Jump to content



                        Please Visit Our Paid Sponsors



Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

If Pot Prevented Cancer You Would Know About It Right?


7 replies to this topic

#1 Itinkso

Itinkso

    hemp healer ( and one crazy lady)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23138 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:36 AM

Two just-published studies assessing adults' risk of cancer have reported wildly divergent, and fairly extraordinary, outcomes. One study you may have read about. The other has been ignored entirely by the mainstream media. But no doubt the results of both will surprise you. First, the study you may have heard of. Writing August 3 in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, investigators at McGill University in Montreal reported that moderate alcohol consumption -- defined as six drinks or fewer per week -- by adults is positively associated with an elevated risk of various cancers, including stomach cancer, rectal cancer, and bladder cancer. And now for the study you haven't heard of. Writing in the August issue of the journal Cancer Prevention Research, investigators from Rhode Island's Brown University, along with researchers at Boston University, Louisiana State University, and the University of Minnesota reported that lifetime marijuana use is associated with a "significantly reduced risk" of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Authors reported, "after adjusting for potential confounders (including smoking and alcohol drinking), 10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNDCC)." Perhaps even more notably, subjects who smoked marijuana and consumed alcohol and tobacco (two known high risk factors for head and neck cancers) also experienced a reduced risk of cancer, the study found. "Our study suggests that moderate marijuana use is associated with reduced risk of HNSCC," investigators concluded. "This association was consistent across different measures of marijuana use (marijuana use status, duration, and frequency of use)....Further, we observed that marijuana use modified the interaction between alcohol and cigarette smoking, resulting in a decreased HNSCC risk among moderate smokers and light drinkers, and attenuated risk among the heaviest smokers and drinkers." This isn't the first time that U.S. investigators have documented an inverse association between pot use and cancer. A separate 2006 population case-control study, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles, also reported that lifetime use of cannabis was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or aerodigestive tract, and further noted that certain moderate users of the drug experienced a reduced cancer risk compared to non-using controls. Predictably, the federal government's goal when green-lighting the UCLA study was to conclusively establish just the opposite result, as explained recently by its lead researcher Dr. Donald Tashkin. In an interview with the McClatchy newspaper chain in June, Dr. Tashkin admitted that he expected his study would find that pot was associated with "increased health effects." Instead, he summarized, "What we found instead was no association (between marijuana smoking and cancer) and even a suggestion of some protective effect." Tashkin added, "[A]t this point, I'd be in favor of (marijuana) legalization. I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm (than marijuana)." Despite these findings, which to date inexplicably remain under-reported by the mainstream press, many so-called experts persist with claims that marijuana smoking is causally linked to cancer. In fact, in June the California Environmental Protection Agency with great fanfare added marijuana smoke to its list of chemicals that possess potential carcinogenic properties and/or are associated with reproductive toxicity. You know what other commonly indulged in substance also appears on this list? That would be alcohol. Of course that conclusion, much like the reports of marijuana's anti-cancer prowess, apparently went up in smoke. Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and is the co-author of the new book Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? (Chelsea Green Publishing). http://www.huffingto...y_b_261157.html
  • jangel, Charlie Foxtrot, Lucky_Cat and 4 others like this


                        Please Visit Our Paid Sponsors



#2 jangel

jangel

    Bridge Builder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22352 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:47 AM

Jonnyappleweed420 has been asking people for years that smoke cannabis how their health is. I am talking long term smokers. I will find the post and leave a link. I truely feel it does prevent many illnesses. Good post tink. Peace
  • Lucky_Cat, Lydia, Itinkso and 1 other like this

#3 jangel

jangel

    Bridge Builder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22352 posts

Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:55 AM

Here is one link I found

Attention smokers & tokers
  • Lucky_Cat, Lydia, Itinkso and 1 other like this

#4 MCOne

MCOne

    Only Organics

  • Seasoned Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 824 posts
  • LocationGouranga

Posted 02 December 2010 - 01:47 PM

Some of the best info on this and the controversy around it curing and preventing the spread of cancer I have found is 'Rick Simpson's run for the cure' - You can find the video on youtube usually. I have a friend with cancer whose doctor told him straight out "i cant get it for you, but marijuana can help cure you" I also read a study where long term alcoholics and cigarette smokers who also smoked cannabis has less occurrence of cancer. I cannot find the study right at the moment.

Edited by MCOne, 02 December 2010 - 01:47 PM.

  • jangel, Lucky_Cat, Lydia and 1 other like this

#5 Lucky_Cat

Lucky_Cat

    Master Gardener

  • Seasoned Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9678 posts
  • Locationllanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwyll-llantysiliogogogoch

Posted 03 December 2010 - 04:29 AM

Its all about control imho, those peeps researching a cure for cancers etc... they aint interested in the good it can do, they want to make something they can control, yesterday I laid my hands on some hydrogen peroxide 9% when i got it home looked up the other ingredients.. phosphoric acid.. tis okay... but they also use phenacetin which is banned in many countries because it is a known carcinogen and there it was in me hydrogen peroxide which is described as a mouth wash.. why they putting it in there, when they know what it can do?, answers so far I have found is that it is in such a low dose etc it is considered harmless, the uk has the highest lung cancer death rate in europe. Cancer research always puts people on a guilt trip and many people donate when they hear of see that tin shake by a very well intentioned volunteer.. but the peeps doing the research are not in it for us, they couldnt give a flying feck about us, they only want to control the cure.... makes me want to riot... nice find tink.
  • jangel, Lydia and Itinkso like this

#6 Itinkso

Itinkso

    hemp healer ( and one crazy lady)

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23138 posts

Posted 03 December 2010 - 04:36 AM

Its all about control imho, those peeps researching a cure for cancers etc... they aint interested in the good it can do, they want to make something they can control, yesterday I laid my hands on some hydrogen peroxide 9% when i got it home looked up the other ingredients.. phosphoric acid.. tis okay... but they also use phenacetin which is banned in many countries because it is a known carcinogen and there it was in me hydrogen peroxide which is described as a mouth wash.. why they putting it in there, when they know what it can do?, answers so far I have found is that it is in such a low dose etc it is considered harmless, the uk has the highest lung cancer death rate in europe.

Cancer research always puts people on a guilt trip and many people donate when they hear of see that tin shake by a very well intentioned volunteer.. but the peeps doing the research are not in it for us, they couldnt give a flying feck about us, they only want to control the cure.... makes me want to riot... nice find tink.

thats a point LC...i don't give to cancer charities anymore cos i don't want to help fund poisons......if someone was researching cannabinoids i'd dig deep to help....but chemo sticks in my craw so much i just can;t go there!
  • jangel, Lucky_Cat and Lydia like this

#7 Lucky_Cat

Lucky_Cat

    Master Gardener

  • Seasoned Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9678 posts
  • Locationllanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwyll-llantysiliogogogoch

Posted 03 December 2010 - 05:03 AM

thing is for me tink that it is supposed to be for the benefit of humankind, but it wont be, it will be for the privileged few with the most money, control, tis what its about, they can't control a person who grows their own, there is nothing in it for them if we can all grow our own medicine.. very cheeky, hopefully one day the people will catch themselves on and stop this nonesense.. cures should not cost a penny, it should be a duty of those who discover any cure to make available and not think about profit.. that is just sick.
  • jangel, Lydia and Itinkso like this

#8 KnuckleDragger

KnuckleDragger

    Destroyer of Worlds

  • Super Administrators
  • 21516 posts
  • LocationTexas, The one and only

Posted 03 December 2010 - 11:27 AM

I AM paranoid and the government IS out to get me. :D
  • jangel, Lydia and Itinkso like this



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users