JT ... Notice how I posted a journalistic synopsis of a Harvard University "Controlled Study?" Well, that is the synopsis for a peer reviewed study. That's called a "credible source." They started with a question "What affect, if any, does Marijuana, and it's constituent cannabinoids, have on human cancer cells?" This question is the basis for what is called the "scientific method." Notice the neutral nature of the question? It seeks neither a negative nor positive result, just a result. That lack of bias is a prerequisite to the "scientific method." Seeking a positive or negative (proving a theory) cannot begin until an initial neutral inquiry is made. The problem that Neer, myself, and others have with your initial (and continued) approach, push to "prove" your vitamins, and stance in defending your beliefs is simply: Your beliefs do not stand up to the scientific method, contrarily, your evidence proves the necessity for the scientific method, and shows the danger of journalistic research. You do not approach with reputable peer reviewed information, you approach with outdated, non-reviewed studies, anecdotal studies, biased studies, and journalistic "science." You also approach with a closed mind. If you present a study, a PEER REVIEWED study showing that Marijuana (or it's constituent cannabinoids) weakens the immune system, or that genetically spliced foods are more dangerous than cross-bred/back-bred/plant spliced "re-engineered" foods/plants, I'm willing to review those studies and look further into the peer review papers, and even change my mind. Your discarding our MODERN, PEER REVIEWED studies shows your lack of willingness to accept alternative outcomes.
With all that... if the vitamins work for you, rock them, but, please pay attention to dosing, and be vigil with potential symptoms of overdose, especially once you start eating right.
