Medicina supresora y medicina estimulante: una mirada penetrante de la práctica médica / Suppressive medicine and stimulant medicine: a penetrating view in medical practice

Resumen: La teoría de la medicina supresora (MS) y la medicina estimulante (ME) destaca dos formas radicalmente distintas de entender la enfermedad y de enfrentarla. Para la MS es un objeto extraño o ajeno al organismo que hay que disminuir o destruir (suprimir); para la ME es un trastorno de la armonía interna que requiere fortalecer o avivar el organismo para restablecerla (estimular). En la medicina moderna, el poder de la industria de la salud favorece el predominio de la MS, por su alta rentabilidad, y la marginación de las medicinas alternativas (MA), poco rentables que, al igual que la vacunación o las terapias sustitutivas y regenerativas, son formas de ME. El efecto placebo (EP) inherente a la práctica médica, revelador de fuerzas curativas endógenas susceptibles de estimulación, da sentido a la ME y credibilidad a las MA. La dirección del EP de lo macro (psicosocial) a lo micro (físico-químico) explica su alta especificidad y ausencia de efectos secundarios. El efecto farmacológico de lo micro a lo macro, opuesto a las fuerzas endógenas, conlleva indefectiblemente efectos secundarios que requieren ulteriores supresiones y dosis repetidas indefinidamente. Se analizan equívocos de la ciencia con respecto al EP y al imponer a las MA criterios metódicos propios de la MS, que las desvirtúa, descalifica y excluye como objetos de conocimiento. Se insiste en la necesidad de reconocer la ME y rescatar las MA para la indagación, a fin de explorar sinergias, complementos o reemplazos con relación a la MS en la búsqueda del bien vivir.

Abstract: The theory of suppressive (SuM) and stimulant (StM) medicine highlights two radically different ways of understanding and coping with diseases. For SuM it is a strange or foreign object to the organism that must be diminished or destroyed (suppressed); for StM it is a disorder of internal harmony that requires strengthening or enlivening the body to re-establish it (stimulate). In modern medicine, the power in the health industry favors the predominance of SuM, because of its high profitability, and the marginalization of low-cost alternative medicines (AM) that, like vaccination or substitutive and regenerative therapies, are forms of StM. The placebo effect (PE) inherent to medical practice, revealing of endogenous curative forces susceptible to stimulation, gives meaning to StM and credibility to AM. The direction of the PE from the macro (psychosocial) to the micro (physical-chemical) explains its high specificity and absence of side effects. The pharmacological effect of the micro to the macro, opposed to the endogenous forces, inevitably entails side effects that require further suppression and indefinite repetition of doses. Scientific assertions that misunderstand PE, and impose on the AM methodical criteria of the SuM that detract, disqualify and exclude them as objects of knowledge, are analyzed. The emphasis is on the need to recognize the StM and rescue the AM for inquiry in order to explore synergies, complements or replacements in relation to the SuM, in the quest for to live well.

[Medicina supresora y medicina estimulante: una mirada penetrante de la práctica médica]. / Suppressive medicine and stimulant medicine: a penetrating view in medical practice.

La teoría de la medicina supresora (MS) y la medicina estimulante (ME) destaca dos formas radicalmente distintas de entender la enfermedad y de enfrentarla. Para la MS es un objeto extraño o ajeno al organismo que hay que disminuir o destruir (suprimir); para la ME es un trastorno de la armonía interna que requiere fortalecer o avivar el organismo para restablecerla (estimular). En la medicina moderna, el poder de la industria de la salud favorece el predominio de la MS, por su alta rentabilidad, y la marginación de las medicinas alternativas (MA), poco rentables que, al igual que la vacunación o las terapias sustitutivas y regenerativas, son formas de ME. El efecto placebo (EP) inherente a la práctica médica, revelador de fuerzas curativas endógenas susceptibles de estimulación, da sentido a la ME y credibilidad a las MA. La dirección del EP de lo macro (psicosocial) a lo micro (físico-químico) explica su alta especificidad y ausencia de efectos secundarios. El efecto farmacológico de lo micro a lo macro, opuesto a las fuerzas endógenas, conlleva indefectiblemente efectos secundarios que requieren ulteriores supresiones y dosis repetidas indefinidamente. Se analizan equívocos de la ciencia con respecto al EP y al imponer a las MA criterios metódicos propios de la MS, que las desvirtúa, descalifica y excluye como objetos de conocimiento. Se insiste en la necesidad de reconocer la ME y rescatar las MA para la indagación, a fin de explorar sinergias, complementos o reemplazos con relación a la MS en la búsqueda del bien vivir.The theory of suppressive (SuM) and stimulant (StM) medicine highlights two radically different ways of understanding and coping with diseases. For SuM it is a strange or foreign object to the organism that must be diminished or destroyed (suppressed); for StM it is a disorder of internal harmony that requires strengthening or enlivening the body to re-establish it (stimulate). In modern medicine, the power in the health industry favors the predominance of SuM, because of its high profitability, and the marginalization of low-cost alternative medicines (AM) that, like vaccination or substitutive and regenerative therapies, are forms of StM. The placebo effect (PE) inherent to medical practice, revealing of endogenous curative forces susceptible to stimulation, gives meaning to StM and credibility to AM. The direction of the PE from the macro (psychosocial) to the micro (physical-chemical) explains its high specificity and absence of side effects. The pharmacological effect of the micro to the macro, opposed to the endogenous forces, inevitably entails side effects that require further suppression and indefinite repetition of doses. Scientific assertions that misunderstand PE, and impose on the AM methodical criteria of the SuM that detract, disqualify and exclude them as objects of knowledge, are analyzed. The emphasis is on the need to recognize the StM and rescue the AM for inquiry in order to explore synergies, complements or replacements in relation to the SuM, in the quest for to live well.

Prevalence of cognitive enhancer use among New Zealand tertiary students.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Cognitive enhancers (CE) such as methylphenidate, amphetamines and modafinil are becoming more commonly used in non-medical situations. This study explored the prevalence and motivations for CE use in a New Zealand university. DESIGN AND METHODS: Students from the Schools of Pharmacy, Nursing, Medicine, Law and Accounting at a university in New Zealand were invited to complete a paper-based questionnaire that elicited their views on the prevalence, reasons for use and attitudes towards use of CEs. Questionnaires were distributed at the end of a third-year lecture (August-October 2012). Reasons for use and attitudes towards use was measured using a 7-point Likert scale from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (7). Descriptive and prevalence statistics were calculated. Inferential statistics were generated to explore the overall associations between CE use and how the respondents had first learnt about CEs, and to investigate reasons for CE use. RESULTS: The response fraction was 88.6 % (442/499) and the prevalence of CE use was 6.6% (95% confidence interval 4.5-9.0). Commonly cited reasons for use were to get high [M = 4.43, standard deviation (SD) 2.36], experimentation (M = 4.17, SD 2.36), increase alertness (M = 3.55, SD 2.48), to help concentrate (M = 3.48, SD 2.42), to help stay awake (M = 3.20, SD 2.33), to help study (M = 3.10, SD 2.47) and to concentrate better while studying (M = 3.00, SD 2.43). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Use of CEs was uncommon in contrast to the prevalence reported in the USA. The reasons for use also varied depending on which CE was used. Students who use CEs have differing attitudes towards their acceptability, which warrants further research about how these attitudes influence their use and attitudes towards academic performance. [Ram S(S), Hussainy S, Henning M, Jensen M, Russell B. Prevalence of cognitive enhancer use among New Zealand tertiary students. Drug Alcohol Rev 2016;35:245-351].

Non specific drug distribution in an autopsy case report of fatal caffeine intoxication.

Caffeine has long been recognized as an addictive substance that causes autonomic nerve effect, and is known to increase catecholamine secretion from the adrenal glands. In recent years, the risk of ingesting toxic levels of caffeine has increased because of the easy availability of analgesics, CNS (Central Nervous System) stimulant medicine and dietary supplements at shops, health stores and through online purchases. We report the death of a young female resulting from the ingestion for suicide of an online purchased sleepiness-preventing medicine containing caffeine. The autopsy findings included pulmonary edema and congestion plus cutaneous emphysema. The stomach contents included a dark-brown viscous fluid without tablet or food residue. Toxicological examination revealed the presence of caffeine in the right heart blood (154.2 µg/mL) and stomach contents (197.5 µg/mL) (lethal blood level, >80 µg/mL). The highest caffeine content was in the bile (852.3 µg/mL). Biochemical findings showed that catecholamine concentration in the peripheral blood in the iliac vein was elevated. Immunostaining of catecholamine was weak in the adrenal medulla. We recommend highlighting the toxicity risk of ingesting substances with a high caffeine concentration, and we propose that caffeine concentrations should be included in the comprehensive routine forensic toxicological tests for all cases.