Nicotine

@Aedes,

Zetherin;69504 wrote:

However, are there actually any active ingredients in tobacco or cannabis that, if smoked in moderation, can be beneficial? I've heard that this is so with cannabis, but for all I know it's hearsay.

Doctors have been known to prescribe marijuana to patients. That's not hearsay, it's fact. It is also a fact that a number of nations have legalized medical marijuana. Fourteen US states allow patients access to medical marijuana. These are all facts. Real research has been conducted and is ongoing regarding the benefits of marijuana. Marijuana can be beneficial, but as Aedes has said, we also have to ask if the benefits outweigh the risks and if better treatment is available. This sort of consideration, it seems, would be exactly what a doctor and patient would have to talk about on a case by case basis.

1 Reply

@William,

DT, this is particularly true with prescriptions of alcohol (more specifically wine) to patients, which physicians have been doing for thousands of years. You might recall that Maimonides, who was the greatest Jewish philosopher and theologian of the middle ages, was also the chief physician to the vizier of Egypt. He wrote a famous letter to the vizier prescribing wine, even though wine is forbidden in Islam, defending his prescription since his domain in medicine is purely matters of the body.

Wine is coming back now, with its interesting and salubrious effects, especially on coronary artery disease. But alcohol comes with the downsides of addiction, violence, drunkenness, and near impossiblity standardizing a dose. Alcohol also has much different kinetics of elimination than most other drugs. So all we can make is a soft suggestion while weighing patients' risks.

0 Replies

@William,

Without laboring the point, my thinking behind the thread was to discuss the power of these "drugs". Why we use them and why it is so very hard to "put them down". You would think it common sense, if it is declared by "experts" the use of these substances is "killing" us, it would be a no brainer. But we don't. We will jump out of airplanes to get the adrenalin and endorphins to kick in to give us "that high" everyone is so desperate for, risking our life in the process. It doesn't matter if it is jumping out of an airplane, snorting cocaine, taking a toke, smoking a cigarette, getting drunk, huffing aerosol cans, mainlining or what have you. People are willing to risk their lives to get somewhere reality cannot provide for them, and the dollars keep rolling in.

I think of the horrible outcome of our economy if someone were to discover the cure for cancer, heart disease and diabeties. Unfortunately, I think there are others who are thinking the same thing. What would happen to the economy if we stopped getting sick. When you think about it, our economy thrives on the frailties of human beings and what they are willing to do in order to survive. Billions and billions of dollars are made on such frailties. It seems we are in a major paradox here; we're damned it we do, and were damned if we don't. What are willing to do to ditch this senseless economic system and do the real research we need to be doing, or continue to survive looking the other way. There is a gross amount of money made waiting to die. People do these things because they have an extremely hard time surviving in this reality, and are unconsciously trying to seek somehing it doesn't offer naturally risking that life to do so as if it doesn't matter to them if they live or die. We have volumes upon volumes upon volumes of tomes it takes years and years of study that is efforting to do one thing, figure our the body and why it does what it does from the brain to on down. The more we try, the more volumes we add to the list. God, we want to live. and we will do anything to get there, even smoke deadly cigarettes. People don't participate in these activities because they want to die, they do it to find some escape from this insane reality. IMO, that is the bottom line.

So we have built into the system a defense mechanism for those who are dependent on it, as they profess "how great life is" and you must do as we say if you want to live. Understand!!!!!!! You obey our laws, take our medicine, listen to us and you will enjoy life. It is becoming more and more and more absurd and it is driving people insane. Good, very good people in search for life. We are commiting suicide to get there, to the point we raise our hands in despair and say "well, that's just life"; I disagree. That is not life, not by a long shot.

Money is being made everywhere defending this so called life that is spending a trillion dollars a year on drugs to survive and yet all they get is a chance to spend more money as they survive longer. Life has become a food chain in which those at the top devour those at the bottom to maintain lifestyles, status, heirarchy and thrones of godliness who thrive on that food chain.

I am not pointing the finger at anyone here. It's been this way for a long time now; call it "forever"; and that is the last resort statement when we arrive at deadends, "it's always been that way" it's nature, it's evolution, it's just the way it is. Yes, it is true, that is the way it is, but it is not the way it was meant to be.

It is only going to get worse if we stay on this path in our efforts to figure it all out. We have experience enough to understand we will never be able to do that. But it is profitable, isn't it?

William

1 Reply

@William,

William;69587 wrote:

I think of the horrible outcome of our economy if someone were to discover the cure for cancer, heart disease and diabeties. Unfortunately, I think there are others who are thinking the same thing. What would happen to the economy if we stopped getting sick.

Malthus worried about that, and proposed that populations would keep expanding and expanding. But he's been shown incorrect over and over and over again. High death rates correlate closely with high population growth, especially with infant mortality.

The population in Europe, despite having the highest life expectancy in the world, is plummeting. Birth rates in several countries (most famously Italy) are insufficient to maintain population. There are going to be problems with unfilled jobs. The fastest population growth, on the other hand, is in places where medical care is poorest.

Finally, no one escapes illness and death. For what it's worth, in my experience people who live into their 90s or to over 100 are the ones who have escaped diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc, and when they die it's either because they just functionally decline (perhaps from a hip fracture, perhaps from Alzheimers), or they catch an infection like pneumonia and die of that. Their deaths are fairly quick and they don't need decades of expensive and complicated medical care. It's probably LESS burdensome on a healthcare system.

0 Replies

@William,

Aedes, that statement was a bit tougue in cheat. It was meant to be ironic. All of our problems are the result of "what it cost to live", as you mentioned relating to unfulfulled jobs. We have the technology now that will allow people to "spread out" and not be limited by ethnic rules an regulations which is what Italy, Japan, China, Iraq are. Some peoples are not bound by such ethnicities for they live everywhere, yet they claim a homeland that is their home. All people have the right to live any where they want to. It's called freedom. Why is it that only a select few "peoples" have the means to live anywhere they want to and others don't. That was the original intent of the American model. To allow people to understand the workings of what ethnically separated us, yet it seems we use those ethnicities to keep us apart. Most of those who remain ethnically separated I think is because what that original beautiful model of America has become as it "worships money". It was not always that way. Capitalism change all that. Now where did that come from? If you truly want to make this a better world, that is what has to go, then Italy wouldn't be having the problems it is having, nor would I with my heart problems. I just simply didn't have the money to survive the way society dictated it. So I didn't listen to it's advice.

All of our science is dependent on supporting this economic system which is what I was focusing on when I made that statement about cancer, heart and diabetes. Sure it is easy to blame it on genes as if lifestyle has nothing to do with that genetic behavior as we seem to think we can "fix it". Pardon me, but what a crock. I appreciate what you have to say and I fully understand why you say it. I do, I really do. But what concerns me is your not responding to the entire context of what the post had to say. That is exactly how we can get off subject is by picking communication apart that prevents us from staying on topic, and begins to involve all the limbs of a decaying tree creating more limbs thereby making life more complicated.

I started the thread to begin a communication about what it is that makes us addicted, and all of a sudden we are talking about Italy and europe and the population problem. See how communication and understanding and critical thought can become so convoluted, solving nothing, but extending the status quo that solves no problems what so ever, only exacerbates them even more. Money it takes to live and the profits it derives from those extreme measures we take in order to live is the root problem. Nicotine is but one of those extremes.

William

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;69560 wrote:

Doctors have been known to prescribe marijuana to patients. That's not hearsay, it's fact. It is also a fact that a number of nations have legalized medical marijuana. Fourteen US states allow patients access to medical marijuana. These are all facts. Real research has been conducted and is ongoing regarding the benefits of marijuana. Marijuana can be beneficial, but as Aedes has said, we also have to ask if the benefits outweigh the risks and if better treatment is available. This sort of consideration, it seems, would be exactly what a doctor and patient would have to talk about on a case by case basis.

I'm aware of the legalization and prescription. I know these are facts. What I was seeking was why this is so. I didn't know if there was any truth to the supposed benefits of marijuana. The next part of my inquiry was whether there are any health benefits of pure tobacco. I'm aware of the risk to benefit consideration, to clarify.

As an amateur nutritionist, I consistently research claims relating to human health. I take pleasure in finding out which claims are bullshit and which hold true, and I wanted to see Aedes' perspective. Not to fear, I will continue my own personal research.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;69641 wrote:

As an amateur nutritionist, I consistently research claims relating to human health. I take pleasure in finding out which claims are bullshit and which hold true, and I wanted to see Aedes' perspective. Not to fear, I will continue my own personal research.

Hi,

Even scientific research I take with a grain of salt nowadays:

PLoS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

"In conclusion, ... However, it is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this."

From the article in the Economist on this paper:

Fraud in science: Liar! Liar! | The Economist

"The meta-analysis suggested that 14% of researchers in the underlying studies hand seen their colleagues fabricate, falsify, alter or modify data. If the question was posed in more general terms, such as running experiments with deficient methods, failing to report deficiencies or misrepresenting data, the the straight average suggested that 46% of researchers had seen others get up to such shenanigans."

When it comes to money, humans are humans. It is just a matter of the way they present themselves. For me, I think that beggars are the highest form of human intelligence. At least they present themselves in a very believable way ... "I want money". Smile

Rich

0 Replies

@William,

There are health benefits to marijuana. However they are very minor, and essentially palliative. There are better glaucoma treatments, better antiemetics, better appetite stimulants, better anxiolytics, etc. But it is pretty safe, and it works in some people.

---------- Post added at 03:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------

richrf;69645 wrote:

Even scientific research I take with a grain of salt nowadays

Point taken. That said, the most important research is highly scrutinized in a peer-reviewed process, oversight by institutional review boards, corroborative studies, better studies, and then practical implementation. A lot of the error (whether intentional or not) in scientific reports is revealed when better research is done.

I make no claim that research is perfect. Even a perfectly designed and reported clinical study cannot be perfectly applied in actual practice, because a real-world population may differ from a studied population.

But even though, Rich, I acknowledge that I cannot conquer your cynicism (or perhaps even rejection) of allopathic western medicine, I still assert that the stringency of scientific research STILL yields more believable information than uncontrolled "wisdom" or "tradition". I do believe that many traditional, non-western approaches to clinical practice survive because they are indeed efficacious. But it's only when applying scientific scrutiny that we understand better what works, what works best, under what circumstances, and more importantly what causes harm.

Chiropractics, for instance, is well established scientifically to work for chronic neck and back pain. Chiropracters, however, claim it works for all these immunologic disorders, including asthma. It happens that that question has been scientifically studied, in which patients with asthma received either real chiropractic maneuvers or fake (i.e. placebo) ones, and there was no difference in outcomes between groups.

So rather than just accept or reject whole traditions and domains of practice, let's do our diligence to find what works and what doesn't so that medical practice can grow.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Zetherin;69641 wrote:

I know these are facts. What I was seeking was why this is so. I didn't know if there was any truth to the supposed benefits of marijuana.

Well, there is truth. Marijuana has medical benefits. I'm not even sure that is debatable at this point given the research and long history of medical use.

Whether or not marijuana should be used is something to be considered on a case by case basis. That marijuana can be used for medicinal benefits is fact.

There is a great deal of research out there, and much of it can be found online.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;69729 wrote:

Well, there is truth. Marijuana has medical benefits. I'm not even sure that is debatable at this point given the research and long history of medical use.

Whether or not marijuana should be used is something to be considered on a case by case basis. That marijuana can be used for medicinal benefits is fact.

There is a great deal of research out there, and much of it can be found online.

I'm aware, DT. And I've seen some of the research. However, I had never directly asked a doctor before. Reading some online journal is one thing, but seeking advice from a medical professional who's career is to discern the hundreds of studies I read, is another. I think perhaps a doctor would have different perspective. Aedes seems as though he would have a more mature (and accurate) understanding of the matter, and this is why I asked.

Sometimes I ask questions I think I know to certain people to see if their response varies, or to see if I can obtain any further information on the matter. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;69648 wrote:

I still assert that the stringency of scientific research STILL yields more believable information than uncontrolled "wisdom" or "tradition".

Hello Paul, what is uncontrolled wisdom? I think if wisdom is controlled, it's not wisdom. Controlled intelligence and knowledge, yes; controlled wisdom, No. I guess it comes to arriving at a clear definition of what wisdom is. Please what is yours?
Thanks,
William

1 Reply

@William,

William;69741 wrote:

Hello Paul, what is uncontrolled wisdom? I think if wisdom is controlled, it's not wisdom.

Let me take a step back here. Expert opinion in medicine is worth nearly nothing, unless there is no other source of information. A randomized, blinded, controlled trial will yield believable information because steps have been taken to ask a focused question that minimizes error. An expert opinion has none of these measures, i.e. it is uncontrolled. This is true of MOST of the justification behind traditional practices (like ayurveda) and unconventional practices (like magnet therapy). Some are based in experience or tradition, but there has been no standardized way of defining a patient population, a treatment, or an outcome measure, in the context of a statistically meaningful study. So that is uncontrolled.

And what is wisdom? Wisdom is nothing. It's a compliment we pay old people or insightful people.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;69748 wrote:

Let me take a step back here. Expert opinion in medicine is worth nearly nothing, unless there is no other source of information. A randomized, blinded, controlled trial will yield believable information because steps have been taken to ask a focused question that minimizes error. An expert opinion has none of these measures, i.e. it is uncontrolled. This is true of MOST of the justification behind traditional practices (like ayurveda) and unconventional practices (like magnet therapy). Some are based in experience or tradition, but there has been no standardized way of defining a patient population, a treatment, or an outcome measure, in the context of a statistically meaningful study. So that is uncontrolled.

And what is wisdom? Wisdom is nothing. It's a compliment we pay old people or insightful people.

hi aedes-
what about the possibility of someone funding research, let's say a tobacco company, and proving that smoking isnt harmful? from what i see of statistics they can be displayed in such a way as to support findings that are false-the same test results can be used to show opposite conclusions if they are presented in various ways, or if the tests are conducted among particular segments of the population so as to bias the results etc.

i find it hard to trust controlled studies even when i know who the controller is! whenever i run across them, i have to go further, i never take them at face value.

but my question to you is how reliable do you think these studies are, and is there a way to tell which ones are more likely to be? i mean i realize you have already stated their value-you consider them to be near the top. but what is the percentage of reliability on their own. for instance, would you say that 90% of the studies published in medical journals are reliable? would you say that 50% of the studies published in any venue might be reliable? could you clarify that for me?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;69748 wrote:

And what is wisdom? Wisdom is nothing. It's a compliment we pay old people or insightful people.

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

William

0 Replies

@William,

It's a good question. All study authors are required to disclose their source of funding and potential conflicts of interest. That doesn't stop them from lying, but they can be in deep trouble if they do. Some studies MUST be funded by industry because there is no other way to get them done, but I don't automatically regard them as flawed if the actual investigators are independent. And in the end, a study is only as good as its methods, which are there for everyone to scrutinize.

I think that the overwhelming majority of unreliable studies are unreliable because they use a suboptimal methodology. Things like case reports, case series, chart reviews, cross-sectional studies, i.e. all observational, uncontrolled research. There is a lot of it, and sometimes it's the best you can get -- it's easier to perform and a lot less expensive than the 'gold standard' randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled trial. Of the good trials with good methodology, the ones that are unreliable due to the authors having a vested interest in the results are in my estimation quite rare and usually obvious.

A more important source of bias is the lack of publication of negative trials -- this is a bias in the literature as a whole, though.

---------- Post added at 09:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 PM ----------

William;69769 wrote:

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I used to think that I aspired to be wise. But then I realized that to be wise is just a matter of how I appear in others' estimation, and do I really need to be wise to appear that way? Or do I just need to work hard, be experienced, and be willing to teach and mentor?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Here's what Mr Wiki says:

"Wisdom is an ideal that has been celebrated since antiquity as the knowledge needed to live a good life".

From then own it really gets complicated. I think wiki has wisdom and knowledge confused. What it defines as wisdom is "knowledge". Knowledge in and of itself, IMO, is not wisdom. Wisdom is extremely rare because there is simply no market for it. Wisdom doesn't put food on the table. If knowledge were indeed wise, there would be no list. We are eat up with knowledge. Wisdom is "assessing" knowledge, IMO, to determine what is "right" and what is "wrong" with that knowledge. Wisdom cannot take sides. It is a spectator. I have mentioned this before; "Wisdom is to realize the value of a sunny day, one has to get a little wet or in today's climate, a thunderstorm". It will lead to the truth. IMO. Many come in out of the rain.

It is understandable why you said what you did, because you and most others can't afford to be wise, your utility is too desperately needed in the thunderstorm we are experiencing. That doesn't mean it is nothing, it's just hard to realize in all this "rain". The best answer, that would, IMO, be appropriate would have been, I don't have time to be wise, I up to my ass in alligators. Ha. Wisdom will guide us through the storm. This forum is doing that ever so slowly simply because there is so much 'knowledge' out there. IMMHO. Thanks, Justin.:a-ok:

William

0 Replies

@William,

Wisdom can't be separated from a person who is wise. Or rather, wisdom is that which is imparted by the wise person. But what is a wise person? There's no measure other than external admiration.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;69784 wrote:

Wisdom can't be separated from a person who is wise. Or rather, wisdom is that which is imparted by the wise person. But what is a wise person? There's no measure other than external admiration.

IMO, most of our philosophers I think were wise to an extent. Wisdom is often a trait we attribute to the East. Buddha for example and others. They allow us to be introspective and examine knowledge. The body has innate wisdom and knows what it needs. It will tell us at it weathers the storms we put it through in our effort to understand it is a good example. It is a simple understanding and we get lost as we try and understand it. It is a simplicity the is irrefutable in it's logic and reason. IMO.
William

0 Replies

@William,

Ordinarily I'd point out that we're going off track, but it's your thread so no problema.

I can't credit philosophers with being wise in comparison to historically accomplished people from any other walk of life. They were diligent and smart, and they applied that to abstract questions. Beethoven and Liszt were diligent and smart, and they applied that to music, where their interests and talents lay. Jefferson and Lincoln did it as statesmen, Mark Twain as an author, Thomas Edison as an inventor, etc.

So is it merely the choice of undertaking that made them wise?

I like the idea of the polymath, i.e. the renaissance men who excelled at many subjects, like Benjamin Franklin, like Leonardo da Vinci, and indeed like Aristotle. I don't think this world can really accomodate people like that anymore. What I'm learning as I push forward in academia is that you need to excel at one thing to get somewhere, you need to keep pushing and developing it. It's hard to be a physician AND a priest AND a mathematician AND an inventor AND a poet, or whatever, much as I'd love to be hugely accomplished at several things. That is an interesting sort of person, though I'm still not sure if "wise" applies. I have a unique wisdom with respect to my son, who is 14 months old. I understand him. Not necessarily the baby talk, but just what's going on in his mind. That's the insight I mean -- where I can see through something. Of course I made him and I've nurtured him. But that's where experience creates wisdom.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;69792 wrote:

Ordinarily I'd point out that we're going off track, but it's your thread so no problema.

I can't credit philosophers with being wise in comparison to historically accomplished people from any other walk of life. They were diligent and smart, and they applied that to abstract questions. Beethoven and Liszt were diligent and smart, and they applied that to music, where their interests and talents lay. Jefferson and Lincoln did it as statesmen, Mark Twain as an author, Thomas Edison as an inventor, etc.

So is it merely the choice of undertaking that made them wise?

I like the idea of the polymath, i.e. the renaissance men who excelled at many subjects, like Benjamin Franklin, like Leonardo da Vinci, and indeed like Aristotle. I don't think this world can really accomodate people like that anymore. What I'm learning as I push forward in academia is that you need to excel at one thing to get somewhere, you need to keep pushing and developing it. It's hard to be a physician AND a priest AND a mathematician AND an inventor AND a poet, or whatever, much as I'd love to be hugely accomplished at several things. That is an interesting sort of person, though I'm still not sure if "wise" applies. I have a unique wisdom with respect to my son, who is 14 months old. I understand him. Not necessarily the baby talk, but just what's going on in his mind. That's the insight I mean -- where I can see through something. Of course I made him and I've nurtured him. But that's where experience creates wisdom.

Paul, wisdom is all I have. I have never excelled in anything in my entire life. Why? I could play by the rules this reality dictated for as far back as I can remember. When my purpose for "being", if you can call it that, is over, I will, surely as I am sitting here typing these words, die. There will be little note of me except the words I leave behind. That's all. I have experienced much, the good, the bad and the ugly of it. Such as is what I think is my destiny as it was out of my control like a puppet without strings, like a probe sent to assess life thus far and record my findings without bias, prejudice or self defense: yet I had to experience those to truly to understand what they really mean. Ask me to explain that? I can't. All I own, you can put into the truck of a car. In my mind, I have not paid a price, it has been a joy in terms most cannot equate to. As I go through existence, I will always take up where I left off, just a little more polished, bright and shiny. We must all believe that. IMO. I don't want to survive, I want to live. Hopefully what I leave behind will aide others who desire the same thing. It is free. So many times I thought of writing a book, but the final chapter still is ellusive to me as it will always be. It's always been that way. I'm not done yet. When it is, so will I be done for this go around.

Now reeling me back in, Ha, I have get ready to go out of town and visit my daughter's so they can wish me a Happy Father's day.

Willliam

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know