Talk:Cannabidiol/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Side effects

The updated information about the side effects of Cannabidiol are:

There are some known and suspected side effects of using CBD oil, though the side effects are few and minor in nature. It is important to note that not all people experience these side effects and usually only at high dosage levels. Some of the known possible side effects are;

Dry mouth Drowsiness Low blood pressure Dizziness/light headed feeling Inhibition of hepatic drug metabolism/decreased activities of p-glycoprotein and other drug transporters An increase in some patients of tremor

One frequently asked question is whether or not someone will test positive for THC while using hemp derived CBD oil. This is absolutely not the case. You will NOT test positive for THC while using hemp derived CBD oil. Hemp must test out at less than 0.03% THC content for it to be federally legal to use to extract CBD oil. All Happy Tea products contain CBD from hemp derived cannabidiol. More information available on redacted spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeconNutincrementors (talk • contribs) 09:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

happytea.com is not a reliable source. Sources for health information need to be WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Insufficient high-quality evidence

Is there a source for this claim? See Wikipedia:No_original_research. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 07:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the sources that were cited before you edit-warred them away. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I did not remove any source! Are you even reading what I am doing??? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You have removed citations and replaced them with a {{cn}} tag. The lede was doing a good job summarizing the article as was, before you edit-warred the lede into this state. Alexbrn (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This is simply not true. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Anybody can compare[1] the versions. You have taken some content & removed the citations it had, tagging it (with {{fact}} rather than {{cn}} to be precise) so that it appears unsourced. You did this five times. Alexbrn (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

YES! Anyone can compare them and see that you are reading too fast. I didn't remove a source, not even a single time. I had to move sections in the lead three times because you reverted them. The other two reverts you are accusing me off are not reverts and have nothing to do with this dispute. There are no other people involved here.

The claim about insufficient evidence is not in any of the sources (wich are still in the lead btw). That claim is original research. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a good summary of the sources cited (and already cited and summarized in the article body). The lede summarizes the body. Alexbrn (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Both sources are still in the lead. Neither of them claim that the research is insufficient. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

They very much do. That is the whole thrust of the Discussion section in the Lancet article for example. Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It says that further studies on treating mental disorders are needed. It says nothing about pain in general and not all movement disorders are related to mental issues (rheumatism for example). I will remove the tag since it does say there should be more research on treating mental disorders with CBD. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It says, "In light of the paucity of evidence and absence of good quality evidence, and the known risk of cannabinoids, the use of cannabinoids as treatments for mental disorders cannot be justified at this time". Pain is covered by PMID 31447137 which says "CBD and hemp oils remain an unproven therapeutic option". These matters are also dealt with in the article body. Ledes summarize bodies. Alexbrn (talk) 09:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It does not say anything about the risks of CBD. It does not say anything about forms of CBD treatment other than oil. You are drawing conclusions. A few years from now everyone will laugh at this. You cannot stop this in the age of information. For now, congratulations on pushing your point of view. I concede (even though this was never an editwar). 31.161.148.196 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Legality

All CBD is considered marijuana under Iowa law.

The Bulgaria legal situation is not correct. That article in Forbes is a sponsored article by big Multilevel CBD company. By calling the ministries mentioned, they confirmed that CBD is not allowed as novel food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.217.156 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this fact worth mentioning? Iowa is one of three states where CBD is still illegal. 31.161.228.68 (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Facts removed

As of 2020 personal use is legal in most states except for Idaho, Iowa and South Dakota.. It is also legal in the UK.. These are NOT MEDICAL FACTS. However these facts have been removed by pov-pushers, claiming the sources are a blog. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 07:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Comment is Free is a blogging space for The Guardian. "leafly.com" is some kind of dodgy commercial site. We need better sources for statements about legality. Alexbrn (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

In the UK, CBD oil is for sale in thousands of community pharmacies and other retailers. That probably reverses the burden of proof. Is there a source that says it is illegal in the UK? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that shows Leafly.com to be commercial? They don't seem to be selling anything. If you disagree with a source you could just remove the source, put a {{fact}} tag and start a talk. Or are you seriously doubting the fact that CBD is legal in almost every US state? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

See Leafly#Business model. Remember WP:V is policy and so we need decent sources. The position in the UK is set out in the "United Kingdom" section. Alexbrn (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not the American Wikipedia, so I don't see why the US situation should be in the lead and the UK (or Australian) situation should not.

I fail to see how a source that has advertising would be unreliable per definition. Is there any consensus or guideline on this? It would mean any newspaper is unreliable because they all advertise. Leafly does not meet the requirements to be called a blog or a source.

Do you deny that CBD is illegal in only three US states? If you don't then why didn't you just put in a {{fact}} tag or edit the parts you could not agree on? Why was reverting necessary? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Newspapers (well, some newspapers) have a solid reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you could produce such a source, that would be better. Alexbrn (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing on WP:V to indicate that Leafly is not reliable. There is no guideline that says a source can't have advertisements. If your only concern is that this source has advertisements then why didn't you just tag that? 31.161.148.196 (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. If in doubt, ask at WP:RS/N. Alexbrn (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It is a reliable source if it complies with WP:V. You are trying to reverse the burden of proof. Leafly is not on the list. 31.161.148.196 (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I will leave it like this cause all cannabis will be legal soon. CBD is only illegal in three states right now, but go ahead and ignore that. It's 2020, good luck with your fight against this 'evil drug'. You can fool some people some time... 31.161.148.196 (talk) 11:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed removal of all references to the FDA

Perhaps a bit radical, but worth considering, there are numerous sources that show that the FDA is no longer a reliable organisation which focuses on data. Using the FDA to talk about a topic with as much moral baggage as this one is like quoting DeVos on expertise in education or asking the EPA about the environmental impact of oil and gas. I'm interested to hear from others. It's not appropriate, especially for a global audience looking for real information. 78.54.135.37 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I mean outside of the US-legality section it has no place in the article...actually within the US legality section the global reputation of the FDA should be a brief topic...78.54.135.37 (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done FDA is a good WP:RS. Alexbrn (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Topical cannabidiol

This article is biased. There is no mention of the use of CBD externally and any attempts to even mention this fact are reverted. It is common knowledge that there are many CBD products that go on the skin. UserTwoSix (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources? Alexbrn (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31793418/ UserTwoSix (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Legality in the US

Why is this in the lede? This makes the article too US-centric. UserTwoSix (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It's also incorrect - it seems there are a lot of references to Mead 2017 to justify this, which was written before the 2018 farm bill removed 'hemp,' "the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis," from the Controlled Substances Act. It explicitly says that certain varieties of cannabis are not Schedule I, and that the plant all derivatives and extracts are legal.

Mead herself references this in Mead 2019: "Therefore, commercial activity with hemp (including its extracts and cannabinoids) is now lawful." FDA still has issues with it being marketed as a food, dietary supplement, or medical treatment. But the US legality discussion in this article is incorrect and should be updated; unfortunately, it seems it will be a bit of work as it crops up in multiple places in the article. Cryptopocalypse (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I made some changes to reflect the information found in Mead 2019 and the FDA and DEA articles. If anyone has issues with those changes, let's discuss them. We can also move the discussion of US legality out of the lede if it is too country specific. Cryptopocalypse (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

We've used FDA in the lede and throughout the article as an example of scientific scrutiny and strict federal regulation, for which no other national agency has provided as much transparency on the eventual legal marketing of CBD. Approval of Epidiolex as a CBD drug in the US also provides context for general users to see the drug development process facing CBD research and product evolution. IMO, the FDA guides on CBD serve an educational role for the encyclopedia, so are useful to retain in visibility. Zefr (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

CBD is only a schedule 5 drug if the THC content below 0.1% and its approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration otherwise its a schedule 1 drug

Cleanup from other articles

Just a heads up I've been slowly working on cleaning up some cannabis strain/variety articles. Charlotte's Web (cannabis) had a lot of content that was very tangential to the strain that I removed recently. A lot of it seems redundant here given the current content, but here's a link across all the diffs in case anyone spots something that could have a use here. Especially things like the Research section really dealt more with cannabidiol products in general. KoA (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 October 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Grayhawk126.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rcocker. Peer reviewers: Jarogers0998, LaShaeDavis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dangt1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not split. Wgullyn (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

---

I was thinking of creating an article for CBD oil but I don't know if said article would have enough specific info to stand on it's own.Americanfreedom (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a content fork, WP:CFORK, which, from the general user's view, would be an unnecessary diversion. Can't see there would be enough information on CBD oil to deviate from the main article. Zefr (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It's also not clear to me either what would really be split either. This already would technically seem to be the article about CBD oil. Maybe there could be more on how it's marketed, but even then, I don't think that would work as a standalone for a new article. KoA (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Splitting is really not necessary. CBD may exist in different forms like tablets, logenzes, patches, oils etc. My proposal is to create a subheading `== products ==` where availability of different forms should be mentioned and `CBD oil` should be redirected to that subheading Machinexa (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps an article of broader scope covering cannabis therapies, but I don't see the need to split.JonathanPlaster (talk) 06:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose split. Content on the oil makes most sense here per WP:NOPAGE. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CBD and cancer

It's completely unjustified to say that CBD as an anti cancer treatment is 'pseudo science', hence I have removed that dubious claim. There are countless studies supporting the contrary:

"Global prohibition over the past century has impeded the ability to study the plant as medicine."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33143283/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31447137/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30627539/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31897700/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31775230/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25916739/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31161270/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31811927/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31349651/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32765628/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33562819/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31161270/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34259916/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30707319/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30195736/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22506672/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22506672/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33126623/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33244087/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31699976/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33066359/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21220494/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32751388/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25069049/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30660647/

Taken together, the results obtained in this study re-demonstrated the effects of CBD treatment in vivo, thus confirming its role as a novel, reliable anticancer drug.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29473338/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29441458/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32752303/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17712814/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17712814/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33657198/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20859676/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24910342/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32839414/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31570484/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30713602/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31611561/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22110202/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33466435/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33723124/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22963825/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33812759/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27633508/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31193514/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27769052/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30691796/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33919010/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23349970/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18387516/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24293211/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1159836/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16909207/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25674907/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14617682/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33477303/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24204703/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22594963/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23079154/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15700028/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25903924/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25398831/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32340151/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27022310/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33246167/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33912679/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33921049/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33247539/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30597288/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29088769/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33604949/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29992185/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30671539/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25269802/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31075907/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31195721/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32294046/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24373545/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10495-014-0985-0

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22917

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31161270/

CBD is one of a class of compounds known as cannabinoids, which are found in the cannabis plant. Unlike THC (the main psychoactive component of cannabis), CBD is not thought to have intoxicating effects.

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/daily-use-of-cannabidiol-cbd-oil-may-be-linked-to-lung-cancer-regression/#:~:text=It%20may%20be%20worth%20exploring,the%20aid%20of%20conventional%20treatment.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/12/211223141935.htm

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-021-01259-3

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/2021/world-first-uk-trial-to-assess-whether-cannabis-based-drug-could-extend-life-for-thousands-with-aggressive-brain-tumours-1 Oz346 (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I clicked the first source, and it was a dodgy journal (from MDPI) and did not support the claim the CBD is a cancer treatment; rather the opposite, since it said it was a substance with potential effects which merited study (like everything else, pretty much). So it seems you're just spamming search engine results. If you have any source which actually says that CBD actual is a "cancer treatment" then produce it. Otherwise, our current source is excellent for fringe claims in general, and the scam claims about CBD in particular. Alexbrn (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not spamming search engines results. I've read every single one of these links!!! Every single one of these links is from pubmed. Pubmed is the premier medical paper database.

"since it said it was a substance with potential effects which merited study (like everything else, pretty much)."

Well even if we say this argument is true, how can you make a definite statement saying it is NOT a treatment? When it has 'potential effects'. You make it sound like anything. I would like to take this to 3rd opinion. Oz346 (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If you want to say something is "a treatment for cancer" you will need a WP:MEDRS source saying it is. Drawing an editorial conclusion that something can be called a treatment because it kind of might be based on primary research you are not qualified, as a Wikipedia editor, to assess, is forbidden. PUBMED has a load a junk in it, as well as some good sources. Alexbrn (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Well i've never said it is a treatment on the actual wiki page. Yes we need it to be more accepted in the mainstream to say that for sure. But i removed the outdated definitive statement saying it is "NOT treatement' Which is frankly nonsense, and from a nonsense website (not peer reviewed itself, and from 2015). If you read all the actual links i've posted, you can clearly see it has anti cancer effects. Anyway mark my words, when it does become mainstream (which does not seem to be a longtime going by the preliminary results from the brain cancer trial), then you will realise what a misleading statement you have inadvertently put back into this wikipedia page, which will mislead many people. Oz346 (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Science-Based Medicine is a "nonsense website"? I think I'm going to disengage. See your Talk page for a notice about discretionary sanctions in effect for this subject area. Alexbrn (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

buy CBD online?

citation https://www.buycbdonline.co/cannabidiol-therapeutic-and-legal-aspects/ - is that a legitimate citation? Doesn’t seem related to the sentence, ref 84 under pharmacokinetics JuanTamad (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Just some filthy spam. Alexbrn (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Does CBD Cause Cancer?

This discussion refers to the following line in the Wikipedia article on CBD: "Recently published data also suggest that cannabidiol is a carcinogen." The citation given is a recently-published online article (not apparently peer-reviewed) that aggregates US data about cancer prevalence and self-admitted CBD use. The article comes from a pair of professors in the psychiatry department of the University of Western Australia. It relies on a mathematical construct called "E-value" to distinguish causation from mere correlation. What I did not find in the article was a clear indication of how the authors ruled out the possibility that the causation was in reverse direction from their assumption. Specifically, the very high correlation between CBD use and cancer diagnosis may have been because people with cancer have increased consumption of CBD because (1) it relieves pain, anxiety, depression, and other dysphoria associated with cancer and (2) some people believe it can actually "cure" cancer. The cited article is in need of peer review by somebody brighter about the math than me. I question whether it should be cited in the Wikipedia article without appropriate qualifiers as to its conclusions. 2600:1702:47F0:5230:6022:7150:A3EC:34CD (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Resolved

it was primary research. Removed. Bon courage (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

CBD is cannabis, cannabis resin

Cannabidiol is scheduled under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs as cannabis. International Narcotics Control Board reminds Member States that, at the reconvened sixty-third session of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, in December 2020, the States members of the Commission rejected the recommendation of WHO that a footnote be added to the entry for cannabis and cannabis resin in Schedule I of the 1961 Convention as amended to exempt from international control preparations containing predominantly CBD and not more than 0.2 per cent of delta-9-THC.[2]https://www.incb.org/documents/Publications/AnnualReports/AR2021/Annual_Report/E_INCB_2021_1_eng.pdf

This ammendment must be done to UN section, there is wrong convention link Ka36ek (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

First THC derived drug

No, Marinol was 1st drug, approved in 1986. CBD is 1st thc derived drug approved for infantile epilepsy. 2603:6000:D700:194D:198B:1E08:E578:576C (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

(B) Unreliable bevnet.com

The FDA sent warning letters to various companies; this fact is important to the context of the FDA's statement. In order to understand what the FDA was warning about, Author read one of the warning letters; the letter lists the name of a product that an FDA employee found to be questionable. Author wanted to know more about this product, specifically its dosage information. However, Author was concerned that the company may have altered the product and its description as a response to the FDA's warning letter; consequently, Author found a description of the product from a 3rd-party review that was written before the warning letter:

Review: Mood33 CBD Herbal Teas (archive)

Why is this source unreliable?

BevNET is a company dedicated to covering news about the beverage industry; from its About Us page:

BevNET.com is the leading food and beverage-oriented media company, producing a web site, podcasts, print magazine, and live conference series. The company was founded in 1996 by John Craven, with its mission to offer, through products in a variety of media, the best, most comprehensive forum for news coverage, expertise, partnership and support for all members of the beverage community.

Since its inception, BevNET.com has become a recognized authority on the beverage industry. BevNET.com and its employees are often used as sources for media publications looking for industry information, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Detroit Free Press, CNBC and Wired Magazine.

BevNET has offices in Newton, MA, New York, NY, and San Diego, CA.

The DNS information seems to agree with that history:

$ whois bevnet.com |& sed -e '/^>>> /q' Domain Name: BEVNET.COM Registry Domain ID: 1952455_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com Updated Date: 2022-09-13T01:46:58Z Creation Date: 1997-07-10T04:00:00Z Registry Expiry Date: 2025-07-09T04:00:00Z Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC Registrar IANA ID: 146 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [abuse AT godaddy DOT com] Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: 480-624-2505 Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited Name Server: NS-1242.AWSDNS-27.ORG Name Server: NS-1892.AWSDNS-44.CO.UK Name Server: NS-414.AWSDNS-51.COM Name Server: NS-550.AWSDNS-04.NET DNSSEC: unsigned URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: https://www.icann.org/wicf/ >>> Last update of whois database: 2023-11-26T23:50:09Z <<<

Therefore:

• Without some evidence to the contrary, BevNET is a reliable source.
• And, even if BevNET were not a reliable source, the proper solution is one of the following:
  • Mark the information as needing a better citation.
  • Provide a better citation.
    • Either replace the existing citation with a new one, or add other citations for support.
• Certainly, the solution is not to delete information that is unquestionably germane.

|}

Please offer your comments on this matter.
24.118.62.152 (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding However, Author was concerned that the company may have altered the product and its description as a response to the FDA's warning letter, it may be worth checking for the company's product description page in the Internet Archive from before the FDA letter was issued. Then you're avoiding the company's potential changing of details, and avoiding a third-party to relay the product details.

I do agree that the overall context regarding FDA letters here could be useful; but, I also agree that the WP:WEIGHT issue on over-detail can apply here:

• The entire quote under That document has a section titled "Safety related to ingestion", which states: does not seem to be needed.
• The bullets under The aforementioned summary lists a number of dosages used in various trials: would be better summarized into a couple of sentences to state exactly what you intend to get across with those bullets; as it is it's excessive data. Remember that the reader can open the linked article if they wish to see the language in the source, or data exactly as provided in the source; what should be in the article is a summary of the source without bringing along unnecessary details.

Overall, I think the additions that have been made can be shortened to get the point across more clearly (without falling into original research), but the intention of providing context to safety-related claims and dosage does improve the existing text of the article (especially the "Side Effects" section as you mentioned). Kimen8 (talk) 11:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I have applied your thoughts; also, I have broken up one of the quotes, and added some information about the dosing of Epidiolex. Here is the result:

Updated Content

Side effects […] In 2022, the FDA stated that "scientific studies show possible harm to the male reproductive system, including testicular atrophy, harm to the liver, and interactions with certain medications. The FDA has not found adequate information showing how much CBD can be consumed, and for how long, before causing harm. This is particularly true for vulnerable populations like children and those who are pregnant." The full statement provides links to warning letters that the FDA sent to 5 companies, whom the FDA accused of marketing CBD-based products in a manner not consistent with safety or law. One letter disapproved of a beverage product, namely a 12-oz bottle of herbal tea infused with 33 mg of CBD; In the letter, the FDA invites the reader to review the information on a web page the FDA has dedicated to cannabis-derived products (including CBD); between 25 January and 28 January of 2023, the FDA added to that page of resources the following document: Safety of CBD in Humans – A Literature Review (As of December 12, 2019) That document summarizes the results of 94 trials, 60 of which involved administering oral CBD with a variety of daily dosages between 200 mg and 1500 mg, delivered for 6 days to 8 weeks (depending on the trial); many of the trials involved patients who were being treated for various diseases, such as seizures, schizophrenia, Parkinson's disease, and fatty liver disease; 21 of the trials provided the "conclusive statement" that "CBD is well tolerated", but the FDA reviewers found such a conclusion to have been drawn "without providing detailed safety results". As also indicated in the warning letter, the FDA reviewers found the clinical trials of Epidiolex to be particularly noteworthy, stating: We reviewed four primary clinical trials that supported Epidiolex approval. […] FDA’s review of the four randomized placebo-controlled trials describes Epidiolex’s attributable risks: somnolence (18%; 3% is severe), CNS adverse reactions such as agitation and sedation (1-4%), decreased appetite (16%), diarrhea (9%), and decreased weight (3%). For the average U.S. adult, the recommended dosage of Epidiolex ranges from 410 mg of CBD per day to 2050 mg/day, spread equally across a morning meal and an evening meal. The FDA reviewers of the clinical data drew the following conclusions on the safety of ingesting CBD orally via administering Epidiolex: "Based on the information in these trials, the estimated risk of severe liver injury, irreversible liver failure that is fatal or requires liver transplantation, is 0.3[%] to 0.4%, although no cases of severe liver injury were reported." "[It] is clear that many patients will develop cannabidiol-induced adverse reactions; however, those observed in the development program would be expected to be detectable by patients and/or caregivers, self-limited, and reversible." […] Notes References

24.118.62.152 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

There should be no long quotations; sources should be briefly summarized in editors' own word. Further, WP:MEDSAY should be taken into account. Bevnet.com and statista.com are unreliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• ☑ There should be no long quotations.
  There are no long quotations.
   
• ☑ Sources should be briefly summarized in editors' own word[s].
  Sources have been so summarized.
   
• ☑ WP:MEDSAY should be taken into account.
  WP:MEDSAY has been taken into account.
   
• ☑ bevnet.com and statista.com are unreliable sources.
  Wrong. Both bevnet.com and statista.com are reliable sources.
   

It looks like all of your concerns have been addressed.

24.118.62.152 (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Beginning to look like a problematic edit attempt. To take just the last point first, see WP:STATISTA. Bon courage (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• Beginning to look like a problematic edit attempt.

  Are you getting excited?

• See WP:STATISTA.

  OK. So after much discussion, it was decided that it was philosophically better not to cite Statista directly:

  Statista aggregates statistical information from a number of sources, many of which are reliable. It is not the source of the statistics it displays, so should not be cited directly. It may be useful as a research tool to find sources of statistical information.

  Why didn't you explain this recent decision, point out where to find it from the beginning, and then simply ask for a more direct source than Statista? Instead, you appear to take great joy in making terse, nonconstructive (or, indeed, destructive) potshots, almost licking your lips and rubbing your hands in gleeful anticipation of some imminent bureaucratic domination.

24.118.62.152 (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Challenge to revert of my edit

Hey all! Please bear with me, as this is my first time trying to do something like this. I study Food Law and feel my edit should not have been reverted. Revert linked here.

Making something 'illegal' implies there is a law specifically banning it. As per the 2018 Farm Bill and subsequent federal and state legislation, this is not the case for hemp-derived cannabinoids. A better term to describe this would be a ban, however, FDA sources specifically say the opposite of what the reversion implies. The most recent official FDA statement on the matter is literally titled "FDA Concludes that Existing Regulatory Frameworks for Foods and Supplements are Not Appropriate for Cannabidiol, Will Work with Congress on a New Way Forward" which strongly implies they're not taking action to ban it and, instead, see a need to make some forms of it illegal by law rather than banning it via regulation. While the FDA has not come out and said this for political reasons, anyone who knows about this situation agrees this most likely the posturing of the agency.

As a result, I feel my edit to replace the word 'ban' with 'illegal' is fair and just. And so, I would like to request that the revert be undone.

JikiScott (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

JikiScott - To keep clear that manufacturing of food, beverage or supplement products containing CBD is illegal, let's leave the issue of hemp-derived CBD out of the discussion because hemp CBD has little presence in the consumer market - see discussion in the US section.

The issue of illegality is addressed in the language of each FDA warning letter to companies marketing CBD products, such as this one (dated 16 Nov 2023), which states that new drugs (defined as nonapproved CBD products marketed with anti-disease claims) "may not be legally introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce without prior approval from FDA," and so are in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, i.e., they are illegally marketed.

As stated in the labeling and advertising section, the FDA has issued dozens of warning letters since 2015 to US companies illegally marketing CBD products. Zefr (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Cannabimimetic agents

ACSCN	Drug
7297	5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497)
7298	5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol or CP-47,497 C8-homolog)
7118	1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018 and AM678)
7173	1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073)
7019	1-hexyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-019)
7200	1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200)
6250	1-pentyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (JWH-250)
7081	1-pentyl-3-[1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indole (JWH-081)
7122	1-pentyl-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-122)
7398	1-pentyl-3-(4-chloro-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-398)
7201	1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (AM2201)
7694	1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl)indole (AM694)
7104	1-pentyl-3-[(4-methoxy)-benzoyl]indole (SR-19 and RCS-4)
7008	1-cyclohexylethyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole 7008 (SR-18 and RCS-8)
7203	1-pentyl-3-(2-chlorophenylacetyl)indole (JWH-203)

Pharmacology section

This revision made use of the regulatory summaries on Epidiolex (pure cannabidiol) for the US and Europe, added a 2024 review (Schouten) and the Drugs.com monograph, and trimmed the outdated primary sources and related conjectural content. Per WP:MEDMOS, we write medical content for the general reader, not including elaborate details of hypothetical mechanisms from in vitro research too preliminary to be included in updated reviews.

CBD is in an unusual place for an encyclopedia: except for Epidiolex, it is not an approved prescription drug having the obligations of establishing dose-response effects (drug "efficacy") and specificity of mechanism via use of a confirmed blocking agent, neither of which exists. To the FDA, it is a dietary supplement having numerous safety concerns that will likely delay its research progress and regulatory approval for many years.

We should not overstate the significance of early-stage lab studies on receptors, hypothetical mechanisms of action, neuronal targets, etc. for a compound still mainly in the supplement category, as no other dietary supplement article carries such content. This is where WP:MEDASSESS applies. Zefr (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Your edit is only within the context of epidiolex's implications, which is epilepsy, this page is for cannabidiol as the compound, not one officially licensed brand name of CBD, the pharmacology section is not exclusive to whatever medical implication it may pertain to, the pharmacology section pertains to whatever interactions said drug may have on any given receptor, whether it is clinically signifiant for any particular aliment or not.

None of the contents within the page prior to this grief were unsubstanitated, everything that had been written in regards to how CBD interacts with CB1 and CB2 receptors were substantiated with legitimate scientific literature, infact the page was lacking in regards to its interactions on the alpha-1 adrenergic, u-opioid receptors and many others, (which while may be deemed clinically insignificant, again does not invalidate the pharmacology of the compound).

You know all of this, you're not ignorant to this, but you are determined on griefing this wiki, and i had given you the grace of not reporting it and instead advising you of not reverting people's edits but you really leave me no other choice here but to report your profile. Databoose43 (talk) 03:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

No one is 'griefing'. Making personal attacks is not going to help you get your preferred changes into the article. You should stop edit warring and insulting people and instead work on getting consensus. If you plan to report Zefr's 'profile', I would have a read of WP:BOOMERANG first. MrOllie (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't plan to, i already did, your report was also not a plan as well, it happened. Databoose43 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussing CBD receptors

There are several reasons why this revert is justified. Note to Databoose43. 1) there is only limited evidence for biological activity of CBD in vivo (only rare forms of epilepsy are treatable with Epidiolex, a pharmaceutical form of CBD); 2) the CBD receptor mechanisms discussed in the reverted text are sourced by 7-17 year old lab studies, i.e., out of date preliminary information; 3) the text defended by Databoose is conjecture: "affinity is ambiguous", receptor function "could be"... (opinion editing, hypothetical), "can counteract and reduce both the receptor activation"... "to a clinically significant degree" - there is no clinically significant degree, except in rare seizures; 4) the mechanism of Epidiolex action is unknown; 5) the reverted section beginning, "That being said" is pure conjecture and jargon incomprehensible to the general non-science reader - see WP:MEDMOS, Writing for the wrong audience.

The rest of the pharmacodynamics section has little value. It is based partly on conjecture ("may be", "may involve") from outdated literature and all on preliminary lab research not well represented by WP:MEDSCI reviews. It's possible some receptor information could be retained, but it should be a summary written for the non-science user. Zefr (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to this one by one as i believe it's the best format for this context. Bold and quotations is what the other user is claiming, the non-bold non-quoted text below is my response to the claims.

1. " There is only limited evidence for biological activity of CBD in vivo (only rare forms of epilepsy are treatable with Epidiolex, a pharmaceutical form of CBD); "

I have no idea what you are even referring to here, i did not mention epidiolex within my edit.

Epidiolex is CBD in pharmaceutical form, is approved as a prescription drug in many countries, and is the only CBD product proven to work on brain function (as an anticonvulsant). To achieve international regulatory approval, it would have undergone exceptional scrutiny, as for all approved drugs, including its side effects and possible mechanisms. But the DailyMed states that its mechanisms are unknown (i.e., inadequate definability about CBD receptors from lab research) and '"Cannabidiol does not appear to exert its anticonvulsant effects through interaction with cannabinoid receptors." Epidiolex serves as the example for what is (un)known about CBD receptors in the brain. Zefr (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Then i'm not sure you're referring to the same edit here, i don't remember mentioning epidiolex or its mechanisms in the context of anticonvulsant properties. Databoose43 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

The point is that Epidiolex - pure CBD - is the only scrutinized, approved CBD product with proven in vivo effects. If scientific committees and national regulators responsible for its marketing approval don't know what its mechanisms are, then Wikipedia shouldn't be attempting to explain CBD receptors and mechanisms of action because this work is far too preliminary and unconfirmed to be treated as encyclopedic content or even as advanced research, WP:MEDINVITRO and WP:MEDASSESS, left pyramid, bottom. In the pharmacodynamics section, it would be accurate to say: "As of 2024, the cellular effects and mechanisms of CBD in vivo are unknown." Zefr (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

They don't know what the mechanisms are, for its anticonvulsant properties, however we do know a good deal of information unrelated to it being an anticonvulsant and how that mechanism works.

For example, it is well established in science that CBD is a CB1/CB2 antagonist, the affinities and extent of that? We don't know clearly, and i made that clear within the edit.

Another example, it is well established that the CB1 receptor does contain at least one, or possibly even more allosteric binding sites, that it is established CBD is a negative allosteric modulator for.

Just because science does not know one thing does not mean that we don't know anything at all, the knowledge of how a compound works, builds up over time as hypothesises are made, challenged, tested, studied and reviewed. I completely disagree with this black-and-white take that just because we don't understand one thing we understand nothing. Databoose43 (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

2. "the CBD receptor mechanisms discussed in the reverted text are sourced by 7-17 year old lab studies, i.e., out of date preliminary information;"

Then if you believe you have more up to date information that disproves my cited papers, edit it and provide it, this is scientific methodology 101, instead of griefing my edit and effectively throwing away my hard work of going through the papers and trying my best to verify the information i was going to claim within the edit, you simply could have just overwritten the edit with more credible literature if you believe the literature i had provided was inaccurate, or incorrect, the literature cited being older does not automatically invalidate it, if there is no newer discoveries made or difference in findings, original literature, "dated" or not, it is still considered the best that we currently know of, but you had chosen to completely nuke my work that i spent multiple hours on out of my free time, and that is extremely inconsiderate.

Of course, we all appreciate the editing work of new editors delving into tricky topics like CBD receptor mechanisms - a poorly understood topic. If the CBD receptor literature was making significant progress, there would be reputable reviews published within the past 5 years, WP:MEDDATE. This 2024 review is broad, but has a section on 2.1 The endocannabinoid system (ECS) and its role in regulating brain function where a rewrite of the first paragraph is likely all we need to say about brain CBD receptors. This 2020 international analysis gives the clinical perspective on CBD as Epidiolex. Zefr (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Again i am not familiar with how CBD's mechanism works in regards to being an anticonvulsant, as far as i've heard it is currently poorly understood, it is just understood that it works.

I wasn't making claims that CBD's antagonism is ambigious to try to say that CBD may not be an effecacious anticonvulsant, if that's what you think i was trying to do in the edit, epidolex (CBD) is as i understand it a very legitimate anticonvulsant. I don't disagree with you here. Databoose43 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

3. The text defended by Databoose is conjecture: "affinity is ambiguous", receptor function "could be"... (opinion editing, hypothetical), "can counteract and reduce both the receptor activation". "

Conjecture is not only commonplace within wikipedia as an entire platform with a countless amount of highly regarded wiki pages but in scientific literature itself, there is an obvious and clear reason as to why' i made the statement that "the affinity is ambiguous"., because it is VERY important for the reader to be aware that we do not yet (to my knowledge, unless you can provide other papers proving otherwise) have good clarity on the topic.

Medical content on Wikipedia is highly regarded in the public, and conjecture should not be part of explaining medical content per WP:MEDREV (A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments – is that they are often not replicable, and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content.) and WP:MEDORG (clinical and scientific organizations which do not yet accept roles for brain CBD receptors). Zefr (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I should have been more clear, when i say conjecture, i do not mean completely random baseless conjecture, the conjecture that i had written and explicitly made clear to the reader that it was conjecture, was heavily substianitated and based on the literature that i had cited.

But as you link these wikipedia guidelines, i do understand where you're coming from and while i personally believe (very substantiated) conjecture should be fine, if the guidelines state otherwise then you are correct for the edit undo, however i believe stating that an exact CB1/CB2 affinity is not currently known (to my knowledge, i have searched and i can't find any papers on this), is important. Databoose43 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Previous to my edit, there were two citations linking to papers in regards to CBD's activity on CB1/CB2, one claiming low affinity antagonism of CB1/CB2, and another claiming potent antagonism, this is extremely crucial to point out for the reader.

The last part of this critque of my edit is simply a misrepresentation of what was said, i said both the combination of CB1/CB2 antagonism, even if weak, alongside negative allosteric modulation of CB1 receptors from CBD, a potent enough to be at the level of clinical significance, meaning that even if it were a very weak cannabinoid antaongist, its negative allosteric modulation could be most of the reason we seem to observe reduced effect from THC (or any other CB1 agonist) when CBD is administered. (and i provided citations showing that there both is an allosteric binding site for CB1 and that CBD is a negative allosteric modulator for it, i recommend you give it a read)

I appreciate that you even took the time to crtique my edit, but i just simply disagree here, where i made conjecture, i made it absolutely clear to the reader that it is conjecture because of a lack of information about an exact affinity for the cannabinoid receptors with CBD.

Thank you and have a good day, data. Databoose43 (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

See my individual replies above. We can let other editors chime in on this discussion, but I feel the pharmacodynamics section is too premature to include, lacks a recent conclusive review, and is too much jargon for the general reader, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6-7. Zefr (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand the topic is complex for people who are not knowledgable in the field of pharmacology however it is impossible to contain a page of information about a given complex topic, if you do not delve into the complexities of the topic itself. Databoose43 (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

To make it clear, we do not bar information simply because it may be too complex for a layman in the context of pharmacology to understand, if you look at any other page in regards to any other technical concept, for example the C programming language, you will see information on that page that a layman, having not yet studied the language, will probably have a hard time understanding.

This is fine, it is more nessecary to keep in nessecary information that pertains to the topic, rather than delete important information to make it more easily readable by any given reader, this is a field of science, not a coloring book. Databoose43 (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

A lay reader should be able to understand our content. Bon courage (talk) 07:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Well we need to be more specific on what we believe a layperson to be in this context then, if you are meaning to say a person who doesn't study pharmacology and has little information regarding it, but can follow up on citations and other wiki pages (such as the THC page) to understand what these receptors do and how they function, and how CBD effects them, then i believe the page does succeed in doing that.

However, if our reference of a layperson is someone who doesn't study pharmacology, has little information regarding it, but does not follow up to other pages, points of information and citations, then yes, the page fails at that, however we have to weigh the importance of having literally anyone to be able to understand all parts of the page, with critically important information in regards to the topic.

For example, on THC's page, saying that THC is a CB1 partial agonist, is not a statement that just any random person would understand, but it is a statement that i think generally most people could understand if they looked up what the CB1 receptor was and how it behaves, and what an agonist is (agonist means activator, effectively, within the context of pharmacology)

I think we can generally agree that we can maximize the amount of people who read the page to understand it while retaining key information, but we can't get all people to understand it., because not every single person who would come across this page would nessecarily want to research the endocannabinoid system or serotonergic (in the context of CBD's 5-HT1A agonism) systems for example, and knowing what these systems that exist in our body do are important for knowing what this compound does. Databoose43 (talk) 07:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Using the word 'agonist' in probably already an error. Bon courage (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Well the thing is the term "agonist" is more specific and unique in the context of pharmacology, because it specifically means to activate a receptor in biological systems to evoke some type of response, also there are partial agonists and full agonists, partial agonist meaning that when the drug binds to the receptor, it evokes only a partial response from the receptor, full meaning, full response.

So saying it is an activator of the CB1 receptor, while would be true, would be less specific than "THC is a partial agonist at the CB1 receptor", which makes a massive difference, because when we observe synthetic full CB1 agonists we see much stronger effects and potency than THC generally speaking. Databoose43 (talk) 09:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)