Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

jh79

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/

The placebo effect in weed is a major obstacle.

"The placebo effect is very powerful, she notes. And if you believe smoking a bud will give you a bright, cerebral experience spilling with creativity or that a THC pill will make you anxious and paranoid, then that is what you will probably feel".

jh79

Anyone on here know what Vera is saying is the scientific rational for her argument? In a letter to tipp county council she claims the Barnes Report supports her claim that the thc cbd mix would work better but there is nothing in his report that says this.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

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.

So same as cannabis then. I was only asking how you claim one to be not a medicine and the other medicine.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

The placebo effect in weed is a major obstacle.

"The placebo effect is very powerful, she notes. And if you believe smoking a bud will give you a bright, cerebral experience spilling with creativity or that a THC pill will make you anxious and paranoid, then that is what you will probably feel".

Very easy experiment to carry out to see what effects a person will have

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

So same as cannabis then. I was only asking how you claim one to be not a medicine and the other medicine.

No, cannabis hasn't been proven to be more effective than placebo

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Very easy experiment to carry out to see what effects a person will have

How?

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

No, cannabis hasn't been proven to be more effective than placebo

Yet while admitting not knowing anything about paracetamol you have no trouble calling it medicine.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

How?

Maybe experimenting with different strains without revealing he strain could reveal a pattern

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Maybe experimenting with different strains without revealing he strain could reveal a pattern

But the high would give it away.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Yet while admitting not knowing anything about paracetamol you have no trouble calling it medicine.

Still flogging this dead horse.

According to wiki it is more effective than placebo for headaches. Therefore it is medicine for headaches.

If a new study comes out saying otherwise then it is not effective and should be removed from the market unless of course it is proven effective for other conditions.

Now if you produce evidence that weed is more effective than placebo for any condition i will consider that medicine too.

Do you expect me to know the results of every clincal trial / product ever summited to the fda????

scamalert

jh79 have you ever checked yourself for brain trauma ? you post sentence each time you come up with some ****ty google example,and seems you have lots of spare time on your hands.

maybe get outside a bit,sun and fresh air would be good medicine for you as a starter.

14murphy

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.

If I'm honest when I've ingested THC I actually find my eczema gets worse. I think thats because my skin is more sensitive and makes me want to scratch more.

drunkmonkey

jh79 wrote: »

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.

Not as effective as my second favourite medicine http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/two-pints-beer-paracetamol-painkillers-pain-relief-study-university-greenwich-a7708991.html

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Still flogging this dead horse.

According to wiki it is more effective than placebo for headaches. Therefore it is medicine for headaches.

If a new study comes out saying otherwise then it is not effective and should be removed from the market unless of course it is proven effective for other conditions.

Now if you produce evidence that weed is more effective than placebo for any condition i will consider that medicine too.

Do you expect me to know the results of every clincal trial / product ever summited to the fda????

"Sponsored by the State of California Medical Marijuana Research Act of 1999, and conducted under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the Food and Drug Administration, this research allocated participants to smoke cannabis cigarettes containing from 1% to 8% THC by weight (4 to 32 mg THC) or to placebo cannabis cigarettes from which THC had been extracted. The total daily dose of THC ranged from 4 mg to 128 mg. Two trials enrolled patients with painful HIV peripheral neuropathy [4, 5]; one consisted of mixed neuropathic pain due to peripheral or central dysfunction of the nervous system (i.e., complex regional pain syndrome, peripheral neuropathy, and traumatic focal nerve or spinal cord injury) [6]. Patients were allowed to continue their usual regimen of analgesics. Results consistently indicated that cannabis significantly reduced pain intensity, with patients reporting 34%-40% decrease on cannabis compared to 17-20% on placebo. Moreover a significantly greater proportion of individuals reported at least 30% reduction in pain on cannabis (46%-52%) compared to placebo (18%-24%) [4-6], which is relevant since 30% decrease in pain intensity is generally associated with reports of improved life quality"

A very small extract from a study in the Open Neurology Journal suggests cannabis works better than placebo.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

"Sponsored by the State of California Medical Marijuana Research Act of 1999, and conducted under the auspices of the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the Food and Drug Administration, this research allocated participants to smoke cannabis cigarettes containing from 1% to 8% THC by weight (4 to 32 mg THC) or to placebo cannabis cigarettes from which THC had been extracted. The total daily dose of THC ranged from 4 mg to 128 mg. Two trials enrolled patients with painful HIV peripheral neuropathy [4, 5]; one consisted of mixed neuropathic pain due to peripheral or central dysfunction of the nervous system (i.e., complex regional pain syndrome, peripheral neuropathy, and traumatic focal nerve or spinal cord injury) [6]. Patients were allowed to continue their usual regimen of analgesics. Results consistently indicated that cannabis significantly reduced pain intensity, with patients reporting 34%-40% decrease on cannabis compared to 17-20% on placebo. Moreover a significantly greater proportion of individuals reported at least 30% reduction in pain on cannabis (46%-52%) compared to placebo (18%-24%) [4-6], which is relevant since 30% decrease in pain intensity is generally associated with reports of improved life quality"

A very small extract from a study in the Open Neurology Journal suggests cannabis works better than placebo.

Sorry Mulbot but it doesn't work if the patients knows whether they have got the placebo or drug. The high gives it away unfortunately.

jh79

Had a look at the review by Whiting et al 2015, the paper mulbot highlighted is behind a pay wall.

So the THC product was the best performing in pain studies but is that because thc is better or due to bias from the placebo effect? Difficult (impossible?) question to answer.

Secondly the pain reduction was modest and the paper did not report whether any change in quality of life was observed. The modest effect might not be enough to improve the patients life. This was a major issue the HPRA had with some of these studies.

jh79

Interesting article, worth a read. Confirmation bias by parents depserate for weed to work is an issue.

"The parents of 18 of the 58 children reported that the number of seizures their kids suffered was reduced by half while they were taking the drug — suggesting that about 30 percent of the kids benefited. In addition, 29 percent reported their children showed improved alertness and improved behavior.

But the researchers had brain wave readings called electroencephalograms (EEGs) for 16 of the 58 kids in the study that were taken before and during treatment with marijuana. They found that just two kids showed signs of improvement, the researchers said. This translates to 12.5 percent of these kids seeing a benefit."

http://www.livescience.com/49048-cannabis-marijuana-epilepsy.html

Too Tough To Die

jh79 wrote: »

Interesting article, worth a read. Confirmation bias by parents depserate for weed to work is an issue.

"The parents of 18 of the 58 children reported that the number of seizures their kids suffered was reduced by half while they were taking the drug — suggesting that about 30 percent of the kids benefited. In addition, 29 percent reported their children showed improved alertness and improved behavior.

But the researchers had brain wave readings called electroencephalograms (EEGs) for 16 of the 58 kids in the study that were taken before and during treatment with marijuana. They found that just two kids showed signs of improvement, the researchers said. This translates to 12.5 percent of these kids seeing a benefit."

http://www.livescience.com/49048-cannabis-marijuana-epilepsy.html

Jesus dude, take a day off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epc-OiU254Y

STB.

jh79 wrote: »

Medicine is anything that performs better than a placebo, does weed perform better than a placebo?

You should try some time.

It'll take the edge off.

Your counter arguments against beneficial medical claims are noble.

Unfortunately there are countries who are in the process or have legalised its medical use. Why would that be ? Lack of medical argument I presume.

Prohibition is no longer tolerable. My advice, invest in Pizza chains, its where the munchies are for stoners.

jh79

STB. wrote: »

You should try some time.

It'll take the edge off.

Your counter arguments against beneficial medical claims are noble.

Unfortunately there are countries who are in the process or have legalised its medical use. Why would that be ? Lack of medical argument I presume.

Prohibition is no longer tolerable. My advice, invest in Pizza chains, its where the munchies are for stoners.

If you have been following this thread you would know it is not approved medicine anywhere. Medical marijuana is regulated differently to medicine in all these countries.

drunkmonkey

Forget Pizza Chains, check out Scotts Miracle Grow share price over the last year or two.

STB.

jh79 wrote: »

If you have been following this thread you would know it is not approved medicine anywhere. Medical marijuana is regulated differently to medicine in all these countries.

I have been following the thread. It didn't take long to find the crank, putting down research and findings etc.

Medical approval by an drugs agency/medicine body and recognition of it medical use in law are not a mile apart.

Non sensical intolerance and ignorance is no longer an argument against its legalization.

jh79

STB. wrote: »

I have been following the thread. It didn't take long to find the crank, putting down research and findings etc.

Medical approval by an drugs agency/medicine body and recognition of it medical use in law are not a mile apart.

Non sensical intolerance and ignorance is no longer an argument against its legalization.

I'm not arguing agaisnt legalisation i'm agaisnt the watering down of standards for medicine so that people can get stoned.

jh79

STB. wrote: »

I have been following the thread. It didn't take long to find the crank, putting down research and findings etc.

Medical approval by an drugs agency/medicine body and recognition of it medical use in law are not a mile apart.

Non sensical intolerance and ignorance is no longer an argument against its legalization.

By the way the while point of research papers is for others to critically assess the research it ia how science progresses.

STB.

jh79 wrote: »

I'm not arguing agaisnt legalisation i'm agaisnt the watering down of standards for medicine so that people can get stoned.

The medical use of marijuana normally results in special strains being produced that are low in THC and have high CBD.

Stoners would not be interested in that product.

Seriously ?

jh79 wrote: »

By the way the while point of research papers is for others to critically assess the research it ia how science progresses.

Science or not and despite research being hampered due to a lack of legislation in say the US, other countries like Israel have carried out extensive research. Anyone can carry out research. You always have to ask who is paying for it as it normally dictates the outcome.

Its only been around about 10000 years. Do we need more research to debate its legislation?

jh79

STB. wrote: »

The medical use of marijuana normally results in special strains being produced that are low in THC and have high CBD.

Stoners would not be interested in that product.

Seriously ?

I thought you were following the thread?? I was discussing thc based product with mulbot.

gctest50

jh79 wrote: »

Interesting article, worth a read. Confirmation bias by parents depserate for weed to work is an issue.

"The parents of 18 of the 58 children reported that the number of seizures their kids suffered was reduced by half while they were taking the drug — suggesting that about 30 percent of the kids benefited. In addition, 29 percent reported their children showed improved alertness and improved behavior.

But the researchers had brain wave readings called electroencephalograms (EEGs) for 16 of the 58 kids in the study that were taken before and during treatment with marijuana. They found that just two kids showed signs of improvement, the researchers said. This translates to 12.5 percent of these kids seeing a benefit."

http://www.livescience.com/49048-cannabis-marijuana-epilepsy.html

From that very link you pasted in:

Confirmed by EEG to work :

Within four months, the boy's seizures disappeared, which was confirmed with EEGs.

When the boy started CBD, his seizures initially got worse. But it turned out the CBD was increasing the child's blood levels of valproic acid, another anti-seizure medication he was taking.

Doctors immediately reduced the child's valproic acid medication, and he continued to take CBD. Within four months, the boy's seizures disappeared, which was confirmed with EEGs.

jh79

STB. wrote: »

The medical use of marijuana normally results in special strains being produced that are low in THC and have high CBD.

Stoners would not be interested in that product.

Seriously ?


Science or not and despite research being hampered due to a lack of legislation in say the US, other countries like Israel have carried out extensive research. Anyone can carry out research. You always have to ask who is paying for it as it normally dictates the outcome.

Its only been around about 10000 years. Do we need more research to debate its legislation?

Whatever the reasons the required research doesn't exist. The HPRA can't asses something that doesn't exist.

STB.

jh79 wrote: »

I thought you were following the thread?? I was discussing thc based product with mulbot.

They all contain THC. Some strains lower than others.

jh79 wrote: »

I'm not arguing agaisnt legalisation i'm agaisnt the watering down of standards for medicine so that people can get stoned.

Make your mind up.

Like it or not, Medical use is already recognized and licensed in other countries.

You keep tying yourself up in the medical approval by the FDA/Medicines Agency olloxology.

jh79

gctest50 wrote: »

From that very link you pasted in:

Confirmed by EEG to work :

Same link also said it could not be attributed to weed as the other drug could of caused it.

No comment on the risk of confirmation bias and placebo effect in these studies?