Talk:Phenylpiracetam

Citations needed

-- The data in the pharmacology section calling phenylpiracetam a NDRI is dubious at best. The patent claiming increases in dopamine levels based on ONE chart has massive error bars on the data points which all conveniently lack a bottom bar. The abstracted cited for NET inhibition does not state anything regarding norepinephrine unless it's discussed somewhere within the article. -June 2018

--One CNN article noted, has a dead link. Cannot be found Google searching with reference to it.

-- Agreed. The section on pharmacology makes sweeping claims about the action of phenylpiracetam without providing any citations or other evidence. The entire page reads like an advertisement for the product. I deleted links to suppliers that included PRICING information! - Oceanlab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanlab (talk • contribs) 19:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Add citations where you know that reliable ones exist. Challenge uncited material with the cite tag "{{cn}}", then after some time passes, other editors may provide citations, or the challenged material may be removed. Since you have the ability to edit the article, just complaining about citation or lack thereof isn't really helpful. Links to suppliers are generally not appropriate, so thank you for making those changes.Anastrophe (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone removed a large chunk of the pharmocology section explaining it's mode of action, which was covered by a valid journal citation (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS1819712411020048). The change leaves the pharmocology section pointless, as it contains no information regarding the actual pharmacology of the drug now. The chunk explaining the effect on receptors should remain as it has a valid citation, though I agree the chunk claiming it's uses in asthenia and cerebrovascular injury require better citations and thus should remain removed until better sources can be found (I'll try and look later). LiamSP (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You're not going to find anything on it in English, because Westerners didn't patent it. There isn't going to be any further research on it in English, for the same reason. You're going to have a hard time finding anyone to translate it too. Teaching Russian has never been a priority. The Berlin Wall still exists if you turn to propaganda outlets like CNN for any type of information beyond it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.237.163 (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that more citations are needed and disagree that "You're not going to find anything on it in English, because Westerners didn't patent it". Although the sentiment is based in truth, it's over the top and I'm fairly certain that Life Science Solutions LLC owns the rights to this and several related nootropics in the US. Moving on, here are some citations that should be worked in (in general, and so you can get rid of the valid-but-unnecessary giant warning message), but I haven't time to do it myself at present:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0968089613002290

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1819712423020198

https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/11319230-000000000-00000

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10787-020-00705-7 (Mice)

https://cp.neurology.org/content/11/3/e303.abstract (analysis of commercial nootropic products)

https://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/thesis/Monitoring_the_internet_for_nootropic_substances_available_to_Australian_consumers/23238149 (another in Austria like the one above)

https://www.ijest.org/nootropics/does-phenylpiracetam-increase-dopamine/ (Note: There's multiple articles mentioning the drug from this source, but I'm actually a little wary of it... it claims to be an "academic journal" but reads like a pop press tabloid).

There's also some that discuss it in the context of being a doping agent within sports, like this: https://web.s.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=0019462X&AN=149907672&h=ckTuNC1odkeZXJe2YUO3ZotYyOstdg3cPZ7xKsQFpBSd9X6kuOc33MTkqBG%2fj3beQM5kLH6gUD6R62HMCcrfmA%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d0019462X%26AN%3d149907672

71.244.243.33 (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Need to re-translate

This text was apparently translated via babelfish from the German wikipedia. It must be re-translated by hand. Athf1234 07:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I was going to add the info about Olga Pyleva, but somebody beat me to it. PrometheusX303 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm buzzing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.117.54 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC) It is in fact an OTC drug in Russia, used to treat narcolepsy.--178.219.32.24 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

07:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Profmad07:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A new age in Neurol-Psychological modulators, may be dawning. After the jobless pharmacologists, or sold-out as DNA scientists, it has smoldered.

When Valium was found to have specific sites,& Shulgin's List got out, Hoffman's Problem child, was on dole. Prof. Dole designed the 'methadone Project'. (Does it really stand for Dept. of Lost Employment?).(anec.) It was redundant. It had revolutionized the art-world, as much as it had science, design & technology.

Phenypiracetam, to quote Shulgin, has many erogenous zones (q.v. Chemistry is like Pornography, when you know what groups to look for).

Structurally, it resembles & replicates an array of noo(psycho)tropics, as Methylphenidate (MP) & also GABAergic agents. compounds..

Its Pharmacological profile, is a very rapid (intranasal) onset, Tachycardia is almost instant, quickly fading. It is a mild/moderate euphoriant, with a similar potency, and effect as Ethyl / Methylphenidate It too, has a slightly longer active t1/2. It gives a greater 'crystal' clear thought, without repetitive behavior (induced by amphetamines or EP)

Phenylpiracetam is an intriguing leap since the racetams, began. (Piracetam was used, (& Centrophenoxine), twenty years ago in Turkey. Piracetam, was not recognized, here at the time.

Research Chemistry should, make for a good double-blind study, of new psychotropics (nootropics).

Pharmacology is back!

07:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)Profmad07:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Google, Bing and ChatGPT are now much better translators of Russian. I've corrected the rather silly mis-translated quote in 'History'. You can get the original Russian now also from the Wayback archive link I added and all are welcome to verify the much more sensible translation those engines gave me. 71.244.243.33 (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Naming

According to the wikipedia article naming policy, "Most notably: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The recent change to this article's title abandoned a commonly used name to use a more "official" name, which nobody uses and nobody has heard of. Check the number of google search results if you want to see the huge magnitude of this difference.

Piojo (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Some expansion

I'm considering expanding this article. I don't have access to Russian texts or manufacturer inserts; some help would be appreciated.

My interest comes largely from fixation: I'm getting ADHD treatment, and part of that is a big treatment for anhedonia; amphetamine isn't working as well as phenylpiracetam for that, and I'm thinking about several long-term options including atomoxetine combined with amphetamine or phenylpiracetam. For now I haven't raised this with my provider because I don't want to put strain on him, and because I don't know if I'll eventually bring it up anyway; if I start using it under medical supervision, I'll clear it with my psychiatrist first. As a compensating mechanism, I may as well work on making this a FA.

I'm obviously biased. If I write anything questionable or inappropriate, please correct if possible, or remove if necessary. I'll be citing patents as well, which frequently have studies; some studies demonstrate things other than the patent subject matter--for example, a patent for R-phenylpiracetam to treat sleep disorders includes methodology and results of a study on rats showing increases in motivation ("Present data show that (R)-phenylpiracetam increases motivation, i.e., the work load, which animals are willing to perform to obtain more rewarding food."). I do not believe I can cite this to suggest it may treat anhedonia, because postulating that an increase in reward is a treatment for motivational anhedonia (imagine that--more motivation treats a lack of motivation) is an assertion not made outright in the citation which states that R-phenylpiracetam increases motivation.

There are a few things I've seen mentioned on forums about what the Russian prescribing data says. If someone can get me a real source, I'd appreciate being able to back up the following:

• Normal dose is 100mg-250mg single, 200mg-300mg per day;
• Maximum tolerated dose is 750mg/day;
• Low-lethal toxicity at 800mg/kg; d-amphetamine sulfate administered orally to rats exhibits an LD50 at just under 100mg/kg[1]

I can't insert these into the article without reliable information. They should not be considered reliable here. These are listed in a forum post citing the manufacturer information.

Toxicity information is particularly interesting. --John Moser (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

By and large, IMHO, the difference between Russian and American drugs is that Russian drugs work if used intermittently, i.e. up to a couple of times a week, whereas American drugs work for a few months, following which the adverse effects cost more than the benefits from the drug. This applies to phenylpiracetam, noopept, and the like. And as such, neither category are a good answer for permanent daily use. This is off-topic, but IMHO you'd be better off optimizing your water intake, sleep amount, daily cardiovascular exercise, vitamins, minerals, amino acids, fatty acids, creatine, SAM-e, and the like - it's what I have done and it works for me. Also, do something that actually interests you and is somewhat hands-on - it's automatically a lot more motivating. If clinical anhedonia is your concern, why not try a drug with a proper dopaminergic effect, e.g. memantine (after the first week or two), ropinirole/pramipexole, etc.

Please be reminded that any biomedical claims that are not referenced from a secondary source such as a review article or a meta-analysis are subject to deletion per WP:MEDRS. --Hyperforin (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I was more trying to disclose obvious bias so editors would be aware, in case I write something that needs to come right back out. Not looking for medical advice, but thanks.

WP:NOR and weak research and all; what I've seen of PPR suggests it either doesn't build tolerance in all users or that it works similar to amphetamine in that raising the dose after initial use gets you to a stable level (e.g. some people start on 5mg Adderall and move up to 15mg over a few weeks, and then tolerance stops increasing). Until I see some medical studies on the topic of long-term clinical use, speculation is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

As for the medical advice, I've been there and done that. It's all good advice, although supplementation (water, vitamins) isn't necessarily useful, and SAM-e is a drug (and causes mania in me). Exercise has great benefits for the clinically depressed, and produces its maximum therapeutic effect at a dose of 20 minutes of walking for three days per week; physical changes to the body as a result of increased physical health ("getting into shape") are also well-known to be beneficial to mental health--that is: a healthier body supports a healthier mind due to other factors (e.g. less stress on the brain) rather than just the infusion of some physical activity now and then.

Mostly, I'd like this article to look more like the one on amphetamine. Besides just being a half-hearted attempt, a blunt list of all the things phenylpiracetam might treat--even with citations showing it's prescribed and effective for the purpose--kind of gives the impression of a dazzling wonder-drug. Personally, I think it's a marvelous work of engineering, because it's a flexible, low-side-effect medication for so much, with low toxicity, and with such safety that self-administering users of Phenylpiracetam are distinct from self-administering users of Adderall in that one of these groups isn't so physically-dependent on a dangerous drugs with negative health consequences that anyone's noticed. That doesn't mean PPR users aren't all physically-addicted, decaying meth heads on another substance; it just means somehow we have managed to not notice, which seems unlikely. Even so, it's not appropriate to have an article that implies exactly that, and we need to be more-clinical and frame it all in terms of what is actually understood, not in terms of a list of such-and-such effects that exist in some unstated capacity.

The complaint at the top of the page remains valid. I have inserted some animal studies cited as studies on rats. I'll need to make a statement somewhere to imply most study has been done on rodents and effects in humans are not as well studied scientifically; a giant list of things that says "X with rats did Y" sounds great, and I would speculate many readers would carry this to logical conclusions that X with humans would Y as well, and so there should be some kind of clear separation. If there's too little real-world medical use and research in humans, perhaps we should divide the section on medical uses between "in humans" and "in animal models".

I believe we can be a little less stringent (but not less strict) with pharmacological studies: we should definitely say that it's a dopamine reuptake inhibitor based on studies in rats, but we don't need to isolate and heavily emphasize that this is not a studied human effect because it's generally-accepted that mammal brains are analogous in that way. So-called civilized cultures usually don't drill into people's heads and perform microdialysis or harvest their brains after drug treatment to identify how drugs work on humans. It is most important to not present animal models as human studies; but they are, to my understanding, valid drug action models.

At the same time, figuring out how psychiatric drugs work is hard. As stated, I want to avoid citing Internet accounts, even though afore-linked PMC article suggests "It is also important to pay attention to patients’ uncensored accounts of taking psychiatric drugs, available on the internet, for example." Let someone write a paper about the wealth of information gleaned from open discussion on Reddit, and cite that. I have a note that PPR might be an NDRI, and might remove that later, because I keep seeing norepinephrine and seratonin mentioned but can't find a study to back that up. I'm not sure I trust the source of that information.

In any case, the article is editable, and I'm not going to remove the notice at the top; somebody else can dispute anything I write, and can eventually accept that it is "ready". I hope someone can supply me some scientific papers, too; there's not much on Pubmed, and I'm getting a lot out of patents. --John Moser (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Pretty soon, someone will discover your non WP:MEDRS additions, and will remove them all. Patents may be okay for some technical info, but much less so for biomedical claims including those of receptor activations. Getting into details about the studies such as the type of rodent used is a total waste too for a Wikipedia article. Patents are possibly not even peer reviewed. I suggest to proceed with caution.

I can also see your very limited appreciation of alternatives including exercise, water, and vitamins — I guess you'll continue to pay the price for not optimizing them to the limit.

Your assertion of the possibility of a PPR tolerance threshold at higher doses is interesting and deserves to be explored seriously. --Hyperforin (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have an appreciation of science. As I said above: Vitamins aren't magic bullets and everything isn't a magnesium deficiency, despite what schizotypal conspiracy theorists might publish everywhere online; water isn't going to magically cure your ails, and a water-deficient body will deal with dehydration rather than neurotransmitter problems; and the role of exercise in depression is well-explored and understood. Only a complete quack would think any of this could be responsible for something like anhedonia, depression, schizoid personality disorder, or other serious psychiatric conditions.

Diet, exercise, water, vitamins, the go-to superstition of imaginary toxins and so-called clensing diets, meditation, numerology, crystal healing, and faith healing are all in the same category of bullshit. Diet, exercise, water, vitamins, and meditation get the kind of creationism-style pseudoscientific arguments because they're valid in some other context (e.g. dehydration causes acute health problems), or have a limited application to current context (e.g. exercise can decrease depression symptoms; meditation can reduce stress).

The *primary* general health concerns for psychiatric treatment are sleep deprivation, obesity, and stress in a cognitive sense. Chronic sleep deprivation *will* mess you up. Obesity strains your body in ways fixed by any activity which reduces the obesity—that is, you don't need to tweak your diet to incorporate today's fad fruits or eliminate starches or whatever (although I do prefer a 25%-40% carbohydrate balance because it reduces gas and helps me not overeat), or take up marathon running every day; you just need a diet of actual food (i.e. not primarily cakes and pies) and a caloric balance that maintains a healthy BMI. Cognitive behavioral therapy and the development of better defense mechanisms to minimize the feedback loop from heavy psychiatric stress are a huge factor. After that, it's pharmacotherapy.

Try not to wave too much pseudoscience around, man. If we were doing that, we could just make unjustified connections between online forums posts and whatever was on the marketing sites for this stuff. —John Moser (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite

Basically this entire article needs to be rewritten or organized better. There is clearly some selective bias here about nootropics being beneficial since I see ZERO mention of any downsides. The article also relies too heavily on animal experiments and I think all of those pieces should be moved to a separate section called "Testing in animals" maybe.

More human studies are needed to make any claims about benefits/drawbacks when ingested by people. My ideas: - Move all the animal testing bits to its own section - Reserve the "Uses" area for research that actually applies to humans. If there isn't many, I think a collective evaluation of primary sources would suffice. While Wikipedia generally doesn't favor primary sources taking up too much of a section, I believe it is possible to write about them in an informative way. It's a drug, after all. Anyone whos taken it is qualified to speak on its effects. - Rename "Athlete doping" to "Controversies". In this renamed section, the stance of any drug administrations towards Phenylpiracetam should be included. Also, mentions of how it can be abused and, more importantly, mentions on how it can impact health negatively.

Let me know if this sounds good and I will get around to it. I have Spring Break this week so I have the free time. Any modifications you could suggest I will take into consideration. I love Phenylpiracetam, but this article pretends as if it's 100% good for you with no drawbacks which is simply not true for anything. ~~bob~~

Side effects section missing

Sure there must be some side effects?--Hiveir (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)