Doctors want approval to use marijuana

[phreakah]

shhhhh resist

good result for the sick though !

[MongyMan]

more power to GW Pharmaceuticals, this may stand a real chance of becoming legal, particularly appealing to the Government cause they can at last tax and regulate the sale of a Cannabis derivative without giving any ground or credence to the recreational users ..

 

and if they succeed in their push to register Sativex as a scheduled medicine it will nullify all those bogus pesky recreational smokers / growers claims that they use Cannabis in its natural form as a medicine

 

 

 

Do I note a hint of sarcasm frazz understandable......

 

GW Pharm has been one of the main offenders in the fight against legal cannabis. Imo this is a bad thing passed off as good. Now they have a derivative they can make a profit from it's suddenly a wonder medicine?...Shame on you GW Pharm, hang your heads in shame you money hungry bastards.

 

Bring on REAL cannabis medicine I say....The right to grow your own, free of these leaches making money from the sick in our society.

 

Peace MongyMan

[Radic]

The cannabis-based substances are classified as Schedule 9 under the Victorian drugs and poisons schedule.

i hear yah mongy

but look again

this is a natural cannabis extract

gw web site called it a botanical cannabis extract

we call it hash oil

they use Co2 no less

but the crucial ting is

rejoice, rejoice

Cannabis is now officially recognized by the oz gov to have medicinal use

you know what dat means in court eh???????????

nowa hear dis

The National Drugs and Poisons Scheduling Committee (NDPSC) have now recognized the therapeutic benefits of cannabinoids and scheduled a botanical extract of Cannabis sativa which includes the cannabinoids listed below as a new Schedule 8 entry in a buccal spray. (Sativex)

 

www.tga.gov.au/ndpsc/index.htm

 

Schedule 8 – New entry

 

NABIXIMOLS (botanical extract of Cannabis sativa which includes the following cannabinoids: tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol, cannabinol, cannabigerol, cannabichromene, cannabidiolic acid, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, tetrahydrocannabivarol, and cannabidivarol, where tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol (in approximately equal proportions) comprise not less than 90 per cent of the total cannabinoid content) in a buccal spray for human therapeutic use.

 

Appendix D, Paragraph 3 – New entry

 

NABIXIMOLS.

 

Appendix K – New entry

 

 

National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee

Record of Reasons of Meeting 57 - October 2009

 

11. OTHER OUTSTANDING MATTERS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS

 

11.1 NABIXIMOLS – A SPECIFIC EXTRACT OF CANNABIS SATIVA

 

PURPOSE

 

The Committee considered the scheduling of nabiximols.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Cannabidiol (CBD) is a cannabinoid found in Cannabis sativa. CBD was reputed to have analgesic, anticonvulsant, muscle relaxant, anxiolytic, neuroprotective, anti-oxidant and anti-psychotic activity. CBD was not specifically scheduled.

 

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the main psychoactive substance found in Cannabis sativa.

 

At the November 1994 meeting, the Committee agreed to a XXXXX recommendation to schedule THC for therapeutic use in Schedule 8, with additional controls through a listing in Appendix D, paragraph 3 i.e. requiring authorisation by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing under section 19 of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.

 

At the February 1995 meeting, the Committee added an Appendix K

listing because of sedative effects. At the August 1995 meeting, the SUSDP references to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol were replaced with the International Non-proprietary Name ‘dronabinol’.

 

Nabiximols (a specific extract of Cannabis sativa)

 

In recent years, CBD has been under investigation, in combination with THC, for use as an adjunctive analgesic treatment in multiple sclerosis (MS). In 2005, Canadian authorities approved the marketing of XXXXX, a THC+CBD buccal spray for MS patients to alleviate neuropathic pain and spasticity.

 

At the February 2009 meeting, the Committee noted that there had been enquiries to jurisdictions regarding the availability of a THC+CBD preparation (XXXXX). The Committee noted that there had been approvals for THC+CBD through the TGA’s Special Access Scheme (SAS) but it had been difficult for jurisdictions to also approve access given the unclear scheduling status of CBD. The Committee decided to gazette consideration of CBD for therapeutic use for the June 2009 meeting (noting that the THC component was captured by the dronabinol Schedule 8 entry).

 

At the June 2009 meeting, the Committee noted that the THC+CBD formulation also had small amounts of other cannabinoids that were also likely to be captured by the Schedule 9 cannabis entry. Hence the problem that certain jurisdictions could not allow access to Schedule 9 substances for medical purposes, regardless of SAS approval, would remain.

 

Members agreed that it was appropriate to allow access to this specific THC+CBD preparation and suggested that a pragmatic approach would be to create a Schedule 8 entry that was specific to this formulation, noting that this would also remove any possibility of the entry allowing inappropriate access to cannabis-type substances.

 

Members therefore agreed to gazette for consideration at the October 2009 meeting a new Schedule 8 entry for this specific Cannabis sativa extract, together with a listing in Appendix D, paragraph 3.

 

Following the June 2009 meeting, it was established that the US Adopted Names Council had designated ‘nabiximols’ as the approved non-proprietary name for an extract of Cannabis sativa containing, as major components, THC+CBD, and as minorcomponents, related cannabinoids and non-cannabinoid components alpha- and trans- caryophyllenes i.e. the specific THC+CBD formulation considered appropriate for inclusion in Schedule 8 by the June 2009 meeting.

 

DISCUSSION - SUBMISSIONS

 

The Committee noted that no pre-meeting submissions were received.

 

June 2009 Minutes

 

The Committee recalled the following from Members’ discussion at the June 2009 meeting:

 

• Certain jurisdictions could not allow access to Schedule 9 substances for medical purposes. Therefore, in the absence of a Schedule 8 (or lower) listing, access could not be granted by these State and Territory health authorities.

 

• The Committee agreed that efficacy was a primary consideration, given that this treatment had yet to be assessed by the TGA. While overseas clinical trial data were reassuring, it was noted that no trials have taken place in Australia as yet. This may be partly due to the current Schedule 9 status of this therapy.

 

Members also recalled the following regarding findings by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA):

 

• Partly evaluated nabiximols in 2007 but the application was withdrawn before the evaluation was complete. The MHRA, in a December 2007 Public Information Report, noted that the evidence of efficacy was not considered to be sufficient at the time. Key issues that the MHRA stated need to be resolved included:

 

- The magnitude of the estimated treatment effect on the self-reported measure of spasticity in trials was small in the overall patient population.

 

- The applicant had presented post-hoc analyses supporting an argument that non responders could be identified in a four week therapeutic trial, and that the mean treatment effect in the remaining patients who would continue to receive treatment, would be clinically significant. This approach was welcomed.

 

However, it had not been prospectively investigated whether the effect calculated in thepost-hoc analysis could be translated into a pre-specified meaningful benefit for the patient. There was a lack of clinical data investigating such conditions of use, as no therapeutic trial followed by exclusion of non-responders was used in the pivotal trials.

 

- Further clinical data were necessary to investigate the effectiveness of the

proposed four week therapeutic trial in identifying responders and excluding non- responders, and to clarify the magnitude and clinical relevance of the efficacy achieved in the subgroup of patients who continue to be treated with nabiximols following a successful therapeutic trial.

 

The pivotal clinical trial data should clarify the potential efficacy benefits in a subgroup of patients against the potential risks to a larger number of patients of a four week therapeutic trial of nabiximols.

 

- MS was a chronic disorder and there was a lack of evidence of maintenance of efficacy with long-term treatment.

 

- The pattern of CNS side effects such as sedation was highly suggestive that some unbinding was possible. This issue still needed to be considered in the overall evidence of efficacy. The smaller the differences between active and placebo, the greater was the concern that a relevant contribution of that apparent difference may not be real if a source of bias existed. If a compelling treatment effect could be shown it might be concluded that the possibility of unbinding might not represent a major concern.

 

Members additionally recalled the following from the June 2009 meeting regarding new 2009 studies announced by XXXXX:

 

• In February 2009, XXXXX announced positive results from a placebo-controlled randomized withdrawal study of nabiximols in patients with spasticity due to MS.

 

This study:

 

- was intended to assess the maintenance of spasticity relief in patients who remain on nabiximols versus those who switch to placebo;

 

- was performed following guidance from the MHRA and, according to XXXXX, provided evidence of long term efficacy;

 

- evaluated 36 MS patients with spasticity who had previously been taking

nabiximols on prescription where mean duration of prior nabiximols prescription use was 3.6 years;

 

- patients were randomized to nabiximols or placebo for 4 weeks in a double-blinded manner and patients were not permitted to adjust their dose;

 

- the prospectively defined primary efficacy endpoint - the time to treatment failure - was statistically significantly in favour (p=0.013);

 

- the difference between nabiximols and placebo was also significant for the patient global impression of change (p=0.017) and the carer functional-ability global impression of change (p=0.001) meaning that the carer recognised that the patient’s spasticity became worse when they stopped taking nabiximols – providing independent verification of the primary endpoint;

 

- there was no evidence of a withdrawal syndrome, despite a very prolonged period on the medicine and, overall, there was a similar frequency and severity of adverse events in both the nabiximols and placebo groups, with more than 85 per cent of such events being deemed mild or moderate.

 

• In March 2009, XXXXX announced preliminary results from a pivotal Phase III

double-blind randomised placebo-controlled study in patients with spasticity due to MS, who have achieved inadequate spasticity relief with existing therapies. This study:

 

- was requested by the MHRA in order to gain approval in this indication XXXXX;

 

- used an enriched design whereby 573 patients initially received nabiximols for 4 weeks in a single blind manner (Phase A), following which nabiximols responders (n=241) were randomized to continue on nabiximols or switch to placebo for a further 12 weeks in a double-blinded manner (Phase cool.gif and during the randomized period, patients were not permitted to adjust their dose;

 

- the prospectively defined primary efficacy endpoint of the study – the difference between the mean change in spasticity severity of nabiximols vs. placebo in Phase B - was highly statistically significantly in favour of nabiximols (p=0.0002);

 

- the difference between nabiximols and placebo was also significant for a number of secondary endpoints in that 74 per cent of nabiximols patients achieved an improvement of greater than 30 per cent in their spasticity score over the entire study versus 51 per cent on placebo (p=0.0003);

 

- in addition, statistically significant improvements were also seen in spasm frequency (p=0.005), sleep disturbance (p<0.0001), patient global impression of change (p=0.023), and physician global impression of change (p=0.005).

 

Members also recalled the following from pre-meeting submissions considered at the June 2009 meeting:

 

• XXXXX.

 

• XXXXX indicated that it had no objection to rescheduling CBD to Schedule 8.

 

Noted that such products were available in Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom as an adjunctive treatment for the symptomatic relief of neuropathic pain in adult patients suffering from MS as well as an adjunctive analgesic treatment in adult patients with advanced cancer. The submission reiterated that this combination increased clinical efficacy while reducing adverse effects (adverse effects were judged to be mild to moderate) and showed no evidence of tolerance. It was also noted that current scheduling was a barrier for jurisdictions to allow access through the SAS.

 

• XXXXX suggested that before rescheduling, the Committee needed to be certain there was convincing data available that supported the therapeutic efficacy of CBD.

 

It was noted that, presently, there was evidence for its role in neuropathic pain and other neurological disorders but most data appeared to be based on animal experiments. It was further suggested that, should down-scheduling occur, the use should be limited to classes of physicians who are authorised to prescribe it under State and Territory poisons legislation.

 

DISCUSSION – RELEVANT MATTERS UNDER 52E

 

The Committee agreed that the relevant matters under section 52E(1) included (cool.gif risks and benefits, (f) the need for access and (g) the potential for abuse.

 

Members acknowledged that there was a substantial degree of controversy regarding a therapeutic role for cannabis extracts. However, Members agreed that it was important to clarify that the matter before the Committee at this time was a proposal to consider appropriate scheduling for nabiximols. It was the regulator’s role, not the Committee’s, to approve particular products for use in Australia.

 

With regard to the current confusion as to whether jurisdictions could allow access to a nabiximols product that had been given a SAS approval, some Members reiterated that it was appropriate that this uncertainty be resolved so that jurisdictions could allow restricted access. The Committee generally agreed that this uncertainty could be clarified by creating a new parent entry in Schedule 8 for nabiximols.

 

Members also agreed, however, that this entry would need to be supplemented with additional controls.

 

A Member therefore proposed that, in addition to a Schedule 8 listing, and in line with current controls on dronabinol, nabiximols could be listed under Appendix D, paragraph 3 i.e. requiring authorisation by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing under section 19 of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.

 

A Member opposed this suggestion, noting that a section 19 authorisation would require, amongst other conditions, approval by an ethics committee.

 

The Member contended that this would inappropriately add to the workload of such committees. Several Members were also concerned that an Appendix D, paragraph 3 listing would impact on possible clinical trials of nabiximols. The Committee generally agreed, however, that including

nabiximols in Appendix D, paragraph 3 was appropriate, particularly noting that:

 

• Without an Appendix D, paragraph 3 entry (i.e. just a Schedule 8 listing) the SAS access would include the broader access through SAS Category A (which does not require prior approval, just notification after the fact to supply to seriously ill patients). Members agreed that access without a prior approval process was inappropriate for nabiximols at this time.

 

• It was necessary to have safe guards in place to make it clear that the Committee was allowing tightly restricted access to nabiximols only, this was to in no way be extended to other cannabis extracts.

 

• An Appendix D, paragraph 3 listing did not prohibit use for clinical trials, but would permit use only by an authorised prescriber.

 

The Committee also noted that Appendix D, paragraph 3 was subject to an editorial consideration under item 21.1.4

 

A Member suggested that, in addition to an Appendix D, paragraph 3 entry, the Schedule 8 nabiximols entry needed to be more restrictive in order to remove any possibility of allowing inappropriate access to cannabis-type substances.

 

The Member argued that the entry should clearly state that nabiximols was a very specific combination of cannabinoids.

 

The Committee agreed that this was appropriate. The Committee also agreed that the Schedule 8 entry should limit the allowed presentation to buccal sprays as this would further reinforce the very restricted scope of this entry and would require any new presentation to be brought to the attention of the Committee.

 

The Committee also considered whether to limit the Schedule 8 entry to a single indication – MS. Several Members noted, however, that there were ongoing trials for using nabiximols for other indications, including the treatment of unresponsive cancer pain.

 

A Member noted that any issue of indications etc., would be addressed by the regulator through the conditions imposed by the Appendix D, paragraph 3 entry.

 

The Committee agreed to not restrict the Schedule 8 nabiximols entry by indication.

 

Members additionally agreed that it would be appropriate to include nabiximols in Appendix K due to sedating effects as noted in the Health Canada PI (www.doctordeluca.com/Library/AddictionMe...oductMonograph05.pdf).

 

Members also agreed that the SUSDP index would need to clarify to stakeholders that the scheduling of tetrahydrocannabinols and dronabinol may fall under the nabiximols entry.

 

RESOLUTION 2009/57 - 17

 

The Committee decided to create a new entry for nabiximols, including a list of cannabinoids present, in the form of a buccal spray for human therapeutic use, in Schedule 8. The Committee further decided:

 

• To create a new entry in Appendix D, paragraph 3 for nabiximols.

 

• To create a new entry in Appendix K for nabiximols.

 

• To create cross references in the index from tetrahydrocannabinols and dronabinol to nabiximols.

 

Schedule 8 – New entry

 

NABIXIMOLS (botanical extract of Cannabis sativa which includes the following cannabinoids: tetrahydrocannabinol, cannabidiol, cannabinol, cannabigerol, cannabichromene, cannabidiolic acid, tetrahydrocannabinolic acid, tetrahydrocannabivarol, and cannabidivarol, where tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol (in approximately equal proportions) comprise not less than 90 per cent of the total cannabinoid content) in a buccal spray for human therapeutic use.

 

Appendix D, Paragraph 3 – New entry

 

NABIXIMOLS.

 

Appendix K – New entry

 

Nabiximols

yes i gotta love dat

legal hash oil or natural cannabis extract

same ting

now all i need is MS

awwrrr thats not funny

sorrie i didnt mean to offend anyone

im just a bitt dissapointed too

letz get positive

at least its a start

seen

there is no restriction pon adding other ailments

i hope chronic pain is next to get on that list

this is really exciting

i gotta make a phone call

id love to get a doc to prescribe hash oil for i

id really love to try someone elce's hash oil for a start

nabiximols is natural cannabis extract or hash oil

well

this news tells i

that day asoon come

whata day

irey guidance

[MongyMan]

I agree radic it's a great start...we can only move forward from here.....I can't help but vent my frustrations though that it's GW Pharm that have suddenly decided cannabis is a good thing and stand to profit from it after so many years of them demonizing it purely to buy time for them to research their own version of the oil in their greedy pursuit of those profits they wish to make from what we and so many others already know is such an effective medicine for so many things and can be easily grown by anyone for free.

 

I'm not saying it's bad other than for that reason.

 

Lets hope the flood gates can be opened now allowing people like mullaway, ourselves and many others who also have medicines we want to be able to legally make available to our fellow Australians to do so without fear of persecution and more importantly, free of big corporate greed. And eventually the right for all to be able to grow their own if they so choose.

 

 

Peace MongyMan

[mull]

Agree with MM, this is a cannabis coup, by GW pharma, their investors and others with competitive vested interest against legalization.

 

Last year there was a doco, posted up here someplace, where they went for a look inside the GW grow and spoke to a rep there.

He said the ratio of CBD to THC(9) is 50/50. There's no natural plants that grows such a combination, this is a lab concoction.

Supposedly the CBD nulls the high completely.

It's also been rumoured to cost 15-18 bucks a spray!

 

If the docs at royal melbourne really cared, they'd appeal for the MS sufferers to be exempt and able to grow - or have a grower assigned to them.

They'd educate themselves about cannabis and pass on the TRUTH to their patients. Then petition the government for cannabis legalization for all.

 

Ever hear any of the negatives pinned to cannabis, spoken of toward sativex or marinol?

Mental illness, psychosis etc.. Never heard of that in any licensed medical mj users.. none from the massive amount of users in the US that smoke bud from dispensories; same for Adam and so on.

 

Radic, yep good to keep positive. But this sounds like another brick on the wall, rather than a crack in it mate.

They sure don't mean hash oil, or anything naturally prepped.

[Radic]

seen

gw sux

totally agreed

DIY rules for i too

i would only use sativex in an emergency

if i had an unfortunate shortfall in product because of some unforseen failure

its nice to know its there

how ever the crucial ting is

removing cannabis from S9 <---no medicinal use ,

to medicinally useful ---> S8 will have serious repercussions in oz courts

because now the judges will have to accept medicinal use as a defense

already there is a few oz judges dealing out a lot of light wrist slapping for medicinal defences

so presidents can now be set

this will pave the way for a compassionate act

or legalize medicinal

gotta love dat

also

S8 makes it possible for mullaway to get his products thru the TGA too

this is one of the factors that helped mullaway to decide to open his free dispensary

he wants to push the gov into moving on this issue

push comes to shove

forward ever

free cannabis

[Radic]

greetnz

check dis

http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/2400.html

Med-pot aerosol

By Pete Brady - Sunday, May 19 2002

 

UK company develops pharmaceutical-grade cannabis extracts and special delivery device.

 

GW`s research is aimed at the beneficial synergy created when blending cannabinoidsGW`s research is aimed at the beneficial synergy created when blending cannabinoidsI recently had the pleasure of speaking to a 46-year-old British physician and pharmaceutical developer who has organically grown tens of thousands of specially-bred marijuana plants

http://www.cannabisculture.com/library/images/uploads/2400-plants---top-shot.jpg

in Southern England with the blessing of the British government.

http://cannabisculture.com/v2/files/images/2400-GMP-area.jpg

Dr Geoffrey Guy, the mild-mannered founder of GW Pharmaceuticals, was eager to update Cannabis Culture readers about his company's successful efforts to use raw, blended cannabis extracts in GW's proprietary "medical delivery devices" to treat a variety of medical conditions.

 

The last time CC spoke with Dr Guy, in early 2000, he was just beginning clinical trials designed to test the effectiveness and safety of his cannabis-based medicines (CC#26, UK doc grows pharmaceutical pot).

 

Guy and his team of professional pot growers raise cannabis plants from seeds developed by Dutch company Hortapharm. These plants are remarkable because they consistently produce extraordinarily high percentages of target cannabinoids, such as THC and CBD (cannabidiol), which Guy uses in medicines aimed at treating multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, neural injuries, cancer, arthritis, and chronic pain.

 

Pot patents?

 

GW's miracle pot may soon be among the first cannabis plants ever patented. Although some industrial hemp genetics have been copyrighted as intellectual property, Guy is seeking to register marijuana varietals distinguished by specific morphological characteristics, such as color, leaf size and shape, and smell.

420 Science

Advertisement

 

These characteristics are indicative of plant cannabinoid profiles developed for GW; some varieties contain 90% of their total cannabinoids as THC, while others predominantly contain CBD. Guy is focusing on these two primary cannabinoids, but he's also optimistic about other constituents, such as CBC, THC-V, and CBG.

 

The doctor is seeking patents for the way he extracts cannabinoids from plants, for extract composition and formulations, and for GW devices that deliver extracts to patients.

 

Thousands of specially-bred, organic marijuana plants...Thousands of specially-bred, organic marijuana plants...Cannabis canister

 

According to preliminary information provided exclusively to Cannabis Culture, GW's medical devices will revolutionize the way cannabis is ingested. Cannabis extracts blended in precise ratios will be packaged in a "canister" that joins to an electromechanical device that delivers controlled aerosolized doses of plant-derived cannabinoids without delivering harmful combustion by-products.

 

The canisters and delivery devices will be dispensed by pharmacists, and closely monitored by pharmacists, doctors, and GW itself.

 

"Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars researching and producing medicines, but as soon as those medicines are given to patients, they can be improperly used," Guy explains. "Patients might use too much, too little, or they might divert their medications to other people. For medications like cannabis that are controlled substances, it's essential that medical personnel be able to monitor dosage patterns. Our devices are like a digital camera that records details of time, date and other particulars every time it is used."

 

"Physicians will be able to monitor patient usage remotely," continued Guy. "People won't be able to tamper with our devices, even though they are portable and easy to use. You'd need a metal saw or a blowtorch to get into one of them. These controls answer concerns of those who worry that our extracts will be used inappropriately. And, these devices can be adapted for other medicines, ensuring patient safety and medical efficacy."

 

International approval

 

Although politics shouldn't influence medical services, Guy's research and product development has been affected by differing political realities in Europe and North America.

 

Guy says the United Kingdom has defied United Nations' opposition to medical use of controlled substances, and that many countries, such as the Netherlands, are eagerly awaiting expected approval and commercial availability of GW cannabis medical products by 2004.

 

"Home Secretary David Blunkett has been out front on this, saying he would recommend approval by our Medicines Control Agency if the clinical trials continue to be favorable," Guy said. "Many countries are inviting us to give presentations about our projects. They are as excited as we are about the results of our studies."

 

Blunkett's support is welcome and somewhat unusual, Guy acknowledges. He speculates that Blunkett's stance is influenced in part because the Home Secretary suffers from blindness.

 

"He knows what it is like to have a serious medical condition," Guy says. "I suspect this makes him especially compassionate, and willing to help us alleviate the suffering of patients by providing them with cannabis-based medicines."

 

Guy says that the Canadian government will accept GW's "European-Commonwealth medical dossier" and grant approval to the company's cannabis medications when the UK does so.

Health Canada and GW are conducting a small medical study, Guy says, and he hopes to expand clinical trials in Canada within a year.

 

...waiting to have their resins extracted and put into aerosol canisters...waiting to have their resins extracted and put into aerosol canistersNo way USA

http://www.cannabisculture.com/library/images/uploads/2400-Device-CU.JPG-2.jpg

The US government's position on medical marijuana is a daunting barrier for American patients hoping to use GW's products. Backed up by a zero tolerance Congress and executive branch that apparently sees no difference between hemp, cannabis, and medical marijuana products, federal officials and allied agencies have generally blocked all studies planned by researchers hoping to determine the plant's medical efficacy.

 

Dr Guy and his representatives have engaged in high level discussions with the DEA, FDA, the Office for National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) and senior state officials in California and Maine.

 

"We've made some progress in the US," Guy says. "We've commenced pre-clinical research in laboratories and other research in a university. This research is aimed at cell protection properties, general pharmacology, and the enhancement of effects afforded by beneficial synergy created when cannabinoids are blended together rather than isolated. The DEA has approved importation of our extracts into the US. They haven't said no to us on anything we've asked so far. They are playing it by the book. We look forward to continued progress."

 

Proud position

 

After spending close to $80 million on product research and development, and almost single-handedly convincing the UK government to grant approval for his innovative plan to prove that individual and combination medicines made from raw plant extracts are superior to single molecule synthetic THC medicines like Marinol, Geoffrey Guy is understandably proud of what he has achieved.

 

"Our medicines have produced clinically significant improvements in a number of symptoms, including pain, muscle spasm, spasticity, sleep duration and quality, and overall improvements in quality of life," Guy says. "In some cases, the improvement has transformed lives. Given the previously intractable nature of patients' symptoms, that's all the more remarkable. By careful self-titration, most patients are able to get symptom relief while avoiding intoxication. Analysis of dosage levels over extended periods shows no evidence of tolerance, meaning that patients don't have to progressively increase their dose."

 

"GW occupies a lead position world-wide," concludes Guy. "We are uniquely placed to become the first company to achieve regulatory approval for prescription cannabis-based medicines."...waiting to have their resins extracted and put into aerosol canisters

 

? GW Pharmaceuticals: Porton Down Science Park, Salisbury, Wilts, SP4 0JQ, United Kingdom; tel 01-980-557-000; email info@gwpharm.com; web www.gwpharm.com

lookz like we were wrong about GW

i have to take back dem words

GW does not sux

very impressive artical

breeding program for specific ailments

Organic grow

Co2 extract

if this is true

hes on towit

i would love to try sativex

inside that device is sposta be pure organic hash oil

if that is true

gotta love dat

more power to GW

i hafe support any company that has those kinda values

[Fibrofeend]

This all sounds pretty exciting.

 

I too found that article very interesting in GW's approach to making the spray.

Although even if this was made available in Australia as prescription medicine under special authority

i have to wonder what the price of it would be?

Most prob way out of reach for the people who will benefit most.

GW has too look after all those share holders after all.

Hopefully this opens things up in the courts and precedents can be set.

 

Thanks for posting guys

[MongyMan]

lookz like we were wrong about GW

i have to take back dem words

GW does not sux

 

You weren't wrong radic and I still stand by what I said, they are a bunch of money hungry pricks.

 

Sure they have bred different plants, all the while vigorously pushing and supporting cannabis prohibition to ensure they are the only ones who can do it freely and easily under license without the fear of being persecuted like so many others have been.

 

I for one have been able to make no where near the headway researching and refining Mongyweed into specific strains in any scientific way I should have been able too because of these pricks and their desire for a monopoly on canna based meds and I know there are may others in a similar boat such as Mullaway for eg.

 

You can't send samples to universities etc. to confirm diff canabinoids present in strains when it's illegal for you to do so meaning it's all been hit and miss breeding.

 

Did you notice their enthusiasm to lodge patents?

This includes Co2 extraction among others, Should anyone else wish to extract the oils using this method then they will want their royalties for it if they even allow you to, which I highly doubt they will. Maby if it's worth enough to them they will.

 

As I said earlier it's great to see a cannabis med is finally making headway but GW Pham can go get fucked imo. I know what they are. And so do plenty of others. Don't fall for their "we are the good guys" bullshit Radic because bullshit is all it is.

 

Fuck GW Pham and all who have supported them.

 

I know I sound bitter, because I am, and for bloody good reason imo.

 

I'll be applying for a license again tomorrow after reading this article, to research mongyweed in a scientific way. (I've tried to a few times before and been rejected because of the laws that GW Pham has vigorously supported) I hope I can get approval and start trying to make up for all the time I've lost over the last 25 years (time I can never get back) having to breed like a criminal in secrecy. I'm not holding my breath though. Look how far Mullaway has been able to get with the efforts he has made attempting the same in recent times.

 

As it says in my sig......... I know who has fucked me (and my fellow Australians) over, and these pricks have been one of the main offenders.

 

GW Pharm can get fucked. They are a bunch of leaches of the lowest of low imo profiting off the sick.

 

 

Peace MongyMan

[mull]

8 year old article, wonder if they've made back the 80 million yet.

 

Exactly what MM said.