This totally blew me away.

Shannon - posted on 10/04/2010

Wow.. I didn't realize this... I live in Kalispell, MT.

Jessica - posted on 10/04/2010

Yea, Joshes dad was addicted to paracetamol and cough medicine. Every time he didn't have his 'fix' first thing in the morning, he would get a horrible cough and end up in bed with migraines. Once he came off them, the symptoms disappeared in a couple days and didn't come back.

Kate CP - posted on 10/04/2010

No problem. I had a friend who used to take Excedrin for headaches every day. He realized that if he took the Excedrin first thing in the morning he never got the headache; but if he waited until around lunch time he had a migraine. He was addicted to the caffeine and pain reliever combination. So he quit taking them, suffered a few days, and doesn't have headaches any more. :)

Petra - posted on 10/04/2010

Hmm, thanks for the correction, Kate & Jessica. I was associating addiction with getting high, of course, when thinking about this topic. I have heard of forming a dependency on nasal spray, but not over the counter pain killers. Thanks for the info :-)

Chatty - posted on 10/03/2010

I stand corrected.

Jessica - posted on 10/03/2010

Many substances can cause rebound effects (significant return of the original symptom in absence of the original cause) when discontinued, regardless of their tendency to cause other withdrawal symptoms. Rebound depression is common among users of any antidepressant who stop the drug abruptly, whose states are sometimes worse than the original before taking medication. This is somewhat similar (though generally less intense and more drawn out) to the 'crash' that users of ecstasy, amphetamines, and other stimulants experience. Occasionally light users of opiates that would otherwise not experience much in the way of withdrawals will notice some rebound depression as well. Extended use of drugs that increase the amount of serotonin or other neurotransmitters in the brain can cause some receptors to 'turn off' temporarily or become desensitized, so, when the amount of the neurotransmitter available in the synapse returns to an otherwise normal state, there are fewer receptors to attach to, causing feelings of depression until the brain re-adjusts.

Other drugs that commonly cause rebound are:

Nasal decongestants, such as Afrin (oxymetazoline) and Otrivin (xylometazoline), which can cause rebound congestion if used for more than a few days
Many analgesics including Advil, Motrin (ibuprofen), Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), Tylenol (acetaminophen or paracetamol), and some prescription but non-narcotic painkillers, which can cause rebound headaches when taken for extended periods of time.
Sedatives and benzodiazepines, which can cause rebound insomnia when used regularly as sleep aids.
With these drugs, the only way to relieve the rebound symptoms is to stop the medication causing them and weather the symptoms for a few days; if the original cause for the symptoms is no longer present, the rebound effects will go away on their own


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal

Google is your friend.

Kate CP - posted on 10/03/2010

Yes, you CAN become addicted to Advil or Tylenol. What you have to realize is that an addiction does NOT mean that you get a HIGH off of it. An addiction means your body cannot function properly WITHOUT it. Take, for example, caffeine. It's a non-narcotic but if you're addicted to it and you suddenly STOP using it your body cannot function "normally" without it (headaches, sleepiness, nausea, etc). So yes, you can become addicted to Advil and Tylenol. Just because you don't get a high off of it doesn't mean it's any less "addictive".

Petra - posted on 10/03/2010

Agreed :-)

Chatty - posted on 10/03/2010

It's definitely not physical - I just wanted to clear that up.

Petra - posted on 10/03/2010

I've never heard of Advil or Tylenol being addictive either - but the argument for same was made on this thread earlier. I'm sure there are people that abuse them, but its probably psychological dependence rather than physical.

Rosie - posted on 10/03/2010

i don't think you are wrong dana, i've never heard of that either. if they were addictive they wouldn't be legally sold over the counter.
as for people just going and getting more, it's extremely hard, if not impossible to do with addictive substances. after my husbands car accident, he was still in major pain 4-5 months later. none of the over the counter medications were working, and he asked for some more Lortabs. they refused to give them to him. it's not like these people with be given this substance more than once, from what i gather on the article.

Chatty - posted on 10/03/2010

Correct me if I'm wrong but things like Advil or Tylenol are not actually addictive - they're non-narcotic and you can not actually form a physical addiction to them?? You CAN overdose on them but you can't become physically addicted.

Petra - posted on 10/03/2010

Christina - people get addicted to Advil by repeated and prolonged use. The article clearly states a one-time application immediately AFTER traumatic brain injury to prevent seizures and the irreversible, devastating damage that stems therefrom. Poulsen also took care to stress that the dosage was key, and that the dosage he was discussing was LOW... the aim is not to get someone high, but to ward off even greater damage after a serious brain injury has occurred. This could be a great tool, if used properly, when there simply is no other option for soldiers while in the field.

I don't think morphine use is a moot point - it is highly addictive, injured soldiers are given morphine over and over and over, and there is no protocol other than "I'm in a lot of pain" for determining whether or not to administer it. It is readily available in med kits and hospitals and is a highly addictive substance. Morphine is one of many substances that are easily accessible for substance abuse, but no one would try to take it out of the medical profession because its benefits far outweigh the risks of addiction when it comes to medical necessity. For your average person, little to no danger of instant addiction after one, or even two, uses exists - but there will always be exceptions to the rule. This would be where administrative protocol would come in, and there is no way that a shot of meth would be put in a med kit without some strict regulations in place.

Again, I don't think a subjective desire to have some meth would be enough for medical staff to give you some. Displaying indicators that you have suffered a traumatic brain injury, in an emergency situation, would determine whether you receive the treatment or not. I would hope that soldiers wouldn't fake a brain injury during battle so that they can get high, while people are literally fighting for their lives around them.

Toni - posted on 10/03/2010

Christina, I was under the impression the meth would be administered AFTER the brain injury to help slow down the onset of damage by preventing seizures. So it would not be given as a preventative medicine (as in before injuries occur). So MOST people would NOT be given it.

Chatty - posted on 10/02/2010

I'm all for doing more research, just don't give me any. ;)

Jessica - posted on 10/02/2010

The article states ""This grant will help us optimize the dosing regimen and determine the maximum window the drug can be therapeutically applied," Poulsen said in a statement released by the school"

This suggests that they won't just be giving meth, they will be giving the MAXIMUM dose that can be THERAPEUTICALLY applied with the SMALLEST possible risk.

There are plenty of HIGHLY addictive drugs that are essential in modern day healthcare and to say that one (this) can't be used because it is addictive means all of these others shouldn't be used either. They are not going to be handing these out to anyone who asks, they are intended to be used as one time only drugs to help prevent seizures that cause considerable torment and pain long after any incident has occurred.

"I am in no way saying count out pharmaceuticals, I am saying they aren't always the only solution"

My point was that all other 'alternative' medicines that have been proven to work ARE being used. Everything else, in the words of Tim Minchin, has not been proved to work or has been proven NOT to work. You can't just give people random things to try and ease pain/heal wounds/cure illnesses. You have to have credible, provable (on repetition), scientific evidence that it works for that pain/wound/illness. How can we get that if research like this isn't funded. Not to mention there is NO guarantee that this drug will make it to market. There are specific rules and specific standards set that make it INCREDIBLY difficult for someone to purposefully put a detrimental drug on the market and even though some drugs have turned out to be harmful after their release standards have increased and a very reliable system is in place to detect any problems and immediately stop the use of pharmaceutical drugs world wide if they are proved to be harmful. So called alternative 'medicine' has no such safeguards and there are still lots of natural remedies that are still being sold worldwide, that have been proved to be harmful.

A lot of people have issues with pharmaceutical companies, they say they are trying to hinder alternative medicine but surely, wouldn't they just investigate these natural remedies to see if there is any profit to be made from them? So yes, while looking for alternatives is in everyone's interest, shouldn't we trust the people who have years of education, experience and specialities in this field, to look into these alternatives for us? To make sure they work, make sure they are safe and make sure they work as effectively as possible?

Chatty - posted on 10/02/2010

I'm like Liz and my opinion surrounding the use of meth is bias but this has definitely been an awesome debate!

Liz - posted on 10/02/2010

The addiction side is the issue. A small possibility of addiction is very different then a highly addictive substance. I am in no way saying count out pharmaceuticals, I am saying they aren't always the only solution. Melatonin is a homeopathic remedy I won't use or give to my kids because it can screw up your natural hormone production. Also prescription grade meth is highly addictive (ritalin) and is abused all the time just like many other prescription drugs.

I am well aware that what works for some people doesn't work for others and that is the case with both scenarios.

Liz - posted on 10/02/2010

Forgot to post the link
http://www.naturalnews.com/026057_homeop...

Jessica - posted on 10/02/2010

"If my kids are running a high fever they get Motrin or Tylenol, and after a surgery you bet I'm gonna take pain killers."



So the addiction side is not the issue with you then.



"But why do they continue to test and use dangerous drugs when there are other options."



Because, time and again, they are proven to be the most effective with the least side effects. They wouldn't be prescribed if there was a safer option available. Doctors will always start with the weakest and least problematic drug available.



"I am not a homeopathic fanatic but I do think natural remedies should be considered and regulated in the pharmaceutical world too."



They are, I turn you to Asprin and Tim Minchin...





"There are natural ways to treat head trauma in the different stages but until the FDA is willing to regulate these things they won't be considered for medical use."



I reside in the UK, and recently, doctors and surgeons alike voted to stop using homeopathic treatment on the nhs as there was little to no evidence that it works and compelling evidence that certain types of 'natural and holistic healing' were actually harmful.



I can understand the concern BUT when it really comes down to it, these 'dangerous' and 'addictive' drugs are, in their natural form... natural. Scientists and doctors will NOT be giving credit to research that uses the type of drugs that are available on the street. The drugs that are available on the street are almost always laced with other narcotics and even household cleaners. The stuff this article is talking about is a MUCH weaker form then is available on the streets, is MUCH safer, cleaner and IS regulated.

C. - posted on 10/02/2010

Ok, so I brought this up to my husband on the way home from his Battalion Luau. Before I could even explain how I thought about it, he took the words right out of my mouth. He said 'What the hell? Why do they think people get addicted to things??' And then he went on to rant and curse (mind you, my husband IS MILITARY. So this hits too close to home for him, as well.)



Look, if you're giving the meth to the soldier BEFORE he/she has a traumatic brain injury, it MAY prevent seizures.. BUT, what if they never get injured?? You're giving them METH for absolutely no reason at all.



Secondly, don't freakin' tell me that you won't be able to get addicted to a LOW DOSE OF METH, when people can freakin' get addicted to ADVIL!!!!!!!!!!

Liz - posted on 10/02/2010

Jessica-Obviously my opinion isn't going to change whether this research is done or whether the government approves its use or not, so I'm not denying anyone of anything. If my kids are running a high fever they get Motrin or Tylenol, and after a surgery you bet I'm gonna take pain killers. Many people have brought up some very good points on this subject and I can see the reason for the research. My opinion is very bias on this subject and I am trying to look at this with an open mind. But why do they continue to test and use dangerous drugs when there are other options. I am not a homeopathic fanatic but I do think natural remedies should be considered and regulated in the pharmaceutical world too. There are natural ways to treat head trauma in the different stages but until the FDA is willing to regulate these things they won't be considered for medical use.

Petra - posted on 10/02/2010

@ Heather - Oh, I'm not disputing that a soldier who presently has PTSD should not be getting a shot of meth. Bad, bad idea. Probably a bad idea to give him (or her) morphine or oxycodone or any other dependency forming drug as well. And I do agree that soldiers suffering from PTSD need a higher treatment priority so that they're not being deployed again before they've even had the chance to be treated.

This meth treatment hasn't even been approved yet, but so far I support the proposed use. I think if it does appear to have the same seizure preventing-properties in humans as its had in rats, they would need to create an air-tight protocol for administering it in the field. Sure, the possibility that it would be abused does exist, but I sincerely hope that it would be used only high-need, brain trauma scenarios where the possibility for severe brain damage actually exists. I doubt they can rock a quick MRI or CAT scan while in battle, so I have no clue what the prescription for its use would be - but I have faith that the military wouldn't just stick it in a regular med-kit and say if I guy is near a blast-zone, just give him this. If, as they theorize, one low-dose treatment could prevent the emergence of permanent seizures in brain trauma patients, the benefits could outweigh the risks.

Jessica - posted on 10/02/2010

I take it you don't take paracetamol, ibuprofen, anti-biotics or any other drug your doctor might prescribe you either as there is a possibility of addiction with all of them. I take it you are opposed to giving morphine to wounded soldiers or to patients in post surgery care since it is derived from the poppy seed, just like heroine? Totally dismissing this research without first understanding the aim and hopeful conclusion is ignorant. It is being tested therapeutically in the hopes that it will offer a new drug to combat serious illnesses and disorders. Disorders that seriously damage entire livelihoods, the ability to keep jobs and even marriages and families. Are you then denying these people the possibility of being able to control their lives because you don't agree with the research? Research that has been conducted by people with years of experience and speciality in this field over a news article that you happened to stumble across?

Kate CP - posted on 10/01/2010

"Kate I can understand that, however by the time these soldiers have recovered enough (from major brain injuries) to be able to go and get the drug illegally they would have de-toxed and would not have that physical need, would they?

Also can you become addicted to something that you do not know you have taken and never really wanted to take, and when you only had it once?

I know I am probably asking really stupid questions here, but if you don't ask..."

I don't think it's a stupid question. :) But, to answer your question: in most cases after 72 hours (give or take depending on individuals) the body will usually flush the chemicals out and the reaction the body has to them will usually subside. However, it is very possible to become "addicted" to something without knowing what that thing is. Your body will react to the LACK of the substance and cause you general discomfort such as sweats, headaches, nausea, vomiting, shaking, even fever and chills. When an addict is coming off of a substance it's a physical addiction they are fighting, not just the habit.

Liz - posted on 10/01/2010

This was 10 years ago, he doesn't drink and drive anymore thats for sure.

Toni - posted on 10/01/2010

Ah ok, that I didn't know, I suppose because I have never had to have any dealings with it, so I have never had to really think about it. I bet that was really hard, coma's are horrible, my FIL was put into an induced coma for 2 days and that was 2 of the worst days of my life, I hope your hubby is coping ok with his injury now.

Heather - posted on 10/01/2010

I agree with you Toni, but I will say that there are soldiers who do have a traumatic brain injury that do remain awake or for who the effects aren't seen until days later. I would want to know if they're going to administer the drug when side effects are seen or when the injury occurs. If they're giving the drug to forward operating units(like special forces) then they aren't going to have access to MRI's or CAT scans to determine if someone actually has a traumatic brain injury or if they were just knocked unconscious. I would worry that there's no oversight in the field.

Also, Petra, there are many soldiers serving now that already have PTSD and this could have some serious side effects for those soldiers.

Liz - posted on 10/01/2010

Not necessarily. People are put into induced comas for things like severe brain trauma, because they do wake up very quickly sometimes. I don't know if you read the post about my husbands injury but he was in an induced coma for six months after his accident and he actually woke up right after being resuscitated.

Toni - posted on 10/01/2010

If they are unconscious for an hour or two they couldn't have major brain injuries could they? Surely injuries that lead to repeated convulsions mean you are comatosed, right? And they want to test the drug because it has shown protective benefits to convulsions (that's what I took from the article anyway). Please correct me if I am wrong.

Liz - posted on 10/01/2010

Toni-Well I have to admit I didn't look at it from that point of view exactly. I would also assume major head trauma would knock you out but thats not always the case. If they are unconscious and it lasts for a week or even a day, they probably wouldn't know the difference, therefore the risk of addiction would be nonexistent, but unconscious for an hour is a whole different story.
I sent my brother this article and he is in the Army. I'm curious to see what he thinks.

Toni - posted on 10/01/2010

Kate I can understand that, however by the time these soldiers have recovered enough (from major brain injuries) to be able to go and get the drug illegally they would have de-toxed and would not have that physical need, would they?

Also can you become addicted to something that you do not know you have taken and never really wanted to take, and when you only had it once?

I know I am probably asking really stupid questions here, but if you don't ask...

Kate CP - posted on 10/01/2010

A physical addiction can happen whether or not a person is conscious. The "high" is really only a side effect of any drug.

Toni - posted on 10/01/2010

I have a question, if the meth is administered while the patient is unconscious (I would assume that the brain injuries would cause them to fall unconscious?),and only given a low dose once, HOW will they become addicted to it? They won't even remember taking it.



I'm all for the research continuing, anything that may help save the lives of troops is worth investigating imo.

Petra - posted on 10/01/2010

Liz - I didn't mean a non-issue altogether, just in the sense that the application of the meth would be long before PTSD fully sets in - my bad, sorry for not clarifying.

Liz - posted on 10/01/2010

I don't think PTSD is a non issue because many soldiers who never even get injured suffer from it. The military also continues to send soldiers into combat knowing they suffer from PTSD.



I have too much personal history knowing how dangerous even one use is. I was addicted after one use of some pretty crappy meth. After 8 years of not using my heart still starts racing, I can still taste it and its like I can feel it in my blood when I come across someone who is using. I am still addicted to it but I am able to not act on the urge to do it. I know many people who haven't been able to stop and I know too many people who have lost everything because of the addiction and still can't stop.

Petra - posted on 10/01/2010

Christina - I'm sure he has a governmentally granted license to make and use meth in his federally funded study on the medicinal application of meth. I'm going to assume that he or one of his fellow scientists is cooking it up in a lab to ensure the necessary controls in empirical scientific research.

And no, the article says that rats with induced strokes were then treated with the meth, which has prevented the onset of seizures with a one-time, low-dose application. The strokes were induced in order to treat the subjects with methamphetamine to see its potential preventative properties.

The PTSD is kind of a non-issue here as it develops after the trauma is suffered - the meth application discussed in the article is used immediately in the field when no other medical facility or treatment is available. They are not talking about ongoing treatment of brain injuries using meth. They are talking about emergency, one-time use after catastrophic brain injury in the field (if field is the correct term). It is not being used to treat pain - that's what the morphine in the first aid kits is for.

Heather - posted on 10/01/2010

I think my biggest concern is how it will effect soldiers with PTSD or undiagnosed psychological problems. I believe it was Tah that said it, but our soldiers don't even have a choice about getting a flu shot, so I have no faith that they'll be given a choice about participating in the "study".

Meth is also one of the most addictive drugs available today. Just one use can hook you, much like heroin. While I'm aware that this will be medical grade meth and not contain all of the "home cooked chemicals", people with addictive personalities will be highly susceptible if exposed. There will have to be all kinds of regulations and oversight by soldier's advocates in order for me to get behind this.

Meghan - posted on 10/01/2010

Wow. I'm from the Flathead Valley, one of the largest meth areas in Montana. This just blows me away. I see so many meth cases come through the ER or outpatient services. I have personally seen the ravages this drug can do on a person and their life. I'm not sure if I could have an unbiased opinion about this. I think the drug is terrible. And I think what it does to people is terrible. But. I also support our troops. If it does have a chance of helping them in a trauma situation that is potentially life-threatening, then how could we deny it? Ugh, it's difficult. More research, definitely.

Charlene - posted on 10/01/2010

Stroke is a possible side effect to birth control.. it's also a possible side effect of Aleve and many other medications...

And this isn't meant to treat pain, from what I can tell, but to prevent further brain damage/trauma.
So, no worries of giving it out when it's not needed. It's not like someone could just walk in and say 'Hey, I think my brain is being damaged further, give me some meth.' :P

Liz - posted on 10/01/2010

Christina-Fourteen states and DC have enacted laws that legalize medical marijuana: 13 of those 15 places you can legally grow your own.

C. - posted on 10/01/2010

"If this is the best, maybe even only option to date, for protecting the brain after trauma, then I fail to see how it is a step back?"

Didn't it say in the article that it could CAUSE stroke? I don't see how it's the best, then.

'Sure, there's no pain.. But here, have a stroke.'

Sorry for my sarcasm. I do appreciate your enlightening posts (being sincere, not condescending). I just fail to see how it's really the best medicine.

Even if it is a one time, low dose version. What if the patient wants to abuse the drug and just complains about pain that really isn't there just so they can have more? This is why I don't think it's a good idea.. There are already too many medicines out there that people become addicted to-- And they lie to get it just so they can get their fix. Why make this available? I just don't understand the reasoning behind it.

Charlene - posted on 10/01/2010

They became illegal, a lot of them anyway, because people started abusing them and still abuse them. That's possible with a lot of things though...

And you can still get licenses and prescriptions to use many of them, because they are still valuable for medicinal purposes.

If this is the best option to date, for protecting the brain after trauma, then I fail to see how it is a step back?

There are ways to administer treatment like this without the patient becoming addicted to it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that it's a one time, low dose version, which already reduces the risk of addiction.

C. - posted on 10/01/2010

Sorry, Kate! I haven't had much sleep lately :/

Ok, I'll try to keep everyone's name straight this time..

PETRA lol.. That still doesn't mean it's legal just b/c he's making it. Just wanted to point that out. People grow Marijuana all the time. Doesn't make it legal (unless you're in California now and you're a 'doctor').

Thanks for that, Charlene. I didn't realize there were more that had been used for medicinal purposes before.

But I still feel strongly that, if there's an illegal drug used for medicine, it's wrong. Obviously there's a reason they became illegal in the first place after they were first introduced as medicine, right? Why take steps backwards.. They've already apparently made those mistakes in the past, that's why you can't get them by prescription anymore- only illegally. Why try it again when the first outcome was bad?

I know history repeats itself, but with something so dangerous???

Liz - posted on 10/01/2010

Wow this took of fast.

Actually Methadone is used to treat heroin addicts.





Meth is a drug that they will probably find is not good to give to someone with PTSD and considering how many soldiers have PTSD it is scary.

After a severe car accident my husband has a frontal lobe injury, PTSD, seizure (that only happen when he has used meth in any amount) and chronic pain. He was missing a large chunk of his skull and had to learn pretty much everything all over again. The fact that hes still alive is a miracle, but when he has used any kind of upper, even energy drinks, his PTSD goes crazy and even a car door closing hard makes him jump when he looking right at ti watching it happen. Besides that, it doesn't really matter how low grade it is made, its still highly addictive. I think they have other options and yes they probably just stumbled across this by accident but I still can't agree with it.

Charlene - posted on 10/01/2010

Here are four more for you then..



Ecstasy

MDMA was first synthesized in 1912 by Merck chemist Anton Köllisch. At the time, Merck was interested in developing substances that stopped abnormal bleeding.



Special K:

Ketamine is a drug used in human and veterinary medicine developed by Parke-Davis (today a part of Pfizer) in 1962. Its hydrochloride salt is sold as Ketanest, Ketaset, and Ketalar. Pharmacologically, ketamine is classified as an NMDA receptor antagonist.[2] At high, fully anesthetic level doses, ketamine has also been found to bind to opioid μ receptors and sigma receptors.[3][4] Like other drugs of this class such as tiletamine and phencyclidine (PCP), it induces a state referred to as "dissociative anesthesia"[5] and is used as a recreational drug.



PCP

Phencyclidine (a complex clip of the chemical name 1-(1-phenylcyclohexyl)piperidine, commonly initialized as PCP), also known as angel dust and other street names, is a recreational, dissociative drug formerly used as an anesthetic agent,



LSD:

Introduced by Sandoz Laboratories, with trade-name Delysid, as a drug with various psychiatric uses in 1947, LSD quickly became a therapeutic agent that appeared to show great promise.

Petra - posted on 10/01/2010

Christina - he's probably making it in his lab.

Charlene - posted on 10/01/2010

No, Christina...
Like someone mentioned before, it was probably discovered when he was testing the drug for something else. Perhaps he was using it on rats in an attempt to test another drug to be used in place of methadone.
It's not like he picked up the drug in some back alley so he could have a little fun on rats.

Kate CP - posted on 10/01/2010

Uhhh...I'm not Petra, but thanks for playing. And name one drug that wasn't originally used for it's medicinal qualities. I dare you.

C. - posted on 10/01/2010

He has a license.. NOW. But how did he obtain that license if he didn't try it with the substance illegally to prove his research was 'sound'? That's what I'm trying to get at, Charlene. You have to prove something like that before people will give you a license to experiment further.



Oh my God, Petra.. We ALL know that Coca-Cola originally had Cocaine in it. Where did you think the 'Coca' in Coca-Cola came from??? But I'm saying NOT ALL illegal substances were used FOR MEDICINAL PURPOSES BEFORE they were illegal. There are many illegal substances out there, not just the few you mentioned.