3 ms·

What makes you think that selective breeding results in a less targeted therapeutic than synthetics? Reportedly, pure THC as administered to cancer patients to

What makes you think that selective breeding results in a less targeted therapeutic than synthetics? Reportedly, pure THC as administered to cancer patients to treat nausea results in much less favorable results than the compounds naturally produced by plants selectively bred for the purpose. This is why I pointed to the tight feedback loop between plant and grower. Evolution, coupled with a good fitness function, outperforms most other methods available to us on hard problems. Targeting specific receptors for therapeutic benefit certainly qualifies as one.

mapontosevenths 1y ago
> What makes you think that selective breeding results in a less targeted therapeutic than synthetics? Your own quote. It literally inetarcts with every system of the body. Seldom do we need or want that in a therapeutic drug.
- timschmidt 1y ago
  I see. You need to read more, then. Just because G coupled protein receptors exist in every tissue does not mean they are all identical. As I said there are many varieties, each with unique binding affinity, local physiology, cell differentiation, etc. And each type is expressed preferentially in different areas and ratios. We are very complex systems. How a molecule binds to specific receptors can operate as a targeting mechanism in and of itself. And can also be modified by other molecules produced by the same plant. Synthetics also permeate and interact with the entire body, typically, btw.
  - mapontosevenths 1y ago
    I checked wikipedia. It says there are more than 120 known cannabanoids in cannabis that interact with the bodies receptors. Many of those cannabanoids bind to more than one receptor and impact the body in multiple ways. Imagine you went to a doctor with a headache and he handed you 120 pills then said "None of these are labelled, but 15 of these will help with your headache, 60 will do random things to other parts of your body, 20 will cause negative side effects, 3 will make your headache worse, and 13 will get you a little high." Would you take the lot of them or ask him to do a bit more research and get back to you? To me, it depends how bad that headache is. Either way, I'd hope they start labeling those pills sooner rather than later. In the case of the plant, selectivity breeding it to have a little more or a little less of each isn't really addressing the root problem that there are hundreds of drugs in there and I only really want the ones that meet my current needs. > Synthetics also permeate and interact with the entire body, typically, btw. I mean... Some do, sometimes, I guess? Most have pretty specific mechanisms of action that are understood before we prescribe them.
    - timschmidt 1y ago
      > I checked wikipedia. It says there are more than 120 known cannabanoids Don't look up the number of sugars or proteins. > Imagine you went to a doctor with a headache and he handed you 120 pills then said "None of these are labelled, but 15 of these will help with your headache, 60 will do random things to other parts of your body, 20 will cause negative side effects, 3 will make your headache worse, and 13 will get you a little high." This is a lovely straw man, but not representative of the situation under discussion. Humans have cultivated cannabis for greater than 5,000 years, longer than many domesticated foods, which are similarly chemically complex. Do you trust the farmer that that carrot is going to have the desired effect if you eat it? Cannabis cultivars carry a similar level of confidence in suitability for purpose. > selectivity breeding it to have a little more or a little less of each Oh sweet summer child, selective breeding is so much more complicated than you seem to understand. > Most have pretty specific mechanisms of action that are understood before we prescribe them. Throughout most of human history, most drugs have been discovered empirically without any understanding of how they function at all. Having worked with molecular biologists, I'd say it's an enormous stretch to say we understand much about how we work. No comprehensive model exists, outside of testing on real humans, for evaluating the effects of a drug.
      - mapontosevenths 1y ago
        > Cannabis cultivars carry a similar level of confidence in suitability for purpose. I'm really not sure what our disagreement here really is. I think we're both agreed that modern Cannabis is fairly fit for it's purpose. As you say, they've been doing 'human experimentation' with it for thousands of years and it's evolved alongside us. I just also think that we shouldn't halt progress at the level of farming a plant because it's "good enough." We have new tools available to us now, and we should use them. To try and rephrase: All I'm really saying here is that we should try to understand HOW those cultivars work, and optimize by extracting the useful bits or by synthesizing variations on them in a lab. That way we can minimize the side-effects and maximize the benefits. Are you opposed to that? If so why?
        1y ago

mapontosevenths 1y ago

> What makes you think that selective breeding results in a less targeted therapeutic than synthetics? Your own quote. It literally inetarcts with every system of the body. Seldom do we need or want that in a therapeutic drug.

timschmidt 1y ago
I see. You need to read more, then. Just because G coupled protein receptors exist in every tissue does not mean they are all identical. As I said there are many varieties, each with unique binding affinity, local physiology, cell differentiation, etc. And each type is expressed preferentially in different areas and ratios. We are very complex systems. How a molecule binds to specific receptors can operate as a targeting mechanism in and of itself. And can also be modified by other molecules produced by the same plant. Synthetics also permeate and interact with the entire body, typically, btw.
- mapontosevenths 1y ago
  I checked wikipedia. It says there are more than 120 known cannabanoids in cannabis that interact with the bodies receptors. Many of those cannabanoids bind to more than one receptor and impact the body in multiple ways. Imagine you went to a doctor with a headache and he handed you 120 pills then said "None of these are labelled, but 15 of these will help with your headache, 60 will do random things to other parts of your body, 20 will cause negative side effects, 3 will make your headache worse, and 13 will get you a little high." Would you take the lot of them or ask him to do a bit more research and get back to you? To me, it depends how bad that headache is. Either way, I'd hope they start labeling those pills sooner rather than later. In the case of the plant, selectivity breeding it to have a little more or a little less of each isn't really addressing the root problem that there are hundreds of drugs in there and I only really want the ones that meet my current needs. > Synthetics also permeate and interact with the entire body, typically, btw. I mean... Some do, sometimes, I guess? Most have pretty specific mechanisms of action that are understood before we prescribe them.
  - timschmidt 1y ago
    > I checked wikipedia. It says there are more than 120 known cannabanoids Don't look up the number of sugars or proteins. > Imagine you went to a doctor with a headache and he handed you 120 pills then said "None of these are labelled, but 15 of these will help with your headache, 60 will do random things to other parts of your body, 20 will cause negative side effects, 3 will make your headache worse, and 13 will get you a little high." This is a lovely straw man, but not representative of the situation under discussion. Humans have cultivated cannabis for greater than 5,000 years, longer than many domesticated foods, which are similarly chemically complex. Do you trust the farmer that that carrot is going to have the desired effect if you eat it? Cannabis cultivars carry a similar level of confidence in suitability for purpose. > selectivity breeding it to have a little more or a little less of each Oh sweet summer child, selective breeding is so much more complicated than you seem to understand. > Most have pretty specific mechanisms of action that are understood before we prescribe them. Throughout most of human history, most drugs have been discovered empirically without any understanding of how they function at all. Having worked with molecular biologists, I'd say it's an enormous stretch to say we understand much about how we work. No comprehensive model exists, outside of testing on real humans, for evaluating the effects of a drug.
    - mapontosevenths 1y ago
      > Cannabis cultivars carry a similar level of confidence in suitability for purpose. I'm really not sure what our disagreement here really is. I think we're both agreed that modern Cannabis is fairly fit for it's purpose. As you say, they've been doing 'human experimentation' with it for thousands of years and it's evolved alongside us. I just also think that we shouldn't halt progress at the level of farming a plant because it's "good enough." We have new tools available to us now, and we should use them. To try and rephrase: All I'm really saying here is that we should try to understand HOW those cultivars work, and optimize by extracting the useful bits or by synthesizing variations on them in a lab. That way we can minimize the side-effects and maximize the benefits. Are you opposed to that? If so why?
      - 1y ago