ramriot t1_j17el2q wrote
Full disclosure, the study was of only 29 participants who self-reported their clinical symptoms.
banjosuicide t1_j17wyym wrote
Additionally it was funded by Entoura, whose name is mentioned not infrequently in the paper.
Having worked in research, I've seen it's not uncommon for companies to commission a number of studies and choose to publish only those that happen to support their product. That's not to say this isn't legit, but I'm always wary of industry-sponsored studies.
edit: a word
ImSorry2HearThat t1_j18ugxr wrote
First thing we learned in my psychology 101 class. Always see who funded the research
Doomquill t1_j19eal7 wrote
I'm a stay at home Dad. Probably the single thing I learned in college that I use most often is vetting sources for bias and accuracy.
Trying to figure out how to make a balanced diet is insanely hard, if you're interested in finding actual information about what our bodies actually need.
"Eat carbs!" ~Study by the Carbohydrate Consortium "Eat eggs!" ~Study by the Egg Exhibition "Eat steak!" ~Study by Ranchers Reunited
RafiqTheHero t1_j1ajh3a wrote
Finding a balanced diet by studies alone can be difficult.
But it's hard to go wrong by sticking with minimally processed foods that are mostly plant-based. That's what most cultures around the world have done for hundreds of years, if not longer.
Journalist/author Michael Pollan (who has researched/investigated food a lot) has a saying, which seems pretty helpful. "Eat food, mostly plants, not too much."
The cultures in the world with a high number of people who live to be 100+ essentially eat this way. Not vegetarian, but low meat consumption with an emphasis on vegetables, healthy oils, grains, fruits, nuts, seeds, etc.
Doomquill t1_j1am3yj wrote
I still have a desire to find a hydroponic/greenhouse solution the "simplest sustainable meal", something (or set of somethings) that can provide mostly complete nutrition that can be grown in one's basement or greenhouse or what have you. Unfortunately food variety is both the spice and preserver of life.
IntuitiveMotherhood t1_j1a3zij wrote
Can I have your two cents on a healthy diet? I assume you’ve been here before…
[deleted] t1_j1a7e4t wrote
[removed]
ZebulonPi t1_j18qgtj wrote
I wouldn’t be surprised if most of these Reddit posts were ALSO sponsored by cannabis companies. They make all these claims, with little to no actual clinical research, and then trumpet them out to the masses, all to get people to believe that getting high, which is something they already want to do, is actually somehow good for them. It reminds me of the “alcohol is good for your heart” myth that went around a while ago.
seven_tech t1_j18rv46 wrote
But CBD doesn't get you high....so they have nothing to gain by doing that here.
Edit: nevermind- I read 'cannabis oil' as 'CBD oil'.
For disclosure - I use CBD oil. It doesn't 'help me sleep' but does reduce my anxiety and anxious thoughts, which is what keeps me awake often.
[deleted] t1_j19ncjf wrote
[removed]
PicardTangoAlpha t1_j17zjzl wrote
That’s not double blind or controlled. Headline is fake.
curt15-club t1_j19w90x wrote
Unless I’m missing something it is. Double blind placebo controlled means neither the people taking the drug nor anyone interacting with them knows whether they’re on the placebo or the marijuana, it has nothing to do with the low sample size or self-reported symptoms.
aminervia t1_j183vxs wrote
And, if the placebo doesn't get you high it stops being a placebo and turns into "oh I didn't get the marijuana then"
Also, isn't 60% about the level of the placebo effect? If everyone who received the medication knew they did and only 60% saw improvement doesn't that just mean that it works about the same as a placebo?
Wassux t1_j18jkvn wrote
Idk much about this but I know that is wrong. You cannot cure 60% of problems with placebo. It's 10% more that you can cure with placebo I think
aminervia t1_j19wm2h wrote
"Placebos are extraordinary drugs. They seem to have some effect on almost every symptom known to mankind, and work in at least a third of patients and sometimes in up to 60 percent. "
Wassux t1_j19wunm wrote
Effect, not cure.
And yes because some symptoms just disappear naturally. Headache is a great example.
Insomnia is not like that. Will it have an effect? Ofcourse. But not cure 60% of them.
aminervia t1_j19zf5h wrote
>Effect, not cure.
Where in the article did you read about a "cure"? Where did you read about longer term follow up?
It seems like you don't know what the word "effect" or "cure" means in a medical sense
Wassux t1_j1a0e7y wrote
"No longer classified as insomniacs. "
If you had cancer and you no longer classified as having cancer, would you call that cured or not?
I didn't talk about longer term follow up? Seems like I know the difference just fine. If I am confused somewhere, explaining it is going to get us further than this.
aminervia t1_j1a10d4 wrote
Dude, yes, you don't know anything about cancer either. This is commonly known and discussed... If you had cancer and you're no longer technically classified as having cancer, you are "in remission" not cured.
>I didn't talk about longer term follow up? Seems like I know the difference just fine. If I am confused somewhere, explaining it is going to get us further than this.
A tiny study on insomniacs showed that about 60% (within the placebo range) no longer showed the required symptoms to be diagnosed as insomniacs.
They did not do any long-term follow-up meaning that immediately after treatment they didn't show symptoms, but there's no longer-term documentation. This is absolutely something that the placebo effect could explain away
Wassux t1_j1a7zpe wrote
You just made up that that can be explained by the placebo. If you have form of proof, reasoning or anything at all other than because you say it is I would love to hear it. But I have never heard of placebo curing 60% of a group.
aminervia t1_j1a9wtx wrote
The whole point of having a study like this is to compare the active medication to the placebo. So, you give half the people up the placebo and half the people the real medication.
If you'll go back to my original comment, my point was that this study did not have a placebo trial because you'd automatically know whether or not you got the medication because it made you high.
I already shared a source with you that the placebo effect can go up to 60%, and this is especially true with medication that a lot of people are excited about.
Therefore, because this study did not have a reasonable control, there's no way of knowing whether or not the benefit from the active medication isn't placebo.
I've already explained everything to you now, I've already shared a source. You've already explained that you don't know much about this... I'm not sure what else there is to argue about?
Blake198624601 t1_j1ayhwd wrote
Placebo effect ≠ therapeutic effectiveness. If 60% can be expected to experience the placebo effect, that doesn’t mean that 60% will experience therapeutic relief.
spaceherpe61 t1_j18kbd3 wrote
Full disclosure, I was having sleeping issues and decided to try medical marijuana. Sleep like a baby now.
ramriot t1_j18kp7h wrote
Damn, I reported same to my doctor & all I got was this CPAP machine.
It works great, but damn has I known I would have opted for the good stuff.
JoeWhy2 t1_j196uns wrote
So they were "clinical insomniacs" until someone actually watched them sleep.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments