mean that you observe oftentimes an assumption here that they're safe...or lack potential to cause long term effects, i would encourage you to read more threads, especially in treatments, where so many people express concern because i think your perception isn't representative of even a majority of members. many people worry about it. granted, there is a percentage who see no risk or will say outright that they don't care. but most members, in my experience of reading threads about this exact topic, for years, are far more balanced in approach. people recognize risk to taking, and risk to not taking. from my experience, there's a huge percentage of people who might not be the loudest, who are cautious, but who have come to a point in life where the super high risk and definite experience and near certain continuation of not having a life that's at all satisfying, sustaining themselves and relationships, among other things, outweighs the slimmer risk of side effects and only potential longer term complications.

i think also reading some of the parenting threads. because i've seen so many who worry about risk to health, but then there is also huge risk to self esteem, social functioning, education... and most people are trying to take the lowest possible dose that makes them functional and that's definitely the case that i've observed with parents.

there is concern. there is a desire to limit potential for damage. but there is also very real and considerable damage done, for many, by NOT exploring options. and i can imagine that there are threads you've seen that give you one picture, but i am telling you that there so many more, people have thousands and thousands of posts...that are in total contrast to what you see as a general assumption being made.

finally, i realize in re reading some that your focus is on stimulant medication and its risks with long term usage. as i said above, when i read the first line of the thread start i saw "drugs" and perhaps misattributed these ideas to being about psychopharmaceuticals in general. i'm actually unsure if it's intended to be about psychiatric medications more broadly, about anything prescribed for adhd treatment, or just about stimulant medication, full stop. my point that there's a larger picture about how people approach treatment and whether they're concerned or making assumptions about risk still applies and i would encourage reading more and learning more about the people here before thinking nobody sees risk or considers consequences.

however, especially in light of the fact that some medications (categories of, specific ones within categories, or just certain ones), not including stimulants, actually, DO have documented serious potential and significant percentage of people developing long term side effects/damage from taking them, and more often than not, people do NOT want to take, will discontinue, and sometimes have choice removed...and that there's such stigma to having to take them... that's a huge part of where i'm coming from in my replies and overall position about what's attributed to people who are on medication. there's a significant number of people and media portrayals and so forth that judges very harshly people who take psychiatric medication. who "don't believe" that mental illness can't be overcome with effort or diet or prayer or whatever. and personally, the only thing worse than having to take this ****, is hearing that people think i want to, that i do so uninformed, or that i wouldn't do anything, anything, not to. and that's where, as i said, maybe i'm mistakenly widening the scope of this thread, because i'm seeing "would rather not dose with dangerous drugs" or "overlooking long term effects" as applying to all psychiatric medications...and that sounds like "using medication as a crutch when you could walk/laziness" and "instant gratification", which ignores the day to day reality of so many people and severe life impact mental illness can have. in my experience and what i read and know of so many others, it's not like choosing to smoke and eat red meat without regard to long term health. it's more being between a rock and a hard place and you can live with likely long term consequences of some sort in order to try to have a life, or you and everyone around you can be at the mercy of what presents and watch it destroy everything worthwhile in its wake.

so, as i said, though the "general assumption" you suggest i think you might reconsider if you spent more time reading old stuff...or as you get to know people more, my biggest concern is the idea that (generally) people who take medication COULD, but fail to consider these long term consequences and find non medication ways to manage mental health. i disagree that the majority of people are fine with having to make those (what for some of us amounts to catch 22) choices, because impairment, symptoms, prognosis...these are not a one size fits all, but the claims seem to be. does that make sense? hopefully, because i need to stop typing and hit post reply already.

cheers for your thoughtful reply above x

HADDaball
08-13-14, 02:04 AM
I know they work but I don't want to take them.

Talk about a rock and a hard place.

I guess we have to live with our choices :)

SB_UK
08-13-14, 03:04 AM
When you first take them and can operate - there's an overwhelming feeling of 'where have I been all my life?'
- my first thread here asked how long one would expect to maintain these effects.

They're useful (the feeling difference especially at the start) for showing you how the daily grind of living is wearing you out.

Nobody should need motivation in a bottle - whatever you're doing should be motivation in and of itself
- seems in many cases we've simply set up dull schemes for people to robotically plough through
- and the burden of doing something so loathsome takes its toll.

In one of the suicide letters written by a Chinese worked at an ipod assembly plant in China - he stated that he couldn't live with the education he has, doing such a mundane job.

So - I'm suggesting that we're all on that spectrum.
Living a pointless life of doing pointless things - and becoming depressed/lethargic as we live the distress of pushing through (for a wage).

The meds give us that extra bit of oomph ... ... so much so that people like me post threads on here worried that the effects will go away.

But 10 years ago - I had it backwards - it shouldn't be that we should need a chemical agent to help us handle boredom
- but we should be able to change what we do to rediscover motivation.

Problem is money.

You can't rediscover yourself when you have bills to pay.

The minimum wage doesn't cover the minimum life in the UK - human beings are imprisoned by money.


Yay!!

Exactly 10 years ago.
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9786&highlight=STIMULANT

Many of the messages that I've read across many websites, seem to suggest that there's a honeymoon period that is experienced for the first couple of years on stimulant medication, and that this is bliss - but that once this period is over, that anything can happen........ What have I learned about ADHD since then ?

Real condition; don't rely on drugs - they often stop working; essential aetiology caused by distress from living in an anti-social environment in which money/law/materialism (an inner desire formalized externally) maintains inequality.

Anybody with a mind should realise that morality is our key attribute.
We should be striving towards a better world.
But it's obvious that we're not.
In that hole between what we know we should be doing and what we're not doing lies ADDer dysfunction.
It's a bit like living in the dystopias (Hunger Games similar to Olympics eg the Brazil favela, Zombie movies similar to capitalism eg Bangladeshi child labour, post-nuclear war apocalypse similar to capitalism's pollution eg Baltic Sea (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3007228.stm), Chelyabinsk (http://www.logtv.com/films/chelyabinsk/),Japanese nuclear reactors, Chinese smog (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/12/china-smog-pollution-beijing) (eg darkened skies in the Matrix)) we see regularly on the cinema actually now.

The film Elysium was written with today in mind.

In fact - recently watched a documentary of a Chinese worked who recycled metal - inhaled metal - damaged himself and then spent his money on over-priced drugs which didn't do anything ... ... which is similar to Elysium.

-*-

I'm just not so sure that anybody with a brain should be a happy, willing, motivated member of the rotten society that human beings have generated.

Switch on the TV and you have food programs (animal slaughter), holiday programs (requiring heavy fossil fuel usage and destroying local environments as money pushes the poor from their homes) ... ... ...

- all of our ADD is simply the sign of a mind in pain (distress).

If your mind isn't in pain - then you don't actually have one - since it's impossible to crunch the data of society outside and not return distress at the stupidity of the species in driving itself off a sharp cliff for materialism.

SB_UK
08-13-14, 03:35 AM
Everybody knows that if they're in physical pain - then they're incapacitated ie can't operate as they know they should.

I'm simply suggesting that people are in psychological pain - then they're incapacitated ie can't operate ... ... but don't actually realise why

- because they've never been without psychological pain.

So imagine if you're born and die in physical pain.

You'll never know that that's not the state you're meant to be in.

I'm suggesting that the medication gives us an insight into the life which we should all be entitled to live - and represents what it'd feel like - if we could actually feel personal reward/motivation in what we do

- instead of compulsion.

Compulsion (towards immorality) (making the world a worse place) -> leads to -> chronic psychological distress -> chronic activation of Sympathetic nervous system -> lethargy, discomfort, a feeling of not being comfortable anywhere particularly.

Which is ADHD.

-*-

So yes - biohacking via amphetamines.

You're given a glimpse of what a personally rewarding life in a moral society would be like via amphetamine.

You're in prison to rentier capitalists and there's nothing anybody can do about it because the rentier capitalist unlike yesteryear is distributed throughout society (landlords, land owners, home owners etc ...)

All the individual can do is overcome the love/desire of money and then hope that enough become sufficiently enlightened to introduce change to a fair world; losing the love/desire of money can actually be considered the prison guard since without it you are most of the way to freedom ... ... the rest of the way just involves forming a group and arguing for change against people who won't be able to formulate a coherent argument - since capitalism can only be supported by minds which do not make sense.

The historical mistake was simply to replace one lot of greedy materialists with another.

That doesn't work.

SB_UK
08-13-14, 04:05 AM
ps 10 years in - but to be fair nothing has really changed.

Today:Compulsion (towards immorality) (making the world a worse place) -> leads to -> chronic psychological distress -> chronic activation of Sympathetic nervous system -> lethargy, discomfort, a feeling of not being comfortable anywhere particularly.


and 10 years ago next week):
Oops, we missed this one:
…is it possible that a tendency towards philosphy could break this evolutionary imperative and actually herald the next stage in evolution ie towards the development of a better society.

Absolutely. How did you figure this out? Nobody even talks about this idea yet, as far as we know.

But it’s still essentially a ‘selfish’ genome at work. Altruism is fine, as long as it selects… (big grins…)

SB_UK
08-13-14, 04:08 AM
So - I'd close off 10 years into ADHD as simply the emergence (ADHD) of a type which is custom geared towards moral existence, towards sensory (informational) quality
- with an in-built metabolic shift which prefers ketosis (neural arrangement formation) to blood glucose elevation (primitive reward strategy).

Simply we can describe ADDer as being born into a different, higher reward strategy which places us as gaining reward from quality of experience
- with a complete incapacity in obtaining reward from competitive (between human being) practices.

Yeah we can beat other people at stuff - but errrr! like and so what ?????
In fact the thought of beating somebody who'll be upset at losing produces aversion.
Why'd I ever want to do it ? Unless my reward (which it doesn't but does in many people) comes from seeing another person suffer
-> see 'schadenfreude' or the average soap opera.

Dopamine circuit not a-buzzing.

Stress drives the reactive urge for stress relief (See Rat Park experiment) -> where naltrexone cuts sweet / fatty food desire -> ie stress drives sweet fatty food consumption -> global diabetes epidemic -> prevents ketosis state being held -> prevents internal quality sensing machinery (CNS) coming together -> over-consumption of the wrong calories in a 'Thrifty gene' newly emergent population -> miserable life/death.

3 goals - education into morality (what's right/wrong) (Tree of Knowledge), pair-bond formation (Adam and Eve) and dietary change (ditch the sweet apple for ketosis) -> and we've the route back from ejection into the Garden.
Meaning - happiness through mere existence in the sun / surrounded by nature.

-*-

Birth

Schadenfreude reward system -> with completion of mind of morality -> converts to Social reward system.

In the ADDer - the transition is hastened because we NEVER can derive satisfaction from beating other people - that just doesn't make sense.
In actual fact - the ADDer reward system is far more potent than the nonADDer reward system - because the personal inner drive to become better (being dissatisfied with one's own creations) is far more motivating than just beating another person.
Draws on a better form of motivation.

Best way of beating other people is by cheating.

You can't cheat personal improvement - we know when we've become better - when we've made something worthwhile.

SB_UK
08-13-14, 04:32 AM
Best way of beating other people is by cheating.

You can't cheat personal improvement - we know when we've become better - when we've made something worthwhile.


ADHD is becoming better* NOT better than**.

*greater personal quality, more attuned to quality, generation of higher quality results ... ...

**beating other people is the animal/primitive/immature/vicious reward system and is the dominant reward system at play in current society.

-*-

ADHD is 'I lose' if I beat you.

Kunga Dorji
08-14-14, 12:11 AM
Everybody knows that if they're in physical pain - then they're incapacitated ie can't operate as they know they should.

I'm simply suggesting that people are in psychological pain - then they're incapacitated ie can't operate ... ... but don't actually realise why

- because they've never been without psychological pain.

So imagine if you're born and die in physical pain.

You'll never know that that's not the state you're meant to be in.



This is a very important point- and a major reason why so many ADHD individuals have relatively little awareness of their stress state-- a state that can be readily demonstrated both on physical examination and by using tools that assess heart rate variability.

However awareness of one's stress state and cultivation of skills that settle that stress state are vital if one is to minimise use of medication in managing one's ADHD.

SB_UK
08-14-14, 06:25 AM
This is a very important point- and a major reason why so many ADHD individuals have relatively little awareness of their stress state-- a state that can be readily demonstrated both on physical examination and by using tools that assess heart rate variability.

However awareness of one's stress state and cultivation of skills that settle that stress state are vital if one is to minimise use of medication in managing one's ADHD.

I'm really struggling with the idea of how anybody with a mind can survive unstressed in the world we're in.

Regardless of whether the individual acknowledges or even knows they're stressed - they are.

For sure - idea is that ADDers are more stressed because we're custom geared towards social reward.

Things is, as of genesis of mind - and the capacity to communicate sense with any other person in the world - it's inevitable that the social reward system 'd have to be in play - because it's impossible to communicate sense and simultaneously operate to the detriment of others.

You'd somehow have to be intelligent enough (it's too difficult) to lie in all interactions with other people whilst simultaneously working for oneself.

Mind you - intelligent ? Perhaps not.

Sounds like standard political speak.

All the individual needs to do is to foster the quality of saying nothing with words.

Politician on Computers.
Of course we must commend all scientific and technological visionaries that have brought what we call the computer into modern society. The computer has and has not made a change to society, helping to reinforce but also to fragment society. We should see that whether we like or hate the computer, that the computer places us in a position where we have a definite position as to its contribution to society.

All you have to do to communicate with people and operate selfishly is talk rubbish.

If however the individual wishes to make sense - it's inevitable that the social reward system will have to usurp the selfish reward system.
Noting - that an easy way for selfishness to remain in place is also through use of esoteric, technical language that nobody understands.
You can do all you like if you convince people that you know what you're doing.

And the funny thing about incomplete minds is that they're only to happy to give other people the right to decide their own fates.

Funny silly (in a bad way) human beings.

SB_UK
08-14-14, 06:35 AM
“Dexedrine's uniquely 'smooth' antidepressant effect restores mental altertness and optimism, induces feeling of energy and well-being... Dexedrine has the happy effect of bringing back life for the living.” (Magazine advertisement circa 1950, Smith Kline & French; GlaxoSmithKline.)

You know - it just sounds like people are bored / stressed from living a pointless life.
Along comes a drug which supplies what life should provide.

But what would that life involve ?
According to science - people want Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose.

So - we live in a world in which you are not autonomous (reliant on everybody for everything even changing your bike chain), cannot achieve mastery (because most people are specialists in only 1 tiny weeny thing) and purpose (as a cog in a wheel - you have no purpose in life).

So - hard to reject the notion that establishment education which prepares people for establishment work simply wears down human beings - because autonomy, mastery and purpose are not gained.

SB_UK
08-14-14, 06:48 AM
I mean if we imagine everybody having a conversation - whatever we'd come up with after completion of the conversation would just be a specification for optimal wellbeing of people.

Optimal wellbeing of people is easy to define - just sustainable generation of essentials, sustainable generation of whatever human beings consider is fun.

We can do all of that now though.

Do people want to hold hands and sing songs around a campfire ?
No - but it's impossible to achieve autonomy, mastery and purpose unless the foundations are there.

IE -- fair foundations - then become as good as you can be prior to completion of mind and 'fixed' happiness without needing to do anything ... ...

What is ADHD ?
The peculiar feeling that we're all completely wasting our time.
Which is what we're doing in a competitive world.
The goal is collaborative background infrastructure and then personal competition ie to make oneself better; forget other people - you won't feel good unless you achieve - achieving more than under-achievers will not bring any sense of reward to the ADDer.
There's nothing that we can align ourselves to - because there are catastrophic foundational flaws in society which mean that anything we might attempt in today's society - is not compatible with species wellbeing.

Or - a building on cardboard foundations will fall down no matter how much weight one loses.

So root flaw - there's nothing moral which can be employed in an immoral world.
The mind - at least when used to communicate necessitates a moral world - because people are required to communicate on a level in which all communicating partners afree.

Sustainable food and shelter to all (physiology).
Sustainable info/education/art to all (wireless internet).

From birth through education to completion of mind to freedom.
Live out one's life in the sun without the need to achieve anything more.

In all truth - it's not as if anybody actually felt (although all people actually feel) that they'll ever achieve happiness.
You achieve (after lots of work) the freedom from needing to achieve - at which point you achieve happiness.

Ahhh! So when you no longer need to achieve you become a lazy slacker.
No!
Once one has a completed mind - nothing the individual subsequently does introduces errors into society
- so it's a form of qualification which is required before the individual is allowed to do ANYTHING
- because up until that qualification - the individual's mind is not consistent.

So - can the individual choose not to do anything ?
Yes.

Would the individual choose not to do anything ?
I don't think so.

People get to choose.

This fixation with doing stuff isn't useful.
The very vast majority of 'stuff' which human beings have done has not proven useful - so perpetuating the need for 10 billion people to do stuff is not right.

Doesn't matter if 1 person every few years happens upon something interesting - the occasional Shakespeare, Bach and Rodin.
They're enough to keep the rest of us in check.

So - yes - and as mentioned elsewhere - the key qualification is learning to be happy not doing.
The drive to do is a drive (if conducted with incomplete mind) which results in errors (immoral consequences).

-*-

Imagine a computer program written in a language where certain words have not been defined.
Or change meaning randomly.
That's the human mind - and it's not until the language is hard specified - that the program can work.

Currently the world does not work - because education in what is right and what is wrong has not been meaningfully rolled out to the population.

One half has a religious education but can't understand it because they're not trained academically.
And the other half has an academic education but can't understand morality because morality plays no part in standard academics.

So - both poor and rich fight it out - neither educated in what matters.

Climbing the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Acquiring morality.
Telling right from wrong.

Where adder mind self-assembles to morality.

Though the mind is over-rated and is more a stage we're trying to get through - not get stuck in.

SB_UK
08-14-14, 07:32 AM
So everybody should try the amphetamine at least once to feel like what they would feel like if they lived in a world which didn't scare them so.

Ultimately there's only 1 thing to fear.

Human beings (through education) that have seized an immoral mindset/reward system.

Doesn't matter if you're an ill informed religious supporter who kills in the name of his/her God, or an ill informed high flying academic who makes a killing in the name of his/her God
- both equally flawed - both consigned to a pointless life - both will go to their deaths addicted - neither will achieve lasting happiness prior to formal death ... ...

Human beings are simply backing the wrong horse.
And as people in my area seem to realise backing the right horse 'd be scrapping horse races, greyhound races - because of the immoral treatment of animals which has no positive impact on anybody, anything ... ...

You say poetatoe, I say pottatto - let's call the whole thing off.

SB_UK
08-14-14, 09:13 AM
A simplest possible statement through the eyes of ADHD.

No reward felt when efforts made - no motivation - stress (chronic).
No rational 'place' to exert efforts.

We're in a bit of a difficult place.

Without reward we'll regress - as reward is not negotiable - is required.
But the reward we need is transmitted between people ie felt.
And people need to be tuned prior to the reward we require.

I don't know - it's hard to imagine an ADDer feeling reward in this current world.
Which isn't to suggest that enlightenment can't be reached - rendering the pain of the journey to enlightenment void (to some extent)

- but it would be nice if enlightenment could be arrived at without the pain of seeing human beings doing immoral things.

Enlightenment can be reached simply by synthesizing human scientific insight; but at some point the insight needs to be used to translate into a new global societal structure.

The lyrics to 'Imagine' pretty much sum up what's required.

Imagine all the people
Living for today...
--- instead of trying to recreate yesterday tomorrow
Imagine there's no countries
--- definitely
And no religion too
--- or 1 synthesized religion incorporating the boson
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...
--- ridiculous that any human fights, tries to cheat, aims to lie to any other human being.
Imagine no possessions
--- possessions own YOU.
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
--- you are only a mind, body and spirit - there's no room to append material world objects
That certainly is a possibility - there's no reason why we can't dismantle the hierarchical (inequality of man) world - it is, after all, all of our own making.

-*-

It's a bit bizarre when plain statements of fact (rational) such as used by John Lennon in Imagine are greeted as pipedreams.

It's ridiculous that we don't have the world of 'Imagine'.

And only then would we unleash human creativity to actually do something.

Living in this society is like waiting for a bus on a cancelled route.
Propped up skeletons leaning on the buspost, ahead of you at the stop.

Kunga Dorji
08-15-14, 10:02 PM
See my new thread on eye tracking.
It appears that aberrant eye tracking and its correction by methylphenidate, is likely to become a standard diagnostic test for ADHD- thus neatly demonstrating a neurological element to ADHD and a very interesting mechanism for the improvement of attention by stimulants.

Kunga Dorji
08-15-14, 10:56 PM
“Dexedrine's uniquely 'smooth' antidepressant effect restores mental altertness and optimism, induces feeling of energy and well-being... Dexedrine has the happy effect of bringing back life for the living.” (Magazine advertisement circa 1950, Smith Kline & French; GlaxoSmithKline.)

You know - it just sounds like people are bored / stressed from living a pointless life.


SB- that may be so, and there is also the issue that the advertisement you quoted is a carefully crafted piece of salesmanship, but there is more at play here than just that. [As an aside here the known and accepted antidepressant effect of stimulants is usually short lived].

As you know, I have had a pretty high level of success with mindfulness training in my own case- and use stimulants relatively infrequently now (no more than 3 doses of short acting dexamphetamine per week in the last 3 months now).

However there are still some issues in my life- connected to my divorce- that can leave me in a pretty negative mood. While I teach meditation and can reach very still states at times, I can still find myself mentally and emotionally "stuck" brooding on some problem that would be better put aside for the time.

I have found to my great interest that in these situations, the combination of a single dose of dexamphetamine and purposeful task (anything from some work to a walk or doing some qigong or a guided meditation) has the great effect of stopping the brooding and turning off the gloomy state.

This is not an issue of a meaningless life ( I have plenty of positive, meaningful work to do, which is genuinely prosocial, co-operative and not taking anything away from anyone else)- it is a matter of a "stuck emotional and cognitive gear shifter"-- and the application of a well targeted dose of dexamphetamine allows that gear shifter to start moving again.

I would highlight though that the potency of dexamphetamine in having this effect is much greater since I managed to taper my usage down to an infrequent dose. So it would appear that this effect is prone to drug tolerance.

While I broadly agree with your comments about social impacts upon ADHD- these factors are not the sole cause- they are a risk factor. I worry that excessive focus on one risk factor may diminish the impact and credibility of the important message you are trying to get across.

meadd823
08-17-14, 12:02 PM
Of course changes are not necessarily harmful. My entire hope in treating myself with amphetamines is positively altering my problematic neurobiology. I bolded that text to emphasize the fact of a lack of information in the literature—whether or not therapeutic use of amphetamines can potentially result in harm. There's concrete ambiguity here. Considering the delicacy of neurobiology (a well-established fact) and the crudeness of modern psychiatry (a science in its absolute infancy), it stands to reason that the potential for harm is worth considering.


You worded your post as if those taking ADD medication haven't bothered to consider the long term effects or tried any other approach to our ADD symptoms before going on meds. This is not true some of us tried decades of other approaches without success thus meds were a last resort.

You act is if those of us on medication have failed to consider the possibility of long term effects - what a bunch of pig scrubbing{hog wash}. If you are drowned now does the use of a "potentially carcinogen" life jacket make a hell of a lot of difference in your decision making.

Note the you know you are drowning now and the life jacket is "potentially carcinogenic"



The pharmacokinetics of drugs that profoundly affect neurochemistry are not analogous to classical conditioning.

The study you used dealt with classical conditioning



Suffering from ADD symptoms doesn't make you any more or less neurologically susceptible to neurobiologically damaging effects such as neurotoxicity. Not a pertinent objection.

You know this how?

If my brain were the same as a non-ADDers brain or a schizophrenics brain then I would be a non-ADDer or schizophrenic. It stands to reason that an ADD brain does hold some difference that make it ADD. Therefore I indeed have a "pertinent objection"



Apparently you didn't actually read either of the studies I linked on the effects of amphetamine sensitization. In both studies, subjects were orally administered 20mg of dextroamphetamine. It sounds to me like you're reading about studies of animal models of sensitization, of which there are a great deal, but are of limited relevance to human models. For instance, in many mammals, amphetamines are profoundly neurotoxic, but humans seem to tolerate them exceptionally well.

Because I did not come to the same conclusion does not mean I did not read the studies -

I looked up the meaning of a word you used "amphetamine sensitization" to find it's origins thus it's meaning -I found it's origins linked to a bunch of studies that had nothing what so ever to do with therapeutic doses of ADD medications.

It followed the same annoying presumptive attitude you seem to be communicating = people are meds are a bunch of addicts who did not try hard enough before trying medications

- Perhaps you should look up the origins of the words you use instead of bashing those who do



I'm not concerned about the possibility of psychosis. I don't understand where you got the idea that I was concerned about it. If you were referring to this mention of psychosis:

"These data show for the first time in humans that AS changes the functional impact of acute stimulant exposure on the processing of reward-related information within dopaminoceptive regions. Our findings accord with pathophysiological models which implicate aberrant dopaminergic modulation of striatal and amygdala activity in psychosis and drug-related compulsive disorders."

then you didn't understand what was being said. The paper's not talking about amphetamine psychosis; it's talking about theoretical models of dopamine dysregulation which are proposed to explain other psychiatric conditions such as psychosis, and how well the results of this study seem to support those models.

You are basing a presumptive fear on theories and models.

Okay what ever!

None of these things has any thing to do with real life just like making model cars does not have any thing to do with driving a real one.

I am sick of presumptive folks bashing stuff they know nothing about while claiming to know nothing about it but use a bunch of fancy worded stuff to make it look like they do.

You used a bunch of vaguely related studies to base your fears upon while I have first hand life experience to refute them with however this is about science so I used the picking apart of the presented science to fight scientific presumption as per the section chosen for this discussion.


MY point which was obviously missed was that it isn't necessarily the drug taken or even the amount but the reason behind taking it that can be the source of the problem. None of the studies dealt with the why behind medication usage.

Why is the determining factor between help and harm

If you are taking ADD medication to produce a feeling you are heading for trouble if on the other hand you are taking them as a way of assisting you to learn how to function then you are more likely to get a productive effect

Taking ADD medication in no way spares one of having to implement the non-pharmaceutical aspects of long term successful ADD treatment. Regardless of whether one choose to take meds or not the core portion of ADD treatment is non-pharmaceutical. Being late is not a pharmaceutical problem however ADD meds may allow one to be aware enough of the passage of time to be able to arrange ones life activities in a manner that facilitates being on time - The meds do not make one on time but simply offer access to the portion of the brain that holds time awareness - What is done with that awareness is an individual choice

When it comes to long term ADD treatment the meds simply make becoming aware of the work that needs to be done in a way that opens up the possibility of problematic behaviors actually getting addressed in a productive manner.





I'm also not concerned about adverse reactions, which are acute events. As I've said repeatedly I'm concerned about possible effects resulting from chronic use.

I am assuming 20 years is considered chronic use?

I have been on ADD medication that long so surely you can see where your arguments regarding chronic use of stimulants seem meaningless to me. You are basing your fear argument on a bunch of vague studies which do not tell the reader any thing of value regarding personal experience.

You are making personal experience judgments based upon scientific studies which do not address any thing specific as to whether or not medication should be employed by an individual as part of their long term ADD treatment

I have first hand experience however I understand we are all individuals and my experience may not be every ones.



No, ADDers are not schizophrenics, but they both suffer from dopaminergic problems, which is why the literature on amphetamine commonly refers to both of these pathologies. Regarding drug-induced compulsions: again, the paper was referring to a model of dopamine dysregulation and the relevance of its results to that model. Read more carefully.

I explained that the chemistry changes may indeed both be dompremetic they are not the same thus my analogy that apples and oranges are both fruit but they are not the same fruit. Perhaps it is you that need to read more carefully.





That's exactly right, and that's why I'm not going around telling everybody that their chronic use of amphetamines is going to destroy their brains. "Poorly understood" is pretty close to "ambiguous".

Of this we agree



These results aren't at all unrelated, considering the fact that the methodologies of these studies employ doses within the range of those used in therapeutic treatments: 20mg of oral dextroamphetamine. I don't see how there's a contradiction. "The stigma of meth is inflated" does not also mean "amphetamines are surely harmless". I'm examining amphetamine research precisely because of the fact that it's unclear whether prescription stimulant use in ADD adults is significantly harmful. Once again, the literature explicitly states so:

"Effects of prolonged stimulant treatment have not been fully explored, and understanding such effects is a research priority. Because the pharmacokinetics of amphetamines differ between children and adults, reevaluation of the potential for adverse effects of chronic treatment of adults is essential."

And that's from the piece whose entire focus is ADD patients.

OKay so what are you trying to say that those adults who have ADD now should simply let their lives go down the crapper waiting for science to pull their collective heads out of their posterior aspect ? Being a child by it's very nature is temporary where as being an adult is permanent or about as permanent is it comes in this life time!

I know what my life was like before medications I shall take my chances - I have for twenty years so far so good.

You want guarantees and there isn't any except death and taxes

Some people want to just pop pills and have all their problem magically disappear these are the folks who are in danger of becoming problematically addicted - There is another group of folks who see the ADD medication as a tool to reign in their brains so that our problems can be seen and dealt with through hard work and the school of hard knocks - to them medication is just part of their over all long term ADD treatment they are unlikely to become addicted


People become addicted because they think pain is always bad and seek ways to avoid feeling any thing that is remotely unpleasant - Life has painful periods regardless of whether or not one has ADD - Pain is not always a bad thing pain alerts us to a problem - If one is taking meds to avoid pain caused by lack of motivation , impulsiveness ect then yes addiction is a real possibility. Avoiding pain is not the objective avoiding feeling disinterested in a task isn't either but learning to stick with goals that may cause discomfort understanding that parts of achievement includes task that are boring but having the ability control one attention span so that the boring painful task can be done as a means of goal achievement is the way ADD treatment works. Some folks need medication to have some conscious control of their attention span and length of focus where as other folks do not.



Addiction is not a prerequisite for harm. For example, one dose of MDMA (yet another amphetamine, although admittedly very different from the d- and l-amphetamine in question here) does not an addict make, yet can be excitotoxic enough to produce lasting cognitive deficits. The fact that you occasionally forget to take your medication does not say anything about the potential for harm. If you were to, say, go off of amphetamines for two months, and then evaluate your cognition and compare it to a pre-medicated state, that would be relevant. Unfortunately there probably aren't too many people who can provide such data, and I suspect that has everything to do with why the literature is so lacking.

MDMA - which by the way has nothing what so ever to do with ADD medications . . . .taken therapeutically. Hundreds of people die yearly due to adverse events linked to taking antibiotics but that does not make antibiotic use for every one harmful.

I have been without medications for lengths of time measured in months - there was this thing called a medication shortage a year or so back

I still have ADD just like I used to before medications your point being?

Other people in my life had more with draw symptoms when I quit taking my meds more so that I did - Others had become dependent upon my ability to function and when I could not function to the same level they suffered the consequences as much as I did.

If stimulants permanently changed the brain chemistry after taking it for a specified length of time as you purpose 1}if toxic then those of us on long term stimulant medication would be dead by now or 2}stimulants would actually be a cure as opposed to a treatment in the same way antibiotics cure some bacterial infections.


Glasses aren't analogous to drugs with "high abuse potential", to use the exact language of ADD literature. Nobody who doesn't need visual correction wears corrective lenses, but lots of people who don't need stimulants to function use them anyway. Why? High abuse potential.

Which does not have any thing to do with people who use medications as PART of their over all ADD treatment. Medications are never the entire ADD treatment for those of us who are considered "successful".

- The annoying presumption you are communicating is that those of us on medication take pills because we want to get high or because are not willing to deal with life. Yet for me it is apparent you are just starting out on a quest to deal with your own issues while discrediting mine - How rude :mad:

I have lived longer than you have and been on medication longer than you have - Who are you to interpret my use of ADD medications in a derogatory manner - It is like telling me to try harder - like I am to stupid to have thought of that before starting on medications.



I'll point out the fact that even patients on a therapeutic regimen of amphetamines sometimes spiral out of control into a cycle of abuse and addiction. Many people who never take anything higher than therapeutic doses also report problems with addiction and withdrawal. Go take a look at the abuse subsection of these forums for plenty of examples.


Read this carefully - as I am guessing you missed it the first time - I used to be a "speed freak" I broke the mold of speed freak because I was self medicating and doing a good job of it. I was clean for years before starting on ADD medications and I have been without ADD medications sense being on them.

Some addicts are self medicating in an effort to avoid dealing with the pain life dishes out to us all however other addicts are actually trying to function but have no other means of doing so except through illegal channels. Not all drug addicted are addicted for the same reasons again we are back to WHY!!!



More than likely people who get addicted to medications on a therapeutic dose took the meds for the wrong reason - If you think meds are going to solve your problems you are dead wrong -

Medication are more likely to increase your awareness of your problem because you can focus long enough to become aware of how the ADD symptoms have had detrimental effects upon their life - Meds will increase your awareness of your problems for a time making things worse - This is the make it or break it stage of ones ADD treatment dedication.

Those who take meds expecting the pills to make the improvement tend to take more pills when they are made aware of just how many thing they have screwed up - They are taking medication to avoid pain and hard work = wrong!

Those who walk in knowing that they have a lot of problem they are going to have to tackle and take medication so they can have a snow balls chance in hell of doing so productively are not the ones you hear discussing tolerances and complaining about not feeling the mediation

I have not felt my medication in years because the changes they have on my brain chemistry is now the norm for me. I saw the things I wanted to change and learned how to make goals and learned how to take steps in reaching those goals a work in progress for every one not just ADDers.

The meds allow me to focus long enough to know I need to do things differently if I want some thing different - they allow me access to the part of my brain that is time aware - so much of our lives are based upon timing.

ADD medication is not about feeling but about functioning.

ADD medication will NOT motivate you long term you are going to have to learn how to motivate yourself.


You are beginning a quest I have already been on for over two decades, so please do not speak to me as if I am some how clueless.

SB_UK
08-17-14, 03:53 PM
a meaningless life

I really can't work out how to have a meaningful life unless we change society globally towards equality.

It's a bit like we can't enjoy life on any level of a tower block, no matter what we're doing unless we know that the foundations which were used were sufficient.

Life (currently) feels like we're 1000 levels up in a building with cardboard for foundations and a weather change (for the worse!) on the cards.

Αλήθεια
08-17-14, 11:10 PM
You worded your post as if those taking ADD medication haven't bothered to consider the long term effects or tried any other approach to our ADD symptoms before going on meds. This is not true some of us tried decades of other approaches without success thus meds were a last resort.

You act is if those of us on medication have failed to consider the possibility of long term effects - what a bunch of pig scrubbing{hog wash}. If you are drowned now does the use of a "potentially carcinogen" life jacket make a hell of a lot of difference in your decision making.

Note the you know you are drowning now and the life jacket is "potentially carcinogenic"

No, I didn't word my post in such a way, and no, I haven't acted in such a way, either; you made that inference baselessly, and I challenge you to identify any words of mine that unambiguously express such a sentiment. If you're referring to the first sentence of my first post, I already explained it to peripatetic. He seemed satisfied. I specifically said in my second post:

'In calling them dangerous I also wasn't insinuating that they can't be used responsibly (as they obviously are by many patients who see life-changing benefits from them); I was merely calling attention to the very real potential for risk.'

Everyone's got their own story to tell, and as I've said repeatedly I'm not here to pass judgment on anybody. It's strange, though, how you can't seem to accept such a simple, straightforward statement. It's almost as if you're experiencing some sort of persecution complex.


The study you used dealt with classical conditioning

No, the study I cited dealt with pharmacodynamics and cognition. Studying neurological changes induced by drugs does not constitute a study of classically conditioned effects.

You know this how?

If my brain were the same as a non-ADDers brain or a schizophrenics brain then I would be a non-ADDer or schizophrenic. It stands to reason that an ADD brain does hold some difference that make it ADD. Therefore I indeed have a "pertinent objection"

Oversimplification doesn't make your objection pertinent. Neurotoxicity is a process that occurs at the cellular level, and whatever structural abnormalities are implicated in ADD have nothing to do with basic cellular biology. You're a human being with human neurons and they're just as capable of being destroyed by oxidative damage as anybody else's neurons are, end of story.

Because I did not come to the same conclusion does not mean I did not read the studies -

I looked up the meaning of a word you used "amphetamine sensitization" to find it's origins thus it's meaning -I found it's origins linked to a bunch of studies that had nothing what so ever to do with therapeutic doses of ADD medications.

It followed the same annoying presumptive attitude you seem to be communicating = people are meds are a bunch of addicts who did not try hard enough before trying medications

- Perhaps you should look up the origins of the words you use instead of bashing those who do

You looked up amphetamine sensitization and concluded that "most studies injected the amphetamines", and replied "I do not inject my medications." That's not a response to the studies I posted, which explored amphetamine sensitization in subjects who were administered oral doses at therapeutic levels. The fact that you dismissed the possibility of amphetamine sensitization on the basis of the fact that you don't inject your medications made it pretty easy to conclude that you had ignored the actual content of the studies I had posted.

You are basing a presumptive fear on theories and models.

Okay what ever!

None of these things has any thing to do with real life just like making model cars does not have any thing to do with driving a real one.

I am sick of presumptive folks bashing stuff they know nothing about while claiming to know nothing about it but use a bunch of fancy worded stuff to make it look like they do.

You used a bunch of vaguely related studies to base your fears upon while I have first hand life experience to refute them with however this is about science so I used the picking apart of the presented science to fight scientific presumption as per the section chosen for this discussion.

Anecdotes are interesting but do not constitute hard evidence of anything; the word "refutation" is completely inappropriate here. Again, if you could provide actual data, that would be much more useful, but your subjective experience certainly does not answer the question "What is the potential for damage in long-term amphetamine use?" You might just as well say "I'm 85 and smoked tobacco all my life, just like my father before me. Bad for your health? That's presumptuous!"

"Bashing stuff they know nothing about"? Nothing's being bashed here. There's that persecution complex again.

"Use a bunch of fancy worded stuff to make it look like they do". Yep, that's right, those neuroscientists publishing research papers in which they declare that "reevaluation of the potential for adverse effects of chronic treatment of adults is essential" are just using a bunch of fancy words to pretend like they know what they're talking about, and I'm just as ignorant and conceited as they are for agreeing with their skepticism and cautiousness.


MY point which was obviously missed was that it isn't necessarily the drug taken or even the amount but the reason behind taking it that can be the source of the problem. None of the studies dealt with the why behind medication usage.

That's because the question isn't the "why". The "why" is obvious, because the benefits patients reap from stimulant treatments are overwhelmingly obvious. Nobody's calling those benefits into question. I hope it finally sinks in this time. I'm researching the long-term effects of amphetamine treatment because they're part of my "why" question, not anybody else's. The reasons for taking drugs can certainly have to do with the problems caused by drugs, but they have nothing to do with the fact that drugs are inherently problematic—i.e., they have side effects, and that applies to absolutely everybody. Long-term damage is merely another potential side effect, and it's one about which I'm personally concerned. That has absolutely nothing to do with whatever your personal feelings may be.

I am assuming 20 years is considered chronic use?

I have been on ADD medication that long so surely you can see where your arguments regarding chronic use of stimulants seem meaningless to me. You are basing your fear argument on a bunch of vague studies which do not tell the reader any thing of value regarding personal experience.

You are making personal experience judgments based upon scientific studies which do not address any thing specific as to whether or not medication should be employed by an individual as part of their long term ADD treatment

I have first hand experience however I understand we are all individuals and my experience may not be every ones.

I have no idea what a "personal experience judgment" is exactly, but once again, no judgments have been made. The only conclusion I've reached from the cited studies is that the potential for long-term damage in chronic amphetamine use remains unknown. I don't care whether my arguments mean anything to you, because I'm not interested in your personal opinion; I'm interested in hard facts.

I explained that the chemistry changes may indeed both be dompremetic they are not the same thus my analogy that apples and oranges are both fruit but they are not the same fruit. Perhaps it is you that need to read more carefully.

Nope, it is indeed you. Your "apples to oranges" analogy was employed to criticize the relevance of the study, but the study made no attempt to compare ADD to schizophrenia at all, nor did I. Therefore, your analogy was completely irrelevant.

OKay so what are you trying to say that those adults who have ADD now should simply let their lives go down the crapper waiting for science to pull their collective heads out of their posterior aspect ? Being a child by it's very nature is temporary where as being an adult is permanent or about as permanent is it comes in this life time!

You aren't actually serious, are you? You interpret "a reevaluation of potential adverse effects is needed" as "adults who are experiencing profound benefits from a treatment that may or may not have unforeseen long-term consequences should cease treatment until more is known"? Definitely a persecution complex.

I know what my life was like before medications I shall take my chances - I have for twenty years so far so good.

You want guarantees and there isn't any except death and taxes

You seem to conflate "data" and "scientific knowledge" with "guarantees". How do you draw that connection?

Some people want to just pop pills and have all their problem magically disappear these are the folks who are in danger of becoming problematically addicted - There is another group of folks who see the ADD medication as a tool to reign in their brains so that our problems can be seen and dealt with through hard work and the school of hard knocks - to them medication is just part of their over all long term ADD treatment they are unlikely to become addicted


People become addicted because they think pain is always bad and seek ways to avoid feeling any thing that is remotely unpleasant - Life has painful periods regardless of whether or not one has ADD - Pain is not always a bad thing pain alerts us to a problem - If one is taking meds to avoid pain caused by lack of motivation , impulsiveness ect then yes addiction is a real possibility. Avoiding pain is not the objective avoiding feeling disinterested in a task isn't either but learning to stick with goals that may cause discomfort understanding that parts of achievement includes task that are boring but having the ability control one attention span so that the boring painful task can be done as a means of goal achievement is the way ADD treatment works. Some folks need medication to have some conscious control of their attention span and length of focus where as other folks do not.

Now you seem to consider yourself an authority on addiction. Physical addiction can happen to anybody, including patients who use their medications for the "right reasons" and have healthy expectations. That's just how drugs work. That's just how biology works.

MDMA - which by the way has nothing what so ever to do with ADD medications . . . .taken therapeutically. Hundreds of people die yearly due to adverse events linked to taking antibiotics but that does not make antibiotic use for every one harmful.

I have been without medications for lengths of time measured in months - there was this thing called a medication shortage a year or so back

I still have ADD just like I used to before medications your point being?

Other people in my life had more with draw symptoms when I quit taking my meds more so that I did - Others had become dependent upon my ability to function and when I could not function to the same level they suffered the consequences as much as I did.

If stimulants permanently changed the brain chemistry after taking it for a specified length of time as you purpose 1}if toxic then those of us on long term stimulant medication would be dead by now or 2}stimulants would actually be a cure as opposed to a treatment in the same way antibiotics cure some bacterial infections.

My point being that without hard data (and your subjective experience does not constitute it) you have no way of knowing how amphetamines may or may not have adversely affected your baseline cognition. You've been taking amphetamines for 20 years, and your subjective perception of your baseline cognition now compared to your baseline cognition pre-treatment isn't even reliable in the anecdotal sense, especially considering all of the other factors that could have affected it—age, for example. This is why case studies are not adequate—we need longitudinal studies of groups of people to be able to say anything legitimate at all about the possibility of damage.

No, that's not how brain damage works. It's not a binary thing. You aren't either "just fine" or dead. All sorts of environmental toxins are capable of causing permanent damage very slowly over the course of decades. That kind of slow, chronic neurodegeneration is also almost never obvious to the sufferer. Parkinsonian patients, for example, often experience no significant symptoms until they've already lost 90% of their dopaminergic neurons. That's exactly the kind of potential damage I'm concerned about, and that's exactly the kind of damage we have very little information on in the case of amphetamine treatments.

The annoying presumption you are communicating is that those of us on medication take pills because we want to get high or because are not willing to deal with life. Yet for me it is apparent you are just starting out on a quest to deal with your own issues while discrediting mine - How rude :mad:

I've made no such absurd presumption, and not a single thing I've said even remotely implies that I think ADD sufferers are "getting high" or avoiding the problems of life. Those sound exactly like the sorts of presumptions that ADD denialists make, though, and it sounds like you with your persecution complex are somehow reading such ridiculous things into what I've said. Once again, I challenge you to quote me in support of your accusations, because I know that you won't be able to. What's rude is telling me I've made all sorts of crazy presumptions that have nothing to do with any of what I've said.

I have lived longer than you have and been on medication longer than you have - Who are you to interpret my use of ADD medications in a derogatory manner - It is like telling me to try harder - like I am to stupid to have thought of that before starting on medications.

Also sounds exactly like you're responding to some ADD-denialist loon. I've made no "interpretation" of your usage of amphetamines, and I've certainly said absolutely nothing derogatory about anybody's use of amphetamines—unlike many people who take stimulants therapeutically, I completely approve of recreational use, because what people put into their bodies is their own business and nobody has the right to tell them otherwise. You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of derogatory things to say about science and informed consent.

More than likely people who get addicted to medications on a therapeutic dose took the meds for the wrong reason - If you think meds are going to solve your problems you are dead wrong -

That's pretty plainly a judgment of people who experience addiction at therapeutic dosages. Who are you to say why one does or does not become addicted to a drug at any level of dosage? You're not a neurologist, that much is certain. Both physical and psychological addiction are complex processes, and anybody, including perfectly healthy people, can succumb, especially in the case of physical addiction.

ADD medication is not about feeling but about functioning.

ADD medication will NOT motivate you long term you are going to have to learn how to motivate yourself.


You are beginning a quest I have already been on for over two decades, so please do not speak to me as if I am some how clueless.

Who exactly are you preaching to here? It sounds like you're giving advice to someone who's naïve enough to believe that pharmaceutical drugs are magic.

Unless your quest is "use amphetamines for a brief period as an aid in overcoming bad habits", then no, my journey is decidedly different from yours. For somebody who asks not to be spoken to as if he's clueless, you sure are strikingly condescending. I guess that's what they call hypocrisy.

HADDaball
08-18-14, 05:32 AM
This kitchen is getting pretty hot. Please folks, lets stick to the issue.

Here's what I see.

Amphetamine and methylphenidate have been used over 50 years to treat ADHD.

Doctors and researchers peer review the research literature. Government bodies worldwide do also and keep an eye on things.

Time is a great test in terms of prescribed drugs are concerned. Many get withdrawn over the decades as long term damage becomes evident. Stimulants have survived this far.

Doctors of integrity wouldn't prescribe them if they didn't think there wasn't at least reasonable benefits over the risks.


As this thread has progressed, it's become obvious to me that these treatments aren't suitable for someone who wishes set a longevity record.

However, these medicines are useful means to and end for people struggling with ADHD, and in the end, they choose if they are willing to bear the risks to receive the benefits.

I'd like to think there are better options out there, but for now, they have their place as a treatment and the evidence supports it. Having read the research, I'm unable able to put forward a sound case otherwise.

namazu
08-18-14, 09:06 PM
MODERATOR NOTE:

This thread has brought out diverse opinions and has also spun off a few side discussions. Several off-topic and/or unconstructive posts have been removed to try to keep the thread civil and on track; please direct any questions about this to the moderators directly via private message (PM).

Please be mindful of the topic of the thread -- the (known / unknown / potential / positive / negative / other) long-term effects of short-term stimulant use, and whether short-term use may eliminate the need for chronic medication use:

I'd like to use [dextroamphetamine] as a tool to fulfill my dormant potential, but I have reservations about potential harms resulting from chronic use (the literature on this subject is scant and speculative at best), and I don't want to incur any sort of dependence.

What's interesting, I notice, is that even during the comedown and the "hangover" ... my ability to focus, to a significant degree, and motivation, to a subtle degree, still seem to be above baseline. What could this mean? Is it possible that one dose ... is capable of nudging my neurobiology in a healthy direction?

In an ideal world, I'd be able to use a carefully modulated dextroamphetamine treatment to bootstrap myself out of a lifetime of bad habits, neurological and otherwise, and then abstain with no ill effects... I've heard that via neuroplasticity alone it's possible to measurably alter brain chemistry.

What do you guys think? Has anybody got any pertinent anecdotes? Links to research? Bright ideas? I'd love to hear from you.


Thanks for your cooperation. We now return to our regularly-scheduled program... :cool:

SB_UK
08-19-14, 03:11 AM
In an ideal world, I'd be able to use a carefully modulated dextroamphetamine treatment to bootstrap myself out of a lifetime of bad habits, neurological and otherwise, and then abstain with no ill effects... I've heard that via neuroplasticity alone it's possible to measurably alter brain chemistry.

Well that's how I used it.
Jumped out of bad habits into good habits.
However didn't choose to come off the meds they changed from paradoxical (motivating) to standard stimulating (unpleasant) - and so had to stop them.

Though - if you were to press me on the bad habits which they helped me to see through - the most significant one - was trying to do well at a fundamentally pointless (human genetics of complex disorders) endeavour.

So - it allowed me to realise that my lack of motivation towards human genetics came because human genetics was pointless from a disease alleviation perspective.

The genetics field is currently showing that if you eat a varied diet of natural fruit and vegetables that you'll be healthier - but you know - duh !!! Just do a straight comparison without sequencing their poop and you'll see they're healthier ... ...

So - I'd argue that medication simply helps us to perform tasks which we don't really want to do.
If you use medication wisely you'll gain insight into the fact that you don't really approve of what you're doing.
If you then stop doing whatever you're forcing yourself to do through use of medication - then you'll no longer need to use it.

So - yes.
[1] Medication helps you (initially) to do whatever you hate (are not motivated towards)
[2] Medication helps to give you insight into the fact that you hate it (because it's pointless, immoral, a waste of a life, not solving the problem it was set out to solve eg complex human genetics)
[3] Medication helps to motivate you to change direction into something that you do find motivating - resulting in a natural loss of the need to take medication - because the thing you're doing is sufficiently motivating in and of itself.

Now - personal observation - was that I didn't actually need to take medication to do something that was classically not motivational - but actually needed to take medication to do something which I later discovered my mind considered as immoral.

OK - so to elaborate - it's clear that pushing the genetics causation of common disease pours credibility into a form of enquiry which prevents environmental change to eliminate common disease - because everyone's holding out for a collaboration between the techno-geneticist, techno-informaticist and techno-pharmacologist to deliver a magic drug which'll eradicate disease.

But anyone with a mind knows that that'll never occur - leading to the need for anybody with a mind in that environment to take lots of medication to overcome a lack of motivation towards an activity which is fundamentally wrong (immoral).

So - I'm trying to describe the use of medication as required for behaviours which the individual is not motivated towards - and for the most part - because the individual's mind (even if it doesn't yet know it) - thinks it's wrong.

-*-

So - motivation towards immorality, insight, changing direction towards morality (and motivation) in summary explains how short term medication use can eliminate poor self-medication (addictive pursuit) behaviours and put you in a happy place where moral activities supply your dopamine for yourself.

As the mind builds - it cannot help but feel bad when it engages in behaviours it sees as immoral - it's a 'human' property which we cannot discard - though is dependent on the effects of education on the mind, and is a particularly important concern in the ADDer whose mind self-assembles to wisdom more reliably than the nonADDer mind (see EOR vs AND logical subunit of mind comment).

-*-

Finally - and the tragedy of modern society - is that people are being pushed into higher education - in the UK attempting to get up tp 50% of all young people - and with HEAVY debt being placed on all of these students - indirectly meaning that whichever skills are acquired at University must be used in order to pay off the debt that is acquired.
You're shaped into a {insert thing} and need to do that thing (changing disciplines without dropping to minimum wage has proven impossible - at least for me - because you're competing against someone who actually has the specified Uni certificate even if it's just the equivalent of toilet paper)
- and so people are driven to fly the flag of whatever they're trained in and are prevented (you have to pay back your debts) from discovering morality.

The take home message is that the entire capitalist structure of society, need for money to survive, cost of education, terminal differentiation through education, expecting people to specialise before they've a mind which is complete/knows morality ... ... results in a workforce of automatons who simply do because they've no idea how to do anything else and need to do in order to pay for survival.

-*-

So - after 10 years of life on the forum - that'd be my conclusion.

Use medication to help you to survive temporarily without engaging in alcohol/cigarette self-medication etc ... ... use medication to gain insight into why you're miserable currently - change what you're doing and then fight to change the world - because it's very difficult to survive in this current world outside the domain of the certificates you've spent the last 20 years in acquiring.

SB_UK
08-19-14, 03:21 AM
So yeah - don't require medication to dig a garden or to run - to drive or to walk all day
- just required medication to pay attention to an activity which my mind considered (even if I didn't initially work this out) as immoral.

The medication can help to give us insight into this - though (I believe) if the medication continues to work for people (which it appears to do) - it may (I guess) be used to shroud the individual's subconscious (but very real) antipathy towards {insert task}.

Just trying to think - immorality in the case of adults - perhaps lack of capacity / inability to gain anything meaningful from in the case of child.

So - children won't motivate towards things they can't do - medication will overcome this.
Children won't motivate towards things that don't give them reward ie will feel bored - medication will overcome this.

However - I'd argue that the difference between adults and children -especially adults in this day and age which're forced to house information on everything through moment by moment exposure to the news ... ... is that lack of motivation arises more (in the adult) through personal insight into the fact that whatever the adult is doing - isn't enjoyable (of point, meaning) ... ...

SB_UK
08-19-14, 03:37 AM
So - trying one final time.

Your question is - will medication improve or worsen my life ?

Medication will allow you to do something that you don't want to do.
If you discover that the medication helps you to be better at something which itself gives you reward then yes, if the medication does not help you to be better at something which itself brings you reward then no.

Now I'd argue that you should never need to use medication to become better at something which'll itself (eventually) be motivational in and of itself - ie that having fun doesn't require the individual to walk a route barefoot lined with shards of glass
- however what I'm describing may be how it should be and not how it is.

From my personal experience of the University/workplace - both kill individual motivation/creativity by forcing you to dance the robot to get on.

Not an original thought though.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity

Simply remove the carrot (money/power) and remove the stick (not earning money/power) from education/work and we solve the problem.

People then will only apply themselves if it brings personal reward.

It's a way of correcting the entire planet for {ignorant, immoral, meaningless, pointless} behaviours - that is by eliminating the motivation of money/power - we at last place this sign in each and every classroom in education and all places of work.

http://www.loumarinoff.com/do-not-feed-the-animals-sign.png

SB_UK
08-19-14, 03:44 AM
Education / Work are meant to make life better for ALL people.

Human beings are differentiated from animals in that human beings are supposed to aspire towards morality.

Though you'd really not know it looking at the monsters of flaccid logic which we see lazily strewn about politics, business, medicine - in fact ALL establishment organizations.

These flabby illogical minds are kept in place by their own addiction to money and power.

We need to do them all a favour and open the door to them obtaining by moral (NOT ROYAL!!) appointment by setting fire to constructs which maintain human hierarchy ie money / political structures (government) / hierarchical power structures (legal institutions) ... ... the net effect of which'll be for people to relax ... ... not be exposed to pollution, plastic foods ... ... eliminating disease <- the medical degree can be summarised as epidemiological in nature - you don't need any of that nonsense pharmacology, surgery - if next to nobody becomes sick in the first place.

Kunga Dorji
08-20-14, 08:43 AM
No, I didn't word my post in such a way, and no, I haven't acted in such a way, either; you made that inference baselessly, and I challenge you to identify any words of mine that unambiguously express such a sentiment. If you're referring to the first sentence of my first post, I already explained it to peripatetic. He seemed satisfied. I specifically said in my second post:

'In calling them dangerous I also wasn't insinuating that they can't be used responsibly (as they obviously are by many patients who see life-changing benefits from them); I was merely calling attention to the very real potential for risk.'

Everyone's got their own story to tell, and as I've said repeatedly I'm not here to pass judgment on anybody. It's strange, though, how you can't seem to accept such a simple, straightforward statement. It's almost as if you're experiencing some sort of persecution complex.




No, the study I cited dealt with pharmacodynamics and cognition. Studying neurological changes induced by drugs does not constitute a study of classically conditioned effects.



Oversimplification doesn't make your objection pertinent. Neurotoxicity is a process that occurs at the cellular level, and whatever structural abnormalities are implicated in ADD have nothing to do with basic cellular biology. You're a human being with human neurons and they're just as capable of being destroyed by oxidative damage as anybody else's neurons are, end of story.



You looked up amphetamine sensitization and concluded that "most studies injected the amphetamines", and replied "I do not inject my medications." That's not a response to the studies I posted, which explored amphetamine sensitization in subjects who were administered oral doses at therapeutic levels. The fact that you dismissed the possibility of amphetamine sensitization on the basis of the fact that you don't inject your medications made it pretty easy to conclude that you had ignored the actual content of the studies I had posted.



Anecdotes are interesting but do not constitute hard evidence of anything; the word "refutation" is completely inappropriate here. Again, if you could provide actual data, that would be much more useful, but your subjective experience certainly does not answer the question "What is the potential for damage in long-term amphetamine use?" You might just as well say "I'm 85 and smoked tobacco all my life, just like my father before me. Bad for your health? That's presumptuous!"

"Bashing stuff they know nothing about"? Nothing's being bashed here. There's that persecution complex again.

"Use a bunch of fancy worded stuff to make it look like they do". Yep, that's right, those neuroscientists publishing research papers in which they declare that "reevaluation of the potential for adverse effects of chronic treatment of adults is essential" are just using a bunch of fancy words to pretend like they know what they're talking about, and I'm just as ignorant and conceited as they are for agreeing with their skepticism and cautiousness.




That's because the question isn't the "why". The "why" is obvious, because the benefits patients reap from stimulant treatments are overwhelmingly obvious. Nobody's calling those benefits into question. I hope it finally sinks in this time. I'm researching the long-term effects of amphetamine treatment because they're part of my "why" question, not anybody else's. The reasons for taking drugs can certainly have to do with the problems caused by drugs, but they have nothing to do with the fact that drugs are inherently problematic—i.e., they have side effects, and that applies to absolutely everybody. Long-term damage is merely another potential side effect, and it's one about which I'm personally concerned. That has absolutely nothing to do with whatever your personal feelings may be.



I have no idea what a "personal experience judgment" is exactly, but once again, no judgments have been made. The only conclusion I've reached from the cited studies is that the potential for long-term damage in chronic amphetamine use remains unknown. I don't care whether my arguments mean anything to you, because I'm not interested in your personal opinion; I'm interested in hard facts.



Nope, it is indeed you. Your "apples to oranges" analogy was employed to criticize the relevance of the study, but the study made no attempt to compare ADD to schizophrenia at all, nor did I. Therefore, your analogy was completely irrelevant.



You aren't actually serious, are you? You interpret "a reevaluation of potential adverse effects is needed" as "adults who are experiencing profound benefits from a treatment that may or may not have unforeseen long-term consequences should cease treatment until more is known"? Definitely a persecution complex.



You seem to conflate "data" and "scientific knowledge" with "guarantees". How do you draw that connection?



Now you seem to consider yourself an authority on addiction. Physical addiction can happen to anybody, including patients who use their medications for the "right reasons" and have healthy expectations. That's just how drugs work. That's just how biology works.



My point being that without hard data (and your subjective experience does not constitute it) you have no way of knowing how amphetamines may or may not have adversely affected your baseline cognition. You've been taking amphetamines for 20 years, and your subjective perception of your baseline cognition now compared to your baseline cognition pre-treatment isn't even reliable in the anecdotal sense, especially considering all of the other factors that could have affected it—age, for example. This is why case studies are not adequate—we need longitudinal studies of groups of people to be able to say anything legitimate at all about the possibility of damage.

No, that's not how brain damage works. It's not a binary thing. You aren't either "just fine" or dead. All sorts of environmental toxins are capable of causing permanent damage very slowly over the course of decades. That kind of slow, chronic neurodegeneration is also almost never obvious to the sufferer. Parkinsonian patients, for example, often experience no significant symptoms until they've already lost 90% of their dopaminergic neurons. That's exactly the kind of potential damage I'm concerned about, and that's exactly the kind of damage we have very little information on in the case of amphetamine treatments.



I've made no such absurd presumption, and not a single thing I've said even remotely implies that I think ADD sufferers are "getting high" or avoiding the problems of life. Those sound exactly like the sorts of presumptions that ADD denialists make, though, and it sounds like you with your persecution complex are somehow reading such ridiculous things into what I've said. Once again, I challenge you to quote me in support of your accusations, because I know that you won't be able to. What's rude is telling me I've made all sorts of crazy presumptions that have nothing to do with any of what I've said.



Also sounds exactly like you're responding to some ADD-denialist loon. I've made no "interpretation" of your usage of amphetamines, and I've certainly said absolutely nothing derogatory about anybody's use of amphetamines—unlike many people who take stimulants therapeutically, I completely approve of recreational use, because what people put into their bodies is their own business and nobody has the right to tell them otherwise. You, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of derogatory things to say about science and informed consent.



That's pretty plainly a judgment of people who experience addiction at therapeutic dosages. Who are you to say why one does or does not become addicted to a drug at any level of dosage? You're not a neurologist, that much is certain. Both physical and psychological addiction are complex processes, and anybody, including perfectly healthy people, can succumb, especially in the case of physical addiction.



Who exactly are you preaching to here? It sounds like you're giving advice to someone who's naïve enough to believe that pharmaceutical drugs are magic.

Unless your quest is "use amphetamines for a brief period as an aid in overcoming bad habits", then no, my journey is decidedly different from yours. For somebody who asks not to be spoken to as if he's clueless, you sure are strikingly condescending. I guess that's what they call hypocrisy.

You have covered a great number of useful points here meadd
I might sum them up a little more simply:

For the majority of ADHD patients stimulants
1) Provide significant benefits
2) Have relatively few side effects
3) Significantly reduce the known harms of not treating ADHD.

Addiction to medically supervised stimulants is rare.

Abusive use of stimulants is well known in drug addicts but can be managed by responsible prescribing. I know patients who get a daily pick uo from their pharmacy.

Psychological dependancy is more common- but again- this needs responsible prescribing and patient education.

Virtually nobody finds stimulants as a stand alone treatment provides enough improvement for our liking.

Many of us are so impressed with the improvement when our attention is working well on stimulants that we become motivated enough to work ver hard at improving our attention through exercise , mindfulness, therapy etc- and the stimulants help us do all these things better.

I don't know anyone who wants to be on any medication for the rest of their lives- but I also do not want to be living with uncontrolled ADHD- and all of us think carefully about what is the best approach.

The possible long term risks remain theretical-