• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

Medical marijuana

Local time
Today, 12:11
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
1
#1
My father has been dealing with prostate cancer for a couple of years now and is about to begin treatment. Does anybody have any information or personal testimonials about how marijuana has helped you or your loved ones in their battle with cancer or other illnesses? Any information would be much appreciated. I have read many articles suggesting highly concentrated cannabis oil can be effective not only in treatment of symptoms but also in the actual treatment of the cancer itself. Does anybody know if there is any science behind this? I am very familiar with the high and physical effects of cannabis but I cant find any solid conclusive evidence that speaks to its efficacy in eliminating the cancer cells themselves. Any help or personal testimonials is much appreciated.
Thanks
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 17:11
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,781
#2
also in the actual treatment of the cancer itself.
Anything that kills cells technically "kills cancer", radiotherapy and chemotherapy kill cancer cells by killing cells in a specific area (the target of an intense ionizing radiation) and by killing the cells that are dividing frequently (killing the growing tumor but also causing hair loss and my other side effects). Nothing in marijuana is going to revert the cancer cells to benign cells, highly concentrated cannabis oil is just a poison that some snake-oil salesmen are trying to make people think is a miracle cure. Even though poisoning yourself is technically how chemotherapy works it's best to leave cancer treatment to the professionals, they know how to kill the cancer while doing the least amount of damage to the patient's body.

Marijuana can be used to treat the side effects of chemotherapy, I must stress it doesn't solve anything it just makes the patient feel better.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:11
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,846
#3
Pretty much just try to bombard the thing with whatever you've got. Like cog said, you can listen to the pros, generally. Except, some info can be underground or they can be shills and paid by pharmaceutical companies to do and prescribe what's in their interest, not really yours. That doesn't mean cannabis will cure it all though of course.

I don't think the cannabis oil extract is poison, especially not the CBD. I'd say, go ahead and give the extract and tinctures a try, just rub it on the spot(s) and let it soak in. If money is an issue then it may not be worth it to try though. Weed should just reduce the stress caused by the symptoms, may not actually cure cancer itself all the time.

There are snake oil salesmen out there though.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 17:11
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,781
#4
Pretty much just try to bombard the thing with whatever you've got.
Don't do this! Cancer isn't some infection it's the body's own cells malfunctioning, nothing rubbed on the skin is going to fix that, except maybe battery acid which will kill the cancer but only because it kills everything!

There's no natural miracle cure to cancer, it's essentially a genetic disorder, there's no chemical or drug that's going to fix that.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 17:11
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,781
#5
Except, some info can be underground or they can be shills and paid by pharmaceutical companies to do and prescribe what's in their interest, not really yours.
If I had a cure for cancer I could extort people by making it really expensive but the more affordable it is the more people who can buy and thus the more money I'm going to make. Indeed if you cure someone's cancer that doesn't mean they'll never get cancer again, rather as people get older the likelihood of getting cancer increases over time so if I have that cure I want people to live as long as possible because they'll keep coming back and coming back more frequently.

There's NOTHING to be gained by pretending there's no cure to cancer and EVERYTHING to be gained by selling it, there's no conspiracy, rather cancer is really hard to fix because it's not an infection or physical damage it's errors in the patients own DNA.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday, 18:11
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
#6
He could try taking herbs/medicines that help promote dna repair. Supposedly Nad+ does that too by activating SIRT1 proteins, which helps cells from "silencing genes" and "suppressing recombination of rDNA" or mutations (off wikipedia).

I don't know much about medical marijuana, but it does cure parkinson's for some people. I think it became popular as a cancer treatment after somebody claimed to have cured their cancer by smoking weed everyday. From what I understand about CBD and THC is that it interacts with neural pathways and can give some people very positive effects. I'm doubtful it does anything directly against cancer though. But it could help correct certain chemical imbalances or regulate/destroy/remove certain toxins in the body (which might be the cause of certain cancers), thereby boosting the immune system and promoting healthy cellular function.

But I wish there was more knowledge about it between the claims of it being a cancer killer (by people that want you to buy their shit) and the FDA's dismissal that it does anything for cancer when we all know very well that if it did anything the FDA would not be able to proprietize it, so there is no incentive for them to research it. :xen-confused:
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 17:11
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,781
#7
He could try taking herbs/medicines that help promote dna repair.
You would more easily fix a broken clock by throwing rocks at it.

But it could help correct certain chemical imbalances or regulate/destroy/remove certain toxins in the body (which might be the cause of certain cancers), thereby boosting the immune system and promoting healthy cellular function.
If you want to "detox" take some laxatives and drink water, if you're constipated and/or dehydrated that could help, otherwise it'll do fuck all.

There's nothing you can add to the body that will clean it out, it's not a fucking blocked drain (unless you're constipated).

But I wish there was more knowledge about it between the claims of it being a cancer killer (by people that want you to buy their shit) and the FDA's dismissal that it does anything for cancer when we all know very well that if it did anything the FDA would not be able to proprietize it, so there is no incentive for them to research it.
Really? ...really?
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:11
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,846
#8
If I had a cure for cancer I could extort people by making it really expensive but the more affordable it is the more people who can buy and thus the more money I'm going to make. Indeed if you cure someone's cancer that doesn't mean they'll never get cancer again, rather as people get older the likelihood of getting cancer increases over time so if I have that cure I want people to live as long as possible because they'll keep coming back and coming back more frequently.

There's NOTHING to be gained by pretending there's no cure to cancer and EVERYTHING to be gained by selling it, there's no conspiracy, rather cancer is really hard to fix because it's not an infection or physical damage it's errors in the patients own DNA.
I didn't just say it to cause a panic and start a discussion on conspiracy theories. If I wanted to go there I'd just start a different thread in another sub forum.

Either way, there's plenty in history to suggest that would go on sometimes. Take for instance AIDS, or different kinds of medications shelled out initially in good heart but could also be overprescribed to turn a profit, so there'd be some incentive there. There's also water fluoridation throughout the states, banned in other countries in EU. Some places in USA have banned it.

There's no real reason to believe altruism is what people are doing, it's just an idea, and people use it in the manner of a sheep not fully comprehending his or her motivation, just following as is. There's no set idea behind it, in a capitalist civilization it'd be in their best interest to cash in as long as possible by keeping the real cures hidden. They'll probably release it in a few years, if it exists, same with AIDS or HIV. Cancer can still be hard, not saying there is a cure for it or schizophrenia, but then there's no reason they should ban medications if there is any effect they have. Some of them can cause unpredictable behavior or things to happen or incite some kind of anarchy.
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Today, 12:11
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,050
Location
Philippines
#9
Saying that there's a cure for cancer is like saying WD40 can fix all the problems in your house.

The closest cure that we have is targetted therapy. But that type of treatment is designed for individuals.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 17:11
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,781
#10
Either way, there's plenty in history to suggest that would go on sometimes. Take for instance AIDS, or different kinds of medications shelled out initially in good heart but could also be overprescribed to turn a profit, so there'd be some incentive there.
Which is exactly MY point, there's a huge monetary incentive to create a cure for cancer, and aside from money there's the prestige of being "that guy who cured cancer" for whoever discovers the cure, so there's individuals and institutions around the world investigating anything and everything.

Do you really think every government and every pharmaceutical company and every credible researcher in the world is colluding to keep a cure off the market? That the Chinese, the Japanese, the British, the Russians, the Indians, the Australians, the Arab Emirates, the South Africans and every nation in the European Union are all in on this conspiracy?

giphy.gif
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 17:11
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,781
#11
There's also water fluoridation throughout the states, banned in other countries in EU. Some places in USA have banned it.
The face of America is Homer Simpson, a fat bumbling idiot, that's what the rest of the world thinks of the US, the water isn't fluoridated water in some US states because it's dangerous, the water isn't fluoridated water because:
1. It costs money and your country's state governance is infamously corrupt.
2. You're a nation of idiots who believe unsubstantiated nonsense.

Hey here's a thought lets pay money to make our taxpayers less productive!

Or it could be a public health initiative, lol no wonder Americans don't like it.
"Public Health? PUBLIC HEALTH!?! That sounds like communism to me!"
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday, 18:11
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
#12
Do you really think every government and every pharmaceutical company and every credible researcher in the world is colluding to keep a cure off the market? That the Chinese, the Japanese, the British, the Russians, the Indians, the Australians, the Arab Emirates, the South Africans and every nation in the European Union are all in on this conspiracy?
Pharmaceutical Research moves in the direction of ----> profit, surprise. They aren't usually motivated to "find" cures, unless they can proprietize it and make a hefty profit. Illnesses and diseases that don't effect a lot of people don't get as much research, if any, and research moves in a direction to sell drugs and cure symptoms, but not the underlying illness, because that's less profitable.

For example, there are a lot more natural herbal alternatives to the many drugs they have on the market with similar effects and a lot less or acceptable side effects, but there is very little scientific research on herbal drugs. There is no profit in researching something anyone can grow and sell themselves. It is profitable to create "similar" compounds that do similar things and market that as acceptable however.

Now that doesn't mean they won't pursue a potential cure, if they think they have found one, because they do have to compete with other pharmaceutical companies, but they care more about ROI than necessarily finding cures. It's not much different than say the auto industry hanging on to gas/diesel engines when they could have gone to electric by now. It's incredibly hard to compete in the auto industry because of the amount of capital, research, and resources required and these giants know this and resist progress because investing in new technology is expensive. It's more profitable to maximize the status quo. Capitalism doesn't always profit off of progress, at least not when competition becomes increasingly difficult. Big-Pharma is very similar.
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Today, 12:11
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,050
Location
Philippines
#13
@Reluctantly

Pharma companies are less likely to go for drug discovery because it is expensive as balls. A modest estimate would be 1.4 billion dollars out of pocket for just one drug. They focus more on derivatives and making different compositions which is much cheaper to research on and to manufacture.

As for herbal medicines, it has some issues. We do know that they are safe but we don't know if they are effective. We still need to study their actual pharmacological qualities.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday, 18:11
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
#14
@Reluctantly

Pharma companies are less likely to go for drug discovery because it is expensive as balls. A modest estimate would be 1.4 billion dollars out of pocket for just one drug. They focus more on derivatives and making different compositions which is much cheaper to research on and to manufacture.
Well yes, there's a lot of money involved in developing any completely new drug in the pharmaceutical industry. Most of that has to do with the intensive testing, research, and regulatory requirements for putting drugs on the market. I agree.

But

As for herbal medicines, it has some issues. We do know that they are safe but we don't know if they are effective. We still need to study their actual pharmacological qualities.
Then why haven't the pharmaceutical companies done their homework and researched this stuff? As you said, research is expensive, especially in the super unknown area of herbal medicine that people already have access to and at a low cost. And so they don't think the investment is worth it.

But that also doesn't also give them a position to say herbal medicine is sketchy because it lacks scientific rigor, if they can't be bothered to study it properly and actually know to begin with. Just because there isn't a strict scientific standardization for evaluating herbal medicine, doesn't mean it isn't effective either. Herbal medicine can be very effective for certain people with certain conditions, so that we don't know if it is effective is also a lie.

Now that also doesn't mean I believe herbal medicine can cure anything and even cancer, but there's a lot of unknown potential there and research would benefit everyone (cept maybe the pharmaceutical company's money bags) by knowing why certain herbs work for certain people and how they are benefiting them.
 

Pyropyro

Magos Biologis
Local time
Today, 12:11
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
4,050
Location
Philippines
#15
@Reluctantly

No idea how the western herbal med research works but in our country said herbal med research is usually done by academe-pharma collab.

Here's one of them.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Local time
Yesterday, 18:11
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,138
#16
That...is...awesome. Just awesome. They found stuff that works and with little or no side effects that also doesn't have to be made in a lab. :good:

That's really how it should be, you know.

And it's interesting that the synthetic medicine imported from the west was more expensive, while also having side effects.

But here herbs aren't even considered to be "medicine". It's a "dietary supplement", go figure. So doctors know very little about herbal remedies, but they are quick to prescribe synthetic drugs from the pharma companies with lots of side effects for a nice price. And these doctors have to go through so much schooling and debt just to get where they are to begin with - they are completely indoctrinated into the system. It just feeds itself. And I was reading the other day that Americans are the most unhealthy in the developed world, while spending the most on healthcare. It's completely absurd. :laugh:
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Local time
Yesterday, 17:11
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,781
#17
The irony is incredible.

Y'know what herbal medicine that works is called? Medicine.

The "active ingredient" in marijuana is THC, it can be synthesized but it's cheaper to simply extract it from the plant and this is how a lot of drugs are made, the ones that aren't are synthesized because it's cheaper that way. Aside from the cost there's no difference between naturally sourced and synthesized THC, it's the same molecule, the same atoms, there's nothing inherently natural about it.

Big pharma gets its drugs by studying herbal medicine and other naturally occurring drugs (penicillin for instance which is a compound made by mold to protect itself from bacteria) so when herbal medicine works it becomes medicine and when it doesn't work it gets sold by con-artists who fool the scientifically illiterate into buying "medicine" (i.e. herbal remedies and supplements) that don't work.

You want to know why Americans are statistically some of the unhealthiest people in the world whilst paradoxically spending the most on healthcare? It's because the shit Americans are spending their money on doesn't work, if someone's sick they'll take medicine while they're sick and only until they're not sick anymore. But supplements you can sell all year round, suckers will throw back handfuls of pills every goddamn day, compared to that goldmine the actual medical industry is chump change.

Can you see the irony now?
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:11
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,846
#18
Either way, there's plenty in history to suggest that would go on sometimes. Take for instance AIDS, or different kinds of medications shelled out initially in good heart but could also be overprescribed to turn a profit, so there'd be some incentive there.
Which is exactly MY point, there's a huge monetary incentive to create a cure for cancer, and aside from money there's the prestige of being "that guy who cured cancer" for whoever discovers the cure, so there's individuals and institutions around the world investigating anything and everything.

Do you really think every government and every pharmaceutical company and every credible researcher in the world is colluding to keep a cure off the market? That the Chinese, the Japanese, the British, the Russians, the Indians, the Australians, the Arab Emirates, the South Africans and every nation in the European Union are all in on this conspiracy?

View attachment 3380
No, there's also incentive to keep it occult as long as possible for monetary gain, then sell it on the market announcing the new discovery and creating a persona (or a team of people) as a cover story saying they were the ones who did it. Not everyone can be in on it, some EU countries, hypothetically, could have found it, while China hasn't, so they're keeping it a secret from them.

In reality, cancer can still be a difficult problem. You may as well work on world hunger or integrating cyborg enhancements which'll lead to inserting human consciousness in the quantum supercomputer to effectively eliminate cancer worry, then we'll all be in a virtual reality fun land.

And they still could all be in on it. It's a reality show like the Truman Show. No one is in it for the money, or fame, they genuinely want to help people via altruism, which doesn't make sense, since it's just more mouths to feed and resources. It's a fight for the air we breathe.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:11
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,846
#19
@Reluctantly

Pharma companies are less likely to go for drug discovery because it is expensive as balls. A modest estimate would be 1.4 billion dollars out of pocket for just one drug. They focus more on derivatives and making different compositions which is much cheaper to research on and to manufacture.

As for herbal medicines, it has some issues. We do know that they are safe but we don't know if they are effective. We still need to study their actual pharmacological qualities.
And the whole process can take 10+ years just for the new "experimental" drug to turn out to be a failure. So the companies are real careful with what they do or which projects to carry out. They usually then just examine molecules similar to known ones which should have predictable effects.
There could still be millions of undiscovered medicines in the Amazon or rainforests.
 

Pizzabeak

Prolific Member
Local time
Yesterday, 21:11
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,846
#20
There's also water fluoridation throughout the states, banned in other countries in EU. Some places in USA have banned it.
The face of America is Homer Simpson, a fat bumbling idiot, that's what the rest of the world thinks of the US, the water isn't fluoridated water in some US states because it's dangerous, the water isn't fluoridated water because:
1. It costs money and your country's state governance is infamously corrupt.
2. You're a nation of idiots who believe unsubstantiated nonsense.

Hey here's a thought lets pay money to make our taxpayers less productive!

Or it could be a public health initiative, lol no wonder Americans don't like it.
"Public Health? PUBLIC HEALTH!?! That sounds like communism to me!"
There's also Peter Griffin, Stan Smith, or Philip J. Fry. No one wanted fluoride, or a fluoridated water supply. Fluoride ion is what they use in dentistry and fluorosilicic acid is a waste product from the fertilizer industry, which is disposed by putting it in water. There's no real research that says it fixes teeth, and some that suggests it has bad effects (can't simply be found by googling, with some nuance you'll come across legitimate papers eventually). So there's very little support. And it isn't the point.
 
Local time
Yesterday, 22:11
Joined
Jul 11, 2018
Messages
3
Location
Canada
#22
I have a prescription for cannabis. I have fibromyalgia and chronic migraines. I can only speak for myself and my own experiences, and what I've learned...
From what I've learned there's many components in cannabis but the main ones are THC and CBD. THC is what gets you "stoned" and euphoric, and CBD which usually comes in an oil, has anti-inflammatory and pain relief benefits.
I think it's more for pain management. It doesn't cure anything. It makes your illness tolerable. At least that's how I feel about it anyway.

Even with a quick google search... cannabis only alleviates the symptoms associated with cancer and chemotherapy.
 
Top Bottom