Cure for cancer and more?

[DennisK]

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?

[Will]

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?

[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.

[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.

[McQ]

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.

[Asmodean]

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.

[DennisK]

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.

[DennisK]

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

1842 - 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.

[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.

[DennisK]

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.

[Asmodean]

How can you do research when it is illegal to have it in your possession?

Research abroad. In like Netherlands or something.  

[DennisK]

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!"

[jcm]

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?

[Asmodean]

Yes, McQ, I too wants what jcm wants.  

[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.