If you're going to copypaste a statement saying you doubt it had a direct pharmacological effect on a post about a direct pharmacological effect, why not state what you think the issue with the study was?
I'm not referencing the study, I'm talking about the comment that I'm replying to. The study is specifically about the acid versions of the compounds which are not psychoactive
CBDA, THCA, and CBGA are all the carboxylic acid forms of the compound which is what is naturally produced by the cannabis plant. When we consume these, we make them psychoactive by heating. This turns them into CBD, THC, and CBG which are different compounds
The non acids interact with proteins differently than the carboxylic acids. I'm saying that the people who say that they got stoned and this prevented COVID is highly unlikely and not at all related the the posted study at hand.
Again: you don't get stoned off the compounds that were used in this COVID study. Full stop.
This isn't even mentioning the fact that the concentrations of the carboxylic acid compounds used in the study are multiple orders of magnitude larger than what you can accomplish through smoking (micro vs nano-molar)
PS. If you have an argument on why I might be incorrect I'm all ears, but down voting tells me nothing
Fair enough as to your objections to linking these anecdotal effects to the study, though it's not the only of its kind and others point to actual CBD as a suspected mechanism[1]. As to your getting downvoted, the way you worded your objection you seemed to be implying the people you were responding to were pointing to THC as the mechanism. If you had been would have been strawmanning, medical uses of Cannabis are rarely about THC alone.
If you smoke cannabis you aren't getting much carboxylic acid cannabinoids at all, for sure nowhere near the amount required to hit micromolar concentrations at an in vivo receptor. Actually the same with CBD because its such a minor component.
I definitely won't argue about the numerous cannabinoids having an assortment of medical uses, but based on my knowledge of behavior and pharmacology the likely mechanism of people avoiding COVID when using cannabinoids for their psychoactive effect is the change in behavior rather than a direct pharmacological action affecting some mechanism of SARS-Cov-2. If its even related at all and not just anecdotal correlation, which is a seriously major possibility
I commented on a comment about using cannabis for the psychoactive effects very specifically, rather than commenting what I stated on the article itself
Now onto the article you posted, I just finished checking it over and I have some concerns.
First, considering this is a supposed pharmacological study I don't see concentrations of active compounds (THC or CBD) listed anywhere. These would be listed as something like uM or nM for micro or nanomolar. Perhaps I missed them and I'm open to anyone pointing out these values to me.
Secondly, this is a preprint study and when you look at the bottom under "competing interests" you can see that it was funded/performed by a cannabis company with skin in the game.
I'm not saying write it off entirely, but I'm very suspicious of the study for these reasons.
The study is mostly about the effect of CBDA and CBGA, maybe THCA, but not THC. The "A" (for acid) forms are what you actively try to get rid of (by decarboxylation) if you want to get high.
Also, the doses the study suggests are really high.
Unless the study seriously underestimates the effect, it is unlikely that you will get a pharmacological effect by smoking joints. You may get an effect if your way of getting high is eating grams of raw (not decarbed) cannabis.
More than just grams of flower: grams of raw hash oil
And that's assuming that tissue distribution is desirable! These are single cell studies where they just slap the compound right into the dish, no mention of what happens pharmacokinetically
Personally I doubt it was a direct pharmacological effect, but rather a secondary behavioral effect