Contents

Talk:Nootropic

Pharmacology B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please do not use the "normal" google search for this article due to extreme bias from advertisers trying to sell you meds. Please use: www.pubmed.com or http://scholar.google.com/orhttp://books.google.com/ for finding references

i propose we move the section somewhere else, this article is about drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.52.113 (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is little relevance here.Halogenated (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if it might be worthwhile to include a section on neuroethics and the ethical implications of using nootropics as individuals or in society more generally. This topic is likely to intensify in the near future as more powerful nootropics are developed. Questions pertaining to access and whether or not there should be drug-testing prior to standardized exams like the SAT or MCAT come up immediately, but there are also a host of workplace issues. Philoprof (talk) 15:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Philoprof[reply]

Agree completely--Doc James (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orexin

nootropic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.52.113 (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nootropics are claimed to increase cognition etc because the jury is still out on the matter. Just because the term defines drugs that ARE cognitive enhancers, it doesn;t mean that the drugs that are currently considered nootropics are in fact proven to do so. Prefacing with the words "are claimed" merely states that the drugs are not definitely proven to do what they are alleged to do, and certainly not weasel words. If you have scientifically proven definitive evidence to the contrary from double-blind studies conducted on a statistically significant number of particiants, please, post it. Most evidence so far is encouraging, but hardly overwhelming. Cheers Halogenated (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No where will you find a definition that says nootropics are drugs that are "claimed" (by whom?) to improve cognition. It furthermore wouldn't make sense to say "So and so claims drug X is a nootropic," since that would just mean "so and so claims drug X is claimed to improve cognition." Nootropics are drugs that improve cognition in some way. "The jury is out" on whether this or that drug is, in fact, a nootropic (maybe none are!). But more to the point of Wikipedia policy, using "claimed to be ___________" without attribution really is weasel wording. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 21:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token that I cannot state a Yeti is an extant giant ape, nootropics cannot be stated as drugs that enhance cognition. Perhaps the sentence could be revised to address this better. I'm not a big fan of the term "are claimed" either. Halogenated (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does this version work for you? Halogenated (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about definitions here, not merely any true or false sentence about a subject. You would never see "extant giant ape" in a definition of "Yeti." Quite simply, a nootropic is type of drug that enhances cognition in the same way that an antidepressant is a drug that mitigates symptoms of depression. What can be disputed or defended with a source is whether drug X is, in fact, a functioning nootropic or antidepressant. But all this seems settled since someone came along with a sourced definition. It's hard to argue with that without a competing source. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.Halogenated (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is biggest steaming pile of dog crap I have ever encountered on Wikipedia. Seriously guys, I think this needs to be started from scratch. And next time try some academic journals for references, instead of "Doood! This guy I ran into one time told me..." 154.20.79.125 (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabinoid receptor agonists do not belong on the nootropics page. They have a demostrated mechanism for severe impairment of memory and cognition. No item should be on this list without at least a single peer reviewed journal article showing improvement on at least aspect of cognition. The aspects of cognition that is improved should be mentioned.

Cannabinoid receptor antagonists should be added to this list as they have been demonstrated to improve memory in exactly the manner in which THC does not. Agalmic (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is almost no cohesion to the article whatsoever - it exists as a series of lists and titles. Either someone needs to write a proper article for the topic, or I will chop it down into a stub article containing the handful components that actually have citations or the appearance of legitimacy. Halogenated (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err -- while you're at it, could you try to keep the mess of the talk page down? You've just started a new section when the above two sections state nearly the exact same thing. It is these habits of repetition and not reading which make messes. I may go through this Talk page and see if there are any points worth noting before archiving. Research carefully before you cut, please, as most of these items are legitimately nootropic even if they haven't been cited. ImpIn | (t - c) 07:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to write a proper article on this. I don't think the current approach makes sense. I'd prefer to categorize not by function e.g. "grows nerve cells" but by some more straightforward category, i.e. synthetic drugs, nutrients (vitamins amino acids), endogenous substances, herbs, ect. Or perhaps by function, but less so than they are currently...anyway, it will take some time. Anyway, I'm gonna be moving things around substantially, and cutting some, so stop me if you feel like I'm doing something bad. II | (t - c) 08:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to list some resources here, and we can discuss their merits or lack thereof. Or people can go ahead and use them to cite claims in the article. I just cited Huperzine A with a Cochrane review (PMID 18425924). PubMed lists all the below as reviews.

• Girugea's articles.
• Wired articles: Give Your Intellect a Boost — Just Say Yes to Doing the Right Drugs! and Really Smart Drugs
• PMC. The Psychopharmacology of Herbal Medicine: Plant Drugs That Alter Mind, Brain and Behavior
• PMC. Cognitive dysfunctions in schizophrenia: potential benefits of cholinesterase inhibitor adjunctive therapy
• PMC. Efficacy and safety of galantamine in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: multicentre randomised controlled trial
• PMC. Drugs for Alzheimer disease. Fairly critical review.
• PMC. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=122286&rendertype=abstract.
• PMC Drugs for Alzheimer's disease 2
• PMC Effect of the herbal extract combination Panax quinquefolium and Ginkgo biloba on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a pilot study.
• PMID 11744068 Yohimbine: a clinical review. No access; has a section on memory.
• PMID 16848706 Choline: critical role during fetal development and dietary requirements in adults. (free access)
• PMID 16989905 Lipoic acid as a novel treatment for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. (no access)
• PMID 17171187 Citicoline: pharmacological and clinical review, 2006 update. (no access)
• PMID 18046877 Citicoline (Cognizin) in the treatment of cognitive impairment. (no access)
• PMID 18198970 The use of cognitive enhancers in behavioral disturbances of Alzheimer's disease. (no access)
• PMID 17908041 East meets West in the search for Alzheimer's therapeutics - novel dimeric inhibitors from tacrine and huperzine A. (no access)
• PMID 16437532 Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease. (no access, Cochrane)
• PMID 17960354 [Therapy of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia with acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. A systematic overview] (no access, German)
• PMID 17979717 Recent developments in cholinesterases inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease treatment. (no access? my library lies to me)
• PMID 18078044 [Hippocampus: a target for cognition enhancers] (Russian, specifically mentions nootropics)
• PMID 18078043 [Nootropes (cognition enhancers) and neuroprotectors] (Russian again)
• PMID 18050502 Acetylcholine. (no access)
• PMID 18033952 A systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of piracetam and piracetam-like compounds in experimental stroke. (no access)
• PMID 17979717 Recent developments in cholinesterases inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease treatment. (no access? library lies again...)

Pretty long list, I know. Hopefully it doesn't bother anyone; I'll be weeding them out as I use them. Some of these are likely unusable. I found one interesting study but I lost it in the shuffle, which is why I started taking notes (also, maybe we can help each other get access to some of these). I think a paper suggested that phosphatidylcholine was not really effective. Please keep replies to this section without much substance (e.g. referenced scientific input) to a minimum. I also suggest that we stay alert for negative effects from these drugs, since there is a strong incentive for people to use them. II | (t - c) 04:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/4501157a.html --Doc James (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article definitely needs a section on ethics.--Doc James (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if we should move the page to Nootropics as we discuss many of them here. Or maybe we should change the title to Memory enhancers as this seems to be the broader category.--Doc James (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would have given this more time. No offense, but I oppose this move because it is a more restrictive category. Many nootropics probably do not enhance memory. Memory and general intelligence are different things. You see what I'm saying? I kind of prefer nootropics, but if you want a more approachable term, it would have to be something like cognitive enhancers. II | (t - c) 18:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I based the move on the 2007 review that I just sent you. Cognitive enhancers I agree is even better the memory enhancers. Feel free to move it again.

--Doc James (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I can't move it. Gonna have to get an admin to do it, or more laboriously, list it at "Requested moves". II | (t - c) 19:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes see what you can do.Doc James (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also understand Nootropics as a more general term than Memory enhancers, that also include mood enhancers, focus enhancers, learning enhancers etc. I think this move is not appropriate. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 14:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have found a really good review about this topic from 2007. I have access if anyone is interested.

Malik R, Sangwan A, Saihgal R, Jindal DP, Piplani P (2007). "Towards better brain management: nootropics". Curr. Med. Chem. 14 (2): 123–31. PMID 17266573.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

--Doc James (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see it. Could you send it to imperfectlyinformed@gmail.com?

Done--Doc James (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]