Manbush wrote:Those style quotes are a pain to respond to, thanks doc
1. Do we know he didn't speak to his or other doctors considering many doctors globally prescribe it, if he had I doubt he'd admit it and get the doc in trouble so who knows.
I don't think that anyone is fooled into believing that that was your primary angle. I can't say for certain that this didn't occur, but knowing the personalities of the people likely involved I would suggest that it is very far fetched.
Manbush wrote:2. Yeah kind of your union, I should have said board
Exactly, though not my union as I am not a member. Why do you expect them to produce research, it is not their role?
Manbush wrote:3. Yes aware TGA needs their own research but considering there was research dating back to 1975 showing positive signs not sure how you can say we aren't slow on doing trials 40yrs later.
I think that you need to re-read what I wrote. I said that the the evidence does not have to be Australian, that would be absurd. If there is quality evidence out there, and somebody makes a submission, there is no reason why it shouldn't be approved.
Surely you don't believe Australia is the only country that researches/trials a drug before prescribing it, countries including the UK, America, Canada, Isreal, Finland to name a few.[/quote]
I've read this a few times. It might be that I'm on my third day oncall and am tired but I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Manbush wrote:4. Could be many reasons I know.
Then why post a throw away line from a tabloid press article?
Manbush wrote:5.Condsidering I don't believe you read the cancer ones last time Im sure you can understand why Im dubious, also see #3 about other countries relying on trials/research
TBH, my life is pretty busy and there is a lot on this forum that I don't read. I'm asking nicely. I will read it.
Both articles have quite a small sample size. The first one from 1975 was quite tiny, but encouraging. They were compared to a placebo. We have come a long way since 1975 with anti-emetics, it would be nice to see a comparison to ondansetron or newer 5HT3 antagonists which are very effective and have a low side effect profile. I note that 10% of the subjects had significant side effects such as hallucination.
The second one from 1980 had a larger sample size but still quite small. It wasn't a randomised controlled trial and therefore considered low quality evidence. Again, anti-emetics have come a long way since 1980, so is this as effective as those currently available?
If that is the level of evidence on offer, its not hard to see why its use is not common place. I'd add to that, neither studies were done in children, and neither of them were the oil that the father administered therefore its generalisability to this case is very poor.
On the whole, i think if a large study was done it would be found that THC is an effective anti-emetic. Whether it is as effective as modern anti-emetics and whether its side-effect profile was as good as modern anti-emetics remains to be seen. If it was proven to be the case I would certainly support its use. But the evidence isn't there and it should be subjected to the same rigorous scrutiny any other pharmaceutical should.
BTW, you do realise that JAMA is the Journal of the American Medical Assoication don't you? They publish it, but they don't produce the research. Suggesting that the articles in it are the research of the AMA is like suggesting GE plays for the Raiders because he runs this website.
Manbush wrote:\You obviously know the research is there unless you have that little faith in the countries I listed. Im guessing you'd have access to a lot more sites full content than I so if you're genuinely interested you know where to find it.
I don't actually know that the research is there, which is why I am asking. You have access to Pubmed, same as me. Granted I might be able to access the full article rather than just the abstract.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed