Medications vs. Non-Pharm Alternatives


Educated Opinions
Informing personal CHOICE

© Madelyn Griffith-Haynie, CTP, CMC, ACT, MCC, SCAC
from the Non-Pharm Alternatives Series

Expanding a Comment

The genesis for this article is my response to a comment left on an earlier article, my first on a recently new non-pharmaceutical alternative claiming wonderful improvements to the brain’s Executive Functioning: entitled  Neuroflexyn: BUYER BEWARE.

By the way, I’m still reserving judgment on the value of Neuroflexyn until I’ve been able to give it a solid one month trial, as promised. Life events interrupted my trial after two weeks, so I plan to begin anew before reporting my experience. Meanwhile, my jury’s still out.

Why expand a response to a comment on an earlier article?

Since my articles tend to be lengthy, I know that many of you seldom read the comments – especially since,  at times, some of my replies seem almost as long as the original posts.

I believe that the particular point I was making subtly in one particular response to a comment cannot be stressed too often, so I have decided to expand it into a blog post of its own, quite a bit more overtly.

Demonizing is Dumb

As I continue to affirm, I believe it is a big mistake to demonize pharmaceutical approaches OR non-pharmaceutical alternatives simply because they didn’t work for us personally.

People are different and brains are different – and each of us has the right and responsibility to decide for ourselves what we will or will not ingest.

Read more of this post

Neuroflexyn: Jury still out


Email reply bodes well
Responsive companies are usually
trustworthy companies

© Madelyn Griffith-Haynie, CTP, CMC, ACT, MCC, SCAC
from the Non-Pharm Alternatives Series

Not at all fearful of prescription medication when warranted, I have always been ALL FOR effective non-pharmaceutical alternatives when available.

The question in my mind was (and is) whether Neuroflexyn will be among them – and for what segment of the population (since nothing works across-the-board for everyone who struggles.)

FIRST instincts (a summary)

“Preliminary findings: short and not so sweet” is how I began my prior article entitled Neuroflexyn: BUYER BEWARE – Lack of information vs. marketing is suspicious — where I encouraged you, as always, to READ WITH YOUR BRAIN ENGAGED.

SINCE that time, I received an email from someone involved with the company.

As I indicated in a top-of-that-article update, I requested and received permission to share it with you.

I will continue with additional comments following their email.

(The image at left is from the Amazon site, where you will find additional reviews of the product.)

Quick Review for Context

My initial article began with the information below, which will help with context for their reply for any of you who don’t jump over to read that first (which, obviously, I strongly recommend).

Too good to be true?

A plethora of marketing-posing-as-information articles make some pretty amazing claims about the benefits of Neuroflexyn. I’ll admit that I was tempted to purchase as I read them – which is what launched me on the informational research trail.

Product marketing swears that Neuroflexyn has been “proven” to significantly increase IQ as it enhances memory, concentration, intentional focus — productivity practically across the board, in fact.

In addition, again according to their marketing, this new “supplement” dramatically increases cognition and intelligence with NO reported side effects — despite the reality that, as a supplement, this new product currently flies beneath FDA radar, so the manufacturers can pretty much claim anything they want.

Initial Concerns

My initial objection was to current “ask for the sale” marketing approaches that attempt to sweeten response rate by urging readers to take hasty action for fear of losing some advantage or opportunity if they take a day or more to think things over or investigate other options.

According to the email below, this is NOT what Neuroflexyn’s marketing game-plan endorses – actively opposing, it asserts.

My second concern was that there was little to be found from mainstream scientists, doctors, or the credible nootropic community leadership (at least, not that I was able to find in a couple of hours online).

Only time will tell which “experts” will respond — favorably or not — since Neuroflexyn is still a brand new product.

To be CLEAR: Silence doesn’t always indicate LACK of endorsement – but it certainly is a reason for caution and further investigation before jumping on the bandwagon ourselves.

My parting comments were that it will take more INFORMATION to change my mind and that I’d LOVE to be proven wrong about my initial assessment of this product.

It would seem, from the email below, that the folks at Neuroflexyn are willing to do what they can toward the same objective.

If it improves my own cognition substantially I’ll continue to take it – in addition to or instead of my current medication.

Read it for yourselves, immediately below.

Don’t forget that you can always check out the sidebar
for a reminder of how links work on this site, they’re subtle ==>

Read more of this post

Neuroflexyn: BUYER BEWARE


Lack of information vs. marketing is suspicious
Read with your brain engaged

© Madelyn Griffith-Haynie, CTP, CMC, ACT, MCC, SCAC
from the Non-Pharm Alternatives Series

UPDATE 1/9/15: VERY early this morning, I received an interesting email from a member of the Neuroflexin organization in response to this article.

I have replied, seeking their permission to post it online – so say tuned as I check them out further.

BY THE WAY:  It was respectful and seemingly concerned about the sensationalism around the web – which they say they do not condone or promote.  Bodes well, huh?

#2 UPDATE – 1/14/15: They have responded with permission – to be fair, I will put it in a new post with a new (and more hopeful) title, rather than adding it in a comment to a post that begins with “Buyer Beware.”
 — Link now at the bottom of this article in Related Content —

Preliminary findings: short and not so sweet

For those of us with Executive Functioning Dysregulation issues [EFD], a new product on the performance enhancement market touted as the Viagra for the Brain sounds like a nootropic answer to a prayer.

You may have heard about it as EVO, “the Limitless Pill” (E-Huperzine) – credited as the genesis of the idea for the film. The buzz about Neuroflexyn increased rapidly after Limitless became a Box Office smash hit and publicly referenced Neuroflexyn as its inspiration.

Here’s what the folks at smartSMARTER have to say about the product in their introduction to a clearly marked ADVERTISEMENT (designed nonetheless to look like something else):

We expose the truth behind a ground-breaking pill that has many experts furious. Studies have revealed it boosts brain power by up to 89.2%, sharpens your mind and sky-rockets your energy levels. With such overwhelming evidence and media mention, the question is not whether the pill works, but whether it should be legal.

EF_pieChart_brainToo good to be true?

A plethora of marketing-posing-as-information articles make some pretty amazing claims about the benefits of Neuroflexyn. I’ll admit that I was tempted to purchase as I read them – which is what launched me on the informational research trail.

Product marketing swears that Neuroflexyn has been “proven” to significantly increase IQ as it enhances memory, concentration, intentional focus — productivity practically across the board, in fact.

In addition, again according to their marketing, this new “supplement” dramatically increases cognition and intelligence with NO reported side effects.

Ahem! As you may already be aware, the FDA does not currently regulate supplements. Whether or not that is ultimately a good thing or turns out to be a lousy way to attempt to protect the public, it does mean that this new product currently flies beneath FDA radar.

The manufacturer can pretty much claim anything they want
in their attempt to sell their product.

It is up to us to determine how ethical they appear to be, in contrast to any eagerness to part us from our wallets by any means available, in service of corporate profitability.

Not to seem to have joined some Royal Society of Skeptics, my Boomer lifetime of experience has taught me that whenever something sounds too good to be true, it usually is (not true, that is).

NEXT year’s stocking stuffer, maybe

Stocking

Before any of YOU put any of your hard-earned Christmas cash into a product trial – as a gift or for yourself – take a few moments to read what I have to say about why you might want to wait until more results are in.

In addition to other reasons I’m skeptical, I always advise caution any time product marketing attempts to manipulate us into buying — rather than enticing us into that action with information designed to help us to come to a decision.

I DO NOT Heart Scare Tactics

It seems to be a popular “ask for the sale” approach to attempt to sweeten response rate with text urging readers to take hasty action for fear of losing some advantage or opportunity if they take a day or more to think things over or investigate other options.

Neuroflexyn’s marketing game-plan seems to be to set up “Big Pharma” as the bogey-man, supposedly intent on shutting down Neuroflexyn production because it is “competition” for the profitability of their pharmaceutical products.

Uh-huh – so buy now or regret it when
Neuroflexyn is taken off the market?

I guess that implies that one must seriously stock up from the very beginning – just in case it really does work – to ensure access to a continued supply during the upcoming fight for manufacturing rights.  Let’s all go get right on it, then!

Read more of this post

%d bloggers like this: