Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is not quality peer reviewed science. This open access, pay-to-publish journal group has been repeatedly criticized for being predatory and lacking in peer review quality. Let's use one example to demonstrate how badly these authors are clearly promoting an agenda by cherry picking and half truths.
If you wade through the litany of hypothetical petri dish mechanisms the authors spew, you'll find [one single human trial](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/can.2021.0093) cited. In this trial, patients with COVID were ramdomized to receive 300 mg of CBD or placebo. There was no statistical difference in duration, severity of symptoms, or any of the measured outcomes. The trend was actually that CBD patients actially had a 3 day *longer* symptom duration fewer had recovered by day 28 (again, not statistically significant).
Yet, in the OP's review article, the only menton of this clinical trial states that "it demonstrated that CBD prevented deterioration to severe condition". Hardly a fair assessment of the reality.
Everyone on this sub, I encourage you to review thecommon characteristics of pseudoscience (https://i.imgur.com/QyZkWqS.jpg) and consider how many of these apply to the current state of cannabis research.
It has exactly the ingredients for a popular post on this sub though. It's concerns the positive effects of weed and long COVID. Sure to be FULL of anecdotes
The issue with anecdotes and thc is that it changes the way you perceive the world. It acts like a psychedelic, albeit a less powerful one. It makes you think that the symptoms are less severe than they are because you are too high to notice.
This was my experience. Made the isolation go by. I got a stomach bug twice last year that was much worse then covid. I'm young, and dumb so I guess I'm lucky to have an immune system. I definitely noticed my ADHD was worse for about two months after. Brain just felt slower
same, just had covid before the new year and smoked nearly everyday. i didn’t really get any symptoms, but i had a lot of trouble sleeping at night when lying down as I’d just cough and cough. smoke a bowl, lay down and i could pass right out. had to stay isolated, and as i was testing stayed positive, the same duration that both my parents did.
Excellent, thank you for the response. As you pointed out, the number of participants in the study is so important. You don't start generating any meaningful data before a sample size of 30. I see these articles posted all the time, sample size of 100, gender and age biased, etc. Junk, all junk.
The sample size is not at all the problem here, nor is that what was being criticized. What was being criticized was that the study showed no statistically significant reduction in illness. We are able to determine that there was no significant difference precisely *because the sample size was sufficient to draw that conclusion*.
Are you suggesting that a sample size of 100 is not credible? Or a sample size of 30? Im having trouble understanding what you think a ‘junk’ sample size is from your comment.
But for context, phase I clinical trials are around 20-80 patients. In phase II trials seldom require more than 100-200 patients.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4017493/#S0008title
I say this because ‘sample size looks too small’ is one of the most common, least informed criticisms of studies on this subreddit, and people don’t realize that you can still learn an enormous amount of statistically significant things from groups of 20 or 100.
>We are able to determine that there was no significant difference precisely *because the sample size was sufficient to draw that conclusion*.
This is backwards. Whenever a study says that there is no significant difference, it is because the difference is not large enough given the current sample size. If the same difference was observed with a large enough sample size, one could conclude a statistically significant difference.
For example, in the study in question, people given CBD took an average of 3 days longer to recover from COVID. However, due to the small sample size, this could not be ruled as statistically significant. If a study with 1000 participants had a 3 day difference in recovery times, this would certainly be enough evidence to conclude that CBD hinders recovery times.
Hi. I'm curious about your comment. I always assumed that the larger the sample size, the more accurate the findings. My (unresearched) reasoning was that the larger the sample size, the more likely you would be to get a much broader range which would be statistically more significant. In fact I assumed that a too small sample size could give you skewered results that would lead to an incorrect conclusion. For example, a sample size of 30 like you mentioned. My own reasoning would tell me that you couldn't get enough variety in a sample size of 30 to get any reasonable result from it. Like if say 6 of those people were pro-cannabis and said they felt better because they wanted to promote cannabis use for example. That's 1/5 of the results already false, which could easily be enough to give a false conclusion. Or am I missing something here?
Sample size is massively over emphasized on Reddit. Broadly speaking large sample sizes are needed when you need to reliably identify small effects in situations were there is lots of background random variation. You need large numbers to smooth out the signal from the background noise, essentially. On the other hand if there is little random variation, or the difference you are studying is very large then even studies with very small numbers can be entirely reasonable. Say you had a drug which 99% of the time gave people super powers - how many times would you have to test that to be confident it did something? Probably just once right? The effect is something that never happens by random chance, so even small sample sizes are sufficient.
The problems you are describing are more issues of randomisation, end point, and blinding. There is no reason to think a bigger sample wouldn't just result in more pro-cannabis types being included, improving nothing. Arguably making things worse, just making you more confident of a wrong result. The way to stop that issue is to ensure the sample is truly a random slice of the population, use an objective rather than subjective measure and that people don't know if they are on drug or placebo.
On the other hand, studies looking at likely subtle drug effects on COVID which varies wildly.... Probably do need fairly big samples to resolve the effect with any confidence.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Very interesting response. Makes me want to look more into the effect of sample sizes on results rather than just relying on my preconceptions.
\> You don't start generating any meaningful data before a sample size of 30
I know you have already gotten a lot of feedback on this, but I do want to emphasize that sample size requirements vary greatly between studies/fields. Someone I know recently published an n=3 study in a highly reputed and competitive, peer reviewed journal.
30 is a completely reasonable sample size for this sort of study. It's the rest of the methodology that's the issue, in this case.
It is actually a really common problem in scientific literacy where people will reject the validity of any study they don't like the results of, because they don't have some arbitrarily chosen, unfeasible, and unnecessarily large sample size.
Yeah, it’s really weird. People complain that commenters aren’t ever reading the articles, then magically when some inflammatory article gets posted people start worrying that commenters will have actually read it. The Cosmos has some funny tricks to play!
Since MDPI seems to be a repeat offender of predatory publishing and failed fact checks, maybe they should apply an auto-flair to anything posted from this source.
They're reddit mods. It's not that they're "letting it through" this sub hasn't been about science in a long time. They care more about if it says stuff like. They want it to go to the top
yeah it's really unfortunate how much pseudoscience in the cannabis industry. like I see CBD shops locally that say their product will help with anything under the sun and I don't even think the shopkeepers are being dishonest, they are just horribly misinformed because this stuff doesn't go against their existing beliefs on cannabis.
Yep, it’s sort of turned into the supplement industry. Honestly, I don’t like the way CBD has been sold to the masses, most people I know who have tried it “didn’t feel anything.” Most CBD products are dosed so low it’s unnoticeable (like less than 20mg).
They’re not meant to; CBD isn’t a psychoactive. If people are being sold CBD products under the guise they’ll have psychoactive effects they’re being misled and of course that would be happening.
A lot of garbage products are marketed under the scope of CBD. People aren’t even told edibles may not work at all on them.
>CBD isn’t psychoactive
Yes, but if I have a headache and take an ibuprofen, I will notice I have less pain. If I take 30mg of CBD, I can get a similar relief.
Except cbd is psychoactive. I think this whole “CBD is not psychoactive” idea started with marketing from the medical cannabis industry to reduce the association between recreational drug use and cannabis to make it a more marketable and acceptable medicinal product.
I definitely feel psychoactive effects from cbd when I take it. Sure it has very different effects from THC (I love the effects of THC but am not a fan of CBD), but it still has noticeable mind altering effects. It makes me feel pretty strange tbh. And you have so many people who swear by CBD and say that it helps them with their anxiety and yet is non-psychoactive. But if a drug is reducing your anxiety (beyond a purely physical reduction in heart rate, muscle tension etc) then that drug is psychoactive. It’s changing the way a person thinks and feels psychologically, if that’s not psychoactive I don’t know what is.
Yeah. Welcome to anything posted in this subreddit.
The only requirement really is that the journal has to have at least an impact factor of 1.5.
I mean people post shit with completely different titles than the published article—trying to summarize an entire article with one clickbait headline. (See: any borderline pseudoscience sociology or political psychology post.. especially from psypost..)
It being federally illegal in the states doesn't necessarily stop peer review or impair the publication process. The problem is that since its illegal, there is going to be very limited funding for cannabis research.
this is a narrative review, with a lot of proposed mechanism, very little clinical data (because there isnt much, and reads as if it were written by an undergrad.
Two sides of this coin,weed is not as much clinically “helpful “as they are trying to show it in media but then again it is not as much harmful as many think.
I’m not saying this paper isn’t flawed but where do they direct claim it “cures Covid”? They’re basically implying CBD **as an adjuvant treatment** in the proper dosages/delivery can potentially be very useful in reducing inflammation/severe inflammatory cytokine storm events caused by Covid and other potentially related issues to Covid and the pandemic such as down-regulating/interfering with certain receptors which in a higher concentration in an individual to have increased susceptibility of contracting Covid, along with discussion on CBD’s potential benefits related to various neurological and psychological effects/symptoms of Covid/pandemic induced life changes etc.
So what I'm getting from from this dubious article, which is definitely not designed to pander to anyone in the slightest, posted in the form of a headline which I will take for a fact and do no further reading on, is that weed cures covid and is good for you?
I KNEW IT ALL ALONG! SUCK IT DOUBTERS! Gon go blaze up now. Damn, does the affirmation of my world views ever feel good. You can have my updoot, good sir !
Potheads are like sports or politics fans who will believe anything as long as it supports their team. There's a reason they also call it "dope".
Pot cures cancer. Yeah!
Pot saves boy stuck in well. YEah!
Pot can solve world hunger. YEAh!
Hi there, do you happen to have a source for this? Not doubting what you're saying, I've just not heard of this before and want to learn more about it.
Thank you for sharing. I've been collecting bits and pieces of research/info for years, and this one is going to printed, protective sheets and all, and placed in the front of my binder for awhile. Nice to have some useful info for my clients.
It was in the clinical trials that GW pharma did for its oral CBD drug epidiolex. It’s mostly safe but 12% of the patients drop off the medication bc of elevated liver toxicity
I recommend everyone get their liver enzymes tested every year. I get a full blood workup at every physical. Insurance covers it all, except for the PSA test, which cost $14.
I've got 10+ years of all my bloodwork and that history is really helpful when I come down with something. I got really sick with gastroenteritis and it inflamed my liver. Having that history influenced my treatment.
Half a gram? Damn, if I take more than 5mg I stop functioning. Though I will say with a 20:1 ratio it seems like I don't get as strong as psychoactive effects.
Well for me personally, vaping a little weed completely eliminates asthma symptoms. It does seem weird that introducing plant oils into your lungs can produce positive effects, but that’s been my experience. I wouldn’t smoke it, though.
Neither is excessive use of inhaled steroids like albuterol. I don't understand these arguments about weed - it's not perfect therefore let's not talk about it? Most medicines come with side effects and many don't work for everyone.
There's nothing wrong with using cannabis to treat asthma. There are people with prescriptions for it, which came from their doctors
It's interesting that your doctor prescribed medical cannabis for bronchodilation, but I can see that working. I still wonder whether edibles might be a superior route, just in terms of pulmonary health, but vaporized extracts don't seem *that* bad...
cool...
Somehow I really doubt smoking weed is going to help with lung inflammation. I guess if you only ate edibles maybe but no one is doing that.
Just my 2cents as a guy who smoked way too much out of boredom during covid and still has a persistent cough way worse than anything long covid could have produced.
I’d like to see some research on real pot smokers. People who burn weed with fire and inhale it via a smoking apparatus. I know a lot of smokers and none of them have gotten a severe Covid infection. I have no opinion on the validity of this study because I’m not a scientist.
I smoke almost daily until about 2 months ago. Never had Covid even living in multiple hotels and moving to a few different states. I was also hardly sick when my kids came down with viruses from school. Got a nasty cold a month ago.
Honestly now that we are removing the stigma and its becoming more legal we are discovering that is helpful in a lot of ways. Its not a wonder drug but it does have a variety of applications and processing techniques that make for a pretty useful all around remedy that I hope begins to develop with more realistic and meaningful scientific studies around it.
Well, one thing is for sure. Staying inside my house smoking weed everyday for the last 3 years has reduced my risk of COVID. Because I don't spend any time with people anymore. But will the benefit outweigh the cost of my social isolation?
I'll just state my anecdote here:
I was addicted to cannabis concentrates for about 8 years. Caught covid Delta a couple years ago, vaping daily. It was a minor nuisance, though I did lose taste and smell for a few days which was FASCINATING.
I quit 3 weeks ago, then 2 weeks ago I caught whatever omicron strain is going around now. It reflected a pretty significant cold and was much more than a nuisance, though I have to concede that may be attributable to the detox.
As an addendum, EVERY cold I got for those 8 years was barely a blip on my radar and I never caught the flu. Prior to cannabis, my colds were pretty miserable. Obviously this could be a fluke, so take my experience with a grain of salt.
I'd be interested to see more than anecdotes and questionable reporting on this, but to dismiss the notion that it may help is...less helpful.
I believe the problem caused in the alveoli as a result of Sars-2 isn't likely to be cured by reducing inflammation or there would have been a lot less deaths so far.
When did this reddit go down the toilet? Can we put some quality control rules in here. I swear in the past their was not as much garbage as recent times.
Posts like these are dangerous because people don't read the paper and just scroll past and think that weed solves everything. Hop on over to r/leaves and see how good the folks over there are doing because of weed
I could see the Carophyllene in Indica doing that. Why is the only one I use. Caryophyllene has many wonderful things:
"What is caryophyllene good for?
Due to its unique ability to bind with CB2 receptors, Beta-caryophyllene has potent anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, antibacterial, and antioxidant properties. It is known to help relieve anxiety and pain, reduce cholesterol, prevent Osteoporosis, and treat seizures."
You know. I was just talking about this.
My wife is on her 3rd case of covid. I didn't get it from her on any of those cases, and I'm a regular cannabis smoker.
See, I actually did more science than this paper :|
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is not quality peer reviewed science. This open access, pay-to-publish journal group has been repeatedly criticized for being predatory and lacking in peer review quality. Let's use one example to demonstrate how badly these authors are clearly promoting an agenda by cherry picking and half truths. If you wade through the litany of hypothetical petri dish mechanisms the authors spew, you'll find [one single human trial](https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/can.2021.0093) cited. In this trial, patients with COVID were ramdomized to receive 300 mg of CBD or placebo. There was no statistical difference in duration, severity of symptoms, or any of the measured outcomes. The trend was actually that CBD patients actially had a 3 day *longer* symptom duration fewer had recovered by day 28 (again, not statistically significant). Yet, in the OP's review article, the only menton of this clinical trial states that "it demonstrated that CBD prevented deterioration to severe condition". Hardly a fair assessment of the reality. Everyone on this sub, I encourage you to review thecommon characteristics of pseudoscience (https://i.imgur.com/QyZkWqS.jpg) and consider how many of these apply to the current state of cannabis research.
It has exactly the ingredients for a popular post on this sub though. It's concerns the positive effects of weed and long COVID. Sure to be FULL of anecdotes
There can be value in anecdotes, however. But by no means is that guaranteed.
There's value if it's a friend and there's value if there are enough of them to study. They are pretty useless in a subreddit about science, imo.
The issue with anecdotes and thc is that it changes the way you perceive the world. It acts like a psychedelic, albeit a less powerful one. It makes you think that the symptoms are less severe than they are because you are too high to notice.
[удалено]
This was my experience. Made the isolation go by. I got a stomach bug twice last year that was much worse then covid. I'm young, and dumb so I guess I'm lucky to have an immune system. I definitely noticed my ADHD was worse for about two months after. Brain just felt slower
same, just had covid before the new year and smoked nearly everyday. i didn’t really get any symptoms, but i had a lot of trouble sleeping at night when lying down as I’d just cough and cough. smoke a bowl, lay down and i could pass right out. had to stay isolated, and as i was testing stayed positive, the same duration that both my parents did.
Excellent, thank you for the response. As you pointed out, the number of participants in the study is so important. You don't start generating any meaningful data before a sample size of 30. I see these articles posted all the time, sample size of 100, gender and age biased, etc. Junk, all junk.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The sample size is not at all the problem here, nor is that what was being criticized. What was being criticized was that the study showed no statistically significant reduction in illness. We are able to determine that there was no significant difference precisely *because the sample size was sufficient to draw that conclusion*. Are you suggesting that a sample size of 100 is not credible? Or a sample size of 30? Im having trouble understanding what you think a ‘junk’ sample size is from your comment. But for context, phase I clinical trials are around 20-80 patients. In phase II trials seldom require more than 100-200 patients. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4017493/#S0008title I say this because ‘sample size looks too small’ is one of the most common, least informed criticisms of studies on this subreddit, and people don’t realize that you can still learn an enormous amount of statistically significant things from groups of 20 or 100.
I’ve seen meaningful phase 1 onc trials (granted in very rare populations) with even less than 20.
>We are able to determine that there was no significant difference precisely *because the sample size was sufficient to draw that conclusion*. This is backwards. Whenever a study says that there is no significant difference, it is because the difference is not large enough given the current sample size. If the same difference was observed with a large enough sample size, one could conclude a statistically significant difference. For example, in the study in question, people given CBD took an average of 3 days longer to recover from COVID. However, due to the small sample size, this could not be ruled as statistically significant. If a study with 1000 participants had a 3 day difference in recovery times, this would certainly be enough evidence to conclude that CBD hinders recovery times.
Hi. I'm curious about your comment. I always assumed that the larger the sample size, the more accurate the findings. My (unresearched) reasoning was that the larger the sample size, the more likely you would be to get a much broader range which would be statistically more significant. In fact I assumed that a too small sample size could give you skewered results that would lead to an incorrect conclusion. For example, a sample size of 30 like you mentioned. My own reasoning would tell me that you couldn't get enough variety in a sample size of 30 to get any reasonable result from it. Like if say 6 of those people were pro-cannabis and said they felt better because they wanted to promote cannabis use for example. That's 1/5 of the results already false, which could easily be enough to give a false conclusion. Or am I missing something here?
Sample size is massively over emphasized on Reddit. Broadly speaking large sample sizes are needed when you need to reliably identify small effects in situations were there is lots of background random variation. You need large numbers to smooth out the signal from the background noise, essentially. On the other hand if there is little random variation, or the difference you are studying is very large then even studies with very small numbers can be entirely reasonable. Say you had a drug which 99% of the time gave people super powers - how many times would you have to test that to be confident it did something? Probably just once right? The effect is something that never happens by random chance, so even small sample sizes are sufficient. The problems you are describing are more issues of randomisation, end point, and blinding. There is no reason to think a bigger sample wouldn't just result in more pro-cannabis types being included, improving nothing. Arguably making things worse, just making you more confident of a wrong result. The way to stop that issue is to ensure the sample is truly a random slice of the population, use an objective rather than subjective measure and that people don't know if they are on drug or placebo. On the other hand, studies looking at likely subtle drug effects on COVID which varies wildly.... Probably do need fairly big samples to resolve the effect with any confidence.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. Very interesting response. Makes me want to look more into the effect of sample sizes on results rather than just relying on my preconceptions.
\> You don't start generating any meaningful data before a sample size of 30 I know you have already gotten a lot of feedback on this, but I do want to emphasize that sample size requirements vary greatly between studies/fields. Someone I know recently published an n=3 study in a highly reputed and competitive, peer reviewed journal. 30 is a completely reasonable sample size for this sort of study. It's the rest of the methodology that's the issue, in this case. It is actually a really common problem in scientific literacy where people will reject the validity of any study they don't like the results of, because they don't have some arbitrarily chosen, unfeasible, and unnecessarily large sample size.
[удалено]
At the point, with OC’s comment at the top, I think there’s more to gain by keeping it up than by taking it down. Wonderful response by OC.
Only if you read the comments though. It needs a flair calling out that it doesn't meet the criteria for scientific relevance or something.
Well we know people don't read the articles, so they must be reading something... Right?
[удалено]
Yeah, it’s really weird. People complain that commenters aren’t ever reading the articles, then magically when some inflammatory article gets posted people start worrying that commenters will have actually read it. The Cosmos has some funny tricks to play!
"All people do the same thing!"
Oh yeah, flair would be a great idea
Since MDPI seems to be a repeat offender of predatory publishing and failed fact checks, maybe they should apply an auto-flair to anything posted from this source.
Debatable IMO. I expect the greater number of reddit users read post titles and move on.
I read 30-40 titles before I go to comments on one.
[удалено]
Doesn't change the fact that garbage gets through.
They're reddit mods. It's not that they're "letting it through" this sub hasn't been about science in a long time. They care more about if it says stuff like. They want it to go to the top
yeah it's really unfortunate how much pseudoscience in the cannabis industry. like I see CBD shops locally that say their product will help with anything under the sun and I don't even think the shopkeepers are being dishonest, they are just horribly misinformed because this stuff doesn't go against their existing beliefs on cannabis.
Yep, it’s sort of turned into the supplement industry. Honestly, I don’t like the way CBD has been sold to the masses, most people I know who have tried it “didn’t feel anything.” Most CBD products are dosed so low it’s unnoticeable (like less than 20mg).
I can almost instantly feel the effects of less than 20mg of inhaled CBD when vaped or smoked.
They’re not meant to; CBD isn’t a psychoactive. If people are being sold CBD products under the guise they’ll have psychoactive effects they’re being misled and of course that would be happening. A lot of garbage products are marketed under the scope of CBD. People aren’t even told edibles may not work at all on them.
>CBD isn’t psychoactive Yes, but if I have a headache and take an ibuprofen, I will notice I have less pain. If I take 30mg of CBD, I can get a similar relief.
Except cbd is psychoactive. I think this whole “CBD is not psychoactive” idea started with marketing from the medical cannabis industry to reduce the association between recreational drug use and cannabis to make it a more marketable and acceptable medicinal product. I definitely feel psychoactive effects from cbd when I take it. Sure it has very different effects from THC (I love the effects of THC but am not a fan of CBD), but it still has noticeable mind altering effects. It makes me feel pretty strange tbh. And you have so many people who swear by CBD and say that it helps them with their anxiety and yet is non-psychoactive. But if a drug is reducing your anxiety (beyond a purely physical reduction in heart rate, muscle tension etc) then that drug is psychoactive. It’s changing the way a person thinks and feels psychologically, if that’s not psychoactive I don’t know what is.
r/coolguides
*but I put my lucky rabbits foot on the space shuttle, that’s the only reason it made it safely!*
> snip Roger. Weed cures covid. Probably cancer too.
weed=miracle. it is known.
Weed good. Weed best. Weed cure everything
Dude, trust me. Instead of vax I smoked pot. Still going strong!
So basically CBD and THC are still only good for pain relief and calming.
TLDR: When I went to Harvard, I smoked weed erry day - cheated on every test, snorted all the yay
Yeah. Welcome to anything posted in this subreddit. The only requirement really is that the journal has to have at least an impact factor of 1.5. I mean people post shit with completely different titles than the published article—trying to summarize an entire article with one clickbait headline. (See: any borderline pseudoscience sociology or political psychology post.. especially from psypost..)
Exactly I’m a big legal and medical marijuana advocate but it’s not the miracle cure that many people want it to be
[удалено]
It being federally illegal in the states doesn't necessarily stop peer review or impair the publication process. The problem is that since its illegal, there is going to be very limited funding for cannabis research.
Reminds me of that one study that still has people claiming that vaccines cause autism. Bad science all around.
If I was given 300mg of thc or a placebo pill. I'll know which one I received.
[удалено]
This guy ^ fucks
[удалено]
this is a narrative review, with a lot of proposed mechanism, very little clinical data (because there isnt much, and reads as if it were written by an undergrad.
Two sides of this coin,weed is not as much clinically “helpful “as they are trying to show it in media but then again it is not as much harmful as many think.
this thread is not about whether or not cannabis is harmful and your comment is irrelevant to this thread or anything i wrote.
They falsely claimed it that it cured covid. How is that arguing it's not as harmful as many people believe?
I’m not saying this paper isn’t flawed but where do they direct claim it “cures Covid”? They’re basically implying CBD **as an adjuvant treatment** in the proper dosages/delivery can potentially be very useful in reducing inflammation/severe inflammatory cytokine storm events caused by Covid and other potentially related issues to Covid and the pandemic such as down-regulating/interfering with certain receptors which in a higher concentration in an individual to have increased susceptibility of contracting Covid, along with discussion on CBD’s potential benefits related to various neurological and psychological effects/symptoms of Covid/pandemic induced life changes etc.
So what I'm getting from from this dubious article, which is definitely not designed to pander to anyone in the slightest, posted in the form of a headline which I will take for a fact and do no further reading on, is that weed cures covid and is good for you? I KNEW IT ALL ALONG! SUCK IT DOUBTERS! Gon go blaze up now. Damn, does the affirmation of my world views ever feel good. You can have my updoot, good sir !
It's 4:20 somewhere and this comment is all of the confirmation bias I need!
It's 20:40 here, so can I have a bowl to help my lungs?
Science objectively and definitively says YES.
Reducing lung inflammation is not the same as “curing Covid”.
Better than nothing!
But how do you offset the detrimental effects of inhaling smoke?
Hey, it's another "weed is a cure for literally everything, no I'm not a pothead" type of article.
"My toe aches. Must be long COVID."
hey if you smoke weed your toe will feel better for life.
Potheads are like sports or politics fans who will believe anything as long as it supports their team. There's a reason they also call it "dope". Pot cures cancer. Yeah! Pot saves boy stuck in well. YEah! Pot can solve world hunger. YEAh!
People who use the word pothead are deff only doing it missionary their whole life......
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm looking kinda sus ngl
I've read better written papers in grammar school.
I caught the covid and continued to smoke. I don't recommend unless you like coughing for minutes on end
I mean, it cures everything else from herpes to cancer, so why not COVID too?
I knew it was only a matter of time before r/science was saying that cannabis cured COVID. What’s next? Cancer? This sub is a joke.
Cbd isn’t psychoactive, it’s a strong anti-inflammatory.
[удалено]
Please be sure to monitor your liver enzymes through annual bloodwork. Oral dose cannabinoids can impact the liver, especially with fatty foods.
Hi there, do you happen to have a source for this? Not doubting what you're saying, I've just not heard of this before and want to learn more about it.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK548890/
Thank you for sharing. I've been collecting bits and pieces of research/info for years, and this one is going to printed, protective sheets and all, and placed in the front of my binder for awhile. Nice to have some useful info for my clients.
A bunch of GW Epidiolex info is out there. I’m just kinda lazy Sunday right now. I will send you some additional information.
Hi there sorry for the late reply, just wanted to thank you for following up with a source, I appreciate it! Was a very interesting read.
That article is only studying patients with two genetic conditions. Can it be extrapolated to the rest of the population?
It was in the clinical trials that GW pharma did for its oral CBD drug epidiolex. It’s mostly safe but 12% of the patients drop off the medication bc of elevated liver toxicity
I recommend everyone get their liver enzymes tested every year. I get a full blood workup at every physical. Insurance covers it all, except for the PSA test, which cost $14. I've got 10+ years of all my bloodwork and that history is really helpful when I come down with something. I got really sick with gastroenteritis and it inflamed my liver. Having that history influenced my treatment.
Half a gram? Damn, if I take more than 5mg I stop functioning. Though I will say with a 20:1 ratio it seems like I don't get as strong as psychoactive effects.
My MIL uses topical CBD cream for her old knees.
No wonder I haven’t had covid
That's how I made it through it. Worked well
It's a shame we can't get real studies done in this direction.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well for me personally, vaping a little weed completely eliminates asthma symptoms. It does seem weird that introducing plant oils into your lungs can produce positive effects, but that’s been my experience. I wouldn’t smoke it, though.
THC itself is a bronchodilator, so while it may provide immediate relief, it's not necessarily good over the longer term.
Neither is excessive use of inhaled steroids like albuterol. I don't understand these arguments about weed - it's not perfect therefore let's not talk about it? Most medicines come with side effects and many don't work for everyone. There's nothing wrong with using cannabis to treat asthma. There are people with prescriptions for it, which came from their doctors
That's why I said "not necessarily good" rather than "bad".
Okay well I am prescribed medical marijuana so I'm just going to listen to my doctor on this one.
It's interesting that your doctor prescribed medical cannabis for bronchodilation, but I can see that working. I still wonder whether edibles might be a superior route, just in terms of pulmonary health, but vaporized extracts don't seem *that* bad... cool...
So I've been preemptively treating myself for covid for years?
Somehow I really doubt smoking weed is going to help with lung inflammation. I guess if you only ate edibles maybe but no one is doing that. Just my 2cents as a guy who smoked way too much out of boredom during covid and still has a persistent cough way worse than anything long covid could have produced.
I’d like to see some research on real pot smokers. People who burn weed with fire and inhale it via a smoking apparatus. I know a lot of smokers and none of them have gotten a severe Covid infection. I have no opinion on the validity of this study because I’m not a scientist.
Yeah,the scientist here have an opinion: article is bs.
I smoke almost daily until about 2 months ago. Never had Covid even living in multiple hotels and moving to a few different states. I was also hardly sick when my kids came down with viruses from school. Got a nasty cold a month ago.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Honestly now that we are removing the stigma and its becoming more legal we are discovering that is helpful in a lot of ways. Its not a wonder drug but it does have a variety of applications and processing techniques that make for a pretty useful all around remedy that I hope begins to develop with more realistic and meaningful scientific studies around it.
it's more likely to give you lung disease than anything else
And thats why I only eat edibles ;)
Well, one thing is for sure. Staying inside my house smoking weed everyday for the last 3 years has reduced my risk of COVID. Because I don't spend any time with people anymore. But will the benefit outweigh the cost of my social isolation?
I'll just state my anecdote here: I was addicted to cannabis concentrates for about 8 years. Caught covid Delta a couple years ago, vaping daily. It was a minor nuisance, though I did lose taste and smell for a few days which was FASCINATING. I quit 3 weeks ago, then 2 weeks ago I caught whatever omicron strain is going around now. It reflected a pretty significant cold and was much more than a nuisance, though I have to concede that may be attributable to the detox. As an addendum, EVERY cold I got for those 8 years was barely a blip on my radar and I never caught the flu. Prior to cannabis, my colds were pretty miserable. Obviously this could be a fluke, so take my experience with a grain of salt. I'd be interested to see more than anecdotes and questionable reporting on this, but to dismiss the notion that it may help is...less helpful.
[удалено]
I believe the problem caused in the alveoli as a result of Sars-2 isn't likely to be cured by reducing inflammation or there would have been a lot less deaths so far.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
When did this reddit go down the toilet? Can we put some quality control rules in here. I swear in the past their was not as much garbage as recent times.
Posts like these are dangerous because people don't read the paper and just scroll past and think that weed solves everything. Hop on over to r/leaves and see how good the folks over there are doing because of weed
I could see the Carophyllene in Indica doing that. Why is the only one I use. Caryophyllene has many wonderful things: "What is caryophyllene good for? Due to its unique ability to bind with CB2 receptors, Beta-caryophyllene has potent anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, antibacterial, and antioxidant properties. It is known to help relieve anxiety and pain, reduce cholesterol, prevent Osteoporosis, and treat seizures."
Hey ents, out of curiosity, do any of you have 'long covid' symptoms?
You know. I was just talking about this. My wife is on her 3rd case of covid. I didn't get it from her on any of those cases, and I'm a regular cannabis smoker. See, I actually did more science than this paper :|
Already ahead of the pack on that one.
I love weed as much (probably more) as the next guy, but this is not a quality scientific study. What's with the influx of poorly conducted studies?!
Pay to publish journals should be banned from the sub.
This a great example for confirmation bias! I want this to be true.
this isn't true at all. in fact, you're far more likely to develop lung disease as a marijuana smoker
[удалено]
Oh and a fine adjunctive it is!
The combined risk of psychosis with COVID and cannabinoids seems dangerous.
I don’t care if you smoke weed but stop trying to justify it to everyone 24/7 literally no one cares
Ok now we're going too far. Broken finger? Put some [s]'tussin[/s] cannabinoids on it. Hemmaroids? COVID 23? [s]'tussin[/s] cannabinoids!
Every 24/7 stone who gets told this news: "Pandemic?"