/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6579519
>10 grams of oil
holy fuck yeah that'll cure cancer, might cure your income, wife and kids too.

>>6579526
lol

First things first. There is not one type of cancer but multiple forms of cancer. They might find a cure for a certain type of cancer but it won't cure all of them. But it does sound better than saying we are finding a cure for this specific cell type in this certain organ and we were able to make a sample die in a petridish.
Furthermore cannabinoids do not cure cancer but can alleviate certain symptoms such as pain or help patients retain food undergoing chemo therapy. They might also help you not give a fuck which helps when your life is suffering.

>>6579519
So... the plan is to just inject oil into yourself? What the fuck?

>>6579537
I have no idea. That's what kind of baffles me. Like what....do you give yourself marijuana enemas and the cancer is in complete remission by the time you finish your seven vials of cannabis oil?? nigga plz

>>6579537
>marijuana enemas

>>6579519
the evidence is mounting that cannabis oil does indeed cure cancer.

Cannabinoids and omega-3/6 endocannabinoids as cell death and anticancer modulators
Basic info

Published in: Progress in Lipid Research (January 2013)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163782712000537

University of Aberdeen (UK)

Strathclyde University (UK)

Quotes
“Cannabinoids-endocannabinoids are anti-inflammatory, anti-proliferative, anti-invasive, anti-metastatic and pro-apoptotic in most cancers, in vitro and in vivo in animals. They signal [...] to induce cell cycle arrest, autophagy, apoptosis and tumour inhibition.”
“Evidence in vivo and in vitro shows EPA and DHA can form endocannabinoids that: (i) are ligands for CB1/2 receptors and possibly TRPV-1, (ii) have non-receptor mediated bioactivity, (iii) induce cell cycle arrest, (iii) increase autophagy and apoptosis, and (iv) augment chemotherapeutic actions in vitro.”
Meaning
Cannabinoids not only reduce the spread and growth of cancer cells but also kill cancerous cells. Cannabinoids stop cancer cells from continuing their usual cycle, tell them to eat each other, tell them to kill themselves, and generally reduce the spread of tumors.

is one study
here is a page with a list of studies
http://www.endalldisease.com/34-medical-studies-proving-cannabis-cures-cancer/

and lastly
you EAT the oil not inject it

>pic related

You would be high for so long.

>>6579544
>you EAT the oil not inject it
Do you at least get to decarboxylate it before consumption?

>>6579548
not if you don't decarboxylate it.

also, 60 grams is actually ld/50 for certain weight range, if it were to be taken all at once

now I'm wondering, does the ld/50 for thc include carboxylated and decarbed stuffs? or just decarbed, or maybe even just carboxylated.

>>6579556

I'm assuming it's hash oil and has already been decarb'd.

One time some hash oil capsules were going around... only time I woke up still high.

>>6579558
I actually (in all honestly) only click on this board when I'm balling.

but were this rats alive when they tested ld/50 on them?
I feel pretty fucking sad for the survivors.

>>6579519

Has injecting oil into yourself ever been a legitimate medical 'cure' for any disease?

>>6579550
>They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong

Fuck psychedelics. If you need psychedelics to "change your current state of mind", you're a fucking idiot. Life experiences should be more than sufficient to change your current state of mind, not some fungus/herb/... you found in the woods. I don't want to get philosophical and all but goddamn, life itself a fucking trip if you pay attention to what's really going on in your life.

>>6579595
psychedelics don't change what you want for breakfast next monday, it massively alters your opinions and visualizations at break-neck speeds. You can break down psychological barriers and other routinely inhibiting mentalities if you approach it properly. If life experiences could change people's minds fast enough, it's likely we wouldn't still be voting, or watching american fucking idol, or instigating a new war twice every decade.
Now if everyone but you is an idiot, I could see what you were getting at.

>>6579595
>life itself a fucking trip if you pay attention to what's really going on in your life.
it sounds as tho you are somewhat enlightened already anon, some people however need a little help to become that fully self-aware

>>6579593
Yes.
It's a cure for life.

>>6579544
Just because it has those effects in vitro does not mean that it will cure cancer. A ton of pharmaceuticals (including a lot that are already approved for cancer treatment) do most of those things. If everything that showed results in vitro actually worked in vivo, on humans, every disease would be cured by now.

I suck at biology, but wouldn't that induce osmosis and bust all your cells?

By the way, don't mock science when you introduce something new(chemo is a waste of money bla bla), that's so pleb.

>>6579660
Schopenhauer is too edgy for me.

>>6579595
>living in a box
>not expanding your frame of perception
>2014
ishiggydiggydo

>>6579533

God dammit, this. People don't realize that cancer is a blanket term covering very many different things. What's an effective treatment, or even "cure" for one type of cancer, could literally do nothing to another.

>>6579526
>dis-ease
why

Posting here because I have always been curious on /sci/entists opinions on the matter but have avoided making a thread about it due to the inevitable flame war. What do you folks think of US 5676977 A?

>>6579712
1) You drink the stuff, not inject it.
2) Osmosis only occurs until pressures is equalized. Say you inject something into a tissue. It spreads throughout the intercellular fluid and begins to osmosis into the cells. Once the pressure difference between the ICF and the cell's internal pressure has decreased to 0, osmosis stops. It doesn't just keep going and pop your cells like balloons.

>>6579544
Show a systematic review from the cochrane library or get fucked. You fucking cunts are the reason why cancer patient go off their chemo/radiotherapy to go on 'spiritual journey' to cure their cancer and then die, like steve jobs.

Kill yourself right now and do society a favour.

>>6579806
If your meds aren't working, there's no reason not to try alternative medicine. I definitely agree the meds are your best bet and should be your first plan, even your second, third, fourth, and fifth plans. But eventually it'll be obvious that no meds are working or going to work. At that point, why not try anything?

>>6579807
Because medicine is one of those fields where "alternative" means "not".

>>6579550
If they cause me to spout stuff about history being literally 'pulled' toward an Omega point and cause me to put dates on eschatonic prophecies then thanks, but no thanks. Kenna a shit.

>>6579519
antagonists work well too
http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/4/1298.full
do whatever with the endocannabiniod receptors - it will inhibit cancer

There is mounting evidence that Jesus used cabanas oil to preform miracles.

>>6579863
I thought his miracles were just fanfiction?

>>6579806
>Kill yourself right now and do society a favour.
man are you edgy
also buttmad

>>6579595
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163782712000537

Interesting, but not totally a vindication of the effects as anti-cancer, as some show a proliferative effect. But the evidence is strong to suggest therapeutic benefit.

>Fuck psychedelics. If you need psychedelics to "change your current state of mind", you're a fucking idiot.

Um, you know what? That is pretty ignorant. ?Most poeple I know are trapped in a sort of groundhog day situation where they can't shed their 'skin' of prior ideations, self-concepts, and conceptual frameworks.

LSD and similar psychedelics dissolve the ego and demonstrate in a powerfully direct way the dependence of biochemical agents in the formation of our perceptual and rational mental constructs.

>tl;dr everyone should drop acid at least once or twice in their lifetimes.

>>6579806
>favour.

butthexed UK detected.

>>6579998
Or you could learn abstract math and figure it out yourself.

Maybe it didn't change you as much as you think it did.

>>6579999
>butthexed UK detected.

Or someone from anywhere in the Commonwealth.

>>6579618

Psychedelics create an intense emotional experience, not an intellectual one. In the entire history of everything, nobody has dropped acid and then come up with an insightful and new scientific or mathematical idea. However they do get into pseudoscience most often. It's like a religious revelation. The change isn't always good or productive.

As Hunter S said, it was the great mystic fallacy that people believed they could buy enlightenment at a few bucks a hit.

You can't just CURE cancer, because cancer isn't a single disease. It's broad term used to describe tons of different pathologies that occur for different reasons, work different ways, affect different tissues and have different progression.

Saying you can cure cancer is like saying you can solve crime.

>>6580006
>emotional experience, not an intellectual

psychological is the word you're looking for

>>6579998
>
LSD and similar psychedelics dissolve the ego and demonstrate in a powerfully direct way the dependence of biochemical agents in the formation of our perceptual and rational mental constructs.
what a nonsense!

>>6579537
No, it's generally added to food.

generally, lsd calms down associative damping in the brain

this can be inspiring or not, depending on your associations

>>6579799
I'm a little sad that no anons have an opinion on this patent, considering it is old as fuck and everyone seems to pretend it doesn't exist.

>>6579618
Are you saying the we would have world peace and be conquering mars by now if we all smoke weed?

Because that's what you sound like.

Fucking druggies and their drug apology

>>6580025
This, it's an altered mental state that we have no real way of achieving "naturally". You will probably come up with ideas that that you would not have come up with sober. That doesn't mean the ideas are any more or less valid than any other idea you had. That's why people with little higher education or ability to analyze arguments logically come up with all sorts of weird pseudoscience garbage after taking psychedelics.

>>6580035
>that we have no real way of achieving "naturally"
nope.

>>6580038
What is the natural way of achieving an acid high. Meditation and sensory deprivation can induce vastly different states for sure but I don't think they're the same kind of states that a traditional psychedelic provides.

>>6580042
the transition between sleep and wakefulness

lsd is nothing like hypnagogia

>>6580062
Nothing like a psychedelic. Not all altered states are the same you know.

I don't much about altered states

but it certainly was crazy giving myself a handless orgasm, though what I did was probably just as simple as forcing a wet dream.

>>6580020
how so?
It seems obvious to me. It isnt even a bold claim

>>6580533
>but it certainly was crazy giving myself a handless orgasm
how???

>>6580553
same idea as consciously transitioning into a lucid dream, but into a wet dream

Make sure to put a plastic bag over your dick first so you don't get second thoughts about having a mess to clean up (and potentially breaking lucidity)

Might want to read up on how to lucid dream first. There's a couple ways, the hardest is doing it straight from a conscious state, or doing it by dream cues within your sleep. Also, you probably already know by experience that it'll be easier to get back into dreaming after waking up.

>>6579550
>they open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong
such as your inability to fly

>>6579620
>fully self aware
The only people less "self aware" than you are babies, retards, and vegetables. Doing drugs does not make you enlightened or more self aware.

>>6579595

upvoted

>>6579544
>meaning smoking marijuana prevents the growth of cancer

I don't think inducing autophagy and apoptosis in healthy cells is a good choice.
I am sure something could be derived to help cancer but killing already healthy cells could lead to cancer.

>>6582344
>I don't think inducing autophagy and apoptosis in healthy cells is a good choice.
>I am sure something could be derived to help cancer but killing already healthy cells could lead to cancer.
do you even know what apoptosis means?
>rhetorical question
apoptosis is not a process a healthy cell CAN undergo

>>6579593
That dude has like 3 shoulder muscles. Damn.

Wonder if he has stretch marks.

>>6579544
>www.endalldisease.com
>34-medical-studies-proving-cannabis-cures-cancer
>proving-cannabis-cures-cancer
I can already tell that website is completely bullshit and the studies are either wrong or taken completely out of context.

>>6580006
>In the entire history of everything, nobody has dropped acid and then come up with an insightful and new scientific or mathematical idea

http://www.famousscientists.org/14-famous-scientists-inventors-who-experimented-with-drugs/


Kari Mullis has credited the invention of PCR at least partially to his LSD usage.

The relevant bit is that your brain is purely garbage-in-garbage-out. Mullis was a highly skilled biochemist, and his brain full of good data and useful techniques could put together insights that proved useful. The average stoner who failed Chemistry 10 is of course going to produce pure drivel.

Speaking from personal experience, I finally really understood orbital dynamics equations, from a purely geometric perspective, after a couple of bowls, but one data point does not a proof make of course.

>pro marijuana debaters keep saying marijuana cures cancer
>retards actually believe them
>people go off chemotherapy to inject marijuana oil into their bodies

>mfw

When will potheads stop being such degenerates? Weed is never going to be legalized outside of hick states. Deal with it.

>>6579586
Every rat dies in an LD50.

The LD50 value is the dose of a drug that kills 50% of rats.

The actual constituent values that make that figure include doses above and below that figure.

At times the drug might be tolerated in some of the population at a dosage designated as the maximum dose by the designer of the experiment. If the entire population hasn't died by this point they will be placed in a chamber and euthanized by carbon monoxide poisoning.

At least that's how they do it in my lab.

>>6582470
>Weed is never going to be legalized outside of hick states.
Didn't you say that about alcohol during the Prohibition, grandpa?

>>6582470
>Weed is never going to be legalized outside of hick states
>mfw I live in Washington
>mfw you're calling Washington a hick state

>>6582470

>When will potheads stop being such degenerates?

You've got your cause/effect all mixed up, buddy. Degenerates end up being pot heads because they don't get drug tested and have less to lose if they are caught. When cannabis is legalized and professionals do not have to fear ruining their career over a blunt, you'll see non-degenerate usage. Didn't you ever hang out with the deans list stoners at Uni? Cool people, less stressed than the Asians, more sociable, kicked ass in their fields. You might not have even known they burned, they usually don't mention it around people like you.

>doctors give cancer patients cannabis to alleviate pain and nausea
>some cancer patients survive after undergoing extensive chemotherapy, radiation treatments
>WEED CURES CANCER!

fucking american logic

take all the "alternative medicine" and charge your crystals and chakras and do whatever the fuck you want, it's your life you're throwing away.

>>6582518
The only part of WA that isn't hick central is seattle

>>6582408
it's synthol brah. injecting oil into your muscles to make them look retarded. hence the tie in to OP

>>6582665
oh my god, I just googled that

people are fucked in the head sometimes...

>>6579533
>This should not be generalized
>Heres a generalization about the possible benefits of cannabis

>>6579799

>>6583811
>>6579799
Hard to say without seeing any clinical results on the efficacy of this treatment. Got anything more than a patent number?

Any image or story with "cure cancer" in it is bullshit and not real. You cannot cure cancer, just like you cannot cure disease.

You're an idiot for even thinking it might be real.

For those of you who wanted other sources.

Cannabis Cures Brain Cancer
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/abs/6603236a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11479216
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/21/17/6475.abstract
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/308/3/838.abstract
http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/10/1/90.abstract

Cannabis Cures Mouth and Throat Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734

Cannabis Cures Breast Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20859676
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18025276
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21915267
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/early/2006/05/25/jpet.106.105247.full.pdf+html
http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/9/1/196
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776349
http://www.pnas.org/content/95/14/8375.full.pdf+html

Cannabis Cures Lung Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198381?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21097714?dopt=Abstract
http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n3/abs/1210641a.html

Cannabis Cures Uterine, Testicular, and Pancreatic Cancers
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/13/6748.abstract

Cannabis Cures Prostate Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12746841?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3339795/?tool=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22594963

Cannabis Cures Colorectal Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22231745

Cannabis Cures Ovarian Cancer
http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006/1/1084

Cannabis Curse Blood Cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12091357
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908594
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.23584/abstract
http://molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/5/1612.abstract


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DttdDOqQMuY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGwkt1CWhhw

It has gotten to the point where nothing can really be trusted unless you have seen the experiments done yourself.

We have faith in the peer reviewed published papers.

>>6586480
If you actually bothered to sample-chech those articles you mentioned, you'd see they have serious problems in their translational value.

Unless you just copy pasted them from some copypasta or a blog post.

>>6579519
Pot is excellent at controlling the side-effects of chemo.

It is the chemo that actually has an effect on the cancer however.

Every now and then "Cancer sufferer prescribed/uses pot to reduce symptoms of cancer/chemo" gets turned into a click-bait headline of "LOL OMG POT CURES CANCER".

The 'publisher' gets readers/clicks and more bad/non-science enters the public awareness wrapped in the legitimacy of the news-media. So it goes.

>>6586514
Care to point out the errors?
My sample-cheching is obviously not as good as yours.

>>6586536
I didn't obviously look at all of them, but at least one (the 3rd one) refers to neuroprotection from neurodegenerative disorders and not cancer. Although it could potentially protect against excitotoxic effects of anti-cancer treatment.

Some others refer to synergistic actions of cannabis with anti-cancer treatment, which is quite different that saying cannabis cures cancer, also as >>6586517 mentions.

Another article from the first group for example tested the treatment by subcutaneous xenograft on mice and subsequent pericutaneous injections of anti-cancer+cannabis. The translational value of such an experimental setup is questionable at best, for reasons such as: brain vs subcutaeous tumour; blood brain barrier; injection of anticancer treatment directly on the tumour; all of which are significantly different from the human clinical reality.

Other results are based on established cell lines, which even though similar to cancer cells can vary significantly, with the most obvious difference being that you do not get systems interactions.

Do remember that in order to see most of my points you need to critically review the entire article, especially the materials, methods and statistics part. Unfortunately there is no shortage of bad, non-reproducible or non-translatable science.

>>6586617
So two of the articles should be removed from the list.
What of all the others?

Or specifically this one.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
"Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis."
>including induction of cell death

>>6586622
From the same article.
"Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death."

>>6586622
>>6586625
I feel like you're taking my response personally. I did not say that cannabis does not have anti tumour effects. Most of the concerns I raised regard the design, performance and report of experiments and is not limited to the field of cancer, but is much broader encompassing biomedicine, neuroscience etc.

Second, as I said in my very first sentence, I read a few of the articles, simply because viewing all of them and verifying sources takes quite some time.

As for the article you cite, that sentence has 4 references. For the most part they suffer from the same problems as I mentioned earlier. To put it shortly, in rodents we can cure anything. But somehow in the process we lose the ability to extrapolate those results to humans.

Lastly, the structure of the sentence and the usage of certain words dictates the strength of the argument. Words such as, may, probably, potentially, basically mean quite a bit of speculations and wishful thinking is involved.

Once again, I am not bashing cannabis as anticancer treatment. My objection lies with pop-sci news-tier titles used, such as "cannabis cures X" and conspiratory theories that inevitably arise involving pharmaceuticals.

>>6586636
Fair enough.
Thanks for the clarification.

>>6584544
Not the anon you were talking to, but something like this?

http://www.google.com.br/patents/US5676977

>>6586636
>To put it shortly, in rodents we can cure anything. But somehow in the process we lose the ability to extrapolate those results to humans.
we extrapolate fine
>In mathematics, extrapolation is the process of estimating, beyond the original observation range,
what we can't do is replicate the rat results all the time in human.


>>6586636
>the structure of the sentence and the usage of certain words dictates the strength of the argument.

eloquence is NOT a measure of fact. A fact is a fact is a fact regardless if poorly expressed.

>>6579806

No, you got it all backwards. It's actually cunts like you who are the reason why active cannabinoids aren't still used alongside regular cancer treatments - if they ever will - which would significantly increase the chances of patients surviving. Even, if the slowing down of cancer by cannabis was too negligible in practice, one still gets to be stronger and much more likely to survive when one's own body is not trying so hard to kill itself - one will actually be able to eat and digest much of one's food while on chemo.

>>6580020
Pretty straightforward stuff. Take drugs, fuck up chemical balance in brain, get slight insight into how your brain works.

>>6586708
Different anon here but...

It was only tested on 9 humans (not counting those who received the placebo) 2 of whom died within one and one half years of the injection. With numbers this low, I'm suspicious that there may be some correlation vs. causation issues here.

>>6586856
>>6586761
>>6586636
>>6579806
Will the 2, 3, or 4 of you chill out for a moment? I think that everyone here agrees that stopping a traditional cancer treatment in favor of "smoke weed erryday" is a bad idea. That being said, cannabis has some proven beneficial effects for people undergoing intense cancer treatments. For example, pain relief and reducing nausea. If cannabis improves the chances of surviving cancer or even makes the treatment less hellish on the patient, than in my completely amateur and unprofessional opinion, it had ought to be available for doctors to prescribe.

Unfortunately, cannabis has been stigmatized (partially because of its recreational [ab]use) that conducting bonafide scientific studies or prescribing it for bonafide medical reasons is prohibitively difficult. In my opinion, cannabis had ought to be moved from schedule I to schedule II in order to make it easier for the aforementioned bonafide uses of it.

TL;DR
Allow bonafide researchers and bonafide doctors easier access to cannabis.

>>6586761
>In mathematics,...
I didn't know we switched topics. I admit my relative ignorance to advanced mathematics.

>eloquence is NOT a measure of fact. A fact is a fact is a fact regardless if poorly expressed.
Well luckily for me, the meaning of the results is not a fact but an opinion that is backed up by other facts/results. Therefore it is true that when reporting results, it is done so in an absolute manner. However, when interpreting results (the section called discussion usually, although it can be fused with the results section) there is no fact, only speculation and opinions on theories and mechanisms that have not yet been disproven.

>>6579665
Please mention a few examples of the aforementioned pharmaceuticals. I'll try digging around for sources if you don't/can't provide any.

>>6587026
Not the same anon. I'm not into cancer research that much, but the same principle applies to other diseases as well. Here's a schematic of all the compounds that showed promising results in preclinical (aka animal/cell lines/organ cultures etc) studies against alzheimer's disease as of 2010 (source is http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474442210701198).). As you can see only 4 reached the patients, 3 of which are not even specific for the standard alzheimer pathology.