3 ms·

To answer some of your questions, one reason why the area has seen so much active research in the past 30 years -- and there's been a lot -- is that the human c

To answer some of your questions, one reason why the area has seen so much active research in the past 30 years -- and there's been a lot -- is that the human cellular pathways that respond to cannabis are extremely far-reaching and far more interesting. To this end, there has indeed been a great deal of synthetic chemistry to experiment with and manipulate these pathways. >Besides semi-synthetics, which would be a long and hard road, there's also adjunct therapy, or did those studies actually include using cannabis chemicals in addition to the standard ones? Interestingly, you can find examples of both adjunct and comparator studies, which are usually blinded in some way to reduce stigma or bias. (If anything, the bias tends to favor cannabis-consuming patients, since it's hard to hide the fact that the pill you just took in a "blinded" clinical trial is making you high.) A decent summary of some of the clinical data is here: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabi... .

mmt 8y ago
>A decent summary of some of the clinical data is here Thanks! That looks extremely informative, and I only had a chance to skim through it so far. I couldn't help but notice how many (at least half) of the referenced studies were in the past 10 years. That does suggest to me that changing attitudes have more to do with it than legalization. > Interestingly, you can find examples of both adjunct and comparator studies, which are usually blinded in some way to reduce stigma or bias. (If anything, the bias tends to favor cannabis-consuming patients, since it's hard to hide the fact that the pill you just took in a "blinded" clinical trial is making you high.) I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "favors" here. Do you mean that an otherwise/previously cannabis-using patient would report more favorable results (and/or fewer negative side effects)? Or that such a patient would more likely receive actually better benefits? Or that they would be more likely to be in the trial in the first place? Are there clinical trials where the participants don't know what (potential) active therapy they could get is? The ones I've looked at in the US have always said, but I've only looked at a couple very specific conditions.
- gwerbret 8y ago
  >I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "favors" here. Do you mean that an otherwise/previously cannabis-using patient would report more favorable results (and/or fewer negative side effects)? In cases in which the active agent is THC or a similarly psychoactive agent, patients are indeed more likely to report positive overall effects simply because they know they're receiving the active agent; i.e. the placebo effect. This would apply whether they've used cannabis before or not. You don't have this problem with trials of the non-psychoactive cannabis chemicals, which fortunately is most trials.
  - mmt 8y ago
    That certainly makes sense with THC, and ties back to your earlier remark about clinically significant quantities of it. For some studies, I've seen reference to using an active placebo (so the placebo group feels something), but I realize that can pollute the side effects data, and it may be useless for psychoactives where the effect is publically well-known.

mmt 8y ago

>A decent summary of some of the clinical data is here Thanks! That looks extremely informative, and I only had a chance to skim through it so far. I couldn't help but notice how many (at least half) of the referenced studies were in the past 10 years. That does suggest to me that changing attitudes have more to do with it than legalization. > Interestingly, you can find examples of both adjunct and comparator studies, which are usually blinded in some way to reduce stigma or bias. (If anything, the bias tends to favor cannabis-consuming patients, since it's hard to hide the fact that the pill you just took in a "blinded" clinical trial is making you high.) I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "favors" here. Do you mean that an otherwise/previously cannabis-using patient would report more favorable results (and/or fewer negative side effects)? Or that such a patient would more likely receive actually better benefits? Or that they would be more likely to be in the trial in the first place? Are there clinical trials where the participants don't know what (potential) active therapy they could get is? The ones I've looked at in the US have always said, but I've only looked at a couple very specific conditions.

gwerbret 8y ago
>I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "favors" here. Do you mean that an otherwise/previously cannabis-using patient would report more favorable results (and/or fewer negative side effects)? In cases in which the active agent is THC or a similarly psychoactive agent, patients are indeed more likely to report positive overall effects simply because they know they're receiving the active agent; i.e. the placebo effect. This would apply whether they've used cannabis before or not. You don't have this problem with trials of the non-psychoactive cannabis chemicals, which fortunately is most trials.
- mmt 8y ago
  That certainly makes sense with THC, and ties back to your earlier remark about clinically significant quantities of it. For some studies, I've seen reference to using an active placebo (so the placebo group feels something), but I realize that can pollute the side effects data, and it may be useless for psychoactives where the effect is publically well-known.