Are nootropics worthless?
orbitum 25 Apr 2006
Here are his conclusions:
"Smart drugs available via the Net are of increasing concern. Their efficacy in healthy individuals is not proven and the proof offered on the Net is of a simple structure and is not peer reviewed. Most arguments are based on extrapolation of in-vitro or in-vivo animal experiments or are based on epidemiological data. Proof of the efficacy and safety of many of these drugs has not been generated in well controlled, methodologically sound experiments. The arguments supporting the use of smart drugs as boosters for all kinds of functions must sound like sweet music in the ears of the consumers, but the dark sides of the recreational use of these drugs is not discussed sufficiently at all. Especially psychiatrists and family practitioners should be aware of this source of drugs, since many of these drugs have a narrow therapeutic margin and can interact negatively with a variety of other Rx drugs. The problems of side effects, abuse and dependency are rarely discussed on the Net, and only the sunny side of the use of smart drugs is advertised.
The recent recommendations of the WHO concerning the sale and advertisement of medical products on the Net should be taken seriously, and more offensive strategies to inform public and health workers about smart drugs should be developed. "
What are your feelings about the issues?
http://wwwuser.gwdg....icle-keppel.htm
FunkOdyssey 25 Apr 2006
This is generally true, although I've seen at least a couple peer-reviewed studies on healthy individuals that showed a benefit, like the huperzine one in middle school students.Their efficacy in healthy individuals is not proven and the proof offered on the Net is of a simple structure and is not peer reviewed.
This statement is also generally true.Proof of the efficacy and safety of many of these drugs has not been generated in well controlled, methodologically sound experiments.
Hmm... I have to disagree here. Most of the studies that LifeMirage and other proponents of smart drugs would reference were performed on humans (although the subjects were not usually healthy or young).Most arguments are based on extrapolation of in-vitro or in-vivo animal experiments or are based on epidemiological data.
Definitely true.The arguments supporting the use of smart drugs as boosters for all kinds of functions must sound like sweet music in the ears of the consumers, but the dark sides of the recreational use of these drugs is not discussed sufficiently at all. Especially psychiatrists and family practitioners should be aware of this source of drugs, since many of these drugs have a narrow therapeutic margin and can interact negatively with a variety of other Rx drugs. The problems of side effects, abuse and dependency are rarely discussed on the Net, and only the sunny side of the use of smart drugs is advertised.
While I don't support any restriction or regulation of our ability to purchase medical products on the Net, offensive strategies to inform people about smart drugs isn't a bad idea (although potentially a waste of resources considering how few people are using them).The recent recommendations of the WHO concerning the sale and advertisement of medical products on the Net should be taken seriously, and more offensive strategies to inform public and health workers about smart drugs should be developed.
Trias 25 Apr 2006
that article is 8 years old. It is no longer relevant.
Do tell me how the situation has changed in these 8 yrs?
Same drugs coming from unknown labs in China;
Same "quality" procedures;
some new retailers
some new compounds
The article is valid, as far as i can tell.
benson123 25 Apr 2006
26 Apr 2006
Pretty much everything he said is a lie.
And that is a strikingly unfounded statement commensurate in validity to your accusatory premise.
carnosine 26 Apr 2006
"Smart drugs available via the Net are of increasing concern. Their efficacy in healthy individuals is not proven and the proof offered on the Net is of a simple structure and is not peer reviewed.
Several Nootropics have been studied in healthy young and especially in older but healthy individuals.
Most arguments are based on extrapolation of in-vitro or in-vivo animal experiments or are based on epidemiological data. Proof of the efficacy and safety of many of these drugs has not been generated in well controlled, methodologically sound experiments. The arguments supporting the use of smart drugs as boosters for all kinds of functions must sound like sweet music in the ears of the consumers, but the dark sides of the recreational use of these drugs is not discussed sufficiently at all. Especially psychiatrists and family practitioners should be aware of this source of drugs, since many of these drugs have a narrow therapeutic margin and can interact negatively with a variety of other Rx drugs. The problems of side effects, abuse and dependency are rarely discussed on the Net, and only the sunny side of the use of smart drugs is advertised.
Nootropics by description are not addictive, safe (having no known toxic dose), and usually have been in dozens of studies in use for 10-40 years worldwide.
The recent recommendations of the WHO concerning the sale and advertisement of medical products on the Net should be taken seriously, and more offensive strategies to inform public and health workers about smart drugs should be developed. "
I’m sure WHO is acting in the best interest of our health.
morbius 26 Apr 2006
Pretty much everything he said is a lie.
And that is a strikingly unfounded statement commensurate in validity to your accusatory premise.
lol
Where is the proof to back up your utterly pompous-ass statement? Keep it simple stupid.