This is relevant

From my own work as a reporter, I haven't seen anything that conclusively proves cannabis can cure cancer, but I haven't seen anything that suggests it harms the process either.

I get the feeling that it may well help, perhaps even catalyse healing. Yet, I think it's naive to call it a cure without any sort of substantial proof. End of the day, it's always struck me as more a ploy to support legalisation, which I think is the wrong tact to take. People should be making the financial argument to support it, and sod the rest. If you can't get through to people's hearts, you can always speak to their wallet. Either way, that's just an opinion, and will remain that way until proper research has been conducted.

If people are looking for a cure all, I suggest they take a look at the work being conducted by Juno Therapeutics. Aside from the massive amount of cash they've amassed to support the company ($310m in 9 months), the technology itself shows real promise. The stuff essentially teaches the body's immune system to identify and attack cancer. When this tech was still in its early days, they gave a guy with leukemia (terminal, tried everything else, was basically about to die) the therapy, and is cancer went into complete remission. That was in 2010, and the patient remains cancer free today.

EDIT - just remembered, it wasn't Juno who gave the treatment. It was a university developing the same IP. I think it was Pennsylvania off the top of my head.

If you haven't seen anything that conclusively shows that cannabis can cure cancer, then with all do respect, you haven't been looking hard enough.

Even in just my facebook news feed, I see more and more stories, especially of children, who are having their conditions DISAPPEAR on them through the use of cbd oil. Leukemia being one of them.

The cure is here, and it doesn't need to be some new age expensive technology that only the rich can afford.

This is why cancer charities in my opinion are a giant scam. They could use their revenue for lobbying for pro-cannabis policy and cannabinoid research but instead they funnel money to large corporations and pocket the rest.

The fact that cures for cancer are suppressed, (medical marijuana patents have been held by the US since '74) makes complete sense when you consider the massive amount of revenue generated by treating those conditions such as cancers.

See, this is exactly what I think is problematic. Talking about cancer as if it`s one thing, making absolute statements that cannabis can cure cancer without citing which cancers under which conditions etc and using testimonials as `proof` without taking in account confirmation bias fallacy. Also black and white thinking (¨either you`re with expensive technology or you`re pro-cannabis cancer cure¨ ).

May I correct?

Another possible cure is here, and it probably doesn't need to be some new age expensive technology that only the rich can afford. Maybe a mix will do wonders.

However certain circles benefit from the ban, so the money argument mentioned before is a good one.

Let the guys who prevent cannabinoids for cancer research look like greedy, inhumane monsters.

Everyone who wants Cannabis legalized should educate cancer patients with facts:

http://www.mayoclinic.or...na/evidence/hrb-20059701

and the studies joedirt mentioned.



Another good strategy would be filing a class action suit against the FDA. Find 10,000 cancer patients willing to sue and hire the meanest lawyers. The whole issue is a legal one, not a scientific one. Once it's legal, the scientific studies regarding cancer will pop up like mushrooms.

Cmon..


Sorry if it came off that way, but I certainly don't perceive cancer as 'one thing'. I perceive cancer as physical manifestations of imbalances in the mind, body, and spirit, brought upon by a litany of things such as our diets, our lifestyles, and our environment.

I didn't want to spend all the extra time searching and citing specific examples just to corroborate something I said here in a post and I didn't think I had to in order for me to not be problematic. I'm not about spreading misinfo on the Nexus and I know about our responsibility here.

That being said...in my opinion there is enough evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, which allows us to use the phrase "cannabis cures cancer", accurately.

Cannabis also doesn't cure cancer, but it cures cancer, too. At this point, and with this topic, I think changing mass consciousness is more important than semantics.

And I'm not sure where you got the black and white thing, I surely don't think in false dichotomies.

Forgive me if I am misunderstood you.

I still really think that spreading such `memes` or `ideas` can be dangerous and needs at least a disclaimer. As an example, you don`t know if the cancer from whoever reads your words can be cured or not by cannabis, and yet with such generic statements such as `cannabis can cure cancer` you may lead them into believing it can.

See, I never said or thought cannabis can`t ever cure any kind of cancer, it might in some cases/preparations/doses/patient genetics/etc- Or at least help with disease and medication side effects. I also think it´s honorable that you want to inform people about different possibilities of treatments you may find could help others... but before we got specific data on the possible uses and limits as a treatment of various types of cancer, don`t you think it´s more prudent to avoid generic statements, or mention there`s no randomized human trials, that anecdotal evidence has the caveat of being a biased sample, and that people should inform themselves on the possibilites and statistics and talk to health professionals about it before quitting/changing treatments?

the reality is (as far as I can tell anyway) is that there is more evidence supporting the use of cannabis as a cancer treatment than against it. So anyone claiming it does not cure cancer must explain that, or debunk the claims etc..

Smoking most likely has a different value to than juicing or eating cannabis. I heard through the vine that when you juice a veggie marijuana plant, before it has any buds or THC in it, it has slightly different compounds than if it was mature.

I found a link here but I heard about it an does make sense, is it a 100% guarantee cure? No, not unless it works 100% of the time, its just a aid that seems to boost the chances of your body curing itself from the disease, but its not a cure. But there are benefits to it.

Jamie, so happy your husbands doing good! It helps with chronic pain and nausea, and apatite through the procedures, my dad had prostate cancer, he's ok now. Smoking helped him a bunch, possibly helped with getting rid of cancer?

Edit:Whoops sorry! I meant Pandora, my bad I dunno why I thought Jamie, lol my bad, but be well

Here's a link http://www.unitedpatient...s-the-freshest-medicine/

it says nothing about veggie state cannabis juicing, but that's what I heard.

Honestly endlessness, no, I don't think it's more prudent to stay away from the statement in its generalized form.






What is the downside to this? If a person believes that cannabis can cure their cancer - the worst thing that can happen is that it will not work.

Compare this to a person believing that chemo can 'cure' their cancer - the worst thing that can happen is that it will outright kill you, while costing 20,000$ / month.

If EVERY SINGLE person who has cancer tries cannabis treatments FIRST, before trying chemo and surgery - then MORE people would be able to manage and fight off cancers and other ailing conditions.

There is no downside to trying the natural remedy, from my perspective.

If it doesn't work, then by all means, go for the chemo, go for the surgery, but at least you ruled out the safe, natural way first.

No?

All of the info that I have seen seems to indicate that there may be something to it, though obviously there aren't enough studies yet to prove anything definitively. The endocannabinoid system seems to be at least partially responsible for the body's own anticancer mechanisms, and so stimulating it by intaking exogenous cannabinoids could help fight cancers. At the very least, they may be a preventative measure.

I wouldn't suggest anyone stop receiving traditional medical care if they were diagnosed with cancer, but supplementing that with high doses of cannabis oil taken orally can't hurt and could very well help with more than just cancer symptoms.

There are a few very interesting talks on the function and evolutionary history of the endocannabinoid system (ECS) by Dr. Robert Melamede on youtube that I would encourage everyone to check out. The most important idea is that the ECS is responsible for regulating the homeostasis of macroscopic organisms (it evolved roughly concurrently with the Cambrian explosion circa 500MYA). Cancer tends to be a runaway growth of cells that disrupt the normal balance of bodily functions at the expense of the host, and so the ECS may help to stop cancers via various mechanisms that restore balance: apoptosis (programmed cell death), inhibition of cell growth and angiogesis (blood vessel formation), and therefore inhibition of metastasis.

I think people are interesting in juicing raw cannabis because it allows you to get very high doses of the cannabinoids (in acid form) without the psychoactive effects that might be overwhelming with decarboxylated THC at those doses (>1g of THC oil a day). I'm not sure if this would have the same beneficial effects, however.

"Jamie, so happy your husbands doing good! It helps with chronic pain and nausea, and apatite through the procedures, my dad had prostate cancer, he's ok now. Smoking helped him a bunch, possibly helped with getting rid of cancer"

Well firstly..thanks! So nice of you to say..

I am a man though, and have no husband.

..or do I

Be well

I think endlessness raises a good point, one that has to be brought up if we ever wish to get these substances out of the underground and into a light where they can be viewed with legitimacy. I think the message is be careful what you say, not to make blanket statements, but rather to be specific. Does cannabis cure all cancer? Probably not.

As far as my experience with cancer and cannabis goes, I have seen it and peoples medical records before and after treatment with high dose cannabis extracts. I have seen lung cancer disappear in a matter of months. And people that were sentenced to hospice continue to live today.

The fact is though, how can we support claims that cannabis does cure cancer when research on it is mostly illegal?

From things I have read, cannabis causes apoptosis in cancer cells, and autophagy within cancer cells. But, without the ability to do further research the mechanism of action remains unclear.

Now that is cannabis as a whole, when you break it down into the constituent parts we know that many of the essential oils are at least useful in cancer treatment, let alone the cannabinoids which are forbidden to study as full spectrum extracts in the US at least. As Dr. Raphael Mechoulam an Israeli organic chemist and professor of Medicinal Chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel has pointed out, cannabis is a most effective given full spectrum since the many active constituents act synergistically.

Many of the essential oils present have been shown to have various healing properties in isolation. Limonene for example occurs in cannabis and has been shown to have anticancer properties, a google scholar search will turn up several papers on it, related to cell cycle arrest in various cancer cell types.

I personally believe cannabis DOES cure cancer, but I don't believe treating illness is as simple as one size fits all. Different treatments will be beneficial to different people in different stages of illness. Cannabis like all substances is simply a tool, how effectively it is used as medicine is up to the healers, I do however believe that time and large amounts of anecdotal and even plenty of scientific evidence appear to show that it is a high effective tool in healing.

What evidence do you have to back up that statement? Have you done such experiment with statistical analysis to prevent sample bias? You just cannot know that at this point, which means you`re going way over the line we were just talking about.

A cancer may have better prognosis with early intervention. If you`re telling peopel to not get surgery, maybe their cancers grow beyond the possibility of treatment. If you say `dont stop your treatment but also start taking cannabis`, then it would be one thing (AFAIK there`s no contraindication with using cannabis and conventional treatments together), or even suggesting the possibility that it may work alone but explaining the caveats of current info we have so people can check for themselves, but no, you`re saying that it would be better if every person tried this instead of whatever treatment they are doing, which is exactly where the hasty conclusions and danger lies.

Please read this thread, while it focuses on mental issues the idea is still relevant for this discussion: https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=20759




This is one of the things I also wonder about. How does the pharmacology of decarboxylated cannabinoids differ for such potential treatments? Also form of extraction would be different (for example a tea), while that may leave behind other potential beneficial non-polar compounds such as terpenes.



Yeah definitely some of those oils have shown certain effects but often those effects are measured in vitro and/or in animal models. I wonder about the effects in humans and specifically, the dosages. As I have mentioned before, it makes a whole world of difference just like when people say something is a MAOI but then don`t mention IC50 values. Does one really ingest enough terpenes and such substances in therapeutically active doses or would one need to consume different kinds of concentrated extracts to create noticeable effects? I´d love if anybody could post more info on human therapeutic doses of such compounds

I think the statement is self-evident.

But I'll quit this thread after this because now you're shoving me into the corner of giving bad medical advice. (I never said anyone should do anything, but rather raised a hypothetical scenario) I see a strong infusion of medicinal cannabis alks the way I see a healthy and active lifestyle. I think your response would be different if I was telling people that diet and exercise are cures for cancer and other ailments as well.

Besides, look at the thread, the posts by adam and arcologist are the direction it should go. And clearly the evidence provides that there is benefit. Our western view of disease as 'absence of symptom' is half of this problem. Disease manifests due to imbalances which include the entire system, and I'll tell people that cannabis helps regulate that system, and in turn, help you prevent, fight, and defeat cancers and other ailments, probably until I die.

How?

You have made a claim that universally supplanting all other first-step treatments with cannabis would result in universally-improved remission statistics.

How could this claim possibly be self-evident and not require any validating statistics?

My conclusion and what I learned from this thread:





(Comprehensive ?) list of Clinical Studies and Case Reports regarding cannabis (1970-2014):
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/study.php

Knowing what I know of chemotherapy and radiotherapy ("traditional"?? Really???), I'd definitely go for just the cannabis first - should the need arise.