Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Health / Natural Healing / Therapies / Nutrition

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 24-04-2016, 10:25 PM   #1021
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 560 (294 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
On the other hand maybe it is a better use of resources to focus on getting medicine into the bodies of sick people. Let the research world catch up when the government loosens that iron grip.
As Tim Minchin once said: ''You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine.'' See this https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...&postcount=896 You can't treat this as some kind of religion. Trials must be done to show it is an actual medicine and that means it's safe (highly likely) and effective for the illness in question. Also there is no ''iron grip'' by most governments in the world. Lot's of promising treatments don't get further funding for Phase II trials either.

See below (from trial NCT01672450). This finished in August 2014 and data was presented at the 2015 ASCO http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/cont.../15_suppl/3018
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?

Last edited by dumbcritic; 24-04-2016 at 10:35 PM.
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2016, 11:13 PM   #1022
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
As Tim Minchin once said: ''You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine.'' See this https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...&postcount=896 You can't treat this as some kind of religion. Trials must be done to show it is an actual medicine and that means it's safe (highly likely) and effective for the illness in question. Also there is no ''iron grip'' by most governments in the world. Lot's of promising treatments don't get further funding for Phase II trials either.

See below (from trial NCT01672450). This finished in August 2014 and data was presented at the 2015 ASCO http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/cont.../15_suppl/3018


That's why Cannabis is medicine: because it works. It even works for things they haven't gotten around to clinical trials on. I'll bet you anything on it. If anyone is a religious fanatic it is you about Science the Institution. Problem is like all fanatics you are blind. You don't even have a scientific approach. You think it is but it's not. You have weird assumptions that you actually lie about like what you said on the last page about research showing only certain cannabinoids work. So funny how you try to pretend I didn't stuff that down your throat with ease.

Your a flat out liar. It's so stupid to say governments don't greatly reduce important research. Why should we dick around with opinions though when the facts are staring you in the face and you are blinking? The US government classifies marihuana as having no medical benefit. It's a fact. Researchers find it extremely difficult to obtain permission to do clinical studies with real weed. That's also a fact so go suck on your bottle ya little baby with your baby argument.

Last edited by supertzar; 24-04-2016 at 11:40 PM.
Likes: (1)
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2016, 02:15 AM   #1023
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 560 (294 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
That's why Cannabis is medicine: because it works. It even works for things they haven't gotten around to clinical trials on. I'll bet you anything on it. If anyone is a religious fanatic it is you about Science the Institution. Problem is like all fanatics you are blind. You don't even have a scientific approach. You think it is but it's not. You have weird assumptions that you actually lie about like what you said on the last page about research showing only certain cannabinoids work. So funny how you try to pretend I didn't stuff that down your throat with ease.

Your a flat out liar. It's so stupid to say governments don't greatly reduce important research. Why should we dick around with opinions though when the facts are staring you in the face and you are blinking? The US government classifies marihuana as having no medical benefit. It's a fact. Researchers find it extremely difficult to obtain permission to do clinical studies with real weed. That's also a fact so go suck on your bottle ya little baby with your baby argument.
Once something has been proven then it will be approved and prescribed by doctors. If there isn't any evidence that certain cannabinoids treats or cures a particular cancer, then that means there's no evidence. I'm not going to think: ''Just because they haven't tested it on that type of cancer, how can you not be sure the cannabinoids don't treat or cure it.'' It seems that you, Simpson and others are proving me right (i.e., post #896) in many ways. I and others want actual evidence like I provided in post #1021

People have even asked for it in certain Facebook groups


Instead of betting on it then how about helping fund trials?. This is one of the only ways to get actual evidence. Simpson is unwilling to do this it seems https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...postcount=1020

I'd love to know how I am a ''flat out liar''?. Also you need to prove that governments (plural) greatly reduce important research on this?. Remember that the world doesn't revolve around the US. I don't know what facts are staring me in the face as all you claim is: ''It even works for things they haven't gotten around to clinical trials on''?.

Nothing has any medical benefit until proven otherwise. In the UK the Home Office says similar things. But GW Pharam isolated the active compounds and then gave them at pharmacological dosages and proved their drug Sativex works as a treatment for spasticity due to MS. It's now approved in my countries worldwide and trials are ongoing for it in cancer and neuropathic pain along with cannabis addiction and a type of primary brain cancer. They also proved that Epidiolex works for Dravet syndrome and further trials are ongoing for three other types of epilepsy. As I've said before in the US then the DEA's ruling is from a bygone era but this could be changing soon http://fortune.com/2016/04/06/dea-de...na-reschedule/ Also here are some possible further hints http://fortune.com/2016/04/22/dea-medical-marijuana/
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?

Last edited by dumbcritic; 25-04-2016 at 02:31 AM.
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2016, 02:26 AM   #1024
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
Once something has been proven then it will be approved and prescribed by doctors. If there isn't any evidence that certain cannabinoids treats or cures a particular cancer, then that means there's no evidence. I'm not going to think: ''Just because they haven't tested it on that type of cancer, how can you not be sure the cannabinoids don't treat or cure it.'' It seems that you, Simpson and others are proving me right (i.e., post #896) in many ways. I and others want actual evidence like I provided in post #1021

People have even asked for it in certain Facebook groups

Instead of betting on it then how about helping fund trials?. Simpson is unwilling to do this it seems https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...postcount=1020

I'd love to know how I am a ''flat out liar''?. Also you need to prove that governments (plural) greatly reduce important research on this?. Remember that the world doesn't revolve around the US. I don't know what facts are staring me in the face as all you claim is: ''It even works for things they haven't gotten around to clinical trials on''?.

Nothing has any medical benefit until proven otherwise. In the UK the Home Office says similar things. But GW Pharam isolated the active compounds and then gave them at pharmacological dosages and proved their drug Sativex works as a treatment for spasticity due to MS. It's now approved in my countries worldwide and trials are ongoing for it in cancer and neuropathic pain along with cannabis addiction and a type of primary brain cancer. They also proved that Epidiolex works for Dravet syndrome and further trials are ongoing for three other types of epilepsy. As I've said before in the US then the DEA's ruling is from a bygone era but this could be changing soon http://fortune.com/2016/04/06/dea-de...na-reschedule/ Also here are some possible further hints http://fortune.com/2016/04/22/dea-medical-marijuana/

But if it works and it can't be prescribed then isn't that unethical?

Nothing has medical benefit until proven otherwise. That makes no sense at all. The molecules have properties regardless of proof. You have to explain how proof changes cannabinoid effects (obviously impossible) or stop saying that.

My contribution to human health is in producing medical marijuana for patients who need it. I think that is a more productive use of my time.

Last edited by supertzar; 25-04-2016 at 02:30 AM.
Likes: (1)
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2016, 02:38 AM   #1025
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

I've told you you're a liar with good reason and you haven't had one good response. A few of your claims off the top of my head: sativex bioavailability, evidence only certain cannabinoids work and that there is no research bottleneck imposed by government. All wrong and I showed why and you can't respond with anything that makes sense. Definitely you haven't refuted anything I've said about it.

Last edited by supertzar; 25-04-2016 at 11:39 AM.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2016, 02:46 AM   #1026
aster
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,162
Likes: 3,361 (1,860 Posts)
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
But if it works and it can't be prescribed then isn't that unethical?

Nothing has medical benefit until proven otherwise. That makes no sense at all. The molecules have properties regardless of proof. You have to explain how proof changes cannabinoid effects (obviously impossible) or stop saying that.

My contribution to human health is in producing medical marijuana for patients who need it. I think that is a more productive use of my time.


Match that, DC. These few words are worth infinitely more than all those lines of jargon and scientific medical-speak.
Likes: (2)
aster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2016, 03:19 AM   #1027
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Thank you Aster. You are so smart and nice!
Likes: (1)
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2016, 10:11 AM   #1028
aster
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,162
Likes: 3,361 (1,860 Posts)
Lightbulb

Supertzar, it is you and others who speak up for/offer medical marijuana and other safe healing treatments, who deserve thanks! Don't let the anti-life medical establishment drown you out, because people like this little boy: :https://forum.davidicke.com/showthre...=306543&page=2 (petition) are being needlessly compromised by their enforced 'treatment'.

Petition update 'Parental rights or forced Medical Treatment':https://www.change.org/p/australian-...m_medium=email
*just over 4,500 signatures needed to reach the target of 15,000 - please everybody who hasn't signed, Oshin needs your help right now!

Last edited by aster; 25-04-2016 at 10:19 AM.
Likes: (1)
aster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2016, 10:50 AM   #1029
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 560 (294 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aster View Post


Match that, DC. These few words are worth infinitely more than all those lines of jargon and scientific medical-speak.
Putting the word 'medical' in front of something doesn't make it so. There is no evidence that RSO/FECO works, let alone cures any type of cancer. It does nothing but give patients false hope that could be highly dangerous depending on their circumstances. Even if a patient is terminal then there are many clinical trials they could apply for, try off label drugs/treatments that have some evidence for them (i.e., post 1021, https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost...&postcount=978 and so on) or if these fail then they should have the best supportive and palliative care to make the rest of their life as comfortable as possible. I think the rules should be changed to allow physician-assisted suicide as well.
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?

Last edited by dumbcritic; 25-04-2016 at 12:01 PM.
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2016, 12:15 PM   #1030
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
Putting the word 'medical' in front of something doesn't make it so. There is no evidence that RSO/FECO works, let alone cures any type of cancer. It does nothing but give patients false hope that could be highly dangerous depending on their circumstances. Even if a patient is terminal then there are many clinical trials they could apply for, try off label drugs/treatments that have some evidence for them (i.e., post 1021) or if these fail then they should have the best supportive and palliative care to make the rest of their life as comfortable as possible.

One elderly lady with stage IV lung cancer found it helpful to smoke my herb. Her oncologist gave the recommendation to get her a medical marijuana card without question. She gained appetite and mobility and improved mood immediately. Her family thanked me for making the end of her life better and enabling them to spend quality time with her before she died. It was her choice not to try RSO so we will never know if that would have helped to a far greater extent. She died shortly after trying an experimental chemotherapy drug. My feeling is they used her as a data point and ruined her death.

I have other patients with serious need for quality herb. A kidney transplant recipient must have it or faces debilitating nausea that keeps her from working. Nothing else they have given her works. Another patient was able to wean off a serious pain pill addiction 100% and greatly reduce crippling pain and swelling in his knee. He went from being unable to walk to walking fine without pain. These people love me and my meds for the medical benefits they get. I've been providing meds on a sliding scale to those in need since the mid 90's when I would donate to people with AIDS. I've gotten nothing but heartfelt thanks for helping these people. Have you ever been hugged by a patient? Let me tell you it feels great.

Last edited by supertzar; 25-04-2016 at 01:09 PM.
Likes: (1)
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2016, 04:09 PM   #1031
aster
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,162
Likes: 3,361 (1,860 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
I think the rules should be changed to allow physician-assisted suicide as well.
This quote speaks volumes about your real intent here, DC. I guess we should be grateful for that. Force people to undergo damaging and life-threatening 'therapies' against their will, then allow them to be put out of their misery when they can no longer bear the suffering? No way, it's time to take back our power from those who you represent.
Likes: (2)
aster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2016, 04:15 PM   #1032
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

The thing is, dumb: you can't say it does nothing just like I can't say clinical trials on RSO have been completed. All you can do is make a prediction about trial results. If patients, caregivers and doctors relating anti-tumor effects are proven correct by trials then you will have been wrong in your prediction as well as fallacious philosophically, which you already are (absence of evidence...you know the rest.)

GW's epidiolex did help epilepsy in their trials anyway so you have to eat that. That's just one product that's not necessarily better or even as good as RSO. Test the nearly pure CBD alone sure but be honest and put it up against extracts with different cannabinoid/terpene profiles including of course THC. The motivation to do CBD alone is that states have been willing to relent on laws against CBD because children can do well on it and it's not psychoactive. I say there is nothing wrong with kids feeling psychoactive effects if it controls their seizures better than CBD alone.

Last edited by supertzar; 26-04-2016 at 11:59 AM.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 12:55 AM   #1033
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 560 (294 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aster View Post
This quote speaks volumes about your real intent here, DC. I guess we should be grateful for that. Force people to undergo damaging and life-threatening 'therapies' against their will, then allow them to be put out of their misery when they can no longer bear the suffering? No way, it's time to take back our power from those who you represent.
You've taken my quote out of context. As I went on to say that if all treatments and trials fail then they should have the best supportive and palliative care or if they want then physician-assisted suicide. I also don't represent anyone and have no ''real intent'' on here either. Everyone has a right to live just as they have a right to die. The key is protecting vulnerable patients. But for those that are sound of mind, have no therapies available and are terminal then they should have the right to that choice if they wish.
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?

Last edited by dumbcritic; 26-04-2016 at 01:30 AM.
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 10:36 AM   #1034
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 560 (294 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
One elderly lady with stage IV lung cancer found it helpful to smoke my herb. Her oncologist gave the recommendation to get her a medical marijuana card without question. She gained appetite and mobility and improved mood immediately. Her family thanked me for making the end of her life better and enabling them to spend quality time with her before she died. It was her choice not to try RSO so we will never know if that would have helped to a far greater extent. She died shortly after trying an experimental chemotherapy drug. My feeling is they used her as a data point and ruined her death.

I have other patients with serious need for quality herb. A kidney transplant recipient must have it or faces debilitating nausea that keeps her from working. Nothing else they have given her works. Another patient was able to wean off a serious pain pill addiction 100% and greatly reduce crippling pain and swelling in his knee. He went from being unable to walk to walking fine without pain. These people love me and my meds for the medical benefits they get. I've been providing meds on a sliding scale to those in need since the mid 90's when I would donate to people with AIDS. I've gotten nothing but heartfelt thanks for helping these people. Have you ever been hugged by a patient? Let me tell you it feels great.
There are better things for lung cancer. If you take early stage then using cryoablation http://www.pvanuden.com/2014/08/adva...-to-treat.html will give patients around a 77%–88% survival at 3 years http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/521691/ However for late stage then this drops significantly and the 3 year survival is around 32% http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426750/ and if you look at Figures 1, 2 and 3 then you will see why. But this can be repeated if needs be. Luckily we now have other drugs that can improve these survival rates. Going back a few years ago some case reports were published using radiotherapy and ipilimumab which showed a systemic effect beyond the radiation treatment site http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24563870 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22397654 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25083318 Thanks to these reports the maker of the drug (BMS) helped fund a number of trials (i.e., NCT02221739) looking at the combo of the two in a wide range of cancers. Adding on other checkpoint inhibitors which are approved like nivolumab should produce even better results http://global.onclive.com/web-exclus...ancer-approval

Most drug trials don't cause a grade 5 adverse event which means that a death was caused by the drug in question. In certain cases they don't work well for the patients and fail to stop the disease and the spread of the cancer then sadly kills them. The companies want their drugs to work for the patients and don't use people as data points.

For patients with HIV then it may help with some of the symptoms of the illness http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15857739 and for those who are experiencing side-effects from the treatments for cancer (but not that well) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26561338 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...8.00917.x/full It could also be used as an adjunct to or substitute for opiates in the treatment of chronic pain http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22880540 So in some cases there is evidence for it.
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?

Last edited by dumbcritic; 26-04-2016 at 11:37 PM.
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 10:46 AM   #1035
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
There are better things for lung cancer. If you take early stage then using cryoablation http://www.pvanuden.com/2014/08/adva...-to-treat.html will give patients around a 77%–88% survival at 3 years http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/521691/ However for late stage then this drops significantly and the 3 year survival is around 32% http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426750/ and if you look at Figures 1, 2 and 3 then you will see why. But this can be repeated if needs be. Luckily we now have other drugs that can improve these survival rates. Going back a few years ago some case reports were published using radiotherapy and ipilimumab which showed a systemic effect beyond the radiation treatment site http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24563870 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22397654 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25083318 Thanks to these reports the maker of the drug (BMS) helped fund a number of trials (i.e., NCT02221739) looking at the combo of the two in a wide range of cancers. Adding on other checkpoint inhibitors which are approved like nivolumab should produce even better results http://global.onclive.com/web-exclus...ancer-approval

Most drug trials don't cause a grade 5 adverse event which means that a death was caused by the drug in question. In certain cases they don't work well for the patients and fail to stop the disease and the spread of the cancer then sadly kills them. The companies want their drugs to work for the patients and don't use people as data points.

For patients with HIV then it may help with some of the symptoms of the illness http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15857739 and for those who are experiencing side-effects from the treatments for cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26561338 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...8.00917.x/full It could also be used as an adjunct to or substitute for opiates in the treatment of chronic pain http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22880540 So in some cases there is evidence for it.

Why don't you listen to the patients? You seem more concerned with data than the well-being of actual people. Data or lack thereof can be deceiving (see my next post.) My patient died a miserable death while suffering chemo.

Last edited by supertzar; 26-04-2016 at 11:48 AM.
Likes: (2)
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 11:46 AM   #1036
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Dumbcritic: Another Cochrane Review examined the effect of smoking cannabis on epilepsy. The authors found ''no reliable conclusions can be drawn at present regarding the efficacy of cannabinoids as a treatment for epilepsy.'' This means what it means, that a thorough systematic review of clinical research currently available on marijuana's effects on epilepsy has shown nothing. Sure, maybe better trials will show it's quite efficacious, but remember, that doesn't mean it will be so. So physicians treating epilepsy need to stick with evidence based medicine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24595491

I guess the data was insufficient, huh. They didn't look at concentrates? Amazing how quickly evidence accumulates when you allow it (GW's trials.) I've been calling for it for over twenty years since my friend told me that smoking makes him seizure-free. Come to think of it he never had any seizures in the two years we were roommates and in a band together. Couldn't have anything to do with smoking a ton of the finest herb around at that time (mine) though. There is no evidence for that lol! He did have a grand mal that resulted in a full-speed head-on collision with a large tree within a week of moving away. Physicians can do what they need to but my buddy knows what works for him and so do lots of people. The research will continue to support it.

Last edited by supertzar; 26-04-2016 at 02:34 PM.
Likes: (2)
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 11:05 PM   #1037
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 560 (294 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
I guess the data was insufficient, huh. They didn't look at concentrates? Amazing how quickly evidence accumulates when you allow it (GW's trials.) I've been calling for it for over twenty years since my friend told me that smoking makes him seizure-free. Come to think of it he never had any seizures in the two years we were roommates and in a band together. Couldn't have anything to do with smoking a ton of the finest herb around at that time (mine) though. There is no evidence for that lol! He did have a grand mal that resulted in a full-speed head-on collision with a large tree within a week of moving away. Physicians can do what they need to but my buddy knows what works for him and so do lots of people. The research will continue to support it.
No more research is needed when we've got a story like that!. How about you try reading these https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...for-me-gambit/ https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...ased-medicine/

That review was from 2014. Any type of marijuana, synthetic or natural THC, cannabinol (CBN), cannabidiol (CBD) or combinations that include these agents, for ingestion or inhalation for the control of seizures were looked at. They didn't exclude trials that used other anti-epileptic medications either. Based on this they could only find a small number that met this criteria. A systematic review can suffer from the "garbage in, garbage out" phenomenon. In other words, the quality of the systematic review is depending on the quality of included studies. So many try and look for good trials published in high impact factor peer-review journals and also take into account for other problems that may arise, such as bias from them and so on.

They along with many others do systematic reviews of all clinical trials (ideally randomized and blinded) to try and find out the best information for evidence based medicine. Back then there were a number of reasons why they (Cochrane) came to this conclusion, mainly because there just weren't enough studies of high enough quality. So it was more about a lack of evidence rather than solid evidence that the cannabinoids had no effect. It will be better to wait until 2017 as then all the trials by GW Pharma will be included by them, and in 2018 some more by Insys Therapeutics will have been published. This leaves aside any others that may also happen during this time too.
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?

Last edited by dumbcritic; 27-04-2016 at 08:42 AM.
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 11:10 PM   #1038
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dumbcritic View Post
That was from 2014. Any type of marijuana, synthetic or natural THC, cannabinol (CBN), cannabidiol (CBD) or combinations that include these agents, for ingestion or inhalation for the control of seizures were looked at. They didn't exclude trials that used other anti-epileptic medications either. Based on this they could only find a small number that met this criteria.


They along with many others do systematic reviews of all clinical trials (ideally randomized and blinded) to try and find out the best information for evidence based medicine. Back then there were a number of reasons why they (Cochrane) came to this conclusion, mainly because there just weren't enough studies of high enough quality to roll up into a systematic review. So it was more about a lack of evidence rather than solid evidence that the cannabinoids had no effect. It will be better to wait until 2017 as then all the trials by GW Pharma will be included by them, and in 2018 some more by Insys Therapeutics will have been published.
Pay attention. There are a whole bunch of cannabinoids and terpenes and you can't say they don't do anything. Dr. Russo's paper belies your weird little pre-conceived notion "basic science proves only certain cannabinoids work." Russo and GW are way ahead of you and the study you quoted in understanding the potential of the plant.

Last edited by supertzar; 26-04-2016 at 11:13 PM.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 11:17 PM   #1039
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

Or just admit that since it was such an inadequate study it probably wasn't a good idea to be using it!
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-04-2016, 11:36 PM   #1040
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 560 (294 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
Why don't you listen to the patients? You seem more concerned with data than the well-being of actual people. Data or lack thereof can be deceiving (see my next post.) My patient died a miserable death while suffering chemo.
Any decisions need to be based on good evidence and sound science. Doctors do listen to patients when undergoing cancer treatments to see if they can make their quality of life better during it. But as I've said and shown there are much better things out there for primary lung cancer rather than RSO/FECO which not only has never been proven to work, but don't do a lot for the side-effects of certain treatments either. Chemo works on basic tumour kinetics principles and that is the most rapidly dividing cells are the ones most effected by it. However most people with lung cancer are already late stage, it's in one of the worse organs to have it and so it's an uphill battle. Yes chemo has side-effects but it has been proven to help with the illness. The combo of other treatments which I talked about in post #1034 are less likely to have them and so increase both quality and quantity of life.
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:10 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.