TONS of things cure cancer. All day, every day. Doctors have no clue what cancer is. All they can do is cut, burn, or poison and cross their fingers.

I didn't say Cannabis was THE cure. It is A cure used by thousands with amazing efficacy. Everyone is different.

Here's 60+ studies for your perusal if you insist on the superiority of western scientific research:

"Cannabis, and the cannabinoid compounds found within it, has been shown through a large cannabisplantamount of scientific, peer-reviewed research to be effective at treating a wide variety of cancers, ranging from brain cancer to colon cancer. Below is a list of over 60 studies that demonstrate the vast anti-cancer properties of cannabis.
Studies showing cannabis may combat brain cancer:
Cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the proliferation and invasion in U87-MG and T98G glioma cells. Study published in the Public Library of Science journal in October 2013.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can kill cancer cells by causing them to self-digest. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2013.
CBD is a novel therapeutic target against glioblastoma. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2013.
Local delivery of cannabinoid-filled microparticles inhibits tumor growth in a model of glioblastoma multiforme. Study published in Public Library of Science in January 2013.
Cannabinoid action inhibits the growth of malignant human glioma U87MG cells. Study published in Oncology Reports in July 2012.
Cannabidiol enhances the inhibitory effects of THC on human glioblastoma cell proliferation and survival. Study published in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics journal in January 2010.
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death in human glioma cells. Study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation in May 2009.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2008.
Cannabinoids and gliomas. Study published in Molecular Neurobiology in June 2007.
Cannabinoids inhibit gliomagenesis. Study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in March 2007.
A pilot clinical study of THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The results were published in the British Journal of Cancer in June 2006.
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through an independent cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in April 2005.
Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (VEGF) in gliomas. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2004.
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacology in November 2003.
Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2001.
Studies showing cannabis may combat colorectal cancer:
Cannabigerol (CBG) can inhibit colon cancer cells. Study published in the Oxford journal Carcinogenesis in October 2014.
Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardised Cannabis Sativa extract with high content of CBD. Study published in Phytomedecine in December 2013.
Chemopreventive effect of the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid CBD on colon cancer. Study published in the Journal of Molecular Medecine in August 2012.
Cannabinoids against intestinal inflammation and cancer. Study published in Pharmacology Research in August 2009.
Action of cannabinoid receptors on colorectal tumor growth. Study published by the Cancer Center of the University of Texas in July 2008.
Studies showing cannabis may combat blood cancer:
The effects of cannabidiol and its synergism with bortezomib in multiple myeloma cell lines. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in December 2013.
Enhancing the activity of CBD and other cannabinoids against leukaemia. Study published in Anticancer Research in October 2013.
Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1). Study published in Case Reports in Oncology in September 2013.
Expression of type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors in lymphoma. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in June 2008.
Cannabinoid action in mantle cell lymphoma. Study published in Molecular Pharmacology in November 2006.
THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia. Study published in Molecular Cancer Research in August 2006.
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Study published in Blood American Society of Hemmatology in July 2002.
Studies showing cannabis can combat lung cancer:
Cannabinoids increase lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine-activated killer cells via upregulation of Icam-1. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in July 2014.
Cannabinoids inhibit angiogenic capacities of endothelial cells via release of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 from lung cancer cells. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in June 2014.
COX-2 and PPAR-γ confer CBD-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in January 2013.
CBD inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in April 2012.
Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non–small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Study published in Cancer Prevention Research in January 2011.
THC inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced (EGF) lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Study published in the journal Oncogene in July 2007.
Studies showing cannabis may combat stomach cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-Fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells. Study published in Anticancer Research in June 2013.
Antiproliferative mechanism of a cannabinoid agonist by cell cycle arrest in human gastric cancer cells. Study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in March 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat prostrate cancer:
Cannabinoids can treat prostate cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in December 2012.
The role of cannabinoids in prostate cancer: Basic science perspective and potential clinical applications. Study published in the Indian Journal of Urology in January 2012.
Induction of apoptosis by cannabinoids in prostate and colon cancer cells is phosphatase dependent. Study published in Anticancer Research in November 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat liver cancer:
Involvement of PPARγ in the antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma (CHC). Study published in Cell Death and Disease in May 2013.
Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Study published on the site Informa Healthcare in February 2013.
Antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma. Study published in Cell Death and Differentiation in April 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat pancreatic cancer:
Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells. Study published in Cell Death and Disease in June 2013.
Cannabinoids Induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells. Study published in Cancer Research in July 2006.
Studies showing cannabis may combat skin cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor activiation can combat skin cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Cannabinoids were found to reduce skin cancer by 90% in just 2 weeks. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 2013.
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in December 2006.
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, in January 2003.
Studies showing cannabis may combat other types of cancer:
Bladder: Marijuana reduces the risk of bladder cancer. Study published in the Medscape site in May 2013.
Kaposi sarcoma: Cannabidiol inhibits growth and induces programmed cell death in Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus-infected endothelium. Study published in the journal Genes & Cancer in July 2012.
Nose, mouth, throat, ear: Cannabinoids like THC inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. Study by the Department of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, published in June 2010.
Bile duct: The dual effects of THC on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Study published in Cancer Investigation in May 2010.
Ovaries: Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer. Study published on the American Association for Cancer Research website in 2006.
Preparation and characterisation of biodegradable microparticles filled with THC and their antitumor efficacy on cancer cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Drug Targeting in September 2013.
CBD Cannabidiol as a potential anticancer drug. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in February 2013.
Cannabinoids as anticancer modulators. Study published in the Progress in Lipid Research journal in January 2013.
CBD inhibits angiogenesis by multiple mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in November 2012.
Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Study published in Nature in June 2012.
Cannabinoid-associated cell death mechanisms in tumor models. Study published in the International Journal of Oncology in May 2012.
Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids and cancer. Study published in Cancer Metastasis Reviews in December 2011.
The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in July 2011.
This list was compiled in part by Alchimiaweb.com.
– TheJointBlog"

Somebody posted about this thread...a psychiatrist supposedly. Here's what he had to say about that thread

"Hi all. I'm a psychiatrist. My main area of clinical work is emergency psychiatry, and my main research interest is functional brain imaging. I'd like to start a discussion about the rapist thread, which I see as a serious danger. In a nutshell:
Rape is a crime which sometimes hinges directly on feelings of power over the victim.
That power often loses its meaning if the victim is unconscious. Many rapists typically need a victim who knows they are being victimized.
This victim is the rapist's audience. This is crucial.
The audience gives the rapist pleasure, euphoric delight from unfettered, witnessed suffering. That euphoria is intense and is possibly driven by the same neurobiology involved in a drug high.
Now, when Reddit invites rapists to retell their stories, they offer an audience of thousands. The possibility that individuals reading these stories will be horrified afresh is very appealing to some rapists. It’s neurobiologically very much like anticipating drug use.
Note: the audience doesn’t actually need to be horrified. In the mind of the rapist, the possibility of horrifying an audience is what is appealing.
Ever wonder what makes addicts keep using? A major factor is the craving that comes from recalling the feelings associated with the pleasurable activity or drug. Cocaine addicts, active or in recovery, who are asked to think about using cocaine have measurable brain changes precisely when they report cravings. We haven't actually measured this in rapists, but we suspect it's highly analogous.
Thus, the Reddit rape forum is very possibly triggering rape cravings in rapists.
It is also teaching rapists how to rape better via shared stories, the same way we teach new participants to improve in any field, by sharing our experiences.
I plan to be available to discuss this, so jump in."



http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/xf5c2/reddit_are_you_aware_how_dangerous_the_askarapist/

A short course in neurobiology teaches us all of what Deepak is saying is rubbish. We experience emotion due to various combinations of neurotransmitter release and physiological changes in the body.

What he seems to be trying to do is use the theory of quantum fluctuation and the wave/particle duality of electrons to justify his own theory that if it can't be measured or explained properly/precisely then it must lie outside the realm of our physical entity. Where is argument falls short is that what we perceive as physical matter IS made up of all this weirdness that physics is only just beginning to explain.

So I guess my point is that he's indicating that some weird stuff is going on, perhaps even outside what would currently be defined as our physical bodies. I don't disagree with this, but my point is that it is the definition of a physical body that needs to be altered, and this will improve as our understanding of physics improves. So we should be looking to physics for answers, not for mind/body dualism.

>> ^coolhund:

Religion is part of our world. Its even in our genes one way or the other (god gene). Thus its part of science.
You cant talk through ignorance. Just give it up with trying to explain these people that they believe in bullshit. You wouldnt listen to that either if someone came up and said science is bullshit, no matter if its true or not.


How is asking a question while admitting one's expected reaction to the reply trolling?

As expected, I got a good laugh out of this. Religion is part of our world, yes, just as astrology, witchcraft, alchemy and and other superstition-based activities are. That does not make them part of science. We can observe these phenomena, in anthropology, history, neurobiology, etc. but that does not necessarily make them a part of science. I think what you meant to say is "religion is a part of reality", which would be true (for now). So were human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, etc., for the better part of Humanity's existence. Lumping it all into science just because it exists or existed makes no sense.

As for the "god gene" business, that term is a vulgarisation (a misleading one imo) of the theory that humans are predisposed to superstitious belief. Not religion. Micheal Shermer and others make a point of explaining how this would have been beneficial to early survival (projecting agency, for example).

>> ^Truth:
I'm not going to die. I'm going to use scientific advances of 21st century to aid my body and rejuvenate cells, so I don't get old. After a while, I will upload my mind and make 1000 backup copies. So, yes, I'm going to live forever. Unless until then a brick falls on my head or something.


Don't forget about the clone machine. Upload the backup copies, into a million fresh bodies, arm them with weapons, take over a small country, then build a space program; Colonize Mars, clone yourself several billion more times, build a fleet of advanced spacecraft, then take over Earth. After that, you have your billions and billions of clones work on a single super mind... an overmind -- then focus your attention on neurobiological and wormhole advancements and send your mind across the universe into other galaxies.

Pretty soon you will rule the galaxy, ascend from your carbon-based bodies and become a god.

It's all pretty simple and outlined in my book.

the study of Animal emotions help autism (to study emotions u need to have them..)

http://researchnews.wsu.edu/health/141.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4595810.ece

makes some good points....if people chose to believe animals have no emotion then its ok to slaughter and torture them. Points out how we used to assume babies didn't feel pain...weren't we. Also points out how many scientists now DO believe animals have emotions....so let see your counter studies? "Many people will reject this as sentimental nonsense, but scientific evidence is increasingly providing support for such ideas."

http://petcare.suite101.com/article.cfm/study_says_dogs_detect_emotions_on_human_faces

speaks of a study that revealed that dogs can read and react to human emotion. so tell me, how does on know emotion if one does not feel it? Can you know what the color yellow looks like if you have not seen it? Do you know what pain is if you've never felt it?

another study... "Researchers working in neurobiology and behavioral observation seem to be learning what pet lovers have known all along: animals have feelings.

New evidence gathered from actually studying dogs, chimps and other animals, supports pet owners’ firm convictions that animals experience fear, jealousy, grief and love.

"Five years ago my colleagues would have thought I was off my rocker," said biologist Marc Bekoff. "But now scientists are finally starting to talk about animal emotions in public. It’s like they’re coming out of the closet." "

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-10-2003-44071.asp


get out of the stone age. its been proven. or get a degree and disprove it. good luck

In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
Dude, I just read that story you posted for AC's thing. 'sauce. Keep grinding out those 100 stars. Took me about 2 years. Promoting...totally worth it.

Ah thanks for that, seems a bit silly to have to wait so long to promote a good vid. Especially since I have more points now.

Thank you sir!
Also, how fitting!

In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
*promote

Dude, I just read that story you posted for AC's thing. 'sauce. Keep grinding out those 100 stars. Took me about 2 years. Promoting...totally worth it.

I heartly agree.
I also know the frustration of promotelessness...
Still, promoting remains (quite) a few riddles ahead.
Cheers!

In reply to this comment by BreaksTheEarth:
*promote

This is too good to be left in a p queue.

Food Reward in the Absence of Taste Receptor Signaling

Neuron, Volume 58, Issue 2, 24 April 2008, Page 295
Ivan E. de Araujo, Albino J. Oliveira-Maia, Tatyana D. Sotnikova, Raul R. Gainetdinov, Marc G. Caron, Miguel A.L. Nicolelis and Sidney A. Simon


Summary

Food palatability and hedonic value play central roles in nutrient intake. However, postingestive effects can influence food preferences independently of palatability, although the neurobiological bases of such mechanisms remain poorly understood. Of central interest is whether the same brain reward circuitry that is responsive to palatable rewards also encodes metabolic value independently of taste signaling. Here we show that trpm5−/− mice, which lack the cellular machinery required for sweet taste transduction, can develop a robust preference for sucrose solutions based solely on caloric content. Sucrose intake induced dopamine release in the ventral striatum of these sweet-blind mice, a pattern usually associated with receipt of palatable rewards. Furthermore, single neurons in this same ventral striatal region showed increased sensitivity to caloric intake even in the absence of gustatory inputs. Our findings suggest that calorie-rich nutrients can directly influence brain reward circuits that control food intake independently of palatability or functional taste transduction.

Full Article (Subscription only):

http://preview.tinyurl.com/57pgmn

>> ^TheSofaKing:
Well now it's all clear. You don't know what dishonesty means. No wonder you like the Clintons.

I am not so obtuse as to believe that memory, anybodies, is highly reliable. Your memory and my memory are an order of magnitude less reliable than video tape, we just don't notice since people are not following us around with cameras all the time.

There is a marked distinction between intentional distortion (dishonesty), and inaccurate memory (human grade memory). That distinction does matter. Most humans just don't want to deal with the simple fact that our brains are not very good at accurately recalling the past.

I don't like the Clintons, I just want Hill to go down for the things she did, not because Americans can't come to grips with the facts of neurobiology.

This video makes a very shoddy connection between cooperation in a community and love. And lol @ "molecules and chemicals may tell us nothing about love" and "what some may call progress", because a Jungian psychologist and an actor told us so, as though studying neurobiology is going to ruin love forever. I'm not really convinced this belongs in the Science channel. Maybe if that chimp section were separated from the rest of the video.

Qwaan how can an atheist be a Dzogchen Buddhist and Advaita Vedantic Hindu. He isnt but he is interested in how there pratices change brain structure and human neurobiology.