Planet Green Trees Radio Tonight

[jamieuke]

Planet Green Trees Radio- Tonight 8-10pm

www.planetgreentrees.com or call in 347-326-9626

 

Hosted by attorney Michael Komorn from Komorn Law and Chad from Birmingham Compassion-

 

Contributions from Rick Thompson from The Compassion Chronicles and Jamie Lowell from The 3rd Coast Compassion Center-

 

Tonight- The Michigan Senate Government Operations Committee heard testimony Tuesday on patient friendly House Bills 4271 and 5104. The National Patients Rights Association members offered testimony and arranged for several other powerful messages to be conveyed to the committee including a mother and her pediatric patient daughter, representatives of local government accepting of cannabis businesses, as well as a speaker from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. PGT begins a "mini-series" tonight that will be designed around asking national and local advocates, medical professionals, patients and others- Can cannabis cure cancer? Even though patients and caregivers have been legally compromised by getting recommendations for marijuana handed out at hotels and conferences, some of these upcoming events advertise the inclusion of these card mills as part of the event. Is it a good idea to obtain a recommendation in this manner? Is this the only choice for some, as some have suggested in defense of the practice?

 

Joining us tonight- LEAP speaker Tony Ryan, who was flown in by the NPRA to offer testimony in support of the patient friendly bills, also participated in a meeting with Senator Jones and created a discussion between two thirty plus year police enforcement veterans about marijuana reform.

 

Justin Kander is a 23-year old cannabis extract activist and webmaster of PhoenixTears.ca. For over six years he has advocated for and researched the use of cannabis extracts to treat cancer and other diseases. His answer to the question- Can cannabis cure cancer is a resounding "YES" as he states that his experiences have "confirmed the undeniable truth that cannabis extracts can eliminate cancer in humans."

 

Discussion on hotel marijuana recommendations-

 

Michael's rant, news, current events and more!

[in vivo]

That was a rough interview for me to listen to. One ready to say it's good for any cancer, the other ready to imply that it might just be placebo. Neither one talking about how to target CBRs based on the level of expression of receptors. That sometimes cannabinoids other than THC might be better options. How cannabinoids are immunomodulators. How CB2 regulates bone mass. I had to look the luekemea one up, and it's not simple, but the short answer is it looks like crosstalk between CB1 and another receptor, and direct CB2 mechanisms. I must be the only one reading this stuff.

[GregS]

The National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health, an agency of the Dept. of Health and Human Services, says yes.

 

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

 

There are several pages with well over an hundred referenced peer reviewed and published studies.

[bobandtorey]

Hit me in PM to be on Does Cannabis Cure Cancer, part 2?

 

 

Thanks for the kind words on the show

 

Cannabis may cure cancer the only thing is you need cannabis to be able to help someone and/or money to buy it  and we have nether  

[in vivo]

I didn't intend for my statement to to be perceived as unappreciative. I think the show is valuable. I was just a little frustrated at that moment, and I should know better than to vent publicly.  

[imiubu]

I too had difficulty listening to the Doctor, he was a bit unorganized imho.

Still a great show!

[t-pain]

I must be the only one reading this stuff.

 

i'm curious if we/the scientific community even understands the CB1/CB2 receptors and what they do.

arent they all still guessing? i mean, you know how little research has been done on the endocanna system.

most of it on rats. even when drugs that are CB1 blockers come along, no one predicted the side effects of those and said medications were pulled from the market.

 

Rimonabant is an inverse agonist for the cannabinoid receptor CB1.

Reports of severe depression and suicidal thoughts were frequent.

 

most of the research done so far on the endocannabinoid system was started based on how marijuana affected people. so most of that research was done to see how marijuana negatively affected the body and the endocannabinoid system. since they know the effects of marijuana on the body, research has skipped ahead 3 or 4 steps and focused all on marijuana and the endo system. the problem is the endo system is much more important than just a marijuana vehicle. while the research done now is just to see if they can patent a piece of the marijuana effect and sell it as a diet drug to lose weight. they've stopped researching how the body works. its a very bad idea.

 

how did they miss this system until marijuana research came along? its obviously an important part of the body. do you think maybe they've rushed into theories without verifying any of them? are there any books on the endocannabinoid system ?

 

when i say "understands what the CB1/CB2 do" i dont mean how the chemical process works, i mean how does the body and endo system react to it. what i mean is, science has little idea how the human brain functions or how the endo cannabinoid system affects it and how they both control the body.

 

i know this post will probably start some arguments, but its good to take a look around and say 'hey, maybe we just dont understand yet how these things work in the body and its much too early to be able to claim any kind of solid proven theory on the subject'.

[in vivo]

no one predicted the side effects of those and said medications were pulled from the market.

 

^^ This could have been predicted. Should have been predicted, but it was a rush to bring a drug to market. CB1 receptors in the brain are directly tied into reward mechanisms. Just because a CB1 antagonist or inverse agonist raises metabolism doesn't mean it's not going to have consequences. In all reality it's likely that direct CB1 ligands will be limited in the scope of treatments they're suitable for, unless they can target specific areas via direct activation and not crossing the blood brain barrier, which they're doing. But none of that pertains to this.   

 

while the research done now is just to see if they can patent a piece of the marijuana effect and sell it as a diet drug to lose weight. they've stopped researching how the body works. its a very bad idea.

 

I don't believe this is the case. This is an emerging field of interest that is literally exponentially growing. It's got to be one of the biggest areas of interest in current research and medicine. The market factor may be largely true, but even research with the intent on developing a drug for market is valuable.

 

how did they miss this system until marijuana research came along?

 

Biggest medical blunder in history that is a direct result of bad political policies?

 

are there any books on the endocannabinoid system ?

 

Yes, but some of the best literature is in the ECS thread and on this site. By the time a book is printed it's outdated.

 

i mean how does the body and endo system react to it. what i mean is, science has little idea how the human brain functions or how the endo cannabinoid system affects it and how they both control the body.

 

Yes, there is an increasingly comprehensive understanding of the role that the ECS has on health and disease. More is known about this than the role that phytocannabinoids might play. I think the level of appreciation, importance, and growing understanding of the ECS is currently being slept on by practicing physicians and cannabis patients. That doesn't mean it's being ignored by the majority of the scientific community involved in pharmacological research. The ECS is unlocking mysteries to a variety of conditions. It's a huge piece to the puzzle of human physiology.  

 

do you think maybe they've rushed into theories without verifying any of them?

 

but its good to take a look around and say 'hey, maybe we just dont understand yet how these things work in the body and its much too early to be able to claim any kind of solid proven theory on the subject'.

 

I don't think you're being argumentative. I'd rather one person to help me think critically than ten yes men.

 

There really does appear to be much more available knowledge than is being made out to be. Not having a complete picture shouldn't be grounds to disqualify the validity of available research. Practicing physicians have seemed relatively successful in their treatments prior to having any acknowledgment at all about the ECS. We may never have a grand unified theory of everything. That doesn't mean we can't use the available research to increase the efficacy of treatments.

 

Here's what we know:

 

Some people use cannabis to treat cancer.

 

Some groups of people think cannabis with high levels of delta9 is a miracle cure for all types of cancer.

 

Another group of people think that the ECS plays a larger role than any one cannabinoid, that the expression level of receptors comes into play, the type of ligand come into play, endogenous cannabinoids come into play, and dosing schedules come into play.

 

I guess I'm just more interested in hearing what that second group has to say and why.

 

I will add that I commented this morning on how I personally feel uncomfortable voicing my opinions on this publicly (I referred to it as bizarre). I don't feel that I have much right, but when I hear alternative explanations, I feel the need more and more to at least point people in the direction of the research.

 

We're implementing these treatments, they've got insight into the mechanisms involved, it seems logical to want to bridge that gap.

Edited March 14, 2014 by in vivo

[in vivo]

I heard him speaking about the potential role of the immune system, but I must have missed the reference to cannabinoids. Thanks for the correction. That stream isn't the best on my system and I constantly have to refresh the page.

[t-pain]

i know they are working very hard to understand the ECS. just seems like its all academic research, nothing practical, yet.

 

would you say most research on the ECS is based around marijuana?

Edited March 14, 2014 by t-pain

[in vivo]

That's what's kinda funny. Many of these papers read like a practical guide. What they're not willing to do is make many bold finite statements, which I believe is potentially perceived as them possessing less of an understanding than they might. researchers can't afford to leave anything off the table and risk being so wrong that their credibility is ruined. That seems to make some of their points slightly more cryptic to the average reader. It forces the reader to connect many of the dots on their own. Russo does everything except come right out and say that isolated cannabinoids will never be as effective as botanical extracts. He seems to be among the best of authors that's able to make a statement clearly without coming right out and saying it. I notice that some of the best studies don't state the conclusion in the abstract, I imagine it's to trick researchers into reading a paper that they might otherwise not give much credit to. I notice that even in articles intent on showing negative associations to cannabinoids that they often elucidate important mechanisms that relate to other papers. There are over 12k titles since 2010 that include the phrase 'endocannabinoid system'. There is undoubtedly well over 100k papers that relate to it since then. I wouldn't say that most focus on cannabis, but they generally include some type of CBR ligand. If we can couple the mechanisms involved to the pharmacology of safe cannabinoids and terpenes I think that's a good way to proceed. I don't see how it could be worse than 'shooting from the hip'. It's still a matter of quasi-science and guessing, but at least we can attempt to make more educated guesses about the treatments we're already implementing.  

[in vivo]

I normally have to crank the volume, and I don't think that I had to last night.

[bobandtorey]

That's what's kinda funny. Many of these papers read like a practical guide. What they're not willing to do is make many bold finite statements, which I believe is potentially perceived as them possessing less of an understanding than they might. researchers can't afford to leave anything off the table and risk being so wrong that their credibility is ruined. That seems to make some of their points slightly more cryptic to the average reader. It forces the reader to connect many of the dots on their own. Russo does everything except come right out and say that isolated cannabinoids will never be as effective as botanical extracts. He seems to be among the best of authors that's able to make a statement clearly without coming right out and saying it. I notice that some of the best studies don't state the conclusion in the abstract, I imagine it's to trick researchers into reading a paper that they might otherwise not give much credit to. I notice that even in articles intent on showing negative associations to cannabinoids that they often elucidate important mechanisms that relate to other papers. There are over 12k titles since 2010 that include the phrase 'endocannabinoid system'. There is undoubtedly well over 100k papers that relate to it since then. I wouldn't say that most focus on cannabis, but they generally include some type of CBR ligand. If we can couple the mechanisms involved to the pharmacology of safe cannabinoids and terpenes I think that's a good way to proceed. I don't see how it could be worse than 'shooting from the hip'. It's still a matter of quasi-science and guessing, but at least we can attempt to make more educated guesses about the treatments we're already implementing.  

 

 

 Researchers can't afford to leave anything off the table and risk being so wrong that their credibility is ruined. I agree and theirs lies to problems for all but there are many like you that are coming out speaking about Cannabis and being the first to prove all the about 

 

Thank you

Edited March 14, 2014 by bobandtorey

[beourbud]

How was the volume last night? We had a comment that the broadcast volume was too quiet, so I brought it up a bit last night. Did anybody notice a difference?

Maybe still a tad low but sounded good here.