It doesn't fix anything, you just don't care as much.
post
It's not a "cure" medicine, it's a "relief" medicine.
Like painkillers.
They don't heal, they help lessen the negative effect of the illness to help while healing.
We already know this, stop twisting study results to sound like there's no positive side of cannabis.
Yes, that's exactly what the study says. That's there's nothing indicating this "relief" (= lessen symptoms) is given by cannabis. They're not even talking about a cure, so not sure why you're even bringing this up.
Well, speaking for myself, it most certainly helps with my anxiety and depression. So they can stuff it for all I care.
well, that’s just like, their opinion, man.
Here’s the findings and interpretations from the paper
Findings
54 trials were identified for inclusion (2477 participants; 1713 [69%] males, 764 [31%] females; median age 33·3 years [IQR 28·1–38·05; ethnicity data not available). 24 (44%) of these trials had a high risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low. Our meta-analysis revealed that a combination of cannabidiol and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol reduced cannabis withdrawal symptoms (SMD –0·29, 95% CI –0·57 to –0·02) and weekly grams of cannabis use (–1·00, –1·69 to –0·30) among those with cannabis use disorder, and a reduction in tic severity among those with tic or Tourette's Syndrome (–0·68, –1·03 to –0·34) compared with placebo. Any cannabinoid type led to an increase in sleep time as recorded by an electronic device (0·54, 0·14 to 0·95) and sleep diary (0·55, 0·01 to 1·09) among those with insomnia. There was a reduction in autistic traits (–0·36, –0·66 to –0·07) among those with autism spectrum disorder. Cannabinoids led to an increase in cocaine craving among those with cocaine use disorder (0·69, 0·22 to 1·15) compared with placebo. There were no significant effects on outcomes associated with anxiety, anorexia nervosa, psychotic disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, and opioid use disorder. There were insufficient data to meta-analyse studies of ADHD, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and tobacco use disorder. There was an absence of RCT evidence for the treatment of depression. Meta-analysis revealed higher odds of all-cause adverse events (OR 1·75, 95% CI 1·25 to 2·46) among those using cannabis versus control group (NNTH=7) but no higher odds of serious adverse events or study withdrawal.
Interpretation
There was some evidence that cannabinoids can reduce symptoms of cannabis use disorder, insomnia, tic or Tourette's syndrome, and autism spectrum disorder, but the quality of this evidence was generally low. Cannabinoids were associated with a greater risk of any adverse events but not of serious adverse events. Overall, there is a crucial need for more high-quality research. Given the scarcity of evidence, the routine use of cannabinoids for the treatment of mental disorders and SUDs is currently rarely justified.
Overall, there is a crucial need for more high-quality research.
I think this is the main conclusion here.
There were six studies included on anxiety with a total participant count of ~350... What a pathetic attempt of a review
Only 123 participants for PTSD and ONE study included
This search led to 634 results, of which 16 were relevant reviews where the mental disorder or SUD was the primary indication that cannabinoids were used to treat. Of these, few reviews included all mental disorders and SUDs (n=6), conducted a meta-analysis (n=4), or thoroughly evaluated the quality of evidence (n=2).
The data is shit. That's not their fault and it's mentioned on page 1 of the paper.
Weed helped me not kill myself while going through a mental breakdown with the most severe traumatic flashbacks and dissociative episodes I have ever experienced in my life. I wipe my ass with this study.
It's not the study that's the problem here, the study clearly examined it "as the primary treatment". This is a common science media failure, they've conflated "primary treatment" with "helps", and that is not the same thing at all.
Crutches aren't the "primary treatment" for a broken leg either, but they do assist recovery by allowing someone to not use the broken leg. I'd suggest cannabis plays a similar role, it gives people the distance from the pain and further injury that they need for actual recovery, which sounds like it could describe your experience.
But it's not the study that said that weed doesn't help. It says there's no evidence that using it on its own will help, which is exactly what you've described. The awkwardly positioned dick sucking you demand should be from sciencedaily.com
I hear you and I know the feeling very well. I just hate that really bad media reporting is causing people to lose trust in decent science.
I hope that if you find a moment of space and energy, you can consider adjusting the target of your anger. If not, I totally get it - I'll continue railing against the wilful misrepresentation of people's hard work elsewhere, and I wish you the best of luck.
In my experience researchers are being very clear, but the context of this is super important.
When researchers publish in journals, their target audience is other people in their field. In this case other researchers and doctors. With that in mind, they choose words and phrases very specific to their field that have agreed-on definitions inside that field. Their obligation (amongst others) is to communicate to their field about their findings, as accurately as possible. They obviously have to publish their research so that science can move forward too.
But then when they publish it, people outside the field can also read it, and this is where the problem starts creeping in.
There are no qualifications required to be a "science reporter". Unlike the researchers, those reporters aren't required to have experience in the niche they're writing about. They're not required to have any knowledge of the wider field or subspecialty. They don't necessarily know which of the words are specific and which are common use words. They don't have to declare their conflicts of interest. They aren't required to quote the researchers in full. If you're lucky, they might have a science-related undergrad degree, but that's only a taste of what is needed.
And researchers almost always say a hell of a lot, knowing that they're trying to translate their everyday jargon to someone who doesn't know it.
So in better examples of this problem, nuance gets lost. In worse examples, words are substituted that fundamentally change the meaning of the work. You can see this happen in the abstract here, emphasis mine:
"We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) testing the efficacy and safety of cannabinoids as the primary treatment for mental disorders or SUDs."
In common speech, "primary treatment" sounds like it could just mean "biggest help", but in medicine it holds a lot more meaning. "Primary treatment" in medicine means the absolute first thing you do that has the least destructive side effects and cures the patient, or if there is no cure, it is the thing that has the best quality evidence to help the patient as much as possible with the least destructive side effects. It's the silver bullet you reach for before all other things, or as close as you can get to it.
And so sciencedaily, not appreciating (or actively disregarding) that there was significant meaning in those two words, chose the word "helps" for the title. The title differs from the body, which comes closer with "does not treat", but that's still not the same thing. The difference between title and body is part of why I lean towards classing this as wilful misrepresentation. The other part is where they're pushing discussion about regulation, which has no relation to the contents of the paper.
The abstract could have been better, I did have to read some of the methodology to confirm what I suspected, but as far as I can tell, they did use the correct terminology for their target audience. And you're not supposed to only read the abstract anyway.
Ultimately the responsibility for the accuracy of reporting about a research paper outside of a scientific journal comes down to the reporter and their employer. The researcher can only do so much to explain their work to that reporter, they can't be responsible for teaching that reporter their entire field of knowledge, or knowing which parts the reporter is ignorant of. They probably also aren't given the opportunity to suggest edits for the article before release and they probably don't know to ask for the opportunity because they don't work in the media.
Tl;dr sciencedaily needs to do better
And that sounds like victim blaming to me. You can't stop people lying about you. They're individual researchers getting paid peanuts, not corporate executives with PR agents and lawyers at their disposal.
Their only choice would be to stop allowing public access to science, which has really terrible consequences for science and society both.
I can't read any of the comments you have been replying to here because OP deleted them, but anyway I'm here to applaud you on your explanation right here. It's so infuriating seeing regular people fall for this over and over again, and no accountability for the media spreading misinformation (intentionally or not). I wish I was as articulate as you though
It's a poor analogy. Using crutches on their own will hugely benefit some fraction of broken legs, compared to no treatment. Not as much as a cast, but it will show results.
That doesn't really work for medication. Painkillers and anti-nausea medication are poor treatments for almost any problem, but they contribute to the treatment of thousands of conditions.
Your point is entirely true though, just not a great analogy..
Cannabis is sychoactive and allows for deeper introspection to anyone attempting to reconcile their mental health.
It may not be a panacea, but it is very much a great tool in the arsenal of mental health.
Same, if it wasn't for weed I probably would have punched my own ticket years ago. I've been off it for a few months studying for a drug test and yaboi needs a bong rip.
And might I ask who is funding this study and how are they being paid for by big pharma?
Declaration of interests
WH and MG have received consultation fees from WHO. WH has received payment for expert testimony on the risks of cannabis use. MG is an appropriate member of the Medicinal Cannabis Expert Working Group, Australian Department of Health, Ageing and Disability. MG has received funding from the Therapeutic Goods Administration for independent evidence reviews on medicinal cannabis. All other authors declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgments
JW and ES are supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) investigator grant awarded to ES (GNT2017346). MG is supported by a NHMRC Postgraduate Scholarship (GNT2030765) and Monash Graduate Research Excellence Scholarship. JL, MT, and GC are supported by NHMRC investigator grants. TPF was funded by a UKRI Future Leaders Fellowship (MR/Y017560/1).
Plenty of Big Pharma money in producing and distributing cannibas in various forms. We've seen thousands of patents filed since legalization began in earnest in 2015
The author of the study addresses it. He mentions that a lot of studies fail to disclose funding or have a risk of bias based on funding.
I mean this is obviously anecdotal, but it helped me tremendously through some of the worst trauma I have ever encountered. I don't really give a shit what any study says.
I swear not to long ago I saw the opposite conclusion to some studies on mental illness and drugs.
I don't think weed helps my anxiety, but it does help with the side effects of the anti-anxiety medication.
To be fair, the population of this meta analysis is severely underpowered to assess whether there is an effect for rare/semi-rare conditions. (population is couple of hundred in most areas) and it shows in the confidence intervals. Wouldn't exactly call this a "huge" study.
A better title would be "Study unable to determine if cannabis helps or hurts anxiety, depression, or PTSD because of lack of data" which sounds less glamorous.
There aren't any drugs that resolve anxiety, depression, or ptsd on your behalf with nothing else. The most any drug can do is reduce feeling these things while they're active so that the causes of the feelings may be addressed with lifestyle and cognitive changes.
Drugs are a temporary shelter from the raging storm of these issues while you re-build or build up in the first place a real shelter to experience the world from in peace and comfort. The temporary shelter blows away when the drugs wear off, and to rely on a temporary shelter permanently is no solution. That being said, plenty of people without any shelter at all don't survive. Drugs help, but they don't fix the problems they provide temporary relief from, you must solve those problems.
Like the study said, there needs to be more specific research in a controlled environment of these substances being used in coordination with established therapies and procedures. I have personal anecdotal experience of positive outcomes with cannabis in a robust framework addressing these issues beyond chemical means. Importantly, I may not have survived without the option to put the overwhelming desire to opt out of this planet on hold for a few hours at a time by briefly regaining my ability to feel pleasure. My psych wanted to try ketamine for this purpose, but I'm a lot more comfortable with cannabis.
i don’t recall that weed was ever used for those things, other then just as a copeing mechanism, i think the argument is that it was better then the other narcotics by a country mile.
unless you are talking about charletons, but like we got people saying magic rocks cure cancer so like why would we need to validate their nonsense?
I was about to come tell how that has not been my experience at all but then I realized I read the headline wrong.
Is this controlled for the fact that some people react really poorly to cannabis? For me it actually makes all three WAY worse
Fascists have been robbing people at gunpoint in their own homes with approval from a serial killing billionaire monopolist state and that article talks about pseudoscience, non-verifiable, self-report based terms like feelings of anxiety, depression, and PTSD. Facts have shown that POVERTY causes anxiety, depression, and PTSD. POLICE STATE ARMED ROBBERIES CAUSE ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, AND PTSD. They're more likely to happen to people on the antagonist side of the MERCK, PFIZER, GSK MONOPOLY DRUG CARTEL. That is a fact about cannabis possession, cultivation, usage, and sale. Another relevant fact about this study would be the shadow network of BIG PHARMA serial killers with residence addresses somewhere near readers of that article and bank accounts in 0-tax jurisdictions of the likes of Panama, Luxembourg, etc. that funded putting that pile of feces into a format that looks like a scientific article. In the meantime, those unethical bastards have been selling drugs of the likes of opioids, benzodiazepines, etc. from inside hospitals near the readers of that article, drugs that have killed tens of thousands if not millions of humans per year.
P.S. That article totally omits to even acknowledge the variety of types of cannabis with widely different molecular composition profiles.
P.P.S. That article also omits to acknowledge that fact that research on cannabis consumption therapy has been happening outside the fascist states of the american-european colonial (and racist) empire and their ‘universities’ (sites of propaganda) because of a little thing called a decades-long illegal criminalization of the non-violent behavior of personal choice of consumption of a plant flower with numerous therapy applications growable with a small budget in approximately any house.
smoke a weed, feel euphoria for 10 minutes, then crippling anxiety for 4 hours
worst drug ever thanks
As soon as I started an effective dose of Prozac my high anxiety went away, in both senses of 'high' (weed high and a lot of anxiety).
Strange because it's the exact opposite for me, I'll get a huge peak of death-fearing anxiety with a quick onset, especially if I do a bit too much, but then it mellows out within 20/30min.
Here we go with them trying to keep the lies going & sadly a lot will fall for this again but that's why they legalized it so they could lace it for more future problems
there arw studies that thc inhibits anti-depressants. ask how i found out... :(
Isn't microdosing 'certain' mushrooms one of the best ways?
I'd give it a go if I could get my hands on them.
My experience was that weed made me accept not dealing with anything. It often made stuff worse but also allowed me to just accept that. It wasn't fun and any claims of self medication was just an excuse not to stop.
After I did stop for a few years and actually dealt with my shit, I can now use weed guilt free. Now it's actually nice when I use it because I'm not using it to lie to myself.
Most my stoner friends back then we're like my pre healthier self too. That's the problem with weed imo
Yeah some people need to hear this but just cuz it grows out of earth don't make it medicine.
Weed just ups your heart rate, makes you hungry and eventually makes you kinda sleepy when it wears off. It doesn't help with much of anything except draining your wallet and time into getting lung cancer.
Now real drugs might help, from SSRIs to Benzos to Amphetamines, a dash of Nicotine, maybe even psychedelic therapy with the HT2A receptor classical psychs class. That's real medicine.
Weed is the opium of the masses.
Ahh, my holy trinity!
Legit, no drug really helps them. They pretty much do nothing more than suppressing symptoms while in your system. What helps is working on the underlying causes. Doesn't matter much what kind of drug you take if you don't actually address why your brain is fucked.
I'll just tell the people who tell me it helps that it really doesn't. Does it matter if it's from weed or placebo? I don't think it does.
It does it there are risks of adverse effects. If it's only placebo a substance with no possible negative side effects could be just as effective.
Yes, spread the word that weed is not the panacea everybody wants to believe. Tell the chronic users in your life that there's better interventions that can produce meaningful improvements.

all 62 comments