4 ms·

This is great logic. This is sane logic. This is how science is supposed to be approached. We have a small amount of papers that shows this has potential, let'

This is great logic. This is sane logic. This is how science is supposed to be approached. We have a small amount of papers that shows this has potential, let's wait and see... one (or a few papers) does not mean it's totally accurate. Let's let other studies come out and see what they come up with. One study may not capture the entire picture and there could be more issues which these initital studies don't capture. Also initial studies could have testing errors which get uncovered in future studys with different P.I.'s and experiemental setups. I don't understand why people apply this logic to CBD but not experimental mRNA vaccines, and subsenquently why the FDA is fighting a FOIA request to release it's data claiming it will take 75 years to release. So now other researchers can't verify it. This is the opposite of science.

loxias 5y ago
> I don't understand why people apply this logic to CBD but not experimental mRNA vaccines, and subsenquently why the FDA is fighting a FOIA request to release it's data claiming it will take 75 years to release. mRNA technology is not new, it's been worked on for years and years. We were slated to get it around 2030 or 2040, we're just getting the advancement a bit earlier than the normal timeline. Sometimes discoveries happen earlier than they "ought" to, my fav example before mRNA was the video camera and TV. Invented before stereo radio, IIRC, in the late 20s. DARPA started injecting money into the field in 2013, and that's after it had been studied as "the next big thing in medicine" for some time. I worked as a programmer in a lab 10 years ago and "mRNA tech" was talked about the way us computer people talk about photonics, for example. The only reason the vaccine was ready so darn fast was because of the years of prior work on mRNA technology generally, combined with the fact that The Science Community (tm) had already spent years, money, and hundreds of graduate students (I imagine) specifically on stabilizing the spike protein following the SARS outbreak in 2003. When the new one came along, I think we'd be in a different situation (dead. I think we'd be much more dead.) if there hadn't been prior research into how to stabilize that protein in just the right shape, or if there wasn't a decade of for-profit startup research behind it and even more public university research, for decades (plural). Oh, and also, I think your criticism of the FDA is spot on, I think and hope they lose the case in court. I just think it has nothing to do with anything else, it's just government bureaucracy being stupid, sometimes they need a FOIA request and a lawsuit to stop that crap.
fundad 5y ago
this Cannabidiol study did not test on human participants, the mRNA vaccines did. They needed to do that before even emergency authorization.

loxias 5y ago

> I don't understand why people apply this logic to CBD but not experimental mRNA vaccines, and subsenquently why the FDA is fighting a FOIA request to release it's data claiming it will take 75 years to release. mRNA technology is not new, it's been worked on for years and years. We were slated to get it around 2030 or 2040, we're just getting the advancement a bit earlier than the normal timeline. Sometimes discoveries happen earlier than they "ought" to, my fav example before mRNA was the video camera and TV. Invented before stereo radio, IIRC, in the late 20s. DARPA started injecting money into the field in 2013, and that's after it had been studied as "the next big thing in medicine" for some time. I worked as a programmer in a lab 10 years ago and "mRNA tech" was talked about the way us computer people talk about photonics, for example. The only reason the vaccine was ready so darn fast was because of the years of prior work on mRNA technology generally, combined with the fact that The Science Community (tm) had already spent years, money, and hundreds of graduate students (I imagine) specifically on stabilizing the spike protein following the SARS outbreak in 2003. When the new one came along, I think we'd be in a different situation (dead. I think we'd be much more dead.) if there hadn't been prior research into how to stabilize that protein in just the right shape, or if there wasn't a decade of for-profit startup research behind it and even more public university research, for decades (plural). Oh, and also, I think your criticism of the FDA is spot on, I think and hope they lose the case in court. I just think it has nothing to do with anything else, it's just government bureaucracy being stupid, sometimes they need a FOIA request and a lawsuit to stop that crap.

fundad 5y ago

this Cannabidiol study did not test on human participants, the mRNA vaccines did. They needed to do that before even emergency authorization.