After Decades of Denial National Cancer Institute Finally Admits that “Cannabis Kills Cancer”

I'm getting ahead of the cancer, which is why I use everyday...

Regardless, wonderful news! The more positive attention this plant gets (nationally speaking) the quicker we will get recreational/medical use for all 50 states!

What a tremendous win! Finally, at least some level of transparency. Less and Less Lies to come

originally posted by: Pardon?
I think the title is misleading in so much as there's not been a denial, more that there hasn't been the research results to suggest otherwise.

And I think that's misleading, albeit technically true, in so much as it has been -- and still is -- officially declared to have --

...no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States...

-- and designated as a Schedule I drug. But to put that in context, that just further highlights that healing cannabis is being denied us NOT because it has no healing benefits, but ONLY because they are keeping it from us -- at the point of a gun and the loss of freedom and liberty. Which begs the question why? Qui bono? It's sure not for our benefit.

Until results of human clinical results are published the stance is still the same...

Your point is well taken. There is soooooooo much research to be done, research that was prohibited and/or severely restricted upon the premise that cannabis has no medicinal value.

My concern is that the research being conducted is not being done in our best interests, and that the products developed will not be developed to serve our best interests, nor that those products will actually be the best possible products (due to patent laws serving the financial and monopoly interests of Big Pharma, rather than the financial and health interests of the patients). Likewise, I'm concerned about the current -- and potential -- laws and regulations controlling access and availability, and especially criminal persecution.

...that cannabinoids have shown some promising results in limited trials but nothing conclusive.
Lots of other drugs (including various plant extracts) have had similar results but not made it through pre-clinicals.
Fingers crossed it does but too much hype can be counter-productive.

Good point. There is still much to research and understand, including developing the most effective medicines. But there is much promise, and given the liberty to continue studying its healing effects -- in laboratories, in clinical trials, and especially in practice! -- I'm sure cannabis will prove its worth.

Oh, colloidal silver isn't an antibiotic, it's an antiseptic.

I've always known it to be called a natural "antibiotic," but now that I think about it, you must be right, because it does not kill all cells. And I won't even call a technicality here, because the distinction is important. I do know it has antibacterial qualities because I've read a bunch of studies about it at Pub Med!

On it's own it can fight infection topically but not systemically.

That's how I understand it. It did knock out a norovirus once though... just a dropperful in my water bottle that I kept sipping on.

When used with antibiotics it's an adjuvant, working in a similar way(ish) to aluminium salts used in vaccines.

At the risk of derailing my own thread, can you explain how that works in "adjuvants for dummies" type terms please?

originally posted by: jhn7537
The more positive attention this plant gets (nationally speaking) the quicker we will get recreational/medical use for all 50 states!

Yes! The public has not been kept adequately informed of the new/current research being conducted. There is still much misinformation as well, leading to much misunderstanding. Slowly but surely that's changing...

(But in respect for our hosts, let's speak in general -- not personal -- terms )

too many "mays" in the evidence provided from the tests. it shows correlation but not direct causality.

until they prove that a certain chemical can distinguish normal cells from cancer cells, they wont recommend it as a cancer killer. more test are needed especially on human trails. im hopeful though, cancer is a sumbitch to kill.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Boadicea

It isn't criminalized in a medical capacity...

The criminal statutes did not make an exception to possession laws for our medical use.

... and has been a part of big pharma for decades...

Thank you for again highlighting the point that Big Pharma knew of its medicinal value and promoted their best interests over our best interests, whether by design or negligence or incompetence... and continue to do so.

Where do you think all these studies come from?

They came from those with the knowledge, experience and opportunity to defy the status quo, search for the truth, and share the truth -- serving OUR best interests.

what we need is a chemical that can somehow read cell's genealogy and recognize it as a cancer cell. extremely hard to do even by non chemical means. the answer may not be a chemical solution at all as far as i can see. we may need a form of virus modded to destroy only cells that are vastly different from its neighbors.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
My good friend smoked cannabis for over 40 years...Died of Cancer..S&F for the thread though.

Although he may have smoked MJ for over 40 years you can not definitively conclude that his cancer was from smoking the drug because, if he bought from across the border the quality and purity of his smoke is questionable. For example,

The real story on Mexican Marijuana

"Mexico was on the verge of a revolution, and rural farmers were finding ways to finance their ideas now with marijuana. The Mexican goverment began an intensive crackdown along with US assistance in trying to spray fields with "paraquat", a dangerous herbicide with many health risks."

www.rollitup.org...

I have also heard stories where distributors have been known to lace poor quality smoke with various substances to try enhancing it's quality.

originally posted by: CharlesT

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
My good friend smoked cannabis for over 40 years...Died of Cancer..S&F for the thread though.

Although he may have smoked MJ for over 40 years you can not definitively conclude that his cancer was from smoking the drug because, if he bought from across the border the quality and purity of his smoke is questionable. For example,

The real story on Mexican Marijuana

"Mexico was on the verge of a revolution, and rural farmers were finding ways to finance their ideas now with marijuana. The Mexican goverment began an intensive crackdown along with US assistance in trying to spray fields with "paraquat", a dangerous herbicide with many health risks."

www.rollitup.org...

I have also heard stories where distributors have been known to lace poor quality smoke with various substances to try enhancing it's quality.

I don't think the poster's suggesting it caused the cancer.
More like it didn't prevent or cure it.

a reply to: Boadicea

You are in denial if you think that. These studies come from grants provided by big pharma so they can patent and make medicine before someone else does. The majority of big pharma money goes to R&D specifically to fund studies like the ones mentioned.

a reply to: Pardon?

Admittedly, his post "was" quite vague, I may have very well misinterpreted his assertion.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Pardon?
I think the title is misleading in so much as there's not been a denial, more that there hasn't been the research results to suggest otherwise.

And I think that's misleading, albeit technically true, in so much as it has been -- and still is -- officially declared to have --

...no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States...

-- and designated as a Schedule I drug. But to put that in context, that just further highlights that healing cannabis is being denied us NOT because it has no healing benefits, but ONLY because they are keeping it from us -- at the point of a gun and the loss of freedom and liberty. Which begs the question why? Qui bono? It's sure not for our benefit.

Until results of human clinical results are published the stance is still the same...

Your point is well taken. There is soooooooo much research to be done, research that was prohibited and/or severely restricted upon the premise that cannabis has no medicinal value.

My concern is that the research being conducted is not being done in our best interests, and that the products developed will not be developed to serve our best interests, nor that those products will actually be the best possible products (due to patent laws serving the financial and monopoly interests of Big Pharma, rather than the financial and health interests of the patients). Likewise, I'm concerned about the current -- and potential -- laws and regulations controlling access and availability, and especially criminal persecution.

...that cannabinoids have shown some promising results in limited trials but nothing conclusive.
Lots of other drugs (including various plant extracts) have had similar results but not made it through pre-clinicals.
Fingers crossed it does but too much hype can be counter-productive.

Good point. There is still much to research and understand, including developing the most effective medicines. But there is much promise, and given the liberty to continue studying its healing effects -- in laboratories, in clinical trials, and especially in practice! -- I'm sure cannabis will prove its worth.

Oh, colloidal silver isn't an antibiotic, it's an antiseptic.

I've always known it to be called a natural "antibiotic," but now that I think about it, you must be right, because it does not kill all cells. And I won't even call a technicality here, because the distinction is important. I do know it has antibacterial qualities because I've read a bunch of studies about it at Pub Med!

On it's own it can fight infection topically but not systemically.

That's how I understand it. It did knock out a norovirus once though... just a dropperful in my water bottle that I kept sipping on.

When used with antibiotics it's an adjuvant, working in a similar way(ish) to aluminium salts used in vaccines.

At the risk of derailing my own thread, can you explain how that works in "adjuvants for dummies" type terms please?

An adjuvant is simply an addition to a drug or therapy to make it more effective.
In this case, from your link it suggests that it makes the bacterial cell wall more permeable to the antibiotic so mor can get in and destroy the cell faster.
Silver's been used in topical medicine for a long time, it's on band-aids, urinary catheters, picc lines etc but when ingested it has no real effect.

Sooooo.... I've been a good boy (never tried it ). Had cancer twice. May I move to a legalized medicinal state or Colorado/Washington...
OREGON I'M EYING YOU👀......

Pennsylvania stinks 💩💩💩💩💩💩👃👃👃👎
Come on gulf states with beaches. Legalize so I can move!

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Boadicea

You are in denial if you think that. These studies come from grants provided by big pharma so they can patent and make medicine before someone else does.

Okay, fair enough. I'll correct myself to say it's both.

And I will thank you for pointing out that Big Pharma is using the laws and their power to serve their own best interests, and our health and best interests be damned!

The majority of big pharma money goes to R&D specifically to fund studies like the ones mentioned.

Unfortunately, that's not true. The majority of their profits go to advertising to the public. And I haven't been able to nail down hard numbers, but it seems that Big Pharma now gets most of their R&D dollars from government grants.

Big pharmaceutical companies are spending far more on marketing than research

I also have a big problem with taxpayer dollars used to fund medical research, then give patents and licenses to restrict our access to the medicines we paid for -- and make us pay obscene profits on our own investment! Grrrrrr....

a reply to: Pardon?

Thank you.

a reply to: Boadicea

Your link is skewed because the majority of those companies aren't just in Pharma...unless baby oil and body lotion is "Big Pharma"

You can't just look at a company of Johnson and Johnson and think "hey, they spend this much on marketing" because you would have to drill down to the actual numbers by division. When that is done the majority of profits for the Pharma Division go to R&D.

Notice how the gap closes as the company gets "smaller"? That's because those companies have a less diversified portfolio and hence require less marketing.

A company like Pfizer, who owns the Advil brand, would spend most of it's marketing trying to fight with Tylenol, Bayer etc, just as Coke and Pepsi spend money on marketing to fight with each other.

Sickening isn't it..
However the tax dollars do go to the The National Institute of Health ( NIH ). Small amount of federal funding ( recieving federal funds by law does not allow for stem cell research ). NIH was grandfathered in with the only 8 samples. Which is why they could not do Stem Cell Research beyond the 8 only Genetic samples they have. Can not aquire or reproduce ( Clone ) the genetic material they have.

Getting to the point. NIH's Doctors had to apply for grants across the spectrun. Anywhere they could get funding. These studies and final products of new therapies, drugs, procedures and many new treatments coming down the line. And yes there are things very secret and lips will never tell..

Some of the best pain medicine was developed there...... and quietly set aside/away....

🙈🙉🙊

a reply to: Soloprotocol

My good friend smoked cannabis for over 40 years...Died of Cancer..S&F for the thread though.

Smoking cannabis will do little or nothing to prevent cancer. The plant has many useful oils in it. Many of which have been almost breed out so as to increase the high effect. Newer varieties are now being grown for their medicinal properties.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

Your friend wasn't given cannabinoid which also gives in to the healing process of getting rid of cancer just because he smoked it doesn't mean he's smoking the correct dose or even the right kind. Your low grade pot only has about 13% cannabinoid. Just maybe open your eyes a little wider next time you read it I think you might need glasses.

I can't make any assertions as to the anti-cancer efficacy of cannabinoids or CBD in particular, as I'm not a scientist and I'm not well versed enough in the facts to make such a claim from any position of knowledge, even if several studies strongly indicate this. It certainly wouldn't surprise me though, and I do hope further studies in humans bear that out more definitively.

What I can say is that CBD is non-psychoactive (or at least minimally psychoactive,) so at the very least, any and all arguments by the federal authorities that cannabis is dangerous due to its psychoactive effects (which I profoundly disagree with them about anyway incidentally) vanish when it comes to CBD. One reason I hope to see it focused on more by medical dispensaries and growers (seems to be happening now more and more thankfully.)

Not every patient wants or needs the effects of THC or other cannabinoids and just want/need CBD. The more high CBD strains and extracts proliferate the better imho. And hopefully it can also go some way toward ameliorating first time users' fears and propensities toward anxiety, as well as making the case that it truly is a medicinal substance, not just a recreational one masquerading as medicine. (Which is not to say the other cannabinoids should be frowned upon either by any means - they all, alone or in combination, have their benefits and uses imo.) I just think it could help cultivate a more medicinal image for cannabis. Which is critical in the current climate.

Peace.