Posted: May 17, 2013 8:35 pm
Hi guys. First post so please be gentle with me. 
I was hoping to prompt some discussion of the supposed cure-all properties of hemp oil, as posited by Rick Simpson on his Phoenix Tears website, Facebook, & I daresay elsewhere. Rick states that the oil cures pretty much whatever ails you, but my interest lies in the claims that are made for its curative value in the context of cancer, because I'm concerned that cancer sufferers who may have success with mainstream therapies might eschew those therapies in favour of the oil, thereby reducing or altogether eliminating their chances of survival.
There is a growing body of research to indicate that cannabinoids such as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) may have therapeutic potential for helping to treat specific cancers. There is also research to support the appetite-stimulatory effect of certain cannabinoids, & Dronabinol & Nabilone are both FDA approved antiemetics for cancer chemotherapy n/v. But the research does not justify the view that ingesting hemp oil will cure any form of cancer. Not a single individual has been cured of a cancer with cannabis or one or a combination of cannabinoids, according to the research literature.
Common arguments In favour of the oil, that I've witnessed, are based on anecdotal evidence & a wild extrapolation of the science. My query is, whilst Cancer Research UK & the National Cancer Institute have both tackled the issue to some extent, why is it not an issue that has generally been picked up on in sceptical circles? It seems to be an issue that is more controversial amongst the sceptically literate than it should be. Anybody disagree with my assessment, or have any thoughts as to why its not getting any attention?
I was hoping to prompt some discussion of the supposed cure-all properties of hemp oil, as posited by Rick Simpson on his Phoenix Tears website, Facebook, & I daresay elsewhere. Rick states that the oil cures pretty much whatever ails you, but my interest lies in the claims that are made for its curative value in the context of cancer, because I'm concerned that cancer sufferers who may have success with mainstream therapies might eschew those therapies in favour of the oil, thereby reducing or altogether eliminating their chances of survival.
There is a growing body of research to indicate that cannabinoids such as delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) may have therapeutic potential for helping to treat specific cancers. There is also research to support the appetite-stimulatory effect of certain cannabinoids, & Dronabinol & Nabilone are both FDA approved antiemetics for cancer chemotherapy n/v. But the research does not justify the view that ingesting hemp oil will cure any form of cancer. Not a single individual has been cured of a cancer with cannabis or one or a combination of cannabinoids, according to the research literature.
Common arguments In favour of the oil, that I've witnessed, are based on anecdotal evidence & a wild extrapolation of the science. My query is, whilst Cancer Research UK & the National Cancer Institute have both tackled the issue to some extent, why is it not an issue that has generally been picked up on in sceptical circles? It seems to be an issue that is more controversial amongst the sceptically literate than it should be. Anybody disagree with my assessment, or have any thoughts as to why its not getting any attention?