Jogro
Well-Known Member
The "truth" is that if you had proof that you could cure cancer with hemp oil, you'd be posting the proof instead of resorting to name-calling.
I'm not asking for something "crazy" here.
Controlled study is the bare minimum scientific standard use to prove (or disprove) that any therapy is effective. Its used to test the value of every other form of cancer treatment including surgery, conventional chemotherapy, radiation therapy, etc. If cheap hemp oil could actually "cure cancer" it would be trivially easy to prove this is true.
Now, since you apparently don't have any proof, is it really responsible of you to make these sorts of claims?
Not incidentally, "cancer" isn't one disease. There are many different kinds of cancers, and they behave differently and respond to different treatments.
With regards to the image above, basal cell cancers of the skin happen to be the single most common, and single least aggressive cancer known to man. These are barely "cancers" in the commonly used sense of the term since they virtually never spread nor kill anyone. Much of the time, they can be cured with simple scraping (yes SCRAPING. . .not even surgery). In fact, roughly 50% of basal cancers are cured with just simple BIOPSY.
So one picture or case report purporting to show a basal cell cancer treated with hemp oil doesn't really "prove" anything. For example, how do we know the biopsy that diagnosed the basal cell cancer wasn't responsible for the "cure"? At the very least you'd need to look at a large number of these cancers and see how they responded to hemp oil therapy before you could make a credible claim that hemp oil therapy is effective (let alone more effective than other available therapies).
Relevant here, there are already MORE than one available prescription topical medicine that have been proven in multiple clinical studies using significant numbers of patients to cure basal cell cancers with high response rate. Here's some proof:
Note that these just happen to be the first two studies I pulled up on Google; there is actually a whole body of literature on this.
The point is, it shouldn't be particularly difficult to prove that a particular agent is effective in curing cancers. . .particularly skin cancers. . .if it actually is effective. Lacking such proof, the only reasonable stance is to assume that a given therapy isn't effective.
