My Photo
Buy Your Copy Now!
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 12/2003

« Blast from the past: gelatin salads | Main | A Confused Young Reporter Needs to Get Up to Speed on Social Media »

Saturday, June 18, 2011


Dr Anonymous

Hi Liz, please look into the use of Cannabis Indica extract as an important pain control medication in the 19th century, both in the USA and in the UK.

I am afraid that ORAC has a nasty orthodox habit of censoring any such info, which is why I am replying to your comment here so Orac cannot delete it before you get to read it.

Cannabis has been recently (since 1974) discovered to kill tumour cells whilst leaving healthy cells intact.

Some Oncologists can't seem to get their heads round this!

Liz Ditz

The commenter above is not this Dr. Anonymous or even this Dr. Anonymous, but a commenter who perseverates on medical marijuana at several blogs, including Harpocrates Speaks.

This blog post is not about medical marijuana or cancer treatments. You, sir, are off-topic. Please confine your comments to the matter at hand.

David H. Freedman

As the author of the article, I'd just like to point out that I address the ethics issue explicitly in my article. (I notice a lot of rigidly anti-alternative-medicine folks read the attacks on my article quite carefully, but don't bother reading, or just skim, the article they're attacking.) In my article I document (with mainstream studies) that mainstream medicine relies heavily on the placebo effect as well. And I note that people who think placebo treatments are unethical usually base that belief on the assumption that the practitioner is being dishonest about it. Who is more likely to be consciously "lying" when he or she dispenses a treatment that he or she knows isn't likely to work: The mainstream or the alternative practitioner? I don't know, I can't read minds, can you? As I say, this was all spelled out in my article. Go and read it, you might find the experience of making up your own mind refreshing.


Mr. Freedman, what and when was the last academic course in science that you completed? Plus, have you read Snake Oil Science?


And I'd just like to point out that the above claim by Freedman to have addressed the ethics issue[s] is risible in view of the incoherent and medical ethics-illiterate straw man argument which follows it.


Wow Freedman. Find me a "mainstream" medical treatment where the provenance of evidence indicates it is no better than placebo and I will show you a treatment that is unethical. Hmm... I'm waiting....


s/provenance/preponderance. Spell check fail.

Chris Booth

Mr. Freedman, your comment above was dishonest and stupid. You relied on an ad hominem and a red herring in your second sentence, and followed it up in your third sentence with a pretty hefty strawman...which is also a red herring. The rest is an intellectually flaccid strawman. The last sentence continued the strawman, but was couched as an outburst of whiny petulance.

Arguments based on logical fallacies are dishonest arguments; you rely on dishonest arguments to support your article; the conclusion is inescapable.

Logical fallacies are not the bricks and mortar of ethics, but they are the stuff of the opposite.

The comments to this entry are closed.


What I'm Tweeting

    follow me on Twitter