RobinJI Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 ....stuff about wanting to try hemp oil on a skin infection.... You can actually buy hemp based hand creme from the body shop, I've got some I use regularly to help out with some dermatitis on my hands from not wearing gloves enough at work (I do now, but the damage seems to be done). It's not cured it and been a miracle or anything, but it's doing very nearly as well as the steroid based creme the doctor gave me, but is much kinder on my hands otherwise. The stuff they gave me fixes the dried cracked-ness, but leave it feeling kind of toughened and odd, the hemp based stuff takes longer to start working, but it leaves the skin feeling normal, so it's what I choose to use, and I'd definitely recommend giving it a try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharn Posted February 13, 2013 Report Share Posted February 13, 2013 I lost my grandad to cancer, he fought it for 8 years and had loads of treatment - it spread pretty much everywhere. It would be great if that could have been cured by cannabis but I just can't see it. As many have said already, if it was such a miracle cure then companies definitely would have cashed in on it by now. Cancer is awful and I'd love to see a drug come out that sorts it, but I can't see it being cannabis. Don't you understand? It's been made illegal. Companies can not cash in on it. Because it's illegal. Regardless of the benefits, of which their are potentially many, they will never be known socially because of this. Again, i'm not sure that even i, a believer of this plants medicinal value, would state that it has removed or corrected cancerous cells in humans. Mainly because i havn't witnissed it myself. But i for one am willing to stay open about it's possibility and will keep an interest in any new scientific findings regarding the subject. It is interesting to know that cannibis was legal for a very long time, and in the day of its legality it was indeed widely use for it's medicinal properties. Do not forget this. I'm not sure the human genetic structure has changed that much in just over a century so why would it be much different now? It's also interesting to note that cancer was overwhemingly less common in those days too.. It's fame in our day is possibly due more to the enviromental changes; with radiation of electronic waves/satelites etc and geneticly modified foods and sweets/drinks, bad postures/ energy flow etc.. It is entirely possible that these things contribute to our health, as our health is dependant on our enviroment. I think it's key to remember the body exists in a complete attatchment to the natural world. These things do affect us. And our cancers come as a result of our enviroment. There'd be no reason why a young human would develop a life threatening mutation of it's own cells in young age for no apparent reason. I may be wrong, but it does seem a little odd. As far as i'm aware, Cancer is not something that lives independantly and attatches itself to the human cells to reproduce. It is a mutation of those very cells. The (sacred?) structure of a human being has existed for a very long time. Something is causing our cells to mutate. I don't claim to know what that is but i don't believe it's 'natural'. Its also interesting (to me anyway) that in our very make up are many similarities and connections with the plants structures that would also probably not exist for no reason at all. I personally am not a fan of the responses to andy here and think your'e all being abit harsh. Anyway. Iv'e had lovely day after having my small intake of the good stuff Next experiment; Does wine cure boredom? Great topic. Seeking hemp oils online to experiment with skin infection.. One time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 People were less likely to die of cancer back in the olden days But people were much more likely to die of things like TB or influenza or measles and as such never got chance to develop cancer in later life. All those things seem trivial in the modern world, and I would personally like to thank alcohol for curing them. People don't die of olden times deseases much anymore, most people drink alcohol, coincidence? I think not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroMatt Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 If you want to treat a skin infection go see a doctor, get some antibiotics and take them for the FULL course. I don't think anyone doubts there may well be uses for cannabinoids in doses over what the body itself produces. It's stuff like the inference that cancer is a modern thing so must be related to societal changes, or the nonsense conspiracy stuff that's really quite annoying. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, however it's largely demonstrably false. For example the whole cancer being a modern illness stuff. There have been remains found predating modern society that show tumors in the bones from metastatic cancer. On top of what Jolfa said about increased life expectancy, increased screening and diagnosis is inflating those incidence numbers. If we lived long enough we'd all get cancer in the end, it's simply the consequence of disorder from increasing entropy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Don't you understand? It's been made illegal. Companies can not cash in on it. Because it's illegal. Bullshit. Sure GKS aren't going to start selling spliffs to the NHS but I'll bet you they've already spent millions investigating the potential uses of the active ingredients in canabis/canabinoids or whatever it is for a whole range of conditions. The drug being illegal certainly won't stop companies from investigating the uses of herbal extracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 I actually find all this offensive. You've been sprouting a load of complete utter bullshit about conspiracy theories and how weed is a big cover up and its healthy and all this shit, and thats fine. No problem with a retard on a forum entertaining people with ridiculous fantasy internet myths. But actually trying to say to people who have (or may have in the future) a serious life threatening illness, that they should ignore all medical research and trials to date and ignore their best chances for a cure put forward by EVERY doctor and specialist they see is just plain offensive. Several of my family and friends have died of cancer, some after long difficult struggles - its hideous, and Im not having a f**kwit like you come on here and talk bullshit about something as serious as this. Im not saying there are no health benefits to it and maybe it can be used to help some cancer but until it is properly researched and tested scientifically, and become a recognised positive treatment - You can f**k off. I don't think Dave at any point has said that you should ignore your doctor and ignore traditional medicine and just smoke pot instead. Has anyone heard of the Texas Sharpshooter Logical Fallacy? Seems appropriate here... Guy who fires 6 shots into the side of a barn then draw the target on afterwards? I get what you're saying but it still takes some skill to group together 6 shots... and paint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Guy who fires 6 shots into the side of a barn then draw the target on afterwards? I get what you're saying but it still takes some skill to group together 6 shots... and paint. Surely you can do it at close range with aids to get excellent grouping. If no one's watching it's easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Why would the shooter have aids? Besides, you still need the skill to know how to maintain and fire a gun. ...and paint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharn Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) But people were much more likely to die of things like TB or influenza or measles and as such never got chance to develop cancer in later life. All those things seem trivial in the modern world, and I would personally like to thank alcohol for curing them. People don't die of olden times deseases much anymore, most people drink alcohol, coincidence? I think not. Oh brother, I only mentioned this thought to raise the question.. 'why the increase in cancer?' Nothing at all about what is or isn't the remedy. And i'm still wondering why this might be.. Or maybe it's not the case and as you said these people just didnt get chance? Don't get me angry Funnel or i'll pin you down and force feed you hash brownies when i see you next! If you want to treat a skin infection go see a doctor, get some antibiotics and take them for the FULL course. I don't think anyone doubts there may well be uses for cannabinoids in doses over what the body itself produces. It's stuff like the inference that cancer is a modern thing so must be related to societal changes, or the nonsense conspiracy stuff that's really quite annoying. Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, however it's largely demonstrably false. For example the whole cancer being a modern illness stuff. There have been remains found predating modern society that show tumors in the bones from metastatic cancer. On top of what Jolfa said about increased life expectancy, increased screening and diagnosis is inflating those incidence numbers. If we lived long enough we'd all get cancer in the end, it's simply the consequence of disorder from increasing entropy. I have to say, i think i did miss a few antibiotics during the course, but i managed to get the majority of them in. I think they did help alot too, but the Fucibet cream ( as reccomended by the second doctor) seemed to be the champ to be honest! But what i was really trying to get at with my last post is that we have many more cases of cancer in small children and younger generations these days? I genuinely don't know the facts regarding this but i just presumed that an increase in cell mutation would surely come from 'external' factors? Thus; Enviroment? Do we have 'mutate' written in our natural genetic code? That seems abit of daft thing for us to do.. In terms of survival? Arent TB/ Measels etc all external bacteria type things that infect us and attack our cells. Cancer is the cell itself mutating? Nothing additional like with an infection. Bullshit. Sure GKS aren't going to start selling spliffs to the NHS but I'll bet you they've already spent millions investigating the potential uses of the active ingredients in canabis/canabinoids or whatever it is for a whole range of conditions. The drug being illegal certainly won't stop companies from investigating the uses of herbal extracts. I agree, of course they won't. And i agree; the fact the substance is banned for public sale would never stop research being done, but it would stop it being sold to anyone even if it were found to be of any good use. Anyway, good morning everyone! Im listening to hurgy gurdy man. I think this song is helping too.. Edited February 14, 2013 by sharn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 I agree, of course they won't. And i agree; the fact the substance is banned for public sale would never stop research being done, but it would stop it being sold to anyone even if it were found to be of any good use. But it would never be a direct alternative. If a cancer curing drug (or even a common cold curing drug) came out with an active ingredient contained in canabis they wouldn't refuse to sell it on the grounds that canabis is illegal and reasonably widely used. If the drug made you stoned then sure the medical bodies would have questions but if it were just an ingredient it wouldn't effect the chance of it making it to market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe O'Connor Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Some scientists removed the THC from it and only kept the healthy properties of cannabis is a pill form. I approve of that because you don't get the crap parts of it. But you cant get high off it which means it will never catch on. When ever you see videos or documentaries about people using prescription cannabis they are always way to excited about using it than they should be for taking medicine. The main reason they like it is because they can get away with getting high. If they took the good parts out of it and got rid of the getting stoned part then it would be mint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Joe what's wrong with getting hig... oh wait you don't believe in evolution so any discussion with you is pointless. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Pahahaha, not believing in evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolfa Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 But what i was really trying to get at with my last post is that we have many more cases of cancer in small children and younger generations these days? Arent TB/ Measels etc all external bacteria type things that infect us and attack our cells. Cancer is the cell itself mutating? Nothing additional like with an infection. But same principle, few babies die from (what now seems like) trivial stuff, they may have had cancer too in the olden days, who knows, but that's not what killed them, and therefore lower statistics. A sword to the head is an external factor but people don't die from that these days, doesn't mean the people who died in battle didn't have cancer, same principle as above. Fewer people died of cancer because more of the potential cancer victims died of something else instead, regardless of age! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casualjoe Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Every cell in our body replicates every seven or so years and every time they do, mutations happens to the dna in that cell, (dna is literally pulled in half during cell division,) during the next replication, the mutations are copied with even more 'fresh' mutations on top of that, most of the time the mutations are harmless but you can see easily how death is exponential and why we don't see 'freaks' living to 200+. External factors also play a huge part in this too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 Fewer people died of cancer because more of the potential cancer victims died of something else instead, regardless of age! It also would have gone undiagnosed in the majority of cases. What we now know as cancer will have been put down to simple old age, gods will or witch craft in days gone by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinJI Posted February 14, 2013 Report Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) ....I agree, of course they won't. And i agree; the fact the substance is banned for public sale would never stop research being done, but it would stop it being sold to anyone even if it were found to be of any good use...... Pretty sure heroin's illegal, and yet you'll find plenty of opiate based drugs in hospitals, in fact you'll even find them in a lot of ambulances and chemists, they're really quite common. Being related to an illegal drug doesn't stop a substance being used for genuine medical reasons, it just makes you need a prescription to buy it. That's basically the whole idea of a prescription, it's saying you can buy shit it'd normally be illegal to. .....Im simply saying theres a much higher chance of full recovery using cannabis over things like chemo and prescription drugs...... I don't think Dave at any point has said that you should ignore your doctor and ignore traditional medicine and just smoke pot instead. He did. As others have said, I've got no problem with the idea of cannabis extracts being used medically, I've got a problem with people spouting medical advice that goes against commonly excepted treatments, after assuming their few minutes research on the internet trumps thousands of people with medical degrees and many years experience. I'm all for trying it alongside conventional treatment, but instead of it, hell no. Edited February 14, 2013 by RobinJI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omgnoseat Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 One day one theory is advertised as "proven" and the next day they find out that it was completely wrong, and come up with a new theory, which in turn will also get's disproved. I learned to not believe any "scientific research has proven that..." stuff anymore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revolver Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 For the most part, that doesn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinJI Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 One day one theory is advertised as "proven" and the next day they find out that it was completely wrong, and come up with a new theory, which in turn will also get's disproved. I learned to not believe any "scientific research has proven that..." stuff anymore So you don't believe in gravity? inertia? relativity? electricity? aerodynamics? thermodynamics? I'm pretty sure anyone who's been on a plane will be fairly convinced that those things work, and aren't about to be disproved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 I agree to a point with what he's saying though... Chocolate gives you cancer. Chocolate is good for you. One chunk of chocolate is good for you. Chocolate is bad for you. Dark chocolate is good for you. Make up your f**king minds. In reality, they have absolutely no idea whether it's good for you or not, they're guessing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeroMatt Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 Chocolate gives you cancer. Chocolate is good for you. One chunk of chocolate is good for you. Chocolate is bad for you. Dark chocolate is good for you. Stuff like that is generally news outlets getting hold of an unpublished paper and then sensationalising the findings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 (edited) I agree to a point with what he's saying though... Chocolate gives you cancer. Chocolate is good for you. One chunk of chocolate is good for you. Chocolate is bad for you. Dark chocolate is good for you. Make up your f**king minds. In reality, they have absolutely no idea whether it's good for you or not, they're guessing.That's completely different, you can't disprove gravity or aerodynamics, but the effect of chocolate depends on a massive number of other factors. All they can ever say about chocolate is "In these circumstances, this is proven. In other circumstances, this is unproven."It's definitely not, in any way, guesswork though. They guess at a hypothesis, then prove or disprove it, so it's pretty much the opposite of guessing. (I'm talking about actual scientific experiments, not made up pharmaceutical trials and stuff). Edited February 15, 2013 by Muel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 I wasn't referring to gravity or aerodynamics. But yeah it's mainly media hype, like the Daily Mail claiming that bras give you breast cancer. Anyway, back to discussing cannibal asteroids please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muel Posted February 15, 2013 Report Share Posted February 15, 2013 I skim read, looks like I read the posts in the wrong order, sorry dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.