The Following Is An Excerpt from The Brighter Mind® Book:

The Nootropic Solution

According to Merrill Lynch, the unpredictable cost of illness and healthcare is by far the biggest fear of the baby-boomer population. In fact, “boomers” are three times more worried about the experience of a major illness than about dying. Arguably the most dreaded of the illnesses that strike aging people is Alzheimer's disease, with its relentless erosion of memory and personality. This subject gnaws at the edges of baby boomers' minds just as surely as they are aging with every passing tick of the clock.

Of course, a little uneasiness is understandable; unfortunately, not everyone gracefully glides into his or her later years with perfect – or, even, acceptably average – memory and mental function. With this said, however, age-associated memory impairment1 does not necessarily have to develop into Alzheimer’s disease. Although the symptoms of age-associated memory impairment may be similar to those of early Alzheimer’s, the reality is the two conditions take completely separate and distinctly different paths. Thankfully, most people with mild to moderate memory lapses will never experience the mind-numbing, life-altering affects of Alzheimer’s disease.

¹Age-associated memory impairment: a normal decline in memory after approximately age 45, including minor disturbances in short-term recall, attention span, and reaction time.

More specifically: not all cases of severe memory loss, dementia, or serious cognitive dysfunction are Alzheimer’s disease. Today, science has shown us that many of the cases falling into these categories – especially those that have been erroneously diagnosed as Alzheimer’s disease – are reversible. Probably the most intriguing revelation here is that many of the causes of cognitive dysfunction, memory loss and dementia can be influenced with the proper nutrients, and that even the risk factors associated with Alzheimer’s disease can be powerfully and significantly reduced.

Nootropics: An Introduction

Over 30 years have passed since the nootropic revolution quietly began with the development of a drug called Piracetam. This “smart-drug” is, chemically speaking, very close to L-pyroglutamic acid, an amino acid-like ingredient commonly found in food. Ultimately, piracetam showed incredible medical efficacy with a virtual absence of toxicity and side effects – something rarely seen with more standard medical drugs. Since then, this field of medicine has quite literally exploded with research and growth. Today, this scientific movement has produced several natural compounds that offer incredible promise, and not only in the realm of fighting disease or in postponing or even reversing "normal" brain aging. Many of these ingredients have been shown to make "normal" brains work even better!

Since the application of the term “nootropic” – which comes from a Greek word meaning “acting on the mind” – by a researcher at the Belgium pharmaceutical company that introduced Piracetam, scientists around the world have been scrambling to discover, research, and expand this valuable category of nutritional medicine. Some examples of nootropics that have been well-researched and recommended by leading physicians around the world include phosphatidylserine, L-alpha-glycero-phosphorylcholine (GPC), acetyl-L-carnitine, and vinpocetine.

When you dive into the scientific research literature on nootropics, you will see that there are many incredible North American scientists who have made extraordinary contributions to society by devoting their lives to this important subject. For instance: Thomas H. Crook III, PhD, a renowned memory assessment expert pioneered clinical research on phosphatidylserine and has authored and co-authored more than 175 peer-reviewed journal articles to date; Parris Kidd, PhD, a leading international authority in the roles of phospholipids in brain functions; and Michael John Glade, PhD, CCN, FACN, whose research on legitimate, science-based health claims for nutritional ingredients has paved the way for the approval of those health claims by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Dr. Glade’s work has appeared in many leading mainstream medical journals, including the Journal of the American Medical Association, the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, and the American Journal of Veterinary Research.

Follow the Money

Much of the work and research in the field of nutritional medicine has been performed outside of the United States, and there are several good reasons for this. The pharmaceutical industry in the United States has locked the FDA into a vice-grip of formalities that simultaneously serve the pharmaceutical interests and create a chilling effect on research, development, and approval of natural compounds, and on the marketing of their health benefits.

I do not surmise that this has occurred because the pharmaceutical industry, or the people who support and run it, are evil and engaged in some conspiracy to keep Americans sick. Rather, this scenario has evolved over several decades because of the economics of the United States patent process and the approval process of the Food and Drug Administration. These two forces push the creation of novel, synthetic, man-made compounds that, in turn, are exclusive to the companies that make the colossal investment in their discovery, research, manufacture and marketing. Just for fun, let’s shed light on the situation described above by imagining the economic contrast between the pharmaceutical model and a nutritional company trying to do business in the United States. Let’s call our fictitious nutritional company New Nutrition, and let’s pretend that this company chooses to invest mightily in the research, development, and marketing benefits of a natural compound that can be extracted from certain foods.

After all of the investment in time, energy, and money into research and development of this new all-natural compound, no patent can be issued because this ingredient is found in foods and has been found in foods for millennia. New Nutrition chooses to market this natural ingredient anyhow – even though the Food and Drug Administration will in no way allow New Nutrition to communicate to the public what exactly the science shows that their product does for people’s health.2 Other companies can take advantage of New Nutrition’s investment in R&D, making their own version and selling it at a competitive price because no patent protection can be obtained for a natural product.

²As this chapter is being written, the FDA is threatening to raid North American fruit orchards. While various agencies of the federal government encourage us to eat more fruits and vegetables, the FDA has issued an edict that precludes fruit growers and associated companies from posting scientific data on their websites. This censorship of published peer-reviewed studies denies consumers access to information that could be used to make healthier food choices.

Take this not-so-imaginary scenario a step further. Envision the company in which you would choose to invest your retirement savings. Would it be the pharmaceutical company who owns all of the science as well as the exclusive marketing rights to their product, or New Nutrition – the company that’s not allowed to tell the public what their product does? Clearly, the pharmaceutical model is more profitable. If a company creates a product, owns it exclusively, and can communicate what their product does with almost no concern of regulatory hassle, as is the case with the pharmaceutical model, it stands to make a bigger profit.

This model has evolved into a multi-hundred-billion dollar Goliath that powerfully affects the political system on Capitol Hill. It’s been said that a pharmaceutical company can have a lobbyist standing in every congressman and congresswoman’s office simultaneously within an hour for the purpose of “sharing” with congress their particular interest of the day. That’s power.

Instead of exclusively patenting novel, synthetic, man-made compounds, much of the world outside of the United States studies natural ingredients that heal the human body. They patent their methods of extracting, capturing, producing, processing or manufacturing the natural compound. While not as strong a protection as a patent for a novel compound created by manipulating molecules in a sterile laboratory, this allows the companies to manufacture and market natural ingredients in a profitable business model.

As a result, physicians in Europe write prescriptions for ingredients like saw palmetto for prostate disorders in men and L-alpha-glycero-phosphorylcholine (GPC) and other natural compounds to treat symptoms of mental dysfunction and dementia. A wealth of natural products research from Europe and around the world follows a solid scientific and pharmaceutical model of research, testing, and development, showing us exactly what these natural ingredients can do to improve the health of the brain and improve mental performance.

When we consider that World Health Organization surveys show that these countries are hands-down beating the United Stated in terms of overall health outcomes, it’s easy to see that incredible good could come from listening to these European researchers. The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country on health care, but its actual performance ranks 37th out of 191 countries. If American research can shift gears, the voices of our top physicians and researchers could add to the ground-breaking research and health improvements that are occurring worldwide. Our nation could spend less on health care and be healthier if we adhered more closely to the European model.

Beware The Naysayers

Physicians are not always open to or interested in natural ingredients that may change how they practice. Pharmaceutical companies are doing just fine without research and development of natural ingredients, and are not eager to change how they do business. These are two steady sources of messages that egregiously state: “there’s little science behind nutrients for improving brain function.” In this book you have read about reams of studies to the contrary. Why would an individual or organization make such a false statement? Why would they ignore all of the peer-reviewed research? We all know why: these parties are strongly influenced by financial concerns. They’re following the money. That’s how the system is set up.

History has shown that this kind of erroneous advice – based not on scientific reality but on the desire to protect one’s professional or business interests – is dangerous to the health of those who depend on that advice.

James Lind discovered that eating citrus fruits like limes, lemons and oranges would cure and prevent scurvy. Forty years passed before his discovery was accepted by the medical establishment of his day. In the meantime, thousands of men and women suffered or died from scurvy. And about 50 years passed after Semelweiss observed the relationship between physicians’ unwashed hands and post-partum sepsis before hand-washing in obstetric practice became procedure.

Not much has changed:

Despite a wealth of scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis, companies who sell these ingredients are not allowed to communicate this to potential customers! Lack of this knowledge contributes to pain, suffering, and disability in at least 20 million Americans each year.

You have now seen that there is convincing research that shows that omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of sudden death from heart attack. Censorship of this claim contributes to a preventable 110,000 sudden death heart attacks each year.

The Food and Drug Administration prohibited the health claim that folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for at least four years – even as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that every woman of childbearing age should supplement with folic acid to reduce neural tube defects. This delay contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable birth defects!

The reality is this: If you sell a product that contains natural ingredients, you cannot in any way legally share or communicate non-FDA-approved health claims with potential customers – even when those claims are supported by extensive research. This is, for all intents and purposes, censorship. The very information that could be used to make healthier decisions, save lives, and reduce suffering is suppressed in the United States today.

Does this system sound like it’s fouled up to you? It is – not because the Food and Drug Administration or the Federal Trade Commission (the enforcement arm of the Food and Drug Administration) are made up of bad people. It’s because they have firmly planted the heels of their leather-soled dress shoes into a system that resists change.

Ironically, the system was set up this way over time with the intention of helping doctors to sort good remedies from bad – to help them avoid getting onto every new bandwagon that came along. In the early days of the Food and Drug Administration, the bandwagons were probably filled with herbs, tree bark and snake oil ointments. Today, it’s hard to get powerful government entities to recognize that herbs, tree bark and even snake oil and other naturally occurring ingredients may possess scientifically valid medicinal properties after all.

Individual members of the pharmaceutical, medical, and government organizations mired in the status quo fear reprisal from their peers – who, quite frankly, would like things to remain just as they are. In a bureaucracy characterized by the proliferation of antiquated formalities and red tape, most individuals try not to be the person to announce to the higher-ups that the science has shifted. Who wants to be the guy or gal who looks the Donald Trump-like boss in the eye and says, “uh…Hey, look, boss…there’s something to this snake-oil stuff after all”?

Evidence with the power to shift old thinking within an organization has to be so overwhelming that it is accepted as fact by virtually everyone in that organization. And that’s the problem. It takes a long, long time to get a bunch of change-hating scientists and lawyers who belong to the same organization to agree about anything – especially when many have a financial interest in keeping things as they are, and don’t have the vision to look downstream and see how their interests and the interests of the American population could be helped by new information.

Often, when a government organization or agency finally recognizes that a certain product or ingredient does actually improve health, they are in the awkward position of having prosecuted, persecuted, attacked, financially devastated, and disparaged companies and individuals in the past for trying to communicate the healing message about that product or ingredient to the world. When those forward-thinking individuals and companies who have been accused of making unsubstantiated health claims were actually relying on scientific evidence, yet the government organization refused to recognize the evidence for merely political reasons, that organization isn’t going to have a very good day in the national press.

Looking good in the press helps these organizations to go to Congress, brag about all the good they are doing every year, and increase their budgets. Raises all around! More enforcement

I hope it’s clear how institutional, financial, and political barriers interrupt or stall the delivery of innovative tools in natural medicine – tools that could dramatically improve your experience of health. Don’t assume that the nay-sayers are telling you the whole truth. Go with the science – not with the special-interest peddlers.

A Healthy Skepticism…Towards Skepticism!

You’ve probably heard the old saying, “don’t believe everything you read.” Unfortunately, with the advent of the Internet careful scrutiny of everything you read is even more essential. The posting of an article or opinion on a Web site does not make it fact, even if it’s written by a doctor or backed by an organization.

While the Internet allows for much freedom of expression, it also allows for many to be seriously misled unless they carefully analyze all aspects of information provided. Web sites with obscure backers are notorious for denigrating notable figures in the field of natural medicine who have refused to limit their study of nutrition to the antiquated and narrow confines set by conventional medicine, powerful drug companies, and those who seek to protect the status quo.

The Internet has greatly improved our ability to research almost any issue of interest, but it is also used as a forum for unwarranted and unsolicited attacks on researchers and public figures whose lives are devoted to improving health care. Allegations like these are not subjected to any kind of regulatory scrutiny or review for credibility by a reputable publisher prior to being posted on a Web site. Bear in mind when using the Internet that some Web sites deliberately attempt to mislead by taking facts out of context, providing incomplete information, and flat out ignoring or even discrediting clinically validated data contained in published peer-reviewed scientific literature.

A few Web sites bash any clinician, researcher, or author who seeks to promote the management of health conditions through dietary, nutritional, and lifestyle modifications rather than solely focusing on the use of drugs and more invasive medical procedures. While such Web sites frequently deny that they are backed by wealthy pharmaceutical manufacturers or conventional MDs who feel their businesses may be threatened by the development of new and better methods for treatment of patients, I hope that you will make an effort to see through this brand of skepticism and ultimately see that it’s not really skepticism at all. It’s politics.

Many who loudly advertise themselves as skeptics are actually disbelievers. A skeptic is a nonbeliever: a person who refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. A disbeliever, on the other hand, is characterized by a haughty belief that a certain idea is just plain wrong. And this individual will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence to the contrary – ever. This individual can not in any way accurately identify him or herself as objective, or be considered a scientist. He or she cannot be a reliable or trusted voice with regards to evaluating what therapy, nutritional or otherwise, may be effective for improving health.

The Needs Of The Many

A system that harshly opposes the needs of so many people simply will not last. The PriceWaterhouse Coopers HealthCast 2010 Report predicts that well within the decade, the healthcare system we presently have in place will no longer be recognizable. It will undergo a dramatic restoration.

The pharmaceutical industry is part of the problem – and a big part of the solution. They are tightly woven into this whole problematic conglomeration we currently call healthcare, but as we move away from the treatment of diseases to the promotion of healthy function, the pharmaceutical companies will naturally shift from earning all of their money from disease-treating drugs to products that help improve function and reap profits.

This natural shift is already occurring around the world. The ingredients you will discover in chapters to come are produced in pharmaceutical companies in countries like Italy, Germany, Switzerland and Japan. And this model of producing optimal health outcomes through targeted nutrients and natural ingredients is something that the world is absolutely embracing right now – and you can see and hear the wave coming to the United States. The evidence is all around us. We have the tools to produce exceptional outcomes in medicine through nutritional ingredients right now!

The science is here, so let’s get started.