This is called “Great Debates,” not “You get to make statements that are accepted without proof and people who disagree with those statements just don’t like you personally.”
Well, yea. You’re making statements about medical science. You need to follow the method that’s used to determine actual facts in that particular field.
Oh, a Burzynski acolyte/defender. Well, I know now that further engagement is unnecessary.
Those words have actual meaning, not just what you want them to mean.
I continue to maintain misplaced optimism regarding the level of knowledge in our education system.
And here’s his latest update.
No sign that the cannabis is working, he’s still getting chemo and it looks like they’re going to do a stem cell transplant at some point soon.
Just to be clear, the vast majority of people here don’t care what your opinion is. You can’t be reasoned out of a position you didn’t use reason to get into. You’re not using logic, so there’s no way logic is going to persuade you of anything. We’re posting for anyone who stumbles across this thread and might think for a moment that you are making some sense even if they don’t understand all the details. We’re here to make sure they understand that there’s nothing to your main point. The scientific method is the issue.
This site is based on the idea of fighting ignorance. Your argument represents that ignorance and we’re just shining the light on that. You have religion and that’s fine, up until the point where you use it to convince people to avoid proven medical treatments for snake oil. That can cost lives. That’s what we’re fighting here, not you. In the grand scheme of things you’re insignificant. Believe whatever you want. But you’ll get no traction here.
Contains anecdotes that lack incredibly pertinent information
Has no selection methodology and thus almost certainly features severe selection bias
Cites incredibly BS sources (Rick Simpson) as though they were credible?
Because I’ve seen a lot of hand-waving, but not a lot of addressing - indeed, Smeghead explained this one to you already - explaining why you don’t think X applies is not the same thing as addressing X. Especially when X is a heavily ingrained scientific standard we apply for damn good reasons.
Not so much take it personally as find it annoying to have to counter an unending stream of misinformation from a person who has made it expressly clear that he’s not interested in being intellectually honest. And yes, not changing your opinion based on overwhelming evidence is intellectually dishonest.
Four things.
I don’t know of any trained oncologists on this board. I don’t know how many of us are actually qualified to examine individual cases at all. My qualifications as a third-semester computer science major are highly stunted when it comes to talking about actual case details.
We don’t have to - the generalities about the scientific method are there for situations exactly like this! When someone gets their methodology this wrong from the get-go, it basically doesn’t matter what cases they bring forward - they don’t understand what they’re doing.
Actually digging the cases with real data and information behind them out of your massive-waste-of-time report, separating them from the gigantic amorphous blob of cases with little to no information, is a task I’m just not going to do.
Would it make a difference? You’ve made it clear that you’re not going to change your mind; if we find cases where the evidence clearly fails, would you admit it and remove them from your report? Somehow, I doubt it. And at this point, I don’t know why I should put this much work in when not a single person has found your arguments convincing. Or, to come back to what I said before and you ignored:
There’s been tons of substance. Your “research” is a selection of anecdotes with the same problems anecdotes usually have: incomplete data, incredibly biased selection, ignoring confounding factors, et cetera.
**Then please post the ones you find most convincing here, in full, with all the details you are aware of, and I will examine them. **
I wouldn’t blame them - it’s 100 pages of credulous anecdotes and advocating Rick Simpson. I’d feel remiss to not remind you that I think Rick Simpson is a fucking crazy person who advocates his treatment as a literal fountain of youth.
I saw some great points of substance here - the fact that cancer returned with Cash Hyde and Brian Scott. I can’t comment as much on Brian Scott because I don’t know as much about his case as Cash, but the article on him indicates that he did improve with the cannabis oil and his chances with chemotherapy were low, based on the doctor’s prognoses and his own physical feelings. The chemotherapy was causing him to spit blood and prevent him from eating or drinking for weeks, and furthermore the cancer returned after it was eliminated the first time with chemotherapy alone “The cancer returned three months into his remission.” Before the cannabis oil, the cancer was already coming back even with traditional treatment, while causing a host of other side effects. At least with the oil he felt better and was able to use low-dose chemotherapy instead of high-dose. It’s also uncertain how much oil he was taking - for aggressive cancer, large quantities of oil are needed. If he wasn’t taking enough oil, it makes sense the cancer wouldn’t be destroyed or it would come back. Same with Cash Hyde - he eliminated cancer twice with the assistance of cannabis oil, which going on doctor’s prognoses was the deciding factor, but even with that success were not able to give the proper quantities.
Even with the proper quantities, I’ve seen cases where success is not observed. Like I said, I’m not ignoring the failures. I remember one particular breast cancer case where the cancer growth was only stopped, not diminished. Even that was a minor victory as the growth was expected to continue, but it wasn’t complete. And with Brian, the oil still helped him. This is why research is needed - perhaps in Brian’s case, a higher THC strain would be needed rather than high CBD. If cannabis medicine isn’t working, it’s usually because it’s the wrong type of cannabis medicine or the dosing is off. I’m sure there are some rare conditions in rare cases that wouldn’t respond, but because the endocannabinoid system is fundamental to the homeostatic regulation, those cases are indeed few and far between.
I keep hearing that people are avoiding proven medical treatments for cannabis oil, that this report is worthless, and people should not make decisions based on this information. The risks of pharmaceuticals are immense and proponents of them seem to forget that. Chemotherapy often causes organ failure, nerve damage, and can accelerate death. Cancer.gov even has a page called Second Cancers Caused by Cancer Treatment. It should be no surprise that these treatments are, in the long-term, not good for the human body. Any treatment that causes people to not eat, vomit uncontrollably, throw up blood, and feel like dying is not good. Even if it does cause the cancer to go into remission, the long-term side effects are terrible. I have a friend who beat brain cancer 18 months or more ago, and he still cannot walk perfectly just recently was able to jog lightly again. And of the hundreds of patients I’ve seen over the years, the vast majority hate pharmaceuticals. This traditional medicine which you all vehemently defend is despised by the actual patients. Many report that it actually makes their conditions worse, or the side effects are unacceptable. I’ve seen this trend for so many years.
People have the right to make their own health decisions. The information that has accrued over the past many years has been enough for many people to put off chemotherapy and try the oil. Like my friend Dennis Hill, who didn’t need it because the oil did the job. Like Corrie Yelland, who watched a fellow patient die from radiation treatment trying to beat the same cancer she defeated with cannabis oil.
I also don’t want you all to think I haven’t been listening to you. I understand what you’ve been saying and I appreciate it, it has challenged me to think even more deeply about this issue in new ways. But you all expect as if something you say will make me change my mind about anything. That’s not going to happen. This medicine works, it will change the world, and that’s what drives me. I wanted to debate about the cases and the substance, and for the most part, people have avoided that. Only sparingly have people brought up actual studies or cases, mostly it’s just been “You don’t have a methodology” or “It’s all anecdotal”, stuff like that. They are still very important issues and I’m happy you brought them up, but nobody seems to acknowledge the value these cases have. Everybody keeps saying they are absolutely worthless, and that’s just not true. If people can’t accept their value, I can’t do anything.
But what I can do is talk about specific cases and studies in the report. Brian Scott isn’t in the report because his case is so new but that was a good point to bring up, that his cancer returned and he was using low-dose chemotherapy again. Someone had also brought up Cash Hyde. But other than that, nothing. If people can’t start addressing specific points in my report, the positive impressions I’ve gotten so far will start to diminish.
Also, I’ve seen people say multiple times that this report advocates predominantly for Rick Simpson and a large section is dedicated to him. Interestingly enough I was having a similar debate with other cannabis extract activists who thought I was too heavy on Rick. I agree completely that he’s not perfect and has said many things I disagree with, but he’s done far more good than bad. He was the spark that prompted many people to experiment with cannabis oil and cancer, and through years of people trying to prove him wrong (exactly what science is supposed to do with hypotheses, correct?), he was proved correct. At least, I can remember a few specific cases where people simply wanted to see if he was lying, but saw he was right. Rick’s situation is also compelling when analyzed with the other evidence, because he gave away literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cannabis oil for free, and faced twelve years in prison for doing it, yet continued. Why would he risk so much time in jail, and give away so much free cannabis oil, unless it was actually working?
That said, Rick is the least compelling part of this movement. That’s another thing that separates it from other quack cures - they have a leading front man, like Burzynski. Only people unfamiliar with the cannabis extract movement think that Rick is the end-all be-all. He only comprises 3.5% of my report, and most of that 3.5% is about his documented court trials.
First of all it is Hemp oil. Nothing more. He lives in Canada where you can grow Hemp legally. But giving away what is essentially vegetable oil is not really proof of anything other than that he has convinced the gullible and desperate. He’s not as bad as Burzynski, but he is still giving false information.
Given how pathetic the listed details on Cash are in your report, I’m left to wonder - why did you include Brian Scott in the first place? If you know so little about his case, how can you in good conscience include him?
And you don’t see anything wrong with this? You don’t see anything wrong with attributing his success to cannabis oil when you can’t even remotely isolate the other factors (including therapy which is actually proven to work)? Do you even understand the concept of correlation != causation?
JKander, do you have any experience with cancer, cancer treatment, or oncology in general? Because I don’t think you do. But then again, with the details you’ve offered, we don’t know what you’re talking about. What kind of cancer was Brian Scott suffering from, what stage, and what treatment was applied?
It bears repeating that multiple biologists have pointed out that this is utterly meaningless gibberish to you in this very thread.
Yes. Full stop. Your report is worthless and people should not make decisions based on this information. You have done nothing to address the blatantly nonexistent methodology or missing information.
Dear lord, give me the patience to delay my expletives until I can make a thread in the pit.
JKander, do you have any understanding of chemotherapy, how it works, what it is, and what evidence there is for most types? I’ll give you a hint: in many cases, the difference between chemo and no chemo is the difference between a high likelihood of survival and almost no chance at all. How do we know this? Because each new chemotherapy is tested extensively. Even new, miraculous treatments that ended up saving lives down the road went through the gauntlet of clinical trials to make sure that it worked. Yes, the side-effects can be quite heavy. What do you expect? We’re essentially poisoning the body in very specific ways. It sucks. But you know what sucks more? Dying from cancer. Statements like this reveal that you have no understanding even more thoroughly than what you’ve previously posted. If you’re going to stand up against chemotherapy, then what you are selling is death. Pure and simple.
Yeah. You know why? It’s because most people are exceedingly bad at judging the repercussions of medical decisions, and many of them have been lulled into this idea that “we could have it without these side-effects” by alt-med hucksters like you who would sell them snake oil as a cure for cancer.
You obviously haven’t, because you keep ignoring the big issues or brushing them aside.
Hypothetical time. Medical cannabinoids undergo a large-scale clinical trial and come up with a big fat goose egg - out of 150 patients in the active group, every single one of them reacts worse to the cancer while using cannabinoids than those undergoing conventional chemotherapy. Would you still refuse to change your mind in the face of that kind of evidence? Because if not, then you have completely lost sight of all objectivity.
Because you haven’t given us substance. You offered a gigantic 100-page report which nobody read (not the least of which because the first 10 pages are a junior-lit-level essay on Rick Simpson, an alt-med quack who is completely fucking insane), and… That’s it. Even skimming the report, I can tell that you are incredibly light on details. GIVE US SOME SUBSTANCE AND YOU’LL GET YOUR DEBATE! This is something you’ve also been hearing since the start. Give me THE BEST CASE. Or maybe the best 2-3 cases. Give me all of the information you have on them, and your sources. And then I’ll address them. But nobody. Nobody! Is going to read through 100 pages of anecdotal crap and credulous reverence for lunatics to find the one nugget of actually decent case work. If you want us to debate your evidence, you have to give us the evidence in a manner we can parse. What you did was the equivalent of linking us to an hour-long video about the JFK assassination and saying “debunk this”. No, nobody cares that much about your outlandish suggestions.
“Not perfect”. Allow me to quote, again, from the website you run:
This guy is a pot-addled lunatic. Focusing on him for your movement is like focusing on Orson Scott Card for the sci-fi movement. Not only has he not done any of the legwork required for such things to be widely accepted, but he’s clearly insane, and the claims he makes are NUTTYBONKERS. You say he’s the least compelling part of the movement - why spend so much time on him?
JKander, you haven’t given us substance. You offered a gigantic 100-page report which nobody read (not the least of which because the first 10 pages are a junior-lit-level essay on Rick Simpson, an alt-med quack who is completely fucking insane), and… That’s it. Even skimming the report, I can tell that you are incredibly light on details. Give us some substance and you’ll get your debate! This is something you’ve also been hearing since the start. Give me THE BEST CASE you have. Or maybe the best 2-3 cases. Give me all of the information you have on them, and your sources. And then I’ll address them.
But nobody. Nobody! Is going to read through 100 pages of anecdotal crap and credulous reverence for lunatics to find the one nugget of actually decent case work. If you want us to debate your evidence, you have to give us the evidence in a manner we can parse. And none of us are going to spend a lot of time on a report like the one you presented. I mean, you can’t even copy-paste quotes from it, or ctr+f to search for terms. Of all the ways you possibly could have uploaded your report, this makes it the hardest for us to read and address. Then you frontload your essay with a whole bunch of irrelevant crap none of us care about. Not a single person cares about Rick Simpson. We care about evidence that it works. And given your claims, the way you’ve behaved in this thread, and the way you’ve responded to criticism, anyone would be justified in looking at that report and saying, “Eh, I’ve got better things to do”. Hell, I even skipped ahead to the cases and noticed that the first five are literally just 2-3 sentence timewasters with absolutely no backing evidence.
So here’s the deal. You give me somewhere between one and three of the cases you feel best represent medical cannabinoids from your report. The cases you find to be the most slam-dunk evidence in support of your hypothesis, with the best details. You give me these cases with all pertinent details you are aware of. You don’t just link me to a certain section your paper (because I can’t copy/paste, highlight, or search within it), although you can feel free to copy-paste it here. And I will do everything in my power to address these cases and examine them with an open mind. And then you’ll get your debate on the substance. Sound good? Because this is far more than fair given your posting history in this thread.
Your entire post is nothing but yet another repeat of the same questionable “facts”, faulty logic, and baseless appeals to emotion that have made up every single one of your posts in this thread. All you do is repeat and repeat and repeat, ignoring every single one of the objections and criticisms that have been made.
If you “understand and appreciate” what has been said, and find it to have “substance”, why simply ignore it and stick to your broken guns?
The truth, of course, is that you don’t understand, you don’t appreciate, and you don’t care. You’re maintaining a facade of politeness so you can carry on with your preaching. But you’re not fooling anyone.
There is a long-running thread on another site started by a person who claimed that she cured her own cancer (at home in her spare time, apparently) and urges others to do the same with quack remedies. I’ve seen numerous posts in that thread from cancer patients whose lives were saved with “traditional” mainstream medicine, including people whose lung, brain and colon cancers were successfully treated. There are many, many similar anecdotal reports of success to go up against your selective horror stories - but beyond that, clinical trials convincingly show the value of the pharmaceuticals you despise. In other words, we can meet and beat your anecdotes, and you have little to no science to go up against the overwhelmingly evidence it furnishes for mainstream treatments.
However despicable the views of people who urge people with serious illnesses to try unproven therapies, it’s even more despicable when they trash effective ones.
Here’s an eye-opener for you on Rick Simpson, from a marijuana legalization advocate. He makes the same point I did - the “movement”'s embrace of medical quackery causes substantial damage to its efforts.
May I add that chemo is so bad I have a friend in his 70’s that has cancer and after the first round of chemo his cancer went into remission, but returned a few years later. It was really bad in the throat area and he could not eat or swallow, just milk shakes. He was a very strong man too, but he said he could not go through that again (the chemo treatments) and has chosen to die instead. He does not use marijuana and as far as I know has refused to use it as his comforter.
Marijuana laws in the state of California have focused on the dying and the needy to comfort them not to heal them. Everyone else with even a lower back pain has jumped on the band wagon to legalize it, but hardly anyone knows the pain these poor people go through. Their prayers in pain are heard more than ours without the pain, but healing is rare and never from marijuana or all the walls against it would fall.
as for snake oil … has anyone ever seen the snake oil salesman in action? I have and I will never forget it. It was down in Tijuana somewhere around 1985 when I walked around a corner only to see a large crowd gathered around a man with small folding table shining the watches and rings using a rag and a small bottle of oil. he was using the jewelry of the watchers (probably planted men and women). It was all in Spanish of course and I couldn’t understand a word he said, but I understood what happened next. He bent down and opened up a large legal sized brief case and brought out the largest snake you have ever seen. All of a sudden everyone in the crowd was offering him money to purchase his little bottles of oil.
Now you know … perhaps I should ask Cecil if he knows where the term “snake oil” came from?
You may continue on in your correction department of JKander. Remember JKander wisdom yields … fools carry on.
This is not an uncommon decision for those with very advanced cancer where chemo is unlikely to make a difference and for the elderly, who aren’t long for the world one way or another. Nobody will deny that undergoing chemotherapy sucks. It’s still the going standard of care for many cancers because it works, and there’s nothing else that works better, but ugh. It doesn’t help to post scary stories about how awful it is. All that does is give people more reason to give the alt-med quacksters who would scare them away from it credence.
I’ll bet you’ll be the next Baryshnikov!