DEA’s Proposed Ban on Kratom Harms Those They Claim to Protect

As the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) goes about its deliberate, unemotional process of turning the herb kratom into an outlawed substance, it is worthwhile to think about those who will suffer as a result of having one more aspect of their freedom removed.

An estimated 5.5 million Americans use kratom. We can only guess that half or more of this number use it as an alternative to various forms of synthetic pharmaceutical medicines. With the limitations the DEA has placed on doctors prescribing opioids, one might think that there would be some appreciation that Americans have found a safer, herbal helper for overcoming chronic pain and opioid dependency — a problem largely created by the pharmaceutical industry’s heavy marketing of opioids as minimally addictive pain relief in the 1990s.

And yet, the DEA has consistently portrayed kratom as a recreational drug, though it is hard to imagine a substance that is so unpleasant-tasting and inconvenient as kratom being as popular as this plant material is. 

If kratom is to be considered a recreational drug, then perhaps we should view its sister herb coffee as a recreational drug, too.

One thing the DEA doesn’t seem to consider is that — although they proclaim that kratom has “no recognized medicinal uses”, many (most?) of those who consume it on a regular basis do so because, for them, it serves a medicinal purpose for them.

Most kratom consumers have tried the alternatives of modern medicines and found the side-effects intolerable, debilitating, and often deadly if one doctor prescribes a drug that shouldn’t be taken at the same time another drug that another doctor prescribes is taken.

In a random conversation as I was preparing this article, I mentioned opioid medications, and the woman I was buying my farm-fresh eggs from told me that one of her family members had died from an accidental overdose of properly prescribed opioid painkillers. Where is the DEA’s concern over those dangerous drugs?

The DEA evidently accepts deaths and disabling conditions caused by pharmaceuticals because the manufacturers have done extensive research (though much of it may be fraudulent ) and their paperwork appears to be in order. 

You might say that, “Big Pharma has paid to play and kratom hasn’t, though considerable research exists and long historical use which vouch for kratom’s safety and medical benefits, although these have not been officially recognized by the FDA or DEA.”

And yet, the DEA goes to great lengths to accuse kratom of causing a few deaths — almost all of which occur in multidrug users who were taking substances known to cause death. Honest professional toxicologists have looked at these deaths and pointed out that in none of the cases was kratom found to be the actual cause of death.

But, if the DEA says so, to some official minds, it must be true. Federal rules require a suspension of disbelief, apparently.

Here, in the Real World, Real People will be hurt by an arbitrary ban on kratom and its key alkaloids, Mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine.

The availability of opioid drugs, which have been the mainstay of the medical treatment for pain over the past 20+ years, has been drastically reduced — even to those who obviously have medically recognized painful conditions. This sudden cutback has caused many chronic pain sufferers to look for alternatives, which led many to kratom, where — by most reports — they found a better quality of relief without the disabling lethargy, constipation, and brain fog commonly caused by opioids.

Ah,but nevermind that the pain patient prefers this herb over all the medications they’re tried! The DEA knows best what’s good for you — or so we are expected to believe!

How the DEA’s intent to Criminalize Kratom Will Harm Innocent Consumers

The story of Brian Butts reveals the fallacy of the DEA’s argument, which has insisted that kratom and its alkaloids are a substance of abuse that millions  are taking because it offers a “legal high” or is in some way as strong or stronger than heroin, morphine and the rest of the opioid family. The truth is quite different.

Brian was born with a recognized, painful medical condition — a birth defect that surgery can’t fix and physical therapy can’t remedy. He will always need something to help with the pain. He could have legally-prescribed oxycodone, but he prefers kratom’s unique ability to remove pain without any noticeable mental or physical side-effects. (Please read his brief testimonial and view the pictures of his painful natural deformity in the link above.)

The truth is very different than the DEA’s “spin” which is used to demean this useful and uniquely different herb.

This recent study from Columbia University puts the lie to the DEA portrayal that kratom is a substance of abuse that has no medical benefit.

The truth, which the DEA and FDA seem to be trying so hard to disguise, is that millions of kratom consumers simply prefer the quality of relief that kratom, a very complex and balanced mixture of alkaloids, delivers over expensive and ultimately debilitating pharmaceutical painkillers derived from the poppy plant.

Objective observers have tried kratom and found nothing like a “high” in the herb. See the link to Huffington Post article below.

Kratom has proven itself a threat to the continued profits of the pharmaceutical industry and also the alcohol industry. This is the “crime” that kratom represents — the crime of revealing that Nature has provided us with a superior product that consumers report replaces a laundry list of synthetic and overpriced drugs.

Why shouldn’t we have the freedom to choose what works best for us? With more than 100,000 of us dying each year as a result of taking pharmaceutical, FDA-approved drugs in U.S. hospitals under controlled conditions, it would seem that we take a far greater risk with pharmaceuticals than we do with kratom.

With most kratom vendors making no medical claims for their product, as dictated by FDA regulations, why shouldn’t Brian Butts and millions of others be able to obtain the pain relief that works best for them — from Nature?

Who or what is the DEA protecting? It doesn’t seem to be the public’s safety or quality of life. 

Millions of Americans will be harmed if the DEA is allowed by Congress to proceed with its egregious and unprecedented scheduling of kratom and its alkaloids on or about October 1st, 2016.

Please contact the American Kratom Association to learn how you can help preserve your access to this traditional medicinal plant.

Author Paul Kemp has been covering the kratom story for several years. He believes herbs, real food, and exercise are the true sources of health.

Contact the American Kratom Association to learn how you can help preserve the legality and access to this unique botanical.

See this Huffington Post article where the author tested kratom, looking for the “high” the DEAclaims is there — and his comical experience

DEA’s Proposed Ban on Kratom Harms Those They Claim to Protect

We should wind back the harms of also a lot sugar

In truth, we now know that extra levels of sugar are much more dangerous than people of unwanted fat, creating a far better contribution to our soaring amounts of obesity, as well as the rise of problems this kind of as variety two diabetes, heart illness, cancer and even dementia.

Our contemporary day obsession with minimal fat meals can be traced back to investigation in the 1970s by Ancel Keys – an American scientist who had produced the “K-rations” employed by servicemen in the course of the 2nd World War.

His claims – of a hyperlink between the consumption of saturated excess fat to elevated cholesterol and heart ailment – grew to become orthodox and led to a alter in dietary tips, as properly as a higher demand from shoppers for much less body fat.

There was a lone voice which challenged this see. John Yudkin, a British nutritionist, who believed that sugar – not fat – was the cause of coronary-associated deaths. Despite flaws in Keys’ examination, he efficiently led a charge to have Yudkin’s analysis discredited.

Fundamental to his victory was the sugar sector who had funded some of Keys’ research. The sugar industry masterminded a brilliant PR campaign for the businesses benefiting from the sale of lower unwanted fat merchandise and indirectly influenced physicians and the public to have an unhealthy obsession with lowering cholesterol.

Their vested interest was not just in preserving the degree of sugar in goods, but in fact seeing it utilized much more extensively in minimal body fat products – as manufacturers relied on the substance getting utilised in higher volumes to keep taste, in the absence of unwanted fat.

But analysis more and more shows that it was Yudkin – not Keys – who had it spot on, and – as I can see from my sufferers – the results of these decades of sugar indulgence are now plain to see.

We are now in a circumstance in which 64 per cent of grownups in England are overweight or obese, with a body mass index (BMI) of 25 or in excess of, whilst three million men and women in the Uk have sort 2 diabetes. Between them, weight problems and sort two diabetes presently charges the Uk more than £20 billion a 12 months, a figure very likely to rise to £40 billion in the up coming twenty many years.

The function sugar of sugar in this, as effectively as in other circumstances, is no longer in doubt.

Scientific studies reveal that the fructose part of added sugar is toxic to the liver when consumed in excess, being turned into excess fat.

It also increases persistent ranges of insulin, which is a driving force in the development of kind 2 diabetes, heart illness, cancer and dementia.

Just in recent weeks, we’ve seen a report from the US exhibiting a robust association amongst the proportion of every day calories from sugar-laden meals and death prices from cardiovascular illness and the World Overall health Organisation noting that half of cancers could be prevented by means of life-style adjustments – singling out sugar, as effectively as alcohol and weight problems as aggravating factors.

Nevertheless in spite of all this, the myth is nevertheless becoming perpetrated that sugar can be beneficial and advertisers exploit this by linking it to sport and exercise. So we have a predicament exactly where Mars is an official sponsor of the England football team.

The reality is, though, that not like body fat and protein, additional sugar has no nutritional worth and that – contrary to what the food market claims – the physique does not need any carbohydrate for vitality from added sugar.

But the biggest ongoing con, maybe, is in the continued marketing of lower-body fat foods, as currently being healthier. As this evaluation demonstrates right now, these objects are crammed with eye-wateringly high ranges of the ingredient. I advise all my patients to steer clear of something marketed as lower unwanted fat.

We launched Action On Sugar not only to raise awareness of an fully pointless source of calories, but also to strain the business to progressively reduce by forty per cent the amount of sugar much of which is hidden.

I met with Jeremy Hunt, the Wellness Secretary, final month and he does seem keen to engage on the topic. But what we need to have is an finish to the scenario, set up by his predecessor Andrew Lansley, which sees the sugar sector influencing well being policy.

What I dread, is the exact same method of denial that we noticed from the tobacco business, as it effectively defended it’s core practices for 50 years from when the very first research revealed a hyperlink amongst smoking and lung cancer ahead of any efficient regulation and the food industry continues to do the identical.

Important to this strategy was denial, planting doubt, evasion, confusing the public and even acquiring the loyalty of scientists, and I dread we will see much more of this, as the debate in excess of sugar intensifies.

The present recommendations, from the Globe Well being Organisation – that grownups ought to not eat much more than twelve teaspoons of added sugar per day – are unsustainable. The organisation has now issued draft advice which retains that formal recommendation but says that halving the restrict to 6 teaspoons “would have further benefits”.

This is an improvement, but the reality is that there is that there is definitely no requirement for additional sugar and it should not be included as any element of a balanced diet – just an occasional deal with which we can all get pleasure from.

The United kingdom government has an chance to lead the planet in dealing with this worsening overall health catastrophe. Mr Hunt was absolutely proper when he told me that there’s no silver bullet in tackling weight problems but if he would like a plan of action then he presently has a single.

A year ago the Academy Of Health-related Royal Colleges representing the bulk of Britain’s 220,000 medical doctors produced a report with ten suggestions for necessary interventions to tackle this public wellness crisis.

These included the introduction of a sugary drinks tax, a ban on junk foods advertising to young children, and compulsory dietary specifications in schools and hospitals.

There is too a lot at stake for us to carry on to allow political ideology and an illusionary personal obligation argument to trump scientific evidence. It is time to protect the population and our children’s well being from the manipulations and excesses of the food sector and wind back the harms of as well a lot sugar.

Dr Aseem Malhotra is a London-based mostly cardiologist, science director of Action on Sugar and a member of the Academy Of Health care Royal Colleges Weight problems Group

We should wind back the harms of also a lot sugar