Detroit man no longer needs surgery for skin cancer after using topical cannabis treatment

[RainDog]

sorry if I missed this - if it was posted earlier in the fall.

however, this is an interesting piece that was aired on CBS News in Detroit about a man there who, in August, told a reporter he had been using a topical cannabis oil to treat skin cancer. The man, Michael McShane, said he was cured. In August, CBS reported:

His dermatologist (Ali Moiin) did not recommend the oil and denies that McShane is completely cured, but said the cancer cells have decreased by up to 60 percent.

“There is some active substance, I’m sure, in cannabis that will help improvement of sun damage,” said Moiin. “You still have some residual ones, but the size has definitely decreased.”

Moiin said the results so far definitely warrant further scientific study for the use of cannabis for treating skin cancer.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/08/29/skin-cancer-patient-says-oil-from-medical-marijuana-is-a-cure/#photo-1

So, that was August. Then CBS did a follow-up in Sept.

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2011/09/13/skin-cancer-patient-says-medical-marijuana-oil-saved-him-from-surgery/#photo-4

They reported:

There are no longer any visible signs of the skin cancer on the forehead of Ferndale’s Michael McShane. McShane had a check-up with his dermatologist and says Dr. Ali Mooin is no longer recommending surgery to treat the lesion.

...Dr. Mooin will no longer speak with WWJ. Last month, he said he’d pursue surgery if the cancer was not gone. McShane says surgery was not on the table today.

Isn't it interesting that a documented case of the use of cannabis as a topical ointment is not a cause for celebration?

McShane's claim isn't a new one. When I started reading about current cannabis issues and news I came across this famous one, "Run From the Cure." It's a not a slick video production - it sort of reminded me of a home movie (that loves toaster effects) or a cable access fishing show that gets philosophical. And there's that stirring rendition of "My Way" at the end.

Yeah, I was extremely skeptical. Sometimes cannabis advocates sound like it's the popel pocket fisherman of plants. Of course, it just might be, a lot of evidence is there -- but in our cynical times, something with so many claims can cause a little skepticism just as a defense mechanism - plus, there's that whole concept of... what? Can our govt. agencies really be so recalcitrant in the face of so many benefits from something - especially considering the harmful side effects of so many legally-sanctioned medicines?

Anyway, in order to put some "respectable" background behind McShane's claim, we can also look at a Harvard lung cancer study in 2007. These scientists injected HUMAN cancer cells into mice.

For three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

So, a 60% reduction after three weeks of highly concentrated application of THC to lung cancer cells in a research lab and a 60% reduction in skin cancer lesions in a man who undertook his own topical treatment for about a month without the consent of his doctor. But his doctor did record the 60% reduction and did note this substance should be studied before he declined to talk about this anymore since it's not standard medicine.

But how does it work? According to a researcher in Spain, THC prompts cancer cells to "autophagy," or cell death, without doing the same to healthy cells.

What is autophagy? It's something that was discovered in the 1960s, as part of the cellular process - and it's not fully understood in all ways. However, one thing that is understood is that some forms of autophagy create a membrane that surrounds and separates part of a cell from the energy-giving cytoplasm in each cell. Mitochondria within cells are considered their power source - they're included in that cytoplasm. (Right about now you should be imagining one of those old biology textbooks with a cross section of a cell... remember all those funny-looking things in there - yeah, that stuff.)

THC acts like an endocannabinoid (our body produces these to regulate various functions in our body, which is why cannabis has any noticeable effect.) We have cannabinoid receptors in various parts of our body that are like doorways with locks. Endo- and plant cannabinoids are the "keys" that unlock these doors that allow various processes and effects to enter our cellular lives. In the case of brain cancer, the THC activates the CB1 receptor to rev up or shake its membrane-maker to isolate those cancer cells and turn them into cellular waste that the body then eliminates.

Anyway, that's the most basic, non-scientist version. Interesting stuff, huh?

Don't you wish our govt. would allow more research on this topic? I mean, cancer is kind of a biggie.

[Tsiyu]

1. The "Filler People"

must figure out a way to make millions out of it personally before they will lobby Congress to let Big Pharma take the cannabis "problem" off the government's hands.


There has to be a Middle Man or Woman exploiting a good thing for personal gain before we Average Joes and Josies can have access.








America: Land of the Free, (remember?)

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Conversely, all those zillion dollar cancer research insitutes would lose out big time

if the cure were as easy as cannabis.
Careers would be ruint!
Not to mention all the money that has been made for Big Pharma "treatments" and for side effects of treatments.

[randome]

6. They would still brand their own versions for sale.

So I doubt there is a collusion to prevent a cancer cure.

I'm no medical expert but I doubt curing skin cancer is as easy as the article makes it out to be.

[RainDog]

8. so, do you doubt that cannabinoid-induced autophagy is a cancer-killing process?

I mean, so far, that seems to be what scientists have discovered with brain, tumor and breast cancer, and one kind of leukemia.

this would also help to explain why cigarette smokers who also smoke cannabis have a lower incidence of lung cancer than those who just smoke cigarettes. Not to say it's preventative, at all. But that evidence was made available long ago.

The problem with a cannabis cancer cure is that the plant cannot be patented. Synthetic versions of cannabinoids can and have been patented. There is no incentive for a pharmaceutical co. to do research into something that offers no money for them.

I don't think there's collusion to prevent a cancer cure. I just think that money is more important than health for our govt and pharmaceutical cos. If cannabis were legal, people could make ointments for themselves. Not to say that should replace medical treatment - but why should it not be allowed at all? That makes NO sense.

[randome]

10. You can make your own beer. Your own carbonated beverages.

But branding is everything and the corporations manage time and time again to sell us THEIR version of things.

All I'm saying is that the drug industry would still find a way to brand and market their own ointment so I doubt they are standing in the way of that possibility.

[Tsiyu]

15. So why does the Big Beer Lobby

spend lots of jack lobbying against decriminalization and/or legalization of cannabis?

Boggles my mind.

Should boggle yours....

[randome]

17. Wasn't aware of that.

But my point is that corporations routinely sell us stuff we can grow or obtain by ourselves. We usually don't want to go to the trouble of making our own beer or carbonated beverages because, let's face it, we're sort of lazy.

[ArcticFox]

43. There's much less profit potential

No competition for a patented compound.

[MedicalAdmin]

59. But would it be as profitable.

It's been highly fucking illegal and I can probably get some delivered to my house in 15 minutes.

They can't control the supply of a plant that will literally grow in dust.

Besides it's not a conspiracy, it's cost benefit and risk analysis combined with profit loss analysis. It's not that they can't. It's that they can't controlthe market and more importantly, it's not as profitable as the toxic treatments.

It's just Business. *smirk*

[court jester]

57. the US Gov holds a patent on "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" #6,630,507

The plant can't be patented (yet) but apparently the use of ingredients can

United States Patent 6,630,507
Hampson, et al. October 7, 2003

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Abstract

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

Since "We" are the US Gov it's really "our" patent, isn't it.

The Significance of US Govt Cannabinoid Patent 6,630,507

The patent, awarded in 2003, is based on research done by the National Institute of Health, and is assigned to the US Dept. of Health and Human Services.

So, why is this important? Here is a legal document, in the public domain, which flies in the face of the US Government's stated position with regard to the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I substance having no "currently accepted medical use". Believe me, citing this patent stops the "medical marijuana is a myth" advocates dead in their tracks. They simply cannot argue with it.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2008/jul/23/significance_us_govt_cannabinoid

A posting of this patent sunk like a rock with maybe 3 replies

[RainDog]

61. because, as I've noted before, the govt GRANTS PATENTS TO COMPANIES

they do not hold them themselves. I'm gonna yell this, okay? THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWN ANY PATENTS ON CANNABINOIDS. The govt. does allow companies to register their unique products. The reason Monsanto can have a patent on a hybrid of corn is b/c they injected some crap into the corn. The govt. doesn't hold the patent for that corn, Monsanto does. But if you do to the patent office, you will find a claim, just like the one you link to, that indicates who holds a patent for what.

Companies and individuals apply for patents. That's what you link to. I've told you this about three times now.

I read the patents. I read about patents. The patent process is like registering an artistic work with the library of congress. the LoC didn't create the work but they grant the person who did the legal right to claim that work is copyrighted by registering a work with the LoC.

Maybe the reason the patent post sunk like a rock is because it's incorrect.

[RainDog]

9. here's an article about the brain cancer research

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20090401/marijuana-chemical-may-fight-brain-cancer

"The active chemical in marijuana promotes the death of brain cancer cells by essentially helping them feed upon themselves, researchers in Spain report.

Guillermo Velasco and colleagues at Complutense University in Spain have found that the active ingredient in marijuana, THC, causes brain cancer cells to undergo a process called autophagy. Autophagy is the breakdown of a cell that occurs when the cell essentially self-digests."

[randome]

12. Sounds promising.

But I still don't see the medical or drug industry standing in the way of progress on this front since they already went to the trouble of researching it.

Just trying to maintain a healthy skepticism here but, um, doesn't this essentially boil down to 'marijuana kills brain cells'. So does a bottle of Jack Daniels!

[RainDog]

16. No, if you bothered to read the articles, healthy cells are not effected

it's the opposite of Jack Daniels. It's Mary Jane, bitch.

The reason you don't see the drug industry standing in the way is that you don't recognize their powerful lobby that does not want the competition from something that cannot be patented.

Do you know that Monsanto tried to make it illegal for farmers in India to use their own seeds? The heirloom plants they had used for generations? Yeah. That happened, too. Monsanto wanted to force farmers to buy their seeds and make it illegal to grow any others.

Like I said, you're incredibly gullible, it seems. Your faith in power is not good for your or your nation.

[Tsiyu]

19. Some Americans are very afraid of this plant

They put their fingers in their ears and say "LaLaLa..."


It's a terror I find amusing but also "not good" for us and our nation.

[randome]

21. Again.

I don't know how many times I can say essentially the same thing, but:

My point is that corporations routinely sell us stuff we can grow or obtain by ourselves. We usually don't want to go to the trouble of making our own beer or carbonated beverages because, let's face it, we're sort of lazy.

The pharmaceutical industry would still find a way to brand and market their own version of anything that showed promise.

I don't have 'faith' in corporations. I just see them for what they are: unthinking greed machines.

[RainDog]

24. They are working on synthetics, as I've said

and there are dozens of patents for synthetic cannabinoids. And the use of those will cost far more than any whole plant product that someone can grow for themselves or have someone grow for them or buy in a dispensary.

People DO go to the trouble of making a variety of cannabis products. But the govt doesn't want to allow these to be legally sold. Our govt. would rather cede the cannabis market, overall, to organized crime, rather than admit they've been wrong and/or been lying to people for decades.

[Tsiyu]

39. we can also purchase products made from hemp

Hempseed, hemp oil, hemp rope, hemp fabric, hemp lotions


But our farmers can't grow the hemp for these products here.

How much money is it costing American farmers, denied the right to grow something Americans want to buy?

[ArcticFox]

44. The powerful don't just want to make money

They want to make obscene amounts of money. Why would a pharmaceutical company settle for brewery profit margins without a fight?

[RainDog]

13. did you know a study published in 1974 indicated that cannabis kills cancer cells?

Project Censored considers it one of the top censored stories of this nation.

http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/

In 1974 researchers learned that THC, the active chemical in marijuana, shrank or destroyed brain tumors in test mice. But the DEA quickly shut down the study and destroyed its results, which were never replicated -- until now.

The Madrid study (the one I mention in the OP - and a later one done with humans by the same research group) marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia investigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects.

Most Americans don't know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.

In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."

Do you know how and why that earlier research was uncovered? That's another interesting part of recent medical history. Someone leaked the paper to an AIDS activist when Ronnie Raygun was telling people with HIV/AIDS that he didn't care if they died. And that's how medical marijuana became part of California culture, as compassionate people helped to provide relief (tho not a cure) to those with this disease. They did this for free. They helped people who were suffering while our govt did nothing.

I find your faith in money-making enterprises incredibly naive.

[randome]

14. Okay.

I don't have any 'faith' in money-making enterprises at all. I'm just pointing out that corporations aren't really known for turning away from money-making propositions.

[RainDog]

18. as I noted, a plant cannot be patented

synthetic molecules can. however, the synthetic versions of the plant have been far less successful as treatment. You can read doctor after doctor who notes their cancer patients overwhelmingly state they prefer whole plant cannabis to marinol, for instance.

If something can't be patented, a corporation cannot "copyright" it and claim exclusive profit for its use.

[randome]

22. They would combine the plant with a pain-reliever or some other shit.

It isn't hard to find a way to brand and market something that's common-place.

[RainDog]

30. so then how do you explain the govt's continued refusal to acknowledge decades of research?

I mean, honestly - what do you think is the rationale of the federal govt to refuse, as recently as a few weeks ago, that non-pharmaceutical cannabis has medical value?

Their refusal cannot be based upon evidence because the evidence exists in the patients for whom they must legally supply 300 cannabis cigarettes a month to treat things like glaucoma and a rare form of bone tumor-induced pain.

Why is our govt. unwilling to face facts and respect the science about this plant? What's your take on it - why this continued refusal to acknowledge evidence? To me, it's like cannabis prohibition is the creationism of the WoD - just a stubborn refusal to accept facts that disprove someone's myths.

For some of us, the cognitive dissonance between the science and our govt's policies are starting to look like federal idiocy.

[RainDog]

31. so, again, why does the govt continue prohibition?

how do you explain the current situation as it stands?

[randome]

32. Can't say I can explain everything.

I would guess that free use of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes, is tantamount to opening the door for further under-the-counter use. Inventory reports can be forged, supply shipments diverted.

Say what you want about smoking pot, pro or con, Society at large still sees that as a no-no. (We don't need to get into the equivalencies of alcohol, prescription drug abuse, etc. Unless you want to. And I don't have any real good answers for that, either.)

As I understand it, not all the dispensaries were closed in California so the door is still open, just not open very much.

[RainDog]

33. I don't think society sees it as a no-no when the majority supports full legalization

50% to 46% would like to see cannabis fully legalized. that number will only grow with more education about this issue.

81%, in the latest survey, want medical marijuana to be legal. The number of Americans who want medical mj legal has been WAY over the majority for more than a decade.

So, after alcohol prohibition, did people still choose to buy alcohol from rum runners, or did they prefer something they knew was made it such a way that is was safe? I mean, I think that prohibition history indicates your assumption doesn't fly.

And how would a regulated product be easier to deal with illegally than if it were already illegal? What's the logic in that? btw, there's also the study that indicates that fewer Dutch teenagers use cannabis than American ones - and the increase seems to be tied to the issue of prohibition, at least here. There, the Dutch regulate cannabis sales.

As far as the dispensary raids, all that did was piss off a lot of Californians and make it harder for them to want to vote for Obama. It also cost the cities trying to regulate this more money and denied them revenue, as well.

Cannabis is already the largest cash crop in the U.S. So, apparently, a lot of Americans don't think smoking pot is a no-no - that pot isn't going elsewhere. But as things stand now, none of the money from the sale of cannabis goes to states and cities that could use the revenue to help their local economies.

I think it's interesting that you think the majority of people think cannabis is a "no-no." I don't know a single person where I live who thinks that way. Not a single one. And I live in a red state.

[randome]

34. I know the majority of people poll that way.

But it's one thing to answer a survey and it's another to actively support.

Holland isn't a good example for any comparison with the U.S. since it's a much smaller country, easier to police the borders, etc.

I see your point about prohibition and that people didn't continue to buy from rum-runners when it was repealed. OTOH, making your own 'hootch' was dangerous in terms of one's health.

Buying pot from neighborhood dealers would continue, I think, if pot was fully legalized. Different cuts, different potencies, etc.

Gotta rake leaves now so don't feel I'm ignoring you if I don't return for a while. (Not that anyone is waiting with baited breath for my next post.)

[RainDog]

37. lol. European nations have open borders now

the right wing pols in The Netherlands are about to restrict cannabis cafes to Dutch residents only because so many people from Germany, France and Belgium drive over. Borders, however, have nothing to do with teenage use among a population.

But, you know, this is interesting. You don't want to believe that the majority of Americans support legalization (and have, overwhelmingly, supported legal mmj for more than a decade.) Do you have any actual data to back up a claim that people are lying about their support of legal cannabis? Why would someone claim to support something that is now illegal? Wouldn't it make more sense to lie and claim you didn't support it, simply because someone might assume you are in some way connected to cannabis? Maybe this is one of those moments of cognitive dissonance when what you believe doesn't match reality so you create a reason to continue to believe something, rather than accept your assumption might be wrong.

something to think about.

and your argument is that legalization would mean that the same thing that goes on now would continue to go on...therefore maintain criminal penalties that unfairly target the poor and minorities? maintain laws that deny reality because the reality is that pot is sold illegally now and, if legal outlets were available, someone might continue to do the same thing they're doing now?

I just don't really see the logic in this.

And the reality is that keeping cannabis illegal inhibits research that may help many people.

but your argument is that, since people will buy from an illegal vendor either way, it's better to put people at risk of criminal charges for consuming something less dangerous than alcohol or aspiring while, at the same time, denying medical research.

maybe you need to think this through a bit more.

and I have to leave soon as well.

[randome]

55. Point taken about the borders.

But I'm not saying Society has a logical approach to the problem. I agree the sentences are absurd and the incarceration rates are equally absurd.

I don't have the answer. But I think most people saying they support legalization is different from people actually wanting that to happen.

Pot is a mind-altering substance. I know -so is alcohol and caffeine and a dozen other substances that are legal. I don't have an answer for how to cope with Society's schizophrenic attitude on this. I just acknowledge that it's there.

[RainDog]

58. okay, so the 14 states and DC that allow initiatives that have passed mmj laws

don't really want those laws? even when some places (Arizona) had to vote for it more than once and CONSTRAIN their legislators from blocking it? when DC has had to wait for 13 years for Congress to appropriate the funds to implement the law the citizens there voted on?

when, in the face of possible legalization, Ahnuld decriminalized to give a little in hopes the legalization proposition wouldn't pass?

and then formerly 70%, now 80% that have repeatedly polled in favor of mmj legalization... didn't mean it... and, again, those who could make this happen themselves accidentally went to the polls and voted for something?

wow.

I've got to say that you are in deep denial here.

Yes, cannabis is a mind-altering substance for a couple of hours. It doesn't produce a hangover, like alcohol. It doesn't produce the same experience as alcohol. Yes, caffeine is legal, but it used to be illegal and possession punishable by death. That made no sense either. But it does illustrate the RANDOM bullshit that is prohibition in any place and time.

I don't think society, the majority of society, has a schizophrenic attitude toward cannabis. I think some people simply refuse to face facts that are staring them in the face. And some people are paid to make sure the substance du jour is forbidden. It's about random enforcement of unearned power over others.

[bvar22]

53. Intensive Lobbying from the well connected "For Profit" Prison Industry....

...could also be part of the explanation for the continued prohibition.

[diane in sf]

52. Because the large drug company employees move in and out of the FDA and carry out the wishes

of the large drug companies. These wishes include suppressing natural, unpatentable cures for diseases that the drug companies profit from by selling patent medicines for.

[ArcticFox]

45. Sorry, but if you were right

Then aspirin would cost as much as any patented pain reliever. I'm absolutely sure that's not the case. By your reasoning, you should have no problem trading a $20/hr job for one that pays $5/hr. After all, you'll be making money either way.

[randome]

54. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of pain relievers out there.

Each one marketed and branded as better than the rest. Not sure I understand the pay per hour analogy but I'm tired from raking leaves so maybe that's it.

[RainDog]

62. Sativex is whole plant cannabis that has been patented

what was patented, really, seems to be the delivery system - a spray that is aimed into the mouth. It's now legal to sale in Canada, Israel, GB and Germany. It's produced by GW Pharmaceuticals, in GB. They have huge warehouses in a hidden location that grow the cannabis. They take the whole plant, not just the buds, and put them in an emulsion. They reduce the liquid to create a medicine that is titrated by a spray dose.

GW Pharma wants to be able to sell Sativex here, too. They proposed growing the cannabis IN JAPAN. They want to make a product for the American market and rather than grow that product here, they want to offshore this to Japan... who, might I add, doesn't have a great situation going on there with the nuclear energy issues. As I noted before, they should grow hemp to pull toxins out of the soil. After I first mentioned that, I read that Japan is planting sunflowers for this same purpose (both sunflowers and hemp have a reed-like, thick, hollow stalk.)

This company, or another one, I forget, wants the DEA to make their synthetic cannabinoid, Drabinol, legal to sell in the U.S. When a pharma first produced the synthetic, marinol, the DEA had to grant permission to allow a synthetic form of cannabis to be marketed here. They did. People don't want the synthetic. They want the real thing with the full component of cannabinoids.

Now, why in the hell should the DEA, rather than the FDA, have any say on such a substance? There is no logical reason other than arbitrary power-mongering. NONE. AT. ALL.

Why should marinol be legal when whole plant cannabis is not? MAKES. NO. SENSE. AT. ALL.

The feds are like contortionists trying to find ways to stick their heads up their behinds rather than admit that they have lied for 70 fucking years. ENOUGH. ENOUGH. ENOUGH OF THIS BULLSHIT.

sorry. I just really hate petty tyrants.

[RainDog]

63. Oh, and Sativex - it's, basically, that Rick guy's hemp oil that he gives away for free

That I mentioned earlier in the goofy video called Run From the Cure.

[RainDog]

79. Sativex: a tincture of cannabis that is sold as medicine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sativex

Nabiximols (USAN<1>, trade name Sativex)

The drug is a pharmaceutical product standardised in composition, formulation, and dose, although it is still effectively a tincture of the cannabis plant. Its principal active cannabinoid components are the cannabinoids: tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). The product is formulated as an oromucosal spray which is administered by spraying into the mouth. Each spray delivers a fixed dose of 2.7 mg THC and 2.5 mg CBD.

In early clinical trials, nabiximols has generally been well tolerated.<9><10><11> The most common adverse effects in Phase III trials were dizziness (25%), drowsiness (8.2%) and disorientation (4%). 12% of patients stopped taking the drug because of the side effects. No investigations regarding the potential for dependence are available, but such a potential is unlikely considering the pharmacological properties of the two components.<7>

Nabiximols is available in a number of countries as an unlicensed medicine, which enables doctors to prescribe the product to individual patients who they consider may benefit. The product has been exported from the UK to a total of 28 countries to date.

In February 2007, GW and Otsuka Pharmaceutical announced an exclusive agreement for Otsuka to develop and market the drug in the United States. The first large scale US Phase IIb trial, Spray Trial, for cancer patients reported positive results in March 2010. GW and Otsuka have now commenced the Phase III development of nabiximols in cancer pain.

I would like the Obama administration and the DEA to explain how Sativex is a medicine but that Rick guy's Hemp Oil is not. If it were not considered a medicine, it would not be a third phase development trial.

Therefore, cannabis is a medicine.

Therefore, the current scheduling of cannabis is, in essence, void because it is scientifically and morally wrong...if your morals include a belief that it is wrong for powerful people to oppress minorities and justify this with lies.

You can't have a law on the books that is based upon a lie - well, sure you can, but you cannot defend such a law in a court of law. Well, sure you can. As we see.

[Tsiyu]

7. Money makes the laws

If something makes the Big Corporations mega $$$$$$$$$$$$, they can't have the Average American saving a buck and eliminating the FIller People.

Imagine if they told people they couldn't grow their own tomatoes or spinach, because "after all, these veggies can kill you if contaminated with e. coli!"

Like you said, careers and corp profits matter more than human rights. While the citizen pays dearly in a one-sided war.

[Lorien]

48. Yep, and if anyone doubts that the FDA and the cancer research centers try to STOP

effective non-traditional treatments, they should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac

[RainDog]

4. If I ever had a dx of skin cancer

I would most definitely want to live somewhere that would allow me to use whatever medicine is best for me.

I wonder if any national news programs ran with this, or if it was just kept locally?

[Tsiyu]

11. I don't have TV

so haven't noted any other 1% Media running this story.

Yes, it should be between a doctor and patient.

Corrections Corporation of America, and Wackenhut, and all of , BigBeer, and all their lobbyists, commercials, and campaign donations, do not have medical degrees.

My doctor should be able to decide which treatment is best for me, and I should be given the right to obtain that treatment in the most cost-effective manner possible for my situation.

When someone else's profane profits determine the care I receive, and the punishment I would suffer if I pursued that care, it's no wonder we are economically and morally bankrupt.


Edit to remove Big Pharma from the "Don'tHave MedicalDegrees" category. Of course they would have a few...Diddy has lots of $$$$$$ They're still wankers...

[RainDog]

23. after watching that PBS Montana doc. about The Science of Cannabis...

I would definitely not go to a doctor who is a drug warrior.

The objections from the "DEA doctor" are all shot down by a medical doc and a professor who look at, you know, science. That DEA doc's prejudices, imo, cause him to offer inferior treatment. Not all doctors are the same.

[Tsiyu]

40. Nor would I

i prefer actual science over authoritarian, (greedy) dogma

[RainDog]

25. exactly. The DEA is not medically qualified to make decisions for Americans about their health care

And their unwillingness to acknowledge the health benefits of cannabis products shows the care more about their ideological war than they do about people's health.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. Sorry, your body doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the DEA.

and they get upwards of $40 Billion a year of your tax dollars to prove it.

[RainDog]

38. here's the pbs doc

which you can watch right here. it's very good.

http://watch.montanapbs.org/video/1825223761/

[Tsiyu]

41. Weeeeel

Kuntry Dialup makes that purt'near impossible.

But others should check it out...

[firehorse]

46. I had skin cancer, looked like a small wart, under the skin it was like large tree roots

I had MOS surgery, glad I went that route instead of something topical, or I would have lost my ear.

[OneGrassRoot]

3. Whoaaaaa.....and thanks. Huge K&R! n/t

[lonestarnot]

5. Wow! I need some of that shit! Been cut and burned to much for my enjoyment!

[livetohike]

20. Me too

I'm a redhead with fair skin (but not as fair as some). Almost 60 years old now and racking up the skin surgery bills :-(.

[RainDog]

27. If you lived in CA, you could get hemp oil.

not to say you shouldn't have standard medical treatment, but there seems to be no drawback from at least having this oil as an add on to traditional treatment. You should watch "Run From the Cure." This is definitely an area of treatment that needs controlled studies.

[livetohike]

29. Thanks! The thing is, I did live in CA for nearly 14 years and

moved back to western PA in 2007. It's since then that these surgeries have happened :-(. Maybe I can get someone to send me some?

[lonestarnot]

36. run from the cure?

[notadmblnd]

49. I thought that Hemp didn't contain THC?

[RainDog]

50. the guy who made it called it hemp oil so that's what I called it

but, yeah, hemp contains way too little THC to have any effect. all cannabis has a little THC but if the percentage is below x amt, you wouldn't know it's there. one person I know locally wishes hemp could be legal so she can smoke it like a cigarette. um, okay. she doesn't want to get high. but she would like to smoke something that's not nicotine from time to time - and she doesn't smoke cigarettes anymore.

but the "hemp oil" the guy makes uses high-grade high-THC buds, not stems, etc.

I think oil that comes from hemp that has agricultural and other purposes is called hempseed oil b/c the oil is mostly extracted from the seeds.

[waddirum]

65. I always heard that oils and tinctures are NOT sold...

... in dispensaries in CA. I asked that question once, and was told that they are not available. Perhaps someone who lives in CA or CO can speak to this.

[lonestarnot]

35. I am sorry livetohike.

:( :hug:

[DreamSmoker]

26. Whose Oil and Who Can You Trust?

Yes it is absolutely true...
The Cannabis Oil Extract here is real..

HERE IS ALL YOU NEED:


AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE: Fighting The Damage Caused By Radiation

http://phoenixtears.ca/

My thanks and Prayers go out to Rick Simpson for his work and development of this Product..
His sharing how it is made and used..
And yes you can make this yourself...

[bemildred]

28. This could lead to new, less harmful, varieties of chemotherapy. nt

[hunter]

42. I'd rather have my skin cancers burnt or cut out of me thank you...

...nevertheless it's a grave tragedy this very useful medicinal herb is outlawed.

[napoleon_in_rags]

47. I just had the most interesting thought.

Humans think they have sex (reproduce) because it feels good. But in reality, sex feels good because it leads to reproduction. Evolution selected those individuals who find pleasure in sex because they were the ones who bred and passed on their genes. So it feels good BECAUSE it leads to reproduction, we have been programmed that way.

What if there is a similar relationship with certain plants? What if we get high (feel good) ingesting certain plants BECAUSE they lead to longevity or protect from some diseases? Could marijuana be one of those plants?

[RainDog]

51. That's sort of the premise that Michael Pollan takes in The Botany of Desire

in his chapter about cannabis. he notes how this plant puts up with horrible conditions (indoor growing, intensive feeding schedule, workworkwork) but the reward for the plant is that it has been hybridized into all sorts of variations. Variation provides the best chance to survive as a species because change is random. Humans created "mutations" to increase the plant's viability.

That's another irony - Ronald Reagan's war on drugs moved cannabis growers indoors who then cross-bred indica and sativa strains to make plants that are more accommodating to a variety of environments. The breeders then increased the level of THC for some strains because they had stable indoor growing environments, like labs.

Since its use among humans has existed on record as far back as about 5000 bc, there's obviously been a benefit to humans. Earliest known uses were for medicines and later for people to "talk" to their dead ancestors.

Until 70 or so years ago, it was part of every doctor's medicines in the U.S.

It's been a useful plant in so many ways - the long fiber makes it ideal for certain things - this nation wouldn't have been founded without it since the canvas sails on Columbus' ships were made from hemp.

And Robert Melamede, a biologist who works in cannabis research, seems to think that we've co-evolved with cannabis because cannabinoids mock our endocannabinoids and make it possible for the body to maintain various bodily systems if our own endocannabinoids are out of balance. don't know, but that's the thrust of his work, it seems.

here's a video where he talks about his overarching pov.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4179107660421413341

[napoleon_in_rags]

60. I did some research after posting that, it seems a solid premise.

My research focused on catnip, known to cause brief feelings of euphoria in cats. The hypothesis predicts that the plant should have some beneficial quality for the health of cats. I found some promising leads, like here:
"Catnip Repels Mosquitoes More Effectively Than DEET"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010828075659.htm

Other sources point out that catnip not only repels mosquitoes (I read malaria effects cats to) but fleas, ticks, and other parasites which are also known to operate as vectors for pathogens that could kill the cat.

Thanks for your the link, I haven't dived into the video yet but will now.

[RainDog]

64. interesting

I know that cats, supposedly, don't like rue but dogs do. Rue is supposed to provide anti-flea properties for dogs and some ppl talk about putting it in a dog's bedding. I read that you can rub rue on your furniture to keep cats from scratching upholstery, but then I thought... which is worse, stains from an herb or cat scratches? :/

When I get all touchy-feely thinkie, I think it's interesting that a plant whose female component provides medical and other benefits to people is irrationally feared and demonized. Sort of like patriarchy.

That balance that Melamede talks about... some days I think that getting a govt. that could be sane about cannabis would mean a govt. willing to be sane about quite a few other things, too, because, when that happens, it means that the patriarchy has failed to oppress the feminine.

Yin/Yang, all that. It really does all come down to balance, tho. rational laws. rational actions by individuals.

[napoleon_in_rags]

71. I just finished that video.

Good watch. I like the beginning, those ideas about entropy. A few ideas in between the lines that are golden:
1) The human, in terms of health, doesn't exist in a vacuum, but rather as part of a series of continuous relationships with environment.
2) Treatments are idiosyncratic, different people will respond to different ones.
I did a little research on cancer earlier too, and the latter seems to be the emerging thought across the field: Where a person with strep has one organism (genetically) breeding and taking over, a person with cancer has a mutation in their own unique cellular structure that has created some new thing, as unique as they are, and may require its own unique treatment.

As far as what you just said, I agree, weed prohibition with no alcohol prohibition has always been weird. Alcohol makes you scary, weed makes you mellow. But maybe that's why: we live in a society that is more likely to respect those who inspire fear than those who inspire art.

[RainDog]

83. I think metabolic homeostasis is an interesting and important topic

and a way to look at these issues within the context of science.

http://www.whatislife.com/about.html

What is metabolic homeostasis?

Fifty years after Schroedinger's publication, the biophysical and biochemical details of many cellular mechanisms are well characterized largely confirming Schroedinger's critical analysis of the limitations of the 'naive physicist's view' as applied to the life sciences. Contrary to the objects of physics, biological systems are complex in their composition, asymmetric in structure, and the flow of energy and chemical reactions never at equilibrium. Yet, organisms maintain a stable structure over long periods of time. This stability of large structures with the molecular components constantly replaced and regenerated is called homeostasis, meaning they maintain a status quo. Living organisms maintain a state of metabolic homeostasis which can be viewed as a steady-state throughput of energy to sustain body function, structure, and information. Both chemical energy and molecular building blocks are extracted from the nutrients in our diet and are used to form macromolecules like proteins, DNA, polysaccharides, and membranes. These macromolecular structures in turn control nutrient uptake, metabolism, and excretion. Metabolism is a dynamic process of energy conversion in cells of living organisms.

Cancer disrupts the steady state that maintains the status quo of cellular life.

As Melamedes refers to briefly - females who have either too low or too high levels of endocannabinoids in the uterus may have a hard time becoming pregnant. Cannabis may be useful as a form of birth control or infertility, again depending upon the individual metabolic make up of an individual.

(Our bodies also bathe our babies, in utereo, with natural endocannbinoids and a fetus develops cannabinoid receptors early in gestation. This system is hugely important to our development as functioning humans.)

[waddirum]

66. Melameade argues that...

... authoritarian and reactionary people are cannabinoid deficient, while creative folk are chock full of endo-cannabinoids (often supplemented by phyto-cannabinoids).

[reACTIONary]

68. There is a direct and intuitively obvious link between sex and reproductive success...

...that isn't the case with ingesting and inhaling alkaloids. Just because it feels good doesn't mean its going to help you make babies.

[napoleon_in_rags]

70. I think its all pretty intuitive. The question is WHY do things feel good?

It feels good to have sex, but evolution selected those lifeforms that did it a lot, that really valued it. It feels good to eat food, because evolution valued organisms that kept themselves fed with healthy food. The foods that taste good tend to be healthy foods. Stretching and yawning feel good because of health effects, etc. Sniffing catnip and rolling around feels good to cats because it repels Mosquitos flees etc (probably, see my post above)

So generally, if something has been in an organisms natural sphere long enough to let it effect the organisms evolution, and the animal likes it, its probably because in the past its been good for the animal in some way.

Of course their are exceptions. The brain is like a computer system, and when something gets in their and hijacks it like a computer virus, it can undercut that process. Maybe that's the case with drugs like tobacco, or many of the synthetic psychoactives. However I also think we should realize that not all psychoactive drugs are necessarily in this class, look at the reported health benefits of coffee:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/31/coffee-health-benefits_n_1064577.html#s443212&title=Coffee_Could_Decrease
or of moderate use of red wine. Marijuana might just be in that category.

[RainDog]

75. I don't think that's what he said.

however, you might be interested in Michael Pollan's take on the co-evolution of humans and various plants, not just cannabis.

another example is the willow tree. it is abundant. grows like a weed. it's the basis for aspirin and willow tree bark was long used for the same reasons that aspirin is now before Bayer synthesized the compounds. humans valued the health benefits of willow trees and willow trees enjoyed an environment that humans finds useful too - close to a source of water.

so humans cultivated willow trees because it was a useful plant for them.

the uses of hemp have already been demonstrated throughout history. it was one of the most important sources of material for civilization to occur, from canvas to rope to paper to a food source. why wouldn't we cultivate plants that make our lives more enjoyable because of its usefulness in various ways?

[WillyT]

56. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

:kick:

[PufPuf23]

67. Excellent information thread. Thank you.

Marijuana prohibition is an authoritarian political herding, distribution of $$$, and control issue rather than rational and fair when compared to alcohol, tobacco, and rx drugs.

[reACTIONary]

69. a 60% reduction in skin cancer lesions....

A 60% reduction in skin cancer lesions in a man who undertook his own topical treatment for about a month without the consent of his doctor means..... absolutely nothing. Zip. Zilch. Even if it did actually occur. Which I doubt.

[RainDog]

74. why don't you find out more about it then?

if you think this didn't happen - why don't you call the tv station and ask them to follow up?

again, this isn't the only instance of such things happening. but, I agree, we need controlled studies to really have some sort of statistical information about this. but the govt does not want statistical information about the uses of cannabis. they're only interested in viewing it as a substance of abuse.

however, the mechanism by which THC removes cancer cells from the body was observed by the scientist in Spain and his work was published in a peer-reviewed paper - and that he was able to see the mechanism at work was a big deal.

his work was such a big deal that he was allowed to experiment on two humans with brain cancer who have a life expectancy of months and they did not survive, but they also showed the same process at work in decreasing the number of cancer cells.

so, whether this guy really did treat his cancer with concentrated cannabis oil or not, the mechanism has been demonstrated in the lab.

I happen to think it did work, but that's because I've seen other people who documented their experiences too. however, again, for science to make a claim, someone needs to create controlled studies.

nevertheless, prohibition of this substance has no grounding in reality, no grounding in a cost/benefit analysis, no grounding in the actual science that exists that demonstrates this substance has far, far more benefits than downsides for the majority of people and the prohibition itself is the problem.

That's what it all comes down to. The prohibition is the problem.

anyway, let us know if you follow up on this since you don't think it's true. maybe the cbs affliate will do another story that goes into other such claims as well. I would really appreciate that, in fact.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. THROW HIS SKIN IN PRISON!!!!! RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!!!

[slay]

76. There are many reasons our government try and keep marijuana from us

both parties are owned when it comes to spewing marijuana propaganda. this is just one of the many reasons they don't want us to have it. k&r.

[RainDog]

78. other than the propaganda that the govt has created for 70 years

there is no good reason for any American to support prohibition either - well, unless they benefit, financially, by keeping cannabis illegal. My ethical standards wouldn't allow me to do that, however.

[burrowowl]

77. K&R

In Mexico it has been used for centuries for cataplasms and other healing properties.

[RainDog]

80. Biologist Rob Malemedes owns a DEA agent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpKKgSG3UOw

just wanted to add this to this thread.

The only argument the DEA agent has is that adults who use cannabis are poor role models for children. The "think of the children!" attack. By such logic, no adults should have sex, either, since we don't want children to have sex. Oh, but, that's right, we as a society DO make distinctions between adults and children!

I've never seen a DEA agent talking about this issue.

He relies upon lies to uphold his position, and when that fails, he attacks on emotional grounds. That's not considered a valid argument for any scientific debate.

It's also too easy to elide the debate between medicine and legal recreational cannabis. Yes, do the research for medical applications.

In the meantime, there is no reason to enforce prohibition for personal use that is not considered medicinal since we allow other substances, such as alcohol, tobacco, coffee, sugar, etc. to be legal (and in some cases, regulated for sale to adults.)

[Uncle Joe]

81. Kicked but too late to formally recommend.

I'm sorry I missed this one.

Thanks for the thread, RainDog.:thumbsup:

[RainDog]

82. thanks, Uncle Joe!

Melamedes also has a video on his youtube channel in which he talks about Rick Simpson. This biologist supports Rick Simpson.