soudiere
Note that you've gone from this statement, to acknowledging that they are regularly prescribed.
> Imagining a doctor writing a script for meth is pretty amusing, and maybe if that’s not a cool enough drug, they can hand out some crack or something.
Look, this is what I'm driving at, you appear to have some illusions that methamphetamine is significantly different than other amphetamines, or has some higher toxicity profile, more addictive, IDK I'm trying to get you to tell me your biases.
At that point, we can go look at the clinical literature and see what the evidence is.
Section 3 of this 2019 paper has stats on meth (desoxyn) prescriptions https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.23.22275471v...
I just weighed a couple 20mg orange adderall pills, they're each around 0.2-0.3 grams (my scale is only accurate to 0.1g)
There's a whole section, "Single-Isomer Versus Racemic Formulation", in this recent review article titled "Novel Formulations of ADHD Medications: Stimulant Selection and Management" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8412159/
The psychiatry handbook of Massachusetts General Hospital also uses racemic in this context https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97814...
Also, I can't find any data on what percentage of Adderall prescriptions are XR, have you found anything?
Looks like the LRx database would be the place to look from scanning this report for the DEA. https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/docs/IQVIA_Report_on...
For a given quantity, eg 1mg, of methylamphetamine vs d-amphetamine, the meth will release more serotonin?
For some reason the community refuses to apply a high of research and rigor to this topic, as if it's lesser than the non-sense we call computer science.
This entire debate is comical, the medical community's approach has been, by it's own admission, to throw various stimulants at ADHD. Methylphenidate, L-Amphetamine, D-Amphetamine, Lisdexamfetamine, etc.
By in large, everyone on this thread is pretending like there is a treasure trove of research demonstrating the superiority of Adderall (a racemic mixture of L & D amphetamine) to Methylamphetamine.
And that's just not true at all, there is a paucity of research on the subject. Meth = Bad because of the Germans and street drug users (who smoke an uncontrolled amount).
The Justice Department brought the lawsuit against Purdue Pharma, and distributors are scared.
If your goal was to get inebriated (drinking), would everclear be more effective than vodka?
Method of administration affects the time delay for euphoria. Smoke > Shooting > Eating.
People who do a lot of meth (or drugs outside of a prescription) tend to do as much as they can purchase and/or tolerate.
When you see someone who has a doctor (dealer) that gives them as much adderall as they want, illusions of differences between the two drugs rapidly fade. I'm talking about 100+mg a day, I've seen it happen, still have 50mg adderall pills from the person in the story.
If we just discussed this as d-amphetamine, l-amphetamine & methyl-amphetamine, the issue of interchangeability would be less confusing.
Talking about methamphetamine as a different molecule is not helpful, as Adderall itself is not a single molecule.
Which I suspect you know, as you mention different enantiomers of thalidomide. However you don't point out that adderall itself is a 3:1 racemic mixture of l and d amphetamine.
The real discussion here is the receptor binding affinity of the various targets of the drugs, and how they compare.
I certainly didn't have a scale to measure the dosage to match say a 10mg orange adderall pill.
By analogy, if you did a 75ml "shot" of alcohol each day, and then had a mixed drink one day, you would think it's a lot more potent.
Have a read here from people who work in the industry https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/16dur21/stimulant...
Yeah she probably had a vertical incision c-section, which clinically indicates a c-section for the next birth. You can read about it, the fibers heal better from a transverse incision.
You say "the baby will come out when they're ready", but what would you reply to "what if the baby wants to come out stillborn?"
When do you want forcible induction to be advised by the clinician? 39 weeks + 2-3 days for you to feel comfortable about the decision? Maybe a week if you're seeing a psychologist or like astrology?
Please take a look at the CDC data over the last century. In 1915 infant mortality was _10_ percent. Maternal mortality was around 0.8% in 1900.
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4838a2.htm
Are you seriously claiming that these things dropping an order of magnitude has anything to do with common sense, or not listening to doctors?
At that point every professional in the room is thinking "How do we get this guy the fuck out of here".
What are you even arguing about nuchal cords? They're common and we should ignore them? Who cares that the "complications" are fetal death?
You read some papers 20 years ago? Care to share any of them?
How confident are you about your hand waving claims around sunday golf games? Have you bothered to review the clinical literature around hour of birth and outcomes? Have you considered it may be related to the hospital being better staffed & rested during the day vs at night?
The study wasn't about the mental well being of the mother & birthing method, I'm sure you can find some literature on that (but it's not a valid criticism of the study methods).
Look at common complications, like postpartum hemmorrhage (usually > 500 ml blood loss). "estimated 76.7m delivery hospitalizations, 2.3 million (3.0%) were complicated by postpartum hemorrhage. From 2000 to 2019, the rate of postpartum hemorrhage increased from 2.7% to 4.3% ... proportion of deliveries to individuals with at least one postpartum hemorrhage risk factor increased from 18.6% to 26.9% ."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36701615/
Bottom line with a home birth, everyones training is around when things go smooth. Medical center is where people have thousands of hours of training on how to save your life.
The milk transfusions were shitty solution for lack of blood during a cholera epidemic, but the articles claims are false "In the late 19th century, milk was believed to be the perfect substitute for blood"
Soothing syrup did it's job (pain), we now shy from it because of perception of risks, but no one's ever run clinical trials on small amounts of alcohol + opioids on childrens gums showing any adverse outcomes.
Chloroform is an effective treatment for asthma, and the best we had before the discovery of beta-2 receptor agonists. See this paper for details on the physiology in mice.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5702405/
Cocaine (stimulant) is also likely a somewhat effective treatment for allergies. Take a look at this clinical trial which showed antihistamine + ritalin being a more effective treatment.
https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(04)00017-X/ful...
Malaria for treatment of syphilis also makes sense, it was incurable at the time, and the other options were mercury based, ineffective and had horrific side effects. Malaria was better than mercury.
Tobacco enemas can be thought of as a large nicotine delivery mechanism. Newspaper clip says it's helpful with meningitis, inflammation of the brain, nicotine is a vasoconstrictor, crosses the blood brain barrier. Maybe it did something, who knows.
Might be worth reviewing the ACOG's recommendations on post-term deliveries https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-op...
Gets one project off the ground by "following their gut", and it wasn't a disaster, concludes this is the way to go.
> Doctors and nurses make a big deal about things like "the cord is wrapped around the neck" when the baby isn't even using its throat to breathe yet. It still has the cord for everything they need.
This is just wildly ignorant, they're concerned about occlusion of bloodflow through the cord and/or the carotid artery.
> The morphology scans can't seem to decide if we're at 18 weeks or 19 weeks. Due dates my ass.
What are you upset about? The error margin being well within the stated limitations in current research?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030121152...