Do you suspect that natural cures for cancer are suppressed?

Re GMO corn study: wow, it just gets better! This GMO article is the story that just keeps on giving! Just not sure if it's giving laughs or tears. The authors manipulated the journalism surrounding it to ensure that the first news stories would be exclusively positive, effectively turning news organizations into a PR campaign. Wow. You want shady dealings? There's your (*)(*)(*)(*)ing shady dealings!

 

Stagnant..........I am no expert and do not know if the author of this article is basically 70% correct in 60% of his assertions or only 40% correct in thirty percent of his theories.....but this article was definitely worth the time that I invested in reading it a few days ago??????!!!!!!

http://www.world-mysteries.com/marijuana1.htm

..............

 

Arguing based on probability is a bad idea. It's like how Conservapedia offers 100 arguments that disprove evolution and argues, "if even one of these is right, evolution is wrong, therefore the likelihood that evolution is wrong is 1/101". Just spend time analyzing the claims. Look at both sides of the argument. I don't deny that marijuana should be legal, and that there was almost certainly a "conspiracy" to take it down a peg. The claims about hemp seeds being a superfood are, while slightly overstated, not entirely off the mark. I have to wonder what 25,000 uses this guy is talking about (the number seems highly pulled out of someone's ass). But again, it's like with Gupta - nothing here is particularly astounding or bizarre, and it's also miles away from some of the claims made upthread. We can't imagine that just because something is good (and make no mistake, hemp is definitely a great tool in a lot of situations), that we should accept claims about its use in other bizarre ways. I like hemp, and I like seeing it used, and I like hearing about how good it is. I just don't like quacks and people who hurt others by producing bad medical science.

General rule of thumb: if something is claiming to cure everything, your bull(*)(*)(*)(*) detector should be sounding off a code red.

 

You are free to decide yourselves, if you are against alternative medicine, than it is your business, not my.I believe more only those who do not make big money with somebody's disease.

 

Why won't you answer the simple question? Which cancer and which treatment? Do you even know the answer? Do you even understand that there are many diseases the fall under the banner of cancer (literally hundreds), and very few cancers are treated exactly alike? And that the same cancer can have vastly different outcomes and treatments depending on the stage of the disease? Seriously, either answer the question or admit you were being intellectually dishonest. Normally I'm not that much of a stickler when the other person wants to change the topic, but it's bull(*)(*)(*)(*) like this which gets people killed. Advising people not to take the gold standard of care on false information or bad logic gets people killed. Advocating non-functional quack treatments with no basis in science or clinical support gets people killed.

I am fundamentally against "alternative medicine" because the very definition of the term indicates that we're talking about treatments which are untested or proven failures. Things that show themselves to work aren't "alternative", no matter how out-there or bizarre they are, they're just... medicine. You show me that crystal healing works and how it works, and prove that it works in effectively-designed clinical trials, and it goes from being alternative medicine to just... medicine. And (*)(*)(*)(*)bag quacks like Simoncini and Humble have not done this. Their ideas are fundamentally flawed from start to finish and there is no reason why I should grant them any more respect than I grant what I just left in my toilet. At least that wasn't responsible for the death of anyone other than the cleaning lady. For you to base your faith in the medicine which doesn't make money is absurd. I'm sorry, but if the market is good at anything, it's funneling money to those with good products. You do realize that just because someone has a treatment that is a complete commercial failure, that doesn't make it functional, right? Just because the establishment and the free market laughs at someone does not grant him credibility!

 

Sorry, but I got bored of our empty discussion, your posts looks like those who are written by pharma and doctor lobbyists, everybody is free and capable to decide himself. BTW I gave you a lot of proofs.

 

You gave me jack (*)(*)(*)(*) this entire thread, and the fact that you are unwilling to tell me which cancer and which treatment says quite a lot about your place in this discussion. Do you even know? As for your "proofs", you gave me the website of Simoncini which was full of the same misinformation we all know is total crap. You gave me a video of two of the most reliably insane people on the web talking about a long-since-debunked GMO corn study (I love how you didn't even bother to respond to that at all). You gave me some insane conspiracy website that I just could muster the energy to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about. What you didn't give me were:
- Peer-reviewed scientific papers
- Clinical trials
- Clarification of terms (for example, which treatment)
- Any evidence actually worth a damn

So, of course, you offer the most typical and disappointing response - I'm obviously a paid shill. Well, at least I'm not clueless.

 

Does this look any better to you Stagnant:

Medical cannabis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis - mw-navigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis - p-search

 

Stagnant..................I AM SERIOUSLY IMPRESSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

OSTAP BENDER......YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE WHAT STAGNANT JUST WROTE..................my heart is fluttering here!!!!!????

 

Brain cancer[
A study by Complutense University of Madrid
found the chemicals in cannabis promote the death of brain cancer cells by essentially helping them feed upon themselves in a process called autophagy . The research team discovered that cannabinoids such as THC had anticancer effects in mice with human brain cancer cells and in people with brain tumors. When mice with the human brain cancer cells received the THC, the tumor shrank. Using electron microscopes to analyze brain tissue taken both before and after a 26-to 30-day THC treatment regimen, the researchers found that THC eliminated cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact.[108] The patients did not have any toxic effects from the treatment; previous studies of THC for the treatment of cancer have also found the therapy to be well tolerated.[108]
Medical cannabis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Brain_cancer

 

How is a world where [Stagnant's perspective on what's alternative] is enforced through state coercion on everyone else a free or liberal world?

Seems to me that you've asked the right question, but missed the broader issue. I think it's great to be asking ourselves which medicines are actually effective, and I'd agree with you that in all except a few instances alternative medicine is not effective.

Where I differ with you, it seems, is on who should get to make the decision in the end: the individual concerned, or the state. I dislike the FDA's system of licenses and onerous trials not because I think such safeguards shouldn't exist - I do think they should exist, but I also recognize that I should be able to choose if I want those trials or not as a participant in a voluntary transaction, and that we should all have this ability. They are compatible ideas.

Sort of like how the idea that drugs are harmful for your health and an ill-advised choice in life is compatible with the idea that the individual should be able to make that decision, not the state.

 

Phenomenal response to this topic Steady Pie!!!

 

Yes, because these are actually well-studied research papers on the effects of cannabinoids on diseases. They're neither promising the world, nor failing to explain how they work; rather, they (I'm just going to assume for now) are well-designed studies with actual scientific backing that explain what works and more importantly, why.

Why? It's no secret that there were seriously shady dealings in the original prohibition of marijuana, and that there is no adequate reason to keep it illegal when a great many recreational drugs are infinitely more dangerous and addictive. It's pretty much common knowledge by this point, and unlike many of the more insane conspiracy theories, there's very good evidence to back it up.

I don't understand why you think this is so unbelievable. You backed away from the claims that were patently insane and started backing up what you said with actual scientific research. I am, first and foremost, a rationalist. Not a pharma shill, not someone rabidly against everything that doesn't come as a shot or a pill, not someone whose child was raped and murdered by Joe Humble, just a rational skeptic with a chip on my shoulder. To quote Tim Minchin again (seriously, if you want to understand how I think, check this guy out - the video is also quite funny):

"If you can prove that, say, homeopathy works, I will change my mind, I will spin on a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dime, I'll be embarrased as hell but I'll run through the streets singing 'It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory! And although its memory of a long-lost drop of onion juice is somehow infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it!' You show me that it works, and how it works, and once I've recovered from the shock I'll take a compass and carve 'fancy that' on the side of my (*)(*)(*)(*)!"​

It's all about evidence, and how well they back the claim.

As previously stated, the biggest issue I have is informed consent. The average consumer has a very slim chance of having the expertise necessary to recognize a scam, and I see absolutely no problem in the government protecting the people from scams. If a product is advertised as doing X, but doesn't actually do X, then that is false advertising and should be prosecuted. This is basic consumer protection. I take it a step further by saying that products which are not explicitly marketed as such, but are touted as such cures (i.e. how virtually every such non-functional alt-med product skirts the law), need to explicitly state that they don't work if they have other uses, or need to be banned if they don't. Again, this is just basic consumer protection, because the market doesn't really work without informed consent.

 

Excellent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Stagnant......the fact that you are so sceptical of some branches of what could turn out to be natural medicine....(for example apricot seeds)............but then you take the research on cannabis very seriously..........tells me that my time is better invested in promoting the cannabis research than others.....such as apricots or molasses and baking soda!!!!!!

Thank you for assisting me to know better where to invest my time!!!!!!

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=322143

Does cannabis kill cancer? Is the proof being somewhat suppressed?


Is this information being suppressed by influential people who should know better?

 

I feel the need to repeat myself: you show me that it works, and how it works, and I will advocate it. There is solid evidence promoting the use of cannabis in a number of situations - not to the extent that many people would claim (no, it's not going to cure your cancer), but there's at least solid research out there. For molasses and baking soda, there is nothing. No single scrap of research worth even remotely taking seriously. The entire concept is based on a complete failure to understand what cancer is and how it works. There is eons of difference between the claim that a form of hash oil is an elixir of youth and the claim that cannabis can help with arthritis - it's like the difference between claiming I can lift a child over my head with pictures to prove it and claiming I can lift a moderately-sized house over my head without any evidence whatsoever. But that said, I don't think you understand me:

I take all good scientific research very seriously. If there was good evidence that apricot pits had the health benefits their advocates claimed, I'd take it seriously. If there was a reasonable explanation for how cancer could be cured with molasses and baking soda, I'd take it seriously. If there was any good evidence to back up the claims made on the Phoenix Tears website, I'd take it seriously. This is the hurdle for me, though - I need good evidence. An anecdote is not good evidence. A handful of tiny phase I clinical trials are not good evidence. A person's blog is not good evidence. And it doesn't help that a lot of these things aren't just wrong, but have been proven not to work - in the case of the baking soda remedy, we know it doesn't work because it runs totally contrary to everything we know about cancer and would require decades of research to be completely wrong. We know it doesn't work because we know cancer is not a fungus. Similarly, Apricot pits have been examined, and clinical trials showed that they had no effect on cancer, while causing cyanide poisoning in many cases. This stuff isn't rejected out of hand, it's examined and fails to show itself as functional.

Well, yes - one is still being researched and has some promising preliminary results in certain areas; the other two are proven failures with not just zero evidence of their functionality, but fairly definitive evidence that they don't work!

I could not be more ashamed of my failure to drum any slight modicum of sense into you.

 

Nice for you, many greetings to Big Pharma.

 

There are natural prevention's of cancer being suppressed by the food and pharma industries, most of the minerals and vitamins that prevent cancer are found in foods, but they have been damaged with chemicals to preserve them for shipment.

The cures of cancer are probably being done the same, there is a lot of money to be made in treatment rather than in cures.

 

Anyone notice what's missing from this post? I noticed what's missing from this post.

 

What is missing from the post

 

treatment for cancer is more often than not a postponement of death, surgery when possible is generally your best chance of surviving, when it comes down to chemo the odds of survival are slim...and it's all very expensive, complex surgeries and post-op, exotic chemicals don't come cheap...

 

(*)(*)(*)(*)ing EVIDENCE.

 

Cancer is definitely a money maker. I don't necessarily believe that we're being kept from the truth about a cure, but I don't think a cure is realistically being sought. I think drugs that are meant to treat it are, and drugs that can sustain life/longevity... but a cure? Not likely, unless there's a private sponsor with big money to back it... or government.

 

Well, beyond that, there's the fact that cancer is really hard. We have cured some types quite effectively, mind you. Oh, and a cure would make its inventor richer than most of the world.