Phenibut nootropic claim validity

[ClarityPSY]

Phenibut is often claimed by retailers and in online forums to possess nootropic properties. For whatever reason, I can't help but be highly skeptical of this claim. However, I am having trouble formulating an argument in a proper scientific fashion. Can anyone care to guide me through the process of critically evaluating this claim?

What an online search revealed:

- There seems to be only a single source for this claim (surely this is a possible red flag), in a review paper by Izyaslav Lapin titled "Phenibut (?-Phenyl-GABA):A Tranquilizer and Nootropic Drug". Relevant passages:

In the passive avoidance test in mice PB at small doses (5 to 10 mg/kg i.p.) facilitated formation of the conditioned reflex (38). The latency for the entry into the dark section of a chamber was 91 ? 154 sec in control animals and 284 ? 45 sec in animals treated with 5 mg/kg i.p. of PB (p< 0.05). The total time spent in the dark part of the chamber was 108 ? 28 sec in control animals and 38 ? 12 sec in PB-treated animals (p< 0.02). In addition, PB antagonized the amnestic effects of chloramphenicol, 100 mg/kg i.p. At doses of 10 to 20 mg/kg i.p. PB enhanced the performance of mice in the swimming and rotating rod tests (38). Chronic administrationof PB (50 mg/kg i.p., twice daily for 5 days) promoted a tolerance to its sedative action on the last day of treatment while its nootropic effect was enhanced.

and

In some Russian reference books PB is listed as a tranquilizer, in others as a nootropic agent.

Okay, so there were studies in mice done that showed that they showed less passive avoidance, and that performed on swimming and rotating rod tests better.

How does this lead to the conclusion that their cognition has been enhanced? (i.e. what understanding of cognition are they using) And moreso, how can we assume that this effect still applies to humans in a meaningful way? It seems incredibly preliminary and baseless to me, but I do think it's possible that I just don't understand the specific way the terms are being used.

Left with only these pieces of information, where does one normally go from here? I assume I have to read more on the formal/operational definition of cognition and how data from animal studies fit into it, but otherwise I'm pretty lost. Perhaps I am just not sold on the basic premise of nootropics. Is there anything I could read that would help situate me, so I don't just follow my gut and reject it out of hand (at least in very suspect cases like these).

Moreover, what would be required to be able to accept this evidence?

Thanks!

 

[markosheehan]

There is actually alot of Russian studies from the 80s claiming in humans it had a nootrophic affect. These studies however are not on our internet. Try to contact russian researchers and they can share this info with you.

Also go to goggle.ru and you will find more info.