General Discussion

cali

(114,904 posts)

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

Mon Aug 5, 2013, 04:43 PM

Aug 2013

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

110 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

More on Cannabis cures cancer..... [View all] Bennyboy Aug 2013 OP

more bullshit. Really fucking irresponsible bullshit at that. cali Aug 2013 #1

Hemp seed oil apparently cured a little precancerous skin lesion kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #2

First of all, as I said, marijuana and related products like hemp oil cali Aug 2013 #3

And what makes you an expert??? felix_numinous Aug 2013 #7

I didn't say I was an expert, hon. cali Aug 2013 #8

I have cancer and take it felix_numinous Aug 2013 #10

First of all, I hope things go well for you with the protocol cali Aug 2013 #12

Treatment is a better word felix_numinous Aug 2013 #14

Don't waste your time LordGlenconner Aug 2013 #15

Thanks-- I once had hope felix_numinous Aug 2013 #17

I wouldn't give up hope LordGlenconner Aug 2013 #23

so you're claiming that people who point out that there is no scientific evidence cali Aug 2013 #31

oh, ffs. I am not anti-pot. I use it medicinally for RSD cali Aug 2013 #19

I agree, they are a waste of time. Rex Aug 2013 #22

What's really interesting is this particular anti-pot DUer admits to having some success with kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #42

what's interesting to me is that cali Aug 2013 #52

You obviously didn't bother to read the hundreds of published, peer-reviewed articles kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #41

you clearly haven't read them and don't begin to know how to read even an abstract, cali Aug 2013 #51

Take some time and watch spartan61 Aug 2013 #4

I didn't say there wasn't something to it. Worthy of more research cali Aug 2013 #5

there won't be any clinical reasearch because.... wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #79

oh for pity's sake. The U.S. is not the only country that conducts medical research cali Aug 2013 #81

you lost me there... wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #82

that's the author of the article in the op. this thread is about the claims he makes cali Aug 2013 #85

ok so ?? wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #87

& one more.... wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #80

Glad you know all. n/t BlueToTheBone Aug 2013 #6

Link to your peer-reviewed study? tabasco Aug 2013 #11

not sure what you're asking for here cali Aug 2013 #18

If you did your homework you would know that the THC isn't the most beneficial kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #44

Guzman's studies and one clinical cali Aug 2013 #49

Right? Rex Aug 2013 #25

jaysus, hon. do you have problems reading? try post 18 cali Aug 2013 #30

You can take that "hon" and cram it. n/t leftyladyfrommo Aug 2013 #100

try reading post 18. cali Aug 2013 #103

Which is about as keen and as informed a query as asking for a peer-reviewed study concluding that C LanternWaste Aug 2013 #29

Wow, what a rude thing to say. Rex Aug 2013 #20

It's a fact. And I'm offended by snake oil claims that purport to cure cancer cali Aug 2013 #26

Who's the one here with the anti-science mind frame? Seems like you are, since you are ignoring my kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #45

Reminds me of all the 'cancer cured' claims.. when you read the fine print, it's in mice (again.) X_Digger Aug 2013 #90

exactly. It's either in mice or rats cali Aug 2013 #97

what, no response to actual facts and evidence? cali Aug 2013 #38

Yeah, dude's being a real dick here Bennyboy Aug 2013 #50

Why am I angry? The same reason that all wingnut science deniers make me angry cali Aug 2013 #53

�Natural News� Takes Idiotic to the Next Level cali Aug 2013 #54

The National Cancer Institute says otherwise... Bennyboy Aug 2013 #57

yes. I've read that. Do you understand what pre-clinical means? cali Aug 2013 #62

K&R B Calm Aug 2013 #9

Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Aug 2013 #13

Please be careful when posting stuff like this War Horse Aug 2013 #16

Ignoring science: Not just for wingnuts. cali Aug 2013 #21

We medical people don't use the word "cure" but rarely when it comes to cancer or any other kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #46

no shit sherlock. of course medical personnel and scientists rarely use the word cure re cancer. cali Aug 2013 #65

Great article, despite the anti-pot crowd. Rex Aug 2013 #24

right. I'm anti-pot. so false. cali Aug 2013 #27

You use pot but yet you are anti-pot. Sounds like typical RW "I got mine, screw you" BS. kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #73

lol. you're careening from ridiculous to absurd cali Aug 2013 #75

I'm just quoting you. In this thread you proclaimed that you were anti-pot. kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #93

more making stuff up. FAIL. where in this thread do I say anything about being anti-pot? cali Aug 2013 #94

I'm pretty sure pro-science does equal anti-pot... LanternWaste Aug 2013 #32

I'm pro-science AND pro-pot. Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it. kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #47

well one out of two isn't bad. cali Aug 2013 #68

While it may be of benefit to cancer patients, the use of the MineralMan Aug 2013 #28

That article is not just hype. The author is lying by misrepresentation cali Aug 2013 #34

I was attempting to be somewhat polite. MineralMan Aug 2013 #36

sometimes calling it as it is, is important. this is reprehensible stuff cali Aug 2013 #37

My tendency is to discuss things politely. That's how I roll. MineralMan Aug 2013 #106

don't pat yourself too heavily on the back. I've you be plenty snarky cali Aug 2013 #107

Do you? Shall we compare transparency pages, then? MineralMan Aug 2013 #108

Then should I presume that heavy pot smokers don't catch Cancer? 1-Old-Man Aug 2013 #33

Yeah, but that's not from the active ingredients that have been studied or are being used cali Aug 2013 #35

So much for my critical thinking skills ... as if I'm going to believe hemp oil cures cancer ..> YOHABLO Aug 2013 #39

Like this? RandiFan1290 Aug 2013 #43

For any of the doubters... AZ Progressive Aug 2013 #40

I'm familiar with those studies: yes there are preliminary studies indicating that cannibinoids may cali Aug 2013 #55

The Federal Government has discouraged studies of Marijuana because of the war on drugs AZ Progressive Aug 2013 #59

there are studies elsewhere in the world. Great Britain, Spain cali Aug 2013 #72

I think pro-legalization people are extremely disingenuous about medicinal properties Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #48

"...just want to get high...???" CanSocDem Aug 2013 #58

"This alone should reduce the number of cancer cases." - Probably one of the dumber claims in here. Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #60

You mean I can avoid cancer by having more choice of drugs? Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #61

I don't believe that. I think there are any number of people who actually buy into quackery cali Aug 2013 #78

Mark Sircus: QUACK, QUACK, QUACK cali Aug 2013 #56

I think his OMD syands for "Orchestral Manoeuvers in the Dark" Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #63

or "Only Make Deposits"- as in his bank account cali Aug 2013 #67

I saw OMD live in 1985 or 1986... SidDithers Aug 2013 #70

Cancer is not one disease... SidDithers Aug 2013 #64

quackery and nothing but quackery in the article. cali Aug 2013 #66

Your sigline couldn't be more appropriate here... SidDithers Aug 2013 #69

honestly, I find it truly disturbing that people here are calling this a great article cali Aug 2013 #71

Yep. Zoeisright Aug 2013 #92

"Dr. Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM (P) (acupuncturist, doctor of oriental and pastoral medicine)" sagat Aug 2013 #74

Amazing that so many people are so stupid or gullible that they cite this guy cali Aug 2013 #76

the asshole quack also claims baking soda and maple syrup cure cancer cali Aug 2013 #77

it has been shown in studies to help fight cancer, but wonder cure my ass. dionysus Aug 2013 #83

actually, it's been shown to have some efficacy in some studies in mice and rats cali Aug 2013 #84

i know. i find it's peddled most by the "i wanna be able to smoke a joint walking down the street" dionysus Aug 2013 #86

apparently smoking it..... wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #88

there have been no studies or clinical trials with humans on the efficacy of cali Aug 2013 #96

and there won't be! nt wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #98

yes, there will. In Spain, there's already been a THC trial cali Aug 2013 #101

tell me how big pharma can cash in.... wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #104

seriously? because it's more than likely that effective treatment cali Aug 2013 #105

thank you for..... wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #110

Synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists inhibit tumor growth and metastasis of breast cancer. wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #89

you realize those are preliminary studies, right? Not human trials. cali Aug 2013 #95

a human trial: wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #99

that's encouraging and interesting. what it isn't is trial. cali Aug 2013 #102

& k & r. eom. wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #91

Great info! BuddhaGirl Aug 2013 #109