General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHOW and WHY Does Cannabis Cure Cancer
Last edited Sat Aug 17, 2013, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)
Chemisse
(30,813 posts)The cannaboids attach to the cancer cell receptors, then "They can tell the cell to die". How exactly? And why would they not have the same effect on healthy cells?
I am pretty skeptical.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I don't think is so much on a biochemical level, but rather it works more like the placebo effect.
I strongly believe in the power of mind over the body.
There are countless examples where people have been cured simply because they believed it 100%.
I believe pot gives people that "kick" they need to fight and defeat cancer.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)I have long held belief that it is ALL a "placebo effect". I can't remember when I first started believing this, but it would probably correlate positively with the time I started using cannabis..........and discovered that it cured any malady that I could be talked into believing.
.
Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)...instead of reproducing like they are supposed to do. There have been some cases of cancer cells getting the giggles and laughing themselves to death (apoptosis giggliosa).
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Response to Chemisse (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)It may be a treatment for it but that doesn't make it a cure and that video doesn't make the case. Only one study has been done on humans. that was in Spain and it was decidedly inconclusive. More research is needed. More funding is needed. that's not happening in this country and it's only happening in a limited form in other countries. The research done has been of rats, mice and on tissue.
I wish people would stop touting it as a cure. It's cruel. It's one thing to call it a potential treatment or even a treatment, but that doesn't make it a cure. Some of the worst quacks (and I'm not including Grinspoon in that category) are out there trying to profit off the suffering of those with cancer.
mucifer
(23,554 posts)Chemisse
(30,813 posts)from the attention that cannibus does deserve as a treatment for chemo side effects.
Segami
(14,923 posts)But then again, you already labeled yourself "pretty skeptical".
cali
(114,904 posts)and posting these you tube testimonials simply is NOT scientific evidence in any way. I can post youtube testimonials for baking soda claims that that cures cancer.
More research is needed, but please don't tout a cure when there is scant evidence to support it. One clinical study has been done with humans with brain cancer tumors and cannabis. It wasn't with hemp oil but with a THC solution intracranially. The results were not terribly encouraging.
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/full/6603236a.html
Here is a good British summation of the evidence to date on cannabinoids and cancer research
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Even Sanjay Gupta said that. The benefits of Cannabis are not funded, only studies looking for the harm in it. In addition, there were initial studies that showed that Cannabis reduced tumors in mice in the mid 70's, but shortly after the funding was pulled and the research was thus ended by President Ford in 1976.
cali
(114,904 posts)Guzman's study was in Spain. I suggest you click the link to the U.K. site. It has some pretty comprehensive info. Yes, we need to change the climate in the U.S. and enable more research, but studies on mice and on tissue are NOT evidence of a cure.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)You don't think that would hurt the ability to get research funding?
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)"But thats the lab what about clinical research involving people with cancer? Results have been published from only one clinical trial testing whether cannabinoids can treat cancer in patients, led by Dr Manuel Guzman and his team in Spain. Nine people with advanced, terminal glioblastoma multiforme an aggressive brain tumour were given highly purified THC through a tube directly into their brain.
Eight peoples cancers showed some kind of response to the treatment, and one didnt respond at all. All the patients died within a year, as might be expected for people with cancer this advanced."
I may be mistaken but that's not a normal way of administering thc / cannabis. And I don't think thats the method that these people who claim to have treated their cancer have done. There may be differences that may not be known. I don't think its a representatative study.
Even if Cannabis doesn't cure all cancers, it might still be better than the toll that chemotherapy does on people, which itself can kill patients.
cali
(114,904 posts)the evidence simply does not exist. If people choose to go on the much touted hemp oil protocol that's certainly their right but the vast majority of those promoting it are hucksters out to make bucks.
Btw, there was no control group in Guzman's trial so it's difficult to assess.
People's claims of cures are NOT scientific evidence. Take them as you wish, just don't claim that the constitute scientific evidence that cannabinnoids cure cancer.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)some real results from research. But I agree. Right now there just isn't enough research and not enough evidence yet to support the claim that it cures it.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)develop it.
cali
(114,904 posts)reclassification as well as funding for research. but that's another story. The endless bogus claims that there's proof that marijuana cures cancer, are just that; bogus.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Chemisse
(30,813 posts)It means I require a lot more solid evidence before I break out the celebratory bong.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)The SETH group's President, Dr. Sean McAllister, is a molecular pharmacologist at California Pacific Medical Center Research Institute. Dr. McAllister earned his bachelor's degree in Biology and his doctoral degree in Pharmacology and Toxicology from the Medical College of Virginia Commonwealth University. Dr. McAllister's doctorate research focused on the interactions of cannabinoids with their endogenous receptors. He completed postdoctoral training at the Forbes Norris Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Research Center where he was part of the first group to discover that the cannabinoid, THC, was effective at delaying the onset of ALS in a genetic mouse model. Findings led to a small pilot clinical trial with positive outcomes. Dr. McAllister was trained and funded by the National Institutes of Health and has been studying endocannabinoid pharmacology for over a decade.
http://www.thesethgroup.org/#!the-seth-group-home/mainPage
cali
(114,904 posts)what's interesting is the fury that erupts when those peddling this unproven claim, are presented with facts. They lie. and then lie some more and make outlandish accusations.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Science? Bah, man, that's just big pharma keeping the man down. I hear they came up with an engine that runs on water, too..
ConcernedCanuk
(13,509 posts).
.
.
But I DO know that it sure eases the pain and suffering.
That's good enough reason to legalise it methinks.
Who the hell gets violent on MJ?
No one I've ever known.
CC
cali
(114,904 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)And studied in an unbiased manner (which the stupid War on Drugs and propaganda like Reefer Madness has prevented.)
I think that there's a fear that if marijuana even is shown to cure or effectively treat some cancers, then there's a lot of blood in the hands of people who have promoted the War on Drugs.
cali
(114,904 posts)it's a broad group of diseases. That's one reason why claiming that marijuana cures cancer is so bogus.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Even if it cured one or a few it would be a great thing.
cali
(114,904 posts)I explained to you one reason why that claim is so bogus.
your grasp on this seems slight.
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)Different types of cancer require different treatments right now. Highly unlikely that there would be one therapeutic agent that would effectively fight all of them.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)overgrowth of abnormal cells that no longer provoke a defensive reaction from the body's immune system, which ordinarily recognizes that the cells are not obeying "the rules", ie ceasing growth/reproduction when they butt up against neighbors.
Any organ can be involved, but it's all the same malfunction. Cancer cells arise in our bodies ALL THE TIME. Our immune system normally recognizes them and kills them. "Cancer" just means that the immune system has failed to recognize a particular abnormal cell and its progeny. It is ultimately a malfunction of a component of the immune system.
cali
(114,904 posts)This is standard info, oh great medical expert. Yes, they all have in common metastasis
<snip>
Cancer is not just one disease but rather a group of diseases, all of which cause cells in the body to change and grow out of control. Cancers are classified either according to the kind of fluid or tissue from which they originate, or according to the location in the body where they first developed. In addition, some cancers are of mixed types.
<snip>
http://cancer.stanford.edu/information/cancerOverview.html
have some more to chew on, great medical expert. Oh, of course YOU know better than all the real experts in the field. How could I forget that.
<snip>
Cancer is a generic term for a large group of diseases that can affect any part of the body. Other terms used are malignant tumours and neoplasms. One defining feature of cancer is the rapid creation of abnormal cells that grow beyond their usual boundaries, and which can then invade adjoining parts of the body and spread to other organs. This process is referred to as metastasis. Metastases are the major cause of death from cancer.
<snip>
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en/
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/index?gclid=CLKp4diQhbkCFcOe4AodqREAxA
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-29/less-risky-growths-need-less-frightening-name-than-cancer.html
Go tell Stanford, the WHO, the American CancerSociety and virtually EVERY OTHER REPUTABLE SOURCE that YOU know better.
cali
(114,904 posts)Last edited Sat Aug 17, 2013, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)
tough.
defensive much? As with all science, facts are true until they're proven false. Science changes, what we know today is a hell of a lot different than what we know 100 years ago. I've been using cannabis since a teenager and I've had PTSD since grade school. It's the only thing that's kept me from going over the edge. Just because it hasn't been proven to kill cancer now doesn't that will be case from now on and into the future. More research has to be done on something that's been forbidden fruit for a long time.
Now, back away from the ledge and smoke a bowl.
-p
cali
(114,904 posts)falsifiability.
I use marijuana too for the extreme pain that goes with having CRPS. I find it helpful. that's not science.
Your anecdote isn't science.
Grab a clue.
cause you've got science all down.
My example had nothing to do with cancer and science but was merely there to point out how it help's me.
If you going to be this vindictive and paranoid about being challenged then there's a telling fucking clue.
oh and it's "get" a clue.
-p
cali
(114,904 posts)They are what they are whether you like it or not.
I post links to actual credible facts about marijuana and cancer.
You call names.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Something visual that you could see and record as the cancer cells become less and less? Maybe even do a trial based study on the drug?
cali
(114,904 posts)More funding and studies are needed.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)...that which can take a heavy toll and certainly not always work, not to mention the disincentive for the drug industry to find a cure, is a good thing?
cali
(114,904 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)The Cheech and Chong comedian credits his Canadian doctor and marijuana use with beating the disease.
Tommy Chong has beaten prostate cancer, the comedian announced in a post on CelebStoner earlier this week.
Tommy Chong on His Prostate Cancer: 'Cannabis Is a Cure'
He credited his care under a doctor in Victoria, BC, who Chong said changed his diet and gave him supplements. Chong said he treated his cancer with hash oil and a session with healer Adam Dreamhealer.
That's right, I kicked cancer's ass! Chong wrote. So the magic plant does cure cancer with the right diet and supplements. I'm due for another blood test, MRI, etc., but I feel the best I've felt in years. And now for a celebration joint of the finest Kush...
I know some of you will attack Adam Dreamhealer but Chong doesn't attribute it to any holistic crap but to hash oil and a special diet.
He mentioned in 2012 that he got prostate cancer, probably since he hadn't been smoking marijuana in 3 years.
I will mention though that he was diagnosed with Stage 1 cancer, so he caught it early.
cali
(114,904 posts)Response to Segami (Original post)
Post removed
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm pro-legalization of pot. I'm for taking apart the restrictions that prevent more research into marijuana and cancer and providing substantial funds to do so. I've said that repeatedly. I haven't denied the positive evidence.
How on earth is that position concurrent with your false and disgusting charges, bennyboy?
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I will wait for more scientific research coming out of Isreal to make up my mind if it is a cancer cure or not.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)any post, article or video claiming cannabis cures cancer is complete horseshit.
Cancer is not a single disease, but many hundreds of diseases. What is effective on certain types of cancer cannot be assumed to be effective against all types of cancer.
Sid
gulliver
(13,186 posts)Seems like it might be a splice job. That first guy has no caption, is hiding a ponytail, and wearing an ill-fitting suit. The Low Carb Bible book on the shelf behind him is upside down. Then suddenly we are getting a Peter Coyote-esque voice-over with high dollar graphics.
One of the interviewees calls for what is needed to claim a cancer curein depth scientific studies. There have to be double-blind investigations and controls for things like the placebo effect. I don't see how that happens with marijuana though. What do you give someone that has all of the psychoactive effects of marijuana but isn't marijuana? If you want chocolate chip cookies all of a sudden and Genesis sounds like good music, you got the marijuana.
I don't think we need marijuana to cure cancer to justify making it legal. Its illegality is a social cancer of the first order.
Response to Segami (Original post)
Go Vols This message was self-deleted by its author.
olddots
(10,237 posts)helps with apatite and the cloudy feelings from pain meds . Does it cure cancer ? probably not but it sure helps more than alcohol which most of the repukian turd maggots are strung out on .
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)snip/
" Doctors said 2-year-old Cash Hyde would likely die after they found a stage 4 brain tumor surrounding his optic nerve just a year ago this week.
And he nearly did. After being subjected to seven different chemotherapy drugs, the little boy from Missoula, Montana suffered septic shock, a stroke and pulmonary hemorrhaging.
Cash was so sick he went 40 days without eating. His organs were threatening to shut down. His father, Mike Hyde, intervened, slipping cannabis oil into his son's feeding tube.
In Montana, medical marijuana is legal. Hyde had used it himself to treat his attention deficit disorder. When Cash was diagnosed in May 2010, Mike got him a marijuana card and purchased the drug from his own supplier.
Cash, now 3, made a miraculous recovery at Primary Children's Hospital in Salt Lake City, but his father's bold action -- taken behind doctors' backs -- has raised serious questions about a parent's role in medical treatment. "
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)eat and get stronger, but since he was on chemo there is no way to know if it was the marijuana or the chemo or both that killed the cancer. that is why more research is needed.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)the cancer industry along with the drug companies along with the oil companies do not want that research to happen.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)do it here, but at least somebody is doing it.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)I hope it's not compromised by corporate money.
Segami
(14,923 posts)Worth a listen:
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)snip/
"...Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta9-THC),"
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Nothing cures cancer. There is no single substance ever proven to cure it. If weed did cure cancer, everyone who had cancer would try it and live.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)I here ya. The black and white reasoning in this thread is gagging me.
-p
cali
(114,904 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)you've been bogarting the weed since this thread started and your officially over the top.
Talking to you is like smoking a pound of industrial hemp in an hour.
by
-p
cali
(114,904 posts)ok, and this one knocked it out of the park.
-p
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Segami.
Let's keep talking about it, marijuana and it's benefits have been under lock and key for way to long. I'm looking forward to reading the research.
-p
Phlem
(6,323 posts)All you armchair scientists have a read, if you want to know more, or you can sit in this thread and bitch.
-p
anything to spread and introduce actual science.
Great job and keep it going, I'll be around.
-p
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)hope it helps.
-p
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)in there and I'm glad researchers are pursuing them. But nothing is approaching the c word (cure). It would be a lot easier to take pro-cannabis posters seriously if they simply relied on possibilities and studies instead of blanket announcements about curing cancer. (Edit: I'm talking about the reaction to the OP, not to your post(s).)
That is what science is, exploration.
Yes I know, the "C" word has been floated around for other ailments as well to no avail, the "C" word is a cautionary tale, but empirical evidence rules.
At least for me and people/institutes that represent themselves as the all knowing truth make me skeptical right away so I look for empirical evidence.
More study and accessibility should definitely be on the table.
Until then it's all opinion and what empirical evidence we have so far.
-p
alarimer
(16,245 posts)It doesn't cure cancer. Nothing does. All it does is alleviate some of the symptoms associated with treatment.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)-p
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)''WEED'' by Dr Sanjay Gupta, FULL documentary below
p.s. They discuss 'cancer research' - section starts after the 38:45 minute mark (main part at the 39:30 minute mark)
The whole documentary is awesome - I hope everyone watches the whole thing
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)At most, weed might be useful as an adjunct therapy to help deal with side affects of chemo. At the least, it might serve as a placebo for some people. Others just want to get high before they die... can't really blame them.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)vaporizing instead of inhaling smoke might have helped.
-p