4 ms·

If the doses of cannabis required to cure alzheimers would be high enough doses to destroy the rest of one's brain, it makes this finding not very useful, simil

If the doses of cannabis required to cure alzheimers would be high enough doses to destroy the rest of one's brain, it makes this finding not very useful, similar to the idea of curing alzheimers by destroying one's brain/

Spivak 7mo ago
Synthetic cannaboids were also studied as a possible analgesic and at the doses required it caused brain damage. Which is honestly disappointing because a general purpose pain killer that isn't opioid based would be a miracle.
- laserdancepony 7mo ago
  We have dozens of pain killers which are not opioid based, what do you mean? From the top of my head NSAIDs can be used, and Metamizole for example is as effective as morphium.
  - Muvasa 7mo ago
    you got nsaids, metamizole, acetoaminophen, duolexitine. And you got a couple of more that work for neuropathic pain. The biggest problem with nsaids is that they cause bleeding and kidney failure, ulcers hence can cause stomach cancer. Here is a site you can use too see how most pharmaco therapy is lacking. https://pain-calculator.com/calculators/osteoarthritis-pain/ https://pain-calculator.com/calculators/osteoarthritis-pain/
    - srean 7mo ago
      Yes. Very few painkillers that are not blood thinners. Paracetamol and canabinoids are a couple of rare exceptions. My uncle broke his hip in his old age. He died shortly after because of the bleeding induced by painkillers.
  - hermanzegerman 7mo ago
    Metamizol is banned in the US, so they've robbed themselves of that
- johnisgood 7mo ago
  What are your issues with opioid-based painkillers?
- thin_carapace 7mo ago
  although the study is often labelled irreplicable, i do still believe in rat park. opiates are not evil in and of themselves; rather, society forms a structure around which the use of opiates easily becomes more alluring than contributing to said society. consequently, those in chronic pain are often forced to suffer needlessly by being deprived of relief, so that societal productivity is maximized. the real miracle would be a fixed system, not the novel non-opiate painkiller suzetrigine. but apparently that is the next best thing.
  - kakacik 7mo ago
    Opiates form a quick and nasty addiction. People in constant pain (as in, 24/7 or even most of the day, every day) need to take ever increasing doses to get the same level of pain relief. You would be surprised how many folks are like that, and not only 70+ years old. It takes few weeks to form a lifelong addiction that can never be fully shed and will form a permanent crack or weakness in one's personality. What all that, how can you defend opiates? Opinion of society is irrelevant here, they are absolute scourge if used enough, and nobody is immune.
    - thin_carapace 7mo ago
      treatment guidelines don't even stress the effect of opiates that is activation of corresponding receptors in the gut, causing water to be leached and chronic excruiciating constipation to result. if only people were told that drinking coconut water solves this problem without relying on pharmaceutical means. this is one example of opiates being demonized due to incorrect application. i do argue that in the correct harness, opiates could be distributed to minimize unnecessary suffering at least somewhat - not 24/7, because literally any drug will result in tolerance (and debilitating physical side effects, something opiates lack) at that point. our current system is unsatisfactory - people are not taught how to take drugs correctly, and people exist in a system that naturally causes dopamine seeking reward systems to malfunction. while some are born psychologically weak, inherently leading to addiction susceptibility, society is expressly designed to produce such weakness in order to maintain the status quo. of course such an environment is not positively conducive to the dopamine flooding effects of opiates. i dont blame opiates for the system in which they exist. regarding personality cracks, i still refer to rat park for the most part, saving brain resets such as ibogaine for extreme cases - our addiction inducing society (as a whole, not merely the opinions wherein) does not imply impossibility of rewiring addictions. regardless, some people think cracks are beautiful (ref. kintsugi). do you argue that everyone should be instead placed on nsaids that destroy the stomach and liver, killing them earlier and objectively adding pain prior? is the current trajectory (that is, entirely depriving the suffering of effective relief, regardless as to their age bracket) for the best?
otherme123 7mo ago
But the studies are pervasive. For example, the (flawed) study that found that one cup of wine with each meal was healthier that no alcohol at all is still quoted today, and still "reproduced" in other studies that make the same claim but adding a clause of "given that you also [do good amount of exercise|eat very healthy|are in perfect health already]". Or the flawed studies that Soffriti and Belpoggi pushed (some of them didn't even pass peer review, but reached the public anyway) about artificial sweeteners and other things being carcinogenic: they basically feed mices with whatever they feel until they die, they look the corpses and if there is a tumor, eureka: what they put in the diet is the cause. Nobody took the studies seriously, except the public that now have a "scientific paper" that says Coca-cola causes breast cancer. In this case some public reads "smoking a joint daily equals invulnerable to Alzheimer, science says so".
- lithocarpus 7mo ago
  Yup. There's definitely a pattern and it seems like an obvious consequence of the structure of incentives. If you make a product you can make a study that shows it has some kind of benefit in some specific way, even if it probably causes more harm in other ways that are less obvious, and then you can sell it. Media will spread around your study especially if it shows something that will be a bit click-baity, and any study or discussion of the possible downsides will get far less attention. This is also why basically every edible plant has some article saying it's a "super food" etc etc.

Spivak 7mo ago

Synthetic cannaboids were also studied as a possible analgesic and at the doses required it caused brain damage. Which is honestly disappointing because a general purpose pain killer that isn't opioid based would be a miracle.

laserdancepony 7mo ago
We have dozens of pain killers which are not opioid based, what do you mean? From the top of my head NSAIDs can be used, and Metamizole for example is as effective as morphium.
- Muvasa 7mo ago
  you got nsaids, metamizole, acetoaminophen, duolexitine. And you got a couple of more that work for neuropathic pain. The biggest problem with nsaids is that they cause bleeding and kidney failure, ulcers hence can cause stomach cancer. Here is a site you can use too see how most pharmaco therapy is lacking. https://pain-calculator.com/calculators/osteoarthritis-pain/ https://pain-calculator.com/calculators/osteoarthritis-pain/
  - srean 7mo ago
    Yes. Very few painkillers that are not blood thinners. Paracetamol and canabinoids are a couple of rare exceptions. My uncle broke his hip in his old age. He died shortly after because of the bleeding induced by painkillers.
- hermanzegerman 7mo ago
  Metamizol is banned in the US, so they've robbed themselves of that
johnisgood 7mo ago
What are your issues with opioid-based painkillers?
thin_carapace 7mo ago
although the study is often labelled irreplicable, i do still believe in rat park. opiates are not evil in and of themselves; rather, society forms a structure around which the use of opiates easily becomes more alluring than contributing to said society. consequently, those in chronic pain are often forced to suffer needlessly by being deprived of relief, so that societal productivity is maximized. the real miracle would be a fixed system, not the novel non-opiate painkiller suzetrigine. but apparently that is the next best thing.
- kakacik 7mo ago
  Opiates form a quick and nasty addiction. People in constant pain (as in, 24/7 or even most of the day, every day) need to take ever increasing doses to get the same level of pain relief. You would be surprised how many folks are like that, and not only 70+ years old. It takes few weeks to form a lifelong addiction that can never be fully shed and will form a permanent crack or weakness in one's personality. What all that, how can you defend opiates? Opinion of society is irrelevant here, they are absolute scourge if used enough, and nobody is immune.
  - thin_carapace 7mo ago
    treatment guidelines don't even stress the effect of opiates that is activation of corresponding receptors in the gut, causing water to be leached and chronic excruiciating constipation to result. if only people were told that drinking coconut water solves this problem without relying on pharmaceutical means. this is one example of opiates being demonized due to incorrect application. i do argue that in the correct harness, opiates could be distributed to minimize unnecessary suffering at least somewhat - not 24/7, because literally any drug will result in tolerance (and debilitating physical side effects, something opiates lack) at that point. our current system is unsatisfactory - people are not taught how to take drugs correctly, and people exist in a system that naturally causes dopamine seeking reward systems to malfunction. while some are born psychologically weak, inherently leading to addiction susceptibility, society is expressly designed to produce such weakness in order to maintain the status quo. of course such an environment is not positively conducive to the dopamine flooding effects of opiates. i dont blame opiates for the system in which they exist. regarding personality cracks, i still refer to rat park for the most part, saving brain resets such as ibogaine for extreme cases - our addiction inducing society (as a whole, not merely the opinions wherein) does not imply impossibility of rewiring addictions. regardless, some people think cracks are beautiful (ref. kintsugi). do you argue that everyone should be instead placed on nsaids that destroy the stomach and liver, killing them earlier and objectively adding pain prior? is the current trajectory (that is, entirely depriving the suffering of effective relief, regardless as to their age bracket) for the best?

otherme123 7mo ago

But the studies are pervasive. For example, the (flawed) study that found that one cup of wine with each meal was healthier that no alcohol at all is still quoted today, and still "reproduced" in other studies that make the same claim but adding a clause of "given that you also [do good amount of exercise|eat very healthy|are in perfect health already]". Or the flawed studies that Soffriti and Belpoggi pushed (some of them didn't even pass peer review, but reached the public anyway) about artificial sweeteners and other things being carcinogenic: they basically feed mices with whatever they feel until they die, they look the corpses and if there is a tumor, eureka: what they put in the diet is the cause. Nobody took the studies seriously, except the public that now have a "scientific paper" that says Coca-cola causes breast cancer. In this case some public reads "smoking a joint daily equals invulnerable to Alzheimer, science says so".

lithocarpus 7mo ago
Yup. There's definitely a pattern and it seems like an obvious consequence of the structure of incentives. If you make a product you can make a study that shows it has some kind of benefit in some specific way, even if it probably causes more harm in other ways that are less obvious, and then you can sell it. Media will spread around your study especially if it shows something that will be a bit click-baity, and any study or discussion of the possible downsides will get far less attention. This is also why basically every edible plant has some article saying it's a "super food" etc etc.