25 replies to this topic

[cylon]

Having thought that piracetam was the safest of all racetams I stumbled upon some alarming feedback regarding negative effects. Just wondering how much credence to lend to these accounts...

[Metagene]

Can you be more specific? Even negative anecdotal reports are not uniform.

[Gorthaur]

I would not give much credence to these reports. This forum is full of alarmist anecdotes about nootropics giving people brain tumors, psychosis, and retardation. A lot of these people have pre-existing mental illness or cognitive deficits due to recreational drugs. I find it particularly annoying when people binge on MDMA, take piracetam to recover their cognitive function, and then blame their problems on piracetam rather than MDMA. 

 

I've had bad experiences with a lot of nootropics, including racetams, but it's nothing that won't get better in a day or two. I'm going to trust the scientific studies on the safety of piracetam.

 

As always, if it makes you feel bad or it doesn't work, don't take it!

[cylon]

Metagene, if you simply google-search this site or on the web 'piracetam negative' you'll come across quite a few alarming posts. If instead you google 'piracetam adverse normal' on the web you will find quite a few scholarly studies which seem to show that its quite safe with few or no adverse known side effects except for occasional headaches

Edited by cylon, 23 February 2015 - 03:25 AM.

[gamesguru]

anecdotal reports are not uniform.

Nor are side-effects of drugs uniform.  They're categorized as very common, common, uncommon, rare, or very rare.  What's considered very common?  >10% of the time, usually less than 30%!

 

Brain fog, anhedonia, and a queasy/nauseous feeling are often mentioned.  FWIW, piracetam was inconsistent compared to green tea. Sencha rarely makes me exhausted/foggy, piracetam very commonly did.

Edited by gamesguru, 23 February 2015 - 03:57 AM.

[Metagene]

Honestly I don't find those posts alarming. Most would agree that Piracetam has the potential to cause side effects but there is no evidence that these are severe or life threatening. Anecdotes should not supersede years of solid research.

[Metagene]

anecdotal reports are not uniform.

Nor are side-effects of drugs uniform. They're categorized as very common, common, uncommon, rare, or very rare. What's considered very common? >10% of the time, usually less than 30%!

Brain fog, anhedonia, and a queasy/nauseous feeling are often mentioned. FWIW, piracetam was inconsistent compared to green tea. Sencha rarely makes me exhausted/foggy, piracetam very commonly did.

My point exactly. Piracetam's reputation for safety has been supported by trials and its near lack of toxicity but everyone is different. Like Gorthaur said:

"As always, if it makes you feel bad or it doesn't work, don't take it!"

[gamesguru]

I'm not sure I believe people who claim to be 100% responders.  Piracetam was rolling a dice for me: ⅓ chance of no effects, ⅓ chance of brain fog, and ⅓ chance of enhancement.  For comparison, green tea causes brain fog every 30th glass or so, and probably has more to do with my state of biology.  So tea was nearly 10 times more reliable in its effect & consistently without side effect than piracetam.  I can't be going to work a zombie every 3rd day, so piracetam got the boot.

 

Plus with former RCs, the long-term chronic dangers are less well understood than with age-old herbs, e.g., bacopa and ginkgo.  Piracetam been around maybe 50 years, but very few people [maybe 500] have been experimenting more than 20 years in a row [with bacopa/ginkgo there's at least 10,000 people worldwide with 20 years experimentation under their belt].  I just feel novel compounds are more likely to bear very subtle, unforeseeable, yet horrific dangers.  Call it Romantic, but natural plants tend to have more history behind them than synthetic drugs.  Taking them every day in high doses is not recommended, unless you can afford/want to risk more illness later in life.

Edited by gamesguru, 23 February 2015 - 06:20 PM.

[Metagene]

This discussion is better suited for a different subforum. Certainly science is not the be all and end all but these debates tend to center around ideology instead of critiquing actual science. Anecdotal accounts and published studies should serve complementary roles rather than function as opposing forces.

 

 

I'm not sure I believe people who claim to be 100% responders.  Piracetam was rolling a dice for me: ⅓ chance of no effects, ⅓ chance of brain fog, and ⅓ chance of enhancement.  For comparison, green tea causes brain fog every 30th glass or so, and probably has more to do with my state of biology.  So tea was nearly 10 times more reliable in its effect & consistently without side effect than piracetam.  I can't be going to work a zombie every 3rd day, so piracetam got the boot.

 

Plus with former RCs, the long-term chronic dangers are less well understood than with age-old herbs, e.g., bacopa and ginkgo.  Piracetam been around maybe 50 years, but very few people [maybe 500] have been experimenting more than 20 years in a row [with bacopa/ginkgo there's at least 10,000 people worldwide with 20 years experimentation under their belt].  I just feel novel compounds are more likely to bear very subtle, unforeseeable, yet horrific dangers.  Call it Romantic, but natural plants tend to have more history behind them than synthetic drugs.  Taking them every day in high doses is not recommended, unless you can afford/want to risk more illness later in life.

 

Please understand I'm trying to be unbiased as humanly possible. Both Positive and negative anecdotes can be valuable source of information without being a stand in for hard evidence. No one is advocating the use of a drug that you had a bad experience with or have any level of discomfort about. I merely intend to highlight all the scientific evidence available to allow individuals to make informed decisions for themselves.

 

Since the OP refrained from citing specific reports I'll direct you to this article that is a textbook example of using "case study's around the web" and selective reading to support a dubious theory. http://selfhacked.co...with-piracetam/

 

 

My post copied from another thread.

 

Admittedly my understanding is limited but the paper highlighted that both piracetam and vinpocetine could possibly behave as pro-oxidants at higher dosages. The entire purpose of the study was to access the role of piracetam and vinpocetine in treating demyelination disease so I find it difficult to except that piracetam innately causes oxidative stress in the brain on this basis. (Semantic discussion aside)

 

In summary, findings in the present study indicates that demyelination due to the local injection of ethidium bro- mide into the rat brain is associated with increased oxida- tive stress. The study suggests an antioxidant effect for the nootropic drugs vinpocetine and piracetam at low doses. In contrast, the higher doses were associated with an increase in oxidative stress, though both drugs offered significant protection against GSH depletion induced by ethidium bromide. The clinical significance of these findings needs to be determined.

 

https://docs.google....sp=docslist_api 

 

 

http://www.longecity...-quest-to-talk/

 

 

 

Inexplicably the author went on to recommended C60 which IIRC has nary a human in vivo study behind it: 

 

 

If you want a stronger antioxidant, go for C60.   It’s the strongest and most long lasting antioxidant I’ve ever tried.

 

 

Again all available information may suggest C60 is safe for human consumption but the issue is exactly the same if users attribute various side effects to C60 and develop pet theories without taking additional steps to gain objective proof. 

 

 

 

Edited by Metagene, 24 February 2015 - 07:27 PM.

[gamesguru]

You shouldn't have much difficulty highlighting all the relevant scientific evidence for piracetam's adverse effects, as I said, fewer than 500 people have 20 years experience with piracetam, and few large studies have examined physical effects.  So there's not much to highlight.

And on the same note, C60 is experimental.  Could extend your life, could cut it short.  I'm signed up for cryonics and not concerned with living past 2100.  I prefer not to make myself a guinea pig with every decision, I prefer to err on the side of caution, and to not take things which lack a deep and trustworthy history.

 

Edit: Chronic vinpocetine is bad because of VMAT inhibition, and the resultant down-regulation of monoaminergic receptors

 

Edit2: I'm generally protesting the chronic use of chemicals whose effects are unreliable.  Piracetam is wildly unpredictable compared with caffeine + L-theanine + EGCG.  I'm trying not to include anything unpredictable in my daily stack.

Edited by gamesguru, 25 February 2015 - 12:28 AM.

[Metagene]

You shouldn't have much difficulty highlighting all the relevant scientific evidence for piracetam's adverse effects, as I said, fewer than 500 people have 20 years experience with piracetam, and few large studies have examined physical effects. So there's not much to highlight.

Um I never said I was looking for scientific evidence hightlighting piracetam's adverse. I'm speaking of nootropics, herbs and drugs in general.

And on the same note, C60 is experimental. Could extend your life, could cut it short.

I only used C60 as a example and you are stating the obvious here.

I'm signed up for cryonics and not concerned with living past 2100. I prefer not to make myself a guinea pig with every decision, I prefer to err on the side of caution, and to not take things which lack a deep and trustworthy history.

Edit: Chronic vinpocetine is bad because of VMAT inhibition, and the resultant down-regulation of monoaminergic receptors

Edit2: I'm generally protesting the chronic use of chemicals whose effects are unreliable. Piracetam is wildly unpredictable compared with caffeine + L-theanine + EGCG. I'm trying not to include anything unpredictable in my daily stack.

Like I said do what you think is best for you.

[gamesguru]

Um I never said I was looking for scientific evidence hightlighting piracetam's adverse. I'm speaking of nootropics, herbs and drugs in general.

 

Like I said do what you think is best for you.

Every nootropic?  Man that's a bigger task to tackle.  Now your task is more difficult, even insuperable for a single individual.  Let's just stick to piracetam since that's the topic of the thread.  How can you prove, for example, that some degree of the brain fog does not become permanent, due to excitotoxicity as one pet theory put it.  How can you not be alarmed by the negative anecdotal reports??  Do you have a preponderance of evidence against long-term damage/effects??  I would say chemicals are guilty until proven innocent.  Such damage could be clinically silent, subtle, showing no obvious symptoms, requiring decades of great diligence to uncover.  Anyone who suffered long-term damage could be considered a casualty of your liberal philosophy.  I cannot think it presumptuous to recommend a plant-based stack in place of more synthetic, experimental ones.

 

And thx.

 

Edited by gamesguru, 25 February 2015 - 04:57 AM.

[LabRat]

I'm not sure I believe people who claim to be 100% responders.  Piracetam was rolling a dice for me: ⅓ chance of no effects, ⅓ chance of brain fog, and ⅓ chance of enhancement.  For comparison, green tea causes brain fog every 30th glass or so, and probably has more to do with my state of biology.  So tea was nearly 10 times more reliable in its effect & consistently without side effect than piracetam.  I can't be going to work a zombie every 3rd day, so piracetam got the boot.

 

Plus with former RCs, the long-term chronic dangers are less well understood than with age-old herbs, e.g., bacopa and ginkgo.  Piracetam been around maybe 50 years, but very few people [maybe 500] have been experimenting more than 20 years in a row [with bacopa/ginkgo there's at least 10,000 people worldwide with 20 years experimentation under their belt].  I just feel novel compounds are more likely to bear very subtle, unforeseeable, yet horrific dangers.  Call it Romantic, but natural plants tend to have more history behind them than synthetic drugs.  Taking them every day in high doses is not recommended, unless you can afford/want to risk more illness later in life.

 

With respect, why would you not believe people who 'claim' to be 100% responders, simply because you aren't one yourself?  What does that prove?  If you can't speak Mandarin does that also prove that no one else can?

 

And also, from where do you get this figure of 500 people experimenting for 20 years in a row?

[gamesguru]

Because I think piracetam is less predictable/reliable than say caffeine+theanine from tea.  I bet 15% of their reactions are not good, like feeling foggy/tired/sedated at work; times they'd regretted using racetams.  By comparison, most people have 95% good reactions with tea, clear/awake/stimulated...so it's like three times more predictable, across all populations and ethnic groups.  We could be talking about some foreign incomprehensible alien language, that's the kind of stuff you get with former RCs, wonky, hard to interpret effects in many, if not most people.  Not all nootropics were created equally.

 

The 500 figure is being generous.  I've only found a few reports of people taking piracetam from before the 1990s.

By comparison, I've found dozens, if not hundreds of reports from people taking ginkgo/bacopa/tea for that long.

[Metagene]

@ gamesguru

Every nootropic? Man that's a bigger task to tackle. Now your task is more difficult, even insuperable for a single individual. Let's just stick to piracetam since that's the topic of the thread.

No, the OP simply asked a broad question regarding the safety of piracetam so therefore I gave a broad answer.

Any man that could account for a virtually infinite number of variables would be tantamount to God. Clearly a reasonable person would realize I am not referring to such sisyphean nonsense.

How can you prove, for example, that some degree of the brain fog does not become permanent, due to excitotoxicity as one pet theory put it. How can you not be alarmed by the negative anecdotal reports??

1)Reports of brainfog from Piracetam use are not universal.

2)Because current scientific evidence contradicts that theory and unlike brainfog excitotoxicity can be observed and quantified

3)Because we do not share a hivemind. Why should negative anecdotal reports be given more creedence than positive ones and visa versa?

Do you have a preponderance of evidence against long-term damage/effects??

That's a relative term. If current evidence is not suffient for you then who requires you to except it?

I would say chemicals are guilty until proven innocent.

See post #9

ideology
[ahy-dee-ol-uh-jee, id-ee-]
noun, plural ideologies.
1.
the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group...

http://dictionary.re...browse/ideology

Such damage could be clinically silent, subtle, showing no obvious symptoms, requiring decades of great diligence to uncover.

If you deem the potential risk a drug too great then by all means don't use it.
You seemlingly fail to grasp that no one is criticizing you for your personal choices or beliefs. I never endorsed blind faith in science.

Anyone who suffered long-term damage could be considered a casualty of your liberal philosophy.

Ironic how my apparently "liberal philosophy" is met with your call for conservatism. Discussing the safety of drugs (including piracetam) is not the same as encourging their use.

I cannot think it presumptuous to recommend a plant-based stack in place of more synthetic, experimental ones.

The OP wanted to know whether to believe ancedotal account vs published studies concerning racetam safety while you recommend "plant-based stacks" over synthetic drugs. Seems presumptuous to me.

[gamesguru]

Ironic how my apparently "liberal philosophy" is met with your call for conservatism. Discussing the safety of drugs (including piracetam) is not the same as encourging their use.

 

The OP wanted to know whether to believe ancedotal account vs published studies concerning racetam safety while you recommend "plant-based stacks" over synthetic drugs. Seems presumptuous to me.

Would you recommend a drug which was neither safe nor effective?  Would you discourage a drug which was assuredly safe and effective?  If you answer affirmative to either question, it's time to pause and reflect.

And I'm going to continue recommend people withhold judgement in the absence of evidence.  Don't be a guinea pig. Are you saying I'm conservative when it comes to my health philosophy, but very liberal with my ideological criticisms and discouraging of RCs?  Sure, and I'll continue to be vocal about it, unless the mods warn me.

Why should he believe the studies about adverse effects, when there are so few and they are contradictory, and dismiss the anecdotal reports, when there are so many and they are in constant agreement?

 

 

 

fewer than 500 people have 20 years experience with piracetam, and few large studies have examined physical effects.  So there's not much to highlight.

 

 I encourage you to investigate, study, and criticize the safety profile of all the herbs in my stack ... I'll be impressed and pleasantly surprised if you can find faults.

[Metagene]

@ gamesguru

Would you recommend a drug which was neither safe nor effective? Would you discourage a drug which was assuredly safe and effective? If you answer affirmative to either question, it's time to pause and reflect.

How convenient of you to dodge my questions then reduce a response to a binary yes/no answer.

And I'm going to continue recommend people withhold judgement in the absence of evidence.

I hope you do a better job next time.

Don't be a guinea pig.

How about don't be a dictator?

Are you saying I'm conservative when it comes to my health philosophy, but very liberal with my ideological criticisms and discouraging of RCs?

No don't give yourself that much credit.

Why should he believe the studies about adverse effects, when there are so few and they are contradictory, and dismiss the anecdotal reports, when there are so many and they are in constant agreement?

If you read what I wrote you would see I did none of those things.

[gamesguru]

Experiment with RCs to your heart's content. Then later in life when illnesses strike, blame your genetics.

 

If there aren't studies giving large populations high doses for long periods, then scrutinizing them for incurred mental or physical defects, you cannot say a compound has been evaluated for safety.  Just because one study found no harmful effects doesn't there aren't harmful effects to find.  Say my condition for a "preponderance of evidence" is too strict, I say yours is too weak.

 

Negative anecdotal reports are naturally more alarming.  If you get a guy saying this compound stimulates wit and soothes nerves, blah OK w/e, then you get a guy saying this compound gave him fibrosis or made his ADHD/depression much worse, and everyone's all ears. Why? People are cautious, justifiably so.

 

Probably won't be making another post, I can sense the conversation devolving.

 

Edit:

 

Why should he dismiss the anecdotal reports?

If you read what I wrote you would see I did none of those things.

 

OK, then what's this...

negative anecdotal reports are not uniform.

 

Edited by gamesguru, 27 February 2015 - 06:33 AM.

[cylon]

I think this is an interesting debate and its important to keep an open mind in regards to anecdotal accounts, whether pro or con.  After reading many positive 'anecdotal accounts' that were mostly positive gave Oxi a try, but found it extremely unpleasant (too stimulating, made me irritable) and will never use again! Ani and Pira however I am more open minded about and have only experienced positive effects. Here's another good thread on Reddit

http://www.reddit.co..._and_anecdotal/

 

 

Edited by cylon, 27 February 2015 - 12:31 PM.

[Metagene]

Experiment with RCs to your heart's content. Then later in life when illnesses strike, blame your genetics.

If there aren't studies giving large populations high doses for long periods, then scrutinizing them for incurred mental or physical defects, you cannot say a compound has been evaluated for safety. Just because one study found no harmful effects doesn't there aren't harmful effects to find. Say my condition for a "preponderance of evidence" is too strict, I say yours is too weak.

Negative anecdotal reports are naturally more alarming. If you get a guy saying this compound stimulates wit and soothes nerves, blah OK w/e, then you get a guy saying this compound gave him fibrosis or made his ADHD/depression much worse, and everyone's all ears. Why? People are cautious, justifiably so.

Probably won't be making another post, I can sense the conversation devolving.

Edit:

Why should he dismiss the anecdotal reports?

If you read what I wrote you would see I did none of those things.

OK, then what's this...

negative anecdotal reports are not uniform.

No this is the quote:

Can you be more specific? Even negative anecdotal reports are not uniform.

uniform
[yoo-nuh-fawrm]

adjective
1.
identical or consistent, as from example to example, place to place, or moment to moment:
uniform spelling; a uniform building code....

http://dictionary.re.../browse/uniform

an·ec·do·tal

anəkˈdōdl/
adjective
adjective: anecdotal

(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

Now find another straw man to push over.

The real problem is It's either all white or all black with you. It's impossible to account for every dosage, duration, physiology, etc. We could take the same drug and dosage and each experience different effect at varying degrees. No study can be all encompassing. Your criterion for safety is entirely relative. At no point did I say "it was too strict". If you are turned off by negative anecdotal reports or the possibility of ill effects that's perfectly fine but it's foolish to assume that everyone should feel the same way.

Edited by Metagene, 27 February 2015 - 04:52 PM.

[gamesguru]

Well then, he should dismiss them because they are non-uniform.  Is English even your native language?  The dang meta-analyses aren't uniform in conclusion either, yet you take one reassuring result, and run. It's a lot more foolish than taking one frightening analysis and running. Better to be safe than sorry, especially with RCs.  Every duration, dosage, physiology?  How about 6-9 months, 8-12 grams daily, 15000 people ages 20-80.  Such a study would not be impossible to organize, and would do a lot to soothe my concerns if there were no lingering effects uncovered.  Especially with 1-5% of people complaining of lingering effects (which I had from both piracetam and aniracetam), you must be cautious. Vegetarians, even the drug-naïve  have reported lingering brain fog.  That’s alarming, even if it’s only every 20^th person reporting it. Find me 1 in a 100 people reporting permanent brain fog from green tea. GL, HV

 

dis·miss

verb

1.   

·         treat as unworthy of serious consideration.

[Metagene]

Well then, he should dismiss them because they are non-uniform. Is English even your native language? The dang meta-analyses aren't uniform in conclusion either, yet you take one reassuring result, and run. It's a lot more foolish than taking one frightening analysis and running. Better to be safe than sorry, especially with RCs. Every duration, dosage, physiology? How about 6-9 months, 8-12 grams daily, 15000 people ages 20-80. Such a study would not be impossible to organize, and would do a lot to soothe my concerns if there were no lingering effects uncovered. Especially with 1-5% of people complaining of lingering effects (which I had from both piracetam and aniracetam), you must be cautious. Vegetarians, even the drug-naïve have reported lingering brain fog. That’s alarming, even if it’s only every 20^th person reporting it. Find me 1 in a 100 people reporting permanent brain fog from green tea. GL, HV

dis·miss
verb
1.

· treat as unworthy of serious consideration.

I have dysgraphia among other things. How about yourself? You definitely have issues with reading comprehension.

Edited by Metagene, 27 February 2015 - 05:34 PM.

[gamesguru]

...higher doses were associated with an increase in oxidative stress...

 

Yes I have ADD, moderate/severe

 

 

 

excitotoxicity can be observed

Yeah, if you cut a brain into 100,000 slices and run every one through an electron microscope, sure you might observe it, then again the brain is grand and complex and to notice even the most obvious changes in structure requires the carefullest eye.

[Metagene]

I think this is an interesting debate and its important to keep an open mind in regards to anecdotal accounts, whether pro or con. After reading many positive 'anecdotal accounts' that were mostly positive gave Oxi a try, but found it extremely unpleasant (too stimulating, made me irritable) and will never use again! Ani and Pira however I am more open minded about and have only experienced positive effects.
Here's another good thread on Reddit
http://www.reddit.co..._and_anecdotal/

That is essential what I'm avocating but by definition anecdotes are not facts and should not be treated as such. This debate is ultimately pointless.

  

...higher doses were associated with an increase in oxidative stress...
 
Yes I have ADD, moderate/severe
 

 
 
excitotoxicity can be observed

Yeah, if you cut a brain into 100,000 slices and run every one through an electron microscope, sure you might observe it, then again the brain is grand and complex and to notice even the most obvious changes in structure requires the carefullest eye.

So? All that matters is that it can be done.

[gamesguru]

So if it takes researchers till 2025 to prove piracetam is harmful to 5% of people, and meanwhile hundreds of thousands unwittingly damage their organs, that doesn't matter?  Reminiscent of Nazi human experimentation...

[Metagene]

So if it takes researchers till 2025 to prove piracetam is harmful to 5% of people, and meanwhile hundreds of thousands unwittingly damage their organs, that doesn't matter? Reminiscent of Nazi human experimentation...

lol

I'm out.