Re: Kitty0706 is dead

[Iban Galaxy s5]

wait so this dude claims that universally accepted medical miracles that abolish the worse diseases ever known are hoaxes set out by the government to give our kids autism

but 420 ganja blaze it dank kush is all but a panacea

[Ad Bot]

[Bloody Mary]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22506672
http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/10/7/1161.full
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/scientists-discover-novel-mechanism-action-cannabidiol-against-lung-cancer-cells
http://www.canorml.org/cbd.html
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/marijuana
http://drsircus.com/medicine/cannabis-cures-cancer
http://www.projectcbd.org/conditions/cancer-2/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/09/20/nbc-news-reports-that-cannabidiol-cbd-turns-off-th/

I have read through these articles and none of them solidly support your claims.

The first concludes that there is insufficient evidence for use of cannabis as a treatment for cancer symptoms. They cite previous cannabis clinical trials for cancer patients that had mixed results.

The second simply has the conclusion that CBD may be worthwhile for consideration in clinical trials for cancer therapy - and even then the article suggests that it may have a use in conjunction with standard chemotherapy, not as an alternative.

The third does conclude positively and says that cannabis can kill breast cancer cells, though the paper not endorse cannabis as an alternate treatment. It merely states that the findings support deeper exploration into the concept.

The fourth is a news article that links to a research paper behind a paywall. I do not know if the paper supports your argument.

The fifth is a summary of various research findings, but the web site is not academic and a biased source. The actual papers that this site references have preliminary conclusions at best.

The sixth straight up says that marijuana is not reliable as a standalone treatment. This one actually hurts your overall argument.

The seventh is a nonacademic compilation of research findings. There are a lot of articles cited here but the ones I looked at were much like the previous six: tentatively suggesting further inquiry but nothing more.

The eighth is another compilation. There's a whole slew of articles here with various findings, but none of them advocate for cannabis treatment as an alternate to chemotherapy. At best they suggest that further inquiry is needed.

The ninth is a news article that cites a paper that it doesn't link. I have no way of verifying the results of the paper, but the fact that the name of the company that published the paper is called Cannabis Science makes me think it's biased. A cursory glance at their website does not assuage my fears.

-
I apologize if I missed some crucial detail; I didn't really have the time to read more than the abstract and the conclusions for each paper. Overall, though, none of these papers advocate for use of cannabis as an alternate to chemotherapy and only a few suggest that it could have beneficial results in conjunction with it.

[Rally]

True, but usually only small businesses and "professional places" like schools and libraries and hospitals use them.
Well you told me to post some sources. I have already read some these articles in the past, and I skim each article before posting it. Regardless, I posted the sources, now you read them. You don't have to believe or accept the information you read if you don't want; I find the information interesting to say the least. The .gov sites are the "most credible"

Actually I didn't ask you to post sources. I said something about 'medical information', something you have provided nothing of in this topic. Most of what you posted was true biological facts yes, but none of it was applicable modern medical information. In your defense, yes, research suggests that cannabis oil could reverse some effects of certain cancers according to animal testing. So, by that logic, Kitty could have been cured by cannabis oil. A diet of quail eggs and rambutan could have cured it as well. Could is not a legitimate reason to prescribe a treatment in the modern world of medicine.

You know how many patients worldwide have confirmed to been cured recently by cannabis oil? 0.
You know how many patients worldwide have confirmed to been cured recently by chemotherapy? More than 0.

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

Had to double post because this made me lmao

*hands prize*

yes i suppose that changing a bunch of words in my post would make it funny
gj

[SeventhSandwich]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22506672

http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/10/7/1161.full

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/scientists-discover-novel-mechanism-action-cannabidiol-against-lung-cancer-cells

http://www.canorml.org/cbd.html

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/marijuana

http://drsircus.com/medicine/cannabis-cures-cancer

http://www.projectcbd.org/conditions/cancer-2/

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/09/20/nbc-news-reports-that-cannabidiol-cbd-turns-off-th/

Time to break down the legitimacy of the sources for someone who never reads them. (again):

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

Notice how cancer.gov only lists in vivo, in vitro, and animal model studies on CBD. That is because there is literally no human or clinical data that shows cannabis oil treats cancer. Animal model studies are known to be very prone to false positives in data, and as for in vitro studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22506672

This isn't even a study evaluating the efficacy of cannabinoids as cancer treatments. It's literally just pointing out different chemical mechanisms that might treat cancer but have yet to be conclusively shown through experiment. This study has no experiments, participants, or controls, so you literally have no reason to be citing it as 'proof that weed kills cancer'.

http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/10/7/1161.full

Once again, this is an in vitro study, and in vitro studies are used as preliminary investigations into treatments before they go to animal and human studies. Lots of stuff that works in these kinds of studies does not translate into effective human treatments. This is not evidence that cannabis can treat cancer.

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/scientists-discover-novel-mechanism-action-cannabidiol-against-lung-cancer-cells

Same problem as every other study you've cited. In vitro and in vivo studies. You're holding stuff up that has only worked in petri dishes as 'proven treatments'.

http://www.canorml.org/cbd.html

This website is just talking about the same well-reported in vitro studies that the rest of your sources talk about.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/marijuana

"There are no studies in people of the effects of marijuana oil or hemp oil."

"There have been some early clinical trials of cannabinoids in treating cancer in humans and more studies are planned. While the studies so far have shown that cannabinoids can be safe in treating cancer, they do not show that they help control or cure the disease."

Whoa, very persuasive source.

http://drsircus.com/medicine/cannabis-cures-cancer

This is still just another website citing the handful of in vitro studies that have been done on the possible anti-cancer properties of cannabis oil. The difference here is that the author of this article, like you, has no concept of how the standard of scientific evidence works and considers these studies to be indisputable evidence that weed kills cancer.

The last two sources suffer from the same weakness as all the other ones - equating preliminary animal and in vitro studies with large-scale human trials.

[Zanaran2]

seventh, it's not worth it. it's clear this guy's dense as osmium and he still sticks to that one, barely true scrap of evidence that cannabis oil cures cancer. we should just let him fade into obscurity.

[SeventhSandwich]

Well of course. Then, cancer patients would stay home instead of going to the doctor. At that point the hospitals lose money, some of their biggest chunks of cash come from radiation and chemo cancer treatment. You think they are just gonna give it up after finding a medicine that really works for fighting cancer that's been here plain as day? Naa, that would make them look stupid, and their medicine is too good to be beaten by a natural remedy.

Or maybe because it doesn't work because the only reason anyone wants to use it as a cancer treatment is to strengthen the platform for legalization?

If you think that cancer biology is simple, it isn't. There have been billions of dollars invested into cancer research, and we still only know a fraction of what there is to know about how cancer cells form and spread. If you really think that it's likely that some random plant can effectively cure and treat a disease that can resist basically every form of science-based medical intervention, you are a bigger idiot than I think you are. After decades and decades of throwing money and scientists at cancer, we've finally made treatments that can actually help people survive a disease where their own broken biology is killing them, and conspiracy theorists like you chock up all that work as a 'ploy to get money'. To me, that's disgusting.

[Oasis]

lol this is surprisingly relevant:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/hey-get-a-load-of-this-evil-doctor-1682799466

[Frequency]

lol this is surprisingly relevant:

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/hey-get-a-load-of-this-evil-doctor-1682799466

Does Jack Wolfson... Medicate myocardial infarctions with the judicious application of chanting and human sacrifice?

this article is amazing

[Outpacte]

Can someone tell me why is everyone going in-depth posts here, because this is just weird.

[Jubel]

Can someone tell me why is everyone going in-depth posts here, because this is just weird.

Well, you could just read. It's not hard to see that Gothboy is a moron, and people are pointing out why.

[Rally]

Can someone tell me why is everyone going in-depth posts here, because this is just weird.

because we're thinking in-depth.

[Machaty]

The only reason to smoke weed while you have cancer is to combat the negative side effects of the chemo that's curing you. (Trouble sleeping, loss of appetite, depression, nausea.)

[McJob]

seventh, it's not worth it. it's clear this guy's dense as osmium and he still sticks to that one, barely true scrap of evidence that cannabis oil cures cancer. we should just let him fade into obscurity.

[fireking]