Drugs live Cannabis on trial, trial based on bad MRI science
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2015 3:26 pm
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) hasn't be found to be useful in measuring any psychotropic drug altering brain dopamine activity during any trials, for if it had pharmaceutical organisations would be using it to design psychotropic’s for psychiatric conditions or for even validating the results. Is this drugs live cannabis trial attempting to validate MRI for psychotropic and psychological analysis? And MRI isn't a direct measuring instrument for brain activities, so cannot be used for measuring the effects of cannabis directly on the brain, it's just too inaccurate for anything brain personality wise currently but maybe that will be improved in the future.
Why wasn't fMRI chosen for this trial, as its more likely to be useful in that its even more modern technology and live? The problem with MRI and fMRI is that so many different daily activities show completely the same results as shown on the programme, and even across supposedly unique research of brain activity in precisely the same areas of the brain in hemodynamic, why is this research information ignored or not even mentioned? Also the sample size is amazingly small and neuroimaging is still in its research phase for establishing its usefulness in any area concerning brain activities. The listening to music activity that was used to validate the neuroimaging was highly criticised originally for only using a small sample size, and that so many different activities show precisely the same results within the brain areas analysed.
The explanation of switch banks in the brain and there are billions and billions of neuron receptors & transmitters that science cannot even detect with any instrumentation, dopamine isn't even detectable either by MRI/fMRI, so the meaning of these in different areas of the brain is amusing to say the least, just unscientific. Pretty MRI brain images doesn't make good science, correlation to even dopamine in the MRI scanner has not been established, so how can you talk about receptors of what?
The statistical figures don't seem to validate anything in relation to the amazing nonsense percentiles, never have I seen in any research paper or trial on any psychotropic’s having such a massive percentile effect. World first results in psychotropic MRI and psychological analysis trial of twenty individuals, isn't good research science its utter nonsense. Even thou this was double blind trial, why did we not hear from the placebo trialists or even from those taking the placebo and the findings of that group. And where the research paper for this cannabis MRI trial and what is were they actually measuring but large blobs on an image that can be caused by zillions of stimuli.
Psychiatric units no longer take those suffering from drug induced psychosis, but only for those suffering true psychosis from those suffering mental illness, as those suffering from drug induced psychosis recover in a short period of time. A 170 year paper that states that cannabis causes psychosis isn't really a research paper of any significance, and neither is 1 individual suffering from drug induced psychosis from their personal observation without validation. The research mentioned in other countries by the programme that have decriminalised cannabis use shows that psychosis is less likely in those countries, so reinforcing that these statistical analysis seem to be meaningless across studies.
John the presenter who had a bad experience taking cannabis during the trials, forcefully expressed his experiences above those of the other participants and that is a bias trial study. Why didn't they have two presenters, one that had a pleasurable experience and the other presenter giving his views? Professor David Nutt was the only individual talking and making any sense of all the others, including the presenter, and the others who were just following the main presenter's prompts, prescript or what. Whenever anyone had anything good to say about cannabis they were quickly cut off by the presenter, surely there are two sides to the story not just yours. Sir Richard Branson was cut off at the beginning of the programme concerning decriminalising cannabis for it worked favourable in other countries, another individual talking some sense.
The overall presentation of this documentary was that it was factual, in fact anything could be further from the truth, as the trials used to base their trial on are flawed themselves when using MRI and you cannot base science on top of bad science, it's just unproductive and lying to the populous.
Why wasn't fMRI chosen for this trial, as its more likely to be useful in that its even more modern technology and live? The problem with MRI and fMRI is that so many different daily activities show completely the same results as shown on the programme, and even across supposedly unique research of brain activity in precisely the same areas of the brain in hemodynamic, why is this research information ignored or not even mentioned? Also the sample size is amazingly small and neuroimaging is still in its research phase for establishing its usefulness in any area concerning brain activities. The listening to music activity that was used to validate the neuroimaging was highly criticised originally for only using a small sample size, and that so many different activities show precisely the same results within the brain areas analysed.
The explanation of switch banks in the brain and there are billions and billions of neuron receptors & transmitters that science cannot even detect with any instrumentation, dopamine isn't even detectable either by MRI/fMRI, so the meaning of these in different areas of the brain is amusing to say the least, just unscientific. Pretty MRI brain images doesn't make good science, correlation to even dopamine in the MRI scanner has not been established, so how can you talk about receptors of what?
The statistical figures don't seem to validate anything in relation to the amazing nonsense percentiles, never have I seen in any research paper or trial on any psychotropic’s having such a massive percentile effect. World first results in psychotropic MRI and psychological analysis trial of twenty individuals, isn't good research science its utter nonsense. Even thou this was double blind trial, why did we not hear from the placebo trialists or even from those taking the placebo and the findings of that group. And where the research paper for this cannabis MRI trial and what is were they actually measuring but large blobs on an image that can be caused by zillions of stimuli.
Psychiatric units no longer take those suffering from drug induced psychosis, but only for those suffering true psychosis from those suffering mental illness, as those suffering from drug induced psychosis recover in a short period of time. A 170 year paper that states that cannabis causes psychosis isn't really a research paper of any significance, and neither is 1 individual suffering from drug induced psychosis from their personal observation without validation. The research mentioned in other countries by the programme that have decriminalised cannabis use shows that psychosis is less likely in those countries, so reinforcing that these statistical analysis seem to be meaningless across studies.
John the presenter who had a bad experience taking cannabis during the trials, forcefully expressed his experiences above those of the other participants and that is a bias trial study. Why didn't they have two presenters, one that had a pleasurable experience and the other presenter giving his views? Professor David Nutt was the only individual talking and making any sense of all the others, including the presenter, and the others who were just following the main presenter's prompts, prescript or what. Whenever anyone had anything good to say about cannabis they were quickly cut off by the presenter, surely there are two sides to the story not just yours. Sir Richard Branson was cut off at the beginning of the programme concerning decriminalising cannabis for it worked favourable in other countries, another individual talking some sense.
The overall presentation of this documentary was that it was factual, in fact anything could be further from the truth, as the trials used to base their trial on are flawed themselves when using MRI and you cannot base science on top of bad science, it's just unproductive and lying to the populous.