Cannabis Oil

http://www.cureyourowncancer.org/how-cannabis-oil-works.html

Your source sells cannabis, so I wouldn't trust a thing they say, sorry.


https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq

Also:

https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/complementary-and-alternative-medicine/marijuana-and-cancer.html

Excerpt:

More recently, scientists reported that THC and other cannabinoids such as CBD slow growth and/or cause death in certain types of cancer cells growing in lab dishes. Some animal studies also suggest certain cannabinoids may slow growth and reduce spread of some forms of cancer.

There have been some early clinical trials of cannabinoids in treating cancer in humans and more studies are planned. While the studies so far have shown that cannabinoids can be safe in treating cancer, they do not show that they help control or cure the disease.

Relying on marijuana alone as treatment while avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer may have serious health consequences.

Pot will not cure my cancer. I find it completely offensive the ad campaign running now on TV that people can prevent cancer if they simply eat the right foods and do not smoke. I ate the right foods. I never smoked. I sent them an email and asked what organizations was funding this campaign, because it sure sounds like the folks who are polluting our world and introducing chemicals into our environment want to convince people that a victim's conduct is responsible for cancer. So these ads run all the time convincing Americans that if only they ate the right food, or in this case smoked pot, they would be ok. There are complexities with cancer which do not allow a one size fits all discussion. The manipulation of the message is important. I have people assume right away that because my cancer started in my lungs, that I was a smoker. My mother, and mother in law were chain smokers who lived to be 90. I understand that smoking causes cancer, but what other agents which do not involve a voluntary act of the victim are pouring into our environment which also cause cancer?

I would love to see honesty in that ad. It would start by saying every day millions of pounds of chemicals are released into our water and air, and that these agents can cause cancer despite the voluntary actions of the victim, and yes smoking is bad, and certain foods are bad, but we are paying for these commercials to help absolve our conduct in pouring poisons into the environment.

Every day I listen to quacks all well meaning tell me that eating more of something will prevent cancer. It gets so abrasive now that I am hardly civil anymore. I know people who are smoking and using oils who are going to die in the next six months and I know people who are dead. There are NO magic bullets.

2seaoat wrote:There are NO magic bullets.

TRUTH.

I've tried this and something called Simpson oil. I like pot... and i can see how it can help some health issues (particularly with stimulating appetite)... but i don't find that it helps with pain in general much. Ibuprofen is nearly a miracle drug imo... but I'm not able to take it anymore. Regardless... prohibition is wrong.

I am all for legalization because DUI deaths and crime is reduced. However, I have zero tolerance for claims that something cures cancer. I trust the best and brightest to review studies and inform the public of clear evidence as to the limits and benefits of a new drug or drug therapy. I try to be polite, but as Bob was quickly fading away he talked about medical pot, and quite honestly it made me immensely sad. Pot does NOT cure cancer.

I agree with you and PkrBum.  It is not necessarily effective for pain management but does help with nausea associated with some chemo meds.

I will add it has been effective in treating seizure disorders in kids.

I didn't post this to offend anyone; quite the contrary. It's a scholarly work. When I became aware of my skin cancer in 2000, I had no health insurance. I finally saw a dermatologist in 2003; finally got Mohs surgery in 2012, and I still have a prominent scar on my forehead. I wanted the black hemp oil but had no idea where to find it. I agree that environmental toxins are more to blame for the rise in cancer, and diet can play an important role in improving outcomes. I've lost far too many friends to this curse.

No offense taken here.

Floridatexan wrote:
I didn't post this to offend anyone; quite the contrary.  It's a scholarly work.  When I became aware of my skin cancer in 2000, I had no health insurance.  I finally saw a dermatologist in 2003; finally got Mohs surgery in 2012, and I still have a prominent scar on my forehead.  I wanted the black hemp oil but had no idea where to find it.  I agree that environmental toxins are more to blame for the rise in cancer, and diet can play an important role in improving outcomes.  I've lost far too many friends to this curse.

http://cannabisni.com/1342/how-to-make-hemp-oil-by-rick-simpson

https://www.leafly.com/news/food-travel-sex/recipe-how-to-make-cannabis-cooking-oil

Call trulieve or stop by there and ask if they sell. Then go to Dr Beasley on scenic hwy, or Doctor Bear neurologist and start your certification process. Which btw the fl dept of health can't get right at the moment since our dumb shit legislator's couldn't agree. But the rules have to be finished by July 1. If not next election vote for anyone not already in office.

I have a couple clients, husband and wife, 75 and 83 yrs old that make their own oil. They must be driving to a legal state to purchase and bringing it back. I didn't ask and they didn't say how they were getting it.

If you know a lot of senior's that are not afraid to talk about it you'd be surprised how many are smoking or eating and in some cases growing their own around the area. Does your husband know any of these older vets at the VA hospital? Just saying.

2seaoat wrote:I am all for legalization because DUI deaths and crime is reduced.  However, I have zero tolerance for claims that something cures cancer.  I trust the best and brightest to review studies and inform the public of clear evidence as to the limits and benefits of a new drug or drug therapy.   I try to be polite, but as Bob was quickly fading away he talked about medical pot, and quite honestly it made me immensely sad.  Pot does NOT cure cancer.

There were a few documented melanoma cases Bob and I both researched that went into remission, but they were also undergoing immunotherapy and cannabis oil at the same time, but few.

I do have a client with stage 3 melanoma that went through the same immunotherapy as Bob and is in remission.

I don't think they caught Bob's soon enough.

Back in September I smoked a joint when I was having a bad flareup of diverticulitis, the pain went away for 3 days and I had the most positive attitude I'd had in quite a few months before. I have not smoked since simply because I know of no one I can trust to buy from. That one was given to me.

The point is there is no reason marijuana should be illegal and not regulated like alcohol. The politicians just can't figure a way to get paid under the table.

There's research going on at Harvard on dementia patients.

I am unaware of any real harm with pot. Why it was not legalized twenty years ago as most babyboomers have no problem with legalization is beyond me. I just do not buy into the medical part until it is legalized and studies can be done on tens of thousands, instead of a couple hundred. The benefits for symptoms of cancer have been verified, but to jump from treatment of symptoms to curing cancer is a bridge too far right now.

I don't believe it can cure cancer alone, it may help in combination with conventional methods.

https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm560167.htm

whoops wrong thread, anyway about cancer treatments.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today granted accelerated approval to a treatment for patients whose cancers have a specific genetic feature (biomarker). This is the first time the agency has approved a cancer treatment based on a common biomarker rather than the location in the body where the tumor originated.
Keytruda (pembrolizumab) is indicated for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with unresectable or metastatic solid tumors that have been identified as having a biomarker referred to as microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR). This indication covers patients with solid tumors that have progressed following prior treatment and who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options and patients with colorectal cancer that has progressed following treatment with certain chemotherapy drugs.

“This is an important first for the cancer community,” said Richard Pazdur, M.D., acting director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and director of the FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence. “Until now, the FDA has approved cancer treatments based on where in the body the cancer started—for example, lung or breast cancers. We have now approved a drug based on a tumor’s biomarker without regard to the tumor’s original location.”

MSI-H and dMMR tumors contain abnormalities that affect the proper repair of DNA inside the cell. Tumors with these biomarkers are most commonly found in colorectal, endometrial and gastrointestinal cancers, but also less commonly appear in cancers arising in the breast, prostate, bladder, thyroid gland and other places. Approximately 5 percent of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have MSI-H or dMMR tumors.

Keytruda works by targeting the cellular pathway known as PD-1/PD-L1 (proteins found on the body’s immune cells and some cancer cells). By blocking this pathway, Keytruda may help the body’s immune system fight the cancer cells. The FDA previously approved Keytruda for the treatment of certain patients with metastatic melanoma, metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer, refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma, and urothelial carcinoma.

Keytruda was approved for this new indication using the Accelerated Approval pathway, under which the FDA may approve drugs for serious conditions where there is unmet medical need and a drug is shown to have certain effects that are reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit to patients. Further study is required to verify and describe anticipated clinical benefits of Keytruda, and the sponsor is currently conducting these studies in additional patients with MSI-H or dMMR tumors.

The safety and efficacy of Keytruda for this indication were studied in patients with MSI-H or dMMR solid tumors enrolled in one of five uncontrolled, single-arm clinical trials. In some trials, patients were required to have MSI-H or dMMR cancers, while in other trials, a subgroup of patients were identified as having MSI-H or dMMR cancers by testing tumor samples after treatment began. A total of 15 cancer types were identified among 149 patients enrolled across these five clinical trials. The most common cancers were colorectal, endometrial and other gastrointestinal cancers. The review of Keytruda for this indication was based on the percentage of patients who experienced complete or partial shrinkage of their tumors (overall response rate) and for how long (durability of response). Of the 149 patients who received Keytruda in the trials, 39.6 percent had a complete or partial response. For 78 percent of those patients, the response lasted for six months or more.

Common side effects of Keytruda include fatigue, itchy skin (pruritus), diarrhea, decreased appetite, rash, fever (pyrexia), cough, difficulty breathing (dyspnea), musculoskeletal pain, constipation and nausea. Keytruda can cause serious conditions known as immune-mediated side effects, including inflammation of healthy organs such as the lungs (pneumonitis), colon (colitis), liver (hepatitis), endocrine glands (endocrinopathies) and kidneys (nephritis). Complications or death related to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation after using Keytruda has occurred.

Patients who experience severe or life-threatening infusion-related reactions should stop taking Keytruda. Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding should not take Keytruda because it may cause harm to a developing fetus or newborn baby. The safety and effectiveness of Keytruda in pediatric patients with MSI-H central nervous system cancers have not been established.

The FDA granted this application Priority Review designation, under which the FDA’s goal is to take action on an application within six months where the agency determines that the drug, if approved, would significantly improve the safety or effectiveness of treating, diagnosing or preventing a serious condition.

The FDA granted accelerated approval of Keytruda to Merck & Co.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.