Quote:
Originally posted by SpiritWarrior:
quote:
Originally posted by Bozos of Bones:
quote:
Originally posted by SpiritWarrior:
quote:
Originally posted by ZFR:
quote:
Originally posted by SpiritWarrior:
7 years is nothing in terms of medical side-effects. It is hardly "long term". A lifetime is adequate IMHO. But no company wants to wait that long on their cash so they push stuff out faster and we hear it on the news a year or two later about how bad X drug is because of Y.
|
[/QUOTE]Well articulated but no [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Your point being..?
And BTW, for those of you so stuck with the number 7, modafinil is the result of medical research that started in 1970, running tests on humans since the seventies. [/QUOTE]Whose point being? The rolloing eyes threw me off. [/QUOTE]Hear hear... the completely compelling argument of rolling eyes was lost on me as I re-read the "no company wants to wait that long on their cash so they push stuff out faster and we hear it on the news
a year or two later about how bad X drug is because of Y." Read : YEAR LATER AFTER THE DRUG WAS PUSHED TOO EARLY. Geeze louise, how long were cigarettes out before mainstream downsides were published? Get a grip, people. I'm sure the drug "Ice" had
no ill side affects for the first couple (and yes, you may take that to mean the first 7 if you wish) years before the massive reports of mainstream addiction, anorexia and downright abhorrent affects were published to the public. If not the few years that the drug Ice then perhaps the MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF YEARS THAT CIGARETTES TOOK TO BECOME LOCALLY CONSIDERED AS UNHEALTHY. FFS. Cigarettes give some a buzz. This drug gets rid of other 'side effects' of UNHEALTHY BEHAVIOUR. Are the two not similar?
For Gods sake, something that can replace the need for something as necessary as
sleep NEEDS more than 7 years of testing, regardless of whatever un-educated person on this forum says. I ask you this, oh-optimistic ones, would you let your 17 year old daughter take this drug? Yes? How about if this 17 year old daughter was taking this drug in an attempt at trying to support a substantial higher education as well as a needy 3 month year old baby? Is this reasonable?
If the answer is yes I think a different question entirely needs to be addressed.
Sleep is arguably the most natural thing in
ALL living mammals (I'd say all living things but I'm not up to debating symantecs right now). How could we try to replace that with a drug as well as give the pretense that there is no side affect after only 7 years of testing? I'm sure some MAKE UPS have the same amount of testing.
I'm shocked, disturbed and downright outraged that some would defend this as being 'not-unhealthy'.