Discussion in 'The Off-topic Lounge' started by Tom Terrific, Aug 14, 2019.
have you tried any cbd products when you needed it?
Yeah but Rogan told me it's awesome
Along with DMT, onnit and you know, smoking weed, edibles before floating tanks.
We could all be like Joe
I lived with a pharmaceutical blond girl rep (we owned a house on basically her salary alone) and this is fact.
Hired her to sell to Zhivago’s and she admitted she had great success, beleedat
Maybe she gave happy endings but she made a ton of money and I was living in a 3 floor house with a full gym I set up in the basement and spent fuck all of my own money
No. The Florida legislature has rightfully made it difficult to obtain, but I would never try it anyway because I'm not a loser.
We know there's a strong meth lobby in Florida protecting the market.
To be fair, DMT is awesome, smoking weed is alright in moderation, onnit stuff is ok but you can buy that stuff anywhere and save a few pennies on the label. Float tanks are cool but not worth 50 bucks every time you want take a bath in brine water.
You want science? This is all the science I need:
“CBD by Game Up Nutrition. It’s good for you.” - Nate Diaz
I ended up using the tinctures. They are CBD suspended in coconut oil that you put under your tongue. I can’t speak to the other health claims but I use it as stress relief and a relaxant and it works great. You definitely feel it, and it is a nice calm. If I use more than the recommended dose I almost get a low buzz feeling similar to the body buzz you get from edibles.
As far as acting in place of medical marijuana, I can see how it would be a benefit to people with illness. It is a definite sleep aid, and an appetite stimulant. When I have used a high dose I have gotten the “munchies” from it.
I’ve tried the pills and vapes and I didn’t get the same results as with the oil, but that could be a dosage thing. I’ve found the tincture to be the most cost effective way to get the results I want.
@conor mcgregor nut hugger why don’t you make a thread about vaginas, another topic you know nothing about?
It works...It has positive effects
Pay no mind to shit stirrer...just stirring the shit
Whether it does all his graphic states his certainly up for debate...needs more research and studies
Whenever I question the efficacy of a health product, I wonder to myself, "What is Nate Diaz's medical opinion?"
Placebo effect. None of this was caused by CBD.
I've always been curious. How does the scientific community explain the placebo effect?
An actual gif of @Ricky Bobby at that house...
Placebos usually point to weaknesses in experimental methodology. So it's possible people were primed by the experimental condition to show an effect. Sometimes it's attributable to psychological or physiological dispositions among the subjects, which is one reason why you have a confidence interval to show the degree of uncertainty in your finding. Generally if the finding is significant, it will be a certain percentage above the average finding of the placebo, which is what it means for a placebo to act as a control. Not sure if that's clear.
check out 99 yr old hugh hefner ova heah with his nubile 98 year old GF.
His swingin GF is 80.
pretty trippy that someone born in 1939 is now 80 time flies.
It is clear, but that's not necessarily the sense in which I was referencing. When someone has real world results from using something that isn't supported by data it's dismissed as "placebo effect" which completely ignores that there were real world results. The idea of the placebo effect is that the human mind is so strong that it can convince the body that it's healed.
So although @conor mcgregor nut hugger might not realize it, he says "It's not CBD, it's placebo effect." what he's actually saying is "It's not CBD, it's magic." As if magic should somehow be a more scientifically plausible explanation.
Placebos are sugar pills, goof.
I imagine they're more effective than CBD.
The problem is the idea of "real world results." It depends how those results were collected, which is why I say usually it signals a flaw in the experimental condition. Results can be collected via self reports, which are notoriously fraught. Surveys, focus groups, etc where you ask people what happened when they took a drug are one way people get results. Another way is measuring something, e.g. presence of cancerous cells, blood count, or whatever. In the event of the latter, there is a always a chance someone can get better from or show improvement with an illness for inexplicable reasons. Usually, you'd try to control the list of possible explanations in your placebo group by making sure they weren't doing anything but taking your fake drug, but that's fairly unrealistic and not the way many people behave. There may be some other behavior or treatment they're undertaking that helped, or whatever was wrong could have simply cleared up. In your actual test group, you're likely to also have these results, which is why significant effects are measured against the population as well as the placebo. In other words, if 10% of people get well over time naturally from illness X whether on drug or placebo, you need a finding that suggests say 20% got better on the drug.
So it's not that the placebo is doing anything (often it's just a sugar pill), it's that it serves as a measure of how normal life might promote healing in ways a drug doesn't. Some studies show people doing better on the placebo than the drug, from which you can sometimes infer a negative effect.