On Friday, April 18, 2014 8:52:50 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Apr 2014, at 08:41, ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:28:26 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, April 18, 2014 7:28:02 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com 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. > > Bruno > Two friends seems like a lot to me...I didn't know that many people. It isn't a reason to go one way or the other, on its own. It's not a very innocent substance seen through my experiences. A lot of people - maybe the majority even - had really dependent behaviour around it...stayed that way for years. I hated it...it made me really paranoid.....I'd sometimes be sitting there frozen just waiting to come back down. Not that many people such an intense effect. But I think that things look different viewed through what things were like for kids in the underclass and children's homes. There wasn't necessarily going to be one chance to escape. Life wasn't something that anyone was enjoying very much...drugs could a lot of that away, could feel really nice. Kids in that world caved in to drugs eventually and they wouldn't want to come back, and usually didn't.
-- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
