toddler legally allowed to use Cannabis

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

How does Sativex success prove that an oil with a totally different ratio of thc to cbd works?

It proves that the chemical compounds of CBD and THC work.Why do you not want to admit this?

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

It proves that the chemical compounds of CBD and THC work.Why do you not want to admit this?

I never said they did not?? Sure Sativex has been approved by the FDA/HPRA ??

Think about what you are saying , if thc / cbd ratio and % wasn't important why doesn't Sativex work for the kid in Cork??

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

I never said they did not?? Sure Sativex has been approved by the FDA/HPRA ??

Think about what you are saying , if thc / cbd ratio and % wasn't important why doesn't Sativex work for the kid in Cork??

Did he use it? If Sativex doesn't work for him and other cannabis oils do then the ratio(at least in his case) isn't showing itself to be as important.

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Did he use it? If Sativex doesn't work for him and other cannabis oils do then the ratio(at least in his case) isn't showing itself to be as important.

Can you explain why Sativex approval means i should accept that these oils are medicine? That is why i brought it up.

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

Can you explain why Sativex approval means i should accept that these oils are medicine? That is why i brought it up.

Possibly try find the research Sativex did.It might show you. So many studies done on cannabinoids etc lead to somewhat positive conclusions about its use as a medicine. You don't have to accept anything,it's your choice as to what you believe

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

They have not different compositions chemically-they are identical( even to the point that Sativex will get you high and/or stoned).Sativex has a comparable ratio of CBD and THC,the only way they could advance the product to market

Sorry didn't see this post earlier of course they have the same chemicals otherwise they would be synthetic!

The point is that this ratio has medicinal properties where are the studies for other ratios?

If the ratios are not important why isn't the lad in Cork using Sativex?

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Possibly try find the research Sativex did.It might show you. So many studies done on cannabinoids etc lead to somewhat positive conclusions about its use as a medicine. You don't have to accept anything,it's your choice as to what you believe

But the decision is to be made in a few weeks , potential isn't a good enough reason.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11089822

Here is the clinical trial for the conventional treatment.

Which should a doctor prescribe first in your opinion?

Having read through the review that you posted I see that the 21 patients are already on both Clobazam and Valproate, each of these considered to be a treatment by itself. They then add in Stiripentol to the mix to get better results.
Stiripentol is not a treatment by itself!
Taking into consideration the long list of possible side effects for Clobazam and Valproate as well as those for Stiripentol, plus taking into consideration that the review you linked to is over 16 years old, and knowing what we know today, I would be inclined to think that a Doctor should try the natural remedy first seeing as it has been seen to work for others.

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

Having read through the review that you posted I see that the 21 patients are already on both Clobazam and Valproate, each of these considered to be a treatment by itself. They then add in Stiripentol to the mix to get better results.
Stiripentol is not a treatment by itself!
Taking into consideration the long list of possible side effects for Clobazam and Valproate as well as those for Stiripentol, plus taking into consideration that the review you linked to is over 16 years old, and knowing what we know today, I would be inclined to think that a Doctor should try the natural remedy first seeing as it has been seen to work for others.

By what % is the oil better?

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

No issue with the kid in cork all other options were explored first. It was worth a go and good luck to him.

But every new patient should have to try conventional treatment first before being allowed a licence to import.

It would be unethical for a docotor to try the oil first.

It would be more unethical to Make a patient take something they don't want to take when they would prefer a product that has shown to work.
If your child was in the very same position as that young boy, would you still pump him full of those synthesized pills knowing that it's likely they would not work and all the side effects that could go with it and totally dimiss the alternative treatment?

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

By what % is the oil better?

By what % is it worse??

evolving_doors

jh79 wrote: »

By what % is the oil better?

Enough to stop the seizures.

jh79

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Enough to stop the seizures.

What % of the population? To say it is better than the current treatment would require you to know this.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

jh79 wrote: »

No issue with the kid in cork all other options were explored first. It was worth a go and good luck to him.

But every new patient should have to try conventional treatment first before being allowed a licence to import.

It would be unethical for a docotor to try the oil first.

Unethical? Well, I rather doctors keep their personal morals out of their profession/choices, if it's not in the best interest of the patient.

Mouseslayer17 wrote: »

Can see it now,dispensary beside the dole office,
Another reason for them not to work

Good job there completely misunderstanding the topic, you are only showing your ignorance towards the treatment really.

Mouseslayer17 wrote: »

All the stoners thinking you will be allowed to get high now,its laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
Its not medicine and it ain't effin harmless

Ah, but it is a medicine, it just goes against your beliefs. What's laughable is the disinformation our older generations swallowed for decades in relation to pretty much everything...

"Beware the reefer madness"...

jh79 wrote: »

I never said they did not?? Sure Sativex has been approved by the FDA/HPRA ??

Think about what you are saying , if thc / cbd ratio and % wasn't important why doesn't Sativex work for the kid in Cork??

The FDA also approved Lariam. Your strongest point seems to be "those guys said it's fine to use, so it's grand". It's a weak point.

Do you find it strange that the FDA has granted Sativex "fast track" status? I wonder which lobby group was behind that one, who's out to make the most from this I wonder... wound't be the big pharma companies, would it?

Oh, and Sativex can get you high, so that's kinda shít really. CBD oils have so little THC that you won't get high from them. Sativex has the same side effects as cannabis. Sativex is marijuana but with a different scientific name.

They took a bag of sugar, removed the label and replaced it with sucrose and are saying it's not sugar... it's different, somehow...

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

By what % is it worse??

OIve no idea and either do you or anybody else for that matter hence why it should only be used if conventional medicine fails. To do otherwise would be negligence by the Doctor.

A single seizure can kill and you are advocating that untested "medicine" should be given precedence over that with a known success rate., Complete madness.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

OIve no idea and either do you or anybody else [..].

I never said I knew the %, so don't be asking irrelevant questions.

jh79

Ellison Greasy Savings wrote: »

Unethical? Well, I rather doctors keep their personal morals out of their profession/choices, if it's not in the best interest of the patient.



Good job there completely misunderstanding the topic, you are only showing your ignorance towards the treatment really.



Ah, but it is a medicine, it just goes against your beliefs. What's laughable is the disinformation our older generations swallowed for decades in relation to pretty much everything...

"Beware the reefer madness"...



The FDA also approved Lariam. Your strongest point seems to be "those guys said it's fine to use, so it's grand". It's a weak point.

Do you find it strange that the FDA has granted Sativex "fast track" status? I wonder which lobby group was behind that one, who's out to make the most from this I wonder... wound't be the big pharma companies, would it?

Oh, and Sativex can get you high, so that's kinda shít really. CBD oils have so little THC that you won't get high from them. Sativex has the same side effects as cannabis. Sativex is marijuana but with a different scientific name.

They took a bag of sugar, removed the label and replaced it with sucrose and are saying it's not sugar... it's different, somehow...

It is unethical becuase the doctor is not providing the patient with the best possible treatment first. CBD oils are an unknow at the moment.

Sativex is not the same marijuana; are you saying White Widow is exactly the same as Orange Bud or Thai Sticks when it comes to getting high ?

If they are all the same why doesn't Sativex work for the lad in Cork??

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

I never said I knew the %, so don't be asking irrelevant questions.

So what is the justification for using it as the first choice treatment if you have no idea how effective it is?

scamalert

jh79 wrote: »

So what is the justification for using it as the first choice treatment if you have no idea how effective it is?

in this case it wasnt the first choice,there are conditions which cannabis,shrooms seem to help people who would otherwise rather swallow a bullet instead.Point is that research has already been done abroad in Canada and other countries where they measure approximate amounts that seem to help in such cases mostly estimated on each person individually .But since those substances here are illegal no MD will recommend them since they dont have any experience nor seen any patients treated to be able to even advise on using it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

jh79 wrote: »

OIve no idea and either do you or anybody else for that matter hence why it should only be used if conventional medicine fails. To do otherwise would be negligence by the Doctor.

A single seizure can kill and you are advocating that untested "medicine" should be given precedence over that with a known success rate., Complete madness.

Hyperbole is your friend I see. Funny twist you put in there. "CBD WILL KILL YOU!!!". Has CBD not been tested at all? It was just somehow released on the market? Plenty of lab tests regarding CBD and it's effects on cancer.

I don't know why you are so against it. If it works for people, what exactly is your problem with it? Are they bad for not spending much much more money on the alternative? Those bastards, not making the pharma companies even richer... shame...

jh79 wrote: »

It is unethical becuase the doctor is not providing the patient with the best possible treatment first. CBD oils are an unknow at the moment.

Sativex is not the same marijuana; are you saying White Widow is exactly the same as Orange Bud or Thai Sticks when it comes to getting high ?

If they are all the same why doesn't Sativex work for the lad in Cork??

See, they are not "unknown"... Where did you get that crap from. Sativex exists because of the knowledge surrounding CBD and it's health benefits. You can't patent a plant, so this is the alternative.

I also didn't say they were all the same. Although Sativex is very similar to a lot of strains of cannabis.

Sativex is shít because it contains THC (the bad part of cannabis).
CBD Oil is good because it contains a tiny % of THC.
It's pretty much that simple.

jh79

Ellison Greasy Savings wrote: »

Hyperbole is your friend I see. Funny twist you put in there. "CBD WILL KILL YOU!!!". Has CBD not been tested at all? It was just somehow released on the market? Plenty of lab tests regarding CBD and it's effects on cancer.

I don't know why you are so against it. If it works for people, what exactly is your problem with it? Are they bad for not spending much much more money on the alternative? Those bastards, not making the pharma companies even richer... shame...



See, they are not "unknown"... Where did you get that crap from. Sativex exists because of the knowledge surrounding CBD and it's health benefits. You can't patent a plant, so this is the alternative.

I also didn't say they were all the same. Although Sativex is very similar to a lot of strains of cannabis.

Sativex is shít because it contains THC (the bad part of cannabis).
CBD Oil is good because it contains a tiny % of THC.
It's pretty much that simple.

How effective is this oil?

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

How effective is this oil?

Effective enough for the Pharma company to basically be allowed to patent cannabis!

jh79

mulbot wrote: »

Effective enough for the Pharma company to basically be allowed to patent cannabis!

But for a patient with Dravet's Syndrome how effective is this oil compared to other treatments what justifies your claim that it should be the first choice treatment?

mulbot

jh79 wrote: »

But for a patient with Dravet's Syndrome how effective is this oil compared to other treatments what justifies your claim that it should be the first choice treatment?

I never said it should be first choice,I said that it would depend on the illness,and that the choice should be there for the patient to make

wotzgoingon

Question: What you going to do when you get out of hospital?

Answer: Smoke weed everyday.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

But for a patient with Dravet's Syndrome how effective is this oil compared to other treatments what justifies your claim that it should be the first choice treatment?

lf someone got say about 40 patients into a scientific studiy, all with Dravets Syndrome, all similar cases, and left half on their normal meds plus a placebo and the other half on Cannabis Oil treatment as per the Cork child.
If approx 65% of the patients on the Cannabis Oil showed a 50% reduction in seizures would you accept that it has been proven to work?

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

lf someone got say about 40 patients into a scientific studiy, all with Dravets Syndrome, all similar cases, and left half on their normal meds plus a placebo and the other half on Cannabis Oil treatment as per the Cork child.
If approx 65% of the patients on the Cannabis Oil showed a 50% reduction in seizures would you accept that it has been proven to work?

Have you found one?

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

Have you found one?

Would ypu accept the results of such a test / trial, as I described, yes or no?

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

Would ypu accept the results of such a test / trial, as I described, yes or no?

I'd like to read it first.

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

I'd like to read it first.

If it was just a typical 40 odd line pubmed article outlining the test snd control, just with a summary of results stating that the cannabis oil given to be an effective treatment. Would you consider it as an acceptable treatment then? Yes or No?

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

If it was just a typical 40 odd line pubmed article outlining the test snd control, just with a summary of results stating that the cannabis oil given to be an effective treatment. Would you consider it as an acceptable treatment then? Yes or No?

If it is of similar quality to the trial for stiripentol then yes.

DavyD_83

the thread title should really be:
 Toddler legally allowed to use medicine

Oh the horror!

K.Flyer

jh79 wrote: »

If it is of similar quality to the trial for stiripentol then yes.

Glad to hear that, although Stiripentol is really only an add- on drug to help other drugs work better.
Interestingly enough one of the drugs in that trial is called Clobazam,

jh79 wrote: »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11089822

they don't actually fully understand how it works to treat seizures.

Clobazam is a benzodiazepine. Exactly how it works is not understood, but it is thought to involve the action of a certain chemical (gamma-aminobutyric acid [GABA]) in the brain and nervous system.

Then add into that all the known possible side effects for Clobazam
But yet it is still being used.
So it proves that they don't allways need to scientifically work out exactly how something works, as long as a small numbered trial shows it does work to some degree and that the lethal dosage is safe (nobody died from cannabis) and side effects are "acceptable" (see Clobazam).

gctest50

K.Flyer wrote: »

But yet it is still being used...

Thalidomide is still(!!!!111))) used for myeloma n stuff

K.Flyer wrote: »

So it proves that they don't allways ...

Does it now

jh79

K.Flyer wrote: »

Having read through the review that you posted I see that the 21 patients are already on both Clobazam and Valproate, each of these considered to be a treatment by itself. They then add in Stiripentol to the mix to get better results.
Stiripentol is not a treatment by itself!
Taking into consideration the long list of possible side effects for Clobazam and Valproate as well as those for Stiripentol, plus taking into consideration that the review you linked to is over 16 years old, and knowing what we know today, I would be inclined to think that a Doctor should try the natural remedy first seeing as it has been seen to work for others.

Do you still believe this? Specifically the last line?

ohnonotgmail

gctest50 wrote: »

Thalidomide is still(!!!!111))) used for myeloma n stuff


Does it now

It is still used because it is effective. They just make sure not to give to pregnant women. Not sure why you find that surprising.

gctest50

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is still used because it is effective. They just make sure not to give to pregnant women. Not sure why you find that surprising.

Woosh

Muhammed_1

People have been talking about the composition of Sativex.

GW Pharm. use cannabis clones to ensure stable genetics as far as I know. In other words, their medicine is based on a single cannabis plant, which is endlessly cloned. Like bananas in a way.

If users grew the same plant and smoked the dried flowers of the plant I suspect they'd achieve similar results to using Sativex itself.


This dutch company sells six types of dried cannabis flowers, all with different ratios of THC and CBD (and CBN).
http://www.bedrocan.nl/english/products.html


First three types just for interest.
Bedrocan®
Bedrocan® is considered a sativa type. Its THC-level is standardized at 22%, with a CBD-level below 1%. Its the most widely used cannabis offered by the Dutch Ministry, and has been used in more research than other varieties.


Bedrobinol®
Bedrobinol® is also considered a sativa. Its THC-level can be considered medium strength, standardized at 13,5%, with a CBD-level below 1 %.

Bediol®
Bediol® has a lower to medium THC-level, standardized at 6,5%, and a medium level of the non-psycho-active Cannabidiol (CBD), standardized at 8%. The effects of CBD are distinctly different from THC. Bediol is available in granulated form. Bediol is also a sativa type.


and other types, can be seen on the link.


We can see there are very different ratios available there, from very high THC and virtually no CBD, to very high CBD with very little THC.

ScumLord

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

People have been talking about the composition of Sativex.[/url]

Sativex has the potential to be much stronger than smoking. Oils tend to be essentially concentrated versions of the flower that people smoke.

I'm a bit confused about what type of oil people are using. Is it an essential oil or an oil made from the flower? There are different types of oils and all are at the high end of potency.

Muhammed_1

I think recreational users of cannabis don't like Sativex. It doesn't get you stoned in the same way they say. Medical users have also said they find it unpleasant.


My point about linking to http://www.bedrocan.nl is that they make six types of cannabis available, all of which are very different from one another, in terms of composition.

Sativex only make one spray I think, perhaps two.

I don't think Sativex can cover the same range of illnesses that the natural varieties can.

jh79

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

People have been talking about the composition of Sativex.

GW Pharm. use cannabis clones to ensure stable genetics as far as I know. In other words, their medicine is based on a single cannabis plant, which is endlessly cloned. Like bananas in a way.

If users grew the same plant and smoked the dried flowers of the plant I suspect they'd achieve similar results to using Sativex itself.

Smoking would reduce bioavailability, also natural variation in composition could reduce / increase the therapeutic dose , that is why Staivex is needed. Guaranteed composition.

And the dutch recommend that these plants only be used if conventional methods fail due to a lack of evidence that they work

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

Smoking would reduce bioavailability,

Nobody would be promoting the idea of smoking cannabis for medical reasons. There's vaping and food options, tablets can be made. The options aren't sativex or smoking.

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

Nobody would be promoting the idea of smoking cannabis for medical reasons. There's vaping and food options, tablets can be made. The options aren't sativex or smoking.

Do you know enough about the pharmokinetics of the various options to say they are equivalent? It's a big assumption to make.

jh79

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

I don't think Sativex can cover the same range of illnesses that the natural varieties can.

According to the Dutch the natural variety has only a small number of indication and even then the evidence only suggests they might work.

ScumLord

jh79 wrote: »

Do you know enough about the pharmokinetics of the various options to say they are equivalent? It's a big assumption to make.

I don't, but the discussion isn't between smoking cannabis and using the legal drugs.

It's between using cannabis and using other legal drugs. Describing cannabis use as smoking is somewhat derogatory in the context of this thread.

jh79

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't, but the discussion isn't between smoking cannabis and using the legal drugs.

It's between using cannabis and using other legal drugs. Describing cannabis use as smoking is somewhat derogatory in the context of this thread.

I was replying to Muhammed_1, he stated smoking the same strain used in Sativex should have the same effect.

mulbot

ScumLord wrote: »

Sativex has the potential to be much stronger than smoking. Oils tend to be essentially concentrated versions of the flower that people smoke.

I'm a bit confused about what type of oil people are using. Is it an essential oil or an oil made from the flower? There are different types of oils and all are at the high end of potency.

The oils that are normally sold in Europe are hemp based,Very little THC and more CBD- It's better, from what I see to make your own oil or at least get it from where the oil is extracted from the buds or plant(basically the model that Sativex copied).You will have higher potency(in terms of psychoactive effects) in this oil,but with hemp oil,you won't notice anything-

Muhammed_1

Cannabis oils (called 'dabs' or 'extracts' or 'oils') are sold in US shops for recreational use.

They are the strongest forms of cannabis on the market or available anywhere in the world and they are new. Nothing like them was available, or at least widely available, even five or ten years ago.

They contain up to 100% THC content, certainly over 90% for the good commercially produced stuff. Homemade stuff can still get into the 80s and the 90s but it is dangerous to make.

This stuff is used recreationally by smoking it or vaping it, using bongs with a platinum nail, or using a vape.


Medical cannabis oils cannot be the same as that stuff. Medical cannabis oil is not used in the same way and it's not as strong.

Dabs extracts are ludicrously strong. In the UK they complain about Skunk being too strong. Dabs is three times stronger, at a minimum, and it's essentially pure THC and other cannbinoids. I'm surprised the US allow the sale of extracts.

ScumLord

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Cannabis oils (called 'dabs' or 'extracts' or 'oils') are sold in US shops for recreational use.

They are the strongest forms of cannabis on the market or available anywhere in the world and they are new. Nothing like them was available, or at least widely available, even five or ten years ago.

They have been around for a while, it's just the methods for making them haven't been widely known and the difficulties with getting cannabis would mean people wouldn't be as willing to lose a large amount of cannabis trying to make the stuff. The internet and youtube have allowed the methods to spread like wildfire recently though.

Dabs extracts are ludicrously strong. In the UK they complain about Skunk being too strong. Dabs is three times stronger, at a minimum, and it's essentially pure THC and other cannbinoids. I'm surprised the US allow the sale of extracts.

Well, they're still really no more dangerous than smoking bud, just more powerful. Seems like a waste of money to me, you don't really want to end up needing that much THC to get high, these oils are also ludicrously expensive. here a dosage of it would cost hundreds of euros.

The Skunk thing in the UK was complete media hysteria, Skunk is just one breed in many. It's like saying the whiskey they make today is stronger than the whiskey they made 50 years ago because it tastes different.

Skunk isn't anywhere near the strongest weed you can buy these days and how the plant is grown probably makes a bigger difference to potency than the breed does.

Muhammed_1

I agree that skunk is a general term used in the UK to mean strong weed. It's a negative term, used to denigrate.

I think weed may be stronger now than in the 1970's, but not by as much as the UK media would have us believe.


I think there is a qualitative difference between weed and dabs. I know dabs is just cncentrated weed but I still think there is a difference in the 'quality' of the stone.

IN other words, 4 grams of weed converted into .5 gram of dabs and smoked produces a different stone to just smoking the 4 grams of weed directly.


It's the same with alcohol. Spirits are different to beer even if it's all just alcohol. Gin has depressing effects or so people say whereas other forms of alcohol have different effects.

Dabs produce an intensely strong stone which cannot be achieved, or is very difficult to achieve, using weed itself.