Drugs are bad mkay

>drugs are bad mkay
>but millions of kids taking speed to pay attention in a classroom okay
>didn't you know that 1/3 kids have ADHD goy? your kid can't overcome certain difficulties without drugs or finding alternative ways of learning. buy our pills now
>similar situation with women and antidepressants
I'm not saying that any of these disorders are fake, but something seems a bit off.

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/
youtube.com/watch?v=j800SVeiS5I
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

as long as i can get enough pills i don't really care what they call it. being under prescribed is a pain in the ass, and there's no way i'd make it without them

Pharmaceutical companies are a business just like any other business. Their main goal is not the well being of the consumer, instead its maximizing profits to please shareholders. What better way to maximize profits than to create a broad, somewhat blurry definition of the ailment your drug treats by paying off researchers and publishing bunk studies, to make your drug a near cure all for anyone experiencing difficulties in an expectedly difficult area of life.

Youre telling me that children do better at monotonous repetitive tasks when given amphetimines? Wow science is great! “Yes but only if they have ADHD” says the authority figure that knows the vast majority will not question them.

Youre telling me that when i take beta blockers i wont feel the need to cry about shitty situations in life that i should probably do something to change but wont feel the need to on drugs. Thus, perpetuating the cycle of sadness which caused me to need beta blockers in the first place? “Yes but its only for chronic depression” says big pharma, salavating at your potential insurance payout.

Its not just restricted to medical science either. Anywhere that someone can advance their career by publishing fake or biased research, you can expect to see false information. The only way to really know the truth about anything is to do your own experiments and draw your own conclusions.

this, summed to school environments being dull as shit thus making it necessary for children to be literally drugged to pay the slightest attention

The whole ADHD craze missed me by a few years. I was a little daydreaming space cadet as a kid and I'm genuinely shocked and amazed that I made it to adulthood without some kind of diagnosis of one behavioural disorder or another.
On the flip side, I wonder if being able to blame shitty things in life on some disorder doesn't offer some comfort.
As it stands I've just made peace with the fact that I'm kind of an asshole who gets in his own way.

damn... fuck free markets

if you say ADD is natural behavior, and that the unnatural demands of the modern world are the problem, then you can't really turn around and blame sufferers for their own lack of focus. if there was a natural strategy as effective as medication, i'd love to hear about it. but afaik, there is none.

medication is a tool. i can't do what i want without the proper tools.

>alternative ways of learning

plenty of jargon, little substance. what alternative way do you suggest?

I don't mind cause I like getting my happy pills.

>i can't do what i want without the proper tools
When all you have is a hammer...

People like OP don't actually care about the kids who are getting doped up, they just have a problem with those kids getting success from the dope they feel is undeserved. Which is arguably a fair issue to have with it.

feels like i'm being told to build an apartment complex without so much as a hammer.

i love what i study, and i'd love to be able to focus more in order to reach the cutting edge. i want very much to be productive. but it doesn't seem possible without the right tools

What is your point here? The existence of drugs doesn't make using non medication methods impossible, so the 'all you have is a hammer' analogy would actually make more sense in a situation without drugs.

As someone who was medically diagnosed with ADHD, i feel hands on approaches to topics (give me some fucking apples instead of asking me about how many Susan has) and topics that relate to ACTUAL real world problems that i might encounter were much easier to learn than things like history. Physics, and science in general, was a breeze for me because it was readily apparent that its useful information to know, and it explained things that i had questions about previously. Geometry and calculus were easier than algebra for me because teachers would require proof. It could have just been my algebra teacher but I struggled in algebra simply because i didnt do things the accepted way. I would make assumptions that to me seemed like basic no brainer shit but my techer would want to see those assumptions written down, and would often mark me down despite getting the correct answer. It got to the point where i started defining the value of 1 as being equal to 1, somewhat facetiously, to my teachers disdain. All that said i dont think i had ADHD, i may be a little off but i think doctors cast a wide net for ADHD and figured it would be easier to drug me to make my mom satisfied with my grades than figure out the actual problem.

Homeschooling, online resources, classrooms with less kids, private schooling, etc. It's true that some kids will fuck it up anyways, but unless they truly have a mental problem, I think the best course of action is parenting as opposed to having them dependent on drugs to function.

There's also the issue of shitty teachers and the ways that material is taught.

this is all well-and-good but what about adult ADD? i don't have an issue with abstract material. having a hands-on approach isn't necessarily easier to understand, it just provides more "reward" or motivation since you immediately see an application and don't question its relevance. in other words, it doesn't seem like wasted effort. frankly, abstract material is even more fun than "hands on" material sometimes.

ADD isn't so much about not being able to pay attention. it's about seeking the relief of instant gratification, the dopamine. it's far too easy to get frustrated with something and move on if it isn't instantly rewarding. with medication, you no longer feel the need to seek instant reward. that thorn in your side is gone, and you can focus in peace.

>with medication, you no longer feel the need to seek instant reward. that thorn in your side is gone, and you can focus in peace.


and i'd like to really emphasize this point. i have never felt fully at ease or comfortable without my medication.

the closest way i can describe the feeling is a constant, faint, nails-on-a-chalkboard sound, except it's not a sound, it's a constant, immaterial, uncomfortable distraction that plays on repeat in your head forever.

>similar situation with women and antidepressants
This is why women orgasm less than men

Taking substances that have a chance to been cooked inside bathtubs and laced with other substances at completely unregulated amounts that could kill you or permantly damage you is bad.

Taking medication that is put through strict standards and is administered by a health professional at clinically tested doses isn't bad.

Is it really that hard to understand you fucking brainlet?

The best part about this post is that the purported argument breaks apart in languages which have different words for drugs used recreationally and drugs used medicinally. Why is this good? Because English-only brainlets will never get just how dumb this argument is on a very base level.

naturally. to the observer, it would just look like someone trying to take shortcuts and get ahead without putting in work. unbeknownst to them the massive effort it takes to be productive even with medication

>He thinks beta blockers are used in depression

>He legitimately believes some super evil pharmacies organizations is able to bribe the hundreds of researchers who publish studies on the topic every year

I'm fucking done with this board you guys are completely full of shit.

what are you even saying? OP is clearly talking about meds to treat ADHD and depression not weed or acid

The disorders aren't fake, but the 'cures' are mostly bullshit though. Half of the stuff that's billed to you and your insurance could honestly be either be remedied or helped with natural substances the government has decided to make illegal for one reason or another.

HDTV is rare af, niqqas just be tryna get diagnosed

This is really only representative for America. Americans need instant and constant gratifications and have a love affair with drugs.

>Kid finally understood capitalism
Great job Billy. Now you finally understand why there are a billion fashion products for women, and why fast food is marketed towards kids. It is called making money. Maybe one day you'll do it too. And don't worry, it isn't only the jews that can make money. If you make a pill then you can also maliciously market it to general groups of people.

>bribe the hundreds of researchers who publish studies
Well yeah, makes sense that studies which are in the interest of large pharma corporations will get funded and the ones which aren't will have a much harder time receiving funding. One relies on benevolent donors and the other relies on huge mega corps trying to make more billions.

Take the example of SSRIs which studies were hidden to skew the data:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/
>we used the Freedom of Information Act to request that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) send us the data that pharmaceutical companies had sent to it in the process of obtaining approval for six new generation antidepressants that accounted for the bulk of antidepressant prescriptions being written at the time. There are a number of advantages to the FDA data set. Most important, the FDA requires that the pharmaceutical companies provide information on all of the clinical trials that they have sponsored. Thus, we had data on unpublished trials as well as published trials.
>Thus, when published and unpublished data are combined, they fail to show a clinically significant advantage for antidepressant medication over inert placebo.

>Among the side effects of antidepressants are sexual dysfunction (which affects 70–80% of patients on SSRIs), long-term weight gain, insomnia, nausea, and diarrhea.
>In other words, clinical trials are not really double blind. Many patients in clinical trials realize that they have been given the real drug, rather than the placebo, most likely because of the drug’s side effects
>This supports the hypothesis that the relatively small difference between drug and placebo in antidepressant trials are at least in part due to “breaking blind”

>dude weed lmao

You can use oxy or adderall for partying and heroin for relieving severe pain. Drugs are drugs.

>Take the example of SSRIs which studies were hidden to skew the data:

This I will admit is a huge problem in general. I'm not claiming that studies are being purposely hidden but when studies tend to not show the expected effect or go against previously established research they tend to not be published as the researchers figure no one will want to publish it. This gives a very skewed perspective for certain subjects and it absolutely sucks.

However on the topic of SSRIs versus placebo in particular I disagree with the overall conclusion. A very well done meta-analysis on SSRIs used specifically studies that gauged the severity of the depression using a neuropsychological test. What it found was for mild depression then yes SSRIs were no better than placebo. But with major depression it had a significant effect. Overall the curve of effect versus average depression severity had a standard dose response curve. Sadly my textbook with said study is not on my person at the moment.

>Sadly my textbook with said study is not on my person at the moment
Well I hope you find it but until then I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit. Doesn't matter how 'well done' your meta analysis was if it was done perfectly by 420 iq scientists yet doesn't include unpublished studies. How much did it even help? It may have been significant enough to differentiate from placebo but still, you have to ask if it's even worth it with all the side effects.

The study I posted did show some effect for severely depressed patients in at most the top 11% benefiting from antidepressants:
>As it turns out, all but one of the trials were conducted on moderately depressed patients, and that trial failed to show any significant difference between drug and placebo.
>Patients with HAM-D scores of 28 or above represented 11% of these patients. This suggests that 89% of depressed patients are not receiving a clinically significant benefit from the antidepressants that are prescribed for them.
>Yet this 11% figure may overestimate the number of people who benefit from antidepressants. Antidepressants are also prescribed to people who do not qualify for the diagnosis of major depression. My neighbor’s pet dog died; his physician prescribed an antidepressant.

Side effects of SSRIs include:
>sexual dysfunction (which affects 70–80% of patients on SSRIs), long-term weight gain, insomnia, nausea, and diarrhea. Approximately 20% of people attempted to quit taking antidepressants show withdrawal symptoms. Antidepressants have been linked to increases in suicidal ideation among children and young adults. Older adults have increased risks of stroke and death from all causes. Pregnant women using antidepressants are at increased risk of miscarriage, and if they don’t miscarry, their offspring are more likely to be born with autism, birth malformations, persistent pulmonary hypertension, and newborn behavioral syndrome.

I wouldn't hold your breath it's at an apartment I won't be at until next week. However your study now that I have read it more is honestly changing my views a bit on this. Can't say for sure until I look at it more though.

>Diagnosed adhd when six just as the adhd fad started
>Slammed with max dose ritalin that zombifies the shit put of me and gives me screaming night terrors and sleep walking (was found on a highway once)
>24 years later ",whoops it was aspergers xD"
>2 years later whoops no it was brain trauma from that car accident when you were a child, here lets correct these tangible and recordable hormone levels

We just had a discussion about this at iSteve. Besides the obligatory example of Erdos[h] there's a ton of famous authors who appear to have benefitted from speed and/or alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives.

Basically this:
youtube.com/watch?v=j800SVeiS5I

>t. pharmacist