
Social media bots often tweet fake health claims about cannabis: study - happy-go-lucky
https://news.usc.edu/164317/cannabis-health-social-media-bots-fake-claims/
======
superkuh
Worst of these claims are the (almost literal) "snake oil" companies and
sellers that are selling 10mg of CBD to people as a 'dose' and implying or
telling them it is anything other than placebo at this level. All professional
journal studies that have made claims about CBD do studies that use at least
300mg and more often 600mg as the absolute minimum dose and repeat this daily
for weeks. Unfortunately 600mg of CBD (with the THC removed down to <0.5mg
levels) is expensive. Literally multiple hundreds of dollars. At the typical
dosages sold in headshops and the like CBD is a placebo. It is snake oil.

It doesn't even have an significant affinity for the CB1 receptors at
reasonable 0.6g doses. The mechanism of action is actually through binding to
the serotonin-1a autoreceptor, much like the atypical antidepressant
buspirone.

This unregulated wild west of CBD and non-THC pot products is only going to
backfire on the charlatans and ignorant users caught up in it. It's going to
hurt the legalization movement.

~~~
fpgaminer
Unfortunately we don't have enough research to establish much of anything
beyond the current FDA approved usage. However, that usage is 600mg/day for an
average person (10mg/kg/day). So the claim of 600mg being the "absolute
minimum dose" is absurd.

Plenty of studies have occurred at levels as low as 25mg/day and shown
effects. The quality of those studies isn't great, but there aren't any good
quality studies on CBD to begin with. But considering those poor quality
studies together with the body of anecdotal evidence which suggests that CBD's
anti-anxiety effects kick in between 15mg and 50mg, I'm inclined to believe
that CBD is not a placebo at these levels.

My dose is between 5 and 10mg a day, and I can feel as little as 1mg (I'm
hypersensitive to the stuff).

All of that said, I agree with you on your last point about charlatans.
There's plenty of woo-woo and snake oil in the CBD "industry". But there are
real benefits here that I wouldn't want drowned out.

~~~
markdown
> I can feel as little as 1mg (I'm hypersensitive to the stuff).

What gives you the confidence that this isn't the placebo affect at work?

~~~
fpgaminer
Nothing with any scientific rigor. Of course I, like I'm sure everyone else,
believe I have a decent "placebo detector" and to that end CBD isn't behaving
like a placebo for me.

But I'll try to add a little more strength to my claim for CBD not being a
placebo at the original comment's supposed "low doses".

I've used it in balm form to treat physical pain. I use it at ~50mg topical
doses (again much lower than 600mg) to treat carpal tunnel, TMJ, tweaked back,
etc. It's been many times more effective for me in that regard than anything
else I've tried previously, which includes placebos. I've tried everything
from "real" treatments like NSAIDs and menthol rubs, to Chinese "medicines",
to snake oil off Amazon. Nothing has worked as well as the CBD balm. So if CBD
is a placebo at these doses then it's the best placebo I've ever found.

I had no reason to believe that CBD would be any more effective than my
previous snake oil attempts, and indeed I had every expectation that it would
be snake oil because of the many comments on HN saying as much.

Besides that we know THC, a related cannabinoid, is effective at these doses
(e.g. 5mg). Why wouldn't CBD be? Most drugs that interact with the CNS are
active on a wide spectrum, and in fact have different overall effects based on
dose. Even in extremely low doses, for example LSD micro-dosing which we've
seen a few studies reporting as effective. Is CBD the one special one that
cures epilepsy at 600mg but nothing else at any other dosing?

So my general argument is that, though we lack concrete evidence, everything
else from related chemicals to anecdotes to weak studies points in the
direction of CBD being effective at doses as low as 15mg. So, why would we
assume that 600mg is somehow an absolute minimum? And why would we assume that
my claim of being able to detect the application of 1mg is entirely placebo?
None of this precludes the absolute necessity of rigorous scientific study and
deferring to said studies when possible. But I see absolutely no basis for
claiming that anything less than 600mg dosing is bunk.

EDIT: I'll add the addendum that most of my CBD usage is "full-spectrum",
which highly conflates my personal anecdotes. That doesn't negate any of my
other arguments, though. In fact I think all the "weak" studies that we have
on CBD are done with pure CBD. I do have CBD isolate that I've tried a few
times. I can feel that at low doses as well, but I've never assessed it for
pain relief or anxiety so I can't personally make any arguments for or against
pure-CBD. Sibling comments suggest that it has effects at low doses though,
just like all the weak studies show.

~~~
soulofmischief
> Nothing with any scientific rigor. Of course I, like I'm sure everyone else,
> believe I have a decent "placebo detector" and to that end CBD isn't
> behaving like a placebo for me.

This statement invalidates everything that follows after. Do multiple blind
trials with a control substance at varying threshold doses, then you can say
whether these "feelings" are from the drug itself.

Placebo creates a very real, measurable physiological effect, so relying on
your subjective experience is more than "scientifically unrigorous", it's
actually flawed reasoning. And citing a lack of evidence doesn't mean you can
suddenly use your own anecdotal data as evidence.

~~~
nefitty
I understand where you're coming from, but do you expect all people to
discount their own experiences because they don't meet some threshold of
validity? Humans don't live daily life like that. I think there's value in
anecdotal data, especially when presented with the appropriate caveats.
Otherwise, is my entire life a sham unless it is backed up by double blind
trials?

~~~
soulofmischief
It's not about the threshold of validity. It's about the threshold dose used,
whose psychoactive effects are generally placed at higher doses.

There is no value in anecdotal data when this is something that can be
properly measured, especially when it has to do with medical science and
people's lives are involved. OP is making bogus, unsubstantiated claims and
does not need to be defended.

------
cneurotic
There are so many complications when it comes to REALLY understanding the
health effects of weed. The science is really tough, and underdeveloped.

One problem is that there are so many varietals, and so many different
vehicles for administration (smoking, vaping, eating, tinctures, lotions, etc)
— that make it hard to announce, globally, that "marijuana does X to your
brain."

Really, the most we can say after a given experience is something like "Strain
Y, when inhaled as a combustible, appears to show effect X."

Another problem is the weed that's available for experiments in the US. There
is one — and only one — weed crop that the FDA will approve for clinical
studies. From a farm at the University of Mississippi.
([https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pot-
monopoly-20140529-s...](https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pot-
monopoly-20140529-story.html))

And according to a weed researcher I spoke to (Sue Sisley -
[https://medicalcannabis.com/about/faculty/suzanne-
sisley/](https://medicalcannabis.com/about/faculty/suzanne-sisley/)), that
Mississippi weed is very low quality — aged, with a lot of stems, seeds, and
adulterants.

None of this is to say that weed can't be beneficial.

But I'd argue that anyone making any global claims about weed's health
benefits are, at the very least, overgeneralizing.

~~~
account73466
>> None of this is to say that weed can't be beneficial.

There might be a non-trivial impact of weed on climate change if weed
consumers produce less kids which according to UNESCO is the best way to
reduce your carbon footprint.

~~~
1337biz
Depending on which ideology you follow one could also make the case that this
happens in first world nation that already have a problem with lower and lower
birthrates.

~~~
account73466
Of course. Because my definition of rich/poor is w.r.t. people around and not
some world's mean/median. Many people in first world nations cannot afford to
have as much kids as even 40 years ago.

------
deith
You don't have to go and look on social media, just come here to HN and say
"perhaps weed is not completely safe and we should research whether it could
damage the brain" to get downvoted

~~~
JaumeGreen
There's lots of pro-cannabis and pro-LSD comments everywhere. My cynical view
is that the "power" wants us all sedated, and it's investing its media to
promote the "new" batch of drugs to get another generation hooked up.

I do think that there are probably quite beneficial uses of drugs, but
probably not in a ludic way as most people prefer to use them.

~~~
fiblye
I think at least with regards to HN, it's that the average user is, just being
honest, wealthy and from a very privileged background without too much
lifetime difficulty. There's a disproportionate number of people here who can
and did walk into Silicon Valley and said something along the lines of "give
me 10 million dollars and I'll make a phone app", then have the free time and
comfortable fall back to write a failure report about "their journey." I'm not
saying that's all or even most of the people here, but it's a larger
proportion compared to probably any other community on the internet.

I mention this because many of the strongest "let's decriminalize (or even
legalize) all drugs" commenters have similar backgrounds. Comfy financial
situation and room to experiment with the peace of mind knowing that they have
people to help dust them off should they get a little sloppy with their drug
use. These people can afford to take a week to enjoy an ayahuasca resort,
follow it up with a beach vacation and a little MDMA, then return home to a
daily bowl of weed to relax from their hard month of partying and pop a couple
addies to get focused and pull an all-nighter on their new web app. They can
financially and mentally afford to use drugs as mood and mental enhancers.
Loads of people who aren't so comfortable use drugs to numb the rough edges of
life. Having been on this site for over a decade, I've seen loads of comments
that make many users here seem completely out of touch with what average
people go through--many HN users on another plane of existence.

I think a considerable number of people who promote drugs everywhere have good
intentions, but they don't really consider the effects for most people. The
aspect of being locked up for drugs does do a lot to tarnish lives, but the
mere act of having easily available mind-altering substances is also enough to
ruin the lives of many.

~~~
wonderwonder
I agree, drugs can have a negative effect on people but I believe that this
affect regarding marijuana use pales in comparison to the negative effect its
continued prohibition causes. In the United States it is wielded as an
oppressive tool with use "roughly equal among Blacks and whites, yet Blacks
are 3.73 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession."

Those arrested are then affected for the rest of their lives, their criminal
history hurting both their social and economic future. The fact that the rich
know they are able to get away with it is proof that there is a separate legal
system and that legalizing marijuana should be done. I am not arguing that pot
cant be detrimental but its very much in the same ballpark as alcohol.

There are people currently non violent offenders spending decades in jail for
selling marijuana, something that those same people from comfy backgrounds are
now getting rich from. The genie is out of the bottle, its far less
detrimental now to just legalize it federally, apply rules similar to those
applied to alcohol and let all non violent marijuana offenders out of prison.

Society often looks at people through an odd lens. A rich white guy sitting
drinking a couple of scotches at night is approved of, a group of black guys
sitting around drinking a couple beers is reason to call the police. Marijuana
prohibition does nothing but entrench this view.

[https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/sentencing-
reform/...](https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/sentencing-reform/war-
marijuana-black-and-white)

~~~
venatiodecorus
elon musk smoking weed with joe rogan is really just a slap in the face to
every poor black kid in jail over pot

~~~
seattle_spring
Hopefully you realize then that the solution is to stop punishing "poor black
kids" for smoking weed, and not to throw Musk in prison.

~~~
wonderwonder
I believe that's what OP is saying, That neither party should be in prison for
a crime that is just a crime for some people in some places and legal in
others.

------
geff82
Recently, a friend came to me with a list of all the health benefits that are
attributed to cannabis. I sent him back a list of all the health benefits
attributed to good old ginger - and they matched almost one to one. Health
claims concerning cannabis are usually just for those who want to consume a
drug and feel better about themselves.

~~~
fjabre
Can you blame them? Last time I checked ginger wasn't subjected to 70 years of
war on drugs propaganda. Never heard of anyone thrown in jail for consuming
ginger.

Maybe people want to consume a drug without being labeled and stereotyped by
people who say all drugs are bad and that getting high is a sin.

~~~
actuator
Propogating false health claims doesn't help people either.

I can claim that good old whisky is the cure for cold if you are
mountaineering in extreme climates, but it certainly isn't going to help
anyone.

~~~
fjabre
Of course but I don't think there's any debate about which side has been
subjected to more propaganda over the years.

Regardless this furthers my argument - that there is not enough research
because of said propaganda for any claims to be made in the first place which
is the real travesty.

~~~
klyrs
There's idiots on both sides, and peddling unsubstantiated rumors as medical
fact doesn't somehow make up for anti-reefer madness. Rather, it legitimizes
the fearmongering.

I've seen dispensaries coming dangerously close to claiming it eradicates
cancer. Heard activists _encouraging_ driving under the influence because "it
makes you chill out and take your time, man." There's no excuse for this shit.

~~~
fjabre
> Heard activists encouraging driving under the influence because "it makes
> you chill out and take your time, man." There's no excuse for this shit.

Eh this doesn't bother me. You know how many people are on the roads dosed up
on legal pain killers way worse and more sedating and addictive than weed?

My point was that idiots on one side are putting the idiots on the other side
in jail.

Like I said I don't blame people for being defensive. I think it's clear which
side is more in the wrong - the people fear mongering on the government's
side.

------
lemiffe
> The worry is that all the online chatter about cannabis’s beneficial
> qualities will have offline consequences, ultimately influencing attitudes
> and behaviors, Allem said

I doubt this is a realistic consequence... I mean, who is following these
bots? Would people really listen to a bot? I presume most people would be able
to tell bot-controlled Twitter accounts from friends and legitimate followers.

I think the study should have included impact from those tweets, such as
number of likes, retweets, quotes, and replies, as well as count of human
followers.

~~~
hanniabu
> I mean, who is following these bots? Would people really listen to a bot?

It certainly helped get Trump elected

~~~
DataWorker
Is there any actual evidence of this? I’ve heard that claim, but it seems like
most trump voters were Republicans, not democrats who got duped by bots.

------
IgorPartola
Well yeah. So long as the federal government keeps classifying cannabis as a
tier 1 controlled substance (cocaine is tier 2), no research money will flow
to academics to do the relevant research.

In the meantime, we will continue seeing claims like RSO curing all cancers
and other diseases ([http://www.trueactivist.com/this-is-the-cannabis-oil-
recipe-...](http://www.trueactivist.com/this-is-the-cannabis-oil-recipe-rick-
simpson-used-to-heal-his-cancer-and-recommends-to-others/)). Being able to
research effects of cannabis is reason number umpteen to
decriminalize/legalize it at the federal level.

~~~
drummer
The main component of RSO actually has been studied and proven to kill cancer.
You need RSO with very high THC concentration.
[https://youtube.com/watch?v=1miGzTwK28U](https://youtube.com/watch?v=1miGzTwK28U)

~~~
IgorPartola
What kind of cancer? That’s like saying “RSO cures illness”. Fire cures cancer
too I’d you apply it directly to just the cancer cells, but we can agree that
setting a can we patient on fire isn’t exactly a worthwhile therapy. Also any
actual sources aside from KillYourCancer.org? I am not saying RSO doesn’t
work. Just that it has not been proven or disproven by anyone reputable.

~~~
drummer
Kinda difficult to prove and research when the criminal governments of the
world make and keep a plant illegal. Yet there are some facts as shown in the
above linked video mentioning research at universities in Spain and Israel
showing THC kills cancer cells. Evidence of people using it and curing various
forms of cancer (brain tumors, lung tumors, etc) are also everywhere on the
Internet.

~~~
IgorPartola
Flat earthers are everywhere on the Internet too. Does that mean the earth is
flat?

Loads of things kill cancer cells if you expose cancer cells directly to them.
Fire, alcohol, radiation, etc. The trick is to expose just the cancer cells to
them. I agree that a lot more research could be done, but at this point we
know that RSO is about as effective as ethanol at killing cancer.

As for the rest of your comment, I don’t know if you will find this place
particularly friendly towards the rhetoric that there is some illegal world
government controlling everything. Try /r/conspiracy.

~~~
drummer
I actually have RSO in my fridge this very moment. The guy who made it told me
about a little girl he was helping out right now who developed a brain tumor
causing her to go blind. He advised her mom to try RSO but she refused
initially. After things got worse and she basically had nothing to lose, she
decided to give it a shot. After two weeks of small daily dosis, she called my
friend at 4am in the morning telling him her daughter stood up by herself to
go to the bathroom. She was able to start seeing again. Try that with ethanol.

~~~
IgorPartola
I am not saying it doesn’t work. I am saying it isn’t studied by anyone that
anyone should trust. How do you actually know that girl’s change in vision was
actually the result of RSO and not some other factor?

~~~
drummer
Well I guess it's up to each individual who or what they trust. Personally I
trust the researchers mentioned in the video combined with the evidence of
people using it and actually getting cured. Not just from stories on the
Internet but also from closer at home. I'm also for complete legalization so
that research can be done freely so we can get even more confirmation. The
fact that it is still illegal is a serious crime against humanity. So much
suffering could be prevented and lives saved by something growing freely in
nature.

------
saadmrb
Cannabis and THC aren't particularly bad for you.

The addiction potential is low to none. Obviously, you shouldn’t get high and
then drive or load ordinance onto fighter planes on an aircraft carrier, but
the direct harm potential of THC is quantitatively lower than the risk you
take when you climb a ladder or drive to the store.

------
outime
I do agree that cannabis health “benefits” are often exaggerated but this
happens with any substance. Also, social media bots spam about many things all
the time. Should we then talk about all the topics spam bots post about?

~~~
bertil
Those bots are expensive and complicated to operate at scale. Some topics are
there to make them look legitimate, others because you have large clients
supporting a change in opinion and willing to spend social-media agencies to
promote it — or discredit it with a ham-fisted campaign.

It’s hard to sort them apart but that example, for me, echoes a BBC
documentary/sci-fi speculation from 10 years ago about cannabis legalisation
and more generally licensing psycho-active molecules for entertainment
purposes. The title was “If drugs were legal” or “When” as most specialists
had little doubt this would happen soon.

Both cigarette and pharmaceutical companies came out as very ready for the
idea, with teams dedicated to lobbying for it, of course, but marketing,
products ready for the day. Overall, they were clear large players with
established industrial assets and experience in large-scale distribution would
completely take over.

They even speculated that some tests on new drugs were done without
permissions. A couple of years later the “Bath salt” craze and the mention
most of those were molecules no one had seen before also echoed quite loudly.

------
Digit-Al
> “We want the public to be aware of the difference between a demonstrated,
> scientifically backed piece of health information and claims that are simply
> made up.”

The problem is that many of those spreading these kind of messages are the
type of people who are convinced that the entire medical industry (Big Pharma)
are trying to make everybody ill so they can sell them expensive treatments
and that they don't want to develop a cure from cannabis because they wouldn't
be able to make money from that, or other such nonsense.

It's quite sad to see home many people swallow such bullshit.

I know a woman who was successfully treated for brain cancer and she is an
anti-vaxxer and one of those who spreads memes about the medical industry
wanting to keep everyone sick. I just sit there thinking "you're literally
living proof that the medical industry is saving lives and yet you sit there
at your keyboard insulting the very people responsible for saving your life."

------
shkkmo
The article seems quite happy to jump in and call these claims "false" rather
than "unproven" or "unscientific".

Additionally, neither the abstract, nor the article bother to actually name
the strength or statistical certainty of the effect.

Neither of these serve to give this article much credibility when talking
about how to responsibly talk about science.

------
dillonmckay
So, Twitter should not be considered a reliable source of information, on its
own?

------
avstrallen
Are statements of the form "Social media bots often tweet fake claims about
<insert more or less anything you like here>' really newsworthy? Asking for a
friend who bought a course from Siraj Raval...

------
seattle_spring
These comments highlight why I never feel like I fit in with other engineers.

~~~
soulofmischief
Yikes, I know what you mean. You've got engineers, and you've got hackers...
Hackers place enormous emphasis on personal liberty and sovereignty. Sometimes
I feel like a hacker in an engineer's body. At any rate, I looked through your
comment history and I think we would get along fine. Got a point of contact?

------
Animats
So who's bothering to run cannabis-promotion bots? There's no one dominant
seller, so it doesn't make sense as advertising.

The full paper is paywalled ($24).

