Weed is not good for your heart, studies say

[Haze Mister]

According to who?

COVAIDS is a serious disease that I just made up, because not only the WHO has the privilege. LIke other viral diseases, it is extremely hard to define and explain!

I was triggered into non-serious mode when I saw mention of "NHS guidelines" on cannabis, in the Pain Managment thread, and it was sarcasm on the use of "studies say" to normalise all sorts of lies and nonsense - sorry.

 

[Shadooz]

Covaids ? A new hybrid virus between aids and covid ?

Covid lead to lungs disease, not heart (which is the topic here). And for now tabaco or weed smoker have shown no increased risk...
And If you have severe form of covid u will not be able to smoke or vape... due to coughing or intubation.

Just not share ur device with unknown coughing people.

About treatment... marijuana won't gonna kill the virus or help ur immune system, but there is still the bronchiodilator effect that can be usefull, only after..

 

[nms]

If information is verified on a study, no matter how much that personally affects you, whether you like it or dislike it, it has truth to it. I have in no point rushed to conclusions, or pretended that a study's result meant something it didn't. I followed data and when things were inconclusive I specifically stated it as such. Saying that cannabis has no effect on the heart, subject at hand, is false, because it has been proven that it does have an effect on the heart, as it has been proven it has different effects on other organs.

Pretending these effects are positive, while data is inconclusive or shows the opposite, is like preaching god. No one said there were no positive effects. All drugs generally have positive effects, but the list of negative effects is generally much longer. Anyone who consumes cannabis, and does believe in science cannot pretend it does no harm. One must be educated enough to make decisions regarding how to weight benefits/losses of doing something and properly evaluate how much harm is too much.

There are applications recognized by medicine where cannabis use outweights it's harm. But it's generally not for most people, and it's rarely prescribed as a treatment to anything. Opioids are also prescribed, but not as a treatment to anything. Both are prescribed as coping mechanisms. Cannabis has some therapeutic value on the areas stated in previous posts(particularly CBD(the active compound, not the bundle) on a specific case of children epilepsy).

At least I provide sources, scientific ones that have been peer reviewed by people who, like me have spent years of their life educating themselves on very specific topics. I could say everything I wanted, but without a qualifying source, it would be a mere opinion. In health, opinions are meaningless and generally do more harm than good.

 

[Siebter]

Covid lead to lungs disease, not heart (which is the topic here).

Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients Recently Recovered From COVID-19

This cohort study evaluates the presence of myocardial injury in unselected patients recently recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

jamanetwork.com

Findings In this cohort study including 100 patients recently recovered from COVID-19 identified from a COVID-19 test center, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging revealed cardiac involvement in 78 patients (78%) and ongoing myocardial inflammation in 60 patients (60%), which was independent of preexisting conditions, severity and overall course of the acute illness, and the time from the original diagnosis.

I agree with @nms – no doubt weed has positive therapeutic effects, but it also has negative effects. And while there are reasons to doubt certain studies and their intentions, not every study about cannabis is bad science. In order to differentiate between useful and less useful information, one has to be more than vaguely interested in the topic.

 

[Shadooz]

@Siebter

Side effect.
The most part is due to lymphatic inflamation, which is due to immune system over-reaction. Add to that low oxygen lvl, that will ask heart more pulse to deliver it, which lead to lower nervous potential... general weakness.
Covid is not a simple cold.
For now, Those are the outcome of a fight, the scars. That can be found in lot of plague, spanish flu for exemple.

If it increases after one year, and more, it will mean covid have heart direct effect.

 

[Siebter]

Side effect.

True, still an effect though. Covid apparently affects the health of many organs.

 

[Ben Derover]

I had a heart attack nov 17 2018. took 50 min to get to hospital from country house. I took another 30 min to get on cath table. 4 hrs later I had 3 stents on the left descending artery, 2 on the left. week in ICU. I have indulged in the medicinal herb since I was young man. Yep im a fossil. I believe Marijane helped me recover back to 100%. My heart was damaged and my EF number (ejection fraction) thats how much blood your heart pumps outcompared to what it draws in. A healthy person is between 50 to approx 70. Some of your great athletes are only in the 50s. Mine after attack was low 40s. I took a year but I restored it to 48 with better diet and excersize. I smoked high end burn everyday. It may have been because of thinking about mortality or not. I know I wasnt given it up. I believe there is more things Marijane does for us than we know. I recently have gone to vaping flower instead of combustion. I had to stop intaking tar. Im happy healthy. My lab blood work is better than ever. I did stop drinking and I am trying to eat better. I will not give up my Marijane I know it helps us humans in ways we dont see. Sanity is critical too so.

 

[Ben Derover]

I must add, Got Covid on Christmas day. My son n law had it didnt know it. Im almost clear thursday end of quarantine. I didnt stop vapn. In fact it helped me cough up shit. I will say i didnt have it bad. Low fever 99.5. stuffy nose, headaches. my wife got it same time as me. She dont indulge. She is still coughing and hacking. Im not. She did get it worse than me but just saying. When I vapped I could feel lungs open and I could cough up the loose shit..hope this info helps someone. Vap at your own risk.

 

[C No Ego]

If information is verified on a study, no matter how much that personally affects you, whether you like it or dislike it, it has truth to it. I have in no point rushed to conclusions, or pretended that a study's result meant something it didn't. I followed data and when things were inconclusive I specifically stated it as such. Saying that cannabis has no effect on the heart, subject at hand, is false, because it has been proven that it does have an effect on the heart, as it has been proven it has different effects on other organs.

Pretending these effects are positive, while data is inconclusive or shows the opposite, is like preaching god. No one said there were no positive effects. All drugs generally have positive effects, but the list of negative effects is generally much longer. Anyone who consumes cannabis, and does believe in science cannot pretend it does no harm. One must be educated enough to make decisions regarding how to weight benefits/losses of doing something and properly evaluate how much harm is too much.

There are applications recognized by medicine where cannabis use outweights it's harm. But it's generally not for most people, and it's rarely prescribed as a treatment to anything. Opioids are also prescribed, but not as a treatment to anything. Both are prescribed as coping mechanisms. Cannabis has some therapeutic value on the areas stated in previous posts(particularly CBD(the active compound, not the bundle) on a specific case of children epilepsy).

At least I provide sources, scientific ones that have been peer reviewed by people who, like me have spent years of their life educating themselves on very specific topics. I could say everything I wanted, but without a qualifying source, it would be a mere opinion. In health, opinions are meaningless and generally do more harm than good.

you seem smart via your posts here ... can you describe the biochemical pathways that anything in cannabis takes in us that is harmful ???? you state that you use science .well science that Shit and tell us something useful and provable with biochemistry ... in all of the research of the endocanabinoid system and lipids metabolizing what in there is harmful ? , what plant part and how it interacts with man in realtion to metabolism

 

[nms]

It seems you don't understand how science works. Science is a method through which we test reality and measure results. We do it, because it has predictive value. That's why it's better than believing in god, it does predict with a given degree of accuracy future events. There is nothing absolute about it.

We know too little about the human body to be able to trace the integrity of how a drug interacts with it. We barely know the most important processes in the body with some detail, let alone know how a bundle of substances, probably all of which have not even been identified because there is no method to identify them, interact with other biological components, as there are many. Identifying a substance is no easy feat and requires advanced techniques, you generally can't easily find something you aren't already looking for, and if something hasn't been found before and the details of it registered, it is then much harder to see it.

For the most common compounds like THC, which have been isolated many years ago, we know some more, like that it is an agonist for CB1 and CB2, receptors which we partially know the role of and some of their locations. We also know how it is broken down, a bit about how it's stored in fats, the kind of research needed to be able to create drug tests for it for example. What we don't know, is a far bigger deal as it is for any drug.

Even in newtonian physics or even a theoretical version of chemistry, things we generally can link directly to mathematics, for a degree of uncertainty it also happens that our predictions only get so accurate. And this breaks down in a different context. A classic example of this is how newtonian physics break down for the very big or the very small, where the general theory of relativity and the standard model seem to be far more accurate at explaining such events.

As for medicine, where such complex interactions happen, and we can't measure most of them, particularly in a non invasive form(for example we can only see very small things when they're dead and despite having evolved several methods of freezing things in the best state we can, changes always happen), we have to make do with statistical analysis. That is why recent COVID vaccines are tested in three phases. They all are based on the approach of testing, recording and graphing out the effects. The third of which is a larger scale study where people are administered the vaccine and the effects are registered in an attempt to iron out any unpredictable side effects.

And vaccines are one of the best researched areas, for you to take notice, Pfizer vaccine is a completely 'artificial' mRNA strand, that is injected and causes your body's ribossomes to read it creating proteins, the building blocks of life. The protein it creates is a spike replicating the one found on covid, that eventually will trigger an immune response, that will also work for the real protein found in covid. This is a singular effect on a specific mechanism intended for a very specific type of effect. And we have no clue what else this is going to affect, reason through which they rely on statistics and testing.

The same applies for any other area of medicine or pharmaceutical sciences, and that's why to test drugs we use statistics and large scale studies. These studies are corrected for possible interference, and if you read research papers you will find that in any peer reviewed article there is a section dedicated to the evaluation of these, and clarifying what the study did to correct the results. Things like double blinds and placebos are also used in other to prevent erroneous results.

It seems that people got into believing that science is an absolute representation of reality, but it is nothing such.

 

[Siebter]

It seems that people got into believing that science is an absolute representation of reality, but it is nothing such.

Absolutely, it's a classic straw man argument.

 

[Ben Derover]

Like anything in life. One is apt to think at some point they have encompassed a truth, yet then in a moment realizing they have merely scratched the surface, is the only truth we can claim.

 

[C No Ego]

It seems you don't understand how science works. Science is a method through which we test reality and measure results. We do it, because it has predictive value. That's why it's better than believing in god, it does predict with a given degree of accuracy future events. There is nothing absolute about it.

We know too little about the human body to be able to trace the integrity of how a drug interacts with it. We barely know the most important processes in the body with some detail, let alone know how a bundle of substances, probably all of which have not even been identified because there is no method to identify them, interact with other biological components, as there are many. Identifying a substance is no easy feat and requires advanced techniques, you generally can't easily find something you aren't already looking for, and if something hasn't been found before and the details of it registered, it is then much harder to see it.

For the most common compounds like THC, which have been isolated many years ago, we know some more, like that it is an agonist for CB1 and CB2, receptors which we partially know the role of and some of their locations. We also know how it is broken down, a bit about how it's stored in fats, the kind of research needed to be able to create drug tests for it for example. What we don't know, is a far bigger deal as it is for any drug.

Even in newtonian physics or even a theoretical version of chemistry, things we generally can link directly to mathematics, for a degree of uncertainty it also happens that our predictions only get so accurate. And this breaks down in a different context. A classic example of this is how newtonian physics break down for the very big or the very small, where the general theory of relativity and the standard model seem to be far more accurate at explaining such events.

As for medicine, where such complex interactions happen, and we can't measure most of them, particularly in a non invasive form(for example we can only see very small things when they're dead and despite having evolved several methods of freezing things in the best state we can, changes always happen), we have to make do with statistical analysis. That is why recent COVID vaccines are tested in three phases. They all are based on the approach of testing, recording and graphing out the effects. The third of which is a larger scale study where people are administered the vaccine and the effects are registered in an attempt to iron out any unpredictable side effects.

And vaccines are one of the best researched areas, for you to take notice, Pfizer vaccine is a completely 'artificial' mRNA strand, that is injected and causes your body's ribossomes to read it creating proteins, the building blocks of life. The protein it creates is a spike replicating the one found on covid, that eventually will trigger an immune response, that will also work for the real protein found in covid. This is a singular effect on a specific mechanism intended for a very specific type of effect. And we have no clue what else this is going to affect, reason through which they rely on statistics and testing.

The same applies for any other area of medicine or pharmaceutical sciences, and that's why to test drugs we use statistics and large scale studies. These studies are corrected for possible interference, and if you read research papers you will find that in any peer reviewed article there is a section dedicated to the evaluation of these, and clarifying what the study did to correct the results. Things like double blinds and placebos are also used in other to prevent erroneous results.

It seems that people got into believing that science is an absolute representation of reality, but it is nothing such.

Describe at least one biochemical pathway that is harmed out of all of them in a man / peson .... just one ... a really long post you have made ... can you take the time to use a biochemical example ... what we are treating with cannabs is an endocannabinoid deficiency ... as proven with the biochemistry available and we have mapped the pathways with that proof . phytocannabinoids are non selective metabolites not capable of forcing a pathway or harming a pathway ( non toxic) via psycho activity ETC... just as in man with so much going on the cannabis plant is very complex as well and making any claims at all is a shot in the dark ... we know the lipids and terpenes in there and their role in metabolic response . research of Endocannabinoid system is still very new and lots of doctors completely ignore it because we found the ECS from cannabis research . even metnion cannabis as medicine to them and they stick their Freakin fingers in their Ears LOL ... but, we still need turn to them for plant medication ( medical marijuana) ( What the Fuck?)

 

[nms]

Like Siebter said, and due to the inability to have read my post in the same detail I have read yours, I will not oblige to your straw man, as it is a fallacy. There are many articles I've linked here and the only information I've discussed is present in them. If I tell you god is real, that I know it for sure, you will ask me for proof. If you say god is not real, and that you know it for sure, then I will ask you for proof. Both are completely useless reasonings. They have no value whatsoever, no predictive capabilities. I will however present some further thoughts on things that may actually be relevant to other readers.

Also, generalization is another fallacy, and I'm sure many people here got their medical marijuana prescriptions from doctors, so all doctors are not the same. In most countries, lacking a similar political agenda, cannabis is not legal, but medicine made from its active compounds is. There is a reason for this, and that is safety concerns.

The reason most doctors don't prescribe marijuana is the same, safety concerns. It's hard for a good professional to prescribe something without knowing what it may cause. This is also why most doctors don't prescribe you teas, even though some have medicinal properties. Medicine is a specific field and pharmaceutical companies extract the active compounds from plants/animals/whatever in order to better be able to study and later replicate results.

I do not believe cannabis should be sold as it is, because it tricks people into thinking it's harmless. I believe it should be decriminalized, as it is in many countries and legal for medicinal use. I believe free sale would need far more strict guidelines, not that it doesn't have some, but still. Whoever wants to get it for other uses, should need to put enough effort to reason about whether it's a worthwhile experience or not, keeping in mind that there are risks involved.

Your biochemistry proof is non existant. If you took the time to learn it, which apparently you haven't, you'll not find a 'endocannabinoid deficiency' condition. You will also not find a THC 'pathways' because substances introduced into your bloodstream, don't follow a predictable direct path. You will also realize toxicity is a measure associated with dosage. When consuming cannabis, you introduce a whole load of compounds into your bloodstream, respiratory tract cells and who knows where else. Some may be harmless, some may not. Most of them, we probably don't know yet.

We do not know terpenes and cannabinoids role, and we barely scratched the surface of the main ones involved, particularly the cannabinoids THC and CBD. We also do not produce THC or CBD in our body. They are produced by plants from a single precursor, cannabigerolic acid(or C19 analog), from reactions whose kind of understanding has been relevant in both finding the different cannabinoids that are produced, and also synthetizing new ones. It's also important to remember that these compounds, when introduced to the human body are metabolized into different things, the main route for which we know happens in the liver, where a cytochrome catalyzes it's reduction to 11-OH-THC and THCCOOH, two far less studied compounds that also end up in your bloodstream. The fact some cannabinoids in their decarboxylated form are agonists for certain receptors(CB1 and CB2) is sheer luck made possible by a partial similar chemical structure to other unrelated molecules like anandamide. While we can say specific things about such interactions, we cannot pretend to say that's all that's happening, it'd be presumptuous to do so.

All in all, you believe whatever you want. I consume cannabis, purely recreatively. I understand there is a risk and I know it's harmful in many ways. I know people who have been prescribed cannabinoids for medical purposes. I know people who say they consume marijuana for medical reasons, but they have never been prescribed it. I know people who are convinced cannabis treats their problems, but there is no evidence whatsoever of that. The sheer amount of people falling for placebos in the subject related studies is quite interesting.

To shame, or misrepresent doctors for making smart data based decisions, should not be acceptable.

 

[Ben Derover]

Im convinced it helps because of personal experience. After 60 years of life I dont kid myself anymore.

 

[nms]

And I'd never tell you it doesn't. I just can't tell you it does either. Even if(this may not be the case at all, don't feel like I'm taking this as first principle, or that it'd be less of a solution for any reason anyway) it was a placebo effect, or a psychological effect, if it works for you, then it works.

On the other hand, you can't say there isn't a safer solution for you problem, whether it is already available or not. In this same thread, there is actually someone(@AMiA) I believe has a similar age and apparently had changed his opinion on the matter, so even personal experience seems pretty inconclusive, that's all I can say.

 

[C No Ego]

@nms quote " but medicine made from its active compounds is. There is a reason for this, and that is safety concerns. " unquote ... this part of your post was the best part ... had a great laugh = Thank You ! Nvrmind

 

[Siebter]

[...] had a great laugh [...]

But that is their actual reasoning. To simply laugh at that will not help you to understand.

 

[Ben Derover]

To paint yourself in a corner is ignorant.
All things effect people differently.
Just like Pharmaceutical meds some work some dont. Some people are allergic to some meds some are not. Covid hits some hard some lite. Its all subjective. To think YOU have it narrowed down, figured out is a good laugh for sure. go back and read your controversial statements.

 

[C No Ego]

But that is their actual reasoning. To simply laugh at that will not help you to understand.

ask peole taking RSO/ FECO to use Marinol instead LOL .... laugh the fuck out loud

 

[nms]

You can laugh as much as you want(though, I don't really believe you did laugh at all), but it will give you no additional credibility. It's but your escape since you cannot provide factual information(a written escape, as I could bet it did not represent your actual feelings). You see my responses are not emotional, but factual. I use logic to derive such written thoughts, and to the best of my ability, try to be consistent and well researched. In truth what you did is but another fallacy, attempting to ruin my credibility by ridiculing a completely valid point, but it does nothing. As for reading what I wrote, I have carefully written it, and if you read it and think I'm claiming I've narrowed down anything to absolutes, well, you're failing hard. Check yourself on the mirror, as the only one with gross certainties is you, willing to make judgements towards what is good or bad without factual information. It's dangerous behavior.

 

[invertedisdead]

Your biochemistry proof is non existant. If you took the time to learn it, which apparently you haven't, you'll not find a 'endocannabinoid deficiency'

That’s not what Ethan Russo thinks, BUT to be fair, you’ve probably studied cannabinoids way more than him.


And yes, THAT is a proper straw man

 

[Siebter]

That’s not what Ethan Russo thinks, BUT to be fair, you’ve probably studied cannabis way more than him.

I was hoping for an actual discussion. Throwing names at each other is not very useful.

 

[C No Ego]

You can laugh as much as you want(though, I don't really believe you did laugh at all), but it will give you no additional credibility. It's but your escape since you cannot provide factual information(a written escape, as I could bet it did not represent your actual feelings). You see my responses are not emotional, but factual. I use logic to derive such written thoughts, and to the best of my ability, try to be consistent and well researched. In truth what you did is but another fallacy, attempting to ruin my credibility by ridiculing a completely valid point, but it does nothing. As for reading what I wrote, I have carefully written it, and if you read it and think I'm claiming I've narrowed down anything to absolutes, well, you're failing hard. Check yourself on the mirror, as the only one with gross certainties is you, willing to make judgements towards what is good or bad without factual information. It's dangerous behavior.

since you have not provided any proof and these really long posts ( why not just say IT?) I'll do so
FAAH - fatty acid amide hydrolase ... this is intracellular sulfur that is required to break down anandamide via cb1. becuase THC is mimicking AEA , FAAH depletion in the cell ( Epoxides/ fatty acid binding proteins) is a direct result of metabolizing THC ... this leads to a possible magnesium deficiency .
that is one provable """ harm""" I have found .. and one more = Allergies ... some people are deathly allergic to cannabis and that is no joke at all

 

[nms]

Please make your claims specific. Show me the research that he did that goes against what I said. Specify both the research and quote what I said.

I'd appreciate it.

EDIT:
@C No Ego I'd be happy to go back to discussing facts, just drop the article you take your information from and trust me I'll happily read it. If you want to hypothesize possible consequences of THC I can also do that, but I do not have the financial or institucional requirements to reach any viable conclusions, so it'd be more of sharing a few ideas.