Comment by lithocarpus

8 days ago

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/

19 comments

lithocarpus

Reply
otherme123  8 days 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  7 days 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  8 days 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.

  • thin_carapace  8 days 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  7 days 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.

      9 replies →

  • laserdancepony  8 days 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.