Jump to content


Photo

Marijuana Autism Miracle! (Oh No Not Again!)


  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#16 Snickas

Snickas

    is in another galaxy

  • ASDf Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,073 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Pegasus Galaxy
  • Interests:Astrophysics
    Stargates
    Star Treks
    I'm a huge space freak! lol

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:45 PM

Yes. I was watching an episode of Joan & Melissa (Joan Rivers & her daughter, it's on E!) and she went to see a specialist doctor for anxieties and he prescribed marijuana (for bloody anxieties!!!!!). I was shocked when I was watching it...there must be a YouTube of it somewhere....

Just YouTube "Joan knows best" Season2 episode2 "high times" the episode is called. - am not putting the video up.
  • Melissawu, ronvivonsogma and Plemaweeply like this

#17 doughnuts

doughnuts

    How many posts? Get a life!

  • ASDf Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,091 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 04 February 2013 - 02:08 PM

really ill look it up    oh my 



#18 saltair

saltair

    Part of the furniture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 May 2013 - 08:23 PM

If it has worked to stop this lad from hurting himself and it's medical grade then I can't see the problem. Children are given more powerful drugs. What's the difference between medical cannabis and drugs that help kids sleep?



#19 mad cat lady

mad cat lady

    How many posts? Get a life!

  • ASDf Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,461 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 29 May 2013 - 10:11 PM

The difference is that weed has been found to have long term effects on users and whist there may be short term benefits there is no telling what the long term damage is.
I for one would not want my child to be a guinea pig for something which is known to have long lasting mind altering effects on the brains of 'normal' people let alone an autistic brain which we know is different.

#20 Jolly Roger

Jolly Roger

    Anton du Beke

  • Admin
  • 15,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In your dreams

Posted 30 May 2013 - 09:54 AM

There is a very good reason why all drugs undergo a decade of clinical trials before they are given to people by their family doctors: to find out the risks, the side effects and the long term impacts of the drugs.

Marijuana has been tested and trialled for over fifty years. It is known to have severe, and very nasty, long term side effects.

#21 saltair

saltair

    Part of the furniture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 May 2013 - 02:51 PM

There is a very good reason why all drugs undergo a decade of clinical trials before they are given to people by their family doctors: to find out the risks, the side effects and the long term impacts of the drugs.

Marijuana has been tested and trialled for over fifty years. It is known to have severe, and very nasty, long term side effects.

I'm unaware of these nasty side effects you speak of and I wouldn't expect Sativex to be licences in the UK if it was what you say. THC and CBN are used for medical purposes, gone through the legal testing required by law and is prescribed.

 

Do you have any links to some peer reviewed studies I can look over?

 

I'm not pro legalise cannabis by the way.

 

http://www.sativex.c...what-is-sativex


Edited by saltair, 30 May 2013 - 02:55 PM.


#22 Jolly Roger

Jolly Roger

    Anton du Beke

  • Admin
  • 15,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In your dreams

Posted 30 May 2013 - 05:33 PM

For a start, sativex is not medicinal marijuana. It contains cannabinoids derived from the plant, but only a relatively small proportion of them and in a controlled-dosage format that makes it legal to test under current drugs trial laws. It took five seconds to find that fact from the BNF - showing that the comparison is invalid.

Secondly, I am not daft enough to give credence to the highly specious tactic of denying that marijuana has damaging long term effects. The Internet is full of websites and advocates which question and deny the studies that reach conclusions contrary to their agenda.

I don't play that game.

I don't look for sources that support my inclinations & prejudices and then rely on them alone. I look for independently peer-reviewed studies and meta studies and reviews - and then use them to inform my opinion. The answer, if you look at the published research, is that we still don't know all of the long term effects, but we know enough of them to know that it is a nasty, unpleasant substance.

And as a completely irrelevant anecdote, having worked with a teenager suffering from cannabis-induced psychosis, I am convinced that the potential costs should absolutely not be suppressed.

#23 saltair

saltair

    Part of the furniture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 May 2013 - 11:13 AM

Jolly Roger, on 30 May 2013 - 6:33 PM, said:
For a start, sativex is not medicinal marijuana. It contains cannabinoids derived from the plant, but only a relatively small proportion of them and in a controlled-dosage format that makes it legal to test under current drugs trial laws. It took five seconds to find that fact from the BNF - showing that the comparison is invalid.

With all due respect Roger I say you are incorrect. Bayer grow a hybrid strain of sativa cannabis plant, in a nuttshell it's skunk. Sativex is a cannabis tincture produced from a sativa/indica hybrid plant that contains a near 1:1 ratio of THC and CBD diluted to the required % per dose. Something that has been around for over 4000 years. Bayer use the whole plant in the process and I fail to see how you can say it's not medical marijuana, by definition it is medical marijuana.

"Medical cannabis refers to the parts of the herb cannabis used as a physician-recommended form of medicine or herbal therapy, or to synthetic forms of specific cannabinoids such as THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) as a physician-recommended form of medicine."



Quote
Secondly, I am not daft enough to give credence to the highly specious tactic of denying that marijuana has damaging long term effects. The Internet is full of websites and advocates which question and deny the studies that reach conclusions contrary to their agenda.

Yes there is alot of propaganda pushed by the pro/anti cannabis lobby to fit their agenda. I was hoping you had something credible to offer but as it stands you have offered nothing other than your opinion.

Quote
I don't play that game.

Neither do I. Twenty years ago I made it my business to inform myself about recreational drugs. I though it my duty as a parent to be fully informed. I have an obsessive nature and immerse myself into everything of interest.

Quote
I don't look for sources that support my inclinations & prejudices and then rely on them alone. I look for independently peer-reviewed studies and meta studies and reviews - and then use them to inform my opinion. The answer, if you look at the published research, is that we still don't know all of the long term effects, but we know enough of them to know that it is a nasty, unpleasant substance.

I have looked at "the published research and meta studies and reviews" and the conclusion was that cannabis was not a nasty, unpleasant substance, on the contry it appears to have many medical advantages, this fact has been as such for thousands of years.

Quote
And as a completely irrelevant anecdote, having worked with a teenager suffering from cannabis-induced psychosis, I am convinced that the potential costs should absolutely not be suppressed.

"A study by Keele University commissioned by the British government found that between 1996 and 2005 there had been significant reductions in the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia. From 2000 onwards there were also significant reductions in the prevalence of psychoses. The authors say this data is "not consistent with the hypothesis that increasing cannabis use in earlier decades is associated with increasing schizophrenia or psychoses from the mid-1990s onwards".

A 10-year study on 1923 individuals from the general population in Germany, aged 14–24, concluded that cannabis use is a risk factor for the development of incident psychotic disorder symptoms, and the continued use might increase the risk.

However a medical study published in 2009 taken by the Medical Research Council in London, showed there was no significant effect of THC on [11C]-raclopride binding. Thus concluding, recreational cannabis users do not release significant amounts of dopamine from an oral THC dose equivalent to a standard cannabis cigarette. This result challenges current models of striatal dopamine release as the mechanism mediating cannabis as risk factor for schizophrenia."


I also fail to see how you can make the comparrison between medical cannabis and street cannabis used for recreation, both are worlds apart.

Just to add I'm not for cannabis legalisation, I do believe it has it's place in medicine however.

Here's the biggy:
 

Marijuana is actually potent enough to relieve many autism symptoms and essentially reestablishes synapses which are vital for correct brain function.

1. Marijuana doesn't relieve any autism symptoms. Medical research has shown that it distorts sensory perception, something that many people with autism already have problems with; it causes memory and learning problems (and autism isn't called a 'learning disability' for nothing); and it causes problems with thinking and problem solving - like people with autism can afford to have that reduced! Marijuana will make autism symptoms worse.
2. Even if the weed did "essentially re-establish synapses" (absolutely no evidence to show that it does) autism isn't caused by any problems with synapses.

Marijuana isn't even arguably a valid treatment for autism. This is just another attempt to exploit the autism lobby to support someone else's campaign.

Oh no of course, but to just say oh it is illegal and bad is silly

As you can see - I haven't. I'm not silly.


"According to the Autism Research Institute, some of the symptoms marijuana has improved in children with autism include anxiety, aggression, panic disorder, tantrums and self-injurious behavior. Though Rimland died in 2006, his ideas continue to draw interest from parents with children on the spectrum"

Read more: http://www.autismsup...1#ixzz2UrrJ1gcz

#24 saltair

saltair

    Part of the furniture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 May 2013 - 12:23 PM

“I’m not pro-drug, but I am very much pro-safe and effective treatment, especially in cases when an autistic individual’s behaviors are devastating and do not respond to other interventions,” Rimland once wrote. “Early evidence suggests that medical marijuana may be an effective treatment for autism, as well as being safer than the drugs that doctors routinely prescribe.”

Read more: http://www.autismsup...1#ixzz2Us9PseQm

I would suggest it needs more research.

Edited by saltair, 31 May 2013 - 12:24 PM.


#25 Jolly Roger

Jolly Roger

    Anton du Beke

  • Admin
  • 15,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In your dreams

Posted 31 May 2013 - 02:11 PM

Let's deal with this methodically.
 

With all due respect Roger I say you are incorrect. Bayer grow a hybrid strain of sativa cannabis plant, in a nuttshell it's skunk. Sativex is a cannabis tincture produced from a sativa/indica hybrid plant that contains a near 1:1 ratio of THC and CBD diluted to the required % per dose. Something that has been around for over 4000 years. Bayer use the whole plant in the process and I fail to see how you can say it's not medical marijuana, by definition it is medical marijuana.


According to the the official data, Sativex does not contain anything like all of the cannabinoids (at least 420) known to be present at the start of their refining process. 
 
Saying Sativex is cannabis is like saying the petrol you put in your car is crude oil. It isn't. It is a refined product derived from the plant.
 

I was hoping you had something credible to offer but as it stands you have offered nothing other than your opinion.

If you're going to resort to petty goading, then I'm just going to leave the discussion.

The research data on the harmful effects of marijuana is in the public domain, and I'm not going to waste my time or yours by letting you pretend that if I don't link to it in a discussion then it doesn't exist or that opinions that contradict your own are unsupported.
 
I have told you that I am not interested in entering into the "oh no it isn't/oh yes it is" kind of argument that characterises other, less well managed forums.
 

I have looked at "the published research and meta studies and reviews" and the conclusion was that cannabis was not a nasty, unpleasant substance, on the contry it appears to have many medical advantages, this fact has been as such for thousands of years.

So you have found evidence of medicinal advantages (which I don't deny) but you have failed to find any of the published evidence of the harmful effects. This is a remarkable achievement. Your filters must be amazingly efficient.

Perhaps this explains why you want me to provide links to them all - you can't find them?

Or maybe you are just using an age-old tactic beloved of the internet, of demanding to be shown all the data that contradicts your argument, in microscopic detail, to ensure that your opponent remains on the defensive. Like I said, I don't play that game.

Be that as it may, there is no substance known to humanity that provides medicinal benefits without costs. If your research has led you to that conclusion about marijuana, then you are not looking properly.

And finally,
 

"According to the Autism Research Institute, some of the symptoms marijuana has improved in children with autism include anxiety, aggression, panic disorder, tantrums and self-injurious behavior. Though Rimland died in 2006, his ideas continue to draw interest from parents with children on the spectrum"

Not one of those symptoms listed is a symptom of autism.

#26 saltair

saltair

    Part of the furniture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 June 2013 - 08:35 AM

Let's deal with this methodically.


I was trying to look at this methodically but you need to understand what a ticture is to do so. Or any of the many other methods of extracting THC etc. You clearly don't.
 

According to the the official data, Sativex does not contain anything like all of the cannabinoids (at least 420) known to be present at the start of their refining process.


According to the law ( my brother in-law is a police sergeant who I asked ) sativex still comes under the missuse of drugs act and if not legally in possession of sativex you will be arrested and charge with possession of cannabis. It's a cannabis derivative where you extract the main active components THC & CBD. Yes there are 420 cannabinoids in cannabis, most are in such small amounts they are either removed of destroyed through the filtering and extraction process. It all depends on the strain of plant, plant's are bred to produce 50/50 THC/CBD content. This was first achieved by a Duch seed bank in collaberation with an American seed bank. Not Bayer or any other pharmaceutical company. It's not rocket science, we have been doing it for over 4000 years.
 

Saying Sativex is cannabis is like saying the petrol you put in your car is crude oil. It isn't. It is a refined product derived from the plant.


Medical cannabis is also refined if that's the delivery method required. I'm glad we have cleared that much up.
 

If you're going to resort to petty goading, then I'm just going to leave the discussion.


I wasn't.

The research data on the harmful effects of marijuana is in the public domain, and I'm not going to waste my time or yours by letting you pretend that if I don't link to it in a discussion then it doesn't exist or that opinions that contradict your own are unsupported.


There is alot of data from both perspectives some good, some bad and some fantacy. I'm yet to see data that supports these "nasty" side effects you speak of so I asked if you could provide me a link to something credible for me to read. You have yet to enter into this discussion by providing something for us to discuss other than your opinion based on what? I don't know because you won't go into it further, why is that?
 

I have told you that I am not interested in entering into the "oh no it isn't/oh yes it is" kind of argument that characterises other, less well managed forums.


I was hoping we could enter into a level headed discussion on the pros and cons of medical cannabis and not an argument. I'm open minded, my views are not entrenched.
 

So you have found evidence of medicinal advantages (which I don't deny) but you have failed to find any of the published evidence of the harmful effects. This is a remarkable achievement. Your filters must be amazingly efficient.


Are you for real Roger? Onus is on you to provide the evidence to support your wild claims.

Perhaps this explains why you want me to provide links to them all - you can't find them?


Nothing credible unless you have some..

#27 Jolly Roger

Jolly Roger

    Anton du Beke

  • Admin
  • 15,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In your dreams

Posted 01 June 2013 - 09:05 AM

Wild claims?

My claim is that cannabis is harmful - your claim is that it is not, and furthermore that there is no science to contradict you.

You claim that cannabis can be used to treat autism, and then cite a reference which lists various symptoms it treats - none of which are symptoms of autism.

You claim that sativex is no different from "skunk" and yet the differences are enough to allow it to be provided legally in this country - which begs the question: what do you know that the pharmaceutical industry, the Government's scientific advisers and the police don't?

You jumped into this discussion to claim that an illegal and harmful substance can be used therapeutically for people with autism. If anyone has made a "wild claim" it is you; if the onus is on anyone to provide evidence, it is you.

#28 saltair

saltair

    Part of the furniture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 June 2013 - 09:13 AM

Cant post the rest of my reply.. will try later.

#29 Jolly Roger

Jolly Roger

    Anton du Beke

  • Admin
  • 15,916 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In your dreams

Posted 01 June 2013 - 09:22 AM

I'll tell you what I really object to about this, Saltair.

In the thirteen years I have been involved in the topic of autism, as a parent, a professional and an advocate, I have seen hundreds, perhaps thousands of families driven to the point of crisis and breakdown by the stresses of caring for a family member with autism.

A lot of them become desperate for help - help which is very, very difficult to get from the proper authorities.

And over the years I have seen lots of them try to get help from some extraordinary places. I have seen families spend tens of thousands of pounds on "interventions" which promise nothing but false hope. I have seen them buy dietary supplements that do nothing but "make expensive urine" (I'm sure loads of people here recognise that quote.)

And some of the interventions that people recommend are harmful. If you do your research you will find children with autism have been killed by exorcisms and heavy metal chelation - treatments that parents desperately hoped would work. If you look at http://researchautism.net/ you will see that some interventions are downright dangerous.

And yet parents still try them.

Why? Because some parents are desperate for help, and will try anything that is presented in a convincing way.

I have seen harm inflicted on vulnerable people and their families because of this.

#30 saltair

saltair

    Part of the furniture

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 70 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 June 2013 - 09:43 AM

Or maybe you are just using an age-old tactic beloved of the internet, of demanding to be shown all the data that contradicts your argument, in microscopic detail, to ensure that your opponent remains on the defensive. Like I said, I don't play that game.

I'm not demanding anything. You can either support your claims or not means nothing to me if you take this stance, it is however a negative reflection on your stance. You are either able to support it or not, it'a as simple as that Roger.

Be that as it may, there is no substance known to humanity that provides medicinal benefits without costs. If your research has led you to that conclusion about marijuana, then you are not looking properly.

I'm well versed on toxicology Roger. I'm aware everything has it's toxicity level, even water. We have yet to establish what these nasty effects are before we can go on to discuss benefit and cost. I can say that cannabis in all it's forms doesn't fall into the potentially fatal ball park that some drugs we give to children on the spectrum do. In comparrison to the list of drugs used to treat children on the spectrum cannabis in all it's forms is a sweet in comparrison.

And finally,


Not one of those symptoms listed is a symptom of autism.



I will stick to what the expers say on the matter.



2. Even if the weed did "essentially re-establish synapses" (absolutely no evidence to show that it does) autism isn't caused by any problems with synapses.

This is also incorrect Roger.

http://sfari.org/fun...sm-linked-genes

You miss out the reply about cannabis induced psychosis. Speaks volumes.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users