Comment by luckylion

5 months ago

Research on _13_ people, that's a very important caveat when evaluating something like adderal.

It’s interesting how science can become closer to pseudoscience than proper research through paper-milling.

It seems like that with such small groups and effects you could run the same “study” again and again until you get the result that you initially desired.

I’m quite sure that there’s a ton more research on it. The drug’s been around for decades. Lots of time for plenty of studies.

If legitimate research had found it to be drastically better, that study would definitely have been published in a big way.

Unscientifically, I personally know quite a number of folks that sincerely believed that they couldn’t function without it, but have since learned that they do far better on their own. I haven’t met a single one that actually had their productivity decline (after an adjustment period, of course), after giving up Adderall. In fact, I know several, that have had their careers really take off, after giving it up.

  • My point is that micro-studies like that on a tiny random (or even counter-indicated, "healthy") selection of the general population don't tell you much for drugs that do specific things.

    "Antibiotics don't improve your life, but can damage your health" would likely be the outcome on 13 randomly selected healthy individuals. But do the same study on 13 people with a bacterial infection susceptible to antibiotics and your results will be vastly different.

    • I don't think that it matters, in this context, as a lot of folks here, have their minds made up, already, and won't let anything interfere.

      They'll need to learn, the same way I see lots of people learn.

      It's been around long enough, though, that all the Adderall-eating people should have established a Gattaca-like "elite," with all us "undermen," scrabbling around at their feet.

      Not sure why that never happened...

      1 reply →