How can anyone believe anything in health studies, let along medical journalism. There is rampant fraud and corruption at every level.
Melatonin is attacked. Aspirin is attacked. And statins, PPIs, SSRIs, are all ubiquitous and praised and prescribed.
This study is of course horse manure, but so are almost all medical studies today. The biases are not that hard to find, either.
I do question most people who take more than 1 or 2mg of melatonin, if that is a good idea. Melatonin can be a powerful drug, taken orally or topically. It can be amazing on the skin.
But I’m not sure taking 10mg or 20mg for insomnia was ever a good idea. This study is worthless, but safety should always be questioned by anyone who is taking supplements, doncha think?
All good points about "churnalism." Here are a few more that should embarrass those who published these news reports, even assuming that the collected data is high quality, which I now gather it isn't.
1) The study has not even been published yet.
2) In the words of the study's author, "Worse insomnia, depression/anxiety or the use of other sleep-enhancing medicines might be linked to both melatonin use and heart risk....our study cannot prove a direct cause-and-effect relationship....This means more research is needed to test melatonin’s safety for the heart.”
3) The abstract mentions another major issue with the study: "Participants were excluded if they...had been prescribed other types of sleeping pills such as benzodiazepines." So, in the control group, there weren't *any* people under treatment for insomnia via drugs. In other words, this study provides no grounds to conclude that the association isn't totally due to insomnia bad enough to require pharmacological treatment. It is also totally silent on whether melatonin is better or worse for the heart than anything else prescribed for insomnia.
Well, this certainly puts things in perspective: "The dilemma is who is going to pay for a multimillion-dollar, long-term clinical trial using high-dose melatonin when it has been available as a low-cost dietary supplement for the last 30 years?" from the article linked by William Wilson.
True enough, and this all too common churnalism equates to 'click-bait' as far as I see.
Thanks for pointing this one out - I'd just seen it in a few places recently and thought, "What rubbish!"
Wait, they're Just Now deciding to "keep us safe from" this very widely used supplement, when we've had evidence like this?! Were they Sitting on it? Why would that happen, when we know the above dilemma is profit-motivated? If they could prove this, we'd long ago been forbidden melatonin use altogether by the pharma censors.
Do the authors describe a "before melatonin" and "after melatonin" heart condition?
What if people with heart disease had a higher tendency of insomnia, hence take melatonin?
How can anyone believe anything in health studies, let along medical journalism. There is rampant fraud and corruption at every level.
Melatonin is attacked. Aspirin is attacked. And statins, PPIs, SSRIs, are all ubiquitous and praised and prescribed.
This study is of course horse manure, but so are almost all medical studies today. The biases are not that hard to find, either.
I do question most people who take more than 1 or 2mg of melatonin, if that is a good idea. Melatonin can be a powerful drug, taken orally or topically. It can be amazing on the skin.
But I’m not sure taking 10mg or 20mg for insomnia was ever a good idea. This study is worthless, but safety should always be questioned by anyone who is taking supplements, doncha think?
Simple question: do the authors have ANY connection to manufacturers of prescription sleep aids?
I have been taking melatonin for years. I don't intend stopping that.
All good points about "churnalism." Here are a few more that should embarrass those who published these news reports, even assuming that the collected data is high quality, which I now gather it isn't.
1) The study has not even been published yet.
2) In the words of the study's author, "Worse insomnia, depression/anxiety or the use of other sleep-enhancing medicines might be linked to both melatonin use and heart risk....our study cannot prove a direct cause-and-effect relationship....This means more research is needed to test melatonin’s safety for the heart.”
3) The abstract mentions another major issue with the study: "Participants were excluded if they...had been prescribed other types of sleeping pills such as benzodiazepines." So, in the control group, there weren't *any* people under treatment for insomnia via drugs. In other words, this study provides no grounds to conclude that the association isn't totally due to insomnia bad enough to require pharmacological treatment. It is also totally silent on whether melatonin is better or worse for the heart than anything else prescribed for insomnia.
Well, this certainly puts things in perspective: "The dilemma is who is going to pay for a multimillion-dollar, long-term clinical trial using high-dose melatonin when it has been available as a low-cost dietary supplement for the last 30 years?" from the article linked by William Wilson.
True enough, and this all too common churnalism equates to 'click-bait' as far as I see.
Thanks for pointing this one out - I'd just seen it in a few places recently and thought, "What rubbish!"
Wait, they're Just Now deciding to "keep us safe from" this very widely used supplement, when we've had evidence like this?! Were they Sitting on it? Why would that happen, when we know the above dilemma is profit-motivated? If they could prove this, we'd long ago been forbidden melatonin use altogether by the pharma censors.
I think I will stick with my high-dose melatonin:
https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2022/7/higher-dose-melatonin?srsltid=AfmBOopZ9CSLZ-XgwS2Kf1YM0JABVa11RZ6I-CJXiQK-4pFdLxwUsPFw