7) Hello again,

'just quickly for the "data" question.
My first attempt for this post sadly fell victim to some unexpected technical problem, so I try it a second time, perhaps a bit shortened.

- Searching through an Internet machine for medical publications and data will yield only accidental hits, usually. If you know how then a medical database is the "real thing".
The best one which I know would need a licence to access which I do not have at this place at this time.
But you may try the "National Library of Medicine" at

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query

and enter search terms > "cannabis pregnancy",

...as I had just done. That should yield enough material to chew on for a while.

- The link should work, I just tried it.
You could tell me your result(s), especially the leukaemia ( hypothetical ) find, which may be interesting.

[ 04. March 2003, 11:31: Message edited by: panthera-non-onca ]

8) ...cont....

If you try to interpret the results that you find in that database, you have to keep in mind that

(1) When they report they did not find harm of a specific sort, that does never equal to "shown to be harmless", nor could it ever.
It just says that with the sample and with the method(s) they used, they could not detect a significant effect of ONE particular KIND. That is all.
- Strictly speaking you can never prove sth to be "harmless", but only state that you could not detect evidence to the contrary.
- What you find depends on what you are looking for. What one does not expect is often not noticed.
In this example that may mean long-term consequences. What finally counts is the life-long total impact. And that was not even asked for, it seems.

(2) Many things are quite complex. Ailments can be multi-factorial, i.e. several factors, by addition or multiplication, influence the result. So it is inherently difficult to isolate factors. The usual phrase "all other things being equal" seldomly actually applies ( outside the laboratory ).
That is a general problem for interpreting e.g. health relevance of things a, b, c.
And it applies even more to speaking about "general health" and what it is related to.

- In some of the studies it was apparent that mothers had been consuming several drugs and stimulants, so finding culprits is a problem then, even if accumulated effects are clear.
And additional factors ( positive or negative ) may not even have been noticed.

- Hahnemann himself was a habitual tabacco smoker. Otherwise he led an apparently quite healthy life. Change just one factor of this "equation", or even several, plus inheritance etc., and the outcome, e.g. duration of life, may have been quite different. Or if you change several factors ( no smoking, but not meeting his second marvellous wife, or sth. ) the outcome could have been, in theory, the same again. Just for illustration.

- So also in a case like your friend's child, all sorts of influences would contribute to "general health", leaving apart the "perception and assessment issue".
If cannabis is a clear minus, then perhaps he gets food from organic farming / there is little environmental pollution at their place / she is a loving mother etc, which all could balance the "total outcome". And another child, urban kid living close to a stinking factory/traffic lane, industrial food, tabacco smoke, cold-personed mother etc, let alone homoeopathic "miasmatic"/inheritence questions, could be worse off. Which would still in no way prove the harmlessness of prenatal Cannabis consumption.
Just to illustrate problems of perception and attributing causes.

(3) And of course it is always dosage dependent. If in a study they examine mothers with "modest consumption", then your friend's child(ren) could till be worse off, acc. to your description.
Just another point for caution.

// It seemed to me so far that the scary thing about this cannabis may not be, as you may have assumed, harming the embryo's growing body organs ( that seems more likely with alcohol ); also reduced birthweight seems to be an effect rather of tabacco ( I made it clear yesterday I did in no way consider that harmless either ! ).

> Cannabis seems to affect mainly the developing brain, and hence... . But that is still quite-a-something, isn't it ?!
- My favourite from the data-base was Nr.52 ( <"Psychopharmacology" 122/1995 ), the experiments they did on rats, or rather what they found:

"...Adult animals exposed [ i.e. to cannabinoids / but again pay attention to doses! ] during gestational and lactational periods
[ wow: "pregnancy and breastfeeding" ]
...exhibited persistent alterations in behavioural responses ..."

- Read that for yourself !

And bless you for your concern and posting that issue...

Kind Regards,
Panthera

- Perhaps more later on this day or week ...-

[ 04. March 2003, 12:16: Message edited by: panthera-non-onca ]

9) ...And another one:

I found two case report articles which seemed interesting in the context of this case:

(1) Kenchington R.:
"Back from the edge"
__Homoeopath__63 (autumn) / 1996: p.624f.
.
....Descriptive Terms:
- Homoeop. drug, low back pain, substance abuse;
-drug therapy, case report;
-Mercurius solubilis, Cannabis indica, -> substance use disorder.

(2) Rothenberg A.:
"Out of body, out of mind"
__N.Engl.J.Homeopath.__ 6 (2-3) / 1997: p.105-8.

-Attention deficit disorder with hyperactivity, depression;
-case report, drug therapy, homoeop. drugs, -> substance use disorder
- cannabis indica

- It was not apparent to me what the "substance (ab)use" referred to; it could, but needs not mean consumption of "crude" cannabis. When they mention "C.ind." that apparently means the homoeo-remedy ued in this case.
- I do not have these papers, only found them as references. If you should be able to find them, or anyone else, I should be interested in their content. Only after previous experience here on this strange, lame board, when people could not even be made to help with papers from common homoeo-journals from their own countries for a mortal disease case, I refrain from asking anyone.

- If the same remedy did actually heal a well documented case where the suffering resulted or was connected with consumption of that same stuff in "crude" form, would of course be most interesting.
I heard about theories from various homoeopaths' experience that often people sort of crave for something ( in the "material world" ) which has the potential to heal or help them when given wisely in the form of a homoeopathic, potencised remedy ( chocolate, companion animal/milk, room decor. flower ... ).
And this "instinct" would then predate intoxication, so in case that should ( sometimes ) apply to the remedy "cann.", it would mean more then just an isopathic sort of repairing the damage done by the material substance.
But in general I would need to see good evidence before jumping into general theories, esp. if they look so tempting and sort of fashionable. But still it could well be...

Hi Panthera,

I have been very busy researching all the links provided. Thankyou very much for all the time you ahve taken to help. I will report back soon with (hopefully!!) some new-found understanding and knowledge of the topic!! I am trying to source the journals you mentioned.

All the best,

Caroline

Dear Caroline,

I just came accross additional information:

"Cannabis 'affects babies in womb' ",

BBC News online / World edition / Tuesday 25th March 2003, 00:21 GMT

- in case that the link works it may be directly readable through this :

---> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2871901.stm

Kind Regards,
Panthera

11) ____Addendum:____

Plus also note the links
.to earlier news reports, and
..to research institutions
which are provided on the site.

- The link seemed to work just now.

[ 28. March 2003, 16:24: Message edited by: panthera-non-onca ]