15 ms·
Life as a cancer patient: ‘it feels like dying from the drugs meant to save me’
- Lordarminius 7y agoA line from a passage I remember reading as a medical student, has stuck with me after a decade and a half. It described anticancer therapies as having the effect of "... poisoning patients to the edge of their existence..." It is not my belief that the side effect profile of anti tumor drugs has improved much. So, yeah. Treatments for cancer can suck just as badly as the disease itself.
- FakeComments 7y agoThat’s not just the effect, it’s the mechanism of action for chemo — right? It takes advantage of cancers rerouting blood and being overly aggressive in gathering resources to make those the first of your cells to die as you’re poisoned to death, on the theory that there’s some slightly sublethal dosage that kills only some of your cells (and hopefully, the cancerous ones).
- Lordarminius 7y agoDifferent classes of anti-tumor drugs employ different mechanisms; some more than one.
- nisa 7y agocancer treatment can also cause cancer and does - it was likely the cause of the death of my grandpa - but he got 10 more years due to a chemo-therapy from an otherwise lethal cancer - fuck cancer.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pcestrada 7y agoMy father was diagnosed with lung cancer 4 years ago. He is on his third round of chemo. I recommend reading "The Emperor of all Maladies" for an insightful book on cancer. Even though medicine has made great progress fighting cancer, the scorched earth approach is what most of these treatments come down to.
- hieloz 7y agoPBS produced a documentary film named Cancer: The Emperor of All Maladies in 2015, which is based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning 2010 book The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer,
- sfjailbird 7y agoChemotherapy is scary. It seems so counterintuitive to choose to inflict this kind of damage to oneself, in the hopes that it will prevent an even worse outcome. Part of it is that there is this nagging feeling that it might not even be the right approach, given the legion of side effects of all kinds. Even oncologists get vague and evasive when this is questioned. In the end we can only rely on generalized statistics about survival rates, unsure of how it applies to individual situations. I disagree with the anger people often show towards cancer. It's like people project some kind of malignant personality onto the phenomenon. I think of it as a natural part of life, like early hair loss. You can die from it, but death comes anyway, for one reason or another. At least with cancer you have time to get used to the idea, unlike an accident, heart attack or whatever. I guess I am a bit of a fatalist.
- firethief 7y agoI don't understand what it means to "disagree" with someone else's personal emotional reaction. You wish people faced with some of the worst possible news would Vulcan up? Even from a coolly logical perspective, the slowness of it is not necessarily a bonus. It's not pretty. There's often a lot of pain.
- md224 7y ago> It seems so counterintuitive to choose to inflict this kind of damage to oneself, in the hopes that it will prevent an even worse outcome. Especially since the "worse outcome" -- your own non-existence -- is the one thing in the Universe you are guaranteed to never experience (though your loved ones can experience your non-existence, and that can be a good reason to try to avoid it).
- joshgel 7y agoTraditional chemotherapy is toxic to all cells. Cancer cells grow rapidly (part of what makes them dangerous). So the toxic effect gets the cancer cells first, since cells that are growing take up the most chemotherapy. But other cells grow rapidly too, like hair and intestinal cells, which is why cancer patients lose their hair and have terrible nausea/diarrhea. All (almost all?) cells take up some chemo. So, you are actually dying, just hopefully more slowly than the cancer. And then we stop the chemo before you all the way die. This is why the bar for a cancer diagnosis is so high. We need biopsies to try to get as close to 100% accurate diagnosis as possible.
- nextos 7y agoThat's right. Chemotherapy is, sadly, a very primitive treatment. I regret we have spent so much money on cancer genomics, when some outsiders where trying to push for immunotherapies. Thankfully, that changed 3 or 4 years ago.
- jcims 7y agoCould you expand on the second half of your comment?
- imglorp 7y agoCut, burn, and poison: well practiced and sometimes effective but yeah it's horrific to experience and barbaric. I regret we aren't spending more on both genomics AND immunotherapies AND whatever else bears exploring.
- niketdesai 7y agoI am quite optimistic IO and cell based therapies will minimize these techniques. But there's more baking to be done before they can be rolled out. The "primitive" techniques can be quite reliable for specific cancer variants.
- russdill 7y agoSeeing the effect of chemotherapy in a pet though was mind blowing. Visible tumors disappeared over the course of weeks. Sadly she relapsed a few months later, but it's a very powerful class of drugs.
- brent_noorda 7y agoBeing alive to criticize the treatment is usually better than the alternative.
- niketdesai 7y agoYou capture the nuance by saying usually. Many people, logically, would arrive to this conclusion. When the treatment starts, one is even energized. Then, in the middle a person regrets being so optimistic at all. They find their assumption of life being better than death more naive than they could have imagined. It's not just the treatment. It is the wider picture of your life stopping. And within that context your body, deteriorating, is only one component.
- jcims 7y agoIt's not really clear to me what people are asking for. If cancer pays a visit, you have two main options: 1 - Don't treat the disease and either do nothing or basic palliative care. The cancer is unlikely to go away on its own and will begin to spread to your lungs and liver and brain and mutilate your body until it doesn't function and you die. Less up front pain, possibly less area under the painful waking hours curve, but almost certainly an early death. 2 - Treat using standard of care chemo/surgery/radiation. Doctors do the mutilating and poisoning a bit more selectively, you lose dignity, bodily functions, jobs, relationships and gain a stigma and a curse of uncertainty. Maybe they get the upper hand and you live a life with lower but possibly acceptable quality. Maybe they don't and you still die but possibly a bit more slowly. There's no good option yet. People are stuck between a rock and a hard place right now. That's why you can't go more than a few hours without hearing about cancer on TV and see walks and fundraisers and ribbons and shaved heads.
- niketdesai 7y agoYup. It's a challenging position for patients, caregivers, and medical professionals alike. Each burdens the quandary in a different way.
- cosmic_shame 7y agoIn pharmacy school I was told the paradigm in infections diseases was to identify the amount of medication to kill the pathogen, then give a little more. In oncology, it's to identify the amount of medication that would kill the patient, then give a little less.
- elevenoh 7y agoJesus christ.
- stordoff 7y agoI've heard it put similarly bluntly - you hope the chemo kills the cancer before it kills you. I know a few people who are actively undergoing chemotherapy, and my grandfather died of pancreatic cancer (metastasised to liver IIRC), and it's quite clear the heavy tole it takes on them.
- algaeontoast 7y agoIf I ever have a cancer diagnosis that would require extreme treatment or a pro-longed period of suffering, i.e. stage 3 or 4, I'd seriously consider shooting myself rather enduring months if not years of agony. In theory I'd have insurance, however why put my family through years of seeing me suffer and become a person they might not recognize?
- PlasticTank 7y ago2 years ago my Grandfather was diagnosed with lung cancer, he was supposed to begin a course of chemo and various other treatments but instead he gathered the family around for a dinner one night and asked us all for our blessing not to go for treatment, it was a rather surreal moment. He died about 4 months later, he took some painkillers and a couple of other medications that improved his quality of life and in the end we all agreed that it was the best way, when he passed away he really wasn't much different than before the cancer, we avoided all of the agony of a long drawn out fight and watching him fall apart in front of us, he died happy and with dignity.
- thrower123 7y ago100%. I've done a round of chemo once, and I was 16, possibly the fittest I have ever been, and blessed with willful stubbornness then. It sucked donkey dick then, and I'd have none of those advantages now or in the future. Live life to the fullest, make peace with the world, and go out on your own terms. Far better than eking out a couple years of pain and suffering being slowly poisoned.
- JasonFruit 7y agoI've often thought the same thing. If I'm looking at treatment that doesn't seem worth it, why should my only other option be to die on cancer's terms? Why not choose my own terms? I've talked to my wife about this, and of course our agreement is to do it in a way where she doesn't have to find me or deal with the mess — but you're not alone in this idea.
- adrianm 7y agoBecause there is hope.
- seibelj 7y ago> My desire to survive means I still can’t bring myself to unravel survival’s ethics. One of the chemotherapy drugs with which I was treated, cyclophosphamide, passes into the urine only partially diluted, is only partially removed by water treatment methods, and lasts in the common water supply for 400 to 800 days. Another, carboplatin, is described in its manufacturer’s information sheet as having the “environmental fate” of accumulating in aquatic environments, where it lingers but no one yet knows what damage it does. Tons of complaining about the drugs, economy, medical professionals, and people that keep her alive. Can’t you appreciate that the system worked and is keeping your ass out of the grave? Yes, it costs millions, but that’s why we all pay an absurd amount into insurance. > Everyone understands as a matter of fact that unless you are currently entered into this world’s customary romantic partnership, or unless you have lived long enough to raise devoted grown children, or unless you are young enough to still be in the care of your parents, you are, on the occasion of aggressive cancer in the conditions of aggressive profit, rarely considered worth enough to keep alive. The reality is that the people most likely to care for you at your weakest, most vulnerable moments is your own family. I don’t know how the government can make strangers love and devote themselves to your care with sincere emotion and affection. If you don’t have family because you prefer not to live in a “customary romantic partnership” this is a choice you have made for yourself.
- turk73 7y agoNo, we spend so much so that companies like the one I work at can make billions and be in the Fortune 10. The huge costs are extraction of wealth and there isn't that much to show for it. We also have a 2-tiered medical system where the ultra-wealthy and well-connected receive all the best treatments while the rest of us get fuck all. We are perceived as nothing but ants in a giant colony to those who rule the world.
- robotresearcher 7y agoYou're not logically wrong, but I'd value a few moments of empathy for the author of the article higher than this comment.
- seibelj 7y ago
- geofffox 7y agoI am a pancreatic cancer survivor. It is considered incurable in 2019 and I'm here because of a 1930s era surgery called a Whipple procedure. Around 9% survive five years or more -- a number that hasn't really changed. In a belt plus suspenders move I underwent 2 rounds (six infusions per round) of chemo plus 28 consecutive weekdays of radiation after surgery. All my doctors are amazed at my recovery, a few saying the best they've seen (though it came with diabetes and a different digestive pathway). Chemo was awful. Mine came with a bag of steroids first to mask the effects for a few days. I scheduled my sessions for Thursday, knowing it wouldn't hit me until Friday night. One Saturday I slept around 20 hours. However, by the end we had figured out how to minimize the effect of the chemo. I needed my wife who watched me diligently. Cancer is not a one person job! She made sure every time I opened my eyes I stayed hydrated and ate something. Chemo should have gotten worse. It actually got easier. My cancer never caused me pain. The treatment... that's another story. I left the hospital with my belly held together by 16 staples.
- jcims 7y agoTrying to help my wife through chemo now, and the staying hydrated and eating something is kicking our butts. Her oncologist believes that her nausea is due to directly to disease progression and it's relentless. We're now on a regimen of phenergen every 6 hours but that just prevents cyclic nausea from occurring AND it knocks her out to where she's sleeping at least 20 hrs a day. Then when she wakes up she can only eat a little bit or she'll throw it back up. For hydration we finally just got home health giving her a liter twice a week plus a liter at chemo once a week. She just recently over the past day or two has started to be able to hold a bit more down, but she's essentially got a form of PTSD from throwing up 5-10 times a day for 2-3 months. Congrats to you on beating it man, especially pancreatic. This stuff really sucks.
- bmurphy1976 7y agoSerious question: have you tried marijuana? I always figured if I ever ended up in this kind of situation that would be the first thing I would try to help me eat.
- anon1m0us 7y agoI knew two people who both got cancer about the same time. One said no to chemo. The other said yes to chemo. The differences in quality of life until death were dramatic. Neither had a longer life than was expected had they not taken the chemo, but the one who did lost hair, physical dexterity, then life. Suffered greatly. The other one suffered much less, but still died. The doctors all said take the drugs. You don't have to take the drugs. Do the research. Chemo isn't always beneficial. Sometimes... it's just hope.
- zoul 7y agoStatistically speaking, the doctors were probably right. The guy taking the chemo effectively traded a better chance of survival for worse short-term quality of life. (And lost the bet.) But yes, it’s good to know the chances, so that you can choose to die in relative peace as opposed to making the rest of your life very difficult for a marginal increase in your survival chance.
- justnotworthit 7y agoMy three parents all got cancer. The one that refused chemo was laughed at and insulted by her doctor. She had to make a courageous speach to be treated with respect.
- mb_72 7y agoSame experience with me, except that the one who said no to chemo died, and the other who said yes is still alive and has recovered (yes, after hair loss and other side effects). "Do the research" - research is what scientists do, not what is achieved by Googling. No medical treatment is 100% perfect, unfortunately, but I and others I know prefer to play the odds rather than not.
- dtech 7y agoI know someone who smoked a pack her day her whole life, and died at 90 while remaining in good health for the age the decade before. I know someone who never smoked in his life and got lung cancer at 52. Does that mean anything? Should we now conclude that smoking prevents lung cancer? Quality of life, health, remaining lifetime, sickness progressions are all very complex interactions. All you can do is what happens on average, and play the odds based on that.
- anon91831837 7y agoImmuno-oncology and fasting are the future, but polychemotherapies still have their uses.
- itissid 7y agoI cannot possibly fathom the terrible experience of cancer patients going through chemo. My great hope though is that a bunch of these will be rendered treatable with the immunotherapy solutions out there and being developed right now, which though expensive today for most people today, might be bought down by the demand supply mechanics of economics....
- DoreenMichele 7y agoI've had multiple relatives have cancer, some multiple times. Two relatives had cancer twice. Another, five times. Assorted others had cancer at least once. I took care of a relative following a mastectomy. Making sure she got adequately hydrated brought her fever down. I got two hours sleep her first night back from the hospital because I devotedly pushed fluids at every opportunity. She coughed up phlegm after I made her get enough food and drink into her to drop her temperature a degree. She said I probably prevented post-operative pneumonia. My late father had colon cancer in his late sixties. He lost a third of his body weight before it was diagnosed. My parents were told to get their affairs in order. He wasn't supposed to live. His surgery that was supposed to be two hours lasted six. The cancer was much more extensive than they expected, but it hadn't invaded other organs. They peeled it off the outside of them instead of cutting out parts of them. He had a thirteen inch scar from sternum to pubic bone with a dent going around his belly button. My mother treated the scar with German Penaten cream and treated his skin with Penaten cream. Her mother died from uterine cancer when my mother was in her teens. My mother was convinced that radiation treatments killed her mother. She always had some excuse why my dad couldn't make one of his radiation treatments every week. He lived about another two decades. The cancer clinic at Martin Army Hospital was impressed with the condition of dad's scar and asked what they were doing. My mother explained it was the Penaten cream. They added it to their regime. After my father defied his sentence of death, the civilian cancer doctor that treated him interviewed my mother on tape for two hours and changed the practices of his clinic based on what she said. The doctor knew my mother is the person who kept my dad alive. Their big thing was hydration. They calculated how much fluids he needed and they made sure he got enough every day. Caffeinated drinks and alcohol did not count. When he was too sick to eat, she made him homemade milkshakes or slushies once or sometimes twice a day in place of meals. On not so bad days, I think she used milk, good quality ice cream and fresh fruit. On super bad days, she used ice, frozen fruit and fruit juice. He was gaining so much weight during a time when most cancer patients are continuing to lose weight that his doctor yelled at her to slow it down. He had a long-standing heart condition and her doctor was afraid she was kill him by putting too much strain on his heart with the rapid weight gain while he was still undergoing treatment. My mother wanted to be a doctor in her youth. She delivered babies in her teens. She never got to be a doctor, but she was always patching someone up as long as I can remember.
- mannanj 7y agoI'm surprised no one has talked about diet here. Not a single one. There are many cases of cancers being completed reversed by change of diet, many cancers survive off of glucose and so switching to a fat based diet has helped many people go into remission as well as dull and intensify the effects of chemotherapy. Cancer is a living biological cell after all and will prefer certain sources of energy over others. Starve it of it's primary energy source (glucose) and it will die. Human non-cancerous cells on the other hand are very versatile and can survive off either fat or carbs. Sad how the first thing people would rather do is try chemo than give up off their carb and sugar addictions.
- Aloha 7y agoIt'd be helpful if you're gonna post something that sounds like pseudoscience to post a source with it. With all of the studies covering inane things, someone has got to have studied this.
- rleigh 7y agoIt didn't have a source, but it's not pseudoscience. The switch to anaerobic glucose metabolism is part of the evolution of cancer as it progresses. This is because oxygen diffusion into a solid tumour is a limiting factor upon its growth. Cells which switch off aerobic metabolism will be selected for, since only they will survive and proliferate in an oxygen-free environment. You'll find this in most cancer textbooks. It's not new; I was taught this in undergraduate lectures two decades back. This switch is actually one of the key control points which holds a brake on the progression of a cancer past ~1mm in size, which is basically the limit of passive oxygen diffusion into the mass. It's fairly logical to keep glucose levels minimal to reduce the growth of this type of tumour, and removing sugar from the diet is a simple and effective way to do so. A diet which is based upon fats will do this, since fats can be converted to the minimal levels of glucose the body needs via beta-oxidation. This will reduce the metabolites available to the tumour significantly, compared with the huge spikes you get when you absorb it directly from the gut.
- 7sigma 7y ago
- danieltillett 7y agoThis is an alternative to maximum tolerated dosing chemotherapy (standard) and it is called adaptive chemotherapy [0]. The aim with adaptive chemotherapy is to just stop the cancer from growing larger and using the growth advantage of the chemosensitive cancer cells to keep the resistant cells under control. This approach is much easier on the patient. I would look very carefully at this approach if I was ever in need of considering chemo. 0. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160224164357.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160224164357.h...
- killjoywashere 7y agoAs someone doing cancer research and running a clinical lab, diagnosing cancer every day, I read the accounts of folks with cancer with a certain degree of lachesism. I want to know what this is. I know chickenpox and a broken leg and I know what it's like to have a loved one with cancer. But the thing itself, I do not know. I spend every waking moment thinking about how to hunt cancer. It used to be reflex, now it's been so long it's somewhere between habit and addiction. My cognitive self knows I don't want cancer. But there's definitely a weird, fucked up interest in what it's like.
- srik 7y agoI have a lot of admiration towards your “obsession”; it way more meaningful than any of mine, so respect! May I ask, in your opinion, what can I do to lower my chances of getting cancer. So far, I monitor grilled meat consumption, do yearly fasts and watch my carbs. I’d appreciate any advice :)
- yread 7y agoTry dying young? Otherwise, there are no guarantees
- nugget 7y agoCut out any food or drink that includes processed sugar. Limit alcohol consumption, except for a few glasses per week of red wine. Reduce intake of any animal products with hormones or artificial feed sources in the supply chain. RO filter water in the home, whether it’s to drink, cook with, or for other uses. Filter air in your home, especially if you live near pollution sources (e.g. within 1500 ft of a major roadway). Make sure you buy an air filter with a carbon/charcoal component. Exercise 30 minutes per day, moderate cardio is fine. Avoid cheaply processed home goods (think: dollar store inventory) in favor of higher quality products, e.g. wood furniture instead of plastic or synthetic material. Avoid carpet and synthetic flooring materials in favor of porcelain tile or natural wood. Do most household cleaning with non toxic cleaners, e.g. vinegar based products with few extra ingredients. The rabbit hole goes deeper, but there’s a list to start.
- 7y ago
- Gatsky 7y agoVisual loss is a very rare side effect of chemotherapy, and permanent visual loss even rarer. The more common and no less serious side effects of heart muscle damage and secondary leukemia are not mentioned in the tagline, being ill-suited as click bait I presume. I have given the chemotherapy described here to many patients. There is wide variation in how patients experience chemotherapy. Some finish and tell me it wasn't as bad as they expected. I'm quite sure they only tell me things like this in the privacy of the consulting room. They would never say this to another patient in the waiting room. They feel bad for not having had the kind of widely publicised terrible experience. Beyond the tagline, the account is reasonably accurate, although at times indulges in melodrama, about mitochondria of all things. It also doesn't do a good job of talking about the cognitive dysfunction associated with chemotherapy. This is a complex issue. In randomised trials, patients receiving placebo cancer treatments tend to report high rates of some cognitive problems. That chemotherapy itself is causal in every case is certainly in doubt. The mere experience of being diagnosed with cancer as you might imagine can have profound cognitive effects. I am not quibbling for the sake of it. There are patients who decide not to have chemotherapy, and sometimes what they have heard about the experience from 'alternate' channels (such as newspaper taglines) has an out-sized influence on their decision. This is why a responsible editorial team would have had this article reviewed by medical professionals and patient advocates, and taken their advice about more judicious highlighting of potential side-effects. The article also doesn't quite deal with the fact that triple negative breast cancer is a really bad disease to have. Metastatic disease has a median overall survival of 18 months. If chemotherapy had not completely eradicated the cancer as it did in her case (the chances are about 50-50), 40% of patients develop metastatic disease in 3 years.
- scotty79 7y agoMy gf had grade III brain cancer. She had chemo two times. As chemos go, the one for brain cancer is fairly bening. The only side effect was nausea on initial chemo dose. Easily countered by antiemetic given only before first few initial doses, later withdrawn. The only other side effect was low blood cell counts that didn't manifest any symptoms but caused chemo to be delayed by a week till it recovered. Steroids given for brain swelling had more effect as they increased her appetite and kept water in her body causing her face to swell a bit. Ask your doctor for medication that amplifies urine production if you are given steroids. That helped when she was given it for the second time. Also after steroids were stopped her skin needed few weeks to recover from being prone to acne. Possibly the only drug that might have felt like it was killing her was the morphine, as it can depress respiratory system, but at this stage there were so many things that might have been killing her that it wasn't important.
- agumonkey 7y agoI'm also very curious about oncolytic toxicity. personal sad story: uncle diagnosed with stage4 (mets) in late dec, got rounds of chemo 4 months after the diagnosis during which time the tumors didn't grow (based on the few bits we could read in his file). But after the 3rd round his health dropped to the floor, didn't last long after that. I believe the toll on his system was just too high. And I'm curious what are the mechanisms at play.
- chrisan 7y agoMy wife worked in oncology for about 5 years as a clinical pharmd. She and all of the doctors said they would never put themselves through chemo
- kd3 7y agoDying from cancer doesn't have to happen anymore. Use hemp oil with at least a 95% THC concentration daily. Search for Rick Simpson oil online for details. You can make the oil at home if you are able to obtain the right hemp leafs. And stay away from chemo!!!
- pharaohgeek 7y agoAspiring survivor of a stage 3 sarcoma here. I went through 8 months of treatment in 2016. I had no symptoms, no pain, NOTHING prior to being diagnosed. There was just a huge lump on my shoulder. The idea that I was about to willingly pump poison into my body and make myself sick when I felt perfectly fine was definitely hard to wrap my mind around. But, no question, it was the right thing to do. I'm married and have 2 young kids. Telling them I had cancer was the hardest thing I've ever had to do. Thankfully, I live near one of the world's best hospitals and had amazing doctors and nurses. My treatment was in-patient and they kept me loaded full of fluids and anti-nausea meds. Yes, those 9 months were grueling, but they were bearable. I'm very fortunate. I've known others who've gone through much, much worse.
- Risible_Me 7y agoAfter a cancer diagnosis, life changes. There are many challenges to face. On top of choosing treatment, patients may have to deal with side effects, absence from work, and family issues. Caregivers also have many challenges including increased stress...
- cancerwriter 7y agoI struggled to read the Guardian article thanks to the overly purple prose (I write professionally, that sort of writing really ticks me off), but the comment discussion here is fascinating. I’m a cancer patient, a year out of chemo. Almost 1.5 years ago I was given 2-3 years to live. Bladder cancer metastasized to lymph, liver and lungs is not a good thing to have, apparently, and I was put onto a fairly aggressive chemo course to try and hold it at bay for a while. The chemo was tough, but I started an intensive treatment course of my own at the same time: cannabis oil, large amounts every evening. It massively buffered my against the side effects; I had a good appetite and my hair got a bit thin but never got too bad. All the same I did very nearly die from sepsis a few days after I finished my chemo course – cannabis can’t help when your immune system is trashed and you pick up some normally minor and forgettable bug! But the big deal for me is that scans now show “no evidence of disease” rather than just shrunk and static. My consultant is saying this level of response is unprecedented and he now expects to be having these meetings for years to come. I know we need proper large-scale trials, I know I’m presenting an anecdote here, and like most of y’all I’m suspicious of miracle cure stories. But the results I have now are SO far beyond anything my oncology team ever expected that I am convinced cannabis has played a significant part along with the chemo in the cancer battle itself. I’ve been documenting my experiences and listing my methods and techniques in a blog. Is it acceptable to post the URL here?
- nate_meurer 7y agoYes, please do.
- cancerwriter 7y agoThe blog is at https://cancerwriter.com/ https://cancerwriter.com/ and it explains what I’ve done and how others can do it for themselves, in detail. At the very least it brings great relief, and I do think it’s far more valuable than just that.
- nate_meurer 7y agoThanks, I've been looking through it. I was really hoping for good news about your treatment and I was happy to find it. Cannabinoids are an exciting medical frontier and I think you're doing a good thing here.