Same as kratom or CBD (prior to FDA approval) both are pain killers that helps when other options failed due to side effects or lack of accessible. It can be very hard for those in pain to get or even afford proper pain relief. Kratom, CBD, Phenibut gives people another option.
Baclofen is very similar to phenibut but lacks much of it's nootropic properties and it not studied in ADHD or other conditions like phenibut is. Phenibut is a known drug and it's been on the pharmacy market for decades I don't get how people see it as an rc or something.
Again, this is just not true. I know a lot of users want to believe that CBD, kratom, and marijuana are some wonder drug, but frankly, if it was really that useful - and the FDA is in the pocket of the pharma companies, do you really think they would have let it go? Nah, the drug companies have reams of private research and they recognize it as not being suitable for any medical purpose - else they would have lobbied to make sure it never got on the ballots for legalization.
CBD, marijuana and kratom have no safety studies, no proven benefits and only recently suggested benefits in seizure victims. As Aleksandar pointed out, it is moving through trials for this use. So you have that.
Beyond this, its use medicinally is way over blown and I will probably take a lot of heat for these statements because the mere suggestion that these drugs are not wonder drugs brings up such emotion in most users that anyone with a minimal amount of research will literally fear entering into a discussion with people.
minor correction
herbicide=weeds
pesticide=insects
Monsanto made gmo seeds roundup resistant so that farmers could spray fields with roundup without killing crops. some of the food you are eating has been sprayed with roundup. the question i have is if roundup sprayed on crops permeates the outer layer[skin] of crops?
It's not a minor correction, it's a BIG factor in the point I was making. They fault the FDA for approving something for a use OUTSIDE of human consumption. And then they use that to back up the argument that the FDA shouldn't be banning things FOR human consumption? The argument is so unrelated and illogical - So the FDA shouldn't ban the use of heroin because they approved glyophosphate?
So the FDA should ban banana's because of glyophosphate?
It's a worthless argument. It's apples and oranges (I kill me with my puns) and if you allow that, then it's in the FDA's favor (they shouldn't repeat the same mistakes by allowing stuff to slip by).
Spontaneous reporting to drug surveillance systems suggests one adverse reaction for every 5 million (UK) to 25 million (USA) 200 mg tablets sold, with one reported fatality for 0.6 to 23 billion tablets sold. During clinical and post-marketing studies, the frequency of adverse events was similar to that found with placebo or paracetamol. In a meta-analysis involving 46000 patients, the incidence of digestive events was 5 per cent, with 0.02 per cent upper GI bleeds. A prospective trial in 84000 children reported 0.007 per cent GI bleeds
Great post with some hard data. I learned a few things there. These stats above are kind of my point - spontaneous reporting to drug surveillance systems. This is a drug WITH the safety data behind it, and when self administered in large populations, we have these small percentages of people having issues. Yet, those small percentages turn into a large actual number of people being injured - and it is all because of self administration. The benefit (overall users who benefit) given the small percentages of people who are harmed is very small - but what would benefit look like if we were to start using phenibut on a scale of even 1/10th the use of acetominophen?
My guess is that at 1/10th the use we would easily see numbers similar to the harms of acetaminophen, based off the addiction stories on the internet. Will it be liver failure? No. Will it be life threatening? Probably only very rarely. But could it ruin the lives of 78,000 people a year to addiction? Sure. And what is phenibut being used for again?
It's like alcohol - really, what good is it? It doesn't serve a medical purpose. If it weren't for the fact it was socially accepted, people wouldn't use it. I don't drink for this reason, I don't see the risk of having problems being worth the small pleasure of drinking. I think the difference was that very early in life I just happened to realize that kids around me were drinking and none of them were picking up that first drink and going, "This is so great. I am going to be an alcoholic, but it's worth it!" No, they all thought, "I can handle my sh1t, it's only one drink."
And that's how we all start, and yeah we should make our decisions and live with it. I don't really believe in the FDA making things legal, but I'm more against bad information getting spread on the internet as fact, and then repeated, and then people can't assess the possible risk they are taken because they think it is harmless.
Beat me to my edit. I don’t feel like you talk down to people as you make your point.
lol, I can try harder?
Nah, I appreciate that man. I think I come across wrong with a lot of people on here, it's hard to communicate online and I try (most of the time) not to be a d1ck. The people on this board are great. I mean, I've had arguments with Aleksandar in other threads that are heated, and look at us now...we are on the same team almost. If you can't punch your friends once in a while, who can you punch? Honestly, I think there is some area where we can all agree. Even stimtron pointed out in his post that we have some common ground.
I think part of the issue here is that, from my perspective, I am not really for the FDA but I am VERY against the repeated -incorrect, one-sided, or whatever you want to call it - misinformation that we have online and in society that reduces perceived harms rather than educates.
Everything that does anything can have harms - even sugar destroys your health and we eat that every day. Safety is a bit of an illusion and we all have to make some decisions on that and what we are willing to live with. I have used phenibut and I like it. I can see why someone might think it would help with their anxiety, sleep issues, etc. But honestly, I'm not so sure that people with serious issues in these categories would benefit from it. It's NOT suitable for long term use, unless (maybe) it's being prescribed and monitored at low doses by an outside party. I mean, yeah, I'd be a lot less worried about a doctor prescribing my mom 250 mg a day and keeping that steady than handing her 100 grams of powder and saying, "Here you go, good luck."
And this highlights one problem - we lack A LOT of information. There is SO much out there. It makes my head spin. Pubmed may not be the best, 100% solid source of data, but I will tell you this, I have learned SO MUCH from following the trails. You read a study and the researchers talk about a concept you don't understand and you go to wikipedia, then to google scholar, then wherever and start learning those concepts and that leads to new concepts and next thing you know you've learned something that underlies things you had no idea about. And you start to realize that we are just scratching the surface here. Not me or you, but EVERYONE. The info just isn't there yet. We just don't have the information available. That's why we need more studies and so on. We expect doctors to know everything, and they know a lot, but they are on the edge of the abyss. The best doctors out there don't have the information/resources to do what they need at times. And then there are the worst doctors who we all have stories about.
In that light, I'm all for the FDA's guidance and sometimes that guidance has to be a strong law. It's not always right, it's often messed up.
As far as financial ties with the FDA, I think the best conspiracies have a small amount of truth to them. I mean, Howard Zinn points out the predecessor to the FDA wasn't even founded to protect consumers - it was created to help the export of beef after the beef companies made a bunch of European soldiers sick and no one would by American meat. The beef companies lobbied for a "watch dog" that would rebuild consumer confidence. And if you think of the FDA in that light, it does have an impact on your views. But that doesn't mean that they are all bad either.