The 32-year-old had used the oil treat his daughter's neuroblastoma, a rare form of cancer

Some cure that shit was. Excellent job, dad.

A stupid prize from a stupid game

probably
less
dangerous
than
marijuana

hobby
glue
sniffing
started
it
all

love
boris

ps

keep
America
pure
great
again

pss

wish
yukon
was
here

missing
all
the
fun

On Christmas Day 2014, Mr Koessler started to feed his "little monkey" food cooked in cannabis oil, before traditional treatment had begun.

Apparently she died of "traditional treatment" as is indicated above. Chemotherapy should be outlawed and the scammers promoting it should be locked up. There will never be any "health care" in this country until we change the system from a health industry to a health care system where the intent is proper treatment and care for sick people instead of concern for the corporate bottom line.

You are aware that there is no cure for cancer and that any therapy poses risks for the patient; some therapies pose risks that are low and some risks are high.

Thank you so very much for responding and taking time to share this enlightening information with me and helping me make sense of the end result the dreaded cancer can tragically cause.

However, there is testimony where a Hollywood stuntman claims cannabis oil cured his state 4 cancer. Are we to believe this did not happen?

They are kinda like gods in the medical field capable of doing anything on the quick & easy to make a fast buck; they are like voodoo practiceners, if you think about it; kinda like the kanary klub klan can cover for their degenerate founder, "yukon."

All are disgusting trash!

"The love this little girl has generated around the world has been a phenomenal force, and we would like to thank you all for the endless love, support and prayers that you constantly surrounded Rumer with.

"We truly believe that she felt that love, and it gave her strength as she fought each new battle."

It's unfortunate that in this case, the cannabis treatment was not enough to save this child who died from cancer. If I had a child that was dying I would do everything in my power to save her or him, including breaking the law by using cannabis.

You two freaks would rather see your own child die rather than try a substance that is not approved by the State.

That you seemingly take joy in the death of this child is a sign of your lack of empathy and your inhumanity.

You're both sad, pathetic little men.

I would do everything in my power to save her or him, including breaking the law by using cannabis.

What is your evidence that cannabis cures cancer?

What is your evidence that cannabis cures cancer?

He has a PH.D. in anarchy.

What is your evidence that cannabis cures cancer?

There is no cure or methods of cure for any type of cancer, known to mankind. There are many therapies, however, some regarded as "unconventional" that change the current way contemporary medical practices evaluate "therapies."

I don't think you understand how to separate reality with respect to pure fiction.

Chemotherapy should be outlawed and the scammers promoting it should be locked up.

What is you prescribed treatment for glioblastoma brain cancer?

However, there is testimony where a Hollywood stuntman claims cannabis oil cured his state 4 cancer. Are we to believe this did not happen?

I would say yes as there was likely other factors a play in that ONE case. But if you are correct then everyone that smokes or otherwise ingests cannabis has never gotten not ever will get cancer. Is that your contention?

It's unfortunate that in this case, the cannabis treatment was not enough to save this child who died from cancer. If I had a child that was dying I would do everything in my power to save her or him, including breaking the law by using cannabis.

I hope that you do not have to face that situation with a child or loved one. I do and I will do anything to save her. Had it not been for your so-called voodoo conventional medical treatment she would have been dead 18 months ago. But we are still kicking and the clinical trial is still working. Eventually it will stop working and we will have to find another trial or treatment.

I will always put my faith in the medical profession over those that blindly advocate cannabis or any other untested, undocumented, uncontrolled unconventional grandma's kitchen cure for lethal brain cancer. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind had we not followed the conventional and now clinical trial treatment and just placed our trust in cannabis (or any one of a number of truly voodoo proffered cures) she would have died 18 months ago.

We will fight until the end and in final desperation even likely try cannabis, baking soda, apricot pits, yoga, or whatever the street corner, back alley medical practitioners de jure swear by. Until then we will stay with conventional and leading edge medical practices.

It is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about.

What is your evidence that cannabis cures cancer?

It doesn't cure cancer and whoever said it did is full of crap. It's primary function in treating cancer is to enable the user to keep his food down. This enables the user to regain his strength and battle the cancer more with chemo.

I had a nephew years ago who developed leukemia at 18 and was given three months to live. The marijuana enabled him to go on for 2 years. We didn't think marijuana who save him but the two years it gave us were wonderful.

I will always put my faith in the medical profession over those that blindly advocate cannabis or any other untested, undocumented, uncontrolled unconventional grandma's kitchen cure for lethal brain cancer.

You can pretty much forget about anything that is natural ever having any chance of being clinically tested for any therapeutic value. The cost is extremely, extremely high, and because of that, pharma companies will only invest money testing substances which they can patent and sell for enough to recover their investment.

Cannabis cannot be patented, so no pharma company will invest the $ to have it clinically tested. Of course, that it's illegal makes it all the more unlikely to ever generate returns.

So the only medicines that meet your stated requirements will be synthetic pharmaceutical drugs. Any natural chemicals won't make the cut. And given there are billions of natural chemicals in existence, that's a damn shame as many of them must various effects on the human body that could have therapeutic value.

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."

https://www.leafly.com/news/health/can-cannabis-cure-cancer.

The cost is extremely, extremely high, and because of that, pharma companies will only invest money testing substances which they can patent and sell for enough to recover their investment.

While big pharma is concerned with medical needs and improvements, it still is a business … it has to be a business to survive, grow and improve the results of their products. Many look at it as too risky a business to invest money in, while others in the public perceive it to be an excessively profitable business. For whatever reasons, while it continues to develop lifesaving drugs, it has developed negative reputation.

Big pharma is unusual in that it will be “damned if they do and damned if they don’t.” It has made many major contributions to the continuing wellbeing of the public and the great forward progress in the reduction of ill health and painful suffering. In spite of this, it is shown in public opinion surveys to be one of the least trusted industries.

Is that your contention?

No.

Then you are wrong.

"It's primary function in treating cancer is to enable the user to keep his food down."

Is that why this dimwit was giving her cannabis oil? Ot did he believe all the hype put out by the pro-legalization crowd that it actually cured cancer?

What is your evidence that cannabis cures cancer?

Where is the evidence that anything does?

What is your evidence that cannabis cures cancer?

Where is the evidence that anything does?

There is no known cure for cancer at this time ... but of course you know that. I understand your question.

there is no cure for cancer

Because the oncologists would be out of work, Simple. If I were a doctor and everyone was well then I would be out of business.

there is no cure for cancer

Because the oncologists would be out of work, Simple. If I were a doctor and everyone was well then I would be out of business.

Extremely popular on Facebook and other social media is the idea that a cure for cancer has been found but is being suppressed. The reason given for the suppression is universally the same. The premise is that companies stand to make more money by treating a chronic disease than from curing it. It’s a simple idea with a simple justification, but the implications are staggeringly complicated. If we consider what the world would have to look like for this conspiracy theory to be true, we immediately see numerous holes and contradictions.

It is the nature of human thinking to become upset with behavior we see as unfair. If we are told that the rich and powerful are allowing human suffering to continue for the sake of their wallets, the inclination is to be outraged. Unfortunately, it’s also human nature to justify such feelings once we have them. This causes many to focus on the outrage and forget to think things through and, when presented with the various logical snags inherent to this trope, to rationalize with whatever justifications and compartmental logic is necessary to maintain the outrage. It’s a basic phenomenon we see with virtually all forms of pseudoscience: Start with a conclusion and do whatever it takes to support it.

Here we present 10 reasons why the hidden cures narrative is untenable. We urge people to not only consider these points, but to also pay attention to how they are dismissed or explained away by conspiracy mongers. We believe the methods used to counter these points go a long way to explain why the hidden cure trope exists and persists, and that they reveal a flawed thought process rather than any sort of evidential substance. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and promoters of the hidden cure conspiracy have no evidence whatsoever: just a narrative. Even worse, the narrative has no internal logical consistency.

Continue reading by clicking here.

You can pretty much forget about anything that is natural ever having any chance of being clinically tested for any therapeutic value. The cost is extremely, extremely high, and because of that, pharma companies will only invest money testing substances which they can patent and sell for enough to recover their investment.

BS. All that is required is that the entity conducting the trial be accepted by the FDA. For example, if the Cannabis Association of America (a made up entity for purposes of this discussion) can qualify with the FDA it can conduct a trail. I live in CO where access to cannabis is not an issue.

But I ask again, if cannabis was effective against cancer then no-one who smokes or otherwise has taken cannabis would ever had gotten cancer and never will. Is this what you are claiming?

Because the oncologists would be out of work, Simple. If I were a doctor and everyone was well then I would be out of business.

So you are claiming that cannabis cures cancer. Well if that is true then anyone that used or is uses cannabis over the past 50-100 years has never gotten cancer and those currently using it never will. Is that your claim?

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:

That's the only thing it does and its great for that and that alone.

People like the guy with the cannabis oil get desperate and hope anything will say their child whether is actually works or not.

Hell I'd try anything to say my kids and I'm sure you guys would too. I can't comprehend the pain of having a child die before I did.

Cannabis cannot be patented, so no pharma company will invest the $ to have it clinically tested. Of course, that it's illegal makes it all the more unlikely to ever generate returns.

for the 5,000,000 time-

The plant cannot be patented (yet) but the USE OF THE MAIN INGREDIENT HAS BEEN PATENTED SINCE 2003

United States Patent 6,630,507
Hampson et al. October 7, 2003
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Abstract

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

A Part of that patent has already been granted to a company called Kannalife. Just look at Kannalife.com (why not split the patent up and the Feds can make more money by parceling it out)

This has been posted OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. There MUST BE a reason people just don't get it.

You can pretty much forget about anything that is natural ever having any chance of being clinically tested for any therapeutic value.

Take a look at that patent. Then take a look at 28 more here: http://hempoil.com/us-patent-6630507-cannabinoids/

Look at the research on those patents.

Then click here: http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq#section/all

6. Have any preclinical (laboratory or animal) studies been conducted using Cannabis or cannabinoids?

Preclinical studies of cannabinoids have investigated the following:

Antitumor activity • Studies in mice and rats have shown that cannabinoids may inhibit tumor growth by causing cell death, blocking cell growth, and blocking the development of blood vessels needed by tumors to grow. Laboratory and animal studies have shown that cannabinoids may be able to kill cancer cells while protecting normal cells.

There is a disease rampant in America- people can't read and comprehend new things anymore. It's disgusting.

BS. All that is required is that the entity conducting the trial be accepted by the FDA. For example, if the Cannabis Association of America (a made up entity for purposes of this discussion) can qualify with the FDA it can conduct a trail. I live in CO where access to cannabis is not an issue.

The show stopper is not FDA approved trials. It's instead the millions of dollars it costs to do the trials. Investors won't put money into a trial to test out cannabis because they cannot patent it and therefore can never sell it to recoup the investment.

But I ask again, if cannabis was effective against cancer then no-one who smokes or otherwise has taken cannabis would ever had gotten cancer and never will. Is this what you are claiming?

Not at all. I have no personal knowledge of whether cannabis is effective against cancer. It's not an issue I've had to face and research, unlike yourself.

What I do believe though is that cancer is the result of a failing immune system. My understanding is that everyone gets cancer a few times throughout their life, but in most cases, the immune system kills it off without the person ever having a clue that they "got cancer". It's much as with any minor infections or cuts on the body that heal over without the person ever having to address it. But when the immune system is failing in some way, cancer isn't stopped and grows until it becomes a problem.

Treating the cancer is actually treating the symptom, in a way. I may be wrong, but that's my understanding of it. Again, you've doubtless researched this more than me.

Best to you.

"Hell I'd try anything to say my kids and I'm sure you guys would too."

Of course. But that doesn't mean I would insist that whatever crazy treatment I used on my kid be legalized and used by every parent to treat their kid.

f course. But that doesn't mean I would insist that whatever crazy treatment I used on my kid be legalized and used by every parent to treat their kid.

Yep, I still cringe at the stories of Steve McQueen dying in a Tijuana hospital while taking coffee enemas from a dentist to cure his cancer

Of course. But that doesn't mean I would insist that whatever crazy treatment I used on my kid be legalized and used by every parent to treat their kid.

But you do insist that parents not have the option of treating their kids the way you would treat your kids, and if they do they should go to jail and/or lose custody of their children. But not you. Is that correct?

I know of no one who is demanding that parents treat their kids with cancer in any particular way. I know of no one who advocates cannabis oil as a treatment for cancer that demands that it be forceably administered to cancer patients. I do know of people that want parents to be allowed to make the best decisions they see fit to make without some bureaucrat telling them that some options are not available to them because a certain natural plant was created by Satan.

"But you do insist that parents not have the option of treating their kids the way you would treat your kids, and if they do they should go to jail and/or lose custody of their children. But not you. Is that correct?"

I said all that? Read it again, this time only read the words I wrote down.

"I know of no one who is demanding that parents treat their kids with cancer in any particular way."

Me neither. But I read about many who want the United States federal government to legalize a banned drug nationwide because they've read stories and think it may help their child.

Wait. Maybe you're saying it should be legal for some, but not for others. Is that what you're saying?

I said all that?

Yes you did. You want it illegal. That means you want it to NOT be an option for parents, people you do not know and have never met.

But I read about many who want the United States federal government to legalize a banned drug nationwide because they've read stories and think it may help their child.

It seems then the real object of your dismay is some combination of the First Amendment and the right of people to vote. You should direct your efforts to having one or both repealed.

The show stopper is not FDA approved trials. It's instead the millions of dollars it costs to do the trials. Investors won't put money into a trial to test out cannabis because they cannot patent it and therefore can never sell it to recoup the investment.

Peanuts for the numerous liberal progressive pro-druggie multi-millionaires in Hollywood or the corporate world.