Cannabis Cures Cancer

[Restorium2]

Why doesn't a world class cannabis drug made from real plants try to tout that it's a cure for cancer? They have done billions of dollars of research and clinical trials but they still only recommend Sativex for 'helping with' cancer related problems. They have tried every single variation of cannabis we could possibly think of here. They don't push for it being a cure. They are light years ahead of us caregivers playing with our patient research we do everyday. They are in the drivers seat and have the keys to do this 'cure claim' if it were there. They would make more money than any drug manufacturer ever in history if they did find a cure for cancer. It's just not there. If it where we would have already seen it. They have dug for the gold and it was not there. The best we can do for our cancer patients is to help them be the healthiest they can be while they are fighting cancer. Help them help their own bodies fight cancer because cannabis doesn't kill cancer on it's own. It's in the arsenal, just like all the other weapons. It's not the silver bullet all on it's own.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Restorium2

[peanutbutter]

Why doesn't a world class cannabis drug made from real plants try to tout that it's a cure for cancer? They have done billions of dollars of research and clinical trials but they still only recommend Sativex for 'helping with' cancer related problems. They have tried every single variation of cannabis we could possibly think of here. They don't push for it being a cure. They are light years ahead of us caregivers playing with our patient research we do everyday. They are in the drivers seat and have the keys to do this 'cure claim' if it were there. They would make more money than any drug manufacturer ever in history if they did find a cure for cancer. It's just not there. If it where we would have already seen it. They have dug for the gold and it was not there. The best we can do for our cancer patients is to help them be the healthiest they can be while they are fighting cancer. Help them help their own bodies fight cancer because cannabis doesn't kill cancer on it's own. It's in the arsenal, just like all the other weapons. It's not the silver bullet all on it's own.

 

Not the impression that I gathered when I chatted with them. I got the impression that they were holding back.

 

We can already grow our own Sativex.

[Restorium2]

Not the impression that I gathered when I chatted with them. I got the impression that they were holding back.

 

We can already grow our own Sativex.

Holding back for what reason? I find that a ridiculous answer, from a desperate position of wrongness, that effects cancer patients in a negative way.

[jointedone]

AGREE.

[peanutbutter]

Holding back for what reason? I find that a ridiculous answer, from a desperate position of wrongness, that effects cancer patients in a negative way.

 

What I was asking them about is repair of nerve damage from MS. I wasn't asking about cancer at the time.

 

CL .. how likely is it that GW has conducted thousands of human tests where the cannabinoids were the primary chemo being tested?

 

Rest .. In case you haven't heard about it before, it is difficult to get approval to test such things.

[+washtenaut]

Why doesn't a world class cannabis drug made from real plants try to tout that it's a cure for cancer? They have done billions of dollars of research and clinical trials but they still only recommend Sativex for 'helping with' cancer related problems. They have tried every single variation of cannabis we could possibly think of here. They don't push for it being a cure. They are light years ahead of us caregivers playing with our patient research we do everyday. They are in the drivers seat and have the keys to do this 'cure claim' if it were there. They would make more money than any drug manufacturer ever in history if they did find a cure for cancer. It's just not there. If it where we would have already seen it. They have dug for the gold and it was not there. The best we can do for our cancer patients is to help them be the healthiest they can be while they are fighting cancer. Help them help their own bodies fight cancer because cannabis doesn't kill cancer on it's own. It's in the arsenal, just like all the other weapons. It's not the silver bullet all on it's own.

 

The following is from the GW Pharmaceuticals website gwpharm.com (go to R&D tab and then choose 'Oncology')

 

 

One of the most exciting and fast emerging areas of research in the field of cannabinoid science centres on the ability of certain cannabinoids to inhibit the growth and vascular supply of cancers of various types. The possibility that cannabinoids, including endocannabinoids, may treat cancer is supported by an ever increasing body of available evidence. In simple terms, cancer occurs because cells become immortalised; they fail to heed customary signals to turn off growth. A normal function of remodelling in the body requires that cells die on cue. This is called apoptosis, or programmed cell death and this process fails to proceed normally after malignant transformation. As will be discussed in greater detail below, THC, CBD, and perhaps other phytocannabinoids promote the re-emergence of apoptosis so that certain cancer cell types will in fact heed the signals, stop dividing, and die. The process of apoptosis is judged by observation of several phenomena: reduced cellular volume, condensation of nuclear chromatin, changes in distribution of phospholipids in plasma membranes, and cleavage of chromatin into DNA fragments called NDA ladders.

 

Another method by which tumours grow is by ensuring that they are nourished: they send out signals to promote angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels. Cannabinoids may turn off these signals as well. Finally, cannabinoids may......

[peanutbutter]

I think it is a disservice to tell cancer patients that it doesn't work.

 

Some of them that might have been helped will be convinced to avoid RSO.

[Restorium2]

I think it is a disservice to tell cancer patients that it doesn't work.

 

Some of them that might have been helped will be convinced to avoid RSO.

Why would anyone 'avoid' cannabis oil, or other cannabis products, when we keep saying cannabis is an effective weapon in the arsenal to fight cancer? You are making up stuff again.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Restorium2

[Restorium2]

The following is from the GW Pharmaceuticals website gwpharm.com (go to R&D tab and then choose 'Oncology')

 

 

One of the most exciting and fast emerging areas of research in the field of cannabinoid science centres on the ability of certain cannabinoids to inhibit the growth and vascular supply of cancers of various types. The possibility that cannabinoids, including endocannabinoids, may treat cancer is supported by an ever increasing body of available evidence. In simple terms, cancer occurs because cells become immortalised; they fail to heed customary signals to turn off growth. A normal function of remodelling in the body requires that cells die on cue. This is called apoptosis, or programmed cell death and this process fails to proceed normally after malignant transformation. As will be discussed in greater detail below, THC, CBD, and perhaps other phytocannabinoids promote the re-emergence of apoptosis so that certain cancer cell types will in fact heed the signals, stop dividing, and die. The process of apoptosis is judged by observation of several phenomena: reduced cellular volume, condensation of nuclear chromatin, changes in distribution of phospholipids in plasma membranes, and cleavage of chromatin into DNA fragments called NDA ladders.

 

Another method by which tumours grow is by ensuring that they are nourished: they send out signals to promote angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels. Cannabinoids may turn off these signals as well. Finally, cannabinoids may......

They are not shy about their findings. When they finally do find a cure we will know all about it. No one is hiding anything. They have been looking for quite some time now.

[peanutbutter]

They are not shy about their findings. When they finally do find a cure we will know all about it. No one is hiding anything. They have been looking for quite some time now.

 

I see .. why didn't they mention CBD preventing metastasis in breast cancer? Or the repair of damaged DNA?

 

They must have forgot to mention those.

[Restorium2]

I see .. why didn't they mention CBD preventing metastasis in breast cancer? Or the repair of damaged DNA?

 

They must have forgot to mention those.

They do clinical trials and report on them. That's how you prove what works and what doesn't. That's how they can help people.

[peanutbutter]

They do clinical trials and report on them. That's how you prove what works and what doesn't. That's how they can help people.

 

Please show me those reported clinical trials where they were attempting to work on a tumor inside a human being.

 

Please!!

 

Not to mention the reports about trying every combination of cannabinoids against cancers. Please.

 

Please show me one single reported study by GW about impacting cancer with cannabinoids. Please.

[peanutbutter]

Please show me ANY indication that GW has conducted ANY such experiments on humans!

 

They have conducted tests against the symptoms of cancer. NOT against the cancer itself.

[MightyMightyMezz]

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.

 

 

I guarantee you are wrong about this. You don't seem to have read it at all. 2-3% of patients studied were given a different chemo and it failed? You're talking Bizarro World stuff again. That's not even close to the reality. They undertook a survey of RCT's showing a benefit to five year survival. That doesn't mean these are "chemo failures" trying a last ditch experimental drug. They still do studies of the effectiveness of common chemo drugs on particular cancers you know. You just don't want to admit that for the most common cancers chemo sucks. The discussion and findings wouldn't make sense if your understanding/assumptions were correct.

 

 

Just look:

 

The total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. For each malignancy, the absolute number to benefit was the product of (a) the total number of persons with that malignancy; (b) the proportion or subgroup(s) of that malignancy showing a benefit; and © the percentage increase in 5-year survival due solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies.

Edited March 1, 2013 by MightyMightyMezz

[CaveatLector]

I guarantee you are wrong about this. You don't seem to have read it at all. 2-3% of patients studied were given a different chemo and it failed? You're talking Bizarro World stuff again. That's not even close to the reality. They undertook a survey of RCT's showing a benefit to five year survival. That doesn't mean these are "chemo failures" trying a last ditch experimental drug. They still do studies of the effectiveness of common chemo drugs on particular cancers you know. You just don't want to admit that for the most common cancers chemo sucks. The discussion and findings wouldn't make sense if your understanding/assumptions were correct.

 

 

Just look:

There is no point in discussing this with you any further until you learn some basic grammar and medical terminaology. You just don't get it and you won't.

 

The only way to prove effectiveness in a clinical trial is to have a control group. That means a group receiving a placebo instead of chemo. There isn't a clincal trial in the modern world (and hasn't been one since Hitler's Nazi Germany medical experiments) that would give a group a placebo rather than a drug that is given as a standard of care (edited to add: in the case of a life threatening condition.). In other words you cannot withhold a proven treatment from someone to test something else on them. That would be at the height of medical ethics violations and likely against many laws. HOWEVER, since clinical trials test NEW drugs that are not yet proven or OLD drugs on NEW conditions the ethical dilemma is non-existent. Cancer patients routinely enter clinical trials when they have exhausted accepted treatments. Why? Because it gives them a CHANCE.

 

Edited to add: What you are suggesting is that clinical trials were performed on a group of new untreated cancer patients. Half received treatment and half placebo. Sooooo, half of the patients went untreated for cancer even though there are approved treatments available? No. Didn't happen. That is against medical ethics and against the Helsinki Convention (or whatever that World Medical Assoc. called its statement of ethical principles).

 

Now you can keep banging the same drum and jumping up and down calling people fools but you are the one who is looking like the clown here. You're clueless.

 

Furthermore, your suggestion that less than 3 percent of people get to the 5 year survival mark with chemo is just plain crazy. To put it in terms you understand, it is bizarro. One thing you have proven in this thread is that you know nothing about cancer (except that you knew someone who had it--or was it your friend's dog or something?), you want for basic grammar skills, you don't know anything about medical terminology or clincal trials and their methodolgy (which is fine but you cannot come here pretending to know something and then tell everyone it says something it absolutely does not), and you cannot point to any other source to support your position other than a single mis-interpreted Australian study from 10 years ago.

Edited March 1, 2013 by CaveatLector

[CaveatLector]

The bottom line is that it wouldn't matter is chemo was 1/2 % effective overall for ALL cancers combined. That means NOTHING to anyone. NOTHING. People need to evaluate the potential benefit based on the type of cancer and their risk factors including age, etc., when it comes to going through chemo. Trying to dissuade people from utilizing chemo here, in favor of an alternative medicine, is ignorant and selfish. If you have pancreatic cancer and are 75 years old then maybe chemo isn't a good idea. If you are 25 and have colon cancer then chemo could CURE you.

 

Like I've said several times already it isn't relevant what overall effectiveness rates are. What matters is what the rate of success is with a particular chemo and a particular type of cancer. You don't get that do you mezz? Kind of just flies right on over your head.

[GregS]

Are not clinical studies often performed by physicians following a range of patients in their different practices, and compiling data regarding treatment and results into a comprehensive whole?

[CaveatLector]

Are not clinical studies often performed by physicians following a range of patients in their different practices, and compiling data regarding treatment and results into a comprehensive whole?

"Clinical trial" is a term of art. So, no.

[peanutbutter]

The only way to prove effectiveness in a clinical trial is to have a control group. That means a group receiving a placebo instead of chemo. There isn't a clincal trial in the modern world (and hasn't been one since Hitler's Nazi Germany medical experiments) that would give a group a placebo rather than a drug that is given as a standard of care (edited to add: in the case of a life threatening condition.). In other words you cannot withhold a proven treatment from someone to test something else on them. That would be at the height of medical ethics violations and likely against many laws. HOWEVER, since clinical trials test NEW drugs that are not yet proven or OLD drugs on NEW conditions the ethical dilemma is non-existent. Cancer patients routinely enter clinical trials when they have exhausted accepted treatments. Why? Because it gives them a CHANCE.

 

So there has been NOTHING tested in a double blind test? As far as cancer goes??

 

So when people here demand the results of double blind testing, they are asking for something that will never exist?

 

How is it determined that ANY cancer medicine works better than a placebo?

[Restorium2]

So there has been NOTHING tested in a double blind test? As far as cancer goes??

 

So when people here demand the results of double blind testing, they are asking for something that will never exist?

 

How is it determined that ANY cancer medicine works better than a placebo?

Give me a logical reason why GW isn't doing a clinical trial using their cannabis oil to cure cancer. I have an answer but I would like you to tell me what you think the reason is. Make sure you think about it from every angle before you decide your answer.

[peanutbutter]

Give me a logical reason why GW isn't doing a clinical trial using their cannabis oil to cure cancer. I have an answer but I would like you to tell me what you think the reason is. Make sure you think about it from every angle before you decide your answer.

 

Answer the question, please.

 

Show me one single study. You claim they have tested every combination against cancer.

 

So show me one single time they did that. Please.

 

I figure you get on a roll and get to a point you don't care how accurate your posts are.

 

So please .. show me. I bet you can't find one single example of what you claimed is reality in thousands of cases.

[peanutbutter]

So when the next person asks about double blind testing, do I get to call them a Nazi?

[Restorium2]

Give me a logical reason why GW isn't doing a clinical trial using their cannabis oil to cure cancer. I have an answer but I would like you to tell me what you think the reason is. Make sure you think about it from every angle before you decide your answer.

[peanutbutter]

Rest .. you already said they ARE testing. AND that they wrote up studies and reports ..

 

You basically said it has been studied and failed.

 

Oh really?? Since when .. and can you provide me with one single link to confirm your claim?

 

I think it is entirely in your head.

Edited March 2, 2013 by peanutbutter

[Restorium2]

Just give me one very logical reason why GW has not went to the extent of a full blown clinical trial.

 

Hint; What would be your first step to decide if anything works to kill cancer?