67
65
79
All you can do is recognize it for what it is. If their concerns are indeed factual then legitimate sources will be able to replicate, collaborate, and verify their findings. And we are back to the chicken and the egg. Just because one cannot collaborate their findings does not mean it is not true? Right? After all, more R&D is needed on the medical benefits of Cannabis (THC and CBD) through clinical trials before the formation of a “body of truth”. Yet we anecdotally accept this as true especially given the growing number of Doctors and studies in support of such findings. Is it not hypocritical to use one set of standards on what we want to believe to be true but not on those things that we do not want to believe are true? The answer is that it is not hypocritical – at least not in this case. The growing diverse and professional support for Cannabis as medicine cannot be equated to an opinion piece written out of paid obligation and/or other financial self-interest. That is because we are assigning a value of credibility to those behind such work. Doctors, Scientists, Accountants, and Lawyers have a fiduciary duty and their findings must be able to be replicated, validated, verified, and collaborated. An MBA, BA, CFA, etc is not the same as the professional designations because there is a not the same fiduciary level of care. Add in that these individuals are comprised due to being paid (including in options, warrants, shares, rights) or short-selling/day trading and that is why it is not hypocritical. It is also why we are right back to the chicken and the egg – being compromised or in a conflict does not mean that they are not at times correct.