Pregnant vaping?

[MinnBobber]

Back we come to the basic question:
If a pregnant mom vapes 0.015- 0.02 gram of cannabis per day, just on weekends, are mom and the baby :
1. better of medically
2. neutral
3. worse off medically

Based on everything I currently know, I vote for better off medically.

You're probably familiar with the Jamaican neonatal study which showed no difference between heavy using/daily using moms and their babies VS non-using moms and their babies. To be fair, the babies of heavy using moms were actually better on several elements at 30 days after birth but later the two groups were the same.
It's important to note that these were heavy users---for Jamaica that is grams per day in those fat blunts AND
they smoked it so that is 100X times worse than vaping.
So if they only smoked 2 grams a day (conservative) , that's 50 times the dose we're talking here and Jamaican moms consumed every day, not just on weekends and even with that massive smoked intake, no difference in baby's health.

What would one then expect from vaping 0.04 grams per week?

 

[olivianewtonjohn]

Back we come to the basic question:
If a pregnant mom vapes 0.015- 0.02 gram of cannabis per day, just on weekends, are mom and the baby :
1. better of medically
2. neutral
3. worse off medically

Based on everything I currently know, I vote for better off medically.

You're probably familiar with the Jamaican neonatal study which showed no difference between heavy using/daily using moms and their babies VS non-using moms and their babies. To be fair, the babies of heavy using moms were actually better on several elements at 30 days after birth but later the two groups were the same.
It's important to note that these were heavy users---for Jamaica that is grams per day in those fat blunts AND
they smoked it so that is 100X times worse than vaping.
So if they only smoked 2 grams a day (conservative) , that's 50 times the dose we're talking here and Jamaican moms consumed every day, not just on weekends and even with that massive smoked intake, no difference in baby's health.

What would one then expect from vaping 0.04 grams per week?

I think a 40mg dosage on the weekends is probably less than what most people would do (barring the outliers in the microdosing thread), that being said I understand your point. The Jamaican study is good and probably one of the better studies that we currently have on the topic BUT it has many limitations. I would say based on inference of how many people who smoke while pregnant that its less likely to be harmful. But I wouldnt confidently say no harm and certainly would not say better medically.

 

[m0sh]

His points are general because he is reacting to the nonrational posts in this thread that talk about MJ like there cant possibly be ANY negatives to it (in fact go head and toke up because we know very little about the endocanabinoid system and adding MJ must help with pregnancy some how - apparently). Its an amazing plant? Absolutely. I agree with you, dosage and duration are certainly important, there is alot of minutiae to this conversation. In fact dosage and duration are one of the principles of teratology.

Regarding your sperm, I dont see how thats relevant to this discussion. Maybe im misinterpreting the point of this thread?

It is relevant as common practice suggest that consuming cannabis hurt the sperm count...but on reality, its the other way around.
Says a lot just from that, IMO.

As for "nonrational", allow me to laugh.
The posts here have been OK and most of the user give a pretty "in the middle" opinion.
Just because one or even a few(not sure on that) - think otherwise and bring more data, doesn't make their posts "nonrational" - that's your opinion based of the fact that you have created in your mind that no matter what, this is dangerous for pregnant women.

 

[olivianewtonjohn]

It is relevant as common practice suggest that consuming cannabis hurt the sperm count...but on reality, its the other way around.
Says a lot just from that, IMO.

As for "nonrational", allow me to laugh.
The posts here have been OK and most of the user give a pretty "in the middle" opinion.
Just because one or even a few(not sure on that) - think otherwise and bring more data, doesn't make their posts "nonrational" - that's your opinion based of the fact that you have created in your mind that no matter what, this is dangerous for pregnant women.

Posting that you have read vaping while pregnant will make a child smarter and then posting links where 2/3 arent even related to your original post and the last source basically says that there is a possibility of not having bad effects....yeah none of that is rational. Same goes for the posts @MinnBobber on the first page who recommends MJ intake for a healthy baby (as he claims based on the information we "know"). Other posts in this thread by other users include the naturalistic fallacy (its natural therefore safe - go ahead and blaze up man). And another post talking about praying for healing

You keep going on and on about how people should read the studies. You are talking as if science is on your side. Its not. Will it be some day? Possibly.

Just because one or even a few(not sure on that) - think otherwise and bring more data, doesn't make their posts "nonrational" - that's your opinion based of the fact that you have created in your mind that no matter what, this is dangerous for pregnant women.

Nonsense. Show me where I said MJ IS dangerous for pregnant women. Are you even reading my posts? Is there maybe a language barrier or something? Or are you just trying to setup a strawman argument?

EDIT:

Just because one or even a few(not sure on that) - think otherwise and bring more data, doesn't make their posts "nonrational"

What data? Show me the data. So far only data even remotely related to the original post is the Jamaican study. Do you wish me to quote the author again? Here it is again incase you missed it:

Dr. Dreher (lead researcher of the study):

"We can’t really conclude that there’s necessarily no impact from ganja use prenatally whatsoever, but what can be concluded is that the child who attends basic school regularly, is provided with a variety of stimulating experiences at home, who is encouraged to show mature behavior, has a profoundly better chance of performing at a higher level on the skills measured by the McCarthy whether or not his or her mother consumed ganja during pregnancy"

Do you wish to address some of the studies I posted in that same post? Here it is again

"However, surveys in humans and studies in rodents suggest detrimental effects stemming from prenatal exposure to cannabinoids. Some studies report that children exposed to marijuana during pregnancy have a slower gestational growth rate (Hurd et al., 2005) and lower birth weight (Zuckerman et al., 1989; Hurd et al., 2005), as well as reduced gestational length (Fried et al., 1984; Hurd et al., 2005). In addition, perinatal exposure to THC has been shown to affect brain development, resulting in an alteration in behavioral responses, in both rodents and humans (Bonnin et al., 1995; Vela et al., 1995; de Moraes Barros et al., 2006). Still, very little is known about the effects of perinatal exposure to cannabinoids on the developing immune systems. Perinatal exposure to (6aR,10aR)- 9-(hydroxymethyl)- 6,6-dimethyl- 3-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)- 6a,7,10,10a-tetrahydrobenzo[c]chromen-1-ol (HU-210), a cannabinoid agonist, caused altered distribution of lymphocyte subpopulations in the spleen and peripheral blood of Wistar rats. In addition, there was a reduction in the T helper subpopulation in the spleen and a decrease in the rate of T helper/T cytotoxic cells in peripheral blood (del Arco et al., 2000)."

"Studies from our laboratory and others have shown that THC and other cannabinoids induce apoptosis and alter the proliferative response as well as effector functions of a variety of adult immune cells, such as thymic T cells (McKallip et al., 2002b), splenic B and T cells (McKallip et al., 2002b), natural killer cells (Patrini et al., 1997), macrophages (Sacerdote et al., 2000), and bone marrow-derived dendritic cells (Do et al., 2004), resulting in overall immunosuppression of the host (McKallip et al., 2002b; Do et al., 2004). Such studies suggest that cannabinoids may serve as a double-edged sword, on one hand exhibiting the potential to treat inflammatory diseases, while on the other hand, potentially increasing the susceptibility to cancer and infections (Nagarkatti et al., 2009, 2010; Rieder et al., 2010). In this article, we show that perinatal exposure to THC negatively affects the immune system of the offspring, potentially compromising its response to infections. In particular, there is some evidence linking the use of marijuana to a higher risk of contracting HIV (Roth et al., 2005). However, not much work has been done to study how maternal use of marijuana during pregnancy affects the offspring's risk of getting infected with HIV. "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3199982/

Again here is what I said about the research about the possible negatives:

Does that mean that everything in the last two paragraph are true? No hardly. More research needs to be done.

 

[m0sh]

Sigh......and I'm asking are you reading my posts?
I posted a few articles/ researches to show that this subject needs to be addressed.
Nowhere did I say its any fact.
The doctor who says we need more studies is correct, but it doesn't mean vaping is harmful while pregnant.
We just need to keep an open mind to discuss, not rule anything out unless it is being proven, and since its not, I don't really believe it is fair to assume that this is harmful, if you have not said that, I will apologize for that.

 

[MegaMan2k]

This thread could go on like this forever xD

I think the real anwser is : its a complex question that only your self can anwser. since your anwser is going to be based on you either "believing" in the science or not -

If u ask me i would say go all in on feeding the endocannabinoid system , like 1 gram of strong concentrate a day atleast. But thats just me

 

[EverythingsHazy]

The doctor who says we need more studies is correct, but it doesn't mean vaping is harmful while pregnant.
We just need to keep an open mind to discuss, not rule anything out unless it is being proven, and since its not, I don't really believe it is fair to assume that this is harmful, if you have not said that, I will apologize for that.

It is fair to be on that side of the argument (Cannabis during pregnancy is likely harmful to the fetus), because there is evidence showing that Cannabis use, specifically high-THC Cannabis use, can have a negative impact on a developing brain. It seems pretty sensible to think that it can be potentially dangerous to expose a brain that is in the process of being created, to random levels of these chemicals.

When it comes to something like pregnancy, where a child's life it at stake, you don't want to do things that aren't proven to be safe, even if they aren't proven to be dangerous, either. Right now, we have very little information available about this specific subject, so at least for the time being, using Cannabis during pregnancy, or advising someone else to do so, is very irresponsible.

 

[C No Ego]

the rational that a few added mg of secondary metabolites in consumed cannabis will effect how mothers have reproduced since man has existed is quite confusing... sure it's best to be safe but its also best to understand the biochemical actions... cannabis in any form is a signalling metabolite for your cells. And in terms of mimetic signalling molecules mothers breast milk is mostly 2-ag ( CBD) that helps the baby develop cellular bi layers, lipid metabolism and munchies!

 

[MinnBobber]

Same goes for the posts @MinnBobber on the first page who recommends MJ intake for a healthy baby (as he claims based on the information we "know")

.....................................................................
You should know the definition of "know" as we know it makes a difference in knowing what to do in this case of micro micro dosing as knowledge is power, and lack of knowledge is not knowing what you don't know

KNOW : be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

I stand by knowing what I said I did
And I think I've done my homework on the topic. Just a brief history as to my keen interest in the topic. My 90+ year old father was on opioids for chronic back pain. I was looking for options and thought medical MJ might just be hoax to get stoners some legal bud but let's just take a look....

So I began to try to "know" more about it and dove into books, seminars, group forums, research studies, communicating with anyone knowledgeable RE "marijuana" (which I now know how/why/history of mj and why IMO it's better to always call it cannabis). The quest for knowledge found outlandish "info" in both the pro and anti groups. Zeroing in on credible info, there was a strong KNOWN: WTF is my dad on opioids when the cannabis is absolutely a better option to at least TRY ?????????????????????? Opioids kill 16,000 a year and cannabis zero ----
-Sadly, prior to ever trying cannabis my father passed away, from the side effects of opioids

But, what I had found up to that point just made me dive in deeper, as the broad topic of cannabis "elements" ( legal, medical, social, political, financial, agricultural hemp issue, cultural) are fascinating!! To me, there is no subject more interesting

Since that time of his passing, 6 years ago, I can't get enough on the subject as it is absolutely fascinating and it even makes my head spin I heard your comments...

I "observe, inquire. and try to gain all information" that is currently out there via: hours of seminars, books pro and anti, combing thru research studies,..... attending all our State Health Dept cannabis meetings and talking to/listening to every minute of testimony and testifying at these meetings plus submitting new conditions for approval......: and communicating with groups all over the US and the world (like MAMMA or Mothers Advocating Med MJ for Autism),
assisting low income seniors/vets with learning about vaping and getting them decent vapes, from our state cannabis website reading every comment submitted (hundreds of pages) to the Health Dept ( like one MMJ patient's cannabis bill was $6,000 per MONTH) on their massive survey of patients, on and on and on.

As I'm retired I spend huge amounts of time and energy as the subject is the most fascinating subject in the world, it's like studying aviation in the Wright Bros era, the dawn of a new era but it's really the re-awakening of an old era that the US politically squashed



,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

You keep going on and on about how people should read the studies. You are talking as if science is on your side. Its not. Will it be some day? Possibly.

.............................................................................
To summarize everything I "know" on science:
We are coming out of the recent long period of science where 99% of the studies were funded to show the presumed negative impact of cannabis, and there were minimal negatives . All media was anti-cannabis
The new era is upon us and I respectfully disagree that there is little science-- as there are hundreds of studies, in addition to 6000 years of anecdotal evidence. Studies are only one piece of the puzzle.

The gold standard of studies, clinical double-blind research studies, most from the new era have not ended yet as they take time but I can say this---- the preliminary evidence from them is mind-boggling.
One that is completed in India on "severe depression" shows cannabis to be just as effective as Prozac with none of the side effects of Prozac (little things like suicidal ideations).

Science is actually moving beyond "does cannabis help diseases X,Y, and Z?" to "how does it work on these diseases?" as we know it does work.
And that answer keeps coming back as cannabis supplements our ECS , which when tuned up, coordinates the body to fix these diseases with it's own systems, to move back toward homeostasis.
ECS is key to it all, all systems including reproduction.

I only search for the truth about cannabis and if I appear "over-zealous" it's only because factoring in everything I've ingested, the evidence is "over-whelming" that cannabis is absolutely a miracle supplement for our ECS with minor negatives that are completely dwarfed by the positives.

I have no "horse in this race" as my horse died, but will continue trying learn more on the subject.
Peace to all

 

[His_Highness]

Anyone know if THC passes through the placenta? Not everything can get by Mother Nature's fencing.

 

[C No Ego]

Anyone know if THC passes through the placenta? Not everything can get by Mother Nature's fencing.

THC either fires through the neuron immediately after ingestion or lodges as a non-active into fat tissue .. A scenario for everyone to consider... a mother with child dying from cancer... does she use RSO ( thc medical grade super decarboxylated oil) to treat cancer while pregnant? keep in mind this has happened already so you know....... and if you say she needs chemo I'll disagree... as to reports on rso- people have dosed entire 60 day treatments @ 1 sitting! 60 grams rso downed @ once LOL... no joke about cancer but joking because people are so scared of safe medication- brainwashed and relying on prohibition biased smoke only funded studies ( smoking monkeys) to determine what in fact cannabis is... to find vitamins and plant constituents once upon a time we turned what was being examined into pot ash and examined that... not the smoke hydrocarbons! wiki quote " Potash is any of various mined and manufactured salts that contain potassium in water-soluble form. The name derives from pot ash, which refers to plant ashes soaked in water in a pot, the primary means of manufacturing the product before the industrial era. The word potassium is derived from potash."

 

[olivianewtonjohn]

.....................................................................
You should know the definition of "know" as we know it makes a difference in knowing what to do in this case of micro micro dosing as knowledge is power, and lack of knowledge is not knowing what you don't know

KNOW : be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.

Yes thats my point . This topic is complex and there is alot we dont know about it.

To summarize everything I "know" on science:
We are coming out of the recent long period of science where 99% of the studies were funded to show the presumed negative impact of cannabis, and there were minimal negatives . All media was anti-cannabis
The new era is upon us and I respectfully disagree that there is little science-- as there are hundreds of studies, in addition to 6000 years of anecdotal evidence. Studies are only one piece of the puzzle.

The gold standard of studies, clinical double-blind research studies, most from the new era have not ended yet as they take time but I can say this---- the preliminary evidence from them is mind-boggling.
One that is completed in India on "severe depression" shows cannabis to be just as effective as Prozac with none of the side effects of Prozac (little things like suicidal ideations).

Science is actually moving beyond "does cannabis help diseases X,Y, and Z?" to "how does it work on these diseases?" as we know it does work.
And that answer keeps coming back as cannabis supplements our ECS , which when tuned up, coordinates the body to fix these diseases with it's own systems, to move back toward homeostasis.
ECS is key to it all, all systems including reproduction.

I only search for the truth about cannabis and if I appear "over-zealous" it's only because factoring in everything I've ingested, the evidence is "over-whelming" that cannabis is absolutely a miracle supplement for our ECS with minor negatives that are completely dwarfed by the positives.

I have no "horse in this race" as my horse died, but will continue trying learn more on the subject.
Peace to all

Ok since my point seems to be falling on deaf ears, let me try another route.

You're painting with a very broad brush. Lets say tomorrow MJ was shown to be beneficial for a developing embryo, dosage and duration of dosage would all be the next important steps to learn about and also when should exposure be? Week 4 when the heart tube forms? Or should it be earlier? Later?

Embryology is a complex field, theres alot of minutiae to it. Retinoic acid for example is VITAL to development

"Retinoic acid is a metabolite of vitamin A (retinol) that mediates the functions of vitamin A required for growth and development. Retinoic acid is required in chordate animals, which includes all higher animals from fish to humans. During early embryonic development, retinoic acid generated in a specific region of the embryo helps determine position along the embryonic anterior/posterior axis by serving as an intercellular signaling molecule that guides development of the posterior portion of the embryo.[2] It acts through Hox genes, which ultimately control anterior/posterior patterning in early developmental stages."

Hox genes are probably the most important genes for a developing embryo. They are highly conserved among vertebrates just like ECS system.

So retinoic acids are good right?

Wrong. The answer is yes.....and the answer can be no. Retinoic acid has be found to be a teratogen under certain circumstances. A teratogen is a substance that can cause developmental malformations in an embryo.

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/retinoids-teratogens

EDIT: Also this portion that you quoted: "You keep going on and on about how people should read the studies. You are talking as if science is on your side. Its not. Will it be some day? Possibly."

Was addressed to @m0sh since if you go back and read the first page this user was telling people that they need to read the science and acting like they have the scientific high ground. Well I read every link this user posted and wasnt impressed hence that quote which was addressed to them.

I like that you read and try to expand your knowledge on the topic, it is extremely interesting. Please when you read the studies try to read it with a skeptical eye, try to pinpoint flaws in the studies and how that could have impacted the results. This is the reason why primary literature and science in general is hard to dissect its a very time consuming process.

To demonstrate that point here is an article by Dr. David Gorski (oncologist+professor) who deconstructs some of the studies that people like to point to when making the claim that MJ cures cancer:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/me...rbalism-part-2-cannabis-does-not-cure-cancer/

the rational that a few added mg of secondary metabolites in consumed cannabis will effect how mothers have reproduced since man has existed is quite confusing... sure it's best to be safe but its also best to understand the biochemical actions... cannabis in any form is a signalling metabolite for your cells. And in terms of mimetic signalling molecules mothers breast milk is mostly 2-ag ( CBD) that helps the baby develop cellular bi layers, lipid metabolism and munchies!

First off 2-AG is NOT CBD. You're the second person this week to make that claim. Just because a substance is similar in structure does not mean they are the same thing. To illustrate this point when you consume MJ through edibles vs vaporizing/smoking there is a difference in effects, why? Well there are two similar but different components (thanks to edibles being processed by your liver vs THC going straight to your bloodstream).

Classic example that every organic chemistry student learns:

One causes phocomelia (the loss of limbs) and the other is a medication.

But lets say CBD=2-AG, just for argument sake. Who is to say that giving a developing embryo CBD while their brain, heart, and GI tube all develop is the same thing as a newborn getting "CBD" from breast milk after they have been born?

Anyone know if THC passes through the placenta? Not everything can get by Mother Nature's fencing.

Yes animal studies have shown that it passes the placenta. But animal studies arent even needed since newborns have shown + tests for THC.

 

[C No Ego]

Yes thats my point . This topic is complex and there is alot we dont know about it.




Ok since my point seems to be falling on deaf ears, let me try another route.

You're painting with a very broad brush. Lets say tomorrow MJ was shown to be beneficial for a developing embryo, dosage and duration of dosage would all be the next important steps to learn about and also when should exposure be? Week 4 when the heart tube forms? Or should it be earlier? Later?

Embryology is a complex field, theres alot of minutiae to it. Retinoic acid for example is VITAL to development

"Retinoic acid is a metabolite of vitamin A (retinol) that mediates the functions of vitamin A required for growth and development. Retinoic acid is required in chordate animals, which includes all higher animals from fish to humans. During early embryonic development, retinoic acid generated in a specific region of the embryo helps determine position along the embryonic anterior/posterior axis by serving as an intercellular signaling molecule that guides development of the posterior portion of the embryo.[2] It acts through Hox genes, which ultimately control anterior/posterior patterning in early developmental stages."

Hox genes are probably the most important genes for a developing embryo. They are highly conserved among vertebrates just like ECS system.

So retinoic acids are good right?

Wrong. The answer is yes.....and the answer can be no. Retinoic acid has be found to be a teratogen under certain circumstances. A teratogen is a substance that can cause developmental malformations in an embryo.

https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/retinoids-teratogens

EDIT: Also this portion that you quoted: "You keep going on and on about how people should read the studies. You are talking as if science is on your side. Its not. Will it be some day? Possibly."

Was addressed to @m0sh since if you go back and read the first page this user was telling people that they need to read the science and acting like they have the scientific high ground. Well I read every link this user posted and wasnt impressed hence that quote which was addressed to them.

I like that you read and try to expand your knowledge on the topic, it is extremely interesting. Please when you read the studies try to read it with a skeptical eye, try to pinpoint flaws in the studies and how that could have impacted the results. This is the reason why primary literature and science in general is hard to dissect its a very time consuming process.

To demonstrate that point here is an article by Dr. David Gorski (oncologist+professor) who deconstructs some of the studies that people like to point to when making the claim that MJ cures cancer:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/me...rbalism-part-2-cannabis-does-not-cure-cancer/





First off 2-AG is NOT CBD. You're the second person this week to make that claim. Just because a substance is similar in structure does not mean they are the same thing. To illustrate this point when you consume MJ through edibles vs vaporizing/smoking there is a difference in effects, why? Well there are two similar but different components (thanks to edibles being processed by your liver vs THC going straight to your bloodstream).

Classic example that every organic chemistry student learns:

One causes phocomelia (the loss of limbs) and the other is a medication.

But lets say CBD=2-AG, just for argument sake. Who is to say that giving a developing embryo CBD while their brain, heart, and GI tube all develop is the same thing as a newborn getting "CBD" from breast milk after they have been born?



Yes animal studies have shown that it passes the placenta. But animal studies arent even needed since newborns have shown + tests for THC.

well no one is giving a developing embryo cbd...if a mother administers cbd it's being administered to the mother. the cbd is for her to metabolize as a 2-ag analogue orphaned molecule , secondary messenger, secondary metabolite,lipophilic compound. form effecting function- bio-mimetic bio-chemicals... and I posted here earlier for every person not just mothers as to how important EFAs from diet are to developing life / sustained life, all of it... I'll say this again- to think that adding a few mg of phytocannabinoids into a humans intricate ECS system of metabolism etc will effect a developing embryo is ludicrous! I'm not saying hook her up to IV and pump cbd all day LOL. what about my scenario too where a mother with child has cancer and takes High dose thc oil? if we are getting into the realness of the situation there it is

 

[C No Ego]

Bob Melamede

 

[Stu]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/26/health/marijuana-pregnancy-statistics-study/index.html

Doctors caution that the health effects of marijuana on a fetus remain unclear but could include low birth weight and developmental problems, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many of the chemicals in marijuana, like tetrahydrocannabinol, known as THC, could pass through a mother's system to her baby.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that "women who are pregnant or contemplating pregnancy should be encouraged to discontinue marijuana use" and "to discontinue use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in favor of an alternative therapy."
Additionally, "there are insufficient data to evaluate the effects of marijuana use on infants during lactation and breastfeeding, and in the absence of such data, marijuana use is discouraged," according to the recommendations.

 

[m0sh]

So one more articale without any medical facts, and once more, remains unclear.

So all in all, the articale suggest you don't use it because they can't say if its bad or good.

This subject is kinda like the egg and the chicken, it sure doesn't look like its going to happen.
I do wonder what the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have to say about males and sperm.

 

[His_Highness]

Overheard some kind of TV commentary about the rise in pregnant woman using cannabis while I was working in my office. I believe the commentator said something like it was 10% and has risen, in some age groups to 26%. I missed which show it was though. Anyone else catch this?
I think it was one of those daytime shows but not one of those where the ladies sit around a table pissing each other off.

 

[m0sh]

Well I guess we can also see if there's more "bad" babies than before?

 

[howie105]

I do wonder what the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have to say about males and sperm.

Follow the money, I know that sounds simplistic but oft times it fits.

 

[Tranquility]

Overheard some kind of TV commentary about the rise in pregnant woman using cannabis while I was working in my office. I believe the commentator said something like it was 10% and has risen, in some age groups to 26%. I missed which show it was though. Anyone else catch this?
I think it was one of those daytime shows but not one of those where the ladies sit around a table pissing each other off.

Big uptick in pregnant women using cannabis in California. The study is only to point out the statistics of increased usage, but, news gets boring fast if they just report news so many added other information that might be related but is not "news" from the study.

The incidence of low birth weight in mothers who used is the most often cited harm.

 

[treeman]

I was getting a bit agitated reading this thread but olivianewtonjohn totally took the words out of my mouth.

While endocannabinoids might be important to health we should not take the more/bigger = better approach, especially when dealing with such topics as pregnancy. To say that taking in a whole bunch of external cannabinoids = healthy endocannabinoid system without meta-analysis of tons of studies is ludicrous.

Lots of vitamins and things like salt are essential for health, but too much of many of them can have extremely detrimental effects on health.

Also some really shocking references here guys, to know things you really have to get your information from the primary literature, CNN, thedailymail etc just write whatever people are going to look at and cannot really be trusted. Even peer reviewed science has inherent bias and studies individually mean very little, its through the combination of many studies that we start to build a picture.

Knowledge is hard to acquire and people are often swayed by random posts from unknown people on the internet, while the information does not really exist at present please refrain from making big statements like 'Consuming cannabis while pregnant is healthy for everyone'.

 

[MinnBobber]

While endocannabinoids might be important to health we should not take the more/bigger = better approach, especially when dealing with such topics as pregnancy. To say that taking in a whole bunch of external cannabinoids = healthy endocannabinoid system without meta-analysis of tons of studies is ludicrous.

...............................................................
To refresh our memories, the op was talking about his wife vaping about 0.015 grams on weekends only.
A couple microdoses a week is what was being discussed.

The most relevant study is from Jamaica, by Dr Melanie Dreher where she compared heavy daily cannabis users (smokers) VS non-users. There was no difference in the user vs non-user babies from birth to 5 years old, with the exception of at the 30 day mark, where "momma was a user" babies were much better adjusted, including:

"The results of the comparison of neonates of the heavy-marijuana-using mothers and those of the non-using mothers were even more striking…

• The heavily exposed neonates were more socially responsive and were more autonomically stable at 30 days than their matched counterparts.
• quality of their alertness was higher;
• their motor and autonomic systems were more robust;
• they were less irritable;
• they were less likely to demonstrate any imbalance of tone;
• they needed less examiner facilitation to become organized;
• they had better self-regulation;
• judged to be more rewarding for caregivers than the neonates of non-using mothers at 1 month of age"

I would never advocate any PG mom to smoke any amount of cannabis, yet even these heavy Jamaican smokers' babies had no ill effects. And keep in mind, the Jamaican moms smoked more each day than the ops wife would consume during her entire 9 month pregnancy!

Back to our vaping world, if I were pregnant, would I microdose 2 times a week? Hell no, I'd microdose 7 times a week to make sure my ECS had a little phytocannabinoid supplement during this important time.
This is especially true if you understand the critical role of Omega 3 fats in producing our own endocannabinoids as that guarantees that most everyone has a deficient ECS.

Cannabis to the rescue

 

[LargeLeaf]

I don't think Cannabis causes any effects, however just to be safe I would rather not smoke, drink, take any pills, even go on a crowded subway if I were a pregnant woman. But hey that's me.

 

[m0sh]

My wife will probably won't consume at all, but sheesh, some of you are just too afraid to even discuss this.
@MinnBobber, I already gave up because people like @treeman are reading what they want and not what we discussed, its just a shame to go over this again and again.

 

[BaroneBarra]

Sorry for the OT, but all I can think about reading the thread is this

Stay safe everyone!