Marijuana Cures Cancer

In concluding his case, pro generalized three broad points of clash:Confirmation biasUse of MiceSample sizeHe also pointed out that I did not respond to his first-hand account. I have two responses. First, my opponent did not respond to many of my points - for example, that the Virginia study did not investigate tumor size and that none of the studies show "effectiveness". More importantly, however, I did respond by presenting more credible conflicting evidence. I told you 40% of American cancer patients are now doing exactly what the people in the video did - and Americans are still dying of cancer at more or less exactly the same rate. My opponent did not respond to this. Confirmation BiasFor the Virginia and Madrid studies, my opponent says that what is tested does not make something confirmation-biased. This is true. I claim, however, that the method used was biased. If you look for evidence of something, then you are biased towards that explanation. Most scientists use a method called blinding to avoid this, meaning that the experimenters don't know what they're looking for or what they're injecting the mice with. However, no controls were used to ensure the researcher's inherent bias did not affect the outcome. My opponent also makes a second claim, that I cannot read minds and therefore don't know if the researchers were biased. This is where it is true that what is tested makes someone biased. If I have no claim to prove about Pepsi, I won't experiment on Pepsi. If I do, that makes me biased. For the California study, I did not claim confirmation bias. I claimed that the study tested the effect of cannabidol on THC, found there was an effect, and concluded that cannabidol helps cure cancer. This can only be true if THC cures cancer. Therefore the study presupposed that THC cures cancer. This is no non-sequiter! My opponent notes that both substances were also tested in the California study. The testing that was done was for autophagy - the process that was isolated in the Madrid study. If looking for signs of autophagy was fallacious in the Madrid study, why would it be non-fallacious just because the experiment was carried out in another university? Use of MiceOn the Virginia study, my opponent claims the chances are human cells were used. Again, the lack of supplementary materials makes this point moot. At best, neither of us has any idea what happened at this study because all we have is sensational newspaper reports and a short abstract. At worst, you'd think that a crucial detail like that would be in the abstract, wouldn't you? While the Virginia researchers were very careful to note what type of cancer they investigated, they omitted to mention if it was human or mouse. This is remarkably suspicious. I say we should approach such inconclusive and probably irrelevant research with a great deal of skepticism. On the california study, my opponent says that humans were used. Technically this is not true. Human cells were used, but only in the test tube, under very controlled conditions of temperature and environment. Sample SizeMy opponent states the number of studies and similar results is a surrogate for sample size. So what studies have there been? My opponent only cited one study that was taken under controlled conditions which involved humans (sum total of two), one more that involved mice (about a dozen per study, sample size of about 25-30), and one more that involved cells cultured in the lab (ok, let's be generous and say 50). Any statistician would laugh at that sum to try to prove anything scientifically. Assuming a 3% margin of error and 99% confidence level (very reasonable assumptions), the minimum sample size you would need is (rounded) 1849 people. Cancer really sucks, and I'm all for investigating alternatives. However, the research on THC is presently still very sketchy.