Anyone have any idea what human dosage was used in any of the studies on PRL-8-53?
dose.JPG 20.52KB
126 downloads
LongeCityAdvocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
13 votes
PRL-8-53; was: PRL 8-147: The Most Powerful Memory Enhancer?
Started by
Gerhard van Dieren
, Aug 06 2012 06:21 PM
1725 replies to this topic
#34
-
- Guest
- 187 posts
- 22 ₮
Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:29 AM
Sender's Message:
Dear xxx， Have a nice day, Very glad to receive your inquiry about our products. Below is our quotation for your reference. Product: Prl-8-53. CAS No: 51352-87-5. Qty.:USD 1100/1g including the shipping cost. Purity:97% above Delivery time:3weeks. Looking forward to your reply. Best regards. ============================ Shanghai Taibao Pharma co.,ltd
Price?
#37
-
- Guest
- 69 posts
- 4 ₮
- Location:United Kingdom
Posted 20 January 2013 - 09:02 PM
This substance is very interesting indeed; I can’t believe no more research has been done.
Good to know that human trails have been conducted, would be interesting to see how the test subjects are doing now.
Anybody got any more information or had any progress with attaining it?
Good to know that human trails have been conducted, would be interesting to see how the test subjects are doing now.
Anybody got any more information or had any progress with attaining it?
#39
-
- Guest
- 2,661 posts
- 587 ₮
- Location:Kimberley, South Africa
- NO
Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:57 AM
Swiped from
http://brainmeta.com...showtopic=20161
thx Changshageorge78
QUOTE(Ricardas Tarvydas @ Dec 25, 2008, 02:57 PM)
Phi Delta Kappan - December 1979 - Vol 61 - pages 264-265
Learning and Memory Improvement Through Chemistry: Dream or Reality in the Offing?
by Nikolaus R. Hansl and Adele B. Hansl
The 'smart pill' may, at last, be only a testing period away. It is PRL-8-53.
The news story read: "A team of Creighton University health science researchs is working with an experimental drug that could be just what the `absent-minded professor' has been needing for years."
The story was based on a news release by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Good credentials for sure, but what are the facts supporting such statements? How is it possible for a drug, a single chemical conpound, to have a positive effect on the function of the brain, which is such an an enormously complex system? What has been the clinical experience so far, and what can we learn from laboratory findings?
The last clinical report, a paper by Nikolaus Hansl, Adele B. Hansl, and Beverley T. Mead given in Portland at the meeting of the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, reported that retention of verbal information (nonsense syllables) improved by 80% for subjects who had taken PRL-8-53 when compared to the same subjects' learning when on a placebo. This confirmed an earlier report on the sme drug, published in Experientia, reporting increased acquisition and retention in another group of volunteers.
Intellectual function comprises many factors, and as we are learning now, individual distinctive functional characteristics such as perception, short-term memory, long-term memory, correlation, retrieval, to name but a few, appear to be chemically controlled by their specific agonist-receptor systems within the neuronal latticework. In other words, it seems to be possible to augment or suppress one or more of these specific capabilities by chemical means, i.e., by amplifying or inhibiting chemical signals in control of the respective neuronal pathways.
We do have evidence regarding the identity of some chemical correlates. Recall from "long-term memory," retrieval of information that has been accumulated over a period of time, seems mediated by acetylcholine and the cholinergic system. Inhibition of this system in the experimental animal by drugs such as atropine or scopolamine greatly impairs recall capacity or performance dependent on it. By the same token, a boost of the cholinergic system by a drug such as physostigmine improve recall-dependent performance.
Actually, this latter drug has been used with some success in humans in Alzheimer Disease, which involves severe pre-senile memory loss. The problems with physostigmine are toxicity and practicality. Aside from the fact that the positive effects with this drug were observed within a very narrow dose range (less having no effect at all and a slightly higher dose causing considerable side effects), physostigmine, in order to achieve the desired effect, had to be given by an intravenous drip infusion.
In contrast, the drug reported by us, PRL-8-53, has been shown to enhance the respose to acetylcholine, the response being quantititatively similar over a considerable dose range, excluding the likelihood of accidental overdosing. The compound may be taken orally, and it is active over a period of several hours. The drug is not a stimulant, andin the experimental animal toxicity appears only after it is given a dose more than one thousand times as large as the projected human dose. In summary, we now have a potentially useful drug that will boost a specific chemical system in the brain, the cholinergic system, and thereby improve our ability to recall, to retrieve information from a pre-existing information pool. Other important chemical effects have been attributed to this drug, but space does not permit us to cover the more detailed information here.
Long-term memory, the type of information referred to above, is laid down in the brain in the form of a chemical code. In order to effect a synthesis of the informational molecules, we now believe it to be necessary to effect a transition from an earlier code, whic referred to as short-term memory. This transition, which is a chemical process, appears to depend on the mediation of another chemical system using noradrenaline as the chemical messenger. PRL-8-53 has been shown to augment responses to noradrenaline in the animal model both peripherally and centrally. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that a similar function may be present in humans. Translated into behavioral effects, it implies that this drug is also capable of facilitating the conversion of short-term to long-term memory, causing an increased storage of informational code. We now have a data base supporting the notion that we can modulate chemical systems in the brain, systems that are involved in or are mediating intellectual function. It further appears that we are able to affect these systems in such a way as to improve performance.
In one series of tests the subjects were asked to memorize simple words by listening to a tape recording. In another test slides with lists of words were projected for a given time, and again subjects were asked to memorize these lists. These two different tests enabled us to see whether learning was improved regardless of which one of the two most commonly used patheways of information input was used. We found that acquisition and subsequent retention improved following drug intake to a similar extent in both experiments.
Having establised that acquisition and retention of verbal information could be positively affected by the drug, we considered it important to look at nonverbal areas. We used the Benton test, exposing geometric patterns for brief periods to the subjects, then asking them to draw the figures as they remembered them. Again we found statistically significant improvement when subjects were on the drug.
To explore still another area, we deisgned a test to determine how number manipulation might be affected. Our subjects rand through a somewhat complex countdown maneuver. Subjects had to subtract seven from a given starting number, then add one, subtract seven and add tow, subtract seven and add three then subtract seven then add one, and so on until they reached the goal number. This was a timed test and again we found improvement, i.e., shorter test times when subjects had taken the drug. In a final test we asked our subjects to complete words from dot-letter-dot-letter combinations (e.g., U.R.). Words could be extended on either side. The only requirements: The words must be in English (even slang), and the spelling for the letters replacing the dots must be correct (e.g., cUrRent). Here we tried to see how long the drug would affect recall from an existing information pool. The information retrieved in this test is also subject to a certain amount of intellectual manipulation. In effect, the test might be considered a verbal fluency test. Again we found statistically significant improvement when the subjects had taken the drug prior to testing.
Having established the spectrum of effectiveness in students, or at least a part of it, we wanted to learn how an older population subgroup would respond. A number of colleagues volunteered and took the verbal learning and retention test. This group as age 30 or older. As might be expected, rote memory did not come as easily to this group as it did to the younger students. The average retention after 24 hours when on placebo was just under three words out of a possible 12. The average retention after one week was two words. However, the same subjects, when learning subsequent to drug administration, retained an average of 5.85 words after 24 hours and 5.25 words after one week. Again the increases were statistically significant. The improvement expressed in percent of placebo performance was 108% for the 24 hour test and 152% for the one-week recal.
The above tests all concerned the effects of PRL-8-53 on acquisition and memory. At this time we have only limited experience with drug effects on higher integrating functions of the brain, such as association and correlation. Moreover, our experience in this area is limted to animal responses. We designed experiments specifically aimed at measuring correlation, or what we conceive as possibly a rudimentary capacity of conceptual understanding. There was significantly improved performance after administration of the drug, but we do not know whether we shall find similar positive responses from humans. Even conservative extrapolations from experimental animals to humans are risky.
ANother area that has not been discussed is one of much concern: learning disabilities. With so many different causes underlying disabilities, no generalizations can be made. Where there is anatomical damage, the prognosis for benefits from PRL-8-53 would not be good. In the case of chemical aberrations as the only cause of a learning disability, any possible drug effect would depend on the nature of the aberration. Drug effects must be investigated for each type of disability; only experimentation will bring answers.
In summary, it appears that a number of important parameters of intellectual function are amenable to drug action. Improvement does ot seem limited to the young; the older group actually experienced a greater relative improvement in the test. However, just as the extent of improvement varied from one group to another, so did the response from one individual to the next. This is to be expected. The drug seems to augment some weak link in the chain of events related to intellectual function. This link is weaker for some than for others. The individual net effect is not predictable and will vary. We certainly are not dealing with a compound that would act as a great equalizer. Although some people with quite different base levels of performance might end up in close proximity, others will still be apart in performance. The important thing is that, regardless of initial performane level, improvment can still be achieved.
http://brainmeta.com...showtopic=20161
thx Changshageorge78
QUOTE(Ricardas Tarvydas @ Dec 25, 2008, 02:57 PM)
Phi Delta Kappan - December 1979 - Vol 61 - pages 264-265
Learning and Memory Improvement Through Chemistry: Dream or Reality in the Offing?
by Nikolaus R. Hansl and Adele B. Hansl
The 'smart pill' may, at last, be only a testing period away. It is PRL-8-53.
The news story read: "A team of Creighton University health science researchs is working with an experimental drug that could be just what the `absent-minded professor' has been needing for years."
The story was based on a news release by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Good credentials for sure, but what are the facts supporting such statements? How is it possible for a drug, a single chemical conpound, to have a positive effect on the function of the brain, which is such an an enormously complex system? What has been the clinical experience so far, and what can we learn from laboratory findings?
The last clinical report, a paper by Nikolaus Hansl, Adele B. Hansl, and Beverley T. Mead given in Portland at the meeting of the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, reported that retention of verbal information (nonsense syllables) improved by 80% for subjects who had taken PRL-8-53 when compared to the same subjects' learning when on a placebo. This confirmed an earlier report on the sme drug, published in Experientia, reporting increased acquisition and retention in another group of volunteers.
Intellectual function comprises many factors, and as we are learning now, individual distinctive functional characteristics such as perception, short-term memory, long-term memory, correlation, retrieval, to name but a few, appear to be chemically controlled by their specific agonist-receptor systems within the neuronal latticework. In other words, it seems to be possible to augment or suppress one or more of these specific capabilities by chemical means, i.e., by amplifying or inhibiting chemical signals in control of the respective neuronal pathways.
We do have evidence regarding the identity of some chemical correlates. Recall from "long-term memory," retrieval of information that has been accumulated over a period of time, seems mediated by acetylcholine and the cholinergic system. Inhibition of this system in the experimental animal by drugs such as atropine or scopolamine greatly impairs recall capacity or performance dependent on it. By the same token, a boost of the cholinergic system by a drug such as physostigmine improve recall-dependent performance.
Actually, this latter drug has been used with some success in humans in Alzheimer Disease, which involves severe pre-senile memory loss. The problems with physostigmine are toxicity and practicality. Aside from the fact that the positive effects with this drug were observed within a very narrow dose range (less having no effect at all and a slightly higher dose causing considerable side effects), physostigmine, in order to achieve the desired effect, had to be given by an intravenous drip infusion.
In contrast, the drug reported by us, PRL-8-53, has been shown to enhance the respose to acetylcholine, the response being quantititatively similar over a considerable dose range, excluding the likelihood of accidental overdosing. The compound may be taken orally, and it is active over a period of several hours. The drug is not a stimulant, andin the experimental animal toxicity appears only after it is given a dose more than one thousand times as large as the projected human dose. In summary, we now have a potentially useful drug that will boost a specific chemical system in the brain, the cholinergic system, and thereby improve our ability to recall, to retrieve information from a pre-existing information pool. Other important chemical effects have been attributed to this drug, but space does not permit us to cover the more detailed information here.
Long-term memory, the type of information referred to above, is laid down in the brain in the form of a chemical code. In order to effect a synthesis of the informational molecules, we now believe it to be necessary to effect a transition from an earlier code, whic referred to as short-term memory. This transition, which is a chemical process, appears to depend on the mediation of another chemical system using noradrenaline as the chemical messenger. PRL-8-53 has been shown to augment responses to noradrenaline in the animal model both peripherally and centrally. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that a similar function may be present in humans. Translated into behavioral effects, it implies that this drug is also capable of facilitating the conversion of short-term to long-term memory, causing an increased storage of informational code. We now have a data base supporting the notion that we can modulate chemical systems in the brain, systems that are involved in or are mediating intellectual function. It further appears that we are able to affect these systems in such a way as to improve performance.
In one series of tests the subjects were asked to memorize simple words by listening to a tape recording. In another test slides with lists of words were projected for a given time, and again subjects were asked to memorize these lists. These two different tests enabled us to see whether learning was improved regardless of which one of the two most commonly used patheways of information input was used. We found that acquisition and subsequent retention improved following drug intake to a similar extent in both experiments.
Having establised that acquisition and retention of verbal information could be positively affected by the drug, we considered it important to look at nonverbal areas. We used the Benton test, exposing geometric patterns for brief periods to the subjects, then asking them to draw the figures as they remembered them. Again we found statistically significant improvement when subjects were on the drug.
To explore still another area, we deisgned a test to determine how number manipulation might be affected. Our subjects rand through a somewhat complex countdown maneuver. Subjects had to subtract seven from a given starting number, then add one, subtract seven and add tow, subtract seven and add three then subtract seven then add one, and so on until they reached the goal number. This was a timed test and again we found improvement, i.e., shorter test times when subjects had taken the drug. In a final test we asked our subjects to complete words from dot-letter-dot-letter combinations (e.g., U.R.). Words could be extended on either side. The only requirements: The words must be in English (even slang), and the spelling for the letters replacing the dots must be correct (e.g., cUrRent). Here we tried to see how long the drug would affect recall from an existing information pool. The information retrieved in this test is also subject to a certain amount of intellectual manipulation. In effect, the test might be considered a verbal fluency test. Again we found statistically significant improvement when the subjects had taken the drug prior to testing.
Having established the spectrum of effectiveness in students, or at least a part of it, we wanted to learn how an older population subgroup would respond. A number of colleagues volunteered and took the verbal learning and retention test. This group as age 30 or older. As might be expected, rote memory did not come as easily to this group as it did to the younger students. The average retention after 24 hours when on placebo was just under three words out of a possible 12. The average retention after one week was two words. However, the same subjects, when learning subsequent to drug administration, retained an average of 5.85 words after 24 hours and 5.25 words after one week. Again the increases were statistically significant. The improvement expressed in percent of placebo performance was 108% for the 24 hour test and 152% for the one-week recal.
The above tests all concerned the effects of PRL-8-53 on acquisition and memory. At this time we have only limited experience with drug effects on higher integrating functions of the brain, such as association and correlation. Moreover, our experience in this area is limted to animal responses. We designed experiments specifically aimed at measuring correlation, or what we conceive as possibly a rudimentary capacity of conceptual understanding. There was significantly improved performance after administration of the drug, but we do not know whether we shall find similar positive responses from humans. Even conservative extrapolations from experimental animals to humans are risky.
ANother area that has not been discussed is one of much concern: learning disabilities. With so many different causes underlying disabilities, no generalizations can be made. Where there is anatomical damage, the prognosis for benefits from PRL-8-53 would not be good. In the case of chemical aberrations as the only cause of a learning disability, any possible drug effect would depend on the nature of the aberration. Drug effects must be investigated for each type of disability; only experimentation will bring answers.
In summary, it appears that a number of important parameters of intellectual function are amenable to drug action. Improvement does ot seem limited to the young; the older group actually experienced a greater relative improvement in the test. However, just as the extent of improvement varied from one group to another, so did the response from one individual to the next. This is to be expected. The drug seems to augment some weak link in the chain of events related to intellectual function. This link is weaker for some than for others. The individual net effect is not predictable and will vary. We certainly are not dealing with a compound that would act as a great equalizer. Although some people with quite different base levels of performance might end up in close proximity, others will still be apart in performance. The important thing is that, regardless of initial performane level, improvment can still be achieved.
#41
- Topic Starter
-
- Guest
- 34 posts
- 2 ₮
- Location:Holland
Posted 19 March 2013 - 05:32 PM
Well shit Logic, that looks great. The more information people are digging up the more excited I get. So it appears to be non-toxic and not a stimulant, then why was the research cut off if it looked that promising?
#43
-
- Member
- 354 posts
- 89 ₮
- Location:United States
Posted 19 March 2013 - 06:19 PM
Have been sourcing suppliers. Here is a list i have complied of safe and trusted suppliers with quotes. Watch out because their are a lot of scamers.
http://www.arkpharmi...AK-55207&falg=3
(quoted $1300 for 100g) Would enter a group buy on this one. Two persons 50g $750, four persons 25g at $325, five persons 20g at $260 and ten persons 10g at $130. Or even 100 Persons 1g at $13 a share.
http://hm-chemo.com/...tail/51352-87-5
#3 10g at $500
http://www.novochemy...spx?pr_id=13581
Others
http://www.jnhaohua....imageField.y=15
http://www.acersci.c...o_result/55340/ ret
http://www.angeneche...AG-F-73692.html
http://www.ispharm.c.../I01-32330.html
http://www.angeneche...uct/AG-F-73692/
Also the doses used in the study were 5mg orally.
http://www.arkpharmi...AK-55207&falg=3
(quoted $1300 for 100g) Would enter a group buy on this one. Two persons 50g $750, four persons 25g at $325, five persons 20g at $260 and ten persons 10g at $130. Or even 100 Persons 1g at $13 a share.
http://hm-chemo.com/...tail/51352-87-5
#3 10g at $500
http://www.novochemy...spx?pr_id=13581
Others
http://www.jnhaohua....imageField.y=15
http://www.acersci.c...o_result/55340/ ret
http://www.angeneche...AG-F-73692.html
http://www.ispharm.c.../I01-32330.html
http://www.angeneche...uct/AG-F-73692/
Also the doses used in the study were 5mg orally.
#46
-
- Member
- 354 posts
- 89 ₮
- Location:United States
Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:31 PM
The person to place the order would have to have it shipped to their residence than repack it and mail it. To mail the packages will cost money so if each gram was placed at $20 than that would be enough to cover shipping for one gram. But if someone wanted 5g of the 100g than it would be something like: $20(Initial gram)+$13x4g(additional grams)+$5(additional shipping cost)=$77
But the big question is who would be the person to place the order. It would be best to have someone who is well known and trusted among the community if people are going to be sending them money. And the money would have to wired to them via Wire Transfer or Western Union or something.
And if we did manage to pull this off we should probably start a thread similar to Science Guys Coluracetam User Feedback.
But the big question is who would be the person to place the order. It would be best to have someone who is well known and trusted among the community if people are going to be sending them money. And the money would have to wired to them via Wire Transfer or Western Union or something.
And if we did manage to pull this off we should probably start a thread similar to Science Guys Coluracetam User Feedback.
#50
-
- Member
- 354 posts
- 89 ₮
- Location:United States
Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:02 PM
http://www.arkpharmi...AK-55207&falg=3 Is good but you have to fill out a form as a company. But one can always call to see if they can place an order without being part of a business.
Just sent HM-Cemo a request for 10g.
I have a list of about 30 supplies but am sure more than half are frauds The suppliers posted earlier are some of the best supplies that have the chemical listed on their webpages.
Just sent HM-Cemo a request for 10g.
I have a list of about 30 supplies but am sure more than half are frauds The suppliers posted earlier are some of the best supplies that have the chemical listed on their webpages.
#51
-
- Guest
- 2,200 posts
- -9 ₮
- Location:Thousand Oaks, CA
- ✔
Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:08 PM
The dose for this compound is 5 mg in the tests. 10 grams for 1 gram or 2.5 grams each person should be a good staring tryout. Well see from there. More likely we can get the people for 10g rather than 100g, methinks.http://www.arkpharmi...AK-55207&falg=3 Is good but you have to fill out a form as a company. But one can always call to see if they can place an order without being part of a business.
Just sent HM-Cemo a request for 10g.
I have a list of about 30 supplies but am sure more than half are frauds The suppliers posted earlier are some of the best supplies that have the chemical listed on their webpages.
#52
-
- Guest
- 341 posts
- 85 ₮
- Location:Canada sometimes Philadelphia
- NO
Posted 19 March 2013 - 08:37 PM
(quoted $1300 for 100g) Would enter a group buy on this one. Two persons 50g $750, four persons 25g at $325, five persons 20g at $260 and ten persons 10g at $130. Or even 100 Persons 1g at $13 a share.
http://hm-chemo.com/...tail/51352-87-5
#3 10g at $500
Also the doses used in the study were 5mg orally.
I'm willing to go in on this.
But the logistics of this will be a nightmare! It might be ideal if we could start something like Kickstarter for this. But they disallow "drugs" and "nutritional supplements".
Is there any other method to pool money?
#54
- Topic Starter
-
- Guest
- 34 posts
- 2 ₮
- Location:Holland
Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:31 PM
Peakplasma, I think it all boils down to one Longecity community member buying such quanitity and distributing it to fellow members via mail and paypal/etc. It could be a quite an operation but it's for a greater cause. Hell, I would even tip the guy for the effort 
but I'm not in a position to do it myself.
but I'm not in a position to do it myself.
Edited by Gerhard van Dieren, 19 March 2013 - 09:33 PM.
#56
-
- Guest
- 341 posts
- 85 ₮
- Location:Canada sometimes Philadelphia
- NO
Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:52 PM
Well, you better tip him.Peakplasma, I think it all boils down to one Longecity community member buying such quanitity and distributing it to fellow members via mail and paypal/etc. It could be a quite an operation but it's for a greater cause. Hell, I would even tip the guy for the effort
I can't imagine someone willing to take the risk of buying +$1000 of mysterious powder from a Third world drug lab without making some profit. Not to mention he's going to have to go through the trouble of weighing, packaging and mailing said mysterious powder to sketchy people around America (or the Netherlands).
Unless another ScienceGuy emerges I can't imagine any average Longecity Member to be in the position to do this.
#57
-
- Guest
- 2,200 posts
- -9 ₮
- Location:Thousand Oaks, CA
- ✔
Posted 19 March 2013 - 10:17 PM
Which is why we don't order 100g, just 10g. The (yes, one) study was conducted on humans and had no adverse affects. The compound was abandoned because at the time there was no interest in cognitive enhancing drugs.Well, you better tip him.Peakplasma, I think it all boils down to one Longecity community member buying such quanitity and distributing it to fellow members via mail and paypal/etc. It could be a quite an operation but it's for a greater cause. Hell, I would even tip the guy for the effort
I can't imagine someone willing to take the risk of buying +$1000 of mysterious powder from a Third world drug lab without making some profit. Not to mention he's going to have to go through the trouble of weighing, packaging and mailing said mysterious powder to sketchy people around America (or the Netherlands).
Unless another ScienceGuy emerges I can't imagine any average Longecity Member to be in the position to do this.
#58
-
- Guest
- 341 posts
- 85 ₮
- Location:Canada sometimes Philadelphia
- NO
Posted 19 March 2013 - 10:35 PM
I'm not sure what the latter part of your comment is suggesting; I'm very interested in getting together on a group buy!Which is why we don't order 100g, just 10g. The (yes, one) study was conducted on humans and had no adverse affects. The compound was abandoned because at the time there was no interest in cognitive enhancing drugs.
I'm just concerned that no one will want to take the risk to order and distribute it. Are you willing to be the buyer/distributer?
#60
-
- Guest
- 2,200 posts
- -9 ₮
- Location:Thousand Oaks, CA
- ✔
Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:31 AM
The risks I see are threefold:I'm not sure what the latter part of your comment is suggesting; I'm very interested in getting together on a group buy!Which is why we don't order 100g, just 10g. The (yes, one) study was conducted on humans and had no adverse affects. The compound was abandoned because at the time there was no interest in cognitive enhancing drugs.
I'm just concerned that no one will want to take the risk to order and distribute it. Are you willing to be the buyer/distributer?
1. The compound turns you into a three headed monster.
2. The package gets confiscated at customs, (unlikely).
3. The compound is a complete dud with no cognitive enhancing effects.
60 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 58 guests, 0 anonymous users
-
Bing (2)
