Jump to content

washtenaut

+Authors
  • Content Count

    1,513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

About washtenaut

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. A bit of new information in this June 2019 update on Dr Meiri's work https://www.getthedose.com/blog/can-cannabis-cure-cancer
  2. So Resto, some of the people using your one-size-fits-all cannabis extract to treat their cancer died? I am sorry. That is very painful. You may want to consider that a different cannabis extract, one with the exact compounds known to kill that tumor type, could have saved that patient. Just for an exercise, consider the possibility that you don't know all that there is to know about cannabinoids. Of course the oil provider wasn't to blame for these past deaths. The caregiver likely did the best they could with the knowledge available at the time. If however, Dr Meiri's database can now tell us exactly the necessary compounds to kill the cancer, and oil providers ignore that information, then they will share responsibility for subsequent deaths. The database is not there yet but building it will be a fantastic development for cannabis based medicines.
  3. Wait.....you do know that I, Washtenaut, wrote the original post in this thread, right? I described Dr Meiri's research, using 'cannabis extract' and 'RSO' interchangeably in my post. I did not quote Dr Meiri nor did Dr Meiri write the original post. I did. I don't think in the videos that I linked that Dr Meiri ever says RSO. He refers to it as 'cannabis extract'. Point it out please if I am incorrect on that. I did not hear it. Someone would have to be a special kind of stupid to ignore new research because Washtenaut used the term RSO in describing the research.
  4. Well, it is easy for me to see why you have not seen evidence to refute your personal extract theory. You are blind to the evidence that I just presented so likely also to the evidence others have shown you. Have you ever had a cancer patient using cannabis extracts not respond or worse, pass away? If so, perhaps your one-size-fits-all extract did not contain the proper combination of compounds to overtake the cancer. You can smugly claim that nothing would have helped the now deceased person but do you know that? There is no way you know that...to save us time. I have buried 2 people close to me in the last year that were taking cannabis extract oil to treat their cancer. In a sense I feel I have failed them but all along I knew the oil worked for some and not for others. If Meiri's research can better pinpoint the effective compounds and thus strains/extracts then I am all for it. I really hate funerals. You go on thinking you know enough Resto even if you don't. Someday you may grasp the importance of Meiri's research
  5. Resto, if you could get past the RSO name, I think perhaps you could better grasp the significance of Meiri's research. In fact at this moment, I can only recall Meiri calling it 'cannabis extract' in the videos and not really calling it RSO, but I am not re-watching the videos again to be certain. Probably over a million people refer to it as RSO, so if Meiri does use the term it would seem reasonable, even if it is less accurate than you would personally like. Use of the term certainly does not diminish his research efforts Recall he is in Israel not the US. The standardization of strains, as least those provided by the Israeli government, are consistent. These are not simply patient reported strain names. These are the strains provided by the Israeli government, not the same strain provided by any one of hundreds of different dispensaries, as in the US. The compilation of these data bases is an ongoing effort. I didn't mean to imply it was done. The Identification of ALL compounds in a given Israeli strain and the strain consistency there are unique to Meiri's (Israeli) research. The cross referencing of the effective and ineffective strains against a given malady will one day result in the discovery of the exact component compounds that are the ones responsible for the medical result. A medicine comprised likely of only those compounds will then go to human trial. Different medicines will be developed for different cancer types - Med A for liver cancer, Med B for lung cancer, Med C for prostate cancer, etc. The goal is not to find a one size fits all medicine, like RSO, that may contain 150 non-essential compounds. The goal is to home in on the effective compounds for each illness where cannabis shows signs of effectiveness. Like the example I mentioned, if THC is not an effective component in treating liver cancer, the cannabis medicine that will be put into clinical trials eventually for liver cancer will have no THC. Over time, as the database becomes more robust, we will learn the effective compounds against each illness. We can then treat with those compounds exclusively, if they are available. In the interim, we will at least look to strains that have been identified to contain the necessary compounds.
  6. I don't agree with the bolded statements. I didn't think GW was identifying all compounds (all cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids), but only the 'major' ones. Maybe you could point me to some evidence of your assertions. I also thought GW's testing showed that different strains and thus (possibly) different cannabinoids were effective against different tumor types and ineffective against other tumor types. I think Meiri's work takes it significantly further. Pinpointing effective compounds or combinations of compounds advances the ball beyond identifying effective strains, imo.
  7. You seem to be missing the point....by several miles. Did you watch the videos? Your reply makes me wonder. It appears to be strain specific. Meiri explains that different strains are effective on different cancer types and completely ineffective on other cancer types. He is certain that there is no 'holy grail' strain to treat all cancer - that is his point. He is analyzing the effective strains to determine which cannabinoids (either individually or in combination with other compounds) are the ones that are effective against different types of cancer. That means that in the future, we may be able to kill cancers with specific cannabinoids. Today, RSO is hit or miss because we don't know the effective compounds in the fight so we don't know if that particular RSO will be effective. Also, today, cancer patients using cannabis oil often struggle to tolerate huge doses of THC. The effective compounds against the cancer may in many cases not require THC at all. Those patients would be able to better tolerate their medicine if the THC could be taken out. Not at all sure what you mean about 'done already with Sativex' either.
  8. RSO (Rick Simpson Oil or cannabis concentrate oil) has been shown to help some cancer patients reduce the size and/or number of their tumors. The web has hundreds if not thousands of patient testimonials claiming cannabis oil has helped them 'beat back' a wide variety of cancers. There are animal studies showing that cannabinoids can be effective in getting cancer cells to commit suicide (apoptosis) and in starving tumors of blood supply. It seems apparent that cannabinoids and the body's endo-cannabinoid system have a role in suppressing cancer development in healthy individuals and so a possible role in treating cancers in unhealthy individuals. Given that cannabinoids are very well tolerated and do not harm healthy cells, to me anyway, cannabis based medicines show great promise in this area. Unfortunately, I have also witnessed many cases where sadly the RSO had little anti-tumor impact and the patient passed away from their cancer. The question for a long time for those of us that have seen both outcomes has been, why? Why is it miraculous for some and all but useless to others? Dedi Meiri, an Israeli researcher, and his team are attempting to answer that question. His team is compiling two databases - one a cannabis strain DB and the other a cancer patient DB - and attempting to match the cannabis strains to the types of cancer it can impact. They are determining which strains of cannabis were effective against what types of cancers. His research group is also now able to breakdown the RSO into all of the plant's cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids - over 150 compounds. Once they determine effective strains against a given cancer, they cross reference to determine which of the 150 compounds within the strains were common. In other words, they are homing in on exactly which cannabinoid, or combination of cannabinoids/terpenes/flavonoids, are the effective components in the fight. Once determined, these compounds can be isolated, bred up, or synthesized to hopefully design an effective anti-cancer treatment. Instead of treating all tumor types with RSO, a much more targeted approach can be tried. The first video is sort of an informal talk but very informative. It is 7-8 minutes long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txywY2CyfKA&t=256s In the second video Dr Meiri talks about both cancer and autism. It is 18 minutes long https://youtube.com/watch?v=9ioJbVyNg08 
  9. Leafly is a website with lots of cannabis related information and articles. Spend some time exploring the site. There is a wealth of strain specific information there too. This article is chiefly about tailoring the effects of cannabis vaping by experimenting with different temperatures. Sounds like you do not yet have a device that allows you to vary temps but assuming you likely will soon, check out this link. Also, see the reader comments after the article for some other good tips. https://www.leafly.com/news/cannabis-101/how-to-customize-a-cannabis-high-with-temperature
  10. I don't think that article qualifies as fake or deceptive news...for adults. The picture was not fake. It was a real picture, just not from the date of the article. If it was the only thing at the link, then the title would be misleading or deceptive. If after following the link, seeing the picture, and then reading the article, you felt the Trump-Snoop picture was the overriding message, you are not sharp enough to be investing in the stock market. Save your money
  11. Here is the article that had the snoop picture. I, in fact, knew the picture was not current but felt an intelligent reader would do more than look at the picture. When I saw you point out the date of the photo, I almost replied but didn't feel it that important GIVEN THE FUKKING ARTICLE that accompanied the picture. Get a grip, you fool. Cannabis thought leaders’ are cautiously optimistic about Trump Daniel Roberts Yahoo Finance January 4, 2017 Donald Trump will be inaugurated this month, and a wide range of companies, from pharmaceuticals to health insurers to industrial manufacturers, are wondering what kind of impact the Trump administration will have on their business. In most cases, they have little to go on, since Trump has never held political office. And so they’re left to weigh scattered comments he has made on television and Twitter against his general policy views. After conducting that sort of analysis, a leading marijuana business publication believes there’s a good chance Trump will be friendly toward the tide of marijuana legalization, or at least not stand in its way. But the same cannot be said of Trump’s choice of attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions. Marijuana Business Daily surveyed 18 “cannabis thought leaders,” including consultants, CEOs, lobbyists, and three members of Congress, to get their take on what Trump will mean for weed. The conclusion of the new report is more positive than negative. “For the most part, experts all think we will see a continuation of some form of the status quo,” says Chris Walsh, editor of Marijuana Business Daily. “Maybe there will be some efforts to crack down here and there, but the consensus is that a widespread crackdown will be difficult. If Trump’s going to attack the marijuana industry—like the recreational side, or the new states that legalized—it’s going to be very difficult for him to do that. He’s going to have a very hard time unwinding all the time and money and effort that states have put into these programs.” Trump’s staff did not respond to a request for comment for this story. Four new states recently legalized recreational marijuana, bringing the total to 8 states and Washington, DC that have legalized recreational use. Twenty-nine states and Washington, DC have legalized medical marijuana. The size of the legal marijuana industry, by sales, is now estimated at $5 billion. Why Trump could be good for marijuana Trump is known to generally favor states’ rights over federal regulation, and cannabis has been a state-by-state issue. Trump’s public statements on marijuana legalization are scant, but at a campaign rally in October 2015, he said, “I think that should be a state issue, state-by-state.” He also told Fox News that year that he supports medical marijuana “100%.” This gives the medical marijuana community hope that Trump won’t interfere with the tide of progress. And support for medical marijuana among Americans is polling higher than 80% these days. Trump also campaigned on a platform of creating jobs, and the legalization of marijuana in many states—both medical and recreational—has done that. If Trump wants to be seen as a job creator, taking aim at the marijuana industry wouldn’t make much sense; better to help continue its growth or do nothing to stop it. Support for recreational marijuana is polling at around only 50%. “Does he want to wage a battle,” Walsh asks, “that will pit him against half the country?” He might. And Walsh acknowledges that negative perceptions about recreational marijuana still dominate. (The marijuana industry has even taken to calling it “adult-use” instead of “recreational” to avoid negative images.) “In his bubble, if Trump thinks this is a bunch of uneducated, pot-smoking hippies, who are running amok being stoned all the time—and people still hold that stereotype, unfortunately, even though it’s not true—if he believes that, then you could see him making a case in his own mind that the recreational side needs to be reined in,” Walsh says. Why Trump’s administration could be bad for marijuana Alabama senator Jeff Sessions actively opposes marijuana legalization. He famously once said, “Good people don’t smoke marijuana.” For people focused on marijuana legalization, Sessions is just about the worst possible attorney general pick. But what matters is how long of a leash Trump gives Sessions to set the tone. It’s the same unknown variable that those in the sports betting community are puzzling over. “It does seem like there are much bigger fish to fry” for both Trump and Sessions, reasons Walsh, “but Trump has shown time and time again that he will pick fights over things you would never dream of. Is he going to fire off a tweet at 3 in the morning about marijuana and set the industry on edge?” As it happens, Trump has tweeted about marijuana before, just once: he told television host Bill Maher to “cut back on the pot.” Of course, you can’t determine anything from a joking tweet, and some argue you can’t even determine much from the more serious comments Trump has made about marijuana. As Rep. Erl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) tells Marijuana Business Daily, “Anyone who takes Donald Trump literally and goes over everything he has said will just have a headache, because sometimes he contradicted himself within the same paragraph.” Banking, as it happens, also plays a role in the advancement of marijuana businesses. One of the biggest pain points for marijuana companies, even in states that have legalized and including marijuana-adjacent businesses that don’t touch the plant, has been the refusal of mainstream banks to grant them accounts. Even Marijuana Business Daily, a news publication, says it has faced that problem, because it has “marijuana” in its name. Trump or Sessions could alleviate or tighten these restrictions by telling Congress to exert pressure on banks. Although Trump would have a hard time clawing back progress that has already been made, some fear he could crack down on the four new states (California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada) that legalized recreational use in 2016, by curtailing their programs before they begin. “He could theoretically try to scare these new states into not moving forward or into delaying their programs until there’s clarification from the administration,” Walsh says. “Clarification that may never come.” On the positive side, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colo.), one of the “thought leaders” included in the new report, told Marijuana Business Daily last year that he is working on reintroducing a marijuana banking bill, and that a GOP colleague in the House is likely to sponsor it. Meanwhile, just this week, the state of California retained Eric Holder for a legal position where the former attorney general will be on call for any fight with Trump. California was an early leader in both medical and recreational marijuana, so marijuana insiders are buoyed by the news of Holder’s new role. In general, it’s all speculation until Trump takes office—and likely even beyond then. “The big problem right now is uncertainty, especially for these states that just passed it, like Nevada for recreational and Florida for medical,” says Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.), who is a member of the Cannabis Caucus. “There’s a lot of speculation among us about what’s going to happen, because like in every area, it’s so contradictory.” Even though there are many possibilities, Walsh, when pressed, bets that “leaving things in limbo for a while” is the most likely path Trump will take. For those who have fought for legalization progress, “limbo,” or the status quo, would be just fine. For added emphasis, a pro-legalization group plans to hand out joints at Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20.
  12. That article that had the snoop dog picture was dated Jan 4, 2017. This latest link that I provided does provide current news, smartass
  13. Hmmm, the date I see on the article is Jan 12, 2017
×
×
  • Create New...