Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday September 01 2016, @12:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the deadly-embrace dept.

Kratom, an herbal drug made of ground-up tree leaves, is "temporarily" joining other natural substances such as cannabis, psilocybin, and peyote on the schedule I list of the Controlled Substances Act. The active ingredients in kratom, the indole alkaloids mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, are both being added to the list for up to three years, after which they can be added permanently.

Prior to this move, the U.S. has already been seizing shipments of kratom:

In 2014, the FDA issued an import alert that allowed US Customs agents to detain kratom without a physical examination. "We have identified kratom as a botanical substance that could pose a risk to public health and have the potential for abuse," said Melinda Plaisier, the FDA's associate commissioner for regulatory affairs. According to the DEA, between February 2014 and July 2016, nearly 247,000 pounds of kratom were seized.

Advocates say that kratom is a natural treatment for opioid addiction, an application that the Drug Enforcement Agency dismisses. Meanwhile, the heroin/opioid epidemic continues with "unprecedented" events like the recent 174 heroin overdoses in just six days in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Check out the implosion of this kratom subreddit, which is attempting to get 100,000 signatures on the White House petition site:

APATHY WILL GET US NOWHERE. IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME FOR US TO BAND TOGETHER, ITS NOW. stand with me brothers and sisters. hope is not lost.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @02:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @02:42PM (#396180)

    Do you have a reference?

    In the case of depression, the study should be double-blind and randomized with a placebo control or it will not be convincing.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @03:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @03:11PM (#396190)

    Please learn to use the internet. Multiple references are a single search away. And for anything, you really need to review multiple references as you can always find a reference to support the opinion you want. Find some references for the claim and some against the claim, then read them and come to whichever conclusion you want.

    From Wikipedia:
    Studies have supported the efficacy of St John's wort as a treatment for depression in humans.[5][15] A 2015 meta-analysis review concluded that it has superior efficacy to placebo in treating depression; is as effective as standard antidepressant pharmaceuticals for treating depression; and has fewer adverse effects than other antidepressants.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @05:39PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @05:39PM (#396283)

      Please learn to use the internet. Multiple references are a single search away.

      You must be new here. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

      hypericum extracts are effective for the treatment of acute depression, but effects when compared with placebo were modest in size. With 40% of patients responding to placebo, an odds ratio of 1.69 (as found for SSRIs) would mean that 53% of patients receiving an antidepressant respond.

      St. John's wort seems to be somewhat effective (which meets the low bar of most other anti-depressants).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof [wikipedia.org]
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25583895 [nih.gov]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @10:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @10:27PM (#396426)

        We are not talking in person hundreds of years ago. It is trivial to pick out a minor mistake and twist that to invalid anyone's claim or miss a mistake through simple ignorance of the domain. By looking for the proof yourself, you learn far more of the subject area and can make a more accurate assessment if those minor mistakes matter. For example, I could quote that Slashdot article on tabs vs spaces. But if you never look into it yourself you won't realize the researchers never took into account that it takes multiple spaces to replace one tab. If you read their paper, you won't notice the mistake. If you read a few other studies, one of them is likely to mention that issue and then you'll know the first one's conclusions are invalid. You can never trust someone's citation, you always need to find them yourself. That couldn't be done 2000 years ago.

        Nowadays with a global internet available, the person making the claim only needs to give you enough info for you to find out for yourself.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @11:14PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01 2016, @11:14PM (#396448)

          But if you never look into it yourself

          If you read their paper, you won't notice the mistake.

          I asked for the reference so I could look into the claim. If I am unable to evaluate the claim myself (due to lack of expertise), then I'd be satisfied by multiple reputable sources (these I'd find myself).

          Nowadays with a global internet available, the person making the claim only needs to give you enough info for you to find out for yourself.

          You are so very wrong here.

          On the internet, there are plenty of people that are disingenuous in the claims and questions they make. There are many people that will move the goalposts or dismiss the references you find as not being good enough.

          The burden of proof is even more important on the internet, since you have no real way of knowing if the person is a disingenuous crackpot/expert/troll/dog/bot/etc.