vol2 - Page 421

Page 421 Previous , Next , Original Image
Return to Index

 I protocol_ if that's the entire study in your eyes_ then
 2 the answer is yes_ If you are thinking as I am that
 3 the study encompasses everything you the
 4 course of doing your works that you don't put on
 5 blinders and close your eyes_ if something else comes
 6 up,
 7 ItSs true that the something else that came
 8 up was not part of the double-blinds could not be
 9 quantified in the same way and so one That does not
 10 mean it doesn't exist and it's not important to report
 I[ on_
 12 So we reported on ito
 13 Q But you didn't report on it to any
 '_'e 14 quantifiable extent -_
 IZ A -- That's right°
 IS Q You didn®t even explain ---
 17 A --Ires not quantifiable_ that's right.
 18 Q Doctor, you didn't even put in there hew many
 19 patients dropped out of the study, to switch to smoking
 20 of marijuanas nor did you explain how they responded to
 21 the marijuana specificallye correct:?
 ...... 22 A That is corrects we did not in this articles
 23 Q So the conclusion of the article is not
 24 directly related to marijuana itself, it has to do with
 25 THC_ which I believe you found to be more effective
 02,URT P,I_II_I_TIiI_$ AND T_N$C_|B_$
 1323 RMODE |SLAND A_N_,ti|, _,_,

Previous , Next , Return to Index