Talk:Melanotan
 | This set index article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
|
Internet sales?
[edit]In the intro it is now mentioned that the peptides are available for purchase on the internet. While this citation is true it starts to turn the article into a sales pitch for these peptides. Is this in this in the best interest of providing a good quality article about these peptides? 69.108.110.205 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
- Acting as a sales pitch is certainly not the intention, quite the opposite actually. I do think the internet marketing is the elephant in the room in this article. If you browse the internet, 99% of the mentions of Melanotan are in the context of online sales. I bet 99% of those who read this article do so because they have heard about it via that route. Melanotan, as a licensed tanning/ED drug will likely never be legally available, because any variants that are legally tested, trialled and sold in the future will be marketed under another name. Therefore any product sold under the name melanotan will remain as a untested "drug" only available online. Ignoring that does not do our readers any favors, since if we give all the preliminary data of melanotan efficacy, its easy to assume that the stuff on sale online is the same stuff being tested in these trials. It is not.
- Therefore I think we should mention that it is widely marketed online, but also make it perfectly clear that it is unlicensed and untested (and therefor possibly counterfeit, and potentially unsafe). If people read that and still choose to inject themselves with something some fraudster sells them via then internet, then more fool them. Dostioffski (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Melanin in the eyes?
[edit]I was reading about Melanotan a while back and distinctly remember reading that human eyes contain melanin and it's highly undesirable to have excessive melanin production in your eyes and use of an indiscriminate enhancer like this can lead to darkening and defects in vision. I don't have time to research and add to the main article. Does anyone else have any info on this side-effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.185.34 (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- To my recollection there's been no mention of this in any of the clinical trials that have been conducted for either melanotan I or II. There's been some anecdotal speculation relative to such concerns that I have read on the internet but never anything from a reliable source. 89.159.158.241 (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Afamelanotide instead of Melanotan 1?
[edit]Given that the WHO has now assigned 'afamelanotide' to the chemical sequence Ac-Ser-Tyr-Ser-Nle-Glu-His-D-Phe-Arg-Trp-Gly-Lys-Pro-Val-NH2, is it not better to start discussing this as an active pharmaceutical ingredient, rather than 'Melanotan 1'? WHO proposed list number 100 lists this name for the chemical sequence, but 'Melanotan' is only recognised as a brand in research. Melanotan/CUV1647/[Nle4, D-Phe7]α-MSH have been used in research, but afamelanotide will be used as a generic should it be approved.
Given the confusion with online sales as discussed above and 'Melanotan' and 'Melanotan II', perhaps this distinction would help, regardless of the eventual brand? Any thoughts, comments? 115.130.4.187 (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC) (talk)
- I've been asked to participate in this discussion so here I am. Out of curiosity do you in any way shape or form work as a representative of any companies developing either of these drugs? I ask because I notice that you are editing from an IP address located in Australia. Thanks. Sometime-science-editor (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I recommend we split the article (I tried this in 2007, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanotan 1, but I think the consensus will be different this time around). Once split, I recommend that we rename one of the split articles to "afamelanotide". --Arcadian (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, regarding this question I have done further research and I agree that there should be two articles. Afamelanotide (with a redirect from Melanotan 1) and Melanotan II and have Melanotan be a disambiguation page to both articles. Does that make sense? Sometime-science-editor (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you all for your comments. I agree with the general consensus, splitting the page is probably more representative of the two separate chemicals. Would it be better to also integrate any Melanotan disambiguation page into the Melanocyte-stimulating hormone page, which discussed natural and synthetic MSH, or is this a step too far?
- How should the issue of illegal/counterfeit product (raised in the top discussion here) be addressed? It seems Melanotan is a popular online term and may forever be used to relate to the versions of the drug sold online, as well as in government health warnings. 115.130.13.2 (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Having done additional research I have come to understand that the term 'Melanotan' (in reference to NDP-MSH) is well rooted in medical journals dating back at least as far as 1995 (and from what can be found online it appears that the principle researchers used this term going as far back as the 1980s) and as recently as 2007 it continues to be used. Even as recently as 2005 the company Epitan (now known as Clinuvel) was using the word (from a cursory search of Epitan + Melanotan I did it seems there was quite a media awareness of this term already up to that point). It is true that there is a current association between this term and unlicensed usage of these drugs but given the short attention span of the media that will likely soon pass. The fact to the matter is that for many years the word "melanotan" was not known for this current phenomenon and to try and "cover up" this fact through trying to avoid a redirect would be to deny this fact. There are probably a decent number of Wikipedia readers looking for information relative to "Epitan" and "Melanotan" and without a proper disambiguation page these individuals will be stymied in their research. Sometime-science-editor (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've split out the bulk of the content to Afamelanotide and Melanotan II. It might be possible to split out more. --Arcadian (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- This is probably a good example to follow (re: disambiguation). Just use the bit you've added to the top as the disambiguation. Sometime-science-editor (talk) 02:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've split out the bulk of the content to Afamelanotide and Melanotan II. It might be possible to split out more. --Arcadian (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Having done additional research I have come to understand that the term 'Melanotan' (in reference to NDP-MSH) is well rooted in medical journals dating back at least as far as 1995 (and from what can be found online it appears that the principle researchers used this term going as far back as the 1980s) and as recently as 2007 it continues to be used. Even as recently as 2005 the company Epitan (now known as Clinuvel) was using the word (from a cursory search of Epitan + Melanotan I did it seems there was quite a media awareness of this term already up to that point). It is true that there is a current association between this term and unlicensed usage of these drugs but given the short attention span of the media that will likely soon pass. The fact to the matter is that for many years the word "melanotan" was not known for this current phenomenon and to try and "cover up" this fact through trying to avoid a redirect would be to deny this fact. There are probably a decent number of Wikipedia readers looking for information relative to "Epitan" and "Melanotan" and without a proper disambiguation page these individuals will be stymied in their research. Sometime-science-editor (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, regarding this question I have done further research and I agree that there should be two articles. Afamelanotide (with a redirect from Melanotan 1) and Melanotan II and have Melanotan be a disambiguation page to both articles. Does that make sense? Sometime-science-editor (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- I recommend we split the article (I tried this in 2007, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanotan 1, but I think the consensus will be different this time around). Once split, I recommend that we rename one of the split articles to "afamelanotide". --Arcadian (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know if this is safe to use yet? I have heard various rumours that it is and will be perscribed by UK Doctors from this year?