Molecular Biologist Explains How THC Completely Kills Cancer Cells


advertisement - learn more

Below is a video of Dr. Christina Sanchez, a molecular biologist at Compultense University in Madrid, Spain, clearly explaining how THC (the main psychoactive constitute of the cannabis plant) completely kills cancer cells.

Not long ago, we published an article examining a case study recently published where doctors used cannabis to treat Leukemia, you can read more about that here. To read more articles and view studies about how cannabis is an effective treatment and cure for cancer, click here.

Cannabinoids refer to any group of related compounds that include cannabinol and the active constituents of cannabis. They activate cannabinoid receptors in the body. The body itself produces  compounds called endocannabinoids and they play a role in many processes within the body that help to create a healthy environment. I think it’s also important to note that cannabis has been shown to treat cancer without any psychoactive effects.

Cannabinoids have been proven to reduce cancer cells as they have a great impact on the rebuilding of the immune system. Although not every strain of cannabis has the same effect, more and more patients are seeing success in cancer reduction in a short period of time by using cannabis. Contrary to popular  belief, smoking cannabis does not assist a great deal in treating disease within the body as therapeutic levels cannot be reached through smoking. Creating oil from the plant or eating the plant is the best way to go about getting the necessary ingredients, the cannabinoids.

The world has come a long way with regards to accepting this plant as a medicine rather than a harmful substance. It’s a plant that could benefit the planet in more ways than one. Cannabis is not something offered in the same regard as chemotherapy, but more people are becoming aware if it, which is why it’s so important to continue to spread information like this. Nobody can really deny the tremendous healing power of this plant.


Take The 30 Days of YOU Challenge!

Take the free 30 Days of You Challenge and discover more about your heart, mind and soul.

There are powerful benefits associated with taking time to relax, meditate, do something you love, journal, reflect or get started on a new hobby, but that means dedicating YOU time for it.

This challenge will help you set out on a journey to getting powerful habits started that can transform your life.

Join the free challenge and get the full guidelines on how to do it as well as support throughout the challenge.

Click Here!

advertisement - learn more

More From 'Awareness'

CE provides a space for free thinkers to explore and discuss new, alternative information and ideas. The goal? Question everything, think differently, spread love and live a joy filled life.

  1. Susan G

    The research down by the scientist in the video is only in animals not in humans. The effect it will have actual patients is still unknown.

    Reply
    • There have been many human trials. The University of Alberta has had 100% success rate in shrinking brain tumours in human animals. Hemp has always been a cure-all and people have known of its effects and benefits for hundreds of years. It was made illegal for political reasons, and the paper industry.

      Reply
      • Your post is full of irresponsible falsehoods. There have not been many human trials.
        The best tests (in London) were on mice. The University of Alberta did NOT have 100% success. Here is a report on what they accomplished: “With funding from private foundations and public donations as well as the Canadian National Institutes of Health, the team carried out the first clinical trial on five patients with glioblastoma (a fast-growing malignant brain tumour nearly always fatal), and the results were published in 2010 [2]. Of the five patients treated, one of the three with terminal cancer died after 3 months on DCA, but the rest were clinically stable at month 15 of DCA therapy, and still alive at month 18. Three of the patients showed some evidence of the tumour shrinking on magnetic resonance imaging. The results were promising.

        One noted side effect of higher doses of DCA was peripheral neuropathy, which was reversed when the dosage was lowered.”

        I used DCA for nearly a year 10 years ago. It did bring down my PSA, then stalled. Meanwhile, I suffered permanent peripheral neuropathy in my feet, so that that about 1/3, extending into my toes, are numb. I have fallen down due to this condition. When the DCA treatment failed to further reduce my PSA to a safe level, I had my prostate removed.

        I am pro-cannabis research and treatment, but lying about the results will only give ammunition to those who are opposed to it. Please stick to the know facts and do not try to mislead people who are vulnerable to false hope. The best way to promote cannabis therapy is to be impeccably honest.

        Reply
        • TomS

          Ruffsort – “I am pro-cannabis research and treatment, but lying about the results will only give ammunition to those who are opposed to it. Please stick to the known facts and do not try to mislead people who are vulnerable to false hope. The best way to promote cannabis therapy is to be impeccably honest.” Thank you for encouraging rational, research-based conclusions and not just anecdote, opinion, coincidence, and re-posts of unsubstantiated ‘reports’. It would be sad to think that there are people on the Internet who may delay or skip medical cancer treatment because there are so many ‘marijuana shown to cure cancer’ posts that get interpreted as ‘smoking or eating hemp oil cures cancer’, and the fact that a single ‘success’ story will be circulated much more than the ‘my friend tried marijuana cures and still died of cancer’ stories.We know that coincidence does not mean causation, nor ‘proof’. There are probably many times more miraculous ‘documented’ cures from Lourdes and faith healers as there from marijuana-based treatments, and stories of homeopathic, herbal, vitamin, and spontaneous unexplained remissions.There’s no substitute for actual bulk human research studies that have actual numbers to show a statistically significant correlation. Reporting lab results that show some decrease in cancer cells in a petri dish is probably no more or less significant a ‘breakthrough’ than the 100’s of ‘promising cancer research’ reports we’ve all heard over the years. Lastly, it seems that there is a difference between medical use of marijuana and recreational use, just as there is a difference between medical vs recreational use of pain killers. It’s interesting how medical use of marijuana flag seems to be so often waived highest by those who are looking for reasons to rationalize recreational use.

          Reply
    • Ellen

      Susan…the lump in my breast (recurring from 2006) is already 1/2 its size in only 3 weeks from CBD hemp oil. You’re too late to try and convince me it doesn’t work in humans! I take 1/2 gram a day. Mine is from Real Scientific. What does one have to lose? There are too many people dying needlessly.

      Reply
      • Ali Hudson-Jones

        Ellen, how much does it cost you, it looks very expensive but on amazon and google you seem to be able to get it elsewhere at a fraction of the cost?? my email is alisonhenshall@yahoo.com – can you reply to this please? Thanks, Ali

        Reply
      • ann beatty

        Can you contact me please Ellen and let me know where you got this and how to take it. I’m in Australia and gathering info on cancer treatments

        Reply
      • chad

        Well said Ellen and thats great news, congrats! Did they say to up dose or stay at 1/2? Their is also hemp oil skin cream, my mother used on her skin cancer and it was recurring but when she got check up after using cream for month all signs were gone even one she was going to get removed in near future, it really is a cure all plant…there are signs of people using that had diabetes and don’t anymore using the oil(it’s also known to rejuvenate all vital organs leading to diseases)

        Reply
    • chad

      another good video u can watch on utube called “run from cure” and another called “what if cannabis” shows many diff aspects of people and variety of treatments with the hemp oil and patients who are or did treatment first hand

      Reply
    • chad

      i beg to differ read rick simpsons story and i have seen and helped people cure it first hand, DON”T be so spectacle…there offering it to patients along with chemo i have a friend going through it now to help battle and rid the cancer

      Reply
    • - Collective Evolution

      There are many other studies that have been conducted, and it looks like full human trials will be starting soon. They’ve already started for brain cancer :) So much research has been conducted that there is a pretty good idea of how this will effect actual patients..but I guess we’ll find out soon. For more studies, follow the links within the article.

      Thanks for visiting!

  2. bigmowma2014

    I have thought marijuana should be legalized for a long time but now that my eyes have been opened to how our government operates, I am concerned that it is being “allowed” to happen now.

    The government doesn’t do anything without it being part of a bigger plan. You could argue that legalization is being done on a state by state basis however, Pres. Obama has just passed a bill that allows banks to handle marijuana cash flow with less hassle, so it is on the federal level now.

    People who use MJ for recreation are more docile. Is the fluoride not doing its job? I wonder…

    Reply
    • freeman

      This is a key observation bigmowma2014 and why it is important to decriminalize rather than legalize. The compound already has a legal status — that it is illegal to use — and this is what needs to be removed through decriminalization. Because decriminalization would reduce the criminal costs associated with the production and sale of the compound and because decriminalization would lower the potential “legal” revenues of both new and existing pharmacological uses, politicians who are fixated on [self-serving] economic models prefer legalization. There is also a perception that the individuals who currently make a living through the “illegal” distribution of this valuable compound should not be the same people who make a living through the “legal” distribution. My opinion is that through decriminalization, most of the negative costs to society will be diffused, but that legalization will maintain both the costs of criminal distribution and add to the costs of beneficial distribution creating a significantly more social harm while reducing the potential social benefits. Decriminalization is the obvious choice for a society that values individual choices and preventative health measures rather than imposing strict economic and medical models that cause significant social harm through maintaining poverty and its associated ill-heath. Legalization is therefore bad because it is focused on sustaining unsustainable corporate greed. Decriminalization on the other hand provides the same and more benefit by avoiding the negative aspects of legalization and treating the cultivation of this plant just like apples, quinoa, peppermint and the many other agricultural products that make for diverse and sustainable local economies. In summary, legalization=bad, decriminalization=good.

      Reply
  3. Rick Simpson and Pheonixtear.ca if you want to read about actual testimonials from humans who used hemp oil to cure their cancer!

    Reply
  4. BEV

    Big Pharma does NOT want this to be promoted or accepted as cancer meds bring billions into their coffers.

    Reply
  5. In any case, everything done and tried so far is much too retarded compared to my research and findings regarding the human immune system – my Cancer Killer is by far more powerful than the immune system itself and keeps it intact all the time.
    So that everybody on Earth can already rest assured – I believe Life is never gonna be the same again – I mean the cure for all cancers and all infections on the planet has invented. And much more than that – any diseases can be prevented 100% – Nature has provided us the unlimited power of staying as healthy as Gods, we just gotta activate it by doing my invention – the PCK – The Personal Cancer Killer – the complete prevention and cure (for those now sick) for kids and adults of any diseases – from the common cold to cancer – just an exercise for a minute a day for prevention and for 2 – 3 minutes a day for the cure – any infections (Colds, Flues, HIV-AIDS, HPV, HBV, HCV, Malaria, Yellow Fever, etc.) are cured for max. 7 days and any cancers (Leukemia, Breast, Cervical, Ovarian, Lung, Bone, Brain, Pancreatic, Prostate, Colorectal, etc.) – for max. 30 days – no metastases or recurrences of any cancers are at all possible – the Cancer Killer is their devastating destroyer. Even bio-terrorism is much too weak against everybody doing the Cancer Killer – any bio-terrorist bugs are killed the moment they touch us.
    The price of the Personal Cancer Killer for the whole world is 340 Billion Bucks, Euro, or BP – just 48 bucks for everybody on Earth – not much to possess the greatest invention in human history and to stay as healthy as God. I accept checks of 5 Million Bucks to disclose it personally. Everybody will stay absolutely healthy all the time, all life long – never getting sick of any diseases even for a second.

    Reply
  6. Not doing me a lot of good after 3 months,maybe have to increase the dose!

    Reply
    • chad

      treatment i’ve seen work is a gram oil first month then raising it to 1.5-2 gram next month…thats it u dont need to do again and your body should be rejuvenating. theory behind this treatment is to mainstream your body first month and then basically overdosing for next month (kinda like first eradication of all disease…if you stop at this state and any disease comes back it will come back STRONGER and harder to battle follow by overdosing, which in theory here is to build a resistance a wall barrier u can call it so that anything that comes wont and cant get by) this is just my opinion and from people i know this is treatment they have followed and doing well

      Reply
      • fake name

        That doesn’t make any sense from a biological standpoint.

        Reply
  7. chad

    thank you Arjun Walia for sharing this knowledge is power!

    Reply
  8. chad

    this is one of the worst disease to see or endure, but believe it or not we’re starting to win the battles…and soon the war as well, just be as strong as you can and keep telling your mind its gone (your mind stronger then u assume stress can kill you…so in reverse your mind can heal you, but not if you have doubts or don’t believe in being better) bless all those and their loved ones

    Reply
  9. To deny safe, effective medication to people in great need is a “Crime Against Humanity”.

    Reply
  10. Adam G

    Is this a good time to point out that marijuana is far more available in the Netherlands than the US and their cancer survival rate is pretty poor?

    http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/12/dutch_cancer_survival_rates_lo.php

    Reply
    • always the antagonist

      Reply
    • John McClane

      Just because I have a lot of bricks available to me does not mean I can build you a house. Correlation my son, correlation!

      Reply
    • Their populations percentage of people who use it is actually lower than the US. Believe it. Even though it is semi-legal/regulated over there less people use it. Another one of prohibitions failings I guess. So you can’t really use that as a basis for argument. Indica dominant, high THC cannabis oil has about a 75% success rate with most cancers. It’s only a matter of time until everyone knows about this.

      Reply
      • Adam G

        If what you said had even the slightest basis in reality, you could publish your findings and collect your Nobel Prize.

        Reply
        • fake name

          Cannabis is more effective than chemotherapy for fighting cancer growth in some situations, although chemotherapy is much more aggressive in terms of time taken to shrink the tumour.

          Reply
    • Michael

      they also love to mix their pot with tobacco, so…

      Reply
    • The method of treatment she is talking about is by ingesting it. Usually in oil form. More accessible does not mean that people are ingesting it for there is high because it is not heated. It’s medicinal only and I’m sure everyone in the NL is just as behind the curve as everyone else in the world on this form of treatment.

      Reply
      • Adam G

        There’s no curve to be behind. Lots of things kill cancer cells in a petrie fish, including saliva.

        Reply
        • Tisha

          What do you do for a living Adam G?

          Reply
          • E. House

            What Adam says is true. Many things kill cancer in a dish (in vitro). It’s when you try to move those compounds into an animal that things start to go awry. Even so, many things kill/regress cancer in vivo but then those don’t translate to humans. It’s far more complicated then people on this site think.

            Reply
          • chad

            i’d like to ask same question esp when ur on here trying to put it down?! there are skeptics all around the world

            Reply
          • fake name

            Bit of a personal question?

            Reply
          • Adam G

            I’m an attorney who happens to be fairly well versed on the research side of oncology. Why?

            Reply
  11. There are many cures for cancer! Hemp as well as the active components of it like thc and dmt will probably stop it from spreading and shrink tumors. I’ve heard of black salve which is made of a condensed version for topical cancers. There are also many herbs that can get rid of internal cancers and make your life much more liveable! http://allherbalremedies.org/natural-herbs-for-cancer/

    Reply
    • Adam G

      There is no such thing as a cure for cancer. Not because there aren’t compounds that fight it, but because cancer is never cured. If the patient is lucky it goes into remission but can reappear at any time. Anybody who talks about having a cure for cancer probably couldn’t pass a college level biology class and oftentimes is just pushing their own snake oil on victims who don’t know any better.

      Reply
      • So all the PHD researchers cited couldn’t pass a college level biology class?

        Adam, your entire approach is the logical fallacy of ad hominem, compounded with attacking the way people retrieve informationj (most doctors use google).
        Nor have you presented an evidence, only smug claims.

        Claims made without evidence can be dismissed out of hand.
        Ad hominems reveal a lack of evidence or logic.
        You are busted!

        Where did you get your PH.d in science or your medical degree? How do you find information, without using search engines?

        Reply
        • Adam G

          This might blow your mind, but there is a PHD researcher/professor/biotech owner commenting in this thread. (hint: it isn’t you, the author, or ruffsoft). Most of what I know comes from him. I find it to be more reliable and scientifically accurate than trolling weed legalization websites for studies that only support my predetermined conclusion.

          Reply
          • E. House

            That’s better. Thanks Arjun. It was getting kind of weird in here. Ruffsoft, it’s comforting to see you just don’t believe in the 9/11 conspiracy but also the conspiracy between the gov’t and pharma to withhold the cure to cancer. What about Roswell?

            Reply
            • Regarding 9/11. The head of the 9/11 Commission and the lead investigator have both written books stating bluntly that many agencies of government lied to them.

              Lying by government agencies is a conspiracy by definition; it demonstrates a hidden desire to cover up the truth about 9/11, why the government did not respond to the attack on that day, why they got rid of the evidence of a crime so quickly, and why they lied to their own Bush-appointed conservative Republican Commission.

              If you don’t want to know why the government lied, what they are covering up, you are a pathetic sheeple.

              As for drug companies investing in treatment rather than cures, that is a fact.

              Here is how one observer summarized the reaction of the drug companies to a cure for cancer and why:
              “Canadian researchers find a simple cure for cancer, but major pharmaceutical companies are not interested.

              Researchers at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada have cured cancer last week, yet there is a little ripple in the news or in TV. It is a simple technique using very basic drug. The method employs dichloroacetate, which is currently used to treat metabolic disorders. So, there is no concern of side effects or about their long term effects.

              This drug doesn’t require a patent, so anyone can employ it widely and cheaply compared to the costly cancer drugs produced by major pharmaceutical companies. ”

              Drug companies, and I dont think this is a secret, exist to make money. There is no money in cure for cancer that costs 20 cents a day. Therefore, ignore it, promote myth that cancer cures do not exist. Do all you can to protect your profits.

              This is how corporations operate. They defend their business model of lifelong treatment rather than investing in developing cures for obvious financial reasons. They can bury new developments which threaten their profits with indifference, propaganda, and at last resort, buying laws which thwart development of cures. In the US, soon after the Alberta research revolutionized the old myths about cancer cells, the compound was banned. I bought mine early on, upon recommendation of a doctor friend, through a vet website, but then that was shut down. It reduced my PSA by 30%, after I had tried natural supplements and other alternative treatments for a year–during which the cancer got worse. I decided that 30% was not enough…so I had my prostate removed, which cured me. Medicare paid 20,000 for this. I have not used it since (seven yrs ago).

              Fossil fuel corporations, who fear the coming replacement with solar and wind, spend next to nothing on alternative energy.
              “Jul 31, 2008 – ABC: Exxon spends 1 percent of profits on alternative energy. … “They’re probably spending more on the advertising than they are on the research,”

              This is how the dominant players repress, bury, or dampen technologies which threaten their business model (more and more use of limited fossil fuels, with consequent rising prices and tens of billions in profits (often untaxed, as with Exxon in 2009).

              Drug companies play the same game. They spend little on cures, much on treatments, because that’s where the money is. This isn’t a weird theory; it’s how corporations operate to achieve their focal goal of maximizing profits. It is conspiratorial in the sense that they pretend to be investing heavily in alternative energy, but they spend more on commercial propaganda to make that point than they do on actual research.

              British Petroleum rebranded itself as Beyond Petroleum, tho its investment in alternative energy is a small fraction of their overall budget. Here is a report from a Rolling Stone article:

              “In April, BP announced that it is selling off its entire $3.1 billion U.S. wind energy business – including 16 farms spread across nine states – as “part of a continuing effort to become a more focused oil and gas company,” according to a company spokesperson. Indeed, though it famously rebranded itself “Beyond Petroleum” in 2000, BP also exited the solar energy business back in 2011. Today, its alternative energy investments are limited to biofuels and a lone wind farm in the Netherlands.”

              BP is worth over 150 billion so its alternative energy commitment is now less than 1%.
              Beyond Petroleum. This is how huge corporations operate: they say one thing and do another (that is a conspiracy). Drug companies are no different, for they have the same motivation: profits. Period. If that seems to radical or whacky, I suggest you study the legal obligations of corporations and then find out how much the big drug companies spend on treatment drugs rather than cures. They consistently seek to marginalize cure research, because where’s the money in it?

              Bottom line: the drug industry exists not to deliver health but to make money, and it can clearly make much more money if people are sick, not cured, treated long term.
              And so, surprise!, they put all their energy into the cash cow of longterm treatment and seek to bury the shorterm cheap alternative, the cure.

          • E. House

            Dale,

            I don’t know what you mean about google – are you saying you can get a PhD just by googling? By that logic, we don’t need doctors for diagnosing illness/ailments – we have WebMD!!!!

            I want to apologize to everyone in this thread – it was my mistake from the beginning to get down in the weeds and point out the falshoods of certain people’s statements. They are perfectly fine for the lay person but for those trained in the sciences, particularly mitochondrial membrane depolarization leading to the initiation of apoptosis (and the makeup of malignant cells, in general), it is quite maddening. But carry on. I will not correct the finer points of anyone’s arguments anymore. But just to be clear – malignant cells don’t become normal (healthy) – ever. They are still malignant.

            And I’m surprised the moderator of this thread hasn’t come down against using chemicals (i.e. chemotherapy) to fight cancer. I thought we were talking about the magical powers of weed? No?

            Reply
            • You are either lying about what I said or very very stupid. I said that most doctors, according to studies you can, yes, google, get their info by using google. Adam tried to make googling a research copout, but in fact it how doctors find new information. Also a study by Nature magazine showed that Wikipedia is as reliable as other sources of medical information.

              Mocking google or Wikipedia is a logical fallacy, since they are both the primary tools of professionals in medicine.

              What you said was absurd…and you know it. That is the white flag of defeat….to put words in person’s mouth and then attack them for those words. Now you and Adams have both done this. Shame on you. You should apologize to redeem your credibility.

            • - Collective Evolution

              We have a number of articles that point to the downers of using chemicals and chemotherapy to fight cancer. It’s preposterous to suggest it as the go to treatment. Many things should be included like diet, nutrition, and other findings within the world of cancer.

            • All we are saying is that there are chemicals, and herbs, which can reactivate mitochondria so that cancer cells self-destruct. To acknowledge a fact is not to endorse it or promote it, but to recognize it.

              You are inventing a strawman. The use of chemicals to do this was a response to the old and outdated myth that cancer cells cannot have their mitichondrial functins reactivated. They can. They do.

              You have failed to understand the context of proving false the claim that this kind of behavior is not possible, which was formerly the conventional wisdom.

      • Your criticism used the logical fallacy of mocking the search engine, google!

        Here is some information which shows how absurd your criticism is (no cure for cancer; claims found by using google are invalid, including info on 10th Amendment, etc):

        “Seventy-one percent (of doctors who use the internet for info–8%)said they start their research with a search engine, 92% of those using Google”

        Your claim that one can’t google their way to understanding should be addressed to the majority of doctors who do exactly that.

        When you cannot refute the evidence found through google, attack the use of google.

        You are busted!.

        Reply
      • Philip Owen

        Like all absolute statements this is just silly.
        The surgical removal of a circumscribed cancer gets rid of it.
        that can happen, for example, in prostate cancer.
        why is this not a cure?

        Reply
        • E. House

          Ruffsoft,

          I scanned the paper. It’s a solid article, no doubt, with over 100 citations to its credit since it was published in 2007. I take it you don’t have the slightest clue as to what the statement in quotes even means. Actually it doesn’t even begin to do the word “oversimplification” justice in describing what is taking place. But I digress. DCA is a chemical – so are we now advocating for its use? Remind me what “herb” it comes from? It seems to have a solid base for further discovery. But since you are such the scholar, riddle me this: If the cancer cells are returned to their normal (healthy) state, why would they need to kill themselves?

          Reply
          • E. House

            Thanks for not answering my question. And you do know there are about, oh, a dozen or so compounds that target proteins involved in the mitochondrial pathway of apoptosis? Right? Of course you do. How silly of me.

            Reply
          • Healthy cells,if infected,or damaged, can commit suicide; cancer cells do not. If they can be reprogrammed to commit suicide, while leaving healthy cells and DNA alone, they can cure the cancer.

            “We’ve really gone after the core component of the internal scaffold or structure of the cancer cell,” said Stehn, a research fellow in the Oncology Research Unit at the UNSW School of Medical Sciences, in an interview with Healthline. “[When] the cell senses that there’s something fundamentally wrong with its architecture, it will undergo programmed cell death.Programmed cell death is a genetic time bomb lurking inside each cell in the human body. If a cell is damaged, infected, or otherwise no longer working properly, the body can signal it to self-destruct. “http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-new-drug-causes-cancer-cells-to-self-destruct-082013

            These researchers are able to bring this about. Here is a link to the study one of many which has overturned the old dogma that cancer cells could not be reactivated to self-destruct.
            http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/73/16/5169.full.pdf+html

            It is the inability of cancerous cells to self-destruct which kills us. If the cancerous cells can be made to reactivate the self-destruction function, they will destroy themselves, Instead of us.

            Reply
        • E. House

          P.O.,

          This can be considered a cure, but in the spirit of the thread, surgical resection of tumor does not “cure” the cells themselves. Physical removal of cancer is not the same as ingesting hemp oil and saying I’m cured. For the sake of this thread, are those malignant cells, once removed from the body, magically non-cancerous on a molecular level?

          Reply
          • E. House

            Ruffsoft,

            I scanned the paper. It’s a solid article, no doubt, with over 100 citations to its credit since it was published in 2007. I take it you don’t have the slightest clue as to what the statement in quotes even means. Actually it doesn’t even begin to do the word “oversimplification” justice in describing what is taking place. But I digress. DCA is a chemical – so are we now advocating for its use? Remind me what “herb” it comes from? It seems to have a solid base for further discovery. But since you are such the scholar, riddle me this: If the cancer cells are returned to their normal (healthy) state, why would they need to kill themselves?

            Reply
      • “What is the difference between a cure and a remission?

        A cure means that treatment has successfully eradicated all traces of a person’s cancer, and the cancer will never recur (return). A cure does not mean, however, that the person will never have cancer again. It is possible that another cancer, even the same type of cancer, will develop in the person’s body at some point in the future.

        A remission means that the signs and symptoms of a person’s cancer are reduced. Remissions can be partial or complete. In a complete remission, all signs and symptoms of cancer have disappeared.

        If a patient remains in complete remission for 5 years or more, some doctors may say that the patient is cured….” cancer.gov

        My cancerous prostate was removed 6 yrs ago. My testing shows 0.0.

        My cancer is not in remission, since my prostate was removed. I am cured.

        Current research on cannabis treatment of cancer is very promising. The old myth that cancererous cells could not be turned back into healthy cells has been disproved by a Canadian researcher. Mitochondria can be reactivated and cells can then begin to schedule their own deaths.

        Cells can be cured and cancer can be removed from the body. Claiming there is no cure is no longer true.

        Now, let’s stop causing cancer with pollution, unhealthy foods, and other symptoms of a sick society.

        Reply
        • E. House

          Dale,

          I feel the need to help you with some of your claims.

          To make the statement that malignant cells can be turned back into healthy cells is just plain false. Once a cell goes malignant, it will stay malignant. The odds of it spontaneously regressing back into normal cell/tissue are just too staggering to calculate.

          Malignant cells can be made to undergo apoptosis – programmed cell death, by a variety of pathways, one being the mitochondrial (disruption of the membrane, release of cytochrome C into the cytoplasm, yadayadayada, executioner capsases activated and voila! cell death). This does not mean “cancerous” cells have become healthy again, only to undergo apoptosis because they see the error in the ways. Let me repeat: malignant cells don’t become healthy cells again.

          Reply
          • E. House

            Just so we’re clear – DCA (dichloroacetate) – a chemical, is being argued for. Which herb does this come from again?

            Reply
            • Love your sacrcasm Who said it was an herb? Do you still beat your wife?

          • Sir, your smug and outdated claim to superior knowledge is unjustified.

            “Until now it had been assumed that cancer cells used glycolysis because their mitochondria were irreparably damaged. However, Michelakis’s experiments prove this is not the case, because DCA reawakened the mitochondria in cancer cells. The cells then withered and died (Cancer Cell, DOI: 10.1016/j.ccr.2006.10.020).”
            http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html#.UwZo2c6kLTo

            This research is a revolution in the old paradigm to which you cling, that cancer cells cannot be returned to the normal state in which they schedule their own death. You need to do your homework before lecturing someone who has used this type of treatment and who learned about it 7 years ago.

            You are in the dark ages. I am providing a candle to help you make it into the new world in which mitochondria in cancer cells can be reawakened.

            Reply
          • Adam G

            E.House, please take your actual first hand scientific knowledge back to your underground Big Pharma lair. In case you missed it, Arjun has repeatedly told us that there have been studies. I believe that’s the end of this discussion.

            Reply
            • - Collective Evolution

              again, studies are linked within the article :)

            • Adam G

              I saw them. I’ve also mentioned in other posts that are still awaiting moderation that lots of things kill cancer in a petrie dish, including saliva. You can’t conflate killing cells in a dish with curing cancer in a living being without expecting to have people who know the difference to call you out on it.

            • “β-Lapachone (3,4-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-2H-naphthol[1,2-b] pyran-5,6-dione) is an investigational anticancer agent that induces cell death in human cancer cells with a wide spectrum of activity (8, 9). It does not cause damage to DNA “http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC151399/

              Dr Michelakis’s research supports the emerging idea of altering the metabolism of tumors as a new direction of treatment for cancer. The drug is called dichloroacetate (DCA), and its been proven to reverse cancer growth. The drug tricks cancer cells into normal energy production by changing the ways they handle nutrient fuels. This causes the cancer cells to commit suicide without harming any healthy cells. Many researchers around the world have confirmed the research coming out of the University of Alberta. – See more at: http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/06/26/dichloroacetate-university-of-alberta-doctors-discover-a-cure-for-cancer/#sthash.RuYBTLjh.dpuf

              Etc.

            • Adam G

              “Don’t become the victim of a cancer scam. The scamsters are sure to follow this report as night follows day.”

              http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/cancercure.asp

            • - Collective Evolution

              When there are so many results that are positive, including a large number of people who have used it to treat their cancer, you can’t really deny it. Human trails are currently under way with brain cancer, will be interesting to see the results.

      • Dr. J

        I have to agree with Adam G here. This is psuedoscience junk and more often than not, only believed by people without any sort of scientific education. There is no cure currently, there is no high level government or Big Pharm suppression and it is highly illogical to believe so. To say it is a ‘scientific fact’ that this is true really calls into question someones scientific integrity and makes you wonder if that person even knows what science really is.

        Reply
        • simondo3

          “there is no high level government or Big Pharm suppression” ……..wrong there is plenty and it has been going on for yrs. You are simply in denial.

          Reply
          • Adam G

            Pure fantasy. The idea that there is a mass conspiracy among each and every employee of any consequence of every Big Pharma employee is absurd. You’d have us believe that not one of these tens or hundreds of thousands employees would spill the beans on the way to collecting a seven figure book deal and a Nobel Prize. Give me a break. Grand conspiracies are for the intellectually lazy.

            Reply
            • You have a naive unrealistic understanding of how the industry suppresses any developments (including cures) which would hurt their goal of maximizing profit. It is not a guilty secret thousands hold but simply the decision, at the top level, not to invest in promising cures (the process takes huge amounts of money), to ignore them, to bury them, to buy them up and do nothing with them.

              Why would anybody invests tens of millions in the DCA cure when it costs 20 cents a day for the treatment?
              And if corporations do not invest, that leaves public investment, with much less money available and public agencies often controlled by corporations.

              The goal of corporations is to make money, and any development which threatens that goal is suppressed through indifference. The truth, ignored, would never speak.

              Here is the bottom line: drug companies, as typical profit-driven enterprises, will not support or invest in drugs which cannot provide profits. Investing in “worthless (from a financial perspective, which IS the perspective of corporations) cures means the lost opportunities to invest in something like boner pills which return billions.
              That’s where the energy, the money, and the commitment (that it takes to see a new drug through) goes.

              A healthcare system (from drugs to insurance) that is based on profits is a corrupt model; it serves the purpose of maximizing profits rather than advancing public health. This is not an assumption: it is the law.

              The primary purpose of drug companies is to make money; anything that threatens to reduce revenues (such as cures vs lifetime treatment) is pushed aside, ignored, or actively belittled (“There is no cure.”).

              If someone came up with a gas which cost 2cents a gallon, what do you think the big energy cartels would do?
              (They already did it when they destroyed the electric vehicle industry 100 years ago…….why no electric cars for 100 yrs? No one would invest in them….the few attempts (we own about 8 vintage electric cars) were pathetic and soon abandoned. Today, with government subsidies helping, electric cars are back and this time they are cool! The top selling car in the largest auto Market in the US (California) is the Prius. Tesla is already showing a profit on its luxury electric cars and now building one for the common man.

              But for 100 yrs, electric cars (which were all but perfected in the late 19th Century) were suppressed, not as a dirty secret but simply by ignoring them and creating a cultural belief that they were inferior.

              Likewise, the drug industry has suppressed cures for diseases which would threaten their profits. It’s not a conspiracy theory——–it’s just capitalism.

            • Adam G

              Sometimes it’s hard to tell if you’re being serious or not. Every scientist in the entire world, Big Pharma or not, ignores the study of this pancea for the conspiracy theorists because marginal profit one it goes market isn’t high enough? Or maybe, just maybe, this compound isn’t nearly as awesome as you guys think it is and further, that there’s dozens of these supposed cures that fizzle out every year one they’re subjected to close scrutiny?

        • Research by CBIS and NVLX is not psuedoscience (sic).

          If your cancer is isolated (as mine was in my prostate with no spread), it can be removed and you can be cured. I have had 0.0 on tests for 6 yrs.

          I don’t need a biology degree to know I don’t have cancer, that I was cured by surgical removal. My doctor has the degrees!

          Tone down your arrogance, friend.

          Reply
          • E. House

            Dale,

            Glad to hear about your success against PCa. You had a surgical resection of the malignant tissue, with clear margins. This indeed can be a cure. Now, if you had tried to smoke weed to do the same thing, well, we might not be talking to you right now. That, friend, is the point of this thread.

            Reply
            • I did smoke weed; it is possible that is why the cancer did not spread. There is solid research to show that cannabis is effective in treating cancer, but once you have it seriously, it may require surgery or other means.

              You need to check out the research before sounding off.

            • - Collective Evolution

              Best method of ingestion for cannabis treatment is not to smoke it, but eat it or juice it.

        • My you are naive. . . And there are many more. The US government has been lying since 1938, wake up and smell the coffee. The government does not issue patents for snake oil. http://www.google.com/patents/US6630507

          Reply
          • E. House

            How has DCA research been suppressed? A quick search in pubmed yields hundreds of articles. Do you mean to suggest there would be hundreds of thousands of research articles on it?

            Reply
            • Big Med and Big Pharma can
              1) refuse to invest in cures in order to protect treatment model
              2) buy up potential cures and bury them
              3) promote the myth of incurability to discourage private investment
              4. Spend most of their research on treatments instead of cures.

              Have they done this. Of course. Their goal is not health but profits, and this is the corrupt business model which has made US healthcare the tragic laughing stock of all other advanced nations.

              Do corporations do this sort of thing? All the time. LA transportation involved sabotaging the electric system back in the late 19th Century, and LA water was part of a conspiracy to defraud the people of the Owens Valley.

              Corporations, to maximize profit, will do nearly anything from buying up potential theats to their profits (like cures) to price wars to drive out competition, to actual resource wars.

              If you look at where Big Med and Pharma invests its money, it is not in cures but more and more treatments. That is a fact. Why do they do this. I just explained: their goal is not to cure but to make money, and do they do this in secret in order to stifle public outrage. All the time.

              They spend more on boner pills than cancer cures. They invest in and promote whatever will maximize profits.
              If you doubt this, you don’t understand capitalism….or why for-profit medical businesses shortchange the public in the interests of profits, why it is a corrupt system which has led to the most expensive system by 100% than any other advanced nation with inferior results. This highlights lack of focus on health results and primary focus on increasing profits.

              Look up some of the scandals of Big Pharma and you will find many examples of shenanigans designed to maximize profit at the expense of the most critical medical needs in which they fool the public by keeping their operations secret. That is the definition of a conspiracy.

              How to make money: suppress cures and emphasize treatments. Anyone who doubts that corporations exist to make profits first is naive.

              Cures ruins business. Treatments prolong the profit model. Those with cures find investment money hard to come by, due to propaganda (there are no cures; the cure researchers are whacky) and the bulk of the investment and research by big med and pharma corps goes into new (or tweaked) treatnents, for the obvious purpose of keeping the stream of treatment money flowing in.

              Those who argue against cures are dupes of corporate propaganda. They are afraid to read the solid research on cancer cures.

            • Adam G

              Was there an answer in there somewhere? The last thing anybody needs from you is another 1000 word treatise about nothing.

          • John McClane

            Uh, Cheryl, didn’t you actually mean to send me to this website? http://www.totallyabsurd.com/

            Again, I assert, if what you are saying is true and cannibus kills ALL forms of cancer in ALL types of humans, (1) please show me any peer-reviewed study that demonstrates that habitual pot-smoking punks are immune to cancer; or (2) that every recorded onset of cancer in the world over the last several years has derived in a human that never used cannibus; or (3) please explain to me how if any of this is true, why isn’t every single cancer patient in the world taking a trip to Amsterdam to visit a hash-house (read HOSPITAL)?

            Just three simple questions.

            Reply
          • E. House

            So, just for the record, I don’t know “Colonel House”. But his comments do sound like someone who has been smoking too much of the “herb”, if you know what I mean. I still don’t understand how I’m ridiculing the truth? Your “truth” is there’s a government/big pharma conspiracy to prevent the cure for cancer from being released and suppression of evidence for weed being the cancer cure-all. No, I believe you’re doing a fine job of ridicule all by yourself.

            I’m not NSA or CIA but OGA btw.

            Reply
            • I use people’s actions not words. The government does not give patents for trash.

            • Closer to the truth is that there is a conspiracy by those who make billions treating allegedly Incurable diseases.
              They both promote the myth that there is no cure (and so you are stuck with decades of expensive treatment, if lucky) and to capture government policy and regulatory function to defend the status quo against both cures and independent government regulation. This the price paid for corporate fascism, where wealth buys political power and laws which maximize profit.

              The government is the instrument of this corporate conspiracy (because they don’t want to know there are cures……..such as cannabis, which helps explain why it has been illegal so long.

              Incurable disease is a great business model for profit-driven medical corporations; cures are a threat to the bottom line. And so corporate propaganda tells you there is no cure, but we can keep you alive for years, maybe decades with expensive drugs, treatments, etc. and they dismiss rather than invest in promising cures.

              This is the tragedy of a healthcare industry based on profit instead of human well-being. The no cure myth masks the financial priorities of the industry.

            • Adam G

              This is the debate equivalent of waving the white flag. When you’ve got nothing else, just give up and accuse everybody else of being in on the conspiracy.

          • Colonel House

            Arjun – I feel compelled to break my silence on this issue after reading the information on your site. There is a virtual army of NSA paid online social profile strike teams that target and hit websites that promote alternative modes of thinking and moving away from modern consumer herd behavior. Yes, Arjun. Sites just like yours. And it would appear that your site has become a new target. I’ve seen the war rooms with my own eyes (my wife being an Elite Facebook Thread CovOps Squad Member). Usually half a dozen members per room, each member multiboxing on many forums, dressed in paramilitary gear and spreading the lies of the military industrial complex into the internet. The squad talks to each other as they coordinate comments and posts. I’ve personally seen my wife’s team derail and destroy entire internet communities through concerted effort. It is a war, Arjun. Please stay strong.

            Reply
            • - Collective Evolution

              Thanks Colonel :) I am aware that the NSA and CIA have infiltrated any type of media group that gains a significant following…not a secret, the CIA even admitted to it. I would not be surprised at all. Some people spend all day commenting on various articles…it’s weird.

          • Colonel House

            Arjun — Please pay no attention to E. House’s comments on your wonderfully informative website. She is my wife and I have personal knowledge that she is a paid online social profile tasked with spreading propaganda on behalf of the Big Pharma and the United States Government. Big Pharma wants us to have cancer and wants to stop us from smoking weed erryday. It’s a crime. They are criminals. Keep up the good work, son.

            Reply
          • E. House

            DHHS (read: NIH) routinely patents discoveries. There are scientists who work for the government and before you get your tinfoil hat going, discoveries made in the labs of scientists employed by the government are always patented. It’s the same process private labs go through. This is not the smoking gun.

            Reply
          • E. House

            That’s the comment of the day – “Suppression of scientific research” when it comes to cancer. You’re right, Arjun, there are 6 guys sitting around a table in the backrooom of Genentech (representatives of Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, GSK, BMS). All they do is think of how to suppress scientific research so as to screw the population. I never thought the truth would get out, but I’m glad it finally has. I can sleep well, tonight.

            Reply
            • - Collective Evolution

              lol, good way of trying to ridicule a truth. Have you heard of Rene Case? Royal Rife? DCA? There are countless examples :) I know it’s hard to believe that some would actually suppress this type of information…it’s a scary thought for some.

            • Adam G

              It’s kind of sad that the Truthers have bastardized the meaning of the word truth. It isn’t supposed to mean an outlandish, unprovable story that people push because it happens to fit their “alternative” political worldview, but that’s what it has become.

            • - Collective Evolution

              Some do, there is a lot of new information surfacing that competes with peoples belief systems…cannabis is one example of many.

        • - Collective Evolution

          Far from pseudoscience junk, there are a number of studies out there that clearly show the killing of tumors! It’s science, and science has also shown us that cancer can be cured. As far as “mainstream” corporate science, that’s another story. For someone to not know of the multiple cures like cannbis, DCA, and many more…makes it look like one hasn’t done the research before commenting:)

          • John McClane

            What “cancer” are you referring to? Surely not all on this list (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/alphalist)? What amounts of THC vis-a-vis the number of cancer cells and in what part of the body and what about the immune system of the host? Or is it really that simple? Surely if it was that simple, Amsterdam wouldn’t have hash houses, it would have HOSPITALS!

            Reply
          • Dr. J

            To say ‘mainstream’ corporate science makes anyone with a scientific foundation and logical reasoning understand that you don’t know what science is. There is no corporate head of science, there isn’t a bunch of people in a room trying to decide what to release to the public, there is no suppression conspiracy theory. To think so means that you don’t understand how the scientific process has worked for over the last 400 years. This is the same site that claimed baking soda kills cancer completely as well. GTFO. Submit this to peer review and collect your Nobel Prize.

            Reply
            • - Collective Evolution

              I think many people understand what I mean Dr. J, I would say that the majority do.

              As far as saying there is no suppression of scientific research, again, I think there is plenty of evidence to see how that is true to anybody who has actually done the research.

              We present multiple peer reviewed studies, and publicly funded studies on this site :) It’s full of information that’s important to get out there. As far as how scientific suppression is impossible due to the scientific process, I think that makes no sense at all.

              Over half a billion documents are classified every year in the US alone, and a lot of it has to do with science and technology. New discoveries, known suppressed discoveries threatens many corporate interests, and threatens (with regards to medicine) the entire medical industry..

              Thanks for reading.

      • M. Goodspeed

        We ALL carry cancer cells within us! They remain dormant until the right circumstances occur. That is why a healthy lifestyle is encouraged. A weak immune system is the trigger for cancer cells to thrive and take over. Prevention first can stop a lot of these cancers from becoming out of control. IMO, there is a cure, but there is no profit from healthy people…

        Reply
        • I have eaten an anti-cancer diet for decades, organic plant-based diet; I live in the redwood forest with good air, no pollution.

          At 65, I found I had prostate cancer. I tried natural supplements, oriental medicine, acupuncture, and more anti-cancer foods…it didn’t help.

          So finally, my urologist removed my prostate, and since then, my tests are always 0.0.

          Prevention is important but my cause shows that it does not necessarily prevent cancer. My very healthy lifestyle did not prevent my cancer, but with the help of the Da Vinci robotic assistant, my bag of cancer was cut out, sealed in a little bag, and removed. 6 yrs of tests have all shown 0.0………..I consider myself cured, but I would remind people that even with a very healthy lifestyle, shit happens.

          Reply
        • E. House

          M. Goodspeed:

          What/Where is this cure you speak of? Your last sentence, “…but there is no profit from healthy people…” implies a conspiracy to prevent public access to this “cure”. Does your tinfoil hat come in different sizes?. These statements are a slap in the face to all of those people fighting cancer, who’ve died from cancer, and those who have dedicated their lives to new treatments for this disease.

          Reply
      • - Collective Evolution

        Hmm definitely disagree with you there. I think we are made to believe that it cannot be cured, and I’m sure there are many people out there with biology degrees that would tell you that. I don’t think you have to take a biology class to know that, there is enough research and proof out there. But I do believe cancer can reappear in anybody, but it’s preventable if we take care of ourselves properly.

        • E. House

          Arjun,

          There are scores of different types of cancers. Some have a high cure rate (>95%, depending on the location) while others have a poor prognosis. This is because one cancer does not fit all. You might find one treatment that works amazingly to treat one type of cancer while it does nothing for others. Even within one type of cancer, e.g. breast, there are numerous sub-types which all respond differently to treatment. These blanket statements don’t do anyone any good. Btw, a healthy lifestyle (i.e. no smoking, moderate drinking, decrease fatty food intake…) can decrease your chances of getting certain types of cancer, but you do realize that every time our cells divide in our body, at lease a dozen or so have the potential to become cancerous due to the infidelity of DNA replication? So, in essence, everyone is walking around with pre-malignant cells everyday. That’s something one learns in a biology course.

          Reply
          • - Collective Evolution

            Cannabis has been known to treat dozens of cancers…articles with sources to the medical studies are linked into to this article. It’s been shown to treat prostate cancer, brain cancer, breast cancer and more. In fact, human trials are currently being conducted for brain cancer.I understand what you are saying about everybody walking around with pre-malignant cells everyday….:) I understand what you are saying E.

        • fake name

          You by definition of cancer, cannot cure cancer. It is simply a biological impossibility, atleast at this point in our evolution. Cancer is a product of mutation, nearly anything can act as a mutagen on humans, so therefore you cannot actually ‘cure’ like you would in another disease.

          Reply
        • Adam G

          What I stated is fact, not conspiratorial pseudoscience. You can believe whatever and speculate however you like, but it doesn’t change the science.

          Reply
          • ryan

            fact really? their our no facts in science even gravity is just a theory, you guys are just picking away at words. and doing a bad job at that

            Reply
          • - Collective Evolution

            There is a lot of scientific fraud when it comes to these things, and the scientific fact is cannabis completely kills cancer cells…there are multiple cures for cancer, I don’t believe what you said is based on science, because based on science it is curable.

  12. antoon soetens

    Cancer occurs when multiple systems disorders were poorly treated by, for example taking medication.(98 % of the drugs are wrong !)
    A system disorder occurs if you have faulty bio-computers .
    Conclusion:
    First restore your bio-computers and the systems according to my invention and treat you than with cannabis.
    Then only can you cure a cancer.
    See details http://www.logicalwayhealing.com

    Reply
    • Philip Owen

      Bio-computers are WHAT exactly?

      Reply
      • antoon soetens

        Philip Owen
        The bio-computers are the hippocampus, hypothamus, thalamus,…
        The signals are located in these zones and change the external behavior.
        By treatment (external) the signals disappear and behavior is back to normal.
        If one does not immediately treats, is the weakest part of the biological system attacked and an illness can arise

        Reply
    • fake name

      from a bio-chemistry point of view that makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

      Reply
      • antoon soetens

        Fake name
        I hope you understand that one cannot interfere the unprecedented biological system.
        I treat the biological system external according to the osmosis effect and the bio- computers and systems select the right products.
        For this reason there are no side effects.
        A logical way to cure: ” healing made simple”
        No one knows exactly how this is done.
        Studying biology makes NO SENSE.

        Reply
  13. Lea

    Hi Ellen, do you make your own oil or buy it elsewhere? Ive been looking into this subject for a long time and believe it could help my father who has terminal lung cancer but as we are in the UK it seems impossible to get hold of!

    Reply
    • Gary

      How to make Rick Sipsons hemp oil on youtube. Best growing your own as organic is the best way. Find your local grow shop n get started as you might need a lot of weed to make a small amount of oil. good luck n Big love.

      Reply
  14. John McClane

    I have a rock on my desk that prevents tiger attacks, so yeah, I found the miracle rock that will always prevent tiger attacks

    Reply
    • Bravo

      Are there mountains of scientific research proving your rock prevents tiger attacks?

      Reply
      • John McClane

        Yes, just as much as there is that smoking a joint can cure Stage 3 rectal cancer in a 56 year-old Canadian women from Vancouver or smoking a bong can cure thyroid cancer in a 17 year old boy from Mongolia.

        Reply
        • check out the solid research before smugly dismissing it.

          Reply
          • Adam G

            Serious question – how would you know if research is solid? Because you like the conclusion?

            Reply
            • Because he is a respected scientist. And how do you know it is not solid? Have you read his research or are you just blowing hot air at research with which you are unfamiliar.

              In addition, I used his treatment and while it did not cure my cancer entirely, it brought my PSA score down over 30%. My urologist was amazed.

            • Adam G

              I didn’t make the declarative statement, you did. I was wondering what your research background was.

            • I say “cannabis may have prevented the cancer from spreading.”
              You claimed I said cannabis cured me. And you demanded evidence for a claim I never made, which you in fact you invented. .

              That is dishonest representation of what I said. Very sad behavior, Adam. You owe me an apology for lying about what I said and then demanding I back up your lie.

            • Adam G

              Do you know the difference between a question and a declaration? Did you say that I want people without healthcare to die or did you merely ask if I did?

            • I await your apology for lying about what I said. Until you clear up your deceptions, you have waived any credibility.

            • I love when someone who has presented no evidence, lied about what someone has said, is totally unfamiliar with the research, and has resorted to anonymous authority and logical fallacies decides he is the referee and declares himself the victor~!

              The idea that corporations would suppress or not invest in cures because their treatment business model maximizes profits is not uncommon. Just as in LA, corporate conspiracies killed the electric transportation system over 100 yrs ago and the water system was also part of a business conspiracy, businesses do what they must to maximize profits.

              They do this privately to avoid public scrutiny.

              And you assume conspiracies are unreal, but in fact, most wars are based on conspiracies of fake propaganda, false flag attacks, etc. And the govt lied about 9/11…according to the Bush appointed commission, so their coverup was a conspiracy which we have a right to investigate.

              I am not waving the white flag, tho you may plant it in my hands just as you planted words in my mouth I did not say. I would say you long ago waved the white flag when you lied and then used personal attacks and anonymous authority to make your case, meaning you don’t have one to make.

              You are busted, Adam, as much as you twist and turn.

        • - Collective Evolution

          Smoking it doesn’t seem to be the best way for medicinal use. Results are positive when it is ingested properly. Like eating it, or juicing it.

          • John McClane

            Arjun, I’m curious, are the moderator of this web-board? Are you the one that makes the decisions of what is allowed to be posted or not?

            Reply
            • - Collective Evolution

              All comments are approved unless they are rude and inappropriate :) We don’t get to reply to many, because we have so many articles and so many comments. Sorry if we missed some of yours.

      • John McClane

        These mountains of research you allude to….are they in highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific published journals or are you just going to link me to some junk science website like natural news?

        Reply
    • Philip Owen

      Excellent John.
      I look forward to reading about the trials that have been performed on this rock and the accumulated experience of the many uneaten who have benefited from having this rock on their desk.

      Reply
  15. I watched my best friends mom die from brain tumor. She was a rare case she fought cancer for 15 years before she passed. i have smoked for the better part of 13 years cause of pain in my knees from injuries i had. i started smoking with her you know i dont know if its a cure or not but it made her feel better made it easier for her to eat and live. So i don’t care what people say the plant helps in many ways besides being a cure.

    Reply
  16. If only supporters could spell and detractors could read.

    If it has ANY potential to treat cancer, why not give it a chance?

    And complete legalization makes it a Constitutional right, again. Decriminalization means it’s still wrong, but the government isn’t going to charge you for it.

    Legalized = everyone grows and shares, no black market due to no need to buy from anyone when you can grow your own.

    Decriminalized/medical only = very limited supply and distribution points, treacherous late-night politics like Washington State illegally limiting the number of plants and amounts of dried product a patient can possess, no real competition for the recreational black market

    Reply
    • Adam G

      That’s not what Constitutional right means. There isn’t even a Constitutional right to healthcare, let alone to use marijuana.

      Reply
      • Since there is no Constitutional prohibition against it, it is therefore a right under the First Amendment. I’m just quoting a lawyer, here… my understanding is from back before the world allowed politicians to define constitutional rights as whatever benefited their campaign contributors.

        As in how “legal” can mean less freedom than “decriminalized” which leaves in place the stigma of having been a “crime”.

        My own answer is that if we really want change, it is going to take about 530 ropes and trees, somewhere inside the Beltway.

        Reply
        • Adam G wrote “There isn’t even a
          Constitutional right to healthcare.”

          In 1798, the Founding Fathers in Congress, without one dissenting voice, created a socialized medicine plan, based on mandatory taxes to fund a government healthcare system (govt doctors and hospitals for individuals, involved in maritime trades.

          Apparently, it was ok with those who wrote the Constitution.

          Also, the US has ratified the UN Covenants which declare healthcare to be a human right.

          Personally, if a child came to the ER with a broken neck and no insurance, I would say No Way Jose. Healthcare is not a right, despite what the authors of the Constitution did 200 yrs ago….,it is a privilege.
          Let a few children die to make the point. As for the UN Covenant, that is a bunch of commie thugs imposing
          their nanny state tyranny on Americans.

          Pardon my schizophrenia; I grew up in the US.

          Reply
          • Adam G

            Something can be legal without it being a Constitutional right. You can drive a car legally if you’re properly licensed, but if the Secretary of State won’t give you a driver’s license, saying that your Constitutional rights have been violated will not win you a lawsuit..

            Reply
        • Adam G

          You’re either misquoting the lawyer or the lawyer knows nothing. If I can make your argument for you, the Tenth Amendment purports to reserve for the states those powers that are not explicitly granted to the federal government. But it’s neither here nor there, the Constitution plays no role in this debate.

          Reply
          • The 10th Amendment does not say “explicitly.” You made that up.

            Here is what the Constitution does say: the function of government is to “promote …..and provide….for the common defense and general welfare.”

            It also says:
            “The Congress shall have Power … To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

            This is the elastic clause, which has been upheld by the courts for over 200 years. The government has the right to establish laws which provide for the general welfare, which are necessary and proper for carrying out its delegated powers, of which promoting the general welfare is primary.

            Also, the Constitution states that Federal law trumps state laws and is the law of the land (including treaties).

            You cannot ignore the Constitution while using it to defend your absurd claims.

            Reply
            • Adam G

              You can’t Google your way to understanding the Tenth Amendment any more than you can Google your way to curing cancer. The entire purpose of the 10th is to prohibit the granting of any implicit powers to the Feds at the expense of the states. I’m very familiar with the General Welfare and Supremacy Clauses, but your citing to the courts to back up whatever argument you’re trying to make is largely misplaced. Without getting too deeply into Con Law 101, if you’re trying to figure out how the Feds got so powerful, look to the Commerce Clause. This is all an enormous non sequitur though, because nothing in the Constitution grants anybody a Constitutional right to possession or use of marijuana.

    • freeman

      Actually you have it wrong in my understanding. Decriminalized means it is the same as apples, but legalized means it is the same as aspirin.

      Reply
      • freeman

        Aspirin is probably a bad example, I probably should have said Amoxicillin.

        Reply
  17. Cannabis has been banned for the name of big money.
    It has been demonized to prevent production for the benefit of
    rope manufacturers, paper mills, textiles, and now medicine.

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, but alcohol has caused more social damage than cannabis.
    …of course, three rights do make a left.

    Reply
  18. Don’t worry, the unbelievers, those so staunch in their denial of the good this plant God made, will change their tune once cancer invades their lives, their loved ones. That is when people open their mind and look for something, anything to help their loved one feel any better.

    Billions and decades of research, fundraisers and what has changed? AMA, ADMA, AVA all are very wealthy due to drugs with side effects to guarantee if you beat this issue, you will be back with another health issue. Ongoing revenue. Why would any medical affiliation provide a cure and take money away from themselves?
    Power, money and control. This is the USA’s 2014 theme. Stay tuned the show will get better!

    It is just so simple if people would just pull their heads out of the……sand.
    It is just too scary for many people. They prefer to disregard and/or discredit what they are terrified of.
    They should be comforted though, because the truth is coming and coming fast.
    The days of all the lies for wealth are ending.
    Listen closely, hear the bells a tolling?
    Let those who want to sleep sleep.

    Reply
    • Adam G

      Some of the unbelievers that you’re mocking happen to be cancer survivors. Just sayin.

      Reply
      • I am a cancer survivor; it is possible that my use of cannabis kept the cancer from spreading during the years I had it without knowing. Before dismissing the research, study it. Research was prohibited for the longest time but today, promising results are being demonstrated.

        Are you the guy who wants to let people without healthcare coverage die because “it is not a right?”

        Reply
        • Adam G

          Quite the opposite. If you want to believe that smoking weed cured your cancer, then more power to you.

          Reply
          • You are putting words in my mouth; that is a form of dishonesty. I have no further interest in discussing this with you.

            Reply
            • Adam G

              You might want to read that again. I don’t think you caught it the first time.

Leave a Reply

Collective Evolution welcomes differing viewpoints and thought-provoking opinions that add value to the discussion, but comments may be moderated to remove profanity or remarks that detract from a healthy conversation. For the best interest of the community, please refrain from posting vulgar comments, profanity, or personal attacks. Comments submitted may automatically be flagged for review by our moderation team before appearing on the website.

Upcoming CE Party!

Party

Featured TEDx Talk

TEDx - Agents of Change

Free Exclusive Film Screening!

Free Film Screening
advertisement - learn more

CETV - What's On

Published: May 27, 2015

Subscribe:
Connect, Inspire, Chat & Share!
CE Radio - Listen now!
advertisement - learn more
Amazers
Subscribe to CE Magazine Monthly For Exclusive Content!
The Mind Unleashed

We Recommend

www.truththeory.com