Jump to content
greaterclare

Speaker Added For This Satuday's Greater Clare Compassion Club Meeting!

Recommended Posts

Misspeak.  It helps with free radicals and can encourage apoptosis.

 

Still, doesn't change what I said nor the studies nor the need for proof which you have notta and that you never even think it could be other factors involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering if you have ever thought that it may be detrimental to treatment?

 

Ever crossed your mind?

 

Just wondering.

 

(Some treatments for cancer, such as radiation, create free radicals in an effort to kill cancer cells. In this setting, the use of antioxidants could decrease the effectiveness of treatment.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misspeak.  It helps with free radicals and can encourage apoptosis.

 

Still, doesn't change what I said nor the studies nor the need for proof which you have notta and that you never even think it could be other factors involved.

 

I'm glad it was misspeak. It was a shocking thing to read from you. I expected more.

 

My problem attempting to answer your questions is which direction to start with first!!!

 

So .. there are things that take place on a chemistry level.  We see things take place in a test tube. THAT isn't the same thing as watching it take place in a living body. Let alone a human.

 

To watch a single molecule of THC kill a single cancer, regardless of the method, is difficult to do. Let alone inside a human.

 

It is interesting == you do something, expecting a specific result, see the result you expect in the time frame you expect to see the expected result. You are able to do the same thing .. over and over again. How many times does the tumor have to shrink on command?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad it was misspeak. It was a shocking thing to read from you. I expected more.

 

My problem attempting to answer your questions is which direction to start with first!!!

 

So .. there are things that take place on a chemistry level.  We see things take place in a test tube. THAT isn't the same thing as watching it take place in a living body. Let alone a human.

 

To watch a single molecule of THC kill a single cancer, regardless of the method, is difficult to do. Let alone inside a human.

 

It is interesting == you do something, expecting a specific result, see the result you expect in the time frame you expect to see the expected result. You are able to do the same thing .. over and over again. How many times does the tumor have to shrink on command?

 

 

 If you speaking of this particular case, it is useless to argue it because of the extensive other treatment involved.  Chemo tends to shrink tumours no? Yet you rule out the chemo for the hash oil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering if you have ever thought that it may be detrimental to treatment?

 

Ever crossed your mind?

 

Just wondering.

 

(Some treatments for cancer, such as radiation, create free radicals in an effort to kill cancer cells. In this setting, the use of antioxidants could decrease the effectiveness of treatment.)

 

No fair using fine print.

 

When the rubber hits the road the only combination that has been tested so far:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=THC+TMZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living healthier? Diet? Sleep? Proper rest? etc etc?

 

All these things factor in man. 

 

My cousin had liver cancer which grew and shrank for 6 years.  It isn't like it is uncommon for this to happen. You act as if the only possible  reason is hash oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No fair using fine print.

 

When the rubber hits the road the only combination that has been tested so far:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=THC+TMZ

 

 

 I am with ya on that pb.  Good research into that. The problem is,... it only allowed management of the tumor. Not a cure.  Didn't stop it.  But hell, good research into combined therapy. I mean chaos theory could be responsible for the combined effect caused by TMZ/CBD.  They don't know yet.  Promising? Yes!   But, not a cure.  Just may help management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 If you speaking of this particular case, it is useless to argue it because of the extensive other treatment involved.  Chemo tends to shrink tumours no? Yet you rule out the chemo for the hash oil?

 

LOL THIS is good ..

 

Yes .. it is very difficult to to show examples of cannibis oil only. Documented by doctors .. get real.

 

Her case was about as close as it gets. One single chemo tablet. TMZ BTW. That one single example of combination.

 

When a patient tells the doctor they wish to use use this method, they usually get cut off from the entire medical system. If someone is using the oil they need to monitor the situation closely. If the patient doesn't seem to respond it could be best to shift to another method. Or make SOME modification.

 

So say you have such a patient. Then you get to say "that's not documented!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I am with ya on that pb.  Good research into that. The problem is,... it only allowed management of the tumor. Not a cure.  Didn't stop it.  But hell, good research into combined therapy. I mean chaos theory could be responsible for the combined effect caused by TMZ/CBD.  They don't know yet.  Promising? Yes!   But, not a cure.  Just may help management.

 

Not likely to get blamed on that squashed turtle ..

 

Management? Good thing as far as that goes!! Stop the tumor, maybe even cause it to reverse growth? Notice they got to work with plant extract material.

 

Still .. that's not inside a human being.

 

Seth group:

 

Ahh .. were you able to view the graph that shows how much the THC helped the TMZ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea. I read the study awhile back.

 

 Full Text

 

It is good. It reduces the growth.  In other words,... you die slower.

 

I can only hope we do find uses in actually combatting tumors with various cannabinoids,... or heck wtvr it is. Doesn't matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chemo itself could have worked over the time period to congregate. I am super happy she is doing well. :-)

 

The exact same claims of tumor reduction have been made for vitamin c as well. hash oil/vitamin C- same category currently.

There was another young patient with the same condition she met. He went with the chemo, and has passed away. Every body reacts differently. Id be careful when speaking in absolutes or blindly saying that the chemo would have worked...we just do not know that.

 

 

Good discussion everyone. I too am glad we are still talking after the club meeting... Now what do we come up with at the next one? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea. I read the study awhile back.

 

 Full Text

 

It is good. It reduces the growth.  In other words,... you die slower.

 

I can only hope we do find uses in actually combatting tumors with various cannabinoids,... or heck wtvr it is. Doesn't matter. 

 

Ahh .. thank you for posting that.

 

So the chemo by itself doesn't shrink tumors. The anti cancer activity of the chemo is increased by THC. But still not enough to cause the tumor to shrink.

 

So you have proven that chemo doesn't help cancer? All the charts I saw in that study show THC doing better than the chemo ..

 

Gosh I hope it's not a crime to state the obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now then .. tumors DO shrink all on their own. I believe you when you say that. But it seems that it doesn't happen when chemo is there. At least according to the study we're looking at.

 

What study do you know of that studies that precisely. The spontaneous remission .. (again .. didn't see it in that last study)

 

Does any study exist that shows chemo shrinking tumors better than spontaneous remission? Such a study should show how often this remission takes place.

 

Any chemo .. any cancer?

Edited by peanutbutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a "believer"(faith) oriented person.

 

I am a scientist and proof based kinda guy.

 

You will never see me say that there isn't potential in cannabis being used in cancer treatments, but we must  be diligent about not overstating examples, using chance as proof and instilling false hopes.

 

As I have said before, there's so many examples of something working for cancer etc.  Vitamin C, Vitamin B's, Soy, leeches, etc.

 

There is promising research that deserves follow up and further investigation.  We shall see.

 

 But I am so far from being on the bandwagon on this one. I am still waiting for the wheel to be invented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a "believer"(faith) oriented person.

 

I am a scientist and proof based kinda guy.

 

You will never see me say that there isn't potential in cannabis being used in cancer treatments, but we must  be diligent about not overstating examples, using chance as proof and instilling false hopes.

 

As I have said before, there's so many examples of something working for cancer etc.  Vitamin C, Vitamin B's, Soy, leeches, etc.

 

There is promising research that deserves follow up and further investigation.  We shall see.

 

 But I am so far from being on the bandwagon on this one. I am still waiting for the wheel to be invented.

 

 

We've been talking about the ethical problems involved in telling people one thing or another works against cancer. "False hope" is a phrase used by a few here.

 

What about the false hope involved in chemo/radiation and the current medical system? That's something forbidden to discuss? Do different rules apply? False hope is OK if there is a doctor involved?

 

That study we've been looking at showed everyone dies with brain cancer. And they are worse off with chemo than cannabis.

 

I think you have blind faith in the medical system.

 

http://naturalsociety.com/chemotherapy-makes-cancer-far-worse/

Edited by peanutbutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically governments have forbidden free speech about science.

 

Once upon a time the earth was flat, by law.

 

Sounds silly to have a government put people on the rack for saying the earth is round. Today, by law, marijuana has no accepted medical use within the United States.

 

True science doesn't require protections by the forbidding of free speech.

 

Modern medicine is protected exactly this way. The insiders of the system are protected by the forbidding of free speech.

Edited by peanutbutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historically governments have forbidden free speech about science.

 

Once upon a time the earth was flat, by law.

 

Sounds silly to have a government put people on the rack for saying the earth is round. Today, by law, marijuana has no accepted medical use within the United States.

 

True science doesn't require protections by the forbidding of free speech.

 

Modern medicine is protected exactly this way. The insiders of the system are protected by the forbidding of free speech.

Historical references to the earth being flat are irrelevant here.  If you want to talk about history let us stick to medical science.  Historically it was thought that blood-letting would cure what ails you.  How do you like them apples?

 

As for your statement regarding false hope---there is one key difference between medical science and your anecdotal claims.  It's called controlled studies where a medicine makes its way through several phases of clinical study before applying to be approved by the FDA.  Results are published in medical journals so peers can replicate the studies to see if outcomes are the same as initial studies.  That's the whole point of the peer-review system.  Remember back in the early 90s when a couple of scientists published an article claiming to have sucessfully produced cold fusion?  After the publication their peers tried, and failed, to replicate the experiment and it was then debunked. 

 

So when you say "false hope" is what medical science gives us you are just making things up---as per usual.  I've never known of an oncologist whom has claimed that chemo X would cure cancer Y.  Have you?  Generally cure rates and success possibilities are given to patients as percentages of success in the past.  Chemo isn't presented as an absolute cure.  If you have a cancer an oncologist will give you possibilities of success with chemo.  So how about you stop misrepresenting the facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Historical references to the earth being flat are irrelevant here.  If you want to talk about history let us stick to medical science.  Historically it was thought that blood-letting would cure what ails you.  How do you like them apples?

 

As for your statement regarding false hope---there is one key difference between medical science and your anecdotal claims.  It's called controlled studies where a medicine makes its way through several phases of clinical study before applying to be approved by the FDA.  Results are published in medical journals so peers can replicate the studies to see if outcomes are the same as initial studies.  That's the whole point of the peer-review system.  Remember back in the early 90s when a couple of scientists published an article claiming to have sucessfully produced cold fusion?  After the publication their peers tried, and failed, to replicate the experiment and it was then debunked. 

 

So when you say "false hope" is what medical science gives us you are just making things up---as per usual.  I've never known of an oncologist whom has claimed that chemo X would cure cancer Y.  Have you?  Generally cure rates and success possibilities are given to patients as percentages of success in the past.  Chemo isn't presented as an absolute cure.  If you have a cancer an oncologist will give you possibilities of success with chemo.  So how about you stop misrepresenting the facts?

 

Some cancers do not respond well to some chemos. Fair statement?

 

So why push chemo for that patient? I believe that to be a much more sever form of false hope.

Edited by peanutbutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...