Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

jh79

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.

You gave up after a single link to cancer.gov!

First the rant, then the pretend links and finally the watering down of the original claims.

Rant mode at the moment.

Jayop

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?

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.

So basically when you're making your anti-cannabis point showing your great studies they show smoking doubles the risk, however when you're shown a report to the contrary the waters are muddied and there's no way to know if there's correlation or causation.

You're turning into a parody of yourself at this stage. :rolleyes:

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

I'll have a look at that so.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

So basically when you're making your anti-cannabis point showing your great studies they show smoking doubles the risk, however when you're shown a report to the contrary the waters are muddied and there's no way to know if there's correlation or causation.

You're turning into a parody of yourself at this stage. :rolleyes:

Have you read a single piece of research since this thread began?

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

You gave up after a single link to cancer.gov!

First the rant, then the pretend links and finally the watering down of the original claims.

Rant mode at the moment.

Nah, the links I gave backed up exactly what I said, not the typical strawman BS that you claimed I said.

The "rant" as you call it was your obvious obfuscation in spending about 3 pages saying firstly I hadn't posted links, then asking for me to quote them despite me having told you exactly where they were, then you went back to strawman arguments saying I had claimed things I hadn't done.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Nah, the links I gave backed up exactly what I said, not the typical strawman BS that you claimed I said.

The "rant" as you call it was your obvious obfuscation in spending about 3 pages saying firstly I hadn't posted links, then asking for me to quote them despite me having told you exactly where they were, then you went back to strawman arguments saying I had claimed things I hadn't done.

No your claims were not supported by that link . Try again.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

No your claims were not supported by that link . Try again.

They were. Try again.

2 can play at this game. I don't know, would getting the thread locked so no discussion can be had be a good end game for you? It's pretty much the same as what you've been doing anyway.

jh79

Ok so Jayop start from scratch,

Make your claims with the research to back them up.

What are you afraid of?

jh79

So what is your first claim?

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Ok so Jayop start from scratch,

Make your claims with the research to back them up.

What are you afraid of?

lol, ah yeah Ill go back over the whole discussion from god knows how long ago to satisfy your ego!?? :rolleyes:

Surely at some point you'll go off duty and the rest of us without what seems to be a vested interest can have a genuine conversation. You know what a conversation or opinion is don't you??

scamalert

it would be safe to assume that jh79 is trolling this place and mods should close this topic for it has passed the original aspect of this thread,also for double posting maybe a ban on any further cannabis discussions for next decade until he can come up with better research argument

my advise report the thread and lets get it closed,its going nowhere,no point in feeding single troll,since he keeps bumping this thread form the dead every day.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

lol, ah yeah Ill go back over the whole discussion from god knows how long ago to satisfy your ego!?? :rolleyes:

Surely at some point you'll go off duty and the rest of us without what seems to be a vested interest can have a genuine conversation. You know what a conversation or opinion is don't you??

I'm never off duty!

We could move to the health science forum if you like we wouldn't have to put up with silly youtube videos and articles from leafy.com ?

What are you afraid of you already said you have the research to back your claims?

jh79

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

. "Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia. However, does cannabis cause depression and schizophrenia or do people with these disorders use it as a medication?"

Exactly as i said and what the latest review says also.

Jayop

I'll tell you what, here's the post I made, in this thread that was easily found by doing a search. Rather than do that you decided to make up lies that I claimed things that I didn't back up.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101851674&postcount=341

And in that post I clearly stated what would happen once you were presented with the evidence to what I actually claimed, and reading the subsequent pages it was actually amazingly accurate.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

. "Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia. However, does cannabis cause depression and schizophrenia or do people with these disorders use it as a medication?"

Exactly as i said and what the latest review says also.

No, before you were pulled up you simply said the first part leaving out the all important second part.

Shocking.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

I'm never off duty!

We could move to the health science forum if you like we wouldn't have to put up with silly youtube videos and articles from leafy.com ?

What are you afraid of you already said you have the research to back your claims?

Have I posted youtube vids and articles from leafy?

If not then apart from another bull**** strawman why would you introduce it into this conversation?

Of I know.....:rolleyes:

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

I'll tell you what, here's the post I made, in this thread that was easily found by doing a search. Rather than do that you decided to make up lies that I claimed things that I didn't back up.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101851674&postcount=341

And in that post I clearly stated what would happen once you were presented with the evidence to what I actually claimed, and reading the subsequent pages it was actually amazingly accurate.

Yea that was stage 3 , change the original claims.

A modest effect on vomitimg for chemo was your original claim was it??

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Have I posted youtube vids and articles from leafy?

If not then apart from another bull**** strawman why would you introduce it into this conversation?

Of I know.....:rolleyes:

I said we wouldn't have to put up with them never said you posted anything bar the usual rants.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

Yea that was stage 3 , change the original claims.

A modest effect on vomitimg for chemo was your original claim was it??

What was my original claims then? If you are so certain that they aren't what I said they were then you surely must know them and be able to find them.

jh79 wrote: »

I said we wouldn't have to put up with them never said you posted anything bar the usual rants.

Jesus we're getting all the tricks of the trade today. You quote someone and clearly insinuate that what I've been posting is either what you say or is on par with it, then a post later you try to distance yourself from your obvious insinuation.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

No, before you were pulled up you simply said the first part leaving out the all important second part.

Shocking.

What's shocking is that the poster who claims to be interested in this never reads any of the published research.

I provide the link twice and highlighted the relevant section, 12-1.

Have you read a single research paper on this topic?

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

What's shocking is that the poster who claims to be interested in this never reads any of the published research.

I provide the link twice and highlighted the relevant section, 12-1.

Have you read a single research paper on this topic?

Again, what unfounded claims have I made?

Are you prepared to admit to being a liar?

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Again, what unfounded claims have I made?

Are you prepared to admit to being a liar?

If i'm wrong I'll apologise.

Jayop

jh79 wrote: »

If i'm wrong I'll apologise.

Considering we went through this song and dance several times already and you've been unable to come up with any false claims I've made or failed to back up yet then I think your continued accusations that I've changed my claims is pretty low.

jh79

Jayop wrote: »

Considering we went through this song and dance several times already and you've been unable to come up with any false claims I've made or failed to back up yet then I think your continued accusations that I've changed my claims is pretty low.

I asked you to quote your own posts at the time but you went on a rant instead, it's your own fault.

Jayop

Here's the start the last time. Pretty much how it played out today funnily enough. It's the favourite play of this lad.

Claims I didn't back what I said it did. Then when I reminded that I did he claims that it wasn't the original claims I had made.

jh79 wrote: »

No you didn't , I even asked you to quote your own links and you wouldn't.

The only link i found was cancer.gov and it didn't support your claims.

Strange how you still refuse to back up your claims.

Jayop wrote: »

Typical rubbish. It certainly did back up MY claims. It may not have backed up strawman claims you keep on saying were made my by.

Change that record dude. You asked for evidence, I gave it. As per, you ignored it and then mouthed that it wasn't given. I told you the exact page number it was on and you still expected me to go get it for you. Why would I do that for you to lie about the contents if it backed me up or ignore it if you have no come back.

jh79 wrote: »

Here is your chance to show me up, what was your claim and what link did you provide ?

In the mean time i'll look back over the old thread and see if what your saying is true and if it is i'll apologise.

Jayop wrote: »

You couldn't find something on the last page after being told it was there. I doubt you'll find anything.

jh79 wrote: »

Quote: Jayop;
"Cannabis has not been proven to cause psychosis. In kids it may magnify pre existing conditions, but it's not causal and it does much more good than harm."


ME;
"What "good" are you referring to? I haven't come across any for inhaled or consuned cannabis especially if the criteria is "causal"."

The link was cancer.gov

Jayop wrote: »

What was the good I referred to? You seem to be presuming I was saying good regarding psychological issues which I wasn't. Good as in pain relief, effectiveness in preventing and controlling seizures,helping with nausea. All good things don't you think


Keep on strawing.

jh79 wrote: »

Where are the links to those studies?

Jayop wrote: »

They've been posted countless times as you well know.

jh79 wrote: »

So not on the link from the other thread as you claimed?

cancer.gov?

Here's where I go through it all again, show the claims I made and the links to back up what I said and no more.

Jayop wrote: »

The cancer.gov link that said exactly what I said that studies have shown that Cannabis and Cannabinoids have effeciveness in pain relief and anti-nausea?

Yet you still seek to dismiss them.

Amazing!

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq

Here's cancer.org saying the same thing.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/physicalsideeffects/chemotherapyeffects/marijuana-and-cancer

Here's NCBI

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2503660/

This is the last part of their summery...


Peer reviewed study into anti-nausea with smoked cannabis.

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000137#answer-id-008929
(the phd link to the original study is at the bottom.)

Control of epileptic seizures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4911937/#B15




Now go ahead, dismiss, disrespect and otherwise come up with strawmen arguments that I never made so you don't have to admit you were given links to back up the actual claims I made.

jh79 wrote: »

At least your being more specific now but that's not what you said in the other thread.

Not important so back on topic

Here are what the Cochrane Review said. They have another one on the way for pain relief.

http://onlinelibrary.w...8.CD009270.pub3/full

"No reliable conclusions can be drawn at present regarding the efficacy of cannabinoids as a treatment for epilepsy"

http://onlinelibrary.w...8.CD009464.pub2/full

"Cannabis-based medications may be useful for treating refractory chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. However, methodological limitations of the trials limit our conclusions and further research reflecting current chemotherapy regimens and newer anti-emetic drugs is likely to modify these conclusions."

jh79 wrote: »

What's wrong with the the links i've provided?

If you actually read your own link it does not prove anything.

So the plan is to rant because you can't support your claims?

Lies upon lies

jh79 wrote: »

You gave up after a single link to cancer.gov!

First the rant, then the pretend links and finally the watering down of the original claims.

Rant mode at the moment.

jh79 wrote: »

No your claims were not supported by that link . Try again.

jh79 wrote: »

Ok so Jayop start from scratch,

Make your claims with the research to back them up.

What are you afraid of?

jh79 wrote: »

I'm never off duty!

We could move to the health science forum if you like we wouldn't have to put up with silly youtube videos and articles from leafy.com ?

What are you afraid of you already said you have the research to back your claims?

jh79 wrote: »

Yea that was stage 3 , change the original claims.

A modest effect on vomitimg for chemo was your original claim was it??

jh79 wrote: »

I asked you to quote your own posts at the time but you went on a rant instead, it's your own fault.

Your posts really make you look like a liar.

jh79

Anti- nausea from your link cancer.gov

. Consequently, there are insufficient data to provide an overall level of evidence assessment for the use of Cannabis for chemotherapy-induced N/V.

jh79

At present, there is insufficient evidence to recommend inhaling Cannabis as a treatment for cancer-related symptoms or cancer treatment–related symptoms or cancer treatment-related side effects; however, additional research is needed

Guess where this comes from (cancer.gov).

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

At present, there is insufficient evidence to recommend inhaling Cannabis as a treatment for cancer-related symptoms or cancer treatment–related symptoms or cancer treatment-related side effects; however, additional research is needed

Guess where this comes from (cancer.gov).

You love to labour on the point of smoking cannabis as not having any benefits, thereby trying to use it as a tool to dismiss all other research and reviews.
You don't inhale cannabis oil.
Children, like the child in Cork, are benefiting from the THC / CBD combination, they are not smoking joints to get it.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

You love to labour on the point of smoking cannabis as not having any benefits, thereby trying to use it as a tool to dismiss all other research and reviews.
You don't inhale cannabis oil.
Children, like the child in Cork, are benefiting from the THC / CBD combination, they are not smoking joints to get it.

I'm just referring to Jayop's original claims nothing else. He made the claims regarding inhaled cannabis which his cancer.gov link does not support.

CBD oil seem like it has benefits based on the phase 3 data but lets wait and see what the phase 4 shows.

scamalert

So you dont agree with Canadian doctors who prescribed oil for the kid then,since surely it seems they have done a lot more research then one you keep referring to,and see it as safe alternative,if not superior to existing drugs to treat his condition.

Then why there should be any more research needed if they have 100s of patients of all ages to monitor them for last 5 years if not more,not to mention countless studies done,and seems no one so far had made any complaints against it,including Irish government who granted permission to treat child with cbd oil,surely medical commission seen it works better then any other drugs,to permit it,thus why you keep referring to points that as other user said like every patient is given joints to smoke,do you even know in how many ways cbt could be administered or rely on studies that tested on joint smokers,or at least that what is seems like.