Topic: Cannaibs is extremely good for you in moderation

[acts420]

I now ask you [iconicstudent] instead, in all seriousness, to please believe the first chapter of the Bible... that pesky little verse in Genesis chapter 1 where God gives us "all seed bearing plants for food" [/size]

What about seed bearing plants which are highly poisonous?

Some part of the plant has some safe use in some amount.

[NicholasMyra]

do you believe God commands you to eat poison ivy?

Me:  Native Americans ate poison ivy in moderation.

Xariskai, you totally set yourself up for that one.

Acts, do you own "The Herb Book"? You seem like the type of guy who would own the Herb Book.

I do not.  Is it a good read?

It's a good layman's guide to have if you use a lot of herbs found in America. I'd disregard the intro about differential heated water therapy, though.

[acts420]

Pot doesn't treat cancer. Bob Marley died of cancer, before he was even 40.

What gets me about these pot-worshipers is that they can never just admit all they want to do is smoke it for fun. They have to throw in all this fake b.s. to make them look like they have a purpose. Otherwise, you'd lump them in with the average person who likes to drink. Oh yeah, it kills germs, but you get this great buzz!    

Smoking pot does not treat cancer.  Go to pub med and read the articles about how pot has been used to treat cancer if you're sincerely interested.  Bob Marley?   As a Rastafarian, Marley smoked pot.  He has virtually nothing to do with curing cancer with cannabis.  Smoking pot does not treat cancer in any medical journal article I've ever read.  Smoking it often treats nausea that some big pharma cancer medications cause, but it doesn't actually treat cancer.  Eating it's extracted oils does treat cancer. There is no indication I've ever seen that Marley knew this, extracted cannabis into oil, or ate its extracts. 

See "run from the cure" (a documentary) where people eat extracted cannabis oils and use it on their skin to *cure* cancer, if you want.  Others ate it and claimed similar effects for internal cancers.  See also the same extracted cannabinoids in the pub med articles fighting cancer, if you want.   I'm not saying it heals everyone.  It doesn't.  Neither the documentaries nor the medical articles claim that.  I'm saying it has medical value.  It does.  A lot of it.

Open your ears.  We should educate ourselves before running our mouths.

So, now you're just angry. Can't admit you were wrong, huh. 

I'm not angry.  I also try to educate myself before speaking, and I try to keep my ears open.  That doesn't mean I'm an angry person at all.

[NicholasMyra]

What about seed bearing plants which are highly poisonous?

"Wormwood that maketh glad the heart of man, and botox to make his face to shine, and ephedra which strengtheneth man's heart."

[xariskai]

I now ask you [iconicstudent] instead, in all seriousness, to please believe the first chapter of the Bible... that pesky little verse in Genesis chapter 1 where God gives us "all seed bearing plants for food" [/size]

What about seed bearing plants which are highly poisonous?

Some part of the plant has some safe use in some amount.

For food?

[biro]

Don't forget the hemlock 'tea' they gave Socrates. A real winner. 

[NicholasMyra]

Don't forget the hemlock 'tea' they gave Socrates. A real winner. 

I think Nyquil is still paying out damages for that one.

[biro]

I now ask you [iconicstudent] instead, in all seriousness, to please believe the first chapter of the Bible... that pesky little verse in Genesis chapter 1 where God gives us "all seed bearing plants for food" [/size]

What about seed bearing plants which are highly poisonous?

Some part of the plant has some safe use in some amount.

For food?

Nah, for rolling up and smoking, so he can feel good, and open a pot shop in California or something, and make a ton of money. And if he doesn't, lots of people have already beat him to it. You didn't think his only goal was to provide pain relief to glaucoma sufferers?

[acts420]

I now ask you [iconicstudent] instead, in all seriousness, to please believe the first chapter of the Bible... that pesky little verse in Genesis chapter 1 where God gives us "all seed bearing plants for food" [/size]

What about seed bearing plants which are highly poisonous?

Some part of the plant has some safe use in some amount.

For food?

Yes.  Some part of every seed bearing plant can be eaten as food.  All the seed bearing plants were made for our good.  Indeed, everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. And the Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. They order people to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

[acts420]

I now ask you [iconicstudent] instead, in all seriousness, to please believe the first chapter of the Bible... that pesky little verse in Genesis chapter 1 where God gives us "all seed bearing plants for food" [/size]

What about seed bearing plants which are highly poisonous?

Some part of the plant has some safe use in some amount.

For food?

Nah, for rolling up and smoking, so he can feel good, and open a pot shop in California or something, and make a ton of money. And if he doesn't, lots of people have already beat him to it. You didn't think his only goal was to provide pain relief to glaucoma sufferers?

Actually, my desire is to see that people don't have to die like my Father did, God rest his soul.  He got skin cancer; the same cancer I later saw people in the educational documentary "Run From the Cure" healed themselves of using cannabis oil extract.  My Father's doctors' treatments didn't work for him, much like my doctors' treatments for my plantar warts didn't work for me.  The cancer spread.   Eventually it had to be treated aggressively.  The doctor's treatments still didn't work, but they did make him very nauseous all the time.  He had trouble eating.  Cancer and the inability to eat are a very bad combo.  From what I've read and the patients I've spoken too, cannabis would have helped him greatly in his fight.

However, cannabis was made illegal in his State and Country about 70 years before he got cancer.  My hope is that someday children will see their fathers healed of this disease instead of dying a slow, dreadful, agonizing, and painful death over months and years from it.    

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

This biggest casualty of the California Medicinal Cannabis laws is that they have become a farce, which wrongfully discredits those many thousands of sincerely sick people who use Cannabis therapy for their terminal and debilitating illness. REAL doctors for REALLY sick people prescribe Cannabis to replace five drugs in one: anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping aids, appetite inducing drugs, nausea medication, and of course pain medicine. All of these drugs have a serious potential for side-effects and an even bigger risk of dangerous drug interactions.

This is not an apology for recreational drug abuse, but it is a defense for the legitimately sick people who benefit from Cannabis as therapy.  Recreational drug users are a separate issue, and if corruption has negatively effected medicinal cannabis in California, we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Stop the corruption and recreational abuse by unscrupulous doctors and dispensaries, but continue to recognize and respect the legitimate and honest medicinal uses by those honestly sick people.  I feel it is disrespectful to terminally ill and debilitated people to scoff what works for them simply out of politics or opinion.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Shanghaiski]

Real doctors. Lol.

[laconicstudent]

Don't be stupid, what "smells fishy" is that neither you nor this doctor are fulfilling your burden of proof.

What do you mean?  What "burden of proof"?  This is a conversation, not a trial.  This is an internet discussion forum.  I'm a friend.  Just please explain to me what exactly you want me to "prove" to you?

I want you to provide some actual evidence of the wildly grandiose claims you are making.

Neither I, nor anyone else, is obligated to do your homework for you.

Again... what does that mean?  You're not making any sense to me; I'm sorry.

I don't know how to make it any simpler: Nobody is going to check PubMed for you. If you want to present sources, do it. Don't expect us to go looking.

If you want to make a scientific argument, YOU go to PubMed and supply us with a well-written argument with appropriate citations.

Can I get you a cup of coffee while I'm at it?  How about a bowl of soup?  Here, open wide... here comes the spoon.  

Why would I do your homework for you?  You can type "cannabis" or "cannabis and cancer" in pub med's search engine and hit 'ENTER' just as easily as I can.

But I'm not obligated to. You obviously have no idea how science works. In science, if you make an argument, you don't get to tell your audience "It's all on EBSCOHOST, happy searching", you are supposed to have based your arguments on facts and be able to defend what you say.

I am not going to do it for you; considering the fact that you appear to be seriously demanding that I do such, you really aren't in any position to be questioning anyone else's intellect.

I never asked you to do anything for me at all.

Then stop telling US to go looking on PubMed for the sources YOU should ALREADY HAVE to source your arguments.

I didn't ask you to do anything for me.  Rather, you asked me, "Does Dr. David Allen have any actual science backing his claims up?"  I said, "Yes," and pointed you toward them.  But holding your hand is not enough.  You need me actually pick up the spoon and put it in your mouth.  And if I did, if I cited some study or even three, you could easily just spit the mashed peas all over my face anyway.  No thanks.

Go read it yourself if you're sincerely interested.  I sense from your tone that you're more interested in being a sarcastic critic than in actually reading about this topic on your own.  I could be wrong.  But because that is my gut feeling, I'm not going to obey your commands nor even fulfill your requests.   There have been times on this website forum that I've been forced to do the homework for my sarcastic critics.  And those times have shown me it is, in a sense, like throwing pearls to swine.

Wow, look at all those grandiose claims of cannabis being the universal panacea without a single scientific source.

There are plenty of sources that are easy to find on the internet with Google and Pub Med.  However, there aren't enough sources in the world to convince you that Genesis chapter 1 is true, much less that cannabis specifically is good.

I'd love to know what the heck mechanism of action you think the chemicals in this plant have that it can be used to treat warts (viral infection), MS (autoimmune disorder) and Parkinson's (neurodegenerative).

I'm a scientist and a doctor, but I'm not a medical doctor.  Between two and four years ago, I read about twenty medical articles about the topics I have spoken here about, and much of it I did not understand.  But a lot of it I did understand, especially the conclusions.  If you want to read similar articles, or perhaps even the same ones, I have pointed you to where you can find them.  I did not save them myself.  I read them between two and four years ago.

But you don't have to be able to understand every word of every medical journal in order to see that when Dad finally decided to leave the laws of this world behind and give the child cannabis, in an attempt to save his life, the child was healed. http://www.kxly.com/news/Dad-Gives-Toddler-Battling-Brain-Cancer-Medical-Marijuana/-/101270/680588/-/biwphfz/-/index.html . You can also see a video of the story at http://abcnews.go.com/Health/video/dad-gives-ailing-son-medical-marijuana-13527143 . Or, see also see these men who treat their Parkinson's Disease with cannabis. You can see the medical relief of their disease almost *immediately*: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEOoa6Q4Bds and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvtD1zizLng and also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUSbJWpafnU . There are hundreds of other diseases and thousands of other personal examples.  

Love your neighbors, for Christ's sake!  The federal government has repeatedly lied to and deceived the U.S. population in order to achieve the current situation.  See, for one small example of many, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7PlWcnIens  .   If you will study the history of the prohibition, as I have, you'll find it very possible, if not even likely, his was done at the request of industrial lobbyists, often in the pharmaceutical lobby. The same have been heavily funding "the war on drugs" propaganda for at least as many decades as I've been alive.

May God grant us peace,

This is boring. Moderators, this is pseudoscientific medical information. The OP is suggesting that cannabis can cure serious diseases. Frankly, in the best interests of everyone's health, I want acts420 to put up the PubMed peer-reviewed medical research studies that explicitly support his claims, or shut up. Medical quackery isn't something that can be tolerated, it kills people.

[biro]

Thank you, laconicstudent. Well said. 

[vamrat]

What about seed bearing plants which are highly poisonous?

"Wormwood that maketh glad the heart of man, and botox to make his face to shine, and ephedra which strengtheneth man's heart."

Wormwood is great as it is used to make absynthe, the one substance that is possibly better than vodka at curing the ills of the heart.

[acts420]

I want you to provide some actual evidence of the wildly grandiose claims you are making.

Can I get you a cup of coffee while I'm at it?  How about a bowl of soup?  Here, open wide... here comes the spoon.  Why would I do your homework for you?  You can type "cannabis" or "cannabis and cancer" in pub med's search engine and hit 'ENTER' just as easily as I can.  Your asking me to do research for you.  Do it yourself if you want it done.   I did it years ago.  I didn't write down the studies.  It would take me hours to read through all of them again and highlight the parts I found most significant.  We learn by doing.  Go do the research yourself if you're interested.  And if you're not interested, then don't.

I get the feeling you're just looking for something to pick apart.  If even Scripture can be twisted to our destruction, I'm sure you could twist 10,000 medical journal articles as you please.

But I'm not obligated to. You obviously have no idea how science works. In science, if you make an argument, you don't get to tell your audience "It's all on EBSCOHOST, happy searching", you are supposed to have based your arguments on facts and be able to defend what you say.

Yes, you are not obligated to.  And I'm not even telling or asking you to.  You asked me if the medical doctor the recommends cannabis in the video I linked to has any basis in science.  I said yes, and I pointed you to where you can look for further info if you're interested.  I'm not making a scientific argument.  I'm not a medical doctor.  I'm not here as an attorney or anything else.  I'm participating in a casual conversation on an internet discussion board.

... stop telling US to go looking on PubMed for the sources YOU should ALREADY HAVE to source your arguments.

I did not ask you to do anything in my OP.  You asked me if the medical doctor the recommends cannabis in the video I linked to has any basis in science.  I said yes, and I pointed you to where you can look for further info if you're interested.

This is boring. Moderators, this is pseudoscientific medical information. The OP is suggesting that cannabis can cure serious diseases. Frankly, in the best interests of everyone's health, I want acts420 to put up the PubMed peer-reviewed medical research studies that explicitly support his claims, or shut up. Medical quackery isn't something that can be tolerated, it kills people.

Why don't you do your own homework if you want homework done?  This is a casual conversation that you seem to be intensely interested in.  So go do some reading, educate yourself, and then come back.  I suggested a documentary and a website (pub med) and search term that will provide you with many links to specific medical articles.  

Yet you want me to do your work for you.  This same thing happened to me in the "premarital sex" thread when someone questioned if I actually had read ancient Jewish Rabbis that taught it was not a transgression under the law.  So I had to go find the specific Rabbi sources that I had casually read years earlier.  I was forced by the moderators, under threat of censuring me by closing my thread, to do the posters' homework for him.  Guess what?  The sources said exactly what they said when I had casually read them years earlier.  But of course all my work in tracking down the original sources again, work done from my own time and money, still didn't matter a lick to the poster.

If the poster who used the moderators to make me do his homework really cared about the homework he likely would have done it himself.  In my experience in various forums, it seems that those who use the moderators to force others to do their homework for them aren't actually interested in the homework.  They simply want a chance to spit the baby food back into my face. 

Feed yourself.  It is part of growing up, and we all must be growing up continuously if we want to be like Christ.

[laconicstudent]

I want you to provide some actual evidence of the wildly grandiose claims you are making.


Can I get you a cup of coffee while I'm at it?  How about a bowl of soup?  Here, open wide... here comes the spoon.  Why would I do your homework for you?  You can type "cannabis" or "cannabis and cancer" in pub med's search engine and hit 'ENTER' just as easily as I can.
But I'm not obligated to. You obviously have no idea how science works. In science, if you make an argument, you don't get to tell your audience "It's all on EBSCOHOST, happy searching", you are supposed to have based your arguments on facts and be able to defend what you say.


Yes, you are not obligated to.  And I'm not even telling or asking you to.  You asked me if the medical doctor the recommends cannabis in the video I linked to has any basis in science.  I said yes, and I pointed you to where you can look for further info if you're interested.  I'm not making a scientific argument.  I'm not a medical doctor.  I'm not here as an attorney or anything else.  I'm participating in a casual conversation on an internet discussion board.

... stop telling US to go looking on PubMed for the sources YOU should ALREADY HAVE to source your arguments.

I did not ask you to do anything in my OP.  You asked me if the medical doctor the recommends cannabis in the video I linked to has any basis in science.  I said yes, and I pointed you to where you can look for further info if you're interested.


This is boring. Moderators, this is pseudoscientific medical information. The OP is suggesting that cannabis can cure serious diseases. Frankly, in the best interests of everyone's health, I want acts420 to put up the PubMed peer-reviewed medical research studies that explicitly support his claims, or shut up. Medical quackery isn't something that can be tolerated, it kills people.

Why don't you do your own homework?  This is a casual conversation that you seem to be intensely interested in.  So go do some reading, educate yourself, and then come back.  I suggested a documentary and a website (pub med) and search term that will provide you with many links to specific medical articles.  

Yet you want me to do your work for you.  This same thing happened to me in the "premarital sex" thread when someone questioned if I actually had read ancient Jewish Rabbis that taught it was not a transgression under the law.  So I had to go find the specific Rabbis that I had casually read years earlier.  I was forced by the moderators, under threat of censuring me by closing my thread, to do the posters' homework for him.  Guess what?  The Rabbis said exactly what I had read them as saying years earlier.  But of course all my work in tracking down the original sources, from my own time and money, still didn't matter a lick to the poster.  

Often times, it seems that those who use the moderators to force others to do their homework for them aren't actually interested in the homework.  They simply want a chance to spit the baby food back into my face.

You have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence of several highly controversial claims about medical science, including but not limited to, that cannabis can treat cancer, multiple sclerosis, viral infections and Parkinson's disease. This is contrary to established medical practice and is highly dangerous. It is reasonable for me to demand to know just what peer-reviewed studies you think are supporting this.

You may not understand science, but I do. Some of us actually work in science and understand that "pointing someone in the right direction" is grossly unacceptable behavior. Put up or shut up, your level of argumentation wouldn't even get accepted to a conference or symposia, and if I ever tried to pass off unsourced writing and refused to source it with a response along the line that my audience could look it up themselves, I'd be sharply reprimanded if not dismissed from my position.

Again, put up or shut up.

[acts420]

You have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence of several highly controversial claims about medical science, including but not limited to, that cannabis can treat cancer, multiple sclerosis, viral infections and Parkinson's disease. This is contrary to established medical practice and is highly dangerous. It is reasonable for me to demand to know just what peer-reviewed studies you think are supporting this.

You may not understand science, but I do. Some of us actually work in science and understand that "pointing someone in the right direction" is grossly unacceptable behavior. Put up or shut up, your level of argumentation wouldn't even get accepted to a conference or symposia, and if I ever tried to pass off unsourced writing and refused to source it with a response along the line that my audience could look it up themselves, I'd be sharply reprimanded if not dismissed from my position.

Again, put up or shut up.

These claims are not "highly controversial" at all, at least not where I live.  This also is not "contrary to established medical practice" where I live.

You don't "understand science" completely, and neither do I.  No one does except God because He alone is omniscient.   My participating in this casual conversation and linking to a video of a medical doctor is not at all grossly unacceptable.  What would be grossly unacceptable would be if, again, I am forced to do a sarcastic critic's homework for him.

If you want to know if the medical doctor in the video I published is right, then get on pub med and start reading.  That is where he gets much of his information.  I did it years ago, and read many articles.  I did not write them down.   They are out there still if anyone cares enough to go find them and read them.   If you actually cared about the topic at hand as much as you care about making me do your work for you then you would go look up a few pub med articles about cannabis yourself.   But you don't.  Instead, you want me to do your work for you.

Again, this same thing happened to me in the "premarital sex" thread when someone questioned if I actually had read ancient Jewish Rabbis that taught it was not a transgression under the law.  The moderators agreed, and to keep talking about the topic, because it was so "highly controversial," I had to take time off from work and drive around town to various libraries to track down the specific Rabbi sources that I had casually read in the library years earlier.  Of course the sources didn't matter a lick to the poster; all the sources in the world likely wouldn't matter.  If the poster who used the moderators to make me do his homework really cared about the homework he likely would have done it himself.  

In my experience in various forums, it seems that those who use the moderators to force others to do their homework for them aren't actually interested in the work to be done.  They simply want a chance to spit the baby food back into my face.   Feed yourself.  It is part of growing up, and we all must be growing up continuously if we want to be like Christ.

[xariskai]

I now ask you [iconicstudent] instead, in all seriousness, to please believe the first chapter of the Bible... that pesky little verse in Genesis chapter 1 where God gives us "all seed bearing plants for food" [/size]

What about seed bearing plants which are highly poisonous?

Perhaps they have some use, but for food?

[acts420]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

This biggest casualty of the California Medicinal Cannabis laws is that they have become a farce, which wrongfully discredits those many thousands of sincerely sick people who use Cannabis therapy for their terminal and debilitating illness. REAL doctors for REALLY sick people prescribe Cannabis to replace five drugs in one: anti-depressants, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping aids, appetite inducing drugs, nausea medication, and of course pain medicine. All of these drugs have a serious potential for side-effects and an even bigger risk of dangerous drug interactions.

This is not an apology for recreational drug abuse, but it is a defense for the legitimately sick people who benefit from Cannabis as therapy.  Recreational drug users are a separate issue, and if corruption has negatively effected medicinal cannabis in California, we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.  Stop the corruption and recreational abuse by unscrupulous doctors and dispensaries, but continue to recognize and respect the legitimate and honest medicinal uses by those honestly sick people.  I feel it is disrespectful to terminally ill and debilitated people to scoff what works for them simply out of politics or opinion.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

 ^ this ^

[acts420]

I now ask you [iconicstudent] instead, in all seriousness, to please believe the first chapter of the Bible... that pesky little verse in Genesis chapter 1 where God gives us "all seed bearing plants for food" [/size]

What about seed bearing plants which are highly poisonous?

Perhaps they have some use, but for food?

Some part of every seed bearing plant can be eaten safely in proper amounts, often effectively too.  And even if we don't yet know of an effect, we are learning about the plants that surround us more and more each day.  Believe the first chapter of the Bible.  Genesis 1:29.  All seed bearing plants.  Food.  Period.

[laconicstudent]

You have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence of several highly controversial claims about medical science, including but not limited to, that cannabis can treat cancer, multiple sclerosis, viral infections and Parkinson's disease. This is contrary to established medical practice and is highly dangerous. It is reasonable for me to demand to know just what peer-reviewed studies you think are supporting this.

You may not understand science, but I do. Some of us actually work in science and understand that "pointing someone in the right direction" is grossly unacceptable behavior. Put up or shut up, your level of argumentation wouldn't even get accepted to a conference or symposia, and if I ever tried to pass off unsourced writing and refused to source it with a response along the line that my audience could look it up themselves, I'd be sharply reprimanded if not dismissed from my position.

Again, put up or shut up.

These claims are not "highly controversial" at all, at least not where I live.  This also is not "contrary to established medical practice" where I live.

*looks for the sources that cannabis is a routine cancer treatment. Sees none.*

You don't "understand science" completely, and neither do I.  No one does except God because He alone is omniscient.   My participating in this casual conversation and linking to a video of a medical doctor is not at all grossly unacceptable.

No, posting medical quackery and refusing to provide your peer-reviewed sources is grossly unacceptable.

 What would be grossly unacceptable would be if, again, I am forced to do a sarcastic critic's homework for him.

Yeah, gee, imagine if you were forced to adhere to the same standards of discussion as a high school student writing a history paper. The horror.

If you want to know if the medical doctor in the video I published is right, then get on pub med and start reading.  That is where he gets much of his information.  I did it years ago, and read many articles.  I did not write them down.   They are out there still if anyone cares enough to go find them and read them.   If you actually cared about the topic at hand as much as you care about making me do your work for you then you would go look up a few pub med articles about cannabis yourself.   But you don't.  Instead, you want me to do your work for you.

Give me your sources. Researching your arguments is not my job.

Again, this same thing happened to me in the "premarital sex" thread when someone questioned if I actually had read ancient Jewish Rabbis that taught it was not a transgression under the law.  So I had to go find the specific Rabbi sources that I had casually read years earlier.  Of course the sources didn't matter a lick to the poster; all the sources in the world likely wouldn't matter.  If the poster who used the moderators to make me do his homework really cared about the homework he likely would have done it himself.

If you don't like being held to a reasonable level of research in conversation, I recommend you not have them or restrict yourself to purely subjective topics.

Hint: In discussing scientific topics, you will find that the other posters who are interested in science will hold you to a reasonable level of scientific sourcing for your points.  

In my experience in various forums, it seems that those who use the moderators to force others to do their homework for them aren't actually interested in the work to be done.

Trust me, I would be fascinated to read a paper demonstrating that cannabis can cure cancer. The mechanism of action would be fascinating, so stop whining and either give it to me or seriously, just admit you made it up.

 They simply want a chance to spit the baby food back into my face.   Feed yourself.  It is part of growing up, and we all must be growing up continuously if we want to be like Christ.

No, this is not how science works. Science is an empirically based, objective inquiry into natural phenomena. In science, our conclusions must be built on prior experimentation and observation. You must at every point in your argument provide concrete evidence and sources so anyone who is so inclined can look up all your material and do their very best to shred your argument. This is called academic rigor. I can't how childish it would be for someone to act like you are now and demand that his audience do his research for him. This is something you should have done BEFORE writing your conclusions. You should literally have a document on your computer with pages and pages of notes and references and a folder with dozens of .pdfs.

Where are they? Give me your sources. You are making controversial medical claims. Back them up. I want hyperlinks to abstracts in peer-reviewed journals.

[biro]

What about seed bearing plants which are highly poisonous?

"Wormwood that maketh glad the heart of man, and botox to make his face to shine, and ephedra which strengtheneth man's heart."

Wormwood is great as it is used to make absynthe, the one substance that is possibly better than vodka at curing the ills of the heart.

Better than chocolate ice cream? 

[biro]

All punchlines aside for a moment. Does anyone know if any very prominent, well-known universities, such as Harvard or Oxford, or well-respected mainstream medical journals such as the Lancet, have sponsored or published any studies on the claims that pot is effective against cancer and other deadly diseases? If someone did come up with a really top-class, thorough, peer-reviewed study, preferably more than one, that would be something. I would take a step back.

There are so many cancer patients around the world, if someone did come up with a new, powerful, relatively cheap treatment, I'm sure the world would be interested to know what it is. It could even be said that it's your duty as a person of compassion to show whether this is true.

If you can produce proof, do so. Lots of people in cancer wards would thank you for it.

[xariskai]

Some part of every seed bearing plant can be eaten safely in proper amounts, often effectively too.  And even if we don't yet know of an effect, we are learning about the plants that surround us more and more each day.  Believe the first chapter of the Bible.  Genesis 1:29.  All seed bearing plants.  Food.  Period.

As you said, humans have ingested poison ivy to gain immunity to poison ivy.

But no one uses it for food.

Frankly your claim that poison ivy is food seems pretty stupid (no disrespect intended), but more power to you.

[orthonorm]

...you'll find people that even claim it has healed some forms of cancer!

But don't listen to me.  And don't listen to God either. Just ignore that pesky little verse in Genesis chapter 1 where God gives us "all seed bearing plants for food".

To be consistent (assuming you actually believe what you are saying -?- ), do you believe God commands you to eat poison ivy?

No one is born allergic to poison ivy and the how quickly one develops an allergy to it varies.

I spent a lot of my youth cleaning out poison ivy without a care.

That all changed one fateful day in my mid twenties.

[acts420]

*looks for the sources that cannabis is a routine cancer treatment. Sees none.*

*Never said cannabis is currently a routine cancer treatment.  Rather, said there are studies of cannabis in pub med that show effectiveness against a variety of ailments, including cancer.*

Give me your sources. Researching your arguments is not my job.

Do your own homework.  I posted a link to a video of a medical doctor's testimony, and I shared personal experience.  I read a bunch of pub med articles 2-4 years ago that tended to support what the Doctor is saying.  I did not write them down.  If I had written them down, I would gladly share them with you.  I can tell you where I found them.  Pub Med.  Search for cannabis, and look for particular interesting ones.  Or Google cannabis and (name that disease) and medical journal.  You'll get quite a few to pick from.

If you don't like being held to a reasonable level of research in conversation, I recommend you not have them or restrict yourself to purely subjective subjects.

I love reasonable conversation.  I hate being forced to do others' homeework for them, and I fear it may become a pattern on this board since I've already been forced by the modersators to do it once before.  That event started this same way, with a sarcastic critic too "busy" (or lazy?) to do the work himself calling for me to be forced to do it.  The moderators complied, and it was all pointless and a waste of my time as I knew it would be.   If you really cared about the Truth behind what the Doctor in the video is saying, then you would spend a significant amount of time researching his claims yourself with the resources I've pointed you toward.

Watch "Run from the Cure" the documentary.  That is what I did.  Do you want me to take the rest of the day off from work so I can spend hours watching it again?  Then I can send you the exact minute markers in the movie for you to review?  So you can just spit it back in my face and say something like, "Well, no doctor I've ever heard of told me to watch that?" or something.

There is no convincing you.  So don't bother making me try.  If you want to find the medical knowledge that the Doctor I posted a video of is relying on, you can find it in pub med (among other sources).  Heck, go talk to your own doctor about it if you're that interested!  

[orthonorm]

All punchlines aside for a moment. Does anyone know if any very prominent, well-known universities, such as Harvard or Oxford, or well-respected mainstream medical journals such as the Lancet, have sponsored or published any studies on the claims that pot is effective against cancer and other deadly diseases? If someone did come up with a really top-class, thorough, peer-reviewed study, preferably more than one, that would be something. I would take a step back.

There are so many cancer patients around the world, if someone did come up with a new, powerful, relatively cheap treatment, I'm sure the world would be interested to know what it is. It could even be said that it's your duty as a person of compassion to show whether this is true.

If you can produce proof, do so. Lots of people in cancer wards would thank you for it.

To be fair, funding has been lacking in this area.

Politics run rampant in medical research.

Pot is NBD.

It ain't the manna from on high.

It ain't bad.

Enjoy it if you can. It certainly has healthful qualities. A lazy google search will show you, or just use some.

So does tobacco.

[laconicstudent]

I now ask you [iconicstudent] instead, in all seriousness, to please believe the first chapter of the Bible... that pesky little verse in Genesis chapter 1 where God gives us "all seed bearing plants for food" [/size]

What about seed bearing plants which are highly poisonous?

Perhaps they have some use, but for food?

Some part of every seed bearing plant can be eaten safely in proper amounts, often effectively too.  And even if we don't yet know of an effect, we are learning about the plants that surround us more and more each day.  Believe the first chapter of the Bible.  Genesis 1:29.  All seed bearing plants.  Food.  Period.

Really? You can eat monkshood?

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/govi/pharmaz/2006/00000061/00000009/art00001

The toxic effects of Aconitum alkaloids are known to affect mainly the central nervous system, heart and muscle tissues. Their toxicological mechanisms may involve interaction with voltage-dependent Na+ channels, modulation of neurotransmitter release and related receptors, promotion of lipid peroxidation and induction of cell apoptosis in heart, liver or other organs. Of them, the mechanism of interaction with voltage-dependent Na+ channels is quite well known, but the other factors are still unclear, and need to be further studied. This review focuses on the toxicological mechanisms of Aconitum alkaloids.

[laconicstudent]

I'm a scientist and a doctor, but I'm not a medical doctor.  Between two and four years ago, I read about twenty medical articles about the topics I have spoken here about, and much of it I did not understand.  But a lot of it I did understand, especially the conclusions.  If you want to read similar articles, or perhaps even the same ones, I have pointed you to where you can find them.  I did not save them myself.  I read them between two and four years ago.

I am. I frankly don't believe you. Anyone with the most basic scientific training you get in your undergraduate knows that refusing to provide sources is completely unacceptable behavior in any scientific discussion. If you don't have the sources at hand, or the will to look them up again, you don't have any business making all these wild claims.

[acts420]

Some part of every seed bearing plant can be eaten safely in proper amounts, often effectively too.  And even if we don't yet know of an effect, we are learning about the plants that surround us more and more each day.  Believe the first chapter of the Bible.  Genesis 1:29.  All seed bearing plants.  Food.  Period.

As you said, humans have ingested poison ivy to gain immunity to poison ivy.

But no one uses it for food.

Frankly your claim that poison ivy is food seems pretty stupid (no disrespect intended), but more power to you.

No disrespect taken.  And since we're being frank, to me it seems pretty stupid to say a plant that is ingested is not food.  No disrespect intended.  More power to you also.

[acts420]

I'm a scientist and a doctor, but I'm not a medical doctor.  Between two and four years ago, I read about twenty medical articles about the topics I have spoken here about, and much of it I did not understand.  But a lot of it I did understand, especially the conclusions.  If you want to read similar articles, or perhaps even the same ones, I have pointed you to where you can find them.  I did not save them myself.  I read them between two and four years ago.

I am. I frankly don't believe you. Anyone with the most basic scientific training you get in your undergraduate knows that refusing to provide sources is completely unacceptable behavior in any scientific discussion. If you don't have the sources at hand, or the will to look them up again, you don't have any business making all these wild claims.

This is not a scientific discussion.  This is a casual conversation between friends on an internet discussion board under "free for all" topics.  I posted a link to a video of a medical doctor.  Call up the doctor if you want more info.  Write him a letter.  Talk to your own doctor.  Spend a few hours reading pub med if you want.  Or ignore the post.  No one is asking you to participate in this conversation.  Feel free to leave or to stay.  But if you want homework done, do it yourself.

[orthonorm]

I'm a scientist and a doctor, but I'm not a medical doctor.  Between two and four years ago, I read about twenty medical articles about the topics I have spoken here about, and much of it I did not understand.  But a lot of it I did understand, especially the conclusions.  If you want to read similar articles, or perhaps even the same ones, I have pointed you to where you can find them.  I did not save them myself.  I read them between two and four years ago.

I am. I frankly don't believe you. Anyone with the most basic scientific training you get in your undergraduate knows that refusing to provide sources is completely unacceptable behavior in any scientific discussion. If you don't have the sources at hand, or the will to look them up again, you don't have any business making all these wild claims.

Frankly, Acts420 is making you all look bad.

In case, you didn't realize. This isn't a discussion about science. And any person who has more than a minimal ability to reflect on language, probably would never use the words "scientific discussion", unless they were reflecting on the imprecision of others.

[orthonorm]

This is not a scientific discussion.

You beat me to it within a second.

[acts420]

All punchlines aside for a moment. Does anyone know if any very prominent, well-known universities, such as Harvard or Oxford, or well-respected mainstream medical journals such as the Lancet, have sponsored or published any studies on the claims that pot is effective against cancer and other deadly diseases? If someone did come up with a really top-class, thorough, peer-reviewed study, preferably more than one, that would be something. I would take a step back.

There are so many cancer patients around the world, if someone did come up with a new, powerful, relatively cheap treatment, I'm sure the world would be interested to know what it is. It could even be said that it's your duty as a person of compassion to show whether this is true.

If you can produce proof, do so. Lots of people in cancer wards would thank you for it.

Here's a start for you.  I entered the search term "cannabis and cancer medical journals" into the website "www.google.com" two minutes ago.  I got many hits.  The first link was to https://sites.google.com/site/marylandsafeaccess/Home/cannabis-cancer---the-science  .  There you will find tons of examples.  You can do this for many other diseases too.  You can also use Pub Med instead of google.  Read up all you want if you're interested.  The government is not going to tell you about this stuff, nor is the media.  Both have very tight ties to the pharmaceutical industry that has been attempting to keep cannabis from the population using all means possible for 80 years.   My experience, personally, is with my plantar warts (as I said).

Here is another link you may be interested in:  
http://www.healthiertalk.com/two-marijuana-cancer-studies-you-probably-never-heard-about-3361

Excerpt:  

In February 2000 researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis. The study was later published in the journal Nature Cancer Review.

Chances are that you have never heard of this study, the same as you likely never heard of a previous similar study because there has been a virtual news blackout as well as a concerted government effort to suppress such stories and studies for over thirty years.

[xariskai]

Some part of every seed bearing plant can be eaten safely in proper amounts, often effectively too.  And even if we don't yet know of an effect, we are learning about the plants that surround us more and more each day.  Believe the first chapter of the Bible.  Genesis 1:29.  All seed bearing plants.  Food.  Period.

As you said, humans have ingested poison ivy to gain immunity to poison ivy.

But no one uses it for food.

Frankly your claim that poison ivy is food seems pretty stupid (no disrespect intended), but more power to you.

No disrespect taken.  And since we're being frank, to me it seems pretty stupid to say a plant that is ingested is not food.  No disrespect intended.  More power to you also.

But if your definition of food reduces to "anything ingested"

isn't any poison one might consume, even if it results in certain death, "ingested"?

Would you then say that any toxic substance ingested in any amount, fatal or not, is food since said toxic substances are ingested?

You seem to be going to some pretty extreme lengths to defend your claim that poison plants, poison ivy, etc. are food.

[laconicstudent]

I'm a scientist and a doctor, but I'm not a medical doctor.  Between two and four years ago, I read about twenty medical articles about the topics I have spoken here about, and much of it I did not understand.  But a lot of it I did understand, especially the conclusions.  If you want to read similar articles, or perhaps even the same ones, I have pointed you to where you can find them.  I did not save them myself.  I read them between two and four years ago.

I am. I frankly don't believe you. Anyone with the most basic scientific training you get in your undergraduate knows that refusing to provide sources is completely unacceptable behavior in any scientific discussion. If you don't have the sources at hand, or the will to look them up again, you don't have any business making all these wild claims.

This is not a scientific discussion.

What are we discussing? Poetry? Classical sculpture?

  This is a casual conversation between friends on an internet discussion board under "free for all" topics.

Yes, on SCIENCE. And when you start making controversial medical claims without providing sources, it ceases to become casual, and you should know since you claim to be a doctor that there are ethical considerations.

  I posted a link to a video of a medical doctor.

Not a peer-reviewed source

  Call up the doctor if you want more info.

No, give me these supposed peer-reviewed sources you keep insisting exist.

  Write him a letter.  Talk to your own doctor.  Spend a few hours reading pub med if you want.

No, give me the peer reviewed sources. Act like a college-educated adult and give us the sources for your claims for heaven's sakes.

  Or ignore the post.

No, because ignoring medical quackery is immoral.

  No one is asking you to participate in this conversation.  Feel free to leave or to stay.  But if you want homework done, do it your self.

You have an ethical responsibility not to make unsupportable scientific claims which could lead people to make healthcare decisions that could be to their detriment. You have compounded it by claiming to be a doctor. Frankly, your behavior in this thread is grossly beyond the pale.

[laconicstudent]

I'm a scientist and a doctor, but I'm not a medical doctor.  Between two and four years ago, I read about twenty medical articles about the topics I have spoken here about, and much of it I did not understand.  But a lot of it I did understand, especially the conclusions.  If you want to read similar articles, or perhaps even the same ones, I have pointed you to where you can find them.  I did not save them myself.  I read them between two and four years ago.

I am. I frankly don't believe you. Anyone with the most basic scientific training you get in your undergraduate knows that refusing to provide sources is completely unacceptable behavior in any scientific discussion. If you don't have the sources at hand, or the will to look them up again, you don't have any business making all these wild claims.

Frankly, Acts420 is making you all look bad.

In case, you didn't realize. This isn't a discussion about science. And any person who has more than a minimal ability to reflect on language, probably would never use the words "scientific discussion", unless they were reflecting on the imprecision of others.

Ok, what do you think this discussion is about, if not science? Are you under the impression we are discussing say, Virgil?

[acts420]

All punchlines aside for a moment. Does anyone know if any very prominent, well-known universities, such as Harvard or Oxford, or well-respected mainstream medical journals such as the Lancet, have sponsored or published any studies on the claims that pot is effective against cancer and other deadly diseases? If someone did come up with a really top-class, thorough, peer-reviewed study, preferably more than one, that would be something. I would take a step back.

There are so many cancer patients around the world, if someone did come up with a new, powerful, relatively cheap treatment, I'm sure the world would be interested to know what it is. It could even be said that it's your duty as a person of compassion to show whether this is true.

If you can produce proof, do so. Lots of people in cancer wards would thank you for it.

To be fair, funding has been lacking in this area.

Politics run rampant in medical research.

Pot is NBD.

It ain't the manna from on high.

It ain't bad.

Enjoy it if you can. It certainly has healthful qualities. A lazy google search will show you, or just use some.

So does tobacco.

Exactly.  But all the citations to all the medical journals in the world will not convince anyone to believe Genesis 1 nor to stop hating what God created.

But, to exemplify what you're saying, here is a start.  I entered the search term "cannabis and cancer medical journals" into the website "www.google.com" two minutes ago.  I got many hits.  The first link was to https://sites.google.com/site/marylandsafeaccess/Home/cannabis-cancer---the-science  .  There anyone will find tons of examples.  Anyone can do this for many other diseases too. He can also use Pub Med instead of google.  

Anyone can read up all that he wants to, if he is interested.  The government is not going to tell him about this stuff, nor is the news and entertainment media he probably watches four hours a day (on average, if he is American).  Both the national media and the government have very tight ties to the pharmaceutical industry that has been attempting to keep cannabis from the population using all means possible for 80 years.  Those ties were tightest when it was made illegal 80 years ago.  Anti-trust has relieved some of the closeness formally speaking, but it is still very much there especially at the informal level.

Here is another link from a quick google search:  
http://www.healthiertalk.com/two-marijuana-cancer-studies-you-probably-never-heard-about-3361

Excerpt:  

In February 2000 researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis. The study was later published in the journal Nature Cancer Review.  Chances are that you have never heard of this study, the same as you likely never heard of a previous similar study because there has been a virtual news blackout as well as a concerted government effort to suppress such stories and studies for over thirty years.

But none of this will convince anyone to stop hating what God created.  They've been brainwashed for almost four generations now.  They love the teachings of demons instead of God's word, even when science shows the truth in it.

You're also correct that people should try it themselves if they doubt.  But of course most are too close minded to actually do that.  I, for one, chose to try it myself, for my plantar warts, after finding many similar studies on Pub Med and learning that HPV (the root of plantar warts) is linked to cancer.  Sure enough, it cured my warts in two weeks.  In the days immediately after application they had begun to shrink rapidly.  In two weeks they were gone.  They have remained gone for years.   Under all that U.S. medical care had to offer, I had suffered from them for years prior to using cannabis oil extract on them.  Sort of reminds me of my late Father, and it makes me wish he had cannabis available for his skin condition back then.

[orthonorm]

I'm a scientist and a doctor, but I'm not a medical doctor.  Between two and four years ago, I read about twenty medical articles about the topics I have spoken here about, and much of it I did not understand.  But a lot of it I did understand, especially the conclusions.  If you want to read similar articles, or perhaps even the same ones, I have pointed you to where you can find them.  I did not save them myself.  I read them between two and four years ago.

I am. I frankly don't believe you. Anyone with the most basic scientific training you get in your undergraduate knows that refusing to provide sources is completely unacceptable behavior in any scientific discussion. If you don't have the sources at hand, or the will to look them up again, you don't have any business making all these wild claims.

Frankly, Acts420 is making you all look bad.

In case, you didn't realize. This isn't a discussion about science. And any person who has more than a minimal ability to reflect on language, probably would never use the words "scientific discussion", unless they were reflecting on the imprecision of others.

Ok, what do you think this discussion is about, if not science? Are you under the impression we are discussing say, Virgil?

I am under the certainty you are being arrogant about that which you do not know about.

So when I discuss "painting", I have a paintic discussion?

And no you are not discussing science at all.

I imagine it is above your pay grade to do so anyway.

Scientific discussion is poor English usage. I don't go in for adjectives which suggest the genitive.

 

[laconicstudent]

I'm a scientist and a doctor, but I'm not a medical doctor.  Between two and four years ago, I read about twenty medical articles about the topics I have spoken here about, and much of it I did not understand.  But a lot of it I did understand, especially the conclusions.  If you want to read similar articles, or perhaps even the same ones, I have pointed you to where you can find them.  I did not save them myself.  I read them between two and four years ago.

I am. I frankly don't believe you. Anyone with the most basic scientific training you get in your undergraduate knows that refusing to provide sources is completely unacceptable behavior in any scientific discussion. If you don't have the sources at hand, or the will to look them up again, you don't have any business making all these wild claims.

Frankly, Acts420 is making you all look bad.

In case, you didn't realize. This isn't a discussion about science. And any person who has more than a minimal ability to reflect on language, probably would never use the words "scientific discussion", unless they were reflecting on the imprecision of others.

Ok, what do you think this discussion is about, if not science? Are you under the impression we are discussing say, Virgil?

I am under the certainty you are being arrogant about that which you do not know about.

So when I discuss "painting", I have a paintic discussion?

Yes, you have a "painting discussion". Awkward wording, but accurate. I think that was a typo.

And no you are not discussing science at all.

Then what are we discussing? This shouldn't be such a difficult question for you to answer.

I imagine it is above your pay grade to do so anyway.

Grow up kid. Jeez... 

Scientific discussion is poor English usage. I don't go in for adjectives which suggest the genitive.

 

Were you going to answer my question, or just try to insult my intelligence?

[orthonorm]

I'm a scientist and a doctor, but I'm not a medical doctor.  Between two and four years ago, I read about twenty medical articles about the topics I have spoken here about, and much of it I did not understand.  But a lot of it I did understand, especially the conclusions.  If you want to read similar articles, or perhaps even the same ones, I have pointed you to where you can find them.  I did not save them myself.  I read them between two and four years ago.

I am. I frankly don't believe you. Anyone with the most basic scientific training you get in your undergraduate knows that refusing to provide sources is completely unacceptable behavior in any scientific discussion. If you don't have the sources at hand, or the will to look them up again, you don't have any business making all these wild claims.

Frankly, Acts420 is making you all look bad.

In case, you didn't realize. This isn't a discussion about science. And any person who has more than a minimal ability to reflect on language, probably would never use the words "scientific discussion", unless they were reflecting on the imprecision of others.

Ok, what do you think this discussion is about, if not science? Are you under the impression we are discussing say, Virgil?

I am under the certainty you are being arrogant about that which you do not know about.

So when I discuss "painting", I have a paintic discussion?

Yes, you have a "painting discussion". Awkward wording, but accurate. I think that was a typo.

And no you are not discussing science at all.

Then what are we discussing? This shouldn't be such a difficult question for you to answer.

I imagine it is above your pay grade to do so anyway.

Grow up kid. Jeez...  

Scientific discussion is poor English usage. I don't go in for adjectives which suggest the genitive.

 

Were you going to answer my question, or just try to insult my intelligence?

Answered and correctly assessed your ability to discuss the subject. After all if I can't even tell when I am discussing scientific methods or methodology, then I probably don't understand science (whatever that loose catch word means to people) very well.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



stay blessed,
habte selassie

[orthonorm]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



stay blessed,
habte selassie

Go back to your scientific thinking. I knew that would get a rise outta you.

[laconicstudent]

Answered and correctly assessed your ability

When you can answer a simple question without a juvenile insult, please let me know, ok?