Abnormal brain function after drugs

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161005160733.htm

And lower IQ.

Duh.

Since the time of Oscar Wilde, the media has tried to push drugs as something only intelligent people “try”. OK, “Try”, first off, that’s not possible.

You are a biochemical in/out machine. There is no Try. This isn’t a fucking cheese sample.

Try to put porridge in your gas tank. It isn’t supposed to be there. It throws the otherwise working parts off. Can you arrange a deep clean for your brain? No.

One meal can give you food poisoning or an infection that won’t quit. This is easy to diagnose because it’s gut. One instance of drug use can and does damage you. It may not kill you, but like puffing on one fag doesn’t instantly KaPow you with lung cancer, it does always damage you.

Something something artistic 2deep4u Byron. I’m sure the pre-existing mental illness and self-medication had nothing to do with it.

Nope. There is no evidence for that ‘genius’ connection, it’s purely anecdotal. The lazy people want to blame the drugs for less-than-ideal performance failure, a common form of self-sabotage. Do smart people sabotage out of peer pressure?

They commonly cite openness, a personality trait that smart people can be ever so slightly higher on. This is because it basically looks for intellectual curiosity, it’s a confound of the variable.

No, it doesn’t mean that ‘open’ people are smart, it isn’t truly connected.

Not to mention, but I’m gonna-

People self-rate on openness, can you imagine if we did that with IQ?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2805551/

Relatively little is known about the neural bases of the Big Five personality trait Openness/Intellect. This trait is composed of two related but separable aspects

Intellect was also correlated significantly with scores on tests of intelligence and working memory capacity, but the association of Intellect with brain activity could not be entirely explained by cognitive ability.

instead?

Look at a related variable, something easy to measure. e.g.

The higher someone’s IQ, the older they are when they lose their virginity.

I don’t think they’re smoking pot. Somehow. This is just the new trendy thing to smoke anyway, look at tobacco rates for how much Millennials despise something with health warnings attached. Tricked their grandparents though.

Look at the cluster of finding. Look at related variables.

They might just say, Oh that’s it, no other effects on a person?

In adults you can damage the frontal connections. This happens with any addiction including porn and is called hypofrontality, there is reduced activity in the reasoning… levels (which are where most of the IQ stuff happens).

Well, why would pro-abortion anti-natalists be telling us to do it?

http://www.parenting.com/fertility/infertility/smoking-marijuana-may-morph-sperm-affect-fertility

This along with advanced paternal age.

Both increase mutations.

It isn’t women trying to conceive who need to be teetotal and off drugs for as long as possible (ideally never starting), there is far more cause for men to do it. Look up advice for men trying to conceive, it says exactly this.

If anything, the rules are more stringent for men.

Why?

Because it’s their sole contribution to the baby-making process.

The work comes years beforehand.

This is genetic.

Since men process sperm repeatedly, constantly, any damage from any point in their life is present and consequent on their present sperm. However, it’s hard to discern clear medical causation beyond a few months because we’ve yet to find a suitable method, not because it isn’t there. FYI, you can’t really use sperm beyond ten years, more like five would be pushing it. It isn’t a magical technology.

Sperm is purely epigenetic in men because it is one of the few body parts that constantly refreshes with a completely new code, new switches off or on. It would be immoral to damage and mutate babies deliberately to prove this.

 published in the Human Reproduction journal — researchers looked at sperm samples of 1,970 men from various fertility clinics in the United Kingdom. The scientists examined how smoking and drinking habits, as well as other lifestyle factors, such as BMI, medical history and the type of underwear worn, affected sperm

Okay, you might think, but most of them are fine?

You don’t have any particular medical problems? You can afford to?

Not so.

Of the men studied, 1,652 produced “normal” samples of sperm, meaning that more than 4 percent of their sperm was the right shape and size. The remaining men’s sperm was shown as “abnormal.”

A lot of men have rendered themselves infertile and don’t even know it.

There’s no such thing as free love, look at the Boomers suddenly getting pathogenic cancers.

Is it any coincidence that such drug use is common among already-low IQ populations?

How about the undeniable link to high time preference, inversely associated with IQ?

___________________________________________________________

The ONLY link found of IQ to drug use is childhood IQ.

https://www.thefix.com/content/iq-and-drug-use

Yep, they’re basically lobotomising themselves.

Fridge horror?

Once the neurons are pruned, they’re dead. They’re gone. You cannot get them back.

Is that because drugs=good or some other explanation, like a society that hates smarts and teaching systems that imprison them until they’re eighteen?

Where’s the adult (25+, in brain terms) IQ connection?

Anyone?

Study: Placebo often has same effect as ‘real’ treatment

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062599

Placebos and treatments often have similar effect sizes. Placebos with comparatively powerful effects can benefit patients either alone or as part of a therapeutic regime, and trials involving such placebos must be adequately blinded.

Might wanna call up the homeopaths, at least water is cheaper to produce.

We all have those days, months.... YEARS.

I demand biology for proof of your mental illness. BP shifts would be sufficient, damn, anything to distinguish you from a method actor. 

Study: Serotonin theory of depression wrong (antidepressants v placebo)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/

The serotonin theory is as close as any theory in the history of science to having been proved wrong. Instead of curing depression, popular antidepressants may induce a biological vulnerability making people more likely to become depressed in the future.

However, the overdiagnosis problem means that what we call ‘mild depression’ might just be the regular human blues and resolve itself.

Manosphere wrong on evolution again

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/the-science-of-sex-most-important.html

I mentioned parental choice obliterates most of their theories. In favour of Dad-types. In evolutionary terms, the man who reproduces is the Alpha. Notches count for nada. It’s like the spergs who record a tally of all the sexual acts they’ve done with a woman. Like, do you want a medal? It’s somewhere here just check the evolution tag, probably. Maybe the little girls marrying creepy old men myth.

No matter how much evidence stacks against their silly little notions of supremacy, they’ll never admit they’re being unscientific. Sometimes, we’re worse than the feminists.

This aims to be a neat summary. Neat explanations are frequently superior.

The system of parental sexual choice seems to be unique to humans – which makes it a matter of exceptional biological interest: we may be the only species that has not evolved to choose our own mates.

<laughs in CH’s direction>

…Another way of describing this is that parents screen or filter prospective spouses – and individual preferences only work within this pre-screened and filtered population. Consequently, modern men and women are not adapted to select a partner from an unscreened population – and not equipped with the proper instincts to assist their choice; so they are vulnerable to deception and exploitation.

Much like a…. game….

…In sum (and in terms of their biological fitness) modern men are too worried about working hard, and not worried enough about meeting and impressing individual women.

The opposite of MGTOW. (lmao)

So men and women who are apparently, in biological and historical terms, extremely well-qualified as potential husbands and wives, remain unmarried and childless in large and increasing numbers.

Social Alphas.

…Another omission is the role of intoxication by alcohol and drugs. Much of modern sexual behaviour is initiated in parties, bars and nightclubs; and occurs more-or-less under the influence of intoxicants – and this in itself deranges delicate brain functioning and destroys the benefits of behavioural adaptations that may have taken centuries or millennia to evolve.

An intoxicated person is maladaptive.

The first thing a traditional society would do is ban nightclubs.

“A lot of what is published is incorrect” ~ The Lancet

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I’m not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”— chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government’s payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—ouched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations…..

Oh, I have stories about Chatham House.

deanwinchester supernatural wink flirty hey hello nice

Is the Pill for women as bad as steroids for men?

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/time-to-take-another-look-at-the-pill

So, if widespread steroid use is discouraged for men, why haven’t the neurological effects on women of the steroid-based contraceptive pill been studied just as thoroughly? After all, the pill is the principal artificial means for controlling population and is currently being used by 100 million women each year. This includes many girls who have just entered puberty. Its cumulative effect could have a significant impact upon society….

Infertility? STD rise? It’s all about endocrine balance.

…In a challenging article in the open source journal Frontiers in Neuroscience, three Austrian researchers argue that 50 years after its introduction, it is time to assess what the chemistry of the pill does to the female brain.

oh no oh dear hides facepalm double
51 years too late.

Their survey of the literature suggests that the effects of the pill vary considerably with age and individual physiology. Finer-grained studies are needed to assess the precise effects of steroids on cognition and emotions and whether their effect is “feminizing” or “masculinizing”.

For instance, it is widely accepted that the pill affects women’s moods. In most women its use seems beneficial, but sometimes it is associated with increased rates of depression, anxiety, fatigue, neurotic symptoms, compulsion and anger. And these studies may be too positive because depressed women may have dropped out of trials. Most studies have focused only on depression, while other dimensions, like anger or empathy, have hardly been studied. So research into the effects of the pill upon emotions is far from adequate.

One particular area of concern is the pill’s effects upon teenagers. The prefrontal cortex of the brain appears to be one target of structural changes in women who use the pill. But this is an area of the brain which is not fully developed until a woman’s early 20s. What impact will early contraceptive use have upon teenagers? There is no clear answer.

Don’t give them it. That’s the medically ethical thing to do, but the feminists would go apeshit at protecting women.

The authors are not scaremongering. They don’t even seem to have any ethical objections to using the pill. They simply set out the state of current research and point out that there are significant gaps in our knowledge…..

Maybe in history books they’ll blame this for the lack of female interest in STEM. Innate biological determinism is impossible, you know, because that would affect all kinds of things, such as drug response!

The (depression) drugs don’t work

http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/07/ssris-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/

I always make sure to ask a hipster SJW which depression meds she/he is on. Always SSRIs.

Why don’t they work, you ask?
I’m so glad you did. You see, psychology likes to bullshit its way to any plausible sounding causation without doing the Real Science of actually, you know, testing it. Against other explanations. Or beyond correlations. So with the big ($$$) problems like the umbrella ‘depression’ (which now, thanks to lax diagnosis, basically everyone has) there are at least a few Big Causes to be repeated ad nauseum while they can milk it for sweet, sweet funding juice.

Depression pills work on the Chemical Cause hypothesis.
Party line: Mental illness is caused by a neurochemical imbalance in the brain. Note the underline, we’ll come back to it later.

Sure, the brain has neurochemicals. Sure, they can be out of balance (and right themselves again over time, long live control groups). But did you know a normal person taking said pills can have their neurochemistry irreversibly altered? So they require harder and harder ‘medicines’ up to anti-psychotics, the strongest class, taken For Life? Funny that. Also, note the number of spree killers who had a history of this drug escalation in their files. It isn’t gun control laws. It’s the drugs. They don’t work – the way they should. They do work, to worsen already unstable people into psychotic episodes.

If you’re interested in a Berlin psychiatrist’s perspective, this woman is one of my favourite writers.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/12/major_depression.html
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2008/08/a_solution_to_the_pharma_probl.html
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/04/the_maintenance_of_certificati.html

Disclaimer: medications have their place IF i) they are thoroughly researched ii) they are correctly applied and iii) they are banned from people who do not demonstrate a need for them (hypochondriacs, drug-abusers and attention-seekers are more common to a psychiatrist than any other type of Doctor).

Why should I care, DS?
Because psychiatry is moving away from relatively harmless SSRIs (if you ignore the Prozac suicides) to the stronger stuff, anti-psychotics. If they can fuck up a schizophrenic, imagine what they can do to normal kids who came in through the door on the blatant BS of ADHD. Expect more shootings, or gorey school stabbings, even if all guns were banned, and other horrific crimes that will be passed off as Religion’s Fault. Did I mention most people brought into London’s prison system, also meet some criteria for schizophrenia? YupThe biology of these medications, and other drugs like ‘safe’ marijuana, are well known. They just don’t care.

To leave you with a brain teaser, consider this addendum to the QM study already cited;

Interestingly, there was no increase in risk of violence for untreated prisoners with delusional disorder. [control group, no drugs] Drug-induced psychosis was linked with a nearly twofold risk of violence following release, but this became non-significant following adjustments for drug and/or alcohol dependence**.

Do you understand more than the researchers now, given this article?