Talk:Vinpocetine

Citation
Citation number 4 seems to be an article written by a company who sells such drugs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.21.200 (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation number 4 seems to be an article written by a company who sells such drugs

Can you please provide the name of the company? Presumably they both sell vinpocetine or other "such drugs" in addition to publishing the Alternative Medicine Review as cited in citation number 4. I'm unaware of the commercial links of the journal, but would be glad to consider any potential conflict of interest. Synapticjunction (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletions
I am deleting the unevidenced statements in this article.

I feel that all assertions or denials in this article should be evidenced. http://www.springerlink.com/content/jn46808130509x42/ http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109670811/abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3714768 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3693872

Just go down the list on google scholar. I cannot find a single study that supports any of the negative results suggested in this article. If any of these edits are factually valid, I should be able to find atleast one citation supporting them, where as I cannot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.179.44 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem with Synapticjunction; he removed a "citation needed" on the statement asserting that there has not been demostration of memory enhancement effects by vinpocetine because... 'Removed "Citation Needed" cannot prove a negative' You cannot square a circle and I can prove it; I cannot understand why people are still going around saying "you cannot prove a negative". I certainly believe that "You cannot prove a negative" is not a reason to remove a "citation needed" from an unqualified claim! Agalmic (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits by commercial interests
I have removed the bourgeoisie statements from this article and improved the wording. Agalmic (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

More deletions
I am removing the following statements from the article "Stomach/ GI upset; headache, dry mouth, rapid heart beat, low blood pressure, and rash/ hives are the main (rarely-occurring) reported side-effects. "

"Vinpocetine has been implicated in one case to induce agranulocytosis, a condition in which granulocytyes - an important type of white blood cell, are markedly decreased."

There is nothing about side effect in any of the peer reviewed studies. These statements are anecdotal reported side effects by poly-drug users in the body building community. In the largest studies to date these side effects have not been reported.

The second statement does not meet notability guidelines and is extremely empirical. This side effect has not been shown in any double blind studies which I am aware of. Agalmic (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it sounds a bit dangerous when you put it like that. Maybe the fact that boby building communities have spotted this in poly-drug trails is note worthy?  There's nothing magical about when drug companies/pharma/and lobby receptive organizations conduct drug studies --unless you count number skewing as magic, heh173.19.251.48 (talk) 06:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Anecdotal evidence from people who are almost certainly filling their bodies with a variety of supplements? Anecdotal evidence, period? Not noteworthty. It's risible that this has been included in this highly skewed article which defies the best scientific knowledge on the subject.
 * "Numerous clinical studies have demonstrated the safety of vinpocetine during long-term administration. It has not been shown to change laboratory tests or produce allergic symptoms. Furthermore, no serious drug-drug interactions have been reported."


 * Wikipedia is meant to gather the best information possible and summarize it for readers. This entire article flies in the face of the scientific literature on the subject. Truthfully it's so far removed from the scientific literature I would go so far as to say the whole article is worthy of deletion. Surely we can do better than this?Telenarn (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation
What is the correct pronunciation of vinpocetine? Is the accent on the second or third syllable? Is "tine" pronounced "tin" or like it rhymes with wine? Shoe (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Banned in Australia - isn't banned as far as I can tell
The statement The sale of vinpocetine as a supplement is banned in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada due to “potential harmful nootropic characteristics”. is based on US sources that don't actually appear to say anything provably so.

If a substance is banned or otherwise controlled in Australia then Australian government agencies would list that on one or more of their official pages. I cannot find any such statement. In addition, vinpocetine is widely available for sale within Australia, which would be highly unlikely if it were banned or controlled.

I am not comfortable with editing the page in this regard (especially in relation to NZ or Canada legality), so if someone else wants to/is editing it then feel free to. I just found the information in the course of researching supplements for my own use.

Cfuse (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Analysis description (under Dietary supplement) is confusing
The 6 supplements that provided dosage info on the label were substantially correct, and that really should stand alone. If you really want to include their serving sizes, they range from 5-32mg -- not 0.3-32mg (though imo that's really germane). The 17 supplements that provided no dosage info on the label should also stand alone, as they're the ones that went as low as 0.32 or even not detectable. The current wording leaves the reader very confused where the groups do or don't overlap.

A clearer rewording of the second paragraph (past the first sentence) to match the sources would be:

Only 6 of the 23 supplement labels (26%) provided consumers with the amount of vinpocetine contained; these were substantially correct. The other 17 of 23 (74%) did not provide any information on the amount of vinpocetine. 6 of these actually contained no vinpocetine at all, while 11 contained widely-varying amounts (almost 40-fold, from 0.32 - 11.92mg per serving).

(I clipped the unintentionally-misleading "mislabeled" bit, since it gives the impression it could apply to the 6 that had dosage info. [It doesn't. If someone thinks it's notable enough to include, the point they were actually raising {viz. Table 1 and the wording just below it} was that a total of 9 of the 17 were "misbranded" rather than "mislabeled". 6 had no vinpocetine, and 3 of the 17 misrepresented the little vinpocetine they had as being a natural constituent of lesser periwinkle.]) 2603:3023:81D:100:8C3:75E7:3B9D:8E5F (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "really germane" above should be "not really germane" 2603:3023:81D:100:8C3:75E7:3B9D:8E5F (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)