Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Nuvo Research Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Montana Wildhack who wrote (7102)	4/6/2001 1:05:07 PM
From: russet	Respond to of 14101

Pain Management,...if smoking pot works for you,...who are we to say no. Pot has been in testing for hundreds, if not thousands of years,...just like alcohol. Would common aspirin be passed by the great seers in the Health boards that act in the rest of our best interests to protect us from the evil drugs out there?? I'm sure the answer is "sometimes" :-((( Now an effective treatment of pain management might be to stop the nerves from delivering the pain message. How you ask? (You probably know what's coming next :-))) Sodium ion channel blockers! What is a good source of this medicine (gggggggggg). How about the puffer fish. Have a little Fugu and stop the nasty nerve impulses. It is now entering combined phase 1b and 1c tests in Canada for pain managment as well as non addicting opiate withdrawal,...and no side effects issues have arisen with these mild doses. It deserves a look. http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=15614094

To: Montana Wildhack who wrote (7102)	4/6/2001 1:09:13 PM
From: Joe Krupa	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14101

Wolf, Thanks for your opinions - I love good debate. "Reality is that today these people have no viable solution and you heard me mention the morphine case. Possible and equally unproven side effects (except for the smoking aspect) are insufficent reason in my view to withold the ability to see if marijauna can ease pain in extreme cases right now." Wolf I really want to agree with you on this, and I do to some extent. However, if the agencies we rely on and "trust" to fully ensure the safety and efficacy of the drugs they tell us we should take, start to make exceptions, then a massive can of worms can be opened. I hear your points above, but, consider that there are thousands of late stage AIDS victims, who "have no viable solution." Should regulatory agencies forgo the completion of clinical trials of WF10, and the subsequent statistical confirmation of the drug's safety and efficacy, because the patients need the drug "now," rather than later. WF10 may very likely save their lives, but is it ethical to do so before the clinical evidence is in? (I have an opinion on this, but the real answer is very debatable) Wolf, based on your argument, I suppose you could re-write you point above to read as follows: "Possible and equally unproven side effects are insufficent reason in my view to withold the ability to see if [WF10] can [save lives] in extreme [AIDS] cases right now." Again Wolf, I agree with you to some extent. However, I see the can of worms being opened. joe