On Friday, 18 April 2014, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 18 Apr 2014, at 08:41, > [email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>wrote: > > > On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:28:26 AM UTC+1, > [email protected]<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:28:02 AM UTC+1, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, April 17, 2014 8:03:09 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> A good sum up of the how and why cannabis might cure cancers. >>>> >>>> You can understand the mechanism and the probabilities. It is a pretty >>>> >>>> good movie. >>>> >>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bMt83_IWkE >>>> >>>> We knew this since 1974. Promising research on cancer treatment were >>>> purposefully broke down. >>>> >>>> How could we hope rational decisions with respect to climate when we >>>> tolerate brainwashing, even a sort of revisionism, on cannabis/hemp, >>>> and cancers? >>>> >>>> The problem is not stupid politicians, it is clever bandits. >>>> >>>> The prohibition of cannabis deserves truly the Nobel Prize, in Crime. >>>> >>>> But it might also be their fatal error, I think. >>>> >>>> I think the world will get closer to paradise when the humans will >>>> stop confuse p -> q with q -> p. That confusion is exploited by the >>>> fear sellers (pseudo-religious or not). >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> >>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>>> >>> >>> It's a load of rubbish Bruno. Cannabis ha >>> >> >> sorry...it >> > > sorry again. It's a load of old cobblers because cannabis has been > available to researchers throughout. > > > When I read Jack Herer a long time ago, I leave the book away when I came > to the chapter where he claimed that cannabis cures might cancer (and did > cure some cancer for mice in 1974). I thought the hippies was going > crackpot on this. That was to gross. > But when in 2009 a spanish team rediscovered that fact(*), I have > scrutinized both the allegation of cure, and the allegation that rserach on > cannabis was discouraged. That second point is rather clear in the US where > cannabis is schedule one, making research quite difficult from the > administrative perspective (virtually impossible in most universities). The > first point is now accepted in the mainstream, but the media and the > doctors ignore it, probably because cannabis is illegal. > You might read: > > (*) http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948 (original spanish paper) > > http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html > > You can find many papers on cannabis and cancer here: > > http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm > > > > > Why would anyone want to obstruct a cure for cancer? No one would care > what it was. olu > > > Those who profits from selling expensive treatment for cancer. Those many > who want hemp staying illegal. > > > > > > But it isn't a cure for cancer. Nothing is a cure for cancer in this way. > Cancer survival rates are up on 30 years ago. Controlling for earlier > intervention do you know how much lung cancer survival rates have changed ? > They haven't. Nothing has changed. catch it early and you've got a chance. > Leave it just a few more weeks and now that cancer is evolving. It's made > up of more and more descendent cell lines...each one mutating, now > different ancestries are fighting and destroying,. Now a week later there > are millions more., You might kill one line but the next one is immune > because now it's multiple mutations later and it's totally different and > the colour is maybe green. In the firs or few weeks it's just a few > descrendent lines..they are young, they aren't mutating like crazy yet. > > Nothing is going to cure cancer. Not in this scientific revolution. > They'll fix maybe the cancerous non-encoding dna. But that'll be a > symptom...cancerous cells are multiply disfigured...and more keep showing > up. > > Smoke dope fuck the pope but it'll give you cancer before it cures > anything. > > > Those who have tried to prove this are those who discovered the benefices > instead. I let you search on the links above. > > > > > thi > By the way I know at least 2 people that got institutionalised with > schizophrenia as a direct outcome of dependent pot smoking. That's the only > thing either of them ever did anyway > > > 2 people is not a statistics, and when the statistics are done properly, > it seems only that people with schizophrenia, or potential schizophrenia, > tend to medicate themselves with cannabis, explaining some previous > correlations. If you have a reference on cannabis leading to schizophrenia, > containing serious statistics, I would be interested to know. I did not > find any. >
There is some debate as to whether cannabis causes schizophrenia, but there isn't much doubt that it can cause drug-induced psychosis (ie. which resolves when the drug is withdrawn) and that it can exacerbate or precipitate psychosis in patients who already have schizophrenia. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
