Yes, as you note, there is high variability in essentially all human studies and reports concerning cannabinoids. And I think we can all agree that we are not talking about 'efficacy' as defined by FDA and the Big Pharma-dominated medical establishment (as I pointed out). So then, what is it?I have been able to find supporting scientific studies for most of the CBD claims in the charts some of them are more anecdotal then random blind testing. Until the government legalizes cannabis studies will continue to be hard to come by. Now for something I believe and have no actual studies to prove it one way or another. I believe that it is a synergistic activity with all of the cannabinoids together that makes the best medicine. Isolating CBD, THC etc. may point to the primary activities of a single cannabinoid but the whole plant together is the best medicine.
Ok let the flogging begin..............
Using a search engine isn't going to cover the bases very well on these things MoG. Many of the studies are published in more obscure, specialized medical journals, buried deep in the listings, some not available to the public, or offer very limited access too them (like just the Abstract!)... They are often written in a such a way that assumes the reader has the body of knowledge already to understand all the jargon, testing/methodology, etc.,.. peer group to peer group.I have been able to find supporting scientific studies for most of the CBD claims in the charts some of them are more anecdotal then random blind testing. Until the government legalizes cannabis studies will continue to be hard to come by. Now for something I believe and have no actual studies to prove it one way or another. I believe that it is a synergistic activity with all of the cannabinoids together that makes the best medicine. Isolating CBD, THC etc. may point to the primary activities of a single cannabinoid but the whole plant together is the best medicine.
Ok let the flogging begin..............
I know what you mean about reading scholarly papers. I know how to read, read, read them and then of course re-read it . Often the language used is specific to the field Blah, blah blah.....................Huhhh. If it is not too obscure a topic scholar.google.com can get you some good stuff. If I don't understand the abstract, I go right to the conclusion. If I understand the conclusion I go back and skim the body of the work. If I don't understand any of it I go to bed because I have had enough .Using a search engine isn't going to cover the bases very well on these things MoG. Many of the studies are published in more obscure, specialized medical journals, buried deep in the listings, some not available to the public, or offer very limited access too them (like just the Abstract!)... They are often written in a such a way that assumes the reader has the body of knowledge already to understand all the jargon, testing/methodology, etc.,.. peer group to peer group.
Dad (after he passed) got this great CME (Continuing Medical Education) course book in the mail that had an awesome review for Doctors to get caught up on current research on cannabinoids, endocannabinoid receptors, etc.,... but I had to have my OR nurse brother walk me through things because this was meant for Dr.'s to read only... Research papers and things like this don't bother with remedial stuff, right? .... So, make no conclusions based on what you didn't find, this kind and depth of digging is something other folks can make career out of practically! You have to have the right connections, info bases, experience,... If you have cannabis oriented MD's locally, maybe get with one of them. My local Doc is a pioneer in this, she was worth every dime of the recommendation $$ I spent back in the day! She also liked to get samples - ....
She brought up the points you make about synergistics, and inherent high degree of difficulty in testing this by proper scientific methods,... it magnifies the degree of difficulty to absurd levels, beyond anything practical, and besides, they always want to work with pure compounds first because they need to have that baseline of info about them,... But everybody knows, and research is proving that they very often work better in conjunction than alone -
Like I said, the charts are a just reference point, as always the devil is in the details,.. which can be a SOB to find! I bet most places would be happy to offer info sources though, for the asking....