More on Cannabis cures cancer.....

[Bennyboy]

Spain Study Confirms Cannabis Oil Cures Cancer Without Side Effects

By Mark Sircus Ac., OMD
The medical science is strongly in favor of THC laden hemp oil as a primary cancer therapy, not just in a supportive role to control the side effects of chemotherapy. The International Medical Verities Association is putting hemp oil on its cancer protocol. It is a prioritized protocol list whose top five items are magnesium chloride, iodine, selenium, Alpha Lipoic Acid and sodium bicarbonate. It makes perfect sense to drop hemp oil right into the middle of this nutritional crossfire of anti cancer medicines, which are all available without prescription.
Hemp oil has long been recognized as one of the most versatile and beneficial substances known to man. Derived from hemp seeds (a member of the achene family of fruits) it has been regarded as a superfood due to its high essential fatty acid content and the unique ratio of omega3 to omega6 and gamma linolenic acid (GLA) – 2:5:1. Hemp oil, is known to contain up to 5% of pure GLA, a much higher concentration than any other plant, even higher than spirulina. For thousands of years, the hemp plant has been used in elixirs and medicinal teas because of its healing properties and now medical science is zeroing in on the properties of its active substances.

Read more at http://www.realfarmacy.com/spain-study-confirms-cannabis-oil-cures-cancer-without-side-effects/#29pEC6FXYSkqExBO.99

[cali]

1. more bullshit. Really fucking irresponsible bullshit at that.

it's disgusting that you're posting that hemp oil cures cancer.

that article even with its selective way of playing up benefits, say nothing about curing cancer.

Marijuana and associated marijuana products is effective medicine for some conditions.

IT DOES NOT FUCKING CURE CANCER

[kestrel91316]

2. Hemp seed oil apparently cured a little precancerous skin lesion

that I'd had on my forearm for about 10 years. I rubbed a tiny bit on once a day for about 15 months, and it is now completely resolved (was peeling and flaking and mildly inflamed). I'll reserve judgement. What's interesting is that this is the commercially available THC-free hemp SEED oil. Cannabidiols are the main active ingredient, and what is believed to have anti-cancer activity.

I know that doesn't fit with the RW party line that everything on the DEA Schedule is the work of Satan, but there you have it.

Here's a few weeks' worth of reading material (published, peer-reviewed research studies) for you in case you actually want to learn a little:
http://www.420magazine.com/forums/cancer/

[cali]

3. First of all, as I said, marijuana and related products like hemp oil

are effective medicine for some conditions, so obviously I don't think that the DEA line is valid at all.

However, there is NO evidence that it's a cure for cancer. And even in the article posted- and it's a bad article from a scientific pov- none of the cited studies makes that claim.

I'm glad that your application of hemp oil on a PRE-cancerous skin lesion, was effective, but that's still not evidence.

A claim that hemp oil or marijuana cures cancer is wholly bogus.

[felix_numinous]

7. And what makes you an expert???

You offer no information.

This is now being researched, and it is best to keep an open mind, pro or con.

[cali]

8. I didn't say I was an expert, hon.

I said there is no scientific basis for the claim. Try reading up on it.

[felix_numinous]

10. I have cancer and take it

And did the Rick Simpson protocol also. I don't like reading absolutes, like 'cannabis doesn't cure cancer' in bold print. Yea I reacted to seeing that, because so many
people are against something they know nothing about.

I am sorry about your friend, but for me this herb is amazing for relieving my cancer. Chemo accelerates it, and so I am doing my best too.

I've been around here a long time, and have posted in the drug forum. I have learned a lot.

The scientific method is a process of discovery, not a religion--I've known many scientists and research people, and have
had many debates over the years lol.

Have a great day, I really mean it Cali.

[cali]

12. First of all, I hope things go well for you with the protocol

and wish you the very best.

but the op headline claiming that it cures cancer should disturb you even more. It's misleading at best. There is no evidence at all for that claim. I don't have a problem with people saying that there are some encouraging signs that should spur more research, but claiming it cures cancer is just not accurate and none of the studies cited actually makes anything close to that claim.

I personally think cannabis can be very helpful for quite a few conditions, and I've had some limited help from it with the pain I wrestle with from Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy.

Regarding cancer, from what I've read, THC may have some therapeutic potential targeting specific cancers, but touting hemp oil as a cure all for cancer- all cancers- as Simpson does, is not helpful. And he actually touts it as a cure all for pretty much all disease, from diabetes to thyroid conditions to RSD to cancer.

[felix_numinous]

14. Treatment is a better word

than cure, even for conventional chemo. I would rather hear that from the scientific community as well-- humility.

[LordGlenconner]

15. Don't waste your time

You'll never break through to the anti pot folks who have been conditioned in their response to THC, Cannabis, Hemp etc. by the media.

[felix_numinous]

17. Thanks-- I once had hope

that integrative medicine was on the rise, but privatization and the resulting profiteering slowed down the trend.

Herbal knowledge is a good skill to have, cannabis is just one powerful and amazing plant. We need more herbalists in conjunction with pharmacists. In the NIH grounds there is an apothecary, with pharmacists who know what herbs are contraindicated by what pills. I wish this was nationwide.

[LordGlenconner]

23. I wouldn't give up hope

But those who are anti cannabis will likely remain anti cannabis, or at least that has been the case in my experience. It's a Stockholm Syndrome of sorts with Big Pharma.

Your point about apothecaries and pharmacists working together is a good common sense approach. Not everything requires a pill!

[cali]

31. so you're claiming that people who point out that there is no scientific evidence

that cannabis in any form cures cancer, are just doing so because they're anti-cannabis and in the grips of big pharma? I've posted plenty of links in this thread that establish that none of those conducting studies of cannabis on cancer, claim that it's a cure. The people claiming that are those with an agenda. It may be out of good intentions or because they have something to sell, but it's cruel to make that claim.

One thing I'm not is ant-pot in any way shape or form. Nor am I a fan of big pharma let alone being held in thrall by either it, the MSM or alleopathic medicine, for that matter. As I said, I've used pot for the severe pain associated with CRPS/RSD. I've smoked recreationally. I believe that it should be legal and I think it's a powerful and wonderful medicine deserving of much more research funding. So stop already with the silly horseshit about how I'm brainwashed against it by big Pharma.

[cali]

19. oh, ffs. I am not anti-pot. I use it medicinally for RSD

I'm all for more funding for better studies. What I am is pro the scientific method.

It's absurd to insinuate that I'm anti-pot or that I've been conditioned by the media.

[Rex]

22. I agree, they are a waste of time.

I think I will start ignoring the more insensitive ones.

[kestrel91316]

42. What's really interesting is this particular anti-pot DUer admits to having some success with

it for her own problem. But she still sounds like a frothing-at-the-mouth RWer about it.

[cali]

52. what's interesting to me is that

the ignorance some of you are displaying is so similar to climate change deniers and anti-evolution wingnuts.

[kestrel91316]

41. You obviously didn't bother to read the hundreds of published, peer-reviewed articles

evaluating cannabis in the treatment of various cancers at the link I provided you.

"LALALALALALALALALA, I can't hear you!!!!!" she said with her hand firmly pressed over her ears........

[cali]

51. you clearly haven't read them and don't begin to know how to read even an abstract,

still ignoring post #18, I see. You evidently don't know the first thing about the scientific method or why no scientist in the field- not one- claims to have found a cure.

LALALALALALALA.

YOU and those who demanded evidence which I provided are ignoring the science.

[spartan61]

4. Take some time and watch

"Run from the Cure" and other Utube videos of Rick Simpson. It will give you food for thought on hemp oil as a possible cure for cancer. I believe there is something to this and I believe Big Pharma is standing in the way. They don't want to give up their power and billions of $. I only wish I could have been a able to get some of this for my husband as he was dying from brain cancer. It's obvious that radiation, chemo, and stereotactic radio surgery sure didn't help. Maybe, just maybe, cannabis would have been the cure.

[cali]

5. I didn't say there wasn't something to it. Worthy of more research

but there is NO clinical evidence at all that it cures cancer.

A close friend died of cancer almost 2 years ago. She went on a hemp oil protocol. It didn't help Because of her battle with cancer, I did a fair amount of research..

I suggest reading this:

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/


I'm so sorry about your husband.

[wildbilln864]

79. there won't be any clinical reasearch because....

if it does cure cancer, and there's lots of evidence it does, they don't want the public to know that. The cancer industry would lose a lot of money as would the drug companies and the oil companies.
more here.
and:

[cali]

81. oh for pity's sake. The U.S. is not the only country that conducts medical research

as for the lot's of evidence claim that it cures cancer(s), I suggest you read the links at post 5 and 18. As for using the quack Mark Sircus as any kind of an authority, I strongly suggest reading up on him. Pretty appalling stuff. the guy is a complete quack with no medical or scientific background who's just pimping his book.

[wildbilln864]

82. you lost me there...

Mark Sircus?
never mentioned him.

[cali]

85. that's the author of the article in the op. this thread is about the claims he makes

[wildbilln864]

87. ok so ??

even a broke clock la la la...

evidence shows thc shrinks tumors!
and there's that guy who gave his dieing son thc oil and saved him

[wildbilln864]

80. & one more....

[BlueToTheBone]

6. Glad you know all. n/t

[tabasco]

11. Link to your peer-reviewed study?

Thanks.

[cali]

18. not sure what you're asking for here

but I believe that with one exception, all the studies that have been done with hemp oil for cancer, have either been conducted on mice or rats or on cancerous cell material. Guzman conducted a study with 9 people with advanced glioblastoma that entailed administration of a THC formula, through tubes, directly to the tumor site. All the patients died within a year. There was no control group in this study so it's impossible to state that the protocol did or did not prolong their lives. Clearly it did not cure the cancer.



Here's the abstract. You can read more at the link:

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other cannabinoids inhibit tumour growth and angiogenesis in animal models, so their potential application as antitumoral drugs has been suggested. However, the antitumoral effect of cannabinoids has never been tested in humans. Here we report the first clinical study aimed at assessing cannabinoid antitumoral action, specifically a pilot phase I trial in which nine patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme were administered THC intratumoraly. The patients had previously failed standard therapy (surgery and radiotherapy) and had clear evidence of tumour progression. The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration. We also evaluated THC action on the length of survival and various tumour-cell parameters. A dose escalation regimen for THC administration was assessed. Cannabinoid delivery was safe and could be achieved without overt psychoactive effects. Median survival of the cohort from the beginning of cannabinoid administration was 24 weeks (95% confidence interval: 15–33). Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibited tumour-cell proliferation in vitro and decreased tumour-cell Ki67 immunostaining when administered to two patients. The fair safety profile of THC, together with its possible antiproliferative action on tumour cells reported here and in other studies, may set the basis for future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids.

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/full/6603236a.html

I want to add, that the article in the op isn't a scientific one. It's a piece that pushes the use of hemp oil and the author's book- that's fine, but that's what it is and it doesn't address Guzman's study. Hell, the guy even claims that it was a hemp oil study, but that's not the case with any of Guzman's work.

Far more research needs to be conducted. It's funny, how here on DU we scoff at wingnuts who eschew science but quite often there are those who here who do the same. My point in this thread is that there is no evidence at all that hemp oil or THC or any of the other properties of cannabis, cure cancer. There's a slight body of encouraging research, and there are anecdotal accounts often in the form of testimonials. The latter is not, of course, falsifiable.

[kestrel91316]

44. If you did your homework you would know that the THC isn't the most beneficial

component of cannabis - the other cannabinoids are. That's why the indica strains are the most useful in treating all manner of conditions - because they have less THC and more cannabidiol and such than the sativa strains.

[cali]

49. Guzman's studies and one clinical

trial- the only one done conducted on humans specifically targeting tumor inhibition and shrinking- were done with THC formulas. and guzman is the researcher that many of those claiming a cure, cite.


Now since you claim to have done so much homework, why don't you give me the cites to 2 or 3 of the studies you're referring to. And remember please that my objection is to these people claiming a cure. link me to one researcher of a credible study who claims as the author in the op does, that they've found a cure for cancer(s).

[Rex]

25. Right?

NO shit, how funny!

[cali]

30. jaysus, hon. do you have problems reading? try post 18

what's funny is your science denial. and sad.

[leftyladyfrommo]

100. You can take that "hon" and cram it. n/t

[cali]

103. try reading post 18.

that wasn't directed at you in any case. It was directed at someone who has been calling me names and making shit up saying I said this or that when I obviously did not.

[LanternWaste]

29. Which is about as keen and as informed a query as asking for a peer-reviewed study concluding that C

Which is about as keen and as informed a query as asking for a peer-reviewed study concluding that Captain Crunch cereal doesn't cure cancer...

Thanks.

[Rex]

20. Wow, what a rude thing to say.

You are incredibly rude sometimes and offensive. How do you know? You some kind of expert? NO. Of course not.

[cali]

26. It's a fact. And I'm offended by snake oil claims that purport to cure cancer

I don't need to be an expert. All anyone needs is a minimum of knowledge about the scientific method and a willingness to do some research. You will readily find that no one who's conducted the limited studies on treating cancer with cannabis, claims to have found a cure for it. And anyone who lies about those studies (and only one has been done with humans) and claims they demonstrate that its a cure for cancer, is contemptible.

There have been some studies that demonstrate that cannabinoids may have an inhibiting effect on the growth of tumors in mice and rats, though what that mechanism is, has not been established.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

I'm gobsmacked by the anti-science mind frame. The only way to find out how to most effectively employ cannabinoids in the treatment of cancers is through studies and clinical trials. And by the way, I'm not saying that first person account testimonials can't be of some use, just that neither they or people lying about studies that have been conducted, are evidence for a cure.

[kestrel91316]

45. Who's the one here with the anti-science mind frame? Seems like you are, since you are ignoring my

link to the hundreds of published, peer-reviewed studies on the subject.

[X_Digger]

90. Reminds me of all the 'cancer cured' claims.. when you read the fine print, it's in mice (again.)

Or even better, it's a cancer specific to mice that have been bred to be susceptible to cancer.

[cali]

97. exactly. It's either in mice or rats

or it's a study using tissue. And yeah, it's generally a cancer specific to mice or rats who have been bred to be susceptible to certain cancers.

[cali]

38. what, no response to actual facts and evidence?

I've posted both. Do comment on post 18.

[Bennyboy]

50. Yeah, dude's being a real dick here

Seriously why so angry? Discussion and your mind is made up. we get it, you don't think it cures anything, after years of the same nonsense we all get that.. So leave the thread, quit insulting people and being so condescending.

[cali]

53. Why am I angry? The same reason that all wingnut science deniers make me angry

now why don't you respond to my post about Guzman's study (post 18) and to the science cited in post 5.

What I'm saying and what every credible researcher in the field says, is that there is no evidence that cannabinoids cure cancer. There is some very preliminary research that points to potential treatments. That is not to say that there isn't evidence that it has some effectiveness on pain, appetite, etc. but the scientific evidence for a cure does not exist.

And sorry, but you posted some piece of junk from a man who isn't an M.D. or a scientist. He's an OMD and the standards for such vary wildly. Sircus is an acupuncturist.

[cali]

54. “Natural News” Takes Idiotic to the Next Level

Why do I even bother going to Naturalnews.com? Sometimes someone points out how badly misinformed it is, and I go, and each time, a little piece of me seems to die (metaphorically) as I see comments by others who buy into the endless stream of false and downright idiotic crap they spew. At least it works well as a one-stop-shop for all the quackery you can think of. Chances are, if there is medical advice that is false, it can be found there…

can be found there…

Bicarbonate of soda, also known as sodium bicarbonate or most commonly as “Baking Soda.” Is some pretty damn useful stuff and is about as versatile as household chemicals get. It’s a mild abrasive, an alkaline, it’s absorbent, water soluble and non toxic. Because of these properties it can be used as a general purpose cleaning agent, a deodorant, a leavening agent in cooking, a general purpose alkaline, for neutralizing acidic substances or as a means of generating CO2, such as when mixed with vinegar. It has useful chemical properties that help take the oxidation off oft tarnished silver and make it useful in numerous other capacities. A teaspoon will cure heartburn and in medical settings, it is occasionally used to treat conditions like acidosis.

It has it’s limits though. So while it might work as a heartburn cure, it’s not going to work as a cure for say….. cancer. Of course, that’s not what the nut balls at Natural News would like you to think:

<snip>

http://depletedcranium.com/natural-news-takes-idiotic-to-the-next-level/

[Bennyboy]

57. The National Cancer Institute says otherwise...

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

Perhaps cure is not the right word, but it does help in many ways other than pain or appetite. it is funny, here we have something that has been around for millennia and yet we know nothing about it. Especially it's curative properties. that is only now being explored. And all research suggests that it does in fact shrink tumors. Lots of links in this thread to other research, all of it (or most anyway) from other countries due to the scheduling of cannabis in the US......

[cali]

62. yes. I've read that. Do you understand what pre-clinical means?

It's the process of gathering evidence in order to justify clinical trials. All research on the shrinking of or prohibition of growth of tumors is preliminary. And the only one done on humans (the abstract is in post 18) was done without a control group, making it difficult to judge the efficacy of treatment.

The National Cancer Institute does not say that there is an effective treatment for cancer using any form of cannabis. I'm sympathetic to people wanting to try it, but lying about it- saying there's a cure or that research has found that it's effective, is just wrong. Research on mice does not automatically apply to humans, though it is hopeful and more funding for research is needed. I'm all for that.

What are cannabinoids and how do they work?

“Cannabinoids” is a blanket term covering a family of complex chemicals (both natural and man-made) that lock on to cannabinoid receptors – protein molecules on the surface of cells.

Humans have been using cannabis plants for medicinal and recreational purposes for thousands of years, but cannabinoids themselves were first purified from cannabis plants in the 1940s. The structure of the main active ingredient of cannabis plants – delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) – was discovered in the 60s. It wasn’t until the late 1980s that researchers found the first cannabinoid receptor, followed shortly by the discovery that we create cannabinoid-like chemicals within our own bodies, known as endocannabinoids.

<snip>

Can cannabinoids treat cancer?

There is no doubt that cannabinoids – both natural and synthetic – are interesting biological molecules. Hundreds of scientists around the world are investigating their potential in cancer and other diseases – as well as the harms they can cause – brought together under the blanket organisation The International Cannabinoid Research Society.

Researchers first looked at the anticancer properties of cannabinoids back in the 1970s, and many hundreds of scientific papers looking at cannabinoids and cancer have been published since then.

But claims that this body of preclinical research is solid “proof” that cannabis or cannabinoids can cure cancer is highly misleading to patients and their families, and builds a false picture of the state of progress in this area.

Let’s take a closer look at the evidence.
Lab research

Virtually all the scientific research investigating whether cannabinoids can treat cancer has been done using cancer cells grown in the lab or animal models. It’s important to be cautious when extrapolating these results up to real live patients, who tend to be a lot more complex than a Petri dish or a mouse.

<snip>

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/#patent

[B Calm]

9. K&R

[Uncle Joe]

13. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Bennyboy.

[War Horse]

16. Please be careful when posting stuff like this

The phrase "cures cancer" is a potentially very dangerous and harmful one. It may do more harm than good. By all means, please post studies, but be critical.

There's no doubt in my mind that cannabis can be greatly *helpful* for those suffering from cancer, though. I'm in the process of getting some really good, altruistically grown stuff for my sister right now...

[cali]

21. Ignoring science: Not just for wingnuts.

There's plenty of it here and when confronted with facts, all you get is big pharma, MSM, etc from the science deniers.

I'll say it again: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT MARIJUANA CURES CANCER. It may help with some symptoms. It may have potential for treatments, but there isn't a scrap of evidence that it's a cure.

[kestrel91316]

46. We medical people don't use the word "cure" but rarely when it comes to cancer or any other

chronic illness. It's a favorite of those with zero medical background, however.

We talk about "response to therapy" or "failure to respond to treatment" or "resolution of signs" or "remission" or "disease-free". You'd know this if you would take a valium and read some of the articles I gave you a link to.

[cali]

65. no shit sherlock. of course medical personnel and scientists rarely use the word cure re cancer.

that's what the quack in the OP, Mark Sircus used. duh. And it's what the person who posted that quack's article used. Me? Never. As I made more than clear, that claim, using that word, is contemptible.

you really seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem

I read the abstracts of the first three studies listed. It's precisely what I've said repeatedly in this thread: There is some evidence that cannibinoids hold some promise for treatment and it warrants further research.

Here: You seem to need some basic information quite badly. I'm happy to help you out. Read carefully and maybe you'll be able to grasp this not so complicated information. As you seem to have such difficulty in absorbing written material, I suggest that you take that valium of yours and read it a couple of times.

<snip>

Researchers first looked at the anticancer properties of cannabinoids back in the 1970s, and many hundreds of scientific papers looking at cannabinoids and cancer have been published since then.

But claims that this body of preclinical research is solid “proof” that cannabis or cannabinoids can cure cancer is highly misleading to patients and their families, and builds a false picture of the state of progress in this area.

Let’s take a closer look at the evidence.
Lab research

Virtually all the scientific research investigating whether cannabinoids can treat cancer has been done using cancer cells grown in the lab or animal models. It’s important to be cautious when extrapolating these results up to real live patients, who tend to be a lot more complex than a Petri dish or a mouse.

Through many detailed experiments, handily summarised in this recent article in the journal Nature Reviews Cancer, scientists have discovered that various cannabinoids (both natural and synthetic) have a wide range of effects in the lab, including:

Triggering cell death, through a mechanism called apoptosis
Stopping cells from dividing
Preventing new blood vessels from growing into tumours
Reducing the chances of cancer cells spreading through the body, by stopping cells from moving or invading neighbouring tissue
Speeding up the cell’s internal ‘waste disposal machine’ – a process known as autophagy – which can lead to cell death

All these effects are thought to be caused by cannabinoids locking onto the CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors. It also looks like cannabinoids can exert effects on cancer cells that don’t involve cannabinoid receptors, although it isn’t yet clear exactly what’s going on there.

So far, the best results in the lab or animal models have come from using a combination of highly purified THC and cannabidiol (CBD), a cannabinoid found in cannabis plants that counteracts the psychoactive effects of THC. But researchers have also found positive results using synthetic cannabinoids, such as a molecule called JWH-133.

It’s not all good news though, as there’s also evidence that cannabinoids may also have undesirable effects on cancer.

For example, some researchers have found that although high doses of THC can kill cancer cells, they also harm crucial blood vessel cells, although this may help their anti-cancer effect by preventing blood vessels growing into a tumour. And under some circumstances, cannabinoids can actually encourage cancer cells to grow, or have different effects depending on the dosage and levels of cannabinoid receptors present on the cancer cells. [Edited for clarity and to add reference - KA 27/07/12]

<snip>

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/#patent

Happy reading.

[Rex]

24. Great article, despite the anti-pot crowd.

Ignore those that foam at the mouth.

[cali]

27. right. I'm anti-pot. so false.

It's not a scientific article and it doesn't even get Guzman's work right. I've posted links to the actual trial conducted by Guzman.

What do you find in that article that is great?

It's completely irresponsible and cruel to claim that hemp oil is a cure for cancer.

[kestrel91316]

73. You use pot but yet you are anti-pot. Sounds like typical RW "I got mine, screw you" BS.

[cali]

75. lol. you're careening from ridiculous to absurd

but it is funny considering how many times I've stated in this thread that I support more research and more funding for it as well as stating that I'm flat out pro-legalization.

You do know that putting words in someone's mouth that you simply made up is mendacious right? It's prevarication and nothing but.

Carry on with making stuff up. It's what you do.

[kestrel91316]

93. I'm just quoting you. In this thread you proclaimed that you were anti-pot.

AND in this thread you also said how you use pot for your own health with success.

You can't weasel your way out of that. You're having trouble keeping up with all the contradictory flamebait your are posting.

I make up nothing. You just can't handle the truth about yourself.

[cali]

94. more making stuff up. FAIL. where in this thread do I say anything about being anti-pot?

pull it and post it.

You surely are making it up and everyone can see it.

I've posted facts and evidence, not flamebait. YOU are the one doing that. What in dog's name is wrong with you that you keep doing it??? Chew on this- and no matter how long you do, you still won't be able to find ANYTHING I wrote that's anti-pot.

Here are my posts from this thread. Please point out where anything I said can remotely be construed as anti-pot. Not that you will. You'll ignore my proof that I didn't post anything anti-pot- just as you ignored my posts with evidence that pot isn't a "cure" for pot- as the op claims.

more bullshit. Really fucking irresponsible bullshit at that.

it's disgusting that you're posting that hemp oil cures cancer.

that article even with its selective way of playing up benefits, say nothing about curing cancer.

Marijuana and associated marijuana products is effective medicine for some conditions.

IT DOES NOT FUCKING CURE CANCER


First of all, as I said, marijuana and related products like hemp oil

are effective medicine for some conditions, so obviously I don't think that the DEA line is valid at all.

However, there is NO evidence that it's a cure for cancer. And even in the article posted- and it's a bad article from a scientific pov- none of the cited studies makes that claim.

I'm glad that your application of hemp oil on a PRE-cancerous skin lesion, was effective, but that's still not evidence.

A claim that hemp oil or marijuana cures cancer is wholly bogus.

First of all, I hope things go well for you with the protocol

and wish you the very best.

but the op headline claiming that it cures cancer should disturb you even more. It's misleading at best. There is no evidence at all for that claim. I don't have a problem with people saying that there are some encouraging signs that should spur more research, but claiming it cures cancer is just not accurate and none of the studies cited actually makes anything close to that claim.

I personally think cannabis can be very helpful for quite a few conditions, and I've had some limited help from it with the pain I wrestle with from Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy.

Regarding cancer, from what I've read, THC may have some therapeutic potential targeting specific cancers, but touting hemp oil as a cure all for cancer- all cancers- as Simpson does, is not helpful. And he actually touts it as a cure all for pretty much all disease, from diabetes to thyroid conditions to RSD to cancer.


so you're claiming that people who point out that there is no scientific evidence

that cannabis in any form cures cancer, are just doing so because they're anti-cannabis and in the grips of big pharma? I've posted plenty of links in this thread that establish that none of those conducting studies of cannabis on cancer, claim that it's a cure. The people claiming that are those with an agenda. It may be out of good intentions or because they have something to sell, but it's cruel to make that claim.

One thing I'm not is ant-pot in any way shape or form. Nor am I a fan of big pharma let alone being held in thrall by either it, the MSM or alleopathic medicine, for that matter. As I said, I've used pot for the severe pain associated with CRPS/RSD. I've smoked recreationally. I believe that it should be legal and I think it's a powerful and wonderful medicine deserving of much more research funding. So stop already with the silly horseshit about how I'm brainwashed against it by big Pharma.

oh, ffs. I am not anti-pot. I use it medicinally for RSD

I'm all for more funding for better studies. What I am is pro the scientific method.

It's absurd to insinuate that I'm anti-pot or that I've been conditioned by the media.


I didn't say there wasn't something to it. Worthy of more research

but there is NO clinical evidence at all that it cures cancer.

A close friend died of cancer almost 2 years ago. She went on a hemp oil protocol. It didn't help Because of her battle with cancer, I did a fair amount of research..

I suggest reading this:

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/

I'm so sorry about your husband.



I want to add, that the article in the op isn't a scientific one. It's a piece that pushes the use of hemp oil and the author's book- that's fine, but that's what it is and it doesn't address Guzman's study. Hell, the guy even claims that it was a hemp oil study, but that's not the case with any of Guzman's work.

Far more research needs to be conducted. It's funny, how here on DU we scoff at wingnuts who eschew science but quite often there are those who here who do the same. My point in this thread is that there is no evidence at all that hemp oil or THC or any of the other properties of cannabis, cure cancer. There's a slight body of encouraging research, and there are anecdotal accounts often in the form of testimonials. The latter is not, of course, falsifiable.


t's a fact. And I'm offended by snake oil claims that purport to cure cancer

I don't need to be an expert. All anyone needs is a minimum of knowledge about the scientific method and a willingness to do some research. You will readily find that no one who's conducted the limited studies on treating cancer with cannabis, claims to have found a cure for it. And anyone who lies about those studies (and only one has been done with humans) and claims they demonstrate that its a cure for cancer, is contemptible.

There have been some studies that demonstrate that cannabinoids may have an inhibiting effect on the growth of tumors in mice and rats, though what that mechanism is, has not been established.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

I'm gobsmacked by the anti-science mind frame. The only way to find out how to most effectively employ cannabinoids in the treatment of cancers is through studies and clinical trials. And by the way, I'm not saying that first person account testimonials can't be of some use, just that neither they or people lying about studies that have been conducted, are evidence for a cure.


Why am I angry? The same reason that all wingnut science deniers make me angry

now why don't you respond to my post about Guzman's study (post 18) and to the science cited in post 5.

What I'm saying and what every credible researcher in the field says, is that there is no evidence that cannabinoids cure cancer. There is some very preliminary research that points to potential treatments. That is not to say that there isn't evidence that it has some effectiveness on pain, appetite, etc. but the scientific evidence for a cure does not exist.

Ignoring science: Not just for wingnuts.

There's plenty of it here and when confronted with facts, all you get is big pharma, MSM, etc from the science deniers.

I'll say it again: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT MARIJUANA CURES CANCER. It may help with some symptoms. It may have potential for treatments, but there isn't a scrap of evidence that it's a cure.

. right. I'm anti-pot. so false.

It's not a scientific article and it doesn't even get Guzman's work right. I've posted links to the actual trial conducted by Guzman.

What do you find in that article that is great?



lol. you're careening from ridiculous to absurd

but it is funny considering how many times I've stated in this thread that I support more research and more funding for it as well as stating that I'm flat out pro-legalization.

You do know that putting words in someone's mouth that you simply made up is mendacious right? It's prevarication and nothing but.

Carry on with making stuff up. It's what you do.

don't believe that. I think there are any number of people who actually buy into quackery

and I'm pro-legalization, but recognize that the claims re cannabinoids and cancer are overblown by many.



It's completely irresponsible and cruel to claim that hemp oil is a cure for cancer.

[LanternWaste]

32. I'm pretty sure pro-science does equal anti-pot...

I'm pretty sure pro-science does equal anti-pot... except in the minds of the melodramatic who are compelled to use "foam at the mouth" in place of "disagree"...

[kestrel91316]

47. I'm pro-science AND pro-pot. Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

[cali]

68. well one out of two isn't bad.

[MineralMan]

28. While it may be of benefit to cancer patients, the use of the

word cure is an indication of hype on the part of this article. The site is not a medical site, a science site or anything of the sort.

Finally, the OMD after the writers name means Oriental Medicine Doctor. He is not an MD, or a medical researcher. Anyone who reads this should take it with a huge grain of salt. The International Medical Verities {sic: it shoudl be Veritas} Association is not a legitimate medical association, and does not even have it's own website.

This information is partial, exaggerated, and should not be taken as real medical information. It's impossible to say what about it is true and what is not.

[cali]

34. That article is not just hype. The author is lying by misrepresentation

and the anti-science mindset on display in this thread is just sad. DUers love to bitch about how wingnuts are anti-science. There are plenty of those types right here at DU.

It's cruel to claim that pot cures cancer. It can help manage pain for some. It can help with appetite. There are some very preliminary studies indicating that cannabinoids may be useful in tumor prevention or shrinking of some tumors and is it.

A couple of years back a dear friend of mine had cancer and asked me to research the hemp oil "cure" and other forms of marijuana therapy for cancer. She went on the hemp oil protocol. She died a few months later.

[MineralMan]

36. I was attempting to be somewhat polite.

The article is crap. The word "cure" in the title says it all. There is no "cure for cancer." It's bullshit.

I was trying to be polite, though, and to include information about why this should not be considered to be medical information of any kind.

The author is a self-serving quack. He has yet another bogus book to sell.

[cali]

37. sometimes calling it as it is, is important. this is reprehensible stuff

the sad things are how many people by into it and that there are some interesting and potentially hopeful studies that are being seized upon by contemptible charlatans.

It's cruel.

[MineralMan]

106. My tendency is to discuss things politely. That's how I roll.

Others might have different approaches.

[cali]

107. don't pat yourself too heavily on the back. I've you be plenty snarky

[MineralMan]

108. Do you? Shall we compare transparency pages, then?

Mine is empty. It will stay empty if I can manage to remain within the rules here. I have had exactly one hidden post since DU3 went online. I'm dedicated to not having another. And yet, I can still post here emphatically and frequently.

[1-Old-Man]

33. Then should I presume that heavy pot smokers don't catch Cancer?

I ask because somewhere in the back of my mind I can see at least half a dozen old farts I have known who smoked like forrest fires but ended up with tumors of this and that internal organ none the less. Am I mistaken?

[cali]

35. Yeah, but that's not from the active ingredients that have been studied or are being used

in cancer/marijuana treatment.

[YOHABLO]

39. So much for my critical thinking skills ... as if I'm going to believe hemp oil cures cancer ..>

hemp oil has been around for centuries .. I don't downplay the benefits of marijuana and cannabis related products .. but I certainly am not going to read one article. However, if hemp oil could actually cure my basil cell cancers that I get from time to time, it certainly would be better than the knife. God only knows, if marijuana and cannabis derivatives did cure cancer .. it would be patented and sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars .. and you can bet your ass on that in the good ole U.S.A.

[RandiFan1290]

43. Like this?

People are done waiting for the Government.

[AZ Progressive]

40. For any of the doubters...

https://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/marijuana-cures-cancer-us-government-has-known-since-1974/

"In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice — lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, “The Emperor Wears No Clothes.” In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out — unsuccessfully — to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the “high.”

The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of “Nature Medicine” that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC. “All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma (brain cancer) cell inoculation … Cannabinoid (THC)-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats.” The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results."


And link to the 1974 Virginia Study (cost money to get the article but its proof that it exists):

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/120945617.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Aug+18%2C+1974&author=By+Victor+Cohn+Washington+Post+Staff+Writer&desc=Cancer+Curb+Is+Studied

[cali]

55. I'm familiar with those studies: yes there are preliminary studies indicating that cannibinoids may

hold potential for cancer treatments, but the findings from studies conducted in mice are not necessarily evidence of efficacy in humans.

For those that think there is actual evidence that cannibinoids cure cancer, I suggest reading post 5 and post 18.

[AZ Progressive]

59. The Federal Government has discouraged studies of Marijuana because of the war on drugs

Meaning especially that its very difficult to get funding for such studies, so then how can Marijuana ever be proven that it could cure cancer if there can be any studies that will fairly test marijuana's effectiveness in treating cancer? This is the Federal Government's war on drugs fault.


Oh, and BTW, someone else said that Marijuana would easily be sold to cure cancer if indeed it cured cancer, well the drug companies are already making tens to hundreds of thousands of dollers per patient using chemotherapy drugs that they themselves hold the patent to, why would they let one little plant destroy their huge industry?

[cali]

72. there are studies elsewhere in the world. Great Britain, Spain

The U.S. is hardly the only place where research is conducted. I've posted abstracts and information from both countries.

[Dreamer Tatum]

48. I think pro-legalization people are extremely disingenuous about medicinal properties

especially as it relates to cancer treatment.

You're not for cannbis and/or any of its derivatives as a cancer treatment any more than you're for, say, oxycontin for pain management. You just want it to be legal so you can buy it and consume it and get high without any hassles.

Which is fine - I think it should be legal, too.

Be careful, however, advocating it because of its highly specialized application to cancer treatment, because what if you're successful and that's ALL you get? Fine - it is nearly certainly effective in treating cancer and its symptoms. Great. But most people just want to get high. I wish people would stop getting all high falutin and admit it.

[CanSocDem]

58. "...just want to get high...???"

Yes, because "getting high" means feeling good, being sensitive to ones physical and psychological needs. Choosing something other than pre-packaged crap to satisfy those needs. This alone should reduce the number of cancer cases.

The Canadian organization of medical doctors met last year in Saskatchewan and were asked to produce a definitive statement on Medical Marijuauna. After a couple of days of discussion the best they could come up with was to tell the patient who requested it (for anything), "The science is not that conclusive..." or that "Science cannot verify the effects you describe."

.

[Gravitycollapse]

60. "This alone should reduce the number of cancer cases." - Probably one of the dumber claims in here.

[Dreamer Tatum]

61. You mean I can avoid cancer by having more choice of drugs?

WOW - have the Nobel people heard about your discovery?

[cali]

78. I don't believe that. I think there are any number of people who actually buy into quackery

and I'm pro-legalization, but recognize that the claims re cannabinoids and cancer are overblown by many.

[cali]

56. Mark Sircus: QUACK, QUACK, QUACK

The complexity of cancer, part II: Enter the quacks


Respectful Insolence
The complexity of cancer, part II: Enter the quacks
Posted by Orac on August 25, 2011
(73)
Share on email More »

A couple of days ago, I couldn’t resist discussing a recent article in the New York Times about recent discoveries in cancer research. I considered the article to be a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. While the article did a pretty good job of describing recent discoveries about how noncoding RNA, the tumor microenvironment, and even microbes are involved in the pathogenesis of cancer, it had an annoying spin that portrayed some of these discoveries as being much shinier and newer than they actually are. At the time, I noted that quacks would certainly use this article as a jumping-off point to attack conventional medicine, and, of course, they did.

My expectation when I first encountered the NYT article was that someone like everyone’s favorite quack and all-around conspiracy theorist Mike Adams or everyone’s favorite entrepreneurial crank Joe Mercola would leap all over the article. To my surprise, neither did. On the other hand, another of my “favorite” crank organizations, namely the International Medical Veritas Association, leapt into the breach where the more famous cranks didn’t. One interesting thing I learned delving into this nonsense is that there are apparently two different “Medical Veritas” organizations. The first one (and the one I’m most familiar with) is Medical Veritas International and publishes the infamous Medical Veritas journal, which is is apparently no longer being published and used to bill itself as the “journal of medical truth.” It was also rabidly anti-vaccine and HIV/AIDS denialist. The second organization is the International Medical Veritas Association. This latter organization is headed up by an acupuncturist Mark Sircus, who writes the IMVA blog.

At this point I can’t help but wonder what this fascination is with “truth” among medical cranks. The fascination is so strong that we have not just one, but apparently two, cranks groups named, in essence, “medical truth.” As I always say, medicine and science are not about “truth.” They are about testing hypotheses, designing models, and developing theories that make useful predictions about how nature behaves. “Truth” is not what scientists are about, but it is apparently what cranks are about. Perhaps that’s why they favor such simplistic answers and cling to them with religious fervor. But I digress.

Sircus, it turns out, fancies himself a cancer expert and penned a lovely little ditty he entitled Cancer Still a Mystery to Medical Science. In many ways, that might be true, but as I’ve pointed out, just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever nonsense that catches your fancy, or, as Dara O’Briain puts it, “Science knows it doesn’t know everything; otherwise, it’d stop.” Sircus, in a single article, not only shows the arrogance of ignorance, he reveals a quack technique that I’ve noticed before but have never really seen done so blatantly:

<snip>

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/08/25/the-complexity-of-cancer-part-ii-enter-t/

great article.

[Dreamer Tatum]

63. I think his OMD syands for "Orchestral Manoeuvers in the Dark"

Quite a fan he must be.

[cali]

67. or "Only Make Deposits"- as in his bank account

[SidDithers]

70. I saw OMD live in 1985 or 1986...

probably '86.

Tesla girls, Tesla girls...

Good times.

Edit:

Gotta love the 80s.

Sid

[SidDithers]

64. Cancer is not one disease...

any article, or website, that says "cannabis cures cancer" is full of shit.

Sid

[cali]

66. quackery and nothing but quackery in the article.

this character Sircus is a real piece of work. He also claims that baking soda and maple syrup are cures for cancer. really.

[SidDithers]

69. Your sigline couldn't be more appropriate here...

Sid

[cali]

71. honestly, I find it truly disturbing that people here are calling this a great article

not to mention that someone who refers to herself as a medical professional is posting in support of it. I posted some actual information here which the science haters are avoiding as if it was plague. Who knew that there were so many uncritical, gullible, scientifically illiterate people here?

hell, some of these people would probably buy into humorism if it was repackaged in the right way. Maybe I'll try it and see.

[Zoeisright]

92. Yep.

There is no cure for cancer and probably will never be. It's too complicated with too many variables and unknowns. If cannabis cured cancer, no one would die from that disease. Because weed is easy to obtain.

[sagat]

74. "Dr. Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM (P) (acupuncturist, doctor of oriental and pastoral medicine)"

http://drsircus.com/

"Divine Cancer Mathematics"
"Technology from Heaven"

lol.

[cali]

76. Amazing that so many people are so stupid or gullible that they cite this guy

as an expert. He's a shearer of sheep.

[cali]

77. the asshole quack also claims baking soda and maple syrup cure cancer

http://drsircus.com/books/e-book/sodium-bicarbonate-second-edition

OK then.

[dionysus]

83. it has been shown in studies to help fight cancer, but wonder cure my ass.

[cali]

84. actually, it's been shown to have some efficacy in some studies in mice and rats

In other words, it is potentially useful in treatment but that's as far as it's gone. More research is needed. If people want to treat themselves with one of the regimens out there, that's their business, but spreading the lie that it's a cure is just so wrong.

[dionysus]

86. i know. i find it's peddled most by the "i wanna be able to smoke a joint walking down the street"

crowd, and it's silly. and yes, I smoke the stuff myself but i'm not gonna make ridiculous claims about it's miracle benefits.

[wildbilln864]

88. apparently smoking it.....

won't do the trick. You have to consume the concentrated cannabis oil daily for a time.....

[cali]

96. there have been no studies or clinical trials with humans on the efficacy of

of that.

Not saying it's not effective or is effective. I'm simply saying that the scientific evidence is scant.

[wildbilln864]

98. and there won't be! nt

[cali]

101. yes, there will. In Spain, there's already been a THC trial

and there are plans for trials in England.

Eventually there will be trials in the U.S. as Big Pharma figures out how to cash in.

[wildbilln864]

104. tell me how big pharma can cash in....

if everyone can grow it in their back yard.

[cali]

105. seriously? because it's more than likely that effective treatment

will require specific formulas that target specific cancers and the CB1 and CB2 receptors.

[wildbilln864]

110. thank you for.....

your opinion. But if I am ever diagnosed with cancer. I think I'll try it.

[wildbilln864]

89. Synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists inhibit tumor growth and metastasis of breast cancer.

more.

[cali]

95. you realize those are preliminary studies, right? Not human trials.

[wildbilln864]

99. a human trial:

here.

[cali]

102. that's encouraging and interesting. what it isn't is trial.

[wildbilln864]

91. & k & r. eom.

[BuddhaGirl]

109. Great info!

K & R