Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

Options
1…4546485051…67

Comments

  • Options
    #1412
    mulbot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭mulbot


    jh79 wrote: »
    You do realise that if you produce evidence that it is ineffective that the logical step is to remove paracetamol fron the market not licence weed. It is a complete non sequiter.

    I'm not saying Paracetamol is ineffective-


  • Options
    #1413
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭jh79


    mulbot wrote: »
    Using your logic in this thread,then it is expected to be able to show proof and links to back up claims, . I would expect of you what you expect of everyone else here.You still haven't answered why you consider Paracetamol a medicine.

    It is a non sequitor it is not a logical progression of your argument.


  • Options
    #1414
    mulbot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭mulbot


    jh79 wrote: »
    Oh and we all know that testimonial evidence supports its effectiveness so be careful as by introducing evidence that paracetamol isn't effective you are also showing how unreliable testimonials are.

    I don't know much about people's testimonials regarding Paracetamol-


  • Options
    #1415
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭jh79


    mulbot wrote: »
    I don't know much about people's testimonials regarding Paracetamol-

    It's popular so people must believe it is effective otherwise they wouldn't buy it.


  • Options
    #1416
    mulbot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭mulbot


    jh79 wrote: »
    It is a non sequitor it is not a logical progression of your argument.

    Why not?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1417
    mulbot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭mulbot


    jh79 wrote: »
    It's popular so people must believe it is effective otherwise they wouldn't buy it.

    So is cannabis,yet you don't call it a medicine.Why do you call Paracetamol a medicine?


  • Options
    #1418
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭jh79


    mulbot wrote: »
    Why not?

    If it is not effective then it should be removed from the market, it is not a reason to legalise weed as medicine.


  • Options
    #1419
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭jh79


    mulbot wrote: »
    So is cannabis,yet you don't call it a medicine.Why do you call Paracetamol a medicine?

    Do tou think paracetamol is effective? I can't expand without you answerimg that question.


  • Options
    #1420
    14murphy
    Registered Users Posts: 655 ✭✭✭14murphy


    I don't know if this is a discussion thread or not. However I suffer from quite bad Eczema over the past year. Normal medicine helps but after a while it re-appears, I also think the steroid cream I'm prescribed does damage as well as healing as it lifts away layers of the skin. So what I'm asking is can anybody recommend a Hemp/CBD product to battle my eczema ? TIA


  • Options
    #1421
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,168 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    Can't speak for cannabis as a cure for exema as I had a skin condition and it done nothing for it but I wasn't looking for it to. Yet I was told it was progressive with no cure from normal medicine.
    To break the back of the condition was a lot of trial and effor from numerous creams from the dermatologist to my own home made concoctions. In the end it was this particular tablet oil that changed everything, had to take it for a few weeks before I noticed any benifit, it pratically cured me. If you have a skin or eye condition try this stuff for 5 or 6 weeks and see does it work, don't cheap out and buy any other brand, can't remember the exact dosage think it was 4 a day for the first 2 weeks then 2 a day until whenever (I don't need them anymore). There expensive but they 100% help the skin and eyes, I've done a bit of googling and people are reporting good things with them and exema, you can get them in holland and Barrett, have a read up but think you'll see there work a shot http://www.omega7.co.uk


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1422
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭jh79


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Can't speak for cannabis as a cure for exema as I had a skin condition and it done nothing for it but I wasn't looking for it to. Yet I was told it was progressive with no cure from normal medicine.
    To break the back of the condition was a lot of trial and effor from numerous creams from the dermatologist to my own home made concoctions. In the end it was this particular tablet oil that changed everything, had to take it for a few weeks before I noticed any benifit, it pratically cured me. If you have a skin or eye condition try this stuff for 5 or 6 weeks and see does it work, don't cheap out and buy any other brand, can't remember the exact dosage think it was 4 a day for the first 2 weeks then 2 a day until whenever (I don't need them anymore). There expensive but they 100% help the skin and eyes, I've done a bit of googling and people are reporting good things with them and exema, you can get them in holland and Barrett, have a read up but think you'll see there work a shot http://www.omega7.co.uk

    I have ezema too and it comes and goes , attributing it to weed because you happened to smoke some before it went away is called confirmation bias. The only way to minimise bias is through clinical trials and they don't exist for weed.


  • Options
    #1423
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,168 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    jh79 wrote: »
    I have ezema too and it comes and goes , attributing it to weed because you happened to smoke some before it went away is called confirmation bias. The only way to minimise bias is through clinical trials and they don't exist for weed.

    Probably wasn't clear enough, cannabis is about as useful as a Mc Donald's. Don't know about using it as cream etc.
    I'm saying sea of buckthorn (omega 7) can be very good for skin or eye conditions.


  • Options
    #1424
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭jh79


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    Probably wasn't clear enough, cannabis is about as useful as a Mc Donald's. Don't know about using it as cream etc.
    I'm saying sea of buckthorn (omega 7) can be very good for skin or eye conditions.

    My intention was to highlight confirmation bias in testimonials.


  • Options
    #1425
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,168 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    jh79 wrote: »
    My intention was to highlight confirmation bias in testimonials.

    No need to highlight, it's a fact that people will have different experiences and react differently to the same thing. That's true for testimonials as well as clinical trials. It does not suggest or prove one has more kudos than the other when you need to draw a conclusion.
    With medicine it's up to the patient to decide what works for them, anyone elses experience is irrelevant but their testimonial can be used as an indicator of whether to try it.


  • Options
    #1426
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭jh79


    drunkmonkey wrote: »
    No need to highlight, it's a fact that people will have different experiences and react differently to the same thing. That's true for testimonials as well as clinical trials. It does not suggest or prove one has more kudos than the other when you need to draw a conclusion.
    With medicine it's up to the patient to decide what works for them, anyone elses experience is irrelevant but their testimonial can be used as an indicator of whether to try it.

    What, clincal trials are no better than testimonials??


  • Options
    #1427
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,168 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    jh79 wrote: »
    What, clincal trials are no better than testimonials??

    No there worse, way to clinical, they've no respect for randomness.


  • Options
    #1428
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    You're all going to love this. Fuel to the fire. A Scientific American article on the conflict between science and the "entourage" effect.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/some-of-the-parts-is-marijuana-rsquo-s-ldquo-entourage-effect-rdquo-scientifically-valid/


  • Options
    #1429
    drunkmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 28,168 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    InTheTrees wrote: »
    You're all going to love this. Fuel to the fire. A Scientific American article on the conflict between science and the "entourage" effect.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/some-of-the-parts-is-marijuana-rsquo-s-ldquo-entourage-effect-rdquo-scientifically-valid/

    I'd agree with that especially:
    "“Do we need better studies to prove the concept? The answer is yes,” he says. “I believe in this because I’ve known for 40 years the differences between different cannabis. They smell different. They taste different. They have different effects"

    I've only 27yrs of experience with regural cannabis use and medically the only thing I can stand by is what I've witnessed over those years and that is it really helps people with epilepsy. Irish parents were treating their children 20yrs ago with cannabis because it worked.

    Do I believe all the fake news of course not but is it all fake news absolutely not but 95% of it is but 0% is when it comes to epelepsy.


  • Options
    #1430
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0269881117699616
    Additional research is needed to corroborate these self-reported, retrospective, cross-sectional findings using other data sources.
    .


    ....but for now :
    In conclusion, a majority of patients reported using less opioids as well as fewer medications to treat anxiety, migraines, and sleep after initiating MC. A smaller portion used less antidepressants or alcohol.


  • Options
    #1431
    old_aussie
    Registered Users Posts: 3,410 ✭✭✭old_aussie


    Make it legal to smoke, and grow a few plants for personal use.

    For over 20 years I've grown two or three plants in the backyard. I used to be a bit paranoid about them being in the backyard, but the last 5 or so years I don't even think about it being illegal.

    A few plants grown at home will soon kill of the profiteers "black-market" sales.

    Oops it's 420, gotta go ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1432
    mulbot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭mulbot


    jh79 wrote: »
    Do tou think paracetamol is effective? I can't expand without you answerimg that question.

    Never used it. Any reason why you won't answer my original question


  • Options
    #1433
    mulbot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭mulbot


    jh79 wrote: »
    If it is not effective then it should be removed from the market, it is not a reason to legalise weed as medicine.

    What are you on about? I never said anything like this. You've done this quite a few times in this thread,whenever you get asked a question you seem to have trouble answering you seem to try divert. My question once again is, why do you call Paracetamol a medicine.? You question a poster on how he could consider cannabis a medicine because he didn't know the % of people it's effective on,yet you seem to have no problem calling paracetamol a medicine even though you lack the very same information!


  • Options
    #1434
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭jh79


    mulbot wrote: »
    What are you on about? I never said anything like this. You've done this quite a few times in this thread,whenever you get asked a question you seem to have trouble answering you seem to try divert. My question once again is, why do you call Paracetamol a medicine.? You question a poster on how he could consider cannabis a medicine because he didn't know the % of people it's effective on,yet you seem to have no problem calling paracetamol a medicine even though you lack the very same information!

    Your missing the point it wasn't that the poster didn't know it was that it is imposssible for him to know becauce the research doesn't exist for weed.


  • Options
    #1435
    mulbot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭mulbot


    jh79 wrote: »
    Your missing the point it wasn't that the poster didn't know it was that it is imposssible for him to know becauce the research doesn't exist for weed.

    So can you show me the research(in particular the % of it's effectiveness,seeing as that's what you questioned the other poster on) for Paracetamol that you base your acknowledgement of it being a medicine on?


  • Options
    #1436
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭jh79


    mulbot wrote: »
    So can you show me the research(in particular the % of it's effectiveness,seeing as that's what you questioned the other poster on) for Paracetamol that you base your acknowledgement of it being a medicine on?

    Mulbot it is a non sequitor if the evidence shows it is not effective it just means it should be taken off the market not that weed should be legalised.

    Paracetamol did not go through the approval process it is assumed to work by the FDA because it was on the market prior to regulation. It was discovered in the 1800 and on the market in the 1900's. FDA came in the 70's i think or 60's.


  • Options
    #1437
    mulbot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭mulbot


    jh79 wrote: »
    Mulbot it is a non sequitor if the evidence shows it is not effective it just means it should be taken off the market not that weed should be legalised.

    Paracetamol did not go through the approval process it is assumed to work by the FDA because it was on the market prior to regulation. It was discovered in the 1800 and on the market in the 1900's. FDA came in the 70's i think or 60's.

    So you're happy calling it a medicine even though you have never seen one bit of evidence about its effectiveness and it's never been through any regulatory process-


  • Options
    #1438
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭jh79


    mulbot wrote: »
    So you're happy calling it a medicine even though you have never seen one bit of evidence about its effectiveness and it's never been through any regulatory process-

    If it is not effective it should be removed from the market.

    Plenty of drugs get taken off the market due to post approval studies.


  • Options
    #1439
    mulbot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,842 ✭✭✭mulbot


    jh79 wrote: »
    If it is not effective it should be removed from the market.

    Plenty of drugs get taken off the market due to post approval studies.

    That's not what I'm asking,you know it and stop dodging my very simple question-I'm asking you are you happy to call it a medicine


  • Options
    #1440
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭jh79


    mulbot wrote: »
    That's not what I'm asking,you know it and stop dodging my very simple question-I'm asking you are you happy to call it a medicine

    Now that you made me look it up no i don't consider it effective medicine and it should be removed from the market.

    So how is this relevant to weed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1441
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,261 ✭✭✭jh79


    jh79 wrote: »
    Now that you made me look it up no i don't consider it effective medicine and it should be removed from the market.

    So how is this relevant to weed?

    Actually looking at wiki it does seems to be effective for certain indications. So without digging too deeply on it ,it does seem to have some benefits.

    Still don't see the relevance to this thread.


Advertisement