Weed
closed account (3qX21hU5)
True we are just arguing the same points over and over again so it is basically going no where. I will bow out of this thread now.
@Zereo
I will also bow out here as I find the same things being said over and over again.
My grammar nor my spelling is an indication of my education - I don't make a big deal of being able to spell words or write oxford style grammar - such folks don't really know science & maths that well.
The studies you have shown are only the ones that were allowed to be listed due to it not imposing same level of threat as a cure to cancer would and also due to them having other alernatives to those other conditions whereas they only have crap like chemo for cancer.
I will continue suggesting to people I know who have cancer to not use chemo at all but only cannabis. When more and more people get cured that way I will be telling people about it the very same way I am telling people now about the experiences I've had.
I stongly suspect I will after x amount of these experiments I will be able to report a much higher success rate than what chemo currently does.
Btw - chemo is no cure in the sense that it acts like a mechanism to only amputate the cancer cells. Something else have caused that cancer. So the cancer may very easily come back (which often does happen) after the cancer portions was "amputated" by the chemo.
Sad thing is, that even if I were to then report a stagering success rate of cannabis curing cancer compared to chemo, it will still not be accepted by the likes of yourself as you will still be waiting for the "reputable sources" to tell you so. And guess what - they won't be telling you so for reasons I have alreay mentioned over and over again.
I also did not say most doctors don't care about the people who have cancer - I said the medical industry - this is quite different - doctors are forced to say what the medical industry tells them even if they know better from personall experience.
Hope my spelling and grammar can be understood by you - I did not have time to run my post through a spell and grammar checker - maybe this site should implement one online - that way someone like me don't have to worry about trivial crap like that and someone like you can easily understand what I'm saying.
I will also bow out here as I find the same things being said over and over again.
My grammar nor my spelling is an indication of my education - I don't make a big deal of being able to spell words or write oxford style grammar - such folks don't really know science & maths that well.
The studies you have shown are only the ones that were allowed to be listed due to it not imposing same level of threat as a cure to cancer would and also due to them having other alernatives to those other conditions whereas they only have crap like chemo for cancer.
I will continue suggesting to people I know who have cancer to not use chemo at all but only cannabis. When more and more people get cured that way I will be telling people about it the very same way I am telling people now about the experiences I've had.
I stongly suspect I will after x amount of these experiments I will be able to report a much higher success rate than what chemo currently does.
Btw - chemo is no cure in the sense that it acts like a mechanism to only amputate the cancer cells. Something else have caused that cancer. So the cancer may very easily come back (which often does happen) after the cancer portions was "amputated" by the chemo.
Sad thing is, that even if I were to then report a stagering success rate of cannabis curing cancer compared to chemo, it will still not be accepted by the likes of yourself as you will still be waiting for the "reputable sources" to tell you so. And guess what - they won't be telling you so for reasons I have alreay mentioned over and over again.
I also did not say most doctors don't care about the people who have cancer - I said the medical industry - this is quite different - doctors are forced to say what the medical industry tells them even if they know better from personall experience.
Hope my spelling and grammar can be understood by you - I did not have time to run my post through a spell and grammar checker - maybe this site should implement one online - that way someone like me don't have to worry about trivial crap like that and someone like you can easily understand what I'm saying.
Many web browsers have spellcheckers built in, and it's not trivial, it's actually really important to be able to write coherently. If you can't be bothered to make sure your posts are unambiguous, why should anyone bother reading them? Don't be so self-absorbed.
There was one statement I remade to remove my ambiguity because the person reading it was too dumb to remove the ambiguity themselves by using the context of the converstion - hence I did not spell out everything I intended to say. I now see its required.
What else of my posts was ambiguous? If nothing else then it implies that my posts were understood (evidence by subsequent responses) and the comments made about my grammar is nothing more than cheap distractions from the real issue.
What else of my posts was ambiguous? If nothing else then it implies that my posts were understood (evidence by subsequent responses) and the comments made about my grammar is nothing more than cheap distractions from the real issue.
Recommending anyone use cannabis instead of chemo is extremely irresponsible. Chemo has been proven to fight cancer, AFAIK no study has ever proven cannabis to prevent or cure cancer. Now, I would recommend chemo patients use as it helps restore appetite which chemo reduces.
| Chemo has been proven to fight cancer |
Then why do they still not have a cure for cancer? Why are so many cancer patients NOT cured by chemotherapy?
Why do they refuse to perform the required clinical trials with cannabis to verify if what the rest of us is saying is true.
Also as pointed out earlier - chemo does NOT fight cancer - it merely removes/aputates the cancerous parts.
No, radiation removes cancer, chemo fights it. I never said chemo or anything else cures cancer.
Chemo doesn't do a good job of isolating and only attacking the cancer, but it does a better job fighting it then anything else. I think I was wrong about radiation, I think it kills the cancer cells stopping meiosis not remove them.
@SIK
No, he wasn't too dumb, your sentence was badly worded. Anyone ought to be able to see that. If it seems obvious to you, that's because you wrote it. Of course you understand what you were trying to say. Your wording was ambiguous, so it's not Zereo's fault that he misinterpreted what you were saying, it's your fault for not writing clearly.
The reason there isn't a cure for cancer is because, as I said earlier in the thread, cancer is not a single disease. It's an umbrella term for a group of somewhat similar diseases.
You have no evidence to back up your assertion except for stories that, as far as anyone knows, could be made up. Also, you seem to be very sure that it was the cannabis that actually cured the cancer in your story, but you can't assume that just because B happened after A, A caused B. You have to isolate it to prove that it's not a coincidence or your imagination. This is why scientists do controlled studies rather than just writing down what they think happened. They know humans have a lot of cognitive biases and an amazing ability for self-deception, so they prevent that by using controls and peer review. You aren't doing that, you're just hearing "I smoked weed and went into spontaneous remission" and extrapolating that the weed caused the cancer to go into remission, which is totally irresponsible. You can't possibly know that without studying it properly. For all you know, the cancer went into remission in spite of the weed, not because of it: it's been shown that cannabinoids can actually increase cancer cell growth*. This is why people are not listening to you.
As a matter of fact, there is evidence that THC can kill cancer cells, which disproves your assertion that scientists aren't researching it because of pressure from Big Pharm. That's far from it being a cure, however - can and does are two different things. So maybe you should shut up about the medical industry and how weed is a miracle cure and stop aggressively asserting your flawed beliefs as fact.
* http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/#can-treat ("under some circumstances, cannabinoids can actually encourage cancer cells to grow")
No, he wasn't too dumb, your sentence was badly worded. Anyone ought to be able to see that. If it seems obvious to you, that's because you wrote it. Of course you understand what you were trying to say. Your wording was ambiguous, so it's not Zereo's fault that he misinterpreted what you were saying, it's your fault for not writing clearly.
The reason there isn't a cure for cancer is because, as I said earlier in the thread, cancer is not a single disease. It's an umbrella term for a group of somewhat similar diseases.
You have no evidence to back up your assertion except for stories that, as far as anyone knows, could be made up. Also, you seem to be very sure that it was the cannabis that actually cured the cancer in your story, but you can't assume that just because B happened after A, A caused B. You have to isolate it to prove that it's not a coincidence or your imagination. This is why scientists do controlled studies rather than just writing down what they think happened. They know humans have a lot of cognitive biases and an amazing ability for self-deception, so they prevent that by using controls and peer review. You aren't doing that, you're just hearing "I smoked weed and went into spontaneous remission" and extrapolating that the weed caused the cancer to go into remission, which is totally irresponsible. You can't possibly know that without studying it properly. For all you know, the cancer went into remission in spite of the weed, not because of it: it's been shown that cannabinoids can actually increase cancer cell growth*. This is why people are not listening to you.
As a matter of fact, there is evidence that THC can kill cancer cells, which disproves your assertion that scientists aren't researching it because of pressure from Big Pharm. That's far from it being a cure, however - can and does are two different things. So maybe you should shut up about the medical industry and how weed is a miracle cure and stop aggressively asserting your flawed beliefs as fact.
* http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/#can-treat ("under some circumstances, cannabinoids can actually encourage cancer cells to grow")
@chrisname
As I said, I did not think it was needed to spell enverything out in detail to ensure that it reads with 100% no ambguity - I was taking a short cut in my post. If you read the rest of the context of the debate it would become very clear what was intended. Basically assuming the meaning he took (nature of ambiguity) would clearly lead to many contradictions w.r.t. the rest/context of the entire debate. Thus as also pointed out I will try to word things in detail when responding to such people as yourself or Zereo.
Nice article provided in your link. Unfortunately they conceded to only tell you only half the story. They should perform proper human trials with cannabis and the deritives like the oil. Performing experiments on non human subjects leave the question of too many other variables being introduced. For instance, we humans have natural built in THC receptors within our brains. This then indicates that humans may have a higher affinity for the desirable traits brought forth by cannabis use than the "lab rats".
If they were to perform actual clinical tests they would most likely be faced with the ultimate conclusion that cannabis does indeed cure cancer and then won't be able to successfully deny it anymore as they will have real living witnesses that they themselves have cured through the use of cannabis.
So maybe you should take your own advice and shut up about telling halve truths that is only coming from "reputable sources" that refuse to give the theory a true test.
As I said, I did not think it was needed to spell enverything out in detail to ensure that it reads with 100% no ambguity - I was taking a short cut in my post. If you read the rest of the context of the debate it would become very clear what was intended. Basically assuming the meaning he took (nature of ambiguity) would clearly lead to many contradictions w.r.t. the rest/context of the entire debate. Thus as also pointed out I will try to word things in detail when responding to such people as yourself or Zereo.
Nice article provided in your link. Unfortunately they conceded to only tell you only half the story. They should perform proper human trials with cannabis and the deritives like the oil. Performing experiments on non human subjects leave the question of too many other variables being introduced. For instance, we humans have natural built in THC receptors within our brains. This then indicates that humans may have a higher affinity for the desirable traits brought forth by cannabis use than the "lab rats".
If they were to perform actual clinical tests they would most likely be faced with the ultimate conclusion that cannabis does indeed cure cancer and then won't be able to successfully deny it anymore as they will have real living witnesses that they themselves have cured through the use of cannabis.
So maybe you should take your own advice and shut up about telling halve truths that is only coming from "reputable sources" that refuse to give the theory a true test.
It also seems very strange how many people who smoked weed or used cannabis oil had their cancer go into spontaneous remission.
Another thing to consider is that chemo therapy may also be claiming alot more success than it should (which is still dismally low) due to some patients on chemo using cannabis as an aid for combating the nausea. If cannabis does cure cancer then it may very well be the cannabis instead of the chemo that cured them.
Yet when it comes to taking the ceremonial bow, chemo is the one that is given the complete credit.
Another thing to consider is that chemo therapy may also be claiming alot more success than it should (which is still dismally low) due to some patients on chemo using cannabis as an aid for combating the nausea. If cannabis does cure cancer then it may very well be the cannabis instead of the chemo that cured them.
Yet when it comes to taking the ceremonial bow, chemo is the one that is given the complete credit.
You can hypothesize that weed cures cancer all day but without hard scientifically obtained data that proves (or at least corroborates) your claims it means nothing. I'm not saying your wrong, in fact I would love if weed did help fight or cure cancer, but I need evidence.
Gonna go ahead and jump head first into this conversation.
Opiates are used often to manage cancer pains as well. I propose that opiates cure cancer.
You're extrapolating information where there might be none. You can never infer causation from correlation.
You're telling chrisname that he's wrong for citing scientific studies, and combating that only with information obtained illogically from personal observation. I'm not saying you're wrong, it would be fantastic if you're right, but you can't assert something and expect anyone to respect it unless you have obtained the results from accepted methods. Inferring that cannabis can cure cancer in the way that you're doing it is like me saying my high IQ comes from my large shoe size. I have observed that I have both. But one didn't necessarily cause the other.
| SIK wrote: |
|---|
| it may very well be the cannabis instead of the chemo that cured them. |
You're extrapolating information where there might be none. You can never infer causation from correlation.
You're telling chrisname that he's wrong for citing scientific studies, and combating that only with information obtained illogically from personal observation. I'm not saying you're wrong, it would be fantastic if you're right, but you can't assert something and expect anyone to respect it unless you have obtained the results from accepted methods. Inferring that cannabis can cure cancer in the way that you're doing it is like me saying my high IQ comes from my large shoe size. I have observed that I have both. But one didn't necessarily cause the other.
Last edited on
@SIK
Lots of animals have cannabinoid receptors*, not just humans. They're not specifically for THC, either; they're actually for endocannabinoids which we use for cell signalling. THC just so happens to be able to bind to them because it has a similar enough shape (being a cannabinoid) to the endocannabinoids that we use.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid ("These receptors are common in animals, and have been found in mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles")
Lots of animals have cannabinoid receptors*, not just humans. They're not specifically for THC, either; they're actually for endocannabinoids which we use for cell signalling. THC just so happens to be able to bind to them because it has a similar enough shape (being a cannabinoid) to the endocannabinoids that we use.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid ("These receptors are common in animals, and have been found in mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles")
Last edited on
@chrisname
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).
@Thumper
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:
Another: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/marijuana-fights-cancer-and-helps-manage-side-effects-researchers-find.html
More links: http://boards.cannabis.com/medicinal-cannabis-health/199594-cannabis-cures-cancer.html
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).
@Thumper
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. |
Another: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/marijuana-fights-cancer-and-helps-manage-side-effects-researchers-find.html
More links: http://boards.cannabis.com/medicinal-cannabis-health/199594-cannabis-cures-cancer.html
Last edited on
please excuse previous post for being late - was called to location with very strict network security.
I know this is a necro post, but relevant to discussion has just arose.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51148243/ns/business-press_releases/t/federal-government-reports-marijuana-effective-combatting-certain-cancers-reports-adsi/#.UUDVFIXoU7B
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51148243/ns/business-press_releases/t/federal-government-reports-marijuana-effective-combatting-certain-cancers-reports-adsi/#.UUDVFIXoU7B