anthonyqkiernan
|
Well, d'uh!?!?!?
Nov 07, 2003, 12:43
|
"The researchers concluded that, despite not having much objective "proof" of the physical effects of the drug, there remained evidence it could be "clinically useful" in treating some MS-related symptoms."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3247571.stm
I wanna be a scientist. Wads of money to state the bleedcin' obvious.
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: Well, d'uh!?!?!?
Nov 07, 2003, 12:51
|
|
Y'know, I'm listening to a debate on this on the radio, it seems that the main objective is to get enough 'scientific' proof that cannaboids work to be albe to let Smith-Klein or whoewver license a product. Will herbalist be able to sell an 'organic' alternative? Unlikely.
|
morfe
|
Re: Well, d'uh!?!?!?
Nov 07, 2003, 17:35
|
They should call themselves the Cynic Propagation Lobby.
I become more cynical every day :-(
Out ye demons!!!!!
|
Hob
|
Re: Well, d'uh!?!?!?
Nov 08, 2003, 10:41
|
Copyright is the name of the game in pharmaceutical research, never be fooled into thinking they're trying to help anyone out of altruism.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think someone told me that trial was using a version of dronabinol, which was shown to be rather duff years ago, but with a little tweaking, it could be re-patented as something else if trials showed no dodgy effects. Bearing in mind they don't seem to have any clear idea of the mode of action (or if they do they're keeping it under wraps) they're stuck with re-combinant versions of existing compunds.
Watch out for companies blurring the line between recreational and therapetic compounds. They know it's a hell of a big market.
|
Lord Lucan
|
Re: Well, d'uh!?!?!?
Nov 10, 2003, 12:55
|
|
And if they get the licence they'll probably go after small-time personal-use growers with a lot more lawyers than the police currently do.
|
