u/Diligent-Mongoose-50

https://kevinmd.com/2026/06/ama-kratom-policy-needs-regulation-not-a-7-oh-ban.html

TLDR: Dr. Bryon Adinoff, head of D4DPR, calls out the AMA for pushing a 7-OH ban while asking for kratom regulation.

An American Medical Association (AMA) policy from June 9, 2026, calls for prohibiting the sale, distribution, and marketing of concentrated 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) products while supporting surveillance, additional research, and other public health measures for kratom, according to the AMA press release and the AMA House of Delegates report. This policy raises an uncomfortable question: Was the AMA duped on 7-OH?

The question is particularly relevant in light of the New York Times investigation, “How an Addictive Gas Station Drug Found Allies in the Trump Cabinet,” published June 16, 2026, which detailed the considerable political influence exerted by segments of the kratom industry.

The issue is not whether kratom or 7-OH pose health risks. Both do. The issue is why the AMA concluded that 7-OH warrants prohibition while kratom warrants regulation.

Both substances can produce psychoactive effects. Both have the potential for misuse. Both are sold in a marketplace largely devoid of regulatory oversight. Yet the AMA has provided little explanation for why 7-OH should be prohibited while kratom should be regulated. That distinction matters.

Prohibition is not regulation. In fact, prohibition drastically reduces our ability to regulate. A substance that cannot legally be sold cannot be meaningfully regulated. Product testing cannot be required. Manufacturing standards cannot be enforced. Labeling requirements cannot be monitored. Surveillance becomes more difficult. Public health oversight diminishes. Consumers who continue seeking the product are pushed toward illegal markets where none of these protections exist. This dynamic is directly counter to the public health consumer protection that the AMA asserts it is supporting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/15/us/politics/kratom-trump-administration.html?unlocked_article_code=1.qVA.vont.bsjxR8aVg74D&smid=nytcore-ios-share

Well, the NYT just published THE piece we've all been waiting for - extensively laying out the complex web of corruption, lobbying and backroom dealing that led to the war on 7-OH. It proves that the campaign against 7-OH is not being driven by public health concerns, but rather by concerns for the bottom lines of a few discrete kratom companies.

Some highlights:

• "[Feel Free's] founder, Jerry W. Ross — who had been an energy executive in Mr. Mullin’s home state before pleading guilty to a financial crime — is a leading player in the influence campaign that was devised to benefit kratom at the expense of its rivals in the marketplace."
• It’s looking like we have a coin-operated drug policy that basically responds to whoever will give money,” said Kevin Sabet, who worked on drug policy under Republican and Democratic presidents. “And it threatens public health and safety because it’s going around the scientific process in favor of donors and influencers.”

There is also a stunning play-by-play detailing how Feel Free's founder, JW Ross, effectively bribed RFK to protect kratom while going after 7-OH.

It's finally all in writing in the paper of record. Enjoy, friends!

Good read!

https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2026/05/06/ahead_of_midterms_lawmakers_should_avoid_7-oh_ban_1181062.html

Even as these products have become increasingly popular for pain relief, officials such as Secretary Kennedy claim that restrictions against 7-OH will “protect the health of our nation’s youth as we advance our mission to Make America Healthy Again.” There is simply no evidence to support that assertion. As Cato Institute senior fellow and healthcare expert Jeffrey A. Singer notes, “Fatal overdoses in which 7‑OH has been implicated are exceedingly rare, and deaths linked to kratom more broadly are rarer still. In the limited cases where coroners listed kratom or 7‑OH as contributing factors, polysubstance use was the norm. Roughly two-thirds of decedents had fentanyl in their systems. About one-third had heroin present, and just under one-fifth had prescription opioids or cocaine. Around 80% had documented histories of substance misuse, and about 90% were not receiving clinical care for pain.”

Prohibition is far more dangerous for consumers than allowing continued access to 7-OH products. Regulators with any knowledge of history ought to know better than to ban products based on fear and misinformation. 

File this one under "unlikely allies."

https://dcjournal.com/when-washington-fights-with-itself-families-lose/

The administration just rescheduled cannabis, further reducing the specter of criminalization for the more than 50 million Americans who consume the relatively innocuous plant. Meanwhile, the FDA is moving to ban 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), another plant-derived product that could expand pain management options and reduce dependence on street drugs such as heroin and fentanyl. For Americans living with pain or trying to escape addiction, new options cannot come soon enough.

7-OH is a naturally occurring alkaloid of the kratom plant, which has been used for centuries in Southeast Asia to manage pain and increase focus, among other therapeutic applications. As a partial opioid agonist that binds to mu-opioid receptors to mitigate pain, 7-OH miraculously has minimal effect on the beta-arrestin pathway, the primary mechanism responsible for respiratory depression and the key cause of opioid overdose deaths. It’s exactly the option the government should be eager to explore.

Yet the FDA has taken a hostile and prohibitionist posture, refusing to engage meaningfully with the science and leaving a potentially valuable, non-lethal tool on the sidelines at a time when new approaches are most needed.

Last July, Commissioner Makary warned that 7-OH could become “another wave of the opioid epidemic,” and he recommended that the Drug Enforcement Agency place it on Schedule I. Such suppositions may make for compelling headlines, but they don’t constitute a serious policy response. 

Fear is not evidence. The evidence seems to show that 7-OH has a relatively strong safety profile; stories abound from those for whom the compound has been a life-saver.

The responsible path is rigorous regulation, transparent science, and adult access to alternatives when supported by data, not criminalizing more Americans.

No excerpts because apparently I can't name anything related to our president or his Cabinet secretaries in here without getting auto-modded. Nevertheless, you should read the below piece.

https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/david-hudnall/article315593616.html