I wouldn't say it's a miracle drug yet but that's what it's trending towards. We've found out a lot about it but prohibition made it hard to study these compounds.
Today there are colleges across the USA with CBD specific drug trials and testing going on, a EU company actually just submitted a formulation for FDA approval which could be s game changer
The velvet fox trots at midnight
Coast to Coast AM did a great show on this topic last week, lots of good information
My contribution (this is from a CE course in Psychiatry, no offense is meant nor the taking any liberties suggested. I am not the author of this content hence, I do not have the ability to vet it for any of the words which we are afraid of leading to some BS. I think it is relevant because it is, perhaps, the only thing in this thread, so far, that is objective, researched, supported by rigorous academic study and therefore, it is valid. Please delete it or tell me to delete it if it is in violation.) :
Understanding Cannabis in Psychiatry: Pharmacology and Synthetic Cannabinoids
https://psychopharmacologyinstitute....abis1-ARPreach
Lol! Nah! It's a cure all! Quit comparing exogenous to endogenous!
Wtf man!
You act like exogenous testosterone shuts down our natural production!
I can't help this even though I am walking a fine line because of my tren....
I know dosers of cannibis of 50 years!
Their health is shit!
I realize I have high bp but wanna compate my gf's health to mine?
Her mothers?
Brothers?
Sisters? (Tweeker dont count)
All her friends?
I am game.
Every drug on the face of the earth has a side effect!
Cbd is not the exception.
Cbd was politicized and propaganda was built around it to support its legalization.
"Little Timmy got the rickets, little cbd an he all beddah!"
Its a game like any other.
Fuck with any balance of any chemical in the human genome and you throw off twenty others.
Warning may cause heatburn, insomnia, narcolepsy,
Fainting diarrhea (a singular symptom, you shit your pants and pass out) constipation, rapid heart rate, IHB, tacos on the porch or nothing at all.
Every drug commecially available...
But no this...
This is it.
Good post quester.
Last edited by Obs; 11-10-2017 at 11:07 PM.
can't compare people who smoke grass to get high to people using the therapy
The doses of and needed will never be achieved by smoking rec. Pot.
There's barely .4% cbd in common stuff.
And this article is talking about synthetic cbd.
Not plant derived.
Also this article is talking about "spice" and "K2" legal herbal incense.
They are not cbd or cannabinoids
Sent from my LGLS775 using Tapatalk
Last edited by Couchlock; 11-11-2017 at 03:30 AM.
Discussion is getting interesting.
Academic studies don't prove validity friend, look at the global warming debate. Academic papers on both sides of the coin.
There is a ton of information out there, objective and university funded research. There is an USA-FDA study going on now.
Keep in mind, for the past 50 years it's been high,y restricted who even could access it to study it. Now, with some US states legalizing, more people are able to start doing actually research. We are at the tip of the iceberg so to speak.
Unless I am miunderstanding Quester (which is plausible) this is the current accepted working theory (In the same way gravity is the current working theory). I am confused why you would negate Academic studies and in the next sentence refeer to some. I am probably just misunderstanding and for that I apologies.
Every single bit of technology, science, idea, and belief is supported by academic rigor. It is the only way our society has of showing validity. The vast majority of information available on this forum is supported by academic cancer.
The difference between pharmacological to treat cholesterol, epilepsy, parkinsons and CBD's, fish oil, glutamine/chondritin is that the pharmacologicals have been rigorously studied by experts who have spent decades in the field, used empirical and reproducible methods (experimentation, statistical analysis, historical and longitudinal studies, meta analysis) to produce and submit a paper on their findings that is vigorously reviewed (with prejudice) by other people who have spent decades learning about the same thing and whose reputations are on the line. DR OZ can say that CBD's are great but it will not affect his ratings if he is proven wrong.
Furthermore, I am not agianst CBDs but I have read not one submission to this thread that offers any substance other than the one that I just posted. If your topic has legitimacy, show it. Show us the proof. Where is the information coming from? Ask Kel about TRT and he can point to a study. Ask a CBD perosn and he does what, responds with a defensive posture?
Don't say "there is a study," if you can show the study. The accepted practice is just as it has been on this forum in the past: "the study posted in link below states..."
By all means, teach me, my mind is clear and my ears are open. Use this opportunity. I am your student, accept the responsibility by showing accountability.
The message isn't directed at Shots specifically, it is directed at the thread itself.
I am a SOCIAL LIBERTARIAN and support CBDs and the stuff it is derived from. Teach me so that I can meaningfully support your cause.
*Correction: I support the legality, not the use.
Right, but it is related and it is science not conjecture, or opinion. The message from the study: CBDs can be created synthetically and made potent, in high doses they have toxic effects. It isn't saying that at low doses, they are toxic but it is not saying that at low doses they are not toxic. It is simply saying that at high doses, they are toxic. If something is toxic at any dose, it likely has similar properties at lower doses. I.E. there is a spectrum, and it is normally a direct relationship, however, some chemicals do follow an inverse relationship. At low doses they do the opposite of what they do at high doses. Is CBDs one of those? IDK, NO STUDIES HAVE BEEN SHOWN...
Not the same
There's a reason why stuff like sativex and marinol provide next to no relief or therapeutic benefits compared to naturally derived compounds.
This is almost baiting the conversation to the banned derivative.
Please limit duscusdion to CBD ONLY
That study focused on the banned aspect as well
Sent from my LGLS775 using Tapatalk
Your adherence to the agreement is commendable. No attempt was made to violate that, you've done a good job maintaining the agreement. My post was about the psycho (my area)-pharmacological effects of the ingestion of high potency CBD's. If it is in violation of the agreement, have it removed or ask me to do it. Out of respect, I'll do so as soon as I see the request. My motivation to post it was to motivate the rest of you to honor the implicit part of the agreement. Just as we do in the rest of the forum, post sources, post support, reference your comments, Please. There may be legitimate uses for CBDs, prove it so it will matter when you state it.
Couch is good with links do I imagine he will post them soon, I don't know how to post links off the device I use for this forum but you can search and find reputable studies.
There are a few drugs working their way throw federal approval process, you can find that fda info packets which have all their clinical data, trials, etc.
A European drug company has a CBD drug that just made some big progress that was in the news cycle lately, major drug company too
That sounds great...can you two show some studies I can read about that?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189631/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22716160/
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq
Last edited by Couchlock; 11-16-2017 at 12:38 PM.
Couch I read these with the intention of offering some type of positive support because I appreciate that you went to the effort. Unfortunately the studies do not allow me to do that.
From the first article:
"Conclusions
At this time, there does seem to be a growing body of basic pharmacologic data suggesting there may be a role for CBD, especially in the treatment of refractory epilepsy. However, given the lack of well-controlled trials, we must also ask if we are getting ahead of ourselves. Clearly, this is an emotionally and politically charged issue. If this were any other uninvestigated pharmaceutical compound, would we feel as compelled to make the agent widely available before statistically valid class 1 evidence was available for review? Until data from well-designed clinical trials are available and reliable, and standardized CBD products that are produced using GMP are available, caution must be exercised in any consideration of using CBD for the treatment of epilepsy. In the meantime, based upon promising preliminary data, further clinical research should be wholeheartedly pursued."
To sum up:------
That article was about the use of CBDs for epilepsy. That article surveyed all other articles and studies available and concluded that not enough evidence existed to support the use of CBDs for epilepsy nor the study of it for that purpose in lieu of other therapeutic means for treating epilepsy.-----
The second article is more positive, although only the abstract is available: (from the abstratct)
"Although the mechanisms of the antipsychotic properties are still not fully understood, we propose a hypothesis that could have a heuristic value to inspire new studies. These results support the idea that CBD may be a future therapeutic option in psychosis, in general and in schizophrenia, in particular."-----
To sum up:-------
The article suggests that CBDs are worthy of being considered as a subject to begin studying for the purposes of investigating CBDs for their antipsychotic (think Charles Manson) and anti-schizophrenic (think Ted Bundy) properties.
The third website (not an article or study but it is from a credible source).-----
"Cannabinoids may have benefits in the treatment of cancer-related side effects."------
To sum up:-------
The website spends more than 500 characters talking about the negatives and then says that CBDs may have benefits in its effects as an agent of palatave care.-----
----
My take, CB1 and CB2 modulate pain through their effect on our endocanibinoid receptors. This raises quality of live for those who suffer from chronic pain associated with debilitating diseases. There must be something from the source of the first two studies to support that.-------
Now, does that have an application to bodybuilding? Bodybuilders are not in the same category of people with epilepsy, display psychotic behavior, display schizophrenic behavior, and suffer from Cancer. One main reason, they have agency, the ability to change themselves, they own their future.-------
In the context of one who suffers the Severe pain that accompanies a debilitating disease which one knows will kill them, significantly impairs their daily living to the point of inhibiting their ability to enjoy the basic aspects of life: growth, family, community, worship, friendship, work, accomplishment, love, reproduction, lust...walking your dog... Those factors require a holistic approach to repair that includes fighting depression, severe pain, intense loneliness, hopelessness, spiritual distress. CBD's, and anything else, should definitely be condsidered.-----
Currently, I am doing clinicals at a nursing home. There are patients there who have severe (stage 4) pressure ulcers, they will likely die from these and the primary reasons for which they arrived. They should have whatever they want...anything.
Are there any studies about the application of CBDs to enhance life for regular people, and better, to enhance the life of bodybuilders, or perform a function (like recuperation) in bodybuilding?-----
I have been using Medical marijuana for just over two weeks now. Impact on anxiety is certainly significant. Much less frantic feeling. Way more focus and concentration. Mood dramatically improved.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)