Nootropics: smart drugs

They're just stimulants. It's actually the same logic behind having a cup of coffee in the morning stimulate the firing of neurons in the brain. Stimulants like ritalin are amphetamine salts. Stimulants are also used against narcolepsy and as nasal decongestants. If a student has a legitimate attention disorder, then I don't see the problem with those who need these drugs having them.

Originally Posted by Gift of Game

These drugs don't enhance mental capacity. They induce tunnel-vision. Anything can be abused. Nothing can be completely removed from the market. If pharmaceutical companies aren't able to push these drugs, then they'll turn up on the street in more dangerous forms (which they have). So...keep it business, regulated and taxed. It's better for everyone involved.

While I think they're overused, there are people who have legitimate attention disorders that require these drugs. They have been proven to work. The FDA isn't just going to keep something on the market for the sake of safety, it's because they're clinically proven.

I mean, if you want to go the route you seem to be taking, technically cocaine is a schedule II drug in this country, but that's because it has medical use as a pain reliever. I mean, if it's only controlled by the FDA to keep it off the streets, the FDA is doing a golden job of that, dont you think? A few years ago the FDA regulated that Pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) had to be kept behind pharmacy shelves to get it out of the hands of those using it to make methamphetaine. But hey, meth labs are a thing of the past, right? Regulate it or not, drug abusers are wicked fucking crafty when it comes to getting their fix. They WILL get it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Then please make your point because it's right now you're not making one and sounding dumb as fucking bricks in the process.

All drugs are chemicals. Chemicals have a consequence to taking them. These are side effects. This is why we have a pharmacy system in place in this country. If the side effects are minor enough not to be a concern, then they're sold over-the-counter. If the side effect is of a reasonable concern, they make it by prescription only such to make it so that doctors and pharmacists, and not individuals, are making the decision on whether or not this drug is the right medication for them.

If a medication is to be sold in this country, it is put through a rigorous 5 phase FDA approval process. Do you know how many drugs never even see a pharmacy shelf? Probably about 99% of compounds that are initially tested as a possible medication. Do you know why? Because of side effect or adverse reaction issues.

Celebrex and Vioxx were flagged by the FDA because of these problems. Vioxx moreso than Celebrex, and therefore has been withdrawn. Celebrex now has massive warnings associated with it's use. Merck voluntarily withdrew Vioxx because of the risks associated with long-term use, something they couldn't pick up in clinical trials. It was making them bank, sure, but do you honestly think a drug company is gonna keep things on the market to make a buck over consumer lives? If Pfizer did that, the largest drug company in the world would be nothing now. I'm not suggesting that pharmaceutical companies are of the highest moral character, as they've been known to do some economically shady things, but killing patients for the sake of a buck is not one of 'em.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Marco

Maybe they don't kill people, but that's because they can't get away with it.

Originally Posted by Marco

Maybe they don't kill people, but that's because they can't get away with it.

Originally Posted by Marco

Maybe they don't kill people, but that's because they can't get away with it.

And I don't make good arguments he says.

I think people forgot about a small thing called public perception. Merck almost got reamed because of Vioxx. Obviously if you kill patients people will stop using your products out of fear. So what purpose would it serve Merck to keep Vioxx on the market and have their consumers die off? Don't you think they'd rather have them live and be using the drug long term? Makes a whole shitload more sense than your argument does.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

From same Wikipedia article...

Quote:

Merck's scientists interpreted the finding as a protective effect of naproxen, telling the FDA that the difference in heart attacks "is primarily due to" this protective effect (Targum, 2001). Some commentators have noted that naproxen would have to be three times as effective as aspirin to account for all of the difference (Michaels 2005), and some outside scientists warned Merck that this claim was implausible before VIGOR was published.[7] No evidence has since emerged for such a large cardioprotective effect of naproxen, although a number of studies have found protective effects similar in size to those of aspirin (Karha and Topol, 2004; Solomon et al., 2002). Though Dr. Topol's 2004 paper criticized Merck's naproxen hypothesis, he himself co-authored a 2001 JAMA article stating "because of the evidence for an antiplatelet effect of naproxen, it is difficult to assess whether the difference in cardiovascular event rates in VIGOR was due to a benefit from naproxen or to a prothrombotic effect from rofecoxib." (Mukherjee, Nissen and Topol, 2001.)

In other words, there was a legitimate explanation for the difference. Fact was that naproxen has a blood thinning effect. What Merck didn't do and was foolish for not doing was long term studies. Vioxx ended up having a prothrombotic effect in patients who took the drug over two months.

I'm not disputing that Merck may have been negligent in not doing the proper studies to further look into the findings, but to suggest that they would KILL THEIR PATIENTS TO MAKE A BUCK, which is what you're suggesting, is asinine. Again Merck gains more by having living patients taking a safe and efficacious drug for a long time rather than having their patients die, and not need medication anymore.

And before you ask, yes, I HAVE read some of the studies. I had to actually do a drug review on Celebrex and Vioxx last year for school. I'm a pharmacy student, and not an idiot when it comes to this stuff.

Originally Posted by Marco

Look, if it turned a profit and they didn't get caught for it, I am sure drug companies would do anything. You can believe in their morals as much as you want. All I am saying is that 1) the FDA is not fail-proof, 2) big-pharma is suspect.

Well then shit, I guess you have this figured out then. Why did you even start the fucking thread?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

No, no. You ARE wrong.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Marco

You are right, obviously, drug companies make more money from keeping people on their meds. That only proves what I was saying, though, that they can't be trusted; they have an incentive to keep you on their drugs, whether or not you need it: it is what makes them money, and it is their primary concern as a company.

Since obviously you're just making no sense at this point, I'm just gonna do what I've really wanted to do all thread long.

POLO!

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Gift of Game

I'm not sure what makes SuperNova a credible source of information

Working on a Pharm.D. I would say that makes me somewhat credible. Hey, I may not be knowledgeable on much, but drugs are one thing I feel like I can speak with authority on.

Originally Posted by Gift of Game

...or one to insult people.

Pfft, I've been doing that for ages on these boards. I just returned back and well, old habits die hard.

Originally Posted by Gift of Game

We all possess conviction.

So you got a record is what you're saying.

Originally Posted by Gift of Game

Your's isn't superior to mine.

Uh... okay.

Originally Posted by Bath House Pang House

Can we stop hazing the newbie just because SuperNova picked a pointless fight with him? SuperNova picks pointless fights with everybody. It's kind of his thing.

Hello to you too Pang! Long time no see! If you had actually read the thread instead of just bust in here all "OMG SUPERNOVA IN AN ARGUMENT MUST BE HIS FAULT *CRAPS PANTS*" you'd see that the kid was being a douche and not getting the point. And believe me, seems like you can drive people away as well as anyone.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Gift of Game

If, in real life, I were insulted using the same words SuperNova used, I would bury my knuckles deep in his skull.

HEY! What did he ever do to you anyways?!

How ya doing, buddy?