Talk:Cannabidiol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Cannabimimetic agents[edit]

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)

RfC: Should this epilepsy research be added to the Cannabidiol article?[edit]

Consensus not to include the proposed text.

This is an emerging field of research, and per WP:MEDRS Wikipedia applies elevated standards of sourcing before including medical information into articles. While previous discussions[1][2] did not find journal Frontiers in Neurology to warrant blacklisting, the journal was (at best) significantly disputed for general MEDRS purposes. The consensus here is overwhelmingly clear that this article in this journal is inadequate for including this text in this article. The proposal gained no support beyond the author of the RFC.

The content can be reconsidered for inclusion if/when additional sourcing emerges. Alsee (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

This is a two-part question:

1) Should the following text be added to the CBD article?

2) If yes, should it be added to the Epilepsy or to the Research section?

Researchers compared the potential therapeutic properties of "purified CBD" with full-plant, CBD-rich cannabis extracts for treating refractory epilepsy. CBD-rich extracts were found to have a "better therapeutic potential" and fewer adverse effects than purified CBD. The daily average dose for people using full-plant extracts was more than four times lower than for those using purified CBD, indicating a possible synergistic (entourage) effect between CBD and other plant compounds.

Source: Pamplona, Fabricio A.; da Silva, Lorenzo Rolim; Coan, Ana Carolina (12 September 2018). "Potential Clinical Benefits of CBD-Rich Cannabis Extracts Over Purified CBD in Treatment-Resistant Epilepsy: Observational Data Meta-analysis". Frontiers in Neurology. 9: 759. doi:10.3389/fneur.2018.00759. ISSN 1664-2295. PMC 6143706. PMID 30258398.

petrarchan47คุ 09:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Additional comments:

History of suggested text:

  • On 5 March I fixed a mistake made during the move and expanded the section
  • 20 minutes later it was deleted as "junk"

Subsequent related conversations:

___

About the source

Authors' previous work - PubMed:

Publisher: COPE and OASPA list Frontiers as a member.

petrarchan47คุ 09:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

As for question 2, the paper should be integrated into the article as all other science has been. In this case the Epilepsy section is most fitting. But I don't feel strongly either way. As it stands, the "Research" section was left with one sentence which is not in keeping with WP's Manual of Style, and frankly looks ridiculous. I'm afraid it tells the reader not to bother reading this article, as we've nothing to offer. petrarchan47คุ 17:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Linked above are two related noticeboard sections; in both I endeavored to suss out the perceived problems or reliability issues that caused the text to be deleted. In both sections, the reactions were wide ranging, with the only consensus being that Frontiers journals are not blacklisted across Wikipedia. The "open access" journals were for a time added to "Beall's list", controversially, which you can read about in this Nature article. A comparison of Frontiers Media and The Lancet articles shows that controversy and retractions are not uncommon, and don't necessarily speak to the overall quality of content. petrarchan47คุ 09:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Forum shopping. Has already been shopped to WT:MED and WP:RS/N. Suggest close as disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I asked at RS/N whether folks thought an RfC would be a good idea. I received no response to that question, and after saying I would be pursuing the RfC option, no one complained. petrarchan47คุ 19:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This is the reason I sought more understanding about the rejection of Frontiers from the PM and RS noticeboards - I fail to see how "sort of dodgy" justifies rejection of this paper, and as you know opinions were all over the board, with some saying they have never seen Frontiers rejected before. Therefore it is very subjective, and per WP:MEDRS, Frontier's (temporary) listing as a 'possible, probable or definitely predatory' journal on Beall's is not sufficient reason for rejection. Per our PAG's the listing is meant to be a red flag, not a full stop, so editors can check more closely; per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should be treated similarly to self-published sources." - There is no lack of peer review at Frontiers, however there is no editorial board or oversight with Beall's list, which is a self-published source and biased against OA journals:
"...some criticized Beall for being biased against open access publishing models, and for conflating access rules with business models. Other Beall criteria, while identifying potentially undesirable journal features, are not reliable indicators of predatory publication practices (e.g., exclusion of female members on the editorial board). Thus, WAME cautions against the use of prior appearance on Beall’s list as the solitary method for determining whether a journal is predatory or legitimate.PMC 5493175
For our purposes, since we are required to use RS and not subjective opinions, Frontier's listing among "whitelists" like OASPA should not continue to be overlooked in lieu of feelings:
Beyond Beall’s List: We need a better understanding of predatory publishing without overstating its size and danger.
"An organization that whitelists publishers by accepting them as members is the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). Members must apply and pledge to adhere to a code of conduct that disallows any form of predatory be-havior." petrarchan47คุ 19:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
"I fail to see how "sort of dodgy" justifies rejection of this paper". See WP:MEDRS: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies". Emphasis mine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The paper in question is a meta analysis, and comes from a reputable journal (whose reputation is judged by COPE, OASPA, DOAJ as in good standing) with an impact factor of 3.5.
"Clemons et al. also point out that Beall's list is curated by a single individual. And a number of journals have found themselves on the list despite a long track record of academic publishing. The Frontiers series is on the list of predatory publishers—and does have a diverse array of journal titles. But it was founded as Frontiers in Neuroscience in 2007 by two neuroscientists from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne, Switzerland, has published more than 2,400 papers, and has an impact factor of 3.398. Frontiers in Pharmacology has published more than 1,600 papers since 2010 and has an impact factor of 4.418. Frontiers in Oncology has 1,560 online papers and a respected editorial board and field chief editor but doesn't have an impact factor as yet. The journal websites have a very different look and feel, as if imagining a new vision in publishing. Hard to argue these are not academic journals. Given that the number on Beall's list for 2017 exceeds 1,000, even a 5% error rate could entrap and mislabel a significant number of academic journals and, by extension, those who publish therein." PMC 5330714 (emphasis mine) petrarchan47คุ 02:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The question isn't if they are academic or not, the question is if they are reliable and reputable. While they are not OMICS Group-bad, they are are the lower end of the reputability/reliability scale. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
And re: " There is no lack of peer review at Frontiers", it accepts ~90% of submissions and it has sacked editors for being too selective. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb, Frontiers has been removed from Beall's list; they have sorted out all controversies to the point that agencies tasked with overseeing ethical conduct among journals have included Frontiers after stating that they reviewed the complaints. So you are essentially re-litigating issues and playing judge which is not in the scope of WP editors. Frontiers has numerous journals, your article about Frontiers in Medicine and Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine has no impact on our discussion about a paper from Frontiers in Neurology. I could just as easily argue that no papers should be allowed from The Lancet due to their publication of a paper linking autism to vaccines, and the subsequent retraction. Both OA and subscription journals have their controversies but at WP, we editors can only look to authorities, WP:RS, to judge a source. You are claiming that your argument can override COPE, AOSPA and DOAJ, and I hope you can see the folly of that notion. petrarchan47คุ 02:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The rejection of Frontiers as a reliable publisher isn't based on Beall's judgement alone, but rather because it has a well-established reputation for publishing pretty much anything in it (see source above), and for sacking editors that want to do rigorous science and reject poor papers (see source above). At this point, I have to ask: Do you have a conflict of interest here? Either because you are somehow affiliated with this paper / its authors / its subject of research / the weed industry, or with Frontiers Media? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no affiliation with Frontiers, this paper, or any publishing company. I have been editing this article for many years and am the second lead editor. We've been waiting a long time for good science in this relatively novel topic, and it's frustrating to have a meta-analysis deleted for dodgy reasons. The paper was deemed acceptable and was edited by the lead editor here, Zefr; it remained in the article for around two months until Alexbrn's deletion. So clearly, it is not a given that anything from Frontiers should be rejected as you suggest.
In fact, a new blacklist being recreated here, based on "Jeffrey Beall, Quackwatch, or Wikipedia editors", features Frontiers prominently (in a case of Wikipedians second guessing Beall's retraction) however it does not blacklist Frontiers; it says they are "hit or miss", meaning that according to this project in which you are heavily involved, an editor must further explain why a particular work published by Frontiers is a "miss". (BTW, do you have any affiliation with Jeffrey Beall?) petrarchan47คุ 17:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
"A new blacklist being recreated..." Not quite. The WP:SOURCEWATCH isn't a blacklist. It's a watchlist. The difference being something being blacklisted means it's guaranteed clear cut case of pure crapness. The Sourcewatch is a watchlist, and simply identifies potentially problematic sources. I should know, I'm the one that designed that listing in the first place.
It includes sources which range from questionable, as Frontiers journals are, to pure crap, like OMICS journals are. Frontiers journal, while not great, can be cited in limited circumstances. For instance, basic claims about the names of stuff, or for a date of birth, or for other non-controversial claims. WP:MEDRS, however, is a much higher burden of sourcing, and Frontiers journals, being hit or miss, generally do not meet the WP:MEDRS threshold. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Everything about this stinks. A publisher with a dodgy reputation publishes an article from a scientist at Entourage Labs which claims that their CBD product[4] has more potential (via an "entourage effect") than its those of its rivals. A big WP:REDFLAG is flying here. Alexbrn (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The "entourage effect" is not a product, and I don't see any products for sale at this author's website. What am I missing? petrarchan47คุ 19:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
A WP:CLUE. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Alex please actually answer my question. What is this author selling? I haven't got a clue after looking through his site. If this is your reason for rejection, it would help if you explained yourself. petrarchan47คุ 02:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
See [5], where Fabricio A. Pamplona is listed as the scientific advisor of Entourage Phytolabs, which sells weed-products. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The entourage effect is mentioned in this paper from Wiley.com (one of Alexbrn's clients).
"Cannabis plants produce a substantial amount of cannabinoids and other secondary metabolites. The cannabis‐based preparations can exhibit their effects by synergistic interactions between their various components, that is, changes in a bioavailability or in cellular transport, an activation or a deactivation of other metabolites, multi‐target effects of synergistic partners and other [100]."
They link directly to this paper published by Frontiers. petrarchan47คุ 17:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The fact that other reliable source exist does not make your proposed source any less terrible. Alexbrn (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose (bot-summon) Source is not independent (see COI disclaimer in the article): FP is responsible for the development of Cannabis-based products at Entourage Phytolab. AC received monetary compensation for consulting work performed for Entourage Phytolab. LdS works at Bedrocan.).
Furthermore, the proposed addition is a very selective reading of the article results. If you read the article (here), the metric they use to claim entourage effect is that "patient reported improvement" is higher in extract that in pure-CBD studies, but that metric obviously depends on the study. Figure 2 shows that one study (Devinsky 2015) is responsible for most patient in pure-CBD studies; it has a poor "patient report improvement" score compared to all other studies, but it is probably due to reporting methodology rather than to a real effect. The clinical metric ("50%+ reduction in seizure frequency") that is homogeneous across studies is not affected (methinks it is included in the summary only thanks to the reviewers).
Even without MEDRS considerations (is that really a meta-analysis in the MEDRS sense when none of the surveyed papers had an interest in pure vs. non-pure effects?), the proposed addition is sketchy. It follows the usual playbook of scientific-paper-for-PR: say something that is sufficiently careful to pass peer review ("it suggests that maybe potentially there could be entourage effects" / "a small fraction of ground observations need to take into account Earth's curvature") in order to be able to use it as support for some grandiose claim ("entourage effect exists" / "round-Earth theory debunked"). TigraanClick here to contact me 12:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Pretty overwhelming WP:MEDRS issues with source. NickCT (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2019 (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.

FDA status, April-June 2019[edit]

The updated (April 2019) FDA regulatory status concerning the approval and marketing of cannabidiol has not changed from this talk page discussion in February 2019, particularly concerning the 2018 Farm Bill. Cannabidiol remains under Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act, and the FDA has "not approved a marketing application for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. FDA has, however, approved one cannabis-derived and three cannabis-related drug products. These approved products are only available with a prescription from a licensed healthcare provider." The FDA document has a section entitled How does the 2018 Farm Bill define hemp? What does it mean for FDA-regulated products? in which it states that cannabis-derived products (cannabidiol included) remain under the FDA approval process, which as of May 2019, has allowed marketing only of Epidiolex for rare forms of childhood epilepsy, with no other specific cannabidiol products approved. Concerning the 2018 Farm Bill, the FDA states under paragraph 8: "Even if a CBD product meets the definition of "hemp" under the 2018 Farm Bill (see Question #2), it still must comply with all other applicable laws, including the FD&C Act." Further, under paragraph 9: "Can THC or CBD products be sold as dietary supplements? No. Based on available evidence, FDA has concluded that THC and CBD products are excluded from the dietary supplement definition." --Zefr (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

With rapidly increasing consumer interest in CBD, FDA's public relations effort is providing updates on their ongoing review of business and consumer applications for regulatory approval, provided in the June 19, 2019 release. The main message for 2019: "CBD products are still subject to the same laws and requirements as FDA-regulated products that contain any other substance." The FDA is expressing concern about the long-term, non-prescription safety of CBD, 1) possibly having an effect on liver function, 2) cumulative possibly unsafe effects if various oral or topical products are consumed regularly or alternately, 3) exposure on special populations, such as the elderly, pregnant or lactating women and their children, adolescents, etc., and 4) undefined effects on animals treated with CBD. Some CBD products being marketed with unproven anti-disease claims are being removed from the market, with warnings about false advertising to their manufacturers. The FDA update restates that the drug approval process will be applied to assure safe and effective CBD products with proven anti-disease activity. As perspective, the duration for full drug development is about 3-8 or more years (depending on the disease evaluated), costs to the manufacturer are in the multi-millions (PMID 26908540, PMID 20168317), and the success rate is only 10%.
FDA states that there are marketed CBD products added to a food or label as a dietary supplement, and state, under federal law, that it is "currently illegal to market CBD this way". --Zefr (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

18th century?[edit]

The History section currently has this statement:

  • "CBD was studied in the 18th century,[1] and was isolated for the first time in 1940..."

What is meant by "studied" here? The study of cannabis resin, not CBD, could have happened that early, but it seems impossible for specific research on any specific substance like THC, CBD, or CBN to happen at that early time. CBD was first isolated in 1940, so it seems that content needs some work.

I'd like to know which wording in the source backs up this idea.

The source does mention the isolation of cannabinol (CBN), a different substance than CBD, in 1896, ergo the late 19th century, so specific research on cannabinol could only happen after that date, just as specific research on CBD could only happen after 1940. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Work, Thomas Spence; Bergel, Franz; Todd, Alexander Robertus (1939). "The active principles of Cannabis indica resin. I". Biochemical Journal. 33 (1): 123–127. doi:10.1042/bj0330123. ISSN 0264-6021. PMC 1264344. PMID 16746878.

Corrected, thanks. --Zefr (talk) 17:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)