5 ms·

Agreed but the government is to blame for a lot of this. People are super thirsty for CBD, it is very effective for many people. Especially elderly people that

Agreed but the government is to blame for a lot of this. People are super thirsty for CBD, it is very effective for many people. Especially elderly people that have been anti-pot most of their lives. These people don't have any good ways of making good buying decisions, let a lone having a regulatory body to rely on to test this stuff. So they just choose stuff with good marketing and high concentrations. Not to say your article isn't making a good point -- just that these nasty companies being successful is due to a vacuum created by decades of complete head-up-our-own-ass marijuana policy.

ryanmercer 8y ago
>People are super thirsty for CBD, Because you can't open social media without seeing music artists, actors, comedians, strength athletes, social-media-only-famous people shilling for one company or another with sponsored posts. >it is very effective for many people. Placebo is a hell of a drug. There is no credible, replicable, evidence that CBD does anything for anyone, and it's done nothing for many people duped into buying it, it's likely acting as a placebo. It's all n=1 posts, "my friend's uncle has cancer and took some and man it changed his life", SEO advertorial blogs and 'press releases', forum posts etc.
- wpietri 8y ago
  To what extent has it been properly studied? If you're asserting it's a placebo effect, shouldn't that mean you have significant proof no other effect is involved? I haven't tried it, but I have friends with chronic pain that prefer it to both opiates and OTC painkillers and have for years. That certainly could be placebo, but having seen them cycle through a variety of approaches and stop on CBD, I'd be surprised there's absolutely no effect.
  - pr0zac 8y ago
    > If you're asserting it's a placebo effect, shouldn't that mean you have significant proof no other effect is involved? Thats not how scientific research into drugs works. The null hypothesis that you hold by default is that the substance being studied has no effect. The purpose of research is to demonstrate that an effect exists and until that has been shown the null hypothesis is held to be true. https://info.umkc.edu/drbanderson/null-hypothesis-testing/ https://info.umkc.edu/drbanderson/null-hypothesis-testing/
    - wpietri 8y ago
      Perhaps you could try assuming that I knew about the null hypothesis already and still wrote what I wrote.
- codeulike 8y ago
  There is no credible, replicable, evidence that CBD does anything for anyone There are studies that show it is reasonably effective for some intractable forms of epilepsy https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1611618 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1611618 Indeed there is an official licensed medicinal version called Epidolex and the FDA recently approved it https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm611046.htm https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/u... (however this often gets overblown somewhat by the pot lobby, so I share your concerns about snake oil in general)
  - prepend 8y ago
    Maybe a more accurate statement is the efficacy of the doses available for retail purchase. The paper you cited used “cannabidiol oral solution at a dose of 20 mg per kilogram of body weight” So for a young adult of 50kg this is 1000mg/day. Amazon’s maximum dose I could find is 1000mg for $50 [0]. So to get these kinds of benefits someone would need $1500/month. I would like to see more studies at the kind of doses these retail doses marketed to grandmas (mine in particular). [0] https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Hemp-Drops-Relief-Essenzia/dp/B07DMCF4FY https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Hemp-Drops-Relief-Essenzia/dp...
    - rjbwork 8y ago
      Assuming the stuff is actually safe, I've seen 1000MG for $15.
      - prepend 8y ago
        Please share that link. That would still put the price at $450/month. I don’t know of anything that shows a risk or danger.
    - howhireable3141 8y ago
      Yes, it is expensive. I don't know what to tell you other than you are wrong. If you look at your own statements, you will see you stated unequivocally that CBD isn't effective. Now you are backpedaling saying its expensive. Yes, it is expensive. And I promise you it's not hard to see that it absolutely works for some people. If you understood how well cannibinoids fit into our brains, this may not surprise you. Having looked into pricing and done quite a bit of research, the cheapest I have seen for pills is 50c for 25mg. But this is still $600/month for a 1000mg dose. I think most people are taking less than this. But still 300-600mg is expensive. But, its not much more expensive that other "mediciine" that needs to be taken every day.
- jsjohnst 8y ago
  Repeating the same reply near verbatim doesn’t make it any more untrue, it just proves to other readers you have an agenda to push.
  - ryanmercer 8y ago
    I absolutely have an agenda, that of the scientific method and skepticism. Show me peer-reviewed, widely accepted, research that supports that CBD is a miracle panacea, you can't, it doesn't exist. What does exist is lots of link-farm SEO ad copy, people claiming on forums that along with their mega-dosing iodine and salt lamps they've seen drastic changes in their cancer/aids/anxiety/pain, and then gobs and gobs of people claiming anyone that says CBD isn't a cure-all 'has an agenda to push' and/or is being paid 'by big pharma'. Most sellers of CBD oil are outright committing fraud with claims they make, they have paid influencers (that often don't disclose clearly they are doing a paid endorsement), with fake reviews and almost certainly with armies of fake advertorials on forums. If CBD does have valid medical benefits, it's almost certain that it will not have anywhere near the current alleged number of applications.
    - reissbaker 8y ago
      > Show me peer-reviewed, widely accepted, research that supports that CBD is a miracle panacea That's clearly a strawman: nothing is a panacea. But here are some links from the first page of Google when I searched for "CBD research": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/ Each have dozens or more citations and are from reputable scientists at large universities. If your agenda is "the scientific method," hopefully that Google search helped. We should regulate CBD so that salespeople don't make absurd claims about what it can or can't do. But claiming that it's on par with megadosing iodine or salt lamps is pretty uneducated.
      - Moter8 8y ago
        Citing a part of the first paper's Conclusion: > Until data from well-designed clinical trials are available and reliable, and standardized CBD products that are produced using GMP are available, caution must be exercised in any consideration of using CBD for the treatment of epilepsy. In the meantime, based upon promising preliminary data, further clinical research should be wholeheartedly pursued. Citing a part of the second paper's Conclusion: > Human experimental findings support preclinical findings, and also suggest a lack of anxiogenic effects, minimal sedative effects, and an excellent safety profile. Current preclinical and human findings mostly involve acute CBD dosing in healthy subjects, so further studies are required to establish whether chronic dosing of CBD has similar effects in relevant clinical populations. Overall, this review emphasizes the potential value and need for further study of CBD in the treatment of anxiety disorders. So the second one says it seems good for acute dosing. Both say more research has to be done. Let's hope this is being done in the near future.
- dekhn 8y ago
  there is credible, replicable, evidence that CBD is effective for a number of problems. You do need to be an expert in drugs and scientific literature to appreciate this. I don't generally use appeal to authority, but this is a case where I am knowledgeable (20+ years in drug discovery, interest in CBD) and have read enough literature to see that there is enough evidence to pass the necessary bars.
dd36 8y ago
There’s no regulatory body testing most things, especially chemicals. It’s tragic.
- RA_Fisher 8y ago
  I find the premise that consumers need ahead-of-time protection insulting and limiting. If wrongs are made, we have a system for remedy: tort. The FDA is an adjacent regulatory body. Through its risk adverse behavior, the FDA causes unseen deaths: https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/12/18/fda-policies-kill https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/12/18/fda-poli... Also, the FDA performs poor data collection and sharing. When I analyzed one of the FDA'S most important datasets, I was surprised to find such low quality: https://github.com/statwonk/FDA-adverse-drug-reactions/blob/master/drug_analysis.R https://github.com/statwonk/FDA-adverse-drug-reactions/blob/... What's tragic to me is that so often folks feel safety or wealth comes from the government rather than our own minds. Maybe if there's no safety facade they'll demand private labs certify safety?
  - pboutros 8y ago
    What do you think about Thalidomide then? http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/controversies/thalidomide http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/them...
    - RA_Fisher 8y ago
      A back pat for a function the market would have provided immediately. Drugs can definitely be poison. I'd much prefer safety analyses have a GitHub sha1 publicly accessible than secretively behind the FDA's closed doors.
      - bunderbunder 8y ago
        > a function the market would have provided immediately. This opinion would seem to be at odds with reality at large. The reason the Food, Drug and Cosmetic act was passed in the first place is because of all the harm that the (then unregulated) pharmaceutical industry was doing. The market had centuries' worth of time to correct for people taking all sorts of drugs that actively kill people, and it didn't. It was only regulation that started to get the mess under control. And it's the loopholes in regulation where things are worst. The supplement industry continues to do far more harm than good. It's just possible that, despite the best efforts of some economists to argue that everyone is perfectly knowledgeable, rational, and emotionless in order to simplify their models, people continue to be merely human.
gwbas1c 8y ago
Most of the claims about CBD are, to put it mildly, bogus. This is why the FDA is stepping in.

ryanmercer 8y ago

>People are super thirsty for CBD, Because you can't open social media without seeing music artists, actors, comedians, strength athletes, social-media-only-famous people shilling for one company or another with sponsored posts. >it is very effective for many people. Placebo is a hell of a drug. There is no credible, replicable, evidence that CBD does anything for anyone, and it's done nothing for many people duped into buying it, it's likely acting as a placebo. It's all n=1 posts, "my friend's uncle has cancer and took some and man it changed his life", SEO advertorial blogs and 'press releases', forum posts etc.

wpietri 8y ago
To what extent has it been properly studied? If you're asserting it's a placebo effect, shouldn't that mean you have significant proof no other effect is involved? I haven't tried it, but I have friends with chronic pain that prefer it to both opiates and OTC painkillers and have for years. That certainly could be placebo, but having seen them cycle through a variety of approaches and stop on CBD, I'd be surprised there's absolutely no effect.
- pr0zac 8y ago
  > If you're asserting it's a placebo effect, shouldn't that mean you have significant proof no other effect is involved? Thats not how scientific research into drugs works. The null hypothesis that you hold by default is that the substance being studied has no effect. The purpose of research is to demonstrate that an effect exists and until that has been shown the null hypothesis is held to be true. https://info.umkc.edu/drbanderson/null-hypothesis-testing/ https://info.umkc.edu/drbanderson/null-hypothesis-testing/
  - wpietri 8y ago
    Perhaps you could try assuming that I knew about the null hypothesis already and still wrote what I wrote.
codeulike 8y ago
There is no credible, replicable, evidence that CBD does anything for anyone There are studies that show it is reasonably effective for some intractable forms of epilepsy https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1611618 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1611618 Indeed there is an official licensed medicinal version called Epidolex and the FDA recently approved it https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm611046.htm https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/u... (however this often gets overblown somewhat by the pot lobby, so I share your concerns about snake oil in general)
- prepend 8y ago
  Maybe a more accurate statement is the efficacy of the doses available for retail purchase. The paper you cited used “cannabidiol oral solution at a dose of 20 mg per kilogram of body weight” So for a young adult of 50kg this is 1000mg/day. Amazon’s maximum dose I could find is 1000mg for $50 [0]. So to get these kinds of benefits someone would need $1500/month. I would like to see more studies at the kind of doses these retail doses marketed to grandmas (mine in particular). [0] https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Hemp-Drops-Relief-Essenzia/dp/B07DMCF4FY https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Hemp-Drops-Relief-Essenzia/dp...
  - rjbwork 8y ago
    Assuming the stuff is actually safe, I've seen 1000MG for $15.
    - prepend 8y ago
      Please share that link. That would still put the price at $450/month. I don’t know of anything that shows a risk or danger.
  - howhireable3141 8y ago
    Yes, it is expensive. I don't know what to tell you other than you are wrong. If you look at your own statements, you will see you stated unequivocally that CBD isn't effective. Now you are backpedaling saying its expensive. Yes, it is expensive. And I promise you it's not hard to see that it absolutely works for some people. If you understood how well cannibinoids fit into our brains, this may not surprise you. Having looked into pricing and done quite a bit of research, the cheapest I have seen for pills is 50c for 25mg. But this is still $600/month for a 1000mg dose. I think most people are taking less than this. But still 300-600mg is expensive. But, its not much more expensive that other "mediciine" that needs to be taken every day.
jsjohnst 8y ago
Repeating the same reply near verbatim doesn’t make it any more untrue, it just proves to other readers you have an agenda to push.
- ryanmercer 8y ago
  I absolutely have an agenda, that of the scientific method and skepticism. Show me peer-reviewed, widely accepted, research that supports that CBD is a miracle panacea, you can't, it doesn't exist. What does exist is lots of link-farm SEO ad copy, people claiming on forums that along with their mega-dosing iodine and salt lamps they've seen drastic changes in their cancer/aids/anxiety/pain, and then gobs and gobs of people claiming anyone that says CBD isn't a cure-all 'has an agenda to push' and/or is being paid 'by big pharma'. Most sellers of CBD oil are outright committing fraud with claims they make, they have paid influencers (that often don't disclose clearly they are doing a paid endorsement), with fake reviews and almost certainly with armies of fake advertorials on forums. If CBD does have valid medical benefits, it's almost certain that it will not have anywhere near the current alleged number of applications.
  - reissbaker 8y ago
    > Show me peer-reviewed, widely accepted, research that supports that CBD is a miracle panacea That's clearly a strawman: nothing is a panacea. But here are some links from the first page of Google when I searched for "CBD research": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/ Each have dozens or more citations and are from reputable scientists at large universities. If your agenda is "the scientific method," hopefully that Google search helped. We should regulate CBD so that salespeople don't make absurd claims about what it can or can't do. But claiming that it's on par with megadosing iodine or salt lamps is pretty uneducated.
    - Moter8 8y ago
      Citing a part of the first paper's Conclusion: > Until data from well-designed clinical trials are available and reliable, and standardized CBD products that are produced using GMP are available, caution must be exercised in any consideration of using CBD for the treatment of epilepsy. In the meantime, based upon promising preliminary data, further clinical research should be wholeheartedly pursued. Citing a part of the second paper's Conclusion: > Human experimental findings support preclinical findings, and also suggest a lack of anxiogenic effects, minimal sedative effects, and an excellent safety profile. Current preclinical and human findings mostly involve acute CBD dosing in healthy subjects, so further studies are required to establish whether chronic dosing of CBD has similar effects in relevant clinical populations. Overall, this review emphasizes the potential value and need for further study of CBD in the treatment of anxiety disorders. So the second one says it seems good for acute dosing. Both say more research has to be done. Let's hope this is being done in the near future.
dekhn 8y ago
there is credible, replicable, evidence that CBD is effective for a number of problems. You do need to be an expert in drugs and scientific literature to appreciate this. I don't generally use appeal to authority, but this is a case where I am knowledgeable (20+ years in drug discovery, interest in CBD) and have read enough literature to see that there is enough evidence to pass the necessary bars.

dd36 8y ago

There’s no regulatory body testing most things, especially chemicals. It’s tragic.

RA_Fisher 8y ago
I find the premise that consumers need ahead-of-time protection insulting and limiting. If wrongs are made, we have a system for remedy: tort. The FDA is an adjacent regulatory body. Through its risk adverse behavior, the FDA causes unseen deaths: https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/12/18/fda-policies-kill https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams/12/18/fda-poli... Also, the FDA performs poor data collection and sharing. When I analyzed one of the FDA'S most important datasets, I was surprised to find such low quality: https://github.com/statwonk/FDA-adverse-drug-reactions/blob/master/drug_analysis.R https://github.com/statwonk/FDA-adverse-drug-reactions/blob/... What's tragic to me is that so often folks feel safety or wealth comes from the government rather than our own minds. Maybe if there's no safety facade they'll demand private labs certify safety?
- pboutros 8y ago
  What do you think about Thalidomide then? http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/controversies/thalidomide http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/them...
  - RA_Fisher 8y ago
    A back pat for a function the market would have provided immediately. Drugs can definitely be poison. I'd much prefer safety analyses have a GitHub sha1 publicly accessible than secretively behind the FDA's closed doors.
    - bunderbunder 8y ago
      > a function the market would have provided immediately. This opinion would seem to be at odds with reality at large. The reason the Food, Drug and Cosmetic act was passed in the first place is because of all the harm that the (then unregulated) pharmaceutical industry was doing. The market had centuries' worth of time to correct for people taking all sorts of drugs that actively kill people, and it didn't. It was only regulation that started to get the mess under control. And it's the loopholes in regulation where things are worst. The supplement industry continues to do far more harm than good. It's just possible that, despite the best efforts of some economists to argue that everyone is perfectly knowledgeable, rational, and emotionless in order to simplify their models, people continue to be merely human.

gwbas1c 8y ago

Most of the claims about CBD are, to put it mildly, bogus. This is why the FDA is stepping in.