Happy Atheist Forum

I stumbled on this radio interview on YouTube regarding Rick Simpson and his hemp oil cancer remedy.  It's very encouraging and discouraging at the same time and worth some inquiry.  http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=F1GPnlbGweM&feature=PlayList&p=03B8C40026CB0FD6&index=0&playnext=1

Here is a video show on the subject.  http://ca.youtube.com/user/chrychek

Here is Rick's website for more information.  http://www.phoenixtears.ca/rick.html

My apologies if I posted this in the wrong place or if it's not welcome discussion material, but I thought it was important.  Any thoughts on the subject?

Granted cannabis does have a thousand and one uses, but curing cancer? I suspect marijuana prohibitionists would have a tough time arguing against that.

Has there been any legitimate, peer reviewed research on the subject?

From what I understand, this guy continues to go through road block after road block.  It's a Catch 21 for politicians.  If they show any support for research, then they are painted as 'pro-drug' by the media and mostly the pharmaceutical companies (who stand to lose countless billions if the claims are true).  On the other hand, if they ignore this potential, they are turning their back on the health of their constituents.

Hemp has been a staple in treatment of many ailments for thousands of years until it was vilified in the 1930's,I believe.  It is one of the oldest cultivated plants in history and the most widely grown field crop on the globe until the mid 20th century.  Prior to its vilification, hemp was used as a means of currency and was required by law to be grown during times of drought.

The potential for healing properties of hemp oil should no longer be ignored, not to mention all the countless positives in growing hemp for paper, clothing, substitute for plastic and much, much more.

There is already a cure for cancer. It is called surgery and chemotherapy.

Now until someone who actually know their way around biochemistry, medicine and all the goodies put forth some conclusive research that says that hemp oil does in fact have a positive effect on cancer cells within human body and that this effect is better than that of chemotherapy, I'll stick with the standard means of tumor removal.

Quote from: "DennisK"From what I understand, this guy continues to go through road block after road block.  It's a Catch 21 for politicians.  If they show any support for research, then they are painted as 'pro-drug' by the media and mostly the pharmaceutical companies (who stand to lose countless billions if the claims are true).  On the other hand, if they ignore this potential, they are turning their back on the health of their constituents.

Hemp has been a staple in treatment of many ailments for thousands of years until it was vilified in the 1930's,I believe.  It is one of the oldest cultivated plants in history and the most widely grown field crop on the globe until the mid 20th century.  Prior to its vilification, hemp was used as a means of currency and was required by law to be grown during times of drought.

The potential for healing properties of hemp oil should no longer be ignored, not to mention all the countless positives in growing hemp for paper, clothing, substitute for plastic and much, much more.

Could you explain specifically how the pharmaceutical companies stand to lose countless billions? I believe this is a very common misunderstanding about the pharma industry. If hemp oil has benefit, then they can do the R&D easier than anyone else and actually profit from this.

Disclaimer: Yes, I am a hematology and oncology consultant for a biotech company.  

Lots of things can kill certain types of cancer cells. It doesn't mean they work in a lot of different cancer cells, or most of the time.

Quote from: "McQ"Lots of things can kill certain types of cancer cells. It doesn't mean they work in a lot of different cancer cells, or most of the time.

Sulfuric acid is pretty effective I suppose... So is running over a tumor with a tank... But those things might just kill the patient as well as the cancer...

I'm with you on the financial aspect of this McQ. The reason is that even IF hemp oil can be used as a compound for effectively treating cancer, it will most likely have to be properly manufactured and mixed with a ton of other chemicals in the process. And if the patient can't cook the meds at home, the THEYâ,,¢ are still free to make their money.

Quote from: "Asmodean"There is already a cure for cancer. It is called surgery and chemotherapy.

Now until someone who actually know their way around biochemistry, medicine and all the goodies put forth some conclusive research that says that hemp oil does in fact have a positive effect on cancer cells within human body and that this effect is better than that of chemotherapy, I'll stick with the standard means of tumor removal.

How can you do research when it is illegal to have it in your possession?  If you would rather subject your body to mass doses of poison that is chemotherapy, go ahead.  Chemotherapy kills as many as it saves.  It not only attacks cancer cells, but healthy cells as well.  This guy is trying to have his government and others research hemp oil.  He's no snake oil salesman.  He's giving it away.  People with terminally ill cancer seemingly have been cured.  At the very least, it needs to be investigated by the medical community.

Quote from: "McQ"Could you explain specifically how the pharmaceutical companies stand to lose countless billions? I believe this is a very common misunderstanding about the pharma industry. If hemp oil has benefit, then they can do the R&D easier than anyone else and actually profit from this.

Disclaimer: Yes, I am a hematology and oncology consultant for a biotech company.  

Lots of things can kill certain types of cancer cells. It doesn't mean they work in a lot of different cancer cells, or most of the time.

The economics for pharmaceutical companies is quite simple.  A buttload of their income comes from 'medicines' that TREAT cancer.  Their research is done on treatments, not cures.  It makes no sense for them to manufacture something that anyone in their backyard could concoct and could eliminate the need for treatment with their expensive drugs.  I'm not conspiracy theorist, but it is only common sense to see that these companies stand to lose a lot if not everything if there was a cure.  If you think that pharmaceutical companies are in the business to help people, then you are very naive.  That's like saying oil companies are pushing for fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles.

We've made huge leaps forward with the advancement of medicine, but in the same sense, we've gone backwards when we neglect thousands of years of knowledge.  Billions of dollars are spent by pharmaceutical companies yearly to ensure doctors use their drugs.  Unless you believe all doctors truly honor the hippocratic oath, you have to admit the potential for tampering with the integrity of the medical profession.

Look at this link:http://www.phoenixtears.ca/list.html

Quote1842 - 1890 Extracts and derivatives of the hemp plant are the second and third most prescribed medicines in the U.S.A. Eli Lilly, Parke-Davis, Squibb, Brothers Smith and other firms produce these medicines through 1930. During this time, not one death or severe side-effect is attributed to use.

Dennis, it is quite clear to me that you really have no idea of this topic that is based on experience or reality. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have a clue as to how oncology works. Nor how biotechs or pharma companies work. Additionally, you misunderstand my position. I didn't say don't do research on hemp oil or anything for that matter. I'm all for doing real scientific research on any compound that has potential to treat and cure cancer. If hemp is one, then great.

It would not be illegal for pharma companies to do research on hemp. That is just one of the incorrect statements you've made. Pharma companies do research on compounds that are absolutely illegal for the average person to possess every day. The other incorrect statement is that the research is done only on treatment, not cures. This is where you have no idea how either medicine or pharma works. The goal is to cure, but that doesn't happen all at once. Chemotherapy is not the future of oncology. It was a step along the way. Biologic compounds, targeted therapies, and gene research are the way of the future of oncology, and that is where the research is being done. Part of my job is to read anywhere from half a dozen to two dozen new clinical studies every week. There's far more going on than you are aware of.

Cancer isn't one single thing. Please do some actual research before spouting off about a topic you are obviously completely unfamiliar with. I've been in oncology for 19 years. I've seen amazing advances in that time and the advances are coming literally weekly. Good science, in this case, medicine, is not done hastily. It takes time, sometimes years, to makes appropriate steps that lead to cures.

And don't make the mistake about calling me naive about a subject on which I am the expert and you are the uninformed. It just makes you look foolish.

Quote from: "McQ"Dennis, it is quite clear to me that you really have no idea of this topic that is based on experience or reality. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have a clue as to how oncology works. Nor how biotechs or pharma companies work. Additionally, you misunderstand my position. I didn't say don't do research on hemp oil or anything for that matter. I'm all for doing real scientific research on any compound that has potential to treat and cure cancer. If hemp is one, then great.

It would not be illegal for pharma companies to do research on hemp. That is just one of the incorrect statements you've made. Pharma companies do research on compounds that are absolutely illegal for the average person to possess every day. The other incorrect statement is that the research is done only on treatment, not cures. This is where you have no idea how either medicine or pharma works. The goal is to cure, but that doesn't happen all at once. Chemotherapy is not the future of oncology. It was a step along the way. Biologic compounds, targeted therapies, and gene research are the way of the future of oncology, and that is where the research is being done. Part of my job is to read anywhere from half a dozen to two dozen new clinical studies every week. There's far more going on than you are aware of.

Cancer isn't one single thing. Please do some actual research before spouting off about a topic you are obviously completely unfamiliar with. I've been in oncology for 19 years. I've seen amazing advances in that time and the advances are coming literally weekly. Good science, in this case, medicine, is not done hastily. It takes time, sometimes years, to makes appropriate steps that lead to cures.

And don't make the mistake about calling me naive about a subject on which I am the expert and you are the uninformed. It just makes you look foolish.

Touche.  I do not have the clinical background in oncology, nor do I possess an in depth understanding of any cancers.  Point taken.

What I, instead, wanted to put forth is that it goes against business logic to eliminate your largest source of income by promoting a cure.  If you believe otherwise, then yes, you are naive.  It is a business and businesses/investors care about the bottom line.  Now, suggesting that the industry you work for may be corrupt is not directed at you, personally or any individual involved in research.  I apologize if that is how I came across.

I fear the medical profession has instilled a false sense of security in most people.  Propaganda has run amuck and pharmaceutical companies are prime examples of this.  How could you not believe they don't care about you when you watch any commercial involving drugs?

Take the time to look at some of the videos on Rick Simpson and the struggles he's had when trying to create awareness for a potential cure so it can be studied.  There is a huge stigma attached with hemp/marijuana.  Many are afraid that droves of hippies will come down from the mountains and paint the world tye-dyed if it is given consideration.  Prior to its vilification, hemp was a widely used medication for thousands of years.  It is a safe.  No one has ever died from ingesting hemp oil.

Quote from: "DennisK"How can you do research when it is illegal to have it in your possession?

Research abroad. In like Netherlands or something.  

Quote from: "Asmodean"Research abroad. In like Netherlands or something.  

I think that makes sense and I've since been trying to find if there are companies there now researching hemp oil.  I haven't found any yet, but I am curious.

Regardless of whether it is being researched abroad, it should be researched here.  Yes, pharmaceutical companies have the means to make this happen, but it is improbable that they would ever try.  Universities have tried to research the effects of hemp oil, however, the DEA will not allow them.  Meanwhile, you can legally take any number of naturally grown plants that can kill you, but not a plant that has been proven to have healing properties.  "God bless the USA!"

mcq

This subject scares me as much as it interests me.

Do you have any links on current research or a dumbed-down explanation of the major problems in finding a cure?

I’ve heard a while back that the president of the United States could cure cancer if they made it their highest priority. How accurate do think that statement is? What do think we are not doing today that we should be doing to find a cure?

Yes, McQ, I too wants what jcm wants.  

This guy has apparently not heard of Sativex, a sub-lingual cannabis based spray for pain relief in Multiple Sclerosis despite the fact it was licenced in Canada for this purpose several years ago. The research for the product was done in the UK under special licence as the growing on cannabis is, of course, against the law. In fact he is quite wrong and a drug company is working with this plant.

The problem is that it is unlikely to be a cure-all for cancer and other serious conditions and only if it seems to be significantly suitable will drug companies research it. He needs to get some work done on what action it actually has as, of course, cancer can go into remission and thus look like it is cured. Without that it seems to be just another bit of quackery.

Quote from: "wheels5894"This guy has apparently not heard of Sativex, a sub-lingual cannabis based spray for pain relief in Multiple Sclerosis despite the fact it was licenced in Canada for this purpose several years ago. The research for the product was done in the UK under special licence as the growing on cannabis is, of course, against the law. In fact he is quite wrong and a drug company is working with this plant.

The problem is that it is unlikely to be a cure-all for cancer and other serious conditions and only if it seems to be significantly suitable will drug companies research it. He needs to get some work done on what action it actually has as, of course, cancer can go into remission and thus look like it is cured. Without that it seems to be just another bit of quackery.

Yes, I have heard of Sativex (although, not until recently).  I am also aware that it is very similar to the extracts that were legally available in the US until 1937 and were manufactured by major drug companies in the US.  If the US drug companies wanted to bring these medicines back, everyone knows it would happen.  It's been over 80 years of abolition with no end in sight.  As you said, it was developed by a BRITISH company and is approved for use in Canada for MS and chronic pain from what I've read.  If you try purchasing any in Canada and bringing it over the border, you face felony charges and up to 5 years in federal prison.

Whether it is a cure all for cancers or can only control one form of cancer or any other serious ailment, it is not being looked at in this country for political and economic reasons.  That is a shame.

Many of you can remain delusional, much like our theist friends, by thinking that drug companies are god and only care about us and will inevitably reward us when we get cancer.  They will treat us until we die.  Amen.

Hay Dennis, I'm just going to be flat out forward here.  Is this personal?  Are you losing or have you lost someone you love to cancer?  Is this a pot smoker's "mary-jane is really good for you, really!"  sort of promo?  Do you have a personal injury from pharma or are you just someone following the crowd of frustration at a very complex problem?  Any or all of the above?  None of the above?  Help me out here, because you have to have some motivation for a thread like this.

Well, I am certainly not naive or delusional, as Dennis seems to think. Sure didn't take him long to offer his clinical diagnosis of my delusion did it? But that's how it goes when the person you're debating with doesn't know what the hell he's talking about...personal attacks. By the way, an example of delusional thinking would be a lot harder to come by than what you've accused me of. A closer example of biased thinking or irrational thinking would be the example of believing something in the face of evidence that doesn't support a claim. Something which conspiracy theorists frequently engage in.

For those who really care to know why Dennis is wrong, here is a really brief rundown:

The statement that "Pharmaceutical Companies" (which Dennis seems to think are one big conglomerate) would lose money by "curing" cancer (another thing he doesn't have a clue about, even as far as the correct definition goes) is wrong. What do you mean by "curing" cancer? Do you know how many different types and subtypes of cancer there are? Do you know how many tumors are affected by any specific compound? I would guess not. When someone says say, "cure" cancer, what do they mean? Do they mean eradicate cancer so that the process of malignant cell formation never begins in a human, or do they mean something that will kill already growing cancer cells? It's an important distinction that has to be answered first, because most people don't even stop to think about it.

No matter what most people think, including Dennis, hemp does not prevent cancer from occurring. If it did, then it would be considered able to eradicate the process of malignant cell transformation and be a true cure. However, if it is able to kill cancer cells already growing, then it would come under the heading of a compound which shows significant activity in causing apoptosis, and would be considered able to place patients in remission, possible permanent. We look at this in general terms as a cure, but the risk of reformation of malignant cells is always there, even with people who have been "cured" by chemo, radiation, surgery, or biologic agents.

What most people are not aware of is that cancer is simply not one thing. It is thousands of parts of a process of malignant cell transformation and no two cancers are exactly alike. In fact, not even the same type of cancer behaves the same in the people who have it.

Take even something as rare as Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS).

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/myelod ... es/DS00596 (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/myelodysplastic-syndromes/DS00596)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelodysplastic_syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myelodysplastic_syndrome)

(above references are for describing the disease)

I'm using that because it is a rare and less diverse cancer than say, non small-cell lung cancer. Even in MDS, no two patients have the same issues, or respond the same way to drugs of any kind. What has been learned through research is that there is much more genetic involvement than previously thought, and even the translocation of one specific gene, or the deletion of one part of one gene (let's go with deletion 5q, for example), will make a huge difference in whether or not a patient responds to a particular therapy. No one compound has the ability to affect all of the different factors that influence the growth of MDS. Not even hemp, most likely. And even if one compound was able to affect most of the factors influencing MDS in one patient, it would not do the same in all patients.

This is a subject that is orders of magnitude more complex than Dennis or other people are aware of. But similar to the way in which fundamentalist christians debate, they try to argue from the point of ignorance, based on anecdotes, rather than real evidence based science.

For jcm and asmodean, I have no idea if that statement about the President is even true, let alone accurate. The problem is that, like it or not, there is no one "cure" for cancer. There are cancers, like Thyroid and Hodgkin's Lymphoma, that are "curable" through current treatments (others too, but no time or room here to discuss), but even these are considered to cure 80% to 99% of patients, IF treated promptly and in time.

Back to companies not wanting to cure cancer. If a compound, like say......oh, HEMP, for instance, was found to "cure" (as in kill cancer cells; let's say in renal cell carcinoma) cancer, then why wouldn't biotech companies want to study it? Why would they suppress positive data on it? The answer is that they wouldn't because they would be the first ones in line to synthesize it and sell it. It would be profitable. Even if hemp killed 100% of cancer cells in 100% of patients who took it, please explain how that would prevent other people from developing that same cancer. It would not prevent future cases of that cancer. Therefore the biotechs and pharma companies would still make money off of new patients. Something that all of the pharma conspiracy folks conveniently forget to mention.

But even if they researched it, found it to be 100% effective in all patients and used it to "cure" existing patients, those same people would be saying exactly what Dennis is saying now: that no one is actually trying to "cure" cancer, because future cases of cancer aren't being prevented. Only existing cases are being cured. What a no-win situation for those trying to cure cancer!

Problem is that Dennis and others who believe like him are the truly naive and uneducated about this, again so eerily similar to fundies who argue Intelligent Design.  

What they do not realize or do not want to realize (nothing is more aggravating than willful ignorance) is that biotechs and pharma companies ARE doing research in thousands of compounds every day in order to make cures for all types of cancers. Targeted biologic therapy is beginning to replace traditional chemotherapy. In many types of cancer, less toxxic chemo regimens are used to cure patients. Progress is being made. There is no conspiracy between the government and "Big Pharma" to keep people dying of cancer. That is a baseless and false accusation.

Not all biotechs or pharma companies are the same. Many, far too many, act too much out of greed and short term thinking. Not only do I believe that, but I am trying to change that on a daily basis. But there are good researchers doing real science, who look constantly for ways to eradicate cancer. Not just cure existing cases, but to learn how to switch off the gene or the part of the gene responsible for beginning the process of malignant transformation in the first place.

By the way, Dennis, please feel free to explain exactly by what mechanism of action hemp cures all cancer. that will go on my reading list for the week.

Otherwise, do not bother engaging me in this debate, because I am really tired of people who argue from the standpoint of willful ignorance. This is the same reason I stopped arguing evolutionary theory with christians long ago.

(this piece not checked for spelling...I have a life outside of this forum and it is calling me!)

McQ makes a lot of sense.

Cancer is a complex problem - as complex as the number of patients who have it. Personally, I like to think that the more permanent working solution will involve my (future) field of expertise - microelectronics and nano engineering. But before that time comes and unless some other major breakthrough in cancer research comes along, I'll stick with the mainstream treatment methods as there is actually a better chance of them working to prolong my life, should I wish it, than of them killing me.

My brother died of cancer when he was 17. He had fought against the disease multiple times since he was seven years old. In each case, the tumor was operable, but the last one wasnt. Chemotherapy wasn't enough, asmodeus. I for one would be glad if cancer was eradicated from the face of the earth. Doesn't mean cannabis works, but the more knowledge you have about the world around you, the better, eh?

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"My brother died of cancer when he was 17. He had fought against the disease multiple times since he was seven years old. In each case, the tumor was operable, but the last one wasnt. Chemotherapy wasn't enough, asmodeus.

Sorry to hear that. We've got a history of cancer in my family too, so I guess I have something to look forward to what with me smoking like a steam locomotive. Not "Asmodeus" though. The name was derived from there, but I aimed for the other guy.  

Quote from: "Wechtlein Uns"I for one would be glad if cancer was eradicated from the face of the earth. Doesn't mean cannabis works, but the more knowledge you have about the world around you, the better, eh?

I'll sign under that. And don't get me wrong, I have nothing against organised cannabis research. What I DO have something against is the concept of "miracle cure" for such complex a problem combined with the concept of potentially experimenting (outside laboratory, that is) with illegal narcotics.

Both of my parents died from different cancers. Pancreatic (dad) and Peritoneal (mom). Both my wife and my oldest son have had cancer in the past four years. Both required chemotherapy and/or radiation (without which, they would both absolutely be dead) and both are in full remission and are expected to not have a recurrence. I've been in this field a long freaking time, and have seen way too many people suffering. But there have been advances made in "curing" certain cancers. Cancer cells do become resistant to treatment, even the most effective treatments. The idea is to keep advancing through research, which is being done by universities and the "dreaded" biotech companies. More needs to be done, and more needs to be done to make sure that it is good research that is not contaminated by the influence of simply short term profits for pharma or physicians.

There have been sad examples, admittedly, of some companies suppressing negative data on products (Merck is an example with Vioxx). As in every single human endeavor, there are both altruistic people and greedy bastards. To paint all of the pharma and biotech industry with one broad brush is both an error, and unfair. In the same way, I take every person who thinks they have the ultimate cure for cancer just as that...an individual with an extraordinary claim. Produce some extraordinary evidence, or even some mediocre evidence to support such a claim. Anecdotes don't cut it. Neither do "studies" from non-peer reviewed or "throwaway" journals.

I have numerous issues with the industry within which I work, but good research gets done, and it's getting done at a faster pace than in the past, largely due to computer modeling of new compounds in the initial phases of R&D. If I have little or no patience for people who spout off without knowing what the hell they're talking about, certain folks are just going to have to deal with it. I won't apologize for not suffering foolish rhetoric.

For Asmo, and others who want to learn or have questions, or want to know how to reduce the risks of certain types of cancers significantly, I'm here for advice and to answer those questions.

Quote from: "McQ"For Asmo, and others who want to learn or have questions, or want to know how to reduce the risks of certain types of cancers significantly, I'm here for advice and to answer those questions.

I do have a question actually.

Do you know anything about snuff causing cancer? From what I hear, there is a lot of conflicting data going back and forth. Last year our government decided to put "addictive and potentially cancerogenic" sticker on the snuff boxes, but I, for one, have never heard of a case of someone getting cancer which could be linked to using snuff (it's the kind you stick under your lip I'm talking about)

Actually I have a question that's more towards the theory side that I've been trying to find more information on very unsuccessfully.  What role do different types of stimulants play, if any?  

I would think anything that can accelerate the metabolism of a cell would accelerate growth rates and increase the possibility of mutation and the chromosomes getting unstable.  Am I way off base here?  

I guess I remember setting up cell cultures  and our professor explained totipotence in embryonic cells as opposed to the totipotence that developed in the HeLa cell lines.  Hopefully I'm using the terms correctly, it's really been a long time ago.  At any rate he explained how as cells age they begin to lose their telomeres and the chromosomes become unstable and stick together.  So substances that increase cellular metabolism might play a role in developing cancers?  

I guess what got me thinking about this was hearing about the development of lymphomas in meth users.  From what I know meth is a pretty "clean" substance with a simple action in the body as a stimulant...but I'm no pharmacist so this is just out on a limb, more anecdotal stuff   :D (or actually even any chronics anymore).  Well only one, but he developed bladder cancer.  That was sad.

Lara, I'll get back to you on the stimulant question. Promise! I have a ton of stuff to do this weekend, and only had a few minutes to do some quick looksies into some of the questions.

As a way to illustrate the complexity of this subject, I'll attach some abstracts and articles from noteworthy journals. Asmo, at least one abstract gives you partial good news on snuff, from one study. Don't do the whoopie! celebration yet though. there is a ton of info out there on this. Some of it is bound to be bad news.  :crazy:  I'll bet Squid eats this stuff up though.  

Quote from: "LARA"Hay Dennis, I'm just going to be flat out forward here.  Is this personal?  Are you losing or have you lost someone you love to cancer?  Is this a pot smoker's "mary-jane is really good for you, really!"  sort of promo?  Do you have a personal injury from pharma or are you just someone following the crowd of frustration at a very complex problem?  Any or all of the above?  None of the above?  Help me out here, because you have to have some motivation for a thread like this.

I have no hidden agenda.  Yes, I toked some in college (14 years ago), but I don't smoke now and I am not a proponent for getting baked.  I have had no one close to me die of cancer (although I did see my grandfather dying of lung cancer), nor do I have any bad experiences with any drugs (over or under the counter).  I am making no claims that hemp oil is a cancer cure.  I am just trying to raise some awareness because it seems as though there is some promise there and neglect.

I have always been sensitive to others when I see that they have been wronged -maybe to the point of hyper-sensitivity.  Call me a bleeding heart if you will.  When it was tangible to me, I tried to stick up for those who could not stick up for themselves.  I haven't been able to make the leap for some time to defend people I viewed to be wronged beyond my community.  It has built up in me, though, and I'm almost to the point of real action (whatever that may be).  

I am many times angered how big business handles the public and the dirty secrets that are sometimes revealed.  Big businesses such as oil, meat, agriculture, land development, pharmaceutical and tobacco companies are just a few who, I believe, have made trillions at the expense of people's health in one form or another.  Now that I think about it, maybe I do have an agenda after all.

McQ,

Obviously, I hurt your feelings and I truly apologize.  There is a lot of good research by pharmaceutical companies and I don't doubt that you are integrally involved.  By generalizing any industry, you wrongly attack those within who are doing business the right way.  It is, however, human nature to do so.  

Also, my "delusional" or "naive" comments should have been worded differently.  What I should have implied is that if you do believe that the pharmaceutical industry is always watching your back, then you are naive and delusional. I don't believe anyone here does believe this, but I feel many people are snowed in our country.

These are some of the things I wanted to propose in this thread.

1.  If there is promise as there seems to be with hemp oil, why is it being suppressed and/or neglected?  I never claimed that hemp oil is a cure or effective treatment of any form of cancer, but I do think it deserves some investigation.  Hemp oil has been used for treatments of many ailments for thousands of years. Again, I'm not claiming anything, but raising the question.  Why was it stopped?

2.  Is it in the pharmaceutical companies (generalization, yes) best interest to continue to treat cancer indefinitely or try to cure any form?  I'm not saying no one within the industry is pushing for a specific cure or has not already come up with any.  I'm saying there is a lot more money to be made in treating a cancer (again, generalization) than prevention or curing.  Just as there is more benefit for the oil industry to have more gas guzzling as opposed to alternative fuel vehicles on the road.  Where there is a lot of money to be made, there usually follows corruption of some sort.  Honestly (and I'm not trying to be a smartass), am I a fundamentalist to make that leap?  I would think that would be the opposite since I don't buy into all the crap that's fed to me by big business/religion.  If hemp oil , by itself, is a cure for any form of cancer, I don't believe it could be patented because it is a plant.

3.  The hemp industry was politically vilified in this country in the 1930's.  Not because medical treatments were dangerous, but for political reasons and by those who would benefit from its abolition.

Thanks, McQ!  :D *stuffs the lip full of snuff and lights a cigarette*

Quote from: "DennisK"McQ,

Obviously, I hurt your feelings and I truly apologize.  There is a lot of good research by pharmaceutical companies and I don't doubt that you are integrally involved.  By generalizing any industry, you wrongly attack those within who are doing business the right way.  It is, however, human nature to do so.

Dennis, you absolutely did not hurt my feelings. I would have to know you much better for that to happen. I am frustrated, but not surprised (the reason I'm not surprised is not personal with you, it is because I have gone over this ground ad nauseam with a lot of people who say the same things) by your arguments, because you started by accusing me of naivety when you were the person arguing from a point of ignorance of the topic. I get frustrated because this is not just my profession, but this has been my personal mission for decades, and I happen to know what is going on in extreme detail in oncology and in many of the companies that make drugs to treat or cure cancer.

Quote from: "DennisK"Also, my "delusional" or "naive" comments should have been worded differently.  What I should have implied is that if you do believe that the pharmaceutical industry is always watching your back, then you are naive and delusional. I don't believe anyone here does believe this, but I feel many people are snowed in our country.

I agree to an extent. You seem to be taking the position that the industry is out to profit from the intentional withholding of compounds that would prevent and cure millions of people. That is simply not true. My statement is completely accurate, that in ANY industry or human endeavor, there are "good" and "bad" people (let's just keep it simple with those terms). There is no conspiracy or cartel of drug companies out to withhold life saving treatments. Period. The very fact that the development of curative medicines has happened is proof that these companies (let's stick to the ones involved in oncology, for instance) are interested in curing disease. You missed my most important point, or chose to ignore it. That is, by "curing" a type or types of cancer, you have not prevented other humans from developing it. You have simply provided a cure for those who develop that cancer. there is plenty of money to be made doing that. That is because, unfortunately, the population is growing so rapidly, and there is an ever-increasing number of people developing cancer.

They don't need to withhold treatment to make money.

Quote from: "DennisK"These are some of the things I wanted to propose in this thread.

1.  If there is promise as there seems to be with hemp oil, why is it being suppressed and/or neglected?

 Who is suppressing it? I know it's not pharma. According to your own argument about the greed of the industry, they would jump on anything that would make money, and hemp sure would. Don't blame pharma for the U.S. government's idiocies.

Quote from: "DennisK"I never claimed that hemp oil is a cure or effective treatment of any form of cancer, but I do think it deserves some investigation.  Hemp oil has been used for treatments of many ailments for thousands of years.

The statement that hemp oil has been used for thousands of years means nothing as far as cancer research goes, unless it has been properly tested in treating cancer. And it has been tested in some types of cancer. Read my previous attachments for one of them.

Quote from: "DennisK"Again, I'm not claiming anything, but raising the question.  Why was it stopped?

Asking that question is not an valid argument for the claims you have made. It's also not my job to ask why the government started a crusade against marijuana in the 1930s. The fact is that many old compounds that either fell out of use or even banned (think Thalidomide), have been brought back to be studied in the treatment of cancer. You have oversimplified two things here: 1. That "hemp oil" is one single chemical and not many, and 2. that cancer is one single entity. Like many things, hemp oil is a mix of naturally occurring chemicals compounds. And cancer is the broadest term you can imagine. Please try to understand what I've already said. You ignored that fact earlier.
 

Quote from: "DennisK"2.  Is it in the pharmaceutical companies (generalization, yes) best interest to continue to treat cancer indefinitely or try to cure any form?  

It is always in the best interest of any business to act in a manner that serves the: customer, end user, patient, etc. If the business does not do that then it doesn't stay in business for a nice long time. In the case of oncology drug manufacturers, they do try to cure cancers, but first they try to research them. The problem has always been one of lack of proper understanding of the mechanisms of action of cancers, and of the drugs, often times. You need to understand this in so much more detail than your current knowledge base. It's just so much more complex than you think.

Quote from: "DennisK"I'm not saying no one within the industry is pushing for a specific cure or has not already come up with any.  I'm saying there is a lot more money to be made in treating a cancer (again, generalization) than prevention or curing.  Just as there is more benefit for the oil industry to have more gas guzzling as opposed to alternative fuel vehicles on the road.

Horrible analogy. Although it sounds like a good one and resonates with people, it is simply a poor analogy that is untrue to compare these industries like this. They have different goals.

Quote from: "DennisK"Where there is a lot of money to be made, there usually follows corruption of some sort.  

We agree on this. But the corruption is not universal. Left unchecked, many industries would run themselves into ruin, which goes back to my earlier statement. But there is so much more oversight on pharma now than even five years ago. And that is a good thing for the most part, except where it stifles research.

Quote from: "DennisK"Honestly (and I'm not trying to be a smartass), am I a fundamentalist to make that leap?  I would think that would be the opposite since I don't buy into all the crap that's fed to me by big business/religion.  

And I'm not trying to be rude or a smartass by saying that the thought processes are identical. You have sacrificed good judgment and rational arguments for ones that only support what you wish to believe in this case. That is the same. If you would be willing to learn something about this topic, it would be different. My impression is that you have jumped on the bandwagon of one of the many people who have made unjustified claims about having the ultimate cure for cancer. There have been many. And most of them are pure snake oil charlatans (not painting your man with that brush just yet, but he sure seems to fit the profile). They rely on anecdotes and often play both the religion card and the martyr card to show how they've been "kept down by the man". Look up the morons who peddle Shark Cartilage on the net. They make me want to puke.

Quote from: "DennisK"If hemp oil , by itself, is a cure for any form of cancer, I don't believe it could be patented because it is a plant.

Two things: 1. Hemp oil is not just one thing. First of all, it is not illegal in the U.S. The THC is not present in legal hempseed oil. THC is not even the most likely candidate of the the list of things in it that may prevent cancer. There are many other "ingredients" in hemp oil besides THC. One thing there isn't? Antioxidants. Other oils have just as many potential as hemp oil, by the way. And as an added note, there are plants that have been used to cure cancer in the past. The Pacific Yew Tree bark (specifically from Taxus brevifolia, contains a substance that is cytotoxic. It was studied, refined, and made into paclitaxel, a cancer killing compound. There are other examples too.

Lastly, something is not always good because it is "all natural" and not all things that are synthetic are all bad. A perfectly good natural cancer treatment is arsenic trioxide. It is also deadly. On the other hand, a synthetic analog of thalidomide, know as lenalidomide, is effective at suppressing the bad clone that causes a subtype of MDS (deletion 5q), but is 50,000 more potent as a tnf-alpha inhibitor, and has far fewer toxic side effects than its predecessor.

While hemp may have some positive properties due to one or more of its ingredients, it is also a suspect in causing[/i] some cancers, due to one or more of its ingredients.  

2. The plant itself does not need to be patented. What is in the plant, how it is extracted, refined, purified and/or synthesized is where patents come into play. See above example of paclitaxel.

Quote from: "DennisK"3.  The hemp industry was politically vilified in this country in the 1930's.  Not because medical treatments were dangerous, but for political reasons and by those who would benefit from its abolition.

OK. So what? That was the 1930s. Over 70 years ago. Although the hemp conspiracy theorists like to pull this one out, it has no bearing on today. If hemp was as effective as claimed by the hemp martyrs, the simple fact is that hundreds of millions of dollars would be poured into research on it. The research done to date was done in the same way that it is done with any other compound. If it looks promising, investigate it. If it looks like it is a dud, drop it and move on to something that might be effective. There is no time, nor an endless supply of money to waste on dead end compounds. Again, the extraordinary claims made by your hemp champion need to be backed up with evidence. There is simply no evidence that hemp is able to cure cancers. Can it have some effect? Sure, possibly. But so does a good diet and exercise.

I hope that you take to heart that I am being honest and open with you about this. There is no pharma conspiracy to keep hemp down. Period. I can't speak for our government, and frankly, I don't have to. Let them explain their own actions.

Listen, I don't think you are an idiot, or some kind of person intentionally promoting lies or misleading ideas. My contention has been that you have simply been arguing over your head and not listening to rational explanations. I believe you have changed that position somewhat with your most recent post. I appreciate that. I don't have hurt feelings about this, but I do have strong feelings against those who are promoting bullshit "cures" that give frightened and sick people false hope. They are all over the place, and they are the lowest form of parasite in the world. I would personally like to beat the shit out of every one of them. Your guy may not be one of them. I don't know. But I do know he is wrong in his claim of ultimate cure.

Peace.

Quote from: "Asmodean"Thanks, McQ!  :D *stuffs the lip full of snuff and lights a cigarette*

LOL! We're all "doomed", man! I ate a huge grease-burger and fries for lunch today. That can't be a good thing either.  ;)

Wow, McQ!  For not being upset or hurt, you sure have been consistently belligerent and arrogant.

I continue to tell you that I've never made a claim about Rick Simpson's treatment or any claims about any treatments.  You continue to assume I am making false claims about your field of study, which I never have.  You are very knowledgeable about your own field.  Bravo!  It felt good, I'm sure, for you to get on your high horse and show this forum your vast knowledge of your own field.  I just hope someone offends me and my field of graphic design so I can do the same. I can't wait!  Please understand that by me saying "graphic design", I'm not making any claims about your profession. Nor was "graphic design" meant as an attack.

Also, stop putting words in my mouth.  You continue having me say words that aren't there.  Those voices in your brain are not mine and don't pretend you can simulate what I may be thinking.  Even someone of your vast intellect is incapable of doing this even though I possess such a small brain.

It may not seem like it, but I've struggled to take the high road and believe, up until now, I have.  I never called you delusional or naive.  I only said that if you believe the drug companies are always looking out for your best interests, you are both naive and delusional.  So, by your accusation of me attacking you, you must be admitting you are the drug companies' bitch and I therefore retract my apology.  I've been tormented by resisting the urge to attack you and even threw you some compliments you clearly yearn.  I made the mistake of thinking it might calm you down a bit.

Again, no claims except acknowledging your superior wisdom. :hmm:

Peace.

Quote from: "DennisK"Wow, McQ!  For not being upset or hurt, you sure have been consistently belligerent and arrogant.

I continue to tell you that I've never made a claim about Rick Simpson's treatment or any claims about any treatments.  You continue to assume I am making false claims about your field of study, which I never have.  You are very knowledgeable about your own field.  Bravo!  It felt good, I'm sure, for you to get on your high horse and show this forum your vast knowledge of your own field.  I just hope someone offends me and my field of graphic design so I can do the same. I can't wait!  Please understand that by me saying "graphic design", I'm not making any claims about your profession. Nor was "graphic design" meant as an attack.

Also, stop putting words in my mouth.  You continue having me say words that aren't there.  Those voices in your brain are not mine and don't pretend you can simulate what I may be thinking.  Even someone of your vast intellect is incapable of doing this even though I possess such a small brain.

It may not seem like it, but I've struggled to take the high road and believe, up until now, I have.  I never called you delusional or naive.  I only said that if you believe the drug companies are always looking out for your best interests, you are both naive and delusional.  So, by your accusation of me attacking you, you must be admitting you are the drug companies' bitch and I therefore retract my apology.  I've been tormented by resisting the urge to attack you and even threw you some compliments you clearly yearn.  I made the mistake of thinking it might calm you down a bit.

Again, no claims except acknowledging your superior wisdom. :hmm:

Peace.

Dennis, I just re-read my last post to you and find exactly what I thought I'd find. I tried to address each of the points you brought up. That's all. I wasn't being arrogant or belligerent. If I put words in your mouth, please point it out so that I may make amends for doing so. I tried to see where I did that, but couldn't find it. However, you posted this thread, and put forth Rick Sampson as someone who claims he can cure cancer. Are you saying you don't believe his claims?

Your words here:
This guy is trying to have his government and others research hemp oil. He's no snake oil salesman. He's giving it away. People with terminally ill cancer seemingly have been cured. At the very least, it needs to be investigated by the medical community.

This and other comments led me to believe that you are in support of him and his claims. If you are not, then you could have clearly stated so up front. I have consistently only taken issue with your arguments and claims regarding the suppression by an entire industry against millions of sick people.

I'm sorry that my last post made you so upset. Apparently I've hurt your feelings. My fight is with the rationale you put forth, not with you as the person. I did not attack you in my last post, but instead addressed your points. In fact, I did what I could to react in kind to what seemed like an olive branch from you. You apologized for seeming to hurt my feelings, although they were not hurt. I said I appreciated that you reached out. I don't know why this sudden raging, sarcastic post has come, but you apparently misunderstood my intention to stick to addressing the questions you put out there. It is what you asked for in the OP. Your bilious attitude doesn't move this discussion forward, but sets it back a bit. I have no ill will against you. I have tried to let you know it. I have also never overstated my expertise in oncology. It's just the way it is. Good at one thing, lousy at others.

I'm sorry that you felt the need to offer up such a bilious post. Really I am. I thought that out last two messages had made progress. If someone were to tell me I don't know jack about graphic design, I wouldn't argue the point or try to tell that person his business. I don't know jack about it. And that's ok.

I claimed only greater knowledge and experience in oncology because it is true. That's not arrogance, just truth. Again, I'm sorry this has come to such a raw level for you. I did say that I didn't believe you to stupid. In other words, I felt that you were capable of understanding this topic, but simply had not yet studied it. If that's not the truth, correct me.

You post was full of sarcasm, attacks and hyperbole that leads us nowhere good. I was trying to work with you to change the tone of this, and was quite surprised at the response. I still think it can be worked out, but it'll take a boatload less sarcasm and emotion and the same amount of empathy. I mean that.

Yes, I took personal offense at being called ignorant repetitively.  I never made a scientific claim and yet you presume I am.  I conceded I know little about oncology, but it didn't stop you from trying to belittle me further.  Look, there's a reason I didn't put this in the Science forum.  You then took at referring to me in 3rd person (a debating tactic perhaps?) and comparing me to fundamentalist christians (if that's not a personal attack, I don't know what is).  That all being said, I am not proud that I let you get to me.  I had a little diarrhea of the mouth from the collection of your posts.  I do apologize for the outburst (although it's understandable if you see no merit in it).

QuoteAre you saying you don't believe his claims?

I'm saying I don't know if they are true, but they deserve some investigation.  If his claims are wrong, then let's see someone clinically prove this or at least give him or others (preferably universities) the tools to do so.  You seem to be dismissing his claim solely on your experience and that's fine.  But it doesn't mean you are right.

You have admitted the potential for corruption when there is a lot of money involved and yet you seem to think your industry is exempt.  From your experience, you see the benefit of drug companies finding cures trumping treatment in regards to profit.  I see it differently.  It doesn't make you right, nor does it make me right and it is an economic assessment.

All I wanted to do was create awareness of the potential for medicinal hemp oil, the stigma attached to hemp, the governments policy on hemp and the potential for corruption when big money is involved.  I really had no intention of debating once I posted.  I am not a good debater nor am I great communicator of my thoughts.

QuoteYou post was full of sarcasm, attacks and hyperbole that leads us nowhere good.

My attacks were based on the potential for corruption with big business.  As far as sarcasm and hyperbole, again, this was not posted in the Science forum.  My intention was for awareness and maybe add a different topic for discussion.  I made many generalizations, but I don't know that it would frustrate you if I did the same about any other industry.

Dennis, see my PM to you. The thread needs to get back on track.

Back on course...

Although there is no known cure for cancer, in general, it doesn't mean that one doesn't exist in the natural world.  Hemp oil, on the surface, seems to be promising.  To assume that it is being thoroughly researched  by pharma companies is a mistake.  There are many variables that may have effected this.  Political motivated abolishment of hemp in the 1930's painted a huge stigma on the cultivation of hemp.  This may be a contributing factor in the fear of most people to consider it as viable including drug companies.  I've proposed that the pharma industry makes more money treating illnesses vs. curing them, especially if a cure were already in the form of a plant.  This is speculation on my part, but not a hard leap to make in logic.  All drug companies have agendas (whether we would view them as corrupt or not) and they want to make money and certainly do make a lot of it.  

Pharma evaluations
The following is quoted from a motherjones.com interview.  Here is the link: http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_401.html

QuoteDr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine contends that the industry has become a marketing machine that produces few innovative drugs and is dependent on monopoly rights and public-sponsored research.
...Angell, who is a doctor and a lecturer at Harvard Medical School, wants to see the industry reformed.
...doctors are too willing to provide drugs for very minor conditions.

Drug Companies Pay "Opinion Leaders" to Push Pills During Influential Meetings, Seminars http://www.naturalnews.com/024809.html

Quotepharmaceutical companies have been successful in purchasing the decision-making power of physicians.

by Thomas AM Kramer, MD
here's the article http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/433017

This info was done after one search and all in the top 10 hits of the search.  I'm sure anyone could acquire countless damning information on drug companies if they wanted.

History of Hemp
Here is a great link that paints the picture of a history of hemp sociologically. http://www.jackherer.com/chapter10.html

QuoteCannabis Medicines Forbidden
While embracing wine as a sacrament, and tolerating beer and hard liquor, the Inquisition outlawed cannabis ingestion in Spain in the 12th century, and France in the 13th. Many other natural remedies were simultaneously banned. Anyone using hemp to communicate, heal, etc. was labeled “witch.”
...Virtually every president from the mid- 19th century up until prohibition routinely used cannabis medicines

Cannibis Research

QuoteResearchers at the Medical College of Virginia discovered that cannabis is an incredibly successful herb for reducing many types of tumors, both benign and malignant (cancerous).

The DEA and other federal agencies had ordered these tumor studies done after hearing erroneous reports of possible immunicological problems associated with cannabis smoke. But, in 1975, instead of health problems, an apparent medical breakthrough occurred and successful tumor reductions were recorded!

Following this remarkably positive discovery by the Medical College of Virginia, orders were immediately handed down by the DEA and the National Institutes of Health to defund all further cannabis/tumor research and reporting! Millions of Americans who might be alive today are dead because of these and other DEA orders regarding marijuana.

In 1996 and 2006, the Medical College of Virginia again applied to receive grants for cannabis research and again were turned down by the DEA.

Sorry, last post on this subject.  The following was taken from an interview of Dr Lester Grinspoon (professor at Harvard Medical School in 1996) by Jana Ray:

QuoteJR: Do you think pharmaceutical drug companies have anything to do with the government's prohibitive stand against medicinal cannabis use?

Dr G: Absolutely. The Partnership for a Drug Free America has a budget of about a million dollars a day. A lot of that money comes from drug companies and distilleries. You see, these companies and distilleries have something to lose- the distilleries for obvious reasons. The drug companies are not interested in marijuana as a medicine because the plant cannot be patented. If you can't patent it, you can't make money on it. Their only interest is a negative one. It will eventually displace some of their pharmaceutical products.

Imagine a patient who requires cancer chemotherapy. Now he can take the best of the anti-nausea drugs, which would be ondansetron. He would pay about US$35 or $40 per 8-milligram pill and would then take three or four of them for a treatment. Normally, he would take it orally, but people with that kind of nausea often can't, so he would take it intravenously. The cost of one treatment for that begins at US$600 because he will need a hospital bed, etc. Or he can smoke perhaps half of a marijuana cigarette and receive relief from the nausea.

Currently, marijuana on the streets is very expensive. One can pay from US$200 to $600 an ounce. This is what I call the prohibition tariff. When marijuana is available as a medicine, the cost would be significantly less than other medications; it would cost about US$20 to $30 an ounce. You can't tax it in the US because it is a medicine. So that would translate out to maybe about 30 cents for a marijuana cigarette.

So our chemotherapy patient could get, many people believe, better relief from the marijuana cigarette for 30 cents. This, in comparison to the ondansetron which would cost at the very least US$160 a day and, if he had to take it intravenously, more than US$600 per treatment.

Well, if you multiply that by all of the symptoms and syndromes we discuss in the book, Marihuana, The Forbidden Medicine, then you can see that the drug companies will have something to lose here.

Slight hijack here regarding medical marijuana.

A friend died a few years ago of lung cancer.  She had several surgeries, all to no avail.  But she was doing okay until they started her on chemo.  After seeing what chemo did to her, I will probably never get it if I get cancer.  I have never seen anyone as sick as she was and still live.  It was horrible.  She did get the expensive nausea pills to go with the chemo, but she couldn't keep them down.  Within a week she had lost 20 pounds, and she was always a thin woman.

So I got her some marijuana.  She couldn't smoke it, of course, so I made some tea out of it, and she was able to take small sips and keep it down.  It was amazing.  After a few hours she was feeling so much better.  She was able to eat again, in small amounts.  She did get a little buzz from it, too, which didn't hurt.

Short story is that the marijuana made the last days of her life much more comfortable and bearable.  If for no other reason than this, marijuana needs to seriously be considered as a viable pain/nausea management option.  In California we do have medical marijuana laws, but they conflict with federal laws, so it's a pretty interesting situation at times.

I don't know if hemp oil is really a viable treatment for cancer, but if it has any positive properties at all, even if it can't cure cancer but can be beneficial in some other way, then yes, it should be investigated.  I'd really like to take some of those holy-roller Senators who continually vote to keep this harmless weed illegal into a terminal cancer ward sometime, and then ask them to reiterate why pot is such a danger to society.

/end hijack

Quote from: "Faithless"Slight hijack here regarding medical marijuana.

A friend died a few years ago of lung cancer.  She had several surgeries, all to no avail.  But she was doing okay until they started her on chemo.  After seeing what chemo did to her, I will probably never get it if I get cancer.  I have never seen anyone as sick as she was and still live.  It was horrible.  She did get the expensive nausea pills to go with the chemo, but she couldn't keep them down.  Within a week she had lost 20 pounds, and she was always a thin woman.

So I got her some marijuana.  She couldn't smoke it, of course, so I made some tea out of it, and she was able to take small sips and keep it down.  It was amazing.  After a few hours she was feeling so much better.  She was able to eat again, in small amounts.  She did get a little buzz from it, too, which didn't hurt.

Short story is that the marijuana made the last days of her life much more comfortable and bearable.  If for no other reason than this, marijuana needs to seriously be considered as a viable pain/nausea management option.  In California we do have medical marijuana laws, but they conflict with federal laws, so it's a pretty interesting situation at times.

I don't know if hemp oil is really a viable treatment for cancer, but if it has any positive properties at all, even if it can't cure cancer but can be beneficial in some other way, then yes, it should be investigated.  I'd really like to take some of those holy-roller Senators who continually vote to keep this harmless weed illegal into a terminal cancer ward sometime, and then ask them to reiterate why pot is such a danger to society.

/end hijack

I don't think this is a hijack at all. Valid points here. Marijuana should have been legalized forty years ago, but we've seen that issue drag on instead. There is no doubt that studies have already been done regarding medical marijuana for nausea and pallitative care, and that it is effective. That's confirmed. It's the claims of 'cure' that are not validated by clinical studies.

To respond to a point in the previous post though (Dennis, this is for you), it is essentially a Straw Man argument for people to say that you can't patent a plant. That's not the point. You don't need to. While you can't patent the entire plant itself (unless you create a new plant from scratch), you can patent the individual compounds responsible for any anti-tumor, or apoptotic effect. I mentioned this a while back, and gave a widely used example of the California Yew tree. And the point of saying this is because it isn't the entire plant that is responsible for any anti-tumor effect, it is almost certainly a combination of a few, some, or many of the molecules within the plant. You don't need the whole plant, and in fact, don't want to include the compounds which have no anti-tumor effect from the plant, if you want to use it in a treatment. The object is to use only what is necessary and has direct effect on stopping tumor growth (or those compounds which help with nausea and pain).

Don't misunderstand. I'm all for legalization (mainly because I'm mostly a "hands off", Libertarian-ish person). And I am completely in favor of studying anything, natural or otherwise, to treat, beat, cure, stamp out, eradicate, force into permanent retirement, kill, disable, maim, and spit on...cancer. And other diseases. That's why I'm also in favor of certain aspects of transhumanism.

Now that I've actually hijacked this thread, let's get back to hemp.  :(  She just doesn't like the way they look. I told her to burn them, then she'd like them more.

I recently found this regarding a potentially amazing cancer treatment.  It is a video of 60 Minutes a year or so ago.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4011961n