When I first started taking nootropics, the racetams in particular I thought my life had been change by them, I felt that I had become a new, better more intelligent person, I would engage myself in as many thing as possible and with these added abilities had the confidence to do anything. Sadly this feeling only lasted about four months before I began to doubt them.
With Life Mirrage posting such positive reports I feel I may have been subjected to a placebo effect. True I had added confidence and therefore applied myself more but now think that this was only brought about by the belief that I had changed into a superior person. After this honeymoon period ended, despite continuing my nootropic regime I have felt lower than any other period in my life .Have never been depressed before but over the last four months have been very down and doubted myself constantly. My exam results this year have been no better than the last. I now believe that the nootropic sensations I had are due to me reading to many positive reports on this website and deluding myself that these actually work. LM always claimed that after a period of time you would no longer notice your added intelligence because you would be used to it, however I believe this is complete ballshit! Is there really any one on this forum that have used the drugs longer than 8 months (unsponsored by a drugs company) who still believe in these drugs, even Da sense is now only taking only deprenyl.
I have been taking modafinil for only 10 days but have found the effects astonishing compared to other nootropics. The increased awakness means you’re more in the mood to do things and exert yourself to your full potential. It seems that you will only learn something if you push yourself to do it and while on this stuff your boundaries seem endless. I find that I am picking up on things which i would normally miss, e.g. when I am watching a film just before bed I am concentrating on what is being said and my recall the next morning from it is excellent. On a normal occasion I would be feeling sleepy and would take in little of what is being said. When you have felt the high that i did to begin with and then it is no longer there then naturally you want it back. I have studied pharmacy at university for three years now and have spent a considerable amount of time looking at clinical trial regarding these drugs and can only see evidence backing modafinil and ampakines. I am slightly worried that the effects I am feeling are due to a placebo effect again but would rather take something that has undergone the vigorous trials that it takes to get a drug onto the NHS market than go by peoples subjected experiences. I have only heard about these diminished verbal abilities from people on this site, and although worried about them am going to give this drug a go. If there is anyone that has taken modafinil for an extended period of time please share your experiences as I am scared about its long term effects.
Sorry to be all doom and gloom but I do believe that for people interested in improving their intellect hope is on the horizon and it will come from ampakines. Type it into google and you will see what I mean. Cortex have nearly completed phase two trials and the results have only been positive.
As a pharmacy student Paul, I imagine you are reasonably well trained. Check this topic out:
Methodology in medical research, learn how to better evaluate results It is highly likely that the racetams effects are placebo; and I am confident that it isn't that case for
modafinil.
Why? Well, lack of conclusive evidence thereof to prove the effects in healthy individuals using modern neuropsychological test batteries.
drugs using modern, validated neuropsychological test batteries. The studies referred to on the Net by the smart drug advocates are mostly published in non peer-reviewed, obscure journals and in proceedings of congresses. The facts presented in those papers are over-interpreted by the advocates of smart drugs. Furthermore facts to support their use in man have been extrapolated from animal pharmacology without too much knowledge of the problems of many of the animal models used.
Let me briefly update you on what are considered "modern, validated neuropsychological test batteries:"
The famed CANTAB (Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery) battery: learn more about these tests
here:
CANTAB tests
The nineteen CANTAB tests are grouped below in broad functional categories.
o CANTAB tests are sensitive to cognitive changes caused by a wide range of CNS disorders and medication effects, and can detect changes that most other tests will simply miss.
o Where error scores are a key outcome measure, CANTAB tests are graded in difficulty to avoid ceiling effects.
o Where accurate measurement of latency is important, responses are made via a press pad. Elsewhere, engaging touch-screen technology maximises compliance.
o The majority of CANTAB tests are independent of language and culture.
CANTAB tests
The nineteen CANTAB tests are grouped below in broad functional categories.
There are two tests of induction, four for visual memory, four for executive function, five for attention, two for semantic/verbal memory, and finally; two for emotional decision making.
All of these "modern, validated neuropsychological test batteries" are computerized and are independent of language and culture.
More info here.
The (Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery) CANTAB battery is only one of the set of tests used in the above article that subjects whom were given
modafinil performed significantly better than placebo; the other tests used were:
1. Visual analogue scales
Bond A, Lader M (1974) The use of analogue scales in rating subjective feelings. Br J Med Psychol 47:211-218
2. Digit span: Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale
3. Decision making (gamble) task: Rahman S, Sahakian BJ, Cardinal RN, Rogers RD, Robbins TW (2001) Decision making and neuropsychiatry. Trends Cogn Sci 5:271-277
4. Stop-signal (stop) task:
a) This classic paradigm: Logan GD (1994) On the ability to inhibit thought and action. In: Dagenbach D, Carr TH (eds) Inhibitory processes in attention, memory and language. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 189-239
I believe of the ImmInst topics
this topic best addresses the pharmacological effects of
modafinil...
On the other hand,
this topic either contains or refers to the best debates here about Piracetam.
However, keep the following in mind: about 50% of all reserarch findings are false:
This full text is available
here freeWhy Most Published Research Findings Are FalseWhy Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
Summary
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
John P. A. Ioannidis is in the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece, and Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America. E-mail: jioannid@cc.uoi.gr
Competing Interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.
Published: August 30, 2005
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Copyright: © 2005 John P. A. Ioannidis. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abbreviation: PPV, positive predictive value
Citation: Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124
