Thread: Cannabis oil continues to cure cancer

Different strains of marijuana have different blends of the active ingredients.
I haven't Googled Rick Simpson oil, but if you try another type, I am certain that the paranoia and bad thoughts will not occur.
The Sativa strain generally makes you feel very good. Maybe she had Indica ?

The research suggests that you need a certain ratio of THC to CBD, and it varies depending on the type of cancer you have. The Rick Simpson met the specifications she apparently needed.

In any case, Sativa is the upper and I think would be more likely to produce bad thoughts, whereas the Indica is the downer/more medicine like high. Not sure what the blend on the Simpson oil was.

I think her personality is just all wrong for it. She's pretty high strung in general.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

You seem to be filtering out the key hedging words that any sensible researcher inserts in to arrive at the answer you want to hear. Those of course get played down in journalism and blogger/enthusiast sites, and contribute to mythbuilding, and then to conspiracy theories about cures being withheld.

Originally Posted by UrbanMan

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Many people find this hard to believe but Doctors do actually want to cure people

Medicine is a big institution, and we see everywhere in the world the tendency of big institutions to serve themselves, ...

Here we go...

Originally Posted by redhaze

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Many people find this hard to believe but Doctors do actually want to cure people, if cannabis oil, or anything else, did actually cure cancer they would give it to every patient they could.

When I was a young child my Dad was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer that had spread to his lungs and brain. The doctors said with treatment he could live another 6 months, without it he'd be dead probably within a month or so.

He went to Mexico to do unconventional, radical nutritional treatment. No radiation, no chemo.

I was six years old at the time.

I'm now in my mid-thirties and I just visited with my Dad yesterday.

That's fabulous, but it's also meaningless... that's the sort of line that would get you hired by Barnum as a snake-oil salesman, or help you set up some kind of quasi-religious sex-cult.

The only truth we can derive from that is that you don't know what caused your father's remission, and we don't know what the specifics of diagnosis were... it's anecdotal... great for him and your family, not useful for the advancement of medical science.

Originally Posted by redhaze

The research suggests that you need a certain ratio of THC to CBD, and it varies depending on the type of cancer you have. The Rick Simpson met the specifications she apparently needed.

In any case, Sativa is the upper and I think would be more likely to produce bad thoughts, whereas the Indica is the downer/more medicine like high. Not sure what the blend on the Simpson oil was.

I think her personality is just all wrong for it. She's pretty high strung in general.

What about her horoscope? what did that say?

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

That's fabulous, but it's also meaningless... that's the sort of line that would get you hired by Barnum as a snake-oil salesman, or help you set up some kind of quasi-religious sex-cult.

Okay. I'm sorry you're so angry about this. I'm not selling or suggesting anything. Conventional medicine offered my Dad no hope. He had a terminal diagnosis. He tried a diferent way and cured himself of cancer. I'm sorry that bothers you.

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

What about her horoscope? what did that say?

I think it said something about CaptainNemo getting angry about things that upset his view of how the world works.

I don't know why you think I'm angry. I also overtly stated (twice) that it was great news.
If you notice, DrBob and LatinDancer share my view that not kidding people about stuff is important.
The point of contention here is that some of you seem to think it's a good idea to selectively suspend science.

A few years ago I was diagnosed with an irregular heart beat, cholesterol levels were OTT and high blood sugar levels. I struggled to walk uphill.

The doc wanted me to take statins and insulin. I refused.

Instead, I changed from my sedentary lifestyle, stopped smoking, reverting to my previous organic, low carb, no sugar or salt, or processed food except yoghurt and cheese, low meat high protein diet, lots of gym and exercise and massive doses of VitB3, 3gm or more a day, along with more herbs, vitamins and minerals, while maintaining as close to an optimum neutral pH level as possible.

I still had a glass or two a day of my own amazingly good home-brewed stout, and the occasional spliff, and within five months I was as fit as fiddle, pushed 211 lbs up on the gym press, could walk up and downhill and any number of flights of stairs, never used the lift.

I had to argue with the doctors about this, as initially they refused to give me a prescription for the VitB3, as they said that there was no evidence to support its use. After a month of pestering they caved in and gave me a script for a few hundred 500mg tabs of niacin, repeatable at $5 a repeat. I had to have 6 weekly blood tests to monitor progress, the results were a joy to read. BP, blood sugar levels, cholesterol etc all down to very healthy levels, HDL up. Never felt so full of beans in years.

If I hadn't selectively bypassed the treatment they offered initially I've no doubt that I'd be shuffling around on my last legs dependent on prescription medicines.

At my final checkup before returning to Asia, my doctor (one of a team at the med. centre) told me I'd done the right thing and that most doctors were, as I already knew, simply trying to sell pills. His final words to me were, "Don't worry about your health, the only thing that's likely to kill you is a bus!"

I now at 71 yoa exercise daily and train twice a week at martial arts, keeping up with 20 yr olds.

Originally Posted by redhaze

Wow, that's great! And here's the thing I think is getting lost here: Good nutrition IS rooted in science. The idea that our diets aren't the number one cause of preventable disease is totally archaic and not in any way rooted in science or even common sense.

Our diets prevent disease. Nobody serious would argue otherwise. How much of a stretch is it to say that changing our diets will have a dramatic effect on those same diseases that good diet serves to prevent in the first place?.

People don't realize that food is medicine.

Originally Posted by redhaze

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

I don't know why you think I'm angry. I also overtly stated (twice) that it was great news.

Right before you called me a circus ringshow leader and a snake oil salesman, wasn't it?

I didn't call you that. It's not an indication of angry either.
I said: "that's the sort of line that would get you hired by Barnum as a snake-oil salesman, or help you set up some kind of quasi-religious sex-cult."
That's not the same thing as calling you someone who was hired as such...
Don't embellish the facts.

Originally Posted by redhaze

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

If you notice, DrBob and LatinDancer share my view that not kidding people about stuff is important.

I'm not kidding anybody about anything. Never once did I say or imply that my father's experience represented anything more than his experience.

Yes you did.
You said:
"...without it he'd be dead probably within a month or so.
He went to Mexico to do unconventional, radical nutritional treatment. No radiation, no chemo.
...
I'm now in my mid-thirties and I just visited with my Dad yesterday."
The very obvious inference is that doing "unconventional, radical nutritional treatment" is what cured him.
I said " you don't know what caused your father's remission, and we don't know what the specifics of diagnosis were"
Which is correct. You have not given any indication of knowing what caused remission, or given any details about the diagnosis. What I said was neither angry nor non-factual.

Originally Posted by redhaze

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

The point of contention here is that some of you seem to think it's a good idea to selectively suspend science.

And when science/conventional medicine offers you no hope, what then? Lay down and die?

Nope, just have a realistic apparaisal of all these things, as well as life the universe and everything - I certainly would not hope to be left so vulnerable as to be taken advantage of by people extrapolating hopes and allowing them to become indistinguishable from facts.

Originally Posted by redhaze

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

I'm glad my Dad didn't listen to people like you, I'll tell you that much.

Why? I wouldn't be telling him not to do it, I'd be telling him not to assume anything without evidence.

I hope your mum gets better, but I personally would be uncomfortable with turning away from conventional remedies completely - I'm sure it's possible to do both.

Originally Posted by redhaze

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

P.S. I am a former researcher at a Big Ten Univesity here in the U.S., and a person who strongly believes in science. You assume too much

Good for you. I didn't assume anything, I just read what you wrote. What science did you research?

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by redhaze

Wow, that's great! And here's the thing I think is getting lost here: Good nutrition IS rooted in science. The idea that our diets aren't the number one cause of preventable disease is totally archaic and not in any way rooted in science or even common sense.

Our diets prevent disease. Nobody serious would argue otherwise. How much of a stretch is it to say that changing our diets will have a dramatic effect on those same diseases that good diet serves to prevent in the first place?.

People don't realize that food is medicine.

I agree that food is part of the whole package of a remedy, but it isn't "medicine" in the same sense, is it?

Originally Posted by CaptainNemo

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by redhaze

Wow, that's great! And here's the thing I think is getting lost here: Good nutrition IS rooted in science. The idea that our diets aren't the number one cause of preventable disease is totally archaic and not in any way rooted in science or even common sense.

Our diets prevent disease. Nobody serious would argue otherwise. How much of a stretch is it to say that changing our diets will have a dramatic effect on those same diseases that good diet serves to prevent in the first place?.

People don't realize that food is medicine.

I agree that food is part of the whole package of a remedy, but it isn't "medicine" in the same sense, is it?

I and a growing number of doctors and nutritionists think so, as one may avoid conventional drugs or medicine (same thing) and substitute them with specific foods rich in vitamins, minerals, enzymes and other compounds, organic or inorganic, that work together effectively if the body has a balanced (neutral) pH, in order to metabolize those ingredients optimally.

Most drugs are derived from plant based sources, foods in their own right, even marijuana is a food, loaded with magnesium, other minerals, anti-oxidants and protein, especially the seeds, 'medicinal' mushrooms, various herbs, all have a nutritional value and thus foods. Marijuana has as much nutritional value as soybean, for instance.

Conventional medicine's biggest drawback and advantage is their over-refinement as a product, ingested without the buffering properties normally found alongside them in the plants they're derived from, so having a 'short-cut' effect on the body, which may tip the metabolic balance drastically one way or another, effecting, in my opinion, a kill-or-cure situation, a bit like having a shot of raw alcohol versus a glass of decent home-brewed stout, for instance.

I'm sure we may agree to disagree on this, but only trial and error, experience in using natural resources can show how effective and beneficial foods in various forms can be as medicine.

Not many people know that VitB3, aka nicotinic acid or niacin is manufactured from tobacco leaf. Just that one vitamin along with vitamin C in sufficient amounts can slow the ageing process, alleviate symptoms of alzheimers, diabetes, arteriosclerosis and cancer, reduce lipid and LDL levels and increase HDL levels, increase stamina,and repair the telomeres of your ageing DNA.

Why wasn't VitB3 not handed out to all and sundry when this was known way back in 1953?

The simple answer is that drug companies had invested so much in research into 'cures' during and after WW2 that they wanted their money back, so employment levels shot up, folks worked 'till they dropped, gold watch in hand, and the survivors could afford to pay (along with a little help from the NHS) for a prescription medicine for almost anything and people died as predicted by age 70, drugged to death as a result.

Originally Posted by redhaze

It is what cured him, no other explanation is even remotely plausible. Stage 4 terminal cancer doesn't just magically disappear.

I beg to differ. I does, actually.

Consider this article from Australia's foremost science guru, Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki :

Cancer cure? The abscopal effect

A little while ago I came down with laryngitis. I wasn't worried in the slightest — although I did lie about with the 'vapours' for days! I knew what would happen. My immune system would recognise the bad guys that invaded my larynx — and then kill them. Over a period of about a week I got worse, and then I got completely better — just as I expected.

So why is cancer such a killer? Why doesn't your immune system recognise the cancer as the 'bad guy' — and kill it? The answer is that the cancer seems to be able to hide from, or trick, your immune system.

But every now and then — and let me emphasise that this is so rare that it falls into the category of the genuine medical curiosity — every now and then the immune system can recognise and kill an established widespread cancer.

Welcome to the 'abscopal effect'.

But first, let me also emphasise that there is no single disease called 'cancer'. Instead, there are several hundred different types of cancers — each with their own cause, pathology, natural history, treatment and so on. For example, most men will get cancer of the prostate. But it won't kill them, and they'll die with that cancer, not because of it. On the other hand, cancer of the stomach will kill 90 per cent of sufferers within five years.

And of course, there is another layer of complexity. For example, there are at least four different types of lung cancer, each with their own cause, cell type, aggressiveness, etc.

Now that you know that, let's dive into the abscopal effect. 'Ab' means 'away', while 'scopal' refers to a 'target'. So abscopal effect in this case means that you treat a cancer in one part of the body, and somehow, all of that cancer which is spread anywhere else in the whole body is killed.

I first read about this in Discover Magazine — their March 2014 issue. Daniel, a healthy fit man in his mid-30s was diagnosed with malignant melanoma — a particularly aggressive version of skin cancer. Even though his single original black mole was surgically removed, within two months it had spread to his lymph nodes, and within a year had sprouted secondary cancers in his lungs and liver. He couldn't play basketball any more, lost about 15 kilograms, needed a cane just to be able to walk and just recently had begun to suffer severe pain in his right hip. Unfortunately, this meant that secondary cancers were now spreading into his bones. In fact, the one inside his right hip was so far advanced that it was causing major effects on the bone, and hence, the severe pain. Daniel's outlook was grim — with probably only a few months of life left.

The consulting doctor decided to treat the hip pain with a high dose of radiation. His hope was that it would ease Daniel's hip pain. He expected the radiation to slow down the growth of the secondary cancer in the hip, or even kill some of it. This would relieve the pain. The doctor couldn't give such a high dose of radiation to all the many secondary cancers throughout Daniel's body, because it would kill him. The doctor booked Daniel a three-month follow-up appointment, not really expecting him to be well enough to actually come in — or even be alive.

Three months later, Daniel returned — weighing five kilograms more, looking healthier, and free of pain. Daniel insisted on having a CT scan. Amazingly, the many, many secondary cancers throughout his body (lymph nodes, bone, lungs, liver and so on) had vanished — leaving behind only tiny scars where once the cancers had been.

When Daniel returned another three months later, he was a different person. Not only had he regained a few more kilograms of solid muscle, he could now play basketball again, and was back at work. Fourteen years later, Daniel's malignant melanoma had still not returned. (I hope it doesn't return — for Daniel's sake).

Now you might have heard of cases where a cancer will undergo 'spontaneous regression'. The five most common cancers where this very rare phenomenon happens are renal cell carcinoma, lymphoma and leukaemia, neuroblastoma, carcinoma of the breast, and malignant melanoma (which is what Daniel had).

Perhaps the abscopal effect works in a similar way to spontaneous regression — and perhaps not.

Let me emphasise very strongly that the abscopal effect is very, very, very uncommon. Don't expect it to be clinically available or promoted as a treatment option any time in the near future.

It does seem that the abscopal effect is intimately involved and intertwined with the immune system — which is fiendishly complicated.

At the moment, our understanding of the immune system is still very shallow and primitive. But we have a few strong leads and a couple of wild guesses. So I'll talk more about them, next time ...

Originally Posted by Latindancer

I beg to differ. I does, actually.

Well as I said that was certainly the explanation the doctors offered, "spontaneous remission". These men of science, of all of a sudden finding Jesus and believing in miracles.

Its funny man, people will convince themselves of anything to cling to their faith, and make no mistake that what this is, its belief in blatant fairytales and pure fiction.

I agree.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Originally Posted by redhaze

It is what cured him, no other explanation is even remotely plausible. Stage 4 terminal cancer doesn't just magically disappear.

I beg to differ. I does, actually.
Consider this article from Australia's foremost science guru, Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki :

Cancer cure? The abscopal effect
A little while ago I came down with laryngitis. I wasn't worried in the slightest — although I did lie about with the 'vapours' for days! I knew what would happen. My immune system would recognise the bad guys that invaded my larynx — and then kill them. Over a period of about a week I got worse, and then I got completely better — just as I expected.

So why is cancer such a killer? Why doesn't your immune system recognise the cancer as the 'bad guy' — and kill it? The answer is that the cancer seems to be able to hide from, or trick, your immune system.

But every now and then — and let me emphasise that this is so rare that it falls into the category of the genuine medical curiosity — every now and then the immune system can recognise and kill an established widespread cancer..

We develop cancer around 4 or 5 times a year, but if the immune system's robust, it deals to the condition and the cancer abates.
A normal process in the average person.

Flooding the body with inessential products such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs (organic or otherwise), chemicals and acid foods overloads the liver and kidneys, so that waste products aren't successfully eliminated but end up deposited in the bones, fatty tissue and eventually other cells in the body, breaking down their intercellular activity, decreasing ATP levels, (the cell's main energy compound) and so setting the body up for an immune system crash, so cancer and any other ailment and allergy finds no resistance to their invasive force.

The most well recognized fact about cancer and disease in general, is that they can only develop in an acid body which is developed through inappropriate nutrition, and a collapse in any of these following processes, namely;

Ingestion of essential nutrients, respiration breathing O2 and other gases, digestion, the breaking down of nutrients in the mouth, stomach, duodenum and small intestine to useful packets of energy of all ingested products, absorption of nutrients by the mouth and tongue, lungs, and lining of the alimentary canal, assimilation, of digested nutrients by the liver,circulation of all products throughout the body, nourishing and repairing it and boosting ATP cellular energy and eliminationvia the skin, lungs, kidneys and large intestine of wastes and bi-products of the body's metabolic processes..

A common factor of selective nutritional healing is the balance achieved through the use of natural products, essential nutrients that are biased towards an alkaline or 'basic' effect in the body, daily exercise to improve circulation and positive thinking.

So, as always occurs when the body's in peak condition, its immune system deals to diseases, which are only symptomatic of a breakdown in the body's natural processes, and with the support of appropriate nutrition repairs and renews itself, if the the body is not in acidosis or alkalosis, but in a neutral state of p/H, ideally 7.4 or very slightly alkaline.

Cancer doesn't hide, it sneaks up on the unwary, triggered by uneliminated toxins, ranging from UV light to pesticides.

^ Good post.

A bit more on the subject here : http://healthwyze.org/reports/361-th...pposed-to-know

My opinion on cancer treatment is that the decision whether to undergo conventional treatment should really depend primarily on survival rates and staging. Look at the research, if it shows a 90% cute rate through conventional treatment for your cancer type based on its current stage, hell it's tough to argue those odds even knowing the extreme health hazards that certain treatments like radiation and (especially) chemotherapy can pose, both now and down the road.

If, however, conventional treatment offers a poor prognosis, then research into alternative treatments is not only warranted, it's entirely logical, prudent, and rational

One caveat: The cancer my mom is currently currently battling is extremely aggressive and treatment options are limited. However, because we caught it at an early stage there was still a strong 5 year survival rate through conventional treatment (just over 70 percent).

I strongly encouraged my mom to undergo conventional treatment in light of this evidence. I showed her all the research, explained my rationale, and lobbied pretty hard for a conventional treatment plan.

I was only very partially successful in this effort.

Seeing what happened with my Dad had created a general distrust of the medical establishment between bothof my parents (and not without cause).

End of the day, I successfully convinced her to undergo surgery for excision of the primary tumor. She is forgoing all other forms of conventional treatment and is instead treating herself through natural means beyond the surgery.

End of the day, I came around and supported this decision and now believe it to be the best course of action, even though the numbers and data potentially suggest otherwise.

The reason why is simple, and it relates to my strong belief in the power of the mind. Thr cornerstone of auccess at anythi g in life is belief. Belief is absolutely essential. Without belief, beating something as powerful as cancer is simply too tall a task. Belief, in my view, is THE key to getting well. Without belief, all the numbers in the world won't save you, and they certainly won't heal you.

She didn't believe in her doctor's plan, but she does believe in her treatment now. The conventional treatment could never have worked for her, because she was convinced it would kill her. Tell yourself something enough times, and you make it a reality. For that reason, her current plan was the best course of action FOR HER, and we do well not to scoff at or dismiss the importance of the individual in treatment planning.

Belief is a very strong component in healing.
Again, my own case, after my Dad whom I'd helped earlier that year (see my post #33, above) went home to UK, I had an MVA.

While I was fading 'out', I had a dream/vision, where a great light (that's the best I can describe it) spoke to me as I was praying for help
The voice asked me for my reason for living, to which I replied, 'My wife," and the voice said, "She doesn't want you.", so I said, "My kids." to which the voice replied, "The state will look after them." Then I remembered my last three paintings and what inspired me to paint them, and said, "My painting." to which the voice said, "You shall live". The ambulance arrived not long after that.

I flat-lined twice in 15 hours after that, once in the ambulance, revived on arrival at the emergency dept (ambulance bell brought me round, sounded like an alarm clock ringing) then again, after a 11 unit blood transfusion (I'd lost most of my blood in the MVA) flat-lined on the operating table as the anaesthetic kicked in.

After coming to in the recovery room and being placed in intensive care, I asked for my easel canvasses and paints and a list of vitamins and minerals, which my friends brought in for me, including marijuana, which I took on a regulated basis.

The upshot was that visiting doctors called my case a miracle recovery. I was discharged on the 14th day and allowed home.

Before signing the discharge forms, the surgeon who discharged me asked, "What do you attribute to your remarkable recovery?'. I told him, listing the vits and minerals and ganja.

He asked me then why and how these things worked, and so I told him, he nodded, then said, "If you believe it." To which I could only nod and say yes.

I went for an psychological assessment around a year later, the method then used to assess brain damage. It showed no sign of any residual organic brain damage from the MVA and NDEs.

Years later, (2014) on going for heart treatment using my mega doses of vitamins and minerals (see my post #35), the only convenient accommodation at that time was right by the hospital where I was revived from my earlier NDEs after that MVA.

The hospital block where the ward that I was in had been sold to a private company which turned it into an apartment block.
By sheer coincidence, the room I leased was the same one which I recovered in years ago, the window overlooking the courtyard, the same trees (bigger now), the same view across to the skyline.

Do you believe in miracles?

So you wound up living in the room that you had died in? Dude that is fucking incredible!

Wow....

Not quite, it was the same one I finally recovered in, after dying.