Dr. Matthew Hill

speaker
614 appearances 1 recordings 1 series first heard Jul 2024 last heard Jul 2024

Dr. Matthew Hill’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.

Trend

recordings per month · last 12 months
No recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.

Appearances

newest first · ▶ plays the moment
And everyone just generally, depending on their perspective, thinks that I have a bias kind of going in one way or the other. And I'm very... you know, want it this way or want it this way. And at the end of the day, I'm just like, no, I just like data. So I'm like, I'm going to try and answer things as best I can with that. And to me, that's the perspective I've maintained.
And I do think that, like, these aren't trivial questions because when we went through the legalization process in Canada, this was something that came up again and again and again was this association with schizophrenia.
And in the UK, this is something that comes up again and again and again because whenever there's any discussion about the UK moving forward to legalization, these ideas come back. And so the public health kind of consequence of this is not intangible. And so for people to be making these very strong causality arguments and having this kind of opinion that a lot of people just take up –
I think can have a lot of influence. And so that's why, like, there's literally no reason I should have a dog in this fight. I don't study schizophrenia in any capacity. And it's not my area of research, but because I'm in the cannabis field, I always feel very strongly that we need to maintain clarity over what the data says and not get caught in these opinion-based arguments.
And I feel like this is one of these areas that has just kind of, the amount of people I talk to that regularly tell me that they know that cannabis causes schizophrenia and they're terrified if someone uses it because it's going to caused them to become schizophrenic, I am just kind of shocked by. So this has clearly permeated the general population that there's a widespread belief of this.
Yeah. And I mean, I think, again, this is, again, no endorsement that that doesn't mean that it's safe and that it's without harm. I'm just strong of the opinion that I don't think individuals with schizophrenia or who have, you know, first degree relatives should use cannabis because I think there's a high degree of risk there.
But that's a very different argument than making saying cannabis causes schizophrenia. And if we remove it from society, we'll see drops in rates of schizophrenia. I don't believe there's any evidence that actually could support that. So... It's just a nuanced argument, and this is a good thing about more of a long-form podcast is it allows for nuance.
Okay. So, yes. So going back to just the idea with the indica sativa thing. So the indica and sativa –
names at least from everything i've understood from everyone that i talked to and being in this field is it's those are botanical terms that largely refer to shape of the plant the you know the way the bud grows blah blah blah they do not track with chemical composition in any way um in fact nick jacomas has done like a lot of analysis of like thousands and thousands of
different kinds of cannabis that have been submitted for kind of biochemical analysis to understand THC, CBD, terpenes, minor cannabinoid content. And essentially, his work, as well as from all the people who have done the genetics on this, is The variability that exists within what someone calls an indica or a sativa is greater than the variability that there is between them.
And there is no such thing as a chemical profile that exists in something that's a sativa versus something that's an indica.
I mean, I think in Nick's analysis, there was like a couple of terpenes that may have loaded on a little bit onto things that were sativas, but there was tons of sativas that didn't fall into that bracket. Okay.
Yeah, I would, my honest opinion is this is expectancy bias. This is all expectancy bias.
20 people tell you that taking this makes you calm. You cannot remove your expectation bias from the fact that when you consume it, you feel calm. Like, and this has been, I think one of the most common things with, with cannabis is like this whole area is so ripe with these expectancy biases that people have about what they assume.
If you go, someone goes into, you know, and a bud tender tells them this is a sativa, it's going to energize you. There's no way to remove that expectancy bias from what you get.
And I mean, like from talking to a lot of people that kind of study this more explicitly, they always say the biggest predictor of what someone feels when they consume cannabis is what they're told on the label it's going to do to them. I mean, and a lot of- It's pretty wild.
It's across the board. I mean, again, this is not unique to cannabis in any way. It's just cannabis is so ripe for this because of the lore that it just exists. People say this. I mean, the issue has been, And I just asked Ryan Vandrie this.
As far as I know, I don't believe there's actually ever been a clinical trial that has blinded people and given them sativas or indicas and actually had them predict what they are or been able to characterize any kind of phenotypic description of what that intoxicated state feels like. And
Because all the – like the paper that you were referring to where it was users who had got the product, they can't remove their own inherent biases from their own experience. It's going to influence it. There's no way around it. And so people kind of lean into this and I –
Probably not consciously, but they – I mean the amount of people I've talked to that really genuinely believe this to their core that sativa does this and indica does this is fascinating to me. Because again, like you have these two – like THC is what drives the high. That's very clear.
Showing 441–460 of 614 · page 23 of 31 ← Previous Next →