Talk:Afamelanotide/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Melantonin

Is this similair to the drugstore melatonin? How is it different?Interestedperson (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Its very different. Melatonin works via different receptors (Melatonin receptors compared with melanocortin receptors) and is much smaller. Rockpocket 22:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Afamelanotide" and "Melanotan"

Disclaimer: I am an employee of Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals and wish to start an open discussion as this page addresses a product in development by the company and contains factual errors. I invite conversation and factual corrections on the issues raised below in an attempt to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia.

This article covers two separate issues, which are probably not well defined for the uneducated reader: afamelanotide's development and illegal product warnings from regulators. This issue arises from the interchangeable use of melanotan both in this article and broadly online.

[Nle4, D-Phe7]α-MSH was once referred to in its development as Melanotan, however this is no longer the case and has not been so for over 2 years, as raised elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is now, as referenced in the article, referred to either by its chemical structure name, or by the International Nonproprietary Name afamelanotide, the name of this article. The two names are used interchangeably in this article, which poses problems to its accuracy.

I would like to raise for discussion and propose alterations based on the following:

  • Stating that afamelanotide is researched and developed under the name Melanotan 1 implies this is still the case, when it is no longer so. This reference can only be made as historical or where published research denotes the drug as Melanotan. Clinuvel is the only company developing afamelanotide and is only doing so referring to it as [Nle4, D-Phe7]α-MSH or afamelanotide.
  • The second paragraph refers to afamelanotide as a melanotan based compound. [Nle4, D-Phe7]a-MSH is, technically speaking, an a-MSH analogue, but melanotan is not the base of afamelanotide, nor any other pharmaceutical product or chemical.
  • It is implied here that what is being sold online as Melanotan is afamelanotide. Clinuvel recently released a position statement on illegal products. It states that afamelanotide is unrelated in chemical structure to the substances sold online. The title of the article referenced no longer exists and recent coverage of afamelanotide and the illegal products has highlighted that the products sold online are in fact Melanotan II, a different compound (see Wired). I do not believe there is any coverage or reference which can prove these illegal products are afamelanotide and Clinuvel has denied that these products are afamelanotide.
  • No regulatory agency or published literature has ever warned against the use of afamelanotide, the product being developed, or [Nle4, D-Phe7]a-MSH. Warnings have only ever been issued against Melanotan, the illegal product sold online or Melanotan II. Without context, a reader would be lead to believe that the MHRA and DMA warnings were for the use of afamelanotide, which I do not believe is the case.

In this light, perhaps it is better to address the issue under a 'counterfeit products' or 'internet products' section, which acknowledges the existence of such products and the warnings against them, given that there is no proof that these products are afamelanotide?

Further, there is some information missing from the section discussing Human Clinical Trials which I believe is of value.

Hello. Thanks for your comments. I've reworked the lead a little to note that the product was initially developed as Melanotan and moved it from the opening sentence. I also changed the melanotan based compound to alpha-MSH based compound. I've replaced the now defunct source with a better one and added the company warning about counterfeit drugs. I also edited the warning section to reflect that these are warnings about counterfeit drugs, not afamelanotide.
More widely, we have a problem distinguishing between (real) Melanotan I and afamelanotide because they are essentially the same thing under a different name. Moreover, many of the sources refer to (real) Melanotan, but I appreciate its difficult to distinguish between that and fake counterfeit products in the eyes of our readers. Until afamelanotide is actually licensed, I think this article will remain rather schizophrenic in that sense. However, I take your point about regulatory warnings are only in relation to the illegal products, and we should be careful to make that clear.
I'm not particularly impressed with the listing of primary research publications as we currently have in the clincal trials section (we much prefer secondary or tertiary sources). In that vein, press releases are also not reliable sources and we should be judicious about using them. If these are findings are sufficiently notable, then we should be able to find secondary or tertiary reports about them.
Finally, while I appreciate your candor in identifying your conflict of interest up front, I should warn you that our username policy frowns on the use of company titles as usernames. If you haven't already done so, I would suggest you read Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Finally, I do sympathize with your companies challenging position with regards to the misuse and misinformation about Melanotan I / afamelanotide. I'll certainly do all I can to ensure we have an informative and accurate article on the subject. Rockpocket 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I am an employee of Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals and wish to start an open discussion as this page addresses a product in development by the company and contains factual errors. I invite conversation and factual corrections on the issues raised below in an attempt to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia.
Thank you for your input and thoughts. As suggested, I will post from an alternate username to prevent any issues that may arise.
I appreciate there is an issue distinguishing between the legitimate and legal products, given the symantics involved, however consistency is lacking from the first sentence of Historial Development. When first synthesized, the product was certainly not known as melanotan, as this was not designated until later in the development process. Perhaps the chemical sequence or INN should be used in all instances excepting where an alternate name has been used in published research? Further, this whole first paragraph is written without reference. Given that we are aiming for historical accuracy, I'm uncertain of what the Wikipedia policy is here.
The emphasis on secondary resources is unusual, given that we are discussing something in the scientific realm, but I can assist with some reports:
Hello again. I take your point about inconsistent use of the terms. Thats an artifact of the article being split, I think. The entire historical development section is indeed unsourced. Such material, if questionable, can be challenged with a {{cn}} template. If no source is forthcoming it can be removed. The reason I haven't removed this section is because I consider it more or less accurate (based on my personal experience of Hruby's early development of NDP-MSH).
Those sources are certainly helpful and, alongside the primary sources, would be perfectly acceptable as support. I'm rather busy at the moment, and don't really have the time to do the research for a full re-write of that section. If you would like to, you could try and come up with some text yourself. There are obvious COI issues, but as long as you put it on the talkpage first for discussion, then I don't see too much of a problem. Alternatively, you could copy the entire article to a user subpage (User:Ljamesh/Afamelanotide) and work on it there. If not, I'll try and get around to a proper rewrite when I have more time. Rockpocket 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on the discussions above, I'd like to propose we undo the changes made on 15:04, 4 March 2009 regarding 'melanotan 1'. I have invited the author here for his/her input, as I am unsure of the thinking behind these changes. Given the semantics discussions of late, other input is welcome. Ljamesh (talk) 19:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I've created a user subpage at User:Ljamesh/Afamelanotide to incorporate some of the suggested changes above and welcome comments on it.Ljamesh (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello again, I've reviewed your version and notice that you have the quote - "could damage the immune and cardiovascular systems as well as triggering other problems" from researchers who've expressed concern about usage of unlicensed versions of "melanotan I and II". I wanted to see if these concerns have been at all expressed relative to the version of melanotan that your company is developing and found this Entrepreneur article where at a conference Professor Dr. Ross Barnetson was asked about melanotan-1, afamelanotide as the name your company uses now, possibly causing melanocyte proliferation (a type of proliferation associated with melanoma) his response was "Although that has not proven to be an issue, "there is some suggestion [melanotan] could be immunosuppressive, so we have to think of the long term,". It would probably be fair to add this to the article in correspondence with what you are proposing, no? Sometime-science-editor (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have covered the differences between symantics above, but ask that you look at 'afamelanotide' as an International Nonproprietary Name rather than as a name used by a company or a type of melanotan. To be 100% accurate, 'Melanotan' and 'CUV1647' were brand names first for specific solutions (for an injectable aqueous solution of the chemical and an implant release formulation respectively), rather than drugs, however both titles appear to have stuck, online at least.
Looking at both issues in isolation may assist with clarity here, rather than comparing one with the other or including one on the basis of the other?
Both statements could be considered speculative. Given that melanotan is added by the reporter to Barnetson's quote, it is possible that the question related to the role of α-MSH broadly, which has been investigated for its immunosuppressive qualities in animal studies (see here, here and here for examples), but may not relate specifically to [Nle4, D-Phe7]α-MSH. Again, I am speculating, but to a lay audience (such as the site given), it is likley that a journalist would simplify this to 'melanotan', rather than expanding upon the finer points of α-MSH. To date I am not aware of any published research or media that covers the immunosuppressive properties of [Nle4, D-Phe7]α-MSH specifically (other than the quote raised), rather coverage relates to α-MSH overall. If it were to be covered, perhaps raising the issue on the melanocyte-stimulating hormone page or a new page dedicated to α-MSH, to which you could refer would be more accurate?
The quote in question - "could damage the immune and cardiovascular systems as well as triggering other problems" - relates directly to the counterfeit products and is published in research and press coverage as such. If it is felt too speculative (which I don't), I think it better to remove this, despite the direct link. Ljamesh (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have read some of the articles covering these warnings that you have brought to light here relative to the concerns over moles and these cardiovascular and immunosuppression concerns. I'm now going to get copies of these British Medical Journal references and review them properly to better understand what these concerns are straight from their sources. Can you share whether or not your company has participated in some form relative to these BMJ references? I'll be getting back to this discussion shortly. Sometime-science-editor (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
We've never disclosed information pertaining to this publicly (one way or the other), so I'm afraid I cannot discuss it in accordance with ASX laws governing publicly listed companies. I'm not trying to be cryptic or dodge the issue, but I do have boundaries as a company representative to disclose that kind of information, I appreciate your understanding here. I am, of course, happy to discuss anything in the public domain. Ljamesh (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, well that is a bit disconcerting that you should be editing in regards to such matters when your company may have been directly involved in them. I am reviewing these BMJ letters now but I did want to point something out to you. In your previous statement amongst other things you expressed that 'Melanotan' was a brand name for "an injectable aqueous solution", such a statement strikes one as revisionist when one of your own company's previous CEOs (then CEO-elect) referred to a "Melanotan implant" in public documents. Also are you at liberty to elucidate what at this point in time is "proprietary" to Clinuvel regarding the drug afemelanotide/melanotan-1? Are there competing legal entities with interests in this drug? One final point as the Irish Times article demonstrates the term "melanotan-1" is still very much used with respect to the drug your company is developing. Sometime-science-editor (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You appear to feel there is some great conspiracy afoot, which I assure you is not the case. I provide this information to critique and review, however have made minimal changes to the actual information online, and always openly and honestly, declaring conflict of interest. I cannot comment on the BMJ as, as previously stated, information is not made public and I would risk breaking the law to comment either way. I welcome your input based on the facts available, but ask that you label speculation as such. The company's IP and legal stance are matters of public record, as are all trademarks and patents. The issue of the Irish Times lifting from Wikipedia is suggested below, I think we are all trying to ensure that information lifted is accurate in future (in particular to avoid semantics issues as I have raised at length). You appear to have good sense here and I welcome your thoughts, but I feel I have addressed your speculation as best I can. Perhaps we can work towards solving these issues and ensure information is portrayed accurately?Ljamesh (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As you have said yourself This article covers two separate issues, which are probably not well defined for the uneducated reader. My requests for information stem directly from this fact. Essentially beyond that you have stated that you are a representative of Clinuvel we don't know relative to certain aspects of this article what additional levels of conflict of interest you or your company may have. We're willing to work with you (I've demonstrated this myself) but it would help us a bit if you could potentially educate us more on these issues to the extent that you are legally able to. With that in mind can you respond to any of the questions I've just posed above? Sometime-science-editor (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Your questions, as I see them are thus (allow me to abbreviate, and I ask that you clarify any you feel are not well represented):
  • Does afamelanotide have immunosuppressive qualities? Should we include this in this article? There have been no studies into this, although alpha-MSH has been shown in animal studies to have immunosuppressive qualities. Given that this does not relate to [Nle4, D-Phe7]α-MSH (afamelanotide), I do not think it relevant to this article, perhaps to one on alpha-MSH generally. Do you feel otherwise?
  • Is it relevant to list speculative side effects of melanotan-1 sold online? The quote "could damage the immune and cardiovascular systems as well as triggering other problems" is a direct quote from a third party about melanotan-1 specifically. I feel it is appropriate, given the subject, but acknowledge this is speculative. Do you feel otherwise?
  • Has Clinuvel 'participated in some form relative to these BMJ references'? The company has never publicly commented on its role in published articles, however it is commmon practice for authors to acknowledge company sponsorship, involvement or conflict of interest in journals. Have you had time to review both articles?
  • "Also are you at liberty to elucidate what at this point in time is "proprietary" to Clinuvel regarding the drug afemelanotide/melanotan-1?" Please see this page. All filed patents are public record. Does this cover your question or are there still some outstanding issues?
  • "Are there competing legal entities with interests in this drug?" No, Clinuvel owns the worldwide license.
Further, I raised the issue of an aqueous solution against an implant and the titles given as, strictly speaking, this is the company's stance. The document you have referenced is on public record referring to the melanotan implant, however I believe it is clear that melanotan is an aqueous solution (then being worked into an implant for trials), and afamelanotide is the active chemical ingredient. You will find melanotan is a trademark, not a chemical. Its use in the online vernacular for multiple products is confusing at best, and is something I seek to clarify.
I wish to reiterate that I am not editing anything on this page without consent of other users and have established a user page to put forward my stance. I am curious to hear your, and other, views on the BMJ articles, as well as the clinical trials results outlined on this page. Ljamesh (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a few minor comments about your version:
  • The sentence Other research has suggested that use of 'melanotan I and II' sourced online "could damage the immune and cardiovascular systems as well as triggering other problems" is problematic because the source of that warning is ambiguous. If that warning comes from the BMJ article then we should say so, otherwise I think it would be better simply attributing it to the BBC. For example, According to the BBC, health experts have warned melanotan I and II "could damage the immune and cardiovascular systems as well as triggering other problems."
  • Words should only be wiki-linked once (usually on their first usage), there are lots over over-linking.
  • The section on the early human preclinical trials could really be heavily culled.
Other than that, its all good in my opinion. I'm not entirely sure what the point is of questioning Ljamesh about his or Clinuvel position in these issues. We can't use anything he may tell us unless its reliably sourced anyway. By the way, if we are declaring potential COIs. I should state that I spent a number of years researching the genetics of melanogenesis, specifically MSH-MC1R signaling. I used NDP-MSH as a research tool in that time, and am obviously professionally familiar with the scientists involved with its development. I no longer pursue active research that field, which is why I don't consider myself to have any COI, but I'm still interested in it from an academic perspective. Rockpocket 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I have amended the User:Ljamesh/Afamelanotide page to include most of the comments here. Please include your feedback here or amend the page directly and share your thoughts. Rockpocket, what are the procedures for changing this kind of page, should we arrive at a version with which we are happy?Ljamesh (talk) 07:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
No further amendments or objections have been made on the User:Ljamesh/Afamelanotide page, following some discussion of the legality of web products. I would like to propose that all changes be implemented on this page. Ljamesh (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I have had no further feedback on the user page and have updated based on discussions above. Thank you to all for your input, I welcome anything further. Ljamesh (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

COI, Intellectual property, Trademark issues

First understand that as a person with a scientific background I am trained to pursue information and verify that which is presented to me. So in your communications with me you may want to address me as such.

Conflict of Interest and Intellectual property

I've reviewed the first reference Change in moles linked to use of unlicensed "sun tan jab" and I've found what appears to be a conflict of interest:

Competing interests: LER has conducted clinical trials to evaluate photoprotection by analogues of -melanocyte stimulating hormone.

It was a bit vague and required a bit of pursuit. LER refers to Lesley E Rhodes, professor of experimental dermatology. She is a Principal Investigator in one of your company's Clinical Trials. I believe she may be mentioned in documents found on your website as well. Of the two reports the one involving Lesley E. Rhodes is the only one speaking of "counterfeit products" which leads me to my next point. On the page you sent me to it is indicated, "Expiry dates for the allowed claims for the analogues range from September 2006 until October 2015 in the various jurisdictions." so I checked with the USPTO which you also linked to and pulled up the patents for the NDP-MSH molecule and discovered that one expired in 2006 (4,866,038) and another expired in 2008 (5,049,547 - each being 17 years after the issuance date of each corresponding patent). So what do these expiration dates mean? It means that any laboratory can manufacture and sell the NDP-MSH/"Melanotan-1"/afamelanotide peptide hormone legally as a molecular substance. Now Clinuvel may have intellectual property rights that correspond to methods of administration of this molecule, etc. but the rights for the actual molecule have expired. In that light it is a bit false to be talking about "counterfeit products" unless one does actual testing of a given substance to verify whether or not it is what it has been sold as.

Trademark

Just because Clinuvel holds limited trademark rights to the word "melanotan" does not concurrently negate the fact that the word "melanotan" is recognized by both the National Library of Medicine as well as National Center for Biotechnology Information as a substance (namely an a-MSH analog). So long as an entity did not specifically infringe on the aspects covered in the trademark registration there would be no conflict to use this word.

At this point I am beginning to think that this article may need a section devoted to some if not all of these issues. Sometime-science-editor (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is a question of impartiality, perhaps it needs to be taken to the BMJ or Prof Rhodes? The implication seems to be that these articles are inaccurate, or have been manipulated; a fairly serious claim.
I refer you to the company's latest newsletter where the CEO clearly states "From analyses Clinuvel has learnt that none of the illegal chemical substances and formulations resembles the structure or composition of Clinuvel's afamelanotide." I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Your point on the NLM an NCBI are correct and I apologise, my point was not to mislead, rather it is the company stance as stated. However, given the alternate uses of the term 'melanotan' online, I have suggested that the chemical analogue name or INN be used when referring to the drug's development or published research where the term 'melanotan' is not used.
Have you any further thoughts on my questions in the section above? I welcome a section on trademarks and patents if it genuinely lends itself to the article. Perhaps you would like to amend the user page I established to include this and we can discuss with other users who have taken an interest here? Your user contributions appear to focus on the alpha-MSH compounds, do you have a specific interest here? Have you published on the compounds or do you have a COI? Ljamesh (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts, if the language "counterfeit" is going to be used in this article then it should be used specifically as a quote from your company (and yes this would include the language from the "moles" reference) not as a general statement of fact. As the molecule NDP-MSH has a recognized substance name "melanotan-1" companies are in their rights to freely sell this peptide as a molecular substance under that name and not have what they sell be considered counterfeit. The researchers in the second reference didn't speak of counterfeit peptides. Their report actually strengthens the notion that members of the general public are in fact using these specific peptides. Even the Wired magazine article had this to say about photographic evidence of peptide usage (of melanotan II by a member of the public) "Though the results could be suspect, they look eerily similar to results obtained in trials at the University of Arizona or by Clinuvel."
I do have a conflict of interest. I am a shareholder in your company and have been since prior to your company changing it's name. As such I have had a keen interest in following the developments of Epitan/Clinuvel so that as an investor I could be better informed. Still there clearly are a number of interested legal parties in the NDP-MSH molecule (under any name one wants to use) and this article should reflect that fact with a neutral view corresponding to these various points of view. Sometime-science-editor (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts and openness. "Counterfeit" is a Clinuvel quote, however I think we all agree that products exist using the title 'melanotan 1', and I have provided reference to the company's announcement that they are not afamelanotide. I'm unsure of what the Wikipedia stance is here, but perhaps an alternate name is needed for the section. "Illegal/illecit products sold online" or "Warnings about illegal products sold online" would work, although would require context and I would ask that a reference to the company's published information be made. No company has the right to sell the peptide for human use, which is what these warnings are about, and what regulatory agencies have taken issue with. Rockpocket, perhaps you have some thoughts here also?
I think it is justifiable to state that 'results' appear similar in photos published on sites selling 'melanotan' are similar to those in published research, but I would be wary using this as proof that what is occuring is an identical biological process as afamelanotide without any published research. This is speculation on Wired's part, which it notes, rather than hard proof and may imply to the reader that these products are afamelanotide, based on photos found on the internet.
Would it be best to amend my user page here? If so, give me a couple of days to provide some amendments and feel free to make your own based on discussions here. Ljamesh (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Since your User page version is what's being discussed I have started discussion about it there: User talk:Ljamesh/Afamelanotide. Sometime-science-editor (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Current BBC Warning Link, wise choice?

Frankly the current BBC link that leads to the video of Stacy Boardman is bit questionable in my opinion. The video on the current link strikes me as a bit of an advertisement for usage of the drug. I would suggest perhaps this link be used instead (if any link featuring Boardman at all is to be used). At least with this link the MHRA's warning is included in the video. 89.159.158.241 (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't watch the accompanying video, as it was the written article that I cited. But I'm perplexed at how any news article from the BBC is questionable as a reliable source? Wikipedia is not censored, and we shouldn't cherry pick sources based on our own editorial distaste for what is represented. The alternative source you suggest is a video of a televisual news report, which are generally considered inferior to written news sources. That said, there are were plenty of other news reports about the same subject on the same day. If you want to swap one of those in instead, I don't really care either way. Rockpocket 18:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

New Irish Medicines Board warning

I proposed the following be added to the Counterfeit products section. As I have a conflict of interest, I would appreciate a review of the wording before it is published:

The Irish Medicines Board (IMB) issued a precautionary safety alert on February 27, 2009 regarding the use of "Melanotan (I and II)"[1]. In its release, the IMB announced that its tests had found the presence of microbial contamination in a sample of the product which "would expose recipients to a risk of serious infection".

Reference is to the IMB press release. Consistent with discussions on primary/secondary sources The Irish Times reported on this March 4, 2009. Ljamesh (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I see things have advanced some. I don't think this type of an edit is much of a conflict of interest for your company. I think this edit makes sense. From what I understand your product is an implant so based upon that it might be advisable to include in your edit the fact that the IMB warning specifically references "powder" (here). Sometime-science-editor (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
It reads very much like the author of the Irish Times article did his background research on Wikipedia! Nice of him to credit us. Still, I think your text is fine, Ljamesh. Rockpocket 06:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "IMB issues safety alert on Melanotan" (HTML). Irish Medicines Board (IMB). 2009-02-27. Retrieved 2009-03-04.

Melanotan.org mention in this article

Greetings, I am the founder/ operator of Melanotan.org a site about the melanotan peptides founded in 1999. Given that Melanotan.org has been mentioned in reliable press reports (for example [1] this CBS News report) and was cited in a British Medical Journal article [2] relative to usage of the peptides in the general population it would seem logical that a citation of this appears in this article. Now I realize that as a representative of an organization with a conflict of interest relative to the topics of this article I am wondering what would be the best way to go about making edits corresponding to this? Thank you. Scott - Melanotan (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Scott. What text would you like to use the site in support for? We used citations to support content. Rockpocket 21:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Right now there is a section entitled ' "Melanotan" products sold for human use'. I think it would be sensible to actually cover in the article the aspect of usage of the peptides in the general population in so far as what verifiable sources are reporting. Obviously if there is a sales phenomenon substantial enough to warrant a section devoted to it then it would seem logical to fill in the picture and cover the other side of the coin with mention of the usage aspect, no? Scott - Melanotan (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I fully appreciate how your site can verify that usage. Could you perhaps draft, on this page, the sort of thing you envisage we could add? Rockpocket 06:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I will work up a draft over the next day or so and then let folks examine it. Thanks Scott Melanotan (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cosmetic drug?

The article should discuss the stupidity of authorities that rather have people die to get a tan in the sun or use dangerous illegal drugs than to heaven forbid let a "cosmetic drug" into the market. --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you will find reliable sources that use that criticism (not least because a cosmetic drug requires the same set of expensive trials as any other drug, otherwise it could prove to be as "dangerous" as any illegal drug), but if you do feel free to add it yourself. Rockpocket 02:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Article version covering general population usage

Given the number of reliable sources that have covered the usage of the peptides by the general public I have edited a version of this article to incorporate this into the Wikipedia article. In correspondence with this I have incorporated mention of the website I have founded Melanotan.org in so far as reliable sources have reported on it. I invite fellow editors to review this new version here: User:Melanotan/Afamelanotide while keeping in mind my obvious conflict of interest and to offer input on it. Thanks. -Scott Melanotan (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been sure to properly cite the text in this new version to support what is there. If there are no objections I was thinking to put this updated version in place on the main article space in this coming week. Scott - Melanotan (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

I have removed what appear to be a dissproportionate focus on one of the co-authors of a 2009 paper on unlicensed "melanotan" products. There are a number of reasons for this.

  • There are two reliable secondary sources that discuss the study, neither even mention the author nevermind draw attention to a potential conflict of interest (which is the implication, I assume). Our job is to reflect secondary sources, not selectively draw out parts of primary sources to further a position by implication.
  • There are lots of other papers cited in this article, not one mentions an individual author, their previous work or their other associations including potential conflicts of interest. For example, most of the early human pigmentation studies had Victor Hruby and Mac Hadley as co-authors. One could imply they had a potential COI by citing their associations with the patent holders. Unless secondary sources make these sorts of associations, we should avoid them.
  • The upshot of the above two points make it a potential WP:BLP issue.

Rockpocket 10:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The conflict of interest of Hruby and Hadley is obvious in the article due to the fact that contentions that they make are qualified as coming from them as the original researchers. The fact that a Clilnuvel funded individual was a primary author for this paper is not a small detail. After having reviewed BLP some I can agree with your that the mention of her name potentially does pose a problem but a qualification should be made that Clinuvel had a hand in the publishing of the "moles" paper due to the fact that unlike the implicit conflict of interest evident with respect to the original Arizona researchers there is no obvious conflict of interest . I have reviewed the latest studies of this drug that have included imagery of patients that underwent trials. This mole issue is equally found in these folks as found in these images. Melanotan (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The point is the secondary sources do not state that Clinuvel had a hand in the publishing of the "moles" paper. They don't even mention her. Our policies dictate that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, not interpretations of primary sources. You are making that allegation, presumably because you doubt the authenticity of the data. That puts us into WP:OR and WP:BLP territory, irrespective if we directly mention her name or not. Rockpocket 16:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Barbie Drug

http://www.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/news/120623_Barbie_drug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.147.26.16 (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Improving source quality

In general, I think that there are two main problems with this article: it is too long and detailed to be an encyclopedic summary of the subject. For example, we don't need a seven-paragraph section to summarize its status for Erythropoietic protoporphyria; it probably doesn't even need seven sentences, because this is all that needs to be said about that:

  • Research shows that it works for EPP.
  • It would be an orphan drug. (Any drug for EPP would be an orphan drug.)
  • It hasn't been approved yet (assuming no change since the nearly year-old information was added at the end).

Also, this article uses a lot of weaker-than-necessary sources throughout. These would be much better sources, and I think should be used to replace the existing ones wherever possible:

  • Fabrikant J, Touloei K, Brown SM (2013). "A review and update on melanocyte stimulating hormone therapy: afamelanotide". J Drugs Dermatol. 12 (7): 775–9. PMID 23884489. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Minder EI (2010). "Afamelanotide, an agonistic analog of α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone, in dermal phototoxicity of erythropoietic protoporphyria". Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 19 (12): 1591–602. doi:10.1517/13543784.2010.535515. PMID 21073357. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Langan EA, Nie Z, Rhodes LE (2010). "Melanotropic peptides: more than just 'Barbie drugs' and 'sun-tan jabs'?". Br. J. Dermatol. 163 (3): 451–5. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09891.x. PMID 20545686. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

If you can read academic/medical German, then PMID 20512306 might also be good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Afamelanotide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afamelanotide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Mass gutting of significant encyclopedic content!

Greetings fellow editors, I have just reverted a drastic though admittedly BOLD series of edits. These edits have removed massive amounts of encyclopedic content that had been developed and added to this article going back years. This is just wrong especially considering the editor in question added zero talk about the logic of doing this. 81.253.17.128 (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Additionally where are the archives of discussion for this article? This style of editing is very troubling. 81.253.17.128 (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. See below. For archives see the beige colored box above. Please review all the information up there. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Revisions

In this series of diffs of about 36 edits, I carefully revised this article to bring into compliance with policies and guidelines of WP, especially those regarding medicine and health, namely:

I would be happy to discuss any of the edits I made.Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response, please allow me to review these unfamiliar wikipedia articles to afterwards provide an informed response. Noting your message about the talk page archives. The link is too small. How can these archives be made more visible? 81.253.17.128 (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you aren't familiar with the policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior; thanks for being willing to engage in them. They provide the foundation for everything that happens in WP. This article was very far out of line with them, and had been for some time.
The location and links to the archives are standard across thousands of articles. If you are finding the type too small, you can use the "zoom" feature of your browser to make it bigger. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Afamelanotide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Afamelanotide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Melanotan/Afamelanotide

After User:Melanotan/Afamelanotide showed up at category:candidates for speedy deletion, I took a look at that userpage draft. It appears to be a fork or previous version of this page. It has an animated model of the chemical structure that could be added here. Since I see that Melanotan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a user name that is that of a commercial product, and since paid editing has apparently been going on here, I would just suggest that anything worthwhile in User:Melanotan/Afamelanotide could be added here. I have restored the speedy tag that another editor added to User:Melanotan/Afamelanotide, but remove it if you wish. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't use images of ever-spinning molecules per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Animations,_video,_and_audio_content. See Template_talk:Infobox_drug/Archive_10#3D_models for the application to drug molecules. So no it could not ' be added here. Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afamelanotide/Archive_1&oldid=1136289078"