The internet is full of nonsense ‘cures’ for cancer. Don’t be taken in

When given a diagnosis of cancer, most people understandably go into some sort of mental shock. The prospect of many months of aggressive treatments reducing their quality of life to almost zero is hard to bear. What is worse is that this ordeal is not even a guarantee of a cure but might merely increase the chances of survival.

Before consenting to go through with all this, most patients therefore look elsewhere in order to find out for themselves what their options are. It would be foolish to simply accept what the team of health care professionals have been saying. With decisions as important as this one, it is wise to listen to second and possibly third opinions. Who would argue with this logic?

Many cancer patients thus go on the internet and have a look at what alternatives are on offer. There they would find virtually millions of websites advertising plenty of seemingly ‘good news’. Many claim that a wide variety of alternative therapies cures cancer; anything from colloidal silver to special diets, and from homeopathy to vitamin C.

A patient might, for instance, find an article entitled: ‘Cancer Treatments The Media Never Talks About Could Save Your Life!’ If she does, her life is not saved; on the contrary, it is at serious risk.
You think I am exaggerating? In this case, let me quote from this website (I made no changes other than abbreviating the passage):

… cancer is a microbial disease, not a DNA disease… the DNA damage in cancer cells is caused by the DNA of the microbes which are inside the cancer cells. This was discovered by the Virginia Livingston team of natural medicine researchers…

Sometimes treatments can and should be combined. For example, a High RF Frequency device (which reverts cancer cells into normal cells and also kills the microbes in the organs and bloodstream) and the Dirt Cheap Protocol (which includes treatments that primarily revert cancer cells into normal cells). This is arguably the most potent cancer treatment on this website because there is so much redundancy in accomplishing the things that are needed to survive cancer. For example, the High RF Frequency device kills microbes and parasites in the organs. However, it is a fairly expensive protocol. Its focus is on reverting cancer cells into normal cells and supercharging the immune system, but a few of the items do kill cancer cells.

People are sometimes shocked at the attitude of some cancer researchers who have little interest in killing cancer cells. But why kill cancer cells when it is so easy to revert them into normal cells or let the immune system kill them?

However, many of the natural medicine protocols do safely kill cancer cells or they include protocols that kill cancer cells and revert cancer cells into normal cells.

For example, the Cellect-Budwig is designed to safely kill cancer cells, build the immune system (so the immune system can kill the cancer cells) and energize weak cells. Also the High RF Frequency Device – Plasma, which reverts cancer cells into normal cells and kills microbes and parasites in the organs, is frequently used with the Cellect-Budwig protocol…

If you thought that this is an extreme example of irresponsible, life-threatening misinformation, you would be mistaken. The internet is full of such articles promoting treatments for which there is no good evidence, frequently encouraging patients to forego conventional treatments which might save their lives. If someone then dares to point out the dangers of following bogus advice, he will in all likelihood get attacked for being in the pocket of ‘Big Pharma’.

And it gets worse!

Some of us have a healthy scepticism towards dubious entrepreneurs and might therefore focus on information issued by a charitable organisation. After all, charities have a reputation of not being commercially orientated and doing their best to help desperate cancer patients. Sadly, however, this sector is contaminated with misinformation of the worst kind. Take, for instance, the Cancer Alternative Foundation, an organisation that states:

The Cancer Alternative Foundation is a not-for-profit educational organisation, established in 2013 to explore effective alternative and traditional medicine treatments for cancer. Our research team identifies alternative cancer treatment options, then investigates them through meta-analysis across many fields of study. We are not alone in our understanding of the superior effectiveness of natural means to heal the body from cancer…

This sort of prevarication is not just misleading, it is dangerous and arguably even criminal. To make myself perfectly clear: there currently is no alternative therapy that will cure any type of cancer, and there will never be one either.

Even the idea of an alternative cancer cure is nonsensical. It suggests that cancer specialists would withhold life-saving treatments from their patients simply because they originated from a different tradition. The simple truth is that, as soon as any therapy shows some promise, it will be swiftly investigated by conventional scientists and doctors. If it then turns out to be successful, the treatment will be used as soon as possible for the benefit of cancer sufferers. Oncologists really do not care a hoot whether their medicines come from nature or from a factory. In fact, some of our best and most-used anti-cancer drugs initially came from the plant kingdom — think of Taxol, for instance.

I feel strongly that I need to keep banging on about these issues. Why? Because warning patients of the many irresponsible snake-oil salesmen who merely want to exploit the most vulnerable for their own financial gain can save lives. Cancer sufferers and their friends and relatives need to be informed that alternative cancer ‘cures’ are a contradiction in terms.

Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor at the University of Exeter, is the author of A Scientist in Wonderland and the awardee of the John Maddox Prize 2015 for standing up for science. He blogs at

  • Geoffmd

    CBD oil, Turmeric, Lycopene, Acai etc….are they “snake oils” errr NO…typical zombie attitude by the press as per usual when most of the general public are starting to wake up the the big pharma cancer scam…

    • Marianne Baker

      Yes, yes they are. If they’re being sold to you as cures they absolutely are. Ask for the evidence. Don’t just follow the old conspiracy theories – apart from anything else, it’s so hugely offensive. We are all affected by cancer. That’s all the people who treat it, research it, and make drugs for it. Everyone. There is absolutely not ‘more money in’ hiding cures – cancer is 100s of diseases, not one. It’s a bit complicated. Don’t assume you know better.

      • Geoffmd

        They are NOT being sold to anyone as cures as its against the law in this country despite the proof of the effect of these things including some independent research that has been conducted by actual ethical scientists…If you wanna be a zombie and a slave to big Pharma be my guest no one is stopping you, funny how cancer is on the up and up despite trillions going on research and medicines….Yes I wonder why that is duh !!

        • Ieva Zagante

          Proof that high concentrations of turmeric kill cancer cells in petri dish? So does dishwashing liquid and even pure water. First do some calculations regarding the amount of turmeric you will have to eat to achieve experimental concentrations of curcuminoids, and then try to imagine eating that pile of turmeric every day….

          • Geoffmd

            See below taken from Cancer research UK….try doing some of your own research before spouting nonsense and making yourself look silly….

            A phase I clinical trial looked at giving curcumin to 25 patients with pre cancerous changes in different organs. This study seemed to show that curcumin could stop the precancerous changes becoming cancer.

            Research has also shown that there are low rates of certain types of cancer in countries where people eat curcumin at levels of about 100 to 200 mg a day over long periods of time.


          • Ieva Zagante

            1. Precancerous lessions often do not become cancerous, so 25 patients is a ridiculous group. It must be very large, and even then, it won’t be any cause for definite statemets untill more information about genome and epigenome.
            2. Haven’t you asked why trial was designated as Phase I? Maybe because there are also Phase II and Phase III, so you should have read a little, about phase, before making statements.
            3. And low/high rates of some cancers in some regions is a known phenomenon. For example Japanese introduced stomach cancer screening. For god reasons. But are they writing articles that regular use of whatever lowers rate of stomach cancer?

          • Geoffmd

            Firstly its Lesions FFS….and Phenomenon? are you even being serious? take a hike your clearly a moron!

          • It’s ‘it’s’
            It’s ‘Are you…
            It’s ‘Take a hike, you’re clearly…

          • Geoffmd

            its f’ck off, your a pr;ck and your soft as sh8t you little key board warrior !! mong !

          • Acleron

            That’s sh8te, by the way.

          • Oh, I see! It’s acceptable for you to ridicule and insult others for their writing skills… but yours are untouchable – is that it?

          • Geoffmd

            exactly !

          • Acleron


          • Acleron

            Almost everything kills cell cultures, the difficulty is in keeping the little blighters alive.

          • Copy that.

          • Michael McCarthy

            A fact that people that have actually worked with cell cultures understand, a fact that eludes people that will pull out an in vitro study as proof that x causes y.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            What about all the in vivo animal studies that show the same thing?

          • Geoffmd

            Actually the problem is absorbing into the blood stream which they are currently working on…some people dont like facts they prefer them to come with a GSK sticker on to make them feel better!

          • omfgwtfbbq

            The amount of THC and CBD they use to kill cancer in vitro are obtainable in the blood stream. Ingestion of 10grams of hashoil would put your THC levels up to around 2-3mg/L in the blood stream. IIRC, the invitro studies by cristina sanchez were using around 3mg/L of THC to kill cancer in vitro. These compounds have no toxic or negative affects on healthy cells; and there is a clinical study proving that.

      • Geoffmd
      • Geoffmd
        • ichthyic

          by default, anyone who cites “Natural News” must be a moron, since that site NEVER has any facts on offer. Instead, nothing but misinformation designed to sell “natural” products.

          the guy who runs it is as evil as evil can be.

          • Geoffmd

            So your denying that governments have been continuously hoodwinked into panic buying vaccines for billions buy your so called ethical pharma companies and their scientific researchers? if you deny it they you need to be put to sleep before you harm other because your clearly a danger to society….

          • Matthew Brignall, ND

            It’s “you’re.”

          • morpheus1994

            Totally untrue, as Mike Adams often cites his references, and many are actually from JAMA, BMJ, and other reputable sources. This is a typical ad hominem attack. Attack the man and not what he is saying. I’ve never seen anyone get sick from a prescription drug deficiency…

            Just a question. Would you say that the only treatment for any disease MUST be a drug? That’s what the American medical authorities have made into law. Does that sound like an open, scientific attitude towards treatment methods?

          • James Peters
      • Geoffmd
      • Vladimir Stanescu

        Conspiracy theories ? In my opinion, it’s mostly stupidity, laziness and mercantilism. I am talking about the conventional brainwashed doctors, obviously.

  • Acleron

    ‘I feel strongly that I need to keep banging on about these issues. ‘

    It is fortunate that you do and regrettable that your fellow doctors, with some honourable exceptions, are not more vocal in condemning this despicable trade in human misery.

    The arrogance and sheer stupidity of the quacks’ supporters in trying to claim that researchers are not interested in the more plausible claims about certain herbal remedies is staggering.

  • Unfortunately, Parliament’s ‘Minister for Quackery’, David Tredinnick MP, is taken in – and wants the government to be:

    • chiz


      • Glad your amused (again?). What know you of my ‘PETTY LIFE’ ? You need to clarify your point (if you have one). Lest you be deemed to be just another fool promoting nonsense cancer ‘cures’ on the internet.

        • What is the difference between “nonsense cancer cures on the internet” and “drugs prescribed by a doctor”?

          The “nonsense cancer cures on the internet” might CURE your cancer.

          The drugs the doctor prescribes CANNOT.

          • Karin

            The difference is that medical doctors have evidence of their ability to cure people of cancer. Nonsense internet cures don’t.

          • Not a chance. IN FACT, Doctors CANNOT CLAIM to CURE anything. They are Practicing. When you put your big-girl pants on. ..go educate yourself on Hippcrates “Unani” System of Medicine. IF you are TOO IGNORANT, INCAPACITATED AND INADEQUATE to HELP YOURSELF, BY ALL MEANS, SETTLE for Medicinal & Surgical Care (BUMS – Bachelor of Unani Medicine & Surgery), HOWEVER, I am under NO OBLIGATION TO PARTICIPATE IN YOUR STUPIDITY. This is why: Voting AND Taxation are VOLUNTARY and those of us who can Police & Govern ourselves are “Free To Move About The Cabin”. Declaration of Independence ENUMERATES ALL THE RIGHTS we require: Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR. IF you have a conduit MORE DIRECT than MINE to the CREATOR please SUMMON HIM and I’ll have a read. IF instead you’re JUST going to bait in on the MARIJUANA FRAUD. Well that is your choice. Enjoy.

          • Karin

            What’s with all the capitalization? I can’t read that. Try proper grammar and adult language if you want to be taken seriously.

          • Acknowledgement is the Path to Admission. Admission is the Accepted Price of Entry. Acceptance is the Path to Understanding. Ignorance is the Path to Knowledge. Over Stand. Stand Over.

          • Karin

            You’re still making no sense. Oh well.

          • Nonsense. Western Doctors are not only “practicing”, but they are BUMS. Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery. Medicine & Surgery are the LAST TWO RESORTS of CARE designed by Hippocrates. Spirituality & Nutrition are the FIRST-LINE of Care. Retail of Business of Food and Retail Business of Medicine go hand in hand creating the Consumptive Waste for Bacteria and Bacteria-Hosting Virus. Doctors do not know Cancer is Bacterial because they ARE NOT EDUCATED about the Cannabis-Activated Retrograde Synaptic Signaling System in the Human Body. Without Cannabis Humans are LOW-VIBRATIONAL HOSTS for Bacteria. A Prison per se. Stupidity is in the Mind of those Brain-Washed to believe in “Medical Doctor’s” Authority over YOUR SYMPTOMS. Complete and Utter Stupidity. In the past, Imbeciles were Euthanized after three (3) generations. Combined with the release of mental patients into society, AND treating these patients with DRUGS on the STREETS instead of in PROFESSIONAL CARE INSTITUTIONS evidences THESE VERY DOCTOR’S OWN STUPIDITY to match that of their patients. Hence, the comments we see about PROVEN CURES LIKE CANNABIS, 5,000 years before the Internet. BOZO.

  • Timothy Morrow

    I would not dismiss all the alternatives. I had cancer 13 years ago only given weeks to live, firstly i would warn everyone to question the doctors on why they recommend treatments. A hospital full of surgeons will only recommend the knife. My Cancer was in the bladder and the doctors said the only cure was the removal of the bladder. I had the tumor removed and radiotherapy after taking a second opinion. I also paid for an alternative therapy. Organic vegan diet with supplements, no stimulants like coffee, tea or booze. I became very fit walking 10 – 15 miles every day. My doctor told me i was silly talking to anyone else. Most doctors after 7 years training receive a couple of hours training on nutrition, and think about it your own doctor telling you getting fit is not a good idea

    • Ieva Zagante

      You have not told the stage (and staging can be mistaken), but how do you know that all that organic (if it was organic) vegan diet had any effect? Not boozing and active lifestyle are good for general health, but youu have no ways to prove they had any effect on your cancer. Let’s be clear: surgery+ radiation made it possible for you to get rid of all cancer.

  • rusty

    Cannabis oil can help you beat cancer but you have to change your diet as well, vegan organic foods no sugar, this would work better then those chemo/radio therapies. I no longer trust the gov/home office, treatments that work being used abroad are ignored by our government!

    • Matthew Brignall, ND

      I’ve worked as a physician with cancer patients for close to 20 years. If cannabis and diet changes cured cancer, I’d be dancing in the street, but they don’t. Fact is that when I talk to someone who believes these internet memes, I’m often talking to someone who will be dead in a few months, and that is devastatingly sad.

      • rusty

        Funny I say the same thing about cancer patients doing chemo! So why do hospitals give patients sweets or sugary morphin!? I also know people who’ve beaten cancer without chemo/radio therapy! Maybe there needs a large study involving cannabis and diets like organic vegan foods, I don’t think you have seen people using organic foods only no meats or dairy.

        • Matthew Brignall, ND

          You’ll not get any argument from me about whether the tools we currently have to treat cancer (and many other conditions) are flawed and underwhelming. Each wave of new treatments came with so much promise, then we quickly learn the limitations. This is a history lesson the CAM world often misses.
          I live and work in Seattle, an epicenter of the organics movement. If organic vegan food cures cancer, the Ornish trial at UCSF would have a vastly different result.

          • rusty

            Was cannabis being used with vegan foods? Was the doses correct what was the patients diets before/during and after treatments?

          • Matthew Brignall, ND

            This, in a nutshell, captures a critical problem with this democratization of cancer therapy idea – when it fails, and it generally does, it’s always the fault of the patient or the provider in charge of care.

          • rusty

            It’s no one’s fault if the die! I know cancer can be cured if protocols are followed, like type 2 diabetes, something doctors still say cut out white rice and bread when fats are the cause and vegan diet, minimise oils when cooking people get better.

          • thaddeusbuttmunchmd

            I would not want to be a cooked person-perhaps a “Baked” person due to Cannabis.

      • BJH

        Every MD, Biologist, Chemist and Researcher needs to watch and study the work of Dr. Raphael Mechoulam of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel. Watch this film about his research of cannabis and the endocannabinoid system.

        The National Cancer Institute acknowledged the anti-cancerous effects of cannabis.

        You may also be interested in the research of Dr. Guillermo Velasco and Dr. Manuel Guzmán. They published research in 1998 that showed how tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) induces apoptosis in glioma cells. In 2011 they demonstrated THC even works with chemotherapy to kill brain cancer.

        They’re raising money to conduct clinical human trials in Madrid, Spain. You can read more about Dr. Guzman here.

        There is much more to this discussion, critical information that has seemed to escape the awareness of the author and many commentators.

        • Acleron

          Videos are not evidence.

          The NCI citation does not conclude any clinical effect of cannabinoids on cancer but there may be an effect on side effects caused by treatment. So no endorsement.

          The two references are not clinical studies but a) cell studies and b) cell studies + xenografts in mice.

          Wanting to do a clinical study and having any evidence is not having any evidence.

          Doesn’t look as if the author missed anything at all.

          • BJH

            Apparently you missed the mark as well. You’re building a straw man argument. I never stated that “videos are evidence.” I was encouraging persons of interest to familiarize themselves with the man who discovered the THC molecule, anandamides, and the endocannabinoid system.

            I’m fully aware of the fact that the two studies I shared are not human clinical studies. There are a number of animal models that are pretty compelling as well as countless anecdotal testimonies. Let’s remember that we’re considering a medicine that has been used for thousands of years and was once a standard medication prescribed by American doctors prior to prohibition. It is not as if this is anything new…modern scientific methods are only confirming what previous generations had already discovered. The U.S. Pharmacopeia classifies cannabis sativa/indica as medicine for the treatment of numerous ailements.

            To date there have been thousands of studies both animal and human, demonstrating the efficacy of cannabis for treatment of everything from inflammatory disease to psychiatric issues.

            I’m sorry that modern medical ED and pharmacology have deprived physicians from this previously well known and utilized medicine but ignorance doesn’t change the truth in the least bit.

            By the way I never claimed that cannabis cured cancer or that the studies I referenced were proof or evidence that cannabis kills cancer cells, despite the fact their are humdreds and dozens of correlative studies being conducted in China, Spain, Israel, the U.K. and the U.S. Stop with the straw men arguements and we may just have a productive dialogue.
            There is no excuse for not having a basic understanding of the endocannabinoid system. Peer reviewed studies have proven it’s existence and vital regulation of practically every bodily system. Here is a 1,000 page manuscript entitled “The Endocannabinoid System as an Emerging Target of Pharmacotherapy.” Read this before responding again. And please do watch the film (The Scientist) I posted. Cheers!po=0.0449236

          • Acleron

            Still not interested in anything but evidence.

            This is what you wrote:-
            “The National Cancer Institute acknowledged the anti-cancerous effects of cannabis. ”
            They didn’t acknowledge it at all, so why write that if you are not claiming that cannibinoids are effective in treating cancer?

            Cell studies are difficult, they are slight indicators of an effect and often misleading.

            Arguments from antiquity get no traction except as marketing claims, blood letting was used for millennia as well.

            You don’t appear to quite understand the gulf between identifying a system as a pharmacological target and producing a drug with an adequate risk benefit ratio.

            It may be that a component of cannabis may be an effective drug but let’s have adequate evidence.

          • BJH

            You clearly did not read the material I provided nor the corresponding peer reviewed studies. The NCI did in fact acknowledge the anti-tumoral effects of cannabinoids. “Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo .[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8]” “Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death.” “Similar to findings in glioma cells, the cannabinoids were shown to trigger cell death through stimulation of an endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway that activates autophagy and promotes apoptosis.” “CBD may also enhance uptake of cytotoxic drugs into malignant cells. Activation of the transient receptor potential vanilloid type 2 (TRPV2) has been shown to inhibit proliferation of human glioblastoma multiforme cells and overcome resistance to the chemotherapy agent carmustine.”

            I can guarantee this, I’m am better informed on the endocannabinoid system and medicinal cannabis than you are. Their are 150 cannabinoids found within the plant which work synergistically. A certain level THCA is required for adequate Cannabinoid uptake. Isolating certain compounds from synergistic compounds will only continue to destroy it’s overall medicinal benefit and increase it’s toxicity. Our bodies were created to consume raw cannabis. It is the single most essential nutrient in the natural realm. Cannabinoid defeciency is one of the leading causes of all illness and disease.

            You can keep your mustard gas, cannabis is the future of medicine and especially cancer treatement.

            By the way, you have offered nothing substantial to back your opinions, and they’re truly nothing but opinions. You must be a Big Pharma shill or poorly educated on this subject.

          • Acleron

            You are now claiming that cannibinoids do treat cancers.

            But no extensive clinical studies, just as I said. The NCI does not endorse its use.

            What always amuses about claims such as this are comments about existing treatments which of course are just more marketing fodder and are irrelevant. However, its worth pointing out that if a treatment had such paucity of evidence as you put forward not only would the alt medders be complaining but qualified doctors and scientists too.

          • tw0468

            there will never be clinical trials because no pharmaceutical company will pay the exorbitant costs without the prospect of patent protection.
            therefore you will never have proof that satisfies you.

          • James Peters
          • Acleron

            No it is not promising but the disease states are complex and treating with a complex mixture of chemicals introduces many variables. So lots of wiggle room for people to carry on making claims.

            I must say that if I am ever unfortunate enough to be diagnosed with glioblastoma I would start smoking weed for it’s psychoactive effects providing it wasn’t contraindicated.

          • tw0468

            James, i would have thought that the they would be looking for a systemic response. is there any reason to believe that the thc placed in the cavity would be absorbed to trigger a ceremide release?

          • Acleron

            Read more of the comments, trials are already progressing, I’ll wait for the real evidence.

            If pharmaceutical companies thought there was sufficient activity they would modify the molecule to make a patentable product.

          • James Peters

            The antitumour effects are pretty modest and some of the preclinical studies found evidence that cannabinoids, under some circumstances, can actually stimulate cancer cell growth and contribute to tumour progression Furthermore, cancer cells can develop resistance

          • tw0468

            thanks for the citations

          • Vladimir Stanescu

            If you are really interested in evidence (but you are not):
            All cancer patients who treat themselves with cannabis oil, including me, report a DOSE-DEPENDENT antitumoral effect (measurable by the markers), which excludes placebo, mental stuff and such (I don’t want to insult you, I suppose you know all that)

            And here is a study that shows how chemo kills patients 4 times faster than no treatment at all:

            It’s easier to be complacent and cash in the percentage from the chemo sales than show some guts and brains and demand some serious clinical studies

          • A retired radiologist and a dentist?
            Those are your cancer experts?
            Do either of them actually treat real patients with their snake oil or are they just internet doctors?
            Do they have any evidence any of their “alternative” nostrums actually work beside anecdotes (case studies)?

            Well, at least both of them have an online store just like all the other legitimate research scientists/physicians…

          • Acleron

            It should be obvious by now that the call for evidence is for studies reported in reputable peer reviewed journals, not anecdotes or opinion pieces and not cell or animal studies.

            If the evidence shows that a cannabis compound exhibits activity then providing it passes toxicology then doctors will use it.

            The trouble you are experiencing is that your arguments and your lack of evidence is exactly the same for every snake oil salesman.

            I’ve been demanding this evidence so telling me that I am being complacent is particularly ironic.

          • Vladimir Stanescu

            The charts and tests courtesy of the hospital are not anecdotical. Do you even read stuff or just trolling without having a clue ?
            It seems I have to repeat this: the snake oil does not work in a dose-dependant manner ! So cannabis oil it’s not placebo, not mental or anything, it’s a proper cure that works. Of course it does not work in 100% of the cases – only in 40-75%. But it’s far more than what the conventional killing system offers. And if you would have the guts and the brains to conduct some serious clinical studies, not the laughing stock you have done so far, it would make a lot of good. Cannabis oil worked for me and 2 of my friends. Not from the beginning, it’s trial and error to find the correct dose (there is a critical dose of about 1 ml pure oil per day; any less won’t work). Above the critical dose, my markers declined steadily until perfectly normal. One of my friends is also cancer free and the other is still in remission. Couldn’t care less if you believe me, I have no more time for this. The comments I read here reinforced my opinion about doctors and modern medicine, so…

          • Acleron

            Unverifiable data is anecdotal. When you’ve grown up and learned how to collect and report real results that can be checked and repeated, get back to us. In the meantime take the opportunity to spend 6 years just to get qualified for a career in clinical research and then a few more years to get the experience. If you could do that then you’d know what guts are, at the moment you have nothing.

          • Vladimir Stanescu

            guts – b. Informal. courage and fortitude; nerve; determination; stamina:
            It’s what you don’t have. It’s what you need to TRY to take SOME of the accounts seriously and petition to conduct REAL clinical studies. But you are happy with labeling all the accounts as anecdotical and not bothering with what doesn’t fit into your small world created in the medical school and tuned by experience. I am happy I have an engineering training and not a medical training. If I’d had taken the classical path, I’d be probably next to my mother and cousin now. They took that path and are “6 feet under” now. What do I have ? I have a non-detectable PSA score since 2012 (from 8, Gleason 7 3+4) a cancer free system (from T2C) and 2 friends, one cancer-free from Hodgkin and the other in remission from t3 pancreatic cancer.
            What do YOU have ? From all the cases and studies, can you show me enough conventional treated cancer-free patients after 5 years (over 3% , the “miraculously” cured, obviously) ? Can you show me 1 (one) conventionally treated patient with glioblastoma who SURVIVED 5 years ? I can show one who refused conventional and took RSO (anecdotical, of course). From what I noticed (I have a lot of friends and relatives in the medical field),
            few doctors are smart enough to try too look further, and fewer still those who know what works – and these very few have no intention to to tell what they know anytime soon.
            The rest (you included I presume) are just happy to go along with the “proved procedures”, although they proved to be very efficient in killing patients. And when the patient dies, you probably say “it was God’s will”, no ? I can’t imagine a worst kind of human being than a medical doctor who is religious – the perfect brainswashed trusty citizen.

          • Acleron

            It is you who needs the guts. The guts to spend long years learning how to understand evidence. The guts to accept that your claims are merely anecdotes and the guts to accept that if your claims are investigated in a clinical trial your claims may be wrong.

            So when you’ve done all this you might get a little respect for your views providing they are based on evidence and not anecdotes.

          • Vladimir Stanescu

            I gave you “anecdotes”, you gave me nothing except insults. If you can give me a mail address or something, I can send you the evolution of my markers. The tests are done at the same laboratory, monthly or at 2 months. The marker increased steadily. The only two periods of time when it decreased steadily, in a dose-dependant manner, was when I took RSO. It’s verifiable.

          • Acleron

            I repeated your own comments on guts. So not only have you presented zero verifiable evidence but you project as well, the insults came from you.

          • Vladimir Stanescu

            I hope you are not interested though, ‘cos in the actual legal context, I have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing that. And judging by your comments…I mean maybe we should stick to anecdotical, doesn’t do me any harm.
            That was it. if you want to continue this stupidity. I hope you don’t. I will delete the address in 10 minutes.

          • Acleron

            Delete what you want, while you fail to provide evidence for your claims they will be just claims as likely as all sellers of nostrums.

          • Tara Dangora

            Hello, my nephew is battling grade 4 brain cancer. He’s 27 & already had 2 surgeries, radiation and chemo which isn’t working. He just started taking THC & CBD 50/50 oil from a dispensary here in Mass but I’m concerned that it’s not potent enough. I also can’t seem to convince him that he needs more THC than CBD to kill the cancer. Did your friend do anything other than the RSO? Any help you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

          • Vladimir Stanescu

            Hello. I am sorry to hear about your nephew. My friend was combining 13%THC 2%CBD RSO, 1mg/day (full extract, made the classic way, with ethanol), many supplements (reishi, astragalus, magnesium, etc) and a vegan diet. That’s all. Obviously, he was lucky. In my opinion, what your nephew is taking is potent enough. Also in my opinion, he should try some natural supplements for restoring the immune system. I try to be of some help by sharing my experience, but other than that…. I wish you and your nephew health and inspiration.

          • Karina .

            Hi, thank you for sharing all this info! How does one determine the combination and the dosage for a particular type of cancer?

          • By consulting an experienced, medically-qualified oncologist, and avoiding quacks.

          • Acleron

            The standard dosage appears to be whatever $50 gets you.

          • James Peters

            I’m sorry to hear this. Clinical trials could be of help

          • Barzini


          • Barzini

            Thanks for your posts – the other guy is a troll, his job is to dissuade people from getting healthy

          • Acleron

            Try producing the evidence. Until you have such evidence you have no idea what can cure disease. Baseless accusations are not evidence of anything.

          • Barzini

            Peer reviewed science journals are a pathetic joke, no one believes that garbage anymore

            I have no interest in collecting evidence or presenting it, anyone who discovered a cheap cure to cancer would be destroyed or even killed

            On you go troll…..

          • Acleron

            You have no evidence, just claims and and ludicrous stories. Fortunately, people who are far more responsible than you, are investigating the activity of cannabis so we will learn what is happening.

          • Barzini


            All cheap and effective methods of tackling cancer are being ruthlessly suppressed – as they always have been

            You are part of one of the vilest and most evil industries on the planet – and one day you will have to meet your maker and explain your actions – baby killer

            Hope it works out for you baby killer

          • Acleron

            In the absence of evidence the antivaxxer incoherently mutters insults.

          • Renè

            Acleron is investigating the effects of Bud Light and crystal meth right now.

          • Acleron

            How do we know when Rene is lying? When he posts.

          • chiz


          • Acleron

            Lol, a new troll. Go away and learn some manners, child.

          • disqus_1yb8x39w7X

            Of course he can he’s a big pharma shill – Lying is what they do best.
            I am Gobsmacked at the shilling going on here ! CBD/THC oil cures cancer that is a FACT I have seen NUMEROUS people cured this way and not just cancer is great for all sorts of things…. Its Magic ! Of course big pharma shills will not allow me to DARE speak such truths in trying to heal our failing population – Oh No I will be called a liar yet have seen with my own eyes the evidence shills demand but they don’t want evidence Whatever you provide will never be enough EVER you are fighting a losing battle the minute you converse with a shill Remember how they demonised laetrile/amygdalin/B17 ? as a cure for cancer Yep same old line repeated here… Over and over again…… We are Forbidden to cure ourselves. Please Wake Up.

          • Vladimir Stanescu

            Thank you.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Maybe if it wasn’t classified as schedule 1 you’d have them. The clinical trials are just starting. There are only 1 or 2 clinical trials up to this point and all of those clinical trials use singular chemical extracts and not the whole plant extract (which will contain 100s of cannabinoids). You may need clinical studies to believe it yourself. But, while the pharmacology is being worked up and all of these 100 compounds are going through pre-clinical work — people with loved ones are dying. People suffering from Alzheimers (and numerous other debilitating diseases) are doing so needlessly. Marijuana and extracts are non-toxic.. You can smoke, vaporize or eat 10 grams of extract and not ‘overdose’. There is no need to allow people to suffer while science catches up with what the rest of us already know from personal experience.

            I should add, people who are going through these clinical studies are giving up their lives to prove to people like you that it works. 100 patients in a double blind with stage 4 cancer (and of course you’ll need at least 1 study for each kind of cancer, so we’re really talking 1000s of people here). Then, they’ll only be given singular components out of the plant extract for short periods of time. The one glio study was 9 patients for only 15 days AND it was ONLY THC, there was no CBD to target the cb2 receptor (The glio have CB1 and CB2 receptors). This not even mentioning the other cannabinoids which are found preclinically to have an angiogenisis affect. And, these same people have already had multiple rounds of chemo lasting periods of weeks or months. 15 days, really? IMO, the doctor who did that study basically murdered people to determine that high doses of THC are safe on the brain. No shit! Captain fucking obvious killed 9 people. Then, FINALLY maybe 10 years from now they’ll actually start using multiple cannabinoids from the plant extract and actually seeing that it works! Woo hoo! yay, we’ll finally start curing cancers! omg! medical sciences at work! Ya know, clinical studies are great, and I’d also like to have them, but how about just doing a clinical study on people who are already WANTING to take the whole plant extract? Then, just simply act as a recorder, monitor their doses, determine side effects and efficacy? Nah, fuck all that, we’ll do it ‘our way’ and butcher some people in the process. That 8 years of medical college may make you think you’re superior to the rest of us layman, but what you lost in that 8 years is common sense.

          • Acleron

            So you have no robust evidence but are willing if not eager to make claims.

            Your argument of personal experience is used by all the charlatans in the world from homeopaths to those selling bleach for autism.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Do you think there is also no evidence that cannabinoids reduce or nearly eliminate epileptic seizures? What about parkinsons?

            For me personally, doctors would rather have me on levodopa than vaporizing oils. The affect on my body is literally identical. The only difference is, with levodopa there are terrible migraines and I have trouble sleeping due to the incredibly vivid dreams. Should I accept the migraines and sleepless nights waiting for science to catch up? Or should I just take what I know works? .. Oh, and lets not forget the hallucinations I sometimes experience on L-dopa. I had an auditory hallucination last night! fun times!!! Yet, I’m not allowed to take marijuana because it’s psychoactive! hahaha! what a joke.

          • Acleron

            Doctors and scientists are trying to find the facts of this matter. If we accepted unverified anecdotes we would be back in the 15th century.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            And, if doctors don’t listen to their patients they’d be no better than used car salesmen.

          • Acleron

            They do listen but translating your unverified anecdotes into treatment recommendations for others is something no responsible professional would do.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            And if 5 patients say the same thing? What about 10? What about 50? 100? At what point for you are anecdotes no longer anecdotal?

          • Acleron

            When those anecdotes are confirmed by clinical trials.

            Homeopaths have produced thousands who have said homeopathy works but when tested clinically no effect is seen.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            So, doctors should listen to but ignore their patients? And, ignore their suffering? At least, until years have passed and a microbiologist has finished preclinical work; then additional years have passed and a clinical trial has been conducted and completed? So, you’re saying I should just wait and suffer? What if the drug I say helps me is schedule 1 — considered to have ‘no medical benefits’. Is thus unavailable or a practical impossibility for a microbiologist to obtain for preclinical work? What do I do then? Just die?

          • Acleron

            You can take what you want. Using your experiences to advise others without robust evidence is wrong. You actually don’t know if marijuana works for you because you are an uncontrolled trial of one.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Except, according to at 40 NPF centers over ->80%<- of parkinson's patients have tried or consumed marijuana and reported their experiences. So it's not a trial of one. Unfortunately for the traditional medicine establishment, humans by nature love nothing more than to share experience. If one person finds that something works for them, they will share their experience with others. Those others may try it and if it works for them (or even if it doesnt) they will share that experience with others. When it helps enough people, you end up with what is happening now for marijuana. A tidal wave of people railing against the traditional medical establishment for being too slow, claiming that they're uncaring, that they're trying to suppress treatments that work, etc. It's not a trial of one when millions of others are doing a trial of one at the same time. There are more people reporting positive results that can be explained away by placebo effect. My neurologist just the other day said that her patients are begging her to allow them to try marijuana. Unfortunately for the patients, I'm currently living in the philippines where they summarily execute drug dealers on sight. Hence the reason I'm currently on levodopa.. I can't find marijuana because the president is giving money to the police officers to execute people for selling a plant loaded with medicinal value. But, even with people knowing that they will be executed, many I know are still risking death to grow and consume it because it works for them. I'm still in the process of building my grow room.

          • Acleron

            Each one is a trial of one because there is nothing to compare it with, absolutely nothing.

            The reason why the medical establishment is slow is because we have so many examples of drugs and treatments that showed an early but false promise.

            You have almost no evidence that marijuana is loaded with medicinal value although a recent trial claims a 50% reduction in seizures due to epilepsy.

            For somebody railing against the medical establishment, you show a cavalier disregard to effectiveness and safety.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            For precisely the reasons I mentioned. Over 30% of the US population has consumed marijuana. Some studies say up to 50%. Personally, I know dozens of people who’ve consumed marijuana on a daily basis for decades. There are millions of others who have consumed marijuana on a daily basis for decades. If there were any long term negative consequences, they’d show.

            The only clinical study I know of which shows any potential negative consequence for long term marijuana use… Used methylphendate to attempt to stimulate dopamine release in the brain while under MRI. In that study, long term marijuana users released significantly less dopamine than non-marijuana users. HOWEVER, Without having the same study done prior to the long term use of marijuana you can’t draw any conclusions. The self-medication hypothesis applies. You can’t say that marijuana is the cause of it when they could have been like that before and used marijuana to treat the symptoms of their underlying condition.

            Can you show me any studies which show negative long term effects of marijuana or derivative compounds which can’t be explained away by the self-medication hypothesis? With the decades of prohibition.. surely there must be something providing backing for the governments classification of schedule 1? Can you show me any study even in vitro that shows any potential negative consequence to long term or short term use of marijuana?

          • Acleron

            It is not possible to do safety trials when the effective dose, if any, is unknown. It is easy to lurch into recommendations when you have no idea of the complexity of finding out.

            Marijuana is a complex mixture with a large variability of individual materials. Anecdotal evidence is less than useful.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Sure you can, you just use unreasonable amounts. There was a study done on tobacco where they took smoke tar and pasted it onto the skin of rats. In that study, all of the rats developed massive malignant tumors in the area where the tar was applied. The tobacco usage of people may vary, but the study surely shows that sustained long term contact with tobacco tar can and will eventually cause cellular mutations that lead to cancer. Yes, one person may smoke for 60 years and never get a cancer, another person may smoke for 60 years and get cancer. Just because one person didn’t undergo the cellular mutations doesn’t mean that they weren’t at risk for it. It would be relatively easy to do the same thing for marijuana. Take extract oils, marijuana smoke tar, etc, paste it on the back of rats, do they develop massive malignant tumors? yes or no. It’s a pretty simple experiment that could be done in a high school setting. And, I could probably think up a dozen other tests that could be done in a high school setting which would show any negative consequence. An example, take brain material of rats and grow it in a petri dish. Divide the petri dishes into control and study sample. In the study sample apply copious amounts of cannabinoids and grow the cellular material for a period of years. Compare the cellular material of the control group to the study group. What differences are there, if any? They were able to in a college setting grow and train a rat brain in a petri dish to fly a F-22 fighter jet simulator. So, don’t tell me it’s not possible. Maybe even take those rat brains that fly f-22 jet simulators and see what cognitive deficits long term marijuana use may have over that of a control group. After 2 years of copious amounts of thc, cbd, etc, can they still fly the jet as effectively as the control group?

          • Acleron

            Your experiment would not disclose anything, overdosing is an easy way of showing toxicity.

            You need the therapeutic dose and then the cost benefit ratio in a phase I study.

            There is far more work in determining if a treatment works than just ‘it works for me’. If pharmaceutical companies could avoid this massive amount of work, they would.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            True, but we weren’t talking about therapeutic doses. You said “It is not possible to do safety trials when the effective dose, if any, is unknown” and “For somebody railing against the medical establishment, you show a cavalier disregard to effectiveness and safety.”. Overdosing beyond any possible therapeutic value is a perfect way to determine safety (at least in the short term) of a drug. Once the safety is determined, the therapeutic doses can be dialed in. Further, in vitro, cancer for instance was killed at a level of around 3mg/L of solution. Would it not be logical to assume that cancer would be killed in vivo at the same levels? The glio trial (which was used to determine safety, not efficacy) used a dosage of 180mg/L of solution. However, they did not also target the cb2 receptor with cannabidiol and only did the trial for 15 days with the exception of 2 patients who later received follow up doses.

            You’ve also completely sidestepped my question as to why marijuana would be schedule 1 and why it continues to be schedule 1… Like 3 or 4 times now. You yourself have said that clinical studies of epilepsy have shown a 50% decrease in seizure rates; effectively admitting it does have medicinal value. The only reason any clinical or preclinical work can be done in the united states these days is due to 10th amendment states rights. By bypassing the federal government and usurping their authority on such matters it finally allows people to get their hands on the substance to study. Until then, pretty much every single such study was done outside the US. So, why does the federal government continue to insist that marijuana and derivatives have no medicinal value?

            You also sidestepped the question as to why there haven’t been any real studies done on the long term safety of marijuana. If a substance is schedule 1 and has no medical benefits, shouldn’t there be data to back that up? Or is requirement of proof only applicable when making claims of medicinal value? Is proof not needed to claim that a substance is harmful and should be prohibited?

            Like, if I were to say, vitamin c is bad, it’s psychoactive! it should banned! Do I need data to back that up? Or is that argument only one way?

          • Acleron

            First you have to estimate the therapeutic dose and then test the toxicity of that dose in humans. Animal and in vitro studies just give indications, they are not definitive.

            At the moment neither the efficacy or toxicity of marijuana as a medical treatment has been determined, that’s why the clinical trials are being done.

            Your diversion into the politico legal area is irrelevant. We need to know if it is a useful treatment.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Ok, so in order to schedule a drug 1, you don’t need any actual proof that the substance has no medical value nor any proof that it has toxicity. And, that, there’s no medical basis for the schedule 1 of the drug.

            What I’ve taken away from our conversation is that.

            #1) Doctors should listen to their patients
            #2) Doctors should ignore their patients after listening to them

            #3) People who are sick should just die.

            #4) Studies done on the general population by analyzing reality versus expectations are useless.

            #5) If taking a drug cures you, or reduces symptoms, you should shut up and not discuss it with anyone.
            #6) Data collected by doctors is useless.

            Sorry but, Marijuana extracts help with my parkinsons. If anyone has parkinsons, you should try it. Will it work for you? I don’t know, but it’s certainly worth the attempt. Or, you can follow this guy’s advice: Ignore me and enjoy your freezing, stumbling, in ability to do anything correctly, and the depression from realizing how fucked you are.

          • Acleron

            You have failed to take anything from what I’ve said.

            You don’t know if marijuana helps with your condition, you just think so. You don’t even know what you took, marijuana is not precisely defined and individual materials vary greatly.

            Despite your lack of knowledge you are irresponsibly advising others to take something which may be ineffective and will certainly have other effects and possibly incite them to break the law.

            I haven’t given any advice except wait until we find out more about treatment with marijuana.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Ya, I don’t have another 50 years to wait for research to catch up to what I already know.

          • Acleron

            The problem is that you don’t know. You may have convinced yourself that you do but you don’t. We don’t do difficult clinical trials for fun but we have found them to be necessary because personal testimony such as yours is unreliable.

            Advising others is irresponsible.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Except for, it’s already well established that…

            #1) Parkinsons is characterized as a lack of dopamine in the brain (from natural production)
            #2) THC blocks the release of GABA
            #3) GABA modulates and prevents dopamine release / uptake

            Thus, when consuming THC, it blocks the release of GABA, which in turn allows you to produce more dopamine and allows your cells to consume the natural dopamine which is released (in greater qty due to THC).

          • Acleron

            All that is fine but it still doesn’t translate to a treatment because marijuana has been found to block GABA. If drug development was confined to seeing a possible mechanism and marketing then we would have more ineffective and toxic drugs than we do.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            GABA antagonists are found to help with parkinson’s and are regularly prescribed for the disease. The problem is, all of the GABA antagonists on the market are extremely damaging with a list of side effects as long as your arm. Neurologist (at least mine) doesn’t want or tend to prescribe GABA antagonists due to the side effects. THC is a gaba antagonist which can be consumed in relatively low doses — what would be considered to be within the realm of heavy recreational use. What I find helps me is around 500mg of THC over a 24 hour period. That would translate to the consumption of roughly 750mg-1gram of extract per day.. Depending on the percentile of THC in the cannabinoid extracts.

            Now you’re just being disingenuous to prove your point. The medical knowledge is all there. THC has been studied clinically and proven to be a GABA antagonist. Simply because there isn’t a double blind study on a group of parkinson’s patients doesn’t make the fundamental science any less true.

          • Acleron

            There is no medical knowledge to prepare any component of marijuana for treatment because we have not done the work required.

            Claims that ‘it works for me’ are made by homeopaths, chiros, Reiki, supplement salesmen and many other charlatans. We perform clinical trials to find out if claims like yours are correct. Often they are found not to be.

            If we find a characterised component of marijuana to be therapeutically useful and safe then great but at the moment we and you don’t know.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            So, what you’re saying is that all clinical work done on cannabinoids proving by scientific method what they do within the brain are useless? So, even if there are 5 studies proving that THC is a gaba antagonist, that doesn’t mean that it is a gaba antagonist?

            There is no medical knowledge to prepare any component of marijuana for treatment? What about the the ones that are already approved for use as a treatment outside the USA by a country’s FDA equivalency? Those don’t exist?

            A medicial professional using the word ‘safe’ is an oxymoron considering how often medical professionals prescribe unsafe treatments to patients. The L-dopa I’m on now is not safe. The gaba antagonists are not safe. I’m failing to see how I’m gaining or losing any possible safety by using (or not) marijuana extracts?

            You’ve really lost me in your attempt to save face. I guess I’ll just keep doing what I know works for me and you can have your 50 years to figure out what I already know.

          • Acleron

            Stop misrepresenting what I say.

            Knowing that something has an activity does not translate into a useful therapy. 99%+ of chemicals that have activity in primary screening do not progress to treatments.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            I was reading between the lines. And, I was curious how you’d react to scientific information versus clinical trials.

   — of course done outside the USA, because in the USA, marijuana has ‘no medicinal value’. So yes, THC helps people with PD. Proven. With ‘No significant adverse effects’.

            99% of chemicals don’t make it to treatments because they are synthetic compounds dreamed up in some super lab. You can’t patent nature unless you make alterations to it. The medical sciences you’re involved in are something new. It’s taken the scientific method and turned it into a hammer used to beat people down. Because, you can’t charge $10,000 a dose for something that anyone is able to make. In the case of marijuana, people can make cannabinoid extracts in their back yard. There is every incentive to make sure that it stays criminalized, and every incentive to stifle research. Then they can keep pushing synthetic compounds keeping profits high.

            How much money will be lost by Merck annually if people are no longer buying their levodopa compound? $50-$150 per month per patient in the US. Roughly 1 million parkinsons patients. When people start consuming THC for their PD merck stands to lose nearly $1billion a year in annual revenue.

            I’m not sure why you wouldn’t understand why people don’t trust medical professionals. Everything about the current medical process, other than the scientific method it’s founded on, is wrong.

            Keep on pushing your synthetic compounds. I’ll take what I knew worked for me long before the medical science caught up with it. I’ll take what I knew worked for me long after the medical sciences finally realize that it does work.

          • Acleron

            Everything in marijuana is a chemical, it doesn’t matter if it is synthesised by man in a lab or by a plant.

            All the old tropes are coming out now. Medical science has contributed to people living longer, healthier and as a consequence wealthier, it is not an enemy.

            Why do people distrust medicine? Is that projection? Doctors are overworked treating people, seems like the majority trust the system.

            And yet again, you have no idea what works for you.

            Advising others to go into heavy recreational use is dangerous.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Now who’s misrepresenting? Yes, they’re all chemicals. The difference is in how they’re produced and why. Chemicals in nature have evolved naturally through processes of natural selection. There are reasons for their existence as it helps them combat disease, reproduce, live longer, become stronger than other plant and animal species in a given environment. In contrast, medicine today has become a process of trial and error by fire. Randomly producing compounds in a lab and then trying them against various ailments in the hopes that one of them will be found to have some therapeutic affect against some randomly selected ailment. Then, can be patented and then sold at unreasonable rates. Compounds that are produced which are found to have no immediate benefit are stored in compound collections for a rainy day.

            Why do people distrust medicine? 20% in the UK don’t trust nurses, 15% don’t trust doctors. I couldn’t say why they do or don’t, here are my personal views:

            Step 1) doctors

            Doctors are just one step in the process..

            I find doctors to be people who generally have good intentions for doing what they do. They want to help people. But, at the same time, going through that 8 years of medical school gives them a sense of superiority which drowns their patients. They hold on to scientific process as a methodology while at the same time still bringing their own preconceived and sometimes ill-conceived beliefs to the table. You can go to 5 different doctors about a list of symptoms and get 5 different possible causes as to your symptoms. Go to an oncologist, they’ll think it’s cancer. Go to a psychologist, they’ll tell you it’s all in your head. Go to a Cardiologist and they’ll think it’s a stroke or heart attack. Go to a pulmonologist and they’ll think it’s an embolism in your lungs. Go to a doctor of internal medicine and they’ll think it’s an infection. Who you go to determines what is wrong with you. It’s a guessing game and sometimes it’s near impossible to determine what is actually wrong with you. Even simple things like taking blood pressure are really unclear. I get high blood pressure just from being in the doctors office, so everytime i go my BP is elevated. But if I take my BP at home, it’s not elevated.

            Beyond all of this, as you mentioned, they’re overworked. When someone is overworked they’re more prone to miss details, make mistakes, and be less effective at their job. There are studies which state 10-20% of diagnosis will be misdiagnosis. And, of those 20% who have been misdiagnosed 28% will be life threatening. Of 1 million diagnosed, 56,000 will have a life threatening misdiagnosis.To me, that is alarming. Every time you go to a doctor for a problem you have a 2.3%-5.6% chance to have a miss diagnosis that is life threatening. You have a better chance to get a life threatening misdiagnosis than you do to win a small jackpot at a casino slot machine.

            If, in my job as an engineer, I constantly misdiagnosed problems, I would be fired. Yet, in medicine, it’s considered to be acceptable and even a normal process of diagnostic process. Trial and error to figure out what is wrong is unacceptable. I have been trained to determine with 100% certainty what a problem is before acting on the problem. Suspicion is unacceptable.

            step 2) door to door drug dealers

            Then, you have the medicines that the doctors prescribe to you. There are legal drug dealers who’s sole job it is to travel around and get doctors to prescribe medicine. They don’t care really if the drug works or not; their job is to sell. They’re door to door drug dealers. They’ll go to doctors and push drugs onto the doctors citing various factoids and studies, many of which were published by their own company (and who knows if those facts are even true, as in some cases, they’re not.). Every doctor i’ve ever been to has those samples on premises from multiple companies (and I’ve been to doctors in 3 different countries). Given to them by these door to door drug dealers. What if a doctor is less than ethical (because that never happens, right?)? Maybe they’ll start prescribing a drug in exchange for favors. Maybe just for example, drug A might have a higher incidents of this or that side effect than drug B that they’re currently prescribing.

            And, again, as you said, doctors are overworked. When do they have the time to read studies, literature, etc for themselves? You yourself probably weren’t aware of the cannabis PD clinical studies. But, you’re on here preaching to me that I’m a charlatan instead of reading these studies for yourself. Doctors trust the pharmaceutical companies.

            step 3) ‘big pharma’

            You have the whole pharmaceutical company aspect to this. These companies are driven by purely profit motivations. The most profitable drugs are ones that can be patented. As such, they have no interest in looking to nature for drugs. They only want compounds which can be synthesized and patented. So, they have these labs where all they do all day long is create new compounds to test against various possible aliments. This is called the ‘drug discovery cycle’.

            The large majority of drugs that people take every day came from nature. Everytime you go to a dentist and get a shot of lidocain, benzocain, etc. Those are all synthetic versions of alkaloids derived from the coca plant. Every time you have surgery, or require pain killers for a problem; they give you a synthetic opioid derived from the poppy plant. Asprin comes from willow bark, Penicilin from mold, on and on. This process of mass producing random chemical compounds in the lab and then seeing if they have any efficacy against any known ailment is relatively new in medicine.

            Step 4) FDA

            Then, you have the whole legislature and FDA portion of the process. This is a revolving door where people go from private sector to public sector back to private sector. The public railed against Dick Cheney for Haliburton contacts in Iraq, yet… This practice is perfectly normal and accepted for the FDA. You have people like Donald Rumsfeld who went from government to work at monsanto and back to government. Then, monsanto gets its ‘equivalency’ approval for genetically altered foods at the FDA and people start having allergic reactions to fish, while eating a tomato. People railed back demanding labeling of GMO foods, only to be denied any such labeling.

            There are numerous cases where drugs were approved for human use that were later revoked due to misrepresentations and outright lies during trials. Trials conducted by the company who manufactured a drug used to be (not sure if they still are) accepted by the FDA as proof of safety and efficacy. Third party trials are even paid for by the companies who make the drugs. Then, those third party ‘verification’ trials which were bought and paid for (quite literally) by the drug manuf are used as proof of safety and efficacy.

            Then, not to mention more heinous things like (but not limited to) — giving black men syphillis, testing nuclear radiation against 7th day adventists, bayer giving people aids with knowingly tainted factor VIII, on and on and on.

            Then, you have the scheduling system which historically has been used as a method to get rid of people deemed ‘undesirable’ to currently accepted societal norms. Substances like marijuana are deemed schedule 1, with no substantiating evidence to prove that there is no medicinal value. This is completely contrary to scientific method. They make claims without any substantiating evidence. Then, they use this as a basis to deny the substance to researchers who wish to examine if a substance has any actual medicinal value. Before 2016, NO ONE IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES COULD LEGALLY ACQUIRE MARIJUANA FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES! There have been petitions to move it from schedule to schedule 3 dating as far back as the 1970s. The FDA time and again say that the substance has no medical value. As far as i’m aware, cannabis is the only plant to contain cannabinoids which are able to target the endocannabinoid system. The 2 countries which are at the forefront of research into the ECS and Cannabinoids are Israel, and Spain. Cannabis has been shown to have more medicinal compounds and possibilities than any other plant I’m aware of. Yet, the FDA maintains the plant has ‘no medicinal value’ — even as other countries are approving treatments based on cannabinoids found within the cannabis plant.

            Step 5) The money.

            Every single step in this chain is driven by for-profit motives. Doctors need to see patients, prescribe drugs, order tests, and work to make money. It’s become a lot like being a lawyer. More and more people are going into the field to make money, not to help people.

            Drug dealers need to go door to door and push their products onto doctors to make money. In many cases they’re paid on commission. They’re are purely driven by profit and as salesmen are going to be more eager to lie or misrepresent to get a sale.

            Pharmaceutical companies need to develop new compounds so they can continually have new patents that they’re able to charge obscene amounts for in single doses. So, they randomly produce compounds that are loosely related to old compounds and then try to see if there’s any efficacy over a wide range of possible ailments. The pharma companies have no idea what the long term safety of these substances will be. They are actually required by law in the US to be solely concerned for the profit of their investors. Not only are they motivated by monetary reasons, they’re required by law to be motivated by monetary reasons.

            The people within the FDA leave the FDA and go work for pharmaceutical companies. If someone working within the FDA doesn’t get drugs approved, they’re not going to get a job after leaving the FDA if and when that ever happens. There is a research paper that showed from 2001 to 2010 25% of 55 reviewers who approved or were involved in the approval of cancer and hematological drugs at the FDA left and now work or consult for pharma companies. 25%!!! There are even cases of insider trading involving FDA reviewers who know a drug will get approved.


            I’ve personally been misdiagnosed several times, including once by a psychologist who told me it was ‘all in my head’. My wife was told she was fine and perfectly healthy. I noticed a growing list of symptoms and after a period of time determined she had PCOS. We went to the doctor, did the various testing and did indeed determine she has PCOS and is prediabetic. We’ve changed her diet to remove the sugar and carbs, she’s starting to get back to normal. I’ve seen my parents, grand parents and other loved ones fall victim to this for profit medical trap. Grandfather goes to a doctor with intestinal problems, ah, it’s probably just gas, or indigestion. Nope, turned out to be cancer that had spread to his brain before they bothered to actually look.

            People do have a right to earn a living, and generally, live well. What makes it a problem is when the for profit factor is the only motivator. When you have to analyze a doctor’s personality every time you see one to determine if they’re a decent human being, overworked, are prone to sloppy work, etc. It gets a bit overwhelming as it’s not like you’re going in to the doctor for a stubbed toe in the first place.

            So, you ask me why people don’t trust doctors. I would ask you, “Why should I trust a doctor? — or further, anyone in the medical establishment?”. I’ve found the only way to be sure something is done right is to spend the time to learn about it and do it yourself. Only then will it get done properly, that you can’t count on others to do what needs to be done *properly*. And, when your life depends on it, it matters. I will await your 2liner reply.

          • Acleron

            There is no difference at all. Plants don’t evolve to treat humans, they just have interesting chemicals.

            Your uneducated views on chemistry, biology and medical science are not reasons for you to make claims nor to advise others on medical matters. An engineer is hardly who to go to for medicine.

            Your misrepresentations of what I said amounted to lies.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Cool, sue me for slander, let’s see if a jury agrees with you. And, on that note and 2 liner reply that I knew was coming. I’m going to go smoke a joint and tell some more people elsewhere to try THC for their PD.

            If you can’t see how there isn’t a difference in noting that a compound in nature has antibacterial properties, and randomly developing 10,000 compounds in the lab HOPING one has antibacterial properties. I’m not sure what to tell you.

          • Acleron

            Sue you? Crazy talk.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            No less crazy than thinking that randomly developing compounds in the lab is equivalent to observing nature. Noticing that some mold kill off other fungi and mold as they grow is substantially different than developing 100,000 unknown compounds in the hopes that one kills off mold or fungi and has a low toxicity in humans.

          • Acleron

            If you think that finding new drugs is easy you are living in cloud cuckoo land. The very fact that scientists are investigating marijuana gives the lie to that idea.

            Your simplistic view of how medical science works is not a reason to make your claims.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            I never said it was easy, what I said is that.. Randomly generating 100s of 1000s of compounds hoping that they have some therapeutic value, is new, and is not substantially equivalent to observing nature for answers to our own problems. Observing nature for clues as to compounds that can be used for medicinal purposes is the foundation of modern medicine along with the scientific method.

            Your misrepresentations of what I said amount to lies.

            “Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty… I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well.” – Theodore Roosevelt

          • Acleron

            Observing nature is just part of medical science. Mass screening techniques are more efficient. The call to all things nature may be attractive to you but all the easy drugs have been found.

            You have demonstrated no insight into what is done in this area but you obviously think you are an expert. Dunning Kruger.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            If mass screening techniques are more efficient, why do we not have more randomly generated compounds today? Why are almost all medicinal compounds synthetic versions of compounds found in plants?

          • Acleron

            Why? Compare the numbers of drugs vs the number of new drugs per annum.

            The low hanging fruit has already been picked. All new chemicals whether plant, fungal or bacterial are primary screened to eliminate the useless. Those that pass are mostly dropped before clinical testing. Getting a drug to market is hard, your idea of guessing a dose and using anecdotal data is just nonsense.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Apparently not if they’re just getting to marijuana.

          • Acleron

            LMAO a cursory look at pubmed lists over 25,000 publications for marijuana. You are really out of your depth.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Duh, I’m trolling you.

          • Acleron

            Aww, was you annoyed? More likely it was that your attempt to get others to start ‘heavy recreational use’ was being refuted. Better stick to engineering and leave health care to professionals.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Yes, it is better. So you should stop making recommendations that you have no idea what you’re talking about. There are clinical studies for marijuana use for PD. You’re advising people not to listen to what you claim is professional medicine.

          • Acleron

            Lol, you seem to have forgotten when I entered this sub thread. If you have phase I and II studies properly controlled then why waste time on demonstrating your ignorance of medical drug progression.

          • corbyh

            “Plants don’t evolve to treat humans”

            1) You’re missing the point. Terribly so.

            2) This isn’t even true. When plants (in their whole, natural form) are found to have medicinal uses or be effective at treating ailments for humans then humans become part of the natural selection process for those plants by preserving, propagating, hybridzing, and cultivating them.

          • Acleron

            omfgwtfbbq said
            ‘Chemicals in nature have evolved naturally through processes of natural selection. There are reasons for their existence as it helps them combat disease, reproduce, live longer, become stronger than other plant and animal species in a given environment’
            Looks like you missed the point.

            How would you determine which plants had the greater effect?

          • corbyh

            You’re doing the same thing you’ve done throughout this thread which is to conveniently forget which of your statements people are responding to here. You said, “Plants don’t evolve to treat humans.” I’ve posted a rebuttal to that. Do you have something to refute that rebuttal with? Or are you retracting your statement? (since it is demonstrably false)

          • Acleron

            The comment you responded to was a reply to omfg… In your response you claimed I had missed the point. You were wrong in all sorts of ways.

          • Acleron

            Do keep up.

          • James Peters
          • Acleron

            Good, let’s hope it is well run, has high power and is successful.

          • slooryder

            When one does have cancer perhaps one is more willing to look at the broader picture of alternative treatments. It is obvious that you are not interested in alternative cures however I can say that Hemp oil and sulfurophane have diminished and perhaps eliminated my cancer. The world is not flat and one needs to be open to other than the orthodox word. Please tell us how you treat you or yours should such diagnosis arise. Reality in ones life does dictate action.

          • Acleron

            You have no idea what interests me, for the record, it is evidence and science based treatments, uncontrolled anecdotes are not reliable evidence.

            You have pinpointed an emotional problem. When diagnosed with a serious disease, people are vulnerable to charlatans. Homeopaths, chiros etc are all very willing to sell their nostrums with anecdotes galore. They don’t mention those who don’t get better or even get worse. With fatal diseases, they literally bury any evidence against.

          • slooryder

            It is fortunate for the world that many pioneers did not share your views.

          • Acleron

            Which pioneers produced new drugs without evidence?

          • James Peters

            GW Pharma sponsored the trials in patients with Dravet and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. They plan to submit a single NDA to the FDA for both indications. Epidiolex (a proprietary oral solution of pure plant-derived CBD) will then be approved soon after. Their 3rd and 4th target indications for the drug are Tuberous Sclerosis Complex and Infantile Spasms.

          • corbyh

            “When those anecdotes are confirmed by clinical trials.”

            Why would anyone bother to confirm anecdotes with clinical trials if anecdotes are dismissed out of hand as being useless and irrelevant?

          • Acleron

            Don’t be ridiculous. Anecdotes are not used as treatment recommendations by responsible people. Who said they are never investigated?

          • Tasha Elizabeth

            I Am Here To Give My Testimony About A Doctor Who Helped Me In My Life. I Was Infected With HIV /AIDS VIRUS In 2016, I Went To Many Hospitals For Cure But There Was No Solution, So I Was Thinking How Can I Get A Solution Out So That My Body Can Be Okay. One Day I Was In The River Side Thinking Where I Can Go To Get Solution. So A Lady Walked To Me Telling Me Why Am I So Sad And I Open Up All To Her Telling Her My Problem, She Told Me That She Can Help Me Out, She Introduce Me To A Doctor Who Uses Herbal Medication To Cure HIV VIRUS And Gave Me His Email [] So I Mail Him. He Told Me All The Things I Need To Do And Also Give Me Instructions To Take, Which I Followed Properly. Before I Knew What was Happening After Two Weeks The HIV VIRUS That Was In My Body Got Vanished . So If You Are Also Heart Broken And Also Need Help, You Can Also Call Him Or Talk With Him Through Telegram On +2348107749617 or E-mail Him at

            You Can Also Contact Him If Are Diagnosed With Any The Virus Below
            {1} HIV And AIDS
            {2} Diabetes
            {3} Epilepsy
            {4} Blood Cancer
            {5} He Can Make You Get Pregnancy
            {6} HPV
            {7} ALS
            {8} Psoriasis
            {9} Diabetes
            10} Love Spell

          • thaddeusbuttmunchmd

            OK-I have issues with BOTH sides of this argument. Again, I am a Traditionally-trained physician. “Cut, Burn, Poison” CAN be harmful (even Deadly) and not kill the Tumor-but that depends on the tissue type. Childhood Leukemias, Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Testicular Cancer, and Choriocarcinoma of the Endometrium (which consists of Fetal tissue after childbirth) used to be DEADLY-especially the Latter. ALL are curable with Old-Fashioned Chemotherapy. Admittedly, some of these are “Zebra” (Rare) Diseases. 85% of Lung Cancer, and Large percentages of Esophageal, Head and Neck, Pancreas and Bladder Cancers are related to various forms of Tobacco-so don’t DO it. Smoke the “Good” stuff instead! (but Vaping and ingesting is Healthier.) Breast, Colon and Prostate can be screened for. They account for a Large Percentage of Cancer Deaths. Getting a Colonoscopy after Fifty years of age (and, in some instances, earlier) is a Vital and noncontroversial way to get rid of Polyps, thus preventing more radical surgery and/or Death. Ovarian and Pancreatic Cancers are “Hidden” tumors. Perhaps Targeted PET scans Bianually or “Dognostics” (Dogs are GREAT at sniffing out early Cancer) will allow them to be Diagnosed at an Earlier Stage.

            Bloodletting and Mercury “Quack Silver” WERE used by Doctors and were Harmful, but that was Long Ago. The “Natural Healers” in Those Days thought that Plague was caused by a misalignment of Heavenly Bodies and that hanging nostrums around your neck prevented it. I recently attended a “Targeted Therapy” Lecture about cutting-edge Cancer treatments. There are VERY promising Immunotherapies, such as checkpoint inhibitors, and small molecule inhibitors coming online for the Treatment of Cancer.

          • thaddeusbuttmunchmd

            PS: Skin Exams for Melanoma are Vital, Too. The Pap Smear, and now, the HPV Vaccine, are saving MANY women’s lives.

          • Vladimir Stanescu

            One last effort (from the article in the link):
            “Let us look first at tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and observe that THC is
            a natural fit for the CB1 cannabinoid receptor on the cancer cell
            surface. When THC hits the receptor, the cell generates ceramide that
            disrupts the mitochondria, closing off energy for the cell. Disruption
            of the mitochondria releases cytochrome c and reactive oxygen species
            into the cytosol, hastening cell death. It is notable that this process
            is specific to cancer cells. Healthy cells have no reaction to THC at
            the CB1 receptor. The increase in ceramide also disrupts calcium
            metabolism in the mitochondria, completing the demise to cell death.
            “The other cannabinoid we know is effective in killing cancer cells is
            cannabidiol (CBD). The primary job of CBD in the cancer cell is to
            disrupt the endoplasmic reticulum through the wrecking of the calcium
            metabolism, pushing calcium into the cytosol. This always results in
            cell death. Another pathway for CBD to effect cancer cell death is the
            caspase cascade, which breaks down proteins and peptides in the cell.
            When this happens the cell cannot survive. Again, these processes are
            specific to cancer cells, no normal cells are affected.”

          • Vladimir Stanescu

            What, no attack yet on the Harvard quack and his snake oil claims ? Hmmmm…
            Different time zones I suspect…

          • Vladimir Stanescu

            I know there are lots of quacks who sell lots of snake oil. I am not a physician, just a guy who wants to know as much as possible about a limited field or another, especially when that limited field is directly linked to unimportant things like his life.
            In my case and other 2 I know personally, the RSO worked as advertised, in a dose-dependant manner. From what I read, there are reports of other cases. Why nobody petitons to do a real clinical study ? Like diagnosed patients, even terminally ill, to sign up for this clinical trial – 3-6 months. I bet thousands would register in seconds.
            The ones I read about (few) were laughing stocks, really. The trials I mean.
            I will ask you another thing: why is cannabis listed as a Schedule I substance, the highest classification ? It was used as a medicinal plant until 1931 I think. I can tell you from experience that it doesn’t induce addiction and has mild to none side effects.
            On the other hand, some 8 million american are struggling for years to quit Valium.
            And the other thing is you said “cured”. By “cured” I mean at least 5 years cancer-free, no ?
            But from what I saw, that happens rarely. In my opinion, that is because the entire action of chemo agents (killing all the cells in the order of their multiplication speed) is wrong. And it destroys the immune system. According to Dr. Dennis Hill, a biochemist at Harvard who cured his PCa, the cannabinoids, especially the THC and CBD, have the ability to target only the abnormal cells. The THC destroys their mythocondria walls and the CBD inhibits their metabolism by limiting their blood supply. Here is a link:
            That is all, I really have no more time, sorry, don’t want to offend you. Frankly, I was hoping to contribute to the start of something good, but I realize now it’s not gonna happen, at least not in this century.

          • poppy72

            Went to your link, wrong, I was diagnosed with cancer in 2005 had chemo doing well in 2017 Umm thats 12 years yet your link stated only 5 years Ummm.

        • rusty

 watch this as well 🙂

      • Vladimir Stanescu

        Yes, it does, Sir. And you don’t have to do anything other than reach the correct dose of approx 1ml pure cannabis oil per day and keep it until all the markers are at the lowest possible value. 1:1 CBD/THC ratio helps. The THC destroys the mithocondria membranes and the CBD inhibits the cells’ metabolism by limiting their blood supply. They are far less efectve than most chemo drugs, but they target only the cancer cells. Worked for me and for 2 friends of mine, one with lymphoma and one with pancreatic t3 cancer (he is still in remission though, we are cancer-free). On the other hand, your chemo and radio killed my mother, my cousin and 4 of my dear friends and colleagues in a short period of time. I don’t blame you – most of you are “injected” in school and impervious to reason. I blame the governments which banned this medicinal plant with no side effects and no addiction to promote Valium and other drugs that should be banned for side effects and addiction.

        • thaddeusbuttmunchmd

          I’m a physician myself, and think that Cannabis Oil is worthwhile-but, not necessarily as a standalone treatment. I am a member of a Cannabis Club. A Teenage Girl with Pontine Angle Glioblastoma takes the oil and her tumors have disappeared for Years. She was originally under Allopathic (Orthodox Medical) treatment at the University of Michigan. But, as you say, it must be the RIGHT oil. Mere refined Hemp Oil has healthy fats, but is worthless for Cancer. Why aren’t Hippies and Rastafarians who toke Marijuana more susceptible to Cancers, including Lung?? I certainly don’t think that ANY Burned Tar is Good for you, but the Cannabinoids are anti-carcinogens. The Baby Boomer Ex-Hippies are now reaching their Seventies, and should also be getting more Alzheimer’s Disease than they are. Cannabis can lower the incidence of THAT, Too, and it has become the Scourge of Humanity (worse than Cancer in some ways.)

          • rusty

            Most of those age related diseases are linked to dairy and meat consumption! Cannabis can help! Better to eat right in the first place so you will maybe never need weed at all! Just get baked for fun 🙂

          • thaddeusbuttmunchmd

            The Lack of enough fruits and vegetables can hurt more than a little meat. Super Sizing the Fries and Soda causes much trouble, Too. And-there’s a Difference between pasture-raised meat, and farmed meat-lunchmeat with nitrites are Especially Bad.

          • rusty

            A plant based diet can do wonders for our health! I’ve been on this diet for nearly two years, I never been this healthy since my early twenties! The studies on has changed my our look on foods and illness! I know you are an medical professional, so have a chat with Dr michael gregor or dr Neil Barnard in regards to meat!

          • Daniel Spillett

            What a load of hippie vegan nonsense nature would not have given you canine teeth if you weren’t supposed to eat meat

          • rusty

            I suppose you had all your wisdom teeth removed then! LOL, all joking aside, we have shorter intestines than meat eating animals, those animals make their own vitamin c, we get ours from fruit! Just go to that website go on man! Be wise!!!

          • TwoDogs4Me

            Meat and dairy are inflammatory and take up a lot of the immune systems activity. Plant based dirt frees up the immune system to work on diseases. It’s not front line treatment but definitely adjuvant treatment

          • Thanks for your opinion doc, but no thanks.

            We can do this without you and your colleagues. In fact, we will prosecute all of you who knew, what, when.

            Go back (start with Old Granny Crow’s list of over 1,000 clinical studies) and educate yourself on Edestin, Albumin, Consumptivitis and Tubercle bacteria from the mid-1850s. You missed that part in school. Or maybe it was the 1947 part on Cannabis extracts and epilepsy.

            QUIT PRACTICING. DO.


          • “ANY Burned Tar”, Dr. Donald Tashkin, UCLA Institute for Pulmonary Medicine:

      • Sir that might be the most IDIOT statement I HAVE EVER READ ONLINE.

        1) U.S. physicians are “PRACTICING” and most States FORBID doctors from discussing Cannabis with their patients for ANY MEDICINAL USE.

        2) Western Doctors are NOT EDUCATED in Western Medical Schools, NOR Residency on the Endogenous Cannabinoid Receptor System (ECRS), NOR Cannabis Activated Retrograde Synaptic Signaling (C.A.R.S.S.)

        3) In the absence of Cannabis Science, Chemistry, and Genetics Research – uneducated people say stupid things on the Internet about the subject they are ill-informed.

    • Erin Elizabeth

      The thing about no sugar….then you can’t have ANY type of sugar. No fruit, no carbs as they convert to sugar. Just look at the diet before you get a PET SCAN (no glucose allowed). Who can live like that? My onco told me cancer will find a way to live, even without sugar….if it where only that simple. Of course healthy living is better for you, but not a cancer cure.

  • Tabitha Tombow

    The simple truth is that, as soon as any therapy shows some promise, it will be swiftly investigated by conventional scientists and doctors. If it then turns out to be successful, the treatment will be used as soon as possible for the benefit of cancer sufferers. Agreed but to get that you need fda approval which gets tricky especially if the drug researchers want to test is a schedule 1 drug so if you can barley test the drug and study it, how in turn can doctors have this option available to them? They can’t so jumping through hoops and low findings create a gap in the system. Not nly that but some fda approved drugs fudge things sometimes and do get caught hee and their or do recalls. True I doubt some household seasoning holds the answer but it would be ludicrous to think in over 50 years in medicine chemotherapy and radiation are still the only option. There are scientists now trying to get the dea to reclassify cannabis because of the overwhelming evidence it can potentially cure most cancer and be more beneficial in numerous illnesses with little to no side effects. So while there are quacks on both sides of the spectrum there needs to be a middle ground no not all science is safe not all government official care to listen and no not all natural ways are best and until science leads instead of having to wait for the dea and fda you will have to take your own health in your own hands reach out to other doctors, biologist, biochemists, and research facilities and see whats going on. If the fda can approve you to be a clinical trial participant (lab rat) then you should be able to choose what experiment you want to be involved in. With you best educated guess and good research done I say do it 🙂 sincerely a daughter to a cancer survivor who only used cannabis oil. After research was done and we spoke non stop to many other doctors, scientists, and other survivors who used it.

    • Acleron

      If cannabis is effective and safe it will just be chemotherapy. However the evidence is not overwhelming. You are quite correct that there are irrational regulations against testing it but that doesn’t add anything to the argument. You will always have informed choice by ethical doctors to take part in a trial, only the charlatans and quacks avoid the regulations.

      • Tabitha Tombow

        Chemotherapy is nothing like cannabis oil. Chemotherapy can create a protein that crates new pathways for other cancer. Cannabis does not. Have you researched cannabis oil what it is and it’s chemical makeup. Other scientists have look up christina Sanchez in madrid spain. She was one of the first to find anticancer and antitumor effects with cbd/tch cannabis oil. Not only that but thousands of people are documented having cancer taking this and no longer having it. What cannabis oil does which is not smoking pot is get into the cancer cell shredding the mitochondria killing the energy source and the cell commits suicide. We also learned and this has been proven we have a gland that secretes this on a minute leven in our body called the endocanabinoid system. The overwhelming evidence came frome other scientists and actually people trying this method first. That’s the evidence not only that it worked on my mom!!! In Louisiana they just legalized the cannabis oil because of this now scientists are trying to get the dea to reschedule it so they can study it more extensively and also so it can be available for mass use and not just people in certain states. Please go research this they have documented cases, researchers that are well known in their field, and people who did it that you can contact. There are so many different things on this it’s really fascinating. From watching the cells die under a microscope after being treated with it, to studies, to survivors, and mist of all doctors not quacks but licensed doctors in great hospitals doing this. It’s more logical to try the least invasive treatment first.

        • Acleron

          So you it’s mostly anecdotal, not convincing at all.

          But if you are impressed by cells dying under a microscope, let me tell you, the difficult thing with cell culture is keeping the damn things alive, killing them is easy.

          As to which treatment to try first, I’ll leave that to expert oncologists. Personally, if I had a fast developing cancer, I’d want the most aggressive treatment first.

          • Tabitha Tombow

            Um that was an example study that was done in 2010 that i already had on my phone lol i was expecting you to do actual research lol. Others already have furthered research on it. It was human tissue of a child under a microscope different thing then what slither i gave also a young boy here with inoperable brain tumor took this road where chemo and radiation failed it was gone in 8 months. Don’t just look at a tiny example i gave and run with it that’s how mistakes happen go look for yourself. Then come back and tell me it does not work. My mom had it for Pete’s sake. And I would choose the best option not just killing cancer and normal cells.

          • Acleron

            What you are giving is exactly the same as all quacks who have ever claimed to have cured anything. Papers that prove nothing and unverifiable anecdotes that often make no sense. When the references are debunked and the anecdotes discarded then we get more of the same.

            Real scientists and doctors demand evidence, we have advanced from the days when every snake oil salesman could freely make money from the unwary. Get the evidence and the scientific community will accept it and incorporate it into treatment systems but get the evidence.

            Until you get such evidence, please stop telling vulnerable people facing devastating and life threatening diseases that you can cure them.

          • Tabitha Tombow

            Reporting their findings in the journal Nature Medicine, the scientists report that the findings were ‘completely unexpected’. Finding evidence of significant DNA damage when examining the effects of chemotherapy on tissue derived from men with prostate cancer, the writings are a big slap in the face to mainstream medical organizations who have been pushing chemotherapy as the only option to cancer patients for years.

            The news comes after it was previously ousted by similarly-breaking research that expensive cancer drugs not only fail to treat tumors, but actually make them far worse. The cancer drugs were found to make tumors ‘metasize’ and grow massively in size after consumption. As a result, the drugs killed the patients more quickly.

            Known as WNT16B, scientists who performed the research say that this protein created from chemo treatment boosts cancer cell survival and is the reason that chemotherapy actually ends lives more quickly. Co-author Peter Nelson of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle explains:

            “WNT16B, when secreted, would interact with nearby tumour cells and cause them to grow, invade, and importantly, resist subsequent therapy.”
            The team then complimented the statement with a word of their own:

            “Our results indicate that damage responses in benign cells… may directly contribute to enhanced tumour growth kinetics.”

          • Acleron

            So still misunderstanding that all drugs are chemotherapy. That means your cannabis oil does the same. Fortunately scientists and doctors understand just a little more than either journalists or you. If this was a general effect then why do clinical trials show that some drugs are effective?

            By the way, all accepted chemotherapy could be invalid, it isn’t but let us assume it was for the moment. It still doesn’t provide evidence for cannabis oil. Denigrating existing treatments to bolster sales of quackery is yet another tactic of quacks.

            Where are the double blinded trials that show your pet treatment is effective?

          • Tabitha Tombow

            I’m mearly showing the vulnerability in the existing one’s and when I say chemo I hope you are understanding that I mean the chemotherapy drug currently used for cancer and not all chemical compounds that can be used fir all drugs. Now if you would like to speak to a biochemist studying these things and working with doctors and cancer patients in madrid spain her name is Christina Sanchez you can google her and find her research center with a telephone number and email. She’s been doing the studies gor over 12 years now as for all other research well you don’t pay me to do it and it takes time. You can simply do that on your own time if you are passionate about it. Like I said before I have personally seen it work and have personally seen 5 die from the treatment given by doctors now before the cancer could be cured I mean living the success rate time given. Have a good night and happy hunting.

          • Acleron

            I’m disinterested in passion as a modus operandi for clinical research. You have shown that you cannot debate the ‘evidence’ you produced yet still make extravagant claims. Why don’t you learn the science of research so you can understand what kind of evidence is required. It is not easy and you won’t acquire that knowledge by only reading things you believe.

          • Tabitha Tombow

            But if you haven’t thoroughly researched the topic I don’t see hiw you can dismiss it or even discuss it.

          • Acleron

            I don’t need to read about it to refute your claims, Your lack of evidence is sufficient in itself. By the way, telling a critic to do their own research is pretty much the red flag of accepting you have no evidence.

          • Tabitha Tombow

            You do know the scientific community are researching this with great expectations. Another point there was no snake salesman in my moms treatment she grew the cannabis herself and we made the oil ourselves. The scientists studying it are very much professionals they are researching it so are you saying that these scientists are not real because they are not studying chemo and radiation? What about documented cases of it working like my mom. What about the scientists saying hey there is something here we are talking about real research happening, real doctors and patients asking senetors to legalize this real political figures arguing the DEA in court if its such quackery then why are doctors, scientists, and politicians asking for legalization of this drug so it can be used. Also they are continuously finding flaws in chemo and radiation research. I’m a science person and a logical one. I do not take the word of a random person on the street I also am well aware doctors, scientists, and the dea are run by human beings and to say they have no error is a folly so until you find proof chemo and radiation have a 50% cure raye not a 5-10 simi cure rate then that will not be my first option after seeing cannabis oil work for 2 people I know and countless other I contact.

          • Acleron

            Fine, do the studies, but until such time as those studies are published and accepted, stop making claims based on nothing but unverifiable anecdotes and papers that do not prove effectiveness in humans.

            Yeah, I bet you have contacted people that have survived cancer. I bet you haven’t spoken to those who didn’t. And that is the main problem with your irresponsible claims based on nothing.

            There may indeed be something useful in cannabis plants but prove it, don’t make unsubstantiated claims that may convince people to avoid treatment that has been shown to be effective.

          • charlie

            You make great a few good points here and there but your overall view is an ignorant one. Not supporting a potential treatment for cancer without clinical studies is understandable but the fact of the matter is approved treatments are extremely underwhelming and a pure gamble to many who are diagnosed with cancer.

            Western medicine is inexcusably behind the 8 ball on researching possible benefits of marijuana. And people are coming out of the woodwork with tales of being cured and loved ones being cured on thc treatments alone. The studies already done show promise. So I ask you, for a late stage cancer patient who’s percentages are not very good with approved treatments, which gamble do you take. The one that debilitates you and probably won’t work or the one that doesn’t and probably won’t work.

            If my grandfather decided to try the thc method and he was somehow cancer free after time, I would be on every website stating what he had done and that it worked for him. That would not make me a quack nor would I would I be making claims based on nothing as you so told Tabitha. It would be the truth. My Pap did this and then he was cancer free. Give it a shot if you don’t like your odds.

            You tell Tabitha to prove it but you know that is impossible for her to do for you. So you’re kinda just being a prick. That seems to be your complete MO as I can see from this thread. Kind of a stubborn mule. Not proven in USA labs, your irresponsible blah blah blah over and over again. It seems irresponsible of you as a man of medicine to be dismissive of anything not unrestricted by the FDA then proven useful in the lab.

            I understand why you say the things you do because there are sooo many supposed cures out there in internetland and if I bought every one for my Pap he wouldn’t use a quarter the crap and I’d have given money to at least a few total pieces of trash. But when people are dying and the FDA and pharmaceutical companies have the track record they have and the current treatments totally suck for some types of cancers it would be irresponsible of anyone to not post to the world what worked for them as long as they are being completely honest in what all treatments they used.

          • Acleron

            ‘as long as they are being completely honest in what all treatments they used.’

            As if.

          • charlie

            You have selective cynicism. Of course there are folk who get chemotherapy while drinking red clover tea then swear that the red clover tea cured them but not everyone who is into alternative medicine is a jackass. C’mon fella get real. My father has prostate cancer and they immediately told him surgery.He opted not too(incontinence and impotence did not sound appealing) He’s been on an almost natural diet for 5 years and has much lower PSA levels than initially. Coincidence, possibly but common sense says it probably helped.

          • Acleron

            The number of times I’ve been given an anecdote that falls apart on examination convinces me that they are useless as evidence. Spontaneous remission is known, attributing it to whatever non medicine is around is a fallacy.

          • charlie

            I certainly believe that most cure claims turn out to be false however when conventional medicine is debilitating and results are discouraging then there is nothing wrong with trying alternative medicines. Anyone claiming it is a sure-fire cure is wrong but stating what you tried and what your results are is helpful as to light a fire for clinical studies under whatever treatment you tried. Attributing it to whatever alternative medicine is around is not a fallacy. It’s just probably a fallacy. And I believe there is always a reason for remission, we’re just not able to figure out why most times or simply don’t look into it.

          • Acleron

            Attributing to whichever quackery is in vogue is definitely a fallacy. There is no value in these anecdotes for making decisions. By encouraging people to try it you can delay effective treatment with fatal results. If pharmaceutical companies try to market drugs with such a lack of evidence, they are roundly condemned and quite right too. We have learned, painfully, that drawing conclusions without solid evidence is futile and in the case of medicine, dangerous.

          • charlie

            You use the word quackery wrong. If someone is saying this cured me and will cure you then sure. If someone says I did these things and now I this happened, it is simply stating facts. If you believe no one should ever try anything that isn’t approved by the medical field when they are sick then well you just sound like a typical doctor who will pocket money every time I start to have a MRSA outbreak(with self convinced good intentions). Fortunately for me, I looked up alternative medicines and now I put make a poultice with tea tree oil, oregano oil and grapefruit seed extract and the infection goes away. If the infection got worse I would go have to see a doctor and help MRSA become more resistant to antibiotics.

            I’m not trying to change your mind. You obviously believe wholeheartedly that trying alternative medicine is downright stupid. But intelligent people will still research and try things that could work but not proven to instead of trying something that could work and is proven to only possibly work.

            “Gunshot victim who refused hospital treatment died last night from gunshot wound” (George Carlin) People can become too cynical of the medical system and be downright ignorant. However, the American medical society most certainly does not always know best and is a money driven corrupt system.

          • Acleron

            If someone says I was doing this and I also had remission from disease/condition X then that would be accurate. By saying I was cured by this it is fallacious, nobody could know. It is a combination of cognitive bias and the cum hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy.

          • Tabitha Tombow

            By the way everything starts with cells, cells are very impressive.

          • Tabitha Tombow

            Cannabis Oil Brain Tumor Remission by Jeffrey Dach MD
            screen-shot-2013-04-23-at-4-01-45-amCannabis Oil Brain Tumor Remission by Jeffrey Dach MD

            Dr. William Courtney was interviewed by the Huffington Post and talked about an 8 month old baby suffering from a malignant brain tumor (see MRI images at left).(2)

            The parents declined conventional treatment with chemotherapy, and used cannabis oil (medical marijuana) instead. Miraculously, after two months of cannabis oil, the MRI scan showed dramatic improvement. “They were putting cannabinoid oil on the baby’s pacifier twice a day, increasing the dose… And within two months there was a dramatic reduction.”(2)

            The initial MRI scan at the upper left frame showed typical features of an inoperable brain tumor, with features of a “butterfly glioma” with invasion of the corpus callosum and spread across the midline, At 2 months, the follow up MRI scan shows regression of tumor, and at 4 and 8 months the scans show complete clearing, and are totally clean.

            This is Highly Significant

            Butterfly malignant gliomas are highly aggressive tumors, and poorly responsive to conventional chemotherapy and radiation treatment. I can tell you this type of response is never seen with conventional treatment. In my opinion this type of response is highly significant.

            Dr Courtney says: “The child is a miracle baby…. we should be insisting this is frontline therapy for all children before using medications that have horrific long term side effects. (such as chemo).”(2)

            Cannabis Oil is Non-Psychoactive

            The two active ingredients in cannabis are the psycho-active component called THC, and the non-psychoactive component called cannabidiol, found in cannabis oil.(9)

            Research Showing Cannabis Has Potent Anticancer Activity (4-11)

            How does it work ? Cannabis oil causes stress to the endoplasmic reticulum in the cancer cells. This causes the cancer dells to undergo self programmed cell death, called apoptosis. This selectively kills the cancer cells, while leaving the normal tissue unharmed.(4-11)

            “Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) stress–evoked upregulation of the p8/TRB3 pathway induced autophagy via inhibition of the Akt/mTORC1 axis and that activation of autophagy promoted the apoptotic death of tumor cells. The uncovering of this pathway, which we believe is novel, for promoting tumor cell death may have therapeutic implications in the treatment of cancer”(4) quote from Dr. María Salazar.

            Clinical Trials are underway funded by GW Pharmaceuticals for the treatment of Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM) in 20 patients:

            “pre-clinical research conducted by GW has demonstrated cannabinoids inhibit the viability of glioma cells both in vitro and in vivoi,ii via apoptosis or programmed cell death. GW has identified the putative mechanism of action for our cannabinoid product candidate, where autophagy and programmed cell death are stimulated via stimulation of the TRB3 pathway. ” PRNews and that’s one of thousands

          • Acleron

            You seem to have forgotten to mention that Jeffrey Dach sells many wacko things to cure you of all ills. This includes bioidentical hormones, lol, these are known as hormones, he was also very keen on telling you how to pay for his stuff.

            William Courtney runs an outfit called Cannabis International Foundation, I wonder what he sells.

            Spontaneous remissions from cancer are well known, these people never show the anecdotes where their treatment failed and that is why relying on anecdotes is futile.

          • Tabitha Tombow

            I’m trying to upload the scan

      • Tabitha Tombow

        stractSend to:
        Pharmacology. 2010;85(6):328-35. doi: 10.1159/000312686. Epub 2010 Jun 2.
        Cannabinoids inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells.
        Whyte DA1, Al-Hammadi S, Balhaj G, Brown OM, Penefsky HS, Souid AK.
        Author information
        The primary cannabinoids, Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta(9)-THC) and Delta(8)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta(8)-THC) are known to disturb the mitochondrial function and possess antitumor activities. These observations prompted us to investigate their effects on the mitochondrial O(2) consumption in human oral cancer cells (Tu183). This epithelial cell line overexpresses bcl-2 and is highly resistant to anticancer drugs.
        A phosphorescence analyzer that measures the time-dependence of O(2) concentration in cellular or mitochondrial suspensions was used for this purpose.
        KEY RESULTS:
        A rapid decline in the rate of respiration was observed when Delta(9)-THC or Delta(8)-THC was added to the cells. The inhibition was concentration-dependent, and Delta(9)-THC was the more potent of the two compounds. Anandamide (an endocannabinoid) was ineffective; suggesting the effects of Delta(9)-THC and Delta(8)-THC were not mediated by the cannabinoidreceptors. Inhibition of O(2) consumption by cyanide confirmed the oxidations occurred in the mitochondrial respiratory chain. Delta(9)-THC inhibited the respiration of isolated mitochondria from beef heart.
        These results show the cannabinoids are potent inhibitors of Tu183 cellular respiration and are toxic to this highly malignant tumor.
        PMID: 20516734 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] that is just one research finding there are many plus many cancer survivors that have only used this method. There are states legalizing this because of the overwhelming evidence brought by scientists, researchers and people who actually did this like my mom who were documented having cancer doing this and are now cancer free go research this its fascinating stuff from watching cancer cells die under a microscope from this, to talking to people who did this and are cancer free, there is just so much out there that in the united states they are legalizing it all we need is the dea to reclassify it so science and research can continue.

        • Acleron

          This is precisely the type of misinformation used by quacks to sell their product, whether it be the actual chemical or just books.

          The researchers have only shown that at some dose, mitochondrial respiration is inhibited. So what? Many toxic materials do the same. The bit that is missing is showing that this only happens to transformed cells and not to normal cells. Even then, experiments in cell culture are a long way from a therapy in humans. Next, precise dosages in animal models have to be established and then toxicity studies, both will need characterised materials, cannabis oil is not a standard material. Finally, phase one studies in humans can begin, these will show tolerance and gross toxicity. Phase two studies will be used to establish the dose and the delivery system. Phase three studies will then show the effectiveness of the final product.

          Only in lala land do you miss out all these steps because someone takes anecdotes instead of real, hard evidence. Experience has shown that no matter how promising a drug appears at any stage it is likely to fail a later one.

      • Tabitha Tombow

        Also chemotherapy is not cannabis oil it has already been found that chemotherapy creates a protein that can cause new cancer growth its even in medical billing and coding books. Cbd/tch (cannabis oil) is nothing like chemotherapy

        • Acleron

          The clue is in the name, chemotherapy. The name was originally used to describe all drug therapies but now only applies to drugs used in oncology.

  • Mr Harry Ferguson

    Am Sancho Pedro base in united state of America, my wife was suffering from Breast Cancer and the doctor told me that there was nothing that
    he could do to save my beloved wife. Then a friend told me about the Harry Ferguson hemp oil that can cure cancer, i told him that my wife’s
    breast cancer was in the last stage that i don’t think the hemp oil would cure it and he persuaded me to try it, for the love of my wife,
    i decided to give it a try. I did some research and i found a doctor who helped me with the cannabis oil to cure my wife’s breast cancer and he assured me that
    after 4 months the cancer would be no more, here is the email to contact: or call + 14083370415
    I bought it and she used it, it worked exactly as the doctor prescribed it. Thanks to doctor Harry Ferguson for taking away sorrow in my
    life. can you all imagine, that my wife have a 6 years old daughter and a 3 years old son, what would i have done. God will bless Dr. Harry Ferguson for helping me with cannabis oil and for his support and
    care, contact Email: what can i say unto my LORD, all i have to say is THANK YOU LORD.

  • Helen Scot

    I am here to express my profound warm gratitude to the Dr Reza Simpson THC-CBD Cannabis oil, which i got from the Affiliated Dr Reza Simpson Team with 48 hours delivery here in the States. I am now leaving a healthy life since the past 5 months after the completion of my cancer treatment with the CBD-THC cannabis Oil from Dr Reza Simpson Team i am now cancer free after the application and usage. Dr Reza Simpson THC-CBD is currently the only cure for cancer, and every other diseases as am A living witness of this great miracle you can save more patient from pharmaceutical scandals by sharing or contacting the Special medical team for the Medication
    via Email:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Let Stop Cancer with Dr Reza Simpson Cannabis Oil.. Save life’s by sharing on all social network as God will bless you as you share this information that will give every cancer patient’s a hope for a new Life which they I lost total hope of.
    God Bless you as you help save others, For My household, we would keep fighting the Good fight against Cancer worldwide…,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  • BJH

    Every MD, Biologist, Chemist and Researcher needs to watch and study the work of Dr. Raphael Mechoulam of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel. Watch this film about his research of cannabis and the endocannabinoid system.

    The National Cancer Institute acknowledged the anti-cancerous effects of cannabis.

    You may also be interested in the research of Dr. Guillermo Velasco and Dr. Manuel Guzmán. They published research in 1998 that showed how tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) induces apoptosis in glioma cells. In 2011 they demonstrated THC even works with chemotherapy to kill brain cancer.

    They’re raising money to conduct clinical human trials in Madrid, Spain. You can read more about Dr. Guzman here.

    There is much more to this discussion, critical information that has seemed to escape the awareness of the author and many commentators.

  • Claire Anderson

    I want to thank Dr. Daniel Floyd and all the management of Dr. Daniel Floyd Pharmaceuticals their life saving cannabis oil cured my wife of thyroid cancer , the doctor told me there was little they could do and despite all the chemotherapy and radiation, she was not responding to treatment. so a friend of mine came to our rescue by ordering the cannabis oil from Dr. Daniel pharmaceutical. Which actually is established by one of the students of Rick Simpson, covered by the legal certification of Rick Simpson. Dr. Daniel Floyd has been helping patients fight cancer of various types, as it is almost impossible to reach Rick Simpson himself on time. So we decided give it a try, so far my wife is improving very well and today she can walk around the house all by herself. I believe it is necessary to let others, especially those suffering from this acute disease that once you have this oil, it can really give a second chance at life. If you happen to be in need of this oil, should contact the via this email:

  • Sarah Chukovski

    i am grateful to Dr. Daniel Floyd and all the management of Dr. Daniel Floyd Pharmaceuticals their life saving cannabis oil cured my wife of thyroid cancer , the doctor told me there was little they could do and despite all the chemotherapy and radiation, she was not responding to treatment. so a friend of mine came to our rescue by ordering the cannabis oil from Dr. Daniel pharmaceutical. Which actually is established by one of the students of Rick Simpson, covered by the legal certification of Rick Simpson. Dr. Daniel Floyd has been helping patients fight cancer of various types, as it is almost impossible to reach Rick Simpson himself on time. So we decided give it a try, so far my wife is improving very well and today she can walk around the house all by herself. I believe it is necessary to let others, especially those suffering from this acute disease that once you have this oil, it can really give a second chance at life. If you happen to be in need of this oil, should contact the via this email:

  • jhsif

    The moral of the sotry boys and girls nuclear radiaiton from CHEMO is the only CURE oops I mean FDA APPROVED treatment, (even though anti nuke nuts have been SCREAMING against nukes it’s perfectly acceptable and even CRIMINAL to not FORCE your child to mainline nuclear waste to cure OOPS I mean (giggle) TREAT their cancer. Apparently other cures for cancer are, dress them up like superheros, give them a ride in a limosine, give them WHATEVER their hearts DESIRE just NOT a CURE for their disease from the so called MAKE a WISH or as I call it INSULT a SICK CHILD TO THEIR FACE BY REFUSING A CURE FOUNDATION!

  • Ree Zun
  • Franklin Welsh

    Hey! I can,t believe this. A great testimony that i must share to all cancer patient in the world i never believed that their could be any complete cure for lung cancer or any cancer,i saw people testimony on blog sites of how Dr Rick Simpson cannabis oil brought them back to life again. i had to try it too and you can,t believe that in just few weeks i started using it all my pains stop gradually and i had to leave without the drugs the doctor gave to me. Right now i can tell you that few months now i have not had any pain, and i have just went for text last week and the doctor confirmed that there is no trace of any cancer system. Glory be to God for leading me to this genuine Man Dr Rick Simpson. I am so happy as i am sharing this testimony. My advice to you all who thinks that their is no cure for cancer that is Not true, just contact him and get cannabis oil from Dr Rick Simpson to cure your cancer and you will be free and free for ever, Try it and you will not regret it because it truly works. One thing i have come to realize is that you never know how true it is until you try. There is no harm in trying. Remember, delay in treatment leads to death. Here is his email:( him and be free from cancer!

  • g8 connect

    CBD oil from hemp or hemp oil has real low amounts of cbds and thc. The CBD oil the guys are legalizing is from strains grown from low thc >1% high CBD 20-25% such as the “Charolettes Web strain from colcorado.. You cannot get high smoking CBD Oil. It only works when ingested. For details to order some canabis oil. contact will kill strong sterm cells like cancer

    • thaddeusbuttmunchmd

      Yes, and it’s Ironic that while the folks in the States which are legalizing Weed, the Cheech & Chong types want the highest possible THC, not CBD. THC is Good for anxiety and nausea, CBD is Good for appetite, pain, and probably killing malignant (Cancer) cells. ALL Cannabinoids are neuroprotective in the Brain (Despite the “Reefer Madness” nonsense.)

      • omfgwtfbbq

        The Charolette’s web strain is from colorado. It has 0.5% THC. Did you even read his comment? Also, CBD targets only the CB2 receptor while THC targets the CB1 receptor. Some cancers have CB1 only receptors (requiring high thc), some cancers have only CB2 receptors (requiring high CBD), some cancers have CB1 and CB2 receptors. There are also 100+ other cannabinoids which haven’t even been isolated for pre-clinical testing yet.

  • Robert S Redfern

    The problem with humans is they are very creative and create self and group delusion that is very hard to move. That is why all cancer studies (and all health studies) must be supervised by retired aeronautical engineers. They have no axe to grind and they have nearly 100% success record for safety, outcomes and science. Of course Curcumin and all of the other alternatives can be tested since all of the sufferers will be volunteers the same as with pharma drugs.

    • Acleron

      Is this the thinking of a retired engineer?

    • JoeFarmer

      You might want to rethink that suggestion. Not much life science study in engineering programs like AeroE.

      • Robert S Redfern

        I cannot think of another group of honest people with a nearly 100% safety record I trust to oversee such studies. Do you know of anyone?

        • JoeFarmer

          First, you need to acknowledge that the exemplary record of airlines goes far beyond the people designing the aircraft. For instance the concept of Crew Resource Management.

          Second, any supervisory or oversight operation needs to be done by people with subject matter experience. AeroE people aren’t going to have that.

          • Robert S Redfern

            I guess you cannot recommend an alternative honest group to audit the results. I guess we will have to reply on bribery and corruption and keep applying huge fines for their fixed results.

          • Robert S Redfern

            Yes but the existing overseers with experience have been found to be faking and hiding the true results and have been fined billions but they are so wealthy from their ill gotten gains they pay the fines and carry on.

    • I agree.

      I also think that all flight dynamics studies of aircraft must be supervised by retired podiatrists. They have no axe to grind and they have nearly 100% success record for safety, plus they aren’t in the pocket of Big Aero.

      Of course Turkey Feather and Wax Wings and all of the other alternatives can be tested on volunteers… or prisoners.

      • Robert S Redfern

        Were you putting a foot in your mouth or dipping your toe into the wax to make it sound funny? Or was that the feathers tickling your fancy?

        • I was being just as serious as you, Robert S Redfern.
          My proposition is just as logical and well considered as yours and it will insure aircraft safety because podiatrists will have no conflicts of interest with the aircraft industry. We will select only podiatrists who travel by train.

          What will you do to make sure your aeronautical engineers have no connection to the pharmaceutical industry? Select only AEs that have never visited a doctor or purchased OTC drugs?

          Edited to add:
          My team of aircraft safety studies supervisors populated exclusively by podiatrists will be named… Icarus, thus explaining for the unschooled the feathers and wax allusion in my first post.

          • Robert S Redfern

            Well, if we are being serious, podiatrists while giving a good service do not have the lives of millions in their hands everyday (unlike aeronautical engineers).
            As I am typing this, once again, a report is on the BBC of the side effects of a drug that damaged thousand of babies in the womb. The report claims that these side effects were hidden by the manufacturers and doctors. This is shown to be normal practice in the medical business in spite of £billions paid in fines for this type of practice.
            Just two weeks after GSK were fined the largest fine in history (3billion) the head of that company (with a big fat donation cheque in his hand) was welcomed by David Conman
            Can you imagine the manufacturers and aeronautical engineers hiding major faults in planes resulting in thousands of death and injuries every year? Would you fly anywhere?
            The aeronautical business welcomes those who report faults as heroes. The medical business sacks minions that report problems but mounts massive witch hunts against highly qualified doctors who dare to go public.
            I seriously stand for my claim that retired aeronautical engineers are the best supervisors of this corrupt industry. Better still it is time we jailed anyone (Alternative of Orthodox) who takes part in the coverup of the terrible side effects of harmful treatments and inappropriate practices.

          • What about the naval engineers who design and engineer submarines? They go down all the time but you never hear of them because they fail when the vessel is out of sight and reports of their loss is hidden by the NWO Aluminutty. Would you ever get on a submarine designed by engineers? They should all be designed by epidemiologists.

            How can you trust any engineers, including AEs, when it’s obvious they all work for the NWO and are all compromised. They’ve all sold their souls and your loved one’s lives for the price of a steak dinner with drinks and a really nice pocket protector.

            Your idea to have AEs supervise an industry of which they have absolutely no knowledge is perhaps the most insane idea I’ve heard in the last couple days… this being the internet and land of the crackpot conspiracy loonies. I wouldn’t trust any aeronautical engineer to supervise anything beyond stuffing envelopes and even there they’re liable to kill someone from paper cuts.

          • Acleron

            Engineering firms don’t cover up mistakes? The Challenger shuttle disaster is one example. There was a systematic suppression of the direct and indirect causes of that, spectacularly exposed by R. Feynman.

            The idea that people with no knowledge of an area supervise it is not sensible. An aeronautical engineer that became a clinical trial specialist would be OK but according to Robert S Redfern would become corrupt.

          • And they didn’t even give Feynman a free pocket protector or mechanical pencil. They knew he was dying of cancer when he was investigating the frozen stiff O-rings and just let him die instead of giving him their NWO sooper sekrit kancer kure which, even now, is enabling the MIB to live to ages not seen since Methuselah.
            I think Bill Gates was involved in that assassination but I’d have to check his TED talk because criminal eevyil geniuses always publicly reveal their plans and crimes just like in the comic books and hollywood fantasy films.

          • Acleron

            Even after he disclosed the reason for the disaster, creeping safety standards leading to the O-ring problem, he had to publish a minority, dissenting report.

            Wow, this must mean that all engineers are corrupt.

            In fact, all the problems with pharmaceutical drugs have been disclosed by other clinical researchers, none by engineers.

          • Robert S Redfern

            OK you beat me. I will keep going to private doctors with whom I discuss the science and study of healthcare for my future. I wish you well since you don’t seem to bother to answer me about the crimes of the pharma led doctors/researchers and therefore presume you approve of them.

          • Robert S Redfern said, “OK you beat me. I will keep going to private doctors…”

            Doctors!? Doctors?
            Why would someone like you want to go to a doctor.
            Surely you can find a retired sanitation engineer to give you your annual physical and prostate exam.
            They are much more reliable and untainted by conspiracy theory than a big pHARMA doctor.

          • Robert S Redfern

            Your reply makes my point much better than I can.

  • thaddeusbuttmunchmd

    The “Rife Machine” probably NEVER works. BUT-a more recent innovation (not Alternative, but invented by an Engineer) is the Kanzius Machine. This treatment involves being injected with Gold Nanoparticles, and then being placed in an alternating magnetic field. The inventor used a Crude Homebuilt machine and, tragically, Lost his Battle with the Disease. But this machine has been tested on pigs, and is at least Safe. The mechanism of action is that the Gold particles (hopefully) concentrate in the Tumor. Then the Magnetic Field “Cooks” the tumors-like an induction Stove, without causing too much damage to surrounding tissue. It IS an Issue that the New Treatments take so long to be approved (in the US-by the FDA.) Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy are Far more Dangerous, and target ALL rapidly dividing cells, e.g. The Bone Marrow, the Lining of the Gut, and the Hair Follicles.


    Unfortunately, this article is another form of “snake oil.” Oncologist get paid a fee for every chemo patient they treat. Research is what I do. I have cancer and I use naturopathy to treat myself. It’s been two years since I was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. I took the hormone therapy “ADT” (pills for 1 month) then the first double dose shot. Within a month I had bonafide research that proves you sir are a liar just like the rest of the allopathic doctors controlled by the FDA/AMA/Big Pharma. Unlike you sir, I have a law degree (health law) along with an EXTENSIVE premed-background. Studies from the NIH prove much of what you say is false. If so much of what’s on the internet is “snake oil” then why is immunotherapy/immunochemotherapy/immuno-oncology the newest developments? They’re aimed at combining your drugs (the real culprit) with naturopathy. Why? Because chemo and radiation are carcinogens (cancer producing agents) that kill both cancerous and healthy cells; thus destroying the immune system which kills cancer cells on a daily basis until compromised. Naturopathy is aimed at revitalizing the immune system while also killing cancer cells without doing harm to healthy ones.

    Thus, anyone with common sense should beg to differ that treating cancer with cancer is “sane.” No sir, it’s barbaric. The informed also know that traditional allopathic treatments cause the cancer to be more viral and resistant, thus the lousy survival rate; more than 70% and many studies will show that 97% of the traditional treatment is a complete failure. The only thing accurate in your assessment is that there is [no cure in allopathic medicine]. I can’t tell you how many oncologists have tried to come after me online for sharing this information. The problem is, debate is what I do; I’ve made history and if you cannot debate a single topic for 20 years “like me”… I will toast your ass. Thus, they all end up running away after an encounter with me. Not only that, they get angry and belligerent because they know the truth will take money out of their “trillion dollar con game.”

    Yeah, you have no problem with using herbs to develop a “synthetic drug” but naturopathy works without all the dangerous side effects of “synthetic drugs”… Like ADT causes heart attacks directly related to the testosterone levels being decreased. It also makes you susceptible to blood clots…thrombosis…both of which I had. So what’s the common sense in giving a prostate cancer patient who has blood clots already (prevalent with pc as you should know) ADT? No response necessary. You also know that allopathic physicians are prevented from advocating anything other than “allopathy” under the AMA/FDA guidelines. Thus, they can be fired if they do. It’s an obvious conflict of interest where the oncologist’s financial well being takes precedence to the patient’s.

    Before and/or if you respond to me I suggest you view two links:
    and my own treatment protocol varied by facts…not snake oil as you say…

    My Areas of Expertise:

    Health Law

    Health care law focuses on the legislative, executive, and judicial rules and regulations that govern the health care industry. The health care industry includes hospitals and hospital systems, public and private insurers, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, and the individual practitioners who treat patients. Each of these entities functions within a vast complex of laws and regulations, and the curriculum reflects this complexity by offering a variety of courses that focus on specific aspects of health care law, such as fraud and abuse, food and drug law, medical malpractice, and healthcare mergers and acquisitions.

    Administrative Law
    Employment Law
    Federal Employees’ Compensation Act
    Federal Tort Claims Act
    RICO Act

  • Filipe Ramos
  • Zed O’Roq

    i’ve been asking among my friends, acquaintances and in forums, and i have a database with more or less 250 cases of cancer patients. i asked them how long they’ve been living or how long did they live, and what kind of treatment they or their friends had. 40% of patients treated only with conventional medicine survive the first 5 years after diagnosis, 57% of patients who combine it with an alternative treatment survive, and 82% of the patients who interrupt conventional treatment or never had it survive. of course 250 patients arnt that much to be exact, but it shows the direction. the difrence is much grater when in comes to vital organs, ware conventional medicine shows a survival rate of 1% to 20%, while alternativ medicin is still around 65%. and patients treeted with alternativ medicin rarely hav recurrences.
    the substances and methods for which i’v seen mor survivors and studdies ar cannabis, macrobiotics, mistletoe, laetrile (vitamin b17).
    for cannabis i found 141 studdies, in vitro, in vivo and epidemiological ones. but the medical establishment ses that thare ar no studdies, becaus thare ar no clinical studdies – as if any other study was of no value, as if the many thousands of studdies made evry yeer in the world wer of no value. but now thare has been eeven a clinical studdy, conducted by gw research in the UK:
    thare hasnt been much meedia about it, and i can imagin wy. the meedia doesnt want to lose clients, and they know wat big farma and the industry of medical macheens dont like.

  • Nelly Takis

    If conventional medicine would have finally managed to cure cancer after decades of research and billions invested, desperate patients and their families would not be looking for alternative cures. Fact is that their only weapons for decades has been chemo and radiation that do not cure cancer but extend the lifespan. I have yet to meet anyone who has not died from this horrible disease using the conventional protocol, apart from some breast cancer patients who managed well and are still alive. Chemo can benefit mostly blood tumors ( leukemia and lymphomas) but with solid tumors does very little… And not everyone is lucky enough to be diagnosed stage 1.. Conventional medicine cannot stop recurrences and metastases which eventually kill the patient. Its a big shame that after decades of research, science cannot cure cancer…

  • Cheez_Whiz

    On Facebook I’ve seen plenty of posts from people claiming cannabis cures cancer. None of these people have a background in science or research but they do love to get high.

  • Frank Ribbensky

    The medical establishment avoids alternate cancer treatments because they have been conditioned by the pharmaceutical corporations. The Rockefeller and Carnegie families monopolised the medical establishment turning it into a billion dollar industry and gradually edging out any natural medicine. You can’t tell me that in over a hundred years medical research still hasn’t found any cancer treatments apart from Chemotherapy, Radiotherapy and surgery. The global oligarchs have hijacked every industry on Earth why would they, in their greed for wealth and power ignore the health industry ? It’s a good little earner.

    • James Peters

      Muh conspiracy

  • Nick Wells

    I find it hard to beleive what anyone is saying about cannabis and cancer. I got rid of a incurable stage 4 hepatocellular carcinoma with a mixture of THC and CBD oil. The exploding cancer made a tickling sensation. I checked to make sure it was safe for myself first. The specialists were confused, and procrastinated giving MRI results and assesments. I know not to believe when people are spouting uniformed nonsense about things. As cannabis oil has actually destroyed cancer many times, it is dangerous to lump cranky websites and fake news articles to the medical advances taking place as we wait for the medical machinery to catch up, and utilise the plant to save lives.

  • rick

    I am here to express my profound warm gratitude to the Rick Simpson hemp oil, which i got from Dr, My Wife Breast cancer has been cured after 30days treatment. i am sharing this testimony to help others. if you are a cancer patient get to him via email so i refer you to Dr Rick Simpson Wish you all the best and a happy healing. Thanks and God Bless you for your help, i will keep on helping you to fight cancer in the World. or whatsap +2349061860222


    1) Chemo-Therapy.

    2) Surgery.

    3) Western Medical Doctors.

    4) Sorry the Patient has Passed Away…

  • Kenneth Shonk

    the Internet is a great resource for finding alterative treatments for cancer. As and example, probably 40-80% of us have rogue cancer cells in our bodies which our immune systems deal with daily, but tumors larger than 1 mm need additional blood supply to grow larger and become life threatening. So preventing angiogenesis (new blood vessel growth) is very important to critical and there are many foods that contain compounds that are anti-angiogenic. These compounds include glucosamine, curcumin, full spectrum Vit E (tocopherols + tocotrienols), extracts of berries and fruits, etc. Go to the TED talk by researcher Dr. William Li (at:, a researcher at a major California University It includes a ranking in terms of anti-angiogenic properties as evaluated by a lab test of his design of various foods and natural compounds as well as several drugs. Check it out and you will see that VIt E is ranked second highest and tumeric, tea (presumably black tea), green tea (ECGC and polyphenols), glucosamine, and lavender extract compare favorably with the best anti-angiogenic drugs. Their advantage is that they are cheap enough that they can be combined together, in many cases are likely synergistic and are non-toxic. Are oncologists using these dietary interventions. Almost all, not! Most warn against them inspite of the evidence that many are synergistic with conventional treatments. The epigenetic effects of diet and supplements on the expression and suppression on supposedly “cancer causing” oncogenes is just beginning to be explored. But it is well known that Vit D affects the expression of over 2500 genes and perhaps as many as 3000, and low Vit D3 levels increase the risks for both cancer and autoimmune diseases.

    Are any drug companies conducting trials with above mentioned compounds? Of course, not. They can’t be patented so how do you charge $40,000 per dose for them. The pharma companies do pay attention, however, because identifying the beneficial natural compounds are an avenue to synthetic derivatives with pharmacological activity that can be patented. Natural treatments and alternatives for cancer therapy exist, and can be successful. I refer you to the book, Radical Remissions which details some 1500 cases of radical remission by Kelly A. Turner, PhD, in which she describes the changes these people made to reverse their cancer. In almost every case, the person made radical changes. These changes range from dealing with emotional traumas to removing toxin exposure (removing almalgam fillings for example) to dietary changes and interventions with the use of supplements to spiritual changes to all of the preceding (see

    In addition, recent work by Dr. Thomas Seyfried at Boston University has demonstrated that most cancers, probably 98%, are the result of mitochondrial dysfunction and that the genetic changes to DNA seen in cancer area downstream effect of mitochondrial dysfunction so the current research genetic damage or change approach of most of the pharmacuetical industry and most academic researchers is barking up the wrong tree and will lead no where as has been the case for the past 50 years. Here are the references to Dr. Seyfried’s books: Kalamian, Miriam and Seyfried, Thomas N., 2017, Keto for Cancer: Ketogenic Metabolic Therapy as a Targeted Nutritional Strategy, Oct 18, 2017 and Seyfried, Thomas N., 2012, Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer, both available on Amazon. You can also find his peer-reviewed published papers by just googling his name and cancer or ketogenesis or going to PUBMED. However, as a note, ketogenic diets alone are not very successful as an alterative therapuetic approach for cancer. The still have to be combined with an inhibitor of the glutamine and alanine fermentation pathway. My conclusion in this regard is that a dominantly plant-based, phytochemical-rich ketogenic diet which including periods of fasting can be very beneficial in any therapuetic approach to cancer treatment.

    As far as the Rife machine goes, recent work on the electrical nature of cells and cellular energy demonstrate the important effects that EMF frequencies can have on voltage-gated calcium channels at 7,000,000 times lower intensities than their effect on individual charged ions. These organeles are concentrated in the brain, heart, and sex organs and their disruption can apparently lead to cancer, in particular, gliobastoma. In addition, there is a junior medical device company in the USA that is conducting FDA registered trials with a machine that is a dead ringer for an updated Rife machine using the same principles with interesting, apparently positive results (the machine is not FDA approved). I don’t remember the name of the company off hand but Cramer interviewed the CEO on Mad Money (a US stock oriented TV show) back about a year ago. So calling Rife machines nonsense is also nonsense. This is actually an area of research that is very sensitive because it also bears on the health effects of EMF radiation from cell phones, microwaves, unshielded electrical wiring, and WIFI technologies. The telecommunications industry, which is 7x bigger than the pharmacuetical industry, is quick to discount research that demonstrates any deleterious health effects from EMF radiation and is quick to engage in lobbying efforts to cut off funding for any follow up research and get government authorities and agencies, which have a revolving door with industry, to discount any such results.

    The interest that many cancer sufferers have in alternatives to the current cut, burn, poison protocols for cancer therapy reflects serious problems with these approaches. The surgical approach of tumor removal ignores that fact that cancer is a whole body disease as cancer cells are circulating throughout the body and can result in the more rapid spread of tumor cells. Radiation and chemotherapy do destroy tumor cells but also produce high glutamine levels which feed the undestroyed tumor cells outside the tumor proper and can make metatasis more likely. Chemo in particular damages normal healthy cells, and according to research published in the journal Nature Medicine (Nature Medicine 2012, August 5) the damages causes them to secret a protein (WNT16B) that not only protects cancer cells and promotes their survival. In addition, WNT16B can also cause the tumors to be resistant to further chemotherapy treatment.

  • Simona Maccarrone

    This statement alone discredits the author of this article and highlights his bias.

    “To make myself perfectly clear: there currently is no alternative therapy that will cure any type of cancer, and there will never be one either.”

    How could you possible claim with any authority that there never will be an alternative cure for cancer???

    I trust that with such an ignorant bias, it would be very difficult indeed, if not entirely impossible for you to find such an alternative.
    “Airplanes were not discovered by individuals who believed that it was impossible to fly”…

    This does not mean that somebody who is more open minded to exploring other possibilities will not find an alternative cure…

    • Acleron

      It’s very simple, if anything is shown to work, it is medicine. The alternatives are self defined as not working.

  • michelle F

    Dear people, My father (63 years old, has been ill for quite some years now and has survived multiple cancers (all originating from an adenocarcinoma stomach cancer). Years of chemotherapy and surgery have taken their toll) has been using the compound now for two days. Although we are afraid to cheer already – because of all the things we went through in the last five years – we see very hopeful signs and his situation has improved! My father seems less weak and has more energy – his posture isn’t “cramped” anymore- he is much more positive and less stressed: he has hope again! He talks about the news, television etc and is not “locked into himself” anymore – he laughed again and even made some jokes!!!want help contact him via