I was exclusively referring to the use as a neurosomatic performance booster.
On a more general note, when evaluating a molecula or a medicine, having verified a given effect is by far not enough for a complete judgement. You also have to know where the active fraction goes after its effect, how long it is retained by the body, what other effects it generates, and last but not least at which cost it is effective at doing the good - if any - it is doing.
There are litterally millions of moleculas out there, most of which from natural sources. When I evaluate one, I mind the reasons why it's advisable to not use it for a certain goal on a certain patient as much as the reasons why I would use it.
You'll agree that what a molecula does not do and what else does it do are as important questions as what does it actually do. The real problem is that there's always someone who earns money from what a molecula does... And the "positive avertising" is the least scientific and ethic approach we can have when it comes to health, wellness and performance.
Not implying anything related to you of course Ingolf