438 replies to this topic

[Viscid]

With a chronic sodium-potassium imbalance, the person will show the sign of a paradoxical pupillary reflex. Normally, shining a light into a person's eye will cause the pupil to constrict. This papillary constriction to light should be able to maintain itself for at least 30 seconds. In the hypoadrenic person (especially in the exhaustion stage of the GAS) you will find one of three things:

1. The pupil will fluctuate opened and closed in response to light.

2. The pupil will fluctuate opened and closed in response to light. (This is a deliberate opening and closing, not the minor flutter or twitch of the normally encountered hippus activity.)

3. The pupil will initially constrict to light, but it will dilate paradoxically with continued light stimulation of less than 30 seconds. This patient will frequently complain of eyes that are sensitive to light (such as when going from indoors to outside on a sunny day) or will be seen wearing sunglasses whenever outdoors or even indoors under bright light.

I think we can shorten this to two symptoms, since #1 and 2 are the same, ha. Also, note that in #2 minor flutter is said to be normal. I interpret this to mean that repeated slight dialation and constriction is normal as long as the pupil stays small. What is not normal is when the pupil fails to stay constricted in response to the light. This is how I interpret the above quote.

My pupils stay very constricted overall, but fluctuate slightly. I think this is normal. I started piracetam three days ago at 1 gram three times per day, no attack dosing. I've noticed some nice effects so far. Tomorrow, I'll add choline to the mix.

You're misinterpreting "response to light". The authors here mean that the pupil will "close" when light is shone directly upon it, and it will "open" when that light becomes absent. Therefore, it will open and close "in response to light"-- but it should not close then open and stay open under a beam of light.

Yes, and if we're in a bright room, or shone a light directly into our eye, we'll see that it'll contract and stay contracted. Because we're angling the beam, the pupil will constrict, blocking out most of the beam, then dilate in response to the lower light level, oscillating. It's the angled beam which has made this test completely flawed.

[acantelopepope]

With a chronic sodium-potassium imbalance, the person will show the sign of a paradoxical pupillary reflex. Normally, shining a light into a person's eye will cause the pupil to constrict. This papillary constriction to light should be able to maintain itself for at least 30 seconds. In the hypoadrenic person (especially in the exhaustion stage of the GAS) you will find one of three things:

1. The pupil will fluctuate opened and closed in response to light.

2. The pupil will fluctuate opened and closed in response to light. (This is a deliberate opening and closing, not the minor flutter or twitch of the normally encountered hippus activity.)

3. The pupil will initially constrict to light, but it will dilate paradoxically with continued light stimulation of less than 30 seconds. This patient will frequently complain of eyes that are sensitive to light (such as when going from indoors to outside on a sunny day) or will be seen wearing sunglasses whenever outdoors or even indoors under bright light.

I think we can shorten this to two symptoms, since #1 and 2 are the same, ha. Also, note that in #2 minor flutter is said to be normal. I interpret this to mean that repeated slight dialation and constriction is normal as long as the pupil stays small. What is not normal is when the pupil fails to stay constricted in response to the light. This is how I interpret the above quote.

My pupils stay very constricted overall, but fluctuate slightly. I think this is normal. I started piracetam three days ago at 1 gram three times per day, no attack dosing. I've noticed some nice effects so far. Tomorrow, I'll add choline to the mix.

You're misinterpreting "response to light". The authors here mean that the pupil will "close" when light is shone directly upon it, and it will "open" when that light becomes absent. Therefore, it will open and close "in response to light"-- but it should not close then open and stay open under a beam of light.

Yes, and if we're in a bright room, or shone a light directly into our eye, we'll see that it'll contract and stay contracted. Because we're angling the beam, the pupil will constrict, blocking out most of the beam, then dilate in response to the lower light level, oscillating. It's the angled beam which has made this test completely flawed.

I'm losing patience with your erroneous statements.

It goes without saying that the beam of light used in this test is covering the pupil for the entire duration of the test. The pupil will not ever be in a "lower light level" because the beam covers the entire cornea.

The only thing flawed is your understanding of very basic instructions.

[Viscid]

I'm losing patience with your erroneous statements.

It goes without saying that the beam of light used in this test is covering the pupil for the entire duration of the test. The pupil will not ever be in a "lower light level" because the beam covers the entire cornea.

The only thing flawed is your understanding of very basic instructions.

Here's an experiment: Shine the light directly into your eye. You'll notice the pupil stays constricted. The greater the angle of the beam, the more oscillation. As you have told everyone to direct the beam "towards the eye from the side" we do not have a standardized angle for the beam and we're all going to get dramatic fluctuations depending on which angle the beam individual experimenter is shining from. Not to mention these flashlights are handheld and the beam is moving as we hold it up for 90 seconds. It's just such an absurdly silly test and the suggestion you can get any reasonable information out of it is farcical. You're only creating another thing for the people on this forum to be worried about: pupil oscillation due to "low aldosterone levels." *roll eyes*

Edited by Viscid, 18 November 2009 - 05:25 AM.

[acantelopepope]

I'm losing patience with your erroneous statements.

It goes without saying that the beam of light used in this test is covering the pupil for the entire duration of the test. The pupil will not ever be in a "lower light level" because the beam covers the entire cornea.

The only thing flawed is your understanding of very basic instructions.

Here's an experiment: Shine the light directly into your eye. You'll notice the pupil stays constricted. The greater the angle of the beam, the more oscillation. As you have told everyone to angle the beam, we're all going to get dramatic fluctuations.

If your pupil stays closed when the beam covers your cornea (like it's supposed to) then you have ironically added to our discussion in a valuable way: you are a self-declared piracetam responder, and your pupil is able to maintain constriction. That is exactly what this entire theory is suggesting: for those with healthy aldosterone levels, the pupil should remain constricted, and because aldosterone has been proven to be an essential component of piracetam's mechanism of action, piracetam should also be (in this theory) effective in those people.

Now, addressing your misunderstanding. Hopefully for the last time.

What I said was: "Shine the flashlight towards your eyes from the side, not directly," meaning on the transversal plane instead of "directly" meaning the medial plane. The reason for this is clear: if you shine the line from the front, you won't be able to see your own pupil in the mirror, because your flashlight and hand will be obstructing your view. It takes a couple bad interpretations to somehow deduce that these instructions mean "only shine the light on a fraction of the total cornea," which is what you are suggesting.

Here's an illustration, although it's mostly for other people, since you seem incapable of recognizing when you are wrong.

 body_planes.jpg   36.21KB   97 downloads

Edited by acantelopepope, 18 November 2009 - 05:40 AM.

[Viscid]

I'm losing patience with your erroneous statements.

It goes without saying that the beam of light used in this test is covering the pupil for the entire duration of the test. The pupil will not ever be in a "lower light level" because the beam covers the entire cornea.

The only thing flawed is your understanding of very basic instructions.

Here's an experiment: Shine the light directly into your eye. You'll notice the pupil stays constricted. The greater the angle of the beam, the more oscillation. As you have told everyone to angle the beam, we're all going to get dramatic fluctuations.

That's just it, the pupil doesn't stay constricted! Congratulations, you passed the test. Now stop being a moron.

What I said was: "Shine the flashlight towards your eyes from the side, not directly," meaning on the transversal plane instead of "directly" meaning the medial plane. The reason for this is clear: if you shine the line from the front, you won't be able to see your own pupil in the mirror, because your flashlight and hand will be obstructing your view. It takes a couple bad interpretations to somehow deduce that these instructions mean "only shine the light on a fraction of the total cornea," which is what you are suggesting.

Here's an illustration, although it's mostly for other people, since you seem incapable of recognizing when you are wrong.

 body_planes.jpg   36.21KB   97 downloads

Dude! What the hell is going on in that youtube video then? He's shining a light on a fraction of the total cornea! People are just copying that. Then the pupil constricts and oscillates and they go 'wah wah wah I have low aldosterone.'

Edited by Viscid, 18 November 2009 - 05:44 AM.

[acantelopepope]

I'm losing patience with your erroneous statements.

It goes without saying that the beam of light used in this test is covering the pupil for the entire duration of the test. The pupil will not ever be in a "lower light level" because the beam covers the entire cornea.

The only thing flawed is your understanding of very basic instructions.

Here's an experiment: Shine the light directly into your eye. You'll notice the pupil stays constricted. The greater the angle of the beam, the more oscillation. As you have told everyone to angle the beam, we're all going to get dramatic fluctuations.

That's just it, the pupil doesn't stay constricted! Congratulations, you passed the test. Now stop being a moron.

What I said was: "Shine the flashlight towards your eyes from the side, not directly," meaning on the transversal plane instead of "directly" meaning the medial plane. The reason for this is clear: if you shine the line from the front, you won't be able to see your own pupil in the mirror, because your flashlight and hand will be obstructing your view. It takes a couple bad interpretations to somehow deduce that these instructions mean "only shine the light on a fraction of the total cornea," which is what you are suggesting.

Here's an illustration, although it's mostly for other people, since you seem incapable of recognizing when you are wrong.

 body_planes.jpg   36.21KB   97 downloads

Dude! What the hell is going on in that youtube video then? He's shining a light on a fraction of the total cornea! People are just copying that. Then the pupil constricts and oscillates and they go 'wah wah wah I have low aldosterone.'

It's becoming increasingly tedious to address your stupidity.

When a parabolic reflector is used (as it is in flashlight technology), the focal point of the light reflected will appear as the brightest spot, and the area around that spot will have gradually less light.

Think about it this way: if what you were assuming about the physics of flashlights were true, then if you were walking around in the dark with a flashlight like this, you would only be able to see that small circle where the focal point of the light comes together. There wouldn't be a larger radius the light covers.

As anyone that's used a flashlight knows, this is not the case.

In other words, the person in the video is performing the test just right: the pupil is being exposed to extreme brightness in relation to the dark room that he's in. Whether the focal point of the large beam is on his pupil is irrelevant, unless the entire light is moving substantially, which it is not.


 Ever_Light_Flashlight_LED_Bulb.JPG   38.17KB   9 downloads

 758px_Concave_mirror.svg.png   41.27KB   8 downloads

[acantelopepope]

And if anyone needs more proof, just have someone else tell you whether your pupils are fluctuating as they shine the beam of light from the medial plane (the front). It would be impossible for you to tell because as I mentioned before your hand would be obstructing your view in the mirror, but you could perform the test this way with two people, if you couldn't be convinced otherwise (like our friend Viscid).

Now let's move on in this discussion so that we can come closer to solutions rather than obscuring the truth.

Right now I've been talking with Professor Michael Spezio, a neuroscience faculty at my university, and we're pursuing John W.'s serotonin hypothesis.

More information on that hypothesis can be found here: http://www.anapsid.o...gnosis/eye.html

I will keep you updated on our findings.

[Viscid]

In other words, the person in the video is performing the test just right: the pupil is being exposed to extreme brightness in relation to the dark room that he's in. Whether the focal point of the large beam is on his pupil is irrelevant, unless the entire light is moving substantially, which it is not.

LOL.



Yeah that baby ain't moving at ALL.

[acantelopepope]

Dude, you're wrong. Give it up.

"The famous Mark Gillis".

[Viscid]

Dude, you're wrong. Give it up.

"The famous Mark Gillis".

Oh lovely, my posts were deleted.

Facts are:

Your youtube video does not match what you described as the method to your experiment. The youtube video shows someone holding a flashlight's focal point half-on the cornea and it moving towards the pupil, causing it constrict, as shown here:

In other words, the person in the video is performing the test just right: the pupil is being exposed to extreme brightness in relation to the dark room that he's in. Whether the focal point of the large beam is on his pupil is irrelevant, unless the entire light is moving substantially, which it is not.

You said to 'hold it to the side' and this person is clearly not doing that.

You do not admit to any flaws in your methodology, and are drawing alarmist conclusions from bad reports from individuals on a web forum who are not properly informed nor able to correctly perform a standard test.

Edited by Viscid, 18 November 2009 - 07:28 AM.

[John W.]

Dude, you're wrong. Give it up.

"The famous Mark Gillis".

Oh lovely, my posts were deleted.

Facts are:

Your youtube video does not match what you described as the method to your experiment. The youtube video shows someone holding a flashlight's focal point half-on the cornea and it moving towards the pupil, causing it constrict, as shown here:

In other words, the person in the video is performing the test just right: the pupil is being exposed to extreme brightness in relation to the dark room that he's in. Whether the focal point of the large beam is on his pupil is irrelevant, unless the entire light is moving substantially, which it is not.

You said to 'hold it to the side' and this person is clearly not doing that.

You do not admit to any flaws in your methodology, and are drawing alarmist conclusions from bad reports from individuals on a web forum who are not properly informed nor able to correctly perform a standard test.

Ok viscid I'm going to try another approach since you don't seem to be understanding any of the posts, or concepts of light or even space in general.

The idea of holding the light to the side is probably to lessen the intensity of the light. Reason being, if you were shining a flashlight directly into your eyeball at arms length, you better pray your pupil contracts and stays contracted. If this were not the case, testing for adrenal fatigue or piracetam non response would not need a subtle test (and I cringe saying this, I would not want to call it a "subtle" test, but I'm having to dumb down things for you). Instead, you would be looking for people with adrenal fatigue or piracetam non-responders through BLINDNESS. Dramatic fluctuation in the presence of direct light shined on your eyeball would be very very bad, and much more significant.

Again, since you can't possibly conceive of what acantelopepope is saying, or are more likely being stubborn and a prick refusing to admit you've made yourself look stupid, try this. In the dark, take a VERY dim light source, or find a way to diffuse a light source (e.g. toilet paper over an led, or something like this). Shine it directly in your eye, make completely sure the light is hitting the full area of your eye, is directly in front of it, and the light reflects perfectly throughout the eye, since you can't conceive of the idea that light held from an angle still stimulates the eye. The pupil will probably still fluctuate if it did to begin with. Again, this is not normal. Just try this, or the original test on someone else.

Or another experiment. Find the brightest light you can possibly find, like halogen headlamps or something, I don't know. Put the source at an arms length to the side and turn it on. Now sit there for 3 hours. If you're right, you can use the "angle of the light" to protect you from any eye damage. My guess is it won't.

Are you surprised your posts are being deleted? You've hijacked the thread with your bad attitude and stubbornness.

[Viscid]

Ok viscid I'm going to try another approach since you don't seem to be understanding any of the posts, or concepts of light or even space in general.

The idea of holding the light to the side is probably to lessen the intensity of the light. Reason being, if you were shining a flashlight directly into your eyeball at arms length, you better pray your pupil contracts and stays contracted. If this were not the case, testing for adrenal fatigue or piracetam non response would not need a subtle test (and I cringe saying this, I would not want to call it a "subtle" test, but I'm having to dumb down things for you). Instead, you would be looking for people with adrenal fatigue or piracetam non-responders through BLINDNESS. Dramatic fluctuation in the presence of direct light shined on your eyeball would be very very bad, and much more significant.

Again, since you can't possibly conceive of what acantelopepope is saying, or are more likely being stubborn and a prick refusing to admit you've made yourself look stupid, try this. In the dark, take a VERY dim light source, or find a way to diffuse a light source (e.g. toilet paper over an led, or something like this). Shine it directly in your eye, make completely sure the light is hitting the full area of your eye, is directly in front of it, and the light reflects perfectly throughout the eye, since you can't conceive of the idea that light held from an angle still stimulates the eye. The pupil will probably still fluctuate if it did to begin with. Again, this is not normal. Just try this, or the original test on someone else.

Or another experiment. Find the brightest light you can possibly find, like halogen headlamps or something, I don't know. Put the source at an arms length to the side and turn it on. Now sit there for 3 hours. If you're right, you can use the "angle of the light" to protect you from any eye damage. My guess is it won't.

Are you surprised your posts are being deleted? You've hijacked the thread with your bad attitude and stubbornness.

I am criticizing the test and the thread, which apparently you are too stubborn to understand. There were conclusions being drawn from a test which was poorly instructed, and those conclusions drawn are causing alarmist reactions from those reading this thread. The dramatic oscillations people got when performing this test was likely due to them shining a beam of light at their eye from an angle, causing the pupil to contract and expand as it blocks/receives light.

A similar test, done properly, could very well indicate that piracetam causes adrenal fatigue.

Different flashlights have different focal lengths, some are quite diffused, while others have a very straight beam. To properly do this test, you will need to diffuse the light source with something over the beam of light to obtain a bright, quasi-omnidirectional light source, as you have suggested. This will eliminate much of the methodological flaws inherent in the original post; It is unfortunate that a properly diffused light source was not originally suggested.

Edited by Viscid, 18 November 2009 - 05:33 PM.

[John W.]

Ok viscid I'm going to try another approach since you don't seem to be understanding any of the posts, or concepts of light or even space in general.

The idea of holding the light to the side is probably to lessen the intensity of the light. Reason being, if you were shining a flashlight directly into your eyeball at arms length, you better pray your pupil contracts and stays contracted. If this were not the case, testing for adrenal fatigue or piracetam non response would not need a subtle test (and I cringe saying this, I would not want to call it a "subtle" test, but I'm having to dumb down things for you). Instead, you would be looking for people with adrenal fatigue or piracetam non-responders through BLINDNESS. Dramatic fluctuation in the presence of direct light shined on your eyeball would be very very bad, and much more significant.

Again, since you can't possibly conceive of what acantelopepope is saying, or are more likely being stubborn and a prick refusing to admit you've made yourself look stupid, try this. In the dark, take a VERY dim light source, or find a way to diffuse a light source (e.g. toilet paper over an led, or something like this). Shine it directly in your eye, make completely sure the light is hitting the full area of your eye, is directly in front of it, and the light reflects perfectly throughout the eye, since you can't conceive of the idea that light held from an angle still stimulates the eye. The pupil will probably still fluctuate if it did to begin with. Again, this is not normal. Just try this, or the original test on someone else.

Or another experiment. Find the brightest light you can possibly find, like halogen headlamps or something, I don't know. Put the source at an arms length to the side and turn it on. Now sit there for 3 hours. If you're right, you can use the "angle of the light" to protect you from any eye damage. My guess is it won't.

Are you surprised your posts are being deleted? You've hijacked the thread with your bad attitude and stubbornness.

I am criticizing the test and the thread, which apparently you are too stubborn to understand. There were conclusions being drawn from a test which was poorly instructed, and those conclusions drawn are causing alarmist reactions from those reading this thread. The dramatic oscillations people got when performing this test was likely due to them shining a beam of light at their eye from an angle, causing the pupil to contract and expand as it blocks/receives light.

A similar test, done properly, could very well indicate that piracetam causes adrenal fatigue.

Different flashlights have different focal lengths, some are quite diffused, while others have a very straight beam. To properly do this test, you will need to diffuse the light source with something over the beam of light to obtain a bright, quasi-omnidirectional light source, as you have suggested. This will eliminate much of the methodological flaws inherent in the original post; It is unfortunate that a properly diffused light source was not originally suggested.

"To properly do this test, you will need to diffuse the light source". Agreed. Look up diffuser (to spell it out, a diffuser is something which diffuses - what you're advocating). Per wiki -- "In optics, a diffuser is any device that diffuses or spreads out or scatters light in some manner, to give soft light."
Are we still in agreement? We can agree we're looking for soft light. "Size of light source. The larger the source, the softer it becomes." This is probably what you mean by "quasi-omidirectional light source" - eg a broad rather than focused light source, eg soft light. Again, we're looking for soft light.

What is soft light? Wiki again -- "The softness of a light source can also be determined by the angle between the illuminated object and the 'length' of the light source (the longest dimension that is perpendicular to the object being lit). The larger this angle is, the softer the light source."

Ergo -- holding the light to the side is a way of diffusing, it is the diffuser you've suggested. The very angle you've been complaining about so much.


"causing the pupil to contract and expand as it blocks/receives light." Unless you are holding the flashlight in a way that casts solely a sliver of light across one portion of the pupil, and nowhere else, then pupil contractions do not block light. Rather, they are trying to adjust to a certain diffuse intensity of light which bathes the eye. It is receiving light the whole time - the pupil contractions do not "block" light, that is unless you're going way out of your way to cast that small amount of light across a portion. If pupil contractions blocked light, tricking the pupil into expanding because it thought all light had gone, then you would not be able to see your whole eye, only that sliver. Again, this would be an impressive misinterpretation of the test.

"The test is dumb the thread is dumb" is not "criticism" Viscid. Nor is baseless and invective arguing. My vote is we summarily delete any more posts by you on this matter and cease responding to them, as half of what could be a valuable thread has become explaining to you obvious things. If you want more explanation, though I doubt any actual sincerity in this, just PM someone.

[hyper_ventriloquism]

I agree with viscid that the instructions in the first post are poorly explained. I suggest that the first post be edited to explain the procedure more accurately. This would be useful to those who will attempt the experiment before reading through four pages of posts to get a better explanation of the procedure. Just a suggestion.

[Blax12]

The instructions were very straight forward for me.

My pupils shift constantly. After an initial constriction and a few seconds of stability my pupils will dilate and constrict significantly. I am also completely unresponsive to piracetam, and aniracetam.

I would, however, like to highlight that the sample size for all categories is nowhere near large enough to make any conclusions and that inconsistent constriction seems currently to be unrelated to piracetam effectiveness.

You have to remember that due to self testing the true effects of piracetam are likely completely separate from those that truly receive a benefit beyond wishful thinking.

This being said a bit of experimenting is always an idea. Looking forward to hearing the results of the cream and pet pills.

Try not to let Viscid and his bot accounts get you down. He's obviously taking his inability to follow/understand instructions (that a primary school child could follow) out on others. The idiots are generally the loudest people in the room, it's their one strength.

[stephen_b]

Regardless of the results of the pupil test, I'm going to give pregnonelone a try and see if my piracetam response changes. I'm on day 3 of 50mg micronized pregnonelone.

[acantelopepope]

Regardless of the results of the pupil test, I'm going to give pregnonelone a try and see if my piracetam response changes. I'm on day 3 of 50mg micronized pregnonelone.

Of course it depends on your level and type of adrenal insufficiency, but I don't think that a couple days of pregnenolone will produce the drastic difference you're hoping for. We're looking at a longer term increase in adrenal functionality... a comprehensive program to address the reason why your levels of aldosterone and corticosterone aren't sufficient (in theory) to allow piracetam's mechanism of action to function properly.

Tomorrow I meet with an endocrinologist. I think that tests will answer a lot of questions with undeniable definiteness.

In general, I have been doing a LOT better since realizing that my fatigue and low spirits were adrenal in origin. Knowing this gave me a specific target. I highly recommend Adrenal Fatigue: The 21st Century Stress Syndrome by James L. Wilson. In it you will find a questionnaire and more basic tests you can perform without equipment to determine the health of your adrenals.

[stephen_b]

Other than low dhea-s, I don't seem to have hormonal problems (testosterone is great) or energy problems (alcar, rhodiola, and naltrexone help there). I was thinking of taking pregnenolone in a small dose. Apparently it is not clear cut that pregnenolone actually increases the hormones it's a precursor for.

Edited by stephen_b, 20 November 2009 - 05:09 AM.

[John W.]

Other than low dhea-s, I don't seem to have hormonal problems (testosterone is great) or energy problems (alcar, rhodiola, and naltrexone help there). I was thinking of taking pregnenolone in a small dose. Apparently it is not clear cut that pregnenolone actually increases the hormones it's a precursor for.

Pregnenolone might actually still do you some good. I'm convinced there might be something to lowered serotonin through piracetam (which would block efficacy, could increase brain fog, could explain depression for some after piracetam, could explain why piracetam lasts for some time but eventually fades etc.), in which case the pregnenolone (or progesterone) might help. Pregnenolone in itself is not resolved but some have claimed it increases serotonin. Progesterone (for which pregnenolone is the precursor) is undisputed though, it helps ramp up your serotonin. So I think that even if you don't have many hormonal problems, the pregnenolone may help you in this sense.

That being said, if you don't really have hormone problems I would try to be careful. An option with less potential side effects (assuming you're not on an SSRI or MAOI) would be to give increasing your serotonin a shot. 5-HTP presumably would be a pretty cheap way of doing this.


As a side note, I also just found something that suggests the serotonin idea could further shed light on what some people say of effectiveness as either or for piracetam / aniracetam. There was a study comparing ani and pira, gave it to rats and then killed them one hour later: "The results obtained show that the changes induced in the cerebral biogenic monoamines [mainly serotonin and dopamine] participate in the mechanism of action of piracetam and aniracetam, whereby it seems that the analogies and differences in their effects on the cerebral biogenic monoamines play a definite role for the observed analogies and differences in the behavioural effects of these two "nootropic" compounds."

[Dorho]

I have taken attack doses of piracetam yesterday (4800 mg) and today (8400 mg) and found no discernible effects. In the flashlight test my pupils did not fluctuate.

[acantelopepope]

I have taken attack doses of piracetam yesterday (4800 mg) and today (8400 mg) and found no discernible effects. In the flashlight test my pupils did not fluctuate.

I appreciate your participation, but if you remember my first post you'll also remember that I said you must take piracetam for at least two weeks, consistently 2-3x a day and with a choline source before drawing any conclusions about its efficacy in you as an individual. Since your pupils do not fluctuate, assuming you're performing the test with an adequate light source, your aldosterone levels should be sufficient for your body to retain sodium and thereby maintain muscle contraction. In other words, if aldosterone is prerequisite for piracetam efficacy (which animal studies suggest), then you are OK on that front, and piracetam SHOULD "work" for you after you give it time, assuming there are no other significant factors in the mechanism of action--which there may be. The test we're doing here seems to be fairly accurate in identifying those for which piracetam produces negative effects.

We need more results from people whose pupils do not fluctuate in the pupil reflex test (and to make this clear to people, the fluctuation we're talking about here is not indicative of healthy adrenals--fluctuation is not the norm, as one might be led to believe when they see how many people here have them).

Tell us know what happens in 2-3 weeks.

[nito]

Just so i understood it correctly. Shine the light from the side towards your eye while inspecting it in the mirror for 90 sec? Well in that case my eyes did fluctuate slightly, they sure could not stay small throughout the 90 secs.

I can't say i feel the effects of piracetam. Maybe slighty in the morning when i wake up cus i don;t seem to not have the morning lethargy. I also think i can respond to vertigo better. If i spin on a chair for a minute, i hardly feel dizzy, in fact i feel clear headed within 3 secs. So i'm not sure what to draw here. It might slighly work maybe.

[tritium]

Has anybody seen a doctor concerning their low aldesterone levels or made any further developments of its significance with Piracetam effectiveness?

[acantelopepope]

Has anybody seen a doctor concerning their low aldesterone levels or made any further developments of its significance with Piracetam effectiveness?

Yes. I'll have my full results December 8th. So far it's established that I have an active Epstein Barr Virus, hemochromatosis, and hypothyroid... fun stuff all around, but I won't know about aldosterone or cortisol until December...

Regarding aldosterone in general, I have learned quite a lot about its biosynthesis from some monographs I got from a neuroscience professor... I've been meaning to update on here but I've had more pressing stuff to deal with...

A few quick points: serotonin is extremely important in the synthesis of aldosterone-- so it would be highly likely that those suffering from hypoaldosteronism would also have low levels of serotonin. It just so happens that piracetam also lowers serotonin levels in vivo: see John W.'s abstracts above.

Other than that, after all the people I've talked to both online and in person, I'm pretty convinced of a strong correlation between the pupil reflex test and piracetam's efficacy for many different reasons, quite a few of which I haven't shared on here... But I will say that there's every reason to believe that when these adrenal/hormonal/virus/deficiency problems are dealt with, piracetam should also work at full force. Now, sorting all those periphery issues out is less than simple.

I'd really like to see someone do more digging with google scholar about piracetam/aldosterone/serotonin connections. I'm pretty swamped with school right now, but I assure you this is not a false lead... and it would be very cool to figure out the relationship between these things.

[gregandbeaker]

Huh. I'm 40 years old and I've never stared at my own eyes for 90 seconds before. Kind of an interesting experience. Mine stayed very small with no fluctuation. I am a piracetam responder. Had some wicked cool dreams last night :-) I'm not a regular user of it though.

[acantelopepope]

Huh. I'm 40 years old and I've never stared at my own eyes for 90 seconds before. Kind of an interesting experience. Mine stayed very small with no fluctuation. I am a piracetam responder. Had some wicked cool dreams last night :-) I'm not a regular user of it though.

Thanks for your reply.

I stopped keeping score a while ago, but so far there have been at least 25 people who responded in this thread, and of them, only one person's results didn't correlate with the pupil reflex test. I'd say that's pretty damn good experiential evidence, wouldn't you?

Now that we have an accurate way to determine whether we'll be responders, let's figure out how to make piracetam work for the non-responders.

Edited by acantelopepope, 01 December 2009 - 09:11 PM.

[waldemar]

My pupils fluctuate.

Piracetam didn't help me much. Doses of 2400 mg cause brain fog for me. Piracetam at night strongly helps me to control/remember dreams, which is the reason why I take 1600 mg before bed about once a month. :D

[tritium]

Has anybody continued to take piracetam after not responding or have had better clarity of thought after cutting everything?

It used to work really well for me before, but now it is really causing much brain-fog and lack of motivation. I've kept using it while changing the dosage every day trying to find the right one. I'm now down to 2 grams piracetam, 400mg pramiracetam, and 500mg alpha-gpc and still have fog. I really need to get my mind straight quickly since finals are coming up soon. I'm trying to figure out if I'd be better off cutting everything completely or keep lowering the dosage.

[acantelopepope]

Has anybody continued to take piracetam after not responding or have had better clarity of thought after cutting everything?

It used to work really well for me before, but now it is really causing much brain-fog and lack of motivation. I've kept using it while changing the dosage every day trying to find the right one. I'm now down to 2 grams piracetam, 400mg pramiracetam, and 500mg alpha-gpc and still have fog. I really need to get my mind straight quickly since finals are coming up soon. I'm trying to figure out if I'd be better off cutting everything completely or keep lowering the dosage.

Stop taking everything. Especially the choline sources. Trust me on this one. I went through the exact same thing and resisted cutting them for a couple months. It only gets worse.

Exercise will help a little bit.

[MAH]

Has anybody continued to take piracetam after not responding or have had better clarity of thought after cutting everything?

It used to work really well for me before, but now it is really causing much brain-fog and lack of motivation. I've kept using it while changing the dosage every day trying to find the right one. I'm now down to 2 grams piracetam, 400mg pramiracetam, and 500mg alpha-gpc and still have fog. I really need to get my mind straight quickly since finals are coming up soon. I'm trying to figure out if I'd be better off cutting everything completely or keep lowering the dosage.

I purchased oxiracetam + Alpha GPC and apart from an initial effect on the second day nothing, I actually felt tired. I decided to try your test and my pupils consistently fluctuated. I also took your advice for adrenal exhaustion and have been taking 50mg of DHEA for the past three days. I tried the test at midday and my pupils remain small with no fluctuation.

I will try the oxi again tomorrow while still maintaining the DHEA and measure the effects. I would have given the Dhea trial longer but my pupils indicate some kind of adrenal recovery so if there are any noticable effects from the racetam then it is looking favourable.

I have also purchased "Pregnenolone", what would suggets is better?