<p>I'm saying I spent 4 years in medical school, and six training to be a child psychiatrist, and I don't think it's the same to do "research through independent means". I apologize for any misunderstanding, but I suspect you have your own reasons for blaming that on me. It is not your comments about grammatical structure that insults me. What insults me, is that in spite of your time spent in a medical setting, you don't seem to see the value of the training. I am not surprised people think practicing psychiatry is easier than it is. It is for more than "factoids" abort medications.</p>
<p>BTW, I've been in practice almost 20 years (same as Prozac I think; does that make me old?). I did not understand your reference to doctors and todays medical students. </p>
<p>"If you worked around doctors and medical students on a daily basis like I do then you would not even consider such ideas."</p>
<p>What ARE they teaching them these days? Psychiatry is far more than "factoids" about drugs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm saying I spent 4 years in medical school, and six training to be a child psychiatrist, and I don't think it's the same to do "research through independent means".
[/quote]
Sure it's not the same; after a while it becomes very annoying to google that unknown term from that indispensable article, but I'd say that's about as far as it goes. Surely with twice the time on your hands you could at least match the knowledge of your prescriber.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I apologize for any misunderstanding, but I suspect you have your own reasons for blaming that on me.
[/quote]
Suspect what you will; I read through your words nearly a dozen times before I gave up and I have no need to lie on the internet.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is not your comments about grammatical structure that insults me. What insults me, is that in spite of your time spent in a medical setting, you don't seem to see the value of the training. I am not surprised people think practicing psychiatry is easier than it is. It is for more than "factoids" abort medications.
[/quote]
I can tell you that from my experience, a few hours on pubmed and erowid tell me all I need to know about a substance to make an informed decision. Quite frequently it's more time than the prescriber will care to spend on research. </p>
<p>Would you care to describe the sort of training one receives that is absolutely critical for making decisions about self-medication?</p>
<p>Post-edit: My bad, I was referring largely to doctors and ignored psychiatry, which has its own problems that I won't discuss here. Psychiatrists are definitely more educated about a substance than their doctor counterparts, but all of the tests and questions that one could be asked by a psychiatrist (especially one with whom the patient has a limited relationship) are available online.</p>
<p>"Cheating takes no effort for an increase in knowledge. Studying, even on ADD medication, still requires effort."</p>
<p>It takes effort, albeit a very small one. It takes effort to plan the cheating, to execute the cheating, and finally to conceal the cheating. You're right, adderall enhanced cheating would probably take more effort. But how do you quantatively calculate how much effort should be "reduced" to "level" the playing field?</p>
Currently ~80% of the effects of prozac are due to placebo, but a) that's not the specific substance we're talking about, b) that gives you no license to apply this specific data to all other substances, and c) yes, all psychoactive substances that have been tested with effects greater than placebo in multiple peer-reviewed journals will have effects correlating to those described in the literature. I take it you're not a scientist.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Its quite nice to be able to throw around numbers and claim them to be the truth, and then try and back them up by saying you heard it via a Professor. </p>
<p>You claim that I am not a scientists and by profession I am not. Though Ive probably take more science classes then yourself, and since you are by no means a professional scientist then we are at equal ground.</p>
<p>I will not point you to medical journals which are in the hundreds of pages. I will instead point you to this Placebo</a> as good as Prozac, study says | UK news | guardian.co.uk and books named Prozac Backlash and The Antidepressant Solution by Dr. Joseph Glenmullen M.D. Both Books provide a very detailed argument over a Psychiatrists career both for and against the use of psychoactive drugs. Whether it be from SSRI's to Cocaine, they are almost all included. I am sure this will give you all the answers you need, and both books have rather large citing for everything used. </p>
<p>Both Books are meant to promote Science and not correlations(which you are promoting). You claim to be a scientist, and if so I ask you to simply show/prove to me in Scientific means How these drugs are Scientifically proven to work?</p>
<p>As I have mentioned before If a patient's needed blooded thinners or insulin injections we could show a need for and prove a need for these medications based on the disease model of the Human Body. The problem with your assumptions and well most psychiatrists is that you try and apply the disease model to the Brain, in which it doesn't not and will not ever apply. There is no way to scientifically look at 5-HT, DA and NE neurotransmitters. </p>
<p>if you consider giving a rat an SSRI or an amphetamine and then killing it, blending its brain in a blender and then checking neurotransmitter levels , and calling it science then you can call that science but your wrong. I refuse to, that to be sounds like Hocus Pocus. One of the fundamentals rules of science is that "Correlation does not imply causation", and all psychoactive drugs break said fundamental rule.</p>
<p>Of course, all the major research institutions are also in on this conspiracy, so those links are useless.
[quote]
It's not quite the same as a lie.
[/quote]
You're right; on a forum as large as CC I have no reputation to maintain and so no reason not to admit that your grammar was too complex or my intelligence too low.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not here no. I wish it was that simple (hmm... no I don't). BTW, in psychiatry "self-medication" is just a euphemism for substance abuse.
[/quote]
In the circle of responsible users of psychoactive substances, "self-medication" is often the only way to get through the day. Now psychiatrists can call this</a> man's expeirence or the experiences of thousands of desperate college students around the country a "euphemism for abuse", but these users are knowledgeable, experienced, understand the ramifications of their actions, and rarely have any realistic alternative to their self-medication.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It takes effort, albeit a very small one. It takes effort to plan the cheating, to execute the cheating, and finally to conceal the cheating. You're right, adderall enhanced cheating would probably take more effort. But how do you quantatively calculate how much effort should be "reduced" to "level" the playing field?
[/quote]
As much as the user wants it to be. Cheating doesn't take effort that directly leads to an increase in knowledge, which is what exams and assignments test for (at least in theory). Smart drugs are referenced as such not because one uses them just to get the answers, but because they provide easier ways to attain real knowledge.</p>
<p>If I know so little then please elaborate and show me how it works. Asking a patient questions on the Hamilton scale, is not science. I ask you where the empirical measurable evidence is? I am sure doctors also measure insulin effectiveness by how a patient feels. I am not the one who doesn't know science, im sorry guy but that seems to be you. </p>
<p>Also knowing that Ely Lilly must approve all research publications before they are released on their medications, surly gives me a great sense of confidence in these publications. </p>
<p>Psychoactive medications are all about $$$$$$. Doctors who recommend these medications never have the best interest of their patient in mind. Instead they have the $$ on their mind. Next time you go to a doctor to get your prescription, ask the doctor if he would take the very same medication himself. I bet you will be surprised on his answer. </p>
<p>I once need a stress test for my hear to rule out some things. The doctor recommend a Nuclear stress test. I then asked the doctor if he would do the very same test, with the radioactive isotope and all. Guess what his answer was. No. I then asked him why and he gave me a long list of reasons. I asked him why he recommend it for me and his response was that the hospital gets a bonus from Cardiolite.</p>
<p>I took Ritalin for about a three month period when I wasn't diagnosed with ADD. I played it smart, only taking about 20 mg pills, reduced to 5 mgs a day to stay awake in class and after school. To be honest, it isn't performance enhancing; it doesn't magically make you smarter. I still occasionally bombed tests because I didn't get any sleep the night before and thought Ritalin would help. Overall, it was very useful in keeping me awake, but it also gave me a false sense of security, thinking that I optimally function without sleep.
Some side effects were intense twitching, sometimes sleepless nights (mostly during the first week), slight memory loss (harder to retain information), and constant urinating. You feel like **** a lot if you take it without having slept. It's like being forced to stay awake.
To everyone who thinks it is addicting: it's not. I was able to control times when I used it and had moments where I told myself I would stop immediately, and it wasn't difficult to do so. Rarely, I get ideas of using it again to stay awake in class, but I never ended up using it again.
If you want to use ADD medication before a test, I'd suggest taking the medication at least a week before the test to get accustomed to it, and start with a small dose. For the first SAT I took, I consumed a 20 mg pill the morning before and couldn't sleep the entire night. I took the test without a minute of sleep and Ritalin in my system.</p>
<p>The way I see it is: the world runs on competition, and if you're not doing something, chances are someone else is. If journeyman undrafted free agent isn't doing steroids to preserve the integrity of the game, a superstar is doing steroids to get a multi-million dollar contract.
It's up to you to decide whether you think the positives outweigh the negatives.</p>
<p>Because it still helps you stay awake and focus better. Also you tend to get a euphoric feeling. I always used to think I aced tests after I took them even if I didn't.</p>
<p>I’m planning to use adderall XR 30mg’s about once every other day/sometimes everyday, for the next week or so to catch up and study for my finals. i won’t be using them to avoid and alter my sleeping pattern i.e i’ll usually take one during the day around 10 am and then study all day, and sleep at my normal time around 12-1 AM. i have only used adderall a couple of times before when i really slacked off, and didn’t really experience a “crash” after the effect wore off. have any of you guys done something similar and found that once you stopped taking it you couldn’t focus at all for the next week? because if that happens i’ll be really ****ed coz i have finals next week haha.</p>
<p>If you stop taking it cold turkey, you may experience withdrawal symptoms. </p>
<p>I don’t know why you would stop taking it before finals unless your doctor advised you to, or unless you only have enough (since you don’t have a prescription) to last you until finals are over.</p>
<p>Come to think of it, I think ill just go to the library and study normally instead. I don’t wanna risk getting fatigued next week and not being able to concentrate on my finals when I stop taking it. Not to mention any of the other risks.</p>
<p>I thought I would throw my two cents into this debate. Im a current college student at an ivy league institution</p>
<p>I think some people on this forum are a bit uninformed on the subject or at least the reality of the situation - i know many, many smart students who take aderall who haven’t been perscribed it, but in reality if anyone wants to get aderall perscribed they can - they just have to pretend they cant concentrate - there isnt some objective test for ADD - i asked my doctor if there were any negative effects of taking aderall a few times a year before big tests even though i wasnt perscribed it and he said there arent any!</p>
<p>The only possible reason why you wouldnt occasionally use it is that it might be considered cheating, however, in my view people who complain about it are the dumb ones - it increases my ability to do work, what is wrong with that? I am able to take in more material in a shorter period of time, is that a bad thing?</p>
<p>Soon enough there will genetic modification to improve our brain power, are the naysayers going to be against that too?</p>
<p>People can take whatever pills they want. I really could care less.</p>
<p>I think it is a debate because people who don’t have ADD are abusing it. Most people I know compare it to steroids. I guess it gives others an advantage? Although I don’t know what advantage considering if someone just managed their time instead of waiting the last minute to study, they could be having a well-rested night before an exam and be just as refreshed in the morning.</p>
<p>I’ve heard of people becoming addicted to it. Kids use it like crazy during exams at my school. They look like freaking zombies.</p>
<p>Why is being at an ivy league institution relevant, Ruthless?</p>
<p>Your post just screams with defensiveness. You know “many, many smart students who take adderall” - as if its the norm.</p>
<p>I never had a strong opinion on the issue, but I think relying on adderall cheapens your degree.</p>
<p>Oh, you were capable of getting a 3.8 and earning your degree, provided you are taking adderall. What? You didn’t need adderall? Then why are you taking it?</p>
<p>I don’t see much wrong with taking adderall to help yourself after graduation to achieve meaningful work (but seriously, you need adderall to think and function?) - but in college, your gpa and achievements are basically compared to your peers - your college has its own sort of sorting system and meritocracy.</p>
<p>By taking adderall, and regularly using it during finals, is giving you an unfair advantage compared to your peers. 90% of the rest of the class has the time management skills and the willpower and perseverance to get their work done - what’s your problem?</p>
<p>I think the fact that people who take adderall keep it on the down-low and are far from shameless and open about using it to their friends, peers, parents, and professors, reveals that they also really feel that it is a bit strange to be using.</p>
<p>My problem is not that it is cheating or that it gives an unfair advantage, if you want to dope yourself up because you think it makes you think better far be it from me to stop you, but people abusing ADHD medications makes it harder for people who ACTUALLY DO have a medical condition from getting their medications. That infuriates the hell out of me. Not to mention the idiots that steal it because it is so easy to make money off them. The demand for this drug for idiots who can’t be bothered to do what they are fully capable of doing without drugs creates a whole mess of problems for people who need the medication to function.</p>