21–30 of 95 posts
Vyvanse is a prodrug of dextroamphetamine, which means that it turns into that in the body. The advantage allegedly is that it's less prone to abuse but the real reason it exists is that dextroamphetamine entered the market in 1937 and so its patent has long since run out. Dextroamphetamine in turn is just amphetamine with the left-handed isomer removed. This left-handed isomer is less potent than the right, but both…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9Aa1V5oyo
But it's about Valium (diazepam) according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother%27s_Little_Helper
I'd think Speed would have helped mothers more than Valium, but my mom used to say that she and her neighbors just had martinis instead, and a Valium's just a much stronger version of a martini. Ah- the 60's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you suspect?
Nothing at all. Methamphetamine, which is not very different than the dextroamphetamine in Adderal, has proven to be a remarkably safe substance and in general, society benefits a great deal when people ingest methamphetamine. I'm sure schoolchildren being prescribed dextroamphetamine to take every single day for years is a very good idea as well.
Medicine in the form of antibiotics and inoculations against various dangerous diseases has brought us far, but it seems to be time to rethink some of the recent developments.
Maybe we can stop growing a monoculture of humans where the slightest deviation from the norm must be treated with some kind of drug.
I am from Europe (but live in the US) and I salute the folks there resisting this nonsense. (And for the record I am not saying there do not exist cases where treatment with such drugs would be indicated, just that the extend to which this is done in the US is not healthy).
ADHD is defiantly a real thing, but I don't think we should drug it out of them. We should make sure they go into suitable jobs/schools, where adhd would have advantages as opposed to disadvantages.
Vyvanse is a prodrug of dextroamphetamine, which means that it turns into that in the body. The advantage allegedly is that it's less prone to abuse but the real reason it exists is that dextroamphetamine entered the market in 1937 and so its patent has long since run out. Dextroamphetamine in turn is just amphetamine with the left-handed isomer removed. This left-handed isomer is less potent than the right, but both…
After 8 years and 3 dropouts into my 4 year undergrad degree, I was finally diagnosed with ADHD. My pre-diagnosis GPA was 1.9, my post-diagnosis GPA was 3.9. I graduated less than two years later, and within 3 years I was earning a 6-figure income and providing for a wife and newborn child. I would likely be a divorced, homeless, deadbeat dad without Vyvanse (or its similarly Amphetamine-derived Adderall).
Don't take my life away from me, and don't take it away from anyone else, just because you have a fucking delusional conspiracy theory that a drug company is trying to addict kids to speed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would you recommend?
First off, I recommend you ask a licensed professional that type of question. My experience being switched from Adderall XR to Vyvanse a few years ago when it first came to market in the U.S. has been positive. Vyvanse seems less addictive (missing a week or two between prescriptions is not a big deal) or prone to side effects like insomnia.
ADHD is defiantly a real thing, but I don't think we should drug it out of them. We should make sure they go into suitable jobs/schools, where adhd would have advantages as opposed to disadvantages.
Why not "drug it out of them"? If the disease is caused by a chemical imbalance, why not try to fix the chemical imbalance? Some people (myself included) are not functional without medication.
The way I think of it is like height. There's a normal range of tall and short. There are also diseases that make people unusually tall or short. But mere shortness doesn't prove disease. And just because short people have trouble reaching cabinets built for average people doesn't mean we must give short kids extra hormones to make them be average in height.
I think it's reasonable to say, "Hey, in the world we want to create, it's better if many or all people take drugs to shape behaviors so that they match the system they should fit into." Why I don't like is the medicalization of variation.
Given there are non-stimulant alternatives available at this point, one would hope they would be tried first with children. Among other things, Ritalin and friends used to completely suppress my appetite, which while it may sound cool, is really "not great".
ADHD is defiantly a real thing, but I don't think we should drug it out of them. We should make sure they go into suitable jobs/schools, where adhd would have advantages as opposed to disadvantages.
Why not "drug it out of them"? If the disease is caused by a chemical imbalance, why not try to fix the chemical imbalance? Some people (myself included) are not functional without medication.