Posted: Sun 25th Jul 2010 07:48 am
Stanky, i'm going to do this is numerical order from the top down.Stanky Danky wrote:Hey Sir Niall of I need a scientific study to show me marijuana is effective medicine I used the google and look what I found. I think over 20,000 studies should qualify as well studied, or are you going to try to tell me you need more studies again.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 152331.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/18 ... -2010feb18
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4393
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/1 ... 66993.html
http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/02/17/Medical-weed/
http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view ... eID=000884
Oh here's a good one, "over 20,000 scientific studies on marijuana." I guess there hasn't been enough studies done.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/20-000-s ... %80%99-yet
http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/ne ... arch-shows
http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20 ... nce-on-HIV
And here's a 2007 Harvard study that proves THC cures cancer.
http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_ ... vard_study
http://www.cannabisnews.org/united-stat ... marijuana/
http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/
http://www.onlinepot.org/medical/skincancerreport.htm
http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/ne ... news.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 193338.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111638.htm
1) First paragraph;
Not the words, some,promising and pain related. This is again what i said, there are some conditions in which Cannabis could help. The proof for this is still thin on the ground ( hence the word promising!) This is far from 100% proof that Cannabis is an effective medicine. More a it shows possibilties.reasonable evidence that cannabis is a promising treatment" for some specific, pain-related medical conditions.
2) Not sure what this is meant to prove, it's just saying studys take place regarding medical cannabis, and that they're under review before publication. Why does the fact that because something is being studied automatically make it true. This does not justify your pointed of view at all.
3)
Horribly outdated, so questionable whether it is applicable in modern day situations due to developments in the field. Claims that some illness's can be helped, this is what i have been saying. Says that there is more research for mental health issues, i.e it hasn't been proven, again what i've been saying.
4) Link to an internet newspaper article, no actual studies linked, it is a commentary on studies. Again does not stretch to the claims that the pro-MMJ activists often say about Cannabis ( Rick Simpson etc.) Which is again what i have been saying. This is not a study, is not scientific but instead is a commentary, this does not consitute proof.
5) See above.
6) I like the theory behind this, but, problems include but are not limited to. The decision made to pro,con, or not clear is seemingly opinionated. It seems to not take account of every study, it has a small cross section. There is no commentary on counter studies/rebutles or methodolgy to allow a sense of perspective to allow the readers to decide whether the sudies results can be taken seriously. Biased source.
7) Opinion by Norml ( a biased active participant in the debate.) It is an opinion piece regarding the debate, it illustrates their point of view. However, it is clearly biased and it is not a study backing up what you say.
Reviewed piece, which is good, but it's problematic as it does only deal with pain related illness's being effective when using Cannabis. Rather than it being good for the range of illness' that MMJ attribute.9) Does not show results. Does not justify any point of view, completely void and useless source.
10) Not reviewed, no link to study, opinion peice on a internet site. This is far from credible and due to the problematic issues which are substantial is made void and useless as well.
11) Biased website opinion on a study and interpetation of summary but with no link to original study. See above.
12) Interesting opinion piece, but it is just that. See 10)
13) Good study, original link is cool ( well it's a paste but i believe it is most likely accurate. I like this, it's interesting, but it is outdated. It would be good to see any futher studies and reubtles as i think that would give a perspective of this study which is greatly needed.
14) See 10)
15) No link to original study, opinion piece on a study. This falls short off scientific proof.
16) Outdate, see 15)
Right, SD, i hope you appreciate the effort. It seems your sources do not justify the claims of mental health help you claim, they mostly ( apart from one) center around pain reduction.
Now, i feel it fair you actually address my points; both these and past ones brought up. As i will not be responding to anymore of your questions untill you have done the same for me. This is only fair, and it's becoming fustrating this way of discussing the topic.
