8 replies to this topic

[orbitum]

I did read very critical article from J. M. Keppel Hesselink.
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 Their efficacy in healthy individuals is not proven and the proof offered on the Net is of a simple structure and is not peer reviewed.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

[carnosine]

Pretty much everything he said is a lie.

[FunkOdyssey]

Their efficacy in healthy individuals is not proven and the proof offered on the Net is of a simple structure and is not peer reviewed.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 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.

Proof of the efficacy and safety of many of these drugs has not been generated in well controlled, methodologically sound experiments.

This statement is also generally true.

Most arguments are based on extrapolation of in-vitro or in-vivo animal experiments or are based on epidemiological data.

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).

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.

Definitely true.

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.

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).

[benson123]

that article is 8 years old. It is no longer relevant.

[Trias]

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]

The drugs have not changed; however, the quality is much better, as is proved by Certificate of Analysis by many retailers. Piracetam is one of the few smart drugs that has shown efficacy in healthy adults. Much of this is because there is no reason to test these compounds with healthy adults. As of yet, the world does not funnel important resources into testing the efficacy of certain compounds in hopes of increasing intelligence. This may change in the future; however, it will surely not be any time soon. One thing that is for certain, there is a large demand for smart drugs. This demand has been increasing as intelligence is being defined and studied at a molecular level. The increase in suppliers, internet, internet forum's, search engine optimization, etc. has also help spread the news. The majorities of the people who are on this forum are smart drug users and are therefore convinced that they have increased certain abilities that improve the quality of their lives. Smart drugs are trial and error, what works for one does not work for another. Some improve certain abilities while diminishing others. Smart drugs do work. It is just a matter of finding how to combine them to work for you.

[carnosine]

"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]

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.