
Amphetamine boosts rats’ recovery from brain injuries - sndean
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/09/Amphetamine-boosts-ratsrecovery-brain-injuries.html
======
TheSpiceIsLife
I recall reading something about this a long time ago, maybe over 10 years
ago, that administering amphetamine as soon as possible(?) after a stroke
reduces the number of brain cells that die and improves recovery.

Even back when I first heard of this I assumed that it would translate to at
least some other forms of brain injury, and I assumed it had to do with the
central nervous system stimulatory effects of amphetamine (increase activity
which means increase blood flow).

A quick search on scholar.google.com for the terms _amphetamine stroke_ shows
at least a few first page results from the '80s.

Here's one from 1982[1] and 1988[2]

From the second link: _Patients treated with amphetamine obtained greater
increments in motor scores than the controls_.

We ought not discount the possible positive uses of amphetamine and other
drugs just because of their bad reputation for recreation use and abuse
potential. I suppose.

1\.
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/217/4562/855](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/217/4562/855)

2\.
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.410230117/ful...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.410230117/full)

------
tcj_phx
I've posted here before about helping my girlfriend with her substance abuse
problems...

Methamphetamine makes her extremely psychotic for at least 3-5 days. My
observation is that Cocaine is a much safer stimulant, as it only makes her
"mildly psychotic" until the effects wear off, then she quickly recovers.
She's complained to me that cocaine doesn't work anymore, as it doesn't create
the euphoria that it used to. Methamphetamine is easier to find, I guess.

My girlfriend is currently being mistreated by "professionals", who have
_assumed_ that she's "persistently disabled" because she'd been court-ordered
before. They have been completely hostile to treating the underlying causes of
their patient's symptoms: alcohol, prescription drugs (anti-psychotics [1] &
benzodiazepines), and other substances (stimulants, mainly).

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance-
induced_psychosis#Ot...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance-
induced_psychosis#Other) \- "antipsychotics, _in an idiosyncratic reaction "_
(emphasis added)

Preliminary evidence found that Progesterone USP also helps people recover
from brain injuries. A poorly designed study was hastily implemented, the
ineffective method of progesterone administration was found to not help, and
the Progesterone USP theory of neuroprotection is not being studied anymore.

~~~
axlprose
as someone who's prescribed _amphetamine_ (i.e. adderall) for [inattentive]
ADHD, and have also tried _meth_ -amphetamine, I just want to point out that
those are two _very different_ drugs as far as effects and potency go.

Methamphetamine is so strong, I honestly couldn't even tolerate small amounts
of the stuff. The few times I've tried it just resulted in dehydration,
headaches, and muscle aches, easily outweighing any cognitive effects it had
(which weren't even really more noticeable than regular amphetamine's effects
for me). Cocaine isn't as bad, but still a bit too much for me as well.

Regular amphetamine on the other hand, the compound this article is about, has
given me quite a noticeable improvement in my quality of life. Results do vary
even among us adhd people, but for me, I've never experienced anything worse
than staying up a bit later than I would like from taking it. Otherwise it
just feels like drinking a really strong cup of tea for me, cause even coffee
makes me more jittery. So the research in this article doesn't surprise me too
much, but it's always nice to have some extra reassurance against all the
anti-adhd-medication propaganda that originally made me paranoid about even
trying it back when I was first diagnosed.

~~~
chimeracoder
> I just want to point out that those are two very different drugs as far as
> effects and potency go.

Eh, you were probably experiencing the effects of improper dosing (as well as
- I'm assuming - different means of ingestion).

Methamphetamine is just amphetamine with an additional methyl group, which
makes it cross the blood-brain barrier more easily, and means that a lower
dosage by weight is necessary for the same outcome.

Methamphetamine is metabolized almost identically to amphetamine, which means
that the pharmacokinetic impact is the same.

The main difference is that methamphetamine is generally smoked (or
occasionally snorted and injected), whereas amphetamine is prescribed orally.
Also, unless you were prescribed Desoxyn, there's the other question of how
pure and reliable the methamphetamine is, and what other compounds were
present.

~~~
axlprose
> _you were probably experiencing the effects of improper dosing (as well as -
> I 'm assuming - different means of ingestion)_

For the dosing, you're probably right, since I didn't have a milligram scale
at the time, but I tried to eyeball a portion similar to half of an adderall
tablet, since the entire reason I tried it in the first place was to make that
comparison.

As for the ingestion method, I tried to keep it the same as I would take any
other medication and quickly washed it down with water, however it being a
powder makes it harder to guarantee none of it was absorbed sublingually,
though I've also tried adderall that way, and the effects were still not that
intense.

Anyways, I am aware how similar the two compounds, I just tried to highlight
the _effect_ differences, since that's usually what gets people up in arms
about drugs.

~~~
earcaraxe
An Adderall tablet is mostly binders. The actual amount of it that is
amphetamine is nowhere near the size that you see.

------
WaxProlix
Amphetamine at low (and even increasingly high) doses has also been shown to
be neuroprotective. Kind of a wonder drug as far as neurology goes, aside from
the addictive and euphoric properties.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2440058](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2440058)

~~~
contingencies
Ditto nicotine? Here in Asia we also have betel nut. Then there's caffeine and
its drink-marketing brethren...

~~~
tominous
I'd love to see more research about nicotine and schizophrenia. Something like
80% or schizophrenics smoke, and they do so heavily. This is 3 or 4 times the
rate of the general population.

The question is: does smoking cause schizophrenia, is it self-medication, or
both?

Scott Alexander has an interesting summary [1].

For what it's worth, my schizophrenic brother says smoking makes his mind feel
much clearer.

I think mental hospitals should have a strategy to provide nicotine to
patients (in the high dose they need) to minimise the harm of the strong cheap
rubbish that schizophrenics inhale all day. Maybe e-cigs should be promoted to
smoker patients.

[1] [http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-
smokin...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/01/11/schizophrenia-no-smoking-gun/)

~~~
M_Grey
There is theorized to be some synergistic effects between tobacco smoking and
the antipsychotic medications that people such as your brother often require.
IIRC it really isn't known why that is, but it seems relatively well accepted
among people who routinely work with schizophrenia.

~~~
tcj_phx
> There is theorized to be some synergistic effects between tobacco smoking
> and the antipsychotic medications that people such as your brother often
> require.

"Antipsychotics" are palliative medications that do not address the cause of
the problematic symptoms. They have repeatedly been shown to cause a very poor
long-term prognosis for the unfortunate patients who are put on them.

Nicotine is somewhat similar to Vitamin B3 (Niacin), which has been shown to
help schizophrenics recover. Niacinamide supplementation helps my girlfriend
reduce her tobacco use.

    
    
      ... Here, we propose a model that a subset of 
      schizophrenia can respond to niacin augmentation therapy 
      better than other subsets because these patients have 
      contributions in their psychotic manifestations from the 
      neural degeneration resulting from niacin deficiency. We 
      present a short description of our case report which 
      showed rapid improvement in schizophrenic psychotic 
      symptoms subsequent to administration of niacin as an 
      augmentation therapy. We, thus, propose that niacin 
      deficiency is a contributory factor in schizophrenia 
      development in some patients and symptom alleviation in 
      these patients will benefit from niacin augmentation, 
      especially in some particular psychotic features." 
    

\-
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25855923](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25855923)

~~~
tominous
I've read your story submissions and let me first say that I admire your
courage and dedication. I hope this comment is useful and not too blunt.

It sounds like you've gained two passions from your experience: (1) finding
the _right_ treatment for mental health issues, instead of long-term
palliation, and (2) addressing casual abuses of power and ignorance of the
law.

My advice to you is to focus on one passion at a time. You can't make progress
on both fronts at once.

Regarding (1), there's a word for people who try to go around the medical
establishment and run a business selling a cure-all pill. It's "quack", not
"hack". Even if you're right you'll have no credibility and make zero
difference to psychiatric treatment, mainstream or otherwise.

The credible approach is to write a case report plus literature review and get
it published. I suggest the topic of the literature review should be "low-
cost, low-risk interventions to assist in diagnosing subtypes of
schizophrenia". You can't do this on your own: you'll need a friendly PhD co-
author to edit it brutally and guide you through publication.

(By subtype here I mean the different etiologies, which is an emerging area of
study, not the traditional grouping by symptoms)

Regarding (2), your focus should be local and specific, and honestly your best
bet may be donating or raising money for existing organisations that work in
this area.

~~~
tcj_phx
Thanks for your comments - they are quite helpful.

> Regarding (1), there's a word for people who try to go around the medical
> establishment and run a business selling a cure-all pill. It's "quack", not
> "hack".

I manufactured a supplement once, then I realized it was a legal minefield. I
have plans to apply for FDA approval for a claim for a device. This would
provide legal protection against the status quo, while destroying their
harmful business at the same time.

I gave a bottle of my supplement to a young woman who'd just been not-helped
at the hospital. I called her a few days later - she said, "THAT STUFF REALLY
WORKS!" I called a few months later, and her sister said she was in the state
mental hospital. People need more than a supplement to become truly well.

> The credible approach is to write a case report plus literature review and
> get it published. I suggest the topic of the literature review should be
> "low-cost, low-risk interventions to assist in diagnosing subtypes of
> schizophrenia".

"... for the Emergency Room physician." Yeah, I like that idea. I have some
ideas of people to work with.

Robert Whitaker has pointed out to the psychiatrists that their "science" is
paid for by the industry whose products they use [1]. He hasn't gotten very
far in the last 15 years.

[1] [http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/09/confessions-of-a-
trespas...](http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/09/confessions-of-a-trespasser/)

------
bluesign
I think the most important part is:

"Uninjured and resilient animals performed worse after the drug, but
chronically impaired animals responded with increased accuracy and less
impulsivity on the behavioral test."

~~~
JustUhThought
Yes, important for this study.

But, my experience with the broader classification of brain drugs and medical
professionals that prescribe them is that "unless it's broke don't ask to fix
it, and even then put whatever we tell you into your body and let's see ehat
happens."

There are some excellent studies showing modafinil to benefit all doctors when
performing while sleep deprived. Modifinil is pretty much as safe and
addictive as caffeine. Now, try going into a doctor's office with this info
and asking for a script. My experience is that 9 out of 10 times you'll be
seen to be displaying addictive behavior.

There are a bunch of drugs that, if properly taken, will do wonders for your
mental life. Intunive, selegiline, methylphenidate, to name only a few. But,
while it's legal to smoke, drink, watch tv, or eat yourself to death or into
depression, acting on your own to take these drugs could land you in jail.

If the US is so gung-ho on personal responsibility, let us take responsibility
for our actions then, and let doctors be partners, not parents. In an age
where inhanced mental or physical condition make an enormous difference in
ones quality of life, stop hamstringing us from taking action so we might
better ourselves.

~~~
M_Grey
A doctor is generally someone who is trying to maintain your current level of
health, or manage any issues with that health which do arise. They're not
there to take even minimal risks so that you can improve your working memory,
even if that risk is slight. Maybe there should be a new field of doctors who
aren't there to keep you healthy, who don't abide by the 'no harm' principle,
and who will happily prescribe you anything that hasn't been proven to be
dangerous.

It's not reasonable to expect that of doctors in their current position, with
their current professional and ethical framework however.

~~~
JustUhThought
Sports medicine? An entire sub-field of the profession dedicated to improving
performace _beyond_ average or baseline.

I think you missed half my point, as well. Doctors do take risks with
patient's persons all the time. The risks are often taken with the patient's
person over the doctor's credentials. My father is on 3 blood pressure meds
and hus doctor refuses to try a new regimine that would only require 1. Wtf.
The number of complications that are introduced with 3 medications is absurdly
risky, but the doctor won't risk a switch. And this is all covered during a 5
min conversation. People soend more time arguing with mechanics about
automobile work.

As a society we praise workaholics for being productive, look up to PhDs for
casting off years of relationships and life experiences in order to become an
expert, and put athletes on pedestals for pushing their bodies to the limit.
And even though for the vast majority of people for whom which increased
working memory and attention span would mean better education, better
professional results, and thus better pay, healthcare, and better general
quality of life, and we just shut down the conversation. No, we are told. You
can't. Discussion over. Period.

I say, f-ck that. If that's the nor, I challenge it. If that is because
doctors don't want to have the responsibility rest on them, I say lay the
responsibility with me.

~~~
M_Grey
So ask for a referral to a sports medicine specialist and see how it goes. I'd
point out though, that sports medicine is also the field that "protects"
athletes so well... so very well.

That said, whether it's a football player shooting cortisone and lidocaine
between kickoffs, popping opiates, or just having their concussions ignored
for decades... or someone who wants to work themselves to death, the outcome
is the same.

Regret and pain later in life, when you mature a bit and realize that your
supposed gains were not really worth it.

~~~
JustUhThought
I pointed to sports medicine specifically as a counter point to your claim
that doctors generally prrform only the function of getting one back to
normal.

And to say that "when I mature" I might choose differently... One can be
mature without being moribund. One can be wise and still be progressive or
even radical. Most to your point though, you're still moralizing, suggesting
that when I know what you know, I'll finally grant that you were right all the
time.

Moralizing,,, enough already.

~~~
M_Grey
Nothing you mentioned in your previous post spoke to anything like wisdom,
just competitiveness. As for moralizing, there isn't a moral dimension to this
for you, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The bottom line is
just that doctors who are in the business of their patients' business don't
act in those patients' best interests from a medical standpoint.

If you want to achieve greatness with drugs at the potential expense of your
health, that's fine in my opinion, but it's crazy to think that a doctor
should help you.

~~~
JustUhThought
Sigh, exhaustion, your rhetoric is all over the place. I'd need a keyboard.
Alas, I've only my smartphone. Butttt, I would suggest you get your learn on,
study logic, and reread your comments.

------
alfon
"Two other drugs, atomoxetine and amantadine, which have been used to treat
impulse control disorders in patients, offered no significant benefits." \-
Ups

~~~
reitanqild
Eh, not all impulse control disorders come from brain damage?

------
watermoose
I've had ADD and slow executive function all of my life, along with a few
other problems.

I was in denial or at least unsure about it for years. I'd had docs diagnose
me with ADD, one who tested me extensively who though ADD was overdiagnosed
that said I didn't have it, and had tried natural remedies, attempted to self-
treat with caffeine- probably 5-12 cans of soda a day or several cups of
coffee- and had a few really bad experiences and reactions with the meds that
I tried.

Then I finally went to a psychiatrist that had been recommended to me by my
doc and an friend of a friend and took GeneSight tests for genetic markers
that indicate problems with different types of medications. I found one for
ADD that was recommended and was prescribed that. It was Vyvanse which is
amphetamine-based. It is lisdexamfetamine which is basically like a time-
released dextroamphetamine. It becomes dextroamphetamine when the body cleaves
off the lysine.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisdexamfetamine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisdexamfetamine)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextroamphetamine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextroamphetamine)

I took Vyvanse and within an hour, I had a lot more energy and felt like I was
"on". I didn't have any trouble focusing and it revved up my executive
function so I was not thinking as slowly. I felt like it was going to solve
all of my problems. However, even though I felt great and helped with some
depression I was having also, I had some negative interactions at work. After
getting "called into the office" after one of those, I knew I was going to
have to do something else. Away from work, though, it was a great medication
to be on, and since it was time-released, so I only had to take one in the
morning. I still don't think it's a bad med.

I went back to the psychiatrist. She put me on Evekeo. It contains 50%
levoamphetamine salts and 50% dextroamphetamine. On it, I can focus on what
I'm doing like what I think a normal person does- or maybe better. I still
will hear what others are saying and get distracted, but when I want to, and
with help of music, I can really focus on my work. I can even focus more that
I think that I could when I was younger and ADD wasn't affecting me as much. I
still feel a little slower and am considering taking it and a smaller dose of
dextroamphetamine. For me, it's a little like the real-world clear pill from
Limitless.

I think eventually what I'd like to be on would be a combination of
lisdexamfetamine and levoamphetamine (or a time-released version of it). It's
possible that the L-lysine of lisdexamfetamine was also having some positive
affects:
[https://www.drugs.com/npc/lysine.html](https://www.drugs.com/npc/lysine.html)

~~~
Klathmon
The way you talk about it exactly mirrors my experience. I have ADD as well,
and I take Adderal-XR. Without it I'm scattered, "double back" on my thoughts
a lot, can't focus, and generally have no motivation.

With it I'm a different person. I can focus, I can finish a thought process,
I'm motivated, things become clear. I can actually "keep up" with others in
"normal life", and it makes me a great programmer.

It really does feel like the magic pill from limitless.

Now, I tried alternatives when I was younger, and none really worked that
well. Vyvanse put me to sleep, concerta (sp?) Didn't work at all. adderal-xr
worked, but the "come down" sucks, it ruins my appetite, and its almost
impossible to get around here (every place never has it).

I'm afraid to start trying others as I feel entirely useless without my
medicine, and I know that because of the legal issues around these drugs,
trying one out but keeping my backup of my old medicine is not going to fly.
So I just deal with it.

~~~
danneu

        > Vyvanse put me to sleep, adderal-xr worked, but the "come down" sucks
    

Adderall does have a bad come down. Often depressive even on low XR doses.

Vyvanse is still amphetamine, so if it put you to sleep, are you sure you took
enough?

20mg Adderall XR is about equivalent to 50mg Vyvanse, which is what I take.

Everyone I know switched from Adderall to Vyvanse and we all report the same
thing -- much more gradual curve throughout the day and far less depressive on
the come down. I'd consider Adderall XR to be a real tweak compared to Vyvanse
and far less therapeutic for a day-to-day drug.

~~~
Klathmon
I may be mixing them up, I was around 15 when I last "experimented" with the
different drugs.

I might talk to my doctor about my options next time I'm in there. The
comedown doesnt bother me all that much, but I think it is starting to bother
my wife as I can get a bit "cranky".

------
nomoral
Or terrible psychosis

