Cognance sublingual?

We just don't know yet. I was adamant about NMN not working sublingually, due to the chemical properties and the published dissolution kinetics. However, some people are swearing by it. I really dislike discounting anecdotes when I hear them from a larger group of people. I know the limitations of the published data at times, and I also know the usefulness of a large sample size of people all reporting their effects. Sometimes the tools and data we have online for a compound are just wrong, or are missing a piece of the puzzle. This was obviously the case with NMN and the Slc12a8 transporter. Till that was discovered, everyone thought NMN had to convert to NR to absorb and get into cells. Now we know that's not the case. Maybe we will find evidence of Slc12a8, or Slc12a8-like, transporters in the mucuos membranes of the mouth. Who knows! The reason I point that out is that, on paper, ebelin lactone probably isn't a good candidate for sublingual absorption. However, we all know "on paper" gets proven wrong all the time. We are going to have to see how a larger sample of people react to it in various scenarios to really make a solid conclusion.

Moreover, we know more about ebelin lactone's pharmacokinetics than we are letting on. I've seen some people trying to parrot around the numbers ADME software is spitting out, and use that as "proof" that ebelin lactone won't absorb orally or pass the BBB. However, we know that is wrong, and we know why that is wrong, but we are working on other patents surrounding the conclusions and findings of that science. We have discovered some really cool stuff in the background. If the popularity of Cognance holds from where it started, or even expands from here, we will have both the justification and funding to do what we planned from the start: lots of scientific studies on it. That includes, eventually, double blind placebo controlled human trials. However, at the start will be receptor docking and human pharmacokinetic studies. Clearly Cognance is having an effect. I know the skeptics out there want desperately to point to placebo, but I have been using it in various situations for over a year. This ain't placebo. Also, everyone completely misunderstands placebo anyway. Placebo is not taking an active compound, but then consciously convincing yourself of other effects. Placebo is taking an inactive compound and realizing statistically-significant effects, both consciously and subconsciously. Nobody is getting a placebo effect with Cognance, because Cognance is not a placebo. Everyone parrots around the term, but what they really mean is response bias. Could early reports from Cognance be, partly or wholly, a result of response bias? Sure, that's a possibility, as it would be in any study as well. However, we have not sent sugar pills to some customers, and active ones to others. If people want to expand the term "placebo" to encompass any positive response bias towards a compound, then I think we lose all the nuance needed to actually understand what the placebo response really is, and if it even exists in a meaningful way consistently across the board. There is debate on whether or not an all-encompassing placebo effect even exists at all, or if the observations of it are a result of the handful of other biases we have to take into account with scientific research: selection bias, response bias, co-intervention bias, attrition bias, outcome reporting bias, and publication bias. People like to feel smart online, so they repeat words they think they understand. However, acting like it is scientific fact that a universal placebo response is a factor in every experience with a compound is not intellectually honest. There have been some studies that showed actual placebo gave pain-killing effects when everything else was controlled. However, it is still subject to the study design itself. Also, we can't study the placebo effect directly, as you can't have a control group for it! How can you have a placebo control group to test the PLACEBO EFFECT? It's impossible. The only way to test it is with a no-treatment control group. However, participants obviously know they took nothing in that group, so how can you ascribe any measured effects in the "active" placebo group that can't be explained by response bias? You can't. Anyway, maybe I should make a post on the placebo effect. I think everyone is missing the forest for the trees here.