9 ms·

Cannabidiol inhibits SARS-CoV-2 replication through induction of host ER stress

148 points by caaqil 5y ago

josephcsible 5y ago
Why is this being accepted at face value rather than being subject to the same level of scrutiny and skepticism that the studies about ivermectin were?
- andybak 5y ago
  Where are you seeing it accepted at face value? Here on HN or in general media outlets? It's hard to respond to your question as you haven't really stated it clearly. This is the first I've heard of this apart from a vague recollection of something floating past my news feed that I didn't read. Therefore my perception is that this hasn't really been covered much at all. I can't recall the early days of Ivermectin coverage to make a comparison.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  It's not accepted at face value; a published study does not mean that. It's a data point. 'We' / the scientific community needs additional and bigger data points to draw any conclusions. Most scientific studies like this are springboards for follow-up studies. Don't let the media tell you that a scientific study in isolation is Definite Proof for anything, or that science is that absolute. Nobody's starting Facebook groups or 'meta analysis' websites with unknown owners to push weed as a corona treatment - unlike ivermectin. There was a group behind pushing that one, I don't know who or why, but there was.
black_puppydog 5y ago
"in cells and mice" is probably worth noting. For humans it's a correlation with positive tests for now. Still, interesting and if confirmed would be a funny twist to the whole legalization epic of the last decades.
- garblegarble 5y ago
  >For humans it's a correlation with positive tests for now. Is that from another study? This study notes that "In matched groups of human patients from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, CBD ... had a significant negative association with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests" (from the abstract)
  - smorgusofborg 5y ago
    I'm not sure I understand what the cohort collaborative is doing but it sounds like being a patient in their matching that tests negative for COVID would be more likely if you had another reason to cough.
c01n 5y ago
The stoners that the builders refused shall be the head corner stoners.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  THC counteracts the positive effects of CBD, as mentioned in the article. The natural version of it, is not good enough.
  - c01n 5y ago
    Will it help if ones use a strain with high CBD and low THC, like Charlotte's Web? (asking for a friend)
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      No THC would be the best one, if that's possible. Smoking it was not tested and not advised. Note: not an expert, i just read the article completely. I hope for high quality CBD oil though, but not sure. I need external advice to be more certain.
loxias 5y ago
As a nerdy stoner myself this is the perfect counterpoint. The ("my"? "our"?) answer to the hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin/bleach worship coming from the "scientifically challenged" antivax set. It'll probably be disproven in some followup paper, or the results will be insignificant, or something like that, but I don't care. It's "true enough" to sooth the soul, and another indication that the universe might have a sense of humor. :) Now, back to enjoying all the wine, hash, and hot chicks.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- francis-io 5y ago
  > As a nerdy stoner myself this is the perfect counterpoint. The ("my"? "our"?) answer to the hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin/bleach worship coming from the "scientifically challenged" antivax set. Nitpick: As much as I agree that some people are as you describe, it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking everyone in favour of therapeutics are also "anti vax". Vaccinations and therapeutics can live side by side as vectors of attack for certain illnesses. I've caught my self falling into this trap my self recently. It's hard not to knee-jerk react when someone mentions something like ivermectin and then make wild generalisations on that persons political opinions, mental ability and then judge them as a person.
  - croon 5y ago
    > I've caught my self falling into this trap my self recently. It's hard not to knee-jerk react when someone mentions something like ivermectin and then make wild generalisations on that persons political opinions, mental ability and then judge them as a person. I agree it's important not to, but playing devil's advocate, has that specific generalization ever been wrong, for anyone? Genuine question.
    - sanedigital 5y ago
      One can be anti-mandate without being anti-vaccine. One can be pro-therapeutic without being anti-vaccine. One can be pro-investigation of therapeutics without being anti-vaccine. One can be pro-doctoral autonomy (with regards to off label prescription) without being anti-vaccine. I'm thankful for the vaccine, it's saved a lot of lives, especially of those at high risk. I don't think it should be mandated and I certainly don't think it should be given to children. I think we should be investing as much into early treatment as we are into vaccines. We certainly shouldn't be limiting access to things that have been proven to work, like monoclonal anti-bodies. I think things like Ivermectin should be investigated for use. I don't think we should be calling it "horse dewormer" when it's an FDA-approved medication with billions of doses distributed worldwide. And while we shouldn't be promoting anything that isn't proven, we shouldn't be sanctioning physicians for prescribing a safe drug off-label. In short: yes, the opposite side of the political spectrum is more diverse than you're currently accounting for. Lumping "the other" into a single category is natural and well described by Social Identity Theory [1], but not helpful to discussions like this. [1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_theory]
NicoJuicy 5y ago
> We strongly caution against the temptation to take CBD in presently available formulations including edibles, inhalants or topicals as a preventative or treatment therapy at this time, especially without the knowledge of a rigorous randomized clinical trial with this natural product So, no available method for usage, it seems. Anyone with more medical knowledge that can chim in? Seems useful after infection though.
- podgaj 5y ago
  Eat more Omega 3: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31085370/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31085370/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170718142909.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170718142909.h... https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/50397 https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/50397
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    Simply eating more omega-3, while it can lead to more robust synthesis of endocannabinoids, really has nothing to do with the study at hand. Generally we use drugs because they have different or greater degrees of their mechanism than the endogenous compounds. Not to mention we don't know if endocannabinoids such as anandamide or 2-AG even have the same effect as high doses of CBD shown in this study. Also the concentrations of the endogenous molecules are likely nowhere near high enough
    - podgaj 5y ago
      Correct, you also need to lower Omega 6 fats dramatically, and probably focus on long chain Omega 3. > while it can lead to more robust synthesis of endocannabinoids, really has nothing to do with the study at hand. Generally we use drugs because they have different or greater degrees of their mechanism than the endogenous compounds. You can either excite these receptors or not. Exciting the receptor more than needed, which is what these overly high levels of exogenous cannabinols do, leads to degraded receptor sensitivity (dependance) and probably a rebound effect when the drug is stopped. It is not that I feel the drugs do not work, but they are not needed and are lacking the sensitivity. > Not to mention we don't know if endocannabinoids such as anandamide or 2-AG even have the same effect as high doses of CBD shown in this study. Also the concentrations of the endogenous molecules are likely nowhere near high enough The arachidonic acid (Omega 6) derivatives (anandamide) are known to not be as anti-inflammatory and is more in line with THC, not CDB, in its action. Which is my point of having to get the 3/6 ratio much higher, and has nothing to do with this study other than showing that we need LESS anandamide and more docosahexaenoyl and eicosapentaenoyl ethanolamides. If someone has enough omega 3 endocannabinoids it is likely that they would not need the heavy hammer of CBD to get them out of the inflammation. I am not saying CBD does not work, but endocannabinoids are more than just one molecule, and CBD cannot compare. For a overall robust immune system we should be studying Omega 3's/Omega 6 balance more deeply.
cblconfederate 5y ago
not a smoker myself, but i d join the stoner crowd for Science
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  THC counteracts the positive effects of CBD, as mentioned in the article. Smoking has many variables that could reduce any efficiency.
megamix 5y ago
podgaj 5y ago
- ethanbond 5y ago
  Because it’s way less funny?
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Endocannabinoids have been known for a while, I'm not sure what you're attempting to communicate with your comment. Could you please explain?
  - podgaj 5y ago
    Endocannabinoids have been known for a while, but how Endocannabinoids are made in the human body is a newer discovery (~2016). What should be being broadcast is how important Omega 3 is for increasing CB1R and CB2R activity to reduce inflammation and disease. This has everything to do with COVID and learning to live with SARS2 without people dropping dead or having to stay home from work. This is something everyone can do now, without waiting for legalization, working about dosing, or giving money to yet another 3rd party. Why is there so little talk about Omega 3 and lowering COVID complications? Because people are trained by the media everyday that drugs are the answer to everything and diet does not matter. The global cannabidiol market size was valued at $2.8 billion in 2020 and is expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate of 21.2% from 2021 to 2028. Do you think these people want you to know that the same anti-inflammatory action can be achieved by lowering Omega 6 and increasing Omega 3 in your diet?
    - loxias 5y ago
      > how Endocannabinoids are made in the human body is a newer discovery (~2016). HUH. TIL. In my early 20s in the 2000s, among my stoner peers "isn't it neat how many fascinating compounds have endogenous counterparts! do you think we'll ever understand how they're made or how the body uses them?" was one of those "maybe we'll never know" sort of topics for discussion. It's so cool to see science do the whole "first we don't know, then time passes, then we know" thing.
netizen-936824 5y ago
>Analysis of blood plasma levels in healthy patients taking 1500 mg daily of FDA-approved CBD solution (Epidiolex) showed a maximal concentration (Cmax) at 7 days for CBD and 7-OH-CBD of 1.7 μM and 0.56 μM This is at the bottom of the suspected effective range of concentration, and that's one hell of a lot of CBD to ingest Very interesting study though, I hope more follow up with replicates and human studies
mabbo 5y ago
It's easy to see how basic science like this leads to people flocking to not-fully-proven solutions. I need to not catch COVID-19 for around five weeks. My wife is due to give birth, and if I'm COVID positive I can't be with her in the hospital. If she catches COVID, that's also a really bad situation. So naturally, I'm pretty desperate for any shred of hope or control. Reading this, my instinct is to walk over to the nearest dispensary and buy a lot of CBD. But this study is very preliminary. It's early. This could have been a fluke of the data. There could be effects not being correctly measured. And so I have to have this great internal debate: "There's nothing unsafe about this; I have no issues with using CBD; this might help; I've got nothing else I can really do other than lock myself up at home, which I'm doing". Vs "The science isn't there; I'm already triple vaccinated; and the very act of leaving home to go buy CBD is an exposure risk".
- pronoiac 5y ago
  Look into delivery, maybe?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pcthrowaway 5y ago
  CBD doesn't get you high; I believe there are several other studies suggesting it treats stress and anxiety (which you might benefit from), and inflammation. I'd suggest doing some research on it at least. If it sounds like something you might benefit from, it's not terribly expensive to buy enough to last you 5 weeks.
  - SomeBoolshit 5y ago
    The going rate over here is about 30 Euros for 10ml of 5% solution, which the last time I checked out the current studies, was about the daily amount needed for it to have any effect. That's pretty expensive.
    - washadjeffmad 5y ago
h2odragon 5y ago
Tempting to contrast this with ivermectin. "It may not help that much but the downside is well known and small, so it could be worth a try" Is that a reasonable thought, or is it dangerous misinformation and denial? For both or just one of the drugs? Anecdata: I was smoking at my usual (high) levels when I got COVID in Feb 2020, i had to cut down for a week or so because my lung capacity suffered, and I got back to the usual consumption after that. I happened to have been weighing and logging daily does at that time so have the record. Perhaps it helped moderate severity, perhaps not.
- wahnfrieden 5y ago
  Not sure if this has new info but the study from some days back said that the effect was only pre-carb - if you were smoking you were eliminating the upside
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  Ivermectin helps increase your chances of survival and reduces the chance of hospitalization *if you have parasites like worms*. That is all. That explains the small amount of papers in favor of it. Anyway, I don't think anyone needs an excuse to get high, lol. I also heard (this is anecdotal, I don't have sources, do not quote me, etc etc etc) that smoking helps inhibit the rate of contagion, maybe there's a correlation there as well.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    >Anyway, I don't think anyone needs an excuse to get high, lol. What does that have to do with the conversation about CBD which does not get you high?
- mikem170 5y ago
  This guy put together a great analysis of over two dozen ivermectin studies [0] and he found that the studies done in countries where intestinal worms are common giving ivermectin showed a benefit against covid, and that in countries where intestinal worms are not common ivermectin did not help with covid. This makes sense because it is known that intestinal worms can compromise the immune system. [0] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...
AHappyCamper 5y ago
If only there was a readily available, highly effected treatment for COVID that you could buy over the counter and had no side effects..... oh wait... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34194240/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34194240/
- q3k 5y ago
  ... outpatient, sample size 42, open label, significantly older control group. This is a shitty trial, and definitely one that shouldn't be relied on to make such broad statements.
- loxias 5y ago
  1. It's just a pilot study, and outpatient at that. 2. N = 42 is .. small.. but see: #1 3. Holy crap that's fascinating results!! Wow! Can't wait to see what happens in a Real study (RCT) with higher N. 4. I'm smirking at the fact that the authors consist of the employees of the company that makes the compound in question, and those with the most to gain. But this in no way diminishes point #3. 5. Where did you hear of this? I'm disappointed in myself that I hadn't seen this, and it's from the middle of last year.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  Didn't Pfizer develop a pill delivered treatment for early infections, currently in trials? What does "highly effected" mean anyway? The one you linked might be enough to warrant future study, but given the numbers used it's not really statistically significant. I mean, especially when vaccinated, most people will be fine after two weeks at the latest.
  - vajrabum 5y ago
    I think you mean Paxlovid? That's actually approved but apparently it's hard to make and Pfizer is still working on expanding production. Some pharmacies do have it however. As to highly effective, I believe it means that if you take Paxlovid you are very unlikely to need to be hospitalized and the length and severity of the infection will be significantly reduced. See this article for more info about someone's experience getting the drug. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/business/covid-pill-treatment-pfizer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/business/covid-pill-treat...
neom 5y ago
Extremely anecdotally, but I do feel like CBD helped me a lot get through long covid: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29813362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29813362
Atlas667 5y ago
It should also be noted that Cannabis is the new hot market, so even if this is refuted in a future paper or found that it doesn't work in humans as previously thought, that doesn't dispel the notions this first paper will generate. Like academic marketing.
andrepew 5y ago
Hopefully we see more studies to corroborate this. I saw this go by the news a little while ago https://globalnews.ca/news/8505406/cannabidiol-covid-19-study-university-of-waterloo/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8505406/cannabidiol-covid-19-stud... Apologies for not linking the study directly, but not entirely sure if I have access to it.

148 points by caaqil 5y ago

Why is this being accepted at face value rather than being subject to the same level of scrutiny and skepticism that the studies about ivermectin were?

andybak 5y ago
Where are you seeing it accepted at face value? Here on HN or in general media outlets? It's hard to respond to your question as you haven't really stated it clearly. This is the first I've heard of this apart from a vague recollection of something floating past my news feed that I didn't read. Therefore my perception is that this hasn't really been covered much at all. I can't recall the early days of Ivermectin coverage to make a comparison.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
It's not accepted at face value; a published study does not mean that. It's a data point. 'We' / the scientific community needs additional and bigger data points to draw any conclusions. Most scientific studies like this are springboards for follow-up studies. Don't let the media tell you that a scientific study in isolation is Definite Proof for anything, or that science is that absolute. Nobody's starting Facebook groups or 'meta analysis' websites with unknown owners to push weed as a corona treatment - unlike ivermectin. There was a group behind pushing that one, I don't know who or why, but there was.

black_puppydog 5y ago

"in cells and mice" is probably worth noting. For humans it's a correlation with positive tests for now. Still, interesting and if confirmed would be a funny twist to the whole legalization epic of the last decades.

garblegarble 5y ago
>For humans it's a correlation with positive tests for now. Is that from another study? This study notes that "In matched groups of human patients from the National COVID Cohort Collaborative, CBD ... had a significant negative association with positive SARS-CoV-2 tests" (from the abstract)
- smorgusofborg 5y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what the cohort collaborative is doing but it sounds like being a patient in their matching that tests negative for COVID would be more likely if you had another reason to cough.

c01n 5y ago

The stoners that the builders refused shall be the head corner stoners.

NicoJuicy 5y ago
THC counteracts the positive effects of CBD, as mentioned in the article. The natural version of it, is not good enough.
- c01n 5y ago
  Will it help if ones use a strain with high CBD and low THC, like Charlotte's Web? (asking for a friend)
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    No THC would be the best one, if that's possible. Smoking it was not tested and not advised. Note: not an expert, i just read the article completely. I hope for high quality CBD oil though, but not sure. I need external advice to be more certain.

loxias 5y ago

As a nerdy stoner myself this is the perfect counterpoint. The ("my"? "our"?) answer to the hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin/bleach worship coming from the "scientifically challenged" antivax set. It'll probably be disproven in some followup paper, or the results will be insignificant, or something like that, but I don't care. It's "true enough" to sooth the soul, and another indication that the universe might have a sense of humor. :) Now, back to enjoying all the wine, hash, and hot chicks.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
francis-io 5y ago
> As a nerdy stoner myself this is the perfect counterpoint. The ("my"? "our"?) answer to the hydroxychloroquine/ivermectin/bleach worship coming from the "scientifically challenged" antivax set. Nitpick: As much as I agree that some people are as you describe, it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking everyone in favour of therapeutics are also "anti vax". Vaccinations and therapeutics can live side by side as vectors of attack for certain illnesses. I've caught my self falling into this trap my self recently. It's hard not to knee-jerk react when someone mentions something like ivermectin and then make wild generalisations on that persons political opinions, mental ability and then judge them as a person.
- croon 5y ago
  > I've caught my self falling into this trap my self recently. It's hard not to knee-jerk react when someone mentions something like ivermectin and then make wild generalisations on that persons political opinions, mental ability and then judge them as a person. I agree it's important not to, but playing devil's advocate, has that specific generalization ever been wrong, for anyone? Genuine question.
  - sanedigital 5y ago
    One can be anti-mandate without being anti-vaccine. One can be pro-therapeutic without being anti-vaccine. One can be pro-investigation of therapeutics without being anti-vaccine. One can be pro-doctoral autonomy (with regards to off label prescription) without being anti-vaccine. I'm thankful for the vaccine, it's saved a lot of lives, especially of those at high risk. I don't think it should be mandated and I certainly don't think it should be given to children. I think we should be investing as much into early treatment as we are into vaccines. We certainly shouldn't be limiting access to things that have been proven to work, like monoclonal anti-bodies. I think things like Ivermectin should be investigated for use. I don't think we should be calling it "horse dewormer" when it's an FDA-approved medication with billions of doses distributed worldwide. And while we shouldn't be promoting anything that isn't proven, we shouldn't be sanctioning physicians for prescribing a safe drug off-label. In short: yes, the opposite side of the political spectrum is more diverse than you're currently accounting for. Lumping "the other" into a single category is natural and well described by Social Identity Theory [1], but not helpful to discussions like this. [1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_theory]

NicoJuicy 5y ago

> We strongly caution against the temptation to take CBD in presently available formulations including edibles, inhalants or topicals as a preventative or treatment therapy at this time, especially without the knowledge of a rigorous randomized clinical trial with this natural product So, no available method for usage, it seems. Anyone with more medical knowledge that can chim in? Seems useful after infection though.

podgaj 5y ago
Eat more Omega 3: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31085370/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31085370/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170718142909.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170718142909.h... https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/50397 https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/50397
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Simply eating more omega-3, while it can lead to more robust synthesis of endocannabinoids, really has nothing to do with the study at hand. Generally we use drugs because they have different or greater degrees of their mechanism than the endogenous compounds. Not to mention we don't know if endocannabinoids such as anandamide or 2-AG even have the same effect as high doses of CBD shown in this study. Also the concentrations of the endogenous molecules are likely nowhere near high enough
  - podgaj 5y ago
    Correct, you also need to lower Omega 6 fats dramatically, and probably focus on long chain Omega 3. > while it can lead to more robust synthesis of endocannabinoids, really has nothing to do with the study at hand. Generally we use drugs because they have different or greater degrees of their mechanism than the endogenous compounds. You can either excite these receptors or not. Exciting the receptor more than needed, which is what these overly high levels of exogenous cannabinols do, leads to degraded receptor sensitivity (dependance) and probably a rebound effect when the drug is stopped. It is not that I feel the drugs do not work, but they are not needed and are lacking the sensitivity. > Not to mention we don't know if endocannabinoids such as anandamide or 2-AG even have the same effect as high doses of CBD shown in this study. Also the concentrations of the endogenous molecules are likely nowhere near high enough The arachidonic acid (Omega 6) derivatives (anandamide) are known to not be as anti-inflammatory and is more in line with THC, not CDB, in its action. Which is my point of having to get the 3/6 ratio much higher, and has nothing to do with this study other than showing that we need LESS anandamide and more docosahexaenoyl and eicosapentaenoyl ethanolamides. If someone has enough omega 3 endocannabinoids it is likely that they would not need the heavy hammer of CBD to get them out of the inflammation. I am not saying CBD does not work, but endocannabinoids are more than just one molecule, and CBD cannot compare. For a overall robust immune system we should be studying Omega 3's/Omega 6 balance more deeply.

cblconfederate 5y ago

not a smoker myself, but i d join the stoner crowd for Science

NicoJuicy 5y ago
THC counteracts the positive effects of CBD, as mentioned in the article. Smoking has many variables that could reduce any efficiency.

megamix 5y ago

podgaj 5y ago

ethanbond 5y ago
Because it’s way less funny?
netizen-936824 5y ago
Endocannabinoids have been known for a while, I'm not sure what you're attempting to communicate with your comment. Could you please explain?
- podgaj 5y ago
  Endocannabinoids have been known for a while, but how Endocannabinoids are made in the human body is a newer discovery (~2016). What should be being broadcast is how important Omega 3 is for increasing CB1R and CB2R activity to reduce inflammation and disease. This has everything to do with COVID and learning to live with SARS2 without people dropping dead or having to stay home from work. This is something everyone can do now, without waiting for legalization, working about dosing, or giving money to yet another 3rd party. Why is there so little talk about Omega 3 and lowering COVID complications? Because people are trained by the media everyday that drugs are the answer to everything and diet does not matter. The global cannabidiol market size was valued at $2.8 billion in 2020 and is expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate of 21.2% from 2021 to 2028. Do you think these people want you to know that the same anti-inflammatory action can be achieved by lowering Omega 6 and increasing Omega 3 in your diet?
  - loxias 5y ago
    > how Endocannabinoids are made in the human body is a newer discovery (~2016). HUH. TIL. In my early 20s in the 2000s, among my stoner peers "isn't it neat how many fascinating compounds have endogenous counterparts! do you think we'll ever understand how they're made or how the body uses them?" was one of those "maybe we'll never know" sort of topics for discussion. It's so cool to see science do the whole "first we don't know, then time passes, then we know" thing.

netizen-936824 5y ago

>Analysis of blood plasma levels in healthy patients taking 1500 mg daily of FDA-approved CBD solution (Epidiolex) showed a maximal concentration (Cmax) at 7 days for CBD and 7-OH-CBD of 1.7 μM and 0.56 μM This is at the bottom of the suspected effective range of concentration, and that's one hell of a lot of CBD to ingest Very interesting study though, I hope more follow up with replicates and human studies

mabbo 5y ago

It's easy to see how basic science like this leads to people flocking to not-fully-proven solutions. I need to not catch COVID-19 for around five weeks. My wife is due to give birth, and if I'm COVID positive I can't be with her in the hospital. If she catches COVID, that's also a really bad situation. So naturally, I'm pretty desperate for any shred of hope or control. Reading this, my instinct is to walk over to the nearest dispensary and buy a lot of CBD. But this study is very preliminary. It's early. This could have been a fluke of the data. There could be effects not being correctly measured. And so I have to have this great internal debate: "There's nothing unsafe about this; I have no issues with using CBD; this might help; I've got nothing else I can really do other than lock myself up at home, which I'm doing". Vs "The science isn't there; I'm already triple vaccinated; and the very act of leaving home to go buy CBD is an exposure risk".

pronoiac 5y ago
Look into delivery, maybe?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pcthrowaway 5y ago
CBD doesn't get you high; I believe there are several other studies suggesting it treats stress and anxiety (which you might benefit from), and inflammation. I'd suggest doing some research on it at least. If it sounds like something you might benefit from, it's not terribly expensive to buy enough to last you 5 weeks.
- SomeBoolshit 5y ago
  The going rate over here is about 30 Euros for 10ml of 5% solution, which the last time I checked out the current studies, was about the daily amount needed for it to have any effect. That's pretty expensive.
  - washadjeffmad 5y ago

h2odragon 5y ago

Tempting to contrast this with ivermectin. "It may not help that much but the downside is well known and small, so it could be worth a try" Is that a reasonable thought, or is it dangerous misinformation and denial? For both or just one of the drugs? Anecdata: I was smoking at my usual (high) levels when I got COVID in Feb 2020, i had to cut down for a week or so because my lung capacity suffered, and I got back to the usual consumption after that. I happened to have been weighing and logging daily does at that time so have the record. Perhaps it helped moderate severity, perhaps not.

wahnfrieden 5y ago
Not sure if this has new info but the study from some days back said that the effect was only pre-carb - if you were smoking you were eliminating the upside
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
Ivermectin helps increase your chances of survival and reduces the chance of hospitalization *if you have parasites like worms*. That is all. That explains the small amount of papers in favor of it. Anyway, I don't think anyone needs an excuse to get high, lol. I also heard (this is anecdotal, I don't have sources, do not quote me, etc etc etc) that smoking helps inhibit the rate of contagion, maybe there's a correlation there as well.
- dylan604 5y ago
  >Anyway, I don't think anyone needs an excuse to get high, lol. What does that have to do with the conversation about CBD which does not get you high?
mikem170 5y ago
This guy put together a great analysis of over two dozen ivermectin studies [0] and he found that the studies done in countries where intestinal worms are common giving ivermectin showed a benefit against covid, and that in countries where intestinal worms are not common ivermectin did not help with covid. This makes sense because it is known that intestinal worms can compromise the immune system. [0] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-t...

AHappyCamper 5y ago

If only there was a readily available, highly effected treatment for COVID that you could buy over the counter and had no side effects..... oh wait... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34194240/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34194240/

q3k 5y ago
... outpatient, sample size 42, open label, significantly older control group. This is a shitty trial, and definitely one that shouldn't be relied on to make such broad statements.
loxias 5y ago
1. It's just a pilot study, and outpatient at that. 2. N = 42 is .. small.. but see: #1 3. Holy crap that's fascinating results!! Wow! Can't wait to see what happens in a Real study (RCT) with higher N. 4. I'm smirking at the fact that the authors consist of the employees of the company that makes the compound in question, and those with the most to gain. But this in no way diminishes point #3. 5. Where did you hear of this? I'm disappointed in myself that I hadn't seen this, and it's from the middle of last year.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
Didn't Pfizer develop a pill delivered treatment for early infections, currently in trials? What does "highly effected" mean anyway? The one you linked might be enough to warrant future study, but given the numbers used it's not really statistically significant. I mean, especially when vaccinated, most people will be fine after two weeks at the latest.
- vajrabum 5y ago
  I think you mean Paxlovid? That's actually approved but apparently it's hard to make and Pfizer is still working on expanding production. Some pharmacies do have it however. As to highly effective, I believe it means that if you take Paxlovid you are very unlikely to need to be hospitalized and the length and severity of the infection will be significantly reduced. See this article for more info about someone's experience getting the drug. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/business/covid-pill-treatment-pfizer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/19/business/covid-pill-treat...

neom 5y ago

Extremely anecdotally, but I do feel like CBD helped me a lot get through long covid: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29813362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29813362

Atlas667 5y ago

It should also be noted that Cannabis is the new hot market, so even if this is refuted in a future paper or found that it doesn't work in humans as previously thought, that doesn't dispel the notions this first paper will generate. Like academic marketing.

andrepew 5y ago

Hopefully we see more studies to corroborate this. I saw this go by the news a little while ago https://globalnews.ca/news/8505406/cannabidiol-covid-19-study-university-of-waterloo/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8505406/cannabidiol-covid-19-stud... Apologies for not linking the study directly, but not entirely sure if I have access to it.