More information about text formats
There are no case reports anywhere in the world of patients receiving cannabis under medical supervision coming to any significant harm. There is no doubt that cannabis is safe as a medicine. Those opposed to it, usually with vested financial interests, are trying to undermine use of CBPMs with spurious claims of harms caused by smoking cannabis in its most potent form as a recreational drug.
The senior clinicians responsible for drafting the guidelines, from the Royal Colleges and other professional bodies, are the same people who have failed to provide up-to-date medical education on the endocannabinoid system, through which cannabis exterts its therapeutic effects. These same people are also responsible for running and supervising the clinical trials that pharmaceutical companies use to prove the safety and efficacy of their new products. For this they receive very substantial fees and long-running sponsorship for their institutions. The conflict of interest is obvious, yet is being entirely overlooked.
I fully support Prof Nutt's analysis but suggest that senior clinicians responsible for drafting guidelines do not wish to consider other forms of evidence as they are not in their financial self-interest.
In summary there is no evdience of any harm in the medically supervised use of CBPMs and substantial evidence of great benefit. Failing to prescribe in such circumstances is unethical, irresponsible and may actually be 'doing harm...
In summary there is no evdience of any harm in the medically supervised use of CBPMs and substantial evidence of great benefit. Failing to prescribe in such circumstances is unethical, irresponsible and may actually be 'doing harm' to patients.