Comment · Wed, August 12, 2020 · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
Has taking nootropics changed the way you perceive reality?
Original post in this thread
duhduhtss · 170 points
Has your nootropic use changed the way you perceive or react to reality? Has it changed your understanding of reality as a concept as well?
For example, I’ve noticed that I have been a lot more confident in general after taking Phenibut or phenylethylamine, even after I stopped taking it. I used to be insecure and think that people were making fun of me. I guess after trying those nootropics, I realized that there was more ways to perceive the current moment than what I was used to. So, instead of thinking that people bullied me I started thinking that they really like me. I realized that neither is more true than the other because I have no idea what anybody is actually thinking. So why not choose one thats more positive? After adopting that mindset on and off nootropics, more people began to like me and my charm amplified. It’s to the point where I’m secure and I don’t care about other people’s thoughts.
My point is that my use of nootropics have made me consider point of views that I wouldn’t have before and understand all of the little ways one can actually perceive reality.
What they were answering
rmcfar11 · 2 points
Okay, I think I may have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to industry backed research. For THAT, you would need a profitable outlook and FDA backing. By FDA backing, I mean a concept that the FDA would agree to regulate and except as scientific fact with which patient/personal health suggestions can be made.
You're talking, purely about the research aspect and pursuit of truth. I assume you're referring to NIH grant funding, as one example, or university research as another? I believe China and, somewhat surprisingly to me at least, many of the countries in the middle east, do this quite well. These two parties makeup the majority of the geographical locations that most of the natural product research comes from, at least in my own experience studying various topics.
No, you're correct, the FDA doesn't back anything, per say. However, as long as they don't speak out directly against it when it's brought to their attention, that same power is wielded as though it were backing, if that makes sense? e.g. if they said something like recent trials would suggest curcumin is beneficial in x disease, the industry could use that as a greenlight to push forward on it. (For anyone else reading, that curcumin statement was 100% fictitious!)
u/MisterYouAreSoDumb · Natrium Health & Nootropics Depot
Okay, I think I may have misunderstood. I thought you were referring to industry backed research. For THAT, you would need a profitable outlook and FDA backing. By FDA backing, I mean a concept that the FDA would agree to regulate and except as scientific fact with which patient/personal health suggestions can be made.
I think we should try and get away from industry-backed research some. Science should be objective, and you can't be objective when the results of your scientific research can make or break your company.
You're talking, purely about the research aspect and pursuit of truth. I assume you're referring to NIH grant funding, as one example, or university research as another? I believe China and, somewhat surprisingly to me at least, many of the countries in the middle east, do this quite well. These two parties makeup the majority of the geographical locations that most of the natural product research comes from, at least in my own experience studying various topics.
Correct! Also, I think the way China and other countries fund their research are going to put them ahead of the US soon. We are falling by the wayside with the rest of the world, because we are letting profit and patentability drive things. China just funds tons of research just to see what sticks. We need to have some of that to be at the top again. Otherwise we are just going to keep descending into a corporate pharma state. We were at our best when we used public funding to research all sorts of things. It led to massive advancements, which also led to economic benefits as well. DARPA funding the development of the internet is one example. We are at our best when we use public funding to help advance everyone, and let private industries innovate based off that research. Paywalling scientific findings is such a bastardization of what science should be. We all deserve to read the results of this research. It's human knowledge, and trying to privatize human knowledge is one of the more disgusting aspects of modern capitalism. Don't get me wrong, I am a capitalist. However, there needs to be limits. It needs to be in furtherance of the public good, not in furtherance of limited private gains at the expense of public good.
No, you're correct, the FDA doesn't back anything, per say. However, as long as they don't speak out directly against it when it's brought to their attention, that same power is wielded as though it were backing, if that makes sense? e.g. if they said something like recent trials would suggest curcumin is beneficial in x disease, the industry could use that as a greenlight to push forward on it. (For anyone else reading, that curcumin statement was 100% fictitious!)
They won't do that. They would like nothing more than to regulate supplements as drugs like they tried in the past. The system is broken as it stands. It hobbles along while steamrolling the general public. I totally get why they need to take COVID-19 profiteering seriously. There are pieces of shit out there trying to capitalize off a pandemic. However, there has to be limits. We should be able to speak about things like zinc and other dietary stuff that might reduce risks, but you will get steamrolled if you even use the word COVID-19. There has to be a balance there. Nuance has no place in modern society, and it is a damn shame.