I'm fairly certain most venomous critters are poisonous if eaten, but we could probably defer to the historical dietary habits of the Aborigines to learn more about that.

Value ≠ valuable. Value refers to quality of goods relative to price. "Valuable" means "worth a lot of money".

A school of Tibetan Buddhism.

It's also entirely off-topic, and the author of the comment should remove it since it has very little to do with the research at hand.

I look forward to reading your paper about it. :-p

Thanks for actually writing something cogent, rather than "psypost is a trash rag" like most people seem to say.

Do you have sources? You're also implying that this would be the same way, but that's not a very good reason to believe that to be the case.

I mean, I agree with the two commenters who have commented so far, but it's completely off-topic...and it's political, sadly, so it really has no place here.

If the meme is center right, it will make a center right person more firm in his center rightness. If it's far-right, it won't make that same person move further to the right.

This is a repost. Can't blame OP, though, given how the first time it was posted was just before this one.

I don't mean to sound abrasive, but it might be wise to check the rules before commenting

This is a repost; the journal article itself was posted earlier.

Do you happen to have a reference for that figure?

Isn't that only the soft sciences, though?

Well, because you're commenting, and the comments section is for people who have things to say that are relevant to the content posted.

Generally not desiring to out yourself as a person who speaks without thinking might be another reason.

No. Read the abstract at the very least. OP wrote this title and it completely ignores what the researchers actually studied.

Your comment gives away the fact that you did not read the study...

That is simply untrue. Decarboxylation also occurs at room temperature, but the reaction takes place at a much lower rate. Any tested sample of dried cannabis flower will contain the cannabinoid acids and smaller amounts of the decarboxylated cannabinoids. For a ready proof that you can find and choose yourself, look at the lab test results of any online hemp store—any cannabis flower invariably contains decarboxylated cannabinoids (because that's how physics works... relatively unstable chemical groups are prone to decomposition).

[Edit added in brackets to beginning: you have posted dangerous misinformation. In fact, China now legally mandates all willow products to be accompanied by messaging warning against administration to children after a series of Reye's Syndrome cases in 2009 due to administration of willow bark to children.]

Original comment, as it appeared initially, follows below underscores. Please note that the first clause of the first sentence should now read, "That is not correct, and".

Not sure about the validity of this, but in practice this is dangerous without additional information. People will come away from this thing salicylic acid is safer in general, because your comment doesn't specify that chewing bark provides only a very small amount of the stuff. But extracts of willow bark cause a relatively large number of toxicity cases because it is seen as natural and healthy. People use the oil on large patches of their skin, thinking it's fine because it's topical and won't enter the bloodstream, but it gets absorbed and can very easily reach toxic levels.

The same thing happens with methyl salicylate, aka wintergreen oil. There are far too many toxicity cases because of people's insane belief that natural means safe.

To those people, I say: eat a couple poppy pods and see how that works out for you. (Obviously I'm not suggesting anyone do this, but for liability's sake I think it needs to be clarified that it was only said to make a point. If you eat poppy pods, you will almost certainly die.)

Perhaps you should read the paper and not just the title (which was written by OP). This is new information.

Well, OP didn't use the actual title of the paper. This goes into the chemistry of it. It is very well known that heat decarboxylates cannabinoids. Perhaps not as well known (not popularly, nor in the literature) are the specifics of the chemical changes that occur, which molecular bonds break, what other byproducts are created, etc.

From the abstract:

>In particular, most of the CBDA was converted into CBD at 130 °C for 20 min; this CBD was partially transformed to psychotropic THC isomers via cyclization. In addition to THC isomers, cannabielsoin acid (CBEA) and cannabielsoin (CBE) were also observed as minor oxidative transformed products. Based on structural identification and profiling data, thermal transformation pathways of CBDA are plausibly suggested. The results of decarboxylation of ACBs will provide important information on production of neutral cannabinoids, especially CBD, in Cannabis plants and quality control of Cannabis-based products in pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries.

Given that about 6x more people use nicotine vaporizer products than THC products, and given the huge increase among the vaping group, it's pretty fair to say the results probably apply to the nicotine users. (Vaping e-juice containing propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin is also well-known to cause dry mouth, by the way.)

The study used data that existed prior to the start of the study. That doesn't make this a bad study, it just means the data is not comprehensive.

People like you use this sort of thing to try to make the researchers out as being incompetent, but that's far from fair. This is how science works. Patterns are noticed, then further investigation is done. This is not a bad study. It's valuable information and provides valuable insights. Further study inspired by this research will elucidate what we don't know.

No, cigarette smoking has long been observed to increase risk of caries.

That is 100% not what the word means. You can discover this in any research article about processed foods. The term is very well defined, and that is unequivocally not the definition.

Question, does this specify the substrain?

>Wild-type (WT) C57BL6 mice were purchased from Australian BioResources (Moss Vale, NSW, Australia). Ifngr1−/− mice on C57BL/6 background were bred in the Centenary Institute.

Edit:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5173119/

I was looking into it further...this is one example I found (of many) of actual geneticists expressing it the same way as these folks. It seems like a pretty standard way to write it. Especially when a cursory search of Jackson's catalog seems to indicate that their Ifngr1-/- mice are all C57BL/6J. It doesn't seem to be that ambiguous based on what I was able to gather. Is there more reason to suggest they should have specified?

(To me, questions of whether these were the best test subjects seem more pertinent than potential ambiguity in terminology)

He likely didn't recommend Quaker oatmeal. Instant oats are nearly as bad as wheat flour from a glycemic perspective. He was probably recommending a gruel of steel-cut oats with a tiny dab of butter and a pinch of salt for palatability. No self-respecting doctor would recommend Quaker oats, they're just about the worst possible way to consume oats, health-wise.