Search This Blog

Thursday, November 6, 2025

Long-Term Melatonin Use Linked To Nearly Double Heart Failure Risk, Study Finds

 by Cara Michelle Miller via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Melatonin, a natural hormone, is often labeled a heart-healthy sleep aid. However, an extensive new study suggests that regular users face a higher risk of developing heart failure, hospitalization, and even death over time.

Adults with chronic insomnia who used melatonin for a year or longer faced a 90 percent higher risk of developing heart failure within five years compared to non-users.

The preliminary analysis, presented Monday at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2025, tracked more than 130,000 adults diagnosed with insomnia. Among those who took melatonin for more than a year, 4.6 percent developed heart failure, compared with 2.7 percent of nonusers.

Melatonin users were also more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for heart failure and had almost double the risk of dying from any cause. Still, the two groups differed only modestly in absolute terms—7.8 percent of long-term melatonin users died during the study period versus 4.3 percent in those not taking melatonin—a gap of about 3.5 percentage points.

“The takeaway isn’t that melatonin is ‘bad’ or that everyone should stop taking it,” Dr. Ekenedilichukwu Nnadi, chief resident in internal medicine at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University, who led the research, told The Epoch Times in an email. “It’s that we shouldn’t assume something is risk-free just because it’s natural or sold over the counter.”

Melatonin, a hormone the body naturally produces at night, is often regarded as a safe, easy fix for insomnia and is frequently taken nightly by people struggling to sleep. Its use has more than doubled over the past decade, with about 12 percent of Americans diagnosed with chronic insomnia and millions more struggling to sleep most nights.

What the Study Found

Researchers used data from more than 130,000 adults diagnosed with insomnia. Roughly half had been prescribed melatonin or reported self-use; the rest had no melatonin use. None had heart failure or used prescription sleep aids at the start of the study.

The results held even when researchers required multiple prescriptions to define “chronic use,” reinforcing a link to long-term, versus occasional, melatonin use.

“This doesn’t prove that melatonin directly causes heart failure,” said Nnadi, noting that the study was observational. People who take melatonin every night may simply have more severe insomnia, which itself could raise heart risks.

Still, the study’s size and careful matching make the findings notable—and raise important questions about supplement safety, he said.

“It shows that people with chronic insomnia who took melatonin long-term were more likely to experience these outcomes. It’s an unexpected and important signal that needs to be studied further.”

What the Study Can’t Tell Us

The research could only track prescribed melatonin, since some over-the-counter use isn’t recorded in medical records. That means some people counted as “nonusers” may have taken melatonin without telling their doctors.

That would actually bias the results toward no difference. In other words, it would make melatonin look safer than it might be,” said Nnadi. “So the fact that we still saw a strong, consistent association suggests the signal is real.”

“Of course, this limitation is exactly why we need randomized, prospective trials to confirm whether melatonin itself is contributing to these risks.”

Unlike prescription drugs, melatonin supplements are not strictly regulated.

The actual amount of melatonin can vary widely from one brand to another. A study found that the amount of melatonin you get can vary significantly from what’s on the label—ranging from -83 percent to +478 percent—suggesting that some products may supply far higher levels than the body is designed to handle.

Most people in the United States buy melatonin over the counter, without any prescription, and may take it for months or years. In the UK, Australia, and the European Union, melatonin is available only by prescription for short-term treatment of insomnia.

Mixed Evidence on Heart Effects

Melatonin also acts as an antioxidant and has been associated with improved heart benefits for people with existing heart issues—improving heart function and reducing stress on the heart muscles. However, these studies were small, short-term trials on animals or carefully selected patients using pure, prescription-strength melatonin.

Our study is different,” said Nnadi. “We looked at real-world use: supplements taken nightly for years, in diverse populations with varying doses and product quality in patients that specifically have chronic insomnia. That’s a very different scenario.

Melatonin helps regulate the body’s sleep-wake cycle, peaking at night to signal the brain that it’s time to rest. For people with insomnia, taking melatonin before bed can help promote sleepiness and support a more restful night. It can also modestly influence blood pressure and heart rate as the body transitions to rest.

Although the study didn’t identify a mechanism, possible effects could involve heart rhythm, blood pressure, or metabolism—effects that are not fully understood—especially with supplements taken over many months or years.

Insomnia itself, meanwhile, has been linked in previous research to increased inflammation, higher nighttime blood pressure, and changes in stress hormones such as cortisol—all of which can strain the heart over time and raise the risk of heart failure.

Expert Recommendations

Marie-Pierre St-Onge, a sleep researcher at Columbia University who was not involved in the study, said in her preliminary analysis that she was surprised that some patients were prescribed melatonin for more than a year.

Melatonin, at least in the U.S., is not indicated for the treatment of insomnia,” said St-Onge, who chairs the writing group for the American Heart Association’s 2025 scientific statement, Multidimensional Sleep Health: Definitions and Implications for Cardiometabolic Health, adding that “people should be aware that it should not be taken chronically without a proper indication.”

The Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade group for supplement manufacturers, agreed that melatonin should be used occasionally and that anyone with long-term sleep difficulties should consult a medical professional before using it.

What Should You Do?

For those struggling with consistent sleep, Dr. Muhammad A. Rishi, a sleep medicine physician at Indiana University Health, previously wrote to The Epoch Times via email that melatonin supplements should be used carefully.

Even though melatonin is a naturally occurring hormone, Rishi said that the supplements change a person’s mental or physical state, and therefore, should be treated as a drug.

Common side effects include headaches and dizziness; it can also interact with other medicines, such as anticoagulants—drugs that help prevent blood clots. Sleep doctors typically advise starting with the lowest effective dose—about 0.5 to 1 milligram—taken one to two hours before bedtime, and only for one to three months. Long-term effects remain unknown.

Persistent insomnia can signal an underlying condition, such as sleep apnea, restless legs syndrome, depression, or chronic pain. When a sleep specialist identifies the correct diagnosis, treatment options can then be explored.

“For people using melatonin occasionally or short-term, it may still be fine. But for those taking it nightly for years, especially with heart disease or risk factors, it’s worth having a conversation with your doctor,“ Nnadi said. ”We need to treat supplements with the same care and skepticism as prescription drugs.”

“Our study,” he added, “is a reminder that more isn’t always better, and that we need stronger evidence before calling any supplement ‘heart-healthy.’”

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/long-term-melatonin-use-linked-nearly-double-heart-failure-risk-study-finds

TURLEY: SCOTUS ruling on Trump tariffs comes down to a numbers game

 The oral argument on Nov. 5 for the Trump tariffs was fascinating as justices struggled with the knotty question of whether a president has the sweeping authority claimed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The justices were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers. However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the administration.

The counsel

First, the counsel. I was highly impressed by the performance of Solicitor General John Sauer, who did a brilliant job in weaving historical and precedential arguments in favor of the tariffs. He had a tough case and at times a tough audience, but maintained a coherent and consistent position.

Many were surprised that the challengers selected the liberal firebrand Neil Katyal for counsel on the other side. Kavanaugh even made a quip about the incongruity of Katyal arguing for issues like non-delegation. Katyal struggled at points and Justice Amy Coney Barrett bashed him once for seemingly flipping his position in oral argument. However, Katyal made the key points against the claim of statutory and constitutional authority.

Overall, the administration faced worrisome moments in the argument, with Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly referring to tariffs as a clear "tax" and Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly raising the "major questions doctrine." Neither works well for the administration. If this is a tax, it is more likely viewed as a usurpation of Congress' inherent tax authority.

The head count

However, the head counting becomes more difficult as you comb through the specific questions of the justices.

We begin with the clear votes in favor of the challengers by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Indeed, at times, both justices seemed to take on the role of counsel in clarifying the confusion left by the challengers and directing them back to what they viewed as more solid ground.

Justice Elena Kagan, as usual, was more circumspect, but still clearly leaning against the administration.

That leaves two more votes to reject the tariffs.

The most obvious candidate would be Barrett, who hit Sauer hard with questions on the largely unprecedented scope of the Trump tariffs. Much of this turned on the meaning of the terms "regulate importation" in IEEPA. Barrett asked pointedly: "Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase, together with ‘regulate importation,’ has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?"

Sauer stressed that a predecessor law was used in this manner, but Barrett repeatedly returned and was clearly not satisfied. At one point, Sotomayor (prematurely, in my view) snapped at Sauer and said, "just answer the justice’s question."

Nevertheless, Barrett offered the administration some hope in their questioning of the challengers. 

She zeroed in on the fact that licenses are within the power of the president:

JUSTICE BARRETT: "So, this license thing is important to me. And do you agree that pursuant to IEEPA, the president could impose — could regulate commerce by imposing a license fee?"

Katyal seemed to struggle with this when Barrett noted that he had previously stated there is little difference between a license and a tariff. Barrett said that, if so, a president could regulate commerce in the same way with a license fee.

MR. KATYAL: "Not a fee. So, I should have said this earlier. But license is different from a licensing fee. IEEPA and TWEA authorize licenses, not license fees. And no president has ever charged, to my knowledge, fees under those two statutes for the licenses. So, fee is impermissible. License is OK."

JUSTICE BARRETT: "But I thought you conceded to Justice Gorsuch there was no difference between a tariff and a licensing fee functionally."

MR. KATYAL: "Well, if the — if the licensing fee is just to — I didn't concede that."

JUSTICE BARRETT: "OK."

Barrett kept telling Katyal that she was not following his arguments. Barrett also seemed intrigued by the incongruity that a president could use embargoes or quotas to effectively shut down trade entirely, so why shouldn't he be allowed to use the lesser of the powers?

The fifth vote could come from Gorsuch, but again, the rationales were strikingly different from those of the other justices.

Gorsuch clearly viewed the delegation of the authority as problematic and also raised the "major questions doctrine." However, he was also the most effective in hammering Katyal on plain meaning arguments, noting the verb "regulate" is "capacious."

If Gorsuch were to argue that the delegation is unconstitutional, he may find himself in the minority, but could then give the president the statutory argument on the broad implications of "regulate importation."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the most useful for the administration in returning to the history of President Richard Nixon's global 10% tariff, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the predecessor of IEEPA.

He also highlighted how, in FEA v. Algonquin SNG (1976), the court allowed the exercise of tariff powers. At one point, he slammed Katyal's effort to rewrite the decision and said, "Algonquin didn't have anything like that, but keep going."

There is a chance that the challengers could eke out a majority with Barrett and possibly another conservative, such as Gorsuch or Roberts. However, it is also possible that, when the justices delve into the details, they may find a fragmented rationale that ultimately works to the advantage of the administration.

In the meantime, Congress may want to get started in addressing what Barrett described as "the mess" of reimbursement if the tariffs were found to be unlawful.

No, I’m not leaving NYC because we have a socialist mayor — and neither should you

 by Kirsten Fleming

I did not vote for Zohran Mamdani.

Call me crazy — but a socialist who, until five minutes ago, was gleefully tweeting to defund the police and who refuses to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada” is not my ideal steward for this glittering center of progress.

But that doesn’t mean I’m going anywhere.

As Zohran Mamdani’s win in the mayoral election came true, there’s inevitable talk of New Yorkers fleeing the city.Aristide Economopoulos
Data shows loads of young, educated transplants voted for Mamdani — because of his pie-in-the-sky promises to freeze rents and deliver them all the trappings of success for a discounted price.Michael Nagle

On social media, there’s a relentless schadenfreude chorus of “You deserve what you vote for” from out-of-towners who don’t seem to understand that massive swathes of New Yorkers did not, in fact, vote for Mamdani.

And I also hear from people saying I need to flee while I can. According to one survey, there are nearly 800,000 New Yorkers eyeing an exodus as Mamdani takes City Hall.

Screw that.

And it’s not just because, unlike Rosie O’Donnell, I am no moneybags who has the luxury of moving to a foreign land where I can spend all day melting down on Tiktok.

I work here — and for a great New York City publication. Dispatches on subway safety and city life don’t work as well from, say, a couch in West Virginia. (AI told me they have the cheapest housing prices.)

The Big Apple is my home.

This week, a survey of New Yorkers revealed that close to 800,000 are eyeing an exit from New York City.

I spent much of my childhood here and have lived in Manhattan for more than two decades. Most of my immediate and extended family are here. Every Sunday we gather in my aunt’s downtown apartment for family dinner.

I don’t fly home for Thanksgiving or Christmas. I take the F train to my cousin’s house in Brooklyn.

My family has been here for generations. Heck, my paternal grandmother was even stabbed here in 1961. (She survived, thankfully, and moved to a safer neighborhood in The Bronx. But you get the point: This isn’t a casual relationship.)

Many tourists might see the city as merely a backdrop to film social media content or catch a Broadway show. But it’s also a place to maintain roots and raise families. And, yes, struggle to survive.

Zohran Mamdani, who has said that billionaires should not exist, happily posed with politically active billionaire and donor Alex Soros.Alexander Soros/Facebook

I truly worry that, under Mamdani, our city — which is still emerging from its pandemic stupor — will be pulled back into an abyss of chaos and crime. I fret that businesses which no longer need to be here to remain competitive will leave and take loads of tax dollars — and jobs — with them.

I also pray that Albany will spoil Mamdani’s plans for grabbing other people’s money.

If all the sensible people flee, we are just handing over the keys to Mamdani — the pretty face of an ugly movement. He is a Trojan horse for the Democratic Socialists of America and their pernicious anti-Western agenda. His very dark victory speech, in which he lectured us on Islamophobia and boasted about big government, was chilling.

Data shows loads of young, educated transplants voted for Mamdani — because of his pie-in-the-sky promises to freeze rents and deliver them all the trappings of success for a discounted price.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell.

Billionaire Bill Ackman, who spent a lot of time and money to defeat Zohran Mamdani, has now offered his help — rather than threatening to leave.@BillAckman/X

If common-sense folks don’t stay, we have no firewall to slow this terrible ideology. During the pandemic, we saw so many pragmatic New Yorkers leave because of crime, filth and a zealous devotion to masking. Their absence was greatly felt in this election.

But here’s a warning to folks laughing at us from other states: Unaffordability doesn’t only plague New York.

Go food shopping in Helena, Montana, or Nashville — the prices are comparable to here. A night at the Jersey Shore isn’t the bargain that it used to be. Never mind the housing market in the Garden State. Or anywhere else.

Zohran Mamdani boasted about big government in an election night victory speech in Brooklyn.Aristide Economopoulos

And because of that, you schadenfreude slingers might just have a DSA darling coming to a town near you.

Both Democrats and Republicans need to have a reckoning with issues of affordable housing — yes, our new mayor has a point about that — to ensure that citizens can still pursue the American dream.

But back to New York City: This place has taken beatings from fiscal mismanagement, rampant crime, disorder, feckless politicians, pandemics and Islamic terrorists.

Now we have another foe: a smiling socialist.

We must proceed boldly, with common sense and grit. And not cede this great city out of fear.

https://nypost.com/2025/11/05/opinion/no-im-not-leaving-nyc-because-we-have-a-socialist-mayor/