Cannabis Extracts for the Primary Treatment of Cancer, Epilepsy, and More

Great Debates
262

– bolding mine.

<off topic. My apologies Marley, but I felt this post needed a response>Either you are really especial or that’s what happens with most people that partake. My own subjective experience – as “valid” as yours obviously – has me smoking pot for about a decade as well; though there is no telling if I am correct. I was also doing well in all aspects of life. Yet when I finished college and moved back to where my dad had set-up his own Shanghai-La, based on money – though all credit to him as it was always on the up & up to the penny – booze & women, the penalties & paranoia of being caught for simply holding a doobie far outweighed any pleasure to be had from actually smoking one. It was always the same, the nano-second my flight hit the tarmac, booze it was.

Point being, you are making mine. And that is that herb, for the vast majority of users, is simply a way to get temporarily away from the harshness that comes from merely being alive. Like you said, you got rid of your “addiction” in five days. I haven’t had so much as a toke since I landed here 11 years ago. Effort? None.

OTOH, booze rules in this little corner of the world, so much so, that there are bountiful drive through stores that’ll ‘fill you up’ while behind the wheel. Is it any wonder AA thrives in places such as this one (Dom Rep)? Then again, kids are inhaling at at least twice the rate than they did when I first came here to live nearly 25 years ago. Know what? I say they are a whole lot smarter/knowledgeable than my own alcohol riddles generation.

Just compare the deaths due to alcohol intoxication vs those induced by cannabis. In fact, can you cite just one directly linked to a THC overdose? A rather rhetorical query as most of us already know the answer to that one. </off topic>

Although, as most of you, I do think he (the OP) is doing more harm than good to his own cause in this thread, I also part ways with those so eager to dismiss his claims. Forget all he’s said/written for a sec and just think what some of the cases he has cited and where they would be w/out that sliver of hope? Placebo effects happen, as we all know as well. And though an atheist myself I am not going to argue that whatever worked/works for Charlotte against it.

Obviously, for the hard of reading, I am not advocating for any sort of silver bullet. But by the same token, I see nothing “wrong” with people who, as silly as it sounds, come back from the dead and make “miraculous” recoveries.

At the very least they live for another day – and as you all know it has been proven that a patient’s attitude towards their illness has much to do with their recovery rate. Nothing that I find “miraculous” about their recoveries – I ‘blame’ said miracles due to their state of mind. Though it’s not for me due to the way I think, if it works for others precisely because they don’t, well, good on them.

I’ve never felt I am in possession of The Truth[sup]®[/sup] but I certainly feel comfortable saying: “I don’t know and neither do you.” Do I think we’ll ever have all the answers? Not in my lifetime I think. Beyond that, bring falsifiable evidence not anecdotal/faith biased answers and/or hypothesis.

I also believe that a F2F consultation with a major deity (Jesus for instance) is well past due. Which is fine by me anyway, for I get much of my inspiration from trying to help people who’s only available treatment is faith. Not for me to take that last gasp away…though I’ve been known to be harsh to people that offer woo in its many forms to the terminally ill and their loved ones. False hope is worse than no hope at all. After all, things can only get better if you are ready for the worse.

In closing…hmm…forgot what I was going to say. Darn! What’s next? Man-boobs? Stay away, kids.

Meanwhile, this makes for a good read: What a drag, Israeli firm grows “highless” marijuana

263

You’re missing the point. Whether or not people have access isn’t the issue.

The issue is whether or not it should be marketed as a cureall when it obviously hasn’t. In other words, whether or not you can sell it as a medicine. Lots of things can be sold for various ailments. And they already are. The supplements market is out there. But until they’ve been checked out, the claims you can make about them are limited.

Even after they’ve been checked out, what you can claim about the drug as a cure for anything is limited by the FDA to what you’ve actually been able to prove.

But you do NOT sell it legally as a cancer cure, nor claim it cures anything until it checks out. IF AND WHEN it checks out, then the product can be sold with all the appropriate drug facts and labeling (which also limits any outrageous claims you may make about the drug). These rules aren’t arbitrary but to avoid our long, long, LOOOOOONG history of quacks and snake oil.

264

How many times have you repeated yourself here? It’s gotta be at least 5 or 6 times by now. And each time, you’ve gotten the same or similar answers - we don’t actually know whether or not this medicine works, the same excuse can be made for every drug which merely has prior plausibility, and without clinical trials, side effects are damn near impossible to nail down.

You say that you agree that these things should be tested scientifically. Why? Why do you think this should be tested scientifically? I (and everyone else) think this should be tested scientifically because without stringent testing there’s no way to determine what effect, if any, it has. You apparently think you know what effect this drug has in every case. So why do you support scientific testing? Is it just to convince the rest of us rubes?

Without this research, nobody knows if it works or what side-effects it has. The evidence you have is enough to say “we have prior plausibility of the value of this drug”. However, that is never enough to determine the drug’s actual value without clinical trials. Especially when you consider that what you’d recommend people abandon in favor of this drug is known and tested and for the most part quite effective. But you’re once again missing something: clinical trials require volunteer patients. When a single phase 2 clinical trial can include upwards of 200 patients, that’s hardly prohibiting the medicine. If anything, you’re applying it to more patients than usual in a highly controlled environment. This is also not the first time I’ve said this.

So are coffee enemas and bicarbonate of soda.

Excuse me while I withhold my enthusiasm. Your evidence is crap. You haven’t convinced anyone here, you’ve fielded countless complaints about your methodology and sources, and yet not even once have you considered “Hmm, you know, maybe I should make sure my claims are actually valid”.

You sound exactly like every single quack huckster ever. Every. Single. One. None of your arguments are new, and they’re all wrong, and the fact that most of the people who would use them are peddling crap says just about all you should know about it.

265

There’s a good question, why do I say we need scientific studies? As I’ve said in prior posts, it’s not to prove this works in general. The case evidence based on the people who have used this medicine over the past several years shows that cannabis extracts can reliably eliminate cancer and control other diseases. It’s unmistakable.

The scientific studies will be needed to determine the best dosages and strains for each disease. According to caregivers I’ve spoken with, some conditions respond better to high-CBD and others to high-THC. There is also the matter of researching more about the cellular mechanisms of healing, the role of terpenes, and really everything else there is to know. It’s just obvious that it eliminates cancer, there’s nothing to prove. But we don’t know what works best, and there are so many variables about the treatment that need to be researched.

266

You’re never going to get it, are you? The evidence you have presented for the medical properties of cannabinoids is completely unconvincing. Not a single person here has looked at your evidence and said, “Yep, that seems legit”. Every single one has pointed out how your methodology is non-existent, how important details are missing from your cases, and how the claims you make are ludicrously wrong on their face. You need better evidence.

267

You have not substantively addressed a single, solitary criticism that has been leveled. You have repeated ad nauseum your reasons for not believing any of the criticisms. That is not even remotely the same thing as actually responding and addressing them. If someone says “this graph should be labeled differently”, you can either prepare a six-page document defending your graph-labeling policy, or you can just change your labels. There’s a difference.

Absolute nonsense, fairly insulting, and yet another demonstration that you don’t even begin to understand what’s going on here. This is another thing that people like you never understand. Not a single person here is claiming that this stuff definitely doesn’t work. A few have gone so far as to claim that it probably doesn’t do everything you claim it does, but they back it up with logical reasons. What everyone in this thread (apart from you) is saying is that you don’t know if it works, and we won’t know until proper research is done. Therefore, it is wildly irresponsible, unethical, and dangerous to start using it to treat patients.

Now, if by some huge stroke of luck, it turns out that you are 100% right - if your revolution actually happens exactly as you predict, does that mean we are wrong? No, it does not. You will have lucked out, but it will still have been wildly irresponsible, unethical, and dangerous to treat patients without proper evidence. The ends don’t justify the means. It is not “limited thinking”. It is using everything we have learned over the last several thousand years of learning to behave rationally and act logically, without emotion prompting us to do stupid things.

268

You keep repeating this unsupported statement, and we keep pointing out that you are wrong. We can keep this up as long as you can; probably longer since most of us aren’t stoned.

269

Serious medical professionals usually avoid the phrase “miracle cure.”

270

“Unmistakable” is one of those words you probably shouldn’t use when literally nobody agrees with you. It’s like “undeniable” - no, it’s not, we deny it.

271

Ooh, very relevant quote from today’s Respectful Insolence:

272

Wow! Sounds impressive! We should start handing this medication out to everyone who has cancer. Who needs tests?

Those fuddy duddies! Who needs those silly tests when Burzynski is SURE that his method works.

Ah, it’s all a plot by the evil medical monopoly! It all makes sense now!

Any of this sound familiar?

273

Wow, that sounds even better than cannabis oil! I’m giving up on cannabis oil for my hair loss!

274

But won’t that make the hair grow back? :smiley:

275

It’s quite ironic, I’ve heard of people’s hair growing back from cannabis oil use and there is a testimonial in my report showing before-and-after pictures of someone applying topical oil to a bald spot and the hair returning.

After reading these new responses, I feel like I do see some new problems I hadn’t addressed before. Problems like only being anecdotal, misdiagnosis, not telling the full story, etc.

There are many testimonials in my report that I don’t know the full story behind, but nonetheless, it is very apparent that the cannabis oil remarkably improved or eliminated their conditions. There are also several cases where the cases were tracked by medicinal cannabis providers or doctors, and there are full details with no misdiagnosis. Like I said, this is unmistakable. It’s not like someone had a weak form of cancer, using oil along with chemotherapy, the cancer went away, and they credited only the oil. There have been many cases of terminal cancers being eliminated with cannabis oil, and while someone could potentially say it just took awhile for the chemotherapy to kick in, that just doesn’t make sense.

In terms of ignoring failures, of the caregivers I’ve known, including Rick Simpson, they report that the majority of their patients experience success. The majority go into remission or have their cancers eliminated. There are no large subsets of failures being hidden - the people who’ve actually treated patients in large numbers see near total success.

You all speak as if you are going to convince me I’m wrong. I came here to prove to you that cannabis oil does these things, not be proven wrong. You talk as if you expect me to say, “Oh, I guess I was wrong, I didn’t follow the proper methodology and there are indeed no peer-reviewed clinical trials on cannabis and cancer, so I’m just going to stop all this. Thanks for enlightening me guys!” That’s not going to happen, because I’m not wrong, and if this movement stopped fighting for immediate access to this medicine, then people would die. It’s that spirit of fighting for immediate access that has led to almost half the country legalizing medical marijuana, even in the face of consistent opposition from the government. The bottom line - if people waited for the science to play out, for things to progress in a normal fashion, then millions would die needlessly.

I understand that the mere urgency of people dying isn’t normally an excuse to forego trials. Of course not. I understand when you all say that, in the long-term, the controlled trials are necessary to ensure safety, even if people have to die in the meantime during those trials. But this is different - people know it’s working, and there is no excuse not to give people access immediately. Furthermore, unlike other drugs where this is the chance of harsh side effects or death down the line, there is no such risk with cannabis - it is impossible to die from, and no hard research indicates it causes any sort of brain or organ damage (most indicates it actually protects such organs). To hold this medicine back because people refuse to look at the evidence is unforgivable. I’m not referring to you in this statement, but the medical establishment in general.

276

Is “weak form of cancer” a medical term? :rolleyes:

We know. You failed. Now what?

Not “normally.” “Never.” There are, by the way, things like compassionate use exemptions, but you wouldn’t be satisfied even with those.

277

You, a mere marketer, have no legal or ethical right to determine what is or isn’t medicine. If/When those who have the training and legal right to do so make such a determination, we can proceed along those lines. Right now, all you are advocating is quackery of the worst kind.

278

I am only speaking for the movement. I am not the originator of these claims. The bottom line - this works, it’s working now, and every second it’s not available, people die. The people who have looked into the evidence, including respected doctors, agree that it should be available now, before any large-scale clinical trials. That’s what the top pediatric neurologist at University of Utah is advocating, as are other doctors like Dr. Melamede and Dr. Courtney. I wouldn’t be surprised if Dr. Margaret Gedde feels the same way, that seems to be the case based on my conversation with her assistant.

This isn’t a normal situation by any means. This is unlike anything else that has come before in medicine. We already know it’s safe and it works before the clinical trials. As I’ve said, we need such trials to determine the best dosing/strain regiments, but whether it works or not is plainly apparent.

Also, when I say “weak form of cancer”, I mean a lower-stage non-metastatic kind, which of course would be easier to eliminate, and thus weaker, than a Stage IV cancer which has spread throughout the body.

279

Again, every quack and fraud says this. Are you sure you want to be in their company?

If it hasn’t been studied under rigorously controlled conditions, we don’t know it works. That’s why an endless list of anecdotes doesn’t help your case.

280

That’s where we have to simply disagree. Because this is unlike anything else that has come before, including those quacks and frauds. That’s what obscures the truth - because this necessarily shares some properties of every other alternative medicine, and those properties have well-founded negative connotations. I’ve tried to show you all how this is indeed different than everything else that has come before, but no one has listened. I can’t do anything about that.

And we do know it works. The people using it know it works, and to hold it back any further is evil.

281

Why should we believe you?