Fair Use Notice



This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Drug Problems: Nominee to Head FDA Led Clinical Trial FDA Faulted

Project On Government Oversight's Profile Photo

Drug Problems: Nominee to Head FDA Led Clinical Trial FDA Faulted

Robert Califf

Robert Califf, President Obama’s nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration 

Administration, Robert Califf, has been hailed as an expert on the clinical testing of prescription drugs, but he helped lead a clinical trial that was sharply criticized by FDA reviewers and some outside advisors to the agency.
The clinical trial of the blood thinner Xarelto was biased in favor of the experimental drug, an FDA staff review found.
A “lack of care” in the trial’s design and execution might have led to avoidable strokes among test subjects, a senior FDA official wrote.
The FDA approved Xarelto in 2011 over the objections of the primary FDA scientists assigned to study its safety and effectiveness. The report by the reviewers argued that patients could be “at greater risk of harm from stroke and/or bleeding” if they took Xarelto than if they were treated skillfully with warfarin, a blood thinner that has been on the market since the 1950s.
The official who issued the FDA’s decision to approve the drug expressed a series of misgivings about it.
The FDA’s handling of Xarelto illustrates how low the government has set the bar for drug approval.
“The decision was made difficult by the limitations in the design and conduct” of the clinical trial, FDA Deputy Division Director Stephen M. Grant said in a November 2011 memo explaining the agency’s reasoning.
“Although ultimately coming to a different conclusion than some of the reviewers, both the Division Director and the Deputy shared the team’s concerns,” Grant wrote.
The story of Xarelto adds to the picture of Califf, who as FDA commissioner could affect the interests of the drug industry and the health and safety of the public. It also opens a window on the testing of experimental drugs and the FDA’s vetting of those products.
Like the story of a competing drug, Pradaxa, which was the subject of a recent Project On Government Oversight report, the FDA’s handling of Xarelto illustrates how low the government has set the bar for drug approval, how manufacturer-sponsored clinical trials that serve as the basis for FDA decisions can be of questionable value, and why the words “FDA approved” should not necessarily inspire confidence in prescription drugs.
The Xarelto story also shows how much of the testing of prescription drugs is conducted in parts of the world where medical standards may be lower than in the United States and results may be less applicable to patients here.
Complaints raised during the FDA’s review of Xarelto included the following:
  • In the trial, Xarelto was tested against warfarin, which has been in use for decades and served as the control or standard of comparison. But warfarin was allegedly managed relatively poorly in the clinical trial, putting patients in the control group at increased risk and making Xarelto look better than it otherwise might have.
  • Though Xarelto has a half-life in the body of about half a day, the clinical trial tested it based on once-a-day dosing. FDA staff wanted Xarelto tested based on two doses per day to maintain a steadier concentration of the drug in patients’ systems—a concern the agency raised before the Xarelto trial began.

    The minutes of an FDA advisory committee meeting said members were concerned about once-per-day dosing “being used as a marketing ploy.”
  • Toward the end of the trial, when patients were taken off the experimental drug, inadequate provisions were made to transition them to another anticoagulant, allowing their blood to thicken dangerously and possibly contributing to an observed spike in strokes.
The concerns were spelled out during a 2011 FDA advisory committee hearing held as part of the agency’s drug approval process and in related documents.
One of the advisory committee members, cardiologist Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic, said at the hearing that the trial’s approach to warfarin treatment “was a fatal flaw in the study design.”
“And so, if you were cynical, you’d say that warfarin was designed to not be given particularly well in the trial,” Nissen said.  According to the hearing transcript, Nissen said he thought the problem “was an oversight, not necessarily an intent,” but he added that other clinical trials of anticoagulants had managed warfarin more effectively.
The “poor warfarin control” in the trial of Xarelto, also known by the generic name rivaroxaban, “biased the study in favor of rivaroxaban,” the FDA staff review said.
“[L]ack of care in designing and conducting” the clinical trial “could have resulted in some XARELTO subjects suffering unnecessary strokes,” Grant wrote in his 2011 “Decisional Memo.”
Califf co-chaired the executive committee of the Xarelto clinical trial. That committee “designed the trial and was responsible for oversight of study conduct,” according to a disclosure accompanying an article in a European medical journal Califf had co-authored. The committee “retained independent ability to analyse and present the data, and take[s] responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of data analyses,” the disclosure added.
Since early this year, Califf has been deputy commissioner of the FDA for medical products and tobacco. In a news release announcing his appointment, the FDA said he has been recognized “as one of the top 10 most cited medical authors, with more than 1,200 peer-reviewed publications.”
Califf said his institution was paid by drug-maker Johnson & Johnson to conduct the Xarelto study.
Before joining the FDA, Califf was vice chancellor of clinical research at Duke University.  He founded and led the Duke Institute for Clinical Research, which has become a major contractor to the pharmaceutical industry.
When the FDA convened the panel of outside experts for the hearing on Xarelto in 2011, Califf said his institution was paid by Johnson & Johnson, the maker of the drug, to conduct the Xarelto study. He was introduced as “co-principal investigator” of the clinical trial, helped deliver the drug maker’s presentation, and made a case for Xarelto’s approval.
Addressing the FDA advisory committee, Califf said the Xarelto trial was exceptional for testing an experimental drug on a relatively sick population. Distinguishing the Xarelto trial from studies that took a less challenging approach, he described one way clinical trials can provide a less-than-representative view of new drugs.
“[W]e routinely do trials in namby-pamby populations of low-risk patients for a lot of reasons. It's easier to do the studies. And then we extrapolate to the 80-year-old person on 15 other medications,” Califf said.
“We think it's time to begin to think about doing trials in the more sick people and having enough overlap that you can talk about the general population. We're somewhat responding to what practitioners are saying, which is, you're doing these trials. They're not relevant to the patients that are of biggest concern to us,” Califf said.
Summarizing the trial results, Califf said Xarelto “has a favorable safety profile” and is “a proven alternative to warfarin.”
Califf did not respond to inquiries for this story.
The Senate health committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on his nomination Tuesday. In a recent statement, the chairman of the committee, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), said Califf has “impressive credentials.”  Alexander added that he wanted to hear Califf’s views “on how we can move medical discoveries more rapidly through the FDA.”
The nomination comes as Congress is advancing legislation to speed drug approvals.
Supporters of Califf’s confirmation say he is a leading authority on clinical research.
“He is a world expert in the design of clinical trials that are driven by sound science and patient need,” an organization called FasterCures, which is led by former junk-bond king Michael Milken, said in an endorsement.  The New England Journal of Medicinepraised “his experience in the testing of new and established drugs.”
Opponents say Califf is too close to the drug industry. A group called AIDS Healthcare Foundation accused him of “pimping for the pharmaceutical industry’s efforts to avoid regulation.” The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen called on the Senate to rejectCaliff’s nomination, saying his appointment “would accelerate a decades-long trend in which agency leadership too often makes decisions that are aligned more with the interests of industry, rather than those of public health and patients.”
Xarelto is one of a new generation of anticoagulants prescribed for atrial fibrillation, a condition in which irregular beating of the heart can create blood clots. The clots can cause strokes and other potentially fatally blockages. The condition is estimated to affect millions of Americans. The blood thinners are meant to prevent clots from forming.
However, thinning the blood entails risks of its own: it can cause hemorrhages. One of the key challenges in anticoagulation is making sure the blood is neither too thick nor too thin—neither too fast nor too slow to clot. Otherwise, patients could avoid one calamity only to suffer another. For example, instead of being crippled by a blood clot in the brain, they could develop a no less devastating stroke from bleeding in the brain.
Since it won FDA approval, Xarelto has been cited relatively often in reports submitted to the agency about adverse medical events in patients, according to the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP), which tracks those reports. In 2014, Xarelto was named in more than 3,331 “serious” adverse event reports, including 379 cases in which patients died, ISMP said. The reports included hemorrhages and embolisms.
The reports indicate that the drug was suspected of playing a role in the adverse events; they do not prove causality.
Among reports about serious injuries submitted to the FDA directly by health professionals and consumers—as distinct from those filed by drug makers—Xarelto “led all other therapeutic drugs with 525 reports,” ISMP said.
Meanwhile, Xarelto has become the subject of lawsuits by more than 3,000 plaintiffs alleging the drug has caused harm, according to a securities filing by drug-maker Johnson & Johnson.
As recently as last month, the FDA stood behind its decision to approve Xarelto. In acommentary posted on the agency’s website, Ellis Unger, an official involved in the FDA’s evaluation of new drugs, said Xarelto and three other blood thinners approved in recent years caused fewer intra-cranial hemorrhages than warfarin.
“[I]t was clear that the drugs were worthy of approval and continue to provide valuable options for patients who require anticoagulant therapy,” Unger wrote.
Xarelto has been getting another boost from television ads featuring comedian Kevin Nealon, NASCAR driver Brian Vickers, golfer Arnold Palmer, and basketball’s Chris Bosh.
In an email to the Project On Government Oversight, a spokeswoman for Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, said, “As you may be aware, FDA Advisory Committee meetings provide a forum for the FDA to obtain input from a diverse panel of experts regarding the medicine that they are evaluating for approval, and it is not uncommon for there to be varying views amongst panel members.”
The spokeswoman, Kristina Chang, added that the FDA “considered all input received from the independent reviewers” and approved Xarelto “based on the positive benefit-risk profile observed” in the clinical trial.
A 30-tablet supply of warfarin retails from $4 to $14, compared to $341 to $372 for Xarelto.
That profile remains favorable now, after Xarelto has been prescribed for more than 3 million patients in the United States, Chang said in a later email.
The corporate team behind Xarelto, which included Janssen and its partner, Bayer, had a lot riding on FDA approval.
In 2014, Xarelto generated U.S. sales of $1.5 billion, according to a Johnson & Johnsonfinancial report.
For those who pay for the drug—patients, insurance companies, and government programs such as Medicare—switching from an old generic to a new brand-name medicine can carry a steep price.
With discounts, a 30-tablet supply of warfarin retails from $4 to just under $14 at major pharmacy chains and supermarkets, according to the price-checking site goodrx.com. In contrast, with coupons and other discounts, the site says, a 30-tablet supply of Xareltosells in the range of $341 to $372.
Setting the Bar
You might think “non-inferior” means “at least as good as.” In the case of Xarelto, it meant the drug need be proven only half as effective.
To win FDA approval, a new drug need not be proven superior to an established treatment such as warfarin. The manufacturer need only prove that it is “non-inferior.”
You might think “non-inferior” means “at least as good as.” But the FDA applies the term loosely.
In the case of Xarelto, it meant at least half as effective.
“We agreed, in advance, that the study would need to show that it [Xarelto] preserved not just any of the effect of warfarin, but 50 percent of it,” Robert Temple, a senior FDA official, told the advisory committee.
It can be surprising, Temple acknowledged, that FDA standards “allow the loss of as much as 50 percent of the enormously-valued effect of the control agent.” But setting the bar higher could be impractical, he said. For statistical reasons, proving something close to actual equivalency would require testing drugs in many more people.
Based on the clinical trial results, Xarelto cleared the FDA’s non-inferiority hurdle with room to spare.
But how much stock to put in the trial results was another question.
Warfarin Control
The Xarelto trial Califf helped lead, dubbed “ROCKET AF,” involved more than 14,000 test subjects who were enrolled and monitored at almost 1,200 sites in 45 countries. Some were given Xarelto, and others were given warfarin.
Warfarin—which is also sold under the brand name Coumadin—requires regular blood tests and potential dose adjustments to keep patients’ clotting rates in the not-too-fast, not-too-slow zone known as the therapeutic range.
However, in the ROCKET trial, on average, subjects on warfarin were in the therapeutic range just 55 percent of the time, the FDA staff review said.  That was markedly worse than the 63 percent to 73 percent achieved in recent warfarin-controlled studies of other drugs.
In the ROCKET trial, the percentage of time subjects on warfarin were in the therapeutic range varied widely from country to country—from a high of 75 in Sweden to a low of 36 in India.  The U.S. average was 63 percent.
ROCKET’s sites in Eastern Europe enrolled more than twice as many patients as any other region, but on average patients in Eastern Europe were in the therapeutic range less than half the time, FDA reviewer Martin Rose told the advisory committee.
At ROCKET sites where “where warfarin was used skillfully”—those with an average time in therapeutic range of at least 68 percent or so—Xarelto seemed to perform worse than warfarin by a key measure. At those sites, patients on Xarelto seemed to suffer a higher rate of strokes and systemic embolisms, the FDA staff review said.  The review added that, given the small number of subjects at sites where warfarin was used “skillfully,” there was a substantial measure of statistical uncertainty around that particular comparison, and it called for additional testing.
In 2010, when the FDA approved Pradaxa, the first of the new generation of anticoagulants, FDA officials expressed similar concerns that uneven warfarin control was making the experimental drug look better. But, in their review of Xarelto, FDA scientists cited the Pradaxa trial as a comparatively shining example—as evidence that ROCKET could have delivered more meaningful results.
“The study results do not convincingly demonstrate the non-inferiority, much less the superiority, of rivaroxaban to warfarin when the latter is used skillfully,” the FDA staff review said.
Some advisory committee members faulted the ROCKET trial for not giving test sites better instructions about what to do if patients’ clotting rates strayed outside the desired range.
“I find it a little disturbing that the protocol allowed the investigators to wait up to four weeks to bring the patients back, to check the patients with subtherapeutic [clotting rates]. That's too long, and it allows for a suboptimal treatment to go forward too long,” Vasilios Papademetriou, a cardiologist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Washington, DC, said at the hearing. In the United States, he said, patients with inadequate anticoagulation returned for medical attention on average “in a week or 10 days.”
Nissen, the Cleveland Clinic cardiologist, made a similar point.
“I’m just puzzled as to why you didn’t make an effort to give sites, particularly third world sites, some guidance about what to do,” he told Califf.
“We did instruct them to make every effort to get the patient back,” Califf said, “but there are limitations on what a site can do in practice in many places.”
“Now, one could argue that one should spend a fortune sending a limousine out to pick up patients in countries that need anticoagulation and artificially make the TTR [time in therapeutic range] come out better,” Califf said.
The FDA staff’s assessment was framed “in a very provocative way,” Califf said, “and this compels us to stand up for our investigators and tell you that we gave warfarin not only in an acceptable way, we gave it in a commendable way during this trial.”
Some members of the advisory committee applauded ROCKET for showing warfarin as it is used in the real world—even if that meant parts of the world where conditions differ from those in the United States
Though the FDA works for the American public, Califf appealed to the agency to take a more global perspective and consider the interests of patients in other countries.
“My concern was that the dose [for Xarelto] was selected more for a marketing advantage rather than for the scientific data that was available.”
—Cardiologist Stephen Nissen
Before the Xarelto trial began, Janssen Pharmaceuticals asked the FDA if it agreed with the planned once-a-day dosing regimen, the FDA’s Grant recounted in his decisional memo.
“[W]e said that we did not concur,” Grant wrote. “[W]e suggested that administering XARELTO twice a day might result in better outcomes.”
ROCKET used the once-a-day regimen anyway.
The FDA allowed the trial to proceed “because we lack authority to put trials on clinical hold for inadequate dose selection,” Grant wrote.
FDA officials worried that, given the drug’s half-life of less than 12 hours, once-a-day dosing could lead to sharp fluctuations in the amount of the drug in patients’ blood, sacrificing safety or efficacy. Grant wrote that, at the low point of a 24-hour cycle, the serum concentration could sink to less than a quarter of its peak level.
As FDA reviewers saw it, there was “no rational basis for the applicant’s choice of the dose tested in ROCKET,” Grant wrote.
But a drug taken once a day had potentially greater appeal than one that had to be taken twice, and patients were arguably less likely to miss doses.
Xarelto was studied as both a once-daily and twice-daily medication in its early clinical development, and in that setting neither regimen was found to be safer or more effective than the other, the Janssen spokeswoman told POGO.
At the FDA advisory committee meeting, panel member Papademetriou said the once-a-day regimen used in the ROCKET trial “probably increased the risk of bleeding.”
Nissen questioned motive.
“Maybe this is a little bit out of line, but my concern was that the dose was selected more for a marketing advantage rather than for the scientific data that was available,” Nissen said.
Califf defended the choice with a dig at politicians.
“Now, anyone who says they know exactly” the right parameters for optimal anticoagulation “I think would have insight that only some of our politicians today actually seem to have,” he sarcastically noted.
Califf said twice-daily dosing would have been a viable choice but once-daily dosing was picked because “it was felt that the convenience factor and the likely improvement in adherence should dominate.” At the 24-hour mark, Califf said, “we’re in a range where there still is anticoagulation present.”
After the trial had been conducted with disregard for the FDA’s dosing concern, Califf said the FDA should accept Xarelto based on the trial as conducted.
“And, after all, we’re here today, presenting results of a trial with the dose that was chosen, and we think that should be the determinant of a decision about whether the patient should have access to this treatment,” Califf said.
The FDA staff review took a firm position. It concluded that a twice-daily dosing regimen “must” be studied “before this product is approved.”
That didn’t happen. The FDA approved the drug with dosing as tested.
Now, the website for Xarelto touts the fact that “you take XARELTO® just once a day.”
There was a spike in strokes among those who had been on Xarelto: they experienced 22 strokes, compared with 6 for those on warfarin.
During the last month or so of the ROCKET trial, after subjects received their final dose of Xarelto, there was a spike in strokes among those who had been on Xarelto.
They experienced 22 strokes, compared with 6 in subjects who had been on warfarin.
The trial had left a three-day gap before patients who had been on Xarelto were put back on a conventional anticoagulant, Califf explained. And, once that happened, there would be a lag before the conventional anticoagulant—generally, warfarin—was working as intended, according to the FDA staff review. As a result, for several days, subjects coming off of Xarelto “would not be adequately anticoagulated,” the staff review said.
The spike in strokes might have been “a result of this study design feature,” the review said. Other clinical trials had avoided that pitfall by overlapping treatment with warfarin as patients were coming off the experimental drug.
Jonathan Fox, a vice president at drug-maker AstraZeneca and the non-voting industry representative on the advisory committee, said the ROCKET transition plan “could have been a whole lot better in retrospect.”
Califf told the advisory committee that, when ROCKET was designed, there was little data about giving Xarelto and warfarin together. “It was felt it would be better to err on the side of not causing bleeding by over-anticoagulating.”
The ROCKET executive committee “believes excess events at the end of the trial are a result of the transition strategy that we take accountability for, but we believe it was done in good faith and with a lot of discussion and thought,” Califf said.
In the end, the advisory committee voted 9 to 2 with 1 abstention that the FDA should approve Xarelto. One member who voted in favor of approval nonetheless said he did not consider Xarelto an effective alternative to warfarin and thought of it as a “thirdline option” after other anticoagulants.
The FDA considered restricting Xarelto to use as a “second line therapy,” Grant, the deputy division director, wrote.
The FDA rejected the idea, Grant explained, because officials could not think of any scenario in which a patient should be switched from warfarin or Pradaxa to Xarelto.
Read more articles in the “Drug Problems” series:
By: David S. Hilzenrath
Editor-in-Chief, POGO
David HilzenrathDavid Hilzenrath is Editor-in-Chief for the Project On Government Oversight.

Sunday, May 8, 2016

6 Scientific Reasons Why You Should Consider Not Smoking Weed On A Regular Basis


6 Scientific Reasons Why You Should Consider Not Smoking Weed On A Regular Basis


It’s about being balanced and informed. Exploring the upsides and downsides to cannabis.
We’ve reported a ton on the benefits of cannabis and its potential in medical applications, but what about the other side of the coin? Is it fair to say cannabis comes with no downsides? When treating people and seeing positive benefits, what negative effects might also come?
Marijuana has been the subject of intense debate over these last few years. Now legal in multiple states in the U.S. and authorized for medicinal purposes in even more, an increasing number of people are recognizing how arbitrary the line is between legal substances, like alcohol and cigarettes, and illegal ones, like pot — particularly since both alcohol and cigarettes have been shown to be extremely detrimental to the human body, while marijuana has not.
But what’s the reason for that? Getting marijuana to study has proven to be incredibly difficult for many researchers and therefore getting study results has been tough. [2]
So given that this natural substance is being used incredibly regularly, and yet doesn’t have a full scope of research behind it, we wanted to balance the scales and bring awareness to the fact that we should really think twice before using this substance daily for long periods of time and thinking it’s completely safe. Unless of course you have been prescribed the substance, but even at that, it’s good to be in the know.[2]
This article came in response to a recent article pointing out the sheer benefits of smoking cannabis without mentioning the other side of the coin. We feel any research that takes this approach is simply not beneficial to public awareness.
To be clear, we’re not saying this plant should be illegal. It’s a plant, but we don’t know as much about its safety in daily and long term use as we’d like.

We Can’t Blindly View It As Safe

The massive support for the legalization of marijuana does have its drawbacks, as it leads people to believe that smoking marijuana is completely harmless, and even good for you. While it can be quite therapeutic for dulling pain or alleviating anxiety, so can alcohol and even prescription drugs. It seems like people are willing to see the downsides of those substances but not cannabis. [1]
In reality, research shows that smoking cannabis on a regular basis may still be hazardous. Many forget that the plant’s medicinal benefits are most readily taken advantage of when it is ingested, not smoked.
It is admittedly encouraging to see all of the support for the legalization of marijuana, and all of the evidence emerging that smoking it is not as harmful as it was originally said to be. The legalization of marijuana threatens many industries, so perhaps this is why it has taken so long to get the ball rolling.
That being said, more of a balance is needed: with so much support out there for marijuana, many people, especially young people, think there are no health consequences of smoking it. This is why we’ve decided to put together a list of 7 reasons why you should really consider not smoking marijuana on a regular basis.
We are very well aware of the other side of cannabis (articles). For example, we recently published an article showing how cannabis helped cure a girl from cancer. She is one of many examples of people who have benefited immensely from cannabis, and it’s important to raise awareness about how paediatric cannabis is saving lives. You can read that article here.
We have also published a number of articles on why marijuana should be legal, as well as reported on the dozens of health benefits it boasts, from helping people with pain and epilepsy to replacing prescription drugs and more.
A number of studies have been published that show cannabis completely annihilates cancer. We are talking about decades of research (a simple google search for scholarly articles on cannabis and cancer will show you this). Despite this fact, no human clinical trials have been conducted. Here is an article of a molecular biologist explaining how THC kills cancer.
It’s also important to mention that we are not against smoking weed, but based on the science, smoking weed regularly on a daily basis for a period that lasts more than a year could be harmful to your health.
“Really, the way to do these things, is to do them rarely so that your whole system can reassert itself and come to equilibrium. . . I think the real way to do cannabis is like, once a week. . . . ” — Terrence McKenna (source)

1. Most of the Medicinal Benefits of Marijuana Come From Different Methods of Ingestion, Not Smoking

Cannabinoids are any group of related compounds that include cannabinol and the active constituents of cannabis. They activate cannabinoid receptors that already exist in our body, and our bodies themselves actually produce compounds called endocannabinoids.  These play a vital role in the human body, helping to create a healthy environment. Cannabinoids themselves also play an important role in immune system regeneration. Studies have shown that multiple constituents of cannabis can kill cancer cells, repair damaged brain cells, and more.[3] The medical potential of this plant is truly miraculous, and it’s a shame that despite decades of research showing undeniable results, like its ability to completely annihilate cancer, human clinical trials are only n0w commencing, and only in conjunction with chemotherapy drugs.
It’s important to know that contrary to popular belief, smoking cannabis does not assist a great deal in treating disease within the body, as therapeutic levels cannot be reached through smoking. Creating oil from the plant or eating the plant is the best way to absorb cannabinoids. Smoking also alters the plant molecules; when cannabis is heated and burnt it changes the chemical structure and acidity of the THC, which in turn negates its therapeutic value. The smoke from marijuana is toxic to the body, just as the smoke from any other substance would be. (I will discuss this further on in the article.) Furthermore, anytime you burn something and inhale it, you create oxidation within the body, which is unhealthy and can lead to many issues.
None of the health benefits of marijuana come from smoking it. When one says “cannabis cures cancer,” that doesn’t mean smoking it.

2. Heavy Marijuana Use Is Linked To Lower Dopamine Levels In The Brain

Researchers in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University have found that heavy smokers of marijuana could have a compromised dopamine system. When studying heavy smokers, they discovered lower dopamine release in one region of the brain, the striatum, which is the part of the brain that’s involved in working memory, impulsive behaviour, and attention. Several other studies have shown that addiction to other drugs can have similar effects on dopamine release, but this is the first evidence of its kind linking it to smoking cannabis.[4]

The study examined 11 adults between the ages of 21 and 40 who were heavily dependent on cannabis against 12 healthy control subjects. 16 was the average age these individuals started smoking, and they had not stopped since.
Their press release outlines how the study was conducted, and the methods used:
Using positron emission tomography (PET) to track a radiolabelled molecule that binds to dopamine receptors in the brain, the scientists measured dopamine release in the striatum and its subregions, as well as in several brain regions outside the striatum, including the thalamus, midbrain, and globus pallidus. The cannabis users in this study stayed in the hospital for a week of abstinence to ensure that the PET scans were not measuring the acute effects of the drug. Participants were scanned before and after being given oral amphetamine to elicit dopamine release. The percent change in the binding of the radiotracer was taken as an indicator of capacity for dopamine release.
Compared with the controls, the cannabis users had significantly lower dopamine release in the striatum, including subregions involved in associative and sensorimotor learning, and in the globus pallidus. (source)(source)
Anissa Abi-Dargham, MD, a professor of psychiatry (in radiology) at Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) and a lead author of the paper, said that “the bottom line is that long-term, heavy cannabis use may impair the dopaminergic system, which could have a variety of negative effects on learning and behaviour.” She also went on to emphasize that “these findings add to the growing body of research demonstrating the potentially adverse effects of cannabis, particularly in youth, at the same time that government policies and laws are increasing access and use.” (source)
Here is another study that was done two years ago that examines the same thing.
We all know correlation does not mean causation, but we all know that it doesn’t either. You have to make your own judgements, use the Bradford Hill Criteria, and look at a number of different studies from both sides.
Based on everything I’ve looked at, in my opinion, marijuana smoking does have some sort of effect on the brain in multiple ways, differing from person to person. Whether it’s ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ I’m not sure.

3. Smoking Marijuana Linked To Schizophrenia, But It’s Complicated

A number of studies have linked smoking cannabis to schizophrenia and psychosis.[5] For example, a fairly recent study found that schizophrenia plays a role in a person’s likelihood of smoking weed. The study showed that genetic variants predicting schizophrenia  can also be used to predict a person’s tendency to smoke pot. The study showed that the same genes that predispose people to enjoying smoking cannabis might also predispose some to develop schizophrenia.
Lead author of the study, Robert Power, a genetic psychiatrist at King’s College London stated that “there is a well-established link between people who use cannabis and schizophrenia.” (source)
Based on the scientific literature, it’s quite clear that there is a link, and at the same time, it seems to be clear that there isn’t. Mathew Hill, a cell biologist at the University of Calgary, tells us “the relationship is an ongoing debate in the scientific world — at least what the nature of the association is.” He also told us that “there is little evidence that, at a population level, cannabis use during adolescence is a primary contributing factor in the development of psychiatric illness. (source)
Just because some studies show an associative link does not mean there is one. At the same time, it doesn’t mean that there’s not one. This is the key! Some studies have shown that people who are in the early stages of schizophrenia that also smoke weed experience much larger brain modifications, like changes in white matter, compared to those who are not susceptible to schizophrenia.
What is clear is that people who already show signs of psychotic illness do experience adverse effects from smoking marijuana.
“There is definitely some kind of genetic basis to increased vulnerability to these adverse effects (in people with schizophrenia) that go beyond the correlational association.” — Mathew Hill (source)
Again, it’s well-known that marijuana smoking by people with schizophrenia only worsens the disease, and a number of studies have shown that smoking marijuana actually increases the development of schizophrenia in those who might be genetically predisposed to it. So, if you have a family history of psychotic illness, smoking weed is something you might not want to partake in, or if you suffer from any other ailment that’s classified as a mental illness for that matter.
One thing seems to be certain: cannabis smoking does affect the brain in various ways, especially at crucial stages of brain development in adolescents.
Below is a great publication and a good summary to find out more information about this topic and why it’s so confusing. Again, this connection (between schizophrenia and marijuana smoking) is still up for debate in the scientific world, and there are conflicting studies that continue to contradict each other every single year. This suggests that we simply don’t know enough and therefore should be careful with our habits.
So, next time someone tells you that there is a link between schizophrenia and marijuana smoking, they’re wrong, and next time someone tells you there is no link, they are also wrong! The best way to avoid any risk is to just avoid smoking marijuana all together.

4. Smoking Marijuana Changes Your Brain

One recent study found that using marijuana daily for at least four years or longer can create certain anatomical changes in the brain. In this particular study, researchers used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to examine the brains of approximately 50 adults who were chronic marijuana users, compared to more than 60 people who didn’t use marijuana at all.
Researchers found that the people who had been smoking daily for at least four years had a smaller volume of gray matter in their orbitofrontal cortex, which is usually associated with addiction.
Lead author of the study, Francesca Filbey, an Associate Professor in the School of Behavioural Brain Sciences at the University of Texas at Dallas said, “not only is there a change in structure but there tends to be a change reflected in connectivity…all we can say is that we do see these [differences].” (source)
This is concerning, especially given the fact that grey matter is a major component of the central nervous system. Not only is it associated with addiction, it’s also associated with muscle control, sensory perception, memory, emotions, speech, decision making and self-control. A smaller amount of grey matter has also been implicated in a number of psychiatric disorders, including depression. There is a widespread reduction of gray matter in people who suffer depression, and yes, smoking marijuana may give temporary relief from depression, but when one doesn’t have it, they might feel depressed.  Marijuana could contribute to depression, and the fact that one feels better when one smokes it might make them think that it helps with their depression. This could be dangerous as they could be constantly depleting their gray matter.
Again, there are a number of studies that show smoking marijuana recently can drastically change the brain, and also disrupt brain development.
Another recent study also found that marijuana smokers showed signs of damage in the corpus callous, which is a major white matter tract that connects the left side of the brain to the right side. However, the study did mention that the people examined could have had deviant brain structures prior to their use.
study published a few years ago showed that people who constantly smoke marijuana have abnormal brain structures, but multiple studies have also shown that marijuana smokers show no difference in brain structure.
The list goes on and on, but one thing is for certain: the effects on the brain are unclear. Further research is needed to identify what smoking marijuana does to the brain because there are still a number of studies that are contradictory. That being said, there is no doubt that it does something, but the way it interacts with our biology can vary for each individual.

5. Smoking Harms The Lungs

Regardless of what you are smoking, smoke is harmful to lung health; this is a no-brainer. Whether it’s burning wood, tobacco or marijuana, toxins and carcinogens are released from the combustion of materials. Smoke from marijuana combustion is no different. According to the American Lung Association:
Smoking marijuana clearly damages the human lung. Research shows that smoking marijuana causes chronic bronchitis and marijuana smoke has been shown to injure the cell linings of the large airways, which could explain why smoking marijuana leads to symptoms such as chronic cough, phlegm production, wheeze and acute bronchitis. 
Again, marijuana smoke contains a similar range of harmful chemicals to that of tobacco smoke, and there is no shortage of research suggesting that long-term marijuana smoking is associated with an increased risk of some respiratory problems. Despite this proven correlation, there is no association between smoking marijuana and lung cancer.
There are other alternatives to smoking marijuana, such as vaporizing or eating it.

6. Smoking Marijuana Can Increase Your Risk of Serious Cardiovascular Disorders

Multiple studies have connected smoking marijuana with potential cardiovascular disorders. One recent study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association noted that:
Several striking cardiovascular complications following cannabis use raised the issue of possible implications of cannabis in cardiovascular outcomes…The rate of cannabis-related cardiovascular complications reported steadily rose during the past 5 years.  Cardiovascular disorders represented 2 percent of the reports related to cannabis, classified into cardiac, cerebral, and peripheral arteriopathies. This result is consistent with previous findings and strengthens the idea that cannabis may be responsible for serious complications, in particular on the cardiovascular system. (source)
Another recent study, published last year concluded that:
The evidence reported in this article point toward an undisputed linkage between cannabis consumption and potentially lethal cardiovascular complications. (source)

Something to Consider:

Trouble Living Life Without Smoking
As with so many of our other favorite habits, smoking is a vice, and many people who smoke weed have difficulty stopping. Life often feels boring without it; smoking becomes a need and almost a mental addiction (we know there is no physical addiction involved.) And this is obviously problematic. It is rare to find someone who will be able to smoke a joint a couple of times a month, which is the amount many experts in the field of “mind-altering”‘ drugs propose. It’s a substance that is abused and not given the respect it deserves, often being used as an escape — helping the person avoid asking themselves why they feel the need to alter their state so often. If you are a regular smoker and notice that without smoking for a night or two you become bored, anxious, or depressed, or have certain feelings come up because you don’t have a joint in your hand, it may be time to consider reducing your usage, and perhaps facing those negative feelings head-on.
If you have a hard time going without smoking a joint, that in itself is a problem. Alternatively, if you are a regular marijuana smoker but can easily stop for weeks at a time, without any desire to smoke, perhaps you don’t have a problem. The main point here is that smoking shouldn’t be used to escape one’s problems because it just prolongs the process of facing them.
How Is It Grown?
These days, it’s hard to find ‘pure weed.’ Most people are not aware of the original source, and marijuana can be grown with harmful pesticides. In fact, it wasn’t after the legalization of marijuana in Colorado when authorities found dangers pesticides in most of the marijuana that was being sold. You can read more about that here.
Where do the seeds come from? When Big Pharma takes over, what type of seeds will they be, and how will it be grown? Are they genetically modified? There are still many questions to be asked.

Concluding Comments

So what can you take from all of this? We simply don’t know enough about this plant and smoking it to do it everyday and expect nothing bad will happen. There has been a very misleading culture spread about how safe this is to use in all forms and that simply isn’t the case.
Many natural substances are harmful to you if you have too much of it and too regularly. Even natural medicinal botanicals are things like this are not meant to be used everyday.

Again, we hope this helps to clear up the negative stigma around marijuana and also the blind-faithed positive stigma around it. Balance is important in this case and what we strive to convey in this report.