193 replies to this topic

[Hyperspace21]

Listen folks, this supposed 'aggression' is at best on both sides but I am the only one who has been called a baffoon, a 'has been', told to STFU, leave the imminst, etc. Really???

But let's forget all that and assume good intentions as you all wish.

I have some simple questions about the first study for hyperspace if that is okay here?. I hope they can contribute to the knowledgebase for further racetam studies. I'm the last person who would be considered 'scared' of 'new' facts!

Hyperspace21...

1) You distinguish between Piracetam's 'enhanced vision' effects and normal Piracetam effects such as 'enhanced speech,cognitive function and music'. How did you solicit, baseline, and quantify the 'enhanced vision' effects from the trial participants?

2) Can you please quantify how many people experienced 'enhanced vision' effects but did also not experience normal Piracetam effects such as 'enhanced speech,cognitive function and music'?


I know you said you had to dumb down/purge PII from trial results for the forum but in doing so you left out a couple things that make it difficult to interpret your results. I am going to summarize what I think you are saying so please just correct me if I make an assumption based on your description of the findings in your 1st trial (non msg).

3) 1st set of 25 people - ALL 25 experienced normal Piracetam effects (enhanced speech,cognitive function and music) regardless of glutamate or calcium levels and without glutmate or calcium supplementation. Correct?

4) 1st set of 25 people - How many of the 11 that experienced 'enhanced vision'/regular glutamate levels had low calcium ion levels?

5) 1st set of 25 people - How many of the 14 that experienced normal Piracetam effects (enhanced speech,cognitive function and music)/low glutamate levels had low calcium ion levels

6) 2nd set of 25 people - You secretly dosed participants in 10mg increments of L-Glutamate (up to 10 times - don't worry I won't ask how ) until they exhibited signs of hyper-sensitivity measured through signs of being restless, dehydration, and decreased blood pressure? Or was a significant decrease blood pressure the only cutoff you used?

7) 2nd set of 25 people - The purpose of the 10 mg incremental dosing of this test group was to hopefully get them all at or just above normal glutamate levels before testing with Piracetam based on their hyper-sensitivity reactions to L-Glutamate, correct?

8) 2nd set of 25 people - Contrary to the results from the first group, 4 participants had no normal paricetam effects (enhanced speech,cognitive function and music) nor 'enhanced vision' effects even with normal to slightly elevated glutamate levels. Correct? (Don't worry, you don't have to explain statistical analysis and such, this is not a trick question, just yes or no)

9) 3rd set of 25 people - In this group you megadosed L-Glutamate at 5x to 50x the maximum hyper-sensitivty levels displayed in your previous group based on signs of being restless, dehydration, and a decrease in blood pressure, correct? (Again, don't worry, this is not a gottcha question nor am I implying that MIT would ever do anything unsafe with trial participants, just simple yes, no)

10) 3rd set of 25 people - 14 participants experienced normal Piracetam effects (enhanced speech,cognitive function and music) with high to too high glutamate levels and low calcium ion levels, correct?

11) What process did you use to come up with glutamate/calcium levels of participants from CSF, Lumbar puncture?

12) What was the goal of your MSG study when you already had your glutamate/calcium study lined up? Was there some research that you can point to that would imply that MSG supplementation is processed differently than L-Glutamate with respect to glutamate levels in the brain? This seems redundant if not offcourse? Can you explain or am I dingdong? (I might be!)

14) You made a point of testing 75 regular piracetam users and 75 non piracetam users in your first trial of 150 participants. I am guessing they were distributed as equally as possible in your 4 groups (12/13 per group?). You did not report any correlations in your results. There were none of interest?


I appreciate your response, I know its a bunch of questions but they are pretty simple to answer. I have a couple follow-up questions but they seem too dumb to ask without knowing the specifics mentioned above.

The folks here that are not interested in these details, sorry. But the gist of BrainScience/Hyperspace21's advice in this thread is to eat a balanced diet as a first resort and if you are still lacking calcium or glutamate then there are supplements than can fix that.

I'm still skeptical but that's me

Looking forward to your response Hyperspace21.

Thanks!!!
-fortfun

1) We established a baseline of the effects experienced by the volunteers through experience reports. We confirmed the claims of 'enhanced vision' by checking pupil dilation followed by an eye test (similar to that of color blind people). This was further cross-verified through fMRI scans.

2) Out of the 11 responding volunteers; all of them experienced piracetam's other effects.

3) Mostly correct, however their dietary glutamate and calcium uptake were taken into consideration.

4) None of them had low calcium levels.

5) None of them had low calcium levels. Some had high calcium levels too.

6) The Dehydration and the Blood pressure tests were the 'cutoffs' that determined their sensitivity. They were secretly given via food and water.

7) Correct.

8) Correct (yes). There is a big difference between low calcium concentration levels and insufficient calcium concentration levels.

9) Correct. Average humans can withstand 1-2 grams of glutamate uptake. They were purposely given exactly 500mg of L-Glutamic acid to create a condition where too much glutamate was present in the brain. 500mg of L-GLutamic acid would not cause any physical/mental damage but it would make them exhibit signs of hyper-sensitivity.

10) Correct.

11) Yes we used Lumbar puncture to collect CSF. Lumbar puncture is the safest way of collecting CSF. (collecting CSF itself is a dangerous task) We did not collect the CSF's though; qualified doctor's and specialists did this task for us. The participants knew well in advance about CSF tests and collecting CSF required their consent. The ones who gave their consent became our volunteers.

12) MSG and Glutamic acid is metabolized differently by the body. We could try and do both these tests together in the same clinical trial but that would leave some holes in our research. Our aim was to find whether or not, different forms of glutamate would affect piracetam in any way.

Here is a review of a research that explains the differences between MSG,Glutamic acid and Glutamine along with their effects on the body:

http://www.hammernut...wnloads/msg.pdf

13) You skipped this question number.

14) In the first clinical trial their were 100 volunteers. In the second clinical trial their were 150 volunteers. In the second clinical trial, each individual was tested for there tolerance to MSG. The intolerable ones (volunteers who could not withstand MSG consumption below 10mg or showed symptoms of allergic reactions) were eliminated. After the elimination only 123 volunteers were left so they were divided in to groups based on their tolerance to MSG. (unequal groups)

As I have said before, people should posts results over-time (for at least 2-3weeks). To prevent placebo; people can use the subjective tests to test whether piracetam is actually working for them or not.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Edited by manic_racetam, 01 March 2012 - 05:20 AM.

[capctr]

Fortfun that was a spectacular set of questions, and a great post-clearly you are quite educated, and that would be why you are so adamant in your demand for whatever evident can be provided. Again, my apologies for being such knee jerk(emphasis on Jerk) reaction, and for behaving like such an ass.

[capctr]

Geez Louise, I meant 'having a knee jerk reaction', and 'evidence'- iPads are not the easiest things to type on.

[FortFun]

Hyerspace21,

Thanks for the quick reply. I have some more questions but only have a minute. So could you please just clear up a couple things you said in your reply.

Question:
5) 1st set of 25 people - How many of the 14 that experienced normal Piracetam effects (enhanced speech,cognitive function and music)/low glutamate levels had low calcium ion levels
Answer:
5) None of them had low calcium levels. Some had high calcium levels too.

This is opposite (and kind of a big deal if you are implying calcium level correlations) from what you stated on page 1 of this thread. There when referring to the 14 participants that only had regular piracetam effects you said they "lacked the glutamate levels and some lacked calcium ion levels." Which is correct? Can you please re-address the 'how many' question with respect non regular calcium ion levels for these 14?

Question:
14) You made a point of testing 75 regular piracetam users and 75 non piracetam users in your first trial of 150 participants. I am guessing they were distributed as equally as possible in your 4 groups (12/13 per group?). You did not report any correlations in your results. There were none of interest?
Answer:
14) In the first clinical trial their were 100 volunteers. In the second clinical trial their were 150 volunteers. In the second clinical trial, each individual was tested for there tolerance to MSG. The intolerable ones (volunteers who could not withstand MSG consumption below 10mg or showed symptoms of allergic reactions) were eliminated. After the elimination only 123 volunteers were left so they were divided in to groups based on their tolerance to MSG. (unequal groups)

I meant the first study, I should have said " You made a point of testing 50 regular piracetam users and 50 non piracetam users in your first trial of 100 participants". My bad, sorry!

Can you answer these questions reworded with respect to the first study?

• Were users/non user distributed as equally as possible in your 4 groups (12/13 or 13/12 per group)?
• What was point of selecting equal amounts of users/non user when you couldn't distribute them equally either within or between your 4 test groups?
• Given these limitations, did you see any correlations or interesting patterns between users/non users? It seems odd there would be none at all.

Anyway, thank you! I'll wait until the moderator confirms the trials with MIT before I bore the other thread participants with more questions for you. They just want to see killer colors, man.

-fortfun

[Hyperspace21]

Hyerspace21,

Thanks for the quick reply. I have some more questions but only have a minute. So could you please just clear up a couple things you said in your reply.

Question:
5) 1st set of 25 people - How many of the 14 that experienced normal Piracetam effects (enhanced speech,cognitive function and music)/low glutamate levels had low calcium ion levels
Answer:
5) None of them had low calcium levels. Some had high calcium levels too.

This is opposite (and kind of a big deal if you are implying calcium level correlations) from what you stated on page 1 of this thread. There when referring to the 14 participants that only had regular piracetam effects you said they "lacked the glutamate levels and some lacked calcium ion levels." Which is correct? Can you please re-address the 'how many' question with respect non regular calcium ion levels for these 14?

Question:
14) You made a point of testing 75 regular piracetam users and 75 non piracetam users in your first trial of 150 participants. I am guessing they were distributed as equally as possible in your 4 groups (12/13 per group?). You did not report any correlations in your results. There were none of interest?
Answer:
14) In the first clinical trial their were 100 volunteers. In the second clinical trial their were 150 volunteers. In the second clinical trial, each individual was tested for there tolerance to MSG. The intolerable ones (volunteers who could not withstand MSG consumption below 10mg or showed symptoms of allergic reactions) were eliminated. After the elimination only 123 volunteers were left so they were divided in to groups based on their tolerance to MSG. (unequal groups)

I meant the first study, I should have said " You made a point of testing 50 regular piracetam users and 50 non piracetam users in your first trial of 100 participants". My bad, sorry!

Can you answer these questions reworded with respect to the first study?

• Were users/non user distributed as equally as possible in your 4 groups (12/13 or 13/12 per group)?
• What was point of selecting equal amounts of users/non user when you couldn't distribute them equally either within or between your 4 test groups?
• Given these limitations, did you see any correlations or interesting patterns between users/non users? It seems odd there would be none at all.

Anyway, thank you! I'll wait until the moderator confirms the trials with MIT before I bore the other thread participants with more questions for you. They just want to see killer colors, man.

-fortfun

5. Explanation:

My bad, made a slight mistake.
I didn't mean to say; "None of them had low calcium levels.Some had calcium levels too". (I was looking at the fourth question by accident)

Out of the 14 volunteers, 2 people had low calcium levels.

1. Yes we divided them as equally as possible. The ratio was 13 users to 12 non-users.
2. Why didn't we use equal number of people (104)? Most participants were not willing to do CSF tests so we couldn't choose them. Coincidentally, exactly 100 people agreed. (Not much of a coincidence though, the odds are moderately probable)
3. Most non responders were non-users (in comparison with users). Reason for this is because, their system was still adapting to Piracetam.

Feel free to ask any questions.

[jts234]

A few questions:

1. You were able to recruit 100 healthy volunteers in the course of 1 month via survey? What sort of distribution method did you use for this survey? List servers? Mailings? Message boards, word of mouth recruitment, or hanging flyers around the building?

2. You claim to be a medical student. Are you aware that MIT does not have a medical school, moreover in most medical schools, the bulk of the time is spent in classes and rotation. How do you have the time to conduct this research as a full time thing?

3. Were these all volunteers from the Boston/Cambridge area?

4. You mention that the primary weed-out process for volunteers was the prospect of getting a spinal puncture. Were other volunteers excluded on the basis of behavior issues (alcoholism, drug addiction), previous head tramua, etc.?

5. How exactly did you control for dietary factors?

6. How did you monitor daily consumption/administration of the drugs?

7. You mention that certain compounds during your clinical trials were administered without the participants knowledge and were hidden in "food and drink". How much time did each participant spend in your (extremely vague) research compound? Was everyone fed? You were able to move 100 participants through this battery of tests in what it seems like 1 day (after a 1 week administration period)?

8. Where were the fMRI, MRI, CAT scan, and lumbar punctures performed?

9. You realize that medical students don't have "final projects", especially long term research projects spanning 4 years?

10. Who administered the lumbar punctures, fMRI exams, MRI exams, etc? Surely MIT of all institutions (which, as I mentioned above, does not have a medical school, but rather a joint MD/PhD and MD/MS program with Harvard Medical School that Harvard Medical School M.D. candidates can enroll in -- if this is the program you are indeed enrolled in, forgive me for being skeptical, but you have dropped the name MIT a few times, but have not yet clarified your program), wouldn't let first or second year medical students perform these proceedures.

11. You said you were able to quantify the "enhanced vision effect" using MRI and fMRI data. How exactly was this observed?

I know you've been subjected to a fair degree of skepticism and scrutiny, but your responses have so far left me more and more skeptical.

You responded earlier to a post that I made on reddit in the /r/nootropics community (which I did not post here, but I saw your response and felt the need to create an account to address your points. This was your response:

I could ask you the same question you know. How do I know that you are a "psychology major with a neuroscience minor at an ivy league school". You see, everyone is smart enough to make their own judgment; whether you want to believe the truth or not, that's up to you. You should remember though, you can't hide from the truth.

As for MIT; It is a PRIVATE RESEARCH UNIVERSITY. If you understand what that means, then you'll clearly know that raw research data is not allowed to be released anywhere outside the institution. So the 'apparent' legal issues I am talking about can very likely happen. It also means that the university is specifically research oriented, so there would be no sense in saying that it does not fund its own research.

Now about myself; I am not a research 'assistant', I am a student (not a paid researcher). MIT has a variety of subjects, of which biological studies is one of them. After studying the entire course; MIT, requires all students to submit a 'final year project' which will determine how qualified you are and grades will be given on that basis ( along with the results from your previous years examinations). You can do this project on your own or gather up a few friends and colleagues to help you in your project. You are allowed to conduct research for the completion of your project, after you get permission from the administration board.

The research conducted does have a budget which depends on the popularity and the no. of people supporting the research. The budget can be increased if it has a lot of supporters. In our case; our current budget is 5 million dollars, which is the second highest budget in the entire campus. (Research on a cure for cancer currently has the highest budget of 12 million dollars). MIT, being a billion dollar educational institution can afford to fund these types of researches.

There is one important agreement though, that states; "All research and information conducted/collected solely belongs to MIT and cannot be used for profitable purposes. Revealing information without the consent of the administration board can result in academic probation or even expulsion." Clearly, I would have to get permission from the administration board to reveal research information, which I did and they were kind enough to let me post on this thread since they saw the potential of the research that we are doing. However, they strictly prohibited me from revealing any information related to the volunteers since that was against their privacy policy.
I did this because I saw an entire community of people that could benefit from this research.

Many people are recruited from surveys. Information is also collected through surveys and verified the same way the census is (except on a much private and smaller scale). This takes a relatively small amount of time to recruit volunteers since MIT has access to research facilities in which clinical trials are performed.

The term "Ultimate Nootropic" is only meant to be used as a reference term so people can apprehend to what we are trying to achieve; which is a substance that can cure all or most diseases at the cellular level and upward.

Subjective tests, are for determining whether piracetam is working for you or not. They are based on pure logic, which are basically derived from the conclusions of our research.

Clearly, you are used to different research practices (If you are a researcher). I'm sorry for not following the 'Scientific Method' because honestly, I don't have enough time to give out information that is purely obvious.

The research has helped a lot of people and everyone is allowed to make their own judgements. They can decide to follow or not to follow the advice given in this thread, it is completely their choice.

Your skepticism towards my team and I should not make you this aggressive (although I appreciate skepticism to some extent, since it helps fill in the gaps of information that some people may need). I hope you overcome your aggression soon and realize that there is nothing to be upset about (no one appreciates aggressiveness)."

My response:

I never said MIT was incapable of funding the research -- you were the one that said you received private research for it. You never claimed to be a four year student -- you claimed to be a med student. That's not in the biological studies department. Medical schools are separate and distinct -- although. I've said this repeatedly throughout my post, MIT doesn't even have a medical school. Would you care to elaborate on what program you are actually enrolled in, and what your expected martriculation date is, and within what department your studies fall under, and what degree you expect to receive when you graduate?

You claim earlier in the thread that "My colleagues and I have not applied for our .edu ids since we don't require them. (They are mainly used to get discounts on certain purchases and access MIT's private websites/databases). We don't need them since all that we require is provided in the form of research funding." But immediately above you said that you are enrolled at MIT. If you don't receive your university email there, then at what .edu address do you receive it at?

I eagerly await your response. For the record, I'm willing to submit copies of a student ID (alumni addition, as well as my last student ID, student edition from 2003), as well as additional photographic proof to prove my academic pedigree to the mods. I can't wait to hear what your research advisor has to say to them.

[randy909]

jts234,

Please stop the arguing in this thread. Proof of hyperspace's identity is pending. Hyperspace, please do not dignify this attack with a response, at least not on this thread.

-r

[capctr]

I second that, however eloquent jts234 phrased his question(s), it was still reeking of hostility.
Dr.j(heh, love that), I dont understand, are you not willing to wait for the mods pending response in regards to the op's credentials? I would think that given your own field of study, patience and, dare I say, a sense of decorum are a must.

[jts234]

Hey fortftun -- not only is his research non-existent, but he's also medical student at MIT (which doesn't have a medical school)! Two lies make a right, amiriteguiz?

Seriously, though. Two things are bugging me here about the hyperspace and ScienceGuy thing going on here:

1. The two accounts have been engaged in a circle-jerk since the day hyperspace started commenting here.

2. They have shockingly similar linguistic patterns, make similar use of font color, and they both throw around smiley faces like someone who just figured out how to type. Plus, ScienceGuy claims to be from the UK in his profile, and while hyperspace claims to go to MIT (an American institution), he uses British spellings of words ("colour", not color). In addition to his utter lack of any sort of verification, information about what program he's in, etc. etc. etc., his pretty constant misplacement of "there' and "their", as well his rather odd grammar and usage makes me doubt his bona fides, as well.

[jts234]

It's not that I'm unwilling to wait for independent verification. He attacked my credentials personally on this thread (someone else copied and pasted a comment I made on reddit -- although I occasionally pop in here, I like the community and interface better over there), so I wanted to respond to his comments. If anyone else doubts the college of my matriculation (Columbia University, '08, B.A. in Psychology) -- feel free to shoot me an email at jjb2123@caa.columbia.edu. My student account is no longer active, but this is my alumni email address. Because unlike some people in this thread, I'm not afraid to put some form of verification out there -- I've already offered more in the way of substantiating my claims than hyperspace has.

-J

[hooter]

Hey fortftun -- not only is his research non-existent, but he's also medical student at MIT (which doesn't have a medical school)! Two lies make a right, amiriteguiz?

Seriously, though. Two things are bugging me here about the hyperspace and ScienceGuy thing going on here:

1. The two accounts have been engaged in a circle-jerk since the day hyperspace started commenting here.

2. They have shockingly similar linguistic patterns, make similar use of font color, and they both throw around smiley faces like someone who just figured out how to type. Plus, ScienceGuy claims to be from the UK in his profile, and while hyperspace claims to go to MIT (an American institution), he uses British spellings of words ("colour", not color). In addition to his utter lack of any sort of verification, information about what program he's in, etc. etc. etc., his pretty constant misplacement of "there' and "their", as well his rather odd grammar and usage makes me doubt his bona fides, as well.

Hahaha. Fascinating. I'll note that neither user has a traceable online presence or has provided evidence.

I'll go so far to agree with the factor that Hyperspace21 sounds like the kid that everyone had in their school who said he had 20 computers and 10 TVs at home...

My team [at MIT] and I will try and crack the reasons behind some of the problems that people experience with nootropics and also try to solve them.

We are also working on the 'Ultimate Nootropic' and I will keep updating about the progress; here in this thread. Although the composition of this new substance is highly classified; I can still give you hints about its features.

We solely work on research, clinical trials and sometimes basic logic.

I don't think any self respecting scientist would talk like this.

Edited by hooter, 01 March 2012 - 12:46 AM.

[Ben]

Hey ScienceGuy,

Do you have any interesting Piracetam studies that you can refer to since, I do know, that last decade or so???

I find it kind of funny the self references to Hyperspace21 and his so far non existent MIT work.

You state you are a medical student, with 22 years of nootropics experience [I assume you are not referring to 100+ Dead shows! ]. Bold career change at this stage in your life! Congrats! Since you claim these credentials do you care to indulge us with some facts to back up your claims???

BTW welcome to the forums. Its a pitty you never found this forum before now.

Thanks,

-fortfun

Hard to get studies on it that are more recent. Hard to get good studies full stop.

Refer to the steps I posted in Hyperspace's thread. (Also, focus on the content, not the man.)

[unregistered_user]

Hey fortftun -- not only is his research non-existent, but he's also medical student at MIT (which doesn't have a medical school)! Two lies make a right, amiriteguiz?

Seriously, though. Two things are bugging me here about the hyperspace and ScienceGuy thing going on here:

1. The two accounts have been engaged in a circle-jerk since the day hyperspace started commenting here.

2. They have shockingly similar linguistic patterns, make similar use of font color, and they both throw around smiley faces like someone who just figured out how to type. Plus, ScienceGuy claims to be from the UK in his profile, and while hyperspace claims to go to MIT (an American institution), he uses British spellings of words ("colour", not color). In addition to his utter lack of any sort of verification, information about what program he's in, etc. etc. etc., his pretty constant misplacement of "there' and "their", as well his rather odd grammar and usage makes me doubt his bona fides, as well.

Now that someone else has finally said it, I would like to go on the record as saying that I suspected these two to be one in the same early on in Hyperspace's piracetam study thread. These similarities just seem too uncanny. It's all just sort of weird. They both appear to be relatively knowledgable but this assessment is coming from a layperson so who am I to say?

[unregistered_user]

Maybe this is all just some sort of experiment to demonstrate how easily susceptible the nootropics community is to influence.

[1thoughtMaze1]

Spit on me and call me scum

[BrainFrost]

So what is the point of them providing information to the community that certain substances such as calcium and Glutamic Acid help improves piracetams effects? First of all, how did hyperspace know that these products would work when no one else has noted that there is a correlation between the two?

[FortFun]

5. Explanation:

My bad, made a slight mistake.
I didn't mean to say; "None of them had low calcium levels.Some had calcium [High] levels too". (I was looking at the fourth question by accident)

Out of the 14 volunteers, 2 people had low calcium levels.

1. Yes we divided them as equally as possible. The ratio was 13 users to 12 non-users.
2. Why didn't we use equal number of people (104)? Most participants were not willing to do CSF tests so we couldn't choose them. Coincidentally, exactly 100 people agreed. (Not much of a coincidence though, the odds are moderately probable)
3. Most non responders were non-users (in comparison with users). Reason for this is because, their system was still adapting to Piracetam.

Feel free to ask any questions.

Well hold on a second. You said you were looking at question 4 when you gave this answer.

Are you now saying that some of the 11 responders in the 1st set of 25 had high calcium ion levels?

And just to be exact, in 2 sets of 25 participants you had a ratio of 13 users to 12 non-users but in the other two sets you had the opposite, 12 users to 13 non-users. Right?

I would have just dropped 4 people before the trial, especially after all the efforts to get a mix of users and non users in your 1st trial. Wouldn't 12 users and 12 non users per set have worked out great? The bigger coincidence is exactly 50 users and 50 non users agreed not 100....but I think that is what you meant to say.

It is interesting that most non responders were non users (it'd be nice to see the breakdown), but isn't it a pretty big assumption for you to conclude the "Reason for this is because, their system was still adapting to Piracetam"? After all, didn't everyone (21 users and non users) respond at the highest level possible (enhanced vision) in the 2nd set of 25?

Thanks again! I appreciate all the time you are taking to answer questions.

-fortfun

Edited by FortFun, 01 March 2012 - 04:48 AM.

[unregistered_user]

I'll be honest and say that I can't determine what motivation one would have for deceiving the community by pretending to be something he's not, at least in the way that people are suspicious of Hyperspace and Scienceguy. That is why I quipped that it was merely an experiment to see how receptive to manipulation this community was. I didn't mean that in seriousness.

I think a few of us are just making some pointed observations about how these two posters are very much alike in their locution and general online personas. My comments are intended to be relatively benign but since another poster shared my opinion, I thought I'd chime in and let him know he wasn't the only person thinking it.

[jts234]

He hasn't provided any information that these substances help improve piracetam's effectiveness. He's provided speculation that these substances have an effect, and in mine, and a few others opinion, fabricated studies that he supposedly conducted which verify this information. For some reason, in thread after thread, ScienceGuy has come to Hyperspace's defense. He's also hawked a particular product a number of times in hyperspace's thread on glutamine etc., by both product name and vendor multiple times. They both joined within a month or two of each other...combine that with the similarities in posting style, the fact that they've got some sort of weird internet bromance going on that can't really be explained logically unless they are 1) the same person, or 2) know each other in real life, and it seems like either A) a marketing ploy, or B) someone with illusions of grandeur. Given that they both claim to be med students but lack a fundamental understanding of either basic research protocol/procedure, they both seem to have a piss-poor understanding of neuroscience and psychopharmacology outside of what you can glean from reading abstracts on PubMed and Wikipedia...I'm going with the theory that they're both frauds.

[manic_racetam]

4.8 gram piracetam dose induced rapid cycling multiple personality disorder! LOL... I love me a good conspiracy theory...

[FortFun]

Hey jts234,

I know you felt (lol..is felt a word?) like hyperspace was attacking you personally in his response to you but I also might have been a little sharp in replying to someone questioning my credibility.

I know you just joined here but we have agreed (at least I have) that we will stick to the subject of the clinical trials. The mods will verify that the study is taking place as described and we can either try to understand the study better now, or wait until the study is released/exists/happened. Personally, I tend towards understanding the study better now since 'so many new members' seem intent on immediately applying jyperspace's stated conclusions to their daily stack.

As long as hyperspace is intent on answering questions, I think that is a good thing and hyperspace wholeheartedly agrees. So moving forward let's stick to facts (a clinical study should be full of them) and avoid conjecture. The rest will work itself out. We sometimes think of MIT, Harvard, etc as the be all end all. They must do everything perfect. In reality we are dealing with youngsters (18-25) that make the same mistakes we did...just more likely in a lab!

So hyperspace, thank you for initiating collaboration with this forum. Like jts, I was skeptical. To be honest I still am. But that is the best thing about science as opposed to something like politics. Scientists always have two choices, prove it or go home to mommy!

-fortfun

PS: Hyperspace, sorry, I should have asked this before, are you an undergrad or are you working on a graduate degree? I'm a little confused since you stated this was a final year project and that you were a medical student? Just trying to gauge the level of student study/trial we are discussing. I don't want to waste anyone's time holding this study to a higher level than would be appropriate. Believe me, any undergrad studies I did would not hold up to ANY scrutiny on this board. Just making sure we are talking apples/apples. I'm assuming a couple/several hundred lumbar punctures are a big deal and imply graduate/PD level work, but please confirm. thx.

Edited by FortFun, 01 March 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[hooter]

He hasn't provided any information that these substances help improve piracetam's effectiveness. He's provided speculation that these substances have an effect, and in mine, and a few others opinion, fabricated studies that he supposedly conducted which verify this information. For some reason, in thread after thread, ScienceGuy has come to Hyperspace's defense. He's also hawked a particular product a number of times in hyperspace's thread on glutamine etc., by both product name and vendor multiple times. They both joined within a month or two of each other...combine that with the similarities in posting style, the fact that they've got some sort of weird internet bromance going on that can't really be explained logically unless they are 1) the same person, or 2) know each other in real life, and it seems like either A) a marketing ploy, or B) someone with illusions of grandeur. Given that they both claim to be med students but lack a fundamental understanding of either basic research protocol/procedure, they both seem to have a piss-poor understanding of neuroscience and psychopharmacology outside of what you can glean from reading abstracts on PubMed and Wikipedia...I'm going with the theory that they're both frauds.

I note that neither have access to medical journals. I remember Scienceguy saying that he cannot read the full texts. They further seem to use the same vendor. They do seem to post at roughly the same times despite one being in america and the other being in UK. I guess until a mod does some IP checking, we won't know for sure. High dose racetam and hydergine combos can certainly cause extreme illusions of grandieur and elevated self worth. I'll admit that saying they're the same person is a bit of a stretch.


However, Hyperspace21 does not seem to work on a MIT level. Not to mention that MIT doesn't have a medical program other than one at Harvard Medical school. His story doesn't add up and he writes like a salesperson. I mean how are we honestly to believe that, "we're working on the ultimate nootropic". Really? I'd buy that ScienceGuy might be a legitimate med student, but this poster is just ridiculous.

I'm currently a Medical Student at MIT, I have my own team of friends and colleagues who are working with me to advance Medical Science beyond conventional boundaries.
We are currently exploring a variety of topics, from nootropics to cancer cures.

Our current goal is to create the 'Ultimate Nootropic' which will help advance mental capacities and also help develop our ultimate goal; to create a substance/compound or mixture that can cure all diseases up to the cell level.

We have so far cracked 30% of this challenging and ambitious task and hope to completely decode the mysteries behind it in the near future.

Cancer cures? Beyond conventional boundaries? How do you know you cracked 30%? This is really not how science works. Your own cancer cure and nootropics team at the non-existent MIT medical program? Kindly go screw yourself.

Edited by hooter, 01 March 2012 - 09:37 AM.

[Hyperspace21]

Hey jts234,

I know you felt (lol..is felt a word?) like hyperspace was attacking you personally in his response to you but I also might have been a little sharp in replying to someone questioning my credibility.

I know you just joined here but we have agreed (at least I have) that we will stick to the subject of the clinical trials. The mods will verify that the study is taking place as described and we can either try to understand the study better now, or wait until the study is released/exists/happened. Personally, I tend towards understanding the study better now since 'so many new members' seem intent on immediately applying jyperspace's stated conclusions to their daily stack.

As long as hyperspace is intent on answering questions, I think that is a good thing and hyperspace wholeheartedly agrees. So moving forward let's stick to facts (a clinical study should be full of them) and avoid conjecture. The rest will work itself out. We sometimes think of MIT, Harvard, etc as the be all end all. They must do everything perfect. In reality we are dealing with youngsters (18-25) that make the same mistakes we did...just more likely in a lab!

So hyperspace, thank you for initiating collaboration with this forum. Like jts, I was skeptical. To be honest I still am. But that is the best thing about science as opposed to something like politics. Scientists always have two choices, prove it or go home to mommy!

-fortfun

PS: Hyperspace, sorry, I should have asked this before, are you an undergrad or are you working on a graduate degree? I'm a little confused since you stated this was a final year project and that you were a medical student? Just trying to gauge the level of student study/trial we are discussing. I don't want to waste anyone's time holding this study to a higher level than would be appropriate. Believe me, any undergrad studies I did would not hold up to ANY scrutiny on this board. Just making sure we are talking apples/apples. I'm assuming a couple/several hundred lumbar punctures are a big deal and imply graduate/PD level work, but please confirm. thx.

I am an undergrad, however, graduates are working on this too. I think I mentioned this before,but I'll say it again; The lumbar punctures were done for us not by us. We were also supervised by our professors who equally wanted to contribute to this project.
I haven't tried to advertise any product, now have I? My group only gets the results for our project. It's our task to find correlations between different substances.

MIT, experimenting with piracetam might sound odd to a lot of people. We found this substance through a lot of research. We don't want to continue experimenting with piracetam though, since it's not our goal to do so.
MIT does not have a medical school (obviously). However, not having a medical school doesn't mean that the college can't conduct research in the field of medicine.

If you'd like me to stop 'dumbing down' then I shall but after that, I won't take the time to explain the material. You guys decide.

I really appreciate you for trying to handle this in a scientific and diplomatic way.

[FortFun]

Hey ScienceGuy,

Do you have any interesting Piracetam studies that you can refer to since, I do know, that last decade or so???

I find it kind of funny the self references to Hyperspace21 and his so far non existent MIT work.

You state you are a medical student, with 22 years of nootropics experience [I assume you are not referring to 100+ Dead shows! ]. Bold career change at this stage in your life! Congrats! Since you claim these credentials do you care to indulge us with some facts to back up your claims???

BTW welcome to the forums. Its a pitty you never found this forum before now.

Thanks,

-fortfun

Hard to get studies on it that are more recent. Hard to get good studies full stop.

Refer to the steps I posted in Hyperspace's thread. (Also, focus on the content, not the man.)

Actually its not. And BTW, why the heck are you such a fan of these two kids? Best post ever??? There are plenty of piracetam and piracetam related studies from the last decade, Google is your friend....if you know where to look!

[Ben]

Actually its not. And BTW, why the heck are you such a fan of these two kids? Best post ever??? There are plenty of piracetam and piracetam related studies from the last decade, Google is your friend....if you know where to look!

Great. Why not contribute, and post a summary / commentary on some recent studies you've found? I'd love to see it.

In my book, before you openly accuse someone of something you should have a good reason. If you have a good reason you should then open a new thread. If the accusations are found to be true, and then serious enough, a moderator can delete / lock a thread. This is the most polite and efficient way of doing what you're trying to do. It is also, happily, the most obvious.

Before even going through that process though, with regard to a specific the accusation you're making, you should ask yourself: "How can this person benefit from doing what they are doing?" Only a little or not at all? Then it's highly unlikely there is something suspicious going on. Ask yourself that question here. I did of myself.

Edit: Now I'm guilty of spamming a thread.

Edited by Ben, 01 March 2012 - 03:04 PM.

[Introspecta]

For the love of God give it up. Please. Pretty Please?

[spartan86]

I didn't want to write here anymore, but your post just made me smile (in a good way). I want to believe HyperSpace, but your point is clear/concrete too. You do stick to facts. I'll take "wait and see" approach for now. So what is you take on his advices (calcium/glutamic acid)? Let's forget about the guy for a second. I just want your honest opinion. I did drank a lot of milk during my piracetam use, but now I see it could've been a lot of factors in play (choline, glutamine, calcium or some other stuff).
P.S. I'm not gonna say I was mistaken right away, but a lot of "advices" do correspond with wiki pages (I did my own little project). I'm starting to get sceptical too.


"Removed deleted information from reply above but left original post intact - Manic"

Edited by manic_racetam, 07 March 2012 - 05:26 AM.

[randy909]

1. I think that the human body is incredibly good at regulating calcium ion levels. Calcium is implicated in nearly every nerve and muscle function, and because of this crucial role, your body self-regulates by drawing on calcium reserves in the skeletal system when you get inadequate dietary calcium. I think supplementing with calcium is completely unnecessary for most people, with the caveat that you get enough from dietary sources, such as nuts, fresh veggies, and fatty fish.

2. I think that supplementing with glutamic acid is stupid. Given a healthy diet, your body has all the amino acids and peptides it needs to synthesize what it needs, and the negative effects of an abundance of it (as a simple wikipedia search demonstrates: http://en.wikipedia....i/Glutamic_acid) has so many risks that it can't possibly outweigh whatever benefits that hyperspace has theorized (and not proven).

Just my two cents.

Thanks for calling out your agenda. I was personally planning on trying Piracetam again with the following steps: first i will reproduce the irritability by taking Piracetam alone, then I'll introduce other substances to see what affect they have on my irritability levels, *one* at a time. I'll start with choline (although that never helped before), then try glutamic acid. I already drink a fair amount of milk so I'm not too worried about calcium but will try more as a last resort. This seems like a reasonable approach yes?

Although I'm not willing to put my body/brain at any major risk. What are the risks you are referring to with glutamic acid? I was under the impression that it's safe at 125mg.

-r

[hooter]

I think once you reach 24g of piracetam a day you kind of get the urge to mess with people on online forums. I'm having these effects myself.

[ScienceGuy]

For the sake of thread cogency lets stop everything not related to the topic. The topic is in relation to the effects of calcium and glutamate on piracetam efficacy... basically anyway.

All sides of the argument regarding the OP's credentials have been stated many times over, so lets stop beating that dying horse... for now at least.

Hyperspace21 gave me an email address of a professor. I'm going to check up on it when I get a chance, hopefully in a day or two, and will report back my findings. Until then lets stay on topic.

SECONDED

jts234,

Please stop the arguing in this thread. Proof of hyperspace's identity is pending. Hyperspace, please do not dignify this attack with a response, at least not on this thread.

-r

I second that, however eloquent jts234 phrased his question(s), it was still reeking of hostility.

THIRDED

And for the record anyone who thinks that I am Hyperspace21 is A MORON