Have you treated many terminally ill patients?
This isn't about me. Please explain to me what this has to do with whether or not cannabis cures cancer, and then I'll happily answer.
I'm dealing with 2 right now. Breast cancer survivor that now has bone cancer, and a patient with Dravets syndrome who has multiple seizures each and every day.
Never said cannabis couldn't help with seizures, I said there was no evidence it cured human cancers. There is a BIG difference between these two things. There is also a big difference between helping with SYMPTOMS of cancer (which I've already acknowledged multiple times in this thread), and CURING it.
My cancer patient is doing great. She's on a regiment of hemp oil and juicing with cannabis leaves daily. Her oncologist is amazed at her progress. She's on pace to be cancer free if things continue to trend in the same direction.
Glad to hear she's doing well, but since you're admitting that your cannabis hasn't cured her cancer, I'm not sure how this example disproves my point.
LOL Don't you know Jogro knows everything just look at his posts not just on this subject either. dude is one smug individual god forbid science hasn't proved something they can't even test in the USA and many other countries around the world.
Again, this isn't about me.
I don't think I know everything, but I do know that medical cannabis is now legal in 20 US States, and in many of them anyone with cancer can walk into a dispensary and walk out with as much cannabis as they need. So contrary to what you are suggesting above, there is absolutely NOTHING stopping tens of thousands of cancer patients, or their doctors from "testing" cannabis, if they choose to. There is also nothing preventing any MD from publishing case reports of any cure they believe has occurred because of cannabis therapy.
If cannabis is effective at curing cancers, why aren't the airwaves filled with reports of these "miracle" cures from these places? If, for example, cannabis is effective at curing breast cancer, why hasn't this information become widely known in cancer therapy and "survivor" circles in CA, and why do women there continue to die of breast cancer there?
But then your calling 100's if not 1,000's who claim it cured there cancer liars.
No; you're simply putting words in my mouth. Suppose I were to find you thousands of people who sincerely believe that prayer or diet cured their cancers. Would that make it true?
Why don't you show me a few before and after MRIs of these cancers that have been "cured" with cannabis? If these cures are as prevalent as you claim, you shouldn't have any problem finding this evidence. Do that, and then we can talk about the differences between truth and belief.
Also I highly doubt it would be in the best interest for a pharmaceutical company foreign or domestic to prove it did cure cancer they make much more money on the treatment then they would on the cure if it were made by way of cannabis. so what you got smart to say about that Jogro?
I'd say that you overlooked my multiple earlier posts in this thread addressing this very issue.
It doesn't make a bit of difference what the drug companies "want" or don't want. If it were actually true that cannabis could cure cancers, there really isn't a damn thing they could do to stop people from finding out about this, or obtaining as much cannabinoids as they needed. Proof doesn't need to come from the drug companies, and it isn't even expected to.
The fact is, if cannabis could cure cancer, people are going to use it to cure cancer. The drug companies have ZERO ability to stop people from doing this, and frankly neither can the gov't. Think about this for a moment. If people are willing to risk serious jail time just to grow/sell/smoke cannabis to get high for a few hours, don't you think they'll do it to save their own or family members lives from cancer? Despite what crackpots on the internet suggest, if cannabinoids did cure cancers, then neither drug companies nor the gov't couldn't suppress this sort of information, especially in the internet age where anyone can make information instantly globally available from their living room.
Either cannabis is effective at curing cancer, or it isn't. Considering how readily available cannabis is (especially in medical states), then if this were true, then every cancer clinic in the country would be full of people with "miracle" cancer cures, and there would be crops of young oncologists in legal states curing all their patients with cannabinoids every single day. Cancer death rates would plummet in legal states as patients learned about effective therapies, cannabis-heavy oncology clinics sprung up, and sick pts obtained cannabinoid remedies for themselves. But none of these things have happened. Why not?
If drug companies (and/or the govt) have somehow suppressed the knowledge that cannabis can cure cancer, then how are we talking about it in a public forum?
On drug companies, if cannabis actually could cure cancers, then the ONLY thing the drug companies would want to do is to get in the cannabis anti-cancer business themselves. There would be TONS of money to be made selling standardized cannabinoid extracts of pre-determined and consistent potency, and the drug companies would *LOVE* to get in on that business. That's how the free market operates. Again, drug companies make money selling ASPIRIN tablets at a fraction of a cent each. Why wouldn't they be able to make money selling highly specialized, pharmaceutical grade cannabinoid products optimized for curing cancers?
In fact, not only would they want to get involved in selling for-profit cannabis-based medicines themselves they'd really have no choice, because if they didn't do it, the competition would, and would hurt their bottom lines. If none of the existing drug companies wanted to touch cannabinoids, then new ones would form and drive them out of business.
Of course the drug companies that make anti-cancer drugs might see some loss in sales if other effective therapies emerged. . .but so what? This is a NORMAL occurrence in the drug industry. Older products lose patent protection and other companies come out with cheap generics and take their market share. Over time better classes of drugs emerge and older ones fall out of the marketplace. That happens all the time. Ask any drug company representative if they think their current "hot" anti-cancer molecule will still be in use in even 15 years, and they'll tell you they doubt it. The nature of the anti-cancer drug marketplace is always changing; if cannabinoids could cure cancers, this would just be one more change.
Bottom line, invoking drug company conspiracy to suppress evidence of cannabis efficacy doesn't explain a lack of evidence, and it just doesn't make sense. Drug companies don't act in concert; they all compete against one another and any new product that took market share from one company would only help another one. Drug companies are always looking for the next big product; if cannabinoids could cure cancers, they'd want to exploit that, not try (and inevitably fail) to suppress it.
That's an excellent point. These companies exist to make money, not to help people. We can't manufacture pills in our basement to treat our ailments, but we can all certainly grow marijuana. These companies, and by extension our government, have a vested interest in keeping marijuana and all of it's benefits in the shadows.
With due respect, I think you've got this backwards. Drug companies cannot make money UNLESS they help people. If there is no demand for their product, they go out of business, and with very few exceptions, there isn't a lot of demand for drugs that don't work. Even stipulating that cannabis is great medicine for a great many things, its not going to replace every product on the pharmacy shelves. That's ridiculous. At best it might replace a FEW of them, and it may also provide alternatives to a few more (which will still exist, just with smaller market share). Cannabis simply poses no threat to the vast majority of drugs put out by the vast majority of drug companies.
On Gov't, we also live in a democracy, and "the gov't" responds to the will of the people. Perhaps imperfectly. . .but it still does. I "get" the concept of a war on drugs, but what "interest" does our gov't have in ensuring that people die unnecessarily of cancer? There are plenty of slimeballs out there on both sides of the aisle, but can you name even one politician whom you think would vote to suppress a cancer therapy with proven effectiveness? Again, if "the gov't" is so interested in suppressing cannabis as cancer therapy, then how come the number of cannabis-legal medical states expands every year? Seems to me like whatever grip "the gov't" had on suppressing cannabis is only continuing to loosen.
