Cannabis oil has been shrinking tumors in woman's brain

[lcarus]

I don't even care if it's proven to actually treat the cancer itself. If it gives patients an appetite that was absent before, if it gives them pain relief, hell, if it even just eases their burden a little...I don't see what the problem is with it.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by lcarus

I don't even care if it's proven to actually treat the cancer itself. If it gives patients an appetite that was absent before, if it gives them pain relief, hell, if it even just eases their burden a little...I don't see what the problem is with it.

Agree with appetite and pain relief. However, don't call it a treatment.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Let's say, hypothetically, 5000 people have astrocytoma and are being treated. Out of that, 1000 haven't responded to treatment, so they seek alternatives to conventional methods. Now, let's say spontaneous remission (it does happen) is 1%, so out of the original 1000, ten were "treated" successfully. They tell their family members "Hey, XYZ from Dr. dumbshit really worked".

And the other 990? Well, they had grave odds anyway, but they would be like the other ten had they come sooner! This is the basis of crock-as-shit alternative methods with no causal evidence.

[Johnny Vegas]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

Let's say, hypothetically, 5000 people have astrocytoma and are being treated. Out of that, 1000 haven't responded to treatment, so they seek alternatives to conventional methods. Now, let's say spontaneous remission (it does happen) is 1%, so of the 10 people who sought out other treatments, those ten were "treated" successfully. They tell their family members "Hey, XYZ from Dr. dumbshit really worked".

And the other 990? Well, they had grave odds anyway, but they would be like the other ten had they come sooner! This is the basis of crock-as-shit alternative methods with no causal evidence.

I've always believed just because doctors have been doing it one way for half a century doesn't mean its the best and only way. there should be advances in medicine and treatment and not the same old thing over and over that isn't even guaranteed to save your life. doctors aren't stupid, just stubborn.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vegas

I've always believed just because doctors have been doing it one way for half a century doesn't mean its the best and only way. there should be advances in medicine and treatment and not the same old thing over and over that isn't even guaranteed to save your life. doctors aren't stupid, just stubborn.

Wait, we have? We've made no progress in cancer research/treatment over the last half century?

I am certain we are not using the same treatment over and over and expecting different results.

Unless you are talking about using scientific evidence to dictate research funding, which in that case, shame on us for trying to be efficient.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vegas

I've always believed just because doctors have been doing it one way for half a century doesn't mean its the best and only way. there should be advances in medicine and treatment and not the same old thing over and over that isn't even guaranteed to save your life. doctors aren't stupid, just stubborn.

No wonder you believe in unproven "Cures". You have no idea how modern medicine works....

No advances in medicine and treatment? Guarantees to save your life? WTF?

[Johnny Vegas]

Originally Posted by Fish

No wonder you believe in unproven "Cures". You have no idea how modern medicine works....

No advances in medicine and treatment? Guarantees to save your life? WTF?

chemo isn't a guarantee it'll save your life. I have a great idea because my dad is fighting cancer so I have a front row seat as to what the process is and am learning more everyday.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vegas

chemo isn't a guarantee it'll save your life. I have a great idea because my dad is fighting cancer so I have a front row seat as to what the process is and am learning more everyday.

There is no guarantee for any medical condition. It's not reasonable to expect there to be. Chemo is a very crude brute force treatment method. One day future generations are going to shake their heads at the destructive way we treated cancer.

But it's currently the best we've got that's proven to work. And I assure you that there's no proven better treatment that's just being denied by evil parties. There's too many independent entities all over the world that are trying to better treat cancer, and they can't simply be covered up by the pharma industry.

As somebody who's lost many friends and family to cancer, I'm really anxious for a cure as well. Cancer sucks.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vegas

chemo isn't a guarantee it'll save your life. I have a great idea because my dad is fighting cancer so I have a front row seat as to what the process is and am learning more everyday.

I'm sorry to hear about your father, and I really wish him well during his fight.

That said, very few things in medicine are absolute certainties. It sucks, and it's depressing, but there is always an inherent amount of diagnostic uncertainty in anything we do. And using this uncertainty, vultures will swarm and point to medical imperfections to talk up the alternatives that simply have no merit.

[WhiteWhale]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vegas

chemo isn't a guarantee it'll save your life. I have a great idea because my dad is fighting cancer so I have a front row seat as to what the process is and am learning more everyday.

It's not a guarantee to save your life. It's actually not unlikely one will die from the complications from treatment. I know a lot of people who did Chemo. In some cases it extended their life maybe 3-4 months, but they were miserable and doped up on meds. They couldn't live their life for those final months.

A few others actually died FROM the chemo rather than the cancer.

I knew this other kid who had lung cancer when he was 18. Doctors gave him 3 years and he continued to smoke anything he could find (cigs, weed, probably some speed) insisting he was going to kill his cancer with smoke. His cancer went into remission and 14 years later he's got a wife and five kids. Now obviously correlation doesn't equal causation. I'm not claiming he cured his cancer with smoke. I'm just saying the only person I know who survived cancer refused treatment.

I know it saves people sometimes, but if I get cancer I'm just riding it out. I won't go through what all of those people I cared about went through.

[mcan]

Originally Posted by Cephalic Trauma

Let's say, hypothetically, 5000 people have astrocytoma and are being treated. Out of that, 1000 haven't responded to treatment, so they seek alternatives to conventional methods. Now, let's say spontaneous remission (it does happen) is 1%, so out of the original 1000, ten were "treated" successfully. They tell their family members "Hey, XYZ from Dr. dumbshit really worked".

And the other 990? Well, they had grave odds anyway, but they would be like the other ten had they come sooner! This is the basis of crock-as-shit alternative methods with no causal evidence.

Well said.

However, there has been quite a bit of animal model research that shows positive benefit. This isn't quite as placebo/quack as homeopathy or magnets (or that second video with the tuning forks... ouch that's embarrassing). The problem is that the research into cannabinoids is still very inconclusive, and human trials have been small and weren't double blind. The evidence that it CAN stop some kinds of tumor growth is statistically significant, but it's countered by the fact that in some people and situations, it might not help at all, or it might be harmful. The research is going on right now.

[Cephalic Trauma]

Originally Posted by mcan

Well said.

However, there has been quite a bit of animal model research that shows positive benefit. This isn't quite as placebo/quack as homeopathy or magnets (or that second video with the tuning forks... ouch that's embarrassing). The problem is that the research into cannabinoids is still very inconclusive, and human trials have been small and weren't double blind. The evidence that it CAN stop some kinds of tumor growth is statistically significant, but it's countered by the fact that in some people and situations, it might not help at all, or it might be harmful. The research is going on right now.

Bump, take notes. This is how you present a credible argument.

Great post. If the evidence holds in human subjects, I trust the system and believe those treatments will be utilized.