|
Chapter 3 - (2nd Edition) CENSORED MEDICAL STUDIES |
|
|---|
AT THE
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE
PAGE 6
3.1 – THE INTERNAL DEBATE – STOMPING OUT THE FIRE STORM
Dealing with the internal debate within the N.C.I. over the issue and how best to address it. Or actually, how best to censor the website and hope everything goes away. These memo’s read something like, “After reflection, I am disturbed about removing all information about the possible anti-tumor effect of cannabinolds and I feel that full board should have a chance to discuss these NIDA induced alterations!” Or my all time favorite; “Gee, I would rather not. It flies in the face of all that is known. And it seems so far-fetched to have to go to northwestern Africa to find a case control study.”
Subject: PDQ Summary on Cannabis/Cannabinoids
Importance: High
As a follow-up to our discussions of this morning, we’ve developed a statement of clarification in response to inquiries relating to the changes made to the statement. OCE, OMR, and Rick Borchelt have reviewed it. It is our intent to place it on the “PDQ changes site” to which additional inquiries can be directed (link forthcoming). It can also be used by those responding on behalf of NCI to inquiries. Please let me know (soon) if you have any additional comments.
The talking points distributed on Monday are still relevant and available for use as well. Let me know if you want me to resend them.
Thanks,
Subject: RE: RDQ Summary on Cannabis/Cannabinoids
I sort of feel like I am beating a dead horse, but perhaps we should expand the wording on that point to address Jeff’s comments: . . .more
Subject: RE: final version of Cannabis
Importance: High
Robin,
Here you go! There are edits and comments throughout that are aimed mainly at greater clarity and readability. However, in the History section, there was a need for more information as to why the AMA and physicians in general were opposed to the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. As indicated in the attachment, the source of the additional information I provided came from an editorial and Congressional testimony by William Woodward, M.D., who was the AMA’s legislative counsel at the time.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Overall, I think this makes a very nice addition to the CAM collection.
Best wishes,
Subject: RE: Cannabis Summary
Gee, I would rather not. It flies in the fact of all that is known. And it seems so far-fetched to have to go to northwestern Africa to find a case control study. Could be a number of confounders! What’s wrong with the Tashkin study from LA/Or the Kaiser cohort? We could run the article by Tashkin and I will have a look myself, but I would strongly object to adding this and would prefer to delete the whole Cannabis section! I guess I feel pretty strongly about it!
Happy New Year.
Donald.
Subject: RE: concern about information on NCI’s website
After reflection, I am disturbed about removing all information about possible anti tumor effect of Cannabinolds and I feel the full Board should have a chance to discuss these NIDA induced alterations!.
WANT TO KNOW MORE:
=====================
Due to space / download time considerations, only selected materials are displayed. If you would like to obtain more information, feel free to contact the museum. All our material is available (at cost) on CD-Rom format.
CONTACT PAGE
 Previous SECTION |
N.C.I. MAIN PAGE |
 Next SECTION |