Current ridicule

[sarkeizen]

The evidence for the medical use of cannabis is beyond reproach.  It is a very effective treatment for double fudge chocolate ice cream adversity syndrome.

I am intrigued by your hypothesis.  Tell me more.

[Pirate88179]

Not likely. If your view is, by your own admission an extreme minority.  Then BY DEFINITION the number of people who think you are crazy is going to be large.  Significantly larger than the number of MIBs in your twisted fantasy world.  Hence
What Snowden's documents allege is that specific government agencies at least at one time are not above attacking specific person to harm their reputation online.They have a patent on cannabinoids for treating certain diseases like Alzheimer's.  They may have more.  However this was long before there were any large controlled studies on this or other outcomes. You almost always, in medicine file for a patent before you have anything more than preliminary data.   The patent databases have patents for hydrazine sulphate which failed as a useful drug.  Right now the evidence for medical cannabis is pretty...*meh*.

The main problem as I see it is that you need to be high while reading this research.  If you were high, then all of the numbers make perfect sense.

So, you need to be high while conducting this research, and then, you need to be high when reading about this research.  Only then will it make perfect sense.

Bill

[MarkE]

I am intrigued by your hypothesis.  Tell me more.

Test study groups in Berkely California were selected based on their annual consumption of double fudge chocolate ice cream between the hours of 11pm and 4am.  Those who consumed less than 8 ozs per year were labeled "adverse" and included in the study.  Double blind tests were conducted where at 9pm on Saturday nights where members were served snacks some laced with THC and others that were not.  At 11pm the subjects were exposed to speeches from the US House of Representatives on repeal of certain sections of Frank Dodd.  Some subjects fell asleep, others became entranced by the angle and style of ties worn by certain speakers, and some were able to overcome the aversion to double fudge chocolate ice cream.  These groups overlapped.  These tests ran for 26 consecutive weeks.  The data was statistically processed before the double blind protocol was broken.  Finally correlation was performed between the treated and untreated subjects in the study.  The reports show a stunning 532.672904% correlation coefficient with error bands of 0.000000lots000023%  (We later learned that the interns performing the statistical reductions had obtained materials used in the study.)

[MileHigh]

The results of the study were audited by the accounting firm of Cheech, Chong, Chong, Chong, Chong, and Bong.

[sarkeizen]

Finally correlation was performed between the treated and untreated subjects in the study.  The reports show a stunning 532.672904% correlation coefficient with error bands of 0.000000lots000023%  (We later learned that the interns performing the statistical reductions had obtained materials used in the study.)

I think I read that article.   Wasn't there a qualitative component where they created a matrix of post-hoc responses to the study?   IIRC the table of respondents to responses was something like:

24% No response.  (Still Sleeping)
4%   "Will I still get credit for this" (all in control)
72% "Have you ever *really* looked at your hand?"