Cancer and the drug companies

[bogan]

And what if it turns out that health benefits can be had even when 'getting high'?

If it works for tramadol, no reason it can't work for weed...

[Katman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ims-study.html

[Zedder]

My point about smoking was specifically stated. Most of those making the most noise about legalising it are those who want to smoke it and get high.

As usual with KB some are incapable of simply taking what is posted, as posted, and have to put their own interpretation on things.

You've gone from "The people lobbying to legalise cannabis..." in your post 430 to "Most of those making the most noise about legalising it..." in your post 445.

That shows a reduction in numbers, you may be getting some way towards differentiating between cannabis users.

[Zedder]

Perhaps KB is more concerned with ensuring different pain meds are weighed up on their merits/research; instead of just flinging shit at stoners...

Yep, that is indeed what I'm doing.

[Madness]

Fuck Ed's a dick.

[Zedder]

PS. If you recall the research, the general conclusion was that the results of testing showed there are more effective drugs freely available already.

Also, that most high ups and medical people have no issues with exploring the possible benefits.

What about someone like an elderly person who, instead of having to go all the way to the Doctor and then the pharmacist which costs time and money, just goes out to their garden for a dose of pain relief courtesy of Mother Nature. She doesn't smoke it, she simply ingests it.

The said elderly person is certainly exploring the benefits of an "inhouse" analgesic.

[mashman]

If it works for tramadol, no reason it can't work for weed...

Perhaps KB is more concerned with ensuring different pain meds are weighed up on their merits/research; instead of just flinging shit at stoners...

The difference between the two, that I've found, is that you can dose yourself on tramadol based on food intake. Could just be me mind and you have to start with no food. Be wary, should it bite hard you'll end up with yer head down the bog ralphing, quickly followed by screaming in agony as you instantly remember the reason that you're taking the things. Eat, and eat quickly, else you'll be back with head down bog.

Research

Oh yeah, it's a win for weed, coz there's less chance of fucking it up with weed... especially with the new fangled delivery systems like, butter, cookies (careful as that'll leads to more cookies... although you can't OD), nebulisers etc...

[RDJ]

Some say we should make marijuana available to cancer patients because it is so much more effective in controlling nausea and vomiting. Here are some objective findings from the Big Pharma companies some find so objectionable:

http://www.uptodate.com/contents/pre...a-and-vomiting

if they worked well / better than others / with the same of fewer side effects, the market would make sure they were available on the market. As they don't... Q.E.D.

(for the money quotes scroll down to...

Cannabinoids and medical marijuana — The potential antiemetic utility of cannabinoids was first observed in scattered reports of improved emetic control in patients using marijuana during chemotherapy [108]. Two synthetic cannabinoids are available (dronabinol and nabilone), but antiemetic efficacy is modest at best, rigorous comparisons of either drug with the most effective antiemetic therapies are lacking, and adverse effects tend to be more intense and more frequent than with other rescue agents such as neuroleptics [109]. (See "Characteristics of antiemetic drugs", section on 'Cannabinoids'.)

The modest antiemetic activity of this class of agents combined with their relatively unfavorable side effect profile (vertigo, xerostomia, hypotension, dysphoria), especially in older patients, has limited their clinical utility. Nevertheless, guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), ASCO [5], and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) [4] state that cannabinoids can be considered for refractory nausea and vomiting and as a rescue antiemetic.

The use of medical marijuana for refractory CINV is very controversial. Medical use of marijuana is legal in several countries, including the Netherlands and Canada. Despite legalization by several states, marijuana use is still illegal in the United States at the federal level (which considers marijuana a schedule I controlled substance), and individuals prescribing or using marijuana for medical use are at risk for prosecution [110].

While an early prospective uncontrolled pilot study from 1988 found that inhaled cannabis was effective in 78 percent of 56 patients who had inadequate control of nausea and vomiting with the conventional antiemetics that were available at that time [111], there have been no other clinical reports of efficacy of inhaled marijuana and there are no controlled clinical trials comparing marijuana versus other rescue strategies in patients who are refractory to modern antiemetics [112]. Furthermore, the use of marijuana is associated with adverse effects on the cardiovascular, respiratory, and central nervous systems, and uncertainty about increased risk of malignancy. (See "Cannabis use disorder: Epidemiology, comorbidity, and pathogenesis".)

Because of medical and legal concerns, the use of medical marijuana is not recommended for management of CINV, and is not included in the most recent guidelines for CINV from the NCCN, ASCO, or MASCC [59].

[Akzle]

synthetic cannabanoids are for homos.

What do the cannabanoid receptors in human brains do, rdj?

[Katman]

Cannabinoids and medical marijuana — The potential antiemetic utility of cannabinoids was first observed in scattered reports of improved emetic control in patients using marijuana during chemotherapy [108]. Two synthetic cannabinoids are available (dronabinol and nabilone), but antiemetic efficacy is modest at best, rigorous comparisons of either drug with the most effective antiemetic therapies are lacking, and adverse effects tend to be more intense and more frequent than with other rescue agents such as neuroleptics [109]. (See "Characteristics of antiemetic drugs", section on 'Cannabinoids'.)

See, that's the problem with the pharmaceutical industry.

Because they can't make money from a natural drug they synthesize it instead - all the while relying on the powers that be to keep that natural drug illegal thereby protecting their profits.

[mashman]

Mother fights brain cancer with electric fields

[oldrider]

Mother fights brain cancer with electric fields

But the FDA said Royal Raymond Rife was mistaken and destroyed him and his equipment - now the medical world have made a new "discovery"?

[Edbear]

What about someone like an elderly person who, instead of having to go all the way to the Doctor and then the pharmacist which costs time and money, just goes out to their garden for a dose of pain relief courtesy of Mother Nature. She doesn't smoke it, she simply ingests it.

The said elderly person is certainly exploring the benefits of an "inhouse" analgesic.

Do you know her?

Some say we should make marijuana available to cancer patients because it is so much more effective in controlling nausea and vomiting. Here are some objective findings from the Big Pharma companies some find so objectionable:

http://www.uptodate.com/contents/pre...a-and-vomiting

if they worked well / better than others / with the same of fewer side effects, the market would make sure they were available on the market. As they don't... Q.E.D.

(for the money quotes scroll down to...

Cannabinoids and medical marijuana — The potential antiemetic utility of cannabinoids was first observed in scattered reports of improved emetic control in patients using marijuana during chemotherapy [108]. Two synthetic cannabinoids are available (dronabinol and nabilone), but antiemetic efficacy is modest at best, rigorous comparisons of either drug with the most effective antiemetic therapies are lacking, and adverse effects tend to be more intense and more frequent than with other rescue agents such as neuroleptics [109]. (See "Characteristics of antiemetic drugs", section on 'Cannabinoids'.)

The modest antiemetic activity of this class of agents combined with their relatively unfavorable side effect profile (vertigo, xerostomia, hypotension, dysphoria), especially in older patients, has limited their clinical utility. Nevertheless, guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), ASCO [5], and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) [4] state that cannabinoids can be considered for refractory nausea and vomiting and as a rescue antiemetic.

The use of medical marijuana for refractory CINV is very controversial. Medical use of marijuana is legal in several countries, including the Netherlands and Canada. Despite legalization by several states, marijuana use is still illegal in the United States at the federal level (which considers marijuana a schedule I controlled substance), and individuals prescribing or using marijuana for medical use are at risk for prosecution [110].

While an early prospective uncontrolled pilot study from 1988 found that inhaled cannabis was effective in 78 percent of 56 patients who had inadequate control of nausea and vomiting with the conventional antiemetics that were available at that time [111], there have been no other clinical reports of efficacy of inhaled marijuana and there are no controlled clinical trials comparing marijuana versus other rescue strategies in patients who are refractory to modern antiemetics [112]. Furthermore, the use of marijuana is associated with adverse effects on the cardiovascular, respiratory, and central nervous systems, and uncertainty about increased risk of malignancy. (See "Cannabis use disorder: Epidemiology, comorbidity, and pathogenesis".)

Because of medical and legal concerns, the use of medical marijuana is not recommended for management of CINV, and is not included in the most recent guidelines for CINV from the NCCN, ASCO, or MASCC [59].

Thanks for that. Note 112. Most drugs of any kind have adverse side effects. What may work well for some could be dangerous for others. I tolerate high doses of Tramadol with no noticeable side effects yet others can get very ill from it. That's why I work closely with my GP and specialists and am regularly tested.

Some of the meds I take have long term issues that need to be monitored. Of course, with the alternative being death, one accepts a less than perfect life.

See, that's the problem with the pharmaceutical industry.

Because they can't make money from a natural drug they synthesize it instead - all the while relying on the powers that be to keep that natural drug illegal thereby protecting their profits.

I think you'll find the reason for synthesizing has more to do with producing enough at an affordable price.

[Ocean1]

See, that's the problem with the pharmaceutical industry.

Because they can't make money from a natural drug they synthesize it instead - all the while relying on the powers that be to keep that natural drug illegal thereby protecting their profits.

Nice theory. Fits your preconceived assumptions well. But it's wrong. They synthesise just the elements of the naturally occurring version that produce the benefits they want with none of the known and unknown side effects of the rest of the elements in the naturally occurring coctail. It's also usually easier than growing and refining it, and produces a product of higher quality with traceable standards compliance.

[Zedder]

Do you know her?

No, but here's a very similar situation:http://www.manchestereveningnews.co....husband-688401