Talk:Cannabigerol

Untitled

Could this act as an electron acceptor in much the same way as ubiquinone does in the canadian organic solar cell invented in 1979? Zaphraud (talk) 04:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a quinone and the double bonds will hard work as electron acceptors.Panoramix303 (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to use the term "non-psychoactive" and then describe cannabigerol as a high affinity agonist for alpha-2 receptors and a medium affinity antagonist at the 5-HT1a receptor. By definition then, it is psychoactive. If the term is meant to mean "not considered to contribute to marijuana's subjective effects" then okay, but we need a new word. I've seen this usage at places other than wikipedia, but it just looks silly and contradictory. 74.80.58.186 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC).

My thoughts exactly. I tried to come up with a good way to phrase it, but failed. Shadowblade (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand your argument: CBG interacts with a receptor, and you believe that the definition of a "psychoactive substance" is some substance that interacts with a receptor; therefore, you assume that it is a psychoactive drug; and you even say that it is "ridiculous" to use the term non-psychoactive.

On the other side, most of us, understand as "psychoactive" the following: "[...] chemical substance that changes functions of the nervous system and results in alterations in perception, mood, consciousness, cognition or behavior." (I took the definition from Wikipedia).

You posted your opinion 12 years ago, and we have learned many new things about CBG in the meantime. So far, we have no evidence that CBG consumption results in alterations in perception, mood, consciousness, cognition, or behavior. Therefore, is CBG not considered a psychoactive drug by the scientific community. For example, here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0896844610003013

Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 09:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Lab research

This edit was reverted because it is unconfirmed lab research and is unencyclopedic. --Zefr (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

IP user 50.209.153.254 put the following message at the top of this talk page. New talk messages go to the bottom.

Please ban Zefr from editing this page. He is vandalizing the sections about scientific research has reflects a childish and oversimplified understanding of science. I have spent hours trying to fix this page with careful selection of peer-reviewed research, and he just reverts with NO discussion. I think he has some kind of psychological hang-up about science vs. medicine.

To Zefr: Please stop removing peer-reviewed research. You have a bizzare hang-up about scientific research, but you obviously do not understand it enough to edit scientific topics. Please stick to medical topics. I have actually written peer-reviewed research and am a professional chemist specializing in cannabinoids. You do not understand reproducibility, peer-review, or the scientific method. ---- EB

I removed the edit above because it is preliminary, unconfirmed lab research. The encyclopedia is not a journal or book chapter where early-stage research is discussed and speculation allowed; WP:NOTJOURNAL, #6. The IP and other editors can discuss its significance here to gain consensus per WP:BRD before going into the article. Perhaps a section on in vitro pharmacology can stand under the Research section. Also, do not attack other editors, WP:NPA, or you will get blocked. The Morales report is discussed in the Cannabis (drug) article under Research. The Cascio article PMID 20002104, 9 years out of date, is based entirely on in vitro studies, and the content supported by it in the contested edit is highly preliminary and apparently unconfirmed by a high-quality review. The suggested content about cannabigerol in affecting neurodegeneration, cancer or appetite is speculation based on lab research (does not meet WP:MEDREV; see WP:SYNTH) and is inappropriate for the article. --Zefr (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 May 2019

Change: |doi=10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00515.x. to |doi=10.1111/j.1476-5381.2009.00515.x (remove trailing period)

Reason: Correct DOI error. User-duck (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I took care of it, having seen the article listed in CS1 errors: DOI. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation of cannabigerol

Does anyone know how to pronounce cannabigerol? Which syllable carries the primary stress? Which syllables are unstressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yes390 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

What a reliable source means

There is much research about different cannabinoids. Not all this research is published in journals with the same prestige and therefore they look sometimes suspicious. Before disaccrediting a source, please double check the impact factor of the journal. It is OK if you do not know the names of every single journal; but it discriminatory to assume that they are low-quality journals just because you do not know them. Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This source you added is commercial spam, WP:PROMO. This Acta Pharmaceutica report is primary lab research with exaggerated statements of antidisease effects in the abstract. It is not a WP:SCIRS review, and is unusable in the encyclopedia. Zefr (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This this was removed. This report is a review from a journal with IF higher than 3, belonging to Q2. You can personally believe that the statements are exaggerated: that is your own personal interpretation, and has not impact on the validity and reliability of the source. Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

According to WP:SCIRS : "Articles published in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals are preferred for up-to-date reliable information." Acta Pharmaceutica is a respected peer-reviewed journal. Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The Acta Pharmaceutica article reviews primary lab research, not clinical research. The entire section under Health effects of CBG and CBC is unjustified, exaggerated and misleading conjecture from rodent and in vitro studies as if they were human studies; for statements like those, we rely on WP:MEDRS, which this article does not fulfill. This source is also flimsy evidence for your claim that "some strains produce large amounts of CBG and CBGA, while having very low quantities of other cannabinoids, like THC and CBD." What review justifies that conclusion? Zefr (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not clinical research, and it is not claiming clinical information. Everything this citation is supporting in this context is that "A high content of CBG is found in plants with the B0 genotype". This article, I repeat, is neither lab research nor clinical research: It is a review. Its only purpose here is to show that CBG strains exist (since I cannot link the website of the producers of CBG plants). Do we need a journal of clinical experiments to claim the existence of CBG strains? I do not think so. Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No, we need a WP:SCIRS review that there are cannabis strains with significantly higher CBG levels - the Acta Pharmaceutica source covers that with preliminary research and is unconvincing from just a couple of examples. Zefr (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Do we really need a WP:SCIRS review focused exclusively on the existence of CBG strains?

From the review of Acta Pharmaceutica it is clear that such strains exist and have potential applications. Therefore, they should be on Wikipedia. The information supporting the existence of CBG strains is complete: These plants have been researched, they are produced, and they are commercialized. If it we cannot cite the people who produce and commercialize them (because it is seen as spam), at least it must be acknowledged that they exist because scientific sources mention them.

The option you are following (reverting every contribution unless there is a clinical publication) would ignore the existence of CBG strains, which are already ubiquitous in the cannabis industry. Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

We don't cite lab research because it is too preliminary, usually unconfirmed (as in the case of CBG), and unencyclopedic until a reputable SCIRS review is published. See WP:MEDINVITRO. Concerning the existence of a review on high-CBG strains, this is the PubMed search result. The Acta Pharm paper only mentions preliminary studies and is not an encyclopedic source. Zefr (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The Acta Pharm review mentions the existence of CBG strains, which was its intended purpose. The claim it is cited for is not related to the clinical effects of CBG.

I will recapitulate:

You mention that the source was a low-quality journal, which was proven false (it is a journal with IF higher than 3).

You mention the source was a lab research article, which was proven false (it is a review).

You mention that the source must include clinical trials to be valid, which was proven false (it is cited in the page to support the existence of CBG strains, it is not used to support clinical information) Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

1) An impact factor of 3 is at the low end of acceptable, i.e., unconvincing and not supported with better or more reviews; 2) A review of preliminary, unconfirmed lab research is still a review of low-quality research, so it is not a suitable source; 3) The source provided makes unjustified health claims based on lab research, making it overall an untrustworthy source; 4) You prefer warring to assure your opinion is used in the article. Wikipedia does not have a timeline, so the article can wait until more editors participate, WP:CON, and better sources are available. You seem excessively defensive of the Acta Pharm source - If you have a conflict of interest by being a member of the lab group publishing the article, or any other affiliation with that source, you are expected to declare the WP:COI on your talk page. Zefr (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You mention that "An impact factor of 3 is at the low end of acceptable". This journal is a Q2, so your objection is unjustified. Who defines the low end of acceptable? You own personal believes?

In any case, the phase we are discussing about is this one "Some strains, however, produce large amounts of CBG and CBGA, while having very low quantities of other cannabinoids, like THC and CBD". As you can see, there are no clinical claims here. Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Finally, your closing argument in an ad hominem fallacy:

"You seem excessively defensive of the Acta Pharm source - If you have a conflict of interest by being a member of the lab group publishing the article, or any other affiliation with that source, you are expected to declare the WP:COI on your talk page."

Since you cannot refute my arguments, you prefer to make personal accusations, write on my talk page, and report me. Please stop this nonsense. Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Being respectful with scientists

Recently, a user named Zefr made very disrespectful comments about a respect journal: on this talk page, on the comments after editing and on my talk page. The user referred to this journal as an “inadequate source”, a “low-quality journal”, and “the low end of acceptable”.

The journal name is Acta Pharmaceutica, and it is published by the Croatian Pharmaceutical Society. After I tried to convince the user Zefr about the achievements of this journal, reaching an impact factor higher than 3, and belonging to the second quartile of the journals about Pharmaceutical Science; the user Zefr decided to make a personal accusation and wrote the following:

“You seem excessively defensive of the Acta Pharm source - If you have a conflict of interest by being a member of the lab group publishing the article, or any other affiliation with that source, you are expected to declare the WP:COI on your talk page.”

I am not a Croatian, but I am sure that I would feel offended if I were one of the 4 million Croatians who can read Wikipedia. I did not write the article, but I would feel offended if I were one of the many scientists who try to do research despite (1) the difficulties to find funding and (2) the difficulties to do legal research about cannabis.

Therefore, I kindly ask you: Before disqualifying an article, please take into consideration that you are expressing yourself about people. So, please be understanding and respectful. Juan.h.gonzalez.1 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I just added some information on the rodent study on CBG and blood pressure, and it was deleted even though I provided the reference (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9124753/). I clearly described that the study was in rodents, and not humans, but my edit was deleted because it describes evidence that is not in humans. I believe because I clarified that it was an animal study, the readership should have the right to decide how to use the information. I actually described why the study was flawed, since no receptor binding was measured. And yet, it was still deleted by Zefr. I no longer have interest in contributing to Wikipedia. After 11 years of higher education (Pharm.D., Ph.D.), 15 years of being a professor of pharmacology and toxicology, and over 20 peer-reviewed articles, one person has the power to delete this factual information because of a personal preference? Vanwa71 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Citing Animal Studies

I reversed the second deletion of my edit, since I clearly state that it was in animal studies, and I mention that evidence in humans is lacking.

I adhered to the following guidelines exactly:

"In vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in research, and are invaluable in determining mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses. However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader." Vanwa71 (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This revert is justified because the content is pure speculation from lab research and synthesizes an interpretation from medications; see WP:SYNTH. The encyclopedia is written for the general user, not other scientists. See WP:NOTJOURNAL #6-8 and writing medical content for the wrong audience. Zefr (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)