Trying to separate three different claims about armodafinil: that it is the right molecule, that it is the right dose, and that it does something useful. What surprised me is how much of the perceived benefit was routine and attention rather than pharmacology.
An inconclusive account is useful if it stops the next person mistaking a story for a controlled comparison.
What is the first thing you would read if you were starting from zero? Currently on armodafinil myself.
Narrow conclusion, briefly right. Broad conclusion, interestingly wrong. I know which I keep choosing.
Log dose, time and sleep. Ten seconds a day and it turns the anecdote into something you can look at.
Underdosing and tolerance are indistinguishable from the inside, and everyone picks the flattering explanation.
Narrow conclusion.
Underdosing and tolerance are indistinguishable from the inside, and everyone picks the flattering explanation.
Most of the popular protocol is borrowed from a clinical population and applied to healthy people without comment.
A plausible mechanism is not an outcome, and this class is the textbook example.
Where does the human data stop and the extrapolation begin? That is the whole thread.