> You know what's totally nuts? Taking Amphetamine daily for years in reasonable doses essentially has no long term negative effects. In that way, similar to coffee.
This is a null hypothesis that hasn't been refuted due to lack of evidence, and not an alternative hypothesis that has been proven by evidence, right?
I ask because I've been looking into this before, and from what I remember there was virtually no evidence on long term use in reasonable amounts.
(There is evidence on short term use in reasonable amounts, and long term use in unreasonable amounts, though.)
Well, it's scientifically difficult to randomly assign people and assess effects for multiple decades. So the ideal evidence won't be available.
But if we accept a "nutrition science" level of evidence, then I'd say there is strong evidence showing the naturalistic longterm use of adhd meds is not dangerous. Especially considering our baysian prior: a person off the street would estimate far stronger negative effects of taking speed every single day.
In fact, adhd meds are correlated with healthier outcomes (of course, huge selection effects. Yes, eating kale will be associated with increased health, but it isn't causal)
> In fact, adhd meds are correlated with healthier outcomes (of course, huge selection effects. Yes, eating kale will be associated with increased health, but it isn't causal)
Yeah, I'd say p much impossible to untangle there without experimental evidence.
This is a null hypothesis that hasn't been refuted due to lack of evidence, and not an alternative hypothesis that has been proven by evidence, right?
I ask because I've been looking into this before, and from what I remember there was virtually no evidence on long term use in reasonable amounts.
(There is evidence on short term use in reasonable amounts, and long term use in unreasonable amounts, though.)