The bottom line is that right now there isn't enough reliable evidence This includes hemp oil, cannabis oil or the active chemicals found within. Rick Simpson oil is a type of cannabis oil that contains high levels of THC, the We'll also break down the claims and research surrounding Rick Simpson oil and other cannabis products for cancer. The bottom line. Allow all terminal cancer patients the use of cannabis oil The bottom line is that right now there isn't enough reliable evidence to prove that.
and Line Oil Cannabis Cancer:The Bottom
Additionally, longer and larger studies better evidence show no effect. Adverse events are plentiful. The full document is available here. Compared to placebo, medical cannabinoids cause multiple different adverse events in patients, from visual disturbance or hypotension 1 in to hallucination or paranoia 1 in Stopping due to adverse effects occurs in 1 in every patients.
Regardless of the type of medical cannabinoid used, adverse events are common and likely underestimated. Given the extensive harms, potential benefits must be impressive to warrant a trial of therapy. For most conditions example anxiety , cannabinoid evidence is sparse at best , low quality and non-convincing.
Studying marijuana under rigorous circumstances has been difficult until fairly recently. The other issue is the challenge of a proper placebo control, particularly for non-oral forms of use. Given the psychoactive effects and the widely heralded effects on conditions that can only be assessed subjectively, like nausea, fatigue or appetite, a proper placebo is essential to separate out actual from placebo effects.
While some commercial products have been developed and marketed with standardized ingredients and quality control e. However, these purified and standardized products have allowed for proper placebo controls and more rigorous assessments of effectiveness.
Hopefully, clinical trials will become more common and more marijuana-based drugs can be more rigorously evaluated. The use of psychoactive drugs like marijuana is a health issue, particularly when used for medical purposes. Regrettably, there is a lack of high-quality data that shows marijuana for most medical purposes is both safe and effective. What little evidence exists is of poor quality and may not even be representative of the purposes for which medical marijuana is sought.
There are significant gaps in information necessary to treat marijuana like other forms of medicine: Dosage standardization and overall quality control may not be in place. Overall effectiveness, contraindications, drug interactions, adverse events and long-terms risks when marijuana is used as medicine are not well understood.
The best evidence suggests that marijuana may be a reasonable treatment option only when safer, more effective, and better tolerated treatment options have been tried first.
If marijuana is to be treated as medicine, then it needs to meet the same standards of quality, effectiveness, and safety we would expect of any other prescription drug. That standard has not yet been met. Next Cancer Deaths Continue to Decline. If you are interested in medical cannabis, please check out the Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission mmcc. Not even alcohol or Tylenol. I recently have been having high anxiety. My stress headaches have been getting worse.
I have trouble sleeping and Trouble eating since the loss of my child in Or something like that. I meditate every day and live a healthy lifestyle. My brother suggested I try cannabis. I have researched this. And being natural is there possibly a way I could get some direction as what I should do. But I strongly disagree with medications such as pills and lab related medicines.
Could cannabis be a good thing for me? I just need some direction and some answers on the legal side of this herbal medicine. Each state has different regulations on medical cannabis and it would be important for you to find out the laws in your state. In Maryland you need a prescription for medical cannabis and the details can be found by clicking on this link http: Currently Naturopathic Doctors are not on the prescribing list. If we can be of further service please contact the office at Your email address will not be published.
By submitting this form, you are granting: As one of the key medical claims is alleviation of nausea, and another is relief from cluster headaches where every second counts, pills are out of the question for many patients. Pharmaceutical cannabinoids should be produced in an inhalable form, and this should be a goal for Big Pharma after recreational marijuana is legalized nationwide so there are no further barriers to research.
Would require very naive Ss and an active placebo such as a phenothiazine tranquilizer. Not to mention all the hoop-jumping to get permissions. The latter person occasionally smoked it recreationally once in a while, so he did not need a medical basis as an "excuse.
Uniform age of 18 for access to all legal recreational drugs: The age experiment for alcohol has failed miserably by causing a pandemic of binge-drinking on college campuses, and a commensurate increase in hospitalizations and deaths from overt alcohol overdose. Age 18 enables parental socialization of substance use, which will reduce collegiate alcohol abuse to its earlier lower level and prevent an outbreak of marijuana abuse. The fact that caffeine is added to sodas that are promoted to children is frankly insane, as are the coffee shop drinks that look and presumably taste like milkshakes, and I have no doubt it is the real "gateway drug.
Alternately, put all high-sugar foods on the over list of social drugs as well. Restrict advertising of all social drugs to the interior pages of adult print media including internet.
Allow sales of all legal social drugs over the internet and delivery via common carriers. Last I checked it was illegal to sell alcohol this way, which is also crazy: The requirement to pay via credit card will prevent under-age access.
If a person is found driving under the influence, prohibit them from using that substance for X number of years. A person who provides a substance to someone who is restricted, or to someone under-age, would also be restricted themselves.
That puts the incentive where it counts, and would solve the DUI problem overnight, solve the under-age problem fairly quickly, and would also make a decent dent in alcoholism and marijuana abuse. Oops, I screwed up: I am actually a pretty strong advocate for legalization, but the "medical marijuana" crap is really disgusting. And don't think anyone is fooled. I've said the same thing about the hemp crowd.
Don't give me all this crap about how hemp is so great for the economy etc. It would mean a lot more if it didn't come from major stoners, like Woody Harrelson. Considering how common chronic pain, and chemo side effects are, wouldn't you say the medical marijuana is a valid medication. I know this is meant to be a retort to the woonatics, but this article also manages to marginalize its more notable uses. I would like to think anyone looking to back evidence based living would support decriminalization, and also ending stigma attached to taking certain medications.
It sounds as though you have been fooled. Cannabis 'hemp' only contains trace psycoactive substances.. It was ages of selective breeding to bring out the latent 'peace'. Industrial hemp would make outdoor 'medicinal' grows very nearly impossible -- crossbreeding would lead back to rope-dope in just a few generations. YES 3 - Thomas Jefferson: In addition to farming hemp, Jefferson was Ambassador to France during the hashish era there. At risk of imprisonment if caught, Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China known for their potency to America.
YES 1 - George Washington: There is also indication he used hemp preparations to deal with his toothaches. Hemp is good for farmers. Hemp turns sunlight into something man can burn cellulose pretty efficiently -- There have been times such as with war when farms were run on gassification of hemp hurds yeilding mainly methanol.
Ethanol has it's place as a specialty fuel but biological fermentation for a sustainable 'green' fuel has "got a long way to go, baby! Then, every farmer became required to watch a film, Hemp for Victory, and though they were not forced to grow hemp they were nonetheless strongly encouraged to do so; They had to sign a form declaring that they had patriotically viewed the film. It is often claimed that it was only necessary for 'nautical rope' as imports were somewhat curtailed when we started dropping bombs on the importers and they, in kind, responded by flying themselves into everyone else's merchant ships.
This is only partially true as hemp proved an invaluable replacement for lubricating fluids, solvent, and methanol fuel; Interestingly, these were the things it was used for before the ban. Nonetheless, it is a superior fiber which resists rot and salt water -- Hemp rope is a 'static' line -- nylon on the boat has always been a big no no as it can stretch and release a nasty lot of energy all over yur face when it gets all brokedick.
Cotton is the fiber of choice? Those damn slave owners sure liked to flaunt their inferior Izods. Rayon, Dacron, Nylon, and the 'natural' alternative, cotton, which needs all DuPonts' fertilizer and pesticides. Good for the economy? It depends on which cog one plays -- It does seem prohibition has been a boon for 'certain' interests. Fool MM,M once and They're reporting odds ratios. Yes I made that up but that's no overstatement; some people actually believe all people who use marijuana should be removed from existence.
Therefore somebody is paying for the article and, lets be honest, paid opinion's are rarely neutral and almost always selectively edited again increasing my skepticism, or; 2. Sam, since the photo I chose to feature for the post so offended your delicate sensibilities, I found a better one! You clearly have no clue. I have no budget. As for the rest, one notes that you haven't come up with a single substantive criticism of my post, its arguments, or the study upon which I based the post.
Your sole criticism seems to be that I picked a bad picture and therefore I must be some sort of anti-weed Nazi. Do I smoke the evil weed? No, I do not, but not because I have some sort of desire to ban it, but rather because, as I've said before and as you would have known if you clicked upon a couple of the links to my previous posts on the subject , I can't. I can't stand to be in a smoky room be it tobacco or marijuana smoke. I break out into a coughing jag. So I'm sure as hell not going to inhale into my lungs.
Also, being a physician, I really can't afford even a minor drug arrest; so I've never even had much of a desire to try pot. There's just not enough of an allure to tempt me to break the law; so as long as it is illegal for recreational use I am highly unlikely ever even to try it. Finally, I think pot should be legalized, regulated, and heavily taxed, just like tobacco and alcohol. The maths is unarguably correct with those figures you're reporting Not even Snoop Dogg could smoke that in a day by himself So therefore I'm led to believe you're just another passionate weed hater who's never even smoked it before who feels the need to voice one's opinions regarding a topic they actually know nothing about hiding this fact by using some level of statistical analysis to make you sound smart.
Thing is - you're not fooling the smart ones I very much believe that these two should be cleanly separated and that it is entirely consistent to be in favor of medical use but not recreational use. I'm theoretically in favor of medical use, but quite unhappy about how that has gone in practice. Seems to be way too easy to prescribe. The fears expressed by medical marijuana opponents that it would be a backdoor way to recreational legalization seem to have been warranted.
In a palliative care specialty role, I've conditionally advised use of non-smoked tincture form in perhaps 5 cases 3 nausea and 2 multiple sclerosis central pain, in all cases poorly or incompletely responsive to multiple other approaches. Anecdotally successful in two of those five one chemotherapy nausea and one severe gastroparesis. One of the unsuccessful ones was MS pain where she said it helped the pain but she didn't like the way it made her feel. The writer might not know what chopped weed actually looks like combined with the bias nature of the writing is sending my modern day anti-weed fascist detector to never before seen readings thus greatly increasing chances of A.
The grass doesn't seem to be doing much for your writing skills, which some might say correlate with thinking skills. I refrained from making pothead jokes Perhaps I shouldn't have shown such amazing restraint. Research shows that kids aged 12 to 17 who smoke marijuana weekly are three times more likely than nonusers to have suicidal thoughts.
As far as lung cancer and COPD, so many pot smokers also smoke tobacco that it make take a long time to really know the results of pot smoking, but due to the components of the smoke itself -- it can contain four times the amount of tar as cigarette smoke, for starters -- it's highly unlikely that the stuff is safe, especially for chronic, life-long smokers. Users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana, compared to their general risk of heart attack when not smoking.
In other words, lack of evidence is not evidence of lack -- the longer we look at the stuff, the more we find it's not a panacea. When the "withdrawal syndrome" is — in my experience — thinking "gee, I wish I had some grass" for two or three days, I'm not particularly impressed.
Washington and Jefferson - see http: Despite the above, I couldn't find any contemporary accounts suggesting either Washington or Jefferson ever indulged in, advocated, or even mentioned smoking pot. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, an organization dedicated to being a voice for "responsible marijuana smokers," simply notes that Washington and Jefferson grew hemp for economic reasons.
Hemp, the economic miracle - see http: The suppression of hemp wasn't, as some have alleged, the result of an unholy conspiracy between federal narcotics commissioner Harry Anslinger, the Du Pont corporation, and William Randolph Hearst.
No question, Anslinger was a zealot who thought marijuana was a menace to society, and Hearst's newspapers had done their best to whip up antihemp hysteria. But so had everybody else in the press.
Lurid antimarijuana stories appeared in the New Yorker, for God's sake. The hemp industry didn't pose a significant threat to Du Pont and its new synthetic product, nylon. The most widely publicized early use of nylon was for women's stockings. Hemp wasn't used for this purpose. Hemp has a lot of uses, true enough, and can be made into a bunch of products. But none of those products are particularly good, and better alternatives exist for all of them.
As far as legalization, I'm of two minds. Sure, pot is no worse than alcohol and or tobacco, and those two are legal. On the other hand, alcohol and tobacco cause enough problems by themselves, and we really don't need another problem commodity. Make it legal, or make it illegal, I don't care. I've no objection to studies to see if pot has any medical uses, in fact I would encourage them. But if you are going to sell it as medicine, you should get FDA approval.
There is relatively little evidence because studies are outlawed, not because the drug is ineffectual. In some cases there is no western drug that does better than marijuana, such as with glaucoma, nausea from cancer treatments, and colitis.
The way lives are ruined by the ridiculous "War on Drugs" is a pretty good argument for legalization, I think. One might note that selling weed while black is particularly, uh, frowned upon.
If one is not sympathetic to such claims, it can also be noted that marijuana prohibition and the huge prison population it has in part engendered costs a lot of money. I am aware of two people in my life who are honestly using it for medical purposes - a gentleman with Parkinson's who finds the main side effect, euphoria, a good balance to the lack of euphoria that Parkinsonian medications and the disease itself bring, and a friend with chronic pain from sports injuries who wants an alternative to opiates for pain relief to reduce the chances of addiction while she works with her doc to try to repair the damage as much as possible.
The rest of us use our medical cards to enjoy outdoor music festivals more now and then. As far as blinded studies go - you don't have to smoke it. How you would mask the distinctive taste and smell would be another matter, but if you're studying components in isolation, as you should, that problem should go away. James M Barber But that's just the thing! From the actual study: There was low-quality evidence suggesting that cannabinoids were associated with improvements in nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy, weight gain in HIV infection, sleep disorders, and Tourette syndrome.
I'd also like to point out that these researchers studied Marinol, a single molecule drug derivative of Cannabis. They did not study "Medical Marijuana" at all. Cannabis has over two hundred cannbinoid and terpenoid components, some of which modify the effects of THC, some that are possibly active in and and of themselves. That's like studying the chemical Atropine, and claiming you studied the poisonous nightshade. As someone who went through a heavy chemo program, I can tell you that it is nit minor.
Without it, I would have stopped my treatment. I liked your post and while some of your verbiage was inflammatory towards the negative side, I feel like your position was accurate based off the published study. A friend of mine who is in favor of MJ medically referenced this study. By Hill which was contemporary with yours, but more positive in its outcome and more inclusive in the studies. What were your thoughts on Hill's analysis? End-of-life pain care is not "minor" and I have seen significant pain palliation with the use of marijuana in terminally ill cancer patients.
I invite you to be the one to tell people that this should not be an option compared to things like morphine. I agree with Orac and felt a little sad for him and his lack of comments. I am all for the legalisation of recreational marijuana but that is separate from medicinal use, and as a medicine, it should be subject to the same standards as any other medicine. Goblinbox - citations please?
Even if all of what you stated is true - which I doubt - the disease burden of marijuana pales in comparison to that of alcohol and tobacco. Orac, I'm sorry you feel your lungs aren't up to trying it but you could eat it though I understand why you wouldn't publicly announce it if you did. Around these parts it is a common experience when first trying pot to have others present look at you sympathetically while you cough your ring up and wisely intone: You gotta cough to get off.
This meta-analysis shows that the existing data for the use of marijuana-derived compounds for several indications is not definitive. That is not saying, no, it doesn't work, and it's not saying, yes, it does work.
We need more studies. And if anyone thinks that conducting studies on people with cancer is easy, think again. People with serious, life-threatening conditions must be strongly protected because their condition makes them vulnerable. So there are or should be extra layers of ethical investigation applied to any research on these groups. Regardless of the source of the treatment, pot or Big Pharma.
The "minor" in that sentence means that the researchers found that the treatment did not have a strong effect, not that the pain was minor. Also, "symptoms of chemotherapy" are generally not the same as "end-of-life pain care". Mite B Mee and ct - come on! The statements that marijuana might have some minor utility in chemo nausea and palliation is the bottom line of the available research, not Orac's personal opinion.
No one is trivialising chemo nausea or end of life pain, nor is anyone saying it shouldn't be available as an option. In fact, Orac says he feels it should be a legal option for everyone. If you're not happy that the evidence isn't strong then either lobby for more research or lobby for legalisation, but don't shoot the messenger and accuse him of bias.
Yah, I know one who'd I'd include, a neighbor with a degenerative condition that has robbed her of most of her eyesight and mobility. The criteria in these parts are reasonably stringent. And I don't think there are even any dispensaries yet.
None of the other claimants to the status that I've met has bothered to apply. And "minor" utility may be more about the number of people it helps than how much help that small percentage of people get. Some things are very effective IF they happen to work for you. Thanks for writing this piece and your previous articles on "medical" marijuana. I think many skeptics have been embarrassingly silent on the herbalism propaganda that has been spewed out on MM and I'm glad to see someone taking a stand against anecdotal science that's been used to support MM laws in this country.
That would explain alot. A pharmaceutical company can't get a patent on a natural molecule -- Like the knockoff key in the lock, they must change it up a little bit; I've heard that 'spice', the synthetic and legal alternative to marijuana does cause psycotic breaks. Here is some Alaskan Thunderfuck shots for your viewing edification: Oh yea, another benifit of hemp is that it is nutritious food.
Didya know that the Carrier pidgeon's staple food was hempseed? Didya know when they went extinct? Prohibition was good for the US postal service and 'man-in-the-middle' injections between communicating parties. I would like to suggest that it is an atrocity to suggest that there should be any restriction, monitoring, taxing, licsensing, or inspections of one's home garden whatsoever. Otherwise, people may be tempted to do horrendous things to conceal it like grafting cannabis to hops, figs, breadfruit, or mullberry trees.
Yep, they are all of the same family As far as people concerned about 'smoking'.. It is a bronchodilator and has expectorant action; It cleans your lungs out. It immediately moderates the immune system so that it is not wasting resources reacting to every dustmite and pollen grain It is this property that sometimes stops asthma attacks mid-puff.
It is Strawberry cough I hate the smell and taste of pot and most of the effects of pot. I experimented in high school with it but it wasn't something for me. That said, after colorectal cancer surgery, a friend suggested it for pain relief when the narcotics and over the counter meds didn't help. It seemed to work for pain relief for me in that circumstance. I haven't used it since, but I'm not averse to it.
To each their own. As someone who has spinal stenosis which causes sever back spasms and pain, I started using MJ in '08 to allow me to move my arm. My nerosurgeon said and I quote "well, it is a power muscle relaxant" as he handed me a prescription for Oxy and a debilitating surgery. I've done neither, I've upped my cannabis intake to include concentrated oils hash.
My last back spasm was in , prior to I averaged 3 or so a month, sever ones laid me out on the bed for 2 weeks unable to move. The last one in threw me down a flight of stairs, I couldn't move my arms to catch the railing and I hit full force on my lower spine. It scared the hell out of my wife and me. I never once believed it cured cancer, and given that I lived in pain for a decade before using cannabis says something about my skepticism.
The problem is, it is illegal for no logical reason. The "adverse effects" you mention are comedic at best, dry mouth? I won't do a who's more evil comparison, but no one will argue it's "therapeutic effects. The only argument I have is don't get too judgemental too fast on the MM movement, until the US has resigned that it should be legal and it shouldn't be a profit center for prisons, institutionalized rasism, and the war on the poor, then we can call the BS the BS that it is.
Rick Simpson, in my opinion has done more damage to the legalization effort than good. We need research into the harm it does not do, since we have all the confined lab rats going insane from asphyxiation and starvation in then 70's and 80's that must be undone.
The claims maid by the MM movement are extravagant and at times outright lies. That's politics for you. We can't move this decrepit, controling government with "you all are wrong in your demonization of this. I do think that there are pragmatic questions that need to be addressed prior to wholesale legalization including a serious cui bono regarding qualification as a legitimate supplier by means of popularity contest, but slapdash laundry lists such as goblinbox's don't cut it from where I sit.
He doesn't really tag stuff all that helpfully, but if one looks around, there's a good deal to suggest that the synthetic cannabinoid channel is really just a dumb idea to encourage. I realize that I've just invited a which slope? If the LD50 is in fact 3. Watch him complete a Learn about your endocannabinoid system and how phytocannabinoids help maintain it which is a messenging system to your vital organs. Cannabis helps especially when ingested. This is partly why cannabis cures cancer and should kd be researched further.
Saying it doesnt without any evidence is doing more harm dicktree. Cannabis is as important to healthy humans as water is. Whatever it's worth, if you're opioid tolerant like I am, marijuana can help with chronic pain. Unfortunately, only certain strains are worth a damn, and living somewhere that it isn't legal means it's a crapshoot for me as to whether or not I get the "right" kind, and I don't even know which one that is.
Anyway, in my opinion, which is worth the paper it's written on, they'd need to test several different strains against the list of things marijuana is supposed to treat in different studies to see if that's just bias or real.
Until they do that, I'll continue to be optimistic that there may be better results to be had than what they've gotten thus far. This back door route to legalization pays off one potential source of problems. The doctors involved in writing the prescriptions may themselves be no longer allowed operating priveledges due to their own problems, drug or psychiatric.
Thus this method of approaching legalization should be expected in countries where the medical profession is in a position above their patients the USA, certainly but unlikely in countries where doctors are salaried public servants. I support honest legalization because free people should not be bothered over trivial pastimes. Uh, Tim - we all know you are a huge marijuana user.
People would go out and shoot them in the thousands, and not even eat all the birds. Learn a little history before you mouth off, especially when it has to do with your favorite stuff. I don't have the stomach to watch that, so I'll take your word for it that Oz is anti-pot with scare tactics about The Children. Any given instance of relief from symptoms might be a placebo response or might be pure coincidence, or it might be that e.
Medical Marijuana: Where is the evidence?
Allow all terminal cancer patients the use of cannabis oil Why is this important? The bottom line is that right now there isn't enough reliable. So you are making the claim that cannabis cures cancer? The bottom line is this trial strongly confirms what is being seen in the real world. "I can't say that it was just the cannabis oil that cured the cancer, but I do bolster the immune system's defences against cancer, lower the rate.