@Tolerance_Break Iâm reading this as people being more concerned with proper scientific methodology on these negative reports. Believe it was Gabriel Naus who did all the early âscientific â papers about how dangerous weed was in the 1970s. Problem was no one could replicate the findings he published
Glad to see theyâre âmassaging the truthâ to get the message they want out there on our side as well as against⌠
47.9% is reasonably close to half, at least, but it would be nice to be even remotely able to believe in journalistic integrity anymore. If theyâre not even interested in getting this right, how can we trust anything they have to say?
A study recently published in the Journal of Cancer Survivorship found evidence that a majority of participants who are cancer survivors used cannabis to manage their symptoms.
The study was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the Betty B. Marcus Chair in Cancer Prevention, and the Duncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk Assessment, and co-written by four researchers. It analyzed a total of 1,886 participants, where 17.4% said that they currently consumed cannabis, 30.5% described themselves as âformerâ consumers, and 52.2% had never used cannabis before. Those who were either currently consuming or former consumers (about 510 participants)
Actually, it looks like they neglected another detail, since that number 510 doesnât add up either. From the actual study:
Among survivors who currently or formerly used cannabis after their cancer diagnosis (n = 510),
So theyâre reporting ~27.03% of cancer survivors who used weed after their cancer diagnosis as a majority⌠and that wasnât even using it to manage cancer, just using it.
Additionally, one-fifth of the 510 (91) participants specifically used it to treat cancer, and half of those 510 participants that used cannabis to treat a specific condition âperceived that cannabis was helpful to a great extent in improving their symptoms.â
Finally, some real data thatâs actually relevant to both cancer and marijuana! 
Buried at the end of the second paragraph without a single reference in the headline, but heyâŚ
Molding reality 
. Throw lab or scientific on a title and everyone just thinks itâs absolutely the truth. Have to be skeptical of these papers even more as people push agendas
Sadly there are few outlets I would trust to accurately represent a studyâs findings (particularly so when they report something as either a panacea to cure all ills or the road to inevitable ruin).
I understand, but there seems to be little scrutiny towards the possitive studies.
Iâm not making declarative statements about the quality of studies either way, I just think thereâs a lack of objectivity when bringing up these topics, as much as I think thereâs a lack of objectivity in the people funding the research.
I agree that the truth of any study is entirely reliant on the methodology.
This is where I find myself as well. Anecdotally, it looks like Marijuana could help with various things, but we need good science to help determine what the truth actually is. I think Marijuana is helpful for lots of things but I donât believe itâs the miracle drug some people make it out to be.
You have to balance these positive things out with the negative aspects of using weed.
If you have cognitive issues like dementia, weed is not so good, as it it constricts blood vessels and raises blood pressure and reduces oxygen to the brain, stressing our mitochondria even more, although parkinsons tremors can be seen to be reduced when cannabis is used, the same blood restrictions to the brain make mitochondrial function worse.
I think its a case of are you treating a symptom or the underlying cause of disease, what people perceive as help may not be helpful at all and just making things worse further down the line.
the placebo effect is enough to explain how effective it is. iâ've read a few things about how the placebo effect worked better than the drug they were testing and one study that actually tested it and found it to be over half the participants cured by it. sometimes even after telling them it was placebo.
Itâs all lies, and everyone knows it. All the talking heads on the news say what theyâre told to say. The fact is cannabis has reached critical mass; everything anyone does only expedites the process of legalization/decrim.
Look on the bright side: opponents of legalization have outed themselves to the whole world. There may come a day when ever having supported prohibition becomes like the new âblackface.â This has begun somewhat. Any politicians and especially any candidate who wants to make legalization part of their platform has to answer for any support they may have leant to prohibition.
Food for thought re: Dementia & High blood pressure:
Itâs interesting and encouraging, but how many people use less than a total of 1mg of thc, a day, itâs also a synthetic canabinoid they are using, so you wouldnât be using it in a joint or vape, and higher doses will, as I said, have a negative impact on cell mitochondria in the brain. So people thinking that smoking a couple of joints a day to help these symptoms could possibly be making things worse in the future.
From the first study.
It is remarkable how a dose so significantly lower than those previously reported is able to consistently improve cognitive and noncognitive AD symptoms. For instance, Sativex is normally administered up to 20 mg of THC per day [30, 31], while the dosage here never exceeds 1 mg of THC per day. The importance of using preparations with controlled composition, as well as the careful selection of dose and route of administration for cannabinoid extracts, was previously discussed [15]. We emphasize this drastic difference in dose because we used cannabinoids with a microgram range, suggesting this could be the main reason why symptoms improved while no noticeable side effects were observed.
The second study is using injections of a synthesized canabinoid, so again itâs not something that will be of real benifit to people who are using cannabis as far as I can see.
Conclusions: We conclude that endocannabinoids tonically suppress cardiac contractility in hypertension and that enhancing the CB1-mediated cardiodepressor and vasodilator effects of endogenous anandamide by blocking its hydrolysis can normalize blood pressure. Targeting the endocannabinoid system offers novel therapeutic strategies in the treatment of hypertension.
Itâs great that they are at least trying to find less damaging ways to control and suppress symptoms of disease, but unfortunately still not addressing the underlying cause, as with the majority of pharmaceutical drugs, because what causes these diseases is connected to our life styles and the Standard American Diet of processed foods high in sugars, cheap processed oils and preservative chemicals that destroy our microbiom.
Although mainstream medicine from the pharmaceutical point of view keeps saying we dont know what causes these problems, the information I am seeing from functional medicine Doctors who specialize in autoimmune and internal body problems, are all pointing toward the destruction of our microbiom and mitochondrial dna function from the SAD diet and lack of exercise.
The reality is though we still donât fully understand how our bodies inate intelligence and control systems work yet, so everything is still relatively hypothetical until more studies can be done, and unfortunately the companies that would fund these studies are usually big pharma and they are not going to put money into something that proves their drugs are just symptom suppressants and that there are easier and cheaper alternatives like changing our diets and avoiding processed foods.
The sad reality is, no money can be made from healthy people, so why would they bother finding ways to make people healthier lol.
Take these DEA bitches to courtâŚ
âŚYou son of aâŚ!!!
There seems to be a movement to allow direct-to-consumer shipping from craft farmers in California, the way that alcohol is shipped to many consumers now⌠check out www.FreeCraftCannabis.com
Itâs possible that the artisan craft growers can still have a chance to provide medicine to patients and not get crushed by the corporate MSOs.
the only obstacle i can see to shipping it inside the state is using the usps. if it is legal to purchase for anyone of age, wouldnât it already be legal to ship, minus the whole usps thing? i know you can have it delivered in person in ca, done that while visiting. it seems that the same thing would happen when shipping as long as it didnât cross state lines. if they donât change the hemp laws too much itâs gonna be interesting when they reschedule it. i could conceivably ship my industrial cannabis to anyone if it were legal federally. gonna be interesting to see how this plays out.
Haha, youâd think itâd be that simple!! Maine is less corrupt so they allow for medical flower to be shipped within the state. Like most things in California, there are a ton of regulatory hurdles and is arguably one of the reasons that the smaller farmers struggle so much.