The United Kingdom must be awash with cash »« Why I am an atheist – Mark Gisleson

A little dose of hemp will cure everything

Do these claims make you at all suspicious? A few people on Twitter told me I should look into this panacea.

Cures heart disease!

Eases anxiety and depression!

Removes unsightly moles!

Arthritis! Snoring! Diarrhea! Acne! Diabetes! Removes warts! Mighraines! Lose weight! Alcoholism! Glaucoma!

IT CURES CANCER! All forms of cancer!

And all without any detrimental effects whatsoever!

Add to the extravagant medical claims, the additional accusation that you can’t get this treatment because of a conspiracy by BigPharma and greedy, grasping doctors who want people to suffer so they can charge them lots of money to fix them with agonising tortures that don’t work.

Are you suspicious yet?

These are all claims Rick Simpson and a small group of Canadians make for hemp oil in this video.

You may not want to watch it — I’ve already given you the gist of it, and it’s repetitious and very poorly edited (hint: just because your home movie editing software has a lot of exotic transitions, doesn’t mean you have to use them all). It looks like an infomercial, with a parade of Nova Scotians offering wild anecdotal claims of all the stuff a daily dose of hemp oil cures. These testimonials are presented as the evidence that hemp oil is medically efficacious; they aren’t. Quite the opposite, actually — it all says to me that the promoters found some marginally sick people and fed their desire for wish-fulfillment, and got a slew of meaningless accolades and bizarre conspiracy theories that tell me that what’s going on here is psychology, not medicine.

It’s not just religion that kills people. I watched Rick Simpson claim that he had skin cancer, and that rubbing his marijuana extract healed the lesions overnight, and I thought… people may well die from watching and believing this claim. Some forms of skin cancer (melanoma) are extremely aggressive and dangerous — do not delay, do not play games with weird magic topical creams, get a real doctor to check it out.

The information on the video also gives off a bad vibe.

The following presentation of RUN FROM THE CURE: The Rick Simpson Story was made possible by Rick Simpson and video producer Christian Laurette… made for free to teach YOU how to heal yourself of disease and illness using cannabinoids.

Comments will be moderated to protect those who need this information. We are not asking anyone if it works, we are telling you it works; it is not a debate. Too many uneducated people coming to this channel to speak their mind on a life-saving plant they know nothing about and giving bad advice and in many cases making horrible remarks about the people who brought the information out to you.

No argument! If you disagree with him, you’re uneducated…despite the fact that the pro side consists of rural citizens who seem to know nothing about how to interpret evidence, while his opponents are doctors and scientists.

The video also lies, lies, lies. I’ve often heard quacks say this: “FACT: Chemotherapy kills more people than it saves.” It’s not true. People who are on chemotherapy are more likely to die than people who are not on it, because the only reason those people are on chemotherapy in the first place is that they are really, really sick. It makes nonsensical claims: “THC attacks mutated cells while rejuvenating healthy ones”. How do they know? These aren’t scientists making the claims, these are ordinary townspeople — Simpson makes his formula by doing a crude extraction with naptha or isopropyl alcohol in a bucket he stirs with a stick, and boils it down to an oily residue in a rice cooker (there will be an explosion and fire at his house someday, I predict). He has no tools to examine specific cellular responses, so the source of these claims of a mechanism are being taken directly out of his ass.

At least Simpson is giving his cure-all away for free — all he’s doing is feeding his over-inflated ego at the potential cost of a few lives. He’s not quite like the odious Burzynski Clinic, which bilks people for hundreds of thousands of dollars for an extravagantly promoted therapy that has no good evidence for its efficacy. And at least he has not resorted to threats.

But he’s still a dangerous quack and a crank.

One other thing: I’m all in favor of legalizing marijuana and ending the phony drug war that turns harmless folk into criminals, jacks up the cost, and entices violent thugs into what ought to be simple farming. If you look up Rick Simpson, though, you find all these groups advocating legalization also buying into Simpson’s hazardous and dishonest game. That only discredits the legalization movement.

(Also on Sb)

Comments

  1. shouldbeworking says

    July and August is the best cure for my stress, hypertension and migranes. Sometimes the start of the second semester does the same thing.

  2. says

    The whole “hemp is a miracle for everything” thing is mostly pushed by stoners who are pissed that marijuana is still illegal after all these years. I partake myself, but also think all those Woody Harrelson types are pretty laughable. Either marijuana will be fully legalized or it won’t. Idiots running around claiming five million indispensable uses for cannabis or whatever aren’t fooling anyone, and may actually be hurting th cause to legalize; it’s all pretty transparent. That said, it’s amazing pot isn’t universally legal by now. However, there has been progress. Now quit bogarting those Doritos.

  3. says

    It’s a great way to discredit legitimate research into marijuana’s possible real benefits, too.

    Just what we need, more stoners making pot sound like it makes them stupid as anything out there. In all likelihood, of course, they were that stupid to begin with.

    Glen Davidson

  4. Amphiox says

    Idiots running around claiming five million indispensable uses for cannabis or whatever aren’t fooling anyone, and may actually be hurting the cause to legalize; it’s all pretty transparent.

    Yeah. If it has medicinal uses, then it needs to be regulated strictly, like any other drug.

  5. KG says

    This idiocy is even more regrettable because cannabis and its derivatives do have real medical uses – against nausea and anorexia caused by chemotherapy and by AIDS, against some of the disabilities caused by multiple sclerosis, against some cases of depression. Hemp is also a very useful fibre crop, absurdly restricted because of the tiny amounts of psychoactive substances in varieties grown for this purpose (you’d need to set fire to a field to get high off them).

  6. Agent Smith says

    Hemp’s a plant that has some uses in the paper & textile industry, and has a recreational byproduct. That the last part is still illegal seems archaic. But laundry-list cure claims – they’re even more archaic. Is Rick Simpson on speaking terms with Mary Baker Eddy? Does he collect his mail via the Pony Express?

  7. rad_pumpkin says

    Funny thing, that cannabis. I don’t care if gets legalized or not, I’m more of a lonely drinker anyway. That said, those wild claims of possible miracles pot can provide are starting to annoy me. I’m pretty sure it all started with some (legitimate) article quite a while back stating that pot could help alleviate the symptoms of dementia, or something along those lines. It just spun out of control from there.

    Say, why don’t we try to make possession of more entertaining things legal? Like lysergic acid diethylamide, or polonium?

  8. Blondin says

    Cures heart disease!

    Eases anxiety and depression!

    Removes unsightly moles!

    Arthritis! Snoring! Diarrhea! Acne! Diabetes! Removes warts! Mighraines! Lose weight! Alcoholism! Glaucoma!

    IT CURES CANCER! All forms of cancer!

    And all without any detrimental effects whatsoever!

    But will I be able to play the piano?

  9. you_monster says

    Yeah. If it has medicinal uses, then it needs to be regulated strictly, like any other drug.

    i don’t follow this. Strictness of regulation should scale with the harmful effects of a drug. If a generally benign drug is found to have medical uses, it doesn’t follow that it should then be regulated strictly.

    If caffeine was found to have some specific medical use, should coffee then be “regulated strictly”?

  10. you_monster says

    I smoked a little pot one day and my amputated arm grew back. True story.

    Then I flew to the piano bar where I was the headline performer, even though I had never played before in my life.

  11. says

    I smoked a little pot one day and my amputated arm grew back. True story.

    So God hates amputees, but Cheech and Chong don’t? That does it, I’m ditching Jesus.

  12. Chris S. says

    I call “bullshit!” on the claim that Big Pharma is preventing people from getting weed. I have had 4 operations on my shoulder over the last 8 years, and one operation to remove one of two…umm…male reproductive parts that was cancerous, and every single time I’ve had to fight with doctors to get painkillers that work. Being a young guy who looks healthy makes doctors think I’m just trying to get high. Also, years of (non-recreational) opiate use have given me a heavy tolerance, so I can’t get by with the weak crap which makes them even more suspicious of me. Even with MRIs indicating major tears haven’t convinced some doctors that taking 1 vicodin twice a day is not enough.

    On the other hand: Marijuana is incredibly easier to get a hold of. I don’t indulge (it makes me paranoid), but there’s been days where I want to rip my hair out knowing that it’s far easier to get an illegal substance than it is to get a doctor who cares enough to treat pain effectively!

    I live in California and if I wanted to get it legally it would be as simple as going to a marijuana-doc and paying $120 for the visit and the Cannabis Card and then I’d have full access to Cannabis Clubs. Those “doctors” are there for one specific reason, and they don’t give you crap – they just want a “legitimate” reason why you need it and they prescribe it. No Fuss!

    Prescription opiates are far harder to get than illegal or legal marijuana. And for many people pot is cheaper than their copay.

    Sorry for the rant

    -Chris

  13. uncle frogy says

    If there are reliable cheap and easy tests for being under the influence of it for use in driving under the influence testing for instance that could be used “in the field” I see no problem with decriminalizing it.
    Just what we need more of distracted drivers.
    Than again the whole subject is very emotionally charged I doubt there will be any big changes coming soon.

    uncle frogy

  14. McWaffle says

    But… but… but… if we legalize pot, who will fill up all these jail cells? Where will our police departments find the cash to buy APCs and drone aircraft?

    Side note: I’ve seen a fair number of episodes of House M.D., and I swear that in like 1/3 of the episodes they at least raise the possibility of contaminated pot causing all the symptoms. Once or twice, that was the actual cause. I find it somewhat strange, though honestly not in the “NewsCorp is conspiring to enforce the bilderberg 9/11 lizard men etc…” sort of way.

  15. Brownian says

    Um, did you all miss the part about it being natural? That’s why it can do all these things and your taxes too, but Big Pharma would rather sell you the death called “chemicals”!

    [Takes his devil sticks and runs off, finds some naturally growing berries and mushrooms along the way, eats them, dies.]

  16. Martin says

    @Chris S.
    You’re probably right about Big Pharma not keeping you from getting weed. But they still have the most money to loose if it is legalized so I doubt they’re lobbying in favour of it.

  17. says

    I’m legalization agnostic, but I really wish the stoners would stick to an honest position, which is “I like to get high, and don’t think I should go to jail for getting a buzz.”

  18. Snapp says

    I often find marijuana users to be just as dogmatic as religious nuts or homoeopaths. Don’t get me wrong, I’m in favour of legalizing as well, but most of the time it’s impossible to say anything bad about the stuff. There seems to be a large proportion of cannabis consumers who believe it to be completely harmless, and any word otherwise is simply the voice of government propaganda. Check the /r/trees, it’s swarming with bullshit and pseudoscience. Let’s not even get started on their complacency towards funding Mexican drug gangs…

  19. McWaffle says

    @23

    Yeah, but Mexican drug gangs import crappy weed. You’d think the vocal marijuana advocates would at have access to heady nugs indeed, not just shwag smuggled in bricks across the border and sold in half eighths to high school kids. Though, I bet they might still bake with it.

  20. says

    @ PZ

    What’s with the hate for Bluenosers, b’y?
    That Simpson fella is a WEST coaster, not a best coaster.
    Not sayin’ it cures a damn thing but until you’ve smoked through a cod bong…

  21. Randomfactor says

    Hemp does indeed cure all those disorders, but only when plaited into a long cord which is then knotted firmly around the neck.

    The rest is up to gravity and tensile strength.

  22. Ron S. says

    NORML is admittedly an advocacy group, but its website does link to the studies it references.
    http://norml.org/marijuana/medical
    Referring to the conditions below, the website states:
    “The conditions profiled in this report were chosen because patients frequently inquire about the therapeutic use of cannabis to treat these disorders. In addition, many of the indications included in this report may be moderated by cannabis therapy. In several cases, preclinical data and clinical data indicate that cannabinoids may halt the progression of these diseases in a more efficacious manner than available pharmaceuticals.”

    Recent research is investigating these conditions:
    Alzheimer’s Disease
    Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
    Chronic Pain
    Diabetes Mellitus
    Dystonia
    Fibromyalgia
    Gastrointestinal Disorders
    Gliomas/Cancer
    Hepatitis C
    Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
    Hypertension
    Incontinence
    Methicillin-resistant Staphyloccus aureus (MRSA)
    Multiple Sclerosis
    Osteoporosis
    Pruritus
    Rheumatoid Arthritis
    Sleep Apnea
    Tourette’s Syndrome

  23. Zaphod says

    In May of 2010, I was diagnosed with lymphoma. The oncologist wanted me to do chemotherapy, but someone told me to google Rick Simpson and look into his treatment. I looked into it, and I have been in remission for over a year, after just 6 treatments… of chemotherapy. If I had tried that crap Rick Simpson is pushing instead of SBM (science based medicine) I might be dead now.

    I wish this quack could be shut down. I am forced to wonder how many people used his treatment and died because they rejected SBM.

  24. lofgren says

    I am a stoner. I smoke most every day, and I won’t apologize for it. I don’t smoke before I drive (although tests have shown that marijuana does not significantly impair most drivers, I find that not to be true in my personal case), and I don’t smoke at work unless I am going to be writing all day and have no meetings. I believe that there is such a thing as a responsible pot smoker (because I believe that I am one – but then, so does every other pothead, even those who do things I would consider irresponsible). Pot has huge subjective benefits for me. It makes me less of a misanthrope, significantly reduces my stress, and allows me to focus more easily on tedious tasks.

    And that said, the bullshit that prolegalizers spew drives me absolutely nuts. Whether alcohol or heroin, people should be aware of what they put in their body and its effects. Any attempt to confuse and confound people, whether it’s the tobacco companies with their disinformation campaigns, or shameless con artists like this one, or just wooful hippie-wannabes parroting something their stoner uncle told them, is unconscionable.

    (Although I have to admit the conspiracy theory that DuPont lobbyists were involved in crafting the anti-marijuana legislation seems plausible to my ears. Else why would they have included hemp? There is simply no need for it. You would have to smoke a blunt the size of a telephone pole to get high on the hemp from the 1930s, and nowadays I think they have developed hemp with no THC at all.)

  25. Azkyroth says

    Yeah. If it has medicinal uses, then it needs to be regulated strictly, like any other drug.

    What.

    Regulation is because of potential harm, not the simple fact that something can be used to improve health.

  26. Azkyroth says

    I have had 4 operations on my shoulder over the last 8 years, and one operation to remove one of two…umm…male reproductive parts that was cancerous, and every single time I’ve had to fight with doctors to get painkillers that work.

    I assume you mean “testicles?” Or did you have two of something else?

  27. Muzz says

    Holy cow, that video is gold. It needs some snarky media students to do a commentary.
    Just the first few minutes are amazing.
    Did you know:
    -leaving in the stock countdown from your editing suite is the mark of professionalism.

    -you can never have enough corporate graphics at the start of your films.

    -these corporate graphics can’t use enough text wipes either, by the way.

    -be sure to give yourself as many individual credits as possible.

    -in case that doesn’t stick add them using the youtube annotations for good measure!

    -if your footage is dull and you’ve nothing to cut with, try flipping the image for no reason!

    -interviewees/hosts clearly addressing the audience but looking off camera isn’t weird at all!

    -toilet flushing sound effects are hilarious!

    -Hemp leaves never fit in Siberia when dotting them all over the world.

    And then there was an X-Ray that was apparently a dramatisation (informed via the Star Wars Crawl effect aaand I couldn’t watch any more.
    Best laugh in days though.

  28. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Mick –

    here’s a LOL for ya!

    Put me in the camp that is for legalization b/c of the massive numbers of deaths and crimes caused specifically by criminalization. I am really amazed that we can’t remember what a disaster the 18th amendment was. Sigh.

    Also put me in the camp of advocating proper research into the actual effects of canabinoids on different disease and metabolic processes.

    Finally, I’m not annoyed as many of you that a push for medical marijuana exists. If we can’t legalize it & end prohibition, medicalization both helps certain patients with certain disorders and allows certain stoners who happen to also have a particular disease to get their pot through a market that doesn’t bribe politicians, corrupt law enforcement, and kill human beings. It doesn’t gut the market, but every little bit helps.

    Again, I’m for ending prohibition, but I recognize that we’re not going to end it tomorrow and I’m not opposed to harm reduction until prohibition ends.

  29. John Morales says

    Heh. It may indeed have medicinal or palliative properties, but the main reason people consume cannabis is to get stoned.

    (Much like red wine supposedly has health benefits, but that’s the excuse (rather than the reason) for why people imbibe it)

  30. says

    Miracle cure? No.

    But it DOES help with pain, anxiety, depression, muscle spasticity, insomnia, and it does relieve nausea and stimulate the appetite in AIDS and cancer patients.

    I use for medical purposes, myself, and find the (relative) lack of side effects (as compared to traditional painkillers and muscle-relaxants) to be quite nice.

  31. The Rat King says

    Pot has huge subjective benefits for me. It makes me less of a misanthrope, significantly reduces my stress, and allows me to focus more easily on tedious tasks.

    Stop doing it for a week, see what happens.

    Most potheads I knew back in Ottawa would go apeshit loopy at the slightest thing if they couldn’t smoke up at least twice a day. They went through a span of three weed-free days once, being too broke to pick up any, that was amusing to watch.

    Physical withdrawal symptoms are nearly nonexistent, but that didn’t stop them from wanting to chew their own nails off because reality was all clear again.

    Honestly, I consider the stuff to be about as innocuous as a mind-altering substance could get, with the only major flaw being that it smell of fresh dogshit when burning. Legalize it, tax it, treat it like alcohol.

    Just don’t smoke it near me, that shit reeks.

  32. Super Shala says

    I’m going to have to go run around educating the Nova Scotians about this shit, aren’t I?

    Busy days ahead!

  33. RowanVT says

    So… would marijuana then be able to cure my severe adverse reactions to… marijuana? You know, the whole tachycardia, low blood pressure, nausea, disorientation, vomiting and syncope thing?

  34. Pierce R. Butler says

    Don’t forget that legalized pot will solve all municipal, state, and federal budget problems, revitalize the agricultural sector, and restore farmland to chocolate-cake-loam fertility!

    Not to mention world peace, and the ponies

  35. says

    OK, let me throw in a couple more links and you guys make your own minds. It is better to do more research than to insult. Each one of you or your families will eat the Rick Simpson oil sooner or later.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxis8lqaEGE – cancer, lupus
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtcY90UoPAo – skin cancer and other testimonies
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJi-_eqqubk – Rick Simpson seminar, three hours
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Lmut2P-4Go – MS
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvw19POCN4g – RSD http://www.youtube.com/user/aamann#p/u/2/3tVtUf1hTQs – cyclical vomitting
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym0BSdEIjJA – prostate cancer, great explanation of why and how hemp works as a medicine.

    Enjoy.
    Again, do your research first, please.
    Jindrich

  36. Dirk says

    Wow — the quality of discourse on this site has certainly gone downhill. — For a bunch of people who try to characterize themselves as objective and in pursuit of the facts, I am mostly seeing perjoratives (e.g., stoners) and snark. ……Did even one of you try google scholar or proquest or another academic search engine to look for medical research on cannabis??? The Dutch are hard at work w medical research on cannabis, as are the Israelis. Perhaps there would be more cannabis research in the US too, if it wasn’t for the hysteria, and govt bias against a plant.

    Hey PZ, here’s an idea. Instead of cruising the internets looking for low-hanging quacks spewing nonsense so you can disparage them because they take advantage of vulnerable people, why not spend some time diffusing the results of some of the solid medical research that hints at real benefits from cannabis? The bonus could be that you might still be able to disparage this guy’s (Rick ) claims —- and you might actually learn something you didn’t know!

  37. RowanVT says

    So Jindrich, will marijuana be able to cure my ‘allergy’ to marijuana? I’m sure you could find a youtube video, rather than a scientific journal, that claims that is so, right?

  38. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Dirk:

    Hey PZ, here’s an idea. Instead of cruising the internets looking for low-hanging quacks spewing nonsense so you can disparage them because they take advantage of vulnerable people, why not spend some time diffusing the results of some of the solid medical research that hints at real benefits from cannabis?

    Hey Dirk, here’s an idea. Instead of cruising the internets looking for bloggers who diss low-hanging quacks spewing nonsense so you can make snarky comments, why not get your own blog and spend some time diffusing the results of some of the solid medical research that hints at real benefits from cannabis?

    (Bah)

  39. Rumtopf says

    Dirk, did you read the whole thing? PZ never said there weren’t any benefits to be had from cannabis, he said Rick Simpson is a fucking charlatan with dangerous ideas. Why shouldn’t this bullshit be pointed out? Like PZ said, this Rick idiot is damaging credibility for the pro-pot side, that he supports. You’re barking up the wrong tree mate.

  40. RowanVT says

    Dear Dirk @52-

    In turn, can you come back when your capability for rational response has had 10 more rotations of the earth around the sun? Then you can try again and see if you do any better.

  41. ulgaa says

    It’s the beer companies that fight to keep it illegal. They spent a good amount of money in California to fight legalization in California.

  42. ghoti says

    I once heard Daniel Dennet say that there’s nothing he hates more than someone advocating that which he is in favor of…badly…

    I’m sure people have been saying stuff like that for a while, and I heartily concur.

  43. Douglas says

    I started consuming canibis about a year ago to help with my alcoholism. Transference or not, it worked wonders at something I’d been battling for the two previous years since leaving the Army. And, since it’d been about 18 years since I’d used it on any type of regular basis, I’d completely forgotten how fun it can be! I now consume edibles on an about every other day basis and I have noticed many benefits. It has helped greatly with my arthritis (don’t know if it’s curing anything or just masking symptoms, but either way, I’ll take it) and my depression (years of being on and off prescription drugs with little to no benefit and horrible side-effects). I do seem to be mildly allergic to it, so it has definitely NOT helped with snoring. I rarely snore, but if I have a brownie within a few hours of going to bed, I’m almost guaranteed to snore. It’s helped me tremendously. I’m feeling in control of my life again for the first time in years. That said, I completely agree with PZ and many of the other posters. I do get a little defensive when people start going after “medical marijuana” as just an excuse for stoners to get high, but this video clearly has the potential to be very dangerous. I’m picturing someone rubbing hash oil on a staph. infection as opposed to going out an getting immediate medical attention, thinking they’re being cured as they usher themselves towards a painful death. That’s just one scenario. I have no doubt that cannabis has legitimate medicinal usages, including the treatment and prevention of certain types of lung cancer, but to prescribe it as a cure all and, as it seemed to me, discourage people from consulting a medical doctor… Just, horrible.

  44. Azkyroth says

    Huh. Stopped clocks on both sides, that’s new. O.o

    I do seem to be mildly allergic to it, so it has definitely NOT helped with snoring. I rarely snore, but if I have a brownie within a few hours of going to bed, I’m almost guaranteed to snore.

    This seems like it might be more likely to be a symptom of muscle relaxant properties than allergy, given the relationship between snoring and sleep apnea, where the throat relaxes too much to stay open through an entire breath. Might be worth asking a doctor about if you find one you can trust.

  45. KG says

    the only major flaw being that it smell of fresh dogshit when burning. – The Rat King

    Consult a physician stat: disturbances of olfaction can indicate major CNS problems.

  46. David Marjanović, OM says

    (Much like red wine supposedly has health benefits, but that’s the excuse (rather than the reason) for why people imbibe it)

    Also, the same benefits come from eating chocolate.

  47. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    The Dutch are hard at work w medical research on cannabis, as are the Israelis. Perhaps there would be more cannabis research in the US too, if it wasn’t for the hysteria, and govt bias against a plant.

    The problem here in the US is the present drug policies from the DEA, not the FDA. MJ is a schedule 1 drug, meaning it addicting and has no known medical uses. Permission from the DEA is required for any research, it is excruciatingly difficult to get, and the researchers must use MJ from the one DEA approved farm which has low quality MJ, compared to most street MJ. So, the catch-22 is that there is no research showing efficacy for disease, and the DEA isn’t interested in having research done, and makes sure any research won’t show any, because they know it would reclassify MJ and lose them a fuckton of enforcement money.

    The only way around it would be to have congress require a review of drug policies and present schedules, and then having typical academic panels look at all the drugs, and their real uses, toxicity, addicting power, etc. Then MJ would be reclassified and real research could be done.

  48. mark says

    Cannabis oil does cure cancer, i know someone who used it, he had prostate cancer. He injested 1 gram a day for 3 months.
    Scientists at Harvard and Madrid have proven the cannabinoid THC is anti tumor. But dont take my word for it, research it. This documentry explains how it works.

  49. KG says

    mark,
    How did your anonymous friend know he had prostate cancer, and how does he know it is now cured? It is difficult to diagnose, and in the majority of cases is very slow-growing.

    However, contrary to my expectation, putting “THC anti-tumor” into Google Scholar did turn up a number of studies, such as: Targeting the endocannabinoid system in cancer therapy: A call for further research from 2002, {Delta}-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits growth and metastasis of lung cancer from 2007, and and Glioblastoma: Anti-tumor Action of Natural and Synthetic Cannabinoids from 2011 – and there’s presumably more. This by no means justifies Simpson’s panacaea claims, nor does it mean that cannabis might not in other cases cause cancers or encourage their growth (radiation can both cause and cure them for example), but I’d say it does give some credence to claims that there ought to be more use of it, as THC is certainly far more benign than most chemotherapy agents. I doubt if this is a conspiracy by Big Pharma, as although THC couldn’t (I think) be patented, if THC works, there are almost certainly a slew of related chemicals that work even better, which could be. More likely it’s the difficulty of getting permission to research anything related to illegal drugs (heroin may well be an anti-schizophrenia agent, and MDMA can give temporary relief from Parkinsonism, but AFAIK, neither is being researched as therapy).

  50. Martin says

    So far the medical uses of marijuana are limited to lessening the symptoms of a disease to manageable levels without massive side effects. I have not seen or heard of any study that definitively claims that cannabis can cure anything.

    It is however safer than a lot of drugs manufactured to do what cannabis does naturally. No major side effects and no physical addiction are, for me, two of the best reasons it should be legal everywhere, at the very least for medical use.

    too bad there’s always quacks that turn a useful weed into homeopathy.

  51. ikesolem says

    Marketing snake-oil treatments to cancer and AIDS patients is an advanced art – probably the worst example is shark cartilage, but pushing hemp oil is no different – but that’s because the seed oil of Cannabis sativa contains no cannabinoid compounds.

    It is true that, for treatment of nausea related to chemotherapy and other drug treatments used in AIDS and cancer patients, THC and its relatives (cannabinoids in general) are the best drugs, with the fewest side effects. This is well-established and incontrovertible.

    The other uses of cannabinoid medicines – for relief of pain and as an mood-altering anti-depressant – are well characterized. Cannabinoids are also remarkably free of the negative side-effects seen in other, patented drugs sold for these purposes, from Vioxx and Celebrex and other dangerous NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for pain to the common anti-depressants such as Xanax, which are implicated in numerous accidental overdoses (as are all the opiate pain drugs).

    The cannabinoid effect (pain/nausea control and mood alteration) is mediated via two classes of receptors, CB2 and CB1. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_receptor).

    The rational conclusion is that the cannabinoid drugs are so mild and have such few side effects that, like aspirin, they should all be available as over-the-counter products that don’t require a prescription. Nevertheless, the US government – prodded on by the pharmaceutical lobby – keeps cannabinoids on the Schedule I, “dangerous drug with no medical use” list – which is both astonishing and ridiculous, and also prevents many studies on their efficacy and safety from being conducted.

  52. says

    I once heard Daniel Dennet say that there’s nothing he hates more than someone advocating that which he is in favor of…badly…

    The term brights comes to mind for some reason…

    *whistling uncomfortably*

  53. nazani14 says

    I think hemp, ramie, and the neem tree are pretty spiff plants, myself. However, I don’t see why any product containing hemp should be anything other than dirt-cheap. It’s very easy plant to grow. I’ve got several garments containing hemp fibre (which is very durable,) body lotion with hemp oil in it, and I’ve tried a tasty granola bar with hempseed in it. Legalize it, and let’s get some manufacturing going in the US again.

  54. KG says

    RowanVT,

    I don’t find that article very impressive. The start of the conclusion is:

    Sufficient evidence has accumulated from recent studies of cannabis users in the unintoxicated state to conclude that long-term heavy cannabis use is associated with impaired memory function, associated being the key operative

    Since “heavy long-term cannabis use” may also be associated with (e.g.) heavier alcohol or other drug use, long-term unemployment, and depression or other conditions for which it is used as self-medication, that’s not good evidence of any causative relationship – nor is one being claimed.

    In general, it’s wise to be wary of claims that illegal drug use is harmful, because there’s likely to be a selection effect for results showing “drugs are bad” in studies – where no difference is found, or differences in the “wrong” direction, it’s likely to be more difficult to publish.

  55. RowanVT says

    @KG, I will grant you that. However, how about the reactions I experience? Those are pretty strong, all told.

    It’s also wise to be wary of the claims of illegal drugs being relatively harmless. There’s bias in both directions, and it is folly to not acknowledge that.

    Considering that I can have those reactions just from the smell coming off someone’s jacket, I’m not terribly keen on the idea of public smoking of the drug. It’s already bad enough walking into an exam room and having to excuse myself and have another tech go in to do what needs to be done to the animal.

  56. says

    Very simple…
    You do not believe in Cannabis Oil…
    Do not take it…
    Your life…

    You will never stop Rick Simpson…
    Nor us who take the oil…
    We will be standing over your grave…

  57. setar, too lazy to log in on his blackberry says

    RowanVT #73: We don’t run around killing plants because some people (like me) get hay fever =/

  58. setar, too lazy to log in on his blackberry says

    RowanVT #70: “Alteration of certain parts of the brain” is stuff and nonsense because our brains are altering themselves and creating new pathways all the fucking time. You;re grasping.

    And I will also remind you that we don’t ban peanuts because people are deathly allergic to them.

  59. setar, too lazy to log in on his blackberry says

    Great, now this thread has me wondering if I can get a green card (not of the immigration variety obviously) for my depression.

  60. The Rat King says

    Consult a physician stat: disturbances of olfaction can indicate major CNS problems.

    ??

    Burning weed smells of dogshit. It’s not exactly a contentious issue; marijuana reeks tremendously, I just associate the scent with something that comes out of a dog’s arse.

    It’s smells that way to me since I first heard of the stuff some 15 years ago when I was 14, and it stinks the same now as it did then.

    Don’t smoke it myself, not interested in mind-altering substances beyond the occasional top-notch rum or scotch.

  61. you_monster says

    Very simple…
    You do not believe in Cannabis Oil…
    Do not take it…
    Your life…

    You will never stop Rick Simpson…
    Nor us who take the oil…
    We will be standing over your grave…

    hahahaha. I thought this was a poe, but then I saw the all caps nyme and knew the poster was a True Idiot.

    Very simple…
    You do not believe in homeopathy…
    Do not take it…
    Your life…

    You will never stop the woo peddlers…
    Nor us who take pseudoscientific “medicine” seriously…
    We will be standing over your grave…

  62. you_monster says

    Patucawarrior,

    We will be standing over your grave…

    Unless you contract some deadly disease and attempt to treat it by rubbing some pot-juice on it. Then, I’m afraid your life may be prematurely ended. I won’t be standing at your grave gloating though, I will be sad that you had to die because you are so fucking gullible.

  63. says

    RowanVT — as I’m sure some of those with nut allergies would also like to see all public usage and consumption of nuts banned. But we don’t go to that extreme even though it is deadly to some people. If we capitulate to everything someone doesn’t like or has a reaction to, we wouldn’t have much freedom. The case to be very compelling.

    Your reaction is, to say the least, extremely unusual which makes me wonder what is actually going on. Would you be sensitive to someone after consumption? vaporization? or just combustion? Is your reaction physical or psychosomatic? [I'm sure you don't believe it is psychosomatic].

    But ultimately this is just anecdotal

  64. jennifer collett says

    I would like to see some more information on tje emperical evidence before the essential oil is denied viability. I have seen the value in my own work, and it does have evidence supporting it, so why the adamant denials. Me thinks thou doth protest too much! anything so absolutely biased is neglegent, and the studies I have read and that have freely been provided in the dozens even hundreds now, all come from reliable resources. . . What else do we have to go on but the evidence provided. Of course we are going to give it a chance. Children suffering from cancer treatment sucks. Why dont they deserve a chance at a better treatment? Why doesnt anyone? Just give it a chance, and let it be evaluated publicly before our own eyes. . .

  65. you_monster says

    I would like to see some more information on tje emperical evidence before the essential oil is denied viability.

    You’ve mixed up the burden of proof here. Empirical data is needed to validate a claim. You don;t get to assert viability until evidence proves you wrong.

    I have seen the value in my own work, and it does have evidence supporting it, so why the adamant denials.

    What is your work? Was it peer reviewed? Citation?

    Me thinks thou doth protest too much! anything so absolutely biased is neglegent, and the studies I have read and that have freely been provided in the dozens even hundreds now, all come from reliable resources. . .

    I’m not sure how to parse this. What effects do you claim marijuana produces? What studies are you talking about? Where were they published? What do they show? It really is uninformative when you show up, claiming we are all “protesting too much” and don’t even reference where you think people are crossing the line from skepticism into denial. What effect are we negligent in dismissing?

    What else do we have to go on but the evidence provided. Of course we are going to give it a chance. Children suffering from cancer treatment sucks. Why dont they deserve a chance at a better treatment? Why doesnt anyone?

    Look, you have not stated plainly what evidence we are ignoring. If there was good evidence for pot curing cancer, I would be very interested in having a look at it. I fucking doubt there is any legitimate evidence for this claim, but I would be very happy to be shown wrong.

    Just give it a chance, and let it be evaluated publicly before our own eyes. . .

    Just give what a chance? Should we give homeopathy a chance at curing cancer? What evidence are you talking about? You haven’t provided any.

    I’m as pro-legalization as they come, but I really fucking hate pseudo-science based medicine. People get fucking hurt when they forego real science-based treatment.

  66. NateHevens says

    How about some scientific information, then?

    According to the American Cancer Institute:
    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/patient/Page2#Section_13

    6. Have any preclinical (laboratory or animal) studies been conducted using Cannabis or cannabinoids?

    Preclinical studies of cannabinoids have investigated the following activities:

    Antitumor activity

    -Studies in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow. Laboratory and animals studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells.

    -One mouse study showed that cannabinoids may protect against inflammation of the colon and may have potential in the prevention and treatment of colon cancer.

    Stimulating appetite

    -Many animal studies have shown that delta-9-THC and other cannabinoids stimulate appetite and can increase food intake.

    Pain relief

    -Cannabinoid receptors (molecules that bind cannabinoids) have been studied in the brain, spinal cord, and nerve endings throughout the body to understand their roles in pain relief.

    -Cannabinoids have been studied for anti-inflammatory effects that may play a role in pain relief.

    So is this idiot severely exaggerating the cancer claims? Absolutely… to the point of lying.

    But his lie does actually have roots in a truth… studies in petri dishes and on rats and mice have shown that some cannabinoids do indeed kill tumorous cells. Of course, whether or not this works in human beings remains to be seen.

  67. says

    Roots in half-truth.

    You know, you can actually put the chemotherapy agents the THC advocates complain about on cancer cells in tissue culture and see differential cell death…because cancer cells are sick and fragile and easy to kill off.

  68. NateHevens says

    Ack! I had more to say…

    A lot of people told me that smoking pot was a great way to get rid of a headache. I always found the exact opposite to be true.

    Others told me it was perfectly fine to drive a car while stoned, so I tried it out… it took 30 minutes of me “driving” to realize I hadn’t even turned the car on, yet! That’s when I decide to stay locked up in the apartment whenever I was smoking. It was just a better decision all around.

    Smoking most certainly makes you want to eat, which may be great for cancer patients and anorexics, but horrible for someone like me who’s problem is that I eat too much… when I smoke, if someone isn’t watching me closely, I can stuff myself to the point of getting sick.

    I have, however, watched someone with a severe stutter lose that stutter as they got more and more stoned. I’ve seen someone with ADHD calm down and become focused. I’ve seen an anorexic actually want to eat. I’ve seen someone undergoing chemotherapy deal with it quite well because they smoked pot.

    The problem with quacks like Rick Simpson is that they undermine the actual, scientific work being done into the actual possible medicinal benefits of marijuana. If it weren’t for people like them, I think the public might take the idea that marijuana has medical uses more seriously.

  69. NateHevens says

    PZ Myers @ #90 said:

    Roots in half-truth.

    You know, you can actually put the chemotherapy agents the THC advocates complain about on cancer cells in tissue culture and see differential cell death…because cancer cells are sick and fragile and easy to kill off.

    I really want to say “no shit, Sherlock”, but I’m too much a fanboy of yours to say that to you, so I’ll go with…

    Yeah, obviously… and this is why we use chemotherapy.

    What they’re trying to decipher is whether or not marijuana is a legitimate alternative.

    So far, we know that it actually does show benefits in alleviating the side-effects of chemotherapy.

    The unanswered question is whether or not staying home and rolling a joint can be considered a legitimate substitute to chemotherapy. I would say that, so far, studies are inconclusive, and while there does seem to be some promise, it would be beyond idiotic to actually smoke pot in place of the only thing we currently know for a fact actually works: surgery and chemotherapy.

  70. says

    It’s more than inconclusive. We know that people who smoke pot heavily still get cancer, so it’s not the prophylactic these nuts are claiming.

    The benefits that have been demonstrated are all palliative.

  71. NateHevens says

    It’s more than inconclusive. We know that people who smoke pot heavily still get cancer, so it’s not the prophylactic these nuts are claiming.

    Carcinogens suck, dude. Try to avoid inhaling smoke of any kind.

    But marijuana can also be eaten, drunk, inhaled as a vapor/steam, etc. So it’s possible to avoid those nasty carcinogens… for the most part, anyways…

    The benefits that have been demonstrated are all palliative.

    Again… I know that. That doesn’t make them any less useful in a medicinal sense. That they help with the side-effects is a good thing…

    Isn’t it?

  72. NateHevens says

    Also, I’m not claiming it’s a prophylactic, here. I’m not defending the quacks on any level. I agree with you about them… they are horrible, nasty, dangerous people. I’m also agreeing that, if you get cancer, you should not smoke pot as a means to cure that cancer, because right now there’s no definitive evidence that says it will.

    So we’re not actually in disagreement, here.

    I’m merely pointing out that marijuana’s effects on cancerous cells is actually being studied, and the results have been promising, though inconclusive.

    In other words, there is some studying going on, and the answer is not definitive either way, yet.

  73. you_monster says

    The unanswered question is whether or not staying home and rolling a joint can be considered a legitimate substitute to chemotherapy. I would say that, so far, studies are inconclusive, and while there does seem to be some promise, it would be beyond idiotic to actually smoke pot in place of the only thing we currently know for a fact actually works: surgery and chemotherapy.

    There is no evidence that marijuana is a legitimate substitute for chemotherapy. There is also no evidence that eating jellybeans will cure cancer either. Would it be appropriate to say that “the unanswered question is whether or not staying home and eating jellybeans can be considered a legitimate substitute to chemotherapy.”? In the absence of conclusive studies, what justification do you have for suggesting an effect? Certainly not a scientifically-based one.

    I’m merely pointing out that marijuana’s effects on cancerous cells is actually being studied, and the results have been promising, though inconclusive.

    Inconclusive results are not promising.

    In other words, there is some studying going on, and the answer is not definitive either way, yet.

    Stupid. Behe is studying ID. Does that mean evolution is not definitively proven?

  74. NateHevens says

    There is no evidence that marijuana is a legitimate substitute for chemotherapy.

    Yet it is being studied as such and has killed cancerous cells in petri dishes, rats, and mice. It may prove to not work in primates, in which case, the evidence would suggest that it is not.

    “No evidence” only means “no evidence”. It does not mean anything else.

    There is also no evidence that eating jellybeans will cure cancer either. Would it be appropriate to say that “the unanswered question is whether or not staying home and eating jellybeans can be considered a legitimate substitute to chemotherapy.”?

    If they were actually being studied, then yes. Since they aren’t being studied, this is a red herring.

    In the absence of conclusive studies, what justification do you have for suggesting an effect? Certainly not a scientifically-based one.

    So now you’re putting words in my mouth? I never outright suggested an effect. I merely pointed out that studies are being done, and what the conclusions to the studies being done have so far said. I pointed out that some scientists are actually putting the hypothesis “marijuana cures cancer” to the test, using the scientific method and all that jazz, and have not yet come up with a definitive answer.

    The only thing I outright suggested was to wait and see, basically.

    Inconclusive results are not promising.

    They were promising in the petri dish, rats, and mice. They just haven’t tested on primates, yet. Hence the “inconclusive”. So you can cure cancer-ridden petri dishes, but they’ve no idea if that translates into curing humans, yet. It might not not. I’m not saying it will. Just that that they’re looking in to it.

    Stupid. Behe is studying ID. Does that mean evolution is not definitively proven?

    No, because evolution has been proven and ID has been disproven.

  75. you_monster says

    The only thing I outright suggested was to wait and see, basically.

    I suggest we wait to see if jellybeans will cure cancer as well.

  76. NateHevens says

    I suggest we wait to see if jellybeans will cure cancer as well.

    Have fun with that. As for me, I’ll be following the actual science. If you want to keep going with bullshit red herrings, that’s your prerogative.

  77. says

    One benefit of legalization would be that the government could then require all packaging to clearly state that cannabis cannot cure cancer, et cetera.

  78. says

    I refer you to two US Patent Office files –
    # 77115 granted in 1905 and more significantly
    #6630507 granted in 2003, quoting research by the National Institute of Health (NIH) and awarded to the US Health and Human Services agency (HSS) on Medicinal Cannabis.
    While granting a patent does not prove anything other than the US government owns the healing and tumor reduction rights of this plant, one must question why the patent was applied for anyway?

  79. you_monster says

    Have fun with that. As for me, I’ll be following the actual science.

    Me too. Tell me when some shows up pertaining to marijuana and curing cancer.

  80. setar, too lazy to log in on his blackberry says

    You_monster, conclusions after evidence applies to you too. Biological effects aren’t nearly as simple as existence, you can’t just say “it doesn’t work because there’s no evidence”. This is wrong, because without evidence you can’t know if it does or does not work and it is unfair to say “no evidence” when THE STUDIES HAVEN’T BEEN DONE YET BECAUSE THE US STUPIDLY CLASSES MARIJUANA AS SCHEDULE ONE AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES FOLLOWED SUIT IN SOME FASHION, AND THE US HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THE STATUS QUO. Homeopathy is not illegal. Acupuncture is not illegal. Pot is. Seriously, be a skeptic, not an ideologue.

  81. you_monster says

    Lacking evidence, I have no reason to accept the extraordinary claim that pot cures cancer. That is my position.

  82. you_monster says

    setar,
    You claim that it is “unfair: to say there is “no evidence” for the claim that pot cures cancer then you immediately follow that rebuke by affirming, in all caps, that “THE STUDIES HAVEN’T BEEN DONE YET”. Considering you admit that the necessary studies haven’t been done yet, I’m confused as to why you admonish me for saying that there is no evidence.

    Biological effects aren’t nearly as simple as existence, you can’t just say “it doesn’t work because there’s no evidence”.

    I am not asserting it doesn’t work, just that we should be dubious of such an amazing claim until there is solid evidence for it. I was arguing with NateHevens, who seemed to me to be according to much weight to the mere fact that the claim is being studied.

    AND THE US HAS A VESTED INTEREST IN THE STATUS QUO.

    Are you arguing that there is a conspiracy behind the lack of studies?

  83. pallina says

    Jesus, for Christ’s sake, do at least SOME research before talking. Go to Pubmed and search for “cannabis cancer” “cannabinoids cancer”, etc. etc. and see how many studies come up that show the anti-tumor properties of cannabinoids.

  84. KG says

    The benefits that have been demonstrated are all palliative. – PZ

    That does not appear to be the case, at least in animal studies and preclinical trials. See the studies I referenced @65, finding which surprised me considerably. Cannabinoids, both natural and synthetic, do seem to have anti-tumor activity. That doesn’t mean it’s either a prophylactic or a cure. Here’s the abstract from the most recent of my references:

    The past few decades have seen renewed interest in medicinal cannabis or rather cannabinoids – active compounds derived from the Cannabis plant, as well as their endogenous counterparts and a still growing set of synthetic derivatives. One of the most extensively studied and promising applications of cannabinoids is their potential use as anti-cancer agents in malignant tumors, such as glioblastomas. The anti-tumor action of cannabinoids is mediated via the CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors. Growing array of data suggest that significant alterations of a balance in the cannabinoid system between the levels of endogenous ligands and their receptors occur along with the malignant transformation in various types of cancer. Increased CB2 receptor expression has been observed in glioblastoma cells, invading microglia/macrophages and endothelial cells of the tumor blood vessels as compared to non-tumor brain samples. Thus, among various approaches to avoid CB1-receptor-mediated psychodysleptic side effects of some cannabinoids, special attention is paid to substances, which selectively stimulate the CB2 receptors, putatively overexpressed in target tumor cells. Induction of cell death by cannabinoid treatment relies on the generation of a pro-apoptotic sphingolipid ceramide and disruption of signaling pathways crucial for regulation of cellular proliferation, differentiation or apoptosis. Increased ceramide levels lead also to ER-stress and autophagy in drug treated glioblastoma cells. Cannabinoids have displayed a great potency in reducing glioma tumor growth in experimental animal models without producing the generalized toxic effects unavoidable with most conventional chemotherapeutic drugs. Apparently their effectiveness in vivo has been attributed to several mechanisms of action. Cannabinoids have recently emerged as compounds that beyond inhibition of tumor cell proliferation and survival impair tumor angiogenesis, invasiveness and even gliomagenesis. The good safety profile observed in a pilot clinical trial, together with remarkable anti-tumor effects reported in preclinical studies may set the basis for further research aimed at better evaluation of the potential anti-cancer activity of cannabinoids. A unique mechanism of cannabinoid action among standard oncology remedies justifies further research on their anti-tumoral properties either alone or in combined therapies.

    A lot of research seems to be going into finding cannabinoids without psychoactive effects – can’t have patients enjoying their treatment, can we?

    Burning weed smells of dogshit. It’s not exactly a contentious issue; marijuana reeks tremendously, I just associate the scent with something that comes out of a dog’s arse. – The Rat King

    Sure it smells; but absolutely nothing like dogshit. I’m pretty familiar with both smells, and they are as different as ammonia and hydrogen sulphide. If they actually smell the same to you, you do have problems with your olfactory sense.

    You know, you can actually put the chemotherapy agents the THC advocates complain about on cancer cells in tissue culture and see differential cell death…because cancer cells are sick and fragile and easy to kill off. – PZ

    Read the fucking studies. There are specific mechanisms and specific effects, for example on cell proliferation and angiogenesis. See for example the abstract I’ve quoted above, because apparently no-one bothered to look at the references I retrieved@65.

  85. pallina says

    The obvious thing ANYBODY with a minimal common sense would be doing, given the enormous amount of evidence on the cancer killing properties of cannabis in vitro and in animal models, and given the likewise abundant anecdotal evidence on the same matter (because anecdotal evidence, when it is well documented, DOES MATTER) is asking the government to stop the idiotic ban on cannabis and fund a large number of clinical trials on human patients IMMEDIATELY. Instead, you idiots waste time fighting each other.

  86. KG says

    RowanVT,

    I’d agree with you that cannabis smoking, like tobacco smoking, should be confined to places which anyone who wishes can readily avoid. But as someone else has said, we can’t organise society around those with an extreme and unusual sensitivity to specific substances.

  87. Ichthyic says

    But as someone else has said, we can’t organise society around those with an extreme and unusual sensitivity to specific substances.

    you better tell that to the people who made sure to all the companies that print ingredient labels notifying everyone that their products “are made in plants or processed with equipment that processes peanuts”

    we can, and already COMMONLY do in fact organize our society, albeit to a minor extent, around issues like that.

    what you’ve just stated in essence would boil down to removing the rights of citizens simply because they are in the extreme minority.

    I know that’s also a common thing to do in most societies, but I do believe we’re supposed to be working towards eliminating such things?

  88. The Rat King says

    Sure it smells; but absolutely nothing like dogshit. I’m pretty familiar with both smells, and they are as different as ammonia and hydrogen sulphide. If they actually smell the same to you, you do have problems with your olfactory sense.

    You’re a bit thick in certain areas, aren’t you?

  89. John Morales says

    Rat King:

    You’re a bit thick in certain areas, aren’t you?

    <spoing>

    (Clueless, you are; KG’s deadpan is lost on you)

  90. KG says

    You’re a bit thick in certain areas, aren’t you? – The Rat King

    Um, no. I was no more being literal in my original response than you were in making the comparison.

  91. says

    I have been looking forward to seeing PZ posting about the holistic benefits of cannabis for awhile.

    This is what I consider to be my realm of expertise, and I have done years of research on the subject of cannabis.

    There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to determine that cannabis have medicinal benefits from millions of people going back thousands of years.

    Cannabis was utilized and referred by doctors legally in the U.S. up until 1937.

    What I mainly have an issue with is our governments policy of utilizing bad science to further their agenda. The National Institute of Drug Awareness (NIDA) have openly stated that the only studies they will spend millions of our tax dollars on are studies they believe are not pro cannabis.

    I find it contentious that the Dept of Justice, blocks real scientific research to determine if cannabis has medicinal benefits.

    As most of the folks here are skeptics, I am sure you can understand where I am coming from.

    Recently the National Cancer Institute (NCI) released a statement on the medicinal benefits of cannabis. Their statement included at the time that cannabis had “anti tumor affects.” Hardly a week went by and the (NCI) retracted this from their statement due to outside pressure from the(NIDA).

    For a short while it looked like our government had schizophrenia on whether cannabis had medicinal benefits or not.

    In the name of good science, I don’t understand our government’s heavy handed policy on not allowing peer reviewed scientific research to determine if cannabis has anti tumor affects or other practical medicinal uses. All it would take is rescheduling.

    I think it comes down to power and money. Science just gets pushed to the side, because the DoJ gets billions of dollars annually by maintaining cannabis as a crime issue instead of a health issue.

  92. Matthew Meyer says

    I don’t find much of use in PZ Myers’s attack on Rick Simpson.

    For me this whole approach of figuring out who’s hurting the legalization movement is a lot of BS. It’s like writing a paper about what an asshole Kunta Kinte was because he was running a gambling scam on the slave ship over from Africa.

    For me PZ Myers’s piece has little value because it is so focused on its claim that Rick Simpson is a quack that it fails to: 1) actually look into the experiences of people who have tried this therapy; 2) try to come to grips with *any* of the science about cannabinoids and cancer (or other diseases); 3) examine the ways prohibition has impeded gold-standard science on cannabis.

    What the article boils down to is the claim that these therapeutic promises are not based on rigorous science. Sure, it suggests strongly, through its tone, that the claims are false. But what it actually attempts to substantiate is that they are unproved.

    That’s big: the author either does not know, or does not care to discuss, the ways that federal policy has actively and passively stifled research on cannabis therapy. You do have to admit, don’t you, that the feds have been a little, ahem, *biased* against the notion that cannabis may have medical utility, right?

    To the extent that the article takes aim at Rick Simpson, but misses the wider context around cannabis research, it appears merely mean-spirited and unlikely to contribute much to the policy goal (legalization) it ostensibly supports.

  93. miles670 says

    The Rat kings either been smoking dog shit or has never smoked nor been around people smoking whilst sober enough to make a judgement. I’ve smoked many different kinds of weed with many different types of smell.

    Never once did it smell like shit, I wouldn’t smoke it if it did. Cannabis smells fuckin beautiful when burned. Like a pungent new day of freshly cut grass and happiness.

  94. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    one must question why the patent was applied for anyway?

    Just in case, and possibly to pad productivity numbers.

  95. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    actually look into the experiences of people who have tried this therapy;

    And what peer reviewed medical journal is that study with the proper protocols found? Assertion without evidence.

  96. says

    Ideas are at least something. How about we sit on our laurels and just go along as we usually do? Will that suffice for the lot of you naysayers? Cannibas being a miracle cure plant…I am willing to be a test subject…how about you? I understand alot about healing and understand it should be more of a holistic approach then what is represented in our health care system. At least I am wise enough to understand that our health care system is the most expensive in the world and honestly where are the cures? Western conventional medicine isnt interested in cures. It isnt profitable in the long run. Check out China’s healthcare system sometime for 3 billion people. Its pretty freakin elightening. I got one for ya; consider the source, always consider the source of the information, their motivations, their goals, their dreams, their experiences, their insights, their beliefs, etc….understand the gist of this? I am simply freakin amazed at how weak some of the arguements are that I come across concerning the legalization and use of cannibas and hemp. Seriously at least bring it and honestly more time passing before we get a real freakin forum for this plant in this country is downright pathetic and inane. All glory is fleeting!

  97. KG says

    Western conventional medicine isnt interested in cures. – kuanshu

    Tell that to my brother, fuckwit. Twice cured of cancer – the second time an esophageal cancer that would undoubtedly have killed him 20 years ago. And if you come back with some crap about how his cancers must have been caused by “western lifestyle” or “negative thoughts”, I swear I’ll find a way to reach right through the internet and strangle you.

  98. RowanVT says

    @84-

    So far, combustion only as far as I can tell, which is why it’s different from a nut allergy. A person allergic to peanuts can stand next to someone that has eaten them. I cannot stand next to someone who has recently smoked a joint. And do I think my particular case is psychosomatic? No. I say this because my first exposure to burning marijuana was when I was 7 years old. I thought my aunt was just smoking a normal cigarette but after just a couple minutes I had to stumble inside, vomited on the floor and passed out in my bedroom. Sounds rather physiological to me, especially as I didn’t know what “illegal drugs” were before that point. That evening marked my first “don’t do drugs” talk from Mom, and with that experience behind me I’ve had no desire to do any mind altering substance.

    The reaction could, admittedly, be related to the fact that I have paradoxical reactions to most non-opioid sedatives and stimulants. Diazepam makes me agitated and aggressive. Caffeine makes me sleepy. I drank a redbull once on a dare and fell asleep in class.

  99. RowanVT says

    @Kuanshu-

    Where are the cures? Would you like to say that again to my appendix? Wait, that’s right. I don’t have one anymore because it got infected and was going to try to kill me, but western medicine declared it needed to be removed. BEHOLD! Western medicine cured my appendicitis! And my pneumonia as a child. And put my friend back together after his car crash. And doubly saved my uncle after he fell off the roof, first by making sure he had no internal injuries, and secondly by incidentally finding a pre-cancerous mass in his stomach which they surgically removed.

    Western medicine saved the life of many of my pets, and saves the life of hundreds of animals each year at the veterinary hospital where I work.

    We had someone try to treat their cat’s blocked urethra holistically. Guess what? The cat died. Western medicine would have saved that cat.

  100. Ing says

    It’s easy to cure cancer in vitro. We’ve done it countless times. The story I like the most is one given in Parasitology where apparently they had stumbled upon very strong anti-tumor properties of a common gardening chemical used to treat pest organisms. They were delighted, but where chemists so they sent the info over to others in life sciences to check it. The response was short “causes kidney damage, not practical”

  101. rational jen says

    @you_monster

    I’m a little perturbed by your constant insistence on misreading me… I’m starting to think it’s deliberate.

    I’ve said in every single one of my posts that actual science is actually being done on this. I said more than once that this does not mean cannbis is a cure for cancer, and someone who opts to smoke pot instead of going to the hospital and utilizing all that Western medicine has PROVEN TO WORK is a complete and utter moron. I said at least twice that Rick Simpson is a quack, a fraud, and an idiot and is not to be trusted.

    What more do you fucking want from me? All I did was point out that studies are being conducted in a proper scientific fashion (UNLIKE IDiots like Behe). and it has been proven that you can cure a PETRI DISH of it’s cancer, and it might help with cancer in rats and mice, and all that is promising to an extent, but inconclusive. I noted that the tests have NOT BEEN DONE On primates (INCLUDING human beings), and this is why they are inconclusive and WHY people should be turning to Western Medicine to cure their cancer, because we KNOW FOR A FACT that surgery and chemotherapy actually works, UNLIKE cannabis, which has only been shown to work on petri dishes so far.

    So I really don’t understand why you’re attacking me. I never supported Rick Simpson. I never said anything about “alternative medicine”. I never suggested that chemotherapy and surgery were bad and you should smoke pot instead.

    All I fucking did was point out the fucking fact that studies are being done. If this insulted you, then the problem is not with me…

    It’s with you.

  102. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    kg #122

    And if you come back with some crap about how his cancers must have been caused by “western lifestyle” or “negative thoughts”, I swear I’ll find a way to reach right through the internet and strangle you.

    I’ll be right behind you.

  103. Ichthyic says

    I am willing to be a test subject…how about you?

    tens of millions have already BEEN “test subjects” (including myself), over tens of thousands of years.

    sorry, but there are no general statistics that support regular marijuana users as being any more resistant to cancer or any other specific health detriment than parts of the population that don’t.

    that’s an easy assay to make, does not require approval from any medical agency, and you can be sure it already has been done.

    when people speak of “anti-tumor effects” in the literature, what they are talking about are concentrated doses of specific chemicals, NOT recreational doses.

    at those doses, it IS chemotherapy.

    it ain’t no magic bullet; not even close to the general usefulness of something like aspirin.

    what’s more, for those that want to play “Google Scholar” and try to dig up experiments that look at the effects of cannibinoids on tumor growth (which, as I mentioned, really aren’t relevant to recreational levels, let alone the fact that literally thousands of chemicals show similar levels of “anti-tumor activity), then it ain’t fair not to play the same game for the adverse effects as well:

    These results confirm that long-term heavy cannabis users show impairments in memory and attention that endure beyond the period of intoxication and worsen with increasing years of regular cannabis use.

  104. pallina says

    Oh God, you guy really talk without knowing anything. Pt smokers getting cancer don’t prove or disprove anything, since cannabis can kill cancer cells only at extremely high concentrations of the relevant cannabinoids. Cannabis oil is a powerful concentration of cannabinoids. So, smoking cannabis does not kill cancer cells and does not cure any cancer, the best smoked pot can do is curing symptoms.

    If you say that chemo and radiation cure, all right, go and see the 5% survival rate of, say, lung cancer at late stages (III and IV). Then we can talk. You don’t even consider that in still too many cases the doctors don’t say “chemo and radiation”, doctors just say: “sorry, it’s too late to do anything, go home and get your affairs in order”.

    Third: do you understand the basics of elementary logic??? Do you understand the fundamental difference between the following two statements?

    1) it hasn’t been proved (in clinical trials) that substance X cures cancer
    2) it has been proved (in clinical trials) that substance X does NOT cure cancer.

    While the second statement qualifies X as snake-oil, the first statement does NOT. All we can conclude with the first statement is: WE STILL DON’T KNOW if X CURES CANCER.

    Try to get your thoughts straight, please. Thanks.

  105. NateHevens says

    WTF?

    rational jen at #126 said:

    @you_monster

    I’m a little perturbed by your constant insistence on misreading me… I’m starting to think it’s deliberate.

    I’ve said in every single one of my posts that actual science is actually being done on this. I said more than once that this does not mean cannbis is a cure for cancer, and someone who opts to smoke pot instead of going to the hospital and utilizing all that Western medicine has PROVEN TO WORK is a complete and utter moron. I said at least twice that Rick Simpson is a quack, a fraud, and an idiot and is not to be trusted.

    What more do you fucking want from me? All I did was point out that studies are being conducted in a proper scientific fashion (UNLIKE IDiots like Behe). and it has been proven that you can cure a PETRI DISH of it’s cancer, and it might help with cancer in rats and mice, and all that is promising to an extent, but inconclusive. I noted that the tests have NOT BEEN DONE On primates (INCLUDING human beings), and this is why they are inconclusive and WHY people should be turning to Western Medicine to cure their cancer, because we KNOW FOR A FACT that surgery and chemotherapy actually works, UNLIKE cannabis, which has only been shown to work on petri dishes so far.

    So I really don’t understand why you’re attacking me. I never supported Rick Simpson. I never said anything about “alternative medicine”. I never suggested that chemotherapy and surgery were bad and you should smoke pot instead.

    All I fucking did was point out the fucking fact that studies are being done. If this insulted you, then the problem is not with me…

    It’s with you.

    I don’t know who you are, rational jen, but I want to apologize. I’m not sure how or why I posted as you. I log in with Facebook and, normally, it logs me in as NateHevens. This is the first time ever it’s logged me in as somebody else… and that’s a bit disturbing, to be honest.

    Anyways… post #126 was me, not rational jen. Please read that post as coming from me, NateHevens.

    Thank you.

  106. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    I log in with Facebook and, normally, it logs me in as NateHevens. This is the first time ever it’s logged me in as somebody else

    Yet another reason to avoid Facebook.

  107. NateHevens says

    pallina at #129 said:

    If you say that chemo and radiation cure, all right, go and see the [5-year] survival rate of, say, lung cancer at late stages (III and IV). Then we can talk. You don’t even consider that in still too many cases the doctors don’t say “chemo and radiation”, doctors just say: “sorry, it’s too late to do anything, go home and get your affairs in order”.

    I don’t know about the stated numbers, but I can tell you that surgery and chemo absolutely does work. My mother survived Breast Cancer thanks to surgery and chemo. She sees the doctor twice a year, now, and every report has been “not only do you not have tumors, but you don’t even have a hint of tumors. You’re as clean and as healthy as can be.” I love my mom dearly, and I can only thank surgery, chemotherapy, and the doctors who did all that for her still being alive.

  108. NateHevens says

    ‘Tis Himself, OM at #132 said:

    Yet another reason to avoid Facebook.

    I am such a hypocrite when it comes to Facebook.

    I hate Facebook with a passion, and yet I don’t just use Facebook… I have two Facebooks (one personal, one professional). I’m seriously thinking of starting a new Facebook group: “Hypocrites Against Facebook”… both a commentary on the huge amount of anti-Facebook groups on Facebook and the fact that I hate Facebook yet still use it daily…

    :D

  109. Ichthyic says

    Cannabis oil is a powerful concentration of cannabinoids.

    do you inject it?

    does it result in an absurdly high level of “cannabinoids” in your bloodstream?

    do you even know?

    of course not.

  110. pallina says

    Natehevens,

    what?? Are you presenting anecdotal evidence supporting some claim?? You should know that anecdotal evidence does not count. And, in any case, I’ve never said that chemo and radiation and surgery don’t cure or never cure. My father was SURGICALLY CURED of lung cancer ten years ago. What I’m saying is something different; for many cancers – and lung cancer is one of these – chemo and radiation do very very little, when the cancer is advanced. I know a lot about it. 5-year survival rate for stage III and IV lung cancer is around 5-10%. And chemo in many cases does close to NOTHING. My dad was again treated with surgery for a new lung cancer (this time at a late stage, not like ten years ago), and they did adjuvant chemo to him after surgery. Do you know the documented benefit of the 4 chemo rounds he did? A 4% REDUCTION IN PROBABILITY OF RELAPSE! (4%!, at the expense of serious side effects) Source: his oncologist.

  111. Bluetick Coonhound says

    It amazes me the number of people commenting on here that don’t know what they are talking about. If you grew up in the 60’s pot was normal and even well into the 70’s. In the 80’s the commmercials were making the comparisons that frying an egg is what it’s like when you smoke pot. It fries your brain. I don’t find it odd that myself or any of my friends who have smoked pot for years rarely get sick. Take it for what it is worth. Some of the kids who smoke pot do it for leisure because they enjoy the feeling of being ‘high’ and this is where most people get their image of marijuana from. What would be the benefit of someone claiming that hemp oil cures anything if they are not profiting from it? I have seen enough videos and done enough research to realize that marijuana could cure cancer and many other things. Most if not all medicine that we have today came from…….PLANTS. The marijuana plant or any plant cannot be patented by anybody and therefore there is no profit to be made. Since there is no profit to be made by patenting this plant, the pharmaceutical companies have no interest. If it were found that marijuana used in the proper way (orally, topically or vaporized) would cure most problems then the pharmaceutical companies would go out of business. It’s about money and greed. A few last words to some of you.

    I laughed at the person who mentioned Rick’s Oil could have possibly killed people. It is impossible to overdose on pot. You obviously have been left in the dark too long.

    For the people who use Doctor cures and rely on the poison for your cures of cancer, good for you. To each their own. But I bet if your mother, father, brother, sister or someone that you loved and cared for was told they had ‘terminal cancer’ and any more treatments would do no good would try Rick’s oil if it meant keeping them alive.

    The video Run From the Cure seems a bit outdated and roughly done. It would be nice to see some footage that is done in real time on a cancer patient even if it took years to put together that would show start to finish how the hemp oil rid a person of cancer. I’m a believer in the oil personally and not from using the oil because I’ve been sick of anything. My belief in the oil comes from being on the internet for hours and hours at a time over a period of days doing my own research. Whether you believe it works or not is up to you but like I said before I bet you would try it before you let someone die you loved and cared about. Some of you posters on here need to stop showing your ignorance by being so defiant against this treatment when you have done no research what so ever and are basing your judgement on the local ‘stoners’ where you live.

  112. says

    I am skeptical that pot is a cure all. But I am equally skeptical of an article that merely smears the producer of a video rather than bother to try to counter any of his claims. You provide just as much hard information as Simpson. Panning a production for it’s values does not in any way address it’s claims.
    Here’s what I do know: chemotherapy DOES kill people, people who who are not at death’s door are BROUGHT there by chemotherapy everyday, that’s how it works. The entire process is driven by the fact that cancerous cells are not as tough as healthy cells, and the theory that high levels of poisonous heavy metals will kill the unhealthy cells before the healthy ones succumb. Anybody who has worked in oncology can tell you that is how it is supposed to work, and that it doesn’t always work that way in practice.
    I also know that among other fantastic findings, CBD has been found to halt the metastasis of breast cancer into surrounding tissue. That in itself points to significant anti-cancer properties. Properties that are NOT being researched, due to the governmnet’s position on Cannabis. Because of the Government’s record on Cannabis research, I am far more willing to give credance to Simpson’s claims than those of either the Government or the current AMA. (An AMA whose board is dominated by Doctors with financial ties to big Pharma.)
    Rick Simpson may indeed be a misguided proponent of innapropriate uses for this plant. But it’s interesting he has not profited in any way from this “discovery”. You call him a quack, and a crank, but No claim he’s peddling snake oil…
    You very successfully critique the video’s production, however. Might I suggest that you move from science writing to something you are obviously more suited to; like movie reviews. Oh, and I find your generalizations and smears of potheads to be frankly insulting.

  113. Ichthyic says

    smears the producer of a video rather than bother to try to counter any of his claims.

    the claims are ridiculous on the face of them, especially in combination.

  114. Ichthyic says

    5-year survival rate for stage III and IV lung cancer is around 5-10%.

    this has fuck-all to do with the efficacy of cannibis.

    nothing more than a red herring.

    which, I’ve found, is an extremely common debate tactic amongst the pushers of woo.

    It amazes me the number of people commenting on here that don’t know what they are talking about. If you grew up in the 60′s pot was normal and even well into the 70′s.

    tell me, when was “Reefer Madness” made?

    and the entire “paraquat” scare. When did that happen?

    people have been using the equivalent of the “frying egg” scenario for decades and decades.

    I don’t find it odd that myself or any of my friends who have smoked pot for years rarely get sick.

    like with all woo pushers, anecdotes become evidence.

    What would be the benefit of someone claiming that hemp oil cures anything if they are not profiting from it?

    the more woo believers, the easier they think it will be to legalize it.

    duh.

    I laughed at the person who mentioned Rick’s Oil could have possibly killed people.

    If it’s the same person I’m thinking about, that’s not what they said. They said using it in lieu of proper treatment could result in death, and that’s absolutely the case. We see death resulting from not getting proper treatment all the time.

    sometimes those deaths are actually people who died as a result of someone ELSE deciding against proper treatment, as in the case of vaccinations.

    In fact, thousands have died from the antivaxxers nonsense over the last 10 years; it’s gotten quite bad even here in NZ – whooping cough and measles have made some serious comebacks here, all directly attributable to people consciously refusing to immunize their kids.

    But I bet if your mother, father, brother, sister or someone that you loved and cared for was told they had ‘terminal cancer’ and any more treatments would do no good would try Rick’s oil if it meant keeping them alive.

    of course, death is always the last refuge of the snake oil salesman.

    THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT WORKS, FUCKHEAD.

    It would be nice to see some footage that is done in real time on a cancer patient even if it took years to put together that would show start to finish how the hemp oil rid a person of cancer.

    which would show absolutely fuck all, since there IS NO MECHANISM INVOLVED.

    it’s pushed exactly like homeopathy is: As a “cure” with no mechanism for action needed!

    it’s magic!

    the person who knows nothing about what they’re talking about here, is YOU.

  115. KG says

    I don’t find it odd that myself or any of my friends who have smoked pot for years rarely get sick. – some idiot

    Well if we’re swapping anecdotes, two of the heaviest users I knew in my youth developed schizophrenia. Cause and effect? How the fuck would I know, any more than you do about your friends?

  116. says

    So, counter them. Oh, I see you’re not…
    Perhaps if there was research being done, which there isn’t, that would be easy to do. But since the Government restricts research, you’re left with nothing but personal attacks, smaers, and ad hominems, aren’t you, Ichthyic?
    And call me a fuckhead to my face and I’ll slap the eyeballs out of your head.

  117. pallina says

    “5-year survival rate for stage III and IV lung cancer is around 5-10%.
    this has fuck-all to do with the efficacy of cannibis.
    nothing more than a red herring.
    which, I’ve found, is an extremely common debate tactic amongst the pushers of woo.”

    Excuse me????

    “THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT WORKS, FUCKHEAD.”

    THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT DOESN’T WORK EITHER, YOU IDIOT!!!

    “which would show absolutely fuck all, since there IS NO MECHANISM INVOLVED.”

    People here are just being pathetic. DO SOME RESEARCH. There are tons of explanations of why cannabinoids have anti-tumor properties. Have you ever heard of the endocannabinoid system in our body?? Go to pubmed and start to fucking STUDY!!!

  118. Ichthyic says

    There are tons of explanations of why cannabinoids have anti-tumor properties.

    not in humans, there aren’t.

    there are thousands of chemicals that have anti-tumor properties.

    that doesn’t mean they actually work to prevent, or cure, cancer in humans.

    if you don’t understand the literature you are reading, please, don’t attempt to cite it.

    last time:

    There is no mechanism for cannabis to cure cancer in humans.

    Have you ever heard of the endocannabinoid system in our body

    irrelevant.

    Go to pubmed and start to fucking STUDY!!!

    if there is a systemic case on point, you would have already posted it.

    it’s quite clear you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

  119. Ichthyic says

    So, counter them. Oh, I see you’re not…

    smoking pot causes monkeys to fly out of my butt.

    counter that.

  120. KG says

    Gee, KG, I din’t know Bob Marley tried the Rick Simpson cure. – curtislook

    Look, fuckwit, I was addressing your fellow-moron Bluetick Coonhound@137, who thinks anecdotes about his stoner friends not getting sick proves how healthy smoking pot is. I know anecdotes don’t mean a thing on either side, you dim bulb. If you actually read the thread, you’ll see that I took the trouble@65 and @107 to look for scientific papers on cannabinoids’ anti-tumor (and in other cases, pro-tumor – see #109) properties, and recommended others to read them. You know, real evidence – unlike the stupid, irresponsible garbage Simpson spews – from research that, contrary to your ignorant claims, is being done.

  121. Bluetick Coonhound says

    It’s humorous to see how you people get so pissed off and irate over a blog. NZ, well that explains it. It would be interesting to see where some others are from. I’ve done my research. I’m not here to stroke your cock buddy or make you feel anything other than what you already feel, which is pissed off and no clue to what you’re talking about. I’ve known enough people in my life that have answers for everything that disputes what they believe than to have to listen to your 5th grade comebacks. Oh wait, I don’t have any proof of that, do I? And also you people who spit poison on here with your childish words need to wash your mouth out with soap. I’ve found the ones that do that in most cases are nothing but pansies who sit in front of their computer all day in their panties touching themselves. Put that in your pipe and smoke on it for a while tough guy.

    Do your own research. Then when you type on here you won’t look so foolish.

  122. you_monster says

    Do your own research. Then when you type on here you won’t look so foolish.

    Glenn Beck?

    I’m still waiting for someone to counter Ichthyic’s claim that smoking pot causes monkeys to fly out his ass.

  123. Amphiox says

    there are thousands of chemicals that have anti-tumor properties.

    that doesn’t mean they actually work to prevent, or cure, cancer in humans.

    The graveyard of chemicals that have demonstrated anti-tumor activity but which go on to turn out not to work, or even to harm, when used against cancer in actual clinical situations with actual live human patients, is a vast, boundless, sorry wasteland.

  124. chigau (本当) says

    Bluetick Coonhound

    My belief in the oil comes from being on the internet for hours and hours at a time over a period of days doing my own research.

    and

    And also you people who spit poison on here with your childish words need to wash your mouth out with soap. I’ve found the ones that do that in most cases are nothing but pansies who sit in front of their computer all day in their panties touching themselves.

    spoing!

  125. Amphiox says

    sorry, but there are no general statistics that support regular marijuana users as being any more resistant to cancer or any other specific health detriment than parts of the population that don’t.

    I personally know of at least one regular marijuana user who went on to get diagnosed to an inoperable malignant brain cancer.

    By the irrefutable logic of anecdotal evidence, this obviously PROVES that smoking marijuana CAUSES brain cancer.

  126. pallina says

    A pilot clinical study of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme.
    Guzmán M, Duarte MJ, Blázquez C, Ravina J, Rosa MC, Galve-Roperh I, Sánchez C, Velasco G, González-Feria L.
    Source
    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid 28040, Spain. [email protected]
    Abstract
    Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other cannabinoids inhibit tumour growth and angiogenesis in animal models, so their potential application as antitumoral drugs has been suggested. However, the antitumoral effect of cannabinoids has never been tested in humans. Here we report the first clinical study aimed at assessing cannabinoid antitumoral action, specifically a pilot phase I trial in which nine patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme were administered THC intratumoraly. The patients had previously failed standard therapy (surgery and radiotherapy) and had clear evidence of tumour progression. The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration. We also evaluated THC action on the length of survival and various tumour-cell parameters. A dose escalation regimen for THC administration was assessed. Cannabinoid delivery was safe and could be achieved without overt psychoactive effects. Median survival of the cohort from the beginning of cannabinoid administration was 24 weeks (95% confidence interval: 15-33). Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibited tumour-cell proliferation in vitro and decreased tumour-cell Ki67 immunostaining when administered to two patients. The fair safety profile of THC, together with its possible antiproliferative action on tumour cells reported here and in other studies, may set the basis for future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids.

  127. Ichthyic says

    excellent!

    now tell me, WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY SAY?

    here:

    Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibited tumour-cell proliferation in vitro

    do you know what in vitro means?

    decreased tumour-cell Ki67 immunostaining

    do you know what that means?

    administered to two patients

    do you know what THAT means?

    do you even know what the study was actually trying to study?

    here, maybe this is suggestive:

    The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration.

    all this study was trying to do, IN VIVO, was study the safety of injecting a specific dose of THC.

    and even THAT is inconclusive, given the tiny sample size.

    ….

    Science: learn you some.

  128. Bluetick Coonhound says

    @ chigau are you the one that can make chicken salad out of chicken shit? I’ve heard about people like yourself. You can try and twist it anyway you want to and a LOL to you for your post because it was a bit funny. I work, pay my bills, work when I get home. Don’t smoke pot anymore and it didn’t lead me to being a heroin addict or pill head or anything like that. I quit when I wanted to quit, I didn’t freak out or go into withdraws or anything of that nature. I obviously own a computer and I like to stay informed to what is going around me. When I say what I said it was over DAYS I did my research and it was HOURS AND HOURS of research. At some sittings it might be an hour. At some sittings it might be 15 minutes. At some sittings it might be for 2 hours. Get it? I’ve made the points I want to make on here. I’m sure some of you can argue for months or years but it’s not my cup of tea. Misery loves company so have at it. :)

  129. Ichthyic says

    I’ve just posted a comment with at least 30 links but it doesn’t show!!

    good, because you obviously don’t know what they show anyway.

    oh, and for future reference, if this is the same as the previous sci-blogs site, you can only post a maximum of 3 references at a time.

    oh, also as an addendum:

    what was the OP about again?

    Rick Simpson’s hemp oil.

    is that what was tested in any of the studies you’re so eager to post, but not to actually READ?

    just to be clear, your first post not only doesn’t support the idea that THC is an effective chemical anticancer treatment, but isn’t even related to what Simpson is selling, AT ALL.

  130. pallina says

    Ichthyic:

    I guess you are REALLY stupid. If you bothered to read all my posts here, I said from the beginning that there are basically no studies on humans yet, but tons of studies in vitro and in animal models. YOU IDIOT. And I also said: the abundant pre-clinical evidence in favor of cannabis as a anti-tumor agent combined with some WELL DOCUMENTED anecdotal evidence on cannabis healing properties should make us ALL HERE stop posting nonsense and ask that clinical trials on cannabis and cancer be funded IMMEDIATELY. So much for your idiotic comment on me not being able to read what I post. I know better than you do that that study is very very small, and only limited at testing safety (in fact, it’s a phase I study). In fact, what I am saying from the beginning of this discussion is that I WANT TO SEE MORE CLINICAL STUDIES BEING CONDUCTED. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH?

    Second: once again you reveal your ignorance: Rick Simpson is not selling anything.

  131. you_monster says

    Natehevens,

    So I really don’t understand why you’re attacking me.

    I started “attacking you” because of this claim you made,

    But his lie does actually have roots in a truth… studies in petri dishes and on rats and mice have shown that some cannabinoids do indeed kill tumorous cells.

    The petri dish studies don’t show shit in terms of the effects on cannabis for real cancer patients. I thought Ichthyic put it well,

    there are thousands of chemicals that have anti-tumor properties.

    that doesn’t mean they actually work to prevent, or cure, cancer in humans.

    Claiming that Simpson’s claim is rooted in a truth is misleading since there is no evidence of pot being able to cure cancer in humans.

    However, i accept that i am misreading you. You seem to understand Ichthyic’s point, and you have expressed it yourself.
    So, sorry for taking you as being irresponsibly supportive of Simpson’s claims. However, to avoid causing others to misread you in the same way, I suggest you not refer to his woo as being “rooted in truth”, since as you say yourself,

    So you can cure cancer-ridden petri dishes, but they’ve no idea if that translates into curing humans, yet.

  132. pallina says

    What’s the problem with you guys? Given that Rick Simpson is not selling anything, what’s the problem with having something that might work? I really don’t understand you. Maybe the problem is that RS should have added a “maybe”? Who F*******G CARES??

    Now, let me repost this:

    do you understand the basics of elementary logic??? Do you understand the fundamental difference between the following two statements?

    1) it hasn’t been proved (in clinical trials) that substance X cures cancer
    2) it has been proved (in clinical trials) that substance X does NOT cure cancer.

    While the second statement qualifies X as snake-oil, the first statement does NOT. All we can conclude with the first statement is: WE STILL DON’T KNOW if X CURES CANCER. So, what is the way to know? CONDUCT CLINICAL TRIALS, MEANING: START STUDYING THE WELL DOCUMENTED MEDICAL PROPERTIES OF CANNABIS IN HUMANS!!!!! IS IT TOO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND FOR YOU?? OR you’re only able to keep repeating “it hasn’t been proved” like a bunch of automas???

  133. you_monster says

    do you understand the basics of elementary logic??? Do you understand the fundamental difference between the following two statements?

    1) it hasn’t been proved (in clinical trials) that substance X cures cancer
    2) it has been proved (in clinical trials) that substance X does NOT cure cancer.

    While the second statement qualifies X as snake-oil, the first statement does NOT.

    I’ve got this stuff, I’ve distilled it from snakes, I’ll call it “snake-oil”. Rub it on your skin and it will cure cancer. Now it hasn’t been proved that my snake oil cures anything. But since it has not been proved yet that it “does NOT” cure cancer, there is no harm in me advocating for its efficacy. Does that sound right to you, Pallina?

    Do you have some money? I’ve got a lot of products that haven’t been proven in clinical studies not to be effective.

  134. you_monster says

    Blockquote fail, lets try again.
    Pallina,

    do you understand the basics of elementary logic??? Do you understand the fundamental difference between the following two statements?

    1) it hasn’t been proved (in clinical trials) that substance X cures cancer
    2) it has been proved (in clinical trials) that substance X does NOT cure cancer.

    While the second statement qualifies X as snake-oil, the first statement does NOT.

    I’ve got this stuff, I’ve distilled it from snakes, I’ll call it “snake-oil”. Rub it on your skin and it will cure cancer. Now it hasn’t been proved that my snake oil cures anything. But since it has not been proved yet that it “does NOT” cure cancer, there is no harm in me advocating for its efficacy. Does that sound right to you, Pallina?
    Do you have some money? I’ve got a lot of products that haven’t been proven in clinical studies not to be effective.

  135. pallina says

    “I’ve got this stuff, I’ve distilled it from snakes, I’ll call it “snake-oil”. Rub it on your skin and it will cure cancer. Now it hasn’t been proved that my snake oil cures anything. But since it has not been proved yet that it “does NOT” cure cancer, there is no harm in me advocating for its efficacy. Does that sound right to you, Pallina?”

    No, it doesn’t. But suppose that the guy saying this is saying it because he has just seen his own cancer disappearing after applying snake oil (and he documents that with photos). And now suppose that a lot of other people are testifying the same. And now suppose that nobody is trying to sell you anything. And now suppose that you do your own pubmed search and find at least 60-70 (but probably more) studies showing that your snake oil kills cancer cells and has anti-angiogenic properties in vitro and in mice…now wouldn’t you want to find out?????? I CERTAINLY WOULD.

  136. Bluetick Coonhound says

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtcY90UoPAo

    This video shows the affects of chemo cream on the skin and what the oil did for this particular persons skin cancer. I don’t care if anybody wants to use YouTube as a reference place or not. It is what it is. People called Einstein crazy at first. Tesla has proven more people wrong over the past 100 years than anybody. They said it was impossible to build a machine to read cancer in the body and etc….. Someone has to go out on a limb to prove people wrong. AND if this is proven to be true, why wouldn’t the whole world be happy about it? The only people who know it to be true or not are the people who have tried it. Try telling them it didn’t work.

  137. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    AND if this is proven to be true, why wouldn’t the whole world be happy about it?

    I’ve bolded the operative word.

    And remember they laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein, and they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

  138. Ichthyic says

    It is what it is.

    I think we already covered that.

    People called Einstein crazy at first.

    I think the whole quote goes something like:

    “They laughed at Galileo!… But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

    Galileo syndrome is often common amongst cranks.

    if this is proven to be true, why wouldn’t the whole world be happy about it?

    Indeed, why wouldn’t a readily available miracle cure be cause for happiness?

    yeah, devil’s in the details, eh? It’s all in that “proven” part.

    and before you yell “consipiracy!”, do note that a great many similarly readily available chemicals have been tested and utilized by the pharmaceutical industry.

    It makes zero sense to think they would try to cover up something they could actually make easy money on, considering they’ve done so in the past.

    ever heard of Taxol?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paclitaxel

  139. Ichthyic says

    what’s the problem with having something that might work?

    if it has no side effects, AND is not used as a SUBSTITUTE for medically proven treatments, then there isn’t a problem.

    but that’s not how it’s being advertised is it.

    I can only assume even YOU would see a problem with someone choosing to take Simpson’s hemp oil as a replacement for already proven therapy?

    I’d be curious as to what your reaction to Steve Jobs opting out of getting surgery for his eminently treatable (at the time) pancreatic tumor was in favor of “treatment by diet”.

    would you encourage people to abandon medically proven treatments in favor of snake oil, and then take no responsibility if they then died?

    seriously.

    say you personally convince someone with treatable cancer to use Simpson’s snake oil instead, against their own doctor’s advice.

    That person dies 6 months later from that same treatable cancer.

    would you feel any responsibility for their death?

  140. RowanVT says

    @168, coonhound;

    There is this great phrase in medicine: Cancer does whatever the hell it wants to.

    Anecdote time:

    I had to euthanise my first dog when he was 13 years old. Eleven months prior to this event, he developed a cough. Upon taking a radiograph, it was found he had some sort of mass in a lung that was about the size of a walnut. We did a fine needle aspirate, and it came back as just necrotic tissue. We stuck him on a course of antibiotics, and a short course of steroids and took new x-rays once a month.

    For 7 months, the mass shrank. We were certain it wasn’t cancer. Cancer doesn’t shrink for that long without treatment, right? After those 7 months we stopped taking the x-rays. Two months later, my dog had a seizure. We re-took the radiographs. The mass was now occupying an entire lung and spreading to the other.

    Aussie had a primary pulmonary adenocarcinoma, one of the most uncommon cancers in dogs, and one of the most aggressive. My vet’s friend’s mother was diagnosed with the same cancer aroud the time we found Aus’ mass. That woman was given *maybe* a year to live WITH surgery to remove the lung lobe AND chemo AND radiation therapy.

    Aussie lasted just shy of 10 months, without any treatment at all. No cannabis required.

    So, this anecdote of your proves nothing, especially concidering the guy did radiation! The hemp alone did NOT cure the cancer!

  141. Ichthyic says

    for bluetick.

    stop posting useless links.

    seriously.

    NONE OF THOSE RELATE TO HEMP OIL.

    NONE OF THEM RELATE TO CLINICAL STUDIES IN HUMANS.

    what’s really, really funny?

    look at the FIRST RESPONSE to the article you linked here:

    http://www.labnews.co.uk/news/cannabis-destroys-cancer-cells/

    “Dr Wai Man Liu, explains: “It is important to stress that these cannabis-like substances are far removed from the cannabis that is smoked.”
    Such a waste of medicine – smoking it! The cannabis oil distilled from the bud crystal is much more effecacious.

    and guess who said it?

    ROFLMAO

    morons.

  142. Bluetick Coonhound says

    “It makes zero sense to think they would try to cover up something they could actually make easy money on, considering they’ve done so in the past.”

    Make money on? By taxing it? Everything proven or not proven begins with an ‘if’. I’m not an example of it working or not working. I believe what I believe as do you an any others on here. If you don’t believe it works because there is so scientific proof, then so be it. I have no beef with that. I’m optimistic towards a solution for cancer. If it is hemp oil, then great. If it is something else, then great also. Why people would get so uptight on here because someone claims they have something that beats cancer and many other things is beyond me. How would anybody know personally if they have not tried it. Regarding making it legal. If the pharmaceutical companies cannot make money on something that cures, it puts them out of business or cuts into their profits big time. Who is going to make money off of this if it ends up being proven true other than the Govt taxing the product? Why would the Govt make it legal if it means losing money from lobbyist who support the pharmaceutical companies? One way or another it is going to be proven or dis proven over time. It’s wait and see.

  143. pallina says

    Cannabinoids and cancer: pros and cons of an antitumour strategy.

    another link:

    Bifulco M, Laezza C, Pisanti S, Gazzerro P

    1Dipartimento di Scienze Farmaceutiche, Università degli Studi di Salerno, Via Ponte Don Melillo, Fisciano 84084, Salerno, Italy.

    In the last two decades, research has dramatically increased the knowledge of cannabinoids biology and pharmacology. In mammals, compounds with properties similar to active components of Cannabis sativa, the so called ‘endocannabinoids’, have been shown to modulate key cell-signalling pathways involved in cancer cell growth, invasion and metastasis. To date, cannabinoids have been licensed for clinical use as palliative treatment of chemotherapy, but increased evidences showed direct antiproliferative actions of cannabinoid agonists on several tumour cells in vitro and in animal models. In this article, we will review the principal molecular pathways modulated by cannabinoids on cancer and summarize pros and cons evidence on the possible future use of endocannabinoid-based drugs in cancer therapy.British Journal of Pharmacology (2006) 148, 123-135. doi:10.1038/sj.bjp.0706632; published online 27 February 2006.

  144. Bluetick Coonhound says

    I think some of you argue just for the sake of arguing. So, you don’t believe. Great. Use what you know that works for you and let others use what they want to as well. Now do you feel like you’ve won the argument? Time will tell the truth.

  145. Ichthyic says

    In fact, they already started making money on it:

    as a palliative, not as chemotherapy.

    man, can’t you people at least TRY to be honest?

  146. Bluetick Coonhound says

    “What is amazing is that while cannabinoids effectively target and kill cancerous cells, they do not affect healthy, normal cells and may actually protect them against cellular death. Moreover, cannabinoids are also researched for their pain-modulation and anti-inflammatory abilities as they bind to special receptors in the brain, much like opioid derivatives that are commonly prescribed today.

    Further evidence to support the effects of cannabis extract on malignant cells comes from the real life experience of individuals who have successfully overcome cancer by using cannabis oil. Examples include a patient, who managed to completely cure his skin cancer by simply applying cannabis oil onto the affected areas of the skin, as well as another, who recovered from a severe head injury with the aid of hemp oil.

    One of the cannabinoids that has displayed amazing medical properties is cannabidiol, or CBD – a non-psychoactive compound that is regarded by some as the medical discovery of the 21st century, and with good reason. Research indicates that CBD can relieve convulsions, reduce inflammation, lower anxiety and suppress nausea, while also inhibiting cancer development. In addition, CBD has exhibited neuroprotective properties, relieving symptoms of dystonia and proving just as effective as regular antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia.

    What stands out is that from the vast amount of research and data available, as well as the personal experiences of cancer survivors, is that no chemotherapy currently being used medically can match the non-toxic anti-carcinogenic and anti-tumorigenic effects of these natural plant compounds.”

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033757_cannabis_oil_cancer_cure.html#ixzz1exJcPf98

  147. pallina says

    Ichthyic

    As for your question, I would not personally try to convince someone to try hemp oil instead of conventional treatments. But the problem is, conventional treatments very often can do very little, as I said before, for example with advanced lung cancer. And I know all the statistics very well, so it makes me laugh when you talk about chemo and radiation as treatments that would CURE anything. They can at best prolong survival. the chemo my dad did after surgey only lowered his chances of relapse by 4%!!! and how do they get this 4%??? they get it from clinical trials showing that, of people who underwent surgery for stage 3 lung cancer, there was a 4% difference in relapse between those getting post-surgery chemo and those not getting it. And it is so for many other cancers as well. It makes me laugh when you talk about proven treatments as if they were effective!!! The only conventional treatment that CAN indeed be very effective is SURGERY. And, coming to your question on Steve Jobs, no, if I were in his shoes I would have never avoided surgery in favor of anything else. Surgery can save lives. But please don’t tell me that surgery is sophisticated medicine.

  148. you_monster says

    Bluetick,

    Why people would get so uptight on here because someone claims they have something that beats cancer and many other things is beyond me.

    It is not that fucking hard to comprehend, so I don’t know why it would be beyond you unless you are either a) helplessly stupid, or b) completely apathetic to suffering of others.

    I will say it slowly, just for you Blue. When someone claims that they have some snake-oil that cures cancer, and a cancer patient foregoes actual scientific treatment to take the snake-oil, that patient will have a higher chance of dying sooner. Do you not care?

    Don’t spread pseudoscientific misinformation, you could get someone hurt.

  149. pallina says

    “In fact, they already started making money on it:

    as a palliative, not as chemotherapy.

    man, can’t you people at least TRY to be honest?”

    OF COURSE as palliative, for now. I assume you know how to read, so I really don’t understand your claim about honesty. I said “They STARTED making money”. Research on cannabis and cancer is very young. Wait and see what they’ll come up with in the next years. For now, it should be outrageous enough that the plant is illegal but a drug that is nothing but a cannabis extract is being sold by Big Pharma.

  150. Bluetick Coonhound says

    Monster boy. Do you have proof that if someone took this snake oil that they would have a higher % of dying?

  151. Bluetick Coonhound says

    Pallina, you’re arguing with fence posts here. They’re determined to be right no matter what is said. If you said the sky is blue they would say prove it, or no it’s not blue. Let them live their lives in negativity and pessimism.

  152. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    I guess the people at Harvard are idiots too.

    I went to Harvard. Believe me, there’s idiots there.

  153. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    A 47 year old gamer? Now that’s funny.

    I’m a 63 year old gamer. You got a problem with that?

  154. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Comical.

    And you’re idiotic.

    Please collect your decaying porcupine on your way out, asshole.

  155. chigau (本当) says

    Bluetick Coonhound @158
    It shocks me to my core that you understood the reference.
    I’m not shocked at all that you didn’t stick the flounce.

    I’ve made the points I want to make on here. I’m sure some of you can argue for months or years but it’s not my cup of tea.

    What is the age limit for gaming?
    You do know that gaming has been around longer than the eight years since you discovered them at 10 years old.

  156. Ichthyic says

    But the problem is, conventional treatments very often can do very little

    I gave you a clear choice.

    your failure to respond honestly says volumes about your position.

  157. Ichthyic says

    you’re arguing with fence posts here

    I happen to have a graduate degree in zoology and Integrative Biology from Berkeley.

    strangely, I find your random posting of irrelevant links to articles you haven’t actually read and do not understand not in keeping with an actual honest argument about the science involved.

    If I’m a fence post, you’re a hole digger.

  158. Ichthyic says

    I guess the people at Harvard are idiots too.

    another red herring, and an attempt at an argument from authority on top!

    double score!

    hey, here’s one for you:

    If I relied on “Harvard educated” or even “Harvard Professor” as being in and of itself reliable, then I might have missed this:

    Marc Hauser, convicted of fraud.

    which, although it saddens me, since I always admired his experimental designs myself, have no problems posting.

    It was scientists who understood the designs and methods of the very experiments he was conducting that realized he was, shall we say, “skipping a step”.

    you clowns are so far away from actually understanding what you’re reading about wrt to the antitumor studies, and their relevance to what Simpson is peddling, it’s laughable you think you know what you’re talking about.

    You are JUST like the antivaxxers that post dozens and dozens of links to studies supposedly “proving” that vaccines cause autism, and when you look at ANY of the actual studies, they are already either proven fraudulent, published in backyard journals by cranks, have nothing at all to do with vaccines and autism, or else actually show the exact OPPOSITE of what they are claiming!

    they just want to think that because they can spew out links they don’t understand, and haven’t even read in most cases, that it actually means something.

    it doesn’t with them, and it doesn’t here either.

    I’m shocked, you hear me, *shocked* that none of you clowns even bothered to read the article I linked to showing long term detrimental cognitive effects of marijuana usage.

    could it be because you didn’t think it relevant, even though it is a scientific study about marijuana?

    Google is NOT your friend.

  159. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    You do know that gaming has been around longer than the eight years since you discovered them at 10 years old.

    I was playing OD&D in 1976.

  160. Ichthyic says

    and here is a link to 600 studies on cannabis (not all involving cancer, of course):

    but the evil gubment and BigPharma censor research on cannabis, as part of the Big Conspiracy!

    oh wait, was that some other crank saying that?

    I can’t keep track any more.

  161. Ichthyic says

    But please don’t tell me that surgery is sophisticated medicine.

    says the person that keeps supporting the idea that hemp oil somehow is.

    what the fuck does “sophisticated” have to do with anything, anyway?

    It’s simple cause and effect, dearie.

    the type of cancer Jobs had was eminently treatable by removing the tumor from the pancreas, if done early enough.

    though it also recommends chemo afterwards to further retard the possibility of a recurrence.

    other cancers are not treatable in this fashion, but are treatable just as easily in other ways.

    has fuck all to do with how “sophisticated” they are, though some, like using endogenous retroviruses as delivery systems for direct genetic treatment probably would be considered so by most.

    today’s rocket science is tomorrow’s playdough.

  162. Ichthyic says

    No further need to respond.

    correct.

    just like there was no need to “counter” the ridiculous claims of Rick Simpson.

    Instead it should be up to me to PROVE smoking pot makes monkeys fly from my ass on demand.

    oh, btw, I can’t prove it.

    Just in case you’re wondering.

  163. Amphiox says

    they get it from clinical trials showing that, of people who underwent surgery for stage 3 lung cancer, there was a 4% difference in relapse between those getting post-surgery chemo and those not getting it. And it is so for many other cancers as well.

    But it is also so for many OTHER cancers that the difference is not 4% but 50%, or 80%, or 95%.

    And I know all the statistics very well, so it makes me laugh when you talk about chemo and radiation as treatments that would CURE anything.

    Depends on the disease.

    They can at best prolong survival.

    And when the prolongation of survival is in the range of several years versus several months, this is a bad thing how???

  164. Amphiox says

    If you said the sky is blue they would say prove it, or no it’s not blue.

    And the ONLY reason that statement has become a cliche for an obvious truth is BECAUSE it WAS PROVEN, long ago, with MASSIVE amounts of evidence, which has accumulated, and continues to accumulate, over several tens of thousands of years.

  165. says

    I was playing OD&D in 1976.

    Hah. 1975 for me. With a couple of guys in my dorm who’d been to some crazy gaming convention in Wisconsin.

  166. you_monster says

    Do you have proof that if someone took this snake oil that they would have a higher % of dying?

    I wasn’t saying that the snake oil per se causes a higher frequency of death. I was saying that taking snake oil in leu of real treatment does.

    I have seen people adamantly defend their particular woo as not being snake oil, but I have never seen people actually argue for snake oil generally. Weird.

  167. NateHevens says

    you_monster at #161 said:

    I started “attacking you” because of this claim you made,

    But his lie does actually have roots in a truth… studies in petri dishes and on rats and mice have shown that some cannabinoids do indeed kill tumorous cells.

    The petri dish studies don’t show shit in terms of the effects on cannabis for real cancer patients. I thought Ichthyic put it well,

    there are thousands of chemicals that have anti-tumor properties.

    that doesn’t mean they actually work to prevent, or cure, cancer in humans.

    Claiming that Simpson’s claim is rooted in a truth is misleading since there is no evidence of pot being able to cure cancer in humans.

    However, i accept that i am misreading you. You seem to understand Ichthyic’s point, and you have expressed it yourself.
    So, sorry for taking you as being irresponsibly supportive of Simpson’s claims. However, to avoid causing others to misread you in the same way, I suggest you not refer to his woo as being “rooted in truth”, since as you say yourself,

    So you can cure cancer-ridden petri dishes, but they’ve no idea if that translates into curing humans, yet.

    I see. I apologize. It’s my fault you misread me.

    When I said “roots in a truth”, I misspoke. What I was basically saying is that he probably is aware of those studies and made the leap from “petri dish” to “human being” without any ground to stand on. I was merely pointing that the hypothesis which he has turned into a scan is one currently be questioned scientifically.

    I will choose my words better next time. Thanks.

  168. you_monster says

    Natehevens,
    My reading comprehension was not the greatest. I couldn’t see your point after my opinion of what you were arguing for was distorted by my reaction to your initial post. Now that i grok you more clearly, i find we are in agreement,

    What I was basically saying is that he probably is aware of those studies and made the leap from “petri dish” to “human being” without any ground to stand on.

    Sorry for misinterpreting what you are arguing for.

  169. NateHevens says

    you_monster at #208 said:

    Natehevens,
    My reading comprehension was not the greatest. I couldn’t see your point after my opinion of what you were arguing for was distorted by my reaction to your initial post. Now that i grok you more clearly, i find we are in agreement,

    What I was basically saying is that he probably is aware of those studies and made the leap from “petri dish” to “human being” without any ground to stand on.

    Sorry for misinterpreting what you are arguing for.

    It’s cool. Happens to me a lot. I once argued down an atheist thinking he was a creationist merely because he tried to explain to me that natural selection was only one of the driving forces of evolution (reference genetic drift, random mutation, and sexual selection).

    So I understand. I didn’t mean to get all heated over it.

  170. you_monster says

    curtiscreek,

    Ichthyic…when you invoke monkeys flying out your butt, that where your credibility flies out of. No further need to respond.

    Why, because it is an extraordinary claim made without any evidence backing it? Good, I’m glad you would think that someone arguing like that doesn’t have credibility*. Now, just extend that skepticism to the panacea of extraordinary effects that hemp oil is claimed to have.

    *of course, Ichthyic wasn’t actually arguing that claim

  171. you_monster says

    Natehevens,
    Alright, enough sappiness. With our powers combined, let us fight the forces of the pseudoscientific peddlers of woo.

  172. NateHevens says

    you_monster at #211 said:

    Natehevens,
    Alright, enough sappiness. With our powers combined, let us fight the forces of the pseudoscientific peddlers of woo.

    Let’s!

    Ichthyic at #212 said:

    Wonder Twin Powers, ACTIVATE!

    Oh wow… it’s been a long time…

  173. pallina says

    Ichthyic says:

    “other cancers are not treatable in this fashion, but are treatable just as easily in other ways”

    “I gave you a clear choice. your failure to respond honestly says volumes about your position.”

    It is completely useless to talk to you. You’re a real idiot without even a degree in medicine. I too have a PhD, so your degree from berkeley does not impress me at all.

    “treatable” does not mean “curable”. For many cancers, the only hope nowadays remains early detection and surgery (when possible). You’re talking as if nobody was dying of cancer anymore, which is simply ridiculous and offensive for all the people who die everyday of this nasty disease.

    I did respond to your clear choice, you idiot. I said NO I would not try to convince somebody to try hemp oil instead of conventional treatments. But this clear choice that you posed is one that is of little interest to me, because I think of all the terminal cancer patients who are not given any choice but that of dying. And I think of all the cases in which chemo is only palliative. And I think of all the cases (the majority) in which one can do both conventional and non conventional treatments. You think you’re the only intelligent person out there and all the rest is a bunch of fools who are ready to give up fantastic treatments with 100% success rate for some snake oil. Ridiculous. simply ridiculous.

  174. Tomaniac says

    @Ichthyic says,

    I’ve smoked pot for 50 years, have several patents and have comfortably retired from my hard work and I can tell you that Pot does cure one thing very well and thats “Being an asshole”.

    Maybe you should try some and see how it works.

  175. you_monster says

    Maybe you should try some and see how it works.

    I see it doesn’t cure smugness though.

    Why is the fact that you have a few patents and are living comfortably relevant?

  176. chigau (本当) says

    Tomaniac
    The 50 years of pot-smoking didn’t help you make a sensible comment on a blog.

  177. Tom Allen says

    Interesting that a lot of the ills he claims it alleviates are melanin or melanoma related. It might be useful to do clinical trials concerning the links between cannabinoid receptors and melanin — I’m not yet enough of a biochemist to know the pathways. Meanwhile, why not let the sufferers toke up? :-)

  178. says

    The crazy burns hotter than a bowl of pakalolo on a Saturday night.

    Holy crap, and this is why we need critical thinking courses.

    Pallina, you want a pissing contest? I have 23 PhDs. Actually, I’m an undergraduate at a state school- and even I can see how poorly you approach this.

    You think that there is substance with this alt. treatment? Great! Wonderful! Nobody here is saying that there the only treatments possible are the ones already in our tool kit. What we are trying to say is that it is foolish to advocate something that has absolutely NO empirical standing. Medicine always has room for innovation and I know that most people here would advocate the use of cannabinoids if they played a significant role in the treatment of cancer. We are clearly saying the science isn’t there and that it is highly ignorant to replace proven methods (no matter how flawed) with shit that has no basis in reality.

    You are dogmatic (and hence, fucking foolish) in that every argument you have made has been a presupposition. No matter how much you love the sweet, sweet sensi, it isn’t a fucking miracle. That hard to grasp?

  179. says

    A friend thoughtfully provided this:
    The following text is taken directly from the US government’s National Cancer Institute website: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

    * ANTI-TUMOR EFFECTS

    One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo. In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.

    Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.

    In an in vivo model using severe combined immunodeficient mice, subcutaneous tumors were generated by inoculating the animals with cells from human non-small cell lung carcinoma cell lines. Tumor growth was inhibited by 60% in THC-treated mice compared with vehicle-treated control mice. Tumor specimens revealed that THC had antiangiogenic and antiproliferative effects.

  180. NateHevens says

    curtiscreek at #221 said:

    A friend thoughtfully provided this:
    The following text is taken directly from the US government’s National Cancer Institute website: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

    * ANTI-TUMOR EFFECTS

    One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo. In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.

    Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.

    In an in vivo model using severe combined immunodeficient mice, subcutaneous tumors were generated by inoculating the animals with cells from human non-small cell lung carcinoma cell lines. Tumor growth was inhibited by 60% in THC-treated mice compared with vehicle-treated control mice. Tumor specimens revealed that THC had antiangiogenic and antiproliferative effects.

    Yeah. I posted a link to their page above. This does not, however, that cannabinoids will cure cancer in human beings. They conclusively killed cancer in a petri dish. They found similar effects in rats and mice. But not a single member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been tested yet, therefore it’s stupid to assume that cannabinoids will work on human beings. Please, at the very least, wait until tests on humans are done. You won’t get those tests in the States, of course (which I agree is absolutely pathetic), but places like Amsterdam and Israel will, most likely, do those tests in the future.

    And even if the initial testing phases give a strong positive, this proves nothing. The results must then be subject to peer review, because there’s always chance for mistakes and bias, and that has to be weeded, and the best method we have for weeding out such things is the independent peer review process. So it’s gonna take a number of years.

    Patience is a virtue. Don’t start selling stuff that only works in petri dishes. That’s snake oil.

  181. lofgren says

    This is in response to post #39, since that post was in response to me. Obviously the conversation has moved on since then but I like to talk about pot so…

    Stop doing it for a week, see what happens.

    The longest I have gone without smoking pot since I began at age 16 is exactly one year. (I got busted and had to go through random drug testing for one year.) There have been many gaps of days, weeks, or several months since then. Even now I only smoke when there are not other things going on that demand a sober mind, which means I typically smoke at night after 9 pm. So I am still sober most of the time.

    Physical withdrawal symptoms are nearly nonexistent, but that didn’t stop them from wanting to chew their own nails off because reality was all clear again.

    I definitely have withdrawal symptoms. For about 24 hours after I stop, I am constipated and have no appetite. I get headaches, and I am very sensitive to criticism. Those effects are gone by the time I wake up the next day.

    I wouldn’t call reality “clear” without pot, but I have no problem saying that I prefer the world while high. When I smoke regularly I don’t sweat the small stuff. When I don’t, going to the store is a challenge. Putting on clean clothes, matching my outfit, tying my shoes, driving, getting the right brands at the right pricepoint all seem to go wrong and every single one stresses me out. I agonize over every detail and they always seem to come out wrong anyway. I get immensely frustrated if I have to do anything again. Spilling toothpaste on a clean shirt is enough to make me give up and just eat saltines for dinner rather than go out. Work is the worst. Every jot and tittle has to be just right before I can move onto the next sentence. I have spent a whole day trying to decide whether or not to use “his” or “their” for a gender-neutral pronoun. I can’t type anything until the font and the text color are just right. This is not the result of my pot smoking. This is me when I don’t smoke pot.

    Just don’t smoke it near me, that shit reeks.

    I consider these kinds of restrictions totally fair, even though I support legalization. Back when I was a cigarette smoker, I also supported smoking bans for public buildings. I don’t mind stepping outside for a smoke, and it doesn’t seem fair that other people should have their air fouled just because I want to have one. I do think that these restrictions can go too far, but in general they are good things. For pot, reasonable restrictions seem to me to be in your own home, outdoors, or specific businesses intended specifically for that purpose. Or basically the same restrictions we have now for cigarettes.

Trackbacks