Eh… I’d need to look into this specific one more, and it’s a bit weirder than ‘normal’ given this is a drug for a common physiological symptom, but there was a lot of bad medical science done from roughly WWI to the turn of the millennium that nonetheless still underpins some of our commonly available medicines. Clinical psych has it especially bad, but the replication crisis is a problem everywhere.
Not like phenylephrine. It seems almost entirely a medico-political response to the methamphetamine issue. Which is not a valid justification for bad science and fraud on the part of the government and pharmaceutical industry. And (I mean this as politely as can be) we don’t need you to look into it, its a fact and established that this was bullshit. No history necessary, it was bullshit and snake oil and the reason I always asked for the real Sudafed when I had congestion (which is a rather rare issue for me, not sure across the population).
But I also have the better shit as an actual chronic prescription so I can’t credibly speak as much to this issue as those who use Suda more often for congestion.
Edit: does Adderall sort of cover the same benefit as pseudoephedrine in terms of congestion relief? I feel like that was one of its original (not sure about official) indications?
It feels like every time I go on the internet, I get reminded I need to be very explicit about what I’m saying. (Or develop a thicker skin. :P) Apologies if I sounded dismissive, I was just trying to say that I don’t know exactly how it was approved as I haven’t done the research to know, but that wasn’t surprised it had been, given the overarching issue with medical studies from the last century failing to be replicated. I’m not trying to imply that I’ll somehow dig up the absolute truth of the situation that was previously unknown, I just know I’m making a statement with incomplete information.
You unintentionally sounded like a relative of mine which humorously triggered my mildy-snarky “Well, ACKSHUALLY, no. BRB gotta defer to the FDA’s recent findings and publicity regarding phenylephrine”.
For context, this person sometimes fancies themself an expert when they don’t know anything or enough about a subject but still try to speak authoritatively as if their buy-in is essential to continue or speaking definitively on a given matter 😂
You’re good, just try not to caveat a strong or even controversial claim someone else makes if you don’t know you can dispute it right there like that. Like say that in your head, just don’t say the head part out loud cuz someone will rip you a new one if they’re grumpy.
But I wanted to be a little sassy and give you some cheek while still caveating that I wanted to be nice about it :)
Eh… I’d need to look into this specific one more, and it’s a bit weirder than ‘normal’ given this is a drug for a common physiological symptom, but there was a lot of bad medical science done from roughly WWI to the turn of the millennium that nonetheless still underpins some of our commonly available medicines. Clinical psych has it especially bad, but the replication crisis is a problem everywhere.
Not like phenylephrine. It seems almost entirely a medico-political response to the methamphetamine issue. Which is not a valid justification for bad science and fraud on the part of the government and pharmaceutical industry. And (I mean this as politely as can be) we don’t need you to look into it, its a fact and established that this was bullshit. No history necessary, it was bullshit and snake oil and the reason I always asked for the real Sudafed when I had congestion (which is a rather rare issue for me, not sure across the population).
But I also have the better shit as an actual chronic prescription so I can’t credibly speak as much to this issue as those who use Suda more often for congestion.
Edit: does Adderall sort of cover the same benefit as pseudoephedrine in terms of congestion relief? I feel like that was one of its original (not sure about official) indications?
It feels like every time I go on the internet, I get reminded I need to be very explicit about what I’m saying. (Or develop a thicker skin. :P) Apologies if I sounded dismissive, I was just trying to say that I don’t know exactly how it was approved as I haven’t done the research to know, but that wasn’t surprised it had been, given the overarching issue with medical studies from the last century failing to be replicated. I’m not trying to imply that I’ll somehow dig up the absolute truth of the situation that was previously unknown, I just know I’m making a statement with incomplete information.
No worries, dawg :)
You unintentionally sounded like a relative of mine which humorously triggered my mildy-snarky “Well, ACKSHUALLY, no. BRB gotta defer to the FDA’s recent findings and publicity regarding phenylephrine”.
For context, this person sometimes fancies themself an expert when they don’t know anything or enough about a subject but still try to speak authoritatively as if their buy-in is essential to continue or speaking definitively on a given matter 😂
You’re good, just try not to caveat a strong or even controversial claim someone else makes if you don’t know you can dispute it right there like that. Like say that in your head, just don’t say the head part out loud cuz someone will rip you a new one if they’re grumpy.
But I wanted to be a little sassy and give you some cheek while still caveating that I wanted to be nice about it :)
Peace! I love you guys, no worries!