Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
|
 LloydChristmas
getting lost on purpose
Registered: 04/05/06
Posts: 3,907
Loc: atx 
Last seen: 20 minutes, 3 seconds
|
 New Studies Expose Government Lies About Medical Pot
#7180218 - 07/15/07 05:18 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/56753/
When Connecticut's Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed legislation last month that would have allowed citizens with debilitating medical conditions to use medical cannabis under their doctor's supervision, she alleged that there was no proof of pot's therapeutic effectiveness and that legal alternatives are available by prescription. Now, a just-released clinical trial by researchers at Columbia University in New York is making the governor's statements ring hollow.
On June 21, just 24 hours after Gov. Rell's veto, the online database for the National Library of Medicine posted an a forthcoming study from the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes that reports, "Smoked marijuana … has a clear medical benefit in HIV-positive [patients] by increasing food intake and improving mood and objective and subjective sleep measures."
But that's not all investigators found. In a "first" for HIV/AIDS clinical research, scientists not only compared the efficacy of inhaled cannabis to a placebo (in this case, marijuana lacking the primary therapeutic and psychoactive compound THC), but they also tested pot against doses of the so-called "legal marijuana pill" known as dronabinol (aka Marinol). For those unfamiliar with dronabinol, it's a gelatin capsule containing synthetic THC in sesame oil that was approved by the FDA in 1992 specifically to treat HIV/AIDS-related cachexia (weight and appetite loss).
So just how did the nearly $1,000-a-month synthetic alternative compare to the real McCoy?
According to the study, subjects experienced increased appetites after smoking cannabis or taking Marinol. Patients also experienced equivalent weight gains after using both drugs (a little more than 1.1 kilograms over a four-day period). Here's the kicker, though. Investigators reported that patients needed to take "eight times" the recommended daily dosage of Marinol to equal the same therapeutic relief they achieved after smoking relatively low-strength (2 percent or 3.9 percent THC) pot!
In other words, a few hits of the U.S. government's herbal "schwag" (the use of federally grown pot is required in all FDA-approved marijuana trials) was as efficacious as a mega-dose of Uncle Sam's synthetic pot pill.
Clinicians further reported that smoking higher-strength marijuana -- that's the 3.9 percent pot for this study's purposes -- subjectively improved patients' sleep better than oral THC. Perhaps more important, authors reported that HIV patients made far fewer requests for over-the-counter 'rescue' medications while using cannabis. Scientists reported that most of these requests were to treat subjects' gastrointestinal complaints (nausea, diarrhea and upset stomach) -- conditions that have long been reported by patients to be alleviated with medical pot.
Of course, among those living with HIV/AIDS, scientific trials like the Columbia study only reinforce what they've already known for decades. (According to various surveys, between 25 and 37 percent of HIV/AIDS patients in North America self-report using cannabis medically to combat both symptoms of the disease as well as the side effects of antiretroviral medications.) That for many with debilitating and life-threatening diseases, pot as a medicine works.
It's just unfortunate that politicians like Gov. Rell choose to take their marching orders from drug warriors in Washington rather than to heed the advice of those patients and doctors who know far better.
A previous version of this article originally appeared in The Hartford Courant.
Digg!
See more stories tagged with: science, medical marijuana, government, propaganda
Paul Armentano is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC.
--------------------
|
UltraPorn
Mushroom Matrix
Registered: 07/14/07
Posts: 56
Last seen: 2 months, 27 days
|
 Re: New Studies Expose Government Lies About Medical Pot [Re: LloydChristmas]
#7181099 - 07/15/07 08:45 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
In other words, a few hits of the U.S. government's herbal "schwag" (the use of federally grown pot is required in all FDA-approved marijuana trials) was as efficacious as a mega-dose of Uncle Sam's synthetic pot pill.
Mainstream media needs to know whats going on here.
I mean whats that equal to in bubblers?
--------------------
 
|
AtPeace
POWD
Registered: 06/16/07
Posts: 200
Loc: Florida
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: New Studies Expose Government Lies About Medical Pot [Re: UltraPorn]
#7183456 - 07/16/07 12:59 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Main stream media does know hopefully Lyle Cracker will be able to grow 10-15% THC(Chronic) under federal supervision to show that higher THC content equals better results and less inhalation of bad carcinogens because of the fact that instead of a spliff they will only need a couple of hits. GO Lyle.
--------------------
Im FREE........ Until the 7th.
|
 badchad
Mad Scientist
Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 7,896
|
Re: New Studies Expose Government Lies About Medical Pot [Re: AtPeace]
#7183577 - 07/16/07 01:40 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Of course, if this study had unfavorable results it would have been dismissed as "government propaganda".
While valid, the study had a lot of shortcomings which would have been exploited if it portrayed MJ in a negative light. While the efficacy of marijuana and cannabinoids in treating symptoms related to HIV was demonstrated, it didn't show an overwheliming superiority of smoked marijuana over dronabinol IMO.
--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.
Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.
...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.
Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
Edited by badchad (07/16/07 01:58 PM)
|
fastfred
Old Hand
Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,242
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: New Studies Expose Government Lies About Medical Pot [Re: LloydChristmas]
#7189842 - 07/17/07 07:06 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
> it didn't show an overwheliming superiority of smoked marijuana over dronabinol IMO.
WTF are you talking about? It showed an 8X advantage over marinol. That's a pretty overwhelming superiority. It wasn't 2X or 3X or even 4X... It was EIGHT TIMES as effective!
Depending on their sample size and methods even 1.5X (50% increase) would probably have been well into the statistically significant range.
If you have a valid reason for disputing the results then let's hear it. What exactly were the "shortcomings" of the study?
|
badchad
Mad Scientist
Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 7,896
|
Re: New Studies Expose Government Lies About Medical Pot [Re: fastfred]
#7191913 - 07/18/07 07:19 AM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fastfred said:
WTF are you talking about? It showed an 8X advantage over marinol. That's a pretty overwhelming superiority. It wasn't 2X or 3X or even 4X... It was EIGHT TIMES as effective!
This is a patently incorrect statement.
What the study actually did, was compare 5 and 10 mg of dronabinol to smoked marijuana. In fact, since they used two different concentrations of marijuana, the absolute dose of smoked marijuana given to participants was unknown.
Further, there were no statistically significant differences between dronabinol and marijuana on any of the outcome measures. Thus, what they found was: when comparing dronabinol to an unknown dose of smoked marijauna, they performed exactly the same. The high dose of dronabinol was 8X the recommended therapeutic dose, and certainly NOT 8X weaker, or 8X less effective. it is largely irrelevant to the study findings.
It also brings to light the subject of efficacy (outcome) VS. potency (dose). In a medical sense, what really matters is efficacy (outcome) while potency (dose) is secondary. A good example can be seen with psychedelics. If you achieve a +5 trip from 3.5g of mushrooms, it isn't necesarily "better" or "more effective" than a +5 trip from 200 micrograms of LSD. The dose it different, the outcome is the same.
Regardless, a high dose of dronabinol was needed due to the study population (which is another point worth mentioning). This study used experienced marijuana smokers.
For any type of drug, people are most comfortable and report more of an effect when they use a drug in their "normal" way and in their normal "setting". It makes sense that experienced smokers of marijuana would report more of an effect from smoking, when compared to taking a pill. This is important because many of the measures in the study were subjective or "self-report" measures. Experienced smokers know what to expect after smoking marijuana and this biases the results.
The potential for bias is also apparent in the "blinding" of the study. It is extremely difficult to "blind" someone to smoked marjuana. Thus, expectancy probably played a large role in the reports of smoked marijuana. It would be interesting to see the results from the smoked "placebo" versus the dronabinol "placebo". I would bet there is a MUCH greater "placebo effect" from the smoked marijuana (this is not reported in the study however).
Also, while not getting into too much detail, time course is a significant concern. It is difficult to administer surveys and measure subjective profiles to catch the "peak effects" of a drug administered by two different routes. In this study, many of the measures were done 45 min. after capsule administration, and 45 min. after smoked MJ. It likely this was well before the "peak effects" of the dronabinol, and slightly after (or during) the "peak effects" of the smoked MJ. It is not a fair comparison.
Lastly, the small sample size (10 subjects) should also be noted. So, while overall the study was done well, the above factors were "WTF I was talking about".
The article from NORML was a biased interpretation of a scientific study. This is why I would encourage people to seek out the actual studies themselves and reach their own conclusions. NORML can spoon-feed you just as much bias and propaganda as the U.S. government.
--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.
Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.
...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.
Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
fastfred
Old Hand
Registered: 05/17/04
Posts: 6,242
Loc: Dark side of the moon
|
Re: New Studies Expose Government Lies About Medical Pot [Re: LloydChristmas]
#7192813 - 07/18/07 12:38 PM (4 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Good points BC. I see what you are saying.
> the absolute dose of smoked marijuana given to participants was unknown.
They must have weighed the joints.
Anyway, reading interpretations of studies sucks and everyone should keep an eye out. I haven't even read the actual study.
Regardless of whatever bias was introduced I'm sure the study provides some good information. Perhaps marinol needs to be prescribed at higher doses.
NORML kind of read into it what they wanted, but it does seem like the study proved that smoking joints is as effective as taking 8 times the marinol dose that your doctor is going to prescribe for you.
That upholds the view that, as currently prescribed, smoking weed is going to be more effective.
Some of your points could also be made about most studies. There really is no good way to blind a study where participants can feel the effects of the drug, especially if participants are experienced.
They also have problems with their subject selection. By using experienced users they selected for people that already know they receive benefits from MJ. It would have been better to use naive subjects.
As far as the dose/response curve, it is important when comparing synthetic vs natural and different routes of administration. More so than the efficacy, as you assume that it will be similar.
I also don't really agree with your opinion on route preference. Users will find their preferred route, which isn't the same in all subjects. But I think most users will quickly switch routes if they find that they prefer another route. That is to say that they may have a bias for their preferred route, but aren't biased against switching preferences.
You're also right about the small sample size. It really wasn't large enough to mean much. But hey, you gotta start somewhere.
I think NORML presented a fairly accurate summary of the study's results. Their conclusion that smoking government schwag was as effective as several times the recommended dose of marinol IS exactly what the study showed.
My quick reading and conclusion that the study showed an 8X advantage to MJ over marinol is my fault, not theirs. I simply assumed that the study was controlled for THC dose, which it seems was not. It was just a simple qualitative study.
-FF
| |
|
|
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: veggie
1,474 topic views. 3 members, 59 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic ]
| | |
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
