Literally every nutrient or substance has a million good effects as well as bad. Articles extolling the virtues (or 1 virtue) or a nutrient are generally clickbait, including the original research. I hate how researchers take some nutrient and study it hoping it will cure this and that. It's literally a dead end. There will never be medical progress this way. It's a good way to spend _some_ resources because it's still possibly good research, but that's it.
You're being a glass-half-empty person. Actually it's worse than that: you're being extremely hyperbolic in your condemnation of this research.
I see health research a giant jigsaw puzzle (on top of other kinds of puzzles) -- and over time, by examining multiple routs of interaction, we start to see the bigger picture. And find out why, for example, certain substances that are harmful (in some aspects, at certain use levels) can also be tolerated or acclimated to over time (because they can be beneficial to other parts of the system). Especially given that this is not just any substance, but one that our species has been using across cultures and since before recorded history.
And when it comes to conditions like Alzheimer's: if we have to turn over a thousand stones, and do a thousand studies like this to get a working compound -- then so be it. It literally is a trillion-dollar question, in both financial and human (suffering) terms. And yet here we are, still groping around different parts of the elephant in the dark.
This is actually way more interesting IMO. THC has many issues, it's very strong and a lot of people either don't like it or can't use it except during breaks. CBN isn't really even psychosomatic, so it can be dosed easily and benefits can be acquired by most people. Now if only it weren't so expensive despite the huge availability
This feels like doctors recommending smoking in 1950ties! Maybe it is a survivor bias, weak cells die sooner, so only measured brain cells are super strong :)
[+] [-] antics9|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whazor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pluc|4 years ago|reply
"Long-term cannabis use damages lungs, but in a different way to tobacco": https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/942244
[+] [-] corey_moncure|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unixbane|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vanusa|4 years ago|reply
I see health research a giant jigsaw puzzle (on top of other kinds of puzzles) -- and over time, by examining multiple routs of interaction, we start to see the bigger picture. And find out why, for example, certain substances that are harmful (in some aspects, at certain use levels) can also be tolerated or acclimated to over time (because they can be beneficial to other parts of the system). Especially given that this is not just any substance, but one that our species has been using across cultures and since before recorded history.
And when it comes to conditions like Alzheimer's: if we have to turn over a thousand stones, and do a thousand studies like this to get a working compound -- then so be it. It literally is a trillion-dollar question, in both financial and human (suffering) terms. And yet here we are, still groping around different parts of the elephant in the dark.
[+] [-] ape4|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tsol|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CoastalCoder|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chmaynard|4 years ago|reply
https://www.webmd.com/pain-management/cbd-cbn-what-is-differ...
Looks like Salk submitted the paper to a paywalled journal. Can anyone here refer me to a copy of the PDF?
[+] [-] throw8932894|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mountainriver|4 years ago|reply