Many animals have an endocannabinoid system. This system in humans is however evolved specifically over thousands of years to be capable of handling the types of cancers and other imbalances that human beings are more predisposed to contracting.
Thus testing the effectiveness that cannabinoids exert on animal subjects with cancers induced artificially that predominantly occurs naturally within humans is bound to give misleading and unfavourable results in many cases.
The ECS of humans will handle these conditions differently than the ECS of many of these animal test subjects.
The endocannabinoid system is a natural system that regualates various functions within the body to assist with aspects that would otherwise cause the non activated cancer cells within the body to become activated, ie it protects healthy cells against sick cells.
Our bodies are thus equiped via this system to naturally deal with the prevention of cancer (we all have cancer cells in our bodies - just a matter of keeping them from being activated). When this system however becomes overwhelmed (as is case in current day with more cancer causing agents in our daily lives) the cancer cells are likely to become activated hence leading to cancer.
Cannabinoids have thus showed positive effects in reducing cancer cells due to them enhancing the overwhelmed ECS. Someone on this forum indicated that regardless of this fact, this is still miles off from being a cure. This however isn't the opinion shared by many scientist who are currently experinmenting with using cannabinoids for treating cancers.
To them, the effects that cannabinoids have on cancer cells (ability to promote death of cancer cells without affecting healthy cells, ability to reduce growth of cells, ability to starve cancer cells from blood stream and creating new blood vessels and abiltity to stop cell multiplication) all translate to being a cure.
A number of convincing lab tests has already been performed by qualified people on this matter. These results are however discarded by the "Repuable sources" or due to current legislation would cause these results to be inadmissable and likely cause these scientist to face prosecution for proceeding with such tests unofficially.
These results are exactly the same results that will be brought to table one day by the "reputable sources" when they have decided to do so. The only difference is that it will have the "reputable sources" stamp of approval on it.
Given that cancer is currently a 200 billion dollar a year industry it is understandble why the reputable sources will milk this for all its worth - ie move process very slowly (each day it is delayed relates to sizable profits to themselves).
Why would they not proceed to real human clinical trials.
Are they concerned that they will kill someone - this has never happened before - no one has ever died from taking cannabis.
So, since cannabis is very safe, the only real issue I see is that they won't have the luxary of turning the wheel as slowly as they currently are (if cannabis trials prove successfull in curing more cancers than chemo does and actually have a much higher success rate overall).
Correlation does not infer causality - agreed. But after looking at the scientific properties of cannabis (cannabinoids in particular) and noting its effects in "unofficial trials" (like done by some doctors or Rick) we can logically conclude that since it was the only variant in all the patients, that it is likely the cause of the cure.
The are currently people who suffered from advanced, recurrent glioblastoma multiforme - these tumors are not really treatable by coventional cures. These people have however exceeded their predicted life span by simply smoking cannabis regularly every day.
I very much doubt any of these people are going to leave off cannabis smoking in favour of conventional treatment - this would most likely result in their own death sentence.
Your IQ / shoe size analagy doesn't fit here at all. Try this analogy:
Many people went to a function. Some people who were at the function became very ill with running stomach.
It is then discovered that all these people who became ill, ate the potatoe salad, ie that was the only thing commonly consumed by all these sick people.
It is then logical to assume that the potatoe salad was the cause even if the host of the function refuse to let the potatoe salad be tested.
Opiates has unfortunately also not been spoken of in the same way as cannabis w.r.t. the cannabinoids having cancer treating propertie - so that argument also falls flat..
So far studies revealed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20649976
There own conclusion:
|Taken together, these results provide a strong preclinical evidence for the use of cannabinoid-based therapies for the management of ErbB2-positive breast cancer.|
More links: http://boards.cannabis.com/medicinal-cannabis-health/199594-cannabis-cures-cancer.html