High CBD, Low Odor Medical Strain

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
If people think that cannabis isn't really helping people cure ailments then they need to pay more attention.
Really? That's what you took away from this?

I don't want to live on this planet anymore...

Limonene in itself is being show effective when tested against breast cancer. Let alone the anti-seizure applications of the CbD. There is just too much good to say about it.
Well it's effective at killing the cells in breast cancer, that's different than eliminates all types of brain cancer with no additional treatment.



I have tried numerous antidepressants for my clinical depression and was a drug addict for years. Regular cannabis use keeps the depression in check which helps curb my appetite for destruction. Been clean for close to 6 years and off all prescriptions for almost the same amount of time.

No coincidence ImO
That's awesome. Congrats.
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
If people think that cannabis isn't really helping people cure ailments then they need to pay more attention.
There is a big difference between "treating" a disease and CURING it.

Limonene in itself is being show effective when tested against breast cancer.
Limonene is a terpene found in lemon oil that is not only perfectly legal, so far as I know, its entirely unregulated.

You can synthesize, possess, or buy as much of it as you like, legally, anywhere in the USA. Its found in the skins of citrus fruits, in small amounts in some non-citrus plants, and is used as a flavoring agent. While some strains of cannabis contain small amounts of this (ie the "lemon" and "citrus" strains) its NOT A CANNABINOID.

Not only do you not need medical cannabis to get this, that's probably not a particularly good way to get it anyway.

How effective this compound is actually is in treating and preventing cancers is debatable. Studies on limonene and cancer have been going on for at least 15 years, and the evidence here of beneficial effect in actual human beings with cancer is scant. So far as I know, there has never been a large scale clinical trial looking at the effects of limonene on cancer patients. Still, its not zero, making this far more "proven" than cannabinoids in treating at breast and/or colon cancers. But again, since this is not actually a cannabinoid, I'm not spending any more keystrokes on this.

Let alone the anti-seizure applications of the CbD. There is just too much good to say about it.
I never said cannabinoids have no medical applications.

For the Nth time, different cannabinoids potentially offer many medical benefits, and there is quite a bit of emerging medical literature PROVING efficacy in certain applications. I'm not at all against medical cannabis, and to the contrary, I'm a big advocate of it.

I'm just saying there is no evidence that cannabinoids CURE CANCERS in human beings, and quite a bit of reason to believe that this isn't true.

Reduce seizures. . .yes.
Reduce muscle spasticity. . .yes.
Reduce nausea, increase appetite, improve mood. . .yes.
Cure cancer. . .no.

Get it?
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
Well it's [limonene] effective at killing the cells in breast cancer
Eh. . .

If you're talking about cancer cells in human beings with breast cancer. . .probably not so much. . .

Suffice it to say that studies on limonene and cancer have been going on for 15 years. The agent itself is cheap, and most people (though not everyone) tolerate pharmacologic doses of it reasonably well. If this stuff was good at treating breast cancer, again, it would be in widespread use right now.

Which isn't to say it has NO effect; so far it just doesn't seem to have MUCH effect.

Note also that cannabis strains contains absolutely miniscule amounts of this stuff. One suggested dosing of this is 2g/day.

Consider that cannabis is about 0.14% limonene (depending on strain). Smoking destroys most of the limonene. So to get your daily two gram dose you'd need to ingest the equivalent of 1.4 KILOS of cannabis (or cannabis extract) per day. That's just ridiculous.

If you're interested in medical limonene, you'll probably want to obtain it from a different source.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Eh. . .

If you're talking about cancer cells in human beings with breast cancer. . .probably not so much. .
Actually yes. It literally kills breast cancer cells. was speaking of cannabis in general, more specifically CBD. Didn't mean limonene. I misread his post. Somehow didn't even see the word limonene in there.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21566064?dopt=Abstract

Abstract

Cannabidiol (CBD), a major nonpsychoactive constituent of cannabis, is considered an antineoplastic agent on the basis of its in vitro and in vivo activity against tumor cells. However, the exact molecular mechanism through which CBD mediates this activity is yet to be elucidated. Here, we have shown CBD-induced cell death of breast cancer cells, independent of cannabinoid and vallinoid receptor activation. Electron microscopy revealed morphologies consistent with the coexistence of autophagy and apoptosis. Western blot analysis confirmed these findings. We showed that CBD induces endoplasmic reticulum stress and, subsequently, inhibits AKT and mTOR signaling as shown by decreased levels of phosphorylated mTOR and 4EBP1, and cyclin D1. Analyzing further the cross-talk between the autophagic and apoptotic signaling pathways, we found that beclin1 plays a central role in the induction of CBD-mediated apoptosis in MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cells. Although CBD enhances the interaction between beclin1 and Vps34, it inhibits the association between beclin1 and Bcl-2. In addition, we showed that CBD reduces mitochondrial membrane potential, triggers the translocation of BID to the mitochondria, the release of cytochrome c to the cytosol, and, ultimately, the activation of the intrinsic apoptotic pathway in breast cancer cells. CBD increased the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), and ROS inhibition blocked the induction of apoptosis and autophagy. Our study revealed an intricate interplay between apoptosis and autophagy in CBD-treated breast cancer cells and highlighted the value of continued investigation into the potential use of CBD as an antineoplastic agent.


© 2011 American Association for Cancer Research.

Which isn't to say it has NO effect; so far it just doesn't seem to have MUCH effect.
Well that's also the case with CBD. It has been shown to be effective in killing breast cancer cells, but there is no evidence it can cure breast or any other type of cancer. However it could help fight the disease.
 

chodepack

Member
Check out our fellow stoners over at the city.

Hemp oil actually worked for this guy, Very interesting read if you have the time. I will post studies later.
 
Again, I'm all for medical cannabis. . .I'm just against bullsh*t hippy pseudoscience erasing common sense, and giving false hope to people with terminal diseases. As you say, that kind of talk (let alone wild-eyed conspiracy theories) destroys all credibility of the cannabis movement.

Pseudoscience... how about this - witchcraft!


You - Jogro - are dipping into the same dark powers that witch doctors have used and still use mainly in Africa - the evil twin of placebo - namely nocebo.


"False hope" - Hope is KEY. Who is to define what false hope is? Is 50% chance of getting something false hope? 5%? 0.5%?
You are, by your writing style and mind set, killing hope. Faith can move mountains.


I've seen people literally being killed in 3 weeks by nocebo-wielding "experts". A few words, and life went out of the person (let's call him J). The curse/killing spell were cast by an MD, and went: "No, there is no use for an hearing aid - you'll don't need it soon..." - J started dying visibly immediately after that visit. Another person (let's call him B) finally killed J 18 days later by removing J:s last motivation, B faked illness because B thought J would be too exhausted to go on a certain trip. J saw through the bluff, and just fell into pieces - 3 days later, dead. J had lived 3 years longer than anyone recorded with his type of cancer by sheer stubborness and willpower. Two "well meaning" people with sh*t pouring from their mouths supplied the straw that broke the camels back.


Now, you Jogro, with your scientific bent and need for proof will immediately discredit the above as coincidence. How could mere words affect physiology so much...


Well - you see, I have done "impossible" things with words myself - by hypnosis. How about the following "impossible" things, experienced and performed by myself:
1. I helped increase a brain cancer patients white blood cell count by a factor of 4 or more (don't call me on the details if it was lymphocytes, T-cells, B-cells, exact counts, whatever - it was ages ago, the patient called me one day after our session and said that his bloodwork was off the charts). Our work together was excruciating, a young man of 25, the son of a friend of mine, totally wrecked by radiation and chemo. They had given him 6 months max, he got 18 months. I gave him a toolbox of mental devices that he used, I did not work with him more than once, but the PROOF was the blood work.


2. I got a womans stroke paralyzed cramped-into-a-pretzel-below-the-chin arm to become fully relaxed and rested after 10 minutes of hypnosis, and got her to sleep a restful sleep for the first time in 5 years. That is measurable.


3. I got a patient with severe tinnitus to get a reduction from 9 (on a scale of 10) to 1-2. This guy had to sleep with headphones playing loud music to drench the ringing in his ears - and he did not get much sleep anyways. When we found the key into his mind, he just went BANG! and fell into a heap of a man, crying for 10 minutes of relief. That is measurable.


4. A friend of mine said he wanted a testosterone/adrenaline booster "installed" in his body, so we built one... by hypnosis... a slider on his arm. He was going to use it to get fired up when he went stick fighting, he was usually badly beaten for an hour because he was so non-agressive before the pain kicked him into gear. Anyway - he got this "slider" he could regulate on his arm. I called him a week after the "installation" and asked him if he had beaten the crap out of his training partners, and he said that he had not trained since we met... but... a big BUT... he had been lifting some weights, doing some bench pressing with 220 lbs and only managed to do 6 reps which was rather subpar for him - so he slid the slider, and did 12 more immediately after with no rest period after the previous 6 reps. From 6 to 18 reps. That is PROOF. That is measurable.


I will stop here. I could go on and on. My point is that by just using words, we can access mind/body mechanisms that control - I dare to claim - EVERY function in the body. From hormones, cell generation, neurological functioning to G-d knows what.


Now - I registered on this forum just because I saw the bad juju you - Jogro - were spreading. The cold, cynical, severely limited "scientific" outlook you dispense LITERALLY kills people. I will stand for that. You have no clue to what harm you've already caused.


"Giving false hope to people with terminal diseases" - that false hope WILL make some people beat the cancer REGARDLESS if CBD/THC works in vitro or in vivo. Then it is NOT false hope. Spontaneous remission happens all the time.


You claim that there are no scientific evidence, that an in vitro study with animal cells is not valid or interesting and whatever.


Now... the fact is that there are dozens of videos and forum testimonials of people that had been "abandoned" by the medical society and "science" and left to die, classified as incurables and supposed to be dead within weeks or months. Those people did not throw in the towel, they did not give up, and they took CBD/THC oil. Maybe they hit some CBD1 receptors, maybe they got extra rest, maybe they healed psychological trauma or released anxiety - who cares - they got cured. How? Who cares... RIGHT NOW - people are dying and need an extra chance. Maybe it is a lottery ticket, but if you don't play the lottery, you certainly don't win - who knows the winning ratio of a CBD/THC oil cure? 50%, 5%, 0.5%? One thing is for sure - some people played the lottery, and they WON.


The thing that a witch doctor like you - Jogro - do, is that you not only make people not playing the lottery, but you also tell people that already had bought into the game to rip their lottery ticket to pieces by saying that you can't win!


You might laugh at my argumentation, put me in the pseudoscientific hole, argue if my experiences are true etc... I don't care. The only thing I care about is that I can undo some of the damage that you and others of your ilk do.


I do not debate the fact that there are a lot of complete fools out there who have no scientific background nor any reasoning skills or medical/scientific knowledge - I resent them too - the problem is that YOU throw away the baby with the bathwater.


A final note about in vivo testing on humans - how likely is it that you would get ethical approval of ingesting 1 gram of CBD/THC a day for a couple of months? Look at the puny concentration of CBD/THC in Sativex - which obviously has an effect - but if the CBD/THC oil mechanism requires mega dosing, saturating and cleaning a number of known and unknown receptors in the body, as well as penetrating different tissues with more or less metabolic activity (like fat, bone) - that is not going to happen within the current medical establishment.


But merely growing a few plants in your basement surely doesn't qualify anyone as pharmacist or scientist, let alone an oncologist.

Absolutely true. Does it matter? I've met a few oncologists, including one of the absolute top researchers in the field for extended times - and I am not impressed. There are obviously better men than me out there that are oncologists - but so far I've not seen any light from that direction. What is a general oncologist? A parrot and/or a robot - learned a lot of "truths" in medical school, and having to follow certain rules and regulations. Where is the engineer, the trouble shooter - not in the medical field, that is for sure. What is a pharmacist? It is a clerk that stands behind a desk with specialized goods! Sure, I know some pharmacists at hospitals that mix exotic medicines which degrade within an hour and need rather complicated lab procedures - but no thinking is required. Parroting, and protocols, and lab knowledge. Most pharmacists don't even come close to the ones I described above. As for scientists - I've had a number of battles with "scientists". Their motivation is not truth (in general) but grants. They are not driven by practical applications, immediate benefits and results, resolving mystery and anomalies, expanding models - it is NOT happening with 99% of the "scientists" - at least.


The problem with the "scientists" is that they are too closed in general, so you need to be open to new ideas. The problem with the stoners and new agers and ignoramuses is that they are so open so the brain fall out.


Please do not make this into a dick swinging contest. You've no clue from what I've written above what I do, what I know, what I've done, who I know, my motivations, affiliations and such - and I rather don't expose my dick in public.
For the record, English is not my native language. Any nitpicking regarding details in my post shows that you're not addressing my accusation - that your belief system is toxic and literally can kill other people.


/J
 

Kite High

Well-Known Member
A family member was recently diagnosed with stage 4 brain cancer as well as other types of cancer.

Because of that, I decided to go with a high CBD cancer-fighting strain for my 1st grow. The idea being that *if* they are open to using medical cannabis, id have it ready for them.

They most likely wouldn't have any other way to access organically grown medical cannabis strains and TBH, they probably dont even know that such a thing exists.

Strains such as NL, C99, PPP, Blue Mystic are all reputed to be low odor, but im after something thats more apropriate for cancer.

I know indicas are commonly recommended for cancer, but from what ive read high CBD strains like 'harlequin' might be a better choice than typical indicas like NL.

Does anyone have any information or personal experience that could help me out?

Im also not sure if i should aim for low THC in addition to the high CBD, so that they can consume larger quantities?

Maybe i can harvest late/early to maximize CBD and reduce psychoactivity?

All advice is appreciated.

Thanks in advance
First of all you are misinformed as THC is the cannabinoid which is showing anti cancer and tumor reducing effects not CBD

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/2007/1_Annual_Meeting/4749
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/13/6615.short

http://endo.endojournals.org/content/107/3/848.short
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
Pseudoscience... how about this - witchcraft!
I will stop here. I could go on and on. My point is that by just using words, we can access mind/body mechanisms that control - I dare to claim - EVERY function in the body. From hormones, cell generation, neurological functioning to G-d knows what.
Bully for you. Tell us again how many cancers you're cured with your magical energies.

With such mystical powers at your command, can't see why you'd want to play with mere "cannabis".

Now - I registered on this forum just because I saw the bad juju you - Jogro - were spreading. The cold, cynical, severely limited "scientific" outlook you dispense LITERALLY kills people. I will stand for that. You have no clue to what harm you've already caused.
You're right. I'm wrecking lives here with my loose talk about "evidence" and "science". Thanks for setting the record straight, "doctor". Fortunately for the public at large, terminal cancer patients and their families are typically desperate, so they'll still grasp at straws and flock to snake/hemp oil salesmen regardless of what I post on the internet.

"Giving false hope to people with terminal diseases" - that false hope WILL make some people beat the cancer REGARDLESS if CBD/THC works in vitro or in vivo. Then it is NOT false hope. Spontaneous remission happens all the time.
If spontaneous remission is so common, and all you need to beat metastatic disease is "hope" why does anyone need to dick around with mere "cannabis"?

Now... the fact is that there are dozens of videos and forum testimonials of people that had been "abandoned" by the medical society and "science" and left to die, classified as incurables and supposed to be dead within weeks or months. Those people did not throw in the towel, they did not give up, and they took CBD/THC oil. Maybe they hit some CBD1 receptors, maybe they got extra rest, maybe they healed psychological trauma or released anxiety - who cares - they got cured. How? Who cares... RIGHT NOW - people are dying and need an extra chance. Maybe it is a lottery ticket, but if you don't play the lottery, you certainly don't win - who knows the winning ratio of a CBD/THC oil cure? 50%, 5%, 0.5%? One thing is for sure - some people played the lottery, and they WON.
This is "noise". I can find you "internet reports" of people who will swear up and down that their prayer to the Virgin Mary is what cured their cancer.

Where are your published case reports of one in 100 miracle cures, and if you don't have any, would you care to explain why not?

The thing that a witch doctor like you - Jogro - do, is that you not only make people not playing the lottery, but you also tell people that already had bought into the game to rip their lottery ticket to pieces by saying that you can't win!
I'm not saying people can't beat cancer; that happens every day. I'm saying that so far there is no proof that cannabinoids cure it. So far, despite your hysterical ranting you haven't actually provided any such proof.

Again, its OK to try unproven therapies especially if they're low risk. . .but its wrong to ascribe to ANY therapy levels of efficacy that haven't been proven to exist. Might as well say that orange peels cure cancer.

You might laugh at my argumentation, put me in the pseudoscientific hole, argue if my experiences are true etc... I don't care. The only thing I care about is that I can undo some of the damage that you and others of your ilk do.
You've got an awfully high opinion of your "powers". But bluntly that's irrelevant. There is NOTHING you've posted that's contradicted anything I've posted.

You still have ZERO proof that cannabinoids can cure human cancers. If you think these can, and want to chalk up that function to placebo effect (which you seem to want to do) or don't really care about proof, then it doesn't really make a difference if you're using hemp oil or olive oil or baby oil, or snake oil, does it?

A final note about in vivo testing on humans - how likely is it that you would get ethical approval of ingesting 1 gram of CBD/THC a day for a couple of months? Look at the puny concentration of CBD/THC in Sativex - which obviously has an effect - but if the CBD/THC oil mechanism requires mega dosing, saturating and cleaning a number of known and unknown receptors in the body, as well as penetrating different tissues with more or less metabolic activity (like fat, bone) - that is not going to happen within the current medical establishment.
How likely? In Spain, a medical researcher got approval to inject cannabinoid extracts directly into people's brains. If that can happen, I don't see why approval to ingest it would be so hard to get, especially in terminal cancer patients where potential harm would probably be negligible. In fact, I think it would be fairly possible to get that sort of approval in certain places, so long as you had SOME clinical evidence to merit a pilot study, were in the right jurisdiction, and knew what you were doing.

As one example, there were a number of published studies using Dronabinol (which is THC dissolved into sesame seed oil, IIRC) in the USA in AIDS patients in the 1990s. As another, I recently read a published study looking at the effect on pulmonary function of SMOKED cannabis vs vaporized from San Francisco CA. Obviously, I didn't read the IRB approval request, but I presume the "trick" here was that since the study was being done on people already voluntarily smoking cannabis, "consenting" them to switch to a vaporizer was a minimal hurdle. There are ongoing clinical trials using Sativex looking at pain, opioid dependence, etc. These things ARE being done. . .if not frequently, and if they can be done for those things, they can be done for cancer.

On legality, the Obama administration wouldn't DARE get in the way of an ongoing clinical trial looking at cannabinoids in terminal cancer patients, so long as it was done in a med legal state by actual (ie University affiliated) researchers. Contrary to popular misconception, legality is no longer a limiting factor here. . .its providing some sort of rigorous evidence necessary to merit starting clinical trials.

There are also plenty of jurisdictions on the planet where, if you REALLY wanted to, you could conduct this sort of research without approval of any medical board or gov't agency. Lets face it, there are all kinds of quack clinics out there. . .if yours were actually curing cancer and you could actually document this, you wouldn't have a hard time manufacturing permission to continue (assuming you needed any).

And for the Nth time, you don't need ANYONE'S approval to publish valid case series of miracle cures with cannabinoids. All you need is evidence that they exist. High potency hemp oil has not only been around for at least 100 years, its currently legal for treatment of cancer in CA, CO, MA, OR, and plenty of other places. Where are the PUBLISHED (ie validated, not anecdotal internet) case reports of cures from those states?

I've met a few oncologists, including one of the absolute top researchers in the field for extended times - and I am not impressed. There are obviously better men than me out there that are oncologists - but so far I've not seen any light from that direction. What is a general oncologist? A parrot and/or a robot - learned a lot of "truths" in medical school, and having to follow certain rules and regulations. Where is the engineer, the trouble shooter - not in the medical field, that is for sure.
As you know, oncologists don't learn their trade in medical school, "doctor".

I've met plenty of oncologists (famous and not so famous), and to a one, every one of them has been more knowledgeable about the diagnosis, behavior, and treatment of cancer than ALL of the clowns on this board. In that sum, I've also known at least two who actually ARE engineers, including one who has a PhD in engineering from MIT (think it was mechanical. . .can't remember now). I also know at least two surgeons who have high level engineering degrees, and one who has a PhD in clinical pharmacology. These aren't "dumb" people, and likewise to a one every one of them knows about the placebo effect. While a few of these are "by the book" sorts, most of them take a fairly pragmatic approach of "whatever works". These people hear a lot of BS claims about cancer "cures" all the time; in my opinion they're right be skeptical without evidence.

Their motivation is not truth (in general) but grants. They are not driven by practical applications, immediate benefits and results, resolving mystery and anomalies, expanding models - it is NOT happening with 99% of the "scientists" - at least.
The prime "motivation" of most oncologists is to CURE CANCERS. The vast majority of them aren't doing research and don't care about grants.

Stipulating that the motivation of scientists is to get grants (which I agree is true most, though not all of the time), if you're talking about clinical research (which. . .we are), as you know probably the single BEST thing you can do to get a grant, is to provide some scrap of clinical evidence that you have a potential cure for cancer! If I had a case series of just three or four patients with (say) pancreatic or brain cancers showing good response (it doesn't even have to be "cure") with cannabinoids, that could pretty easily be parlayed into a pilot study with IRB approval in a medical state.

Please do not make this into a dick swinging contest. You've no clue from what I've written above what I do, what I know, what I've done, who I know, my motivations, affiliations and such - and I rather don't expose my dick in public.
And neither do you about me, nor do I really give a rat's bottom about this, since personal credentials are utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Either you have proof that cannabis can cure cancer, or you don't.

You don't. . .end of discussion.
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
Multiple cannabinoids (including THC, CBD, and CBN) have been shown to affect immortalized cancer cell lines IN VITRO.

Although you didn't cite any above, there are some studies showing some anti-tumor effects of cannabinoids in animal (mouse) models of cancer.

But none of the studies you cited above show anti-cancer effects in actual HUMAN BEINGS, and again, to my knowledge no such evidence exists.
 

Kite High

Well-Known Member
ummm..I apologize but where did I claim there were human tests done? And besides you are trying to refute animal studies which are how ALL eventual medications are found to be effective. You shouldn't be so prone to discount what doesn't fit your bubble. It comes off as arrogant. You are intelligent and quite knowledgeable but quite dismissive and closed minded.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
But none of the studies you cited above show anti-cancer effects in actual HUMAN BEINGS, and again, to my knowledge no such evidence exists.
Pretty sure that a human study has been done, although I can't seem to find it so maybe I was mistaken, but I don't think so. Pretty sure I remember reading about a human breast cancer study.
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
ummm..I apologize but where did I claim there were human tests done?
No need to apologize. I never said you claimed that, and I think you missed the point of my last post.

You said the previous poster was looking at the wrong cannabinoid against cancer, and cited studies showing some effect with THC. I pointed out that there were several cannabinoids under investigation including THC, but also CBD and others. In other words, I said you were both right. If you want to investigate the effects of cannabinoids on cancer, there are plenty of them to look at.

And besides you are trying to refute animal studies which are how ALL eventual medications are found to be effective.
Not so. I never tried to "refute" any animal studies. I never claimed they didn't exist or were unsound. To the contrary, I've mentioned many times in this thread that they exist.

Of course test tube and animal studies are useful tools in scientific research. If you are dealing with novel agents of uncertain safety, those are necessary first steps.

But they are neither necessary nor sufficient to prove that cannabinoids cure cancers in actual human beings. For the Nth time, most things that work in rats and test tubes simply don't work in the “real world” of sick people with cancer. The only way to prove that cannabinoids can cure human cancers is to see a measurable positive effect in actual human beings with actual cancers. Anything other than that, is at best speculative and at worst deceptive.

Despite all the hysterical shrieking, posturing, and name calling in this thread, so far nobody yet has been able to post any real proof of any human cancer cured with cannabinoids.

If it actually works, why not?

Again, cannabis isn't some new investigational agent under patent by a huge drug company, that's outrageously expensive or unavailable. Instead its been around for 10,000 years during all recorded human history, currently legal for the treatment of cancer in multiple US States, relatively available, and relatively inexpensive (*especially* compared to any number of conventional cancer therapies). So there is no practical or legal barrier for tens of thousands of cancer patients to try and cure their cancers with hemp oil, and this has been true for several years now.

In fact, there have been PLENTY of cancer patients who HAVE tried these things, and who do so every single day. So. . .with all this medical MJ usage for over 10 years in CA (itself with a population larger than most European countries), plus in other states, , where are the before and after MRI's of these cancer patients showing regression of their tumors? I've seen before and after pictures with surgery, chemo- and radiation therapies, show reduction and even complete regression of tumors. With cannabinoids? Crickets. . .

Lets consider a different example.

Despite multiple reports, if there were really a 9 foot tall hairy bipedal humanoid roaming free in the Pacific Northwest, how come in 200+ years of human colonization, nobody has ever come up with a carcass, skeleton, let alone a convincing photograph or video? With so many people claiming on the internet to have seen him, is it “crazy” to ask for this kind of evidence before believing in Bigfoot?

Yet, without similar hard evidence of human cancer cures, we're supposed to believe that hemp oil can cure human cancers, based on what, exactly. . .test tube experiments?
You tube videos?


You shouldn't be so prone to discount what doesn't fit your bubble. It comes off as arrogant. You are intelligent and quite knowledgeable but quite dismissive and closed minded.
And ad-hominem attacks are a tactic used by people who have no point to argue. This isn't about me.

There is no good evidence that cannabinoids cure cancers in human beings. So far nobody else has been able to provide this proof, either.

Lacking such proof, what should we conclude? I submit to you, that with continuous medical use for 10,000 years, but no good evidence of tumor shrinking properties in people during that time, the default position is pretty clear.

If you disagree, you don't have to call me names (or allude to your irrelevant credentials, or cite your voodoo work with cancer patients, or cite bizarre conspiracy or medical theories).

I'm not "closed minded" at all. . .I'd *LOVE* to be in a position to admit that I'm wrong here. Just show me the proof that these work, and I'll happily do so.

But if you can't do that. . .maybe you should think about exactly what it is you believe and why?
 

Jogro

Well-Known Member
Pretty sure that a human study has been done, although I can't seem to find it so maybe I was mistaken, but I don't think so. Pretty sure I remember reading about a human breast cancer study.
Presumably not THIS study:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/33234411/ns/health-cancer/t/doctor-who-hailed-herbal-cancer-cure-arrested/#.UYNkwcrmw6M

One big "problem" here is endemic in lay cancer treatment reporting. There is always some breathless report of a "new breakthrough", that typically does NOT involve actual positive outcomes in actual human beings.

There is quite a bit of experimental evidence in cancer models (ie mouse and test tubes) that these could have an effect on breast cancers, but to my knowledge there is *NO* published clinical trial showing anti-tumor effect of cannabinoid therapy in actual women with breast cancer. Needless to say, that matters, and if anyone knows differently, I'd love to see a citation of the study in question.

In the meantime, this is a good summary of the state of the art in breast cancer and cannabinoids, though like most of these things, its going to be a tough read for non-MDs or cancer scientists:

http://www.bbm1.ucm.es/cannabis/archivos/publicaciones/Caffarel Cancer Treat Rev 2012 online.pdf

Quick summary is that there is some benefit in a mouse model of a certain kind of breast cancer, though it doesn't "cure" the cancer, and the applicability to human cancers is still an open question.

*IF* cannabinoids could slow cancers in people a little bit (not necessarily even cure them), that of course would still be extremely helpful, though to my knowledge there is no good evidence that these do (yet). Of course, to prove something like that really would require an actual clinical trial.
 

Kite High

Well-Known Member
No need to apologize. I never said you claimed that, and I think you missed the point of my last post.

You said the previous poster was looking at the wrong cannabinoid against cancer, and cited studies showing some effect with THC. I pointed out that there were several cannabinoids under investigation including THC, but also CBD and others. In other words, I said you were both right. If you want to investigate the effects of cannabinoids on cancer, there are plenty of them to look at.


Not so. I never tried to "refute" any animal studies. I never claimed they didn't exist or were unsound. To the contrary, I've mentioned many times in this thread that they exist.

Of course test tube and animal studies are useful tools in scientific research. If you are dealing with novel agents of uncertain safety, those are necessary first steps.

But they are neither necessary nor sufficient to prove that cannabinoids cure cancers in actual human beings. For the Nth time, most things that work in rats and test tubes simply don't work in the “real world” of sick people with cancer. The only way to prove that cannabinoids can cure human cancers is to see a measurable positive effect in actual human beings with actual cancers. Anything other than that, is at best speculative and at worst deceptive.

Despite all the hysterical shrieking, posturing, and name calling in this thread, so far nobody yet has been able to post any real proof of any human cancer cured with cannabinoids.

If it actually works, why not?

Again, cannabis isn't some new investigational agent under patent by a huge drug company, that's outrageously expensive or unavailable. Instead its been around for 10,000 years during all recorded human history, currently legal for the treatment of cancer in multiple US States, relatively available, and relatively inexpensive (*especially* compared to any number of conventional cancer therapies). So there is no practical or legal barrier for tens of thousands of cancer patients to try and cure their cancers with hemp oil, and this has been true for several years now.

In fact, there have been PLENTY of cancer patients who HAVE tried these things, and who do so every single day. So. . .with all this medical MJ usage for over 10 years in CA (itself with a population larger than most European countries), plus in other states, , where are the before and after MRI's of these cancer patients showing regression of their tumors? I've seen before and after pictures with surgery, chemo- and radiation therapies, show reduction and even complete regression of tumors. With cannabinoids? Crickets. . .

Lets consider a different example.

Despite multiple reports, if there were really a 9 foot tall hairy bipedal humanoid roaming free in the Pacific Northwest, how come in 200+ years of human colonization, nobody has ever come up with a carcass, skeleton, let alone a convincing photograph or video? With so many people claiming on the internet to have seen him, is it “crazy” to ask for this kind of evidence before believing in Bigfoot?

Yet, without similar hard evidence of human cancer cures, we're supposed to believe that hemp oil can cure human cancers, based on what, exactly. . .test tube experiments?
You tube videos?



And ad-hominem attacks are a tactic used by people who have no point to argue. This isn't about me.

There is no good evidence that cannabinoids cure cancers in human beings. So far nobody else has been able to provide this proof, either.

Lacking such proof, what should we conclude? I submit to you, that with continuous medical use for 10,000 years, but no good evidence of tumor shrinking properties in people during that time, the default position is pretty clear.

If you disagree, you don't have to call me names (or allude to your irrelevant credentials, or cite your voodoo work with cancer patients, or cite bizarre conspiracy or medical theories).

I'm not "closed minded" at all. . .I'd *LOVE* to be in a position to admit that I'm wrong here. Just show me the proof that these work, and I'll happily do so.

But if you can't do that. . .maybe you should think about exactly what it is you believe and why?
Look I was in debate club in hs and college as well...it wasn't an attack at all...merely an observation and I hoped a little mirror for you. I have no reason to dislike you but merely expressed the vibe you emanate. Science is great but totally not all there is to realities.....
 

D619

Well-Known Member
Just read this entire thread and wanted to thank Jogro.


Please read the last sentence, " human trials "

Wikipedia

Cancer research
In November 2007, researchers at the California Pacific Medical Center reported that CBD shows promise for controlling the spread of metastatic breast cancer. In vitro CBD down-regulates, or "turns off", the activity of ID1, the gene responsible for tumor metastasis[10] in breast and other types of cancers, including the particularly aggressive triple negative breast cancer.[25][10][26] The researchers in September 2012 said they hope to start human trials soon.[27]"
 

kenkneeb

New Member
Erm:
I have to agree with all of this.
OK, firstly, this isn't Brain Cancer, however, it is cancer... To wit:

Recent research on cannabidiol inhibiting breast cancer and clinical trials with cannabinoids

http://www.cpmc.org/professionals/research/programs/science/sean.html

And "[h=1]Cannabis and Cannabinoids"[/h]: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

And though the article'st title should read:
[h=2]"SPAIN STUDY CONFIRMS Cannabis OIL CURES CANCER WITHOUT SIDE EFFECTS", You get the drift:

http://www.endalldisease.com/spain-study-confirms-hemp-oil-cures-cancer-without-side-effects/[/h]
 

kneecapman

Well-Known Member
1012182_10151562938421843_525309624_n.jpg

The only reason we don't have your solid proof for you is that the FDA and other troll sponsors are trying to block any legit research, not that I credit them with anything legit ever. So quit breaking everyone's comments down and chillax buzz killer. Getting better is more a state of mind than being an asshole will ever solve. Run it.
 

kneecapman

Well-Known Member
I agree with whoever said that THC as opposed to CBD is better for fighting cancer. Simpson Oil is really the only thing a cancer patient should make sure they have an ample supply of. CBD is good too, because it works really well on pain. In fact, it is the best thing for pain PERIOD, unless your level of pain requires you to consume half of a poppy plant or more every day. Troll that statement. Tell us all how there are no legit studies that prove that cannabis is a better drug for pain management than, say, ANY FUCKING OTHER SUBSTANCE KNOWN TO MAN. Most pain management substances are highly toxic, highly addictive, and create health problems rather than cure pain. While the pain may never be cured, it has been shown that chronic pill popping IS BAD FOR YOU. Bad for your liver, bad for your heart, bad for your brain, bad for your central nervous system. BAD FOR YOUR BREATH. Because no breath smells shittier to wake up to than the breath of an overdose death. Which is what you are gambling with when you take blood thinners and opiates. That night cap might be your last.
 
Top