Can someone clear something up about SSRI pharmacology?

[alkap555]

You seem to be operating under a profound ignorance of pharmaceutical companies' principle sources of revenue - or perhaps of the entire industry as a whole

Yes. Thank you P A

 

[JackiesBabyy]

Want another example? 4-FA. It's a relatively untested (Except on rodents and self-employed human guinea pigs ((People who use RCs))). I honestly think it could have a lot of medical use, being less abusable than adderall/dexedrine (euphoria dose gets very high very fast unless you take frequent breaks, much faster than d-amp.), it could be a great new ADHD treatment if they actually tested it to see if it DOES have adverse effects. But no pharma company has any interest in looking at "BATH SALTS" as a potential benefit to people because of just the negative stigma the media gives them, especially when the bath salt making people go bonkers is MXE, which is closest to ketamine, which is nothing like any amphetamine out there. 4-FA also has a much smoother, less miserable comedown than adderall and one dose lasts longer than an XR adderall. It could really help not only ADHD, but possibly severe pain too, as I've never seen a better pain killer in my life. If I'm in pain, I'll take some 4-FA over an opiate pill(oral pill, not a shot) any day, especially GI pain. (For those who've tried it and say the euphoria is intense, it's not if you do it more than two days in a row, and it takes a week long break to come back, just the increased wakefulness, reduced anxiety, and increased attention remain. Believe me, even 1g+ doses will not give euphoria after a few days, believe me, I'VE TRIED! Just what I mentioned above, and if you go really crazy, uncomfortable physical stimulation).

It's possible 4-FA could be neurotoxic as all hell (although more than one study indicated it's LESS TOXIC than meth and d-amp), but my point is, we'll never know, because it'll never be really tested. I, personally, took it 5 days per week for 6 months(Stopped a month ago) and I'm here right now healthy as can be. (Got all kinds of tests done, liver, etc.). I don't feel "e-tarded" like someone who used MDMA as much as I used 4-FA would feel, and I don't have the crushing anhedonia someone who used meth like I did would feel. For all we know I could be lucky and it could make everyone else grow tumors all over their liver. Point is, we'll never know. This is just one example, if you look, there are hundreds of POTENTIALLY helpful chemicals out there that currently have no chance of seeing so much as a phase 1 clinical trial. You people miss my point, this isn't about the big pharma, I'm just stating facts about potentially helpful chemicals/RCs in general here. Again, no need to attack me telling me how wrong I am, I'm simply giving my opinion. You'd think on the ADD board people would be mature enough to accept other people's point of view without getting angry like little kids.

You're right, I don't know much about big pharma because I don't give a shit about big pharma. I'm interested in the chemicals themselves and the pharmacology that makes them do whatever they do, I couldn't give a rats ass about the people who distribute said chemicals.

 

[P A]

It seems like you're completely dismissing my idea (As a whole. I'm not entirely right and I don't know everything about the inner workings of Big Pharma) because it sounds like a 'conspiracy theory", which is a stigma-carrying term.

I don't know much about big pharma because I don't give a shit about big pharma.

I'm completely dismissing your idea because 1) It is a conspiracy theory, as per my definition above; and 2) It is based wholly upon misinformation regarding a subject about which you openly admit to having very little interest or knowledge. Why bother to offer 'just your opinion' on something you know next to nothing about?

You'd think on the ADD board people would be mature enough to accept other people's point of view without getting angry like little kids.

Well I can assure you that I'm not angry in the slightest. I'm just jointly amused and mildly disturbed by your conspiratorial train of thought. I apologize if I came across to you as excessively rude or hostile - I tried to make my point with as much civility as possible. We are, after all, talking about the proliferation of conspiracy theories in a subforum intended for discussing (mostly) psychopharmacology and biochemistry - a fact of which you have proven sagacious enough to take note. Excuse me for my abrasive dismissal of a fringe sociopolitical ideology propounded on a board devoted to scholarly drug discussion. Jeez.

But look, there's PLENTY of very effective very safe drugs in use in Europe (first-world countries) that aren't availiable here, even if they are safer and/or more effective.

No, not really, at least not in substantial enough numbers to warrant concern. This is nothing more than a dangerous Wikiality, a glorified urban myth. I dare you to prove otherwise, citing extensively peer-reviewed scientific literature to defend your case. Just for starters, how about you try compiling a list of five (5) drugs that are unapproved in the U.S. for a particular indication, then post links to systematic meta-analyses and/or published peer reviews of all those well-controlled, double-blind human studies demonstrating superior tolerability, safety, and efficacy of each drug for its respective indication. Then we'll have a real discussion on our hands and you will have a substantive point to make.

Look at Moclobemide, an MAOI antidepressant that isn't available here despite it being better than SSRIs in efficacy

No. Here is a study demonstrating its inferiority to conventional antidepressants. Moclobemide isn't really much of an improvement upon the drugs we have in the States today. It's of lesser or equal efficacy to the >9000 different SRIs currently on the market, all of which are backed by numerous demonstrations of passable efficacy and exceptional safety in multiple clinical and research settings for decades. It is slightly less safe than and nowhere near as well-studied as the 5-HT reuptake inhibitors or the tricyclics. On the whole, Aurorix offers nothing new in the treatment of depression to merit its introduction into the already-bloated American pharmacopeia. Of course, neither has the slew of recent SRIs foisted upon patients and clinicians who don't know any better, but then, I'm not an apologist for the industry nor for the FDA. If you really are a true believer in this conspiracy shit, you sure picked a bad example in support of your views. Oh wait, there's more!

4-FA. It's a relatively untested (Except on rodents and self-employed human guinea pigs ((People who use RCs))). I honestly think it could have a lot of medical use

As much as the multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry consisting of highly trained professionals in neuropharmacology and corporate finance would love to hear about your innovative drug design, ground-breaking business model, plans for peer-reviewed research, and unique insights into the R&D process, I have a feeling that they'll defer to those with more credentials, subtlety, and knowledge than yourself. Hence, the industry that we have today. Fluoroamphetamine is a shitty drug and a proven serotonergic neurotoxin. Comparing this drug to amphetamine (which, by the way and in case you were unaware, was marketed long before our current process of drug approval was introduced) is disingenuous and misleading in the extreme. You have no idea whether this drug is actually safe for daily human consumption. You don't know whether it could successfully treat any condition, of any kind. And neither do the drug companies, because of the simple fact that developing such a drug would be (financially) foolish and risky beyond belief. Does this kinda suck? Yeah. Does it amount to the stifling of biomedical innovation by corruption, greed, or simple monetary interests, as you suggested upthread? Not at all.

This is just one example, if you look, there are hundreds of POTENTIALLY helpful chemicals out there that currently have no chance of seeing so much as a phase 1 clinical trial. You people miss my point, this isn't about the big pharma, I'm just stating facts about potentially helpful chemicals/RCs in general here.

And who or what do you think makes the very existence, development, and distribution of such compounds possible in the first place?

 

[Dysphoric]

Since we're on this subject, why the hell are certain drugs like fencamfamine for example removed from the market for "Abuse Potential". While we have stuff like Adderall, Dexedrine, Desoxyn, Oxycontin, etc... on the market, and those have 10x+ the abuse potential? This drug seemed to be something that would have benefited me, but I can't have it due to the FDA/DEAs "concern" of me becoming addicted. That's just one of many examples.

 

[JackiesBabyy]

4-FA will never be used or tested because it's grouped in with RCs/"bath salts". Same reason desoxyn is prescribed FAR FAR less than adderall despite the fact it's got less abuse potential and works better for ADHD(You can snort adderall, you can't with desoxyn IIRC)? It's got the label of "meth", which people associate with, well, crystal meth and tweakers. Give me one good reason 4-FA couldn't be useful if it had more testing and it did turn out to be less neurotoxic than adderall like current studies point to, give less side effects as anecdotal reports point to, work just as well for ADHD and, best of all for the DEA, has less abuse potential? It worked for my ADHD (Diagnosed by a psychiatrist with severe ADHD, scripted actual adderall now, definetly has more room for abuse than 4-FA does if you overdo it.) AND my GI pain I get from chronic constipation(Opiates help too, but of course, worsten the constipation. Enemas aren't fun and nor are suppositories. 4-FA has a slight laxative effect within an hour, faster than any laxative you can buy in the store besides an enema or suppository, only this you don't need to put up your ass. By slight, I mean you'll have to go, but you won't be running to the bathroom at 80 MPH)

Sure, maybe everyone won't have the same success story I did, but, again, we'll NEVER KNOW if it can help people as much as it helped me because it'll never be more than a "bath salt" to people.

 

[P A]

for example

IIRC, it was only the 'Fenphen' combination that was pulled for its propensity to seriously fuck up cardiac tissue after long-term use.

Fenfluramine itself still exists on the market last I checked, but I could be wrong. It's a shitty drug anyway...

 

[P A]

4-FA will never be used or tested because it's grouped in with RCs/"bath salts"

Did you even read my post? If 4-FA ends up never being tested, it will be for the following reasons:

1) It didn't stack up well in comparison with other candidate/orphan drugs that were offered up by Big Pharma R&D.
2) It proved to be toxic and/or reinforcing in the lab animals (which it already has, by the way).
3) It didn't pass basic screens that assess its 'novelty,' i.e., what it actually offers in the way of something new in the clinical indication for which it's being considered for development in the first place.

They're already conducting trials with MDMA et al. Why bother with this random piece of shit from the medicine cabinet of some RC abuser?

[Note: I'm not trying to knock your DOC, just trying to explain how the process of drug development actually works in contrast to your half-truths and misconceptions]

Same reason desoxyn is prescribed FAR FAR less than adderall despite the fact it's got less abuse potential and works better for ADHD(You can snort adderall, you can't with desoxyn IIRC)

I currently have a bottle of Desoxyn sitting in front of me. I can personally assure you that you do not, in fact, remember correctly.

 

[Dysphoric]

Fencamfamine itself still exists on the market last I checked, but I could be wrong. It's a shitty drug anyway...

It's off the market here in the U.S. at least. How's it shitty?

 

[P A]

It's off the market here in the U.S. at least

Are you certain of this? I don't see it in my PDR, but then again, that might just mean that the drug is being cooked up overseas by some generic manufacturer and shipped over here. That scenario is pretty unlikely though, considering it's like, Schedule >IV.

How's it shitty?

The serotonergic side effects are a real bitch. Imagine a conventional SRI on steroids. It's also a direct 5-HT2C receptor agonist, which makes it a probable anxiogen and cardiotoxin. As if that wasn't bad enough, the drug's relative affinity for the catecholamine transporters is pretty weak, last I checked.

 

[JackiesBabyy]

Did you even read my post? If 4-FA ends up never being tested, it will be for the following reasons:

1) It didn't stack up well in comparison with other candidate/orphan drugs that were offered up by Big Pharma R&D.
2) It proved to be toxic and/or reinforcing in the lab animals (which it already has, by the way).
3) It didn't pass basic screens that assess its 'novelty,' i.e., what it actually offers in the way of something new in the clinical indication for which it's being considered for development in the first place.

They're already conducting trials with MDMA et al. Why bother with this random piece of shit from the medicine cabinet of some RC abuser?

[Note: I'm not trying to knock your DOC, just trying to explain how the process of drug development actually works in contrast to your half-truths and misconceptions]



I currently have a bottle of Desoxyn sitting in front of me. I can personally assure you that you do not, in fact, remember correctly.

Look man, conspiracy theorists are one extreme end of the scale, but you're the other extreme end. You believe whatever people tell might be good for you, it's the reason cannnabis is still illegal. There's a middleground. It's possible to not think big pharma is a supervillain league without blindly believing everything they say. They aren't evil, but they aren't omnipotent either, and they're still made up of human beings like you and me and they still make mistakes. If 4-FA had been discovered before d-amp, they'd consider d-amp version of it with more abuse potential/side effects with no more theraputic value. Point is, d-amp was discovered FIRST, and they're not bothering to find something better because d-amp works fine, and it does work fine. But you need to be open to the fact that there might be something undiscovered that's slightly better for you. Just like if high-dose 4-FA after at least a one week break were discovered before MDMA, MDMA would be considered a much more overwhelming, less addictive and more self-limiting (Doing MDMA every day to get high is even more futile than 4-FA) version of it. It's all about what was discovered FIRST. Not what's the best, but what came first. New drugs will only replace older ones if it's SIGNIFICANTLY better. 4-FA is just a little better, so it's not worth it to them and it never will be, because they're not really looking for slight improvements on old drugs, they're looking for significant improvements or brand new drugs. How often do you see new drugs come out that are slight improvements over old ones? Rare, right? Because the drugs that make the most money (again, get it through your thick skull, this is not an insult, they have a right to make money) are new ones and huge improvements.

I'm just saying, it's not a black and white distinction between people who believe big pharma is omnipotent and people who believe it's evil. There's a happy medium. If you can't accept that maybe they might not be doing everything right, then take a look at something like Vioxx. You know, that NSAID that went through years and years of it's clinical trials and turned out to cause death in a bunch of otherwise healthy people. Tell the families of a person who had to die early just because of their little slip up that they ALWAYS know best. I'm not saying they're always wrong either, but you need to accept that people who work for them are not any better than anyone else and still make mistakes. (In the case of vioxx, a LOT of mistakes that really REALLY should have been noticed before it went on the market, whoopsie.)

Edit: Also, so they aren't interested in reinforcing drugs? So I guess adderall, percocets, vicodins, and all the other euphoric pharms out there aren't reinforcing? Are you insane?

 

[sekio]

Adderall, Percocet, morphine et cetera are drugs that have been grandfathered in. Almost all the addictive drugs in medical use were developed pre-1975.

 

[JackiesBabyy]

Adderall, Percocet, morphine et cetera are drugs that have been grandfathered in. Almost all the addictive drugs in medical use were developed pre-1975.

Yes, and they aren't looking for less reinforcing versions of these drugs. That's another reason 4-FA will never be tested despite it being far FAR less reinforcing than old favorites like desoxyn and adderall. You can't tell me this is a good reason that 4-FA won't ever be in medical use (in the US, anyway). It's not. It's A reason, but it's not a logical or good reason. You can't tell me it doesn't make logical sense to have a less reinforcing ADHD medication that works as well as d-amp when ADHD people are notorious for having addictive and impulsive personalities, thus making them more likely to abuse their ADHD medication.(Not saying all people with ADHD abuse their meds, but ADHD people are more likely to be addicted to dopaminergic drugs) That's what I liked about 4-FA, if I couldn't control myself it'd simply make me. If I didn't learn to with adderall I could take the entire bottle in a few days and regret it.

Edit: To further my point, explain why there was zero testing of LSD medically between when it first got popular and recently? Because people associated it with lazy hippies. No one wanted to accept it may have medicinal use because of the social stigma surrounding it. Turns out, LSD actually isn't as harmful as they said and does have some medical use. It's also why it's just recently we're finding out MDMA does wonders for PTSD. Same shit with 4-FA's reputation as a "bath salt". It's history repeating itself. Try arguing with that without sounding stupid and irrational, I dare you. Two cases of my point happening in the past of big pharma being wrong about drugs having "no medicinal use" when really they potentially have a very wide variety of uses. How about the botched government trial of MDMA's effects on...monkeys? I think that was it. But oh wait, they didn't give them MDMA, they gave them meth by "mistake". (There's no way you can have an IQ high enough to be a researcher and mistake meth for MDMA.)

 

[P A]

conspiracy theorists are one extreme end of the scale, but you're the other extreme end. You believe whatever people tell might be good for you, it's the reason cannnabis is still illegal.

How many times must I repeat emphatically that I am not in any way an apologist for drug companies nor the various lawmakers whose campaigns they fund? Try actually reading my posts instead of skimming and replying with whatever knee-jerk thought occurs to you whilst typing a response.

I'm just saying, it's not a black and white distinction between people who believe big pharma is omnipotent and people who believe it's evil.

Of course not. It's a black and white distinction between people who subscribe to conspiracy theories and people who don't. I think I've made myself expressly clear on this point.

Tell the families of a person who had to die early just because of their little slip up that they ALWAYS know best.

At what point and from what block of text did you obtain the idea that I subscribe to this hagiographic view of the drug industry? As I'm sure you're aware, one of the key features of conspiracy theories that makes them so easy to defend is their conniving penchant for externalizing all critique. If you disagree, you're a mindless sheep or a part of the conspiracy. It's the same old story every goddamn time. I am NOT a shill for the drug industry. YOU harbor mildly conspiratorial, wrongheaded views about the nature and effectiveness of the drug development and approval process. You do not have anything constructive to add to a discussion about the pharmaceutical industry and its numerous deficiencies (which, by the way, isn't the topic of this particular thread anyway) because you have openly admitted to neither caring nor knowing anything about said industry. Do there exist numerous problems that need urgently to be addressed? Yes! Do these problems have their roots in an ongoing conspiracy to suppress innovation in service of the almighty dollar? No! But this is exactly the sort of view that you propounded with the following ill-advised declaration of conspiratorial intent:

Do there exist numerous problems that need BUT, there's plenty of PROVEN TO BE SAFE drugs out there that could help lots of people that will never see the light of day because it's not profitable. Curing AIDS isn't nearly as profitable as giving them a pill to control it every day. Simple business.

My contention is NOT that the the Big Pharma/FDA axis possesses some omniscient source of unassailable wisdom, nor that they never fuck up. They fuck up left and right. But this should only serve to increase your suspicion of the notion that such laughable goofs could perpetrate a scandalous pharmacologic suppression campaign for the sole purpose of padding their pocketbooks in an inherently unstable, liability-saturated market.

It's all about what was discovered FIRST. Not what's the best, but what came first. New drugs will only replace older ones if it's SIGNIFICANTLY better

Yes, this is one of many, many grave problems that have plagued the industry ever since its inception. However, you have not offered so much as a single constructive suggestion for improvement. As in, do you have a better idea? In any other critical context (literary or film criticism, for instance), that would be an unfair and unwonted question. But we're talking about drug politics here. And, what's more, you originally offered your views with a side order of blatant conspiracy theory, which was audacious enough to provoke this entire conversation in the first place. If you have nothing constructive to offer to a discussion about political/economic issues (prescription drug production, regulation, etc.) sans anecdotal experience and crackpot ideology, don't be surprised by the chilly reactions you receive. I suppose that I'm beginning to sound harsh, but I don't know what other tone to adopt in light of your fervent adherence to silly, contrarian political views. It's fine, even sometimes admirable, to harbor radical sentiments, but not if they're based upon fundamental misconceptions and plain old bad thinking. At this point, I doubt that your views amount to the latent but nevertheless fervent conspiratorial bullshit that I perceived in your post, but I feel compelled to reply either way.

Doing MDMA every day to get high is even more futile than 4-FA

But I wasn't suggesting that MDMA or its numerous analogues were somehow guaranteed to be more promising than 4-FA. As you said, they are similar drugs that just happened to pop though the development pipeline first. However, you still have yet to offer a preferable alternative to the current system by which drugs are tested, approved, and distributed, leaving you conspicuously devoid of a relevant point. There are problems, yeah, but this fact is already well known and hardly deserves mention in its own right unless you have something constructive or original to accompany your critical observations. So far, you've offered a stream of steadily deflating conspiratorial nonsense and your anecdotal enthusiasm for a suspected neurotoxin. Color me unenthused.

 

[JackiesBabyy]

I suppose I took your post more offensively than I should have. Sorry.

I'm just a huge advocate of 4-FA because it improved my quality of life 500x. It destroyed my social anxiety, kills pain at near or equal to the oral opiate level, it's self limiting so I'm forced to control myself, it cured my (atypical type, hypersomniac/avolition/anhedonia/no energy, heavy lead feeling in limbs, self confidence level lower than dirt) depression, fixed my ADHD prior to getting on Adderall, made me a lot more friends, and just turned my entire life around. I've met others with ADHD and atypical depression too, and I wish I knew about this wonderful chemical back then. It's really made the last 6 months of my life happier than the first 20+ years. It'd be great to see it help someone else the way it helped me, because the way I was living is no way to live at all. So it's a bit saddening that it'll never be taken seriously by the pharma industry simply because of it's stigma and it's abuse potential. (5-HTP also helps it from depleting serotonin from 5-day per week use). On top of the fact all studies point to it being LESS neurotoxic than well-known amphetamines, seems like a cure-all drug for a certain type of person, and to be honest, it's worth any side effect it may give me. (Even though in 6 months it has given me no bad signs)

It's true that amphetamines can be a long-term solution to atypical depression too, as adderall + an MAOI is sometimes used to treat severe treatment resistant depression, 4-FA alone seems to be superior to any other solution I've attempted in my experience. (Ranging from alcohol to synth cannabinoids to SSRIs to tricyclics and more, none of them helped.) Then again, some people essentially get "high" off of SSRIs when all they did for me was give me ED, so... YMMV

EDIT: Is it a neurotoxin by definition? Yes! All monoamine releasers are, same with your precious meth/dextroamphetamine and especially MDMA. It's a question of how neurotoxic is it. Look at me, then look at an everyday MDMA user. Tell me who's brain is more fried. If it turns out I'm wrong, then hey, I guess 4-FA gets caught before someday it does go on the market in some country and becomes just like vioxx. To add to my point further, two of the most popular drugs in the world, NSAIDs and Acetaminophen, are known for respectively ripping your stomach lining and destroying your liver. They're still in wide use.

 

[sekio]

I thought it was 5-ht2b that was cardiotoxic. And as far as I know fencamfamine is a relatively mild NDRI, not a SRI.

Perhaps you are confusing it with fenfluramine?

 

[P A]

Where do you have that information from?

As in, like, literature-wise?

Here, here, and here I guess.

It's a serotonin releasing agent, bro (or sis?) - it's bound to have some shitty 5-HT-related side effects, at least at the start of treatment. Also, I fucked up on the whole 5-HT2C thing. It's 5-HT2B that causes the valvular toxicity. And technically, it's the active metabolite, norfenfluramine, that agonizes both the 5-HT2B and -C receptor subtypes directly.

Perhaps you are confusing it with fenfluramine?

Shit, yeah, sorry. FENFLURAMINE.

 

[P A]

Is it a neurotoxin by definition? Yes! All monoamine releasers are, same with your precious meth/dextroamphetamine and especially MDMA. It's a question of how neurotoxic is it.

Yes, but meth and speed have been in widespread clinical use for almost a century. If they were nearly as toxic to human neurons at typically-prescribed dosages as they appear to be in baboons, we would have a much uglier picture of AD(H)D and narolepsy treatment than we currently do. I have yet to meet a partially brain-dead, pseudoParkinsonian AD(H)D patient who took their medication as prescribed. And while you cannot say the same thing about MDMA with absolute certainty, it's still a much better-studied compound than 4-FA and it hasn't been approved by the FDA due to toxicity concerns. The only reason that (meth)amphetamine is even available for prescription these days was already mentioned by Sekio above.

 

[JackiesBabyy]

Yes, but meth and speed have been in widespread clinical use for almost a century. If they were nearly as toxic to human neurons at typically-prescribed dosages as they appear to be in baboons, we would have a much uglier picture of AD(H)D and narolepsy treatment than we currently do. I have yet to meet a partially brain-dead, pseudoParkinsonian AD(H)D patient who took their medication as prescribed. And while you cannot say the same thing about MDMA with absolute certainty, it's still a much better-studied compound than 4-FA and it hasn't been approved by the FDA due to toxicity concerns. The only reason that (meth)amphetamine is even available for prescription these days was already mentioned by Sekio above.

Your logic, for lack of a better word, sucks. You're basically saying 4-FA shouldn't be approved because a somewhat distantly related compound that's better-studied, MDMA, hasn't been approved for toxicity concerns? How does that warrant 4-FA not deserving to be studied more? By your logic, no newly-synthesized compounds at all related to any toxic compounds should even be studied?

People are scared of 4-FA because it's related to 4-CA. But flourine and chlorine aren't the same thing, 4-CA is a FAR more powerful serotonin releaser and a known neurotoxin. As are the other halogenated amphetamines. But as anyone who has read any studies on 4-FA should know, changing the halogen makes a hell of a lot of difference in what the chemical does and 4-FA has been shown again and again to be nowhere near as neurotoxic as the other halogenated amphetamines or even classic conventional amphetamines, if it were, I would be showing parkinsonian symptoms by now. Comparing 4-FA to 4-CA and 4-IA is like trying to compare a ham sandwich to a roast beef sandwich to a turkey sandwich. Related in the sense they're all amps(sandwiches) but differing in toxicity/effects(flavor/texture). A chemical being closely related to another chemical doesn't have to mean anything in chemistry. DXM is closely related to Levorphanol, yet, one is a dissociative and the other is an opiate.

 

[Epsilon Alpha]

Yes, and they aren't looking for less reinforcing versions of these drugs. That's another reason 4-FA will never be tested despite it being far FAR less reinforcing than old favorites like desoxyn and adderall. You can't tell me this is a good reason that 4-FA won't ever be in medical use (in the US, anyway). It's not. It's A reason, but it's not a logical or good reason. You can't tell me it doesn't make logical sense to have a less reinforcing ADHD medication that works as well as d-amp when ADHD people are notorious for having addictive and impulsive personalities, thus making them more likely to abuse their ADHD medication.(Not saying all people with ADHD abuse their meds, but ADHD people are more likely to be addicted to dopaminergic drugs) That's what I liked about 4-FA, if I couldn't control myself it'd simply make me. If I didn't learn to with adderall I could take the entire bottle in a few days and regret it.

http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/search.php?searchid=5515029
http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=241329
http://www.zoklet.net/bbs/showthread.php?t=240565
Lolololololololol

I thought I'd address some points:

As for suppression of non-addictive pain killers, its mostly a moot point since the non-addictive opioid ones either are logistical/pharmacokinetic nightmares or don't have a stellar efficacy vs side effect profile like most of the atypical SNRI painkillers and as such have a very limited market. A premier example of this is a conotoxin based drug.

As for suppression of new ADHD meds, you get into some strange territory where conspiracy may play a substantial but minor role. Firstly you need to be so careful with chronic paediatric medications as there long term effects can ruin or improve a child's life if not handled properly, methylphenidate and amphetamine are mainly still used because in the 50+ years they've been used we've learned pretty much what to expect. Newer or re-branded drugs need to pass FDA trials with flying colours or appeal to a niche market (ADHD kids with heart defects anyone?) to even get to the market. 4-FA is pretty much a drug that presents the same risks as amphetamine with no significant benefits from a strictly clinical point of view.

But, I've seen one particular drug who's clinical trials reek of something else going on, and that drug is modafinil. If you recall it was denied FDA approval for ADHD in 2006 due to possible cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome, which is a valid reason on the surface. Until you look at the fact that modafinil had been used off label in over 36000 children and several million adults with fewer than 16 reported hypersensitivity reactions. Then, you can look at the 4/933 serious rashes or dermatological issues in its paediatric ADHD trials, all of which were in individuals taking other potential SJS causing drugs or in cases where biopsies were not properly taken to rule out probable viral causes.
So I'll cut my rant short, and just say that to me it really looks like someone cooked the data or failed hard on the diagnostic end. But, if I really want to push the envelope on conspiracy beyond "retarded handling of rashes on children" it would probably be so it wouldn't compete with the other "non-stimulant" med on the market which is currently on patent till 2017...

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac...dium=website&utm_term=modafinil&utm_content=9

Edit: modafinil is now approved for paediatric narcolepsy.

 

[JackiesBabyy]

I never said 4-FA wasn't reinforcing or addictive. It is. Especially to someone with ADHD who got addicted to cigarettes after smoking only one of them. I'm saying it's not AS reinforcing as d-amp.