Not a waste of time at all. Anecdotal evidence seems to be highly compelling to many, despite its disposition to bias, so I think it's still worthwhile to raise criticisms on an ad hoc basis.
A similar case was reported in a UK tabloid, the Daily Mail 4 May 2011, with the headline 'Boy, 2, with brain cancer is cured after being secretly fed medical marijuana by his father'. In the second half of the article it is finally divulged that the hemp oil had an anti-emetic effect which helped the child through chemo therapy. It seems to be an area that attracts irresponsible reporting.
I would go further: Simpson should not be giving medical advice period. He is not medically qualified. The literature does not support the view that hemp oil is more efficacious than current approved treatments. Anti-tumourigenic does not equate to curative.
Let's imagine a scenario where, in the future, hemp oil is shown to cure some cancers (I'm not indicating that I hold a belief that this will be so). Remember Simpson advocates that sufferers avoid the medical profession altogether. In our scenario, a 'patient' is not responding to hemp oil, but they would still have a reasonable chance of success with the current standard therapy for their cancer. However, they cannot receive chemotherapy or radiotherapy from Simpson, & they trust Simpson's advice that mainstream healthcare will have a deleterious if not mortal effect on their health. This is not to mention complications, co-existing conditions which require management etc. There are no circumstances under which this kind of practice concerning critically ill people would be acceptable.
We have a regulated medical profession, peer review, and clinical trials, not to disenfranchise patients, but to safeguard them.
Again, agreed. Though whilst I think anecdote is a good reason to look at possible mechanisms and, if sufficiently convincing, look at instigating serious research, I'm not sure how much of a role it should really have beyond that. We have in vitro, in vivo animal model, xenografting & Guzman's safety trial on patients with recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme. Surely these are a more reliable basis for determining the course of future research efforts.
In fact, there are 925 PubMed results in a search of 'cannabinoids cancer'. Many of these results will concern potential anti-emetic therapies & perhaps other areas, but the point is that studies concerning cannabinoids are happening and are being funded. I repeatedly see the argument that the pharmaceutical industry can't patent hemp, so they won't research it. Yet these same individuals don't hesitate to point to the numerous studies that have been conducted with synthetic compounds to support the conclusion that hemp does cure cancer.
A little longer than initially intended; apologies...
Last edited:
Doesn't it make you angry whenever you think about the fact that the hemp plant, cannabis, and marijuana are illegal in America today? This fact, alone, is enough for any critical thinker to realize that our government is absolutely corrupt beyond measure.
