I'd read them but, except for your last ncbi link, which is to the Russo paper I cited, all your links lead to Rollitup dead ends, not to actual references (e.g. abstract or journal).
You support what I said - no clinical studies showing efficacy. It's all hypothesis based on animal studies and in vitro receptor binding assays and short studies for non-cannabis application, sometimes not even inhaled. I've been in this pharma long enough to know that is a long way off from showing clinical efficacy. Great data to support the case to do more investigation, but not anything close to being conclusive. It is one of the main reasons so many things fail clinical studies - they just don't pan out against the promise indicated by these sorts of data. As to Bedrocan not being able to do science, it seems you have yet to read Hazekamp's work and have not seen the web indications that they are involved in clinical trials (e.g.
http://www.ccic.net/picture/upload/File/IASP 2012/7.1500.Hazekamp.pdf). If there is a clinical impact to be shown, they are likely closest. They also seem to have the most to win from showing that the terpenes do have an impact, because they analyse them and aim to control them (Phytochemistry 71 (2010) 2058–2073). But you are correct that it might be too much of a stretch for them - they're not Big Pharma by any means, but then none of the LP are (and if you think any of the LP are Big Pharma, you obviously wouldn't know Big Pharma if it kissed you on the lips!).
I do concur with you that there have been no specific studies looking at the impact of irradiated cannabis on humans (or even animal models, for that matter), but given that the Dutch and MMAR programmes did this for at least a decade with hundreds/thousands(?) of patients inhaling tonnes(?) of irradiated cannabis, it seems like there is no adverse events connected to it thus far.