“Medical marijuana” is and has always been mostly a marketing term to lead the way to legalization for recreational use. The evidence base supporting just weed (as opposed to pharmaceutically purified cannibinoids) to treat anything has always been highly underwhelming.
And I figured that the above Tweet would piss some people off and that I might lose a bunch of followers over it. Such is life. It doesn't make the statement any less accurate. 2/
It's also amusing how some automatically assume that I think legalization of marijuana for recreational use would be a bad thing. I never said that. That's YOUR assumption. I've supported legalization for a number of years now. 3/
What I don't support is misrepresenting marijuana as some sort of miracle drug that treats or cures almost everything, and, yes, there is a hell of a lot of magical thinking behind medical marijuana, for instance "medical marijuana" for autism. 4/ respectfulinsolence.com/2015/08/06/med…
Here's the way I look at it. This post is 6 years old, but the evidence base isn't much better now than it was when I wrote the post, and the post basically holds up. 6/ respectfulinsolence.com/2015/06/24/doe…
So legalize marijuana for recreational use, like alcohol, for instance. Tax and regulate the hell out of it, as we do for alcohol. But don't claim it treats or cures anything without good evidence, and anecdotal evidence is the weakest form. 7/ sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-mariju…
There is a way to show that medical marijuana can be science-based medicine, but I've yet to see very much of it in the arguments of advocates. 9/9 sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-mariju…
Forgot to add: But I have, however, endured a lot of "pharma shill gambit" attacks for having the temerity to suggest that the emperor has no clothes when it comes to medical marijuana. (Well, mostly. Maybe the emperor is wearing just a thong).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm not surprised that @raoult_didier has resorted to the coward's way of responding to scientific criticism. After using his fame and social media influence to harass @MicrobiomDigest, he's now resorting to legal thuggery, just as quacks always do. 1/ theguardian.com/science/2021/m…
I'm definitely going to sign this open letter in defense of @MicrobiomDigest. All scientists who object to quacks and bullies trying to use legal and social media thuggery to silence critics should. 2/ osf.io/2awsv/
You can find a link to sign this open letter and help @MicrobiomDigest stand up to @raoult_didier. His science is so bad that he can't answer criticism the way scientists normally do; so he's now using bullying tactics. 3/3
It's truly depressing to me that there are journalists who, months after #CovidVaccine was released, there are still reporters who write stories that assume that a death after the vaccine was caused by the vaccine. @PatchTweet, do better. patch.com/michigan/plymo…
Any death is tragic, but writing a story like this before medical authorities investigate is basically fodder for antivaxxers.
I've been warning about the likelihood of antivaxxers arming themselves and becoming violent for years. Now it appears to be on the verge of happening, with "Mamalitia." 1/
The receipts begin. Five years ago, I first started becoming concerned about the increasingly violent rhetoric and imagery used by the antivaccine movement. 2/ respectfulinsolence.com/2015/12/03/the…
Seeing antivaxxers try to use the existence of breakthrough cases of #COVID19 after #CovidVaccine as some sort of slam-dunk proof that the vaccines don't work is causing flashbacks to antivaxxers claiming that MMR doesn't work because some kids get measles after being vaccinated.
Truly, everything old is new again. I (and my fellow vaccine advocates) have been warning that antivaxxers would use this tactic to demonize #CovidVaccine for months now, as well as others. None of the disinformation techniques used by antivaxxers is a surprise to us.
Basically, no vaccine is 100% effective. There will always be vaccine failures. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are nearly as effective against #COVID19 as MMR is against measles, but none of these vaccines has perfect effectiveness.
This explains a lot. I like to refer to it as the cult of the brave maverick doctor. @AAPSonline epitomizes this attitude that EBM-based doctors are “sheep” following the “herd.”
Here’s a hint. Andrew Wakefield is a brave maverick doctor. So is Scott Atlas. Stanislaw Burzynski is a brave maverick doctor too. Jay Bhattacharya of #GreatBarringtonDeclaration has revealed himself to be a brave maverick doctor. 2/
Brave mavericks are contrarians. Occasionally (very occasionally) they can be correct, but far more often they are not. They often have a tendency to stray further and further from God science in pursuit of being a maverick. 3/
@GYamey Interesting question. After all, you'd think that a safe and effective vaccine would be appealing to them as a tool to end the pandemic faster without lockdowns or business restrictions, wouldn't you?
@GYamey@aier Here's what I mean. The whole reason #GreatBarringtonDeclaration and @aier are so against public health interventions to slow the spread of #COVID19 is based on "freedom" and a resentment of anything that they see infringing on that "freedom," particularly business "freedom." 3/