ADHD drugs + brain

[TexasFreedom]

I've said this repeated in the past. Kids who take ritilin & similar drugs are 'not right'. And apparently here finally is a study that shows that these drugs change the structure of the kid's brain! Yikes.

https://www.studyfinds.org/adhd-drugs-may-be-changing-structure-of-childrens-brains-study-finds/

I have yet to read the whole study, but I wanted everyone else to see this quickly. Scary stuff. I knew it influenced them, but to say it changed the brain structure is down right crazy.

 

[Psalm7]

I recently know of someone that had their adhd meds stolen . I looked into why someone would steal them snd found out they are in big demand in the druggie world . Junkies will crush them up and snort them like meth .

 

[lonewolf]

any drugs can and will affect a human brain.

 

[Dani]

I've been say I g the same thing for year too TF. . . . 100% agree here. These drugs have all been factors in these made shootings in the past. I have not heard about the most recent yet, but there have been studied that support this. No, it doesn't effect everyone to that extreme, but you have to wonder how many lives were messed up by them.

 

[user 7704]

Absolutely agree. Too many medicate instead of giving time to their children. Then plop them in front of the tv.

Go outside and get some exercise and fresh air.

 

[Mountain trapper]

Parents need to be parents to their kids. And not let the schools, teachers, TV, video games, computer, or cell phones raise their kids.
Yesterday I took my wife to the airport and we stopped for lunch. At a table next to us was a mother and son(?). The mother looked like a tattooed circus tramp and her boy(?), maybe 10 had a stupid haircut, earrings and both were on their cellphones. This doesn't mean that the kid will grow up to be a mass murderer, but he/she isn't getting a very good start in life.

 

[JackDW]

This may explain a lot. How else can you explain the sheer number of brain deal snowflakes that are out there. And the bad news, they are now reaching voting age. If they would engage even a single brain cell, they could see thru the BS they have been fed.

 

[TexasFreedom]

any drugs can and will affect a human brain.

I think we're talking pea-shooter vs nuclear bomb. How does an aspirin affect the brain? Ok, maybe it reduces pain which affects your thinking.

But this study talks about 'restructuring' how the brain works. If you study how neural networks operate, you'd realize how massive this is. The pea shooter vs nuke is not an exaggeration at all.

Jack, too many factors. Yes, this. Add drugs. Add leftie wacko teachers. Add video games & cell phone brain-sucking. It surprises me any kids grow up as decent human beings.

 

[lonewolf]

I stay away from as much medicines and drugs as I can, I doubt I take more than 6 painkillers in a year and I stopped having the flu *** years ago because there was some suspicion of what was in it-and they weren't saying-so I stopped it.

 

[Kevin L]

I've said this repeated in the past. Kids who take ritilin & similar drugs are 'not right'. And apparently here finally is a study that shows that these drugs change the structure of the kid's brain! Yikes.

https://www.studyfinds.org/adhd-drugs-may-be-changing-structure-of-childrens-brains-study-finds/

I have yet to read the whole study, but I wanted everyone else to see this quickly. Scary stuff. I knew it influenced them, but to say it changed the brain structure is down right crazy.

While these drugs are enormously helpful with some kids who honestly need them, I do agree that they're over-perscribed, and often used as a substitute for expensive counseling and tedious therapy......as everyone always wants to go for the quick fix.

It isn't unusual for kids (especially college students) to fabricate reasons to take these meds--as most of them are similar to amphetamines--to enable them to stay awake and alert past the normal parameters of the human body, so they can study longer.

I always had a lot of resentment and emotional baggage toward the 'powers that be' about stuff like this.

When I was in high school, there was a very big push toward 'just say no' when it came to drugs. Drug usage was spreading AIDS, drugs were bad, and so on.

The double standard was that kids on my high school football and basketball teams and were injecting steroids, and I refused to go out for sports.....something that had consequences later when I was trying to get into a good college.

"What's the difference between shooting up heroin and injecting steroids?" I'd ask.

"Heroin doesn't get you into college," was the answer. "And they're not getting high from it."

The hypocrisy of it made me very angry, as I didn't feel like I could compete on an even footing if I 'just said no'. The administration turned a blind eye, as sports brings in money.

The current situation with ADD meds seems--in my mind--to involve similar issues.

 

[user 7704]

I stay away from as much medicines and drugs as I can, I doubt I take more than 6 painkillers in a year and I stopped having the flu *** years ago because there was some suspicion of what was in it-and they weren't saying-so I stopped it.

I don't take the flu shot either Paul.

 

[user 7704]

While these drugs are enormously helpful with some kids who honestly need them, I do agree that they're over-perscribed, and often used as a substitute for expensive counseling and tedious therapy......as everyone always wants to go for the quick fix.

It isn't unusual for kids (especially college students) to fabricate reasons to take these meds--as most of them are similar to amphetamines--to enable them to stay awake and alert past the normal parameters of the human body, so they can study longer.

I always had a lot of resentment and emotional baggage toward the 'powers that be' about stuff like this.

When I was in high school, there was a very big push toward 'just say no' when it came to drugs. Drug usage was spreading AIDS, drugs were bad, and so on.

The double standard was that kids on my high school football and basketball teams and were injecting steroids, and I refused to go out for sports.....something that had consequences later when I was trying to get into a good college.

"What's the difference between shooting up heroin and injecting steroids?" I'd ask.

"Heroin doesn't get you into college," was the answer. "And they're not getting high from it."

The hypocrisy of it made me very angry, as I didn't feel like I could compete on an even footing if I 'just said no'. The administration turned a blind eye, as sports brings in money.

The current situation with ADD meds seems--in my mind--to involve similar issues.

When you say "kids who actually need them" who are these kids? The one's whose brains are so full of thoughts that they are bored in school and can't sit still? How many wonderful advancements have been "drugged out of people"? My son was and is unable to sit in a structured environment. All the drugs did was make him so stoned he didn't want to get up. It didn't help with his concentration or learning capability.

Most of these drugs are not for the children's welfare but are used to help the parents and teachers who can't or don't provide the type of learning environment needed. Not saying that an entire class should bend to little Johnny because he's hyper, but there are alternative ways to reach these kids.

I hate to see the spirit of these kids die behind the blank eyes of the drugs. Imagine how many inventions were the result of these hyper kids using their wild imaginations.

 

[Kevin L]

When you say "kids who actually need them" who are these kids? The one's whose brains are so full of thoughts that they are bored in school and can't sit still? How many wonderful advancements have been "drugged out of people"? My son was and is unable to sit in a structured environment. All the drugs did was make him so stoned he didn't want to get up. It didn't help with his concentration or learning capability.

Most of these drugs are not for the children's welfare but are used to help the parents and teachers who can't or don't provide the type of learning environment needed. Not saying that an entire class should bend to little Johnny because he's hyper, but there are alternative ways to reach these kids.

I hate to see the spirit of these kids die behind the blank eyes of the drugs. Imagine how many inventions were the result of these hyper kids using their wild imaginations.

As I said (I've worked in the medical field for 30 years, and--to top it off--I have disabilities myself. I actually have high-functioning autism) some kids benefit.

I get angry when I hear parents claim that a kid "isn't motivated", or "doesn't apply themselves", or "is lazy", or is "lacking focus", and so on.

There really are people out there who are born with problems in their brain chemistry and brain wiring. Older people say "this didn't exist in my day", and "they don't have problems with this in other countries", and they may actually be right. Part of the reason for a lot of these issue comes--I believe--from chemicals in modern foods that are consumed by pregnant women.

As an example, organophosphate pesticides are used quite freely on all different kinds of food crops, but what most people don't realize is that these chemicals are actually precursors to military nerve agents like sarin, soman, cyclosarin, tabun, VX, VN, and novachok.

They are all in the same chemical family and--in fact--organophosphate pesticides can be used as a raw ingredient for making nerve agents. There are only tiny chemical differences between organophosphate pesticides and nerve agents.

You can't get me to believe that a pregnant woman can eat these foods for nine months, and that it won't have consequences toward the nervous system of the developing baby inside her.

Part of the price we pay for these chemicals is--I believe--things like ADD, autism, childhood depression, and so on.

Even if you don't agree with me, can you see my point?

 

[DrHenley]

As someone who had severe learning disabilities I have my own theories about all this.

I was the proverbial square peg in a round hole. Would I have been better off taking ritalin to take off the corners that didn't let me fit the round hole of the one-size-fits-all educational system? It certainly would have caused fewer problems for the system and for my parents. But then I would not be ME.

My parents took me out of the public schools and put me in a private school that was a "square hole" and I did very well until I got caught up and even surpassed the educational level I was "supposed" to be at for my age. But then they put me back in the public schools and then I was again a square peg in a round hole all the way through college. It wasn't until I decided to go back to school and do it MY WAY that I really prospered in school.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that medicating kids out for ADD seems to me to just be a way of getting everyone to conform to the One-Size-Fits-All system, and I consider that to be a grave disservice to the square pegs like me!

 

[TexasFreedom]

Doc,

My concern is a different parable. You know those hairs that you see pointing straight up? You wet them down, and they pop back up. You do a touch of hair spray, and they pop back up. You try some gel, & it seems to work. But at some point, that hair breaks free and you get a neck injury from them popping up so hard!

Same with these drugs. Yes, they calm the child. But eventually there is payback and that child explodes with anger and violence.

So, IMO, no thank you. Let's eliminate these drugs and let the child's brain develop naturally. Your parents had it right when they chose private schools: find the teaching method that works with the child instead of drugging them.

 

[Kevin L]

As someone who had severe learning disabilities I have my own theories about all this.

I was the proverbial square peg in a round hole. Would I have been better off taking ritalin to take off the corners that didn't let me fit the round hole of the one-size-fits-all educational system? It certainly would have caused fewer problems for the system and for my parents. But then I would not be ME.

My parents took me out of the public schools and put me in a private school that was a "square hole" and I did very well until I got caught up and even surpassed the educational level I was "supposed" to be at for my age. But then they put me back in the public schools and then I was again a square peg in a round hole all the way through college. It wasn't until I decided to go back to school and do it MY WAY that I really prospered in school.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that medicating kids out for ADD seems to me to just be a way of getting everyone to conform to the One-Size-Fits-All system, and I consider that to be a grave disservice to the square pegs like me!

I agree with many of your points. It seems to be a common theme that many genius innovators and thinkers (Albert Einstein comes to mind as the classic example) had problems and learning disabilities as children.

So, if we use such meds to enforce conformity to a system geared toward an average mass.....do we also destroy and/or hinder genius, instead of nurturing it like we should? Especially because humanity is confronting so many hazards right now....as we are in a time of mass extinctions.

We need all the genius that we can get.

I see arguments both ways, and I don't have a quick answer.

 

[DrHenley]

So, if we use such meds to enforce conformity to a system geared toward an average mass.....do we also destroy and/or hinder genius, instead of nurturing it like we should?

Exactly

 

[TexasFreedom]

as we are in a time of mass extinctions.

Huh? Sure, plenty of critters are going extinct. OK, sure, the 17 toed bullhorse is going extinct, but we still have a million of the 16 toed variety and the 18 toed variety. I guess we can also say anybody with dirt on the Clintons are also going extinct.

Is this big deal? Not really. It wasn't the end of the world when the dinosaurs died. It wasn't the end at the Great Flood. This isn't much different.

 

[Kevin L]

Huh? Sure, plenty of critters are going extinct. OK, sure, the 17 toed bullhorse is going extinct, but we still have a million of the 16 toed variety and the 18 toed variety. I guess we can also say anybody with dirt on the Clintons are also going extinct.

Is this big deal? Not really. It wasn't the end of the world when the dinosaurs died. It wasn't the end at the Great Flood. This isn't much different.

I disagree.

As someone who works in the medical field (and college education in organic chemistry, but never worked in this field except to utilize it in my writing, or incidentally as a paramedic around a HAZMAT scene), I think it's vitally important to preserve as many species as we can.

As an example, if a venomous snake becomes endangered, you'd be lucky if anyone would donate a dime.

Yet if it's a cute-faced monk seal (they are adorable animals), the bucks will roll in.

And here's my big point: life-saving meds come from the venom of dangerous reptiles. A drug called Beyetta--for example--is used very successfully to treat atrial fibrillation.....and it's processed from the venom of the pygmie rattler (Sistrurus miliaris). Contortostatin is a drug with a huge potential toward treating cancer patients. Apparently, it doesn't shrink tumors or prevent cancer, but what it does do is keep the cancer from spreading (metastizing). It doesn't work for blood cancers like leukemia, but it seems to work well on breast, lung, pancreatic, mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, and so on.

It comes directly from the copperhead snake (Akiskodron contortis).

A valuabe diabetes med and Parkinson's med come from the venomous gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) lizard's venom.

And so on.

Even the guts of termites yielded bacteria valuable for making new novel antibiotics.

I don't even believe that diseases should be rendered extinct. Malaria is a horrible illness, but--believe it or not--malaria can be used to cure syphillis. This technique fell out of favor with the advent of antibiotics, but this technique was revived in the 1990s when a woman--infected with Lyme disease, which is a spirochete like syphillis, but in a different family--was allergic to the antibiotics used in Lyme disease, so they infected her with malaria (Malaria falciparum, the worst kind), and it worked.

They then treated the malaria with different drugs.

So, we never know when--in this age of DNA analysis and genetic engineering--a plant, animal, or germ may come in handy against some horrific plague, which seems more likely because the Earth is out of balance.

 

[TexasFreedom]

Hang on Kevin. You are only looking through rose-colored glasses.

For every 'cure', there is also the next plague. How many millions died of AIDS? Would it have been worth making a certain species of monkey extinct if it had prevented the AIDS epidemic?

So look at both sides. I'm not saying we should be out to make certain species extinct, but there are two sides to this coin.

Also keep in mind countless new species are still being created. A copperhead snake mates with a rattlesnake, and it's a new species. It happens all the time.

 

[Kevin L]

Hang on Kevin. You are only looking through rose-colored glasses.

For every 'cure', there is also the next plague. How many millions died of AIDS? Would it have been worth making a certain species of monkey extinct if it had prevented the AIDS epidemic?

So look at both sides. I'm not saying we should be out to make certain species extinct, but there are two sides to this coin.

Also keep in mind countless new species are still being created. A copperhead snake mates with a rattlesnake, and it's a new species. It happens all the time.

No, I don't think it would have fixed or prevented anything by making the chimpanzee extinct.

Monkeys and apes are invaluable in medicine because they so closely approximate human beings, that we can use them to test medications and treatments in a manner that would be unethical on human beings.

I truly deplore animal testing, but the practice has saved uncounted millions of lives.....including my own.

And my point is that by saving animals and plants from extinction, we are acting in our own best interest.

 

[TexasFreedom]

Kevin, if the animals that AIDS jumped from and to humans were limited, then AIDS was eliminated. You can not believe that, but you'd be mistaken.

I'm not saying I want to take out more species but I am saying that not all species are good. Oh wait, my first part is not true. I'd be 100% good if the fire ant went extinct.

 

[Kevin L]

Kevin, if the animals that AIDS jumped from and to humans were limited, then AIDS was eliminated. You can not believe that, but you'd be mistaken.

I'm not saying I want to take out more species but I am saying that not all species are good. Oh wait, my first part is not true. I'd be 100% good if the fire ant went extinct.

Of course AIDS jumped from chimps to people.....that's established beyond any reasonable doubt.

My only point is that the benefits of having a bewildering variety of life is a good thing.

And--something that seems dangerous now--can be life-saving in the future.

Let me give you another example.

Asia abounds with venomous snakes, and I'll use the king cobra as an example, but my argument applies to almost all of these venomous snakes.

In India (a heavily populated country of over 1 billion people), up to 25% of the grain supply is destroyed by rodents. This is mostly because of the Norway rat, but other rodents are guilty as well.

Venomous snakes save peoples' lives every second in a very subtle, low-key way because they eat rats. By keeping the rat population in check, humans have more food and are safer in terms of epidemic and disease.

A person dies every once in a while by being bitten by an errant king cobra, but if we rendered the king cobra extinct....then millions upon millions of people would die from disease and starvation.

If you run the numbers and stats, the king cobra is probably more beneficial to people as a whole than penicillin.*

I believe that many animals and plants are like this, including chimps.

Chimps may be the source of AIDS, but the lives that they've saved as experimental animals are--literally--countless.

And the reason why AIDS jumped into humanity is because people were doing things that they shouldn't have been doing. It was unnatural conditions created by people that allowed AIDS to become a human disease.

------------------------------

* This statement is based on a rough, "back of the envelope" calculation from approximate numbers. My claim may not be exactly precise, but I'm in the ballpark.

 

[TexasFreedom]

Kevin, you seem to have a binary choice: rats eating stores OR king cobras killing people. We have a wonderful snake called the 'rat snake'. No rats eating stores, and no king cobra killing people.

There are other choices. And AIDS didn't just jump due to wackos raping monkeys. Eating the meat not fully cooked also was a method of transmission.

I agree that a keeping more species around is overall more good than bad (for most species, again I'll exclude some like fire ants). But there is a line. For example where californistan is passing billions of barrels of water into the ocean because of one stupid fish rather than watering their crops. Some critters just aren't going to make it.

 

[Kevin L]

Kevin, you seem to have a binary choice: rats eating stores OR king cobras killing people. We have a wonderful snake called the 'rat snake'. No rats eating stores, and no king cobra killing people.

There are other choices. And AIDS didn't just jump due to wackos raping monkeys. Eating the meat not fully cooked also was a method of transmission.

I agree that a keeping more species around is overall more good than bad (for most species, again I'll exclude some like fire ants). But there is a line. For example where californistan is passing billions of barrels of water into the ocean because of one stupid fish rather than watering their crops. Some critters just aren't going to make it.

I suspect that you and I may not see eye to eye on this issue.

I think all species--even ones we don't like--have the potential to be very valuable.

Instead of fire ants, let's talk about disease.

There is a nasty parasitic worm spread by microscopic water fleas called the Guinea worm.

It formerly infected perhaps 2 million people a year, and now--because of the Carter Foundation--less than 35 people are currently infected with it.

Guinea worm infection is disgusting and awful, so I won't go into it here since the details are not neccesary for my point.

In any case, in retrospect--as medical knowledge has advanced since the Carter Foundation started fighting the worm over 30 years ago--it turns out that a powerful anesthetic, and also a possible broad-spectrum antibiotic are found in certian secretions of this worm.

I feel about ticks the same way you seem to feel about fire ants.....yet valuable, life-saving drugs are being explored from their toxic saliva.

Leeches--as awful, and nasty of an animal as I've ever been acquainted with--are used in transplant surgery to make sure that skin grafts and reattached limbs heal properly.

I cannot--without doing research--find a beneficial use for your hated fire ants, but I'm sure that there is one even if we don't know it yet.

All species are worth preserving......even "bad" ones, unless one wants to be short-sighted and/or doesn't believe in long-term investments.

 

[user 7704]

Autopsy shows the Dayton shooter was on antidepressants.

 

[TexasFreedom]

Kevin,

We may never see eye to eye. I will agree that some species can offer medical benefits. Not all critters, and many treatments/cures may never get discovered.

But you are not seeing the other side of the coin. I'll go back to AIDS. 40 million people have died & 10's of millions today live with AIDS. Consider that tradeoff. Let's say there was one specific species of monkey that started this. I would clearly say that taking out that species would be worth the 40 million deaths (so far). Can you agree with that?

And we don't know which species will be the source of the next 'AIDS'. I'm not saying we randomly take out critters, but I am saying it's not all one-sided.

 

[Kevin L]

Kevin,

We may never see eye to eye. I will agree that some species can offer medical benefits. Not all critters, and many treatments/cures may never get discovered.

But you are not seeing the other side of the coin. I'll go back to AIDS. 40 million people have died & 10's of millions today live with AIDS. Consider that tradeoff. Let's say there was one specific species of monkey that started this. I would clearly say that taking out that species would be worth the 40 million deaths (so far). Can you agree with that?

And we don't know which species will be the source of the next 'AIDS'. I'm not saying we randomly take out critters, but I am saying it's not all one-sided.

I agree that the disease came from chimps, but was a different monkey (ie: man) that started the epidemic.

Humans started the 1918 influenza epidemic by how we keep farm animals.

It was war, famine, lack of education, and so forth that allowed HIV to become a human disease.

Any species--from cockroach to bald eagles--can be a source of disease if humans don't do the right thing by nature.

If it wasn't chimps, it would be the rhesus macaque, or the black rat.....or something else.

Here in Florida, for example, we have monkeys that are introduced from Asia, and they carry Simian Herpes B. I'm actually moving to the area where these things have established themselves.

It sounds like a bad joke from the Beverly Hills Cop movie.....but Simian Herpes B is no joke. 75% to 80% of all people who get infected will die a miserable, protracted death....and there's no vaccine and no known cure.

Further, about 40% to 60% of these monkeys carry the disease in an asymptomatic form.

Now, my point is that it's peoples' fault that these things are here, multiplying as an invasive species. If there ever ends up being an epidemic, it's the fault of humans, not the monkeys.

And yes, before you suggest that I'm a tree-hugging liberal, I do believe that all of these animals should be eradicated with extreme prejudice.

In their native environment, less than 1% of the same monkeys carry Herpes B, as the natural world has a way of balancing things.

Here in the States, these animals don't have the appropriate predators and parasites to keep them in check, so--being out of natural balance--the disease spreads among them.

I believe that there were similar issues with humans blatantly giving nature the finger, and that's what really enabled the AIDS epidemic to occur, and what enabled it to jump from chimps into humans.

Eradicating chimps, therefore, wouldn't have made much of an overall difference.

And I do believe that it's only a matter of time until Herpes B changes into a form that's much more dangerous and contagious to people.

Even as an on-again/off-again vegetarian, I will ruthlessly kill any of these things on sight. People in Ocala and Silver Springs have a habit of feeding these things, and--being intelligent, and having hands--they occasionally open doors and windows and let themselves into your house.

They'll go through your pantry and fridge, helping themselves to your food and garbage.

It's always bad when people acclimate wild animals to human food, so I believe that it's only a matter of time until Herpes B changes into an epidemic form, and people die in droves.

It will have been people that created this....not the animals.

 

[TexasFreedom]

Kevin,

Do you not see the 1-sided view you have? Let me explain further.

You said a specific XYZ critter was a cure for ABC disease. And it is the only cure.

But with AIDS, you said if it wasn't chimps, it'd be rats or something else.

What makes it a one-way path? How about I say if the Guinea Worm wasn't there, they'd use another critter for form a similar cure/treatment? You keep looking until you find something that works.

Either it is a one-path disease and a one-path cure, or there are multiple paths going both ways.

 

[Kevin L]

Kevin,

Do you not see the 1-sided view you have? Let me explain further.

You said a specific XYZ critter was a cure for ABC disease. And it is the only cure.

But with AIDS, you said if it wasn't chimps, it'd be rats or something else.

What makes it a one-way path? How about I say if the Guinea Worm wasn't there, they'd use another critter for form a similar cure/treatment? You keep looking until you find something that works.

Either it is a one-path disease and a one-path cure, or there are multiple paths going both ways.

I don't disagree with you, if I understand your point correctly.

Streptomycin will cure plague. So with tetracycline, and so will several other drugs.

There is more than one avenue to disease, and often there is more than one cure.

My point is that there is tremendous benefit in diversity. With a disease like plague, for example, I want hundreds of drugs to treat it......not just one or two.

And there are natural laws and priciples in nature that must be respected, and we render all these species extinct at our own peril.

As a better example, consider gravity.

If I want to construct a building, I need to use the correct design, with the quality of steel, xement, and so forth predicated on the idea that gravity must be respected.

If I don't consider gravity, then the building will collapse and maybe kill lots of people.

It is similar with other living things.

If we keep abusing the natural world, there will be more epidemics, starvation, and so forth.

That's why I'm on a prepper website.