|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
add non-cb1/cb2 receptor
add non-cb1/cb2 receptor--Goldengrape 01:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the THC-link because I think this website is not a reliable resource for medical information, irrespective of which professor wrote the information. I think well-known, peer-reviewed sources should be the standard. Please discuss here if you disagree.--Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 05:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do not agree with your philosofy at all. The information on Cannabinoids that I linked to is from one of the world's most outstanding researchers on cannabinoids and gives a ton more information on cannabinoids(Dr. Robert J. Melamede Ph.D. Chairman of the Biology Department of the University of Colorado: Conducting Scientific research on Cannabinoids), and how they work in the body that that other external link which only mentions the word in a list of other words.
- Also, the website, and page, that this information is on; http://www.thc-ministry.net/cannabisinfo.htm is totally non profit, non commercial and has no ads or sells anything whatsoever and contains lots more scientific facts and information.
- I also do not agree at all with your reasoning as this being spam because of the fact, as you state it, that I belong to the organisation, this would mean that when experts in their field who work for a university would be spamming when they refer to relevant information on their university's website.
- --Ferre 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- 1) I do not contest that this professor is respectable (although he has only 2 articles on PubMed related to cannabis? so maybe you're overstating just a bit).
- 2) I think a website that states "It is our opinion that cannabis is the original sacrament of Hebrew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Rasta and more, and fulfills the prophesies to feed all our hungers." probably doesn't have high scientific standards, and is not notable as a reference on this subject.
- 3) Any professor can make a simple mistake, that's why peer-review was invented. I'm not saying the info is wrong or not interesting, on the contrary! But I'm sure other references like OMIM and eMedicine are superior.
- 4) Since it indeed gives a ton more information, you might consider moving this ton of info into the article, instead of providing a link. I'll be the first to applaud this, and in fact if I find some time and can find references for those statements, I will!
- 5) I think it is always dangerous to provide info about an organisation to which you belong yourself, because of the difficulty not being biased. This does not mean that info on certain websites can be trusted, but in this case I think the link doesn't belong because, as I argued before, this website is not a reliable resource for medical information. I believe this is so because (i) the website doesn't have a neutral point of view (ii) it is not a well-known, peer-reviewed resource. --Steven Fruitsmaak | Talk 10:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- A reference for CB2 and intestine was inserted
- The Nature reference is now in the proper format
- The phrase 'need for selective ligands' was deleted as there are plenty of CB2-selective ligands now
- The heading pharmakokinetics was changed to Signaling as pharmakokinetics are something else.
- A reference for a new cannabinoid receptor was included
- Several possible for cannabinoid agonists and antagonists were added
-- Panoramix303 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Small Text
I feel I have a pretty good grasp on general neuropharmacology but a lot of the questions I had about cannabinoid recepters were unanswered for me, or I felt might have been available if some of the wording was more explanatory. Some sentences just made bland technical assertions without any context, such as "For instance, in the liver, activation of the CB1 receptor is known to increase de novo lipogenesis," -- please compare this with a much better sentence (though still not perfect): "They also displayed suppressed locomotor activity as well as hypoalgesia (decreased pain sensitivity)." 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Scope of article
The scope of this article is wider than human cannabinoid receptors (see WP:MCB / WP:SCIRS than WP:MED / WP:MEDRS. As long as animal studies are clearly marked as such and no medical claims are being made, they should be allowed in this article. Boghog (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)and ). IMHO this article falls more within the scope of
- I'm fine with restoring them if you think its the better option, though I think it'd be preferable to group all the animal studies in their own section, sort of like TAAR#Animal TAAR complement. My only concern is that uninformed readers will erroneously assume that animal receptors are representative of those in humans if there's no distinction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Physiology section needs work
While I'm sure the content of the Physiology section is scientifically accurate, Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. Accuracy is important but so is communication. The real purpose of a general Encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is to elucidate a subject. I would like to understand the Physiology of cannabinoid receptors and I'm not stupid, but I am a lay person and could use just a bit more of a layman's explanation. Thanks! FatBear1 (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Opening sentence, specifically "cannabinoid receptor system"
The opening line: "Cannabinoid receptors are part of the cannabinoid receptor system[...]" seems redundant, maybe even circular. The way this is written, I'd think cannabinoid receptors are a subset of cannabinoid receptor systems. If that's the case I'd imagine there would be an article specifically describing the system or at least some clarification in this article. "cannabinoid receptor system" is mentioned exactly once here. Sudopeople (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)