Say this is true. I have serious doubts, especially on the seemingly interchangeable uses of 'pain' and 'chronic pain' - but even so:
CBD is still extremely helpful in pain management, because it balances out THC's more paranoid effects, smoothing the high and making it last longer. No one can seriously deny that THC helps with pain management, although the medical industry and the FDA did claim this for decades against their own analyses.
The article itself is written as a cannabis hit piece, which gives me more misgivings. "Ooh, there might be THC in your CBD!" Ok - how much? 0.1%? 0.2%? In the study they claim "as much as" 100 mg - per gram? per dose?
I'm fine with regulating CBD for safety - 100% on board. However, this article reeks, and the "study" is highly questionable.
For example, tfa claims "A meta-analysis (which combines data from multiple studies and plays a fundamental role in evidence-based healthcare) links CBD to increased rates of serious adverse events, including liver toxicity."
But there's no meta analysis about liver toxicity. There's one study, where 7% of people have elevated liver enzymes, more than placebo. Not technically incorrect, but dishonest.
The study talks about "pharmacautical CBD", and then immediately conflates this with commercial products which "contain untested synthetic chemicals".
There are red flags upon red flags. Cherries picked here, there and everywhere.
There's not really any solid justification for the article's breathless claim that "consumers would do well to steer clear of these products". The authors of the study say things like "there’s a complete lack of quality evidence that it has any positive effects", but this is contradicted by their own research. Not a good sign of unbiased research.
It's not unthinkable, though perhaps not so direct and clear cut.
> The world’s largest brewer, AB InBev, has awarded scholarships to Bath students for over six years, helping those from low-income backgrounds with essential financial support, paid internships and the chance to gain invaluable business and employability experience.
CBD is still extremely helpful in pain management, because it balances out THC's more paranoid effects, smoothing the high and making it last longer. No one can seriously deny that THC helps with pain management, although the medical industry and the FDA did claim this for decades against their own analyses.
The article itself is written as a cannabis hit piece, which gives me more misgivings. "Ooh, there might be THC in your CBD!" Ok - how much? 0.1%? 0.2%? In the study they claim "as much as" 100 mg - per gram? per dose?
I'm fine with regulating CBD for safety - 100% on board. However, this article reeks, and the "study" is highly questionable.
For example, tfa claims "A meta-analysis (which combines data from multiple studies and plays a fundamental role in evidence-based healthcare) links CBD to increased rates of serious adverse events, including liver toxicity."
But there's no meta analysis about liver toxicity. There's one study, where 7% of people have elevated liver enzymes, more than placebo. Not technically incorrect, but dishonest.
The study talks about "pharmacautical CBD", and then immediately conflates this with commercial products which "contain untested synthetic chemicals".
There are red flags upon red flags. Cherries picked here, there and everywhere.
There's not really any solid justification for the article's breathless claim that "consumers would do well to steer clear of these products". The authors of the study say things like "there’s a complete lack of quality evidence that it has any positive effects", but this is contradicted by their own research. Not a good sign of unbiased research.