Marijuana Cures Cancer

My opponent cited three studies conducted under controlled conditions (in chronological order):Virginia studyMadrid studyCalifornia studyIn order to win this debate, I must explain why the science behind these studies is bad. Before you read both my opponent's articles and my critique, please make sure you are familiar with the concept of confirmation bias. You can read more about this at . http://en.wikipedia.org....The Virginia study, for which the supplementary material has been lost (so the study cannot be verified or confirmed), purports to have tested a few dozen mice and found those given THC had their lives prolonged by about a third. There are 5 major problems with this study. First, the lack of supplementary materials means the raw data cannot be examined. Looking at an abstract report does not give a good statistical overview. Second, the sample size was reasonably small. Third, the sample was not a human sample (I assume this debate is about human cancerous cells, which behave differently) and therefore irrelevant. Fourth, injecting some cancerous mice with THC is an example of confirmation bias - the researchers were checking whether there was any benefit to using THC. You wouldn't do an experiment like that unless you thought there was (people don't just go around testing every single substance). Fifth, the study did not investigate tumor size (which is the focus of this debate) but survival time. In the Madrid study, mice were given human tumors (that's better! ) and some were given THC. In those with THC, some were found to have smaller tumors than others. Researchers isolated the process responsible for this as being autophagy. They also tested two human brain cancer patients and found a few dead cancer cells (and also dead patients). First, note the ridiculously small sample size. You can't test two people and a handful of mice and then conclude that THC inhibits cancerous cells. Even the study's authors admit further research is needed before causation can be established. Second, still on causation, the process of autophagy was isolated in a test tube. Based on this, the scientists looked for signs of autophagy. This is the most extreme case of confirmation bias I have ever seen in a medical journal. Lastly, the California study. This showed that cannabidiol can enhance the activity of THC. The study therefore presupposed that THC cures cancer. It is worth noting that none of these studies show any survival benefit. 40% of American cancer patients use marijuana or other alternative therapies, and the numbers are increasing - but the rate of cancer survival hasn't really changed. To win this debate, according to my opponent's own rubric, they need to show not only that THC reduces tumor size, but also that it is an effective treatment. The word "effective" suggests it must be of a standard of effectiveness set by convention. None of these studies even assert, let alone prove, that the standard is anywhere near that of conventional methods at reducing the size of tumors. I therefore think the evidence is not yet clear and more research is needed before we can conclude THC is an effective treatment for treating cancerous tumors. I look forward to hearing my opponent's evidence to the contrary.