Drug info - Cannabis cures cancer?!

[Herbal Healer 019]

Has ne1 heard of Rick Simpson? He claims that the oil extracted from Cannabis aka "Hemp Oil" cures cancer ranging from skin cancers to terminal cancers.

Heres the link:

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/5169.html

The link has an article & videos explaining how Rick Simpson discovered that hemp oil cured cancer & other illnesses after seeking releif from his own medical conditions. He also explains that because the pharmaceutical companies can't patent cannabis oil, it isn't being prescribed & the knowledge is being withheld from the public. He says while cannabis can be prescribed to b smoked, only 2000 of 3 million people possess the liscence to do so. He also says that the resin & whole plant matter cannot be collected to create the hemp oil, where the real medical value lies.

The video is kinda boring, but if you can get past that & sit through it, it's pretty crazy learn that cannabis can do such amazing things but is still associated with such a negative stigma. It all makes sense tho that the gov't wouldn't want the public to know that the cure for cancer & other illnesses can be grown in your closet or backyard, but just brings to light how much more money means to the government & pharm companies than the health of those in need of a real cure.

[THeGaME--]

Cannabis is an amazing drug really.

[Herbal Healer 019]

True. 2 bad almost every government would rather demonize it than embrace its medicinal properties. Doesn't suprise me that a plant so beautiful is so potent medically & recreationally.

[Richi]

Sure, it's a wonderful pant that exhibits many very good qualities and medicinal uses.

Mr. Simpson is spreading baloney though. He calls it 'the most medicinal plant known to man,' and says that it's oils are the most 'medicinally active substances that occur in nature'. That sounds like the same order of bullshit anti-marijuana agents employ - large assumptions and phony claims.

And plants can be patented.

Reputation Comments on this post:

good

[unema]

Originally Posted by Richi

Sure, it's a wonderful pant that exhibits many very good qualities and medicinal uses.

Mr. Simpson is spreading baloney though. He calls it 'the most medicinal plant known to man,' and says that it's oils are the most 'medicinally active substances that occur in nature'. That sounds like the same order of bullshit anti-marijuana agents employ - large assumptions and phony claims.

And plants can be patented.

Quoted For Truth!!!

[Herbal Healer 019]

Originally Posted by unema

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richi
Sure, it's a wonderful pant that exhibits many very good qualities and medicinal uses.

Mr. Simpson is spreading baloney though. He calls it 'the most medicinal plant known to man,' and says that it's oils are the most 'medicinally active substances that occur in nature'. That sounds like the same order of bullshit anti-marijuana agents employ - large assumptions and phony claims.

And plants can be patented.



Quoted For Truth!!!

How can a plant b effectively patented if virtually any plant can be grown & harvested in a closet or backyard?

Richi- "Mr. Simpson is spreading baloney though." It's not baloney. It's the dead ass truth.

Cannabis shows more promise in curing diseases than, to my knowledge, every synthetic drug on the market. Think about it, cannabinoids hav been proven to help glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain. aids, stop the spread and attack cancer cells, etc... How many other synthetic chemicals can treat as many or even close to the number of ailments & diseases marijuana does? None.

Cannabis does have a number of oils which have known medical properties such as omega fatty acids (in fish; & prooven as good for you), terpines, flavanoids (found in green tea; prooven health benefits), anti-oxidants(" "), neuroprotectants.
That being said, I'd have to agree with Mr. Simpson saying "it's oils are the most 'medicinally active substances that occur in nature". Mr. Simpson is definately not spreading "baloney" here, why would he?, I really dont see any profit about spreading the word & giving hemp oil away 4 free.

Maybe the "agenda" he's trying to push here is to help ppl & raise awareness about the benefits of a demonized drug.

& maybe if ppl waoke up & realized cannabis wasn't "the devils harvest" b4 the war on drugs, then maybe we'd have found the cure for cancer by now.

[Richi]

Originally Posted by Herbal Healer 019

Richi- "Mr. Simpson is spreading baloney though." It's not baloney. It's the dead ass truth.

Cannabis shows more promise in curing diseases than, to my knowledge, every synthetic drug on the market. Think about it, cannabinoids hav been proven to help glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain. aids, stop the spread and attack cancer cells, etc... How many other synthetic chemicals can treat as many or even close to the number of ailments & diseases marijuana does? None.

To your knowledge, perhaps.

To the knowledge of the general scientific community, the one responsible for all of our health sciences and medical advancements, the one actually curing cancers and prolonging life, this is not true.

You are mistaking the terms cure and treatment. The title of this thread in not congruent with the previous statement you made.

On that note, I think I found a more medicinal plant than marijuana - oregano oil. Rather than being an intoxicant in part, which reduces the medical potential of a plant, it is a powerful antioxidant and anti-bacterial, anti-fungal anti-inflammatory, properties. It also contains many flavinoids, triterpenoids, sterols, vitamin C and vitamin A. And - Hippocrates - the father of medicine, allegedly used it as well.

[Burnt]

Claiming a plant is the "most medical" is meaningless. "More medical" against what?

Cannabis has about 450 known compounds in it. Many of those compounds are found in other plants including flavonoids, terpenoids, plant sterols etc. Cannabinoids are unique to cannabis. Realize that most plant drugs contain a number of active compounds that all do similar or different things so claiming that a plant has more medical uses then a synthetic chemical is kind of unfair because the plant has multiple compounds and the synthetic drug is usually developed pure and for a very specific purpose. Comparing which one is more effective at a particular ailment needs direct comparing studies but whatever.

Concerning the claims about oregeno oil yes that is true but all the terpenoids found in cannabis do the same things, antiinflammatory, antimicrobial etc etc. In fact both plants probably have a number of terpenoids in common. So the argument that oregeno oil is "more medical" then cannabis is also kind of meaningless.

But look the deal is cannabis has many medical uses, there is no question about that. Who cares "how medical it is"?

There is evidence that compounds in cannabis kill tumor cells and inhibit their growth. There is a number of papers in the scientific literature about this, look them up. However many compounds do that and developing a drug out of them is tough work but its being researched so whats the argument?

Other cannabinoids not so much THC have been shown to be more active against cancer cells, like CBD and CBG and possibly their corresponding acids (i forget) and interestingly they were able to stop metastasis which many anti cancer drugs can't do. Even more interesting is that cannabinoids are quite non toxic and many cancer drugs are very toxic so it makes them an interesting lead for new cancer drugs.

Reputation Comments on this post:

very good :)

[Nature Boy]

Cannabis hasn't been proven as a cure for cancer. It has been suggested that certain cannabinoids offer a preventative mechanism against cancer although research in this field is still rather vague. Cures are different to prevention. Vitamin C may prevent a common cold but it won't cure hypothermia.

[cannabis-sam]

From what i understand some cannabinoids attack mutating cells whilst leaving healthy ones intact.

Also this study on lung cancer.

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
Federal health and drug enforcement officials have widely used Tashkin's previous work on marijuana to make the case that the drug is dangerous. Tashkin said that while he still believes marijuana is potentially harmful, its cancer-causing effects appear to be of less concern than previously thought.
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
Tashkin's study, funded by the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, involved 1,200 people in Los Angeles who had lung, neck or head cancer and an additional 1,040 people without cancer matched by age, sex and neighborhood.
They were all asked about their lifetime use of marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. The heaviest marijuana smokers had lighted up more than 22,000 times, while moderately heavy usage was defined as smoking 11,000 to 22,000 marijuana cigarettes. Tashkin found that even the very heavy marijuana smokers showed no increased incidence of the three cancers studied.
"This is the largest case-control study ever done, and everyone had to fill out a very extensive questionnaire about marijuana use," he said. "Bias can creep into any research, but we controlled for as many confounding factors as we could, and so I believe these results have real meaning."
Tashkin's group at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA had hypothesized that marijuana would raise the risk of cancer on the basis of earlier small human studies, lab studies of animals, and the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and generally hold smoke in their lungs longer than tobacco smokers -- exposing them to the dangerous chemicals for a longer time. In addition, Tashkin said, previous studies found that marijuana tar has 50 percent higher concentrations of chemicals linked to cancer than tobacco cigarette tar.
While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.
The study was limited to people younger than 60 because those older than that were generally not exposed to marijuana in their youth, when it is most often tried.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...501729_pf.html

Still I do believe too many of the pro cannabis people have this irrational belief that cannabis can do no harm and in spite of the evidence will not admit that cannabis has some negative effects(you could almost accuse them of doing the same thing the anti drugs lobby does. I still think that cannabis is one of the safest drugs there is and does very little harm but please don't deny that it does any harm because it does (however it is small and most people don't have a problem.

I am skeptical of the psychosis thing on the basis that the results were gained from injecting medical grade THC/CBD which when you take individual components of a drug and test that your results aren't going to be as accurate as ones when people use as they would in reality not in a lab.
I also remember seeing something about a doctor injecting THC into a brain tumour and finding it reduced in size quite a lot.

Just becuase cannabis doesn't give you lung cancer inhaling combusted plant material into your lungs is going to be bad for them.

[Burnt]

Still I do believe too many of the pro cannabis people have this irrational belief that cannabis can do no harm and in spite of the evidence will not admit that cannabis has some negative effects(you could almost accuse them of doing the same thing the anti drugs lobby does. I still think that cannabis is one of the safest drugs there is and does very little harm but please don't deny that it does any harm because it does (however it is small and most people don't have a problem.

This is true and it makes the pro cannabis activist groups look stupid if they claim that cannabis has no negative effects. Its a very safe plant yes that is true but still nothing is 100% beneficial. It is well known that chronic cannabis use can cause problems with short term memory as well as certain kinds of cognitive disfunctions (which are both reversable it seems) and can cause some damage to the lungs similar to tobacco. The lack of cancer causing is probably due to the anti cancer effects of not only the cannabinoids in cannabis smoke but also the essential oils (the chemicals that make it smell nice ). So in a way cannabis smoke is probably safer then tobacco smoke in that regard.

As far as cannabis and psychosis there is no biological evidence that it can actually lead to the structural changes in the brain that are typical of psychosis. Can it make a crazy person worse? Of course but so can any mind altering drug. So the entire argument is skewed and most of the evidence is based on population studies that don't really say much of anything.

[Herbal Healer 019]

Well if you watch the videos it shows some of the terminally ill people explaining how their cancer was cured. Rick Simspon had a skin cancer removed & put the hemp oil on the cancer site topically & the resulting infection was gone within a couple weeks, & another guy with terminal cancer who had only 2 months or so to live used the hemp oil for a couple months & his next cat scan showed the cancer was completely gone. Explain that. I think its pretty plausible that hemp oil can cure cancer considering the high concentration of cannabinoids present in hemp oil. Cannabinoids have already been proven to inhibit cancer cells & tumor cell growth in addition to being proven to attack glioma (the worst kind of cancer) cancer cells in the brain. It is probable that this guy has discovered cannabis' full medical potential

[Burnt]

various cannabinoids have been shown directly to kill tumor cells in a variety of cancer cell lines. some cannabinoids have also been shown to inhibit tumor metastasis in vivo in mice with cancer. that being said there still needs a lot of work to be done, there are a number of complications with using cannabinoids for killing tumors that need to be overcome and further explained.

[onestepahead667]

I'm all for legalizing cannabis and think the are some medical uses for it, but I would still like to see some other research of hemp oil curing cancer. Some before and after pictures might be helpful. They don't really show any of the in the video. I know if I were going to try and prove I have cured something I would be taking pictures and documenting anything that happened day by day especially in the skin cancers where you would visibly be able to see something happening.

[Richi]

Originally Posted by Herbal Healer 019

Well if you watch the videos it shows some of the terminally ill people explaining how their cancer was cured.

None of those terminally ill people have any clue how their cancer was cured, and neither do I, because none of us are oncologists.

Rick Simspon had a skin cancer removed & put the hemp oil on the cancer site topically & the resulting infection was gone within a couple weeks, & another guy with terminal cancer who had only 2 months or so to live used the hemp oil for a couple months & his next cat scan showed the cancer was completely gone. Explain that.

Where are the doctors? Where are the studies? Where are the controls?
Where is the legitimate empirical evidence?

Mind you, I would completely support the use of cannabis in its entirety if it were legal. Hell, if I got cancer, [and cannabis was legal], cannabis would be the first thing I'd go for. It is indeed a marvelous plant with many medicinal benefits. However, claiming to cure cancer is a tall order. Real studies need to be done and publicized. More people need to ask more questions. The word must get out.

[Herbal Healer 019]

Originally Posted by Richi

Where are the doctors? Where are the studies? Where are the controls?
Where is the legitimate empirical evidence?

There is no hard evidence other than their word.

Somehow I doubt that they are lying or exaggerating about having terminal cancer one day & on the next cat scan it being gone when they were told there was nothing more the doctors could do medically speaking, & the only medicine they had used was the hemp oil. That in itself is enough for me, I personaly beleive they are not lying, why would they be? Theyre all like 40+ years old with nothing to gain through lying, & clearly are not just a bunch of stoners bragging about how awsome pot is.

Im sure there will be studies done regarding hemp oil and its cancer curing properties, but I doubt it will be anytime soon as there is absolutely no benifit for the pharmaceutical companies considering whole plant cannabis, which is used to make hemp oil, cannot be patented. Yes they could isolate the compounds as they have done with marinol and sativex, but studies have already proven synthetic cannabinoids pale in comparison to the effectiveness of whole plant cannabis which not only contains anti-inflammatory/cancer & neuroprotectant cannabinoids, but powerful antioxidents and essiential fatty acids.

[Cryptic Concoction]

Originally Posted by Herbal Healer 019

There is no hard evidence other than their word.

Somehow I doubt that they are lying or exaggerating about having terminal cancer one day & on the next cat scan it being gone when they were told there was nothing more the doctors could do medically speaking, & the only medicine they had used was the hemp oil. That in itself is enough for me, I personaly beleive they are not lying, why would they be? Theyre all like 40+ years old with nothing to gain through lying, & clearly are not just a bunch of stoners bragging about how awsome pot is.

Im sure there will be studies done regarding hemp oil and its cancer curing properties, but I doubt it will be anytime soon as there is absolutely no benifit for the pharmaceutical companies considering whole plant cannabis, which is used to make hemp oil, cannot be patented. Yes they could isolate the compounds as they have done with marinol and sativex, but studies have already proven synthetic cannabinoids pale in comparison to the effectiveness of whole plant cannabis which not only contains anti-inflammatory/cancer & neuroprotectant cannabinoids, but powerful antioxidents and essiential fatty acids.

They would lie for the exact same purpose that the government does: to push their agenda.

There is absolutely no conclusive scientific evidence presented, it was not conducted in accordance with the scientific method, and it is substantiated by only anecdotal claims.

I remain highly skeptical, and will not whole-heartedly accept these brazen claims merely because they say it's true. Their word holds absolutely no scientific validity.

Beware the confirmation bias.

Impassioned individuals are vulnerable to credulity when presented with claims that support their vantage.

[Herbal Healer 019]

You prove a good point, but still, I beleive hemp oil has the ability to cure cancer although no solid evidence was presented other than word of mouf. There have already been numerous studies yielding substancial evidence proving cannabinoids have anti-cancer properties against malignant tumors, and various other forms of cancer through attacking and eliminating cancerous cells while preserving healthy ones.

[Cryptic Concoction]

It is dangerous territory that we are treading upon when we assume the veracity of a claim in the complete lack of concrete scientific evidence.

In order to divine the truth, we must remain critical of all "information" that is cast upon us. It is paramount that we especially challenge those claims that support our beliefs, as it is these claims whose flaws we will be blinded to by the walls of our preconception.

Would you accept a purely anecdotal claim without concrete scientific evidence from a person who asserts that he has proven that hemp oil does not cure cancer? If your answer is no, I challenge you to assess your embrace of this proposition.

Would you accept a contrary claim from your government without conclusive scientific evidence? I certainly hope not.

It is critical that as we approach such affirmations swathed in passion and an insatiable desire to have our preconceptions confirmed that we remain vigilant of our biases.

[complete_stoner]

if someone had enough time on their hands to compile a group of sites listing true scientifical facts on the matter, then i might buy it. ofcourse i am for it, ofcourse it could happen in these few instances, but i dont think its enough proof yet to make it legal or anything like that

[Herbal Healer 019]

Whatever. I beleive these old farts. They have nothing to gain, & at 1 point were terminally ill & had no where to turn other than cannabis & even they were skeptical at 1st. I mean shit, the dude gave the hemp oil away for free.

Clearly the gov. will not waste their time & money studying hemp oil's potential to cure cancer as it cannot be patented & will bring them & their pharma companies any profit.

I choose to beleive some old ass cancer patients, who at one point were nearing their last days on this earth, even without gov. studies, which have purposely mislead ppl from the truth about cannabis through there reefer-madness like propaganda so many times; you beleive what you want, but there is already alot of evidence showing cannabinoids potential to combat & eliminate cancerous tumors & cells. google it.

The evidence just hasn't been brought to light, but I find it highly likely that with the already existing evidence, cannabis has the potential to cure cancer

[thealmassi1]

Pharmaceutical companies should not be private, they should be run by the government. This should apply to family doctors, hospitals and any other institution or profession that concerns the health of people. Until that happens, profits will take precedence over health. That is the fundamental problem with a society that values money over their well-being.

There's nothing to lose by researching the medicinal benefits of marijuana, at least in the opinion of the ordinary North American citizen (especially Canadians, Americans are generally little more uptight).

Good for him to exagerate the effects. Somebody needs to balance the exagerations that the government makes regarding the harmful effects of weed.

[Micklemouse]

Originally Posted by thealmassi1

Good for him to exagerate the effects. Somebody needs to balance the exagerations that the government makes regarding the harmful effects of weed.

Wrong! So wrong! By exaggerating his claims he becomes the same as Big Pharma (only not as rich), the establishment & mainstream media - a propaganda (there, someone finally said the "P" word!) merchant, & an embarassing one at that.

He needs to look at getting funding for further research, & until this happens he, & others, needs to stop spouting this as fact based on spurious anecdotal evidence, as this does his cause no good whatsoever. Is there any concrete proof that the people involved even had cancer in the first place? Were they taking other medications/using other supplements? Spontaneous remission is a well documented phenomenon, & belief is positted to play a huge part in it - the chap with 2 months to live may have been prepared to believe in the existence of a flying spaghetti monster if it cured him of cancer. It is equally likely that Mr Simpson's skin tumour was successfully removed, leaving no trace of the cancer to regrow (you, know, doctors & surgeons can be very competent people sometimes!).

If (& it would be a wonderful thing!) hemp oil cures cancer (& there seems to be evidence that certain cannabinoids appear to target certain cells) then the health industry would have no qualms about using it if it was seen to be effective & safe. Unfortunately, propaganda such as this only harms the cause.

[Cryptic Concoction]

Good for him to exagerate the effects. Somebody needs to balance the exagerations that the government makes regarding the harmful effects of weed.

By using blatant deception to push one's agenda, he or she becomes no different than the mendacious government and mainstream media.

It is merely a difference in the agenda. Whether or not that agenda is noble or corrupt is a subjective value judgment.

If we truly have the support of concrete scientific evidence, we should have no reason to submit to subterfuge and artifice.

I have an insatiable desire for truth, and I find it deeply disconcerting that those who feel they are victims of government ruse are espousing similar tactics.

Call me a purist.

[thealmassi1]

I agree with you both, but the fact is that people listen to exagerations. Children (and adults) are more likely to listen to exagerated facts and extreme lies than rational truths. They are more inclined to listen to the "fact" that marijuana kills brain cells and destroys your life, then if the government said that it might have a negative effect on one's life.

If this guy says that the drug MIGHT be beneficial and cure cancer, how many people will really care about that claim? We have been hearing that for decades with no action to find out whether this is true or false.

You think a purist's voice will be heard over the government/pharmaceutical companies' propaganda?? C'mon...