RobinJI Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Ive seen it work ! it brings people back from their death beds! You've seen it work or you've seen someone get better after trying it and assumed causality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Anscombe Posted February 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) Yeah f**k it im actually done ...... i cant because because il fight this corner day and night! Edited February 12, 2013 by Dave Anscombe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Yeah f**k it im actually insane ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinJI Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) No answer to what I said then? The fact is, your saying they're doing action 'x' because they're greedy, when the more greedy option is actually not to do action 'x' I was hoping for a video of the "I hope that in time you can realise what an idiot you've been" quote from futurama, but this was the first thing that came up, and also seems relevant: (Sorry, I was trying to keep it to a reasoned and sensible discussion, but as you seem to have given up on that, sod it) Edited February 12, 2013 by RobinJI 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Anscombe Posted February 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Ok, now you've lost me completely. Saying it may aid healing's one thing, saying you should use it instead of proven treatment is just lunacy. Speaking of educating ourselves do you know how chemo works or what cancer is? I know chemo's some nasty shit, I've watched my step-mum go through a serious treatment of it, but it's used for a reason, it works. Ok it's not 100% effective, but then even if what you say's right cannabis can't be 100% effective or you'd be claiming that no pot-heads have ever died of cancer. I'd be pretty open to giving cannabis a try alongside existing cures, it's not going to hurt, but there's no way in hell I'd consider using it instead. The idea of keeping us ill to make money from us is retarded when it comes to terminal cases. Think what rich guys would pay to get cured, enough to definitely make it worth their while wheeling out all the shit they're supposedly hiding. Plus they make a lot more money out of living people than they do dead people, surely if they were exploiting us like you say they'd be keeping us alive but with ongoing treatment. It's like you must have heard (and judging by your posts probably believe) the theory about light bulb manufacturers being able to make an everlasting bulb, but if they did their profits would plummet after everyone had bought them and didn't ever need to replace them. That would be the equivalent of them keeping a cure for the common cold away from us, I can kind of see why you'd think they'd do that. The trouble is what you're suggesting here, is the equivalent of rather than making the light-bulb break and need replacing, they'd make the light bulb short circuit and fry the socket it's in, along with the whole building's power supply, meaning you can never replace it again. It's retarded because it means no profits for them, they'd be better off making the everlasting one and hoping it accidentally gets smashed. My point is, if a drugs company lets a patient die, they can't make anything from them. Ignoring the option of keeping them alive but ill, the other choice is to cure them completely, they'll run around, get on their bike, hurt themselves and run to the drug company for some pain killers, which is profit for them, much better than a dead patient. I don't believe the lightbulb thing, or that drug companies are keeping us ill, because even if you did invent a miracle drug, or an everlasting lightbulb, selling only the one to everyone is still more than enough to make you rich beyond your wildest dreams, and as such, some clever outside competitor/entrepreneur would do it, roll around in a giant pile of money and retire not really giving a damn that the market's now gone. Basically your argument is flawed, because deep down, people are greedy bastereds. Wo wo wo If you read back in other pages.i state that using cannabis alone you have a better chance of full recovery than chemo therapy......cemo does work -some times but the chance of the diseases comming back are way way way higherSo yeah, have you posted this info on any support group messageboards? Just out of curiosity... these were during early 2012..i will source the links for you just gave you loads of credible info on the fda !pot heads die of cancer because they SMOKE IT-SMOKE BAD FOR LUNGS EATING OIL GOOD FOR HEALTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Wo wo wo If you read back in other pages.i state that using cannabis alone you have a better chance of full recovery than chemo therapy......cemo does work -some times but the chance of the diseases comming back are way way way higher Now Mr Patient, you do have cancer and you basically have 2 options 1) The tried and tested routes that have a proven good chance of sorting you out or 2) Here's an 8th, I read on the internet that if you refine it it will work 100% better than any other method used in modern medicine ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Quinn Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Mark, I see your point. But please, try not to encourage him to go harass the severely ill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Anscombe Posted February 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 The offer still stands on my onza zoot t.f an insentive to prove me wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 these were during early 2012..i will source the links for you and if i can save a life -then im a happy chappy So, saving a life = you're a happy chappy, yet you haven't posted it on a relevant forum for almost a year, but you're posting it on here where there's demonstrably smaller chances of it actually saving a life... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinJI Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 And pot heads that die of cancers not related to smoking? Surely they're still getting the same chemical intake. Cancer recurrence isn't due to the nature of the cure, it's to do with the nature of the disease. Don't you think millions of people have tried using cannabis along side conventional treatment, hell I probably would if I was suffering, and if it was so magical do you not think a correlation within the recurrence would have been evident by now? You're still missing my point that it's actually the potentially more profitable thing to cure people than it is to let them die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dann2707 Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 onza zoot Now I see why you got one of them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Anscombe Posted February 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 So, saving a life = you're a happy chappy, yet you haven't posted it on a relevant forum for almost a year, but you're posting it on here where there's demonstrably smaller chances of it actually saving a life... Ive posted on quite a few sites......and others have beaten me to it on others...... HOW MANY RIDERS ARE ON THE FORUM? Chances are maybe one of you knows someone whos suffering not with only cancer but ms or other things "Now Mr Patient, you do have cancer and you basically have 2 options 1) The tried and tested routes that have a proven good chance of sorting you out or 2) Here's an 8th, I read on the internet that if you refine it it will work 100% better than any other method used in modern medicine ... -WITNESSED!-Yes i have researched because i know it can heal ! ive not said chemo does not work -or other methods dont work....Dont twist my words! ive said you have a uch higher chance of beating it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Taken together, our data show that concentrations of THC... accelerate proliferation of cancer cells instead of apoptosis and thereby contribute to cancer progression in patients. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15026328 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21233844'>Evidence that cancer cells can develop a resistance to cannabinoids. You can find things that prove whatever you want them to prove... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Anscombe Posted February 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Mark, I see your point. But please, try not to encourage him to go harass the severely ill. You clearly know verry little about the topic at hand! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinJI Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 The trouble is, I don't actually dispute that it may have benefits. I just think you're doing a brilliant job of coming across as a nutter who's campaigning it for all the wrong reasons, which makes me want to believe it LESS not more. I'm really not sure it is helpful for you to post it on more relevant sites. I know all publicity's mean to be good publicity, but there is exceptions. (One notable one being a Beyonce advert I saw the other day, I've never been a fan, but after seeing a poster where she seems to have done a Michael Jackson and magically turned white while thinking she's the queen, I now think she's a talent-less willy, at least Jackson made some half respectable music while being mental.) Plus you're still avoiding my point that if it worked people would be exploiting it, because that's the more profitable path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Anscombe Posted February 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Look all im doing is trying to provide some information that could save a life! Beat me down if you have to for trying to be a positive force ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinJI Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Hey, like I've said a few times, I've got no problem with it being used as a medicine! My problem lies with the whole conspiracy theory 'they're keeping us ill' stuff, as well as to a large extent the level of blatant exaggerating you're doing about its effectiveness. Medicine is an area where miss-information can be seriously dangerous, even if you're intentions are good. What happens if people follow what you're saying and it turns out that actually it was all exaggerated and they should have stuck with the conventional stuff? People die, which is pretty shit really. Edited February 13, 2013 by RobinJI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Anyone that can prove me wrong gets and onza zoot .Seriously ! You shouldn't have offered me the chance to get my hands on a Zoot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Anscombe Posted February 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 The trouble is, I don't actually dispute that it may have benefits. I just think you're doing a brilliant job of coming across as a nutter who's campaigning it for all the wrong reasons, which makes me want to believe it LESS not more. I'm really not sure it is helpful for you to post it on more relevant sites. I know all publicity's mean to be good publicity, but there is exceptions. (One notable one being a Beyonce advert I saw the other day, I've never been a fan, but after seeing a poster where she seems to have done a Michael Jackson and magically turned white while thinking she's the queen, I now think she's a talent-less willy, at least Jackson made some half respectable music while being mental.) Plus you're still avoiding my point that if it worked people would be exploiting it, because that's the more profitable path. Il try to answer this as best i can.im shit with words! If someone offerd you a drug for 1000 quid that would help. or if you could get same drug for free which would you choose......both are exactly the same!You shouldn't have offered me the chance to get my hands on a Zoot you wont Not everyone can make fancy drugs....but anyone can grow cannabis ! do you see what im saying now robin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 Well, those links I posted up there point to articles that talk about cannabinoids speeding up cancer progression, and the cancer cells building up a resistance to it so... yeah... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinJI Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 You are aware people don't actually pay for chemotherapy in the UK yeah? (I'm pretty sure that's the case anyway!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 related news now on hard talk..http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 ...it’s not clear which type of cannabinoid – either natural or synthetic – might be most effective, what kind of doses might be needed, or which types of cancer might respond best to them. So far there have been intriguing results from lab experiments with prostate, breast, lung cancer, skin, bone and pancreatic cancers, glioma brain tumours and lymphoma. But the take-home message is that different cannabinoids seem to have different effects on various cancer types, so they are far from being a ‘universal’ treatment. Most research has been focused on THC, which occurs naturally in cannabis plants, but researchers have found that different cannabinoids seem to work better or worse different types of cancer cells. Lab experiments have shown promising results with THC on brain tumour and prostate cancer cells, while CBD seems to work well on breast cancer cells. Then there’s the problem of the psychoactive effects of THC, particularly at high doses, although this can be counteracted by giving it together with CBD. Because of this problem, synthetic cannabinoids that don’t have these effects might be more useful in the long term. There are also big questions around the best way to actually get the drugs into tumours. Because of their chemical makeup, cannabinoids don’t dissolve easily in water and don’t travel very far in our tissues. This makes it hard to get them deep into a tumour, or even just deliver them into the bloodstream in consistently high enough doses to have an effect. The clinical trial led by Dr Guzman in Spain involved directly injecting cannabinoids into patients’ brains through a small tube. This isn’t an ideal method as it’s very invasive and carries a risk of infection, so researchers are investigating other delivery methods such as tablets, oil injections, mouth sprays or even microspheres. We also don’t know whether cannabinoids will help to boost or counteract the effects of chemotherapy, nor which combinations of drugs might be good to try. And there are currently no biological markers to help doctors identify who might benefit from cannabinoids and who might not – remember that one patient on the brain tumour trial failed to respond to THC at all. None of these issues are deal-breakers, but these questions need answering if there’s any hope of using cannabinoids to effectively and safely treat cancer patients. http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/#can-treat'>Source So - first bold/highlighted bit: There's no proof which type is effective. As a result, an entrepreneurial pharmaceutical company could create a synthetic version that could potentially be more effective, which they could then sell. As a result, they'd make money, complete that capitalist stereotype and prove Robin's point. As it would then be a synthetic solution, it would also mean that you couldn't just 'grow it for free' yourself. Second bold bit: Disproving the efficacy of the claimed shit on that 'CureYourOwnCancer' site. Third and fourth bold bit: Again, this shows there are clearly avenues open to pharmaceutical companies to develop cures that could be effective, and again charge for them. To refer back to your point about the relative costs of medicines and growing cannabis, it seems that if a pharmaceutical company wanted to make money - and they do - they could develop a more powerful, targeted, specific version for people to use which you wouldn't be able to just grow for free. Again, this also helps prove Robin's point. It also disproves part of the 'CYOC' stuff again too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Anscombe Posted February 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 related news now on hard talk..http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/ Thanks for this:)Source So - first bold/highlighted bit: There's no proof which type is effective. As a result, an entrepreneurial pharmaceutical company could create a synthetic version that could potentially be more effective, which they could then sell. As a result, they'd make money, complete that capitalist stereotype and prove Robin's point. As it would then be a synthetic solution, it would also mean that you couldn't just 'grow it for free' yourself. Second bold bit: Disproving the efficacy of the claimed shit on that 'CureYourOwnCancer' site. Third and fourth bold bit: Again, this shows there are clearly avenues open to pharmaceutical companies to develop cures that could be effective, and again charge for them. To refer back to your point about the relative costs of medicines and growing cannabis, it seems that if a pharmaceutical company wanted to make money - and they do - they could develop a more powerful, targeted, specific version for people to use which you wouldn't be able to just grow for free. Again, this also helps prove Robin's point. It also disproves part of the 'CYOC' stuff again too. synthetic cannabis has already killed alot of people in usa ! compare that to natural cannabis ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.