[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Health/Medical Title: The rise of the cannabis cult: don’t believe the hype about medical marijuana Health .. The rise of the cannabis cult: don’t believe the hype about medical marijuana There are few substances that excite discussion quite as potently as cannabis. Explosive claims about its curative power circulate wildly online, often cited by proponents of medical marijuana. A quick Google search for ‘cannabis cures’ yields anecdotes of miraculous efficacy for every illness imaginable, and particularly for cancer. But, despite the gushing testimonials, this persistent narrative of cannabis as a universal panacea is distinctly at odds with the evidence. In a review earlier this year of over 10,000 studies, researchers found reliable evidence for three distinct applications of cannabis. First, there is strong evidence that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, can reduce nausea and vomiting associated with cancer treatments. These anti- emetic properties have been exploited for decades in the clinical management of cancer symptoms. However, there is a caveat to this. THC is not uniformly well-tolerated and in many instances can exacerbate rather than placate vomiting. As safer and more efficient medications exist, THC-derived clinical compounds tend only to be used for this purpose when other interventions have failed. The review also found good evidence to support the use of medicinal cannabis in chronic pain, and in managing spasms associated with multiple sclerosis. Such benefits are comparatively modest but certainly not negligible. But what of the other breathless claims of curative potency made by cannabis advocates? The same review found that, despite the hyperbole, the evidence for the efficacy of cannabis in other conditions was minimal and unconvincing. In particular, there was no strong evidence that cannabis was useful for the treatment of epilepsy, appetite regulation for Aids patients, ADHD, Parkinson’s disease or irritable bowel syndrome. As Dr Sean Hennessy, one of the study’s authors, said: ‘Most of the therapeutic reasons people use medical marijuana aren’t substantiated beneficial effects of the plant.’ Yet, despite this, miracle stories abound. Autism is particular is often targeted by those selling bunkum elixirs, and cannabis is regularly touted as a treatment despite the lack of evidence of benefit. Nowhere are these claims so dangerous as when they’re made in relation to cancer. Cancer sufferers are frequently hawked dubious cure-alls, with cannabis perhaps the most common. There is absolutely no evidence that cannabis has any curative impact on cancers, as organisations like Cancer Research UK and the National Cancer Institute point out. This tends to go entirely unheeded. One recent meme tells a wondrous tale of a man who cured his cancer with cannabis oil. This has been shared widely by cannabis enthusiasts, seemingly unaware that the man named in fact succumbed to his cancer months before. It is common for such miraculous anecdotes to be shared and hailed as proof with little concern about their veracity. Another frequent claim is that high-dose THC can kill cancer cells in a petri dish, which is true — but irrelevant. The astute reader will note that humans are not petri dishes, and killing cells can be achieved by many other agents, from heat to acid to bleach. Killing cells is easy — an effective anti-cancer agent has to discriminately target cancer cells while sparing healthy ones, and there is no evidence that cannabis can do anything of the sort. At best it’s cargo-cult science, a superficial veneer of credibility for views incongruent with the evidence. This is damaging for several reasons. For one, it fosters a mistrust of the medical and scientific community. To preserve their faith, true believers dismiss the lack of evidence for their position as the machinations of Big Pharma. This casts researchers and medics as pantomime villains and makes them targets of abuse (as I can attest). Worse than that, the message is delivered so fervently that it persuades many patients to cease their conventional therapies. This has, and will, cost lives. Cannabis advocates are less keen to entertain the notion that it might have any adverse effects. As a general rule of thumb, anything that has a biological impact is likely to have some potential ill effect, and cannabis is no exception. While relatively safe, regular users have an elevated chance of mental health disorders, including schizophrenia. For children and adolescents, these effects are much more pronounced, with negative implications for educational and social attainment. Contrary to popular misconception, addiction and problem usage are common, and more likely to manifest in heavy users and those who begin at a younger age. None of this is to take away from the effectiveness of cannabis products for certain conditions, nor is it a discussion on legalisation. There may be good arguments for legalising cannabis — but exaggerating its potential use in medicine is not one of them. If medicinal use is the true aim, then regulation of cannabis as a health product should not be controversial. That some activists lobby for ‘medicinal’ usage while denigrating regulation suggests their true motives are recreational. The related mantra that cannabis is natural and ergo harmless is textbook naturalistic fallacy. Cyanide and plutonium are also naturally occurring, but unrestrained ingestion would be unwise. The reality is that most of the health claims made about cannabis are wrong- headed and devoid of evidence. They risk endangering the lives of the very patients they are supposed to help. Dr David Robert Grimes is a physicist, cancer researcher and science writer and was the joint recipient of the 2014 Nature / Sense About Science Maddox Prize. On Twitter he is @drg1985 Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Gatlin (#0)
This sounded unbelievable as I doubt very much there have been any where near 10,000 studies conducted on cannabis. Turns out, it was 10,000 "scientific abstracts", where academics simply theorize about subjects. They were not experiments, they were not trials. So the word "studies" should not be construed as a trial. How's this for a study:
That is neither a clinical study nor an observational study because there was no research using a group of volunteers (also called participants) in which participants receive specific interventions according to the research plan or protocol created by the investigators. A Study actually compares a new medical approach to a standard one that is already available, or more commonly to a placebo that contains no active ingredients, or to no intervention. What was conducted here was a medical experimentation to test and evaluate a drug trial on a human person for the purpose of seeking a curative or preventative role in the use of a drug. I am very happy that the medical experimentation worked to some degree for the young child....in this case. You libertarians are always promoting “Drugs Uber Alles” by posting a bleeding heart story ever so often that shows good results for your agenda cause. But marijuana is not a magical cure for epilepsy. It is said to be an effective treatment for some patients with drug-resistant forms of epilepsy. Funny, well it is not actually funny...maybe odd is a better word, that we never, NEVER, see stories posted where it was not effective. You can cherry-pick the Web for anecdotal stories and even find research studies to support every belief you can conjure up. For example if you were anti-marijuana legalization you could point to the study where researchers reported the intervention reduced motor seizures at a rate similar to existing drugs (a median of 36.5 percent) and 2 percent of patients became completely seizure free. Additionally, 79 percent of patients reported adverse effects such as sleepiness, diarrhea and fatigue, although only 3 percent dropped out of the study due to adverse events. Don’t always believe what you read, see or hear on the Web. For it usually is only what someone wants YOU to BELIEVE. Don’t let them do your thinking.
|
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|