I’m watching the Challenger disaster movie with William Hurt as Feynman.
Looking at the Wikipedia page on the disaster, Feynman also has a great line:
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
Feynman, Richard P. (1986) Appendix F- Personal Observations on the reliability of the Shuttle.
NO ONE CAN CLAIM TO BE CANCER FREE IN SIX WEEKS. That is absolute bullshit whether it comes from the cannabis crowd or doctors.
And of course it might come back. She had chemo, you stop that after a certain period of time but there’s always a chance of the cancer returning.
Indeed, in many cases the cancer returns, because chemotherapy and radiation increase the chances of having cancers return. People only accept these ridiculous options because they are all that’s available. Cannabis medicine is an alternative with proven effectiveness and without those terrible side effects or risks. The risks of trying cannabis extract medicine, which mostly derive from it simply being untested, are not greater than the risks of chemotherapy.
No one can claim to be cancer free in six weeks? What about all the skin cancer patients whose cancers disappeared in days or just a couple weeks? It can happen with internal cancers too, but skin cancers are the fastest to observe results with.
With Joanne Crowther, she was told by her doctors she was going to die because she could not continue chemotherapy. She used cannabis oil and went into remission. I have the documentation of that. Same with Corrie Yelland - she was given 6 months maximum to live after declining radiation for her anal canal cancer, then with cannabis oil treatment, went into remission. There’s also Stan Rutner, who was given weeks to live after lung cancer metastasized to his brain and chemotherapy/radiation failed. He went into remission with cannabis extract medicine. That’s three clear-cut cases right there of terminal cancer going into remission with cannabis oil. Trying to say they were misdiagnosed or anything like that is ridiculous and directly contradicts the diagnoses of professional doctors.
And as I’ve been saying, these cases are not exceptions. I’ve been in this for years and know caregivers who have treated dozens of cancer patients and reported widespread success. You obviously won’t take my word for it, but I’m not lying to you. I haven’t fabricated anything or made this medicine to seem like more than it is. The people in this movement have become like my family.
That is why there is absolutely nothing anyone can say to make me reconsider my position. Because I know the patients and have spoken to so many people over the years. And the science really is remarkable, if you actually read my science section and the studies I cite, this is amazing stuff that cannabinoids are doing. It all makes so much sense, and with an open mind anyone can see that.
Why would you expect others to have an open mind, when yours is so irreversibly shut?
“Open mind” and “That is why there is absolutely nothing anyone can say to make me reconsider my position.”
My irony meter just broke.
I glanced at your science section. It seems cherry-picked. Somewhere in it you said something like it is a fair representation of the research. Did you included anything that did not support your position?
I can cherry-pick from PubMed too:
The point being that your report is not really a scientific review of the literature but a pro-cannabis oil marketing piece.
And I’m sure you’re going to say something about THC vs CBD. Does the oil have the THC removed?
It’s like watching two people yelling at each other, about to throw punches, who don’t realize they’re standing back-to-back.
Can’t y’all just spark up and watch some Ren & Stimpy for a while?
I’m just going to keep repeating myself, since apparently that’s what this thread is all about.
Yes, but I would have had no way of verifying it. I don’t understand why this is so complicated for you. I’m only looking for stories I can verify, because if I can’t verify them, if there is no way to determine that they aren’t inventing it out of whole cloth, then I cannot reasonably accept it. I mean, imagine if Corrie Yelland didn’t have any documentation of her cancer. What would have separated her from a case like Hannah Bradley, or any one of the numerous Burzynski anecdotes? In order to be consistent, if I believed Corrie Yelland’s case without any documentation, I would be forced to believe a host of other anecdotes for which there is similarly no proof. And I’m not going to do that. I have standards of evidence for myself.
Or, to put it another way: without documentation, there’s no way to know if she had had cancer and taken cannabis oil at all. Without this documentation, I wouldn’t be able to know what she had had or if she was cured at all, and neither would you. Without documentation, there’s no way to separate her case from the testimonials for MMS. Maybe you know her personally and would vouch for her, but I’m not going to take your word for it either way.
And I’m telling you that I need real evidence. More cases like Corrie where there’s actually good evidence and documentation. And most importantly, we need a statistically significant sample.
I don’t necessarily think they’re making it up, but I do think that without the details, we can’t say anything about the case at all. We can’t say that the doctors involved are qualified, we can’t say that the diagnoses are accurate, we can’t even say that the patient is not lying. This is why actual evidence is so fucking important! You’re turning a blind eye to the complete lack of evidence in most of your cases because you believe. But these cases are all but completely unconvincing to those who know their way around quackery. Nobody here is convinced. Why? Why do you think that is? Why do you think that not a single person here finds your anecdotes convincing? I could make a video right now proclaiming that MMS cured my terminal ass cancer. And it would be just as convincing as Jack’s video about his skin cancer. And it would be completely wrong, completely bullshit, and invented out of whole cloth. If you accept these stories without any type of evidence behind them, then you are being a naive fool, your bullshit meter is broken, and you really need to get your filter checked.
Well I’m sorry, but if “this case has literally no evidence behind it beyond the say-so of the person making the claims who is neither a trained oncologist nor a trained dermatologist” isn’t good enough, then nothing ever will be. Because you don’t understand evidence, and you don’t understand how people with functioning critical thinking skills go about examining evidence. This even goes beyond your failure to understand science-based-medicine and why these anecdotes are so bloody meaningless. This is just a basic failure of critical analysis. And I’m not holding you to some unreasonable standard here - literally nobody in this thread is convinced by anything you’re saying. It’s time to step back and re-evaluate your thinking.
There is also no reason to believe them. Do you understand how the burden of proof works?
Yeah, you don’t know the first thing about conventional cancer treatment, and this kind of blatant misinformation is dangerous.
JKander do you know the difference between:
–Believing someone is wrong, and
–Not believing someone is right
?
(In either case, for clarification: I don’t believe that you are right on cannabis oil; I don’t believe that John is right; I believe you are wrong about conventional cancer therapy)
That’s the latter.
From a review of cannabinoids and cancer (which doesn’t rely on anecdotes and evangelical-like preaching):
*"There is no doubt that cannabinoids – both natural and synthetic – are interesting biological molecules. Hundreds of scientists around the world are investigating their potential in cancer and other diseases – as well as the harms they can cause…claims that this body of preclinical research is solid “proof” that cannabis or cannabinoids can cure cancer is highly misleading to patients and their families, and builds a false picture of the state of progress in this area…Virtually all the scientific research investigating whether cannabinoids can treat cancer has been done using cancer cells grown in the lab or animal models. It’s important to be cautious when extrapolating these results up to real live patients, who tend to be a lot more complex than a Petri dish or a mouse…
…there’s also evidence that cannabinoids may also have undesirable effects on cancer.
For example, some researchers have found that although high doses of THC can kill cancer cells, they also harm crucial blood vessel cells, although this may help their anti-cancer effect by preventing blood vessels growing into a tumour. And under some circumstances, cannabinoids can actually encourage cancer cells to grow, or have different effects depending on the dosage and levels of cannabinoid receptors present on the cancer cells. Others have discovered that activating CB2 receptors may actually interfere with the ability of the immune system to recognise and destroy tumour cells, although some scientists have found that certain synthetic cannabinoids may enhance immune defences against cancer.
Furthermore, cancer cells can develop resistance to cannabinoids and start growing again, although this can be got round by blocking a certain molecular pathway in the cells known as ALK…And yet more research suggests that combining cannabinoids with other chemotherapy drugs may be a much more effective approach. This idea is supported by lab experiments combining cannabinoids with other drugs including gemcitabine and temozolomide…"
(so much for “throw out your chemo and take cannabis oil”)
"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 people’s cancers showed some kind of response to the treatment, and one didn’t respond at all. All the patients died within a year, as might be expected for people with cancer this advanced."*
The article goes on to note that while further research and clinical trials are warranted, there are lots of unanswered questions about using cannabis-derived compounds in cancer patients. Among them are how to deliver the drugs (they tend to be poorly water-soluble and don’t penetrate well into tissues), overcoming tumor resistance, avoiding psychoactive side effects, minimizing or eliminating the possibility of stimulating tumor growth etc.
The following passage is crucial, and would be valuable for JKander to read and comprehend, if he can ever get his figurative fingers out of his ears and stop chanting about how he knows cannabis oil works and contradictory evidence just makes his belief stronger:
*"It’s worth remembering that there are hundreds of exciting potential cancer drugs being developed and tested in university, charity and industry labs all over the world – cannabinoids are merely a small part of a much larger picture.
Most of these compounds will never make it into the clinic to treat patients for a huge range of reasons including toxicity, lack of effectiveness, unacceptable side effects, or difficulty of delivering the drug to tumours.
Without doing rigorous scientific research, we will never sift the ‘hits’ from the ‘misses’. If cannabinoids are ever to get into clinical use, they need to overcome these hurdles and prove they have benefits over existing cancer drugs."*
I linked and quoted that earlier in the thread. Also about the nine who tried and died.
He just pretended it wasn’t there.
I’m sorry for missing the Guzman study with the nine patients. Those patients were given only highly-purified THC, likely from a synthetic source. There were no other cannabinoids or terpenes present, and it was injected through a tube in the head rather than ingestion. All of the successes from cannabis oil treatment have come from whole plant oils ingested, used topically, or used in suppository form - there has never been a success using the technique Guzman did. I’m not surprised it failed, frankly the fact that eight of the nine showed some kind of positive response is amazing in itself.
I understand the extreme importance of documentation and knowing the details. This movement seeks them out. Honestly, I wish I had time to secure more documentation from these patients. In the time I had to make this report for the Conference, I could only acquire it from Dennis Hill, Corrie Yelland, and Joanne Crowther. There is also the photographic evidence from Dr. Courtney for the infant’s brain tumors and Cannabis Science’s doctor’s confirmation of basal cell carcinoma being eliminated with cannabis oil. However, just because I don’t have it for the others doesn’t mean they are all lying or the details wouldn’t be as good if I had it.
These people are reporting the details you want - when they were diagnosed, what stage of cancer, what their treatment was, etc. You all just won’t listen. And it’s highly doubtful they are lying. Why? Because it’s been replicated over many years. It grew from just individuals treating themselves and reporting elimination of cancers, to small teams reporting it, to dispensaries reporting it, to corporations reporting it. So many people are reporting that cannabis extracts have eliminated their cancers and controlled other serious diseases. You’ve already admitted there were no problems with Corrie’s case and that alone is “cause for further study”. Do you really think she’s the only case? That these other reports aren’t valid? I’m telling you all, from the bottom of my heart and soul, this is real. By only looking at the negative, you are completely blinded to the positive, of which there is so much.
In regards to the studies suggesting pro-cancer effects of cannabinoids, that is legitimate cause for concern, and thanks for bringing it up. Most of these studies only focus on one cannabinoid, like THC, and are applied in cell cultures independent of cannabinoid receptors. It is the fact that cannabinoid medicine works through the endocannabinoid system that makes it function differently in vivo than in vitro, and the evidence suggests it actually works better, not worse. It is said correctly that cell results shouldn’t be extrapolated to humans because humans are so much more complicated, and that’s right. Also, in the case of this study, pure THC administration was not effective against breast cancer cell lines and made things worse. But that’s not what cannabis extract medicine is - it’s not only THC, but the dozens of other cannabinoids and other plant chemicals. Also, in breast cancer especially, it seems high-CBD is especially important. This is why there is indeed no one-size-fits-all cannabis medicine. Different conditions require different optimal formulations. And this breast cancer study makes sense - one of the few failures I remember was a woman with breast cancer not responding to high-THC treatment, but then finding more success with high-CBD.
Also, these pro-cancer studies are far outweighed by studies showing both THC and CBD inhibit and kill cancer through a wide variety of mechanisms. The number of negative studies you’ve cited, combined with the other negative studies I of course came across in my works over the past many years, simply pale in comparison to the positive.
On the whole, the science is far more supportive of cannabis medicine than against. And in practice, these extracts are delivering amazing results. Like in Behcet’s disease, one of the rarest, worst autoimmune disorders in the world. I believe BPC cited that my Behcet’s testimonial was near-worthless because it can spontaneously remiss? Or something to that effect? Based on Josh’s testimony, it’s clear this wasn’t going to magically go away, and no pharmaceutical treatments he had been using had any effects, including cutting-edge interleukin blockers. Josh reports that every doctor he has seen, including those from NYU, Johns Hopkins, and University of Colorado, agree his current state is an absolute miracle and the only explanation is his cannabis usage.
That’s a case of cannabis extracts controlling an extremely rare, complex, misunderstood disease. And it’s not doctors achieving these miraculous effects, it’s weed growers with no formal medical training. That’s part of the revolution that people cannot accept, that regular individuals can achieve these effects. But it’s happening, and blindly denying the truth won’t change reality. What counter do you have against Josh’s case? That his doctors are wrong? That his current state isn’t an absolute miracle as they say? What about the other River Rock patients who have gotten off massive doses of opiates and recovered from paralysis with cannabis extracts? What about the patients of Realm of Caring using high-CBD oil and going into complete remission from extremely complex epileptic disorders? It’s just too much. If people actually read the cases, it’s abundantly clear what’s going on, and the doctor’s actually treating patients are calling for immediate access because they see it’s working. Not calling for clinical trials, not calling for further research, but immediate access. Because that’s what people in pain need and deserve, and that’s what this movement is going to bring to the world.
Can cannabis oil heal a broken irony meter?
You have no basis to assume or claim the THC was synthetic.
http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2009/04/02/thc-gives-cancer-cells-the-mun/
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/does-smoking-cannabis-cause-cancer
Both of these articles claim that pure THC kills off cancer.
What is it that you want done? What is it that’s not happening now that you want to be happening?
Then you have vastly misjudged the authority and power that is preventing the access you are striving for. The more you rely on anecdotes and unscientific proof, the more what you seek will slip away.
If this were true, you would not have given me at least two anecdotes in which no documentation and no details were presented. You obviously don’t understand the importance thereof, otherwise not only would you not have expected these anecdotes to convince any of us, but you would not hold them up as convincing for yourself either.
Then you should have done the scientifically responsible thing and only presented those cases. Because anyone with an eye for evidence-based or science-based medicine will look at basically all the other cases and say, “So why are you wasting my time with this crap?” Because if they can’t be verified, and they can’t be analyzed, then there’s nothing for anyone else to go on.
Christ, you really don’t understand the difference between “I don’t believe you’re right” and “you’re wrong”, do you?
Oh? Which ones? Out of the three I read (because I’m not going to waste more of my fucking time listening to long, pointless youtube videos which may or may not contain any pertinent information whatsoever), only one had ANY OF THAT.
How many times do I have to give you this link before you stop making arguments that apply just as well to patients of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski?
No. I never said that. Let’s be clear on my position. Corrie’s case is, given the details we have (which are not great) impressive. It’s a sign that this needs further examination, as there are individuals like this for any number of cancer cases, and spontaneous remission is something that just sometimes happens. I don’t deny that there could be more like her, but I haven’t seen them yet, and you have not provided any for me yet (well, maybe you did, but I’ve made my policy on digging through crap clear, and you’re well past three strikes at this point).
Do you know what the result of pleading, of emotional appeals, of anything beyond “here is my evidence, here is my thought process” and perhaps the occasional quip is in academic circles? It’s immediate skepticism, because if you can’t convince us without resorting to pleading and appeals, then you don’t have a case.
Well, from what I can tell, we’ve had exactly one study on the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of cancer which did anything to account for selection bias. This study, for which you found the methodology lacking, came up overwhelmingly negative. Meanwhile, on your end, there’s not a single thing you’ve been able to offer that remains free from what is indubitably and obviously clear confirmation bias. You say most cases you’ve heard of went well… Well, I’m reminded of a quote by Bob Blaskiewicz: “Dead patients tell no tales”. He was talking about the Burzynski Clinic, but it applies just as well to what you’re saying. Of course you didn’t hear much from patients where the treatment failed; they’re dead. They’re not going to call up and tell you “Hey, the treatment failed, my cancer killed me” because they’re dead. They’re not going to post long posts about how disappointed they are that cannabis didn’t work for them because they’re dead.
Do you know what I suspect as the main reason for the overwhelmingly “meh” results of the Guzman study? I think the main reason that the Guzman study doesn’t present Cannabinoids as miracle cures the way your report does is because the Guzman study actually had a selection methodology - specifically, its methodology was to find patients before treatment started. This excludes bias. This means that you can’t focus on a handful of “miraculous” cases, because those exist even with no treatment whatsoever. They’re rare, but how many people have tried cannabinols as treatment? Almost certainly enough that the occasional “miracle” is not statistically unlikely.
Although, honestly? I’m willing to bet that with a little wherewithal, you could perform a study not dissimilar to Guzman’s on your own. You have connections, you obviously aren’t stupid… Hell, if you want, I could even explain to you the kind of study you could easily do within the next year or so that would prove highly convincing for even people like me.
Which is odd because basically every single study on it has been in the lab. I don’t know how you’re able to make this claim.
And yet I’m supposed to believe that each of these cases you bring up just cooked up their own version which happened to work so well? Uh huh. Right. That makes so much sense.
I didn’t read any testimonial about Behcet’s. If you gave me one, this is because it was buried in a pile of utter crap. Your glurge is getting boring, man.