Everyone who falls victim to a scam “knows” it works. That’s what deception is all about - although I think this is more a problem of bias and confounds than actual deliberate fraud.
This statement is totally antithetical to science. When you form a hypothesis, your goal is to make every attempt to disprove it, not prove it. It is only when you have tried to disprove a hypothesis, and failed, that your idea has any merit.
By the way, I have a PhD and have been working in this field for a long time. You sound embarrassingly silly when you try to talk about biology.
I’ve been smoking weed for years and I’m still sitting in this motherfucking wheelchair. Sup wit that? 
Do I need to rub some oil on my legs?
You have failed to show any way in which it is different from the quacks and frauds. They claim their snake oil cures everything; you claim yours cures everything. They spout pseudo-scientific gibberish; you spout pseudo-scientific gibberish. They claim it works better because it’s all natural; you claim it works better because it’s all natural.
They are unable to show any hard evidence that proves their grandiose claims. Neither can you.
No, what obscures the truth is that you don’t know what you are talking about.
No, you haven’t. You have just repeated the same BS over and over, interspersed with statements that you don’t care about the evidence and aren’t going to change your mind no matter what we say.
You cannot expect rational people to simply accept your assertions without asking you to show your work.
You know how you keep saying that virtually every terminal cancer patient who got this stuff was cured? I don’t believe that this is the case. I think that all the failures that you don’t think are out there, are out there.
Actual, clinical trials are necessary because the kind of things you are pushing are two a penny. What you are saying you believe is no different from Laetrile and liver zappers and orgone energy and all the rest of it.
As I said earlier, people’s lives are at stake here. You have to do better than this.
Regards,
Shodan
Every quack and frauds has said this since time immemorial. But just this once we’re supposed to believe you because, um, why exactly?
You are attempting to distance yourself from quacks and frauds, but everything you type just places you more solidly in the same boat.
Dude, maybe the wheelchair is like… in all of us? [I promise that’ll be my only stoner joke in this thread.]
You come with a mind completely closed to any and all opposition. Like all religious zealots, you are entirely convinced of your own side’s perfection, and are completely unwilling to bend, compromise, or even entertain for a moment the possibility that you are even a hair’s breadth short of absolute perfection.
And that is why no one will believe you.
Exactly this.
Here are two distinct claims:
A. Cannibis cures things.
B. We have good reasons to believe that Cannibis cures things.
What we’re all doing in this thread is saying that even if A is true, B remains false.
Jkander, you’ve indicated a few times above that you’re convinced that in the end, you’ll be proven right, and that we’ll all laugh about this, and we will all be able to admit that we were wrong. But that shows you don’t quite understand what we’re even talking about here when we reply to you. Because even if it turned out Cannibis cures everything this would not vindicate your position. It would not show that you were right and we were wrong, and we would have nothing to admit. Because Cannibis turning out to cure things would not prove that, here and now, as we speak to you on this thread, any of us has a good reason to believe that Cannibis cures anything. We don’t, and you haven’t provided it.
Yes, I disagree that this “medicine” should immediately be made available to everyone, including people who will use it instead of proven therapy or inflict it on their kids.
This is where one may legitimately infer ulterior motives on your part. If you suggested the FDA should have an independent review of anecdotal reports and (if indicated) fast-track a proper clinical trial for children with Dravet syndrome and seizures refractory to other therapy, that would be a reasonable proposal. Instead you want universal legalization with no controls over likely abuses, and clinical trials only to establish doses (and not for the obvious reason, to see if the stuff works for anything in the first place).
Your fanaticism is detrimental to the cause you claim to support.
Then you should not have included them. I’m going to try to appeal to your basic decency again: revise the report. For the cases where you are lacking crucial, important details (what treatment they previously received and when, what classification and stage of the disease the patient was suffering from, actual medical diagnoses at the very minimum), there is no excuse to include them as anecdotes. Please. Don’t intentionally spread misinformation.
No, it isn’t. Not any more than it is in the case of the Burzynski patients or Chris Wark.
Great. Then focus on those. The ones that are scientifically rigorous. Take all the excess crap out of your report. It’ll do two things:
- It’ll reduce the ridiculous length of your report
- It will reduce the amount of pointless crap people need to read through to get to the actual evidence.
Both of these are good.
Oh, I know I’m not going to convince you. You’re a true believer and a marketer. We’re here fighting your ignorance for the same reason we argue against creationists who don’t care about the evidence - not for your sake, but for those who might read your posts and be convinced.
That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.
Then you might wanna stop, because you’re making the movement look downright awful. You’re representing the movement as a bunch of people who don’t understand science or why we do the things we do in science-based-medicine and why it works. You present the movement as the worst type of anti-science quackery.
This is the most horrifyingly ignorant, and even disturbing, thing you’ve said all thread (though I’m sure there’s room for debate). You are indeed a “true believer” no different from a religious zealot, as has been said already.
You could have actually learned something here from people who are knowledgeable about how science works. You could have actually gotten advice and assistance in perhaps finding ways to push the process along so that, if there are benefits to be had from cannabis extracts, we could learn about them and get them to the people in need. Speaking for myself, I believe there is some interesting potential here, and I’m hoping that the research gets done sooner rather than later. I was indeed impressed by the Sanjay Gupta video.
But that’s completely irrelevant. You are incredibly naive, and your perspective on this is the enemy of science. You come across as someone who is more excited about being part of a revolutionary movement, than you are about actually helping people.
I promise you if everything pans out with this and cannabis extracts are indeed shown (by science) to be every bit as miraculous as you claim, first off I will jump for joy and celebrate with all my heart, but I will still stand by everything I’ve said here. Why? Because I understand and respect and appreciate the scientific process. It’s there for a damn good reason, and if this is a success, science is what will maximize its benefits and minimize its risks and dangers.
However, if you ever do bother to educate yourself about what science is and why it’s so important, I guarantee you will look back at this thread with great embarrassment. (Which is Ok too. It’s part of learning).
JKander, do you have the decency to go back and revise your report to remove those for which you have admitted you lack details which are crucial to understanding what actually happened in their cases, or at least to go back and find this information that you need?
Hi! I’ve been away a couple days and see that the thread is longer. TL;DR, but tell me true: Did anything change? Or is JKander still the grossly irresponsible merchant of death he was before?
Just…wow. Let me guess: you leave after posting mumbling how we are all close-minded, yes?
Then you need to understand how ‘prove’ is used in science and how the second is a required part of any scientific theory. Without it you are merely a crank.
I am 100% sure that these points have already been made. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to make them anyway.
-
There are several hundred different types of cancers, as well as multiple types of epilepsy. To suggest that a SINGLE product can cure all of those is to be so ignorant of biology and medical science that it is questionable that the person making the suggestion has a high school diploma, much less the advanced medical training to make such a suggestion.
-
Same for the other conditions potheads claim are cured by cannabis. There is no single underlying biological mechanism for the variety of illnesses and conditions that cannabis supposedly cures, thus there will be no single intervention that cures them. This is such basic biological fact that a statement to the contrary needs an overwhelming amount of extraordinarily well-controlled and long-term research.
-
Pony up the randomly-controlled trials, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. What’s that? No one will pay for those, because “Big Pharma” won’t have such a breakthrough identified? Again, such a statement illustrates a lack of understanding of medical research so stunning as to be laughable if it weren’t responsible for convincing people to forgo proven interventions.
-
Random stories of people with symptoms of certain disorders who claim to have found relief OF THOSE SYMPTOMS with the use of cannabis do not meet the criteria for scientific data. In addition, symptom relief is not the same thing as condition/disorder cure (as the alt-medicine woomeisters are fond of pointing out).
Drop, you know better than to insult another poster, even - or perhaps especially - one you have issues with for whatever reason.
Warning given.
I’m not sure how to respond here as it’s just been repeats of the problems addressed before. You all seem to take it personally that I’m not changing my opinion based on your statements. You also also clearly have no interest in actually looking at the specific issues, you continue to go in circles with the generalities about the scientific method. Other than someone’s mentioning of how Cash Hyde also used chemotherapy and research suggesting cannabis can potentially proliferate cancer cells, there’s been no substance here.
In terms of the four problems Burzynski had - incomplete stories of patients, patients being cured by prior treatments, misdiagnosis, etc. There are many cases in this movement that are completely clear in terms of what treatments were used and what results were. Nowhere is it clearer than skin cancer. People get biopsies indicating a site has skin cancer, they put oil on it, and the skin cancer goes away. This has been happening for other cancers as well, and legitimate peer-reviewed science indicates that cannabinoids can kill the same types of cancer that people are actually eliminating. The fact people keep saying this is pseudo-science clearly indicates no one has read any of my report.
I have to say, it will really feel good to say “I told you so” when this is all over…
Popular culture and the ignorant media teaches otherwise, so the idea that anyone with a high school diploma knows otherwise is a bit of an exaggeration.
You really don’t get it.
People are not saying that we know it doesn’t work.
Were saying you don’t have evidence that it does.
If it turns out you’re correct and a cure for all that ails mankind really is found everyone here will rejoice, you just haven’t shown that you’ve found it.
Part of the problem is all the “cures” from the oil are from just 2 or 3 years ago. Five years is the standard before declaring someone cured.
That just the nature of cancer. So follow these people for a few years before declaring them cured.
Remember, Cash was supposedly cured but when the supply of oil was cut off, the cancer returned. Some cure.
Those nine I mentioned that the “cure” failed on completely. Do those not count?