Taking Modafinil will not make you smarter, but it will heavily diminish the negative effects of sleep deprivation. Remember, the primary indications for this medication are narcolepsy, sleep apnea, and excessive daytime sleepiness.
It also increases dopamine and norepinephrine activity in certain areas of the brain, similar to Adderall and Ritalin, so it will boost your concentration. It actually showed a positive effect on concentration in ADHD treatment trials, but the FDA declined to approve it for that purpose due to some concerns over a rare skin-rash disorder. Many people are under the misconception that it is not a stimulant, but it most certainly is.
As for controlled, double-blind trials, the results are not promising in non-sleep-deprived individuals. Controlled tests tend to show self-reported increases in restlessness, aggression, and anxiety, but the standardized cognitive and memory tests show very little, if any, improvement in the Modafinil groups. (See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12672167 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15738750 for more).
Finally, don't try to import Modafinil (Provigil) into the US without a prescription. It is a Schedule IV controlled substance and the legal ramifications for importing a controlled substance can be serious. If you're still eager to try it outside of a doctor's supervision, which I definitely do not recommend, then know that Adrafinil is metabolized (partly) to Modafinil within the body but is not a controlled substance. Importing it is a still a gray area, though.
Bottom line: Getting a healthy amount of sleep should be your #1 goal for cognitive improvement. If that isn't actually possible, then Modafinil could be helpful for reversing the effects of sleep deprivation. If concentration is your problem, Modafinil may help you, but you'd probably be better off pursuing proper ADHD treatment with a medication approved for ADHD.
One important thing that's worth noting: Just because you have trouble concentrating doesn't mean you have ADHD. There are a lot of other things that could cause that.
Excellent point, and definitely worth pointing out.
It's amazing how many people are quick to self-diagnose ADHD, but have no problem spending hours on their hobbies or interesting projects. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in the coding community who never has problems concentrating on uninteresting projects.
> It's amazing how many people are quick to self-diagnose ADHD, but have no problem spending hours on their hobbies or interesting projects.
Having ADHD doesn't mean you can't focus, it means you can't control what you're able to focus on. Non ADHD people can make themselves focus on boring things when they have to, ADHD people find this anywhere from extremely difficult to impossible.
There's a weird thing that can happen to ADHD individuals, and its actually considered a symptom: the ability to 'hyperfocus' on certain tasks. It's very similar to The Zone, but it's random and difficult to predict when it will manifest: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocus
The term hyperfocus doesn't appear in the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the gold standard by which all mental disorders, including ADHD, are officially defined) at all.
The term shows 0 results on PubMed, a repository for studies, journals, and other biomedical literature. (Note: If you search for 'hyperfocus' it will give you results for 'hypertonus' because the original term returned no results)
And finally, the Wikipedia article is heavily flagged with 'Original Research' and 'Unverifiable/Biased Information' tags, and is also flagged for not having any real sources or citations.
I know the term 'hyperfocus' has worked its way into pop-psychology lately, but I've never been able to find reliable research supporting the claim. I am a bit wary of how easily it stretches the definition of ADHD to encompass just about every person I've ever worked with. After all, who wouldn't identify with the idea that they can 'hyperfocus' on video games or fun projects, but have difficulty concentrating on difficult or uninteresting work? Very slippery slope here.
I have ADHD and hyperfocus. Sometimes I go for hours and forget to eat or drink anything. Two things:
1. The DSM only defines mental illness so that it can be diagnosed. For instance, it doesn't say "prescribe drugs x, y, and z for ADHD". If the DSM doesn't include hyperfocus, it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means it isn't a diagnostic criteria.
2. How much research can you find proving that depression makes people sad or that ADHD makes people unable to pay attention? Do chemists do research on how wet water is? Remember, ADHD is one of the most well-known mental disorders out there. Doctors have been treating it with stimulants for over 70 years. If you can't find research on the subject, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that there's not really any new ground to be broken in the area.
That said, hyperfocus is well known among Psychiatrists and Psychologists. It's just like the other symptoms: pathological versions of normal behaviors. A normal person can put down video games long enough to go to school or work. I can't without medication.
I agree with the sentiment of your post, and I have no opinion on the 'hyperfocus' issue, but I'd like to point out that the DSM embodies the state of the art and as such lags behind new insights. Only after those insights are accepted by the psychiatry community they are worked into the next version of the DSM; DSM V is (as it looks now) going to contain a lot of updates on ADHD in children, and progressive insights on adult-onset ADHD are probably going to be too cutting edge to be included (now this is of course something fairly new and I agree with the methods used to compose the DSM - better to be conservative here; my point is that the DSM is not the most up to date 'standard' to follow).
Exactly. Attention deficit is a misnomer; inappropriate attention, or poor attention control, is the issue.
Some additional "been there, done that" comments: if you try drugs, give them time to work. If you trying different drugs, give them time to leave your system. Know that some side-effects are temporary, but each person may respond differently. You may need to try a few different drugs.
If you honestly think you have a real cognitive or neurological problem, keep pushing for help and don't give up.
I met a good number of people who have problems in concentration. They can't focus even in the smallest tasks, especially if it is new and difficult (complicated). May be it's just fears that disturb their concentration.
I suppose the claim of "make you smarter" depends a lot on your definition of "smart". If it includes the ability to concentrate then perhaps it does make you "smarter".
It is supposedly hard on the liver. I'd strongly recommend not dosing any medication without a doctor's supervision no matter what, and this is one more reason to avoid going that route.
is this true? its not uncommon to see an early 20something drink a decent amount regularly on weekends for years and still end up okay. I find it hard to believe adrafinil could do more damage than that.
this is a bit of a dumb comment I think; it's a bit like saying you've known people who've headed a soccer ball repeatedly every weekend for years, so you find it hard to believe that heading a cement block could be harmful. It's a different chemical, with different effects. The best way to determine those effects is through properly controlled trials.
Wow! Yet another article about "smart drugs" that's actually about stimulants! I give it one hour before people start mentioning Erdos and talking about amphetamines instead. (Edit: Yup, and now I'm getting downvoted.)
The racetams (piracetam, aniracetam, oxiracetam, etc.) are probably the least risky, though I've had the best long-term effects from getting enough sleep and exercise, eating reasonably well, and not spiking and crashing on caffeine all the time. If you want to try nootropics, be informed and careful, and address the obvious factors that may be messing with your concentration first. (For me it was sleep debt and too much caffeine.)
This site is very informative, easily the best hub of nootropic information I have seen. There are links from each of the drugs to the medical studies, user surveys, etc.
Choline + Piracetam + Melatonin are what I use. All are 100% legal, nonprescription, effective and safe (according to all scientific research so far).
Routine exercise has been shown repeatedly to provide tremendous gains to mental cognition. Get yourself to a baseline that includes daily cardiac exercise before jumping into the great chemical unknown.
I have tried both adrafinil (legal/unregulated in USA, metabolized in vivo to modafinil) and armodafinil. The best way I could describe them is that they provide the wakefulness provided by caffeine, without the attention deficit hyperactivity. While they are certainly both interesting and effective, cost is prohibitive.
Stay away from amphetamines. Regardless of the potential for physical dependence, you will rapidly develop a mental dependency on them. For a short while I had a prescription for ritalin and adderall (stopped taking them on my own accord)and can admit that they made me feel superhuman. However, they also provide a hellish overconfidence that can cripple you. I was not more creative and was ironically less focused upon the important aspects of my work. Information triage is far more difficult when everything in the world suddenly becomes worth of intense study.
Is there actually a medical definition of "smart drugs"? I know some seriously smart people with a serious caffeine addiction who have an IQ of about 85 before their morning coffee.
Medical journals usually use the term "nootropics". "smart drugs" is more of a catch-all, and makes me think of Mondo 2000 (cyberpunk! fractals! subvert the dominant paradigm!) rather than medical research.
And: Don't underestimate the short-term effects of caffeine withdrawl (and daily rituals). They're probably waking up mentally at -2 cups of coffee. Caffeine use seems to be more beneficial when used in small quantities over the day (a thermos of green tea* , slightly-caffeinated candy every hour or two, etc.) rather than spiking levels first thing in the morning.
* And there's an amino acid in green tea, l-theanine, that seems to cancel out some of the jitteriness.
>>> Yet another article about "smart drugs" that's actually about stimulants!
> "smart drugs" is more of a catch-all
So which is it? It seems to me (and you apparently) that the term "smart drugs" is rightly a catch-all for anything that can enhance mental performance, including stimulants. So the original article used the term correctly and this part of your earlier criticism doesn't make sense.
I'm using the term "smart drugs" to match the original post, but left it in quotes - I'd be more inclined to say "nootropics", which (intentionally) narrows the scope a bit.
Every couple months a post comes up on HN about nootropics, and within a few hours it typically gets derailed by comments about how taking speed is totally awesome. I try to remind people that 1) amphetamines are not "smart drugs", they have pretty nasty side effects and are generally unsustainable, 2) if taking nootropics (or any other drugs) it's a good idea to do research first, and HN doesn't count, 3) some are much less risky than others, and 4) they'll probably get more benefits from getting enough sleep and exercise, if they aren't already.
It's disingenuous to throw 'ritalin' in the same basket as 'speed', even if they're in the same pharmaceutical family. 'Speed' as sold on the street is ingested orally or nasally in an attempt to concentrate its effects in a short time period, Ritalin (and similar) is prescribed in much smaller amounts (20-80 mg a day, for speed it's not uncommon to consume 250 mg at once); plus slow-release versions of Ritalin (Ritalin MR, Concerta etc.) make this effect even stronger. Some experimentation with Ritalin is necessary to find out a person's correct dosage, when you really get a 'hit' like you do with speed, it's not used properly. Plus, people who actually have ADHD react differently to Ritalin that people who don't. Please don't just throw out blanket statements about how 'Ritalin is bad' - for some people it makes the difference between being able to function normally and not being able to plan their daily lives.
Oh I see. You're using the term "smart drugs" in 2 different ways. One to mean 'intelligence enhancing' and the other 'a smart idea to take'. Kind of like a pun or some really corny anti-drugs commercial.
Its mode of action isn't identical to that of Adderall (amphetamine) and Ritalin (methylphenidate) but then again neither is that of caffeine, but it is still a stimulant. Adderall and Ritalin increase extra-cellular concentrations of dopamine and norepinephrine. Modafinil has been shown in many studies to elevate dopamine and norepinephrine concentrations in certain regions of the brain. It may not accomplish this as directly as Ritalin or Adderall, but the effect is there. There are additional glutamate-enhancing and GABA-reducing effects to Modafinil as well, which is perhaps where the "Modafinil is not a stimulant" misconception comes from. Still, administering a dopamine antagonist diminishes some of Modafinil's effects, much in the same way it diminishes the effects of Adderall or Ritalin.
But even without delving into the pharmacology of Modafinil, how you can you possibly not call Modafinil a stimulant? It promotes wakefulness, increases concentration, and substitutes for Adderall and Ritalin in narcolepsy treatment. It is also a Schedule IV controlled substance (FYI, do not attempt to import a controlled substance, but Adrafanil is a Modafinil precursor and is not scheduled.) indicating there is even a risk of abuse.
The manufacturer and FDA seem to consider it at least similar to a stimulant, with stimulant-like effects and possible dependence problems typical of stimulants.
From the prescribing information:
In addition to its wake-promoting effects and ability to increase locomotor activity in animals,
modafinil produces psychoactive and euphoric effects, alterations in mood, perception, thinking, and
feelings typical of other CNS stimulants in humans. Modafinil has reinforcing properties, as evidenced
by its self-administration in monkeys previously trained to self-administer cocaine. Modafinil was also
partially discriminated as stimulant-like.
And from the safety information label:
PROVIGIL is a Schedule IV drug. PROVIGIL produces psychoactive and euphoric effects, alterations in mood, perception, thinking and feelings typical of other CNS stimulants. Physicians should follow patients closely, especially those with a history of drug and/or stimulant abuse.
I don't like the legal speeds. I would not accept a prescription for one.
Modafinil feels very different from the legal speeds, crank, coke, or other heavy stimulants... not that I know that from experience or anything. Just from reading posts on HN and Slashdot and shit. And movies. And ex-girlfriends. And doing drugs. Oh wait.
So I don't sound like I'm in love with modafinil: I have seen a person react unfavorably on it, although I can't be certain it was the modafinil that caused the unfavorable reaction. I have not had any side effects I can tell. Besides the new hairs on the tip of my nose and severe tooth vibrations. [Just kidding, obv.]
It has its place, and it just helped me on a trip to China considerably.
Then what is it? I don't have a PDR on hand, but Wikipedia says it's an "analeptic", a central nervous system stimulant used specifically to control sleepiness.
I find rxlist.com contains essentially the same (straight from the manufacturer) information as a PDR, without the bulk, expense, and latency of paper distribution.
The PDR is very vague on this for a reason- they have no idea. The doctors I have spoken to about it seem to think it is not a stimulant, it is something "better." They are calling it a wakefulness promoting agent. This isn't just PR boobspeak- the docs don't equate it with speed or coke, and with good reason. It has NOT been shown to have the long term damaging effects on dopamine and serotonin receptors those drugs do.
IIRC, the exact mechanism for piracetam isn't fully understood either (something involving acetylcholine) - they decided to create the "nootropic" designation for it rather than classify it as a stimulant. The general consensus is that it's safe (no known LD-50, relatively mild side-effects) and makes orange juice taste horrible.
Arguing that Modafinil is not a stimulant is like arguing that alcohol is not a drug. Sure, you can twist words and definitions, but all you're doing is re-drawing the cutoff line between what is and what is not a stimulant.
Modafinil is not a typical stimulant, but it provides stimulation, increases brain activity, increases self-reported measures of aggression, restlessness, and anxiety in double-blind testing, is a controlled substance with recognized abuse potential, and many of the stimulating effects are blocked by the same drugs that block the effects of stimulants.
Cephalon marketing is probably eager to get away and "stimulant" moniker, but this is an argument over semantics rather than pharmacology.
Modafinil is, by all measures and effects, a stimulant.
We are talking about medical and pharmaceutical classification here. "Stimulant" has a medical meaning. Provigil has NOT been classed a stimulant, which has a specific meaning.
The Physician's Drug Reference (PDR) is the last word on this, legally. That is why I keep saying it is not a stimulant. It isn't until the PDR says it is, to any medical professional.
I have taken a lot of Provigil, and I understand why it has not been classified a stimulant. It does not have the physical effects of other stimulants.
With the education and intelligence level being so high here on HN, I'm surprised to see inaccurate information being posited so confidently. It is NOT medically correct, and I'm not sure what the value of the non-medically correct "definition" of stimulant you are giving is supposed to be.
The Physician's Drug Reference (PDR) is not the last word on this. It is literally just a desk reference, as the name implies. It isn't meant to be a definitive guide to medications. It is meant to be a quick and easy way for physicians to get an overview of a medication.
The following is taken directly from the FDA's website for Modafinil ( http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2007/020... ). This information is also included in the product information sheet you receive with your prescription, and on the Provigil website. To say that Modafinil does not have the physical effects of other stimulants is not true. They are present to a lesser degree, but still exist.
In addition to its wake-promoting effects and ability to
increase locomotor activity in animals, modafinil produces
psychoactive and euphoric effects, alterations in mood,
perception, thinking, and feelings typical of other CNS
stimulants in humans. Modafinil has reinforcing properties,
as evidenced by its self-administration in monkeys previously
trained to self-administer cocaine. Modafinil was also
partially discriminated as stimulant-like.
Modafinil has been a help to me while stimulants have NOT been. I have a lot of experience with both, as I have talked about in various posts on this thread.
The difference between "stimulant" and "stimulant-like" is both small and vast. Think Uncanny Valley. "Human" and "human-like..."
Also, I am unsure what point you are trying to argue. I will give you stimulant-like, sure, although it does not make your heart race, a MAJOR PROBLEM with stimulants.
The FDA info you quote DOES NOT CALL MODAFINIL A STIMULANT!
Nor does the FDA info I quoted say that Modafinil is not a stimulant. Either way, you're arguing semantics and using personal anecdotes as your sources. We've already established that the effects of Modafinil are similar to that of other stimulants, and I've linked multiple studies showing that its mode of action overlaps with that of stimulants, and that the side effects of traditional stimulants show up in Modafinil (albeit with reduced frequency and magnitude). You can call it what you want, but none of that changes what I've posted here.
I'm going to step out of this debate, as arguing semantics only detracts from the topic at hand at this point.
My experience was similar. I wouldn't say it kills all your creativity, but it makes it slightly more unnatural to practice lateral thinking. That said, I have come up with some great ideas while on Modafinil.
My best tips if you're going to use this drug is:
1) Take a very small dose. 50mg (taken around 8 or 9) is usually more than enough to get me through the day. Occasionally I used to take a 25mg bump in the early afternoon which carried over the hyper feeling into the early evening.
2) Try it out on a day when you're by yourself first, so you understand how it changes your perception of the world, because it does alter your perception. You might be quicker to make decisions or react to things, and you need to understand this and compensate for it before you interact with other people. If you can't be alone, at least tell your partner about it so they understand that you might behave slightly differently over that period (possibly more aggressively...).
3) The best way to make the most of it, for me, has been to prepare a solid list of big items that I want to get through before I take it, so I don't have to think about what to do next. Modafinil allows you to focus really well on whatever it is you decide to do, but it really doesn't help your executive ability (i.e. deciding what to do). I did once find myself having a really solid, focused, deep, 6-hour session of World of Warcraft. Don't give yourself too much opportunity to wander, or you'll find yourself doing anything that comes to your mind (whether that's reading a book, cleaning the kitchen, reorganising your office, or actually doing some productive work). Best to decide ahead of time so you don't fall into that trap.
1) Totally agree. 100 mg made me nutty, aggressive; 50 mg still made me a bit agressive; 25mg is just right and makes me quite alert all day without making me an aggressive drone.
2) Totally agree. See #1, but I definitely look back at some interactions-while-on-100mg (super judgmental, aggressive) and think that I would have handled them better if not on modafinil. Interactions with my wife/kids can suffer.
3) Definitely. Taking modafinil without a plan leads to reading every article on Hacker News.
Generally, I consider modafinil to be a tool. As when using a hammer, I don't look to accomplish tasks that don't benefit from the tool.
I totally agree with the small dose tip. Experiments among my friends and family lead me to recommend 25-50 mg as a sweet spot between effectivity and side effects. 200mg is an overdose obscured by modafinil's relatively benign effect profile and people's expectation of ill effects from drug use.
I'm dyslexic, I cannot write with a pen and even though my discrete math is good I struggled throughout my school life and computer science degree with calculus and differentials etc.
In my second year in university one of my teachers suggested to me I might be dyslexic and later I found a professor in an university hospital who deals with ADD and dyslexia in younger patients. She suggested to me Ritalin and then concerta which I didn't want to use then, after school when I really needed the 6-7 hour coding marathons for the projects I'm working on I strated using concerta and ritalin here is my experience.
1. My concentration is longer and more productive, the urge to continuously get up and do something else is gone.
2. As far as 3 years go I had no noticeable side effects, I asked my doctor about it and he told me methylfenidaat hydroclorine which is the active ingredient in both drugs is considered to safe and no long term effect are observed to date(about 20 years or so)
3. The drugs do not cause addiction because I had periods without the drugs one 6 months one three months just to prove myself I can do without them so far both were uneventful Except I went back to my old self.
4. My IQ or creativity seems unaffected by the drug I'm always the same.
5. I was forgetting little things my keys wallet phone back then after the drugs I don't.
6. If I forget to take the drug my wife or colleagues ask me If I forgot to take my pills today, so the difference is noticeable from the outside.
7. Both drugs are strictly controlled substances in Turkey so I have to struggle with bureaucracy every month for refills, renewals.
Thanks for reading If you have any question I'll try to check the comments later.
36 mg concerta daily in the morning it usually keeps me on 12 hours or so.
or a 10mg ritalin which keeps the effect about 5 hours or so so I can take another if it will be a long nigth, taking concerta in the nigth is not a good idea because you will burn out and wont be able to sleep if you decide to.
Concerta is a small container with a laser drilled hole and a constant delivery mechanism for 12 hours or so and ritalin is bumpier on the dosage but concerta is more expensive about 120$ in Turkey for a month worth refill where ritalin is only 20$ for a month excluding the doctors fee which is 150$ so it costs around 200$ for a month and no insurance scheme covers it.
I can't speak for Provigil but I've used both Focalin (dexmethylphenidate) and Adderall (basically amphetamines) to help me study/work on tough projects and have had phenomenal results. I don't notice any "lack" in my creativity and honestly I find myself pumping out higher-quality work when I can focus in and get "in the zone". My writing improves, programming skills shoot through the fucking roof, and I find I can work from many different perspectives on any given problem.
Always in moderation of course. I couldn't imagine speeding every work day just to finish projects
They have not defrauded the cards I used and the stuff they delivered was, as far as I could tell, real (both from the packaging and from the effects).
I have been wondering; for a while, my linkchecker tool has reported that my QHI links in http://www.gwern.net/Modafinil.html#suppliers-prices are broken, and QHI gives some sort of IP error when I visit - is QHI blocking non-European IPs?
Well, I know a number of websites where you can buy sugar pills for a lot cheaper...
I ordered the Alertec from those guys quite a few times, and it always arrived without any issues. There's a slightly fussy initial sign-up procedure which involves sending them a fax, but beyond that I've had no problems.
From http://sites.google.com/site/thinkinginanutshell/nootropics :
"Beware of firms that advertise prices significantly lower than the above, because you will probably not get the real thing. The author very nearly got ripped off by a firm that was advertising 100x200mg packages for $90. These will come from countries that manufacture it generically despite the patent."
If you do try these, I would be interested in hearing how they compare to the Alertec.
Assuming the pills look like they should, a good way to tell that you actually got modafinil/adrafinil is to see if you have a high concentration of sulfur in your urine. Meaning, go to the bathroom -- if you smell sulfur, you've most likely got the real thing. Anyone with a nose who's taken these before will understand...
If it is the same sulfur-smell as one gets after eating asparagus, at least 25% of people will not be able to smell it. Furthermore, about 25% will not produce the smell after eating asparagus, regardless of wheter their nose can detect it or not.
Personally, I'm at least in one of the groups, since I can eat asparagus without any apparent misfortunes in smell.
Just ordered 20x Modafinil from them, also shipping to the UK. Quite anxious about ordering drugs from a foreign company, but from some quick research, it would seem UnitedPharmacies are quite reputable. I'll probably break the tablet in halve anyway and start with 50mg, just to be on the safe(r) side.
For various reasons I need a throwaway for this but I can confirm I've ordered with United a few times and it has been smooth sailing each time. Their ModAlert is also genuine (compared packaging and job numbers over time and with other vendors) and remarkably cheap. Only prob I had once was they didn't accept my Visa card, but tried again with another and was OK.
It's worth noting that the "retail price" from the original pharmacy is stamped on the packaging. It's in Indian rupees, but it comes out to something like £1.50 per 10.. so they're still making a nice markup.
No. It's very rare for customs to seize nootropics or drugs such as modafinil; the few American reports I've seen said that the first seizure simply lead to a warning letter (and not getting the shipment back). I've imported modafinil myself without problem.
I took ritalin for about a month to be able to play longer stretches of online poker. During the time I thought I was doing great but after reviewing my sessions later I discovered I was making a bunch of silly mistakes I don't think I would have done otherwise. And it was usually when I was already deep into the session, when I would otherwise have already stopped playing. After a month I found out that the amount of extra money was marginally paying for the cost of the drugs and stopped (yes, I played really small stakes). I know it's just anecdotal evidence and even my own sample size ( just one month ) is small but I think it's worth sharing.
In 2007, the FDA ordered Cephalon to modify the Provigil leaflet in bold-face print of several serious and potentially fatal conditions attributed to modafinil use, including TEN, DRESS syndrome, and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS).
The long term safety and effectiveness of modafinil has not been determined.
Webmd:http://bit.ly/9dSAg6
Headache, nausea, nervousness, anxiety, dizziness, and difficulty sleeping may occur. If any of these effects persist or worsen, notify your doctor or pharmacist promptly.
Tell your doctor immediately if any of these rare but serious side effects occur: mental/mood changes (e.g., agitation, confusion, depression, abnormal thoughts, hallucinations).
Seek immediate medical attention if any of these rare but very serious side effects occur: chest pain, fast/pounding/irregular heartbeat, signs of infection (e.g., fever, persistent sore throat).
6 cases over a decade. That's pretty safe in my book. You also left out the part about acute toxicity. For acute doses, Modafinil is safer than caffeine.
The FDA is ridiculously risk-averse when it comes to approving drugs. For example, they recently rejected lorcaserin and qnexa, two anti-obesity drugs, over safety concerns. They also got sibutramine withdrawn from the US market. Even if these drugs have risks, the risks of obesity are likely much higher.
A lot of people are going to die from obesity that would have been saved if these drugs were approved. Of course, the media reports when approved drugs cause harm, not when rejected drugs don't save lives.
> Even if these drugs have risks, the risks of obesity are likely much higher.
"Likely", nice weasel word there. In fact, sibutramine was pulled after the SCOUT trial showed that the risks of obesity were not higher. The cardiovascular risks of the drug more than offset the decresae in risks from lower weight.
Lorcaserin was barely efficacious, and had a cancer signal.
Qnexa was very efficacious, but had even more serious side effects. One serious one-two punch is that it makes women much more fertile because of the hormonal effects of weight loss (in the clincial trial something like 20 women got pregnant despite double birth control protection), and at the same time contains topiramate, a Pregnancy Category C drug known to cause birth defects.
You'll get no argument from me that the FDA is very risk averse (and I think there are several drugs rejected this year that should have been approved, e.g. pirfenidone for IPF), but I think you're wrong that the FDA should have approved these obesity drugs. As you say, obesity is a big problem in the US, which means lots and lots of people are going to take any drugs once they're approved. Such drugs have to be incredibly safe or there will be lots of problems.
The next obesity drug to come up for FDA approval is Orexigen's Contrave, and we'll see what happens there.
I think that last comment is over-calling things a bit. There are no studies supporting the conclusion that anti-obesity drugs save lives (this is not to say that they definitely don't, just that no one has proven it). Most of them cause weight loss of only 2 - 5kg anyway, compared to dietary/behavioural intervention alone.
On the other hand, surgery for obesity is dramatically effective and there is good evidence that it saves lives. It is strongly recommended in appropriate patients eventhough 1 - 2% of people die because of the operation.
Don't think the FDA is being risk averse, they just decided not to approve a modestly effective agent with an unclear safety profile.
Don't decide that the FDA is risk averse on that one example, but I hope you can see how, in general, the FDA has every incentive to be too cautious. If the FDA approves a drug and people die then there'll be political hell. If the FDA delays the approval of a medicine by a year and a few people die during that year who could have been saved pretty much no one will say anything, and even if they never approve a needed mediation then only if its for a disease with a well organized group of sufferers (think AIDS or breast cancer) will there be a political price. Its a testament to the altruism of the people who work at the FDA that they approve things at all, since the politics of the situation are so against them.
I've only seen one study researching whether the FDA is too risk adverse overall. If you look at the number of drugs denied approval to, you find that the FDA saves about 2,000 lives each year, which is really awesome. On the other hand if you look at drugs that are later approved but which are delayed in testing you find that the FDA causes between 5,000 and 20,000 excess deaths each year, which sort of sucks. All of this doesn't include the effects of making drug companies more careful about which drugs they try out, which really might go either way in its effect. Remember when looking at those number that there's a definite diminishing returns effect with each additional level of inspection saving less lives but costing the same amount.
Of course, this is only one study but its the only one I've seen. If anyone could point to more data I'd be quite grateful.
> All of this doesn't include the effects of making drug companies more careful about which drugs they try out, which really might go either way in its effect.
Let's not underestimate the magnitude of this effect... the FDA is the way it is for a reason. As incredibly and hair-pullingly frustrating as the approval process can be, it's necessary. I'd rather have an FDA that errs on the side of caution than one that relies on the good will and stringent standards of the pharma industry.
Not to disparage the drug companies too heavily- most of the people who work in the industry developing and testing drugs have their heads on straight, and would be in favor of doing things the right way even without the FDA looking over their shoulders... but companies are companies, and ensuring drug safety is not something that should be left up to profit-maximizing entities. The story about the scorpion and the frog comes to mind...
I think you believe I'm trying to get rid of the FDA here. I'm not, I just want it to approve new drugs more quickly. Generally I'm in favor of things like the late 80s/early 90s reform which reduced the gap in approval speed between the US and Europe * , or like HR.6270 (which never made it to vote) which would let terminally ill patients use drugs that haven't been proven safe yet. There's no reason to get rid of the FDA, its probably both better and politically easier to reform it.
*Europe generally approved drugs much more quickly than the US (well, United Kingdom, France, Spain, and Germany at least) and there wasn't any statistically significant difference in the number of bad drugs let through. People noticed that and hence the reforms in the early 90s. For instance, you could use propranolol to treat hypertnsion in most of Europe by '68, but not in the US until '78. That cost 10,000s of lives right there. Luckily the modern FDA is better - though it still needs improvement.
Pharmaceutical products in the US that have unexpected side-effects can cause their owner to be sued into oblivion, and even incredibly rare side effects are likely to manifest if a large population is taking them. (Also, the population at large does not understand statistics & probability.) Look at the history of Thalidomide, that's where a lot of precedents were set.
This puts certain categories of drugs (anything for pregnant women, nootropics for people without alzheimers, etc.) in the "too risky to bother" category.
If pharmaceutical companies were so worried about getting sued into oblivion, they wouldn't submit those drugs for FDA approval. Since if the FDA actually did approve the drugs, the companies would get sued into oblivion.
Those abbreviated fatal conditions are severe systemic drug reactions involving skin. They are mostly idiosyncratic - in other words, not really related to the total dose and not more likely with long term use. Some people are unlucky and get these reactions, presumably due to genetic/immunological factors. HIV infection and SLE are known to increase the risk of TEN and SJS.
These reactions are rare, which makes it difficult to precisely quantify the risk. Other drugs which are known to cause these reactions are NSAIDs like ibuprofen, which you can buy from a supermarket, and antibiotics like amoxycillin or bactrim, which doctors prescribe without being particularly concerned about the risk of potentially fatal skin reactions.
How do these drugs effect memory? If you can tear through books while on Provigil, is what you learned well retained when your brain reverts to its "scrappier state"?
My experience with Concerta (albeit a different drug), is not the same. I have seen a massive increase in my ability to concentrate and complete tasks, as well as be creative (in relation to my start up and business development). Though, creativity is relative to any one person and context.
I resisted for many years, but I recently got a script for Adderall, and it's made me a better thinker and doer. I haven't experienced the lack of creativity that some report - on the contrary actually. I've also found that I sleep better - which is actually common my doctor says.
I've been taking 15mg morning and after-lunch, but not on weekends so as to reduce my dependency and tolerance to it. This has worked well so far.
I'm not sure if perhaps people who have the gene coding for reduced dopamine re-uptake (i.e. a big predictor of ADD diagnoses - like myself) are the ones who get the strongest benefits and the reports of bad reactions could possibly be from those without this genotype?
I'm not going to speak out for or against the use of smart drugs, but please note that although Adrafinil does metabolize to Modafinil and thus appears to be a legal (depending on your ___location) alternative, it can damage your liver and cause stomach pain.
You'll find more scientifically oriented articles about this subject if you call it nootropics. Here is another personal (not me) anecdote about it which comes off quite differently.
This article could not have been written to tempt me any more effectively.
'It doesn't cause hyperfocused procrastination, like Adderal or Dexedrine. It's 'deep concentration.' And you can go off it whenever you want! It's a temporary smart pill with no withdrawal symptoms!'
Pros: it's killer for jet lag -- I fly between the US and HK fairly regularly, and suffer extraordinarily from jet lag. Modafinil helps a lot in reseting my internal clock. I also see the deep concentration effect, particularly on a project that I'm avoiding due to the inherent dullitude -- when high, I can power through stuff that I would deflect and ignore.
On the down side, if I forget and drink a beer after taking Modafinil, the hangover is epic. Too, it makes my pee smell really weird. And I have a tendency towards chatterboxery, which is exacerbated beyond all reason.
As people point out above, this is a good thing. Makes counterfeiting that much harder. It would be nice if all drugs came with such signatures of authenticity. ('Remember, real Viagra will cause a little shamrock tattoo to appear under your right armpit for an hour.')
My experience has been that it leaves me drained for a couple of days afterwards, a little like a hangover but without any headache or sickness. It's not a free lunch. As to advantages, primarily modafinil stops me from feeling fatigued during the day, more than anything else; but I can still feel my brain getting tired, making more mistakes. It's just that the urge to take a break, rest, sleep etc. is numbed.
Indeed, I myself have always been quite doubtfull of drugs' effectiveness. I used to attribute success much more to e.g. the discipline to refrain from browsing. This article makes me rethink that.
As for the creativity, I'm not always sure that is a boon. When I encounter a particularly inspiring idea while studying something else, I find my mind wanders off in all directions with creative ideas, where I 'should' be concentrating on task at hand.
I would say, if anything, I've had the opposite experience with adderall. I've had some crazy creative bursts. I am probably the exception because almost everyone I talk with has the opposite experience.
After reading about this the first time I researched for about a month before purchasing any. My general experience with them is that they work, they keep you up longer than you would normally be able to, they keep you alert, you don't feel like you are hopped up either.
The effect only lasts so long though, after being up for over 24 hours, your body gets tired, and the effectiveness of the drug gets worse. I didn't really go past 36 hours, but if I wanted to I could have. Note that I didn't purposely try and stay up all those times, I work graveyard shifts and ended up having important things come up when I needed to sleep and I was forced to stay up.
Modafinil really did help me when I was tired, but as far as being a 'smart drug' it wasn't exactly mind blowing. It did make it easier to focus, but I could just as easily focus on a TV show, or a website, versus a piece of code I wanted to finish. So if you need to stay up, study, or get something done and you are determined to do it, this is great. If you want something to augment your day to day life and make you 'smarter' this really isn't for you.
Though there are more things popping up saying that it might have worse long term side effects than previously thought, I didn't really have any that I know of, but if I get brain cancer in a year I guess I know why. :)
Isn't their a natural counterpart? Like a mind hack or something similar. I found myself ,in the last week, deeply concentrating and working on something that is very boring and I usually tend to lose concentration on it very quickly. I was surprised how the hours passed without complaints.
May be I ate something special that made that day goes like that, but I felt like I fall into that deep concentration state of mind. My creative abilities weren't touched, though.
"Provigil is NOT a Schedule IV drug. It is prescribed on regular prescription paper, NOT DEA paper."
I think you have it backwards. Schedule IV drugs are prescription-only, but don't require DEA papers like Schedule II drugs do (such as Adderall, Ritalin, etc). They aren't as highly regulated, but they do still require a prescription.
Incidentally, I have not yet found the harmful effects on creativity that the author has, but I do not take it every day. I have taken it in two week stretches with no loss of creativity. An extremely successful and creative entrepreneur I know takes it daily for narcolepsy.
Yes. Search the archives for "piracetam", "aniracetam", etc. Discussions about nootropics seem to come up a few times a year (though they usually get derailed to talking about amphetamines and provigil pretty quickly).
I disagree, in a way. I used to take amphetamines when studying (adderall) and I'd find that I could completely get lost in whatever task I was pursuing. So, if I stayed focused on my study material, I'd absorb the material very thoroughly and quickly (relatively speaking). However, if I'd get distracted by something ~creative like, say, drawing a picture or composing a song (I didn't do any coding back then) I could get similarly lost in that task. That ability to "get lost" in something is, to me, very powerful creatively.
Here's an example of the sort of artwork that I would do on speed that I probably wouldn't have the patience for, otherwise:
I'm sure there are some types of creativity that are blunted, but the ability to direct extended focus and attention to any task (even creative ones) is a powerful thing that shouldn't be overlooked.
Please note, I am not the author of the mentioned article. In fact, I never took Modafinil. I just remembered there was a decent discussion here at HN of the first part of the article, then I Googled and found there is follow up. So I decided to post it here.
For what it's worth, depending on your definition of God and how much LSD you take, I'd be inclined to believe that second statement.
I agree that anecdotal evidence is not worth much, however the problem with psychoactive drugs is that many of the most interesting effects are subjective (and thus the best data is always anecdotal) and that scientific studies of certain interesting drugs is illegal. Anecdotal evidence may not be worth much, but it's certainly worth more than prejudices based on zero evidence.
Also worth pointing out that not all interesting things in life can be studied with objective double-blind studies.
My concern is that once you start taking these drugs to artificially boost your intelligence your natural ability to concentrate without them might atrophy because it's no longer used. I guess this isn't an issue if you only take them every now and then, but isn't it a better idea to seek alternate ways to energize your brain that use your own body such as having a solid exercise routine, proper diet and getting enough sleep?
I never even thought of taking a drug to get ahead or be better at what I do. I don't think I knew people did self-medicate to improve their productivity either. It seems so wrong to me and so unauthentic. The brain is a fragile mission critical component we know so little about. I am amazed so many seem here discuss it so candidly. Good luck and make sure you don't turn into veggies by 50 y.o.
If you're concerned about being inauthentic, you should write all your code on paper rather than using anything as performance-enhancing as a text editor. And forget about that morning coffee!
wow - you see no difference between coffee and a neural enhancer? this is way off the chart for me here. I have no difficulties seeing authenticity in what I do vs. the pill-popping programming regimen (maybe that's why I am getting downvoted here). I would also say it keep me very happy so far. So I wish good luck to those who choose that instead :)
Perhaps not coffee, but caffeine, the active ingredient, is a "neural enhancer." Wikipedia defines it as a "psychoactive stimulant drug" and says that it "has a generally disinhibitory effect on neural activity." You would have done better to call out the comparison between using drugs and a text editor ;-)
"I have no difficulties seeing authenticity in what I do vs. the pill-popping programming regimen"
Yeah, that's how cognitive dissonance works. Please articulate where the 'authenticity' line is. Plenty of people 'feel' the way you do, but I have yet to meet a single one who can rationally explain their 'feeling'.
"Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously."
You tell me what's conflicting in my feelings because I'd be curious to know.
On the other hand, anyone who feels they need to downvote me because I expressed feeling felt a bit troubled by their revelations about the way they pop pills to improve their programming skills is maybe downvoting me to feel better about themselves, don't you think? I mean if YC's majority opinion is that pill popping is OK, AND/OR that anyone disagreeing should be downvoted, I think I want nothing to do with YC. I surely hope it's not the case. Now tke shots at my karma all you want!
Well you don't have the uncomfortable feeling, because you rationalize it away by declaring coffee (caffeine) something entirely different from (other_ neural enhancers (in pill form). Cognitive dissonance is, like you say, the uneasy feeling of having two conflicting views at the same time. Your are 'pills are bad' and 'coffee is ok'. (If I may speculate, I'd say the both come from social conditioning, or rather, accepting the mainstream or conventional views on these issues without thinking about them critically. For which nobody can really blame you, I mean if everybody had to second guess every single thing we see every day ('regular' people drinking coffee), we'd get nothing done at all.)
Anyway so those are the two views, but when you link them through 'they're both cognitive enhancers', a problem arises. Why is one bad, and the other not? So this is then 'glossed over' or 'smoothed out' by the brain by internalizing a third cognition, namely 'they're not the same'. Note that this third cognition does not have to be elaborated on very much (actually this elaboration is what I asked for, because I don't think any argument in it can hold) to put your mind at ease and 'resolve' the cognitive dissonance.
Anyway, my point still stands. I challenge you to explain what is the fundamental difference between taking a chemical in pill form versus taking it in liquid form (this is what it, in my opinion, boils down to). I guess the most obvious argument is going to be that one is man-made and the other 'natural' (which somebody arguing this then usually interprets as "the precursor is readily available in nature, and extensive treatment in the form of drying, grounding, and preparing with hot water is 'pure' enough to all be 'natural".) I won't put any words in your mouth, I'm just pre-empting the usual first response and indicating what I see as weaknesses in that argument ;)
Finally, for the record, I didn't downvote you as far as I remember, but your comment did rub me the wrong way. The reason being that it states a very strong opinion or position, but offers nothing to rationally substantiate that opinion. On the contrary, the only attempt at convincing the reader seems to be in a 'proof by assertion' strategy, repeated across multiple posts. Furthermore from your claim that people only downvoted you because you hold a different opinion it seems that you are not very willing to critically examine your own position, nor to put in the effort to really (as in, rationally and in a dialectically sound way) defend it. I hope I'm wrong on this of course, I'm just letting you know how these couple of posts came across to me, hoping that this may help you understand why people reacted to your post the way they did (well, 'people', just 3 really, but still).
You can "challenge" me all you want but that still doesn't justify you or others downvoting my comments ;-) And it's just not three downvotes because I was up 6 at some point.
I worked briefly in the pharmaceutical industry and it taught me a few things about the level of testing and knowledge labs have about the pills that you compare to coffee. There has been much more research about coffee (which I remind you I don't drink either because I know of its side-effects) than there has been about the neural enhancers you kids take. You want to believe it's OK. Go ahead but don't blame me for saying it makes no sense to me. And you are right, I am not willing to put much more time into going in details on this. Too busy and the topic is really so off the charts to me that I am pretty sure of myself here.
I have heard so much of the same non-sense pseudo-chemistry from all the people advocating for one drug or another for their wellbeing. The argumentative here really sound of addiction. So I challenge you to explain in bio-chemical terms why these drugs are as harmless as coffee. Good luck!
Are you even reading what I wrote? I explicitly said I didn't downvote you. In addition, you still refuse to actually go into any substantial points, and still resort to the meaningless 'nahnahnah I can't hear you' style of 'discussion' common amongst toddlers.
"the topic is really so off the charts to me that I am pretty sure of myself here". Seriously? Your argument is 'I have a strong opinion about it, so I'm right"? "The argumentative here really sound of addiction." And your basic retort is "what do you know, you're all junkies"? No wonder you feel you're being treated hostile here - all anti-intellectualism is, as it should.
I am absolutely not anti-intellectual - more like the contrary in fact. However, I don't see any intellectualism here.
As I said, point me to serious research that shows coffee and neural stimulants are just as harmless as each other and and I'll side with you. I don't have to provide you research that shows they are vastly different. It's just so freaking obvious.
Finally, I am very familiar with these medications since I took several neural agents as a younger guy when experiencing epilepsy. I am not against them, I am just surprised about so much talk of self-medication and I think it's plain wrong for people to think this harmless. But this is free world, so why don't you just ignore me and keep popping instead of getting all flustered about my comments, if you are sure of yourself that is.
Oh I'm not flustered, a bit annoyed at best. This used to be a site where mostly bright people discussed in a mostly intelligent way, but lately I feel like it's being overrun by people like you who provide words to the database but no content, and that's a shame. (of course I'm doing so myself now, I'll justify that to myself by saying that it's buried so deep in an article way off the front page that it won't bother many people any more, but I fully recognize that that's cognitive dissonance too).
Anyway please stop the straw man 'that shows coffee and neural stimulants are just as harmless as each other'. That was never even a point of discussion, please pay attention. This started off with you stating "I have no difficulties seeing authenticity in what I do vs. the pill-popping programming regimen" and some other comments that basically declared some ethical difference between using coffee over chemical substances. Caffeine and other chemicals are not the same, they have different effect on the brain and different effects on the body, each chemical has. You claimed there was a moral chasm between caffeine and synthetic drug use, and afterward you refuse to either back down or defend the point, instead weaseling out with (by my count) 5 fallacies by now.
Finally I did not mention once taking any chemicals myself, on purpose since it's immaterial to the question at hand and discussions about me (or you, for that matter) are completely uninteresting. It seems like you find it hard to comprehend that people would take an abstract interest in something that is not immediately applicable in their world, or to hold opinions that are not directly relevant in that. But since you seem to think it's important, let me state for the record that I don't use any non-medical chemicals myself (save for the occasional caffeine).
hehe - just "a bit annoyed" but wasting hard drive space with this long and slightly insulting rant!? you either have lots of time on your hands or are really flustered. I agree, the discussion has lost all meaning at this point. going back to my startup now :)
What I find most astonishing is that people administer 'smart' drugs without having the slightest clue to their long-term side effects. You discount long-term risks in favor of short-term gains.
We humans simply don't understand much of what goes on in the brain - I wouldn't believe there is anything to be done to your brain, like enhancing cognitive abilities through drugs, without unintended consequences.
Modafinil has been around since the 70's. So far, no studies have found issues with long-term use. Actually, some studies found it to have a neuroprotective effect.
I wouldn't believe there is anything to be done to your brain, like enhancing cognitive abilities through drugs, without unintended consequences.
The environment we evolved in is quite different from the environment we now live in. Humans used to have much more limited supplies of food and nutrients. Our bodies are built for famine resistance instead of maximum performance. There's probably a similar trade-off in our brain functions, since the brain is a pretty big energy hog (responsible for around 25% of calories burned).
We can use drugs to tweak the trade-offs made by evolution. We don't have to worry about food and nutrients today. Stimulants can decrease appetite and need for sleep, both of which would be disastrous in a food-limited environment. Even the effect of stimulants we find beneficial (spending hours in concentrated thought) would likely be harmful on the African savannah.
The precautionary principle is too often applied in the case of enhancement. We don't completely understand the brain yet, but we do have some idea of how it works, and today there are safe effective drugs that improve cognitive abilities.
wouldn't believe there is anything to be done to your brain, like enhancing cognitive abilities through drugs, without unintended consequences.
Although there are many illegal drugs that have negative consequences, the practice of applying this as a naive general law of medicine is largely a result of many years of this idea, or ideas similar to it, being drilled into us by the war on drugs propaganda machine. Each substance must be evaluated on a case by case basis and if people have been taking certain drugs for 30 years with no deleterious effect, the evidence is certainly in favor of long term safety, or even * gasp * benefit.
There are other beliefs similar to this, such as any radio signal emitting device causes cancer, that have silently entered the culture as fact without much science to support them.
I think a better description of the process - at least, as it applies to my own usage (prescribed) goes like this:
When you are on these sorts of drugs think of it as opening the tap. You execute with the full force of your creative reserves that you've built up. The more pent up you are - the more the ideas just pour through you as you write/code/compose - whatever.
And because the tap is open, eventually the waters on one side of the dam level out with those on the other. The rate of creative execution slows down because it's not pent up.
But I think it's a mistake to say one is LESS creative. You remain as creative as you ever were. The same amount of water flows through your stream as it ever did. One just doesn't have the same pent up backlog of ideas to execute anymore - just that steady stream.
Basically, it doesn't sound like a bad idea to take a pill one weekend in the month. You'll do all the things you've been meaning to for ages, and then go back to normal.
I'd try it myself if I weren't dubious of the "no side-effects" thing. I don't think it's very likely that a drug makes you supersmart without having ill effects...
What about the short and long-term side effects of foods, they also alter your brain chemistry, such as chocolate which can/does increase dopamine production, and many others.
Depends on how much flow you have to start with I guess.
As for side effects - they are there - but they are mild. If I stop taking them then the worst that happens is that I want to spend a day napping. But then I'm back to normal. Seriously - withdrawing for caffeine is much worse.
Having said that. I don't actually advise that people take them without a prescription. Besides the obvious legal issues - there are people who genuinely need them just to have a reasonably normal life. Black market demand could make them more difficult to obtain for these people (especially me!).
Agreed. It seems extremely unlikely that a drug which alters your brain chemistry does not have any ill side effects. If it doesn't have chemically addictive properties, it most certainly has emotionally addictive qualities.
I just remember hearing about sudden deaths of people who were on a nootropic drug (not sure if it was this one). Does anyone remember the drug? I don't think the risk is worth the reward...
I would not recommend driving on Modafinil. Too much focus can kill you on the road, and I have noticed that my ambient awareness feels reduced on Modafinil.
They don't make you "supersmart" and they don't have side-effects that you'd be bothered by. They're like many things: if you take too much too often, you'll feel bad. If you use it moderately it can be useful.
No seriously. I've tried most of the smart drugs in existence, had exactly the same reaction to modafinil, and found stablon does much of the same but without the drawback mentioned. YMMV, of course.
It also increases dopamine and norepinephrine activity in certain areas of the brain, similar to Adderall and Ritalin, so it will boost your concentration. It actually showed a positive effect on concentration in ADHD treatment trials, but the FDA declined to approve it for that purpose due to some concerns over a rare skin-rash disorder. Many people are under the misconception that it is not a stimulant, but it most certainly is.
As for controlled, double-blind trials, the results are not promising in non-sleep-deprived individuals. Controlled tests tend to show self-reported increases in restlessness, aggression, and anxiety, but the standardized cognitive and memory tests show very little, if any, improvement in the Modafinil groups. (See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12672167 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15738750 for more).
Finally, don't try to import Modafinil (Provigil) into the US without a prescription. It is a Schedule IV controlled substance and the legal ramifications for importing a controlled substance can be serious. If you're still eager to try it outside of a doctor's supervision, which I definitely do not recommend, then know that Adrafinil is metabolized (partly) to Modafinil within the body but is not a controlled substance. Importing it is a still a gray area, though.
Bottom line: Getting a healthy amount of sleep should be your #1 goal for cognitive improvement. If that isn't actually possible, then Modafinil could be helpful for reversing the effects of sleep deprivation. If concentration is your problem, Modafinil may help you, but you'd probably be better off pursuing proper ADHD treatment with a medication approved for ADHD.