/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6597633]

so, is there a shred of truth to this?

does the government know things and arnt telling us?

[Anonymous No.6597661]

The "government" knows lots of things they don't tell us such as the resolution of spy satellites cameras and how to build a nuke.

As for your picture there is no supporting scientific evidence that THC offers anything more than pain relief to cancer patience.

[Anonymous No.6597667]

>>6597661
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14570037

[Anonymous No.6597670]

>>6597667
Do I need to pay to read the actual paper?

[Anonymous No.6597671]

>>6597670

[Anonymous No.6597672]

>>6597671
Not professionally no, now can you tell me how to view the paper?

[Anonymous No.6597684]

>>6597661
>no supporting scientific evidence that THC offers anything more than pain relief to cancer patience.


said by someone with a closed mind.

the evidence that cannabis kills cancer is out there if you look and the pile of "peer reviewed" scientific studies is growing that support this view
http://www.endalldisease.com/34-medical-studies-proving-cannabis-cures-cancer/

[Anonymous No.6597685]

>>6597684
I'm not close minded I was just unaware of this research. After seeing hippies claim weed fixes everything and has no downside for years I'm just sceptical when I see a "weed cures cancer" informational.

PS. I smoked hard for years and know weeds downsides.

[Anonymous No.6597687]

YES IT DOES CURE 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
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20516734
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
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
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/66/13/6748.abstract
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
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22231745
http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/abstract/2006/1/1084
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.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12511587
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475304
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916793
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/803983
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514108
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899

[Anonymous No.6597689]

>>6597684
>http://www.endalldisease.com/34-medical-studies-proving-cannabis-cures-cancer/
I also just saw this there, combined with "Cannabis Cures X Cancer" everywhere my doubts still stand.

[Anonymous No.6597690]

>>6597633
Probably not.
Why type out a 3 paragraph, 400 word essay about a trashed medical study which miraculously resurfaced after difficult legal battle and NOT post a link or cite more information

[Anonymous No.6597691]

>>6597685
>unaware

obviously unaware

google "all the rats left untreated" the results will lead you down the rabbit hole and help show how the government KNEW this was a cure but squashed it, even went so far as to have journal articles removed from university libraries

[Anonymous No.6597693]

>>6597691
They can't remove them from the net, please give me a full paper that gives breed of rat and all the details.

[Anonymous No.6597694]

>>6597693
>please give me a full paper
why in the name of holy hell should I work to prove this simple fact to YOU?

you ignorant piece of closed minded shit

[Anonymous No.6597697]

>>6597693
>They can't remove them from the net
whatever makes you think that?

I doubt it was ever entered onto the net

>paper published in 1974

[Anonymous No.6597698]

>>6597694

Because, dumbfuck, you're the one trying to convince HIM, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.6597700]

>>6597633
>It's this thread again

[Anonymous No.6597703]

>>6597691
>nothing but sites with names like "cannabis.net" and natural news
nope

[Anonymous No.6597706]

>>6597694
Marijuana is the most toxic poison known to man.

I don't need to prove this simple fact, though. Look it up yourself.

[Anonymous No.6597712]

>>6597697
I think it wouldn't be removed because sites like http://www.sciencemadness.org/ still exist despite sharing papers the government wouldn't approve of.

[Anonymous No.6597714]

>>6597706
I concur

besides it can shrink ur penis

>microphallus

[Anonymous No.6597716]

>>6597698
ah, thanks, all this killer weed has me a bit confused

wait a minute I think I need another fix
>waiting for my injection

[Anonymous No.6597720]

>>6597716
I'm the one that asked for the paper, if you feel passionately about this providing one would be your best move. It would convince me and make me want to show others thus spreading the word. As thinks of this nature are hard to find I could even use the same source to show others.

This has nothing to do with personal feelings regarding recreational drugs (I think they should all be legalized) and everything to do with seeing the scientific method showing a link between cannabis and cancer.

[Anonymous No.6597731]

>>6597720
ive uploaded it here friend: http://www speedyshare com/v3FxQ/cannibinoids-potential-anticancer-agents.pdf

link at top not bottom

[Anonymous No.6597736]

>>6597731
Nice .exe
So when you can't back up your claims you just attack people?

[Anonymous No.6597744]

>>6597633
All the good research is coming out of the Netherlands these days.

The Netherlands is big into marijuana

The dutch have not discovered a marijuana based cancer cure.

[Anonymous No.6597747]

>>6597667
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14570037
>In addition, these compounds have been shown to inhibit the growth of tumour cells in culture

Now, if it selectively kills cancer cells in a petri dish, you can be sure it's at least a great breakthrough for everyone suffering from petri dish cancer.

[Anonymous No.6597748]

>>6597736
are you fucking retarded?
its the link at the top not the bottom as i said earlier.
wow some people.

[Anonymous No.6597755]

>>6597748
My bad sorry, I cbf installing a pdf reader on my linux lappy right now but I will read the paper.
Thank you for sharing.

[Anonymous No.6597795]

>>6597755
>cannibinoids-potential-anticancer-agents.pdf
here's one of the originals from 1975 !!!
https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/references/journal/1975_munson_nci_1/1975_munson_nci_1_text.shtml

[Anonymous No.6597825]

>>6597684
>>6597691

My advise: don't automatically start calling people closed minded if they don't agree with you and separate the whole government thing form the cancer-cure thing. Especially avoid talking about rabbit holes in combination with this topic. You come across as a tin-foiled looney.

Furthermore, although
>>6597731
is an interesting article, I nowhere see it claimed that 'pot cures cancer'. I believe it says the results are promising, but still inconclusive with respect to the possibilities of actual medical treatment, especially as a drug on itself (without other treatments).

My opinion with regards to the 'conspiracy': the fact that the article is published in Nature makes it highly doubtful that powerful evil Jews are suppressing this research in favor of their medi-shekels.Moreover, as the article states, researching this medicine is relatively easy, meaning that every little research-lab in the world can do it. If it were really such a cheep and easy cure for cancer, then you would expect that somewhere somebody would have managed developing this while the Jews weren't looking. Or are they literally everywhere?

[Anonymous No.6597827]

>>6597633
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.6597836]

>>6597714

>killer weed

The ""killer weed" was linked to people who had cardiovascular ailments.

They were fat drunks with breathing problems from tobacco.

Then they smoked weed, which made them cough.

The exercise from coughing nearly killed them.

[Anonymous No.6597837]

>>6597825
Nothing cures cancer.

[Anonymous No.6597839]

>>6597837
death does

[Anonymous No.6597852]

>>6597825
>somewhere somebody would have managed developing this while the Jews weren't looking

Rick Simpson

and see Cannabinoids: potential anticancer agents. Guzmán M.

>pic related

[Anonymous No.6597859]

>>6597839
No, cancer still exists. Your post is an example.

[Anonymous No.6597862]

>>6597825
Fucking this. People forget that there are other countries not loyal to the US that have their own medical research. A finding like this should be easy and not so open to interpretation. It should have easily been picked up by everyone everywhere. People also forget that there is research claiming that "BLANK" cures cancer for literally fucking everything. Smokers cling to this cannabis research because it reinforces their need to think of weed as a good thing and not a bad thing. Also, since weed is illegal it creates an exciting government conspiracy to drum up which of course the smokers love. But guess what stoners, the goverment actually has a precedent of allowing the use of highly illegal street narcotics in clinical setting based on scientific research showing its benefits. Number 1, cocaine used in hospital settings. Yes, cocaine is a schedule 2 drug and can be legally administered. And some states allow the use of marijuana for its heavily researched benefits. You bet your ass that some company would jump at the chance to produce a thc treatment for cancer, because the influx of money from a cancer cure would EASILY trump decades of pushing antineoplastic drugs

[Anonymous No.6597867]

>>6597839
>>6597859
#rekt

[Anonymous No.6597873]

>>6597852
Does it mention how it affects healthy non-cancerous cells as well? With all antineoplastics you have very significant collateral damage to healthy tissue, cannabis could very well kill cancer cells but alot of shit does that. The real question is can it kill cancer cells without killing healthy cells?

[Anonymous No.6597877]

>>6597633
>so, is there a shred of truth to this?
>does the government know things and arnt telling us?

more than a shred anon
>pic related

thank you >>6597720
for your civil reply to my un-civil posts

you gave me the inspiration to make

>pic related

[Anonymous No.6597884]

>>6597873
the guzman paper I have referenced should answer all your questions anon.

[Anonymous No.6597891]

citation needed. only pubmed accepted. Plus if you shoot such a liquid in your bloodstream your vessels would get fucked up cuz osmosis, so maybe you would get a clot and die. Well, you wouldn't have cancer anymore.

[Anonymous No.6597895]

>>6597633
Also this picture is stupid. Companies MAKE money off research? Are you fucking kidding me? The vast majority of the cost of clinical trials and the pharmaceutics of a drug rest solely on the company with the patent for the chemical entity. For a single drug to hit the market it COSTS a company an average of 1 BILLION dollars and on average only 1 in 5000 of research medicines. Researching medicine is one of the most expensive and risky things you can do. The reason medicine is so fucking expensive is because its REALLY FUCKING EXPENSIVE TO MAKE. Also, if cannabis was so good at curing cancer it wouldn't be that hard to create a synthetic chemical analog that has nearly the same properties that would not be illegal and could be patented and brought to market. These conspiracist are fucking crazy. Do you know what it would be like to be the pharmaceutical company that CURED CANCER? People would buy every single one of your drugs regardless of anything. Your stock price would be the highest in the goddamn world. The loss of sales of other antineoplastics would be a pittance. ANY company would kill for the chance to cure cancer. People who claim they don't and are just denying findings for money have no idea how the pharmaceutical industry or business as a whole works

[Anonymous No.6597905]

>>6597895
cancer cure is valued at 50 trillion dollars.

[Anonymous No.6597910]

>>6597895
Pharmaceutical companies can't patent a preexisting plant. They make money off of copyrights, not cures.

[Anonymous No.6597916]

>>6597905
>70 trillion
Considering that there are 7 billion people on the planet, and cancer treatment is fuck-all expensive, that sounds about right.

That is how much money the medical profession would lose if there was a cure for cancer.

[Anonymous No.6597917]

>>6597884
Oh so he says exactly what I thought. The CB receptors are ubiquitous meaning that cannabis would an equal chance of causing the same killing and retardation in healthy cells as well as cancer cells if they are acting on the same receptor. Unless there is an over expression of said receptor in cancer, or if the signal transduction pathway is somehow altered in a cancerous cell (To such an extent as to cause apoptosis when originally signaling for something else entirely, which seems highly highly unlikely to me). I can't find a free version of this paper. Is there anywhere where he has the data of healthy control cells to cancerous cells?

[Anonymous No.6597921]

>>6597910
how about governments holding patents for cannibinoids?

>bring in the trolls
>>6597891
>>6597895
>>6597910

btw >>6597891 did you even see >>6597687 ??

is the "journal of neuroscience" just pleb tier in your mind as well ?

[Anonymous No.6597924]

>>6597910
Make a synthetic analog based on the chemical structure of the natural chemical and patent that, they do it all the time.
>>6597916
He said value, meaning that the company with the cure would be 50 trillion dollars richer. Do you really think they would give a flying fuck about how much money their competitors would lose? The government couldn't pay them 50 trillion dollars either, they have no reason not to bring it to market.

[Anonymous No.6597926]

>>6597687
Funnily enough, among all the people who want to enlight us with their, "xxxxx cures cancer !" bullshit is willing to buy and freely distribute those publications.

[Anonymous No.6597936]

>>6597687
Funnily enough, among all the people who want to enlight us with their, "xxxxx cures cancer !" bullshit, not a single one is willing to buy and freely distribute those publications.

[Anonymous No.6597937]

>>6597891
>only pubmed accepted
your search-foo is weak young one
>pic related

[Anonymous No.6597942]

>>6597921
If you knew anything about pharmaceutical research you would know that patenting a chemical entity is the very first step in a 15 year process in making a commercial drug. Like a mentioned before 4999 patented chemical entities never see the light of day for every 1 brought to market because further research and clinical trials expose their flaws.

[Anonymous No.6597945]

>>6597937
How do i see the full article?

[Anonymous No.6597957]

>>6597942
yup, what little I DO know about the subject >>6597942
>pharmaceutical research
corroborates your statement.

HOWEVER, I must point out that we are NOT talking about a novel commercial drug. cannabis is a plant and the oil is a plant extract and the RD process is a little different... all testing, of which limited amounts have been done in the last 40 years since the virginia studies were done. Anybody who followed the science at the time saw this and the few daring individuals such as guzman persued it.

Please read the Pubmed referenced article b4 continuing this conversation it can be found free on the web if you are like me and do not have a subscription

[Anonymous No.6597965]

>>6597945
wow!

ok

I put it in google and got
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cannabinoids%3A%20potential%20anticancer%20agents%20manuel%20guzm%C3%A1n&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.medicinalgenomics.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F07%2FTowards-the-use-of-cannabinoids-as-anti-tumor-agents1.pdf&ei=V72hU6yTKpGOqAbw5oKQBA&usg=AFQjCNG9kyrsCPdJ-3Z5biYlTsIkxcso3A&bvm=bv.69137298,d.aWw

and this

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cannabinoids%3A%20potential%20anticancer%20agents%20manuel%20guzm%C3%A1n&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cannabis-med.org%2Fdata%2Fpdf%2Fen_2006_02_1.pdf&ei=V72hU6yTKpGOqAbw5oKQBA&usg=AFQjCNFyTNWLoEcHeYBOH3WnXCsiZOsS9g&bvm=bv.69137298,d.aWw

as results halfway down the page... you will have to get a pdf reader

[Anonymous No.6597970]

>>6597924
>the company with the cure would be 50 trillion dollars richer.

How? They have nothing to sell now.

[Anonymous No.6597999]

>>6597970
Do you think that a cure for cancer being invented just instantly rids the world of cancer or something? People would still need to be treated for cancer. Cures are also different from preventative medicine, cancer cures aren't necessarily cancer vaccines, people could still get cancer it'd just be curable now. Stop being purposely obtuse.

[Anonymous No.6598017]

And what kind of cancer this is supposed to cure?

[Anonymous No.6598029]

>>6597936
>>6598017
see
>>6597852

>U must work on your search-fu young ones

[Anonymous No.6598051]

The pharmaceutical industry conspiracy is complete bullshit though.

Those companies are owned by immensely rich billionaires, we can assume that some of them are old and even that maybe one of them got cancer. For example, even though he wasn't in the pharmaceutical industry, Steve Jobs was at the head of the most valuable company of all time and died from cancer.

Do you really think that someone with that much money and power would ignore such a great cure instead on funding it with all the money he has ?

[Anonymous No.6598064]

>>6597633
The government knows a lot of things they aren't telling us.

Miracle cures to diseases aren't one of them, though. THC as any kind of cancer 'cure' is straight-up bullshit, as is just about any other "suppressed cancer/AIDS/Morgellons cure" you hear about.

[Anonymous No.6598066]

>>6597957
Ok, I read the piece. He mentioned in the article that he was starting clinical trials. Does he have any data from those trials? he should since that was way back in 2003. As far as the paper goes its about as much I from a systemic analysis of a cancer treatment. A lot of promise but a lot still up in the air which is par for the course in these types of papers, its best way to get grants for further study. All i can say is that it doesn't look like the miracle cure its purported be. He gives no comparisons between treatments of modern antineoplastics versus the cannabis in terms of effectiveness. And he goes on to suggest hybrid therapies which leads me to think that it is probably not very potent on its own. This is a systemic analysis, which is a culmination of previous research conclusions. What I want to see is a meta analysis which is a culmination of the hard data. I would also like to see the results of clinical trials which Guzman himself states "...many compounds that inhibit
tumour-cell growth in culture and in laboratory animals
turn out to be disappointingly ineffective and/or toxic
when tested in patients. Regarding effectiveness,
cannabinoids exert notable antitumour activity in ani-
mal models of cancer, but their possible antitumour
effect in humans has not been established" I see a lot of use of the words "notable" and "tended" which are red flags for anyone involved in research. "tended to reduce tumor size" is not the same as curing cancer. This is not a miracle by any means.

[Anonymous No.6598083]

>>6598066
dehydrating a patient also tends to reduce tumour size

[Anonymous No.6598101]

>>6598066
thank you for reading the piece.
now for a bit of the "tin-foil" that goes in OPs statement.

Please do a little checking of M. Guzman's academic career. I think you will find he ended up going back to spain to pursue this line of research.

I agree wholeheartedly that much, much more research needs to be done.
But it needs to be done on a level playing field. Almost all research to date has been under the premise of "find something wrong" to further political ends of the war on drugs.

the rest is classified RD done by big pharma, and the "fringe" stuff you turn your nose up at. I know some of the stuff is "'tin-foil" retarded but alongside the chaff are valuable gems.

Have you heard Dr. Sanjay Gupta's story of why he changed his mind on this very subject of cannabis?

[Anonymous No.6598109]

>>6598101
If Big Pharma had actually found something, they'd be selling it by now.

Have you SEEN the financial trouble they're in right now? Pfizer's CEO would sell their own mother right now for a decently profitable drug in the pipeline.

[Anonymous No.6598157]

>>6598101
>ended up going back to spain to pursue this line of research.
Which is why i was asking if he had any new data. He was writing from spain in that article if I recall while he was starting the trials. I just want some updates.

>Almost all research to date has been under the premise of "find something wrong" to further political ends of the war on drugs.

Thats a pretty heavy statement, you got anything to back that up?

>the rest is classified RD done by big pharma
Not if their clinical trials their not, and not if they want a patent so other companies don't steal an opportunity out from under them. There are no classified clinical trials as you have to continuously report to a Institutional Review Board. Drug research is transparent as a company has show every piece of data in order to be approved by the FDA. They wouldn't even know the benefits if they didn't start trials, and why would they start research "very expensive research" on a drug they were never going to use if you buy into the whole conspiracy debacle.

[Anonymous No.6598197]

>>6597661
>how to build a nuke
Couldn't any guy with a PhD in experimental physics do that

[Anonymous No.6598233]

>>6598197
Any high schooler could

[Anonymous No.6598238]

>>6598109
>If Big Pharma had actually found something, they'd be selling it by now.

>implying it was not just an extract they couldn't patent / copyright

[Anonymous No.6598269]

>>6597747
You're right. It's only preliminary reports that an incredibly cheap set of molecules can inhibit the modern plague of unregulated cell growth.

I'm sure we will get a more concrete answer after it goes through human trials....

[Anonymous No.6598283]

anything that involves government-granted monopolies, you can be damn sure involves dark secrets. probably dark secrets of a very far-reaching impact, today.

[Anonymous No.6598286]

>>6598238
Then you patent the delivery method, or tweak the chemical structure just enough to be patentable.

[Anonymous No.6598288]

>>6598269
Dude, you get incredibly cheap molecules that kill cancer cells in petri dishes all the goddamn time.

The problem being that very, very few of the molecules that make it through Phase 1 (Petri dish testing) go on to actually do well in Phase 2 (animal testing) - in fact, often something that works great in a Petri dish doesn't work at all in an animal, or turns out to kill normal cells just as well. And even fewer of the drugs that make it through Phase 2 work properly in humans.

[Anonymous No.6598298]

>>6598288
You're right, you're right. Okay, so who has NIH and the various cancer societies funded for these animal trials? I'm really eager to check on their work. How close are they to finishing the rounds, or have they failed? It's not like the USA, the leader in cancer research, would sit on a goldmine like this. We already know that the cannabis plant is incredibly non-toxic, so hopefully it holds true when isolating molecules out of it

[Anonymous No.6598301]

>>6598238
dude you can patent just about anything. Even if you can't patent the product itself, you can patent the process.

In this case, every one of these papers mentioning reduction in tumour size, are extracting specific canniboids and targetting them directly at tumours. It would be easier to build a nuke than to self treat cancer with marijuana.

[Anonymous No.6598306]

>>6598298
First you have to finish stage 1 (petri dish testing)
if good cells are killed in a petri dish, there is no point in testing on animals.

[Anonymous No.6598311]

>>6598306
you're right, you're right. And with a plant such as cannabis, we are talking about a plethora of different molecules that could all potentially have some medical benefit.

Again, why isn't the NIH funding a full screening of this plant and it's benefits? I mean, we have a sliver of a result that it might possibly inhibit tumor growth.

[Anonymous No.6598321]

>>6598311
Probably because cannabis research is really unpopular right now, especially because all the people really interested in its benefits tend to be, well, stoners. That's probably going to change - the War on Drugs is crumbling quickly - but right now it's just not politically "in".

'Sides, I've looked at the research. The particular cancer angle talked about here doesn't exactly look promising.

[Anonymous No.6598354]

>>6597999
Yes. That is why it is a cure instead of a very successful treatment.

[Anonymous No.6598359]

>>6598311
they have been testing marijuana for decades.

[Anonymous No.6598370]

>>6598311
>>6598359
http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/marijuana/marijuana-research-nida

related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQS910WVlKc

[Anonymous No.6598431]

>>6598311
>Again, why isn't the NIH funding a full screening of this plant and it's benefits?

because since 1970's cannabis is on the US gov "schedule 1" narcotic with "no medical value" and the only research is sponsored by the National Institute for Drug Addiction and they have absolutely no political interest in helping any research that could possibly shed a positive light on this subject. read up on it

[Anonymous No.6598470]

>>6598321
Cannabis research has never been more widespread and approved of.

[Anonymous No.6598594]

>>6598470
and there is a shit tonne of people who are using the oil and not waiting for the rest of the medical community to act. Colorado will yield some interesting data in a year or two. Granted it will all be anecdotal but... I don't give a flyin fig about the exact mechanism if I've only got 6 months to live and it saves me

>I predict an enormous number of "spontaneous remission" cases

[Anonymous No.6599102]

>>6598594
unless they are injecting it directly into the tumour i doubt it is having any effect.