Talk:Adderall

Generic term for Adderall?

Evening all. Just wondering if there is a shorter generic term for Adderall (so that there is not the need to use a proprietary brand name to refer to the compound? Perhaps Amphetamine-dextroamphetamine? Not being a chemist or a doctor not sure if this would be appropriate at all. Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 17:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

See Special:Permalink/854757323#cite_ref-Adderall_4-0 / Special:Permalink/854757323#cite_note-Adderall-4. The most commonly used term to refer to mixture of amphetamine salts used in Adderall and Mydayis is "mixed amphetamine salts", but that's not an "official" non-proprietary name (e.g., a USAN or INN). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Here they call it Kiddy speed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.107.153.65 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It's an American proprietary witches' brew of different amphetamine compounds. The US is much happier to refer to medications by proprietary names than other places because of the way the healthcare system works (or doesn't) there. --Ef80 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Deviant personality characteristics

Among these students, some of the risk factors for misusing ADHD stimulants recreationally include: possessing deviant personality characteristics (i.e., exhibiting delinquent or deviant behavior), inadequate accommodation of special needs, basing one's self-worth on external validation, low self-efficacy, earning poor grades, and suffering from an untreated mental health disorder.[70]

Examples of deviant personality characteristics include: deviant behavior - Seems quite open to interpretation, and I'm not sure "deviant" is the proper term to use when classifying these individuals.

Transclusion and fragility ==

This article is built by transcluding many things -- article sections, templates, and so on. That makes it quite fragile. I raised the issue over at Talk:Amphetamine#Transclusion, and maybe you'd like to participate there if you have ideas about how it might be improved. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"Adderall®" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Adderall® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Adderall® until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Treatment for long-term Covid

This drug is getting prescribed to treat long-term Covid brain fog. Have read that this large new group of people who use it are putting pressure on supply in US. Also wondering about if LTC folks have good outcomes with the drug. Maybe too early to say for a W article? OrangeCounty (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Specious, Cynical Lack of Contextualization, Historical Background

The article as is sounds as if written directly by the various, currently extremely commercially-glutted beneficiaries of what we call "Adderall" (and no I am not a left-wing nut and I support the Austrian conservative libertarian theory of private property, if my frank words about the "elephant in the room" might lead to attempts to delegitimize me, here is how I will end it: the left-wing myth of "Big Pharma" is populist hysteria - YET - real-world correspondences and approximations to such a thing DO exist). The literal patent holders and their esoteric co-workers in the sub-manufacturers have been energetically engineering the democratization and massification of the drug, or diverse forms of these related drugs, from the start, and without that central, specific factor, Adderall would NOT exist.

Often what is most notable, one notices in wikipedia, is what is silently, bizarrely unmentioned. While the article does give a brief genealogy of a sort in a way, not really, the issue is totally "septically cleansed" for the sake of cynical all-too-human reasons, probably in passive "deference" to those recently commercially-satisfied entities, who have made this synthetic alteration of natural Ephedra, a "common household" notion/concept in America and the West, with apparently practically near half of the decadent Western world artificially kept alive in its Spenglerian decline, taking these things in in its abortive attempt to "cure" its own metaphysical intellectual bifurcation and obscuration, by the cheapest means, choosing the path of lab-engineered stimulants in its psychological disaggregation. Stims. won't keep this crepscular civilization alive when it is so ontologically and psycho-spiritually decentralized, and are only one sign of the times.

Ceasing digression: The article dances around the issue: Adderall is DIRECTLY and I do mean DIRECTLY derived from "BIPHETAMINE" (and in a more insignificant roundabout extrinsic way, Obetrol), in the way that matters, however you research the matter; the fact that when one types in "Biphetamine" in wikipedia's search engine, the user ends up right here, and yet, curiously (cynically, presumptively) the article fails to mention the fact that its "very humanly motivated" development in the pharmaceutical syndics is DIRECTLY known, traceable, confirmable, - so very shameful to the "editors"...

One can easily look up Adderall's striated, complex genesis and relevant brute facts, if one is interested in the truth, even in the older Physician's Desks References (PDAs). The purpose here, as to Adderall's rather NOTABLE genesis, sadly, in this anodyne article, is to darken the public mind opportunistically, for a variety of "all-too-human" but UNACADEMIC reasons; perhaps the one most familiar to folk, because in the 70's the abused "street" version of Biphetamine was known as the "notorious" "Black Beauties", the under-class went nuts abusing these things apparently, doing things like home making bizarre mixtures of dangerous drugs themselves, and so stigma hypocritically developed: what is politically incorrect does not permit us to nullify our ethical or academic standards.

Adderall did not appear out of nowhere - as if there was this mysterious time hole between the first artificial prototype derived from natural Central Eurasian Steppe, Ephedra, and 2023: there is a VERY SPECIFIC and VERY DEFINITE history of its "creation". All of this history is intrinsically neither "good" nor "bad" moralistically but the silent suppression of the dissemination of this crucial background contextual history, immediately casts suspicion on the article's professionalism, "cancelling" such an important part of the "story of Adderall", is irresponsible, immoral and academically untenable; we are, if actual encyclopedists instead of operatives of psy-ops or propaganda, bound to dispassionately report objective reality, documentation-ironclad: the "septic" failure to mention Biphetamine, etc. in the article, is psycho-socially revealing, as to how wikipedia works and its ethics, in its...ahem.....Machiavellian, why mince words?...omission. I noticed, ludically, the longest articles on Wikipedia are on so-called "anti-Semitism" and what else, Covid?, Mass Effect video-games, and similar fripperies. As I said, what is unmanifest manifests what is significant.

The timing and complexity of these matters should be illuminated and not whitewashed: suddenly, Biphetamine is withdrawn from the market and cotemporally, Shire enigmatically acquires "Obetrol", Adderall's other parent, the other progenitor or antecessor in a botched chaotic generation. SO: Suddenly ADHD becomes a sort of public health crisis of late-American Western civilization at the same time as these things are happening; ADHD was previously known more impolitely as "MINIMAL BRAIN DYSFUNCTION" and doctors spoke of the condition as if the "disease" was organically-rooted and hopeless to those suffering and, tersely, it was the softest form of "mental retardation."

We really can't try to be more honest and ethical in presenting matters here, instead of pretending like Adderall appeared magically out of an alter-verse in recent history, with no correlates in human history? The article, as is, is "superstitious."

Biphetamine and associated meds were created in the 50s, 60s and 70s by countless pharmaceutical entities and are the direct, deliberately humanly engineered "precursors" of what we understand as "Adderall": the ratio of Biphetamine, l-amph, 50% and d-amph, 50%, whereas, racemically, Adderall is 75% d-amph. These pills were being made as early as the late 50s legally, all sorts of companies, some companies more than others...spiking in the 60s and 70s, and existed most "popularly" in 20 mg form, 10 d-amph and 10 l-amph from Strasenburgh Labs (latterly, Fisons). Or, rather, the most "popular" form was the adulterated "Black Beauties" of the street gang ambience I am sure some of your grandparents might have a smatch of acquaintance with, AHEM. The fact that some of these companies were manufacturing other "creative", atypical drugs (mixtures of barbiturates/antipyschotics,etc. and amphetamines, etc., nearly everything imaginable) is simply not relevant from the perspectival angle and "telling the story of Adderall".

"Adderall" HAS a *very, very* SPECIFIC "history": DOCUMENTED, COPIOUSLY CONFIRMABLE and RELEVANT scholastically and in terms of ethical public enlightenment. Strasenburgh Labs, or Fisons (the last holders to the "patent" of Biphetamine), should not be over-emphasized as these historically random, meaningless, contingent corporative groups were not the only relevant pharm. companies doing very similar activities, all part a very, very specific sub-culture with a very, very "all-too-human" motivational axis, part of, in truth, an entire socio-cultural extreme cultural shift in Western civilization. Our "woke" civilization, this Dark Age, is beyond such things as anything but the most prettified, herd-animalized, dumbed-down and simplism-based realities, so let us obey as puppets, our master, Political Correctness and, even in the modality of an alleged channel of "online democratic education", this wikipedia, ignore and distort and censor and attitudinize and turn up the Tartuffery, obscuring the "story of Adderall"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4700:4D:2C17:C9B9:B992:847B (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool story Bro. Gravel for breakfast (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Shortages

Shortages section needs a lot of work. FDA actually first reported the shortage in I think may or june, then declared it to be over in I believe September. The actual shortage started back in 2021. There are references that mention that if people look hard enough.

It needs to be noted that shortages as reported by the FDA are based on voluntary reporting by manufacturers and is not required. And therefore do not accurately represent shortages as seen by consumers. If they choose not to report then it goes without being recognized by the FDA. So, when Teva waited till late spring I think of 2022 to bother to report their shortage, there was already a profound effect on users having issues getting their script filled and they got back lash for waiting too long. Also, manufactures tend to downplay the extent of the issue and underestimate the time to the shortage being over. All this is documented in articles if people look. I don't have the time to go back and dig every thing up again.

And if putting a shortages section. If people don't know when the other shortages were over the years, should at least mention that the most recent one is not the only one. I know there was one I believe in 2012 when I think Shire redirected the API to their Vyvanse instead of distributing it to the generic companies as they were contracted to. Causing the shortage.

There is a document in 2015 to congress from an investigation into the DEA noting all their shortcomings and failures in regards to their control of the amphetamine API and quota system from the 2012 shortage. Which can also show how they impacted and again exacerbated the current shortage.

There was at least 1 other shortage but not as bad between the 2012 and current one. Forget when it was exactly. So, I think the shortages section should be renamed to "Shortage 2021 to 2023" because "Shortages" implies more than one, and only 1 is listed skipping all the others, and the info is incorrect at that to begin with. Until someone feels like putting in effort for either title, it should be removed. 2601:86:600:A85:14B1:C34D:88DA:1EF1 (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Please correct...

(1) Please correct the following appearing content to a scholarly understanding of molecular microbiology:

"Since the total number of microbial and viral cells..."

(2) Please do the same to the source of the content, in the referenced section of the Amphetamines article.

(3) More broadly, please consider whether this article needs such a long introductory paragraph as the one containing this sentence. The shorter following paragraph is indeed relevant to the article. In this editor's opinion, there is no need to spend as much time defining a field as presenting a specific result from it; the content giving explanatory and defining information (e.g., indicating numbers of microbial cells in the microbiome, etc.) is superfluous.

The entire first paragraph here could be replaced by one sentence with a wikilink and a citation or two (serving as an introductory sentence to the content of the current second paragraph). 73.8.193.28 (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)