not related to folding, but read anyway.

Ok it's been a while since i stopped folding for team32.
My father won't let me since we were using too much money on bills =(
(My pc consumes a lot running 24/7)

anyway, i still wanted to contribute somehow and kinda got interested in cancer fight and other diseases, this is largely due to some relatives close to me who died from cancer.

and suddenly i found something.
http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wo...es-cancer-us-government-has-known-since-1974/
I was shocked to read the article i linked you, and it seems that our governements just aren't interested.

So, if you really care for health of our friends, relatives and everybody else just take some time to read, to get the facts right.
it seems THC can cure some forms of cancer, or at least slow it down.

If mods think this is not the appropriate place to discuss this, then please remove the thread.

But if there is any truth in what i have found, word MUST be spread!
keep the good work up guys =)

Zantal said:

Ok it's been a while since i stopped folding for team32.
My father won't let me since we were using too much money on bills =(
(My pc consumes a lot running 24/7)

anyway, i still wanted to contribute somehow and kinda got interested in cancer fight and other diseases, this is largely due to some relatives close to me who died from cancer.

and suddenly i found something.
http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wo...es-cancer-us-government-has-known-since-1974/
I was shocked to read the article i linked you, and it seems that our governements just aren't interested.

So, if you really care for health of our friends, relatives and everybody else just take some time to read, to get the facts right.
it seems THC can cure some forms of cancer, or at least slow it down.

If mods think this is not the appropriate place to discuss this, then please remove the thread.

But if there is any truth in what i have found, word MUST be spread!
keep the good work up guys =)

Click to expand...

Do you think that alcohol can cure cancer?

Do you think smoking can cure cancer?

Because that's about all the good that smoking marijuana can do for you. It gives you a mild toxin, like alcohol, and loads up your lungs with tar.

Does that SOUND like a cure for cancer? For anything? Maybe for a mild pain or anxiety reliever.

Truth is, water will cure cancer, sometimes. Air and coffee can cure cancer, sometimes. Because sometimes, the body just begins manufacturing the right kinds of cells to successfully attack and destroy the cancer.

Sometimes, that happens early in the disease. Sometimes that happens when the patient is barely alive, and it's miraculous to see.

That's not the norm, but it happens.

So far, the only thing we know, is that marijuana cures nothing but a bit of pain, and a bit of anxiety. If you smoke it or abuse it too much, it may result in you developing cancer, etc.

How about something like this?

http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice

Canadian scientists tested this dichloroacetate (DCA) on human’s cells; it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells and left the healthy cells alone. It was tested on Rats inflicted with severe tumors; their cells shrank when they were fed with water supplemented with DCA. The drug is widely available and the technique is easy to use, why the major drug companies are not involved? Or the Media interested in this find?

Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with the tests they made, but of course, ANYTHING that is fairly safe, (as this compound is), and will kill cancer in human cells, is definitely worth investigating further.

It's misleading when you read these articles however, because the human cancer cells that were killed here, were not in a human body at the time. Big difference! LOTS of compounds will kill cancer in a petri disk or test tube. They just won't do it in people with cancer, without killing them.

We always have these conspiracy theories -- It's those dirty filthy drug companies fault that we don't have a cure for cancer, it was the CIA guys on the Grassy Knoll who killed Kennedy, the US faked the trips to the moon, Yeti and Big Foot are alive and well, and living in. . ., and thousands of people and cows have been taken by Space Aliens and studied/probed, etc.

Oh come on!

Truth is, teachers don't teach critical thinking, these days. A recent college survey of students found that if the students read something in the media, and felt it was true, then it was as valid, as a proven fact. What?

The fact is, you can carefully aim a laser at a reflector we left on the moon just for this purpose, and catch the reflected beam in a telescope. But that fact, doesn't persuade the mushy thinkers. Maybe the Space Aliens agreed to place that reflector just right, for us. Oh sure!

When Senator Gabrielle Giffords was shot in Arizona, the New York Times reported the shooter was a tea part right wing extremist. Of course, they were 100% wrong. The shooter had no interest in politics, at all. So the next day, on the editorial page, the editor explains how this error happened:

The journalists job is to fit the incident into a likely story line. This is a time honored technique, taught by all schools of journalism, ... etc.

So a reporters job, is not to report the facts and/or investigate the truth of the matter, it's to "fit the story into a likely story line"?

And that's what this article is clearly doing. It's a hack job, designed to pique your interest and sell their media. How hard would it be to get a terminal cancer patient to agree to a drug test of it, and have it approved immediately on a "last hope" (mercy) basis?

Easy as pie. And the reporter knows it, but he's not going to mention that little "doesn't fit into the story line", detail.

Every month there's bus loads of these kinds of terminal patients going into Mexico for any number of "medical clinics", with wacko treatments (I thought the anal drip of coffee was extremely creative).

A high percent of the time, if a drug company has no interest in a drug that shows "such promise", it's because they know that drug is not going to work.
The writer says it's because the drug isn't patentable, but how hard would it be for a drug chemist to add a little something something, to the drug, and then patent it, and make a fortune when it starts curing cancers?

Sometimes I wonder if these guys maybe *were* probed one time too many, because their common sense appears to have been inactivated.

So I don't believe it's a cure for cancer, but it MIGHT be useful as a transporter, to deliver a bonded drug load to a cancer that can't be reached by other means. (like a mid brain tumor).

Well even if they aren't in a human body isn't it still interesting the fact that most of the cancer cells dies when treated with thc?

(btw, no need to smoke it, you can actually eat that thing)

i can't keep watching videos of angry doctors/researchers trying to prove it's medical values.

Zantal said:

Well even if they aren't in a human body isn't it still interesting the fact that most of the cancer cells dies when treated with thc?

Click to expand...

Not really. If I injected a tumor with alcohol and it killed cancer cells would you say alcohol is a cure for cancer? What about gasoline? Just because something is toxic to cancer cells doesn't mean it's a treatment, and it doesn't mean it isn't toxic to healthy cells.

If you drink Drano it will kill you, and then cancer won't kill you. So.....

cw823 said:

If you drink Drano it will kill you, and then cancer won't kill you. So.....

Click to expand...

If the Drano kills you, then effectively, the cancer is killed by the Drano, so doesn't that mean that Drano could be called a cure for cancer?

And if i'd say you are trying everything to discredit a university research?
who are you guys to make such statements as "if i inject cancer cells with alcohol they die so we have found a cure". it's always the same thing, don't speak if all you got are personal theories and thoughts. If you come in here just to have a laugh.

Whatever. these tests weren't made by some 16 year old pot smoker.
but from researchers in univerisities. The tests were done to find a relation between lung cancer and smoking pot. they found none, but instead a protecting effect against cancer growth.

i don't want to bring in people's experiences in this thread as i think they shouldn't be taken too seriously, but if who speaks has good scientific knowledge and you don't listen to them what is research really for?
what if people thought F@H was just a waste of time back when it started?

I am not asking you to blindly believe me, if you want the truth go look it for yourself.
And accept good and bad things about it.
Cannabinoids aren't the heaven pot smokers tend to believe.
But each year there is more people dying from tobacco and alcohol than with pot.
try to be open minded for once and get informed before talking all the rubbish that the "war on drugs" has told us.

I also believed that thc kills brain cells, makes you stupid and that you could die from it.
why did i believe all this? listening to stuff in television you get this information.
listening to stuff on scientific articles you get another information.

I will stop posting in this thread as i have no will to change your minds on the subject. you can believe whatever you want.
But believe me when i say that i could get really pissed if i think there might have been a cure for my aunt.

have a good day. no more replies from me.

EDIT: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
is this legit? (i have to admit you got me a little suspicious)

EDIT 2: if you are posting again i will read everything, but don't be aggressive with me, i really care about this, my father has been smoking cigarettes for a lot of time, and it is just a matter of time until he will have cancer.
i never believed i could say this, but I want my father to have a good life and i want a cure as all of you do.

Pot is not as dangerous as alcohol. Alcohol kills a lot of people every year, both through alcohol related diseases, and accidents that happened because the person was not sober. I lost my Aunt to the former, and my step brother to the latter.

If you've ever seen lung tissue - living lung tissue, it's delicate and intricate in it's structure. The idea of coating it with the tar from tobacco or pot, is just wrong - very wrong.

There are many causes of cancer. The most common is simply that we age, and the chromosomes in our cells can slowly lose the ability to protect themselves from damage/repair the damage. As our DNA loses protection, the errors in it become more common, and cancer could result from some of those mutations.

If someone reports that some thing (any thing), cures cancer in patients (not in a petri dish or test tube), then of course, I want to read the report of that study. I don't care what Katie Curic or Jon Stewart, or any reporter, has to say about it -- just the facts will be fine.

A true scientist will always follow the facts, and use controlled experiments to test his hypothesis. Unfortunately, these "reporters" in the media, wouldn't know a good scientific test, if it kicked them right in the shin.

Scientist: "What was the standard deviation of these results?"
Reporter: "Uh, what's a standard derivat, uh divaslation, uh what did you say?"

I've been around several terminal cancer patients. My Dad died of cancer. I never heard any of these patients ask for their cancer to be treated with thc or pot - never. Some did ask for pot to relieve certain symptoms, and help restore their appetite. It's necessary to separate a substance to help relive some discomfort, from a cure, however.

Pot has it's legitimate uses, but it is not a cure, and it should not be smoked. One of the worst things to see in a patient, is the lungs of a heavy smoker. It's just an ugly mass of black tar. Mix it with some heavy oils and you could use it to asphalt your driveway.

BTW, serious doctors/researchers make presentations for medical conferences, and write peer reviewed papers for scientific publications. They don't make videos for YouTube extolling the benefits of cannabis. Guess who does! Guess who they want you to believe they are. Guess who they really aren't.

When you read articles like these, remember that you're not getting the full story. The writer probably has no idea what the real story is that the researcher is explaining. He probably doesn't even know what the words are, that the researcher is saying.

Go to FAH or any legitimate research paper, and read what they're doing on a project or an experiment. How much of that do you understand?

Very little. Same as the writer of the article. But it's his job to make an article about it, one that is stimulating and provocative, and that an 8th grader can understand.

You can see the reporters dilemma, right?

Zantal said:

And if i'd say you are trying everything to discredit a university research?
...
EDIT 2: if you are posting again i will read everything, but don't be aggressive with me, i really care about this, ...

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is trying to be too harsh with you. Rather they are reacting with a healthy dose of skepticism to some the links you have posted.

I think you will agree with the falsehood "It's on the Internet, it must be true." Even something published in the most highly regarded scientific journals must be held up to scrutiny, review and possible refutation. That's simply how science is done.

At the same time, there probably is a bias against pot as a cancer cure due to the political unpopularity of "the killer weed." Hopefully good science will win out in the end. However as others have pointed out, there is a pretty long distance between demonstrating effects in a tissue culture to producing a useful medication.

recently the father of one of my friend was suffering from cancer and as a side effect of the treatment he was receiving, he had next to no appetite so in order to increase it, he was given a prescription for marijuana to be used in conjunction with a vaporizer. apparently the vaporizer is supposed to remove the more harmful toxins but deliver the THC which is what was supposed to increase his hunger. i hadn't heard of any other uses in cancer patients besides this.

when it comes to cancer research or any other drug research, you can pretty much look anywhere for potential cures so it only seems logical that they would look into potential uses for something like marijuana or other drugs.

Just note that there are other ways to get these, potentially cancer r3tard1ing agents in THC in you without smoking it. There are pills now, and also a machine called a vaporizor. So lets get off the its bad for you thing and think a bit outside the box.

While it may not be a cure, you cant really fault the study...at least I doubt anyone here can.

Also note, while logic takes us to smoke in your lungs being bad, and Im sure it is, Marijuana has NOT been proven to cause or increase cancer rates either. Lets not let our igorance preceed us on a plant that was ONLY deemed illegal b/c of our government wanting to get rid of the black and mexican labor force in the soutwest in the 1930's or so.

Zantal said:

And if i'd say you are trying everything to discredit a university research?
who are you guys to make such statements as "if i inject cancer cells with alcohol they die so we have found a cure". it's always the same thing, don't speak if all you got are personal theories and thoughts. If you come in here just to have a laugh.

Click to expand...

I'm not laughing and I'm not attempting to discredit legitimate research. I also have no issue with marijuana. I don't use it, but I'd be fine with it being legalized, regulated, and taxed.

Certainly alcohol kills more people than does weed. It't also far more widely used so that's not a reasonable comparison. Alcohol may be more harmful than weed, which I think is your point.

THC seems to be a good treatment for many symptoms. I haven't seen evidence that it's a cure for anything.

klear said:

How about something like this?

http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice

Click to expand...

Actually, the developer who works at the U of Alberta
lamented that this has been totally blown out of proportion by the interweb claims.

I posted some info in the lounge here about DCA last year when someone said about the same thing as you and included an e-mail from Dr. Joe Schwartz of Mc Gill University.

Here's what's said about the status:

However, as DCA is not patented, Michelakis is concerned that it may be difficult to find funding from private investors to test DCA in clinical trials. He is grateful for the support he has already received from publicly funded agencies, such as the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), and he is hopeful such support will continue and allow him to conduct clinical trials of DCA on cancer patients.

Click to expand...

From here

EDIT: Here's what I got Jan last year http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6380786&postcount=34

I'll look for something more upto date.