Cannabis Oil

VeevaVee

The worst "V"
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
46,285
Wondering what people's thoughts on it are for medical purposes?

It seems like it's pretty successful for a number of things.

A friend of mine is good friends with someone who had cancer (unsure of specifics), and was given 4-6 months to live. Immediately started taking cannabis oil after diagnosis, and 3 years on he's still alive. Obviously sometimes this just happens, but I've seen plenty of similar stories around, unsure of how much weight they hold until I heard a first hand experience.

And then there's this:
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6yp82o/boy_who_suffered_up_to_100_seizures_a_day_has/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-prescription-medical-marijuana-a7933066.html

So it certainly seems to have its uses.

As a secondary thought, it seems quite disgusting that they haven't researched it more considering the amount of success stories we're seeing now. Someone mentions on Reddit that doctors knew about it's ability to alleviate epilepsy in the 20s.
Do we think this will eventually be taken up by the NHS on a bigger scale?
 
If it helps people with various types of pain, is safe to consume and preferable to pharmaceutical drugs then I'm all for it.

BigPharma is going to fight it tooth and nail but I hope in the next decade we can at least see the legalisation of certain marijuana products for medical purposes in the UK.

It would be even better if we could legalise marijuana, tax it and use the money to invest in infrastructure in the UK, especially as a means to offset some of the negative effects of Brexit. I'm not saying it would solve those negative effects but it would create an industry and jobs at least.
 
horsechoker said:
If it helps people with various types of pain, is safe to consume and preferable to pharmaceutical drugs then I'm all for it.

BigPharma is going to fight it tooth and nail but I hope in the next decade we can at least see the legalisation of certain marijuana products for medical purposes in the UK.

It would be even better if we could legalise marijuana, tax it and use the money to invest in infrastructure in the UK, especially as a means to offset some of the negative effects of Brexit. I'm not saying it would solve those negative effects but it would create an industry and jobs at least.
Click to expand...

I could be wrong here, but I don't think the oil is for the pain. I think it's actually curing people. Smoking cannabis helps people with pain, but it's a different kettle of fish.

As a side note, I was with some people from California last week who found it weird to hear weed called 'drugs', as their older family members use it for pain relief. But yeah, I think these are two different issues.
 
I have friends who are really into purporting the medicinal properties of cannabis after their family member got cancer. I don't know the ins and outs but though he died recently I understand he benefited hugely from pain relief and prolonged life after a very short initial prognosis. EDIT: as you say @VeevaVee the oil was specifically used to shrink the tumour and I believe he had some success through this approach.

While I understand genuinely well-meaning people not wanting to unleash powerful chemicals on kids and vulnerable adults through a fully legalised drugs market I'm sure there's a way of looking into the positive effects of various substances and rolling back parts of the penal code accordingly. It's also utterly ridiculous that tobacco and booze have been allowed to run riot all this time (lining various pockets along the way) while naturally occurring stuff like weed and mushrooms have been prohibited, smeared and wilfully misunderstood.
 


Criminalisation started entirely to improve the career of Harry J. Anslinger, who used overt racism against Mexicans in his campaign against cannabis. Nixon was also horrifically racist too in his war on drugs. He painted African Americans as crack addicts, calling them niggers in private, and Latinos as lazy potheads. But unfortunately their racist propaganda was strong enough that people still believe the utter horse shit dead racist cnuts spread.
 
Silva said:


Criminalisation started entirely to improve the career of Harry J. Anslinger, who used overt racism against Mexicans in his campaign against cannabis. Nixon was also horrifically racist too in his war on drugs. He painted African Americans as crack addicts, calling them niggers in private, and Latinos as lazy potheads. But unfortunately their racist propaganda was strong enough that people still believe the utter horse shit dead racist cnuts spread.
Click to expand...


I've read about Nixon's involvement with vilifying cannabis. Not smoking it is one thing, but that it went so far as to not using/researching it's oil for medical purposes until now is disturbing.
 
Silva said:


Criminalisation started entirely to improve the career of Harry J. Anslinger, who used overt racism against Mexicans in his campaign against cannabis. Nixon was also horrifically racist too in his war on drugs. He painted African Americans as crack addicts, calling them niggers in private, and Latinos as lazy potheads. But unfortunately their racist propaganda was strong enough that people still believe the utter horse shit dead racist cnuts spread.
Click to expand...


I haven't heard of him, I know William Randolph Hearst was instrumental in banning hemp production for his own commercial self interest.

I'm not even a huge user myself and I doubt I'd be even if all drugs were 100% legal, but the wilful smears and propagandising against substances that could be potentially useful and beneficial is all kinds of fecked up.
 
Some of my friends have told me that taking a minimal amount of CBD oil has made them stop taking tobacco. I searched it up on Google and there has been tests and research that have shown its benefits to people in that department too.
 
horsechoker said:
If it helps people with various types of pain, is safe to consume and preferable to pharmaceutical drugs then I'm all for it.

BigPharma is going to fight it tooth and nail but I hope in the next decade we can at least see the legalisation of certain marijuana products for medical purposes in the UK.

It would be even better if we could legalise marijuana, tax it and use the money to invest in infrastructure in the UK, especially as a means to offset some of the negative effects of Brexit. I'm not saying it would solve those negative effects but it would create an industry and jobs at least.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

It's going to be intriguing to see how trials will be implemented, and if they are, will any of the anecdotal reports hold up. I suspect the easiest path will be for specific molecules, and derivatives, be identified and put into trials. Actually I think that has already happened.
 
I have a couple of friends who've used it after a cancer diagnosis. One who had a 3/6 month prognosis, who survived for another three years, and was able to carry on her normal life for most of that time. Another who has been living that kind of 3/6 months prognosis for the past 5 years.

Certainly it feels as though there's enough anecdotal evidence to make a proper study worthwhile. I guess one (ethical) dilemma for the doctors is that some of the proponents believe that it's most effective when it's not used in conjunction with chemotherapy.
 
senorgregster said:
Nonsense.

It's going to be intriguing to see how trials will be implemented, and if they are, will any of the anecdotal reports hold up. I suspect the easiest path will be for specific molecules, and derivatives, be identified and put into trials. Actually I think that has already happened.
Click to expand...

It most certainly has. Drugs that interact with cannabinoid receptors have been the focus of a huge amount of research. With mixed results.

Receptor specific targetting aside, you can already prescribe a drug which has - to all intents and purposes - exactly the same ingredients as cannabis oil. Something conveniently overlooked by the "big pharma won't allow cannabis to be used as a medicine" stoner conspiracy theorists.
 
jojojo said:
I have a couple of friends who've used it after a cancer diagnosis. One who had a 3/6 month prognosis, who survived for another three years, and was able to carry on her normal life for most of that time. Another who has been living that kind of 3/6 months prognosis for the past 5 years.

Certainly it feels as though there's enough anecdotal evidence to make a proper study worthwhile. I guess one (ethical) dilemma for the doctors is that some of the proponents believe that it's most effective when it's not used in conjunction with chemotherapy.
Click to expand...

Which is a disgrace. Advocating unproven therapies for people running out of options, or in addition to conventional medicine, is fine. But telling them they should take them instead of treatments proven to be effective is about as morally bankrupt as you can get. Fecking shysters.
 
VeevaVee said:
I could be wrong here, but I don't think the oil is for the pain. I think it's actually curing people. Smoking cannabis helps people with pain, but it's a different kettle of fish.

As a side note, I was with some people from California last week who found it weird to hear weed called 'drugs', as their older family members use it for pain relief. But yeah, I think these are two different issues.
Click to expand...
Oil, spray, baked etc. From my research everything seems to have some effect on some sort of pains.
Unlucky for me I can't test it...yet.
 
Ødegaard said:
Thanks for the article. :)
Click to expand...

No worries. It is a bit dismissive but the guy who writes it is a cancer researcher so will feel very strongly about people being deceived into using cannabis instead of proven treatments. As I said above, that's despicable.

For more minor conditions I can't see the harm in individuals experimenting with various edible forms, if they've run out of conventional options. I know you have issues with chronic pain. It's worth trying a CBD based treatment. If may help and has less side effects than THC (won't make you stoned) You can buy CBD chocolate online.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
No worries. It is a bit dismissive but the guy who writes it is a cancer researcher so will feel very strongly about people being deceived into using cannabis instead of proven treatments. As I said above, that's despicable. For more minor conditions I can't see the harm in individuals experimenting with various edible forms. I know you have issues with chronic pain. It's worth trying a CBD based treatment. If may help and has less side effects than THC (won't make you stoned) You can buy CBD chocolate online.
Click to expand...
I really want to try it out, but can't until the doctors get a go-ahead from the government (last time I checked there was 1 case in Norway where it was allowed) to get it into the country and test with me. It affects uptake on immune-supressives and can cause higher heart-rhythm which for me are outright deadly & inviting pains. But all talk about it having great pain-relief for people with chronic pains and fentanyl not making me completely painfree earlier this year makes me really want to try it out.
 
Ive lived in Amsterdam and met lots of people with various diseases that travelled there purely to take advantage of the coffee shops. One particular guy I met on several occasions was suffering from MS, pretty severe. His only relief was from cannibis. This was the early 2000s though so Ive no idea if its still the case that people still have to do that.

Personally I think there should be a major shift in political thinking when it comes to a whole host of drugs, not just cannibis. Cocaine and heroin both have medical uses. It would be interesting to see what would happen to organised crime if drug trade between western nations and some of the drug producing nations started happening on a legal level. Probably too far fetched to think that could ever happen though.
 
Green_Red said:
Ive lived in Amsterdam and met lots of people with various diseases that travelled there purely to take advantage of the coffee shops. One particular guy I met on several occasions was suffering from MS, pretty severe. His only relief was from cannibis. This was the early 2000s though so Ive no idea if its still the case that people still have to do that.

Personally I think there should be a major shift in political thinking when it comes to a whole host of drugs, not just cannibis. Cocaine and heroin both have medical uses. It would be interesting to see what would happen to organised crime if drug trade between western nations and some of the drug producing nations started happening on a legal level. Probably too far fetched to think that could ever happen though.
Click to expand...

Cocaine is cardiotoxic so has no good medical use but variants of it are used as local anaesthetc and to treat cardiac arrhythmias. If you ever get a heart attack you'll get a hefty dose of heroin (aka diamorphine)

Legalisation of recreational drugs is a different debate but when it comes to medical use of illegal drugs they've almost all been extensively studied (and/or widely used) already.
 
Seems like we will have to wait and see on the benifits of green. Can't help but feel that many see the way to full legalisation through medicinal legalisation which might explain the miracle cure push it seems to be getting.
 
Then again, "big pharma" with their resources and industry would be in a prime position to profit from stuff like this more than anyone else.

As for all the "given 6 months to live" stories, I keep hearing them all the time in a variety of contexts, and, excuse my scepticism, I think most of them are either huge misunderstandings from patients or their relatives of the information they are given, or, at worst, pure confabulation.

It's not standard medical practice to "give" someone "x" months to live. I've never seen it, and I've been in countless cancer consultations with several different oncologists/surgeons/etc. The main reason probably being that for the vast majority of cases, it's extremely unpredictable. There are median survivals, 5-year survival rates, etc, but these imply an extremely wide range, and their utility is mostly related to clinical research, as they allow comparison between different treatment strategies. On an individual scenario they provide no useful information. Most patients, not being statistically minded, don't even understand what a median is so it's pointless and probably counteractive to give them this information.

Even less sense it makes if it's an initial diagnosis and that person hasn't even been subjected to treatment. Some stage IV cancers can respond very well to therapy and the patient may easily survive years. Or they can not respond at all and the person dies in a few weeks. Each individual cancer is a unique entity (in fact, several unique entities as the cancer itself mutates and becomes polyclonal) with a very wide range of possible biologic behaviour.

Exceptions would be extremely advanced disease. My mother's boyfriend died of cancer last Christmas 6 weeks after diagnosis. His initial symptom was breathlessness due to cardiac tamponade from pericardial metastasis. He went from healthy-appearing to critically ill in two weeks, as the diagnosis work-up was being done. That was straightforward, and so I told my mother to expect the worst in a few weeks as he wasn't even healthy enough to go through chemotherapy. But if someone is healthy enough that you think they may live 6 months, most of the times this means you, as a doctor, really have no idea of how long the patient will last.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Cocaine is cardiotoxic so has no good medical use but variants of it are used as local anaesthetc and to treat cardiac arrhythmias. If you ever get a heart attack you'll get a hefty dose of heroin (aka diamorphine)

Legalisation of recreational drugs is a different debate but when it comes to medical use of illegal drugs they've almost all been extensively studied (and/or widely used) already.
Click to expand...
No definitely not advocating recreational use of cocaine or heroin but there are properties in some illegal drugs that could be useful in treating all sorts of diseases etc. I saw something recently that called for more study into the use of LSD (in small doses) for the treatment of some mental health issues. Aparently the affects on the brains nuero connectors can have positive affects on depression.
 
Arruda said:
Then again, "big pharma" with their resources and industry would be in a prime position to profit from stuff like this more than anyone else.

As for all the "given 6 months to live" stories, I keep hearing them all the time in a variety of contexts, and, excuse my scepticism, I think most of them are either huge misunderstandings from patients or their relatives of the information they are given, or, at worst, pure confabulation.

It's not standard medical practice to "give" someone "x" months to live. I've never seen it, and I've been in countless cancer consultations with several different oncologists/surgeons/etc. The main reason probably being that for the vast majority of cases, it's extremely unpredictable. There are median survivals, 5-year survival rates, etc, but these imply an extremely wide range, and their utility is mostly related to clinical research, as they allow comparison between different treatment strategies. On an individual scenario they provide no useful information. Most patients, not being statistically minded, don't even understand what a median is so it's pointless and probably counteractive to give them this information.

Even less sense it makes if it's an initial diagnosis and that person hasn't even been subjected to treatment. Some stage IV cancers can respond very well to therapy and the patient may easily survive years. Or they can not respond at all and the person dies in a few weeks. Each individual cancer is a unique entity (in fact, several unique entities as the cancer itself mutates and becomes polyclonal) with a very wide range of possible biologic behaviour.

Exceptions would be extremely advanced disease. My mother's boyfriend died of cancer last Christmas 6 weeks after diagnosis. His initial symptom was breathlessness due to cardiac tamponade from pericardial metastasis. He went from healthy-appearing to critically ill in two weeks, as the diagnosis work-up was being done. That was straightforward, and so I told my mother to expect the worst in a few weeks as he wasn't even healthy enough to go through chemotherapy. But if someone is healthy enough that you think they may live 6 months, most of the times this means you, as a doctor, really have no idea of how long the patient will last.
Click to expand...
Your post is excellent. Sorry to hear about your mother's boyfriend.
 
Arruda said:
Then again, "big pharma" with their resources and industry would be in a prime position to profit from stuff like this more than anyone else.

As for all the "given 6 months to live" stories, I keep hearing them all the time in a variety of contexts, and, excuse my scepticism, I think most of them are either huge misunderstandings from patients or their relatives of the information they are given, or, at worst, pure confabulation.

It's not standard medical practice to "give" someone "x" months to live. I've never seen it, and I've been in countless cancer consultations with several different oncologists/surgeons/etc. The main reason probably being that for the vast majority of cases, it's extremely unpredictable. There are median survivals, 5-year survival rates, etc, but these imply an extremely wide range, and their utility is mostly related to clinical research, as they allow comparison between different treatment strategies. On an individual scenario they provide no useful information. Most patients, not being statistically minded, don't even understand what a median is so it's pointless and probably counteractive to give them this information.

Even less sense it makes if it's an initial diagnosis and that person hasn't even been subjected to treatment. Some stage IV cancers can respond very well to therapy and the patient may easily survive years. Or they can not respond at all and the person dies in a few weeks. Each individual cancer is a unique entity (in fact, several unique entities as the cancer itself mutates and becomes polyclonal) with a very wide range of possible biologic behaviour.

Exceptions would be extremely advanced disease. My mother's boyfriend died of cancer last Christmas 6 weeks after diagnosis. His initial symptom was breathlessness due to cardiac tamponade from pericardial metastasis. He went from healthy-appearing to critically ill in two weeks, as the diagnosis work-up was being done. That was straightforward, and so I told my mother to expect the worst in a few weeks as he wasn't even healthy enough to go through chemotherapy. But if someone is healthy enough that you think they may live 6 months, most of the times this means you, as a doctor, really have no idea of how long the patient will last.
Click to expand...
Very informative post, thank you.

It's correlation without causation most of the time with these success stories and I'm always incredibly sceptical when reading them.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
This article
Click to expand...

article said:
The related mantra that cannabis is natural and ergo harmless is textbook naturalistic fallacy.
Click to expand...

Who said scientists don't know nuffink about Philosophy. Me. Textbook Naturalistic Fallacy belongs to Moore, Hume and that bunch. The appeal to nature is more at home on one of those fallacy of the day meme generators - or in 90% of internet arguments.

As for cannabis oil, well that seems to be the one thing I don't know everything about. Cheerio.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
No worries. It is a bit dismissive but the guy who writes it is a cancer researcher so will feel very strongly about people being deceived into using cannabis instead of proven treatments. As I said above, that's despicable..
Click to expand...

From what I've read Cannabis is somewhat proven in studies to inhibit certain tumour growth/spread, so while not an infallable treatment it surely should have vast research spending on for further research to further examine it's merits. If it doesn't is it because there isn't money in it for the drugs companies because they can't patent it?

I'm obviously not advocating the removal other treatments.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
From what I've read Cannabis is somewhat proven in studies to inhibit certain tumour growth/spread, so while not an infallable treatment it surely should have vast research spending on for further research to further examine it's merits. If it doesn't is it because there isn't money in it for the drugs companies because they can't patent it?

I'm obviously not advocating the removal other treatments.
Click to expand...

Nope. The thing is they can patent it. Either by designing molecules that bind to the same targets, or by patenting the way that the active ingredients in weed are used (see Sativex, linked in one of my earlier posts)

If cannabis really was the miracle cure stoner conspiracy goons think it is, then big pharma could make a lot of money out of it, believe me.
 
senorgregster said:
So you don't use any of their products?
Click to expand...
I do not dismiss all of their products but I use my own judgement in which to take and which to throw away. I always take antibiotics, but that is about it. If I have a pain I just smoke a joint and it helps a lot. No need for anti depressants nor any other shit like sleeping tablets or so. But I do not think that they are only bad. They (Big Pharma)do produce some great relief for many people. It is just that the basic human need for lots of money causes them to do bad things now and then. Like here https://www.theguardian.com/busines...thkline-fined-bribing-doctors-pharmaceuticals so they cannot be blindly trusted.
 
Last edited:
Where could one buy this particular oil?
 
I too know of someone with stage 4 (unspecified) cancer, was told nothing more could be done, 6 months left, maybe a year, started taking cannabis oil and is still alive four years later.

On the flipside, when my auntie's cancer metastisized, my grandfather paid like 2k for someone to smuggle it back from Holland, high hopes that this would save his daughter.

She passed away a couple of months later. Im still a huge proponent of medical cannabis though.

And recreational.
 
You have to be smoking too much of the cure to ever think 'big pharma' would be hiding some miracle effects. Why would they possibly do that?

Plenty of work is done with illegal drugs, and you are plain looney if you think for a single second they wouldn't use those drugs to make even more money if they could.

As much as I'd welcome legalising cannabis, especially if it was some miracle cure, this is just absolute nonsense.

@Arruda has it spot on.
 
Im red2 said:
Best way is to learn how to make it yourself. Many scammers are aware and will sell even piss as the oil. I would also not recommend avoiding conventional treatments. Rather combine both.
Click to expand...

Would one have to buy marijuana to make this oil?
 
DatIrishFella said:
I too know of someone with stage 4 (unspecified) cancer, was told nothing more could be done, 6 months left, maybe a year, started taking cannabis oil and is still alive four years later.

On the flipside, when my auntie's cancer metastisized, my grandfather paid like 2k for someone to smuggle it back from Holland, high hopes that this would save his daughter.

She passed away a couple of months later. Im still a huge proponent of medical cannabis though.

And recreational.
Click to expand...
Smoking cannabis is not a cure for any cancer, but there are many cases that can be found where people claim it has cured them. Not by smoking it, but by using concentrated oils from the flowers of the plant. You will need to do your own research on this subject. In my opinion I would certainly choose it over Chemo or radiation as both of those are known to cause cancer. An interesting sidenote on the cannabis plant is that the oils from the seed produce the best oil that a human being can consume. http://herb.co/2016/10/17/incredible-benefits-hemp-oil/ But do not believe me nor anyone else here on the forum . Do your own research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.