Latest news with #RANDCorporation
CTV News
5 days ago
- Health
- CTV News
Marijuana may make sleep worse, especially for regular users, study finds
A man holds a joint while smoking marijuana to celebrate the legalization of recreational cannabis, in Vancouver on Oct. 17, 2018. (Darryl Dyck / THE CANADIAN PRESS) It's a common assumption among marijuana users: Using weed will help you fall asleep and stay asleep. Scientists, however, aren't so sure that's true. 'This is an understudied but important area, as many people are increasingly turning to cannabis products as sleep aids,' said sleep specialist Wendy Troxel, a senior behavioral scientist at RAND Corporation, who was not involved in the study. 'But we really lack solid evidence demonstrating whether cannabis helps or hurts sleep,' Troxel added. Use of weed may actually harm sleep, a new study has found. The research, published Monday in a BMJ journal, revealed adults who use weed 20 or more days during the last month were 64% more likely to sleep less than six hours a night and 76% more likely to sleep longer than nine hours a night. Optimal sleep for adults is defined by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as seven to eight hours a night. Moderate consumption -- using weed less than 20 days during the past month -- didn't create short sleep problems, but people were 47% more likely to snooze nine or more hours a night, the study also found. Why is short and long sleep a problem? 'Large population-based studies show that both short sleep and long sleep are associated with an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes, as well as the long-term progression of things like atherosclerosis, diabetes, coronary artery disease and any of the major cardiovascular diseases,' said lead study author Calvin Diep, who is resident in the department of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Toronto. 'It seems with sleep there's kind of this 'Goldilocks phenomenon' where there's an amount that 'just right,'' Diep said. One in three Americans don't get enough sleep, according to the CDC. In addition, 50 million to 70 million Americans struggle with sleep disorders such as sleep apnea, insomnia and restless leg syndrome, which can ruin a good night's shut-eye. The CDC calls that a 'public health problem,' because disrupted sleep is associated with a higher risk of conditions including high blood pressure, weakened immune performance, weight gain, a lack of libido, mood swings, paranoia, depression, and a higher risk of diabetes, stroke, cardiovascular disease, dementia and some cancers. NO CLEAR EVIDENCE EITHER WAY The study analyzed use of marijuana for sleep among 21,729 adults between the ages of 20 and 59. The data was gathered by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, and is considered representative of over 146 million Americans. In addition to issues with short and long sleep, people in the study who used weed within the last 30 days were also more likely to say they have trouble falling asleep or staying asleep, and were more likely to say they have discussed sleep problems with a health care provider, Diep said. 'The problem with our study is that we can't really say that it's causal, meaning we can't know for sure whether this was simply individuals who were having difficulty sleeping, and that's why they use the cannabis or the cannabis caused it,' he added. Prior studies have also found a connection between the two components of marijuana, CBD and THC, and poor sleep. CBD, or cannabidiol, is a key component of medical marijuana, while THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, is the main psychoactive compound in cannabis that produces the high sensation. A 2018 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study -- the gold standard -- found no benefit from CBD on sleep in healthy volunteers. Other studies have also found high rates of insomnia when withdrawing from nightly use of marijuana. 'At this time there still isn't any clear evidence that cannabis is helping sleep,' said Dr. Bhanu Prakash Kolla, a sleep medicine specialist in the Center for Sleep Medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved in any of the studies. 'We know that when people initiate use there is some benefit in the immediate short term but there is quick tolerance to this effect,' Kolla said. " There currently is no good quality evidence to suggest that cannabis will help improve sleep quality or duration." CONFOUNDING FACTORS Still, people continue to believe that weed is helping their sleep. Surveys of marijuana users show they do indeed rely on the drug for better sleep. 'The issue is that there's a disconnect between these anecdotal reports of people reporting therapeutic benefits and the evidence behind it in terms of the data,' Diep said. One possible reason, Kolla said, is that when people stop using cannabis after a period of regular use, the withdrawal effects from weed can cause sleep disruptions. That leads people to believe 'the cannabis was in fact helping (sleep), while what they are actually experiencing are withdrawal symptoms.' Another factor to consider is the increased potency of weed today as compared to when many of the studies on cannabis and sleep were conducted, said Dr. Karim Ladha, staff anesthesiologist and clinician-scientist in the department of anesthesiology and pain medicine at the University of Toronto. 'A lot of the older data related to cannabis is based on lower doses of THC than what patients are using now, and there's very little research related to CBD,' Ladha said. 'Studies tell us about what happens at a population level, but on an individual level that discussion is much more personal,' he said. 'The studies just give us the possibilities that (marijuana) could hurt your sleep, but it may help and so we just don't know until you try it." That's why additional studies need to be done, he added. 'Patients are spending money and time and resources to obtain cannabis right now to help with sleep,' Ladha said. 'I think as the medical community, we need to do everything we can to make sure that we enable our patients to make the best possible decisions for their health.'
New York Times
16-07-2025
- Business
- New York Times
China Is Spending Billions to Become an A.I. Superpower
When OpenAI blocked China's access to its advanced artificial intelligence systems last July, Chinese coders shrugged. They would rely instead on open-source systems, where the underlying technology is shared publicly for others to build on. At the time, that mostly meant turning to another popular American product made by Meta. But in the year since, there has been a major shift in the global race to develop advanced A.I. Chinese companies like DeepSeek and Alibaba have churned out open-source A.I. systems of their own that rank among the world's top performers. China is quickly closing the gap with the United States in the contest to make technologies that rival the human brain. This is not an accident. The Chinese government has spent a decade funneling resources toward becoming an A.I. superpower, using the same strategy it used to dominate the electric vehicle and solar power industries. 'China is applying state support across the entire A.I. tech stack, from chips and data centers down to energy,' said Kyle Chan, an adjunct researcher at the RAND Corporation, a think tank. For the past 10 years, Beijing has pushed Chinese companies to build manufacturing capabilities in high-tech industries for which the country previously depended on imports. That approach helped China become the maker of a third of the world's manufactured goods and a leader in electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels. And it has also been applied to the essential building blocks of advanced A.I. systems: computing power, skilled engineers and data resources. China pushed that industrial policy approach as three presidential administrations in Washington tried to hold back its ability to make technologies like artificial intelligence, including by restricting sales of chips made by Nvidia, America's leading A.I. chipmaker. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Sydney Morning Herald
11-07-2025
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump tariffs: Australian pharmaceuticals' threat can't be dismissed as just hot air
Australians should feel concerned that US President Donald Trump has publicly toyed with the idea of applying tariffs of up to 200 per cent on pharmaceuticals. Tariffs of this size are unlikely to materialise, or at least stay in place for long, and are much more likely to be used as a threat to extract other concessions related to pharmaceuticals. But such concessions could still be very damaging for Australia in the long run. Large tariffs would, of course, present serious problems for pharmaceutical companies in countries that export drugs to the US, with flow-on effects for national economies. This includes Australia. With $2.2 billion in pharmaceutical exports to the US last year, we have a lot at stake. Pharmaceuticals are the third-biggest category in Australia's export trade with the US, after beef and gold. Credit: AP Trump says he will allow some time for companies to move their manufacturing to the US before the tariffs kick in – perhaps up to a year and a half – but it takes many years to establish and staff high-tech facilities, and there would be huge costs involved. If Trump decided the tariffs would apply to ingredients as well as to finished pharmaceutical products, this could also cause chaos in supply chains, with results difficult to predict. American drug companies faced with inflated manufacturing costs could increase drug prices in markets that allow it and threaten to withdraw them from others, such as Australia. The Trump administration is unlikely to introduce tariffs of this size, given the effects they would have on the drug costs in the US for health insurers and consumers. The US already spends far more on medicines compared with other OECD countries – $US1432 ($2190) per capita on retail pharmaceuticals in 2021, well over double Australia's per capita expenditure of $US647 ($990). The RAND Corporation found that US drug prices in 2022 were, on average, 2.78 times higher than 33 comparison countries, and more than four times higher for new, brand-name drugs. Tariffs of 200 per cent would sharply increase costs for imported drugs, many of which can't easily be replaced with alternatives. Trump would face immediate and intense domestic pressure to remove them. Loading But in line with other aspects of Trump's trade policy, it's likely the threat of astronomical tariffs will be used to extract concessions that countries wouldn't agree to under normal circumstances – and haven't agreed to in past trade negotiations. It seems that as part of its trade deal with the US announced in May, the UK has already agreed to 'endeavour to improve the overall environment for pharmaceutical companies operating in the United Kingdom' in exchange for preferential treatment for tariffs on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients. What concessions are countries likely to be asked to make? The US agenda is not very clear, partly because the results of a Department of Commerce investigation into pharmaceutical imports are yet to be announced. But the US agenda is also a rat's nest of conflicting policy objectives. The US pharmaceutical industry has been agitating about our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which subsidises medicines for Australians. As a monopsony (a single buyer), the PBS can keep prices well below those in the US. In a letter to the US Trade Representative in March, the peak organisation representing branded US drug companies, PhRMA, complained that Australia's pharmaceutical pricing policies were 'egregious and discriminatory' barriers to trade.
Sydney Morning Herald
10-07-2025
- Business
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump is toying with us, but his 200% tariff threat could still harm sick Australians
Australians should feel concerned that US President Donald Trump has publicly toyed with the idea of applying tariffs of up to 200 per cent on pharmaceuticals. Tariffs of this size are unlikely to materialise, or at least stay in place for long, and are much more likely to be used as a threat to extract other concessions related to pharmaceuticals. But such concessions could still be very damaging for Australia in the long run. Large tariffs would, of course, present serious problems for pharmaceutical companies in countries that export drugs to the US, with flow-on effects for national economies. This includes Australia. With $2.2 billion in pharmaceutical exports to the US last year, we have a lot at stake. Trump says he will allow some time for companies to move their manufacturing to the US before the tariffs kick in – perhaps up to a year and a half – but it takes many years to establish and staff high-tech facilities, and there would be huge costs involved. If Trump decided the tariffs would apply to ingredients as well as to finished pharmaceutical products, this could also cause chaos in supply chains, with results difficult to predict. American drug companies faced with inflated manufacturing costs could increase drug prices in markets that allow it and threaten to withdraw them from others, such as Australia. The Trump administration is unlikely to introduce tariffs of this size, given the effects they would have on the drug costs in the US for health insurers and consumers. The US already spends far more on medicines compared with other OECD countries – $US1432 ($2190) per capita on retail pharmaceuticals in 2021, well over double Australia's per capita expenditure of $US647 ($990). The RAND Corporation found that US drug prices in 2022 were, on average, 2.78 times higher than 33 comparison countries, and more than four times higher for new, brand-name drugs. Tariffs of 200 per cent would sharply increase costs for imported drugs, many of which can't easily be replaced with alternatives. Trump would face immediate and intense domestic pressure to remove them. Loading But in line with other aspects of Trump's trade policy, it's likely the threat of astronomical tariffs will be used to extract concessions that countries wouldn't agree to under normal circumstances – and haven't agreed to in past trade negotiations. It seems that as part of its trade deal with the US announced in May, the UK has already agreed to 'endeavour to improve the overall environment for pharmaceutical companies operating in the United Kingdom' in exchange for preferential treatment for tariffs on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients. What concessions are countries likely to be asked to make? The US agenda is not very clear, partly because the results of a Department of Commerce investigation into pharmaceutical imports are yet to be announced. But the US agenda is also a rat's nest of conflicting policy objectives. The US pharmaceutical industry has been agitating about our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which subsidises medicines for Australians. As a monopsony (a single buyer), the PBS can keep prices well below those in the US. In a letter to the US Trade Representative in March, the peak organisation representing branded US drug companies, PhRMA, complained that Australia's pharmaceutical pricing policies were 'egregious and discriminatory' barriers to trade.
The Age
10-07-2025
- Business
- The Age
Trump is toying with us, but his 200% tariff threat could still harm sick Australians
Australians should feel concerned that US President Donald Trump has publicly toyed with the idea of applying tariffs of up to 200 per cent on pharmaceuticals. Tariffs of this size are unlikely to materialise, or at least stay in place for long, and are much more likely to be used as a threat to extract other concessions related to pharmaceuticals. But such concessions could still be very damaging for Australia in the long run. Large tariffs would, of course, present serious problems for pharmaceutical companies in countries that export drugs to the US, with flow-on effects for national economies. This includes Australia. With $2.2 billion in pharmaceutical exports to the US last year, we have a lot at stake. Trump says he will allow some time for companies to move their manufacturing to the US before the tariffs kick in – perhaps up to a year and a half – but it takes many years to establish and staff high-tech facilities, and there would be huge costs involved. If Trump decided the tariffs would apply to ingredients as well as to finished pharmaceutical products, this could also cause chaos in supply chains, with results difficult to predict. American drug companies faced with inflated manufacturing costs could increase drug prices in markets that allow it and threaten to withdraw them from others, such as Australia. The Trump administration is unlikely to introduce tariffs of this size, given the effects they would have on the drug costs in the US for health insurers and consumers. The US already spends far more on medicines compared with other OECD countries – $US1432 ($2190) per capita on retail pharmaceuticals in 2021, well over double Australia's per capita expenditure of $US647 ($990). The RAND Corporation found that US drug prices in 2022 were, on average, 2.78 times higher than 33 comparison countries, and more than four times higher for new, brand-name drugs. Tariffs of 200 per cent would sharply increase costs for imported drugs, many of which can't easily be replaced with alternatives. Trump would face immediate and intense domestic pressure to remove them. Loading But in line with other aspects of Trump's trade policy, it's likely the threat of astronomical tariffs will be used to extract concessions that countries wouldn't agree to under normal circumstances – and haven't agreed to in past trade negotiations. It seems that as part of its trade deal with the US announced in May, the UK has already agreed to 'endeavour to improve the overall environment for pharmaceutical companies operating in the United Kingdom' in exchange for preferential treatment for tariffs on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients. What concessions are countries likely to be asked to make? The US agenda is not very clear, partly because the results of a Department of Commerce investigation into pharmaceutical imports are yet to be announced. But the US agenda is also a rat's nest of conflicting policy objectives. The US pharmaceutical industry has been agitating about our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which subsidises medicines for Australians. As a monopsony (a single buyer), the PBS can keep prices well below those in the US. In a letter to the US Trade Representative in March, the peak organisation representing branded US drug companies, PhRMA, complained that Australia's pharmaceutical pricing policies were 'egregious and discriminatory' barriers to trade.
