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

[Frylock]

@JFLuvly

I have never once disagreed with you on that, nor have I claimed any different.

This invites the same question I asked JKander: What is it that you want? What is it that’s not happening now, that you would prefer were happening?

[dasmoocher]

@JFLuvly

Since you don’t want to wade through the reports, how about you find me a study that shows it does not help.

Is this asking for negative reports?

It looks like there has been only one clinical trial for cancer and all the patients died. In fairness:

The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration.
…
The fair safety profile of THC, together with its possible antiproliferative action on tumour cells reported here and in other studies, may set the basis for future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids.

JKander replied to the effect of “But that wasn’t the cannabis oil”. Since the cannabis oil will cure virtually every type of cancer, that doesn’t count.

I also posted some studies done in models systems for JKander in Post #345. The same type of cancer-related studies are cited by cannabis advocates when the conclusions are positive, but waved away when not.

Originally posted by Frylock
As has been explained: No one here is trying to prove that it does not help. Rather, we are asking you for proof that it does help.

And that the proof is credible.

[JFLuvly]

I think your positions are misinformed, perhaps willfully so. Intellectually incurious maybe, lacking rigor, certainly; but not lies.

See here is where we agree, because that is exactly the way I feel about your position. I think I am ahead of you because my mind is open to the possibilities, while yours remains closed. You should try to educate yourself a little better on the subject instead of stomping your feet, saying NO NO NO.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is the foolish argument here–and it’s the one you’re making.

So you are saying I would have been fine without taking anything. This is getting ridiculous. I didn’t just go out on my own and start doing this, this is a prescription from my DOCTOR, you know, the ones you go to get medicine. Do you think she threw a bunch of meds at me and said try these? Do you think she is not informed as to how this stuff works? Do you think she would intentionally put my health in harms way. I am in Canada, and we seem to be way ahead of you Americans in looking at this as a helpful tool in combatting ailments. Are you aware that there almost 40,000 medical marijuana patients in Canada, all with written prescriptions from there doctors, and that these numbers continue to grow? Are you aware that the Canadian government is projecting that that number will climb to 58,000 in 2014? Are you aware that they also project that number to go to 450,000 by 2024? I’m pretty sure Health Canada has a much better grasp on the use of cannabis as a medicine, and it’s definitely far greater than any of yours! You can argue all you want, once again, I don’t care.

And yes I am offended by the stereotyping and being called a liar. Would you do the same to anyone else taking any other medication? How would you feel if somebody told you that your heart meds are not doing you any good and that your wasting your time using them?, mocking you and insulting you for your choice of medication, it’s childish.

[andros]

@JFLuvly

See here is where we agree, because that is exactly the way I feel about your position. I think I am ahead of you because my mind is open to the possibilities, while yours remains closed. You should try to educate yourself a little better on the subject instead of stomping your feet, saying NO NO NO.

Huhwha??? Are you being serious here?

Science–empiricism–is entirely about being open to possibility! Just not to claims of magic and miracles that have no evidence.

Have you read this thread? Honestly, don’t blame you if you haven’t; it’s a half-hour of my life I ain’t ever getting back. But throughout the discussion, no one is saying that there is no possibility. Hell, most of us really want more and better research (and I think it’s safe to say that several of us are adamantly pro-marijuana).

I understand you’re frustrated, but please understand that. No one is being close-minded! We’re just diehard empiricists who need to have rigorous evidence before blithely accepting yet another miracle cute at face value.

[andros]

(I say “we” like I had any involvement in the thread. Oh, the hubris.)

[JFLuvly]

We’re just diehard empiricists who need to have rigorous evidence before blithely accepting yet another miracle cute at face value

I completely understand that, look at the first sentence I wrote, I said he was wasting his time. I have no proof other than my anecdotal submissions and the links I provided, but I’m also not saying that it does not work for other issues. Sure, we need the science, and I’m sure it’s coming, one way or the other. Just stop beating the crap out of, and putting words in my mouth stating that i am making claims that I have not once made.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=JFLuvly]
I mean come on, class action lawsuits because of drugs are flashing all over american television.
[/QUOTE]
I am not sure of your reasoning here.

Sometimes tested drugs are unsafe, therefore we should use untested ones?

Regards,
Shodan

[andros]

@JFLuvly

I completely understand that, look at the first sentence I wrote, I said he was wasting his time.

How about your second sentence:

You would think that with the amount of intelligence here that there would be more support and debate, but none of them will open their minds and think of the possibilities.

Support? No. Debate? Absodamnlutely. And your suggestion that there has been none, because everyone participating in the thread are simply close-minded and unwilling to think of the possibilities is, well, pretty insulting. Do you wonder why you put people’s backs up? 'Cos when you rolled in here it sure as hell looked like you were supporting JKander’s assertions. Assertions which are baseless, without evidence, and actively dangerous.

Speaking for myself (although I know for sure others here agree), the very reason I hew to empiricism is because I see the possibilities. I want there to be a magic bullet. I want a miracle cure. I want to see new technologies, new medicines, more ways that the amazing human species can go further, farther, faster, better. I want that. So I look at possibilities. With mind open.

But not so open my brain falls out. See, my wanting makes me unreliable. Hell, my being human makes me unreliable. That’s why we stick to constructs like science: to minimize our innate unreliability. Science takes as much of our human bias out of the equation as we know how. It lets us dream of possibility with our minds open, and in a way that actually serves our species and our futures.

I will not believe something just because I want it to be true. That way leads to quack cures and bullshit hucksterism, death in Guyana and hospices, war and genocide and fucking chaos. And no, I am not exaggerating in the slightest.

Check that: I will not act on my baseless beliefs. You believe what you want, and more power to you. Hey, I believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life somewhere in the universe, and I do so with no evidence whatsoever.

But I wouldn’t try to convince people that aliens will cure their cancer. Not without rigorous, replicable, honest evidence.

I just wish folks like JKander would afford me the same courtesy.

[JFLuvly]

I am not sure of your reasoning here.

Sometimes tested drugs are unsafe, therefore we should use untested ones?

That was in response to this comment.

There’s a reason we have this scientific process in place to evaluate drugs - it’s reliably and indisputably effective to an almost ridiculous degree.

[Shodan]

Okay - sometimes the process doesn’t work perfectly. That does not seem like a good reason to abandon it altogether and starting passing out drugs willy-nilly based on anecdotes.

Also, see what KarlGauss said about trials establishing that the drug or treatment actually does something, as well as the inevitable side-effects. Sometimes those side effects don’t show up until after the drug hits the market. But the drugs don’t go on the market before reliable tests show that it actually does something worthwhile.

Maybe marijuana does something good for various disease conditions. Let’s hope so. But that is not an argument to have everybody toke up and look for success stories.

I read someplace that 95% is a common standard for science - that is, they are 95% sure that the results were not coincidence. That’s great, but keep in mind that this implies that one in twenty studies are anomalies. That’s one of the reasons why scientists usually respond to some single study by saying “that’s interesting” and ask to run another study. Because certainty in science is something you approach without usually reaching it.

I’m glad you are feeling better.

Regards,
Shodan

[Jackmannii]

@Shodan

I am not sure of your reasoning here.

Sometimes tested drugs are unsafe, therefore we should use untested ones?

Yes.

And since cops sometimes are corrupt or violate civil rights, we should eliminate police forces in favor of vigilantes.

[JFLuvly]

Shodan

I agree with everything that you said with the exception of…passing out drugs willy-nilly based on anecdotes. See that’s the difference between Canada and the States, and it may be because of our more liberal attitudes, but medical marijuana has been available here in Canada with a doctors prescription since 2001. Marijuana has twice almost became decriminalized in Canada, and only failed because of a prorogued parliament and the Liberals being ousted in a confidence vote the second time.

Failed decriminalization bills (2002, 2004)

On 27 May 2002, the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien introduced a bill that would have decriminalized the possession for personal use of small amounts of cannabis. Possession of 15 grams or less would have been punishable only with a fine, and those possessing between 15 and 30 grams would be either ticketed or arrested for criminal charges at the officer’s discretion. Personal cultivation of up to seven plants would have also become a summary offence, while the punishment for cultivation in larger amounts would have been more severe. The bill looked likely to pass into law, but it died when Parliament prorogued. The bill’s death was largely due to pressure from the American government’s Drug Enforcement Administration, which had threatened to slow down border-crossings along the Canadian-American border so as to control the smuggling of cannabis.

An identical bill was introduced in November 2004 by the minority Liberal government of Paul Martin, but it too died, when Martin’s government was defeated in a confidence vote. After the Conservative victory in the 2006 election, the new government did not resurrect this bill.[20

We are twelve years ahead of you guys on this subject and it is now making inroads in the American medical system. That being said I am absolutely sure that there is more science behind it than you guys think. I’m pretty sure that we here in Canada are not handing out medications “willy-nilly” to patients based only on anecdotes. Just recently Sanjay Gupta had a special on CNN and he said he was wrong about cannabis as a medicine. Here is a link to it if you would like to watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3IMfIQ_K6U

And as I pointed out earlier, almost 40,000 now, 58,000 projected by 2014 and 450,000 by 2024 will be licensed to use marijuana for medical purposes here in Canada. Surely you cannot think that this is will-nilly, and surely there has to be some science to it.

[andros]

And whoooosh right past the point.

[Shodan]

@JFLuvly

And as I pointed out earlier, almost 40,000 now, 58,000 projected by 2014 and 450,000 by 2024 will be licensed to use marijuana for medical purposes here in Canada. Surely you cannot think that this is will-nilly, and surely there has to be some science to it.

Or maybe it is people who want to get high without being arrested.

If it were up to me, I’d legalize the stuff for recreational purposes. Much of the push for medical marijuana is (IMO) a desire to get the camel’s nose under the tent so people can smoke grass for fun. Nothing wrong with that. But that’s a different rationale than because it cures spasticity, or whatever.

Maybe marijuana has a role in the treatment of some diseases. But we don’t know that yet.

If we find out that it has a good effect on some disease, then by all means use it until something better comes along. But we haven’t found that yet.

Regards,
Shodan

[dasmoocher]

@JFLuvly

And as I pointed out earlier, almost 40,000 now, 58,000 projected by 2014 and 450,000 by 2024 will be licensed to use marijuana for medical purposes here in Canada. Surely you cannot think that this is will-nilly, and surely there has to be some science to it.

That’s a valid observation. But, what are the licensed uses? How many doctors in Canada are prescribing cannabis as a cancer treatment instead of chemo? None? A handful? Many? It’s standard therapy?

Or is it for mostly palliative applications?

JKander actually said he advocates forgoing traditional chemotherapy because cannabis oil is a miracle cure. Maybe I’m misunderstanding. But, you be the judge; here’s his quote:

@JKander

The reason this needs to be pushed now, and we cannot wait, is because people are dying and suffering every day. Anybody who looks seriously into this knows the truth of it, that’s the bottom line. And I do encourage people to choose this medicine over chemotherapy. People have the right to make that decision, or to use it alongside chemotherapy if they so choose. We also can’t wait years for official studies to prove what we already know.

My emphasis.

That’s what people find misguided and irresponsible, if not outright lethally dangerous. Not that there are no medicinal uses for cannabis.

[Mr_Quatro]

Hello Mr JKander, are you still around?

Looks like your closer to getting your wish, at least in the state of Florida: http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/25374281/historic-vote-senate-passes-low-thc-med-marijuana-bill#at_pco=cfd-1.0

TALLAHASSEE (AP) - A strain of low-THC marijuana known as Charlotte’s Web would be legal for medical use to treat epileptic children under a bill overwhelmingly passed by the Senate on Monday.

The Senate voted 36-3 to pass the legislation that supporters said could help sick children. It now goes to the House for consideration.

“This is the last resort for some folks, for their children,” said Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa. “We have a responsibility to do what we can to alleviate the suffering and pain of children.”

[Smeghead]

He left to preach elsewhere.