Here, an excellent example of how valuable it is for scientific literature to be read critically and thoughtfully. When reporters read, or extract, or convey only partial conclusions, it is all-too-easy for consumers to absorb an incomplete, undigested message. As consumers of journalism, the public deserves a more knowledgeable understanding. Here (http://bit.ly/2KV0jeG), Forbes (Mike Adams) conveys an unfortunate lack of deep consideration in the reporting. Thankfully, a brief quote is conveyed by Dr. Koturbash, who “was quick to point out that the CBD products coming to market may not pose this particular risk” – but this stone-throw of even-handedness falls short to appropriately balance an article already dripping with misgivings and incomplete evaluation of the material at hand.
For a more layered view of the science, the word “gavage,” as was applied to the mice in the study, describes force-feeding animals with a tube down their throats, often taped to mouths which are then kept gaping open. This is meant to simulate the biological processes of eating (different from giving meds IV, for example.) There is no regard to the stress that this process causes the animals, as they are treated as though they are biological CBD-processing machines. In the days where many people are taking 10mg pills of CBD per day, the amounts of CBD that were force-fed to these animals in this study, if translated to humans, would be 4,305mg, 12,915mg, and 43,050mg over 10 days, or 17,220mg, 51,660mg, and 172,200mg in one-shot doses.) For reference, these days, most dispensaries sell CBD in doses of 10mg, 20mg, up to 2-300mg.)
In the study, the authors suggest that they allow animals to eat “ad libitum,” as if to convey that they are treated with a buffet. And yet, the animals being stuffed with 43,050mg (human equivalent) of CBD still lost weight, while others (given 172,200mg (human equivalent) had uneven weight distribution.) To any reader considering these values critically, it must seem absurd to make conclusions about the actions of CBD as what is causing these effects, as if the fact of over-stuffing itself has no impact at all.
An analogy to this study: If you add 17,000 cars (or 172,000!) to a tunnel on the way to the airport, and stuff each car full of way too many people, there might be problematic levels of concern inside that tunnel.
Let’s hope to see more even-handed consideration and reporting from Forbes, in the future.
View this review (yellow link) or download:
This paper is also stored here: http://bit.ly/2WWNOGA inside the CED Foundation Archive
Here, another study that shows very different results. Instead of overstuffing mice w/ unrealistic amounts, if one administers CBD at sensible doses in the same population of mice, it turns out that CBD could directly reduce alcohol drinking, improve healthy processes in the liver, and alcohol-related brain damage…
“CBD reduces alcohol-related steatosis & fibrosis in the liver by reducing lipid accumulation, stimulating autophagy, modulating inflammation, reducing oxidative stress, & by inducing death of activated hepatic stellate cells” This new study:
This paper is also stored here: http://bit.ly/2IAvzOz inside the CED Foundation Archive
To explore related information, click the keywords below:
