I wasn't trying to prove it's beneficial. I was just saying there's no substantiated reason to believe that it is dangerous, at least more dangerous than most otc supplements and meds, and therefore should not be seen as a dangerous substance. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. And only some very strong kratom is 1% mitragynine. There are many strains that contain less than 12% mitragynine out of the total alkaloids, which usually range between .05-2% of the total plant makeup. Also, were these extracts full-spectrum? I know anecdotal evidence is flimsy but I've spoken to at least a dozen users who have used 20g+ daily for 7-12 years and their liver tests come back in tip top condition, and in many cases better results than before they began using kratom (in the kratom community I am a part of, there is a tendency for positive lifestyle changes to be made when using kratom, such as better excersize, eating habits, and cutting out other substances like alcohol or prescription opiates, which might be partially responsible for the amazing results). So if the individual doesn't notice damage, the doctors don't see the damage, than is there actually measurable damage? I have only read one anecdotal report of liver issues coming into play, and it was after only a few weeks of use, probably a missing liver enzyme or something. As for the cardiotoxicity study, it specifically says that it could be harmful to people with pre-existing heart issues, and not just anyone. Yes this is important, but does not mean that it is toxic to anyone who takes it.
From what I understood, the in vitro cardiotoxic study stated that MS extract may potentiate torsade de pointes(a fatal heart condition), but if you read the study, it states in the results that MS extract induced heart arrhythmia in (presumably) healthy heart cells. Then again this is an in vitro study, it's supposed to be a starting point to research, not an actual conclusive study.
I understand what you stated about "the burden of proof" argument, the thing i'm concerned about is that people seem to think that if something isn't proven dangerous, it's magically safe and healthy by default. I don't disagree that Kratom is probably more effective than current antidepressants in treating depression, and i'm not arguing that it might be safer than current prescription medications or even some OTC medications. But we simply don't know.
While its easy for some to hide behind the argument that its safe because its "been used for thousands of years in asian culture". Kratom may very well be carcinogenic and extremely harmful, but nobody in ancient times would have noticed because cancer and internal organ damage can move very slowly. For example, if a lifelong kratom chewer dies from liver failure at the age of 40, how would anybody know kratom had anything to do with it? For all they know, it was karma for something. Maybe his time just came. Not a single person at the time would even think that kratom had anything to do with his health, much less caused his death.
To give a comparison, tobacco was smoked for over 5000 years in north america by the native americans. They claimed it to be a gift from the creator, that it cured everything, had no downsides to use and that it increased longevity. Everybody smoked it, even children. Nobody ever thought it was harmful or that it killed anybody because 1. it was very hard to overdose and 2. The internal organ damage happened so slowly that nobody could have possibly noticed any harm.
What Jonhjuanb1 said in the thread reminds me of what a british sailor might say after returning from america with a boat load of tobacco, "Don't worry guys, Tobacco's safe, it's a natural medicine the native americans have been using for thousands of years. If it was harmful the natives would be dropping like flies, but they obviously aren't, so tobacco must be safe and healthy for the body"
When it comes to medical science, anecdotal evidence is absolutely worthless. This is because so many things can sway the results; the placebo effect, human biases, 1000s of other environmental factors etc. Not to mention that euphoric substances, especially opiates, have a tendency of swaying peoples opinion in favor of the substance, making them much more likely to exaggerate the positive effects of the drug and downplay the negative effects/health issues. This makes an unbiased logical discussion more difficult to achieve.
Edited by β-Endorphin, 28 February 2015 - 06:54 AM.