3rdnlng Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, Koko78 said: You were referencing cannabis use disorder. I was talking about how I need Doritos now. White Cheddar Cheeze-its.
DC Tom Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Dateline Sunday had a medical cannabis segment. I have just started watching it https://www.nbc.com/dateline/video/growing-promise/3724415 NOBODY CARES about your television viewing habits.
row_33 Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 10 minutes ago, DC Tom said: NOBODY CARES about your television viewing habits. 24 hours a day i bet
BringBackOrton Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Please, give up your medical license. You are an idiot, to borrow a popular phrase. You know though, maybe you are a doctor. You seem pretty concerned with covering your ass. Having problems getting malpractice insurance after that regrettable incident, are ya? lol You really should include sources when you quote study results. Let's say at least some of your stats are accurate, just for argument's sake. No one is suggesting replacing breakfast cereal with cannabis. No one is saying it is harmless. No one is advocating widespread adolescent use either, though there is this recent study. https://www.livescience.com/61574-adolescent-cannabis-use-memory-study.html What I have stated is when current FDA options are not effective or when the side effects are too horrible, cannabis should be considered as a reasonable alternative. I also think that time will prove that the use of cannabis medicines, in many cases, should be tried before today's FDA approved front line treatments for many maladies. Closed minded doctors are doing a disservice to their patients. The main problem I see with the bulk of your stats is that we should see corresponding spikes in these cannabis side effects with increased cannabis use in a given population. Consider the hypothesis that cannabis causes schizophrenia. With increased cannabis usage we should see a spike in schizophrenia, but we do not see that. The same point I made to you a few pages ago when you pulled out your cannabis heart failure studies. We all know that the federal scheduling hasn't allowed widespread testing of cannabis for it's acclaimed medical effects - the GW Pharmaceuticals clinical trials being the exception. Let me ask you, can you point to US double blinded trials that proved that the medical claims regarding cannabis were false? Please don't use studies sponsored by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) due to the inherent bias. Thanks internet doc. "You know though, maybe you are a doctor. You seem pretty concerned with covering your ass." This is why you're a joke, Bob. It has nothing to do with covering your ass. It has everything to do with not wanting to hurt people. Did you know 20 years ago, opioids were considered mostly harmless? And the medical community handed them out, sometimes recklessly, because hey, they helped pain and there weren't any serious problems or side effects. You're doing the same thing with pot. You don't care about potentially hurting people. Now that's why you aren't a medical professional, but you might be a sociopath if you don't care about potential harm. It's kind of important. You know, "first do no harm." "Everybody want to be a doctor but nobody want to read no heavy ass books," am I right, Bob? I could've sourced those studies, but a quick Google search would've brought them all up, so why bother? You've proven to be a sociopath who doesn't care about potential harm, so I doubt you'd read them. "With increased cannabis usage we should see a spike in schizophrenia, but we do not see that. " Over how long a period of time? I linked prospective studies of 20 year duration. We are supposed to see an increase in the short time its been legal in Colorado? "Let me ask you, can you point to US double blinded trials that proved that the medical claims regarding cannabis were false? " We don't treat patients with things that haven't been proven to work with unknown side effects, Mengele. You are just as bad as the pharmaceutical companies who you claim to hate. You are pushing a drug without proven benefit with no regard for harmful side effects. Edited May 22, 2018 by jmc12290
DC Tom Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 Just now, row_33 said: 24 hours a day i bet Reading his posts, I always get the strange feeling that Bob has every late-night infomercial product known to man. Just now, jmc12290 said: "You know though, maybe you are a doctor. You seem pretty concerned with covering your ass." This is why you're a joke, Bob. It has nothing to do with covering your ass. It has everything to do with not wanting to hurt people. Did you know 20 years ago, opioids were considered mostly harmless? And the medical community handed them out, sometimes recklessly, because hey, they helped pain and there weren't any serious problems or side effects. You're doing the same thing with pot. You don't care about potentially hurting people. Now that's why you aren't a medical professional, but you might be a sociopath if you don't care about potential harm. It's kind of important. You know, "first do no harm." "Everybody want to be a doctor but nobody want to read no heavy ass books," am I right, Bob? I could've sourced those studies, but a quick Google search would've brought them all up, so why bother? You've proven to be a sociopath who doesn't care about potential harm. "With increased cannabis usage we should see a spike in schizophrenia, but we do not see that. " Over how long a period of time? I linked prospective studies of 20 year duration. We are supposed to see an increase in the short time its been legal in Colorado? "Let me ask you, can you point to US double blinded trials that proved that the medical claims regarding cannabis were false? " We don't treat patients with things that haven't been proven to work, Mengele. You are just as bad as the pharmaceutical companies who you claim to hate. You are pushing a drug without proven benefit with no regard for harmful side effects. Let's be fair: Bob's main problem is that he's relying on single-sourced anecdotal information presented through an extreme confirmation bias. It's the sort of thing Wolfgang Pauli described as "That's not right! That's not even wrong!" An argument that, because of such poor reasoning and invalid speculation, is so removed from reality that it can't even be rationally judged as "right" or "wrong," and is just a waste of time.
row_33 Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 so at what age does one introduce their children to smoking weed?
BringBackOrton Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Reading his posts, I always get the strange feeling that Bob has every late-night infomercial product known to man. Let's be fair: Bob's main problem is that he's relying on single-sourced anecdotal information presented through an extreme confirmation bias. It's the sort of thing Wolfgang Pauli described as "That's not right! That's not even wrong!" An argument that, because of such poor reasoning and invalid speculation, is so removed from reality that it can't even be rationally judged as "right" or "wrong," and is just a waste of time. Agreed. However, his bias makes his commentary on the practice of medicine ignorant and hypocritical, at best. Edited May 22, 2018 by jmc12290
DC Tom Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, jmc12290 said: Agreed. However, his bias makes his commentary on the practice of medicine ignorant and hypocritical, at best. No, it's not his bias that makes his commentary ignorant. It's his ignorance. Let me explain this to you, Bob, once and for all: it's not your hypothesis that marijuana has medicinal value that people object to. It's your persistent inability to understand that your hypothesis is not a universal goddamned fact that gets you mocked. "Medicinal value" does not "medicine" make. 1
3rdnlng Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 22 minutes ago, row_33 said: so at what age does one introduce their children to smoking weed? If you do it right, in the womb.
row_33 Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: If you do it right, in the womb. i thought they aborted all their kids
Wacka Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Dateline Sunday had a medical cannabis segment. I have just started watching it https://www.nbc.com/dateline/video/growing-promise/3724415 Finally woke up after getting stoned Saturday night? Edited May 22, 2018 by Wacka
row_33 Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 Rose and Valerie screaming from the gallery Bob in Mich must go free the judge does not agree and he tells them so-o-ho-ho
DC Tom Posted May 22, 2018 Posted May 22, 2018 40 minutes ago, Wacka said: Finally woke up after getting stoned Saturday night? But he's healthy as a horse...
Bob in Mich Posted May 23, 2018 Author Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) 17 hours ago, jmc12290 said: "You know though, maybe you are a doctor. You seem pretty concerned with covering your ass." This is why you're a joke, Bob. It has nothing to do with covering your ass. It has everything to do with not wanting to hurt people. Did you know 20 years ago, opioids were considered mostly harmless? And the medical community handed them out, sometimes recklessly, because hey, they helped pain and there weren't any serious problems or side effects. You're doing the same thing with pot. You don't care about potentially hurting people. Now that's why you aren't a medical professional, but you might be a sociopath if you don't care about potential harm. It's kind of important. You know, "first do no harm." Funny you should bring up the opiates. Your memory is failing it seems (ironic, eh?) as we had a discussion about the relative harm from cannabis versus opiates a couple of months back in a Seantrel Henderson thread. Are you still prescribing opiates for chronic pain without considering legal cannabis based alternatives? If so that would seem to qualify you as a sociopath by your definition, as you obviously don't care about potential harm. Remember, internet doc, 'first do no harm'. You can talk about your concerns of potential harms after 20 years but the harms from opiate use are pretty well known and surface far sooner. "Everybody want to be a doctor but nobody want to read no heavy ass books," am I right, Bob? No. I had pretty much all options open. Never wanted to be a doctor. I could've sourced those studies, but a quick Google search would've brought them all up, so why bother? You've proven to be a sociopath who doesn't care about potential harm, so I doubt you'd read them. You say I have proven to be a sociopath based solely on my posts. Please point out those particular posts so I can see your reasoning, assuming you used reasoning. "With increased cannabis usage we should see a spike in schizophrenia, but we do not see that. " Over how long a period of time? I linked prospective studies of 20 year duration. We are supposed to see an increase in the short time its been legal in Colorado? How about pointing out the spikes in these health issues from the marijuana usage spike say from 1965-1980? Hell, if the subjects were 20 years old in 1965, they are over 70 now. California legalized medical cannabis in 1996 if I recall. Shouldn't we be seeing these health problems in California? "Let me ask you, can you point to US double blinded trials that proved that the medical claims regarding cannabis were false? " We don't treat patients with things that haven't been proven to work with unknown side effects, Mengele. You are just as bad as the pharmaceutical companies who you claim to hate. You are pushing a drug without proven benefit with no regard for harmful side effects. The point I was making was that experts claim there are no traditional studies that support these medical cannabis claims. This sounds like 'end of story' but what these experts omit is that the studies have been forbidden so of course there are no supporting studies. In the absence of those cannabis studies a doctor has at least 2 options. He/she can wait for the gold standard study results, as you are advocating. Or, if the FDA option is not working well, one can examine the other available evidence, including history of cannabis as medicine, patient feedback, foreign studies, etc. Even the NIDA studies, designed to prove negative effects, have shown cannabis to be safer to use than the vast majority of the FDA options used today for chronic pain. Edited May 23, 2018 by Bob in Mich
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) So, @Bob in Mich... Are you advocating that the law be changed in order to allow for the beginning of a rigorous, years long course of clinical studies, testing the effects of cannaboids on various conditions and symptoms, ultimately culminating in real research with will either prove or disprove pot's effectiveness in treating various ailments... Or are you a !@#$ing moron for telling a medical doctor that he should get out of the industry for not telling his patients to ingest illicit drugs? Edited May 23, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker
row_33 Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 It's been 50 years of spoiled entitled kids and the very poor telling me "it's a scientific thing, I consider myself like Einstein or Galileo" total horseshit
BringBackOrton Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: Funny you should bring up the opiates. Your memory is failing it seems (ironic, eh?) as we had a discussion about the relative harm from cannabis versus opiates a couple of months back in a Seantrel Henderson thread. Are you still prescribing opiates for chronic pain without considering legal cannabis based alternatives? If so that would seem to qualify you as a sociopath by your definition, as you obviously don't care about potential harm. Remember, internet doc, 'first do no harm'. You can talk about your concerns of potential harms after 20 years but the harms from opiate use are pretty well known and surface far sooner. See again, you misunderstand how it works. EVERY medication has a benefit and a risk. Doing nothing has a benefit and a risk. I have that conversation with EVERY patient. The potential harms from opiates are known. The potential harms from cannabis are not well-studied. The dosing, phamarcokinetics, tolerance, therapeutic index, we have NONE of it for marijuana compared to opioids. It is not my call to make a judgment on which potential harm is worse. That's the patient's job. I just give them the facts. And the facts are, I am not licensed to prescribe cannabis, and I would not be comfortable doing so without more rigorous data. They are more than welcome to seek out medical marijuana if they want, but I believe its important to educate them on the lack of data. Most folks get their marijuana info from charlatans, not medical personnel. 3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: How about pointing out the spikes in these health issues from the marijuana usage spike say from 1965-1980? Hell, if the subjects were 20 years old in 1965, they are over 70 now. California legalized medical cannabis in 1996 if I recall. Shouldn't we be seeing these health problems in California? Were those patients studied? I think you overestimate how many chronic marijuana users there are. Also, marijuana is MUCH more potent today than the 60s-70s. 3 hours ago, Bob in Mich said: The point I was making was that experts claim there are no traditional studies that support these medical cannabis claims. This sounds like 'end of story' but what these experts omit is that the studies have been forbidden so of course there are no supporting studies. In the absence of those cannabis studies a doctor has at least 2 options. He/she can wait for the gold standard study results, as you are advocating. Or, if the FDA option is not working well, one can examine the other available evidence, including history of cannabis as medicine, patient feedback, foreign studies, etc. Even the NIDA studies, designed to prove negative effects, have shown cannabis to be safer to use than the vast majority of the FDA options used today for chronic pain. Those studies should not be forbidden. You are advocating a return to Wild West medicine. Prescribing based on anecdotal evidence is BAD medicine. I have seen hundreds of people say they feel better on BS supplements that haven't been proved to do anything. The potential harm with that stuff is most likely negligible. But if you think I'm gonna prescribe that crap every day, stuff that has no proven benefit, unknown risk, and a cost attached to it, you're wrong. That's not how it works. Prescribing stuff without rigorous study is how we get thalidomide. You just really believe in thalidomide because a bunch of people have told you it works. That's your argument. Edited May 23, 2018 by jmc12290
Real News Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, jmc12290 said: See again, you misunderstand how it works. EVERY medication has a benefit and a risk. Doing nothing has a benefit and a risk. I have that conversation with EVERY patient. The potential harms from opiates are known. The potential harms from cannabis are not well-studied. The dosing, phamarcokinetics, tolerance, therapeutic index, we have NONE of it for marijuana compared to opioids. It is not my call to make a judgment on which potential harm is worse. That's the patient's job. I just give them the facts. And the facts are, I am not licensed to prescribe cannabis, and I would not be comfortable doing so without more rigorous data. They are more than welcome to seek out medical marijuana if they want, but I believe its important to educate them on the lack of data. Most folks get their marijuana info from charlatans, not medical personnel. Were those patients studied? I think you overestimate how many chronic marijuana users there are. Also, marijuana is MUCH more potent today than the 60s-70s. Those studies should not be forbidden. You are advocating a return to Wild West medicine. Prescribing based on anecdotal evidence is BAD medicine. I have seen hundreds of people say they feel better on BS supplements that haven't been proved to do anything. The potential harm with that stuff is most likely negligible. But if you think I'm gonna prescribe that crap every day, stuff that has no proven benefit, unknown risk, and a cost attached to it, you're wrong. That's not how it works. Prescribing stuff without rigorous study is how we get thalidomide. You just really believe in thalidomide because a bunch of people have told you it works. That's your argument. Indeed - much of what your saying makes sense. Just curious, what is your specialty? As a physician of said specialty, what is your opinion of prescribing off label, and if you've ever had the opportunity, your opinion on compassionate use? Edited May 23, 2018 by Real News
BringBackOrton Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Real News said: Just curious, what is your specialty? As a physician of said specialty, what is your opinion of prescribing off label, and if you've ever had the opportunity, your opinion on compassionate use? I think prescribing off-label is a gray area. I take it on a drug by drug basis. Again, a discussion of risks and benefits is paramount. No personal experience with compassionate use. Don't see a problem with it in theory. Edited May 23, 2018 by BringBackOrton
Deranged Rhino Posted May 23, 2018 Posted May 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said: I'm not revealing identifiers. ... That name change tho'... 1
Recommended Posts