Cure for Cancer in THC???

Z.O.D!!!

First time posting on Boards, so apologies if its already been mentioned.
My friend sent me this link on how concentrated THC kills cancer cells but the reason its not been used is down to pharmaceutical companies not been able to patent a plant and therefore can't make any profit from it.

Its about an hour long but bare with it, some very interesting points are raised!

Let us know what ya's think!
Cheers!

Z.O.D!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3762985810189983367&ei=A_aQS7PXHdCr-AaU17m-Ag&q=thc+cures+cancer&hl=en#

My name is URL

It's pretty well known that THC can slow certain types of cancer from progressing. Harvard done a study a few years ago which confirms it..

It's by no means a cure however

There is a synthetic alternative sold by pharma companies already called Dronabinol

Truthrevolution

Boy have you opened a can of worms! Get ready for the onslaught from yekahs and co.

uprising2

I was reading about a chinese alternative for cancer before called Tian Xian, I don't know how effective it is.


When I was looking at it the leaf isn't too far off a ganja leaf.

Wibbs

I also read research which shows THC reduces nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemo treatment.

I would be of the opinion that the legal censure on cannabis and hemp in general was based on a conspiracy of sorts by for one the cotton industry in the US in the early part of the 20th century.

As a crop it has so so many things going for it. So many uses and is far greener than most crops. Uses far less water than cotton if youre after fibres. Doesnt screw up the soil and even has uses in the building industry.

Thats outside it's possible therapeutic uses.The compounds that have been extracted and synthesised are often not as efficacious as the original. The anti nausea one in reports I read was OK but not as good as the original.

While many many times the pharmacutical compounds are better, often theyre not, but as you cant patent a plant the finance isnt there to produce the natural.

Little D

i remember that documentry on hemp i tried to get it up on you-tube but it said, This video has been removed due to terms of use violation,
i think i have a friend that had it on his ipod i will try get it up here if anyone is interested, or is that allowed if it has been removed from you-tube? will check with a mod first anyway, the documentry implies that hemp was banned by goverenments so other companies could profit i.e cotton etc,

taram

In terms of GMO it should be easy for them to patent a plant, all they need to do is take a variety with high THC, then throw some random gene into it, let's say drought resistance, then patent that. So that's a bit debunked :P

Mr. Incognito

My father was a chronic hash addict (smoked every day for as long as I can remember) and died of cancer aged 62. Make of that what you will.

Whilst it was a blessing in some ways that he had it for pain relief when the pain got really bad his father is still kicking around at 90 and there was very little history of cancer in the family.

Okay watched the video. Personally I think it's nonsense.

My name is URL

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

My father was a chronic hash addict (smoked every day for as long as I can remember) and died of cancer aged 62. Make of that what you will.

Whilst it was a blessing in some ways that he had it for pain relief when the pain got really bad his father is still kicking around at 90 and there was very little history of cancer in the family.

It certainly does have a lot of downsides. Anyone claiming that it's not addictive doesn't fully understand addiction, and in most cases; not using it would be the best option for people

As a recreational drug however it doesn't rate too badly on the danger scale, it's a lot less harmful than Alcohol on both the person using it and society as a whole

Truthrevolution

Not too sure about the benefits of using THC myself, but a much safer alternative for fighting cancer would by vitamin B17.

Torakx

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

My father was a chronic hash addict (smoked every day for as long as I can remember) and died of cancer aged 62. Make of that what you will.

Whilst it was a blessing in some ways that he had it for pain relief when the pain got really bad his father is still kicking around at 90 and there was very little history of cancer in the family.

Okay watched the video. Personally I think it's nonsense.

Im sorry to hear of your fathers situation.I have an uncle who also died of cancer at 38 years old.
From what i have seen the smoking of cannabis for thc does nothing for curing or fixing cancer cells.I heard it was only the extracts like hash oils that are taken orally that effect cancer itself.And i am not sure even that is true yet.
Alot of cancer mis-information floating around on both "sides".
The worst cause of cancer in relation to hash and weed is tobacco afaik.
That stuff is the most evil product to have on the market maybe aside from heroin or other very hard drugs and alcohol.

Imo Alcohol and tobacco should be banned before Cannabis.At least it hasnt killed anyone yet.
But as said by people in this thread it does help with pain relief and nausea which imo is a way of encouraging you to stay in a more positive frame of mind than without and suffering.So in a way it may help heal cancer patients through those happy feelings
I like to think it might anyway.

Kepti

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Not too sure about the benefits of using THC myself, but a much safer alternative for fighting cancer would by vitamin B17.

For someone with the word truth in their name, you sure spread a lot of misinformation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_b17#Cancer_treatment

Truthrevolution

Kepti wrote: »

For someone with the word truth in their name, you sure spread a lot of misinformation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_b17#Cancer_treatment

Rite so you are trying to debunk my statement with an apparent lab trial on mice which wasnt even published??

Kepti

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Rite so you are trying to debunk my statement with an apparent lab trial on mice which wasnt even published??

Did you just stop reading the article after that part? It doesn't end there.

Truthrevolution

Kepti wrote: »

Did you just stop reading the article after that part? It doesn't end there.

Apologies i only read the article you linked me to.Just finished reading the rest of the it there, if you look at it closely it is actually wikipedia that is spreading misinformation.To be honest its nothing i havent seen before, Big Pharma with government support have been trying for years to discredit the benefits of B17.To suggest that laetrile is poisonous is utter rubbish, vitamin B17 is just like any other vitamin its perfectly safe once you dont consume dangerous amounts.

Wibbs

taram wrote: »

In terms of GMO it should be easy for them to patent a plant, all they need to do is take a variety with high THC, then throw some random gene into it, let's say drought resistance, then patent that. So that's a bit debunked :P

True enough. I'd say the biggest barrier to hemp usage on all scores is the reefer madness scare tactics.

I'm no "pot is a wonder maaaaan" type, but its certainly arguably less toxic than alcohol and far less than tobacco. So why the serious over reaction to it legally? Even if it was as toxic as both, it still doesnt explain why its illegal.

This isnt a debate on lets make it legal, Im more interested in the CT aspect of it and IMHO it was a concerted effort by interested parties that made it illegal in the first place. The US cotton industry in particular.

Cotton is a disaster from an environmental point of view. Look at what it did to lake Aral in the old soviet union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#History_2 Its a very nutrient and water hungry crop. Hemp isnt. Its far more adaptable. Its very fast growing and locks nitrogen into the soil, so is great for crop rotation. And has more uses and whats left can be used as biofuel.

It should be growing all over the place, but its not. It cant be the drug aspect as the hemp Im talking about has very low levels of THC. Very low. You'd need to smoke an acre of the stuff . But the very notion of growing that version of it is tainted by the drug aspect.

IMHO because of the US cotton industry back in the early 20th century saw it as a threat to their dominance and it steamrolled from there.

I recall reading an interesting angle and similar to the hemp thing on animal fats and vegetable fats. Something along the lines that the demonisation of animal fats was kicked off by the veggie oil industry looking for a market for their product. It turns out now that it looks like veggie oils(with a couple of exceptions Olive/coconut oil) are actually worse for you. Sunflower and rapeseed oil in particular being baddies especially after being processed.

The food industry IMH has a helluva lot of conspiracy guff going on. The history of corn is an interesting one and the addition of it to so many foods. Fructose is another one(also mostly from corn). Processed sugar in general. Gets people hooked. All this "low fat" advertising going on. We eat less animal fats nowadays in the west as far as ratios go, yet we've never had more obesity or diabetes. I'd put good money that if tomorrow the world banned all processed or added sugars and removed so called "healthy" veggie fats it would have a bigger impact on health than banning tobacco. Actually an interesting aside on the tobacco industry. When the health stuff and the lawsuits started flying, many of the tobacco companies got into the processed food industry.

Kepti

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Apologies i only read the article you linked me to.Just finished reading the rest of the it there, if you look at it closely it is actually wikipedia that is spreading misinformation.To be honest its nothing i havent seen before, Big Pharma with government support have been trying for years to discredit the benefits of B17.To suggest that laetrile is poisonous is utter rubbish, vitamin B17 is just like any other vitamin its perfectly safe once you dont consume dangerous amounts.

From the very same article:

Though it is sometimes sold as "Vitamin B17", it is not a vitamin. Amygdalin/laetrile was claimed to be a vitamin by Ernst T. Krebs in the hope that if classified as a nutritional supplement it would escape the federal legislation regarding the marketing of drugs. He could also capitalise on the public fad for vitamins at that time.

Do you dispute that?

Yitzhak Rabin

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Boy have you opened a can of worms! Get ready for the onslaught from yekahs and co.

Indeed I willbe giving my two cents, but not right now, as I'm quite pissed.

Yitzhak Rabin

Much of what I believe, has already been said by Wibbs - i.e Hemp is a great crop, and should not be illegal. It has some great medicinal uses also. But as far as it being a medical cure for cancer? Highly highly unlikely.

As for Laetrile/B17, thats a different kettle of fish. Its ineffective and dangerous. The people who sell it are scum of the earth who prey on desperate dying people to peddle their snake oil to. There have been more than enough studies done on it, and they all come to the same conclusion. Laetrile has no discernable effect on reducing tumor growth, and instead the only side effect it seems to have is to increase cyanide blood levels, in some cases to lethal amounts. Its has already been discussed at legnth in this thread( http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055816808&page=5 ). In fact in my opinion, the fact you are still promoting this stuff is irresponsible Truthrevolution. Could you tell me why on earth you think this sh!t works, when every bit of evidence points to the contrary??

Truthrevolution

Kepti wrote: »

From the very same article:



Do you dispute that?

Are you winding me up?? I posted a message talking about vitamin B17 and then you linked me to an article discussing Laetrile, so in a way you are debunking your own claims.I must admit this is a new tactic i havent seen any of the other skeptics use before.

Now many people claim that vitamin B17 comes in the form of Laetrile or amygdalin, so who are we to believe?

Truthrevolution

yekahs wrote: »

Much of what I believe, has already been said by Wibbs - i.e Hemp is a great crop, and should not be illegal. It has some great medicinal uses also. But as far as it being a medical cure for cancer? Highly highly unlikely.

As for Laetrile/B17, thats a different kettle of fish. Its ineffective and dangerous. The people who sell it are scum of the earth who prey on desperate dying people to peddle their snake oil to. There have been more than enough studies done on it, and they all come to the same conclusion. Laetrile has no discernable effect on reducing tumor growth, and instead the only side effect it seems to have is to increase cyanide blood levels, in some cases to lethal amounts. Its has already been discussed at legnth in this thread( http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055816808&page=5 ). In fact in my opinion, the fact you are still promoting this stuff is irresponsible Truthrevolution. Could you tell me why on earth you think this sh!t works, when every bit of evidence points to the contrary??

There is evidence to suggest it does work and that is definitely worth looking into, especially if it saves lives.It is illegal to sell vitamin B17 so nobody is making money out of it unlike the billions that gets poured into the cancer industry every year.Now if you can produce solid evidence that vitamin B17 is any more dangerous than other B vitamins i promise i will never speak of it again

Kepti

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Are you winding me up?? I posted a message talking about vitamin B17 and then you linked me to an article discussing Laetrile, so in a way you are debunking your own claims.I must admit this is a new tactic i havent seen any of the other skeptics use before.

Now many people claim that vitamin B17 comes in the form of Laetrile or amygdalin, so who are we to believe?

I quoted you saying that 'Vitamin B17' is just like any other vitamin, and then I quoted the article which said that 'Vitamin B17' isn't actually a vitamin at all.

Truthrevolution

Kepti wrote: »

I quoted you saying that 'Vitamin B17' is just like any other vitamin, and then I quoted the article which said that 'Vitamin B17' isn't actually a vitamin at all.

This has to be a p!sstake right? Are you really saying that vitamin B17 isnt a vitamin?

Kepti

Truthrevolution wrote: »

This has to be a p!sstake right? Are you really saying that vitamin B17 isnt a vitamin?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying. Hope this clears things up.

For a compound to be considered a vitamin, it has to fit the definition of a vitamin. Just because some guy decided to call it a vitamin in order to sleazily market it, that doesn't make it one.

Man, I won't lie...I just watched that video from the OP...that is the funniest thing I have ever seen - thanks!

Everyone give it a look - brilliant interviews and so well put together - very professional...

Bodhisopha

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

My father was a chronic hash addict (smoked every day for as long as I can remember) and died of cancer aged 62. Make of that what you will.

Whilst it was a blessing in some ways that he had it for pain relief when the pain got really bad his father is still kicking around at 90 and there was very little history of cancer in the family.

Okay watched the video. Personally I think it's nonsense.

Hash in ireland over the years, for the most part has been absolute rubbish soap bar hash containing little bits of plastic to bind it together and god knows what else. I've heard of diesel being found in it and even smelled it myself once, but i dunno, maybe i was paranoid.

My point is, that as long as people are buying from street dealers the quality can be compromised to the point of being dangerous, like plastic in hash or the case of the crushed glass (powder) found in weed around the country a few years ago.

Yitzhak Rabin

There are 8 recognised B complex vitamins (B1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,12)

B17 is not a vitamin. It was labelled as such in the 50s so people selling it could cash in on the vitamin fad at the time.

I have never heard of a study which produced evidence that B17 is beneficial. If you know of any, please link me up, if you don't, then staop claiming it cures cancer.

As for evidence that B17/Laetrile/Amagydlin is harmful, here's the abstract of a study by the national cancer institute

tudy conducted by the National Cancer Institute on B17 and cancer.

In response to political pressure, the National Cancer Institute did two studies involving Laetrile. The first was a retrospective analysis of patients treated with Laetrile. Letters were written to 385,000 physicians in the United States as well as 70,000 other health professionals requesting case reports of cancer patients who were thought to have benefited from using Laetrile. In addition, the various pro-Laetrile groups were asked to provide information concerning any such patients.
Although it had been estimated that at least 70,000 Americans had used Laetrile—only 93 cases were submitted for evaluation. Twenty-six of these reports lacked adequate documentation to permit evaluation. The remaining 68 cases were "blinded" and submitted to an expert panel for review, along with data from 68 similar patients who had received chemotherapy. That way the panel did not know what treatment patients had received. The panel felt that two of the Laetrile-treated cases demonstrated complete remission of disease, four displayed partial remission, and the remaining 62 cases had exhibited no measurable response. No attempt was made to verify that any of the patients who might have benefited from Laetrile actually existed. The reviewers concluded that "the results allow no definite conclusions supporting the anti-cancer activity of Laetrile."

Another study which comes to similar conclusions

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/4/201

One hundred seventy-eight patients with cancer were treated with amygdalin (Laetrile) plus a "metabolic therapy" program consisting of diet, enzymes, and vitamins. The great majority of these patients were in good general condition before treatment. None was totally disabled or in preterminal condition. One third had not received any previous chemotherapy. The pharmaceutical preparations of amygdalin, the dosage, and the schedule were representative of past and present Laetrile practice. No substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure, improvement or stabilization of cancer, improvement of symptoms related to cancer, or extension of life span. The hazards of amygdalin therapy were evidenced in several patients by symptoms of cyanide toxicity or by blood cyanide levels approaching the lethal range. Patients exposed to this agent should be instructed about the danger of cyanide poisoning, and their blood cyanide levels should be carefully monitored. Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment.

More studies which come to the same conclusion re:cyanide poisining

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/31/2/91

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez

EDIT: I realise it was you who I posted these for before, so I have no idea why you are saying that you have never seen any evidence that B17 is dangerous?

Kepti

yekahs wrote: »

There are 8 recognised B complex vitamins (B1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,12)

B17 is not a vitamin. It was labelled as such in the 50s so people selling it could cash in on the vitamin fad at the time.

I have never heard of a study which produced evidence that B17 is beneficial. If you know of any, please link me up, if you don't, then staop claiming it cures cancer.

As for evidence that B17/Laetrile/Amagydlin is harmful, here's the abstract of a study by the national cancer institute

tudy conducted by the National Cancer Institute on B17 and cancer.



[/I]Another study which comes to similar conclusions

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/4/201


[/SIZE]
More studies which come to the same conclusion re:cyanide poisining

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/31/2/91

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...tool=pmcentrez

EDIT: I realise it was you who I posted these for before, so I have no idea why you are saying that you have never seen any evidence that B17 is dangerous?

Good post. I didn't really feel like going to the effort, only to be hit with a third variation of "are you joking?".

Truthrevolution

Yekahs i appreciate you linking me those studies, i have been reading them and i will continue to do some research here.Now if you would be able to link me to the names of these people who died of cyianide poisoning and the dosage levels that were used then it will be case over.

I have taken a bit of time to look through your research so i would be grateful if you could do the same.

I posted this video before but you refused to look at it so i edited it to the final 30 minutes where they document cancer patients who have used B17 with successful results, including one terminally ill man who overdosed on laetrile to kill himself before the pain got too much.He lived to tell the tale....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQAiqmuovOs&feature=related

Here are some case studies of patients who have been using laetrile over the years to cure their cancer.....

http://www.cancure.org/chp12.pdf

An organisation that is dedicated to cancer research, unlike big pharma they dont discount the benefits of using B17.....

http://worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/research.html

Pixel8

Weed is a wonder plant which has many uses, you just have to look at its history and these docu's:

The Magic Weed - The History of Marijuana
How Weed Won The West
Cannabis - The Evil Weed

Theres another ingredient in weed other than THC which has anti-psychotic properties to it, they are doing medical research on it in the UK for the last couple of years according to "The Evil Weed".

Other Cancer cures which definitely DO work include Colloidal Silver and Blood Electrification except that these two methods cure over 650 other diseases too. Also, take lots of Vitamin D3, more and more information is coming out about D3 being responsible for 2000/10000 of our genes. For more info:

http://www.theopensource.tv/browse-Health-videos-1-date.html

Pixel8

yekahs wrote: »

Much of what I believe, has already been said by Wibbs - i.e Hemp is a great crop, and should not be illegal. It has some great medicinal uses also. But as far as it being a medical cure for cancer? Highly highly unlikely.

Then explain prohibition? What is the point of prohibition when we know governments could tax it, make loads of money, reduce crime, and fix every economy in the world with Hemp and its many uses.

They are afraid of making it legal because of something else and i think its to do with its medicinal values and its evolutionary properties. It always come back to money and dumbing down with big corporations and Big Pharma is no different than any other big corporate cartel. They must think they can make more money with their patentable drugs than with natural alternatives like Weed which would lose them billions in income every year if people were to find out it worked better than their ****ty drugs (which generally make people worse, not better). Also, it's argued that Weed smokers are thinkers and governments don't like people who think, especially critical thinkers.

The first health thing i ever came across which was out of the ordinary but which had a very interesting history was Vitamin B17 through a G. Edward Griffin documentary, apricot kernels taste nasty though. Then i came across Colloidal Silver which is much easier to take and more effective against a lot more things from your every day flu's, colds, warts and veruccas to cancer, aids, malaria, lupus, chrone's, MS, arthritis plus many many more. I'd really recommend you research colloidal silver at this point because it is definitely an almost unknown substance to a lot of people. Some excellent info on this site about it with videos and comprehensives articles about it: www.electrobiotics.com

Torakx

First of all they make an absolute ton of money building prisons in america.
You will notice many American films with weed being pushed out there in a positive light.This in my opinion is to create more need to build more prisons.
Also the government or people in it make alot of money off drugs becasue the price is so high on the streets compared to if it was legal.Also the money does not get taxed like it would if it was legal.

Ps. i am also interested in the coloidal silver aswell as another system a guy came up with that pulses a small amount of electricity through the blood stream detaching harmful bacteria etc.Never got round to testing them or looking deeper into that.

SugarHigh

It is possible to patent a plant but probably not marijuana.

Pixel8

Torakx wrote: »

Ps. i am also interested in the coloidal silver aswell as another system a guy came up with that pulses a small amount of electricity through the blood stream detaching harmful bacteria etc.Never got round to testing them or looking deeper into that.

Yep that's called Blood Electrification which uses a machine called a Blood Zapper. It was rediscovered in 1991 by Dr. Robert C. Beck who gave away all the device specs on how to build your own for free, you can download his PDF and find lots of info about this and Colloidal Silver from www.electrobiotics.com.

Bob Beck came up with a protocol called the Beck Protocol which includes 4 steps:

1. Blood Electrification (for blood stream)
2. Magnetic Pulsing (for organs)
3. Colloidal Silver
4. Ozonated Water.

More info on The Beck Protocol:
http://www.electrobiotics.com/page.html?chapter=10&id=5

bonkey

Folks - this is not the Medical forum, and there is a site-wide prohibition on offering medical advice.

This conversation seems to be heading away from the notion of conspiracy, and in the direction of making medical claims and/or offering medical advice (albeit somewhat indirectly).

If this continues, the thread will be closed.

bonkey

Pixel8 wrote: »

Then explain prohibition?

I'd lean towards the theory that hemp was targetted in the 30s because it was about to make a resurgence as a multi-purpose crop that threatened, amongst others, the paper industry of the day.

It is worth noting that the ban targetted hemp as a narcotic, ignoring the reality that most industrial hemp contains virtually no THC (and today, there are 0-THC strains). In other words, hemp with neglibably-low THC content was unreasonably and unfairly targetted as part of the progibition, and this gives a strong hint as to what the underlying reasons were.

They are afraid of making it legal because of something else and i think its to do with its medicinal values and its evolutionary properties.

The medicinal properties being associuated to the Conspiracy Theory here are to do with THC, not with industrial hemp. As a reason, this explains the "all hemp, and not just THC-rich strains" ban no better then the notion that it is banned because it is a narcotic...in other words, it fails to explain why the prohibition is on hemp and not on THC.

As a parallel, we don't see all poppy plants banned, because one strain is the opium poppy. But with hemp....it doesn't matter even if its a 0-THC strain. Its still verboten.

It always come back to money and dumbing down with big corporations and Big Pharma is no different than any other big corporate cartel.

If it always comes back to money, then the more conventional conspiracy theory for the banning of hemp holds up. It was banned because it was a threat to (amongst others) the paper and chemical industries of Randolph Hearst and Lammont duPont, who had close business and personal ties with Andrew Mellon, the Treasury Ssecretary. It was Mellon who spearheaded the campaign to have it banned.

Since then, there has been no reason to unban it, especially because to ever do so could be cast as a tacit admission that the original grounds were less then honest.

Wibbs

Yep and the cotton industry in a big way and even the timber industry as its a far cheaper and faster growing source for fibreboard type products(as well as paper), which were taking off in the 20's. The cotton angle is interesting too as the southern states where hemp would grow like crazy had a large proportion of its cash crop monies tied up in cotton. That and tobacco.

The food industry both human and animal feed would beneift from hemp. Hemp oil makes most other veggie oils look positively lacking in nutrients. It has more balanced nutrients and again is easier to grow. Hell you can even make plastics from the thing and biofuel.

There were a lot of good reasons it would be targeted by other industries. The fact that one sub species of it can be used as an intoxicant was manna from heaven for them. Especially in the US which seems to have puritanical issues with that anyway. You even see this in their cultural icons. Johhny appleseed who went around planting apple trees along the frontier, wasnt doing it to make apple pie. Apples dont stay true from seed. They have to be grafted to get specific varieties. He was doing it to ensure a ready supply of cider. That gets airbrushed out...

Didnt know the links with the paper industry Bonkey. Interesting one indeed. All I understood about hemp paper is that its far more stable than paper from wood pulp. Its naturally acid free.

It's as close to a "wonder crop" as you can get. I actually cant think of another more useful, more financially viable and more green one, yet its illegal? Hmmmm indeed.

bonkey

Wibbs wrote: »

It's as close to a "wonder crop" as you can get. I actually cant think of another more useful, more financially viable and more green one, yet its illegal? Hmmmm indeed.

Its worth pointing out that its not illegal everywhere. A number of European companies allow industrial hemp to be grown. IIRC, Canada does too.

As has also been (indirectly) pointed out already, there is also research still being done on Canabis and THC, including research in the US.

These notions, for me, also tend to contradict the notion of some "Big Pharma" suppression of a wonder-drug and/or the notion that this is why its banned in the first place.

Truthrevolution

Pixel8 wrote: »

They are afraid of making it legal because of something else and i think its to do with its medicinal values and its evolutionary properties. It always come back to money and dumbing down with big corporations and Big Pharma is no different than any other big corporate cartel. They must think they can make more money with their patentable drugs than with natural alternatives like Weed which would lose them billions in income every year if people were to find out it worked better than their ****ty drugs (which generally make people worse, not better). Also, it's argued that Weed smokers are thinkers and governments don't like people who think, especially critical thinkers.

The first health thing i ever came across which was out of the ordinary but which had a very interesting history was Vitamin B17 through a G. Edward Griffin documentary, apricot kernels taste nasty though. Then i came across Colloidal Silver which is much easier to take and more effective against a lot more things from your every day flu's, colds, warts and veruccas to cancer, aids, malaria, lupus, chrone's, MS, arthritis plus many many more. I'd really recommend you research colloidal silver at this point because it is definitely an almost unknown substance to a lot of people. Some excellent info on this site about it with videos and comprehensives articles about it: www.electrobiotics.com

Pixel you have hit the nail on the head there.With big Corp and big Pharma its all about profit before people.Making money comes first, saving lives comes second.....

Thanks for the info about colloidal silver, have heard about it before but never really looked into it.If everything you are saying about it is correct then this stuff really is the dogs b*****ks.Will be doing some research into this now

Wibbs

bonkey wrote: »

Its worth pointing out that its not illegal everywhere. A number of European companies allow industrial hemp to be grown. IIRC, Canada does too.

As has also been (indirectly) pointed out already, there is also research still being done on Canabis and THC, including research in the US.

These notions, for me, also tend to contradict the notion of some "Big Pharma" suppression of a wonder-drug and/or the notion that this is why its banned in the first place.

Oh I agree on the drug front. I would say though that the reason for its grey area legality today is down to a historical suppression of the plant by a few vested interests.

Yes you can grow hemp in many countries, but it still requires a licence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#Industrial_growth_under_license I can plant a stand of hops in my back garden, a close relative of hemp and I dont require a licence to do so. All a holdover from from the original prohibition in the US. And like you say the industrial hemp subspecies sativa has very very low concentrations of THC compared to the "pot plant" subspecies indica. Glad to see even some US states are copping on. The green revolution has helped in this I reckon.

Pixel8

Two good weed documentaries which discuss all of these issues:

How Weed Won The West
(Link coming soon...)
The Magic Weed - The History of Marijuana
http://www.theopensource.tv/la-septarte-theopresse/the-magic-weed-the-history-of-marijuana-video_39c77ed09.html

Only available on docs4you.org currently. Soon to be up on theopensource.tv

ordinarywoman

Z.O.D!!! wrote: »

First time posting on Boards, so apologies if its already been mentioned.
My friend sent me this link on how concentrated THC kills cancer cells but the reason its not been used is down to pharmaceutical companies not been able to patent a plant and therefore can't make any profit from it.

Its about an hour long but bare with it, some very interesting points are raised!

Let us know what ya's think!
Cheers!

Z.O.D!!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3762985810189983367&ei=A_aQS7PXHdCr-AaU17m-Ag&q=thc+cures+cancer&hl=en#

thats not all it can do medicinally...

here is a list of current reserch on medicinal mj in regards to many conditions, https://www.greenpassion.org/index.php?/topic/23575-new-420-page-grannys-mmj-list-july-2010/

and apparenty Mary Harney is inclined to agree that medicinal mj sould be legalised in ireland http://pr.cannazine.co.uk/201009121340/green/eco-news/medical-cannabis-common-sense-in-ireland.html

Torakx

Wow thats really good news for alot of sick people i would imagine.
Think of all the depressed alcoholics who could be medicating themselves with a non lethal substance as a better of two evils in the worst case scenario.
Although i admit it is still a gateway to tobacco smoking which is dangerous.But maybe that is because of it being illegal indirectly.

The best case scenario i saw on a documentary once.There was a guy who had some illness that effected his movements.So he had constant spasms of twitching and movement he had no control over.
Then they watched him take a hit of some medicinal weed and he just relaxed and stopped twitching.Can you imagine the relief that is for that guy.

ordinarywoman

Torakx wrote: »

Wow thats really good news for alot of sick people i would imagine.
Think of all the depressed alcoholics who could be medicating themselves with a non lethal substance as a better of two evils in the worst case scenario.
Although i admit it is still a gateway to tobacco smoking which is dangerous.But maybe that is because of it being illegal indirectly.

If smoked in a joint with tobacco...but if you want to help yourself you dont want tobacco....
If your going to smoke canabis to be medicinally benificial you would be using a vaporiser, or eating the THC oil..
or just smoke a joint with no tobacco...

Hemp can cure our failing economy as well...but that has been dicussed in other threads.

My name is URL

Imagine the money that there is to be made out of easing restrictions at least.. open up a bit of a tourist trade in a few places. Feck medicinal use!..

I'd much rather spend a few euro on a bag of weed than a feed of drink, and I'd rest assured that it's a lot safer for me too

ordinarywoman

My name is URL wrote: »

Imagine the money that there is to be made out of easing restrictions at least.. open up a bit of a tourist trade in a few places. Feck medicinal use!..

I'd much rather spend a few euro on a bag of weed than a feed of drink, and I'd rest assured that it's a lot safer for me too

shows you how safe mj is in comparrison to other substances...its safer than paracetamol....

uprising2

I just watched a good documentary about it lastnight, "Stoned in Surburbia", interesting video, a pot growing/cooking grandmother and her OAP group who enjoyed her baking. Also info about the crap added to hash.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug98TKkWKy0

Hemp has so many great qualities and uses. It doesn't make sense not to grow it commercially.
Drink causes more bollox and trouble than anything else, yet it's sold so freely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLLLTntnqjk

Mahatma coat

Tis madness alright, The Paper and Cotton angle is very true.

What would it take for governments to wiseup and decrimanlise the Hemp industry, I had a pair of Jeans made from hemp a few years ago, I have to say they were the comfiest I've had for a long time.

Wibbs

Like bonkey said earlier in the thread if they did make it legal again then they would be tacitly admitting it was BS to ban it in the first place. Especially in the US. Then you have the Americans schizoid attitude to any intoxicants. They're a strange mix of libertarian and puritan. Coffee and tobacco were traditionally fine as they were stimulants that kept you working and didnt make you high.

Europe could and should show more leadership in this though. Especially with industrial hemp growing. It would make a serious dent in green issues that surround other crops. Again those other crops and the companies that sell them might have something to say. The hold the likes of monsanto have over our staple crops is mad. To the degree that they tailor their pesticides to their genetic strains and make the resulting crop sterile so the farmers have to keep coming back. They even have toll free phone line in the US so that people can inform on other farmers who may have some of their seed stock on their lands. They're attempting to consolidate their hold over the food we eat. Now they're attempting to do the same with third world farmers. They're a bloody disgrace.

IMHO some of the biggest CT stuff is actively happening in the production of our food.

ordinarywoman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31Nuj_AvTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI2VT2kOfnM

Pixel8

Totally agree with you Wibbs!

Must see food based documentaries: "Food Matters" and "Healing Cancer From Inside Out" both full versions available at theopensource.tv

Amazing information about our food and the business of sustaining sickness. Our medical industry is a sham, "good health makes sense but it doesn't make a lot of dollars".