Scientists find the cure for Cancer but no-one cares!

a reply to: imnotanother
Ehmm pretty sure the one making the claim cannabis cures cancer) needs to be the one to provide the evidence. You expect me to link to a study saying cannabis doesn't cure cancer when there gas never been any evidence it does? Proving a negative mean mean anything to you?
If you google cannabis cancer myth you will find lots of sites pointing out that there us no evidence however why should you take these at any more value than I take alternative health sites as evidence?
The simple fact is that that to the best of my knowledge there is no study showing cannabis cures cancer. ( although it does gave some interesting medical benefits and potential) if someone shows me a proper study showing it does will be ecstatic to change my mind. That is what being open minded is about, not believing every single unproven idea you hear about if it suits your preconceived world view.

a reply to: TechUnique

I just have to wonder, given the potential for agenda driven spin, if marijuana is not turning into the new snake oil.

Cures everything! ALS, Cancer, Hemorrhagic fever, Alzheimer's, and measles!!

The linked article seemed to be promoting "too good to be true" claims.

If true, then great, but my first reaction is snake oil salesmen.

a reply to: bbracken677

If legalised then people could grow it for free.. why would snake oil men promote something that people can technically produce for free?!

That doesn't make any sense.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: imnotanother
Not telling everyone they are wrong. Just pointing out the difference between ill informed pseudoscience and actual research. If some one wants to believe that vaccines are all a conspiracy or that you can cure aids with vitamin c then they are entitled to their belief. However if they post it as fact on a web side they should expect to be called in it when they cant back it up with any actual facts.

Careful Scot. One thing you will run across here on ATS is that often what people want to believe takes precedence over logic, science or common sense. Bringing such unnecessaries into the equation will certainly earn you the enmity of many. Oh, and tin foil hat websites are gospel...to some, anyway. There are those of us who expect good information to come from legit sources, as opposed to coming from people whose only clothing consists of a tin foil hat and socks.

It's funny, for instance, how often you will read people posting that they "believe" such and such is true, when current knowledge suggests that such and such is impossible. Is there some information or experiments that indicate that our knowledge may not be correct? Do they have specialized training/education in the subjetc? Nope..it's just what they believe lol. Had a guy tell me here that planets colliding behave exactly like billiard balls colliding do and got huffy when I tried to explain how ludicrous that was.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I believe there were some links provided on the first page. I read an 8 page one about breast cancer. This is about the 3rd thread in less than 48 hours where you are asking other members to provide you an education. Please see if those links are adequate for you. I believe they are what you are asking about.

And not related to this thread, I placed on your board the links you asked for in my thread. What you say doesn't exist, does. Sometimes it just takes a little work and maybe clicking on "Page 2" of google results.

a reply to: TechUnique

LOL seriously?

I am 60 years old...I smoked pot back in the late 60s and 70s mainly. The push to legalize has been in existence for many years grasshoppa.

Pot is hardly legal across the US therefore there are all kinds of agendas that would present incorrect ... wait.

Wait...you misunderstood the term and the usage. lol

I didn't mean that people would be riding around in horse drawn wagons selling pot to cure everything lol

I meant that anything presented to put pot into a better light than the past would be glommed onto by someone with an agenda to promote legalization. Even to the point of using misinformation.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that pot (cannabis) will not help cancer etc. I honestly do not know. What I am saying is that normally when you get accounts, such as what I have been reading, promising something as being the 2nd invention of toilet paper, the 2nd coming of sliced bread, that will cure all.... well, let's just say that 99,9999% of the time the claims are BS.

BTW... I favor the legalization. No arguments here. I just want it done legitimately and not have people believing that pot is the new snake oil.

"Snake Oil Salesman." The phrase conjures up images of seedy profiteers trying to exploit an unsuspecting public by selling it fake cures. In fact, the Oxford English Dictionary defines snake oil as "a quack remedy or panacea."

Of course they don't care! They make profit on the endless expensive treatments of cancer, not in the cure of cancer. Follow the dollar as they say. There is no cure, there are many cures! Since Royal Raymond Rife discovered a cure using frequencies, they demolished his lab. Gerson, Hoxsey were run out of the country. The root of this and most problems is the toxins in our environment, food and water. GMO foods, Pesticides, Radiation, Fluoride to name a few. Eat Organic and Non-GMO foods, get your water filtered and take daily long walks if you can. If you do develop or want to prevent cancer, then do it the way God and nature intended, safely and naturally. Natural Cancer Herbs

Herbs, Healthy Foods, Alkaline Water can help you get rid of most diseases and conditions, not radiation, chemotherapy and prescriptions (which all Cause, not cure cancer!)

a reply to: homeopath
There're some studies which hint the possibility of some herbs or vegetables combating certain forms of cancer, but the vast majority of things I've seen lately all say the effects if any are small and/or isolated.

It's not a magical cure, as many believe. I WISH it was.

Here's a UK review of the evidence:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov - Fruit and vegetables and cancer risk...

The conclusions therein are as follows:

General nutritional principles indicate that healthy diets should include at least moderate amounts of fruit and vegetables, sufficient to prevent deficiencies of any nutrients, especially micronutrients such as vitamin C, which are mostly supplied by fruits and vegetables. However, the available data suggest that general increases in fruit and vegetable intake would not have much effect on cancer rates, at least in relatively well-nourished populations. Future research may be productive if it can be focused on biological pathways known to be relevant in the development of specific types of cancer, and can reliably assess long-term intakes of relevant fruits and vegetables. Currently, advice in relation to diet and cancer should include the recommendation to consume adequate amounts of fruit and vegetables, but should put more emphasis on the well-established adverse effects of obesity and high alcohol intakes on cancer risk.

Here's a study which reinforces this conclusion:
www.webmd.com - Fruits, Vegetables Offer Little Cancer Protection...

........
The researchers aren't saying the fruits and vegetables have no effect. "Fruits and vegetables are likely to be protective, although the effect is not likely to be large," says study author Paolo Boffetta, MD, MPH, deputy director of The Tisch Cancer Institute at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

But he hastens to add that eating plenty of fruits and vegetables is good for a number of other reasons, such as reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. His study looked at the big picture, he tells WebMD, and so it's still possible that specific fruits and vegetables, or substances in them, could be more cancer-protective.
........

Seriously guys you can't use Google?

You're saying that there is no proof.. have you even looked?

Cures Brain Cancer www.nature.com... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.jneurosci.org... jpet.aspetjournals.org... mct.aacrjournals.org... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.jci.org... cancerres.aacrjournals.org... Cures Mouth and Throat Cancer www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Cures Breast Cancer www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... jpet.aspetjournals.org... www.molecular-cancer.com... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.pnas.org... cancerres.aacrjournals.org... endo.endojournals.org...-1 Cures Lung Cancer www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.nature.com... Cures Uterine, Testicular, and Pancreatic Cancers www.cancer.gov... cancerres.aacrjournals.org... Cures Prostate Cancer www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Cures Colorectal Cancer www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... safeaccess.ca... gut.bmj.com... Cures Ovarian Cancer www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org... Curse Blood Cancer www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... onlinelibrary.wiley.com... molpharm.aspetjournals.org... Cures Skin Cancer www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Cures Liver Cancer www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Cures Biliary Tract Cancer www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Cures Bladder Cancer www.medscape.com... (Sign-up required to view) Cures Cancer in General www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Read More: www.whydontyoutrythis.com...

Deny Ignorance..

a reply to: TechUnique

Yeah! You are right! Cannabis cures everything!

a reply to: TechUnique

Question everything.

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: DeepImpactX

There are literally too many to drag up for you and post here. Don't be lazy, do some research yourself.

The evidence is out there all you need to start off is a simple Google search and take it from there.

This is the problem with people nowadays they expect people to spoon feed them everything. This is precisely why people believe any old crap.

Remember the days before Google when the teacher would say 'Right, we are going to the libary to learn about ........'

You go to the libary and you look for any book pertaining knowledge of that subject. You don't expect the teacher to find the book for you, read it to you and then tell you what it means.

It's called initiative..

I wasn't suggesting that you do it for me. I was suggesting it because when a person starts a conversation/thread and states something as fact, they typically provide links to support what they are saying. It's the common way of doing things here. A third rate news source may be sufficient for some people, but others want the real deal.

It's called initiative..

Besides, if you bothered to read past the part where I suggested links, you might have seen that I was suggesting providing information to back up what people are already thinking. People already know this, they don't have to be taught. Your teacher/student analogy escapes me.

Having evidence to back up their suspicions is not only appreciated, but it's helpful to the cause. A cause that you claim no one cares about, but when put to the task of helping people care about and understand it better, you get all butt hurt about it and claim it's THEIR job to do the legwork. This has nothing to do with people being spoon fed information. This is about people sharing information amongst each other so problems can get resolved

You either want people to understand this or you don't.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Just google University of Alberta and DCA cancer cure...

Interesting !

I'd never heard of this dichloroacetate (DCA), so out of curiosity I googled it. There seems to be roughly around a half dozen clinical trials currently on the go.

I couldn't help but laugh when I read:

Among the key issues that need to be determined through clinical trials are:

- Is DCA effective in shrinking tumours?
- Can DCA be used safely in cancer patients at doses needed for effectiveness?
- Are there critical doses or methods of administration to achieve optimum anti-cancer effects?

Canadian Cancer Society

My first thought was: Yeah right, like pumping radiation into the human body to fight cancer is so fricken "safe"...

Pfft.

originally posted by: DeepImpactX

originally posted by: TechUnique
a reply to: DeepImpactX

There are literally too many to drag up for you and post here. Don't be lazy, do some research yourself.

The evidence is out there all you need to start off is a simple Google search and take it from there.

This is the problem with people nowadays they expect people to spoon feed them everything. This is precisely why people believe any old crap.

Remember the days before Google when the teacher would say 'Right, we are going to the libary to learn about ........'

You go to the libary and you look for any book pertaining knowledge of that subject. You don't expect the teacher to find the book for you, read it to you and then tell you what it means.

It's called initiative..

I wasn't suggesting that you do it for me. I was suggesting it because when a person starts a conversation/thread and states something as fact, they typically provide links to support what they are saying. It's the common way of doing things here. A third rate news source may be sufficient for some people, but others want the real deal.

It's called initiative..

Besides, if you bothered to read past the part where I suggested links, you might have seen that I was suggesting providing information to back up what people are already thinking. People already know this, they don't have to be taught. Your teacher/student analogy escapes me.

Having evidence to back up their suspicions is not only appreciated, but it's helpful to the cause. A cause that you claim no one cares about, but when put to the task of helping people care about and understand it better, you get all butt hurt about it and claim it's THEIR job to do the legwork. This has nothing to do with people being spoon fed information. This is about people sharing information amongst each other so problems can get resolved

You either want people to understand this or you don't.

Me thinks you both should sit down and ave a smoke of ye old wakky backy I'm sure you will both feel better and agree about near on everything

The article is right in that there have been a significant number of studies into the use of cannabinoids in the treatment of cancer, which is why dronabinol is now used for its anti-emetic effects. Despite this there are some studies suggesting use of dronabinol in a clinical setting has been fairly innocuous.

So far for studies into curing cancer or inhibition of tumour cell-growth I've only come across animal studies or lab studies with isolated cells, and any meta-analyses or systematic reviews have, by their own admission, not contained large enough samples to consider the conclusions reliable.

One good review is Guzman (2003 - linked below) who explained that it has been shown to regress gliomas in rodents and then protects normal glial cells. There are some studies with human cells that show some endo-cannabinoids (particularly anandamide) can facilitate cell-death, but that wouldn't be limited to tumour cells.

I think the evidence is mixed to say the least.

Guzman (2003) - Cancer

a reply to: twfau

I do not know enough about the subject, one way or the other, however!

When I see laundry lists of different kinds of cancers that can all be cured by cannabis, and then add in ALS, and Alzheimer's and God knows what else, it does make me think BS. Single Miracle Cures for a variety of diseases just doesn't seem right. When something seems to be too good to be true, it generally is.

Back in the day (60s-70s) there were numerous studies which showed that pot was the devil. Caused deformities in babies, paranoia and a laundry list of health problems...this seems like the pendulum swinging and responding to a whole different agenda.

Of course, it eventually came out that they were dosing rats with enough cannabinoids to equate to a person smoking a chunk of hash the size of a table lol.

If it does turn out to be the cure-all for cancers of all kinds, ALS, Alzheimers, and athletes feet then I will cheer along with the loudest... but until then I will inoculate my skepticism with a healthy dose of caution.

a reply to: bbracken677

With cannabis studies you sometimes have to look at who funded the study. There are some organisations who like to fund small studies which find adverse consequences of the drug, despite these studies having poor methologies they always get reported in the press.

It's the usual cliche - more research should be done, and I mean better quality objective research with participant numbers in the thousands using clinical trials, but getting funding for these is no doubt tricky. There are a few studies in the earliest stages of clinical trials but I think the research has a long way to go before we can make a clear determination.

That said cannabis legalisation shouldn't be based on whether it is a wonder drug or not.

Unfortunately, the amount of cannabis users is high, (no pun intended) with cancer being prevalent in that subgroup. If cannabis cured cancer, everyone would know about it because all the cannabis users would be cancer free, but that just aint the case.

To the person comparing chemo to DCA, here, the NFPA rating for DCA is a 3 in the blue:

Short exposure could cause serious temporary or moderate residual injury (e.g. chlorine)

Guess what? It IS worse than chemo. And that's on a safety scale rating with nothing to do with the drug industry...

If anyone here seriously believes that cannabis cures cancer then by all means prove it and get yourself a Nobel prize, a million bucks and the love and thanks of millions of people around the world.

Oh..what no takers? Thought so.