Cancer Cure

varcourFri 03/09/10 08:12

www.phoenixtears.ca

varcourFri 03/09/10 08:27

chutzpahFri 03/09/10 09:28

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080410073847AAb6zYx

Unsubstantiated testimonials do not a cure make.

And I don't buy this "drug companies wouldn't be interested" nonsense - if it made them money, they'd be lobbying Governments like hell to broaden the spectrum of therapeutic marijuana use so they could grow it and process it.

varcourFri 03/09/10 10:04

Have you seen the full film?

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/308/3/838.full.pdf

Does a research paper make it better?

It says the same thing.

varcourFri 03/09/10 10:07

They can't patent it. Without a patent nothing makes money in the Drug industry

Believe me I know

When drugs go off patent and can be made by generic means, they make no more money for the company that developed them

I worked as a psychiatrist and the drug reps were always pushing the new drugs, not the ones that had gone off patent.

The life of a drug is about 20 years, and it has to pay back its research costs.

Before you trample this pearl to dust research what goes into making a new drug viable and then come back and say that.

varcourFri 03/09/10 10:14

So you would base your response on three responses by people you'd never met, on Answers at Yahoo?

They injected THC into brain tumours in 2000 in mice and they cleared up

It was done in a laboratory in Spain.

Its not new, by any means, but it is suppressed.

varcourFri 03/09/10 10:18

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948

Here's more medical proof if it were needed.

varcourFri 03/09/10 10:20

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/full/6603236a.html

Even in the british journal of cancer

chutzpahFri 03/09/10 10:24

quoting > "Does a research paper make it better?

It says the same thing."

And quotes two papers, one of which found that it had no impact on certain cancer cells, or had a small effect on others. And also points out that the effect lessens towards the end of the 'protocol' - although they're not sure why.

At best the research paper indicates the compounds can reduce the size of tumours, and inhibit growth, although it raises concerns over the longevity of the treatment if tolerance is an issue. Which isn't anything to be sniffed at admittedly. But it's not a cure.

quoting > "They can't patent it. Without a patent nothing makes money in the Drug industry"

They've been trying to patent the active anti-bacterial ingredients of the neem tree. Aspirin was patented - yet it's a processed extract of willow bark. Cannabis oil may not be patented, but active ingredients / medicines developed from it can be.

chutzpahFri 03/09/10 10:29

quoting > "So you would base your response on three responses by people you'd never met, on Answers at Yahoo?"

And you would base your optimism (and expect us to do so) on a video by a man with no known medical training? The journals I'm more inclined to trust - but that 'video' is unscientific and based on anecdotes, from people who were using the oil as an adjunct to conventional medicine.

It's funny how people cry 'conspiracy' at all of this, which inevitably makes me less likely to believe their tales of persecution. I've seen cannabis grown in the UK for research purposes - both in private research facilities, and in a rather pleasant castle's gardens in Northumbria. The 'complimentary medicine' industry is worth billions - so if they were serious about this cure, as opposed to a whole host of other quackery, then there's no reason they couldn't be funding the research.

varcourFri 03/09/10 10:35

Anandamide has just been released on to the UK market

Its a cannabis derived medication

What they cant do is give hash oil or bud oil as a medicine

There are several compounds in it,

Aspirin wouldn't get a patent these days.

NO I wouldn't base my optimism on the the man in the video

I based it on the 2000 year old cure sent from the European patent office showing the same thing.