As a scientist and student of chemistry, I want to point out that science, for practical intents and purposed is not definitive and the title of this post and category titles for the peer review papers it is promoting are misleading. Studies do not “prove” anything, period. The actual intent for conducting research is to falsify one’s hypothesis in an attempt to limit bias. These papers provide supporting evidence for what this site is claiming, but it is important to remember that some or all of these studies may be inconclusive. A scientist is pleasantly surprised when research supports their hypothesis, or educated guess.

Coming to a concrete conclusion in science, or for many who are obviously not scientists, in the professional sense, is a matter of ego and paints a black and white picture for an entire area of research, which is virtually not possible given that most research focuses on a vary narrow, isolated set of circumstances in order to reduce the amount of variables affecting the outcome. Bc research is rather narrow and cannot very well account for all variables, both known and unknown, it is rather pretentious and unwise to use the word “prove” in science. Science does not and never has “proven” anything. It has gathered supporting evidence (and often this is inconclusive), at best, to support its hypotheses and theories.

That being said, I do appreciate the research being done on the medical aspects of cannabis and know how hard it is to get the proper authority to conduct such research as well as legal access to the medicine after the authority has been given. I also hope to use my degree in chemistry to conduct research on the potential benefits of cannabis and various psychedelics, as well at perform chemical analysis and quality control testing for both the medicinal and recreational markets.

Something else to consider. I grew up on a farm hunting and butchering and then became an avid vegetarian over 15 yrs. ago. I know many people who are also vegetarian/vegan and who smoke pot. I know many people in one or both of these categories that also have cancer, had cancer or who have died from cancer. Cancer, simply put, is the replication of mutated cells. There are many variables that can influence cancer and increase one’s risk, just as there are many preventative measures that people can take. But, to date, there is no known lifestyle that can guarantee us from not getting cancer. Smoking definitely increases one’s risk, even if its only pot, and anyone who refuses to accept this isn’t worth having a debate with bc it would be a waste of time. Living longer increases the chances of getting cancer bc the more our cells replicate, the more opportunity they have of mutating. People got cancer, heart disease and other degenerative diseases thousands of years ago as well. Today, we are better at identifying, diagnosing disease and treating disease with modern medicine that we ever have been and bc people live longer, they are much more likely to develop cancer at some point in their lives. Yes, some of our modern treatments are derived from the past, but they have greatly been enhanced and improved upon as is evidenced by modern man’s much longer life span.

And for all of you who either have cancer or know someone with cancer, know that there is no known panacea for cancer, despite all the New Agey hippie bullshit claiming that juice fasts, cleanses, hydro-colon therapies, pot etc. is the miracle that will work and the government is just keeping it a secret. If there truly was a reliable cure for cancer, it would be well known as scientists have too much student loan debt and make too little for one scientist in millions to not leak this wonderful information that could save millions of lives while catapulting their careers.

I am sure others have come to this idea, but I, and I try to avoid saying belief bc beliefs can be dangerous when trying to discern information, but I support the idea that there cannot be something that is “unnatural.” Rather than supporting fallible beliefs, learn how to trust reliable data and accept it until better information becomes available. Just like all of the other animals, plants, mushrooms, bacteria, etc our thought to have evolved as a result of natural selection, so has man. Other animals have developed technology to increase their chances of survival and so has man. Is it unnatural that a beaver that synthesizes a dam to change the environment more to their liking? This change in environment can even have a detrimental affect on other fauna that are adversely affected by the change in ecosystem that a beaver dam creates. Is it unnatural that a beaver, a bird or burrowing animal should synthesize from nature a home to improve their chances of survival? No, of course it is not. Then why do folks consider man-made objects to be “unnatural?” The raw materials that produce everything man synthesizes comes from nature and it is man’s naturally evolved intelligence and technology that has given him this ability, so why do folks demonize the very species to which they belong and very actively participate in? I cannot not imagine how it would be possible for man to do something unnatural. People believe that Nature is cognizant, but there is no evidence to suggest this. Nature is cold and indifferent. Survive, if you can, but either way, it makes no difference to nature who will swallow us all up as food for worms as well as our species in due course.

Just bc there may be a study that was published by a peer reviewed journal doesn’t mean that it is a respected study by the scientific community. That is why reading a review of the study or the meta-analysis of many studies carries much more weight.

According to the logic being promoted by the title of this post, the Seralini rat study “proves” that GMO’s cause cancer. But if one does the research on GMO’s using reliable sources and reads the reviews of the Seralini rat study, one will find that there are close to a thousand and possibly more studies now supporting the safety of GMO’s and only less than a handful of highly scrutinized and quack studies that say GMO’s are bad. The studies suggesting that GMO’s are bad have all been heavily criticized by the scientific community for the poor design and methods of their experiment and a number of these studies have been retracted by the journals that they were published in. Also the funding for this pseudo-research and the motives of the scientists involved are highly biased as Seralini had a book and film scheduled to be released along with his anti GMO paper, which was funded by Greenpeace and other anti GMO advocacy groups.

What cannabis culture and industry desperately needs is a reliable and professional source information that is constructed in a way that can be respected by the scientific community as well as trusted by the cannabis community bc right now there is much anecdotal bullshit on the internet about how to grow and process pot that I’m more and more disgusted with the hippie culture that criticizes schools claiming that schools teach kids what to think and not how when most of these folks are complete idiots when it comes to discerning information, whether it be about GMO’s, organic vs. non-organic, pesticides, etc. I know, bc I was very much in that category until I went to university believing that I was going to research how bad GMO’s and non-organic farming was, when I came to a much different conclusion after conducting research using reliable sources. I haven’t sold out or been bought off by Monsanto. I just improved my sense of logic and reason while honing how I discerned the reliability of information.

I know that this comment will likely piss some people off. But I hope that it also, if nothing more, plants a seed of thought, which, if nurtured, may have the possibility of growing into an idea that is supported after the person conducts their own research. Just remember that research is worthless if the information is not reliable and these bullshit pseudo “documentaries” are sensationalized bullshit that exploits the ignorant masses for support.