|
Sticking strictly to A Thing Happened, The BMJ (Peer reviewed journal owned by the trade union and registered association for medical Drs in the UK) has taken the stance that the medical unions need to push for an end to the war on drugs in the UK and the regulation of legal drug markets.
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
Sativex is a UK pharmaceutical, it was briefly used by the NHS I think? It has no significant clinical properties (it doesnt work). e; if we actually want legalised medical uses then anyone using medical products that flat out don't work will not further that cause, or that of further research
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Sativex is pretty much the only whole plant cannabis extract that has a significant research base. Where are you gettng your information? That said research base notes significant problems, though. I'll cite a failed phase 3 and an earlier meta-analysis. The meta analysis notes small, non-significant improvements can be objectively measured in the short term, but disappear in followup. Subjective changes show improvement: if we're discussing spasticity decrease in epilepsy, this isn't consistent, whereas subjective measures from the patient show a good increase. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2793241 Here below we have a failed phase 3 for cancer pain treatment. The study did not show cannabis was effective, and so the phase 2 results are immediately referred to instead. That's not great science. It's not academically sound to use a phase 2 to justify a phase 3, fail all metrics you've set for the phase 3, and go "oh well the phase 2 worked". http://www.pharmafile.com/news/197172/late-stage-failure-otsuka-and-gw-cancer-pain-drug We're dealing with a substance that does *something* but what exactly it works objectively on, in the research or in vivo, is not really clear. I also couldn't find a blind trial comparing placebo/sativex/cannabis showing sativex as having a superior outcome. Frankly I'd like to be able to see those results, it'd present indications that there may be something occuring that we're missing. Refining the ill-defined but noticeable benefits of a few hundred psychoactives into a medical product is going to be hard and Sativex is not exactly promising in its total inability to reach significant, objective improvements. e; reformatted post for making no sense Spangly A fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
xrunner posted:
It's neither, it's bullshit. Colorado appears to have an above-average cannabis use rate before legalisation. First point, it'd be easier to debunk if he was more specific about "youth"; 18-25 use is indeed up, and related alcohol use is down. The relative cost of cannabis v alcohol use is not up for debate, if the increase in 18-25 use is 12%, as claimed, and the drop in alcohol use is 4% of total in legal drinkers that age, that's an incredible trade that anyone involved in healthcare with an interest in evidence-based policy will accept. Below 18 use is falling rapidly, but this may be more to do with a national trend in America where teenagers are taking less drugs. There's probably enough data to seperate out if this is significant; there's absolutely no chance it's causing an increase. The claim of increased marrijuana-related hospital visits is frankly laughable, the statistics are based on hospital assessments of possible cannabis exposure. Not why they're there, but that healthcare professionals are following procedure and writing they suspect someone's had a joint. That doesn't tell you they're getting hurt more often, that tells you people are more willing to go to hospital stoned, and nothing else without more precise data (which is being deliberately avoided). *you wanted more accurate numbers; what I saw quoted in a few places was 0.00803% of all visits before legalisation going to 0.024% of all visits, and ER visits going 0.00739% to 0.00956%. Those are the figures for suspected cannabis use, again, not causative hospitalisations. There's a definite increase in colorado poison control callouts for accidental child ingestion I can see, 87 in 2014-15 vs 76 2009-2013. That's a huge jump, and one that definitely needs action (needed? I see there are some reforms but those will take time to assess, there needs to be definite action to make sure children don't eat drugs). Road accidents have not increased. Bad drivers are just high as well as drunk now. The entire argument, with the specific exception of children ingesting drugs being a very serious problem, is pretending correlation is relevant when they know every piece of evidence tells them there is no causation, and refusing to acknowledge the context of academic data. poo poo take from the US attorney. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jan 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2018 01:12
|
|