Talk:Lithium orotate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lithium orotate is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance for this Project's importance scale.

The section criticising the paper seems rather POV and veering rather close to original research...

note

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20040418/msgs/340066.html


... My understanding of the test that was done regarding the kidney fuction comparison between lithium orotate and lithium carbonate is this: (btw, I have studied both the abstract and the full text of the article of the research done in 1979 by Smith and Schou.)

They injected rats with both lithium carbonate and lithium orotate (and a neutral injection of sodium chloride) and then measured kidney functioning, urine flow, etc. The results were that the lithium orotate seemed to cause lower kidney functioning.

However, the HUGE and apparently completely overlooked point here is this--they injected the rats with the SAME amounts of lithum orotate and lithium carbonate. Anyone see a problem here?? The point is, people DON'T TAKE the same enormous amounts of lithium orotate as they have to take with lithium carbonate and lithium citrate!! An effective dose is typically like 15 mg of elemental lithium from lithium orotate compared to 126 mg of elemental lithium from lithium carbonate, which is more than 800% more lithium!

Above comments moved from article page. Constitute original research? ChemGardener 16:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


ChemGardener is right about his interpretation of the Smith and Schou paper. The authors even pointed out at the end of the article that in Smith's earlier rat study (1976) done at lower but still large lithium concentrations they noticed no problems with kidney function (although they did not focus on that). But I have embarked on a research project in humans who are already taking lithium orotate to check their kidney function. Please see more information on my user page, where I indicate my plans to edit this page. Or check out my website.

As a first step, today I made my first edit of the article page, adding a fourth external link.

Wayne Federer, 16 Dec 2005

Contents

[edit] Orotate?

What's an orotate? There's an article on orotic acid (B-13). Is this the radical? RJFJR 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Orotate is the conjugate base (i.e. the anionic form) of orotic acid. (cf. Acetic acid, acetate) Porkchopmcmoose 04:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Literature

  • Kling M. A, Manowitz P., Pollack I. W. (1978). "Rat brain and serum lithium concentrations after acute injections of lithium carbonate and orotate". J Pharm Pharmacol 30 (6): 368-70. 
  • Kling M. A, Manowitz P., Pollack I. W. (2004). "Peter Tyre". Drug treatment for personality disorders 10: 389-398.  Some better refs!--Stone 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Issue

there was a legally false statement in the intro suggesting that because lithium orotate was not approved as a prescription drug, it could be sold over the counter. that is an overstatement of the law. lithium orotate is regulated by FDA; depending on the labeled claims of what the product is supposed to do for you, it is regulated as a dietary supplement or a drug. indeed, without checking with FDA's Center For Food Safety and Nutrition (CFSAN), i can't say for sure, but i think that because lithium is approved as a prescription drug (although that drug is lithium carbonate), it is not eligible for sale as a dietary supplement. (see Pharmanex v. Shalala, 10th Cir., 2001) Kurtzu2 17:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research section moved from article

The following was moved from the article because it appears to be original research WP:No original research :

However, the study's conclusion regarding lithium orotate was flawed for the following reason:

During this study, the same amounts of lithium carbonate and lithium orotate were used. A highly significant point which was completely unaddressed by this study is that an effective dose of lithium orotate typically contains 15 mg of elemental lithium compared to 126 mg of elemental lithium from lithium carbonate. In patient treatment with lithium carbonate, more than 700% more lithium is used than in treatment with lithium orotate. Based on the information in the study stating that an equal amount of each item was used, the study administered 700% too little lithium orotate.

This conclusion of this study is skewed because it completely disregards the way lithium orotate is administered in actual use.

ChemGardener 17:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction of toxic levels reached

I removed this:

When lithium orotate is used, these near-toxic levels of lithium are not reached as only very small amounts of lithium are administered for treatment.

because this:

Some patients prefer to use it in place of lithium carbonate, as they believe that it is more bioavailable and the side effects tend to be significantly reduced.

and this:

An animal study by Smith and Schou suggests that the kidneys clear lithium orotate significantly less effectively than lithium carbonate, and that this accounts for the higher serum levels of lithum when lithium orotate is taken compared to the equivalent amount of lithium carbonate. They conclude: "The higher lithium concentrations could be accounted for by the lower kidney function. It seems inadvisable to use lithium orotate for the treatment of patients."

seems to possibly contradict it. Where next Columbus? (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of links

I removed every external link except the third one in External links. The first one was to a manufacturer/web shop, two claimed LiOr has no side effects (among other things, see below), and one link was already in the References section (the study).

LiOr has been found to have side effects, and the talk about LiOr as being the (my emphasis) form of lithium that crosses the blood-brain barrier, is, well, false. The anti-aging, nutritional, etc statements on the "no side effects" pages also seem to be original research. Where next Columbus? (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I did reinstate one of the links, but this time as a source for the proponent claim that the Schou study was flawed. Where next Columbus? (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)