In my personal experience, ive noticed that without cannabinoids, to regulate the endocannabinoid system, Then, your gall bladder will become stressed, develop gall stones, and eventually shut down.
"It's truly inspiring to see Sovereign Health institution's commitment to addressing the impact of trauma on the brain and reducing stigma surrounding addiction and substance use. They employ evidence-based techniques such as trauma-informed therapy, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and neurofeedback to help individuals recover. The significance of these actions lies in the holistic approach to mental health, offering patients not just treatment, but understanding and support. This fosters a deep trust between patients and Sovereign Health, as they provide comprehensive care that goes beyond immediate symptoms, ultimately leading to more successful and lasting recoveries."
I wonder what the degree of statistical or econometric experience and knowledge many doctors (including neuroscientists) have. It's no surprise that doctors get by without knowing very much about statistics and this whole science of numbers, correlation, causation, etc. I'm very familiar with how ignorant people (even supposedly educated people) can be about statistics, numbers, and economics... Steven Pinker's book, Rationality, makes that clear, as do many books on behavioral economics. There's the great little exercise with the Bayesian theorem and applying it to women's cancer screening (which a large majority of doctors incorrectly understand). Serious scientists understand proper epistemology and empirical tests. This is why neuroscience has always been bordering on a pseudo-science. It's very weakly, if at all, able to tell us much information about behavior, thought processes, beliefs, or experiences. For instance, that abysmal early slide that has statistics and a graph. The graph isn't real at all. It doesn't plot anything except a hypothesis of the relationship between perceived harm and rate of use. Any mathematician knows the independent variable should be on the x-axis to convey correlation. Anyway, it would make sense if it at least plotted real values (showing us the wide variation) and used that line as a regression line. The statistics on that page are horrible. "16-24 year olds 2x more likely to use cannabis" - that could mean nothing at all, or something meaningful, depending on the numbers themselves. Maybe pick up Risk by Dan Gardner to learn about how the media uses statistics so incorrectly as to often give the opposite information as what they actually convey. Or maybe pick up Naked Statistics by Charles Wheelan, or Mindware by Richard Nisbett, or Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos, etc. If 10% of people use cannabis, 2x is a big deal. If 0.5% use cannabis, 2x is still insignificant. Is the 2x being compared to adults, 25-80? Or 25-40? What are the rates? "Students (37%) used more than ... " - 37% of students used? Or students used 37% more than ... ? Or are students 37% of those who use? Statistics used like this is abysmal. No wonder mainstream media is nothing but scaremongering. And as compared to what numbers? Again, if 10% of people use, then 13.7% of students using may or may not be a meaningful difference. If it's 1% and 1.37%, then it's essentially nothing. If it's 50% and 68.5%, then it might be important. But we don't know with the cherry-picked and seemingly random numbers given. "Average age of initiation ... " - mean or median? This is important. If 60% of people start using at 30, but 40% start using at 12, then it's clearly not an average person who's initiated at 18.7. The average person would be initiated at 30. A median would be 30, but a mean might be close to 18. If we're to be given an accurate and representative number to estimate at what age people start using, a mean or median might be meaningless. We need more than a vague number. "Of those who reported using, 18% reported using daily" - Possibly great information if you know what percent reported using... Maybe skipping the neuroscience and just talking about correlations would be better. 10% of people who use cannabis do X. However, 5% of the population at large do X, so cannabis increases it from 5 to 10% (cannabis has 2x rate of X? Possibly. But that's possibly abuse of statistics to state relative numbers. What matters is absolute values). Eg. People who use cannabis recover from chronic pain at a rate of 30% as compared to non-users who recover at a rate of 15% (made up numbers).... These are the correlations that matter and the proper numbers to use. Furthermore, we're talking about correlations. Without numbers of the population at large, the numbers given may be meaningless. Maybe it's the same. Maybe it's incrementally and insignificantly larger or smaller. Maybe it makes a big difference. Even then, if it's correlation, then it could be spurious (caused by coincidence, variation, noise), 3rd variable, or reverse causation, not just causation. Without natural (or controlled if possible now) experiments, at least, we can't know much about causation, if at all. There's always more nuance than a snippet or headline or sound bite can hold. I really wanted some good science about cannabis. It's trouble enough that 90% of youtube or google results give uneducated or mainstream/sensational opinions that have no basis in science or rationality. But even doctors and scientists have very little basis in rationality. Besides, anyone who's read Doidge's Brain that Changes Itself or Whitaker's Anatomy of an Epidemic (I'm sure there are plenty more pop science books that would tell you this), would know that the brain adapts. If cannabis blocks neurotransmitter X, then the brain will react by increasing receptors or increasing secretion of neurotransmitter X. Clearly, it's misleading to end the story at the first part of that sentence.... I'm just hearing endless variants of "can" and "is associated with" without any real or even mildly useful information/numbers.
I never seen ball lightning but have lived in a place that had a lightbulb in the attic that would stroke out with a very weak strobe like effect at random. Sometimes it happened shortly after turning out the lights. Sometimes it was much longer and sometimes it just wouldn’t do it. A short would cause both lights of the circuit to freak out and not just the one, and a quick discharge from any static buildup would only happen once and then be discharged. Never could explain it.
I witnessed ball lightning when I was a kid. We had a tornado hit upstate NY, before the tornado, the lightning was classic CG barrage. A bolt hit the telephone pole a few houses down, once the sparks and smoke cleared, I heard a humming noise. By this time I was finishing homework at my desk, and I noticed the hum get louder. A blueish, white light was starting to show through my blinds. I opened the blinds again and seen the ball lightning just creeping towards the house. Being a kid, I was scared and hid. No idea where it went. I told my parents what I seen, they tell me the hum was just the transformer, and the light was from other lightning. They really didn't believe me that lightning could do this. Now they wish they seen it.
I live in lower Alabama and have seen it myself. The sound it makes is terrorizing. It sounds like a giant bird being electrocuted (best description I have). And it passed through the trees behind my house (I was outside talking and smoking a ciggy). We heard the noise first and then saw it appear. It drifted about 100 feet and then shrunk into nothing. I wish I had a camera now, but at the time, we also didn't stick around after it dissappeared.
So, what's the plan for dealing with all the "positives"? Better yet, what is Canada doing to help its citizens avoid Parkinson's and Alzheimer's in the first place?
Please check out our admissions requirements for international applicants here: admissions.carleton.ca/international-homepage/#admissions And our colleagues from international admissions are always happy to answer any questions by email at international@carleton.ca
one of these entered the kitchen through the walk-in window to the porch and moved across the floor for about 20 seconds maybe. it died near the silverware cabinet. It was so weird.
My grandmother was followed by a ball of lightning. She was outside getting clothes off the line before the rain. It appeared, and she ran inside the house. It followed her up the stairs and into the back room. It struck her, and the doctor said that her wearing flip flops saved her life. They were fused to her feet.
I had ball lightning appear in my bedroom last winter. I have a cheap plugin oil heater and it regularly has an arc coming out of the front panel from the dial with what i imagine is a mercury tube for a switch. Its not as solid looking as one of those arcing vids you see. Its almost faded and see through. Like the ghost of electricity.. But this one day i just happened to look at it just before it switched on and for a good 1.5 - 2 seconds i stared at this ball of light floating just in front of the switch. This wasn't faded like the past arcs. This was solid and white in the center with a radiating blueish corona. It made no noise, just there one sec gone the next. I feel privileged to have seen it in full focus and not out the corner of my eye, or a split second in passing like so many rare event where you only get a glimpse. Good times!
My father told the story of years ago when he was working for the forest service in The Pacific Northwest. He said they were on a mountain trail with a mule train, it was extremely foggy, and the glowing balls were forming on the top of the mules and rolling off their backs.
saw one more than 50y ago when walking home from school during a thunderstorm. there was a crashing sound and this ball appeared out of nowhere some meters away from me. it hissed and spun insanely fast. finally it went through a fence without any visible change to it and vanished very fast out of view. nobody believed me. it was years later that i read about it the first time... will never forget the moment.
