-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Hash Oil Cures Cancer!
- Thread starter Ioni Botani
- Start date
naphtha oil is a known carcinogen.
Why would anyone use a known carcinogen and give to patients suffering with cancer ?
My question is, since you can't fake cancer being cured, where are all the patients and their testimony?
I would assume the world would embrace such good news, given proof of the claims.
Naphtha (Coal Tar)
I would think if anyone wanted to produce OIL, they should use EVERCLEAR
I
inthelight
Would you eat BHO with Butane still in it??? no, its called purging.
here is a biologists' opinion about ingesting cannabinoids.
http://www.youtube.com/user/chrychek#p/u/18/rqe8RwmzBsk
http://www.youtube.com/user/chrychek#p/u/17/maz7wVmjsbM
Can you qualify 100% that your purging method would do no harm to an already chronically ill patient ?
What method of testing do you implement to ensure the patient isn't ingesting known carcinogens ?
T
tonto
has any one here been of know some one first hand who has been 100% healed of cancer or diabetes?
I
inthelight
can you qualify 100% that purging Everclear would do no harm to an already chronically ill patient?.
Its called common sense. purge it a few times and when you think its done. do it one more time. you have no idea how truly powerful the oil is if you think a few trace elements are going to cause problems.
Hm? a reading deficit ?
When I cite evidence that naphtha is a known carcinogen, how do you arrive at the opinion I am insinuating a "patient" would be better off using such methods?
You go right ahead and consume such chemicals, I wish to live as long a good life as I can.
Are you a chronically ill patient?
LOL, amazing that you are arguing with yourself. Making claims against yourself such as :
"I...feel...like...I...have...to...explain...everything...in...the...simplest...terms. Get me now? "
That's some funny shit there !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everclear_(alcohol)
Everclear is a brand of neutral grain spirit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_grain_spirit
I
inthelight
I know what Everclear is. I use 99% Iso alcohol. I'm not worried about having problems that are associated with ingesting Iso alchohol, why? Because I purge it off.
I
inthelight
Really sam <<<<<<<<dude you're acting like a troll calm down.
The point is. Its not the solvent that matters if its properly purged. Its the fact that Ingesting large amounts of cannabinoids works wonder for your body. here I would like to point out the links to the biologists opinion on this subject.
http://www.youtube.com/user/chrychek#p/u/18/rqe8RwmzBsk
http://www.youtube.com/user/chrychek#p/u/17/maz7wVmjsbM
The point is. Its not the solvent that matters if its properly purged. Its the fact that Ingesting large amounts of cannabinoids works wonder for your body. here I would like to point out the links to the biologists opinion on this subject.
http://www.youtube.com/user/chrychek#p/u/18/rqe8RwmzBsk
http://www.youtube.com/user/chrychek#p/u/17/maz7wVmjsbM
You might want to slow down and read before spouting off. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, and have never said ANYTHING about Rick Simpson until this very post.
What I DID imply was that it is silly for someone to get worked up about methanol in particuliar, when it isn't any more dangerous than the isopropyl alcohol that is mentioned in a million threads here, or toluene, ether or other solvents mentioned in the other thread.
If I was going to try and convince people of anything, which I'm not, I'd say go with bubble hash, since it uses NO solvents. Which, from what I understand, is not at all what "my saint" recommends.
I
inthelight
You all sound like the US government to be honest. "oh we're not sure about this solvent we're using so we might as well throw the whole idea out the window and just argue about that instead of the huge white elephant in the room."
I agree with you on the naphtha extraction and thats why I too use everclear.
Here's a link backed by Dr. Melamede whom has a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry and specializes with cannabinoids. He is also a professor at the University if Colorado. Has a product on the stock market called Cannabis Science Inc as well. From this link you can sift through a lot about what he does. There are a few Vids you can watch and if you have even more time on your hands just google Dr.Melamede's name to fing out more.
Because the government nor any pharm company will do a true study on the benefits of cannabis we end up being the studies ourselves. I'll do what it takes especially when your loved one is on their deathbed and the health system failed them. Just because the Cross Cancer gave up on her doesn't mean I have and I'm not stupid enough to give her unadvised snake poison. I've done my research and will try this cannabis oil. She's been on it now for three days. One thing for sure is.. she's able to sleep fully without pain for the first time in weeks. She has less headaches. Other than that, I don't see an improvement in overall health but again, its been only three days.
SAM, I challenge you to show me where I ever claimed Butane or, Iso-propo were carcinogenic.
Somehow you've gone off on a tangent, claiming I said something, then ridiculing me for having said something I never said.
Tell the truth, you're a republican ?
(unregulated pollution = blue skies initiative) ?
As for your comment to yourself, had you quoted me and explained that you were providing your post as reference I might have known who you were speaking to. As it stands, it is a stand-alone comment to yourself.
Somehow you've gone off on a tangent, claiming I said something, then ridiculing me for having said something I never said.
Tell the truth, you're a republican ?
(unregulated pollution = blue skies initiative) ?
As for your comment to yourself, had you quoted me and explained that you were providing your post as reference I might have known who you were speaking to. As it stands, it is a stand-alone comment to yourself.
Thanks !
"She's been on it now for three days."
I truly hope you have good results. If anything, your loved one will more comfortable.
If I may ask, how much quantity is needed to provide enough of a return per monthly use ?
I have a friend who just asked me to gather info on the best method in providing an extraction, like oil.
The basic requirement is to allow this patient to consume without smoking.
My thought is to make a batch of this oil, then melt some butter and fill ice cube trays with the butter and a specific dose of oil per square. Allow the butter and oil to cool down and solidify.
These could then be used in prepared foods.
Best of luck !
Everclear Grain Alcohol 190 @ 750ml - On Sale $14.69
ColBatGuano
Member
I've read this thread, examined the links contained within, extrapolated information found at those links for further research, (including the scholarly information available about the etymology of certain Hebrew words found in the Book of Exodus,) and I find that I am unable to take a firm position either way. As an adherent to the scientific method, I value and understand the importance of peer-review, the ability for others to independently reproduce statistically agreeable results, and the reliability of Occum's Razor. There just isn't enough non-anecdotal evidence to support the notion that large quantities of Simpson's "hemp oil" can produce these effects.
Now, before you jump on me for being skeptical, please note that I also do not deny the possibility that Simpson's "hemp oil" can produce such effects. I only suggest that there isn't enough evidence. Talking about it, saying it is true, and providing anecdotes to support his claims is not enough. High Times, while valued by some users of this site, is hardly a journal of scientific research. Other researchers have to be convinced enough by his evidence that they can reproduce his findings in their own trials. This is a standard burden of proof for all scientific research. With that in mind, Occam's Razor provides this question: If it were true that Simpson had indeed made such a discovery, would it not seem entirely likely that such a result would immediately be of interest to countless researchers in many areas of scientific study? The counter-claim that some widespread conspiracy of silence and government suppression has prevented such research from moving forward is itself not supported by evidence. In fact, many scientists study cannabis, the endocannabinoid system in humans, and the use of cannabis extractions to treat illnesses. Quick searches for scholarly research on each topic can easily reveal this.
Why are so many people who claim to have such a fondness and collective affinity for cannabis willing to accept substandard scientific appraisals of its properties? Such blind acceptance does not further the cause of increased study of cannabis, the end to its prohibition, or its acceptance as a medicine. Instead, it serves to keep cannabis perched firmly on the fringes of science, medicine, and society.
The burden of proof is on Simpson, and I await his report on the research he has performed.
Now, before you jump on me for being skeptical, please note that I also do not deny the possibility that Simpson's "hemp oil" can produce such effects. I only suggest that there isn't enough evidence. Talking about it, saying it is true, and providing anecdotes to support his claims is not enough. High Times, while valued by some users of this site, is hardly a journal of scientific research. Other researchers have to be convinced enough by his evidence that they can reproduce his findings in their own trials. This is a standard burden of proof for all scientific research. With that in mind, Occam's Razor provides this question: If it were true that Simpson had indeed made such a discovery, would it not seem entirely likely that such a result would immediately be of interest to countless researchers in many areas of scientific study? The counter-claim that some widespread conspiracy of silence and government suppression has prevented such research from moving forward is itself not supported by evidence. In fact, many scientists study cannabis, the endocannabinoid system in humans, and the use of cannabis extractions to treat illnesses. Quick searches for scholarly research on each topic can easily reveal this.
Why are so many people who claim to have such a fondness and collective affinity for cannabis willing to accept substandard scientific appraisals of its properties? Such blind acceptance does not further the cause of increased study of cannabis, the end to its prohibition, or its acceptance as a medicine. Instead, it serves to keep cannabis perched firmly on the fringes of science, medicine, and society.
The burden of proof is on Simpson, and I await his report on the research he has performed.
Northern_Greens
Member
Sorry guys but i have to say that rick simpson in MY OPINION is full of it. We made his oil/grease and used it on a few people with varying results. No benin tumpors were removed ( 2 were tested one was stained a nasty nasty black colour and still is) one friend put it on his wrist to help relieve arthritis/stiffness and broke out into a bad rash withing 20min. Dont mean to burst anyones bubble or shatter any hope. But in our experience is is not what it claims to be
N_G
N_G
I
inthelight
You're supposed to eat it. 60 grams in 60 days.
ColBatGuano
Member
I have always wondered how long it take for THC to break down into its constituent metabolites (like CBN) as it degrades. This would certainly need to be known if applying it therapeutically in a controlled study. The sixtieth day of ingestion of any remedy like that described by Simpson would almost certainly be of a different chemistry than that of day one. This is true of most drugs, and is why most of them have a pre-determined expiration date after which their effectiveness is no longer up to their prescribed therapeutic standard.
