Sativex® approved in Germany for treatment of MS spasticity

A cannabis derived drug which has been approved in some countries to treat muscle spasticity.

Postby HarryZ » Mon May 30, 2011 2:06 pm

The debate you suggested, as interesting as it would be, would never get anywhere because it will be opinion versus evidence... can't be compared.


If evidence was always correct, then I would agree with you. But in the real world this doesn't happen. One only has to look at opposing researchers looking at the same evidence and coming up with different theories.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Advertisement

Postby willowford » Mon May 30, 2011 2:17 pm

HarryZ wrote:
The debate you suggested, as interesting as it would be, would never get anywhere because it will be opinion versus evidence... can't be compared.


If evidence was always correct, then I would agree with you. But in the real world this doesn't happen. One only has to look at opposing researchers looking at the same evidence and coming up with different theories.

Harry


Yes, researchers are fully aware of this and that is why a single study is never "proof" of anything. (non-scientists sometimes believe that it is, but this is certainly not the case). There are many examples that I won't bore you with. But individual responses are certainly more inconsistent than studies based on large populations. The difference is that individual stories are dichotomous: I like this med, I dislike this med. Whereas data from objective studies gives us a lot more information that is less likely to be biased.
Researchers are trained in understanding and teasing out the reasons for inconsistent findings.

If you are after 100% accuracy, then certainly relying on personal opinions of anonymous individuals online is the exact opposite of that.
User avatar
willowford
Family Elder
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:00 pm

Postby HarryZ » Mon May 30, 2011 3:55 pm

Yes, researchers are fully aware of this and that is why a single study is never "proof" of anything. (non-scientists sometimes believe that it is, but this is certainly not the case).


Well, how many studies have there been on the DMDs? Too many to count. Yet Dr. P.O. Behan's interpretation of them vs the established MS scientific community is day and night. Same data, same evidence...very different points of view.

That's why on ThisIsMs you will get a lot of varied opinions based on the same "evidence". Some perhaps correct, some perhaps wrong but it does make for interesting reading.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby willowford » Mon May 30, 2011 4:08 pm

HarryZ wrote:
Yes, researchers are fully aware of this and that is why a single study is never "proof" of anything. (non-scientists sometimes believe that it is, but this is certainly not the case).


Well, how many studies have there been on the DMDs? Too many to count. Yet Dr. P.O. Behan's interpretation of them vs the established MS scientific community is day and night. Same data, same evidence...very different points of view.

That's why on ThisIsMs you will get a lot of varied opinions based on the same "evidence". Some perhaps correct, some perhaps wrong but it does make for interesting reading.

Harry


I am convinced that you are not understanding what I am saying because your comments are at a different level. This is what I meant earlier. You and I cannot have debates because it's like arguing apples vs oranges. You are looking at things at individual, personal, opinion-based levels. I have no thoughts on that. I am referring to evidence-based medical practice. That is not something that patients are usually concerned with because patients don't treat 1000s of other patients - they're just trying to discover the best approach for them.
Evidence based medicine cannot be compared with personal opinions and preferences. So it's best to either end up on the same page before debating, or stop the debate right here.

I respect your PERSONAL opinion for YOU... I apologize if individual opinions of one patient aren't going to affect necessarily the treatment of all other patients. But unfortunately, without a magic ball to give us the "truth" about things, we have to rely on the scientific method.
User avatar
willowford
Family Elder
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:00 pm

Postby willowford » Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm

HarryZ wrote:
Yes, researchers are fully aware of this and that is why a single study is never "proof" of anything. (non-scientists sometimes believe that it is, but this is certainly not the case).


Well, how many studies have there been on the DMDs? Too many to count. Yet Dr. P.O. Behan's interpretation of them vs the established MS scientific community is day and night. Same data, same evidence...very different points of view.

That's why on ThisIsMs you will get a lot of varied opinions based on the same "evidence". Some perhaps correct, some perhaps wrong but it does make for interesting reading.

Harry


By the way, evidence has a PROPER way for interpretation... some scientists apply these accurately, some make certain errors sometimes. That's acceptable. We're all human. For the most part, individuals not trained in interpretation of research from all educational backgrounds, tend to make certain errors in interpretation of data. This is PARTLY the reason for differences in interpretation. The other reason of course being that no study ever will use the entire population to draw conclusions, but only a representative sample/ subset. This is why much information (using the SAME methodology) is required before drawing sound conclusions.
User avatar
willowford
Family Elder
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:00 pm

Postby willowford » Mon May 30, 2011 4:25 pm

THEGREEKFROMTHED wrote:this may be an impossibility, but should someone know of a practicing physician in Canada that would write me a script please pm me.


Just wanted to apologize to the poster of this topic for the digression. There is no use or purpose for the type of discussion and debate. I frankly am only interested in discussing the topic in the hopes that whoever is interested gains some additional information that is based on facts and evidence which they didn't have before.

All that matter is that you get the accurate information you were looking for regarding cannabis-based medicines. I pointed out the other types of meds because if Sativex proves to be difficult as a US resident at least for the time being, you should be aware of the other options available out there. They too have some beneficial effects in some individuals. But if they are an option to you, you should be aware of them... the trials have shown that they too are safe and MAY be beneficial.

No study has ever said that Sativex or Marinol or any other drug or procedure for that matter is 100% safe and effective in every single individuals; this is a common misinterpretation of studies and causes a lot of disappointment. When a study says Marinol or Sativex is effective, one must keep reading to see the data to find out how often, how effective, what are the side effects and their risks...etc. This is why the trials are not based on one individual's experience; so that unlike individual stories, they can determine what proportion of patients, with what characteristics are more likely to benefit from a particular treatment. This can only be determined if a large number of individuals are assessed and the study is "blinded" (people cannot introduce their biases or expectations).

I hope you were able to find the answers you were looking for either way.
User avatar
willowford
Family Elder
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:00 pm

Postby HarryZ » Mon May 30, 2011 6:43 pm

I am convinced that you are not understanding what I am saying because your comments are at a different level. This is what I meant earlier. You and I cannot have debates because it's like arguing apples vs oranges. You are looking at things at individual, personal, opinion-based levels. I have no thoughts on that. I am referring to evidence-based medical practice. That is not something that patients are usually concerned with because patients don't treat 1000s of other patients - they're just trying to discover the best approach for them.
Evidence based medicine cannot be compared with personal opinions and preferences. So it's best to either end up on the same page before debating, or stop the debate right here.


I do understand what you are saying and realize the difference between opinions and evidence based medicine. But what I am saying is that even "evidence based medicine" is subject to various opinions and thus, you can have discussions involving the two. That's one reason why you can end up with some pretty heated threads here and on other boards.

I respect your PERSONAL opinion for YOU... I apologize if individual opinions of one patient aren't going to affect necessarily the treatment of all other patients. But unfortunately, without a magic ball to give us the "truth" about things, we have to rely on the scientific method.


Unfortunately, one man's "truth" is another man's "lie". In other words, two different people can look at the same scientific evidence and end up in a heated debate as to what it means. Of course this doesn't happen in most scientific situations but it does happen and "has" happened when it comes to MS theories.

I know where you are coming from and I respect your knowledge in the scientific world. But as much as we would like it to be, science isn't always black and white.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Postby willowford » Mon May 30, 2011 7:25 pm

HarryZ wrote:I do understand what you are saying and realize the difference between opinions and evidence based medicine. But what I am saying is that even "evidence based medicine" is subject to various opinions and thus, you can have discussions involving the two. That's one reason why you can end up with some pretty heated threads here and on other boards.

Hi HarryZ, evidence based medicine, by definition should be devoid of personal feelings and biases and its interpretation should be based on the data alone - and not extended to things that the data does not support. This is the definition.
I see your point that no one is perfect and people allow their opinions to get in the way. Keep in mind: as soon as personal biases enter the picture, the debate is, by definition, no longer a scientific one, but an emotional one. The science goes out the window right away. I see this as well so of course I'm aware of it. The only unfortunate part is when patients see these "bickerings" that are not factual and make important decisions based on them that affects their lives. This is not fair to patients who are relying on doctors to remain objective.


Unfortunately, one man's "truth" is another man's "lie". In other words, two different people can look at the same scientific evidence and end up in a heated debate as to what it means. Of course this doesn't happen in most scientific situations but it does happen and "has" happened when it comes to MS theories.


Exactly what you said (one man's truth is another man's lie), is the reason why scientific process was developed, because by definition, humans are biased so relying on anyone's personal opinion, non-experts especially but of course experts (doctors) too, can become problematic.
No one should be getting into heated debates in a true fact-based conversation. If one study found that 50% of subjects reacted a certain way, that is ALL they found; no further interpretation is required about "shoulds" and "musts" until there is more data. If ppl are getting into "heated debates" I automatically know that they are not arguing the evidence, but their personal hopes and fears and biases. The territory of science ended with the simple statement "the study found... blah". The rest is our feelings distorting the data.

I know where you are coming from and I respect your knowledge in the scientific world. But as much as we would like it to be, science isn't always black and white.

Harry


Science itself is black and white; people are not. What I mean by that is that a particular study finds a set of data... no one can change that data (hopefully won't)... it is what was found.

A lot of people say that science is not black and white and they justify this by noting that results of several studies are inconsistent. The fact that results are inconsistent is the BENEFIT of science, not its flaw!

The research question I'm currently working on (related to cannabis but details irrelevant for now), has ~200 studies (pretty low for this field). To someone reading the headlines, the studies appear extremely inconsistent... all over the place!
I have spent 2+ years studying that particular literature in DETAIL, every single original article, every single word, variable, location, inclusionary/exclusionary criteria (I looked at 100s of factors from every single study).
As usual, the results were not that inconsistent, IF we recognize that each study was in fact looking at a different aspect without the authors even realizing it! None of them was "wrong" (how can they be "wrong" about patient results; if a patient had a certain finding, they had it; the authors couldn't be "wrong"). It was just that there was some minor factors that early studies were not yet aware of! Once those were taken into consideration, most findings fell into place. It's as if before we were comparing 10 different methodologies/approaches! Apples, oranges and berries...etc! That's why we thought the literature was inconsistent!

This applies to MOST topics. To someone just reading the "headlines", things will seem all over the place. That's why it's best that someone who is specifically involved in that field interpret the vast array of information and summarize it for the rest of the doctors who don't have the time or energy to go through all that.

Inconsistent results are actually the BEST way to figure out the subtleties of human responses and not just surface level generic yes/no answers (which are almost always wrong given that they are too generic).

e.g.: study A reports 75% improvement with Treatment X for MS... Study B reports 10% improvement with Treatment X for MS! Now multiply this by 50 more studies, each giving different values. Inconsistent?! Only if you read just the headlines and leave it at that. Someone who wants the "actual answer" would go into each of these studies, hash out the methodologies, what sample did they use, how did the groups differ, why was it more effective in one sample but not the other? EVERY SINGLE difference in methodology/ analysis/ sample selection is a clue to why Treatment X works for some, why it works for those people... (x 100 more important answers). And the different responses in turn tell us about differences between the various groups (lots of stuff about primary progressive MS for instance, discovered this way, just via differences in responses that were initially unclear). All this just leads to a better designed study that addresses all these concerns.

Then, after enough studies including the "newly discovered variable", the front-line doc treating a patient with MS looks at the published REVIEW/ CONCLUSIONS based on all these studies, asks him/herself "is my patient represented by the sample in this study", if the answer is no, then the treatment is less likely to be indicated; if the answer is yes, then the treatment is "more likely" (not guaranteed) to be indicated.

Sounds tedious and it is. But scientists and docs do this entire process all the time. I wish patients would be more exposed to the behind the scenes so they don't think that docs just go around prescribing whatever they can spell.

In the end, unlike opinions about favourite colours or hairstyles, there IS an answer to whether e.g., Treatment X helps "most" MS patients or not or more importantly whether the "benefits outweigh the risks" (docs ask this every minute of the day but in their minds).

There is a "truth" when it comes to direct questions like "do the benefits of Treatment X outweigh the risks in the majority of patients with a specific characteristic". What people argue is black and white (Treatment X is "good" or "bad") when in fact it is neither.
Each study gives a black and white answer (not good/bad, but just concrete numbers), but no single study EVER can provide final medical advice. That requires many seemingly "inconclusive" (though in reality helpful) studies.
User avatar
willowford
Family Elder
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:00 pm

Postby HarryZ » Tue May 31, 2011 5:54 am

Willowford,

Without even attempting to reply to your short novel, I think we have hijacked this thread enough and should leave it well alone. My offer still stands to contact me privately should you choose to continue.

Take care.

Harry
User avatar
HarryZ
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: London, ON, Canada

Re: Sativex® approved in Germany for treatment of MS spasti

Postby Thekla » Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:39 pm

Is it now available in Germany? Has anyone heard about getting it prescribed there?
User avatar
Thekla
Family Elder
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 3:00 pm
Location: Germany

Previous

Return to Sativex

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users