High CBD, Low Odor Medical Strain

[Jogro]

Jogro, don't you think that I might have googled if colon cancer spread to the brain, before I spoke?

Its pretty obvious that you hadn't, because if you had, you wouldn't have made this embarrassingly stupid statement:

Also, Jogro gave an example of colon cancer spreading to the brain, wtf?
That's like saying you have to get your teeth drilled to take care of an ingrown toenail, one does not beget the other.
If Jogro actually knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't have made such a statement.

Sorry, but if you knew what YOU were talking about, you wouldn't have said that colon cancer can't spread to the brain, let alone made some asinine analogy about toenails. Now instead of just being a grown up and admitting that you made a mistake, you're changing the subject and trying to weasel.

For that reason, I'm not letting this go.

If you want to offer advice about CANCER. . .one would hope that you'd have maybe the slightest clue about it.

The first sentence in what you used as your defense is part of why I made my statement.
"Brain metastasis is infrequent in colorectal cancer patients"
So in other words, not likely.

"Not likely" is a HELL of a lot more likely than "never".

And now you're claiming you made your incorrect statement in response to something that I didn't even post yet? That's amazing. Can high CBD-strains impart the ability to see into the future?

That aside, I did notice that in addition to your fundamental ignorance about cancer behavior, you also appear to be ignorant about cancer epidemiology. I'll help you out.

Yes, brain metastasis only happens in about 3% of colo-rectal cancers. However, since colorectal cancers are about TWENTY TIMES as prevalent as brain cancers (which are relatively rare), the chance of a given brain tumor actually being a metastatic colorectal cancer is nearly as high as it being a primary brain cancer. In other words, colon cancer spreading to the brain happens nearly as often as pure brain cancer does. In ABSOLUTE terms its not uncommon at all; any cancer clinic that sees dozens of colon cancer patients per year (which is to say. . .any big specialty cancer clinic), will see cases like this on a regular basis.

The cancer will spread throughout the body's circulatory system and lower organ's long before it gets to the brain.

Oh. . .so now you've figured out that cancer DOES spread throughout the body and that cancers spreading to multiple sites (including brain) are actually common. Imagine that.

The fact that cancers usually spread widely before getting to the brain only proves my earlier point. The chance of getting brain cancer is about 2 in 100,000. Colon cancer 50 in 100,000. Lung cancer 80 in 100,000, etc.

Do the math and you'll see the chance of you having a colon cancer spreading to multiple body sites is far more than 1,000,000x more likely than developing separate colon, liver, lung, and brain cancers all at the same time. The first thing is just somewhat uncommon; the second thing is so astronomically rare its practically unheard of.

 

[Jogro]

I swear, when the letters "CBD" come up, it might as well be the full moon, suddenly the board is full of radiation oncologists and neurosurgeons. . .
Not even sure why I'm bothering, but this one is too choice to let go. . .

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

So cancer is caused by malnutrition? That's an interesting 1930s era hypothesis. . .its "refreshing" to see that people still believe it in this day and age.

For example, this explains why visceral cancers are rare in places where malnutrition is common, yet common in places where nutritional deficiencies are virtually unheard of. This also explains why so many people successfully cure their cancers with diet changes.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells will starved.

So cancer eats mucus and now you can cure cancer just by avoiding milk. Again, these are very "interesting" hypotheses. Ordinarily with claims these er. . ."unorthodox" I'd ask to see evidence, but in this case, I won't waste our respective time.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

Indeed parasites are harmful to people with cancer. That's why we cook our food. . .

16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment.

The human body is an "oxygenated environment", and actually since cancers are hypermetabolic, they use MORE oxygen than normal tissues.
Oh never mind. . .

Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

Really? Employed by whom?

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines will become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup.

So its possible to eat meat, yet have it remain undigested in the intestines forever? That's interesting. Where does it "get stuck" and how does food you eat afterwards "slip by"?

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

Lets ignore for the moment the fact that cancer cells are just mutated human cells and have structurally similar membranes.

Could you please explain to me how digestive enzymes get free of the gut and make it to tumors and when this happens, why don't they just digest ordinary human tissue? This is fascinating stuff.

 

[Jogro]

Oh, and in case this is helpful, here's a study about how CBD works together with THC to sort of magnify it's cancer killing properties.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=cbd+thc+synergisticly

That article is about calcium uptake in brain cells exposed to cannabinoids in test tubes (ie not even in live human beings).

Where does it even mention cancer at all?

 

[+ WitchDoctor +]

That article is about calcium uptake in brain cells exposed to cannabinoids in test tubes (ie not even in live human beings).

Where does it even mention cancer at all?

It's always great when people like to argue just to argue huh? If you want to look like more of a jerk than you already do, that's fine. I'll help.

I didn't say anything about the this study mentioning cancer. That's just you nitpicking, trying to find something to argue about. I explained how the study shows THC and CBD work synergisticly (which is found in the study obviously) and since both cannabinoids have been proven to cure cancer.....DUH. It's common sense man. You're arguing just to argue when you already know cannabis cures cancer.

 

[Jogro]

I didn't say anything about the this study mentioning cancer.

You didn't?

Originally Posted by + WitchDoctor
Oh, and in case this is helpful, here's a study about how CBD works together with THC to sort of magnify it's cancer killing properties.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?...+synergisticly

That's just you nitpicking, trying to find something to argue about. I explained how the study shows THC and CBD work synergisticly (which is found in the study obviously) and since both cannabinoids have been proven to cure cancer.....DUH. It's common sense man. You're arguing just to argue when you already know cannabis cures cancer.

Yeah, stupid me "nitpicking" about how an article that you said proves cannabinoids have "cancer killing properties" wasn't done on human beings and has nothing whatsoever to do with cancer. But OK, since you now seem to agree that the article in question isn't even about cancer, lets forget about that one.

If I told you that eating a pound per day of grape leaves will cure cancer, you'd laugh at me and say "prove it". Yet people make the same sort of claims about Rick Simpson snake oil with about the same level of evidence, and apparently I'm a jerk for pointing this out.

So if, as you say, cannabinoids have been "proven" to cure cancer, how about citing a reference that DOES prove it? Where is this proof you claim exists?

In the meantime, here is the the state of the art summary on use of cannabinoids in treating cancer from the American Cancer Society. It actually covers ALL evidence-based uses of medical marijuana (albeit a big superficially), and needless to say, I think the ACS knows "a little bit" about cancer therapy. To the point, they say in no uncertain terms that there is currently no clinical evidence of efficacy of cannabinoids in treating human cancers:

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/marijuana

More recently, scientists reported that THC and other cannabinoids such as CBD (cannabidiol) slow growth and/or cause death in certain types of cancer cells growing in laboratory dishes. Some animal studies also suggest certain cannabinoids may slow growth and reduce spread of some forms of cancer. However, these substances have not been tested in humans to find out if they can lower cancer risk. There is no available scientific evidence from controlled studies in humans that cannabinoids can cure or treat cancer.

 

[+ WitchDoctor +]

I swear, when the letters "CBD" come up, it might as well be the full moon, suddenly the board is full of radiation oncologists and neurosurgeons. . .
Not even sure why I'm bothering, but this one is too choice to let go. . .


So cancer is caused by malnutrition? That's an interesting 1930s era hypothesis. . .its "refreshing" to see that people still believe it in this day and age.

For example, this explains why visceral cancers are rare in places where malnutrition is common, yet common in places where nutritional deficiencies are virtually unheard of. This also explains why so many people successfully cure their cancers with diet changes.


So cancer eats mucus and now you can cure cancer just by avoiding milk. Again, these are very "interesting" hypotheses. Ordinarily with claims these er. . ."unorthodox" I'd ask to see evidence, but in this case, I won't waste our respective time.


Indeed parasites are harmful to people with cancer. That's why we cook our food. . .


The human body is an "oxygenated environment", and actually since cancers are hypermetabolic, they use MORE oxygen than normal tissues.
Oh never mind. . .


Really? Employed by whom?


So its possible to eat meat, yet have it remain undigested in the intestines forever? That's interesting. Where does it "get stuck" and how does food you eat afterwards "slip by"?


Lets ignore for the moment the fact that cancer cells are just mutated human cells and have structurally similar membranes.

Could you please explain to me how digestive enzymes get free of the gut and make it to tumors and when this happens, why don't they just digest ordinary human tissue? This is fascinating stuff.

Haha, ok where do I start Lol. I mean, you're obviously misinformed or just trolling at this point. Are you arguing with me or JOHN HOPKINS?? Because this was directly from them and it's new information from them.

Do I think malnutrition causes cancer? No...I KNOW malnutrition causes cancer. It's not the only thing that causes if, it you're implying that's what the statement means. Lots of things cause cancer from chemicals, radiation, vaccines, etc. But it's a man made disease, and cannabis with an alkaline diet kills it.

Evidence for Dairy causing cancer, don't worry, my time isn't wasted informing people like you that they're wrong in front of lots of other people. :]

Here's one that shows that high fat dairy increased cancer. It would make sense then to say that not consuming dairy would decrease your chance of getting cancer and increase your chances of survival. Although it looks like your trying to say that each number recommends a separate and complete cancer cure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23492346

this study only "suggests" that quitting dairy milk helps protect us from cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22891897

That should cover that base for now, if you'd like some more I'll see what else I have in my bookmarks.

Now here's where your ignorance on the subject shines right here. Your next statement was "of course parasites cause cancer, that's why we cook our food".

A raw diet is the best way to protect yourself against any disease, and yes, it's been scientifically proven time and again. Cooking your food creates acylamide, which is carcinogenic. Here's your links buddy. You don't get parasites on a plant-based diet, and yes I can speak from experience having both an extremely American diet in the past.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23388667

You can have the wiki for acrylamide lol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide

The next one is about our bodies being oxygenated..

I'm gonna give you wiki again just to see if that's the only thing you have to complain about lol http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_actually_happens_when_the_body_has_no_oxygen_as_in_what_actually_happens_to_muscles_when_no_oxygen_is_entering_the_body

When our bodies environment becomes acidic, our cells become starved of oxygen and begin to die. When we create an alkaline environment in our bodies, cancer cannot live. It's pretty simple stuff man.

As for who uses oxygen to cure cancer...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23463521

Maybe this will help you understand why chemo and radiation and surgery are used as the most "effective" methods for cancer in this country and most. I hope you read this one, and get yourself a little education. http://educate-yourself.org/fc/

"How does meat protein get stuck, and how does it slip by?"

Am I talking to a little kid? I'm being serious at this point lol. This is a very childish question. If you'd like to understand more about how food is digested, learn on your own time. Your body is a little more complex that "food in, poop out"...

And yes, you're right. Enzymes are FASCINATING STUFF. Maybe you'd like to learn about them on your own today so that I don't have to type paragraph after paragraph informing you myself.

Please don't debate this issue with me on this thread anymore unless you've read these links and would like to have a real scientific discussion about it. Just for the record, there is nothing scientific about denying science for that sake of arguing with someone. Everything I've just given you is either a pubmed study or has been backed by science. So by asking a bunch of random questions and asking for studies left and right, you're just acting like a child. If you'd like to try to disprove any of the info I just gave, go for it.

"Heating your food above 116 degrees F renders most enzymes inactive.
This is one of the reasons it's so important to eat your foods raw. Raw foods are enzyme-rich, and consuming them decreases your body's burden to produce its own enzymes. The more food that you can eat raw, the better. Ideally, you should get 75 percent of your digestive enzymes from your food.
In addition to heat, enzymes are also very sensitive to shifts in pH, which is why different enzymes work in different parts of your digestive tract, based on the pH each enzyme needs in order to function."

 

[+ WitchDoctor +]

You didn't?



Yeah, stupid me "nitpicking" about how an article that you said proves cannabinoids have "cancer killing properties" wasn't done on human beings and has nothing whatsoever to do with cancer. But OK, since you now seem to agree that the article in question isn't even about cancer, lets forget about that one.

If I told you that eating a pound per day of grape leaves will cure cancer, you'd laugh at me and say "prove it". Yet people make the same sort of claims about Rick Simpson snake oil with about the same level of evidence, and apparently I'm a jerk for pointing this out.

So if, as you say, cannabinoids have been "proven" to cure cancer, how about citing a reference that DOES prove it? Where is this proof you claim exists?

In the meantime, here is the the state of the art summary on use of cannabinoids in treating cancer from the American Cancer Society. It actually covers ALL evidence-based uses of medical marijuana (albeit a big superficially), and needless to say, I think the ACS knows "a little bit" about cancer therapy. To the point, they say in no uncertain terms that there is currently no clinical evidence of efficacy of cannabinoids in treating human cancers:

You really dug yourself a hole by bringing up the American Cancer Society lol.....ties to BIG PHARMA anybody?? lol. There's lots of links I could attach about this subject, but I'm not going to waste much more of my time this morning lol. You're obviously very close-minded. Maybe you should take a couple "cancer doses" of some good oil and try to open that thing up a little bit? See ya around man.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/24/american-cancer-society--more-interested-in-wealth-than-health.aspx

 

[Jogro]

Here's one that shows that high fat dairy increased cancer. It would make sense then to say that not consuming dairy would decrease your chance of getting cancer and increase your chances of survival. Although it looks like your trying to say that each number recommends a separate and complete cancer cure.

Another change of subject. Lets remind you of what you ACTUALLY said: Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells will starved.

The question isn't whether or not eating high a diet rich in dairy fat is associated with an increased risk of cancer; the question is whether or not avoiding dairy can CURE/TREAT cancer. . .as you claimed.
I'm not even going to ask about that "unusual" theory you have about cancer feeding on mucus.
Can you cite a study showing benefit of avoiding dairy products for cancer patients? If not, why should anyone assume some benefit there?

Your next statement was "of course parasites cause cancer, that's why we cook our food".

Never said that. Try reading it again.

When our bodies environment becomes acidic, our cells become starved of oxygen and begin to die. When we create an alkaline environment in our bodies, cancer cannot live. It's pretty simple stuff man.

Its so "simple" that nobody has managed to devise a successful cancer therapy by manipulating pH.

If what you were saying were true, you could cure cancer just by hyperventilating since it raises your blood pH.

If cancer cells can't live, neither can non-cancer cells. See the problem there?

As for who uses oxygen to cure cancer...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23463521

It would really help if you would understand the articles you're citing. From your reference

As a result, the regimen of HBO therapy in combination with simultaneous radiotherapy has yet to be used as a standard treatment for malignant tumors.

IE. . .this is experimental. The point of the exercise is to help RADIATION kill the cancer cells. . .the oxygen doesn't kill cancer cells, it renders them more susceptible to radiation therapy.

Maybe this will help you understand why chemo and radiation and surgery are used as the most "effective" methods for cancer in this country

Well it just so happens that (say, unlike the case with cannabinoids) there are thousands of scientific articles proving that these things work and hundreds of thousands of cancer survivors who can testify to same. They're considered the "most effective" because they actually HAVE been proven to be the most effective.

Again, if cannabinoid therapy is so effective, where are the published case reports of "miracle" cancer cures from MMJ states?

I hope you read this one, and get yourself a little education. http://educate-yourself.org/fc/

So instead of listening to the doctors who devote their entire professional lives actually treating sick people with cancer (ie oncologist and the American Cancer Society), I'm supposed to take cancer advice from a website that also advises me on dowsing, sylphs, and how to avoid alien and demonic attacks? Are you ACTUALLY a witchdoctor?

"How does meat protein get stuck, and how does it slip by?"
Am I talking to a little kid? I'm being serious at this point lol. This is a very childish question. If you'd like to understand more about how food is digested, learn on your own time. Your body is a little more complex that "food in, poop out"...

Yes. . .by all means answer the question as if I am a little child.

You made the rather remarkable claim that ingested meat can fail to be digested, and then "remain in the intestines and putrefy". Here it is again: Undigested meat remaining in the intestines will become putrified and leads to more toxic buildup. . So again, where does this meat get stuck and why doesn't it come out? Which "toxins" are produced by rotting meat stuck in the intestines?

Please don't debate this issue with me on this thread anymore unless you've read these links and would like to have a real scientific discussion about it.

You're a regular riot. You cite multiple scientific articles wrongly, transparently misquote me, cite websites referencing demonic possession as reference, and then you say I'm not willing to have a scientific discussion?

OK, you want to have a real scientific discussion? Again, please cite ONE scientific article proving that cannabinoids cure human cancers.

That's really what this is about, right? Sure. . .you've put up a lot of links. . .but none of them contradict the premise that there is ZERO clinical evidence that cannabinoids can cure human cancers.

If you can't do that (and its patently obvious that you can't, or you would have done so already instead of repeatedly changing the topic and running away), then you're right, there is nothing to talk about.

 

[Jogro]

You really dug yourself a hole by bringing up the American Cancer Society lol.....ties to BIG PHARMA anybody??

OK, so because the American Cancer Society (shockingly!) has ties with parts of private for-profit industry that deal with diagnosing and treating cancer, NOTHING said by any member of that organization can be believed. After all, nobody who works in the field of cancer should ever make a living, and nobody who invests in new cancer therapy should ever expect a return on their investment, and association is the same as participation.

As ridiculous as this seems, lets stipulate for purposes of this post that you're right. Because they take evil drug money EVERYTHING the ACS says is a lie.

Can you cite **ANY** medical organization devoted to cancer management, prevention, or diagnosis (American, European, Asian, public, private, etc) that claims that:

a. Cannabinoids can cure human cancers, or
b. Advises cancer patients to us cannabinoids as part of routine cancer therapy.

Not some crackpot website discussing alien abduction, but an actual recognized organization that deals primarily with cancer and/or cancer patients.

Again, if cannabinoids have been PROVEN to "cure" cancer as you claim, where are the cancer-fighting organizations urging people to use them?

 

[HighFi]

Lots of people say this sort of thing, but its really an incomplete picture.

The world is bigger than just the United States, and plenty of medical studies are conducted elsewhere. Medical use of cannabis is legal in Holland, Israel, and Canada, for example, and there is no fundamental reason why cannabis clinical trials couldn't be done in any of those three countries, as well as within several others where use of cannabis is either tolerated or private use is legal (eg Spain, see below).

As a matter of cost, in fact, there is a drug-company created standard cannabinoid product called "Sativex" and the manufacturer would stand to gain unbelievable sums of money if this product were proven to have legitimate anti-tumor effects. That's a pretty strong incentive for them to fund clinical trials, or at least subsidize them with inexpensive drug samples. There are also plenty of private foundations, organizations, and individuals who would be happy to fund legitimate cannabis/anti-cancer research. At least one of them has actually done so in Europe (again, see below).

The fact that cannabinoids aren't by themselves patentable doesn't mean that its impossible for drug companies to make money selling them in various standardized forms. As a counter-example, there are hundreds of studies looking at the effects of aspirin. Even though that particular drug isn't protected by patent, and only costs pennies per dose, drug companies still manage to make money selling the pills at a profit, and plenty of private foundation money and gov't funding is available for ongoing research.

You are right that there are virtually no clinical trials looking at effect of cannabinoids in humans with cancer. Again, I've done a pretty thorough literature search and there is only one I could find, here:



This group based in Spain took terminal patients with primary brain cancer and infused THC directly into their brain tumors. . The actual drug was provided by a private German donor. As expected, all of these patients died on average in 6 months, which is fairly typical for this disease and their stage. This study didn't actually prove any survival benefit from the cannabinoid infusion, though it was fairly limited in scope.


The problem is that the plural of anecdote isn't "data".

Without lots of specific medical documentation and appropriate controls individual case reports are effectively meaningless. EG, what would you say if I showed you 50 accounts on Google of Elvis sightings, or UFO abductions?

I've seen plenty of these "case reports" and most of them are so poorly documented and/or badly flawed, they wouldn't even meet entry criteria into any kind of real clinical study.

And don't get me wrong, I'd love it if cannabinoids were a viable treatment for cancer. . .I just have yet to see any credible evidence that this is true.

Its one thing to HOPE that cannabis cures cancer, and quite another thing to PROVE it. Wishful thinking doesn't shrink tumors.

Simple common sense indicates that cannabinoids have been in wide medical use all over the planet for 10,000 years, literally since the dawn of recorded human history, and they've been used to treat cancers as long as human beings have had cancers. If they could actually cure cancer, that would have been established decades, if not centuries ago, and it should be trivially easy to prove, right?

Well If you look up the documentary "Clearing the Smoke: The Science of Cannabis" There are some scientists interviewed in that documentary in which they claim they have killed cancer cells in a test tube with high concentrations of THC. Don't know the doctors name, but you could watch the documentary and gain more info. There was also another similar success from somewhere in Spain, though I never looked into it. I also have heard of scientists who try to publish their findings in science journals and are denied, simply because of the controversy surrounding the plant.

 

[kneecapman]

Depends on what the goal of the CBD therapy is.

If he's taking it for symptomatic relief, he can potentially still vaporize a high CBD strain and get useful doses that way.

If the goal is really to try and cure the cancer. . .well, my thoughts on that are above.

Yeah, you are being a stick in the mud ... I am no expert, but i can read. There are literally hundreds of studies going on that can debunk your sentiments. I am weary about anyone steering people into chemo and radiation. I am healthy because I have consumed cannabis all my life in large quantities and doses, which no one can argue is good for you in many ways. I stay away from pills at all costs, and I am very healthy at 41.

Here are the googles you were criticizing earlier, all lined up for you.

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=243468

 

[kneecapman]

[That's really what this is about, right? Sure. . .you've put up a lot of links. . .but none of them contradict the premise that there is ZERO clinical evidence that cannabinoids can cure human cancers.

If you can't do that (and its patently obvious that you can't, or you would have done so already instead of repeatedly changing the topic and running away), then you're right, there is nothing to talk about.[/QUOTE]


There is zero evidence anything "cures" cancer. But when it comes to fighting cancer, troll face, you won't find better information than contained on this page:

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=243468

So quit acting like there is going to be some BREAKING NEWS about how cannabinoids or any other substance will actually CURE cancer or anything else. If you understand that, you can stop standing on top of ROLLITUP.ORG with a blow horn talking about how you are crazy if you use cannabis to TREAT cancer. I would like to add that cannabis should at least be administered as a mandatory treatment for Chemo and Radiation. I think those methods of TREATING cancer are probably KILLING more people than CURING. That can be backed up with numbers and statistics. What are you recommending? I have to know, since you are so critical of using Cannabis in treating cancer, what methods do you recommend? A brain transplant? So lets just get away from the word CURE here. Can we all agree on that? If you don't catch cancer in time, I doubt anything is going to cure it. If there is something out there that can, you won't hear about it on the news or in "peer reviewed studies" because corporate America and other Big Pharma countries like Germany and others are making money not finding the cure.

These animal trials, let's not forget, most of them, they put the human cancer in the animal. You take pills? ANY PILLS? Because all FDA approved meds went through animal testing phases. You act like we should hold cannabis to a higher level of scrutiny for some reason. Well, that is what makes you a troll. All studies related to cannabis and any ailment have already conducted or are in the process of conducting HUMAN TRIALS. As we argue, data is being collected. So keep being the stick in the mud because the mud that keeps you stuck there is about to dry up and turn into crust. You don't have to be an "employee" at the National Cancer Institute to see the cases coming out of the woodworks where people are successfully using cannabis to treat various forms of cancer.

No I won't give you citations, I read and study this stuff daily because I am a caregiver and these things are part of what makes me an expert. How to help a sick person using this natural and pure medicine that comes from my own personal care and love when growing it from seed to ripened flowers. If I told a cancer patient, "Look, I know you hear a lot about how cannabis cures cancer, but the simple truth at this time is that there is no proof that it does, so I won't handle your case because I don't want you to take an unwarranted risk that might lead to your death." They would most likely come back with, "That is ALMOST what the doctor said about chemo and radiation. He left out the part where he said I won't handle your case."

So please back off. There are people that are experiencing relief from their ailments, people that can live again because of cannabis, and this is wider than just a treatment for cancer, which is the proper way to say Cure if it keeps working and the patient dies from something other than the cancer. No one is going to complain if they were told "The cancer won't kill you if you ingest XX amount of cannabinoids daily." But there are people that ARE complaining every day about the cache of pills and the sickness from radiation...

While you're at it, watch this informative movie called Run from the Cure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

 

[Jogro]

There are literally hundreds of studies going on that can debunk your sentiments.

Then why is it that you can't cite one?

Again, there are numerous studies showing some anti-tumor effect of cannabinoids again specific cancer-derived cell lines in test tubes, and in certain animal models, but there are ZERO published studies showing cannabinoids successfully treating (let alone actually curing) cancers in human beings.

Treating SYMPTOMS of cancer. . .sure.
Treating the actual CANCER. . .not so much.

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=243468

Nice try, but no.

Out of that fairly comprehensive list of 100+ articles there were only two or three of them that even LOOKED at the effect of cannabinoids on human cancers. Most of them were test tube studies, and a few in animal models.

Of the ones actually looking at effect of cannabinoids in human beings, the only actual clinical trial showed zero survival benefit from injecting cannabinoids right into brain cancer.

One was a case report showing no recurrence of an incompletely resected brain tumor in a kid who smoked a lot of pot. That's interesting, but its hardly proof that smoking pot made the difference here.

The last one was a case report (not clinical trial) from Cannabis Science inc alleging benefit in a case of human skin cancer. That one in particular is a joke. . .its so badly documented and conducted it wouldn't qualify for publication in any real cancer journal, likely explaining why it was never actually published in one.

Again, I'd LOVE IT if cannabinoids made an effective therapy for human cancers. I'm fully willing to concede that certain cannabinoids (not necessarily naturally occurring ones) might have clinically useful anti-tumor effect in people with certain types of cancer.

But the problem is that say unlike with surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, etc, so far nobody has ever actually been able to prove any such effect in people with cancer, and there is quite a bit of empirical evidence out these things don't work.

If you want to make claims of a "cure", don't you think you should have proof?

 

[Jogro]

There is zero evidence anything "cures" cancer.

To the contrary, there are THOUSANDS of individual case reports, small and large clinical trials showing that surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy can CURE cancers, and in cases where cure can't be achieved, offer significant survival advantage.

Its to the point where certain types of cancers that were nearly uniformly fatal 40 years ago are routinely cured nowadays. (If you don't like the word "cure", feel free to substitute "durable remission" instead).

You actually have the nerve to claim this isn't true?

So quit acting like there is going to be some BREAKING NEWS about how cannabinoids or any other substance will actually CURE cancer or anything else.

Why not?

No, its not every day that some new class of cancers is uniformly "cured", but every week there is another story about an effective new cancer therapy or improvement in existing therapy published in the cancer journals and lay press. (EG see "Gleevec).

Why should we NOT hold cannabinoids to the same exact standard as every OTHER therapy?

. I would like to add that cannabis should at least be administered as a mandatory treatment for Chemo and Radiation. I think those methods of TREATING cancer are probably KILLING more people than CURING. That can be backed up with numbers and statistics.

Feel free to cite some, then.

What are you recommending? I have to know, since you are so critical of using Cannabis in treating cancer, what methods do you recommend? A brain transplant?

In your case, it probably wouldn't hurt.

I'm not against using cannabis as symptomatic treatment in cancer patients, I'm against making unsubstantiated (and in many cases patently ridiculous) claims about efficacy.

Since "cancer" isn't actually one disease, I can't make a blanket recommendation on how to treat any given case (let alone EVERY case), but if you want to relate a particular clinical circumstance, I'll give you my recommendation.

So lets just get away from the word CURE here. Can we all agree on that?

Well, I'd love it if cannabinoid proponents wouldn't be using that term. . .that's MY WHOLE POINT.

Its also nice to see you actually acknowledging it, if even in a backhanded way.

But I'm not the one making these claims. If these are the claims being made, then that's what we need to address, right?

Because all FDA approved meds went through animal testing phases. You act like we should hold cannabis to a higher level of scrutiny for some reason.

Not at all. I'm just asking that cannabinoids undergo the exact same testing and evidence-based process as EVERY other cancer therapy, that's all. Why should we hold cannabis to a DIFFERENT standard of efficacy?

Nobody was touting existing anti-cancer agents as "cure alls" BEFORE they went through clinical studies, but that's exactly what's happening with cannabinoids.

In the meantime, I can cite you 100 studies showing survival benefit (and yes, CURE) of certain cancers with surgery. You can't cite me ANY with cannabinoids.

If you're saying the studies aren't complete yet. . .great. . .THEN DON'T MAKE THE CLAIM.

No I won't give you citations, I read and study this stuff daily because I am a caregiver and these things are part of what makes me an expert.

You "won't" because you CAN'T.

There are ZERO studies proving that cannabis shrink tumors in humans with cancer. There are hundreds showing that surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy can do this. Again, as you say, why should we hold cannabis to a different standard?

As to you being a cancer "expert", frankly, you're an embarrassment. Tell us again how nothing has been proven to cure cancer, "doctor".

If I told a cancer patient, "Look, I know you hear a lot about how cannabis cures cancer, but the simple truth at this time is that there is no proof that it does, so I won't handle your case because I don't want you to take an unwarranted risk that might lead to your death." They would most likely come back with, "That is ALMOST what the doctor said about chemo and radiation. He left out the part where he said I won't handle your case."

Complete non sequitur.

You can use cannabinoids to treat the SYMPTOMS of cancer; there is just no good reason to expect it to actually make the cancer disappear (as many are claiming).

And its perfectly find to give someone a therapy with no evidence that it will work. . .just the intellectually honest thing to do is to admit as much:

IE, "Some people think hemp oil can cure cancers; I don't know that to be true, but we can try it anyway".

Telling someone that your snake oil ("Hemp oil") is going to "cure" their cancer without good evidence to believe that its true is pretty slimy.

So please back off.

Not an inch.

 

[Dan Kone]

I think the problem here is that everyone wants cannabis to be a magical cure all really really badly. While it can be very helpful, even life changing in many situations, that doesn't mean it's always the best and only treatment for everything.

Cannabis is awesome medicine. But it has a lot of limitations. There are also a lot of things about it that haven't been medically proven conclusively yet. You can't get mad at people for telling you the truth.

The truth is the best weapon we have in the war on drugs. It's our high ground. When you blow sunshine up everyone's ass all the time you lose that. When that happens it gets harder to tell the difference between the two sides in this drug war.

 

[Jogro]

I think the problem here is that everyone wants cannabis to be a magical cure all really really badly. While it can be very helpful, even life changing in many situations, that doesn't mean it's always the best and only treatment for everything.

Cannabis is awesome medicine. But it has a lot of limitations. There are also a lot of things about it that haven't been medically proven conclusively yet. You can't get mad at people for telling you the truth.

The truth is the best weapon we have in the war on drugs. It's our high ground. When you blow sunshine up everyone's ass all the time you lose that. When that happens it gets harder to tell the difference between the two sides in this drug war.

This is a very nice way to put it; much nicer that I could.

As I see it, the issue here is not just that cannabis has not been proven to cure cancer "yet", its that the overwhelming amount of clinical evidence (including 10,000 years of recorded historical medical use) proves that it does NOT cure cancer. If smoking weed or sipping hemp oil could cure cancer, then where are the log of "miracle" cures from the many med-legal states over the last ten years? Where are the people with the otherwise incurable lung and breast cancers jumping out of their proverbial wheelchairs with a new lease on life? In fact, if cannabis were a magical "cure" for cancer, why does anyone have cancer at all? No "studies" are necessary to prove these things. . .if they actually happened.

Again, I'm all for medical cannabis. . .I'm just against bullsh*t hippy pseudoscience erasing common sense, and giving false hope to people with terminal diseases. As you say, that kind of talk (let alone wild-eyed conspiracy theories) destroys all credibility of the cannabis movement.

Growing cannabis for sick people might make you a "good" person. . .even if "some" of the "medical" cannabis gets diverted for personal/recreational use or even to for-profit sale/trade. (But no. . .that NEVER happens with ANY "medical" cannabis, right?).

But merely growing a few plants in your basement surely doesn't qualify anyone as pharmacist or scientist, let alone an oncologist. It takes a "special" kind of person to think that growing a common plant and watching videos on Youtube gives them more insight and ability into treatment of cancer than say, medical professionals who have dedicated decades of their adult lives studying cancers, diagnosing and treating them.

Not incidentally, I have zero problem with for profit sale of cannabis to sick (or healthy) people. But IMO its a mistake to confuse purity of motive with efficacy. Doing it for "the love of the plant" or out of pure altrusim are certainly nice, but these things don't by themselves ensure a good product or result. If profit motivates people to provide the best possible medicine (or car. . .or food. . .or electronics, etc), I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

 

[Dan Kone]

Again, I'm all for medical cannabis. . .I'm just against bullsh*t hippy pseudoscience erasing common sense, and giving false hope to people with terminal diseases. As you say, that kind of talk (let alone wild-eyed conspiracy theories) destroys all credibility of the cannabis movement.

oh man. You have no idea how much this irritates me. I have to deal with this all the time. Now a days everyone seems to think they are a biologist, organic chemist, and a doctor all wrapped in to one. I hate it so much! It does kill all our credibility. It makes us all collectively seem like a bunch of fools.

I was at Hempcon this weekend and these two goobers trying to hawk their purple goop iso oil (which smelled like alcohol) just pumping everyone full of false information. They were actually claiming to be scientists, and since they had $7.50 lab coats everyone bought into it. When I corrected some of the complete bullshit they were talking, everyone looked at me like I was the asshole, giving me the "how dare you interrupt the scientists while they are talking" look. Sometimes I hate people...

Growing cannabis for sick people might make you a "good" person. . .even if "some" of the "medical" cannabis gets diverted for personal/recreational use or even to for-profit sale/trade. (But no. . .that NEVER happens with ANY "medical" cannabis, right?).

Never. All that wax being sold is strictly not for profit and it's all for medical purposes. There's just a lot of glaucoma going around right now.

It takes a "special" kind of person to think that growing a common plant and watching videos on Youtube gives them more insight and ability into treatment of cancer than say, medical professionals who have dedicated decades of their adult lives studying cancers, diagnosing and treating them.

Special indeed. Makes me wonder if they've put any thought into the consequences of being wrong here. These are life and death situations in many cases that we are talking about here.

Luckily, I'm just a grower and not a doctor or a scientist.

 

[Jogro]

oh man. You have no idea how much this irritates me.

I think I do, actually. Fortunately, for me I don't have to deal with this on a regular basis, as I'm sure you do in CA, but even just some of the pure idiocy from the "experts" in this thread makes my blood boil. Let's recap:

EG, first, we have "expert" #1 saying I don't know what I'm talking about because colon cancer can't spread to people's brains. That's just "crazy talk".

Then we have "expert" #2 claiming (among other completely absurd things) that cancers are caused by nutritional deficiencies, and you can successfully treat cancer by not drinking milk. This is stuff right out of 1920s era quackery, and I swear I wish I were making this up, but I'm not. . .

Then we have self-proclaimed "cancer expert" #3 claiming with a straight face that not only are radiation and chemotherapy ineffective at treating cancers, but that there is no evidence that ANYTHING can cure cancer. . .right before asking me to watch a youtube video called "run from the cure".

I was at Hempcon this weekend and these two goobers trying to hawk their purple goop iso oil (which smelled like alcohol) just pumping everyone full of false information. They were actually claiming to be scientists, and since they had $7.50 lab coats everyone bought into it. When I corrected some of the complete bullshit they were talking, everyone looked at me like I was the asshole, giving me the "how dare you interrupt the scientists while they are talking" look.

Great. You did a wonderful thing there. I hope you put them in their place and ruined their day AND their business.

My take on this is caveat emptor. IMO if "dabbers" want to drink the "Kool aid", that's their problem; its not like they'd even know real science if it struck them in the head.

But I personally cannot tolerate bullsh#t being directed at cancer patients, who are fighting for their lives and desperate for correct information, and if I see that kind of crap, particularly from snake oil peddlers, I will rip their tongue out of their throat (with words).

I'd have asked the "scientists" in question what their credentials were. IE, what did you write your chemistry dissertations on? Oh. . .so you aren't chemists? Then where did you graduate medical school? . . Oh. . .you're not doctors? Well, then where did you graduate pharmacy school? Etc. So can you explain why you are wearing white coats, then? Honestly, I don't care if these clowns think I'm an asshole. . .that's the point. But I **DO** have the credentials to back up what I'm saying, and where I come from the "cure" for scientific poseurism is merciless public humiliation.

Never. All that wax being sold is strictly not for profit and it's all for medical purposes. There's just a lot of glaucoma going around right now.

Of course. And the wax in question is only being compounded by pharmacists with USP grade reagents under strict lab conditions, and then being used with the best available medical equipment:

Remember, big drug companies with their "PhD chemists", and "patents" and "profits" and "pharmaceutical purity".. . .EVIL!; Bubba in garage with gas station lighter fuel and PVC tube. . .compassionate caregiver.

Special indeed. Makes me wonder if they've put any thought into the consequences of being wrong here. These are life and death situations in many cases that we are talking about here.

Why should they care? There are no consequences to THEM if they give false hope to cancer patients. They don't get sued, or even face any sort of public professional scrutiny. If they give bad advice to a cancer patient who later dies, they move onto the next one.

 

[Dan Kone]

Great. You did a wonderful thing there. I hope you put them in their place and ruined their day AND their business.

I solved the problem by whipping out some white 85% flake and reminding everyone that their stuff tested at 55%, with more than half of it being activated THC (compared to my 1.8% activated). Then when they claimed mine was "dirty" and contained poisonous butane I presented my RST screening, then asked them where their's was and why their concentrates still smelled like solvent while mine smelled like terpenes. They shut up, I laughed and left.

its not like they'd even know real science if it struck them in the head.

I actually asked an organic chemist (real one, UC Berkeley) who was at the lab to set up terpene testing about claims of these health hazards people accuse BHO of having. Specifically the amber glass vs wax argument (crystallized wax damaging lungs, butane toxicity, etc). He laughed and said there is no safety difference between the two and that both are way safer than smoking buds.

But I personally cannot tolerate bullsh#t being directed at cancer patients, who are fighting for their lives and desperate for correct information, and if I see that kind of crap, particularly from snake oil peddlers, I will rip their tongue out of their throat (with words).

It's very unseemly, risks lives, and makes us all look bad. None of us should tolerate it.

Of course. And the wax in question is only being compounded by pharmacists with USP grade reagents under strict lab conditions, and then being used with the best available medical equipment:

lol. yep.

Why should they care? There are no consequences to THEM if they give false hope to cancer patients. They don't get sued, or even face any sort of public professional scrutiny. If they give bad advice to a cancer patient who later dies, they move onto the next one.

Don't know how people like that sleep at night.

I'm fine with people using cannabis in addition to their other treatments to help fight cancer (with their doctors approval). Works great for a lot of people (more to get their appetite back than to actually kill the cancer). But as the one and only treatment for cancer? That's insane.

 

[fattiemcnuggins]

If people think that cannabis isn't really helping people cure ailments then they need to pay more attention.

Limonene in itself is being show effective when tested against breast cancer. Let alone the anti-seizure applications of the CbD. There is just too much good to say about it.

Hate to put myself out there but without going into gory detail-

I have tried numerous antidepressants for my clinical depression and was a drug addict for years. Regular cannabis use keeps the depression in check which helps curb my appetite for destruction. Been clean for close to 6 years and off all prescriptions for almost the same amount of time.

No coincidence ImO