Does this make it actually useful in medical applications?
Always has been.jpg
As long as it actually applied with medical responsibility that is.
Yeah but for actually curing cancer?
Hard to proof that one.
There are no legal treatments that a doctor can provide for cancer that employ cannabis, with the exception of counteracting the side effects of chemo.
Any example of a non doctor “healing” cancer with cannabis are going to be anecdotal or questionable at best.
This is however not the first time science has linked cannabis to potentially help with some forms of cancer. But that its some is a very important detail. Last i checked, lung cancer cannot be treated by smoking weed for example.
Last i checked, lung cancer cannot be treated by smoking weed for example.
Bob Marley left the chat.
Will this be enough to move CBD from “alternative medicine” to just “medicine”?
No, it is a pre clinical finding of a study where CBD was added to cancer cells in vitro. It’s a finding which might justify more research into the effectiveness of CBD as a treatment.
Science really flip flops around cannabis. I feel like every other article about it is like “cannabis linked to bad health”, “cannabis linked to lowering bad thing”.
Now it’s possibly helping cure cancer? I’m spinning.
There are a lot of people invested in trying to make their drug of choice ‘safe’, while others are invested in making it ‘unsafe’. Thus a lot of studies are done and any result that fits a narrative is amplified by those who care. meanwhile real science is mostly lost in thd noise. I take all studeis with evtra salt.
I take all studeis with evtra salt.
Same. I’m starting to feel like the older I get the more aware I become of how difficult it is to trust that people’s actions and thinking are or will be correct.
It’s important to evaluate the original sources in those cases. Oftentimes the “cannabis linked to bad health”-esque studies are epidemiological or sociological studies that are linking health or mental health outcomes with cannabis use - regardless of the source of the cannabis (recreational/medical/illegal etc) or the method of consumption. The studies that link certain cannabinoids (usually not cannabis as a whole flower) to assistive health outcomes are medical studies where the usage is determined and administered by medical professionals.
I used to self-medicate with cannabis and it was really bad for me. I ended up getting onto medical cannabis though a doctor and both my physical and mental health outcomes have improved, while my overall consumption has drastically decreased. I used to smoke 1-1.5g of flower a day, usually through a bong, where now I use around 3-4g of flower a month in a dry herb vaporiser as well as using a daily CBD/CBG/CBN oil. My experience is not universal and is only a single data point, but helps explain the differences between the conclusions from both types of studies, based upon what they’re actually studying.
