Jonathan_Graehl comments on Nootropics and Cognitive-enhancement Discussion Area - Less Wrong

3 Post author: knb 29 September 2010 05:29AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (31)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 08 October 2010 07:12:05PM *  0 points [-]

On 51:

5g/day to severe concussion victims

weak evidence for some side effects: anxiety, insomnia, nervousness, tremor (I haven't experienced any of those; these seem hard to separate from the concussion symptoms)

no change in blood pressure or heart rate

gradual and significantly better than placebo improvement over 8 weeks in headache/vertigo symptoms post-concussion. insignificantly more improvement than placebo in memory, tremor, and fainting-from-standing ('orthostatic symptoms'). placebo patients reported 2.1 side effects on avg; 5g piracetam reported 2.3 on avg.

no mention of headaches caused by piracetam or choline

Comment author: gwern 08 October 2010 07:47:26PM 0 points [-]

'Headache' is kind of a vague term; wouldn't surprise me if 'anxiety' or others subsumed it.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 08 October 2010 08:38:50PM 0 points [-]

That would be very strange. I don't believe it.

Here's what I think: the study was of people with ongoing post-concussion headaches. Therefore it made no sense to ask if they were getting headaches as a side effect. The 5g/day piracatem group reported a significantly larger improvement (decrease) in headaches than the placebo group.

Comment author: gwern 08 October 2010 09:10:12PM 1 point [-]

That seems plausible. Maybe you should complain on the piracetam talk page.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 08 October 2010 10:58:24PM 0 points [-]

Yeah; it's shocking how badly a Wikipedia-cite can fail at living up to what's promised (sentence is edited without checking that cite supports the edited version?). I thought about making a correction but will probably pass.

By the way, I don't doubt that the Wikipedia sentence you quoted me is true; it's just that the cites (required by Wikipedia policy) are inappropriate - to our mutual surprise.

Comment author: gwern 09 October 2010 12:33:01AM 0 points [-]

Probably what happened is the sentence grew by accretion, and that cite about concussion victims being helped by piracetam was originally being used for something other than choline alleviating problems. There are tools to search through history, but I don't care enough to refind them.