What if cannabis cured cancer?

[robdogbucky]

Cannabis Rx: Cutting Through the Misinformation

Dr. Andrew Weil
Founder and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine
Posted: September 12, 2010 08:00 AM

"If an American doctor of the late 19th century stepped into a time warp and emerged in 2010, he would be shocked by the multitude of pharmaceuticals that today's physicians use. But as he pondered this array (and wondered, as I do, whether most are really necessary), he would soon notice an equally surprising omission, and exclaim, "Where's my Cannabis indica?" No wonder -- the poor fellow would feel nearly helpless without it. In his day, labor pains, asthma, nervous disorders and even colicky babies were treated with a fluid extract of Cannabis indica, also known as "Indian hemp." (Cannabis is generally seen as having three species -- sativa, indica and ruderalis -- but crossbreeding is common, especially between sativa and indica.) At least 100 scientific papers published in the 19th century backed up such uses.

Then the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 made possession or transfer of Cannabis illegal in the U.S. except for certain medical and industrial uses, which were heavily taxed. The legislation began a long process of making Cannabis use illegal altogether. Many historians have examined this sorry chapter in American legislative history, and the dubious evidence for Cannabis addiction and violent behavior used to secure the bill's passage. "Under the Influence: The Disinformation Guide to Drugs" by Preston Peet makes a persuasive case that the Act's real purpose was to quash the hemp industry, making synthetic fibers more valuable for industrialists who owned the patents...

...As long ago as 1975, researchers reported that cannabinoids inhibited the growth of a certain type of lung cancer cell in test tubes and in mice. Since then, laboratory studies have shown that cannabinoids have effects against tumor cells from glioblastoma (a deadly type of brain cancer) as well as those from thyroid cancer¸ leukemia/lymphoma, and skin, uterus, breast, stomach, colorectal, pancreatic and prostate cancers.

So far, the only human test of cannabinoids against cancer was performed in Spain, and was designed to determine if treatment was safe, not whether it was effective. (In studies on humans, such "phase one trials," are focused on establishing the safety of a new drug, as well as the right dosage.) In the Spanish study, reported in 2006, the dose was administered intracranially, directly into the tumors of patients with recurrent brain cancer. The investigation established the safety of the dose and showed that the compound used decreased cell proliferation in at least two of nine patients studied. It is not clear that smoking marijuana achieves blood levels high enough to have these anticancer effects. We need more human research, including well-designed studies to find the best mode of administration..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/can-cannabis-treat-cancer_b_701005.html



Just Say Now!
http://firedoglake.com/justsaynow



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[HopeHoops]

1. If they eat the tumors, you might be on to something.

[robdogbucky]

5. Got something for you

Here's a website containing links to REAL scientific studies on various benefits of marijuana. Here are the highlights:

The Studies

Marijuana Fights:

Heart Disease
Cancer
Diabetes
Osteoporosis
Alzheimer's
Liver Disease
Epilepsy
Skin Allergies
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Anxiety and Depression

and is also Neuroprotective and Causes Neurogenesis (brain cell growth)


http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/studies.htm



Enjoy



Just Say Now!
http://firedoglake.com/justsaynow

[HopeHoops]

66. Well I've already got the osteoporosis, but thanks.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. If smoking pot cured cancer we probably would have figured it out by now.

:shrug:

[leftstreet]

3. Jobs cure poverty....I think we've figured THAT out by now

wait, what?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. ...

[Romulox]

10. Ergo, there is no cure for cancer. And man will NEVER fly!

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Never a big fan of logic, were you.

If pot cured cancer, pot would be legal, and nobody would be dying of cancer.

That does not mean that some one will not one day invent or discover a cure for cancer.

:shrug:

[Romulox]

16. Your "logic" is bizarre and infantile.

Marijuana may hold promise in treating cancer under conditions other than the bogus one's you suggest. At any rate, the fact that we have not discovered something can never prove that something does not exist under a system of deductive logic. It's simply not possible.

So, for you to invoke logic to defend your silly proposition, upthread, is just digging in deeper. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. It's entirely possible that marijuana may one day lead to cancer.

It's far more likely that it won't. It's far more likely that cannabinoids, like thousands of other secondary metabolites, show anti-mitotic activity in petri dishes but prove completely unsuitable for treating cancer in whole organisms.

That said, maybe there's a chance that the chemistry of cannabinoids might lead to chemists developing a synthetic drug that is an effective chemotherapeutic. And they'll get a patent on it. And they, or more likely their pharma company, will get rich off of it. And they'll deserve it, because they've saved countless untold lives.

But I don't think that's what people are all excited about.

[RaleighNCDUer]

35. Never a big fan of logic, were you.

1) We will never "cure cancer". We can, and do, cure cancers. There are thousands of different cancers, and what is effective on one might not be on the next.

2) It is illegal. It seems to have even greater restrictions on it for medical testing than there are on opiates - many of which we already use in many forms, despite them being highly addictive. We will not discover the efficacy of cannabis as a curative agent unless it is easily available for testing in multitude of venues for a multitude of tests. Tests an any single type of cancer can take years, and if there are only a handful of labs allowed to do the testing it could take decades to find what it does and does not work on. Who is likelier to win a lottery, the guy who buys a thousand tickets a week, or the guy who buys five tickets a year?

3) If widespread testing of cannabis was allowed for cancer treatment, it would not be logical to restrict testing for other uses - like pain control, anti-biotic properties, etc., which the pharmaceutical industries already a lock on and much to lose if inexpensive alternatives are available. They can patent something brewed up in a lab, but unless they genetically modify it they cannot patent a plant.

4) Additionally, Big Pharma loses a huge revenue stream if real cures for cancers are found - they make their money in treating, not curing. Curing, much like patients dying, ends the repeat business.

So, is it really surprising that we have not, as yet, found that it "cures cancer"?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. You realize points 1 and 4 are contradictory, right?

[RaleighNCDUer]

61. You do realize you have comprehension difficulties, don't you?

Read them again.

[Patiod]

73. Thank you, HFPS

Those cures mentioned in #1 aren't entirely Vitamin C and daisy petal tea. Some of them were produced and sold by Big Pharma.

And as for #4, I've said it here before and I'll say it again: Big Pharma is made up of PEOPLE who families get cancer and die, and if you don't think someone would say squeal if their company were sitting on a treatment that could cure their loved one, then all the conspiracy theories must have fried your brains.

(And I should note that Big Pharma has been investigating cannabinoid agonists for pain, but, at least in the U.S., one of the problems is that physicians were too freaked out by the concept of cannibis in general and more specifically giving their elderly patients something which might confuse or disorient them)

[robdogbucky]

11. Just curious

Has anyone here written/said that SMOKING pot cures cancer?


Don't you have some liberal journalist, preferably female, out there somewhere to smear, instead of fouling up this discussion?


rdb

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. lol, wut?

[robdogbucky]

28. Aside from the attempts at your versions of witty snarks...

I repeat, who said anything pertaining to the linked article about SMOKING it?

Reading is fundamental. From the above:


"It is not clear that smoking marijuana achieves blood levels high enough to have these anticancer effects. We need more human research, including well-designed studies to find the best mode of administration..."


Read it again, as the point of this article and the reason I linked it here was to highlight the fact that legalization can lead to real research, and that maybe in some form, get it?, cannabis may lead to a cure for cancer. Or does science scare you?

I think actually you are on the wrong website. I think you would fit in better at http://www.marijuanaharmsfamilies.com/

Thanks for your contribution to bandwith clutter here though.




Just Say Now!
http://firedoglake.com/justsaynow

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

36. OP, elsewhere in the thread you actually recommend alternative medicine.

I mean wtf, lulz.

[CLANG]

67. No, but smoking pot PREVENTS cancer

I've been smoking for 40 years and have never had ANY FORM of cancer.

Stick that in your bong and smoke it!

[Chemical Bill]

14. "So far, the only human test of cannabinoids against cancer ..."

"...was performed in Spain..."

This is continued in the OP.

Bill

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Actually, THC's been used clinically for decades now...

to treat nausea in cancer patients. It hasn't been particularly effective in keeping them from dying of cancer.

[Chemical Bill]

25. That's different.

THC is the medical guess for the active ingredient in cannibis. Herbs have many components which could affect the outcome of disease. That's why big pharm hates them so, and why they aren't studied on the same scale that drugs are.

Bill

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Guess?

No. THC is the active ingredient in pot.

Spare the the tinfoil.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. No, THC is the psychoactive ingredient in pot. There are many, many

other cannabinols which can be studied in a cannabis plant - and there are differences between Indica, Sativa and (whatever the third one is). They may be thought to be 'inactive', but only look inactive because we don't see what they CAN do. Because they are not tested.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

47. >psychoactive

>active

[Lance_Boyle]

69. Cannabinoids have a moderating influence on some of THC's psychoactive properties.

THC without *other* cannabinoids is a different drug from marijuana.

THC is most certainly not the only active compound in marijuana.

*edited to add the word "other," as THC is itself one of many cannabinoids in the plant.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. That's not the only reason they aren't studied.

Drug companies have no interest in finding nonpatentable treatments.

If people can just go out & light up & get the same therapeutic effect, or maybe a synergistically enhanced one, then why would the drug companies want anyone to know that?

Look at the way they shut down l tryptophan yars ago, and the way they propangandized against neurotherapy for ADHD.

[SwampG8r]

32. i must argue the point

while thc may not have been a primary curative, by its anti nausea effect it, in many cases has most likely allowed patients to survive the treatments.
nausea after treatment is not to be taken lightly as the patient cannot afford weight loss
my wifes sister is alive because she finally was convinced to try thc in conjunction with her chemo. the issue the docs had was her weight loss and the loss of muscle mass
she hasnt used it since but she swears by it in cancer treatment

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Fair observation.

However, my point remains that THC itself is not a cancer drug.

[SwampG8r]

34. agreed

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

44. your point is wrong, read the science

but since you believe that HFCS is exactly the same as traditonal sugar, I don't expect much of that from you. Science is NOT your strong point.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Um, HFCS IS sugar.

It's not exactly the same as table sugar, if that's what you mean by "traditional sugar" but the differences are trivial.

if you'd like to challenge me on the science, by all means do so. I'm all ears.

[madokie]

15. I've just recently quit smoking

I have been diagnosed with a pre-cancerous growth in my left lung so I figured I'd better stop putting smoke into my lungs. I started smoking the weed in '68 and smoked pretty much daily up until a few weeks ago. I'm wondering if maybe I should start back up but start using a vaporizer or maybe even make cannabis butter and eat it.

[robdogbucky]

22. Madokie there are also

tinctures that can be placed under the tongue from a dropper, also teas that are blended with flavors like peppermint, etc.

Do you/have you smoked cigarettes or other commercial forms of tobacco all these years?

My father developed lung cancer back in the 70's (smoking 3 packs a day for 40 years tends to do that) and when he went through chemo I pleaded with him to try some of my backyard Colombian throw seeds into the garden and see what happens pot, but being thoroughly brainwashed by Harry Anslinger's disinformation, he refused. He went through very uncomfortable nausea and headaches, etc., from the chemo.

Needless to say, like millions of others, all that "therapy," did nothing for his cancer and he died while coughing up his lung parts one morning in his bathroom.

I hope when they go in they find that whatever you have growing has not spread or is not malignant.

Glad you spotted this and have a chance to do something about it. Our prayers are with you.



Just my dos centavos


robdogbucky

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Well, for starters, talk to your doctor.

I doubt he's going to recommend to smoke pot to get rid of your growth. I'm personally going to recommend you eat as many pot brownies as you want. Cause it's awesome. It'll make you feel better, but I don't think it's going to do anything about that growth either.

Best.

[musiclawyer]

24. smoking bud is so 19th century

get yourself a vaporizer and enjoy!

1. They are coming down in price
2. You need less bud to get the same effect
3. You can control the intake much better than smoke
4. It smells better (arguably)
5. And of course there is no smoke, just essential oil

If you were in CA, or other medical legal states, you could go into any store and get sublingual tinctures. Now that is pure efficacy in terms of consumption

Hopefully, its all legal in CA after November.

[razorman]

31. The idea is silly. Everybody knows that it is chocolate that cures cancer.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

40. who said anything about smoking? Did you even read the article?

Scientists have actually known this since 1974, when the feds shut down a study at the University of Virginia when it showed conclusively that cannabinoids kill cancer.



Here are other studies for those who are interested:

Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/12088.php

Cannabinoids Inhibit Glioma Cell Invasion by Down-regulating Matrix Metalloproteinase-2 Expression
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/68/6/1945.abstract?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Guzman%252C+M&titleabstract=VEGF%252C+cannabis%252C+brian+tumor&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=//&resourcetype=HWCIT

Briefing: Cannabis compounds fight prostate cancer
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17636-briefing-cannabis-compounds-fight-prostate-cancer.html

Cannabis Compound May Stop Metastatic Breast Cancer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900834.html

Cannabis chemicals tackle tumours
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/661458.stm

[devilgrrl]

48. If there were a cure for cancer do you think we'd all have access to it?

:shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Yes.

I believe the idea that there's some evil force suppressing the real cure for cancer is one of the stupidest conspiracy theories out there.

I'm talking HIV/AIDS denialism stupid.

[devilgrrl]

53. So people with limited funds would have the same access to a cure as the wealthy?

I highly doubt that.

Also, I don't think anyone is suppressing anything but if there were a cure for cancer I would not be surprised if big pharma got their panties in a bunch over it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. I think wealthy people get cancer and die.

I don't think class issues have anything to do with this discussion, and I think your interjecting them into this is a losing strategy.

[devilgrrl]

57. Your argument doesn't hold much water either.

Enjoy getting flamed by others.

Ciao ciao :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. Flames is all they've got.

If they've got a valid argument, I'd love to hear it.

[devilgrrl]

60. That pot may help with cancer - prevention/treatment? Nah - you've made up your mind.

Stick with chemo.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. Um, if pot helps with cancer...

then it would itself be chemo.

:crazy:

[devilgrrl]

65. If you insist...

:boring:

[leftstreet]

4. K&R

[Bullet1987]

6. If cannabis cured cancer, then it would be illegal...oh wait...

I doubt though that it cures cancer per se, but it may provide benefits when it comes to side effects and growth. I'm not an expert though.

[gratuitous]

7. What if cannibis turned its users into boring blitherers?

Have another centavo.

[Romulox]

13. Moralizing scolds aren't exactly exciting people to spend time with, either.

:shrug:

[Fumesucker]

27. What if alcohol turned its users into raging assholes..

Oh, wait.. It does..

[anarch]

42. hey, that's not fair...alcohol doesn't turn me into a raging asshole,

I was already like that. Alcohol just tends to...umm..enhance that part of my personality.

[gratuitous]

56. Potheads are a touchy bunch, aren't they?

The difference is that I have solid empirical proof for my assertion. :)

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

41. apparently you're doing just fine on that count without cannabis

Did you even think about that before you posted it?

:eyes:

What a load.

[monmouth]

9. Big Pharma surely doesn't want us to find out. Cancer is $$$$..n/t

[robdogbucky]

17. I see the thread is collecting the usual commentary from the clown car contingent

Nonetheless, here is more factual reporting to chew on?


Marijuana May Fight Lung Tumors
Cannabis Compound Slows Cancer Spread in Mice, Researchers Say
By Charlene Laino
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

April 17, 2007 (Los Angeles) -- "Cannabis may be bad for the lungs, but the active ingredient in marijuana may help combat lung cancer, new research suggests.

In lab and mouse studies, the compound, known as THC, cut lung tumor growth in half and helped prevent the cancer from spreading, says Anju Preet, PhD, a Harvard University researcher in Boston who tested the chemical.

While a lot more work needs to be done, “the results suggest THC has therapeutic potential,” she tells WebMD.
Moreover, other early research suggests the cannabis compound could help fight brain, prostate, and skin cancers as well, Preet says.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. The finding builds on the recent discovery of the body’s own cannabinoid system, Preet says. Known as endocannabinoids, the natural cannabinoids stimulate appetite and control pain and inflammation. THC seeks out, attaches to, and activates two specific endocannabinoids that are present in high amounts on lung cancer cells, Preet says. This revs up their natural anti-inflammatory properties. Inflammation can promote the growth and spread of cancer..."

View Article Sources
© 2007 WebMD, Inc. All rights reserved.



Just Say Now!

[LeftinOH]

19. A common weed that anyone can grow? Where's the profit in that?

[Dreamer Tatum]

29. Then at least stoners would have something new to say. Zzzzz

Good lord.

[dflprincess]

37. We'd never hear about it -

unless Pfizer or one of its competitors figured out a way to patent it.

[anarch]

39. well then it would be thoroughly suppressed by the for-profit medical industry

oh, wait...

[elocs]

43. You mean it doesn't? Reading DU I thought marijuana can do anything.

World peace, cure hemorrhoids. The list is endless and diverse.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

49. you don't read much, do?

Otherwise you might have actually learned something.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. You don't think that promoters of recreational pot use...

have the unfortunate tendency to oversell just a bit?

[JonLP24]

75. I think people

exaggerate the claims made by recreational cannabis users or supporters much more than actual user or supporter's claims. Like the poster you replied to.

[elocs]

70. Well, I read DU a lot. That must count for something. Marijuana is worshipped as a god here. n/t

[JonLP24]

74. I see a lot of support for it to be legal

Doesn't mean it is worshipped as a god.

A lot of people like universal health care here. Doesn't mean universal health care is a DU god.

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

52. How Many of You Mocking This Have Ever Even Heard of the Endocannabinoid System???

Do any of you even have a clue how the ECS works and what it affects?

Educate yourselves before opening your waffle-holes, please.

http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/1/2.full

Abstract
The endogenous cannabinoid system is an ubiquitous lipid signalling system that appeared early in evolution and which has important regulatory functions throughout the body in all vertebrates. The main endocannabinoids (endogenous cannabis-like substances) are small molecules derived from arachidonic acid, anandamide (arachidonoylethanolamide) and 2-arachidonoylglycerol. They bind to a family of G-protein-coupled receptors, of which the cannabinoid CB1 receptor is densely distributed in areas of the brain related to motor control, cognition, emotional responses, motivated behaviour and homeostasis. Outside the brain, the endocannabinoid system is one of the crucial modulators of the autonomic nervous system, the immune system and microcirculation. Endocannabinoids are released upon demand from lipid precursors in a receptor-dependent manner and serve as retrograde signalling messengers in GABAergic and glutamatergic synapses, as well as modulators of postsynaptic transmission, interacting with other neurotransmitters, including dopamine. Endocannabinoids are transported into cells by a specific uptake system and degraded by two well-characterized enzymes, the fatty acid amide hydrolase and the monoacylglycerol lipase. Recent pharmacological advances have led to the synthesis of cannabinoid receptor agonists and antagonists, anandamide uptake blockers and potent, selective inhibitors of endocannabinoid degradation. These new tools have enabled the study of the physiological roles played by the endocannabinoids and have opened up new strategies in the treatment of pain, obesity, neurological diseases including multiple sclerosis, emotional disturbances such as anxiety and other psychiatric disorders including drug addiction. Recent advances have specifically linked the endogenous cannabinoid system to alcoholism, and cannabinoid receptor antagonism now emerges as a promising therapeutic alternative for alcohol dependence and relapse.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. I've heard of the endocannabinoid system, yes.

What's your point?

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. maybe the paragraph was too long to concentrate on

These new tools have enabled the study of the physiological roles played by the endocannabinoids and have opened up new strategies in the treatment of pain, obesity, neurological diseases including multiple sclerosis, emotional disturbances such as anxiety and other psychiatric disorders including drug addiction. Recent advances have specifically linked the endogenous cannabinoid system to alcoholism, and cannabinoid receptor antagonism now emerges as a promising therapeutic alternative for alcohol dependence and relapse.

Getting high is just an added bonus - THIS is why cannabis is important.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. That's really neither here not there, now is it?

If OP and Milehigh are really so interested in the science of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids, why are they putting so much stock in the OP's article?

Because Andrew Weil is a well known alternative medicine quack

http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/weil.html

and he and other references in this thread are implying claims that the actual scientists are not themselves making.

Oh, and btw, concentrate a little harder on the abstract. Cannabis and endocannabinoids are two different things.

[RaleighNCDUer]

68. Yeah - two different things. They are the receptors that make cannabis

'do' anything. Without endocannabinoids, cannabis would be just another weed. But we have those receptors, and the substance that acts on them is what we are talking about.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. Um, no.

endocannabinoids are the endogenous chemicals that bind the same receptors that cannabinoids bind.

[Spike89]

64. "Big pharma" isn't that easily stymied

I'm all for legalizing it, and I'm all for increased medical research. However, the conspiracy theory that the big pharma companies don't want it ring hollow and make no sense. The first and most common fallacy is that they can't make money off of/patent a pot-based medicine. Really? I'm pretty sure lots of companies made billions from aspirin, despite the fact that willow bark is readily available. Haven't any of you seen the commercials for Lovaza, the fish oil drug? The pharma companies would LOVE to be able to market a cannabis-derived drug, especially if it was as simple and cheap as aspirin or Lovaza to produce. Sure, some people will make their own pain remedies from willow, and some people would toast a bowl for health (whether it works or not), but even Lovaza, which is basically just fish oil, sold more than a $1 billion last year worldwide. Medical-grade THC for anti-cancer treatments would totally swamp that and be more than lucrative enough.

The other conspiracy is a bit more difficult to laugh off, but it isn't any more true. Cures vs. treatments only seems like a sensible argument, but it totally falls apart when discussing a high-mortality disease such as cancer. Surviving patients buy more drugs throughout their lives than dead ones. The reality is that a cancer cure would make so much money for the inventor/discoverer that no corporation could resist the short term windfall, especially because the "downside" would be decades away--that is not how even evil corporate CEOs operate. Besides, keeping such a secret just isn't going to happen--some researchers may be "in on it" but at least a few must have visions of being the next Salk and it only takes one.

There's stupidity behind our pot laws, and we are missing out by not exploring cannabis as rigorously as we should. My guess is that pot will someday prove to be helpful in a variety of medicinal uses, but its "miracle" properties will be found to be based on about as much truth as its prohibition was.

[Forkboy]

71. My mother was a smoker for decades and died from Ovarian cancer, after surviving breast cancer.

I've been smoking since my teens (I'm now 42) and I currently have cancer. If weed prevents cancer it sure did a piss poor job in my family.