Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants

pubs.acs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 139 posts

Re: Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants

#111

Post by tzs »

oxymoran wrote: post #45
tzs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They reduce chances of hospitalization by at least an order of magnitude, and the chances of death by even more. COVID is almost certainly never going away. It will become endemic, joining the other endemic viruses such as the couple hundred cold viruses (including 4 other coronavirus that were once deadly pandemics) and the various flu viruses we reluctantly live with. Something we all get several times over our lif…

“ They reduce chances of hospitalization by at least an order of magnitude, and the chances of death by even more” So does an omicron infection compared to delta, even to the unvaccinated. I am not an anti vaxxer, I have two doses of Pfizer in me. The vaccines are simply going to be obsolete in a matter of weeks/months because everyone is going to have gotten and recovered from omnicron at that point. It’s that conta…

The increased contagiousness of omicron makes it more important for people to get vaccinated.

The chances of hospitalization if you have omicron are lower than they were if you had another variant, and same with the chances of death, but the factor by which they are lower with omicron is quite a bit lower than the factor by which omicron is more contagious.

The net result is that omicron is greatly increasing the number of hospitalizations way past what they saw with delta, which is overloading hospitals in way too many places in the US.

I'm vaccinated and boosted, but that doesn't help much if I get in a car accident or have a heart attack and I can't get treatment because the hospitals are full of COVID patients.

Re: Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants

#112

Post by netizen-936824 »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #97
netizen-936824 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does THC intoxication change social behaviors? Are you more or less social? Personally I doubt it was a direct pharmacological effect, but rather a secondary behavioral effect

If you're going to copypaste a statement saying you doubt it had a direct pharmacological effect on a post about a direct pharmacological effect, why not state what you think the issue with the study was?

I'm not referencing the study, I'm talking about the comment that I'm replying to. The study is specifically about the acid versions of the compounds which are not psychoactive

CBDA, THCA, and CBGA are all the carboxylic acid forms of the compound which is what is naturally produced by the cannabis plant. When we consume these, we make them psychoactive by heating. This turns them into CBD, THC, and CBG which are different compounds

The non acids interact with proteins differently than the carboxylic acids. I'm saying that the people who say that they got stoned and this prevented COVID is highly unlikely and not at all related the the posted study at hand.

Again: you don't get stoned off the compounds that were used in this COVID study. Full stop.

This isn't even mentioning the fact that the concentrations of the carboxylic acid compounds used in the study are multiple orders of magnitude larger than what you can accomplish through smoking (micro vs nano-molar)

PS. If you have an argument on why I might be incorrect I'm all ears, but down voting tells me nothing

Re: Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants

#113

Post by tzs »

hammock wrote: post #27
tzs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They reduce chances of hospitalization by at least an order of magnitude, and the chances of death by even more. COVID is almost certainly never going away. It will become endemic, joining the other endemic viruses such as the couple hundred cold viruses (including 4 other coronavirus that were once deadly pandemics) and the various flu viruses we reluctantly live with. Something we all get several times over our lif…

>They reduce chances of hospitalization by at least an order of magnitude, and the chances of death by even more Want to point out this was your response to the question, "Since the vaccinations are stopping the spread?" in case you wanted to re-read your answer.

That question was in response to the statement "Right now it seems like mass vaccination is our only way out of this pandemic and back to normal". My response is explaining to the questioner why that statement was correct.

Re: Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants

#114

Post by unethical_ban »

rsj_hn wrote: post #64
vmception wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was the answer. People vocally cynical about the vaccines have always been using a strawman argument, in case you need a refresher a strawman argument requires two things: 1) creating a standard that was never used by the proponents 2) criticizing the made up standard to discredit the proponents on a medical level, it is clear this wasn't to stop the spread, it was to slow the spread as vaccinated infected have…

> That was the answer. People vocally cynical about the vaccines have always been using a strawman argument. No, we were repeatedly told that vaccines prevent both transmission and infection, and anyone trying to cynically rewrite history now is using a strawman argument. The whole point of the OSHA vaccine mandate was to prevent spread . If it was just a matter of how severe the disease is to you, then there is no r…

I agree that public health officials making overstated claims are doing net harm to the country by sowing distrust. That said, I think that the people who constantly complain about the accuracy of public health statements regarding the vaccine's effectiveness, and who decline to acknowledge the public health benefits of mass vaccination, are people who are predisposed to distrust in authority or anything they can't conceptually understand, like mRNA.

Re: Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants

#115

Post by incrudible »

vmception wrote: post #109
incrudible wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's great, but the same authorities that just lied to me are also responsible to ensure safety of these vaccines. They're the same ones who tell me it's "safe and effective". Why would anybody trust them now?

They have a lot of work to do, I would say look outside of the US and also technologies used by different vaccines worldwide. A lot of the consternations fall apart, to me, when the aggregate response reaches the same conclusion, something impossible to be done by any guiding hand due to geopolitics.

> A lot of the consternations fall apart, to me, when the aggregate response reaches the same conclusion...

Does it though? The other countries that went all in on MRNA vaccines obviously don't have an interest in finding more problems with them.

I have yet to see a single good study that determines risk/benefit stratified by age and risk factors. This rather new study shows that risk of Myocarditis is higher with vaccination rather than infection, in males under 40:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v...

Furthermore, the risk appears to increase with each dose. Yet, many countries are now advising all the 12-17 year-olds to get a third dose - to speculatively decrease an already minor risk. This suggests to me that proper precaution is not actually being pursued, neither in the US nor elsewhere.

Re: Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants

#116

Post by GuB-42 »

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #97
netizen-936824 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does THC intoxication change social behaviors? Are you more or less social? Personally I doubt it was a direct pharmacological effect, but rather a secondary behavioral effect

If you're going to copypaste a statement saying you doubt it had a direct pharmacological effect on a post about a direct pharmacological effect, why not state what you think the issue with the study was?

The study is mostly about the effect of CBDA and CBGA, maybe THCA, but not THC. The "A" (for acid) forms are what you actively try to get rid of (by decarboxylation) if you want to get high.

Also, the doses the study suggests are really high.

Unless the study seriously underestimates the effect, it is unlikely that you will get a pharmacological effect by smoking joints. You may get an effect if your way of getting high is eating grams of raw (not decarbed) cannabis.

Re: Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants

#117

Post by jonhohle »

bbatchelder wrote: post #99
jonhohle wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a lay-person and not an epidemiologist, what logic is there for the idea that mRNA treatments that synthesize a single protein could be better than an actual infection which produces hundreds of those proteins per replication along with dozens or more proteins that may be used by the immune system to identify the virus? Traditional vaccines at least dump most of the target viral proteins into the body. Focusing on…

> just about the idea that recovered individuals would be less protected than a vaccinated individual on average. I don't think its so much about the idealized immune response, but that in general, people's immune response to natural infection seems to widely vary, with many not having much of a robust response. It very well may be that a good immune response to natural infection may be better than one from an mRNA v…

Again, this seems counterintuitive to me. If infected, the immune system reacts to foreign bodies. If jabbed, the immune system reacts to foreign bodies. The intention of the shots are to stimulate the same system as a natural reaction, minus the threat of disease. If an individual wouldn’t have a strong response to infection, why would it be any different from a subset of proteins?

Is there academic research on this topic that existed prior to SARS-Cov-2?

Re: Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants

#118

Post by netizen-936824 »

dekhn wrote: post #98
netizen-936824 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does THC intoxication change social behaviors? Are you more or less social? Personally I doubt it was a direct pharmacological effect, but rather a secondary behavioral effect

I'm a long-time THC consumer. The effects differ tremendously based on a wide range of variables. I've also retrained myself after many years to override my natural THC behaviors. Let me give some examples. College days, my first real year of smoking, I got really high. I mean, really really high. Close to a psychedelic experience. I went to the cafe to get an ice cream sundae and when I walked in, everybody in the e…

I'm glad you're interested! I'm also a long time cannabinoid user, but I don't smoke anymore. I dose multiple times per day with edibles.

If you want to dive deep into the pharmacology, I can recommend this book:

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-387-74349-3

Re: Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants

#119

Post by vmception »

incrudible wrote: post #115
vmception wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a lot of work to do, I would say look outside of the US and also technologies used by different vaccines worldwide. A lot of the consternations fall apart, to me, when the aggregate response reaches the same conclusion, something impossible to be done by any guiding hand due to geopolitics.

> A lot of the consternations fall apart, to me, when the aggregate response reaches the same conclusion... Does it though? The other countries that went all in on MRNA vaccines obviously don't have an interest in finding more problems with them. I have yet to see a single good study that determines risk/benefit stratified by age and risk factors. This rather new study shows that risk of Myocarditis is higher with va…

I’m not sold on third doses or more either. Its a mRNA vaccine for two variants ago and we dont use that standard for other viruses.

Decent example but this is a separate issue than the premise I started with or replied to.

I think myocarditis is a good example of remaining objective with data. At risk people know what they need to do and it is no longer selfish for the rest of us to not help that. Nobody can kill as many grandmas as Cuomo’s nursing homes, its impossible now and a booster also assumes additional risk whereas the initial doses did not.

Re: Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants

#120

Post by pille »

selectodude wrote: post #107
pille wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth repeating that this study was retracted. Authors failed to disclose a conflict of interest in their funding from the tobacco industry: https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/57/3/2002144

In fairness, the study was retracted not due to the data but because "The European Respiratory Society, as a leading medical organisation in the respiratory field whose mission is to promote lung health and alleviate suffering from respiratory disease, has bylaws in place that do not permit individuals with ongoing relationships with the tobacco industry to participate in its activities" and in other situations, "The…

I’m not sure what you mean by “politics” here, so I’d rather be explicit and say what it looks like to me.

The tobacco industry has a rich history of trying to manipulate public opinion in their favor, and this article and authors’ undisclosed conflict of interest fits that pattern well: a study shows cigarettes are actually good for you in some way, and might even save you from the current pandemic; and then whoops, authors were getting paid by the tobacco industry, and then whoops again, they didn’t mention it when submitting for publication.

If the study was retracted even though the CoPE guidelines don’t require a retraction, it implies to me that this case was more egregious than just some protocol mixup or forgetfulness. The most generous reading is that the retraction was made out of an abundance of caution and concern for the journal’s reputation. I suppose that’s possible, but I don’t see any further evidence in favor of exonerating the article, especially knowing the industry’s history.

Post reply on HN