All I've asked is for anyone to provide a solid example with provable results showing how cannabis is not good for any type person, especially pregnant mothers
Is that how science and medicine works? Do we deem things safe until proven otherwise? This is the heart of the issue. I already gave you examples to illustrate why your conclusion of "MJ is good in this specific case therefore its good for a fetus" is an insanely flawed approach. Again there are vitamins (like retinoic acid) that are both vital for fetal development and can also be teratogens (ie cause birth defects). I gave this example to hopefully make you think about how complex embryology is and to underline the flaw in that reasoning.
I started my "marijuana" knowledge quest (now "cannabis") many years ago when my 90+ year old father had chronic pain and they had him popping opioids, so I saw first hand the effects of opioids - bad bad side effects and taking a fentanyl pill was like "eating a piece of candy, no help".
So please don't disrespect the pro cannabis health group by saying we start with a pro cannabis bias! Most come to that opinion (the vast medical benefits of cannabis vs possible negatives) after learning about it.
Well you see no one is born being pro-MJ or anti-MJ. Before using MJ I would say the vast majority of people are either mostly neutral or negative towards MJ. I cant read your mind and can only go by what you post here but I would say you are making my case for me. You became pro-MJ after seeing its effects on a completely different issue. Now my opinion is that you find whatever bits of information to support your belief that MJ is good (even if it means recommending MJ to a mother).
The group saying don't give cannabis to pregnant mom and baby ( even though mom has her own internal supply of cannabinoids for her and baby) is a very "tough" crowd. Why? Because they want 100% stat-of-the-art double blind placebo long-term testing to be 100% sure (in their minds) that there will not be any possible damage.
See this is why I have a very hard time taking what you say seriously. That statement is not something anyone with a basic understanding of biology would make. Mom DOES NOT I repeat DOES NOT have her own supply of cannabinoids. Endocannabinoids are not the same thing as cannabinoids. Even a small change like delta 9 thc vs 11 hydroxy thc (vaped/smoked vs edible form) can have huge differences on effects. Yet you want us to believe that just because a chemical has a similar structure and is able to bind to the binding pocket it is the same compound? I already corrected someone earlier about CBD not being the same as 2-AG. You're now the third person to think cannabinoids are the same as endocannabinoids. Hell I even explained how the chirality (same atoms and structure with different 3D arrangement) can have an effect, yet you want to say they're the same?
Lets assume you were right. Lets assume the mom did in fact have THC, CBD, etc in her body naturally. Whats your point? Illogically that just because she has it in her body its ok to add more? Common dude, think about it. She has testosterone in her body, should we add more? By your standards she has neurotransmitters in her body so she might as well take psychedelic mushrooms (since by your own standards psilocybin=neurotransmitter that the mom already has).
Those that know the history of cannabis becoming illegal know that's impossible due to the Schedule 1 status here in US and worldwide US arm-twisting to get that language in all international treaties. I'm following hundreds of great scientific tests currently, but they are not completed studies.
Looking at cannabis for my dad started an amazing path of learning (daily) and he passed before ever trying medical cannabis. He was gone but cannabis became my passion as it is the most interesting topic there is IMO.
You are illustrating why its not a good idea to say its safe for a mom much less that it's needed for her to provide "homeostasis"
. Wait for the studies, otherwise you are not advocating based on science but really your belief that its a good plant. While I agree its a great plant for certain things, that obviously doesnt mean its great for EVERYTHING.
Anecdotal info may not "prove" anything to the "no cannabis for mom" group but I consider it foolish to ignore 6000 years of anecdotal evidence as cannabis has been used billions/trillions of times for mom to manage pregnancy and nausea and childbirth, with a big thumbs up and no deaths. And science reinforces that use, why does it work? The Endocannabinoid System (ECS and key to all things cannabis) in mom gives a heavy dose of endocannabinoids to baby in the milk. And what do moderate doses of cannabis to mom do, supplement here ECS as she is now needs to produce for two. Cannabis is merely a phytocannabinoid supplement ( a twin product to what mom produces).
You are again showing why your position isnt in anyway scientific. 6000 years of anecdotal evidence at best you could argue shows that MJ does not cause birth defects at high rates like alcohol, which would be easily detected. Anything else including long term effects would not be tracked or understood.
Can someone who understands the ECS please tell me, why would you not give mom a microdose or moderate dose of phytocannabinoids (cannabis)? Do you understand all the positives it brings to mom and her ECS?
If mom got morning sickness, would you have her take big-pharma pills vs cannabis? What for moms pain?
Anxiety??
Another appeal to nature fallacy. This has to be a record of "ITS A PLANT THEREFORE ITS SAFE" posts
Based on what I know of cannabis, from all the intake of info (and throwing out bad studies that are pro and anti cannabis), I certainly feel that a pregnant mom should consider a proper daily dose of cannabis. Her physical, mental, emotional, and ECS health will benefit and same for the baby.
Put another way, if I were pregnant (tough for a senior male) I would absolutely continue daily microdosing, believing that is best for me and for my little one.
If I stopped, I'd consider that "child neglect" , not giving the baby something that I know is of great health value to them,
the most effective health supplement in the world.
You already demonstrated that your position is not based on science. Now you want to throw out studies if they dont line up with what you believe, and keep whatever small conclusions from studies (that I dont believe you have the knowledge to truly judge) in order to expand and draw much bigger conclusions (since we all know no serious scientist would say MJ is safe for fetuses without rigorous study). Funny you bring up morning sickness, I presented a paper on THC's effects on the immune system for an unborn child and I at first was wondering why it was even a relevant topic. I mean if your pregnant I would have guessed it would be common sense to not take a mind altering drug that COULD have an impact on your unborn child. Well it turns out MJ use is increasing among pregnant woman to relieve morning sickness.
I found the paper just for you. Let me know what critiques you have.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3199982/
"In this article, we demonstrated that exposure to THC in utero can have long-term consequences on the immune system of the offspring. Indeed, we found that acute perinatal exposure to THC triggered fetal thymic atrophy, via CB1 and CB2 signaling and induction of apoptosis. There were significant changes in the fetal thymic subpopulations, leaving the offspring with lower absolute numbers of DP T cells. We found that this effect was dose-dependent and could still be detected on PD1. In addition, we demonstrated that acute perinatal exposure to THC leads to decreased immune response to HIV-1 p17/p24/gp120. Finally, subchronic exposure to THC also led to impairment of the development and functions of thymus and the spleen."
"In addition, the approval of oral THC by the Food and Drug Administration to treat nausea in patients with AIDS and undergoing cancer therapy (
Schwartz et al., 1997) has encouraged some to suggest the use of marijuana to relieve morning sickness during pregnancy (
Westfall et al., 2006). 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 (6
aR,10
aR)- 9-(hydroxymethyl)- 6,6-dimethyl- 3-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)- 6
a,7,10,10
a-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)."
Sorry science isnt as simple as plant=good, pills=bad. Could there be more information or explanation for these results down the line? Sure, immunology is one of the most complex fields in biology after all. But IMO its not right to advocate MJ use for mothers much less act like you are drawing on science to support your beliefs.
