Jump to content

Talk:Lithium orotate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CAS number

[edit]

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)[reply]

Smith and Schou paper

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]


Thank u for the above. I’ve been taking lithium ororate for long covid since learning about it in 2023 in Cornwall, England. A local woman in Falmouth knew of Lithium benefits to many miners in Chile (published research substantiates this) and as I was investing in lithium extraction in Cornwall & Chile, I followed up the research and found it to be solid evidence based. But since then NHS hospitals and GPs have asked that I not record on my health records the lithium orate treatment. I currently take 4 x 175mg, which contains approx 4x6.7mg = 27mg pure lithium. I have let my doctors know and have taken it after consultation with a private psychiatrist. No adverse effects apart from very disturbed dreams & a positive that my herpes has stopped. lithium has been used to stop herpes in published research.

I have to re-read the 1970’s articles. I have also found a 2022 research paper. I think they say Li Orotate has 3 times potency of lithium carbonate. lithium carbonate has 4.9 times more Lithium in each mg than lithium Orotate. 1mg Lithium Orotate = 0.0383mg pure lithium, verses 1mg Li2CO3= 0.188mg pure lithium. Therefore someone taking 1000mg lithium carbonate could try 1600mg lithium Orotate and get 2/3rds less lithium but hopefully with the same benefits. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eco-climber (talk • contribs) 08:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orotate?

[edit]

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

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

Literature

[edit]
  • 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.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Kling M. A, Manowitz P., Pollack I. W. (2004). "Peter Tyre". Drug treatment for personality disorders. 10: 389–398.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Some better refs!--Stone 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Original research section moved from article

[edit]

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)[reply]

Contradiction of toxic levels reached

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Couple papers not covered here

[edit]

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)[reply]

Weasel words

[edit]

" 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)[reply]

More Weasel Words

[edit]

"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)[reply]

Patent status

[edit]

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 @Nbritton. Can you or someone else verify it or provide a better source?

— Arthurfragoso (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pacholko2021 - good review study

[edit]

There is this review study that is quite good, it could help improve this Wikipedia article:

Pacholko, Anthony G.; Bekar, Lane K. (August 2021). "Lithium orotate: A superior option for lithium therapy?". Brain and Behavior. 11 (8). doi:10.1002/brb3.2262. ISSN 2162-3279. PMC 8413749. PMID 34196467.

—Arthurfragoso (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two other recent studies done on the safety:

Both have been favorable to lithium orotate. — Arthurfragoso (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full article available as pdf here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.01.490227v2.full.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eco-climber (talk • contribs) 09:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary research and (extra especially) preprints are not usable on Wikipedia for WP:BMI; such material should be sourced to WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aron et al. Alzheimer's study

[edit]

User:Bon courage has reverted a couple of edits saying they don't confirm with WP:MEDRS. The first I agree with. However, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lithium_orotate&diff=prev&oldid=1304544752 seems to me to conform with WP:MEDPRI: "If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study", which I did in the reverted edit. I have no connection with medical research, and therefore may not be understanding why this edit is not appropriate. I'm not interested in an edit war. However, given the publicity around this study, it seems like people might be coming to Wikipedia for information. A short blurb about the study with links to the paper and to a "layman's article" about the paper seem appropriate to me. GeoGreg (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need good WP:MEDRS for this. Primary research getting hyped (very common unfortunately) is the opposite of suitable encyclopedic content. Bon courage (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be acceptable to add a short "Research" section mentioning the high-profile 2025 Nature mouse study on lithium orotate? It would label it as preclinical and caution about lack studies on human efficacy. Given the substantial media coverage, omitting it entirely makes the article appear incomplete. jrf (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until there's WP:MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolving vs Dissociating

[edit]

A key issue with this article is confusing these terms ″and like other salts, dissolves in solution to produce free lithium ions.″ and ″Nieper went on to claim that lithium did not dissolve from the orotate carrier". The correct term here is disassociates, and the key point of that LiOr doesn't disassociate in solution as much as LiCO - see Fig 3A [1]. This possibility to transport LiOr as a complete molecule rather than an isolated Li+ ion makes it potentially radically different from a biological perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD1:FD92:0:AD2A:1C9C:945:AB07 (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022395623003102
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lithium_orotate&oldid=1310454082"