193 replies to this topic

[jts234]

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

I don't think that you two are one in the same, I merely offered it as an explanation as to why it seems like you two have your hands up each other's shirts in every thread. If you want the thread to get back on topic, maybe you should steer it back on topic instead of continuing this little game, because until Hyperspace steps up and offers some proof that he's not a complete fraud, I'm gonna keep calling you two out on your shitty Internet science and (most likely) false credentials.



You know how they say, "If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck?" Well, if it looks like a quack, and it sounds like a quack, it's probably a quack. And you both sound like quacks.

[ScienceGuy]

I note that neither have access to medical journals. I remember Scienceguy saying that he cannot read the full texts.

Actually I do have access to medical journal as well as full texts, which anyone with more than a single digit IQ would be able to deduce from the fact that MANY of the studies that I have posted within this forum contain the words "Extract from Full Text"; furthermore I have attached a number of full texts to a number of posts

And incidentally ANYONE who thinks that I am Hyperspace21 is AN UTTER MORON

For what it's worth, I am VERY HAPPY for a MODERATOR to confirm that my IP ADDRESS is completely different to that of Hyperspace21 - Manic_Racetam perhaps you can do this please and shut these IDIOTS up?

Quite frankly, with all the recent exorbitant amount of PETTY NEGATIVITY and BS, and disappointing TWO-FACED BEHAVIOUR from certain members in particular, I am now perhaps thinking my time invested contributing to this forum is a complete waste of time and that I should perhaps invest it elsewhere... Suffice to say if my presence on this forum is somewhat ABSENT then you know why!

[hooter]

Every single poster on this forum is obviously just the work of a single russian novelist named Igor, I will post a thread on my hypothesis later...

Edited by hooter, 01 March 2012 - 09:08 PM.

[NootNewb]

So, instead of derailing this thread, can I get my questions answered from my previous post?

[hooter]

Every single poster on this forum is obviously just the work of a single russian novelist name Igor, I will post a thread on my hypothesis later.

[hooter]

I'm at MIT and I've met Hyperspace21 in the past. He's exaggerating his research a little bit, but trust me he's really doing this. Most of his main claims are fully truthful, but mixes in some dishonesty when talking about the actual studies. People on the internet tend to overplay their achievements a little bit, go figure. But regardless of that he's definitely educated enough to be leading this debate. Hope this clears everything now. No disrespect to you, I just wanted this to stop. Back on topic.

Edited by hooter, 01 March 2012 - 11:38 PM.

[1thoughtMaze1]

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

Heh heh heh... That shit is funny!

[ScienceGuy]

I feel the need to repeat the following:

Personally, I like to employ the philosophy "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY" (ever heard of that? ); as opposed to encouraging a mob of people to grab pitchforks and fire torches with the intention of burning down his house

...In the spirit of the philosophy "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY", please kindly withhold usage of the SLEDGE HAMMER until AFTER if it is PROVEN that Hyperspace is telling porkies

...please let's put things into perspective, in that Hyperspace is essentially suggesting supplementing with 10-100mg of L-GLUTAMIC ACID and CALCIUM when taking PIRACETAM, and irrespective of the validity of his STUDY REPORT, doing so does not pose any risk whatsoever to anyone

...I again ask you to please put things into perspective, in that Hyperspace, irrespective of the validity of his STUDY / CLAIMS, has said nothing that poses any health risk to anyone. So, please CALM DOWN, stop with all the AGGRESSION and calling people names...

And I feel the need to repeat this as well:

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.

I believe that my opinion on the matter is perfectly clear, and as it stands the exercise of verifying Hyperspace's validity is still pending; however, since the numerous requests from several members of this forum, including Manic_Racetam who is a Moderator and myself, to cease with the "argument regarding the OP's credentials" and to "stay on topic", it appears we have a bunch of CHILDREN who are incapable of controling themselves or acting in an adult, professional manner.

I joined this forum with the desire and intention to HELP PEOPLE, specifically regarding certain areas (e.g. NOOTROPICS, treating HEALTH CONDITIONS with NATURAL SUPPLEMENTS etc.) wherein one's professional hands are tied and restricted by the bureaucracy that governs the environment of clinical and medical practice. Since I have nothing further to contribute to this thread until said aforementioned verification process is completed and I am not interested whatsoever in wasting my time responding to off topic puerile behaviour, as such I will now be taking a break from this thread and this forum for a while, since I feel that my time is better invested elsewhere.

Edited by ScienceGuy, 02 March 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[Namkcalb]

And incidentally ANYONE who thinks that I am Hyperspace21 is AN UTTER MORON

For what it's worth, I am VERY HAPPY for a MODERATOR to confirm that my IP ADDRESS is completely different to that of Hyperspace21 - Manic_Racetam perhaps you can do this please and shut these IDIOTS up?

Quite frankly, with all the recent exorbitant amount of PETTY NEGATIVITY and BS, and disappointing TWO-FACED BEHAVIOUR from certain members in particular, I am now perhaps thinking my time invested contributing to this forum is a complete waste of time and that I should perhaps invest it elsewhere... Suffice to say if my presence on this forum is somewhat ABSENT then you know why!

I cannot say I don't suspect Hyperspace is your sockpuppet, but I don't think it matters. Neither account is shilling anything and from my own testing, the advice is still good.

Please stay on this forum, your posts contain useful and clearly presented information. If it wasn't for you, I wouldn't have learnt how to make piracetam work.

Edited by Namkcalb, 02 March 2012 - 10:08 AM.

[ScienceGuy]

Hi everyone,

Please kindly note that for a variety of reasons (some of which should be obvious to anyone reading this thread ) I will now be taking a break from this forum for a while.

I'd like to say a huge THANK YOU to everyone who has contributed POSITIVELY to this particular thread and this forum in general.

I will most certainly endeavour to revisit this forum and takes matters forward if I return; however, whether I do so will pretty much depend upon whether or not MODERATORS decide to take appropriate action and sufficiently police this sort of UNRULY BEHAVIOUR...

In the interim I wish you all the very best; and for the time being this is ScienceGuy signing out

[capctr]

Can't we all just get along!?
Really ScienceGuy? You are really taking a time out? You are just showing that jt234 struck a nerve.
Personally, I have generally valued you input, it would be a shame and a disservice to the rest of us if you were to "take your toys and go home".
Dr.j, man, I am well aware that I am the pot calling the kettle black, as I have proven all too often what a dick I can be- but what is it with you and insults? I know you are probably just giving as good as you are getting, but you sit there professing your advanced education(which, as I expressed yesterday, I fully believe), intelligence, proclivity for logic, and professionalism-yet you prove all too frequently that you are more than happy to jump into the pit and fling poop with the rest of us monkeys, as well as gleefully peppering your dialogue with all manner of expletives and colorful metaphors. Come on dude, if you end up deciding to buy a couch and hang your plate on your door, is that how you are going to respond to patients coming to you for help?
To the Mod, come on, I am sure you are very busy with a life outside of these boards-but your services are truly needed here. I don't know what all is involved in following up on hyperspace21 offer to have you check his credentials, but the longer it takes, the further this previously awsome thread spirals out of control, sinking to the depths of an assome thread. That being said, I would not be surprised if you are still waiting on a reply from whoever it is at MIT you are contacting. If that is the case, say so-sure, it will generate even more contention and I told you so's initially, but at least we will know that you have already done your part, thus passing the onus onto either the MIT instructor, or hyperspace himself. Either way, the sooner we find out if he is legit, the better.
Hyperspace21, as much as I want to continue to hear about the progress made in your study, you really need to get on your professor about getting back to manic, not so much so you can do a victory dance and kick dust on your detractors, but for everyone who has supported you and taken you findings to heart, you have generated a loyal following here, you do owe to them to prove their belief in your assertions correct. In the words of my former, blue collar, welding co-workers: It is time to shit, or get off the pot".

[hooter]

I tried to teach Scienceguy the fundamental lesson about not feeding trolls, perhaps it was too metaphorical. I would think actions spoke louder than words. I don't understand how he can be so emotionally struck by this. There's trolls on wikipedia that have driven scientific editors into suicide. Honestly this is something online users need to become resilient to, because it's not about to go away. Also I don't understand the theatrics of pulling a Cartman and going, "screw you guys I'm going home". You have essentially paved the entire road to your trolls' victory. If anything this is going to provoke more instigation from unrelated users.

I tried to deconstruct the theorizing into the completely ridiculous parts it consists of while attacking Hyperspace21's unwarranted claims. If anything you have duly proven that you have full text access and made other users aware of this. Further the discrediting has swayed towards Hyperspace21. Unfortunately, with some misunderstanding of my technique, you engaged in theatrics that attracted the attention back to you. This is not how to deal with trolls. I hope you will realize that forums are venomous cyclical tomes with no permanence or proper oversight over information. If you're really this engaged in providing information, make a website about it. Put up adsense and you might even gain extra income. Forums are a game, not place for true discussion. Unless you are charging for registration, the forum will be impossible to moderate. Not that the mods are trying whatsoever. They seem to just be posting, and ignoring the requests of users completely. They act as if they were unaware of their modding abilities. Could we get something moving maybe?

Concerning Hyperspace:
Why brag about MIT research and study when it's so top secret you can't talk about it? Why phrase it so vaguely as to produce doubt? Why all the hyperbole in the first place? If you're going to make a claim on the internet expect to be challenged. You're lucky there's no skilled internet detectives on this forum interested enough to poke and prod.

You claim to have an MIT team that researches anything from nootropics to cancer cures and is on the way to finding the 'ultimate nootropic'. Not only that but you further assigned a percentage value to how far progress has come. I don't know if you think everyone around is lobotomized cattle, but it should be of crystalline transparency why this is going to attract flak and well deserved suspicion.

Edited by hooter, 02 March 2012 - 04:27 PM.

[wowser]

arent forum moderators supposed to do something about this sort of thing? this thread is a joke! i think scienceboy just had enough of everyones bulls**t

[randy909]

Check this out!!!!!

http://www.longecity...s-hyperspace21/

[hooter]

If you get really mad at online posting, you need to smoke some weed. This is advice straight from Snoop Dogg. MD.

Edited by hooter, 02 March 2012 - 05:23 PM.

[Hyperspace21]

Cool I'm part of some conspiracy theory.

Food for thought: If you are not going to believe in something then why go and prove it wrong.

"God has no evidence that he exists yet over 6 billion people worship him (or whatever 'he' is), people who are atheists don't try to prove that he doesn't exist do they? It's all done in good reasoning. "

[Hyperspace21]

I'm not denying that I'm a fraud, since I have no hard evidence against it; I can't deny it. Feel free to call me whatever you guys like.

I don't really care. Anyways we end research with Piracetam on the 26th of March (you don't have to believe this), I'd like to thank all of you for your support and the entertainment that some of you have provided.
I'll still be around till the 26th of March to answer some of your pending questions. I hope skeptics keep 'entertaining' us without deviating too much from the topic at hand.

Hope you people are smart enough to take judgements on your own (isn't that obvious) and decide what's right for you (in your own opinion).

So for the last time,

Feel free to ask any questions.

Edited by Hyperspace21, 02 March 2012 - 05:40 PM.

[jts234]

If you're going to make claims about calcium and glutamate, why not just stick to the science? Why assert that your claims are valid based on 1. Falsified credentials, and 2. A study that you refuse to prove actually happened?

Your numerous inconsistencies include:

1. Repeated assertions that you are a Medical Student, both in your profile and in multiple threads, despite the fact that MIT has no medical school. This also stands in sharp contrast to your later assertions that you are enrolled in undergraduate studies.

2. The poor experimental design that went into the study you cite, as well as your clear lack of understanding about the scope, expense, and magnitude of conducting such research.

3. The sheer improbability of a 5 million dollar grant (do you even understand how the grant application process works, and how long and time consuming it is?) going towards a freshman for such a vaguely defined research topic as "curing all diseases from the cellular level up,", and this study starting with exploring piracetam. Moreover, you claim that it is the project that has the "second highest budget at MIT" -- eclipsed only by a 12 million dollar grant for "cancer research".

4. The fact that you don't have a university id or @mit.edu address, despite the fact that every MIT student is assigned one before enrolling and after acceptance.

5. Your utter inability to explain how you quantified any of the data, any information about the size of the effect seen, or the statistical significance of such an effect.

6. Your utter unwillingness to prove, at the very least, the college that you're matriculated at. You questioned my alma mater, and I provided the entire forum with an columbia.edu address to verify my identity. "I showed you mine, now you show me yours."

Your move, captain.

[jts234]

Here we go, a separate thread in which to argue about Hyperspace's identity. I'll start:

For me, Hooter's word is good enough. It also supports my own theory that this guy is probably a bit nutty in "real life" (potentially on a cereal bowl full of noots) and has a tendency to exaggerate who he is and what he's doing (sorry Hyperspace if that isn't accurate). Nevertheless his information seems useful and is easy to verify by willing members here.

jts234, I agree with capctr that you seems so level-headed and eloquent at times, then like a 8th grader at others. Please pause over the "post" button a bit more and think "Do I really need to tell ScienceGuy that his use of caps and smileys is childish right now, in this thread, in front of everyone, really?".

There, let the flame war commence, here in this separate thread.

Thank you for starting another thread. I do my best to be level-headed and mature...but you know what they say -- "You can take the dog out of the junkyard, but you can't take the junkyard out of the dog." I'll keep my comments restrained to conduct that actually influences the quality of information being discussed in the future.

[hooter]

3. The sheer improbability of a 5 million dollar grant (do you even understand how the grant application process works, and how long and time consuming it is?) going towards a freshman for such a vaguely defined research topic as "curing all diseases from the cellular level up,", and this study starting with exploring piracetam. Moreover, you claim that it is the project that has the "second highest budget at MIT" -- eclipsed only by a 12 million dollar grant for "cancer research".

I'll note that he claimed to be involved in this as well.

Edited by hooter, 02 March 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[1thoughtMaze1]

Ok so hyperspace21 is a fraud. Heh heh heh... And on that note, actually people ARE trying to prove that God does not exist, haha, I mean isn't archeology and anthropology essentially about disproving religion. Yep he's not only a fraud but he's a 10 year old fraud. He he he

[hooter]

Funnily enough his argument turns against him. Believing that Hyperspace21 goes to MIT at this point would be like believing in god. There's no evidence except the black and white disembodied hyperbole claims of some random guy who might or not just be a carpenter peasant in palestine.

Edited by hooter, 02 March 2012 - 08:35 PM.

[Hyperspace21]

First of all, I never mentioned that I was 'conducting' this research. There were different topics from which you could choose to include in your final year project. Some of these topics included ongoing research.
Being an undergraduate student meant that I had to take notes during the research, do tedious tasks like finding out the proportion of Ca²⁺ ions that are permeable in the brain stem along with finding the Ca²⁺ entry through ionotropic glutamate receptors which plays a pivotal role in the induction of long-term changes in the efficacy of synaptic transmission.

Since I was part of this research, I was entitled to say 'our' research, where 'our' refers to me and my colleagues. If you don't think so, then I shall rephrase my statements. I am only given the data that's related to my project. Therefore I can't provide additional data even if I wanted to. The supervisors make sure we don't make any neophytish mistakes. I have tried my best to quantify each set and all its outcomes in response to Fortfun's questions. (which explained how we quantified it, but you are not willing to believe which is fine by me)

Did I mention that you have to register your .edu once it's given to you so you can use it for extra-curricular purposes. I haven't registered mine because I don't need it. I have an id but I can't receive emails/ I can't send mails to other people, since it's on MIT's local network. Which means it's on a local network database which is not connected to the internet. So I can receive student newsletters,alerts, lecture notifications,etc.

I have no need to prove anything since the time and effort that it takes prove my admittance at MIT is not worth it.
Therefore, you would not gain anything even if I proved my admittance at MIT. (which could take up to several weeks) The only information you would get is that the fact that I'm in MIT and that I'm an undergraduate student. Which is completely unrelated, since the research is a private research and proving that this research exists would automatically prove my admittance at MIT.

The reason why we have a 5 million dollar grant is because the research topic has been acquired by one of the most prestigious institutions in the country which has stimulated a huge interest in between researchers and laymen alike. Since this research is supported by a large number of people; the 5 million dollar grant was issued in the hope that this research will be successful.

Hope my answer eradicates all doubts on my unwillingness to prove my admittance at MIT and the sheer effort it takes to prove the existence of private research with a limited amount of data.

I'm sorry i should have never posted research information or my 'designation' since I can't seem to prove either one.
Hope you are satisfied.

[jts234]

You haven't given any proof, all you've done was deflect my questions. It should be easy enough to prove your attendance -- just post a picture of a redacted MIT student ID (you no doubt received one of those -- how else do you swipe into your dorm, the lab, or take books out of the student library?). I could prove my attendance at my undergrad in a single post by posting my edu address. Nut up or shut up, dude.

[nezxon]

First of all, I never mentioned that I was 'conducting' this research.

We, as an educational institute have the permission to conduct research...

The word "we" is inclusive of the concept of "I". So anywhere you say "we" you're implicitly saying the sentence is logically true if you replace "we" with "I".

Assuming "we" represents myself and Jill:
"We went to the store" is a logical amalgam of:
I went to the store.
Jill went to the store.

Assuming me, Bill, and Ken are all part of the research team
"We have the permission to conduct research" is a logical amalgam of:
I have the permission to conduct research.
Ken has the permission to conduct research.
Bill has the permission to conduct research.

I think that logically demonstrates that you did state you were 'conducting' this research.

Since I was part of this research, I was entitled to say 'our' research, where 'our' refers to me and my colleagues. If you don't think so, then I shall rephrase my statements

I think your repeated invocation of "we" is probably the main source of ambiguity. I don't think it's a grammatical misunderstanding that just requires rephrasing, as you seem to imply. I doubt you could get admitted to any institute except a mental one without being able to distinguish between different sets of "we". I feel certain you knew what you meant when you invoked "we" each time. You mention "entitlement" to use the first person plural, but personal pronouns aren't a matter of entitlement, it's a matter of logical description, as I demonstrated above. I don't think the issue was challenging your entitlement to use the word "our" or anything so semantic, the existence of the research and project were being challenged. We could sort out whether or not the research counts as yours once we establish its existence.

[Elus]

I have no need to prove anything since the time and effort that it takes prove my admittance at MIT is not worth it. Therefore, you would not gain anything even if I proved my admittance at MIT. (which could take up to several weeks) The only information you would get is that the fact that I'm in MIT and that I'm an undergraduate student. Which is completely unrelated, since the research is a private research and proving that this research exists would automatically prove my admittance at MIT.

Now I'm very suspicious, sorry to say. I thought the plan was for a moderator, manic_racetam, to obtain proof of your claims. Now you're saying you won't do that.

Just give the moderator your colleague's @mit.edu e-mail address, manic will e-mail him, and your colleague will be able to confirm that the research took place.

Until then, it would be best for everyone to look at the piracetam post with extreme suspicion. I should have been more suspicious from the onset, and that was my fault. This is beginning to sound like some sort of pseudo-isochroma post to legitimize 4.8g+ piracetam intake.

[1thoughtMaze1]

You haven't given any proof, all you've done was deflect my questions. It should be easy enough to prove your attendance -- just post a picture of a redacted MIT student ID (you no doubt received one of those -- how else do you swipe into your dorm, the lab, or take books out of the student library?). I could prove my attendance at my undergrad in a single post by posting my edu address. Nut up or shut up, dude.

What do you mean you can prove your admission at some institution by posting your edu address? Any one can put a name and add @mit.edu. How is that proof?

[jts234]

You haven't given any proof, all you've done was deflect my questions. It should be easy enough to prove your attendance -- just post a picture of a redacted MIT student ID (you no doubt received one of those -- how else do you swipe into your dorm, the lab, or take books out of the student library?). I could prove my attendance at my undergrad in a single post by posting my edu address. Nut up or shut up, dude.

What do you mean you can prove your admission at some institution by posting your edu address? Any one can put a name and add @mit.edu. How is that proof?

I posted my @caa.columbia.edu email address back in the thread when hyperspace asked how I could verify what school I went to. Feel free to hit me up at that email address. The point is that it is the most basic level of proof that could be offered, and he couldn't even offer that.

[hooter]

Until then, it would be best for everyone to look at the piracetam post with extreme suspicion. I should have been more suspicious from the onset, and that was my fault. This is beginning to sound like some sort of pseudo-isochroma post to legitimize 4.8g+ piracetam intake.

Sorry, I have to fundamentally disagree here. The data legitimizes 4.8g+ piracetam intake. I just didn't like that he was using his unwarranted 'credentials' to try and weasel out of what really matters. I've been told time and time again by what now adds up to 5 separate psychiatrists/neurologists saying that dosing under 5g a day is not sensible. Note that I have prescription for 20g a day! My main doctor straight up laughed at me for thinking 3g was a lot! He has patients that have been on 24g for years. The 4.8g dosage scheme is simply a fact.

http://www.longecity...-48-grams-dose/

If you look here you will see that this is infact confirmed and supported by studies. Study after study after study. I'm really tired of people saying 4g is an 'attack dose'. Unless you are in the middle of full blown acute kidney failure or on blood thinners, 24g of piracetam cannot possibly harm you. This is infact the proper dosage of piracetam. If you are taking less or more than 5g a dose, you are wasting time and money. To keep your levels saturated, doses of 5g amounting up to 25g are completely fine. While Hyperspace21 might be evasively playing his game, the piracetam 4.8g claims are actually supported by science.

Edited by hooter, 03 March 2012 - 08:12 AM.

[jts234]

First of all, I never mentioned that I was 'conducting' this research. There were different topics from which you could choose to include in your final year project. Some of these topics included ongoing research.
Being an undergraduate student meant that I had to take notes during the research, do tedious tasks like finding out the proportion of Ca²⁺ ions that are permeable in the brain stem along with finding the Ca²⁺ entry through ionotropic glutamate receptors which plays a pivotal role in the induction of long-term changes in the efficacy of synaptic transmission.

Since I was part of this research, I was entitled to say 'our' research, where 'our' refers to me and my colleagues. If you don't think so, then I shall rephrase my statements. I am only given the data that's related to my project. Therefore I can't provide additional data even if I wanted to. The supervisors make sure we don't make any neophytish mistakes. I have tried my best to quantify each set and all its outcomes in response to Fortfun's questions. (which explained how we quantified it, but you are not willing to believe which is fine by me)

Did I mention that you have to register your .edu once it's given to you so you can use it for extra-curricular purposes. I haven't registered mine because I don't need it. I have an id but I can't receive emails/ I can't send mails to other people, since it's on MIT's local network. Which means it's on a local network database which is not connected to the internet. So I can receive student newsletters,alerts, lecture notifications,etc.

I have no need to prove anything since the time and effort that it takes prove my admittance at MIT is not worth it.
Therefore, you would not gain anything even if I proved my admittance at MIT. (which could take up to several weeks) The only information you would get is that the fact that I'm in MIT and that I'm an undergraduate student. Which is completely unrelated, since the research is a private research and proving that this research exists would automatically prove my admittance at MIT.

The reason why we have a 5 million dollar grant is because the research topic has been acquired by one of the most prestigious institutions in the country which has stimulated a huge interest in between researchers and laymen alike. Since this research is supported by a large number of people; the 5 million dollar grant was issued in the hope that this research will be successful.

Hope my answer eradicates all doubts on my unwillingness to prove my admittance at MIT and the sheer effort it takes to prove the existence of private research with a limited amount of data.

I'm sorry i should have never posted research information or my 'designation' since I can't seem to prove either one.
Hope you are satisfied.

You used some big words there, but I'm not sure you know what they mean. You also seem to have changed your tune dramatically about your role in the research since people started calling you out on your nonsense.

I've been looking around MIT's website, and they're pretty forthcoming with what projects receive grants and how they spend their research project.

For instance, here is a list of grant winners in the fall of 2011: http://web.mit.edu/d...ase_101211.html

Here is another list of grant winners in the fall of 2011 in the MIT/Harvard Neurodiscovery Institute (doesn't it sound like if your research were in fact taking place, this would be where it would happen? Just a thought): http://www.neurodisc..._mit_grant.html

I don't see your project there either. Of here: http://www.neurodisc...cal_trials.html
Weren't you conducting clinical trials? I guess MIT forgot to mention it.

If you could provide some sort of verification like that, it would set aside my doubts. MIT is a pretty transparent institution, from everything I can gather and seems to make pretty big deals out of what seems like paltry sums compared to your 5 million dollar research grant. I'm sure they'd publicize the heck out of it, if that were the case.