1569 replies to this topic

[christallire]

Guys, little help here.

 

I was checking my MS/HLPC datasheet from supplier.

I have sent my supplier to correct structure (sk_scientific's structure) but i've found that my synth is extremely similar to Xenix's one (who is got wrong synth)

 

 

Xenix's structure: http://imgur.com/WlIVHtD.jpg

sk_scientific's structure: http://i.imgur.com/uzxT1aM.jpg

And my datasheets: http://imgur.com/a/HfdWF

 

Can you guys help me make sure i got correct synth?

 

I noticed the difference between two structures above is two CH3's and one H3C (= CH3)

soooo.. basically two of them is same right?

Why everyone keeps saying xenix got wrong structure?

 

Edited by christallire, 02 September 2014 - 09:48 AM.

[christallire]

140lb male

 

NOTE: also taking Uridine, CDPCholine, o-3(w/ high DHA,EPA), Vinpocetine, Multi vitamin (RDA), Vitamin B Complex, E Complex, D, K2, Calcium, Magnesium, AL-Carnitine, Alpha Lipoic Acid, Milk Thistle, Lion's Mane, Methyl Folate, Gingko, Gotu, CoQ10, P.Serine -- to provide building blocks/prevent deficit/regulate blood thickening, thinning

 

 

9/2, QD, 25mg, sub, no REM

noticed mild increase of bp, have to swallow some of it because of there was too many saliva while sublingual administration.

no notable positive / negative affect

 

Lumosity 1520 / no significant difference

O1O 22pt / not changed

D4B / not changed

 

also, i'm started to learning spanish using subliminal/by just hearing w/o textbook method (just like babies), able to recall/understand some of words after woke up, most of em is still jiberish to me

 

 

9/3, QD, 25mg, sub,

noticed moderate increase of bp about 10~20 second after administrating it, and i'm getting used to sublingual administration, noticed some of it or most of it is not absorbed at all

no notable positive / negative affect

 

Lumosity 1520 / no significant difference

O1O 22pt / not changed

D4B / not changed

 

I'm also thinking about DMSO(transdermal) administration but i'm avoiding it since it releases substance into bloodstream very slowly. (just like nicotine patch)

Edited by christallire, 03 September 2014 - 06:37 AM.

[xks201]

Take orally not sublingually.

[ceridwen]

count me in

[megatron]

Take orally not sublingually.

 

Why do you keep nagging about taking it sublingually? Sublingual administration should be far superior. 

Edited by Megatrone, 03 September 2014 - 12:11 PM.

[xks201]

All I ask is everyone try oral 30mg. Every compound doesn't absorb sublingually. There is more to it than just molecular weight.

[christallire]

140lb male

 

NOTE: also taking Uridine, CDPCholine, o-3(w/ high DHA,EPA), Vinpocetine, Multi vitamin (RDA), Vitamin B Complex, E Complex, D, K2, Calcium, Magnesium, AL-Carnitine, Alpha Lipoic Acid, Milk Thistle, Lion's Mane, Methyl Folate, Gingko, Gotu, CoQ10, P.Serine -- to provide building blocks/prevent deficit/regulate blood thickening, thinning

 

 

9/2, QD, 25mg, sub, no REM

noticed mild increase of bp, have to swallow some of it because of there was too many saliva while sublingual administration.

no notable positive / negative affect

 

Lumosity 1520 / no significant difference

O1O 22pt / not changed

D4B / not changed

 

also, i'm started to learning spanish using subliminal/by just hearing w/o textbook method (just like babies), able to recall/understand some of words after woke up, most of em is still jiberish to me

 

 

9/3, QD, 25mg, sub,

noticed moderate increase of bp about 10~20 second after administrating it, and i'm getting used to sublingual administration, noticed some of it or most of it is not absorbed at all

no notable positive / negative affect

 

Lumosity 1520 / no significant difference

O1O 22pt / not changed

D4B / not changed

 

I'm also thinking about DMSO(transdermal) administration but i'm avoiding it since it releases substance into bloodstream very slowly. (just like nicotine patch)

 

 

- Had slight headache(or stimulating) yesterday, disappeared after having dinner. glucose/glutamate deficit? (having low carb diet)

 

9/4, QD, 25mg, sub, no REM

noticed mild increase of bp about 30 second after administrating it

no notable positive / negative affect

 

Lumosity 1520 / no significant difference

O1O 22pt / not changed

D4B / not changed

Resistance training / no significant difference

 

One thing I noticed today while absorbing it, I was staring at wall. and felt that shades on wall is unusually solid.

Also I personally thinks no significant difference means that not saying nothing is happening in my brain.

It might everything would be a such a big placebo or not, but i'll report what i feel, what i think.

Will keep watch and provide more report at you guys.

Edited by christallire, 04 September 2014 - 01:20 AM.

[Metagene]

The pro-cognitive and synaptogenic effects of angiotensin IV-derived peptides are dependent on 

activation of the hepatocyte growth factor/c-Met system 

 

http://jpet.aspetjou...5.full.pdf html

[christallire]

So, dihexa acts just like HGF. interesting..

[VERITAS INCORRUPTUS]

So, dihexa acts just like HGF. interesting..

 

Not exactly, as it is acting as an allo-agonist.

 

From some preliminary research we have conducted there appears to be some interspecies variance of significance within the contrast of mice and primate animal models as relates to BBB penetration and/or metabolic stability of dihexa.  We'll update as we ascertain more.

Edited by VERITAS INCORRUPTUS, 04 September 2014 - 06:18 PM.

[Nemo888]

 

The pro-cognitive and synaptogenic effects of angiotensin IV-derived peptides are dependent on 

activation of the hepatocyte growth factor/c-Met system 

 

http://jpet.aspetjou...5.full.pdf html

 

 

Did anyone else notice that the controls did markedly better than any other group in spatial learning? (page 24)

[xks201]

Pop 100mg of it orally not sublingually before you talk shit on it. The original sample I got ... I take it and I can handle like four times the mental stress it appears. I took 100mg at once though last.

Edited by xks201, 06 September 2014 - 01:02 PM.

[Jbac]

How is it for anxiety?

[Jbac]

Now that we know it works in humans, and it takes well over 6 months to place an order + synthesize + test + distribute, what is the plan for the next group buy?  Place an order for a year's worth?

[xks201]

I think the process will be sped up greatly now that the process is somewhat more perfected. I'll get tthis batch out first and then someone can worry about that.

[jabowery]

Pop 100mg of it orally not sublingually before you talk shit on it. The original sample I got ... I take it and I can handle like four times the mental stress it appears. I took 100mg at once though last.

 

It sounds like you're saying there is a threshold and/or loading dose effect.

 

Could you clarify what you mean by "I took 100mg at once though last." ?

[Nemo888]

The last study proves it was of no benenfit to healthy individuals and the scientists never make that claim. Their study observations refute that as a possible effect. It works on mice if you give them a very large dose of scopalamine. The controls who took nothing learned significantly faster than those that took dihexa. The cognitive deficit was scopalamine dependent. The dihexa without scopalamine group did worse than controls. Let that sink in.

[megatron]

This wasn't very positive reading:

 

"Application of Hinge alone had no impact on basal performance suggesting that the HGF/c-Met system is not engaged during normal learning. This is consistent with previous Morris water maze results indicating that treatment with AngIV, or AngIV analogs, failed to facilitate learning and memory in normal functioning animals (Wright et al., 1999). Alternatively, the consistent ability of an augmented HGF/c-Met system to support synaptic plasticity and to reverse nervous system deficits as documented here and by others suggests that the HGF/c-Met system is designed to respond to injury when markedly enhanced synaptic plasticity is beneficial as seen in stroke and neurodegenerative diseases."

 

http://m.jpet.aspetj...218735.full.pdf page 28-29

[xks201]

The higher the dose it seems the more the stimulation if taken at once. I have only tested that theory up to that dose. I don't care what some study says at this point. If you take dihexa properly, orally, at a dose above 50mg, you will quiet and realize what it can do for you, let alone do for you long term.  I won't know the true limits to it until the batch arrives. 

Edited by xks201, 07 September 2014 - 02:58 PM.

[megatron]

The information seems to be a direct contradiction to the results people here at LC having used it have experienced. The heck?

Edited by Megatrone, 07 September 2014 - 03:03 PM.

[xks201]

Do you have any concept of the relative simplicity of a rat brain to a human brain? Here they are examining maze performance. I would think judging the effects of a human would go beyond maze performance. It's like all of the researchers that perform an experiment on a human cell in a test tube in rats and then claim that in vivo for all humans it must be so. It's ridiculous. There are studies showing it reverses parkinsons. Clearly it is doing something positive whether or not some rats in a maze made it out faster. Let's not take the rats too literally here....

Edited by xks201, 07 September 2014 - 03:09 PM.

[Nemo888]

Synaptogenesis is a hallmark of two of the most enjoyable recreational drugs, meth and cocaine. No one is saying taking Dihexa isn't fun. It does not seem to cause any cognitive or learning enhancement in healthy subjects. If you have a scopalamine habit it would be very helpful.

[VERITAS INCORRUPTUS]

^

As well, actually such studies are usually 'taken with a grain of salt' in the other direction, where superior performance in such challenged animal models and tests is used to predict outcome in humans, but wherein strong results in animals has greater tendency to generally relate to a lack of real significant real world efficacy in humans.

 

And then there is the placebo effect and especially when a human believes and wants for the agent to work in a certain manner.

 

We thoroughly dissected dihexa and its pathways and mechanism of action, and it is really not all that impressive,  Though screaming 'nonsense' such as 10 Million Times BDNF was a good way to get funding and related for the company behind it, so kudos for their marketing.  We developed a compound that is superior in the same fashion and action, but it is not one of the most promising agents in the scope of agents for such targets and conditions, and likewise.

 

Some things about the actual studies are downright sketchy and do not even add up, so there is that as well...

 

Anyone who actually really knows how to read studies, read them all together and with related studies, compare and dissect them, and comes to draw a different conclusion, I am all ears

 

For some actual conditions it should have benefit, but do not even perhaps extrapolate something too remarkable there.  There are far likely other more remarkable agents and pathways for PD and related.  Still the target does have viability and we may patent some agents we designed that appear to be superior overall.

Edited by VERITAS INCORRUPTUS, 07 September 2014 - 03:53 PM.

[FW900]

xks201.... If you are looking to increase bioavailability, then forget oral administration. I said it before, bypassing first pass metabolism (degrading environments of the stomach/GI track) almost always increases bioavailability.  What isn't absorbed sublingually will make it's way down to the GI track anyways. Even if Dihexa cannot cross the capillaries under the tongue sublingually, it will become orally absorbed as long as it is not spit out.

 

The best way to increase BA, is to insufflate Dihexa. Rapid absorption by nasal mucosa and direct contact with olfactory neurons makes it the quickest way (outside of IV injection) to get Dihexa in your system before it potentially starts to degrade. Putting a substance in your nose obviously has it's risks. I think the risks are warranted given the uncertain BA of Dihexa.

 

 

Synaptogenesis is a hallmark of two of the most enjoyable recreational drugs, meth and cocaine. No one is saying taking Dihexa isn't fun. It does not seem to cause any cognitive or learning enhancement in healthy subjects. If you have a scopalamine habit it would be very helpful.

 

@Nemo888, you are mistaken about your claim. The synaptogenesis that occurs with these drugs is not the cause of their recreational effects. The 'enjoyability' of  cocaine and methamphetamine comes from their strong dopaminergic mechanism of actions (in large dosages).

Edited by FW900, 07 September 2014 - 03:54 PM.

[xks201]

Hold on everyone, Nemo is actually wrong about something. This is a kodak moment. 

[xks201]

Nemo I'm done talking to you. You are a miserable troll who does nothing but try and piss on fires on this forum. As far as I'm concerned you'll be talking to yourself as long as you are posting in this thread. If someday you ever have anything meaningful to contribute maybe I'll reconsider but the majority of posts I have seen from you are nothing but trash talking even before you made the point of whatever rat study. It's a rat Maze, not a human assessment of knowledge. If you were in charge of any kind of resesrch I doubt any research would get done. Let's base everything we know off a rat Maze test. I've seen it all.

 

I don't even want to know what motivates someone to log into a nootropics forum and spend most of their 96 posts trolling dihexa threads telling everyone due to one rat maze test the whole compound is useless.

 

Fw900 just called you out on it. You are even making crap up like synaptogenesis being evil just to smear this. I'm glad you signed up to this forum solely for the purpose of badmouthing dihexa. Get a life.  I don't know what your slanted agenda is but it is extremely clear you have one by the fervor you detest dihexa based on what stupid rat maze test despite its potential in other studies. If you honestly evaluated the evidence you wouldn't be so seemingly stupid as to base your entire judgment off one statement. You didn't even order the compound. Thus I have no idea what the hell you are doing here. 

 

I admit when I'm wrong and approach things with an open mind. You just look for every possible way to discount something you have never tried based off a rat maze study. It is truly so absurd that it tells me very well you do have an agenda as you return to this forum simply to bad mouth dihexa.

Edited by xks201, 07 September 2014 - 05:05 PM.

[jabowery]

The last study proves it was of no benenfit to healthy individuals and the scientists never make that claim. Their study observations refute that as a possible effect. It works on mice if you give them a very large dose of scopalamine. The controls who took nothing learned significantly faster than those that took dihexa. The cognitive deficit was scopalamine dependent. The dihexa without scopalamine group did worse than controls. Let that sink in.

 
Your use of the word "proves" is indicative of your bias.  An unbiased statement would be "provides evidence" rather than "proves".  Another indication of your bias is that a close reading of Figure 7 in that study shows that the aCSF/Dihexa group (what you call "dihexa without scopalamine group") started at a much worse water maze performance than did the aCSF/saline (what you call "controls"), and ended up at nearly the same level of performance.  Another indication of your bias is that your statement about the conditions under which benefit obtains could be taken to mean that it is _only_ beneficial under very large doses of scopalamine -- a meaning that is in direct contradiction with the body of research which indicates it is beneficial under a wide range of causes of deficit including animal models of neurodegenerative disease.  
 
Now, I'm not going to accuse you of harboring malicious bias since, clearly, evidence that Dihexa is cognitively impairing -- even slightly so -- to healthy individuals, is good grounds for advocating against its use by healthy individuals.  But from my reading of Figure 7 (I admit I haven't had time to read the whole paper) there appears to be no real evidence that Dihexa is even slightly cognitively impairing to healthy animals.

Edited by jabowery, 07 September 2014 - 05:48 PM.

[xks201]

Jabowery clearly this guy has an agenda. It couldn't get more clear actually. Of course he will deny it but come on. The stuff he is saying is just ridiculous. Fw900 just called him out. He is focusing on 1/10th of the picture, convoluting it, and pretending it to be the entire story. Kind of interesting that someone would be so opposed to this compound seeing the light of day I think. Either he is heavily invested in human stupidity or he is just a product of it. Judging by his tactics and his limited use of this forum to trolling our threads I'd say he is clearly invested in his bias in more than ways than we probably care to know. 

 

Since I've been using the internet I've never seen someone so fervently attack something who apparently has no benefit or penalty to its success...while solely using this forum basically for dihexa trash talking. 

 

It is beyond interesting.  If he had legitimate arguments I'd debate him...but clearly his goal isn't honest debate.

 

His attacks are so off the wall fervent and ridiculous I've literally laughed out loud at the things he has said this morning. It doesn't add up. 

 

It truly makes me wonder what honest researcher or individual would be more interested in trashing this compound then seeing its potential and results. Very interesting..... 

 

 

Edited by xks201, 07 September 2014 - 05:16 PM.

[Nemo888]

FGL looked much more promising IMO. Dihexa looked overblown  with a patent owner trying to turn it into cash. Neither should be taken by healthy individuals. This echo chamber was wasting people's time and money. Someone needs to be skeptical. No one even noticed the poor results till I mentioned them. I am aware that synaptogenesis is not the main feature of stimulants like meth and coke. I was alluding to the fact that Dihexa might be enjoyable to take even without any cognitive enhancing abilities.

 

The patent owner paid for the study and the results are crap. Imagine if it was an unbiased third party. We need more skeptics here. I like being called on  being wrong if I am using dangerous substances. Active placebo has ruined much of pharmacology.

[jabowery]

No one even noticed the poor results till I mentioned them

 

What poor results?  I already described how you misrepresented the aCSF/Dihexa group in Figure 7.  Are you referring to any other poor results you've mentioned?