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

a reply to: AceWombat04

Well said!

Thanks for making those excellent points. Unfortunately, public knowledge has not caught up with all of the current medical research and knowledge, and I appreciate you contributing to the thread.

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

Two words.

Bull and crap.

The only thing HUMANS are meant to breathe is AIR. Preferably clean air.

We were NOT meant in inhale plants.

People are free to do whatever they wish.

Just remember once upon a time tobacco was 'good' for you.

a reply to: neo96

Do you drink alcohol? How about soda? They're not natural and is far more harmful than marijuana, yet people still drink them.

I know people who have smoked weed daily for most of their lives yet I have never heard of them having any adverse effects from it.

Humans do a lot of unnatural things.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I don't light them on FIRE and inhale the CARCINOGENS.

To 'cure' cancer.

Of course good luck not getting oral and LUNG cancer.

If people want to smoke weed. FINE.

But they shouldn't make up asinine excuse's to do so.

I know for a fact, it cures migraines and arthritis!

a reply to: neo96

But you drink something that is bad for your liver? How is that any better?

Where is there a study that shows weed causes lung cancer? Because this study says it kills cancer cells, not cause them.

Also, there are more ways to use marijuana than by smoking it.

originally posted by: neo96
After Decades of Denial National Cancer Institute Finally Admits that “Cannabis Kills Cancer”

Two words.

Bull and crap.

This^^^ is why it's so important to continue educating folks about the new and continuing research, the knowledge this research is revealing, and the many new medicinal products developed and available for many old ailments and diseases. Inhalation is just one of many ways of medicating with cannabis; there are also oils, teas, tinctures, edibles, and so on.

In the case of cannabis specifically, not only is smoking the dried plant material a very effective way of releasing the THC cannabinoids for therapeutic purposes, it is also an efficient means of immediate delivery and distribution. Further, studies have shown that it does not cause lung cancer, and may even provide a protective effect against lung cancer:

Worth repeating: marijuana decreases risk of lung cancer

Just remember once upon a time tobacco was 'good' for you.

And it still is.


5 Health Benefits of Smoking

Nicotine, the Wonder Drug?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Great thread! S&Fs! My mother-in-law has a brain tumor, right now, and I'm going to pass on this article. She'll be having radiation treatment but was told it will only stop the growth of the tumor. So, she'll also have brain surgery to remove what the radiation will not shrink. I'd love if she would consider cannabis oil, too.

I recommend Pastries or Vapor over Cannabis oil. Oils can be a bit too potent for some people to handle, I wish your mother-in-law a painless recovery nonetheless

a reply to: neo96

For the last time... You do NOT have to smoke marijuana... holy cow people...

a reply to: Boadicea

its does not. no back up information needed

if you have cancer do not think cannabis will cure it
This is coming from someone who smokes but I'm not a fool

I can't believe some of the changes around here. I can't recall any such 'rational' discussion of this subject going on in years past. Don't believe anyone who tells you everything is going downhill. Thanks SO.

What if cannabis were found to kill only one type of carcinogen in the human body? Just one. Guaranteed. No ands, ifs, or buts about it. Who wouldn't give themselves 'that' chance?

The reason that cannabis are easily to be over used and wrongly used should be taken into consideration if it's true that the Organization wants to protect some big pharma's interests. But I don't think things are going in the way as you described. Drug discovery and development is a long process, and identifying a drug for a certain diseases is also a time-consuming process, no easy decisions should be made for any diseases, or it will be too late to save the people from the adverse effects of the drugs.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: neo96
After Decades of Denial National Cancer Institute Finally Admits that “Cannabis Kills Cancer”

Two words.

Bull and crap.

This^^^ is why it's so important to continue educating folks about the new and continuing research, the knowledge this research is revealing, and the many new medicinal products developed and available for many old ailments and diseases. Inhalation is just one of many ways of medicating with cannabis; there are also oils, teas, tinctures, edibles, and so on.

In the case of cannabis specifically, not only is smoking the dried plant material a very effective way of releasing the THC cannabinoids for therapeutic purposes, it is also an efficient means of immediate delivery and distribution. Further, studies have shown that it does not cause lung cancer, and may even provide a protective effect against lung cancer:

Worth repeating: marijuana decreases risk of lung cancer

Just remember once upon a time tobacco was 'good' for you.

And it still is.


5 Health Benefits of Smoking

Nicotine, the Wonder Drug?

Nonsense, he made an observation with no explanation. If you inhale smoke in your lungs you will have an increased risk for squamous cell carcinoma. That is a fact, and I observe this for a living as a cell biologist. If you need a reference I suggest you read books by Koss or Demay.

A pulmonologist does not specialize in cancer specifics and would not be able to explain such findings, only observe. There was only an abstract so I can't see his methods, but his suggestion is ridiculous. The smoke would change the lining cells in the lung to squamous cells before a mutation. This would be easily observable and provide strong evidence to what he suggest.

He does not make any reference to this which suggest two things: he didn't observe it, or he doesn't know what to look for. Most of these studies are intended for people within the field to scrutinize, so when you just post them without understanding them you do everyone a disservice.

a reply to: Boadicea

I've looked at a lot of this and it always surprises me that people still tackle the dilemma with " I knew someone who smoked cannabis and died of cancer."

After all the research that has been done it's clear that CBD (cannabidiol) is the active compound that kills the cancer cells.
Best route to go is to directly inject CBD extract into the tumor and you should be good.

End of story.

a reply to: GreenGunther
At what concentration?
How does that work with lymphatic cancer which is distributed throughout the body. In bones and organs?

a reply to: Boadicea

Hiya Boadicea! Hope you are ok!

I know for a fact that there has been lots of research on cannabinoids since the '70s, it's never bee hidden, so the title of that article is misleading (I know it's not your title). If you go to PubMed you will find hundreds of studies:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Unfortunately success with mice and petri dish doesn't necessarily translate to success in humans, but scientists keep on working on it and one day, perhaps, they will have an 'eureka' moment regarding this topic. So far there have been no human trials to test the effect of cannabinoids and cancer and there is zero evidence cannabis has 'killed' cancer in people, like the article in the OP says.

Here is a great website I follow and I think it may interest you: icrs.co...

a reply to: Phage

I'm no doctor, but I'm sure there are ways. In the first landmark study that was done on CBD they found that if injected straight into the tumor, it destroys the tumor completely in 30% of cases, and shrank the tumor dramatically in the other 70%. It always has a very positive effect.

The concentration should be as pure as CBD oil can get. I think you'll need a centrifuge to seperate the oils correctly.

I'm sure if you inject it into a lymph node close to the main caner site it should distribute throughout the lymphatic system.

But i'm also sure someone who studied medicine might have way better ideas than me.
It all comes down to getting CBD as close as possible to the cancerous cells.

The other plus is also that there are no psychoactive effects, because CBD is completely void of THC.
The more THC a strain of cannabis produces the less CBD it produces and vice versa.
CBD has proved itself in helping with a lot of chronic diseases.

*I can not be held liable for any injury or death resulting from the above description, it is only for conversation sake* - just gotta cover my ass.

Check it out.

a reply to: Phage

Probably not the best example, but here's a study concerning breast cancer and CBD - reset.me...

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Boadicea

its does not. no back up information needed

if you have cancer do not think cannabis will cure it
This is coming from someone who smokes but I'm not a fool

Not foolish, but perhaps uninformed and uneducated regarding current knowledge and research about cannabinoids.

Smoking the dried plant material has its health benefits, mostly from the cannabinoid THC. Other cannabinoids play a direct role in the stimulation and activation of our own immune systems, and can be extracted and consumed in other ways.

There is still much to research, but there is no doubt that the cannabinoids in cannabis kill cancer, shrink tumors, and can be used to treat cancer.

Would the same theory apply using CBD from hemp?