Talk:Allithiamine

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemicals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Allithiamine. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Matsukawa and other Japanese investigators have examined the interesting disulfides related to thiamine.46 Attention has been focused on two compounds, allithiamine (XVII, FIGURE 4) and propylthiamine disulfide (XVIII) , which appear to be superior to thiamine for treatment of certain deficiency conditions. The superiority is probably due to better absorption or transport properties.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1962.tb30563.x Canyouguessmyname (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the reference. However, I still think an outdated >50 year old report is insufficient sourcing for such medical claims (per WP:MEDRS). -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The laws of chemistry do not go out of date. The source is more than sufficient. Canyouguessmyname (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The laws of chemistry are irrelevant here. The issue is an evaluation of the effectiveness of a medical treatment. Such evaluations can change dramatically over time. Even what is considered effective today may not be considered effective tomorrow, so something that is 50 years old is questionable. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Wikipedia policy in regards to medical information is to only make claims that can be supported by sources that meet criteria outlined at that page. This source, which is over 50 years old, falls well short of those criteria (see in particular the section titled "Use up-to-date evidence". -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you have found a source showing the laws of chemistry have changed over the past 50 years or that the kinetics of the disulfide forms of thiamine in garlic have changed since the experiment please by all means cite it. I would love to read more studies on allithiamine, and prosultiamine, and would be open to seeing any that showed they were not as effective as originally shown to be in the 1950s paper. Maybe you could do some lab studies in an attempting to "debunk" the original studies on allithiamine if you think they made some mistakes in the methods or fabricated data. I'm sure lots of people would be open to reading this. The age of the source is irrelevant what matters is if the same laws of chemistry still apply today which they do. The disulfide forms of thiamine are lipid soluble which is why they are better than hydrophillic thiamine salts so unless you have discovered something about chemistry no one else has then your argument does not hold water. Canyouguessmyname (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

1) editors are just following Wikipedia guidelines. If one does not like the guidelines, that argument would occur elsewhere.

2) this compound (at least the CAS registry number 554-44-9) is very lightly discussed, with a total of 170 articles, patents, reports. Two English language reviews:

"Thiamine tetrahydrofurfuryl disulfide: a little known therapeutic agent" Lonsdale, Derrick from Medical Science monitor : International medical journal of experimental and clinical research (2004), 10(9), RA199-203. The journal looks mediocre, and the article is not well cited.

"A Review of the Biochemistry, Metabolism and Clinical Benefits of Thiamin(e) and Its Derivatives" Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 Mar; 3(1): 49–59. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nek009. Derrick Lonsdale. This article also looks pretty crappy.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with the guidelines but it looks like you two do for reasons that are beyond simple wiki rules. Thanks for those two articles however I have seen them. If you want more articles on it maybe look in Japanese databases or buy the book called "Review of Japanese literature on beriberi and thiamine" 1965 Canyouguessmyname (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I found multiple other studies here is two

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/54/1/133.extract

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/biochemistry1922/40/1/40_1_11/_pdf/-char/ja

By the sounds of the second one thiamine propyl disulfide was synthesised from allithiamine but by the sound of the 1953 study TPD occurs in garlic. Any of you feel like sharing which one it is? Canyouguessmyname (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recheck WP:MEDRS.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I rechecked it. May I advise you recheck it so we are on the same page. WP:MEDRS Canyouguessmyname (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]