3 ms·

In would not underestimate the potential harm of pharmaceuticals, let alone psychotropics. Just because it's stamped by the FDA does not necessarily mean someth

In would not underestimate the potential harm of pharmaceuticals, let alone psychotropics. Just because it's stamped by the FDA does not necessarily mean something is absolutely and inherently safe - it means that there is insufficient evidence to say that it is not. This poses a problem because research on various drugs (and many other commercial compounds) is generally carried out, or at the minimum funded, by the organizations hoping to monetize them. Show they're safe and beneficial and you earn immense amounts of money, show they're unsafe or unbeneficial and lose immense amounts of money. We still have little to no understanding of how, why, and in some cases even if psychotropics actually work. And there are correlations to all sorts of nasty things with indications causality between things such as ritalin/methylphenidate and depression. Other studies on ritalin have shown neuronal/brain changes comparable to cocaine. [1] The only reason I mention this is because I think we're currently in the era of having a chicken and egg scenario between all sorts of mental/psychological disorders and a skyrocketing rate of psychotropic consumption. Basically, turn to medication as a last resort and think about the differences in how you feel medicated and how you feel unmedicated. Now imagine the gross (as in total, not as in eww) effect of your brain over what may be potentially decades of usage of such drugs since the drugs won't cure you - they will just end up working as a crutch for an indefinite period of time. For some this may be the right decision, but it's not a decision that should be made with no analysis beyond 'Wow, I feel much better after taking this!' [1] - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nida-study-shows-methylphenidate-ritalin-causes-neuronal-changes-brain-reward-areas https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nida-study-sho...

dr_dshiv 8y ago
"... the drugs won't cure you - they will just end up working as a crutch for an indefinite period of time" True. These drugs aren't a cure. They are a tool. For many, more like an aspiring writer's desk than a cripple's crutch. ADD drugs are like coffee, but without the culture. Use wisely: they can help to improve motivation, which can then be applied towards or away from self-control. Don't expect a cure or for the drug to do your own hard work. Like any tool, there is a learning curve and skill set associated with expert use.
hu3 8y ago
ADHD here, diagnosed 30 days ago. I tried for years to fix it by myself. Reached a point that I had to either swallow my pride and seek help or become homeless. Even then, it only happened because my mother semi-forced me to see a psychiatrist. It's really hard to seek help when seeing a doctor is just another task in the pile on Trello. I take 30mg Vyvanse daily but deliberately skip Sundays & Saturdays in an attempt to delay organism adaptation. It's similar to Ritalin but more gradual and longer effect. I see the drug as a temporary tool to help me get moving again. Hope to one day replace it with well ingrained habits plus dopamine from exercises.
jaggederest 8y ago
Most people I know with ADHD essentially face the choice between medication and homelessness/joblessness, myself included. Which do you think is worse for long term health?
- eigenstuff 8y ago
  Seriously. I've been on stimulants for ADHD for almost 25 years. The price I've paid is a few root canals due to dry mouth and I'm on beta blockers for a mild, benign arrhythmia I developed this spring. Beats the living hell out of my alternative: on the streets, in jail, or 6 feet under because ADHD is hell. It's a price I'd pay every time without hesitation. It's a price I think EVERYBODY would prefer I pay cuz like yo, I ain't safe to drive unmedicated, this a public safety thing.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    I'm curious about your take on something. ADHD was not recognized as a disorder until 1968. And the popularity of pharmaceuticals for ADD/ADHD didn't really take off until the 90s when a pharmaceutical industry astroturfing group called CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention Deficit) started marketing ritalin hard. Since then the use of using various pharmaceutical stimulants has become extremely widespread - jumping up by multiple orders of magnitude. Okay, so: - people claim that not being medicated for ADHD would result in homelessness and other such things - medication only started to really take off in the 90s, and has since exponentially increased So why is that when we go a bit further back in time, before the 90s, that we don't see some massively exponential increase in homelessness and other such things? I mean if that's the alternative to not taking the drugs, wouldn't this be precisely what we'd expect to see?
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      We do see many, many strangely unemployable types who from a modern perspective seem to clearly have all the signs of ADHD or other mental issues that have only been recognised comparatively recently. Especially when there is that little bit more history thanks to their being of a famous or diligent journal keeping family. In their time were institutionalised or kept at home as the black sheep of the family, or drifted from inconsequential job to job or were the petty indolent criminal, or even imprisoned for years. Care was a little different as was the tendency for families to stick together. Perhaps the institutions, prisons and family spare rooms were used in place of modern homelessness? We can't know it wasn't responsible for significant homelessness. Figures were impossible to compare as the record would just show petty thief or lack of work ethic, or poor money management. If that.
ThrustVectoring 8y ago
I vehemently disagree with you here. Stimulant therapy for ADHD is literally the most effective psychiatric intervention we know of. Everything else wishes it has the effectiveness that stimulants have for people with ADHD. If you think you have ADHD and you fit the stereotype (smart kid that'd only do well if they applied themselves), you absolutely should try it. Yes, it has risks and is not 100% safe. No, that doesn't mean that the risk/reward ratio is anywhere near "think carefully before trying it." People with ADHD have enough trouble scheduling stuff and getting through the bureaucracy standing between them and a diagnosis already, it's downright irresponsible IMO to suggest that they go down a rabbit hole of research and doubt.

dr_dshiv 8y ago

"... the drugs won't cure you - they will just end up working as a crutch for an indefinite period of time" True. These drugs aren't a cure. They are a tool. For many, more like an aspiring writer's desk than a cripple's crutch. ADD drugs are like coffee, but without the culture. Use wisely: they can help to improve motivation, which can then be applied towards or away from self-control. Don't expect a cure or for the drug to do your own hard work. Like any tool, there is a learning curve and skill set associated with expert use.

hu3 8y ago

ADHD here, diagnosed 30 days ago. I tried for years to fix it by myself. Reached a point that I had to either swallow my pride and seek help or become homeless. Even then, it only happened because my mother semi-forced me to see a psychiatrist. It's really hard to seek help when seeing a doctor is just another task in the pile on Trello. I take 30mg Vyvanse daily but deliberately skip Sundays & Saturdays in an attempt to delay organism adaptation. It's similar to Ritalin but more gradual and longer effect. I see the drug as a temporary tool to help me get moving again. Hope to one day replace it with well ingrained habits plus dopamine from exercises.

jaggederest 8y ago

Most people I know with ADHD essentially face the choice between medication and homelessness/joblessness, myself included. Which do you think is worse for long term health?

eigenstuff 8y ago
Seriously. I've been on stimulants for ADHD for almost 25 years. The price I've paid is a few root canals due to dry mouth and I'm on beta blockers for a mild, benign arrhythmia I developed this spring. Beats the living hell out of my alternative: on the streets, in jail, or 6 feet under because ADHD is hell. It's a price I'd pay every time without hesitation. It's a price I think EVERYBODY would prefer I pay cuz like yo, I ain't safe to drive unmedicated, this a public safety thing.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I'm curious about your take on something. ADHD was not recognized as a disorder until 1968. And the popularity of pharmaceuticals for ADD/ADHD didn't really take off until the 90s when a pharmaceutical industry astroturfing group called CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention Deficit) started marketing ritalin hard. Since then the use of using various pharmaceutical stimulants has become extremely widespread - jumping up by multiple orders of magnitude. Okay, so: - people claim that not being medicated for ADHD would result in homelessness and other such things - medication only started to really take off in the 90s, and has since exponentially increased So why is that when we go a bit further back in time, before the 90s, that we don't see some massively exponential increase in homelessness and other such things? I mean if that's the alternative to not taking the drugs, wouldn't this be precisely what we'd expect to see?
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    We do see many, many strangely unemployable types who from a modern perspective seem to clearly have all the signs of ADHD or other mental issues that have only been recognised comparatively recently. Especially when there is that little bit more history thanks to their being of a famous or diligent journal keeping family. In their time were institutionalised or kept at home as the black sheep of the family, or drifted from inconsequential job to job or were the petty indolent criminal, or even imprisoned for years. Care was a little different as was the tendency for families to stick together. Perhaps the institutions, prisons and family spare rooms were used in place of modern homelessness? We can't know it wasn't responsible for significant homelessness. Figures were impossible to compare as the record would just show petty thief or lack of work ethic, or poor money management. If that.

ThrustVectoring 8y ago

I vehemently disagree with you here. Stimulant therapy for ADHD is literally the most effective psychiatric intervention we know of. Everything else wishes it has the effectiveness that stimulants have for people with ADHD. If you think you have ADHD and you fit the stereotype (smart kid that'd only do well if they applied themselves), you absolutely should try it. Yes, it has risks and is not 100% safe. No, that doesn't mean that the risk/reward ratio is anywhere near "think carefully before trying it." People with ADHD have enough trouble scheduling stuff and getting through the bureaucracy standing between them and a diagnosis already, it's downright irresponsible IMO to suggest that they go down a rabbit hole of research and doubt.