I understand the skepticism and would like to clarify some things. First, this Declaration does not claim cannabis cures cancer, but that it can produce anticancer effects in many cases and patients should be able to use it if desired. The evidence to justify such use is strong.
-
-
Replying to @CfCDeclaration @IamBreastCancer and
Chief, I looked at those studies in your link. None of those studies are good enough to make a recommendation that weed cures cancer. Now if you decide to smoke it, it’s your personal call. But don’t recommend it to others without proper evidence and data.
3 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @sgjdoc @IamBreastCancer and
Those studies, combined with the double-blind trial, large amount of media-reported evidence, and preclinical evidence showing phyto/endocannabinoids kill cancer cells, is good enough for many people across the world.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CfCDeclaration @sgjdoc and
You’re trying to blow smoke up our asses. We’re actual scientists who follow evidence not anecdotes, logical fallacies, and pathetic studies that are not what you think they are.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @skepticalraptor @sgjdoc and
This is a nuanced topic that is hard to describe on Twitter. The evidence is undeniably strong that it can produce anticancer effects in humans in at least some cases. But there are many who just won't believe it until multiple double-blind trials are conducted, and that's fine.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CfCDeclaration @sgjdoc and
You can make claims all day long. It isn’t nuanced, either there is evidence that support your claims or there isn’t. And you can’t provide evidence, because there is no clinical evidence published in real medical journals that support anything you say.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @skepticalraptor @sgjdoc and
There is real clinical evidence, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial showing significant life extension when cannabis was added to chemotherapy for glioblastoma patients. Synergy with temozolomide against the cancer was clearly demonstrated.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-021-01259-3 …
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CfCDeclaration @sgjdoc and
It was a Phase 1 study which has all of meaning of toilet paper I just used after my dump. Less than 13% of cancer drugs that enter clinical trials ever show clinical usefulness. That means 87% failed. This study doesn’t tell me anything. Quit cherry picking and find a real study
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @skepticalraptor @sgjdoc and
This has meaning on its own and especially in light of all the other cases reported over the past ten years. Patients in this trial lived significantly longer than those who only receive chemotherapy. If that is meaningless to you, you're just wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CfCDeclaration @sgjdoc and
I’m a scientist who has managed several clinical trials. I know what is science and what isn’t. Phase 1 clinical trials mean nothing. You anecdotes mean even less.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
You should ask him what the purpose of a phase 1 clinical trial is. (Hint: It isn't to test efficacy.)
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @CfCDeclaration and
I feel like I’m trying to speak in science to a tardigrade.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @skepticalraptor @gorskon and
I am sure he made it to 6th grade
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.