![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 45. Go back in thread:
Posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 9:15:49
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall, posted by Nadezda on August 9, 2008, at 23:34:09
I'm sorry but where is the voice of moderation in any of this? Do you realise how crazy you all sound? One of you defends the honour of adderall as safe and non-addicitive and useful for ADD when a raft of evidence has existed for 30+ years demonstrating its neurotoxicity and cripplingly addictive acute effects. This is not the 1950s anymore. How about Bupropion? Atomoxetine? Ritalin? If they don't work i suggest just giving up and working in a garden or something because it's bound to be better than developing down a private speed addicition, albeit one approved by the government and your doctor. I feel like people are hiding behind labels neatly given to them by the approving drug bodies rather than taking responsibility and taking responsibility for what they are doing, namely taking drugs for pleasure and on dubious medical grounds. By advocating the use of amphetamine drugs you do the public a great disservice and open their lives to the kind of rammifications all too present here.
Re. Coca please do try and get real, just because biopsychiatry's Healy + advocates extol its virtues as an antidepressant doesn't mean its any better than existing formulas actually designed to treat the symptoms of depression, and i hardly think condemning modern psychiatric medicine to an early grave ('going backwards') on the grounds that patients suffer withdrawal effects on coming off drugs says any more about the truth than it does about the intelligence of the person staking that claim.
I actually think we are extremely lucky to have the tools available to treat depression in this day and age that we have, and sometimes i don't think it would hurt to recognise how much worse things could be instead of whining on about side effects.
Posted by SLS on August 10, 2008, at 9:34:52
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 9:15:49
> Do you realise how crazy you all sound?
Please don't say things like that. Thanks.
> One of you defends the honour of adderall as safe and non-addicitive and useful for ADD when a raft of evidence has existed for 30+ years demonstrating its neurotoxicity
In vivo? What are the demonstrable untoward consequences of using Adderall in people? Lots of people use it without becoming addicted and crippled by it. How are the neurotoxic effects of Adderall measured in humans? Would you be in favor of withdrawing it from the market?
- Scott
Posted by llurpsienoodle on August 10, 2008, at 10:20:49
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 9:15:49
> How about Bupropion? Atomoxetine? Ritalin? If they don't work i suggest just giving up and working in a garden or something because it's bound to be better than developing down a private speed addicition, albeit one approved by the government and your doctor. I feel like people are hiding behind labels neatly given to them by the approving drug bodies rather than taking responsibility and taking responsibility for what they are doing, namely taking drugs for pleasure and on dubious medical grounds.
I have found that gardening requires a lot of endurance, focus and persistence. When I am depressed, my garden becomes symptomatic even before I do.
-Ll
Posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 10:21:00
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 9:15:49
>"just because biopsychiatry's Healy + advocates extol its virtues as an antidepressant..."
Sorry the David i meant was Pearce, Healey is a psychosceptic talked a lot about on the bezo.org.uk website...
Posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 10:44:31
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall » West, posted by SLS on August 10, 2008, at 9:34:52
The mixed amphetamine salts are designed to produce an appreciably smoother action specifically with less 'crash' not to be any less neurotoxic or safer. They contain a 3:1 ratio of d and l isomers. Thus 3/4 of the drug is d-amphetamine, better known as dexedrine or speed which remains a highly addictive and dangerous drug guaranteed to produce depression in those NOT SUCCEPTIBLE to it. Forget what the FDA has told, data as we know is routinely withheld, i think 'emotional liability' would be listed as more common than 1% in some poor child being given speed everyday.To answer your question, though it hardly seems worth answering given my tone, Yes of course i think that amphetamines are still widely prescribed in the US is a scandal, especially to children and the depression prone. Their use in the UK was ended some 3 decades ago- people were getting worse.
If you think they remain harmless i suggest you research the matter. They damage your brain damage and interfere with your mood, this is not opinion but fact. As far as i'm concerned it's not a subject for which there exists any ground for debate.
Posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 10:46:48
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall » West, posted by llurpsienoodle on August 10, 2008, at 10:20:49
sorry, garden centre then.
Posted by SLS on August 10, 2008, at 10:55:38
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 10:44:31
> If you think they remain harmless i suggest you research the matter.
The onus of proof is on you for having made the statement in the first place.
> They damage your brain damage and interfere with your mood, this is not opinion but fact.
Opinions for which you will not substantiate as fact?
> As far as i'm concerned it's not a subject for which there exists any ground for debate.
Then why bring it up?
- Scott
Posted by llurpsienoodle on August 10, 2008, at 11:03:53
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall » West, posted by SLS on August 10, 2008, at 10:55:38
> > If you think they remain harmless i suggest you research the matter.
>
> The onus of proof is on you for having made the statement in the first place.
>
> > They damage your brain damage and interfere with your mood, this is not opinion but fact.In vivo, in vitro, which species, which dosages? There is no such thing as FACT in science. There are only disconfirmed null-hypotheses.
-Ll
Posted by rjlockhart '05 on August 10, 2008, at 11:05:06
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 9:15:49
Posted by dbc on August 10, 2008, at 11:10:46
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 10:46:48
I see benzo.org.uk board is still in full swing pushing their same agenda. All of us thats been around know not to engage you in these conversations.
Yes lets argue about the most researched psychiatric drug in history. Your fight is ideological not scientific. I wonder why a refined and intellectual dr like Mrs. Ashton allows your people to use her name for this agenda of misinformation and cherry picked studies. Do you ever wonder what sort of damage you do to ill people looking for help?
Posted by rjlockhart '05 on August 10, 2008, at 11:11:40
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall » West, posted by SLS on August 10, 2008, at 10:55:38
From what i've read. Cocaine is not nuertoxic? And Amphetamine is?....well i knew that. Methamphetamine destroys dopmaine whatever you call them, nuerons.
Funny Dextroamphetamine has been on the US market benzedrine(amph) and dexedrine(d-amp) pattented 1932?
By the way....Adderall used to be called "Obertrol" in the 60's. They removed it, and replaced when adderall was introduced in '96.Wow.
Posted by SLS on August 10, 2008, at 11:28:09
In reply to Re: So concluding......, posted by rjlockhart '05 on August 10, 2008, at 11:11:40
> From what i've read. Cocaine is not nuertoxic? And Amphetamine is?....well i knew that. Methamphetamine destroys dopmaine whatever you call them, nuerons.
From some of the most current literature, amphetamine induced neurotoxity is spoken about as if already proven. I really don't know what the truth is. I know that up until a few years ago, methamphetamine was considered the major culprit, and not dexamphetamine. There was plenty of debate back then. I imagine there still is.
The UK has a real problem with the abuse of amphetamine provided by illicit sources. It seems far worse there than in the USA. Perhaps this motivates the search for neurotoxicity. I would just like to see more evidence and more discussion before scaring the hell out of people.
- Scott
Posted by dbc on August 10, 2008, at 11:29:18
In reply to Re: So concluding......, posted by rjlockhart '05 on August 10, 2008, at 11:11:40
> From what i've read. Cocaine is not nuertoxic? And Amphetamine is?....well i knew that. Methamphetamine destroys dopmaine whatever you call them, nuerons.
>Thats a favorite little excerpt from a study that the DEA/agencies affiliated with the war on drugs like to use. What they fail to mention is that the meth users in the study only used IV methamphetamine. Yes the speed of the onset of injected methamphetamine potentially burns out dopamine receptors.
This does not mean oral methamphetamine does. Infact the only difference between methamphetamine and amphetamine is the methyl moleculte that causes more amphetamine to pass through the blood brain barrier.Also bare in mind that illicit methamphetamine users use massive doses at once timw (quarter grams/half grams or more). Comparing this to the average 5mg - 10mg therapeutic oral dose of d-amphetamine (dexedrine) is ridiculous.
Posted by dbc on August 10, 2008, at 11:53:00
In reply to Re: So concluding......, posted by SLS on August 10, 2008, at 11:28:09
> The UK has a real problem with the abuse of amphetamine provided by illicit sources. It seems far worse there than in the USA. Perhaps this motivates the search for neurotoxicity. I would just like to see more evidence and more discussion before scaring the hell out of people.
>From first hand accounts of users in the UK the amphetamine is very subpar and meth is pretty much non-existant as is any substantial quanity of dexedrine. Neurotoxic effects of the amphetamine available may be the result of impurities created during production.
I've heard recently though that research chemicals such as MDPV (Methylenedioxypyrovalerone) and Methylone (2-methylamino-1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)propan-1-one)
have gained popularity as grey market stimulants and they may result in damage being attributed to amphetamine as absolutely nothing is known about they substances beyond initial research.The UK also always has a plentiful supply of cheap and pure MDMA given its proximity to holland.
Posted by Deputy Dinah on August 10, 2008, at 12:06:25
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 9:15:49
> Do you realise how crazy you all sound?
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as Deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Deputy Dinah on August 10, 2008, at 12:12:03
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall, posted by dbc on August 10, 2008, at 11:10:46
> I wonder why a refined and intellectual dr like Mrs. Ashton allows your people to use her name for this agenda of misinformation and cherry picked studies. Do you ever wonder what sort of damage you do to ill people looking for help?
Please respect the views of others even if you think they're wrong. Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Dr. Bob is always free to override deputy decisions. His email is on the bottom of each page. Please feel free to email him if you believe this decision was made in error.
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by Deputy Dinah on August 10, 2008, at 12:18:23
In reply to Please be civil » dbc, posted by Deputy Dinah on August 10, 2008, at 12:12:03
Thanks for responding in a civil manner.
Dr. Bob really appreciates it when posters present a balancing point of view in a civil and respectful manner. Thanks, Nadezda and Scott for the following:
Well, I'm sure it is not just you alone.
It never seemed bizarre to me. I think one must be careful to not generalize to the majority what one as an individual experiences with treatment. It is possible to be angry at a drug for mistreating you, thus your wanting to take it away from people who need it.
Taking Adderall is a necessity for people for whom it works to improve their condition, whether it be ADD/ADHD or depression. Some people respond well to Adderall whom failed to respond to Dexedrine or Ritalin. Clinically, Adderall is useful and not nearly as addicting as cocaine.- Scott
You need to distinguish between medications that didn't help one or some people and medications that don't help anyone-- or, alternatively, medications that you had problems with and medications that everyone has problems with.
I wouldn't make a useful med unavailable to everyone because some people have problems with it.
I've used adderall for several years and it's been of great help to me. I'm sure, from reading this board, that I"m not the only person who has.Nadezda
Dinah, acting as deputy to Dr. Bob
Posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 16:22:05
In reply to Re: Freud, Cocaine, and Adderall, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 9:15:49
Scott you rightly say the onus is on me to prove it. I am under the impression, as might have become clear, that the deleterious effects are common scientific knowledge, in the same way one would no longer dispute global climate change. Clearly this is not the case.
West
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16014752?dopt=AbstractPlushttp://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jpet.105.087916v1.pdf
Also amphetamine neurotoxicity is not a peculiarly Britain concept relegated to an underclass of so called street-drug users. Speculating that impurities or the addition of other much rarer stimulants like 4-mar seem rather baseless when the primary constituents found in sold speed int his country are glucose and caffeine. I may be wring but what sense would there be in cutting a low cost £5-10 a gramme drug with hard to manufacture and rarer, more expensive, chemicals?
Posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 16:32:40
In reply to Amphetamine neurotoxicity in therapeutic doses, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 16:22:05
My crap english is i hope uncharacteristic, i have heavy hands today. apologies (read 'British' instead of 'Britain')
Posted by SLS on August 10, 2008, at 16:37:19
In reply to Amphetamine neurotoxicity in therapeutic doses, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 16:22:05
Thanks for the citations. I wish you had not been able to come up with any.
:-(
I'll have to give this a lot more thought.
- Scott
Posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 16:40:32
In reply to Amphetamine neurotoxicity in therapeutic doses, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 16:22:05
The second link, yes, is a study in adult non-human primates. To be honest i didn't even read it, you'll find it on the second page of google.
I don't think i am fear mongering but providing information where it may be of some help, however marginal.
Posted by dbc on August 10, 2008, at 16:46:38
In reply to Re: Amphetamine neurotoxicity in therapeutic doses, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 16:40:32
But what is the point? I wonder what Anon would think of benzo.org, im sure they'd be interested in the forum.
Posted by desolationrower on August 10, 2008, at 16:50:58
In reply to Re: Amphetamine neurotoxicity in therapeutic doses, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 16:40:32
There is evidence of change in dopamine neurones after use of amphetamines, little of it is clearly applicable to human and therapeutic doses. Calling this 'neurotoxic' is not warranted from the evidence currently availible though. For instance, DATs are overexpressed for people with ADHD and reducing there number would be a benefit from chronic treatment. This would be consistent with the therapeutic benefit often extending past the time one takes the drug.
Posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 17:08:38
In reply to Re: Amphetamine neurotoxicity in therapeutic doses, posted by desolationrower on August 10, 2008, at 16:50:58
Potentially yes, and the theory is a neat one. Since I do not have ADD I cannot comment on how effective something like adderall is in treating that condition. I can say i still think that from a safety perspective, all other existing agents should be tried before taking it.
Posted by cumulative on August 10, 2008, at 23:58:27
In reply to Amphetamine neurotoxicity in therapeutic doses, posted by West on August 10, 2008, at 16:22:05
It is my opinion that the changes in dopamine transporters in that study reflect plastic changes, not neurotoxicity. Homeostatic changes in the dopamine transporter (and many other systems -- some of which seem to sensitize) are well-known to occur with dopaminergic psychostimulants, and that study does not show anything different. Also, ever since his hysterical MDMA mess-ups (where it was later found that they accidently used methamphetamine instead of MDMA, later being long after MDMA's neurotoxicity was trumpeted all over the news media) I don't really trust anything coming out of Ricaurte's lab. Other than that study, neurotoxicity from dextroamphetamine (unlike dextromethamphetamine, which has an additional mechanism of neurotoxicity that has a good chance of being active at therapeutic dosing, due to its serotonergic affinity) neurotoxicity is not known to occur at anything near human therapeutic doses of amphetamine.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.