society has long shunned athletes for using performance-enhancing chemicals. congress has even gotten into the act by holding hearings on baseball and steroids. however, what about the doping that goes on in other fields - and in our everyday lives? you may even be doping up if we transfer baseball's definition to mental enhancers such as caffeine.

as zack lynch correctly points out, brain doping will only become more prevalent. it's one of the first things i noticed about my fellow graduate students. i was shocked to get texts during midterms asking, "one more paper... anyone have adderall?" students were very open about their adderall use - and most people are open about their use of caffeine as a cognitive booster. dilbert's gary larson said "that one key ingredient [for idea generation] is caffeine." mathematician paul erdos once said, "a mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems."

the only distinctions between caffeine and adderall, so far as i can tell, are duration and effectiveness. the intentions and outcomes are similar: altertness, focus. and steroids are not a muscular equivalent to these cogniceuticals simply because the effects of steroids last longer, for multiple games. so, perhaps the only reason why we're against some performance-enhancing drugs is because, quite simply, they work better than others? is that a rational exclusion criterion?

Labels: drugs, neuroscience

folks with a damaged insular cortex are able to stop smoking immediately and permanently. the insula is on the left side of the brain and is involved in emotional processing, hinting that addiction may be primarily emotional after all. interestingly, studies show that it's this part of the brain that is altered during extensive meditation (though the insula is large and has numerous functions).

a million questions follow from this. what is it about the insula? does this work with all additions? would it work for non-drug addictions such as shopping (a personal question)? will surgery or new drugs targeting the insula replace nicorette and hypnotism? does this poke holes in or confirm the disease theory of addiction?

individual differences in insular activity, linked to genetics, may also help us understand more about the addictive personality.

reference: Nasir H. Naqvi, David Rudrauf, Hanna Damasio, Antoine Bechara. Damage to the Insula Disrupts Addiction to Cigarette Smoking. Science. 2007 Jan 26; 315(5811):531-534.

Labels: drugs, neuroscience

that's right. the top US cash crop is marijuana (PDF). notwithstanding my skepticism regarding accuracy figures from an illegal substance (and note the report's source), this is interesting. it makes me wonder why the government doesn't just make it legal and tax the hell out of it. i'm sure that would curb its use a million times more than their prohibition.

some quotes from the ABC article:

"Just because it's a good cash crop doesn't mean you should legalize and tax it." -- DEA

despite massive eradication efforts at the hands of the federal government, "marijuana has become a pervasive and ineradicable part of the national economy."

The study estimates that marijuana production, at a value of $35.8 billion, exceeds the combined value of corn ($23.3 billion) and wheat ($7.5 billion).

if the United States legalized marijuana, the country would save $7.7 billion in law enforcement costs and could generated as much as $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like alcohol or tobacco.

perhaps this report will make people wonder: if pot is such a huge industry, and so many people do it, is it really that deleterious?

so why not legalize? here are just a few reasons. we have an entire governmental industry and propaganda machine built to serve the drug war. an entire governmental industry = lots of jobs, and it's hard to muster support for such a huge cut. this propaganda machine funded a lot of scientists and government officials to say lots of crazy things, which brings egos into the equation. and at the risk of sounding like a paranoid nut, many privacy infringements are rationalized by the drug war that would be made less justifiable if it were no more. although, the patriot act may be able to substitute now...

Labels: drugs, political

more than a year after my post on mexoryl, the best UVA filter available, and how to obtain it from canada or europe, the FDA has given it their all-powerful stamp of approval. rather, approval to advertise - but only SPF 15.

although it's good news, i'm still glad i stocked up in toronto a couple weeks ago; SPF 15, i'm afraid, just won't do it for my irish self.

Labels: drugs, economics, political

the FDA is biased, according to several new reports. the british medical journal, for one, notes that data presented to them obscured the suicide risk of SSRI antidepressants. john grohol writes an excellent review of the article.

grohol also notes a USA today article stating that studies by big pharma tend to fare more favorably, which should not come as a surprise. whoever funds a study will undoubtedly influence the results, possibly unintentionally - it is easy to do. simply the kind and phrasing of questions can bias research.

what surprises me is that either of these reports surprises anyone. it is not fair to expect unbiased science. scientific studies are not the word of God (or "nature") but rather acts of humans, humans with motives and biases. i just don't understand how we could forget that. we must take all studies in that light, although we can’t say it every time because, well, we are lazy and it is a pain to repeat oneself. a healthy skepticism about all things trying to exert power over us, whether by scientific authority or by political power, is necessary - and only partially because they may be wrong.

Labels: drugs

in a pair of studies recently published, it seems that depressed pregnant women are, well, doomed. new research suggests the common belief that pregnancy alleviates depression was just wishful thinking:

In all, 43% of the women they followed relapsed into depression during pregnancy, but the rate of relapse was much higher for women who discontinued their medication (68%) than for those who stayed on it (26%).

the major concern with taking any drug while pregnant, as we all know, is that it is consumed by the fetus, risking birth defects. it is known that many psychiatric drugs cross over, but new research released last month notes that drugs are also present in the amniotic fluid, which is absorbed by the fetus in a number of ways including "respiration" into the lungs and transcutaneous absorption.

so it appears that pregnant women and their unborn are faced with an unpleasant catch-22: ride out pregnancy sans drugs and risk suicide, or take drugs and risk permanent birth defects. however, along with new and old evidence (albeit disputed) that therapy is just as - or more - effective and less prone to relapse than pharmaceuticals, perhaps women should flush that prozac and try therapy.

as a side note, i wonder if brain implants, recently rejected by the FDA, would transfer to the fetus at the same rate? perhaps not, because they may not enter the blood stream at high concentration. and if not, is the FDA banning one of the only methods many women have to prevent depression/suicide without risking their babies?

Labels: drugs, neuroscience, political

once upon a time, sunscreen only protected against UVB rays, the major cause of sunburn. however, scientists now believe that UVA rays may be the primary cause of skin cancer (and sun-related aging). most sunscreens available in the US still don't provide good UVA protection, however, even though the technology has been available since the early 1990s.

mexoryl sx, created back in 1993, may be the best uva sunscreen in existence. it's widely used in europe, south america, australia, and japan. there is only one acronym to explain why you can't buy it at your local store: FDA. it's unclear whether or not the FDA will actually approve it - if it does, it will likely do so this year.

FDAreview.org has a clear and concise explanation of why the FDA may be so cautious, even on simple items such as sunscreen: if i get skin cancer i can't really blame the FDA for it, because they have not done anything specifically to cause me harm. however, if mexoryl is approved and it causes me harm, i certainly can blame the FDA for allowing me access to dangerous chemicals.

what to do in the meantime? here are some links to sites where you can purchase UVA-protecting contraband now:

feelbest.com: canadian drugstore. all of the anthelios products have mexoryl sx in them.
candrugstore.com: another canadian drugstore.
skin care lab: a yahoo store (it's unclear to me why they can sell this stuff, as they're based in NY).

of course, the availability of these products online just illustrates the power of the internet revolution, and the further class stratification created by the government restricting access to products (i.e., poor people without internet access cannot get mexoryl, and are therefore arguably more at risk for skin cancer, even if they wished to prevent it by using sunscreen).

gracious hat-tippin' to vegetarian times magazine for the mexoryl sx info.

Labels: drugs, political

the multidisciplinary association for psychedelic studies (whom i've blogged about earlier), is holding an ebay auction to raise money to support its operational costs. much of their time is spent finagling government agencies to let researchers work with unconventional drugs such as ecstasy and marijuana.

some of the items for sale are – ah - interesting…

wired reports

Labels: drugs

there's a new pill - progenitorivox - and it's designed to cure anything and everything. that is, if you can take the side effects which include male lactation, deportation, bankruptcy, and hallucinations of a warbling canadian moose. check out the ad.

but progenitorivox isn't real of course; it's the design of the “consumers union.” the consumers union's objective is not to mock consumers and their serious health problems, such as erectile dysfunction and clinical depression, but rather to push legislation forcing pharmaceutical companies to make the results of their clinical trials public. their effort has been dubbed

the FACT [The Fair Access to Clinical Trials] Act, requiring drug companies to make public all the results of their clinical trials so we’ll know about potentially harmful side effects. And it must create an independent office of drug safety in the Food and Drug Administration to ensure quick action is taken when safety concerns are raised.

on the face of it, the act sounds innocuous - why shouldn't we outlaw certain drugs, which the act would eventually lead to, based on the results of a clinical trial? even putting aside the privacy concerns this raises, the act seems like a bad idea. i am leery of unpublished studies and studies not published in peer-reviewed journals, as is the case with most clinical trials. in general, i believe researchers share in this opinion. so, if it's not good enough for science, why is it good enough for law? criminalizing a sick patient's treatment preference based on a study done by a private company that has neither been replicated nor reviewed seems unjustifiable.

the new york times thinks it’s a great idea though, but does give drug companies a few lines of defense:

"It's a catchy jingle all right and good for a laugh," said Jeff Trewhitt, a spokesman for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, "but we really ought to be having serious conversations about how best to help doctors and their patients choose the right medicines."

via gawker, of all places.

Labels: drugs, social

although marijuana is legendary for inducing temporary memory loss, it appears the drug may help prevent a permanent - and terminal- variety.

reasearchers have discovered that marijuana's active component thc, a cannabinoid, may help prevent alzheimer's disease:

"The findings showed that cannabinoids work both to prevent inflammation and to protect the brain, says researcher Maria de Ceballos in a news release. That may set the stage for [cannabinoids'] use as a therapeutic approach for [Alzheimer's disease]."

alzheimer's rats given cannabinoids not only were able to learn where the control alzheimer's rats could not, but they also saw none of the precursors to inflammation, which causes much of the degeneration in alzheimer's. it's a shame that marijuana also makes us feel good, or else it might be considered a viable component of preventative care.

more on: alzheimer's, memory, marijuana, drugs that could help us if they didn't make us happy too

reference: ramírez, b et. al, prevention of alzheimer's disease pathology by cannabinoids: neuroprotection mediated by blockade of microglial activation. journal of neuroscience, 23 feb.

Labels: drugs, neuroscience

ecstasy may be the new medical marijuana, helping patients cope with their last days. it does not create the cloudy, sedated feeling that most painkillers do, and can calm fears, lessen suicidal thoughts, and aid communication with loved ones. but i'm afraid "medical methylenedioxymethamphetamine" just doesn't have the same ring.

the study is funded by the multidisciplinary association for psychedelic studies, whose mission is:

to sponsor scientific research designed to develop psychedelics and marijuana into FDA-approved prescription medicines, and to educate the public honestly about the risks and benefits of these drugs.

browse their website - who knew so many fun drugs could actually have utility (besides increased enjoyment)!

Labels: drugs

this month’s scientific american has a timley article about marijuana. i was horribly ignorant of most scientific research on the drug. the article's best quote:

Everyone grows a form of the drug, regardless of their political leanings or recreational proclivities. That is because the brain makes its own marijuana, natural compounds called endocannabinoids.

john p. walters himself produces thc-like substances, which likely is a source of great internal conflict and self-loathing. perhaps this invalidates the theory of cognitive dissonance. if scientists created an endocannabinoid pill, would it be illegal?

it's no surprise, however, that endocannabinoids exist. the mere fact that pot created psychotropic effects, illustrating that there were pot-receptors were in the brain, indicated that there was an endogenous chemical that acted on those receptors. however, marijuana studies did actually caused a major shift in how we think about neuron communication, which is summarized in the article. basically, before this landmark research, communication between neurons was believed to be one-way: from pre- to postsynaptic cell, carrying the signal on down the line. however, endocannabinoids proved that communication -inhibition, in this case- can actually occur in the opposite direction, having the effect of a neuron basically saying "do not disturb" to a cell trying to send it a signal.

one of the most fascinating parts of this history was, however, a study that bred mice lacking the endocannabinoid receptor. this means that the mice, among other things, are physically incapable of getting high. if getting high is so dangerous, why not throw money into learning how to breed all humans without the receptor? speaking of czar walters, perhaps i should fax the article to him as an fyi.

also, speaking of good ol’ j.w., check out his fascinating marijuana myths if you want some more “facts” about this dangerous schedule one drug.

Labels: drugs, neuroscience

a local man broke into the home of my ohio neighbor, dicky inscho, attempting to steal his money and marijuana. the man later returned, at which point dicky has gotten his shotgun and fired, killing the thief.

he called the police immediately. when the police arrived, they promptly hauled dicky, who is in a wheelchair and suffers from cerebral palsy, to jail for possession of marijuana. although marijuana is used to treat cerebral palsy, it's of course not legal.

the legality of his medicine seems to have already played a part in the media's treatment of the shooting. recent news reports have not painted dicky in a positive light, even insinuating that he was a drug dealer. had his medicine been legal, perhaps the reports would have skewed differently. i know this kind of thing probably happens all the time, it's just disturbing to be so close to it.

all your friends are thinking of you, dicky!

on a related note, good luck monday!

(vacuous) update: he's only been charged with one misdemeanor charge of drug possession, so far... officials were supposed to decide on additional charges yesterday, and we haven't heard anything else, which i guess is good news?

Labels: drugs

a fascinating tidbit in psychology today this month: placebos are nearly as effective as pharmaceuticals in many cases, particularly among children and those with mild depression. some of the data is shocking:

• in a zoloft trial, 59% of children improved on placebo, compared to 69% on zoloft.
• the response to placebos seems to be increasing 7% per decade.

theories as to why placebos are so effective abound. in young people and those with mild depression, it could be that the circuits aren’t as severely disrupted or ingrained and are therefore easier to correct, possibly simply by a trick of mind. the conundrum of why placebos are increasingly effective over the decades, however, is another question altogether. an interesting theory is that drug ads are convincing us that drugs are more effective, creating a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

besides an interesting bit of trivia, you may be asking, what’s the point? well. the fda requires drug companies to prove that their drugs have statistically significant effects compared to placebos. if companies can’t prove this, their drug will not be approved for sale in the us. with this phenomenon on the rise, with such startling results as those cited above, perhaps the fda will have to rethink what it calls an effective drug.

in addition, i wonder if drug marketing is actually improving the effectiveness of the drug, therefore providing a kind of public good?

Labels: drugs, misc. psych, neuroscience, social

today the fda rejected a surgical implant that had great potential to help those with chronic depression. although the fda's advisory committee gave the implant the go-ahead, it didn't pass muster with the fda itself. this issue brings up several dilemmas for free will. i haven't sorted them all out yet, so i'll think "aloud."

as for the device itself. fda-approved or no, utilizing an implant to control one's mood seems a drastic measure. i don't mean to be a luddite but it seems that this technology takes away critical choice for the individual, in that a mood is a kind of choice. of course thomas szaz or peter breggin would claim so. (i won't go into breggin's entire argument, but you can read it here.) it may be different for pharmaceuticals - although a pill controls mood during the time the drug is in the brain, that time span is much shorter. the individual has the choice to be drugged more frequently.

even if one surrenders to this line of reasoning (permanently drugged=bad), which is a stretch in itself, having free will to choose this is significant. can one opt to be a slave to a drug? certainly, esp. if the other choice is a life of despair or worse, suicide - good therapy is not an option either for philosophical or monetary reasons for some. the fda is withholding a possible - and possibly life-saving - remedy for a debilitating disorder. depression wrecks many people's lives, many people who for various reasons - including unstable lives and incomes - cannot take a pill every day.

is the fda being overly cautious? is it harming more than helping in this case, or would it be safer to wait and do more tests, risking the happiness and, not to be overly dramatic, lives of those who could benefit? to me it seems that the government should allow patients to make that cost-benefit analysis with a physician.

for more info on psychiatric drugs vs personal sovereignty, check out the group MindFreedom. i'm not associated with them in any tangible way, but they're interesting...

Labels: drugs, neuroscience, well being