I can’t believe people don’t see weed as a miracle drug, when it obviously is.
If we all just smoked weed and ignored the vaccine we’d be in a better spot.
Source?
I can’t believe people don’t see weed as a miracle drug, when it obviously is.
If we all just smoked weed and ignored the vaccine we’d be in a better spot.Source?
https://www.brgeneral.org/news-blog/2022/february/new-research-shows-cannabis-prevents-covid-19-in/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35007072/
Smoking marijuana will not protect you from the novel coronavirus, no matter what anyone says and no matter how much certain people want it to be true.
As a complement to vaccines, small-molecule therapeutic agents are needed to treat or prevent infections by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants, which cause COVID-19.
I otherwise know people who smoke on the regular who got COVID, and what was missing was the vaccine.
As a complement to vaccines, small-molecule therapeutic agents are needed to treat or prevent infections by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants, which cause COVID-19.I otherwise know people who smoke on the regular who got COVID, and what was missing was the vaccine.
Literally everybody has gotten Covid bro. Idc if you know some guy who got it while he happened to be taking 50 bong hits a day, I don’t.
I haven't had COVID, and I know plenty of others who dodged it.
Otherwise really, been seeing stoners still get hit with it, usually over sharing their pipe with someone unsafe or otherwise being within proximity.
I haven't had COVID, and I know plenty of others who dodged it.
I have too, I attribute that to weed and the vaccine, but to sit here and say nobody who smokes weed has caught it would be fucking wild considering how many people have had it.
Interesting.
Let me see if I've fully understood your answer. Would it be a fair characterization to say that you believe credibility does matter in your assessment of the truth but that you would anyway go forward and research the topic even if you believed it would be a waste of time, and even if you were confident that the person is lying, untrustworthy, and almost certainly wrong, and credibility would almost never be a reason for you to simply not bother researching the topic?
I understand that credibility can sometimes only seem so. If I can't conform or deny a subject, I won't participate in a debate over it.
To be more clear, there's initial credibility which I'm not quick to reject or accept. While I know little about the new subject, I won't cast doubt initially. I'll then research in favor of the claim. Casting doubt initially will have someone looking for counter arguments 1st, which there are. Even science is at odds with itself on almost every subject at some point, some subjects are on going. ( When Hawkings changed his mind on black hole theory and presented it on a stage, a room full of scientists were furious, as they too had to change their minds ) The same is for history. They don't teach you in school much about the war of 1812 when a British Colony which is now Canada burned down the Whitehouse and it felt good. Today most American's strongly doubt that ever happened and the data is met with doubt and skepticism.
The way I see it, initial doubt can impair our potential to accept what we learn, so when a chance to provide initial credibility comes about, plus I care to look into it, I'll seek oppositional information 2nd. Matters more to me to see what's being seen and understand it before I make a ruling.
In the end if the subject doesn't have any credibility with my findings, I have little to no reason to confirm it.
If my understanding is correct, I find that to be a strange epistemology, and I have some doubts about you actually following through with it, if someone actually made incredibly untrustworthy claims.
Like I said it's sometimes, depending on the subject and if I'm interested. Say for example, someone started breaking down the science of makeup to me. It would have to be a pretty insane claim before I really check it out, otherwise the subject will bore me ( most often ) and I'd have no intention of running around wanting to spend time learning something about eyeshadow. Regardless if the initial claim sounded absurd, I'm more likely to poke fun but not ridicule, then move on.
Have your doubts, though simply put, not everything is interesting. To think otherwise would be one's opinion which should be yours while thinking everything is interesting, if you have doubts about me being disinterested in things.
My second question, since you brought up LiYang, is how many of his claims have you researched? Do you have concrete evidence that you follow through with your epistemology?
What I have is evidence enough for me to agree with LiYang on certain things, namely the vaccine, though I don't share his enthusiasm in blowing the whistle. I'm not opposed to vaccines because LiYang said so, I'm opposed because it's more of an epiphany myself and others have had. Plus there are people that had adverse reactions to the vaccines, which are disabling in some extreme way or it resulted in death. We were also warned that we must understand the risks when taking the vaccine.
I don't spend much time blowing the whistle on the vaccine because everyone heard the counter arguments already, but to them the vaccine is science, and science is paramount, and they'll ignore or have disbelief of the ones who got fucked up.
One can argue both sides are in the dark while only one side can be right, then it's still wiser not to get vaccinated.
My final question which relies on the answer to the first question being `yes`: If I now debated your stance on weed with the conditions that you outlined, would you agree to debate me? I.e., you have to follow the conditions that you outlined and research every claim I make, irrespective of my credibility in making those claims.
Isn't that what already happened ? You made your claim, I read the entire link you posted from that writer who couldn't seem to find any historical records suggesting corporation shafted hemp.
Fact remains. Hemp was once used as a primary material even in the US. It's output produced products of superior quality. It was more abundantly grown, and even cheaper, and would remain cheaper had it's production been kept up in accordance with the Law of Supply and Demand, which is also a factor that plays in oil production.
I ague Big oil would not change to hemp because they are selling something limited and rare. At this point in time the amount of money they made obviously out weights the amount they would've made if they decided to switch to hemp. There would be more competitors for them. Big oil doesn't just produce petrol, it has a hand in many things we never even knew it had. Inferior plastics. As a fuel source hemp is clean, and the plant itself will absorb the amount of carbon the hemp biofuel put out.
Oil is also difficult to obtain. When it's discovered we then need the hardware to get it, which comes at an additional expense. This means less competition. A quick google search indicates there are over 200 oil companies in the world. I knew intuitively that there weren't that many of them. If the oil industry switched to hemp, there would be a lot more than 200 companies in their own field. High production of hemp for hundreds of thousands of companies, while millions of people around the globe would be growing hemp and making nice things with it.
I do not argue that hemp is practical for today's fuel needs. It's the hydro cell car that is the winner, and can be done. And is being done.
Had we continued to use hemp, even for plastics, the world would've been a much cleaner and more affordable place. The reason for it being expensive, has to do with quantity.
Heh the covid argument.
A COVID-19 breakout at a friend's work happened, he was okay but his Father who works there tested positive. It did absolutely nothing to him.
That goes to show there are people who've been infected that never knew.
I think I had Covid. It was just a cold to me.
It's been reported that Dr. Fauci, the primary advocate for the vaccine himself, had COVID-19 twice after being vaccinated. And like the unvaccinated, he too had to quarantine himself from others, who are vaccinated.
Regardless if it's right or wrong, science is indeed a faith among many.
Smoking marijuana will not protect you from the novel coronavirus, no matter what anyone says and no matter how much certain people want it to be true.
As a complement to vaccines, small-molecule therapeutic agents are needed to treat or prevent infections by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its variants, which cause COVID-19.I otherwise know people who smoke on the regular who got COVID, and what was missing was the vaccine.
Cannabinoids Block Cellular Entry of SARS-CoV-2 and the Emerging Variants.
What good are the vaccines as it is now ?
