It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

List of ALL Medical Studies Proving Cannabis Cures Cancer

page: 10
130
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Thanks for this. Great post to have in my bookmarks. a reply to: ColdChillin





posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior So let me ask you this; how many of your cancer doctors are aware of these cancer treatment therapies? Before you suggest that certain topics or heading should be banned (are you serious?!), maybe you just MIGHT want to do a little more research before you decide that your doctors (who were trained by other doctors) KNOW everything of which they speak, check out the links or don't. As the philosophy of ATS goes, Deny ignorance. cancer, the forbidden cures Here's another one for you as well. the truth about cancer, a global quest, episode 1 of 9



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: 1FreeThinker
a reply to: Cancerwarrior So let me ask you this; how many of your cancer doctors are aware of these cancer treatment therapies? Before you suggest that certain topics or heading should be banned (are you serious?!), maybe you just MIGHT want to do a little more research before you decide that your doctors (who were trained by other doctors) KNOW everything of which they speak, check out the links or don't. As the philosophy of ATS goes, Deny ignorance. cancer, the forbidden cures Here's another one for you as well. the truth about cancer, a global quest, episode 1 of 9



Funny how you avoid every reply I have ever made to you on this topic. Let me say it again:

Ty Bolinger's program is full of lies and false truths that many, without medical/biological training, would believe as real truths. He promotes dangerous disinformation to increase his wealth. I don't mind discussing the points Bolinger states in his videos, just pick the ones you want to talk about.

Here is my full reply to you back in December on this very topic....



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: 1FreeThinker
a reply to: Cancerwarrior So let me ask you this; how many of your cancer doctors are aware of these cancer treatment therapies? Before you suggest that certain topics or heading should be banned (are you serious?!), maybe you just MIGHT want to do a little more research before you decide that your doctors (who were trained by other doctors) KNOW everything of which they speak, check out the links or don't. As the philosophy of ATS goes, Deny ignorance. cancer, the forbidden cures Here's another one for you as well. the truth about cancer, a global quest, episode 1 of 9



Funny how you avoid every reply I have ever made to you on this topic. Let me say it again:

Ty Bolinger's program is full of lies and false truths that many, without medical/biological training, would believe as real truths. He promotes dangerous disinformation to increase his wealth. I don't mind discussing the points Bolinger states in his videos, just pick the ones you want to talk about.

Here is my full reply to you back in December on this very topic....


I like Pardon?'s approach: are you prepared to take full responsibility for the quack medical advice you give to cancer patients?

Invariably the question is dodged. I wonder why...



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
I like Pardon?'s approach: are you prepared to take full responsibility for the quack medical advice you give to cancer patients?

Invariably the question is dodged. I wonder why...


LOL Exactly. But silly us not trusting them, of course they know more than doctors who have studied and trained for ten years, they've done their Youtube and Google research!



posted on Feb, 3 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Lol put a stamp on it. Register it. Certify it.

Then it magically works. When somone with a badge tells you it does.

Reality doesn't exist until its been stamped for approval.


Natural soil grown Cannabis (rare) cures cancer. Lab synthesized thc does not. Hydroponically grown cannabis from dutch seedbank does not. The proof is in reality. Not government approved information outlets.

In case it matters to you that much, the OFFICIAL STANCE within the research community is that Cannabis smoke has more Carcinogens than tobacco, but has properties that also clean these Carcinogens out of the mucus like no other substances on earth. Apoptosis of cancer cells isnt acknowledged for the obvious reasons.

THIS is the issue: Hydroponic Cannabis, the kind corporations grow, does NOTHING POSITIVE for human health, and it has started a giant # storm in the agricultural community. Basically it came down to POT GROWING before anyone acknowledged that modern food crops are more poison than nutrition.

5000 years of use. And zero information? Come on.

Remember, most people respond to placebos. So what are we even freakin talking about,? Im not going to let some delusional freaks plastic reality redefine my reality, you shouldn't either.

I used to think Cannabis was a placebo. Only the denatured version is (the mmj grow industry is controlled by Monsanto, who worked directly with the DEA in locating and stealing the worlds last few REAL CANNABIS GENETICS)

The entire legal corporate marijuana thing is a way to 'round up' all the real weed left in the world. Pun intended! Legal weed is grown in salt water! The entire feeding schedule is based on keeping the plant alive in a salted water tank! Wees grown by zombies and aliens, millenials who worship Barcodes and price tags!

" Medical grade" pot is CAUSING disease in Arizona. Its really that subjective. Just like tobacco. Can roll my own til Im green in the face. Put a Marlborough in my lips tho and my throat closes up in a split second.

All the same stuff, right?
edit on 3-2-2017 by ChelseaHubble because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChelseaHubble
Lol put a stamp on it. Register it. Certify it.

Then it magically works. When somone with a badge tells you it does.

Reality doesn't exist until its been stamped for approval.


Natural soil grown Cannabis (rare) cures cancer. Lab synthesized thc does not. Hydroponically grown cannabis from dutch seedbank does not. The proof is in reality. Not government approved information outlets.

In case it matters to you that much, the OFFICIAL STANCE within the research community is that Cannabis smoke has more Carcinogens than tobacco, but has properties that also clean these Carcinogens out of the mucus like no other substances on earth. Apoptosis of cancer cells isnt acknowledged for the obvious reasons.

THIS is the issue: Hydroponic Cannabis, the kind corporations grow, does NOTHING POSITIVE for human health, and it has started a giant # storm in the agricultural community. Basically it came down to POT GROWING before anyone acknowledged that modern food crops are more poison than nutrition.

5000 years of use. And zero information? Come on.

Remember, most people respond to placebos. So what are we even freakin talking about,? Im not going to let some delusional freaks plastic reality redefine my reality, you shouldn't either.

I used to think Cannabis was a placebo. Only the denatured version is (the mmj grow industry is controlled by Monsanto, who worked directly with the DEA in locating and stealing the worlds last few REAL CANNABIS GENETICS)

The entire legal corporate marijuana thing is a way to 'round up' all the real weed left in the world. Pun intended! Legal weed is grown in salt water! The entire feeding schedule is based on keeping the plant alive in a salted water tank! Wees grown by zombies and aliens, millenials who worship Barcodes and price tags!

" Medical grade" pot is CAUSING disease in Arizona. Its really that subjective. Just like tobacco. Can roll my own til Im green in the face. Put a Marlborough in my lips tho and my throat closes up in a split second.

All the same stuff, right?


Bob Marley's family disagree with you.



posted on May, 14 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

Lol. Your argument is weak at best. The National Institutes of Health wouldn't publish it if they weren't reputable. Continued research does not support your supposition.



posted on May, 15 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: PRSpinster
a reply to: namelesss

Lol. Your argument is weak at best. The National Institutes of Health wouldn't publish it if they weren't reputable. Continued research does not support your supposition.

"The government wouldn't say it if it weren't the truth!" *__-

Old discussion, not interested.



posted on May, 17 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

And yet you replied. Why?

Do I really need to point you towards the definitions of peer-reviewed and credibility?


edit on 17-5-2017 by PRSpinster because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: PRSpinster
a reply to: namelesss
Do I really need to point you towards the definitions of peer-reviewed

Please, allow me;
'Peer reviewed'; accepted by the uncreative good old boys, spewn from the intellectually sterile hallowed halls of academia because... they can see themselves in you (and that you 'kiss' appropriately...).
Unimpressive at best.
All sorts of 'peer reviewed' (and accepted) work has subsequently fallen to dust!
DaVinci's work (or Laotse's...) wasn't repressed because it wasn't 'peer reviewed'.


and credibility?

'Credible'; that which harmonizes with your biases, 'beliefs', wishes, desires, emotional states and needs, etc... and perhaps even a bit of 'intellectual rational examination' in minimal amounts.
*__-



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: PRSpinster
a reply to: namelesss
Do I really need to point you towards the definitions of peer-reviewed

Please, allow me;
'Peer reviewed'; accepted by the uncreative good old boys, spewn from the intellectually sterile hallowed halls of academia because... they can see themselves in you (and that you 'kiss' appropriately...).
Unimpressive at best.
All sorts of 'peer reviewed' (and accepted) work has subsequently fallen to dust!
DaVinci's work (or Laotse's...) wasn't repressed because it wasn't 'peer reviewed'.


and credibility?

'Credible'; that which harmonizes with your biases, 'beliefs', wishes, desires, emotional states and needs, etc... and perhaps even a bit of 'intellectual rational examination' in minimal amounts.
*__-


So if a peer-reviewed study cited in the NIH came out in favour of what you believe you would dismiss it?

Ooh look! Some cherries!



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

I'm not biased, little man. He provided studies that were peer-reviewed bc without that process, your work will never see the light of day. Ohhhh. I totally forgot how the peer-review process was around in the late 1400's and into the early 1500's. Get the # out of here with that #.

Also, you're still wrong about cannabis.
edit on 21-5-2017 by PRSpinster because: Silly pronouns



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   
A true miracle cure!! abstracts.asco.org...



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
bumping for future reading



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: PRSpinster
a reply to: namelesss

I'm not biased, little man.

Oooh, someone has her panties all twisted! I guess I hit a homer! *__-
When you (emotionally) need to insult, you've already lost the exchange.


Also, you're still wrong about cannabis.

Just for S&G to remind us all, what exactly am I wrong about?



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: PRSpinster
a reply to: namelesss
Do I really need to point you towards the definitions of peer-reviewed

Please, allow me;
'Peer reviewed'; accepted by the uncreative good old boys, spewn from the intellectually sterile hallowed halls of academia because... they can see themselves in you (and that you 'kiss' appropriately...).
Unimpressive at best.
All sorts of 'peer reviewed' (and accepted) work has subsequently fallen to dust!
DaVinci's work (or Laotse's...) wasn't repressed because it wasn't 'peer reviewed'.


and credibility?

'Credible'; that which harmonizes with your biases, 'beliefs', wishes, desires, emotional states and needs, etc... and perhaps even a bit of 'intellectual rational examination' in minimal amounts.
*__-


So if a peer-reviewed study cited in the NIH came out in favour of what you believe you would dismiss it?

Ooh look! Some cherries!

For whatever reasons, the peers that do the reviewing do not particularly impress me.
Not 'believing' anything, I would not have the problem you suggest.
I could review the data and come to my own tentative conclusions, if necessary.

I am obviously not dismissing the entire circus of academic modern science (even a blind hog finds an acorn on occasion), but the hallowed halls cry out for some fresh air, a new Perspective, now and again. What I offered, was fair.

As far as 'credibility' goes, it appears that my definition is spot on.
It isn't the only spot on definition, obviously. *__-

The American government and it's bureaus and organizations are far from 'credible' sources for any information.
Not to anyone who has been paying attention, anyway! *__-







edit on 22-5-2017 by namelesss because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
130
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join