From Abracadabra to Zombies | View All
reader comments: Rick Simpson Hemp Oil Cancer Cure
28 March 2016
[You write:] "Doing clinical trials on cannabis for cancer is very low on the list of potential drugs to investigate further because it shows little promise compared to other chemicals."
You are a huge liar, how can you live with yourself? The cancer killing properties was first demonstrated 1974 (if not before) in this study http://www.cureyourowncancer.org/1974-study-showing-cannabis-kills-cancer-cells-antineoplastic-activity-of-cannabinoids.html.
Then go to PubMed and search for "cannabinoid cancer" and you will find thousands of studies. Can you give me one example of a chemical that shows more promise, please do.
Your lies might lead to people dying instead of curing themselves, you must be very proud of yourself.
reply: I'll ignore your inane, baseless claim that I am lying about the cancer-curing power of cannabis. I won't waste any time coddling you or pretending to respect your viewpoint. You don't know what you're talking about and the reason you don't know what you're talking about is that you don't know how to evaluate scientific evidence, if you even bother studying the evidence, which I doubt.
You obviously didn't even bother to read the entire article on Rick Simpson's cannabis cure or you would know that I actually link to dozens of studies put forth by one of your equally cognitively incompetent allies as proof of the wonders of cannabis. Here's what I say about them, since you obviously didn't read my comments:
- Many of the studies put forth aren't even about cancer.
- Most of the studies were preclinical studies looking at cell culture models and mouse models.
- Some of the studies found evidence that cannabinoids, under some circumstances, can actually stimulate cancer cell growth and possibly contribute to tumor progression.
- Many of the studies involve trials of cannabinoids to treat cancer-related symptoms and side effects, not cancer itself.
- Finally, the studies taken as a whole suggest that some purified cannabinoid agonists might be worth investigating further, but they do not provide a strong case for cannabis curing any kind of cancer.
You are probably also ignorant of the fact that there are more than 200 different kinds of cancer. The likelihood that one substance will work the same on each of the different kinds of cancer is near zero. The likelihood that there is a single cure for all kinds of cancers is zero. The likelihood that you understand what I am talking about is probably below zero. Anyway, I go over the 1975 study (that is the year given on the paper as the year of publication, but don't bother to check it out or read the paper) in my article on Rick Simpson. I suppose it doesn't bother you that in the intervening 40 years, nothing has come of this study. Of course, you and your inept allies hang your hat on dozens of in vitro studies, mouse studies, and studies that aren't even about cancer to justify your arrogant belief in the curative powers of cannabis. (You are probably too dense to grasp what I am about to write but I'll write it anyway: Some day there may be good evidence for the use of cannabinoids in the treatment of cancer.)
Peter Arvidsson digs in:
Ok, I'll give you the benefit of a doubt. Let's assume you actually honestly came to the conclusion that cannabinoids are not of particular interest as a cure for cancer. Then, please, do your homework. I've been looking into this a little bit, there is proof EVERYWHERE. All kinds of proof.
reply: Right. You've been looking into this "a little bit." I don't need to be psychic to know that the proof you see "EVERYWHERE" will not be considered proof by anyone who knows a little bit about how to evaluate scientific evidence. OK. Let's look at your proof.
How about this: http://jeffreydachmd.com/2014/04/cannabis-oil-brain-tumor-remission-jeffrey-dach-md/. Child completely cures "incurable" brain cancer. Without chemo, just the cannabis oil. They also wrote about it in Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/01/cannabis-for-infants-brai_n_2224898.html.
reply: Really? You think an anecdote published online and in the Huffington Post is "proof" that cannabis cured a child's brain cancer. You're actually more naive and gullible than I thought. What medical journal was this written up in? None. It's a nice story but you may have noticed that anybody can post anything on the Internet. Take a look at this site. Are there any true claims made there? I doubt it, but it sure looks authentic and believable....to the gullible who want to believe in magic. Now, back to your anecdote that you take as proof: did you look up the author of the story? Did you notice that no names are given? How do you know the story is true? Let's say that a baby did get diagnosed with brain cancer and that his parents fed him cannabis oil (what dosage, by the way, was used and how was it determined? Or don't you think dose makes a difference?) and that later it was determined that the baby doesn't have brain cancer. How can you be sure that the child wasn't misdiagnosed? How can you be sure the cannabis had anything to do with the recovery, if there really was a recovery? You can't. That is why real scientists do controlled experiments. You probably don't get that last bit, but never mind.
The author of your anecdote is Jeffrey Dach, MD, who quotes Dr. William Courtney who was interviewed by the Huffington Post. Courtney is not an unbiased witness. His life's work is devoted to promoting the use of cannabis. He is the sole source of this anecdote, which he has not written up for any medical journal. Why not? This story, if true, is the kind of stuff that Nobel Prizes are awarded for.
Dach, on the other hand, is a retired radiologist who now practices "natural medicine." He is not a cancer specialist, yet he claims:
Cannabis oil causes stress to the endoplasmic reticulum in the cancer cells. This causes the cancer dells to undergo self programmed cell death, called apoptosis. This selectively kills the cancer cells, while leaving the normal tissue unharmed.
Of course, you no doubt asked 'why doesn't cannabis oil cause stress to the endoplasmic reticulum in non-cancer cells, causing them to die?' Nor did you ask: 'What evidence is there for this claim?" You took his word for it. He's a retired radiologist, not a cell biologist or cancer specialist, so how does he know this? He doesn't, but he quotes a study done by Dr. María Salazar et al., a study done on mice with a reference to a pilot clinical study on biopsies of two humans. You might consider this a slam-dunk, but those of us who require adequate evidence for anything claimed to be a "proof" require that the data be much stronger than what is put forth here. In fact, it is speculation on Dach's part that stress to the endoplasmic reticulum had anything to do with the alleged case at hand.
I'm sure, however, you have more compelling evidence waiting in the wings. Let's have a look.
Here is a case published in Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/18/how-pot-helped-shrink-one-of-the-most-aggressive-brain-cancers/.
reply: Don't tell me you consider the Washington Post a reliable source for medical knowledge? Anyway, let's look at the case.
The author of the article is Wai Liu, a senior research fellow at St George's, University of London, and a very interested party as he was one of the researchers who did the study in question:
... in a study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, we’ve also shown that cannabinoids could play a role in treating one of the most aggressive cancers in adults.
Note the word 'could.' Do you know what it means? I'll give you a hint: It doesn't mean 'does.' Liu goes on to write:
Recent studies have shown that some cannabinoids have potent anti-cancer action. For example, both THC and CBD have been shown in a number of laboratory studies to effectively induce cell death in tumor cells by modifying the faulty signaling pathways inside these cells. Depending on the cell type, this can disrupt tumor growth or start to kill it.
If you had bothered to click on the link provided, you would have discovered that the studies referred to all involve "the growth of tumor cells in culture and animal models." That's why the word 'could' is used, rather than 'does.' What works in the petri dish or in animal models doesn't necessarily work in humans. You may not understand this but here goes anyway: this is preliminary work; some day research may be done that shows that cannabis kills tumors in humans, but that day is not here yet. You may not know this, but there are a hundred chemicals in my garage that will kill cancer cells in culture and animal models, but I wouldn't use any of them on humans.
Here is a [case involving a] 14-yr-old girl with leukemia http://jeffreydachmd.com/2014/06/cannabis-oil-acute-leukemia/. She died later, but not from cancer; cancer was at zero when she died.
This is another case provided by Dr. Jeffrey Dach, the retired radiologist who now practices "natural medicine" and is not a cancer specialist. But let's examine it anyway.
The first thing to point out is that this is another anecdote, but with a much more detailed story than the one about the infant allegedly cured of brain cancer with cannabis. This example is a case study, so it is filled with rich details about the patient's medical history and treatment. Again, the authors try to back their interpretation of the effectiveness of cannabis in this case with references to "an abundance of research exhibiting the cytotoxic effects of cannabinoids on leukemic cell lines in the form of in vitro and in vivo studies." Four references are given, which I am sure Mr. Arvidsson never bothered to check. The first relies on reference to "culture and animal models." The second is based on petri dish studies, not humans. The third study--Cannabidiol-induced apoptosis in human leukemia cells: A novel role of cannabidiol in the regulation of p22phox and Nox4 expression by R. J. McKallip et al.--was done on humans, but the abstract does not mention how many or give much detail about the actual study. The conclusion of the authors, however, is cautious. They do not assert they've discovered a cure for this form of leukemia. They state: "the results from this study reveal that cannabidiol, acting through CB2 and regulation of Nox4 and p22(phox) expression, may be a novel and highly selective treatment for leukemia." Note the words 'may be.' These words do not mean 'is'. It would probably be a waste of time to try to explain to the cognitively challenged and easily swayed Mr. Arvidsson why researchers use cautious language, but it has something to do with the quality and quantity of the evidence they have produced.
The fourth and final study referenced by the authors of the case study needs little analysis. The title tells us all we need to know for our purposes: Cannabinoids induce incomplete maturation of cultured human leukemia cells. By now, even Mr. Arvidsson must know what a study of cultured cells is, but just to make it clear: these are cells in the petri dish or, as others might say, in vitro studies. But to belabor the point, I note that the authors of this petri dish study conclude: "Findings obtained from this system may have important implications for studies of cannabinoid effects on normal human bone-marrow progenitor cells." Again, note the the words 'may have.' They do not mean 'have.'
I could go on for hours, that's how much proof there is. Are all the people claiming to have been completely cured all over the globe part of some gigantic conspiracy? Including the ones whose doctors agree they were indeed cured from "incurable" cancer? With scans and all? Some of your readers might think so after reading what you are saying and needlessly DIE as a result. Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you want that on your conscience? If you think al the testimonials from patients and doctors are lies, go to PubMed, search for cannabinoid cancer. You will get more than a thousand hits. Peer reviewed studies. Some are only for the pain though, so how about searching cannabinoid cancer apoptosis, as in cell death. Still almost 200 hits. Does that sound like a chemical that is not of much interest?
reply: There need not be a conspiracy to explain why so many people exaggerate the significance of evidence they see as favoring a cherished belief. Gullible, cognitively incompetent people who are too incompetent to understand their incompetence are likely to see those of us who require more than anecdotes or studies done on cultured cells or mice before we conclude that a cure for cancer has been found, are seen as liars or conspirators or as causing deaths in people who are not as gullible or as cognitively incompetent as they are.
Finally, if you want to know how thc and other cannabinoids kill cancer, here are a short vid with various scientists explaining how it works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DttdDOqQMuY. There is even a clip in it when you see cancer cells die. Here, another academic explains on TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RtRil2ND-E Like I said, I could go on forever. If you honestly believed that it was all a hoax i hope you understand that there really is something to this, if you have readers, you have a responsibility to not spread incorrect information when you write about serious stuff like this.
reply: I suppose it is only fitting that Mr. Arvidsson conclude his proof with links to two YouTube videos. I won't bother trying to explain why YouTube videos are not of much value when trying to prove that cannabis cures cancer. I will note that I don't believe that
idiots assholes like Arvidsson are being hoaxed. They are led by the nose by ignorant and incompetent thinkers like Rick Simpson to draw conclusions about cannabis and cancer that the current accumulative evidence does not justify. They want to believe in cannabis and they are so motivated to believe that they will not or cannot examine the evidence in a critical and scientific way.
Finally, I would remind Mr. Arvidsson that he and others like him have a responsibility to learn how to evaluate scientific evidence properly before they make half-cocked accusations of others lying or spreading misinformation. Yes, this is serious stuff. It is unfortunate that there are many who follow Rick Simpson but who are unable to do the kind of serious evaluation of the evidence that this topic deserves.
p.s. I predict that Mr. Arvidsson will respond by claiming that everything I've written above proves that he is right and that I am a liar and part of a conspiracy to hide the evidence that cannabis cures cancer.
5 April 2015
My husband tried the RSO for almost a year (for prostate cancer) and his PSA soared along with his male hormone. We live in Ohio and winter in SC where cannabis is illegal so I would prefer to stay anonymous since it is illegal.
My husband (63) has a very aggressive form of PC and he fell hook, line, and sinker for this unproven garbage.
Have you seen what is happening in Colorado- people are blowing up buildings making hemp oil.
reply: No, I hadn't heard about the cannabis explosions in Colorado, but Newsweek has. Apparently, dozens of homes have been accidentally blown up by people in Colorado and Washington making hash oil from cannabis plants.
I was scared to death when he was cooking it. I think it’s toxic because he got deathly sick on it.
No matter what I post on Inspire, people want to believe Rick Simpson, who appears to be a lunatic.
reply: Inspire.com is a website that has a number of forums for people with different kinds of cancers. I read daily and post occasionally (as "el toro") on the pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer forum, where there are several posters who think cannabis oil is what is shrinking their tumors. (We even had one young woman claim she cured her PNET with turmeric and nobody questioned her. Even though she was a stranger with an unbelievable story, several members of the forum congratulated her and asked where she got her turmeric, what strength was it, etc.)
I have tried cannabis oil. It's legal in California for some of us. I have a medical marijuana card and tried the oil and some capsules to help me sleep and stimulate my appetite. My appetite no longer needs stimulation and it didn't seem to help me sleep much better than anything else I've tried, so I no longer use it. I was also concerned that there is no quality control or regulation, making it impossible to be confident that what you are buying is safe and is what the label says it is.
I wonder if I had used cannabis oil for the past nine months along with capecitabine and temozolomide, would I have given credit to the cannabis oil for shrinking my liver tumors by 90%? I'd like to think I'd give credit where credit is due: to Malcolm Stevens and his team at Aston University in Birmingham, England, the developers of temozolomide, and the folks at Big Pharma Roche, developers of capecitabine.
We contacted the Michael Milken organization because one of the phone volunteers also suffers from PC and he wanted us to let him know if RSO worked and everyone he knew that tried it had zero luck just like my husband. He also tried PC-SPES, which the Cleveland Clinic performed trials on.
This RSO is not cheap and people are moving their families to the West Coast to try it; it really is sad. Most oncologists get into cancer research because, just like the rest of us, they too have lost family members to cancer.
I really take offense when people say Big Pharma can’t make any money off of cannabis. Yes they could, if they could find some solid research. People who get into the healing arts are usually wonderful caring people. That being said, I do see epileptics getting help from cannabis, so maybe it would help that illness. I am sorry I can’t put my name online but we sell to the Government and it is a felony to cook hemp oil. Thanks for sticking up for the truth-takes a lot of courage!
reply: There should be much more research on cannabis as medicine. The history of our nation and government with respect to cannabis has made it difficult to get this kind of research to the level it should be at, but attitudes are changing and there is some promising research that is going on. Recently I posted the following on the SD Rick Simpson page: Study: Here’s How Cannabis Could Help Your Body Fight Off Cancer by Justin Kander "Researchers tested the effects of CBD, THC, and an endocannabinoid analogue called methanandamide on two lung cancer cell lines, A549 and H460, along with cells from a lung cancer patient. It found these compounds increased expression of intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) on the cancer cells, which made them more susceptible to white blood cells called lymphokine-activated killer cells (LAK). However, normal cells were not affected this way, showing yet again that cannabinoids can selectively target abnormal cells while leaving healthy tissue alone."