> instead of feeling animated, these people feel drowsy, and they say that coffee makes them sleep
Sounds like ADHD to me
Sounds like ADHD to me
I digress, but you will never convince me otherwise, that the wide spread promotion of amphetamines in children/young adults is anything but an experiment of Empire. I attribute the somewhat significant economic edge US society has over the rest of the world is due to its addiction to amphetamines, and the ruling classes project to push them onto working class people to make them more effective workers.
Its no different than how the Nazi's used amphetamines to simulate their population or how imperialist Japan did the same. Lets stop spreading this BS lie that stimulants calm people with ADHD down.
This has been shown to help many people (a large majority) with ADHD, and it’s also been shown to not provide general neurocognitive benefits to people without ADHD.
IOW, the benefits come from improving attention and reducing impulsivity in people who have deficits in those areas.
See e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6165228/ and then e.g. the three references it cites here:
> “It is important to note that a robust body of literature exists that supports the positive effects of prescription stimulants on neurocognitive functioning in children and adults with ADHD (e.g., [14,54,55]), underscoring the importance of baseline impairments in performance relative to improved effects.”
Reconciling this with your opinions on the matter is left as an exercise, but there’s some pretty clear and unambiguous science here.
Please go put your kid on amphetamines for 15 years and let me know how that works out for them..
Do you care how much incidents of psychosis it causes on a yearly basis?
I said that the Ruling class (aka these professors) are pushing an agenda, and then you choose to provide evidence published by the ruling class to support that agenda.
14: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1087054711427299 - N=50
54: https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.12917 - N=82
55: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01497... - review of 21 studies
The researchers identified 1,374 cases of individuals presenting with first-episode psychosis or mania, compared to 2,748 control patients with a psychiatric hospitalization for other conditions like depression or anxiety. They conducted a comparison analysis of stimulant use over the preceding month and accounted for other factors, including substance use, in order to isolate the effects of stimulants.
They found the attributable risk percentage among those exposed to any prescription amphetamine was nearly 63 percent and for high dose amphetamine was 81 percent. These findings suggest that among people who take prescription amphetamine, 81 percent of cases of psychosis or mania could have been eliminated if they were not on the high dose. While a significant dose-related risk increase was seen in patients taking high doses of amphetamine, no significant risk increase was seen with methylphenidate (Ritalin) use, which is consistent with previous research, including a 2019 study led by Moran.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/09/high-doses-of...
Among 1,374 case subjects and 2,748 control subjects, the odds of psychosis and mania were increased for individuals with past-month prescription amphetamine use compared with no use (adjusted odds ratio=2.68, 95% CI=1.90–3.77). A dose-response relationship was observed; high doses of amphetamines (>30 mg dextroamphetamine equivalents) were associated with 5.28-fold increased odds of psychosis or mania
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.20230329
I don't care, the drug isn't safe. I've seen it permanently change many people. I don't care if they handpicked <100 individuals to prove safety. The doses cited above >40mg are pretty typical.
Also the linked Harvard article points out that "no significant risk increase was seen with methylphenidate (Ritalin)".
It isnt stimulants in general, just Adderall, and just when you take too much.
Q: what's the most widely prescribed ADHD medication?
A: Ritalin / Methylphenidate
> Methylphenidate remained the most widely prescribed drug, although the use of lisdexamfetamine and guanfacine has expanded in recent years.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12565614/
It's almost like ... you work with your doctor to identify an effective treatment that balances the costs and benefits for your particular situation.
This applies to most medicines and it's why we have a set of people trained to navigate those tradeoffs. You seem focused only on the negatives of ADHD meds, which are real, without acknowledging that for some patients there are large benefits too. That seems kind of myopic.
If you're using chemical interventions for ADHD symptoms, you've got to be evaluating the response as well as getting feedback from the patient. Starting with small doses when possible is probably advisable.
Many symptoms can be addressed by behavioral and environmental/situational changes rather than chemical intervention, but chemical interventions can be effective for many, even if they're not effective for all.
Then you take a pill, and all of these problems just disappear. If you want to work out, you can just go to the gym and work out. No weird little ritualistic hacks, just "I want to do X, I shall do X". You receive a wedding invitation, and you can just spend the 10 minutes making travel arrangements, rather than procrastinating it for months. You can see that a load of laundry needs to be done, and just spend the 5 minutes loading the washing machine, rather than having to push past your brain screaming like you're trying to stick pins in your eye.
The science contradicts that. You need to re-read my original comment and its references and respond more seriously, if you're genuinely interested in the topic.
I'm one of those people that could have benefited from it MUCH earlier, it's also incredibly boring if you get the right one. I have no idea what they really do for people who don't have ADHD, but for me it basically lets me get places on time and have a passably productive day. It's also not that trivial to get depending on where you live, and potentially expensive.
> Please go put your kid on amphetamines for 15 years and let me know how that works out for them..
Please tell someone who's gone from having 7 jobs in 7 years to 1 job for 3 years that they don't need it.
We can have issues with the implementation, that's fine
And you're kind of confirming my original thesis, that its a class of drugs created by the ruling class for the working class to make the best workers for capital/ruling class, which it seems to have accomplished that in your case...
Among 1,374 case subjects and 2,748 control subjects, the odds of psychosis and mania were increased for individuals with past-month prescription amphetamine use compared with no use (adjusted odds ratio=2.68, 95% CI=1.90–3.77). A dose-response relationship was observed; high doses of amphetamines (>30 mg dextroamphetamine equivalents) were associated with 5.28-fold increased odds of psychosis or mania
If you do a harmful amount of something, it harms you. Seems pretty straightforwards. To vilify the whole concept seems a bit much though.
I don't take amphetamine specifically, methylphenidate, which seems to have no pronounced influence on the apparently correlation based study outcome. Taking these drugs however is not something I approach lightly, but it's also not something I do for anyone else. If anything, it helps me maintain my own adult life. The job is an incidental but important factor.
Obviously it must be vast, or you wouldn't be able to make sweeping claims that contradict soo much evidence to the contrary.
> you will never convince me otherwise
I suppose its good to have a religion.
The OP message of "big pharma is lying to us!" is an appealing one for many people. Pointing out that, in fact, there is serious scientific evidence to the contrary on that exact topic is "worth trying".
Otherwise, if we just abandon the concept of rational thought, we end up with people like the current president of the US, the guy in charge of Health and Human Services, and so on. There are, as philosophers put it, "facts of the matter", and we need to keep reminding people of that if we want to even achieve the minimal level of valid response shown in the movie Idiocracy. Currently, the United States is not actually achieving that level.
Over here in Europe getting prescription stimulants against ADHD is a fairly straightforward process. Or, at least, that's what I gathered from a conversation I recently had with a person taking them - they had no difficulties in this regard.
As an outsider I think one of the many reasons is the sheer amount of (often unreported) hours Americans put into work annually (and pay for that in their health).
For this same reason South Korea recently overtook Japan in terms of GDP per capita.
By this measure the mentioned countries (descending):
1. South Korea 2. USA 3. Japan
Do your school counselors in elementary school work with psychiatrists to get parents to get children hooked in 5th grade because they are a more active than other kids?
It isn't stimulating that part of "the nation", it's calming and focusing them.
> Lets stop spreading this BS lie that stimulants calm people with ADHD down.
Most people who follow the science and personal experience probably don't have any reason to follow your command, sorry.
I did briefly see a psychiatrist and took amphetamines under his care, but ultimately decided that I didn't want the hassle of medical supervision, so preferred non-medical treatments.
But the experience made clear to me that meds do have a role. I suppose I use coffee as a mild stimulant. Although it's so mild, I'd never really think of it in that way.