Profile image
By Tom Dennen, the paranoid historian (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Okay, We've Done all the Homework: 34 Sourced, Peer-Reviewed Medical Studies Proving Marijuana Cures Cancer

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

It‘s not just that Nurse Mary Jane ‘fixes all ills’ and really can cure over 34 different types of cancer, she’s also God’s Gift to Mankind in that over 50 000 every day products can be made from hemp including all the ‘generic’ (non-natural) petro-chemical pharmaceuticals… it’s that it makes you THINK!

It wakes you up and scares the bejesus out of you when you realize what’s going down all around you: you do know for instance that banks CHARGE you today for lending them your money and that’s just the way it is?

BTW, because it’s really a gift and God knows all about humans, S/He left out any need for pesticides, fertilizers, ‘weeding’ (it’s a weed)… in fact, it THRIVES (geddit?) on NEGLECT!!

And Not Only That… There’s more! Free! (Except for War On Drugs Medical Marijuana Profiteering)

It wakes you up, shakes you up, takes you up to its creator and scares the bejesus out of you when you realize what’s going down all around you: you do know for instance that banks CHARGE you today for lending them your money and that’s just the way it is?

And Not Only That… There’s more!

Michael Taillard, Guest

There’s still a lot of confusion across the nation about whether or not marijuana is effective for cancer patients. Odds are you’ve heard something about it but weren’t sure whether the information was reliable or definitive. So, in order to help clear things up, here is a list of 34 studies showing that marijuana cures cancer, categorized by the type of cancers being cured in each study. As you sort through the articles, note that the consistent theme between them is that cannabis shrinks tumours and selectively targets cancer cells. As bills and voter initiatives to legalize medical marijuana spread from state to state, remember that we’re not just talking about mitigating the side effects of chemo (though this is another viable use), we’re talking about curing the cancer itself as well as preventing its spread. I’ve taken the liberty of only including articles from credible scientific journals, removing any biased or otherwise improperly cited studies. Enjoy!

   Cures Brain Cancer

Cures Mouth and Throat Cancer

Cures Breast Cancer

 Cures Lung Cancer

Cures Uterine, Testicular, and Pancreatic Cancers

Cures Prostate Cancer

Cures Colorectal Cancer

Cures Ovarian Cancer

Cures Blood Cancer


Cures Skin Cancer

Cures Liver Cancer

Cures Biliary Tract Cancer

Cures Bladder Cancer (Sign-up required to view study)

Cures Cancer in General

About the Author

MICHAEL TAILLARD, professional economist, published author and board member of NORML Nebraska.


Support BeforeitsNews by trying our natural health products! Join our affiliate program
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at
Get our Free Ebook, "Suppressed Health Secrets" THEY don't want you to know!

APeX - Far superior to colloidal silver!  Desroys Viruses, Bacteria, Pathogens!
Ultimate Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
Supreme Fulvic - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy.
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup!
B-12 - Supports healthy metabolism, brain function, hormone balance!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Never Wax Your Car Again -
Protects vehicles for years with dazzling shine!
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation! See Video!
Prodovite - The Secret To Healing is in the Blood!

Tactical Laser Blinds
Bring Batteries Back
New Laser Blinds Attackers Instantly! Bring Dead Batteries Back to life!
US Faces 100 Year Drought
Cut Power Bills by 65%
NASA - US Faces 100 Year Drought! Discovery Can Cut Power Bills by 65%
Report abuse


    Your Comments
    Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

    Total 4 comments
    • Robbie

      If this is true then why does everyone that I know who has cancer also smoked marijuana?

      • Supertad108

        It could be the fact that it’s the raw unheated version (cannabis oil) that contains the healing properties. Once it is heated the THC is activated which provides the euphoria effect. This has it’s purpose to assist with nausea, appetite, etc. The concentrations required to cure cancer, if I’m correct, cannot be obtained by simply smoking it. The raw unheated oil is what is required.

    • resonator

      Dear Robbie and others of like mind,

      The Oil is the key to cannabis’s health benefits. The oil is the real healer. As suoertad mentioned, smoking it helps relieve the complications of having cancer and it’s pharmaceutical treatments. But the oil is proven to kill cancer. Think of the Full implications of a life without chemotherapy. My ex is doing chemotherapy for Multiple Myeloma to the tune of $24,000.00 monthly. If it weren’t for Insurance and grants for such expenses she would be dead. Yes, I admit big pharma has kept her alive. But there is no quality of life. She is not cured and will never be with big pharma. Subject to die a miserable life taking weekly meds that are very slowly killing her, she may never be cured for fear of going to jail and dieing there.
      You want to be healed, cured of Cancer, Legalize the use of Cannabis Oil to Cure Cancer.

    • Johnny Wonder

      As a scientist and student of chemistry, I want to point out that science, for practical intents and purposed is not definitive and the title of this post and category titles for the peer review papers it is promoting are misleading. Studies do not “prove” anything, period. The actual intent for conducting research is to falsify one’s hypothesis in an attempt to limit bias. These papers provide supporting evidence for what this site is claiming, but it is important to remember that some or all of these studies may be inconclusive. A scientist is pleasantly surprised when research supports their hypothesis, or educated guess.

      Coming to a concrete conclusion in science, or for many who are obviously not scientists, in the professional sense, is a matter of ego and paints a black and white picture for an entire area of research, which is virtually not possible given that most research focuses on a vary narrow, isolated set of circumstances in order to reduce the amount of variables affecting the outcome. Bc research is rather narrow and cannot very well account for all variables, both known and unknown, it is rather pretentious and unwise to use the word “prove” in science. Science does not and never has “proven” anything. It has gathered supporting evidence (and often this is inconclusive), at best, to support its hypotheses and theories.

      That being said, I do appreciate the research being done on the medical aspects of cannabis and know how hard it is to get the proper authority to conduct such research as well as legal access to the medicine after the authority has been given. I also hope to use my degree in chemistry to conduct research on the potential benefits of cannabis and various psychedelics, as well at perform chemical analysis and quality control testing for both the medicinal and recreational markets.

      Something else to consider. I grew up on a farm hunting and butchering and then became an avid vegetarian over 15 yrs. ago. I know many people who are also vegetarian/vegan and who smoke pot. I know many people in one or both of these categories that also have cancer, had cancer or who have died from cancer. Cancer, simply put, is the replication of mutated cells. There are many variables that can influence cancer and increase one’s risk, just as there are many preventative measures that people can take. But, to date, there is no known lifestyle that can guarantee us from not getting cancer. Smoking definitely increases one’s risk, even if its only pot, and anyone who refuses to accept this isn’t worth having a debate with bc it would be a waste of time. Living longer increases the chances of getting cancer bc the more our cells replicate, the more opportunity they have of mutating. People got cancer, heart disease and other degenerative diseases thousands of years ago as well. Today, we are better at identifying, diagnosing disease and treating disease with modern medicine that we ever have been and bc people live longer, they are much more likely to develop cancer at some point in their lives. Yes, some of our modern treatments are derived from the past, but they have greatly been enhanced and improved upon as is evidenced by modern man’s much longer life span.

      And for all of you who either have cancer or know someone with cancer, know that there is no known panacea for cancer, despite all the New Agey hippie bullshit claiming that juice fasts, cleanses, hydro-colon therapies, pot etc. is the miracle that will work and the government is just keeping it a secret. If there truly was a reliable cure for cancer, it would be well known as scientists have too much student loan debt and make too little for one scientist in millions to not leak this wonderful information that could save millions of lives while catapulting their careers.

      I am sure others have come to this idea, but I, and I try to avoid saying belief bc beliefs can be dangerous when trying to discern information, but I support the idea that there cannot be something that is “unnatural.” Rather than supporting fallible beliefs, learn how to trust reliable data and accept it until better information becomes available. Just like all of the other animals, plants, mushrooms, bacteria, etc our thought to have evolved as a result of natural selection, so has man. Other animals have developed technology to increase their chances of survival and so has man. Is it unnatural that a beaver that synthesizes a dam to change the environment more to their liking? This change in environment can even have a detrimental affect on other fauna that are adversely affected by the change in ecosystem that a beaver dam creates. Is it unnatural that a beaver, a bird or burrowing animal should synthesize from nature a home to improve their chances of survival? No, of course it is not. Then why do folks consider man-made objects to be “unnatural?” The raw materials that produce everything man synthesizes comes from nature and it is man’s naturally evolved intelligence and technology that has given him this ability, so why do folks demonize the very species to which they belong and very actively participate in? I cannot not imagine how it would be possible for man to do something unnatural. People believe that Nature is cognizant, but there is no evidence to suggest this. Nature is cold and indifferent. Survive, if you can, but either way, it makes no difference to nature who will swallow us all up as food for worms as well as our species in due course.

      Just bc there may be a study that was published by a peer reviewed journal doesn’t mean that it is a respected study by the scientific community. That is why reading a review of the study or the meta-analysis of many studies carries much more weight.

      According to the logic being promoted by the title of this post, the Seralini rat study “proves” that GMO’s cause cancer. But if one does the research on GMO’s using reliable sources and reads the reviews of the Seralini rat study, one will find that there are close to a thousand and possibly more studies now supporting the safety of GMO’s and only less than a handful of highly scrutinized and quack studies that say GMO’s are bad. The studies suggesting that GMO’s are bad have all been heavily criticized by the scientific community for the poor design and methods of their experiment and a number of these studies have been retracted by the journals that they were published in. Also the funding for this pseudo-research and the motives of the scientists involved are highly biased as Seralini had a book and film scheduled to be released along with his anti GMO paper, which was funded by Greenpeace and other anti GMO advocacy groups.

      What cannabis culture and industry desperately needs is a reliable and professional source information that is constructed in a way that can be respected by the scientific community as well as trusted by the cannabis community bc right now there is much anecdotal bullshit on the internet about how to grow and process pot that I’m more and more disgusted with the hippie culture that criticizes schools claiming that schools teach kids what to think and not how when most of these folks are complete idiots when it comes to discerning information, whether it be about GMO’s, organic vs. non-organic, pesticides, etc. I know, bc I was very much in that category until I went to university believing that I was going to research how bad GMO’s and non-organic farming was, when I came to a much different conclusion after conducting research using reliable sources. I haven’t sold out or been bought off by Monsanto. I just improved my sense of logic and reason while honing how I discerned the reliability of information.

      I know that this comment will likely piss some people off. But I hope that it also, if nothing more, plants a seed of thought, which, if nurtured, may have the possibility of growing into an idea that is supported after the person conducts their own research. Just remember that research is worthless if the information is not reliable and these bullshit pseudo “documentaries” are sensationalized bullshit that exploits the ignorant masses for support.




    Email this story
    Email this story

    If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

    If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.