Jump to content

To All Those Who Are Making Claims About Mmj Curing An Illness


Recommended Posts

Although I think there are many benefits to mmj I sometimes get upset about the way people often make claims about mmj curing something. It very well might but just read this paragraph and tell me what you think. It's not about med mj bout I think it applies. Please don't go to we are not doctors as an excuse for this is what needs to be done to be taken seriously for unless you have such preponderance of evidence that it is totally undeniable, that even skeptics would embrace you may not be taken seriously.

 

On the alternative side, nutcakes who seem to have not the slightest appreciation or even understanding of concepts such as “double-blind,” “placebo-controlled,” “replicable,” “falsifiable,” or “statistical significance,” provide fodder for traditionalists who wish to portray the entire alternative field as populated with California froo-froos off to make a quick buck from the desperate and huddled masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lester Grinspoon wrote and article in high times about the dangers of believing that Simpson oil always cured cancer.

 

Here it is

 

Legal

Medical Marijuana: A Note of Caution

Fri, Nov 13, 2009 4:20 pm

more: january 2010, medical marijuana, rick simpson

Share |

 

 

Dr. Lester Grinspoon is associate professor emeritus of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and the author of Marihuana Reconsidered (Harvard University Press, 1971) and Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine (with James B. Bakalar, Yale University Press, 1993). This op-ed is a response to an article that appeared in the January 2010 issue of HIGH TIMES, “Rick Simpson’s Hemp-Oil Medicine,” written by Steve Hager, HIGH TIMES creative director.

 

By Lester Grinspoon, M.D.

 

Like everyone else who has been working over decades to ensure that marijuana, with all that it has to offer, is allowed to take its proper place in our lives, I have been heartened by the rapidly growing pace at which it is gaining understanding as a safe and versatile medicine. In addition to the relief it offers to so many patients with a large array of symptoms and syndromes (almost invariably at less cost, both in toxicity and money, than the conventional drugs it replaces), it is providing those patients, their caregivers, and the people who are close to them an opportunity to see for themselves how useful and unthreatening its use is. It has been a long and difficult sell, but I think it is now generally believed (except by the United States government) that herbal marijuana as a medicine is here to stay.

 

The evidence which underpins this status as a medicine is, unlike that of almost all other modern medicines, anecdotal. Ever since the mid-1960s, new medicines have been officially approved through large, carefully controlled double-blind studies, the same path that marijuana might have followed had it not been placed in Schedule 1 of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which has made it impossible to do the kind of studies demanded for approval by the Food and Drug Administration. Anecdotal evidence commands much less attention than it once did, yet it is the source of much of our knowledge of synthetic medicines as well as plant derivatives. Controlled experiments were not needed to recognize the therapeutic potential of chloral hydrate, barbiturates, aspirin, curare, insulin or penicillin. And there are many more recent examples of the value of anecdotal evidence. It was in this way that the use of propranolol for angina and hypertension, of diazepam for status epilepticus (a state of continuous seizure activity), and of imipramine for childhood enuresis (bed-wetting) was discovered, although these drugs were originally approved by regulators for other purposes.

 

Today, advice on the use of marijuana to treat a particular sign or symptom, whether provided or not by a physician, is based almost entirely on anecdotal evidence. For example, let’s consider the case of a patient who has an established diagnosis of Crohn’s disease but gets little or no relief from conventional medicines (or even occasional surgery) and suffers from severe cramps, diarrhea and loss of weight. His cannabis-savvy physician – one who is aware of compelling anecdotal literature suggesting that it is quite useful in this syndrome – would not hesitate to recommend to this patient that he try using marijuana. He might say, “Look, I can’t be certain that this will help you, but there is now considerable experience that marijuana has been very useful in treating the symptoms of this disorder, and if you use it properly, it will not hurt you one bit; so I would suggest you give it a try, and if it works, great – and if it does not, it will not have harmed you.”

 

If this advice is followed and it works for this patient, he will report back that, indeed, his use of the drug has eliminated the symptoms and he is now regaining his weight; or that it doesn’t work for him but he is no better or worse off than he was before he had a trial of marijuana. Particularly in states which have accommodated the use of marijuana as a medicine, this kind of exchange is not uncommon. Because the use of cannabis as a medicine is so benign, relative to most of the conventional medicines it competes with, knowledgeable physicians are less hesitant to recommend a trial.

 

One of the problems of accepting a medicine – particularly one whose toxicity profile is lower than most over-the-counter medicines – on the basis of anecdotal evidence alone is that it runs the risk of being oversold. For example, it is presently being recommended for many types of pain, some of which are not responsive to its analgesic properties. Nonetheless, in this instance, a failed trial of marijuana is not a serious problem; and at the very least, both patient and physician learn that the least toxic analgesic available doesn’t work for this patient with this type of pain. Unfortunately, this kind of trial is not always benign.

 

In the January 2010 issue of HIGH TIMES, Steve Hager published an article, “Rick Simpson’s Hemp-Oil Medicine,” in which he extols the cancer-curing virtues of a concentrated form of marijuana which a Canadian man developed as “hemp oil.” Unfortunately, the anecdotal evidence on which the cancer-curing capacity is based is unconvincing; and because it is unconvincing, it raises a serious moral issue.

 

Simpson, who does not have a medical or scientific education (he dropped out of school in ninth grade), apparently does not require that a candidate for his treatment have an established diagnosis of a specific type of cancer, usually achieved through biopsy, gross and histopathological examinations, radiologic and clinical laboratory evidence. He apparently accepts the word of his “patients.” Furthermore, after he has given the course of “hemp oil,” there is apparently no clinical or laboratory follow-up; he apparently accepts the “patient’s” belief that he has been cured. According to Hager, he claims a cure rate of 70 percent. But 70 percent of what? Do all the people he “treats” with hemp-oil medicine have medically established, well-documented cancer, or is he treating the symptoms or a constellation of symptoms that he or the patient have concluded signify the existence of cancer? And what is the nature and duration of the follow-up which would allow him to conclude that he has cured 70 percent? Furthermore, does this population of “patients with cancer” include those who have already had therapeutic regimes (such as surgery, radiation or chemotherapy) which are known to be successful in curing some cancers or holding at bay, sometimes for long periods of time, many others?

 

There are patients who have a medically sound diagnosis of pre-symptomatic cancer (such as early prostate cancer) but who, for one reason or another, eschew allopathic treatment and desperately seek out other approaches. Such patients are all too eager to believe that a new treatment, such as hemp-oil medicine, has cured their cancer. Unfortunately, this cancer, which was asymptomatic at the time of its discovery, will eventually become symptomatic, and at that time the possibility of a cure is significantly diminished, if not inconceivable.

 

This lesson was brought home to me when I was asked by the American Cancer Society, during a period early in my medical career when I was doing cancer research, to participate in an investigation of a man in Texas who claimed that a particular herb that his grandfather discovered would cure cancer. I was able to locate two women who had well-documented diagnoses of early (asymptomatic) cervical cancer who had decided not to have surgery but instead went to Texas and took the “medicine.” When I first met them some months after each had taken the “cure,” they were certain that they were now cancer-free. With much effort, I was able to persuade them to have our surgical unit perform new biopsies, both of which revealed advancement in the pathological process over their initial biopsies. Both were then persuaded to have the surgery they had previously feared, and there is no doubt that this resulted in saving their lives.

 

There is little doubt that cannabis now may play some non-curative roles in the treatment of this disease (or diseases) because it is often useful to cancer patients who suffer from nausea, anorexia, depression, anxiety, pain and insomnia. However, while there is growing evidence from animal studies that it may shrink tumor cells and cause other promising salutary effects in some cancers, there is no present evidence that it cures any of the many different types of cancer. I think the day will come when it or some cannabinoid derivatives will be demonstrated to have cancer-curative powers, but in the meantime, we must be very cautious about what we promise these patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize he is talking about nausea in one case and not curing cancer?

 

Your post just shows me you may not understand what I am talking about. As I mentioned I think that mmj has pallative effects but when we give anecdotal evidence as proof that is not anything close to science. The point being if we come off as hippie dippies without using real science then we are probably not going to be taken seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MRD, see the thing is, it is well known that THC can kill or aid in killing certain types of cancer. And until the government stops blocking people from studying the plant, we will never know. What if it cured 1 type of cancer and that was it. But it cured it fast, well, and with little side effects? Wouldn't it then be worth it to give to people that had that one type of cancer?

 

how about a disease that has no cure. You can't cure it, but you have to get chemo ever 3 years. Or you can take simpson oil, which takes care of all of the symptoms, which is all the chemo does, but you don't have to nearly kill yourself with chemo to get the same effect, and instead of paying $1500 a day, 5 days a month for 6 months, a cost of $45,000 (and this is the cheap chemo treatment), you get a 2 year supply of RSO for like $10k retail price, or grow your own and cut that price WAY down.

 

MMJ is a medically viable alternative for certain things. What they are isn't clearly defined because the government won't let people do the research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MRD, see the thing is, it is well known that THC can kill or aid in killing certain types of cancer. And until the government stops blocking people from studying the plant, we will never know. What if it cured 1 type of cancer and that was it. But it cured it fast, well, and with little side effects? Wouldn't it then be worth it to give to people that had that one type of cancer?

 

how about a disease that has no cure. You can't cure it, but you have to get chemo ever 3 years. Or you can take simpson oil, which takes care of all of the symptoms, which is all the chemo does, but you don't have to nearly kill yourself with chemo to get the same effect, and instead of paying $1500 a day, 5 days a month for 6 months, a cost of $45,000 (and this is the cheap chemo treatment), you get a 2 year supply of RSO for like $10k retail price, or grow your own and cut that price WAY down.

 

MMJ is a medically viable alternative for certain things. What they are isn't clearly defined because the government won't let people do the research.

 

Yep .. "They" can continue to say "it hasn't been proven in human testing," as long as "they" refuse to allow human testing.

 

That is exactly what we need. Proper testing by our medical professionals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post just shows me you may not understand what I am talking about. As I mentioned I think that mmj has pallative effects but when we give anecdotal evidence as proof that is not anything close to science. The point being if we come off as hippie dippies without using real science then we are probably not going to be taken seriously.

 

The way to fix this is to get the government to allow proper human testing.

 

What you present here is the anti mmj argument. "You can't claim that because it hasn't been proven in humans."

 

As far as what can be proven, prove to me that aspirin has any effect on headaches. I'm serious. Apply the same standard to aspirin as you wish to do with cannabis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

URBANA – A Champaign man died accidentally from taking too much aspirin for his arthritis, according to evidence at a Champaign County coroner's inquest Thursday in Urbana.

 

Lawrence Foley, 50, of 402 W. Beardsley Ave., died at 10:02 a.m. Nov. 14, 2004, according to Chief Deputy Coroner Bill Fabian. The cause of death was determined by a forensic pathologist to be salicylate intoxication, or aspirin poisoning, he said.

 

Champaign County Coroner Duane Northrup, testifying as a witness at the inquest, said the investigation showed Mr. Foley had salicylate in his system at a level of 880 nanograms per milliliter, which is in the toxic range that starts at 300 nanograms per milliliter. Mr. Foley had rheumatoid arthritis, a chronic disease that typically has pain and swelling in the joints, and other health problems, according to Northrup.

 

"He would take a lot of aspirin," the coroner said. "He didn't believe it would harm him."

 

Mr. Foley was discovered by his ex-wife, Peggy Lynch, who also was his caregiver, according to Northrup. A large, partially full bottle of aspirin was on a table in his room, he said.

 

Champaign police investigated the death and found no evidence of foul play, according to Northrup. There also was no indication that Mr. Foley had intentionally caused himself any harm then or previously, he said.

 

"A lot of people take aspirin for pain," Northrup said. "They think that because they can buy it over the counter that it won't hurt them. If you take enough, it can kill you."

 

Northrup said there was one other case of salicylate poisoning in Champaign County in the past three years

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some groups working on creating studies that can be peer reviewed, such as ASA. It requires lots of money, time, money, money and people. For example, it can cost between 500 million and 2 billion dollars to get a med through the FDA process. That pretty much leaves us with second class science.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_development#Cost

 

In my opinion, those who complain about the lack of mainstream medical studies for herbal medicine are being intellectually dishonest and trying to create a straw man. They know in today's high cost environment those studies could never be conducted, unless a big pharma firm decides to market it.

 

 

Scheduled 1 drug status does not allow most types of testing. Plus only junk weed from the feds is allowed to be used for any studies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://cannabisscience.com/news-a-media/press-releases/229-cbis-announces-critical-canacer-patient-cured.html

 

June 29, 2011

 

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Cannabis Science Inc. (NASD OTCBB: CBIS) a pioneering US biotech company developing pharmaceutical cannabis products, is pleased to announce that it has been contacted by Lynnice Wedewer, Ph.D. who is a 34 year multiple cancer patient survivor who has been cured of 7 of her 8 cancers in a major part because of medical cannabis. Dr. Wedewer wishes to share her story through Cannabis Science and help our case and education towards general acceptance of medical cannabis as a natural and viable treatment for cancer.

 

Tell this Ph.D. she doesn't know what she is talking about.

 

There's more to the story at the link.

 

Note the date of this release.

 

Dr. Lester Grinspoons retraction should be issued shortly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even proven cures don't often work, sometimes quite frequently. If Simpson oil cures many cancers, it is still unlikely to cure them all. With anything life threatening, every available treatment should be used. You don't want to be the one who skipped chemo and had the Simpson oil tolerant tumor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even proven cures don't often work, sometimes quite frequently. If Simpson oil cures many cancers, it is still unlikely to cure them all. With anything life threatening, every available treatment should be used. You don't want to be the one who skipped chemo and had the Simpson oil tolerant tumor.

 

And the converse of that statement is that even proven non-cures often work, sometimes quite frequently. We call it the placebo effect. (in sales it's called the "Ben Franklin Close" lol) You just can't control for this in small anecdotal studies, and is why i never read "cure" threads that aren't associated with the scientific method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the converse of that statement is that even proven non-cures often work, sometimes quite frequently. We call it the placebo effect. (in sales it's called the "Ben Franklin Close" lol) You just can't control for this in small anecdotal studies, and is why i never read "cure" threads that aren't associated with the scientific method.

 

And they don't do double blind for any situation that is life threatening. Doing so would involve deciding which persons would be tricked into believing they were getting real medicine while letting them die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do double blind for illnesses that are life threatening. I have read of cases where they did and in some where the medication or procedure is so compelling they end the study and put all subjects. on the regime.

 

 

Some of you still do not seem to get the point. Learn to be more conservative when you are talking about anecdotal evidence concerning mmj so that you will be taken seriously! I am not talking about whether mmj works or doesn't.

 

Bob and Torey, we have met you are nice people. But this has nothing to do with whether aspirin or any other OTC drug is safer or more harmful. (If aspirin was created today I doubt it would be anything but a prescription drug) It is about how we present our information to others. I am well aware of lots of drugs that are far worse than mmj.

 

It is far easier to argue for legalization than it is to argue that it cures Cancer. Lets make sure we are taken seriously by people who are not aligned with our interests. Getting people here to agree that mmj has value is easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do double blind for illnesses that are life threatening. I have read of cases where they did and in some where the medication or procedure is so compelling they end the study and put all subjects. on the regime.

 

 

Some of you still do not seem to get the point. Learn to be more conservative when you are talking about anecdotal evidence concerning mmj so that you will be taken seriously! I am not talking about whether mmj works or doesn't.

 

Bob and Torey, we have met you are nice people. But this has nothing to do with whether aspirin or any other OTC drug is safer or more harmful. (If aspirin was created today I doubt it would be anything but a prescription drug) It is about how we present our information to others. I am well aware of lots of drugs that are far worse than mmj.

 

It is far easier to argue for legalization than it is to argue that it cures Cancer. Lets make sure we are taken seriously by people who are not aligned with our interests. Getting people here to agree that mmj has value is easy.

 

Give up on the last two years of work?

 

Sure thing .. no problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW .. One of the main reasons for starting the cannabis cancer project was to provide Dr. Lester Grinspoon with a documented case.

 

I was in contact with the doctor before he published his story.

 

You're a better man than most..keep fighting we're in your corner!

 

 

The student is to collect and evaluate facts. The facts are locked up in the patient.

- Abraham Flexner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Glen what I am talking about is how one's work is represented to those outside the community. I have no reason to think you should stop doing your work. I do think you need to try to organize the information gathered into a form that avoids misstatements. Why do I have to keep saying the same thing over and over?

 

The point is to get interest from the mainstream. Rather than have them blow us off. Geez Louise!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...