Talk:Mitragyna speciosa

...this is a pretty biased article.
I don't mean to be a critic, but this article is pretty biased. It primarily includes sources from the most vocal opponents of kratom and omits most of the information regarding both its comparative safety or its therapeutic potential.

I can understand why the article is written the way it is. Kratom interacts with the opioid receptors; it seems better to assume the worst than to condone the use of a recreational substance. If I didn't have intimate knowledge of kratom, both pharmacologically and personally, I would probably agree.

Why not mention the ceiling effect that limits its abuse potential? Kratom doesn't increase in intensity in a linear fashion. Mitragynine, the compound responsible for kratom's psychoactive effect, is a pro-drug; it needs to be converted by the liver into its active form. This is a mechanism that limits its abuse potential and how much a person will take at once.

Why not mention the fact that the kratom is being used in the self-treatment of alcoholism? Alcoholics aren't taking it to relieve opiate withdrawals; it helps eliminate the cravings.

Why not mention the demographic and socioeconomic data of the typical kratom consumer? Unlike most psychoactive substances, frequent kratom use isn't associated with the socioeconomic harms typical of abusable substances. Drug addicts do try kratom, but it's recreational potential is weak compared to other easily available substances.

Why the the over reliance on negative interpretations of the data? Including the actual statistics regarding socioeconomic data, risks, and benefits would go a long way in creating an unbiased article. Only a handful of doctors reported psychosis, fatalities, etc. involving kratom.

This seems like a trivial issue, but there is an entire community of people whose lives depend on kratom. Considering the lack of societal harm incurred over its nearly twenty years of availability, I think the public should have an unbiased resource to form their opinions. Most people don't care enough to do their research; Wikipedia is their only source. Banning kratom has become a convenient proxy for fighting the war on drugs. 2603:6011:2802:E1A8:E554:5B3F:99D2:24F5 (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Citation required (x10). Bon courage (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * it certainly is and this guy who seems to be moderating it is a very biased individual. his page makes it very clear that if you even mention bias that he will basically assume that you know nothing about the subject and meanwhile it is clear to anyone who has spent time learning about it that he really doesnt know much about it himself. he thinks hes some hero but hes going around removing edits that improve the quality of the article based on assumptions and then blindly restating the original false information because hes so sure he knows exactly who is making the edits based on things like using the term "bias". how do these people get to moderate and those of us who actually care enough to read the citations get our shit reverted? 154.5.201.230 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that kratom causes psychosis.
I tried to simply remove the mention of psychosis from the first page twice, once without an edit summary and the second time with a detailed one and it was reverted both times. this is the only time i have ever removed something and had it reverted and there have been many times where i have noticed that someone changed something inaccurately and i had to remove it. why is this consistently being reverted but other pages that dont have to do with a plant that can effectively manage pain or get people off opioids get to stick? is this paid for by some pharma company or something because it happens almost immediately and i have seen many edits that add complete misinformation not be reverted. there shouldnt be a mention of psychosis int he first paragraph when there is no evidence for it and its not like i removed the reference to addiction or something. 154.5.201.230 (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Psychosis may be a side effect, as the article states. This is well-sourced and current accepted knowledge. Bon courage (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * the one "source" in there that mentions psychosis lists it among a group of hallucinogens and it is not even a hallucinogen. it even says in the article that it BLOCKS the serotonin 2a receptors. hallucinogens, specifically psychedelics, act on the 2a receptors as agonists whereas modern atypical antipsychotics (the first line treatment) act as antagonists at serotonin 2a receptors the same as kratom but stronger. if anything this source shows it to be ANITPSYCHOTIC, not hallucinogenic. it is only mentioned because it has activity on those receptors. also, the specific adrenergic receptors it acts on are the same as another drug called clonidine which has a sedative effect and is used in cases of opioid withdrawal. agonists at the a2 adrenergic receptors act as sedatives due to the role of those receptors in balancing out the overall effect of adrenaline release, the opposite of what you might assume if you dont actually know the subject. I wouldnt make any edits about somethign im not sure of or dont have a good grasp of. show me a study on pubmed or another reputable research site that says that kratom causing psychosis is in any way proven or accepted knowledge, ill wait. something with such little to no evidence shouldnt be allowed in the first paragraph and there are many pages i have frequented that get fully altered with bullshit information that i have to go in and change and i dont see you guys in there policing it. why is this so important to you? is it because its an opioid? the fact that its an opioid that people dont die from is exactly why there shouldnt be bullshit like that in paragraph 1. it absolutely is not current accepted knowledge, you obviously dont actually know anythign about the subject. read some studies on pubmed 154.5.201.230 (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You going to actually use this talk page or what? I know for a fact you never actually read the citation, you just assumed im one of those conspiracy theorists or a drug addict and made an inaccurate claim that isnt even supported by the citation. The cited article says something completely different which is why i changed it to more accurately reflect what is said in the scientific literature. you are responsible for actually taking the time to make sure the details are right but it seems like im taking way more time to make sure im correct than you are. you have blinders on due to the conspiracy theorists you are used to dealing with. im not editing out my ass, i have been learning about this subject for well over a decade and have gone to university for it. the top of this page says the article is expected to have verifiability and if you werent just making assumptions you would see that my edits are fully supported by the two paragraphs on kratom in that last citation (the only one mentioning psychosis). just because im not capitalizing every i or using apostrophes doesnt mean you can just assume that the edits i made are incorrect, nor does it preclude you from providing sources for the information you so boldly responded to me with. "This is well-sourced and current accepted knowledge." no it isnt, there currently isnt a scientifically accepted concensus on most of this but the evidence points the other way and so does the cited study which you obviously never bothered to read. stop making assumptions and do your job or im going to report you and everone else who takes down my edit as you are not fit to moderate if you cant bother to actually look into somethign before taking it down. the firs time i get it because i never explained anything, thats why i did it again with a proper explanation. now you are just taking it down based on an assumption without even bothering to try to get to the truth first. it also says to use this talk page to reach a concensus; how can i do that when you wont even reply to me or try to either verify or disprove what im saying? the study clearly states that kratom is an agonist at the alpha 2 adrenergic receptors and if you look it up you will find that agonists at those receptors are sedative and that it is referring to yohimbine as a stimulant and potential psychosis-causing agent. you will also find that it states the activity at the serotonin 2a receptors is a blocking activity, aka antagonism, which is in line with currently used antipsychotics. unless you can acknowledge this i will keep changing it every day until someone does. im sick of misinformation and im sick of people who mean well but still dont care enough to take the time to make sure what they are doing is right. thats what is wrong with the world, not some conspiratorial cabal. it is normal ass people like you who make assumptions and then act on them in ways that effect other people. dont just read the last sentence either, read everything i said, its your job as a moderator to be both detail oriented and unassuming. the page is supposed to be unbiased and no, talking about bias does not have anything to do with whether or not i know what im talking about. 154.5.201.230 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You expect people to read that WP:MWOT? Bon courage (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Continuation of "There is no evidence that kratom causes psychosis."
I would still like a proper response. I see you are doing the same thing to to others as well and due to this information having the potential to save lives I will not be forgetting about this and will do whatever it takes to make sure that the proper and accurate information is what stays up. I have explained myself and thoroughly read the citation and my edit is supported by the information that has already been cited in citation 15. You clearly never read that citation or you misunderstood it in the same way that the original editor did. There are plenty of more recent studies on the receptor binding of various Kratom alkaloids that you can read to verify the information in my edit and it IS your duty to do so before reverting it. There are also several studies on mice and rats that show that Kratom doesn't even cause respiratory depression and I have been leaving that up still. Psychosis is even less well supported by the scientific literature. How exactly is it "current accepted knowledge" and where are you getting this information from? Trioptic8721 (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * See WP:MEDRS. We cite reliable sources. I checked to see if psychosis was still suspected in such MEDRS and found the recent 37942896 which has This source can be usefully added to the article as an update. Bon courage (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * you can find whatever you want if you look hard enough but it still isnt "accepted knowledge", nor are there any cases that dont involve pre existing mental illness and/or other drugs. It is accepted knowledge that it binds to and blocks the same receptor that is commonly targeted by modern antipsychotics. you also still havent actually said anything regarding how the original cited article was misrepresented. that is far from proof, there is a minor and incredibly rare association, that has nothing to do with it being a side effect of simple kratom use and it certainly doesnt isnt remotely close to proving causation in otherwise healthy individuals. It still shouldnt be in the first paragraph. even respiratory depression has been shown to not be an issue with it in multiple rat and mouse studies. yes you can find mentions of it in various articles and studies but it is all entirely speculative and there had been no cases of this sort at all in asia where it has been used for centuries. none of this had been seen or reported at all until it became popular in america, pointing to he distinct and likely possibility that when we do see these things it is the result of unscrupulous vendors selling tainted products to the american market that have other substances that dont show up in the drug tests which are actually the culprit. kratom has a long history of safe use in its origin countries and does not deserve to be treated as if its some brand new substance. it is much safer and has been around much longer then ssri medications and they dont have nearly the same amount of pushback, probably a result of them being a pharmaceutical product. kratom has and will continue to save lives in this opioid epidemic and it should be very clear that out of millions of regular users, this has happened in a handful of people. take any sample of that many people and these issues would crop up at that rate or higher with no apparent cause. there is no evidence at the rate it "happens" that kratom is the causative factor and you can find studies that seem just as reputable that come from both sides. Trioptic8721 (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, not the opinions of editors. You appear to be making a WP:BIGMISTAKE. Bon courage (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)