You must log in or register to comment.

CaptainHindsight92 t1_jedqmt5 wrote

Is it just me who is a little skeptical about the boom in weed fixes-all research lately? I know there are many compounds in the plant but it seems a little too good to be true


SaltZookeepergame691 t1_jedqrno wrote

Given their first table reveals fatal mistakes in their basic statistics and randomisation process, I’m with ya ;)


OB1_error t1_jeepnv2 wrote

Could you elaborate? The data in table 1 looks ok to me, but I’m no statistician.


SaltZookeepergame691 t1_jeexi7n wrote

Table 1 is all over the place, which is my point.

Running t-tests on the continuous variables gives very highly significant differences for age, cholesterol, TAGs, HDL, LDL, HbA1c, a small significant difference for BMI, and nearly significant for creatine and insulin.

Take age, the very first item in the table, which is reported as p=0.26. But, it's actually p<0.0001!

Yes, I know some could probably usea non-parametric test, but 1) we only have summary data, 2) they don't say what they used for their p value calculations, 3) I get the same as them for two of the variables using t tests.

These extreme p values are not values you expect, at all, in a true randomised trial: either 1) it is not randomised/randomisation failed; 2) it was initially randomised and these massive differences are caused by them excluding n=3 from the placebo group and n=1 from the intervention group for this table, in which case the fact they've done their analysis in the PP analysis in such clearly different populations makes it not worth bothering with nad not randomised; 3) something more nefarious.

By my reckoning, the only p values for continuous variables that are correct in table 1 are HOMA2-IR and fasting glucose!


joxeloj t1_jegaunh wrote

You're correct that many of the p-values are off. Even some of their Fisher Exact tests are off (e.g. I get p=0.47 for hypertension). I think they probably used Mann-Whitney U tests after a Shapiro-Wilk's p<0.05 for many of these, but I can't prove that without access to their data. It is odd overall.

I will point out they claim to test their primary hypothesis by ANCOVA accounting for baseline values, and randomization is not necessarily pointless even if you don't end up with well-balanced groups by specific endpoints. With that said you could probably get a response published on the basis of some of these discrepancies.


MonkAndCanatella t1_jeejint wrote

  1. Research and acceptance has been stifled by the drug war for so long, you'd be lucky to get funding for research. now it's established as worth the money so the funding has been flowing more freely.
  2. The plant actually does have the miraculous properties and probably even more unknown benefits.
  3. There are definitely some scam artists trying to make a buck on it, but that's true of anything a scam artist thinks they can make a buck on.

Kaiisim t1_jeemoae wrote

A little, but the endocannabinoid system is pretty powerful. Anything that modulates that is likely to have some powerful effects.


GiantAxon t1_jefav3x wrote

Can you explain what you mean by "powerful"? Specifically, I'm curious to hear in what way the cannabinoid system is any more "powerful" than the serotonergic, adrenergic, dopaminergic system, or any other system you feel like comparing it to.

I wonder if "powerful" is referring to the broad variety of "effects" people claim the system modulates. In which case, I wonder if effect size is a better marker for "power" than number of effects claimed/discovered.

I'm growing tired of claims about marijuana being a wonder drug. I think people need to look at the historical context of other wonder drugs like stimulants, opioids, benzos and consider what lessons we might derive from our past experiences with those.


GH057807 t1_jefryyj wrote

The endocannabinoid system regulates homeostasis. Things like sleep, appetite, stress, mood, the ECS keeps us in balance with our own naturally produced cannabinoids. The ECS is arguably one of the most important system in the body. Phytocannabinoids do what our own do, differently and sometimes better.

When you abuse cannabis, your body down regulates it's own cannabinoid production, and relies on the phytocannabinoids instead. This is "tolerance" and "withdrawal".


GiantAxon t1_jefv8x8 wrote

That's nice but I'm looking for evidence that it's a "powerful" system. Wakefulness is mostly regulated by acetylcholine. Mood is mostly regulated by serotonin, but also by norepinephrine and dopamine. Cannabinoids do not regulate homeostasis, because homeostasis is the regulatory mechanism in the body, and relies on multiple systems that interact with eachother to maintain balance.

So far, I've heard from you that cannabinoids might be inplicated in some of these systems, to an extent that I would argue is much smaller than the other systems we are aware of.

I'll repeat my question. What's the evidence that it's "powerful"? Is there any comparison to other systems and neurotransmitters required to make that assertion or are we just saying "I've heard about it doing stuff therefore it's powerful"? I realize I might be asking questions a little bit above the level of a reddit forum. The point I'm trying to make here is that the original assertion was made without any basis whatsoever.


GH057807 t1_jeg1y39 wrote

I suppose that depends on how hard you want to focus on the definition of an adjective.


GiantAxon t1_jeg5lmd wrote

Considering this is r/science and weed is being pushed to anyone and everyone who will pay for every indication under the sun... I want to focus on it really hard.


GH057807 t1_jeg67sz wrote

Well honestly I didn't realize what sub this was in hah, so I hear ya. I don't know if "powerful" is the right word at all for any system then, except maybe the...digestive one.


-little-dorrit- t1_jeepu88 wrote

It’s a rapidly growing and highly lucrative industry. I would always look carefully at the ‘conflict of interest’ section at the bottom of any paper - things that are company funded may not be too trustworthy although they still get published. Then things like sample size and methodology.

On the other side, at the moment there appear to be many potential applications of these plants (hemp/cannabis) and I’m happy so much investigation is going on. Many of these studies are generating initial data that will give hints as to whether it’s worth studying them in greater detail. So I Iook forward to any interesting discoveries that emerge - and the larger replicative studies that then back up the initial hypothesis with robust and reliable evidence.


420blazeit69nubz t1_jeex7in wrote

It’s been stifled for a long time so it makes sense there’s a boom in research as policies loosen


joomla00 t1_jefqffx wrote

Yes. I would use it recreationally by ingestion if you enjoy it. Otherwise let the hype play out


joxeloj t1_jeewatt wrote

I actually work in neuroscience/psychiatry research and I do not see this "weed-fixes-all" research. I am very open to the idea of cannabis being effective for many medical indications but the evidence isn't there, and plenty of it is negative. Are you sure you're not mistaking overstated in vitro work and medical hypotheses-level reviews posted on this subreddit by mouth breathers, with actual evidence for efficacy in medical illness is humans?

This is a phase I double-blind, randomized controlled trial. This is fairly strong in-human evidence. As it stands there is evidence from observational studies that obesity is less common among chronic, frequent cannabis users so a metabolic effect like this would not be unprecedented per se.


katarh t1_jefxio2 wrote

It's not the researchers, it's the scummy Delta-8 marketing websites that want to sell someone a bag of gummies that will simultaneously cure their depression, stop their pain, and miraculously make them lose weight despite the munchies.

(Having played with it a bit, it definitely did ease some of my muscle soreness after a heavy leg workout, but all the other things are just marketing BS and I suspect the FDA is about to crack down on a lot of them.)


mimiflower80 t1_jef4ie5 wrote

I hear all these positives but few, if any warn about CHS. As someone who almost died from it last year, I wish this was part of the THC/CBD conversation. If I had known, I’d have been more careful.


Heineken008 t1_jeftim3 wrote

What is CHS?


mimiflower80 t1_jeg0ix0 wrote

An increasingly common reaction to CBD and THC. Cannabinoid Hyper emesis Syndrome. I personally know at least half a dozen people other than myself who’ve been diagnosed. It’s 10% of abdominal issues in Denver ERs. Once it triggers, you can’t touch THC or CBD for the rest of your life or you’ll inevitably end up back in the ER. You get it from using THC more than 3 days a week, especially the high dose stuff. It makes you violently throw up about every 20 minutes and it can last for days. Even when it stops, you can’t eat normally for weeks and have several “trigger foods” you have to avoid for months or years (including caffeine and alcohol). I almost went into cardiac arrest from low potassium and I have kidney damage from my last event. I will NEVER smoke again. My friends 18 year old was diagnosed last year. So was a co-workers husband. I know lots of people. It’s the most horrible thing I’ve ever experienced. People need to know.


Heineken008 t1_jeg7rj3 wrote

Thanks for the detailed response. I'd never heard of this before.


mimiflower80 t1_jegbbso wrote

Neither had I until I’d been diagnosed. I mean, I had heard my friends daughter was sick and that they thought it was a THC thing, but I can genuinely say I did not grasp the severity.


GiantAxon t1_jefbdov wrote

Hard to sell something if you mention downsides. This is not what modern "research" is about.


Viperbunny t1_jefwpzw wrote

I know there are some issues with this study, but I am gen curious about the effect of marijuana on blood sugars. I know my own experiences are literally just that, but my blood sugars drop when I take my medical marijuana. I have chronic pain and cPTSD and this is what works best for me. I have seen an improvement in my health since I found a good balance and treatment plan. My health is better, and part of that is not feeling crappy and depressed all the time, but it has a noticable effect in other areas. When I upped my CBD (and took it with THC) my inflammation markers lowered. I can't take NSAIDS, so if I am injured this is one thing I go to.

I don't think it cures everything, nor do I see it as a cure. It works nicely with my treatments for certain conditions and it's possible it works well in conjunction with other courses of treatment. It also doesn't mean there are no downsides. The thing is, most people who are on medication for life have to live with downsides like that all the time. Some treatments can be hard on the kidneys, liver heart, or stomach. Some cause neurological issues. Some damage is irreversible. It is all about what does the least harm for the most quality of life. That's never going to be a one size fits all solution and it shouldn't have to be one. I would love to see reliable, reproducible studies, whatever they show. I could be some werid outlier or something else could be going on. Or there could be something to it. I would really like to know more.


AutoModerator t1_jecucbs wrote

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 apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


GooseHenry t1_jeek9fs wrote

Sure, if you make people less anxious they are less likely to make anxiety-driven poor eating choices.


Divtos t1_jefdvzw wrote

So suck on edibles to treat diabetes?


ahfoo t1_jed40lq wrote

Notice that these well known beneficial effects on blood sugar, blood pressure, pulse and gut health from cannabis are always left out when discussing whether or not there is genuine harm in adolescent cannabis use. When it comes to adolescent use, the razor sharp focus is strictly on changes that take place in the brain while the beneficial effects on the rest of the body are ignored.

If cannabis use is beneficial for the health of adults, why are we to believe there is some special case with adolescents that causes them to be harmed by this otherwise beneficial therapeutic with generalized benefits to health?


Mikey6304 t1_jed77to wrote

Just because it has effective medical use for adults does not mean it is perfectly safe and fine for adolescents. Delta9 THC is still psychoactive. There is a reason they don't sell SSRIs over the counter, too. Don't get me wrong, I use sublingual cbd/thc myself, but I'm not going to pretend that there isn't a possibility that using a psychoactive could have a negative effect on the brain.


sylvnal t1_jeejmhi wrote

>negative effect on the brain

The developing brain, at that. Stands to reason that impacts on a fully developed vs developing brain might be different.


McBleezy8 t1_jed95z1 wrote

You can do many things to control blood sugar and to lower cholesterol not just cannabis so it’s not strictly some sort of panacea, but research shows it can help.

What confuses me about what you wrote is basically the idea that some kind of conspiracy exists to deny adolescents cannabis. There have been studies on the affects of cannabis on the adolescent brain for example This one from 2011 shows differences in brain tissue integrity following heavier marijuana use does predict future risky behaviors such as increased marijuana use and aggressive and delinquent behaviors many observational studies in humans imply a link between teen marijuana use and poor outcomes but are clouded by several potential confounding variables, such as socioeconomic circumstances or family mental health history. There does need to be more research but I doubt the conclusion will ever be “it’s so beneficial we recommend all children between 13-17 take it.” It’s always better to err on the side of caution and wait until their adults and brain has fully developed.


SaHFF t1_jed9hc6 wrote

I'd hedge my bets on it being because most adults are over the age where schizophrenia onset is a potential worry


QuietGanache t1_jeefuap wrote

Unlike adults, adolescents have a decent chance of remission for T2DM:

That's not to say strategies like weight loss in affected adults shouldn't be considered too but, as far as I've read, that's more of a management strategy for the broad adult population.