Talk:Nootropic

After seeing that the "Piracetam low toxity, no side-effects" harangue's also spread on the substance's Wikipedia page, I feel absolutely compelled to somehow publish and share a scary growing body of knowledge on nightmare-like side-effects reported by users on forums. I do feel so because of my hellish experience with a minimal dose of the substance. I wonder how this information may be correctly posted on the article.

There is some research around Sulbutiamine ( synthetic derivative of thiamine ) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulbutiamine ) that it can be used as a nootropic 80.208.71.138 (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Individual studies & marketing claims would not, by themselves, be sufficient for inclusion under WP:MEDRS. Chronos.Zx (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

It would be interesting to expand the information of this page on how countries other than the United States approach similar nootropic drugs, from sales to banning and regulation by their own health security systems and medical research. ~2026-12267-4 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree there is some systemic US bias in the article, particularly in the sections discussing regulation, supplement marketing, FDA warning letters, and legal status. At present, much of the sourcing comes from U.S. regulatory agencies, which naturally results in a U.S.-focused perspective. Chronos.Zx (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for this article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-80045-2 Hu741f4 (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Chronos.Zx @Bon courage Hu741f4 (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

For what content? Scientific Reports is a notoriously junky journal. Bon courage (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Bon courageMeta-analysis of bacopa-monnieri as a nootropics https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nootropic&diff=prev&oldid=1369370888 Hu741f4 (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Probably just about okay for that (though I'd not argue with anybody who removed it), since a finding of no good evidence is so mundane. WP:MEDSAY could be usefully applied. Bon courage (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

There is limited evidence that Bacopa monnieri improves cognitive performance. Some randomized controlled trials have reported improvements in particular memory measures, but findings regarding the effects of B. monnieri across different cognitive domains have been inconsistent. If you find a few reliable randomized controlled trials regarding this, you can use them as references. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

You cannot, because such sources would need to be WP:MEDRS, and RCTs are primary sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that RCTs are primary sources and should not be used as standalone references for medical claims where WP:MEDRS applies. My point was that reliable RCTs can be useful for identifying the evidence base and for supporting a WP:MEDRS-compliant systematic review or meta-analysis, rather than citing the RCTs directly. If suitable secondary sources summarizing these trials are available, those would of course be preferable. Chronos.Zx (talk) 09:28, 15 August 2026 (UTC)