I'm not sure I am thinking that this venture is anything more than Dr. Oz on steroids.
For one, reading the bios of the three featured individuals on the Noohack webpage shows three people.
One, a crypto technologist. Fair enough. Need one of those if one wants to launch a crypto.
Two, a Marketing expert. Now this is where I am starting to wonder. The pharmaceutical companies spend a lot of money on marketing and in many cases the marketing is geared towards drugs that have been rushed through the approval process by pharma lobbyists in order to insure a return on their R&D. In many cases, these drugs are fraught with scandal and/or are supplanted by alternative drugs who are just as unproven.
The amount of money spent on marketing is huge. $27 billion.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2013/11/11/persuading-the-prescribers-pharmaceutical-industry-marketing-and-its-influence-on-physicians-and-patientsNow, there is a discrepancy in the reports regarding how much the industry spends on advertising vs research. It is certainly true that many of the estimates regarding the amount of money spent on R&D (some place it at twice the amount of R&D while others place it at something more like half with exact numbers failing in both cases to account for research spending that includes medical devices).
My point is that marketing seems to be a key component of any kind of drug and there is reason to believe that the marketing interests outweigh the science...which is a huge concern to me regarding this coin. I don't really care how stout the blockchain is or what kind of 2.0 features are included if the product is sketchy - and it is. But a little more on that later.
Three, No offense, but there are many people "whose interests include [fill in the blank]". Further, there are many people who have field tested many things but that does not necessarily mean that there is any scientific efficacy. In fact, quite the opposite since there seems to be an implicit bias just for listed on the website. Again, no offense to Mr. Fox, but there is nothing included in that bio that gives any kind of reasonable indication that he should be considered of any kind of authority on this topic.
Now, I know that the people involved probably mean well. But it can not be stated that they aren't here to make money and as well it can not be stated that there is any kind of relevant medical representation involved with this product or the coin that is intended to market it. In fact, a simple amount of research into all of the drugs will show that all of them are not approved by the FDA (admittedly, the FDA is bought and paid for so I'll take that with a mild grain of salt) but more importantly that they are all stimulants. They are all involved in research and there can be no true assertions regarding their benefits (There are times when switching to a work brewed coffee instead of the Red Bull that I have consumed for a period of three weeks results in noticable physiological changes; it is actually an argument that the modus of delivery of a stimulant (differently brewed coffees, energy drinks) is more important than the actual ingredient.
But that is another part of the problem I have that would take long discussions. Which I am down for.
It should be noted that I have a major problem with people selling drugs to people who don't need them (I have family who was mis-prescribed ritalin for non existant ADHD).
I just think that there might be an issue with the interests of the sellers here and the benefits that one can expect from the product. Increased cognitive ability, even in the short (which can be gained from a number of factors) is not going to replace knowledcge and experience. It might make you more reactive to patterns (which might be valuable to some in this industry) but it's not going to make you more intelligent.
Not buying this one and am waiting for counter arguments.
