top 200 commentsshow all 277

[–]Cantora 15 points16 points ago

The patent doesn't prove anything. all it proves is that the person who put in the patent "claims" that it can do that. Just because a patent says something doesn't mean it's concrete evidence.

http://www.google.com/patents/US20130059018

[–]SEQLAR 83 points84 points ago

I am yet to see a scientific study that actually shows that cannabis "cures" cancer. Any claim about "curing " cancer to me is already bullshit sounding. Cancer is a very complicated disease and each cancer is different and each individual may not respond the same to treatment so general claims of some cure all medicine already sounds bogus.

[–]FOXO4 70 points71 points ago

Because it doesn't, and it's so frustrating to see people post this. What people have seen is that either THC, THC derivatives, etc has an apoptotic effect in tissue culture and ocassionally in invivo models. What 97% of the posters here don't understand because I'm assuming a majority of them work at their local Burger King is that there are literally thousands of studies published every month about "Chemical X causes growth inhibition in cell type XX". In science that means basically nothing, but to the layperson it comes off as some huge deal.

You want to end this entire idiotic "conspiracy"? Here: Whatever your favorite secret cancer cure is that can't be patented in it's pure formulation (DCA, THC, THC2, etc), CAN BE PATENTED IF YOU CREATED A DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR IT. Nanoparticle-conjugated cannaboids could be patented....antibody-conjugated cannaboids could be patented. Of course this will mean nothing to a majority of the people here since their only familiarity with nanoparticles is likely GI Joe.

[–]ANewMachine615Team Debunk 16 points17 points ago

Here: Whatever your favorite secret cancer cure is that can't be patented in it's pure formulation (DCA, THC, THC2, etc), CAN BE PATENTED IF YOU CREATED A DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR IT

You bring the science, I'll bring the law. Wanna know the really fun part about patents? They don't have to work. There are several patents in existence for perpetual motion machines, laws of thermodynamics be damned. The thing is, all you have to do to get a patent is "reduce to practice" your invention. Now most people hear this and think that they MUST have a working prototype or clinical trial, right? What else could "reduce to practice" ever mean?! Well it turns out, creating a patent application counts as "reducing to practice." Yeah. So you cover that base just by writing out your application -- no proof of concept or functionality required.

Thus, the idea that the patent "proves" anything is ridiculous. Might as well say that the perpetual motion machines "prove" that entropy is wrong. You could patent an Escher-like design, and be perfectly fine, despite its physical impossibility.

[–]Pepopowitz 2 points3 points ago

Perpetual motion machines cannot be patented. That is considered incredible utility. There might be a patent that is of a complex machine that relies upon perpetual motion that slipped past an examiner, but the patent will be held invalid in any court.

[–]ANewMachine615Team Debunk 4 points5 points ago

They are not supposed to be patented, but several attempts (often relying on incorrect assumptions, like the self-driving magnetic engine) have been patented. You're correct that they would not be upheld, though. My point is that a patent requires no physical proof of concept or study showing efficacy.

[–]rockkybox -3 points-2 points ago

So you believe in perpetual motion machines?

[–]Meister_VargrThe Wolf is loose. 2 points3 points ago

/r/FreeEnergy probably does.

[–]Eist -1 points0 points ago

?

Did you even read what he wrote?

That is considered incredible utility.

[–]rockkybox 0 points1 point ago

I'm going off this:

There might be a patent that is of a complex machine that relies upon perpetual motion that slipped past an examiner

[–]Eist 0 points1 point ago

So?

but the patent will be held invalid in any court.

OP is just saying that perpetual machines cannot legally be patented because they are considered certifiably bullshit. Sometimes one might get past the review office, but they are always invalidated when they reach court.

I mean, I'm basically just repeating what OP said because I don't see how one can make it any clearer.

[–]rockkybox 0 points1 point ago

Well, he didn't say whether he believed in perpetual motion, so that's what I was asking him

[–]SEQLAR 7 points8 points ago

Great post. Thank You!

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]FOXO4 28 points29 points ago

Haha no worries. There's a few of us in lab who just discovered this shithole and we're torturing ourselves trying to fire off information to the loons as fast as possible. It happens.

[–]The_Rocket_Cadet 11 points12 points ago

Cool, good to see some logic and reason. My comment was originally for OP. sounds like you guys are doing so pretty cool stuff in lab. Currently working with Metal Matrix Composites (MMC) with Micro Balloon fillers for my research. Keep to good info coming.

[–]banternlantern 0 points1 point ago

Michael Crichton's Prey

[–]Lord_NShYH 1 point2 points ago

There are claims that a some cannibanoids induce authophagy in "cancer cells." (lol, which ones?) Is this claimed autophagy the apototic effect you are describing?

[–]FOXO4 7 points8 points ago

It's complicated and depends on what exact study that you're referencing. There have been studies showing that some cancer cells are more dependent on autophagy than non-transformed somatic tissue and if you disrupt that process they'll die. Again, it's tentative and there are many compounds that can disrupt autophagy.

Just because we know something kills cancer cell invitro doesnt mean we know it will do the same under human physiological systems. This shit is complicated, like so complicated I want to bang my head through my computer most days.

[–]Lord_NShYH 0 points1 point ago

This shit is complicated, like so complicated I want to bang my head through my computer most days.

Indeed. While I appreciate the enthusiasm of the pro-cannabis crowd, and share many of their opinions, blind endorsement of half-truths do more harm than good.

Want to make cannabis legal in the USA? It would fairly simple: have millions of men and women dressed in business attire march on D.C.; that is, completely change the popular image of the cannabis consumer.

What pro-cannabis initiatives need, more than anything, are better PR and a re-branding of their image.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]ClearlySituational 1 point2 points ago

To be honest, it was a pretty good comeback.

[–]dubdubdubdotendthefed -4 points-3 points ago

No need to bunch all conspiracy theorists together just because some smokers upvoted a shoddy meme.

[–]FOXO4 22 points23 points ago

Well, there is also one underlying theme in all of these "conspiracies"....they completely collapse as soon as you consider it in a system-wide view.

Seriously, 99% of the shit here sounds really interesting on a very micro-scale, but if you understand how anything works on a broad scale it makes no sense.

Cannabis cures cancer but big pharma doesn't want to fund it? Makes sense until you realize that big pharma has barely any influence on international researchers and that some of the best cancer research happens overseas.

Boston amputee was actually already an amputee? Makes sense until you realize that he was treated and seen by dozens of medical professionals, including having surgery. He also lives in New Hampshire where people know him.

Firefight in Cambridge never happened? Great, except the Boston Police Department is primarily a bunch of guys who grew up in Boston and there's no logical point in time where they would have all somehow become indoctrinated into faking terrorist attacks in the city.

I maintain that the only people who believe a lot of these things are people who are stuck at low-stations in life, and thus never had a chance to learn the intricacies of society. Instead of realizing that they'll have to deal with 40 more years of simply existing and not leaving much of a mark on society, it becomes easier to accept ridiculous theories that make it feel like you're a part of some great uprising. This attitude is seen in many communities which need a victim or an outlet to deal with their lot in life. It's how people cope in the face of their increasing mediocrity.

[–]Meister_VargrThe Wolf is loose. 7 points8 points ago

Individuals with Big Pharma and / or their families also contract cancer.

Are they all just "taking one for the team" and dying just to protect the bottom line? Not really plausible in my opinion.

[–]Mythrilfan -1 points0 points ago

I maintain that the only people who believe a lot of these things are people who are stuck at low-stations in life, and thus never had a chance to learn the intricacies of society.

There's a particular exception: I work in journalism and I've noticed that journalists are surprisingly receptive towards conspiracy theories, even though they presumably have a relatively good overview of large societal systems. Not necessarily things quite as wild as "the Boston attacks were faked," but yes, annoyingly trivial theories seem to resonate with a large part of (successful) journalists.

[–]MrRedGreen -3 points-2 points ago

I have first hand experience, that hemp oil has worked with removing cancer half the size of a golf ball within 2 months.

[–]mikermccafferty 5 points6 points ago

good luck conducting any of these studies with a schedule 1 drug

[–]ca209 34 points35 points ago

So a few things (I'm a patent agent.. So I know a little bit about patent strategies))

1) this is an application, not a patent. It hasn't been approved or awarded. People on here seem a little confused

2) when you read patents/applications, you can basically ignore everything in the body. Just look at the claims (which are the numbered points at the end). That's what the applicant is actually going after.

These claims specifically exclude THC and another compound (that's probably already been patented) and mention specifically other compounds and groups of compounds that could be isolated from cannabis (or maybe even a GMO version of it).

3) most importantly: PATENT STRATEGY. Pharma research is VERY expensive and patents are dirt cheap comparatively. You don't actually dump research $$ into anything you can't patent. You patent (or submit an application) on anything that you have the remotest hunch might work. To patent something, you don't have to have a working prototype, just an idea and maybe a loose study.

My educated guess is that, they know there is a medicinal property in cannabis that helps cancer-- but they don't know what actual chemical it is yet. Other than maybe some cell line studies or anecdotal evidence, they have very little proof. They're guessing it's a terpene (or other specifically mentioned class) and now they're isolating and testing it and hoping they get the patent so they can move forward w more expensive research. . They know it's not THC (or they're hoping it's not, because someone else probably holds THAT patent).

Tl;dr patent strategy is complicated and pharma files thousands of patent applications on things that they have a hunch about but haven't themselves proven yet.

Edit: I typed too fast and left out a few words. Sorry.

[–]500Rads 5 points6 points ago

what all forms of cancer? because there are many forms of cancer, it's an umbrell term for manny different conditions

[–]toomuchporkit is *all* an illusion 8 points9 points ago

This explains why I am cancer free!

[–]Meister_VargrThe Wolf is loose. 5 points6 points ago

If only Bob Marley had heard of cannabis!

[–]shakingwithshiva 6 points7 points ago

[Link to entry in google patents db] http://www.google.com/patents/US20130059018

ABSTRACT This invention relates to the use of phytocannabinoids, either in an isolated form or in the form of a botanical drug substance (BDS) in the treatment of cancer. Preferably the cancer to be treated is cancer of the prostate, cancer of the breast or cancer of the colon.

[–]crustinXbeiber 13 points14 points ago

What's the conspiracy theory here? Nobody's suppressing this information, this was a regular news story a month ago when it was filed.

[–]Tony_AbbottPBUH 8 points9 points ago

I'm not sure, but i'd be willing to guess that these people think it has something to do with either zionists, jews or kikes.

[–]gozerski 5 points6 points ago

Tell that to this person

RUN FROM THE CURE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

[–]Ol_Lefteye 2 points3 points ago

Whatever the conspiracy theory involved with this issue is, we need to know who is suppressing it and why. We shall not be silent.

My degree in vague ideas that are impossible to be wrong tells me that this has something to do with backpacks.

[–]MrRedGreen -5 points-4 points ago

its because it is a revolutionary discovery, that could save thousands of lives, yet the major pharmaceuticals refuse to tell people about it, because it would pose a significant loss in income. If you walk up to anyone one the street and ask them if they know about the marijuana plant as a cure for cancer, they most likely will not know.

[–]crustinXbeiber 13 points14 points ago

If that's true why did they file the patent? Patents are public. If they didn't want people to know about it they wouldn't be waving it around like that.

[–]lactose_intoleroni -3 points-2 points ago

So i'm guessing you can list off all the public medical patents in existence then, ya know, since they are public knowledge, right?

Just because a patent is public, doesn't mean everyone knows about it or that it can't be suppressed somewhat or "ignored".

[–]crustinXbeiber 8 points9 points ago

What's your point? I don't know the names of every species of duck, but I can look that up in about 4 seconds, just like I can with this patent now. There's no such thing as hiding in plain sight after it hits the internet.

Your argument is essentially "not being public knowledge" = "pharmacies not wanting it to be public knowledge," which while it is feasible, doesn't come close to being proof of anything.

[–]CarpSpirit -2 points-1 points ago

In order to sue anyone who attempts to bring a THC cancer treatment to market. This way they can safely sit on their profitable existing treatments.

Weed is a lot cheaper than chemotherapy.

[–]crustinXbeiber 0 points1 point ago

I agree that that's possible, but this patient has only been filed for a few months, there's no reason to suspect it won't go to market other than paranoia.

[–]MrRedGreen -2 points-1 points ago

dont kid yourself, this has been known for quite some time already. Patenting something doesn't mean they just discovered it, it merely enforces that this is an actual cure, and its not just some claims from hippies.

[–]littlegymm -5 points-4 points ago

Why are you being downvoted?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]FOXO4 13 points14 points ago

No they didn't, DCA does not "cure cancer". It potentially takes advantage of the Warburg Effect, but metabolic targets are literally as prone (if not more) to evolutionary side-stepping then DNA damaging agents are. Plenty of people in academia know about DCA, and no one gives a shit about it because it doesn't work well outside of tissue culture.

As I've already said somewhere else in this dumpster, I've used DCA before in an invivo model and it did jackshit.

[–]The_Rocket_Cadet 13 points14 points ago

Anyone, who believes this baseless bullshit, should have their reproductive organs removed so they cannot continue contaminate the Earth.

[–]truguy -4 points-3 points ago

It's a meme. We aren't basing the science on a meme, you idiot.

[–]Meister_VargrThe Wolf is loose. 1 point2 points ago

Perhaps they filed the patent to stop scam artists from peddling false cures?

(In much the same way that someone will patent some obnoxious business method on the basis that it stops someone bad from then using that method to harm others.)

[–]Quattrocket 3 points4 points ago

Then why did my heavily pot smoking uncle die of brain/lung/thyroid cancer? Please think before you post things like this.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]lolplatypus 0 points1 point ago

Again, because people who smoke pot would never eat it for any reason, right?

[–]weaselbeeflolwat 2 points3 points ago

Do you know what they would give people with cancer if weed cured cancer? Weed. You idiots.

If weed cures cancer, how come stoners get cancer?

ARE YOU PEOPLE INCAPABLE OF CRITICAL THOUGHT??

[–]mikermccafferty 1 point2 points ago

Smoking cannabis cures nothing, which is what almost everyone does. Eating cannabis is entirely different since you have almost zero side effects.

[–]ratvomit 0 points1 point ago

I wonder if vaporizing is as effective as ingestion for treating medical conditions? That's my preferred method of delivery.

Many also don't consider other things that they ingest that are similarly toxic when making definitive statements or claims.

[–]lolplatypus -1 points0 points ago

Right, cause people never do things like make pot butter, pot brownies, use cannabis oil for cooking (available at your local medical marijuana dispensary), pot cookies, or space cakes!

[–]mikermccafferty 0 points1 point ago

I eat it instead of smoking. I'm talking about in general. How many people actually have access to dispensaries? I'm from Missouri and I don't know one person who makes edibles besides me. I won't say they never do, but they smoke it significantly more than they eat it.

[–]truguy -2 points-1 points ago

There are stats that compare stoners and non-stoners cancer rates. Some stats show that stoners get terminal cancer less often. Cannibas oil also cures many skin cancers (there are many ways of using it that are more more beneficial than smoking it). So, while we are looking at factual evidence, you are being an armchair critic.

[–]weaselbeeflolwat 5 points6 points ago

'Some stats'. Nice citation. See all of the posts proving your stupid theory wrong.

[–]truguy 0 points1 point ago

Thanks for letting me know about the "posts" that prove my stupid theory wrong. As of now, this matter has been settled by the citation and referencing of "all the" Reddit posts. Weaselbeef has spoken.

[–]elgraf 1 point2 points ago

They also cause cancer when smoked - from the patent:

"Cannabis has been ascribed to be both a carcinogen and anti-cancer agent. In particular smoking cannabis is known to be carcinogenic as the cannabis smoke contains at least 50 different known carcinogenic compounds, many of which are the same substances found in smoked tobacco. One of these carcinogens, benzopyrene is known to cause cancer as it alters a gene called p53, which is a tumour suppressor gene. Cannabis contains the substance tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) which has been shown to cause benzopyrene to promote the p53 gene to change."

[–]mikermccafferty 1 point2 points ago

The national cancer institute disagrees with this. There have been way too many conflicting studies to say with certainty that smoked cannabis causes cancer.

[–]elgraf 0 points1 point ago

...so the entire patent is wrong then? Or just the bits people don't like?

[–]mikermccafferty 0 points1 point ago

Patents don't prove anything anyways. I never said the patent is right.

[–]TrondW 0 points1 point ago

So what is the patent for? I don't get this, what did they invent? I mean they did not invent cannabinoids, the process of extracting cannabinoids from the plant or the process of putting it inn the body. And they did not invent what cannabinoids does to cancer.

[–]crustinXbeiber -3 points-2 points ago

They invented the pill that has those in it, and (most importantly) they paid for the research proving it's safe. The patent system (as far as pharms go) is hypothetically in place to provide incentive for research and development, no business looking to make money would spend that much if somebody else could make generics with no overhead, they could provide the same product cheaper.

That's why generics are always cheap as fuck. No overhead.

[–]TrondW -2 points-1 points ago

But there would be nothing spesial about the pill. Its just a pill. And they did not invent any of the cannabinoids inn the pill. It just sounds stupid to me that someone can patent something that has been used for ages. Thats like the person that found out how vitamin C works getting a patent for it and no one else would be able to sell vitamin C pills anymore. And maybe everyone selling oranges would have to pay him for selling a product with the vitamin he "invented" inn it.

[–]crustinXbeiber 0 points1 point ago

Most compounds used in medicine are found in plants somewhere. What would be different about the cannabinoids? We can talk about how it should be all day, but that just isn't how the laws work in America.

[–]TrondW 0 points1 point ago

I guess its no different. What I should have asked maybe is why have no one patented this a long time ago. People have talked about cannabinoids helping cancer patients for a long time. I guess this company was the first one that was able to prove it then? Or are they just the first company that got the smart idea to file a patent for it? Well I'm going to sleep now. good night.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]havingmadfun 0 points1 point ago

Oh this, this right here makes OP's post invalid

[–]beatvoxPFFFT! 0 points1 point ago

[–]deiopa 0 points1 point ago

Oh I see. That's why countries in which cannabis is legal are completly cancer free. They are also independet from the paper and textile industry.

[–]Meister_VargrThe Wolf is loose. 0 points1 point ago

But isn't one of the often said quotes by conspiracy theorists that Big Pharma won't support cannabis as a cancer treatment "because they can't patent it?"

[–]and_the_Hare -2 points-1 points ago

I'm not going to respond to any particular comment here but I'd like to point out that FOX sounds more like a bored student with an ego problem than anything else. He uses terms most here won't know mixed with insults and CAPS LOCKS, CRUISE CONTROL FOR INTELLIGENCE RIGHT?! to make points that show a bit of knowledge but also exhibit a startling lack of insight and experience that would be gained outside of a classroom or a USA-centric research setting.

THC oil as a cancer treatment is being studied in multiple countries in Europe and Asia/Oceania.

The conspiracy side comes from the multitude of corporate interests aimed at keeping hemp/marijuana illegal due to the fact that it disrupts their business model. It's not just "pharma" it's a variety of interests working in concert to keep the plant demonized and illegal.

This website, reddit, is more about social engineering than news. Anyone educated in the figures and events of 1850-now can see this plainly. It pushes atheism but it's not really atheism, it's anti-theist materialism that seeks to boost the egos of the serf class with pseudo intellectualism. "Science" is a process for the intelligent. For the unintelligent it is a belief system.

Notice how people demand links to a "placebo controlled study" from laymen when they themselves would not likely understand one page of a scientific paper? Be wary of anyone demanding "science" from you. An actual scientist knows that THC is being studied all over the world. They can find the articles themselves but will instead demand you to do so because their real objective is to make themselves look better than you.

Fox, you are either a college student with a small ego or a low level researcher who hasn't the slightest idea of what is going on in other countries or even other labs. Your entire existence and belief system has been given to you by culture shapers. You are a typical reddit peon whose ego has been turned against them. You may fool the uneducated lurker but you only come across as pathetic to anyone with critical thinking skills.

[–]buddhahat 0 points1 point ago

So you can't refute any of his statements but you will wave your hands around and complain about the use of "big words" (literally ie, CAPS LOCK and figuratively) and then make some asinine assumption about his personality and motives?

Got it.

[–]Stooooooopid -3 points-2 points ago

This seems stupid. If this is true, why did a pot head friend of mine die of cancerous brain tumors?

[–]Ma_Deuce -3 points-2 points ago

Legalize, educate, medicate

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]CoCo26I'mNotSayingIt'sUFOs 1 point2 points ago

Why are you here?

[–]TheBlackUnicorn -2 points-1 points ago

Stoner here, I can confirm I don't have cancer.

[–]Kanepi -3 points-2 points ago

Look up Rick Simpson. Concentrated cannabis, such as hash oil, cures cancer and kills tumors. This is fact.

[–]MuteRealityI'll see you again, this side or the next. -1 points0 points ago

The people are almost, but not quite, ready for the truth.

[–]Random_letter_name -2 points-1 points ago

There is a product available called marinol that is also available as a generic. It is expensive, but its not like it is hiding.

[–]hopup -2 points-1 points ago

Ya and marinol is a patented synthetic. Fundamentally different than a plant.

[–]Random_letter_name 4 points5 points ago

Whether it is made synthetically or grown in a plant, it is the same chemical.

[–]staytoasty 0 points1 point ago

There are way too many "chemicals" in cannabis to cram them all in one pill, and they all aid in the cure. Marinol focuses solely on THC, and it isn't even THC.

[–]mikermccafferty -1 points0 points ago

True, but one isolated chemical does not affect people the same way as the whole plant. Wikipedia says that we've now isolated 85 different cannabinoids, which could all play a role in treating illness.

[–]hopup -3 points-2 points ago

A chemical is patentable, currently only gmo plants are patentable. In other words pharmaceutical companies would able to capitalize on a naturally occurring medicine