BEST SELLER, Piracetam!

Piracetam was developed by Romanian chemist, Corneliu E. Giurgea in 1964. It was created by converting 2-pyrrolidinone into an amide. Piracetam was the first racetam developed and has a long history of use in the medical field. Although it has been observed to have medical benefits, it is not registered in North America and is used off label as a nootropic.

Mechanism of Action

Piracetam’s mechanism of action is not fully understood. It is a cyclic derivative of GABA, yet GABA receptors and metabolism appear to not be affected. It is neither, a sedative or a stimulant but is known to influence cognitive ability. Piracetam is also believed to be a vasodilator and a circulatory agent but this is not believed to be its main nootropic action.

The general consensus is that Piracetam influences the AMPA and NMDA receptor sites. These receptors are very important in learning and memory processes. It is also known that it affects the Acetylcholine neurotransmitter and the ACh receptor sites. Overall Neurotransmission seems to be improved and this is believed to be caused by modulation of ion channels or carriers.

Piracetam Uses (Medical)

Piracetam is used in some countries as a medical agent and is administered for a wide range of purposes. Its primary medical use is as a neuro-protective agent before or after stroke. The substance is believed to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke as well as minimize post-stroke damages to the brain. It is also an anti-coagulant and anti-thrombotic agent which is often used safety in conjunction with other therapies.

There have been many studies on treatment with Piracetam for neurological disorders. Many of these studies have shown positive results but not enough to approve them as treatments in the medical field. For instance, there has been evidence in studies for effectiveness in improving symptoms in Alzheimer’s and Dementia patients. Although, symptoms for these patients were often improved, it is not an approved therapy because it has not been shown to fully reverse the conditions or take the place of other approved drugs and therapies.

For these reasons, Piracetam is used mainly off-label. It has proven to be fairly safe, with low toxicity, side effects and drug interactions. Evidence shows it may have validity in treating symptoms of Dyslexia and a host of learning disabilities and neurological disorders but this should not be relied on as therapy without consultation of a licensed medical practitioner.

Piracetam Benefits

Piracetam has been used for decades as an off label nootropic agent. It has been observed to be effective in increasing: cognition and memory, learning, focus and reaction times but these results seem to vary. Below are some of the benefits that have been reported off label and in medical studies.

  • Increased Memory
  • Improved Learning
  • Greater Focus
  • Heightened Sensory Function
  • Reduced Anxiety/Depression
  • Improved Vasodilation
  • Reduced Brain Trauma

One benefit that has been widely reported is an increase in sensory perception. This is likely due to the Increase in the Acetylcholine neurotransmitter and receptor efficiency. Some people say Piracetam is effective as an anti-depressant agent but has not been approved as a treatment. It may have anti-anxiety and depressant benefits in some users.Piracetam, as well as other racetams have been cited to act as a brain protectant but should not be used as a primary protective agent. These results may or may not be caused by improved vasodilation. Piracetam is believed to reduce free radicals in the brain that caused oxidative stress. Oxidative stress can be a cause of cholinergic damages that can lead to Alzheimer’s and Dementia as well as other neurological disorders.

Piracetam Safety, Tolerance & Drug Interactions

Piracetam has been shown to have very limited side effects and drug interactions. Side effects can occur but this is usually common in higher doses or in individuals who are sensitive to the substance. There has been limited data to suggest Piracetam has led to fatalities or serious health complications. Below are some of the common side effects that can be common in higher dosages.

  • Headaches
  • Nausea
  • Fatigue
  • Insomnia
  • Gastrointestinal Issues
  • Depression

Some of these common cognitive side effects have been theorized to be caused by ACh receptor site “burn out”. This is said to be reduced by supplementation with a choline source, like Alpha GPC or CDP Choline. This is just a theory and if you experience these side effects it is best to discontinue use and seek medical counsel advice.Drug interactions with Piracetam seem to be limited. If you are on any other medication, always consult with a doctor before use and avoid using higher than recommended dosages. Piracetam should not been relied on as a treatment for any serious medical condition.

Tolerance with the substance seems very low. Often, the substance can be taken for months without any notice of tolerance build up but this can vary. Tolerance has not been shown to lead to unpleasant withdrawal symptoms but this can vary as well and should always be evaluated. Some racetam users will “cycle” Piracetam to reduce tolerance.

Piracetam Stack

Piracetam goes well in combination with other nootropics. This combination is often referred to as a nootropic stack. Naturally, it goes well with a choline source and this is always recommended. Piracetam also stacks well with all the other racetams. Some choose to stack it with other racetams or selected ones. One advantage is that it is fairly cheap as compared to the other racetam nootropics. Piracetam and Aniracetam is a good stack and is a very cost effective combination.

Recommended Dosage: 1-3g
Directions: Piracetam is water soluble. Do not use if you are pregnant/breastfeeding. Extremely rare side effects may include allergic reactions. Consult a doctor prior to using. By using our products, you agree to our terms & conditions.


Open Letter to Legislators Currently Considering Vaccine Legislation from Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD in Immunology

Thank you to Thinking Moms’ Revolution for reprint permission.


Dear Legislator:

My name is Tetyana Obukhanych.  I hold a PhD in Immunology.  I am writing this letter in the hope that it will correct several common misperceptions about vaccines in order to help you formulate a fair and balanced understanding that is supported by accepted vaccine theory and new scientific findings.

Do unvaccinated children pose a higher threat to the public than the vaccinated?

It is often stated that those who choose not to vaccinate their children for reasons of conscience endanger the rest of the public, and this is the rationale behind most of the legislation to end vaccine exemptions currently being considered by federal and state legislators country-wide.  You should be aware that the nature of protection afforded by many modern vaccines – and that includes most of the vaccines recommended by the CDC for children – is not consistent with such a statement.  I have outlined below the recommended vaccines that cannot prevent transmission of disease either because they are not designed to prevent the transmission of infection (rather, they are intended to prevent disease symptoms), or because they are for non-communicable diseases.  People who have not received the vaccines mentioned below pose no higher threat to the general public than those who have, implying that discrimination against non-immunized children in a public school setting may not be warranted.

IPV (inactivated poliovirus vaccine) cannot prevent transmission of poliovirus (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #1). Wild poliovirus has been non-existent in the USA for at least two decades. Even if wild poliovirus were to be re-imported by travel, vaccinating for polio with IPV cannot affect the safety of public spaces.  Please note that wild poliovirus eradication is attributed to the use of a different vaccine, OPV or oral poliovirus vaccine.  Despite being capable of preventing wild poliovirus transmission, use of OPV was phased out long ago in the USA and replaced with IPV due to safety concerns.

  1. Tetanus is not a contagious disease, but rather acquired from deep-puncture wounds contaminated with C. tetani spores. Vaccinating for tetanus (via the DTaP combination vaccine) cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is intended to render personal protection only.
  2. While intended to prevent the disease-causing effects of the diphtheria toxin, the diphtheria toxoid vaccine (also contained in the DTaP vaccine) is not designed to prevent colonization and transmission of C. diphtheriae. Vaccinating for diphtheria cannot alter the safety of public spaces; it is likewise intended for personal protection only
  • The acellular pertussis (aP) vaccine (the final element of the DTaP combined vaccine), now in use in the USA, replaced the whole cell pertussis vaccine in the late 1990s, which was followed by an unprecedented resurgence of whooping cough. An experiment with deliberate pertussis infection in primates revealed that the aP vaccine is not capable of preventing colonization and transmission of B. pertussis (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #2). The FDA has issued a warning regarding this crucial finding.[1]

Furthermore, the 2013 meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors at the CDC revealed additional alarming data that pertussis variants (PRN-negative strains) currently circulating in the USA acquired a selective advantage to infect those who are up-to-date for their DTaP boosters (see appendix for the CDC document, Item #3), meaning that people who are up-to-date are more likely to be infected, and thus contagious, than people who are not vaccinated.

  1. Among numerous types of H. influenzae, the Hib vaccine covers only type b. Despite its sole intention to reduce symptomatic and asymptomatic (disease-less) Hib carriage, the introduction of the Hib vaccine has inadvertently shifted strain dominance towards other types of H. influenzae (types a through f). These types have been causing invasive disease of high severity and increasing incidence in adults in the era of Hib vaccination of children (see appendix for the scientific study, Item #4).  The general population is more vulnerable to the invasive disease now than it was prior to the start of the Hib vaccination campaign.  Discriminating against children who are not vaccinated for Hib does not make any scientific sense in the era of non-type b H. influenzae disease.
  2. Hepatitis B is a blood-borne virus. It does not spread in a community setting, especially among children who are unlikely to engage in high-risk behaviors, such as needle sharing or sex. Vaccinating children for hepatitis B cannot significantly alter the safety of public spaces.  Further, school admission is not prohibited for children who are chronic hepatitis B carriers.  To prohibit school admission for those who are simply unvaccinated – and do not even carry hepatitis B – would constitute unreasonable and illogical discrimination.

In summary, a person who is not vaccinated with IPV, DTaP, HepB, and Hib vaccines due to reasons of conscience poses no extra danger to the public than a person who is.  No discrimination is warranted.

How often do serious vaccine adverse events happen?

It is often stated that vaccination rarely leads to serious adverse events.  Unfortunately, this statement is not supported by science.  A recent study done in Ontario, Canada, established that vaccination actually leads to an emergency room visit for 1 in 168 children following their 12-month vaccination appointment and for 1 in 730 children following their 18-month vaccination appointment (see appendix for a scientific study, Item #5).

When the risk of an adverse event requiring an ER visit after well-baby vaccinations is demonstrably so high, vaccination must remain a choice for parents, who may understandably be unwilling to assume this immediate risk in order to protect their children from diseases that are generally considered mild or that their children may never be exposed to.

Can discrimination against families who oppose vaccines for reasons of conscience prevent future disease outbreaks of communicable viral diseases, such as measles?

Measles research scientists have for a long time been aware of the “measles paradox.” I quote from the article by Poland & Jacobson (1994) “Failure to Reach the Goal of Measles Elimination: Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons.” Arch Intern Med 154:1815-1820:

“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.”[2]

Further research determined that behind the “measles paradox” is a fraction of the population called LOW VACCINE RESPONDERS.  Low-responders are those who respond poorly to the first dose of the measles vaccine.  These individuals then mount a weak immune response to subsequent RE-vaccination and quickly return to the pool of “susceptibles’’ within 2-5 years, despite being fully vaccinated.[3]

Re-vaccination cannot correct low-responsiveness: it appears to be an immuno-genetic trait.[4]  The proportion of low-responders among children was estimated to be 4.7% in the USA.[5]

Studies of measles outbreaks in Quebec, Canada, and China attest that outbreaks of measles still happen, even when vaccination compliance is in the highest bracket (95-97% or even 99%, see appendix for scientific studies, Items #6&7). This is because even in high vaccine responders, vaccine-induced antibodies wane over time.  Vaccine immunity does not equal life-long immunity acquired after natural exposure.

It has been documented that vaccinated persons who develop breakthrough measles are contagious.  In fact, two major measles outbreaks in 2011 (in Quebec, Canada, and in New York, NY) were re-imported by previously vaccinated individuals.[6][7]

Taken together, these data make it apparent that elimination of vaccine exemptions, currently only utilized by a small percentage of families anyway, will neither solve the problem of disease resurgence nor prevent re-importation and outbreaks of previously eliminated diseases. 

Is discrimination against conscientious vaccine objectors the only practical solution?

The majority of measles cases in recent US outbreaks (including the recent Disneyland outbreak) are adults and very young babies, whereas in the pre-vaccination era, measles occurred mainly between the ages 1 and 15.  Natural exposure to measles was followed by lifelong immunity from re-infection, whereas vaccine immunity wanes over time, leaving adults unprotected by their childhood shots.  Measles is more dangerous for infants and for adults than for school-aged children.

Despite high chances of exposure in the pre-vaccination era, measles practically never happened in babies much younger than one year of age due to the robust maternal immunity transfer mechanism.  The vulnerability of very young babies to measles today is the direct outcome of the prolonged mass vaccination campaign of the past, during which their mothers, themselves vaccinated in their childhood, were not able to experience measles naturally at a safe school age and establish the lifelong immunity that would also be transferred to their babies and protect them from measles for the first year of life.

Luckily, a therapeutic backup exists to mimic now-eroded maternal immunity.  Infants as well as other vulnerable or immunocompromised individuals, are eligible to receive immunoglobulin, a potentially life-saving measure that supplies antibodies directed against the virus to prevent or ameliorate disease upon exposure (see appendix, Item #8).

In summary: 1) due to the properties of modern vaccines, non-vaccinated individuals pose no greater risk of transmission of polio, diphtheria, pertussis, and numerous non-type b H. influenzae strains than vaccinated individuals do, non-vaccinated individuals pose virtually no danger of transmission of hepatitis B in a school setting, and tetanus is not transmissible at all; 2) there is a significantly elevated risk of emergency room visits after childhood vaccination appointments attesting that vaccination is  not risk-free; 3) outbreaks of measles cannot be entirely prevented even if we had nearly perfect vaccination compliance; and 4) an effective method of preventing measles and other viral diseases in vaccine-ineligible infants and the immunocompromised, immunoglobulin, is available for those who may be exposed to these diseases. 

Taken together, these four facts make it clear that discrimination in a public school setting against children who are not vaccinated for reasons of conscience is completely unwarranted as the vaccine status of conscientious objectors poses no undue public health risk. 

Sincerely Yours,

Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD

Tetyana Obukhanych, PhD, is the author of the book Vaccine Illusion.  She has studied immunology in some of the world’s most prestigious medical institutions. She earned her PhD in Immunology at the Rockefeller University in New York and did postdoctoral training at Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA and Stanford University in California.

Dr. Obukhanych offers online classes for those who want to gain deeper understanding of how the immune system works and whether the immunologic benefits of vaccines are worth the risks:  Natural Immunity Fundamentals.


Item #1. The Cuba IPV Study collaborative group. (2007) Randomized controlled trial of inactivated poliovirus vaccine in CubaN Engl J Med 356:1536-44

The table below from the Cuban IPV study documents that 91% of children receiving no IPV (control group B) were colonized with live attenuated poliovirus upon deliberate experimental inoculation.  Children who were vaccinated with IPV (groups A and C) were similarly colonized at the rate of 94-97%.  High counts of live virus were recovered from the stool of children in all groups.  These results make it clear that IPV cannot be relied upon for the control of polioviruses.

Dr T Chart 2

Item #2. Warfel et al. (2014) Acellular pertussis vaccines protect against disease but fail to prevent infection and transmission in a nonhuman primate model. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:787-92

“Baboons vaccinated with aP were protected from severe pertussis-associated symptoms but not from colonization, did not clear the infection faster than naïve [unvaccinated] animals, and readily transmitted B. pertussis to unvaccinated contacts. By comparison, previously infected [naturally-immune] animals were not colonized upon secondary infection.”

Item #3. Meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Tom Harkins Global Communication Center, Atlanta, Georgia, December 11-12, 2013

Resurgence of Pertussis (p.6)

“Findings indicated that 85% of the isolates [from six Enhanced Pertussis Surveillance Sites and from epidemics in Washington and Vermont in 2012] were PRN-deficient and vaccinated patients had significantly higher odds than unvaccinated patients of being infected with PRN-deficient strains.  Moreover, when patients with up-to-date DTaP vaccinations were compared to unvaccinated patients, the odds of being infected with PRN-deficient strains increased, suggesting that PRN-bacteria may have a selective advantage in infecting DTaP-vaccinated persons.”

Item #4. Rubach et al. (2011) Increasing incidence of invasive Haemophilus influenzae disease in adults, Utah, USA. Emerg Infect Dis 17:1645-50

The chart below from Rubach et al. shows the number of invasive cases of H. influenzae (all types) in Utah in the decade of childhood vaccination for Hib.

Dr T chart

Item #5. Wilson et al. (2011) Adverse events following 12 and 18 month vaccinations: a population-based, self-controlled case series analysis. PLoS One 6:e27897

“Four to 12 days post 12 month vaccination, children had a 1.33 (1.29-1.38) increased relative incidence of the combined endpoint compared to the control period, or at least one event during the risk interval for every 168 children vaccinated.  Ten to 12 days post 18 month vaccination, the relative incidence was 1.25 (95%, 1.17-1.33) which represented at least one excess event for every 730 children vaccinated.  The primary reason for increased events was statistically significant elevations in emergency room visits following all vaccinations.”

Item #6. De Serres et al. (2013) Largest measles epidemic in North America in a decade–Quebec, Canada, 2011: contribution of susceptibility, serendipity, and superspreading events. J Infect Dis 207:990-98

“The largest measles epidemic in North America in the last decade occurred in 2011 in Quebec, Canada.”

“A super-spreading event triggered by 1 importation resulted in sustained transmission and 678 cases.”

“The index case patient was a 30-39-year old adult, after returning to Canada from the Caribbean.  The index case patient received measles vaccine in childhood.”

“Provincial [Quebec] vaccine coverage surveys conducted in 2006, 2008, and 2010 consistently showed that by 24 months of age, approximately 96% of children had received 1 dose and approximately 85% had received 2 doses of measles vaccine, increasing to 97% and 90%, respectively, by 28 months of age.  With additional first and second doses administered between 28 and 59 months of age, population measles vaccine coverage is even higher by school entry.”

“Among adolescents, 22% [of measles cases] had received 2 vaccine doses.  Outbreak investigation showed this proportion to have been an underestimate; active case finding identified 130% more cases among 2-dose recipients.”

Item #7. Wang et al. (2014) Difficulties in eliminating measles and controlling rubella and mumps: a cross-sectional study of a first measles and rubella vaccination and a second measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination. PLoS One 9:e89361

“The reported coverage of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine is greater than 99.0% in Zhejiang province.  However, the incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella remains high.”

Item #8. Immunoglobulin Handbook, Health Protection Agency



  1. To prevent or attenuate an attack in immuno-compromised contacts
  2. To prevent or attenuate an attack in pregnant women
  3. To prevent or attenuate an attack in infants under the age of 9 months



[3] Poland (1998) Am J Hum Genet 62:215-220

“ ‘poor responders,’ who were re-immunized and developed poor or low-level antibody responses only to lose detectable antibody and develop measles on exposure 2–5 years later.”

[4] ibid

“Our ongoing studies suggest that seronegativity after vaccination [for measles] clusters among related family members, that genetic polymorphisms within the HLA [genes] significantly influence antibody levels.”

[5] LeBaron et al. (2007) Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161:294-301

“Titers fell significantly over time [after second MMR] for the study population overall and, by the final collection, 4.7% of children were potentially susceptible.”

[6] De Serres et al. (2013) J Infect Dis 207:990-998

“The index case patient received measles vaccine in childhood.”

[7] Rosen et al. (2014) Clin Infect Dis 58:1205-1210

“The index patient had 2 doses of measles-containing vaccine.”

Whether your bills are keeping you awake at night or you simply live by the motto that it’s nifty to be thrifty, here’s a new way to keep a lid on food costs. The just-introduced Budget Friendly meal plan from eMeals, the nation’s largest online meal planning service, stretches the savings already provided by the service by helping families put dinner on the table for an average of $85 a week—all without sacrificing flavor, variety, nutrition or the cooperation of picky eaters.

The secret: super-economical dinner menus created by eMeals’ food staff with an ever-changing mix of shelf-stable items, frozen foods, value cuts of meat, and efficient ingredient use throughout the week to limit spoilage and waste.

One 5-pound whole chicken, for example, might double as the protein in recipes like Easy Chicken Shepherd’s Pie and Pulled Chicken Salad. Leftover Smoky Beef Chili from one dinner might become the topping for Classic Chili Dogs later in the week. And both canned and frozen vegetables avoid flushing money down the drain by having a refrigerator full of unused and rotting produce.

eMeals’ expert tips for making homemade broths and other “convenience foods” jump-start meals, pump up the flavor and add extra savings. And the roster of needed staples on every weekly eMeals grocery list saves time and trips to the grocery store by keeping your pantry well-stocked.

For as little as $5 a month, you get seven menus delivered to your email inbox and eMeals mobile app every week along with recipes and a grocery list covering all seven dinners. And now you can try before you buy. Simply go to, then click “Try Us” to sign up for 14 days worth of Budget Friendly menus and shopping lists for free.

You can also choose from more than 50 other eMeals menu options including Classic, Clean Eating, Paleo, Kid Friendly, 30 Minute Meals, Slow Cooker, Vegetarian, Mediterranean, Low Calorie, Low Fat, Portion Control, Low Carb, Gluten Free and Diabetic plans.

For a full eMeals description, visit For pricing information, visit


eMeals  is the largest online meal planning service in the U.S., generating over 1 million meals per week for subscribers to more than 50 different menu options designed for different eating styles, family size and grocery store preferences. Options include weekly Classic, Clean Eating, Kid-Friendly, 30 Minute Meals, Slow Cooker, Vegetarian, Mediterranean, Low Calorie, Low Fat, Portion Control, Paleo, Low Carb, Gluten Free and Diabetic programs, along with breakfast and lunch plans. Menus, recipes and corresponding grocery lists are delivered directly to subscriber’s email inboxes and the eMeals mobile app every week for easy planning and fast, budget-conscious grocery shopping. The company was founded in 2003.