I thank Dr Mitchell for his opinion and for standing behind the quote, “There are biochemically distinct strains of cannabis, but the sativa/indica distinction as commonly applied in the lay literature is total nonsense and an exercise in futility.”
In effect, Dr Mitchell is saying “strain does not matter.” I can’t say Dr Mitchell is wrong, but it does not align with the data we collected.
Dr Mitchell proposes that my observations should be viewed more as results of the placebo effect in combination with observer bias, especially given the lack of quantification of the cannabis used.
I respectfully disagree. This is not a placebo effect. The data are based on a retrospective chart analysis of a heterogeneous population, in a naturalistic setting, with no exclusion criteria. Even after you remove the noise, our observations remained statistically more likely than expected by chance.
It seems that Dr Mitchell is suggesting that our observations are misinformation, worse because they are published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. Here’s why I see it differently:
- Before our study, from reading the medical literature, I didn’t even know there were two distinct strains.
- During our study, I was amazed how strong the signal remained, despite a possible placebo effect, observer bias, and regardless of the dose. Not only are the strains different, they are opposites.
- After our study, I shared my observations with every clinician at every conference and everybody said what Dr Mitchell said, “There is no strain difference.”
In essence, what our patients consider a self-evident truth, that sativa stimulates and indica sedates, is based on millennia of trial and error. It should not be a mystery to respected cannabis scientists. But it is. That’s why I knew we had to publish it.
Whether this is a random finding or whether it represents the first stone on the scale that measures the weight of evidence, only time will tell.
—A.M. Ocana, MD, CCFP, ABAM
This letter was submitted in response to “Re: Cannabis use by adolescents.”
Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally
accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.
About the ICMJE and citation styles
The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.
An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.
BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:
- Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
- There is no period after the journal name.
- Page numbers are not abbreviated.
For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org