• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Piracetam in Normal, Healthy Humans


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,293 posts
  • 1,792
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 06 July 2006 - 08:07 PM


All:

How many individuals take Piracetam and its family of compounds expecting an improvement in memory when there isn't a single scientific study demonstrating a real effect in healthy subjects to support its use?

I must say that I'm really pleased to see that you (Nootropikamil) have become more careful and more sceptical, than in a previous 'incarnation.' There really is a lot of bunk in the supplement and 'smart drug' world, and he's right to demand evidence, and not the all-too-typical and frankly embarrassing citation of anecdotes and popular articles written by salespeople as documentation.

Now in this case, Nootropikamil shown in several threads how the evidence is really quite inconsistent for AD and other diseases (and the better-quality trials have tended to be the most negative), and the folks supporting its use in normal, healthy folks have AFAICS failed to provide any evidence of any value whatsoever to support it. I was surprised by this, thinking that there was plenty of evidence on this point, but when I began digging I was surprised by the relative lack of evidence on this point. I realized that, having become convinced of its evidence-basedness back in the mid-90s, when my knowledge, my familiarity with clinical trial reports, and my general skepticism/cynicism about supplements and drugs were all significantly lower, I might well have fallen for the hype myself.

This has pushed me into doing a pretty painstaking review, for which goad I want to thank Nootropikamil, and chastize a lot of the rest of you for not doing your homework (yes, I can be bitchy about this kind of thing ;) ). I'm glad to say that I did find there to be significant evidence that does support piracetam's use in normal, healthy folk, tho' I certainly wish that I could get more info: none of these were large or long-term studies, and a lot of the info I gathered was second-hand. Below are the results of my digs, and requests for help in confirming some of the details.

In (1), "Nootropyl (Piracetam) ... was tested for its effect on man by administering it to normal volunteers. The subjects were given 3x4 capsules at 400 mg per day, in a double blind study. Each subject learned series of words presented as stimuli upon a memory drum. No effects were observed after 7 days but after 14 days verbal learning had significantly increased."

(2) was "A double-blind, intra-individual cross-over comparison of the mental performance of 18 aging, non-deteriorated individuals ... with reduced mental performance possibly related to disturbed alertness" "during two 4-week periods of piracetam (1-acetamide-2-pyrrolidone) and placebo administration performed using conventional and computerized perceptual-motor tasks. In a majority of these tasks the subjects did
significantly better when on piracetam than on placebo, a finding consistent with ratings completed by two independent observers." How close to normal aging, and how relevant to the youthful and healthy, is open to some question. A review (11) adds the following, not stated in the abstract: " Moderate but statistically significant improvements (up to 12% vs placebo; p < 0.05) in a range of assessments of cognition were obtained in 18 healthy individuals aged 50 years or more who received piracetam as part of an 8-week, doubleblind crossover study. However, individuals' own ratings of their mental and psychological condition did not reveal any significant differences between piracetam and placebo. "

I DO have copies of the full texts of these trials (1,2) hidden away in my files somewhere, but I'll not be able to look into them to get more details for a month or two; anyone with easy access, please do report.

(6) summarizes (4) VERY briefly thus: "Five double-blind controlled studies in normal adults have used tests of verbal learning and memory; in all the published studies piracetam was superior to placebo in verbal function {citing my (1,2,4,5,9) -MR}." (11), likewise, includes it with (1,2) as being among "A small number of placebo-controlled studies {that} have shown that piracetam improves aspects of mental performance in healthy volunteers." Unfortunately, (4) is in German and unavailable to me.

Further details are alleged to be provided by this article on piracetam by James South: "Giurgea and Salama {my (3) below -MR} report the confirmation of Dimond/Brouwer's work by Wedl and Suchenwirth in 1977 {my (4) below -MR}. Wedl found significant improvement in mental performance in a group of 17 healthy young volunteers given 3.2 grams per day Piracetam for five days." Unfortunatel again, (3) is not even a MEDLINE-indexed item; moreover, Giurgea does seem to be a somewhat 'tainted' source, as the inventor of piracetam and long-term UCB employee. Further, James South is, in my opinion, a very unreliable source of information on drugs and supplements.

If anyone has access to (4), or even (3), to help confirm any of this, it would be helpful.

(6) also includes the same statement about (5), ie, that it is one of "Five double-blind controlled studies in normal adults {in which} ... piracetam was superior to placebo in verbal function". Later, it elucidates that it was a study "involving 16 male dyslexic adolescents and 14 normal student volunteers in a 3-week double-blind trial of 4.8 g piracetam or placebo per day, {which} found that dyslexics (and normals) treated with piracetam showed a decrease in the number of trials required to reach criteria in a rote verbal learning task, while after placebo both groups showed insignificant minor changes." The abstract of (5) gives no hint of this info on the healthy control group, but the review is actually by the authors of (5). According to the JS article op cit, "Wilsher and co-workers (1979) {my (5) -MR} related their results with 4.8 grams per day Piracetam in a double blind, crossover trial to study the benefits of Piracetam for dyslexic students. Interestingly, the 14 healthy student controls, matched for IQ with the dyslexic subjects, demonstrated a significantly better result on a test measuring ability to memorize nonsense syllables while using Piracetam as compared to placebo." This is not quite the same claim as made in (6), tho' similar, and seems to be a good general confirmation.

If anyone has a convenient way to get an actual copy of (5), it would be helpful.

Another study cited by (6) as one of teh "Five double-blind controlled studies in normal adults {in which} ... piracetam was superior to placebo in verbal function" is (9); unfortunately, (6) provides no further details, and as the citation says, it was an "Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London School of Pharmacy." I doubt this was a very useful study IAC, as the title says it was an "acute dose"; still, anyone at the U of L should be able to get a copy; if you can, please do!

(7) is on its face supportive, at least in AAMI, which is close to 'normalcy': "A double-blind randomized trial was performed involving 162 patients with age-associated memory impairment (AAMI) ... Two intervention methods--a drug and a cognitive therapy--were assessed in combination. Three randomized parallel groups of 54 patients each, aged 55 years and over, were followed and treated for 3 months. After a placebo wash-out period of 10 days, one group received 2.4 g of piracetam, another group, 4.8g, and the third, a placebo. ... Combined therapy was most effective in patients whose baseline performance on memory tests was lowest. The best results were observed with 4.8 g of piracetam, especially when training sessions began after 6 weeks of drug treatment. This result was confirmed by the global impression of the principal investigator."

Further details are provided in a review (8): "Memory was tested by the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test ... and a freee-recall test developed by the principal investigator. ... {B}oth piracetam groups showed significantly greater improvement relative to baseline for global recall (immediate and delayed recall average) and immediate recall. The high-dose group also showed significantly greater improvement than the control group on delayed recall. ... the high-dose piracetam group that received memory training during the last half of the protocol showed a 35.5% improvement, whereas the placebo group with last-half memory training showed a 12% improvement."

However, (8) also presents a caveat not raised in the abstract: "These effects may be more apparent than real, though, because by chance the placebo group performed somewhat better at baseline than both piracetam groups (by an average of 1-2 items). By the end of treatment, the three groups were virtually indistinguishable in {absolute} performance on the free-recall tests. It is possible thathad the placebo group's baseline been as low as the piracetam groups', the placebo group would have shown a comparable improvement ... Indeed, the most robust effects were found in the comparison of the two groups that differed the most at baseline: the placebo and the high-dose ... group. Further, there were no significant treatment effects on the Rey test, on which baseline performace was nearly identical across the groups."

(10) is the closest thing to a genuine negative report: "Fifty-six hospitalized geriatric patients between the ages of 65 and 80 were given piracetam (Nootropil) 2400 mg/day or placebo on a double blind basis over a two month period. Every patient submitted to a battery of psychological tests before and after the two month trial ... In addition, at pretreatment, 4 and 8 weeks, the patient completed a Profiles of Mood States, a Clinical Global Evaluation was done by the investigator, and laboratory determinations were performed....There were no significant statistical differences between the two groups of patients on all measures utilized except for the Clinical Global Evaluation, where 52% of the patients on piracetam showed minimal improvement versus 25% of the placebo group (P less than 0.05)."

(8) claims the following additional informatioin about (10): the patient population had "age-related memory decline not necessarily associated with dementia or depression", making it more relevant to healthy normals. They say that piracetam "had no effect on immediate recall of stories, gemetric shapes, and designs." This may mitigate against the apparent null result on cognition, as none of these measures quite matches the variable on which positive results tend to be reported (verbal recall -- tho' stories may hve been 'verbal,' of course).

Overall, I find the results supportive of piracetam's usefulness in normal, healthy humans, esp if aged (tho' 'normal' and 'healthy' then become somewhat debatable terms). Alas, there are none of the large, long-term studies in healthy folk that I'd really like to've been performed, and none are likely to be in the future. There are several reasons for this. First, at the time when the stuff was developed, one could really get away with very little evidence before marketing a drug. Prior to the amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1962, you didn't have to prove efficacy in the USA, and it would be many years before drugs would begin to be EXCLUDED from marketing for lack of access; European countries would take considerably longer. Cognitiive enhancement in the healthy not being a disease in need of a 'cure' by FDA standards, there is no incentive for performing such trials at the time, as you couldn't get FDA approval to market it for that purpose (tho' as we've seen in so many cases of late, it's easy enough to get approval for one indication and then pull various dirty tricks to encourage off-label use); even to do that, you'd first have to prove its utility in some disease state, which as we've seen has been difficult (perhaps beacuse it really just doesn't work in AD, etc). And of course, piracetam is now off-patent, making any such further trials all the more unlikely.

these reasons are often invoked as the reason why a supplement has never been subjected to proper trials, and then a bizarre logical mis-step is taken, in which the fact that there is a REASON why no such trials have been performed, is taken as some kind of justification for taking it, as if such trials HAD been performed, or as if some silly in vitro study were therefore sufficient evidence. This is a good way to get yourself killed, or at least ripped off. I'm constantly hammering at individuals and companies for this kind of sloppy BS. So why am I willing to let piracetam off the hook?

First, everyone agrees that the stuff is nearly free of side effects (mild and similar to placebo in incidence), and acute toxicity information suggests that it's safer than most SUPPLEMENTS (ie, LD-50 >8 g/kg iv in rats, >10 g/kg orally in rats, dogs, and mice (12)). And while I hate to repeat a half-remembered rumor, IIRC someone (Dean and Morgenthaler?) reported an (anonymous?) FDA official saying that piracetam couldn't possibly have any beneficial effects, because its toxicity is so low!

Second, I've been using it for some years now in relative ignorance of the true state of the research, and in combination wiht a background dose of 500 mg pyroglutamate, I've been pleased with the results, which seem to include greater mental energy, the drive to remain on-task, and some enhancement of creativity consistent with the reports (in rats and schizophrenic humans) of enhanced interhemispheric communication.

And third, I'm now getting a brand that I consider to have reliable QC (Relentless Improvement) at a much cheaper price than the UCB Nootropyl.

So putting these 3 factors together: granted its low cost and safety, I'm willing to abandon my usual caution and simply say that if these are placebo effects, I'm OK with that :). But I would still like more information if available, and urge others to provide any quality information to which they have access.

-Michael

1.Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1976 Sep 29;49(3):307-9.
Increase in the power of human memory in normal man through the use of
drugs.
Dimond SJ, Brouwers EM.
PMID: 826948 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1976 Aug;54(2):150-60.
Piracetam-induced improvement of mental performance. A controlled study
on normally aging individuals.
Mindus P, Cronholm B, Levander SE, Schalling D.
PMID: 785952 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3. C. Giurgea, M. Salama (1977) "Nootropic drugs" Prog. Neuro-Pharmac. 1.235-47. [Cited by James South article].

4. Nervenarzt. 1977 Jan;48(1):58-60.
[Effects of the GABA-derivative piracetam: a double-blind study in
healthy probands (author's transl)]
Wedl W, Suchenwirth RM.
PMID: 846621 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5. Wilsher C, Atkins G, Manfield P.
Piracetam as an aid to learning in dyslexia. Preliminary report.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1979 Sep;65(1):107-9.
PMID: 116285 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

6. Wilsher CR, Taylor EA.
Piracetam in developmental reading disorders: A review.
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 1994 Apr;3(2):59-71
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01977668

7. Int Psychogeriatr. 1994 Fall;6(2):155-70.
Drug therapy and memory training programs: a double-blind randomized trial of general practice patients with age-associated memory impairment.
Israel L, Melac M, Milinkevitch D, Dubos G.
PMID: 7865703 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

8. McDaniel MA, Maier SF, Einstein GO.
"Brain-specific" nutrients: a memory cure?
Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2002 May; 3(1):12-38.
http://www.psycholog...pdf/pspi312.pdf

9. Hyde, J.R.G. (1980). The Effect of an Acute Dose of Piracetam on Human Pe~ormance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London School of Pharmacy. [Cited by (6)].

10. Abuzzahab FS Sr, Merwin GE, Zimmermann RL, Sherman MC.
A double blind investigation of piracetam (Nootropil) vs placebo in geriatric memory.
Pharmakopsychiatr Neuropsychopharmakol. 1977 Mar;10(2):49-56.
PMID: 360232 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

11. Noble S, Benfield P
Piracetam: A Review of its Clinical Potential in the Management of Patients with Stroke
CNS Drugs. 1998 Jun;9(6):497-511.
http://www.ingentaco...000006/art00006

12: Gouliaev AH, Senning A.
Piracetam and other structurally related nootropics.
Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1994 May;19(2):180-222. Review.
PMID: 8061686 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

#2 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 06 July 2006 - 08:32 PM

Sorry dude, without proof of mechanism it is all anecdotal, and correlation of physical effects with the mental effects is not enough to show mechanism.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 06 July 2006 - 09:05 PM

and simply say that if these are placebo effects, I'm OK with that


Thank you.

#4 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 06 July 2006 - 11:23 PM

I posted some really good reviews for you guys on Piracetam just recently.

The reviews were released in 2006 and can be found here.

An abstract of the first

Piracetam--an old drug with novel properties?

Winnicka K, Tomasiak M, Bielawska A.

Department of Drug Technology, Medical University of Bialystok, 1 Kilinskiego Str., 15-089 Bialystok, Poland.

Piracetam (2-oxo-1-pyrrolidine-acetamide), the most common of the nootropic drugs, is a cyclic derivative of gamma-aminobutyric acid. The treatment with piracetam improves learning, memory, brain metabolism, and capacity. Piracetam has been shown to alter the physical properties of the plasma membrane by increasing its fluidity and by protecting the cell against hypoxia. It increases red cell deformability and normalizes aggregation of hyperactive platelets. Piracetam is an agent with antithrombotic, neuroprotective and rheological properties. The interaction of this molecule with the membrane phospholipids restores membrane fluidity and could explain the efficacy of piracetam in various disorders ranging from dementia and vertigo to myoclonus and stroke.

Publication Types:

    * Review


PMID: 16459490 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


and the second

Piracetam improves mitochondrial dysfunction following oxidative stress.

Keil U, Scherping I, Hauptmann S, Schuessel K, Eckert A, Muller WE.

1Department of Pharmacology, Biocenter, N260, University of Frankfurt, Marie-Curie-Str. 9, 60439 Frankfurt, Germany.

Mitochondrial dysfunction including decrease of mitochondrial membrane potential and reduced ATP production represents a common final pathway of many conditions associated with oxidative stress, for example, hypoxia, hypoglycemia, and aging.Since the cognition-improving effects of the standard nootropic piracetam are usually more pronounced under such pathological conditions and young healthy animals usually benefit little by piracetam, the effect of piracetam on mitochondrial dysfunction following oxidative stress was investigated using PC12 cells and dissociated brain cells of animals treated with piracetam.Piracetam treatment at concentrations between 100 and 1000 muM improved mitochondrial membrane potential and ATP production of PC12 cells following oxidative stress induced by sodium nitroprusside (SNP) and serum deprivation. Under conditions of mild serum deprivation, piracetam (500 muM) induced a nearly complete recovery of mitochondrial membrane potential and ATP levels. Piracetam also reduced caspase 9 activity after SNP treatment.Piracetam treatment (100-500 mg kg(-1) daily) of mice was also associated with improved mitochondrial function in dissociated brain cells. Significant improvement was mainly seen in aged animals and only less in young animals. Moreover, the same treatment reduced antioxidant enzyme activities (superoxide dismutase, glutathione peroxidase, and glutathione reductase) in aged mouse brain only, which are elevated as an adaptive response to the increased oxidative stress with aging.In conclusion, therapeutically relevant in vitro and in vivo concentrations of piracetam are able to improve mitochondrial dysfunction associated with oxidative stress and/or aging. Mitochondrial stabilization and protection might be an important mechanism to explain many of piracetam's beneficial effects in elderly patients.British Journal of Pharmacology (2006) 147, 199-208. doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0706459; published online 14 November 2005.

PMID: 16284628 [PubMed - in process]


Both these papers do quite a bit to explain the underlying mechanisms such as stabilisation of the mitochondrial membrane.

Micheal, I haven't had a chance to read your full review but will do so today sometime. Have a read of the above papers

Edited by zoolander, 07 July 2006 - 12:39 AM.


#5 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 07 July 2006 - 12:27 AM

There is another recent thread on piracetam in this forum as I'm sure you know. So even our skeptic Micheal is grudgingly forced to admit it seems to work and there is some evidence to show it works in studies. To call something anecdotal just because we dont understand the mechanism involved, is to display ignorance, I would think. I admit I dont know exactly how piracetam works so I'm ignorant in that regard myself. If we had no science to explain why we felt better after drinking water, should we then go without it? The most compelling evidence of all is the fact that something works. Explaining why and how it works is a bonus.

"and the folks supporting its use in normal, healthy folks have AFAICS failed to provide any evidence of any value whatsoever to support it."

And yet you've been using it now for years. I guess the evidence of your own experience is more compelling than some theory. One problem I saw with several of the studies in the first post here is the short term nature of them. 2 weeks to 2 months is a very short time. Piracetam seems to get better over a period of time. Of course that's anecdotal.

#6 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 07 July 2006 - 01:05 AM

Overall, I find the results supportive of piracetam's usefulness in normal, healthy humans, esp if aged (tho' 'normal' and 'healthy' then become somewhat debatable terms). Alas, there are none of the large, long-term studies in healthy folk that I'd really like to've been performed, and none are likely to be in the future. There are several reasons for this. First, at the time when the stuff was developed, one could really get away with very little evidence before marketing a drug. Prior to the amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1962, you didn't have to prove efficacy in the USA, and it would be many years before drugs would begin to be EXCLUDED from marketing for lack of access; European countries would take considerably longer. Cognitiive enhancement in the healthy not being a disease in need of a 'cure' by FDA standards, there is no incentive for performing such trials at the time, as you couldn't get FDA approval to market it for that purpose (tho' as we've seen in so many cases of late, it's easy enough to get approval for one indication and then pull various dirty tricks to encourage off-label use); even to do that, you'd first have to prove its utility in some disease state, which as we've seen has been difficult (perhaps beacuse it really just doesn't work in AD, etc).  And of course, piracetam is now off-patent, making any such further trials all the more unlikely.

these reasons are often invoked as the reason why a supplement has never been subjected to proper trials, and then a bizarre logical mis-step is taken, in which the fact that there is a REASON why no such trials have been performed, is taken as some kind of justification for taking it, as if such trials HAD been performed, or as if some silly in vitro study were therefore sufficient evidence. This is a good way to get yourself killed, or at least ripped off. I'm constantly hammering at individuals and companies for this kind of sloppy BS. So why am I willing to let piracetam off the hook?

First, everyone agrees that the stuff is nearly free of side effects (mild and similar to placebo in incidence), and acute toxicity information suggests that it's safer than most SUPPLEMENTS (ie, LD-50 >8 g/kg iv in rats, >10 g/kg orally in rats, dogs, and mice (12)). And while I hate to repeat a half-remembered rumor, IIRC someone (Dean and Morgenthaler?) reported an (anonymous?)  FDA official saying that piracetam couldn't possibly have any beneficial effects, because its toxicity is so low!

Second, I've been using it for some years now in relative ignorance of the true state of the research, and in combination wiht a background dose of 500 mg pyroglutamate, I've been pleased with the results, which seem to include greater mental energy, the drive to remain on-task, and some enhancement of creativity consistent with the reports (in rats and schizophrenic humans) of enhanced interhemispheric communication.

And third, I'm now getting a brand that I consider to have reliable QC (Relentless Improvement) at a much cheaper price than the UCB Nootropyl.

So putting these 3 factors together: granted its low cost and safety, I'm willing to abandon my usual caution and simply say that if these are placebo effects, I'm OK with that ;). But I would still like more information if available, and urge others to provide any quality information to which they have access.


Thank you Michael for your thorough review and attention to detail. We need you around here more! :)

I guess my initial statement about there being "no data" was based partially on an incomplete review. There have been so many studies performed on Piracetam that we should expect some to turn out well, even if it doesn't or barely work at all, correct -- just based on statistical aberrations? I've seen some data to support the use of Piracetam in some models (in particular, dyslexia) where results seemed to support its use, but the data -- as a whole -- is still pretty weak or in partial conflict.

My primary problem with calling Piracetam an effective "cognitive enhancer" is the fact that there are newer drugs with much stronger supporting data from well respected researchers (such as Dr. Danielle Turner, Cambridge University and Dr. Jerome Yesavage, Stanford University) such that they can be labeled as such without a 30 year track record of mixed and/or weak reviews. It also might lead to an environment of research complacency to assume a compound with little evidence to support its purported use as a cognitive enhancer is classified as such.

We need to conduct more research to determine whether these other compounds are really effective for normal volunteers, and that's exactly what I suggest we do. I propose generating capital to support such research from sales of these products and through donations as well.

Some of the purported effects of Piracetam have been discussed in detail here:

http://www.imminst.o...=169&t=11050&s=

An excerpt:

While there may be some evidence that might suggest (in some studies, but not most of the double blind, randomized trials where a placebo in involved!) that Piracetam may be effective in elderly or demented subjects, there is zero solid evidence that the conventionally accepted nootropics would affect memory functions of an individual with a perfectly functioning memory -- or one with a damaged memory. It is theoretically possible, but unproven nonetheless.

We do have solid evidence from randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials in healthy subjects that suggest that prescription-only drugs such as Provigil AKA modafinil, Aricept AKA donezepil HCL, and Ritalin AKA Concerta AKA methylphenidate can improve short and long term memory functions -- once again -- in healthy subjects...

*I guess I'd have to change my statement (based on Michael's rigourous review of the data) above to say there is some solid evidence (instead of zero solid evidence) supporting the use of the "dietary supplement nootropics" as cognitive enhancers in healthy subjects, but more research should be conducted before calling Piracetam type compounds as or more effective at enhancing learning performance than the aforementioned drugs. The bottom line, for me at least, is this: if I had to choose between

Option 1: Provigil, Aricept, Ritalin, Dextroamphetamine, Addrerall, Strattera, Wellbutrin...

Option 2: Piracetam, Aniracetam, Oxiracetam, Pramiracetam, Centrophenoxine, Pyritinol, Picamilon, etc.

specifically to enhance learning and memory, I would choose Option 1 over Option 2 two so quick you would not have to even display option 2 before I'd select option 1...based on the available evidence.

I think the option 2 type compounds are far more effective at preventing cognitive decline and protecting from neurodegeneration than the option 1 drugs -- the option 1 drugs may even have a negative effect on brain and body function long term (especially amphetamine compounds). I think the option 1 drugs are far more effective at improving learning and/or memory (for *most* people) than option 2 compounds. The option 1 drugs also have much higher probability of side effects than option 2; which, as Michael has mentioned -- has also prompted the US FDA to classify these compounds as ineffective.

I also think that at least 75% of individuals seeking cognitive enhancement through medicine are also afflicted with ADD/ADHD, depression, and other types of disorders.

Edited by chrono, 25 August 2010 - 05:41 PM.
tag error

  • like x 1

#7 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 07 July 2006 - 01:48 AM

Adam and xanadu I am sending you both some recent papers on Piracetam.

Here are some selected quotes to exaplin some of the misunderstandings....

Findings that piracetams efficacy is usually associated with conditions of disturbed brain function like aging, that is, young healthy animals usually benefit little or nothing from piracetam treatment (1)., has lead to the speculation that piracetam's mechanism of action is associated with biochemical deficits of the aged brain. This assumption was supported by the observations that piracetam specifically enhances membrane fluidity in the aged brain material, showing no effect at all in the membranes from young brains (2).............Piracetam's improving effects on the fluidity of the aged synaptosomal membranes could easily explain the beneficial effects of piracetam on age-related deficits of several mechanisms of signal transduction (receptor density and function, transmitter release) (3), since these mechanisms are distributed in the aging brain probably due to  a decrease in membrane fluidity...........Evidences that piracetam's beneficial effects on the fluidity on the aged mitochondrial membranes might contribute to its therapeutic efficacy are rather indirect and originate from observations that piracetam might improve glucose uptake and utilisation as well as ATP production (4). Even if these effects led to the term "metabolic enhancer', sometimes used to characterise piracetam and related nootropics, the mechanism of this effect and its possible relationship to mitochondrial function remain unsolved.


and so the study was conducted......

Summary of findings

In conclusion, therapeutically relevant in vitro and in vivo concentrations of piracetam are able to improve mitochondrial dysfunction associated with oxidative stress and/or aging. Mitochondrial stabilisationand protection might be an important mechanism to explain many of piracetam's beneficial effects in elderly patients


Additionally, stabilising the mitochondrial membrane prevents leakage of cytochrome C and the subsequent initiation of the caspase cascade i.e apoptosis. (5.)

From the above study the next logical step, well at least in my eyes, would be to look at the changes in Bcl-2 and Bax protein regulation as well as mitochondrial membrane permability. The suggestion that piracetam stabilises the mitochondrial membrane in aged animals suggests a reversal of an age-related change in cell function and hence earns the term "anti-aging".

I noticed that both xanadu and Adam are basic members which would explain why the haven't read the papers I posted.

#8 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 07 July 2006 - 01:56 AM

Adam, the big difference between your 2 above suggestion is that option 1 will upregulate and potentially over excite the system in question, whereas option 2 aims to correct underlying changes to the system in question as a result of normal cell function in question i.e stabilisation, choline donation and so on. hence, results are seen with option 1 with normal healthy adults. You have to ask yourself......is it healthy to see significant shifts of physiological function in normal healthy adults?

#9 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 07 July 2006 - 01:59 AM

I noticed that both xanadu and Adam are basic members which would explain why the haven't read the papers I posted.


I'm not sure if this is a "veiled ad hominem" or not...but I am a UCSD student and have access to pretty much everything you have...and probably more...I don't necessarily have time to read through every paper nonetheless. I tend to read peer reviewed data first, then proceed elsewhere...

#10 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 07 July 2006 - 02:00 AM

Adam, these papers were sent to me by the authors. If you don't have time to read all the related papers then accept rebuttles from people that do.

#11 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 07 July 2006 - 02:03 AM

Adam, the big difference between your 2 above suggestion is that option 1 will upregulate and potentially over excite the system in question, whereas option 2 aims to correct underlying changes to the system in question as a result of normal cell function in question i.e stabilisation, choline donation and so on. hence, results are seen with option 1 with normal healthy adults. You have to ask yourself......is it healthy to see significant shifts of physiological function in normal healthy adults?


Amphetamine has been used for far longer than any other so called "cognition enhancer," -- and presumably safely -- so, unless you are suggesting the correlation between increased life expectancy and amphetamine usage is due to amphetamine use, you might be suggesting that the majority of the Medical profession whom prescribe amphetamine to so many of their patients are knowingly endangering their patients, or you are suggesting they or their data is biased?

#12 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 07 July 2006 - 02:26 AM

Re. amphetamine....recommending schedule II substances purely for cognitive enhancement is ridiculous.

Amphetamine toxicity: Patients with acute toxicity from amphetamines may have symptoms of psychosis, disorientation, temporary symptoms associated with schizophrenia, aggression, delusions, lock-jaw, diarrhea, palpitations, arrhythmia, syncope, hyperpyrexia, and hyperreflexia progressing to convulsions and coma. Patients with chronic use of amphetamines develop a rapid tolerance to the drug and may have to increase the dose to reach the desired effect and eventually develop addiction. Patients that develop addiction show symptoms of restlessness, anxiety, depression, insomnia, and suicidal behavior. A urine drug screen can be performed to determine the presence of amphetamines. Patients may need to be hospitalized. Supportive therapy is important. Cooling blankets may be used for hyperthermia. Sedation may be obtained with lorazepam or diazepam. Haloperidol may be given for agitation and delusions. Hypertension and arrhythmias should be treated.


And the above doesn't really mention the strong addictive potential of amphetamines.

Re. my comments related to you and xanadu being basic members.......well full members have access to areas that basic members don't i.e discussions on piracetam, so I thought I would send you the info on piracetam that you may have missed out on.

It seems as though the apparent lack of conclusive evidence for an underlying mechanism for effect with piracetam means lets move onto something that works, such as amphetamine.

Adam, using your mindset, one might as well recommended MDMA for an uplifting effect as opposed to a combination of isolated amino acids such as tyrosine and phenylalanine which , depending on the severity of condition, may just as well.

#13 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 07 July 2006 - 03:23 AM

Dude, let's stay friends. I think we are having type talk problems. I type one thing, it may come off as rude, but I respect you and your ideas. See you around, dude. We should talk some time so we can undertand each other better. Peace. I feel guilty for clouding Mike's amazing thread
  • like x 1

#14 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 07 July 2006 - 03:41 AM

It's all cool Adam. You're doing some great stuff for the institute and I enjoy reading most of your posts.

Agreed, there are some misunderstandings but I've factored that into this 2-dimensional way of communicating already [thumb]

#15 emerson

  • Guest
  • 332 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Lansing, MI, USA

Posted 07 July 2006 - 06:24 AM

I'm glad to say that I did find there to be significant evidence that does support piracetam's use in normal, healthy folk, tho' I certainly wish that I could get more info: none of these were large or long-term studies, and a lot of the info I gathered was second-hand. Below are the results of my digs, and requests for help in confirming some of the details.


Excellent. Once I get off my ass and acquire a bit more convenient journal access, I'm going to dive into those which I can track down. And I have to second the call to anyone who might be able to track down the missing studies. I'm 'really' curious at this point. My opinion's going to remain about the same until I can see them with my own two eyes.

#16 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 07 July 2006 - 06:27 AM

Cool, dude.

First, I want to mention that I still have yet to read Michael's whole post and to review his references. I noted that he stated he found some evidence to contend Piracetam might be an effective cognitive enhancer and placed my argument about the bulk of the data I have reviewed on this topic.

Today I awoke around 12 noon and zoomed down to my mechanic's shop and hung out with him for a couple of hours while we messed around with my car. I also was informed also that a friend of mine is afflicted with cancer, which sucks because he is a very close friend on mine. The cause: smoking Camel straights.

So I didn't even check my email today until after I posted all I did here earlier...I spent about an hour here, then jumped in the car and drove to SD from LA. Now I am back home. Tomorrow I will go through Mike's entire post in detail and see if there is anything I can counter point.

#17 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 07 July 2006 - 06:32 AM

Adam, these papers were sent to me by the authors. If you don't have time to read all the related papers then accept rebuttles from people that do.


Some days I have more time than others to post or read-- well see what's up tomorrow. ;) :)

#18 opales

  • Guest
  • 892 posts
  • 15
  • Location:Espoo, Finland

Posted 07 July 2006 - 08:16 AM

all-too-typical and frankly embarrassing citation of anecdotes and popular articles written by salespeople as documentation.


I concur.

#19 emerson

  • Guest
  • 332 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Lansing, MI, USA

Posted 07 July 2006 - 09:58 AM

I also was informed also that a friend of mine is afflicted with cancer, which sucks because he is a very close friend on mine.


Much of my motivation for posting again came from wanting to quickly express my sympathy. It's not quite the same thing, but I lost a relatively young member of my family to lung cancer. Also brought about by his habit. Even aside from the horrible situation of the person himself, it's a really messed up quagmire of emotions to sort through for the people close to him.

Tomorrow I will go through Mike's entire post in detail and see if there is anything I can counter point.


Sadly, a very large amount of it seems to be a delicious looking dinner, placed in a glass case, quite out of reach for the moment. More than enough to raise my curiosity, and reopen my conclusion for further modification. But not enough to move beyond the state of cautious watchfulness. Or at least for my somewhat overly sceptical nature. I've been burned too many times by a single sentence, or a guilty omission within the description of the selective criteria in a study, to venture very far from my paranoia when it comes to human studies. I have to muse over every sentence, and then sleep on it, before I really wind up being happy with my interpretations. I really hope we're able to get our hands on all the papers Michael cited. At this point I'm becoming more interested in piracetam as a mystery and scavenger hunt than for potential benefits. In many ways it's turning into a large scale chess match, with extra pieces randomly falling out of the sky and into play.

Sorry dude, without proof of mechanism it is all anecdotal


Could you expand on that? I think I might be misunderstanding your statement, or falling under a stumbling block of shared but differently defined disciplinary terminology. Are you saying your position is that a study on any drug whose mechanism of action has yet to be verified or discovered can only be considered anecdotal?

And Michael, I have to thank you again. Firstly for putting in the research time. I know how mind numbingly dull that can be. And secondly for writing up a summery of your hits. Even if it's left me wanting for more, perhaps specifically due to that fact, this topic is a fantastic addition to the discussion.

#20 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 07 July 2006 - 04:11 PM

Don't worry about it.

I am glad that people are actually going to look at the data on piracetam, read whole studies, and discuss them and their relevance. With piracetam, it is not as simple as putting the word into pubmed, and everything you could want falls into your lap.

scholar.google.com helps for research at times, if you dont have access to a university library, and I have found that zoolander's method of emailing the authors works quite well.

#21 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 07 July 2006 - 04:36 PM

I think the issue that I suspect has not been said (I have not read all of the above) is that clinical trials are only valid with the correct patient population. I submit that people vary in their response to these much more then e.g. creatine. Point being that the person to person variabillity in responce to many of these could easily be very significant. This seems to be bourne out by people's experience (yes I know this is imperfect and tainted by placebo). Thus it could easily be that some people respond well to some of these compounds, and some respond not at all, and some in between. So how do you even begin to create meaningful studies in this setting? Or interpret negative studies?

Edited by scottl, 07 July 2006 - 05:05 PM.


#22 Athanasios

  • Guest
  • 2,616 posts
  • 163
  • Location:Texas

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:17 PM

Point being that the person to person variabillity in responce to many of these could easily be very significant. 


With piracetam, the effects seem to be most noticable in those with deficiencies in some way. Such as aging, dyslexia, etc. In healthy patients, the ones that have undiagnosed dyslexia or cholergenic system deficiency would probably respond the best. In this way, I can see how nootropikamil says that piracetam is better classified as something other than "cognitive enhancer", especially when, it is a strong neuroprotective and, the enhancing effect is not as strong as other enhancers.

As for how well patients THINK they are doing, one study showed that their test score improvement was statistcally significant, but when asked if they percieved a difference, the patients said no.

A review (11) adds the following, not stated in the abstract: " Moderate but statistically significant improvements (up to 12% vs placebo; p < 0.05) in a range of assessments of cognition were obtained in 18 healthy individuals aged 50 years or more who received piracetam as part of an 8-week, doubleblind crossover study. However, individuals' own ratings of their mental and psychological condition did not reveal any significant differences between piracetam and placebo. "



On placebo, as xanadu has pointed out before, piracetam seems to get more effective as time goes on not less. In fact, this trend seems to go on for 1 to 2 months in user experiences. IMO, this is good evidence of it not being placebo in these cases of 1 to 2 month exposure.

Lastly, if you are taking a nootropic regimen, then throw piracetam into the mix, I personally doubt the effect will be noticable over the other drugs.

#23 scottl

  • Guest
  • 2,177 posts
  • 2

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:26 PM

Thanks. Perhaps I should add it in.

#24 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 07 July 2006 - 05:59 PM

No one seems to be discussing the fact that many studies are very short term. How can you do a 2 week study on piracetam and expect to properly evaluate it? In spite of that, I see that a 2 week study did find some benefits. It's not true that only aged people benefit from piracetam as has been implied. What is aged anyway, over 50, over 60, over 65? It does seem that the more elderly patients notice a greater effect and the younger ones less of an effect or none. However, quite a number of members of imminst have over the years expressed the fact that piracetam has helped them. Many of them were in their 20's and even teens.

Touting stimulants like amphetamines as cognitive enhancers is insane. As zoo has pointed out, amphetamines are toxic to brains. Any stimulant may show a short term benefit but the long term effects are much more significant, at least in my opinion. Likewise, lesser stimulants may give some short term benefits but the long term results are less clear. I hear people saying that modafinil has addictive potential. We don't know what effects might result from using stimulants for years and years. Have any studies been done long term that might pick that up? It's too expensive to do a study for more than a few month, usually. We simply don't know what 5 years on a stimulant might do to someone let alone 20 years. We have had around 40 years of research on piracetam with no toxicity or long term problems reported.

I say that trying it yourself is the only meaningful test there is. What does it matter if 20 studies say that most people benefit from a substance if it doesn't work for you? Who cares if someone insists that the studies are inconclusive for something if it does work for you? You don't care if only one out of ten gets benefit as long as you are one of the ones it works for. Since there are little to no side effects from it and no toxicity even in fairly large doses, it makes sense to try it. Use it for at least a month to give it a proper trial. If nothing results, perhaps it won't help. With some things you don't notice the benefit until you quit it because it comes on gradually. For me, vinpocetine is not noticeable but piracetam is very noticeable. I would not recommend the usual "attack" dose of 4 grams or so per day. Try 2 grams and see how you do. After a while you might want to cut back. I've been using 1.2 grams a day but have to cut back from that because it seems a little overstimulating.

#25 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 08 July 2006 - 05:41 AM

I think the issue that I suspect has not been said (I have not read all of the above) is that clinical trials are only valid with the correct patient population.  I submit that people vary in their response to these much more then e.g. creatine.  Point being that the person to person variabillity in responce to many of these could easily be very significant.  This seems to be bourne out by people's experience (yes I know this is imperfect and tainted by placebo).  Thus it could easily be that some people respond well to some of these compounds, and some respond not at all, and some in between.  So how do you even begin to create meaningful studies in this setting?  Or interpret negative studies?


I need to start by stating I have not read all the comments in this topic...and a point by point rebuttal of Michael's references would take me too long tonight...I hope to do this soon.

I think the best way to test the relative effects of Piracetam (or any other purported cognitive enhancer) would be to start by hiring a researcher with extensive experience testing the efficacy of cognitive enhancers -- Dr Danielle Turner. If she could perform the same comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests she used on healthy volunteers to assess whether modafinil is effective; namely, of digit span, visual pattern recognition memory, spatial planning and stop-signal reaction time -- we could then see how modafinil's effects on cognition are relative to piraceatam...

Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2003 Jan;165(3):260-9. Epub 2002 Nov 1.

Cognitive enhancing effects of modafinil in healthy volunteers.

Turner DC, Robbins TW, Clark L, Aron AR, Dowson J, Sahakian BJ.

Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, School of Clinical Medicine, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK.

RATIONALE: Modafinil, a novel wake-promoting agent, has been shown to have a similar clinical profile to that of conventional stimulants such as methylphenidate. We were therefore interested in assessing whether modafinil, with its unique pharmacological mode of action, might offer similar potential as a cognitive enhancer, without the side effects commonly experienced with amphetamine-like drugs. OBJECTIVES: The main aim of this study was to evaluate the cognitive enhancing potential of this novel agent using a comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests. METHODS: Sixty healthy young adult male volunteers received either a single oral dose of placebo, or 100 mg or 200 mg modafinil prior to performing a variety of tasks designed to test memory and attention. A randomised double-blind, between-subjects design was used. RESULTS: Modafinil significantly enhanced performance on tests of digit span, visual pattern recognition memory, spatial planning and stop-signal reaction time. These performance improvements were complemented by a slowing in latency on three tests: delayed matching to sample, a decision-making task and the spatial planning task. Subjects reported feeling more alert, attentive and energetic on drug. The effects were not clearly dose dependent, except for those seen with the stop-signal paradigm. In contrast to previous findings with methylphenidate, there were no significant effects of drug on spatial memory span, spatial working memory, rapid visual information processing or attentional set-shifting. Additionally, no effects on paired associates learning were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that modafinil selectively improves neuropsychological task performance. This improvement may be attributable to an enhanced ability to inhibit pre-potent responses. This effect appears to reduce impulsive responding, suggesting that modafinil may be of benefit in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 12417966 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



#26 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 08 July 2006 - 06:06 AM

ScottL:

I think the issue that I suspect has not been said (I have not read all of the above) is that clinical trials are only valid with the correct patient population.


You have pointed this out before and I totally agree ScottL. You're right on the money. Especially with the piracetam because as I have mentioned already the changes in mitochondria only seem to occur in the aged states or should I say age-effect state.

Even more important I think is that increasing age throughout older adulthood is linked to increasing variability (1). Heck, I know that if I were selected to take part in a study when I am 70 years old with the average Joe Blow, it would compound the hell our of the results.

NootropiKamil said:

I think the best way to test the relative effects of Piracetam (or any other purported cognitive enhancer) would be to start by hiring a researcher with extensive experience testing the efficacy of cognitive enhancers -- Dr Danielle Turner. If she could perform the same comprehensive battery of neuropsychological tests she used on healthy volunteers to assess whether modafinil is effective; namely, of digit span, visual pattern recognition memory, spatial planning and stop-signal reaction time -- we could then see how modafinil's effects on cognition are relative to piraceatam...


I think you missed ScottL point Adam but correct me if I am wrong. The point that ScottL was trying to make is that there is no use testing piracetam with young healthy adults if piracetams effectiveness is seen with another population i.e older age-effect adults. This seems to be where all the inconclusiveness lies. Just because piracetam has been testing in young healthy subjects without significant change doesn't mean it is not effective. It just means that piracetam is not effective in young healthy subjects.

And by the way, Dr. Danielle Turner sure is your flavour of the month Adam. It's cute. You have quote her name so many times in the last week or so that I think you might be blinded infatuation [tung]

In regards to Modafinal......there still does not seem to be any suggestion of a known underlying mechanism(s) apart from Dr. Turners suggestion that improvement may be attributable to an enhanced ability to inhibit pre-potent responses. Note that Dr. Turner refers to a particular population when she concludes

This effect appears to reduce impulsive responding, suggesting that modafinil may be of benefit in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.


except she tested the effects of modafinal in healthy young volunteers. I haven't read any of her work but has she tested the use of modafinal as a treatment for ADHD yet?

This is scottL's point. She is suggesting that a compound may be effective in a population group that she did not test for. Well at least not in the example given

#27 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 08 July 2006 - 06:29 AM

She's doing that to fit her research into the rest of modern medicine. I think I am falling in love with her so don't tease me about it. [ang]

I referenced some of her research here. She just earned her PhD in 2005. Her work has advanced the field of cognitive enhancement into the realm of being taken seriously by the rest of the Medical profession. We should try to work with her to test the possible efficacy of other purported cognitive enhancers.

Danielle Turner is a postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Psychiatry, and works within the University of Cambridge Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute. She completed a PhD in psychopharmacology at the University of Cambridge in 2005, under the supervision of Professors Barbara Sahakian and Trevor Robbins. She was supported by an MRC research studentship, with research funds from the Wellcome Trust.

Danielle is best known for her work on cognitive enhancement. She has presented her work at numerous national and international conferences, in addition to publishing eight first-authored scientific articles in high quality journals. Indeed, her article on cognitive enhancement in healthy volunteers was the most highly cited research paper of the year in the journal Psychopharmacology. Her research has received widespread recognition and has been discussed in public forums such as the Guardian newspaper, The Today Programme and the BBC World Service. Danielle has also contributed to initiatives such as the Department of Trade and Industry's Foresight project in Brain Science, Addiction and Drugs and DEMOS and the Wellcome Trust's joint Better Humans? debate.


She's the second speaker on this (if impatient, fast forward 20 mintues) webcast (thanks Opales for finding this link!)...she explains her work on modafinil and how it compares to Ritalin as a cognitive enhancer in healthy subjects (folks with high IQs don't benefit from Ritalin, their intelligence suffers a bit if I understand her correctly).

The cognition enhanced classroom; by Danielle Turner and Barbara Sahakian is also worth a read.

Edited by nootropikamil, 07 December 2006 - 06:38 AM.


#28 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 08 July 2006 - 06:51 AM

Thanks for those links Adam. Is it ok if I call you Adam in the open forum?

I will try and find some time to have a read of Dr. Turners research

#29 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 08 July 2006 - 07:04 AM

Edit: Sure, but I'm better known as "Dude."

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for BRAIN HEALTH to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#30 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 09 July 2006 - 02:44 AM

Michael's first reference is:

Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1976 Sep 29;49(3):307-9.

Increase in the power of human memory in normal man through the use of drugs.

Dimond SJ, Brouwers EM.

Nootropyl (Piracetam) a drug reported to facilitate learning in animals was tested for its effect on man by administering it to normal volunteers. The subjects were given 3x4 capsules at 400 mg per day, in a double blind study. Each subject learned series of words presented as stimuli upon a memory drum. No effects were observed after 7 days but after 14 days verbal learning had significantly increased.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Controlled Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 826948 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


This is a two week long study with testing in than one area: the memory drum. Basically it's a thingy spinning with words

The dose administered was 3600 mg per day Nootropyl in three divided doses. To understand what a memory drum is and how to use this tool, click here. It's a little bit tricky, but if your Quick Time player is installed correctly, once the page loads, you can use your mouse to move the words up by moving your cursur along the image of the printed word in the chamber. I guess you are supposed to memorize these words and repeat them back.

I can't find any data about the methodology of this reseach -- this abstract says very little. They don't say how many subjects were used (3, 4, 5, 12, 100, etc). And what is the difference between no effects and an increase? What does this researcher consider to be significant? Dimond SJ, at least, seems to be particularly interested in the subtle. I'm not saying that as ad hominem, but without seeing the full paper, I can't conclude very much. Can anyone access this full paper?

This is interesting as well:

Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1979 Sep;64(3):341-8. 

Some effects of piracetam (UCB 6215, Nootropyl) on chronic schizophrenia.

Dimond SJ, Scammell RE, Pryce IG, Huws D, Gray C.

A study is described of effects of a nootropic drug on chronic schizophrenia. The nootropic drugs act on the central nervous system with the cerebral cortex as their target. Chronic schizophrenic patients on the drug showed improvement in object naming and in tests where the patient was required to indicate the number of times he had been tapped.Improvements were also noted in learning and memory tasks. In dichotic listening the patients showed a reduction in the amount of incorrect verbal responses produced. There were no improvements in symptom rating or social behaviour rating. These results suggest some cognitive improvement but little if any change in the disease state of the patient.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 116278 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


I took a quick look at what other research Dimond SJ has published, and he seemed to be focused on the corpus callosum and right/left hemisphere communication; which was exploratory research as far as I understand?

Neuropsychologia. 1984;22(4):531-4.

Differences in face touching by Japanese and British people.

Hatta T, Dimond SJ.

The face touching behavior of Japanese and British subjects was compared under three different conditions, viz. listening to a lecture, listening to music and without a specially assigned task. The results showed that (1) British people did more frequent face touching than Japanese people and left hand usage was more prominent, while the Japanese did not show a hand difference in either the lecture listening or the no-task condition, (2) the duration of face touching did not differ between Japanese and British and (3) British people touched their chin and mouth frequently while Japanese touched their nose and eyes frequently. From these results the hypothesis of cross-cultural difference of cerebral functioning between the Japanese and the British was examined.

PMID: 6483182 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


This doctor, in particular, seemed to be particularly interested in the corpus callosum:

Brain Behav Evol. 1976;13(5):376-95.

Brain circuits for consciousness.

Dimond SJ.

The question is explored of the location of consciousness in the human brain. The author's own studies of defects of consciousness as the result of the splitting of the corpus callosum are described and disorders of consciousness associated with damage to other specific areas of the brain, are reviewed. A circuit spanning the brain is described which stretches from the parietal lobe at one side to the parietal lobe at the other and includes the splenium of the corpus callosum. The medial banks of the hemispheres, the callosal as well as the cingulate areas, are also thought to be involved.

PMID: 1016848 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1979 Jan;42(1):70-4.

Tactual and auditory vigilance in split-brain man.

Dimond SJ.

Two studies are reported of tactual and auditory vigilance performance in patients with a split-brain or partial commissurotomy to examine the attentional behaviour of the right and left hemisphere, and to identify defects in attention which may be related to the division of the cerebral commissures. The performance of the right hemisphere on all tasks of sustained attention so far studied was substantially better than that of the left. Considerable depletion of concentration was observed for the total split-brain group but not in patients with partial commissurotomy. One of the more unusual phenomena of the split-brain condition is that gaps of attention, often lasting many seconds, occur predominantly on the left hemisphere. The switch to a different type of signal on the same hemisphere does not stop them but the switching of signals from one hemisphere to another does. The defect is interpreted as a failure of attention peculiar to the individual hemisphere under test.

PMID: 762586 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Nature. 1976 Jun 24;261(5562):690-2. Related Articles, Links 

Differing emotional response from right and left hemispheres.

Dimond SJ, Farrington L, Johnson P.

PMID: 934311 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Acta Psychol (Amst). 1977 Jun;41(4):255-60. 

Emotional response to films shown to the right or left hemisphere of the brain measured by heart rate.

Dimond SJ, Farrington L.

PMID: 883511 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Lancet. 1979 Feb 10;1(8111):322-3.

Calculation and the right hemisphere.

Qureshi R, Dimond SJ.

Publication Types:
Letter

PMID: 84972 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


Anyone see a pattern?

I'll take a look at the second reference later. Peace.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users