Talk:Lithium orotate

message: NB: The CAS number listed in the wikipedia entry goes to a non-existent entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.138.56 (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAS number 

message: 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)
replies: text: Federer's website link is currently broken, so a link to the archive if anyone is curious about the content. —Arthurfragoso (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smith and Schou paper 

message: What's an orotate?  There's an article on orotic acid (B-13).  Is this the radical? RJFJR 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Orotate is the conjugate base (i.e. the anionic form) of orotic acid. (cf. Acetic acid, acetate) Porkchopmcmoose 04:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orotate? 

message: *
* Some better refs!--Stone 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Literature

message: 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)
replies: text: This is a highly misinformed position. While I would not dismiss the comment solely for the sake of grossly bad grammar, Lithium Orotate is available for sale readily in the United States from many supplement stores and online retailers. The comment should be dismissed. 76.182.65.66 (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Issue

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original research section moved from article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Contradiction of toxic levels reached 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of links 

message: I don't have access these two papers (PMID link). The first suggests good effects with LiOr. Please comment if you have access to them and consider sending them to imperfectlyinformed@gmail.com. It is interesting that of the 7 papers which come up on PubMed's search for "lithium orotate", all are referenced on here but these two. ImpIn | (t - c) 10:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Couple papers not covered here 

message: " Lithium orotate has been promoted as an alternative to lithium carbonate, which because it must be used in high doses, is potentially toxic." Promoted by whom? When? In what setting? Was it promoted by any person or organization with a legitimate claim to credibility? This statement should be supported by a citation and a bit of explanation, otherwise it should be removed. 69.110.106.25 (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: "As previously stated, lithium intake appears to be effective even at low doses, and this may account for lithium orotates claimed effectiveness"
The article does not previously state who has claimed that lithium orotate is effective.
"Appears to be effective even at low doses" refers to three small, low-quality, open label trials, as far as I can tell. The phrases "appears to be effective" is ridiculous, because it does not address what condition is being treated, nor the degree of effectiveness compared to placebo, no treatment, or forms of treatment better supported by empirical research.69.110.106.25 (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Weasel Words 

message: I could not verify the claim of the patent status.
"Major medical research has not been conducted on lithium orotate since the 1980s due to its patent status and the abundant availability lithium carbonate."
It was added by . Can you or someone else verify it or provide a better source?
— Arthurfragoso (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent status 

message: There is this review study that is quite good, it could help improve this Wikipedia article:
—Arthurfragoso (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacholko2021 - good review study