Talk:Piracetam/Archive 1

Archive 1

possible side-effects on testosterone and immune system

I have read a lot of forum and user posts about the possible correlation between decreased testosterone levels and/or decreased immune system functions and piracetam intake. The posts usually go like this: User takes piracetam, gets sick, stops piracetam intake due to illness, gets better again, continues piracetam, gets sick again - loop continues several times until user refrains completely from piracetam. Also, people sometimes report significantly decreased facial hair growth, decreased sex drive, increased irritability and other signs of lowered testosterone. In males, lowered testosterone would directly result in a lowered immune system. Also very commonly reported is 'flaky skin'. I myself have noticed all of these effects very prominently recently (I took just Geratam off ebay), except flaky skin. I never got sick a single time in years and now have the cough since weeks. But being sick is still far better than the insane sex drive I have without the piracetam ... Yes, all of this could be coincidence, just assumptions here. But maybe someone knows more about this correlation or maybe has some pilot studies about this. Since wikipedia is the first address of information for everyone, I am writing this here in the hopes of reaching everyone for whom it is important. 77.181.250.209 (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Europe

The prescription data are not concerning that Piracetam is widely presribed in Europe, as the article is saying. There are big differences between countries. In Germany Piracetam had a due of about 30% on the Anti-Dementiva market in 2004 (see: Arzneimittelreport 2005), but this due is declining cause the studies with Alzheimer patients getting Piracetam saying that Piracetam is not better than other and cheaper

Fan

Piractetam is an excellent drug to put me in the mood for a period of intellectual concentration. Its effects are similar to caffeine but without the fast comedown. Whereas a cup of coffee may have some effect for 15 minutes or so 250mg of piractetam will make you feel relaxed enough for about 4 to 5 hours during which time I can usually get started whatever task I have in hand. I always find it difficult to concentrate unless everything in my life is running smoothly which it seldom is. I take it quite often and have noticed no negative effects. The best place to buy it is from a pharmacy over the counter in Spain. No prescription is required.

Probably bad to turn this into a chat page, but another new fan here, who had known about the substance forever but didn't realize it had become conveniently available within the US during the 2000s. It and the related racetams are having a very pronounced effect on my personal cognitive 'clarity' and stamina, after some 'hard living' including much dextromethorphan abuse in my past. Having experienced the 'need' for choline supplementation firsthand (to keep the effect going and stave off headaches*), I would be very interested to see any 'primary sources' that explain what could possibly be going on there. My previous experiences with choline or DMAE supplementation alone had nowhere near the same effect, and at best would synergize with caffeine to enhance both its effects and the 'crash' shortly after.

• For people looking for anecdotal reports, the occasional headache with the racetams feels no different than that I would have working while fatigued anyway - the odd bit being that supplemental DMAE will 'recharge' the -racetam effect and keep it at bay. This is in contrast to my experience with vinpocetine, which I've found can trigger migraine-like effects, particularly in the 'excessive' doses (20mg?) some formulations are sold in.

This article reads like an advertisement for the drug. I mean, is it really so awesome? Are side effects really so minor? If so, I mean, yeah, awesome. But then, if so, why isn't everyone taking it?Dickmojo (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• edit* I ordered some off ebay and I'm going to try it out for myself^^ Seems like this advertism... I mean... Wikipedia Article really worked :pDickmojo (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

questionable

Why is it that on a smal scale tested proof has been reported, with positive result.When I was searching a test on a large scale I found nothing, only one; on 3000 person in Australia who reported that there was no evidence to support the idea of a better performance with Piracetam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.25.132.99 (talk) 12:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

After reading this article on piracetam I almost wondered if they are talking about the same supplement i've read so much about. I see serious contradictions from other studies on the matter. to quote from another article on the net with far more research references, here are the contradictions that stuck out the most in my mind:

Piracetam is one of the safest drugs in existence. The literature reports no significant drug interactions, side effects, or serious idiosyncratic side effects [4]. These include measures of changes in heart rate and blood pressure, effects on other vital signs, tests of renal, hepatic, and hematological functions, and signs of sedation, tranquilization, locomotor stimulation, and psychodysleptic symptomatology [16]. In fact, in some trials, reports of side effects are higher in the placebo group than in the treated group [16]. In animal studies, rats have been given 1 g/kg orally for six months and 8 g/kg IV acutely, rats and mice have been given 10 g/kg orally, and dogs have been given 10 g/kg orally for one year; in all of these instances piracetam has been nontoxic [16, 29].

heres the url for this site: http://www.1fast400.com/?ingredients_id=41

the one aspect of this site i'm referencing that could be considered suspect is the fact they sell piracetam. its far more in depth though than the wiki article and far more references mentioned than the wiki article.

I would suggest simply trying it out ...

RSF: I agree with the above. I'm a medical student researching Piracetam for use in a possible study, and the peer-reviewed studies I'm finding (by people with no finacial interest in the drug) confirm the above; no adverse effects as compared to a control group. I'm going to grab a few of the best sources and edit the page, I think, unless someone wants to come forward with a citation for these adverse effects.

Later: Moving these here, substituting sourced studies:

The following effects have been reported:

Central and peripheral nervous system disorders: hyperkinesia (1.72 versus 0.42 %)

Metabolic and nutritional disorders: weight gain (1.29 versus 0.39 %)

Psychiatric disorders: nervousness (1.13 versus 0.25 %), somnolence (0.96 versus 0.25 %), depression (0.83 versus 0.21 %)

Body as a whole - general disorders: asthenia (0.23 versus 0.00 %)

Post-marketing experiences have reported the following undesirable effects:

Ear and labyrinth (inner ear) disorders: vertigo

Gastrointestinal disorders: abdominal pain, upper abdominal pain, diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting

Immune system disorders: anaphylactoid reaction, hypersensitivity, multiple chemical sensitivity

Nervous system disorders: ataxia, impaired balance, aggravated epilepsy, headache, insomnia, somnolence

Psychiatric disorders: agitation, anxiety, confusion, hallucination

Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders: angioneurotic oedema, dermatitis, pruritus, urticaria, rash

RSF: I've been adding references like a madman, trying to get to the point where one could lobby to have the "needs citations" label removed. A lot of the remaining, uncited assertions are dubious, though some are quite correct. Help, anyone?

Dubious paragraph moved here

-Enhances Brain Metabolism (By increasing Glucose Utilization,Blood & Oxygen Flow) [Boosts mental energy & cerebralcirculation].

-IncreasesCerebral Phospholipids & Cellular Membrane Fluidity (By interactingwith the polar head moieties of the phospholipid bilayer) [Supportshealthy neuron communication & structure].

-SupportsCognitive Receptors (By amplifying the density of the MuscarinicCholinergic [Frontal Cortex, Striatum, & Hippocampus], NMDA(N-Methyl-D-Aspartate) [Hippocampus], & AMPA(Alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-Methyl-4-isoxazole-Propionic Acid) [CerebralCortex] Receptors) [Strengthens neurotransmitter receptors involved inmemory and neuroprotection].

-Stimulatesthe Corpus Callosum, an area of the brain that controls communicationbetween the left and right hemispheres (Increases communication betweenboth hemispheres) [Involved in speech and creative thinking].

Stimulates the Locus Coeruleus, (specialized neurons) [Involved ininformation processing, attention, cortical/behavioral arousal,learning and memory]

-InhibitsPlatelet Aggregation (By increasing Red-White blood cells &Platelet deformability, inhibiting thromboxane A2 synthetase orantagonism of thromboxane A2, reducing von Willebrand's factor &fibrinogen levels) [Supports Healthy Blood Flow].

-DecreasesEEG complexity (Increases cooperatively of brain functional processing)[Positively effects Neuro-Electrical Functioning].

-Has a significant antioxidant effect.

Cacycle 20:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A Warning

In the fall of 1995, I experimented with piracetam, taking the smallest of the three recommended dosages listed in Dean & Morganthaler's "Smart Drugs & Nutrients" on one occasion. After ingestion of the dose in the morning, I had an unpleasant experience which left me dizzy and disoriented later in the afternoon which passed in around one hour or so.

Approximately two weeks later, I consumed monosodium glutamate while eating a meal, a food additive which had never caused an unpleasant reaction for me prior to that day. Not long after consuming the MSG, I felt dizzy and had distortion in my field of vision.

Within the next month, I began to exhibit intolerance to a wide range of chemicals encountered in daily life, including acrylic, chemicals used in the manufacture of perfume & cologne, chemicals used in the manufacture of new carpeting, chemicals used in the manufacture of particle board, and other commonly encountered chemicals.

While I have minimized the effect of the chemical sensitivities over the course of the last decade through acupuncture and herbal medicine, I have not yet been able to bring about a complete cure.

While I have no empirical evidence that my chemicial sensitivities were caused by use of piracetam, there was no other chemical exposure or ingestion immediately prior to the onset of symptoms which could have caused the onset of my condition.

While I cannot say whether this undesirable side effect happens to one out of every 100 users or one out of every 100,000,000 users, it did happen to me. Like many people who tried piracetam, I had read literature which stated that piracetam causes absolutely no side effects and that it is an essentially harmless pharmaceutical. Be aware that even if the potential for chemical injury from the ingestion of piracetam is remote and highly unlikely to occur to any single user, development of multiple chemical sensitivities after ingestion of piracetam is a possibility and has happened to at least one person.

(To reply to a couple of points made in the subsequent entries, I had consumed MSG many times prior to ingesting piracetam and never experienced any ill effects. Furthermore, my reaction to MSG after my piracetam experience was just one of many negative reactions to a wide range of synthetic substances which I've had since ingesting piracetam.

Also, for what it's worth, the piracetam I took was purchased as a packaged, over-the-counter pharmaceutical in France, obtained at my request by a vacationing friend. I don't recall the brand name with certainty; it may have been Nootropil, but I'm not certain. 2/9/07)

24.128.218.134 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I respect your experience and I thank you for sharing it.

You admit, however, that you "have no empirical evidence . . . chemical sensitivities were caused by the use of piracetam."

Without empirical evidence, accusations of these kind should not be levelled, just as positive results in one person cannot stand as evidence of benefit. This is especially the case where there is an ample corpus of scientific research on the question.

I removed the phrase "Piracetam use has caused the development of multiple chemical sensitivities in some users." Before any one puts it back, I suggest they try to find more than one person who has experienced this correlation, and then report it as such, not as a cause-effect relationship. Let the reader draw their own conclusions on that, until there is scientific support for a causative relationship. My two cents.

I can personally vouch for the 'confusing' state when taking MSG. I ordered a chinese (I know my local uses MSG) whilst having the influence of 1600mg piracetam and 4,5g of hydergine already in me (spaced out in day). It made me feel very 'drowsy' and especially if I got up to quickly my brain experienced dizziness (for upto an entire minute) and it was so strong that i was trembling and stumbling over the vaccuum cleaner desperately trying to keep balance. My thoughts were quite confused (I seemed to have confused sleep deprived thought processes for a couple of hours). I ended up sleeping for an hour, then waking up for another half hour of confusion then fell asleep and ended up having the most VIVID AND WEIRDEST dreams possible. But this is the only side effect, and i haven't experienced the problem with other foods with MSG (as in regular food which uses very mild amounts). I have not had any other allergic responses, possibly amplifies previously unknown allergies? (The kind where you may not know you have an adverse reaction because it is not as noticeable as say a nut allergy for instance) --86.18.156.77 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Individuals reporting side effects from piracetam should be aware that most of the bulk suppliers of piracetam in the United States resell untested powders from China which are often filled with contaminants. I bought and tested bulk powder from three different bulk nutrition suppliers in the united states and found all three to contain unacceptable levels of bacteria, metal, and fungus. Because it's completely uncontrolled in the united states, it should be purchased from a reputable source or from a pharmacy overseas.

I agree with the above editor- it cannot be understated how important it is to acquire anything you put into your body from a place you know you can trust. There are several legitimate suppliers that I know of for the United States, and some of the bizarre stories above make me thing that perhaps what they took was more than just Piracetam. Personally, I experienced increased focus and fluence, very mild lightheadedness, improved mood and (for some bizarre reason!) an urge to do work. It's only anecdotal, but certainly miles away from some of the above horror stories. --63.250.85.226 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The editor who claims that US suppliers are selling contaminated products needs to provide the test results and reveal the suppliers. While caution should be exercised, the statement is entirely baseless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Possum61 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

United States

The article claims that Piracetam is "not regulated in the United States (it is neither a controlled substance nor a prescription drug but instead sold as a dietary supplement)".

Is there a basis for a claim that Piracetam can be legally sold in the United States as a dietary supplement? I found a document on the FDA web site that states explicitly: "Piracetam is not a dietary supplement under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Moreover, the product appears to be a drug under the Act and thus subject to the regulatory requirements of drugs." It has not received FDA approval, so it's properly classified as an "unapproved new drug". --Itinerant1 01:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. No new drug application has been made for Piracetam, it therefore does not meet the requirements for unapproved new drug status. Also your statement is in direct contradiction to your citation of the article on the FDA website. The letter claims that Piracetam is a "investigational new drug (IND)". This classification is different and distinct from that of an "unapproved new drug". I quote;

"Under 21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B), an article intended for use in the diagnosis, cure,mitigation, treatment, or prevention of a disease in man is a drug. The information contained in your submission, namely the inclusion of a list of documents setting forth diseases for which Piracetam may be an effective treatment, suggests that it is intended to treat, prevent, or mitigate diseases. See 21 CFR 101.93(g). These representations suggest that this product is intended for use as a drug within the meaning of21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1)(B), and that it is subject to regulation under the drug provisions of the Act."

Therefore the issue of whether Piracetam is consider a drug is dependent on whether it is sold for the purpose of the treatment of a disease. If Piracetam is being sold for the purpose of the treatment of a disease then it is by definition a drug. The regulation of Piracetam as a investigational new drug (IND) only occurs in cases where it is intended that the Piracetam be represented as making claims for its effectiveness in treatment of disease.

These legal issues are complicated and any mention of them in the article may fall under the wikipedia No Original Research policy. It should be sufficient for the purposes of this article to explain that Piracetam is sold as both a drug and as a dietary supplement and that Piracetam is unscheduled.

Also it is possible for chemical agents to be excluded from regulation as a dietary supplement and also be excluded from classification as a drug. Agalmic (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge sentences?

Shouldnt the sentence: "Furthermore, Piracetam may have an effect on NMDA glutamate receptors which are involved with learning and memory processes."

be merged with: "Finally, Piracetam may exert its global effect on brain neurotransmission via modulation of ion channels (i.e., Ca2+, K+)."

to create: "Furthermore, Piracetam may have an effect on NMDA glutamate receptors which are involved with learning and memory processes through its global (agonistic/ antagonistic?) effect on brain neurotransmission via modulation of ion channels (i.e., Ca2+, K+)."

as the two concepts are related?

-- First sentence pairings you listed should not be merged.

Side effects

I renamed "Undesirable effects" to "Side effects" because they are often desired. It's anecdotal, so no cite, but I, for one, know multiple 'racetam users who use primarily _because_ it potentiates alcohol and cannabis.

This will not increase the effect of cannabis on the human brain due to the increased GABA from the piracetam(4-6g) in the user. To say the some people weren't very happy about it when they realized it. Blitzneko (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Last Paragraph is weasel-ish

The last paragraph seems to contradict the body. Removing it, as I think it's use as a nootropic has been sufficiently explained in the article's body. Reb42 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Effects on vertigo?

Did you have chance to evaluate the effects on vertigo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.231.66 (talk) 11:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did! It eliminates vertigo almost completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.102.117 (talk • contribs)

Uncited information

I removed several bits of uncited information that appeared to have no realistic basis and appears to have been added by personal experience. I also pointed out sections that require references - I left the info because the basis for concerns are credible, but without references are questionable. If someone has this information, preferably the author, then cite the source. Otherwise the information is moot.Halogenated (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Since when did personal experience have 'no realistic basis'? Personal experience is the ONLY real basis for everything in this world. Wake up dude! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.102.117 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but anecdotes are still not inclusible. All knights are men-at-arms, but not all men-at-arms are knights, as the saying goes. There are countless reasons that random personal experience is useless, ranging from response bias to placebo effect. ('The plural of anecdote is not data' etc.) --Gwern (contribs) 19:08 16 October 2009 (GMT)

I disagree with the statement "the plural of anecdote is not data". The problem with anecdotes is that they fail to isolate all of the variables- but having hundreds of anecdotes which all share the same characteristic compensates for that problem; as the one shared characteristic can be thought of as an isolated variable. When it comes to an article about a drug, personal experience is often more reliable than scholarly articles.

(Psychonaut25 - 13375p34k / C0n7r1b5 11:51 AM EST, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

Intro

I made a few cutting edits to the intro, too many claims that were either not cited below or generally read as an advertisement for snake oil.Halogenated (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious claim

This needs re-phrasing and was removed because it is it an unfounded and ridiculous statement. It should better reflect simply what the experiments did and found.

Piracetam appears to reverse the effects of aging in the brains of mice.

--Xris0 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal Status

The sidebar notes: Legal status POM(UK) can someone let me know what POM stands for & therefore what its legal status is in the UK? Thanks 193.201.120.128 (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing so looked it up on acronym finder. POM = prescription-only medication, as opposed to OTC, medication that is sold Over The Counter. Pawyilee (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Special Warnings and Precautions Paragraph

"Due to the effect of piracetam on platelet aggregation, caution is recommended in patients with underlying disorders of hemostasis, major surgery or severe hemorrhage." This statement is uncited, so I looked around for sources that supported the claim. I found that the general idea was the inhibition of platelet aggregation. As stated by Rodger L. Bick, who is the Director of the Regional Cancer and Blood Disease Center of Kern County, Associate Professor of Hematology and Oncology at the Medical School of the University of California at Los Angeles and a member of the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCLA:

These results suggest that piracetam is an effective anti-platelet agent in man; the antiplatelet effect, manifest consistently in prolongation of the TBT and abnormalities of ADP-induced platelet aggregation, seems to be dose dependent. Since TBT is well correlated with clinically significant platelet inhibition,⁴ [Rodger L. Bick] suggest[s] that this non-toxic agent warrants clinical study as an antithrombotic (platelet-inhibiting) agent.

He cites several articles to reinforce his claim:

"The molecular mechanisms of action of piracetam have been studied by Nalbandian and his colleagues¹ who have also recorded in-vitro platelet inhibitory activity of this drug.^2,3"

Rodger L. Bick's references: 2. Manuelidis EE. Transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease from man to the guineapig. Science 1975; 190: 571-72. 3. Dickinson AG. Scrapie in sheep and goats. In: Kimberlin RH, ed. Slow virus diseases of animals and man. Amsterdam. North Holland Publishing. 1976: 209-41. 4. Kimberlin RH, Walker CA. Pathogenesis of scrapie agent multiplication in brain at the first and second passage of hamster scrapie in mice J Ger Virol 1979; 42: 107-17.

Additional support:

We also found that the drug piracetam can inhibit decompression-induced hemostasis in mice, suggesting that blood stasis resulted from aggregated platelets.(Murayama, Makio. "Decompression-induced hemostasis in mice: High altitude simulation in the Everest chamber." Thrombosis Research 57 (1990): 813-816.)

So first on my list of proposed edits is the clarification of the effect that piracetam has on platelets, and that it could only possibly be a worry if you have a disorder along the lines of hemophilia and not thrombophilia. Also, I am wondering if we can actually use any of my sources, as they only suggest that it could be used as an antiplatelet or an anticoagulant drug, and piracetam is as yet unrecognized as any sort of drug in the U.S. to my knowledge.

In addition, the line "Abrupt discontinuation of treatment should be avoided as this may induce myoclonic or generalised seizures in some myoclonic patients." bugs me because in all my reading, it is levetiracetam that has effects on seizures, not piracetam (except at ridiculously high doses). I've looked for anything that could support the warning, and I've failed to find anything.

As for the kidney bit, I've found an article, but have not been able to actually read it. (Gobert, JG, & Baltès, EL. (1977). Availability and plasma clearance of piracetam in man. Il farmaco, 32(2), 83-91.) If someone wants to check that out and see what it says, go ahead. AliasAnonymous (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Various images, their quality and accuracy

There are, by my count, four images of the molecular structure of piracetam. Three are .svg files, one is a .png file. They are shown below, along with steric explanations of their accuracy, or lack of.

• 
  PNG 1 - Inaccurately shows NH₂ crowding toward tertiary amine group.
• 
  SVG 1 - Same as PNG 1.
• 
  SVG 2 - Inaccurately shows oxygens crowding toward one another
• 
  SVG 3 - Most accurate of the four; least steric strain. Image also based on PubChem data.

Fuzzform (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The rotating molecule is inaccurate. Instead of NH₂, it has NH & OH. Perhaps we should find a new GIF.

(Psychonaut25 - 13375p34k / C0n7r1b5 11:44 AM EST, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

References

Whenever possible, references should list a PubMed ID number. This allows all readers access to the article being cited, rather than just those who have access to an academic reference database. Fuzzform (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Agalmic (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is hardly neutral and reads like an ad. How is this not under contest yet?

Multiple times are individual conditions listed and approached as though this drug will cure things like Alzheimer's. Furthermore, The Side Effects section seems to insist that you are more likely to see side effects from coffee then from this drug. It seems as though sources supporting this drug were piled together to create this article with no other point of view. Sephirothson (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Sephirothson above. This article is overwhelming pro-Piracetam. I clicked on a few of the citations and they directed me to a website that sells drugs like these. It does appear that the sources are there for the looks rather than for documentation and affirming. I've never really chiseled anything into wikipedia before, but this article needs a cautionary flag-headliner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.79.254 (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Side Effects section seems to insist that you are more likely to see side effects from coffee then from this drug." If so the side effects section is in accord with the results of the studies which have been performed to date. We could make up a nasty list of made up side effects but that would violate NPOV and wikipedia's No Original Research policy. You may be interested in looking up the side effect incidence rates for placebo and comparing them to Piracetam or other substances. Although I agree that links to commercial website should be removed. Agalmic (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

New Yorker Article http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/04/27/090427fa_fact_talbot?currentPage=10 this article can be used To further validate my claim below:

I object to the unconditional support for Piracetam. There is no clear clinical evidence that shows that Piracetam works as is described in Wikipedia. No cognitive aid nor improvement has been scientifically shown. Only anecdotal evidence exists. It is harmful and disingenuous to market Piracetam as such and can potentially lead unsuspecting individuals to use Piracetam after reading wikipedia. Please remove such content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surag198 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can find new data, feel free to add it. But we can only report what the literature reports, and that is that there are few side effects and clinical benefits have been observed in double-blind cinical trials in a diverse group of populations, including dyslexic children (see a freely available 2005 review). I'll look for that British report that the New Yorker mentions. II | (t - c) 17:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This sentence in the summary; "It is a drug which enhances cognition and memory, slows down brain aging, increases blood flow and oxygen to the brain, aids stroke recovery, and improves Alzheimer's, Down syndrome, dementia, and dyslexia, among others." seems far too strongly worded. The studies that the claims are based on are more cautious in their conclusions. Claims like affecting Downs syndrome are not discussed elsewhere in the article and stands uncited, not to mention "among others". 84.202.40.147 (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The page still reads like an ad. Incredibly Pro-piracetam. The icing on the cake is that anytime this page comes under fire, the negative content always gets edited out. Dr Legitimate (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got to agree with the above comment. I have used Piracetam and I do believe it to be useful, but let's not get carried away here. Has anyone compiled some hard data against the use of this substance? It would be nice to include and balance some of these supposed claims. Malkman (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It is *hardly* written like an advertisement. I would warn people against falsely flagging articles just to push their own personal agenda (in this case anti-drug it would appear), as this only brings down the quality of Wikipedia. I have seen articles on wikipedia that looked like they were literally written by the marketing department of some Pharma - this is NOT at all like that. While I agree the tone could be more neutral in places, I see also that it looks like its been revised already to reflect this. Are there any specific studies or research that we feel is missing positive OR negative? If not, can we remove the flag on it already? oblivionboy 03:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's absurd to say that this article is written like an advertisement. It would be fine with me if more criticisms of piracetam were added (assuming the criticisms meet Wikipedia's usual standards for reliable sources), but slamming the article for being too "pro-piracetam" does nothing to improve it. I've reviewed the discussion thread here and haven't seen anyone offering specific criticisms of piracetam that meet those standards. All I see on the anti-piracetam side is a couple of anonymous anecdotes and some general unspecific ranting. I'm therefore removing the advert tag. --Sheldon Rampton (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of scientific research exists to validate these claims - as for 'only anecdotal evidence' - this drug has been subjected to clinical trials for over 30 years, any brief search on a psychology or pubmed database will verify this. The 'pro-drug' agenda you see present in this article is just a reflection of consistent findings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.0.183 (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://emc.medicines.org.uk/document.aspx?documentId=16509. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Health claims

The change of the lead to say it does rather than may enhance cognition, etc. etc. does not appear to be justified. Since the change was made without comment by an anon, I naturally reverted it. If you think it's correct, show us the support, or tune it down until it is clearly supported by sourced statements that follow. Dicklyon (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't find the support? Look at the ToC: "4.1 Aging"; "4.3 Alzheimer's and senile dementia", etc. And then of course, there's the catch-all 'Effects' section. When I look at them, I see multiple studies cited. It is not, and never has been, a WP guideline that all claims in the intro must duplicate the later reference.

If you want to dispute the claims of the studies, go file some grants and run some studies; but until you do, then isn't the OR here denying or modifying what the referenced studies say? --Gwern (contribs) 22:57 16 October 2009 (GMT)

The only one I checked so far was "cognition"; I searched the article and found "appears to be effective for improving cognition", which is a weaker statement than what you added in the lead; I checked the first ref, and it says "may". If you want to make a more definite statement, make it in the article first, where people can verify against the cited sources; don't start in the lead. Dicklyon (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to wax philosophic, but we only ever have 'appearances'; there is no certainty. What the studies say is we gave'em piracetam and their cognition improved. 'Appears' is a much stronger word than 'may'. ("It appears to be raining." vs "It may rain"; in which one would you grab your umbrella before egress?) Reducing it to 'may' is to insert your own judgment about how trustworthy the studies are. But if you want to be a stickler... --Gwern (contribs) 19:14 18 October 2009 (GMT)

So true! But we do need to stick to what's verifiable in sources, nevertheless. Note that I didn't argue for the "may", just against your change. New version seems much more appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

US status

The article currently says 'unregulated in the US'; the FDA may be changing this, see http://www.reddit.com/r/Nootropics/comments/d7wcm/fda_set_to_ban_piracetam_claim_it_is_illegally/ and its links. --Gwern (contribs) 14:52 1 September 2010 (GMT)

I believe it is illegal to sell unregulated/unapproved drugs in the US. The FDA is just cracking down on its sale in the US because of this. That's why all the designer drugs(e.g spice,k2) were sold with labels stating they were not for human consumption. JoshH100 (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Can't buy it any more? What's going on?

It's out of stock or discontinued everywhere I look online, and online is the only place I could get it. Anyone know what's going on? If this isn't a blip an explanation should be included in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.136.242 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Anybody know the usual pronunciation of Piracetam? --Pawyilee (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Per-ass-it-am.

(Psychonaut25 - 13375p34k / C0n7r1b5 11:46 AM EST, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

No effect at all?

I found out that for a variety of people the Piracetam (Nootropil) has no effect at all, the best it could do was to induce fatty sacks under the eyes, and cause increased sleepiness (similar to antiallergy medicine). Also, the HUGE dosing that is recommended is absolutely horrendous, it sounds almost like if the nootropic effect had to be some kind of result from impurities! Come on - LSD has some effect in a microgram, and this has no effect at 1 gram? In other words, LSD is more than a million times stronger drug than this. More likely 100 million times stronger. In the past (1920 to 1950?) 2 to 3 miligram doses of amphetamine were used as stimulants. Now, this new invention gave huge promises, but failed to deliver a 1% of those.

I ask for re-approval of this product please. In the EU certainly. The mechanism of action needs to be proven and the dosage decreased 10x or more. We can not afford stuffing old people with nonsense. (replace with your favorite phrase with the initials BS). Love and kisses, 195.91.12.218 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Further Piracetam Information

If one compares the Piracetam Wiki site to the Noopept Wiki site, it is seen that the following info is missing:

a) A comprehensive list of brand names (the names Noostan and Breinox are mentioned).

b) Whether Piracetam is patented and, if so, what the patent numbers for the US, the UK and for Russia, might be. AnInformedDude (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Headaches and choline supplements

I have removed the claim about choline supplementation reducing headache symptoms. After reading the full text of the two citations given for this ("Piracetam in elderly psychiatric patients with mild diffuse cerebral impairment", and "Piracetam in the treatment of post-concussional syndrome. A double-blind study"), I found no reference whatsoever to headaches being mitigated by choline supplementation.

Furthermore, I have searched thoroughly in the literature for references to choline supplementation mitigating headaches from piracetam, and come up dry. I am now reasonably certain that this is not a scientifically backed claim, and so I have removed it.

mistercow (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Piracetam and Lucid Dreaming This section has no references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.64.24.149 (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of Longecity as a source.

In the Piracetam#Dosage section: "Many people take a dosage of 800 mg twice per day orally to improve cognition."
The source for this is longecity.org, I don't believe this is a reliable source or even supports the dosage stated.
Unless someone can clarify why this should be allowed, it should be removed. JoshH100 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Update on uk status of importing Piracetam

I ask my doctor if i could import piracetam into the uk for my own personal consumption, he replied that its is classed as illegal importation of medicine even if shipped for your own Personal consumption.

Could you please check this out as Wikipedia is a source of trusted information, maybe add a legal references which is up to date & validates the case of legal import of piracetam for self use for Uk users.82.38.161.217 (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Nootrop77

I can confirm that the importation of Piracetam is legal if it is for personal use. POM's, although unobtainable within the UK without a prescription, are legal to import from overseas without a prescription. 2.100.165.72 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Jim

Spinning pict is wrong

The hydrogen atom attached to the outer most oxygen (blue) belongs to its neighbouring nitrogen (red) atom, it should have two, not one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.135.143 (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is incorrect and have removed it. Thanks for catching the error and reporting it here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

incorrect dates in history

first synthesized in 1964, then, two paragraphs down, it was used in epilepsy studies in the 1950s. Perhaps a typo, meaning 1990s ? Perhaps the editor who inserted that citation can recheck it? The link led to a rather hefty tome of mixed readability. Davidresseguie (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Issues with the article

Section "Medical uses/Dementia" says that

“ A 2001 Cochrane review concluded that there was not enough evidence to support piracetam for dementia or cognitive problems.[4] A 2002 review and 2005 review concluded that piracetam had some positive effects in older patients with these problems.[5][6] In 2008, a working group of the British Academy of Medical Sciences noted that many of the trials of piracetam for dementia were flawed.[7][8] ”

Of these, the link [8] is an article in New Yorker which doesn't support the sentence; and the link [7] says the following:

“ the racetam group of agents, including the pyrrolidinones derivatives piracetam, oxiracetam, aniracetam, nefiracetam and levetiracetam, have long been designated as cognitive enhancers or ‘nootropics’. They have been used for several cognitive disorders, including dementia, post-concussion syndrome and dyslexia. However, many of the clinical trials of piracetam for dementia have been methodologically flawed, and its efficacy is still under debate (see Flicker & Grimley Evans, 2005). ”

which reference is to the 2001 Cochrane review already referenced in this segment; so it's kinda a circular argument, probably slanted in favor of Cochrane.

The problem with this passage and the article overall is that most of the people visiting this page likely do not suffer from either dementia or cognitive impairments, but are healthy people interested in the drug's use as a cognitive enhancer.

I would suggest fixing the outlined issues with this particular passage, and adding more information (perhaps, more reviews) about the use of piracetam as a cognitive enhancer, and its specific mechanisms of action, like the specific ways it alters neurotransmission and effects neuroplasticity.

p.s. I do not have the time right now to work on this article, but at the very least it's clear that some of the recent studies support the use of piracetam as a cognitive enhancer, for example, see the 2014 work "Modulation Effects of Piracetam and Ginkgo biloba on the Cognitive and Working Memory Functions: Psychometric Study". Hope it helps. -- Document hippo (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)