On another thread which Rolfe linked to an earlier post above, I mentioned that Roger Coghill is now promoting what is claimed to be a new independent scientific journal called "European Biology and Bioelectromagnetics". As I mentioned on that other thread, Mr Coghill himself owns that "journal" and it appears to be a new attempt at vanity publishing since I gather his pseudoscientific submissions are not so welcome at other reputable journals.
An initial "sample paper" of the journal is at this web site:
http://www.ebab.eu.com
The sample paper contains one article. It's called "Melatonin - a molecule for the modern age" and it just happens to be written by one Roger Coghill!
Here is the direct link to it:
http://www.ebab.eu.com/papers/ebabsample.pdf
Since the article is typical of Roger's...uh..."creative reinterpretation"... of the truth and scientific accuracy, I felt obliged to comment on it. So here it is. Sorry for the long post!
The article starts with general puffs extolling the virtues of melatonin but quite quickly descends into rather questionable statements:
"Unsurprisingly, it is one of the safest products around. It has been given at a huge dosage of grams daily for prolonged periods and to 1500 women at the daily dosage of 300 mg for years, with no observed late side-effects or consequences (Sebra, Bignotto et al, 2000)"
The citation given at the end of the paper is: Sebra MLV, Bignotto M et al., Randomized double blind trial with placebo, of the toxicology of chronic melatonin treatment. J Pineal Res 2000;29:193-200.
The sloppiness of the research is immediately confirmed by the fact that name of the principal researcher is spelled wrongly in both cases! The proper citation is as follows:
Randomized, double-blind clinical trial, controlled with placebo, of the toxicology of chronic melatonin treatment. Seabra ML, Bignotto M, Pinto LR Jr, Tufik S. J Pineal Res. 2000 Nov;29(4):193-200.
Although I have not obtained the full paper, the abstract doesn't appear to even remotely bear out the claim made in Coghill's paper. From the abstract the overview of the study is as follows:
"The objective of the present study was to assess the toxicology of melatonin (10 mg), administered for 28 days to 40 volunteers randomly assigned to groups receiving either melatonin (N=30) or placebo (N=10) in a double-blind fashion."
There is a slight difference between 10 mg of melatonin administered for 28 days to 30 people, and the claims about "grams daily for prolonged periods", and "1500 women at 300mg for years"
The conclusion of the Seabra paper as stated in the abstract was:
"Analysis of the PSG showed a statistically significant reduction of stage 1 of sleep in the melatonin group. No other differences between the placebo and melatonin groups were obtained. In the present study we did not observe, according to the parameters analyzed, any toxicological effect that might compromise the use of melatonin at a dose of 10 mg for the period of time utilized in this study."
Which totally contradicts the claim about "no observed late side-effects or consequences". And the conclusion does NOT state that melatonin is unconditionally safe or non toxic, all the study DOES conclude is that the researchers
did not observe any effect in their (very small
and uneven) sample group
according to the parameters analysed any toxic effects which might
obviously contraindicate the usage of melatonin in such doses for such a period. Of course whether the conclusion can be extrapolated to the population in general, whether there MIGHT be toxicological effects NOT covered in the parameters analysed in the study, or what happens at different doses for different periods of time is another matter entirely.
Furthermore, the very idea that one could take megadoses of a human hormone with "no consequences" is utterly ridiculous. Does Mr Coghill propose to argue that melatonin has no effect whatsoever on the human body? Obviously not. If it has any effect at all, then there must be consequences of such an effect!
The contradiction continues with the following:
"Melatonin is the smallest hormone secreted in humans in terms of volume, but it has arguably as powerful effects as any of its more voluminous colleagues"
Aside from the torture of the English language in the above statement, and the blatant contradiction of the foregoing, no evidence in support of the statement is offered in the paper. Although it may possibly be true, I nonetheless find it hard to believe, and in any event it totally ignores the fact that the volumes of most hormones secreted in the body are often dependent on timing, circumstance and age, amongst other factors. It appears to be a gross over generalisation.
This is followed by a reference to a conference on Childhood Leukaemia. Mr Coghill conveniently omits to mention that amongst a very small number of posters on the subject of melatonin, some papers submitted were by himself and employees of his. Another was by Prof. Dennis Henshaw who Mr Coghill has frequently cited as one of his supporters. Some of the studies cited are very old and there is little substantive information in any of the papers beyond speculation and selective interpretation of limited data. The claim that much time was devoted to discussing melatonin seem to be contradicted somewhat by the fact that the conference organisers set up online discussion forums for these topics yet these are mostly empty! A lot more could be said about the value and validity of this conference but it would require much additional analysis beyond the scope of the issues here. For example one of the posters was a paper entitled "The Quantum Coherent Organism and EMF Sensitivity", which consists of only a few lines of bare (and nonsensical on the face of it) assertions about alleged "Quantum Mechanics" and referenced to a publication described as "the only radical science magazine on earth". Which really speaks for itself!
It is also interesting to note that in the paper the conference is referred to as "last month", and the paper itself is due for publication in 2005! Since it is November 2004 as I am writing this, I wonder if Mr Coghill is aware that he appears to be predicting the result of a conference which can be held no earlier than NEXT month!
Although it is a very minor and somewhat silly point, it merely exemplifies the overall sloppiness of this work.
The above is followed by a further statement as follows:
"A 2002 review of key nutraceuticals also singled out melatonin for special attention (Rapport and Lockwood 2002)."
A comment follows referring to an alleged review in the same issue. However, although mentioned here, there is no proper citation for the work and it does not appear in the list of references for the paper itself - a curious omission.
The reference in fact refers to a book, "Nutraceuticals" edited by Lisa Rapport and Brian Lockwood, 2002, 163 pages, hardcover. Pharmaceutical Press, London. I do not propose to review the entire book here.
However, a vastly more authoritative, balanced and scientifically accurate assessment of melatonin (than Coghill's) by the above authors may be found in The Pharmaceutical Journal “Nutraceuticals: (8) Melatonin†(PJ, 30 June 2001, p898) and at the following web address:
http://www.pharmj.com/pdf/articles/pj_20010630_nutra8.pdf
Many of the statements in that paper flatly contradict Mr Coghill's assertions in his own paper. Perhaps this is why it is not referenced.
The Coghill article continues with more blurb with little substantive content and then proceeds to address potential "applications" of melatonin.
The first "case" covered is that of Jet Lag. There are a very large number of papers about the putative effects of melatonin in the alleviation of jet lag. As usual, many papers contradict others, although there seems to be some overall concensus that it may have some benefit. Some of the issues are covered in the paper referenced above. There is however, little that is particularly controversial about the claim that melatonin may assist in cases of jet lag. Of course Mr Coghill points out that jet lag is associated with west to east travel, but forgets his own performance on this very forum when he asserted that he was suffering from jet lag from east to west travel, and it also begs the question of whether he actually follows any of the advice he so liberally dispenses to others!
The section in question however continues with a claim about fluoride lodging in the pineal and inhibiting melatonin synthesis on the basis of a student PhD thesis, and makes an association with Fluoride in American drinking water and then offers this as a reason why this could, "partly explain why some 560,000 American citizens die of cancer each year".
One wonders why citizens of the Netherlands and Ireland and the UK amongst others where some water supplies are still fluoridated or were fluoridated in the past, or the many countries where the water supplies contain natural fluoride are not mentioned? Perhaps only Americans die from cancer? It also raises concerns, if this information is so well established, why the WHO still recommends fluoridation of water supplies as a prophylactic against dental caries?
And once again, no proper reference to such highly controversial and important information is given, the only citation being (Luke, 2001). As usual it appears I have to do the actual work for Mr Coghill. The proper citations are:
Jennifer Anne Luke, The effect of fluoride on the the physiology of the pineal gland, Ph.D Thesis, University of Surrey, United Kingdom (1997).
Jennifer Luke, "Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland," Caries Research Vol. 35 (2001), pgs. 125-128.
This research essentially consisted of an investigation into calcification of the pineal gland in 11 aged human cadavers (mean age 82 years, ranging from 70 to 100 years old, 7 female, 4 male). Significant fluoride deposition was found in cases of pineal calcification. Subsequent tests involved treating Mongolian Gerbils with high doses of fluoride and the observation that urine levels of melatonin dropped apparently as a result. Luke hypothesized that the fluoride was interfering with the biochemistry of melatonin production. There are appears to be no follow up work on this. There is no reason to suppose that the results may be extrapolated to humans, no evidence that the metabolic hypothesis has been confirmed, and, as far as I can tell, no evidence that melatonin PRODUCTION (as opposed to secretion in the urine) is affected at all. I don't know the sample size for the Gerbil study, but 11 human cadavers is hardly definitive! Additionally, there was a wide variation in the degree of calcification amongst the human subjects (4,600 to 37,250 mg Ca/kg wet weight) and no account was taken of possible sex related differences. There is apparently also no investigation as to whether calcification in the absence of fluoride has any such effect. There was no mention of the cause of death or of cancer in any of the cases.
Most importantly of all, I see no evidence whatsoever that may suggest any connection with cancer or the routine fluoridation of water. As usual, Mr Coghill's imagination extrapolates well beyond the facts.
The next "case" Mr Coghill raises is melatonin's alleged role in "anti-aging". Following the usual pseudophilosophical blurb, there follows the statement:
"Melatonin has a real and enviable record in its ability to keep animals alive and well, probably due to its anti oxidative capability"
There is then a further statement:
"One study on rats found that when melatonin was added to their drinking water they lived 12% longer, with commensurate sexual prowess"
The reference for this is given as: "Pierpaoli W, Regelson W. et al., Pineal Control of aging: effect of melatonin and pineal grafting on aging mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1994; Jan 18;91(2):787-91
The study referenced so authoritatively has been widely criticised elsewhere. However, here is an overview. Aside from some being given oral melatonin, the experimenters transplanted pineal glands from young mice into the
thymus of old ones. The older transplanted/supplemented mice lived longer than controls and the experimenters
hypothesized that this was due to enhanced melatonin production. The report was thoroughly discredited when it was subsequently discovered that one of the strains of mice used in the experiments had a genetic defect that means they cannot synthesize melatonin! See Reppert SM, Weaver DR., "Melatonin Madness", Cell. 1995 Dec 29;83(7):1059-62.
The increase in life span for pineal transplant to thymus was higher than the increase apparently associated with oral melatonin, indicating that melatonin could not possibly have been the sole determinant in any case.
As for the anti oxidant claim, according to Reppert and Weaver:
"the claim that the hormone can reverse aging, this assertion is scientifically unfounded and is based on the results of a seriously flawed study performed in mice.The antioxidant effect of melatonin has also been embellished, leading to claims that melatonin is a wonder drug useful for treating everything from AIDS to Alzheimer's disease.While melatonin does scavenge from the blood stream certain free radicals that attack cells, these antioxidant effects require melatonin concentrations a million times greater than any human would produce at any time."
As if all the above is not enough indication of the sheer lack of quality/accuracy in this paper, Mr Coghill conveniently omits to mention that even in the seriously flawed study in question, the "enhanced longevity" mice did not achieve maximal overall life spans! In all cases the mice lived no more than about 75% of their established maximum life span!
And all of this ignores whether or not melatonin supplementation has any effect at all on the lifespan of individuals who do not suffer from a genetic lack of it, or how well the results of some tests on a very small sample of mice applies to humans.
Mr Coghill, clearly unsatisfied with his ridiculous misrepresentation thus far, then expands on it with the following statement:
"Other clues that melatonin has an anti-aging effect is that women, who have more melatonin than men, also live longer than men"
One hardly needs any scientific evidence to rebut such a patently absurd statement! Does Mr Coghill believe there are no other differences between men and women than their levels of melatonin? Perhaps he hasn't heard of testosterone or estrogen, as well as many other factors? Also, there is not one piece of evidence offered in support of the assertion that women have more melatonin than men. However, it appears that Prof. Russel Reiter, an authority on the pineal gland may have made a similar (but much more cautious) statement and Mr Coghill may have "borrowed" it. Although the statement is still absurd on the face of it. The sources upon which Reiter may have made such a statement are not referenced, and in any event are contradicted by others below.
But, apparently determined to dig himself into an utterly inescapable hole of scientific inaccuracy, Mr Coghill then goes on to assert:
"Moreover, as we age the level of melatonin in our bodies declines suggesting that additional melatonin supplementation may offset aging (Sack, Lewy et al., 1986). Studies with human beings are confirming the hypothesis"
The first thing I note is that any citations of the alleged studies with human beings that confirm the hypothesis that "additional melatonin supplementation may offset aging" are conspicuous by their absence!
What do Sack and Lewy have to say? The reference given is: Sack RL, Lewy AJ et al., Human melatonin production decreases with age. J Pineal Res 1986;3:379-88
As usual, it seems I have to provide the proper citation: Sack RL, Lewy AJ, Erb DL, Vollmer WM, Singer CM., Human melatonin production decreases with age. J Pineal Res. 1986;3(4):379-88.
The easiest thing to do in this case is simply quote the entire abstract (my emphasis):
"The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of time of year and demographic variables on the amplitude of melatonin production in normal human subjects. Melatonin production was estimated by measuring the overnight excretion of its major urinary metabolite, 6-hydroxymelatonin. Urine was collected on three consecutive nights in the summer from a sample of 60 normal subjects balanced for sex and age. The collections were repeated in a subgroup during the winter. Melatonin production clearly declined with age but was not influenced by other demographic variables or by season of the year.
One hardly needs to be an expert biologist to realise that one cannot make definitive conclusions about the PRODUCTION of a hormone SOLELY on the basis of the rate of excretion of one of its metabolites! Mr Coghill seems to have a particular fondness for "ancient" studies that confirm his particular prejudices, he doesn't seem to like looking up more recent material.
According to David Kennaway, Senior Research Fellow/Senior Lecturer, Circadian Physiology Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Adelaide, (Aust Prescr 1997;20:98):
"A feature of melatonin research in humans has been the enormous variability in circulating levels between subjects (as much as 10-fold). Despite the variability, there have been no reported clinical consequences of being a low melatonin secretor. For example, patients with high melatonin are just as likely to be poor sleepers as those with low melatonin. Similarly, given this large inter-individual variability, there is no evidence that melatonin production in individuals decreases with age (i.e. the belief that you should take melatonin to counter an age-related decrease)."
And a 1999 study concluded:
"Researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) have found that nighttime melatonin levels did not differ significantly between healthy older and young adults. The findings of the five-year study, which appear in the November issue of the American Journal of Medicine, contradict the popular notion that melatonin levels in older people fall with healthy aging."
Source:
http://www.brighamandwomens.org/publicaffairs/newsDetails.asp?dept_id=&news_id=15936&rso_abbrev=bwh
Here is the full citation: Zeitzer, Jamie M.; Daniels, Jessica E.a; Duffy, Jeanne F.a; Klerman, Elizabeth B.a; Shanahan, Theresa L.a; Dijk, Derk-Jana; Czeisler, Charles A. Do plasma melatonin concentrations decline with age? The American Journal of Medicine. Vol: 107, Issue: 5, November, 1999 pp. 432-436.
This information also seems to contradict Reiter's claims as well.
The paper continues with a heading of "Alleviation of sleep disturbance" and asserts that
"14 patients with sleep disorders (average age 50) taking 3gm of melatonin each evening, induced significantly more REM sleep (Kunz et al., 2004)."
I am not surprised that patients taking 3 GRAMS of melatonin each evening slept more - I'm rather surprised they could wake up at all!
Looking up the study referenced, proper citation: Kunz D, Mahlberg R, Muller C, Tilmann A, Bes F., Melatonin in patients with reduced REM sleep duration: two randomized controlled trials. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Jan;89(1):128-34. reveals:
The study looked at "Fourteen consecutive outpatients (five women, nine men; mean age, 50 yr) with unselected neuropsychiatric sleep disorders and reduced REM sleep duration (25% or more below age norm according to diagnostic polysomnography)" who were given 3 MILLIGRAMS of melatonin daily for 4 weeks. The study results show an improvement in REM sleep over controls. However there are some anomalies in the results. A second study was also performed in which the placebo/ real dose patients were swapped and in that case, the patients receiving placebo showed significant improvements over the original baseline controls as well. The researchers conclude that the beneficial effect of the initial melatonin outlasted the actual administration of it. If that is the case, then the results are questionable since it would impossible to say whether CONTINUED melatonin was having any positive effect over an initial dose (or smaller set of initial doses). However, I noticed an interesting trend that seems to throw some suspicion on the results. In the first trial run, the patients receiving placebos showed a significant WORSENING of symptoms from the untreated control baseline! It is very unusual for there to be a NEGATIVE placebo effect - unless of course the study was not properly blinded and the placebo patients actually KNEW they were receiving placebos. A positive trend in the second run could similarly be simply due to normal, positive placebo effect, especially if the patients knew their medications had been swapped.
Although the study itself is not particularly controversial, the above results do look unusual - but at least the study is from THIS century! However, Mr Coghill has once again made elementary and potentially dangerous blunders such as quoting the dosage at 3 GRAMS instead of MILLIGRAMS, which simply further shows the sloppiness of his work and does nothing for his credibility.
Mr Coghill continues with a claim that melatonin may be better than sleeping tablets in terms of promoting REM sleep. A claim that again is not controversial. However he then goes on to say:
"in a world where sleep disturbances occur in about 12% to 25% of the general population (Walsleben 1982)"
I note immediately he is back to citing work that is more than 20 years old. Full citation: Walsleben J. Sleep disorders. Am J Nurs. 1982 Jun;82(6):936-40.
I can't find the actual paper or an abstract to check, but I would imagine that Walsleben was NOT making prognostications about the WORLD'S population in general, I would imagine that Walsleben was talking about the American population in particular and I very much doubt if data that old can be authoritatively quoted as being true today, some 22 years later!
What is interesting in addition was that a bit of searching revealed the web site below:
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet/304282.html
Where it says:
"Sleep disturbances occur in about 12% to 25% of the general population[1] and are often associated with situational stress, illness, aging, and drug treatment.[2,3] It is estimated that 45% of people with cancer have sleep disturbance.[4] Physical illness, pain, hospitalization, drugs, and other treatments for cancer, and the psychological impact of a malignant disease may disrupt the sleeping patterns of persons with cancer."
Which, with only the tiniest bit of paraphrasing, is virtually word for word identical with Mr Coghill's submission and cites the same references. There is no acknowledgement of the original source. It doesn't take too much effort to realise that Mr Coghill has simply lifted this from this web site and slightly rearranged it. Although he again conveniently omitted the very last sentence of the statement where it makes it clear that cancer related sleep disturbance is due to many factors.
We are then treated to one of Mr Coghill's political opinions about how it is not in the interest of sleeping pill manufacturers to acknowledge melatonin because they make big profits from sleeping pills. However, as always, Mr Coghill only tells part of the story. In particular he omits to remind the reader that it is not sleeping pill manufacturers who actually PRESCRIBE sleep aids, which somewhat shoots a hole in the conspiracy theory.
Mr Coghill then moves on to "Melatonin, Parkinsonism and Alzheimer's".
Various claims are made including that, "melatonin appears to be adjuvant for repairing disordered neurotransmitters". I am particularly interested in exactly what constitutes a "disordered neurotransmitter". Confused serotonin perhaps?
Anyway, strange wording aside, this section (superficially at least) appears to be more accurate than most of the foregoing. A reference is made to a research paper from the University of South Alabama:
Full citation: Poeggeler B, Miravalle L, Zagorski MG, Wisniewski T, Chyan YJ, Zhang Y, Shao H, Bryant-Thomas T, Vidal R, Frangione B, Ghiso J, Pappolla MA. Melatonin reverses the profibrillogenic activity of apolipoprotein E4 on the Alzheimer amyloid Aβ peptide. Biochemistry. 2001 Dec 11;40(49):14995-5001.
And in the abstract we see the following:
"This effect was structure-dependent and unrelated to the antioxidant properties of melatonin, since it could be reproduced neither with the structurally related indole N-acetyl-5-hydroxytryptamine nor with the antioxidants ascorbate, alpha-tocophenol, and PBN."
The text following an oblique and partial reference in Mr Coghill's paper is identical to the above and is lifted word for word directly from the abstract without attribution or acknowledgment.
The gist of it is that an in-vitro study found that melatonin inhibited amyloid fibril formation associated with Alzheimer's disease. There are implications that it
may possibly have some similar effect in-vivo. Although there is no mention of the doses used in the experiment, and of course such a study cannot address other physiological interactions in-vivo that may modulate or contraindicate such usage.
Mr Coghill then moves on to mention Russel J Reiter, of the University of Texas (referred to previously) and states that at a June 2004 conference in Dallas, Reiter's data
convincingly demonstrated that melatonin can reduce injury to the brain in various neurological conditions - one assumes in-vivo. Since the data is not offered and no recent paper by Reiter is cited it is difficult to assess this claim. It is clear however, that several of the unsupported statements made in Coghill's paper have originated from Reiter, and probably from a book written by Reiter called (Your body's wonder drug) Melatonin, which was evidently written around 1996.
See:
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag96/sept96_review.html
There is nothing wrong with showing indications that melatonin
may possibly be of use in some neurological conditions, but the words
convincingly demonstrated sound somewhat unlikely.
The next section is "Melatonin and Cancer". Here the opening statement says:
"The anti-oxidant capability of melatonin is shown at its best in cancer prevention and treatment"
It then goes on to mention a recent discovery that melatonin is released by human lymphocytes when challenged by a mitogen such as phytohaemagglutinin (PHA). Curiously there is no reference at all to such an important discovery. The discovery referred to is detailed in the following paper:
Carrillo-Vico A, Calvo JR, Abreu P, Lardone PJ, Garcia-Maurino S, Reiter RJ, Guerrero JM. Evidence of melatonin synthesis by human lymphocytes and its physiological significance: possible role as intracrine, autocrine, and/or paracrine substance. FASEB J. 2004 Mar;18(3):537-9. Epub 2004 Jan 08.
In that paper however, it is mentioned that resting lymphocytes ALSO produce melatonin, not just when challenged by PHA. And Mr Coghill forgets to inform the reader that PHA does not occur naturally in the body but is usually extracted from Red Kidney Beans (it's also known as Kidney Bean Lectin). The Carillo-Vico, Calvo et al., paper doesn't explicitly mention that any lectins or mitogenic agents other than PHA were tested (at least not in the abstract), therefore on the face of it there seems to be little support for the broad statement "a mitogen such as PHA" in Mr Coghill's text.
Mr Coghill goes on to say that melatonin is an important part of a lymphocyte's defensive capability against DNA damaging free radicals. Which seems to be stretching the point somewhat since there doesn't appear to be any direct evidence of such as yet.
Various other statements follow extolling the virtues of melatonin against cancer and as a radioprotective agent against ionizing radiation. A paper by Vijayalaxmi is referenced. The full citation is:
Vijayalaxmi, Reiter RJ, Tan DX, Herman TS, Thomas CR Jr. Melatonin as a radioprotective agent: a review. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 Jul 1;59(3):639-53.
A further paper referenced at the end of Mr Coghill's article is:
Vijayalaxmi, Thomas CR Jr, Reiter RJ, Herman TS. Melatonin: from basic research to cancer treatment clinics. J Clin Oncol. 2002 May 15;20(10):2575-601.
In both cases Russel Reiter is a co-author of the paper. The first paper above is a meta review of the literature, and doesn't present any new research in itself.
Although Prof Reiter is generally considered to be a credible scientist in the field, he is clearly "enthusiastic" about melatonin to an extreme degree. It has led to questions about his objectivity and credibility particularly since he has a financial interest in promoting melatonin given that he has a popular book on the subject. In one article about journalism and conflicts of interest, the following was offered as advice to journalists:
From:
http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15jun97/miscomm.htm
"Disclosing Conflicts of Interest
A journalist's audience should be told explicitly whether the journalist's source of information could benefit financially from the media attention or whether the source is funded or employed by an institution that will benefit. However, such conflicts of interest are often not apparent to reporters or their audiences. One example comes from a recent article about melatonin [22]. Among sources who were quoted about the anti-aging properties of melatonin was Dr. Russel Reiter, author of a popular book on melatonin [32]. Because of the book, Reiter stood to gain personally from press attention to melatonin, but the article described him only as a "scientist."
It is impossible from Coghill's paper alone to follow up many of the statements made therein, particularly those that may have been quoted from Reiter because detailed references are not given. On that basis it is impossible to assess them and their viability in terms of other research in the field. One of the questionable statements is that it might be prudent to stock up on melatonin as a protective agent in case "terrorist activists" detonate a dirty nuclear bomb! Regardless of whether melatonin does have any radioprotective effect or not, such a statement smacks of blatant scaremongering in order to sell a product.
Mr Coghill then goes on to speculate that melatonin
may be useful to offset adverse effects of non-ionizing ambient electromagnetic radiation. It has been amply demonstrated on this very thread that Coghill has failed miserably to make a viable case that such radiation is significantly harmful (although nobody has disputed in general that at SOME level such radiation is probably harmful). And he has also failed to make the case that melatonin can offer such protection. In spite of this until recently he was advertizing a product on his web site called "Asphalia" which was claimed to contain melatonin and which he explicitly stated
would provide "radio-protection" and would offset alleged adverse effects of low level non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. As noted elsewhere above in the thread, his web site no longer contains the said claims and there is a notice that they have been removed "at the request of the MHRA". I somehow doubt whether there was much "requesting" involved!
It is significant, particularly in the light of conflicts of interest mentioned above in relation to credible journalism, that Mr Coghill does not indicate anywhere in his article that he has a financial interest in selling alleged melatonin supplements. In fact, it is also worth noting that Mr Coghill fails to disclose numerous conflicts of interest that his new "journal" claims to require disclosure of.
Towards the end of the "cancer" section of the paper, Mr Coghill introduces his own theories which have been completely demolished on this very thread. He quotes one of his "stock in trade" sayings about "Sixteen out of eighteen epidemiological studies" having shown evidence of adverse effects from low level EM radiation. Other studies are referenced and the section ends with:
"Taken together, it is clear that chronic, low level EMF exposure is an insult for which melatonin's radio-protective powers may be a solution, taken as a regular supplement"
Obviously, as this thread reveals, the matter is far from clear.
In the next section, Mr Coghill throws caution to the winds and reveals his prejudices. He commences by saying:
"That EMF's emanating from every electric and electronic gadget in domestic and industrial use today inhibit the synthesis of melatonin in the pineal gland, thereby exposing the body to free radical risk, has now been demonstrated in no less than five independent laboratories (see Liburdy, 2003 for a detailed review)"
The matter has already been discussed on this thread. Mr Coghill has not only failed to show any such credible evidence, but he even cites Robert P. Liburdy in support of the claim. As mentioned earlier in the thread, Robert Liburdy was dismissed from Lawrence Berkeley laboratories for research fraud and was found guilty of such by the Office of Research Integrity in the US. Liburdy has been thoroughly discredited as a researcher and his data cannot reasonably be relied upon.
However, Mr Coghill clearly misses the blatant contradiction in his claim above. Having already mentioned that melatonin is secreted by lynphocytes (although he DID omit to mention that unchallenged lymphocytes emit melatonin) he proceeds to imply that melatonin is only synthesized in the pineal gland. What is more, having allegedly researched melatonin, Mr Coghill also omits to tell us that melatonin is synthesized in the gastrointestinal tract, including the stomach, intestine and pancreas.
See:
http://www.jpp.krakow.pl/journal/archive/0604_s2/abstracts/a03.html
After invoking Liburdy, Mr Coghill then proceeds with one of his political conspiracy theories about the "vested interests" of power utilities, the military, phone companies etc., and even has a go at attacking the MHRA as well. It is understandable that Mr Coghill doesn't like the MHRA, particularly since it has acted against
his "vested interests"!
Finally the paper ends with some strange comments about plants that produce "the organic version of" melatonin and claims that this form is effective at "picogram levels". One wonders what the "organic version" of melatonin really is, particularly since melatonin is an organic chemical and as such there cannot be an "inorganic version"! Although of course in reality nobody should be fooled at this point, because it is where we see the true purpose of this paper - to promote Mr Coghill's alleged "melatonin containing" product, "Asphalia".
At the very end of the paper is a table which contains some rather creative reinterpretations of physics, including the claim that "Below 30 Mhz, electric and magnetic fields are measured in volts and amps per metre", which as I have pointed out elsewhere are most certainly NOT confined to measurements below 30 Mhz.
Setting aside all the glowing endorsements of the wonders of the miraculous melatonin, it might be instructive to introduce some further and slightly more balanced material.
Despite Mr Coghill's claims about the universal safety of melatonin there is research which indicates that it may not be as universally safe as it seems. Research from the Nebraska Medical Centre, Clarkson and University Hospital, indicates that melatonin may have adverse effects on asthmatic people:
From: Health Newsletter of the Nebraska Medical Centre, Clarkson and University Hospital, October 2003 Edition.
http://www.nebraskamed.com/healthinfo/newsletters_old.cfm?pageid=I284
"We found that patients who have nocturnal asthma have higher melatonin levels than patients who do not have asthma," says study author Dr. Rand Sutherland, at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver.
"Higher levels of melatonin were associated with a greater worsening of lung function overnight," Dr. Sutherland says, following his report in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.
and.....
"Results showed the patients with nocturnal asthma had the highest levels of melatonin and the biggest drop in lung function.
In addition, among patients with nocturnal asthma, lung function dropped an average of 19 percent compared with 5 percent in patients with non-nocturnal asthma. Among non-asthmatic patients, lung function increased about 2 percent.
In other experiments, melatonin has been shown to rev up inflammatory cells and make them produce cytokines, which are inflammatory markers, Dr. Sutherland notes.
"These findings raise concern that high melatonin levels may play a role in making asthma worse at night, and therefore people with asthma should avoid taking supplemental melatonin," Dr. Sutherland advises."
Scientific papers supporting the above are:
Elevated serum melatonin is associated with the nocturnal worsening of asthma. Sutherland ER. Ellison MC. Kraft M. Martin RJ. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003;112(305):513-7.
Sutherland ER, RJ Martin, MC Ellison, and M Kraft. Immunomodulatory Effects of Melatonin in Asthma. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2002; 166 (8):1055-1061
A much more informative and balanced article about melatonin can be found here:
http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/mel_0286.shtml
From that article:
"In addition, a cautionary note has recently been issued with respect to the use of melatonin to treat sleep disturbances in children with neurologic disorders. Six such children, aged nine months to 18 years, were given 5 milligrams of melatonin at bedtime in as effort to treat their sleep disorder. Quality and quantity of sleep quickly increased in five of the six children. But in four of the subjects, all of whom had a prior history of seizures, incidence of seizures increased while taking melatonin. Discontinuance of the supplements led to seizure-incidence returning to pre-supplementation levels. But resumption of melatonin supplementation, this time at a reduced level of 1 milligram doses, again caused an increase in seizures, and the study was halted.
and:
"Adverse reactions associated with melatonin include stomach discomfort, morning grogginess, daytime "hangover," feeling of a "heavy head," depression, psychotic episodes (in combination with fluoxetine), headache, lethargy, fragmented disorientation, amnesia, inhibition of fertility, increased seizure activity, suppression of male sexual drive, hypothermia, retinal damage, gynecomastia and low sperm count. Typically, these reports are related to high doses. However, adverse effects have been reported and can occur with low doses as well."
It is evident that Mr Coghill's article is typical of the sloppiness, inaccuracy and lack of integrity that we on this thread have come to expect from him.
I've probably made a few mistakes myself in all the above, so please, any biologists, look it over and point out any mistakes of mine. There is one major difference between me and Mr Coghill though - I don't pretend to be a biologist!
