Noopept self-experiment: no effects

There are no studies investigating sublingual administration of noopept, and the relative bioavailabilities compared to oral/injection. Yes we are making a jump, albeit an educated jump. We know that sublingual bypasses first pass metabolism, and that noopept is extensively metabolized via the liver. That is not the same thing as anecdotal evidence. It may not be the type of evidence you are looking for. However, it would have been easy for you to include that in your study. Again, the results would be limited to you personally. However, the results would be interesting.

The studies you cited on Wikipedia seem to indicate that Noopept gets across the BBB fine.

It does. That is why injections work. We are worried about the enzymes in the GI tract and liver, though. That is the issue with oral. If you bypass those, then it has a much greater chance to pass the BBB. If the GI tract and liver breaks it down, it never gets a chance to pass the BBB.

Because the anecdotes seem to generally be oral doses smaller than mine, so now we have a problem: either I've effectively disproven all the anecdotes and the anecdotes are being driven by (surprise surprise) placebo, self-justification, non-random consumption patterns, biased data collection etc, or you have disproven them with your sublingual argument; either way, why should I believe you - you don't seem able to produce a study showing that sublingual pwns oral, so you must be going off your personal experience... the same personal experience which has just been disproven by either you or me.

I am discussing mechanisms, not anecdotes. You cannot equate the educated assumption that sublingual has increased bioavailability, when we know it is extensively metabolized in the GI tract and liver, to people self reporting results. There is no study doing a direct comparison of sublingual to oral, so we have to go on assumptions based on mechanisms. If I had said believe me, I feel it more vial sublingual, then we would be talking anecdotes.

Where do they say that? When I was looking through human trials on Pubmed, none of them seem to specify sublingual in the abstracts that I could tell.

This was in Russian, and was translated by another Redditor. Unfortunately I do not have the link handy, and have not verified with anyone else whether or not his translation was correct.

Hold on, your quote doesn't say 'peroral', it says 'parenteral'. Parenteral[2] is also IV.

Yes, that was the point. Peroral took 10 times the dosage to reach the same concentration as injection. The later study showed that oral administration did not lead to any of the good metabolites, but that IV did. Again, I cannot show you a study that proves sublingual does the same. But the enzymes in your plasma are different than the enzymes in your GI tract and liver. The enzymes that sublingual would hit are the same as IV, with the exception of a few in your mouth. So bypassing those enzymes in the GI tract and stomach are going to drastically eliminate the initial metabolism, and make the sublingual metabolites much closer to the IV metabolites. Again, I cannot prove that to you, since nobody has thought to do a sublingual study.

So you are right, I cannot provide you with a study proving what I am saying. All I can give you is evidence for the mechanisms behind the theory. Until someone does a sublingual study, or we fund one ourselves, that is all we can go on. For you to include a sublingual aspect to your personal study would not be difficult, and could give us more relevant data. Saying that you do not think it should be done, because nobody else has done a sublingual study, seems silly to me. It's not done until someone does it. Again, that is why I made it clear that I am not saying it would for sure alter the results of your testing. But this is a very valid variable to be tested.