Posted by JohnL on February 3, 2001, at 6:17:35
In reply to To JohnL; adrafinil vs modafinil and concerta, posted by Pascal on February 1, 2001, at 20:35:21
> Hi john,
> I'd like to know according to your knowledge how adrafinil can work so differently from modafinil since they almost have the same chimical structure ? I've been on modafinil 100 mg for the last 10 days and do not seem to get any benefit out of it, that's why I'm a bit reluctant about trying adrafinil since they look pretty similar to me. As I told you previously, don't know if you still remember, I was using cylert, for add + dysthemia, for the last 3 years, and it was working miraculously for me , but I had to stop it for the reason we all know(been withdrawn from the market)
> My doctor and i thought about using ritalin but I'm affraid about the tolerance problem that could occur.
> Have you heard about Concerta ? this new form of methylphenidate with its 12 hours efficiency !, but still , it remains the old ritalin...and it is not yet available in Montreal Canada. Talking about adrafinil,would I need a prescription ? if not what about problems related to customs ? I know that u'll recommand me to try amisulpuride with it but I'd like to try only one at first.
> Now I'm having very low mood with poor concentration, low motivation and going back to work day after day becomes a burden..And I'm definatly not as half efficient as before, my collegue seems to realise it..
> Well, until now I,m still hanging there...
> thanks in advance,
> Pascal from MontrealHi Pascal,
Even though Modafinil and Adrafinil look almost the same in molecular diagrams, in my experience they are so different. I don't know why. But I found them to be worlds apart. In a similar vein, some people respond nicely to Tegretol, which has a chemical structure very similar to tricyclic antidepressants. The tiniest little change in molecules can make a huge difference.One psychiatric book I was reading postulated that the reason one SSRI might work for someone while other SSRIs didn't is because the molecular structure of that SSRI matched the person's genetics. In short, it was a good molecular match. It had little to do with serotonin, but more to do with how well one molecule could bind to another. It's kind of like imagining that the drug molecule is a piece of a puzzle, and a brain receptor is another piece of the puzzle, and the better they fit together the better it works. Each persons' pieces of the puzzle are different, as determined by genetics, damage, or contamination.
I think when it comes to stimulants, the doctor and patient will have to weigh the risks against the benefits. If the quality of life for the patient is dramatically improved, then the risks may well be worth it. In Dr Bob's Tips for example, under a category called Stimulants for Depression, one doctor has a patient on a superhigh dose of an addictive stimulant. But the patient is so much better that they accept the addiction as a fair tradeoff. The addiction actually isn't a problem until the patient tries to quit. But if it's working, there is no reason to quit.
I was wondering if there might be a way to work with Cylert, since it was so good for you. Maybe some drug holidays every now and then, or maybe some add-ons that are good for the liver, such as SAMe and/or Milk Thistle.
In any case, I think there is always a tradeoff between benefits, risks, and side effects. When quality of life is dramatically improved, the risks don't seem too important any more. In the big picture, we're on this earth for such a short time. If we need an addictive medication to get the most out of our life, then I personally see no problem with that.
John
poster:JohnL
thread:53133
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20010131/msgs/53229.html