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"

Rand was certainly not a great writer (as is often the case with those who write novels in a language that isn't native to them). As such, there's no comparison between Rand's use of English and say, Dickens' (but you could probably say that about Dickens and almost anyone else, John Oliver included. And Harry Potter isn't much better than The Fountainhead! Or most popular fiction for that matter.)
I doubt most of Oliver's audience have read Crime and Punishment, or The Brothers Karamzov, or The Sound and the Fury. I doubt Oliver's fans are any more "intellectual" or well-read than Rand's, quite honestly.

But Rand didn't even believe in small government. Just limited government. She was certainly no anarchist. John Galt was, perhaps, but not Rand. (The character is not the author.) Both Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand learned from Ludwig Von Mises, and they took what they learned in very different directions.

Yet, most of Oliver's audience probably haven't even read Rand and she's hardly that much of a contemporary topic worth talking about.. So why would Oliver (HBO) want to spend valuable broadcast time talking about her? She wouldn't be a "thing" if they chose to ignore it, and yet they aren't. Why? Might this bit be (the $beneficiary of those who are) uneasy with a potential Rand Paul presidential run, thus needing a straw man with which to link him with "libertarians" and Ayn Rand?

All this "OMG Rand!" going around, and yet her work continues to stick around long after she's gone.. And will likely remain so, given ^programs^ (and commenters) like this and their unwillingness to let it go.

How can I show this to my neighbours and make them understand it?Timeline of this weekend - we saw some of them dressed to the nines getting into a stretched limo on Friday.

On Saturday they (as normally) loudly discussed how the person they saw could have performed for 5 more minutes whilst simultaneously stating how this performer had proven Michael Jackson's saintliness because said MJ had stayed with the performer for 4 days.

It's worth noting at this point all we knew was they went out somewhere in a stretched limo and saw someone who had MJ to visit for 4 days.

On the Sunday the normal loud talking over our fence lead to the discovery that not only did my neighbors take a stretched limo to arrive at a Michael Flatley concert. They couldn't recall the name of the long haired blonde peado with a cigar (it was Jimmy Saville - most prolific sexual predator in history) or as they roundly called him "that Australian dude" (Rolf Harris - more cherished, like painted the queens portrait, but still sent down for being a peed).

So the outcome of this is my neighbors who have a very small 4 bed house (would be 3 except they opened the loft), own 9 cars, have a 32, 26 and 18 year old still living at home. They hire a stretched limo so they go an see Michael Flatley perform live then come home and discuss loudly how Michael Jackson was obviously a good person because he stayed with Michael Flatley. Shortly afterwards they then totally struggled to remember the names of the biggest sex offender ever known in the uk and the most treasured letdown of all time.

This is almost par with them discussing a new flavor of chips/crisps for 45 min or that time 4 of them tried to count the same amount of change for >20 mins and none of them could agree the same amount.

Sorry had to rant - I'd love to confront them over the noise/cars/stupidity etc but I'm a mildly tough 40 year old. Their highly violent and the 26 year is a goddamn cagefighter.

I honestly can't vent enough - literally I could write a novel on how much my neighbors suck. Just as a final point to carry things across - I recently needed to cut back some ivy in my backgarden. During the hour this took they played Natasha Beddingfield's "These Words" 5 times. Yes I'm a Maggot, Yes I'm a 40 year old who probably needs to stop jumping into moshpits. But Natasha Beddingfield??? 5 times?? Really????

i can recommend his novel "Voice of the Fire," which plays only in Northampton, but in different times, beginning in the stone age and moving up the ages until the time the book was written.

But seriously, just advertise it for what it is: A novel fan design for people who don't mind showing off how much disposable income they have by buying a $300 fan.

Yeah, I agree exactly. As a somewhat related example, I just finished reading Anathem by Neal Stephenson. In truth, it could actually make a pretty interesting and exciting sci-fi film, but it would lose virtually everything that made it a good novel (for the most part, Stephenson can get a little self-indulgent in his dialog). If you took the roughly 1000 page long book, and stripped out everything you couldn't put in a film without it becoming extraordinarily long and tedious, you'd maybe be left with about 150 pages. It could be a great film, and it would fit the three act motif, but it just wouldn't be Anathem.

That's sort of what led me to think of Neuromancer. There's lots of good, heady sci-fi there, but it's all expressed in events, action, and good but concise dialog (and there are, quite distinctly, three acts). Like all adaptations, sure some things would be lost, but the important concepts would still be there. Anathem, on the other hand, would just be a superficial event-driven story. Similarly, Snow Crash would just come across as ridiculous (though I'd be interested to see what Terry Gilliam could do with it).

Though I'm surely forgetting some more obscure work, I certainly can't think of any Aisimov novel or short story that has ever been transitioned into a decent film.

It's possible, as ChaosEngine alluded to, that the Foundation "trilogy" could make a decent film trilogy or miniseries, but it would require an exceptionally good screenwriter and director to make it work--and a LOT of creative liberties. It just covers too great a timespan, too many characters with complex and cross-generational relationships, and frankly very little of real significance happens during reasonable spans of time. Frankly, and though I can't claim to have read all of his works (though probably most), Asimov is probably best left in the realm of literature.

What we really need is a film version of the damn Sprawl Trilogy. I mean, that's just begging to be made into a trilogy of films. The screenplay would almost write itself. I'd say Joss Whedon should direct.

What I mean is that sometimes we can subconsciously judge a movie based on factors that don't have anything to do with the movie itself, such director's or writer's previous work, previous films in the series or the original source for an adaptation.
For instance, I just watched World War Z for the first time and while not a brilliant movie, found it a unique and entertaining zombie film despite it being a bad adaptation of a well regarded novel.

I was just wondering if perhaps you perhaps didn't get as much out of it because of that. I guess not, doesn't matter though.

I also didn't intend to compare Capnmurca to GBH, rather I meant that seeing GBH first didn't put me in the right state of mind to see and fully appreciate a comic action flick, which is why I (still) need to see it again.

I Robot was the first sci-fi novel i ever read and Asimov's Science Fiction was the first magazine I ever subscribed to. Boom.

Yes its hilarious how uneducated he is

"Keep it 300 like the romans"

Moron, Spartans are Greek, and it historically references battle of Thermopylae which was then fictionalized into the graphic novel.

His rhymes suck so bad he tosses anything in that fits even if it makes no sense, and people call this talent?

He didn't even make the song, the beats/sound effects/screams/bass line are all samples of old music and movie clips

Pop can't make anything origial

My reaction was: "Okay, that's it. I'm done with this show. I'll never watch Game of Thrones again and I'll never read the books, because the plot has gotten too repetitive and therefore extremely annoying!¹ It continuously uses the same pattern over and over again. Why should I bother watching the show if I know that every interesting and/or likable character (except Tyrion) will face certain death at the next best opportunity (George R.R. Martin said so himself, but I didn't expect him to do this every damn time) just as a means to shock the audience/readership and an attempt to make the plot seem unpredictable. But you know what? If you kill off the most likable and interesting character(s) every season/novel, this is very predictable. It's just lazy and unimaginative storytelling."

That's why I had already expected this to happen, although I really hoped it wouldn't, not only because I liked the character, but because this pattern is really starting to get old. Therefore, I just found it severely annoying, since it seemed so predictable and repetitive. However, I have come to terms with this outcome since then and I'll most probably keep watching the show, but I may never get invested in any character's fate again, because it can be easily predicted.

¹I'm not usually one to stop watching a show for any reason, except if it's really badly written and executed, and even then I give it at least several episodes to make up my mind. So I'm not one of those who say "If [insert character name] dies, I'll stop watching the show."

Old School is perhaps the best american comedy in a decade. That said, I absolutely agree. Comedy here is very one-dimensional. It's jokes, nothing else. Usually very base ones that everyone will get with a spattering of 'gut-laughs'. I agree one of the biggest reasons as Drachan commented on is just how regimented and formulaic our entertainment is in this country.

This also exemplifies why I am so very torn with Edgar Wright leaving Ant Man and potentially Marvel. He's one of the best directors around and so very inventive. I adored World's End, though my favorite of the 'trilogy' will always be Hot Fuzz.

On the flip side, as a fan of the comic Scott Pilgrim was a terrible movie. He clearly took a lot of creative license with the beloved graphic novel while at the same time totally putting off the audience while at the same time doing nothing to bring in people who have never heard of it previously, which is why it bombed so very hard.

So he left Ant Man, easily one of my top 5 favorite Marvel characters, because of creative differences. I suspect he wanted to do something very different then the established material and Marvel was against that because they want to link him to their other movies (DUH!). So while I think the movie could potentially have been fantastic under his direction, it could just as easily have been marvels biggest bomb since Hulk.

As far as I understand the psychological reasoning behind this, it is the same as a well known effect in the area of suicides which in Germany we call Werther Effect after a novel be Wolfgang Goethe (published 1774), which caused a number of "copycat suicides".

It seems to me that a potential spree killer is desperately trying to be noticed by society either out of personal, religious or political reasons.

If you show such persons that they will get noticed, that they will get there 15 minutes of fame, it might push them a closer to the realization that committing mass murder is a way to be "noticed".

Finally got to see this last night. Wow Jodoworsky's movies are super super trippy and apparently he took a lot of liberties with the story. He even jokes about raping Frank Herbert.

It kinda bums me out that if he had made the movie...I suspect I wouldn't like it.

I saw Lynch's Dune as a kid and I absolutely loved it....so it was really interesting to hear Jodoworsky thought it was horrible. It kinda reminds me of how when the Sci Fi Miniseries was announced, I finally resolved to read the novel and I was blown away how different it was from Lynch's Dune and how the miniseries was closer to the books. So I went through this phase where I absolutely hated Lynch's Dune too...but I got over it.