Comment · Thu, December 18, 2014 · Ceretropic
Noohack.com example of hyperbolic exaggerating language.
Original post in this thread
theskepticalidealist · 60 points
Sorry to call you out Noohack, but it pisses me off to see companies do this. You're new and you should not go down this road. You're not the only company that exaggerates the effects of nootropics, but this is one of the worst examples I've seen in a while, barring a few notable exceptions.
Oxiracetam does not give you a photographic memory, no "nootropic" does, at least not yet. (And no, saying "near" doesn't help). This is such an exaggeration it might as well be a lie. The old Nootropics.co.uk used to sell similar products (pressed pills of pure powder), but from what I saw they only repeated what the scientific literature said and gave you links to all those studies if you wanted to see them. There's many ways to make a substance sound more effective than it is in a much more honest way.
I expect most people that come to the site anyway will be people that already know about the substance and just want a good deal from a trustworthy vendor. If people (are stupid enough) to buy a product without researching it first, they will be disappointed and you'll have to deal with the complaints and you may even put someone off nootropics com…
What they were answering
theskepticalidealist · 0 points
They don't really make any distinction between phenylpiracetam hydrazide, a research chemical, vs tianeptine, a pharmaceutical drug. They both have essentially the same warning.
Only on the bottle itself. On the phenylpiracetam hydrazide page it clearly says they created this compound and then has the warning in the description. For Tianeptine, it is a very dry description just telling you what it is and how much half a dropper contains with no warning in the description box. Who would buy a product like Tianeptine if they don't know what it does? As you said this warning is for legal purposes, but its also used for substances that are tested and have a good safety profile. So they are labeled "not for human consumption" for legal reasons rather than safety ones. So IOW, Tianeptine is not a new untested chemical that needs to be treated with the same caution as you should something like 9-Flurenol.
Anyway, this isn't comparable to what I'm talking about here, because substances with companies like Noohack are clearly being sold for human consumption and make specific claims as regard to their effects. That's a whole different game.
2-FA was just the first RC that popped into my mind and the chemical name for its analogues don't roll off the tongue like Adderall does, it's just an example.
Ok but as I said it actually is an example that goes against the point you're m…
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
When we first brought out 9-Fluorenol, I admittedly wanted to call it something more marketable. It was, afterall, supposed to be an alternative to modafinil and adrafinil. It has a hydroxyl group and two phenyl groups. Hydrafinil. I did not think of the implications that naming would have on new inexperienced users. /u/Pharnaces_II voiced his displeasure at the naming when the first post was made about it, and I conceded that I had not thought everything through. I do sometimes live in a bubble, since pretty much every waking hour of my life is nootropics now. So that perspective made me think twice about the situation, and I have not changed names for anything since. I even kept the P21 moniker, which does not make a whole lot of sense looking back on it. So I took his statement to heart, and think twice about decisions like that now.
However, bringing me up in a post about outlandish marketing claims seems crazy to me. I don't make marketing claims! The top post on this thread is about an issue which I already addressed, and has nothing to do with what you brought up. Now you are being downvoted for stating the two issues are not the same? There can be no legal distinction between tianeptine and phenylpiracetam hydrazide! Both are research chemicals, since neither of them have been through FDA safety trials. That goes for most nootropics out there. They are NOT approved drugs, and cannot be sold as such! Yes, tianeptine has a lot more history of human use behind it. However, it is not approved in the US. So it should be in the same legal grouping as phenylpiracetam hydrazide, or just pramiracetam. It's not found in nature, and not an approved drug by the FDA. It's a silly distinction, but it's what we have for now.
And afinil is a made up name anyway. Afinil does not mean anything. Cephalon decided to name (RS)-2benzhydrylsulfinylethanehydroxamic acid, adrafinil. They then later synthesized its non-hydroxylated metabolite, and called it modafinil. The afinils are just made up names like our Hydrafinil. 9-fluorenol has the same dual phenyl structure in it that modafinil has, just with an extra carbon bond. I did not see any reason that Hydrafinil was a silly name to give it. Again, I admit the lack of forethought in the implication to new users. However, I maintain the name itself makes sense.