"the media secretly tries to prevent the evolution of new cancer medication"

a reply to: GetHyped

if you perform the necessary clinical trials

Where's the clinical trials of cannabis oil? It's safe and effective, but yet no trials. I guess it's better to poison them with chemo or radiation right? If you don't think the fda/pharma racket stinks to high heaven, than you might want to pull your head out of the sand so you can get a better sniff.

By 'Miliue' do you mean the social environment of the conspiracy theory or the conspiracy itself?

There sure are a lot of scams around and the internet links to a lot of them. As for actual cures, the case for antineoplastins (or a similar spelling) does appear very interesting. How this treatment has been treated does raise significant questions of incompetence, corruption and contempt of scientific integrity by the legal establishment.

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: GetHyped

if you perform the necessary clinical trials

Where's the clinical trials of cannabis oil?

lmgtfy.com...

a reply to: GetHyped

Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug and does not qualify as a medicine, hence why the fda has not done clinical trials on it. They have synthesized cannabinoids to make artificial weed with little success. The trials were for the synthetic weed that big pharma was going to try to push on the public, while fighting to keep all other forms of marijuana illegal.

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: GetHyped

Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug and does not qualify as a medicine, hence why the fda has not done clinical trials on it. They have synthesized cannabinoids to make artificial weed with little success. The trials were for the synthetic weed that big pharma was going to try to push on the public, while fighting to keep all other forms of marijuana illegal.

Most of the trials I've seen using cannabinoids have produced it via extraction from the plants.
It's not synthetic at all or in very few cases as there's good reasons for using authentic compounds in plant medicine research.
Read page 22 of this to see why using extracted cannabinoids is preferable to synthesising them.
www.researchgate.net... e51012659b0293000000.pdf

a reply to: Pardon?


My point is they are not doing trials on the whole plant, why is that? Marinol is on the market and is synthetic, all the people that I have heard that have used it said it doesn't work.

Maybe that's because there are hundreds of medicinal compounds in the plant, and Marinol has just a couple.

Big pharma will avoid at all costs testing the whole plant, because then they can't corner the market with their own super expensive cocktail drug that has 30 seconds of tv air time listing the side effects.

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Pardon?


My point is they are not doing trials on the whole plant, why is that? Marinol is on the market and is synthetic, all the people that I have heard that have used it said it doesn't work.

Maybe that's because there are hundreds of medicinal compounds in the plant, and Marinol has just a couple.

Big pharma will avoid at all costs testing the whole plant, because then they can't corner the market with their own super expensive cocktail drug that has 30 seconds of tv air time listing the side effects.

Trials for what exactly?
What would be different using the whole plant and not just the active ingredient?
There has certainly been trials using combinations of cannabinoids so is that enough for you?

And what side effects would they be listing?
I mean, if they extract the active ingredient of a plant which doesn't have side effects (except lethargy, euphoria, apathy etc) what would these side effects be?

Your point is that you think that the whole plant is the medicine.
It's not.
Like any other medicinal plant there are one or more ingredients which do the science, the rest of it is just filler.

a reply to: Pardon?

Trials for what exactly?

For cannabis oil, do you know how that is made? Like I said there are lot's of compounds in the plant, over 60 cannabinoids that they know of link. They aren't going to see the results they want by isolating just a couple of the compounds.

And what side effects would they be listing?

They are only testing the real stuff in order to synthesize it and bring it to market, hence marinol. If you want to see the side effects of marinol here you go.

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Pardon?

Trials for what exactly?

For cannabis oil, do you know how that is made? Like I said there are lot's of compounds in the plant, over 60 cannabinoids that they know of link. They aren't going to see the results they want by isolating just a couple of the compounds.

And what side effects would they be listing?

They are only testing the real stuff in order to synthesize it and bring it to market, hence marinol. If you want to see the side effects of marinol here you go.

I do indeed know.
But what specific strain of it is used to make the oil?
Is it the same strain every time for everyone? (No.)
Are the compounds in the same ratio in every strain?
Who does the quality control maintaining the same weight/volume ratio of the ingredients in the oil?
Which out of all of those compounds are the active ones therapeutically?

Every single one of those side effects can be attributed to marijuana too.
Every single one.

Do you know why there are so many side-effects listed?
It's because anything that a patient experiences in a specific time period after taking the medication in trials (whether or not it's actually caused by that medication) has to be listed.

If the active ingredients are easily extracted from the plant then why would they need to synthesise them?
So what if they synthesis them anyway as long as they work?

a reply to: peterp

So would I say the media censors it? Not exactly. But if there is a cure sitting in some secret vault somewhere developed by some pharmaceutical company, research hospital , etc. If a conspiracy existed I would think that's where it would be.

If I am one of these places and had a cure would I release it? No. I am being completely honest here. Why when I have a much more profitable solution already being used. Cancer, diabetes, dialysis and so on. I have long term finances at stake.

Is there a secret vault with the cures? Don't know. Is it being suppressed? Don't know. But if there is and it is, I doubt it is the media behind the cover up. If you follow and believe in this conspiracy the media would be like the last in a long chain perpetrating it. Even if they suppress new information, I would think it goes like this. Someone says we have found a cure and contacts the media. They take the info and start verification of possibility with other resources. No it doesn't make sense to me say the other sources. The information is now "suppressed". I just don't think if it is happening the media would be at fault. Don't get me wrong , many times and many things beyond a mindless crap product they are at fault for. Just don't see it here.

a reply to: peterp

The cancer conspiracy.... Whilst I agree there is something psychologically compelling about not trusting the powers to be, this cancer conspiracy is clearly flawed:

1) Like gethyped said cancer is not just ONE disease but a complex set of diseases. You cannot find a cure for cancer, you can research to find a cure for one type of cancer which wouldn't necessarily work on other types. Those claiming to have found the cure for cancer are lying as it is not possible.

2) The conspiracy blames Big Pharma, but who are they exactly? The medical establishment? The medical establishment is not just one place or organization but a multi-disciplinary setting composed of labs, universities, charities, professional organizations, regulatory agencies, etc. And where is that medical establishment they blame? In the US only? Or does the conspiracy cover all medical establishments all over the world? Including the millions of researchers and medical professionals?

3) The basis of this Big Pharma is that they don't want a cure as they would loose profits.... in fact it works the other way round. If a cure for cancer was found the organization that did would make billions selling the cure which would make all other treatments obsolete. The researchers, investors and institution would become global superstars, their names would live forever and they would get Nobel prizes, besides becoming incredibly rich.

4) Healthcare systems all over the world would love a cure for cancer as it would slash the crippling health care costs they face now with each cancer patient. A cure for cancer would actually ease the pressure healthcare systems face all over the globe.

I don't understand how this conspiracy still lives on........

a reply to: Pardon?

If the active ingredients are easily extracted from the plant then why would they need to synthesise them?

Exactly, why are all of the marijuana based drugs on the market in the US synthetic?

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Pardon?

If the active ingredients are easily extracted from the plant then why would they need to synthesise them?

Exactly, why are all of the marijuana based drugs on the market in the US synthetic?

Why only respond to that when the important questions I asked are unanswered?
And like I said, if they work, who cares if they're synthetic?
Chemicals are the same whether "natural" or synthesised.

a reply to: Pardon?

Why only respond to that when the important questions I asked are unanswered?

Because you are just having a cyclical argument with me, at first your saying they are doing trials on real compounds because that's the best way, only to concede that all US marijuana based drugs are synthetic.

This seems to me to be the essence of your argument in your own words

If the active ingredients are easily extracted from the plant then why would they need to synthesise them?
So what if they synthesis them anyway as long as they work?

Contradictory at best!

I think we have squeezed all the juice from this turnip, adios.

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Pardon?

Why only respond to that when the important questions I asked are unanswered?

Because you are just having a cyclical argument with me, at first your saying they are doing trials on real compounds because that's the best way, only to concede that all US marijuana based drugs are synthetic.

This seems to me to be the essence of your argument in your own words

If the active ingredients are easily extracted from the plant then why would they need to synthesise them?
So what if they synthesis them anyway as long as they work?

Contradictory at best!

I think we have squeezed all the juice from this turnip, adios.

The top and bottom of it is that a chemical is a chemical however it is produced.
So if they extract it from the plant or use a chemistry set to make it who cares?
They'll do it whichever is most cost effective.
If said chemical treats a condition then who cares how it is produced as long as it works?

You seem to have this notion that it's only the oil which is effective, for what exactly you haven't said.
What exactly is in this oil you haven't said.
What the active ingredients are you haven't said.
Whether different strains produce oil with different combinations of compounds you haven't said.

The only cyclical part of this thread is your inability/refusal to answer those questions.

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Pardon?

If the active ingredients are easily extracted from the plant then why would they need to synthesise them?

Exactly, why are all of the marijuana based drugs on the market in the US synthetic?

It's easier to produce?
It's cheaper to produce?
It yields a purer and more effective form?

It will be at least one of those three.


Ever heard of using willow bark for headaches?
www.madehow.com...