And yet not a single actual argument. Just blind refutation and dismissal. What about "anecdotal" evidence do you people not understand? You didn't even respond to a single thing I said.
Sam yeah, lets just end the argument n call it peace sorry for the language i used i do get wound up over this but non of the information you can put forward could ever disprove the fact that THC has cured cancer and is doing so today, on record, backed up by professionals that is undebatable.
only because its true ahaha i do feel bad for going sick tho but damn how is anyone ever gonna see this if people don't even accept the fact that this happened and is happening
so im thinking that we should stop arguing with each other about stupid shit and opinions, and maybe try to get the word out. i mean fuck if cancer is cured why are we talking shit to eachother and not helping the world? post ZONYC'S link on facebook and myspace and try to get people to take notice. heres his link: http://www.studentprintz.com/home/in...d-b529895da103
I'm still not quite sure if your just trying to sound like you know science, or you actually disbelieve that thc can help prevent or treat cancer. I'm utterly amazed that you took this argument off the ground like you did. How is it possible, when the evidence is right in front of your eyes (Rick Simpson and others), to say that you need more evidence to believe this theory?
I'm beginning to think that deep down, you really don't want THC to be able to help prevent or cure cancer. Yes I know that there has not been enough research done to say for a fact that marijuana will cure cancer, but you just can't ignore the cases of Rick Simpson and others that have had success in that area. I, for one, try to stay optimistic about these types of things, and not try to sound smart to try to disprove anything that damnpolice posts. For me, physical evidence backed by professionals works, but to each his own. And btw, thanks for the neg rep...
No. This quote explains my position quite clearly: It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. -- Carl Sagan THANKYOU! that's all I am attempting to say. I have not ignored Rick Simpson's anecdotal evidence, despite damnpolice's efforts to insist so. I don't. They've illustrated some potential with a plausible scientific basis. That's all I can conclude at this point. Nothing more, I cannot make the intellectually vapid leap of faith that others have. Rick Simpson's data could be totally legitimate, but far more research is required to make even a tentative conclusion. Optimism should not be confused with credulity. I think you were more accurate with your first statement. I urge you to use your critical thinking skills, you evidently have them. Well, you returned the favor, so let's call it even. In retrospect I shouldn't have done so, I was annoyed and acted rashly. I did not give you an opportunity to speak before judging you, that was my error.
Well, now I feel bad. I apologize for neg repping you, because my picture was over the line. And I like that quote that you used, it is good to live by, but I guess I will always be a little more optimistic about the healing powers of marijuana than other aspects of life.
I know this looks long, but please read. I'm trying to build a bridge. look guys. There are many things in this world that affects the human body. The food we eat, the environment we live in, the people we interact with, our stress levels and of course the medicines we take. The thing is that these variables are never isolated from each other in real life, there are always going to be other variables affecting us at the same time. Because of this environment of mixed chemicals, one can never be sure what exact compound is causing the reaction. If there are two medicines that seem to cure a disease, I'd rather choose the one that has been certified through very rigorous testing rather than the one passed down through a story which may or may not be true. The powerful thing about the scientific method is the way it isolates each variable and identifies their properties. Even if something seems to cause an obvious reaction, it can't be taken for granted. Those practicing the scientific method don't care one way or the other how the experiment turns out, they only want to find the truth. A truth that can be repeated by other people. When we have this hard data, we can make predictions, predictions mean certainty, and certainty brings prosperity and good heath. No one denies the effectiveness of some folk remedies the ancients and those who still live closely with the land observed the properties of plants and animals and could treat their people effectively up to a point. This knowledge should never be dismissed! This wisdom seeds much of our current research. In order to provide a system that benefits the majority of people, rigid testing needs to be undertaken to see if it works in a lab setting and fully understand why it works the way it does. Sometimes there seems to be a substance or action that affects certain conditions but is in fact only a coincidence. If one takes that reaction at face value, the practice will continue whether or not it has a real affect. This is obviously not a good practice. Isolating variables can tell you for sure if it really is causing the reaction you are thinking it does or can completely dismiss it. One reason why we live as long as we do compared to older cultures and those not a part of mainstream' humanity is because of the scientific knowledge we have amassed. This is why anecdotal evidence isn't accepted when it comes to identifying truths. The layperson just hasn't undertaken the rigorous effort of research to know exactly what is going on. To be accepted into the body of scientific knowledge something must be observed, repeatedly tested to be true and then figured out why its true. Sam's arguing his point a little haphazardly (I hating picking apart posts line by line too, that really pisses me off). He's saying "good, there's some evidence that suggests this may true, now lets keep testing it to know for sure." He's not saying that since there's no hard data it must be false. Please, please, please don't knock the scientific method. Its slow to come to results, the results may not always be correct, but when something is finally disproved its thrown out and the research can move forward in another direction with new and more accurate data. The rewards for this dedication is revolutionary as one can see by the resulting technology we have today. You don't have to live your live using this method, but understand its not just a bunch of uptight people in white coats saying something is true and dismissing everything else because they have a PHD in whatever. We really are working in the interest of mankind to distill the world's knowledge into something we know works every time, all the time.
i just don't get it all you want is solid fact on this and a good understanding of how the drug works so that it can be repeated in an experiment with the same outcome every time, so we can clearly see how and why the drug has had this effect but this is already the case. the rick simpson case alone should be enough to atleast say this could be a cure and be put on the news or something, but it is simply ignored by everyone because it is fact now that this has worked for countless people so how can this solid proof not be valid when it is backed up by countless professionals and many experiments around the world have proved the same thing in animals?! your actually accusing this data of being coincidental and being affected by other factors even though it has worked for so many people on countless levels, not just cancer SO many illnesses that the medical system simply failed to treat. even things like glaucoma which we have crude drugs for today have been affected in a major and outstanding way by THC, people who no longer have to take insulin because it treats there diabetes - literally miracle recoverys that have not been seen in medicine before and ones that cannot be matched by the medical system. really all you have to do is look at the rick simpson case, and if you see that as truth then there are no 2 ways about it. There is no middle ground here, i don't see how you can view this information and say that it only has "great potential" when it has cured countless diseases outright including cancer in so many people. the system wont let this information in Just look at how rick simpson has fought for years now to get this out, with his undebatable proof on document backed up by solid research and still the system ignores the fact that he has cured cancer you are doing the same thing in my opinion
I must apologies, I had not read the first two pages before Sam started in, I merely thought this was someone not understanding the proper way to research not just medicine but anything in science. The reason why you don't get it is because the argument between you and Sam isn't whether or not cannabis has medical value, countless studies have supported this claim, but is about what you accept as truth and the reason why you believe it. Rick's story is remarkable, but he doesn't conduct his trials nor present his findings in a scientific way. The video is mostly testimonial from which we have to take their words that first the disease exists and now the at has truly been cured. I'm not saying that his treatment didn't help and that they are lying, but people will say things for many reasons, and that is precisely why a true scientific study needs quantitative data. It needs to be observed at the tissue level, cellular level and chemical level. I want to see reaction equations and prediction of future tissue health. It needs to identify causation. Its this data that should be used to dispute or support claims, not anecdotal stories and TV news that Rick is using. This is a stupid argument though, just pick a different source, one that had a controlled trial, that shows everything in a nice neat graph, with a proper write up that peer reviewed and Sam will be happy... It doesn't matter what substance is used, the process isn't really open to interpretation. Its just how its done. The problem with marijuana being used as medicine is one with politics and business, not one of science.
i see what your saying i do think more proof is needed to help this take off but rick had on record at his doctors that he had skin cancers, and then showed that he cured it with thc an official before and after recorded and documented this is also the case with most of the other people on his video, so its not just their word besides, why would Dr. Robert Melamede, Professor of Biology at the University of Colorado swear that cannabis kills cancer outright. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31Nuj_AvTg this is known fact now. basically this stuff should be mainstream information, but since it cant even make it into the limelight then we are never going to be able to take it further
Just because you know a few potheads who have cancer doesn't mean you can completely shoot down the possibilities of weed helping cancer. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/djm268v1
maybe because the "argument" youre putting out to be argued just has nothing to do with rick simpson curing his cancer with thc, youre ignoring reality. /facepalm