Comment · Wed, June 17, 2015 · Ceretropic
Ceretropic's EPITALON
Original post in this thread
stackonstackonstack · 30 points
just got an e-mail. don't know much about it right now. Wanted to hear what the peanut gallery's got especially studies...
What they were answering
NotHyplon · 2 points
Personal pet theory(also i know Noopept appeared mid 90-'s but i doubt the system changed radically in a few years):
One thing on the older ones (not sure how old this one is) is that medical ethics boards were probably a lot different under the Soviet system as well as drug development as a whole.
For example Western company's are researching the next "blockbuster" med including things for ED. The research is very much targeted at profitability. What's profitable is not always what's needed and vice versa.
When you look at some of the stuff coming out of the USSR you can kind of see they were going all over the place and focusing in on performance enhancers (both physical and cognitive). So things like Noopept pop up because it can help the collective people work better. Had Noopept been worked on in the Western world it would be an interesting footnote in some teams lab journal because it would not be picked up and marketed. Even Piracetam is barely used and only in very specific cases.
Chances are some of this attitude still persists in Russia today, after all today's Professors were the USSR's research assistants.
Another example would be NSI-189. We know anecdotally it can work quite well (personally it is awesome but I'm dyslexic so that could throw things) but Neuralstem are not looking at it as a cognitive enhancer but instead for applications on Alzheimer's and A…
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic
The attitudes are certainly different; as are the regulations. The US is all about treating diseases with patentable compounds, and the FDA is there to regulate that. The issue is that nothing gets put through FDA trials unless they are sponsored by a company. So if something is not patentable, or will not show promise in treating a known disease, then those compounds never see the light of day. That environment is not conducive to enhancement, nor progress in general. It is a profit-driven construct. There should be ways to use government funding to put things through trials that are either off-patent, or are not specifically designed to treat a disease.