You’re right BPC - I have gained enough from this thread at this point. In addition to the now absurdly ridiculous hope that I could find someone to potentially help in some way through this forum, I needed to see what the strongest objections to this report were. You all have provided exactly that - I know the best arguments people can make. There’s nobody who can argue against this report and shoot it down better than you all. The veracity, the fire, the uncompromising scrutiny of pure scientific minds - that is what I needed. And having been through this, I know that if I was to go up against the best scientific minds in an actual, regulated, thorough debate, I would win. That’s what I needed to know, and now I do.
However it sounds, I do thank you for these insights. I get the strong feeling no further insights will be gleaned, so I won’t be responding to this thread any further unless it is to supply some groundbreaking update. However, I will respond to any PMs that people send me, so if you have any questions or want anything I’ll be there.
And I’ve been countering this for the last 8 pages or so by pointing out that I don’t believe you, and that you need to prove that this is in fact the case.
Any comment on how your report is not likely to be convincing to anyone with the critical thinking skills of a particularly bright walrus?
EDIT: Aaaaand there he goes. Most likely to propose this same crap on some other, more credulous forum. I’m reminded of Saveaman, who, when his sexist screeds didn’t gain much traction here, pointed out how well they went over on a bodybuilder forum.
This is absolutely par for the course for alternative health nut zealots - slink away in defeat, loudly crowing their own victory, having learned nothing, having changed nothing.
Just in case JKander comes back, or if anyone else is interested, Cousera offers a MOOC entitled “Drug Discovery, Development & Commercialization”.
He could learn about how drugs are actually approved instead of having a fantasy about hospice trials. Not sure when it’s offered next, but it’s at a grad level for law, medicine, and science students and it’s free. Has a discussion forum where he can post his “evidence” and get feedback from potentially 1000’s of people with an interest in the topic.
You know what the greatest tragedy about all this is? This guy did not even for a moment think “Why hasn’t anyone responded positively to my report?”. And he’s going to be hawking the same report to other people. If he tries to convince someone in a position of any authority to get that hospice trial done, this will make them think less of the movement rather than more. And that sucks, because I think the cannabinoids may actually have potential - they just need to be explored more fully before we can actually tell whether that potential is real. Instead, this guy just makes the entire thing look like shit, and paints the entire marijuana legalization movement in the light of bad pseudoscience. And that sucks.
Yeah, I noticed there were many more articles on PubMed showing potentially beneficial results with cannabinoids in model systems than not. I was looking to cherry-pick negative ones just to make a point about his “scientific report” and I had to do a lot of scrolling.
But he didn’t even get what people were trying to tell him. He went against the “strongest minds and skeptics” and won. :rolleyes: We’ve just made him stronger–look out William Randolph Hearst.
“Cannabis can cure Cancer!” seems to be taking the same route as 'Hemp will save the Environment" of the 90’s. A bunch of very earnest but very misinformed people whose antics set real work on decriminalization, medicine, and the environment back several years.
Classic. I’ll use this in my “scientific report” on the Dunning-Kruger effect (Which I’m sure is familiar to most here, but in case JKander is lurking).
