My wife spent months in the hospital due to Hyperemesis Gravidarum (a disorder during pregnancy that causes continual vomiting and nausea. My wife vomited up to 40 times a day, eventually vomiting blood and breaking vessels in her eyes. She survived on a banana bag and lost 20% of her pre-pregnancy body weight. She said HG feels like being on an unending roller coaster while you're hung over and have the worst flu of your life). We lost the first baby. The second pregnancy was only survivable due to cannabis. It was risk we knew but 7 years later our child shows no signs of developmental disorders. I know, N=1, but still worth sharing.
fellow HG sufferer (survivor?) here. i was on multiple medications since week 5 trying to prevent hospitalization, and still on zofran six months in. careful use of medications can be literally lifesaving.
but... i would say due to easier access and state/local legalization, the perceived use of cannabis has skyrocketed in all my pregnancy groups. much much more than 3 years ago with my last pregnancy, i imagine worlds different from 7 years. most pregnant people seem to be using it casually, even more so than alcohol or tobacco. i do have to wonder what we’ll see from this trend, and i’m generally glad for any research to define safer amounts of consumption.
I'm not a neuroscientist, I'm not a smoker, and I'm not a woman. The headline result seems like it could be plausible. However...
My first instinct reading the abstract is that the conclusion which finds an effect on male rats and not female rats is an unjustified subgroup analysis and likely a spurious result.
Given the sexiness of the topic (people think weed is harmless, but what if it's not), publication filters for stat. sig results, low a priori power, no adjustment for multiple comparisons, no pre-registration, and this bizarre subgroup contingent result... should we expect this to replicate?
Is there a strong theoretical basis for expecting the subgroup heterogeneity?
You think that sexual dimorphism doesn't apply to .. brain development? Frankly, it's absurd to claim that's an inappropriate subgroup. There are certainly valid criticisms to this particular paper, but this sort of analysis is standard and eminently justified for mammalian development work.
I'm also not sure what 'low a priori power' means. Statistical power is well defined and depends only on the sampling involved. You don't need to make any assumptions about it, Bayesian or otherwise.
As for the statistics, if anything the low p-values they get are even more impressive given the modest power of these analyses. The effect size must be enormous. Granted the gross PPI response didn't give a dazzling p-value, the followup is quite convincing, showing obvious quantitative changes by a number of metrics, particularly the NAcS Dopamine time-response.
I'm curious where you think a multiple-comparison adjustment needs to be be made. The authors are quite focused on a narrow analysis of the systems implicated in observational PCE studies.
Where I agree is that I would like the authors to have discussed the sexual dimorphism to some degree. It would be handy to know if there is any pre-existing literature that suggests that PCE affects males more than females; all that I could find was one that found effects in females, not males. Someone in the field likely has some reasonable ideas about what might be going on. However, I'd hesitate to say the issue is avoided; Nature has strict length requirements and such a discussion would necessarily be somewhat meandering.
> The increased legal availability of cannabis has led to a common misconception that it is a safe natural remedy for, among others, pregnancy-related ailments such as morning sickness.
Cannabis has been widely recognized among stoners as a natural miracle cure for everything from hangovers to stage IV cancer, and because it is produced by "nature" it is thought to be superior to "chemicals" found in ordinary pharmaceuticals.
If anything, legalizing cannabis will increase the visibility of studies like this and give us a clearer picture of its benefits and drawbacks.
Part of me suspects this is an over-correction against decades of prohibition and negative misinformation coming from D.A.R.E and other such programs. The legalization movement has been touting myriad medicinal benefits for a while, but that has bled over into the popular consciousness as the idea that weed is a miracle drug.
Cannabis attenuates inflammation and inflammation is an underlying or contributing cause to just about every disease so the stoners are right, in a way.
"miracle cure for everything"
That's my main argument to why it can't be good for them, it's evidence how much the use makes them want to believe.
But on a more cynical note, I get the impression that it might even help fight global warming: just consider how small the ecological footprint of a stereotype stoner failure lifestyle would be compared to a median middle class career. Find a solution to the packaging of spontaneous midnight snacks (sorry for reveling in stereotypes) and it would be about as green as it gets, except suicide. Could we capitalize (well, "ecologize") on that?
(even more off topic ramblings from here on)
You could set up "fun monasteries", were people could self-admit to dedicate their lives to nonproductive but low-impact activities such as stonerism, abdicating from consumerism, career and procreation in exchange for minima food, shelter and the means to follow their low-impact hobby. Those "fun monasteries" could be set up not just for doing drugs but for all kinds of low-impact but sufficiently addictive activities. Video games, certain sports, artisanship, coding, even for nonreproductive sex, science, or, if you want to go full retro, for religion. I'm sure that they could all be cheaper and lower impact per head than excusing models of welfare that just treat everybody in need as temporarily embarrassed middle class. "fun monasteries" would not replace welfare, they would be an individual alternative to it. Just like the prison system already kind of is. Would there be a mass rush? I doubt it. Butt supporting people who might be willing to severely lessen their footprint in exchange for a nonmonetary stipend sounds like a no-brainer low hanging fruit.
(for those who read till the end and who were wondering if that isn't just a green spin on the "concents" in Stephenson's Anathem, sure, the idea grew when someone mentioned the concents in a different thread on the site. Before that it was just general disappointment in how much we still resent low-impact lifestyle choices, even in circles who outwardly agree on strong measures to fight climate change)
>Cannabis has been widely recognized among stoners
Well lets also not forget the medical and scientific community has also widely recognized the Endocannabinoid system/Cannabinoid Receptors in the human body.
And although they have generally been prohibited from conducting research and clinical trials with cannabis the potential functions of cannabis receptors in the body include: cognitive, memory, appetite, energy balance/metabolism, stress response, immune system, female reproduction, nervous system, thermoregulation, sleep, and the physiological/cognitive effects of physical exercises.
How much THC did they give the rats compared to human quantities? I read an article about monkey brains showing some type of symptom when they looked at white matter under a microscope. Turns out the poor monkeys were given the equivalent of an adult smoking a pound a day.
Study says: "... we modeled PCE by administering THC (2 mg per kg, subcutaneously (s.c.) once daily) to rat dams during pregnancy (from gestational day (GD) 5 until GD20). This low THC dose does not recapitulate behavioral responses in the can-nabinoid tetrad assay or elicits cannabinoid tolerance after repeated administration, hence it represents a mild insult without any substantial direct impact on maternal behavior. ... In terms of human consumption, this dose is equivalent to THC content in mild cannabis cigarettes (joints) (5%), since the average THC content in illicit cannabis preparations has significantly increased in the last two decades (from ~4% to ~12%)."
2mg/kg subcutaneous. I don't know the conversion between subcutaneous and other forms of ingestion, but this would be equivalent of ~150mg of THC for an adult male. I also don't the THC content of weed, but it doesn't sound like an unfathomably high dose. I think the other design concerns are more likely to be the culprit here than external validity worries about dose.
You usually shouldn't draw such conclusions from single studies. This was a rat model studying a specific gene and a drug therapy for it, it might be one datum among many if you were surveying the literature to try to draw conclusions about plain terms conclusions to extract.
A quote from the abstract "Emerging clinical evidence, however, indicates that prenatal cannabis exposure (PCE) predisposes offspring to various neuropsychiatric disorders linked to aberrant dopaminergic function." is about the best you can do. There is growing clinical evidence that cannabis exposure during gestation leads to problems with dopamine.
The longer version: there is evidence of a pathway for THC to be harmful during pregnancy. Much more study is needed. In the meantime, since THC is not needed during pregnancy, the risks clearly outweigh the benefits and pregnant persons should avoid THC.
possible "neuropsychiatric disorders linked to aberrant dopaminergic function."
I took this to mean: possible problems regulating/utilizing dopamine which could mean a whole lot of things. increasinly predisposed to things like depression, difficulty breaking addictions that supply the user with dopamine, etc.
I hope "Don't smoke when pregnant" goes without saying. The mother's blood IS the baby's blood during pregnancy, anything the mother takes the baby gets. That's why 90% of medications are unsafe to take when pregnant.
> The mother's blood IS the baby's blood during pregnancy, anything the mother takes the baby gets.
This is not really true[0]:
> In the villi, these vessels eventually branch to form an extensive arterio-capillary-venous system, bringing the fetal blood extremely close to the maternal blood; but no intermingling of fetal and maternal blood occurs ("placental barrier").
There is some pass-through effect, but it is not 100%, and varies depending on the particular chemical.
There's more to it than that - 90% of medications are untested for their effects during pregnancy because doing studies on pregnant women is seen as unethical/too-risky. This is a huge problem since pregnant women have no idea what is safe to take. Some of it is _probaby_ safe, but we have no idea.
> Here, we show that male, but not female, offspring of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)-exposed dams, a rat PCE model, exhibit extensive molecular and synaptic changes in dopaminergic neurons of the ventral tegmental area, including altered excitatory-to-inhibitory balance and switched polarity of long-term synaptic plasticity.
Very possible that this effect will not be observed in humans. Certainly not a good reason to cease cannabis use if it's part of your pregnancy or birth plan, coordinated with experienced prenatal and neonatal professionals.
The opening of the abstract costs this study substantial credibility in my opinion:
> The increased legal availability of cannabis has led to a common misconception that it is a safe natural remedy for, among others, pregnancy-related ailments such as morning sickness.
There is no source provided for the claim that increased legal availability has led to a change in perception, but the use of this phrase to open the abstract betrays an unambiguous agenda.
I'll wait until more human longitudinal studies (the current corpus of which includes many which appear favorable to cannabis as part of a prenatal regimen) before changing my mind.
[+] [-] spraak|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silencio|6 years ago|reply
but... i would say due to easier access and state/local legalization, the perceived use of cannabis has skyrocketed in all my pregnancy groups. much much more than 3 years ago with my last pregnancy, i imagine worlds different from 7 years. most pregnant people seem to be using it casually, even more so than alcohol or tobacco. i do have to wonder what we’ll see from this trend, and i’m generally glad for any research to define safer amounts of consumption.
[+] [-] notafraudster|6 years ago|reply
My first instinct reading the abstract is that the conclusion which finds an effect on male rats and not female rats is an unjustified subgroup analysis and likely a spurious result.
Given the sexiness of the topic (people think weed is harmless, but what if it's not), publication filters for stat. sig results, low a priori power, no adjustment for multiple comparisons, no pre-registration, and this bizarre subgroup contingent result... should we expect this to replicate?
Is there a strong theoretical basis for expecting the subgroup heterogeneity?
[+] [-] Obi_Juan_Kenobi|6 years ago|reply
I'm also not sure what 'low a priori power' means. Statistical power is well defined and depends only on the sampling involved. You don't need to make any assumptions about it, Bayesian or otherwise.
As for the statistics, if anything the low p-values they get are even more impressive given the modest power of these analyses. The effect size must be enormous. Granted the gross PPI response didn't give a dazzling p-value, the followup is quite convincing, showing obvious quantitative changes by a number of metrics, particularly the NAcS Dopamine time-response.
I'm curious where you think a multiple-comparison adjustment needs to be be made. The authors are quite focused on a narrow analysis of the systems implicated in observational PCE studies.
Where I agree is that I would like the authors to have discussed the sexual dimorphism to some degree. It would be handy to know if there is any pre-existing literature that suggests that PCE affects males more than females; all that I could find was one that found effects in females, not males. Someone in the field likely has some reasonable ideas about what might be going on. However, I'd hesitate to say the issue is avoided; Nature has strict length requirements and such a discussion would necessarily be somewhat meandering.
[+] [-] j7ake|6 years ago|reply
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdf/S1550-4131(18)30631...
Evidence in mice :
[+] [-] bitwize|6 years ago|reply
Cannabis has been widely recognized among stoners as a natural miracle cure for everything from hangovers to stage IV cancer, and because it is produced by "nature" it is thought to be superior to "chemicals" found in ordinary pharmaceuticals.
If anything, legalizing cannabis will increase the visibility of studies like this and give us a clearer picture of its benefits and drawbacks.
[+] [-] reading-at-work|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colechristensen|6 years ago|reply
https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/Inflammati...
[+] [-] usrusr|6 years ago|reply
But on a more cynical note, I get the impression that it might even help fight global warming: just consider how small the ecological footprint of a stereotype stoner failure lifestyle would be compared to a median middle class career. Find a solution to the packaging of spontaneous midnight snacks (sorry for reveling in stereotypes) and it would be about as green as it gets, except suicide. Could we capitalize (well, "ecologize") on that?
You could set up "fun monasteries", were people could self-admit to dedicate their lives to nonproductive but low-impact activities such as stonerism, abdicating from consumerism, career and procreation in exchange for minima food, shelter and the means to follow their low-impact hobby. Those "fun monasteries" could be set up not just for doing drugs but for all kinds of low-impact but sufficiently addictive activities. Video games, certain sports, artisanship, coding, even for nonreproductive sex, science, or, if you want to go full retro, for religion. I'm sure that they could all be cheaper and lower impact per head than excusing models of welfare that just treat everybody in need as temporarily embarrassed middle class. "fun monasteries" would not replace welfare, they would be an individual alternative to it. Just like the prison system already kind of is. Would there be a mass rush? I doubt it. Butt supporting people who might be willing to severely lessen their footprint in exchange for a nonmonetary stipend sounds like a no-brainer low hanging fruit.(for those who read till the end and who were wondering if that isn't just a green spin on the "concents" in Stephenson's Anathem, sure, the idea grew when someone mentioned the concents in a different thread on the site. Before that it was just general disappointment in how much we still resent low-impact lifestyle choices, even in circles who outwardly agree on strong measures to fight climate change)
[+] [-] Spooky23|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway_law|6 years ago|reply
Well lets also not forget the medical and scientific community has also widely recognized the Endocannabinoid system/Cannabinoid Receptors in the human body.
And although they have generally been prohibited from conducting research and clinical trials with cannabis the potential functions of cannabis receptors in the body include: cognitive, memory, appetite, energy balance/metabolism, stress response, immune system, female reproduction, nervous system, thermoregulation, sleep, and the physiological/cognitive effects of physical exercises.
[+] [-] criley2|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rolltiide|6 years ago|reply
Like cyanide and mercury
[+] [-] wil421|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pete_D|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notafraudster|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneilan1|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colechristensen|6 years ago|reply
A quote from the abstract "Emerging clinical evidence, however, indicates that prenatal cannabis exposure (PCE) predisposes offspring to various neuropsychiatric disorders linked to aberrant dopaminergic function." is about the best you can do. There is growing clinical evidence that cannabis exposure during gestation leads to problems with dopamine.
[+] [-] cjensen|6 years ago|reply
The longer version: there is evidence of a pathway for THC to be harmful during pregnancy. Much more study is needed. In the meantime, since THC is not needed during pregnancy, the risks clearly outweigh the benefits and pregnant persons should avoid THC.
[+] [-] loeg|6 years ago|reply
Probably don't smoke a lot of weed during pregnancy? But I think that was already more or less a given.
[+] [-] castis|6 years ago|reply
I took this to mean: possible problems regulating/utilizing dopamine which could mean a whole lot of things. increasinly predisposed to things like depression, difficulty breaking addictions that supply the user with dopamine, etc.
[+] [-] alexandercrohde|6 years ago|reply
I would hope this would be common knowledge.
[+] [-] loeg|6 years ago|reply
This is not really true[0]:
> In the villi, these vessels eventually branch to form an extensive arterio-capillary-venous system, bringing the fetal blood extremely close to the maternal blood; but no intermingling of fetal and maternal blood occurs ("placental barrier").
There is some pass-through effect, but it is not 100%, and varies depending on the particular chemical.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta#Fetoplacental_circula...
[+] [-] jonahhorowitz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ropiwqefjnpoa|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SolaceQuantum|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ultraism|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rasz|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] notadoc|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LyndsySimon|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zajd|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jMyles|6 years ago|reply
Very possible that this effect will not be observed in humans. Certainly not a good reason to cease cannabis use if it's part of your pregnancy or birth plan, coordinated with experienced prenatal and neonatal professionals.
The opening of the abstract costs this study substantial credibility in my opinion:
> The increased legal availability of cannabis has led to a common misconception that it is a safe natural remedy for, among others, pregnancy-related ailments such as morning sickness.
There is no source provided for the claim that increased legal availability has led to a change in perception, but the use of this phrase to open the abstract betrays an unambiguous agenda.
I'll wait until more human longitudinal studies (the current corpus of which includes many which appear favorable to cannabis as part of a prenatal regimen) before changing my mind.