Cannabis cures cancer and big pharma has the patent to prove it. (i.imgur.com)

634 ups - 230 downs = 404 votes

277 comments submitted at 21:15:35 on Apr 21, 2013 by SoundSalad

  • [-]
  • Cantora
  • 17 Points
  • 03:27:36, 22 April

The patent doesn't prove anything. all it proves is that the person who put in the patent "claims" that it can do that. Just because a patent says something doesn't mean it's concrete evidence.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20130059018

  • [-]
  • SEQLAR
  • 81 Points
  • 02:21:03, 22 April

I am yet to see a scientific study that actually shows that cannabis "cures" cancer. Any claim about "curing " cancer to me is already bullshit sounding. Cancer is a very complicated disease and each cancer is different and each individual may not respond the same to treatment so general claims of some cure all medicine already sounds bogus.

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 71 Points
  • 03:05:43, 22 April

Because it doesn't, and it's so frustrating to see people post this. What people have seen is that either THC, THC derivatives, etc has an apoptotic effect in tissue culture and ocassionally in invivo models. What 97% of the posters here don't understand because I'm assuming a majority of them work at their local Burger King is that there are literally thousands of studies published every month about "Chemical X causes growth inhibition in cell type XX". In science that means basically nothing, but to the layperson it comes off as some huge deal.

You want to end this entire idiotic "conspiracy"? Here: Whatever your favorite secret cancer cure is that can't be patented in it's pure formulation (DCA, THC, THC^2, etc), CAN BE PATENTED IF YOU CREATED A DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR IT. Nanoparticle-conjugated cannaboids could be patented....antibody-conjugated cannaboids could be patented. Of course this will mean nothing to a majority of the people here since their only familiarity with nanoparticles is likely GI Joe.

  • [-]
  • ANewMachine615
  • 16 Points
  • 12:24:28, 22 April

>Here: Whatever your favorite secret cancer cure is that can't be patented in it's pure formulation (DCA, THC, THC2, etc), CAN BE PATENTED IF YOU CREATED A DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR IT

You bring the science, I'll bring the law. Wanna know the really fun part about patents? They don't have to work. There are several patents in existence for perpetual motion machines, laws of thermodynamics be damned. The thing is, all you have to do to get a patent is "reduce to practice" your invention. Now most people hear this and think that they MUST have a working prototype or clinical trial, right? What else could "reduce to practice" ever mean?! Well it turns out, creating a patent application counts as "reducing to practice." Yeah. So you cover that base just by writing out your application -- no proof of concept or functionality required.

Thus, the idea that the patent "proves" anything is ridiculous. Might as well say that the perpetual motion machines "prove" that entropy is wrong. You could patent an Escher-like design, and be perfectly fine, despite its physical impossibility.

  • [-]
  • Pepopowitz
  • 3 Points
  • 16:09:39, 22 April

Perpetual motion machines cannot be patented. That is considered incredible utility. There might be a patent that is of a complex machine that relies upon perpetual motion that slipped past an examiner, but the patent will be held invalid in any court.

  • [-]
  • ANewMachine615
  • 5 Points
  • 16:43:23, 22 April

They are not supposed to be patented, but several attempts (often relying on incorrect assumptions, like the self-driving magnetic engine) have been patented. You're correct that they would not be upheld, though. My point is that a patent requires no physical proof of concept or study showing efficacy.

  • [-]
  • rockkybox
  • -2 Points
  • 17:40:47, 22 April

So you believe in perpetual motion machines?

  • [-]
  • Meister_Vargr
  • 3 Points
  • 17:56:50, 22 April

/r/FreeEnergy probably does.

  • [-]
  • Eist
  • 0 Points
  • 19:08:20, 22 April

?

Did you even read what he wrote?

>That is considered incredible utility.

  • [-]
  • rockkybox
  • 1 Points
  • 19:48:57, 22 April

I'm going off this:

>There might be a patent that is of a complex machine that relies upon perpetual motion that slipped past an examiner

  • [-]
  • Eist
  • 1 Points
  • 19:56:04, 22 April

So?

>but the patent will be held invalid in any court.

OP is just saying that perpetual machines cannot legally be patented because they are considered certifiably bullshit. Sometimes one might get past the review office, but they are always invalidated when they reach court.

I mean, I'm basically just repeating what OP said because I don't see how one can make it any clearer.

  • [-]
  • rockkybox
  • 1 Points
  • 20:06:48, 22 April

Well, he didn't say whether he believed in perpetual motion, so that's what I was asking him

  • [-]
  • SEQLAR
  • 6 Points
  • 05:03:18, 22 April

Great post. Thank You!

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 04:44:11, 22 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 32 Points
  • 04:47:55, 22 April

Haha no worries. There's a few of us in lab who just discovered this shithole and we're torturing ourselves trying to fire off information to the loons as fast as possible. It happens.

  • [-]
  • The_Rocket_Cadet
  • 12 Points
  • 04:50:25, 22 April

Cool, good to see some logic and reason. My comment was originally for OP. sounds like you guys are doing so pretty cool stuff in lab. Currently working with Metal Matrix Composites (MMC) with Micro Balloon fillers for my research. Keep to good info coming.

  • [-]
  • banternlantern
  • 1 Points
  • 06:21:09, 22 April

Michael Crichton's Prey

  • [-]
  • Lord_NShYH
  • 2 Points
  • 16:10:38, 22 April

There are claims that a some cannibanoids induce authophagy in "cancer cells." (lol, which ones?) Is this claimed autophagy the apototic effect you are describing?

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 9 Points
  • 16:25:44, 22 April

It's complicated and depends on what exact study that you're referencing. There have been studies showing that some cancer cells are more dependent on autophagy than non-transformed somatic tissue and if you disrupt that process they'll die. Again, it's tentative and there are many compounds that can disrupt autophagy.

Just because we know something kills cancer cell invitro doesnt mean we know it will do the same under human physiological systems. This shit is complicated, like so complicated I want to bang my head through my computer most days.

  • [-]
  • Lord_NShYH
  • 1 Points
  • 21:42:12, 22 April

> This shit is complicated, like so complicated I want to bang my head through my computer most days.

Indeed. While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the pro-cannabis crowd, and share many of their opinions, blind endorsement of half-truths do more harm than good.

Want to make cannabis legal in the USA? It would fairly simple: have millions of men and women dressed in business attire march on D.C.; that is, completely change the popular image of the cannabis consumer.

What pro-cannabis initiatives need, more than anything, are better PR and a re-branding of their image.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 0 Points
  • 04:23:20, 22 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 2 Points
  • 04:36:06, 22 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 04:39:44, 22 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • ClearlySituational
  • 2 Points
  • 04:42:33, 22 April

To be honest, it was a pretty good comeback.

  • [-]
  • dubdubdubdot
  • -5 Points
  • 16:05:03, 22 April

No need to bunch all conspiracy theorists together just because some smokers upvoted a shoddy meme.

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 22 Points
  • 16:39:00, 22 April

Well, there is also one underlying theme in all of these "conspiracies"....they completely collapse as soon as you consider it in a system-wide view.

Seriously, 99% of the shit here sounds really interesting on a very micro-scale, but if you understand how anything works on a broad scale it makes no sense.

Cannabis cures cancer but big pharma doesn't want to fund it? Makes sense until you realize that big pharma has barely any influence on international researchers and that some of the best cancer research happens overseas.

Boston amputee was actually already an amputee? Makes sense until you realize that he was treated and seen by dozens of medical professionals, including having surgery. He also lives in New Hampshire where people know him.

Firefight in Cambridge never happened? Great, except the Boston Police Department is primarily a bunch of guys who grew up in Boston and there's no logical point in time where they would have all somehow become indoctrinated into faking terrorist attacks in the city.

I maintain that the only people who believe a lot of these things are people who are stuck at low-stations in life, and thus never had a chance to learn the intricacies of society. Instead of realizing that they'll have to deal with 40 more years of simply existing and not leaving much of a mark on society, it becomes easier to accept ridiculous theories that make it feel like you're a part of some great uprising. This attitude is seen in many communities which need a victim or an outlet to deal with their lot in life. It's how people cope in the face of their increasing mediocrity.

  • [-]
  • Meister_Vargr
  • 8 Points
  • 17:58:35, 22 April

Individuals with Big Pharma and / or their families also contract cancer.

Are they all just "taking one for the team" and dying just to protect the bottom line? Not really plausible in my opinion.

  • [-]
  • Mythrilfan
  • 0 Points
  • 23:05:39, 22 April

> I maintain that the only people who believe a lot of these things are people who are stuck at low-stations in life, and thus never had a chance to learn the intricacies of society.

There's a particular exception: I work in journalism and I've noticed that journalists are surprisingly receptive towards conspiracy theories, even though they presumably have a relatively good overview of large societal systems. Not necessarily things quite as wild as "the Boston attacks were faked," but yes, annoyingly trivial theories seem to resonate with a large part of (successful) journalists.

  • [-]
  • dubdubdubdot
  • -5 Points
  • 20:56:58, 22 April

Okay and people like you will continue to trump themselves and their achievements never asking themselves honest questions about the massive failings of the system to which they are mentally and financially enslaved.

  • [-]
  • extrasauceplz
  • -15 Points
  • 06:09:49, 22 April

wrong. If you patent the delivery you will admit that the substance works in the fist place and people can just take the real thing. You also seem to think the only studies we get evidence from are from a culture. And then you want to ignore the people who have taken the oil and cured their cancer. Or the rats that have tumors shrunk by 50% and then the study gets pulled. 'well rats aren't humans', yea that's why we test on them right, because it has no relevance to humans lol.

http://norml.org/news/2004/08/18/cannabinoids-restrict-blood-flow-to-malignant-tumors-study-says

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908594

http://www.endalldisease.com/harvard-study-says-marijuana-cures-cancer/

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X96980345

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080720222549.htm

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 23 Points
  • 06:15:44, 22 April

I've literally addressed mouse studies ad infinitum in this thread, "LOL" you're getting here a little late. Clearly you haven't read anything and think a copy-paste bomb is going to make it look like you're showing something novel. Hint: You're not.

Unless you have something new to add, not seeing a point in typing out the same basic information for you as I have for others.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • ANewMachine615
  • 6 Points
  • 12:31:46, 22 April

>If you patent the delivery you will admit that the substance works in the fist place

No, you won't. You don't need a functional prototype or even something that obeys the laws of physics to get a patent. All you need is a well-drafted patent application that does not, on its face, appear impossible.

  • [-]
  • MrRedGreen
  • -2 Points
  • 23:40:23, 22 April

I have first hand experience, that hemp oil has worked with removing cancer half the size of a golf ball within 2 months.

  • [-]
  • SoundSalad
  • -18 Points
  • 04:02:30, 22 April

Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor. National Cancer Institute.

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/pbs-documentary-sheds-light-on-marijuanas-cancer-killing-properties/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/06/marijuana-fights-cancer-and-helps-manage-side-effects-researchers-find.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/19/us-cancer-cannabis-idUSTRE57I02Z20090819

Just a few from quick google search

  • [-]
  • The_Rocket_Cadet
  • 13 Points
  • 04:55:18, 22 April

> Just a few from quick google search

Or maybe you could use sciencedirect.com to find actual peer reviewed publications. And not some crap some neck beard posted.

  • [-]
  • SoundSalad
  • -10 Points
  • 05:38:15, 22 April

What is the crap neck beard posted? The crap from cancer.gov saying that cannabis kills cancer cells?

  • [-]
  • The_Rocket_Cadet
  • 2 Points
  • 18:47:28, 22 April

Are you really that stupid? Show me one peer reviewed publication from a major medical journal that claims cannabis cures cancer, just one. Goodluck neckbeard.

  • [-]
  • lolplatypus
  • 1 Points
  • 19:00:49, 22 April

INB4 OP can't because there's not one.

  • [-]
  • oic123
  • 0 Points
  • 19:07:45, 22 April

Tell us, what do you think of the information saying cannabis kills cancer? The info that's posted on cancer.gov.

  • [-]
  • SoundSalad
  • -3 Points
  • 19:06:21, 22 April

I couldn't find one showing that cannabis cures weed, but there are some that show that cannabis kills cancer cells. I'm not going to spend any more time finding something for someone who immediately comes out calling people neck beard.

  • [-]
  • The_Rocket_Cadet
  • 2 Points
  • 19:11:43, 22 April

Edited. You can't because it doesn't exist. Cannabis does not cure cancer. Now go back to trimming your neckbeard before you post anymore false baseless garbage. And if you have a peer reviewed publication from a medical journal that claims cannabis kills cancer cells why don't you share it?

  • [-]
  • SoundSalad
  • -2 Points
  • 19:15:00, 22 April

I never said it cured cancer. I said, it kills cancer cells. How miserable are you really to go online and call people names? Grow up.

  • [-]
  • The_Rocket_Cadet
  • 2 Points
  • 19:16:54, 22 April

curing cancer is killing the cancer cells...you fucking retard neckbeard, now go ask your mom to make you a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • bubblestheimpaler
  • -1 Points
  • 20:28:45, 22 April

>I never said it cured cancer. I said, it kills cancer cells.

Ummm...

>Cannabis cures cancer and big pharma has the patent to prove it

Wow it kills cancer cells just like millions of other substances. Big fucking deal. Just because something kills cancer cells doesn't mean anything you can actually administer it to a human and it will cure cancer like you said above. You should be embarrassed for your post. If you actually put this in a legitimate sub you would have been downvoted to oblivion. Unfortunately you posted in the microcosm of anti-thinkers so you end up getting upvoted just because it is conspiracyish. I'm sure you will pat yourself on the back anyway. Post this in some cannabis sub for more encouragement to believe stupid shit.

  • [-]
  • SoundSalad
  • -1 Points
  • 20:47:30, 22 April

I didn't make this graphic, I posted it from a private sub and used the same title. In my posts, I have not claimed cannabis cures cancer. I have claimed that cannabis kills cancer cells (as it does), which is a pretty big deal considering it's still a schedule one drug. Go back to your conpiratard circle jerk.

  • [-]
  • bubblestheimpaler
  • 0 Points
  • 20:53:55, 22 April

Why would you use the same title if you weren't trying to convey the same message? Why wouldn't you change it if thats not what you believed? Or did you post it then get hammered for it and then decide to change your tune?

>I have claimed that cannabis kills cancer cells (as it does), which is a pretty big deal considering it's still a schedule one drug.

It isn't a big deal at all when you look at all the substances that do kill cancer cells. Tons of things do and they never materialize into any type of treatment. I'm not sure why this is a big deal just because its a "schedule 1 drug." CTs and potheads find a few studies about cannabis and cancer and act like they've hit a goldmine.

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 31 Points
  • 04:15:16, 22 April

I'd just like to preface this by saying, again, the fact that you're using google searches instead of pubmed to actually find the original articles, shows you're a little out of your depth here.

That said, would you like to see how many publically available compounds have the same, if not greater results? Here we go.

Proteasome inhibitors: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23582718 Rapamycin: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23593290 DCA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23471124 PARP Inhibitors: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23570735 3,3'-Diindolylmethane (can get this just by eating vegetables): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22800507

Need me to keep going? Honestly, you don't understand what you're talking about. I've already said this to you, there are THOUSANDS of publications every month about different chemicals, many commercially available, having cytotoxic effects in cancer cells. Sparing nontransformed cells is a pretty basic control for publications as well. There is literally nothing special about cannabis, it's just people with no formal education getting excited because it has "THC" and "evil pharma" in the same sentence.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 04:37:01, 22 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 19 Points
  • 04:52:46, 22 April

I've talked to many people before who just wanted to understand what the deal is with the lag on cancer treatment advances, I have no problem with that. No one else in my family works in this field, so I get question s from them a lot.

What I have an issue with is people who have zero training in basic cell biology spouting off stupid shit about how cannabis cures cancer but every oncologist and scientist is oblivious to it. It's sheer stupidity and is what people do when they need to make themselves feel that they're a part of something meaningful.

  • [-]
  • mwaugsburger
  • -20 Points
  • 04:41:25, 22 April

This dude needs you to link him an anger management website, not cancer management. Shit. Whether hes right or wrong hes gonna be mad for a loooong time. Making sure the entire world is smarter by belittling people on the internet. One day at a time.

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 27 Points
  • 04:45:51, 22 April

Literally so angry that I just threw my macaroni across the room, the cheese eveywhere is a real testament to my rage.

Put three post-docs together who just found a forum for high school dropouts to theorize abuot the secret cures for cancer, and there will be a lot of mockery. I'll start throwing in some smiley faces if it'll help the basic biology soak in more.

  • [-]
  • ne301
  • 17 Points
  • 05:05:15, 22 April

You might just be my first interwebs hero

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 18 Points
  • 05:26:00, 22 April

Honestly don't understand how these people function on a day to day basis, unless 70% of their day involves the phrase "would you like fries with that?"

  • [-]
  • lolplatypus
  • 6 Points
  • 18:58:56, 22 April

Thank you for giving me the renewed vigor to come into this sub and bring my bag of facts. I had pretty much tired myself out, but you are like a refreshing drink of lemonade on a hot summer day.

  • [-]
  • ne301
  • 8 Points
  • 05:56:18, 22 April

You haven't been in public lately huh? Im not sure how most people live day to day assuming everything is black and white. Im so fucking tired of saying "doesn't really work that way or that easy".

  • [-]
  • mwaugsburger
  • -2 Points
  • 06:29:26, 22 April

We all looked at these comments before sharing this on Facebook because we didn't immediately believe it. Obviously. I came to find a post just like yours without the attitude. My thanks, actually. That being said you certainly didn't need to talk down to everyone while you were informing them. People do it every day. You've been cruising down the internet so long you've got road rage.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • dirin
  • -23 Points
  • 03:55:23, 22 April

If it allows your body to cure cancer and get rid of it. It's a cure mate.

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 24 Points
  • 04:07:09, 22 April

Incredibly insightful, only problem is it doesn't unless you'd like to point out a clinical trial where this was shown.

Publications showing cannaboids have an effect on tumor cells grown in a plastic dish does not mean that they care cancer. There is a ton of shit that effects cancer cell cultures, it's not as exciting as you think.

  • [-]
  • Exfish
  • -17 Points
  • 06:05:58, 22 April

Before/if you die of cancer can you try it for us.

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 20 Points
  • 06:07:13, 22 April

Don't even know what this means, speak English please.

More Comments - Not Stored
More Comments - Not Stored
More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • mikermccafferty
  • 5 Points
  • 04:01:20, 22 April

good luck conducting any of these studies with a schedule 1 drug

  • [-]
  • dirin
  • -8 Points
  • 03:53:37, 22 April

There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of scientific studies showing that cannabinoids like tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), as well as whole plant formulations, are effective against nearly any disease you can think of. LetFreedomGrow hosts an incredibly extensive list of peer-reviewed scientific studies and news reports about cannabis medicine. Here are just a few conditions that science has proven cannabinoids are therapeutically active against:

  • Arthritis
  • Cancer
  • Crohn's
  • Diabetes
  • Fibromyalgia
  • Multiple sclerosis
  • Parkinson's

Real People's Experiences:

The primary importance of the science is it backs up all the real experiences people are having. There are currently three documentaries about curing cancer with cannabis oil. There are dozens of home videos of people using the oil for cancer, Crohn's, diabetic ulcers, burns, rheumatoid arthritis, cyclical vomiting syndrome, cystic fibrosis, and more. Here is an extensive list of testimonials you can watch via youtube:

  • [-]
  • idpeeinherbutt
  • 24 Points
  • 05:35:02, 22 April

Are any of the stories you linked to done with placebo controls?

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • DatBlackStar
  • 20 Points
  • 06:04:45, 22 April

Youtube videos of one anecdotal case does not constitute evidence.

  • [-]
  • PrinceBarrington
  • 14 Points
  • 13:14:14, 22 April

Have you forgotten where you are?

  • [-]
  • SoundSalad
  • -1 Points
  • 20:53:23, 22 April

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21566064?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16501583?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14570037?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12514108?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15700028?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198381?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21475304?dopt=Abstract

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • ca209
  • 33 Points
  • 01:41:38, 22 April

So a few things (I'm a patent agent.. So I know a little bit about patent strategies))

1) this is an application, not a patent. It hasn't been approved or awarded. People on here seem a little confused

2) when you read patents/applications, you can basically ignore everything in the body. Just look at the claims (which are the numbered points at the end). That's what the applicant is actually going after.

These claims specifically exclude THC and another compound (that's probably already been patented) and mention specifically other compounds and groups of compounds that could be isolated from cannabis (or maybe even a GMO version of it).

3) most importantly: PATENT STRATEGY. Pharma research is VERY expensive and patents are dirt cheap comparatively. You don't actually dump research $$ into anything you can't patent. You patent (or submit an application) on anything that you have the remotest hunch might work. To patent something, you don't have to have a working prototype, just an idea and maybe a loose study.

My educated guess is that, they know there is a medicinal property in cannabis that helps cancer-- but they don't know what actual chemical it is yet. Other than maybe some cell line studies or anecdotal evidence, they have very little proof. They're guessing it's a terpene (or other specifically mentioned class) and now they're isolating and testing it and hoping they get the patent so they can move forward w more expensive research. . They know it's not THC (or they're hoping it's not, because someone else probably holds THAT patent).

Tl;dr patent strategy is complicated and pharma files thousands of patent applications on things that they have a hunch about but haven't themselves proven yet.

Edit: I typed too fast and left out a few words. Sorry.

  • [-]
  • OWNtheNWO
  • -16 Points
  • 02:44:06, 22 April

Yes they do, it's CBD9 that has all the miracle antioxidant properties.

  • [-]
  • 500Rads
  • 6 Points
  • 12:05:50, 22 April

what all forms of cancer? because there are many forms of cancer, it's an umbrell term for manny different conditions

  • [-]
  • toomuchpork
  • 9 Points
  • 01:29:32, 22 April

This explains why I am cancer free!

  • [-]
  • Meister_Vargr
  • 6 Points
  • 18:00:49, 22 April

If only Bob Marley had heard of cannabis!

  • [-]
  • shakingwithshiva
  • 8 Points
  • 21:34:51, 21 April

[Link to entry in google patents db] http://www.google.com/patents/US20130059018

> ABSTRACT This invention relates to the use of phytocannabinoids, either in an isolated form or in the form of a botanical drug substance (BDS) in the treatment of cancer. Preferably the cancer to be treated is cancer of the prostate, cancer of the breast or cancer of the colon.

  • [-]
  • crustinXbeiber
  • 12 Points
  • 22:18:31, 21 April

What's the conspiracy theory here? Nobody's suppressing this information, this was a regular news story a month ago when it was filed.

  • [-]
  • Tony_AbbottPBUH
  • 9 Points
  • 13:44:19, 22 April

I'm not sure, but i'd be willing to guess that these people think it has something to do with either zionists, jews or kikes.

  • [-]
  • gozerski
  • 6 Points
  • 00:41:00, 22 April

Tell that to this person

RUN FROM THE CURE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

  • [-]
  • Ol_Lefteye
  • 3 Points
  • 11:01:03, 22 April

Whatever the conspiracy theory involved with this issue is, we need to know who is suppressing it and why. We shall not be silent.

My degree in vague ideas that are impossible to be wrong tells me that this has something to do with backpacks.

  • [-]
  • MrRedGreen
  • -5 Points
  • 23:32:52, 21 April

its because it is a revolutionary discovery, that could save thousands of lives, yet the major pharmaceuticals refuse to tell people about it, because it would pose a significant loss in income. If you walk up to anyone one the street and ask them if they know about the marijuana plant as a cure for cancer, they most likely will not know.

  • [-]
  • crustinXbeiber
  • 13 Points
  • 00:16:11, 22 April

If that's true why did they file the patent? Patents are public. If they didn't want people to know about it they wouldn't be waving it around like that.

  • [-]
  • lactose_intoleroni
  • -3 Points
  • 00:23:18, 22 April

So i'm guessing you can list off all the public medical patents in existence then, ya know, since they are public knowledge, right?

Just because a patent is public, doesn't mean everyone knows about it or that it can't be suppressed somewhat or "ignored".

  • [-]
  • crustinXbeiber
  • 8 Points
  • 00:29:09, 22 April

What's your point? I don't know the names of every species of duck, but I can look that up in about 4 seconds, just like I can with this patent now. There's no such thing as hiding in plain sight after it hits the internet.

Your argument is essentially "not being public knowledge" = "pharmacies not wanting it to be public knowledge," which while it is feasible, doesn't come close to being proof of anything.

  • [-]
  • MrRedGreen
  • -5 Points
  • 00:36:32, 22 April

Because once you patent it, you have the sole rights to the specific product, and once anyone tries to bring it to the attention of the public by selling it or what not, he could be sued and the cure would be swept under the carpet again. Patenting it ensures it stays under the control of the creator. How many people search the patent office for cures to cancer? How many people who don't have cancer even search for cures to it? My point being is that while it is on the internet, it is in places that people would not look normally. They are obviously trying to prevent it from going mainstream.

  • [-]
  • CarpSpirit
  • -1 Points
  • 01:10:38, 22 April

In order to sue anyone who attempts to bring a THC cancer treatment to market. This way they can safely sit on their profitable existing treatments.

Weed is a lot cheaper than chemotherapy.

  • [-]
  • crustinXbeiber
  • 1 Points
  • 01:13:17, 22 April

I agree that that's possible, but this patient has only been filed for a few months, there's no reason to suspect it won't go to market other than paranoia.

  • [-]
  • MrRedGreen
  • -1 Points
  • 01:18:46, 22 April

dont kid yourself, this has been known for quite some time already. Patenting something doesn't mean they just discovered it, it merely enforces that this is an actual cure, and its not just some claims from hippies.

  • [-]
  • littlegymm
  • -5 Points
  • 00:41:58, 22 April

Why are you being downvoted?

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • -2 Points
  • 03:13:05, 22 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 13 Points
  • 03:18:03, 22 April

No they didn't, DCA does not "cure cancer". It potentially takes advantage of the Warburg Effect, but metabolic targets are literally as prone (if not more) to evolutionary side-stepping then DNA damaging agents are. Plenty of people in academia know about DCA, and no one gives a shit about it because it doesn't work well outside of tissue culture.

As I've already said somewhere else in this dumpster, I've used DCA before in an invivo model and it did jackshit.

  • [-]
  • The_Rocket_Cadet
  • 12 Points
  • 04:53:16, 22 April

Anyone, who believes this baseless bullshit, should have their reproductive organs removed so they cannot continue contaminate the Earth.

  • [-]
  • truguy
  • -3 Points
  • 12:24:02, 22 April

It's a meme. We aren't basing the science on a meme, you idiot.

  • [-]
  • Meister_Vargr
  • 2 Points
  • 18:07:32, 22 April

Perhaps they filed the patent to stop scam artists from peddling false cures?

(In much the same way that someone will patent some obnoxious business method on the basis that it stops someone bad from then using that method to harm others.)

  • [-]
  • Quattrocket
  • 3 Points
  • 03:11:50, 22 April

Then why did my heavily pot smoking uncle die of brain/lung/thyroid cancer? Please think before you post things like this.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • -2 Points
  • 13:26:02, 22 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • lolplatypus
  • 1 Points
  • 19:06:53, 22 April

Again, because people who smoke pot would never eat it for any reason, right?

  • [-]
  • eyesareitchy
  • -8 Points
  • 07:31:30, 22 April

Yeah! How could he have forgotten to consider your uncle!

Everyone knows that for a medicine to be considered effective, it has to be 100% effective in every circumstance.

I hope everyone remembers before posting any further.

  • [-]
  • weaselbeef
  • 3 Points
  • 12:02:27, 22 April

Do you know what they would give people with cancer if weed cured cancer? Weed. You idiots.

If weed cures cancer, how come stoners get cancer?

ARE YOU PEOPLE INCAPABLE OF CRITICAL THOUGHT??

  • [-]
  • mikermccafferty
  • 2 Points
  • 13:31:38, 22 April

Smoking cannabis cures nothing, which is what almost everyone does. Eating cannabis is entirely different since you have almost zero side effects.

  • [-]
  • ratvomit
  • 1 Points
  • 19:18:51, 22 April

I wonder if vaporizing is as effective as ingestion for treating medical conditions? That's my preferred method of delivery.

Many also don't consider other things that they ingest that are similarly toxic when making definitive statements or claims.

  • [-]
  • lolplatypus
  • 0 Points
  • 19:05:59, 22 April

Right, cause people never do things like make pot butter, pot brownies, use cannabis oil for cooking (available at your local medical marijuana dispensary), pot cookies, or space cakes!

  • [-]
  • mikermccafferty
  • 1 Points
  • 19:15:28, 22 April

I eat it instead of smoking. I'm talking about in general. How many people actually have access to dispensaries? I'm from Missouri and I don't know one person who makes edibles besides me. I won't say they never do, but they smoke it significantly more than they eat it.

  • [-]
  • truguy
  • -1 Points
  • 12:22:27, 22 April

There are stats that compare stoners and non-stoners cancer rates. Some stats show that stoners get terminal cancer less often. Cannibas oil also cures many skin cancers (there are many ways of using it that are more more beneficial than smoking it). So, while we are looking at factual evidence, you are being an armchair critic.

  • [-]
  • weaselbeef
  • 6 Points
  • 12:32:27, 22 April

'Some stats'. Nice citation. See all of the posts proving your stupid theory wrong.

  • [-]
  • truguy
  • 1 Points
  • 21:48:50, 22 April

Thanks for letting me know about the "posts" that prove my stupid theory wrong. As of now, this matter has been settled by the citation and referencing of "all the" Reddit posts. Weaselbeef has spoken.

  • [-]
  • elgraf
  • 2 Points
  • 10:59:34, 22 April

They also cause cancer when smoked - from the patent:

"Cannabis has been ascribed to be both a carcinogen and anti-cancer agent. In particular smoking cannabis is known to be carcinogenic as the cannabis smoke contains at least 50 different known carcinogenic compounds, many of which are the same substances found in smoked tobacco. One of these carcinogens, benzopyrene is known to cause cancer as it alters a gene called p53, which is a tumour suppressor gene. Cannabis contains the substance tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which has been shown to cause benzopyrene to promote the p53 gene to change."

  • [-]
  • mikermccafferty
  • 2 Points
  • 13:30:21, 22 April

The national cancer institute disagrees with this. There have been way too many conflicting studies to say with certainty that smoked cannabis causes cancer.

  • [-]
  • elgraf
  • 1 Points
  • 15:46:02, 22 April

...so the entire patent is wrong then? Or just the bits people don't like?

  • [-]
  • mikermccafferty
  • 1 Points
  • 15:55:18, 22 April

Patents don't prove anything anyways. I never said the patent is right.

  • [-]
  • TrondW
  • 1 Points
  • 00:29:07, 22 April

So what is the patent for? I don't get this, what did they invent? I mean they did not invent cannabinoids, the process of extracting cannabinoids from the plant or the process of putting it inn the body. And they did not invent what cannabinoids does to cancer.

  • [-]
  • crustinXbeiber
  • -2 Points
  • 00:56:23, 22 April

They invented the pill that has those in it, and (most importantly) they paid for the research proving it's safe. The patent system (as far as pharms go) is hypothetically in place to provide incentive for research and development, no business looking to make money would spend that much if somebody else could make generics with no overhead, they could provide the same product cheaper.

That's why generics are always cheap as fuck. No overhead.

  • [-]
  • TrondW
  • -1 Points
  • 02:06:28, 22 April

But there would be nothing spesial about the pill. Its just a pill. And they did not invent any of the cannabinoids inn the pill. It just sounds stupid to me that someone can patent something that has been used for ages. Thats like the person that found out how vitamin C works getting a patent for it and no one else would be able to sell vitamin C pills anymore. And maybe everyone selling oranges would have to pay him for selling a product with the vitamin he "invented" inn it.

  • [-]
  • crustinXbeiber
  • 1 Points
  • 02:15:48, 22 April

Most compounds used in medicine are found in plants somewhere. What would be different about the cannabinoids? We can talk about how it should be all day, but that just isn't how the laws work in America.

  • [-]
  • TrondW
  • 1 Points
  • 02:40:04, 22 April

I guess its no different. What I should have asked maybe is why have no one patented this a long time ago. People have talked about cannabinoids helping cancer patients for a long time. I guess this company was the first one that was able to prove it then? Or are they just the first company that got the smart idea to file a patent for it? Well I'm going to sleep now. good night.

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 04:29:52, 22 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • havingmadfun
  • 1 Points
  • 04:39:36, 22 April

Oh this, this right here makes OP's post invalid

  • [-]
  • HiramAbiff33
  • 1 Points
  • 05:14:37, 22 April

http://www.google.com/patents/US20130059018

  • [-]
  • beatvox
  • 1 Points
  • 05:29:43, 22 April

details

  • [-]
  • publius_maximus
  • 1 Points
  • 13:01:54, 22 April

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16818650 for your consideration

(edit) mas http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3005548/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22110202

  • [-]
  • deiopa
  • 1 Points
  • 15:52:25, 22 April

Oh I see. That's why countries in which cannabis is legal are completly cancer free. They are also independet from the paper and textile industry.

  • [-]
  • Meister_Vargr
  • 1 Points
  • 17:56:00, 22 April

But isn't one of the often said quotes by conspiracy theorists that Big Pharma won't support cannabis as a cancer treatment "because they can't patent it?"

  • [-]
  • and_the_Hare
  • 1 Points
  • 18:26:23, 22 April

I'm not going to respond to any particular comment here but I'd like to point out that FOX sounds more like a bored student with an ego problem than anything else. He uses terms most here won't know mixed with insults and CAPS LOCKS, CRUISE CONTROL FOR INTELLIGENCE RIGHT?! to make points that show a bit of knowledge but also exhibit a startling lack of insight and experience that would be gained outside of a classroom or a USA-centric research setting.

THC oil as a cancer treatment is being studied in multiple countries in Europe and Asia/Oceania.

The conspiracy side comes from the multitude of corporate interests aimed at keeping hemp/marijuana illegal due to the fact that it disrupts their business model. It's not just "pharma" it's a variety of interests working in concert to keep the plant demonized and illegal.

This website, reddit, is more about social engineering than news. Anyone educated in the figures and events of 1850-now can see this plainly. It pushes atheism but it's not really atheism, it's anti-theist materialism that seeks to boost the egos of the serf class with pseudo intellectualism. "Science" is a process for the intelligent. For the unintelligent it is a belief system.

Notice how people demand links to a "placebo controlled study" from laymen when they themselves would not likely understand one page of a scientific paper? Be wary of anyone demanding "science" from you. An actual scientist knows that THC is being studied all over the world. They can find the articles themselves but will instead demand you to do so because their real objective is to make themselves look better than you.

Fox, you are either a college student with a small ego or a low level researcher who hasn't the slightest idea of what is going on in other countries or even other labs. Your entire existence and belief system has been given to you by culture shapers. You are a typical reddit peon whose ego has been turned against them. You may fool the uneducated lurker but you only come across as pathetic to anyone with critical thinking skills.

  • [-]
  • buddhahat
  • 1 Points
  • 00:24:21, 23 April

So you can't refute any of his statements but you will wave your hands around and complain about the use of "big words" (literally ie, CAPS LOCK and figuratively) and then make some asinine assumption about his personality and motives?

Got it.

  • [-]
  • MrRedGreen
  • -6 Points
  • 21:33:24, 21 April

But of course there is no major profit in it, so they won't release it to the general public, for fear of losing money. Sick Bastards

  • [-]
  • OrwellHuxley
  • 21 Points
  • 00:32:56, 22 April

Are you fucking kidding me? The cure to cancer is the most profitable thing in the whole world. Just announce it, and show that it really cures cancer, and people will start to donate to your company, private donors will show up, wealthy people will start donating, even if the cure isn't profitable. European states will pay huge money to get the cure because of their welfare states, and it'll save them money in the long run.

I'LL SAY IT AGAIN: ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

  • [-]
  • William_Harzia
  • 3 Points
  • 00:53:15, 22 April

I agree. If you want a license to print money, then cure fucking cancer! No one in their right mind would sit on that.

  • [-]
  • MrRedGreen
  • -9 Points
  • 00:46:35, 22 April

That only lasts a little while. If they don't realize it, they will still get millions of dollars in funding from governments and private citizens to hurry up and find a cure, let alone the profits they make from the other methods of trying to get rid of cancer. This flow of money could last for a very long time. Once the cure its the market, people will rejoice, and there might be a surge in donations, but it will become history, and people will be growing their own marijuana plants so they don't have to pay the pharmaceutical companies for the treatment. Like you said European states will save money in the long run, which means less to the actual companies that produced it.

  • [-]
  • Tok-A-Mak
  • -7 Points
  • 01:08:54, 22 April

The $$$ is never in the cure. It's in the treatment.

  • [-]
  • iamandrebulatov
  • -15 Points
  • 01:08:37, 22 April

C'mon get a grip man.

It's much more profitable to NOT cure cancer, but to treat it with chemo therapy and other expensive treatments.

Also, if they start selling weed pills to cure cancer, there is a vey high risk that people will quickly catch on that hemp and pot cure cancer and they will fight to legalize it and produce it themselves in their home, completely cutting out the pharmaceutical interests in making money on cancer.

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 21 Points
  • 02:56:17, 22 April

No dingus, it would be more profitable to CURE cancer because a multitude of companies all fight over profits from the SAME MALIGNANCIES.

Care to tell me why and how Imatinib came to the clinic in this lala-land world you live in where every colleague I have in industry is actually attempting to not find a cure.

Do any of you dipshits even realize that if cannabis or THC actually had invivo potency, you would still end up with resistant cell populations and relapse? Every available treatment "kills cancer cells", the issue is that pre-resistant populations become the dominant species from selective pressure.

Honestly, is there anyone on this board who has even the slightest modicum of formal training in any type of scientific discipline?

More Comments - Not Stored
More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • crustinXbeiber
  • -1 Points
  • 22:17:25, 21 April

They've had the patient for only a month, what evidence do you have that they won't release it? I also don't see how you can claim it would be low profit, they can charge whatever they want for it and people will buy it.

  • [-]
  • staytoasty
  • 3 Points
  • 00:12:44, 22 April

They have known since the 70's though, and have done nothing to spread the word/encourage its use.

  • [-]
  • crustinXbeiber
  • 2 Points
  • 00:14:31, 22 April

Even if that is true, I don't know if it is, it has literally nothing to do with this patent.

  • [-]
  • staytoasty
  • 0 Points
  • 13:34:40, 22 April

I have a copy of the 2013 version of "Granny's List" which has links to studies/documents proving how Cannabis is effective for everything from the common cold to cancer. I can email it to you, if you like.

I'm not sure how the patent relates, other than it blocks anyone from selling the medicine I guess.

  • [-]
  • crustinXbeiber
  • 2 Points
  • 16:31:28, 22 April

No, thank you, I've seen similar documents. My main point was that there isn't really evidence as of now that the drug they are trying to patent won't go to market.

I'm sure you realize that "studies have shown cannabis can treat diseases" is a really long way from "cannabis is an effective and safe treatment for cancer." Even if a compound is widely used in regular life, such as cannabis, the pharm companies still have to do a huge amount of research and development to release it.

  • [-]
  • staytoasty
  • 0 Points
  • 21:03:12, 22 April

They stand to loose too much money to release it, which is one of the reasons it is illegal in the first place. There is a ton of evidence saying that it does indeed cure cancer, not treat it (check out the documentary I mentioned and the link given). The pharma companies aren't going to tell people it does because, again, they stand to lose too much money so they sure as hell aren't going to research it and prove it.

  • [-]
  • crustinXbeiber
  • 1 Points
  • 21:47:17, 22 April

But they just did that. They couldn't have applied for a patent if they didn't.

  • [-]
  • SoundSalad
  • -7 Points
  • 21:41:47, 21 April

Yeah...any effect their "cannabis pill" has can be more efficiently generated by citizens through the use of hemp oil or another easily produced plant extract.

  • [-]
  • djsumdog
  • 16 Points
  • 01:35:20, 22 April

Have you like...read..any of the research? This is a hugely wrong statement.

There is a 2006 UCLA study that shows that people who smoke only marijuana do not have an increased risk of cancer over non-smokers. Furthermore, people who smoke marijuana and tobacco, have a slightly lower risk of cancer than people who smoke just tobacco.

The theory is that THC can inhibit some of the processors in tumour growth in some types of cancer. It might explain why cancer patients report pain relief. It does not cure cancer. Also, there are hundreds of types of cancers and different treatments for each. There is no one cancer and no one cure for it.

  • [-]
  • SoundSalad
  • -9 Points
  • 01:46:58, 22 April

I've like....read... all of it, man.

It's obvious that my statement isn't directed towards those who smoke cannabis. Cannabis has shown to kill cancer cells when ingested or applied in the form of highly concentrated hemp oil.

Perhaps you misunderstood the point I was making.

There doesn't seem like there is much incentive for pharma to sell "cannabis pills" or whatever form they will sell their product in. They won't be able to profit, because the consumer will likely be able to make their own cure for a fraction of the cost pharma will sell it for.

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 20 Points
  • 02:50:31, 22 April

Remind me again real quick, what is stopping academic researchers from showing this...seeing as they would win the Nobel if it actually worked...and seeing as you don't need "Big Pharma" to conduct clinical trials through the NCI or through CTEP?

Before shooting off into bullshit territory, I should at least let you know that I actually work in ACADEMIC oncology so spouting some InfoWars shit isn't going to work.

Plenty of things have been shown to kill cancer cells, promote apoptosis, inhibit regression, induce cytostatic effects, etc etc you name it. That doesn't mean that they are cures. Dichloroacetic Acid? Tried it in an InVivo model 3 months ago, didn't do anything for patient orthotopic xenografts, and the toxicity was a real nice boost as well. This is mind-numbingly stupid and it actually hurts my brain that I discovered this subreddit.

EDIT: Here you go, jackoff. Your super secret cannabis cure that no one knows about? Not really a huge secret.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=cannabis+cancer

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • -3 Points
  • 13:38:36, 22 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 12 Points
  • 13:56:04, 22 April

There's no law stopping academic researchers from synthesizing THC analogues to work with.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • hashmon
  • -6 Points
  • 12:22:11, 22 April

Someone needs to smoke some cannabis and chill out a bit. There's a lot of promising early research, but NIDA has a monopoly on the supply of weed for research, and thery're not giving it out, just about at all. Are you not aware of that fact?

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 11 Points
  • 14:06:57, 22 April

Sorry "hashmon", but as I already said synthetic chemistry cores can derive THC derivatives for researchers if they'd like, yes it happens.

You are aware that there are thousands of academic institutions and laboratories outside the US as well who aren't beholden to any of the NIH centers and who do just as significant cancer biology?

  • [-]
  • SoundSalad
  • -21 Points
  • 03:03:27, 22 April

Hey you fuck, why don't you try approaching someone in a nice way for once? Your comment history is miserably mean. Be nice.

Nothing is stopping anyone from showing this, other than patents, perhaps. I'm sure there are many people working on as we speak.

And I never spoke of a secret cannabis cure. So what the fuck are you talking about?

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 19 Points
  • 03:14:00, 22 April

Sorry, but I have little tolerance for the cesspool that is this entire subreddit. Unlike you, I actually work with many people in the boogeyman big pharma complex. People who went into research because they lost family members, because they love science, because they actually want to help people. Yes, people at places like Merck, Amgen, Pfizer, Lilly, and all the conniving companies you talk so flippantly about.

Would you like to know why I detest people like you? Because of stupidity like this:

"Yeah...any effect their "cannabis pill" has can be more efficiently generated by citizens through the use of hemp oil or another easily produced plant extract."

Do you understand how unbelievably stupid this is? It takes literally years and multiple institutions at times to figure out proper dosing efficacy and MTD in humans. Your idea that companies aren't investing in cannabis as a cure is retarded, because as I just posted any company could patent a delivery system for it if they wanted to. If you develop an antibody conjugate to say HER2, you could patent that.

I approach normal people in a nice way on a daily basis. Completely uneducated people who spout their ignorance as knowledge instead of actually putting the work in to get an education? No sorry, I have no respect for you at all. These stupid cancer posts are unbelievably insulting to a number of people who spend 14 hours a day in a lab trying to do something that might make a difference.

  • [-]
  • JackTheCripple
  • 1 Points
  • 03:29:13, 22 April

What is a mutually beneficial way to interact with people whom may be ignorant of information you possess?

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 16 Points
  • 03:32:46, 22 April

What is a way for people to actually acquire information about subjects they wish to wildly speculate on? Getting an education, it's not that hard.

  • [-]
  • JackTheCripple
  • 3 Points
  • 03:36:17, 22 April

I agree with you. People should educate themselves, as much as possible, about all that they can.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • userphan
  • 17 Points
  • 03:10:29, 22 April

In this thread OP is unhappy post did not go as intended.

  • [-]
  • oic123
  • -5 Points
  • 03:13:41, 22 April

>In this thread OP is not happy with the attitude FOX04 approached OP with.

FTFY

  • [-]
  • userphan
  • 14 Points
  • 04:00:13, 22 April

ITT FOX04 has no time for willfully ignorant fools.

More Comments - Not Stored
  • [-]
  • lolplatypus
  • 1 Points
  • 19:08:47, 22 April

>I've like....read... all of it, man.

Seems legit.

  • [-]
  • ialsolovebees
  • 1 Points
  • 00:21:08, 22 April

Is that why nobody who uses marijuana as a cancer-treatment has ever died? Or why they have, at the very least, a higher incidence of remission?

  • [-]
  • BoSu
  • 6 Points
  • 04:26:24, 22 April

"nobody who uses marijuana as a cancer-treatment has ever died"

Excuse me while I go pound my head against a fucking brick wall.

  • [-]
  • ialsolovebees
  • 2 Points
  • 13:41:22, 22 April

I'm not the one who posted a picture of marijuana and claimed it cured cancer.

  • [-]
  • Rabidsmurf01
  • -4 Points
  • 01:29:50, 22 April

the money isn't in the cure, it's on the comeback for treatment

  • [-]
  • Stooooooopid
  • 1 Points
  • 23:49:13, 21 April

This seems stupid. If this is true, why did a pot head friend of mine die of cancerous brain tumors?

  • [-]
  • staytoasty
  • -5 Points
  • 00:14:27, 22 April

You need to convert it into oil and administer an oral dose for it to be 100% effective, not smoke it.

www.phoenixtears.ca

Watch the documentary "what if cannabis cured cancer?"

  • [-]
  • MaximumUltra
  • 3 Points
  • 03:29:24, 22 April

Turning it into an oil means basically making hash oil, then?

  • [-]
  • staytoasty
  • 1 Points
  • 13:31:36, 22 April

Essentially, yes.

  • [-]
  • mikermccafferty
  • 1 Points
  • 13:40:25, 22 April

It's more concentrated than normal hash oil. The oil he's referring to has THC concentrations of 90-98%. Most hash I've seen ranges from 40% to 90%.

  • [-]
  • Ma_Deuce
  • 0 Points
  • 11:23:49, 22 April

Legalize, educate, medicate

  • [-]
  • [deleted]
  • 1 Points
  • 00:29:46, 22 April

[deleted]

  • [-]
  • CoCo26
  • 0 Points
  • 00:36:45, 22 April

Why are you here?

  • [-]
  • TheBlackUnicorn
  • -1 Points
  • 01:25:26, 22 April

Stoner here, I can confirm I don't have cancer.

  • [-]
  • Kanepi
  • -2 Points
  • 06:56:56, 22 April

Look up Rick Simpson. Concentrated cannabis, such as hash oil, cures cancer and kills tumors. This is fact.

  • [-]
  • MuteReality
  • 0 Points
  • 06:23:38, 22 April

The people are almost, but not quite, ready for the truth.

  • [-]
  • Random_letter_name
  • -1 Points
  • 23:32:01, 21 April

There is a product available called marinol that is also available as a generic. It is expensive, but its not like it is hiding.

  • [-]
  • hopup
  • -1 Points
  • 23:38:54, 21 April

Ya and marinol is a patented synthetic. Fundamentally different than a plant.

  • [-]
  • Random_letter_name
  • 5 Points
  • 23:47:40, 21 April

Whether it is made synthetically or grown in a plant, it is the same chemical.

  • [-]
  • staytoasty
  • 1 Points
  • 00:13:46, 22 April

There are way too many "chemicals" in cannabis to cram them all in one pill, and they all aid in the cure. Marinol focuses solely on THC, and it isn't even THC.

  • [-]
  • mikermccafferty
  • 0 Points
  • 13:44:14, 22 April

True, but one isolated chemical does not affect people the same way as the whole plant. Wikipedia says that we've now isolated 85 different cannabinoids, which could all play a role in treating illness.

  • [-]
  • hopup
  • -2 Points
  • 03:38:12, 22 April

A chemical is patentable, currently only gmo plants are patentable. In other words pharmaceutical companies would able to capitalize on a naturally occurring medicine

  • [-]
  • hashmon
  • -8 Points
  • 12:09:39, 22 April

There is actually quite a bit of current resarch showing cannabis "killing" certain cancer cells, though the rsearch is in its early stages. In a saner society we would be funding following up studies heavily, because the preliminary studies are promising. Unfortunately, the NIDA won't give out the legal cannabis necessary to do such studies. A UMass professor, Lyle Craker, just lost an appeal in his attempt to obtain cannabis for research. There's a well-produced 45-minute video on this subject, which everyone should really watch if you're interested in this subject, "What if Cannabis Cured Cancer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGj5SVh2LE8 edit: I think it's fair to ask that you watch the video before you downvote. This is a heated and complicated subject.

  • [-]
  • FOXO4
  • 20 Points
  • 14:50:15, 22 April

Just curious, when you say the "preliminary results are promising", what currently investigated compounds (rapamycin, doclataxol, MMC) are you comparing that to?

As in, which studies specifically? What graphs, assays, and figures can you point me to?

No, I don't want a YouTube link or a link to a pubmed entry. I'm curious to know what EXACT pieces of data from published peer-reviewed literature you think "looks promising"? I have journal access, so just author, date, and figure number will be fine.

  • [-]
  • proftimewaster3
  • 0 Points
  • 00:07:53, 23 April

Scientists say that cannabis is good for cancer and it doesn't cause bad side effects like chemotherapeutic drugs. Even the fascist Jews at CNN agree.

  • [-]
  • elp420
  • -16 Points
  • 00:28:13, 22 April

HOLY FUCK THIS IS SHILL TERRITORY

  • [-]
  • littlegymm
  • -6 Points
  • 00:44:30, 22 April

Mind-boggling

  • [-]
  • iamandrebulatov
  • -10 Points
  • 01:17:25, 22 April

It's become so obvious and so prevalent in this sub.

  • [-]
  • forgotpasswordagain0
  • 1 Points
  • 18:26:00, 22 April

do you honestly think that there are paid shills "working" on this subreddit? Like not being a dick, actually curious if you genuinely believe that or not

  • [-]
  • iamandrebulatov
  • 0 Points
  • 18:56:09, 22 April

It could hardly be more clear.

Many of them have no activity other then defending government, FBI, police in /r/conspiracy.

On many of the trolls I've seen, their comments are typically just dismissive of any version other than the official one, and they quickly jump to bury people in insults like "crazy," "lunatic" or "tin foil hat."

They use similar dumbass, irrelevant arguments that don't even belong in /r/conspiracy. Like "You honestly think the government is trying to rob you of your rights??" Umm, that's what /r/conspiracy is for, to entertain conspiracies.

Plenty of times, they are just closet downvoters on any comment that questions the official story.

"Best case scenario" is that they are lifeless people who come to a sub they are not the least bit interested in just so they can call people crazy or lunatics. They're like catholics who come to /r/atheism to tell people that god exists.

  • [-]
  • forgotpasswordagain0
  • 1 Points
  • 19:06:20, 22 April

Can you provide me with a /u/ link to one of the accounts then? If it's not the best case scenario and they're shills, who do you think is paying them? The FBI? Some sector of Government?

My bigger issue though is why you think there is some kind of high level focus on this subreddit. I don't want to sound rude, but I'm pretty sure the subreddit /r/conspiracy isn't of vital importance. Despite brave-heart style self posts, this subreddit will never cause an uprising. There will never be a revolution tied to the brave men and women of Reddit's /r/conspiracy board. The top post of all time is an image macro, I mean, I see where youre coming from. And you're right, this should be a place to entertain conspiracies. That is correct. What I see happening here a lot though is the application of conspiracies where users affirm that X is controlling Y behind the scenes so Z profits, or something or other, going on absolutely nothing more than their own word.

Then, when someone points out something they've said wrong, it all turns into being about "the presence of downvoters on /r/conspiracy" and gets interpreted as personal. Sometimes people are thoughtful and mindful and listen to what others say and actively consider their view points, but usually they don't.

  • [-]
  • iamandrebulatov
  • 0 Points
  • 19:22:39, 22 April

>My bigger issue though is why you think there is some kind of high level focus on this subreddit. I don't want to sound rude, but I'm pretty sure the subreddit /r/conspiracy[1] isn't of vital importance.

? What is of vital importance? I think people use to say this exact thing about the internet as a whole. You mean some group of PEOPLE is not of vital importance? Are you of vital importance? Or just another "unimportant human"? lol People aren't concerned with it solely because they believe there is ac conspiracy against /r/conspiracy, but as I already explained ""Best case scenario" is that they are lifeless people who come to a sub they are not the least bit interested in, just so they can call people crazy or lunatics. They're like catholics who come to /r/atheism to tell people that god exists."

>And you're right, this should be a place to entertain conspiracies. That is correct. What I see happening here a lot though is the application

Unless the people you're talking about are senators and representatives who are applying their theories to real world policy, then your attempt to make a distinction between entertaining and applying fails to show the mistake people are making by supposedly "applying" instead of just entertaining.

>Then, when someone points out something they've said wrong, it all turns into being about "the presence of downvoters on /r/conspiracy[3] " and gets interpreted as personal. Sometimes people are thoughtful and mindful and listen to what others say and actively consider their view points, but usually they don't.

This isn't /r/DebateReality, this is /r/conspiracy. If the thing you're talking about is not a conspiracy, it doesn't belong in this sub. So if you come to a post and you want to discuss some particular theory, or give your side of how you see the story, please. But if you're coming here to educate people about how wrong their theories are, then go to /r/science or something cuz that's not what /r/conspiracy is for.

  • [-]
  • forgotpasswordagain0
  • 1 Points
  • 20:14:45, 22 April

So basically what you're saying is you can't provide me a link to a shill's profile, despite your assurance that they exist.

did you notice that all I did was give my side of the story as I see it and because it disagrees with your worldview you conclude that I'm educating people on how wrong their theories are? It's that mentality I can't stand. Have a good evening, you close minded ninny.

  • [-]
  • iamandrebulatov
  • 1 Points
  • 20:59:29, 22 April

Umm, no, get a grip.

Your opinion is an attempt to invalidate the opinions of others based on some proposed formulation of thought that you don't like. You also seem to imply that if someone doesn't write up a paper about their theory and provides you with proof then their opinion is invalid. Well, again, dumb. An opinion is an opinion. This isn't the federal court of appeals. This is /r/conspiracy. I think I explained it pretty well so please refer above.

>you conclude that I'm educating people

False. You asked me, and I explained to you, and now you're trying to take the role of the victim as if I accused you of educating people.

  • [-]
  • forgotpasswordagain0
  • 0 Points
  • 21:10:35, 22 April

holy shit you're lost cunt

  • [-]
  • banternlantern
  • -6 Points
  • 06:19:38, 22 April

That's why it's illegal, duh. Population control.

  • [-]
  • antinuclearenergy
  • -5 Points
  • 04:49:12, 22 April

Thank you reddit for reposting things i already know.