Minerealm Community Forums

Yet I'm sure none of you have heard of this.
Makes me sad.

wasnt this on funnyjunk?

anyway... we know the cure for cancer has been known since around the 1910's it is called hemp oil, not hemp seed oil(which is often labeled as hemp oil).

texas_hitman wrote:wasnt this on funnyjunk?

That site still exists?

yep. im assuming you use 4chan, i like 4chan but after getting goasted for the 28th time i stopped going.

Lightbulbs wrote:Yet I'm sure none of you have heard of this.
Makes me sad.

Why doesrhis make you sad? This is amazing! It is so sad that other companies only care about the money! Thanks for linking that lights!

I am going to point out some information about DCA, and why that article and the phrase "Cancer was Cured" are bogus.

First, lets look at some facts about DCA, and the study that is being hyped there.

The study they mention in that rather dated article was not testing for how it effects cancer in humans. It was using tissue cultures, and a few mouse studies. There is a pretty large difference between that and curing cancer in humans. Direct correlations are not possible.

Second, lets look at safety. In the dosages that are suspected to be potentially effective in humans, DCA is also known to be a liver carcinogen in rats and mice, which means that it may be dangerous for humans (Again, we don't know for sure there is a connection, but it is a possibility.

Next, lets look at the results that were found that are so heavily hyped. It found an average decrease in tumor weight in mice of approximately 60%. This is very good, but its not a cure for cancer. There have been many studies that have have shown preliminary results as good or better than this in animal models, that have failed to pan out in humans (Antioangenic therapy was hyped similarly in 1998, immunotherapy looked like the final cure in the 1980s, etc). Just because of some promising early studies in animal models, you can't conclude that it will cure cancer.

Now lets look at a basic fact about cancer that is frequently not understood. This is that cancer is not a single disease. There are a massive number of different causes for cancerous tumors, and there are just as many different ways that they express themselves. The method that is hoped to be exploited with DCA is using something called the Warburg Effect, which only ~60% of cancer has shown any evidence of following.

There is also a major fallacy in that article. It says that DCA can't be patented. This is partially true, but also misleading. While the chemical itself can not be, the usage of DCA to treat cancer can be patented. Therefore, there isn't the problem with pharmaceutical companies trying to squash the research that the article tries to portray.

To summarize: DCA is somewhat promising, but it is still largely unknown if it will effect cancer in humans at all like it does in mice. This is not a be all, end all to cancer.

texas_hitman wrote: anyway... we know the cure for cancer has been known since around the 1910's it is called hemp oil, not hemp seed oil(which is often labeled as hemp oil).

There have been no studies or evidence that has seriously backed up the claim that hemp oil can cure cancer. There are some confilcting studies on various aspects of some of its ingredients, but they have far from shown that hemp oil is a cancer cure. 90% of the claims about it come from unsubstantiated testitmonies along the lines of "I was undergoing chemo, and surgery, and my doctors were working as hard as they could. I also took hemp oil. My cancer went away. This must have been because of the hemp oil".

You all have no idea how much I have been arguing with Catsfuzz over this.

kerovon wrote:I am going to point out some information about DCA, and why that article and the phrase "Cancer was Cured" are bogus.

First, lets look at some facts about DCA, and the study that is being hyped there.

The study they mention in that rather dated article was not testing for how it effects cancer in humans. It was using tissue cultures, and a few mouse studies. There is a pretty large difference between that and curing cancer in humans. Direct correlations are not possible.

Second, lets look at safety. In the dosages that are suspected to be potentially effective in humans, DCA is also known to be a liver carcinogen in rats and mice, which means that it may be dangerous for humans (Again, we don't know for sure there is a connection, but it is a possibility.

Next, lets look at the results that were found that are so heavily hyped. It found an average decrease in tumor weight in mice of approximately 60%. This is very good, but its not a cure for cancer. There have been many studies that have have shown preliminary results as good or better than this in animal models, that have failed to pan out in humans (Antioangenic therapy was hyped similarly in 1998, immunotherapy looked like the final cure in the 1980s, etc). Just because of some promising early studies in animal models, you can't conclude that it will cure cancer.

Now lets look at a basic fact about cancer that is frequently not understood. This is that cancer is not a single disease. There are a massive number of different causes for cancerous tumors, and there are just as many different ways that they express themselves. The method that is hoped to be exploited with DCA is using something called the Warburg Effect, which only ~60% of cancer has shown any evidence of following.

There is also a major fallacy in that article. It says that DCA can't be patented. This is partially true, but also misleading. While the chemical itself can not be, the usage of DCA to treat cancer can be patented. Therefore, there isn't the problem with pharmaceutical companies trying to squash the research that the article tries to portray.

To summarize: DCA is somewhat promising, but it is still largely unknown if it will effect cancer in humans at all like it does in mice. This is not a be all, end all to cancer.

texas_hitman wrote: anyway... we know the cure for cancer has been known since around the 1910's it is called hemp oil, not hemp seed oil(which is often labeled as hemp oil).

There have been no studies or evidence that has seriously backed up the claim that hemp oil can cure cancer. There are some confilcting studies on various aspects of some of its ingredients, but they have far from shown that hemp oil is a cancer cure. 90% of the claims about it come from unsubstantiated testitmonies along the lines of "I was undergoing chemo, and surgery, and my doctors were working as hard as they could. I also took hemp oil. My cancer went away. This must have been because of the hemp oil".

Dand Intelli that was a lot of words :3

Energybrothers wrote:Dand Intelli that was a lot of words :3

Kero said that, not Intelli. :L

kerovon wrote:

texas_hitman wrote: anyway... we know the cure for cancer has been known since around the 1910's it is called hemp oil, not hemp seed oil(which is often labeled as hemp oil).

There have been no studies or evidence that has seriously backed up the claim that hemp oil can cure cancer. There are some confilcting studies on various aspects of some of its ingredients, but they have far from shown that hemp oil is a cancer cure. 90% of the claims about it come from unsubstantiated testitmonies along the lines of "I was undergoing chemo, and surgery, and my doctors were working as hard as they could. I also took hemp oil. My cancer went away. This must have been because of the hemp oil".

it has been proven to kill cancer cells.

these links can explain it better than i can.
(links in the description)

(normally i don't trust the major media, but for some reason they reported on this.)

(heres how to make the oil)