Author Topic: Cancer  (Read 17579 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

impulse

  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location:
  • Posts: 1386
Cancer
« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2010, 02:15:37 PM »
im not sure if this is the same thread.. but i'm pretty sure this is the one heady posted a video about ingesting hemp seed OIL, not smoking it

HardDrive

  • #1 Red Guy
  • Join Date: Aug 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 3636
Cancer
« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2010, 03:13:13 PM »
ITT: People dealing with absolutes in one of the most complex fields in all of modern science.

Cancer is a pretty vague classification for a series of diseases, I would not be surprised if the term cancer described at least 1,000 different specific conditions. For example, leukemia is a type of cancer. But leukemia is actually an entire SPECTRUM of diseases which simply share a common thread. There are 4 major kinds, and even those 4 major kinds aren't descriptive enough to actually categorize every case of leukemia. Some are practically curable and treatable, although failure obviously still exists because individual human bodies only increase the complexity of the field. Others forms of leukemia are not, at least not currently. There is also generally a point of no return on most cancers. It (the point of no return) may get better, but there is a point at which a cancer has essentially done mortal damage to a person and they are not likely to live much longer. Some cancers like throat cancer can do this without the person even having the inclination that they should even seek treatment, which is the biggest hurdle that occurs with the most major/deadly cancers. The other hurdle is that there simply hasn't been the research put into some specific cancers to even really know what could possibly even be done to treat them. Large volumes of research go purely into the detection of cancers, which hemp seed oil doesn't do shit for.

Hemp and many other things are obviously worth exploring more than they are explored now, but to classify it as a cure or treatment for millions of people with differing physiological conditions is very impractical and also very dangerous. It just doesn't work that way. There is no field of science that is catered towards human beings that works that simply.

Sunfire

  • bvd| capt.
  • Join Date: Nov 2004
  • Location:
  • Posts: 6280
    • Tribes Ascend - sunfire
Cancer
« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2010, 07:00:48 PM »
Quote from: impulse;329255
im not sure if this is the same thread.. but i'm pretty sure this is the one heady posted a video about ingesting hemp seed OIL, not smoking it

 
Gah, I read this thread when it started a while back and assumed I still knew what it was about. I should have read it first. Either way, smoking regularly is terrible for you in most departments.

heady

  • I think you're banned, not sure though
  • Join Date: Dec 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 5841
    • SmoothsChannel
Cancer
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2010, 09:56:21 PM »
impulse actually said something right

Yeah, people love that argument... idk show me evidence, remember you choose how you want to smoke it. Vaporizing is great, ingesting oil is the cure. Cannabis is medicine folks, it's been that way a lot longer than harry jnigger hater started this back a little while ago, but it's always going to be corrupt until we make SENSEable laws FOR FUCK SAKES.
fuck off lol

Anti

  • Join Date: Jan 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 4306
    • http://war.tribesone.net/
Cancer
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2010, 10:30:29 AM »
So you're sticking with hemp oil cures cancer?

heady

  • I think you're banned, not sure though
  • Join Date: Dec 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 5841
    • SmoothsChannel
Cancer
« Reply #35 on: October 17, 2010, 06:40:48 PM »
Hemp flower oil cures cancer

sticking with it? yeah its sticky lol

I'm not the one who first figured it out, but I know for a fact its true. Try it yourself before you judge it, or you could resort to child like name calling.

Anti

  • Join Date: Jan 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 4306
    • http://war.tribesone.net/
Cancer
« Reply #36 on: October 17, 2010, 10:36:57 PM »
I haven't called you any names, at least not since this threads revival.

So hemp flower oil, it just cures cancer? Actually cures? All cancer or only certain types? With what level of success? Can you put a percent on it? 'Cause cures are 100%. I'm just trying to understand exactly what you mean, feel free to educate me, I am all ears.

Si

  • Join Date: Dec 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 12355
Cancer
« Reply #37 on: October 17, 2010, 11:05:30 PM »
I wouldn't go so far as to call it a cure...but there is a ton of studies showing that it could be effective for treatment. Here is what my 3 min search dug up. I'll only post the abstract since posting full journal articles would be illegal. References are included if you have access to online databases through your university or something and you want to look em up.

Cannabinoids reduce ErbB2-driven breast cancer progression through Akt inhibition.


Mol Cancer. 2010 Jul 22;9:196.

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: ErbB2-positive  breast cancer is characterized by highly aggressive phenotypes and  reduced responsiveness to standard therapies. Although specific  ErbB2-targeted therapies have been designed, only a small percentage of  patients respond to these treatments and most of them eventually  relapse. The existence of this population of particularly aggressive and  non-responding or relapsing patients urges the search for novel  therapies. The purpose of this study was to determine whether  cannabinoids might constitute a new therapeutic tool for the treatment  of ErbB2-positive breast tumors. We analyzed their antitumor potential  in a well established and clinically relevant model of ErbB2-driven  metastatic breast cancer: the MMTV-neu mouse. We also analyzed the  expression of cannabinoid targets in a series of 87 human breast tumors.
RESULTS: Our  results show that both Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the most abundant  and potent cannabinoid in marijuana, and JWH-133, a non-psychotropic CB2  receptor-selective agonist, reduce tumor growth, tumor number, and the  amount/severity of lung metastases in MMTV-neu mice. Histological  analyses of the tumors revealed that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell  proliferation, induce cancer cell apoptosis, and impair tumor  angiogenesis. Cannabinoid antitumoral action relies, at least partially,  on the inhibition of the pro-tumorigenic Akt pathway. We also found  that 91% of ErbB2-positive tumors express the non-psychotropic  cannabinoid receptor CB2.
CONCLUSIONS: Taken  together, these results provide a strong preclinical evidence for the  use of cannabinoid-based therapies for the management of ErbB2-positive  breast cancer.


Caffarel MM, Andradas C, Mira E, Pérez-Gómez E, Cerutti C, Moreno-Bueno G, Flores JM, García-Real I, Palacios J, Mañes S, Guzmán M, Sánchez C.
Dept, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology I, School of Biology, Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.




Cannabinoids inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells.

Pharmacology. 2010;85(6):328-35. Epub  2010 Jun 2.

Whyte DA, Al-Hammadi S, Balhaj G, Brown OM, Penefsky HS, Souid AK.
Department of Pediatricsy, State University of New York, Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, USA.
Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The  primary cannabinoids, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta(9)-THC) and  Delta(8)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta(8)-THC) are known to disturb the  mitochondrial function and possess antitumor activities. These  observations prompted us to investigate their effects on the  mitochondrial O(2) consumption in human oral cancer cells (Tu183). This  epithelial cell line overexpresses bcl-2 and is highly resistant to  anticancer drugs.


EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH: A  phosphorescence analyzer that measures the time-dependence of O(2)  concentration in cellular or mitochondrial suspensions was used for this  purpose.
KEY RESULTS: A  rapid decline in the rate of respiration was observed when Delta(9)-THC  or Delta(8)-THC was added to the cells. The inhibition was  concentration-dependent, and Delta(9)-THC was the more potent of the two  compounds. Anandamide (an endocannabinoid) was ineffective; suggesting  the effects of Delta(9)-THC and Delta(8)-THC were not mediated by the  cannabinoidreceptors. Inhibition of O(2) consumption by cyanide  confirmed the oxidations occurred in the mitochondrial respiratory  chain. Delta(9)-THC inhibited the respiration of isolated mitochondria  from beef heart.


CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These  results show the cannabinoids are potent inhibitors of Tu183 cellular  respiration and are toxic to this highly malignant tumor.


There is probably wayyy better ones out there but searching through these is a real pain in the ass.
Quote from: HardDrive;355842
What happened to the friendly game I used to know

HardDrive

  • #1 Red Guy
  • Join Date: Aug 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 3636
Cancer
« Reply #38 on: October 18, 2010, 09:04:52 AM »
I don't think those studies are credible because you would have to be a FUCKING IDIOT to do cancer research to save people's lives when you can just watch youtube videos about hemp seed oil CURING cancer and learn the truth the man doesn't want you to know. That's perfectly good money you could be spending on cans of keyboard duster to huff. There's probably something in that that cures diabetes.

^ No but seriously, this is pretty much the argument posted in the OP minus the diabetes thing. It's kind of a joke. Like, I couldn't even fathom myself, as a young child, believing something so simple. I would probably have to sit in a room with a few cans of paint thinner for several days for that to even check out as a coherent thought. I mean all the countries in all the world with all the scientists, doctors and institutions are essentially suppressing a true, valid cure to cancer? Don't you think someone beyond the "legalize-everything-we-want-to-smoke" lobby would have picked this up by now? I mean yeah hemp is pretty cool, but curing cancer huh? Yeah, okay. No wonder none of this shit is legal yet.

I mean what the fuck else would you even do with the money and academia being applied to cancer research? People literally spend their whole lives studying for that field. But that's cool. 420 SMOKE EVERYDAY DON'T THINK ABOUT SHIT ITS NOT GOOD FOR YOU LIKE WEED MAN. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl

Si

  • Join Date: Dec 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 12355
Cancer
« Reply #39 on: October 18, 2010, 03:55:19 PM »
The amount of money people dump into cancer research is ridiculous. Progress doesn't seem to be getting very far. If we dumped equivalent amounts of money into cancer prevention we'd be probably be much better off.

impulse

  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location:
  • Posts: 1386
Cancer
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2010, 04:28:51 PM »
From what I've read its getting somewhere.. just not very accessible to the general public
http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=1512

HardDrive

  • #1 Red Guy
  • Join Date: Aug 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 3636
Cancer
« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2010, 04:57:39 PM »
Cancer prevention is a pointless cause without further research (and probably in spite of further research considering how many external factors contribute to the disease itself.)  I would also say is above average for results vs investment in the research field at large (lol sociology.) Research is basically never an efficient field at face value, but when it hits results it feels much different.

Anti

  • Join Date: Jan 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 4306
    • http://war.tribesone.net/
Cancer
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2010, 06:17:13 PM »
I disagree with all of you, except HD when he was bashing stoners.

Cancer prevention isn't entirely pointless, given how many instances seem to be a result of people being lard asses living in asbestos homes next to smoke stacks consuming genetically modified foods sprayed with toxins monsanto is evil. I'm really tired of the attitude that we shouldn't try to live healthy lives because "EVERYTHING CAUSES CANCER!" No, everything does not cause cancer, and we have a damn good list of known carcinogens that are hugely contributing factors to a vast array of cancers that people regularly contract. It's not hard to live healthy, not a complicated message to advocate for, nor even a pipe dream. But people are lazy.

But, you know, if we all ate healthy and exercised...

I'm off track.

I think it's essentially true that cancer research isn't going to be advanced at a faster rate simply by pouring more money into it. Cancer research gets more money than any other, and at a certain point more money doesn't increase results. People just need to give reasonably to where it's specifically needed and be patient, there are so many promising treatments on the horizon that are just a matter of time. But as with anything, more can typically be gained from prevention, and it tends to be a more logical pathway, even with something like cancer that has so many forms with so many unknowns. I had two childhood friends die of a rare form of cancer. There was no prevention there.  I have a friend and a family member with leukemia, no prevention there. But I have known far, far more people that contracted cancers I would have to assume were a result of lifestyle and the things they exposed themselves to.

Anywho back to the first post: hemp oil doesn't cure cancer, there are 8 essential aminos for humans, and that it's from an organic source doesn't matter either as to the quality of the amino profile.




edit:
Nice link imp! They've been talking about that for years now, stuck on the issue of targeting cancer cells. Really exciting read.

impulse

  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location:
  • Posts: 1386
Cancer
« Reply #43 on: October 18, 2010, 07:29:49 PM »
Oh wow my bad I didn't realize that a potential new method for killing cancers was completely irrelevant to cancer research!

Anti

  • Join Date: Jan 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 4306
    • http://war.tribesone.net/
Cancer
« Reply #44 on: October 18, 2010, 07:41:38 PM »
Who are you addressing? That didn't make sense as a response to anything anyone said or by itself. Unless I'm having a brain fart.



 

* Permissions

  • You can't post new topics.
  • You can't post replies.
  • You can't post attachments.
  • You can't modify your posts.