Refresh Checked Unchecked Menu Search Shopping bag Geolocation Person Facebook Instagram Twitter YouTube Info Icon CBC Icon CBC Shape CBD Icon CBD Shape CBG Icon CBG Shape THC Icon THC Shape THCV Icon THCV Shape Loading…
Advertise on Leafly

Can Cannabis Cure Cancer?

March 27, 2016

Given that 39.6% of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, cancers affects nearly everyone. Chances are, someone close to you has battled cancer.

Oncologists, more than doctors in any other discipline within medicine, support the option of recommending cannabis as part of a treatment program for patients suffering from cancer. However, while the positive effects of using cannabis to alleviate cancer symptoms have been well documented, the U.S. government continues to classify cannabis as a Schedule I drug — high potential for abuse and no known medical use. Consequently, the federal government’s position on cannabis stifles much-needed research on cannabis as a “cure” for cancer.


Government-Run Cancer Institute Quietly Acknowledges That Cannabis Kills Cancer Cells

Moreover, the federal government’s position has fueled massive misinformation about cannabis as a potential cure for cancer. On the one hand, the federal government officially claims cannabis has no medicinal value. On the other hand, many pseudoscience “cancer quacks” unethically exaggerate claims of cannabis as the ultimate cure for cancer providing unsubstantiated help to thousands of cancer patients.

So what is the truth?

What is a Cancer “Cure?”

On the question of cannabis as a cure, Dr. Abrams, a cannabis advocate and one of the leading oncologists and cancer researchers in the world, cautions on the use of the term “cure”:

“Cure is a huge word in oncology. It usually implies that the patient has survived 5 years without evidence of their cancer. We are able to cure more cancers today than we were when I began my career as an oncologist. That has been through advances in diagnosis and treatment with conventional therapies.”

As a cancer and integrative medicine specialist at the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Medicine at Mount Zion in San Francisco and an oncologist for more than three decades, Dr. Abrams observes:

“[After] 33 years of being an oncologist in San Francisco, I would guess that a large proportion of the patients I have treated have used cannabis. If cannabis definitively cured cancer, I would have expected that I would have a lot more survivors. That being said, what we do know is that cannabis is truly an amazing medicine for many cancer and treatment-related side effects — nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, pain, depression, anxiety, insomnia.”

Dr. Abrams’ opinion reflects a consensus within the credible oncologist and cancer scientific community: there is no doubt that cannabis is effective at treating cancer-related symptoms and treatment-related side effects, but the jury is still out on whether cannabis can actually “cure” cancer.


The best cannabis strains for cancer-related symptoms

If It’s on the Web, It Must Be True, Right?

Because cancer affects so many people, it’s natural to want confirmation that cannabis can, without question, cure cancer. The Web is rich with stories from people who claim cannabis, particularly “cannabis oil,” cured or reversed their cancer. When we asked Dr. Abrams why he thought there are so many anecdotal claims of cannabis curing people’s’ cancer, he cautioned:

“I note that many of the people who are very vocal about how cannabis oil cured their cancers seem to forget that they also received conventional therapies. If people really have used only cannabis oil and can truly document that they have cured their cancer (other than a skin cancer), they need to submit that data to the National Cancer Institute’s Office on Cancer Complementary and Alternative Therapy’s Best Case Scenario website so that evidence can be documented.”

Further, note that many of the numerous articles available that make declarative claims that cannabis cures cancer misrepresent studies, exaggerate claims, or omit key facts.


Explore the Diverse World of Cannabis Oil and Concentrates

Cannabis Cancer Research Shows Promise, But We Need to Do More

As we search for anti-cancer treatments, the anti-cancer potential of cannabis has been examined in numerous scientific studies on cannabinoid receptors and endocannabinoids, resulting in promising leads. Significant research has demonstrated that cannabinoids may inhibit or stop the growth of cancers — including breast, brain, liver, pheochromocytoma, melanoma, leukemia, and other kinds of cancer — from spreading or growing. Moreover, cannabinoids have proven to promote apoptosis, the programmed death of tumor cells, while stopping angiogenesis, blood vessel production to the tumor. One study, conducted by Madrid’s Complutense University, showed that in one-third of rats treated, the injection of synthetic THC eliminated malignant brain tumors while extending life in another third.


Cannabis and cancer

The research is promising, but thus far it has been limited to preclinical studies, which are studies of drugs or treatments in animals prior to being carried out in humans. While the preclinical research offers hope, before anyone can confidently claim that cannabis can provide a “cure,” clinical research needs to be done.

Further, because cancer describes a group of diseases involving abnormal cell growth, it’s unlikely there will be a single “cure-all” cannabis remedy. Likewise, naturally-derived or synthetic cannabinoid agonists may be need to be combined with traditional chemotherapeutic regimens or supplemental alternative medicines.

In order for cannabis to find its way into routine clinical cancer treatment, rigorous pharmacological and clinical studies need to be done. And to accelerate this process, the federal government should lift the federal ban on medical cannabis.


Cancer Sucks and Cannabis Can Help – If the Feds Would Let It

Paradoxically, the federally-funded National Cancer Institute has warmed up to cannabis as a cancer treatment and has even quietly acknowledged that cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in preclinical studies. Nonetheless, the federal government has yet to make any significant strides to align their position with the scientific community and the overwhelming number of Americans.

With more and more states legalizing medical usage and the majority of Americans supporting medical cannabis, we can hope the federal government will finally modify its draconian prohibitory position and if indeed, cannabis can cure cancer, those suffering will no longer have to turn to questionable sources to learn how cannabis may help them.

  • Esther Brown

    My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and she was at the point of death, with cancer of the Breast in it final stage is now back alive and she is so healthy now. Thanks to Rick simpson cannabis oil that we bought at:, the Hemp oil was successfully used in curing my mother breast cancer within 3 months as stated in phoenix tear.
    Once again i want to thank Rick Simpson for his wonderful Hemp Oil we are now happy family with my mother back alive, strong and healthy.
    You can contact for your own medication at:{ }

  • MarijuanaWiki.ML

    Cannabis has been tested by many scientist and doctors, and has been proven to have many health benefits. Recently it was discovered that regular consumption of cannabis can prevent alzheimer’s disease. Or how about the fact that cancers in the head or neck can be treated or prevented with cannabis use. A test done by the Harvard University revealed that cannabis can shrink tumors by 60% in only three weeks, full article here: There is so many awesome benefits of using cannabis. Hopefully it will be legal for everyone in all 50 states.

    • Bongstar420

      You are half way there. For most “medical” folk, its more about euphoria than anything else.

      The big bad gubmit showed that Orange peel extract significantly reduces breast cancer in vivo..for example

      Of course, people like you would insist that getting ripped on THC is the “magic”

      Guess what, recycled citrus waste is far cheaper than Cannabis extract.

      Actually, its hard to get “medical” cannabis people to actually consume the proper stuff. They almost always put things like taste, looks, and buzz before medical effect. Additionally, its very common for them to consumer far beyond medical efficacy for their conditions. Its like letting people self regulate their Vicodin use but without as much physical addiction problems resulting.

      • wowFAD

        You should stick to the analogy with orange peels. Vicodin is unsafe because too much can be fatal, which is not the case with cannabis or orange peels. Suggesting that self-regulation of cannabis, a non-toxic plant, is analogous to self-regulation of Vicodin, a toxic synthetic, is a wildly unfair comparison.

        Also, while it may be true that you prioritize things like taste, looks, and buzz before medical efficacy, it’s dubious to generalize from yourself to everyone else. Simply put, maybe you faked a medical condition to get high, but other people did not. If you have poll numbers or even a survey that shows how “most people” fit these criteria of yours, then by all means, share with the class.

        Considering this is the third fallacious, anti-cannabis comment you’ve made on this article, it’s starting to appear as if you’re nothing more than a prohibitionist troll hiding behind “Buddy Christ” and a stereotypical “pot-head” username. It probably makes you happy to know I regret wasting so much time being reasonable with you.

        • Kaecyy

          You, Madam or Sir, are a saint of science and counterculture. All of your comments have been excellent.

          I tried to follow you on this Disqus thingy, but it appears I can’t. I can only thank you, and say, “Who was that masked entity?”, as you ride off into the sunset.

          • wowFAD


        • Jim

          Unfortunately, there always seems to be those like “Bongstar 420”, more interested in sounding intelligent than actually being such.


        Thats why CDB is legal in all 50 states ,,No High involved!

        • omfgwtfbbq

          CBD is not legal in all 50 states. CBD obtained from parts of the plant which are allowed by the DEA is not really CBD. It’s hemp oil that MIGHT contain 1 part per million of CBD. You’re essentially consuming hemp oil, not CBD. You will get SOME CBD. But, not enough for any medicinal affect. The same oil will contain more THC than CBD.

      • Dr Gordon Freeman

        Your misinformation is legion. Go hit yourself on the head with a hammer, perhaps you’ll knock some sense into it. I know, it’s harsh, but there is not reasoning with people, such as yourself. You are beyond education.

      • Franklin

        Don’t be a Sabet. No one likes a Sabet. You come off like a social worker pretending to not be a social worker. Your message is clear Kevin. You want people locked up in prison so you make everything about the buzz. When in reality you get a buzz from being the contrary troll and thinking about people in prison. You still have to look at you in the mirror. That isn’t good. But you made that mess. Find something that you can be positive about and do that instead of trolling. Look in the mirror again. Are you happy?

    • Stewart Hughes

      yes, man, thanks for the info,, some people would rather die then go for canabis since they feel is humiliating,,

      yes it does cure loads of cancers and prevents strokes and other staff..

    • Leo N Cynthia Dartez

      This would have been a very interested read but the link given is not correct or has been taken done. It leads me to wonder why the link was take down – my worst thought is because it wasn’t true so they had to take the link down? Do you have a back-up copy of the article you can post as a link to share with others?

  • Peter Jon Callahan

    Leafly you haven’t done proper research. I actually have. Here are the facts.

    1. Cancer is the most profitable health problem in the world. The worldwide wellness industry is 10 trillion dollars and of that a tenth (1 trillion) is just for cancer treatments that don’t work very well.

    2. The health industry will not let go of a trillion dollar annual industry and let people cure their cancer from a flower that they grew in their back yard.

    3. Cannabis is the best cancer cure because it has so many medical compounds that attack cancer in so many ways. None of these chemicals harm the patient, unlike Big Pharma treatments. I have found 33 cancer attacking medical compounds in cannabis. They are CBD, THC, CBG, CBGa, THCa, CBN, CBDa, CBC, Anandamide, Linalool, Myrcene, Beta-myrcene, Limonene, Caryophyllene, Alpha-Pinene, Quercetin, Terpinolene, Humulene, Eucalyptol, Pinene, Nerolidol, Alpha-bisabolol, Beta-bisabolol, Alpha-cadinene, Carvacrol, Alpha-cucumene, Dihydroactinidiolide, Beta-elemene, Farnesol, Geraniol, Beta-ionone, Safranal and γ-Terpinene.

    4. Your proof is some doctor who says that his patients used some cannabis during cancer and since there weren’t more cured patients cannabis can’t cure cancer? To cure cancer with cannabis oil you need to consume TONS of cannabis, not just a little bit. I am talking about 90 to 180 grams in a span of 3 to 4 months. No one is claiming that smoking a joint once a week cures cancer. You need many many grams of high quality cannabis oil eaten in a short period of time to cure cancer properly.

    5. Did you do your own experiment? I actually found people with cancer and tried it out before I shot the idea down. If you haven’t done any experiments yourself and you just want to listen to the authority bought up by big money, then you lose credibility. Do your OWN cannabis experiments, then come back to me and claim it doesn’t cure cancer. People can’t blabber all they want, but the REAL proof and truth can only be found if you actually find cancer patients and try healing them. Until you do that you have ZERO credibility on this subject.

    Source? I wrote two books on medical cannabis curing cancer.

  • wowFAD

    The assertion that “the numerous articles available that make declarative claims that cannabis cures cancer misrepresent studies, exaggerate claims, or omit key facts” is disingenuous considering the very next passage in *this* article extols the various breakthroughs in cannabis cancer research. Maybe I don’t skim blogs as much as other people, but the articles I read about cannabis, the ECS, and cancer don’t oversell the treatment potential.

    If anything, it’s the ever-shrinking subset of the medical community that, due to societal pressures, are reluctant to shed their preconceived notions and consider the therapeutic potential of cannabis-based treatments. Doctors still tip-toe around this issue because, as the DEA revels in reminding us, cannabis remains in Schedule I. Doctors more concerned about factors *other* than the best treatment for their patients are the most reluctant. Some are afraid of the legal implications of recommending a treatment option the federal government considers criminal. Others are far too enamored with the pharmaceutical industry, which spends $4.1 billion per year advertising their “medicines” directly to consumers, but $20+ billion per year marketing drugs directly to DOCTORS.

    Cancer is never simple. It varies from patient to patient, case to case. Generally speaking, a cell becomes cancerous when a carcinogen damages the part of a cell’s DNA that encodes mitosis, causing cell division to malfunction. When a normal, healthy cell divides, the new cell grows bigger and takes over for the old cell, and the old cell is supposed to undergo natural cell death after the division occurs (apoptosis). However, a cancerous cell doesn’t follow these steps properly. Sometimes, the old cell “forgets” to undergo apoptosis and sticks around. Worse yet, sometimes the old cells divides *again* and *again*, producing more abnormal cells with the same cell division malfunction, which in turn divide again and again. The abnormal cells keep accumulating. Generally speaking, this is how tumors form. Their expression varies greatly depending on how the mitotic process is malfunctioning and the location/type of tissue (brain tumors are very different from bone cancer) as well as the individual differences of the patient. So the idea that modern medicine will be able to pin down every possible variation of cancer that can occur and develop a targeted, precision treatment is overly optimistic and woefully naive.

    When it comes to these types of conditions, targeted medicine is often insufficient. Doctors monkey-bar from one pharmaceutical treatment to another, hoping one will work, forcing ineffective (and often toxic) drugs upon people who are already sick. Sometimes, this game of treatment wack-a-moles works out for a patient. However, it is often the case that a safer, more effective approach to non-specific, indefinite medical conditions are holistic treatments such as preparations of whole-plant cannabis. Pharmaceutical companies don’t make a dime from holistic treatments, which is why medical professionals seduced by profit-driven healthcare will never endorse cannabis as a medicine. The sooner our society puts the well-being of patients before the almighty dollar, the better. Too many people are suffering needlessly while “Big Pharma” rushes to profit from disease. It’s a healthcare travesty.

    • Bongstar420

      THC is the least “medical” cannabinoid, yet its promoted the most.


      • wowFAD

        The least? Sorry, but that’s patently untrue. Research from the Salk Institute showed how THC breaks down the amyloid beta protein that is responsible for forming the plaque which accumulates in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. It’s this plaque build-up which causes the dementia, memory loss, and other cognitive symptoms associated with Alzheimer’s as well as the eventual death of the patient.

        THC is fat-soluble, giving it the uncanny ability to slip through the blood-brain barrier more prolifically than standard synthetic pharmaceuticals. Therefor, THC is a safer and more effective treatment for Alzheimer’s, the 6th leading cause of death in the United States (5th for people over 65). Seeing as how we just lost Gene Wilder to Alzheimer’s, I’m especially off-put by the assertion that THC is the least “medical” cannabinoid.

        Perhaps you shouldn’t jump to conclusions?

        • James Peters

          We don’t really know what the cause of Alzheimer’s is, when you get down to it, and we’re the only animal that that gets it. For the last 25 years or so we have been using transgenic mice for experiments. But they clearly don’t recapitulate the human disease. The hope has been that they’d be close enough to get somewhere, but look where we are. The current failure rate of drugs when tested in us is 99.6%

          We see the build up of certain proteins, causing plaques and neurofibrillary tangles. We also see that some proteins have changed their conformation, similar to what happens in CJD. Perhaps oxidative stress is playing a role, or neurotoxic neurotransmitters are. Then some gene variants are present in certain people with this. There are impaired transports, like axonal, altered metabolism, inflammation and so on.

          If you take inflammation then this is virtually ubiquitous when cells are dying, and is also part of the healing process. The immune system does act as a clean-up crew. Theses cells also react to damaged and unhealthy cells. But when we see markers of inflammation in patients with AD we don’t know if the inflammation is causing the damage or a reaction to it, or both. The inflammation may also be reactive, but then accelerate the damage.

          As a result of this complexity we have lots of clues but very few answers. In general we need high quality clinical trials, to know if a specific intervention actually works. When dealing with a disease as biologically complex as AD, it is especially necessary because the number of false leads is massive.

          • wowFAD

            I think you need to understand something very basic about how clinical research proceeds — there’s an order of operations, like math. First, come the non-clinical studies in which potential independent and dependent variables are evaluated in sample populations for a statistically significant correlation. These are known as “anecdotal” studies, which serve as the precursor to all clinical research. A study in which the only human subject data comes from patient records is of this type. These “dry” studies don’t involve any lab conditions or clinical trials (animal nor human). If there is an observed, statistically significant correlation between the variables in question, then further research is necessary into what’s behind the correlation.

            Second, provided there’s sufficiently compelling evidence to merit the expense, comes the in-vivo or “test-tube” trial in which the hypothesis gets tested under strict lab conditions, but without any living organism, to test potential mechanisms for these effects. If the testing holds up, then next come the in-vitro trials involving live subjects — animal trials.

            If the in-vivo results are promising enough, the next step is animal testing. The animal trials take place after the test-tube experiments, but before human trials. Those come next, and are divided into trial phases to establish safety and dosage protocols.

            Every step involves increasing the scrutiny, so every step runs the risk of rejecting the hypothesis. Just because something works in-vivo doesn’t mean it’ll work in-vitro. Just because something works on mice, horses, and zebra fish doesn’t necessarily mean it will work on humans. It’s that very uncertainty that mandates further research.

            As far as the inflammation associated with Alzheimer’s is concerned, it’s a neurodegenerative condition involving progressive brain cell death, so of course there will be inflammation. However, the inflammation is not the defining physiological symptom (as is the case with autoimmune diseases). It’s the accumulation of plaque that causes the brain of Alzheimer’s patients to shrivel like a raisin and directly correlates to the severity of an Alzheimer’s patient’s condition. fMRI scans of early and late stages (as well as postmortems) make no dithers on that point.

          • James Peters

            The amyloid hypothesis is still the most dominant despite never being proven and endless drugs which target this failing to have any disease modifying effects. The current failure rate for this class as I’ve proven is 99.6% which means no therapies have come to fruition. In my view it’s pointless wasting more time, money and patients’ hopes on this. We now need to start targeting other hallmarks such as tau (PMID: 27955995), dysfunctional glucose metabolism (PMID: 15750214, 19885299, 1776759) and so on. Yet you cite a preclinical (in vitro) study and think THC is going to work wonders! It gets worse when you claim it’s safer and more effective as a treatment too.

        • David Stevens

          Pot head gas in general is fat soluble and liquid is not, due to the cells membrane. Can Crack cure cancer? What about cocaine

          • wowFAD

            Ask me a conceptually coherent question, and I’ll do my best to give you an equally understandable answer. Ask me something baiting, inflammatory, or just plain inciting, and I’ll ask you to give me a conceptually coherent question.

          • Jim

            Thanks!……He needed that!!

          • Rick Desonie


          • Stewart Hughes

            dont be a fool man, buti guess is better to die under crak then cancer, any wyas, the way to go is caanbis i thinkmmm

            crack kocaine is the anti crisht drug..

      • Not true in any sense of the word.

      • Franklin

        Don’t be a Sabet. No one likes a Sabet. If you refer to the patent on isolating CBD applied for by US Department of Health and see Figure One. THC clearly reduces inflammation better than CBD. You missed the side of that barn by a mile.

    • Mark Elliott

      Why has cancer increased over 1000% since the 60’s?

      • wowFAD

        If that is indeed true, then it could be for a variety of reasons. I don’t know that it is, though. I’ve read that incidence rates of stomach/gastric cancer have been declining while lung/respiratory cancer has been increasing. Brain tumor diagnoses have increased, but only for benign cases. Prostate cancer has been rapidly declining while testicular cancer is increasing. Skin cancers like melanoma are on the rise, as are a few types of leukemia. Cancer in the liver, pancreas, and kidneys has also been going up.

        Pediatric cases have up-ticked just 0.6%. Most new cancer cases come from the aging baby-boomer generation, which now dominate most diagnoses. Thankfully, more people have been surviving — the fatality to diagnosis ratio has been shrinking steadily, which is consistent with increase in benign diagnoses. Sadly, the fatality/diagnosis ratio for malignant brain tumors has held steady. Those are cases where surgery and/or radiation often fail.

        That’s one reason why safer, holistic treatments (like cannabis, orange peels, whatever) need to be explored. Surgery is dangerous, and radiation therapy (aka, chemo) is probably the dumbest thing modern medicine has ever considered a good idea. Chemotherapy is an oncologist’s gamble: a race to see if the abnormal cancer cells will die before the rest of the patient. That’s a race the patient too often “wins,” especially when the cancer is in the brain or another vital organ. Someday, we’ll agree as a society that irradiating patients was a terrible idea, high on the list of bad ideas along with blood letting, leaches, and phrenology.

        It’s almost miraculous the way stimulation of CB2 receptors (by cannabinoids) reminds cancerous cells they’re supposed to *stop* dividing and undergo apoptosis while healthy cells persist unharmed. There’s a biological semaphore that science has not yet identified which is tripped once a cell divides that, when stimulated with cannabinoids, tells the cell its job is done and it should self-destruct. No, we don’t fully understand it (yet), but we know it happens. There’s no moral reason we should keep one of the most promising (and safest) cancer treatments illegal in Schedule 1 while pharmaceutical companies race to patent it. It’s unconscionable while cancer is so prevalent.

        • The Zen Master

          wowFAD – you need to come back. A family member has just been diagnosed and wants nothing, whatsoever, to do with chemo or radiation. I wish I knew how to contact you.

          • evalauf

            I have someone who has also rejected traditional treatment and Im scared. How has your relative fared?

          • Baby Face

            My uncle was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. He listened to his son and refused chemo and instead relied on essiac tea and some other useless crap, he lived 3 months.

        • Linda Huth

          Yes someday when we’ve discovered and proven new treatments that work less dangerously, which we do not have now. They don’t give chemo “because everyone dies anyway so why not.”. Think big pharma isn’t in a race to cure cancer as well, if for nothing else the bottom line? Silliness.

      • Dr Gordon Freeman

        You’re a Trump supporter. You lack the intelligence to understand much. I won’t waste time trying to explain anything to you, because you’re an imbecile. However, let’s start with chemicals. Chemicals in your food, in your shampoo, soap, deodorant. Do you really believe that ANY of the people responsible for that crap care one iota (sorry,go look it up) about you?

        • afchief

          Liberalism is a mental disease!

        • Austin

          Wow. You are one of the most judgemental people I’ve seen on here… Ironic isn’t it?

        • Rick Desonie

          If you hate people who like Trump move until the next election. Who the he’ll are you to judge?

        • Stewart Hughes

          we all know that, but i still suport trump any ways,,,,

          the life expctancy of a white person under obama was 3 years ,,
          trump is better, we have the right to walk on the sttrets..

        • Nim

          Why are you thinking Trump lacks intelligence? He has said getting the flu shot is a scam by the pharmaceuticals…..and he is right! He also spoke about how insane it is to give a 6 pound baby toxic vaccines……did you ever read a vaccine insert? The ingredients will make your head spin! Only an idiot would let those toxins be injected into their baby!

        • MCLowe

          Loooooser!!!! Get ready for more, homeslice. You’re about to get VERY uncomfortable.

      • Jeremy Kossen

        This is actually is not true. It has not increased by 1000%. And actually with innovation in conventional cancer treatments, we’ve been able to successfully treat significantly more forms of cancer than ever before.

        • rick rudy

          Who are you some oncoligist with your business as usual aprouch to cancer?

        • Nim

          Ya,……We can “treat” them,…..but that is not curing them!

          • Trudy Brant Craig

            Right – just finished radiation and chemo, with all the burns and horrible effects of the chemo – they only got 25% of the tumor – so alll that crap I went thru was for nothing – just have to wait for it to start growing again and then die – I swear they enjoy watching you go thru all this agony and load you up with MORE chemicals just to make sure they are killing everything inside of you – am I impressed? you got it!

      • Stewart Hughes

        becasue people re getting older and chemical poison is added to the food chain,,,

      • rick rudy

        Real simple, Monsanto and other such co’s will not even try to come up with something that is not a poison, there is so much money in it they have E.P.A. and other higher up’s payed real well. The herbicide and pesticide that is dumped on our food is what is killing us. The soil is saterated with it and the run off is poisioning the streams and rivers. If you want proof and you live in farm country observe there are hardly any insects of any kind left, that is serious folks. All you have to remember is , if it will kill a bug or a weed it will kill you!

        • Nim

          You forgot VACCINES…….They kill us, too,….and our babies and toddlers…..SIDS, Eczema, seizures, learning disabilities, childhood leukemia,…..Oh, and if you want Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, be sure to get your flu shot every year!

    • Kelly McLoughlin

      Your comments are brilliant and you know your stuff, would you mind if I posted some of your brilliance on my blog

      • wowFAD

        Please, feel free to do so.

        • Kelly McLoughlin

          Thanks so much!

    • Jeremy Kossen

      There’s nothing I disagree with in your comment – in fact, you make many of the same points I consistently make. As you said, “cancer is never simple.” It’s highly complex and the likelihood we’ll find a single “cure-all” is totally unrealistic.

      When you say my assertion that numerous articles make declarative claims, I’m not referring to peer reviewed scientific articles. Go do a search on “cannabis cures cancer” and see how many articles come up. Likewise, the “breakthroughs” I reference are very early studies. These are animal studies – not human studies. I’ve talked many times with the NIH’s National Center for complementary and alternative medicine – they’ve received no case reports or studies from anyone proving cannabis cured cancer. Likewise, we have only one very small human study of 11 subjects — and that study was underwhelming. Bottom line: I think you’re misinterpreting or misconstruing my argument – because I agree with everything in your following paragraphs.

      Cancer, as you know, is incredibly complex. We’ve had countless drugs demonstrate amazing potential (for treating certain cancers), only to get killed in Phase III clinical trials. Nonetheless, I think we both agree wholeheartedly that as you say, “Pharmaceutical companies don’t make a dime from holistic treatments, which is why medical professionals seduced by profit-driven healthcare will never endorse cannabis as a medicine. The sooner our society puts the well-being of patients before the almighty dollar, the better. Too many people are suffering needlessly while “Big Pharma” rushes to profit from disease. It’s a healthcare travesty.

      Other than criticizing a straw-man, I appreciate your comments. You’re spot on!

      • Stewart Hughes

        jeremy, we need a proper research on the subject, i believe it can cure several cancers and prevent many more from hapeninng, the governt knows that and will refuse knology if canabis is made legal, the ruling elite will loose some power and life expectancy will rise,, that is not in the governt plans..

      • Franklin

        Do a search of cures for cancer without marijuana or cannabis in the field. 190 million results from Google. What haven’t they claimed cures cancer? Almost as many things as they say have caused cancer. Seems like some of those 190 million “cancer cures” are harmful and could even prove fatal. So why focus on a non toxic plant? Quacks are going to make claims and many of those are made by doctors. Big Pharma makes a lot of claims. Like Oxycodone being approved as safe for kids just 2 years ago. Seems like that might be more harmful.

        • rick rudy

          Here’s one for you, I have been trying to get immunotherepy but they won’t give it to you till you have been radiated, chemoed and had your nuts cut off, then and only then they give it to you after your body has been distroyed and they are certain you are going to die. Then I tryed to get them to zap it with ultrasound, they told me you have to have a prostate to get that done and that’s after the same old same old radiate,chemo and cut your nuts off, they call it there guidlines. This is how the medical community has failed me. The patient has no say so on how they want to be treated, I want to be treated with some thing that has a chance of working. We all know that the usual treatments are a death sentence, and if you go through them your quility of life will be gone and you won’t be worth anything to yourself of anyone else, if you don’t believe me just go into an oncoligy office and look at the patients sitting in wheelchairs that look like they have been dead for awhile. The whole thing is about money, why cure cancer when you can just treat it with something that has been used for decades and get away with it. My dad told me that back in the fifties they were studying sharks because that was the only animal that doesn’t get cancer, all of a sudden it stopped and was never heard of again——-makes you wonder doesn’t it. All in all I’am a dead man cause I’am not going out in the same old treatments.

          • Nim

            Research Essiac Tea…….Go to a naturopath doctor if you are done with the traditional treatments…..There are also cancer centers that do immunotherapy and nutrition…..Stop all meat, all chicken, all dairy products, all white flour products…….

          • Baby Face

            Essiac tea doesn’t work.

          • Nim

            Oh,…..and eat only organic, non-GMO foods……Squeeze an organic lemon into clean, filtered water every day…..Diet is very important with cancer……Cancer feeds on sugar…..So, no candy, cake, cookies, soda, sweet drinks, etc……

          • Linda Huth

            Just read a new report that sugar is not shown to “feed” cancer in a recent study. And anyone who thinks the vast majority of oncologists and cancer researchers have no pure intentions is feeding a conspiracy theory.

          • Planetdede

            Then Linda….go home and sit on your fat libtard ass and eat all the sugar you want! You’re ignorant!!

          • J Bee

            I just read a report from Belgium showing a strong association between sugar consumption and recurrence of cancer.

      • Jennifer Mckinley

        pleas3 read my reply to ole HerpyDerp up there…just curious if your feelings have changed since the whole DEMOCRATIC collusion craziness that no one would ever have believed a few months ago.

    • Jeremy Kossen

      Likewise, it’s important to delineate between palliative care and “cure.” Cannabis is a remarkable drug when it comes to palliative care.

      • Franklin

        Cannabis is a plant. Marinol is a drug based on a compound found in the marijuana plant. We don’t call a single plant a “drug” outside of the long running prohibition of the plant.

      • CharleeR

        It is also remarkable as a cure for cancer. Do you suggest that my 14 yr old cat that I cured with Cannabis Oil, was faking it? That it was only palliative? How can that be, when he went on to live another 3 years without any negative health effects. He got no other medications because the vet said there was no cure for Squamous Cell Carcinoma and we would have to put him down. I didn’t put him down. Instead, I cured him with Cannabis Oil. Your preconceived notion that it is only a palliative care treatment is incorrect.

        • Leo N Cynthia Dartez

          CharleeR, would you bother to share more details like the specific product name, Sativa or Indica or hybrid, grown free of pesticides, broad or full spectrum, made from leaves or the whole plant, where you bought your product or made it, how much you gave your cat & how often, how long did you give to your cat before you seen results, was your cat still being given the oil after remission? So many people read comments like yours but no one ever gives detailed information therefore, comments cannot be followed as a cure to help others on just a simple testimony. Thanks

    • mariaioana

      wowFAD, great contribution. I was wondering what is your take on Bob Marley’s death of skin cancer? It just seems highly unlikely. He was consuming cannabis, eating nuts, fruits and veggies, exercising. Not to mention how skin cancer in people of color is very rare and mostly happens after the age of 65. It just doesn’t add up.

      • wowFAD

        Truth be told, I’ve never looked into it. Never been attracted to Rasta, really. I’ve heard the rumors that his cancer was a CIA plot, but I’ve generally dismissed them. There are less complicated and more effective ways to stage a death.

        A cursory interpretation of what I read on Wikipedia is that his cancer metastasized after his surgery failed to get it all. His doctor supposedly recommended amputating the toe entirely, but Bob Marley refused. They dug out the bed of his toenail, instead (hoping that would be sufficient). Sadly, it’s quite likely that the unsuccessful half-surgery precipitated the metastasis. And once cancer stops being local, survival rates plummet.

        Keep in mind that cancers of all types occur when something damages the part of a cell’s DNA that encodes cell division. That ‘something’ need not be the sun when discussing skin cancer. Unfortunately for all of us, there are far too many carcinogens around. Some strains of HPV are correlated with higher rates of certain types cancer. Even an untreated rash can be a carcinogen that precipitates cancer. In the case of Bab Marley, considering his cancer originated on his big-toe, I’d wager he picked up some sort of viral, fungal, or bacterial infection either from walking around barefoot or wearing open-toed shoes and sandals, and *that* caused his cancer.

        It’s a tragedy to have died so young, leaving a family behind, but I don’t think there was anything “fishy” about the circumstances of his death. While it is true that I believe cannabis has great potential as a cancer treatment, it’s not a magic cure-all. The cold, hard reality is there are some cases for which death is a forgone conclusion — either the cancer is too aggressive and/or too far advanced. While Bob Marley’s death must have seemed like a calamity at the time (seeing as how he was touring), his illness was progressive, not sudden.

      • Baby Face

        I knew an Indian who had skin cancer. He had an indented square of flesh on his temple.
        I asked him why and he said it was where he had radium to get rid of skin cancer.
        So it does happen in people of colour and he was about 30

    • Kathleen Peres

      WELL let me just say I have seen it cure

  • Bongstar420

    Cures do not “treat symptoms” without stopping the condition.

    Cures stop the conditions existence and symptoms subside as a consequence of the conditions deletion.

    Cannabinoids do have some curative properties, but they are limited and conditional. In fact, the only curative properties that have been documented for THC were in vitro at very very high levels on very specific types of cancers/tumors. It has also been demonstrated that these same compounds have little effect on most kinds of cancer in vitro and can actually encourage some kinds of cancer to proliferate in vitro.

    • wowFAD

      Forgive me for wanting to see your evidence, but where is your evidence? Your insistence that “most” cancers are not treated by THC (one of over 400 cannabinoids) sounds like the conclusion of an extensive oncology literature review, so surely you have the citation… …right? But for the sake of argument, let’s assume this review exists and does, in fact, cite a plethora of in vitro studies that showed little or no change on various types of tumors when THC was introduced in high doses. So what? The cautionary tale of in vitro studies — the reason they are, by themselves, insufficient — is that their results are rarely generalized correctly to in vivo, whole-organism conditions. It’s fallacious to assume or infer what happens in a petri dish under very specific, lab-induced, artificial conditions will also occur in clinical trials with a live subject. That’s why most in vitro cannabis studies are from the 1970s. In the subsequent four decades, medical research has embraced the superiority of animal testing above “test-tube” experiments.

      The more up-to-date research from the last 10 years involving animal trials are far more informative. For example, you can’t demonstrate the anti-angiogenic properties of cannabis-based treatments unless there is an organism growing the blood vessels feeding a tumor. Nor can you explore the anti-metastatic properties without an organism in which the cancer can or cannot spread. While the Nixon-era assertions you’ve vaguely danced around are indeed music to the ears of the layman prohibitionist, “in vitro” only sounds like a phrase that lends an experimental result credibility until you understand what it actually means. Whether or not cannabis has medical value is no longer a question. While the US is woefully behind, other westernized nations such as Spain, Germany, and Israel (just to name a few) are already decades beyond speculations based on in vitro studies from 40 years ago, carrying out animal trials demonstrating many of the aforementioned anti-tumor qualities of cannabis treatments (not just THC).

      Again — maybe you shouldn’t jump to conclusions, given how out of date your information is. But I welcome the forthcoming citation to your oncology literature review and I’m anxious to see if it’s as current or as credible as this one from the May 2016 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association:

      Wilkie G, Sakr B, Rizack T. Medical Marijuana Use in Oncology: A Review. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(5):670-675. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.0155.

      • Sue Hernandez

        will wowFAD please run for President of the U.S.?
        thank you. 😉

        • wowFAD

          I’m not even remotely qualified — so maybe I have a shot. 😉

          • omfgwtfbbq

            The foremost researcher I’m aware of is Cristina Sanchez at Complutense University in Mandrid, Spain. Are there papers by anyone else I should be reading?

      • James Peters

        Did you even read that?. They state the following: ”Marijuana in oncology may have potential for use as an antiemetic, for refractory cancer pain, and as an antitumor agent. However, much of the data are based on animal data, small trials, or are outdated.” They then go on to say: ”More research is needed in all areas related to the therapeutic use of marijuana in oncology.” Or put another way there isn’t a shred of good evidence for this

        • wowFAD

          Uh, yes James, I read it. After all, it was only six pages long, and two of them were the bibliography.

          My question: did you read it? Because, to me, it appears as if you skipped to the conclusion, picked out one phrase (that you misquoted), and are now misrepresenting its actual intent so that you can insert yourself into a conversation that, for the most part, was finished three months ago. You take “more research is needed” to mean the research that has occurred has not been good, which is just not so.

          To assert there isn’t a “shred” of good evidence proves you didn’t read it. There are human studies that back up the observations in both the in-vivo studies and animal trials. They simply happen in Israel, Spain, and soon in Australia. One such trial mentioned specifically in the review is precisely what you say is needed: a phase-I clinical human subject trial (Guzman et al, Spain). When the conclusion of the review says more research is needed, that indicates the research *has been* promising. Had the review concluded the research to-date had no prospect (and thus, no further research is warranted), then yes, your assertion that there isn’t a “shred” of evidence would be correct.

          Frankly, I’m very disappointed you went through the trouble of finding the review just so you could skip reading it. One would think the ongoing research into a safer treatment option for cancer than invasive surgery and radiation would interest you.

          • James Peters

            ”To assert there isn’t a “shred” of good evidence proves you didn’t read it.”

            I stand by what I said. For chemo induced nausea and/or vomiting there are more effective drugs and cannabinoids based ones tend to only be used when these approaches fail

            For cancer-associated pain then three Phase III trials have failed

            As an antitumor agent then only one published Phase I trial and the median survival was no greater that what is generally expected

            ”When the conclusion of the review says more research is needed, that indicates the research *has been* promising.”

            What’s promising?

          • wowFAD

            James, I can’t fathom why you’re trying to move goal posts in an argument that was finished five months ago, but fine, I’ll point out how you failed to address the primary focus of the argument, which was efficacy of cannabinoids in treating cancer, directly — not managing the egregious side-effects of chemo. Nor were we discussing cancer-associated pain.

            As far as your beloved 2006 paper is concerned, nine patients whose immune responses were already severely weakened by failed surgery and chemotherapy are hardly exemplary of an ideal subject pool. I’d assert that the study would have been more sound had the test subjects not been bombarded with radiation if it weren’t for the biggest failing of this study: failing to do your microbiology homework.

            You see, your paper admits that the only reason they tested the anti-tumor properties of THC on glioblastoma is because, and I quote “tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the most important [cannabinoid] owing to its high potency and abundance in cannabis” and because of the two cannabinoid receptors, “CB1, particularly abundant in the brain, and CB2, mainly expressed in the immune system.” In other words, this study was based on two poorly-considered ideas: (1) that THC must be the anti-tumor cannabinoid simply because there’s a lot of it, and (2) that CB1 receptors must be the receptors of interest because there are a lot of them in the brain. Both of these assertions are not only silly, they’re wrong.

            First of all, THC is abundant in cannabis because of centuries of selective breading for its psychoactive properties, which is the second point: just because CB1 receptors are the most prevalent doesn’t mean they’re an appropriate subject of interest in an oncology study. It’s almost comical the way they glossed over the fact that CB2 receptor activation is associated with immune responses, while CB1 has always been understood to be the receptor for psychoactive effects. Considering THC most readily bonds with CB1 receptors (that’s the “high,” after all), and CB2 receptors are associated with “immune response” (which is a gross understatement, even in 2006), then why would you test THC/CB1 instead of CBD/CB2, or CBN/CB2, or any-cannabinoid/CB2???

            You would if you failed to read the appropriate literature that, by 2006, was already published:
            Pertwee, R.G. Pharmacology of cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors. Pharmacol Ther. 1997;74:129–180.
            Referenced by,
            McAllister SD, Glass M. CB(1) and CB(2) receptor-mediated signalling: a focus on endocannabinoids. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2002;66(2-3):161-171.
            Which was referenced by the review I posted oh-so-many-moons, ago. But oddly, not referenced by the 2006 paper, which explains why they were trying to use the wrong key on the wrong lock: ignorance. Thankfully, biochemists and oncologists weren’t surprised this 2006 study had no luck opening the garage door with the TV remote, which is why dedicated scientists haven’t stopped pushing for more research.

            Let’s just drop the pretenses, ok? You’ve lost this argument several times and have now attempted — twice — to get in a last shot MONTHS after the fact. Get a life, or better yet, let go of your your pettiness and try to grow as a person, maybe a little objectivity will drown out some of that bias.

          • Paul Williams
          • wowFAD

            Not going to stop, “Paul.” Get a job, penny-poster. I don’t argue with, let alone click links from accounts less than six minutes old.

          • Paul Williams

            Dr. Derek Lowe who writes an editorially independent blog hosted by the publishers of Science Translational Medicine left those comments I linked to.

          • wowFAD

            My name is not Derek Lowe. Sorry.

          • Karen Willis

            Hi James, to treat cancer in your opinion, do you think that any RSOs made by dispensaries work just as well as making your own cannabis oil? Also, would you know what the best CBD:THC ratio would be?

          • James Peters

            There is no good evidence an oil would work. If we take into account the IC50 (the concentration of an inhibitor needed to reduce something by half) levels of both THC and CBD in preclinical studies (10-30+ uM) and the oral bioavailability of those in humans then we can work a few things out. That study shows the half-life is 1 hour and peak plasma (blood) levels are between 0.3-2.6 ng/ml. So a person would need to take 7-54 grams at hour zero followed by 3-27 grams every hour after in order to have a modest effect on the growth rate their cancer (assuming it works). A number of factors account for the low oral bioavailability including variable absorption per person, degradation in the stomach, significant first-pass metabolism to active and inactive metabolites in the liver and so on.

            The antitumour effects based on preclinical studies are modest at best. Some of these found evidence that under some circumstances they can actually stimulate cancer cell growth and contribute to tumour progression Furthermore, cancer cells can develop resistance

          • James Peters
          • wowFAD

            Hello, though I’m not James. James is the person with whom I’ve been having a protracted argument for the last year or so. As far as a CBD:THC ratio for treating cancer is concerned, I cannot say with any certainty that either of those cannabinoids are “best” for treating cancer, specifically. Cancer is a not a static thing, it’s a categorical classification for an array of different types abnormal cellular growths. Cancer varies based on what type of tissue it’s formed from (bone cancer is very different from brain cancer, skin cancer, or lung cancer). It also varies based on how cell division is malfunctioning.

            That’s why your best bet isn’t a specific recipe, but rather a general one. Find a strain of cannabis that has good ratios of as many cannabinoids as they test for (if you’re fortunate enough to live somewhere with retail standards of that caliber) and make a whole-plant extract from the plant. BUT BE CAREFUL. Doing this can be dangerous as most extraction methods involve using a combustible solvent, so you should do your safety homework extensively, ask someone to help/spot you as a precaution, and perform the extraction with extreme care. There is a way I know of to do so safely outdoors using grain alcohol as a solvent, a large cooking pot, an induction hot-plate, a lot of ice, and a mini-deep-fryer. There are plenty of videos on the internet that are very easy to understand. And again, I must caution you to be extremely careful.

            The whole-plant extract is your best bet for cancer treatment because it contains as many cannabinoids as the original plant. I’m still hoping we’ll see more thorough oncology studies out of Israel and Australia in the next few years that give us a better understanding of the microbiology of cannabinoid receptors and their role in our bodies’ immune response to abnormal cellular growth. Because I wish I could tell you “Yes, _____ is the cannabinoid that fights ______ cancer types.” Whole-plant cannabis extract is more akin to a carpet-bomb than a surgical strike. That being said, a carpet-bomb is no guarantee. But I sincerely hope whoever you’re concerned about recovers.

          • Paul Williams

            Stop wasting your time with someone who’s not only trying to justify their habit, but also wants it legalized via the backdoor.

  • Stick340

    I would suggest you look at the Israel’s Cannabis research. I believe thy have developed strains that are effective in a number.

    • James Peters

      Can you cite the ones in humans?

      • omfgwtfbbq

        There are no human trials in vivo anywhere in the world from what I’ve been able to find. Only in vitro trials and trials with animals implanted with cancerous cells. There are a lot of people who are curing their own cancers and posting the information including medical reports. I’ve found entries where people would have a Stage IV cancer with less than a 1% 5 year survival rate who were cancer free after consuming cbd, thc, and other cannabinoids –> along with chemotherapy. As far as I know, no one has taken the risk to make themselves a guinea pig to see if they could cure their cancer with only marijuana extracts.

        • James Peters

          After going through that list I found only one human study that was published back in 2006. It was a cohort of nine patients all with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (PMCID: PMC2360617). All had their tumours resected and a catheter was placed in the cavity after surgery. Then every day doctors would directly infuse a very pure THC solution at a high concentration directly into the cavity where the tumour had been, in the hope of killing off any remaining cancer cells. The median survival of the group was just 6 months which is what is generally expected with patients who have rGBM (PMCID: PMC2839807 & PMID: 24193082). As for the two patients who survived the longest (yet still died), the effects could be attributable to spontaneous (but temporary) regression of the disease (PMID: 11296017 & PMCID: PMC5237800) which happens, amount of surgical resection (PMID: 26869588) or a number of other factors.

          • omfgwtfbbq

            Thanks, i found it. I wonder if that was from some plant extract or if it was synthesized. The solution was pure THC. They didn’t include the other cannabinoids found in pure plant extracts. If they had included CBD and THCV in the extract to attenuate the psychoactive effects they could have pushed concentrations much higher. It would have also been nice if the study were longer (only 15 days? really?) and ramped up concentrations instead of starting them out at such high doses. It also said that the purpose of the study was to determine safety, not to cure the patients. They weren’t looking for a cure, they just wanted to see if it was safe. “The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration.” — Checking what happened to the tumor was just a secondary part to the study “We also evaluated THC action on the length of survival and various tumour-cell parameters.”. It looks like one of the patients died after being accepted to the trial before having received the treatment. This study was really of 8 patients as the 9th didn’t receive any THC at all (if i understood it correctly). I’m not really sure if this study could be conclusive of anything. Other than, THC in the brain doesn’t kill people, but brain cancer does. When watching a video of Cristina Sanchez, she cited a clinical trial going on in Chile. I was unable to find any info on that trial from google though.

        • SLe

          I agreed, it is a too higher risk for cancer patient/s willing to use themselves as a Guinea pig for this exercise. I am sorry to bugging into your post. However I am going to be off topic a little bit here. I’ve done a lot of research in respect to organic hemp seed oil cured various illnesses for its THC benefits, pls call me an optimistic or a wishful potential cancer victim thinking. I have being diagnosed with fibriod for the last 2 plus years and recently done a CA125 blood test and reading being elevated to 53, doc recommended me to have hysterectomy due to fear my fibriod could possibly turn cancer without providing me any further test to ensure it is cancer. Regardless of my fibriod condition which is no pain, heavy blooding or discomfort accept that one of the fibriod had grown 1cm since it first being diagnosed-2yrs ago. In my view this sort of medical professional advise is ill informed and lack of responsibility and consideration of the patient’s well being. So I am now taking matter in my own hand and using myself as a Guinea pig, I have being consuming the hemp oil for internal to rebalance my hormone and whatever else benefits the oil going to do for me and castor oil & Clove oil heat pack, my research shown that these 2 treatments will potentially shrink fibriod. I will be doing another CA125 blood test in another 2 months and keep you posted if my CA125 will reduce or elevated further. I am giving myself 3 months for the CA125 blood test and 6 months for shrinking the fibriod and will do an ultrasound for fibriod size result. I will post here for update, good or bad is a risk I am willing to take so please consider this for medical research and record. Thk you all for understanding and reading my input comment. Cheers, SL

          • MCLowe

            And sadly… silence. I hope that doesn’t mean she expired. :-/

        • Stewart Hughes

          well, the test could tried, u can try in some 3 world or rats lab,, there are ways of testing,,

  • Kobi Izhaki

    I read here and in several other places about the fact that no clinic research had been made, regarding the claim that cannabis can heal cancer. It said that these kind of research is not performed because of the fact that cannabis is still considered illegal drug by federal law. It makes me wonder, aren’t there another scientists in the world? why there is no clinic research performed in other places like Europe, Australia or any other advanced country? are they all under US federal law? I found it strange

    • omfgwtfbbq

      As far as I know, Cristina Sanchez at Complutense University in Madrid, Spain is the foremost cannabinoid researcher. But, there are still no human studies. They’re all in vitro or in vivo in animals.

  • James Tripp

    Lewis lung adenocarcrnoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC), Δ8tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ8-THC), and cannabinol (CBN)

  • Juergen Meixner

    “Medical practice has neither philosophy nor common sense to recommend it. In sickness the body is already loaded with impurities. By taking drug-medicines more impurities are added thereby the case is further embarrassed and harder to cure.” Elmer Lee, M.D.

    The discovery of the endocannabinoid system (ECS) is the single most important scientific medical discovery since the recognition of sterile surgical technique. As our knowledge expands, we are coming to realize that the ECS is a master control system of virtually all physiology.

    The total effect of the ECS is to regulate HOMEOSTASIS and prevent disease and aging. The more we learn, the more we realize that we are in the infancy of this scientific field of study. The ECS is a control system which involves tissue receptor proteins, cellular communication and control, molecular anatomy and the scavenging of oxygen free radicals. This new field of science will change medicine forever and prove cannabis the gold standard for many disease processes. Its effect on scavenging oxygen free radicals is applicable to all disease processes and this is why it has such wide medical application and is considered a cure-all by many.

    The discovery of the ECS will replace the current medical system of managing and treating disease. Instead of management of symptoms after disease has occurred, we will prevent disease and CANCER by manipulation of the ECS. Research and education of medical students involving the ECS is being intentionally restricted by politics. No justification can be made for the restriction of the scientific study of cannabis and the endocannabinoid system. What is the danger of providing government-grown and tested cannabis to researchers? Diversion of research cannabis for non-scientific or recreational purposes does not seem to be a serious threat to national security.

    God bless you.

  • Damon

    Is it just cannabis oil that can cure cancer? Can’t you just grind up a bud and put it in a tea or something or is cannabis oil the only way?

    • Sue Hernandez

      Damon, I’d suggest reading up on it. I found this on

      “The effects of marijuana also vary depending on how marijuana compounds enter the body.
      When taken by mouth, the THC is absorbed poorly and can take hours to be absorbed. Once it’s absorbed, it’s processed by the liver, which produces a second psychoactive compound (a substance that acts on the brain and changes mood or consciousness) that affects the brain differently than THC.
      When marijuana is smoked or vaporized (inhaled), THC enters the bloodstream and goes to the brain quickly. The second psychoactive compound is produced in small amounts, and so has less effect. The effects of inhaled marijuana fade faster than marijuana taken by mouth. ”

      I was told that its a matter of preference from a user standpoint because smoking leaf might be too harsh on lungs or throat. I personally agree and have learned to use a “Pen” that I can vaporize the oil from. The oil cartridges are very easy to manage. Making sure you get the brand that can help your symptoms is by trial and error. The legal stores must list the amounts or percentages of THC in all products. All the way from the fresh leaf to the drops in a hard candy or mouth tincture. Some prefer to eat their THC in an “edible.” I liked the tinctures and under the tongue sublingual drops or gels.

    • On Vacation

      Please check out and watch all the you tube videos on this site. It will give you a good idea of how the oil is made and the dosage needed

    • CharleeR

      It is high potency (80% THC+) whole plant Cannabis oil that is curing cancer. Saturate the system by consuming 60g in the 1st 90 days. Have a scan done to see the results and if not all gone by then (often there is more damage from Chemo/rads) continue at 30g/mo until it is gone.
      THC has shown to cause apoptosis (cancer cell death) in most cases, and some CBD naturally occurring in most strains helps stop the spread.

      • James Peters

        ”It is high potency (80% THC+) whole plant Cannabis oil that is curing cancer.”

        Citations needed.

  • Chris Jones

    The whole point is that we need more research and studies and a federal ban does not benefit anyone!!!

    • Dennis

      It benefits big pharma 🙂

      • James Peters

        Part of ‘Big Pharma’ and their success is down to a power-law distribution. They will gain more money by funding a handful of huge successes than they will lose by giving small investments to lots of companies with treatments that end up failing. So it makes sense that they keep casting a wider net, making deals at earlier stages and actively seeking newer and better treatments. They want to make sure they don’t miss out on the next Gleevec. That drug made Novartis $4.6 billion last year and since it’s launch in 2001 it will have made them $50 billion by the end of this year. They signed a deal with Aduro Biotech worth $750 million to get full access to their immuno-oncology STING pipeline. They even paid $200 million up front based on just a few preclinical studies such as these (PubMed PMC4440852 & PMC4504692). Not long after the deal was made they started a Phase I trial using intratumoral injections of it in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumours or lymphomas (NCT02675439). They are also working on a systemic formulation to be used for hematologic malignancies like AML (PubMed 27264175).

        Other companies are doing the same. If this worked as well as people claim then they would be all over it. But that’s not happening which should tell you everything you need to know. Compounds don’t sit on shelves gathering dust. Also the FDA doesn’t block clinical trials of cannabinoids and the DEA wouldn’t have a say in the matter. Once a cannabinoids based drug is approved by the FDA then the DEA has always rescheduled it.


          No the reason that the FDA is not backing CBD research is that it is a Natural Compound that can’t be Duplicated in the Lab Therefore no control in the lab , NO MONEY FOR THE FDA NUFF SAID

          • James Peters

            GW Pharma use natural cannabinoids in the drugs they produce and have a number of patents on the extraction and delivery methods. Then you can get patents on the chemical synthesis of cannabinoids or patents on structural analogs (chemical lookalikes) of them.

            Back in 2011, the company Kannalife Sciences Inc was granted an exclusive license by the US National Institutes of Health – Office of Technology Transfer (NIH-OTT) for the Commercialization of patent US6630507, ”Cannabinoids as Antioxidants and Neuroprotectants.” Their first drug candidate (KLS-13019) is a structural analog of CBD and based on preclinical data it’s 50-fold more potent and over 400-fold safer (PubMed 27096053). They hope to start trials sometime this year in patients with hepatic encephalopathy and chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

            As for the FDA then they don’t stop trials of these compounds. They have allowed many by GW Pharma and other small pharma companies. In addition to this they have granted orphan drug designations and/or fast tracks for a host of different indications.

    • omfgwtfbbq

      As long as it’s schedule 1, that research will never or take centuries to get done within the US. It needs to be reduced to Schedule 3 ASAP.

  • I know

    as a true chronic pain sufferer no related products help with pain. Just seep. Eating. Sadly as a proponent of its uses in general over drinking booze or tobacco – ONLY Hashish kept me from taking opiates from 19-29 yrs of age and now in my 40s … just the poppy. Ys I have access and have tried all all variations and even traveled the world too … to bad..

  • Grant Johnson

    Okay I have used cannabis for over 30 years, and now i have cancer. I didn’t just use it a bit either, I have smoked weed all day every day for my whole adult life. So no, cannabis doesn’t prevent cancer, at least in my experience. Yes I know that n=1, that anecdotes are not evidence, etc. However, I know that some people claim that cannabis prevents and/or cures cancer, and I am here to tell you that it just isn’t that simple. That being said, I can attest that it is extremely helpful treating some of the symptoms and side-effects. It helps my pain, relieves my nausea, and improves my mood. I am very fortunate that I live in Canada, where medical cannabis is available nationwide and attitudes towards cannabis use are much more liberal than many of the states.

    • Dr Gordon Freeman

      Did you read the second page of this article? “Cancer” is a group designation for an entire host of diseases, with similar effects. The rate of “cure” for recognized treatments is no better, and quite possibly worse (we don’t have reliable data on this, yet). I am not an oncologist, but I am good friends with one. His advice would be along the same lines. Each cancer is different, despite similar symptoms.

    • Ernie Van Tent

      Me to smoked and ate it all my life and I have cancer.

    • omfgwtfbbq

      Smoking pot means youre smoking plant matter. Plant matter is cancerous. I also highly doubt you were taking doses large enough that would work for medicinal benefits. Cannabinoids have shown in vivo and in vitro to selectively cause cancer cells to undergo apopotosis just as chemotherapy does unselectively. It also depends greatly where your cancer is, what kind it is, etc. The cannabinoids need to actually make it to the site where the cancer is. Unless you were smoking at least a gram a day of hash through a vaporizer.. you were #1) injesting cancerous material and #2) probably weren’t getting enough for any medicinal benefit.


    What about C.B.D. the legal form of Mary jane in 50 states? Does it cure Cancer , or kill cancer cells ?

    • James Peters

      There simply isn’t enough evidence to prove the cannabinoids can treat any type of cancer in patients.


        Well I tell you I used to live next door to a Husband and Wife team of Cancer Researchers that worked out of their home , and I gotta tell you It didn’t look to me that they were working to hard on any breakthroughs of any kind , I know from watching them that Cancer Research is a Major money making Scam!! NUFF SAID!!

        • James Peters

          A husband and wife team of cancer researchers that worked out of their home?. Now that sounds like a scam. As for actual cancer researchers then they along with their family and friends still get cancer and many of them die from it. This would be the only conspiracy in which the conspirators would have to be working directly against their own interests and those of their loved ones too. Who wants to die of cancer, having “suppressed” a better treatment or even a cure?.

        • Dr Gordon Freeman

          Don’t listen to the Trump supporter. The whole plant is what you want. You can separate out the components, but it is better to consume the entire plant. You can eat it, you don’t have to smoke it.

          • James Peters

            ”Don’t listen to the Trump supporter.”

            You should never assume something. I happen to live in the UK

            ”The whole plant is what you want. You can separate out the components, but it is better to consume the entire plant. You can eat it, you don’t have to smoke it.”

            What is eating it going to do?

    • omfgwtfbbq

      CBD is not legal in all 50 states. The only thing that is legal in all 50 states is industrial hemp oil which contains only minute traces of CBD, THC and other cannabinoids. Do not be fooled. All of the cannabinoids have shown some promise in vitro for killing cancer cells. Based on the studies I’ve read, it seems they work better in concert than with just one. If I had cancer and wanted to cure myself, I would be getting hashish and using it in a vaporizer or eating it in chocolate, brownies, cookies, etc in extremely high doses (no dosage for curing cancer is really known — but it’s non toxic and your body will build a resistance to the psychoactive effects over time).

  • Michael Codina

    Please give me the name of the person in the federal govt. that will not lift the ban on these studies. I would like to contact that person so that I can find out his/her side of the reasons. Thank you.

    • Dr Gordon Freeman

      Donald Trump, for starters. Good luck getting that prick to help you.

      • Rick Desonie

        Chill about Trump. Call your representative and suggest a solution.

      • MCLowe

        You, sir, are no doctor.

    • omfgwtfbbq

      Obama is another. Everyone expected him to reschedule it from 1 to 3 during his second term. A lot of people are pissed that he didn’t (me included).

      • Stewart Hughes

        obama is on the side of money,,, so is the democrats party whom is worse than republican by far,,
        democrats are way more tyranical then republicans,,,

        every left wing party gets in power with loads of promises,, once they get in , they promote gender war at the high level,,, race war at the high level,,, and start taking people rights one by one based on some sort of neo nazy comunist view of the world backed by modern eugenics..

  • christine simmons

    christine simmons love forum • 3 hours ago
    my husband has lung cancer which has spread to his kidney, he has undergone chemo which shrunk the tumours in the lung by 80% at the time the one on his kidney had not change and only had tiny spots on the liver, these have since increased in size he also has a tumour on the other kidney the main blood vessel in the stomach he has undergone radio therapy 25 sessions finishing early December he is in considerable pain all the time from a dull ache to severe in the stomach and back area, and has been on codine paracetomaol and aramorph at night, he has spent the last few weeks in bed most of the day either in pain or sleeping.
    We started on the oils 6 days ago unfortunately the diet that goes with it is not for him, and as he has lost so much weight cant really afford for him not to eat.
    I suppose what I am asking is how long do you take the oils before you see any improvement

    • omfgwtfbbq

      Just take the oil and don’t do the diet.

    • Sandi Hansen

      christine simmons. my husband has just been diagnosed with lung cancer. has this been of any help to your husband?

  • David Cook

    I have read through numerous postings on this site and I am without words….. @ wowFAD, your insightful nature and well thought out postings have me in a positive bliss. Thank you for adding you knowledge and time to this discussion, it has been a great read and I have enjoyed my time here. Here is my situation, my mother has stage 4 metastatic cancer that started in her colon, and has moved to 5 other portions of her body. She has been given less than 1 year to live. In a nut shell, I have these two simple questions… Do you feel in your opinion that cannabis oil will help her, and if so, how should I obtain it. I am trying my best to research this situation but I know I am not at full capacity with my thoughts as I am so traumatized by her diagnoses. Any words of wisdom are greatly appreciated!

    • Dr Gordon Freeman

      If you live in a state with medical marijuana, you need to find a doctor who will prescribe it. If you do not, you need to find someone who will sell it to you. It isn’t that difficult. It is everywhere. I do wish you the best in helping your mother. It might also behoove you to move to a state that has medical marijuana, or legal marijuana. You’ll probably pay many times over for the treatments they are giving her now, than the cost of doing so. I wish you and your mother the best. I hope she finds the cure that she needs.

    • Stewart Hughes

      hi, i dont think canabis oil will realy hekp , but u can try,,, wont do harm i guess,, maybe,,,

      i would rather smoke the canabis pure the strong one, but in england is not legal,,,

  • Mister Misanthrope

    There’s a lady here who was diagnosed with breast cancer. She said it was recommended to her to have a double mastectomy She went to Tijuana for 12 days for a treatment of cannabis oil injected directly into/around the tumor. She said she was only injected once, and the rest of the time was spent on a diet of some kind, she didn’t say what, and doing daily mammograms. She said by the end of the 12 days the tumor was gone. Her oncologist had a hard time believing her, but her scans were clear. I have no idea if the kind of cancer matters,

    A guy I work with just told me he used hemp oil on a skin lesion that started growing pretty quickly. It scabbed up, and then fell off. I saw it last week, and now it’s gone, except for a pinkish area where it was. You can’t get cannabis oil here,btw. Not legally. I would assume there is a difference with it being hemp oil.

    Anyway, other than the skin thing on my friend, I can only go by what I was told. I can’t imagine why the lady would lie about having breast cancer, but she for sure went to Tijuana with her husband.

  • Michael L. Wallace Jr.

    Common Sense would suggests illnesses (Including Cancers) Relieved & Healed by Cannabis are caused by Cannabinoid Deficiency . Recreational Marijuana Prevents illnesses . While Medical Marijuana is waiting for illnesses (Including Cancers) to set into the body RISKING DEATH before going to a Doctor to try to get a Prescription . It should be the right for every American Adult , Senior & Child to ingest a portion of fresh raw unheated/dried Marijuana high in all Cannabinoids with every meal .

  • Rick Desonie

    Why has the U.S. government had a patent on medical marijuana since the mid 70s. The gov’t has been growng it in Oxford, MS and somehow dispensing it to doctors for certain medical conditions. Yet the government refuses to do research but 28 states has approved medical marijuana. Imagine this scenrio, the government legalized marijuana and collects taxes to go towards research and the debt America has. Just saying.

  • Stewart Hughes

    well this is good news since most of us already knew that, ,but the ruling elite wants us dead one way or another..

    since this was a spanish research we can find credibility,,

  • OpenMind

    My friend is battling appendix cancer, has had two massive surgeries in two years. She is going to a holistic clinic and spent $20K there last year getting a mixed bag of fluids, mostly vitamin C .Now they are recommending a supplier of cannabis oil that has quoted her $4000 for two months supply. Its her fight her decision but I feel she is being misled.

  • Matt G

    Dr Abrams seemed to have suggested that patients only recovered in conjunction with conventional therapy, It is true that at least one of the testimonials on CYOD had chemotherapy to treat their initial cancer the one person at least did not use conventional therapy of a diagnosis of the recurrence of their cancer. Also Mr Hill gave no indication that he used any conventional treatment with his prostate cancer

  • Franklin

    This reads like a Big Pharma ad. There are almost 200 million results for cancer cures on Google. Everything from grape seed oil to beet juice. Why is the good doctor focusing on just the one that is political right now. Is he a political doctor, or just has nothing better to do? He has never had cancer, yet he does accept free swag from Big Pharma doesn’t he? When person is going through cancer, hope is essential. We aren’t going to debate that.

    No one is taking the cures cancer thing anymore serious than they believe the doctor can cure cancer. We don’t have a cure for cancer. If the doctor thinks we do, then he’s either insane or a poor excuse for a doctor. To do no harm? 2.5 million people are in prison in America, more than China, Russia, or any other country in the world. That is harm. Now what hasn’t been claimed to be a cure for cancer. How many of the doctor’s patients have died from the toxic treatment he prescribed and not the cancer at all? Now his answers become less clear and sure of himself.

    No more people believe that cannabis is a cure for cancer than for any other plant, extract, or prediction drugs. But marijuana doesn’t kill people and some of those treatments do. Logic says a doctor who is keeping his “no harm” oath would still be concerned with the harmful claims of different products before he took the time to write these letters to the different news outlets on the politics of a plant. He is clearly a big pharma lapdog and doctors are a dime a dozen.

  • Jeffry S.

    Whether you buy that cannabis kills cancer cells or not, there are several other auxiliary benefits to adding it to your cancer treatment plan. The active ingredients in cannabis have been proven to effectively relieve the pain, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite and weakness that cancer patients feel while going through chemotherapy.

    • Herpy Derp

      ^ This right here.

      Please leave the pro/anti weed/pharma cockblockery political argument and grandiose claims at the door. More conspiracy agenda bs blanketed under presently known science.

      • MassSolipsist

        You don’t think the pharma industry will use its financial muscle to obstruct the wide introduction of a medicine which it can’t patent and therefore can’t profit hugely from? Gee, shucks – why don’t you try clicking your heels together trhree times?

        • Herpy Derp

          They don’t need to. They already profit from it as a medical treatment, so the notion that somehow the magical information about the super healing powers of this dumbass plant getting out would completely ruin them is totally absurd. Awww… here’s this weed that cures all this stuffs but we can’t haves it cuz law says we can’ts grows it… derrrrrppp… stoopid pharma and their monees. They all just evil and greedies!

          Yeah… like that would stop anybody from growing and taking the shit if that were even remotely accurate.
          The conspiracy thinking is fucking ridiculous… Big pharma doesn’t have a global stranglehold on the entire medical industry, sorry to burst your bubble. Nobody is suppressing effective treatments to profit by slinging bullshit. That would be the homeopathic and holistic hippie jackasses with their snake oils, good vibes, and magical artifacts.

          • Trudy Brant Craig

            you need to do some research -” The scared Plant”

          • Jennifer Mckinley

            well now that’s it’s 2018 and we have just learned the SO many DEMOCRATIC political heads, leads, judges, FBI etc…are being found to be colluding and one just ran for president!!! Who would have EVER thought that a silly “conspiracy theory ” would turn out to be true???? AND….all for money , power and GREED. So. Your comment that you posted, 3 months ago, looks kinda like maybe you should reconsider your outlook of impossibilities.
            mmm mmm?

          • Milton Platt

            Evidence of a conspiracy, please………

          • Baby Face

            They are doing trials of it in England, I know of someone who was on one. He had lung cancer. He did live longer than his original diagnosis but didn’t survive.
            Mind you he was supposed to follow something called the green diet at the same time but his family found out later he didn’t because he couldn’t stand the taste.
            His sister in law tried it she said it tasted horrible.

    • Kim Wilson TV

      Watch the documentary “Run From The Cure” by Canadian hero Rick Simpson, you can see it on Youtube

  • Jovan Bilbija

    Cannabis can not cure cancer, cannabis is a depressive drug that weakens the immune system and accelerates the progression of cancer.

  • Brad Yale

    Good services offered by you guys. The products were well placed and described. Your ordering and delivery are amazing. Thanks.

  • Brian Woodworth

    Good services offered by you guys. The products were well placed and described. Your ordering and delivery

    are amazing. Thanks.

  • jod

    cannibis cured my ovarian cancer i refused chemo and made rso instead ultimately “curing cancer” i have ben cancer free for over a year now

  • CharleeR

    So, if Cannabis doesn’t cure cancer, or kill cancer cells and leave healthy cells undamaged, then how did I cure my 14 yr old cat of Cancer?

  • Kathleen Peres

    YES IT CURES CANCER. Along with a very strict diet. It will cure it in 3months .So tell me when have you ever heard of a fifth of jack daniels curing cancer

  • Kathleen Peres

    I have seen 4 people stage 4 cancer CURED

  • Ronald Akridge

    CBD, a chemical found in cannabis may actually help in preventing cancer from spreading. 🙂

  • Bryan Rowley

    The best decision that everyone could make is to legalize cannabis. It’s time to end the suffering and pain. It’s time to consider the use of cannabis.I always recommend ANNCANNMED to my friends and family since they always deliver what is promised

  • Bryan Rowley

    Check out ANNCANNMED for more information, health prescription and medical purchases. They have extremely potent products at good prices too. Recommend this dispensary to anyone looking at Cannabis for help.

  • gomez K
  • Donald Adiska

    In my mind one HUGE problem is that the current line up of doctors at the vast majority of clinics, offices and hospitals has ZERO training about hemp for health AND that they can be fired, disbarred and jailed for promoting ‘Unauthorized treatments’. Especially for promoting the use of a Class 1 drug.

    I have asked Dr’s and their response is somewhere between uneducated (“We weren’t taught/trained on that” – “there is no research on that”) to paranoid “you could get into a lot of trouble for that (who cares if it’s good for you)”. It will take decades to educate the current pool of Dr’s, and decades to learn what we should already know by now, but were blocked from learning. Luckily we are now learning and the information is being discriminated.

  • aqua blue

    Don’t concern yourself with anything but doing what you need to do. Once someone tells you that your diagnosis is Cancer, nothing fazes you.

  • Nick Rain All-day

    you’d better update this article…

  • James Peters

    For the sake of the discussion lets say one million people decide to take cannabis oil to try and cure their terminal cancer. Let’s further assume that only 0.4% of this million will experience spontaneous remission. Now, 4000 people translates into a lot of testimonials, “cannabis oil cured my cancer” blogs (posts), social media comments, newspaper articles, so this makes an extremely positive impression for it. But the other 99.6% died and aren’t around leaving any testimonials, positive or otherwise. So there is no way to separate any signal from the noise with only single data points. Other things come into play as well.