Cancer and the drug companies

[Akzle]

'course - you can always lop off bits ... like this one did ...



she's a fucking surgery addict. ill in the head.

[oldrider]

'course - you can always lop off bits ... like this one did ...

So they will never know whether she never had it - but they will definitely know if she gets it anyway! :eek5: Scientific alright. :shutup:

[Kickaha]

https://nz.lifestyle.yahoo.com/health/wellbeing/article/-/26867776/woman-ditches-toxic-husband-and-beats-cancer/

[Edbear]

I have been looking up a few cases of claims about a variety of cures for cancer that follow a typical theme. The cancer, whichever is the topic, was cured by some alternative means - often a vegetable extract, with corroborating testimony by a doctor saying that after a period of weeks there was nothing left of the Cancer. At times there are several case studies of a number of patients who were cured of different types of cancers by the same therapy.

All the cases I have researched have one thing in common. They are bollox! Some have merit in the substance used that has a possibility of being of some benefit but to date the results of trials have been inconclusive with failure to actually make a difference in real cases.

If you want to get famous, work on Mitochondria. They are the key to reducing and inhibiting cancer cells. They are the human body's natural defence mechanism.

[Laava]

You must be aware of the Anton Kuraia case?

[Edbear]

You must be aware of the Anton Kuraia case?

Put the link up.

[Katman]

All the cases I have researched have one thing in common. They are bollox!

:facepalm:

[Edbear]

:facepalm:

By someone noted for NOT doing anything resembling research, or posting anything actually on topic. :Oops:

[bogan]

I have been looking up a few cases of claims about a variety of cures for cancer that follow a typical theme. The cancer, whichever is the topic, was cured by some alternative means - often a vegetable extract, with corroborating testimony by a doctor saying that after a period of weeks there was nothing left of the Cancer. At times there are several case studies of a number of patients who were cured of different types of cancers by the same therapy.

All the cases I have researched have one thing in common. They are bollox! Some have merit in the substance used that has a possibility of being of some benefit but to date the results of trials have been inconclusive with failure to actually make a difference in real cases.

If you want to get famous, work on Mitochondria. They are the key to reducing and inhibiting cancer cells. They are the human body's natural defence mechanism.

Your conclusions are still fucking unscientific. If some have merit then they are not bollox; like vit c.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405876/

[Katman]

By someone noted for NOT doing anything resembling research, or posting anything actually on topic. :Oops:

Are you trying for some sort of record in stupidity?

[Laava]

Put the link up.

He is a local cop here in Whangarei who was sent home to die with leukaemia. He was given ten days. He went on the intravenous vitamin C and now has an almost completely clear result.
This has been a very well broadcast story very recently here, as in last month and this month.
I can't believe you would have posted this thread without even being aware of this story. I am disappoint.

[Edbear]

Are you trying for some sort of record in stupidity?

Nah, you're tying with a couple of others here for that one with each of you determined to win.

The facts of each case were that the claims of being cured were false with no corroborating evidence anywhere to be found.

The possible benefits were on the basis of benefit of the doubt pending any proven efficacy. Some extracts of some plants are being investigated based on cellular structures.

The actual scale of research being undertaken on a huge variety of alternatives lends the lie to those who claim the drug companies are not interested.

[Edbear]

He is a local cop here in Whangarei who was sent home to die with leukaemia. He was given ten days. He went on the intravenous vitamin C and now has an almost completely clear result.
This has been a very well broadcast story very recently here, as in last month and this month.
I can't believe you would have posted this thread without even being aware of this story. I am disappoint.

I didn't remember his name. I will see what the latest is on his case. Without prejudging him it is well attested that this type of example has not proven to have long term success. The number of people using the therapy is large and results to date are sketchy.

If you have anything recent, do post it.

[Laava]

I didn't remember his name. I will see what the latest is on his case. Without prejudging him it is well attested that this type of example has not proven to have long term success. The number of people using the therapy is large and results to date are sketchy.

If you have anything recent, do post it.

It is not my problem that you have done no research, esp of local people in NZ.
Again, I am disappoint.

[Katman]

If you have anything recent, do post it.

Are your research skills not up to it?

[nzspokes]

He is a local cop here in Whangarei who was sent home to die with leukaemia. He was given ten days. He went on the intravenous vitamin C and now has an almost completely clear result.
This has been a very well broadcast story very recently here, as in last month and this month.
I can't believe you would have posted this thread without even being aware of this story. I am disappoint.

Is he still alive?

[bogan]

The actual scale of research being undertaken on a huge variety of alternatives lends the lie to those who claim the drug companies are not interested.

And also to the lie that they do not work...

As per the link (to actual research, still waiting on yours btw) I just posted.

[bogan]

Is he still alive?

Be one hell of a trick to walk 800km if he wasn't...

[nzspokes]

Be one hell of a trick to walk 800km if he wasn't...

This is true. I didnt know he did or anything about him. Just interested is all.

Glad it worked for him. Cancer is a nasty business.

[Laava]

Is he still alive?

Sure is, he just recently walked the length of the north island in his Walk for Hope charity event. It was on telly a lot in feb. Took him a month

[nzspokes]

Sure is, he just recently walked the length of the north island in his Walk for Hope charity event. It was on telly a lot in feb. Took him a month

Cool. We dont have telly so didnt see it. Thats a fair old walk.

[Edbear]

http://m.hopkinsmedicine.org/kimmel_cancer_center/news_events/featured/cancer_update_email_it_is_a_hoax.html

Please read this article, it's the truth about cancer. Judge claims against it.

[Edbear]

It is not my problem that you have done no research, esp of local people in NZ.
Again, I am disappoint.

Spoken by someone who has no idea who or what or where I have studied. And as usual, by someone not the slightest bit interested in finding anything out for himself.

[Katman]

Spoken by someone who has no idea who or what or where I have studied. And as usual, by someone not the slightest bit interested in finding anything out for himself.

Are you whacked out on your drugs again?

[bogan]

Spoken by someone who has no idea who or what or where I have studied. And as usual, by someone not the slightest bit interested in finding anything out for himself.

Still waiting on you to address my journal article... Or is that too far 'below' your usual anecdotes and press releases?

Face it Ed, everyone knows that you haven't studied fuck all, because it shows in bollox you spout as science.

[Kickaha]

He is a local cop here in Whangarei who was sent home to die with leukaemia. He was given ten days. He went on the intravenous vitamin C and now has an almost completely clear result.
He made major changes to his diet not just vitamin C

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html
Vitamin C and Cancer

In 1976, Pauling and Dr. Ewan Cameron, a Scottish physician, reported that a majority of one hundred "terminal" cancer patients treated with 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily survived three to four times longer than similar patients who did not receive vitamin C supplements [11,12]. However, Dr. William DeWys, chief of clinical investigations at the National Cancer Institute, found that the study was poorly designed because the patient groups were not comparable [13]. The vitamin C patients were Cameron's, while the other patients were under the care of other physicians. Cameron's patients were started on vitamin C when he labeled them "untreatable" by other methods, and their subsequent survival was compared to the survival of the "control" patients after they were labeled untreatable by their doctors. DeWys reasoned that if the two groups were comparable, the lengths of time from entry into the hospital to being labeled untreatable should be equivalent in both groups. However, he found that Cameron's patients were labeled untreatable much earlier in the course of their disease—which means that they entered the hospital before they were as sick as the other doctors' patients and would naturally be expected to live longer.

Nevertheless, to test whether Pauling might be correct, the Mayo Clinic conducted three double-blind studies involving a total of 367 patients with advanced cancer. The studies, reported in 1979, 1983, and 1985, found that patients given 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily did no better than those given a placebo [14-16]. Pauling criticized the first study, claiming that chemotherapeutic agents might have suppressed the patients' immune systems so that vitamin C couldn't work [17]. But his 1976 report on Cameron's work stated clearly that: "All patients are treated initially in a perfectly conventional way, by operation, use of radiotherapy, and the administration of hormones and cytotoxic substances." And during a subsequent talk at the University of Arizona, he stated that vitamin C therapy could be used along with all conventional modalities [18]. The participants in the 1983 study had not undergone conventional treatment, but Pauling dismissed its results anyway.

Science aside, it is clear that Pauling was politically aligned with the promoters of unscientific nutrition practices. He said his initial interest in vitamin C was aroused by a letter from biochemist Irwin Stone, with whom he subsequently maintained a close working relationship. Although Stone was often referred to as "Dr. Stone," his only credentials were a certificate showing completion of a two-year chemistry program, an honorary chiropractic degree from the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, and a "Ph.D." from Donsbach University, a nonaccredited correspondence school.

In a little-publicized chapter in Vitamin C and the Common Cold, Pauling attacked the health-food industry for misleading its customers. Pointing out that "synthetic" vitamin C is identical with "natural" vitamin C, he warned that higher-priced "natural" products are a "waste of money." And he added that "the words 'organically grown' are essentially meaningless—just part of the jargon used by health-food promoters in making their excess profits, often from elderly people with low incomes." But Vitamin C, the Common Cold and the Flu, issued six years later, contained none of these criticisms. This omission was not accidental. In response to a letter, Pauling informed me that, after his first book came out, he was "strongly attacked by people who were also attacking the health-food people." His critics were so "biased," he decided, that he would no longer help them attack the health-food industry while another part of their attack was directed at him [19].

The Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine was founded in 1973 and operated under that name until 1995 [20]. The institute was dedicated to "orthomolecular medicine." For many years, its largest corporate donor was Hoffmann-La Roche, the pharmaceutical giant that produces most of the world's vitamin C. Many of the institute's fundraising brochures contained questionable information. During the 1980s, for example, they falsely stated that no significant progress had been made in cancer treatment during the previous twenty years.

[Laava]

Spoken by someone who has no idea who or what or where I have studied. And as usual, by someone not the slightest bit interested in finding anything out for himself.

That's right I don't and I don't care. But you seem a bit uninformed about things yourself and now you are getting all precious about it. Maybe you should stop starting threads with the intention of trying to get people wound up. Mainly cos it backfires on yourself.
Take a fuckin chill pill.

[Laava]

He made major changes to his diet not just vitamin C

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html
Vitamin C and Cancer

In 1976, Pauling and Dr. Ewan Cameron, a Scottish physician, reported that a majority of one hundred "terminal" cancer patients treated with 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily survived three to four times longer than similar patients who did not receive vitamin C supplements [11,12]. However, Dr. William DeWys, chief of clinical investigations at the National Cancer Institute, found that the study was poorly designed because the patient groups were not comparable [13]. The vitamin C patients were Cameron's, while the other patients were under the care of other physicians. Cameron's patients were started on vitamin C when he labeled them "untreatable" by other methods, and their subsequent survival was compared to the survival of the "control" patients after they were labeled untreatable by their doctors. DeWys reasoned that if the two groups were comparable, the lengths of time from entry into the hospital to being labeled untreatable should be equivalent in both groups. However, he found that Cameron's patients were labeled untreatable much earlier in the course of their disease—which means that they entered the hospital before they were as sick as the other doctors' patients and would naturally be expected to live longer.

Nevertheless, to test whether Pauling might be correct, the Mayo Clinic conducted three double-blind studies involving a total of 367 patients with advanced cancer. The studies, reported in 1979, 1983, and 1985, found that patients given 10,000 mg of vitamin C daily did no better than those given a placebo [14-16]. Pauling criticized the first study, claiming that chemotherapeutic agents might have suppressed the patients' immune systems so that vitamin C couldn't work [17]. But his 1976 report on Cameron's work stated clearly that: "All patients are treated initially in a perfectly conventional way, by operation, use of radiotherapy, and the administration of hormones and cytotoxic substances." And during a subsequent talk at the University of Arizona, he stated that vitamin C therapy could be used along with all conventional modalities [18]. The participants in the 1983 study had not undergone conventional treatment, but Pauling dismissed its results anyway.

Science aside, it is clear that Pauling was politically aligned with the promoters of unscientific nutrition practices. He said his initial interest in vitamin C was aroused by a letter from biochemist Irwin Stone, with whom he subsequently maintained a close working relationship. Although Stone was often referred to as "Dr. Stone," his only credentials were a certificate showing completion of a two-year chemistry program, an honorary chiropractic degree from the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, and a "Ph.D." from Donsbach University, a nonaccredited correspondence school.

In a little-publicized chapter in Vitamin C and the Common Cold, Pauling attacked the health-food industry for misleading its customers. Pointing out that "synthetic" vitamin C is identical with "natural" vitamin C, he warned that higher-priced "natural" products are a "waste of money." And he added that "the words 'organically grown' are essentially meaningless—just part of the jargon used by health-food promoters in making their excess profits, often from elderly people with low incomes." But Vitamin C, the Common Cold and the Flu, issued six years later, contained none of these criticisms. This omission was not accidental. In response to a letter, Pauling informed me that, after his first book came out, he was "strongly attacked by people who were also attacking the health-food people." His critics were so "biased," he decided, that he would no longer help them attack the health-food industry while another part of their attack was directed at him [19].

The Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine was founded in 1973 and operated under that name until 1995 [20]. The institute was dedicated to "orthomolecular medicine." For many years, its largest corporate donor was Hoffmann-La Roche, the pharmaceutical giant that produces most of the world's vitamin C. Many of the institute's fundraising brochures contained questionable information. During the 1980s, for example, they falsely stated that no significant progress had been made in cancer treatment during the previous twenty years.

I know there is more to it than just vitamin C, and also that it is ongoing. In his case, he has completely defied medical science.
I am aware that the strike rate for the vitamin C is unknown and does not work miracles for everyone. Just like chemo and radio.

[Banditbandit]

Took him a month

I had a bike like that once - it was a BSA ..

[oldrider]

Everybody has a different opinion or life experience if it doesn't line up with TPTB current requirements should it be automatically silenced or acclaimed to be wrong?

Link: http://drsircus.com/medicine/how-to-treat-cancer-patients-at-home#utm_source=Dr+Sircus+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3185772fb3-Article_277&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ea98c09673-3185772fb3-9531509&mc_cid=3185772fb3&mc_eid=783acdf144

[Edbear]

Well it's very obvious on here just who is spouting off uniformed opinions and who is actually doing some research. Thanks for that Kikaha, if I had posted it I would have been derided by the haters, of course. All they prove is how stupidly prejudiced they are.

I wonder who has actually read the release by Johns Hopkins..? Not the one who insists I post nothing scientific, for sure, he's a genuine nutjob. :whistle:

[Edbear]

I had a bike like that once - it was a BSA ..

Haha! Mine was the venerable B31.

[BuzzardNZ]

Face it Ed, everyone knows that you haven't studied fuck all, because it shows in bollox you spout as science.

I heard he mastered 6th form accounting, must count for something!

[bogan]

I wonder who has actually read the release by Johns Hopkins..? Not the one who insists I post nothing scientific, for sure, he's a genuine nutjob. :whistle:

That was a press release about a scam which was using their name to promote bullshit. It is not scientific in itself, like the one I posted which you seem extremely reluctant to address. Is it because they found that IV vit-c warranted further research and mass trials? ie, certainly was not just bollox. Why have you not read that one yet? surely your 'unbiased research' ethics require it of you?


I heard he mastered 6th form accounting, must count for something!

Oh yeh, my mistake, certainly trumps my actual masterate, shirley?

[mashman]

http://invisiblebread.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/brucewillisdoubletake.gif

[Edbear]

That was a press release about a scam which was using their name to promote bullshit. It is not scientific in itself, like the one I posted which you seem extremely reluctant to address. Is it because they found that IV vit-c warranted further research and mass trials? ie, certainly was not just bollox. Why have you not read that one yet? surely your 'unbiased research' ethics require it of you?



Oh yeh, my mistake, certainly trumps my actual masterate, shirley?

So you didn't read the whole article then. Typically you.

[BuzzardNZ]

Oh yeh, my mistake, certainly trumps my actual masterate, shirley?

From the tone of his posts, it seems it does!

[bogan]

So you didn't read the whole article then. Typically you.

Please point out what I missed so we can debate this as adults, also please read the published article I linked to and discuss their findings with regard to can alternative medicines work. Here is the link again if you have missed it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405876/

[Edbear]

Please point out what I missed so we can debate this as adults, also please read the published article I linked to and discuss their findings with regard to can alternative medicines work. Here is the link again if you have missed it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405876/

Do, please, point out what replies from the institute are unscientific and or erroneous. Or is this just another typical bash Ed post ignoring scientific evidence? You do that consistently and wonder why you are not taken seriously by the intelligent members.

Oh, wait, you are deluded and believe your posts are believed and taken seriously.

[Edbear]

Please point out what I missed so we can debate this as adults, also please read the published article I linked to and discuss their findings with regard to can alternative medicines work. Here is the link again if you have missed it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405876/

Surprise, surprise! That you would do what you criticise me for and refer to a ten year old article.

Did you not read Kikaha's post either?

[Katman]

Oh, wait, you are deluded and believe your posts are believed and taken seriously.

Irony.Fucking.Overload!!!

[Edbear]

PS. I had read it. I just figured it was out of date and had been usurped by more recent studies. Besides, the only reason I am responding to your posts is to point out your failings. Easy to do. Some here are fooled and others like to use your posts as means to diss me personally so by showing you up it shows them up.

Notable is their complete lack of anything to do with the topic or desire to know anything about it. It's a separate side issue from the subject.

[Edbear]

Irony.Fucking.Overload!!!

Look! There goes one now! :whocares:

[bogan]

Ed ignoring scientific evidence

There was no proper scientific referencing; the made claims without suppling background information.


Surprise, surprise! That you would do what you criticise me for and refer to a ten year old article.

Did you not read Kikaha's post either?

I do not critisise you for refering to ten year old articles, I would point out any differences if new research had been done in the intervening years.

I did read Kick's post about the Mayo tests, if you had read my link or the background science you would know why they are not applicable to IV vit-c treatments.

If you have a scpecifc point about the Hopkins press release, or about the research myself or kick posted I would however, be happy to discuss it.


PS. I had read it. I just figured it was out of date and had been usurped by more recent studies. Besides, the only reason I am responding to your posts is to point out your failings. Easy to do. Some here are fooled and others like to use your posts as means to diss me personally so by showing you up it shows them up.

Notable is their complete lack of anything to do with the topic or desire to know anything about it. It's a separate side issue from the subject.

Which recent studies have 'usurped' it then? Nobody following the scientific method would make such an assumption without finding one.

The lack at the moment is only yours, I am attempting to discuss points of substance about the subject at hand. Notably the efficacy of IV Vit C infusions; would you like to reply on this point as a mature adult, or show yourself to be something less by throwing insults or evading it?

[Edbear]

Bogan you are truly pathetic. Like I said, point out which of their statements is unscientific or erroneous. You won't because you can't. You simply carry on in your ignorance in your quest against me to the point you will diss respected scientists. Something you are noted for.

It is no surprise that I will not "discuss" anything with you.

[Katman]

Ed, do you believe in miracles or are they the work of Satan?

[bogan]

Bogan you are truly pathetic. Like I said, point out which of their statements is unscientific or erroneous. You won't because you can't. You simply carry on in your ignorance in your quest against me to the point you will diss respected scientists. Something you are noted for.

It is no surprise that I will not "discuss" anything with you.

I just did, they are unscientific because they do not show their working, the same as your original post.

No, it isn't a surprise, but that is because you are incapable, not me. You've said nothing at all about the article I posted except it is old; who is dissing respected scientists again?

[BuzzardNZ]

Ed, do you believe in miracles or are they the work of Satan?

As are girl guide biscuits, apparently! :wacko:

[Katman]

As are girl guide biscuits, apparently! :wacko:

Take enough Tramadol and even the Easter Bunny starts to look like the Devil.

[Akzle]

Take enough Tramadol and even the Easter Bunny starts to look like the Devil.

this is true. damhik.

[Edbear]

this is true. damhik.

Hey! I'm obviously missing out on some interesting side effects! :scratch:

[FJRider]

Take enough Tramadol and even the Easter Bunny starts to look like the Devil.

Take enough Tramadol ... and you won't care ..

[Kickaha]

Take enough Tramadol and even the Easter Bunny starts to look like the Devil.


Take enough Tramadol ... and you won't care ..

If you cunts have any spare send it to me, that shit is brilliant for a good nights sleep

[Akzle]

http://www.werkkrew.com/uploads/donniedarko.jpg

[FJRider]

If you cunts have any spare send it to me, that shit is brilliant for a good nights sleep

Nah ... you wont like it ... I've seen the Easter Bunny naked.


Dreams are free ... but real scarey shit .. :pinch:

[Katman]

I would recommend Deepak Chopra's book 'Quantum Healing' for anyone who really wants to open their mind.

[Edbear]

I would recommend reading this for anyone who actually has an open mind.

http://www.mamamia.com.au/wellbeing/truth-about-the-wellness-industry/

[Katman]

I asked a question earlier about miracles Ed that you chose to ignore.

I'll also now ask, do you believe in positive thinking?

[bogan]

I would recommend reading this for anyone who actually has an open mind.

http://www.mamamia.com.au/wellbeing/truth-about-the-wellness-industry/

She is the partially right. Correct in that cancer patients should not rely on alternative treatments without consulting their gp about the regulars, and even getting their opinions on the alternatives.

But she is wrong to lump all alternative medicine into a 'wellness' category, and wrong to say naturopaths have no basis in science.

[Edbear]

I asked a question earlier about miracles Ed that you chose to ignore.

I'll also now ask, do you believe in positive thinking?

I positively think you are an idiot.

[FJRider]

I'll also now ask, do you believe in positive thinking?

I believe I'll have another beer ...

[Akzle]

I would recommend reading this for anyone who actually has an open mind.

http://www.mamamia.com.au/wellbeing/truth-about-the-wellness-industry/

did you just... post a BLOG.... like science?

i'm with professor bogan on this one!

[Katman]

I positively think you are an idiot.

You've stated on numerous occasions that humans only use a small percentage of their brain power.

Why would you think that the brain is not capable of great healing power?

[bogan]

did you just... post a BLOG.... like science?

i'm with professor bogan on this one!

We might need to try reverse thingoism, here is an also bloglikescience
http://ericbakker.com/vitamin-c-fights-cancer-study-reveals/
Perhaps ed can digest that one. It does 'prove' him 'right' about his earlier supposition that a more recent vit c study has been done

[Katman]

Hey, can I join the blog train?

http://www.quantumk.co.uk/quantumk_read.htm

[Edbear]

did you just... post a BLOG.... like science?
i'm with professor bogan on this one!

No, I posted the personal feelings and thoughts of a Doctor. But I guess for you it's a little bit confusing.


Hey, can I join the blog train?

http://www.quantumk.co.uk/quantumk_read.htm

Had a bad day? You're touchy tonight.

Red rep with the accompanying foul language is typical of your small mind and large ego that you desperately need to prop up.

Getting red rep from the likes of you and Axzle only reassures me I am on the right track.

[Katman]

Getting red rep from the likes of you and Axzle only reassures me I am on the right track.

I have absolutely no doubt that you'll blindly keep telling yourself that Ed.

[bogan]

Getting red rep from the likes of you and Axzle only reassures me I am on the right track.

I guess when you can't science, you've got find something to track from...

Would you like me to find the latest vit c alternative medicine study? Or have you been sufficiently convinced to bury that head in the sand again?

[Edbear]

You've stated on numerous occasions that humans only use a small percentage of their brain power.

Why would you think that the brain is not capable of great healing power?

Well, taking yourself as an example ... :rolleyes:

[bogan]

Here ya go Ed...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4199254/

Now get some of this in ya, you seem to need a QOL boost you curmudgeonly cunt.

http://www.maximumwellbeing.com/shop/The+BEST+VITAMIN+C+POWDER/Daily+C.html

[Edbear]

Here ya go Ed...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4199254/

Now get some of this in ya, you seem to need a QOL boost you curmudgeonly cunt.

http://www.maximumwellbeing.com/shop/The+BEST+VITAMIN+C+POWDER/Daily+C.html

Thick as a brick as usual. One thing you are really, really good at is incomprehension.

My issue if you can read anything at all, is with alt.cancer anti drug company conspiracy theorists as per the OP.

Also with the blatantly false claims that conventional medicine is bad and unnecessary and that the natural alternatives cure cancer. Not surprisingly, I will refrain from discussing stuff with such a failure.

[Katman]

My issue if you can read anything at all, is with alt.cancer anti drug company conspiracy theorists as per the OP.


So once again we return to the fact that you're simply using the subject of cancer to have a childish dig at (what you perceive to be) conspiracy theorists.

You truly are beyond help.

[sugilite]

OK, not cancer but interesting stuff none the less.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/67585548/medieval-potion-fights-superbug-mrsa

[TheDemonLord]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/da/dab598a06fb21867ef0b6b98fb58647de1533c23c32f3facc7 0da7dcd43f024e.jpg

Also

2 + 2 = 5

(for very large values of 2)

[mashman]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55331293.jpg

[TheDemonLord]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/55331293.jpg

How do you know she's a Witch?

[Banditbandit]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/92/15/0a/92150aa926731da5fb4ea23438522b36.jpg

[mashman]

How do you know she's a Witch?

Him... the image referred to a him.

[TheDemonLord]

Him... the image referred to a him.

The scene from the Holy Grail - its a Her.

I can quote verbatim.

[mashman]

The scene from the Holy Grail - its a Her.

I can quote verbatim.

Indeed. Can you read? Coz if you can, you'll notice that I posted an image with a HIM, despite the fact, as BB posted, that the scene in the movie, rrrrrrrrr Connie, was referring to a woman. Could it be that the HIM was posted intentionally? I'm thinking that to be the case :yes:... however you could invoke the KB law of knowing the poster better than the poster knows the poster.

[bogan]

Thick as a brick as usual. One thing you are really, really good at is incomprehension.

My issue if you can read anything at all, is with alt.cancer anti drug company conspiracy theorists as per the OP.

Also with the blatantly false claims that conventional medicine is bad and unnecessary and that the natural alternatives cure cancer. Not surprisingly, I will refrain from discussing stuff with such a failure.

And I was addressing the post below where you said all the cases you researched were bollox. And all the subsequent posts where you refused to acknowledge Vit C's potential. Now I've proven alternative cancer treatments do have potential which is backed by medical research; you've changed you tune, and keep threatening to 'not talking to you anymore'. Do you have the spine to now state not all the cases you researched were bollox? or do I need to provide that link again? (I'm happy to, no need to ask you to go back through the thread and search for it, I know it exists and can show you it easily).


I have been looking up a few cases of claims about a variety of cures for cancer that follow a typical theme. The cancer, whichever is the topic, was cured by some alternative means - often a vegetable extract, with corroborating testimony by a doctor saying that after a period of weeks there was nothing left of the Cancer. At times there are several case studies of a number of patients who were cured of different types of cancers by the same therapy.

All the cases I have researched have one thing in common. They are bollox! Some have merit in the substance used that has a possibility of being of some benefit but to date the results of trials have been inconclusive with failure to actually make a difference in real cases.

If you want to get famous, work on Mitochondria. They are the key to reducing and inhibiting cancer cells. They are the human body's natural defence mechanism.

[bogan]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/da/dab598a06fb21867ef0b6b98fb58647de1533c23c32f3facc7 0da7dcd43f024e.jpg


Well, I think you win this thread...

[Edbear]

And I was addressing the post below where you said all the cases you researched were bollox. And all the subsequent posts where you refused to acknowledge Vit C's potential. Now I've proven alternative cancer treatments do have potential which is backed by medical research; you've changed you tune, and keep threatening to 'not talking to you anymore'. Do you have the spine to now state not all the cases you researched were bollox? or do I need to provide that link again? (I'm happy to, no need to ask you to go back through the thread and search for it, I know it exists and can show you it easily).

Like I said, you're incapable of reading comprehension. You didn't read the bit about some benefits possible from some substances did you? You're still failing on the OP too. The thing with quoting posts is the need to know what the quoted post says.

You must be having a bad day like your buddy Katman. Abusive red rep just reinforces your stature, or lack of.

[Katman]

Abusive red rep just reinforces your stature, or lack of.

Make up your mind Ed, which is it?

[bogan]

Like I said, you're incapable of reading comprehension. You didn't read the bit about some benefits possible from some substances did you? You're still failing on the OP too. The thing with quoting posts is the need to know what the quoted post says.

You must be having a bad day like your buddy Katman. Abusive red rep just reinforces your stature, or lack of.

Which only goes to show, even your own posts show it isn't bollox, as i said at the time. I've proven beyond doubt that alternative medicine can be beneficial. It isn't all bollox. Are you ready to admit that yet?

Abusive red rep is the correct place for it (which was from a completely different thread btw) , you seem to think just because you post your abuse where all can see it makes it better or something?

[Edbear]

Which only goes to show, even your own posts show it isn't bollox, as i said at the time. I've proven beyond doubt that alternative medicine can be beneficial. It isn't all bollox. Are you ready to admit that yet?

Abusive red rep is the correct place for it (which was from a completely different thread btw) , you seem to think just because you post your abuse where all can see it makes it better or something?

Do I have to spell it out in really simple words in order for you to get the point?

The claims of curing cancer by natural remedies is bollox. Is that simple enough for you or are you going to fail this as well?

[Edbear]

Make up your mind Ed, which is it?

Another simpleton. The word stature, does not imply any particular size. If you had studied English grammar at school you would know that what I wrote is correct.

[bogan]

Do I have to spell it out in really simple words in order for you to get the point?

The claims of curing cancer by natural remedies is bollox. Is that simple enough for you or are you going to fail this as well?

Natural remedies eh, the only two references to that phrasing are by you, one in that post, the other one saying how you know they do work for some people :killingme


. I have given examples of natural remedies that I know from experience and observation do work for some people.

Time for bed ed, you're getting very befuddled.

[Madness]

'night Ed.

https://youtu.be/JeYZiNBPImk

[Edbear]

Natural remedies eh, the only two references to that phrasing are by you, one in that post, the other one saying how you know they do work for some people :killingme

Time for bed ed, you're getting very befuddled.

You just keep emphasising your total failure at basic English. How thick do you have to be to get everything totally screwed up?

Different applications and still nothing to do with curing cancer. You are as hopeless as the other simpletons, probably worse because one or two of them can read basic English. You should apply for Remedial Reading.

[bogan]

You just keep emphasising your total failure at basic English. How thick do you have to be to get everything totally screwed up?

Different applications and still nothing to do with curing cancer. You are as hopeless as the other simpletons, probably worse because one or two of them can read basic English. You should apply for Remedial Reading.

Nor did I say they were to do with cancer.

My point was that the message you had to spell out for me, was in fact a new one; meaning you have changed your tune in the face of evidence I have provided, just like I said. Your reluctance to openly admit that is obviously to do with some ego issues or chips on your shoulders, I don't much care either way tbh.

[Edbear]

Nor did I say they were to do with cancer.

My point was that the message you had to spell out for me, was in fact a new one; meaning you have changed your tune in the face of evidence I have provided, just like I said. Your reluctance to openly admit that is obviously to do with some ego issues or chips on your shoulders, I don't much care either way tbh.

Like I said, all you keep proving is that you don't understand the OP. Nothing you have posted has made the slightest difference to my stance. How could it when you have only got everything backwards and completely screwed up?

As has always been the case, your massive ego/inferiority complex prevents you from ever learning or changing your mind.

Why don't you just come right out and admit that your sole purpose in responding to my posts, regardless of the topic, is to try to find some way to ridicule me personally. That you consistently fail and merely show your own incompetence doesn't faze you at all.

In this, you're even worse than Katman, he doesn't even try to address the topic under discussion, he just doesn't like me and everyone knows that. therefore nobody expects anything intelligent from him. Heck, he doesn't even try to sound intelligent!

[Katman]

As has always been the case, your massive ego/inferiority complex prevents you from ever learning or changing your mind.


<img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/20080515005352.jpg"/>

[Edbear]

/>

See what I mean..?

[bogan]

Like I said, all you keep proving is that you don't understand the OP. Nothing you have posted has made the slightest difference to my stance. How could it when you have only got everything backwards and completely screwed up?

Why do you have such difficulty clarifying it then? For that matter, why do you think I have got it backwards and completely screwed up?

I'll give you a few simple yes/no questions to help out (feel free at any time to give me similar) This should be excellent to help us get on the same page and remove any ambiguity.

Do you believe it is possible alternative medicine can help fight cancer?
Do you believe natural remedies can help fight cancer?
Do you believe a healthy body, mindset, and lifestyle can help fight cancer?
Do you believe any of the above should be used in absence of conventional medical advice?
Do you believe any of the above are more effective than and when used in absence of a conventional medical practice?

[Edbear]

Why do you have such difficulty clarifying it then? For that matter, why do you think I have got it backwards and completely screwed up?

I'll give you a few simple yes/no questions to help out (feel free at any time to give me similar) This should be excellent to help us get on the same page and remove any ambiguity.

Do you believe it is possible alternative medicine can help fight cancer?
Do you believe natural remedies can help fight cancer?
Do you believe a healthy body, mindset, and lifestyle can help fight cancer?
Do you believe any of the above should be used in absence of conventional medical advice?
Do you believe any of the above are more effective than and when used in absence of a conventional medical practice?

One simple answer addresses all the above. Not amenable to a simple yes or no.

Natural remedies have not been shown, in proper tests and studies, to cure cancer. There are studies that show a complementary approach using natural and alternatives in combination with aggressive conventional treatments make the person feel a whole lot better in many cases. This is due to the other stuff helping, either by placebo effects or real effects, with the unpleasantness associated with the illness. Treating the whole person, not just the disease.

I do not believe anyone should promote alternatives over conventional treatment, especially to replace said treatments.

Cancer cannot be fully cured. Even after being found symptom free, it tends to return at a later date, sometimes years later, in a more aggressive form. Few people live the rest of their lives in remission.

A healthy body, mindset and lifestyle can do much to ward off a variety of illnesses and diseases, but there are no guarantees when it comes to either cancer or heart failure. There are enough cases of heretofore healthy young people succumbing to these two tragedies to prove such an attitude is hardly a guarantee. All we can do is live as best we can and hope it doesn't strike us or our loved ones.

The term, "natural remedies", I have already addressed.

[bogan]

One simple answer addresses all the above. Not amenable to a simple yes or no.

Natural remedies have not been shown, in proper tests and studies, to cure cancer. There are studies that show a complementary approach using natural and alternatives in combination with aggressive conventional treatments make the person feel a whole lot better in many cases. This is due to the other stuff helping, either by placebo effects or real effects, with the unpleasantness associated with the illness. Treating the whole person, not just the disease.

I do not believe anyone should promote alternatives over conventional treatment, especially to replace said treatments.

Cancer cannot be fully cured. Even after being found symptom free, it tends to return at a later date, sometimes years later, in a more aggressive form. Few people live the rest of their lives in remission.

A healthy body, mindset and lifestyle can do much to ward off a variety of illnesses and diseases, but there are no guarantees when it comes to either cancer or heart failure. There are enough cases of heretofore healthy young people succumbing to these two tragedies to prove such an attitude is hardly a guarantee. All we can do is live as best we can and hope it doesn't strike us or our loved ones.

The term, "natural remedies", I have already addressed.

It is good to hear you have learned alternative medicine and natural remedies should have a place in the treatment of cancer :niceone:

And I really would recommend that Daily C I posted early, shows up that capitalist apple farmer conspiracy :shifty:

[Edbear]

It is good to hear you have learned alternative medicine and natural remedies should have a place in the treatment of cancer :niceone:

And I really would recommend that Daily C I posted early, shows up that capitalist apple farmer conspiracy :shifty:

I surely didn't learn it from you! That would have been blindingly obvious to anyone who can read, right from the first post!

[Ulsterkiwi]

Could you provide a link to this - I would like to read as it sounds very interesting.




I agree, that each treatment in that sence is bespoke - but bespoke using a range of pre-existing Drugs, adjusting the combination as required, as opposed to developing a new drug each time for the patient (which is what was being argued as farcical, given the cost developing a new drug)

sorry for the slow response I was off the grid for a few days

its just a press release but will give you a taster. http://www.malaghan.org.nz/news/cancer-immunotherapy-update/
If you use Google Scholar and run a search on cancer vaccines you can miss out most of the crap and get to some of the published papers if you are keen.

[Ulsterkiwi]

The Malaghan Institute of Medical Research (NZ) are currently focusing their cancer reasearch on immuno-therapy, their cancer research page has multiple links to clincal studies and trials, scientific publications and research updates/highlights
http://www.malaghan.org.nz/what-we-do/cancer/

exciting stuff being spearheaded right here in NZ :cool:

sorry for double posting, yes, this is the institute I was thinking of, I have personal connections there. Amazing place with some very hardworking people doing incredible work. If you look at their entire profile you can see there has been and continues to be some world leading science emerging from the funny round building on the Kelburn hill!

[Ulsterkiwi]

Would a pre-illness baseline of the patients physiology be of any use to researchers?

yes and no. If we assume that everything preillness is "normal" then yes, that would be very useful. The genetic profile which leads to sufficient mutations to cause a cancer is something we are only beginning to understand. At what point do we say the profile was clear of mutations? Hard to say because each one of us has mutations, that is the norm. Of course we are leaving out the impact of epi-genetics on cancer.
Its a good suggestion, there may even be work being conducted on it. I don't pretend to know the full gamut of work being conducted in oncology

[Ulsterkiwi]

If you want to get famous, work on Mitochondria. They are the key to reducing and inhibiting cancer cells. They are the human body's natural defence mechanism.

yes and no. A team at the Malaghan have been doing work on Mitochondrial transfer between cells. A previously unknown event. They are pretty famous.
Mitochondria are responsible for energy metabolism, not a natural defence mechanism. (They are called white blood cells.)
You are correct in so far that it is difficult to metabolise without mitochondria so take those out and cells will struggle. However there are normal cells in the body without mitochondria as part of normal structure, they are perfectly capable of conducting their function for around 120 days before wearing out. Look up erythrocyte......

[mashman]

I surely didn't learn it from you! That would have been blindingly obvious to anyone who can read, right from the first post!

It's his standard response. Be grateful though, it's almost vinegar stroke time.

[Ulsterkiwi]

The number of people using the therapy is large and results to date are sketchy.

If you have anything recent, do post it.

Sketchy because there has been reluctance to run any kind of formal data collection since the days of the Mayo Clinic investigating Linus Pauling's claims. That seemed to debunk his ideas but what is often forgotten is that the Mayo Clinic trial did not replicate Pauling's methods.

Here is a point for Akzle and his crew, a trial to finally determine the efficacy of high dose vit C would cost money, pharmacos are not interested as there is no way to patent the compound and therefore get a return. Simple economics.
Prof Margreet Vissers explained on TV not that long ago it would take relatively little money to sort the problem out. Funding bodies are nervous because of the controversy. If they put a few million into a trial and it didnt work then they would look bad for throwing money at something dodgy. I know it sounds daft but this is a complicated world we live in. What makes sense to us is not always the case with others.....

[Katman]

Here is a point for Akzle and his crew, a trial to finally determine the efficacy of high dose vit C would cost money, pharmacos are not interested as there is no way to patent the compound and therefore get a return. Simple economics.


I think this sentence here effectively addresses Ed's original post.

[bogan]

Here is a point for Akzle and his crew, a trial to finally determine the efficacy of high dose vit C would cost money, pharmacos are not interested as there is no way to patent the compound and therefore get a return. Simple economics.
Prof Margreet Vissers explained on TV not that long ago it would take relatively little money to sort the problem out. Funding bodies are nervous because of the controversy. If they put a few million into a trial and it didnt work then they would look bad for throwing money at something dodgy. I know it sounds daft but this is a complicated world we live in. What makes sense to us is not always the case with others.....

You could crowdfund the shit out of that...

[Ulsterkiwi]

I think this sentence here effectively addresses Ed's original post.

Probably, because I believe economics and political considerations to be a major factor preventing a major trial of high dose vit C BUT I do not subscribe to the theory pharmaceutical companies are conducting some kind of conspiracy to suppress a cure for cancer. In the case of vit C any trial will only be able to test one set of circumstances or at best a limited range of circumstances. To attempt otherwise would remove the elements of control and randomisation which are the hallmarks of the evidence being sought. (remember there are many case studies to support the efficacy of vit C and many which do not, a stage III RCT is the next step)
It is highly unlikely there will ever be a single cure for all cancers given the sheer number and variety of cancers and the inextricable link to our own genetic makeup of those cancers. Hence, it is highly unlikely there is or ever will be a cure to suppress!

Because of what I do, and for no other reason, I happen to know a fair bit about this topic. For the sake of comparison if I were to write down all that I knew in relation to this field compared to what is known in total, my personal understanding would probably be stretched to fill the back of a postage stamp. This does not begin to account for what we do not understand. There are those who detract science because it cannot explain everything, surely that is the point however? Good science recognises there is more to be learned and pursues that knowledge and understanding.
I think it pays to be discerning and look for evidence to support claims. I think it is foolish however to dismiss what we do not fully understand because there is no formally collated evidence yet to hand. There are any number of Nobel Laureates whose seminal work was down to serendipity or the pursuit of nothing more than a hunch!
All scientific medicine was "alternative" until the evidence was collected......

[Ulsterkiwi]

You could crowdfund the shit out of that...

I believe Prof Vissers is attempting just that, I could be wrong....

[Ocean1]

I think this sentence here effectively addresses Ed's original post.

Aye. They're no more guilty of conspiring against cancer sufferers than, say you for failing to spend the required money though.

They even promote marginally effective but extremely expensive products simply because they're patentable.

Let's hope we never see them fabricating research results to promote a product simply because it's profitable, eh?


You could crowdfund the shit out of that...

Good point. Malaghan et al do a very good job with mixed private/public funding but whether the results of their work are commercially valuable or not some form of crowd funding would help.

[Katman]

What the above posts by Ulsterkiwi also effectively address is just how incredibly ridiculous a blanket statement like "all alternative cancer therapies are bollox" is.

[Edbear]

yes and no. A team at the Malaghan have been doing work on Mitochondrial transfer between cells. A previously unknown event. They are pretty famous.
Mitochondria are responsible for energy metabolism, not a natural defence mechanism. (They are called white blood cells.)
You are correct in so far that it is difficult to metabolise without mitochondria so take those out and cells will struggle. However there are normal cells in the body without mitochondria as part of normal structure, they are perfectly capable of conducting their function for around 120 days before wearing out. Look up erythrocyte......


Thanks for that. I will.

[Edbear]

Probably, because I believe economics and political considerations to be a major factor preventing a major trial of high dose vit C BUT I do not subscribe to the theory pharmaceutical companies are conducting some kind of conspiracy to suppress a cure for cancer. In the case of vit C any trial will only be able to test one set of circumstances or at best a limited range of circumstances. To attempt otherwise would remove the elements of control and randomisation which are the hallmarks of the evidence being sought. (remember there are many case studies to support the efficacy of vit C and many which do not, a stage III RCT is the next step)
It is highly unlikely there will ever be a single cure for all cancers given the sheer number and variety of cancers and the inextricable link to our own genetic makeup of those cancers. Hence, it is highly unlikely there is or ever will be a cure to suppress!

Because of what I do, and for no other reason, I happen to know a fair bit about this topic. For the sake of comparison if I were to write down all that I knew in relation to this field compared to what is known in total, my personal understanding would probably be stretched to fill the back of a postage stamp. This does not begin to account for what we do not understand. There are those who detract science because it cannot explain everything, surely that is the point however? Good science recognises there is more to be learned and pursues that knowledge and understanding.
I think it pays to be discerning and look for evidence to support claims. I think it is foolish however to dismiss what we do not fully understand because there is no formally collated evidence yet to hand. There are any number of Nobel Laureates whose seminal work was down to serendipity or the pursuit of nothing more than a hunch!
All scientific medicine was "alternative" until the evidence was collected......


Well put!


What the above posts by Ulsterkiwi also effectively address is just how incredibly ridiculous a blanket statement like "all alternative cancer therapies are bollox" is.

Which I did not say. But of course you're competing with Bogan for the Dimwitted prize.

[Katman]

Which I did not say. But of course you're competing with Bogan for the Dimwitted prize.

Do you accept though that pharmaceutical companies are not investing any effort into researching alternative treatments simply because there is no profit in it for them?

And if you can accept that then it is not too great a leap of the imagination to consider that they may well be hampering the development of alternative treatments that could drastically reduce their profits.

The oil companies have been doing similar for decades.

[bogan]

Well put!



Which I did not say. But of course you're competing with Bogan for the Dimwitted prize.

Nah, you're well out in front of us both for your efforts at meta-misinterpretation . He said/you said <<<< science

[Edbear]

Do you accept though that pharmaceutical companies are not investing any effort into researching alternative treatments simply because there is no profit in it for them?

And if you can accept that then it is not too great a leap of the imagination to consider that they may well be hampering the development of alternative treatments that could drastically reduce their profits.

The oil companies have been doing similar for decades.

Not necessarily, they tend to look at most things, but having to make a buck means that anything they decide to spend millions on has to be commercially viable. It's a shame but nobody has the financial ability to do it for free.

When you consider the processes and legalities they are bound by it would take a very open minded Govt. to agree to fund these trials and developments with no guarantee of any favourable results. It is as Ulsterkiwi says.

[Edbear]

And as an aside, the oil companies do likewise. BP for example is gearing up to take advantage of the developments in hybrid and battery technology but again, it has to be commercially viable.

One of the issues though, is that the petrol engine is still being developed with good gains in economy and emissions so nobody is keen to expend billions before it becomes necessary.

The other problem for Gov't. is that these gains are reducing the tax take from petrol meaning they are looking at other ways to get the necessary dollars for funding. It's a catch 22.

But this is off topic and should have its own thread.

[bogan]

And as an aside, the oil companies do likewise. BP for example is gearing up to take advantage of the developments in hybrid and battery technology but again, it has to be commercially viable.

One of the issues though, is that the petrol engine is still being developed with good gains in economy and emissions so nobody is keen to expend billions before it becomes necessary.

The other problem for Gov't. is that these gains are reducing the tax take from petrol meaning they are looking at other ways to get the necessary dollars for funding. It's a catch 22.

But this is off topic and should have its own thread.

Only because they are being forced to. It was comercially viable 20 years ago, they just decided dino juice was more profitable. Have you see the doco who killed the electric car? The tldr (and that is a shame, as it is an interesting watch) is that it was not the technology, nor production costs, nor customer dissatisfaction.

Govt tax take is easy, the ruc system is designed for exactly that. The biggest problem for govt is energy infrastructure.

[TheDemonLord]

Only because they are being forced to. It was comercially viable 20 years ago, they just decided dino juice was more profitable. Have you see the doco who killed the electric car? The tldr (and that is a shame, as it is an interesting watch) is that it was not the technology, nor production costs, nor customer dissatisfaction.

Govt tax take is easy, the ruc system is designed for exactly that. The biggest problem for govt is energy infrastructure.

Last time I checked - they still are unable to match the range and re-fill/recharge times of a Petrol car - I think even the Tesla's turbo charge (or whatever it is called) system still takes an hour or 2 to reach 90% charge.

(I will admit that its been a while since I read up on it)

[bogan]

Last time I checked - they still are unable to match the range and re-fill/recharge times of a Petrol car - I think even the Tesla's turbo charge (or whatever it is called) system still takes an hour or 2 to reach 90% charge.

(I will admit that its been a while since I read up on it)

This is true, but so many households have multiple cars with one being used solely as a round town commuter, it makes it commercially viable still.

Tesla's battery swap completely fixes the charging problem too, from a tech point anyway.

[Akzle]

thank fuck that money is providing a measure of value here, to determine whats worth researching and for the benefit of...whom?

[scumdog]

It's how he is able to sleep at night with a wee grin of contentment.

I thought it more likely it would be after lots of this::tugger:

[Maha]

I thought it more likely it would be after lots of this::tugger:

His night night juice?

[yokel]

is the way they research cancer working??

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0m-ukw0Ao9A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Edbear]

is the way they research cancer working??

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0m-ukw0Ao9A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Crap! No Govt. anywhere is suppressing cancer research! Too many have the erroneous simplistic notion that Cancer is like a broken leg. Cancer is an immune system problem with about as many causes as there are people and no one treatment will ever work for all, or even many types. What may knock one type will have no effect on another and may not even work well on someone else with the same type.

Your attitude is like complaining that they haven't found a cure for weeds.

[Katman]

Cancer is an immune system problem.....

One could almost start to wonder whether the prolific use of vaccines and antibiotics might have something to do with people's natural immune systems malfunctioning.

[RDJ]

Do you accept though that pharmaceutical companies are not investing any effort into researching alternative treatments simply because there is no profit in it for them?

An assumption completely unconstrained by any relevance to reality. Consider for example, artemisinin and its later derivatives now standard current antimalarial treatment, having once been alternative, and now it's standard (for falciparum malaria) because research proved its effectiveness; we got it courtesy of TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine). Milan Brych's alternative treatment for cancer with apricot kernels - not now standard because research proved its ineffectiveness. Vitamin C, ginko biloba and echinacea = all ineffective in double-blind trials...

Furthermore, alternative treatments are not non-toxic. The poster child for this problem is Aristolichia debilis... In the early 90s, relatively young people were being admitted by the dozens to Belgian hospitals with renal failure, accompanied by upper urinary tract tumours, they all had in common attendance at a clinic that had been prescribing Chinese herbs to lose weight. Part of the concoction was aristolochic acid, a nephrotoxic chemical derived from Aristolochia vines... In Taiwan, one study found that one out of three people had received a prescription that included Aristolochia before the country banned the herb; Taiwan also has one of the highest rates of upper urinary tract cancers in the world.

Prove it works, is safe and better than what we've got... we will want it for our patients!

I know it's a popular point of view from people like yourself that people in professions like mine are completely deaf to any suggestions to try and improve the quality of life / save the lives of our patients, and that we are all in the pay of Big Pharma, and we refuse to consider alternative treatments. Seriously do you really think, do you really really think we are all so stupid and evil minded, that if there was an effective treatment that had a better result and/or a better side-effect profile than what we currently use, we wouldn't jump at the chance to use it, advise it and prescribe it? Sheesh.

And if that's what you really think, all I can tell you is, my reward cheque from Big Pharma is 37 years late in arriving. Could you Let Them Know and Hurry It Up.

:argue:

[RDJ]

One could almost start to wonder whether the prolific use of vaccines and antibiotics might have something to do with people's natural immune systems malfunctioning.

Nice strawman you have there, shame should something happen to it.

Sigh. if you don't live long because of exposure to the use of serious childhood illnesses - try visiting some 19th-century graveyards to see what we mean - then you don't live long enough to get the cell replication errors and occasional "wild card" cells growing exponentially unregulated by normal growth inhibitors, = cancer. In other words if you die young from illness or injury, you never get old enough to die from cancers, strokes, and heart attacks. Personally most people I've seen prefer to have a better chance of surviving to adulthood and old age. No one gets out of here alive yet, we all are going to die of something.

The prolific use of vaccines is life-saving. The indiscriminate and unwarranted use of antibiotics is a serious problem. The solution is to vaccinate appropriately and not prescribe on the doctor's side, nor expect from the patient's side, antibiotics 'for everything'.

[Edbear]

One could almost start to wonder whether the prolific use of vaccines and antibiotics might have something to do with people's natural immune systems malfunctioning.

Considering that science still doesn't understand the cause, it's impossible to attribute one. Pure speculation. One does wonder about the modern lifestyle and its effect on our health. Likely the problems are a combination of many factors that are contrary to the design intent of the human body and of nature itself.

[bogan]

Vitamin C, ginko biloba and echinacea = all ineffective in double-blind trials...

This one does raise some CT flags though, Vit C is making a resurgence, and there is much talk of that double blind trial simply being shit. Far too low effective dosage, etc etc.

[Ulsterkiwi]

This one does raise some CT flags though, Vit C is making a resurgence, and there is much talk of that double blind trial simply being shit. Far too low effective dosage, etc etc.

As a cancer therapy, received wisdom is that anything which acts as anti-oxidant will not be much use. To put that in context, radiation and a huge range of the cytotoxic drugs (chemo) work because they produce free radicals and cause oxidative stress, thereby producing double stranded breaks in DNA. Cancer cells are not so good at repairing this damage and are effectively taken out.

Ascorbate (VitC) administered intravenously can achieve blood plasma concentrations which are impossible with oral administration. It has now been well established that VitC, in sufficiently high concentrations and in the presence of certain co-factors, can and does act as a PRO-oxidant, in effect capable of producing the same kind of damage as radiation and some drugs.

What has not been established however is the extent to which this happens in complex systems (the human body) and what, if any, effect happens if used in conjunction with other forms of treatment.

There are a number of documented and publicised case studies where VitC has been associated with cancer patients making unexpected recovery or gaining remission.

What is not so often talked about are the studies looking at patients in intensive care units who have been administered high doses of Vit C where there has been some link to the recovery rates of those patients after major trauma or surgical intervention.

In short, there is enough there to warrant closer scrutiny. While controversy remains however medical professionals have no choice but to proceed with caution. Use it to no effect and they are damned, don't use it as it is unproven and they are damned, usually by the media who have little or no understanding what they are reporting or on internet forums where people read those news reports and think that qualifies them to pass judgement. Unfortunately there has been so much controversy around the issue that the level of evidence now required to satisfy the detractors will have to be much higher and more extensive than might otherwise have been the case.

As I have stated before on this thread, I think it is up to the individual what it is they want to do with respect to unproven treatments and they should be left to make those decisions.

[scumdog]

One could almost start to wonder whether the prolific use of vaccines and antibiotics might have something to do with people's natural immune systems malfunctioning.

Now and again you post something sensible that I also agree with - this is one of those times!

In biology vaccines, antibiotics etc allow life forms which would otherwise have died off to stay alive and breed and create a generation of off-spring whose immune system etc is likewise compromised in that they too depend on the vaccines and anti-biotics to survive and so on for generations until the majority of life-forms are so affected.

And humans are just another life-form.<_<

[FJRider]

... And humans are just another life-form.<_<

A life form a simple virus can kill ... :doh:

Immunity is the key ...


Salvation is for those that believe in GOD. (but can't be bothered to get/afford the vaccine) ... :blank:

[Katman]

I was interested to see the article on the news tonight about the genetically modified herpes virus being used to combat skin cancers.

Clearly some outstanding cancer research is being conducted.

Doesn't let pharmaceutical companies off the hook though.

http://ethics.harvard.edu/pharmaceutical-industry-institutional-corruption-and-public-health

[mashman]

I was interested to see the article on the news tonight about the genetically modified herpes virus being used to combat skin cancers.

Clearly some outstanding cancer research is being conducted.

Doesn't let pharmaceutical companies off the hook though.

http://ethics.harvard.edu/pharmaceutical-industry-institutional-corruption-and-public-health

Cannabis oil is supposed to be good with skin cancers too I've read. Nature v's man :shifty:

[bogan]

I was interested to see the article on the news tonight about the genetically modified herpes virus being used to combat skin cancers.

Hamilton is sitting on a gold mine then :eek:

[Katman]

Clearly Professor Marc Rodwin must be a conspiracy theorist as well.

[oldrider]

More for the conspiracy theorists to chew on.

I was with another alternative therapies advocate over the weekend, and as soon as he started talking I pegged him as a conspiracy theorist. I was right of course as I have yet to find an exponent of alternative medicine who claims the drug companies are squashing cures for cancer, who isn't a conspiracy theorist.

However, what seems so bleeding obvious that these people can't undrstand is that in every claim of a therapy that "definitely cures cancer, and there are hundreds of cases proving it!" Not one requires drug companies to develop it.

All examples, like Black Salve, infusions of Vitamin. C and so on are freely available as evidenced by the sheer number of sufferers trying them!

If these alternative therapies genuinely cured cancer, everyone would be using them and getting cured without needing the conventional therapies like Radiation, surgery and Chemo.

My visitor claimed that only 2% survive beyond 5 years with conventional treatment but the figure was 30% for alternative therapies. Absolute bollox of course.

In short, if there existed a cure for cancer, cancer would be cured. I guarantee you, though, the conspiracy theorists/anti drug exponents will not be able to accept this. Just like any conspiracy theory, they will never change their blind minds.

Following up on this post by Ed!

I saw a negative (about MMS) article in a news paper and then watched another on TV - so I did a little follow up just to see what it was all about!

Thankfully we are still free to read what we choose to without censure and I found it at times confusing but in the end somewhat enlightening.

I read all of this and compared it to Ed's post above and found it taught me quite a lot about Ed! :http://www.miraclemineral.co.nz/

[Edbear]

Following up on this post by Ed!

I saw a negative (about MMS) article in a news paper and then watched another on TV - so I did a little follow up just to see what it was all about!

Thankfully we are still free to read what we choose to without censure and I found it at times confusing but in the end somewhat enlightening.

I read all of this and compared it to Ed's post above and found it taught me quite a lot about Ed! :http://www.miraclemineral.co.nz/

Wouldn't it gain more credibility to go through my posts step by step and show where I have stated anything wrong? I always challenge people to do so and nobody ever does.

[bogan]

Wouldn't it gain more credibility to go through my posts step by step and show where I have stated anything wrong? I always challenge people to do so and nobody ever does.

:wavey: Hi Ed, you forget about me and the battery thread already? :laugh:

[Laava]

Cannabis oil is supposed to be good with skin cancers too I've read. Nature v's man :shifty:

Didn't work for Bob Marley

[Katman]

Didn't work for Bob Marley

I believe the process involves applying the oil directly onto the skin cancer.

[mashman]

Didn't work for Bob Marley

:killingme... I'm not sure it's supposed to prevent death... but fuckin disappointed that given that it is said and proven to have worked, why isn't it available to every surgery for trial?

[Laava]

:killingme... I'm not sure it's supposed to prevent death... but fuckin disappointed that given that it is said and proven to have worked, why isn't it available to every surgery for trial?

Actually proven or just a whole bunch of stoners pushing their own agenda? They don't use surgeries for trial, they use lab rats, human or otherwise. See Glaxo clinical trials, I am sure you are aware of what I mean. Not saying it doesn't work by the way but as in the case of Vitamin C, there is no ongoing money to be made by researching it to find it works, so why research it?

[Katman]

Not saying it doesn't work by the way but as in the case of Vitamin C, there is no ongoing money to be made by researching it to find it works, so why research it?

Exactly.

Those pharmaceutical companies that Ed thinks so highly off are not interested in anything that won't make them money.

(Regardless of whether they could help save lives by being interested).

[mashman]

Actually proven or just a whole bunch of stoners pushing their own agenda? They don't use surgeries for trial, they use lab rats, human or otherwise. See Glaxo clinical trials, I am sure you are aware of what I mean. Not saying it doesn't work by the way but as in the case of Vitamin C, there is no ongoing money to be made by researching it to find it works, so why research it?

What Katman said for starters. We already have people who make cannabis oil. There are those saying that it works. We have people with skin cancer. They should have the choice as to whether they are being used as a guinea pig or not, except they won't be doing it for the money the big boys pay to humans for trial, they'll be doing it just in case it saves a chunk of their body. Maybe.

[Edbear]

Exactly.

Those pharmaceutical companies that Ed thinks so highly off are not interested in anything that won't make them money.

(Regardless of whether they could help save lives by being interested).

I believe I pointed out that they need to make money and be profitable since they are not a Govt. department. Altruism costs money. The issue for the medical profession and the Government is who would be willing to fund the research on stuff that may or may not work and may not cover its costs?

[Katman]

The issue for the medical profession and the Government is who would be willing to fund the research on stuff that may or may not work and may not cover its costs?

Have you got any idea just how little it would cost to conduct tests to determine the value of cannabis in the treatment of cancer?

[Edbear]

Have you got any idea just how little it would cost to conduct tests to determine the value of cannabis in the treatment of cancer?

So why is it not taken up by proponents? Everyone wants to blame the big drug companies for not doing it but nobody wants to do it themselves.

As I said, you don't need the big drug companies if all these alternative treatments actually worked.

[Katman]

So why is it not taken up by proponents? Everyone wants to blame the big drug companies for not doing it but nobody wants to do it themselves.

As I said, you don't need the big drug companies if all these alternative treatments actually worked.

There are plenty of people conducting their own tests in the use of cannabis in the treatment of cancer.

Trouble is, people like you and bogan will immediately disregard (and attempt to discredit) any anecdotal evidence due to the lack of 'scientific process'.

[bogan]

What Katman said for starters. We already have people who make cannabis oil. There are those saying that it works. We have people with skin cancer. They should have the choice as to whether they are being used as a guinea pig or not, except they won't be doing it for the money the big boys pay to humans for trial, they'll be doing it just in case it saves a chunk of their body. Maybe.

That's not really ethical to allow them that choice.

In saying that, just crowd fund that shit you lazy homos. Cost fuck all wouldn't it?

[Edbear]

http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/index.php?Itemid=135

http://www.m.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/marijuana-on-main-street/medical-marijuana-research-web

[Edbear]

There are plenty of people conducting their own tests in the use of cannabis in the treatment of cancer.

Trouble is, people like you and bogan will immediately disregard (and attempt to discredit) any anecdotal evidence due to the lack of 'scientific process'.

Anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable, ergo the placebo effect.

[Katman]

In saying that, just crowd fund that shit you lazy homos. Cost fuck all wouldn't it?

I think the important fact you're missing is that certain law reforms would have to take place before that would ever be allowed to happen.

[Katman]

Anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable, ergo the placebo effect.

The placebo effect is evidence of the brain's ability to achieve healing that the vast majority of people have no understanding of.

[FJRider]

The placebo effect is evidence of the brain's ability to achieve healing that the vast majority of people have no understanding of.

If you are stoned and feel little or no pain (and if you do ... you don't care) is it better ... ??? ... and could it be described as "Treatment" ... ???????

[Katman]

If you are stoned and feel little or no pain (and if you do ... you don't care) is it better ... ??? ... and could it be described as "Treatment" ... ???????

I wouldn't describe that particular example as 'treatment'.

But if someone gains pain relief from cannabis I'd call it a healthier form of treatment than relying on a pharmaceutical drug to achieve the same effect.

[Edbear]

The placebo effect is evidence of the brain's ability to achieve healing that the vast majority of people have no understanding of.

But is the placebo effect an actual cure or a feeling?

I wouldn't describe that particular example it as 'treatment'.

But if someone gains pain relief from cannabis I'd call it a healthier form of treatment than relying on a pharmaceutical drug to achieve the same effect.

But that's what pharmaceutical drugs are. Take the active ingredient from nature and synthesise it in order to produce enough for the demand. Same with cannabis, but the problem is that most people who are pro cannabis for pain relief are those who are simply wanting to smoke it. They're not interested in pulling it apart and using the active ingredients as they won't get a high from it.

[FJRider]

I wouldn't describe that particular example it as 'treatment'.

Neither would I ...


But if someone gains pain relief from cannabis I'd call it a healthier form of treatment than relying on a pharmaceutical drug to achieve the same effect.

"Natural" drugs are better (in your opinion) than "Pharmaceutical" DRUGS ... right ... ??? WHY .. ??? ... :scratch:


BUT ... if you are stoned ... how could you tell if they actually have pain relief. Or just too stoned to care .. :scratch:

[Katman]

Same with cannabis, but the problem is that most people who are pro cannabis for pain relief are those who are simply wanting to smoke it. They're not interested in pulling it apart and using the active ingredients as they won't get a high from it.

And who are you (or anyone else) to say they don't have that right?

If a natural drug offers health benefits, the fact that it can also be used recreationally shouldn't even enter into the debate.

[bogan]

I think the important fact you're missing is that certain law reforms would have to take place before that would ever be allowed to happen.

Haven't they happened (some states of US) already?


Trouble is, people like you and bogan will immediately disregard (and attempt to discredit) any anecdotal evidence due to the lack of 'scientific process'.

Rightly so to the first bit, no need to the second. Still, anecdotal stuff is enough to kick in a 20 bung to a kickstarter as long as there are no ethical issues...

[FJRider]

And who are you (or anyone else) to say they don't have that right?

Currently ... it's use is illegal. So my guess is ..... MOST judges.


If a natural drug offers health benefits, the fact that it can also be used recreationally shouldn't even enter into the debate.

Are all Prescription drugs "Natural" or "Pharmaceutical" ... ?? and does it really matter .. ???

[Katman]

... ?? and does it really matter .. ???

To be perfectly honest man, as it's one of your posts, probably not.

[Edbear]

And who are you (or anyone else) to say they don't have that right?

If a natural drug offers health benefits, the fact that it can also be used recreationally shouldn't even enter into the debate.

If you have followed me enough you will know that my issue is that the stoners use medical argument to try to justify their habits. They couldn't care less about science and painkillers. It's called honesty. TPTB aren't fooled by their spurious arguments any more than we are.

[Katman]

If you have followed me enough you will know that my issue is that the stoners use medical argument to try to justify their habits. They couldn't care less about science and painkillers. It's called honesty.

Exactly.

Who the fuck are you to deny them that?

[Madness]

If you have followed me enough you will know that my issue is one of hypocrisy. I couldn't care less about the science behind cannabis and its potential use as a painkiller. It's called being a cunt. TPTB have me fooled with their spurious arguments, any more and I'd be wearing tinfoil.

http://www.funnymemes.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/still-a-hypocrite.jpeg

[Zedder]

If you are stoned and feel little or no pain (and if you do ... you don't care) is it better ... ??? ... and could it be described as "Treatment" ... ???????

To them it is a treatment. Their goal is to relieve the pain.

[Edbear]

Exactly.

Who the fuck are you to deny them that?

Again, if you have followed me I have opined that everyone has the inalienable right to make their own choices. It's called free will. Unfortunately for many, they want to do so without responsibility or consequences. Life is not like that of course. Due to the consequences and my own personal aversion to losing control of my clear thinking capacity, I tend to agree with those who say cannabis use should not be legalised.

You, and especially the stoners themselves, may have the opposite view. However since I don't make the rules, it remains my opinion as opposed to their's. Nothing to swear about really...

[Edbear]

To them it is a treatment. Their goal is to relieve the pain.

No, their goal is to get stoned... :yes:

[Edbear]

I see madness is living up to his name, still. :zzzz:

[Madness]

...consequences.

What consequences? Other than persecution, of course.


...losing control of my clear thinking capacity.

A long-term Tramadol addiction must be a bitch for that, eh?

[Zedder]

No, their goal is to get stoned... :yes:

If they are in pain, getting stoned relieves the pain. So what?

[Edbear]

If they are in pain, getting stoned relieves the pain. So what?

As I said, it's about honesty. If they want to be able to get stoned legally, lobby for it on that basis. If they are genuinely looking for pain relief it's a non issue. There are hundreds of effective drugs for that. Just don't try to justify your desire to get high by using medical argument. It's crap.

[Madness]

It's crap.

Just like your opinion.

[Zedder]

As I said, it's about honesty. If they want to be able to get stoned legally, lobby for it on that basis. If they are genuinely looking for pain relief it's a non issue. There are hundreds of effective drugs for that. Just don't try to justify your desire to get high by using medical argument. It's crap.

What if they honestly don't believe in drugs that come from pharmaceutical companies?

[bogan]

What if they honestly don't believe in drugs that come from pharmaceutical companies?

Is that like not believing in jesus?

[Edbear]

What if they honestly don't believe in drugs that come from pharmaceutical companies?

Then they are ignorant, and willfully so. That's also rubbish, and a spurious argument not founded in reality.

[mashman]

As I said, it's about honesty. If they want to be able to get stoned legally, lobby for it on that basis. If they are genuinely looking for pain relief it's a non issue. There are hundreds of effective drugs for that. Just don't try to justify your desire to get high by using medical argument. It's crap.

Yes using the medical argument as an excuse for getting high is, and there are hundreds of other more effective drugs for that. Using the legal argument should be absolutely no reason for preventing what is quite obviously a very misunderstood medicine, and obviously so for like 10's of thousands of years, from being researched etc... the legal argument is condemning people to death, and I have to wonder if that is known. The let's get stoned argument at least offers a boom in medical research and the birth of an exciting new industry as a byproduct, let alone the chance for people to deal with all sorts of personal issues with a variant that doesn't get one stoned.

So the argument isn't crap in the slightest, but it is met with resistance using the sole premise of drug legality. Being polite like, otherwise, the resistance is from a position of near complete ignorance.

[Zedder]

Then they are ignorant, and willfully so. That's also rubbish, and a spurious argument not founded in reality.

So they have to believe in pharmaceuticals companies then?

Maybe their disbelief in pharmaceutical companies is a fundamental of their personal value/belief system. A bit like some people not believing in blood transfusions.

[Katman]

Then they are ignorant, and willfully so. That's also rubbish, and a spurious argument not founded in reality.

Spoken like a true prescription drug addict.


I've been a prescription druggie for most of my adult life

[Edbear]

So they have to believe in pharmaceuticals companies then?

Maybe their disbelief in pharmaceutical companies is a fundamental of their personal value/belief system. A bit like some people not believing in blood transfusions.

Bollox. If people bothered to do their own research properly and not blinded by hearsay or prejudice they would have a far better understanding of things. But as I said, it's not the issue. The people lobbying to legalise Cannabis are those who want to smoke it.

[Akzle]

http://cdn77.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/ir2.jpg

Bollox. If people bothered to do their own research properly and not blinded by hearsay or prejudice they would have a far better understanding of things. But as I said, it's not the issue. The people lobbying to legalise Cannabis are those who want to smoke it.

[oldrider]

Bollox. If people bothered to do their own research properly and not blinded by hearsay or prejudice they would have a far better understanding of things. But as I said, it's not the issue. The people lobbying to legalise Cannabis are those who want to smoke it.

Wrong again Ed - I for one support legalising Cannabis and I have never ever seen or smoked a leaf - ever! :oi-grr:

Cannabis is a much maligned plant that but for the criminal labels attached could be providing us (mankind) with a zillion benefits!

The current drug laws do not and have not ever worked and if anything are supporting an undesirable cluster of criminal industries!

In my estimation it is you who does not understand! :yes:

[Edbear]

Wrong again Ed - I for one support legalising Cannabis and I have never ever seen or smoked a leaf - ever! :oi-grr:

Cannabis is a much maligned plant that but for the criminal labels attached could be providing us (mankind) with a zillion benefits!

The current drug laws do not and have not ever worked and if anything are supporting an undesirable cluster of criminal industries!

In my estimation it is you who does not understand! :yes:

On the contrary, I have done the research and a lot of people in power have no problem with developing the plant's key ingredients. The opposition is regarding the use of it as a recreational drug.

There has been a lot of research into the pain relief potential but there are better drugs readily available. Easy enough to find.
I have clearly stated my personal views and everyone should know that I have no objection to the research and development of any plant for its possible benefits.

[Berries]

On the contrary
Nah, Oldrider is right. You are talking shit outside your area of knowledge. Again.

[bogan]

Easy enough to find.

Pretty sure you are not allowed to use this site to fish for sales of prescription drugs...











... kinda surprised you have left some un-snorted actually :scratch:

[Edbear]

For the intellectually challenged among us, anyone can look up the research done which is what I suggested. Unfortunately there are those here who can't grasp such a simple concept. :no:

[bogan]

For the intellectually challenged among us, anyone can look up the research done which is what I suggested. Unfortunately there are those here who can't grasp such a simple concept. :no:

How do you know they haven't?

Speaking of simple concepts, have you posted links to, and discussions about the work conducted? Or is it 'go find the things that agree with me, and read them unquestioningly until you agree with me', again?

[Akzle]

I for one support legalising Cannabis and I have never ever seen or smoked a leaf - ever!

no leaf.. how about... The flowers :laugh: :doobey:

[Zedder]

The people lobbying to legalise Cannabis are those who want to smoke it.


I see you've jumped to the "smoke it" conclusion there. What about the injestion of cannabis? How efficacious is it?

[Akzle]

I see you've jumped to the "smoke it" conclusion there. What about the injestion of cannabis? How efficacious is it?

suppository oi

[Edbear]

I see you've jumped to the "smoke it" conclusion there. What about the injestion of cannabis? How efficacious is it?

It's a never ending argument obviously. Until you look up the research and development that has been done you can ever go around in circles.

[Zedder]

It's a never ending argument obviously. Until you look up the research and development that has been done you can ever go around in circles.

I looked up the research quite a while ago but was interested that you jumped to the smoking conclusion without thinking of alternatives which give people an option of a pain relieving drug.

Doctors and pharmacists must love you.

[bogan]

It's a never ending argument obviously. Until you look up the research and development that has been done you can ever go around in circles.

It's a pleasure giving opiod that you can get high on while numbing the pain, obviously it is a never ending argument of efficacy and abuse. I reckon it'll go the way of oxy soon.

Cannabis on the other hand, seem to be less open to direct drug abuse, and the availability makes it less open to criminal elements too. I bet a study comparing the two would make for interesting reading...

[Katman]

I looked up the research quite a while ago but was interested that you jumped to the smoking conclusion without thinking of alternatives which give people an option of a pain relieving drug.

As far as I'm aware it's the heating of the cannabis that makes the THC become psychoactive.

Apparently juicing cannabis means that you can get the benefit of the THC without getting stoned.

[Edbear]

I looked up the research quite a while ago but was interested that you jumped to the smoking conclusion without thinking of alternatives which give people an option of a pain relieving drug.

Doctors and pharmacists must love you.

My point about smoking was specifically stated. Most of those making the most noise about legalising it are those who want to smoke it and get high.

As usual with KB some are incapable of simply taking what is posted, as posted, and have to put their own interpretation on things.

[Katman]

My point about smoking was specifically stated. Most of those making the most noise about legalising it are those who want to smoke it and get high.

And what if it turns out that health benefits can be had even when 'getting high'?

[Edbear]

I looked up the research quite a while ago but was interested that you jumped to the smoking conclusion without thinking of alternatives which give people an option of a pain relieving drug.

Doctors and pharmacists must love you.

PS. If you recall the research, the general conclusion was that the results of testing showed there are more effective drugs freely available already.

Also, that most high ups and medical people have no issues with exploring the possible benefits.

So my question is why are the exponents of Cannabis so hung up on it?

[Edbear]

And what if it turns out that health benefits can be had even when 'getting high'?

You don't do much research on anything, do you? You far prefer imagination and hypothesis.

[bogan]

My point about smoking was specifically stated. Most of those making the most noise about legalising it are those who want to smoke it and get high.

As usual with KB some are incapable of simply taking what is posted, as posted, and have to put their own interpretation on things.

Perhaps KB is more concerned with ensuring different pain meds are weighed up on their merits/research; instead of just flinging shit at stoners...

Novel concept I know, but go do some research about it :facepalm:

[Katman]

You don't do much research on anything, do you? You far prefer imagination and hypothesis.

Really Ed?

With research indicating the considerable number of benefits that THC can provide, do you refuse to consider the possibility that cannabis could offer 'preventative' benefits as well as benefits in 'treatment'?

[bogan]

And what if it turns out that health benefits can be had even when 'getting high'?

If it works for tramadol, no reason it can't work for weed...

[Katman]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3106154/Did-hunter-gatherers-smoke-marijuana-stay-healthy-Ancient-humans-developed-taste-cannabis-kill-parasites-claims-study.html

[Zedder]

My point about smoking was specifically stated. Most of those making the most noise about legalising it are those who want to smoke it and get high.

As usual with KB some are incapable of simply taking what is posted, as posted, and have to put their own interpretation on things.


You've gone from "The people lobbying to legalise cannabis..." in your post 430 to "Most of those making the most noise about legalising it..." in your post 445.

That shows a reduction in numbers, you may be getting some way towards differentiating between cannabis users.

[Zedder]

Perhaps KB is more concerned with ensuring different pain meds are weighed up on their merits/research; instead of just flinging shit at stoners...

Yep, that is indeed what I'm doing.

[Madness]

Fuck Ed's a dick.

[Zedder]

PS. If you recall the research, the general conclusion was that the results of testing showed there are more effective drugs freely available already.

Also, that most high ups and medical people have no issues with exploring the possible benefits.



What about someone like an elderly person who, instead of having to go all the way to the Doctor and then the pharmacist which costs time and money, just goes out to their garden for a dose of pain relief courtesy of Mother Nature. She doesn't smoke it, she simply ingests it.

The said elderly person is certainly exploring the benefits of an "inhouse" analgesic.

[mashman]

If it works for tramadol, no reason it can't work for weed...

Perhaps KB is more concerned with ensuring different pain meds are weighed up on their merits/research; instead of just flinging shit at stoners...

The difference between the two, that I've found, is that you can dose yourself on tramadol based on food intake. Could just be me mind and you have to start with no food. Be wary, should it bite hard you'll end up with yer head down the bog ralphing, quickly followed by screaming in agony as you instantly remember the reason that you're taking the things. Eat, and eat quickly, else you'll be back with head down bog.

Research :)

Oh yeah, it's a win for weed, coz there's less chance of fucking it up with weed... especially with the new fangled delivery systems like, butter, cookies (careful as that'll leads to more cookies... although you can't OD), nebulisers etc...

[RDJ]

Some say we should make marijuana available to cancer patients because it is so much more effective in controlling nausea and vomiting. Here are some objective findings from the Big Pharma companies some find so objectionable:

http://www.uptodate.com/contents/prevention-and-treatment-of-chemotherapy-induced-nausea-and-vomiting

if they worked well / better than others / with the same of fewer side effects, the market would make sure they were available on the market. As they don't... Q.E.D.

(for the money quotes scroll down to...

Cannabinoids and medical marijuana — The potential antiemetic utility of cannabinoids was first observed in scattered reports of improved emetic control in patients using marijuana during chemotherapy [108]. Two synthetic cannabinoids are available (dronabinol and nabilone), but antiemetic efficacy is modest at best, rigorous comparisons of either drug with the most effective antiemetic therapies are lacking, and adverse effects tend to be more intense and more frequent than with other rescue agents such as neuroleptics [109]. (See "Characteristics of antiemetic drugs", section on 'Cannabinoids'.)

The modest antiemetic activity of this class of agents combined with their relatively unfavorable side effect profile (vertigo, xerostomia, hypotension, dysphoria), especially in older patients, has limited their clinical utility. Nevertheless, guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), ASCO [5], and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) [4] state that cannabinoids can be considered for refractory nausea and vomiting and as a rescue antiemetic.

The use of medical marijuana for refractory CINV is very controversial. Medical use of marijuana is legal in several countries, including the Netherlands and Canada. Despite legalization by several states, marijuana use is still illegal in the United States at the federal level (which considers marijuana a schedule I controlled substance), and individuals prescribing or using marijuana for medical use are at risk for prosecution [110].

While an early prospective uncontrolled pilot study from 1988 found that inhaled cannabis was effective in 78 percent of 56 patients who had inadequate control of nausea and vomiting with the conventional antiemetics that were available at that time [111], there have been no other clinical reports of efficacy of inhaled marijuana and there are no controlled clinical trials comparing marijuana versus other rescue strategies in patients who are refractory to modern antiemetics [112]. Furthermore, the use of marijuana is associated with adverse effects on the cardiovascular, respiratory, and central nervous systems, and uncertainty about increased risk of malignancy. (See "Cannabis use disorder: Epidemiology, comorbidity, and pathogenesis".)

Because of medical and legal concerns, the use of medical marijuana is not recommended for management of CINV, and is not included in the most recent guidelines for CINV from the NCCN, ASCO, or MASCC [59].

[Akzle]

synthetic cannabanoids are for homos.

What do the cannabanoid receptors in human brains do, rdj?

[Katman]

Cannabinoids and medical marijuana — The potential antiemetic utility of cannabinoids was first observed in scattered reports of improved emetic control in patients using marijuana during chemotherapy [108]. Two synthetic cannabinoids are available (dronabinol and nabilone), but antiemetic efficacy is modest at best, rigorous comparisons of either drug with the most effective antiemetic therapies are lacking, and adverse effects tend to be more intense and more frequent than with other rescue agents such as neuroleptics [109]. (See "Characteristics of antiemetic drugs", section on 'Cannabinoids'.)

See, that's the problem with the pharmaceutical industry.

Because they can't make money from a natural drug they synthesize it instead - all the while relying on the powers that be to keep that natural drug illegal thereby protecting their profits.

[mashman]

Mother fights brain cancer with electric fields (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/28314640/mother-fights-brain-cancer-with-electric-fields/)

[oldrider]

Mother fights brain cancer with electric fields (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/28314640/mother-fights-brain-cancer-with-electric-fields/)

But the FDA said Royal Raymond Rife was mistaken and destroyed him and his equipment - now the medical world have made a new "discovery"? :rolleyes:

[Edbear]

What about someone like an elderly person who, instead of having to go all the way to the Doctor and then the pharmacist which costs time and money, just goes out to their garden for a dose of pain relief courtesy of Mother Nature. She doesn't smoke it, she simply ingests it.

The said elderly person is certainly exploring the benefits of an "inhouse" analgesic.

Do you know her?


Some say we should make marijuana available to cancer patients because it is so much more effective in controlling nausea and vomiting. Here are some objective findings from the Big Pharma companies some find so objectionable:

http://www.uptodate.com/contents/prevention-and-treatment-of-chemotherapy-induced-nausea-and-vomiting

if they worked well / better than others / with the same of fewer side effects, the market would make sure they were available on the market. As they don't... Q.E.D.

(for the money quotes scroll down to...

Cannabinoids and medical marijuana — The potential antiemetic utility of cannabinoids was first observed in scattered reports of improved emetic control in patients using marijuana during chemotherapy [108]. Two synthetic cannabinoids are available (dronabinol and nabilone), but antiemetic efficacy is modest at best, rigorous comparisons of either drug with the most effective antiemetic therapies are lacking, and adverse effects tend to be more intense and more frequent than with other rescue agents such as neuroleptics [109]. (See "Characteristics of antiemetic drugs", section on 'Cannabinoids'.)

The modest antiemetic activity of this class of agents combined with their relatively unfavorable side effect profile (vertigo, xerostomia, hypotension, dysphoria), especially in older patients, has limited their clinical utility. Nevertheless, guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), ASCO [5], and the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) [4] state that cannabinoids can be considered for refractory nausea and vomiting and as a rescue antiemetic.

The use of medical marijuana for refractory CINV is very controversial. Medical use of marijuana is legal in several countries, including the Netherlands and Canada. Despite legalization by several states, marijuana use is still illegal in the United States at the federal level (which considers marijuana a schedule I controlled substance), and individuals prescribing or using marijuana for medical use are at risk for prosecution [110].

While an early prospective uncontrolled pilot study from 1988 found that inhaled cannabis was effective in 78 percent of 56 patients who had inadequate control of nausea and vomiting with the conventional antiemetics that were available at that time [111], there have been no other clinical reports of efficacy of inhaled marijuana and there are no controlled clinical trials comparing marijuana versus other rescue strategies in patients who are refractory to modern antiemetics [112]. Furthermore, the use of marijuana is associated with adverse effects on the cardiovascular, respiratory, and central nervous systems, and uncertainty about increased risk of malignancy. (See "Cannabis use disorder: Epidemiology, comorbidity, and pathogenesis".)

Because of medical and legal concerns, the use of medical marijuana is not recommended for management of CINV, and is not included in the most recent guidelines for CINV from the NCCN, ASCO, or MASCC [59].


Thanks for that. Note 112. Most drugs of any kind have adverse side effects. What may work well for some could be dangerous for others. I tolerate high doses of Tramadol with no noticeable side effects yet others can get very ill from it. That's why I work closely with my GP and specialists and am regularly tested.

Some of the meds I take have long term issues that need to be monitored. Of course, with the alternative being death, one accepts a less than perfect life.


See, that's the problem with the pharmaceutical industry.

Because they can't make money from a natural drug they synthesize it instead - all the while relying on the powers that be to keep that natural drug illegal thereby protecting their profits.

I think you'll find the reason for synthesizing has more to do with producing enough at an affordable price.

[Ocean1]

See, that's the problem with the pharmaceutical industry.

Because they can't make money from a natural drug they synthesize it instead - all the while relying on the powers that be to keep that natural drug illegal thereby protecting their profits.

Nice theory. Fits your preconceived assumptions well. But it's wrong. They synthesise just the elements of the naturally occurring version that produce the benefits they want with none of the known and unknown side effects of the rest of the elements in the naturally occurring coctail. It's also usually easier than growing and refining it, and produces a product of higher quality with traceable standards compliance.

[Zedder]

Do you know her?

No, but here's a very similar situation:http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/judge-shows-mercy-to-middleton-husband-688401

[bogan]

Of course, with the alternative being death, one accepts a less than perfect life.



I think you'll find the reason for synthesizing has more to do with producing enough at an affordable price.

Have you seriously looked into weed as an alternative? If you can tolerate the numerous side effects of high dose tramadol, perhaps you can tolerate the side effects of weed?

Not done much gardening then?

[Madness]

If you can tolerate the numerous side effects of high dose tramadol, perhaps you can tolerate the side effects of weed?

Don't be silly Bogz, no-one can tolerate the negative side effects of weed, not even the Edster. Weed is bad because Ed's research proves this, mmmmmkay?

Personally, I like to live on the edge. Bring on the munchies and an awesome night's sleep, I'm up for it.

[bogan]

Don't be silly Bogz, no-one can tolerate the negative side effects of weed, not even the Edster. Weed is bad because Ed's research proves this, mmmmmkay?

Personally, I like to live on the edge. Bring on the munchies and an awesome night's sleep, I'm up for it.

I do find it ironic his research always seems to bag him the losing horse. Just looking at the weight of evidence towards legalisation, I'd say weed will be legal and easier to get than tramadol (an up and coming party pill that kills through OD) in 5-10 years.

[Katman]

I think you'll find the reason for synthesizing has more to do with producing enough at an affordable price.

Really Ed?

Do you seriously think it's cheaper to synthesize the active ingredient of cannabis than it is for people to grow a couple of plants in their backyard?

You really are an incredibly stupid man.

[Katman]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uovh-mlf052915.php#.VWzrrUM7T6Y.mailto

Interesting read.

I've believed for a while now that our own brain holds the key to good health and well being.

[Edbear]

Really Ed?

Do you seriously think it's cheaper to synthesize the active ingredient of cannabis than it is for people to grow a couple of plants in their backyard?

You really are an incredibly stupid man.

Got a long way to go to get anywhere close to you. I would trust a conspiracy theorist with research as much as I would trust a Viper to not bite if I petted it.


Yep, that is indeed what I'm doing.

Maybe you should take a lesson from Ocean1.


Nice theory. Fits your preconceived assumptions well. But it's wrong. They synthesise just the elements of the naturally occurring version that produce the benefits they want with none of the known and unknown side effects of the rest of the elements in the naturally occurring coctail. It's also usually easier than growing and refining it, and produces a product of higher quality with traceable standards compliance.


No, but here's a very similar situation:http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/judge-shows-mercy-to-middleton-husband-688401

Again, what legal alternatives did they really try? Acupuncture is a possible benefit for short term relief of some symptoms with a widely varying anecdotal testimony to its effectiveness. Some claim it's cured major diseases and some that it has had little or no benefit. Since it is the only other treatment he mentions, it leaves the obvious questions.

[Katman]

Since it is the only other treatment he mentions, it leaves the obvious questions.

The most obvious question is, why is it taking so long to reform our cannabis laws?

[Katman]

The real crime here is that the benefits that countless people could be gaining from a harmless, natural drug are being withheld from them due to those people's fear of being labelled a criminal.

[yokel]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uovh-mlf052915.php#.VWzrrUM7T6Y.mailto

Interesting read.

I've believed for a while now that our own brain holds the key to good health and well being.

healthy mind healthy body,
most diseases are metabolic, what's in your brain is what's putting the food in your mouth.

Doctors use to prescribe smoking to relive stress, now that they cutting back on the numbers of people smoking whats going to happen?
nothing, people will still get cancer.

[FJRider]

The real crime here is that the benefits that countless people could be gaining from a harmless, natural drug are being withheld from them due to those people's fear of being labelled a criminal.

Countless people wont exceed a posted speed limit ... for fear of that exact same thing ... :killingme

Is it the legislation that needs changed first ... or peoples attitudes and opinions .. ?? :scratch:

[mashman]

Is it the legislation that needs changed first ... or peoples attitudes and opinions .. ?? :scratch:

You only need to change the minds of a majority of 121 people apparently. Should be easy.

[Katman]

Is it the legislation that needs changed first ... or peoples attitudes and opinions .. ?? :scratch:

I'm hearing ya.

Far too many people are awfully quick to look down their nose at 'stoners' - even while they themselves pour pint after pint down their throat. (Or, for that matter, while they happily throw a continuous cocktail of prescription pills down their throat).

[Zedder]

Again, what legal alternatives did they really try? Acupuncture is a possible benefit for short term relief of some symptoms with a widely varying anecdotal testimony to its effectiveness. Some claim it's cured major diseases and some that it has had little or no benefit. Since it is the only other treatment he mentions, it leaves the obvious questions.

There were no other legal alternatives actually mentioned apart from acupuncture, however, you obviously missed the part in the article which twice stated "after conventional drugs failed to alleviate her pain".

The Judge also summed up in sentencing, the man was looking for a remedy for his wifes pain "outside the normal health service" but that probably doesn't suit your agenda as well.

[FJRider]

You only need to change the minds of a majority of 121 people apparently. Should be easy.

As long as they remember ... those that voted them IN ... can vote them out.

[FJRider]

The most obvious question is, why is it taking so long to reform our cannabis laws?

The majority of our MP's have not had their "Fact finding trips" to the relevant American states yet ... ;)

[bogan]

Again, what legal alternatives did they really try?

Why don't you reasearch that yourself :laugh:

Also, why does the legalality matter? Tramadol is about to become illegal, and weed legal, will you make the switch then, despite all your 'research'?

[Katman]

At least the stupid old prick has suddenly realised there's more to being a politician than just falling asleep in parliament.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1506/S00152/minister-approves-one-off-use-of-cannabidiol-product.htm

[Edbear]

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/seizure-plagued-teen-in-coma-approved-cannabis-treatment-compassionate-grounds-6334800

This is something I have no problem agreeing with.

[Katman]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/69520316/Teenager-improving-with-help-of-medicinal-cannabis

[husaberg]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/47j2VMdZIZY/mqdefault.jpg

[mashman]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/69520316/Teenager-improving-with-help-of-medicinal-cannabis

Great news... about time such things took their place in the medicine world. (https://cbdbrothers.com/about/)

[RDJ]

The process for getting new drugs approved is tortuous, and ofttimes I think it is unnecessarily slow and therefore disappointing, to the point of imposing unnecessary suffering on patients.

That said, I vividly remember the problem with thalidomide even though it was "before my (training) time", horrific consequences resulted from too-rapid approval without enough in vivo testing. Because the drug was so effective for what it was designed to be treating...

Striking the balance is hard. We should try harder...

[Katman]

The process for getting new drugs approved is tortuous, and ofttimes I think it is unnecessarily slow and therefore disappointing, to the point of imposing unnecessary suffering on patients.

That said, I vividly remember the problem with thalidomide even though it was "before my (training) time", horrific consequences resulted from too-rapid approval without enough in vivo testing. Because the drug was so effective for what it was designed to be treating...

Striking the balance is hard. We should try harder...

Yeah, because cannabis is such an unknown quantity.

[RDJ]

Yeah, because cannabis is such an unknown quantity.

It is an unknown quantity in terms of appropriate prescribing. Not in terms of inappropriate use - in that context it is a very well-known quantity. Knowing the difference is crucial.

[Katman]

It is an unknown quantity in terms of appropriate prescribing. Not in terms of inappropriate use - in that context it is a very well-known quantity. Knowing the difference is crucial.

The reality is that the distinction shouldn't need to be made.

Results have shown there are real benefits from cannabis as a treatment.

There is nothing to suggest that it doesn't necessarily have similar potential as a prevention.

Nobody has yet died of a cannabis overdose.

[James Deuce]

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-marijuana-as-the-new-herbalism-part-1-the-politics-of-weed-versus-science/

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-marijuana-as-the-new-herbalism-part-2-cannabis-does-not-cure-cancer/

[mashman]

It is an unknown quantity in terms of appropriate prescribing. Not in terms of inappropriate use - in that context it is a very well-known quantity. Knowing the difference is crucial.

A snip from the article.

"2001: Canada is the first nation to allow patients to legally use medical marijuana.

2009: Nearly 4,000 patients have successfully enrolled in Canada’s MMAR program. – See more at: http://www.vimm.ca/legal/brief-history-of-the-medical-use-of-marijuana/#sthash.6DLtfix3.dpuf"

It's 6 years later that 2009. Not enough? People have been moving there to receive the treatment for their kids. The results are striking. You reckon they may have proven the point by now. It's not a new drug. Not even medically. What is a new drug, is ANY big pharma synthetic version. Do you work for them?

[RDJ]

Nobody has yet died of a cannabis overdose.#

You. Are. Wrong.

[RDJ]

A snip from the article.

"2001: Canada is the first nation to allow patients to legally use medical marijuana.

2009: Nearly 4,000 patients have successfully enrolled in Canada’s MMAR program. – See more at: http://www.vimm.ca/legal/brief-history-of-the-medical-use-of-marijuana/#sthash.6DLtfix3.dpuf"

It's 6 years later that 2009. Not enough? People have been moving there to receive the treatment for their kids. The results are striking. You reckon they may have proven the point by now. It's not a new drug. Not even medically. What is a new drug, is ANY big pharma synthetic version. Do you work for them?

As I have said in another thread, if I work for them, could you please remind them to pay me.

I work for what's best for the patient's I treat or have dealings with. Clearly you don't have any understanding of that type of involvement, so I should refrain from posting further in these threads.

[Katman]

#

You. Are. Wrong.

Really?

That statement demands transperancy.

Got a link?

[bogan]

Really?

That statement demands transperancy.

Got a link?

Really, I thought that just meant he can now abuse you for not googling it and finding his answer (which may or may not exist) yourself? :scratch:

[husaberg]

Really, I thought that just meant he can now abuse you for not googling it and finding his answer (which may or may not exist) yourself? :scratch:

Anything that exists that does not suit his agenda is dismissed as a conspiracy anyway.;)
http://image2.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/compositions/107833062/views/1,width=235,height=235,appearanceId=1/Space-Cat-Cereal-T-Shirts.jpg

[Katman]

Really, I thought that just meant he can now abuse you for not googling it and finding his answer (which may or may not exist) yourself? :scratch:

So if I just search 'died from cannabis', is it the one at the top of the page?

[bogan]

So if I just search 'died from cannabis', is it the one at the top of the page?

Does it need to be? why can't you just watch all the youtubes on the subject then get back to us.

[Katman]

Does it need to be? why can't you just watch all the youtubes on the subject then get back to us.

I'm getting older.

You have no excuse for your laziness.