I'm a european pharmacists with some interest in this, just going to add my 2 eurocents.
I'm stepping a bit further into speculation here but it appears that there is a social aspect here on not wanting to be seen as a quack for prescribing "weed in a pill" when there are a number of other schedule 3 drugs which are widely accepted to treat pain, even though those pain pills contain opiates. Cannabinoids have been shown to treat issues besides pain but again there are other drugs on the same level of controls or lower that are more socially acceptable..
I think there is a certain level of stigma associated with cannabinoids, same as any other abusable drug but my theory is that putting it in a pill would make it more socially acceptable. Opiates and central stimulants in powder form will immediately mark you as a junkie, but in a pill then it's medication. Completely different things. I believe the main difference is the experience of prescribers. Opiates and other drugs of abuse have been used for therapeutic purposes for a very long time and the way they work is well understood. Research on cannabis for therapeutic purposes is fairly recent, as most resources have been spent on trying to prove its harm. So I suppose we know a bit about the harmful effects of cannabinoids but the beneficial effects are not that documented. So as a prescriber you would have the option of going with something well known all-around, or take a shot in the dark. This will likely change, but it's going to take some time.
Humans are unlike many other species of animals out there. We've got such a varied genome that drugs can have a wide variety of effects. Animals like horses, cattle, and domestic cats don't have such variation so when drugs are tested on animals they don't always tell the whole story. The only animal that seems to be as widely varied as humans are dogs..
Not really true, animals are in general as diverse as humans. Exceptions would be domesticated animals where individuals within a certain breed are highly similar in their genetic make-up due to human intervention (breeding). It's really a matter of statistics. Drug trials on animals are performed on relatively few individuals of similar genetic make-up so that effects are predicable. Animals studies are used to determine safety and as a rough measure of dosage. But this is just to get a hint on what substances and doses can be used in humans. You still need large scale studies on humans (thousands or more) to determine if a drug is efficacious compared to placebo and to determine the side-effects. Even then you cannot predict all possible side-effects because some are very rare. All in all, a certain recommended dosage is valid on a population level, but not always on an individual level.
If put in a pill form the marijuana would have to be in a wide variety of dosages and/or the physicians may have to prescribe a rather unrealistic number of pills for some people. This would make the regulation difficult and make them expensive. Marijuana in its natural form is easy to meter in that it is dilute, just take a bite of a marijuana cookie if that is all you need or eat the whole thing. Marijuana is naturally cheap to produce, it's a plant that grows like a weed, processing it to a pill form would make it expensive..
This is also true for opiates. Morphine occurs naturally. However, marijuana in its natural form is decidely not easy to meter or dilute because you have no idea of how strong the plant will be. Smoking or baking cannabis plant extracts is extremely difficult to dose. A pill would be standardised. You would always know which amounts of active substances you have in it (THC/CBD ratio has been shown to be very important for therapeutic effects). You can standardise this in a plant, but you won't know what the patient will do with it and how that will affect the dosage. I agree that selling cannabinoids in pill form would be more expensive t
Yea, I used to think the same thing until I dated a woman who was bipolar. There are people out there with real problems, problems that aren't easily solved by "shake it off and take a lap." You probably went to the wrong doctor, who instead of taking the time to find out what your problem was (or wasn't), put you on the pharma cure.
Actually my MD saved my life, with a single verbal statement that was far more effective than any of the drugs that him or his predecessors tried, "Suicide is the most selfish decision you'll make and your friends will never forgive you for it."
I concur with you in principle, there are some people who need meds, but my gut feeling (reinforced by seven years of working for a mental healthcare agency, incidentally) is that we reach for them too quickly.
Well you're both right. Anti-depressants should always be used together with non-pharmacological treatment e.g. cognitive behaviour therapy. Often they're a vital component, making the patient more receptive to treatment by psychiatrist, but not always necessary. It's quite common to go through several SSRI/SNRI before finding one that works. This is how it will continue until the etiology of clinical depression is more completely understood and we get better meds.
Well, I am red-green colour-blind with otherwise near perfect vision. I do not want to wear glasses, I'm mostly only affected when taking the Ishihara tests. A quick corneal shot to increase vibrancy is very interesting though. The only question is how much this will cost me.
Yes, it seems to me that instead of paying for hundred of lawsuits on ridiculous patents perhaps somebody should start going after the USPTO instead? No idea if there is any legal way to do it, but since all problems start from the USPTO itself, that's where any effort should be concentrated...
I agree, although it seems like this IPR mentioned in the summary is one way of doing it. The biggest preference would be that patent offices (not just the USPTO) would stop awarding ridiculously general patents. Possibly there could be some reward for lowering the amount of IPRs per annum or something along those lines.
IME, patents rather hinder than promote innovation, especially on software methods. The way they are used is to protect big players against one another's legal challenges. As a side effect, small players are quite locked out. But then, IANAL; can someone give an example of a software patent that actually promoted innovation?
Yes well, I think we have different experiences. I agree that software patents often seem to serve little purpose apart from building war chests, and I would also be interested in a concrete example of good usage of software patents. There are many other industries, however, where patents are crucial to defend years and millions of dollars invested in R&D against professional copycats, and allow low level players to reap some profit from their innovation.
I believe some patent rights are necessary to promote innovation, but when you start handing out patents like a paedophile hands out candy, the opposite effect is achieved.
The US backstops their flaws with its own nuclear arsenal. If France gets nuked then we'll nuke whomever nuked France. That is actually what protects France. Not Frances nukes unless they have them on such submarines. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think they've bothered with them.
France and Britain each have 4 ballistic missile subs. Each sub can carry 16 M45/51 (French) or Trident II (UK) missiles, capable of reaching pretty much anywhere on earth.
Kind of sounds like some sort of Tourette's when you say it out loud: “If [Pirate Bay’s] code wouldn’t be so s ASTERISK ASTERISK ASTERISK ASTERISK y we would make it public for everyone to use, so that everyone could start their own bay.”
A lot of side-effects are reported by users and not subjected to scientific scrutiny to establish causality. The other day I found a reported side effect for pregabaline (used for neuropathic pain and some epilepsies) that was "inappropriate behaviour".
As far as I know, that is more or less correct. Incubation time for ebola is 2-21 days during which you are not infectious. After that (appearance of symptoms) the risk of infection is manifested and remains an issue for as long as the virus is present in bodily fluids. Men can remain infectious for about 7 weeks as the seminal fluid acts as a reservoir for the virus. In summary, if John Smith hasn't had any symptoms there is no risk but I wouldn't associate too closely with him for a month or three if he has, even if there are no symptoms presently.
Well... Last time I was in Brisbane, during December, I noticed how every store, mall and food court in the shopping area had AC on AND the outer doors wide open.
Let's clap it: That. Is. Stupid!
I was told that it was considered a bad custom to shut the outer doors - it might scare customers away when a door is closed.
I agree that it is a pretty stupid practice, but from a geocultural point of view it is understandable. I live in Sweden where it is too cold to keep the doors open 8 months of the year. Restaurants and grocery stores generally have their open hours printed on the doors in large text, and most other stores are generally open from 10-19. One way to go could be a commerce agreement to keep doors closed. If every store starts doing it at the same time, they won't have to worry about losing customers and they will save money on electricity. I realise such things are easier said than done, though.
Think about it: If a company finds a cure for all cancers (emphasis on the plural form, cancer is not just one disease) they could demand any price at all and people would pay it. "Let's discuss payment plans." The inventors would receive hero status and could retire rich as kings of old. You don't think this would sound appealing to the people allegedly sitting on this cure-all?
She doesn't even have to exercise, just eat less. A 30 minute walk every day is enough and most people can manage that, even if they're overweight. My mother lost a lot of weight without a gym card or going jogging, just by reducing her calorie intake. [/personal anecdote] Some people swear by LCHF and such and maybe that works, but the safest bet IMHO is simply to do a food study (write down everything you eat for a month) and then cut down. Nonetheless, it requires a serious conviction and if a medical professional can't convince her, then who will?
No, it's actually "S" words, words beginning with the letter "S". On a side note, I've got to ask you about the Penis Mightier. Will it really mighty my penis, man?
What they should do is FIRST give students a 10-hour schoolday, just like office workers have; so instead of getting out at 2pm, students start at 7am and school lets out at 5pm, with a 1hour break/lunch.
That's a bad idea. A 10-hour school day would guarantee that at least two of those hours are wasted. The only upside would be that you wouldn't have to care what your kids are doing while you're at work. School days shouldn't be longer than 8 hours, and homework shouldn't take more than an hour to complete.
IANANE but I've heard that 5G isn't supposed to be about increased download rates since, as you say, there is little point. The point is as I understand rather increased capacity to allow a larger number of people to be able to utilize and reach the rate cap (~80 MB/s) simultaneously.
Still, as a Swede talking, I don't feel like I live in a true democracy. We only have public votes once every 10 years or so, and the results of those are often discarded. I'm aching for a more direct democracy where the government only has the executive mandate. I don't know if the country would be run better, but at least we'd get a say.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a european pharmacists with some interest in this, just going to add my 2 eurocents.
I'm stepping a bit further into speculation here but it appears that there is a social aspect here on not wanting to be seen as a quack for prescribing "weed in a pill" when there are a number of other schedule 3 drugs which are widely accepted to treat pain, even though those pain pills contain opiates. Cannabinoids have been shown to treat issues besides pain but again there are other drugs on the same level of controls or lower that are more socially acceptable..
I think there is a certain level of stigma associated with cannabinoids, same as any other abusable drug but my theory is that putting it in a pill would make it more socially acceptable. Opiates and central stimulants in powder form will immediately mark you as a junkie, but in a pill then it's medication. Completely different things. I believe the main difference is the experience of prescribers. Opiates and other drugs of abuse have been used for therapeutic purposes for a very long time and the way they work is well understood. Research on cannabis for therapeutic purposes is fairly recent, as most resources have been spent on trying to prove its harm. So I suppose we know a bit about the harmful effects of cannabinoids but the beneficial effects are not that documented. So as a prescriber you would have the option of going with something well known all-around, or take a shot in the dark. This will likely change, but it's going to take some time.
Humans are unlike many other species of animals out there. We've got such a varied genome that drugs can have a wide variety of effects. Animals like horses, cattle, and domestic cats don't have such variation so when drugs are tested on animals they don't always tell the whole story. The only animal that seems to be as widely varied as humans are dogs..
Not really true, animals are in general as diverse as humans. Exceptions would be domesticated animals where individuals within a certain breed are highly similar in their genetic make-up due to human intervention (breeding). It's really a matter of statistics. Drug trials on animals are performed on relatively few individuals of similar genetic make-up so that effects are predicable. Animals studies are used to determine safety and as a rough measure of dosage. But this is just to get a hint on what substances and doses can be used in humans. You still need large scale studies on humans (thousands or more) to determine if a drug is efficacious compared to placebo and to determine the side-effects. Even then you cannot predict all possible side-effects because some are very rare. All in all, a certain recommended dosage is valid on a population level, but not always on an individual level.
If put in a pill form the marijuana would have to be in a wide variety of dosages and/or the physicians may have to prescribe a rather unrealistic number of pills for some people. This would make the regulation difficult and make them expensive. Marijuana in its natural form is easy to meter in that it is dilute, just take a bite of a marijuana cookie if that is all you need or eat the whole thing. Marijuana is naturally cheap to produce, it's a plant that grows like a weed, processing it to a pill form would make it expensive..
This is also true for opiates. Morphine occurs naturally. However, marijuana in its natural form is decidely not easy to meter or dilute because you have no idea of how strong the plant will be. Smoking or baking cannabis plant extracts is extremely difficult to dose. A pill would be standardised. You would always know which amounts of active substances you have in it (THC/CBD ratio has been shown to be very important for therapeutic effects). You can standardise this in a plant, but you won't know what the patient will do with it and how that will affect the dosage. I agree that selling cannabinoids in pill form would be more expensive t
Yea, I used to think the same thing until I dated a woman who was bipolar. There are people out there with real problems, problems that aren't easily solved by "shake it off and take a lap." You probably went to the wrong doctor, who instead of taking the time to find out what your problem was (or wasn't), put you on the pharma cure.
Actually my MD saved my life, with a single verbal statement that was far more effective than any of the drugs that him or his predecessors tried, "Suicide is the most selfish decision you'll make and your friends will never forgive you for it."
I concur with you in principle, there are some people who need meds, but my gut feeling (reinforced by seven years of working for a mental healthcare agency, incidentally) is that we reach for them too quickly.
Well you're both right. Anti-depressants should always be used together with non-pharmacological treatment e.g. cognitive behaviour therapy. Often they're a vital component, making the patient more receptive to treatment by psychiatrist, but not always necessary. It's quite common to go through several SSRI/SNRI before finding one that works. This is how it will continue until the etiology of clinical depression is more completely understood and we get better meds.
Well, I am red-green colour-blind with otherwise near perfect vision. I do not want to wear glasses, I'm mostly only affected when taking the Ishihara tests. A quick corneal shot to increase vibrancy is very interesting though. The only question is how much this will cost me.
Yes, it seems to me that instead of paying for hundred of lawsuits on ridiculous patents perhaps somebody should start going after the USPTO instead? No idea if there is any legal way to do it, but since all problems start from the USPTO itself, that's where any effort should be concentrated...
I agree, although it seems like this IPR mentioned in the summary is one way of doing it. The biggest preference would be that patent offices (not just the USPTO) would stop awarding ridiculously general patents. Possibly there could be some reward for lowering the amount of IPRs per annum or something along those lines.
IME, patents rather hinder than promote innovation, especially on software methods. The way they are used is to protect big players against one another's legal challenges. As a side effect, small players are quite locked out. But then, IANAL; can someone give an example of a software patent that actually promoted innovation?
Yes well, I think we have different experiences. I agree that software patents often seem to serve little purpose apart from building war chests, and I would also be interested in a concrete example of good usage of software patents. There are many other industries, however, where patents are crucial to defend years and millions of dollars invested in R&D against professional copycats, and allow low level players to reap some profit from their innovation.
I believe some patent rights are necessary to promote innovation, but when you start handing out patents like a paedophile hands out candy, the opposite effect is achieved.
It's about time I got my metapsychic powers and ramapithecus servants.
Do you have evidence for that last statement?
The US backstops their flaws with its own nuclear arsenal. If France gets nuked then we'll nuke whomever nuked France. That is actually what protects France. Not Frances nukes unless they have them on such submarines. Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think they've bothered with them.
France and Britain each have 4 ballistic missile subs. Each sub can carry 16 M45/51 (French) or Trident II (UK) missiles, capable of reaching pretty much anywhere on earth.
Sony's smart-phones are actually pretty damn good nowadays, possibly because their brand-recognition is bad in that area.
Hopefully the app will be capable of discerning between immature Amanita ocreata and Agaricus arvensis.
Kind of sounds like some sort of Tourette's when you say it out loud: “If [Pirate Bay’s] code wouldn’t be so s ASTERISK ASTERISK ASTERISK ASTERISK y we would make it public for everyone to use, so that everyone could start their own bay.”
How do you say "Greenpeace" in French?
Merde verte.
A lot of side-effects are reported by users and not subjected to scientific scrutiny to establish causality. The other day I found a reported side effect for pregabaline (used for neuropathic pain and some epilepsies) that was "inappropriate behaviour".
As far as I know, that is more or less correct. Incubation time for ebola is 2-21 days during which you are not infectious. After that (appearance of symptoms) the risk of infection is manifested and remains an issue for as long as the virus is present in bodily fluids. Men can remain infectious for about 7 weeks as the seminal fluid acts as a reservoir for the virus. In summary, if John Smith hasn't had any symptoms there is no risk but I wouldn't associate too closely with him for a month or three if he has, even if there are no symptoms presently.
Well... Last time I was in Brisbane, during December, I noticed how every store, mall and food court in the shopping area had AC on AND the outer doors wide open.
Let's clap it: That. Is. Stupid!
I was told that it was considered a bad custom to shut the outer doors - it might scare customers away when a door is closed.
I agree that it is a pretty stupid practice, but from a geocultural point of view it is understandable. I live in Sweden where it is too cold to keep the doors open 8 months of the year. Restaurants and grocery stores generally have their open hours printed on the doors in large text, and most other stores are generally open from 10-19. One way to go could be a commerce agreement to keep doors closed. If every store starts doing it at the same time, they won't have to worry about losing customers and they will save money on electricity. I realise such things are easier said than done, though.
Think about it: If a company finds a cure for all cancers (emphasis on the plural form, cancer is not just one disease) they could demand any price at all and people would pay it. "Let's discuss payment plans." The inventors would receive hero status and could retire rich as kings of old. You don't think this would sound appealing to the people allegedly sitting on this cure-all?
The error should not occur because the error that occurred was that no error occurred?
ERR_TOO_MANY_ERROR
Press CTRL+ALT+DEL to restart.
Hyrdo contributes more per watt to the greenhouse effect than coal.
Citation?
She doesn't even have to exercise, just eat less. A 30 minute walk every day is enough and most people can manage that, even if they're overweight. My mother lost a lot of weight without a gym card or going jogging, just by reducing her calorie intake. [/personal anecdote] Some people swear by LCHF and such and maybe that works, but the safest bet IMHO is simply to do a food study (write down everything you eat for a month) and then cut down. Nonetheless, it requires a serious conviction and if a medical professional can't convince her, then who will?
No, it's actually "S" words, words beginning with the letter "S". On a side note, I've got to ask you about the Penis Mightier. Will it really mighty my penis, man?
What they should do is FIRST give students a 10-hour schoolday, just like office workers have;
so instead of getting out at 2pm, students start at 7am and school lets out at 5pm, with a 1hour break/lunch.
That's a bad idea. A 10-hour school day would guarantee that at least two of those hours are wasted. The only upside would be that you wouldn't have to care what your kids are doing while you're at work. School days shouldn't be longer than 8 hours, and homework shouldn't take more than an hour to complete.
Just my cents...
Just my cents...
Bitcents or Dollar cents? There's potentially a $6.28 difference there.
IANANE but I've heard that 5G isn't supposed to be about increased download rates since, as you say, there is little point. The point is as I understand rather increased capacity to allow a larger number of people to be able to utilize and reach the rate cap (~80 MB/s) simultaneously.
Still, as a Swede talking, I don't feel like I live in a true democracy. We only have public votes once every 10 years or so, and the results of those are often discarded. I'm aching for a more direct democracy where the government only has the executive mandate. I don't know if the country would be run better, but at least we'd get a say.