Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanmercer | Hacker News Reader

I absolutely have an agenda, that of the scientific method and skepticism. Show me peer-reviewed, widely accepted, research that supports that CBD is a miracle panacea, you can't, it doesn't exist.

What does exist is lots of link-farm SEO ad copy, people claiming on forums that along with their mega-dosing iodine and salt lamps they've seen drastic changes in their cancer/aids/anxiety/pain, and then gobs and gobs of people claiming anyone that says CBD isn't a cure-all 'has an agenda to push' and/or is being paid 'by big pharma'.

Most sellers of CBD oil are outright committing fraud with claims they make, they have paid influencers (that often don't disclose clearly they are doing a paid endorsement), with fake reviews and almost certainly with armies of fake advertorials on forums.

If CBD does have valid medical benefits, it's almost certain that it will not have anywhere near the current alleged number of applications.

View on HN

> Show me peer-reviewed, widely accepted, research that supports that CBD is a miracle panacea

That's clearly a strawman: nothing is a panacea. But here are some links from the first page of Google when I searched for "CBD research":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4189631/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604171/

Each have dozens or more citations and are from reputable scientists at large universities. If your agenda is "the scientific method," hopefully that Google search helped.

We should regulate CBD so that salespeople don't make absurd claims about what it can or can't do. But claiming that it's on par with megadosing iodine or salt lamps is pretty uneducated.

Citing a part of the first paper's Conclusion:

> Until data from well-designed clinical trials are available and reliable, and standardized CBD products that are produced using GMP are available, caution must be exercised in any consideration of using CBD for the treatment of epilepsy. In the meantime, based upon promising preliminary data, further clinical research should be wholeheartedly pursued.

Citing a part of the second paper's Conclusion:

> Human experimental findings support preclinical findings, and also suggest a lack of anxiogenic effects, minimal sedative effects, and an excellent safety profile. Current preclinical and human findings mostly involve acute CBD dosing in healthy subjects, so further studies are required to establish whether chronic dosing of CBD has similar effects in relevant clinical populations. Overall, this review emphasizes the potential value and need for further study of CBD in the treatment of anxiety disorders.

So the second one says it seems good for acute dosing. Both say more research has to be done. Let's hope this is being done in the near future.

> Both say more research has to be done. Let's hope this is being done in the near future.

Things have changed some in recent years, but it’s still very difficult to do accredited scientific research when something is a scheduled narcotic.

You are not arguing in good faith. WHile I agree with the statement, "Most sellers of CBD oil are outright committing fraud with claims they make", the legitimate scientific establishment has demonstrated several valid applications. The scientific community never claimed it was a cure-all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com