Skin Cancer Pictures

[bumrush]

Calling and telling all my patients and clients about this now....

and P2P is LEGAL!!!!

The COA has shown that it is corrupt and for sale to the highest bidder.

This is due to our electing judges from political parties and in Mi. the charade is that judges are "non-partisan" and we all know that is a lie.

Time to end all government lies

or end the current government......by any means they require...

Edited September 2, 2011 by bumrush

[mrd]

Dammit Jim, I can't go to warp speed without the friggin pictures!

 

Otherwise why the hell take your claims seriously? People can say anything and do. but proof carries weight.

 

For an example: "I can randomly cure .0005 percent of the people who just got diagnosed with cancer. I cannot tell you which ones but because I look at them they are cured!

 

Yes just by looking at them! Well I might be lying, on the other hand the rate of spontaneous remission is higher than the number I gave, so who is going to disprove it? So my statement if not untruthful is at least unprovable.

Edited September 5, 2011 by mrd

[peanutbutter]

Dammit Jim, I can't go to warp speed without the friggin pictures!

 

Otherwise why the hell take your claims seriously? People can say anything and do. but proof carries weight.

 

For an example: "I can randomly cure .0005 percent of the people who just got diagnosed with cancer. I cannot tell you which ones but because I look at them they are cured!

 

Yes just by looking at them! Well I might be lying, on the other hand the rate of spontaneous remission is higher than the number I gave, so who is going to disprove it? So my statement if not untruthful is at least unprovable.

 

Spock!! What an emotional response !!

 

I guess the single patient wouldn't be good enough for you. And the doctor talking about it. His own dermatologist.

 

So if his doctors word isn't good enough, nothing will be for you.

 

I still haven't gotten the pictures yet.

 

FWIW .. Red Dog was in front of President Obama today in Detroit.

[mrd]

No talk is cheap. ITs why talk does not count in the scientific method. You are bullshitting. Try talking with proof in hand, then talk counts.

[peanutbutter]

No talk is cheap. ITs why talk does not count in the scientific method. You are bullshitting. Try talking with proof in hand, then talk counts.

 

And doctors statements don't count. Right?

 

And pictures can be tweaked.

 

And then there's spontaneous remission. So even if the cancer did, in fact, go away it doesn't count.

 

Sorry .. been down that path several times.

 

If the doctors statement isn't enough then nothing will be.

[peanutbutter]

[peanutbutter]

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/09/13/skin-cancer-patient-says-medical-marijuana-oil-saved-him-from-surgery/#photo-1

 

DETROIT (WWJ) - There are no longer any visible signs of the skin cancer on the forehead of Ferndale’s Michael McShane. McShane had a check-up with his dermatologist and says Dr. Ali Mooin is no longer recommending surgery to treat the lesion.

 

That’s the update to a story that WWJ’s Sandra McNeill reported last month. When McNeill spoke with Michael McShane in August, he claimed he had been using a topical oil made from medical marijuana on the skin cancer on his forehead and in just over two months it was nearly gone.

 

McShane says he’d recommend the treatment to anyone.

 

“It was absolutely painless, it caused no euphoric effect or high at all, it was just something that I did twice a day, and it went away, the cancer went away,” said McShane.

 

Dr. Mooin will no longer speak with WWJ. Last month, he said he’d pursue surgery if the cancer was not gone. McShane says surgery was not on the table today.

[wingnut]

http://detroit.cbslo...urgery/#photo-1

 

DETROIT (WWJ) - There are no longer any visible signs of the skin cancer on the forehead of Ferndale’s Michael McShane. McShane had a check-up with his dermatologist and says Dr. Ali Mooin is no longer recommending surgery to treat the lesion.

 

That’s the update to a story that WWJ’s Sandra McNeill reported last month. When McNeill spoke with Michael McShane in August, he claimed he had been using a topical oil made from medical marijuana on the skin cancer on his forehead and in just over two months it was nearly gone.

 

McShane says he’d recommend the treatment to anyone.

 

“It was absolutely painless, it caused no euphoric effect or high at all, it was just something that I did twice a day, and it went away, the cancer went away,” said McShane.

 

Dr. Mooin will no longer speak with WWJ. Last month, he said he’d pursue surgery if the cancer was not gone. McShane says surgery was not on the table today.

 

 

Great news for Michael. Pb ,thanks for all you do.:thumbsu:

[mrd]

That seems to be an improvement. I would like Dr. Bobs take on it since I am a layman. I do not know if the cancer is completely gone but anything that brings things down to a level where surgery is no longer needed would be something that I view as very positive making it at least worthy of further investigation.

[peanutbutter]

That seems to be an improvement. I would like Dr. Bobs take on it since I am a layman. I do not know if the cancer is completely gone but anything that brings things down to a level where surgery is no longer needed would be something that I view as very positive making it at least worthy of further investigation.

 

Rick Thompson of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Magazine was in the exam room. His story should be good.

[ScrogBubbles]

:goodjob: :goodjob:

 

 

(PB)--><--(Big Pharma)

 

Thanks for your fight for a cure. Your real life proof right here in Michigan will surely help many. Give the public so much proof that our enemies will look like fools every time they try to demonize our medicine.

Edited September 14, 2011 by ScrogBubbles

[peanutbutter]

:goodjob: :goodjob:

 

 

(PB)--><--(Big Pharma)

 

Thanks for your fight for a cure. Your real life proof right here in Michigan will surely help many. Give the public so much proof that our enemies will look like fools every time they try to demonize our medicine.

 

They claim the moral high ground when they keep cannabis illegal.

 

Time to take the moral high ground away from them.

 

"Your morality requires me to keep my cancer."

[bumrush]

Will this ever be a headline in the USA?

 

CANNABIS CURES CANCER

[mrd]

Next where are the biopsies? The patient can release them with the names redacted.

[bumrush]

Next where are the biopsies? The patient can release them with the names redacted.

 

Does MrD stand for Mr Doubter?

CANNABIS CURES AND PB LEADS

[mrd]

Actually you are right I am purposely being the devils advocate. Unless we present scientifically accepted proof we are just going to be lumped in with those who recommend healing with crystals.

 

An opinion should be stated as an opinion. But proof is the bottom line. I have no skin in the game and as I said before I actually think that anything that is an effective treatment for cancer is welcome. The last thing we need is for people with a virulent cancer depending on a single person's non scientific opinion and forgoing other treatment that might be effective against their cancer. Even when a doctor thinks something, it still requires proof. This is not unusual. I did say that the photograph suggests that it might be worth looking into further. Which for me is an approval of efforts made.

[kirsten]

I lost one of my best friends to skin cancer. Just wish we had this a few yrs ago. He might still be alive.

[peanutbutter]

Actually you are right I am purposely being the devils advocate. Unless we present scientifically accepted proof we are just going to be lumped in with those who recommend healing with crystals.

 

An opinion should be stated as an opinion. But proof is the bottom line. I have no skin in the game and as I said before I actually think that anything that is an effective treatment for cancer is welcome. The last thing we need is for people with a virulent cancer depending on a single person's non scientific opinion and forgoing other treatment that might be effective against their cancer. Even when a doctor thinks something, it still requires proof. This is not unusual. I did say that the photograph suggests that it might be worth looking into further. Which for me is an approval of efforts made.

 

This is the doctors opinion after observing the patient for over twenty five years.

 

There has been all the biopsies and everything else done by the same medical center. The patient underwent several surgeries over the years. This is the return of an existing cancer.

 

The patient also had several reconstructive surgeries to cover the damage of the cancer surgeries.

[mrd]

Getting closer, you need to convince a skeptical professional who is qualified to give an opinion. Then if it is a go it would be time to try to figure out how to find someone or a group to run a larger experiment on people with similar maladies. That would likely be tough. I have no idea how you could get enough raw materials from our gov. to do anything worthwhile and they also would likely be none to cooperative unless you got monied pockets to lean on those who might change things. So that leaves foreign countries that might be more amenable to that kind of things. There is also the question of would it be better or not to use other strains or a combination of such and of course what is the active ingredient and how does it work. The how does it work is not mandated but it would be of great interest. It is a pain in the butt. There are also commercial questions to be asked. There's always something.....

 

This is aside from any small scale experiments you might do. There are many ethical questions you might want to consider. Especially with those who are very ill, or who have given up hope. This kind of thing happened in the past when researchers such as Fleming with penicillin did not have enough of the drug and a man who healed up really nice relapsed and died. I have no idea if what your doing is or is not going to be effective but you really cannot avoid this area which is a subject of many discussions over the years.

[peanutbutter]

Getting closer, you need to convince a skeptical professional who is qualified to give an opinion. Then if it is a go it would be time to try to figure out how to find someone or a group to run a larger experiment on people with similar maladies. That would likely be tough. I have no idea how you could get enough raw materials from our gov. to do anything worthwhile and they also would likely be none to cooperative unless you got monied pockets to lean on those who might change things. So that leaves foreign countries that might be more amenable to that kind of things. There is also the question of would it be better or not to use other strains or a combination of such and of course what is the active ingredient and how does it work. The how does it work is not mandated but it would be of great interest. It is a pain in the butt. There are also commercial questions to be asked. There's always something.....

 

This is aside from any small scale experiments you might do. There are many ethical questions you might want to consider. Especially with those who are very ill, or who have given up hope. This kind of thing happened in the past when researchers such as Fleming with penicillin did not have enough of the drug and a man who healed up really nice relapsed and died. I have no idea if what your doing is or is not going to be effective but you really cannot avoid this area which is a subject of many discussions over the years.

 

There are a LOT of unanswered questions.

 

I won't even begin to address where the shortages in knowledge of the medical profession when it comes to cannabis.

 

Ethical questions are difficult indeed. Sometimes I dread answering my phone. I have no idea where supplies will come from and while I wonder another patient calls. They are terminal and I have no idea how to help them.

 

Another ethical question .. do I demand the patient go through everything else before they try a cannabis solution? Usually people that are asking for help are those the doctors admit they can't save. These patients have had massive amounts of poisons fed to them. So do I urge the medical profession try to kill them before I help them???

 

Lots of such questions.

 

Including .. should the patient try a topical oil before or after they cut the patient?

[bumrush]

This is good People's Science GET USED TO IT

CANNABIS CURES

[mrd]

Bumrush you seem to have misunderstood. the purpose of a Devils Advocate is to take the other side. It is to force a refinement of thinking and perhaps action in the process. It makes no difference to me that I am not a cheering squad. You want it to work so you have a problem with anyone who is critical. I want it to work, so I am critical. My way is better for if the experimenter ie PB provides proof using the scientific method then it is likely A. To really work

B. Have a chance of getting to many people and making a big change.

 

If I didn't want it to work I would not bother.

[peanutbutter]

Bumrush you seem to have misunderstood. the purpose of a Devils Advocate is to take the other side. It is to force a refinement of thinking and perhaps action in the process. It makes no difference to me that I am not a cheering squad. You want it to work so you have a problem with anyone who is critical. I want it to work, so I am critical. My way is better for if the experimenter ie PB provides proof using the scientific method then it is likely A. To really work

B. Have a chance of getting to many people and making a big change.

 

If I didn't want it to work I would not bother.

 

Thank you for your efforts.

 

You've stated that you are not a doctor.

 

Doctors have already examined the records and patient.

 

I believe their opinion is the one that counts.

[mrd]

My opinion is on the quality of evidence. Not on whether what you are presenting works or not. Repeating what a doctor said is not evidence. It is hearsay. Direct affirm able quotes are better. Quotes with evidence that meets the bar of accepted medical evidence is better still. You have just started to present information that shows your approach might be worth investigating. Sorry but it is a hard path. I do not know how many times I have read of situations where drug companies have spent hundreds of millions on testing a drug or treatment then in secondary or tertiary phases it falls apart for ineffectiveness or deleterious side effects. It all starts with people who have found something interesting then other in the medical pharma area decide to spend Major money based on the weight of what was presented and still it can turn out wrong. You might or might not be on the right path but the path is a long one.

 

As I mentioned much earlier I found a few drops of oil on a sprained tendon was more effective than steroids that were prescribed for the ailment. But that proves that

 

I can type since everything on the internet is true.

 

and that one person had a good experience (assuming I am telling the whole and the complete truth) but we know very little about what actually happened outside of my advocacy.

 

Well my sprained tendon although it was painful is not a big deal compared to cancer. So if I use the oil and it fails I am left uncomfortable and limping. I screw up with cancer and the dammed disease will likely spread and might kill me. So being a hard donkey about evidence seems to be warranted.

 

Also being a hard donkey about evidence does not mean I am saying the treatment does not work it means that I think further substantiation is needed. Also remember I want this to work but if you want to enter the modern medical arena you are playing with the big boys. You wanna make medical claims you gotta provide levels of proof that are rigorous.

 

Or as I mentioned earlier you have to have something so friggin over the top effective that it is totally undeniable. It has to be undeniable to the doubters.

 

Anyone here remember the idea of safe nuclear power? That there were fail safes that would prevent a disaster? did they have the best minds working on that? Did they spend enough money? Did they have any problems? Not the same situation but you can see that even in that highly researched area there have been substantial problems. Even with the best intentions there can be problems. i suggest being rigorous in words, action and design.

[peanutbutter]

My opinion is on the quality of evidence. Not on whether what you are presenting works or not. Repeating what a doctor said is not evidence. It is hearsay. Direct affirm able quotes are better. Quotes with evidence that meets the bar of accepted medical evidence is better still. You have just started to present information that shows your approach might be worth investigating. Sorry but it is a hard path. I do not know how many times I have read of situations where drug companies have spent hundreds of millions on testing a drug or treatment then in secondary or tertiary phases it falls apart for ineffectiveness or deleterious side effects. It all starts with people who have found something interesting then other in the medical pharma area decide to spend Major money based on the weight of what was presented and still it can turn out wrong. You might or might not be on the right path but the path is a long one.

 

As I mentioned much earlier I found a few drops of oil on a sprained tendon was more effective than steroids that were prescribed for the ailment. But that proves that

 

I can type since everything on the internet is true.

 

and that one person had a good experience (assuming I am telling the whole and the complete truth) but we know very little about what actually happened outside of my advocacy.

 

Well my sprained tendon although it was painful is not a big deal compared to cancer. So if I use the oil and it fails I am left uncomfortable and limping. I screw up with cancer and the dammed disease will likely spread and might kill me. So being a hard donkey about evidence seems to be warranted.

 

Also being a hard donkey about evidence does not mean I am saying the treatment does not work it means that I think further substantiation is needed. Also remember I want this to work but if you want to enter the modern medical arena you are playing with the big boys. You wanna make medical claims you gotta provide levels of proof that are rigorous.

 

Or as I mentioned earlier you have to have something so friggin over the top effective that it is totally undeniable. It has to be undeniable to the doubters.

 

Anyone here remember the idea of safe nuclear power? That there were fail safes that would prevent a disaster? did they have the best minds working on that? Did they spend enough money? Did they have any problems? Not the same situation but you can see that even in that highly researched area there have been substantial problems. Even with the best intentions there can be problems. i suggest being rigorous in words, action and design.

 

What are your qualifications to judge?

 

You saw how long it took me to get that picture posted. I still don't have a copy of it myself.

 

His own doctors, specialists, have confirmed everything. They have provided care for this patient for twenty five years.

 

You seem to be saying they don't count. Their publicly stated opinion is of less value that what I might say or your judgement?

 

You're being silly.