-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
sciencedirect.com: Case study - Following THC ingestion, a patient presented to emergency department with symptoms similar to an acute stroke
- Thread starter Deleted member 3812
- Start date
Sounds like the issue is that she was high.
It's another when your high after eating what you thought was a normal cookie. I could see how being high unexpectedly would generate a medical concern.
it's one thing to know your high when you purposefully smoked or ingested weed.
It's another when your high after eating what you thought was a normal cookie. I could see how being high unexpectedly would generate a medical concern.
I got high recently, first time in a few years, and I thought I was drunk. My speech was slurred, I was stumbling around, felt like I was going to choke on my own tongue, and my stomach was upset. First time I've had a negative experience like that, so I can understand a lady not knowing she was high freaking out.
Especially if your partner is vocally afraid you are having a stroke. I'll always remember a friend got a nosebleed after taking mushrooms he got a little weirded out and chalked it up to dry dusty air. A few minutes later another friend, who also took some mushrooms, got a bad nose bleed. I asked if mushrooms could do that and sent the two of them into a anxiety trip. They needed an experienced hippy to calm them down again.
it was a combination of complete misdiagnosis based on assumptions about her age and health - and her specific subjective reaction to and obliviousness to being baked off her face.
the title of the op is worded as if there's medical connection But it's entirely anecdotal and miscommunication between patient and professionals. All the science checks out as expected.
it's a medical cautionary tale not a scientific breakthrough.
they should just call it Willie Nelson Syndrome.
#1, you can hallucinate on weed, it just basically requires edibles. There's stories of late 19th century and early 20th century occultist doing a shit ton of weed to hallucinate and call to spirits. They used these as opposed to other drugs because you cant really OD on weed.
#2. Weed does not cause strokes, or at least there's no evidence as such.
#3. I know you were well meaning OP, but you should read about how racist american anti-weed media has been, and why people reacted the way they did. Posting something like this aids an incredibly racist campaign against marijuana
#2. Weed does not cause strokes, or at least there's no evidence as such.
#3. I know you were well meaning OP, but you should read about how racist american anti-weed media has been, and why people reacted the way they did. Posting something like this aids an incredibly racist campaign against marijuana
welp, i will just assume it was overreaction
i've ingested enough thc to hallucinate, to become basically unable to move without feeling like i was unraveling, to pass out on my feet and wake up on the floor blah blah blah. but thats just something you learn in life - dont make the first brownie out of the pan a big one
thc is obviously powerful but i highly doubt with any amount of reasonable caution (which one should generally apply to everything in their lives) that it poses much danger
i've ingested enough thc to hallucinate, to become basically unable to move without feeling like i was unraveling, to pass out on my feet and wake up on the floor blah blah blah. but thats just something you learn in life - dont make the first brownie out of the pan a big one
thc is obviously powerful but i highly doubt with any amount of reasonable caution (which one should generally apply to everything in their lives) that it poses much danger
I'm confused.
So, the lady had a panic attack, and it's pretty common for panic attacks to be mistaken as strokes, no?
The fact is that many, many articles end with "This is not strong enough evidence for anything but the hint that further research into this topic may be warranted"
So, the lady had a panic attack, and it's pretty common for panic attacks to be mistaken as strokes, no?
The fact is that many, many articles end with "This is not strong enough evidence for anything but the hint that further research into this topic may be warranted"
I mean, I'm not wrong about people getting touchy about their "cure-all".
And clearly, my arbitrary speculation on a message board qualifies as pseudoscience? I have 0 knowledge of any of this, it was just an off the cuff comment based on what I read in the article, which mentioned both things I said. So, great job champ.
I'm not opposed to lay people reading papers but it does irk me when people post like this. The case report in question isn't even accessible. OP essentially posted a placeholder for the actual paper which probably is behind a paywall given that it's elsevier. Not to mention this is a case report which is never really meant to be anything definitive, but rather something to bring to a clinician's attention. Without the actual paper we don't know anything. All the link says is that this 64 YO patient had "focal neurologic deficits" after ingesting weed cookies.... No mention about her medical history....does she have high blood pressure? diabetes? chronic cigarette smoker? etc etc..... TBH, posting papers (in this case not even a paper...essentially a sensational title) like it's gospel is kinda dangerous.
I work in a hospital and do ct scans. We get a lot of strokes called everyday that get called off. Its important to treat patients as fast as possible. Because of this many people are called in as strokes from emts and until they arrive. If a person is acting strange and having any kind of motor difficulties emts have to call it in as so. This kinda stuff is more common then you think. I have seen people coming in joking and laughing and texting. Once they get to the ER everyone knows if its gonna be called off within the first 30 sec. We just have to wait for the doctor to come and confirm it.
Also, edibles are fuckin' wild.
At one episode, i lost track of time continuity. Like, i knew what happened, but wasn't sure in what order.
Lasted like an hour before i just collapsed on a random bed.
At one episode, i lost track of time continuity. Like, i knew what happened, but wasn't sure in what order.
Lasted like an hour before i just collapsed on a random bed.
Thanks.
Could have used a bit of self-awareness to begin with and spared us the empty snark regarding the reactions of others then. You're not really correct in your assumption and continually implying that a bunch of nameless posters consider it a "cure-all" and passive aggressively calling me champ doesn't change that. The bulk of posts are fairly varied on the matter. I don't really see many denying the risks, so why paint it that way?
Last edited:
Yup. Hahaha that's when you have too much. Start with 5mg and work your way up or not. I like my edibles at 5mg doses.
Awesome. I want to lose track of time continuity .What was it? Pm me if you don't want to share.
i did not bake those, so no idea, sorry. i shall ask if occasion arises.
... a pretty shitty experienceì though.
I've been so zoned that my body started shaking uncontrollably and I physically couldn't talk, but yeah it ain't like half my face went slack, so it's all good.
While the article may be alarming, I don't really see what's so bad about it. It's not like laws are going to be taken back just because of some old woman.
Obviously more studies will be conducted. It does appear that the strains and strengths of this generation are way more potent than they need to be for most people.
I think it would be cool to find a way to monitor how much I can take, sorta like alcohol blood level.
Obviously more studies will be conducted. It does appear that the strains and strengths of this generation are way more potent than they need to be for most people.
I think it would be cool to find a way to monitor how much I can take, sorta like alcohol blood level.
More people should read this, and OP shouldn't post case studies.
I'm probably going to get banned for saying this but the more I read this thread, the more it triggers me. When people on ERA rightfully make fun of anti-vaxxers and then are bewildered on how people could be so idiotic when it comes refuting science....well this thread is kind of an example of how published "science" (I put it in quotations because a case report is really more of an observation than an actual experimental paper) get wrongly interpreted by the general public leading to bad conclusions. Again, THERE IS NO PAPER HERE. OP LITERALLY LINKED A PLACEHOLDER. Not to mention a case report is a unique N of 1 typically. There isn't any hypothesis or enough statistical power to draw ANY SORT OF CONCLUSION. It's written for healthcare providers with proper specialized knowledge to be on the lookout for trends such that if enough of them pop up, follow up studies can be done to actually see if there is actually a relationship going on.
I'm sorry but I have to call out OP on this too. I've noticed that you post a ton of random published manuscripts with sensational titles w/ very lazy and bad analysis on your end and the threads always end up being a clusterfuck of really bad hot takes because most people don't actually read the articles with the proper background knowledge required to understand it. This is just basically every problem I have with science reporting in general and it ends up disseminating really bad analysis which becomes dogma to certain groups. I mean we already have people in here jumping the gun about weed and strokes. Again, not against people reading published manuscripts, but posting a hot take sensationalist title without actually reading the paper....that shit is dangerous and IMHO should be called out given how much of an issue we have these days with the internet propagating false information.
If I get banned so be it...
I'm sorry but I have to call out OP on this too. I've noticed that you post a ton of random published manuscripts with sensational titles w/ very lazy and bad analysis on your end and the threads always end up being a clusterfuck of really bad hot takes because most people don't actually read the articles with the proper background knowledge required to understand it. This is just basically every problem I have with science reporting in general and it ends up disseminating really bad analysis which becomes dogma to certain groups. I mean we already have people in here jumping the gun about weed and strokes. Again, not against people reading published manuscripts, but posting a hot take sensationalist title without actually reading the paper....that shit is dangerous and IMHO should be called out given how much of an issue we have these days with the internet propagating false information.
If I get banned so be it...
Last edited:
I guess there's been a few time's I've been couch-locked & incapable of much more than grunting noises after a heavy sesh or some edibles lol
I skimmed thru some posts here and many agree. I don't think you'll be banned for stating facts for the most part.
I also want to add... I could actually see a stroke occurring from high blood pressure/anxiety after ingesting THC. That would be an underlying issue to say the least, but also the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.
Edit* my b for the double post
I would sometimes have minor audio hallucinations. Not like, hearing voices from nowhere and stuff like that. But hearing music and patterns in just ambient background noise. The fans of my PS4, the sound of traffic from outside, maybe the neighbours making some noise next door can sometimes come together and sound like something man made in a weird way. Like sometimes I'll think I hear faint music coming from somewhere, but when I focus it's actually just a bunch of random noises from elsewhere any my brain is finding patterns in it.
In the future, for these types of threads, I feel like mods should institute a rule that the actual manuscript needs to be posted by OP. If it's behind a paywall, might want to consider the legality of allowing scihub links to bypass paywalls.
/thread
That old lady was just high as fuck and wasn't sure how to handle...the weakness is part of the protocol lol
Lol okay fine. But you know what I mean. I'm just glad there's a discussion luckily. The OP is pretty bad reporting at the end of the day. I also clarified a bit with a double post.
