Cannabis Cures Cancer

[MightyMightyMezz]

Chemo helps people survive cancer every day. Cannabis helps people survive chemo every day.

 

Why are you ignorant of the science of Cannabinoids?

 

Giving marijuana to mice with cancer shrank their lung tumors by half and slowed spread of the disease.

[Restorium2]

I personally know people who have had all the cannabinoids they could take and they still died of cancer. We need all the weapons in our arsenal to fight cancer. There's no silver bullet yet.

[MightyMightyMezz]

I personally know people who have had all the cannabinoids they could take and they still died of cancer. We need all the weapons in our arsenal to fight cancer. There's no silver bullet yet.

 

They ate high CBD oil? What kind of cancers?

[Restorium2]

They ate high CBD oil? What kind of cancers?

Yes they did. Several strains. Lung and throat. Dead.

[CaveatLector]

So mezz, did you read the article again? You playing peanut or are you going to admit that you misrepresented what the study indicates? Seems like you're choosing to ignore it.

[MightyMightyMezz]

So mezz, did you read the article again? You playing peanut or are you going to admit that you misrepresented what the study indicates? Seems like you're choosing to ignore it.

 

Why don't you settle it by answering my question: what does "first-line chemo" contribute?

[Restorium2]

Why don't you settle it by answering my question: what does "first-line chemo" contribute?

[MightyMightyMezz]

...

 

Can't watch at the moment. What is the answer (don't forget the question?)

Edited February 28, 2013 by MightyMightyMezz

[Restorium2]

Can't watch at the moment. What is the answer (don't forget the question?)

When the issue becomes important enough to you to watch you will understand.

[MightyMightyMezz]

When the issue becomes important enough to you to watch you will understand.

 

No, lol! I really can't watch it at this time. So you are both saying that none of the RCTs in the study have to do with "first-line" chemo? If you are correct, compare the study results to the contribution of first-line chemo to five-year survival.

Edited February 28, 2013 by MightyMightyMezz

[CaveatLector]

No, lol! I really can't watch it at this time. So you are both saying that none of the RCTs in the study have to do with "first-line" chemo? If you are correct, compare the study results to the contribution of first-line chemo to five-year survival.

And ignore your insults and tirade when trying to defend your faulty foundation?

 

I don't know what the combined "cure" or survival rate is for chemo and all cancers. Someone may have compiled it. You dont know either. What I do know is that when clinical trials were performed on drugs, that are NOW first line chemo, those drugs showed positive results. What I also know is that an oncologist will give you stats that tell you how effective a particular chemo is on your particular cancer. Then YOU decide whether you want to undergo treatment. Many cancers respond phenomenally well to chemo and are considered curable when caught and treated soon enough. Colon cancer is but one example. But let it spread and the chemo becomes less effective.

 

Why don't you go about compiling the data. Look at certain cancers and research what chemo treatments have been effective. Research the clinical trials of the drugs before they were adopted as standards of care and find out how well the treated group did as compared to the control. You do the legwork. But coming here and announcing nonsense isn't going to help anyone. I am sure that stats are available as to the outcomes of clinical trials on different chemo drugs. So find them and stop making things up. Your lackluster google education isn't cutting it. I suspect if you do the research you may take off with your tail between your legs. Maybe not though as you have already had your arse handed to you and you still insist you are right.

[MightyMightyMezz]

You got it wrong, buddy. Some of the analyses used in this study:

 

Uterine Cancer

ICD-9: 179C182; incidence: 1399 (Australia), 4611

(SEER).

There is no evidence that cytotoxic chemotherapy

improves 5-year survival.

 

Prostate Cancer

ICD-9: 185; incidence: 9869 (Australia), 23 242 (SEER).

There was no evidence that cytotoxic chemotherapy

improves 5-year survival.

 

It's not "There was no evidence that XXXX experimental drug improves survival." These are meta-analyses of patient survival rates finding that there is no benefit to chemotherapy in these cancers.

[CaveatLector]

You got it wrong, buddy. Some of the analyses used in this study:

 

 

 

 

 

It's not "There was no evidence that XXXX experimental drug improves survival." These are meta-analyses of patient survival rates finding that there is no benefit to chemotherapy in these cancers.

My god! READ THE STUDY PARAMETERS! They studied clinical trials. They didn't study random patients. The study parameters tell us that the study was conducted by reviewing patients in clinical trials. That means these are patients for whom the standard of care treatment didn't work. That means it is patients for whom certain chemos ALREADY FAILED. Then they were treated AGAIN with a different chemo. So the result is that 2 or 3% of the patients studied (who already underwent failed chemo treatments previously) were given a different chemo and that chemo also failed. This is NOT a cross section of cancer patients who utilized the standard treatment for the first tiime. How many more different ways can I say this? I don't know. But I'm done because you are plainly a lost cause.

[Dr. Bob]

Yes. But I don't really want to spend time on this... Same old argument, same old players.

 

I've said my piece, I don't agree with the premise and had high hopes this thread would have been closed long ago. Other than that, I tend to agree with CL.

 

Dr. Bob

[CaveatLector]

None of this even matters. Who in tarnation cares what percent of overall cancer patients benefit from chemo? If you have cancer what you care about is what percent of people WITH YOUR TYPE OF CANCER benefit from chemo. If you have cancer in your colon, testes, certain skin types, breast, and other cancers then your odds of benefiting from chemo are enormous. So should you try it? If you want! If you have pancreatic cancer the odds are low. Should you try it? If you want!

 

Why don't you ask what percentage of people benefit from ANY medical intervention and then use those stats to decide whether you want to get stitches in your forehead? Why? Because that is a stupid way to go about evaluating the benefit of medical care. Shouldn't you ask what the benefit of a particular treatment is on a PARTICULAR illness???

[Dr. Bob]

Unless some of the more vocal proponents (read that as you Mighty) care to explain, in their own words, how the different types of cancer arise from different tissue types, why their metastatic behavior varies, how chemotherapy works, and why some cancers respond differently to chemo, I really don't want to take the time to debate them because they don't have a basic understanding of the subject to discuss it intelligently.

 

I'll wait quietly for their response.

 

Oh and while you are at it Mighty, why don't you tell us what (SEER) next to the citation you used means?

 

Dr. Bob

Edited February 28, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Dr. Bob]

This might help....

 

 

Seasonal energy efficiency ratio

 

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

For the European and the UK Building Regulations definition and calculation of Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratios, see ESEER.

For a better understanding of the actual operating cost of HVAC equipment in climates that have a cooling-demand season with temperatures in excess of 95°F, see Energy Efficiency Ratio.

The efficiency of air conditioners is often rated by the Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER) which is defined by the Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute in its standard ARI 210/240, Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning and Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment.^[1]

The SEER rating of a unit is the cooling output during a typical cooling-season divided by the total electric energy input during the same period. The higher the unit's SEER rating the more energy efficient it is. In the U.S., the SEER is the ratio of cooling in British thermal unit (BTU) to the energy consumed in watt-hours. The connection to the (COP), a more universal dimensionless measure of efficiency, is discussed in the following section.

For example, consider a 5,000-British-thermal-unit-per-hour (1,500 W) air-conditioning unit, with a SEER of 10 BTU/W·h, operating for a total of 1000 hours during an annual cooling season (e.g., 8 hours per day for 125 days).

The annual total cooling output would be: 5000 BTU/h × 8 h/day × 125 days/year = 5,000,000 BTU/year

With a SEER of 10 BTU/W·h, the annual electrical energy usage would be about: 5,000,000 BTU/year / 10 BTU/W·h = 500,000 W·h/year

The average power usage may also be calculated more simply by: Average power = (BTU/h) / (SEER) = 5000 / 10 = 500 W

If your electricity cost is 20¢/kW·h, then your cost per operating hour is: 0.5 kW * 20¢/kW·h = 10¢/h

Edited February 28, 2013 by Dr. Bob

[Northern Lab]

Would anyone like to offer any prediction as to when we are going to see some sort of attempt to test these claims?

 

Or is cannabis oil going to be folk medicine forever?

[Restorium2]

Would anyone like to offer any prediction as to when we are going to see some sort of attempt to test these claims?

 

Or is cannabis oil going to be folk medicine forever?

Here's a link to quite a few clinical trials;

 

http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/study.php

[Northern Lab]

Thanks!

[OG Fire Beaster]

Side track a little bit.

 

How much do "genes" really play in susceptibility/severity of cancers? Is this the leading cause or is it environmental causes?

[peanutbutter]

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.

 

Is it likely that the 5 year rate would be even lower for "spontaneous remission?" I would hope so. IOW I would hope that the chemo actually worked sometimes.

 

So it's probably not a good idea to rely on spontaneous remission.

 

Anyone ever seen a figure for expected percentages of "spontaneous remission?" Seems that should be subtracted from the chemo success rates.

[peanutbutter]

Yes they did. Several strains. Lung and throat. Dead.

 

How was it determined they used high CBD cannabis?

 

Last I knew you preferred the taste method of testing.

[peanutbutter]

There are many people in Michigan already doing this.

 

It would be a good idea to track such patients to either:

 

Show it does work to encourage people to do it.

or

Show it does not work to discourage it.

 

Leaving the public in a medical information vacuum is unacceptable.

[peanutbutter]

Dr Bob;

 

The activities of cannabinoids interacting with various cancers are all over PubMed.

 

There is one final leap that needs to be done. One last step. Doing it in humans.

 

There is a ton of refinements that need to be done. Not only do sets of cannabinoid profiles have to be tested against specific cancers, the patients also have their own chemistry to consider.