Way to completely misunderstand and try in an underhanded way to the dismiss entourage effect.

It’s not smoking 10 strains in a row it’s the fact that you need CBD THC and all the terpenes to get the effects. So the current growing trend of just getting the THC number higher tends to result in plants that don’t actually give people the full spectrum of effects, beneficial or not.

So the correct way to do this would be a full spectrum isolate, which again you coincidently forgot to mention I’m sure.

▲

Aurornis 2 days ago | parent [-]

> It’s not smoking 10 strains in a row

I never said it was. I was saying you could run 10 different studies on 10 different strains with 10 different "entourage effect" profiles and even if all of them were negative, they would be dismissed as not having precisely the right entourage effect.

If there are anti-depressant compounds in cannabis plants then they can be extracted and isolated, too.

> So the correct way to do this would be a full spectrum isolate, which again you coincidently forgot to mention I’m sure.

Of course, the correct formulation is something other than what was tested, right? And if they tested a full spectrum isolate with negative results, we should assume that it just wasn't the right blend of terpenes and therefore that study should be dismissed too? Repeat ad nauseum?

▲

plurinshael a day ago | parent [-]

Why would you not have to try each and every combination of features known to create a different effect on the outcome?

There are what, 500 different psycho-active chemicals in cannabis? And how many different kinds of neuro-chemicals can our brains create in synapses? And how do we even begin to organize the ways that that information is transmitted to the structure (topology) of the neural systems? And their firing action logic? And the behavior of the whole organism in question?

Seems like like multiple, multi-linear variable spaces composed within each other. None of which are understandable independently of the other. None of which are perfectly mapped or traverscible landscapes. Why wouldn’t you have to try each and every possible configuration of the system in order to understand how it works?

We are not even working with a strong philosophical foundation or definition of consciousness. We must explore every possibility, leave no stone unturned.

	▲	Aurornis a day ago \| parent [-]
		> There are what, 500 different psycho-active chemicals in cannabis? I think you're extrapolating from exaggerated factoids. There are only a small number of compounds in cannabis that exist at the intersection of: - Present in high enough quantities to matter - Not destroyed during smoking/vaping/processing - Bioavailable enough to enter the bloodstream - With the correct chemical structure to penetrate the blood-brain barrier - Potent enough to elicit effects at the concentrations achieved in human consumption There are not 500 compounds in cannabis that fit this criteria. The number is much smaller. If there was some combination that achieved dramatic antidepressant effects where typical cannabis failed, don't you think someone would have noticed by now? There's no reason to assume that some combination of 500 different variables exists to do something that we haven't observed yet. There are much more fruitful paths to research than endlessly researching every variation of cannabis for the sake of researching cannabis.