The real difference between 7-hydroxymitragynine and mitragynine to clear up confusion about MGM and DHM.

The difference comes down to what kind of bonds are present and whether sodium borohydride reduction has a suitable target.

Sodium borohydride (NaBH₄) works by delivering a hydride ion (H⁻) to bonds that are electron-poor (electrophilic). The classic example is a carbonyl (C=O) group. In a C=O bond, oxygen pulls electron density toward itself, leaving the carbon partially positive. That makes the carbon “electron hungry,” so it readily accepts a hydride from NaBH₄.

In 7-hydroxymitragynine, there is a carbonyl-like (C=O) functionality within an enone system. This bond is polarized and electrophilic, so NaBH₄ can donate hydride to the carbonyl carbon. The result is reduction of that system and formation of dihydro-7-hydroxymitragynine(MGM-15). Because the molecule contains a clear, reactive C=O site, the reaction is selective and proceeds under mild conditions.

In contrast, mitragynine does NOT contain a comparable carbonyl or strongly polarized bond. Its unsaturation is mainly in the form of C=C double bonds and an aromatic system. These C=C bonds are nonpolar and relatively stable, meaning they are not electron deficient and do not readily accept hydride. As a result, NaBH₄ has no effective site to attack, and no reduction occurs under normal conditions.

In summary, NaBH₄ reduction works for 7-hydroxymitragynine because it contains an electron-poor C=O bond that can accept hydride, whereas mitragynine lacks this functional group and instead contains stable, non-electrophilic C=C bonds that do not undergo hydride addition.

Basically, the rumors that DHM is created with the same reaction as MGM, but starting with MIT instead of 7oh, are scientifically false. It is not possible to do that reaction to MIT. In order to add the hydride to MIT, you would have to use an incredibly powerful catalyst that would not be selective. It would create many different isomers and molecules, because it would change many different bonds instead of the selective reduction that NaBH₄ does to 7oh to create MGM. Because of this, DHM would be incredibly difficult to create, and yield would be really low due to the non-selectivity of the reaction. Many different isomers and molecules would be created that would have to be removed to create a somewhat pure DHM product. I'm not saying that DHM is impossible to create, but it is not possible to create in the way that people think(same reaction as MGM but starting with MIT). This is the reason why DHM does not exist on the market as of now. It is purely a code-name for MGM. The reason why people feel that they "feel different" is because these DHM smoke shop products are incredibly underdosed (and the labs that HAVE been done show this). This is why "DHM" tabs feel weaker than MGM tabs from a reputable vendor (and why they don't last as long, why it's harder to get PWD, and why the withdrawals are easier to manage and covered better by 7oh and MIT).

I have a feeling that the people who really need to know this, will just deny it and refuse to listen. But I've been dying inside seeing everyone say that DHM tabs are not MGM, or speculating that the reason MGM sucks now is because they are making it from MIT instead of 7. It just isn't possible; chemistry doesn't work that way.

Also the reason MGM isn't what it used to be is because of the freebases everywhere. People only care about potency percentages, which is why freebase is everywhere now. Salts aren't as high of a percentage as freebase, but salts absorb WAY better than freebase. That is why they hit so well. I also think many of the "salts" on the market now are only partially salted, meaning there's still a lot of freebase left in the product (likely either to boost lab percentages, or just to cut costs associated with making a high quality salt).

Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.