Botched drugs trial leaves volunteer brain-dead in France

The study was a phase one clinical trial, in which healthy volunteers take the medication to "evaluate the safety of its use, tolerance and pharmacological profile of the molecule", the minister added in a statement.

Drug trials are risky indeed.
I guess it means the procedure works but i wonder how many times accidents like this don't come out reach the news.

According to France's Minister of Health Marisol Touraine the trial has been called off after one person was left brain-dead and five others hospitalised after taking the drugs.

News sources say they were all healthy volunteers. Did they all get ill or was it a precaution. Not everyone reacts the same on drugs even in a healthy state. I wonder how much of this is overreacted.

Initial media reports said the drug was a cannabis-based painkiller, but this has since been denied by the health ministry.

If this is true, why just saying cannabis based? What else was in this mix? As i said every drug trial wears a risk, how many animals died participating un-voluntarily in drug test?

There is many proof that cannabis-based medication works, tested in different countries with minor or no side effects.
The work of the Anti-cannabis pharma if you ask me.

www.thelocal.fr...

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Cannabis based means its likely not cannabis but a analogue. A slightly altered form of THC or Canabidiol that been made to increase potency or eliminate the high. Basically a artificial lab creation.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

It is probable that the compound was not cannabinoid in nature, but that the rumour was leaked as disinformation, and to cover the delay in releasing the real culprit, until the initial media frenzy has calmed, and public attention has shifted.

The government has said it wasn't a cannabis based pain killer, so enough said on that matter.

As far as I'm aware, apart from lung cancer from smoking, cannabis has never killed anyone.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Also thought about that yes. In a couple hours there will be a new press release, let's wait and see.

On another note.
Shouldn't there be any previous tests, like non-human related? They talk about the different phases but not about preliminary animal trials. Well i'm against animals testing btw (that's another topic) but isn't this a standard procedure?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Its likely a artificial analogue of a cannabinoid.

A few have been released as "legal" highs that have put kids in hospital.
The chemical structure would be similar and in some people the effects the same but it would be artificial and can have random side effects.

originally posted by: intergalactic fire
a reply to: TrueBrit

Also thought about that yes. In a couple hours there will be a new press release, let's wait and see.

On another note.
Shouldn't there be any previous tests, like non-human related? They talk about the different phases but not about preliminary animal trials. Well i'm against animals testing btw (that's another topic) but isn't this a standard procedure?

Yes and no.

99.9% animal testing will detect toxic effects before they go into human trials. But we are still diffrent from Monkeys and Mice they test on and there will always be unkowns. Its happend before. Its rare but it happens.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: intergalactic fire

Cannabis based means its likely not cannabis but a analogue. A slightly altered form of THC or Canabidiol that been made to increase potency or eliminate the high. Basically a artificial lab creation.

There are countless synthetic variants of cannabinoids. Some are quite deadly too...

But I wonder... why bother making a synthetic when there are already certain types of cannabis plant that are more pain relieving, sedating, appetite stimulating and less psychoactive around.. what's wrong with just letting people do something that absolutely harms no one, but helps so much.

-- edit.. I see you posted re synthetics and the "legal high"

a reply to: laminatedsoul

Because money thats why.

You can patent a synthetic variant plus they are less regulated.

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: laminatedsoul

Because money thats why.

You can patent a synthetic variant plus they are less regulated.

Yep. I've tried telling people that for so long.. some just nod, other just think I'm a nut. lol

oh well, it's as plain as the noses on their faces though that it is about keeping people sick and on medication that they themselves market...

a reply to: laminatedsoul

It’s not even a conspiracy.

I have worked in Pharma and its a fact they won’t touch a product they can’t make profit off of.

Ifs it’s a toss between a small amounts of money on a drug they can’t patent or lots of money off a less effective but they will go for the patentable drug.

a reply to: intergalactic fire

Why is this botched? The whole idea of a drugs trial is to test safety so there will be times things don't go right.

There have been many deaths off cannabis related drugs and synthetic cannabinoids in the past just google "spice legal high".

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: laminatedsoul

It’s not even a conspiracy.

I have worked in Pharma and its a fact they won’t touch a product they can’t make profit off of.

Ifs it’s a toss between a small amounts of money on a drug they can’t patent or lots of money off a less effective but they will go for the patentable drug.

Just because a drug is derived from a plant that can not be patented doesn't mean the drug cant be patented. For example : GW Pharmaceuticals is a British biopharmaceutical company known for its multiple sclerosis treatment product Sativex®. Stop with the pro weed propaganda.

a reply to: MrMasterMinder

Way to miss the whole point of what I said

a reply to: crazyewok

Oh i got it , you were just wrong. way to miss the point of what i said.

Boy, they don't know how to pick their test subjects. You have to interview them to make sure that those you pick for the clinical trials are those who show traits that will give them immunity to the chemistry the medicine creates so there is no side effects. Now, the big Pharma companies here know how to screen their test subjects so they don't get sick and the drug gets approved.

Apparently this drug was supposed to be a cannabinoid drug but it wasn't. I wonder what the chemistry of the drug was?

This is an interesting read: yournewswire.com...

Even Putin doesnt trust big pharma.

originally posted by: MrMasterMinder
a reply to: crazyewok

Oh i got it , you were just wrong. way to miss the point of what i said.

No I’m not wrong.

Fact is company’s cant just put Cannabis out on the market as it is due to legal restrictions.

Hence why they have developed things like Sativex and have created analogues.

Technically Putin is a politician. What the hell is he doing telling his people the truth.

He is a threat to all the politicians of the world.

originally posted by: Nexttimemaybe

As far as I'm aware, apart from lung cancer from smoking, cannabis has never killed anyone.

Smoking cannabis does not cause lung cancer:

Worth repeating: marijuana decreases risk of lung cancer

Decades of pulmonary research is in: pot decreases the risk of lung cancer and does not cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). LA Weekly managed to quote one of the nation’s leading pulmonologists, Dr. Donald Tashkin. The professor emeritus of medicine at UCLA once sought to prove pot causes lung cancer, but the evidence forced him to conclude the opposite. Cannabis tar has more carcinogens than tobacco, but, Tashkin states, “we failed to find any positive association [with cancer].” Instead, “the association would be negative, between lung cancer and the use of marijuana. The likelihood is, that despite the fact that marijuana smoke contains carcinogens, we don’t see the same heightened risks of cancers that we see in tobacco.”

Take the following with a grain of salt, but I've read and heard that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer either, that the original studies were flawed and/or compromised for a political result, and that these studies on cannabis may prove the same about tobacco. Or that the tobacco itself doesn't cause lung cancer, but the many chemicals added to cigarettes cause the lung cancer.