Talk-Polywell.org

+100 year old microscopes and techniques of cultivating pathogens used to be all that was available, and hubris led to the thinking that if an agent was not found by either method, none was there. Thus, disease theories were advanced and became entrenched that if no agent was found, it must be autoimmune, or a genetic defect, etc, that the body was basically a sterile compartment.

On top of that was Koch's disease postulates, one disease - one agent. 20th century medicine in a nutshell. Then the ability to identify pathogens by detecting their genetic signature became available in the 21st century and suddenly a whole universe was discovered of infectious agents in so called sterile healthy bodies. Indeed, many agents were found that could not even be cultured as the organisms would not live on the petri dish agar. And then it was found that hardy and common bacteria that survived in your sink drain could not be cultured!

So, a revolution is at hand where ecosystems of different bacteria symbiotically thriving as multi species colonies - living in the body, even living within immune cells, where the immune cells were unable to kill off the bacteria are proposed as causative for chronic disease. Imagine that, bacterial infections that dysregulate the immune system (like HIV), what a shock.

Good. Of course, these guys still think in terms of Koch's postulates. One step at a time, don't want to rush things.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-authorities-di ... 28329.html
US authorities discover deadly 'Bourbon' virus

Researchers using advanced molecular detection technology were able to determine that the man died from a new virus.

What next? Cancer caused by bacteria and not lack of a joint a day?

The endocannabinoid system regulates the immune system. And a joint a day appears to lower your risk of catching cancer.

Two studies on that so far. One by Donald Tashkin re: lung cancer and another more recent one I can't seem to locate.

and this page full of links: http://bigthink.com/devil-in-the-data/m ... prevention and another: http://drsircus.com/medicine/cannabis-cures-cancer

This is funny: Cannabis Reduces Brain Damage Caused By Booze, Say Scientists
http://higherperspective.com/2015/01/ca ... booze.html

=====================================

BTW cannabis medicine is destroying the idea of one disease - one drug. Dr. Raphael Mechoulam posits something called the "entourage effect" for cannabis. Different cannabinoids together work better than a single cannabinoid. We already know about THC + CBD for cancer.

They're liable to find a virus that causes people to smoke marijuana that isn't present in non users.

choff wrote:They're liable to find a virus that causes people to smoke marijuana that isn't present in non users.

We don't have to look that far. We already know the answer.

PTSD. Long term PTSD is caused by trauma and genetics. About 20% of the population has the genetics and about 1/2 of those get enough trauma to trigger it. So we have about 10% of the population with PTSD and funny enough about 7% to 10% of the population are regular weed users. And weed is well known as the best treatment for PTSD. Proof? Hell no. But who would want to fund a study proving the connection?

The war on pot is a gravy train. The government certainly is not going to fund such a study.

What would it look like if Prohibition was a war on the traumatized? It would look like Americans were a bunch of heartless bastards. Then add in cancer which kills about 600,000 a year and Americans would seem to support mass murder. Reagan shut down all work on cannabis fighting cancer in his administration. Fortunately the Israelis and Spanish are looking into it. St. Reagan a mass murderer? Say it isn't so.

Just those two points would kill the whole exceptionalism deal. It is one of the reasons we are having a civil war on the matter. Some people would rather not face what they are doing. It would ruin their self esteem.

When all this gets more widely known you will see the usual, "I was never a Nazi. It was everybody else but me."

And you know how it will work politically? Since the Democrats mostly gave up Prohibition first (actually it was the Libertarians in '72) it will be, "It wasn't us. It was those evil Republicans." Or the typical politician excuse, "The government misled me." Right.

I AM amused.

Yes, well, I have already commented on the animal studies you rely on. As to your understanding of the immune system, that is also at issue. When you see the world through agenda don't be surprised if cause and effect predictions don't work out. The AGW chicken littles are having that 20 year pause problem right now as agenda science hits the cold brick wall of nature.

Agenda leads to propaganda and neither mixes well with science. Eventually, everyday Joe will learn the scent of propaganda and as soon as it starts will turn off their ears. However, the real, the (and only) valid argument against prohibition is that it is a complete unadulterated criminalized social disaster. Your medical arguments are junk though.

The causative agent for chronic disease is successive infection by immune disabling, advancing, (individualized) human Microbiome, with the overlaid interference of other (significant) factors. The new revolutionary pathogen detection diagnostic tools is uncovering this, but paradigms such as the human genome myopic crowd (20th century) or the Koch postulate crowd (19th century) are slow to give way. As soon as the weed war is over its medical propaganda will join the failing vitamin and herb supplement industry (albeit cheaper than the failed solutions offered by the Med-Pharma industrial complex.)

This topic was just to point out an advance as revolutionary as the microscope and one of its recent reported successes the identification of a 'killer' virus.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25559405
Crosstalk between the microbiome and cancer cells by quorum sensing peptides.
Abstract

To date, the precise role of the human microbiome in health and disease states remains largely undefined. Complex and selective crosstalk systems between the microbiome and mammalian cells are also not yet reported. Research up till now mainly focused on bacterial synthesis of virulence factors, reactive oxygen/nitrogen species (ROS/RNS) and hydrogen sulphide, as well as on the activation of exogenous mutagen precursors by intestinal bacteria. We discovered that certain quorum sensing peptides, produced by bacteria, interact with mammalian cells, in casu cancer cells: Phr0662 (Bacillus sp.), EntF-metabolite (Enterococcus faecium) and EDF-derived (Escherichia coli) peptides initiate HCT-8/E11 colon cancer cell invasion, with Phr0662 also promoting angiogenesis. Our findings thus indicate that the human microbiome, through their quorum sensing peptides, may be one of the factors responsible for cancer metastasis.

Note: Microbiome vs single bacteria or virus. Also, no mention of a human genetic defect.

mvanwink5 wrote:+100 year old microscopes and techniques of cultivating pathogens used to be all that was available, and hubris led to the thinking that if an agent was not found by either method, none was there. Thus, disease theories were advanced and became entrenched that if no agent was found, it must be autoimmune, or a genetic defect, etc, that the body was basically a sterile compartment.

On top of that was Koch's disease postulates, one disease - one agent. 20th century medicine in a nutshell. Then the ability to identify pathogens by detecting their genetic signature became available in the 21st century and suddenly a whole universe was discovered of infectious agents in so called sterile healthy bodies. Indeed, many agents were found that could not even be cultured as the organisms would not live on the petri dish agar. And then it was found that hardy and common bacteria that survived in your sink drain could not be cultured!

So, a revolution is at hand where ecosystems of different bacteria symbiotically thriving as multi species colonies - living in the body, even living within immune cells, where the immune cells were unable to kill off the bacteria are proposed as causative for chronic disease. Imagine that, bacterial infections that dysregulate the immune system (like HIV), what a shock.

Good. Of course, these guys still think in terms of Koch's postulates. One step at a time, don't want to rush things.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-authorities-di ... 28329.html
US authorities discover deadly 'Bourbon' virus

Researchers using advanced molecular detection technology were able to determine that the man died from a new virus.

What next? Cancer caused by bacteria and not lack of a joint a day?

I am always bemused at how high a regard society has had for Doctors for so many years, and how we've all been led to believe "Doctors" know what they are doing.


It is with great mirth that I regard these stories that reveal to us just how much "Doctors" don't know, and for just how long they haven't been knowing it.


The above commentary is a good example of just how some nutty ideas get embraced by the mainstream of a community and resist dislodgement until the facts finally get in the way.

As soon as the weed war is over its medical propaganda will join the failing vitamin and herb supplement industry (albeit cheaper than the failed solutions offered by the Med-Pharma industrial complex.)

I'm not so sure you are correct.

We have copious animal models. So that is one point of information. And second off we have copious anecdotes that follow the animal models. That is another point of information.

When real studies are done I expect all that will be sorted out is treatment regimens. (Doses, frequency, delivery method, cannabinoid mix) The actual "cannabis treats xxx" will not change. Because it has already been effectively corroborated.

And I do not rely on press releases and gushing testimonials for my information. I prefer primary sources - the people doing the research. In fact I have made a list of my main go to guys:

Dr. Robert Melamede
Dr. Donald Abrams
Dr. Raphael Mechoulam
Dr. Jeffrey Hergenrather
Dr. Sean McAlister
Dr. David Bearman
Dr. Manuel Guzman (he has a LOT of cites at NIH)
Dr. Donald Tashkin

And of course all the animal studies cataloged at NIH. Might I suggest a deep study of the above Drs. and the literature at NIH if you want to be well informed on the subject.

This would not be the first time medicine changed and yet most of its practitioners remained ignorant. There is a LOT to study and medical schools are mostly avoiding the issue because - due to prohibition - it is not entirely reputable.

Also note the pages I linked to above as link sources - link to source material not gushing testimonials. But there are plenty of those if you look.

And if you want a killer testimonial look up - Dr William Courtney brain tumor - find an article that shows the brain scans. He is also interviewed in a rather poor video. But he has interesting stuff to say. He does admit that his attitude was similar to yours before he assisted the treatment of the 8 month old in question.

And if you want semi-reputable gushing testimony look up - biochemist Dennis Hill. His article on aging and cytokines is rather interesting. Not to mention his cure from a stage 4 cancer. Stage 4 is normally a death sentence with metastasis well advanced.

Will it cure every cancer? Or only certain ones? We have no idea because our country allows no human research in that area. Spain is doing a trial on breast cancer. I assume they picked a cancer with a high likelihood of cures. We should see the results of that study in a year or two. Dr. Manuel Guzman is behind that one. You can see a video by one of his researchers, Dr.Christina Sanchez, here:

Dr.Christina Sanchez explains how cannabis kills cancer cells
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1miGzTwK28U

Our one legal Federal grow has upped its output by a factor of 30. But the number of strains is limited.

http://www.theweedblog.com/feds-increas ... ippi-farm/
Researchers there are hoping to produce 30,000 new plants, which will be used primarily for medical marijuana research. One researcher at the facility is pursuing a study of cannabidiol.

The increase comes after the DEA approved plans to boost the government’s annual production of marijuana from 21 kilograms to 650 kilograms, which equates to about 1,433 pounds.

Get that? The DEA has been holding up research. In other contexts we would call such behavior (denying people medicine) a war crime. It will come to that in any case.

http://www.leafscience.com/2014/03/25/u ... w-strains/

The prejudice against pot is still rather great so the only place you are liable to find these reports is in the stoner press. Which explains the links. Amusing.

The above commentary is a good example of just how some nutty ideas get embraced by the mainstream of a community and resist dislodgement until the facts finally get in the way.

You are a very good example of that yourself. I AM amused.

Let me add that one of the nuttier ideas currently in fashion is that the endocannabinoid system does not require extensive study. The vast majority of medical schools - if they give it any time at all - allot one class period to the subject.

The stoners know more about it than most doctors. It regulates every system in the body. I AM amused.

FDA, three letters that stand for advocates of Government knows best whether you like it or not.

Animal models for human disease is equivalent to Windoz antiviral software used on an Apple computer. Look, ligands hit multiple receptors, not just one, plus an antagonist for a mouse nuclear receptor can be an agonist for the associated human nuclear receptor. Further, the nuclear receptor in the mouse can and does express different critical proteins than the human nuclear receptor. If you think that would be a disaster for lab tests, in vitro tests will give one result and in vivo test a completely different test results. If you think that is bad, the drug can work wonders in a great ape and not work in humans and visa versa. Then if you think that is really bad, the FDA will require the drug work first in the mouse before they will consider testing in humans.

It is a cluster %&$#@.

When asked why we still use mouse models that are a complete disaster, and known to be of absolute no use, the answer is that we don't have an alternative.

So, good luck.

mvanwink5 wrote:FDA, three letters that stand for advocates of Government knows best whether you like it or not.

Animal models for human disease is equivalent to Windoz antiviral software used on an Apple computer. Look, ligands hit multiple receptors, not just one, plus an antagonist for a mouse nuclear receptor can be an agonist for the associated human nuclear receptor. Further, the nuclear receptor in the mouse can and does express different critical proteins than the human nuclear receptor. If you think that would be a disaster for lab tests, in vitro tests will give one result and in vivo test a completely different test results. If you think that is bad, the drug can work wonders in a great ape and not work in humans and visa versa. Then if you think that is really bad, the FDA will require the drug work first in the mouse before they will consider testing in humans.

It is a cluster %&$#@.

When asked why we still use mouse models that are a complete disaster, and known to be of absolute no use, the answer is that we don't have an alternative. :roll: :lol:

So, good luck.

You might want to look at this video (from above) by Dr. Christina Sanchez before you make up your mind. About 5 1/2 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1miGzTwK28U

Thing is, for cannabis we not only have the mouse models (which may be of some use in this case) we also have copious anecdotes. Which as you point out may in fact be more reliable. But so far they corroborate each other.

The CDC is no better than the FDA. It took 20 years for the CDC to figure out that CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) is actually a disease and not some psychiatric problem or just vivid imagination of a hypochondriac. Moreover, the CDC now classifies CFS as a dangerous disease. In Europe, they are renaming the disease....

And no one knows what causes it or how to cure it (in the traditional government sanctioned medical guild.)

So, count your blessings that the government is not allowing testing of medical MJ, they'd screw it up.

Anecdotes by themselves are an indicator, and worth something. Mouse models are useless and more likely than not misleading. As I said, it is frequent for something to work in a human and not in a mouse, and visa versa. Animal models are less than useless, they suck. It is why pharma spends billions to develop garbage. And palliation is usually all they do develop.

Let us be perfectly clear poisonous palliation.

Cure cancer with something known to cause cancer (radiation)? It is a wonder bleeding has gone out of fashion.

I can understand if that is all you have. But we have had inklings since '74 about cancer. And Donald Tashkin's epidemiology work about humans since the early 2000s.

MSimon wrote:Let us be perfectly clear poisonous palliation.
Cure cancer with something known to cause cancer (radiation)? It is a wonder bleeding has gone out of fashion.
I can understand if that is all you have. But we have had inklings since '74 about cancer. And Donald Tashkin's epidemiology work about humans since the early 2000s.

This quote made me want to rage at the sky, stomp the ground and curse the loins that gave birth to such an idiot.
But maybe I should start at the beginning or the end really not quite sure. This is a story about Silent Jimmy. I did not meet Jimmy until he was a full-grown man. He lived in savannah Georgia and worked for the city as an arborist. Those lovely trees which is he up and down the street of Savannah are maintained by crew of individuals to see that they look pretty to impressive tourists. Jimmy like doing his job because it made his city look pretty. His other passions reading comic books and writing detective stories. Never was published nor did he try to get published, the stories for just for him and a few he decided to share with.

Today I just got back from Georgia after attending his funeral. He died from brain cancer after a three-year struggle. He never once openly complained, lost faith or gave up hope until the very end. Jimmy treated his cancer with various conventional therapies, radiation, and even Simons preferred method of treatment. The doctor gave the okay but warned Jimmy that he expected it to be of no benefit but as it would not interfere with his treatment go ahead and try , Jimmy's cancer was discovered when it was already at stage IV.

Jimmy was well-liked by the nurses at the hospital and at hospice. Whenever he was physically able he would roamed the hallways and visit other patients giving them words of encouragement and tell them they had to be heroes if they were to beat this disease. . It was not uncommon to see Jimmy and some sort of costume or get up that he had made to help cheer up the patient's when he spread his word.

I've never seemed so much courage or fortitude in one individual, from someone who is plain, unassuming and nondescript.
I could go on pages and pages about Jimmy and how he helped other persons in hospice and at the hospital. But I won't Jimmy's courage shows how high one can reach even when one has problems themselves.

Jimmy did one other thing that was utterly outstanding. Something that I've never seen them before. He gave his own eulogy for just family members at the end of the service. He recorded it in his last weeks when he realized that this time is cancer would not go back into remission. He told us not to worry about him, he has a fine life but there were other people that still needed our help. on this link there is a link to donate to hospice,
http://www.familiesfirstcare.com/obitua ... hauer.html
https://www.facebook.com/james.waldhauer?fref=ts
Please no condolences but instead support your local hospice or volunteer at your local hospital.

This is one of the cases pro medical weed people do not tell you about .
And to those who offer false promises of hope, I truly hope there is a hell and therefore reside a special place for you in it.

paperburn1,

There is so much we don't know. And the ignorance is due to our Federal government.

1. Was the cannabis he used high CBD and high THC?
2. Was he smoking the stuff or using a high potency extract?
3. Was he getting on the order of one gram a day of THC and the same for CBD?

Because of the Federal government all we have to go on is anecdotes like this:

Cannabis Oil Cures 8 Month Old Infant of Cancer, Dissolving Large Inoperable Tumor In 8 Months
According to Dr. William Courtney, the western medical mind has a very hard if not impossible time trying to understand the diverse actions of Cannabidiol. He explains how his youngest patient who is 8 months old, had a very massive centrally located inoperable brain tumor. The child's father pushed for non-traditional treatment utilizing cannabis and put cannabinoid oil on the baby's pacifier twice per day, gradually increasing the dose. Within two months there was a dramatic reduction. Dr. Courtney pointed out that the success of the cannabis approach means that "this child...is not going to have the long-term side effects that would come from a very high dose of chemotherapy or radiation.

So was the baby getting only cannabidiol or cannabidiol plus THC? There is more at the site about CBD. CBD reduces the psychoactive effect of THC and what little research there is that has been done on humans shows is that CBD + THC is more effective than either alone. But no one knows anything for sure because proper studies are not being done.

Don't rail at me. I have been calling for studies. The culprits are the Federal Government and Progressive Prohibitionist Republicans.

This Dr from Spain thinks there is significant potential against cancer. I believe her group (Cannabinoid Research Group of Complutense University in Madrid, Spain) is currently doing human trials on breast cancer. In Spain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1miGzTwK28U - about 5 1/2 minutes.

She asks in the video why cannabis is still Schedule One (no medical use) in the US. Meth is on a lower schedule.

Had the research been done - instead of having to rely on anecdotes and the black market - the arborist might be alive today.

I believe your anger at me is due to your inability to look in a mirror. What psychologists refer to as displacement. Prohibition is killing people. Very likely the arborist was one of them.

Have a nice day.