Christopherbrian

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Christopherbrian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fences&Windows 21:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to George Michael, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Clearlogo.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Clearlogo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Clearlogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Clearlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Clearlogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Clearlogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

References

about this...

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

message below was left at my talk page in this dif; copying here to keep discussion in one place Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

You sent me a message. You removed a link to a credible research paper, yet you keep unverified rubbish that is simply not true citing only the DEA as the source.

I'm going to add a link with written by people with PHds - will that be good enough for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherbrian (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Christopherbrian; I copied your message here to keep the conversation in one place. Please slow down and read the notice above, and think about it. MEDRS calls for literature reviews published in good quality journals, or statements by major medical/scientific bodies; the paper you want to use as a ref is not a literature review. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi (talk) well the other information on that page is very inaccurate, please confirm you read this, I have two studies by people with Phds which I am going to add, I have done a lot of research on kratom and was horrified to see how inaccurate this page is and I'm simply trying to clean it up, and yes I know wikipedia policy and I've see a lot worse than that not removed, however, I have two articles one from a university and another written by people with Phd, will this be good enough, or do you want inaccurate information to be on wikipedia courtesy of the DEA? Christopherbrian (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! You don't need to let me know that you posted here - I can see when you do. Also please don't expect immediate responses to things in WP - we are all volunteers and I am at work doing real world stuff.

About what you wrote, if you want to play this game, you have to learn this game's rules and play by them. True any where you go in life. Here in WP, content about health must be sourced per WP:MEDRS - in other words, literature reviews published in good quality journals, or statements by major medical/scientific bodies. What you are saying about "people with PhDs" is irrelevant. If you don't follow MEDRS, what you add will be removed, and if you keep adding it back (what we call "edit warring") you will end up blocked. You have to play by WP's rules if you want to work here. If you don't understand what kind of sources are OK, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

hi there, I added the initial link back as I genuinely thought someone had wrongly removed my edit (since anybody can edit a wiki page). Thanks for your help and appreciate you are all volunteers and yes it is a learning curve, I have made many good edits to Wikipedia over many years and yes a couple of times edits have been changed when someone has kindly pointed out to me and explained why my edit was removed. I genuinely thought that was a credible research paper, it's certainly more credible than the untrue and unscientific stuff on that page that has cited to merely to the DEA - example

Other side effects include high heart rate and blood pressure, liver toxicity, and trouble sleeping. - none if this is true (if so, where is the citation?)

I have added a link to another study, which I'm sure you will agree abides by Wikipedia's rules. You will note I have had this account for a long time with no warnings and the last thing I want to do is have my account removed, since I value it very much, as I also value Wikipedia. Please feel free to check, there are a few other changes I should like to make to that page and I value any input from you or other wikipedia editors, after all, the point of Wikipedia is to be a credible source of information.

References

Christopherbrian (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Jytdog I added two credible links in replacement of the link you said did not abide by the wiki standards. I also changed it to point out the 15 deaths attributed to Kratom were deaths related to M. speciosa in the 3-Factor Analysis, 9 involved other drugs (often many other drugs), 1 involved alcohol, 1 involved complicating health issues (hypoxic encephalopathy), and 1 involved depression/suicide (self-inflicted gunshot). This was deleted, as it said snopes.com was not credible, so I am looking to find exactly where snopes.com got that info from, as I believe it to be true. It does seem to me that this page is being heavily edited to be biassed against kratom rather than impartial, which is NOT what wikipedia is about and is not why I donate money to you every month. Christopherbrian (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Jytdog - I added two links that conformed to Wikipedia standards as per your request, however the two links have been removed by another wikipedia editor (so fast he didn't even have time to look at them). Please can you tell me the procedure to complain to wikipedia when somebody is clearly editing a page so it is biassed and not impartial. I'm truly shocked at this as I have always had so much respect for Wikipedia in the past.

• You have ignored everything I wrote above, about what an appropriate source is. The sources you want to add are not literature reviews published in good quality journals, or statements by major medical/scientific bodies; and you have gone ahead and edit warred. I provided you a formal warning below. If you continue, you will be blocked after someone brings a case against you.

As I wrote above, if you don't understand what the following means ("literature reviews published in good quality journals, or statements by major medical/scientific bodies") - and you obviously don't; then please ask. Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at Mitragyna speciosa shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing WP

Hi Jytdog

Thank you for your reply and please be assured the last thing I want to be involved with is an edit war (something I've never heard of). The two articles I linked to did abide by wikipedia standards, and the person who removed them didn't even read them. How am I supposed to know who removed them, in fact, I thought I'd accidentally removed them with another edit. I'm trying to get the article to be fair and balanced yet their is clearly a policy here that no links to credible articles are permitted on the m. speciosa page. I have no intention of wasting my valuable free time editing that page any more, since it is quite clear the page is censored to be anti-kratom.

To be fair you have replied to my questions in a polite and fair manner, I would appreciate it if you could remove the Edit War warning, since that is most unfair, if anything, the person who removed the two links that I sourced that were in line with Wikipedia guidelines (as per your request) should be the one on the receiving end of an Edit Warning. I love Wikipedia, but not every single user is familiar with the rules or how the tags work, it took me ages to figure out how to add those perfectly reasonable changes, yet in return for giving up my free time, I get the links removed and insulted with an Edit Warning. You say I can always ask, but where do I ask? And what is the point in asking when properly made changes with links to academic studies in line with Wikipedia policy are removed. I shall look into dispute resolution - however of course, like you, I also have a job and I'm doing this in my free time. All I'm trying to do is provide factual information, yet still even when I abided by the conditions you laid out to me, my posts were deleted and I have been personally offended and insulted with an Edit Warning, despite being a loyal user and contributor to wikipedia for many years. Check my account - do you see that I have been involved in any Edit Wars in the past, in fact, I've corrected some terrible errors in the past that my eagle eye has spotted. The reason I tried to change the kratom page a bit, was because it is terribly inaccurate and full of wrong information, - I have been working with the University of Turin for many years researching into kratom, so this isn't some kid who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I have contacted a friend who works for Newsweek who has already written about kratom recently, which is of interest ATM in the news since the DEA might schedule it, to see if he is interested in a story about wikipedia being censored to not give fair and factual information. As stated, I love Wikipedia, I help correct errors from time to time and donate financially, I'm completely shocked to be treated in such a way and to see such blatant censorship - what reason would wikipedia have not providing access to kratom studies that meet the wikipedia standards, i.e., published in good quality journals, or statements by major medical/scientific bodies. Your statement that I ignored your advice is simply incorrect and I should like you to review that and reconsider. With behaviour like this, I shall be scared to make edits to Wikipedia for fear of a perhaps well-meaning, but ill-informed editor disabling my account.

OK actually PMID 23212430 is a review article but is older than the ones used in the article and the journal is pretty low quality. It is not clear to me what exactly you are upset about.

with regard to Wikipedia being "censored" that is, frankly, bullshit. You are inexperienced and are making bad edits and those edits are being deleted because of that. So you cry censorship and want to go running to the press. I have little tolerance for bullshit, and even less when it comes from people who blame their own failure on phony claims of corruption.

Your edits haven't remained because you don't know what you are doing. Period. I am not watching your page anymore and will not respond further here. I gave you my valuable time and instead of listening, you ignored me and accuse me of corruption. Like I said, done here. Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• if you are willing to slow down and not start winging accusations of "censorship" and work calmly, we can continue talking. Your call. You can reply here. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog (talk) Thank you, absolutely I am, and perhaps some of my earlier words were written in anger. As I initially said, you were polite and helpful in your response, but as I'd spent many hours trying to correct some of that page and you then said you would not reply to me, it wound me up. I became extremely suspicious when links were removed within seconds that clearly whoever removed them had not read them. I can provide you more peer reviewed links and I will find a citation for the 15 deaths associated with kratom where every single death other factors were involved, such as usage of other drugs, this is important to point out these deaths were not caused by kratom alone as in each case other factors were involved.. I work with the University of Turin researching m. speciosa, I didn't even seek to delete the links to some of the garbage that is linked on that page, but merely tried to amend it to show other studies - it is simply not true to say there is little research into kratom, it is more accurate to say, until recent times there has been little research into kratom. Look mate, I'm not a bad person, and the fact you have replied to me indicates you are not either. I take this extremely seriously and was genuinely shocked at when I saw how inaccurate and biassed the m. speciosa page is. If it is ok with you, I will send you links to the many various studies and suggested changes to the page to make it more accurate, although I've never had to do this before on wikipedia, only one bad experience on editing a page about cold fusion where the editor didn't have a clue what he was talking about and in the end I gave up. Thank you for giving me a second chance, I'm in the UK so it's late here, so I'll get back to you and see if we can work calmly to improve that page. Please can you remove my edit war warning, as I think that was unfairly given, which is what prompted me to fly off the handle a bit and not be so calm, but in all honesty I seek only truth, justice and scientific advancement. Christopherbrian (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The mission of Wikipedia is to create articles that summarize accepted knowledge, working in a community and following the policies and guidelines established by the community. Generally when people arrive here seeking "truth, justice and scientific advancement" they are not here to serve the mission of Wikipedia and they end up very frustrated and they cause a lot of trouble.

This happens pretty commonly (too commonly) and the community has developed a few essays about it - please read, for example, WP:RGW as well as WP:ADVOCACY. I know you are fired up, but if you are willing to focus on Wikipedia's mission, and if you are willing to take your time and learn how we work here, I will be happy to help you.

there is some stuff you really need to know to make good edits that "stick" and that don't harm the encyclopedia.

(for example i am sure you were well-intentioned, when you included the opendrive link to that book edited by Raffa that was published last year, but that was extremely bad - it was a copyright violation. Please read WP:ELNEVER and please don't do that anymore) Jytdog (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog the kratom page says little research has been done into the health effects, 24 links here (I have more) to show that statement is simply not true, the only citation you give is a very poor study that is linked repeatedly on the m speciosa page. Is it possible for the page to tell the truth, or will I just be wasting my time and risk having my valued Wikipedia account deleted?

1. Jansen KL, Prast CJ. Ethnopharmacology of kratom and the Mitragyna alkaloids. J Ethnopharmacol. 1988;23(1):115-119. doi: dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-8741(88)90121-3. http://uka.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Ethnopharmacology_of_kratom_and_the_Mitragyna_alkaloids.pdf 2. Disalvo D. Results Of My Kratom Experiment. David Disalvo. Published April 5th, 2013. http://www.daviddisalvo.org/the-daily-brain/2013/4/5/results-of-my-kratom-experiment.html. Accessed March 8, 2016.

3. Hassan Z, Muzaimi M, Navaratnam V, et al. From Kratom to mitragynine and its derivatives: Physiological and behavioural effects related to use, abuse, and addiction. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2013;37(2):138-151. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.11.012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23206666

4. Harizal SN, Mansor SM, Hasnan J, Tharakan JKJ, Abdullah J. Acute toxicity study of the standardized methanolic extract of Mitragyna speciosa Korth in Rodent. J Ethnopharmacol. 2010;131(2):404-409. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2010.07.013. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20643198 5. Reanmongkol W, Keawpradub N, Sawangjaroen K. Effects of the extracts from Mitragyna speciosa Korth leaves on analgesic and behavioral activities in experimental animals. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol. 2007;29(Suppl 1):39-48. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kitja_Sawangjaroen/publication/26469428_Effects_of_the_extracts_from_Mitragyna_speciosa_Korth._leaves_on_analgesic_and_behavioral_activities_in_experimental_animals/links/02e7e520a59f4a8d17000000.pdf. Published March, 2007. Accessed March 28, 2016.

6. Warner ML, Kaufman NC, Grundmann O. The pharmacology and toxicology of kratom: from traditional herb to drug of abuse. Int J Legal Med. 2016;130(1):127-138. doi:10.1007/s00414-015-1279-y. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26511390

7. Forrester MB. Kratom Exposures Reported to Texas Poison Centers. Journal of Addictive Diseases. 2013;32(4):396-400. doi:10.1080/10550887.2013.854153. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24325774

8. Huus K. Asian leaf “kratom” making presence felt in US emergency rooms - U.S. News. NBC News. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/19/10760892-asian-leaf-kratom-making-presence-felt-in-us-emergency-rooms. Published March 19, 2013. Accessed March 3, 2016.

9. SAMHSA. The DAWN Report: Highlights of the 2011 Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) Findings on Drug-Related Emergency Department Visits. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/DAWN127/DAWN127/sr127-DAWN-highlights.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed March 28th, 2016.

10. Cornara L, Borghesi B, Canali C, et al. Smart drugs: green shuttle or real drug? International J Legal Med. 2013;127(6):1109-1123. doi:10.1007/s00414-013-0893-9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23842669

11 .Prozialeck WC, Jivan JK, Andurkar SV. Pharmacology of kratom: an emerging botanical agent with stimulant, analgesic and opioid-like effects. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2012;112(12):792-799. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2012.112.12.792. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23212430

12. Idid, SZ, Saad, LB, Yaacob, H, Shahimi, MM. Evaluation of analgesia induced by mitragynine, morphine, and paracetamol in mice. 1998; ASEAN Review of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lamees_Bensaad3/publication/237217107_Evaluation_of_analgesia_induced_by_mitragynine_morphine_and_paracetamol_on_mice/links/53ef28180cf26b9b7dcdea57.pdf?inViewer=0&pdfJsDownload=0&origin=publication_detail. Published May, 1998. Accessed April 26th, 2016.

13. Vicknasingam B, Narayanan S, Beng GT, Mansor SM. The informal use of ketum (Mitragyna speciosa) for opioid withdrawal in the northern states of peninsular Malaysia and implications for drug substitution therapy. Int J Drug Policy. 2010;21(4):283-288. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2009.12.003. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20092998 14. Ahmad K, Aziz Z. Mitragyna speciosa use in the northern states of Malaysia: a cross-sectional study. J Ethnopharmacol. 2012;141(1):446-450. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2012.03.009. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22440259

16. Saingam D, Assanangkornchai S, Geater AF, Balthip Q. Pattern and consequences of krathom (Mitragyna speciosa Korth.) use among male villagers in southern Thailand: A qualitative study. International Journal of Drug Policy. 2013;24 (4):351-358. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.09.004. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23083922 17. Tanguay P. Kratom in Thailand. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1908849. Published April, 2011. Accessed March 9th, 2016.

18. Hazim AI, Ramanathan S, Parthasarathy S, Muzaimi M, Mansor SM. Anxiolytic-like effects of mitragynine in the open-field and elevated plus-maze tests in rats. J Physiol Sci. 2014;64(3):161-169. doi:10.1007/s12576-014-0304-0. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24464759

19. Idayu NF, Hidayat MT, Moklas M a. M, et al. Antidepressant-like effect of mitragynine isolated from Mitragyna speciosa Korth in mice model of depression. Phytomedicine. 2011;18(5):402-407. doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2010.08.011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20869223

20. Utar Z, Majid MIA, Adenan MI, Jamil MFA, Lan TM. Mitragynine inhibits the COX-2 mRNA expression and prostaglandin E₂ production induced by lipopolysaccharide in RAW264.7 macrophage cells. J Ethnopharmacol. 2011;136(1):75-82. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2011.04.011. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21513785

21. Cinosi E, Martinotti G, Simonato P, et al. Following “the Roots” of Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa): The Evolution of an Enhancer from a Traditional Use to Increase Work and Productivity in Southeast Asia to a Recreational Psychoactive Drug in Western Countries. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015. doi:10.1155/2015/968786. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2015/968786/

22. Arizona State Legislature. House Bill 5526. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/ 2r/laws/0036.pdf. Published August, 2014. Accessed March 8th, 2016. 23. Illinois State Legislature. House Bill 5526. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?Doc Name=&SessionId=85&GA=98&DocTypeId=HB&DocNum=5526&GAID=12&LegID=&SpecSess=&Session=. Published August 18th, 2014. Accessed March 8th, 2016. 24. Wallman B. Broward Acts Not to Ban Kratom – For Now. Sun Sentinal. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fl-kratom-ban-broward-20141028-story.html. Published October 28th, 2014. Accessed March 8th, 2016.

Let's step way back. You are coming at this with a lot of passion and I understand that. But you don't seem to understand drug development and you don't understand how WP works (if you understood you would not have wasted your time copying those references here - I am sorry you wasted your time that way). If you want to actually understand and not just try to talk over me, I will be happy to help you get oriented. But please don't waste my time either. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Thank you again for your time. I have probably more of an understanding of drug development than you might imagine, as I work for a company that I part own that specialises in getting European approval for herbal drugs, foods and drinks. The above links were sent by an academic who prefers to remain anonymous, This is what he said:

Please find the reference list I mentioned attached. It is in American Medical Association format. I also have all of these articles hard copy and abstracts for them if that would be useful to you and your friend as you go about authoring the wiki page. I included the letter I wrote using these references, so that you can have some context. Essentially though, this is a very good targeted literature review of what is out there regarding Kratom - there are also several large reviews enclosed with many more articles if one were to look through them. There are a particularly large amount of toxicity studies showing that Kratom is not harmful in animal models. There are a few positive studies showing that it may be helpful for weaning off of opiates and other hard drugs. There is also at least one study showing that it is not associated with negative psychosocial outcomes.

The article by Prozialek and also Cinosi are particularly high quality and written with an open mind. Prozialek also has spoken out publicly in support of Kratom.

I'm happy to do what I can to help you.

Also please, keep my identity and contact info confidential - by virtue of my profession it is not safe for me to be too public as an advocate for Kratom for several reasons.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopherbrian (talk • contribs) 20:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That is interesting work you do! OK, so you understand that kratom has not been in any clinical trials, and lacking that there is very little that we can say with certainty about what it actually does in people; and you know how unreliable in vitro and animal studies are for extrapolating what happens in people (that we have cured Alzheimers and cancer in rats a zillion times)...and you understand the difficulties of CMC with botanical drugs and how it is kind of scary for people to buy kratom on the internet and use it like a drug (what are they actually getting??). So... I have a hard time understanding how you could object to "little research has been done into the health effects".... even Prozialeck clearly acknowledges this in the 2012 review.

Almost none of those refs complies with MEDRS... they are just not useful for sourcing WP:Biomedical information in WP. That is just how things work here.

I do understand that you and your friend are well intentioned. I do. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

btw, I created the botanical drug article just last year! WP had nothing on that... it is weak on the European picture and if you are interested in improving it, that would be amazing Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)