5 ms·
>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/
by 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 agoThat 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.