The problem with the continual emphasis on what Lion's Mane does in a test tube,
is that, notoriously, it can be very difficult getting chemical X into the brain from an oral route:
There's 3 high hurdles to jump:
1. There's the whole issue about whether the digestive system will destroy Chemical X, or not.
2. Then there's the issue about whether Chemical X will be metabolised in some way by the liver.
3. Then there's the issue of whether Chemical X can cross the blood brain barrier.
Do we have any evidence that the chemical goodies in Lion's Mane can jump these 3 hurdles ?
To the best of my knowledge... there is no evidence of this.
So not only is there no evidence of Lion's Mane having a positive effect on human cognition.
There's no evidence that Lion's Mane even arrives at the party.
However, if someone has such evidence... please post it here.
PLAYGROUND:
Exactly. I agree. Deviating a moment though;
Since your post concerning sci-hub.io I have gone rampant, maybe you have done similar but there are a number of ABSTRACTS that appear NOT to download the full paper, for instance:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12675022
therefore, have you too encounter this and if so, have you found a work-around? I would appreciate it if you have and could share that also, in the name of investigation!
BACK on track" your three points are "to the point", your usual style. I was frustrated until you brought to light that gem link to get full papers and I have downloaded and read about 25 papers this weekend including the 30 old ladies study you mentioned. There appears recurring authors in these Chinese studies too...1.3 billion people in China and a few mushroom researchers? Maybe its political. Is their research funding from Big Pharma too? Hummm. Suspicious. Looks like the majority are associated researchers and are from universities and that would be public, STATE, funded, correct? Limited number of human studies is correct, there are currently few. They use people like canon fodder there in China, sometimes, so why the limited human studies?
Where is the proof, that's correct. We all are looking for RESULTS and willing to purchase. "Verdict on Lion's Mane", I came here, after reading all the other threads, looking for results: those associated with NGF stimulation/synthesis, from avid users. Maybe there are not many Forum users of Lion's Mane, maybe most people are buying fruiting body (mushroom) products. It does not look like there are very many mycelium products available as of yet, only mixed and most all companies do not disclose how much by percentage is mycelium. REAL MUSHROOM has made some good points concerning this.
Who knows if these producers don't sell 100% of the substrate as mycelium since 100% is in fact infected and over run with mycelium. Really, if you have never seen such a thing it is difficult to wrap your mind around it but GOOGLE mycelium and click on "images" under the subject search terms box and a person can get a good idea of the reality. PLUS, like most all medicinal mushrooms, these species DO grow naturally on hardwoods not softwoods nor tannic acid containing trees. Grains contain way too much starch, does not contain the heavy mineral content (not speaking of toxic heavy metals here) and a slew of other nutrient bases that are very different. Go smack a few hardwood species with an ax and observe the "juice" that comes out. That nutrient base is not found in grains. So growing mushrooms/mycelium on a starch substrate is great for culinary purposes, not for us though. Not for people who seek the neurotropic substances that these research papers are also searching for. having contemplated this matter for some time now I am really disappointed that so many guys with PhD's in biology and other interests have not thought about or concluded their error in using product produced under these artificial protocols.
Apples = Apples. NO, definitively not. Fungi are very adaptable if pressured to conform to a different habitat, such as growing on a different substrate under artificially but they are also adaptable to use what is in that "new" substrate to make altered by-products. Again, just to beat a dead horse, most of these studies no not use mycelium (much higher NGF sythesis product), even the studies based on looking at NGF benefits/influences. This is like having a double MTHFR polymorisms (mutated genes) and taking Folic Acid and testing for bio-availability and increased Methyl Cycle efficiency. Not going to happen. not possible. So what are these researchers doing and how do these papers get published or is the knowledge of fungi so limited to nt see the wholes in their research parameters?
CHANGING CHANNELS:
I would like to return the favor PLAYGROUND, if it turns out to assist, with this link which like a search engine for medical studies and one can choose parameters such as checking studies on: Animal, Human, InVitro, Plant, or Review, and has a section named Cumulative Knowledge, as:
"Cumulative Knowledge is determined by ascribing a numerical value to the various study types weighted in descending order as follows: (1) Meta-Analysis; (2) Human Study; (3) Human: Case Study; (4) Animal: Transgenic; (5) Animal; (6) In Vitro; (7) Review; and (8) Commentary."
It acts as a search engine for the medical topic of choice, I have found it very handy before going GOOGLE.
HERE IS THE LINK: http://www.greenmedi...icium-erinaceus
CHANGING CHANNELS:
PATENT, TRADEMARK, REGISTERED, these are definitely used as value-added marketing AND spreadsheet when looking for funding as they have a weighted value, they are property. Banker's and financiers look kindly to these corporate assets as a good and appropriate business investment. Government online makes it very simplified to investigate, research and obtain a copyright, Trademark, Registration and Patent Pending number: much easier than 20 years ago certainly. Patents are a little different though. I have had some experience in these also.