Talk:Charlotte's Web (cannabis)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Article launch

I have had this on the back burner for a while, but have decided to go public now. There are many more sources below which can be used. They all mention "Charlotte's Web". To comply with WP:MEDRS, no direct medical claims are made, only documentation that such claims are made.

Although the focus is on the CW strain, other matters are directly incidental to the story and must be mentioned: Charlotte Figi, the Stanley brothers, Sanjay Gupta, CNN, increased demand, and calls for research. Other subjects that are relevant are how CW has spurred marijuana exiles. Other children than Charlotte Figi are potential subjects. I'm sure there are many other possibilities for article development.

I welcome further development of the article by other editors. Don't hesitate to nominate this article for WP:DYK . -- Brangifer (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Other matters

While this article is no longer a total orphan, it needs attention in more articles. Please find places where it is relevant and add wikilinks. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I have chosen to use "List-defined references", per WP:LDR. This keeps the article uncluttered by using only the short reference format in the article. The order of the full references has no bearing on their number in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the number of references has grown quite a bit, I have chosen to order them alphabetically by "ref name". That helps to prevent confusion and duplication of sources.

While other citation templates are allowed, this basic template has been used for most references:

<ref name= >{{Citation |last= |first= |date= |title= |publisher= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref>

Needless to say, all references must be named. Whenever possible I have used the author's name, and if the author has written other articles which are used, then I have added some key words from the title. Otherwise be creative when choosing ref names. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources which mention CW and can be used

Basic Citation template: <ref name= >{{Citation |last= |first= |date= |title= |publisher= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref>

CNN 'Weed' Documentary Follows Sanjay Gupta's Reversal On Marijuana, The Huffington Post

CNN's Sanjay Gupta Reacts to Robust 'Weed' Documentary Response, U.S. News & World Report

Weed Pioneers Look To Save Epileptic Kids With New Medical Marijuana Strain, The Huffington Post

Pot with a purpose: Teller County brothers' marijuana grown for medical benefits, The Gazette

Medical Marijuana for Kids? CBC Canada

Parents seek hope in medical marijuana, USA Today

Changing the 'Face of Cannabis', Colorado Springs Independent

Slow-growing plant yields marijuana designed for kids, The Salt Lake Tribune

Families migrating to Colorado for a medical marijuana miracle, The Salt Lake Tribune

6-year-old Colorado girl in national spotlight over medical marijuana, KDVR

Marijuana is not Kryptonite, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

CNN Documentary “Weed” Explores Medical Marijuana, Shape (magazine)

Medical marijuana: Could pot stop this baby's seizures?, The Star

I am a Stanley Brother from Sanjay Guptas WEED documentary. Topiama

Cannabis extract brings hope for children with epilepsy, The Universe (BYU)

On the EDge: Utah takes timid step forward in medpot legalization, StGeorgeUtah.com

Utah: High-CBD Cannabis Oil Legal as Hemp, High Times

CBD Oil Still Not Legal in Many MedCan States, High Times

Medical Marijuana Minors Almost Triple in Colorado, High Times

NJ Gov. Chris Christie Prefers Dead Kids Over Stoned Adults, High Times

Medical marijuana for kids? Some praise results while others worry about risks, NBC News

Medical Marijuana Research Explained, The Doctors, CBS

"many" families

The reference to "many" in many families, who have run out of pharmaceutical options, in the lead should be removed. "Many" is a subjective term. Colorado tells us the state has 5,187,582 residents. Given that, how many is "many"? It's not even clear whether that should be the metric -- perhaps the baseline should be the population of the state being left, or the country. If a numerical quantifier on "families" is required, it should be a concrete value: e.g. "more than 100," "over 80," or the like. NE Ent 17:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner. I didn't notice you had commented since I was busy editing. I'm not wedded to "many", but I do see it as an accurate representation of what many sources say. The word isn't just thrown in as a typical weasel word to exaggerate. (Look at the Publicity and demand section.) The actual numbers are well over 100 families now. An alternative word would be "several", but in English that would imply a very small number, like 3-10, and the sources describe far more than that. Like I said, I'm not wedded to the word and am open to other wording. Do you have a suggestion? -- Brangifer (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a good solution. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Things to fix

This thread has been copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Charlotte's Web (cannabis).

A strain developed for medical use, full of medical claims related to epilepsy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As the creator of that article I can assure you that this has always been on my mind. I'm fully aware of WP:MEDRS and seek to follow it. If you will look at the talk page, you'll see this: "To comply with WP:MEDRS, no direct medical claims are made, only documentation that such claims are made." If I have inadvertently crossed the line somewhere, please point it out and I'll more than gladly fix it!

There is one piece of research on this strain, and it is definitely not MEDRS compliant. I was very reluctant to include it at all, and have only done it with a reference, and a hidden editorial note about its status. I included the ref strictly as documentation of terminology, NOT to back up any claims. I believe that is a justifiable way to use it. It is currently ref 9. Here is the actual text visible to editors:

<ref name=Gedde_Maa>{{Citation |last=Gedde |first=Margaret |year=6 Dec. 2013 |title=Whole Cannabis Extract of High Concentration Cannabidiol May Calm Seizures in Highly Refractory Pediatric Epilepsies: CW Oil Retrospective Survey Abstract - American Epileptic Society 67th Annual Meeting, Dec. 6-10, 2013 |publisher= |publication-place= |page= |url=https://docs.com/YJM3 |accessdate=2014-01-01 }}</ref>

I have also included the doubts and reservations of physicians, making it clear that more research is needed, and that not all agree.

As you can see, I've tried to be very careful. Any guidance would be welcomed. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I see undue emphasis on the CNN documentary and one case; see the old discussion from Colin at the ENI incident. Your version is much better put together (doh :) but similar issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I don't have time right now, but I'll look at it in a few hours and get back to you. Fortunately this isn't a BLP issue, so no harm done. Thanks for bringing this up. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Back again. I wasn't aware of that ENI thing, and didn't know this subject had ever been mentioned anywhere at Wikipedia. In fact I was rather surprised no one had written an article yet. Well, let's continue at the article's talk page. Sandy, I look forward to working with you again. We worked on the Andrew Wakefield article and you really put a lot of good work into it. I welcome your input and suggestions. I'm going to hat this so we don't end up with two different discussions. It can be reopened if necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's continue from here on. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

My plans for this article are revealed above: "Although the focus is on the CW strain, other matters are directly incidental to the story and must be mentioned: Charlotte Figi, the Stanley brothers, Sanjay Gupta, CNN, increased demand, and calls for research. Other subjects that are relevant are how CW has spurred marijuana exiles. Other children than Charlotte Figi are potential subjects. I'm sure there are many other possibilities for article development."

When I write an article, I look at the big picture and try to include context, and the human element/human interest story, if there is one. This makes for an interesting article, and we know readers like that. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia, you mention "undue emphasis on the CNN documentary and one case". I want to be sure I understand you correctly: (1) Do you feel I dwell too much on the CNN documentary? (2) Do you feel we should include more than just Charlotte Figi's case? Are these your concerns, or am I missing something? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's too much discussion of one TV program and one patient, particularly in light of that Cochrane review that Colin raised (PMID 22696383) ... Sanjay Gupta is a TV commentator, and that patient was one story, not on the same level as a Cochrane Review, which is more in line with where an encyclopedia's emphasis should be. We're not here to entertain, especially knowing how the media can affect parents desperate for a cure. I'm left wondering if the article is about a cannabis strain, or about a television show. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well.....it's not a scientific article, a la something which would use a Cochrane Review. The focus here is totally different. Note that I don't get into that at all. I stay away from anything which might violate MEDRS. It's a very notable human interest story about a strain of cannabis, and all the issues surrounding it which have made it very notable. It has been mentioned in the media, scientific institutions, testimony before political and legislative bodies, legislation may be affected and effected by it, etc.. It's amazing how many people of all walks of life know about Charlotte Figi and Charlotte's Web. When I mention the article to my patients and to my colleagues, most recognize the story, even if they don't remember her last name.

This is not about whether CW really works, the scientific evidence for or against, etc., although I have included statements from physicians who are worried about the attention, and who believe that more research is needed. NPOV must be preserved, so this can't be a sales brochure without any opposing POV. In fact, if there is more negative stuff about CW, I'd love to include it for balance. Some of the sources used, or above, may contain such content.

There are basically three things at stake (and likely others): (1) Notability has been established, so an article is justified; (2) My content comes only from sources which mention Charlotte's Web, and where other comments from those sources are made in the context of CW, so there is no OR; (3) We already have an article on cannabidiol, so I don't see any need for another one like it. Do you have any other concerns based in policy? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There was quite a bit to fix, so rather than typing it all up here, I just did it. I hope you can see that there most certainly was and is medical content here, that the article read like a coatracked advert for the product, that there was an absence of any secondary reliable medical sourcing, and that is was overquoted and underattributed, leading to the very problems that occurred with MMR vaccine controversy-- that is, science by the media and the press release, which resulted in detrimental effects on people's health.

The article is about a strain; yes, the connection between the strain and the one child whose advocates claim she was cured by the strain is relevant and notable, but the article was nonetheless coatracked and over-emphasized a television show, individual people's opinions, off-topic discussion of legalization in the state, an advert for the product, and more. It is hard to see this from an editor who is familiar with the Wakefield issue, and in all good faith, I hope you can see that my edits were to address those issues, introduce the secondary sources available, remove the coatracky, off-topic overquoting, and instate some focus. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed to see this article and agree with Sandy about the problems and flaws. I'm sure the Stanley brothers are delighted and their publicity agent deserves another bonus. The alt-med "doctors" treating this child must also be happy for their pro-marijuana practices to be so well advertised. These aren't neurologists: we've got a pathologist and a GP who are very much non-mainstream. The media love this kind of story. It is typical Daily Mail stuff. But extraordinary facts require extraordinary evidence. The Cochrane Review is a sober reminder that it all might be bollocks. Does the Dravet Foundation recommend this treatment. No. Does the American Academy of Pediatrics? No. This has been researched on and off with little resulting enthusiasm for decades. Don't confuse a multitude of newspaper and TV "journalism" for reliable sources. I'm reminded of the story in "Flat Earth News" (good book) about a chap who had insured himself against disappointment in case his football team didn't win this year. Countless high-quality newspapers and web sites fell for it and reported it and interviewed him. It was all made up by the press agent of an insurance company. In fact, the same guy makes up similar stories each year and the press fall for it every time. This is an unwitting POV fork and there is only one actual source here: the "Realm of Caring Foundation" (aka the Stanley brothers) and the pro-marijuana "doctors" "treating" these children. The child's story is just notable to the degree that it deserves a sentence in an article discussing medical marijuana in the US. But that's the WP:WEIGHT it deserves. Not an advertorial. I strongly suggest it be replaced by a redirect. -- Colin°^Talk 22:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, now that it's been reworked, it deserves to stay. Colin, you need to know that the Stanley brothers practically give this away, and it is seriously cutting into their profits because they have to devote so much of their greenhouse space to it. That is in the sources, but not mentioned here. I don't think they have any "publicity agent". The information is mostly from articles in newspapers, magazines, and TV shows, IOW our typical RS stuff. It is physicians who prescribe it, and they are real doctors, not quacks or alternative medicine pretend "doctors". In the 20+ "legal" states, regular M.D.s do this. I know that may be hard for some people to wrap their heads around, but that's the way it is. This is mainstream in those states. Unfortunately, and we can certainly agree on this, the research has been blocked for generations, so we need to catch up. The hypocrisy of research laws in the USA is huge in this regard. We'll research dangerous and deadly plants with very high risk profiles, but won't research this one plant, based on the propaganda from a power hungry man (Harry J. Anslinger) and his insane Reefer Madness campaign (I know he didn't make that film, but it came in handy). If we are worthy of being considered rational scientists, we should approach research of this plant in the same manner we would approach the idea of researching any other plant or substance, but in the USA that is not the case. It's a very unscientific, highly emotional, and irrational stance which has ruled for generations. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have an independent source for the claim they are "practically give this away". And even if they were, the long-game is their aim to legalise cannabis. I don't see many reliable sources either in the list above or in the article. I find some aspects of the Charlotte story hard to believe frankly, having read the transcript. And the "its natural" line is particularly dangerous. These two doctors are not "real epilepsy doctors" any more than my garage mechanic is a rocket scientist. Please can you give me a reliable source that paediatric neurologists or epileptologists prescribe cannabis as mainstream practice.

How is this not a POV fork -- designed to avoid WP:WEIGHT by masquerading as a "human interest" story. Human interest stories belong in the Daily Mail and (especially over the silly season) and not in an encyclopaedia. We both know that anecdote is the poorest form of evidence and I'm sure you are aware that anecdote / story telling is most powerful persuasive force known to man. You can't find a more convincing method than "sick child / desperate mother / battle against evil big corp/gov / wonder cure".

Attribution is not the quick-fix solution for all problems here. It is a technique used by us and journalists to say "we haven't confirmed this". Why haven't they confirmed it? Because they are journalists writing a human interest story and the facts will only get in the way and bore the reader. This is the weakest form of journalism, the sort of crap that fills the weekend supplements, and not to be confused with proper journalism used for serious topics like war or economics or business. There comes a point where all we are saying is what the Stanley brothers, a pathologist and a GP want us to write. To most readers, the difference between quoting and regular text is small. The reader will rightly ask "why am I being told this" and if they are trusting then they will conclude "because it is true". Is it? The Realm of Caring Foundation is not a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization -- do your research.

Your rant against legislation preventing research shows your hand. I had thought you were being gullible but now wonder whether your POV is preventing you seeing the flaws here. The individual sentences may be sourced [though I don't think particularly reliably] but ask yourself each time "why am I being told this". This: "The great interest created by the documentary, and subsequent interest in Charlotte's Web and related products, also highlighted an urgent need for increased scientific research, as well as caution against "bad medicine" and raising false hopes" is simply editorialising. Put on your international hat and get some perspective. Is there really "great interest" in this or merely a few pages of Google results showing regional newspapers and pro-cannabis sites. There's always need for scientific research. Urgent? These parents are selling their homes and moving state. How often does it work? You aren't being told the stories of failure. You're being told exactly what they want you be told. And some of what you have been told is most certainly exaggerated. -- Colin°^Talk 13:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I refactored the separate 501(c)3 discussion to a separate section below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Colin, your rant is so emotionally charged that I think I'll refrain from engaging on each point. I'm aware that the issue of marijuana/cannabis use in any form, even strictly medical, gets some people really worked up, and it's pretty pointless to engage. On one point I will comment. My former introductory sentence is not editorializing, but good editorial and writing practice. It was an introductory sentence which sums up what the sources in that section say. Read them and I think you'll agree that more research is needed, and there is definitely need for caution. Everyone (except possibly you?) believes that, and regardless of what you or I believe, that's what the sources say. I get the strong feeling that you haven't actually seen the CNN special on "Weed", or actually studied the sources used. I also suspect it wouldn't make any difference, because your mind seems to be made up. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I actually quoted your original introductory sentence, not Sandy's change. I read the CNN transcript. I didn't cry. Nearly vomited. This like the Daily Mail on TV. You aren't reading carefully what I've written. For example, "urgent need" has no place in an encyclopaedia -- that's fund-raising talk. I agree that research into medicines to treat dreadful forms of epilepsy is important and also that it shouldn't be restricted by "war on drugs" legislation. I have no opinion on medical marijuana and quite an open mind that there might well be some use for it. I'm not "emotionally charged" on that issue at all. This could be nettle soup for all I care. Do you have any idea where the priorities lie in epilepsy drug research? Do you really think that your sources are a neutral voice on whether marijuana is an "urgent" priority? Based on the Cochrane review and several other recent papers on the subject, all of which are unenthusiastic, what do you reckon the best evidence so far suggests we should spend our research dollars on? Or forget the research. Just sell your house and move to Colorado because this shit must work as it is "natural" and our "brains have evolved for it". You have crap sources that are not doing proper journalism or proper health/science reporting. If we had a cure for Dravet syndrome, the medical press would be talking about it. Are they? -- Colin°^Talk 21:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is some evidence that it works: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24237632 , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609644 . Also, FDA trials have begun. The Dravet Foundation and American Academy of Pediatrics will be hesitant to recommend a Schedule I substance that has not passed FDA trials. This does not means it is ineffective. Psyden (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

501 status

According to their website, The Realm of Caring is a 501c3 non-profit organization.Psyden (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

According to their website, and some news reports, they are not. It is "pending". Which means they aren't but would like to be. The fact that some pages on their website are misleading on this is just one concern about using it. -- Colin°^Talk 14:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've commented that portion out for now, so this can be sorted. (Have I mentioned that I hate list-defined references :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is any doubt, then by all means comment it out. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I did find them listed on the IRS site here. They are listed as a public charity. Psyden (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! OK, so, dumb question time ... the IRS doesn't specifically mention 501(c)3, and I have no idea what that means. Also, they list a different name than we have in the article. If we can sort those two matters ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do with this (besides the problem that we are engaging in original research). The IRS indicates The Realm of Caring Inc in Edwards, CO, while our source is the Realm of Caring Foundation in Colorado Springs, CO. Further source checking needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right. They are different organizations with similar names, both in CO. The IRS listing I found was for The Realm of Caring Inc, an Educational Institution. So I guess the Realm of Caring Foundation's tax exempt status is still pending. Sorry for the confusion. Psyden (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again ... so, will leave it commented out until we can get this sorted. It is quite a concern if a Foundation is advertising a charitable status that they don't seem to have, so I hope we can find the answer in sources.

And now I've checked the news sources we had used to cite the 501(c)3, and none of them say it has 501(c)3 status-- the only source that said that was the Realm for Caring's own website. Problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

They might be having issues getting tax-exempt status. The IRS has been notoriously difficult in regard to legal cannabis sales since it is still illegal on the federal level. I know banks are avoiding involvement, most (all?) sales in Colorado have been cash or bitcoin only. Psyden (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Idea ... perhaps they have tax-exempt status for the purposes of Colorado state income tax, but not for federal income tax, because of the legality of cannabis in CO vs. federal. I think that 501(c) organization is a federal thing, so if that is the case, their website would be wrong, while the news sources (that only say non-profit) would be right. Still, unless we have a source to sort this out, not much we can do with that text for now except leave it out ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We really should be certain about this, so I think SandyGeorgia is right to comment it out until we have confirmation. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It appears they now have tax exempt status under the name "Realm of Caring Foundation Inc" in Colorado Springs. The listing is here.

Missing words

In the section "Publicity and demand" I found this sentence:

"The documentary received widespread publicity, and it popularized Charlotte's Web and Realm Oil as a possible treatment for epilepsy and other conditions,[5] in a controversy referred to as "pot for tots".[13]"

Something is missing right after the 5, as there is no connection between those two sentence fragments. I suspect the last one belongs further down in that section. If I'm wrong, please fix it. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That "controversy" actually came about not because of the cancer case, but because Christie signed the bill in New Jersey when confronted by one set of Dravet's parents, as he was up for re-election. I've moved and expanded the legislative section-- the term has since been used more globally, as in the cancer case, and for example in an entire news section "pot for tots" page at the Huffington Post. I don't want to put too much emphasis on a tabloidish term, but it has gained traction in multiple situations now. Anyway, it wasn't coined wrt the mother investigated case, rather the NJ pressure on a governor up for election. One source specifically tied it to the CNN "documentary", but I can't remember which, and don't want to give that undue mention based on only one source.

By the way, I find list-defined references so hard to edit with-- when I have to stop writing, and go to a separate section to add my source, the extra step and interruption in editing makes my prose suck worse than it usually does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have always hated them too, but tried them this time to keep the article easier to edit, and to keep track of the sources. It's easier if one simply edits the whole article. Then one doesn't need to open separate sections. I spread out what I'm working on by adding lots of blank lines until I'm done. That way I can scroll up and down and easily find my place. When I'm done, I remove the blank lines and spaces until it's right. That works fine for me. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing source, sample

Only one sample, but I know BullRangifer likely searched on sources mentioning Charlotte, so this source would be missed because it doesn't name the "Colorado child" by name:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/809434

It gives a more balanced story-- needs to be worked in. Similar sources (that don't name Charlotte) may be missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I added it. While I was in there, I removed some lower quality and really unnecessary sources like sheknows.com, yourboulder.com, and the daily mail; they weren't adding anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Good find! You are absolutely correct that I would miss those types of sources. Please find more! He even mentions that (awfully poor) Cochrane review you have used. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on this addition, can't we now removed that Cochrane review ref? It's really poor, and the Melville ref does the job just fine. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Cochrane reviews are considered the "gold standard" in secondary medical review sources, this article does have medical content, those are the only recent secondary reviews available on epilepsy and cannabinoids, they are the only real science we have at this point, and if anything, the Medscape articles gives us even more reason to include them. It may be your opinion that the Cochrane Review is a poor source, but it's the best source in this article, and it's the only real secondary medical source we have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This deserves a more thorough discussion, so I'll restart it in a new section, copying our comments here and adding more. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't recall what was the magic google key that led to that article, so not sure if I'll find more :) It did seem to be a more responsible, and less sensational, overview of the whole situation. The Medscape article has more on the need for research (on the second page) that should be/could be worked in ... it's a much better source on the need for research, and the things that can come out of good research, then some of the science-by-laypress quotes in there now ... they've at least got epilepsy experts speaking. I just pooped out and didn't get around to adding more. Have I mentioned that I hate working with list-defined references? :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. That's an excellent source, and we aren't violating any policy by using it, because it mentions quite clearly our case here. The last 2/3 of the second page has some excellent content we could quote. Maybe we could use some of this?:

"While noting that the reports on children finding seizure control from cannabinoids are "quite compelling," Dr. Levy emphasized that medical marijuana as a policy misleads the public on the level of research behind the endorsement.

"It implies, incorrectly, that marijuana is an established medication and opens the doors to people and parents 'experimenting' with it for all kinds of conditions."

And when it comes to experimenting with drugs to be used particularly on children, the practice is best left to experts in highly controlled conditions, she added.

"I fully support the parents who are trying to advocate for something they believe will be helpful for their children. But let's do it the right way — the same way we develop all other medications. We are bound to make mistakes when we try and take short cuts."

That speaks directly to the situation we're seeing in Colorado. Levy is one of the physicians and scientists who have reacted to Gupta's documentary, and she allowed publication of an email she wrote to him. This was in the article before you removed it:

In response to the CNN documentary, Dr. Susan Levy, director of the Adolescent Substance Abuse Program at Boston Children's Hospital and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, wrote an email to Sanjay Gupta in which she shared both her agreement and reservations:

"I agree with just about everything said regarding cannabinoids. They clearly have therapeutic potential, and... for children like Charlotte, cannabidiol may be lifesaving.... I also felt a little bit embarrassed for the profession of medicine.... I feel that as physicians we failed [Charlotte Figi].... For every child like [Charlotte Figi] there are undoubtedly myriads more who have conditions that won't benefit from marijuana use, and who may be harmed by it. I personally can’t imagine ever advising a patient to smoke any medication."

Should we use some of what she said? It would balance things a bit, because she is both for trying it, but wishes it were done under controlled conditions. That's a responsible attitude for a scientist and physician. Many families are not following controlled conditions, and are experimenting. That's not good. If they are following the law, then a physician is supervising what's happening, but we know that some will "play with this" on their own, and none of us want that to happen. I think Levy's words of caution will have a good effect on readers because she comes across as sympathetic, balanced, and wise. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, first, can we try to use our own words and minimize quoting (because it's better writing, and leaves less need for saying why we're quoting so-and-so and how many letters they have after their name)?

Second, on the text I removed, Sanjay Gupta is still a TV personality, compensated for generating ratings, rather than an epilepsy expert, so when we have better options (and we do, in every case) we should prefer them over him or his opinions, and who cares who wrote an email to whom? Those kinds of tabloid-TV issues detract from more serious encyclopedic writing about the science, the medicine, the known vs. unknown, which we have in the Medscape article. This article is about the strain, and I felt that the earlier version was too much about a TV show. Notice that the Medscape article dealt with the effects of the documentary without overplaying that portion-- I'm thinking that's more of the tone we should strive for.

If we keep in mind that Wikipedia is not advocacy, then Wikipedia won't find itself playing catchup (like in the MMR vaccine controversy) if it turns out that there was plenty going on with Charlotte Figi that CNN, her family, or her doctors didn't tell us, while the sensationalist-seeking laypress played up the personal interest story without much science. (And the CNN documentary leaves a lot of unanswered questions, but getting into those issues would be original research.)

I believe/hope we can extract text in our own words from the Medscape article, and we have plenty of material that might not require us to resort to quoting so-and-so. So ... while I like some of the quotes you excerpted above, I do believe it's preferable if we can say some parts of that in our own words ... but if we can't, we may end up quoting. At the end of the day, I'm too tired to build text; bedtime here, so how about you give it a try? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes this is much more the kind of source we should be using and I fully support Dr Levy's concluding statement. And I do not count a pathologist and a GP as "experts" wrt epilepsy treatment (especially a severe paediatric condition like Dravet syndrome) or the way they went about preparing the drug for the child as "highly controlled". The CNN doc tells us that marijuana used to be a widely prescribed medicine "only decades ago". Well so was Heroin and small unregulated pharmacies put diethylene glycol in cough mixture, which then killed the children.

I suggest that the supposed "interest" in "Charlotte's Web" will blow over and that the real article Wikipedia should have is one on marijuana/cannabis and epilepsy. Such an article can mention this case in the appropriate History or Media or Politics section where it belongs. It really doesn't deserve its own article as that causes a POV fork imo. -- Colin°^Talk 08:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Working now through new, untapped sources (including cancer-related), I don't think we'll be using this source:

" Since North Carolina prohibits the use medical marijuana, Liz Gorman said she and her 7-year-old daughter recently moved to Colorado Springs. Maddie has a strain of severe epilepsy called Charlotte's Web."

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, indeed! That's a funny typo, which a commenter noted. There is a good caution at the end. That type of caution, made in this context, would be allowable content, if you feel like using it. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There are enough good sources on the topic that I don't think we need to use one from a reporter who couldn't get the basic facts right :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously we're not interested in quoting a typo, but the cautionary content is actually worth considering. It's quite good. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Cochrane review (Gloss, Vickrey)

Continued from above.

Based on this addition, can't we now remove that Cochrane review ref? It's really poor, and the Melville ref does the job just fine. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Cochrane reviews are considered the "gold standard" in secondary medical review sources, this article does have medical content, those are the only recent secondary reviews available on epilepsy and cannabinoids, they are the only real science we have at this point, and if anything, the Medscape articles gives us even more reason to include them. It may be your opinion that the Cochrane Review is a poor source, but it's the best source in this article, and it's the only real secondary medical source we have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they are considered the gold standard, but they are not of equal quality, and in this the quality of what they had available made for a terrible review, extremely poor. I think it's a horrible Cochrane review which would fail our MEDRS guideline big time. It's based on very little at all, just four poor sources, including "an abstract" and "a letter to the editor". Yes, MEDRS prefers reviews, but this one is worse than many of the extremely poor sources provided by outright quacks, which we rightly reject, so we need to discuss that Cochrane review here. Unfortunately I only have the abstract, but that is bad enough:

MAIN RESULTS:

"We found four randomized reports which included a total of 48 patients, each of which used cannabidiol as the treatment agent. One report was an abstract, and another was a letter to the editor. Anti-epileptic drugs were continued in all. Details of randomisation were not included in any study. There was no investigation of whether control and treatment groups were the same or different. All the reports were low quality.

"The four reports only answered the secondary outcome about adverse effects. None of the patients in the treatment groups suffered adverse effects." 1

There are so many things wrong with that picture, and if some IP had tried to sneak an exact copy into an article, but from some ordinary journal like JAMA, we would reject it as unworthy. It's less than impressive and it's embarrassing to see it used anywhere at Wikipedia, for any purpose. It fails MEDRS miserably when one actually reads it. Forget that it's a Cochrane review and actually read it. The only thing one can glean from it is:

"None of the patients in the treatment groups suffered adverse effects."

Well.....at least that's good and speaks sort of good for cannabis, and most research on cannabis has come to similar conclusions, so it doesn't tell us more than we already know, which is that cannabis is generally safe, and the cannabinoids studied are too. It seems to be far safer than many of the typical epileptic medications.

What we'd like to see is long term studies, because we already know that typical epileptic medications have serious long term side effects. Does cannabis/marijuana/CBD oil stack up any better? We're not sure. When faced with nothing left but imminent death and "do not resuscitate" orders, can one blame parents for trying something else when, according to multiple physicians and experts, they have tried all the relevant pharmaceuticals prescribed, without any long term positive outcomes, and their children are getting worse? It's a notable and well-recognized fact that not all epileptics respond well to these medications. When that is the choice, it would be criminal to deny them the opportunity to try something else which has never been shown to be as dangerous as many commonly used pharmaceuticals. If there were other options, it would be a different matter, but the experts agree there are no other options, so the experts, even in your latest Medscape sources, admit that it is a legitimate option to try cannabis, but they would like it to be under controlled conditions. Good enough. We'd all like that.

My only consolation, and it causes me to NOT strongly contest (yes, I'm violating policy by doing that....) the use of this awful source in the article, is that we are making two relatively benign statements based on it, and they are both true: "...there is insufficient medical evidence to draw conclusions about their safety or efficacy." and "A 2012 Cochrane review said there is not enough evidence to draw conclusions about the safety or efficacy of cannabinoids in the treatment of epilepsy." Yes, that is true, but there have got to be better sources we can use to back up the same statements, because I would like to keep those statements.

I think the Medscape source is that better source. It states the same thing. We can just delete the Cochrane source and keep the basic wording, attributing it to Medscape. Why don't we just do that? I feel downright embarrassed keeping the other one. When I read it, I come away feeling dirty. It's that poor. I'm used to dealing with much better quality reviews from other journals.

There is another problem with using that source (and the Pertwee one), and that is a violation of policy, most likely a SYNTH violation, by using a study which is only tangentially related to our topic: Yes, the study is about epilepsy and cannabis, but not about the type of oil and CBD/THC profile used here. So the review is a poor match for this subject. While that is good enough for a "See also" link, it's not good enough for a source. That's policy.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, especially in the light of policy. Note that I definitely agree that we don't know enough about efficacy or safety, especially long term, and I want to keep those true, cautionary, statements. I think the Melville/Medscape source does the job and can replace both the Cochrane and Pertwee references. They are no longer needed because we have a better reference which doesn't violate policy and covers several bases very well. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have the full paper. Email me. If you look at the talk page on ketogenic diet you will find I've also come across a disappointing Cochrane review. I think one problem with this article is that if one wants to be strict about SYNTH then there zero studies on "Charlotte's web". Who knows, perhaps that strain has yet another compound nobody has examined. You really need to put your international (even whole-US) hat on to see how inconsequential this one strain is. If we move to an article on epilepsy and cannabis then there is more scope to discuss real science, and this is where all the future developments on the subject lie. Charlotte will ultimately be consigned to a note in a History section. -- Colin°^Talk 08:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything in the full review which overturns what their own summary states?: only two actual studies, plus "an abstract" and a "letter to the editor", all with far too few patients, "no investigation...", "low quality", etc.. I'm sure you get my drift. This is a very poor ref to use, even if it comes from Cochrane, which is otherwise generally considered top tier.

(1) If this ref came from any other journal, we'd reject it. (2) If it had been supplied by one of our numerous pushers of fringe POV, pseudoscience, and/or so-called "alternative" medicine (sCAM), etc., we'd reject it, just as we'd reject a ref from Natural News, Dr. Oz, or Joseph Mercola. The ONLY reason we even consider it is because it comes from Cochrane Reviews and we normally trust them. In this case the actual content of this review makes it plain they failed us, and we shouldn't use it.

That's why I think the Melville/Medscape source SandyGeorgia found does the job much better. It can serve as the source for the same cautionary statements about the lack of evidence, and it puts it in the context of our subject here, with several people expressing their views. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that the real problem goes back to the general coat-rackiness of this article, and that Colin is right above: "the real article Wikipedia should have is one on marijuana/cannabis and epilepsy. Such an article can mention this case in the appropriate History or Media or Politics section where it belongs. It really doesn't deserve its own article as that causes a POV fork imo". As long as this article is here, and unlikely to be deleted for notability (although maybe we should talk now about changing its title so that it won't be so coatracky), the Cochrane Review is the only science we have, and the Medscape article links it to what is now on this page ... except, this page is going to end up as a historical footnote to a real epilepsy and cannabinoid page when the current studies are done. Until that time, criticism that the Cochrane review had little to go on is ... well, the fact is, the Cochrane review had little to go on because there is little to go on, and that's pretty much what we say, and is the highest quality evidence we have so far.

I'm not really sure what to do with this article until the current FDA studies are completed and better reviews are written, but in any case, I don't think we should remove the only good secondary sources we have. Perhaps one solution is to rework this article to bring in more of the Medscape article, remove more of the laypress gibberish, and add the secondary reviews only as sources backing up the Medscape article, since we generally shouldn't be using news reports here. (That is, to the extent we do any quoting or sourcing of text, use Medscape text, but keep the secondary review sources as additional citations on the text-- which keeps compliance with MEDRS). I also disagree that we would reject those reviews elsewhere-- they're all we've got, and the facts are what they are at this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple sourcing issues

I finally got around to doing some in-depth source checks, and found a number of concerning problems with poor sourcing. In this series of edits, I have:

Removed some text from the lead which wasn't well supported in the body, and added a cn tag on the statement about the level of THC relative to hemp. (Because later in the article, I found that we are relying on a non-independent video as our source for the data on THC and CBD percentages in Charltte's Web-- we need that kind of information from an independent source).
Removed the exact ratios claimed for THC and CBD (because they were poorly sourced and since this is not an FDA product, we don't know what kind of testing is involved), and replaced it with a more general statement which is found in multiple higher quality sources.
Removed the statements about the product testing because, again, sourced to a video from a company spokesperson, and not FDA or anything controlled, so Wikipedia should not be in the position of telling our readers these products are tested or safe based on non-independent sources.
The "99 percent seizure free" statement was sourced to an editorial; replaced source and rephrased.
The TEDX source, again, was a video of a company spokesperson (one of the brothers, I believe). Um, no. We have plenty of independent sources.
I found "one" mention of "marijuana exiles" from a pundit TV show, compared to numerous reliably sourced mentions of the term "marijuana refugees": I removed the TV pundits (McGlaughlin).
I worked in a bit more of the Medscape article, but my prose is ... iffy.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding more of the Medscape article. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons to hemp

After I was unable to find a reliable source to back the percentages of THC/CBD in Charlotte's Web, I turned to looking for a reliable source for the comparison of the product to hemp, and could only find statements by legislators, so I've removed the text from the lead as undue, and suggest we should be removing it entirely. That is certainly a health-related statement, we are potentially misleading readers, and it should have MEDRS sourcing.

Incidentally, in those searches, I hit on some sources that might help us come up with a better name for this article. GW Pharmaceuticals is marketing the CBD compound Epidiolex, that is being tested in FDA trials and will likely turn this article into a footnote. Perhaps this article should be something like cannabis compound, which the trade name Epidiolex will eventually point to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to prevent you from creating an advert for Epidiolex, but hijacking this one to do it isn't proper. Please help me retain some measure of AGF here. I don't think you realize what this looks like, and I don't think that's your intention (although the result is the same), but we've seen it done before: An article which someone doesn't like will be so altered by removal of sources (that are deemed RS in any other article for documentation of history, events, facts, and opinions), and the related content so altered and deleted, that an AfD can successfully delete the whole article and open up room for a competing article. It's easy to kill someone once you cripple them.

As I go through your editing history, I see some good edits, removal of some nonessential sources (but not always for solid policy based reasons, because, as I said above, in any other article we consider them RS for documentation of history, events, facts, and opinions), some good rephrasing, but also some problems of your own creation, because, once having removed sourcing which documents facts and opinions, you find "unsupported" statements. Well, they were supported before you removed the sourcing. That has happened a lot with content that is totally unrelated to MEDRS. In any other article, removal of those sources would have been strongly frowned upon, and should be here as well.

Primary sources are usually allowed to a certain degree in articles about the subject, especially when published (including videos) in secondary sources unrelated to the primary source. You seem to fail to understand the difference between documenting that claims have been made (even if false), and actually making the claims in Wikipedia's voice. All our alternative medicine and fringe articles must do this. It's called NPOV.

Also the THC/CBD bit you mention above is not a "health-related statement", and is not governed by MEDRS. It's a simple chemical analysis which any decent lab can perform, and there is no reason to doubt it. You need to AGF a bit more and not be so suspicious when it's not necessary. That clouds your judgment.

I've been civil, have never edit warred, and have actually hoped for, expected, and approved of some of the tightening on the article, but the rules you're using here are applied much differently than the way we usually do, even in articles with medical content. Usually a bit of respect for the original intent of the article and its author is shown. That has not happened here. I know, from your statements several places, you don't like this subject, wish the article had never been written, and wish to get rid of it, and I find it sad to see such motivations driving you too far, to the point of gutting the article. You really don't have to go so far. All the tangential history, facts, events, and opinions related to this story would usually be kept in any other article, on any other subject.

Wikipedia's articles are not supposed to be a dry recitation of the bare facts, like what other encyclopedias do. We write about the whole story, from all angles, and we don't get to predetermine the exact nature of those angles. That's why we don't have templates for our articles. Each one is different, even if they are about the same type of subject as another article. There is no "one right way" to do it. The author gets to determine the basic structure, based on the sum total of the RS. The author is guided by those sources, because it is them which determine the angles used to tell the whole story. Your efforts here tend to reduce the story to a more one sided, myopic, view of the subject, with the expressed intent of reducing it to a one sentence factoid in another article after this one has been deleted. That's not how we write articles, and it's unwikipedian to destroy an article in that manner. Okay, now I've said it. I'm just expressing my sadness in a very civil manner. I know that with the intentions you and Colin have expressed, there is no hope for this article to survive. When you started I had hoped you'd clean it up, tighten it up, add some better sources, etc., but you've gone much, much further, with a destructive agenda which I am powerless to deal with. I feel quite helpless, humiliated, and whipped. Are you happy now? This really takes the joy out of editing here. I had hoped for better from someone I respected. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

My hope, which will restore my faith in humanity to some degree, is that you don't continue until nothing is left. The article is still in somewhat decent shape. How about wrapping it up and letting it rest for a while? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

BullRangifer, I keep hoping you get some perspective on the relative non-importance of this subject. From the article title, this is about an unofficial strain of cannabis grown on one farm and used by a very small number of people in a completely uncontrolled manner. You say it is also a human interest story about Charlotte. Neither subjects have any staying power and imo don't deserve an encyclopaedia article in the same way nearly all human interest stories in the press don't get an article and we aren't generally in the habit of documenting unofficial strains of plants. A tv/web/newspaper flurry of stories appeared over the last few months which successfully use a tearjerker story of a sick child to make a political point. The lack of truly independent sources make it hard to document this subject without effectively becoming an advertorial for the Stanley bros or looking like a gullible reporter from the Daily Mail. Perhaps a rest might help. Will people still be talking about Charlotte in a year's time? Probably not beyond a footnote. Will people still be talking about this one strain of cannabis? I suspect also not. Who knows, perhaps the Stanley bros have yet another strain to try out. I have no faith in the AfD system because it is notoriously unable to exercise any editorial sense and has a very low bar for inclusion. But surviving an AfD is not the same thing as saying WP needs and benefits from having this article. Imo, it doesn't. Our readers would be far better served by a redirect to an encyclopaedic article on the (experimental) use of cannabis compounds to treat epilepsy. If they want human interest stories that come and go with the wind, well that's exactly what a newspaper is for. And if you want to personally campaign for more research into the use of cannabis compounds to treat epilepsy and other conditions, well that is what a blog is for. -- Colin°^Talk 11:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

BRangifer, I sense that your concern is AFD, but I don't think there is any question that parts of this topic are notable. Yes, I've removed editorials, tabloids, youtubes, and other dubious sources-- they really aren't needed, because there are so many higher quality sources available, which I have also added as I've worked. There are still many more (notability is not in question), but as far as I can tell now, we've covered all the bases, so I've not added duplicate sources.

Yes, it is true I do not believe this topic should exist in a coat-racky form, shoe horning in advocacy content about marijuana legalization. I agree that Colin is probably right that in a couple of years much of the content here is likely to be a footnote in the (now dreadful) Dravet's syndrome or Medical cannabis article (and hopefully a footnote with a good outcome); and since the FDA trials are for another product, there is likely to be a broader topic in the future to which some of this may end up merged. But I don't have a crystal ball, so the best thing to do for this article is to make sure it is sourced to the highest quality sources now available, without resorting to claims by the manufacturers that cannot be documented because there are no processes by which they can be validated, and without making biomedical claims that aren't sourced to MEDRS-compliant sources.

Where we have a bigger difference is in the notion that biomedical claims are not made in this article; they are. With no governmental or regulatory agency that oversees the CBD/THC percentages in this product, should we be taking the manufacturers' word for it, when we can just as well make the frequently sourced statement that the oil is low in THC, high in CBD? MEDRS calls for better sources for biomedical content, upon which people make decisions that affect their health.

All in all, this is a fine article (I'm not aware of any other article in the cannabis suite that is of this quality), and I hope you will agree that, considering the NPR feature today, what Wikipedia readers found if they came here today was responsible, well written, and even comprehensive. The credit goes to you for the good start, but yes, I've tried to tighten, and hope you will be assured that I don't see an AFD in this article's future. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the reassurance. I was getting quite discouraged. Even though I don't own the article, it is natural to hope it survives. I'm sure you understand the feeling. I have often had to bite my tongue and just hope. Others might have edit warred, been uncivil, etc.. Well, that's not how we do things here. You have definitely improved many things, and for that I am thankful. Right from the beginning, I knew that it would need to be pruned, and that other eyes would definitely see things which my myopia prevented me from seeing anymore. After staring at something very closely for some time, one finds it hard to be completely objective, so, knowing that, I just threw it out there and hoped for the best. I never expected it to remain unscathed, because it did need pruning.

I still think that some content could have stayed, and some sources could have been used, simply because it wasn't absolute biomedical health claims, but opinions, history, context, etc.. Only limited aspects of the article are governed by MEDRS. The rest is much more flexible, with much more leeway for use of sources. In that regard I feel you have been too strict at times. Yet, again, you have done much good work. I may at some point get down to specifics and discuss restoring certain items, but have no fear, I'm not an edit warrior. I like to collaborate. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Followup

Based on feedback from Alexbrn and WhatamIdoing, I've taken another look at the article. I don't believe we are currently in iffy territory in terms of "Dr X says Wongo juice cures cancer" (I've replaced most of that with more balanced statements from reputable organizations), but we are in fact in a worse position. We are saying "Politican Y, a month before elections, repeats biomedical claims from the manufacturer's website that have not been substantiated". And we quote a politician-- not even a doctor-- making biomedical claims.

The sources are a Utah radio station and the Salt Lake Tribune (before November elections). I've located a newer source (post-election) in the Utah's Standard-Examiner.

The claim by the politician that there is very little THC in the product is attributed to the manufacturer's website and the manufacturer: I've seen no source that says anything about any independent testing, regulatory controls, lab verification, anything ... other than taking the manufacturer's word for it. The Salt Lake Tribune clearly attributes these numbers to the manufacturer's own website. And, both sources have the politician saying he will consult the Utah Substance Abuse Advisory to "make sure we understand really what this is". Win-win for the political party, because they can back off of that support in the event independent testing by the Utah Substance Abuse Advisory has something different to say about what's in the product and whether it's legal.
And, with that in mind, the newer Standard-Examiner source says, "Froerer made it clear he will limit what he will pursue regarding the oil and will not address legalization of marijuana or even medical marijuana as part of that process. He talked about addressing three components in sponsoring legislation: access, quality control and research. He said the Utah Department of Health would probably be involved in quality-control efforts ... "
And, then, a further concern ... I've not yet located any 2014 information about where this legislative proposal stands, or what came out of the conversations with the Utah Substance Abuse Authority.

So, our article positions the politican as making bio-medical claims about the safety/composition of this marijuana extract based on information from the manufacturer's website-- information that as far as I can tell has not been independently tested, regulated, substantiated, or controlled-- while newer sources are clear that any legislation he proposes will be based on quality control (something no source indicates is present yet in terms of regulatory or independent controls).

I am going to remove the political quotes and update to newer sources.

On a side note, original research alert, I'm a bit curious as to exactly how this product works if there's nothing in it beyond what is routinely used in lotions and creams, but we will someday know the answer to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Updated to add new source and minimize repeating unsubstantiated claims based on the manufacturer's website about the composition of, hence the legality of the product. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I wish that ^{[citation needed]} had been used more, rather than outright deletion. I have known some of these things, and could have provided the sources. Let's just deal with one you have mentioned, the matter of testing. It's CannLabs who does it. They are very poor at advertising the fact, but it's pretty clear from their website, where they have videos of Paige Figi and Jesse Stanley confirming that Charlotte's Web is tested by CannLabs (source) Just FYI, their website has a couple other connections, one in the form of a recommendation of Realm of Caring and one about Sanjay Gupta's interview of CannLabs in preparation for the CNN documentary.

So, we can safely conclude that CannLabs, a professional laboratory specializing in testing medical marijuana, does the testing. All the claims about composition made by the Stanley brothers/Realm of Caring and others who quote them, are repeating information originally coming from CannLabs.

This isn't rocket science. Any quality lab can do this. It isn't a medical claim either, but a description of the chemical composition. That's all there is to it. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on that information, it should be possible to revert the deletion of the non-medical claim (a quote) to the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

In case you're curious, here's an article which features CannLabs and tells about how and why they do what they do. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, we should not be taking a one-time television interview, the manufacturer's own website, or the interested lab's website as confirmation that there is any sort of ongoing, regulated, third-party, uninterested, routine confirmation of what the makeup of this product is on a regular basis. The politician clearly had those concerns as well, and that is the message conveyed in many of the quotes from experts also ... children involved, no controls. We didn't even mention that! Biomedical claims upon which parents are making decision about their children need high-quality sources. No, poorly sourced biomedical information upon which people are making health decisions isn't fixed with a cn; it's fixed by fixing it, because there was plenty of information about the concern about this very issue, even from the politician who was quoted (who seems to have very cleverly hedged his bets).

I still think you did a fine job on the writing here, many of the prose glitches I later fixed were probably introduced by me, and having slept (or not) on this article for four nights now, I'm coming to the conclusion (against my earlier instincts) that you did choose the right place to put this content. I showed the article to a friend before I started working on it, and the comment was "that's an advertisement"! I showed the article to the same friend last night, and the comment was, "that's a fine article". I feel at this stage that Wikipedia has done a responsible job on a topic where other reports and reporters, whose income depend on ratings, did not. We had good material for this article, and I think you've done a fine job ... but putting out biomedical information based on manufacturer's own claims is not something we should do, particularly not where children are the guinea pigs.

I understand that you continue to believe that telling parents that a product is as safe as an over-the-counter cream or lotion is not "biomedical information"; on that score, we differ. Wikipedia cannot make claims about the safety of a product without high-quality sources, which the manufacturer's and lab's own websites are not, and for us to include that (when the quoted politician clearly had his own reservations and wanted some quality assurances) is verging into advocacy and promotion of poorly sourced claims that are used to make health decisions for children. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia: "I understand that you continue to believe that telling parents that a product is as safe as an over-the-counter cream or lotion is not "biomedical information"; on that score, we differ."

Actually no. We do NOT differ at all, because I agree with you. You're creating an unfair straw man argument, something you have done before, and Colin does multiple times. It's unbecoming. Even in my original version, before you started editing, all statements I could find relating to that were about the legal status, not safety or biomedical information. Statements about the CBD/THC content are not medical statements, but simple information about composition. What is THEN done with that information is another matter entirely, and may well be properly governed by our MEDRS guideline. That is where caution should be exercised. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, in response to this: "On a side note, original research alert, I'm a bit curious as to exactly how this product works if there's nothing in it beyond what is routinely used in lotions and creams, but we will someday know the answer to that."

I suspect (my own OR alert

) that the reason this all comes as somewhat of a mystery and surprise (why something as seemingly benign as low THC hemp can have any effect), is that all previous interest in marijuana has been focused on getting high. It was only that effect which had any interest. The newer interest in medicinal uses has still included getting high as a side benefit of taking one's medication (hence many bogus "ill" people getting medical marijuana cards). There has been little effort to limit that part, at least in the popular medical marijuana clinics found in many states. This (getting high) also happens with many pharmaceuticals, with very clearly documented dependence, addiction, and horrible side effects to follow, but yet we accept this because the medicine has gone through the approved processes.

Since people have mostly focused on just one of the numerous cannabinoids, THC, and only now are beginning to focus on the ignored (as worthless for getting high) CBD, there is some catching up to do. Why wouldn't many of the other cannabinoids, including CBD, have some sort of effect (good, bad, mild, or terrible) on the body? Getting high is just one of possibly many effects. So now research is going to focus on CBD, which has not been so tightly forbidden by law, because it has been ignored as benign, ergo it wasn't fun, and therefore no one was interested in forbidding it. Maybe it does have potential for positive medical uses with seizures, and maybe other things. Does that make any sense to you? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the reasons I was initially concerned that you had shoehorned so much information into this article is that the research is being done, on a high-CBD product already developed in Great Britian, so it seemed that an article on epilepsy and cannabinoids (like the earlier poor student version) made more sense. Now I've changed my thinking, because this product is being used by parents for other conditions (eg cancer), and sensational televised and media coverage has made this topic one that needs to be covered. In the end, years from now, this television-inspired episode may end up as a footnote at better and more scientific coverage on epilepsy and CBD, but I imagine trials will take a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You may see it as "shoehorning", but my initial concern was to gather as many sources as I could and then let them tell the whole story, without censoring them. That would be unwikipedian. How we then frame and modify that is quite a job, all the time seeking to not deviate from the initial job of telling the whole story as revealed in RS. I fear we have deviated from that in some instances (applying MEDRS to ordinary stuff not governed by MEDRS), but we still have a pretty good story, and I thank you for that.

As to the other high-CBD product in GB, that should become an article. What is that product? I haven't followed this whole medical marijuana subject much at all before this article, so bring me up to date. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I added mention of epidiolex to GW Pharmaceuticals; we don't have drug articles for brand names. (See WP:MEDMOS, and see for example the other GW Pharm product at Nabiximols to which Sativex redirects.) We could set up an article for the generic name of epidiolex, but I'm not sure what that name is, so don't know yet how/where to create that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

More caution from Devinsky

This source contains some good words of caution:

New York's medical marijuana law excludes some who seek the drug, By Edith Honan, Reuters, 8 Jan 2014

While anecdotal evidence gives reasons for patients to be encouraged by the use of the strain, doctors urge caution.
Orrin Devinsky, an epilepsy expert at New York University who has treated Oliver, said data about the safety and effectiveness of "Charlotte's Web" is scant.
"In medicine, the roadside is littered with drugs and compounds and plants that people have sworn by," said Devinsky, who is preparing a clinical trial using a nearly pure form of CBD. "The available data right now in humans is anecdotal - single cases where there could be a tremendous amount of bias in the results."

I know we quote him already, but this adds more.

FYI, Orrin Devinsky has an obvious COI, since he is testing a pharmaceutical. (See also: 1, 2, 3). -- Brangifer (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That is why I haven't expanded more based on Devinsky-- I feel like we've got it covered now, and I think his most worthy point is that the CNN documentary has made it, paradoxically, harder for the real research to happen, as it brought tabloid-style pressure on so many states to pass laws that will now make it harder to conduct the much-needed research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Advocacy via quoting

I see that the quotes from individuals are taking over again, and that they generally seem to amount to advocacy content. I have removed a sample; by using this quote from a non-physician, for advocacy, we are leaving the implication that Dravet Syndrome has a near 100% mortality rate (it doesn't), and leaving out the issue of research needed to determine safety, as in, epilepsy now in a child versus psychosis in a teenager later. That is what the research still needs to sort, among other things. We need not cherry pick quotes from politicians who aren't scientists or physicians or researchers, but do seek to get elected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

You make some good points. As far as possible psychosis later, we know that in susceptible individuals (those who are already prone to schizophrenia), high THC content cannabis can push them "over the edge". It's rare, but it does happen. Here we're dealing with a low THC product, so the research will be interesting. CBD has never been of great interest. THC was always the big thing. Regardless of any possible dangerous side effects, we also know that if a product is an FDA approved pharmaceutical, there are practically no limits as to what horrible side effects will be tolerated, if a slight benefit exists for a certain patient population. That's just the way it's always been, and I have no serious problems with that, but let's be careful not to retain too much of that double standard.

It all comes down to the risk/benefit ratio. Here we seem to have a drastic relief of life-threatening seizures, which cause severe brain damage and damage any quality of life for many victims. Just like Devinsky, I can understand why parents would try anything, when nothing else has worked. I still fear that some will be disappointed when this doesn't work for their child, just like happens with many pharmaceuticals. One always hopes for the best. At the least, compared to FDA approved epilepsy drugs which have severe side effects, they don't seem to be taking much of a risk, other than disappointment. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not up to us to delve into what the research might eventually reveal about what may happen to toddlers given a substance that, most likely, has never been given to toddlers before. We know there is a risk of psychosis, we know the risk doesn't seem to be related to CBD; but we don't know anything about what will happen to toddlers' brains on this extract. What we do know is that the childhood mortality rate of Dravet syndrome is nowhere near 100%, which illustrates the problem with quoting politicians on scientific or medical matters. We can ask Colin for a reliable source on the mortality rate-- my preliminary searches turn up something like 20%, which makes the inclusion of that quote wreckless and irresponsible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And now our (nosotros es mucha gente) wreckless and irresponsible statement, that was in the article only briefly, is mirrored on the internet.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a mirror website, not a "press" notice. Millions of them mirror Wikipedia content, and they are automatically updated from time to time. We really shouldn't take note of them, like at the top. Real press notices of this article are another animal entirely. We should note them. Have you seen any? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The "Mirror" was part of their homepage feature on marijuana in Minnesota this week: see here. That's press coverage, mirror or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't see it as a "feature", except for the fact that every single article, of many types on that page, has "Features" in the URL. In a week it will probably change. That's a web front page which happens to list a number of articles of all types. That three of them happen to be related to cannabis isn't the same as an article discussing this article. That is the type of article Wikipedia would consider worthy of notice for the purposes of the type of link you've created at the top of this page. A link "to" this page isn't worthy of notice, as there are thousands of them, unless that link is part of an article on the subject. I haven't found such an article yet, and that surprises me, as I have created several types of Google Alerts. If I find such an article, I'll bring it here.

OTOH (!), that they felt it worthy to link to their mirror page, possibly in connection with listing two actual articles, might be worthy of a raised eyebrow.

That is a bit unusual, so I have no objection to keeping the link, but it needs tweaking, or a more accurate template, if that's possible. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Now the front page has changed, and other articles are listed. Apparently they use it as their table of contents for the week. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Synth tag

This article is about Charlotte's Web, cannabis. More specifically, because that is what the sources cover the most, it is about the use of a Charlotte's Web extract given to children. This article is not specific to epilepsy. We have multiple reliable sources discussing the use of Charlotte's Web in children to treat cancer; there are more sources than the two we have used, although we don't necessarily need to use more than these two.[3][4] This text is directly from those sources and related to the topic of this article: why is it tagged synth/original research?

The American Cancer Society says: "While it shows promise for controlling cancer pain among some patients, there is still concern that marijuana may cause toxic side effects in some people and that the benefits of THC must be carefully weighed against its potential risks. There is no available scientific evidence from controlled studies in humans that cannabinoids can cure or treat cancer."^[1]^{[original research?]}^{[improper synthesis?]}

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes no reason for it. Removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had forgotten that there is a reference to its use for cancer. The statements aren't connected, so I forgot. It would be better if there were some connection. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

References

^ Cite error: The named reference Young_Riddle was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Charlotte Figi gets some notability too

Here's an interesting bit of notability for Charlotte Figi:

18 People The Obamas Should Have Invited To The State Of The Union, Nick Wing and Shadee Ashtari, The Huffington Post, 01/28/2014

Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent publicity

Medical marijuana bill passes House, Newnan Times-Herald

Parents move to Colorado for 'miracle' pot for children, USA Today

Colo. Pot Aids Kids With Seizures, Worries Doctors, Associated Press

We Need Proof on Marijuana, New York Times

Kentucky Senate panel OKs trial use of cannabis oil, Associated Press

'Charlotte's Web': The New Medical Marijuana, KELO-TV

Migrating for Marijuana Part Two: The possibility of medical marijuana in Texas, KFDA-TV

Doctors call for more study of pot for seizures, Associated Press

Epilepsy Foundation Calls for Increased Medical Marijuana Access and Research, Epilepsy Foundation

Exclusive: Another Sen. Backs Limited Medical Marijuana, WGRZ

Medical cannabis bill is giving hope to the sufferers of epilepsy and their families, Post and Courier

The Next Move: A Medical Marijuana Bill 'In the Spirit of the Constitutional Amendment', The Huffington Post

Gupta: 'I am doubling down' on medical marijuana, CNN (Video)

Sanjay Gupta Says Medical Marijuana Should Be Legalized Federally, The Huffington Post

CNN's Sanjay Gupta Talks ‘Weed’ Sequel: ‘It Seems Politics Trumps Science’ On Marijuana, The Wrap

Medical marijuana refugees: 'This was our only hope' , CNN

Senators Unanimous In Favor Of Cannabis Oil for Sick Kids, KUTV (Utah)

There's still work to do before Utahns can obtain hemp oil extract for seizure treatment, Deseret News (Utah)

Governor Signs Law Making Cannabis Oil Legal, KUTV (Utah)

Senate passes medical cannabis bill for epileptic children by vote of 36-3, Miami Herald (Florida)

As success stories of kids fighting seizures with cannabis oil mount, legal landscape is changing, The Gazette (Colorado)

Charlotte's Web medical cannabis soon to be widely available to Colorado children. Founding brothers expanding operations. The Denver Channel (Colorado)

Experts Debate Use of Cannabis to Control Seizures, Medscape

'This is the start', Spencer Daily Reporter (Iowa)

New York to be next state to allow medical marijuana, CNN (New York)

Lawmakers in 11 states approve low-THC medical marijuana bills

McCrory signs bill legalizing cannabis oil, North Carolina

Few to benefit from bill allowing study of medicinal hemp as epilepsy treatment, North Carolina

Bellevue senators lead charge for CBD oil, Nebraska

Bid to Expand Medical Marijuana Business Faces Federal Hurdles, The New York Times

Live Event: Charlotte's Tangled Web - Considerations for How Doctors and Lawyers Might Avoid the Legal Entanglements of Medical Marijuana in Florida, Florida

Finally, Some Hard Science on Medical Marijuana for Epilepsy Patients, Time (magazine)

Mounting Legal Challenges to Florida Medical Marijuana Regulations, The National Law Review

Medical marijuana trailblazer uproots Co. operation

Advice and cautions for new editors

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. If they look like vandalism they will be reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.

The type of encouragement to edit this article, which was posted on January 4, 2015, on this Facebook profile, is VERY ill-advised. Tell them to stop it. Such misuse of Wikipedia to push an agenda and advertise for competitors is wrong.

We have policies and guidelines here. All content must be properly cited from reliable sources, and one must stay on topic. That means this article must be about Charlotte's Web and (with rare exception) not use sources which don't mention it at all. It is not an article about CBD and other high CBD products.

Threats (we have received them from sick people, who have also threatened Realm of Caring and even suffering children!) will get the police at your door and your PC confiscated. We know EXACTLY which PC you edit from, so don't mess around with Wikipedia. Our CheckUsers are the finest.

This is a serious encyclopedia, not your personal website. Unsourced opinions will not be tolerated. If necessary we'll lock down the article so only experienced editors have access to editing functions.

So, if you have serious suggestions and some good sources, please feel free to edit, but keep in mind that this isn't a private website where you can write anything you want. Requests for advice and help are very welcome. Feel free to ping me or use my talk page to get my attention. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture

Does anyone have a copyright-free or fair use image of the Charlotte's Web strain itself. The only image I could find is probably copyrighted. Clr324 (say hi) 20:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Is the image copyrightable, considering the website likely engages in unlawful activity according to Federal law? 2604:6000:1519:C006:91C0:3F2C:3D48:20EE (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is illegal to inform people about illicit drugs. Still it is best to be on the safe side. Clr324 (say hi) 18:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Trademark

Has anyone ever researched whether the name of this Cannabis strain potentially infringes on the trademark registration 3304089 owned by Paramount Pictures, referring to the book and movie of the same name? The latest status in the Cannabis product trademark registration is "Non-Final Action - Mailed" which indicates the examiner found problems with the trademark registration, which I can only guess means infringement in this case. 2604:6000:1519:C006:91C0:3F2C:3D48:20EE (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits of May 14-15, 2015

@BullRangifer:

A couple of items.

First and foremost, comparing this article to any other drug article I am aware of in Wikipedia, it has an overwhelmingly promotional tone. We don't entitle pharmaceutical drug articles by their trade name, which is usually mentioned only in passing. Accordingly, the proper title for this article would be "Low THC Cannabis" not "Charlotte's Web". And certainly not with a breathless description of how the trade name came into being.

Nor do we provide equally breathless descriptions of the outstanding response of individual patients to treatment with other drugs. There are absolutely some heart-rending stories of melanoma patients brought back from the brink with Keytruda, patients who regained the ability to get up and walk after being treated with the new Vertex CF drug, and people on the brink of death from various blood cancers and solid tumors who have been cured by treatment with Imbruvica. In no case do we dive deeply into the stories of individual patients in heart rending detail. And unlike low THC cannabis, these drugs have actually been through randomized clinical trials that demonstrate that there is some reality behind the case reports. The entire Background and Publicity and Demand sections are cloyingly promotional. Most of the "Need for research and caution" and "Legal Status" sections read like it was pulled from a NORML brochure.

Though this story has been in the popular press, and is difficult to tell without providing some medical details, there are huge problems here with respect to MEDRS.

WP:MEDRS currently reads:

"This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article"

"Many medical claims lack reliable research about the efficacy and safety of proposed treatments or about the legitimacy of statements made by proponents. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find while unreliable sources are readily available. Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact."

Specific medical claims made in the article are in no case supported by MEDRS compliant sources. Throughout the text, these claims are not treated as uncorroborated claims, but as established fact.

"The variety shows potential for medical usage, especially for those who do not wish to experience the typical high of recreational marijuana use." Potential for medical use is a healthclaim. Sanjay Gupta is not a MEDRS compliant source
"First they tried a type called R4, which was low in THC and high in CBD, and saw immediate and dramatic improvement" - this is clearly a medical claim, but it is sourced to CNN. CNN is not MEDRS compliant.
"Her parents and physicians said her seizures were reduced to two to three per month" Another medical claim sourced to CNN. This one is attributed, but is a statement of fact and not opinion, so MEDRS applies.
" Her parents said in 2013 that she had about four seizures per month, and is able to engage in normal childhood activities" Same as above, its a health claim, and is treated as factual in the text of the article. MEDRS explicitly rejects case reports as evidence for health effects. The article can mention that the parents have claimed this, but it should be offset with the president of the Epilepsy Foundation's statement that seizures come and go, and that the cannabis is not necessarily responsible.

I don't know if we can work this out or if I need to take it to the NPOV board. Its the most extreme example of promotionalism I've ever encountered here.

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 16:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure we can work it out. I'm totally open to working with you. The article has already been pared down quite radically, leaving the content which was justified by the sources and notability of the subject. Can we move this down to the next section, which I apparently wrote while you were writing this? That way we can be specific and use numbers. Your comments above can be copied and numbered below and I can work with you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I'm traveling, so please be patient if I don't respond immediately. There is no rush. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

With no hesitation, and with no intended hyperbole, I echo Formerly98's assessment that:

Its the most extreme example of promotionalism I've ever encountered here.

and even more troubling is this factor that may have been driving the promotional tone.

I left Wikipedia for a good part of the year because the development and promotional/advocacy tone of this article so disgusted me, and shows how Wikipedia can be used to influence policy among the desperately ill who will seek any answer. We learned, apparently, nothing from the MMR vaccine controversy#Media role. I hope Formerly98 will make more progress here than I did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Huge deletions

A huge series of deletions were made by Formerly 98, which I restored subject to discussion. Many of the deletions were based on misunderstandings of MEDRS, and others were deletions of deadlinks and content in the lead which is carefully backed up by properly referenced content in the body.

I have gone through each edit and tweaked a few to meet concerns. Saving content is better than outright deletion. There are a few deletions which need examining. Are they warranted, or can they be fixed? I am numbering each point:

This one questioned RYOT as a source. Is there really question about the quality of the article? The author isn't a newbie, but is an experienced journalist who has previously worked for the LA Times. Please discuss.
This deletion is OR based on an old source which does not discuss importation or Charlotte's Web. It does contain interesting info about the role of THC: "If the product does cause THC to enter the human body,..." I will still tweak the wording to recognize that this is according to RS, and not necessarily based on current law.
This huge deletion should be examined for specific wording which can be tweaked. A general claim against that content is hard to evaluate. Please be specific. This is history. Any claims are clearly attributed as such. They are not absolute biomedical claims of fact, but of history and belief.
This even larger deletion is also vague. It's history and shows the notability of the topic. Please be specific.
I don't see any medical claims here.
Can this be tweaked and attributed better?
This content follows legal actions. There has been much since then, but because of indecision, delays, etc., it's not proper to include it until decisions are finalized. It's possible some of this should be updated, but simple outright deletion shouldn't be used. Get specific.

Okay, that's where we're at. Please discuss each point using the numbers. I'm sure we can improve the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I support Formerly98's deletions, and since they were reverted, have added promotional and POV tags. Having been down this road already, I don't see the need to revisit yet again the question list above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed all RYOT references, as they accept reader contribuitions and therefore fail WP:RS RS does not apply to the author, but to the publisher. We dont' know where this author is now or why no longer at old employer. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 18:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
As described above, the material claiming a miraculous cure after failing multiple other therapies was removed as being very obviously health claims and falling under the terms of WP:MEDRS. Not only is the sourcing completely unacceptable, but MEDRS states that "Case reports, like other anecdotes, fall short of the standards of medical evidence". I've removed it again, along with some material that doesn't make sense once the health claims are removed. More later. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 19:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Documentation of claims is not promotion, at least not when done properly. We make it clear that they are unproven claims. There would be no story without that. There's a whole section devoted to cautions about that. We have plenty of articles which document that anecdotal claims are attached to all kinds of alternative therapies. That's part of their story. We just document it in a manner which is not promotional. We don't ignore that the claims exist. That would be whitewashing and very unwikipedian.
What's great about not hiding these things is that it gives us an opportunity to bring to the table what MEDRS say about them, IOW they debunk the claims, and thus readers get the whole story. Scientific skeptics here, who act like true wikipedians, don't hide or ignore alternative medicine nonsense. If it's written in RS, we use the opportunity to show what MEDRS also say about the matter. Wikipedia does a great service in this regard.-- BullRangifer (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I look forward to specific wordings which are seen as promotional. I'm sure we can tweak the wording to make them less objectionable, but outright deletion of properly sourced content is not an option used by true wikipedians. We don't pick and choose what has been written out there. We document all of it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"but outright deletion of properly sourced content is not an option used by true wikipedians." Sure it is. Per WP:V,

"While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 12:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Reverted

Formerly_98 made a large number of substantial changes in quick succession, including moving the article. These changes do not have consensus. Per WP:BRD I have restored the content as it was immediately beforehand, and I encourage Formerly_98 and others to discuss changes one by one rather than take a machete to a mature article. For the record, I am about as opposed to promotional articles on quack "cures" as it's possible to be, I think many of Formerly_98's changes are liekly to be justified, but it';s hard to assess them en bloc due tot he rapidity. I expect that specific discussions will indeed yield consensus. I am with SandyGeorgia on this: the article does read as overly promotional and definitely does need toning down, but I can't pick apart the large number of changes, so please meet me half way here and talk me through them. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Anyone who knows me knows I'm just as opposed to promotional articles. We have enough lunatic charlatans trying to do that. But that doesn't mean we get rid of such articles. That's against policy. We just need to frame how we present the existing sources. We document the anecdotes and false claims, making it clear that they are such, and we present the MEDRS facts about them.

We need to deal with each issue in a collaborative manner. If Formerly 98 wants to create an article about "Low THC cannabis", that would be fine, but that's not the only subject in this article. This one covers much more.

We don't create new articles by hijacking existing ones. It would be like there being many classic cars, and someone wants to make a chassis museum. They see a car they don't like, so they steal it and reduce it to a chassis, and then add it to their chassis museum. But now the original and famous car is gone. That car had a life, fame, was written about in many RS, and now it's just gone. It was much more than a chassis, and the RS show that to be the case.

This is an article about a medical marijuana strain in Colorado, made famous through Sanjay Gupta's CNN specials, and further media attention. Every single day it's mentioned. This has spurred much debate, news, and legal proceedings, with many state laws and a federal law named after Charlotte's Web. It is also the impetus to much more research on the subject, and also to loosening of laws which previously hindered such research. We can thank Charlotte's Web and Sanjay Gupta for achieving that. We need to know what's really happening, because anecdotes are not reliable.

The article is the story of this whole matter, and thus it's not solely about low THC medical marijuana. It's a story based on what RS say, and that's our job. The existence of the RS dictates our coverage. We are not allowed to ignore those we don't like. It is therefore about the strain, its producers, the girl it's named after (Charlotte Figi), unproven anecdotal medical claims, the reactions of scientists and doctors, and the laws it has engendered. Documentation of these things is not the same as improper promotion.

Our job is to document the sum total of human knowledge as we find it in RS. That's what I've done, hence it's not a narrow article, but covers all facets of the subject. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who knows me knows I'm just as opposed to promotional articles. I know you, and as this article shows, that claim is dubious. This article is undeniably the worst, and most dangerous, I have ever encountered on Wikipedia, and it has every sign of having been authored by a "true believer". But no need for personalization here; there is MUCH work to be done, and thanks to JzG for being willing to see it through.

I had considerable concerns with the versions left even after Formerly98 cleaned up the article, but so that this discussion won't get unnecessarily gummed up, I will present my additional concerns after Formerly's first concerns are worked through. On We don't create new articles by hijacking existing ones, I hope we do when the existing one is as dangerously promotional and POV as this one is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sandy, your judgment of me seems to be based on only this article. You're forgetting my track record of opposition to promotion of alternative medicine nonsense, my work on Andrew Wakefield, Luc Montagnier, opposition to promotion of anti-vax nonsense, etc.. My reputation as a scientific skeptic in the real world has cost me a fortune, with death threats over my head! I constantly live with that reality. I suspect that Guy knows my reputation better than you do.

A difference between us seems to be that I take Wikipedia's goal of documenting the sum total of human knowledge quite seriously, and that includes the unpleasant task of documenting notable nonsense, lies, conspiracy theories, opinions, etc.. I obviously favor the scientific positions, but don't allow that to cloud my perceptions to the point I become a deletionist who denies the existence of unpleasant realities by opposing the existence of those articles, which is what you're doing. I just make sure the scientific positions are included and tone down any promotion. We must tell the whole story.

I see Wikipedia's position as a mainstream encyclopedia, which favors RS over unreliable ones, as a position closely allied with reality based scientific endeavor and methods. Articles on notable nonsense must be written, and they must document that nonsense (see homeopathy and chiropractic), but they also include the scientific views on those subjects, so readers learn about the nature of the nonsense (some do before they arrive here), but they also get the true scientific facts which debunk the nonsense. That's our job, and it's a service to science and society.

Documentation is not the same thing as promotion, and you seem to have difficulty with that concept, so you (as you have previously said) would just like to totally eliminate this article, even though the subject is clearly notable. That's a clear violation of our notability policy. Also "I don't like it" is not a legitimate reason for making an edit, and you need to drop that attitude.

Please start being specific, because your general complaints are worthless to me. If you see specific wording that seems promotional, I would LOVE to deal with it. You may have a point, but you need to let me know specifically. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Jing, people. I like BullRangifer and I have immense respect for SandyGeorgia. I think this is a case where mature discussion will reach an agreeable outcome, otherwise I would not have gone near it. Please don't make me feel like an idiot for getting involved. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What are "jings"? Off to urban dictionary I go ...

Whatever BR's views of himself are in here (Wikipedia) or out there (real world), he needs to stop bringing that into a content discussion. It's irrelevant what he thinks of himself in here, out there, or what he thinks others think of him anywhere. The content here speaks for itself, and it's what we are here to work on. Please reduce the walls of text, BR; no one here is a novice editor, and we aren't (as you call them) the "lunatics" you encounter on other topics. Brevity works. (And I don't appreciate the characterization of other editors elsewhere as "lunatics", either. Glass houses and all that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ya learn something new every day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I made quite number of changes here, some of which centered around WP:MEDRS issues and some of which revolved around what I regard as the exceptionally promotional tone of this article. I'd like to request that we get some discussion on these. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 10:23, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Naming the article after the tradename of the drug

We don't do this in any other drug article in Wikipedia. Viagra could be said to have stirred similar levels of press and popular interest when it came out, maybe more (I believe it was on the front page of both Newsweek and Time Magazine the same week), but what is our Viagra article called? Sildenafil. Not Viagra, "the Little Blue Pill" or even "Pole Prep". We used the name of the active drug substance.

I further believe that even if this product is the wonder drug that the article makes it out to be, it is not unique. Other companies are producing low THC cannabis, and there is even a version of this material being developed as a pharmaceutical. These include Cannavest, Hemp Inc., Hemp Meds and GW Pharma among others. When has it been Wikipedia's role to promote a single brand of a multi-source product?

I am sympathetic to the idea that this single company has succeeded in wrapping the developing story around its own brand name, such that it is difficult to tell the story in a brand and manufacturer neutral manner. But I feel we should work very hard to make sure this article ceases to read like an advertisement. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 10:23, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

The article writers here have a lot of material. If this were to be called "Low THC cannabis" the section on Charlotte's Web would be very, very large. This would warrant the creation of its own page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Splitting ). Perhaps the solution is to have a separate page called "Low THC cannabis", which contains a short section on Charlotte's Web that links to this page. Psyden (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be justified if Charlotte's Web differed from other Low THC cannabis products in any meaningful way other than its trade name. Do we have any high quality references that state this? Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 14:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It mainly differs in that it has so much history behind it. There is a very interesting story here. As far as chemical differences, I do not know. There are over 80 cannabinoids in the cannabis plant in addition to various terpenes, each having various effects, possibly an entourage effect ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165946/ ), and the levels of these cannabinoids varies in every strain. I do not know the chemical makeup of Charlotte's Web, other than low THC and high CBD. Psyden (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That rich history is indeed the main difference, hence it's not like any other of the articles and stubs we have on medical marijuana brands. The history is rich with sources and ramifications. Laws are named after it, and formerly forbidden research is now allowed, all because of the story of a little girl, Charlotte Figi. It's a human interest story that has created history. The product itself is probably no different than some other low THC high CBD products. It's just better controlled, laboratory tested, and marketed.

The story gets even wilder, but we can't use non-RS sources. I keep informed by using Google Alerts. There is a very harsh and libelous war being waged on Facebook and other places against the product, the Stanley brothers, and Realm of Caring. The Figi family actually gets threats (they aren't even the manufacturers). I've seen a pretty stupid threat on FB of organized boycotts against any person, organization, news source, magazine, etc., which mentions Charlotte's Web. This is motivated by competitors who are jealous of the attention Charlotte's Web has garnered, largely without much action of their own, at least originally. Those competitors have even vandalized the article.

The is much opposition to the product and the laws, because it all endangers full recreational legalization. Growers and users know that if politicians pass low-CBD-only laws, they may not be motivated to pass full legalization.

So we are only telling the part of the story which can be found in RS of various kinds. I have never included the wilder promotional health claims the Stanley brothers have made, but we can't delete the basic claim which has always been at the forefront, that of it being used for seizures. Too many RS and MEDRS have commented on that one. We just have to note that the claim is made, and that there is no proof as yet. The brothers have become salesmen who sometimes cross the line into quackery type statements. We don't have to include primary source statements of that kind, but if independent RS call them out on stupid claims, I'd love to include that! I'm watching for such sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, first I'd say that we should have WP:MEDRS compliant sources for any discussion of the composition of any material used to treat a human health problem. But we don't. What we do have is the following:

The CW Botanticals website shows a bottle of the product with the Label "Dietary Supplement; Hemp Extract; 5 mg per cannabadiol per capsule. It is accompanied by a statement that they will soon begin producing capsules containing 25 mg of cannabadiol. No ingredients other than "hemp oil" and cannabadiol are specified. The article states that the company planned in 2014 to ensure all products contained less than 0.3% THC. However, it all hemp oil manufacturers will maintain THC levels of < 0.3% because this level is closely tied to the legality of growing the product in the United States, so this is not differentiating.
PlusCBDoil sells hemp oil capsules. The only listed ingredient is cannabadiol. So it is indisinguishable from Charlotte's web on the basis of the two manufacturer's statements about the two products' composition.
Hempmed's product is described as Hemp oil and lists cannabadiol as the sole active ingredient. It is derived from hemp plants chosen to minimize THC content.
Hemp Health Technologies sells hemp oil listing cannabadiol as the sole active ingredient.

So what we have is a product (Low THC, high CBD hemp oil) with multiple manufacturers, one of whom has a very effective PR department. Can I suggest that we change the name of the article to the name of the product (low THC cannabis) and note the extensive publicity around this particular manufacturer? Others state that they are producing a product with indistinguishable characteristics, and we have no RS that rebuts these claims. What we are doing now is tantamount to having an article on motor oil that only describes the Castroil brand, and it entitled Castroil Motor Oil. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 00:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for starting a new thread below which forked this discussion; my views are in the Article name is an advert for one particular trade name section.

I agree with Formerly98 based on the Vioxx analogy, and that other trade names are marketed in other states. When the Charlotte's Web craze from one state has passed, and new marketers have developed products, other states will still be dealing in low THC cannabis. There is no reason the "rich" history of Charlotte's Web development can't be told in the generic article.

BR, there is a greater chance others will read the talk page if you will refrain from trying to pull heartstrings with walls of text involving Facebook anecdotes. One day, either the product will be proven bogus, in which case the Stanley/Figi history will be a debacle, or it will be successfully marketed, and there will be multiple trade names. Let history tell itself-- this is an encyclopedia, not a human interest tabloid, and please consider NOTAFORUM when telling sad tales about what goes on with the Figis, the Stanleys, and Facebook. All you have done with those stories is a) fill up the page with a wall of text that has nothing to do with article content, and b) reveal that you do indeed have a bias here. You are not impartial on this topic; look at your writing above. We need to make decisions here based on Wikipedia policy and guideline-- not your sympathies for the Figis or Stanleys. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Extensive medical claims supported by non-MEDRS sources

This is again a difficult issue, but one that we can do much better on than the current text. On one hand, WP:MEDRS states that

Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

What are biomedical information is presented in this article and how is it sourced?

Statement	Underlying medical claim	Source	MEDRS-Compliant?
According to her parents, Charlotte was having 300 grand mal seizures a week,	Establishes severity of underlying illness for which claims of successful treatment will later be made	CNN	No¹
Seizures so violent that her parents put a do not resuscitate order in her medical records:	Establishes severity of underlying illness for which claims of successful treatment will later be made	CNN, Newspaper	No¹
She was five years old, and she was do not resuscitate, wheelchair, end of life, hospice, feeding tube, oxygen, seizing every thirty minutes.	Establishes severity of underlying illness for which claims of successful treatment will later be made	ABC News	No¹
Before trying medical marijuana, the Figis had already tried "every other option before resorting to this type of prescription .	Establishes severity of underlying illness for which claims of successful treatment will later be made	CNN	No¹
First they tried a type called R4, which was low in THC and high in CBD, and saw immediate and dramatic improvement	Claim of medical efficacy	CNN	No¹
Her parents and physicians said her seizures were reduced to two to three per month,	Claim of medical efficacy	CNN	No¹
Her parents said in 2013 that she had about four seizures per month, and is able to engage in normal childhood activities	Claim of medical efficacy	CNN	No¹

¹Per WP:MEDRS:

Scientific findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as the original, primary research report is released, and before the scientific community has had an opportunity to analyze the new results. Such sources should generally be entirely omitted (in accordance with recentism), because determining the weight to give to such a study requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on them).
The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles... A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story.
Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources.

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 10:23, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

I think you're misapplying MEDRS to the point where the story cannot be told at all. Those are simple details of their story, and they are not disputed. The only dispute in any RS or MEDRS source is whether the CBD is the explanation. No one denies it happened. No one knows whether it would happen to anyone else either. We don't go there, but we do include the cautions from medical authorities.

I notice that there is a huge OR and SYNTH violation added. (Now tagged.) Medical sources which do not mention Charlotte's Web are now included. That's against policy. I already had plenty of cautions from authorities, made in the context of Charlotte's Web. That's how we do things. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98, we don't need a MEDRS compliant source for the first four items. No MEDRS compliant source will talk in detail about individual patients without anonymising. This is the narrative, the context of the human interest story. The sources are fine for this. The other three are problematic only because the source is uncritical: it needs a balancing source that establishes how likely it is that this might be due to something else, how plausible the claims are and so on. I do think this needs additional sources, but the current ones are not inadmissible per se. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. We still need to tell the story. I have included the types of content dealing with the last concern in one section. Maybe it needs to be spread out as qualifiers. The sources are already there. I also figured that "Her parents and physicians said..." would be enough to make it clear that Wikipedia is not making a medical claim. The claim is attributed. Anyway, it's not much of a claim. It's just telling the story, which no RS dispute. If that wording could be improved, then fine. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure why anyone is giving credence to this notion that we have some obligation to tell a human interest story. We have underlying medical issues that are not at all insignificant: we don't just toss aside MEDRS when it suits our purpose, at the same time we are getting other editors banned on topics we consider "lunatic charlatans" because they disrespect MEDRS. Please, one standard, across the board. I take difference with the idea that we can somehow disregard MEDRS to tell a "human interest story" (let's apply the same standard to Jenny McCarthy and her human interest story of her dear son, then, OK?). This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or sensational profit-seeking media.
And just to keep the record straight about the advocacy that has been and is going on here: BR, did you really say just above: I also figured that "Her parents and physicians said..." would be enough to make it clear that Wikipedia is not making a medical claim. Whoa, there. You aren't really going to claim, with me reading, that it was you had added attribution, are you ??? This is the article I encountered. Anyone can step through the diffs from there, and see just how that wording came to be. Not saying it matters at this point, but let's keep the record straight. Wikipedia was making a medical claim, in Wikipedia's voice, with no attribution, I tried to clarify and attribute it correctly (to their parents blog), and you beefed it up to include physicians. Which I believe is misleading our readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The section Charlotte's_Web_(cannabis)#Need_for_research_and_caution deals with the scientific evidence, and lack of same, for effects claimed. This is the section for inclusion of such content, and it must be in the context of CW. We don't want anymore OR or SYNTH added. Check out those sources. They can likely be milked for more content and even better wordings which puncture "breathless" claims. Since they are then content in the body, they can also be used elsewhere and in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk)

From my POV, this article is primarily about either a potential new treatment for epilepsy; about a company in the business of manufacturing cannabis derived products; or is about a little girl who is notable mainly for having her epilepsy improve.

If it is a bout a new treatment for epilepsy, we should try to align with MEDRS to a much greater degree
If it is about a company, we should try to write a more dispassionate and non-promotional discussion of its business prospects and revenue
If it is about the little girl, we should expand her early life history and talke about what has happened to her in recent months/years.

What we should not do is write an article that focuses on this as a new treatment for epilepsy, gives all the credit to a single manufacturer of a generic product, and uses a single case study as evidence of its potential.

I understand that the story got a lot of headlines, and needs to be included here in spite of the MEDRS problems. What I would propose is the following to make this article less promotional, more balanced, and in close alignment with the ideals and goals of MEDRS:

The title should be changed to the generic product name. There is no RS, or as near as I can tell, non-RS that suggests that high CBD, low THC hemp oils have pharmacologically differing compositions, nor do the manufacturers claim this themselves.
The article should start out with and emphasize high quality, scholarly studies of CBD for the treatment of these rare childhood epilepsies. EVen if we have to use primary sources from pubmed, that would be better and more reliable medical sources than we have now. We can and should have more citations to pubmed-listed journals and medical association treatment guidelines than to CNN.
The prominence and detail of the single case report that the article currently focused on should be reduced.

I believe that the real story here, from an encyclopedic point of view, is about the potential for cannabadiols to potentially impact the treatment of certain rare epilepsies. Its ok to mention Charlotte and even Charlotte's web. But its insane that we go through the details of how the manufacturer decided to change the trade name of the drug in the first paragraphs of this article and relegate discussion of the opinions of major medical groups to the last paragraph, intermingled with quotes from medical marijuana advocacy groups.

Is there a compromise achieveable here, or should we go to the NPOV board? Thanks and with respect, Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 01:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

On this "human interest" element, I would encourage (no implore) both Formerly and JzG to go back and reread everything our most knowledgeable epilepsy editor and FA writer (Colin-- who by the way, was also one of the main architects of MEDRS) wrote on this page. We have an editor on board who knows "human interest" quite well when it comes to epilepsy, but his words were wasted here. Most of his writing on the topic is in the section "Things to fix"; well worth reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Promotionalism

I'm not quite what to say here to anyone who does not see an obvious problem. I can't describe this article without the use of the word "breathless". As I have noted above, there are scores of drugs for which we can tell heart-rending strories of miraculously successful treatments. In some cases these really are due to the drug, and in other cases, sometimes people just get better. But what we don't do in any other drug article in wikipedia is to tell these emotionally loaded stories of individual cases. Again, I am sympathetic to the fact that the press has picked this up in a certain way, but as an encyclopedia we want to try to minimize echoing the promotional tone of the popular press. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 10:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not obvious, but I do think your concern is reasonable. Please propose specific changes. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we need to minimalize any promotional tone, but not to the point that there is no story left. Elimination seems to be what you're aiming at.

So, please provide exact quotes, and let's see if we can tweak the wording so it still abides by the source. "Documentation without any breathlessness." I've learned that by just slowing down my breath catches up with me! (I'm a fast walker.)

-- BullRangifer (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Guy, I would start with the fact that the article is names after a particular brand, and that the story of how the commercial name was developed comes before any MEDRS compliant source or even any scholarlhy article discussing the efficacy in the text. And if fact, BullRangifer has now moved the latter content even further down, so that we don't discuss expert opinion until the bottom 50% of the article. That would be my first example of promotionalism. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 03:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

OS tag

Resolved

– Cautions and evidence section moved higher in article.

-- BullRangifer (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. That the putative activity of CW is not due to Cannabadiol? If so, its funny that CW botanicals discusses the potency of their product entirely in terms of its cannabadiol content. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 02:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm also unclear on why you feel than expert opinion should all be moved to the bottom 50% of the article.Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 03:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

What's an OS tag? My timezones and jetlag may be affecting me.

CBD is obviously considered the putative activity of CW. Lots of research is focusing on that. Isn't that clear in the article?

Expert opinion belongs in the same section. Its location isn't locked in stone. It's just better to tell the story of the subject first. That's usual procedure. Mention of expert opinion has been increased in the lead, in case you hadn't noticed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Article name is an advert for one particular trade name

As explained earlier by Formerly98, we don't use trade names for drugs. The article should be more correctly named Low THC cannabis, and it should mention trade names other than Charlotte's Web, like ACDC, Harlequin, and Cannatonic.[5] Wikipedia is not an advertisement for one particular trade name produced by one particular company, and the article never mentions other brands. (That same source mentions the Cochrane review.) I haven't caught up with the rest of the posts above, but at minimum this source provides the basis for correcting the promotional name of this article; certainly more sources discussing other trade names can be found, and it's unclear why they haven't been used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please keep these types of comments in the same thread above. We've already mentioned this. This article is about far more than Low THC cannabis.

I think Guy's removal of the tag was correct, and your restoration improper. Your edit summary is a real shocker. It's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard in my 12-13 years here!:

"this article is an advertisement for one specific brand when there are others,.."[6]

By your reasoning, we should change the title of Chevrolet Corvette (and lots of other articles) to Sports car, because there are many other sports cars. The problem (for you) is that the Chevrolet Corvette is independently notable enough to justify its own article. We have hundreds of thousands (millions?) of articles which would be radically affected by your reasoning, so no, let's follow policy.

Your failure to understand and abide by our notability policy has already been noted. This subject is independently notable to an extreme degree, far more than enough to justify this article's existence. This is a well developed, mature, and very well resourced article about a notable subject.

Anyone who wants to write an article about Low THC cannabis is welcome to do so. I hope it happens. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Your Chevy analogy is interesting for autos, but not drugs. We don't have an article on vioxx or prozac or synthroid. I could make a case for notability of trade name Vioxx based on press coverage, because Vioxx killed my mother. If we are going to be governed by what the press reports and what terms the press uses, she wasn't killed by Rofecoxib, she was killed by Vioxx-- that's what the laypress most frequently called it in the heyday of reporting the scandal. (Hint: headlines = money, brand names not generic names, while we have guidelines for drugs, we aren't a tabloid). We don't have an article on Vioxx in spite of the deaths and the press coverage because we are an encyclopedia, not a news rag, and we use trade names.

Children with epilepsy are taking various brands of low THC cannabis, not just Charlotte's Web. And one reason we have MEDRS is precisely so our medical content doesn't fall prey to the vagaries of the press and politicians-- both of which have had their way with this article.

Since JzG removed the advert tag before I listed an unused source with other brand names in this new thread and explained my reasoning, in the future, if I add a source which I believe justifies a tag, how about we let an independent party (that would be JzG) decide if my tagging was unjustified or not? That will make things easier here.

By the way, why was that source not used? I know you were following the press quite closely when we worked earlier on this article; why are we not mentioning other products in other states? If this article is going to be all about the politics of legalizing medical cannibis (which it is), why are you leaving out other trade names?

And I'm sorry I haven't yet caught up on every section above: the first sections I read were full of unnecessary lecturing, so I just dug in and started working. BR, please stop lecturing experienced editors about policy and guideline we know as well as anyone. This is not acupuncture, and we are here because there is a legitimate difference of opinion over what you characterize as a "well developed, mature, and very well resourced article about a notable subject" . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It's called staying on topic. This article touches on many topics, but only as they are related to CW. Mention of other products would be improper. They have their own articles. They could all be mentioned in an article about lot THC or medical marijuana. This is a much broader story. Don't try to hijack, plunder, and rape it. Write your own article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation style

Working on articles that use list-defined references is difficult to the point that credible, experienced FA writers and editors have described them as an intentional deterrent to open editing (see here and other discussions linked) . I suggest we lose the list-defined references in favor of conventional referencing, which will make the drastic rewrite this article needs easier to accomplish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Support changing the citation style to avoid list-defined references, using instead standard inline ref tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

What does policy and the MoS say? IIRC, the original author dictates the style and date format, and unless there are compelling reasons to change (your "I don't like it" doesn't count.), it should stay. It makes the article a heck of a lot cleaner and easier to edit. Go ahead and add refs as you wish and I'll do the work. Okay? That way you don't have to do the work of keeping a clean article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The appropriate guideline is WP:CITEVAR. Another useful page is WP:OWN. If there is consensus to change the style, it can be changed. Working on this article is impossible because of the citation style, which is a style that seems to intentionally make it hard for others to work on the article. You are the original editor, and your style stays unless it is changed by consensus of other editors, who find it hard to work with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the guideline. I just wasn't sure if you were. Courtesy is the overwhelming emphasis in that guideline, and let's hope it rules here too. The style is quite easy to get used to, IF you have the will. I initially found it difficult because I didn't understand it. The assumption of bad faith ("seems to intentionally make it hard for others to work on the article") is really below you, and you know it.

Like all things in life, "it's easy when you know how," and here's your chance to learn. It makes it super easy to keep track of large numbers of sources, and we have many. I first encountered it in a number of featured articles. I couldn't figure it out. It seemed odd, but then I realized that some of the most experienced editors used it.

It's a style that appeals to neat freaks. This is the first (and only?) article I've ever created with this style. Dealing with so many sources was horribly difficult before. Now it's easy to edit the article because it's so clean. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are "quite familiar with the guideline",would you please refrain from wasting time by asking a question that I then in good faith have to reply to? I've worked on quite a few articles, and I don't need to learn anything. It's a simple matter: if there is consensus, we change the style. If there isn't, we don't. I find it very hard to even excerpt text to talk for discussion, because I have to go elsewhere to get the citation-- it takes twice as much work. Please don't play word games with me; if you ask what a guideline says, I will tell you (it was and is apparent that you don't understand that the citation style can change if consensus warrants). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware that because you "don't like it", you might be able to get a change of consensus. So much for courtesy. I really hope for better from you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Request quote, Nutt article

Resolved

– Dead link fixed by me.

-- BullRangifer (talk) 08:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The Nutt quote is sourced to a deadlink: [7] Please excerpt as much as you are able here without violating copyright, to determine if the source (an opinion piece) is used correctly and avoids cherrypicking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I have updated it. You could have done it yourself. It's a properly attributed opinion from an expert. That's how we deal with opinions. We attribute them, source them, and then readers can check the context for more information. It's definitely a RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd just say here that David Nutt is a controversial figure. Is there any secondary coverage giving weight to his opinions as worthy of our mention? Alexbrn (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

He certainly does seem to be an interesting and influential character, with quite a career. BTW, his opinion is not unusual or even controversial anymore. It's become the majority opinion, even among the American public, and shockingly, even among the GOP. Conservatives are among the leaders in seeking reform of existing laws which forbid research. Here we have a prominent and notable person calling for such reform. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for refreshing the URL to a working link. If I could have done it, I would have done it. I have been looking for the article all day, have emailed others asking if they have it, and had not been able to locate it. By the way it was touted, I thought it was a real journal article, not a website-- so I was looking in the wrong place.

There is much work to be done here, and I'm not one of those "lunatic charlatans" you reference above, nor am I likely to shy away from hard work. If you want to get through this work as painlessly as possible, check your attitude. I will go read that article now, which means I'm done for the evening (and still haven't caught up on the walls of text above on this talk page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh my! You are definitely not a lunatic charlatan. I was referring to quacks and those so described by Jimbo. Who knew he had such strong feelings against quacks?! You are anything but such an editor. I really appreciated all your hard work on the Andrew Wakefield article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

If that is your true feeling, then please, please go back and read everything Colin wrote on this page, with a clean, open, receptive mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The situation has developed much more since then and reaffirmed the notability of exactly this subject. It deserves to stay. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Well. When I said I would go read the article and was done for the evening, I did not realize that I would find a grand total of two sentences about Charlotte's Web. Based on the prominence we give this little political blurb in our article, I expected I would have to trudge through a whole, real, long, medical article. I didn't expect find to find two sentences in a political opinion piece.

We certainly seem to be pandering to the politics. I think Alexbrn has a good question on this one, and it looks pretty puffed up here to me. (By the way, they link to Wikipedia, and you included it on the talk page as a press mention? Really? Everyone links to Wikpedia-- press mentions are usually where they actually talk about the article. Because you linked it on talk I expected it to be a real discussion of the significance of this article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone else started that business of linking mentions of Wikipedia at the top of article talk. I thought that was standard procedure. It's no big deal to me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It's just unfortunate that I wasted the entire day looking for access to what I thought was an important journal article, when it's just a website with a passing mention of Charlotte's Web (from someone of dubious credibility, no less). Many of our FAs have the press link on talk, because the press actually discusses our articles, which is different than just linking to them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll be more careful about such "press" links in the future. Our opinions about Nutt are just that. He's a RS for his opinion, and it rates far more than ours. We aren't allowed to whitewash out opinions because we don't like the source or person. That's very unwikipedian. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Herbal supplement

Resolved

– That wording has been removed by me.

[8] -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC) (I previously got mixed up and thought that these two removals did the job. [9] [10]. Those actually apply to the next section below. Sorry about that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC))

Not done Not resolved. I said I would leave this talk page, but I just read the article,[11] see that content is still there, and find you marking items raised by me as resolved. You do not WP:OWN this talk page, and I am weighing in here again in spite of my promise to leave only because I want to give the opportunity to address this behavior so that it need not come before the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It is currently classified as an herbal supplement.^[1]

References

^ Leasca, Stacey (April 19, 2015), Charlotte’s Web: Meet the Little Girl Leading the Fight for Cannabis Oil, RYOT, retrieved April 19, 2015

The source cited is not adequate for this claim.
Please avoid "currently" (see WP:REALTIME; "currently" has no meaning in the context of an encyclopedia which changes by the minute.
Who classified it as a "herbal supplement" and when? Where's the document, or are we just taking the Stanley brothers word for it?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a secondary source from an experienced journalist. Do you want to do OR and find a primary source? Is that proper for a Wikipedia editor to do? Hmmm.... That might be a good job for you. If you can prove that the secondary source is wrong, then I'll be happy to fix that, AND I'll thank you for it! Until it's proven wrong, there is no justification for removing it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

BR, please-- this is the third time I have made this request in less than an hour. Check your attitude; no one in here is a novice editor. READ the source, absorb what IT says relative to what we say, and then please answer the question in a straightforward manner, sans attitude. The source is not making the claims that we are making in Wikipedia's voice, and your views on the source are not in sync with everyone's views on the source. Do you have any high quality source making the same claims and do any of them base it on anything other than what the Stanley Brothers claim? The Stanley Brothers are not an independent source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about my frustration showing. I wrote all those comments before any of your requests. Thanks for the heads up.

Is there really any serious doubt that it's classified as an herbal supplement? I'm not sure of what's involved. I imagine it would be possible to contact Stacey Leasca and ask her where she got that information. She's an experienced journalist, so she got it from somewhere. We have another ref (Waltz) with the same information, but that one is clearly citing the Stanley brothers. If they are getting their information from the legal authorities, and if Leasca is too, then we would be remiss to delete it. We don't know, but they do.

Hmmm..... We could also delete both mentions and wait for it to become more officially announced. That's what I'm doing with lots of the legislation in the works. It's not worth writing much more than short mention about something which isn't finished. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

BR, I was just re-reading talk, and have you forgotten the claims that Realm of Caring was a non-profit when it wasn't? Claims made by them and repeated in the press? Yes, there is a serious doubt (because of past errors), and with or without doubt, we have to get this right. Please invest in the time to reread the entire talk page and realize that we found things that turned out not to be accurate. No, I'm not taking some non-independent sources word for anything, because we already found many documented errors here, and you hold those journalists apparently in higher regard than you hold MEDRS or medical sources (reread the talk page-- you reveal your hand many times). This is a medical article, and people's lives are affected. We should be taking extreme care with every detail-- not taking the Stanley's word for anything, and not relying on tabloid sources (I really had to remove the Daily Mail and from this article!!). Will you please re-read everything Colin wrote to you on this page, and consider what this article has done??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Things have changed a lot since then. While the notability of the subject was already enough to justify an article back then, we are way beyond that now, what with all the legal actions tied by name to the specific subject of this article, and also all the research that is now happening.

I believe we documented that RoC was registered as a non profit public charity. It's currently ref 21. Is that wrong? -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Promotional claims in lead unverified

Resolved

– Much of that wording has been removed by me.

[12] [13]. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done Not resolved. I said I would leave this talk page, but I just read the article,[14] see that content is still there, and find you marking items raised by me as resolved. You do not WP:OWN this talk page, and I am weighing in here again in spite of my promise to leave only because I want to give the opportunity to address this behavior so that it need not come before the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

In September 2014, RoC announced that they would ensure that the product consistently contained less than 0.3% THC, and would thus qualify for classification as a "hemp-derived food product" with a minimum 30:1 CBD-to-THC ratio.^[1]

In September 2014, the content was measured at 0.3% THC and it was classified "as a hemp-derived food product".^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b Waltz, Vanessa (September 18, 2014), Realm of Caring Announces Charlotte’s Web to be Shipped to All 50 US States, Ladybud Magazine, archived from the original on October 14, 2014, retrieved September 19, 2014 {{citation}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; October 20, 2014 suggested (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

The quality of the source is inadequate for this claim.
The source uses an email from RoC as its source.
As far as I can tell, the source does NOT say that the content was measured at 0.3%; it says that an email from RoC says it "will". We are stating a fact in Wikipedia's voice based on an email claim from RoC to a dubious source.
We position an old "announcement" in the article lead of text that is poorly source and barely covered in the body of the article: it looks like we are using the lead to PROMOTE.
PASSIVE voice-- was classified. By whom?
What independent source has tested this product and has classified it as a hemp-derived food product?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Good questions. Primary sources by the subject of the article are allowed as long as they are not unduly promotional. This is an announcement of an intent, as well as announcement of the laboratory findings. They use a good lab, and since they are regulated by the state of Colorado, they must toe the line. They would be in violation of a whole lot of laws if those claims were false, and they are being checked all the time by their enemies. They will call foul if their measurements are off. Their competitors are some really nasty folk. Their language is horrible. They seem like they are stoned on something more powerful than weed! Check out this FB profile for some nasty opposition, with lots of truly quackish promotion of weed for all types of ailments.

How can the wording be improved? Maybe it doesn't all need to be in the lead, since it's in the body anyway. At a minimum, the actual measurements should be in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I have deleted the contentious part pending better confirmation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflcit) The writing can be improved by writing the correct article. This isn't it. If we keep trying to tell some "human interest" story of the Figis and Stanleys, you will keep hitting issues like this. If the right story is told (and Colin told you how to do that), the dubious quality of that sentence wouldn't be an issue, because it wouldn't be central to the story. We are not the Stanley Brothers publicity agent. We are not here to get medical marijuana laws passed. We are here to write an encyclopedia that doesn't mislead people as one of the most trafficed sites. And right now we are misleading people in every way Colin told you more than a year ago. If we don't have high quality medical sources verifying claims that affect people's lives and health, then those claims should not be here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Your highly emotional tirades against this article are not new. I've heard them before. Be careful of IDHT behavior. You're fighting against our notability policy.

It has been explained to you that documentation is not always the same as promotion. Also, not all content in medical articles (and this is only partially medical) is covered by MEDRS. Only certain very direct biomedical claims are covered by it. RS covers claims, including false claims which we must document. Those claims must be worded properly so people know they are unproven anecdotes.

You need to just write the article you want to write. It too is notable. That will be a more constructive way to use your talents. Try to build, not destroy. You should be able to find some good sources. Charlotte's Web will get passing mention in it, but your article won't be a human interest story. It will be something else entirely. Go ahead and write it, and I'll do what I can to help if you have any jobs for me to do. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Goodbye and unwatch

BullRangifer, you are playing word games, lecturing, posturing, not reading, writing walls of off-topic text about your sympathies for the Figis and the Stanleys, and not being straightforward. This article disgusts me; being here disgusts me; this article makes me ashamed to be a Wikipedian, and I'm not playing this game. Good bye. Unwatch. Good luck Formerly98. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are so emotionally involved and affected that you don't see I'm replying to each of your concerns, and the discussions have resulted in article revisions to meet your concerns. That's not word games. You just don't like the answers and that I keep sticking to policy, especially notability. Your "I don't like it" and "it's the wrong subject" are not based on policy. They are emotional reactions because you don't like the subject. The content seems all wrong because you see it as another subject than what it is. Too bad. I too am sad, but I do hope to see you doing good elsewhere, because I've seen you do it before. -- BullRangifer (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I've re-read this talk page and the article. What I said over a year ago stands. The only thing I got wrong is that it still seems to be mentioned by blogs, local radio, etc and there's a bill with the name. I've seen before what happens when an over-confident editor without a clue takes ownership of an epilepsy article and uses their knowledge of wikirules to beat away opposition. That was absolutely no fun. I'm not getting involved. -- Colin°^Talk 12:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

JzG, you say "No MEDRS compliant source will talk in detail about individual patients without anonymising. This is the narrative, the context of the human interest story." Compare with ketogenic diet. There are two "human interest" events that were sparks in that story. The first was Charles Howland, who's child was helped by a fasting diet. The second was Jim Abrahams, who's son Charlie, was helped by the KD at Johns Hopkins Hospital. In the second case, there was popular TV show coverage, and other media reports and ultimately a feature film with Meryl Streep. Charlie's story is covered in some detail and appropriately by reliable sources that cover the history of the diet e.g. this history of the KD and summarised to the relevant degree (very little) in our article on the topic. In other words, the human interest story belongs in the Daily Mail, tabloids, popular TV and weepie movies. The characters get a historical mention in both our text and in most reliable sources, but a mention is all. It is also worth noting that both wealthy parents in the KD story immediately donated large funds to get the best neurologists in the country researching the topic, and in both cases that led to mainstream adoption/re-adoption of this therapy for relevant cases. I contrast this with the campaigners here: "In March, Rep. Scott Perry, a Republican from Pennsylvania, introduced to Congress the "Charlotte's Web Medical Access Act of 2015," which would exempt plants with less than .3 percent THC from the Controlled Substances Act. Charlotte's Web would become a dietary supplement—like fish oil or echinacea—regulated outside the FDA. "We don't want to spend another 10, 15 years and hundreds of millions of dollars [in FDA clinical drug trials] while children's lives are being shortened because they can't gain access,". Way to go! -- Colin°^Talk 13:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

To save me time, would you please show me the MEDRS compliant sources that actually use the full names of the patients, please? I checked one of the links you gave, it has a footer: "From: Epilepsy and the Ketogenic Diet Edited by: C. E. Stafstrom and J. M. Rho © Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ". That's a book not a journal source, I do not know if it is considered MEDRS. Using full names - at least until long after the event and after they are publicly known anyway - is normally, as you know, considered a gross breach of ethics - the only place I've seen do it in real time is the atrocious Burzynski Clinic, though undoubtedly it was not always thus. In any case I see no reason why the the human interest story as related by the press would be subject to MEDRS, though any statement of the medical consensus in Wikipedia's voice obviously is. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, JzG, if you have doubts that a book published by a serious academic press, edited and multi-authored by the experts in the field, is a WP:MEDRS compliant source, then someone must have changed it since I wrote the bit that said "Medical textbooks published by the academic press are an excellent secondary source." I know there are some WP:MED members who persist in thinking only reviews in "peer reviewed journals" count, but that's probably more to do with their inability to get off their backsides and fetch a book rather than download a PDF. Epilepsy and the Ketogenic Diet: Clinical Implementation and the Scientific Basis is one of the most important sources in the article, for journal papers, reviews included, can make insufficient and terse sources from which to draw. However, if you want papers that mention Charlie Abrahams story:

"A parent's perspective on dietary treatments for epilepsy.". Epilepsy Res. Williams E1, Abrahams J, Maguire A, Harris G. 2012 Jul;100(3):338-43. doi: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2011.09.024. Epub 2012 May 8. PMID 22575229.
"The ketogenic diet: Fa(c)t or fiction." Wheless JW. J Child Neurol. 1995 Nov;10(6):419-23. PMID 8576550.
"More fat and fewer seizures: dietary therapies for epilepsy." Kossoff EH. Lancet Neurol. 2004 Jul;3(7):415-20. PMID 15207798.
"The use of diet in the treatment of epilepsy." Bailey EE, Pfeifer HH, Thiele EA. Epilepsy Behav. 2005 Feb;6(1):4-8. PMID 15652725.
"The ketogenic diet." Sinha SR1, Kossoff EH. Neurologist. 2005 May;11(3):161-70.PMID 15860138.
"Can you predict an immediate, complete, and sustained response to the ketogenic diet?" Than KD, Kossoff EH, Rubenstein JE, Pyzik PL, McGrogan JR, Vining EP. Epilepsia. 2005 Apr;46(4):580-2. PMID 15816955.
"The ketogenic diet: one decade later." Freeman JM1, Kossoff EH, Hartman AL. Pediatrics. 2007 Mar;119(3):535-43. PMID 17332207.
"Epilepsia supplement. Ketogenic diet and treatments. Introduction/perspectives." Stafstrom CE, Zupec-Kania B, Rho JM. Epilepsia. 2008 Nov;49 Suppl 8:1-2. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01820.x. PMID 19049573.
"History of the ketogenic diet." Wheless JW. Epilepsia. 2008 Nov;49 Suppl 8:3-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01821.x. PMID 19049574.
"Ketogenic diets: an update for child neurologists." Kossoff EH, Zupec-Kania BA, Rho JM. J Child Neurol. 2009 Aug;24(8):979-88. doi: 10.1177/0883073809337162. PMID 19535814.
"Dietary therapies--an old idea with a new lease of life." Cross JH. Seizure. 2010 Dec;19(10):671-4. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2010.10.021. PMID 21094058.

The similarity of Charlotte with Charlie Abrahams is that she is a "celebrity patient" who is used as a "human interest" to sell the story. As I noted, however, the Charlie Foundation have gone on to support numerous scientific trials and serious journal papers. For those who think that one might have to wait decades for the academic press to record events such as this, Let me quote one paper that was submitted on August 1995:

"On October 26, 1994, the American public viewed an NBC Dateline special on 'The Ketogenic Diet'. Storm Phillips brought the saga of Jim Abrahams with his son Charlie into millions of living rooms across the country. The successful treatment of Charlie’s intractable seizure disorder with the Johns Hopkins Hospital version of the ketogenic diet was a dramatic and heart-touching story..."

That editorial, published in the Journal of Child Neurology was written just 10 months after the NBC story. I see no need to repeat what I or Sandy have said before, or continue wasting my time with BullRangifer, who isn't listening. Little Charlotte deserves a one-sentence mention in some other article on the legal issues of medical cannabis. Should medical cannabis eventually be show to be efficacious, then she may deserve another one-sentence in an article on that therapy. This trademark plant strain of unknown therapeutic value doesn't belong on WP at all. Just because the press cover a human interest story doesn't mean we should build a coatrack article round it. Is Kim Kardashian's butt an article? I dare say it satisfies our notability criteria. Too many people on Wikipedia/Commons fail to understand that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. This article should not be. -- Colin°^Talk 20:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Title

Should it not be "Charlotte's web (cannabis)"? Without the extra cap. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's because it's a registered product name and all RS do it that way. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

No, because "Web" is part of the proper name. And per WP:TSC, quotation marks should be avoided in article titles. Paging Formerly 98. KateWishing (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I admit its complicated due to all the publicity associated with this one particular manufacturer. But I think the following arguments point toward some variation of "Low THC cannabis"

It fits with how every other drug article in Wikipedia is named
There are no WP:RS, and indeed no manufacturer claims that this particular brand differs from low THC cannabis from other manufacturers
It is referred to in WP:MEDRS compliant sources as low THC cannabis, or as cannabinoids or as tetrahydrocannabinolo
The manufacturers of CW, as well as other manufacturers all express the activity of their products in terms of the tetrahydrocannabinol concentration, which is typically similar
All have less that 0.3% THC, else they could not be marketed
It is supported by myself, Colin, SandyGeorgia, and user: WhatamIdoing.

Open to hearing what others think though. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 03:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Have removed the US legal status out of the lead as it is dealt with in the body and the lead should be 4 paragraphs not 5. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for the other improvements. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

How to document "unproven anecdotes" about a medical treatment

I wonder whether telling "unproven anecdotes" about a medical treatment^[1] actually (ever) complies with WP:DUE.

You wouldn't accept newspaper anecdotes about how a new chemotherapy drug saved some patient's life, would you? Or that the latest-greatest diet that cured someone's cancer, right? So why should this be treated any differently? If it works, it deserves better than "unproven anecdotes", and if it doesn't, then it doesn't deserve even that much.

References

^ By "medical treatment", I mean "any substance used and any action taken with the intent to treat or cure any perceived medical condition". This definition includes everything from the most rigorously proven mainstream medicine through alt med and all the way down to medieval astrologers and 'medicine men' smearing themselves with mud and dancing around a fire to thwart the evil eye. This substance definitely qualifies.

Whatever the game, whatever the rules, the rules are the same for both sides. Claims of medical efficacy, even "anecdotes" need high-quality sources. You should apply the same rules to this commercially produced, alleged medical treatment as you would to any other commercially produced, alleged medical treatment. We don't have different sourcing rules for medical marijuana and Big Pharma. It's the same rules for both sides. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree entirely with WAID. @BullRangifer:, four editors (Myself, Colin, Sandy, and WAID)have all told you the same exacty thing, and your response is to accuse Sandy of IDHT? I agree that there may be an IDHT problem here, but it doesn't reside with Sandy. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 08:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, where does that "ref" quote you're using come from? I'd like to see the context.
How would you (both of you) apply your reasoning to any other article (every alternative medicine article, to start with)? They all deal with implausible and/or scientifically unproven claims! We can't deal with such subjects without documenting that they make such claims. It is not undue to document the existence of the claim. If it's a fringe claim, it must be framed to make it clear that it's scientifically unproven. That's what we do, but maybe it can be improved.
How would you write any article without even mentioning the basic claim? How about this one? Please provide a constructive rewording based on the sources which we could use about that specific issue. I'm talking about VERY specific, not more general complaints. Find the exact wording(s) and provide specific improvement suggestions for each.
I'm certainly open to considering any real improvement short of changes which aren't based in policy. If you've been following carefully, specific concerns have been dealt with and I have made changes to meet them. Being specific works. Doc James has also made specific improvements which I find very serious (not emotional "I don't like it" deletionism) and well done. We're dealing with a notable topic, so we just have to deal with it and present it properly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

BR, I tend to agree with what was laid out by Colin. You seem focused on the need to cover the fact that extensive claims have been made in the popular media, that this extensive coverage makes these claims notable, and that they must therefore be covered. I think we can cover them exactly as Colin stated, by mentioning them near the bottom of the article and more as an incidental item, than as core content of the article. I think the analogy to Kim Kardashian's butt was an excellent one. Based on media coverage, it is notable. But since this is an encyclopedia, it is neither necessary nor desirable for the popular media to determine the focus of our articles. Especially as there is reasonable coverage of the use of low THC cannabis for the treatment of epilepsy in the medical literature, per the material I have added.

I'd also like to respond to your "Corvette vs. sports car" analogy by saying that pretty much anyone can look at a Corvette (the car itself, the advertisements, or the publicly available technical specs) and differentiate it from a BMW, Maserati, or Porche. This is not true for low THC cannabis. As I pointed out above, not only is there no WP:RS that states that there are meaningful differences (think engine displacement, number of seats, horsepower, turning radius, and overall appearance) between low THC cannabis preparations, there also seems to be a dearth of explicit claims of non-equivalence by the manufacturers themselves. And unlike the Maserati and Corvette, for which the different engine displacements and vehicle weights lead to docuemented differences in time to reach 70 mph from a dead stop, there are absolutely no studies suggesting different efficacies for different low THC cannabis preps. MEDRS compliant sources refer to cannabanoids, to tetrahyrdocannabinol, and to cannabis, but few if any refer to Charlotte's Web by its trade name, and a search for the term in Pubmed does not even turn up primary research papers.

There are four of us who believe quite strongly that the title and organization of this article needs to change (Colin, Sandy, WhatamIdoing and myself) along the lines of what I was trying to do before you began reverting me several days ago. You seem to be the main opponent of change, and seem supported by Psyden. I'm a little unclear on how Guy feels about this. Getting a better picture of his opinion might be the next step. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 19:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Brangifer, IMO the problem isn't "scientifically implausible" statements. The problem is more like "too many claims in this article refer to the alleged experience of exactly one single human". Here's what I think would help, just as a first effort: This article is already about 3700 words long. Maybe a quarter of that is about individual patients, and a good deal of it is unnecessary direct quotations. So why don't you see what could be done just to make it shorter, and to shift the balance to more general statements about the substance, rather than medical claims about individual BLPs? I'll have a go in a minute, to give you an idea of what I mean. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Look at these changes. There's nothing brilliant there. All I did was take out details that don't need to be present or are repeated multiple times (for example: what is the encyclopedic value of her exact birthdate?). That kind of straightforward "summarizing" work is what's needed to produce an encyclopedia article out of this, rather than a magazine article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

What this article needs is to more closely follow WP:MEDMOS. We need a section called evidence that discusses the high quality evidence. We need the stuff on ongoing research and issues around doing research to be moved to the section on research. We need the legal status to be moved out of the section on "need for research and caution" which I have spit into two two the section on legal status. Will work some more on it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

MEDMOS doesn't recommend a section called ==Evidence==. I do think that a section on research could be reasonable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes MEDMOS suggests a section on "medical uses". Have made evidence a subsection of that.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just gone through each edit, up to the title change (without any discussion). I am thoroughly amazed at the good work that has been done! Truly amazed. There has been serious thought put into this and the result is definitely an improvement. Thanks to everyone for such good work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Organization

This article contained excellent evidence and positions statements from well respected organizations. I have mostly just moved stuff around and have changed very little actual text. I mostly just separated out the best available evidence to try to give it due weight while moving the discussion of research to the end. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag as I hope things are more balanced. Feel free to return as people desire. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

What should we call this article

I am not sure if we have reached a compromise people are happy with? The article however is being frequently moved and thus we may need to develop a consensus regarding what to call it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Moving a controversial article, especially without discussion, is really a bad idea, and that applies anywhere at Wikipedia. Low THC cannabis is a huge topic. I fear that previously expressed intentions will be carried out after this change. How can we know that the mention of Charlotte Figi's story will not be reduced to ONE sentence, as planned? So much for notability. I think that would be wrong. I'm all for having both articles, one limited scope article about Charlotte's Web (cannabis), and one much larger one about Low THC cannabis. The second would have an entirely different scope, and there would be much more room for the scientific evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I am a big fan of using generic over brand names. As Charlotte Figi's story story plays a significant role in this type of cannabis it should definately get a decent amount of space in the society and culture sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The product that is the subject of this article is not marijuana, but rather an extract. In my view, it is a botanical drug candidate. (see that article and the 4 example articles linked there, and see also premarin (FDA-approved drug that is an extract from mare urine). Another alternative would be to treat this like dietary supplements like Saw palmetto extract or Grape seed extract. Ideally the title of the article is something that would work in "reliable sources for health content" template which I just added to the top of this talk page.

I think the article should be called Low THC cannabis extract and should discuss Charlotte's web as well as "Epidiolex" which is a similar product undergoing clinical development (see here). I found a brief discussion of the Epidiolex product in Cannabidiol)

I think Wikipedia could also use a "cannabis extract" article, into which we could include a WP:SUMMARY of that article, as well as:

Nabiximols (high THC cannabis extract approved as a botanical drug in the UK to alleviate MS symptoms)
Tilden's Extract
Tincture of cannabis
Hash oil

May want to mention the companies Cannabis Science Inc. and GW Pharmaceuticals which are developing various botanical drugs (in other words, well-defined extracts) from cannabis. Jytdog (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually the name applies to both the plant and the extract. When referring to the extract, sometimes sources make it clear by calling it CW extract, or something like that. It's currently an alternative medicine / dietary supplement type product. Epidiolex is aiming for approval as a pharmaceutical with FDA approval. We have a whole host of articles about cannabis varietals here, all of which are titled with their names. None have the kind of notability achieved by CW, and few even attempt to maintain a low THC high CBD profile. They are just various forms of recreational or medical marijuana. There is no requirement (in legal states) for them to maintain such a profile. CW has strict laboratory control of their product because they want to market it under medical marijuana laws, hemp laws, and dietary supplement laws. At least that's my understanding. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there any source that says the the foundation people are selling the plant of marijuana from it (leaves for smoking)? if all they are selling now is the extract, that is what the article should focus on, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a very good question. I doubt they are selling it for smoking, since one cannot get high from it, but who knows. You could contact them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

are there objections to renaming this Low THC cannabis extract and including similar products here? Jytdog (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

My concern expressed above in this section still stands. The notability of the subject expressed in the original title still stands. Low THC cannabis is a huge topic. I fear that the previously expressed intentions will be carried out after this change. How can we know that the mention of Charlotte Figi's story will not be reduced to ONE sentence, as planned? There has been no change of intention AFAIK. That would be wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That can be a different article which gives very short mention, and a "main" link, to this article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

the proposal is Low THC cannabis extract of which there are not many products or "hugeness", as far as I know. No one has brought examples of tons of low THC cannabis extracts. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm....my mistake. I was assuming that (since the title was suggested) the subject must have passed the basic notability criteria, but this suggests it may not. What then? We can't create an article on a subject which isn't notable. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

BR, no disrespect, but my impression is that a consensus, consisting of every editor who has commented here over the last week except yourself, has concluded that

This is and should be an article about low THC cannabis generally, and not about a single brand
That the drug should be discussed mainly in terms of its generic name, as the literature does not differentiate different manufacturers products
That the medical aspects of this product, and in particular MEDRS compliant references on safety and efficacy, should be the focus of the article, with a nod given to the human interest story mainly in the Society and Culture section.

I don't think we want to get into a POV fork here either. I know you are unhappy with the outcome of the discussion, but I think that the above summarizes consensus pretty well. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 17:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

to be clear, i suggest it be about low THC cannabis extracts! different animal from low TCH cannabis more generally. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the subject have independent notability? If we're going to go that direction, then let's explore its feasibility. I do know that producers and promoters of other products have sought to misuse this article for promotional purposes, and they were so over the top promotional, and without proper sourcing, that the attempts were reverted as clearly promotional/deletional vandalism. ~~Sneaking~~ Adding them in now might be seen as promotional coatracking. This all depends on whether RS exist. My Google Alerts don't cover that subject, only this one. Let's explore this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

your advocacy for CW is very clear, BullRangifer. The language you use above for any edits I and others might make to broaden this article are offensive to me; I will not be responding to you further in this discussion per SHUN, and look to hear input from other editors talking here Jytdog (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm very sorry you see it that way. I have nothing invested in the subject of CW. I don't use cannabis in any manner, including medicinally. When the subject first came on the radar it was a single story event with no notability. After several months of seeing how the story snowballed, with politicians, researchers, and others getting involved, I was curious to read what Wikipedia said about it and was surprised to see there was nothing. I had a few days vacation and started gathering sources. I ignored most since they were not reliable, and then outlined the subject and wrote the article, with extreme attention to proper sourcing and attribution of claims. Although it has been radically edited since then, the basic notable elements remain.

What is "advocacy" here? Which "language" can possibly be "offensive"? We're just discussing and seeking a way forward. Have I been uncivil? Is it wrong to point to policy? I'm following policy to the best of my ability, and I welcome guidance, not shunning. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The offensive part was introducing "Sneaking them in now might be seen as promotional coatracking" into a very daylight discussion of the scope of this article. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have stricken the word and written "adding". It "might be seen that way," and we want to avoid anything like that. Isn't that true? -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about OR and SYNTH

I am seriously in doubt about this issue. I have always understood that editors should stay on-topic (that being the subject of the article). Therefore I was very careful, in my original version, to only use sources which mentioned CW, including the cautions and research sections. Then research was added which did not mention CW, and even animal research was added. I left it there, but wondered if policy was being violated.

What is proper? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Which specific sources are you referring to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the latest such additions were this one and this one. You also discovered an animal study, which I would not have added. There were also previous additions, likely by Sandy, which did not mention CW. My tendency to like medical sourcing which debunks anecdotes made me not remove it, but is it really proper to add such content when it does not mention the subject? (I've had a guilty conscience ever since for being too much of a skeptic and not a faithful Wikipedian because of that omission on my part. I also didn't want anymore conflicts, so I just let it slide, in spite of my doubts.)

I had already found plenty of warnings, worries, and cautions from doctors, researchers, and medical bodies, where they actually did mention CW. I felt that was the strongest type of testimony to use. They provided excellent testimonial to the unaccepted nature of the claims associated with CW and similar products.

I just want to "get it right" for future use. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes so CW is a subtype of medical cannabis so these position statements still cover CW and thus IMO are okay. I have partly summarized and made them more to the point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Conscience relieved.

-- BullRangifer (talk) 06:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There is still the SYNTH problem. Any statements regarding medical cannabis with normal THC levels would not apply to CW or any other low THC stuff. Those should not be used. That would be a clear SYNTH violation. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If we use systematic reviews the authors should have looked for all evidence on the topic. Thus this should cover both high and low THC formulations. If they find no good evidence this will apply equally to both types. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

There are over 80 cannabinoids in the cannabis plant in addition to various terpenes, each having various effects, possibly an entourage effect ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165946/ ), and the levels of these cannabinoids varies in every strain. I do not know the chemical makeup of Charlotte's Web, but it is possible that it has a unique chemical makeup that is more effective in treating epilepsy. It is possible that data on another low THC strain would not fully apply to CW. While THC and CBD seem to be major factors, there may be much more to this plant than just those two cannabinoids (not long ago ago it was believed that THC was the the active ingredient in cannabis and CBD did not have much use at all). Psyden (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Which is why good research is so needed. We're working on the anecdotal level, and that is never a good basis for making big claims. The only thing which physicians, scientists, and medical societies are agreed on is that the product is likely quite safe, unless it is used in place of medications which are actually working for the patient, and if those medications don't have strong side effects. With epilepsy the medications do not always work, and their proven side effects are sometimes quite severe. That's why even Orrin Devinsky, who has a severe COI because he's doing the Epidiolex research, understands the desperation of parents: "If I had a child who had failed 15 medications and drug treatments and there was nothing else to do, and they were having many seizures a day that were terribly disabling, I think it would be a very reasonable thing to do to try a high-CBD cannabis product." The low THC high CBD safety profile is excellent compared to standard meds. There is no evidence of serious danger, while there is clear history and evidence of danger from standard meds. If they work, great, but if not, then people are understandably seeking alternatives. Unfortunately that throws them into a jungle of undocumented claims, false claims, and even scams. It's good that research is actually starting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Cochrane review for example looked at "Any type of marijuana, synthetic or natural THC, cannabinol, cannabidiol, or combinations that include these agents, for ingestion or inhalation for the control of seizures. We did not exclude trials that used other anti-epileptic medications." CW is a type of marijuana Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the cannabis family, but it's a type of hemp (practically no THC), and the 2012 review only reviews products available for study before that date, which would not include any low THC high CBD products. (I think we can safely assume that any low THC high CBD products would be similar enough to count as one type product for research purposes.) That's why we have a SYNTH problem here. We're applying an otherwise good review to a very different product type which was not included in any of the studies. Correct me if I'm wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Szaflarski review does deal specifically with low-THC cannabis: Further data from well-designed studies are needed regarding short- and long-term efficacy and side effects of CBD or high-CBD/low-THC products for the treatment of seizures and epilepsy in children and adults. No opinion on the others. KateWishing (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

In general, I'm not sold on the idea of using broad statements to make claims about specific, unusual substances. Nobody here would be happy if we used sources about "antibiotics" to make claims about unusual antibiotics: some of them behave differently, even if they're all "antibiotics". In some cases it might be okay, but in others it might be misleading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be OK treating this like a very specific product, but then we can say nothing about it being useful (or not) for any health-purpose, since as far as I know, we have no MEDRS sources that say anything about this particular product. (I am not being POINTy, either!) I do think it is reasonable to say, as we do now, what is known about the cannabidiols as a class (which is that we don't know much) Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have the paper if anyone needs a copy, just email me. Its a great find! A couple of remarks:

The article refers extensively and repeatedly to "low THC cannabis" and the phrase "Charlotte's web" is not mentioned in this MEDRS compliant source. Apologies for beating that drum again, but I think this supports the current title.
A key question we have to consider is how different do things have to be to be considered "different", and what is our assumption when there is not good evidence. At one extreme, we assume that anything cannabis related is identical, and that doesn't make sense. But if we go too far the other way, we reject the relevance of a one year old clinical trial of CW based on the supposition that they have continued to refine their formula or cultivar. In the case of WAID's comments, I'd say that in the case of antibiotics, we know the structure, molecular weight, partition coefficient, and in vitro and in vivo potencies for different antibiotics. We don't know what differences exist here or whether they are pharmacologically relevent, in part because we don't even know if this stuff works.
I don't think we want to throw out the other reviews. This review specifically describes the putative anti-epileptic activity as associated with the CBD and/or THC content of cannabis, as do the others. Most of the previously added reviews explicitly included a wide range of products, from pure THC, to ca. 1 : 1 THC/CBD to pure CBD. By spanning this entire spectrum, I think their conclusions that there is not compelling evidence of efficacy, but that further study should continue, is relevant.

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 18:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98 that is not unreasonable. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: @Jytdog:, by way of clarification, are you referring to "Low THC cannabis" as a specific product distinct from generalized cannabis or to CW as a specific product distinct from other low THC cannabis products? thanks Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 20:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

i'm pretty much agreeing with you. what the current content says (which i think is good) is that there is not much evidence about any cannabinoids to say if they are good for anything (so includes whatever we decide to focus this article on) Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to "Low-THC cannabis" as a specific class of products, a subset of all cannabis and distinct from typical (high-THC) cannabis. To give an example of my concerns, I'd be concerned if someone added a statement along the lines of "marijuana makes you get high", because it isn't reasonable to assume that this strain has that effect, even though most of them presumably do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is a radical difference between low THC high CBD strains (plural) and typical cannabis. The former is useless to anyone wishing to get high, and it is used exclusively for its purported therapeutic effects. Research on the latter does not address effects or side effects from the former. Although they are all cannabis, they are very different in their effects and safety profiles, and we know that much from existing research. What we don't know for sure is if they have a clear therapeutic effect at all for any problem. There is plenty of research which seems to point to some types of therapeutic effects, but with MEDRS in mind, we need reviews which make those conclusions before we can begin to make such claims in Wikipedia's voice. That's why I think we need to be careful to avoid a SYNTH violation by using research which doesn't apply. I think that's a reasonable goal for us. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer I don't know what the purpose of that post was. It seems to actually support the current content, which says that we don't know if any cannabidiol product is effective. Do you want to change the current text? If so, how? Jytdog (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I was addressing WAID's comment. There is a difference between typical pot and these high CBD varietals, and therefore we have to be careful about which research we are using in the article. Research on typical pot doesn't apply, so we're still in the dark about high CBD. The part about not knowing if any cannabinoid product is effective still stands. The research which exists on that aspect is still in its infancy, so there are no reviews (per MEDRS) we can use yet, AFAIK. I hope I understood your question and responded properly. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree there is a huge problem with the availability of good sources given how early this is. But I think that's just how it goes with drugs like this that get a lot of fanfare based on a single case report because of the cross between recreational and medicinal use. Bristol Myers is curing people of metastatic cancer in randomized clinical trials as we speak with an FDA approved PD-1 antagonist, and the corresponding article is about half the length of this one. Oh well!

BR, you've repeatedly raised the issue of whether reviews on "regular" marijuana are relevant. I've responded several times that I don't see that we have any reviews here that are simply focused on "regular marijuana". None of these replies has provoked a detailed response from you, but I'll try again here.

The cited Medscape article discusses low THC cannabis almost exclusively. It also quotes the Cochrane review, showing that this reliable source considers that review relevant to low THC products
The AAN systematic review clearly covered the waterfront in terms of the types of cannabis it considered. Across multiple indications it discusses the evidence for efficacy of smoke marijuana, nabiximols, oral cannabis extract containing both THC and CBD, THC only, and pure CBD . With respect to epilepsy, it states "There were no Class I–III studies. There were 2 Class IV studies that did not demonstrate a significant benefit and did not show adverse effects (AEs) over 3–18 weeks of treatment." The overall picture here is that they considered the evidence across multiple diease states for all studies involving any form of cannabis, and concluded that there was no meaningful evidence in epilepsy. Do you think this study is irrelevant? If so, can you say exactly why you don't think they looked for evidence regarding low THC cannabis?
The Expert Reviews in Neurotherapy Review explicitly discusses low THC cannabis and even mentions the trade name Charlotte's Web. I therefore assume you have no objection to the relevance of this review. It concludes that CBD is an investigational drug that should only be used in desperate patients who have failed all better proven therapies. It also discusses the Cochrane review as relevant, so we have another reliable source that included Cochrane as generalizable to understanding the effiacacy of cannabinoid products.
The Drug Testing and Analysis review also discusses a wide range of cannabis-derived products, and discusses the individual properties of THC and CBD. I don't think this one can be characterized as a review about "regular marijuana" only either.
The Epilepsy and Behavior review extensively discusses the pharmacologically active components of cannabis and explicitly discusses the Charlotte Figi case. Again, its hard for me to see how this can be described as a review that only considered "regular marijuana"
The American Epilepsy Society statement was made in response to the publicity around the Charlotte Fugi case, and clearly is not simply a dicussion of "regular marijuana".
The American Cancer Society statement is about THC only, and I can see your objection here.
The Cochrane Review focuses on cannabidiol clinical trials, so it certainly isn't about "regular marijuana". Its about the putative active ingredient in CW. It seems clearly relevant.

So I don't mean to sound impatient, but could you be very specific and tell us exactly which of these studies you want to exclude and give a detailed explanation of why, rather than continuing to repeat vague statements about WP:SYNTHESIS and OR? Thanks Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI Statement} 16:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98, thank you so much for the excellent review of what I'm assuming is all that we have used so far. Good work! I was originally wondering about the basic principles of staying on topic with every single source in the article (Does the source have to mention CW?), and the research was a secondary, but related concern. Doc James provided some good guidance, and since then I've participated in a conversation which would hopefully result in a consensus decision about sourcing in general, and also the research sources. Some good comments have been made which have informed my understanding. I note that the animal research source is apparently gone now, and that's good. Now you have found that the ACS statement would not be appropriate, and I agree. We still have plenty of other good sources, so we can dispense with it. Would you like to do the honors? -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

[Young_Riddle-1] Cite error: The named reference Young_Riddle was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Leasca-2] Leasca, Stacey (April 19, 2015), Charlotte’s Web: Meet the Little Girl Leading the Fight for Cannabis Oil, RYOT, retrieved April 19, 2015

[Waltz_shipped-3] Waltz, Vanessa (September 18, 2014), Realm of Caring Announces Charlotte’s Web to be Shipped to All 50 US States, Ladybud Magazine, archived from the original on October 14, 2014, retrieved September 19, 2014 {{citation}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; October 20, 2014 suggested (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[4] By "medical treatment", I mean "any substance used and any action taken with the intent to treat or cure any perceived medical condition". This definition includes everything from the most rigorously proven mainstream medicine through alt med and all the way down to medieval astrologers and 'medicine men' smearing themselves with mud and dancing around a fire to thwart the evil eye. This substance definitely qualifies.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

Article launch

Other matters

Reliable sources which mention CW and can be used

"many" families

Things to fix

501 status

Missing words

Missing source, sample

Cochrane review (Gloss, Vickrey)

Multiple sourcing issues

Comparisons to hemp

Followup

More caution from Devinsky

More links about CW

Advocacy via quoting

Synth tag

Charlotte Figi gets some notability too

Recent publicity

Advice and cautions for new editors

Picture

Trademark

Edits of May 14-15, 2015

Huge deletions

Reverted

NPOV dispute

Naming the article after the tradename of the drug

Extensive medical claims supported by non-MEDRS sources

Promotionalism

OS tag

Article name is an advert for one particular trade name

Citation style

Request quote, Nutt article

Herbal supplement

Promotional claims in lead unverified

Goodbye and unwatch

Title

Lead

How to document "unproven anecdotes" about a medical treatment

Organization

What should we call this article

Question about OR and SYNTH