Editor’s Note: We were keenly
interested in Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s one-hour CNN special called WEED that aired in
August. We asked Lindsay Stafford Mader, who covers medicinal cannabis and
related issues at the American Botanical Council, to view the documentary, compose a report on its contents, and to offer a response,
if warranted, regarding the factual accuracy of CNN’s information as well as to
what extent the coverage was adequate. We present her critique below.
Having
researched and written about medicinal cannabis (Cannabis sativa) for more than four years for the American
Botanical Council and its journal HerbalGram,
I watched CNN’s recent TV documentary WEED with a heavy dose of skepticism.
While I am well aware of the plant’s promising medicinal properties, I did not
fully expect Sanjay Gupta, MD, to “get it right.” Others in the medicinal
cannabis community understandably expected much from WEED, considering the
media hype leading up to its premier, which was stimulated by Dr. Gupta’s preceding
and much-publicized editorial stating that he had reversed his position to be
in favor of medicinal cannabis.
Dr. Gupta’s
WEED documentary gave an interesting and often touching overview of the
situation and left many viewers enlightened on how effective cannabis can be
for treating conditions such as young Charlotte Figi’s Dravet Syndrome. Other
sources and I agree that WEED, which admirably attempted to cover significant
ground, was better than most everything else the mainstream media has produced
on cannabis. Unfortunately, Dr. Gupta disappointed in many areas by failing to investigate
important issues at the heart of the medicinal cannabis discussion and quietly
perpetuating false details on cannabis to the Americans who have grown to trust
his expertise.
Filling in Gupta’s Gaps
In the
beginning of WEED, Dr. Gupta skimmed over the history of cannabis in the United
States, and noted that it became illegal in 1937 and is currently considered a
Schedule I drug as “the government was saying it had no medicinal value and a
high potential for abuse.”1 For context, Dr. Gupta could have listed
other substances classified as Schedule I, such as heroin and LSD.2 To
exemplify the inappropriateness of cannabis’s current scheduling, he
additionally should have mentioned that the American Medical Association (AMA) has
called for cannabis’s Schedule I status to be reviewed,3 and that the US government seemingly recognized
cannabis as medicine in 2003, when scientists for the US Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) wrote in a patent abstract that cannabinoids are
useful as antioxidants and neuroprotectants (patent no. 6630507).4 And that, in 2011, the US
National Cancer Institute’s PDQ Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Editorial Board acknowledged medicinal uses of cannabis by publishing an online
summary of cannabis and cannabinoids as CAM treatments for cancer patients.5
A great deal of Dr. Gupta’s WEED program focused on the story of the
Figis, a Colorado family whose young daughter Charlotte has a rare epileptic
condition called Dravet Syndrome.1 Later he introduced Chaz Moore, a
young man with an even more uncommon condition called diaphragmatic flutter. Most
viewers, including myself, likely found Charlotte’s and Chaz’s experiences poignant
and important. I particularly appreciated that their stories showed how well
cannabis can work and questioned a system in which such a beneficial medicine
is not accepted by all states and not covered by insurance companies.
The
rarity of these two conditions, however, could have alienated many viewers,
considering the multitude of more common conditions that cannabis has been
shown to help, such as cancer symptoms, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis,
post-traumatic stress disorder, and more.6 Unfortunately, Dr. Gupta
spoke with just two uncommon patients out of the many who are benefiting from
cannabis through US state-based programs.
“He has
these two bizarre conditions that may be benefited by CBD, not THC, and then in
the last five minutes, he goes off to Israel and shows cancer patients
benefiting,” said Donald Abrams, MD, chief of oncology at San Francisco General
Hospital, professor of clinical medicine at the University of California at San
Francisco (UCSF), and an integrative oncologist at the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Medicine (oral communication, August 13,
2013). “You certainly don’t have to go to Israel to find cancer patients that
benefit. That’s what I do and see all day long.”
Dr. Gupta
noted that despite encouraging reports from families like the Figis, the Miami
Children’s Hospital and American Society of Pediatrics still do not condone the
usage of cannabis for epileptic treatment. But, again, that is not the whole
story. It would have been equally as interesting and important to mention that AMA
has recognized the medicinal potential of cannabis for certain conditions,3
and that the nonprofit Institute of Medicine concluded in 1999 that some patients can benefit from
cannabis.6
Instead of giving an overview of the variety of conditions that can be improved with cannabis, and the corresponding government and NGO-issued reports on these
usages, Dr. Gupta oversimplified the medicinal impact of cannabis by focusing on children with epilepsy.
Misleading Portrayal of Science
Upon
hearing Dr. Gupta’s most erroneous statement that “marijuana is made up of two
ingredients,”1 I had concerns for the accuracy of his reporting on cannabis
science and research. (Anybody with basic knowledge of cannabis science knows
that, in fact, THC and CBD are just two of the more than 100 different
cannabinoids and approximately 400 other chemicals in the plant.7) Indeed,
Dr. Gupta made the most mistakes when discussing cannabis’s effects on the
brain, particularly its effects on the child brain and on addiction. And when
the subjects he interviewed made sweeping or inaccurate statements, he failed
to follow-up with appropriate questions and investigation.
Dr. Gupta
stated in the WEED documentary that there is a clear effect of marijuana on the
young brain, although the evidence is anything but conclusive. Stacy Gruber,
PhD — director of
the Cognitive and Clinical Neuroimaging Core at McLean Hospital’s Brain Imaging
Center — claimed that brain white matter is impaired and white
matter highways are more disrupted in those who start smoking before age 16. But
Dr. Gruber’s work has looked at the brains of a small number of heavy, chronic
cannabis smokers — not the brains of patients using therapeutic dosages.
Dr. Gupta then went on to say, “Preliminary research shows that early onset
smokers are slower at tasks, have lower IQs later in life, higher risk of
strokes, and increased risk of psychotic disorders, and while these studies are
inconclusive, some scientists are still concerned” because 35% of high school
seniors have used cannabis and many fear “a generation of kids with damaged
brains” as well as “a generation of marijuana addicts.”1
Although he recognized that
“studies are inconclusive,” Dr. Gupta then referred to this information as “the
truth and the science” of a growing epidemic. In contrast, however, an expert
peer reviewer of this article noted that these statements seem to have been
largely based on animal research,8 that many studies on cannabis and
white matter within the last 30 years have had flawed methodology,9
and that heavy recreational cannabis usage has more cognitive impact than measured
and monitored therapeutic usage. Indeed, research has shown that “some
cognitive deficits appear detectable at least seven days after heavy cannabis
use but appear reversible and related to recent cannabis exposure rather than
irreversible and related to cumulative lifetime use.”10 So, while adolescence is a very
sensitive time for the brain, the notion of permanent cognitive impairment
simply has not been substantiated.8,10
Later,
Dr. Gupta accurately stated that there have been zero cannabis overdoses, initially
leading many to believe the widely held understanding that cannabis is safe. But
he then interviewed Christian Thurstone, MD — a psychiatrist and director of one of Colorado’s largest
youth substance-abuse treatment clinics — who told Dr. Gupta, “There is
no longer any scientific debate that marijuana is not just psychologically addictive,
but also physically addictive.”1 Dr. Thurstone’s statement was an
exaggeration at best, considering the very low risk for physical and psychic
dependency on cannabis.11 In fact, while many cannabis and addiction experts agree that psychological dependence is possible, physical dependence “is much less convincing on the basis of the
published literature,” according to the book The Medicinal Uses of Cannabis and Cannabinoids (Pharmaceutical
Press, 2004).12
Dr. Gupta
did compare the lower risk of cannabis addiction with that of other drugs, citing
a figure that 9% of marijuana users become addicted, while 23% of heroin users
do, 17% of cocaine users, and 15% of alcohol users. But these numbers are
misleading as they are based on a 1994 epidemiological study consisting of interviews
with participants asked to gauge their self-description of dependence symptoms.13
A peer reviewer of this article similarly noted that the 9% rate was likely
much too high as many individuals are in court-mandated cannabis-abuse treatment programs, and others who find it difficult to stop smoking
are often using cannabis to self-treat an underlying condition, such as
depression; thus, when the depression improves, so does the dependence on
cannabis. Thankfully, this segment was somewhat balanced by a clip, although
much too short, of psychopharmacologist and editor of The Pot Book (Park Street Press, 2010), Julie Holland, MD, clarifying that cannabis withdrawal
is nowhere near as serious as withdrawal from alcohol dependence and is more
about learning new behaviors.1
As an
additional disappointment, Dr. Gupta traveled some 5,000 miles to Israel to discuss
human research and ignored all of the clinical studies on cannabis that have
been carried out in the United States, conducted by researchers such as Dr.
Abrams and Barth L. Wilsey, MD. The
Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR) in California, for example, completed
13 human studies on whole-plant cannabis, which found that the plant benefited
conditions such as neuropathic pain, spasticity
in multiple sclerosis, pain in HIV patients, and more.14
In fact, Dr. Gupta ignored the vast majority of human research on medicinal
cannabis. According to a 2010 review of clinical studies, “In the period from
1975 to current, at least 110 controlled clinical studies have been published,
assessing well over 6,100 patients suffering from a wide range of illnesses.”15
Dr. Gupta failed to mention, for example, the work that has been done in Canada,
Austria, and in the United Kingdom, the majority of which has been led by GW
Pharmaceuticals on its product Sativex®, a cannabis whole plant extract oromucosal spray containing
predominantly THC and CBD that
has been approved as a medicine for
multiple sclerosis spasticity in the United Kingdom, Spain, Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Sweden, New
Zealand, and Canada.16
(Sativex for cancer pain is currently in Phase III clinical trials in the
United States.) Although WEED makes it seem as if the Stanley Brothers in
Colorado were the first to produce high-CBD cannabis, GW has had similar
material since 1998,17 and even they were not the first to create high-CBD strains.
Gupta’s Failure to Investigate Stalled
Research in US
Although
some human research has been conducted in the United States, all parties agree
that more needs to be carried out, a point that was expressed throughout WEED.
But what many Americans do not know is that there is an intricate federal
roadblock preventing much of this research from happening. In WEED, Dr. Gupta
visited the University of Mississippi to interview Mahmoud ElSohly, PhD, a
research professor of pharmaceutical sciences, about the Marijuana Potency Project. But viewers would have been
better served if Dr. Gupta also had discussed the contract between Ole Miss’s National Center for Natural
Products Research (NCNPR) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to
produce cannabis for all research in the United States. Although NIDA puts the
contract up for bid every five years, it has awarded this contract solely to Ole
Miss since 1968. NCNPR is thus the only federally permitted source of cannabis,
and before a cannabis researcher can proceed with a study, NIDA must first
decide that it has sufficient cannabis available — a situation frequently
referred to as a monopoly.18
Additionally, cannabis research proposals must receive
scientific merit approval from the Public Health Service (PHS), although research protocols for no
other controlled substance require PHS review.18 Oftentimes, cannabis
studies — especially those that seek to produce prescription medicines — approved
by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by relevant institutional review boards are then rejected by PHS or have difficulty in obtaining the
material from NIDA. (As an alleged conflict of interest, Dr. ElSohly and NCNPR
have a separate DEA permit to grow cannabis for producing the generic version
of the synthetic THC-containing drug Marinol®, which makes him the
only person in the country who can legally grow marijuana for commercial
purposes.)18
The
documentary did feature Dr. Holland noting that, although FDA has approved many
medicinal cannabis studies, NIDA has stonewalled therapeutic research. But the Director
of NIDA — Nora Volkow, MD — later
appeared, quickly dismissing this accurate assertion and claiming that they
deal only with studies looking to investigate drug abuse. Although it is true
that NIDA reviews studies that deal with drug abuse, it still has the power to
reject any kind of cannabis research proposal based on supposed unavailability
of NCNPR material. Instead of investigating the truth and the involvement of NIDA/PHS,
Dr. Gupta took Dr. Volkow’s word at face value and chocked it up to “bureaucratic
hoops that researchers simply don’t want to jump through.” To the contrary, researchers
desperately want to study cannabis, and many have attempted to, but have become
overwhelmingly frustrated with the NIDA/PHS process or they have been rejected.
Although Dr. Gupta seemed to have touched very lightly on this subject in his
online editorial,19 he failed to give it anything near adequate time
and effort in his special report.
Impact
While
many medicinal cannabis advocates were pleased with Dr. Gupta’s WEED
documentary, others have expressed more satisfaction with his public apology and editorial, “Why I
Changed my Mind on Weed,”19 which CNN published online just a few
days before the documentary aired. As only a couple of weeks have passed since
the documentary’s airing, its potential impact is uncertain.
Dr. Abrams noted
that it probably will not have much of an impact on the average American, as
the majority of the country already supports legalizing cannabis,20
and it is the Obama Administration that needs to be persuaded. But when asked
if the President (who several years ago was rumored to have selected Dr. Gupta
as one of his top choices for US Surgeon General) had a response to Dr. Gupta’s
essay, Deputy Press Secretary Josh
Earnest said he hadn’t read it and couldn’t comment.21 A day
later, Earnest told reporters that the President does not currently advocate a
change in cannabis laws.
Nonetheless, Dr. Gupta’s prominence as one of the country’s most respected and
well known physicians could be important for the medicinal cannabis movement.
“Dr. Gupta is very influential and perhaps his
endorsement will lend moral strength to physicians who are often reluctant,
even in medical states, to recommend [cannabis] to their patients,” said
Mariann Wizard, who frequently writes about cannabis for ABC’s HerbClip
publication. “That's really the most positive thing that I hope the documentary
may achieve!”
Although
these parties have not said what encouraged their recent decisions, New Jersey Governor
Chris Christie, considered a potential Republican candidate for the 2016 Presidential
election, issued a decision allowing cannabis prescriptions for children just several
days after the documentary aired,22 and on August 26, US Senate
Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) announced a Congressional hearing on
the conflict between state and federal medical cannabis laws. In a breaking
news press release, Steph Sherer, the executive director of patient
organization Americans for Safe Access, described this as a “big deal” as it could
“be a springboard for new legislation and a turning point for federal policy.”23
More discussion of Dr. Gupta’s
WEED documentary, including responses from some of those interviewed in WEED, is
available at this Google Hangout YouTube video from Americans for
Safe Access.
—Lindsay
Stafford Mader
References
1. WEED: a Dr. Sanjay Gupta Special. CNN.
Originally aired August 11, 2013.
2. US Drug Enforcement Administration. Title 21
United States Code (USC) Controlled Substances Act. Part B -- Authority to
Control, Standards And Schedules; Section 812: Schedules of controlled
substances. Available here.
Accessed August 23, 2013.
3. Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes. American Medical Association: Report
3 of the Council on Science and Public Health (I-09), (Resolutions 910, I-08;
921, I-08; and 229, A-09); 2009. Available here.
Accessed August 23, 2013.
4. United States Patent 6,630,507 Hampson, et al. October 7, 2003. Cannabinoids
as antioxidants and neuroprotectants. USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image
Database. Available here.
Accessed August 23, 2013.
5. Stafford L. Update: US government institution
acknowledges medicinal uses of cannabis. HerbalGram. 2011;91:20-23. Available here.
6. Joy JE, Watson SJ, Benson JA (eds). Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the
Science Base. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press;
Released: April 7, 2003. Available here.
Accessed August 23, 2013.
7. Cannabinoids. University of Washington Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute
website. Available here.
Accessed August 23, 2013.
8. Grant I, Gonzalez R, Carey CL, Natarajan L, Wolfson TA. Non-acute
(residual) neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: A meta-analytic study. Journal
of the International Neuropsychological Society. 2003;9:679–689.
9. Rogeberg O. Correlations between cannabis use and IQ change in the
Dunedin cohort are consistent with confounding from socioeconomic status. Proc
Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Mar 12;110(11):4251-4. doi:
10.1073/pnas.1215678110. Epub 2013 Jan 14.
10. Pope HG, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, Huestis MA, Yurgelun-Todd
D. Neuropsychological
performance in long-term cannabis users. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001
Oct;58(10):909-15.
11. Russo E, Grotenhermen F (eds.) Handbook of Cannabis Therapeutics: From
Bench to Bedside. Hawthorn Press, 2006. Binghamton, NY.
12. Robson P, Guy G. Clinical studies of cannabis-based medicines. In:
Guy G, Whittle B, Robson P, eds. The Medicinal Uses of Cannabis and
Cannabinoids. Pharmaceutical Press, 2004. Grayslake IL.
13. Anthony JC, Warner LA, Kessler RC. Comparative Epidemiology of
Dependence on Tobacco, Alcohol, Controlled Substances, and Inhalants: Basic
Findings From the National Comorbidity Survey. Experimental and Clinical
Psychopharmacology. 1994;2(3):244-268.
14. Scientific publications. Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research
website. Available here. Accessed
August 26, 2013.
15. Hazekamp A, Grotenhermen F. Review on clinical studies with
cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009. Cannabinoids. 2010;5(special
issue):1-21.
16. Sativex. GW Pharmaceuticals website. Available here.
Accessed August 26, 2013.
17. Backgrounder: the story to date. Project CBD website. Available here.
Accessed August 26, 2013.
18. Stafford L. The state of clinical cannabis research in the United
States. HerbalGram. 2010;85:64-68. Available here.
19. Gupta S. Why I changed my mind on weed. CNN. August 8, 2013. Available here.
Accessed August 27, 2013.
20. Majority Now Supports Legalizing Marijuana. Pew Research Center. April 4,
2013. Available here.
Accessed August 28, 2013.
21. No change in marijuana laws coming, White House says. CNN. August
21, 2013. Available here.
Accessed August 27, 2013.
22. Brown T, Burkholder A, Hirschkorn P. Christie OKs medical
marijuana bill for ill children. CBS News. August 17, 2013. Available here.
Accessed August 27, 2013.
23. Senate Oversight Hearing on Medical Cannabis Scheduled for
September [press release]. Washington, DC: Americans for Safe Access. August
26, 2013.
|