What if Cannabis Cured Cancer ?

Watched a YouTube video recently about this , thanks to a Forum link . I'm not a user myself , always been put off by the illegality aspect , but this video opened my eyes somewhat !

Cannabis , in some form or another , used to be widely used for self medication and was a staple part of the doctor's bag of medicines .

 

It was used for labour pains , asthma , rheumatism , and was also given to "cranky babies". Apparently Queen Victoria used it for period pains .....

 

Having watched most of this video , have become concerned about the use of the law to make this herb very illegal .

 

In 1937 , a US Federal Law was passed making cannabinoids illegal , but THIS WAS OPPOSED BY THE US MEDICAL ASSOCIATION of the day .....

 

This was around the same time that the new , profit-driven , assembly-line "Big Pharma" companies were getting started .... Hmmmmm

 

Doctors in 2012 still don't have a "golden bullet" to relieve pain , Sativex is a cannabinoid released onto the market around 2005 - it seems to me that the powers that be want to stop people growing their own on a tiny scale but are happy for "big Pharma" to start selling it !!!

What if jellybeans cured AIDS!

I heard that one argument in "favor" of banning it was in fact racist.

It was a substance that Mexicans and "N.....s"* used to seduce innocent white girls.

* Rude word for people with more melanin than I have, but used widely in 1937 ( when I was 1 year old )

Also, opiates were associated with Chinese in similar propaganda

Not enough research has been done due to the legal situation. Human trials haven't been allowed.

Actually, there was one study conducted. It had VERY little results yielded. It was done in 2006 and not picked up again. Obviously did have as good of results as people expected.

---------- Post added 17-08-2014 at 20:02 ----------

There is already a "miracle cure" that's based on cannabis/hemp...

 

it's been around for years, but the big pharma companies don't want it out in the public as they'll all loose so much money...

Yes...they'll lose money on making drugs? Pharmaceutical companies aren't stupid, and they are quick to jump on the avenues for effective therapies. There are always ways to repackage and patent molecules, no matter what they are, which would give them a return on the investment required to develop and test them in clinical trials.

To suggest that the cure is being hidden with literally no evidence, is not only ridiculous on the face of it but it’s offensive to the community of dedicated, ridiculously hardworking scientists, to the staff and supporters of cancer research to cancer patients and their families.

There are always ways to repackage and patent molecules, no matter what they are, which would give them a return on the investment required to develop and test them in clinical trials.

Indeed, this has already happened to cannabis, but not in the context of cancer treatment, other than as anti-nausea therapy,analgesia, and as an appetite stimulant.

The drug, Sativex, is currently being explored as an adjunct to therapy with Temozolomide for people with aggressive, returning, brain tumours.

There's quite a bit of interest in pharmaceutical research in cannabinoids generally, since the discovery of the endocannabinoid system in humans in 1992.

Actually, there was one study conducted. It had VERY little results yielded. It was done in 2006 and not picked up again. Obviously did have as good of results as people expected.

 

---------- Post added 17-08-2014 at 20:02 ----------

 

 

Yes...they'll lose money on making drugs? Pharmaceutical companies aren't stupid, and they are quick to jump on the avenues for effective therapies. There are always ways to repackage and patent molecules, no matter what they are, which would give them a return on the investment required to develop and test them in clinical trials.

 

To suggest that the cure is being hidden with literally no evidence, is not only ridiculous on the face of it but it’s offensive to the community of dedicated, ridiculously hardworking scientists, to the staff and supporters of cancer research to cancer patients and their families.

That one small study showed some positive results & says there is a basis for more trials, right in the abstract...

Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibited tumour-cell proliferation in vitro and decreased tumour-cell Ki67 immunostaining when administered to two patients. The fair safety profile of THC, together with its possible antiproliferative action on tumour cells reported here and in other studies, may set the basis for future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids.

And it's not THC which has shown the most promise so far, it's CBD.

Clearly a 'cure' for cancer may be a little too much to hope for, but it could possibly help to slow the progression, possibly even shrink tumours. It could also help with the pain & the nausea caused by cancer and other drugs to treat it.

Drug companies lose money because they can't patent a plant.

Research has been suppressed for 70+ years, it's rarely been allowed to be studied... http://cannabisdigest.ca/canna-dunces-suppression-cannabis-science/

That one small study showed some positive results & says there is a basis for more trials, right in abstract...

When scientists don't pick up research conducted 8 years ago, no matter how promising an abstract sounds, It didn't work. If the study conducted had some merit, then why has it not been picked up? it was conducted in 2006, as it is now 2014, I'm asserting it obviously didn't go well.

---------- Post added 18-08-2014 at 09:17 ----------

Also, two of the studies in that (biased) article you posted a link to are crap. 50%? Do you actually have access to these papers or just what everyone else says about them? Cause I can assure you that paper lead no where near to the conclusion of 50% reduction of stroke from THC AND cannabinol. Well, which is it? They don't mention any synergism at all.. Absurd.

As hilarious as the ad hominem argument is (being that the government is suppressing the research). If cannabis, or any of its components for clarity, actually could show efficacy against any cancers, Big Pharma would be all over it. No, you cannot patent a plant, however, they would not be selling joints, they would be distilling the active ingredients, determining the exact dose (possibly even dosage), determining deliverance it to the cancer site, funding clinical trials, funding FDA documentation, then getting it into physician’s hands. – not easy but definitely profitable…only if they had actual evidence for it.

Cannabis destroys brain cells. This thread proves that.

More testing has been done with CBD oil because it's not restricted the same as that containing THC .

People that have had success in treating cancer with it have used oil or the plant including THC.

It might turn out that THC has no direct effect on cancer but has other properties that aid healing like increasing appetite, pain relief, and aiding sleep.

It could replace their need to take other medication with harmful side effects.

Don't you think it should be made an option for someone dying from cancer?

If cannabis, or any of its components for clarity, actually could show efficacy against any cancers, Big Pharma would be all over it.

True up to a point - but it's complicated by the regulatory hoops that need jumping through to research cannabis, compared to, for example, vinpocetine or other plant extract that may have medical uses. Also, "Big Pharma" has a very sensitive nose for cost efficiency when developing new drugs - preferring as much as possible to stamp out analogs of existing drugs using variations on existing mass production processes, rather than spending money on complete unknowns that also lack a mass production process in place.

No, you cannot patent a plant, however, they would not be selling joints, they would be distilling the active ingredients, determining the exact dose (possibly even dosage),

Sativex, from GW Pharmaceuticals is precisely what you describe. Cannabis grown in the UK, processed in the UK, sold in the UK and prescribed in the UK.

determining deliverance it to the cancer site, funding clinical trials, funding FDA documentation, then getting it into physician’s hands. – not easy but definitely profitable…only if they had actual evidence for it.

Well they must have evidence because it's happening.

Sativex is currently being evaluated as part of dual therapy for brain cancer with the study due to end next month.

It's a long way from curing cancer, but it is a fact that extracts of C.Sativa have been researched, standardised and approved for use by NICE, and that this drug is actively being investigated in the direct treatment of aggressive brain tumours, in addition to being used in its on-label designation as an antispasticity, neuropathic pain and nausea treatment, (not to mention its many other medical and psychiatric benefits in a therapeutic context).

What if Cannabis Cured Cancer ?

Even if it did not ... Smoke away, no more harm than booze!!!!!

---------- Post added 19-08-2014 at 02:44 ----------

The only difference being a smoker wants to talk rubbish all night a boozer wants to fight.!

True up to a point - but it's complicated by the regulatory hoops that need jumping through to research cannabis, compared to, for example, vinpocetine or other plant extract that may have medical uses. Also, "Big Pharma" has a very sensitive nose for cost efficiency when developing new drugs - preferring as much as possible to stamp out analogs of existing drugs using variations on existing mass production processes, rather than spending money on complete unknowns that also lack a mass production process in place.

 

 

Sativex, from GW Pharmaceuticals is precisely what you describe. Cannabis grown in the UK, processed in the UK, sold in the UK and prescribed in the UK.

 

 

 

Well they must have evidence because it's happening.

 

Sativex is currently being evaluated as part of dual therapy for brain cancer with the study due to end next month.

 

It's a long way from curing cancer, but it is a fact that extracts of C.Sativa have been researched, standardised and approved for use by NICE, and that this drug is actively being investigated in the direct treatment of aggressive brain tumours, in addition to being used in its on-label designation as an antispasticity, neuropathic pain and nausea treatment, (not to mention its many other medical and psychiatric benefits in a therapeutic context).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-28810407

Sativex is taken as an oral spray and has been approved by the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG).

It will be available on prescription to treat muscle spasms for MS patients who have not responded to other medicine.

The MS Society said Wales was leading the way in the treatment."

However....

"Drug prevention charities have responded with exasperation after the Tories immediately slapped down calls from the drugs minister for the legalisation of cannabis in the UK for medicinal use and dismissed concerns that current drugs laws are overly restrictive."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/14/drug-legalisation-uk-norman-baker_n_5677686.html

Another anecdote here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2727774/Happy-Mondays-star-former-drug-addict-Paul-Ryder-reveals-treated-11-year-old-sons-cancer-CANNABIS.html

Happy Mondays star Paul Ryder has revealed how he treated his 11-year-old son's cancer with cannabis.

 

The bass player and one of the founding members of the Manchester band, told MailOnline as a recovering addict he would never have encouraged Chico to take drugs.

 

But when faced with his son's diagnosis - a rare form of soft tissue cancer - the musician said he and his wife took the decision to use cannabis oil.

 

...

 

five days before Christmas 2012, he became very ill.

 

...

 

'The doctors said he only had 10 more days before it would completely block his airways.

 

...

 

Doctors prescribed a drug called Marinol – a synthetic form of cannabis – to ease the chemo nausea.

 

Angela said: 'The Marinol worked a little at the beginning, but we were told that real cannabis worked much better.

 

'So because we were living in a state where medical cannabis is legal with a doctor’s recommendation, we asked the doctors for approval, and they agreed.

 

...

 

 

'We built up the dose slowly as his tolerance rose. It made a big difference in his overall well-being.

 

'It definitely made the treatment more tolerable. He started to smile. It certainly didn’t solve every problem but it helped make his life more bearable through the treatment.'

 

In December last year, the family got the best news they could have hoped for – Chico was in remission.

 

His mother said: 'Chico has lost his hair and needs a wheelchair from the side effects of his treatment, but we know he’ll be back on his feet soon.

So, it was good news for them, good thing it's legal there.

---------- Post added 19-08-2014 at 13:45 ----------

When scientists don't pick up research conducted 8 years ago, no matter how promising an abstract sounds, It didn't work. If the study conducted had some merit, then why has it not been picked up? it was conducted in 2006, as it is now 2014, I'm asserting it obviously didn't go well.

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2014 at 09:17 ----------

 

Also, two of the studies in that (biased) article you posted a link to are crap. 50%? Do you actually have access to these papers or just what everyone else says about them? Cause I can assure you that paper lead no where near to the conclusion of 50% reduction of stroke from THC AND cannabinol. Well, which is it? They don't mention any synergism at all.. Absurd.

 

As hilarious as the ad hominem argument is (being that the government is suppressing the research). If cannabis, or any of its components for clarity, actually could show efficacy against any cancers, Big Pharma would be all over it. No, you cannot patent a plant, however, they would not be selling joints, they would be distilling the active ingredients, determining the exact dose (possibly even dosage), determining deliverance it to the cancer site, funding clinical trials, funding FDA documentation, then getting it into physician’s hands. – not easy but definitely profitable…only if they had actual evidence for it.

I didn't write that article, it was just posted as a reference for how research has been suppressed due to it being an 'illegal drug', it has been harder for researchers to study than other plants & compounds, particularly in human trials. I don't stand by their other claims.

If you want a list of more serious studies, look here: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page1

If it doesn't have any promise, then why are some doctors in more liberal parts of the world recommending it & seemingly having some success?