Sorry, it’s still gibberish.
This is just mashing up vaguely scientific terms, i.e. gibberish. Neurotransmitters don’t work this way.
Rather than try arguing “fundamental” chemical reactions, it would do better to do fundamental study on basic neurobiology.
I don’t know what I can say to that, except it’s not gibberish. This is what the scientific studies indicate, I’m summarizing the results.
Let’s move onto something else. Since the publication of my report, there has been a lot of further news surrounding the miraculous effectiveness of this medicine for epilepsy. I spoke with a Colorado state senator recently who said a relative of his friend was treating their child with cannabis oil for seizures, and the results are “nothing short of miraculous.” This is really blowing up in terms of epilepsy, so let’s focus on these results. Indeed, it was the publication of these results, in the form of the Sanjay Gupta documentary, that signaled the beginning of real change.
Here is my collection of epilepsy conditions. With Charlotte Figi, people could say, “Well that’s remarkable, but it’s one case.” But now with the Stanley brothers’ new patients, it’s not just one (it wasn’t one before, but now there’s much more). The last article I link to has an update from Dr. Margaret Gedde saying that 9 of the 11 patients she’s tracking have had 90-100% reductions in seizures. This is when NO OTHER pharmaceuticals were working. Furthermore, the epilepsy conditions responding to cannabinoid therapy are very diverse, including Dravet syndrome, Doose syndrome, infantile spasms, cortical dysplasia, CDKL5 disorder, and more. So are these all coincidences? Are they not remarkable? Let’s discuss.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/index.html (Charlotte Figi Dravet Syndrome)
Parents File Suit to Allow Son to Take Marijuana Extract - ABC News (Zander Welton Cortical Dysplasia)
http://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/10-year-old-is-seizure-free-after-one-year-of-cannabis-oil/Content?oid=2779991 (Zaki Jackson Doose Syndrome)
Families looking to cure epileptic children find first dose of hope with special Colorado marijuana oil (Stanley patients #1)
Families migrating to Colorado for a medical marijuana miracle - The Salt Lake Tribune (Stanley patients #2) < — this was published yesterday, 11/10/13. This issue is recently developing.
I’m also not “mashing up” scientific terminology. What I quoted regarding axonal regulation is directly from a study. All of these statements, when analyzed together, demonstrate a trend that cannabinoids are potent regulators of homeostasis. And the powerful regulatory abilities would explain the above results, where children who have had no success with every possible pharmaceutical option immediately respond miraculously to high-CBD cannabis oil.
Let’s not. That’s called a Gish Gallop, i.e. throwing out a bunch of stuff and moving from one thing to another as each point is addressed (and dismissed).
No, that’s not what the studies indicate. That’s what you take from them. There’s a difference.
ETA: To be more clear, neurotransmitters have f***all to do with most cancer. Regulation of neural signals is far removed from most cancers. Saying it’s “fundamental” is incredibly pointless. It’s just a tangent that doesn’t actually relate to cancer (or most other diseases).
And? Those particular words may be quoted. The rest is your interpretation, which is still gibberish with a thin veneer of science laid on top.
If you hadn’t gathered, many of the regular posters on this board have backgrounds in science, and arguing from authority isn’t going to fly nearly so well here.
No, now it’s more gibberish. So is the suggestion that cannabinoids evolved for this purpose, if that’s what JKander was driving at. I don’t think it’s impossible that marijuana can have more medical uses than we know about, but no, you can’t get to that conclusion based on 10 people any more than you can do it based on one.
(snipped the rest of the marketing )
bolding mine -
a) what studies? are you, personally, qualified to summarize them?
b) which senator ? I thought you were the web/marketing guy?
I stated we should move on because we were starting to go in circles. There are clearly some fundamental disagreements about what constitutes quality experiential results, or my interpretations of the science. I can tell you my interpretations are not far off from researchers, and as I stated, a leading researcher named Dr. Sean McAllister who has done a lot of the groundbreaking CBD breast cancer research agrees that the material I collected warrants immediate investigation. And he’s trying, an article released just a few days ago states he is trying to start these trials. I’m not pulling out what I want to hear or my interpretations - these are the conclusions of researchers. Also, the regulation of neuronal signaling seems to have more to do with autoimmune and inflammatory disorders than cancer.
If anybody reads the report, it’s clear there’s something going on here. It’s clear cannabis is eliminating cancer in humans. So far no one has actually addressed a single case in my report. So I’d like to move onto the cases rather than the general discussion, because that is where truth will be revealed.
Although I urge you all to read the report in its entirety, for brevity, at least focus on the epilepsy cases I mentioned above. What’s the deal with that? No pharmaceuticals were effective at all, and high-CBD oil immediately starts working miraculously. Is it all just coincidence?
Perhaps I’m not qualified to summarize them, I shouldn’t have to be the person doing this. It’s ridiculous. But no one else has stepped up to do this, so I did. My summaries do not extrapolate, when I say that cannabinoids are doing something, that is what the study says. I extrapolate when I say these collective studies support the experiential results being observed.
The senator was Bernie Herpin. Let me also clarify - I am the webmaster for PhoenixTears.ca but in general am an activist for this medicine, and I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Rick Simpson, who started PhoenixTears, has said. He had originally stated that high-THC was the best form of cannabis extract treatment, and I disagree - I think high-CBD is better. However, he has still done so much good, and PhoenixTears is a very well known organization in this movement that has helped advance this knowledge.
As for marketing, I graduated with a degree in Marketing from University of Maryland, College Park. I also worked quite hard during college and managed to finish with a 3.915. I guarantee if I’d taken a harder major that would be a much lower GPA, but Marketing definitely wasn’t a cakewalk. I really enjoyed the vast majority of it though, especially using the statistical software SPSS. That was surprisingly fun, statistics is traditionally thought of as boring but the basics I learned was interesting, and I’m sure it just gets crazier as it gets more advanced.
So I glanced at the beginning of the report and it appears that cannabinoid-related substances can help cure everything, including–I shit you not–hiccups.
Last sentence of first paragraph, top of page 10:
To quote The Outlaw Josey Wales:
In all seriousness, if you want to talk about the cases, provide a cancer-related paper from a real journal we can read. No one is going to hunt through your 100 page pdf for them (and meeting abstracts don’t count).
As mentioned, there are doctors, scientists, and generally smart people here who may want to see if they take away the conclusions you do.
Congrats on your degree.
You want substance? Here’s some substance: You are selling a lie, and that lie can kill the people who buy it. You have blood on your hands.
“Oh, but I’m not selling anything. I’m just providing information,” you would say, because that’s what people of your ilk say to defend their lies. And you did say it early in this thread, which is why it isn’t in the cornfield.
Bullshit. You may not make money off it, but you are still selling your bogus belief, a belief that can kill because it is not true. If you are the good person I believe you are, one who just wants to help people, I ask that you listen to the people here who are telling you that your belief needs to be tested, that the tests you describe are worse than useless crap, and that you should shut down your site and quit playing prophet because your magical belief in the power of pot is killing the people who listen to you.
The only “academics” you’ve been able to point to (i.e. literally the only people with scientific degrees in your long list which seems to contain a whole bunch of nobodies) have not published anything to do with cannabinoids (or indeed much of anything at all). The evidence is simply lacking. Saying “these guys with degrees seem to think it checks out” is not a great argument when you have two of them and they haven’t actually published any research on it.
Well shit, if you aren’t the most qualified person to talk about advanced brain cancer I’ve ever seen! You’re almost as qualified as Stanislav Burzynski, and that guy only consistently misdiagnoses his patients.
Then show it to some oncologists. Show it to the people actually qualified to review the claims. Submit it for peer review. This is the same thing we keep coming back to. Get your data reviewed by a reliable source, come to us with real data, rather than this kind of sketchy “80-90%” “4-6” crap. Those are unacceptable margins of error when we’re talking about simply counting. If you can’t count your patients effectively, then there’s a problem.
Well, it would be shorter if you spent less time focusing on individual cases beyond the data that can be gathered from them. It would be shorter if you didn’t waste time trying to prop up the credibility of a lunatic (Rick Simpson is a quack and a nutter). It would be shorter if you left out reference to “Run from the Cure”, which belongs in the same bin as any random David Icke film and is filled with dangerous misinformation about chemotherapy. Things like “Cash’s state was morbidly severe, and it is frankly stunning how he was able to survive that long” or “Nonetheless, the hospital staff gathered to watch Cash leaving cancer free, and believed they had seen a miracle” have no place in a scientific paper. They’re there to tug at our heartstrings, and they are a complete waste of time.
And looking at his story, you see the same pattern you see from quack cure after quack cure: the patient takes conventional medicine and quack therapy, undergoes remission, then stops taking conventional medicine, thinking that the battle is over, and relapses. Yeah, that’s a real strong argument for your quack therapy. There’s a reason that chemotherapy goes on long after the cancer is “gone”. But of course, we can’t really go the extra step to evaluate this case without the details, and in your rush to present Cash as a martyr to the cause, you forgot to include them!
Then you include a five-page-long anecdote from a person with no medical education whatsoever, in the typical “this drug miraculously cured my cancer after conventional doctors gave up on me” fashion. They even seem credulous about Run From The Cure. I don’t know how to make this any clearer. This has literally every hallmark of quack medicine. Personal anecdotes from credulous sources. Appeals to emotion. Technobabble unsupported by actual evidence. A distinct lack of actual peer-reviewed clinical trials. A distinct lack of important details about the medical proceedings and diagnoses.
Here’s how to make it be taken seriously: start tier one clinical trials (small-scale - you probably won’t find the support needed for tier two trials just yet), document every step of the way, and publish them in peer-reviewed journals. I feel like I’m a broken record here. Every quack can tell stories about how miraculous their drug is. Every. Single. One. What matters is the actual clinical data. What happens when you include those who failed? What happens when you throw in control groups?
No. They’re not. In fact, they’re the opposite. A degree in marketing? Good, you might know how to sell us a bullshit story.
That’s two years less than it would have taken to get a medical degree.
No, you don’t get it. It doesn’t. Your report is worthless. Not a single case therein was analyzed with any sort of rigor, they seem essentially cherry-picked for their apparent successes, there’s no data as to how you collected these cases, there’s no data about controls, there’s no fucking rigor. None of the things you’d expect from a scientific source to try to elevate the signal from the statistical noise.
But do you understand basic rigor? No, of course not - otherwise you wouldn’t have brought out this insultingly weak study as if it was some groundbreaking collection of evidence. When I look at that, you know what I see? This. And this.
I’m with dropzone. Stop pushing this shit until you’ve jumped through the necessary and absolutely reasonable hoops that every other cure has gone through. Because if it does work, it should be piss-easy to show it in clinical trials, and if it doesn’t, then your bad advice is killing people.
Just to chime in here, I’ve been working on a PhD in biology for the last five years, with close to a decade of experience in cancer labs before that, and this is just nonsense. To even make these claims - to string these words together in this way - indicates such a profound level of ignorance of cancer biology, medicine, and human biology as to essentially destroy any credibility you may like to have. It’s like telling an astronomer that the sun spins around the earth and stars are glowing snot flecks from a magical sky goat.
Note that I am not saying anything one way or the other about cannabis or any related topics. Simply that you do not understand what you are talking about.
Now, often times, when people like you are told something like this, the response is frustration that you’re being ignored, or possibly a belief that you’re being held down by some sort of conspiracy of silence. Neither of these is true, of course. It is simply that non-scientists rarely fully understand the level of rigor and evidence that is required before one can make even small claims, like “a significant proportion of subjects in this study demonstrated an improvement in symptoms”, let alone the massive, sweeping claims you are making in your posts.
Tough crowd. Should’ve softened us up with that Hemp for Victory film first.
Unfortunately what you refer to as “experiential” is more accurately described as “anecdotal”.
The gold standard for science-based medicine is the double-blinded study. I did not see any links to any such studies showing that cannabis extracts cure cancer in humans (or animals either, for that matter). Others have said and I repeat - if it is so obvious that cannabis cures cancer, why has this never been shown in actual scientific studies?
No, that isn’t clear at all.
What’s the deal? It would appear that the deal is that you want to change the subject to distract from your failure to produce any real evidence for your earlier claims about cancer.
Regards,
Shodan
I just about spit up my coffee reading this.
Did you happen to notice that the parade of article abstracts you posted involve specific cannabinoid extracts, and not Joe Blow smoking pot or using other commercial marijuana products? If (and it’s a big if) any cannabinoids wind up being useful in cancer treatment, it’ll be via purified and standardized pharmaceuticals.
You need to stop dogmatically asserting that cannabinoids “kill cancer cells”, since the quoted studies I referenced all seem to discuss selective “apoptosis” without claiming that tumors disappeared.
And as noted, it is incredibly reckless to suggest that people pour cannabis oil on skin cancers to see what happens. There are skin cancers that may appear to regress or disappear with local treatment by various means (including with bloodroot salve, a popular Internet remedy), but actually grow and metastasize via deeper, unaffected tumor and can kill people (i.e. melanoma and squamous cell cancer).
I find it disgusting that some marijuana legalization activists are hiding behind professed concerns for pot as a medical cure, and way overhyping the alleged benefits.
[QUOTE= JKander]
Alcohol-based tinctures were used in medicine for thousands of years, and still today.
[/QUOTE]
So is chicken blood.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t know what I can say to that, except you’re shoveling it fast and furious.
As others have eloquently stated, you’re not qualified to summarize the results because you don’t understand them. Clearly, what you’ve written so far doesn’t approach scientific rigor, doesn’t express an understanding of basic science principles, and doesn’t argue for a single coherent point.
Cannabis may have medicinal properties, but all you’ve given us is snake oil.
Ahh what a beautiful way to wake up! This is good stuff. I have a lot to address.
First, the studies. Someone mentioned that they all involve standardized cannabis extracts. That’s partially true, the vast majority of them actually deal with single chemicals like THC or CBD, endocannabinoids like anandamide or 2-AG, or synthetic cannabinoids like WIN 55,212-2. A select few involve THC and CBD, or lesser known cannabinoids like CBG and CBC. No matter what type of cannabinoid - phyto, endo, or synthetic, all have been shown to kill cancer cells through a wide variety of mechanisms.
It actually makes sense that whole plant extractions would be more effective. Even THC and CBD alone are proving to be very effective in the lab, but they are only single cannabinoids! The best results are achieved when cannabinoids are used together, in synergy. And studies that have used multiple cannabinoids have reported synergistic effects, not only between THC and CBD, but CBG, CBC, CBN, and other non-psychoactive cannabinoids. This, along with the presence of terpenes, seems to be why cannabis extracts are so effective. When people ingest them, and all the cannabinoids work synergistically, amazing things happen.
As for the testimonials in my report - there are a wide mix of those who used conventional therapy and those who didn’t. And nobody has acknowledged how much pain pharmaceuticals have caused - people refer to them as if they are the end-all be-all, but in my experience, people hate them. Not just in this movement - my friends, my family, they do not like taking pharmaceuticals. The side effects, the cost, the overall ineffectiveness. Chronic pain is something I’ve seen this with all too well. People get addicted to massive doses of opiates, which get progressively weaker over time. For people in serious pain, they have no other option besides opiates. Many people in my report have gotten off major doses of opiates in remarkably short amounts of time with cannabis extracts. You can’t placebo your way out of that - if hundreds of milligrams of opiates isn’t working, you take cannabis oil and the pain goes away and you can get off those opiates, you know something’s happening.
The patients in my report are not quacks, they are real people who have put their lives on the line to share their experiences and try to help others. Nobody’s perfect, and some patients have beliefs I don’t share. But the common thread of their experiences is undeniable. This is not like anything else out there.
Also, in regards to other quack and bullshit cures, there are so many pages debunking them. Stuff like Miracle Mineral Supplement has a Wikipedia page debunking it, same with black salve. There is no adequate debunking of cannabis oil, because it can’t be. It keeps working. I’ve never seen one, and I just did a search, and the pages that did come up stating skepticism didn’t do anywhere close to a thorough analysis.
I see the story of Cash Hyde was brought up, so I’ll address some issues with that. He’s a perfect example of why continued treatment is important with cancer, because if one goes into remission initially, there may be residual cancer cells that could bring the cancer back in full force. That happened with Cash twice - he used cannabis oil, the cancer went away, he lost access to oil, and it came back. That doesn’t change the fact he beat cancer twice in the face of very poor prognoses. There’s no getting around the emotion with his case. He was literally on death’s door - in the ICU, not being able to eat, in unbearable pain. Immediately after beginning to receive cannabis oil, his condition completely turns around, he’s able to get off over half a dozen pharmaceuticals, and his tumor goes into remission. Coincidence? Just took awhile for the chemotherapy to finally kick in? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that it just took awhile for the chemo to work… that’s a semi-valid argument, but when someone is about to die, they are not just going to magically turn around. When they take a substance that has scientific potential to help them, and they start being helped, it’s just not a coincidence.
I disagree that we need double-blind trials to prove cannabis cures cancer. We need those advanced trials to figure out what cannabinoid therapies are best - what ratios of THC/CBD are best, best strains, best terpene profiles, best dosing regiments, etc. But the fact that cannabis has eliminated cancer in humans is undeniable if anybody actually reads the report. One or two cases could maybe be argued as coincidence or spontaneous remission. But every single case? Even the ones where people are told they are going to die, and then go into full remission? It’s a stretch to say these things.
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. Let’s say we did wait, and it turned out to be true. How many millions of people would have died in that time? It’s far more direct to treat a hospice center, prove this works once and for all, and make it available to the world. This has already been going on in limited ways, and it must be accelerated.
Still, no one has addressed the radical successes of epilepsy yet, nor Dr. Courtney’s documented elimination of brain cancer or Dr. Melamede’s documented elimination of skin cancer. Just those few cases are indisputable, besides saying it was possibly spontaneous remission.
No, they don’t. People who follow these issues have a very clear picture of what drugs can do and can’t do. Compare that to what you’re saying about cannabis.
I agree that people don’t like taking medications generally, and they’re often disappointed when they don’t work perfectly. That’s a fact of life, unfortunately, and taking advantage of it to hawk snake oil is wrong.
This is very, very wrong.
I found plenty of Google hits for “cannabis oil debunked.”
Again, with science, you can’t keep asserting things like “It can’t be a coincidence, it can’t be anything else.” Unless you control for other factors, you cannot make those statement with any confidence.
That’s true of every medicine for every disease.
That’s a very dangerous attitude.
I think they genuinely believe it, but I’m also bugged by it, for very similar reasons: I want to see marijuana legal and regulated like alcohol or tobacco. And people like Rick Simpson rob the movement of credibility.
Are we done here?
Yeah, I think we’re done here. JKander, I recommend that you go get an education. Those 5 years you’ve worked for this movement could have been spent going to school, and learning the sort of skills you need to be able to deal with medical claims. You don’t understand why your report is completely meaningless in scientific terms - why any peer-reviewed journal would laugh, then get annoyed when you mention that you’re not kidding. You’re playing straight out of the “Medical quack handbook” and you either don’t understand it, or you’re expecting us to miss it. No, I’m sorry. We’re not stupid. And your list of testimonials is unimpressive.
And this is why I hold you in the utmost contempt. Because you’d recommend something which has never been shown to work in any trials on humans over something which has established itself as the medical gold standard through consistent testing and improvement. And you don’t even understand what’s wrong with that.