Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Is this evidence enough for ya ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNT8Zo_sfwo

Legalize this tomorrow

All this proves is that it worked at that moment for a single person.

Studies are needed to tell what % of the population it works for, if it is gender or race specific , what level of relief it gives and how consistently, can it be used long term, are there any adverse effects etc etc.

As you know from the CT forum herbs/plants make terrible medicine for a variety of reasons so it would be foolish to assume weed is any different.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

With cannabis and parkinsons ... let people who suffer from it try it .... No Big pharma involment needed ..... As you can see the results can be visible in minutes .... If that is not evidence enough for you i dont know what will convince you

See previous post

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

All this proves is that it worked at that moment for a single person.

Studies are needed to tell what % of the population it works for, if it is gender or race specific , what level of relief it gives and how consistently, can it be used long term, are there any adverse effects etc etc.

As you know from the CT forum herbs/plants make terrible medicine for a variety of reasons so it would be foolish to assume weed is any different.

I've no issue with legalisation but those pushing the medicinal angle should expect it to be treated the same as any other medicine.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I've no issue with legalisation but those pushing the medicinal angle should expect it to be treated the same as any other medicine.

Natural products (plants etc) having medicinal properties should be treated different then lab developed medicines.

Jimoslimos

weisses wrote: »

Natural products (plants etc) having medicinal properties should be treated different then lab developed medicines.

They already are. Unless doctors treating terminally-ill patients in pain recommend smoking opium.

Many "lab-developed" medicines derive from isolating the active compound(s) from plants or developing analogues of same.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Natural products (plants etc) having medicinal properties should be treated different then lab developed medicines.

Why?

Depp

weisses wrote: »

Is this evidence enough for ya ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNT8Zo_sfwo

Legalize this tomorrow

im pro legalization and im delighted to see it passed for medicinal use, but to put forward a single youtube video like this as ''evidence enough'' is hilarious. I mean are you actually serious?

K.Flyer

How come there are no Cochrane reviews, good bad or indifferent, regarding the research and papers covering studies on certain gliomas and other cancers.

The Cochrane site is outdated and should not be relied upon as a comprehensive reference point.

jh79 wrote: »

Here are the Cochrane reviews i found.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

How come there are no Cochrane reviews, good bad or indifferent, regarding the research and papers covering studies on certain gliomas and other cancers.

The Cochrane site is outdated and should not be relied upon as a comprehensive reference point.

They are a independent volunteer organisation and cover all of mecidine so they can't review everything weed related.

The Glioma stuff hasn't enough research yet to warrant a meta-analysis IMO.

GW Pharma have a cannabinoid in development for this. Keep an eye out for for their clinical trials

kleefarr

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/alabama_researchers_announce_p.html

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/alabama_researchers_announce_p.html

This was a phase 3 trial by GW Pharma the makers of Sativex.

They plan to submit to the FDA next year.

If the HPRA apply their usual standards Sativex will be made legal but there isn't a hope for weed itself.

weisses

Depp wrote: »

im pro legalization and im delighted to see it passed for medicinal use, but to put forward a single youtube video like this as ''evidence enough'' is hilarious. I mean are you actually serious?

Yes ....
This is one example ... I can posts many more ... But you could also look it up yourself and be more informed ..... How hilarious would that be

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

This was a phase 3 trial by GW Pharma the makers of Sativex.

They plan to submit to the FDA next year.

If the HPRA apply their usual standards Sativex will be made legal but there isn't a hope for weed itself.

Ahh yes ...Bring in big pharma for something mankind is using thousands of years already ...... Money money money ... under the disguise of science

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Ahh yes ...Bring in big pharma for something mankind is using thousands of years already ...... Money money money ... under the disguise of science

Why would weed be any different to all the other herbal remedies that don't work?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yes ....
This is one example ... I can posts many more ... But you could also look it up yourself and be more informed ..... How hilarious would that be

Your standards for proof of effectiveness have drop considerably.

Water John

I presume Purdue Pharma got FDA clearance for their 'wonder drug' too?
Anything has to have FDA approval.
That has turned out well.

scamalert

jh79 wrote: »

Why would weed be any different to all the other herbal remedies that don't work?

your taking crap of him with your stupid comments aren't you ?
what sort of study or paper you need as proof,if it helps even 1% that is basically someone who is in vegetative state or dying one way or another why not let them try it,as alternative its hardly making someone worse who is in that condition.
most meds are made of some sort of herbal plant only difference is they are synthetically enhanced,isolated.

And yes big pharma joke,its not like case where they make tons of cash,and most drugs dont include side effects,ever read vitamin c leaflet of side effects,should that be banned as well list of side effects:Vitamin C may cause abdominal cramps or pain, chest pain, dental erosion, dizziness, diarrhea, faintness, fatigue, flushing, gut blockage, headache, heartburn, increased risk of lung cancer, increased risk of Parkinson's disease, inflamed esophagus, injection site discomfort, nausea, red blood cell complications, skin tingling or irritation, slowing of endurance training, thickening of blood vessels close to the heart, urinary complications, and vomiting.

In other words stop being ignorant dope,just say you dont want to see weed sold legalized and thats it. :cool:

meeeeh

Anyone arguing for unproven herbal remedies vs medicines produced by big pharma is arguing for quackery vs science.

jh79

Water John wrote: »

I presume Purdue Pharma got FDA clearance for their 'wonder drug' too?
Anything has to have FDA approval.
That has turned out well.

And your solution is that standards should be dropped? Less testing??

Water John

I'd just say, I'm not naive.
I'm think a bit less reliance on private big pharma would be wise counsel.
Science by all means. Very interested in, for example, UCC research into intestine flora and health, incl mental health.
Also, light stimulation possible treatment for dementia.
Answer doesn't always have to be a chemical pill.

meeeeh

Water John wrote: »

I'd just say, I'm not naive.
I'm think a bit less reliance on private big pharma would be wise counsel.
Science by all means. Very interested in, for example, UCC research into intestine flora and health, incl mental health.
Also, light stimulation possible treatment for dementia.
Answer doesn't always have to be a chemical pill.

No it doesn't but whatever is a solution needs a bit more proof than you tube video and wishful thinking.

K.Flyer

meeeeh wrote: »

No it doesn't but whatever is a solution needs a bit more proof than you tube video and wishful thinking.

There is a very good documentary showing the studies and findings of Israeli scientist Raphael Mechoulam, the man who discovered THC.
There is also another excellent recording of the talk given by Prof. Cristina Sanchez of Madrid and her findings.
Then there is PubMed which has published several papers showing very strong potential in the treatment of certain, but not all, cancers.
And then there is the ongoing studies at our own Universities in Ireland.
So people are getting their hopes up, and its not based on one solitary you-tube video.

Depp

weisses wrote: »

Yes ....
This is one example ... I can posts many more ... But you could also look it up yourself and be more informed ..... How hilarious would that be

look youtube videos are not evidence, for all we know that guys an actor and the whole thing is staged, for what its worth I'm of the belief that it can be helpful in certain cases anecdotally but if you want to go on about your ''evidence'' it needs to be hard scientific studies and experiments, not an unverifyable testimonial from some randomer on the internet

meeeeh

K.Flyer wrote: »

There is a very good documentary showing the studies and findings of Israeli scientist Raphael Mechoulam, the man who discovered THC.
There is also another excellent recording of the talk given by Prof. Cristina Sanchez of Madrid and her findings.
Then there is PubMed which has published several papers showing very strong potential in the treatment of certain, but not all, cancers.
And then there is the ongoing studies at our own Universities in Ireland.
So people are getting their hopes up, and its not based on one solitary you-tube video.

Very strong potential does not medicine make. There is a reason why very rigorous testing is needed and even then things can go wrong. Pharmaceuticals have offten very rightly bad reputation but at least their stuff needs to be a bit more than strong potential before it goes on the market.

THC mught be a wonder drug but till now they did not manage to prove conclusively most of the health claims. I am not saying that one day they won't but in mean time I wouldn't like to be prescribed something with strong potential instead of chemotherapy or other proven treatments for cancer. I have no objection to people trying it as I have no objection to people drinking camomile tea for upset stomach. But marihuana is on the level of herbal remedie at the moment and no more.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

There is a very good documentary showing the studies and findings of Israeli scientist Raphael Mechoulam, the man who discovered THC.
There is also another excellent recording of the talk given by Prof. Cristina Sanchez of Madrid and her findings.
Then there is PubMed which has published several papers showing very strong potential in the treatment of certain, but not all, cancers.
And then there is the ongoing studies at our own Universities in Ireland.
So people are getting their hopes up, and its not based on one solitary you-tube video.

Sorry k flyer while there is on-going research in this area i disagree that cannabinoids have shown "very strong" potential .

Sanchez's research required huge quantites of cannabinoids, beyond anything possible to smoke, and this seems to be a common trend across research in this area.

Don't forget envasive brain surgery was required becuase the cannabinoids had such poor potency/ bioavailability.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

Sanchez's research required huge quantites of cannabinoids, beyond anything possible to smoke, and this seems to be a common trend across research in this area.
.

Getting cannabinoids by smoking is not a preferred method. Do you think they gave the lab mice joints in order to obtain their preliminary results.
That is why they extract the cannabinoid concentrate from the plant and are able to administer small rice grain sized doses instead.

pure.conya

jh79 wrote: »

No of course not, would it be sufficient evidence for you if it was a pharma drug?

It's not a "pharma" drug though. Despite the recent 50 years of prohibition, it's an excellent natural drug that's been successfully cultivated and used by humans for thousands of years, with not a single fatality from its use, EVER. Guess what, we need GW Pharmacy for fúck all

meeeeh

pure.conya wrote: »

It's not a "pharma" drug though. Despite the recent 50 years of prohibition, it's an excellent natural drug that's been successfully cultivated and used by humans for thousands of years, with not a single fatality from its use, EVER. Guess what, we don't need GW Pharmacy for fúck all

The same can be said for leeches.

pure.conya

Jimoslimos wrote: »

What?? Your "link" doesn't back up your ludicrous claims.

Firstly the deaths were linked to recreational use and not in a clinical trial.

Secondly the drugs were mimics of methamphetamine and LSD, not cannabis.


Youtube testimonials? No that isn't evidence.

Regardless, that isn't an argument for legalisation, it's an argument for it to be a controlled medicinal product.

Really? http://www.newstarget.com/2016-03-09-synthetic-cannabis-drug-trial-results-in-hospitalization-and-death.html

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

Getting cannabinoids by smoking is not a preferred method. Do you think they gave the lab mice joints in order to obtain their preliminary results.
That is why they extract the cannabinoid concentrate from the plant and are able to administer small rice grain sized doses instead.

That had to be placed directly into the tumour. Not an ideal delivery method but the only option due to its poor potency / bioavailability.

My reference to smoking joints is to remind people that studies like these do not support the theory that inhaled weed has medicinal properties.

Sativex is available in the UK and they don't have so called medicinal marijuana.