Health/Medical
See other Health/Medical Articles
Title: Watch Marijuana Miraculously Destroy Cancer Cells
Source:
Counter Current News
URL Source: http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/04/herb-destroying-cancer/
Published: Apr 6, 2016
Author: Cassius Methyl
Post Date: 2016-04-07 11:17:12 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1956
Comments: 16
Did you know that studies showed the effectiveness of cannabis at killing cancer cells as long ago as 1974? In 1974, a study from The Washington Post said that THC effectively “slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36%.” The information was suppressed and people were incarcerated for up to decades for using or selling the harmless, absolutely miraculous medicine from 1974 to 1998 (and further on, as you know). In 1998, another study came out from Madrid’s Complutense University that indicated THC can cause cancer cells to die, and unlike chemotherapy the THC kills nothing but the cancer cells, leaving the brain of course completely unharmed. The video below shows some direct footage of the THC molecule binding to cells and slaying the cancerous ones: Just think about all of the people who died of cancer, or were paralyzed or injured in whatever way from chemotherapy. Aren’t we so much more collectively awake now? Our desire for prosperity and good health, and the frustration we should feel with the establishment and federal government for criminalizing cannabis and keeping secret this information is such a powerful fuel for the total legalization of cannabis in America. With the idea that knowing this is fuel to motivate us to push for total cannabis legalization, please share this information with absolutely as many people as possible. The two videos below are also great examples: (Article byCassius Methyl; featured image credit: delta9technologies.com; from MassReport) 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Marijuana has no medical value - I know because the DEA told me so.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
pingy
In animals.
So? Animal cancers bear a fair resemblance to human cancers - which is why some anti-cancer drugs useful for humans have been first identified in animal testing. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
So if it works on an animal it's safe for humans?
Ah! THC! Not cannabis. THC is one of many cannabinoids found in cannabis. How much THC had to be extracted, purified and concentrated to kill these cancer cells? How many pounds of marijuana would you have to smoke to get an equivalent amount?
So if it works on an animal it's reasonable to proceed to human trials with cautious optimism - and not reasonable to yowl that marijuana offers no meidcal benefits (as I've elsewhere seen the Reefer Madness brigade do). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Well, they're certainly taking "cautious optimism" to the extreme. This animal study was done in 1974 -- 42 years ago.
Good question. The more recent study (onlinelibrary.wiley.com/d...0014-5793(98)01085-0/full ) showed strong results for a THC concentration of 1 ¼M. To get that concentration in the 6 L (working from memory) of the human bloodstream, that's 6 ¼mol of THC; the molar mass of THC being 314.45 g/mol according to Google (!) that's about 2 mg - equivalent to 0.01 gm of pot with 20% THC (I recall that some of the stuff being sold in Colorado goes even higher). Now to expose the brain's glial cells to 1 ¼M probably requires the bloodstream to have a higher concentration - but even if the ratio there is tensfold we're still talking only tenths of a gram of pot. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
I also would like to see cannabinoid research proceed faster. I've heard that there are regulatory hurdles there that don't apply to other potential medicines. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
That "1/4" showed up as a lowercase mu, for micro, in preview mode. :(
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
"In one study, the researchers determined that it would take a concentration of cannabinoids of approximately 10 µmol/L to cause the death breast cancer cells in cell culture. This converts to around 3.14mg/L of THC. So, you’d have to assume that to kill any breast cancer cells, you’d need at least a blood level of 3.14 mg/L to achieve breast cancer cell death." "So how close to that 3.14 mg/L can we get by just smoking a joint or two? According to research, smoking one joint will give you a blood level of THC of around 1.3-6.4 ng/mL serum, or about .00013-.00064 mg/L. In other words, to get an anti-cancer effect, you need to light up around 1000 joints per day."
Yeah. Gosh. They're certainly dragging their feet on a sure-fire cure for cancer, huh?
Follow the link trail and you'll discover the number is sourced to a paper titled, "Serum cannabinoid levels 24 to 48 hours after cannabis smoking". So we've got one moron who can't read nor correctly shift decimal places being quoted by another moron who doesn't check either sources or basic math. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Now you don't think big pharma would have anything to do with this?
Heavens, no. Big government is an expression of care and concern - just ask a Drug Warrior or any other liberal.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#2. To: misterwhite (#0)
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
"Watch Marijuana Miraculously Destroy Cancer Cells"
#4. To: misterwhite (#3)
In animals.
#5. To: ConservingFreedom (#4)
#6. To: Deckard (#0)
"In 1974, a study from The Washington Post said that THC effectively “slowed the growth of lung cancers,
#7. To: misterwhite (#5)
So if it works on an animal it's safe for humans?
#8. To: ConservingFreedom (#7)
"it's reasonable to proceed to human trials with cautious optimism"
#9. To: misterwhite (#6)
How many pounds of marijuana would you have to smoke to get an equivalent amount?
#10. To: misterwhite (#8)
Well, they're certainly taking "cautious optimism" to the extreme. This animal study was done in 1974 -- 42 years ago.
#11. To: All (#9)
(Edited)
#12. To: ConservingFreedom (#9)
(Edited)
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-marijuana-as-the-new- herbalism-part-2-cannabis-does-not-cure-cancer/
#13. To: ConservingFreedom (#10)
(Edited)
"I also would like to see cannabinoid research proceed faster."
#14. To: misterwhite (#12)
(Edited)
According to research, smoking one joint will give you a blood level of THC of around 1.3-6.4 ng/mL serum
#15. To: ConservingFreedom (#10)
there are regulatory hurdles
#16. To: U don't know me (#15)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]