From everything I have read, CBN is the recommended sleep aid, not CBD. I do find 10 mg taken when I wake in the middle of the night is effective in helping me fall back asleep. I use a product by ECS therapeutics called Deep Sleep. No affiliation.
Perhaps CBD helps when you have trouble sleeping due to anxiety or overexcitement, but doesn't do much otherwise?
If we want to nitpick the vaccine one-pager: Isn't the 30-60% figure for reductions in *hospitalizations* of high risk patients, and not just for "going to the doctor"? For myself, what I'd want to know is how much the odds of getting sick enough to be able to pass on the virus is reduced!
Good point. Whatever CBD does, it doesn't seem to do much to me that I can quantitatively detect.
The fact that the flu vaccine seems to do something in high-risk people indicates that, well, it *does something* and you'd think that it would help for normal people too. But maybe not: maybe the vaccine only helps when the immune system is broken somehow.
If anything, shouldn't a vaccine be *more* effective in people with a healthy immune system (even if they have an much much lower hospitalization rate regardless)?
I don't think testing for H3N2 vs H1N1 vs RSV etc produces any big surprises, but can ask someone who was involved in the Seattle Flu study if you really want to know... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33590002/
That’s the theory, but what if it’s wrong? Like, how would you rigorously test that? Has anyone run the study? It’s expensive enough to develop a vaccine in the first place. If I were the manufacturer, why bother extra testing?
From everything I have read, CBN is the recommended sleep aid, not CBD. I do find 10 mg taken when I wake in the middle of the night is effective in helping me fall back asleep. I use a product by ECS therapeutics called Deep Sleep. No affiliation.
Interesting, thanks! I hadn't heard of CBN ... I'll check it out.
Perhaps CBD helps when you have trouble sleeping due to anxiety or overexcitement, but doesn't do much otherwise?
If we want to nitpick the vaccine one-pager: Isn't the 30-60% figure for reductions in *hospitalizations* of high risk patients, and not just for "going to the doctor"? For myself, what I'd want to know is how much the odds of getting sick enough to be able to pass on the virus is reduced!
Good point. Whatever CBD does, it doesn't seem to do much to me that I can quantitatively detect.
The fact that the flu vaccine seems to do something in high-risk people indicates that, well, it *does something* and you'd think that it would help for normal people too. But maybe not: maybe the vaccine only helps when the immune system is broken somehow.
If anything, shouldn't a vaccine be *more* effective in people with a healthy immune system (even if they have an much much lower hospitalization rate regardless)?
By the way, it's not even clear that health authorities know how much of a threat the "flu" is in the first place. Symptomatic people who are tested often (usually) don't test positive for known strains. https://trusttheevidence.substack.com/p/connecting-yet-more-dots?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1029183&post_id=150656099&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=nqkgv&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
I don't think testing for H3N2 vs H1N1 vs RSV etc produces any big surprises, but can ask someone who was involved in the Seattle Flu study if you really want to know... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33590002/
That’s the theory, but what if it’s wrong? Like, how would you rigorously test that? Has anyone run the study? It’s expensive enough to develop a vaccine in the first place. If I were the manufacturer, why bother extra testing?