FDA Denies Marijuana Has Medical Value

FDA Denies Marijuana Has Medical Value
Posted by CN Staff on April 30, 2006 at 12:30:58 PT
Source: Appeal-Democrat
California -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, for reasons that are far from clear, has chosen to enter the debate over medical marijuana with a thoroughly unscientific - one might even say anti-scientific - blanket denial that marijuana has any medical value at all.Specifically, the grandiosely titled “Inter-Agency Advisory Regarding Claims That Smoked Marijuana Is a Medicine” referenced a “past examination” that “concluded that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use.”
That is simply not true. As Scientific American magazine noted on its Web site the next day, the statement simply ignores “the existence of a 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, which concluded that marijuana was ‘moderately well-suited for particular conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and AIDS wasting.'”The Institute of Medicine report, which was commissioned by the “drug czar” at the time, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, and included a series of hearings around the country as well as a complete review of the scientific literature worldwide, summarized its conclusions as follows:“Advances in cannabinoid science of the past 16 years have given rise to a wealth of new opportunities for the development of medically useful cannabinoid-based drugs. The accumulated data suggest a variety of indications, particularly for pain relief, antiemesis and appetite stimulation. For patients such as those with AIDS or who are undergoing chemotherapy, and who suffer simultaneously from severe pain, nausea and appetite loss, cannabinoid drugs might offer broad-spectrum relief not found in any other single medication. The data are weaker for muscle spasticity but moderately promising. The least-promising categories are movement disorders, epilepsy and glaucoma. Animal data are moderately supportive of a potential for cannabinoids in the treatment of movement disorders and might eventually yield stronger encouragement.”The Institute of Medicine report does say that “it does not follow from this that smoking marijuana is good medicine,” which is the only sentence McCaffrey ever quoted. That statement is followed, however, by noting that “patients who are currently suffering from debilitating conditions unrelieved by legally available drugs, and who might find relief with smoked marijuana, will find little comfort in a promise of a better drug 10 years from now.” Therefore, “Until a nonsmoked rapid-onset cannabinoid drug-delivery system becomes available, we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting.”The FDA statement was not preceded by any new studies or surveys of the literature, it was simply posted on the agency's Web site. It represents a willful determination to ignore science to buttress the harmful policy of marijuana prohibition.Politics over science. Sad.Source: Appeal-Democrat (Marysville, CA)Published: Sunday, April 30, 2006 Copyright: 2006 Appeal-DemocratContact: jcalderon appealdemocrat.comWebsite: Articles & Web Site:IOM Report Denies Medical Value of Marijuana Medical Marijuana: Reefer Madness Loses Credibility With Jab at Medical Pot 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #15 posted by FoM on November 24, 2009 at 13:52:45 PT
No medicine should cost that much money.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by Hope on November 24, 2009 at 13:25:26 PT
Well, I'm scared.
Doc just prescribed me something for back and neck pain called rofi something... that's usually for arthritis but she said it might be easier on my ulcers than what I'm taking. The pharmacy was out of it so it's being ordered.She also prescribed me a two week round of a new kind of antibiotic for my ulcers that supposedly might not kill me... I took it to the wally world pharmacy and when I went to pick it up, I nearly fainted. It was way over four hundred dollars! My mind was so boggled I forgot the exact amount... but it was over four hundred dollars. I had to tell them "Sorry, but I can't afford that." They said they understood.:0(
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by observer on November 24, 2009 at 10:58:38 PT
Merck 'knew of Vioxx fears before withdrawal'
link ... Company 'knew of drug fears before withdrawal' (
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by observer on November 24, 2009 at 10:54:55 PT
Vioxx Kills (It Is Not Pot,, So that is OK)
Tuesday, 24 November 2009Company 'knew of drug fears before withdrawal'By John von Radowitz, Press AssociationEvidence that the painkiller Vioxx might increase the risk of heart attacks and strokes emerged nearly four years before the drug was voluntarily withdrawn from the market, research has shown.Vioxx, the brand name for rofecoxib, was designed to fight the pain of arthritis...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by observer on October 27, 2008 at 10:49:09 PT
Vioxx - How Merck made a killing
How Merck made a killing``Stockmarket pressure to find "blockbuster" drugs has forced drug companies to push products to market ever more aggressively. In the case of Merck's painkiller Vioxx, this had disastrous and lethal results. This is the story of how a blockbuster backfired'' sure am glad the FDA is protecting us from the harms that we could suffer should large pharma companies like Merck lose revenue. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by observer on May 21, 2006 at 14:13:30 PT
FDA, Vioxx
FDA Warns that Paxil Makes Depressed Adults Suicidal stroke risk 'could last years' Starts Adversely Affecting Patients After 4 Months, Not 18 ...
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by runderwo on May 01, 2006 at 23:39:35 PT
55,000 people may have died does not mean 55,000 people died. That is like how pundits say 200,000 people will have die due to Chernobyl, but most science-based estimates place it between 5,000 and 15,000. And even if you assume that 55,000 died because of the drug, how many were helped by it? The most liberal estimate put the risk of heart attack at 0.4%, compared to 0.1% on Aleve.I do not support any action that reduces the choice of people to take whatever drug they can afford, that they believe helps them, and where the risks are clearly labeled so that they can make an informed decision.Is Canada bought off by Big Pharma too?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by afterburner on May 01, 2006 at 20:52:01 PT
Medical Malfeasance
"Like other government agencies, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is filled with appointed officials who have close ties to the industries that they’re supposed to be monitoring. According to a study conducted by USA Today, 'More than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions.'60 The study also found that at more than 90 percent of FDA advisory committee meetings, at least one committee member had a conflict of interest by having a financial stake in the topic or drug being discussed.61 As a result, the FDA often makes decisions that benefit corporations and hurt consumers."This problem of federal agencies that regulate industries using members of the same industries has been endemic since the beginning of the agencies. "The FDA has also recently been involved in other widely publicized scandals that clearly illustrate the fact that the agency’s ties to the industry are overshadowing its better judgment. For instance, the FDA has been accused of pressuring its scientists to 'water down' findings that indicated the drug Vioxx doubled consumers’ risks of heart attacks and strokes.66 Vioxx has since been withdrawn from the market, but up to 55,000 people may have died because they took the drug."I don't consider 55,000 possible deaths to be a small issue, and pressuring scientists to 'water down' health warnings is medical malfeasance. These are the people safeguarding the health of the nation?There may be even worse examples of the FDA's incompetence, but because of the media exposure, many more people know about Vioxx.
FDA:Pawn? posted by mai_bong_city
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by runderwo on May 01, 2006 at 14:11:31 PT
Yes, it was voluntarily withdrawn, but has not returned to market even though the FDA lifted the ban after extensive research was conducted. I still consider it a bad example because the magnitude of harm caused by it doesn't justify the amount of attention it received compared to other monstrous FDA blunders.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by mai_bong_city on May 01, 2006 at 07:20:25 PT
fda connections
the fda is a fraud.....and i was a victim of vioxx and bextra before they knew - yes it did raise my blood pressure to stroke range and was not responsive then to traditional blood pressure meds to reduce - finally the doc pulled the drugs and my blood pressure was restored to normal....i just wanted to put this link here to show how the fda is tied to big pharma and worthlessly corrupt.
me i'm about out of answers. i'm sick. i've lost two crops after nine months of trying to supply my own medicine, a hundred or so dollars in nutrients, much time and love and nothing to show, now. one crop was pollinated by a rogue ruderalis and then a fungus got my last. the seed banks have been shut down from the DEA, and even though we have passed a medical marijuana law in our state, we have no co-op situations and patients are still suffering....everyone is still afraid of the feds....including me.
i've worked hard to get the medicine i need - and others need - one shouldn't have to work so hard just to medicate an illness - we're already compromised....
i don't know what the answer is and now i wonder if freedom from pain and suffering will ever be allowed in my body's lifespan. it exists - in cannabis - that one elusive thing, sadly.
well, fellow comrades, i wish you peace. i'm putting the link in text and on url in case i screw up again :) .....worth a look. i had seen the figures before and when i saw this latest article this morning i wanted to find something that shows what dirty rotten scoundrels they really are...
greenest dreams, friends.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Toker00 on May 01, 2006 at 05:44:29 PT
Denies, Denies, Denies the Lies.
They deny the Truth, they deny the Lies. They deny that they deny The Truth and then they deny that they deny The Lies. Therefore, in my mind, they have become the Federal Denying Administration. They will deny anything, they will deny everything. Request, DENIED.Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by observer on May 01, 2006 at 05:25:06 PT
Vioxx ....''Rofecoxib (IPA: [rofəˈcɒxɪb]) is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) that was used in the treatment of osteoarthritis, acute pain conditions, and dysmenorrhoea. Formerly marketed by Merck & Co. under the trade names Vioxx, Ceoxx and Ceeoxx, it was voluntarily withdrawn from the market in 2004 because of concerns about increased risk of heart attack and stroke.''
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by runderwo on May 01, 2006 at 00:01:28 PT
I'd be careful about using Vioxx as an example of FDA incompetence. After all, it was found to be no more of a heart risk than ibuprofen. It's more an example of people not heeding the warnings and then suing while the media blitz was going on. There are some better examples in here: Also, check this out:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by observer on April 30, 2006 at 19:52:50 PT
Marijuana Activist Denies FDA Has Medical Value
Thalidomide ... Vioxx ... Celebrex ... Fen-PhenThe FDA doesn't exist to help you. It exists to provide rationale for government to jail you, and jail for what you were once legally allowed to grow and take.Things you were once legally allowed to grow and take, before corrupted big business bought off a corrupted US Congress when they created the FDA, that is. Now the FDA's job is to "protect" us from "snake-oil" that someone (other than a huge pharma-company) might make. No thanks. We don't need the FDA to make propaganda for big pharma companies. We don't need the FDA to churn out lying "reasons" for jailing cannabis users. Let's face it: the FDA (and heck, most of the US government) is little more than make-work for bureaucrats. The FDA exists to provide a veneer of government approval for the ghastly experiments big-pharma wants to test on the unwitting public (like, Thalidomide, Vioxx, Celebrex, Fen-Phen, just scratching the surface here). Mistakes are buried, the herd's attention is diverted, and the process repeats. So the current mission of the FDA is to denegrate cannabis users as primitive witches, deserving of jail and at least government re-education ("treatment") for their sins of using a crude plant, rather than FDA-government approved, pharma-created chorinated/flourinated analogues of the naturally occuring compound. Here's what the FDA should be doing: nothing. They are an oppressive, political agency, one that should not exist. I'd 1,000 times over rather take my chances with "snake oil" than having to work around an oppressive, lying, politically infected, tool-of-big-pharma, FDA. 
automatic detection of drug war propaganda 24/7
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by John Tyler on April 30, 2006 at 14:02:40 PT
Alaska the freedom state
Alaska House Upholds Best Marijuana Law in the U.S. 
by Marijuana Policy Project (20 Apr, 2006) House Rejects Murkowski’s Marijuana Bill; MPP Urges Legislators to Take a Hard Look at DataIn a stunning upset, MPP's coalition in Alaska has won a major victory against efforts to re-criminalize marijuana in Alaska. On Wednesday, against all odds, the Alaska House of Representatives voted 21-19 to reject Gov. Frank Murkowski's (R) bill to wipe out Alaska's good marijuana law — the best state marijuana law in the nation.Currently, Alaska is the only state where any aspect of recreational marijuana use is legal, but Murkowski's legislation would re-criminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in the home and send Alaska back to the Dark Ages. His outrageous bill would make the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana the same as for incest, burglary, or possessing child pornography — up to five years in prison. 
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment