Explain this Price Plow

[kissdadookie]

Just noticed that you guys have two new posts on the new NDI guidelines.

I would like to know how why you guys are up in arms about that yet didn't touch the kratom subject at all. Even though based on DSHEA, kratom and it's active constituents would be considered compliant.

There's some folks that claim that it was never compliant yet what they don't point out is how the FDA are not the ones whom has done much of anything about kratom and instead you have the DEA "emergency" scheduling of kratom to schedule I which is supposedly "temporary" until further research can be done. As most already know, schedule I means the substance becomes illegal to even possess which effectively nullifies the possibility of any research that can be done on it and the government sure AF are not going to bother researching it. There's also a note in the "emergency" scheduling notice stating how public input was unnecessary for this decision which suggests that the DEA wanted to completely skip over any typical process and schedule it based on nothing more than them just wanting to schedule it and make it completely illegal.

If you are up in arms about the new NDI guidelines then you guys should have been up in arms about kratom.

[TMac26]

They might be working on a post about it.


Then again, its not really a "main stream supplement" its used more by recovering addicts and treatment of joint pain.

[kissdadookie]

They might be working on a post about it.


Then again, its not really a "main stream supplement" its used more by recovering addicts and treatment of joint pain.

Somehow I doubt that since some of their major writing staff (at least one of them) is also from SNS and SNS has been very vocal
about how kratom is justly scheduled.

Kratom is most certainly not justly scheduled. There's a good number of patents on compounds derived from kratom by big pharma. They are able to control and monetize on that, they can't do that with a plant. Let's say that kratom is a possible risk, making it schedule I is ridiculous, as we can see from what was done with cannabis.

[TMac26]

I had no idea about your first part.


That does require some explaining.

[compan]

Never tried kratom before. How strong of a painkiller is it?

[kissdadookie]

I had no idea about your first part.


That does require some explaining.

The petition against schedule I'ing kratom is up to almost 125k signatures at this point. That tells you something.

The claims made by the DEA details that there have been several deaths from it but when you look at it, worldwide it's roughly 30 (documented) and users were all taking various other substances which could have been the cause(s) of death. This is over the span of goodness knows how many years. US emergency calls for I don't know how many years totals about 600+. I fail to see how it's an "imminent hazard to the public safety" as stated in the DEA's emergency scheduling document.

The FDA never actually banned the substance either, they did a work around to sidestep having to ban the substance, this being banning the import of the substance.

Let's put it this way, DMAA was pretty quickly banned. AMP citrate was pretty quickly banned. A lot of things have been pretty quickly banned. Kratom they don't even ban or send out warning letters and instead just block the import of the substance? Why is that? Perhaps because it's a botanical and would fit into DSHEA compliancy?

Never tried kratom before. How strong of a painkiller is it?

Not a clue but Chris Bell is making a documentary on it. It's strong enough to be an alternative to oxy though.

Side note, I'm not some proponent for "we should allow people to just have fun and get high AF!" That's not why this topic interests me, it's mainly because it's a clear example of this cherry picking of XYZ being compliant and ABC being non compliant based not on what's in the legislature but on personal interests (because again, it's a giant lobbying conglomerate pushing for it for years and likely big pharma has placed some pressure on as well). Mainstream level headed outlets also agree:

https://www.wired.com/2016/09/dea-wr...oid-addiction/

[OT2000]

The DEA does not need to work within the same confines as the FDA in regards to DSHEA. All they need to prove is that it's potential for abuse whether it's in nature or not. Depending on their data, they can move pretty quickly and go unchallenged. Since Kratom is used by many former addicts and is addictive, them moving on it shouldn't be surprising.

It's not really a dietary supplement of use for anyone, I don't see the big deal. I doubt PP wants to discuss something the DEA is going after.

[eatyourspinach]

Is the patent for the plant itself or a potential "method" using it? https://www.google.com/patents/US20100209542

[shockrock3]

Made sure I got my 8oz of Red Vein Kratom

[kissdadookie]

The DEA does not need to work within the same confines as the FDA in regards to DSHEA. All they need to prove is that it's potential for abuse whether it's in nature or not. Depending on their data, they can move pretty quickly and go unchallenged. Since Kratom is used by many former addicts and is addictive, them moving on it shouldn't be surprising.

It's not really a dietary supplement of use for anyone, I don't see the big deal. I doubt PP wants to discuss something the DEA is going after.

The problem is that they have called it an "imminent hazard to the public safety" and are going ahead to "emergency" schedule it as a schedule I. There's several problems with this:

1) The available evidence does NOT support it as being an "imminent hazard to the public safety."

2) The whole ordeal stinks of personal gains interests from both the Council for Responsible Nutrition (their actions if you look into it many a times has nothing to do with interests in public safety regarding supplements) as well as big pharma.

3) Price Plow not wanting to discuss the topic has more to do with their contributors not wanting to write about it. There's at least one of their main contributors whom is under SNS. The entire SNS team has been incredibly vocal on AM taking a anti-kratom stance.

4) Not really being a dietary use for anyone is debatable. As it stands, it would fall under compliance under DSHEA. The FDA can decide to ban it and treat any products containing it as being adulterated. The whole issue skipped entirely over the FDA and just became an "emergency" action by the DEA.

5) How is the DEA "emergency" scheduling kratom as schedule I (no medicinal value and only has public risk potential thus completely illegal to possess which in turn you can't even research it) not surprising or questionable? It should have been more appropriately been schedule II and could be controlled. Schedule I makes a substance completely illegal to posses for any reason. Cannabis is schedule I. We know cannabis being schedule I has chit all to do with public safety.

6) The DEA even noted in the release that they felt public opinion on the matter was not needed. All these factors if you take them into consideration would indicate that it has chit all to do with the DEA banning a substance due to potential abuse (especially when the available data would suggest that it's both a viable treatment for opiate addiction as well as the risks of use being relatively low).

7) Lastly, your point about addictive substances. Smoking is addictive and breathing in smoke from combusted matter in the form of cigarettes has zero medicinal value. Smoking cigarettes are 100% harmful. It's not scheduled. It's not banned. So you're saying that it doesn't surprise you that the DEA "emergency" scheduled kratom as schedule I when the substance demonstrates a pretty good risk to benefit ratio is not surprising?

Is the patent for the plant itself or a potential "method" using it? https://www.google.com/patents/US20100209542

There's at least 2 patents of completely synthesized compounds based off the active compound in kratom. Basically synthetic analogues.

[OT2000]

Putting the whole SNS part aside ( just because I don't really care about that ) the only point I was saying is that if the DEA is going after it, you can kiss it goodbye whether you like it or not.

FDA is not the DEA. You can't compare the two and the actions taken by either. DSHEA means nothing to the DEA and they are not obligated to abide by it.

The other part was really if kratom is worth fighting over. Dietary use may be debated to some, but that a tiny tiny minority. Most people don't even know what it is or never heard of it.

[kissdadookie]

Putting the whole SNS part aside ( just because I don't really care about that ) the only point I was saying is that if the DEA is going after it, you can kiss it goodbye whether you like it or not.

FDA is not the DEA. You can't compare the two and the actions taken by either. DSHEA means nothing to the DEA and they are not obligated to abide by it.

The other part was really if kratom is worth fighting over. Dietary use may be debated to some, but that a tiny tiny minority. Most people don't even know what it is or never heard of it.

I'm not against scheduling it btw. The problem here is scheduling it as a schedule I. I know that the DSHEA means nothing to the DEA but this DEA move appears to be very arbitrary. If the DEA were to have acted on it correctly, it would have been a FDA DSHEA problem instead (which it was for years). The DEA did what they did because 1) obviously the FDA would have had some issue trying to substantiate that kratom was harmful 2) if the FDA can't easily to the aforementioned then they would have had to find a way to claim it's not DSHEA compliant (which it actually is if you look at what is set out in DSHEA) 3) thus the DEA did what they did and it appears that they did it likely due to lobbyist and big pharma pressure.

Regardless, the DEA will have to answer many of these questions soon if the petition signees continues to get longer (it's only been about two weeks or so? that petition is over 124k names long already).

[PricePlow]

PricePlow Mike here. Just saw this thread.

So let me get this straight. We spend a legit 50+ hours working on that article, white house petition, write your congressman technology, two newsletters, etc etc... but then don't spend another 25+ hours researching something else... and we deserve the call-out?

Since when did I have to write about everything that upsets you? Where's your pen?

1. We write about what we want, when we want, and with whom we want. This is the beauty of owning a bootstrapped business - I answer to nobody and do not need any advertising whatsoever to survive.
   
   There is no agenda -- only serious time constraint.
   
   Like said in the NDI blog post's comments, there is so much BS going on with this government's administration that we can't possibly cover it all, especially with a team of two writers and occasional contributors like BK.
   
   
2. That certain SNS person hasn't written a word for us in over 20 months, maybe more. Someone else did ask to write about kratom -- I would have paid -- but they flaked. It happens. If it was serious to me I would have pressed, but:
   
   
3. We/I know next to nothing about kratom except that it's heavily marketed as a party drug. In this case, it seems that you need to hate the players just as much as you hate the game.

Despite whatever you got into your head, I am not a lobbyist for all things anti-FDA. As much fun as that sounds, it is not my job to write about every wrongdoing this government's most ridiculous administration has done, otherwise I would never sleep a wink. If you want me to do so, find me the time and money. Better solution is to stop electing awful politicians.

I'm obviously personally more interested in stimulants, not opiates, and feel the world is a better place with a few extra stims. I do not feel the world is a better place with opiates. Given that I own the site, I choose to steer it where I want.

Yet on occasion, I will publicly call out the federal freakin government, which is probably not even the smartest thing to be doing, given that this administration has used the IRS as a force of intimidation. But I still do it when few others are. And it's still not good enough for you? F that attitude!!

If you would have approached me kindly asking to co-write something on kratom and use our platform to scream from the rooftops, I would have gladly obliged. You are free to take some initiative too. I'm just one guy trying to run what's basically a tech startup, not a lobbying firm.

[sloop]

Bravo, PricePlow!

[WSMuscle]

Somehow I doubt that since some of their major writing staff (at least one of them) is also from SNS and SNS has been very vocal
about how kratom is justly scheduled.

Kratom is most certainly not justly scheduled. There's a good number of patents on compounds derived from kratom by big pharma. They are able to control and monetize on that, they can't do that with a plant. Let's say that kratom is a possible risk, making it schedule I is ridiculous, as we can see from what was done with cannabis.

(1) Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

--

Kratom is habit-forming

The U.S. medical community does not have any accepted medical use of Kratom.

Given that not a single supplier in the country has made an attempt to establish a consistently branded, standardized, and tested kratom ingredient and that the overwhelming majority of them market it under the farce of 'not for human consumption', nobody can try to imply that there is an accepted safety standard for use of Kratom

--

From a literal perspective, it meets all of the criteria to be Schedule 1.

But then again so do a lot of substances that will never be scheduled.

It certainly doesn't merit the penalties associated with schedule 1 substances.

There *probably* needs to be an additional schedule tier for low-risk habit-forming no accepted medical use compounds.

In the end, the FDA, customs, and DEA made it clear long ago that they wanted Kratom off the market, and people persisted in selling and marketing it anyway. This is the outcome.


--

[kissdadookie]

PricePlow Mike here. Just saw this thread.

So let me get this straight. We spend a legit 50+ hours working on that article, white house petition, write your congressman technology, two newsletters, etc etc... but then don't spend another 25+ hours researching something else... and we deserve the call-out?

Since when did I have to write about everything that upsets you? Where's your pen?

1. We write about what we want, when we want, and with whom we want. This is the beauty of owning a bootstrapped business - I answer to nobody and do not need any advertising whatsoever to survive.
   
   There is no agenda -- only serious time constraint.
   
   Like said in the NDI blog post's comments, there is so much BS going on with this government's administration that we can't possibly cover it all, especially with a team of two writers and occasional contributors like BK.
   
   
2. That certain SNS person hasn't written a word for us in over 20 months, maybe more. Someone else did ask to write about kratom -- I would have paid -- but they flaked. It happens. If it was serious to me I would have pressed, but:
   
   
3. We/I know next to nothing about kratom except that it's heavily marketed as a party drug. In this case, it seems that you need to hate the players just as much as you hate the game.

Despite whatever you got into your head, I am not a lobbyist for all things anti-FDA. As much fun as that sounds, it is not my job to write about every wrongdoing this government's most ridiculous administration has done, otherwise I would never sleep a wink. If you want me to do so, find me the time and money. Better solution is to stop electing awful politicians.

I'm obviously personally more interested in stimulants, not opiates, and feel the world is a better place with a few extra stims. I do not feel the world is a better place with opiates. Given that I own the site, I choose to steer it where I want.

Yet on occasion, I will publicly call out the federal freakin government, which is probably not even the smartest thing to be doing, given that this administration has used the IRS as a force of intimidation. But I still do it when few others are. And it's still not good enough for you? F that attitude!!

If you would have approached me kindly asking to co-write something on kratom and use our platform to scream from the rooftops, I would have gladly obliged. You are free to take some initiative too. I'm just one guy trying to run what's basically a tech startup, not a lobbying firm.

1) You had the arecoline agenda where you claimed you would make corrections to the article if further evidence would demonstrate that the piece you posted was inaccurate. Many have pointed out the various inaccuracies on that post and your continued fear mongering of the ingredient but you guys made no effort to retract, append, or otherwise paint a more accurate picture?

2) Nobody said you're a lobbying firm. However, that NDI piece you guys posted yesterday, you guys were incredibly vocal about how our liberties may be taken away. This ties DIRECTLY into the kratom situation. In fact, the kratom situation is even more pertinent since it has far wider public awareness than the NDI does.

3) The kratom issue is far more damning and harming than the NDI issue. Why? Because what we have with the kratom issue is the DEA making what is essentially a very arbitrary decision on a substance. The DEA doing so and stating that no public opinion is needed could set a precedent for them to do the same with any other ingredient and substance they wish. This makes the NDI issue peanuts in comparison. How is this not incredibly evident to you guys if you guys went out of your way to make a huge deal out of the new NDI guidelines?

4) Let me quote you:

"But I still do it when few others are. And it's still not good enough for you? F that attitude!!"

Yes, it's not good enough. Not by a mile. Why? Because you clearly haven't even bothered to recognize how big of an issue this kratom scheduling is. The precedent this sets is endagering our civil liberties with dietary supplements than the NDI is.

As to where my pen is. 1) I've posted comments on your blog posts. You've either closed off comments shortly afterwards (like what happened after I posted on the NDI blog post on your site) or 2) You guys just selectively not approve my comment on your blog post (such as the ones I made on your post for arecoline).

I also post here obviously.

Lastly, I don't have any particular love for kratom. It's a federal government WAY overstepping issue, not a kratom issue. Kratom scheduling has made mainstream news after the DEA press release came out. NDI guidelines will not ever make the mainstream news. Yet you're basically brushing kratom off as if it's this fringe thing that only dopers and addicts know about? Let's be cereal here.

(1) Schedule I.—

(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

--

Kratom is habit-forming

The U.S. medical community does not have any accepted medical use of Kratom.

Given that not a single supplier in the country has made an attempt to establish a consistently branded, standardized, and tested kratom ingredient and that the overwhelming majority of them market it under the farce of 'not for human consumption', nobody can try to imply that there is an accepted safety standard for use of Kratom

--

From a literal perspective, it meets all of the criteria to be Schedule 1.

But then again so do a lot of substances that will never be scheduled.

It certainly doesn't merit the penalties associated with schedule 1 substances.

There *probably* needs to be an additional schedule tier for low-risk habit-forming no accepted medical use compounds.

In the end, the FDA, customs, and DEA made it clear long ago that they wanted Kratom off the market, and people persisted in selling and marketing it anyway. This is the outcome.


--

Like I've stated again, I'm not against regulating it. Schedule II at most. Schedule I is used for one of two purposes 1) because the substance truly has no medicinal use and is indeed all risk with no benefit or 2) they use it to completely block a substance in a arbitrary manner (usually done so due to big pharma or other self-interest entities pressure, not done for public safety).

Also, 2010 patent from a University with public (iirc government) grant funded research was for kratom's use as a opiate addiction treatment. The U.S. medical community actually does recognize the medicinal value of kratom. So does big pharma (thus they have developed synthetic analogues of the active compounds). The DEA scheduling of kratom never included U.S. medical community input or public input. It's stated in the press release from the DEA.

Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are also habit forming btw. Neither of which are considered drugs and neither of which are scheduled.

To put the "dangers" of kratom into perspective:

- 2010-2015 (6 years) yielded a total of ~660 calls to U.S. poison centers in regards to kratom, whilst every year U.S. poison control centers receives over 3 million drug related calls
- 30 total documented deaths where kratom was used where the majority of the tests there showed that other existing health issues or substance abuse was in play as well
- 2014 alone ~25k people died of prescription drug use in the U.S. alone

So this is a cause for kratom to be schedule I? "Emergency" scheduling at that and the reasoning stated being an "emerging public health threat?" Also to the point that kratom hasn't demonstrated any medical use by FDA standards. If it costs billions for big pharma to get just a single drug up to those standards, who's going to fund the research needed for kratom to get to FDA standards for approved medicinal use when we are talking about a botanical that exists in nature, has been used for centuries, and is something which can not be patented?

So if you took all that and think about it, it has repercussions for the entire supplement industry. The new NDI guidelines is a laughably small issue in comparison to the kratom issue.

[WSMuscle]

Like I've stated again, I'm not against regulating it. Schedule II at most. Schedule I is used for one of two purposes 1) because the substance truly has no medicinal use and is indeed all risk with no benefit or 2) they use it to completely block a substance in a arbitrary manner (usually done so due to big pharma or other self-interest entities pressure, not done for public safety).

Also, 2010 patent from a University with public (iirc government) grant funded research was for kratom's use as a opiate addiction treatment. The U.S. medical community actually does recognize the medicinal value of kratom. So does big pharma (thus they have developed synthetic analogues of the active compounds). The DEA scheduling of kratom never included U.S. medical community input or public input. It's stated in the press release from the DEA.

Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol are also habit forming btw. Neither of which are considered drugs and neither of which are scheduled.

-Schedule II would not be appropriate, the DEA is hamstrung by their own structuring of the controlled substance schedule

-A patent existing does not mean that the use is valid or accepted. For example, AAEFX has a patent on Kre-Alkalyn for increasing creatine absorption, and yet Kre-Alkalyn does not increase creatine absorption.

-Yes, the legal status of tobacco and alcohol compared to the scheduling of a lot of controlled substances is hypocritical, I'm pretty sure most of the country agrees on that

To put the "dangers" of kratom into perspective:

- 2010-2015 (6 years) yielded a total of ~660 calls to U.S. poison centers in regards to kratom, whilst every year U.S. poison control centers receives over 3 million drug related calls
- 30 total documented deaths where kratom was used where the majority of the tests there showed that other existing health issues or substance abuse was in play as well
- 2014 alone ~25k people died of prescription drug use in the U.S. alone

These are misconstrued statistics.

How many people use Kratom? How many people use all drugs legal or not? (Spoiler: orders of magnitude more people use drugs other than Kratom than use Kratom)

So this is a cause for kratom to be schedule I? "Emergency" scheduling at that and the reasoning stated being an "emerging public health threat?" Also to the point that kratom hasn't demonstrated any medical use by FDA standards. If it costs billions for big pharma to get just a single drug up to those standards, who's going to fund the research needed for kratom to get to FDA standards for approved medicinal use when we are talking about a botanical that exists in nature, has been used for centuries, and is something which can not be patented?

So if you took all that and think about it, it has repercussions for the entire supplement industry. The new NDI guidelines is a laughably small issue in comparison to the kratom issue.

Nothing to do with Kratom has major repercussions for the entire supplement industry because Kratom wasn't a supplement.

Which major supplement retailer or brand markets it as a supplement?

Kratom sellers have been wildly irresponsible and are reaping what they sowed, and their customers are the ones screwed. And that sucks.

But like, take a certain kratom seller that's a mile high. They sell some very good stuff, I've purchased and consumed their Kratom.

They also label it 'not intended for human consumption'.

They then proceed to HAVE INSTRUCTIONS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION ON THEIR WEBSITE.

Business practices like that are indefensible,whether they sell a good product or not.

Under what is clearly a scheme to bypass the legal ways to sell something for human consumption, how exactly do you propose the FDA, whose job is to regulate products sold for human consumption get something off the market when the bad operators REFUSE to comply?

As for what's more important to the supplement industry, I have to imagine the NDI guidance is, given that it's explicitly related to the industry and Kratom is not.

Also, Why isn't price plow entitled to write about whatever they want, they aren't obligated to cover the topics you feel important, shouldn't they cover the topics they feel are important and best serve their audience?

[kissdadookie]

-Schedule II would not be appropriate, the DEA is hamstrung by their own structuring of the controlled substance schedule

-A patent existing does not mean that the use is valid or accepted. For example, AAEFX has a patent on Kre-Alkalyn for increasing creatine absorption, and yet Kre-Alkalyn does not increase creatine absorption.

-Yes, the legal status of tobacco and alcohol compared to the scheduling of a lot of controlled substances is hypocritical, I'm pretty sure most of the country agrees on that



These are misconstrued statistics.

How many people use Kratom? How many people use all drugs legal or not? (Spoiler: orders of magnitude more people use drugs other than Kratom than use Kratom)




Nothing to do with Kratom has major repercussions for the entire supplement industry because Kratom wasn't a supplement.

Which major supplement retailer or brand markets it as a supplement?

Kratom sellers have been wildly irresponsible and are reaping what they sowed, and their customers are the ones screwed. And that sucks.

But like, take a certain kratom seller that's a mile high. They sell some very good stuff, I've purchased and consumed their Kratom.

They also label it 'not intended for human consumption'.

They then proceed to HAVE INSTRUCTIONS FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION ON THEIR WEBSITE.

Business practices like that are indefensible,whether they sell a good product or not.

Just because a RC site sells it doesn't magically make it something that doesn't comply with DSHEA.

Why have supplement companies not touched it? Any ones guess. Perhaps because the Council for Responsible Nutrition was against it and was pushing for the FDA to ban it?

You don't seem to understand the patent point. When BIG PHARMA patents something it's different from AAEFX patenting something. It becomes dangerous when big pharma starts patenting synthetic analogues of natural compounds (for example, they have been trying to do that with EPA and DHA in Europe, they have actually been trying to push for fish oil to be a pharmaceutical drug over there).

The statistics are actually not misconstrued. How many people used bath salts? The synthetic "legal" weed from headshops? Yet the issues coming from that completely overshadows kratom abuse related issues by a mile.

You want to know why RC companies picked up kratom? Because kratom was something the supplement industry didn't get into so that left an opening for RC companies to pick up the slack there. Most likely reason why the supplement industry didn't pick it up? Because it is opiate effects so it's basically a downer rather than an upper. Uppers they can easily market and sell, downers they can't. It doesn't mean that it's because it's some scary dangerous substance.

You're also very myoptic about the NDI vs the kratom issue. Just because supplement companies didn't start selling kratom en mass you have basically assumed that it never qualified as a dietary supplement to begin with. Back to my point above, how does a supplement company even try to market a downer? Especially a very strong downer? How? It's hard if not next to impossible. There's not really going to be a market for it in the dietary supplements market, so they didn't bother. So kratom sets a precedent. If they can just skip over FDA and DSHEA review and ban of compounds and ingredients with kratom without much of anything in regards to substantiating their actions, what makes you think they can't and won't do that for virtually anything in the future?

I'm not saying that RC companies are not sometimes playing cowboys. Certainly at minimum they should not have any use suggestions or descriptions for RCs especially when labelled as "research" only and "not for human consumption." I agree, bad move and that's just bringing problems on to themselves.

As for Schedule II:

The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.

The point about accepted medical use is a very arbitrary point. The DEA would interpret that point however they wish depending on what their real intentions are (look at cannabis).

[WSMuscle]

Just because a RC site sells it doesn't magically make it something that doesn't comply with DSHEA.

Why have supplement companies not touched it? Any ones guess. Perhaps because the Council for Responsible Nutrition was against it and was pushing for the FDA to ban it?

As well as the Natural Products Alliance and American Herbal Products Association.

Weird how numerous major supplement industry associations wanted nothing to do with Kratom and wanted it off the market BEFORE it could have any consequences on the supplement industry?

You don't seem to understand the patent point. When BIG PHARMA patents something it's different from AAEFX patenting something. It becomes dangerous when big pharma starts patenting synthetic analogues of natural compounds (for example, they have been trying to do that with EPA and DHA in Europe, they have actually been trying to push for fish oil to be a pharmaceutical drug over there).

If Pharma invents a novel synthetic analogue of something that is more effective, what's wrong with them patenting it?

The statistics are actually not misconstrued. How many people used bath salts? The synthetic "legal" weed from headshops? Yet the issues coming from that completely overshadows kratom abuse related issues by a mile.

And those drugs were scheduled too?

You want to know why RC companies picked up kratom? Because kratom was something the supplement industry didn't get into so that left an opening for RC companies to pick up the slack there. Most likely reason why the supplement industry didn't pick it up? Because it is opiate effects so it's basically a downer rather than an upper. Uppers they can easily market and sell, downers they can't. It doesn't mean that it's because it's some scary dangerous substance.

There's plenty of downer type ingredients on the supplement market, and if a likely compliant one were to come along I'm sure lots of brands would eat it up for relaxation/sleep aid products.

You're also very myoptic about the NDI vs the kratom issue. Just because supplement companies didn't start selling kratom en mass you have basically assumed that it never qualified as a dietary supplement to begin with. Back to my point above, how does a supplement company even try to market a downer? Especially a very strong downer? How? It's hard if not next to impossible. There's not really going to be a market for it in the dietary supplements market, so they didn't bother.

So, it's not an ingredient anybody in the supplement industry gives a **** about, but somehow this is a big deal for the supplement industry? What specific practical applications does taking a non-supplement with potential for abuse and scheduling it have on the supplement industry when compared to the FDA completely gutting the industry's ability to bring any new ingredients to market at all?

I'm not saying that RC companies are not sometimes playing cowboys. Certainly at minimum they should not have any use suggestions or descriptions for RCs especially when labelled as "research" only and "not for human consumption." I agree, bad move and that's just bringing problems on to themselves.

They are indeed bringing problems on themselves, and they do this over and over again and screw the average person.

[PricePlow]

Yes, it's not good enough.

Then goodbye and good luck to ya pal

[kissdadookie]

As well as the Natural Products Alliance and American Herbal Products Association.

Weird how numerous major supplement industry associations wanted nothing to do with Kratom and wanted it off the market BEFORE it could have any consequences on the supplement industry?



If Pharma invents a novel synthetic analogue of something that is more effective, what's wrong with them patenting it?



And those drugs were scheduled too?



There's plenty of downer type ingredients on the supplement market, and if a likely compliant one were to come along I'm sure lots of brands would eat it up for relaxation/sleep aid products.



So, it's not an ingredient anybody in the supplement industry gives a **** about, but somehow this is a big deal for the supplement industry? What specific practical applications does taking a non-supplement with potential for abuse and scheduling it have on the supplement industry when compared to the FDA completely gutting the industry's ability to bring any new ingredients to market at all?




They are indeed bringing problems on themselves, and they do this over and over again and screw the average person.

You're going in circles whilst ignoring the points I made.

Have you not looked into these supplement lobbying groups? Many of their actions have nothing to do with something actually being compliant or not nor does it have to do with public health and safety.

Who says big pharma comes out with better synthetic analogues? Synthetic analogue of THC was NOT better but it is legal and patented and used. Yet it has a lot of negative side effects which is missing from cannabis use. Same with the synthetic fish oil in Europe (it was shown to be less effective than actual fish oil).

From the things you have posted, it doesn't appear that you've looked into the topic much. You should.

Also, there's not a lot of down supplements on the market. There's very very very mild ingredients on the market that are anti-anxiety but kratom as you know is quite potent (since you've stated you've used it before). It's hard to market and sell.

Bath salts and synthetic "legal" weed took a LONG time with A LOT of documented injuries and deaths before they did anything about it. Compare that to kratom where there's really a lack of documented injuries or deaths yet the DEA found it appropriate to "emergency" schedule it as a schedule I? Also they decide to do so with something which the medical community actually sees as a far safer alternative to opiates both prescription opiates as well as illicit opiates? So something that can't be patented, is natural, and appears to be a viable and far safer alternative to let's say oxy, is a emerging health risk even when there's a lack of evidence showing it as a risk?

[OT2000]

Just because it's a safer alternative or rather, a thought to be safer as nobody really knows, doesn't make it safe.

It still has compounds that bind to the opiod receptors and pretty well at that. That alone is a cause for concern as it is highly probable for addiction.

[kissdadookie]

Just because it's a safer alternative or rather, a thought to be safer as nobody really knows, doesn't make it safe.

It still has compounds that bind to the opiod receptors and pretty well at that. That alone is a cause for concern as it is highly probable for addiction.

Unlike other opiates including prescription opiates, it actually has a far less addiction potential. Opiod receptor desensitization also appears to not be a major concern for kratom unlike other opiates (one of the biggest problems with opiates in fact).

You're right, nobody knows how potentially dangerous it is... nor do they know how potentially useful it is. Why? Because big pharma are not in the business of investigating botanicals because they can't own, patent, and sell it. Making it schedule I makes it so that it's not possible to do any clinical testing on it. Thus the scheduling of it to schedule I is such a big controversy right now. Not saying it shouldn't be regulated and controlled, but at most schedule II.

Going by the data we currently have on hand though, in comparison to other widely used opiates, the safety profile on kratom is far superior. This includes the extent and intensity of withdrawal symptons from chronic use.

[BenBlue]

Never used Kratom, but I've done a lot of research on it. Does it have the potential to be abused? Sure does. So does caffeine (we all know that well), alcohol, oxy and other prescription drugs etc. Kratom has potential medical benefits, and should be heavily researched before we draw these conclusions. Our political and influential figures are always too fast to label substances as "drugs" and ignore potential legitimate uses. Even so, drugs exist and will continue to exist, and we'd be better off understanding this and setting rules, regulations, guidelines and education in relation to them. The war on drugs is and always has been a failed war that costs our societies more then it aids.

[kissdadookie]

Never used Kratom, but I've done a lot of research on it. Does it have the potential to be abused? Sure does. So does caffeine (we all know that well), alcohol, oxy and other prescription drugs etc. Kratom has potential medical benefits, and should be heavily researched before we draw these conclusions. Our political and influential figures are always too fast to label substances as "drugs" and ignore potential legitimate uses. Even so, drugs exist and will continue to exist, and we'd be better off understanding this and setting rules, regulations, guidelines and education in relation to them. The war on drugs is and always has been a failed war that costs our societies more then it aids.

Agreed. Which leads to this good ole nugget of a quote:

"Some question has been raised whether the use of the plant itself produces "severe psychological or physical dependence" as required by a schedule I or even schedule II criterion. Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue."

Take a guess where that's from?
.
.
.
.
.
Don't know? Egeberg's (Assistant Secretary of Health) letter to push for scheduling cannabis as Schedule I in 1970. Sounds similar to that of what the DEA are saying about kratom? Sure does.


Here's from Price Plow's NDI blog post:

"This document represents an extreme amount of executive overreach from the federal government, and is purposefully vague yet simultaneously filled with hostile legal traps aimed towards damaging American businesses and limiting consumer choice.

Worse, we do not believe it represents the spirit of DSHEA 1994 as enacted into law some 22 years ago."

"Increasing costs: Other ingredients such as Taurine and Vitamin C from Rose Hips could become monumentally more expensive, and this may subsequently have a profoundly negative effect on neighboring industries such as pet food products.

These ingredients are used by tens of millions of people in the United States each year – with most usage entirely unrelated to sports nutrition and bodybuilding."

So the NDI is magically more vital than big pharma having patents and research done for synthetic kratom active compound analogues thus being able to charge big pharma prices whilst keeping the natural botanical it's based off completely illegal as a Schedule I? Does one not see how the kratom issue has a huge crossover here? The kratom issue being a very extreme measure where they just bring the DEA in the mix to steamroll over everything else. We already see something similar that Europe is trying with synthetic EPA DHA. Classify something natural as a drug and force a astronomically priced synthetic analogue as the only option. Also keep in mind, the DEA doesn't have to give a toss about DSHEA. So one doesn't see how at bare minimum both issues bares equal importance?

This is related and I've just read this article here: http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/14/12...toxic-research

So this kava which has research data showing hepatoxicity both in vitro and in vivo, has been around for over a decade, no concerns about that? It's also sold as a dietary supplement btw. It has known additive effects when taken with downers and alcohol.

Side note: After calling them out on the comments thing, they've at least re-enabled the comments section for that NDI blog post. LoL.

[WSMuscle]

What's up with your personal and obsessive vendettas against people dude?

What did price plow do to you?

[Rob1882]

Some interesting information

Only more recently seen much on kratom having never used it myself but its been all over the news


Lol @ priceplow :P

What's up with your personal and obsessive vendettas against people dude?

What did price plow do to you?

Triggered :P

Spoiler!

[WSMuscle]

Some interesting information

Only more recently seen much on kratom having never used it myself but its been all over the news


Lol @ priceplow :P



Triggered :P

You PC bro?

[kissdadookie]

What's up with your personal and obsessive vendettas against people dude?

What did price plow do to you?

It's not personal or a vendetta. Pointing out the double standard here and the illogical approach along with lack of understanding of the issue as well as ignorance of the fact that picking and choosing XYZ is a dietary ingredient whilst ABC isn't when in fact going by DSHEA both XYZ and ABC would qualify is a very arbitrary and illogical thing.

Like what I highlighted from their blog post, they posted that as possible repercussions of what would happen if the new NDI guidelines gets put into place. Well, guess what? NDI guidelines are from the FDA and you can fight the FDA as well as get things changed far more easily than you can get something re-scheduled that the DEA has scheduled as a Schedule I. The DEA is scheduling kratom as a schedule I, a botanical which does meet the criteria for a dietary ingredient based on DSHEA (after all, kava is a dietary ingredient yet that has shown in vitro and in vivo to be hepatoxic). We saw what happened to cannabis and it took 40+ years to start getting us to the point where there's now some hope of rescheduling of cannabis. Do we wish to have that happen again? What happens if big pharma in the US decides to take a page from big pharma in Europe and push for fish oil to be a pharmaceutical drug? Potentially have the DEA step in to try to schedule it.

Not to mention, yet again, kratom is a issue that has become widespread national news (including the national rally against the sheduling of kratom which will occur in DC, Chris Bell will be participating and he also has a documentary on kratom coming out). I mean, going around stating, and I'm quoting Price Plow here "Yet on occasion, I will publicly call out the federal freakin government, which is probably not even the smartest thing to be doing, given that this administration has used the IRS as a force of intimidation. But I still do it when few others are. And it's still not good enough for you? F that attitude!!" whilst also simultaneously stating "We/I know next to nothing about kratom except that it's heavily marketed as a party drug. In this case, it seems that you need to hate the players just as much as you hate the game."

Let me get this straight, one is claiming that they are vocal about our federal government overstepping and proudly claiming that nobody else is doing so yet makes a big deal over the new proposed NDI guidelines but claim to know nothing about kratom which has been making major rounds in the news cycle? The NDI guidelines and dietary supplements have not really made the news cycle, kratom has. People know about kratom and what it has been used for after it hit the news cycle for weeks now and yet they claim to know nothing about kratom other than it being simply a party drug? I guess it's commendable for someone to completely avoid the news then is the only real positive thing I can say about that because that sounds like it would have taken pretty good dedication to avoid the news. Before you ask what kratom has to do with the NDI and supplements industry, I've already pointed out how the issues have a lot of crossover so I'm not going to restate those points.

[WSMuscle]

It's not personal or a vendetta. Pointing out the double standard here and the illogical approach along with lack of understanding of the issue as well as ignorance of the fact that picking and choosing XYZ is a dietary ingredient whilst ABC isn't when in fact going by DSHEA both XYZ and ABC would qualify.

Like what I highlighted from their blog post, they posted that as possible repercussions of what would happen if the new NDI guidelines gets put into place. Well, guess what? NDI guidelines are from the FDA and you can fight the FDA as well as get things changed far more easily than you can get something re-scheduled that the DEA has scheduled as a Schedule I. The DEA is scheduling kratom as a schedule I, a botanical which does meet the criteria for a dietary ingredient based on DSHEA (after all, kava is a dietary ingredient yet that has shown in vitro and in vivo to be hepatoxic). We saw what happened to cannabis and it took 40+ years to start getting us to the point where there's now some hope of rescheduling of cannabis. Do we wish to have that happen again? What happens if big pharma in the US decides to take a page from big pharma in Europe and push for fish oil to be a pharmaceutical drug? Potentially have the DEA step in to try to schedule it.

Not to mention, yet again, kratom is a issue that has become widespread national news (including the national rally against the sheduling of kratom which will occur in DC, Chris Bell will be participating and he also has a documentary on kratom coming out). I mean, going around stating, and I'm quoting Price Plow here "Yet on occasion, I will publicly call out the federal freakin government, which is probably not even the smartest thing to be doing, given that this administration has used the IRS as a force of intimidation. But I still do it when few others are. And it's still not good enough for you? F that attitude!!" whilst also simultaneously stating "We/I know next to nothing about kratom except that it's heavily marketed as a party drug. In this case, it seems that you need to hate the players just as much as you hate the game."

Let me get this straight, one is claiming that they are vocal about our federal government overstepping and proudly claiming that nobody else is doing so yet makes a big deal over the new proposed NDI guidelines but claim to know nothing about kratom which has been making major rounds in the news cycle? The NDI guidelines and dietary supplements have not really made the news cycle, kratom has. People know about kratom and what it has been used for after it hit the news cycle for weeks now and yet they claim to know nothing about kratom other than it being simply a party drug? I guess it's commendable for someone to completely avoid the news then is the only real positive thing I can say about that because that sounds like it would have taken pretty good dedication to avoid the news. Before you ask what kratom has to do with the NDI and supplements industry, I've already pointed out how the issues have a lot of crossover so I'm not going to restate those points.

What double standard?

The NDI draft guidance has massive supply side/innovation impacts on the future of the industry.

Kratom is a fringe issue at best in regards to the supplement industry. The DEA doesn't give a **** about compliant supplement ingredients.

And seeing news stories doesn't mean someone knows enough about something to write a comprehensive article about it.

Both issues came out around the same time, and there's only so much time in the day, for him to write, edit, manage his site, and whatever else he does.

Why does a random blogger owe you anything?

You want to do something about kratom, you go use your voice and write about it.

I bet he'd even pay you like he said he'd pay someone to write about it if you actually wrote a cohesive article.