Skip to comments.
Synthetic marijuana drug coming to chemo patients
cnn ^
| 5/17/06
Posted on 05/17/2006 2:38:57 PM PDT by LouAvul
Seventeen years after it was withdrawn from U.S. markets, a synthetic version of the active ingredient in marijuana is going back on sale as a prescription treatment for the vomiting and nausea that often accompany chemotherapy, the drug's manufacturer said Tuesday.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International hopes to begin selling Cesamet in the next two to three weeks, company president Wes Wheeler said.
The Costa Mesa, California, company received Food and Drug Administration approval Monday to resume sales of the drug, which it bought from Eli Lilly and Co. in 2004. Valeant currently sells the drug, also called nabilone, in Canada.
Lilly originally received FDA approval for nabilone in 1985 but withdrew it from the market in 1989 for commercial reasons, Wheeler said. Valeant, since purchasing the drug, has revised its label and updated its manufacturing process, he added.
The drug will compete with Marinol, made by Belgium-based Solvay SA. Marinol, another synthetic version of tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana that's more commonly known as THC. It also received FDA approval in 1985.
Synthetic THC acts on the brain like the THC in smoked marijuana but eliminates having to inhale the otherwise harmful smoke contained in the illegal drug, Valeant said.
Cesamet is a Schedule II drug, meaning it has a high potential for abuse. The 1-milligram tablets are meant to be taken twice daily before cancer patients undergo chemotherapy and up to 48 hours following treatment. Side effects include euphoria, drowsiness, vertigo and dry mouth.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: billackman; cesamet; covidstooges; drugskilledbelushi; genderdysphoria; greenmail; health; herbalife; homosexualagenda; jcpenney; marijuana; medicalmarijuana; medicine; mrleroybait; pershingsquare; pharmaceuticals; valeant; warondrugs; williamackman; wod; woddiecrushonleroy; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-111 next last
To: LouAvul
Why not just give cancer victims the real thing and save them a whole lot of money? Because that would make sense.
21
posted on
05/17/2006 8:40:36 PM PDT
by
mysterio
To: PaxMacian; WindMinstrel; philman_36; headsonpikes; cryptical; vikzilla; Crotalus72901; Quick1; ...
Pretzel Logic Ping (I have never met Napolean, But I'd like to find the time...)
22
posted on
05/18/2006 3:51:16 AM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: Wolfie
A man should no more expect logic and honesty from government than he should expect water to gush from a stone.
23
posted on
05/18/2006 4:28:48 AM PDT
by
headsonpikes
(Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
To: LouAvul
Lilly originally received FDA approval for nabilone in 1985 ...
I've learned something today.
To: LouAvul
The Medical Value of Marijuana and Related SubstancesSeveral cannabinoids have been tested as antiemetics, including THC (both 9-THC and 8-THC) and the synthetic cannabinoids nabilone and levonantradol. Smoked marijuana has also been examined.Snip...
As in the THC trials, nabilone and levonantradol reduced emesis but not as well as other available agents in moderately to highly emetogenic settings. Neither is commercially available in the United States.Snip...
Neither study showed a clear advantage for smoked marijuana over oral THC, but neither reported data on the time course of antiemetic control, possible advantages of self-titration with the smoked marijuana, or the degree to which patients were able to swallow the pills. Patients with severe vomiting would have been unlikely to be able to swallow or keep the pills down long enough for them to take effect. The onset of drug effect is much faster with inhaled or injected THC than it is for oral delivery.87,112,141
Although many marijuana users have claimed that smoked marijuana is a more effective antiemetic than oral THC, no controlled studies have yet been published that analyze this in sufficient detail to estimate the extent to which this is the case.An important and unexpected problem encountered in the New York state open trial with marijuana was the inability of nearly one-fourth of the patients to tolerate the administration of marijuana by smoking.188 The intolerance could have been due to inexperience with smoking marijuana and is an important consideration.And to be "fair"...Although marijuana smoke delivers THC and other cannabinoids to the body, it also delivers harmful substances, including most of those found in tobacco smoke. In addition, plants contain a variable mixture of biologically active compounds and cannot be expected to provide a precisely defined drug effect. For those reasons there is little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved medication.
Guess what! Coffee delivers harmful substances to the body. So does alcohol. So does a myriad number of other things.
They don't even know if those other active compounds cancel out or counter the effects of the "harmful substances" inhaled. They're sooooo sure.
To: Responsibility2nd
Grandma always said the old herbal remedies were the best. She's right. We use a lot of them in our family -- except for pot, of course. I wouldn't touch it even if it were legal, although I can't say what my stance would be if I had cancer.
To: Supernatural; robertpaulsen
But the FDA just said marijuana has no medicinal value. But synthetic marijuana does? Pretzel logic. I'd be interested in your take on this Robert.
27
posted on
05/18/2006 10:16:14 AM PDT
by
jmc813
(The best mathematical equation I have ever seen: 1 cross + 3 nails= 4 given.)
To: LouAvul
"I'm not in favor of recreational pot, but, goodness, cancer? They should give them whatever drug the patient desires."
If the drug companies market it, it's OK.
28
posted on
05/18/2006 10:30:30 AM PDT
by
dljordan
To: mysterio
A friend of mine who underwent chemo for Hodgkins' said that the (then $5.00/pill, 4 pills per day) were not as effective as an appetite enhancer and were much more expensive than the herbal 'medication'.
That was in the 1980's and he could get several day's 'medication' to self-administer for the price of a single day worth of pills.
29
posted on
05/18/2006 10:42:48 AM PDT
by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
To: Smokin' Joe
Hodgekins? That's awful. Did he come out of it ok?
Who even knows how expensive the medicine is now. You could probably self medicate for two weeks on what it costs to buy "legitimate" medicine for a day.
I understand some zealots not wanting people to use pot. But I have not ever understood the ones that are such extreme zealots that they want to prevent sick people from using it.
30
posted on
05/18/2006 10:53:13 AM PDT
by
mysterio
To: Supernatural
exactly what I was thinking, if MJ has no value, why promote the synthetic use of it...Jeez, I wish they could decide.....
31
posted on
05/18/2006 11:06:49 AM PDT
by
vin-one
(REMEMBER the WTC !!!!!!!!)
To: vin-one
The rules are whatever they say they are and they make them up as they go along. Subject to change without notice.
Give toxic substances like morphine to sick people but not a harmless herb? Might make sense to an idiot but it doesn't make sense to me.
Synthetic, yet!
32
posted on
05/18/2006 11:09:21 AM PDT
by
Supernatural
(Its not dark yet, but its getting there.)
To: Wolfie; headsonpikes
Jeez there you two go again talking logic,
WEED is bad mkay,,,,,it will make you want to rape white women....or is that black musicians........stay cool.
33
posted on
05/18/2006 11:11:05 AM PDT
by
vin-one
(REMEMBER the WTC !!!!!!!!)
To: Supernatural
"Pretzel logic."
Coming from a government agency, are you really surprised?
34
posted on
05/18/2006 11:12:40 AM PDT
by
LIConFem
(A fronte praecipitium, a tergo lupi.)
To: LIConFem
I am only surprised when the government gets something right. They rarely surprise me.
35
posted on
05/18/2006 11:14:10 AM PDT
by
Supernatural
(Its not dark yet, but its getting there.)
To: jmc813; Supernatural
"But the FDA just said marijuana has no medicinal value. But synthetic marijuana does? Pretzel logic."Marijuana has no medicinal use. Cannabinoids do. Isolate the cannabinoids, and the FDA will approve it.
To: Centurion2000
37
posted on
05/18/2006 11:24:03 AM PDT
by
sono
("Why can't we deport them? Mexico did." J Leno)
To: robertpaulsen; jmc813
Duh!
If marijuana contains cannabinoids and cannabinoids have medicinal use, then marijuana has medicinal use.
Two plus two equals four, RP.
It is what it is, not what you want it to be.
Another lame argument from you.
38
posted on
05/18/2006 11:27:30 AM PDT
by
Supernatural
(Its not dark yet, but its getting there.)
To: robertpaulsen; Wolfie; vin-one
Isolate the Cannabinoids!Sounds like an aitch of a slogan for the JBTs and their enablers!
39
posted on
05/18/2006 11:56:32 AM PDT
by
headsonpikes
(Genocide is the highest sacrament of socialism.)
To: mysterio
Yes, he recovered fully and has been cancer free for nearly 20 years.
He had a theory that other ingredients worked in concert with the THC to increase the efficacy of the natural substance versus the synthetic, and made a good point about being able to self-dose at levels which worked for him as opposed to working with the more rigid framework of the tablet dosage.
I have no idea of current prices of either, myself, but I would bet they have kept pace with inflation...
The bottom line, though, is that you can patent a pill, but not the plant.
40
posted on
05/18/2006 11:59:16 AM PDT
by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-111 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson