NSW govt rejects medicinal cannabis use

[MongyMan]

Settle down hashwizard no need to be so agressive especially when by "evidence based medicine" salpon is refering to cannabis. He is asking why do they ignore cannabis as an evidence base medicine.

 

MongyMan

[hashwizard]

Oh, silly me. Sounded like the opposite.

 

Apologies salpon

[salpon]

Let me try to respond to all the comments. 

 

 

I don't believe they are against evidence based medicines, more that they question the 'evidence' and are frustrated when 'professionals' disregard evidence that doesn't suit them eg. any evidence that is pro Cannabis.

 

Naycha 

 

 

Questioning evidence is good. If a scientist disregards evidence that doesn't suit them, then they aren't a scientist by definition. Modern medicine is built on science. 
 

 

"evidence based medicine"

 

I don't call it "evidence based medicine" when the consultant physician is saying...

 

Let's try this... I've got a couple of patients trying it and they seem to think it helps, or

 

I heard from another physician that you can mix these two drugs and get a better result... let's try that! or

 

Or the ever classic from a phsyician who charged me $350 for his expert opinion...

 

Maybe 'we' could try naltrexone?... It's being used for lots of things these days, it's not just a detox drug... yes I suppose it will knock out the analgesic effects of the tramadol, but you could take paracetamol instead? 

 

I wouldn't call that evidence-based medicine either Louise. Sounds like you've encountered some quacks. 

 

 

 

Sorry??? Care to explain? What evidence based medicine?

Are you a troll for Big Medicine? A cop?  Shit-stirrer, stupid or just plain ignorant?

 

If Big Medicine wasn't Big Pharmas bitch & was capable of healing disease with medication that actually worked without it causing symptoms worse than the disease itself, then patients wouldn't seek alternative treatment.

 

I've been a recreational pot smoker for many years yet had no idea what a brilliant medicine it was. I wont bother listing the many conditions that mmj can treat or cure, suffice to say that the list is very long.

 

It's because of uniformed people like yourself, who are unable to think for themselves, that has helped create the very situation we're now in where we have the tail wagging the dog. BP determines what med students are taught about disease. And the ignorant [or those with a vested interest in mjs illegality] scoff at peoples experience that marijuana heals their ailments without negative side-effect.

 

Mmj has dealt with my severe nerve pain by at least 90% & the longer I medicate daily the better it gets. Mj cures nausea better than anything from BP. It treats depression with no negative side-effect. BP's drugs for depression only made me sick & disoriented.

I have a choice, either take ineffective drugs with side-effects worse than the 'ill' or take a natural herb that cures my ills and puts a smile on my face. It's not a hard decision for those of us with at least half a brain.

 

That's my evidence, what's yours? Mummy & daddy taught you to believe everything the establishment says? That the Govt. doesn't lie? That school/college/uni is without error?

When you get really crook & BM fails to cure you & BP's drugs are driving you to contemplate suicide [like many patients I've met] just how long will it take for you to reach for a joint? Or would you prefer to suffer in ignorance?

 

It's attitudes like yours that make me sick. I need a billy  

 

 

1. I'm not a troll or cop. Whether I'm a shit-stirrer is subjective - I believe there is benefit in playing devil's advocate sometimes, but I'm not being purposefully inflammatory or malicious. Whether I'm stupid or ignorant is also subjective but I don't believe I'm either particularly. I have no vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry. 

2. Your second paragraph is logically flawed and based on false assumptions. Modern medicine does work (and we have the evidence, because science...which medicine is built on). People seek alternative treatments for a variety of reasons, including ineffective results from conventional medicine.

3. I agree that cannabis has a wide range of therapeutic effects and medical applications. It is also great recreationally.

 

4. Your fourth paragraph needs clarification.

 

5. It's great that cannabis has been beneficial to you. There is evidence for many of the therapeutic effects you describe. Anecdotes are far from evidence-based medicine however.

 

6.  My evidence is science.  

 

 

Settle down hashwizard no need to be so agressive   especially when by "evidence based medicine" salpon is refering to cannabis. He is asking why do they ignore cannabis as an evidence base medicine.

 

 MongyMan

 

 

By "evidence-based medicine" I literally meant medicine that is based on scientific evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

 

 

[salpon]

This is a good summary of some of my thoughts - http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/

[Ford Fairlane]

I really don't understand why so many cannabis users and law reform advocates are so against evidence-based medicine. 

This is a real problem, but not exclusively with cannabis users and law reform activists. IMO society in general has no appreciation of how science works. At best science is 99% sure of itself, therefore, when a scientist is reporting to the media, may appear slightly unsure, but that is the nature of science,nothing is definite, only significantly or insignificantly probable, with at best at 1% chance of being completely wrong. Which when you extrapolate to large numbers, that 1 in a hundred, becomes a significant figure in itself... hmm I think.

 

Whereas some nutjob, can get on the news and say with absolute certainty that the Earth is flat, that nutjob wins the votes, because he gives a 100% guarantee that his word is the truth.

[Faith]

If a scientist is making statements in the media there is a great chance that he/she is being paid to say what they are saying and therefore their statement is compromised and should not be taken as truth without in-depth discernment-same as pollies.

Peace on ya. Faith

[salpon]

Luckily we don't need statements in the media to determine the validity of science, because evidence speaks for itself. 

We can determine the quality of evidence by looking for the hallmarks of good science, or conversely the red flags of bad science. 
 

http://scienceornot.net/hallmarks-of-science/

http://scienceornot.net/science-red-flags/

 

Edited December 15, 2013 by salpon