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

Photo
- - - - -

Piracetam vs. Aniracetam


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#31 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 August 2006 - 06:30 AM

Please don't misrepresent what I am saying.  I never said personal attacks are necessary for scientific debate.  Sometimes, however -- it's all that will get some people to pay attention.  It worked for you and SENS, right?


I disagree that Aubrey's intent was to have professionals attack him personally in order to call attention to SENS. I believe that his intent was to show that SENS can withstand the criticism of knowledgeable professionals. Criticism in the form of questioning some of the assumptions that SENS rests on rather than personal, emotional attacks to Aubrey's character which would benefit no one in the discussion.

#32 doug123

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

Posted 23 August 2006 - 06:35 AM

My use of the word "intended" might be a strech...however, I don't want to take this topic any farther off topic than it already is.

sponsored ad

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

#33 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 August 2006 - 06:42 AM

Professional people don't fight.


I hope you are not being serious. You can't win without a fight -- just like you can't pray without surrender.


No, I am being serious. Professional people don't fight. Professional people engage in rational discussion, the objective is not subjugation, but instead the mutual pursuit of knowledge. Maybe this is just a difference in wording...fight has very negative connotations such as violence and combat which I intended to convey. If you interpret "fight" as being associated with reason and debate completely lacking slander or emotional jabs, then yes, I do agree with you.

1 a : to contend in battle or physical combat; especially : to strive to overcome a person by blows or weapons b : to engage in boxing
2 : to put forth a determined effort
transitive verb
1 a (1) : to contend against in or as if in battle or physical combat (2) : to box against in the ring b (1) : to attempt to prevent the success or effectiveness of (2) : to oppose the passage or development of
2 a : WAGE, CARRY ON b : to take part in (as a boxing match)
3 : to struggle to endure or surmount
4 a : to gain by struggle b : to resolve by struggle
5 a : to manage (a ship) in a battle or storm b : to cause to struggle or contend c : to manage in an unnecessarily rough or awkward manner

http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/fight

#34 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 23 August 2006 - 06:46 AM

It's important to correct other members so that their comments, if misinterpreted or simply wrong do not mislead others. But I don't see any reason as to why the discussion has to turn political/personal. I have said this before, respond with logic and other members on this forum, who are not stupid, will realize who stands on the correct side of the debate. If someone is continuously annoying you with their refusal to acknowledge "x" or read post "y", then contact one of the forum leaders and let them address the situation.


I completely disagree with several parts of this statement.  If you would like to inititate a new topic to discuss these issues, I will participate.


I agree with what I said earlier :-). If you want to discuss this someplace else, go ahead and start the thread. I cannot think of anything I would like to add to what I already said earlier and I think the people of this forum are reasonable enough to understand both of our points of view...I have nothing further to add here.

#35 doug123

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

Posted 23 August 2006 - 07:01 AM

Geez. I got back from the gym about an hour or so ago and I'm going to bed soon.

#36 xanadu

  • Guest
  • 1,917 posts
  • 8

Posted 23 August 2006 - 05:42 PM

Ghostrider wrote:

"personal attacks are always emotional. Always, name an exception of a personal attack that is not emotional. Anyone? Now, let me ask you, what place does emotion have an scientific debate? Absolutely no place. Emotion impedes reason. Another reason is that they reflect impulsiveness and aggression -- two characteristics that are not associated with scientific and professional people."

Exactly! It's sad when people go out of their way to use ad hominems as a form of debate. Some people are simply unable to keep things on a scientific or professional level and when confronted with an argument they can not defeat logically, they resort to personal attacks as a way to deflect attention from their intellectual shortcomings. It would be nice if leadership stated unequivically that they will not allow this in the forums and act according. Lets have an end to name calling and other forms of personal attack in these forums. Let those who continue to do it be banned no matter what their connections are.

So, to get back to what I was talking about, does anyone know of a vendor that sells contaminated nootropics? Does anyone know of manufacturers who do this? Do many people think that whole countries are not to be trusted? Why would China, for example, be suspected of trying to slip in contaminants like lead to their products while countries like Brittain, Canada, USA or Germany get a free pass? It makes no sense to me. It sounds like xenophobia or racial prejudice. If there is solid evidence, lets see it. If there is none, lets have an end to the innuendo.

#37 pikatchu

  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 3

Posted 23 August 2006 - 05:58 PM

Pikatchu, I am not sure how worthwhile it would be to discuss substances which have been proven to be neurotoxic.  Is ritalin harmful?  I am not sure, nootropikamil has pointed out in a few of his recent posts that it can be dangerous.  Whatever we discuss, I think it is also important to pay more attention to how the substance is derived as well as how it's purity can be tested.  What third party would test the purity of meth?  Also, another factor is given how a substance such as modafinil is produced, how likely is it that impurities detrimental to IQ are present?  I am really interested in the answer to that question given that many people on this forum, including myself, have experimented with Modafinil from manufacturers other than the patent holder.  I tried 200 mg of Modvigil modafinil and then stopped after considering that what I am taking could be contaminated or contain impurities -- too much to lose, foolish to risk contamination.  How likely is it that Modafinil could be contaminated with ingredients that harm intelligence?  How about generic ritalin?  I would really consider these factors when buying the generic form.  Must assume the worst quality control unless proven otherwise.

pikatchu, where do you get pramiracetam and why do you consider it better than the cheaper *racetams?

I buy it from QHI. I don't spend anymore on Piracetam and Aniracetam since I take Pramiracetam... It's expensive but it cost me less since I cutted almost everything else also. For me, adding P and/or A on pramiracetam is like drinking a cofee after meth, you maybe can feel it but it's useless. Fom me, pramiracetam is everything P, A and Oxy promise to be but aren't. That is my personal exprerience and it may not be the same for others.

#38 doug123

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

Posted 23 August 2006 - 08:29 PM

I buy it from QHI. I don't spend anymore on Piracetam and Aniracetam since I take Pramiracetam... It's expensive but it cost me less since I cutted almost everything else also. For me, adding P and/or A on pramiracetam is like drinking a cofee after meth, you maybe can feel it but it's useless. Fom me, pramiracetam is everything P, A and Oxy promise to be but aren't. That is my personal exprerience and it may not be the same for others.


I've never noticed an effect I can reasonably quantify from any of the racetams -- Pramiracetam too. I would need to get into hypotheticals to make such an assertion; and such is largely worthless.

Pramiracetam is also WAY too expensive to bother with, in my humble opinion.

That does not mean that Pramiracetam and other racetams don't work at all. We need to do more testing to say anything definitive.

#39 doug123

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

Posted 23 August 2006 - 09:15 PM

[quote name='Ghostrider']I think that depends on who you talk to.  Not everyone has had a good experience with modafinil or methylphenidate.  If your experience with Modafinil was absolutely horrible, as in it did nothing good for you and temporarily destroyed your sleep pattern, would you still advocate it based on other people's positive experiences and pubmed articles?  Modafinil has been on the market since 1999.  I had not heard about it until a few months ago.  From college, I had heard of students using caffeine methylphenidate, and adderall to improve cognitive performance, but never Modafinil.  I am beginning to feel that the best test for these cognitive enhancers is 1) How mainstream are they? or 2) What do the experts use: people who really know about neurochemistry and the sciences of the mind -- what do they use to increase their cognitive abilities and health or maybe even 3) What do the people who really need cognitive performance use: doctors, science/engineering students in competitive programs?  The options that 3 and maybe 1 choose might not be so healthy...

I think Pubmed and other surveys are a good place to start, but these studies that I have read only give statistics.  They tell that some aspect of cognition was improved, but they don't convey anything about the experience.  I guess a similar analogy would be when an auto-enthusiast goes out to buy a performance automobile.  No such person would just blindly go off the numbers on paper published by the manufacturer or another source.  They want to actually drive the car before making a purchase decision.  They want to feel how the car handles, feel how flat the torque curve is, feel the brakes, etc.  I think the same thing can be said of many popular cognitive enhancers today.  Some people claim that caffeine stifles creativity -- leading to more impulsive behavior -- or modafinil stifles depth of thinking -- for the ability to process simpler thoughts faster. 

I guess what I would like to see more of in this forum is some discussion about how cognitive ability can be improved -- theories, speculation.  Similar to what is going on in the SENS / Anti-aging section.  Over there, people are talking about how to engineer senescence.  I think such discussion would benefit this forum, however, I will need at least a few months to get up to speed on topics related to the science of the mind...because now I am starting from a blank slate.[/quote]

For healthy volunteers, modafinil seems to work the best out of any compound known to medicine that has demonstrated the capacity to enhance cognition -- as far as side effects go, it has the least of ANY compound of all such classified substances. The quoted abstract pasted below used 60 healthy volunteers.

[quote]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.

PMID: 12417966 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE][/quote]

I have access to the full text (if you want to see the full paper, you need to pay):

http://www.springerl...vm/fulltext.pdf
http://www.springerl...8dmqb55x0ca7vm/

I've taken a part of a paragraph out of the introduction:

[quote name='http://www.springerlink.com/content/ab8dmqb55x0ca7vm/fulltext.pdf']Traditional stimulants have been shown to be effective in
maintaining and enhancing performance on tests of
attention and working memory (Solanto 1998), although
often with significant side effects and the risk of
dependence (Kollins et al. 2001). In contrast, modafinil
has been shown to be safe and effective in the management
of narcolepsy, with significantly fewer side effects
being observed in patients on modafinil relative to
placebo (Billiard et al. 1994) and with little evidence of
dependence (Jasinski 2000). Animal research suggests
that, unlike amphetamine and methylphenidate, the psychomotor
effects of modafinil are not mediated via a
catecholamine mechanism (Ferraro et al. 1996), despite
having a similar clinical profile to these drugs (Ferraro et
al. 1997). Given the proven clinical efficacy of modafinil
in ameliorating symptoms of narcolepsy and excessive
daytime sleepiness (Broughton et al. 1997), the present
study aims to evaluate the nootropic potential of this
novel agent in healthy young volunteers.
[/quote]

The researcher that published this groundbreaking study on modafinil in healthy subjects is Dr. Danielle Turner et al. (from Cambridge University -- considered to be among the top 3 finest academic/learning/research institutions in the world) -- you can hear her discuss the finer differences between modafinil and ritalin (she [and/or her research group] have studied BOTH compounds in healthy humans) in the webcast (thank Opales for finding this!) pasted below: she is the second speaker (you would need to "fast forward" about 20 minutes to see her presentation; however, I would also strongly advise you to watch Nick Boström's presentation as well).

Nick Boström on cognitive enhancement, webcast presentation at the Oxford conf.
http://streaming.oii...6/16032006-1.rm

Edited by nootropikamil, 23 August 2006 - 09:36 PM.


#40 Ghostrider

  • Guest
  • 1,996 posts
  • 56
  • Location:USA

Posted 24 August 2006 - 07:54 AM

How come modafinil is not mainstream among competitive college students and neuroscientists?

#41 doug123

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

Posted 25 August 2006 - 02:48 AM

How come modafinil is not mainstream among competitive college students and neuroscientists?


That sounds like a good name for a new topic to me.

#42 Zachy McScientist

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • -5
  • Location:The Houston of Texas

Posted 19 August 2010 - 05:50 PM

How come modafinil is not mainstream among competitive college students and neuroscientists?


That sounds like a good name for a new topic to me.


ZING!

Sorry... it was too tempting; I won't do it again... today.
  • dislike x 1

#43 muffinracetam

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 0
  • Location:canada

Posted 20 August 2010 - 09:48 PM

Based on this new study, I guess Aniracetam is better for Cognitive Enhancements.

Edited by chrono, 24 August 2010 - 04:22 AM.
fixed link


sponsored ad

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

#44 soulfiremage

  • Guest
  • 104 posts
  • 13
  • Location:UK

Posted 10 September 2010 - 09:26 PM

Based on this new study, I guess Aniracetam is better for Cognitive Enhancements.


I don't see where this is implied. Aniracetam is said to be no longer in clinical use and considered as part of the 1st group of drugs trialled; that's all. Piracetam is cited more.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users