Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol/Archives/2020

Myocardial infarction
Ok. From a suggestion by Mark Miller. In relation to an edit made, there is a a significant amount of literature devoted to this topic. What WP:MEDRS secondary sources are available and relevant to discussion that people think are relevant and most reliable? This is to help establish the rarity of myocardial infraction as established by the literature. Second Quantization (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's "established to be rare", is it? And if so, how rare is rare? It will also depend on the context. If you are talking about relieving nausea in terminal cancer pts, a risk of 1 in 5,000 of an MI may be an acceptable risk. If you are talking about non-life threatening indications in 50 year olds, that high of a risk would never be accepted by FDA for a prescription drug. And the stroke risk looks higher than the MI risk.

I'll come back with some references later, gotta go to work. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "a risk of 1 in 5,000 of an MI." Where have you derived that figure from?  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  15:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Did not mean to imply that is the number for cannabis.just used as an example of how a risk that is acceptable in one indication is not in another I think we meed to be careful here and be clear that the absence of appropriately powered phase 3 RCTs means that very little can be said about the safety or efgicacy of this drug with certainty Remember MEDRS discourages using phase 1 and 2 trial data, and we don't even have that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Things can still be said based on the evidence that exists, while highlighting the limitations of the conclusions. I fixed the spaces in your comment, I hope you don't mind. Second Quantization (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, where are the references, people?! The article is riddled with primary sources such as this one. Of eight people with multiple sclerosis treated with THC, two showed improvement. Is this really a suitable reference? The whole article needs to be gutted and re-written. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Needs a cleanup
I agree with the tag. Any medical claims urgently need to be backed up with proper sources or else we are unable to use them. This applies whether the claims are negative, positive or ambiguous. --John (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. Since there is an Rx form of THC available, it should be written up like any other drug in the pharmacology style guide form and using MEDRS compliant references only. Since there is a separate article on cannabis, and the majority of the cannabis references cited herein are not MEDRS compliant, I suspect that most of the discussion of cannabis in this article should come out. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, this article should focus on THC. There's much duplication across the cannabis "suite" of articles which needs to be fixed. Alexbrn talk 13:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I bet User:SandyGeorgia could help with this. I wonder if there is any way she has time to look at it? --John (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Move request: Tetrahydrocannabinol → THC

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Tetrahydrocannabinol → THC – &#91;WP:CHEMNAME&#93;: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."; &#91;WP:ACRONYMTITLE&#93;: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject"; &#91;WP:NC&#93;; &#91;WP:UCN&#93; — Jaydiem (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I for one have no idea what THC is. Move THC (disambiguation) back to THC. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know what tetrahydrocannabinol is? If not, then it doesn't matter whether you know what THC is. What does matter is, which term is most likely to be used by someone who is seeking information about this molecule? I would submit that there are many, many more members of the general public who know and refer to this substance as "THC" than as "tetrahydrocannabinol". And that is the criterion that WP:COMMONNAME guides us to use in choosing the article title. — Jaydiem (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't, but I can work out from the current title that is a four-water-cannabinoid, which is more helpful than THC to anyone with a bit of knowledge of chemistry. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - in my line of work, THC is sort of street talk or slang, I call the compound Tetrahydrocannabinol.  --Smokefoot (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per common name.  Calidum Talk To Me 03:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Smokefoot. Better to have this spelled out. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per In ictu oculi, but I'd love to have a discussion with sources, etc., regarding the current redirect (THC) Red Slash 08:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per In ictu oculi.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dronabinol
I am currently debating whether or not I should advocate the moving of this page to dronabinol, as it is the INN. I know that its current name is more chemically correct, as it is more generalized, i.e., it includes isomers other than Δ9, but, still. As I doubt I'm the only person that's going to think this I think it's a good idea to add this idea so as to start a dialogue, in case someone else has some comments. Brenton (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 20:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Restored large removal
I've restored a bunch of material that was removed, as it was seemingly sourced properly. As for studies being "old", that doesn't necessarily disqualify them unless superseded by newer studies, something that is hard to do in the US at least. Not sure how these studies failed MEDRS. Per WP:BRD, I think some discussion is needed before we carve out huge chunks again. Dennis 2&cent; 14:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Dennis,


 * Nice to meet you and thank you for your note.


 * I believe that there are multiple violations of WP:MEDRS here. WP:MEDRS does not allow for the use of primary sources in the presentation of material related to human health.  Nor does it allow the use of in vitro data or animal data in a way that implies that these data are directly extrapolatable to human health.


 * 1)Diff 1: This is a description of a 10 patient clinical trial examining the usefulness of THC (not cannabis) in PTSD. The results have actually been published here (just found this, I apologize for the error).  The problems here are that
 * a) Even the published results cannot be used per WP:MEDRS, which requires the use of secondary sources. Given this, how can the listing of a clinical trial in Clinicaltrials.gov be notable?
 * b) We have a separate article on THC, so if it were a useable source, it should go there.


 * 2) Diff 2: This is a primary research paper describiing a trial in 5 patients. According to WP:MEDRS:
 * a) "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources " (my underlining)
 * b) " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. (bolding in original)
 * c) "Primary sources should generally not be used for health related content, because the primary biomedical literature is exploratory and not reliable"


 * 3) Diff 3: Per MEDRS
 * a) All of these are primary sources. Please see the comments in item 2 above
 * b) "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 the reported findings hold true in humans....Use of small-scale, single studies make for weak evidence, and allow for easy cherry picking of data. Results of studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high quality secondary sources rather than using the primary sources themselves.


 * 4) Diff 4:Same issues as 3.


 * Happy to include this material if you can show that it has been discussed in reliable secondary sources, but it seems pretty clear that none of this work can be included based on the sources currently cited, per MEDRS. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello again Dennis.
 * I've deleted the entire section on animal studies; this type of research is often highly misleading when generalized to humans. All old primary studies that cite a medical claim can be deleted per WP:MEDRS on the grounds that they are either: (1) a primary source or (2) old.  It is generally okay to keep these so long as they do not cite any medical claim: i.e., citing the 1986 study to say "THC has been used in spinal injury studies" is ok (falls under WP:RS) as opposed to "THC has been demonstrated to reduce tremors in spinal injury studies", which requires WP:MEDRS.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢ &#124; Maintained) 16:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem, but I prefer letting this sit a couple of days. Any time we yank sourced material (even if the sources are primary) and it is more than a paragraph, red flags just pop up and I want to make sure we aren't throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Dennis 2&cent; 17:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Marinol
The article doesn't say if Marinol is produced synthetically, semi-synthetically or as an extract from plant material. Which one is it?--Custoo (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Marinol is not produced from Cannabis, Marinol is synthetic. Clr324 (say hi) 02:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

nutrient values of thc
I would like to know if thc has any nutritive elements in its composition, nutrients as the lay public would understand them such as proteins, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants Greg Dahlen (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Roger Adams
It is astonishing that this page doesn't reference the thorough work of Professor Roger Adams at the University of Illinois in the 1940's, almost ludicrous in view of the fact that the article on Adams (q.v.) links to this one. Adams elucidated structures by chemical means, synthesized analogues and wrote at least one article about his own experience with the drug. If there was something wrong with Adam's work, then that needs to be discussed in light of newer work. prefix:Talk:Tetrahydrocannabinol/ Walter Turner 79.205.122.32 (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

THC promotes hippocampal neurogenesis
A 2005 study demonstrated that cannabinoids promotes neurogenesis and exert an antidepressant-like effect. This study contradicts the myth that marijuana kills brain cells as it does exactly the opposite. (Tkadm30 (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC))
 * no it doesn't. that is a single research paper on a specific synthetic cannabinoid not found in marijuana, carried out in rats.  not generalizable to anything, much less the claim you make. And this Talk page is not a forum; no content changes will be made based on that ten year old PRIMARY source. Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The page Cannabinoid supports the evidences that activation of the CB1 receptor by THC promotes neurogenesis:"THC appears to ease moderate pain (analgesic) and to be neuroprotective, while also offering the potential to reduce neuroinflammation and to stimulate neurogenesis.[13]" Also i found another study which again confirms that cannabinoids enhance neurogenesis. I think there's a scientific consensus that neurogenesis is enhanced by cannabinoids compounds like THC. (Tkadm30 (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC))
 * "cannabinoids" is a huge class of compounds.  There can be no scientific consensus about what a huge group of specific chemicals  does; small changes to a molecule can generate huge differences in biological activity. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Medical uses of THC
The current section covers research that has been done. Research =/= medical use. I intend to move this down to a "research" section as it a good summary of research. Medical uses for dronabinol are treatment of anorexia in HIV/AIDS patients, and nausea/vomiting for people undergoing chemotherapy. As Nabiximols contains THC as an active ingredient, it should also be mentioned here. With regard to the current content here about research, the "cannabis extract" bit is not specific enough; this section discusses scientifically conducted clinical research, and so far it appears that all the research was done with a specific THC cannabis extract, "Cannador", that is not mentioned anywhere in this article. That needs discussing too and i'll be adding that... Jytdog (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * did all that in this series of difs Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sizeofint (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

isomer section
moving this here: has been unsourced for 2 years. that is long enough to satisfy any limit in WP:VERIFY


 * Isomerism



Note that 6H-dibenzo[b,d]pyran-1-ol is the same as 6H-benzo[c]chromen-1-ol.
 * Further reading on cannabanoid isomerism:

- Jytdog (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional history
Hello all,

I am planning on adding information pertaining to the history of cannabis. In particular, my contribution will give an overview on the overall increase in the use of cannabis over the years, which was a statistical analyzed by World drug report. Also, I will briefly discuss other drug use in comparison to cannabis. All of the information I will provide will be referenced. Feel free to critique my work.

Vmartinez18 (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Vmartinez18
 * Looking forward to it! Wouldn't this be more appropriate for Cannabis (drug) though? Sizeofint (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, cannabis sounds more appropriate. Vmartinez, there is no need to write these preliminary messages.  If you want to actually post the content you want to add here that would make sense, otherwise there is no point. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Medical uses"
About this edit andthis edit, and this edit....

In vitro research on causing apoptosis or autophagy are not medical uses; those are research findings. Please see WP:MEDMOS for what "medical use" means in Wikipedia. Also the sourcing provided there doesn't comply with WP:RS (facebook is not a reliable source) and definitely not with WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

it's a FACT ... THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells
Read untill you are convinced. here are reliable sources stating THC causes apoptosis in cancer cells

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=da&as_sdt=0,5&q=thc+cancer+cells+apoptosis

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%2Bthc+cancer+cells+apoptosis&btnG=&hl=da&as_sdt=0%2C5

And then correct the cancer section of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulfarf (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here. The first is that a search result on google scholar is not a source for anything in Wikipedia. You have to bring specific sources. The second is that killing cancer cells is research.  Many, many things kill cancer cells in a lab and are not, and will never be, drugs to treat cancer.  For something like THC it would take probably 6-7 years and say $300 million to prove it is a safe and effective cancer drug and the result of all that might be that it doesn't actually work. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a specific reference for the anticancer effect of THC "in vivo". Tkadm30 (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That is moving in the right direction, source-wise! However Oncotarget is a predatory publisher and we don't cite them.  Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tetrahydrocannabinol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131108013656/http://pdsp.med.unc.edu/pdsp.php to http://pdsp.med.unc.edu/pdsp.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430032241/http://matters.ecnp.nl/number11/interview2.shtml to http://matters.ecnp.nl/number11/interview2.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 20:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Tetrahydrocannabinol → THC – Per WP:CHEMNAME 12.247.12.130 (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The General rule under WP:CHEMNAME states
 * Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

The point here is that WP's naming guidelines are always biased toward the general public, not the experts on the topic. Certainly it is understandable that chemists and other scientists may prefer consistently using the full chemical names but this is not a textbook. Where the public is broadly and primarily familiar with a particular term, that should be used. The same is true, of course, for DNA, TNT, IPv6, and others.

-- MC 12.247.12.130 (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and quoted guideline language, and per common and most familiar name. The full name is not one I'd recognize, but this one, I know it well. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just as a counterpoint, Wikipedia is inconsistent in this area. A requested move of Lysergic acid diethylamide to LSD was recently declined (here) and dimethyltryptamine has been consistently located at N,N-Dimethyltryptamine, never at DMT.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose for much the same reasons that applied to LSD. Names like DNA and TNT are so widely used that they have become part of the, well, DNA of common usage. THC is actually a less familiar abbreviation than LSD is. THC will still be a redirect to the page, so readers will have no problem finding it. And the "cannabinol" portion of the name makes it all the more easy to recognize what the subject is. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This seems to be part of a recent trend of lowering the bar of redirecting chemical names to acronyms that has pretty questionable support in the community. It's a simple enough chemical name (not a more complex numbered IUPAC name). A redirect from a THC search would appropriately lead readers to this page instead where they would learn the actual chemical name. As with other similar chemical move discussions, there's no functional reason to move to the acronym., and it's a stretch to claim acronyms are as well supported by WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CHEMNAME as true common names like water, caffeine, etc. There needs to be an extremely high bar for acronyms as titles for chemicals, of which very few like DNA truly fall in to. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * changed to Oppose, per Kingofaces43's comment about readers coming to the page "...would learn the actual chemical name." Giving people an education is the heart of an encyclopedia, and keeping the title the same would contribute to that. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose use of THC is no so common. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Early discovery
The section, names, and sources below were edited with names removed per WP:NOTJOURNAL, i.e., the actual discoverer names are revealed in the cited sources and deemed not critical to the article. Further, Raphael Mechoulam is linked twice. --Zefr (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Early Discovery: Roger Adams isolated and identified cannabidiol from Cannabis sativa. THC was isolated by Raphael Mechoulam and Yechiel Gaoni, who also described its structure and synthesis in 1964, with substantial later work reported by Raphael Mechoulam in June 1970.

Claritiy
Because of the headlines (i always check the content box) it wasnt easy for me to get to the "effects of cannabis". Maybe someone can restructure something or change a headline to help others find it :) Thanks 2A01:112F:742:C00:9922:6388:FE0A:EFAF (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Radiation
What type of radiation can Tetrahydrocannabinol protect plants from? MistarDoyle (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Anticonvulsant multiple sclerosis?
I wanted to bring this up as a discussion topic rather than going ahead and making an edit, but the statement "Female cannabis plants contain at least 113 cannabinoids,[43] including cannabidiol (CBD), thought to be the major anticonvulsant that helps people with multiple sclerosis;[44]" seems rather strange to me. While cannabidiol does exhibit anticonvulsant properties, I don't know what that has to do with multiple sclerosis. MS is not a seizure disorder, not does the cited source mention any the word "anticonvulsant". Can someone please clarify this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.67.122.108 (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)