Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,515 
|
Post by Jeshin on Apr 20, 2014 21:37:38 GMT -5
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WgT9gy4zQA^ This is the theme song for those participating in the thread. I have some free time during the week coming up and so during work I shall review these 42 studies on weed vs cancer www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/09/42-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer.htmlAlso for the purpose of me reading all of these, I will treat in vitro studies as minor evidence. Vivo trials are better evidence. The primary disadvantage of in vitro experimental studies is that it can sometimes be very challenging to extrapolate from the results of in vitro work back to the biology of the intact organism. Investigators doing in vitro work must be careful to avoid over-interpretation of their results, which can sometimes lead to erroneous conclusions about organismal and systems biology.[9] For example, scientists developing a new viral drug to treat an infection with a pathogenic virus (e.g. HIV-1) may find that a candidate drug functions to prevent viral replication in an in vitro setting (typically cell culture). However, before this drug is used in the clinic, it must progress through a series of in vivo trials to determine if it is safe and effective in intact organisms (typically small animals, primates and humans in succession). Typically, most candidate drugs that are effective in vitro prove to be ineffective in vivo because of issues associated with delivery of the drug to the affected tissues, toxicity towards essential parts of the organism that were not represented in the initial in vitro studies, or other issues.[10]
|
|
|
|
Post by jcarter on Apr 20, 2014 21:56:48 GMT -5
the first step is realizing that declaring something can 'cure cancer' in humans, as in just completely remove it, is an unrealistic expectation and greatly oversimplifying things.
in vitro trials aren't worthless, but they don't make a point beyond 'this warrants further research and is feasible'. there's many drugs that work out just fine in vitro and then fall apart when it comes to animal models, and obviously won't stand up in humans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2014 22:33:24 GMT -5
Ah. This is a thread now. Excellent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 6:20:05 GMT -5
the first step is realizing that declaring something can 'cure cancer' in humans, as in just completely remove it, is an unrealistic expectation and greatly oversimplifying things. in vitro trials aren't worthless, but they don't make a point beyond 'this warrants further research and is feasible'. there's many drugs that work out just fine in vitro and then fall apart when it comes to animal models, and obviously won't stand up in humans. This is exactly the point. Trial tests on animals and in vitro are great. That's what research is all about. They lead to medical and scientific revelations. So far, marijuana, under any spelling, name, or incarnation of the word, is being tested for its use in the long, vast, wide, ongoing, exhausting effort to cure cancer. However. If marijuana, in any spelling, name, extracted part, dissected piece, infused liquid, shape, form, chemical component, cured cancer - then people who ingest marijuana in its full, complete, and undissected, uninfused, and unextracted part, wouldn't get cancer. And yet - people who ingest marijuana get cancer. Some peoples' cancer goes into remission while they're ingesting marijuana. That's all well and good, but those people are going through rounds of chemo and radiation, which is WHY they're ingesting marijuana. They're doing it to treat the nausea that comes with chemo treatments. They're not taking it to cure the cancer. Which - it doesn't. Chemo kills cancer, so does radiation. This doesn't merely happen in a petri dish or on a rat. It happens in humans. It has been proven to do so. Chemo isn't a cure for cancer though. Neither is radiation. They are treatments, that not everyone is a good candidate for. Learning all you can about marijuana is all well and good, but it doesn't help you if you don't know diddly shit about cancer, or human anatomy/physiology. Saying an extract of the cannabis plant cures cancer is the pipe dream of stoners, it's not a statement of science. It doesn't matter if you call it cannabis, or oil, or cannabinol, or marijuana, or hashish, or gange. That plant - and any and all of its parts, or the plant as a whole - does not cure cancer. |
|
|
|
Post by Prime Minister Sinister on Apr 21, 2014 7:48:41 GMT -5
Chemo kills cancer, so does radiation. So why do people on chemo and radiation treatments still frequently die of cancer? :x |
|
|
|
Post by Prime Minister Sinister on Apr 21, 2014 7:50:23 GMT -5
then people who ingest marijuana in its full, complete, and undissected, uninfused, and unextracted part, wouldn't get cancer. Also. Wat. That's like saying "eating <food from which deadly poison can be extracted> will poison the shit out of you". Or that using your own pee in place of ammonia for cleaning stuff will do just as good. That just ain't so. ::Edited to add:: I'm not a huge proponent of medical marijuana or anything. I -am- a huge proponent of not ruling anything out, however. |
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,515
|
Post by Jeshin on Apr 21, 2014 7:56:09 GMT -5
Lets set some ground rules based on reality.
Any cure scientifically is something which succeeds on 51% of the people 51% of the time. They do the same thing for lethality of radiation. It has to be lethal to 51% of the people at a 51% lethality rate to still be considered a lethal dose. This means that the current survival rate for most cancers in the US are fairly promising given standard treatment. I believe most are well above 30% and many above 50%.
Cannabis being used in conjunction with chemo or traditional treatments is not proof that cannabis as a supplement to fighting cancer is invalid. Many medical protocols use a combination of treatments to achieve results. However it does weaken the arguement that cannabis as a singular treatment is medically effective at curing cancer.
Let us also apply common sense to situations where people claim to have used no other treatment besides cannabis to cure their cancer. While logically we can look at these scenarios and find merit. There is a reason that scientific studies are done scientifically and with as much possible control of all external and internal factors. (Not that the FDA and big pharm are above manipulating data but it's an assumption we have to maintain)
And there you have it. Continue!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2014 12:01:26 GMT -5
An interesting summary, by the Journal of Clinical Investigation actually shows outright that it causes cells to die and eat themselves. It uses HUMAN glioma cells, not rat cells. Also, for those talking about smoking pot curing anything: It may assist with it (no proof), but I doubt it's going to cure anything on it's own. What I am talking about is cannabis oil, aka 'Rick Simpson Oil', and there are thousands of cases that show it works if you do any research into it.
|
|
