Does pot cure cancer? if yes; why are you a retard, get a job?

does pot cure cancer? if yes; why are you a retard, get a job?

pic related

Other urls found in this thread:

molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/5/1612
cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

it can
not retarded
I have a job I show up high to

Probably not, although there is some evidence that cannabinoids can trigger apoptosis in leukaemia cells.

Chemotherapy doesn't "cure cancer", but it helps, so it can.

Pot also helps. Doesn't means moking pot will cure your cancer.

I have a high paying job as a programmer and I smoke weed on the way to work, during lunch, and after work, every day.

show me research where it cures cancer lmao. Pic is of a SOME unknown metabolic pathways. So I'm guessing you know where pot comes into the picture and what it does?

question says does it cure cancer, try opening your eyeballs.

lol "some evidence" as in, it says that in the paper you just cited? let me take a wild guess and say that if you even have bothered to read a scientific paper that it uses rats with a fucked up immune system anyway or bad labeling antibodies or is in general bullshit

Where else are you going to start other than "some evidence"? Or are you just so anti-weed that you wouldn't accept any evidence?
molpharm.aspetjournals.org/content/70/5/1612

How does kik works?
If i send dick pick for some random whore
Can i get doxxed?

I used to sell weed lmao, I'm not antiweed at all. I'm anti- being a fucking idiot.

the evidence is that it's being used for medical purposes you idiot, if it didn't work we wouldn't be doing that

Look man, I know this seems like evidence but you clearly dont understand research and you clearly cant comprehend what this paper is saying. I didnt even leave the abstract yet and come across this

"Induction of apoptosis after treatment with the synthetic agonists R(+)-methanandamide [R(+)-MA] and Win55,212-2 (Win55; (R)-(+)-[2,3-dihydro-5-methyl-3-(4-morpholinylmethyl) pyrrolo-[1,2,3-d,e]-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-1-naphthalenyl-methanone) was dependent on both cannabinoid receptors,"

theyre not inducing apoptosis with cannabinoids, theyre using cannabinoid receptors (which are used daily in your body for a variety of activities whether you smoke weed or not) so this doesnt show anything related to your point

also I don't use it for cancer but insomnia

And I replied to "does pot cure cancer", by talking about pot, and whether or not it cures cancer.

Maybe you should stay away from pot, you need to hold on tight to the few brain cells you were born with.

this would be like saying if I made a protein that binds to dopamine receptors that raises your IQ by 30 points, that dopamine increases your IQ. it doesnt make sense. theyre using a drug that happens to bind to these receptors. the only mention of THC is when they briefly talk about another paper, which references totally different organs and cells and is nearly irrelevant

you never replied with if it cures cancer or not. you gave a vague answer because youre a moron who wants to feel like you have a relevant opinion on the matter when you dont understand shit. you done now? can the grown ups talk?

youre a moron. its used to treat symptoms of a select few types of cancer. it doesnt cure cancer. there is no body of research that shows this. it helps with symptoms.

and look here, a mark of bullshit research is how they decide not to talk about their handling of research antibodies (only something nature published several papers on and is the center of the scientific crisis)

mostly we give it to cancer patients is because, it dulls the pain from chemotherapy and brings back there appetite

cool story bro

>curing symptom
so healing thus you contradicted yourself

look at this flow cytometry work too. they clearly used different amounts of cells for each run. WIN 55 looks nearly identical to the control, which, has a visibly lower cell count. maybe thats why they purposely chose not to give cell counts for each graph?

Also, only one label (Annexin)? no form of PI or other total cell death label?

this

helping negate symptoms doesnt cure dipshit. If I shoot you in the fucking head and give you painkillers to help your symptoms youre not gonna be okay. I didnt cure your bullet wound

Will you accept 34 studies cited by a government website?

cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq

Someone cited ONE research paper who clearly doesnt science. Can someone who has any research experience respond before I abort my own thread because you limpdick retards?

If you can literally explain one of them to me to prove you understand a lick of what its saying we can see what the paper is talking about yeah

way to man up when your getting proven wrong

Just read the summary on the government page. It was written in small words for idiots like you.

this info is shit, the diagrams are garbage, and the whole thing is poorly written in conclusion anyone who bases there thought on this belong on this board

lmao the governments page literally says exactly what Im saying. IT HELPS with SYMPTOMS it doesnt cure

By the way, it doesn't "cure" cancer. Even babies have some slow-growing cancerous cells. The contention here is that cannabinoids kill cancerous cells without damaging non-cancerous cells, which is backed by 30+ peer-reviewed articles

Thanks for playing

thank you user, look at the cytometry work on this paperr lmao. on top of that nowhere does anybody administer pot to anything. they use a totally different drug.

that's because nobody wants to admit it pharmaceutical companies are making to much money

okay Im waiting for literally a single one of these papers lol. Dont give me bullshit either, Im a researcher and dumbass papers like the one cited earlier arent gonna fly. if youre a dumbass it will be known shortly

>cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells

You just posted the fact proving you wrong

typical retard montra from someone whos never set foot in a lab let alone has 10+ years experience in the field. stop whining about shit you havent the faintest idea about and hang yourself instead

what is this a picture of source?

you forgot to finish that one dipshit "cannabis has been shown to kill cancer cells in the laboratory"

so shall we read the paper that this is talking about so we can get the information through your dense skull?

My non-science background and loose hearsay understanding is that; no, pot does not cure cancer. It eases pain and slows the production of some cells.Which is also why it's bad for an underdeveloped brain.
Again, a guess based on second hand understanding.

this they didn't hand out joints or vapers they used a processed drug that was manmade

that's all you think of? you belong here

That is literally the proof you're saying doesn't exist. Why are you so bad at basic reasoning?

then this thread wouldn't be here

Good point

Any chance of a pic we can see?

getting something to work in the lab is easy as shit. mother fucker I can make it seem like pea and carrots cure cancer if I want. The famous lab saying goes "you want a number?! Ill give you a number!"

Are you retarded or just trolling?

don't mind him he's both

wow, a joke instead of a reply that makes any sense. Ive yet to see a single person here who has any research experience reply. youre a fucking morons living in a bubble of whatever you want to believe lmao

the resolution is massive. the list of metabolic pathways relevant to cancer research is enormous and I dont have this one on my home computer. just I have from a powerpoint

this. labs are bias towards what they want the outcome to be, you want proof go to a hospital, ask the patients being given the drug, Sup Forums is not the place to get real answers just bullshit, retards, and trolls

Why did Ajit Pai cancel reddit?

forgot
>/thread

At least try. How about posting a study that backs your point or disproves mine?

I've given you a source that cites 34 studies, 33 of which back my position. You've just been shitting your pants and farting

the drugs structure isnt even close to THC or CBD or other cannabinoids. it just happens to bind to cannabinoid receptors which are used for a fuckload of different things that have nothing to do with weed.

exactly op asked about weed not drugs

Yes pot cures cancer. My job depends on it

t. Weed delivery boy

Dude, you havent read a single one of these studies. I've read a majority of them and they dont prove anything. I will literally go through these, study by study and explain why these do not prove your point if you actually have enough brain cells to understand whats going on.

Just because it works inthe lab and in mice doesnt mean it works in humans. And just because it works in human cells on a plate ina single layer of cells, doesnt mean it works in a 3D structure like an organ with multiple organ systems communicating with it.

" YOU WANT A NUMBER?! ILL GIVE YOU A NUMBER!!"

this thread is over time to go outside and get some sun

OP's triggered at weed, 13 year old detected

I am OP fuckhead. the only one whos been dissecting that one shitty research paper

whoa there, no need to rage that wouldn't look good in a real debait, also you asked about weed not man-made synthetics so unless those papers talk about handing out joints it doesn't pertain to the argument

Refer back to
The contention is that it kills cancer cells, not that it current cancer

There is no, and will never be, a "cure" for cancer because "cancer" is simply mutated cells. Quit sperging out and accept scientific consensus

>current
should be "cures"

again, there is no scientific body that proves it kills cancer cells while leaving healthy cells mostly alive. Yes, tell me a researcher about scientific consensus lmao. If you had any idea of what youre talking about youd post research that proves your point.

but they dont exist. hang yourself

look at

the closest you have is research showing that it can significantly help other therapeutic drugs in cancerous glial cells which, yes, is well known in animal models and is poorly understood in human patients.

I gave you that much, use your tiny brain and run with that info

this isnt a real debate. I dont have "debates" like this with coworkers because theyre not idiots. this is me probing the knowledge of the sewer of the internet. And its exactly what I expected. Nobody here has done research. Someone is trying to debate grammar. And literally everyone is citing bullshit they havent even read lmao

i made my point you said x not y so it's all invalid

Don't be stupid.
Nothing you inhale can cure shit.
Not how the body works.

yet inhaling gas kills you

The burden of proof is on you, friendo. That's how science works. If you don't like someone else's findings you have to try to disprove it with your own studies or demonstrate a flaw in their research.

Prove cannabinoids do not kill cancer. If they don't then it should be easy.

hang yourself. youre just another idiot. go debate with english majors about that stupid bullshit, I rephrased to make my point exactly what you described PLUS gave you a preview into the body of knowledge around this by stating a specific type of cancer that cannabinoids are well known to interact with and the state of how they work in different models.

but you resort to grammar battles. please, hang yourself and post pics here

Someone posted a research article and I pointed out several flaws. And the burden of proof is on you guys dipshit. There arent research papers saying that "see, it doesnt cure anything!" because nobody would fund research to disprove something that most researchers know is bullshit.

If there is even 1 person here who would read what the research says I would go through several papers on here and describe what the papers mean. but youre all so inbread youre basically fucking sandwiches

Well this guy has the right conclusion but is also a fucking moron. Yes that is how the body works. Ever heard of asthma? or steroids?

if it didn't work to some extent then we wouldn't of wasted time doing research and using it that's it, the end, give up I'm out I actually have a life unlike you

Nobody's going to hold your hand with this. If you can't provide a study saying that the effect was investigated and found to be false then you need to either find something else to attribute the results to or find a flaw in the investigation.

yeah, that totally sounds like how research works. "how do we know if it works? maybe we should research it? " - "no you idiot, if it worked to some extent there would already be research on it"

My life is drug discovery research so I can help fat neckbeards like you survive your diabetes and liver cancer.

Someone posted an article and I debunked it.

Post an article and Ill explain to your pea-brain what its saying and if it gets anywhere close to being relevant. I gave the other faggot a hint and said to look into glioma and cannabinoid research since thats well documented. But I've read a ton of papers on it already and know what that realm is like and how its making progress.

go on, click-clack "glioma cannabinoids" into google and start giving me research. if you have enough brain cells, maybe even give me a conclusion you came to after reading a paper

No you didn't. What you said was as valid and poorly reasoned as chalking the coanda effect up to static electricity. Try again

>not proof
>not an argument

do you even understand why it is important to include cell counts in flow cytometry? The paper did nothing to show QC for basic things like immunoassays or flow or chromatography.

Name a single measure of QC for doing flow lmao.

And you clearly just learned what that is within a few days. you would learn why its not a matter of electromagnetic attraction in like chemistry 101. pure water does has this effect too, which means its not anything to do with charge.

Youre a moron. Burden of proof is on dipshit anons Im literally asking you guys a question. Waiting for someone with half a brain to post a relevant research article.

>coanda effect
>chemistry

Way to out yourself. Still waiting for a valid refutation.

also, i can tell you cant even comprehend what I said because instead of bringing up a point, you try and sound smart and bring up nothing related to anything I said

yeah bro, in CHEM 101 you learn about properties of matter ya know, like charge, attraction and repulsion. And you learn pure water has no charge. so seeing this effect happen with pure water proves it has nothing to do with charge. hell, even seeing it happen with air proves this and you dont have to have any education for that.

I already debunked one paper. Burden of proof is on the person being asked the question you inbred

"let me see your ID" "prove that I dont have an ID" lmao

>hell, even seeing it happen with air proves this
That's how you outed yourself as a pseudointellectual larping as a researcher. Note that I never asked for your credentials like you're insinuating.

Stay mad, kiddo. 2018 just barely started.