TIL that’s exactly what it is, apparently. A fundamental system of human physiology, influencing sleep, mood and pain among other neurological functions. Our bodies contain naturally occurring cannabinoids that regulate this system.
Actually humans have cannabinoid receptors. They are components of the hormone transmission in all animals, sans-(insects and Protozoa). Ironically, aspirin interacts with the human cannabinoid system to produce most of its medical benefits.
> “ Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are COX-2 inhibitors that work, in part, by reducing the enzymatic degradation of the endocannabinoid anandamide ”
The human endocannabinoid system has vast and far-reaching implications regarding pain, inflammatory system and metobolic regulation.
> “ Studies at the National Institute on Drug Abuse in Bethesda, Maryland cloned the G-coupled protein receptor (GPCR) in 1990, which is the target for endogenous cannabinoid ligands, and named it, “Cannabinoid Receptor 1 (CB1 or CBR1). This receptor belongs to the Class A rhodopsin-like family of GPCRs [3]. A few years later, the second GPCR: “Cannabinoid Receptor 2” (CB2 or CBR2) was cloned [4]. The CB1 and the CB2 receptors participate in numerous essential biological processes [5]. Some of these are: Neuronal plasticity [6], pain [7], anxiety [8], inflammation [9], neuro-inflammation [10], immune function [11], metabolic regulation [12], and bone growth [13].”
I get where you're coming from, but I think it's reasonable to realize frustration that the person you were originally responding to may have had with OP stating unequivocally that 'Cannabinoid system' is quackery without doing any research of their own.
To bring it to tech, it'd be like someone claiming that 'database system' was made up by Percona to market MySQL.
All fair points. I do want to point out that "Chamomile Essential Oil Infused Aromatherapy Room Spray with Gemstones" is how this all started. When the cannabinoid system was brought up, it was done in relation to that. I had no prior knowledge of it being a recognized system or it's effects on the body, and assumed it had as much merit as the comment it was in reply to. That was a mistake on my part.
If they're knowledgeable on the topic then I'm sure having someone dismiss it as pseudoscience can be frustrating. I get that, but just saying someone's wrong isn't enough to change opinions. It doesn't need to be a research paper with citations, just a link to Wikipedia showing that it exists on a conceptual Level, or even a "I work in pharmaceuticals, it's legit". I'm at fault for not doing my own research as well, but thank you for settling things, looks like a lot of people learned something new
