43 replies to this topic

[zevogaz]

Between the two, which one is superior IYO?

Just answer "P" or "A".

Edited by zevogaz, 21 August 2006 - 05:50 PM.

[Ghostrider]

In terms of the effects they produce, I cannot tell the difference between the two. Both seem to do nothing.

[magrus]

P. for me

[synaesthetic]

P

I enjoy the effects of piracetam, but ani is a bit too strong for me.

[doug123]

Does P stand for "placebo effect?"

[Centurion]

Stands for Piracetam
as in I prefer Piracetam

[Pablo M]

Does P stand for "placebo effect?"

What do you mean, Adam?

[Ghostrider]

Does P stand for "placebo effect?"

What do you mean, Adam?

I am not Adam, but after speaking with him and reading some of his other posts on Piracetam, I do not believe he considers Piracetam to be very useful as a cognitive enhancer.

Pablo, I like your quote :-).

[pwk11]

P. makes me tired,even with agpc.
A. spaces me out too much. With or without agpc.

[Pablo M]

Perhaps the problem here is the dosages. I usually take a heaping teaspoon of piracetam twice daily.

[Ghostrider]

How much piracetam are you guys taking? I have gone up to 2400 or 3200 mg. Still no effect at those levels.

[doug123]

I think Michael's post below is the best review of the data I have seen to support the use of Piracetam in healthy subjects. Yes, some of the data might be a bit old...and I'd really like to see how the racetams and other so called "nootropics" match up to drugs like modafinil and/or ritalin.

In (1), "Nootropyl (Piracetam) ... was tested for its effect on man by administering it to normal  volunteers. The subjects were given 3x4 capsules at 400 mg per day, in a  double blind study. Each subject learned series of words presented as  stimuli upon a memory drum. No effects were observed after 7 days but  after 14 days verbal learning had significantly increased."

(2) was "A double-blind, intra-individual cross-over comparison of the mental performance of 18 aging, non-deteriorated individuals ... with reduced  mental performance possibly related to disturbed alertness" "during two 4-week periods of piracetam (1-acetamide-2-pyrrolidone) and placebo administration performed using conventional and computerized perceptual-motor tasks. In a majority of these tasks the subjects did
significantly better when on piracetam than on placebo, a finding consistent with ratings completed by two independent observers." How close to normal aging, and how relevant to the youthful and healthy, is open to some question.  A review (11) adds the following, not stated in the abstract: " Moderate but statistically significant improvements (up to 12% vs placebo; p < 0.05) in a range of assessments of cognition were obtained in 18 healthy individuals aged 50 years or more who received piracetam as part of an 8-week, doubleblind crossover study. However, individuals' own ratings of their mental and psychological condition did not reveal any significant differences between piracetam and placebo. "

I DO have copies of the full texts of these trials (1,2) hidden away in my files somewhere, but I'll not be able to look into them to get more details for a month or two; anyone with easy access, please do report.

(6) summarizes (4) VERY briefly thus: "Five double-blind controlled studies in normal  adults have used tests of verbal learning and memory; in all the published studies piracetam was superior to placebo in verbal function {citing my (1,2,4,5,9) -MR}." (11), likewise, includes it with (1,2) as being among "A small number of placebo-controlled studies {that} have shown that piracetam improves aspects of mental performance in healthy volunteers."  Unfortunately, (4) is in German and unavailable to me.

Further details are alleged to be provided by this article on piracetam by James South: "Giurgea and Salama {my (3) below -MR} report the confirmation of Dimond/Brouwer's work by Wedl and Suchenwirth in 1977 {my (4) below -MR}.  Wedl found significant improvement in mental performance in a group of 17 healthy young volunteers given 3.2 grams per day Piracetam for five days." Unfortunatel again, (3) is not even a MEDLINE-indexed item; moreover, Giurgea does seem to be a somewhat 'tainted' source, as the inventor of piracetam and long-term UCB employee. Further, James South is, in my opinion, a very unreliable source of information on  drugs and supplements.

If anyone has access to (4), or even (3), to help confirm any of this, it would be helpful.

(6) also includes the same statement about (5), ie, that it is one of "Five double-blind controlled studies in normal  adults {in which} ... piracetam was superior to placebo in verbal function". Later, it elucidates that it was a study "involving 16 male dyslexic adolescents  and  14 normal student volunteers in a  3-week  double-blind trial of 4.8 g piracetam or placebo per  day, {which} found that dyslexics (and normals)  treated  with piracetam showed a decrease in the number  of trials required to reach criteria in a rote verbal  learning  task,  while  after placebo both groups  showed insignificant minor changes." The abstract of (5) gives no hint of this info on the healthy control group, but the review is actually by the authors of (5). According to the  JS article op cit, "Wilsher and co-workers (1979) {my (5) -MR} related their results with 4.8 grams per day Piracetam in a double blind, crossover trial to study the benefits of Piracetam for dyslexic students. Interestingly, the 14 healthy student controls, matched for IQ with the dyslexic subjects, demonstrated a significantly better result on a test measuring ability to memorize nonsense syllables while using Piracetam as compared to placebo." This is not quite the same claim as made in (6), tho' similar, and seems to be a good general confirmation.

If anyone has a convenient way to get an actual copy of (5), it would be helpful.

Another study  cited by (6) as one of teh "Five double-blind controlled studies in normal  adults {in which} ... piracetam was superior to placebo in verbal function" is (9); unfortunately, (6) provides no further details, and as the citation says, it was an "Unpublished doctoral  dissertation,  University of London School of Pharmacy." I doubt this was a very useful study IAC, as the title says it was an "acute dose"; still, anyone at the U of L should be able to get a copy; if you can, please do!

(7) is on its face supportive, at least in AAMI, which is close to 'normalcy':  "A double-blind randomized trial was performed involving 162 patients with age-associated memory impairment (AAMI)  ... Two intervention methods--a drug and a cognitive therapy--were assessed in combination. Three randomized parallel groups of 54 patients each, aged 55 years and over, were followed and treated for 3 months. After a placebo wash-out period of 10 days, one group received 2.4 g of piracetam, another group, 4.8g, and the third, a placebo.  ... Combined therapy was most effective in patients whose baseline performance on memory tests was lowest. The best results were observed with 4.8 g of piracetam, especially when training sessions began after 6 weeks of drug treatment. This result was confirmed by the global impression of the principal investigator."

Further details are provided in a review (8): "Memory was tested by the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test ... and a freee-recall test developed by the principal investigator. ... {B}oth piracetam groups showed significantly greater improvement relative to baseline for global recall (immediate and delayed recall average) and immediate recall. The high-dose group also showed significantly greater improvement than the control group on delayed recall. ... the high-dose piracetam group that received memory training during the last half of the protocol showed a 35.5% improvement, whereas the placebo group with last-half memory training showed a 12% improvement."

However, (8) also presents a caveat not raised in the abstract: "These effects may be more apparent than real, though, because by chance the placebo group performed somewhat better at baseline than both piracetam groups (by an average of 1-2 items). By the end of treatment, the three groups were virtually indistinguishable in {absolute} performance on the free-recall tests. It is possible thathad the placebo group's baseline been as low as the piracetam groups', the placebo group would have shown a comparable improvement ... Indeed, the most robust effects were found in the comparison of the two groups that differed the most at baseline: the placebo and the high-dose ... group. Further, there were no significant treatment effects on the Rey test, on which baseline performace was nearly identical across the groups."

(10) is the closest thing to a genuine negative report: "Fifty-six hospitalized geriatric patients between the ages of 65 and 80 were given piracetam (Nootropil) 2400 mg/day or placebo on a double blind basis over a two month period. Every patient submitted to a battery of psychological tests before and after the two month trial ... In addition, at pretreatment, 4 and 8 weeks, the patient completed a Profiles of Mood States, a Clinical Global Evaluation was done by the investigator, and laboratory determinations were performed....There were no significant statistical differences between the two groups of patients on all measures utilized except for the Clinical Global Evaluation, where 52% of the patients on piracetam showed minimal improvement versus 25% of the placebo group (P less than 0.05)."

(8) claims the following additional informatioin about (10):  the patient population had "age-related memory decline not necessarily associated with dementia or depression", making it more relevant to healthy normals. They say that piracetam "had no effect on immediate recall of stories, gemetric shapes, and designs." This may mitigate against the apparent null result on cognition, as none of these measures quite matches the variable on which positive results tend to be reported (verbal recall -- tho' stories may hve been 'verbal,' of course).

Overall, I find the results supportive of piracetam's usefulness in normal, healthy humans, esp if aged (tho' 'normal' and 'healthy' then become somewhat debatable terms). Alas, there are none of the large, long-term studies in healthy folk that I'd really like to've been performed, and none are likely to be in the future. There are several reasons for this. First, at the time when the stuff was developed, one could really get away with very little evidence before marketing a drug. Prior to the amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1962, you didn't have to prove efficacy in the USA, and it would be many years before drugs would begin to be EXCLUDED from marketing for lack of access; European countries would take considerably longer. Cognitiive enhancement in the healthy not being a disease in need of a 'cure' by FDA standards, there is no incentive for performing such trials at the time, as you couldn't get FDA approval to market it for that purpose (tho' as we've seen in so many cases of late, it's easy enough to get approval for one indication and then pull various dirty tricks to encourage off-label use); even to do that, you'd first have to prove its utility in some disease state, which as we've seen has been difficult (perhaps beacuse it really just doesn't work in AD, etc).  And of course, piracetam is now off-patent, making any such further trials all the more unlikely.

these reasons are often invoked as the reason why a supplement has never been subjected to proper trials, and then a bizarre logical mis-step is taken, in which the fact that there is a REASON why no such trials have been performed, is taken as some kind of justification for taking it, as if such trials HAD been performed, or as if some silly in vitro study were therefore sufficient evidence. This is a good way to get yourself killed, or at least ripped off. I'm constantly hammering at individuals and companies for this kind of sloppy BS. So why am I willing to let piracetam off the hook?

First, everyone agrees that the stuff is nearly free of side effects (mild and similar to placebo in incidence), and acute toxicity information suggests that it's safer than most SUPPLEMENTS (ie, LD-50 >8 g/kg iv in rats, >10 g/kg orally in rats, dogs, and mice (12)). And while I hate to repeat a half-remembered rumor, IIRC someone (Dean and Morgenthaler?) reported an (anonymous?)  FDA official saying that piracetam couldn't possibly have any beneficial effects, because its toxicity is so low!

Second, I've been using it for some years now in relative ignorance of the true state of the research, and in combination wiht a background dose of 500 mg pyroglutamate, I've been pleased with the results, which seem to include greater mental energy, the drive to remain on-task, and some enhancement of creativity consistent with the reports (in rats and schizophrenic humans) of enhanced interhemispheric communication.

And third, I'm now getting a brand that I consider to have reliable QC (Relentless Improvement) at a much cheaper price than the UCB Nootropyl.

So putting these 3 factors together: granted its low cost and safety, I'm willing to abandon my usual caution and simply say that if these are placebo effects, I'm OK with that . But I would still like more information if available, and urge others to provide any quality information to which they have access.

-Michael

1.Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1976 Sep 29;49(3):307-9.
Increase in the power of human memory in normal man through the use of
drugs.
Dimond SJ, Brouwers EM.
    PMID: 826948 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

2. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1976 Aug;54(2):150-60.
Piracetam-induced improvement of mental performance. A controlled study
on normally aging individuals.
Mindus P, Cronholm B, Levander SE, Schalling D.
    PMID: 785952 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

3. C. Giurgea, M. Salama (1977) "Nootropic drugs" Prog. Neuro-Pharmac. 1.235-47. [Cited by James South article].

4. Nervenarzt. 1977 Jan;48(1):58-60.
[Effects of the GABA-derivative piracetam: a double-blind study in
healthy probands (author's transl)]
Wedl W, Suchenwirth RM.
PMID: 846621 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

5. Wilsher C, Atkins G, Manfield P.
Piracetam as an aid to learning in dyslexia. Preliminary report.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1979 Sep;65(1):107-9.
PMID: 116285 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

6.  Wilsher CR, Taylor EA.
Piracetam in developmental reading disorders: A review.
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 1994 Apr;3(2):59-71
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01977668

7. Int Psychogeriatr. 1994 Fall;6(2):155-70.
Drug therapy and memory training programs: a double-blind randomized trial of general practice patients with age-associated memory impairment.
Israel L, Melac M, Milinkevitch D, Dubos G.
PMID: 7865703 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

8. McDaniel MA, Maier SF, Einstein GO.
"Brain-specific" nutrients: a memory cure?
Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2002 May; 3(1):12-38.
http://www.psycholog...pdf/pspi312.pdf

9. Hyde, J.R.G.  (1980).  The Effect of an Acute Dose of  Piracetam on Human  Pe~ormance. Unpublished doctoral  dissertation,  University of London School of Pharmacy. [Cited by (6)].

10.  Abuzzahab FS Sr, Merwin GE, Zimmermann RL, Sherman MC.
A double blind investigation of piracetam (Nootropil) vs placebo in geriatric memory.
Pharmakopsychiatr Neuropsychopharmakol. 1977 Mar;10(2):49-56.
PMID: 360232 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

11. Noble S, Benfield P
Piracetam: A Review of its Clinical Potential in the Management of Patients with Stroke
CNS Drugs. 1998 Jun;9(6):497-511.
http://www.ingentaco...000006/art00006

12:  Gouliaev AH, Senning A.
Piracetam and other structurally related nootropics.
Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1994 May;19(2):180-222. Review.
PMID: 8061686 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I do not think Piracetam is snake oil or totally ineffective -- it just has a weaker track record at ENHANCING cognition than better tested compounds such as modafinil or methylphenidate. Piracetam, as a SUPPLEMENT, is far more researched than most of supplements out there. Modafinil and Ritalin both have some side effects (Ritalin on a much larger scale, as I posted at http://www.imminst.o...=169&t=12096&s= )

There is also evidence to support the use of modafinil in HEALTHY subjects from what is considered to be among the TOP research institutions in the WORLD; Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge -- to be specific.

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.

Publication Types:

* Clinical Trial
* Randomized Controlled Trial


PMID: 12417966 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

The second speaker in the webcast linked below (originally sourced by Opales) features the researcher from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge (Turner DC) discussing her research on modafinil in healthy subjects.

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

Below are links to recent data from two PhDs (Danila Medvedev and Anders Sandberg); where the topic of discussion is current efficacy of cognitive enhancers (Opales, with a SLAM DUNK bringing these):

Danila Medvedev on cognitive enhancement, practical approach
http://www.imminst.o...=169&t=12055&s=

Anders Sandberg on cognitive enhancement, social impact and current state etc.
http://www.imminst.o...=169&t=12091&s=

Edited by nootropikamil, 22 August 2006 - 09:32 AM.

[Ghostrider]

I do not think Piracetam is snake oil or totally ineffective -- it just has a weaker track record at ENHANCING cognition than better tested compounds such as modafinil or methylphenidate.

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.

[opales]

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

Below are links to recent data from well established neuroscientists; where they present data about current efficacy of cognitive enhancers (Opales, with a SLAM DUNK bringing these):

Danila Medvedev on cognitive enhancement, practical approach
http://www.imminst.o...=169&t=12055&s=

Anders Sandberg on cognitive enhancement, social impact and current state etc.

FYI, there seems to be a bit misunderstading here as neither Nick nor Danila are neuroscientists, even though both are extremely smart fellows and both do have Ph.D (Nick's Ph.D. is on Philosophy, although his undergrad degree might be somehow related to neuroscience, Danila's Ph.D. OTOH is on finance). Nick's research on some level does encompass the field as his research interests are pretty much everything related to transhumanism, and thus including cognitive enhancement, and I think Anders (see below) and Nick are collegues. Danila is (from his short bio at Transvision) a "futurologist, co-founder of Russian Transhumanist Movement and co-founder of KrioRus, a Russian cryonics company", thus essentially an cognitive enhancement amateur (although I would have to say I would trust Danila's judgement over most nootropic enthusiast on any given day).

Anders on the other hand IS a neuroscience Ph.D. whose research mostly involves the stuff we talk about in these forums, so at the moment I would guesstimate him being the 1. guy in the world regarding cognitive enhancement. In fact, I wonder whether it would be possible to ask Anders as an Advisor in the nootropics section (I would actually prefer if we changed the section name into "cognitive enhancement"), he has 100X the credibility that LifeMirage EVER had in my eyes. But I am just little afraid that he would be flooded with silly questions like "how much choline do I need with piracetam" or "could you review my stack" and would eventually grow very frustrated. I'll bring these issues up in the leadership.

Although I can't recall right off what was the policy for advisors in the health fora, I'll have to review that.

Edited by opales, 22 August 2006 - 09:07 AM.

[doug123]

I will try to fix that right now to keep everything as accurate as possible. The rest of the points you guys raised I'll get to hopefully tomorrow.

[MichaelAnissimov]

Anders on the other hand IS a neuroscience Ph.D. whose research mostly involves the stuff we talk about in these forums, so at the moment I would guesstimate him being the guy in the world regarding cognitive enhancement.

I wouldn't doubt this.

[pikatchu]

P for Pramiracetam

[xanadu]

Very good points, Ghostrider.

[pikatchu]

I think Michael's post below is the best review of the data I have seen to support the use of Piracetam in healthy subjects. Yes, some of the data might be a bit old...and I'd really like to see how the racetams and other so called "nootropics" match up to drugs like modafinil and/or ritalin.

... and I'd really like to see how modafinil and/or ritalin would do compared to methamphetamine... for sure you're gonna have best instant results from ritalin, modafinil and meth, but you have to be prepared for the unavoidable backlash going with them, which is proportional to instant productivity that those three will give you.

[Ghostrider]

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?

[xanadu]

I'm constantly puzzed why people who seem to care not a whit about the purity of many over the counter products as well as processed foodstuffs they consume every day are convinced that nootropics are full of something harmful.

Ghost wrote:

"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?"

What impurities do you suspect? How would they get into the product? Is it more likely that the produce you eat has impurities in it from farm chemicals used? Is there a documented case of nootropics being found to have harmful substances in them? If not, then perhaps it's much ado about nothing.

[doug123]

I'm constantly puzzed why people who seem to care not a whit about the purity of many over the counter products as well as processed foodstuffs they consume every day are convinced that nootropics are full of something harmful.

xanadu: as has been pointed out to you before, you just don't read posts and can't seem to think clearly; which might lead me to believe you suffer from acute lead poisioning.



To start: I don't import my foods ("dietary supplements") from China (a country well known to have contamination in their exports) -- and when I do -- I ensure my supplier tests for possilble lead contamination.

[Ghostrider]

This goes back to my origional question of what possible contaminants can be found in common nootropics such as *racetam or Pyritinol vs. generic modafinil, ritalin?

By the way, why isn't ritalin prescribed to adults?

"...as has been pointed out to you before, you just don't read posts and can't seem to think clearly; which might lead me to believe you suffer from acute lead poisioning."

It is more professional to attack the reasoning rather than the person. It is sad to see intelligent people rip each other apart personally...Technology Review SENS controversy.

[xanadu]

nootropikamil, I was not talking to you. I made it clear I was speaking to Ghost. I see you are back to the personal attacks and ad hominems again. I will address the one point you raised.

"To start: I don't import my foods ("dietary supplements") from China (a country well known to have contamination in their exports) -- and when I do -- I ensure my supplier tests for possilble lead contamination."

Anything from China is automatically contaminated unless proven otherwise? So it's the slanty eyed people we have to watch out for? That seems very unfounded.

You see, I replied without any personal attacks and only dealt with the subject matter at hand. I will go back to my policy of ignoring you because you can't seem to hold your temper and reply politely. You will go back to "mad dog" type attacks and poison the atmosphere. But, if I ignore you, you eventually wind down. What choice do I have?

[doug123]

It is more professional to attack the reasoning rather than the person.  It is sad to see intelligent people rip each other apart personally...Technology Review SENS controversy.

As Dr. Sandberg said: "It's actually quite practical to be smart. And it's actually not that practical to be dumb." Using this as a rhethorical premise, I will offer conjecture to support the following statement: "It is also not practical to allow dumb comments to be made without calling them dumb, especially if you are smart."

The type of reasoning the poster in question uses is not based on evidence and it is evident s/he does not read posts -- and that's simply not practical, nor professional, it would seem.

Posts that are flame bait and have nothing of substance that are off topic, in my opinion -- are worthless; plain and simple. I stopped reading posts from the said individual up until recently when s/he seemed to learn to discuss relevant topics and participate without degrading the content of the forum. There comes a time when you don't like to repeat yourself a million times.

I don't like discussing topics with people who don't know how to use the scientific method -- or are unwilling to learn how it works. I don't like reading their comments based on anecdotes either. My time is prioritized to deal with smart people, not forum trolls. If you would not have commented here, I could have been addressing your earlier posts in this topic rather than having to address flame bait.

To illustrate the stupidity of having to repeat myself a million times, I would have to go off the topic (which is exactly what the said poster did in this instance) as I am doing right now. Think about it. You are adding flame to the fire in this case, Ghostrider -- by adding your editorial.

[doug123]

It is sad to see intelligent people rip each other apart personally...Technology Review SENS controversy.

The SENS "controversy" was intended (at least partly) to draw attention to life extension science and the Mprize. Dr. de Grey, in this instance, in my opinion, by making the challenge:

In July 2005, Technology Review announced a prize for any molecular biologist working in the field of aging who could successfully meet the following challenge: demonstrate that SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence), Aubrey de Grey's prescription for defeating aging, is so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate.

That's ASKING to have other scientists establish that SENS was psedoscience in order to win a cash prize -- and therefore he intended to draw many personal attacks. Personal attacks, no matter how annoying they may be, drew our attention to SENS and possibly to the Mprize -- so Aubrey succeeded in drawing your attention, and hopefully support in fighting aging. You must admit that it is always interesting to watch a "good fight" -- and it may arouse your intellect. Let us not forget that Technology Review is a publication of MIT; among probably the top 5 MOST selective research institutions in the WORLD. Do you really think he was going to win every debate when the judges are:

Rodney Brooks, PhD, director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, and chief technical officer of iRobot Corp. IRobot is one of the most successful makers of robots in the world.

Anita Goel, MD and PhD, founder and chief executive of Nanobiosym.

Vikram Kumar, MD, cofounder and chief executive of Dimagi, and a pathologist at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

Nathan Myhrvold, PhD, cofounder and chief executive of Intellectual Ventures, and former chief technologist at Microsoft.

J. Craig Venter, PhD, founder of the Venter Institute. Venter developed the process called whole-genome shotgun sequencing, which sped up the human genome project.

Every time Aubrey won a debate, he REALLY hurt A LOT of people's egos. The judges began to feel that. So eventually they had to give in. That's what I saw happening.

http://www.technolog...6593&ch=biotech

I revert back to Dukenukem's earlier reply on how to deal with trolls:

I do not mean to pick on any person in particular, but for the sweet love of god, do not respond to trolls, otherwise they continue to pollute the forum.

I should have not responded. Oh well. I am not perfect and I fall for flame bait every once in a while too.

Edited by nootropikamil, 23 August 2006 - 02:11 AM.

[Ghostrider]

The SENS "controversy" was intended (at least partly) to draw attention to life extension science and the Mprize. Dr. de Grey, in this instance, in my opinion, by making the challenge:

In July 2005, Technology Review announced a prize for any molecular biologist working in the field of aging who could successfully meet the following challenge: demonstrate that SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence), Aubrey de Grey's prescription for defeating aging, is so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate.

That's ASKING to have other scientists establish that SENS was psedoscience in order to win a cash prize -- and therefore he intended to draw many personal attacks. Personal attacks, no matter how annoying they may be, drew our attention to SENS and possibly to the Mprize -- so Aubrey succeeded in drawing your attention, and hopefully support in fighting aging.

1.That's ASKING to have other scientists establish that SENS was psedoscience in order to win a cash prize 2.-- and therefore he intended to draw many personal attacks.

I agree with 1. I do not agree with 2. I don't think that Aubrey was looking to be slandered. He stated during one interview...forgot which one, I think it was the Bloomberg interview that he genuinely cares about what others think about him. He is a sensitive guy deep down, but of course, he realizes how deadly aging is and he is not going to let others who he beleives are wrong stand in the way of anti-aging progress.

In regards, to statement 2 above, 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.

Also, I was not referring so much to the SENS challenge, but more specifically to some of the dialogue that followed here:

http://www.technolog...7146&ch=biotech

Read the first few posts by Estep and de Grey. I am not sure who's correct in the given debate above...I don't know enough about the biology...give me several months...however, the responses are scathing and reflect poorly on both parties involved. My point is that we need extensive public support in order for the anti-aging movement to progress as quickly as possible. This would be kinda like watching Lance Armstrong get into a fight with another biker during the Tour de France...no matter who started the fight, the respect of both parties involved will have been diminished because of the fight. Professional people don't fight. Personal attacks are always desperate measures and circumvent reason and logic.

So no, I don't think personal emotional attacks are necessary for scientific debate. (And I am not implying that anyone here disagrees with me, I know you guys are logical.) So please, make peace and be friendly towards each other. Like it or not, image matters, the public tends to distrust groups which display internal conflict at the personal level. If you google nootropics or anti-aging or Aubrey de Grey, you will see that posts from this forum are returned near the top. Most likely, some of the people who are first exposed to Aubrey's theories from mass media such as 60 Minutes or Bloomberg will google his name and stumble upon posts such as this. So, are there some posts here that you would not want them to see as it would give the wrong impression about our cause? Maybe, then, we should fix this (I am not speaking about this thread specifically).

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.

Sound good? Remember that we have a lot more in common than different. Let's make peace and be respectful. I like all you people.

[doug123]

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?

[doug123]

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.

I hate to revert to Neil Peart constantly as an authority, but in this case, I have to give due credit to the greatest lyricist of all time:

You can surrender
Without a prayer
But never really pray
Pray without surrender

You can fight
Without ever winning
But never ever win
Without a fight

[doug123]

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.