cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I hate to say it because it would be nice to have a good cancer therapy. Our modern science is pretty good but not comprehensive. there is room for the unexpected. Sadly, this isn't it. cn
looking for a good strain for pancreatic cancer!
- Thread starter TATTOODETROIT
- Start date
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
The other thing that Cannabis will do is potentiate opiate analgesia. That is known, and it's a fully sufficient reason for adding it to the program. Jmo. cn
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
He had multiple doctors testify on his behalf in court. That's in the record. There are also over 800 studies indicating cannabis molecules cause cancer cell apoptosis through more than one avenue. And my dog is alive and is supposed to be dead. The worst kind of folks are those making bold claims without any kind of first hand experience. I'd never guarantee 100% success, but that's what he claims and until someone can prove to me he's a fraud (and so far no one has stepped up), well I'll take his word for it. Especially in light of my own experience.
And it's been shown effective far more than just in vitro as well.
As far as 'it would definitely be known' - not unless it was actively suppressed (which it undoubtedly has been).
DCA (Dichloroacetic Acid) is another promising cancer treatment no one has ever heard about.
I think the problem most have with it this as a potential cure is that it completely shatters ones world view. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Time to realize that killers rule the world and always have.
And it's been shown effective far more than just in vitro as well.
As far as 'it would definitely be known' - not unless it was actively suppressed (which it undoubtedly has been).
DCA (Dichloroacetic Acid) is another promising cancer treatment no one has ever heard about.
I think the problem most have with it this as a potential cure is that it completely shatters ones world view. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch. Time to realize that killers rule the world and always have.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you've done exhaustive research of all the studies and anecdotal evidence to come to this conclusion? Because I have my doubts. You're stuck in a box.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Of course not. But I do have some experience with clinical trials. I appreciate that the science can be fuzzy. I also appreciate that one can find an accredited witness or ten to back any story in the world.
Arguing about medical studies is a vale of tears imo. Just correctly adjusting for the placebo effect is a huge part of the cost and complexity of a proper clinical study. Rick Simpson can't perform one such under the current regime. cn
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Not incidentally, I'm all for medical use of cannabis.
As suggested above, I think these agents can play a role in the medical management of various chronic illnesses, including terminal cancers. Cannabinoids very well may have limited anti-inflammatory effects, though how clinically useful they are in that role (especially in comparison to known useful agents like corticosteroids or NSAIDs) is an open question. There may be other benefits, for example in treating PTSD.
But its a HUGE disservice to the medical cannabis movement to suggest (as Simpson has) that cannabis can cure "all diseases", that it can effect 90%+ cure rates in cancers, or that it can actually suspend human aging. (Yes, he's actually claimed that too).
When you say things like that. . .things that are on their face so obviously untrue that only the most gullible, desperate, or intoxicated are inclined to accept them. . .then you make the ones who are making REASONABLE and FACT-based arguments about medical cannabis look like kooks too.
If you want legal cannabis to treat depression or arthritis pain, the way to do that is to accumulate evidence that it can work in those roles. . .NOT to claim that it cures cancer.
On Simpson's Snake oil, strong claims require strong evidence.
If, as Rick Simpson has claimed, cannabis oil is an effective cure for cancer, shouldn't that be trivially easy to prove? So why hasn't it been published on the front page of the New England Journal of Medicine, and why doesn't Simpson have the Nobel Prize for Medicine? If this were true, where are the hundreds and thousands of patients with metastatic cancer who were cured by his oil? Again, it really wouldn't take many of them at all to prove this. If this were really true of only even a SMALL number of patients, there would be an explosion in the medical community and this would be common knowledge, not some vague murmurings that turn up on pot boards and obscure corners of the internet.
As suggested above, I think these agents can play a role in the medical management of various chronic illnesses, including terminal cancers. Cannabinoids very well may have limited anti-inflammatory effects, though how clinically useful they are in that role (especially in comparison to known useful agents like corticosteroids or NSAIDs) is an open question. There may be other benefits, for example in treating PTSD.
But its a HUGE disservice to the medical cannabis movement to suggest (as Simpson has) that cannabis can cure "all diseases", that it can effect 90%+ cure rates in cancers, or that it can actually suspend human aging. (Yes, he's actually claimed that too).
When you say things like that. . .things that are on their face so obviously untrue that only the most gullible, desperate, or intoxicated are inclined to accept them. . .then you make the ones who are making REASONABLE and FACT-based arguments about medical cannabis look like kooks too.
If you want legal cannabis to treat depression or arthritis pain, the way to do that is to accumulate evidence that it can work in those roles. . .NOT to claim that it cures cancer.
On Simpson's Snake oil, strong claims require strong evidence.
If, as Rick Simpson has claimed, cannabis oil is an effective cure for cancer, shouldn't that be trivially easy to prove? So why hasn't it been published on the front page of the New England Journal of Medicine, and why doesn't Simpson have the Nobel Prize for Medicine? If this were true, where are the hundreds and thousands of patients with metastatic cancer who were cured by his oil? Again, it really wouldn't take many of them at all to prove this. If this were really true of only even a SMALL number of patients, there would be an explosion in the medical community and this would be common knowledge, not some vague murmurings that turn up on pot boards and obscure corners of the internet.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Ok, you trust the establishment. That's your loss brother.
There are over 800 studies where tumors shrink consistently, some more than others and usually with a standardized dose compared to the placebo given to the animals in question. In those studies tumors shrunk by varying degrees and there is no upper limit dosage for cannabis.
Doing human clinical trials with cannabinoids is really difficult given it's illegal almost everywhere and there is tremendous taboo about it due to decades of propaganda. It was used to treat an incredible number of problems in the past. When new patentable designer drugs came into the market those forces, along with a number of others who also competed with the plant (which wasn't patentable) forced it out of the marketplace using immense political clout (which they still have).
And you wonder why folks aren't talking about it as much as you'd like to believe they should be?
I've heard some of Simpsons claims about it being potentially useful for just about anything and there is in fact truth to that statement as well. As far as slowing down the aging process, that's again truthful given it's a very potent antioxidant (with some evidence to suggest moreso than vitamins). Now the way he states his claims you make take issue with, he certainly is sure of himself. But most of them have a lot of facts supporting them. If he's claiming to be able to cure anything with it, that's too far. But there are a large number of cannabinoids that occur in small concentrations that have yet to get the kind of extensive study they deserve because of this.
So you can claim those are just absurd claims, but the truth is they are not.
The endocannabinoid system is unbelievable and the chemicals produced by the plant we all love are too. They are likely at the heart of most of the conditions we don't have answers for at this time and the medical establishment knows this. Which is why really terribly worded patents have been awarded to the NIH who will likely in turn off load them to some multinational. But if you read those patents you start to see just how much the government understands and realizes.
For example there's a great one describing how it's useful in preventing Type 2 and 1 diabetes (yes preventing type 1, as well as useful in extending the life of an islet cell transplant which would indicate it's immunosupressive effects could potentially be useful in other organ transplants as well, I should say selectively suppressive as they don't appear to negatively effect the immune systems ability to function), many of the complications that arise and it also mentions anti cancer properties (specifically for CBD) as well as some of the classic things we all know it is capable of.
Long story short is you probably shouldn't have an opinion about it at all until you've gone out of your way to read the large quantities of information and studies available on it.
There are certain cannabinoids which have been shown effective as antibiotics as well. The reality is this plant deserves far more attention than it ever gets, as it usually only ever gets negative attention either from hollywood or the media.
There are over 800 studies where tumors shrink consistently, some more than others and usually with a standardized dose compared to the placebo given to the animals in question. In those studies tumors shrunk by varying degrees and there is no upper limit dosage for cannabis.
Doing human clinical trials with cannabinoids is really difficult given it's illegal almost everywhere and there is tremendous taboo about it due to decades of propaganda. It was used to treat an incredible number of problems in the past. When new patentable designer drugs came into the market those forces, along with a number of others who also competed with the plant (which wasn't patentable) forced it out of the marketplace using immense political clout (which they still have).
And you wonder why folks aren't talking about it as much as you'd like to believe they should be?
I've heard some of Simpsons claims about it being potentially useful for just about anything and there is in fact truth to that statement as well. As far as slowing down the aging process, that's again truthful given it's a very potent antioxidant (with some evidence to suggest moreso than vitamins). Now the way he states his claims you make take issue with, he certainly is sure of himself. But most of them have a lot of facts supporting them. If he's claiming to be able to cure anything with it, that's too far. But there are a large number of cannabinoids that occur in small concentrations that have yet to get the kind of extensive study they deserve because of this.
So you can claim those are just absurd claims, but the truth is they are not.
The endocannabinoid system is unbelievable and the chemicals produced by the plant we all love are too. They are likely at the heart of most of the conditions we don't have answers for at this time and the medical establishment knows this. Which is why really terribly worded patents have been awarded to the NIH who will likely in turn off load them to some multinational. But if you read those patents you start to see just how much the government understands and realizes.
For example there's a great one describing how it's useful in preventing Type 2 and 1 diabetes (yes preventing type 1, as well as useful in extending the life of an islet cell transplant which would indicate it's immunosupressive effects could potentially be useful in other organ transplants as well, I should say selectively suppressive as they don't appear to negatively effect the immune systems ability to function), many of the complications that arise and it also mentions anti cancer properties (specifically for CBD) as well as some of the classic things we all know it is capable of.
Long story short is you probably shouldn't have an opinion about it at all until you've gone out of your way to read the large quantities of information and studies available on it.
There are certain cannabinoids which have been shown effective as antibiotics as well. The reality is this plant deserves far more attention than it ever gets, as it usually only ever gets negative attention either from hollywood or the media.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I am not saying the claims are absurd, just not properly tested. You say in almost the same breath "800 studies" and "human clinical studies difficult". How many of those 800 were in humans? Studies not in humans can establish directions for new research, but a drug for humans demands clinical studies in the one species that matters.
In any case, with Sativex on the horizon, expect interest from entities who can fund and get a license for Cannabis clinical trials in humans to be slight. I agree that isn't the scientifically ideal way to handle it, but that's what will be done. cn
In any case, with Sativex on the horizon, expect interest from entities who can fund and get a license for Cannabis clinical trials in humans to be slight. I agree that isn't the scientifically ideal way to handle it, but that's what will be done. cn
Jogro
Well-Known Member
So what? I've seen all sorts of doctors testify to all kind of things in courtrooms. How does this validate any of his claims?
Irrelevant (see above).
How many clinical studies show any alteration in prognosis (let alone evidence of complete tumor regression as Simpson claims) attributable to cannabinoids in human beings with cancer?
To my knowledge the answer is "zero", though feel free to cite one, if you like.
On what basis is your dog "supposed" to be dead? Did he/she have biopsy-proven cancer that was shown to regress with exposure to cannabinoids?
I've got plenty of experience with cancer, quacks, cannabis, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, human and veterinary pathology. More than Simpson, by at LEAST several orders of magnitude.
He's full of crap. . . and that is NOT a "bold claim" in any sense of the term.
What sort of "proof" would you accept?
I can't prove that aliens from outer space do NOT visit the earth. . .the default position is that they do not, and if you want to make that claim and be taken seriously, its up to you to prove they DO.
Likewise, I don't have to prove to you that Simpson is a fraud. He's the one making the claims that fly in the face of common sense and human experience, so its up to HIM to prove that his therapy works.
In his case, if what he claims is true, it should be TRIVIALLY easy to prove that his extracts cure cancer, right? All he has to do is find half a dozen people with "incurable" cancers, and cure ANY of them. Hell, he's claiming a 70-100% cure rate. (And if he's lying about that. . . .well. . .you know the rest).
If I were him, I could literally get this done inside of a few weeks. Unfortunately, its not like there is any shortage of people with terminal cancer, nor should it be all that hard to find a few of them and convince them to try some hemp oil. So. . .where are these people?
Please don't give me this "medical cannabis is illegal" nonsense, either. As you well know, medical cannabis is perfectly legal in several states right now, and there are people who use it under doctor's prescriptions every single day. In fact, there actually HAVE been multiple published medical studies on the effects and hazards of medical cannabis (as you undoubtely know, since you're ostensibly conversant with the literature). Any cancer patient in CA can go to any one of dozens of doctors and get a script for medical cannabis filled within a few days. Furthermore NO law enforcement agency (including the Obama Justice Dept) would **DARE** prosecute someone with legitimately terminal cancer trying this sort of therapy.
How can you suppress the knowledge of people being cured of otherwise incurable cancers?
When that sort of thing happens, people (rightly) celebrate it as a miracle. If terminal cancer patients were ACTUALLY being cured of their cancers with hemp oil (which again, is what this guy is claiming) they'd be screaming from the TREES. . ."I've been cured of cancer". Their families, doctors, peers, communities would be astonished. They'd be on "the View", 60 minutes, 20/20, etc talking about it.
Cure just a FEW people with metastatic cancer, and it would literally just be a matter of weeks to months before their cases were published in the medical literature as case reports, in the lay press, etc.
Again. . .where are these people?
When it keeps its promise, people will hear about it. That's how these things work.
This is silly talk. You think people don't WANT cancer to be cured?
They're not daily occurrences, obviously, but there are paradigm shifts in medicine all the time. There are cancers that 25 years ago were nearly universally fatal that are today frequently cured. In the 1970s people though stress caused ulcers. By the mid 80s it was well-accepted that ulcers are an infectious disease. Medicine has had no problem accepting these things, nor has the lay public. Why should this be different with hemp oil, banana oil, or any other thing? If it works. . .it works.
Again, I've seen with my own eyes plenty of cancers killed by radiation and chemotherapy. FIRST you show me a properly medically documented case of a "incurable" cancer "cure" with hemp oil, and THEN we can talk about "shattering world view" and "cognitive dissonance".
Until then, we're just talking "hot air".
GUN1
Well-Known Member
Did anyone see the trials in Australia using an extract from blushwood seed used on hundreds of cats horses rats dogs ect with terminal cancer? Every case was a success. Sometimes within 24 hours. It enflames cancer cells causing your body to attack them. It was supposed to be tested to fast track to humans now its hard to find information on it. I'm sure a pharmaceutical company has bought the rights and stored it with all the other cures.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
A 100% success rate bespeaks fraud. cn
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
You obviously do not understand the workings of the minds of the sociopaths who actually control just about everything. Yes, some folks don't want cancer to be cured - at least not for me and you.
There are plenty of folks who have screamed to high heaven. You appear to just want to ignore them.
My dog was diagnosed with osteogenic sarcoma. She was given no chance to live. The tumor had completely shattered her left shoulder and it required amputation. It was biopsied. The vet said it was going to spread to her lungs next. It did. I started to feed her Purple Kush budder. She was better in a few months. She had about a month where she had a persistent cough. I kept feeding it to her after the cough disappeared just to be sure. Took her to the vet, he listened to her breathing and determined she had masses in her lungs. It was a very aggressive tumor. And it is universally fatal unless caught early, usually by accident (when it's the size of a large breed dogs shoulder joint, that's not particularly early).
To this day he is amazed. Hell I'm screaming to high heaven and you ignore me completely almost and insist 60minutes (CBS, right? I don't think Frank Carlucci aka: a guy without a conscious or morals as demonstrated by policy (PNAC) he has long supported gives a flying fuck about keeping you informed. He has sat at the head of the board for years and runs the show.) would definitely be doing shows about this if it were true? Come on.
He does have significant financial interests in maintaining the status quo however.
Or MSNBC... owned by GE who has huge funds tied up in conventional cancer research and treatments.
Really if you look at all the major media outlets they all are run by people with gigantic conflicts of interest. It should be governments role to limit these conflicts and limit these monopolies. But they don't.
There are plenty of folks who have screamed to high heaven. You appear to just want to ignore them.
My dog was diagnosed with osteogenic sarcoma. She was given no chance to live. The tumor had completely shattered her left shoulder and it required amputation. It was biopsied. The vet said it was going to spread to her lungs next. It did. I started to feed her Purple Kush budder. She was better in a few months. She had about a month where she had a persistent cough. I kept feeding it to her after the cough disappeared just to be sure. Took her to the vet, he listened to her breathing and determined she had masses in her lungs. It was a very aggressive tumor. And it is universally fatal unless caught early, usually by accident (when it's the size of a large breed dogs shoulder joint, that's not particularly early).
To this day he is amazed. Hell I'm screaming to high heaven and you ignore me completely almost and insist 60minutes (CBS, right? I don't think Frank Carlucci aka: a guy without a conscious or morals as demonstrated by policy (PNAC) he has long supported gives a flying fuck about keeping you informed. He has sat at the head of the board for years and runs the show.) would definitely be doing shows about this if it were true? Come on.
He does have significant financial interests in maintaining the status quo however.
Or MSNBC... owned by GE who has huge funds tied up in conventional cancer research and treatments.
Really if you look at all the major media outlets they all are run by people with gigantic conflicts of interest. It should be governments role to limit these conflicts and limit these monopolies. But they don't.
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
DCA is not patentable. You will never hear about it. The research is incredibly promising but there's no money to fund it. They are begging on a shitty little website at the U of A (one of the foremost research universities in the world) for funds to continue their research. You can't gouge people on stuff that isn't patentable. Plus actual cures that aren't particularly toxic don't generate repeat business anyway.
GUN1
Well-Known Member
  [HR][/HR] |
| [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The Australian Blushwood tree Hylandia dockrillii as a possible source of a cancer treatment received some widespread TV publicity on the Channel 7 Sunday night program on June 13 2010. http://current.com/news/92088221_possible-cancer-cure-found-in-blushwood-shrub.htm The applications are far wider than skin cancer and the substance has had wide testing on other cancers in animals, with apparently excellent success. It is planned to distribute the drug among Australian vets, which may make it more accessible to people in need, only for their sick cats of course! We must at all costs avoid the sick and dying obtaining any relief without first having their wallets evacuated. Those writhing in their death agony of cancer with only months to live need also to be protected from the possibility of horrendous side effects such as mild nausea, allergic reactions or other terrors that might befall them with drugs tried only on animals. The observation that rainforest marsupials spit out seeds after eating the fruit of a certain plant led to the company’s lead compound, EBC-46. Scientists at EcoBiotics learned that the unpalatable seeds contain an inflammatory agent that made the animals’ tongues swell. They isolated the active ingredient, a diterpene ester, which belongs to a new class of chemicals. EBC-46 shows anticancer properties against basal and squamous cell carcinomas, melanoma, and head and neck tumours, Delco reports. The active ingredient in EBC-46 is easily purified from a ubiquitous plant species that can be quickly grown on plantations. The company is developing a GMP process to insure commercial quantities of the drug for future investigations. EBC-46 is a protein kinase C regulator that initiates apoptosis of tumor cells and causes a local inflammatory reaction that recruits the body’s neutrophils to attack the tumor. When injected into incurable soft tissue sarcoids, nasopharangeal cancers, and oral malignant melanomas in horses, dogs, and sheep, EBC-46 destroyed the tumors and healing was evident in about two weeks, Delco reports. The positive animal results “don’t guarantee that EBC-46 will work in people,” he adds, “but it’s promising.” EcoBiotics plans to file an investigational new drug application for EBC-46 within a year. Given that the discoverers of this plant's capabilities lodged patent applications in 2006 this is not that new, but already on other forums people are asking where to get the seeds. One possible outcome is that the discovery will never be developed but the company and its patents if any are granted will be bought ought by big pharma and never come to market. Note that Peplin an Australian company in Brisbane which developed a skin cancer treatment from Euphorbia peplus (radium weed) (there is a thread on these forums about it) was taken over on the Australian stock exchange in November 2009 for around $269 Million by a large international pharmaceutical company. Ecobiotics may well suffer the same fate, and the knowledge could be hidden. This is the great evil of people being able to take patents on essentially natural processes. So it is important to spread the knowledge of this plant as widely as possible and for people to obtain the seeds and grow it.[/FONT] |
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Could you kindly cite me one study showing prognostic benefit in human beings with cancer. It doesn't even have to be a controlled study.
Would you agree that if you can't do so, then you cannot claim, with any sense of intellectual honesty, a 70% "cure" rate?
And if Simpson has simply. . .well. . pulled that number out of his ass. . .then really, is it so much of a stretch to think that just *maybe* some of his other claims aren't quite "100% truthful" either?
This is silly talk. If you actually were conversant with the medical literature on cannabis, as you pretend to be, you'd know this isn't true. There are plenty of studies performed on medical cannabis from various parts of the globe. For example, these sorts of studies are perfectly legal in Switzerland, and here is one published in the highly prestigious Journal of Cancer Oncology:
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/24/21/3394.full
And of course, a little closer to home, medical cannabis is legal in the State of California, which, as it happens, contains nearly 40 million people, making it sizewise roughly the same size as medium European countries like Poland or Spain. There have been clinical studies done on cannabis smokers (including clinical trials), in CA and elsewhere. Many are done at USCF, which is probably the most cannabis-friendly medical center in the USA.
For this purpose, you don't even have to do a real controlled clinical trial. Just find a few patients with pancreatic or brain cancer, and cure one of them. That's a "case study" and its not exactly a major hurdle.
You could literally get it done tomorrow, if you can find a sympathetic oncologist (which I'd imagine wouldn't be too hard). In fact, I personally know several who would probably be amenable to doing it if they were located in a legal MMJ state.
Cannabis is being prescribed widely in CA every day today. Its not "taboo" anymore.
Alcohol was also widely used to treat an incredible number of problems in the past. So were leeches.
Cannabis simply isn't a replacement for 20 other classes of drugs.
How about instead of proving that its good for "everything" he just proves its good for CANCER?
This is getting ridiculous. Show me evidence that people who use cannabis live longer than people who don't, and you'll be onto something.
Until then, consider that just "maybe" some of these claims are of the "pure speculation" variety.
There is no evidence that taking vitamins increases lifespan.
"A lot of facts"? Please. . ..
Either the guy has the "goods" to back up his claims or he does not, agreed?
He's claimed in no uncertain terms that his cannabis extract can cure cancers.
This isn't a "maybe" thing. Either his oil can cure cancer or it can't.
So where's the proof?
See above.
No "extensive study" is necessary. Find ONE patient with brain cancer and cure them. That's it.
Do *THAT* and you'll frankly be amazed at what would happen next, in terms of grant money, clinical trials, etc.
Actually, I can have a perfectly valid and high-level opinion on the use of cannabis for curing cancer, without reading every scrap of the literature on it. (And not incidentally, I've probably read quite a bit more of it than you have).
But again, since you love reading the medical literature, kindly cite me one study you've read that shows prognostic benefit of cannabinoids in human beings with cancer. That's the claim here.
Again, I know cannabinoids can have in VITRO effects on certain kinds of tumors, and there is some evidence of benefit in certain animal cancer models (not cure, by the way. . .and that's an important
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Well, in the world in which I reside, its medical oncologists who control "just about everything" with regards to the management of cancer. In my experience (and I've known quite a few of them over the years) oncologists are the "nicest" doctors; typically the kind of people who would give you the shirt off their back. So you're saying they're all sociopaths who go into the cancer-curing business because they don't want to cure cancer, then?
I have yet to meet ANY oncologist who wouldn't jump on the chance to try some low-risk therapy if it could cure an "incurable" cancer.
To the contrary, I don't want to ignore them at all.
Please show me one documented medical case of a human being who has had a terminal cancer cured by Simpson's hemp oil.
Not someone who has had chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and by the way, also hemp oil, who was cured of a local tumor. For obvious reasons that's not helpful.
Show me a case of someone with biopsy proven pancreatic or brain cancer, two tumors that typically don't respond to radiation or chemotherapy, who was cured by this treatment. Show me one case where the oncologists "gave up" but hemp oil worked.
I'll address this.
First of all "no chance to live" is sort of melodramatic. Even people with terminal cancers live, in some cases for many years. Their lifespan is just reduced. It remains to be seen what your dog's lifespan will be. How far out are they from diagnosis?
In human beings osteosarcoma used to be nearly universally fatal. Now with modern surgery and chemotherapy, long term survival exceeds 65%. Its mostly about how advanced the tumor is at presentation.
Yes, metastatic osteosarcoma is typically fatal, though this particular tumor happens to be one that often has a prolonged period between original diagnosis and death (a few years). Contrary to what you suggest, it doesn't necessarily take a large tumor to cause a pathologic fracture; in fact small localized tumors will frequently do that. By definition, any tumor confined to the shoulder is "early" and potentially curable by resection. In fact, in humans localized disease carries something like a 90% cure rate.
Here's the "hole". A stethoscope simply isn't a reliable way to diagnose metastatic cancer. If your dog had a long bone fracture, they might have also had a pulmonary embolus which could present with a cough and even as a small tumor (or more than one) that would resolve slowly over a period of a few weeks to months. After surgery, the dog could also had or developed aspiration pneumonia that could present as difficulty breathing and give the sense of multiple areas of "tumor" to a stethoscopic exam, again resolving over a period of weeks or longer.
The only way to be absolutely sure this was cancer is with a lung biopsy. Did your dog have one? Short of that, CT scans showing a solid and/or enlarging tumor would strongly suggest cancer, though these would be less optimal. Did your dog have those? I don't know the details here, but my guess is "no" on both counts. In human beings, these things would be done as a matter of course; in the case of a dog where further treatment options would be limited anyway, I could see why a vet would be reluctant to pursue several thousand dollars worth of studies that wouldn't likely change anything.
Anyway, without a lung biopsy or at least multiple imaging studies (and not simple X-rays) showing a solid tumor mass consistent with caner, you don't know for sure that your dog really had metastatic disease; that's just a "best guess" of your veterinarian. If your vet was wrong, the original surgery could have been curative, or at least strongly delayed the progression of disease. At this point, I think its fair to surmise that you don't really know whether your dog is truly sarcoma-free or not.
In short, while this is an instructive story, unless you know something you didn't share here, I don't think you've medically documented a tumor response to cannabis.
Of course he is.
I've heard a story about a guy who lived for 20 years after his doctors told him he had incurable unresectable pancreatic cancer. (And no. . .he didn't smoke pot or take hemp oil!). They were all amazed.
Turns out his original dx was completely wrong. He didn't have pancreatic cancer at all!
If I were ignoring you, I wouldn't be typing this.
Cart. . .horse. Personally, I can't stand 60 minutes; that was just to make a point. The point is only that if these cancer cures were actually happening (as Simpson claims) and the efficacy rate here were anywhere remotely close to the numbers claimed above, they'd garner real media publicity.
I disagree about the role of gov't here. Regardless, major media outlets don't control cancer therapy.
Oncologists, who do, are free to do whatever their consciences think is the best course of action for any given patient within the standard of medical care.
Meanwhile, cannabis extracts are readily available in CA and other states RIGHT NOW with a physician's prescription.
Add it up.
Patentable is irrelevant. As you know from your ongoing perusal of the medical literature, ongoing studies are performed every day on agents that aren't under patent protection. So what?
If the stuff works, not having a patent isn't going to stop someone with cancer from getting some!
Cannabis isn't patentable either, yet they seem to be selling quite a bit of it at the medical dispensaries in CA.
Motrin is off-patent now and yet doctors prescribe it every day.
And there is a huge market for a gazillion other non-patentable over-the-counter medications that doctors prescribe every single day (vitamins, antihistamines, etc).
If DCA could cure cancer, there would be a demand for it, and companies could sell it at a profit.
Jogro
Well-Known Member
I'm saying they're absurd.
Cannabis extract does NOT cure cancer, at least not in the commonly accepted definition of the term "cure".
5000 years of recorded human experience with cannabis is enough of a real world "test" that I think its safe to say that if any commonly available cannabis extract could was an effective cure for cancer, we'd know about this. Remember, cannabis was widely used as a prescription drug *IN THE USA* as late as the 1920s. It was even used on cancer patients. There are plenty of jurisdictions where medical cannabis is either perfectly legal or there is effectively no legal sanction preventing it (including within the USA right now), and all sorts of cannabinoid extracts are CURRENTLY used on cancer patients, in the USA and outside.
If this stuff were anywhere even CLOSE to as effective as Simpson claimed, you wouldn't need large scale studies to prove it; this would be widely appreciated already.
Now, I'd agree that its at least *possible* that high dose cannabinoid therapy could help reduce the growth rate of CERTAIN cancers. But that's not the same as a "cure" and it also has yet to be proven in human beings.
Again, just to be clear, there is no reason why clinical studies CAN'T be done, despite the fact that cannabis is a DEA schedule I drug. The world is bigger than just the USA, and Uncle Sam isn't always looking. There are ongoing clinical trials on cannabis in humans, and there have been any number of them conducted over the years:
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/study.php
You can argue about the evils of Sativex (and there is a lot to be said on that), but I'd say that if you want a truly prescribable cannabis "drug" it has to be available in standardized dosage in consistent pharmacy-dispensable product form. Whatever its other drawbacks, Sativex does, at least, fill that niche.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I hope you know I was not arguing with you. I know less than I'd like to about controlled studies on Cannabis. I can only speak about general principles at this point. cn
Jogro
Well-Known Member
Of course; I know you agree.
I'm just saying that I'm perfectly willing to call out Rick Simpson and his hash oil as a fraud, even if you're reluctant to go that far.
Again, its not up to me to prove that cannabis extract doesn't cure cancer; he's the one making the unbelievable claims, and the burden of proof rests on him to prove he's right.
By the way, in case anyone thinks I'm taking his remarks out of context, and he isn't really making the unbelievable claim that he can sure serious cancers with just ordinary hash oil, here is the direct quote from his mouth, right off his website: