TWEED CANT GROW WELL SO THEY IRRADIATE(COLD PASTURIZATION)

Magenta Thumb said:

There is nothing but anecdote for the terpenes having an effect. There is no clinical evidence that it is anything other than "I prefer lemon cough syrup to cherry" or making aspirin for kids that is chewable and orange flavoured. If you know of any actual clinical studied showing otherwise, I would like to read them and would sit corrected. I hope GW Pharma & Bedrocan are beavering away and such studies so we can finally have some statistically sound evidence.

Any MM supplier that makes flavour claims should back it up with GC data showing proper QC.

Click to expand...

this study might clear this up there are 2 specific Terpens that are affected, no tests or studies have been done on inhaled products, BUT there have be many tests of gamma on many Herbs so now your spliting hairs, one of these Terpens is β-Myrcene which can affect infflamation properties. enjoy the easy reading LOL

Government-approved cannabis supplied to patients in national programmes in the Netherlands and Canada is gamma-irradiated to sterilize coliform bacteria, but the safety of this technique for a smoked and inhaled product has never been specifically tested. Gamma-radiation significantly reduced linalool titres in fresh cilantro (Fan and Sokorai, 2002), and myrcene and linalool in orange juice (Fan and Gates, 2001).

β-Myrcene is another common monoterpenoid in cannabis (Table 2) with myriad activities: diminishing inflammation via prostaglandin E-2 (PGE-2) (Lorenzetti et al., 1991), and blocking hepatic carcinogenesis by aflatoxin (De-Oliveira et al., 1997). Interestingly, myrcene is analgesic in mice, but this action can be blocked by naloxone, perhaps via the α-2 adrenoreceptor (Rao et al., 1990). It is non-mutagenic in the Ames test (Gomes-Carneiro et al., 2005). Myrcene is a recognized sedative as part of hops preparations (Humulus lupulus), employed to aid sleep in Germany (Bisset and Wichtl, 2004). Furthermore, myrcene acted as a muscle relaxant in mice, and potentiated barbiturate sleep time at high doses (do Vale et al., 2002). Together, these data would support the hypothesis that myrcene is a prominent sedative terpenoid in cannabis, and combined with THC, may produce the ‘couch-lock’ phenomenon of certain chemotypes that is alternatively decried or appreciated by recreational cannabis consumers.

D-Linalool is a monoterpenoid alcohol (Table 2), common to lavender (Lavandula angustifolia), whose psychotropic anxiolytic activity has been reviewed in detail (Russo, 2001). Interestingly, linalyl acetate, the other primary terpenoid in lavender, hydrolyses to linalool in gastric secretions (Bickers et al., 2003). Linalool proved sedating to mouse activity on inhalation (Buchbauer et al., 1991; Jirovetz et al., 1992). In traditional aromatherapy, linalool is the likely suspect in the remarkable therapeutic capabilities of lavender EO to alleviate skin burns without scarring (Gattefosse, 1993). Pertinent to this, the local anaesthetic effects of linalool (Re et al., 2000) are equal to those of procaine and menthol (Ghelardini et al., 1999). Another explanation would be its ability to produce hot-plate analgesia in mice (P < 0.001) that was reduced by administration of an adenosine A2A antagonist (Peana et al., 2006). It is also anti-nociceptive at high doses in mice via ionotropic glutamate receptors (Batista et al., 2008). Linalool demonstrated anticonvulsant and anti-glutamatergic activity (Elisabetsky et al., 1995), and reduced seizures as part of Ocimum basilicum EO after exposure to pentylenetetrazole, picrotoxin and strychnine (Ismail, 2006). Furthermore, linalool decreased K+-stimulated glutamate release and uptake in mouse synaptosomes (Silva Brum et al., 2001). These effects were summarized (Nunes et al., 2010, p. 303): ‘Overall, it seems reasonable to argue that the modulation of glutamate and GABA neurotransmitter systems are likely to be the critical mechanism responsible for the sedative, anxiolytic and anticonvulsant properties of linalool and EOs containing linalool in significant proportions’. Linalool also proved to be a powerful anti-leishmanial agent (do Socorro et al., 2003), and as a presumed lavender EO component, decreased morphine opioid usage after inhalation versus placebo (P = 0.04) in gastric banding in morbidly obese surgical patients (Kim et al., 2007).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165946/

Thank you very much for posting this. It's been very informative.

leaffan said:

Thank you particle for taking the time to post your thoughts.
There is something to be said for that old saying " keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer". I think it's a good thing if the LPs are here and involved in dialogue. The key is, involved in dialogue. If they isn't any productive communication then they should stick to twitter and fb.

Click to expand...

Thanks as well for appreciating the spirit of it. I believe we mostly agree.

However, they have absolutely no place on social media whatsoever. If they wanted to participate in a forum like this, constructively, meaningfully and maybe in a parallel universe where that would be at all possible, that'd be one thing. But social media is a whole other nightmare, with a foundation and purpose of data mining your personal and private info and infringing on them in countless subtle ways.

"Lyke us on facebook". They may as well be shoveling the personal and medical information of their "patients" straight to the US border agents. The social aspect is nothing but bait and if you attempt to interact with them on that level it's going to cost you. So much for the safety of their patients.

The level of reckless self interest from them which that exemplifies is award worthy. I have to say, of all the LP's, tweed has been spectacularly consistent in their poor decisions, and second to none. It's safe to say they're the number one, most reliable LP, from that perspective.

Magenta Thumb said:

There is nothing but anecdote for the terpenes having an effect. There is no clinical evidence that it is anything other than "I prefer lemon cough syrup to cherry" or making aspirin for kids that is chewable and orange flavoured. If you know of any actual clinical studied showing otherwise, I would like to read them and would sit corrected. I hope GW Pharma & Bedrocan are beavering away and such studies so we can finally have some statistically sound evidence.

Any MM supplier that makes flavour claims should back it up with GC data showing proper QC.

Click to expand...

http://cannabishealthnewsmagazine.com/news/1238/importance-of-terpenes/

http://www.medicaljane.com/2013/04/13/terpenes-terpenoids-what-are-they-what-do-they-do/

http://www.leafly.com/knowledge-center/cannabis-101/terpenes-the-flavors-of-cannabis-aromatherapy



That's some conclusion before even a cursory search on it, and to then direct the impossible bar of clinical data towards bedrocan, who are known for a terrible product void of them in the first place. How do you expect them to study it exactly and what makes you think they're at all capable of such a feat, particularly when they can't even get to square one with it? These guys aren't scientists and they're aren't unbiased. They're likely completely incapable.

This toxic notion of throwing ourselves at the feet of LP's for "the science", like suddenly thanks to them the sun will rise for the first time in history and we'll all bask in the warm glow of enlightenment, thanks to them, who finally validated all of our suffering... Johny come lately, Johny be good... Johny Robin Hood. har har har wheeeeeeez.. Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaa...... more than I'm willing to entertain.

They dare not even divulge the data on their crops or its test results, can't seem to serve us so well and certanly don't seem inclined. You are never going to get "science" out of them. You might get marketing passed off as science, but it won't be of any real use or significance, and will probably work against us while they advance a future of pez dispensed terpenless pills because that's what they can patent and is most economical for them.

Jackal69 said:

So just was skulking around the tweed website and looking in their "shop" in another thread some of you said that LP id cards are worth anything as in "proof" of legal possession

Going out? Here’s a stylish option to keep your customer card and medicine all in one place. Free as a gift with your first medical marijuana order.
Ummm maybe they are informing their customers wrong or their id card is legal proof of possession???? anyone know the rulez?

Flaky looking "carry all" unless maybe your a hipster or something... wonder if it was made in china

Click to expand...

It's just another example of Tweed, and in the case of printed ID cards, LP's failing the regulations of the MMPR under which they supposedly exist.

They are not supposed to issue ID cards. The user is not exempt. The product is exempt, and the label on their product is the proof of that exemption, nothing else.

But Tweed takes it one step further and gives you some "Merch" to carry it in, that's not the exempted, labelled bottle, encouraging you to fall outside the grace of the MMPR if you do get questioned.

On top of that, and I really want you all to appreciate this, it's probably covered with their logo and branding, so you can run it all over the city advertising for them. That is actually the specific reason why Health Canada refused to print people their ID cards which the MMAR mandated they have, they didn't want people running around advertising their so called freedom and making others want theirs as well.

But for the Licensed Producers it's a balls to the wall free for all obviously. They had that little "Free gift" gimmick (do you suppose they take a loss on that or do you suppose they tack it on to the price and make you pay for it) all cooked up from the very beginning, before they even had a first seed germinated. "We dun just gots approved under these new super strict regulations.... let's break them". The reek of desperation amongst these series of decisions is hard to contemplate, and why they're getting away with it again and again, even more difficult to appreciate.

Uh...I have no clue as to why now you have become active here particle, but I thank you.

johny sunset said:

Very we'll put....a lot of great points made...
One thing...is the extreme Q that bad? It s my main method of consumption....

Click to expand...

Thanks, yes it is that bad. There are still far worse. That other piece of junk I mentioned has sent a good number of people to the hospital and that's the best that can be said about it (but I could go on...) Apparently that's great for marketing.

Otherwise the Extreme Q lacks an appropriate air path, and it lacks appropriate materials in that path. If you've had yours awhile, you should consider taking it apart and seeing what kind of accumulated dust mat that you've been breathing your meds through.

Be sure to note the deformed heater retention clip, which has been a known issue since it first came out, and unaddressed/ignored for just as long. Arizer gives you their worthless assurances that "mica is a great material", and it is. If it were just mica alone, it wouldn't be all deformed and melted. They refuse to tell you what the composite is, and it stands to reason had they really done their homework on it to know, it probably wouldn't be melting like that in the first place. So it's your risk and their denial. Think it's wise to trust them?

However they've always been a "novelty" item, so there wasn't much you could say, until Tweed came along and took it under its wing. Very ill advised for a "medical" company. And you know what? They did it knowingly, because they were advised, and you can see that by the way they gave it its own category on their website. You know, for plausible deniability... "but we didn't call it a medical device". You would hope they'd have a little more concern for the well being of their clients, but it would appear not.

Prior to that all we had was a corrupted circle jerking positivity chorus that passes itself off as a hard nosed review forum that nothing gets by, who concluded melting parts, but fun for parties/not a daily driver. It should be more like --get this piece of junk recalled. If it were as safe as they claim, why are they withholding the information to prove it?

You know, they probably did the economies of scale thing and had them manufactured en mass in a single production run. They're likely sitting in a warehouse in crates collecting dust somewhere and they're preserving their profit margin nicely I'm sure. But that wouldn't be the case if they had to address such flaws after the fact.

Oh and do you want to know what happens when your "lifetime warranty" on their heater cartridge is tested? They flat out BS you and tell you that the unit can't be repaired, so you can't have a free heater cartridge replacement because in this universe those possibilities are too improbable. You know, because their users are too damn stupid to take it apart, swap the plug and reassemble it, so they never give you the option to even find out, or to send it in and have them do it, which you're owed by your warranty. Instead they'll use the opportunity to sell you another one with a partial discount. Another that's identical to the first flawed one, because they probably sat in the same crate in the same warehouse.

That partial discount "up sell" thing is only an acceptable practice when it's for an actual upgrade that does resolve the flaws which led to failure in the prior models, and when the original warranty expired, if you've always had problems with it. Then they say "you know what, that one wasn't so good, this one is better... we're sorry you had all of those problems with it.. let's make it right". It'll cost you more but you'll get more out of it, so it's reasonably fair.

But this is not that. It's more like "we think you're really stupid, watch us screw you again, we've got a whole lot of these".

So we get to hear all kinds of nonsense about how we need companies like Tweed to assure our safety by operating legitimately in conformance to "Standards", but the reality is obviously that's it's all a bunch of doublespeak being made up as they go along in order to facilitate an industrial hijacking at the cost of our rights and health. They are knowingly selling this unsafe novelty class item that doesn't, and that can't, meet any medical device standards. I'm not happy with that. Make it right Tweed.

And, Tweed, I'm sorry that the so called "Activists" who guarded you from valid critique clearly did you no favors while they were busy looking out for their own selves.

leaffan said:

Uh...I have no clue as to why now you have become active here particle, but I thank you.

Click to expand...

This is why:


Tweed Inc was last seen:
May 10, 2014 at 6:46 AM


Cheers, and thank you.

Agree'd, great posts, particle, glad your sharing!

particle said:

Thanks, yes it is that bad. There are still far worse. That other piece of junk I mentioned has sent a good number of people to the hospital and that's the best that can be said about it (but I could go on...) Apparently that's great for marketing.

Otherwise the Extreme Q lacks an appropriate air path, and it lacks appropriate materials in that path. If you've had yours awhile, you should consider taking it apart and seeing what kind of accumulated dust mat that you've been breathing your meds through.

Be sure to note the deformed heater retention clip, which has been a known issue since it first came out, and unaddressed/ignored for just as long. Arizer gives you their worthless assurances that "mica is a great material", and it is. If it were just mica alone, it wouldn't be all deformed and melted. They refuse to tell you what the composite is, and it stands to reason had they really done their homework on it to know, it probably wouldn't be melting like that in the first place. So it's your risk and their denial. Think it's wise to trust them?

However they've always been a "novelty" item, so there wasn't much you could say, until Tweed came along and took it under its wing. Very ill advised for a "medical" company. And you know what? They did it knowingly, because they were advised, and you can see that by the way they gave it its own category on their website. You know, for plausible deniability... "but we didn't call it a medical device". You would hope they'd have a little more concern for the well being of their clients, but it would appear not.

Prior to that all we had was a corrupted circle jerking positivity chorus that passes itself off as a hard nosed review forum that nothing gets by, who concluded melting parts, but fun for parties/not a daily driver. It should be more like --get this piece of junk recalled. If it were as safe as they claim, why are they withholding the information to prove it?

You know, they probably did the economies of scale thing and had them manufactured en mass in a single production run. They're likely sitting in a warehouse in crates collecting dust somewhere and they're preserving their profit margin nicely I'm sure. But that wouldn't be the case if they had to address such flaws after the fact.

Oh and do you want to know what happens when your "lifetime warranty" on their heater cartridge is tested? They flat out BS you and tell you that the unit can't be repaired, so you can't have a free heater cartridge replacement because in this universe those possibilities are too improbable. You know, because their users are too damn stupid to take it apart, swap the plug and reassemble it, so they never give you the option to even find out, or to send it in and have them do it, which you're owed by your warranty. Instead they'll use the opportunity to sell you another one with a partial discount. Another that's identical to the first flawed one, because they probably sat in the same crate in the same warehouse.

That partial discount "up sell" thing is only an acceptable practice when it's for an actual upgrade that does resolve the flaws which led to failure in the prior models, and when the original warranty expired, if you've always had problems with it. Then they say "you know what, that one wasn't so good, this one is better... we're sorry you had all of those problems with it.. let's make it right". It'll cost you more but you'll get more out of it, so it's reasonably fair.

But this is not that. It's more like "we think you're really stupid, watch us screw you again, we've got a whole lot of these".

So we get to hear all kinds of nonsense about how we need companies like Tweed to assure our safety by operating legitimately in conformance to "Standards", but the reality is obviously that's it's all a bunch of doublespeak being made up as they go along in order to facilitate an industrial hijacking at the cost of our rights and health. They are knowingly selling this unsafe novelty class item that doesn't, and that can't, meet any medical device standards. I'm not happy with that. Make it right Tweed.

And, Tweed, I'm sorry that the so called "Activists" who guarded you from valid critique clearly did you no favors while they were busy looking out for their own selves.

Click to expand...

Now you got me intrigued. I just got a new one after my first unit died after 3 years.....so you seem to be very knowledgeable on this subject.....other then the volcanic. What do you consider to be a safer device?

Also wanna mention...just noticed some pics and a review of space bomb on can.md. The stuff the reviewer had actually looks like you would wanna smoke it.....(if you didn't know it was irradiated) thought there was going to be a certain level of consistency tweed. What I got doesn't even look like the same species ....I'll try and post up the pic later

Can you see what percent cannabinoids the other review posted for spacebomb to compare to yours? The product is suppose to be standardized, if the %'s are listed the same on both of the packages I would encourage you to seek verification of your % numbers.
Perhaps tweed violating another reg?

as I am rolling my last two from my Compassion Club, what do I find a viable Purple Kush seed, and the light came on, this has Nothing to do with Public Safety but irradication of any posible viable seeds leaving your Building? welcome to the I got screwed by Hell Canada group LCP's.

awesomesound said:

this study might clear this up there are 2 specific Terpens that are affected, no tests or studies have been done on inhaled products, BUT there have be many tests of gamma on many Herbs so now your spliting hairs, one of these Terpens is β-Myrcene which can affect infflamation properties. enjoy the easy reading LOL

Government-approved cannabis supplied to patients in national programmes in the Netherlands and Canada is gamma-irradiated to sterilize coliform bacteria, but the safety of this technique for a smoked and inhaled product has never been specifically tested. Gamma-radiation significantly reduced linalool titres in fresh cilantro (Fan and Sokorai, 2002), and myrcene and linalool in orange juice (Fan and Gates, 2001).
[snipped by MT]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165946/

Click to expand...

I'd read them but, except for your last ncbi link, which is to the Russo paper I cited, all your links lead to Rollitup dead ends, not to actual references (e.g. abstract or journal).

You support what I said - no clinical studies showing efficacy. It's all hypothesis based on animal studies and in vitro receptor binding assays and short studies for non-cannabis application, sometimes not even inhaled. I've been in this pharma long enough to know that is a long way off from showing clinical efficacy. Great data to support the case to do more investigation, but not anything close to being conclusive. It is one of the main reasons so many things fail clinical studies - they just don't pan out against the promise indicated by these sorts of data. As to Bedrocan not being able to do science, it seems you have yet to read Hazekamp's work and have not seen the web indications that they are involved in clinical trials (e.g. http://www.ccic.net/picture/upload/File/IASP 2012/7.1500.Hazekamp.pdf). If there is a clinical impact to be shown, they are likely closest. They also seem to have the most to win from showing that the terpenes do have an impact, because they analyse them and aim to control them (Phytochemistry 71 (2010) 2058–2073). But you are correct that it might be too much of a stretch for them - they're not Big Pharma by any means, but then none of the LP are (and if you think any of the LP are Big Pharma, you obviously wouldn't know Big Pharma if it kissed you on the lips!).

I do concur with you that there have been no specific studies looking at the impact of irradiated cannabis on humans (or even animal models, for that matter), but given that the Dutch and MMAR programmes did this for at least a decade with hundreds/thousands(?) of patients inhaling tonnes(?) of irradiated cannabis, it seems like there is no adverse events connected to it thus far.

johny sunset said:

Now you got me intrigued. I just got a new one after my first unit died after 3 years.....so you seem to be very knowledgable on this subject.....other then the volcanic. What do you consider to be a safer device?

Also wanna mention...just noticed some pics and a review of space bomb on can.md. The stuff the reviewer had actually looks like you would wanna smoke it.....(if you didn't know it was irradiated) thought there was going to be a certain level of consistency tweed. What I got doesn't even look like the same species ....I'll try and post up the pic later

Click to expand...

I looked at those pics Johny and you're right. Doesn't look like the same strain or like it was even from the same crop. I wouldn't put it past some people to skew patients perceptions of what LP's have to offer. Another form(albeit a terribly deceitful one) of damage control on an LP's behalf. Also, without the bottles they came in I'm highly skeptical and would go so far as to call BS on those coming from Tweed given what you received.

Fantastic posts folks!

CalyxCrusher said:

I looked at those pics Johny and you're right. Doesn't look like the same strain or like it was even from the same crop. I wouldn't put it past some people to skew patients perceptions of what LP's have to offer. Another form(albeit a terribly deceitful one) of damage control on an LP's behalf. Also, without the bottles they came in I'm highly skeptical and would go so far as to call BS on those coming from Tweed given what you received.

Click to expand...

yeah whats to stop a LP that got bad reviews the first time around then "make" a new login for any review site and show astounding pics of meds and giving a great review?
This why I would look for reviews of known ppl on here before I would believe another "LP reviews" website.

There's I thread going that hopefully everyone will start posting their pics to to show newbie's what to look for in their dried bud meds. As we need more information on these crappy meds patients are sent, from that hopefully we can get them directed to an LP that they will have a good experience with, let the others die off quickly for sending out shit weed (most are not meds in the first place)
before I get flamed by the homegrowers .... for patients that have no other legal option than to go with an LP... ok

particle said:

Thanks as well for appreciating the spirit of it. I believe we mostly agree.

However, they have absolutely no place on social media whatsoever. If they wanted to participate in a forum like this, constructively, meaningfully and maybe in a parallel universe where that would be at all possible, that'd be one thing. But social media is a whole other nightmare, with a foundation and purpose of data mining your personal and private info and infringing on them in countless subtle ways.

"Lyke us on facebook". They may as well be shoveling the personal and medical information of their "patients" straight to the US border agents. The social aspect is nothing but bait and if you attempt to interact with them on that level it's going to cost you. So much for the safety of their patients.

The level of reckless self interest from them which that exemplifies is award worthy. I have to say, of all the LP's, tweed has been spectacularly consistent in their poor decisions, and second to none. It's safe to say they're the number one, most reliable LP, from that perspective.

Click to expand...

Funny you should mention the LP's activities on social media, as I emailed HC and asked them about LP advertizing and this is what they sent me back, according to this they should all be in jail, as Tweed has a sock site which they are boosting about Capital, sales and the stock market, and not one of their sites state that Info on this site contains referance to a Narcotic. can we call NCR, or do we call he better business Bur.

Hello,
Please find below information on advertisement for marihuana for medical purposes. It is considered a narcotic so the provisions of the Narcotic Control Regulations (NCR) apply.
The NCR define "advertisement" as any representation by any means whatever for the purpose of promoting directly or indirectly the sale or disposal of a narcotic.
Section 70 of the NCR states that:
70. No person shall
(a) publish or cause to be published or furnish any advertisement respecting a narcotic unless the symbol “N” is clearly and conspicuously displayed in the upper left-hand quarter thereof or, if the advertisement consists of more than one page, on the first page thereof;
(b) publish or cause to be published or furnish any advertisement to the general public respecting a narcotic; or
(c) advertise in a pharmacy a preparation referred to in section 36.
Licensed producers must also respect section 9 of the Food and Drugs Act (FDA) with respect to advertising.
Section 9 prohibits the advertising of any drug in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety.
Section 72 of the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations also prohibit any reference to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Food and Drugs Act or any regulations made under those Acts on a labels or advertisement for dried marihuana, unless the reference is something specifically required under these Acts or their regulations.
Section 72 states that: It is prohibited to include a reference, direct or indirect, to the Act, the Food and Drugs Act or any regulations made under those Acts on a label of or in an advertisement for dried marihuana unless the reference is a specific requirement of either of those Acts or those regulations.
You will note that the provisions above do not specify what is allowed, but discuss what is prohibited. Flexibility is given to the licensed producer to work within these requirements.
<BR>If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to send us your questions by email at <A href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A> or call us at 1-866-337-7705.

Licences and Permits Division
Office of Controlled Substances
Health Canada

johny sunset said:

Space bomb

La confidential

Chocolate chunk

Deep purple

First Impression

Needless to say I'm still surprised at how shit this stuff looks never in a million years would I thought this would be there end product...when I open each jar there is really no distinct smell between strains
My buddy pulled his first crop ever last year and it looked better then this

I'll post a review later on this evening but to be honest I don't really wanna smoke this shit

Discuss......

Click to expand...

That looks worse than what I saw. Probably what I saw came from MMAR program... via their questionable purchases from MMAR while they had no product.

ispice said:

Can you see what percent cannabinoids the other review posted for spacebomb to compare to yours? The product is suppose to be standardized, if the %'s are listed the same on both of the packages I would encourage you to seek verification of your % numbers.
Perhaps tweed violating another reg?

Click to expand...

No it's just a pic of the bud

Magenta Thumb said:

I'd read them but, except for your last ncbi link, which is to the Russo paper I cited, all your links lead to Rollitup dead ends, not to actual references (e.g. abstract or journal).

You support what I said - no clinical studies showing efficacy. It's all hypothesis based on animal studies and in vitro receptor binding assays and short studies for non-cannabis application, sometimes not even inhaled. I've been in this pharma long enough to know that is a long way off from showing clinical efficacy. Great data to support the case to do more investigation, but not anything close to being conclusive. It is one of the main reasons so many things fail clinical studies - they just don't pan out against the promise indicated by these sorts of data. As to Bedrocan not being able to do science, it seems you have yet to read Hazekamp's work and have not seen the web indications that they are involved in clinical trials (e.g. http://www.ccic.net/picture/upload/File/IASP 2012/7.1500.Hazekamp.pdf). If there is a clinical impact to be shown, they are likely closest. They also seem to have the most to win from showing that the terpenes do have an impact, because they analyse them and aim to control them (Phytochemistry 71 (2010) 2058–2073). But you are correct that it might be too much of a stretch for them - they're not Big Pharma by any means, but then none of the LP are (and if you think any of the LP are Big Pharma, you obviously wouldn't know Big Pharma if it kissed you on the lips!).

I do concur with you that there have been no specific studies looking at the impact of irradiated cannabis on humans (or even animal models, for that matter), but given that the Dutch and MMAR programmes did this for at least a decade with hundreds/thousands(?) of patients inhaling tonnes(?) of irradiated cannabis, it seems like there is no adverse events connected to it thus far.

Click to expand...

"No clinical trials" is a far cry from the implication that it hasn't been at all researched. It quite clearly has, but you seem to be more interested in cherry picking to support your position. It does seem like a very extreme position as well. Are you trying to tell us that garbage weed is safer or something, because it lacks those questionable unstudied terpenes and only gives us the pure THC (that hasn't been adequately studied enough for doctors to trust..)? That's funny right. Such a position can hardly be entertained, particularly while you ignore the studies that have been done.

"Clinical studies" is also hardly the bar for legitimate and conclusive findings. More often than not it's simply employed in the manufacturing of the evidence they require to push their products to market. It is exactly a requirement of the approvals system and that's how it's used, done in such a way as to agree with their marketing agenda. Trials that disagree simply get tossed and repeated until suddenly they find the result they wanted. Most of these trials can't be repeated for that reason, amongst others. Even the test subjects are known to be biased, and with ridiculously small sample sizes. Big pharm has had patents tossed out of Canada for that very reason, and they are presently fighting the battle in court to have our standards of evidence lowered to the level of their clinical trials, which were deemed by the superior court to be all too laughable to be taken seriously. So it is quite a ludicrous bar to set in order to wall people off from effective medicine, isn't it, and then again to toss it in the laps of Bedrocan? I could honestly not care less if they're involved in what they're calling clinical trials.

It is nothing more than a facet of their marketing program, and that of the MMPR. It doesn't at all elevate their value in reality or usefulness. Anybody can be involved in "clinical trials." It doesn't make them significant. It's just a PR move that attempts to make it appear so. Would be a lot more impressive if throughout their entire history so far, they ever once managed to sell good weed, meaning, with terpenes still present. Perhaps you missed those web indications. Let me know when Bedrocan has discovered the universal cure for cancer, or produced any other actually significant findings. Until the day comes when they've produced significant and repeatable results, they're just hacks fighting for relevancy, and abusing notions like clinical trials to convince people of their utility, where the quality of their product consistently fails to. I'm not buying it. Just advertising, like it's been used in this discussion.