http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/07/17/study-finds-little-evidence-supporting-medical-marijuana-for-treatment/
QuoteA new study finds little to no evidence that marijuana is an effective treatment for anxiety, migraines, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, azcentral.com reported.
University of Arizona researchers, working on behalf of the state Department of Health Services, conducted a review of dozens of studies that looked at marijuana use in relation to the four medical conditions and found most of the research did not adequately show medicinal risks versus benefits of marijuana.
According to azcentral.com, both state health officials and medical marijuana advocates agree the lack of scientific evidence is mainly due to the research restrictions on controlled substances.
The study could negatively impact efforts by advocates to expand Arizona's medical marijuana program to include treatment of anxiety, migraines, depression and PTSD. While state officials have heard anecdotal evidence that marijuana can help the conditions, they say they will only base their decision on scientific evidence.
Just saw this in elevator. Headline is a bit misleading. Better article linked below.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/16/20120716medical-marijuana-benefits-dispute.html
Marijuana as a treatment for depression and anxiety? :frusty:
Studies have shown increased rates of those disorders amongst marijuana users.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:18:35 PM
Marijuana as a treatment for depression and anxiety? :frusty:
Studies have shown increased rates of those disorders amongst marijuana users.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
QuoteHowever, at this time, it is not clear whether marijuana use causes mental problems, exacerbates them, or reflects an attempt to self-medicate symptoms already in existence.
:rolleyes:
Next they'll tell us the Declaration of Independence wasn't written on hemp paper.
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 12:20:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:18:35 PM
Marijuana as a treatment for depression and anxiety? :frusty:
Studies have shown increased rates of those disorders amongst marijuana users.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
QuoteHowever, at this time, it is not clear whether marijuana use causes mental problems, exacerbates them, or reflects an attempt to self-medicate symptoms already in existence.
:rolleyes:
Don't you roll your eyes at me. I didn't say "cause", I said "increased rates".
There's little reason to add that in then as all that could say is that you've a lot of people with those disorders who are also using marijuana as they got it as a prescription treatment. :D
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 12:38:34 PM
There's little reason to add that in then as all that could say is that you've a lot of people with those disorders who are also using marijuana as they got it as a prescription treatment. :D
No, the article says that MM advocates are trying to get those disorders listed - so they aren't right now.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:45:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 12:38:34 PM
There's little reason to add that in then as all that could say is that you've a lot of people with those disorders who are also using marijuana as they got it as a prescription treatment. :D
No, the article says that MM advocates are trying to get those disorders listed - so they aren't right now.
Ahem, that's for Arizona whereas your link was a general link. California already allows marijuana to be prescribed to treat depression and anxiety.
It would be a bit easier for me to take medical marijuana more seriously if the packaging were less jovial and more mediciney-looking.
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2012, 12:51:57 PM
It would be a bit easier for me to take medical marijuana more seriously if the packaging were less jovial and more mediciney-looking.
That's nice and irrelevant. :)
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 12:48:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:45:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 12:38:34 PM
There's little reason to add that in then as all that could say is that you've a lot of people with those disorders who are also using marijuana as they got it as a prescription treatment. :D
No, the article says that MM advocates are trying to get those disorders listed - so they aren't right now.
Ahem, that's for Arizona whereas your link was a general link. California already allows marijuana to be prescribed to treat depression and anxiety.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 01:15:52 PM
:bleeding:
Should I trust medical professionals in California or a lawyer in Alberta? :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 01:15:52 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 12:48:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:45:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 12:38:34 PM
There's little reason to add that in then as all that could say is that you've a lot of people with those disorders who are also using marijuana as they got it as a prescription treatment. :D
No, the article says that MM advocates are trying to get those disorders listed - so they aren't right now.
Ahem, that's for Arizona whereas your link was a general link. California already allows marijuana to be prescribed to treat depression and anxiety.
:bleeding:
I don't blame you for feeling that way - his point pretty much destroys yours.
I don't have a dog in the medical marijuana fight. I want to see MJ legalized so that law enforcement and criminal justice resources can be better deployed against things that matter.
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 01:20:16 PM
Should I trust medical professionals in California or a lawyer in Alberta? :hmm:
Seems to me the relevant question is the California legislature vs. a bepleated Alberta lawyer.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 17, 2012, 01:27:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 01:20:16 PM
Should I trust medical professionals in California or a lawyer in Alberta? :hmm:
Seems to me the relevant question is the California legislature vs. a bepleated Alberta lawyer.
I don't think the legislature has the power to prescribe.
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 01:03:16 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 17, 2012, 12:51:57 PM
It would be a bit easier for me to take medical marijuana more seriously if the packaging were less jovial and more mediciney-looking.
That's nice and irrelevant. :)
You answered me! :blush:
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 01:20:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 01:15:52 PM
:bleeding:
Should I trust medical professionals in California or a lawyer in Alberta? :hmm:
What you should trust is a full medical study that tracks the effectiveness of marijuana as a treatment for anxiety and depression. Until and unless that is done I would think using marijuana to treat psychiatric problems would be extremely dangerous.
I've been googling, and all I can find on the pro side are a bunch of anecdotes and theories.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:25:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 12:20:02 PM
:rolleyes:
Don't you roll your eyes at me. I didn't say "cause", I said "increased rates".
That's because it's not a solution to the problem, it simply masks it. That's what the brochure that Marilyn Manson gave me said.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 01:34:23 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 01:20:16 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 01:15:52 PM
:bleeding:
Should I trust medical professionals in California or a lawyer in Alberta? :hmm:
What you should trust is a full medical study that tracks the effectiveness of marijuana as a treatment for anxiety and depression. Until and unless that is done I would think using marijuana to treat psychiatric problems would be extremely dangerous.
I've been googling, and all I can find on the pro side are a bunch of anecdotes and theories.
And I forgot about the OP. :frusty:
Which is, of course, a study which says pot is NOT an effective treatment for those disorders.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 01:39:14 PM
And I forgot about the OP. :frusty:
Which is, of course, a study which says pot is NOT an effective treatment for those disorders.
Actually its more like a meta-analysis that said the few studies they reviewed didn't show that MJ benefits outweighed risk.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:25:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 12:20:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:18:35 PM
Marijuana as a treatment for depression and anxiety? :frusty:
Studies have shown increased rates of those disorders amongst marijuana users.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
QuoteHowever, at this time, it is not clear whether marijuana use causes mental problems, exacerbates them, or reflects an attempt to self-medicate symptoms already in existence.
:rolleyes:
Don't you roll your eyes at me. I didn't say "cause", I said "increased rates".
By that logic, those taking anti-depression medication show "increased rates" of depression as well, since more people taking anti-depression medication have depression than those who do not. :D
Quote from: grumbler on July 17, 2012, 01:24:33 PM
I don't blame you for feeling that way - his point pretty much destroys yours.
I don't have a dog in the medical marijuana fight. I want to see MJ legalized so that law enforcement and criminal justice resources can be better deployed against things that matter.
That sounds like a dog in the fight.
The article in the OP seems to be saying that there is no reliable evidence of benefits because performing adequate scientific studies is legally difficult or impossible.
Myself, I always thought the medical pot thing was more intended as a legalization strategy than a serious concern.
Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2012, 02:55:39 PM
By that logic, those taking anti-depression medication show "increased rates" of depression as well, since more people taking anti-depression medication have depression than those who do not. :D
:hug:
Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2012, 02:55:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:25:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 12:20:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:18:35 PM
Marijuana as a treatment for depression and anxiety? :frusty:
Studies have shown increased rates of those disorders amongst marijuana users.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
QuoteHowever, at this time, it is not clear whether marijuana use causes mental problems, exacerbates them, or reflects an attempt to self-medicate symptoms already in existence.
:rolleyes:
Don't you roll your eyes at me. I didn't say "cause", I said "increased rates".
By that logic, those taking anti-depression medication show "increased rates" of depression as well, since more people taking anti-depression medication have depression than those who do not. :D
By that logic, being a prosecutor in Alberta increases your chances of being boring and square.
Does it come as a suppository?
Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2012, 03:00:35 PM
The article in the OP seems to be saying that there is no reliable evidence of benefits because performing adequate scientific studies is legally difficult or impossible.
Myself, I always thought the medical pot thing was more intended as a legalization strategy than a serious concern.
Yes I've seen that.
Also the whole 'Sacred Weed' mantra has gotten real old, I take if more seriously if the people who were advocating it, didn't just jump-cut to any old shit piece of cardboard to make the filter for their joint; perhaps they should look into the printing inks and chemicals used in making the cardboard product ?
Would the whole spiritual event them be so purifying ?
Quote from: mongers on July 17, 2012, 04:05:51 PM
Quote from: Malthus on July 17, 2012, 03:00:35 PM
The article in the OP seems to be saying that there is no reliable evidence of benefits because performing adequate scientific studies is legally difficult or impossible.
Myself, I always thought the medical pot thing was more intended as a legalization strategy than a serious concern.
Yes I've seen that.
Also the whole 'Sacred Weed' mantra has gotten real old, I take if more seriously if the people who were advocating it, didn't just jump-cut to any old shit piece of cardboard to make the filter for their joint; perhaps they should look into the printing inks and chemicals used in making the cardboard product ?
Would the whole spiritual event them be so purifying ?
:huh:
What's that?
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 17, 2012, 04:05:51 PM
Yes I've seen that.
Also the whole 'Sacred Weed' mantra has gotten real old, I take if more seriously if the people who were advocating it, didn't just jump-cut to any old shit piece of cardboard to make the filter for their joint; perhaps they should look into the printing inks and chemicals used in making the cardboard product ?
Would the whole spiritual event them be so purifying ?
:huh:
What's that?
I think Mongers is just posting in the wrong thread. Apparently there is some thread (maybe on his occupy web site) about some British "Sacred Weed' mantra, and he just mistakenly posted here instead.
Either that, or he is just clueless.
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 01:20:16 PM
Should I trust medical professionals in California or a lawyer in Alberta? :hmm:
No.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:18:35 PM
Marijuana as a treatment for depression and anxiety? :frusty:
Studies have shown increased rates of those disorders amongst marijuana users.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
In 2007 The Lancet published a systematic review on the relation between marijuana and affective (i.e. anexity, depression) or psychotic disorder (schizophrenia). There isn't any convincing evidence that marijuana increases the rate of depression. There is pretty definitive proof that schizophrenia has an earlier age of onset in people who use marijuana. Although it's not clear that it necessarily causes schizophrenia - it may just unmask it susceptible individuals who would have otherwise presented later in life.
I'd link the study but it's behind a pay wall.
Quote from: dps on July 17, 2012, 08:09:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 01:20:16 PM
Should I trust medical professionals in California or a lawyer in Alberta? :hmm:
No.
I should trust no one? :unsure:
Quote from: Fate on July 17, 2012, 10:04:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:18:35 PM
Marijuana as a treatment for depression and anxiety? :frusty:
Studies have shown increased rates of those disorders amongst marijuana users.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
In 2007 The Lancet published a systematic review on the relation between marijuana and affective (i.e. anexity, depression) or psychotic disorder (schizophrenia). There isn't any convincing evidence that marijuana increases the rate of depression. There is pretty definitive proof that schizophrenia has an earlier age of onset in people who use marijuana. Although it's not clear that it necessarily causes schizophrenia - it may just unmask it susceptible individuals who would have otherwise presented later in life.
I'd link the study but it's behind a pay wall.
Danke.
Anything on marijuana used as a treatment for and affective disorders?
Quote from: grumbler on July 17, 2012, 07:00:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 17, 2012, 04:05:51 PM
Yes I've seen that.
Also the whole 'Sacred Weed' mantra has gotten real old, I take if more seriously if the people who were advocating it, didn't just jump-cut to any old shit piece of cardboard to make the filter for their joint; perhaps they should look into the printing inks and chemicals used in making the cardboard product ?
Would the whole spiritual event them be so purifying ?
:huh:
What's that?
I think Mongers is just posting in the wrong thread. Apparently there is some thread (maybe on his occupy web site) about some British "Sacred Weed' mantra, and he just mistakenly posted here instead.
Either that, or he is just clueless.
And there is no Zombie Craze.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 11:04:59 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 17, 2012, 10:04:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:18:35 PM
Marijuana as a treatment for depression and anxiety? :frusty:
Studies have shown increased rates of those disorders amongst marijuana users.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
In 2007 The Lancet published a systematic review on the relation between marijuana and affective (i.e. anexity, depression) or psychotic disorder (schizophrenia). There isn't any convincing evidence that marijuana increases the rate of depression. There is pretty definitive proof that schizophrenia has an earlier age of onset in people who use marijuana. Although it's not clear that it necessarily causes schizophrenia - it may just unmask it susceptible individuals who would have otherwise presented later in life.
I'd link the study but it's behind a pay wall.
Danke.
Anything on marijuana used as a treatment for and affective disorders?
There's definitive evidence that supports using high potency oral cannabinoids to treat chemotherapy associated nausea and cachexia (profound wasting associated with AIDS, cancer, etc.) There really isn't sufficient evidence out there for medical professionals to be using it for anything else.
You'll also always hear about smoking weed for glaucoma. It does transiently lower pressure in the eye , but if you truly have glaucoma you need to get your ass to an ophthalmologist.
Quote from: Fate on July 19, 2012, 06:39:34 PM
There's definitive evidence that supports using high potency oral cannabinoids to treat chemotherapy associated nausea and cachexia (profound wasting associated with AIDS, cancer, etc.) There really isn't sufficient evidence out there for medical professionals to be using it for anything else.
You'll also always hear about smoking weed for glaucoma. It does transiently lower pressure in the eye , but if you truly have glaucoma you need to get your ass to an ophthalmologist.
Again, it is also incredibly difficult to conduct such studies because of the legality of the product. Until there's a bit more freedom for trials, we will never know all of its benefits or detriments.
Quote from: merithyn on July 19, 2012, 06:49:09 PM
Quote from: Fate on July 19, 2012, 06:39:34 PM
There's definitive evidence that supports using high potency oral cannabinoids to treat chemotherapy associated nausea and cachexia (profound wasting associated with AIDS, cancer, etc.) There really isn't sufficient evidence out there for medical professionals to be using it for anything else.
You'll also always hear about smoking weed for glaucoma. It does transiently lower pressure in the eye , but if you truly have glaucoma you need to get your ass to an ophthalmologist.
Again, it is also incredibly difficult to conduct such studies because of the legality of the product. Until there's a bit more freedom for trials, we will never know all of its benefits or detriments.
You can buy dronabinol (marinol) legally with a prescription in all 50 states. It's essentially THC in a pill. It may not be as cool as lighting up, but it has the same efficacy albeit with a slower onset of action.
Quote from: Fate on July 19, 2012, 06:58:43 PM
You can buy dronabinol (marinol) legally with a prescription in all 50 states. It's essentially THC in a pill. It may not be as cool as lighting up, but it has the same efficacy albeit with a slower onset of action.
Hm. I thought it wasn't the same efficacy as marijuana, but I may have just read that on one of those forums that advocated full legalization.
When I say efficacy I am using it in the technical/pharmacological sense of the word. Essentially, both inhaled and oral THC have the same effect on a THC receptor in the brain.
I'm guessing when lay people hear the word efficacy they conflate it with onset of action. Inhaled THC does enter into the body almost instantaneously versus an hour or two when you take it in a pill form. That isn't a difference in efficacy. However it is an advantage of smoking weed versus taking pills.
Quote from: Fate on July 19, 2012, 07:05:26 PM
When I say efficacy I am using it in the technical/pharmacological sense of the word. Essentially, both inhaled and oral THC have the same effect on a THC receptor in the brain.
I'm guessing when lay people hear the word efficacy they conflate it with onset of action. Inhaled THC does have the advantaged that it gets into the body almost instantaneously versus an hour or two when you take it in a pill form. That isn't efficacy. However it is an advantage of smoking weed versus taking pills.
Thanks. :) I'll use the word the way I mean it now.
Hm. I thought it wasn't the same efficacy as marijuana, but I may have just read that on one of those forums that advocated full legalization.
So I saw Massachusetts is voting on medical marijuana this year again and apparently the pro-side has some big donors. KRonn, looking at you to do the right thing, buddy.
Quote from: merithyn on July 19, 2012, 06:49:09 PMAgain, it is also incredibly difficult to conduct such studies because of the legality of the product. Until there's a bit more freedom for trials, we will never know all of its benefits or detriments.
It's a shame no countries outside the United States exist and have medical research, especially countries that don't have marijuana so tightly controlled.
I think the reality about why medical marijuana hasn't become a significant thing other than a legalization strategy (which any reasonable person is fine with just from doing a societal cost-benefit analysis), is it's basically anathema to what modern medicine is about. Ask a doctor what they'd rather prescribe:
1. A plant that is burnt and inhaled into the lungs, and which does not have a guaranteed active chemical content.
2. A pill, injection, or etc that has a known, predictable, guaranteed chemical content per unit.
The problem with plants is even grown by the best, most ethical farmer and controlled perfectly from ground to human will have natural variability. It's the same reason even with modern farming no two peaches or two apples are exactly, 100% the same. That's no big deal when you're just eating a peach or an apple but in general when they can avoid it doctors aren't huge fans of dosing that way.
The other problem with the plant is you
are smoking burnt carbon into your lungs. A big part of the reason cigarettes cause lung cancer is because of all the chemicals in the tobacco product and etc, but even if you removed all that, hell even if you just had a paper tube stuffed with Kentucky bluegrass (the shit you mow, not some euphemism for a Kentucky strain of weed) any carbon burnt and inhaled causes damage to the lungs and is carcinogenic. Burnt carbon and the lungs just don't mix, at all.
Because marijuana doesn't have the exact same negative shit in it that mass market cigarettes do I believe most lung cancer studies looking at MJ users have shown it isn't nearly as bad for your as cigarettes (also probably because you don't smoke the equivalent of two packs a day of marijuana), but it does correlate to increased risk of lung cancer. When it's only widely accepted treatment is for nausea, and typically for people undergoing chemotherapy because they have cancer, ingesting a known carcinogen (burnt carbon) isn't going to be something a lot of doctors are super happy to just go and do.
There are vaporizers which actually eliminate the burnt carbon problem, but most medical MJ users don't seem attracted to that. Most likely because it's really just, as I said, a path to legalization. In California medical MJ clinics are essentially openly operated as places for anyone to get their fix, and people looking to get high don't actually care to use a vaporizer because they're used to hitting up a bowl, joint, bong (whatever kids do these days) and the vaporizer just hasn't caught on as much.
Huh. Seems like using marijuana in food would be the better, safer option. Were I given it as a prescription, I sure as hell wouldn't smoke it for the very reasons you offer up.
I get the variation aspect. Makes sense, actually.
And any chance you have any studies from those other countries handy? I've looked and having seen any, but my language skills are limited to English and Pigeon Spanish.
OvBs take on California: :D
Oh I don't actually know if any studies have been done in other countries. It's just a standard canned response of mine. Anytime someone starts going on and on about how certain knowledge (see: water-powered cars, for example) would have been fully developed if not for draconian American laws I immediately feel the need to point out there are lots of other first world countries out there that do serious research. And you're not really doing any of that meri, but you're sort of "stomping around that territory" enough that the people who do that might nod at you as a "fellow traveler."
The money involved if you could come up with a major, widespread, commonly accepted drug is big enough that there would be at least some research going on if it was a serious line of inquiry. The reality is chemists and biologists are really only interested in plants as places to get ideas, for actual research they tend to synthesize chemicals to approximate what was found in the plant or break it down into constituent chemicals. Their interest is in figuring out the biochemistry, because most likely that's the only way to actually get it into a form worthwhile. It's like Aspirin, or acetylsalicylic acid, it could be found in Willow Bark and back to antiquity people used Willow Bark extract in homeopathic medicine. However pharmaceutical aspirin is way better than any shit you'd ever get by boiling down the bark from a willow, because willow bark extract is actually toxic in the doses required to get enough aspirin to approach modern usages of aspirin in a clinical setting. By actually working at a biochemical level scientists were able to take a valid medical compound found in a plant and actually turn it into real medicine, something that can be used predictably and in a controlled setting. Also, something that can be more easily mass produced, stored, and distributed.
The pharmaceutical industry takes ideas and compounds from plants all the time, but we don't really get prescribed plants for anything. This is because the scientists and doctors involved don't want to be prescribing plants because plants vary and also come with tons of other biochemical compounds that have umpteen unknown affects. The pharmaceutical industry is interested in isolating relevant compounds in plants, and either synthesizing them into something by itself, or if that particular chemical doesn't have quite the affect wanted they will study how it works in the body and try to develop new chemicals that function in a similar way but "better" (basically novel drug discovery, an expensive, time consuming process.) I think that is why you haven't had a ton of research into what smoking bud does for you, but I am willing to bet a lot of work has been done by pharmaceutical companies involving the chemical compounds found in marijuana. It just is too hard for the average legalization hippie to understand and too far removed from toking up to get their attention.
But rest assured, major international pharmaceutical companies like GSK would be all over selling pot if it had a chance of being successful as a medicine. I think it's telling they aren't doing that.
Quote from: Barrister on July 17, 2012, 12:18:35 PM
Marijuana as a treatment for depression and anxiety? :frusty:
Studies have shown increased rates of those disorders amongst marijuana users.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana
Correlation not necessarily causation. :rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on July 17, 2012, 07:00:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2012, 04:34:04 PM
Quote from: mongers on July 17, 2012, 04:05:51 PM
Yes I've seen that.
Also the whole 'Sacred Weed' mantra has gotten real old, I take if more seriously if the people who were advocating it, didn't just jump-cut to any old shit piece of cardboard to make the filter for their joint; perhaps they should look into the printing inks and chemicals used in making the cardboard product ?
Would the whole spiritual event them be so purifying ?
:huh:
What's that?
I think Mongers is just posting in the wrong thread. Apparently there is some thread (maybe on his occupy web site) about some British "Sacred Weed' mantra, and he just mistakenly posted here instead.
Either that, or he is just clueless.
Oh look our troll has returned, the one that never engages in ad hominem.
You were the one babbling. :huh: