[hnthrowaway847]

I wouldn’t be surprised if this study were funded by some pharmaceutical lobbying shell organization.

I was on various forms of prescribed amphetimines for years and developed paranoia. It took me a few years to somewhat recover. My family has PTSD about that period of my life. I can’t think or communicate well anymore. Fuck that industry.

[neuronexmachina]

> I wouldn’t be surprised if this study were funded by some pharmaceutical lobbying shell organization.

Funding info is at the bottom of the article, the project was primarily funded by the Swedish government.

[vbril]

Also in that section:

> LZ is supported by ìShizu Matsumuraîs Donation (2024-02228) and KI Research Grants (024-02570). LL was supported by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation (20230452), the Söderström König Foundation, and Fredrik och Ingrid Thurings Stiftelse. BD was supported by a grant from the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP). SC, National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) research professor (NIHR303122), is funded by the NIHR for this research project.

It may be none of them. It may be all of them. There could be corruption. There could be subtle manipulation. You have no idea how much money there is in the industry. They make things happen.

Some in the medical profession believe that these abused drugs are safe for their patients. Others know better but they still prescribe them. Some pharmacists will tell you that they’re good for your brain because they increase blood flow, because that’s what they’ve been sold by the reps and the studies they’re fed.

[intended]

The fear over a paper, which can be studied and evaluated, is much higher than it need be. It would be something else if it were a media release, advertisement, or an actual compound being lauded.

[astrange]

It doesn't matter who funds a study if it's properly designed. You see this kind of dismissal on /r/science all the time and it's always just evidence that they're not qualified to actually read the study.

[shlant]

> You see this kind of dismissal on /r/science all the time and it's always just evidence that they're not qualified to actually read the study. reply

In my experience it's more because the conclusions butt up against the persons personal beliefs or experiences (like OP's)

[will_e]

Respectfully disagree.

I knew someone that worked for the tobacco industry where they had labs that constantly were looking for reasons that tobacco was good for you. It meets your qualifications for properly designed studies, but it was purely about trying to convince convinced others that a known addictive substance that caused emphysema and lung cancer was beneficial to your health.

Something similar happened in the weed industry, though it it’s proponents were initially just people that wanted pot to be free for anyone to grow, and then it got taken over by capitalists that didn’t mind using massive amounts of energy to fund vertical gardening, or genetically modify yeast to create THC, or to genetically modify the plant itself to produce an untested derivative of it that would meet the qualifications for hemp products, and then peddle it to teenagers at massive doses without control, pairing it with sugar-free sweeteners and causing serious health problems like uncontrollable vomit coughing, basically inventing a new disease from scratch.

[astrange]

> I knew someone that worked for the tobacco industry where they had labs that constantly were looking for reasons that tobacco was good for you.

If you're implying publication bias, that's addressed by preregistration, though you either have to be careful about looking it up or else rely on meta-analysis.

Otherwise if they're publishing true results then there you go. Nicotine does have some benefits; it's basically the only effective nootropic and it's pretty effective for schizophrenia which is why almost all schizophrenic people are smokers. Of course the problem is it's super addictive and all the ways of taking it give you cancer.

[nicholta]

> convince convinced

You probably didn’t mean to add “convinced”.

https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2564674/#:~:text=In...

> massive amounts of energy to fund vertical gardening

You probably instead meant “massive amounts of energy in vertical gardening”.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00691-w

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8349047/#:~:text=Ho...

[nickff]

The only thing more popular (on those/these forums) than shallow dismissal is piling on (i.e. the recent Coldplay episode).

[bawolff]

Afaict the study was not looking at the risk of that type of side effects.

In any case, paranoia is a known potential (but rare) side effect, its not like pharma companies were keeping this a secret.

[shlant]

"I experienced negative side effects so the science must be bought and paid for"