Comment · Tue, May 10, 2016 · Ceretropic & Nootropics Depot
Why is there such little information on N-Acetyl Semax Amidate or N-Acetyl Selank?
What they were answering
112358134 · 0 points
Ok. Thank you for your opinion. I agree that it's more useful to think about how we can improve things, instead of spending time on thinking why they were not improved before.
But sometimes is might pay off to think a little bit about the experience that people had before you, given that you want to avoid their mistakes.
In this case we are speaking about Semax, so let us not generalise about all drugs and their modifications in general, as every situation is unique.
1. "The first time around" was a research project commissioned by a ministry of defence that lasted for many years and involved a lot of good scientists.
2. You are saying that "Acetylating and amidating of peptides is very common"
________________________________________________________________________________________
Therefore, in this case it is not "a crazy thing to think" that they did actually try acetylating and amidating.
Very likely is that they actually tried a lot more before figuring out the final formula and that they consciously decided to stick with it because of various reasons.
It's great that Semax gained popularity outside of Russia and that you also came up with the modifications to the original formula, which many people find useful. But the question remains and I hope we will know the answer sometime.
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Ceretropic & Nootropics Depot
Ok. Thank you for your opinion. I agree that it's more useful to think about how we can improve things, instead of spending time on thinking why they were not improved before. But sometimes is might pay off to think a little bit about the experience that people had before you, given that you want to avoid their mistakes.
Who says I didn't? I did a ton of research on Semax and Selank before we brought the normal versions out. Then I did a lot more research on peptides, and how to improve them, before I brought out the newer versions. I spoke with people who had masters in pharmaceutical drug design, and bounced all my ideas off them. I thought in great detail about those who came before me, because without their work, we would not be here right now. I have all the full studies done on it, and have read through them many times. I've also read through other papers where they took the smaller sequence in Semax, proline-glycine-proline, and investigated adding N-acetyl and C-amide groups to it. I just applied that to the full Semax sequence, rather than just the PGP end of things. You are acting like I did no research, and took nothing from previous researchers into account. I've read through hundreds of studies on peptides now, and applied that knowledge in interesting ways. If the basic N-acetyl and C-amide modifications concern you, you'll really freak out when you see the other new versions of Semax I am going to bring out soon.
Anyone can say "Well what if someone did think of this, and they did not find it worked well?" However, we have no evidence that anyone did. So trying to prove a negative gets us nowhere. It's like a religious person always saying "well prove god doesn't exist." You can't. It's a useless argument. I cannot prove to you that nobody before me acetylated and amidated Semax, and found reasons to not use it. However, there is no evidence anyone did, and no reason to take a hypothetical situation into account. Sure, it's not crazy to think that some Russian scientist might have investigated N-Acetyl Semax Amidate, found it to not be ideal, then did not publish anything about it. However, a lack of evidence trumps a speculative possibility every day in my book. There is no evidence that Russian researchers synthesized and tested N-Acetyl Semax Amidate, and found it to be less ideal than regular Semax.