It's all about funding

Homepage Forums Science It's all about funding

This topic contains 24 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by  PopeBeanie 4 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #6900

    .
    Spectator

    @regthefronkeyfarmer

    A.      Is a doctor or works in the medical field.

    No.

    B.      Does he have someone in need of this new medicine?

    No.

    C.      How did he come to hear of it?

    It is common knowledge, but his son sparked the interest

    D.      Is connected to the people involved.

    No.

    It sounds strange to me that a major medical development worthy of further research was not already known in the medical field or ignored if it was promising advancement. Do you know what medical journals the original paper was published in?

    I know right?! LOL…

    I’ll link the medical journals happily….but that would give it all away so I will wait until you reply because I don’t want your biased opinion to your answers to be a factor in your response..

    #6909

    Strega
    Moderator

    Let me know when this stops being a test and starts being a discussion 😉

    #6911

    .
    Spectator

    Well Strega you could always help make it a discussion. All I did was answer Reg’s questions and noe I hear crickets.

    #6955

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    I think this is part of a bigger discussion wrt what any human can believe, and how one can reliably determine which findings are credible, especially when published. I relate to _Robert_’s experiences in tech, seeing what science makes possible, and now we’re even starting to grow body organs. See how far we’ve come in most science.

    But yeah, it’s not all good. I can think of several issues that have gone off track. Arsenic-based life, ‘evidence’ for creationists. Climate ‘science’, cold fusion, cloning,

    #6956

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    my mobile editor fails on longer messages so i’ll finish it later on pc + wifi. bottom line is yeah, this is a big issue, you could say in spite of its own success.

    #6959

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    I’m thinking of people in Alabama getting their polar vortex from the north pole’s melting ice. They’re thinking it’s “proof” that the planet’s not warming, and can’t wrap their heads around where all that cold is actually coming from. After the floating polar ice is gone (which does not raise sea level, btw), next comes the land-bound ice that does raise sea level. Even my own, intelligent, informed father didn’t realize how much water is locked up in Antarctica, and scoffs at scientists warning of world coastlines receeding.

    My demented mom’s brain MRI made me tear up when I saw it. Old aged brains deteriorate because human genes haven’t evolved to protect our advanced neocortex into ages much beyond (say) our fifties. It’s an awful way to suffer, but then she doesn’t remember the suffering for long… nor anything else she feels or thinks about daily. This may sound off topic, but I see it as just one of the areas we need science to address, and get funding for. I don’t see how such decisions wrt scientific advancement can get easier over time, but only harder because of science’s wider and deeper effects on our lives, and humanity… all the time vs the political and anti-science people, who themselves are also only human after all.

    My older daughter did lab research on fruit flies wrt Parkinson’s disease, since even insects have the same kind of brain parts that fail in old age humans. A few of these brain diseases that evolution never had a chance to solve over the past tens of thousands of years have similar causes, namely amyloid plaque, or whatever causes the plaque. (We still don’t know for sure, but we do know that clearing the plaque with medical intervention can keep the brain cells from dying.) I’ve even seen research that says that SSRIs slow the progression of plaques, and I believe it because of my educated guesses about SSRI’s affect (so it seems) on enhancing stemcell-like generation and re-generation… but I can’t prove it! I may be wrong. But I still know that science will still, eventually get it right, and add to the growing libraries of credible and well-established discoveries… not to mention cures and furthering other critical frontiers.

    #6961

    .
    Spectator

    @popebeanie: Your example and discussion makes it so I’m going to tell you what I’ve found out because it’s actually right on point with MY point. That is – we really lack clinical trials for medical marijuana. They are definitely starting to do them. I myself may be participating in one here locally they are doing for medical marijuana patients who have PTSD. They are doing a study about that. They have done trials with older patients who have alzheimers/dementia – something your Mom should definitely try – medical marijuana. There is evidence that shows their minds are brightened. They don’t have them smoke them. They used the tinctures and just did like I did – slip it in coffee or yogurt or something.

    Another thing I’m learning about is THCV. It’s a cannabinoid that’s actually helping me a LOT! It’s most prevalent in African Sativas, which is something the medical marijuana consultants told me to stay away from because sativas supposedly increase anxiety which is one of the hallmarks of PTSD. But what I found is that doing a combination with the most potent Africa Sativa like plant (they don’t have many purebred strains anymore because it’s all been so hybridized), along with higher CBD and then Indica – the combination of the three gives a good balance. It’s kind of like eating your vegetables. Eat a wide variety and eat the colors of the rainbow, lol…

    But here’s my point – MARIJUANA needs to be clinically tested way more than it has been. Funding and lack of support is what’s held it back. Some people claim that medical marijuana can cure cancer!!! And yet at the moment we don’t have “peer-reviewed” evidence done that can definitively say one way or another. There are potential medical breakthroughs that have not been discovered. Same with the ayahuasca plant. There’s definitely some medicinal benefits that aren’t being explored due to the U.S’s outdated “war on drugs” which is failing miserably….

    Funding is all about money and political interest. A lot of it’s guided by drug companies who don’t want natural forms of medicine to become well know because it then makes them lose money. So can we reliably trust what we’re told about keeping ourselves healthy? Many medical outcomes don’t work in the long run.

    I’m doing my own clinical trials on myself to see what works and what doesn’t. So far – the anecdotal evidence is correct that THCV is a good appetite suppressant and it’s helping me break some of the anxiety I have surrounding food issues. It’s working! But I have no peer reviewed evidence to show you – not because it may not be true, but because it’s never been funded and supported….

    So we’re really missing out. So my POINT is – you know we talk a lot about peer reviewed evidence but it makes me wonder why anecdotal evidence may not be something to consider also…

    #6962

    Medical marijuana is usually legalized by politicians based upon the wishes of voters rather than on any clinical evidence. It is seen from the point of view that it is a harmless and natural drug rather than something that may be actually beneficial. Here is a link to some studies that have been done. It would have been difficult to conduct tests in the past when it was illegal.

    #6963

    .
    Spectator

    The thing is – marijuana has been used for at LEAST 10,000 years and I’m betting even longer than that…Marijuana wasn’t illegal in the U.S until 1937. It was legal in the United States for a long time and WAS used for medicinal purposes…there’s evidence going back even to Shen Nung, the father of Chinese medicine using cannabis for healing purposes…

    So it’s not like there was no evidence it could be useful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hahahahaha…

    Purely political, all about the money and whether the right people decided it was worth testing or not. That’s here in the U.S. I’m not talking about anywhere else. I’m saying that if we’re really going to start saying that something is valid just because it’s been “peer-reviewed” I think we need to always consider the fact that the things that get peer reviewed and heavily funded for research are done so with a bias approach to begin with…

    So is it really valid??? Does it really tell us anything about the “Truth?”

    Things took a turn when a Senator caught his son smoking pot in the garage and THEN it became important…

    Fucking rich motherfuckers.

    #8379

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    So we’re really missing out. So my POINT is – you know we talk a lot about peer reviewed evidence but it makes me wonder why anecdotal evidence may not be something to consider also…

    Whoa, I been out of the AZ loop for a while. Missed your comment until now. Yeah, anecdotal evidence should help us get better at the evidence-based research, and (like any psychotropic) many results will still vary, requiring even more research and documentation and customization per patient. Good thing we’re finally moving forward again. I’m a novice wrt traditionally “recreational” drugs, but I understand DMT probably has a good future, too.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.