Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

scamalert

http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/study.php hundreds of trials done,on various research groups concerning cbt effectiveness.

jh79

kleefarr wrote: »

http://countercurrentnews.com/2017/01/dea-slapped-in-face-american-epilepsy-society-accepts-marijuana-extract-obliterates-seizures-in-epileptic-children

You really need to stay away from these types of websites.

That study is the phase 3 for GW pharma that we have already discussed.

scamalert

jh79 wrote: »

You really need to stay away from these types of websites.

That study is the phase 3 for GW pharma that we have already discussed.

well according to you if people did that, we would still be in stone age.Its fact from this threads title that cannabis oil as alternative in extreme cases is more potent treatment then any pharma drug,thus dont see point in waiting until some pharma licenses like sativex some form of med to rake in profits,and at the end they still cover their a$$es with list long side effects.Its plain wrong if speaking on topic as medical use to prevent patients trying it,since in many cases side effects even long term,barely do more damage then someone having to choke on 10 medications to counteract each other from possible damage.

you speak of studies and research that needs decades,yet there is no right or wrong way to approach it,like Canada sees if it helps then why not,states that legalized it dont have a clue yet either of long term use of control from recent Colorado interview,but every state and country you look where its been legalized they gain billions in profits,and world hasnt ended when done so.

So i guess until this old generation passes away and people with more open mind will get to make decisions that smth will change,since its ridiculous for someone suffering not being able to legaly try alternative which posses little to no harm just to try,yet i see theres quite a correlation where pharma has threat if it was actually recognized as on par with other medicine thus they would lose millions when people could afford cheaper and more effective alternative.Since government only fears for it being abused,but they rule out at the same time the actual group of people that would benefit from it.

jh79

scamalert wrote: »

http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/study.php hundreds of trials done,on various research groups concerning cbt effectiveness.

How many are phase 3 trial and how many use a consistent ratio of cbd/thc and have the ability to produce a standardised product like GW pharma?

jh79

scamalert wrote: »

well according to you if people did that, we would still be in stone age.Its fact from this threads title that cannabis oil as alternative in extreme cases is more potent treatment then any pharma drug,thus dont see point in waiting until some pharma licenses like sativex some form of med to rake in profits,and at the end they still cover their a$$es with list long side effects.Its plain wrong if speaking on topic as medical use to prevent patients trying it,since in many cases side effects even long term,barely do more damage then someone having to choke on 10 medications to counteract each other from possible damage.

you speak of studies and research that needs decades,yet there is no right or wrong way to approach it,like Canada sees if it helps then why not,states that legalized it dont have a clue yet either of long term use of control from recent Colorado interview,but every state and country you look where its been legalized they gain billions in profits,and world hasnt ended when done so.

So i guess until this old generation passes away and people with more open mind will get to make decisions that smth will change,since its ridiculous for someone suffering not being able to legaly try alternative which posses little to no harm just to try,yet i see theres quite a correlation where pharma has threat if it was actually recognized as on par with other medicine thus they would lose millions when people could afford cheaper and more effective alternative.Since government only fears for it being abused,but they rule out at the same time the actual group of people that would benefit from it.

If you make claims of a clinical effect then you have to prove it, that is the law and rightly so.

Jayop

The battle is almost entirely lost. I wonder will big pharmaceutical companies or other vested interests continue to pay people to shill for them once it's complelty legalized in the western world.

Not saying there's anyone shilling here, just a general question / observation

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

The battle is almost entirely lost. I wonder will big pharmaceutical companies or other vested interests continue to pay people to shill for them once it's complelty legalized in the western world.

Not saying there's anyone shilling here, just a general question / observation

How is the battle lost GW pharma are reporting positive results??

Jayop

They're losing control of the market. It's getting legalised in more and more places. The UK have taken steps as has Ireland. Pharmaceutical companies now will be scrambling to try to get a slice of the pie that they have tried to have banned for years. It's no coincidence that one will show positive results after the horse has bolted.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

How is the battle lost GW pharma are reporting positive results??

Positive results for what exactly?

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

They're losing control of the market. It's getting legalised in more and more places. The UK have taken steps as has Ireland. Pharmaceutical companies now will be scrambling to try to get a slice of the pie that they have tried to have banned for years. It's no coincidence that one will show positive results after the horse has bolted.

Simon Harris has stated that the HPRA, our equivalent to the MHRA, will oversee medical marijuana so I would expect a similar statement from our guys.

How can anyone have an issue with the government stating that if you want to sell a product as medicine then you need to prove it works and is safe??

They could sell cannabis oil in the uk without making claims of a clinical benefit just like any other supplement in Holland and Barret.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

Positive results for what exactly?

Whatever is in the formulation they have patented.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Simon Harris has stated that the HPRA, our equivalent to the MHRA, will oversee medical marijuana so I would expect a similar statement from our guys.

How can anyone have an issue with the government stating that if you want to sell a product as medicine then you need to prove it works and is safe??

They could sell cannabis oil in the uk without making claims of a clinical benefit just like any other supplement in Holland and Barret.

Those goal posts sure have moved a lot in the few years you've been here working away.

Did I say I had any issue with that? Nope. You're creating a stupid strawman argument to distract from what was actually said.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Those goal posts sure have moved a lot in the few years you've been here working away.

Did I say I had any issue with that? Nope. You're creating a stupid strawman argument to distract from what was actually said.

What are you on about?

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

What are you on about?

Yeah it's really cryptic what I said.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Yeah it's really cryptic what I said.

Was just making general comments.

I have no interest in indulging a silly conspiracy theory.

Jayop

Is that step 3 or 4 in the manual?

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Is that step 3 or 4 in the manual?

I provided plenty of evidence I'm not a shill if you can't find the links that's your problem!! (Learnt that off you!)

Jayop

Yeah if you have all day to look up links and research then maybe you don't have another job to do then fair play to you.

Thanks for reminding me of your previous efforts of obfuscation.

scamalert

Jayop wrote: »

They're losing control of the market. It's getting legalised in more and more places. The UK have taken steps as has Ireland. Pharmaceutical companies now will be scrambling to try to get a slice of the pie that they have tried to have banned for years. It's no coincidence that one will show positive results after the horse has bolted.

Someone with sense agree on this completely,pharma looking at a shotgun barell since its matter of years before countries loosen up,and that would put end to pharma involvement and letting open studies to be accepted as per my link 100s of studies been done on live human trials,all documented and with various illnesses.but of course for it to be accepted pharma would lose its share to gain any profits and to lose millions if truth were told that alternatives dont have to be expensive nor approval needed from someone-this puts fear in any pharma that sells countless amounts of drugs that would be replaced by one that could be grown naturally.

jh79

scamalert wrote: »

Someone with sense agree on this completely,pharma looking at a shotgun barell since its matter of years before countries loosen up,and that would put end to pharma involvement and letting open studies to be accepted as per my link 100s of studies been done on live human trials,all documented and with various illnesses.but of course for it to be accepted pharma would lose its share to gain any profits and to lose millions if truth were told that alternatives dont have to be expensive nor approval needed from someone-this puts fear in any pharma that sells countless amounts of drugs that would be replaced by one that could be grown naturally.

Research to date shows only modest effectiveness for 3 illnesses which makes the whole idea of a big pharma conspiracy laughable.

K.Flyer

I love the way when some describe the positive effects of Cannabinoid as modest, its with an air of disregard, almost to the point of being dismissive.
But when they look at possible side or ill effects of Cannabis use, and these side effects are described as modest, then this version of the word "modest" takes on a far more dramatic effect, almost to the point of hysteria. :rolleyes:

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

I love the way when some describe the positive effects of Cannabinoid as modest, its with an air of disregard, almost to the point of being dismissive.
But when they look at possible side or ill effects of Cannabis use, and these side effects are described as modest, then this version of the word "modest" takes on a far more dramatic effect, almost to the point of hysteria. :rolleyes:

Could you give an example of this "almost hysteria"? According to the latest review regular smoking roughly doubles the risk of schizophrenia. Is it hysteria just because you don't like it?

Do you disagree with the latest review when it described the observed benefits as modest? If so why?

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Could you give an example of this "almost hysteria"? According to the latest review regular smoking roughly doubles the risk of schizophrenia. Is it hysteria just because you don't like it?

Do you disagree with the latest review when it described the observed benefits as modest? If so why?

you should inform the royal college of psychiatrists. they dont share this view at all.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you should inform the royal college of psychiatrists. they dont share this view at all.

Can you link to their report shoiwing no association between the two?

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Can you link to their report shoiwing no association between the two?

i posted a link to the page on their website earlier.

Jayop

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i posted a link to the page on their website earlier.

He has 162 posts in this thread, almost a third of the total with the next highest poster being on 33, however he has an amazing ability to not notice posts that were made that rebut his stance. If he does notice them he will either take them out of context, dismiss them for some random reason or just ignore them.

It's probably the single biggest instance of obvious agenda posting with the hope of tediously forcing everyone of the opposite viewpoint into submission by simply giving up.

ohnonotgmail

Jayop wrote: »

He has 162 posts in this thread, almost a third of the total with the next highest poster being on 33, however he has an amazing ability to not notice posts that were made that rebut his stance. If he does notice them he will either take them out of context, dismiss them for some random reason or just ignore them.

It's probably the single biggest instance of obvious agenda posting with the hope of tediously forcing everyone of the opposite viewpoint into submission by simply giving up.

i'm pretty sure he replied to it when i posted it originally.

scamalert

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you should inform the royal college of psychiatrists. they dont share this view at all.

give up now hes trolling for reactions and responses,all he has to link is some study from 30yrs old,based on no grounds,simple example of netherlands and Canada show that people have moved long away from BS propaganda,and only reason he says studies is because pharmacies are ones to lose out,in patenting and being able to sell weed as drug under patent.

Only good thing is that countries over the globe are moving into legalizing or decriminalizing it,thus Europe is behind but each year its getting closer.

Only worry that most would share here is how to control it from legal point,as its clear it has more then medicinal uses and is effective in many areas but hard to implement without doing major overhaul on all laws concerning it,but first step it should be available as choice for patients who think it might help,and as we can see it has been taken,and imagine eventually more people will choose same path even if it takes going to countries that know how effective it is and have studied it,and not speculate on effects that are on par with any other genetic disease for side effects.

At this point hes like the guy who thinks earth is flat and will post anything to prove so,yet give him study with over 100 human trials on various illnesses from 2010-2016 and he will point blank refer to mild effects argument or how it will cause schizophrenia,when term is those who have genetic probability have a chance,like smokers have a chance to get cancer.

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i posted a link to the page on their website earlier.

Did you read the full report? Section 12-1 concerns schizoprendia.

It is an interesting read, the nature of the illness and the study design means that they can really only say there is an association between the two. The waters are muddied because it is possible that depression and mental illness leads to weed rather than weed leading to mental illness.

But the studies do show a very strong association and this can be up to 3 times.

ohnonotgmail

jh79 wrote: »

Did you read the full report? Section 12-1 concerns schizoprendia.

It is an interesting read, the nature of the illness and the study design means that they can really only say there is an association between the two. The waters are muddied because it is possible that depression and mental illness leads to weed rather than weed leading to mental illness.

But the studies do show a very strong association and this can be up to 3 times.

i dont need to. I've read the royal college of psychiatrists summary of the current understanding of the link between cannabis and mental illness.