…and this is a 
Do these claims make you at all suspicious? A few people on Twitter told me I should look into this panacea.
Cures heart disease!
Eases anxiety and depression!
Removes unsightly moles!
Arthritis! Snoring! Diarrhea! Acne! Diabetes! Removes warts! Mighraines! Lose weight! Alcoholism! Glaucoma!
IT CURES CANCER! All forms of cancer!
And all without any detrimental effects whatsoever!
Add to the extravagant medical claims, the additional accusation that you can't get this treatment because of a conspiracy by BigPharma and greedy, grasping doctors who want people to suffer so they can charge them lots of money to fix them with agonising tortures that don't work.
Are you suspicious yet?
These are all claims Rick Simpson and a small group of Canadians make for hemp oil in this video.
You may not want to watch it — I've already given you the gist of it, and it's repetitious and very poorly edited (hint: just because your home movie editing software has a lot of exotic transitions, doesn't mean you have to use them all). It looks like an infomercial, with a parade of Nova Scotians offering wild anecdotal claims of all the stuff a daily dose of hemp oil cures. These testimonials are presented as the evidence that hemp oil is medically efficacious; they aren't. Quite the opposite, actually — it all says to me that the promoters found some marginally sick people and fed their desire for wish-fulfillment, and got a slew of meaningless accolades and bizarre conspiracy theories that tell me that what's going on here is psychology, not medicine.
It's not just religion that kills people. I watched Rick Simpson claim that he had skin cancer, and that rubbing his marijuana extract healed the lesions overnight, and I thought… people may well die from watching and believing this claim. Some forms of skin cancer (melanoma) are extremely aggressive and dangerous — do not delay, do not play games with weird magic topical creams, get a real doctor to check it out.
The information on the video also gives off a bad vibe.
The following presentation of RUN FROM THE CURE: The Rick Simpson Story was made possible by Rick Simpson and video producer Christian Laurette... made for free to teach YOU how to heal yourself of disease and illness using cannabinoids.
Comments will be moderated to protect those who need this information. We are not asking anyone if it works, we are telling you it works; it is not a debate. Too many uneducated people coming to this channel to speak their mind on a life-saving plant they know nothing about and giving bad advice and in many cases making horrible remarks about the people who brought the information out to you.
No argument! If you disagree with him, you're uneducated…despite the fact that the pro side consists of rural citizens who seem to know nothing about how to interpret evidence, while his opponents are doctors and scientists.
The video also lies, lies, lies. I've often heard quacks say this: "FACT: Chemotherapy kills more people than it saves." It's not true. People who are on chemotherapy are more likely to die than people who are not on it, because the only reason those people are on chemotherapy in the first place is that they are really, really sick. It makes nonsensical claims: "THC attacks mutated cells while rejuvenating healthy ones". How do they know? These aren't scientists making the claims, these are ordinary townspeople — Simpson makes his formula by doing a crude extraction with naptha or isopropyl alcohol in a bucket he stirs with a stick, and boils it down to an oily residue in a rice cooker (there will be an explosion and fire at his house someday, I predict). He has no tools to examine specific cellular responses, so the source of these claims of a mechanism are being taken directly out of his ass.
At least Simpson is giving his cure-all away for free — all he's doing is feeding his over-inflated ego at the potential cost of a few lives. He's not quite like the odious Burzynski Clinic, which bilks people for hundreds of thousands of dollars for an extravagantly promoted therapy that has no good evidence for its efficacy. And at least he has not resorted to threats.
But he's still a dangerous quack and a crank.
One other thing: I'm all in favor of legalizing marijuana and ending the phony drug war that turns harmless folk into criminals, jacks up the cost, and entices violent thugs into what ought to be simple farming. If you look up Rick Simpson, though, you find all these groups advocating legalization also buying into Simpson's hazardous and dishonest game. That only discredits the legalization movement.
(Also on FtB)
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: jackolantern
|
November 25, 2011 2:42 PM
Being Canadian, I am always deeply disturbed to discover these purveyors of nonsense in my own country. It does prevent me from being smug when speaking to my friends from the US, though. ;-)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 25, 2011 3:22 PM
Some days I have to spend hours on the toilet because of mighraines. If I had migraines it'd be even worse.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/1Fj1UDA6u_.v1Yf3kIgAgx8PYNiMpq0s#70d14
|
November 25, 2011 3:38 PM
Be aware of drugs that potentiate diabetes.
Eli Lilly Zyprexa Olanzapine issues linger.
The use of powerful antipsychotic drugs has increased in children as young as three years old. Weight gain, increases in triglyceride levels and associated risks for diabetes and cardiovascular disease. The average weight gain (adults) over the 12 week study period was the highest for Zyprexa—17 pounds. You’d be hard pressed to gain that kind of weight sport-eating your way through the holidays.One in 145 adults died in clinical trials of those taking the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa.
This was Lilly's #1 product $5 billion per year sales,moreover Lilly also make billions more on drugs that treat diabetes.
--- Daniel Haszard Zyprexa victim activist and patient.
Posted by: UXO
|
November 25, 2011 4:13 PM
I'd be the last to defend a quack, even if he is a countryman. But PZ, chemo is just plain ineffective. To the point where, depending on my diagnosis, I'd have to seriously consider not accepting treatment. And no, I'm not suggesting I'd do some bullshit woo instead, but I just don't see the point of poisoning myself nearly to death is it's got a 2% chance of working!
If I'm wrong about this, I'd love a reference, but this paper was published in Clinical Oncology, so it's difficult to reject out of hand.
Posted by: The HIA
|
November 25, 2011 4:27 PM
The "hemp oil" that Rick and his followers refer to is really hash oil. Please see the Hemp Industries Association - Hemp Oil Statement for our take on this nomenclature problem.
Posted by: Jtalle
|
November 25, 2011 6:11 PM
Some things never change:
They just get illegal.
Posted by: darth_borehd
|
November 25, 2011 7:21 PM
There is so much woo and propaganda about marijuana cures, it is nearly impossible to find any scientific research to support it being legalized.
Yes, you can make the argument that is no more dangerous than alcohol. You might be right. Or completely wrong. The problem is nobody knows for sure.
We have a pretty accurate model for what alcohol does to people--physically, socially, psychologically, financially. We can calculate how many drinks you can take to become intoxicated. We can measure blood/alcohol level precisely and have clear guidelines as to when intoxication makes it difficult to drive a car.
In comparison, we know close to nothing about marijuana. How much THC is a single dose? How many can you take before being unable to drive safely?
Then there is the social cost of the addicts. Billions of dollars are wasted and millions of lives are wasted due alcoholism. I see no reason to compound this problem by adding another drug equally as dangerous (or more, again we don't know).
So I am vehemently against the legalization of marijuana for medical or recreational use. I support further actual scientific research into possible medical benefits, but the data from those will take decades to collect and process. Even then, the chemical properties that are helpful may be completely separable from the ones that are habit forming and intoxicating.
Posted by: James_Evans
|
November 25, 2011 7:51 PM
Man, some other idiots are wasting it on organic socks and rope!
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD
|
November 25, 2011 8:15 PM
Thanks for clearing that up,the HIA.
Don't use isoproply, it dissolves the chlorophyll and you end up with a gummy mess. Stick to the paraffin series.
I never believed half the purported beneficial effects of THC. However, I was experiencing a severe vagus reflex when I bent over to load my traction trebuchet. In fact, I damn near passed out. I discovered that a little (a lot) of THC eliminates this problem. Also it improves my sense of humor considerable.
BS
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 26, 2011 1:45 AM
[OT]
UXO:
You're OT with that, and also on the wrong blog; I direct you to ORAC's blog (he's an oncologist and focuses on science-based medicine), who has provided many a reference for you to peruse.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/medicine/cancer/
Posted by: purbrookian
|
November 26, 2011 3:48 AM
Am with UXO: Anecdotally and statistically, intravenous drug therapy remains pitifully ineffectual. See Gary Null's book.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 26, 2011 4:09 AM
[OT]
purbrookian, wrong.
See Orac's Does chemotherapy work or not? The "2% gambit", or search his site.
(Plenty of references to be had)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 26, 2011 5:50 AM
My wife had breast cancer. She underwent surgery and chemotherapy. Now she doesn't have breast cancer. There's anecdotal evidence that says you're wrong.
Gary Null is an alt-med nutritionist who poisoned himself by taking his own dietary supplement.
Posted by: dNorrisM
|
November 26, 2011 7:58 AM
"you might not believe this, little fellow but it'll cure your asthma too!!"
(Someone had to say it. And I love Zappa)
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 26, 2011 8:24 AM
ROTFL! Thread won.
Posted by: Mriana
|
November 26, 2011 8:34 AM
I don't need to hear or read the silly claims to know that hemp does not cure anything, in fact, some people, such as myself, are allergic to hemp. Knowing this and hearing someone say that hemp is good for everything, cures everything, and can run a car (yes, that one is out there too), I can tell them, even with or without the car exhaust it puts out, people will get sick and die from such a belief.
I'm not denying that hemp might help some people with symptom relief, but it won't cure anything anymore than alfalfa cures allergies (a great aunt of mine, who has sold Shaklee for years believed taking alfalfa pills would cure my mother and my allergies. We got sicker from it because we are allergic to grasses.) As a kid, who heard this and her mother making her try the alfalfa pills with her, I thought, how is a weed suppose to cure anything? We we got sick from it, I had my answer- it doesn't.
Posted by: steve.sindorf
|
November 26, 2011 12:11 PM
Isn't this just the modern equivalent of a traveling medicine show? There is a long tradition of these cranks peddling their wares in America.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 26, 2011 1:15 PM
That depends on the type of chemo, the type of disease, and exactly how you wish to define "effective".
If after an informed discussion of the expected benefit weighed against the various side effects and risks, one decides to reject chemotherapy on the grounds that the potential benefit of say, several months more survival, or a 5% increased likelihood of cure, is simply not worth, for oneself as an individual, the morbidity of the expected common side effects and the risk of more catastrophic, if rarer, complications, then that is perfectly fine, reasonable, and acceptable.
But if one decides to reject chemotherapy solely because one is lead to believe some untested woo is actually more effective, then that is not a reasonable choice.
Posted by: Hinheckle Jones
|
November 26, 2011 4:39 PM
If you legalize marijuana, you still have problems, but your knowledge level "should" increase.
I always thought that it was the antiscience types that were afraid of new knowledge.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 26, 2011 5:17 PM
Oh, nonsense. I refer you to one of the links I cited in the post:
Orac's many posts on the subject have already been mentioned (UXO: that paper can be dismissed, and I'll also send you off to read this one of mine.
Chemotherapy is part of an expanding suite of successful methods for treating cancer. The best answer right now is early diagnosis and surgery, but if you've got metastatic disease, you'd be nuts to forgo chemo.
The late Gary Null was a talk radio host. Why do you cite him as an authority in cancer treatment?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 26, 2011 6:38 PM
PZ,
Null is still alive. However, to quote the phfft of all knowledge:
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlFBTHQt2nQ-D5byBkq8JhaGwWNjpd5_3w
|
November 26, 2011 7:48 PM
@#7:
Yes, you can make the argument that is no more dangerous than alcohol. You might be right. Or completely wrong. The problem is nobody knows for sure.
Then it should be legalized. A substance should not be illegal because it might be dangerous. Even if it is as dangerous as people say it is, arresting people for using it is not the correct approach. Making something illegal does not magically make it go away. In fact, it makes it harder to control, because it drives the industry underground where there can be no oversight.
There is overwhelming evidence right now that not only is prohibition completely ineffectual in its stated goal, but it is actually making the problem many times worse. The illegal industry that it has fostered has given rise to massively powerful criminal empires who have imposed a barbaric feudal regime on the streets of many American cities and who threaten to usurp the power of governments worldwide. Meanwhile, we struggle madly to build new prisons that are overcrowded as soon as the cement has set. The choice is not between people doing drugs and people not doing drugs. The choice is between people doing drugs and people still doing drugs while our infrastructure is cannibalized, our population cowers in the shadow of gang warfare and gangsters become heads of state.
Posted by: Cory Meyer
|
November 27, 2011 12:32 AM
@darth_borehd:
"It is nearly impossible to find any scientific research to support it being legalized.
Yes, you can make the argument that is no more dangerous than alcohol. You might be right. Or completely wrong. The problem is nobody knows for sure... I support further actual scientific research into possible medical benefits, but the data from those will take decades to collect and process."
The US government ensures there is no research. Unlike any other drug, marijuana researchers must get their supply from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which has a monopoly on the supply. It's NIDA's express mission to only study negative effects of drugs and categorically rejects all researchers who express interest in exploring positive benefits. There are currently only 14 researchers in the whole entire country who are approved by the government to "conduct research with smoked marijuana on human subjects." Also, the Drug Czar is required by federal law to oppose all legalization efforts, even if it needs him to lie.
And frankly, I have never found a good argument to support its prohibition. There is no compelling evidence that smoking marijuana causes people to be more violent or turn to a life of crime, there is no gateway effect, and there is the libertarian philosophy that people are free to do whatever they want with their bodies (even if it hurts them) so long as they don't harm other people.
"We can calculate how many drinks you can take to become intoxicated. We can measure blood/alcohol level precisely and have clear guidelines as to when intoxication makes it difficult to drive a car. In comparison, we know close to nothing about marijuana. How much THC is a single dose? How many can you take before being unable to drive safely?"
While those are good questions, research shows that, unlike the effects of alcohol, marijuana causes people to drive slower, more cautiously, and they're more likely to refuse to drive. Laboratory driving stimulations show impairments but field tests of actual driving have not shown significant differences in driving patterns, because stoned drivers learn to compensate for their impairments. Fatal accident statistics that where marijuana is detected in blood (which doesn't prove impairment), alcohol is involved the overwhelming vast majority of the time.
"Then there is the social cost of the addicts. Billions of dollars are wasted and millions of lives are wasted due alcoholism."
Marijuana has demonstrated to be an "exit drug" away from alcohol and harder drugs. To quote research cited by NORML, "A 2010 study published in the Harm Reduction Journal demonstrating that cannabis-using adults enrolled in substance abuse treatment programs fared equally or better than nonusers in various outcome categories, including treatment completion. A 2009 survey published in the Harm Reduction Journal finding that 40 percent of respondents said used marijuana as a substitute for alcohol, and 26 percent used it to replace their former use of more potent illegal drugs. A 2009 study published in the American Journal on Addictions reporting that moderate cannabis use and improved retention in naltrexone treatment among opiate-dependent subjects in a New York state inpatient detoxification program. A 2009 preclinical study published in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology demonstrating that oral THC suppressed sensitivity to opiate dependence and conditioning."
If marijuana is legalized, many of those billions of dollars being wasted on the futile "War on Drugs" could be shifted to addressing public health. The "War on Drugs" is a complete abject failure, causing more social problems rather than it solves. Society's appetite for drugs will never go away, but in the meantime you have gangs and cartels spraying bullets, no quality control of products, drug dealers don't check IDs of children, people resort to more dangerous drugs, while many people's lives are ruined with criminal convictions.
Posted by: weatherwars
|
November 27, 2011 12:43 PM
I personally have seen and experienced the healing efficacy of this "schedule 1 drug with no knows health benefits" first hand. There is a reason why the army of the IRS, FTC and the DEA have been such dick heads when it comes to this weed that anyone can grow, and use for themselves. By God we can't have a simple plant replace any part of our $315 Billion/year pharmaceuticals industry that we are continuing to poison the people with. No, we just can't have that....
Does the author not understand that the simple process of oil extraction from this plant has been around for many thousands of years? What worked in 9000BC works just fine today. Or, you can sign up for a course of chemo and bend-over for the establishment. It just doesn't matter how deep into any stage 4 cancer a person is, the oil just works. It's even quicker when ones marijuana is grown with another ancient alchemy, Ormus. It unlocks a more complete genetic profile of the plant.
Either Americans will stand up and demand the truth about what this phenomenal plant and its cannabinoids are capable of.. or they will continue to live in tyranny for yet another generation. I live in Colorado and have my card... And am finally past nearly 20-years of HIV.. Undetectable viral load for the past 18 months… Don't tell me that the oil doesn't work.
Saturate these human cannabinoid receptors with 60 grams of oil over 90-days, that resets the bodies systems... And the vast majority of sick human beings will be transformed. There is a reason that Cannabis was "...lowered from the Heavens" after the last global inundation. It is an invaluable plant for our well being.
This author could not have raised the "I'm and Idiot and I don't even know it" flag any higher that he just did.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Posted by: Blind Squirrel FCD
|
November 27, 2011 4:53 PM
Yeah, that would transform me alright. And well before the end of the first day.BS
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 27, 2011 9:01 PM
Stupid is as stupid does.
truer words were never spoken.
I'm glad, in the end, you saw how stupid your post was.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 27, 2011 9:06 PM
The US government ensures there is no research
but in the other thread, another snake oil supporter said there were HUNDREDS of scientific studies supporting the efficacy of cannabis oil, I mean pot, I mean THC, I mean chemically isomerized THC, on people, I mean animals, I mean cells...
but of course all that never happened.
I mean, it must not have, because none of those hundreds of studies says that smoking pot makes you cancer free, right?
the government surely censored all the studies showing how smoking pot or drinking hemp oil is a miracle fuckin' cure.
man, you clowns sound JUST like the antivaxxers.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 27, 2011 9:09 PM
The late Gary Null was a talk radio host. Why do you cite him as an authority in cancer treatment?
probably exactly because he is dead, and hasn't the opportunity to even correct himself, let alone any misinterpretations of anything he said or did.
Posted by: I'm sorry, thank you
|
November 27, 2011 10:18 PM
Nova Scotia? Wrong coast, buddy. Rank amateurs over there.
B.C. Bud does all those things, and you get to see GOD… er… um… okay, maybe on this blog that's not a positive effect.
But it does improve your sense of humour!
Honestly, I don't use the stuff - but I cannot for the life of me understand why the government doesn't just regulate it and tax the shit out of it, like alcohol and cigarettes (one of which I use sparingly, and the other of which I quit decades ago).
Even with our Sin Taxes, it would be cheaper than it is on the street (reducing crime associated with paying for it), and the money would be going back into our own pockets – maybe into our universal healthcare – instead of paying for that shifty neighbour's security system and classic car collection.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 27, 2011 11:48 PM
Wow, the stupidity is thick in this thread, from Mriana who thinks that because hemp is a weed or that some people are allergic to it, it follows that it can't cure anything, to darth_borehd who has apparently never heard of the 21st Amendment or why it was passed. To the two of you, as well as UXO, purbrookian (especially you), weatherwars: thinking -- ur doin' it rong.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 28, 2011 12:03 AM
Oh, I missed one:
However, to be fair, while that first statement is hyperbole, Cory's comments are overall valid, and Ichthyic's strawman attack was unwarranted and misdirected.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 28, 2011 12:35 AM
I cannot for the life of me understand why the government doesn't just regulate it and tax the shit out of it, like alcohol and cigarettes
I'm thinking it has multiple reasons, none of which are actually related to crime reduction, that's for sure, considering it's in the black market where most of the actual crime occurs.
I can't recall ever meeting a cop who didn't support legalization.
but then, I might be running into some bias there.
I should say, I can't recall any specific police department that as a whole didn't favor legalization.
Hell, even the damn Cato Institute favors legalization.
Of course, this has fuck all to do with it's efficacy as an active drug. I think even PZ mentioned that though...
Posted by: Cory Meyer
|
November 28, 2011 2:28 AM
Okay, so my language could have been crafted better. That's what I like about visiting here, interacting with fellow pedantics.
Also, if I may say, I don't think any change will happen in the 2012 election, but look for a citizen ballot initiative in 2016 . There are analyses showing how there is a generational gap between people born before 1960 and afterwards. If the recent Gallup poll with 50% support is about right (it might not) and if the polling trends of the past six years continue (rising two points every year), we should be seeing an emerging hot button topic. Whenever Obama's administration has reached out to hearing public opinion, by far the most pressing issue is drug policy reform.
Posted by: mrpoxman
|
November 28, 2011 3:38 AM
Quote :IT CURES CANCER! All forms of cancer!
Who would of thought a a pot smoking quack was likely to beat thousands of labs full of professional scientists working on the problems of the class of disease known as cancer and could solve them all with once well know substance....
incredible.
Posted by: John Morales
|
November 28, 2011 4:30 AM
[meta]
Cory
That should be 'pedants', O poseur.
To what 'if' do you refer? You just did!
(Bah)
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
November 28, 2011 7:25 AM
There is a social cost to imprisoning addicts/users and giving them a criminal record. There is a social cost to confiscating property that has been involved in drug use (even if the owner had nothing to do with that use). There is a social cost to ensuring that large-scale production and trade will primarily be in the control of the most violent criminal gangs. There is a social cost to paying for the enfocement of all this.
Surely the burden of proof should be on the prohibitionists to prove that the harm caused by having a legal market is greater than all these.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 28, 2011 9:12 AM
This is treknobabble. You invent a sciency-sounding term ("genetic profile"), combine it with another sciency-sounding term ("unlock") to make a sciency-sounding phrase, and then throw it at our heads as if it meant something.
Do you know what that makes you?
An asshole.
Treknobabble again.
And, dude, the cannabinoid receptors are on nerve cells. How is that supposed to have any effect on illnesses of other parts of the body? How is that supposed to kill or otherwise remove a single bacterium or virus or cancer cell?
Not healed or something – "transformed".
1) It wasn't lowered from any heavens. It is just another branch of the tree of life. It's closely related to other organisms on this planet, particularly hops and hackberry trees.
2) There has never been a global inundation, at least not in the last 4.51 billion years. If you disagree, let's discuss geology till the cows fly home.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
November 28, 2011 12:14 PM
You can make an excellent case for the legalization of marijuana without referencing any medical applications, real or imagined, whatsoever.
In fact, if marijuana really DOES have medical activity/uses, that could be an argument in favor of regulating it even more strictly, and cracking down even more fiercely on illegal sales and usage.
And a bunch of cell-culture or even animal studies suggesting cannabinoids having anti-tumor effects, or cannabinoid receptor mediated pathways have anti (or pro) cell cycle activities is not evidence in favor of hemp oil applied to the skin (or taken orally) being an effective TREATMENT for cancer(s) any more than the many similar studies involving temozolamide were evidence that temodar enemas are effective treatment for gliomas.
Because after establishing a molecular effect at the cell level, you still have to work out details like route of administration, absorption, clearance, dosage, drug kinetics, tolerance, side effects, distribution, and so forth.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/YOtZ5eB8leQwl.eZwsVuinLN.kBQtwNkoik-#e558c
|
November 28, 2011 12:36 PM
Similar to wheatgrass, hemp is also like a superfood. In the growing process hemp requires very little herbicides and pesticides. What i find interesting about it is that you can find it in many prepared foods. They have made hemp cereals, waffles and even tofu. Hemp is so unique because it contains a lot of substances that are really beneficial to the human body. First off it contains Omega-3, which promote your cardiovascular health. Second it contains fiber, which promotes cleaning out your system. The fiber in the hemp plant is stored in the "bast". These are the fibers that are surrounding the plants stalk. Hemp also contains calcium and various antioxidants.
One of the common uses of hemp in the health world, is to treat eczema. To cure the symptoms of this skin rash, you can just apply hemp oil to skin and you should see results within hours.
http://www.hemp.com/
Posted by: UXO
|
November 29, 2011 12:39 AM
PZ: Thanks for the references - I will read them in detail as soon as I get time. I do appreciate it.
It occurs to me that I was perhaps too ready to accept one paper as authoritative, but as I indicated, the fact that it was published in a legitimate journal makes it difficult for me as a lay person to reject it out of hand. Having lost my mother to leukemia recently, I may be a bit too hasty in condemning chemotherapy as generally ineffective. Although mutliple courses were ineffective for her, I am aware that anectdotal experience is not sufficient basis for an opinion.
To the others who felt it necessary to attack me, all I can say is that I am neither a proponent of, nor an opponent to, the use of marijuana. I don't use it myself, but have no axe to grind in this argument. My response was simply to PZ's commentary regarding chemotherapy, nothing more. There simply aren't enough hours in the day to achieve mastery in all subject, and I freely admit that I have no expertise in cancer therapy. Please consider my inital post withdrawn.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 29, 2011 1:15 AM
treknobabble
strangely, I can't recall ever hearing that before.
I like it.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 29, 2011 1:17 AM
No one attacked you, let alone felt it necessary.
I'm sure that there are other things you can say ... and since your original post wasn't about marijuana and none of the responses to it were about marijuana, the fact that you, um, felt it necessary to say this adds confirmation to my statement in #30.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/_4KIfrwRxNWU8qEsAFrxolQ6Tw--#4599c
|
November 29, 2011 1:24 AM
Whereas you are so like other bozos.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
November 29, 2011 1:34 AM
To cure the symptoms of this skin rash, you can just apply hemp oil to skin and you should see results within hours.
unless, of course you don't.
Similar to wheatgrass, hemp is also like a superfood.
I look forward to the day I can drink a pot smoothie at Starbucks.
not for the non-existent health benefits, but simply because it would be an entirely novel way to get really, really high.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 29, 2011 10:53 AM
I bet that would change very quickly if it were farmed in large fields.
Pretty much anything that contains fat/oil contains omega-3 fatty acids. The question is how much of them hemp contains, and how many omega-6 ("normal") fatty acids it contains.
Most plant matter is mostly fiber.
Everything does. I bet milk contains orders of magnitude more. And so does tap water in places where the ground is limestone.
Almost anything fresh and edible contains various antioxidants. Many foods keep them even when they're not fresh; chocolate is full of them...
Huh. It's technobabble in its Star Trek version. Entire dialogues in Star Trek consist of nothing else... :-)
Posted by: Seo
|
December 5, 2011 10:31 AM
Theres a lot of bitchiness in this thread. Good to see!!