191–200 of 422 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “Dangerous misconception”? Get out of here with that. I will not. The demonization of cannabis has led directly to it becoming high THC and low CBD, as I said. It also has lead to it often being tainted with all manner of adulterants, from ketamine to glass beads to plaster dust to worse. > Cannabis is dangerous for schizoaffective people. CBD is a leading target of research for it's anti-psychotic properties; and…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia it's starting to seem like drugs that seem harmless like marijuana (specifically THC?) can definitely bring it out. At least, that's what seemed to happen to my mother and another friend.
One of my ex' father triggered a lifelong episode of schyzophrenia by excessive drinking during mandatory military service around age 18-19. So i'd say there are number of triggers
Is it possible that the pro-schizophrenia genes persist because they offer other (non-neurological) benefits, e.g., lower risk of cancer? Siblings of patients with schizophrenia are less likely to develop cancer, and in several studies these patients had lower risk of developing cancer despite higher prevalence of smoking.
There’s no such thing as a “pro schizophrenia genes”. There are only genes that increase the risk of schizophrenia, and this is probably due to environmental variables. Exchanging a risk for cancer for a risk of schizophrenia is not a win-win situation. You’re just switching one set of risk genes for another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s really sad, all of these sharp modernists determined upon the cult of science explanations for everything. That which you try to attack and downplay as "cult of science explanations" is actually something extremely simple: you need to show something, anything at all, that actually supports your beliefs. How can you tell something exists or works as you think it does if you are unable to show it? Do you expect…
The only "ish" evidence for this kind of raving is this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mentality
That is far from even coming close to qualify as evidence. At best they are unverified hypothesis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not trying to be glib, but this is a genuine lmgtfy moment. https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=cbd+antipsychotic&atb=v340-...
No it's not. The poster should have referenced some sources. CBD has been touted as a miracle drug for over a decade now and it seems mostly like a fad at this point. But also it's not well regulated so it's easy for unscrupulous companies and individuals to profit from misleading marketing around it.
Who, me? ... Why? It's very well known and established that CBD has antipsychotic properties.
And if you don't know, that and don't bring any evidence against it, then why claim otherwise before like, doing a simple search to check your priors?
In any case, I've provided multiple citations elsewhere in this thread, and a whole bunch more come up on the linked search results. This isn't hidden knowledge or anything.
> CBD has been touted as a miracle drug for over a decade now
That's a separate issue.
> it seems mostly like a fad at this point
If you click the link you can see that isn't true.
> also it's not well regulated so it's easy for unscrupulous companies and individuals to profit from misleading marketing around it.
That's a separate issue.
Maybe this could explain why mental illness & creativity seem to be so closely related? Just as one example, James Joyce's daughter was schizophrenic.
Mental illness and creativity are not closely related. There is correlation but mental illness is not required for creativity. According to Wikipedia, creative people are 25% more likely to have a mental illness. As for why so many bipolar people are famous, manic episodes can be very productive. For myself, being bipolar has given me several lifetimes of perspective to inform my writing. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w…
What do you think a correlation is if not a relationship? No one said it was "required".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know what is considered as "latent schizophrenia"? Is it like in your 40's or 30's or just couple years after the mean?
if you are a man and make it past age of 29 without starting to hear voices, you can breathe a sigh of relief (I did)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> is not appropriate here Actually, if the agenda of pushing CBD therapy applies, then it is. I know a number of folks that have autistic children, of various levels, from "nerd," to "wheelchair-bound." Their parents are usually absolute saints, regardless of their political views, or misinformation diets, and live in constant pain; making daily sacrifices that I don't think many folks here, can even comprehend. We w…
> The real villains, here, are the people that have secondary agendas (like legalizing drugs, or pushing political agendas) The natural state of affairs is silence, as plants don't care about humans. The actual history of plant illegalization is inherently political, and inextricably racist in America due to Nixon.
0 - https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=harry+anslinger+racism&atb=...
Is it possible that the pro-schizophrenia genes persist because they offer other (non-neurological) benefits, e.g., lower risk of cancer? Siblings of patients with schizophrenia are less likely to develop cancer, and in several studies these patients had lower risk of developing cancer despite higher prevalence of smoking.
There’s no such thing as a “pro schizophrenia genes”. There are only genes that increase the risk of schizophrenia, and this is probably due to environmental variables. Exchanging a risk for cancer for a risk of schizophrenia is not a win-win situation. You’re just switching one set of risk genes for another.
I think that's what GP was saying?
> You’re just switching one set of risk genes for another.
I think... that's what GP was saying?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It’s really sad, all of these sharp modernists determined upon the cult of science explanations for everything. That which you try to attack and downplay as "cult of science explanations" is actually something extremely simple: you need to show something, anything at all, that actually supports your beliefs. How can you tell something exists or works as you think it does if you are unable to show it? Do you expect…
> If you cannot explain your beliefs, how do you expect others to just take your unverified and unsubstantiated claims as something worth considering over any random claim from any random loony? Even without an explanation, you can use statistics to find the fruits of the beliefs, though. Does 100 people believe in not working and rather join a cult that worships the watermelon god? Fine! How did that work out for th…