M.D.'s now Rx for paitients who don

(This has been reported in the open press, I will try to find one or more sites in the popular media, and forward). If you own a TV, no doubt you have seen adds for drugs designed to combat dementias, like Alzheimers desease. There is a long history of M.D.'s Rx'ing drugs for reasons other then they were intended. (perhaps what they mean by "practice medicine"?). The dreaded Thalidamide, whitch caused terrible problems has even been brought back, I believe for Leprosy. Very limited of course. 25 years ago the ADHD drug Cylert, (magnesium pemoline) was found to enhance concentration in normal adults.

A lot of you have heard of Ritalyn ( spell?) used for ADHD, given to children for this, and has become a college rage for "cramimng for tests". This ADHD drugs do seem to have acheved a measurable difference in performance. These drugs are a chemical analog that is "amphetamine like" which means there is a risk. Its also considered minimal. Were not talking METHamphetamine here... (Caffiene has also been shown to aid concentration, you know about that...)

The dementia drug Aricept, Rx for dementia has a number of "normal people" taking it to enchance what are measured as normal cognitive functions. Many drugs are tested on healthy adults, as was Aricept, and after testing it on commercial airline pilots there was a measurable increase in concentration. (Aricept is an acetacholynergic enhancer, not an amphetimine analog). I have seen a neuroligtst for decades due to cluster head aches and sciezures . I think I dropped a few IQ points after a rather nasty head injury several years ago.

He understood these drugs, (Aricept in my case, he was spooked by Cylert and friends) for legal reasons. I've been on Aricept for 16 months, and feel there has been an improvement. I won't come up with the Grand Unified Theory, but its measurable. I recommend it. The age of biopharmacetical enhancement is hear now. People who can, will. Thats a competitive advantage for anyone. And yes I am aware of the problems caused by anabolic steroids. But if this is done with strict supervision, keeping in mind no drug is totally safe, and you don't except to earn a PhD in a weekend, many people may find this helpfull.

Now if it would only improve my spelling... By the way, I'm 47 years old.

...title was to include, "who need them..."

There is always question of gain vs loss in any drug. All have side effects. So far i don't think that it is wise to recommend taking drug tested for decade top to general population because it will increase brain power/concentration. It will cause a lot of health problems too and long term damage potential in new drugs is not known 100 percent. My personal approach (i am not a doctor though) - if it is needed then it is needed, if it is optional then probably it is not needed.
Anyway - soon technological revolution will end this "argument" , i feel that performance improving brain implants are only several decades away and then due to environment pressure it will turn us to cyborgs for sure.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


A very good point.

Something people might wanna look into is whether Doctors are the only ones legally able to write prescriptions. Has anyone ever heard of a "Prescriber"? I have nothing other than a drug-commercial to back this up, but I hear this term used in place of doctor alot. Is this something we should be checking out? Is a prescriber the same as the doctor? And who does this "Prescriber" actually work for?

reply to post by projectvxn


As far as I know in many states, certified physcian assistants and nurse practiciners can write Rx for most drugs including most narcoticics. But Rx writing options do vary.