43 replies to this topic

[solracselbor]

OK guys, I recently discovered this article written by a man named James South, MA (http://www.scribd.co...ics-James-South)

Apparently this guy took a lot of nootropics, particularly the racetams. He died in 2006, around 60yrs old, from a brain tumor (http://www.groupsrv....bout168764.html)

One commenter in the last link posted:

"Hi,

South took a wide range of supplements most notably heavy on
nootropics. The writings of Donaldson suggest that he also took
nootropics. In an '82 interview he said he took deanol and vitamin B5.
South took B5, but not deanol. I read nothing into the B5 connection,
but i do think the posibility that both took nootropic is intriguing if
not scary.

Only one in 250 Americans die of brain cancer, so the chance of a
coincidence is clearly less than 1/250. I think Pauling took only
vitamin C until late in life when he started on another vitamin or two.
His wife took only C. They both died of cancer. Saul Kent reportedly
had a brush with cancer. A cryonocist whose name might have been
"2030" died of pancreatic cancer, but I don't know that he was a life
extensionist.

Do life extensionists get anything but cancer?

Thomas "

I would like to hear the opinions you guys have, especially those with advanced knowledge on the brain systems.

Thanks.

[Declmem]

Sucks for me. I take a BOATLOAD of b5. Not for nootropic purposes - for acne.

[solracselbor]

Sucks for me. I take a BOATLOAD of b5. Not for nootropic purposes - for acne.

He seemed to be more into taking the racetams at heavy doses.

Here is his regimen:
http://www.antiaging...ment-regime.htm

[luv2increase]

OK guys, I recently discovered this article written by a man named James South, MA (http://www.scribd.co...ics-James-South)

Apparently this guy took a lot of nootropics, particularly the racetams. He died in 2006, around 60yrs old, from a brain tumor (http://www.groupsrv....bout168764.html)

One commenter in the last link posted:

"Hi,

South took a wide range of supplements most notably heavy on
nootropics. The writings of Donaldson suggest that he also took
nootropics. In an '82 interview he said he took deanol and vitamin B5.
South took B5, but not deanol. I read nothing into the B5 connection,
but i do think the posibility that both took nootropic is intriguing if
not scary.

Only one in 250 Americans die of brain cancer, so the chance of a
coincidence is clearly less than 1/250. I think Pauling took only
vitamin C until late in life when he started on another vitamin or two.
His wife took only C. They both died of cancer. Saul Kent reportedly
had a brush with cancer. A cryonocist whose name might have been
"2030" died of pancreatic cancer, but I don't know that he was a life
extensionist.

Do life extensionists get anything but cancer?

Thomas "

I would like to hear the opinions you guys have, especially those with advanced knowledge on the brain systems.

Thanks.

If you look into his regimen, the guy was taking a myriad of stuff. How you can deduce "nootropics" as to being a possible cause of his brain cancer is beyond comprehension.


I can also tell you that 1 in 250 is NOT that bad of odds.



To date, there hasn't been any incidences of "brain cancer" attributed to nootropics. There hasn't even been an increase in bio-chemical markers to even suggest that any nootropic substance would cause cancer.



Read the link which lists all the stuff he has been taking for years:
http://www.antiaging...ment-regime.htm


He even makes me look bad

[solracselbor]

OK guys, I recently discovered this article written by a man named James South, MA (http://www.scribd.co...ics-James-South)

Apparently this guy took a lot of nootropics, particularly the racetams. He died in 2006, around 60yrs old, from a brain tumor (http://www.groupsrv....bout168764.html)

One commenter in the last link posted:

"Hi,

South took a wide range of supplements most notably heavy on
nootropics. The writings of Donaldson suggest that he also took
nootropics. In an '82 interview he said he took deanol and vitamin B5.
South took B5, but not deanol. I read nothing into the B5 connection,
but i do think the posibility that both took nootropic is intriguing if
not scary.

Only one in 250 Americans die of brain cancer, so the chance of a
coincidence is clearly less than 1/250. I think Pauling took only
vitamin C until late in life when he started on another vitamin or two.
His wife took only C. They both died of cancer. Saul Kent reportedly
had a brush with cancer. A cryonocist whose name might have been
"2030" died of pancreatic cancer, but I don't know that he was a life
extensionist.

Do life extensionists get anything but cancer?

Thomas "

I would like to hear the opinions you guys have, especially those with advanced knowledge on the brain systems.

Thanks.

If you look into his regimen, the guy was taking a myriad of stuff. How you can deduce "nootropics" as to being a possible cause of his brain cancer is beyond comprehension.


I can also tell you that 1 in 250 is NOT that bad of odds.



To date, there hasn't been any incidences of "brain cancer" attributed to nootropics. There hasn't even been an increase in bio-chemical markers to even suggest that any nootropic substance would cause cancer.



Read the link which lists all the stuff he has been taking for years:
http://www.antiaging...ment-regime.htm


He even makes me look bad

I understand what you mean, but the fact that he died at around 60 (58 as i calculated it) seems way to early for an avid nutritionist. He starting supplementing with Racetams at age 23 in 1971, that's 35 yrs of prolonged use. I don't know many people who have supplemented that long with such heavy use. Either way, I do acknowledge the various confounds, therefore limiting the cause of his death to the racetams would be illogical; but I am not certain his cancer was not self-induced as a result of some of those supplements he took.

[chrono]

Only one in 250 Americans die of brain cancer, so the chance of a coincidence is clearly less than 1/250.

I guess it's possible, but seems like a bit of a conclusion to jump to. People do get brain tumors: it could have been caused by any number of other factors we are or aren't aware of. As poorly-studied as many of them are, most nootropics have been through at least some animal testing. If any of them "=" brain cancer, there's a pretty good chance it would have shown up in some way by now.

[platypus]

Only one in 250 Americans die of brain cancer, so the chance of a coincidence is clearly less than 1/250.

I guess it's possible, but seems like a bit of a conclusion to jump to. People do get brain tumors: it could have been caused by any number of other factors we are or aren't aware of. As poorly-studied as many of them are, most nootropics have been through at least some animal testing. If any of them "=" brain cancer, there's a pretty good chance it would have shown up in some way by now.

If a life-extensionist with an on-line presence dies of something unusual we'll certainly hear about it over here. This implies that this could easily just be a chance occurrence.

[solracselbor]

Only one in 250 Americans die of brain cancer, so the chance of a coincidence is clearly less than 1/250.

I guess it's possible, but seems like a bit of a conclusion to jump to. People do get brain tumors: it could have been caused by any number of other factors we are or aren't aware of. As poorly-studied as many of them are, most nootropics have been through at least some animal testing. If any of them "=" brain cancer, there's a pretty good chance it would have shown up in some way by now.

Are there any longitudinal studies in regard to the racetams that show no long-term effects? These "supplements" have been in existence for a long time now, and I haven't seen any studies of long-term effects.

[luv2increase]

Only one in 250 Americans die of brain cancer, so the chance of a coincidence is clearly less than 1/250.

I guess it's possible, but seems like a bit of a conclusion to jump to. People do get brain tumors: it could have been caused by any number of other factors we are or aren't aware of. As poorly-studied as many of them are, most nootropics have been through at least some animal testing. If any of them "=" brain cancer, there's a pretty good chance it would have shown up in some way by now.

Are there any longitudinal studies in regard to the racetams that show no long-term effects? These "supplements" have been in existence for a long time now, and I haven't seen any studies of long-term effects.

You do realize that to be even considered a "true" nootropic, a substance has to virtually have ZERO toxicity/harmful effects. Nootropics are truly the safest substances one can put into their bodies.

When you say "long-term", what is your definition?

If you are talking about a multi-year study, I don't think you will find any with regards to any vitamins or "prescription" drugs out there.



The only multi-year study I have seen was one with regards to a "questionnaire" and supplementation. It tried to paint a bad picture of dietary supplements when the only supplement which shows a negative long-term result was "garlic" and colorectal cancer. First-class science devised by the pharm industry :(

[solracselbor]

Only one in 250 Americans die of brain cancer, so the chance of a coincidence is clearly less than 1/250.

I guess it's possible, but seems like a bit of a conclusion to jump to. People do get brain tumors: it could have been caused by any number of other factors we are or aren't aware of. As poorly-studied as many of them are, most nootropics have been through at least some animal testing. If any of them "=" brain cancer, there's a pretty good chance it would have shown up in some way by now.

Are there any longitudinal studies in regard to the racetams that show no long-term effects? These "supplements" have been in existence for a long time now, and I haven't seen any studies of long-term effects.

You do realize that to be even considered a "true" nootropic, a substance has to virtually have ZERO toxicity/harmful effects. Nootropics are truly the safest substances one can put into their bodies.

When you say "long-term", what is your definition?

If you are talking about a multi-year study, I don't think you will find any with regards to any vitamins or "prescription" drugs out there.



The only multi-year study I have seen was one with regards to a "questionnaire" and supplementation. It tried to paint a bad picture of dietary supplements when the only supplement which shows a negative long-term result was "garlic" and colorectal cancer. First-class science devised by the pharm industry :(

I dont disagree with your definition of nootropic. But just because something is "supposed" to be non-harmful (or thought to be), doesn't necessarily mean its true. Hasn't piracetam been out for quite some time now? Are there no follow up studies showing effects, or lack thereof, for individuals who were prescribed the drug? In Europe, what is the common perception of the racetams? I am sure it is more widely known than it is here in the states (I wouldn't be surprised if I am the only person who has ever heard of it in California) since it is either available by prescription or illegal, right?

[PWAIN]

Although I suspect this is just a matter of coincidence, it is a good reminder of the principle:

First do no harm!

[MacGregor]

The population of the state of California is roughly 38 million. Care to reconsider your huge assumption?

[noregister]

It seems probable to me that some nootropics cause rapid cell division in a very unnatural way.

[solracselbor]

The population of the state of California is roughly 38 million. Care to reconsider your huge assumption?

it was meant as a figure of speech...

[rwac]

Here's my personal theory, probably baseless.

We know that a choline deficiency promotes liver cancer.

The 'racetams increase acetylcholine requirements, which then reduces the choline available for other functions in the brain.
This combined with a significant portion of Americans being borderline choline deficient, increases the possibility of cancer.

I notice he used a lot of racetams and no choline.

All pure conjecture of course.

Edited by rwac, 10 December 2010 - 05:05 AM.

[niner]

You do realize that to be even considered a "true" nootropic, a substance has to virtually have ZERO toxicity/harmful effects. Nootropics are truly the safest substances one can put into their bodies.

Except that by this definition, nootropics don't exist. There is nothing that has ZERO toxicity/harmful effects.

[niner]

Do life extensionists get anything but cancer?

Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the two biggest killers today. We have a pretty good handle on how to avoid CVD, at least if you are the kind of life extensionist that eats right, exercises, and has a sound supplement regimen. However, cancer is a more difficult disease to avoid. If we substantially reduce our exposure to one of the big killers, it stands to reason that a lot of us will get the other one, even if we have reduced our cancer rate somewhat compared to the general population. The general population will get picked off early from CVD and complications of diabetes, so it won't seem like as many of them will get cancer.

[Delta Gamma]

There are too many variables for us to make the conclusion nootropics cause brain cancer. Given the sheer number of supplements this guy took its quite possible he may have consumed a carcinogenic supplement for a while, improperly prepared supplements (remember those reports that found high levels of heavy metals in protein powder), or he could have just had a genetic predisposition to brain cancer.

I'd be more worried about some of the newer nootropics, particularly direct growth factors or relatively untested ones, and poor manufacturing practices than the supplements he appeared to be taking towards the end of his life.

Edited by Delta Gamma, 10 December 2010 - 06:43 AM.

[Invariant]

While it seems likely that his cancer had something to do with his insane supplement regimen, there is little reason to suspect racetams specifically. Nevertheless, to add another datapoint: this guy states he used piracetam and received a brain tumor diagnosis. Also, there is research suggesting that phenylpiracetam causes glioma's: http://www.imminst.o...__1#entry192486

[solracselbor]

While it seems likely that his cancer had something to do with his insane supplement regimen, there is little reason to suspect racetams specifically. Nevertheless, to add another datapoint: this guy states he used piracetam and received a brain tumor diagnosis. Also, there is research suggesting that phenylpiracetam causes glioma's: http://www.imminst.o...__1#entry192486

The first link is interesting. As for the second, I believe you may be misconstruing it. It sound like phenylpiracetam improves conditions associated with gliomas.

[tham]

Did South die from a glioblastoma or neuroblastoma ?

Piracetam and its analogs, like the xanthines,
upregulate the CAMP/PKA signalling pathway,
which is at least one of the pathways by
which they enhance cognition.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....t_uids=12598418


" The animals treated 16 days with piracetam
showed an increase of cAMP in the frontal
brain of 134% compared with untreated animals. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm....st_uids=6311225


This pathway has contrasting effects on cancer
cell proliferation - stimulating lung adenocarcinomas
and pancreatic cancer, but suppressing breast,
prostate, thyroid and skin cancers.

" A critical mediator of cellular proliferation and
differentiation in various cells (and cancers) is
the cAMP-dependent protein kinase, also
known as protein kinase A (PKA), and its
activating secondary messenger, cAMP. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm....t_uids=20813184

" ..... inhibition of cAMP-dependent kinase
prevents tumor cell proliferation "

http://www.ncbi.nlm....t_uids=19244110


CAMP/PKA increase may well determine
how aggressive the cancer is.

" PKIB and PKA-C kinase can have critical
functions of aggressive phenotype of PCs
through Akt phosphorylation and that they
should be a promising molecular target for
PC treatment. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm....t_uids=19483721



It appears to activate glioblastomas and
neuroblastomas as well.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....t_uids=18719351

http://www.ncbi.nlm....t_uids=18831067

Edited by tham, 10 December 2010 - 12:09 PM.

[luv2increase]

Piracetam is HUGE amongst European writers and has been for a long time now. People think that it is just life-extentionists that use these compounds, but that is far far far from reality.


The fact of the matter is James South was taking a myriad of supplements, had a host of health issues in life, and could have even lived next to an oil refinery or other toxic area of the country which led to his brain cancer.


Cancers are not only caused by what we human beings put into our bodies "intentionally". There are many other factors as well.



The fact that he had weird coordination/balance problems at a young age already shows something wasn't on the up-and-up with the inner workings of his brain. For all we know, his regimen may have KEPT HIM ALIVE FOR MUCH LONGER THAN HE NORMALLY WOULD HAVE LIVED. Swallow that one

Edited by luv2increase, 10 December 2010 - 05:30 PM.

[solracselbor]

Piracetam is HUGE amongst European writers and has been for a long time now. People think that it is just life-extentionists that use these compounds, but that is far far far from reality.


The fact of the matter is James South was taking a myriad of supplements, had a host of health issues in life, and could have even lived next to an oil refinery or other toxic area of the country which led to his brain cancer.


Cancers are not only caused by what we human beings put into our bodies "intentionally". There are many other factors as well.



The fact that he had weird coordination/balance problems at a young age already shows something wasn't on the up-and-up with the inner workings of his brain. For all we know, his regimen may have KEPT HIM ALIVE FOR MUCH LONGER THAN HE NORMALLY WOULD HAVE LIVED. Swallow that one

That's a really good point, and it would coincide well with this (http://www.imminst.o...__1#entry192486). But, I think tham also makes a good point on how the pathway may be a potentiating cancer proliferation. Nevertheless, to disregard as opposed to disprove is not the scientific method. Sure he was taking a lot of other supplements, but is his case so confounded that we should not attempt to logically deduce? The reason I posted this was so that people can make informed decisions on the substances they are using. As the mechanisms in which piracetam function are not clearly understood, nor are its claimed benefits established, I would say the use of the drug is already based, in large part, to speculation and anecdotes. Moreover, many of those who use this substance discover its "benefits" on this forum, or others similar to it. Of these, many are students, as can be seen here (http://www.imminst.o...ake-nootropics/). To be biased toward anecdotal evidence for the positive sort, and disregard potential negative anecdotes, is simply a decision based on expectancy over logic.

Nevertheless, I suppose a conjecture postulated on the potential effects of 1 substance over a hundred others is similarly just as illogical

[chrono]

@tham: great response! It really illustrates that even substances with no appreciable toxicity can have downstream effects which are unpredictable, and even undesirable. I cringe a little when blanket statements are made about the safety of nootropics, because lack of gross toxicity ≠ absolute safety. It's possible that piracetam (or any number of other substances South was taking, including (even especially) common vitamins) could have accelerated the growth of a malignant tumor, though for all we know, other parts of his regimen may have acted to down-regulate cAMP.

Unfortunately, there aren't any longitudinal studies for piracetam/etc. that I'm aware of. These are very expensive, and the effort is usually only made for big questions, like how fish oil or vitamin D might affect general health, CVD risk, etc. This is beyond the scope even of clinical trials, and I don't believe longitudinal data are available even for commonly-used prescription drugs. As for follow-up studies demonstrating a lack of risk, that isn't quite how research works. If a drug is shown to be very safe in animal and human trials, and doesn't present any problems in years of clinical usage, they aren't going to keep pumping out papers stating a negative ("Generalissimo Fransisco Franco is still dead"). On the other hand, if problems arise at some point in this process (as did with nefiracetam), more efforts are made to articulate symptoms and causes.

Unfortunately, a single data point is almost useless for drawing conclusions. The kind of research tham found is more useful in showing how something could happen, but is still a single thread in a tapestry we can only see from a great distance. It should certainly be remembered that everything we discuss here (and even the more socially-accepted neuro/physiological manipulations) is very experimental, and there is no escaping the risk/reward ratio.

Edited by chrono, 10 December 2010 - 09:33 PM.

[Brainbox]

It's more than just a single datapoint, it are at least 10.....

But I don't want to be perceived as cynical. Let's turn around the onus regarding proof of efficacy of taking a daily shitload of pills to extend life. Promoters of quick solutions, like Linus Pauling and others, still die. Taken to the extreme this could lead to the conclusion that the proposed solutions at least are not the silver bullet solution we are all hoping for. They may have a positive effect however, but we do not have the proper statistical methods and measurements techniques to be able to judge that with a sufficient level of certainty.

As for nootropics, that do not belong to my favorites, we indeed do not know their long-term effects. The brain works like a complex cooperation of carefully balanced processes. I'm convinced that trying to tune parameters of these processes by taking chemicals that spike certain aspects is not going to work on the long term. E.g. the fact that tolerance kicks in by most of the famous discussed substances already is a sign that this is not the way to go.

The first step is to balance diet which can be supported by taking some supplementation. E.g. the magnesium deficiency of which more data is surfacing lately is one of the important issues to look at when you want to improve your mental abilities. But not by popping just magnesium pills, but by carefully taking into account intake of related minerals like calcium. But that's just a simple example of a long and difficult way that does not result in quick solutions and therefor is unpopular.

Why do you think that initiatives like SENS do need a funding of millions of dollars?

Edited by Brainbox, 11 December 2010 - 09:29 AM.

[solracselbor]

It's more than just a single datapoint, it are at least 10.....

Care to elaborate on this? Sources, perhaps?

[luv2increase]

It's more than just a single datapoint, it are at least 10.....

Care to elaborate on this? Sources, perhaps?

I believe he is talking about "variables". Basically, how can you come to a conclusion of James South dying from nootropics/supplements when there are literally way more than 10 variables going on here which any one of them could be the root of his brain cancer.

[Georgina]

Everything has risks (even the most benign substances) when taken in extreme amounts. Moderation is really the key. When you look at the man's list of supplementation he seemed to have adopted the "more is better" approach. It could be that extremely large amounts of things like piracetam over long periods of time could contribute to growth of cancerous tumors. But then again that could be true of a lot of things.

One other point to consider is that it is possible that a substance may not be carcinogenic on its own but may play a role in tumor growth. A perfect example is estrogen. Estrogen does not cause cancer but the tumors women develop in breast cancer can feed off of estrogen (the tumors can have estrogen receptors and even progesterone receptors). The estrogen did not create the cancer but it plays a role in is growth. Testosterone plays a similar role in prostate cancer.

Someone mentioned that prior to piracetam becoming well known in the Web world it was used by many writers. That may or may not bode well for piracetam as alcoholism and depression seem commonplace among this group

[Ender]

Look, the best answer to this would be: it cannot possibly be known whether his taking of nootropics caused him to have brain cancer.

You don't know his genetic profile-- what genes did he have that may have increased his chance for cancer? You don't know the longitudinal risk of even one of his nootropics, much less all of them together. Nor do you know which environmental risks he was exposed to: radon gas exposure, heavy metal exposure (lead paint? mercury?), ect.

As far as his nootropics being carcinogens, look, your world is full of carcinogens. Much of the air you breathe is polluted with them. The containers you drink and eat out of contain them. Hell, the FOOD YOU EAT IS CARCINOGENIC. And I don't mean pesticides. I mean the the very reactions your body uses to break down food causes cell damage that can, in theory, lead to cancer. This is one postulated reason why caloric restriction is THE most well attested form of life extension. (http://en.wikipedia....rie_restriction)

As for cAMP regulation, its effects (and the effects of cAMP dependent protein kinase) vary depending on the type of cell. Yes, protein kinase A can amplify gene expression. Which ones, how much, when, which nootropics affect this, can it cause cancer: no one knows.

The best most people can say is that at recommended dosages over short periods of time, nootropics seem to be very safe and have little overdose potential. But that is all we can say generally. 99.9% of all substances, including prescription drugs, are complete question marks when it comes to longitudinal use. Try and look up longitudinal use of Adderall at clinical doses. Despite the fact that they've been prescribing it for some time, it simply isn't there. Just studies on recreational (read:excessive) doses of drug users.

So, relax a bit. It probably won't hurt you, but if unknown chances disturb you greatly, you should not experiment with pharmaceuticals.

[kikai93]

To be honest, some of his vitamin intakes worry me more than his racetam intake. Looking at various studies on the racetam drugs, his dosages were not extreme. In fact, all of his dosages of racetams except piracetam were less than those used in research studies and clinical trials. He's right at the upper threshold for B-6 at 200mg, and brags about 8 to 15 grams of C a day for instance. He doesn't list the dosages of fat-soluble vitamins, but imagine if they were similar to his water-soluble intake.

He talks about fighting asthma, allergies, problems with cortisol, frequent illness, problems with balance and coordination, etc.

He had a lot of problems. It could have been any of these, or one of a number of environmental factors. Or none of these, and just his genetic fate.

I know feelings about the racetams on this forum tend to be highly polarized, but considering ambiguities of the cases cited, the mild to moderate dosages, and the host of other possibilities, it seems rather disingenuous to make a big deal of the usage of racetams by this individual.

In short, I don't find the case particularly significant.