100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Cannabis kills cancer | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Show just one inconsistency. If you can't, then I'll have to assume you're lying to save face... You smoke enough,you might contract Lungcancer,since Weed has several times the Tar Tobacco has! "Weed" has been proven to reduce the risk of cancer for those who smoke tobacco and has no higher risk of causing cancer than not smoking anything. "Weed" has been known to kill cancer since at least 1974 and has also been known to reduce the risk of lung cancer for smokers since the 80's. Moreover, evidence showed that smoking of cannabis preparations caused cancer of the respiratory and oral tracts or, at least, potentiated tobacco smoke-induced damages.
This is from the links you posted. Your statements are inconsistent with the links you are posting. NEXT> LOL! I suppose you don't know the difference between respiratory and oral tracts and lungs... http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer?page=2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9328194 Keep trying... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/08/12 09:13 AM
|
|
I quoted what you posted, nothing more. Take it up with the journals referees or the articles authors.
What this does prove is that you do not read the actual papers you are posting. Not to mention when you have one study that shows no effect, and another that shows damage in conjunction with regular smoking is increased . . . that does not create a situation where one or the other study should be accepted uncritically. This is where a larger RCT should be conducted. Your uncritical, or even complete lack of examination shows that your only purpose is to support your own pot smoking habits and not to actually understand the science involved. I love this stuff peter, keep it up, you are a great example of how a lack of scientific understanding leads to misguided, premature, and potentially risky beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I quoted what you posted, nothing more. Take it up with the journals referees or the articles authors. What this does prove is that you do not read the actual papers you are posting. Not to mention when you have one study that shows no effect, and another that shows damage in conjunction with regular smoking is increased . . . that does not create a situation where one or the other study should be accepted uncritically. This is where a larger RCT should be conducted. Just admit you mistakenly confused respiratory and oral tracts with lungs. If it wasn't a mistake, it was a lie... Also, you can admit that your quoted sentence was inconclusive. Pay attention to the words "or, at least,...". You should give up before you embarrass yourself (more). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/08/12 09:22 AM
|
|
I quoted what you posted, nothing more. Take it up with the journals referees or the articles authors. What this does prove is that you do not read the actual papers you are posting. Not to mention when you have one study that shows no effect, and another that shows damage in conjunction with regular smoking is increased . . . that does not create a situation where one or the other study should be accepted uncritically. This is where a larger RCT should be conducted. Just admit you mistakenly confused respiratory and oral tracts with lungs. If it wasn't a mistake, it was a lie... Also, you can admit that your quoted sentence was inconclusive. Pay attention to the words "or, at least,...". You should give up before you embarrass yourself (more). I am curious what you think this paragraph means. The author highlighted the need of a case–control cohort larger than those previously examined, excluding concomitant risk factors as alcohol use or tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the cannabis smoking and the medical use of cannabinoids have been largely mistaken in public debate: the recreational long-term cannabis smoking, potentially but to date ambiguously connected with respiratory and oral cancer, is not univocally associated with pharmaceutical cannabinoids exploitable for medical purposes.
"or, at least,...". You think this means inconclusive?
Because you seemed so sure when I quoted you saying Marijuana protects against cancer, or is it now inconclusive? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I quoted what you posted, nothing more. Take it up with the journals referees or the articles authors. What this does prove is that you do not read the actual papers you are posting. Not to mention when you have one study that shows no effect, and another that shows damage in conjunction with regular smoking is increased . . . that does not create a situation where one or the other study should be accepted uncritically. This is where a larger RCT should be conducted. Your uncritical, or even complete lack of examination shows that your only purpose is to support your own pot smoking habits and not to actually understand the science involved. I love this stuff peter, keep it up, you are a great example of how a lack of scientific understanding leads to misguided, premature, and potentially risky beliefs. LOL! (again) I love the fact that your thoughts are unclear to even yourself. So much so that you've actually edited 3 or 4 times since I started this response. I suppose you'll also claim that I take antineoplastons, sodium bicarbonate, hemp oil, the Gerson Therapy and use Rife generators too? I make no claims except what has been published. I support ALL avenues that show promise as opposed to the standard cut, irradiate and poisoning methods that are the only "approved" treatments for cancer. You can claim that people "don't understand" all you want, it still doesn't make it a true statement. Now I'm sure you lied... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I quoted what you posted, nothing more. Take it up with the journals referees or the articles authors. What this does prove is that you do not read the actual papers you are posting. Not to mention when you have one study that shows no effect, and another that shows damage in conjunction with regular smoking is increased . . . that does not create a situation where one or the other study should be accepted uncritically. This is where a larger RCT should be conducted. Just admit you mistakenly confused respiratory and oral tracts with lungs. If it wasn't a mistake, it was a lie... Also, you can admit that your quoted sentence was inconclusive. Pay attention to the words "or, at least,...". You should give up before you embarrass yourself (more). I am curious what you think this paragraph means. The author highlighted the need of a case–control cohort larger than those previously examined, excluding concomitant risk factors as alcohol use or tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the cannabis smoking and the medical use of cannabinoids have been largely mistaken in public debate: the recreational long-term cannabis smoking, potentially but to date ambiguously connected with respiratory and oral cancer, is not univocally associated with pharmaceutical cannabinoids exploitable for medical purposes.
"or, at least,...". You think this means inconclusive?
Because you seemed so sure when I quoted you saying Marijuana protects against cancer, or is it now inconclusive? As much as I am qualified for the job, I am NOT your tutor... At some point, you will have to learn to stand on your own two feet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same old peter, when asked a serious question bat it aside with personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same old peter, when asked a serious question bat it aside with personal attacks. When losing a debate, scream "personal attack". You should carefully examine your words before you make that type of claim about others. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/08/12 11:59 AM
|
|
Same old peter, when asked a serious question bat it aside with personal attacks. When losing a debate, scream "personal attack". You should carefully examine your words before you make that type of claim about others. I mean all one must do is say that this is interesting, but too early to have clear efficacy for any given treatments. Early research is fun, but not something someone should make life decisions based on. See peter I am trying to add to the dialectic, something which I criticize you for failing to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same old peter, when asked a serious question bat it aside with personal attacks. When losing a debate, scream "personal attack". You should carefully examine your words before you make that type of claim about others. Are you mistaken or lying here? (from 5 posts earlier written by myself) "I make no claims except what has been published. I support ALL avenues that show promise as opposed to the standard cut, irradiate and poisoning methods that are the only "approved" treatments for cancer." I mean all one must do is say that this is interesting, but too early to have clear efficacy for any given treatments. Early research is fun, but not something someone should make life decisions based on. Early research? What timeframe do you think nearly 40 years is? What timeframe do you think thousands of years is? I suppose you'll deny that cannabis was used and marketed in the early 1900's as medicine too. See peter I am trying to add to the dialectic, something which I criticize you for failing to do.
I'm calling BS on this statement. I think you came into this thread trolling when the other cancer thread didn't generate the response you desired. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/326844 Your continual denial of these facts would amuse me greatly, keep it up please. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hes saying thousands of years of chinese medicine and shamans are wrong and 50 years of the fda are right
a couple years ago they said they found out what part in chicken soup made you get better it was the red stuff on top when you opened the can now its gone
cannabis is good for many things thats why its illegal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hes saying thousands of years of chinese medicine and shamans are wrong and 50 years of the fda are right
a couple years ago they said they found out what part in chicken soup made you get better it was the red stuff on top when you opened the can now its gone
cannabis is good for many things thats why its illegal I found this article the other day... http://www.moleculewear.com/420-jesus-heals.php? and this one at the same site... http://www.moleculewear.com/420-10-studies.php? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While you too are arguing, I am busy curing cancer. Slackers.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While you too are arguing, I am busy curing cancer. Slackers.....
LOL, I never know if you're being serious or silly. You do realise that smoking cannabis eliminates 90% of the healing properties of the cannabinoids as well as changing the chemical makeup of the THC? Seriously though, do you believe the current and past data of the healing properties of cannabis? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While you too are arguing, I am busy curing cancer. Slackers.....
You do realise that smoking cannabis eliminates 90% of the healing properties of the cannabinoids as well as changing the chemical makeup of the THC? Seriously though, do you believe the current and past data of the healing properties of cannabis? I'm cool with all that. I prefer to smoke it. It helps with sinus headaches and joint pain. Plus you get high and chit......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While you too are arguing, I am busy curing cancer. Slackers.....
You do realise that smoking cannabis eliminates 90% of the healing properties of the cannabinoids as well as changing the chemical makeup of the THC? Seriously though, do you believe the current and past data of the healing properties of cannabis? I'm cool with all that. I prefer to smoke it. It helps with sinus headaches and joint pain. Plus you get high and chit......
lol @ "joint" pain...
If you stop putting fire to the joints, they may not hurt so much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 06/11/12 08:25 AM
|
|
Early research? What timeframe do you think nearly 40 years is? What timeframe do you think thousands of years is?
Sadly the stigma associated with smoking pot has caused a backlash which has retarded the scientific growth of understanding regarding these compounds. Couple that with the illegal nature, and difficult red tape researchers have place in front of them to work legally with the substance, and you can see how we are early in our understandings of canabinoids in general and specifically as treatments for various diseases.
I suppose you'll deny that cannabis was used and marketed in the early 1900's as medicine too. Until Large RCT's are conducted, with double blinding, and good controls in place we will not know how effective a treatment the various hypothesis will be. This is true of all science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All i can say is at least with natural cannibas as medicinal use at least you dont belled from your buthole, eye, get huge sore, have immediate heart attacks, have suicidal tendencies they must already be present for this to happen if you do you are probably too lazy to do it anyways, your hair doesnt fall out, you dont go blind because of it, it makes good strong clothing, its actually great for many things and its natural.
|
|
|
|
|
