3 ms·

I agree that we should work to understand mechanisms of action. However, I am aware of the enormity of the task, and I don't think we will have molecularly acc

I agree that we should work to understand mechanisms of action. However, I am aware of the enormity of the task, and I don't think we will have molecularly accurate complete pictures of how any drug affects us until we have complete virtual models on which to emulate and evaluate in detail. And that is a long way off. It also seems to me that there is an implicit bias in your comments favoring modern pharmaceuticals over plant-based medicines, which I think is unwarranted. The organisms around us are far more sophisticated than any human construction, our senses are incredibly finely tuned sensors, and selective breeding is an enormously powerful tool. Because these were available to ancient humans, people often make the mistake of thinking them simplistic, outdated, or somehow superseded by modern technology. Nothing could be further from the truth. From my perspective, a green leafy plant which manufactures a useful compound is a more sophisticated and desirable tool than a fume belching chemical factory making same. It is no accident that plants an animals around us produce compounds which are useful to us. We are all genetic relatives. Until we understand our own biology fully, and that of the plants and animals upon which we depend, I believe there is much it can teach us. One thing I've learned is that biology rarely works with pure chemicals. There are always metabolites, precursors, enzymes, enantiomers, and other chemical variations. Sometimes (often?) these prove important as well.

mapontosevenths 1y ago
> It also seems to me that there is an implicit bias in your comments favoring modern pharmaceuticals over plant-based medicines That's a fair criticism. I'm an engineer not just by training, but by nature. When the only tool you have is an engineer, every problem looks like it can be solved with better engineering. So far in life that's mostly worked out well for me. > One thing I've learned is that biology rarely works with pure chemicals. There are always metabolites, precursors, enzymes, enantiomers, and other chemical variations. Sometimes (often?) these prove important as well. Similarly, it seems to me that you may be unfairly biased against man made solutions. The problems you describe are just engineering challenges. Difficult ones to be sure, but we have some very clever scientists and some very sophisticated tools that are improving at a non-linear pace. We may not crack the nut this week, but someone will eventually. > From my perspective, a green leafy plant which manufactures a useful compound is a more sophisticated and desirable tool than a fume belching chemical factory making same. Plants are also technology now. Why not a genetically modified plant that produces only the desired cannabanoids, or modified versions of the cannabanoids? I'm being a bit tongue in cheek here, but what I mean to say is that the comparison is a bit unfair. Not every plant is good for you and not every man-made solution is the cartoon chemical plant from Captain Planet. Cannabis as it exists is good for many things, but it can certainly still be improved.
- timschmidt 1y ago
  > I'm an engineer not just by training, but by nature. When the only tool you have is an engineer, every problem looks like it can be solved with better engineering. I am also an engineer. But I've spent a decade working with biologists, mathematicians, physicists, and chemists understanding and repurposing evolutionary algorithms. For complex tasks such as these, they are often our best tools. > Similarly, it seems to me that you may be unfairly biased against man made solutions. The problems you describe are just engineering challenges. Difficult ones to be sure, but we have some very clever scientists and some very sophisticated tools that are improving at a non-linear pace. We may not crack the nut this week, but someone will eventually. Selective breeding _is_ man made. > Plants are also technology now. Why not a genetically modified plant that produces only the desired cannabanoids, or modified versions of the cannabanoids? As I pointed out earlier in the thread, pure THC has worse therapeutic outcomes than the whole plant. Purity != efficacy. You could probably survive on protein powder and multivitamins, but no one would enjoy that. Opiates are similar BTW. The whole poppy product provides relatively gentle rise and fall and an overall pleasant experience, whereas specific isolates can be quite harsh. It's called the entourage effect or synergistic interaction of the phytocomplex.

mapontosevenths 1y ago

> It also seems to me that there is an implicit bias in your comments favoring modern pharmaceuticals over plant-based medicines That's a fair criticism. I'm an engineer not just by training, but by nature. When the only tool you have is an engineer, every problem looks like it can be solved with better engineering. So far in life that's mostly worked out well for me. > One thing I've learned is that biology rarely works with pure chemicals. There are always metabolites, precursors, enzymes, enantiomers, and other chemical variations. Sometimes (often?) these prove important as well. Similarly, it seems to me that you may be unfairly biased against man made solutions. The problems you describe are just engineering challenges. Difficult ones to be sure, but we have some very clever scientists and some very sophisticated tools that are improving at a non-linear pace. We may not crack the nut this week, but someone will eventually. > From my perspective, a green leafy plant which manufactures a useful compound is a more sophisticated and desirable tool than a fume belching chemical factory making same. Plants are also technology now. Why not a genetically modified plant that produces only the desired cannabanoids, or modified versions of the cannabanoids? I'm being a bit tongue in cheek here, but what I mean to say is that the comparison is a bit unfair. Not every plant is good for you and not every man-made solution is the cartoon chemical plant from Captain Planet. Cannabis as it exists is good for many things, but it can certainly still be improved.

timschmidt 1y ago
> I'm an engineer not just by training, but by nature. When the only tool you have is an engineer, every problem looks like it can be solved with better engineering. I am also an engineer. But I've spent a decade working with biologists, mathematicians, physicists, and chemists understanding and repurposing evolutionary algorithms. For complex tasks such as these, they are often our best tools. > Similarly, it seems to me that you may be unfairly biased against man made solutions. The problems you describe are just engineering challenges. Difficult ones to be sure, but we have some very clever scientists and some very sophisticated tools that are improving at a non-linear pace. We may not crack the nut this week, but someone will eventually. Selective breeding _is_ man made. > Plants are also technology now. Why not a genetically modified plant that produces only the desired cannabanoids, or modified versions of the cannabanoids? As I pointed out earlier in the thread, pure THC has worse therapeutic outcomes than the whole plant. Purity != efficacy. You could probably survive on protein powder and multivitamins, but no one would enjoy that. Opiates are similar BTW. The whole poppy product provides relatively gentle rise and fall and an overall pleasant experience, whereas specific isolates can be quite harsh. It's called the entourage effect or synergistic interaction of the phytocomplex.