Cannabis Cures Cancer

[CaveatLector]

 

How much Chemo increase five-year survive?

What does that even mean? Clearly you nothing about chemo or cancer to ask that question.

 

Survival rates are dependent upon a number of factors. Those include stage of the cancer and its type and the type of treatments chosen to combat the cancer. Some cancers respond well to chemo when caught at early stages. Certain blood cancers, colon cancers, skin cancers, and others are considered curable when caught early enough. That means catching the cancer before it spreads (metastasizes). Once a cancer spreads your survival rate drops precipitously. Many cancers, nonetheless, respond well to chemo drugs. Others not so much. That is why it is important to catch and treat cancer before it spreads.

 

If you have skin cancer and think you are going to self treat with topical oil then you are completely ignoring the fact that it could already be in the bloodstream and spreading elsewhere. While you may watch a lesion shrink the cancer, it could be taking up residence in your bones. Treating someone based on only what you can see with the naked eye is somewhat akin to looking at a car accident victim and, because they look fine to the naked eye, assuming they don't have a fractured spine or other internal injuries. It is sheer folly and dangerous.

 

Marijuana could very well help prevent or somewhat cure certain cancers. However, olive oil, coffee, and 1000 other things (Mediterranean diet) may also as well. Many things tend to show signs of helping to stave off cancers. I am not saying marijuana cannot treat cancer. I am saying it is reckless to try and convince others that it should be considered as a first line treatment. Conventional medications should be used FIRST. If the docs throw everything at the cancer and nothing seems to work then, by all means, drink essiac tea, load up on cannabis, seek out hyperthermia treatments, and investigate clinical trials. Or, if as a fully informed consumer, you should decide to forego traditional treatment then so be it. But trying to convince others that there is this non-toxic cure that will work is dangerous, reckless, thoughtless, self-serving, and just plain wrong.

Edited February 26, 2013 by CaveatLector

[peanutbutter]

Furthermore, even if cannabis works for one cancer doesn't mean it works for another. Chemo drugs are generally cancer specifically targeted. They don't work on ALL cancers they work on specific cancers depending on the chemo drug. Suggesting that cannabis should be used to cure ALL cancer is reckless. It is also reckless to suggest that just because a tumor shrinks then a person becomes "cancer free."

 

It gets even better ..

 

CBD or THC? How much of each? For which cancers?

 

Tumors shrinking is a good thing. So a question is Which cancers shrink and which don't?

 

I don't remember any cancers that didn't shrink. But that's what I remember.

 

MD Anderson in TX has a method they have come up with. They culture a cancer harvested from a specific patient. Then they try several chemos to determine which one is the most likely to be the best for that specific patient.

 

I would like to see the same done with various cannabinoid ratios. Perhaps even determining the exact strain to use.

 

I think that I have a basic idea of the complexities of the beast. Can we refine? Sure .. I'd like to see a 100% success rate. Are we there yet? No .. not yet.

[CaveatLector]

MD Anderson will also take you on as a bone marrow transplant patient for a clinical trial to try and cure your non-blood-related cancer (such as breast cancer). Many docs call that reckless. MD Anderson is a premiere cancer research facility. But even there some docs are cowboys trying to make a name for themselves. I personally spoke with the doc in charge of that bone marrow clinical trial. He painted it as the best thing since sliced bread. Then I spoke with Dr Hayes from the UofM. He told a different story. Read this:

http://www.nejm.org/.../NEJMbkrev58584

 

Pay particular attention to Dr. Hayes' quote:

 

False Hope echoes the histories of other compelling therapies, such as radical mastectomy, coronary-artery bypass grafting, and estrogen-replacement therapy, that appeared too good not to be true yet did not stand up to the test of controlled clinical trials.

 

 

See that line? Therapies that, " . . .appeared too good to NOT be true yet did NOT stand up to the test of CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS."

 

Repeat that line to yourself 100 times per day for the next 10 days peanut. Then maybe you'll wake up.

Edited February 26, 2013 by CaveatLector

[GregS]

You can't teach it to the general population because it takes a natural knack. Some of us are born to sort out the BS using what we know as fact. The world can seem totally full of BS to us. We probably seem cold and calculating to those that don't share the natural tendancy. Keep up the good work. Without us the world would be much fuller with doo doo. lol

 

Funny that.

[mibrains]

Dr Bob is a good place to start when asking that question but I think most such research is conducted by scientists holding PhDs in biochem, etc.

 

Wild Bill's suggestion is a good idea. Would be nice if there were some collaboration between some here whom would like to help with this and maybe some scientists willing to do the research design, etc. I think the biggest problem is overcoming federal hurdles. Of course conforming with the standard of care in regard to treatment can be an issue as well. Most clinical trials (if not all) tend to be offered to patients for whom accepted treatments have not worked. So they are last ditch efforts. I would think that medical ethics would require that traditional treatments be utilized first before a clinical trial of an unproven medicine.

 

i am in.

 

i would be willing to help in any capacity that i am able.

[peanutbutter]

False Hope echoes the histories of other compelling therapies, such as radical mastectomy, coronary-artery bypass grafting, and estrogen-replacement therapy, that appeared too good not to be true yet did not stand up to the test of controlled clinical trials.

 

I think you have taken this "false hope" thing to an extreme.

 

Currently you classify anything "unproven" as false.

 

And you define unproven as anything not up to the standards of an FDA approval.

 

So say something isn't proven on 1/1/2013. Then it is approved by the FDA on 2/1/2013. It seems that the thing was "false hope" for the month of Jan of 2013.

 

The government doesn't enhance science. It tends to degrade it.

 

In this case we are talking about regulated science. Which has led to "there is no accepted medical use for marijuana within the United States." A scientific method that results in a complete lie.

 

Your standard produces false results.

Edited February 27, 2013 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

People go into remission every day. People are given 6 months to live and they live longer, a lot longer. They are not all trying to use cannabis to help them. So you can't say that every survivor that happens to have tried cannabis has been cured by cannabis. That's the simple truth that peanutbutter can't be let philibuster away. All doctors know this so when it's ignored we just look like ignorant people that are grasping at straws.

[peanutbutter]

Are you not understanding what the book referenced is saying? Or are you arguing against it?

 

The logic only covers half of the potential outcomes.

 

That would be promoting something that is later proven to be in error.

 

The other side is that something that functions but has not yet been proven to everyones sanctification. This part is still a "false hope" to many people.

 

I could say that the sky is blue. Someone else could say "that hasn't been approved yet, so that is a false statement." The approval doesn't change the truth.

 

On the flip side of the coin .. how many deadly drugs has the FDA claimed to be safe? Isn't that false hope?

Edited February 27, 2013 by peanutbutter

[GregS]

Speaking of MD Anderson, has anyone else read Steven Brill's exhaustive reporting on health care costs that is the cover story in last week's Time Magazine? It is a magnificent piece of journalism.

[CaveatLector]

Speaking of MD Anderson, has anyone else read Steven Brill's exhaustive reporting on health care costs that is the cover story in last week's Time Magazine? It is a magnificent piece of journalism.

No, but I shall. Thanks for the heads up.

[jointedone]

All RXS are poison. You must weigh the benefits against the side effects. Any chemo pt knows that the treatment seems worse than the disease.

[GregS]

There are kraazy people all over on the internets.

[MightyMightyMezz]

What does that even mean? Clearly you nothing about chemo or cancer to ask that question.

 

 

 

 

 

Nnnnghhh...

 

http://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/contribution-of-chemotherapy-to-five-year-survival-rate-morgan.pdf

[CaveatLector]

 

 

 

How much Chemo increase five-year survive?

Nnnnghhh...

 

http://www.burtongol...rate-morgan.pdf

That study is useless to help a particular patient. That study, first, is based on data collected beginning in 1990 through 2004. A decade makes a huge difference in the development of cancer treating drugs. Things are a lot different since 1990. Secondly, this study shows a total aggregate result for all cancers examined that were treated with cytotoxic chemo. In other words, cancers that respond well to cytotoxic chemo are lumped in with cancers that do not respond well at all. Furthermore, the study only presents results from clinical trials. It isn't presenting a percentage of effectiveness of cytotoxic chemo for all patients undergoing such chemo. It is presenting the effectiveness of patients undergoing chemo during a clinical trial. That means either new cytotoxic drugs or patients who failed at other chemotherapies now undergoing different combos of cytotoxics in a clinical trial. So basically what you have is a bunch of people whose cancer was not controlled with first line treatments (other cytotoxins) so they go into a clinical trial as a last ditch effort. So, of those people x % responded well. So what's your point? Did you even bother to read that study?

[CaveatLector]

I would add that there is no valid answer to, "how much chemo increases a 5 year survival rate?" Different cancers respond differently to different chemo treatments. You cannot aggregate the result and then tell a patient with x cancer that their "overall" chances of a 5 year survival rate are y percent. Survival rate depends on the type of cancer, the age of the patient, the type of treatment, and a bunch of other factors.

[Herb Cannabis]

All RXS are poison. You must weigh the benefits against the side effects. Any chemo pt knows that the treatment seems worse than the disease.

 

The treatment is worse than the disease. I wonder how much longer I would live without those poisons than I would with.

[MightyMightyMezz]

I would add that there is no valid answer to, "how much chemo increases a 5 year survival rate?" Different cancers respond differently to different chemo treatments. You cannot aggregate the result and then tell a patient with x cancer that their "overall" chances of a 5 year survival rate are y percent. Survival rate depends on the type of cancer, the age of the patient, the type of treatment, and a bunch of other factors.

 

Still the same old Resto - semantic nitpicking to back up an arrogant attack. The question is how much does chemotherapy contribute to five-year survival of 22 malignancies. The finding was about 2.1 percent in the USA. In 1986 Kearsley asked the same question and estimated that the "contribution of chemotherapy to overall survival in the USA was 4.3%." You not only don't know what you are talking about but you are belligerent about it.

[CaveatLector]

Still the same old Resto - semantic nitpicking to back up an arrogant attack. The question is how much does chemotherapy contribute to five-year survival of 22 malignancies. The finding was about 2.1 percent in the USA. In 1986 Kearsley asked the same question and estimated that the "contribution of chemotherapy to overall survival in the USA was 4.3%." You not only don't know what you are talking about but you are belligerent about it.

Again, you are WRONG. That was 22 malignancies that failed first line treatments already. In other words they already went through chemo and chemo failed. Then they participated in a clinical trial to try a different chemo. After clinical trial treatments the 5 year survival rate was 2.1 %. You didn't even read that study did you? Either that or you don't understand it. It isn't dumbed down so maybe you just didn't understand what you were reading. That study doesn't include patients who underwent first line chemo treatments successfully! Do you get that? In other words it took the people for whom chemo FAILED who subsequently entered clinical trials to try a different treatment. In other words, 2.1% of the people for whom the standard chemo failed were able to go on to a clinical trial chemo treatment and continue to 5 years cancer free.

 

Maybe you were just tired when you read the article.

 

Overall aggregated 5 year survival rates after first line chemo treatments in the US is somewhere around 50%. That's overall. Some cancers respond phenomenally to chemo, others (like pancreatic cancer) not so much.

[MightyMightyMezz]

Again, you are WRONG. That was 22 malignancies that failed first line treatments already. In other words they already went through chemo and chemo failed. Then they participated in a clinical trial to try a different chemo. After clinical trial treatments the 5 year survival rate was 2.1 %. You didn't even read that study did you? Either that or you don't understand it. It isn't dumbed down so maybe you just didn't understand what you were reading. That study doesn't include patients who underwent first line chemo treatments successfully! Do you get that? In other words it took the people for whom chemo FAILED who subsequently entered clinical trials to try a different treatment. In other words, 2.1% of the people for whom the standard chemo failed were able to go on to a clinical trial chemo treatment and continue to 5 years cancer free.

 

Maybe you were just tired when you read the article.

 

Overall aggregated 5 year survival rates after first line chemo treatments in the US is somewhere around 50%. That's overall. Some cancers respond phenomenally to chemo, others (like pancreatic cancer) not so much.

 

 

My apologies to Resto. How do you figure, Caveat Lector? Looks like it's you who is wrong wrong wrong.

 

We undertook a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies.

Edited February 28, 2013 by MightyMightyMezz

[Restorium2]

My apologies to Resto. How do you figure, Caveat Lector?

This isn't the first time you have done it or I would accept it.

[CaveatLector]

How do I FIGURE? SERIOUSLY? Like I said, you don't understand what you are reading. So stop trying to interpret the results.

 

"We undertook a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies."

 

Do you know what a clinical trial is?????? A clinical trial is an experiment to see if a new drug will work!!! A patient isn't put into a clinical trial (experiment) without FIRST undergoing FIRST LINE TREATMENT! In other words the patient first undergoes the standard of care treatment!!! Anything else is against medical ethics and probably the law. So they went through their FIRST LINE chemo treatment and it failed and were THEN accepted into a clinical trial. Understand it yet? The results you are pushing are results for cytotoxic drugs that were given on an experimental basis to patients who DIDN'T respond to the first line chemo drugs. NO clinical trial would accpet a patient that doesn't first undergo the standard of care treatment.

[MightyMightyMezz]

This isn't the first time you have done it or I would accept it.

 

Alright, I take it back anyway. You both think you understand science but you don't and you both are belligerent about it. I put Dr. Bob in the same category.

[CaveatLector]

Here mezz, take a look at this. The 5 year survival rate, for all cancers combined, in the US in 2007 was 68%. Now, granted some cancers are not treated with chemo so if you took those out of the result it would be lower than 68%. But it sure as heck isn't 3%.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Freport.nih.gov%2Fnihfactsheets%2Fviewfactsheet.aspx%3Fcsid%3D75&ei=EY0vUcmqLca32wWXk4HQAg&usg=AFQjCNEEEE-u28mEnmQUVlOyl0jj4bZIew&sig2=gpnAqGWQNp_XSSMCvaQtVQ

[CaveatLector]

Alright, I take it back anyway. You both think you understand science but you don't and you both are belligerent about it. I put Dr. Bob in the same category.

NO, I DON'T understand science. But I DO understand ENGLISH. And that article is written in English. Apparently you think you understand English? I am not pushing any "science" concept I am telling you what the English meant. I have a rudimentary understanding of science which is apparently much more than you have.

 

Again, so you understand, I don't claim to know the science behind any of this. But I can read a scholarly paper and understand what it is telling us. Doesn't take science to do that . . .

[Restorium2]

Alright, I take it back anyway. You both think you understand science but you don't and you both are belligerent about it. I put Dr. Bob in the same category.

Last time you apologized and took it back. To be expected. You just want to insult and be hateful.