Talk:ALTO-100

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Questionable content

The whole part about "NSI-189 has been shown to increase the hippocampal volume of adult mice by 20%" makes me cringe, the reference has zero value and no indication about where the information comes from. The reference also mentions that "The commercial antidepressants were showing hippocampal volume increases of about 5% or below" which I have no idea if it is true or not. If anyone could provide sources for either of these claims I'd be delighted, otherwise I'm likely to remove the entire Pharmacology section soon. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the section for now as it's still unreferenced. Aethyta (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotic reverts by fools make me question humanity

NSI-189 is chemically similar to piberaline, a BZP prodrug. That is is relevant information, by nature not in need for citations. Everyone has eyes to see. If you were to remove "GHB is chemically close to GABA" from the GHB page, you would be as much making a fool of yourself (**fool**). PLEASE CHECK ON MAKING SOME SENSE - **IMBECILES**. WP:BURDEN my ass, how **oblivious of reality** must one be to need a citation for that? Do you think your paltry insults are funny, **shithead**? My manners surely are. Come police this shit, fuck. 14:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)C0NPAQ (talk) shoa

@C0NPAQ: The chemical similarity between GHB and GABA is far stronger (only differs by GABA having an azanide group (H2N) instead of GHB's hydroxyl group). It seems clear that NSI-189 shares a large part of it's structure with piberaline, but it's really not as similar as one would expect from such a statement (when read by someone less knowledgeable in chemistry/pharmacology they might infer some similarity beyond the structural). I agree that claiming WP:BURDEN might be a bit ridiculous in this case, but I still think that the mention of chemical similarity doesn't belong in the article. If these kinds of minor things make you question humanity, I wonder how you deal with the current state of political affairs. ;) Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reasonable reply. Since politics is far better solved by the upcoming singularity, there is no need for politicians to make sense. However, there is a need for exhaustive information on nootropics, to people who create it. 23:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)C0NPAQ (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC) shoa[reply]

Questionable content

Idiotic reverts by **fools** make me question humanity

Idiotic reverts by fools make me question humanity