I saw that a couple of weeks ago when it was just published. I was HORROR-stricken. I think that article may be one of the most chilling things that I have read in a long, long, LONG time.
This gets to what I have been saying for years, by the way-- that 'trialing' drugs is just very seldom as clear cut as clinicians would like to think, precisely because they
do impact pretty much everyone in quite predictable ways. There is no such thing as "paradoxical" effect in terms of the pharmacology involved, in spite of popular mythology. What is also true is that underlying cardiac abnormalities can be catastrophic with ANY of these drugs. Many drugs have seeming paradoxical effects in pediatric populations, too. But that doesn't reflect the underlying pharmacology,
per se. That's just pediatrics-- it's known to be goofy. Probably the reason has a lot to do with undeveloped neurological function, at least in psychotropics.
These drugs
will help with certain executive function just as anabolic steroids will "help" just about anyone in terms of building physical endurance and muscle mass, not just those people who have a "need" for steroids to treat medical conditions. Also similar is that such a truth does nothing to diminish the
real conditions that require steroid treatment.
Anyone that uses caffeine should know better than to think that: a) there's no observable benefit unless you are "deficient" somehow, and/or b) they aren't really addictive, so it's fine to just "try" them and see. Docs who think that, IMO, probably ought not have the ability to prescribe things that they don't understand. I realize that sounds pretty harsh, but physicians who hand out stimulants and SSRI's (among other catecholaminergics) like candy are really playing with fire, IMO.
