Below is a “case report of a severe cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS)” published by government PubMed publication 2016. My comments in italic bold.
Note the sensational headline. Read the abstract.
Remember, these are the same people who brought us this.
(Take a nostalgic stroll down memory lane of classic Drug War propaganda images.)
An Overlooked Victim of Cannabis: Losing Several Years of Well-being and Inches of Jejunum on the Way to Unravel Her Hyperemesis Enigma.
A case report of a severe cannabis hyperemesis syndrome (CHS) is presented (initial diagnosis based on what?) which had worsened during dronabinol administration and was (then) associated with intestinal dysmotility (pseudo-obstruction). Because (the added) dronabinol is an isomer of THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the main psychotropic constituent of cannabis, this case provides first direct clinical evidence on the key role of THC in the obscure pathogenesis of CHS. (No, this only says dronabinol makes whatever the symptoms of the original diagnosis worse. Since the diagnosis of “severe Cannabis Hyperemesis” was already made, how does making it worse show a “first direct clinical evidence on the key role of THC in the obscure pathogenesis of CHS”. Back to its origin. Before the dronabinol was introduced? This is circular logic.)
Another peculiarity of this case was that the patient had an odyssey of hospital stays (good health insurance, thank you Obama) with extensive workups (good money) before the patient herself found via Internet the right diagnosis for her cyclic vomiting and abdominal pain. (Proving what? Good idea though.)
This is typical for CHS, which is often overlooked because physicians refer to the widely known antiemetic properties of cannabis, for example, in cancer chemotherapy but were not always aware of a possible paradoxical emetic reaction of recreational cannabis use. (Stoners not medical marijuana patients? WA state abolished MMJ.) Being pathognomonic of CHS, the patient became symptom-free while abstaining from her (self reported) cannabis use, meanwhile being in her 12th month of controlled abstinence (what exactly does”controlled abstinence” mean? Either you’re pregnant or not.)“.
Where do I begin?
First, the above is an abstract not a case report as claimed. Before coming to conclusions I always read the entire case report . In this case I found the actual full report has been published behind private “viewing services”. In all my years researching gov publications regarding medical marijuana this was the first time I have seen this. Why is the government purposefully making accessibility to government data difficult?
Forcing researchers – and the public – to sign up to see full reports, studies can lead to all sorts of Drug War conspiracy theories. By gathering personal information and traffic logs, “they” can more easily identify (and target?) pro-medical marijuana activists (like me?).
Note the alarming headline. Read the abstract. What in the actual wording justifies the sensational assumptive headline? Not to mention that the abstract itself is crafted to deliver a message without having pesty scientific methodology get in the way i.e. how many obvious variables were not factored in that could easily negate the government’s conclusions? Like pesticides, fungicides, additives commonly found in commercially grown marijuana?
Show me the quantification levels of cannabinoid toxicity?
Prove to me this isn’t War on Marijuana government propaganda redux.
Darlene Brice Jan 1, 2016 – Please feel free to use whatever content you wish with linkback to source appreciated. Brice is an independent medical marijuana researcher and reporter. CannabisConsumerResearch.com MMJHotline.com
509.rocks Pub 02/02