Cannabis/Hemp Products/Medicinal/Legal

STB.

jh79 wrote: »

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

So you say. Regardless of that. So what.

Bureaucracy is no argument and is easily overcome.

gctest50

jh79 wrote: »

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

Yip, sounds like they were all baked doing the study

Some did, some didn't, some got the munchies n got pizza

One potential problem with the study is that some doctors took children off other medications they were taking when the children started taking cannabis extracts, which may have altered the chemistry within their bodies, Chapman noted

jh79

gctest50 wrote: »

Yip, sounds like they were all baked doing the study

Some did, some didn't, some got the munchies n got pizza

Yup the studies are not the great.

koumi

I didn't realise this was a divisive issue but in pharmacological terms the biphasic properties of cannabis should be taken into account when considering it's medicinal properties. I'm not sure I understand JH79's point of reference but it appears to be based soley on the assumption that legislation of cannabodiol products encourages recreational drug use. I'll just leave this here.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498425/

jh79

koumi wrote: »

I didn't realise this was a divisive issue but in pharmacological terms the biphasic properties of cannabis should be taken into account when considering it's medicinal properties. I'm not sure I understand JH79's point of reference but it appears to be based soley on the assumption that legislation of cannabodiol products encourages recreational drug use.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498425/

No it's that the studies do not meet regulatory standards for medicine therefore it shouldn't be licensed as medicine.

koumi

jh79 wrote: »

No it's that the studies do not meet regulatory standards for medicine therefore it shouldn't be licensed as medicine.

research is an ongoing process, unless I am mistaken and there is enough of it to conclude cannabidiol may offer potential therapeutic benefit and further research into other cannabinoids may develop novel new drugs with medical applications.

jh79 wrote: »

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

you seem to be at odds with yourself.

jh79

koumi wrote: »

research is an ongoing process, unless I am mistaken and there is enough of it to conclude cannabidiol may offer potential therapeutic benefit and further research into other cannabinoids may develop novel new drugs with medical applications.
you seem to be at odds with yourself.

So you agree the research only shows potential not conclusive proof of effect?

I don't see how i am at odds with myself. I think adults should be able to consume any recreational chemical they like whether it is weed or mdma or alcohol.

But medicine should be evidence based and atm the evidence isn't sufficient for approval. When the evidence is of sufficient quality then i will recognise it as medicine.

Those calling for standards to be lowered to facilitate access to weed are doing so because they want easier access for recreational use othwerwise they'd be more honest about where the research is at, imo.

koumi

jh79 wrote: »

So you agree the research only shows potential not conclusive proof of effect?

absolutely but I think potential is what drives research and I would be disappointed if the current data concluded that there should be no more research based purely on scientific lack of establishing the mechanism of action of a particular drug.

I don't see how i am at odds with myself. I think adults should be able to consume any recreational chemical they like whether it is weed or mdma or alcohol.

But medicine should be evidence based and atm the evidence isn't sufficient for approval. When the evidence is of sufficient quality then i will recognise it as medicine.

as above, I have no interest in the recreational use of marijuana or concerned with the legislation of it for that purpose but these studies are not based on watering down of medical standards in order to legitimize recreational drug use.

Those calling for standards to be lowered to facilitate access to weed are doing so because they want easier access for recreational use othwerwise they'd be more honest about where the research is at, imo.

I think these are two seperate issues and maybe I have missed other contributions here calling for the same but from a purely medical point of view there is no doubt of it's potential and it would be a shame to neglect that for the sake of an argument against recreational use.

jh79

koumi wrote: »

absolutely but I think potential is what drives research and I would be disappointed if the current data concluded that there should be no more research based purely on scientific lack of establishing the mechanism of action of a particular drug.

as above, I have no interest in the recreational use of marijuana or concerned with the legislation of it for that purpose but these studies are not based on watering down of medical standards in order to legitimize recreational drug use.

I think these are two seperate issues and maybe I have missed other contributions here calling for the same but from a purely medical point of view there is no doubt of it's potential and it would be a shame to neglect that for the sake of an argument against recreational use.

Ok i get you now, i'm for further research too but posters on here mistakenly believe its benefits are already proven or that it should be approved by the HPRA now in spite of the research which would be a watering down of standards for medicine.

koumi

jh79 wrote: »

Ok i get you now, i'm for further research too but posters on here mistakenly believe its benefits are already proven or that it should be approved by the HPRA now in spite of the research which would be a watering down of standards for medicine.

no, but I don't have enough information to say that would be the case of it was permissible for a doctor to prescribe it in cases of legitimate medical need, as in the "Eva" saga. I would have to read about the specifics to understand the situation better.

jh79

koumi wrote: »

no, but I don't have enough information to say that would be the case of it was permissible for a doctor to prescribe it in cases of legitimate medical need, as in the "Eva" saga. I would have to read about the specifics to understand the situation better.

It's all in the HPRA report that is available on their website.

The National Academies review is good too.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2017/health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids.aspx

koumi

jh79 wrote: »

It's all in the HPRA report that is available on their website.

The National Academies review is good too.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2017/health-effects-of-cannabis-and-cannabinoids.aspx

thanks, I'll take a read later

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

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.

It states the THC varied from 1 to 8%,the people taking 1% would not feel any high.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

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.

If you read the bottom of the report i linked you will see that it clearly states that a reduction of 30% will increase quality of life!

"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"

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

If you read the bottom of the report i linked you will see that it clearly states that a reduction of 30% will increase quality of life!

"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"

But quality of life data was not recorded so it is an assumption that the minimum drop in symptoms of 30% also translates to improved quality of life.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

But quality of life data was not recorded so it is an assumption that the minimum drop in symptoms of 30% also translates to improved quality of life.

Given these people are in some form of difficulties with pain or disability, do not think that the 30% drop in symptoms would translate into a +/- 30% improvement in life quality?
Not an exact science I know.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

Given these people are in some form of difficulties with pain or disability, do not think that the 30% drop in symptoms would translate into a +/- 30% improvement in life quality?
Not an exact science I know.

Don't know anything about it except it has been highlighted as a weakness in reviews., it must be more complicated than that.

Mr. CooL ICE

STB. wrote: »

So we can we dismiss it so ?

I'll take it and the placebo together just in case Mr Insufferabiltiy.

Society is safe in your hands.

Mod: Less of the namecalling, please

jh79

Have Ava and Gino / BPB fallen out? Seen it said on twitter.

The same tweeter also said that the "clinic" in Spain had issues with tweets she made and she deleted all their tweets.

She's seems to be believing all the fake news around weed too and the usual big pharma conspiracy theory nonsense.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

Given these people are in some form of difficulties with pain or disability, do not think that the 30% drop in symptoms would translate into a +/- 30% improvement in life quality?
Not an exact science I know.

From google , Quality of Life looks at a number of different aspects of chronic pain .

In this study they say pain was reduced by >30% but we don't know if that translated into less sleepless nights, greater mobility ie improved sex life or ability to leave house , less depression etc.

Extrapolating anything meaningfull from a 30% reduction in pain is difficult.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Have Ava and Gino / BPB fallen out? Seen it said on twitter.

The same tweeter also said that the "clinic" in Spain had issues with tweets she made and she deleted all their tweets.

She's seems to be believing all the fake news around weed too and the usual big pharma conspiracy theory nonsense.

Ths is the "clinic" in Spain Ava went to

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10213179194462340&id=1469686336

Snake oil salesmen it seems

jh79

Medical marijuana has no legal status in Spain. She didn't get a prescription (not possible in spanish law) she got a letter that allowed her to join one of the many cannabis clubs in Barca that exploit the legal grey area that is cannabis use in spain. A friend joined one on holidays over there recently.

No excuse for misleading people and lying that it was a prescription and a legal medicine in Spain.

drunkmonkey

jh79 wrote: »

Ths is the "clinic" in Spain Ava went to

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10213179194462340&id=1469686336

Snake oil salesmen it seems

How is it snake oil, it's cannabis oil, none of its proven when it come to autism but it does seem to help some kids with autism, the high seems to be of benefit but they can give a product with an approximate level of cbd/thc.
This documentary is worth a watch https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/meet-the-moms-who-treat-their-kids-autism-with-cannabis-on-weediquette
The mums are delighted with the "clinic" even visited. It's still the same pot whether it's men in white coats or not though.

jh79

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How is it snake oil, it's cannabis oil, none of its proven when it come to autism but it does seem to help some kids with autism, the high seems to be of benefit but they can give a product with an approximate level of cbd/thc.
This documentary is worth a watch https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/meet-the-moms-who-treat-their-kids-autism-with-cannabis-on-weediquette
The mums are delighted with the "clinic" even visited. It's still the same pot whether it's men in white coats or not though.

They are handimg it out for any condition you can think of no matter what the scientific evidence.

drunkmonkey

jh79 wrote: »

They are handimg it out for any condition you can think of no matter what the scientific evidence.

Any scientific evidence to say it 100% doesn't work for a particular illness? That's the problem, there's not either way.
I see that Facebook posts as a bit sjw'ish, defending people from something as it's not "an approved medicine". I know she has autusim but I'd like her to knock the post rather than the poster.
At this point it's up to people to study what evidence they can find and draw a conclusion as to try it or not. The world needs these snake oil men while waiting for medical research to catch up, there not prepared to wait knowing the possibility of what's out there.

jh79

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Any scientific evidence to say it 100% doesn't work for a particular illness? That's the problem, there's not either way.
I see that Facebook posts as a bit sjw'ish, defending people from something as it's not "an approved medicine". I know she has autusim but I'd like her to knock the post rather than the poster.
At this point it's up to people to study what evidence they can find and draw a conclusion as to try it or not. The world needs these snake oil men while waiting for medical research to catch up, there not prepared to wait knowing the possibility of what's out there.

The purpose of that "clinic" is to ensure the purchaser buys the weed from their affliatates. Pay your 75 euro and get weed. You don't even need to meet them. Common cold, autism, fungal infection? The answer is always weed.

Important issue here is not this snake oil clinic but the lies told by Vera and Gino about this "clinic". Their lies that these types of clinics actually exist in a regulated system and have some status in Spanish Law that should extend to other EU states.

xckjoo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Any scientific evidence to say it 100% doesn't work for a particular illness? That's the problem, there's not either way.

That's not how medicine works. There has to be proof that it does work before it can be classified as medicine. The onus of proof should always lie on showing that it works.

This thread is tedious. I'm 100% in favor of legalisation, but it can't and shouldn't be sold as a medicine until it proves itself beneficial by passing the same requirements that every other medicine has to. If it were legalised, you'd be free to follow whatever bro science facts you find online, without it weakening our medical laws.

jh79

http://m.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/what-are-the-risks-and-rewards-of-medicinal-cannabis-35539387.html

This article has an interview with the mother of the child who got the exact same product that Vera wants.

They went to a neurologist for a year to determine the dose while Vera did an online consultation costing 75 euro and went to a coffee shop in Spain.

There has been a falling out between the 2 families. Vera's husband has a video on facebook about it

big syke

jh79 wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/what-are-the-risks-and-rewards-of-medicinal-cannabis-35539387.html

This article has an interview with the mother of the child who got the exact same product that Vera wants.

They went to a neurologist for a year to determine the dose while Vera did an online consultation costing 75 euro and went to a coffee shop in Spain.

There has been a falling out between the 2 families. Vera's husband has a video on facebook about it

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/09/medical-marijuana-families-move-to-colorado-epilepsy

They moved to Colorado in the interim

jh79

big syke wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/09/medical-marijuana-families-move-to-colorado-epilepsy

They moved to Colorado in the interim

Now the application process is in place the next family just need to show that a neurologist has determined the dose and tolerability for the child, why doesn't Vera do that?