[giantg2]

I'm not sure why this being disagreed to without any response. There are studies related to this out on PubMed. The effects do not seem huge, but they do seem to be significantly better than placebo. And at least those studies are in humans as opposed to the main article of this post that is only in mice.

[amavect]

Please post specific articles for others to critique. I find poor quality studies. Low sample size, self-reported questionnaires, low effect sizes.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10675414/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12018234/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20834180/ I smell P-hacking.

Note that none of these address neural regeneration (after concussions, as claimed by oneshtein) because I'll leave that for the supporters to demonstrate.

[jmalicki]

I won't talk about Lion's Mane specifically, but there is a ton of science about things that induce neurotrophic growth factor, which some claim Lion's Mane to do, and research in concussions, depression, and Alzheimer's disease/dementia. These drugs are for the most part pretty new and quite expensive. Interestingly a lot of them are NMDA agonists, which... a drug you have heard of that works on that receptor is Ketamine, which has become popular for depression - leading a divergence of theories for why it works for depression - the most common being there is some therapeutic value in the dissociative state/"hallucinations", while a minority have claimed that it's actually the NMDA agonist property that is triggering neurotropic growth factor to repair brain damage, and the disassociation is a side effect.

[amavect]

You say all of these things and claim "there is a ton of science", but I ask for scholarly links to learn more. I don't trust anyone's word at face value on empirical topics, and I also don't know where to begin looking. "There are studies related to this out on PubMed." Show me! Phrases like this annoy me greatly.

You posted links earlier, which suffices.

[jmalicki]

I posted them in the GP comment

[giantg2]

Yeah, psychology studies are weak like that. Here is one with links to many other in vivo and in vitro studies, including some dealing with NGF and stroke (mice and rats). Quality varies.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5987239/#B18

[amavect]

Thank you for sharing.

[jghn]

I imagine because it reads like one of those "Big Medicine won't let you have access to stuff that works!" conspiracy theories, and also that it won't actually foster new brain cell growth.

[giantg2]

It's ashame stuff gets strawmanned like that. It's not like there's a secret cabal restricting access. It's just there are many things with limited research because there's no money in it. Both the meds in the article and the lions mane studies show promising results in rats/mice. Anyone can guess which one will get more money because one is patentable and the other is not.

[jmalicki]

A lot/most of the neural regeneration drugs are still very much on patent, and very very very expensive, and a lot of insurance doesn't cover them.

While there may be some conspiracy stuff there, "big medicine" saying you need to pay $20k/yr out of pocket for something will definitely lead people to find alternatives.