Medical Marijuana Isn’t a Miracle Drug
For some, cannabis can cause the very symptoms it’s trying to prevent
Bias is, essentially, a human thing. We look at evidence from our own point of view. We choose results that suit our personal perspective, because we all want our opinions to be right.
We can’t help it.
So when I say that cannabis is great, and that I am fully behind legalization of it as a public good, you might wonder why I’m writing an article about how it’s not a very useful medicine. I’d love cannabis to cure everything from headaches to seizures, but the evidence is not on my side.
As much as I wish it were.
Miracle Cures
Medicinal cannabis is currently big in the news, with media sources the world over proclaiming it the most amazing remedy around. Cannabis plays into all of our common misconceptions about what makes something healthy; it’s natural, has been used for hundreds of years, and you can literally grow your own. How many drugs can make that claim?
And, more importantly, we’ve all heard stories of the miracles that medical cannabis can cause. Young children with epilepsy, destined for death or a life of disability, take a single dose of cannabis and are completely cured of their malady. People with cancer are suddenly almost entirely well after just a few drops of oil.
It sounds like a miracle.
The only problem? There aren’t any miracle cures.
So, what’s the evidence for cannabis as a medicine?
High Science
The first important thing to note is that when we say medical cannabis, we are rarely talking about smoking a joint, or getting high. There’s strong, international evidence that smoking cannabis is bad for you, in much the same way that smoking virtually anything is harmful.
Don’t smoke things. You’ll die. Unsplash/Matthew Voshell
When we talk about medical cannabis, we are usually referring to people who take some kind of cannabis oil, or another purified form of the cannabis plant. Moreover, they are usually taking specific medicinal strains of the plant, that have been cultivated to be more beneficial to people with certain illnesses.
This brings us to the second important point: cannabis is a complex mix of chemicals, and we often have very limited understanding of what they do. We know that tetrahydocannabinol (THC) is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis, and that cannabidiol (CBD), another significant compound, has a number of effects on the body and brain, but we don’t know how or why these work.
In the words of Dr. Rose Chesworth, a neuroscientist working in gene-drug interactions of schizophrenia: “We don’t really understand how these compounds interact with the brain. We know that they have neuroprotective and anti- inflammatory effects, but they also can cause negative symptoms. Separating the good effects from the bad ones is the challenge.”
Cannabis in Medicine
So we know that cannabis is a complex mix of chemicals that can have a huge number of effects.
What are some uses?
Well, everyone’s heard the stories of cannabis curing childhood epilepsy. Kids who are having hundreds of seizures a week, miraculously reduced to barely anything. Proponents of these treatments claim that they are effective largely due to the high amounts of CBD in the strains of cannabis that they are using.
But there’s a problem. A recent trial of CBD found that the effects of using it to treat epilepsy were, at best, not much better than traditional anti-epileptic medication. A l arge review of the literature on using cannabis to treat epilepsy found the research inconclusive, revealing zero evidence to recommend it as a treatment.
When we design scientific tests to see if cannabis works to treat epilepsy, it doesn’t seem to have much of an effect.
But it definitely does cause harm.
Cannabis is a risk factor for number of mental health issues, most notably schizophrenia and paranoia. While there is some evidence that this may be due to THC, it appears to happen even in low-THC strains that are commonly used for treating illness.
Moreover, in some people it can cause the very symptoms that it’s trying to prevent. It can increase the severity of seizures, and causes nausea and loss of appetite in some groups of people who take it when they are on chemotherapy.
The problem, according to Dr. Chesworth, is genetics; “There are complex gene interactions that we don’t fully understand, which means that it’s hard to differentiate benefits from side-effects.”
Basically, we don’t know who will get better on medical cannabis, and who will get worse.
Just Like Any Other Drug
What does this mean for you, the person interested in taking medical cannabis?
First, that it’s risky. The rates of serious, potentially life-changing side-effects when taking medical cannabis was as high as 2 percent in some studies. That’s a very high risk for a drug that you’ll potentially be taking for years.
Secondly, that the evidence isn’t good. I chose epilepsy because it is the most commonly known use for cannabis, but this cycle repeats itself when you look at most other problems. Cannabis may be effective for treating chronic pain, but it can also cause heightened perceptions of pain. It might be helpful for people experiencing symptoms of multiple sclerosis, but it definitely causes some nasty side-effects there as well.
Which makes medical cannabis exactly like every other drug in the world.
Seriously, the point is not that medical cannabis is a terrible scourge. It’s not going to kill you in a spiteful fit of wrath.
But, just like every drug, there are potential benefits and potential costs. There are very serious side-effects but there is also the potential for significant benefit.
Cannabis is good for some things, bad for others. And while legalizing it as a harm-reduction method to reduce the number of people that we put in jail for non- violent crimes makes a great deal of sense, it’s not going to cure every problem that you’ll ever have.
It’s not a panacea, just another drug.
Gideon is a health nerd and epidemiologist (public health person) working in chronic disease. He writes about how simple health science really is, how we get it so wrong and why being terrified of that New Scary Study is usually a bad idea. If you want to get in contact, he is shamefully addicted to Twitter and would love to hear from you!
#1: Deckard To: Gatlin (#0)
A poorly researched opinion.
A recent trial of CBD found that the effects of using it to treat epilepsy were, at best, not much better than traditional anti-epileptic medication. A l arge review of the literature on using cannabis to treat epilepsy found the research inconclusive, revealing zero evidence to recommend it as a treatment.
When we design scientific tests to see if cannabis works to treat epilepsy, it doesn’t seem to have much of an effect.
Not True...
Marijuana Treatment Reduces Severe Epileptic Seizures (Scientific American)
A rigorous study validates a cannabis-derived treatment for a rare, drug-resistant childhood epilepsy
Published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the findings stem from a double-blind, placebo-controlled study—the most scientifically rigorous type of investigation possible. “This study clearly establishes cannabidiol as an effective anti-seizure drug for this disorder and this age group," says principal investigator Orrin Devinsky, director of the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at New York University Langone Medical Center. “It certainly deserves to be studied in other types of epilepsy.”
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 21:27:30 Reply Private Reply
#2: Hondo68 To: Gatlin (#0)
Thanks for finally admitting that maryjane is harmless.
"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, Apollo 11 Commander, inside the Lunar Module as it rests on the lunar surface after completion of his historic moonwalk in July 1969.
Hondo68 posted on 2018-01-19 21:33:02 Reply Private Reply
#3: Tooconservative To: hondo68 (#2)
Rand Paul was mentioning this quote and how much money the feds wasted in 2016, researching this one quote.
Government spends $700,000 on missing letter A
WASHINGTON - It’s one of the most famous quotes in human history: “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”The words that Neil Armstrong spoke while taking his first steps on the moon are ingrained in the minds of generations of Americans, but is the quote accurate?
The astronaut contends that history misquoted him, claiming that he said: “That’s one small step for "a man, one giant leap for mankind.”
The National Science Foundation used portions of two taxpayer-funded grants to try to settle the dispute once and for all.
The grants, totaling more than $700,000, were distributed to improve and understand communications for people with conditions that may affect speech, like autism and Parkinson’s disease.
One of the grants came through money provided by the 2009 American and Recovery Reinvestment Act.
The NSF acknowledges that a portion of the money was used to try to find the missing “a," but it was also used to research how the brain understands speech.
U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, calls the study an “egregious” waste of taxpayer dollars and profiled it in a monthly “Waste Report."
The report provided no conclusions on whether Armstrong did include the “a” in his memorable quote, saying: "These results demonstrate that substantial ambiguity exists in the original quote from Armstrong."
Tooconservative posted on 2018-01-19 21:44:55 Reply Private Reply
#4: rlk To: Gatlin (#0)
Rattlesnake venom, poison sumak, Cobra venom, and Machoneal are also "natural."
rlk posted on 2018-01-19 22:40:22 Reply Private Reply
#5: Hondo68 To: Tooconservative, Sputnik Gatlin (#3)
Scientific analysis reveals "persuasive" data suggesting that Gatlin has been spewing the Nikita Khrushchev & Fidel Castro version of the famous lunar quote.
Hondo68 posted on 2018-01-19 22:46:52 Reply Private Reply
#6: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#1)
Are you an evolutionist too?
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 22:49:05 Reply Private Reply
#7: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#6)
Really? The New England Journal of Medicine teaches evolution?
Gee - are all the doctors there evolutionists? And anyways, what freaking difference does it make - the findings stem from a double-blind, placebo-controlled study—the most scientifically rigorous type of investigation possible.
“This study clearly establishes cannabidiol as an effective anti-seizure drug for this disorder and this age group," says principal investigator Orrin Devinsky, director of the Comprehensive Epilepsy Center at New York University Langone Medical Center.
“It certainly deserves to be studied in other types of epilepsy.”
Your credibility here is nonexistent.
Are you an evolutionist too?
No.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 22:56:36 Reply Private Reply
#8: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#7)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 23:24:40 Reply Private Reply
#9: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#7)
I don't care if they study it or use it.
I wonder why anyone cares what I think. It's not like my opinion counts for anything.
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 23:26:55 Reply Private Reply
#10: GrandIsland To: A K A Stone (#6)
GrandIsland posted on 2018-01-19 23:30:04 Reply Private Reply
#11: Gatlin To: GrandIsland (#10)
BINGO.
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-19 23:37:23 Reply Private Reply
#12: Deckard To: A K A Stone (#8)
The New England Journal of Medicine did the study - Scientific American only published the findings.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 23:41:55 Reply Private Reply
#13: Deckard To: GrandIsland (#10)
Typical "Reefer Madness" nonsense.
"medical marijuana" propaganda.
The New England Journal of Medicine is "propaganda"?
Wow - the ignorance continues unabated.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-19 23:43:56 Reply Private Reply
#14: A K A Stone To: Deckard (#12)
A K A Stone posted on 2018-01-19 23:45:18 Reply Private Reply
#15: Tooconservative To: hondo68 (#5)
Nice sleuthing. Maybe you should apply for a $700,000 grant. : )
Tooconservative posted on 2018-01-20 08:10:36 Reply Private Reply
#16: Gatlin To: Deckard, GrandIsland (#13)
Merely because something is printed in the New England Journal of Medicine therefore requires it to accepted as the gospel and be “verifiably true”?
Wow - your gullibility continues unabated.
You believe ONLY what you WANT to believe.
Gatlin posted on 2018-01-20 08:42:22 Reply Private Reply
#17: Deckard To: Gatlin (#16)
Seriously? The New England Journal of Medicine is an authoritative source. The study in this case was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study — the most scientifically rigorous type of investigation possible. You do know what that means, right?
I mean WTF dude - what more do you want? What study would satisfy you?
Rules of Disinformation
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule.
Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon).
In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
Deckard posted on 2018-01-20 09:11:04 Reply Private Reply