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

[JKander]

@Smeghead

I, and others, have posted many exhaustive, detailed explanations of the flaws in what you are posting. You have ignored all of it. Your only response is to repeat ad nauseum your little stories and reiterate again and again how much you really really believe what you’re saying, encouraging us to have the same faith.

You ARE an alternative medicine quack, pure and simple. Nothing more.

If I haven’t addressed the flaws you all have pointed out, I’m sorry, and here’s my shot.

The main problems people have pointed out are there are studies showing cannabinoids can in some cases increase cancer and that my methodology for choosing cases is flawed because I only focus on successes. In regards to research, the studies showing cannabinoids inhibit cancer far outweigh those saying it contributes to cancer. In fact, here’s a list of hundreds of studies showing cannabinoids therapeutically benefit virtually any disease imaginable. How can one thing help so many things? That’s what makes this different, and this is all peer-reviewed stuff.

I explained that I believe in humans the pro-cancer effect wouldn’t appear because of the synergy between cannabinoids. Terpenes and the body’s own endocannabinoid system doubtlesss have a role to play. Like I said, I’ve never seen a case where a non-terminal cancer patient used this medicine and failed. In over five and a half years. The only failures I’ve seen have been in terminal cancer patients.

Of course, that’s just my experience, but it has value. I’ve been a part of all the major cannabis medicine forums and social media groups for years, and in my experience, it seems to always work. Of all the people I’ve seen report successes and failures over the years, they have overwhelmingly been successes, and the high rate of success I’ve observed is similar to the high rates of success observed by institutions like River Rock, Realm of Caring, and Dr. Courtney’s office. I’m not ignoring failures - the people who are actually involved in this are seeing massive success.

I’ve collected testimonials over many years, and I used them in my report to show that this is really happening, that people are actually having success. If I was leaving out massive amounts of failures, this would be very one-sided, but like I said, I just don’t have the failures, and they are not reflected in experience.

There are so many studies and news stories that ask the question, “Can cannabis cure cancer?” or “Could cannabinoids be next cheap anti-cancer drug?”, as some pointed out below. All I’m saying is the answer is yes. People have this idea that until a pharmaceutical company processes a plant down to isolated chemicals, it won’t work. But food works. Eating the right foods has been proven to prevent cancer. Like I said earlier, everybody agrees that eating whole broccoli is better than taking a pill with refined antioxidant chemicals. Same with cannabis - having the whole plant is better than having a refined formula with only one or two cannabinoids. Not only do the cannabinoids in cannabis have benefit, but terpenes have been proven to also have anti-cancer effects and work synergistically with at least THC. That’s why you need the whole formulation.

People have yet to address the fact that the only case I’m directly connected with, Dennis Hill, was a success. I watched a man with cancer use this medicine and then his cancer went away. No chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery, with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. For years I have seen results like this happen over and over, to be honest I wasn’t even surprised when my friend told me his cancer was gone because I was expecting it. I’m not surprised when people put oil on a skin cancer and it falls off. Because I’ve been seeing it for years, it’s not going to magically stop happening.

People have also cited claims in the research about this not being clear cut, about the anticancer effects of THC not being definitive. All research does not take into account the experiential results observed, and it makes sense that cannabinoids would work differently in the complex human body than a cell culture. Except unlike other cases, where a chemical’s efficacy often decreases because of that complexity, cannabinoids seem to actually work better. This seems to be because we already have a system, the endocannabinoid system, which was fine-tuned to accept and process phytocannabinoids. If one accepts the theories of the peer-reviewed research that exists, it perfectly explains why these results are happening. There are scientific foundations to the miraculous results.

I am encouraged by the trials starting from GW Pharmaceuticals for both cancer and epilepsy. I am encouraged by Dr. Sean McAllister’s attempts to do trials for CBD and cancer. It will be good, but until then, people need to use their own power to save themselves, and not wait around to prove what humans have already proven for themselves.

[Czarcasm]

@JKander

If I haven’t addressed the flaws you all have pointed out, I’m sorry, and here’s my shot.

The main problems people have pointed out are there are studies showing cannabinoids can in some cases increase cancer and that my methodology for choosing cases is flawed because I only focus on successes. In regards to research, the studies showing cannabinoids inhibit cancer far outweigh those saying it contributes to cancer.

That was your shot at answering the question? Next time, you might want to bring some ammo…and a gun. You can’t say that “A” outweighs “B” if you only collect examples of “A”.

[Marley23]

@JKander

The main problems people have pointed out are there are studies showing cannabinoids can in some cases increase cancer and that my methodology for choosing cases is flawed because I only focus on successes.

You don’t have a methodology. Using the term at all is disingenuous. It’s like me saying I have a “methodology” for putting stuff in my garbage can.

I’ve collected testimonials over many years, and I used them in my report to show that this is really happening, that people are actually having success. If I was leaving out massive amounts of failures, this would be very one-sided, but like I said, I just don’t have the failures, and they are not reflected in experience.

Please look up the concept of confirmation bias. I don’t think people are signing on to pro-marijuana websites to report ambivalent results or failures.

People have this idea that until a pharmaceutical company processes a plant down to isolated chemicals, it won’t work. But food works.

:smack: You need to compare like with like. We don’t take medicine for the same reason we eat. In general medicines are taken to address specific problems and processing and standardizing are important because the medicines are usually based on particular compounds- not “I don’t know, smoke the whole thing- it’s all good!”

People have yet to address the fact that the only case I’m directly connected with, Dennis Hill, was a success. I watched a man with cancer use this medicine and then his cancer went away. No chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery, with an aggressive form of prostate cancer.

There is nothing to address. If this is what happened I’m glad he’s well.

Except unlike other cases, where a chemical’s efficacy often decreases because of that complexity, cannabinoids seem to actually work better. This seems to be because we already have a system, the endocannabinoid system, which was fine-tuned to accept and process phytocannabinoids.

I think it’s odd that half the time you say peer-reviewed trials are unnecessary and we can’t wait for them, and the other half of the time you say the results are amazing. Maybe pick one of these and stick with it.

[running_coach]

@JKander

I explained that I believe in humans the pro-cancer effect wouldn’t appear because of the synergy between cannabinoids. Terpenes and the body’s own endocannabinoid system doubtlesss have a role to play. Like I said, I’ve never seen a case where a non-terminal cancer patient used this medicine and failed. In over five and a half years. The only failures I’ve seen have been in terminal cancer patients.

Of course they’re failures, the patients fucking DIED. Why weren’t they saved by your PERFECT MIRACLE cure?

[Czarcasm]

@Marley23

There is nothing to address. If this is what happened I’m glad he’s well.

If that’s what happened…but all I can seem to find on the subject of Dennis Hill and cancer are puff pieces in pro-marijuana sites and forums that feed off each other. Where can one get the facts without the praise and puffery?

[Jackmannii]

@JKander

here’s a list of hundreds of studies showing cannabinoids therapeutically benefit virtually any disease imaginable.

And Jackmannii’s law kicks in even more forcefully.

“Any disease imaginable”? Do you have any remote conception of how ludicrous that sounds?

The hell with Obamacare - just have the government issue a bountiful ration of pot to every man, woman and child in the country and dramatic wellness will appear overnight - no need for insurance, exchanges, doctors or Big Pharma.

[Shodan]

@JKander

In fact, here’s a list of hundreds of studies showing cannabinoids therapeutically benefit virtually any disease imaginable. How can one thing help so many things? That’s what makes this different, and this is all peer-reviewed stuff.

You call an article “Why I Give My 9 Year Old Pot” peer-reviewed?

As a matter of fact, I did not see even one peer-reviewed article in your list establishing definitively that cannabinoids therapeutically benefitted any disease.

Do you start to see why we won’t simply take your word for it that marijuana cures cancer (epilepsy, acne, hiccups, MS, feeing not so fresh, etc., etc.)? Because whenever we check out what you claim, it turns out to be either unproven, grossly exaggerated, or outright false.

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

You call an article “Why I Give My 9 Year Old Pot” peer-reviewed?

As a matter of fact, I did not see even one peer-reviewed article in your list establishing definitively that cannabinoids therapeutically benefitted any disease.

Do you start to see why we won’t simply take your word for it that marijuana cures cancer (epilepsy, acne, hiccups, MS, feeing not so fresh, etc., etc.)? Because whenever we check out what you claim, it turns out to be either unproven, grossly exaggerated, or outright false.

Regards,
Shodan

JKander, do you even know what a scientific study is?

[Shodan]

Of course he does - a scientific study is anything that tells him that whatever he already believes is true.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard_Parker]

@Shodan

As a matter of fact, I did not see even one peer-reviewed article in your list establishing definitively that cannabinoids therapeutically benefitted any disease.

(emphasis)

Given that the link had dozens of peer-reviewed studies suggesting therapeutic benefits, I understand you to be leaning pretty heavily on these bolded terms. But does a single study ever “establish definitively” a therapeutic benefit? I assume that on the frontiers of research, all we ever have are the kinds of things reflected in that link.

What would constitute a definitive establishing of a therapeutic benefit? Does a peer-reviewed study that shows better outcomes versus a control satisfy that?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@JKander

If I haven’t addressed the flaws you all have pointed out, I’m sorry, and here’s my shot.

The main problems people have pointed out is that my methodology for choosing cases is flawed because I only focus on successes.

The single most important error you need to understand, the thing YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND, is that a methodology where you randomly pick cases you’ve heard of that were successful IS NOT A METHODOLOGY. Either figure this shit out or stop talking. If I wanted to study a new treatment for a disease, I would not do it by looking at assorted anecdotal evidence from sites that are overwhelmingly predisposed to be favorable towards that treatment and then throwing them in willy-nilly, because that would be incredibly stupid. I would try to find all of the cases, or at least a statistically representative one. You don’t have that. You don’t even try to have that.

Of course, that’s just my experience, but it has value.

No, it doesn’t. Your experience is completely worthless.

I’ve been a part of all the major cannabis medicine forums and social media groups for years, and in my experience, it seems to always work.

And if that is the only or primary place you’re getting your “research”, and you don’t see why this exposes you to a confirmation bias the size of a small planet, then I feel comfortable in saying that you have not only no knowledge of what you’re talking about and are scientifically illiterate, but also that you have no understanding of basic debate - these are really basic things you are completely failing to understand. You’re completely clueless.

[Jackmannii]

@Richard_Parker

But does a single study ever “establish definitively” a therapeutic benefit?

Pretty much, yes. Example.

[Shodan]

@Richard_Parker

(emphasis)

Given that the link had dozens of peer-reviewed studies suggesting therapeutic benefits, I understand you to be leaning pretty heavily on these bolded terms. But does a single study ever “establish definitively” a therapeutic benefit? I assume that on the frontiers of research, all we ever have are the kinds of things reflected in that link.

What would constitute a definitive establishing of a therapeutic benefit? Does a peer-reviewed study that shows better outcomes versus a control satisfy that?

He claimed it was all peer-reviewed studies, and that they showed therapeutic benefits.

On preview - see Jackmannii’s post.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard_Parker]

@Jackmannii

Pretty much, yes. Example.

An interesting example. So your position is that statins were not established as preventing CVD prior to 2013?

[Richard_Parker]

@Shodan

He claimed it was all peer-reviewed studies, and that they showed therapeutic benefits.

And you claimed that “not see even one peer-reviewed article in your list establish[es] definitively that cannabinoids therapeutically benefitted any disease.”

[Shodan]

So your position is that statins were not established as preventing CVD prior to 2013?

Not definitively.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Richard_Parker

And you claimed that “not see even one peer-reviewed article in your list establish[es] definitively that cannabinoids therapeutically benefitted any disease.”

Perhaps I was mistaken. How about if you cite the peer-reviewed article in the list that definitively establishes a therapeutic benefit for cannabinoids in some disease?

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard_Parker]

Right. But since I’m sort of guessing you didn’t click all 1000 pages worth of links, I suspect you’re just leaning on “definitively” as an impossible standard for medical research.

It seems to me much fairer to say that while this research is still developing, and more human study is needed (which means letting more doctors use marijuana for experiments), there is a huge body of evidence suggesting that cannaboids are therapeutically beneficial for one or more conditions.

The evidence for anti-emetic use alone seems pretty compelling, though again I don’t know what definitively means for you.

E.g., from the 1000 page list: Cannabinoids in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: beyond prevention of acute emesis - PubMed

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a significant problem in the care of cancer patients. Although the use of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists, as well as neurokinin-1 inhibitors, has reduced rates of acute emesis, many patients still experience acute vomiting; moreover, these agents have reduced efficacy in preventing nausea, delayed CINV, and breakthrough CINV. Nausea, in particular, continues to have a major–and often overlooked–impact on patients’ quality of life. Optimizing the treatment for CINV likely will involve combinations of agents that inhibit the numerous neurotransmitter systems involved in nausea and vomiting reflexes. Cannabinoids are active in many of these systems, and two oral formulations, dronabinol (Marinol) and nabilone (Cesamet), are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in CINV refractory to conventional antiemetic therapy. Agents in this class have shown superiority to dopamine receptor antagonists in preventing CINV, and there is some evidence that the combination of a dopamine antagonist and cannabinoid is superior to either alone and is particularly effective in preventing nausea. The presence of side effects from the cannabinoids may have slowed their adoption into clinical practice, but in a number of comparative clinical trials, patients have expressed a clear preference for the cannabinoid, choosing its efficacy over any undesired effects. Improvement in antiemetic therapy across the entire spectrum of CINV will involve the use of agents with different mechanisms of action in concurrent or sequential combinations, and the best such combinations should be identified. In this effort, the utility of the cannabinoids should not be overlooked.

[simster]

@Richard_Parker

Right. But since I’m sort of guessing you didn’t click all 1000 pages worth of links, I suspect you’re just leaning on “definitively” as an impossible standard for medical research.

It seems to me much fairer to say that while this research is still developing, and more human study is needed (which means letting more doctors use marijuana for experiments), there is a huge body of evidence suggesting that cannaboids are therapeutically beneficial for one or more conditions.

The evidence for anti-emetic use alone seems pretty compelling, though again I don’t know what definitively means for you.

E.g., from the 1000 page list: Cannabinoids in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: beyond prevention of acute emesis - PubMed

Which only seems to suggest that using cannaboids help prevent nausea, but have no direct impact on the cancer itself.

[Smeghead]

@JKander

If I haven’t addressed the flaws you all have pointed out, I’m sorry, and here’s my shot.

snipping yet another repeat of the same “arguments” already presented dozens of times

You haven’t absorbed a single word of what we have been trying to tell you. You’re simply repeating yourself. Once again, in brief: your stories are worthless, because your collection method is biased. Your personal experience is also worthless. Pointing to individual cases is worthless. Why these things are all worthless has been explained, repeated, restated, illustrated, and made so transparently clear that a six-year-old could understand it. Yet your only response is to continue to repeat these worthless things over and over again.