I encourage people to become more literate in science and to not trust anecdotal information from strangers with "experienced stoner" credentials, especially when dealing with the most carcinogenic group of natural compounds that are known. I don't mean to offend anyone, but the information provided here is not necessarily correct. I am not going to go into details as anyone can find this information if they are literate in science and know where to look. Also, no one should trust me, as I am a stranger on the internet, have no verifiable credentials and everything I am saying here is purely anecdotal. When one becomes literate in science, one is no longer dependent upon the unreliable anecdotes of strangers, but knows how to either research or create the reliable data they lack.
This industry is in its infancy stage and now that it is becoming much more acceptable, more research will be able to be done so that people can have more confidence in what cannabis is actually good for and what is contraindicated. For example, published research shows that using cannabis to treat estrogen influenced breast cancer actually increases the growth of the cancer. This is the problem with not being literate in science and lacking critical thinking skills bc people tend to believe only what supports the narrative of their rigid ideology. There are many different kinds of cancers and they all behave differently. What might kill one may help another.
Again, become literate in science. Anecdotal information is not necessarily false, but it is the most unreliable source of information in science bc what a person thinks they saw, heard, smelled, touched, tasted, etc is very subjective and influenced by a person's personal bias. Funny how eye witness accounts are the most reliable source of information in a court of law. Personal bias is the reason for a double blind control in research so that the researcher isn't even aware of what they are observing at the time so that their bias for wanting results that support their hypothesis doesn't falsely skew the data. My avatar is a great example of how the mind perceives what it wants, but upon deeper investigation, one finds that their personal perspectives often don't provide the best data bc our minds are so easily tricked. I love neuroscience and intend on pursing graduate school in neurochemistry once I achieve my bachelor's in chemistry.
I know this sounds arrogant and pretentious to many, but try to put this into perspective as I had the same thoughts of science and scientists bc I believed a bunch of propaganda created and regurgitated by people that were fanatical and emotionally attached to rigid ideology. Science is a more dynamic ideology, despite its appearance to those who are illiterate in science. While this has not always been the attitude of science, the general attitude today is that science only gathers supporting evidence for its hypotheses and proves nothing. Science is not a religion as it requires evidence for belief. Also, beliefs are not absolute or concrete in science and are allowed to evolve and change with fewer restrictions as better evidence is discovered (this obviously is evidence that has been shown to be gathered using reliable methods and evidence that can be reproduced using the same methods). Hope this has been helpful, despite not being helpful for removing aflatoxins.
