Talk:Nattokinase

Use for blood clot
My mother is currently on lovenox, 60mg for a blood clot found a month ago. I dislike lovenox greatly for its horrible side effects, can I give her this supplement 2 times a day in its place safely?
 * Not on the strength of this short Wikipedia article, no, most certainly not! -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes
The editor who has been replacing the article recently, Dryerson (talk • contribs), has asked for help over at my Talk page, and I thought it would be better to reply here. So, point by point...


 * I am attempting to update the entry for nattokinase as the current entry is not entirely true or complete

The first problem is that you have been replacing the entire article, removing the explanation of what natto and nattokinase actually are. The current intro appears to be factually accurate to me, and should not be removed.


 * According to the current entry, Nattokinase is used as an aspirin substitute. I will tell you that it is not.'

The current entry actually says "Nattokinase is sometimes promoted in the alternative medicine community as a clot-buster and blood thinner or as a substitute for daily aspirin therapy." (my emphasis). And that is true - as a quick Google search shows, it is indeed promoted in the alternative medicine industry, along with all sorts of other controversial treatments like homeopathy, etc. Whether or not such things are effective is not the issue here - the aim of Wikipedia is to reflect whatever people notably claim, not the truth (see WP:RS and WP:Verifiability). Further, the article does also add "However, this substitution is not recommended since there is no evidence that nattokinase is effective in preventing cardiovascular disease (in contrast to aspirin, which is proven to effective)", so it does appear to be reporting the issue in a balanced manner.


 * This is misleading the readers of Wikipedia

Again, the aim of Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is to reflect what is currently written about things, not to judge the truth (again, see WP:RS). Though as the aspirin issue is reported in a balanced way, with that recommendation added, I really don't see how, taken as a whole, it is misleading. (On a personal note, I take regular aspirin for a heart condition, and I'm also a regular eater of natto - but what is written here would never mislead me into giving up my aspirin).


 * I represent Nattokinase's discoverer, Dr. Sumi and the chief U.S. nattokinase researcher.

That risks a conflict of interest (and I don't mean commercial - an intellectual conflict of interest can also be damaging to Wikipedia) - see WP:COI. Primary researchers, and their representatives, should exercise great caution when editing articles on their own subjects.


 * The last update I provided had zero commercial value and is fully referenced to peer reviewed Journals, including the Lancet

Commercial value is not the issue here, it is one of neutrality and original research. The tone of your version of the article was very much supportive of Dr Sumi, and appeared to quote much of his original research. However, Wikipedia does not publish original research (see WP:OR), and must be written from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), using reliable secondary sources (WP:RS). What you need is to find reliable sources of other notable people referring to Dr Sumi's work, and if you can find that, then you need to present it from a neutral point of view (and add it to the current material, don't replace everything).


 * If Wikipedia entries are to be written by experts for trust & value,..

They are not. They are to be written by anyone who can find reliable secondary sources, in a way that reflects the balance of sources out there in the real world (see WP:WEIGHT), and written in accordance with the consensus of the community. Wikipedia polices specifically caution against material written by (or on behalf of) original researchers in a field (especially when used to present only one "expert" POV).


 * Hope this is of some help - I really do suggest you read those policy articles I have linked to, to get a feel of how Wikipedia works. Best regards -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of Nattokinase with antithrombotic agents
Read the PubMed article and see slight difference in meaning. PubMed indicates conflict when microbleeds are present and Nattokinase is used with an antithrombotic agent. This indicates that the combination does not cause hemorrhaging, but only prevents clotting. --Longinus876 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Heart Disease section
I'm a little confused. The first paragraph suggests "no evidence" that Nattokinase prevents cardiovascular disease based on one reference from a physician, but then follows-up with what sounds like potential dangers of it being too anti-thrombotic as per the concomitant use of nattokinase and aspirin resulting in stroke? The next paragraph is also confusing; there are a half-dozen references suggesting that the substance can effectively treat cardiovascular disease. I suggest this section being rewritten and clarified, and perhaps, a new look at some MEDLINE primary and secondary sources.Ronsword (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I want to point out that all of the references for heart disease involve one man - Sumi - who discovered nattokinase. Further, references 15-17 (as of today) are not references to anything specific. Thus, citing 8+ references gives the impression of a large body of science, however several of these are not actual references and all (or nearly all) come from a biased source - the discoverer. I have no idea whether this is effective or not, and unfortunately the current references do nothing to inform me, despite the obvious attempt to convince the reader by the shear number of references. Two or three studies from a non-biased source, especially if they are peer reviewed, are much more convincing than 100 references from the same biased source. Cheddar3210 (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Digestion section
The paragraph there says: "Digestive enzymes appear to cleave nattokinase into constituent amino acids, from which the components are absorbed into the bloodstream, therefore nattokinase should not have any direct fibrinolytic effects beyond the lumen."

This comes across as personal opinion and also lacks any documentation. Can the author that wrote that please offer up some normally expected evidence? I am not a subject matter expert but a brief search of contemporary research and reviews consistently contradicts the statement that nattokinase is simply reduced to its constituent amino acids upon oral administration and therefore has no effect outside of the digestive tract (lumen).

http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/18/3/523/htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23709455/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4479826/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3879341/

https://www.biomediclabs.com/scientific-research-on-nattokinase/

http://www.ejpmr.com/admin/assets/article_issue/1452323958.pdf

Comments?

Liberato (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Safety
The following safety related information was removed from the article by Alexbrn based on the fallacious assertion that it constitutes medical advice; it does not.

In one case, a patient concurrently taking aspirin and 400 mg of nattokinase daily for seven consecutive days to prevent stroke suffered an acute cerebellar hemorrhage.


 * We need WP:MEDRS for any WP:Biomedical information. This ain't reliable. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

"A few researchers...
In the second paragraph, the final sentence reads "Although it should be expected to be digested and inactivated in the human gut like other proteins, a few researchers report that nattokinase is active when taken orally." (emphasis mine) This is confusing, since how else could it be administered?! And how can it be only "a few researchers" who have reported this? I am not an expert on the subject, but every review I have read on nattokinase, and every supplement of it that that I have seen, has been intended for oral consumption. Is there another way to state this that might be less confusing? Bricology (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)