List of ALL Medical Studies Proving Cannabis Cures Cancer

Thanks for this. Great post to have in my bookmarks. a reply to: ColdChillin

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

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....

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...

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

a reply to: namelesss

And yet you replied. Why?

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

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.
*__-

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!

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.

A true miracle cure!! abstracts.asco.org...

bumping for future reading

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?

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! *__-

a reply to: tothetenthpower
hello there i apologize for responding to such an old thread but my lil brother 33 has just been diagnosed with type 4 cancer he had to be instantly hospitalyzed to start the chemo .
there now trying to save his life.
im in the process of ordering some thc and cbd oil for him at 25 percent cbd thc and 75 percent olive oil.
im in the Holland in Europe and its legal here.
u say its effective against skin cancer but what about other forms of cancer?
Do u think the oil might help him from what i gathered its pretty usefull during chemo
im just trying to gather as much info before i order anything thanks for listening

originally posted by: misterassist
a reply to: tothetenthpower
hello there i apologize for responding to such an old thread but my lil brother 33 has just been diagnosed with type 4 cancer he had to be instantly hospitalyzed to start the chemo .
there now trying to save his life.
im in the process of ordering some thc and cbd oil for him at 25 percent cbd thc and 75 percent olive oil.
im in the Holland in Europe and its legal here.
u say its effective against skin cancer but what about other forms of cancer?
Do u think the oil might help him from what i gathered its pretty usefull during chemo
im just trying to gather as much info before i order anything thanks for listening

Please don't give your brother anything without consulting with his oncologist, as they can interfere with his treatment and make it unsafe. Doctors will realize something is going on as they check bloods constantly whilst on cancer treatment, and they may end up stopping chemo.

THC and CBD are still being researched and we still don't know if they may cause contraindications during chemo. Please speak to the doctors, they are the experts. I wish your brother all the best.

a reply to: AgarthaThanks for ur reply man. I was just reading some of ur posts on this thread.
And il take ur advice to heart.
I wouldn wanna do anything to mess up his treatment offcourse.
In fact I already told him he should speak with his docter first,but he didnt think it was nescesary,but il remind him that yes it is necesary.
I know it can also have negative side effects,especially the condition my brother is in now.
Hes gained about ten kilograms and is holding to much fluid. this is about three days in to chemo which will take six months total.
The latest i just heard is that the fluid problem is getting a bit better.
So far the chemo seems to ber working also which should take care of his cancer completly in a few months,if evrything goes well.
So no need for me to push anything on him that i dont 100 percent know its gonna help him.
thanks again for ur reply id be happy to hear from u again thanks
I mean alot of the thc cbd stuff seems promising but alot of it smells like a scam 2 I mean am i really to believe this whole Rick simpson story?
I dont thinks so. I dont think i can start threads yet but i wouldn mind opening a new thread on this subject.