America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 years ago by victor809. 81 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
The war on herbal supplements starts
cacman Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Compounds in herbal supplement kratom are opioids, FDA says
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/06/health/fda-kratom-opioid-bn/index.html
opelmanta1900 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Kratom is not an herbal supplement... it's a drug... and not a good one... there's a reason they sell it in smoke shops...
cacman Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
opelmanta1900 wrote:
Kratom is not an herbal supplement... it's a drug... and not a good one... there's a reason they sell it in smoke shops...

Obviously you did not read the article, and have no clue.

It is reminiscent of Harry J. Anslinger's propaganda against MJ.

Get off the guberment's teet.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Didn't read the article because a) cnn is fake news and b) i dont need someone with zero experience with kratom to tell me about kratom...
victor809 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
.... so because the DEA wants to identify one "herbal supplement" as a schedule 1 drug, you think this is a "War on Herbal supplements"?

Did you read the article cacman?

The compound in question is binding to the same receptors as heroin and other opioids... that's sort of the loose definition of an opioid... does it bind to the opoiod receptor.

Now I am not gonna argue with the dude who pointed out that they don't bind as tightly to the receptor, I'm gonna assume for now that he performed the necessary assays to get a binding constant... but they are still activating the opioid receptors. These are very powerful, highly regulated receptors in the body. You trigger them, it causes a cascade reaction, which among other things, happens to reduce pain, create the effects of morphine and.... down regulates the number of receptors... this is one of the factors that leads to addiction.

So... I can understand why a drug agency, when finding out these compounds are in this kratom, would be interested in scheduling the "herbal supplement" at the same level as heroin. Did they overreact? Maybe. Maybe based on sufficient studies it should be schedule II or III... But keep in mind one of the things which gets a drug classified as schedule I is "no medical use". As long as the manufacturers of this "herbal supplement" want to avoid having to prove a medical efficacy to the FDA (ie Phase 1,2,3 clinical trials) then they can't claim a medical use.

No medical use... a compound which binds to and triggers the same receptor pathway as opioids... no controlled trials... I'm not surprised. Do I think it's necessary? Probably not. But our government is very risk averse when it comes to food and drug safety.

And no. this isn't a "war on herbal supplements"... that's plain fear mongering.
ZRX1200 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Unfortunately some use it well to control pain, and you get druggies misusing it to just get high.
danmdevries Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-11-2014
Posts: 17,124
I've had a few opiate dependent patients report success in abstaining from pills or heroin once using kratom.

They can get it cheap, and it helps in harm reduction not unlike methadone. But it's cheaper and self administered, uncontrolled/unverified dosages.

They're not wrong with that classification though. But removing it from circulation when it's been used as a harm reduction pathway for addicts is not going to be beneficial.
victor809 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
danmdevries wrote:
I've had a few opiate dependent patients report success in abstaining from pills or heroin once using kratom.

They can get it cheap, and it helps in harm reduction not unlike methadone. But it's cheaper and self administered, uncontrolled/unverified dosages.

They're not wrong with that classification though. But removing it from circulation when it's been used as a harm reduction pathway for addicts is not going to be beneficial.



The right pathway would be for someone to run it through clinical trials, then manufacture it under a controlled conditions... if they want to put it up as a medical additiction recovery.... like methadone.

As long as it lives in "herbal supplement" realm... there's no real control over what else is being blended in and sold with it...or what other crap people are putting in their bodies...

What was that fiasco a few years ago.. a "male enhancement" herbal supplement was just mixing viagra in with other crap....
Speyside Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Sounds like it is an unregulated narcotic. Probably not a good thing. Potencies will be different, people will become addicted, Carl, why would you have a problem with the government regulating this or banning it? It seems like a logical step.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
I'll admit i didn't know there was a legitimate use for kratom...

My experience was limited to the smoke shop sale of the product... we were told probably 2 years ago that kratom had become a "drug of interest" to the dea, and to expect regulations on it soon...

We used to sell capsules of it... the customers hated it because it took too much time to empty the powder out of them... so we started carrying big bags of fine powder straight from Thailand and they loved it... we only had a handful of regular customers for it, but they were all snorting it...
RMAN4443 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
I saw on the news last night, people are using the anti-diarrhea medication Imodium AD to get high........don't know much about it, butt there it is.......discuss amongst yourselves
cacman Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
victor809 wrote:
The right pathway would be for someone to run it through clinical trials, then manufacture it under a controlled conditions... if they want to put it up as a medical additiction recovery.... like methadone.

To Quote the article:
In its statement, the FDA said it is "ready to evaluate evidence that could demonstrate a medicinal purpose for kratom. However, to date, we have received no such submissions and are not aware of any evidence that would meet the agency's standard for approval."

That research would be costly and extensive, McCurdy says. The issue is getting funding.

"We must be able to do the research," he said. "If (kratom) goes Schedule I, this will make it nearly impossible to do so. ... We must understand the science in intact animal models and humans before this can be definitively stated."



So, just like MJ, once the plant is classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic it will be impossible to do any research. Same problem with Salvia.

Kratom is in the same family as the coffee tree, What's next, guberment regulation of caffeine? No caffeine buzz for you.

The FDA has also announce it will begin cracking down on homeopathic medicines. Chamomille for example is considered a homeopathic medicine.


But hey, oxy is easy to get and narcan is free! Fentanyl lollipops for everyone!
cacman Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Speyside wrote:
Sounds like it is an unregulated narcotic. Probably not a good thing. Potencies will be different, people will become addicted, Carl, why would you have a problem with the government regulating this or banning it? It seems like a logical step.

Smoking tobacco (nicotine) is addictive.
Alcohol is addictive.
Neither has any medicinal value. But since they are addictive and can result in death the guberment should also make them illegal, right?
It seems like a logical step.
bgz Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I'm trying to figure out why you're mad... is it because they want to reschedule your drug of choice?

Not sure why you GAF otherwise.
victor809 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
cacman wrote:
Smoking tobacco (nicotine) is addictive.
Alcohol is addictive.
Neither has any medicinal value. But since they are addictive and can result in death the guberment should also make them illegal, right?
It seems like a logical step.


Tobacco is addictive through similar types of physiological pathways as opiods (ie, downregulation of receptors... just different receptors in this case). However, the immediate impact of tobacco abuse is reasonably mild.

Alcohol, while addictive, isn't yet (to my knowledge at least) show to be addictive through the same physiological pathways. The addiction is closer to a gambling addiction (again, if I remember correctly).

to lump those two things together and use them as justification of an argument regarding a compound which appears to have a physiological impact on a regulated pathway, which is known to have severe negative impacts when other compounds interact with that pathway.... is simply not thinking the problem through.

TL/DR: Your reaction is knee-jerk and not taking any actual specifics into account.
victor809 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
cacman wrote:
To Quote the article:
In its statement, the FDA said it is "ready to evaluate evidence that could demonstrate a medicinal purpose for kratom. However, to date, we have received no such submissions and are not aware of any evidence that would meet the agency's standard for approval."

That research would be costly and extensive, McCurdy says. The issue is getting funding.

"We must be able to do the research," he said. "If (kratom) goes Schedule I, this will make it nearly impossible to do so. ... We must understand the science in intact animal models and humans before this can be definitively stated."



So, just like MJ, once the plant is classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic it will be impossible to do any research. Same problem with Salvia.

Kratom is in the same family as the coffee tree, What's next, guberment regulation of caffeine? No caffeine buzz for you.

The FDA has also announce it will begin cracking down on homeopathic medicines. Chamomille for example is considered a homeopathic medicine.


But hey, oxy is easy to get and narcan is free! Fentanyl lollipops for everyone!


McCurdy is making excuses. The research is costly and extensive now, before it's been given schedule I status. And no one wants to do it... If it really had a significant chance of replacing drugs like Oxy, pharma companies would jump at it in a second, it would have been in trials before the DEA even thought to look at it. A bunch of crack-heads buying herbal supplements at head shops didn't discover this in a vacuum.

As for your "same family as the coffee tree".... that's asinine.
Some things are dangerous. some things are safe. Some things are addictive, psychoactive and/or mind numbing. These things can all be in the same family. If you're making your consumption decisions based on what family the plant is in, you're as dumb as gwenyth paltrow.

As for homeopathics... the FDA should go after them. Homeopaths frequently claim effectiveness, which is 100% false. Homeopathy is a BS pseudoscience, and to claim that a smidgen of something diluted until it's not detectable will have any positive impact on a patient is dangerous, as it keeps people from taking real medicine.

The FDA comes after manufacturers when they make claims of effectiveness. As long as they don't claim their fake drug will do anything, then they classify in a category with much lower stringency. Once you say your quack medicine is going to cure cancer or do something stupid like that though, you should be required to prove it in clinical trials.
cacman Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
victor809 wrote:
Alcohol, while addictive, isn't yet (to my knowledge at least) show to be addictive through the same physiological pathways. The addiction is closer to a gambling addiction (again, if I remember correctly).

Better check your facts on that one. Alcohol is considered both physically and mentally addictive.
Obviously you have never seen anyone detox.
cacman Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
victor809 wrote:
McCurdy is making excuses. The research is costly and extensive now, before it's been given schedule I status. And no one wants to do it... If it really had a significant chance of replacing drugs like Oxy, pharma companies would jump at it in a second, it would have been in trials before the DEA even thought to look at it. A bunch of crack-heads buying herbal supplements at head shops didn't discover this in a vacuum.

LMFAO. That's bullsh*t.
Just like MJ, big pharma does not want the public growing their own medicine.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Did you read about all the bombs we recently dropped on all those herbal supplement fields in Afghanistan?
victor809 Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
cacman wrote:
Better check your facts on that one. Alcohol is considered both physically and mentally addictive.
Obviously you have never seen anyone detox.


You're right here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2577853/

Looks like the GABAa receptor does downregulate after what they're defining as "chronic" use. Not as bad as the pathway for opioids, but it exists. removal of the ligand would result in the epileptic-like physical reactions (more minor) one would associate with the DTs.

I stand corrected on this one. Doesn't make it as bad as opioids, but it does has a pathway that downregulates.
victor809 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
cacman wrote:
LMFAO. That's bullsh*t.
Just like MJ, big pharma does not want the public growing their own medicine.


this is and has always been a dumb response.

The government doesn't want you growing your own medicine. Hell, you don't really want to be growing your own medicine.

We had that in the US at one point. People putting any dumb crap they thought might work in bottles and selling them as branded tonics. Guess what, they were almost all completely ineffective, and in many ways more harmful.

The public demanded they be controlled after enough bad incidents. That's what the FDA is.

The public gets angry and litigious any time someone gets sick from any product sold. They go after the company, they go after the government (for not protecting them!!)... so guess what, the government is going to nanny state the hell out of you.

This makes drugs expensive to get to market. That means there has to be a good reason (ie profit) for a company to sponsor that sort of work. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can grow the tree in your back yard. They could still sell it to the millions of other people if the product is worth it. That's why they spend more on marketing than research.

The DEA cares about your tree in the back yard, because they don't want you to sell what is appearing to be an addictive substance illegally... because again, that creates addicts, creates black market transactions, and creates crime. And ultimately makes the DEA look bad.

This isn't rocket surgery.
ZRX1200 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
The machine needs fed.

Someone is getting there ox gored!
cacman Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
victor809 wrote:
But our government is very risk averse when it comes to food and drug safety.

And that is why we have the opioid crisis today.
Speyside Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Are you sure you didn't mean brain science?
Speyside Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Carl, your argument simply isn't sound. I won't double down on what Victor said, but his points are valid. Your premise does not make sense to me.
bgz Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Ya, I agree with Spey, Victor won this battle.

I tend to error on the side of science though.
cacman Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Speyside wrote:
Carl, your argument simply isn't sound. I won't double down on what Victor said, but his points are valid. Your premise does not make sense to me.

Saying that a substance should be banned or regulated by the guberment simply because "potencies will be different, people will become addicted" doesn't make sense to me either. Especially when there are a number of other legal substances that are just as addicting and cause death. It is hypocritical.

At least allow the research to be done BEFORE making a plant illegal. As I said before, it sounds very similar to how marijuana is treated. MJ is also considered a Schedule 1 narcotic, and no further guberment research is being done. Even in States where it is legal, if a job requires a drug test and it shows up in your urine, you're fired regardless of whether the drug is legal in the State or not. Again hypocritical.
cacman Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
bgz wrote:
Ya, I agree with Spey, Victor won this battle.

See I didn't realize it was a battle.

Here I simply thought it was a discussion, and people where expressing different views.
frankj1 Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
cacman wrote:
See I didn't realize it was a battle.

Here I simply thought it was a discussion, and people where expressing different views.

actually, Carl, I agree that it wasn't a battle, and it was a better read without the personal attacks.

It was more interesting and informative.
Speyside Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
In my mind this is a discussion. I am trying to understand another's point of view. I find I do not agree with that point of view. No big deal. What I really would like to understand is why this is an issue for Carl. Again, trying to understand someone's point of view even if I don't agree with it.
bgz Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
cacman wrote:
See I didn't realize it was a battle.

Here I simply thought it was a discussion, and people where expressing different views.


Well, I use the terms argument/discussion/battle interchangeably, so what ever word you want to call it, I'm good with it...

I don't really see the difference, one person is trying to convince another of something else and vice versa... therefore each is trying to win... see?

Personally I don't care what you call it, I'm just calling the winner.
frankj1 Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
bgz wrote:
Well, I use the terms argument/discussion/battle interchangeably, so what ever word you want to call it, I'm good with it...

I don't really see the difference, one person is trying to convince another of something else and vice versa... therefore each is trying to win... see?

Personally I don't care what you call it, I'm just calling the winner.

for me, no one was called a name that means they are a female ...though I don't get why being female is an insult
delta1 Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,754
Cool...chicken dinner for everybody!
cacman Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
bgz wrote:
Well, I use the terms argument/discussion/battle interchangeably, so what ever word you want to call it, I'm good with it...

I don't really see the difference, one person is trying to convince another of something else and vice versa... therefore each is trying to win... see?

Personally I don't care what you call it, I'm just calling the winner.

Discussion: the action or process of talking about something, typically to exchange ideas.

Argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

There is a huge difference between the two. In a discussion there really isn't a "winner" nor should there be personal attacks.
bgz Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
cacman wrote:
Discussion: the action or process of talking about something, typically to exchange ideas.

Argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

There is a huge difference between the two. In a discussion there really isn't a "winner" nor should there be personal attacks.


No difference, you did seem a little mad in some of your responses, and there most definitely was a winner.

I think battle or argument would be more correct in this case than discussion, but you can call it what you want ;)
cacman Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Speyside wrote:
In my mind this is a discussion. I am trying to understand another's point of view. I find I do not agree with that point of view. No big deal. What I really would like to understand is why this is an issue for Carl. Again, trying to understand someone's point of view even if I don't agree with it.

I understand both sides. However I do not agree with what can be considered the over reach of the guberment, and it's hypocrisy regarding certain substances.

In the simplest terms, I think it is ridiculous for a guberment to outlaw a plant without actually conducting the scientific research. God (or what ever you believe in) provided these plants for a reason, and for a guberment to think it knows more than God without doing the research takes a holier than thou attitude.


Outlawing Kratom is very reminiscent of Harry J. Anslinger's propaganda against MJ.
CBS News wrote:
The problem was, there was little scientific evidence that supported Anslinger’s claims. He contacted 30 scientists, according to Hari, and 29 told him cannabis was not a dangerous drug. But it was the theory of the single expert who agreed with him that he presented to the public — cannabis was an evil that should be banned — and the press ran with this sensationalized version.

The second component to Anslinger’s strategy was racial. He claimed that black people and Latinos were the primary users of marijuana, and it made them forget their place in the fabric of American society. He even went so far as to argue that jazz musicians were creating “Satanic” music all thanks to the influence of pot. This obsession eventually led to a sort of witch hunt against the legendary singer Billie Holiday, who struggled with heroin addiction; she lost her license to perform in New York cabarets and continued to be dogged by law enforcement until her death.

“The insanity of the racism is a thing to behold when you go into his archives,” Hari told CBS News. “He claims that cannabis promotes interracial mixing, interracial relationships.”

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/harry-anslinger-the-man-behind-the-marijuana-ban/



Nicotine cause more deaths per year than Kratom, but it is legal (so far).
Gary Oldman got nicotine poisoning after smoking $20,000 worth of cigars while making Winston Churchill film. Any substance legal or not can be abused.

An estimated 88,000 people (approximately 62,000 men and 26,000 women) die from alcohol-related causes annually, making alcohol the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States. The first is tobacco, and the second is poor diet and physical inactivity.
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics

I'm sorry many can not see or understand the hypocrisy of the US guberment in regards to what "drugs" or plants are legal, and what they outlaw… and why.
cacman Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Suffered from severe nausea yesterday. Drank some Chamomille tea.

Chamomille is considered a homeopathic medicine. Could it also be outlawed?
ZRX1200 Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,476
Candied ginger works well ^.
cacman Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
^ Thanks. Will have to try it. Chamomille makes me sleepy, which is not helpful during the day.
teedubbya Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
ZRX1200 wrote:
Candied ginger works well ^.



yup.
bgz Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
Last time my mom was in town, she left bags of that sh1t here (ginger candies). She's all into the vitamin gig right now. Always telling me to eat my supplements.

If I have issues, I want doctor drugs damn it, I want the high tech sh1t!!!
cacman Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
bgz wrote:
If I have issues, I want doctor drugs damn it, I want the high tech sh1t!!!

Did you ever notice that the FDA is more concerned about labeling your food and over-the-counter drugs, and detailing exactly what is in them, but not your prescription drugs? What else are they putting in your prescription drugs?
victor809 Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
That's kind of obvious.
The excipients in drugs are all tested as inactive already and the drug is prescribed. You don't actually need to know what they are because the company already proved they won't do anything in the quantities consumed, you aren't going to consume more than prescribed, and you don't have any decisions to make regarding them.

With food, the choice is pushed to the consumer. So you need the information. Not all the ingredients are tested across all quantities of consumption... some of it is just assumed to be safe because it's been in food for a long time. You're responsible, so you get more info.
bgz Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I would think it depends on the drug. The drugs are engineered by people much smarter than you or I, and I have to believe that most scientists truly want to help people.

They run clinical trials to get a proper list of possible side effects and drawbacks for using the meds so you know what to expect and what to look for.

As far as what's in them, it tells you right on the label!

Then there's this thing called the interwebs that you can use to do your own research on the meds so you're more informed.

I just don't get into the whole holistic / chiropractor craze (you ever notice, it's usually the same guy?).
victor809 Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
(Caveat... I'm not super informed on food testing... some of that is supposition)
cacman Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
victor809 wrote:
The excipients in drugs are all tested as inactive already and the drug is prescribed. You don't actually need to know what they are because the company already proved they won't do anything in the quantities consumed, you aren't going to consume more than prescribed, and you don't have any decisions to make regarding them.

You are assuming people aren't going to consume more than prescribed. If people didn't consume more than prescribed we wouldn't have the opioid crisis or overdoses (accidental or on purpose) from prescription drugs.

And yes, many people like to make decisions about what ingredients they put in or on their body.
Speyside Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Nicotine poisoning from 4 Gurkhas, I would never have believed that.
victor809 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
cacman wrote:
You are assuming people aren't going to consume more than prescribed. If people didn't consume more than prescribed we wouldn't have the opioid crisis or overdoses (accidental or on purpose) from prescription drugs.

And yes, many people like to make decisions about what ingredients they put in or on their body.


People can become addicted when consuming prescribed amounts, then as addicts they use it recreationally... once someone is taking it recreationally, they're no longer following the prescription. They are abusing the drug. It would make no sense to test the inert excipients for safety when a consumer is taking the drug at levels where the active ingredient isn't considered safe any longer.

As for "making decisions about what ingredients..." that's simply not logical.
On a branded medication, if the Dr prescribes you something you need for your ongoing immediate health, and you see that the excipients include a synthetic polymer and you're some hippy who only consumes organic (ie sugar) coatings... are you going to refuse the drug? If so, I sure as hell home that we don't have to pay for their future medical costs.

On generics medication, I suppose if you really care about the binder and coating contents you could theoretically shop around different generics and buy whichever oxy has the binder and coating which you think is best for you... but that really doesn't make a ton of sense.

The FDA maintains a list of excipients that have been shown to be acceptabe Inactive Ingredients. There are a lot of things I would worry about consuming before I start worrying about the excipients in drugs.
HuckFinn Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Hey no bad-mouthin' gwenyth paltrow!!
Just sayin'
victor809 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
HuckFinn wrote:
Hey no bad-mouthin' gwenyth paltrow!!
Just sayin'


She's a moron, not only because of her fraudulent "Goop" site, but also because she literally refuses to eat any plant in the nightshade family based on levels of some compounds in some of them. It's idiotic.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>