This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mitragyna speciosa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Mitragyna speciosa.
|
![]() | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
![]() | Material from Mitragyna speciosa was split to Kratom on 4 August 2023 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
I don't mean to be a critic, but this article is pretty biased. It primarily includes sources from the most vocal opponents of kratom and omits most of the information regarding both its comparative safety or its therapeutic potential.
I can understand why the article is written the way it is. Kratom interacts with the opioid receptors; it seems better to assume the worst than to condone the use of a recreational substance. If I didn't have intimate knowledge of kratom, both pharmacologically and personally, I would probably agree.
Why not mention the ceiling effect that limits its abuse potential? Kratom doesn't increase in intensity in a linear fashion. Mitragynine, the compound responsible for kratom's psychoactive effect, is a pro-drug; it needs to be converted by the liver into its active form. This is a mechanism that limits its abuse potential and how much a person will take at once.
Why not mention the fact that the kratom is being used in the self-treatment of alcoholism? Alcoholics aren't taking it to relieve opiate withdrawals; it helps eliminate the cravings.
Why not mention the demographic and socioeconomic data of the typical kratom consumer? Unlike most psychoactive substances, frequent kratom use isn't associated with the socioeconomic harms typical of abusable substances. Drug addicts do try kratom, but it's recreational potential is weak compared to other easily available substances.
Why the the over reliance on negative interpretations of the data? Including the actual statistics regarding socioeconomic data, risks, and benefits would go a long way in creating an unbiased article. Only a handful of doctors reported psychosis, fatalities, etc. involving kratom.
This seems like a trivial issue, but there is an entire community of people whose lives depend on kratom. Considering the lack of societal harm incurred over its nearly twenty years of availability, I think the public should have an unbiased resource to form their opinions. Most people don't care enough to do their research; Wikipedia is their only source. Banning kratom has become a convenient proxy for fighting the war on drugs. 2603:6011:2802:E1A8:E554:5B3F:99D2:24F5 ( talk) 10:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I tried to simply remove the mention of psychosis from the first page twice, once without an edit summary and the second time with a detailed one and it was reverted both times. this is the only time i have ever removed something and had it reverted and there have been many times where i have noticed that someone changed something inaccurately and i had to remove it. why is this consistently being reverted but other pages that dont have to do with a plant that can effectively manage pain or get people off opioids get to stick? is this paid for by some pharma company or something because it happens almost immediately and i have seen many edits that add complete misinformation not be reverted. there shouldnt be a mention of psychosis int he first paragraph when there is no evidence for it and its not like i removed the reference to addiction or something. 154.5.201.230 ( talk) 10:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I would still like a proper response. I see you are doing the same thing to to others as well and due to this information having the potential to save lives I will not be forgetting about this and will do whatever it takes to make sure that the proper and accurate information is what stays up. I have explained myself and thoroughly read the citation and my edit is supported by the information that has already been cited in citation 15. You clearly never read that citation or you misunderstood it in the same way that the original editor did. There are plenty of more recent studies on the receptor binding of various Kratom alkaloids that you can read to verify the information in my edit and it IS your duty to do so before reverting it. There are also several studies on mice and rats that show that Kratom doesn't even cause respiratory depression and I have been leaving that up still. Psychosis is even less well supported by the scientific literature. How exactly is it "current accepted knowledge" and where are you getting this information from? Trioptic8721 ( talk) 01:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This source can be usefully added to the article as an update. Bon courage ( talk) 02:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)These case reports, and case series suggest that kratom use may be associated with the development or exacerbation of psychosis, mania, and mood disorders in some individuals, particularly those with preexisting psychiatric conditions. Our findings are consistent with earlier reports and highlight the importance of considering preexisting medical and psychiatric conditions when assessing potential risks associated with kratom use. We understand that these case reports have several limitations, such as a lack of control groups and potential confounding factors, such as preexisting psychiatric conditions and even polysubstance use. Yet, our results suggest a need for further research to understand the potential risks and benefits of kratom use
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mitragyna speciosa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Mitragyna speciosa.
|
![]() | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
![]() | Material from Mitragyna speciosa was split to Kratom on 4 August 2023 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
I don't mean to be a critic, but this article is pretty biased. It primarily includes sources from the most vocal opponents of kratom and omits most of the information regarding both its comparative safety or its therapeutic potential.
I can understand why the article is written the way it is. Kratom interacts with the opioid receptors; it seems better to assume the worst than to condone the use of a recreational substance. If I didn't have intimate knowledge of kratom, both pharmacologically and personally, I would probably agree.
Why not mention the ceiling effect that limits its abuse potential? Kratom doesn't increase in intensity in a linear fashion. Mitragynine, the compound responsible for kratom's psychoactive effect, is a pro-drug; it needs to be converted by the liver into its active form. This is a mechanism that limits its abuse potential and how much a person will take at once.
Why not mention the fact that the kratom is being used in the self-treatment of alcoholism? Alcoholics aren't taking it to relieve opiate withdrawals; it helps eliminate the cravings.
Why not mention the demographic and socioeconomic data of the typical kratom consumer? Unlike most psychoactive substances, frequent kratom use isn't associated with the socioeconomic harms typical of abusable substances. Drug addicts do try kratom, but it's recreational potential is weak compared to other easily available substances.
Why the the over reliance on negative interpretations of the data? Including the actual statistics regarding socioeconomic data, risks, and benefits would go a long way in creating an unbiased article. Only a handful of doctors reported psychosis, fatalities, etc. involving kratom.
This seems like a trivial issue, but there is an entire community of people whose lives depend on kratom. Considering the lack of societal harm incurred over its nearly twenty years of availability, I think the public should have an unbiased resource to form their opinions. Most people don't care enough to do their research; Wikipedia is their only source. Banning kratom has become a convenient proxy for fighting the war on drugs. 2603:6011:2802:E1A8:E554:5B3F:99D2:24F5 ( talk) 10:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I tried to simply remove the mention of psychosis from the first page twice, once without an edit summary and the second time with a detailed one and it was reverted both times. this is the only time i have ever removed something and had it reverted and there have been many times where i have noticed that someone changed something inaccurately and i had to remove it. why is this consistently being reverted but other pages that dont have to do with a plant that can effectively manage pain or get people off opioids get to stick? is this paid for by some pharma company or something because it happens almost immediately and i have seen many edits that add complete misinformation not be reverted. there shouldnt be a mention of psychosis int he first paragraph when there is no evidence for it and its not like i removed the reference to addiction or something. 154.5.201.230 ( talk) 10:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I would still like a proper response. I see you are doing the same thing to to others as well and due to this information having the potential to save lives I will not be forgetting about this and will do whatever it takes to make sure that the proper and accurate information is what stays up. I have explained myself and thoroughly read the citation and my edit is supported by the information that has already been cited in citation 15. You clearly never read that citation or you misunderstood it in the same way that the original editor did. There are plenty of more recent studies on the receptor binding of various Kratom alkaloids that you can read to verify the information in my edit and it IS your duty to do so before reverting it. There are also several studies on mice and rats that show that Kratom doesn't even cause respiratory depression and I have been leaving that up still. Psychosis is even less well supported by the scientific literature. How exactly is it "current accepted knowledge" and where are you getting this information from? Trioptic8721 ( talk) 01:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
This source can be usefully added to the article as an update. Bon courage ( talk) 02:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)These case reports, and case series suggest that kratom use may be associated with the development or exacerbation of psychosis, mania, and mood disorders in some individuals, particularly those with preexisting psychiatric conditions. Our findings are consistent with earlier reports and highlight the importance of considering preexisting medical and psychiatric conditions when assessing potential risks associated with kratom use. We understand that these case reports have several limitations, such as a lack of control groups and potential confounding factors, such as preexisting psychiatric conditions and even polysubstance use. Yet, our results suggest a need for further research to understand the potential risks and benefits of kratom use