Prove it. I don’t believe you or trust you; don’t just assert it, prove it. This claim is ludicrous on its face, as even if some of the cases are reported on, there is a strong, innate bias in all news to report on the hits, rather than the misses for things like this. You don’t get to fill 100 pages with anecdotes of people supposedly cured with no methodology beyond “it seemed on the surface to work for these people”, then handwave away the possibility that you’re simply counting the hits and ignoring the misses. I see no reason to believe your claims. None. On a side note, I emailed Orac about this, linking specifically to your study, and he actually responded:
1998 Jan 24;351(9098):267.
Marijuana for intractable hiccups.
Gilson I, Busalacchi M.
PMID: 9457104
For some reason the full text doesn’t come up? Surely in your lit research you’ve come across pay-per-view articles?
I don’t have free access, but it was interesting that clicking on the author link for Busalacchi M in PubMed returns only that reference and doing the same for Gilson I returns 12 papers (10 look like his), most of which are HIV-related.
Anybody have access to The Lancet? The cite is a single page and the pdf is 43KB, which makes it seem like it’s some sort of short communication and not a full research paper.
I know we’re dismissing anecdotes, but I’m curious what this literature cite is. The patient had never smoked pot before. If he had never smoked tobacco before, would that have worked? Is it cannabinoids or smoke in general? Next time I get the hiccups, I might just only have to buy a pack of Marlboro’s.
I’ve already explained this in depth, but I’ll give it one more shot before assuming you’re here for marketing rather than science.
It doesn’t matter if the anecdotes are true or not. Read that again as needed until it has sunk in. Hint: if your response is to post more stories of wonderful cures, the lesson has not yet sunk in sufficiently.
I am perfectly willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that each and every story you have told here is 100% accurate. Your position is that from that fact, we can then conclude that these extracts are miracle cures that will take care of this vast array of problems. My position, and the position of science as a whole, is that you cannot draw ANY conclusions from such a small, biased data set. It’s just plain bad statistics, bad science, and lazy thinking.
IF these anecdotes are confirmed, the correct thing to do is to proceed with larger-scale studies to find out IF there is a repeatable, significant effect on these diseases. Unless and until those studies are done, I repeat what I said before: NO ONE KNOWS if this stuff works. Even if all of those stories are true, you CANNOT draw the conclusions you are throwing about so carelessly in every post. It is NOT what the evidence tells us. It is NOT what science tells us. Until we have real, solid data, you do not know if it works. Period. At best, you can be justified in cautious optimism. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of reported cancer cures that have generated anecdote sets exactly like yours that haven’t panned out upon further work. This is not different. It is not “breaking any rules of science”, and claiming that it does, again, just destroys your own credibility.
You have shown absolutely no indication that you are willing to seriously entertain the ideas of anyone who doesn’t instantly start cheerleading for your side. You’re not going to find that here.
All I can do is report on my experience. I don’t know everything, and there is so much to learn. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the overwhelming evidence that cannabis extracts have eliminated cancer in humans. In regards to failures, I’ve told you my experience - that there are relatively few, that even in failed cases the patients experience remarkable improvements, and the successes greatly outweigh the failures. I understand what you’re saying, of course, that just because I haven’t seen the failures, that doesn’t mean there are potentially millions of them out there, which would greatly reduce the success rate I claim.
But if there were that many failures, just like successes, I know they would show up. People would talk about them, as they have talked about the failures I have witnessed. But the reason most people talk about success is because most people see success… it’s that simple. I’m not trying to hide anything, and anybody who seriously looks at this issue will see the successes outweigh the failures. Like the recent tracking of Dr. Margaret Gedde of the 11 epilepsy patients. 9 experienced 90-100% reductions in seizures, 1 experienced 50% reduction, and the other has stayed around the same, with some possible benefit. In this one case, as seems to represent the movement as a whole, the majority of people experience radical benefit and there is little failure. That’s just how it is.
There’s nothing that can be done to understand this except spend a lot of time looking into it. Read the whole report, search for other failures online, talk to patients. The truth will present itself. You don’t need to take my word for it. I encourage all of you to actually find the patients I mention in the report and talk with them. I’m using all the material at my disposal to prove that a solid trend exists, but if people do not look at that material, there’s nothing I can do.
In essence, it’s plainly apparent I’m not counting the hits and ignoring the misses. People in general aren’t doing that. The results are overwhelming, this is a medicine that is designed to be used by the body and that’s why it works for so many people for so many conditions. The scientific studies make that apparent, and combined with the experiential results, I’ll say it again, it’s overwhelming.
You all must understand where I’m coming from too. When I was 16 I saw Run From the Cure, about Rick Simpson curing all kinds of cancer with cannabis oil. I’m now 22, and over the past years I’ve seen doctors, corporations, dispensaries, and so many more people get involved, and all confirm over and over what I learned when I was young - that this works. If it didn’t work, this couldn’t have happened. You wouldn’t have multiple doctors having medical documentation of cancer cures. You wouldn’t have Realm of Caring controlling intractable forms of epilepsy with high-CBD medicine. I didn’t come into this movement late and look for the successes - I started when there was virtually nothing, just one video of a guy making absurd claims, and I saw it get more legitimate as the years went on. My experience is doubtless an important part of why I know this is true, but anybody coming into this right now, who looks at everything, can still see the truth.
Very true. The first thing we need to learn is if it works. So far, we have no reason to conclude that it does.
Yes, they are. And the word of some pot-peddling webmaster is not enough to go on.
You have not shown that this works. Pushing anecdotes over and over and insisting on how this stuff is a miracle means less than nothing. If it worked as well as you claim, you would be able to show it. But you can’t.
No one is hiding behind anything (besides you). “The plural of anecdote is not data.” The distinction between evidence and marketing hype is crucial to scientific medicine.
We have addressed it. Every word of it is anecdote, and/or hype. You have not demonstrated any serious evidence. At all.
They’re faulty, because they are anecdotes. There is no way to tell if [list=A][li]they happened at all, or [*]if the number of cures is larger, smaller, or the same, as the number one would expect from standard treatment.[/list][/li]
Scientific medicine is not based on this kind of over-excited rhetoric. Hooey is.
What was your methodology for choosing cases? What method did you use? What criteria were there for making it onto your list? Please, stop making these broad-brush responses which do nothing to address the critiques made. Please answer this question. What methodology did you use for choosing cases on your list?
There is a fundamental disagreement here, about the value of the anecdotal evidence. While definitely biased to a fair degree, I can’t escape my own beliefs, this is not ignoring mountains of failures and only focusing on the successes. As I’ve said, there simply are very few failures. Most of the time it works. And when there is not only huge amounts of experiential data, but mountains of scientific literature that would suggest it could work in humans, that matters. I can’t tell you how many studies conclude with “cannabinoids may be therapeutically effective for [cancer/diabetes/MS/pain/etc/etc/etc] and should be studied further.”
What people cannot understand is that people can heal themselves. We’ve all been programmed to think that it has to be doctors, it has to be refined. The fact that, literally, a janitor can take some Everclear and make oil from cannabis, then eliminate cancer in himself, defies everything we’ve ever been taught. He’s not a doctor, he’s not tracking the results properly, he’s abandoning proven chemotherapy for this crazy stuff… it goes against everything. That, along with the fact that cannabis seems to work on everything, is why I say it breaks the rules of science. Because in the medical world, medicines are only supposed to work on one or a limited set of things. They are supposed to be refined and processed to usually a single chemical. But that’s not how this is.
Furthermore, why is it that medicine focuses on these single-chemicals? The primary answer is because it makes it far easier to study - because when a substance has multiple chemicals, you can’t identify what’s doing what - confounding factors, as people have indicated. But every animal and organism in existence did not evolve to ingest single chemicals. We evolved eating whole foods that include hundreds of chemicals which synergistically interact. Everybody agrees that eating whole vegetables like broccoli is better than taking a pill which is a refined extract of a beneficial compound in broccoli. The same with cannabis. Refining it to just get THC or CBD or something else will only result in a less effective medicine, just like refining broccoli to a single chemical would be less effective. You need the whole food. That’s what we evolved to ingest, that’s what works.
Ever realize how people who eat a lot of fruits and vegetables and take no pharmaceuticals are healthier than people who eat crap yet take the best, highest quality, most well researched pills? It’s because that’s the natural way to live, and when we live naturally and take medicine in its natural form, it works better. Period.
Indeed, Cash Hyde also used chemotherapy. When his cancer returned he also used proton radiation. However, with the chemotherapy, he was about to die and doctors said there was virtually no hope. Upon taking cannabis oil, he immediately started to recover and his cancer went into remission. It’s not a coincidence, he didn’t just magically start to get better as soon as he started taking cannabis oil. It clearly helped.
As for my methodology for choosing cases, I have collected many testimonials over several years, and I collected the ones I thought were the best or most notable. It was all subjective. I don’t have any failures recorded because again, like I said I just haven’t seen them as of recently, but I have no doubt they are out there. The successes massively outweigh them.
The point of this report isn’t to prove once and for all that cannabis cures cancer. The chief goal, as I state in the abstract, is to initiate immediate hospice trials to prove this works. Somebody here said a 90% success rate wouldn’t just be overwhelming, it would be ludicrous. Exactly!!! People would understand this is crazy, there’s no way that many terminal patients would be cured if this didn’t work. And that’s what will start a revolution, and it will be unlike anything humanity has ever seen in history. Which prior alternative medicine quack am I starting to sound like now ?
I like how someone pointed out something about a particular case, that Cash Hyde also used chemotherapy. This is productive. Simply saying all anecdotes are worthless is extremely disrespectful to the patients and antagonistic to finding the truth. Actually analyzing these real experiences is what will determine the reality of this.
I’d also like to point out now, this will definitely be the greatest “I-told-you-so” in history, ha. And it’ll be the happiest words you’ll have heard in your lives.
And you have no data to back up this claim, so I reject it.
Most of the time you’ve seen. And you’ve only seen the successes.
Yep, it should be studied further. Doesn’t make your report any less awful. You don’t understand the single most basic requirement for any study of the effectiveness of a drug: comparing the hits and the misses.
And literally everything after this is just a black hole of crazy I’m not going to get into.
I only skimmed the first dozen pages of his report. Those read like poor lit review in a thesis where cites that had the keywords such as marijuanna, cannabis, THC, and cannaniboids were referenced whether they were relevant or not.
Something like delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol induces apoptosis in a cancer cell line would be relevant. Smoking marijuana stopped hiccups–not so much.
A fact that you failed to mention when claiming a cure through cannabis alone. And you continued to fail to mention until it was brought up and you’re still trying to take credit for a “cure” that actually failed to cure.
Also, keep in mind there are many different types of epilepsy, and many people have different triggers for seizures. What may help one person can make things worse for another.
Interesting article, Shodan, I’ll have to check it out.
Bull. My mom died of pancreatic cancer a year and a half ago. She was taking at least three suppliments marketed as cancer stopping, on the basis that they couldn’t hurt. Well, they obviously didn’t help, either.
What they are is not important because my point is that her death represents a failure for three different alternative cures and HER DEATH WAS AT NO TIME COUNTED AS A FAILURE FOR ANY OF THEM. Saying you know that her death got reported as a failure against anything is blindingly insulting in its stupidity. There is no Alt Med Failed My Dead Relative hotline. There is NOBODY counting every alt med failure. And we all know that if surviving relatives did ever contact you saying “Dad died, utterly decimated even though he used your special oil” you’d forget about it by the weekend and still be spouting 4-6 partial failures.
[QUOTE=JKander]
You’re right, I don’t know how many failures there are…
[/QUOTE]
Which of these statements is true? It can’t be both.
Do you recognize how absurd this sounds? If it works as well as you claim, why is this not clear to the real scientists who study it?
You made this same claim about epilepsy. Yet in thirty seconds of Googling, I came up with a peer-reviewed article that said the results of the studies were not overwhelming; they were inconclusive.
IOW when people who know what they are talking about look at the data, they are as underwhelmed as we.
I would be extremely happy to acknowledge I was wrong, if convincing evidence emerges to show cannabis is a magic bullet against cancer, curing 90% of terminal cancer patients etc. Sadly, I feel confident there will be no such miraculous outcome.
Years from now, instead of “I-told-you-so”, you’ll probably be explaining away the continued lack of evidence for your claims in one or more of several drearily familiar ways. Either mainstream medicine is suppressing the overwhelming evidence, or big pharma is failing to follow up on pilot studies because it can’t make money from patenting cannabis (actually, unique derivatives would be patentable), or treatment failures are due to patients having their immune systems destroyed by mainstream drugs, and besides, look at all the additional unverifiable testimonials I have, etc. etc.
Cancer Manag Res. 2013 Aug 30;5:301-13. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S36105.
Critical appraisal of the potential use of cannabinoids in cancer management.
Cridge BJ, Rosengren RJ.
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Recent enough. JKander, are any of your cases in there? Full text is free.
Sigh. One more head-bang against the brick wall, and I suspect my patience will be at an end. Let’s do the tried-and-true point by point response this time:
Correct. And the correct way to do it is by doing proper research, and not drawing any conclusions until that research has been done.
If that was the purpose, it has failed. You have not demonstrated overwhelming evidence. You have told stories and presented anecdotes, and then drawn inappropriate conclusions from a lack of evidence.
You are severely underestimating the impact of the bias in your research. You are ONLY looking at successes. Unsurprisingly, when you do that, you find a success rate of 100%. I’m not talking about maybe knocking that down to 90% or 80% or even 50% if you include the failures. In a proper study, the success rate might be 50%. Or 30%. Or 0.0002%. Or 98.7%. My point is that you have no idea how effective this stuff is until you do research, but you continually ignore that fact and repeat your (no doubt sincere) belief that it works.
Do you not see the massive, massive bias inherent in these statements? Good science attempts to remove every last bit of bias we can find. No real scientist would dare even present this sort of stuff to an audience, let alone argue that it constitutes proof of something controversial. If they did, they’d be rightly laughed out of the field.
Yes, of course they will. Because of the bias, as I said.
Without knowing anything about the study in question, and making the rather huge assumption that the study was properly done, this would constitute an encouraging initial finding that would make good background for a grant application for further research. But you still cannot draw wide, sweeping conclusions from this one data point about how this stuff will be widely, hugely effective for everyone.
Again, it’s not peoples’ understanding of the material that is lacking; the material itself has been collected with an inherent, inbuilt bias that makes it scientifically worthless. Sorry. Talking to people - collecting more anecdotes - will do nothing to address that fundamental issue.
It is absolutely NOT apparent. It is your belief. That belief has not been backed up by any numbers, data, or evidence. If you take away nothing else from this post, take away this: science does not operate based on your gut feelings.
It is overwhelming to you, because, frankly, you are viewing this material very naively. The “scientific studies” and “experiential results” are simply insufficient support from which to draw your irresponsibly massive conclusions.
Again, that’s nice. But your personal experience is irrelevant. You are again arguing from emotion. You are offering your own personal, deeply held views and beliefs and expecting people to believe you because of them. Once again, that’s fantastic marketing. Humans are hard-wired to buy into that sort of thing, and all sorts of people have used such techniques very successfully since the dawn of time. But it’s absolutely shit worthless for science.
Look. I’m doing research right now. I’m sitting by the microscope writing this right now instead of collecting data for my own project. I have a hypothesis that I like. I think it’s true. I’m greatly encouraged by the evidence I’ve seen so far. But I understand that if I want anyone else to believe my theory, I have to prove it. At the very least, I need a good pile of inarguable data that supports my point of view. In science - REAL science - all it takes is for one person in the audience to raise their hand and say “have you considered this other possible explanation?” to reduce years’ worth of work to garbage. That’s why we work so hard to build up an airtight case before we publish. We encourage other people to try to poke holes in our work so that we can plug those holes ahead of time.
What we don’t do is go running around yelling “I’ve done one experiment and it supports what I think is right! Believe me! Believe me! I really really really REALLY think it’s true!” and then get annoyed when people start objecting.
Believe it or not, I’m sort of on your side. While I don’t really have an opinion one way or the other on cannabis, I’m all for curing cancer, and, if nothing else, doing more research to learn more stuff. I’d be in favor of seeing proper studies done. I just abhor lazy thinking.
?