Talk:Vitamin B6

Is this article still a stub? Dark Nexus 20:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving page Pyridoxine → Vitamin B6

• The redirect Vitamin B6 was originally listed on WP:RFD, but I realize now I should have listed this move here. The reason for the move: The page Pyridoxine actually talks about the two major forms of Vitamin B6, pyridoxine and pyridoxamine. However, pyridoxine is just one of these forms. Originally the page pyridoxamine was an exact duplicate of pyridoxine except for the image, but I redirected pyridoxamine to pyridoxine and added the pyridoxamine image to pyridoxine. However, since pyridoxine actually talks about both forms of Vitamin B6 it should be moved to Vtamin B6. What follows is the original discussion on WP:RFD. Exabyte (talk)­ 05:07, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

• Pyridoxine is just one form of Vitamin B6, and the content of both this article and Pyridoxamine talks about both forms (in fact they are exactly duplicate except for the image). The Pyridoxine article, because it is actually about both forms, should be moved to Vitamin B6 and either the image from Pyridoxamine should be included in the article and Pyridoxamine be changed to a redirect or the resulting redirect from the move should be converted to an article and Pyridoxamine changed to be specifically about pyridoxamine. Exabyte (talk)­ 20:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
• Would anyone like to comment on the proposed move before it is done? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Go for it--makes sense. (seems like there may be similar issues with Tocopherol/Vitamin E). Niteowlneils 18:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After consensus was reached, page was moved from Pyrodoxine to Vitamin B6. COGDEN 18:59, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Citations Needed

There are a load of claims about the benefits of B6, but a dearth of citations where these assertions are made and supported. Turly-burly 00:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. The information is in the pages to which the external links point. Turly-burly 00:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

RE Pyridoxine - Aargh! I found some articles linking (in some unknown way) pyridoxine to psoriasis etc, but PubMed only has it in Italian and Russian! And Archives of Dermatology is subscription only. Seeing crap on the Internets (and not much, there's lots of herbal hippie stuff out there but not much published research, and most of that is from the 70's), we need a dermatologist or nutritionist with access to get some of these sources. Otherwise, the claims need to either be removed or changed to reflect that this is a belief strongly held amongst the Herbal Essances crowd :( but I'll keep looking Gaviidae 14:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is that for mutliple claims, there are multiple sources, yet wikipedia doens't care for excessive sourcing. Apparently, those researching vitamins are only doing very specific studies-- recently bereaved homosexual men; non-smoking women between 20-45 taking birth control (reduces B6); pyridoxine and PMS; pyridoxine and babies with a rare genetic seizure disorder; pyridoxine and tardive dyskinesia in schizophrenics... first, should all these sources, if used, be instead in the B6 page instead of the Pyridoxine page (which makes similar claims)? Also PMID: 10859691 and others I wouldn't want to cite if I couldn't read the results myself. Gaviidae 15:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that a lot of the toxicity and overdose information is lifted directly from the Linus Pauling Institute web page. This needs to be properly cited to avoid plagiarism. 67.40.184.137 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions

- What's the symbol or chemical formula for vitamin B6?

- What is the half-life for vitamin B6 ?

It appears the chemical formula is C8H11NO3. SpazKitty 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

- Shouldn't we talk about how B6 deficiency can be one cause of sideroblastic anemia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.183.251 (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Rating

Upgraded it to start. TerriG149.155.96.5 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Set-up

Why, under history, does it only have one sentence about history, and then goes on to talk about chemical composition? But I worry about messing with this page too much. Gaviidae 15:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't the name of this article be Vitamin B₆? This article makes use of subscript with a template. Perhaps we can use this:

{{downsize|title={{mp|Vitamin B|6}}}}

DanPMK 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dreaming

Carl Pfeiffer knew (by the mid-1970's, at the latest) that pyridoxine increased dream recall. He recommended that certain of his patients (those suspected of what he called histadelia) take increasing amounts of pyridoxine each day until the dreams became unpleasant, and then cut back a little. Perhaps orthomolecular.org may have a citation. Unfree (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Functions vs. Metabolic Functions

These sections should be combined due to numerous redundancies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.59.104 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

FDA: pyradoxamine = drug, not dietary supplement?

Would someone knowledgeable add the appropriate info from here... http://aahf.nonprofitsoapbox.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=677&Itemid= 68.83.72.162 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added the information to pyridoxamine, rather than here, since it is specific only to that compound, and not to any of the other forms of vitamin B6. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For Future Experiment

Sections seems confused and useless, should be removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.8.99 (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Gene expression section is confused and useless as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.255.245 (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bite Reduction

In the Army, we used Vitamin B6 to reduce bug bites (yes, it works). Has there ever been a study about this? 138.162.128.55 (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

no idea —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.223.194 (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reference template

An unskilled editor in this subject so far as I'm concerned since I've never seen him editing nutritional articles, which is just hounding my edits, decided to template the article disputing the whole content as questionable and desperately requiring further reference (beyond it's currently 25). Please just tag the article section you see as most problematic so we can work on the article gradually instead of leaving this ugly template in the whole article.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take "skill" to see that half the article is completely and totally unreferenced, which is what the template signals. Also please refrain from further personal attacks against me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has 25 references! If the problem is with a specific section tag those sections! "Not everything need actually be attributed" but surely don't have any skills on the issue of Vitamin B6 to distinguish what's obvious, you're just trying to create problems here!--Nutriveg (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with the person attacks and assumption of bad faith. I will move it to specific sections as per your request. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. More than half the references are in ONE section of the article, so the total number is a poor indication of how well referenced the article is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Not everything need actually be attributed" just for the sake of being referenced, if you're unskilled or unable to check the content just don't mess the article using unnecessary templates!--Nutriveg (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)