 |
| Nora Volkow, M.D. |
The gist of the story was that the drugs themselves impair certain brain circuits, which must then be somehow strengthened through treatment.
One of the points she raised is that drugs like methamphetamine cause dopamine receptor signaling to be decreased in the pre-frontal cortex - the part of the brain known to be crucial in executive control (decision making). Thus, the normal brakes on someone indulging in something are supposedly damaged.
If this be true, one might think that she would be up in arms about the widespread, indiscriminate use of amphethamines like Adderall in children. At the very least, a high percentage of ADHD diagnoses are given to kids suffering from the effects of living in a chaotic environments of one sort or another, and for whom family therapy would be the most important treatment. Perhaps there are some cases of ADHD that are due to neurotoxin exposure or something like that in which the benefits of the use of stimulants outweigh the risks - a questionable assertion itself since the average academic gain for ADHD-diagnosed kids on stimulants is all of about three whole months.
For some reason, however, while she acknowledges in other venues that prescription drug abuse, including that of stimulants, is a major problem, she continues to maintain that stimulants are safe and effective when used for ADHD.
She does admit in one article that ritalin basically works the same way in the brain as cocaine! So is she saying that there is some point at which the alleged adverse affects on executive functioning she was going on and on about at the APA magically become inconsequential?
And yet, she also spends some of her time exaggerating the adverse effects of the devil weed , marijuana, in a campaign to keep it illegal. It seems there is a double standard she has towards the risks of the drugs sold by Pharma compared to those that are not.
How much worse than the physiological effects of pot, one might ask, are the adverse effects on potheads of jailing them and turning them into felons for the rest of their lives. Or the risks to black kids? They are no more likely than white kids to smoke pot, but are four times more likely to be arrested for it. These are not adverse effects?
"Think about it: Do you want a nation where your young people are stoned?" she was quoted as asking. I hate to break this to her, but any kid who wants to get marijuana already can. It's like one of the biggest cash crops in several states.
I don't think she has come out in favor of prohibition against alcohol or tobacco, two substances with far more potential adverse physiological effects than pot ever thought about having, so that she might at least be consistent. Does she think that young people aren't already getting "stoned" on booze? As mentioned, she does not seem to be all that concerned about the adverse effects of the stimulants - that she herself describes - when used for legal and "proper" uses. More on that in a sec. Nor does she mention that prescribed stimulants are diverted to "non-medical" uses far more often than even opiates!
It seems almost like she thinks the risks of drugs are entirely dependent on whether or not drug companies make money from them.
I am not surprised by any of this. Many years ago I listened to a talk from someone from NIDA about the horrible effects of dopamine depletion in the brains of regular amphetamine users. I thought about getting up and asking a question, but someone beat me to it. "Doesn't this happen in kids taking stimulants for ADHD?" the fellow asked.
The answer? "But the drugs work so well!" As if that were an answer. Now I don't know if NIDA and Big Pharma are in bed together, but that answer sure made me wonder about it.
Another truely breathtakingly bizarre point Volkow made at the APA, as reported in the newspaper (unless the journalist got it wrong):
"Among both lab animals and humans, voluntary initiation of drug use leads to subsequent loss of control and development of addiction among 10% of subjects. The lab rats and mice are uesful for refuting old stereotypes.
Some people still consider addiction moral turpitude, she said. 'But how can you develop the same phenotype in a rat, who have no moral precepts?'"
This argument is a bit of a straw man, since thoughtful mental health professionals these days are not so much concerned with the issue of sin, but more with the question of whether or not drug abuse is due to deliberate and purposeful self-destructiveness. The fact that the 10% figure applies to both rats and people seems to argue for some sort of genetic cause, does it not?
But rats having the same phenotype as human beings? Really?!? I personally have never met any rat that understands the negative effects that a drug might be having on it, or that is able to anticipate the future consequences of continuing to imbibe. People do have these abilities. Furthermore, as I have already pointed out in various venues, scientists still have yet to locate any rats that hide bottles of alcohol.
And now back to that whole executive functioning thing. Methinks she is grossly exaggerating certain of the risks from drugs used entirely to get high. (Anyone remember the scourge of "crack babies?" Turns out that was all one big - and racist - lie).
Seems to me the supposed "impairments" in executive functioning in addicts that she talks about are awfully specific and limited. In the past, a lot of cocaine addicts, for example, used to burglarize houses and fence the goods to support their habits without even getting caught. It would seem to me that quite a bit of executive functioning is being exhibited in that endeavor. Imagine what master criminals they might be if they had unimpaired executive functioning. It boggles the mind!
And if addicts do have a sort of brain damage, how can some of them suddenly just stop using after attending just one meeting of a 12 step program, and then stay sober by continuing to be in the program? Not as many as we'd like, but still many do. The 12 steps were based originally on techniques used by Protestants to get others to adopt their religious beliefs, not treat brain dysfunction. So how is it that what is essentially a change in cognitive beliefs can fix a brain overnight?
I have argued that many of the brain changes observed in MRI studies are actually conditioned responses due to neural plastic changes in brain structure and function in response to the social environment (No, not all of the observed changes. Some can indeed be due to drug effects, trauma, or disease. Duh). The conditioned changes can indeed happen in relatively short time frames. But literally overnight? Please.
No comments:
Post a Comment