Don't accept that.Boner wrote:I think we need to embrace the fact that there are very positive signs that cannabis can help in the fight against cancer.
The chemicals in marijuana could put the brakes on colon cancer, according to new research. That doesn't mean smoking a joint will help, though, as the chemicals only form part of the process.
DuPonts power increasedbleak wrote:People could buy this back in 1900 or whatever, but not anymore. WTF happened??
i have never met sir niall but i bet he also believes it can help against cancer, but without ACTUAL evidence from numerous studys conducted over many years how can anyone come out &say it categorically aids in the fight against cancer, chemo is proven to defeat cancer, mj to the best of my knowledge isnt, thats not to say in 20years time it will be proved that it is. from what i can see is he's only trying to question things & have a debate, im also into my conspiracies like u stankyStanky Danky wrote: I know you'll do your best to deny any evidence that marijuana may be useful to fight cancer
i think david ickes is a brilliant speaker & i agree with alot of his conclusions (not the reptilian elite parts though ) &1of the main things people say is 'question everything' thats what i see sir niall doing, just because it comes from a pro mj source & its something we agree with why shouldn't we still question it?
I have a hard time understanding why people on a marijuana forum want to deny the legitimacy of all the scientific studies that say marijuana helps fight cancer. We should be giving thanks to these scientists for giving marijuana a good name not questioning the legitimacy of their scientific method in my opinion.Pauli Wallnuts wrote: why shouldn't we still question it?
Stanky Danky wrote:I have a hard time understanding why people on a marijuana forum want to deny the legitimacy of all the scientific studies that say marijuana helps fight cancer. We should be giving thanks to these scientists for giving marijuana a good name not questioning the legitimacy of their scientific method in my opinion.Pauli Wallnuts wrote: why shouldn't we still question it?
Why quote it for evidence to show that there's a heap of Science to back up the results of a study that concluded there is no science to back up what they have done then?Stanky Danky wrote:That's the opinion of the person who wrote the article Niall. He provided no science to back it up.
I personally think the attitude of acceptance and not questionning has made a laughing stock of the MMJ movement and to be straight with you, the scene in California.Stanky Danky wrote:I have a hard time understanding why people on a marijuana forum want to deny the legitimacy of all the scientific studies that say marijuana helps fight cancer. We should be giving thanks to these scientists for giving marijuana a good name not questioning the legitimacy of their scientific method in my opinion.Pauli Wallnuts wrote: why shouldn't we still question it?
This.Twichaldinho wrote:Is it still OK to consume recreationally?
recreational
recreational [rékri áyshn'l]
adj
1. not for work: done or used for pleasure or relaxation rather than work
2. not for medical purposes: describes controlled drugs taken illegally
-recreationally, , adv
I'm all for improving an individuals quality of life, nothing more. If pot has compounds and what not that do that, then hey, get on it. If you just want to be bubbled, i'm cool with that too....and I don't require you to back up that claim
Yeah, it kind of bothers me that all they want to do is test on mice. It's not like cannabis is some kind of experimental pharmaceutical that could possibly kill you. We've seen plenty of evidence that it works on mice. Why not move onto humans? Actually I think it's quite possible that there have been some habitual marijuana smokers that have halted the growth of cancerous tumors and not even known it. Possibly saving their own lives with their marijuana consumption without ever having a clue.Dirty Uncle Ron wrote:I think that when the first clinical trials begin, the world will be watching. Ya think?
No, Science works by questions being asked of the conculsions made, it's how any progress happens. I don't claim to be a Scientist, i never have, Philosophy/Theology is my game. Which is why i rarely go after the methods, i could bring up the difficulties of transfering data collected from animals to humans, but i don't because the in's and out's of that type of information i'm not clear on. I address your points in a manner consistent with critical thinking. But, to your point, if i'm not a scientist and can identify faults; or at the very least questions you and the MMJ group avoid/don't answer, does that not speak volumes about the scientific data you use to support your argument?Stanky Danky wrote:So scientifically uneducated people questioning the science of real scientists is how real science works?Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:To be taken seriously in this particular reasoning we have to challenge these scientists and question what they say, that's how science works.
What I got from reading the article is that this group is nearly ready for clinical trials. The process is complicated, as it should be. We are talking about experimenting on humans after all.Stanky Danky wrote:Yeah, it kind of bothers me that all they want to do is test on mice. It's not like cannabis is some kind of experimental pharmaceutical that could possibly kill you. We've seen plenty of evidence that it works on mice. Why not move onto humans? Actually I think it's quite possible that there have been some habitual marijuana smokers that have halted the growth of cancerous tumors and not even known it. Possibly saving their own lives with their marijuana consumption without ever having a clue.Dirty Uncle Ron wrote:I think that when the first clinical trials begin, the world will be watching. Ya think?
The thing is you're not a scientist and you're not educated enough to question their scientific findings. The best you can do is give your uneducated opinion on the study. Personally I find educated scientific findings alot more solid than the uneducated opinion of a skeptic. It's up to you who you want to believe, real scientists with real science to back up their findings or the naysayer who's probably biased anyway.Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:But, to your point, if i'm not a scientist and can identify faults; or at the very least questions
