Talk:Melatonin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melatonin article.
Article policies
It is requested that a photograph or photographs of Melatonin supplement product be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article was previously a Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month.


Contents

[edit] Conflict in the "immune system" section

There seems to be a conflict in the Immune System section.

"The body of research is overwhelmingly supportive of the claim that melatonin interacts with the immune system.[19] Melatonin may help fight disease,[20] but its true role in disease treatment is unknown. There have been very few trials designed to judge the effectiveness of melatonin in disease treatment. Most existing data are based on very small, incomplete, clinical trials."

Anyone want to rewrite that for NPOV? -- R'nway [ T C ]

[edit] I smell some bias here! =

"Because it does not have to be prescribed, and since it is in the public domain, few doctors care to publicize its advantages"

...sounds like someone has an axe to grind

I went through the Ambien roller-coaster while combatting chronic insomnia last year. I asked three different doctors about melatonin, and they all recommended me not taking it, but sticking with them on the Ambien train. A fourth doctor actually recommended melatonin, showed me a couple of websites which cited most of the research and results, and when I began taking it, it was like night and day. After less than three days, my chronic insomnia was under control. It still took me a couple months to recover from the effects of chronic insomnia (memory loss, attention problems, etc.), but I'm still taking just .3 milligrams (300 micrograms) and am doing fine. Mugaliens 14:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Scroll down to the bottom comments, there's a number of scientific studies done that show teste shrinkage in animals, as well as a decreased sex drive.Urbanriot 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Very true and a good thing it is, too. Neither the species nor the individuals have anything to gain having young in a season when they're likely to starve or freeze to death by the age of 2 days. Humans or our ancestors were undoubtedly more seasonal animals in the past than we are now. Hordaland 18:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd link is now bad

http://www.cris.com/~nubrain/melatonin.html is 404

  • It has apparently been removed.

[edit] barrier

I once read that oral intake of Melatonin doesn't work, as Melatonin doesn't go past the blood brain barrier. Isn't that true? Thanks, --Abdull 02:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Oral administration of melatonin in mouse will result in higher levels of both circulating melatonin and brain melatonin, producing up to a fourfold increase, depending on animal age: Lahiri DK, Chen D, Ge YW, Bondy SC, Sharman EH. Dietary supplementation with melatonin reduces levels of amyloid beta-peptides in the murine cerebral cortex. J Pineal Res. 2004 May;36(4):224-31.
Dogface 15:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The bioavailability of orally-administered melatonin is approximately 50%, and yes, melatonin does cross the blood-brain barrier. Most tests of melatonin that support its claimed effects were done with orally-administered doses. Mugaliens 14:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The bioavailability of orally-administered melatonin is significantly less than 50% judging by the review of evidence by Tan et al. 2007. The authors calculate a mean bioavailability of 18.9%, 17.7 folds of difference, by concatenating the results of four studies in humans. [1] Mnc4t 16:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nobody knows what dosages to take

Melatonin

Claims, Benefits: Promotes sleep, counters jet lag, improves sex life, slows aging, etc.

Bottom Line: This human hormone may help promote sleep, but the evidence is still not definite. The other claims are unproven. No serious side effects have been reported, but long-term effects are unknown. Hormones are powerful substances and can produce unexpected results, so we don't recommend melatonin.

Full Article, Wellness Letter, May 2000:

Melatonin: Questions, Facts, Mysteries

Look on any website selling supplements or in any health-food catalogue, and you'll find melatonin recommended for insomnia, jet lag, arthritis, stress, alcoholism, migraine, and the signs and symptoms of aging and menopause—along with assertions that it staves off heart disease and cancer. Some people recommend "melatonin replacement therapy" for all postmenopausal women. But now that scientific research is catching up with melatonin mania, you may want to proceed with caution.

Melatonin is a human hormone produced deep in the brain by the pineal gland, dubbed "the seat of the soul" by philosophers in ages past. Discovered about 40 years ago, melatonin has been called the "darkness" hormone. Production rises at night, falls by day, and affects our internal body clock and sleep cycles. Melatonin has been assumed, logically enough, to have some use as a sleeping pill. Here are some questions, facts, and mysteries.

Does melatonin production decline with age?

The answer, until recently, was thought to be yes. But a new study at the Harvard Medical School of healthy people taking no medications or drugs found no differences in melatonin levels between the young and old. In earlier studies medications such as aspirin taken by older people may have suppressed melatonin levels. Melatonin levels may vary naturally in different groups; age does not seem to be the factor. Different people have different levels, and levels vary according to time of day.

(Although the Harvard Medical School trial may have been accurate, in that melatonin doesn't change with age. That the medications older adults take decrease melatonin, and therfore effected the older studies. It should be noted that most people over a certain age in developed countries take those medications, and therefore have reduced melatonin as they get older, so the study was accurate for industrilized society on an average.) 68.210.132.212 02:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Bottom line: If your body already produces enough melatonin, taking additional doses may not be advisable. No one knows what the long-term effect might be. And it's difficult to determine what "enough" is.

Is melatonin an effective sleeping pill?

Most scientists agree that melatonin helps people fall asleep faster, but it may not help them stay asleep. Like benzodiazepines (such as Valium or Halcion), often prescribed as sleeping pills, melatonin can produce a "hangover" and drowsiness the next day. Long-term safety is still a question. It's true, as one researcher puts it, that "no catastrophes have been related to its use" (such as the outbreak of severe illness caused by a similar "natural" substance, tryptophan, once sold as a sleeping pill). Melatonin is being heavily marketed as a sleeping pill, particularly for older people, but nobody knows if the dosages listed on labels are accurate or if the products are pure. Good clinical trials have never been done on melatonin treatment for insomnia.

Bottom line: If you need a sleeping pill, talk to your doctor. No known sleeping pill has proven safe and effective for more than short-term use.

Does melatonin alleviate jet lag?

Thousands take it for this purpose, but the benefits have never been clear. Various dosages of melatonin have been used in studies, making comparisons difficult. "Jet lag" itself is hard to measure. As reported recently in the American Journal of Psychiatry, a team of researchers devised a scale for measuring symptoms, and a group of Norwegian physicians flying between Oslo and New York were recruited as subjects. Melatonin showed no benefit against jet lag. If you're flying east, exposing yourself to sunlight the next morning is a pretty good treatment—most purveyors of melatonin suggest this, in addition to the pills. It's possible, though, that light is more effective than melatonin. You might be just as well off without the pills. Or maybe light works with the pills. Nobody knows.

Bottom line: The jury is still out on melatonin and jet lag.

Is melatonin replacement therapy justifiable for all postmenopausal women?

No. Some researchers think low melatonin levels cause menopausal symptoms, but they may be wrong. HRT (hormone replacement therapy) has been studied much more extensively than melatonin, but no one recommends it for all postmenopausal women.

Bottom line: Hormones are powerful substances that, even in small doses, can produce unexpected and unwanted results.

Is melatonin an antioxidant, and thus a protector against aging and chronic diseases?

A recent review of studies by researchers at Louisiana State University confirms that it is indeed a powerful antioxidant. But nobody knows what this means. Until we learn more, "the full potential benefits of melatonin must remain something of a mystery," these researchers concluded.

Last words: If you are taking, or thinking of taking, melatonin, talk to a physician—and one who's not selling melatonin. Having your levels measured won't tell you anything, since levels vary from person to person and from hour to hour. Chronic use of melatonin supplements may suppress the body's own production of the hormone. Nobody knows what might happen if you have high natural levels and take a supplement on top of that. Melatonin can interact with other hormones, which is why, in part, pregnant women and children should never take it. Such drugs as aspirin, beta blockers, and tranquilizers can affect melatonin levels. Finally, nobody knows what dosages to take. Products are not standardized. Thus, you really don't know what you're swallowing.

As a general rule, when people self medicate, they will keep uping the dose until they feel something, and if it feels good, they will keep going until it doesn't feel good. Several studies have said there is little or no toxic effect, even from doses as high as 6 grams, (600 times the natural amount) In hope that melatonin may be good for people who suffer from certain disorders (such as chronic insomnia) I fear that taking the high levels that are occuring in society will cause an undesired side effect of which the blame will reside on the hormone, instead of the level dosage. "The future is uncertain..." 68.210.132.212 02:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
6 grams an extraordinary amount of melatonin to be given - actually tens of thousands times natural daily production of melatonin according to the data I have seen. However one might expect levels to fall by a factor of more than 10000 in 14 half-lives which is about 8 hours (although I suspect the half life might be somewhat increased for very high doses). With regard to a point made by the previous poster, the empirical evidence is that melatonin supplementation does not suppress production of melatonin by the pineal, contrary to what some people guessed. Also, supplementary levels are generally much higher than natural levels (for a short time), so the addition of the two is of very little significance. The safety record of melatonin is virtually unblemished, by contrast with many drugs that are widely used. Elroch 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Several studies have shown that the benefits for the most commonly-cited effects are achieved at dosages between .1 and .5 milligrams (100 to 500 micrograms), and that increasing this beyond that level has little, if any, measured effect. Furthermore, several other studies have shown that dosages higher than 3 milligrams lead to significant increases in the reported side effects. In response, one company markets 300 microgram (.3 milligram) tablets, which I use myself. Although I'm a 210-lb man, this "tiny" dosage works very well. Mugaliens 14:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
So, bottom line: numerous studies have shown no toxicity, and no conclusive research supports anecdotal claims of improved sleep or other benefits. Sounds like something people ought to be able to try for themselves, no? If it helps them sleep or handle jet lag, good for them. The key point would seem to be the evidence that the hormone isn't toxic except perhaps when taken at very high dosages, or continually for a very long time. But from the tone of this section, that doesn't seem to be the point the author is trying to make.74.192.15.25 (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
"From the tone of this section..." Which section are you referring to: the article, the Safety section of the article, or this section of the Discussion page? Which "the author"?
In any case, I've just added some material to the article's Safety section which might address some of your concerns.
And, in any case, I agree that almost anyone who likes, probably can experiment. The timing is way more important than the amount, so playing around with a half a mg/day or so should be fine. I wouldn't, however, recommend it to anyone trying real hard to get pregnant, nor for kids, without involving a competent doctor. I've taken melatonin daily for over 4 years and (look at me!) I'm still healthy and sane, I think. --Hordaland (talk) 11:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "...does not have to be prescribed"

Actually in most Commonwealth countries Melatonin must be prescribed by a doctor. Article should be edited to reflect a global viewpoint.

in Poland it is possible to buy melatonine without prescription, it costs about €5 for 30 tbl. 5 mg. Anyone can buy it by internet too: http://vena-vita.pl/produkty,nazwa,melatonina - see ?! - and because Poland is an EU member so i conclude that similar regulations is in many other EU-countries also. pwjbbb 01:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
In Norway, which is not an EU country, melatonin is available only on the 2nd most restrictive type of prescription. (The most restrictive requires the patient to meet at the doctor's office or the pharmacy to get the day's dose.) To get melatonin, one has to have a specialist fill out an application, annually, with the patient's name and diagnosis on it. It takes a few days for the application to go through and for the pharmacy to order the melatonin. Over-the-counter it is NOT. Hordaland 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


Melatonin is OTC in Estonia too. One can choose between 2mg (30 pills for 5 euros) and 3mg (60 pills for 12 euros) pills. Kristjan.

That's interesting. It's strange that the rules vary so widely from country to country. I don't suppose anyone has the complete list. The stuff is a hormone, so I'd think there should be some controll....
--Hordaland (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


I live in Australia and I work in two health food stores and I can pick it off of the shelves and sell it to someone, Its not agaisnt the law in Aus to buy it without a Doc's note -Wolviechickie 2/2/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.69.153 (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your edit! The purists would call this Original Research, but it's effective sometimes. --Hordaland (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


It would be interesting to know which state of Australia the above poster lives in. I'm from New Zealand and melatonin is prescription-only here. When I visited the state of Victoria (Australia) in January 2008 I was told by a health-food store that melatonin is also prescription-only there - in Victoria at any rate. I know what you may find on the shelves in New Zealand and Victoria is "homeopathic" melatonin rather than the "real" stuff.(203.109.212.84 (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)) Citizen Kiwi, 22 February 2008

One would think that someone, an association of melatonin producing labs, for instance, would have a definitive list of where melatonin is:
  1. OTC,
  2. by regular prescription,
  3. by restrictive prescription.
A friend on the east coast of Australia called a couple of chemists for me, just out of curiosity. One said it's OTC, the other said it's totally unavailable. So I gave up.
You've probably hit on (part of) the explanation. If "homeopathic" melatonin is 99.99% water, the authorities may not bother about it. --Hordaland (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Melatonin taken in combination with MAOIs can lead to overdose..."

"Melatonin taken in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) can lead to overdose because MAOIs inhibit the breakdown of melatonin by the body." Overdose of what? Too much sleepy-sleepy, or too much MAOI? Melatonin products bear consult physician counter-indications for those taking MAOIs, without explanation. -SM 13:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

This is overdose of melatonin (since melatonin will not be broken down and removed from the body). Melatonin overdose isn't really dangerous; it won't cause the hypertensive crisis typical of MAOI drug interactions; nor is it very likely to occur (the LD50 is measured in grams per kilogram body mass, while melatonin tablets are sold at less than 10 milligrams each); but it's worth keeping in mind. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 14:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Since melatonin is a key ingredient in the production of serotonin, and SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) do not mix with MAOs as it will lead to excessively high levels of serotonin in the brain, I believe, if I'm not mistaken, than MAOs and melatonin is a bad combination because it, too, will lead to excessively high levels of serotonin. It may also be true that MAOs block melatonin metabolism. Mugaliens 14:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Melatonin is not a key ingredient in the production of serotonin and melatonin is not contraindicated by SSRIs.
Do we have a source for this interaction? NIH doesn't seem to say anything about it. I'm not disputing it (don't know the biochemistry involved and it seems plausible enough) but a reference would be nice for the sake of completeness (and verifiability etc). I'd find one myself, but I'm too tired (appropriately enough!) BertieB 02:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It is easy to verify with a literature search that serotonin is a precursor to melatonin, but the reverse conversion does not occur in the species studied (including humans). Therefore even large amounts of melatonin would not be expected to lead to high serotonin levels. 82.21.244.172 01:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Basic chemistry thinking: if serotonin is a precursor to melatonin and you add melatonin from outside, then less serotonin is used up to produce melatonin and thus the serotonin level must go up. In other words serotonin is expected to go up, not because outside melatonin converts to serotonin - it doesn't - but because less serotonin is used up in making melatonin Drirpeter 19:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Good thinking but no. Melatonin production takes up a small portion of serotonin removal, MAO is the main remover of serotonin and exogenous melatonin does not affect endegenous production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.1.185 (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable reliability of reference

A reference has recently been added to an article "Harms from a pseudo-cure-all" by the late Dr. Victor Herbert. The sensational statements in his article set off alarm bells, and a search immediately uncovered material like this response by the author of a article relating to a study on Vitamin C from which Dr. Herbert was stated to have made to be a large number of false inferences. This alone makes me feel very uncomfortable relying on Dr. Herbert as a secondary source. It seems essential that Dr. Herbert's statements be replaced by ones referring to primary or balanced sources.

I am not sure how much can be inferred for humans from the effects of injecting large doses of melatonin into minah birds. As I understand it, the many studies relating to mammals whose genetic makeup is much closer to that of humans are generally considered to carry more weight as evidence for what might happen in humans. Also the current last sentence does not make sense: it is unquestionable that melatonin has several biochemical roles.Elroch 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Elroch would do well to cite a better rebuttal to the Herbert's citation (if there is any scientific debate about the reliablity of Herbert's citation) than to cite an instance in which James E. Enstrom a PhD whose research funded by the tobacco industry was widely discreditedrebutted Victor Herbert MD JD on an unrelated matter pertaining to Vitamin C and not to melatonin. [2][3]Sinclarian 03:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting links, though perhaps moving from vitamin C to tobacco (which I detest) is drifting further off the point. I see that Enstrom is now working for the Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center at UCLA, which has an impressive record.
Despite Victor Herbert's long and prolific career, there is always a risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water when witch-hunting (please excuse the mixed metaphor). Herbert's article relating to melatonin gives an imbalanced view of research on melatonin and makes unwarranted generalisations.
1.Herbert refers to a "maximum demonstrable benefit" from melatonin which is unscientific without specifying the type of benefit desired (improved night's sleep or reduction of free radical damage to mitochondrial DNA, for example).
2.Herbert makes an unwarranted generalisation that "Doses above physiologic levels of almost every supplement prove more harmful than helpful in the long run". It is not scientific to generalise from one substance to another, and there is increasing laboratory and epidemiological evidence that for several supplements relatively high levels are beneficial. The statement is also, of course, not relevant to low dose supplementation.
3.There is a prediction at the end of Herbert's article, referring to the L-tryptophan affair - "One can reasonably predict that sooner or later similar problems will occur with melatonin supplements". This seems to be an inference along the lines that Plane A crashed. B is a plane. Therefore B will crash. Is this a scientific statement or doom-mongering?

[edit] Role of melatonin in the endocrine system

There seems little doubt that melatonin has an influence on different components of the endocrine system, but the literature provides viewpoints that are difficult to reconcile, and difficult to summarise in a short article. The edit replacing one long-standing unsourced statement that melatonin was the "master hormone" with another that it was not was an interesting anonymous viewpoint, but more information on the facts are needed, since melatonin is known to influence HGH, FSH, LH, the thymus gland etc. Elroch 01:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a big advert.

This article reads like literature on melatonin I have been given by drugs companies. It biased and therefor unreliable as an objective description of the substance. It could do with being reverted to an earlier version, with less biased and extraneous information. (added by 84.64.155.79 on 7 August 2006

Please state specific examples of why you believe the article to be "biased and unreliable". The majority of the article states facts taken from peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. 82.17.206.121 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
How about arguments that long term usage is completely untested and not recommended as per bottle labels and doctors? Or how about the suggestion that melatonin can reduce the size of testes of animals, as well as their sex drive? (http://www.usc.edu/health/usccare/services/health_tips/melatonin.html). Or how about this PDF detailing that melatonin in hamsters also caused teste shrinkage? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3210136&dopt=Abstract . There's some serious bias in this article and it can be very misleading.Urbanriot 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
What is Urbanriot's concern? The article gives a simple account of the way that seasonal breeders are affected by melatonin, and actually gives a good reference for the example of hamsters. Clearly this will be useful information to anyone thinking of giving melatonin to their hamster :-). On Urbanriot's first (purely speculative) point, my own opinion, based on thousands of sources, is that a lack of melatonin may be dangerous for the health as endogenous levels decline. There is growing evidence for the dangers of low melatonin levels in diseases which are common in old age. 82.21.244.172 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Dreams

I was a little surprised the word 'dream' didn't show up in the article. Everyone I know that's tried Melatonin (myself included) loved it at first, but if you take it every night, you'll soon start having extremely intense and bizarre dreams, often nightmares. Everyone I know that tried Melatonin stopped taking it for this reason. Perhaps it's OK in moderation and in smaller doses (like half a pill perhaps).

I agree, it does intensify the dreams, but I wouldn't say it gives you nightmares. I would assume that if you are getting nightmares while sleeping off of melatonin pills, they are probably related to the cause of your insomnia. What I mean is, something scary is happening in your life that is keeping you up, and that same something is probably causing your melatonin nightmares. When I tried a melatonin pill, even though I knew I would get to sleep just fine anyway, I had more intense dreams, but they were rather boring.--Moeburn 15:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Combine melatonin usage with 5-HTP and you'll have some seriously lucid dreams. I discovered this accidentally and am able to reproduce it.Urbanriot 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that you can get nightmares with melatonin - I had that happen to me as well. It definitely intensifies dreams, but for people who already have sleeping problems to begin with, it will cause nightmares. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.6.229.178 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
I've created "Role in dreaming" section. You are welcome to expand, adding proper citations. --BorgQueen 04:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
It's similar to psychedelic tryptamines, maybe peple just sleep though the psychedelic effects as dreams. is there a melatonin recptor antagonist? take them toghether and see —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Right Honourable (talk • contribs) 09:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I read that the average 20 year old produces 75 micrograms of melatonin per day. Because I am 50 and don't sleep well, I try to take only 100 micrograms -- or possibly 200 if I really want to sleep a long time. I don't get nightmares with this amount. I can't imagine why anyone would be taking 1 or 3 miligrams, which is the amount in many popular supplements. This is way, way too much. Obviously, that's going to cause nightmares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.204.90 (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CJD Transmission vector

I have a couple of CJD references that could be added:

I have not found any documented cases of this actually happening. Fri666 00:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legallity in australia

is it OTC in australia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.161.6.175 (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Structure innacuracy?

I believe the three dimensional structural image on this page is innacurate. The 2 and 3 carbons are double bonded and thus should be sp2 hybridized. They are shown here as being sp3 hybridized, having extra hydrogen atoms. I'm confident in this and feel it should be corrected. Ccroberts 03:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the whole indole ring would best be displayed as aromatic. I'll let the image creator know. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I see you've done so already; let's give him a couple of days to act on it, meanwhile I've removed the image. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It's fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. I'm going back and checking all my indolines now... Sbrools (talk . contribs) 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redox recycling

"Redox cycling may allow other antioxidants (such as vitamin C) to act as pro-oxidants, counterintuitively promoting free radical formation."

Vitamin C first acts as an anti-oxidant before acting as a pro-oxidant.

I suggest that ", counterintuitively promoting free radical formation" be deleted.

Michael H 34 01:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Here's my suggested edit:

The oxidized form of other anti-oxidants (such as vitamin C) may act as pro-oxidants through redox cycling. For example, although free radicals are reduced when vitamin C is oxidized, free radicals may be formed again when the oxidized form of vitamin C is reduced through redox recycling.

(If there exists a mechanism for redox recycling of vitamin C by enzymes, this should be mentioned.)

Michael H 34 21:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

[edit] Confusing Sentence

Melatonin, being two endogenous hallucinogenic indoles like N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), is likely to be research priorities in this reemerging field of psychiatry.

What's that meant to mean? — 63.249.110.32 06:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That sentence has been bugging me, too. Since no one has answered the question nor improved the sentence, I've shortened it. Don't know if it's correct, but it reads OK now. Hordaland 19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Uh, don't do that, guessing's a sure way to get from incomprehensible to incorrect in half of the cases. Anyways, if there's no source given and it cannot be verified to be correct from reliable sources (and the wishy-washy phrasing in this case suggests it is someone made up anyways), the sentence should just go altogether. Removing any made-up stuff doesn't hurt the article, it improves it. 129.105.14.148 (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alpha methyl melatonin

would this bind to the melatonin receptor, and would it be long lasting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Right Honourable (talk • contribs) 04:47, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] melatonin edit that i made

I currently made an edit, warning people about using melatonin too freely, and how it can cause hormonal fluctuations, i forgot to mention my source which was directly from melatonin.com.

Blc341 06:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to consider melatonin.com a reliable source! On the contrary, WorldWide Labs is very commercial. (That is not to say that there is anything wrong, or right, with your edit.) Hordaland 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dangerous side effects

I've removed this section to the talk as it has some serious problems that are best discussed before such information is included in the article. Let me be clear that I'm no apologist for the drug/supplement industry. Here's the removed text:

Dangerous Side Effects
Asthma
A study indicates that patients with nocturnal asthma may experience adverse effects from melatonin supplements. According to the study “Immunomodulatory Effects of Melatonin in Asthma”, even small amounts of supplemental melatonin worsen the symptoms of the inflammatory disease asthma by causing the body to release chemicals which provoke inflammation. The inflammatory chemicals include increased production of interleukin-1, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha.[E. Rand Sutherland, Richard J. Martin, Misoo C. Ellison and Monica Kraft (2002). "Immunomodulatory Effects of Melatonin in Asthma.". American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 166: 1055 - 1061. PMID 12379548. ]
Arthritis
An animal study indicates that there may be an association between melatonin and increased severity of arthritis in certain individuals. The scientific article titled "The pineal hormone melatonin exaggerates development of collagen-induced arthritis in mice." showed that mice who were injected with melatonin at day 1-10 developed more severe arthritis while those injected at onset did not differ significantly from corresponding controls. The study's results support the hypothesis that the pineal gland can exaggerate the development of CIA via a high release of melatonin, probably via enhancement of T-cell priming.[Hansson I, Holmdahl R, Mattsson R. (1992). "The pineal hormone melatonin exaggerates development of collagen-induced arthritis in mice.". Journal of Neuroimmunology 39(1-2): 23-30. PMID 1619037. ]
Testis Size
An animal study indicates that there is an association between melatonin and reduced testis size in hamsters. The scientific article is titled "Effects of melatonin and 6-methoxybenzoxazolinone on photoperiodic control of testis size in adult male golden hamsters." In this study, testis widths were determined at 2-3 week intervals, and after 66-73 days testes were removed and weighed. The study found that melatonin significantly influenced testis size in each experiment.[Anderson KD, Nachman RJ, Turek FW. (1988). "Effects of melatonin and 6-methoxybenzoxazolinone on photoperiodic control of testis size in adult male golden hamsters.". Journal of Pineal Research 5(4): 351-65. PMID 3210136. ]

Looking at each in turn: The asthma paragraph cites a primary source. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, for good reason. One needs an independent author to assess the clinical relevance of such findings, place the study in context (has it generated criticism), compare it to other studies, etc. This study measured the levels of chemicals in the blood of 23 subjects. This isn't a large-scale study and so one should not extrapolate the result to the population at large. It did not find that melatonin "worsen the symptoms" as the symptoms were not measured - only chemicals in the blood that are associated with an inflammatory response. The study concludes with:

The clinical relevance of these observations requires formal evaluation. Our results indicate that melatonin causes increased PBMC production of selected cytokines in vitro, a finding that may have clinical relevance in patients who use over-the-counter pharmaceutical preparations containing melatonin. Data about the number of people using melatonin are scarce, but millions of Americans are reported to use melatonin (32), and a proportion of these individuals presumably suffer from asthma. For these patients, avoidance of melatonin may be appropriate until further information about the clinical effect of melatonin in asthma becomes available.

The authors accept that "formal evaluation" is required before we can be sure of any clinical relevance. In other words, this study may have no "clinical relevance". If that is the only research to-date, then it is too early for an encyclopaedia (or indeed, a medical textbook) to claim melatonin may make asthma worse. The final sentence contains the study-author's tentative personal advice. Such a suggestion is written for the benefit of medically trained people who can weigh it against other factors and decide if they agree. This is why WP needs a secondary source. If, for example, some significant medical body (e.g. a national Asthma charity's medical board) now advises people with asthma to avoid melatonin supplements, then we can cite them.

The arthritis paragraph cites a study in "DBA/1 mice", a strain bred to be susceptible to collagen-induced arthritis and to low-grade spontaneous inflammatory arthritis. The study's aim was to investigate the role of pineal gland and its (natural) hormone melatonin. The mice were subjected to altered daylight/darkness as well as being injected with the hormone. I'm unable to read beyond the abstract, but can't imagine the article contains anything that might suggest an "association between melatonin and increased severity of arthritis in certain individuals". This is low-level basic research. Extrapolating the effects of a natural hormone on mutant mice kept in very artificial conditions to effects in normal humans, is not allowed.

The testis paragraph cites a study in golden hamsters. It is unclear from the abstract if testes size is reduced (only "influenced"). Another study (PMID 1179207) indicates that small amounts of melatonin "prevented testicular regression" (during v. short days) but atrophy occurred with large amounts. Both studies are interested in the effects of melatonin during daylight-altered conditions. I'm guessing this is all to do with animals turning randy during appropriate breeding seasons. Not something that is relevant to humans.

All these studies show the danger of reading basic research and reporting on it in an encyclopaedia. I don't belive any of these studies have clinical relevance and as such don't merit inclusion. I'm sure that melatonin supplementation can have adverse effects. It may be a natural hormone but, so is insulin and that can kill people! We need to base any "Adverse effects" section on reliable secondary sources. Colin°Talk 08:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have very serious concerns about removing the dangerous side affects from this article. I am sure that you know that the public looks on the internet (especially Google) for information on pharmaceuticals and supplements. This article appears as #2 when searching the term "melatonin" on Google; this article is probably the primary source of information for anyone considering or already taking this supplement.
I have been seriously ill for over a year due to taking this supplement with severe chest congestion & exhaustion, especially at night. After numerous medical tests, I went on a personal quest to eliminate variables within my environment that I thought might be contributing to illness. My initial source of information was the Wikipedia article - but all it contained was gushy information that sounded like it came directly from the supplement industry. Several additional months of suffering and heart/lung stress ensued until I went back to Google and performed a more complex search for any ill affects caused by melatonin.
What I found was peer reviewed scientific articles (one of which I cited) that described my situation exactly. I immediately stopped taking the supplement, and my symptoms completely disappeared.
Why any administrator of this site should want to suppress potentially life threatening, scientifically validated and peer reviewed information from the public makes me seriously question that person's ethics, credentials, and prerogative. I don't know anything about the administrators, so I assume that they are blindly following the administrative rules for this site, but this is a serious health issue and Wikipedia should be consulting with medical ethicists to come up with a serious policy which ensures communication of research which may be indicative of harmful or dangerous side effects before they get their ass sued. Wikipedia's policy should be similar to the legal requirement to include potential dangerous side affects with prescription drugs.
IMHO, God G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodGnipael (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
GodGnipael, please read the Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. It could not be clearer: "WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE". I appreciate that Wikipedia articles are widely read and that we should ensure the article is balanced and not full of "gushy information" from the "supplement industry". But two wrongs don't make a right. There is a clear conflict of interest and an element of original research involved in your desire to tell the world about potential lung problems with melatonin. Wikipedia is not a soap box, no matter how well meaning you may be. The sources you have found, and the text based on them, simply do not contain enough evidence on which to claim a significant danger to health among human beings. If you find more compelling sources, please discuss them here.
I do not wish to start an edit war with you, so I won't be the next person to revert your restoration of this text. I shall seek further input from other editors. There are various ways we can resolve this dispute, simply restoring the text is not the best solution at this point. Colin°Talk 21:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
POV pushing again removed from article. At very least totally inappropriate location to place it (ie in midst of discussing its natural physiological role and before medical artificial supplementation even been mentioned). The section, even if it were to be kept elsewhere in the article would need be termed "Side effects" as per standard term used in drug articles, or "Adverse effects" as per WP:MEDMOS#Drugs. Studies on levels of circulating chemicals is not proof of worsening of asthma, to do so would be synthesis of published material (see WP:NOR). Likewise experiment in an animal model is not proof it would cause arthritis in humans. Any genuine evidence (or reliable sources for possible concerns) already have a place in Melatonin#Safety section - no need create a new section at all.
PS repeated reverting against consensus is disruptive. GodGnipael, note WP:3RR is not a license to revert 3 times a day without consequences, even one revert may result in action. GodGnipael you have revert twice now today, and given comments on your talk page pointing out other relevant policies, you will be blocked if you revert again without obtaining consensus first here on talk page.David Ruben Talk 00:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I can not and will not fight this. As I said, I think this is a gushy article which may endanger the public health by omitting important scientific studies.
I guess you can keep your SAFETY section which starts out with the sentence "Melatonin is practically nontoxic and exhibits almost no short-term side effects." In my opinion, as wonderful as Wikipedia is, its policy on supplements is a little scary and should be examined - even if its a general disclaimer.
What if the DANGEROUS SIDE EFFECTS section was retitled? I personally think its contents should be included somewhere in the article. As I write this, I am looking at the slip of paper which is included with a prescription. The slip I am looking at includes information such as Impairment of Fertility, Pregnancy, Nursing Mothers, Pediatric Use, Adverse Reactions, Overdosage. Maybe supplements such as melatonin should use a similar format?
Anyway, sorry for the reversions.
God G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodGnipael (talk • contribs) 02:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
"Obviously I can not and will not fight this"—don't worry, God G.; we appear to be on the same page here, but there's a certain way we should go about things. Ideally, we should rewrite and expand the Safety section with information from more reliable sources. These appear to be the best available published reviews of melatonin efficacy and safety. They are both freely available, and neither is cited in this article—there is an over-reliance on animal studies. Perhaps we could use these sources to make the page more comprehensive and neutral? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Irony: On a bottle of melatonin capsules I read, "Caution: If you have asthma or an autoimmune disease, do not take melatonin." This isn't an FDA caution and I suspect the manufacturer is just covering his back. I note the above reviews only have data on the safety of short-term use and warn that the product is not available in the consistent form that might be expected if it was a high-quality pharmaceutical. I've nominated this as a candidate Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Collaboration of the Week. Colin°Talk 14:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I couldn't find anything on long-term safety. This European PI (linked to in the article) can probably be used to write up the usual interactions/adverse effects as a start; we should find more literature. RxCOTW seems like a nice idea, if it makes the "cut" :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"Melatonin is practically nontoxic and exhibits almost no short-term side effects." I came across that too reading through the article. The rest of the information in those paragraphs and the segment looks alright, but the openers of the first two paragraphs read like unsubstantiated sunshine-and-lollipops claims to promote the drug. I'll probably never come across it again but it might be more objective if the above quote, and "Even though it is seen as a relatively safe, benign drug," were removed. 124.177.178.52 (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(Moving out to the margin again - just because.) In my not-so-humble opinion a hormone should never have been released (by whom? by FDA? I've seen somewhere that it was released) as a dietary supplement. Myself, I'm diagnosed with delayed sleep phase syndrome which is one of a couple of conditions for which exogenous melatonin really is indicated. Started out 4 years ago at 3 mg, down to 1 mg, now 1/4 mg -- and they all work and work just as well. The timing is much, much more important than the dosage. My point? Just that the FDA should take responsibility! Hordaland 13:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supplement vs. naturally occurring hormone

This article could do with a bit of a reorganization: it moves freely from talking about naturally occurring melatonin to talking about melatonin taken as a sleep aid/dietary supplement. It's generally clear from context that, for example, the safety section is about the supplement... but other parts aren't as clear. --Starwed 05:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I've shifted the safety to be under medicinal use, rather than at same level as for physiological role. Also renamed section headers for a little greater clarity (under supplementation there is both proposed medical use and the "softer" dietary supplement use), and ensure does not seem as if yet approved (ie licensed) use medically outside of research studies. See this edit David Ruben Talk 22:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Improved. But I think this is the first time I've heard of a medicinal supplement. What's that? Perhaps the cognac I use to help me get my evening pills down? But seriously. Wikipedia is supposed to be international. In most countries melatonin is either a totally unavailable hormone or a hormone available on prescription. All the talk of 'supplement' can only confuse.
Your last sentence (above) is a bit garbled, but it seems to be saying that melatonin is not (yet) used for treating patients. I'm a patient, not a research project, and I'm treated with melatonin. An importer/distributor told my pharmacist on the 'phone last week that there are a couple thousand sources for melatonin in the US. Even if he's exagerrating, all that exported hormone can't be going solely to research projects... Hordaland (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addition to "Biological Clock"

In the section on “biological clock” I intend to add this sentence immediately following “but over-illumination can create significant reduction in melatonin production.”; “Since it is blue light that suppresses melatonin (ref. 1) , wearing glasses that block blue light (ref. 2)in the evening can help maintain melatonin production.” The first reference is to Brainard’s 2001 paper PMID: 11487664 that identifies blue light as the cause of melatonin suppression and the second reference is to Kayumov’s paper PMID: 15713707 in which he showed glasses that block blue light allow melatonin to flow, despite exposure to bright light. Are there any objections to my doing so? Rhansler 13:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Rhansler

OK by me, not that I've been active here. One caveat. Blue light is not the only light which suppresses melatonin, and there is some evidence that it's not even the most important in the elderly. Old eyes yellow, and block blue light to some extent. Hordaland 14:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

In view of the above I think I will add a qualifying word along with blue light to read "principally blue light". Rhansler Rhansler 02:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Rhansler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhansler (talk • contribs) 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If I put in in this format will it work? Since it is principally blue light that suppresses melatonin PMID: 11487664, wearing glasses that block blue light PMID: 15713707 in the hours before bedtime can help maintain melatonin production.Rhansler 18:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Rhansler

[edit] "Role in zoology"

I feel that this section is oddly misplaced at the end instead of near the beginning of the article. Melatonin plays a tremendous role wrt seasonality, reproduction etc in many animals. The section looks like an afterthought. It would IMO be better moved to right after Production and Distribution.

Its name is perhaps a bit odd, too. Role in the study of zoology, or role in the animal kingdom? Hordaland 09:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

No objection, so I moved and renamed it as suggested. Hordaland 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable reference?

The John Hammell reference may be seriously meant, but it reads like a parody. The following article from The Independent may be a better (as well as newer) source: http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article118214.ece Hordaland 18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Melatonin as antioxidant?

The primary basic funtion of melatonin is not that of an anti-oxidant. Many related molecules can exert similar anti-oxidant activity (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Apr;87(7):2506-10. Antioxidant activities of some tryptophan metabolites: possible implication for inflammatory diseases.Christen S, Peterhans E, Stocker R.

The basic melatonin function is to tell the body the time of the day and of the year by acting on high affinity receptors. Accordin to the existing evidence, melatonin is just one of the many anti-oxidant molecules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.246.191.129 (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed new paragraph

A paragraph, see below, was recently added to the Biological Clock (in humans) section about melatonin's effect on the hormone Leptin and on appetite. This was sadly misplaced. I added a short mention of and link to Leptin in the section on the animal kingdom and added (moved) the reference to the article on Leptin. If more of the removed paragraph should appear in the Melatonin article, it should be added in a relevant section. The removed paragraph was this:

Affects on Appetite: Leptin is a hormone that is synthesized in adipose tissue that is produced in direct proportion to fat stores within the body. Elevated levels of serum leptin result in a decrease in appetite. Melatonin receptors have been found in adipose tissue which, upon stimulation by melatonin acting in concert with insulin, increase production of leptin (Alonso-Vale, M.I., Andreotti, S., Peres, S.B., Anhe, G.F., Borges-Silva, C.N., Neto, J.C. & Lima, F.B. (2004). American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism: November 30, 2004. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2007 from http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/content/short/00478.2004v1.). Therfore, the net effect is that elevated levels of melatonin decrease appetite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hordaland (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Availability in different countries? EU?

It would be good if someone could find a source for this. The article said that melatonin was not available over-the-counter in the EU. An anon has recently changed this, commenting "Melatonin is sold OTC in many EU countries". I know that it's not OTC in Sweden nor UK. How to find out if there's an EU policy on this? Or a listing of other countries outside of EU? --Hordaland (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glasses?

The article mentions that tinted glasses can be worn in order to promote melatonin production. I believe, however, that the melatonin-light interaction occurs in all the skin, so mostly has nothing to do with the eyes. Would someone with more knowledge confirm or deny my suspicion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.242.30 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you may be confusing melatonin with melanin? In mammals, melatonin is produced in the pineal gland in the brain. Production of it is stopped by light striking the retina, specifically the 2% of ganglion cells in the retina which contain melanopsin. We have melanin in our skin, but not melatonin nor melanopsin. --Hordaland (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RxCOTM

This article is now the new Pharmacology Collaboration of the Month. Hopefully, it can be improved to featured or good article status. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overdose?

Melatonin taken in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) can lead to overdose because MAOIs inhibit the breakdown of melatonin by the body.[citation needed]

Removing this sentence. It's been discussed since 12/05 December 2005 (see above), and still no source. It's also not entirely clear on overdose of what? Overdosing on melatonin is unheard of. --Hordaland (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shiftwork and Cancer - Melatonin link possible

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, announced through a press release in December 2007 that shiftwork that involves circadian disruption is “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

They reviewed epidemiological studies of long-term female night shiftworkers and noted a higher risk of breast cancer risk than those who did not work at night. These studies have involved mainly nurses and flight attendants. Animal studies had similar results where light at night significantly increased tumours. This relates to melatonin in that studies reducing levels of this hormone at night increased the tumours.

The IARC committee head noted that nearly 20% of the working population in Europe and North America are engaged in shiftwork, with many workers in health-care and transportation fiels as well as in industrial, communications, and hospitality sectors. Studies focussed on breast cancer in nurses and flight attendants.

70.51.93.236 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Lorraine Davison70.51.93.236 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting review on detrimental effects of light at night, including but not limited to general light pollution, on wild animals as well as humans:
Navara, Kristen J.; Nelson, Randy J. (2007). "The dark side of light at night: physiological, epidemiological, and ecological consequences" (Review, PDF: full text). J. Pineal Res. (43): 215-224. doi:10.1111/j.1600-079X.2007.00473.x. 
--Hordaland (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable statement

"Until recent history, humans in temperate climates were exposed to up to 18 hours of darkness in the winter" Didn't people gather around camp fires for lighting and warmth in the winter? --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Was this a sneaky edit, or what:
"Until recent history, humans in temperate climates were exposed to only about six hours of daylight in the winter."
Later in the same paragraph, it is pointed out that "it is principally blue light that suppresses melatonin", so the red-orange-yellow of campfires, candles and oil lamps had little effect on levels of melatonin in the blood. I'm hoping it's not necessary to specify this in this section. --Hordaland (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Link

Greetings,

I posted an external link and it was deleted. I would respectfully like to request feedback on this.

The link was on melatonin and insomnia.

I felt it was valuable because the article to which I linked:

  • addresses perhaps the most common issue laypeople wonder and hear about when it comes to melatonin--and an issue that the Wikipedia article does not delve too deeply into--particularly in a way that laypeople can understand.
  • provides an unbiased, evidence-based look at the supplement, written by a respected integrative physician.

The user who deleted it said it "Violates WP:COI, WP:ADVERT, etc." I understand this point of view but respectfully disagree with it. I am connected with the magazine that published the article, but I am not going around posting arbitrary links to our magazine. I have, in fact, only posted one other (which the same user deleted for the same reason--and with whose decision I disagree for the same reason). In my short time so far with Wikipedia, I have also made other edits to articles and have posted links to other external sites with which I have no connection.

Wikipedia does not disallow posting links to anything at all with which you are connected. It disallows abuse in this area. I believe a reasonable litmus test is: If the poster weren't connected to the organization, would the link be valuable?

I contend, very strongly, yes. And the Wikipedia community and readers shouldn't be denied valuable information that fills in gaps just because I was the user who posted it.

I am very careful not to post links that are not intrinsically valuable. If I do violate that policy, I of course invite anyone to take me to task. But could I please get some feedback on this issue? I would like to repost the link.

Thank you.

MyFamilyDoctorMag (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the link. One of the strong rules in Wikipedia is that people can't link to their own web sites, under WP:COI, WP:ADVERT, and other rules, and for good reason. If we let people link to their own web sites, every entry would get spammed by people who are trying to promote their sites. Everybody thinks their own work is useful, but you can't be a good judge of your own case.
The only exception is that you can identify yourself, and suggest a link in Talk. If other people think it's useful, somebody will add it. (I don't expect that to happen, but that's just my prediction.)
In practice, if you link to your own site, the link will get quickly reverted (particularly on medical pages). If you continually repost the links, you'll get blocked.
I'm reluctant to get into the merits of the article on MyFamilyDoctorMag, because it's so clearly unacceptable for other reasons. But on the merits, there was nothing in the article that isn't already in the WP entry. The next thing I looked at were the links. The link to the NINDS didn't even link to the melatonin or sleep pages on NINDS where you could get specific information on the subject, but just to the home page. The next link was to the Rozerem consumer page, with the obnoxious ad. The next link was to the MIT study, which was already discussed in the WP entry, with links to admittedly difficult journal articles. It is useful to add a plain-language summary to the WP entry, but only as a link where the WP entry already discusses it. Rather than linking to the MyFamilyDoctorMag article, where the only useful thing is the link to the MIT press release, when you can link to the MIT press release directly? Then at least you wouldn't have a WP:COI. If I wanted to link to a layman's description of sleep problems, I'd link to the Merck Manual, or the UK NHS patient material, or the NIH, or one of the academic web sites.
So whether you're connected with the site or not, I don't think it's valuable. You may disagree, and I'll probably never convince you, and that's why we use the rule against conflicts of interest.
I appreciate the needs of doctors to market themselves on the web. But you can't do it on Wikipedia. Sorry. Nbauman (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Nbauman,
If the policy is truly as you state, then the Wikipedia page on that policy needs to be edited. As it is written, it does not have these hard-and-fast rules you cite. It warns against abuse but does not say you cannot link to an appropriate site with which you happen to be associated.
You are also sorely misrepresenting the article to which I linked. "There was nothing in the article that isn't already in the WP entry." That is not true. In addition, the Wikipedia entry is completely academic and incomprehensible to the regular person. You seem to be very ready to trash any article other than the ones over which you lord (since you also trashed the other article to which I linked on another page), but anyone looking for readable melatonin information will not find it here. Therefore, the options are: 1) completely rewrite the Wikipedia article or 2) link to external options that give nonscientists reliable, readable information.
Further, you misrepresent the links in the JHMFD article. The links are appropriate in the context in which they appear. You also omit the fact that the article links directly to safety information from the NIH and NLM.
"If you continually repost the links, you'll get blocked." I did not repost the links but appropriately went straight to the talk page to ask for feedback. But I recognize a bullying threat when I hear it. Fortunately, you are not the be all and end all of Wikipedia, and I am happy to take this discussion to the next step.
I will await further input from others, however.

MyFamilyDoctorMag (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

IMO, ask-the-doctor type sites are only very rarely acceptable as External links. They can more often, though carefully, be used as an inline ref for a specific claim. The one in question does not belong in External links (again: IMO). As an aside, I do appreciate MFDM's openness about her/his connections.
MFDM's criticisms of the article are valid. I quote:
... anyone looking for readable melatonin information will not find it here. Therefore, the options are: 1) completely rewrite the Wikipedia article or 2) link to external options ...
In principle and in practice, option 1 is best, and it's been needed for some time. It may be the usual thing in articles about hormones to open with very technical stuff. In this case, because of media interest the last decade or so and the OTC availability of the drug in many countries, I believe that this particular article should open with simple English explanations.
The article appears to have grown by bits here and there, without much plan. It has recently been a collaboration of the month project, and the result is embarrassing for Wikipedia. --Hordaland (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I have long been an advocate of writing Wikipedia medicine and biomedicine articles to make them easier for the intelligent lay reader to understand.
Many WP articles are literally written by scientists for other scientists. On the one hand, they have a lot of good information. On the other hand, we get messages in Talk from people who say that they can't understand them.
I usually point to the model of The Merck Manual, Science magazine, etc. as examples of how you can be precise and accurate enough to satisfy scientists, yet be understandable to the intelligent lay reader. There is actually quite a bit of academic literature on what works and what doesn't work.
The best way, I think, is to add (not replace) layman's terms when you have technical terms. If you took a class on composition you learned about introductory sentences, and I think every paragraph, no matter how complicated, should have a simple introductory sentence that tells you what the paragraph is going to say. Sometimes you wind up with stuff that is important but unavoidably difficult, and I put that at the end. Medical editing is hard because you have to check back with the original sources to make sure your rewrite is still representing them accurately. Once you've done that, you can go to work on organizing the work as a whole, filling in the gaps, and deleting the less important material (not what you think is less important; what everybody thinks is less important).
This is a long, hard process, and it takes a lot of judgment. (There's a reason why medical editors get paid a lot.) I'd estimate it would take me a full day to edit a WP article like this to make it as understandable as a Science magazine article.
That's why so many of these WP articles look the way they do. But you're not going to make an article easier to understand by linking to your own web site. Nbauman (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hordaland,
Thank you very much for weighing in. I appreciate your fair-minded input--and for noticing that I have been transparent.
When I posted the external link, I did not think the option of rewriting the Wikipedia entry was viable. For one thing, it would take so long, as Nbauman notes. But for another thing, I assumed the article must have been written that way for a reason--to reach scientists or something. I would not have been so presumptuous as to swoop in and start rewriting just because I'm used to dealing with a different audience. Instead, I added three links (not just the deleted one) that I thought provided easy-to-understand but reliable, evidence-based information, to help laypeople who might stumble across the article. But I understand now that I was mistaken in my assumption; the article can be rewritten.
Nbauman, after thinking it through, I understand your points better now, and I realize I should have come to the talk page before, rather than after, posting the link. Lesson learned. I do harbor some bitterness about this process, though--especially because of the insults that were made (and based on what I see as unfair assessments--particularly in the immune-system article, which was said to have been scraped from another site; that wasn't true at all!). And I still contend that in this article--the way it is written now--the link did improve it. It served the readers by giving them reliable, evidence-based, but readable information on perhaps the most popular melatonin topic among the general public these days. If the article already had that information in a form that was understandable, I would agree with you; my link would not have been necessary.
Anyway, Hordaland, I appreciate your coming in and diffusing the situation a bit.
I don't think I'll be doing much more with Wikipedia in the near future. I don't need this type of drama. I will thus leave this page to you guys. I would propose that even if the insomnia/melatonin link I provided is not acceptable, something would be better than nothing in the interim during which the Wikipedia piece is being revamped.

MyFamilyDoctorMag (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: History of Melatonin

When this article someday is reorganized, which I think it needs, I'd suggest adding a History section. Some research into the media hysteria about this miracle drug, starting about early-1990s, would be appropriate. A brief timeline telling what was known, when, about melatonin would be interesting. I'm parking a couple of facts and links here.

Newsweek's cover on melatonin, 1995, might be a good illustration.

Melatonin was named by its "discoverer" in 1958; before that it was referred to as "(bovine) pineal gland extracts". Here is a link (PDF) to Dr. Aaron Bunson Lerner's first paper about it where the word melatonin is used. Dr. Lerner was then the (first) director of Yale's Department of Dermatology. Here is Lerner's NYT obit from February 2007; he died at age 86. (UPI's obit contains an error, as Lerner's work was on the pigmentation of frog skin, not human skin.)

A very decent student project on melatonin, including a page of references, is here.

--Hordaland (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Studies on side effects

I changed this line: "No studies have as yet been conducted to determine whether there are any long-term side effects. There are, however, case reports about patients who have taken the supplement for years.".[65]

To: "Case report are available on patients who have taken the supplement for years.".[65]

Can a study really be made to determine side effects? Side-effects are surely found in studies! I noticed it because I followed the link thinking it was an example of a side-effect - which was because of the way the lines were phrased. I decided to remove the first line - looking at it again, pehaps the word "to" should have read "that". --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see how you read it as you did. I changed things around a bit, and hope it makes sense now. --Hordaland (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed one sentence

"As of 2006 melatonin is known to affect the timing of endogenous melatonin production during long-term treatment in rats."

cite journal | author = Sankaran M, Subramanian P | title = Modulation of biochemical circadian rhythms during long-term melatonin treatment in rats. | journal = Singapore Med J | year = 2006 | id = PMID 16397720

Quote from the abstract: Exogenous melatonin administered caused delays in the acrophase of glucose, total protein and melatonin rhythms, whereas advances in the acrophases of reduced glutathione were observed.

This is basic research in rats on several factors, cited here only to show effects on "the timing of endogenous melatonin production" in rats. It is already well documented that exogenous administration of melatonin affects the timing of endogenous melatonin production in humans in a phase-dependent manner (see PRC), so this is not news and is of no interest here. (Especially in a section entitled Medical indications!) --Hordaland (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Availibility in Australia

According to the Therapeutic Drugs Administration (Australian regulators of drugs), Melatonin is a Schedule 4 drug, ie PRESCRIPTION ONLY.

Anecdotally (and of course this isn't case-control, placebo control data), we have found it EXTREMELY effective for our autistic child, with a complete abrogation of night terrors, no hangover effect, and no apparent changes in other behaviours, other than child and rest of family being much less tired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.192.124 (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Popular Culture/ Fear & Loathing

Melatonin is mentioned extensively in Hunter S. Thompson's novel "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", and is used recreationally by the two main characters.

I believe what the original statement is referring to is Mescaline. In the novel there is an extensive use of Mescaline, and Melatonin itself is not covered on any base in the book. If anyone does perchance find truth they may place the statement back where it belongs as it has been removed.

(AnthonyMBeck (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC))