Cannabis Cures Cancer.... An experiment in public self condemnation...

lotek

Active Member
fuuuu.JPG

So i Have run up on this countless times on facebook and the internet and am willing to be many of you have as well. the following is an off the cuff post i made in a rushed manner, just to have something to get this thread going. Ill come back to it a little more professionally later today.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/marijuana-cancer-what-facts-smoke/
http://www.skepticnorth.com/2010/01/cannabis-cures-cancer/
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk...cure-for-brain-cancer-headline-is-misleading/


Pharma is not hiding anything, they wont loose money from cannabis, they would make millions, because no matter what you wish to think, rubbing hash oil on your skin or smoking joints isnt going to treat anything but nausea and pain. there is tons of money to be made in researching treatment vectors, doseing, ROA, targeting, specialized derivatives, etc. there is NO conspiracy here, outside of your own heads that is.


There is no lack of research by big pharma, they are dumping tons of money into it.


all studies are with chemical derivatives, synthetically altered compounds, or the original compounds, delivered to cultured cells in a dish via highly specialized technologies and at high levels outside the body. So the "natural" tag people like to attach to this doesnt count. in noway will the actual cure, if any ever comes of this, be natural in anyway. it will look just like any other cancer treatment.


So far as i have ever been able to find, no study has shown an effect in a real person. If you have read a website that said So and So was cured, they are lying, or most likely, they just went into remission and have blindly credited it to the cannabis.


Do Not demonize Chemotherapy. Chemo isnt even a single item. it is a whole class of drugs. Drugs which have saved the lives of MILLIONS of people. Dont forget that. Yes it tends to make you sick, and you can die from it, but you are dying anyway so..


In regards to medical cannabis, if you think there is anything such as a cure of any kind of sickness, mental or physical, outside of symptom mitigation, you have been advertised to and indoctrinated by people with product to sell.


One cannot even "Cure Cancer" with a single product, as cancer is a word describing thousands of things, each needing its own treatment, each with totally unique conditions and requirements.


I fully support the use of cannabinoids in symptom mitigation, in case my postings here lead you to think otherwise. But i feel it is myths and half baked ideas such as these which are perpetuated by the medical cannabis community and the potheads around it which do FAR more damage to any effort of getting positive work or legislation done than they realize. An experiment in self condemnation.




I post the following because someone ALWAYS says it:
No, you cannot say prove it doesnt cure cancer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
Unfortunately I have some friends that read the Natural News and are really taken in by this stuff and the Big Pharma conspiracy. I saw a post claiming TPTB are repressing research on cannabis and within minutes I had produced a shedload of papers. However these claims are dangerous as some people buy into it and think eating weed is going to cure people.

The Big Pharma conspiracy is an annoyance of mine as we have socialised health care and essentially the government negotiates over prices. As for witholding the cure for cancer it seems that most people don't realise the bulk.of research is done by charities or academia and hospitals.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
What gets me is that folks don't stop and think that folks in 'big pharma' get cancer and they have children and parents and friends ALL get and die from cancer. If pot or onions or something else could cure them, wouldn't they make sure that they used them?
 

lotek

Active Member
They have been spoonfed the idea that they will just be able to eat hash oil and be cured, when in reality pharma will have plenty of ways to make millions off of any medical treatment to come of this. in no way will the treatment be natural or outside of the medical system or free of the grasp of companies. it will need to be researched, controlled, insured, delivered to the cells, specialized, synthetically altered, etc. all things you cant do in your basement pot garden.

I also take issue with the idea that blasting liters of butane thru a few lbs of plant mater, then letting it partially boil off is in anyway natural or less 'creepy' than what pharma does... it is a super critical extraction using a toxic(gasp!) solvent... I can even attest that many producers of hash oil use not technical or reagent butane, but butane meant for combustion which is not exactly pure, or food safe in ever case. then they just let this boil off into the air.. like that is some natural eco friendly blessing.. i am aware of super critical co2 and nitrogen alternatives, but they are rarely used.

not all producers use bad technique, but many do.

yes, marinol and sativex are a huge huge pointless joke. but that is a totally unrelated issue to this. it cannot be used to warrant permanent suspicion.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
There have been many other such claims. Unfortunately all have proven false. When I get cancer, and given my genetics my odds are pretty good, hell, I'll probably be willing to try anything, but conventional drugs and treatments will be first on the hit parade.

Hope springeth eternal but one has to wonder which, of many possible agendas, the pro-canabis nation is promoting here.

Holy Cow!! Did I just start a counter-conspiracy?
 

lotek

Active Member
any pdfs, link, or studies you may have kickin around would be welcomes as well. this comes up so often for me id like to be able to reference back here.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Scientific American posts an article on new treatments for MS and someone posts this.


M G
Cannabis oil deals effectively with MS without any of the side effects. There are now CBD/CBN oils that have NO PSYCHOTROPIC EFFECT, no "high". The federal government holds medical patents on a plant it outlawed for having "no medical value" while pouring billions into the pockets of pharmaceutical companies that dominate Medicare/Medicaid. Fight for your rights to use non-narcotic, natural remedies. Tell the Attorney General to respect state legislation regarding cannabis use and research. Tell the White House to release all patients and non-violent cannabis prisoners.
Content from External Source
 

lotek

Active Member
a problem i am having with this debate is that many sources are indeed the same sources the believers are using, just minus the journalist middle man and the misrepresentation of science. leaving me only to try to explain all of the scientific method... or left posting a link to the definition of cure and treatment.

on a side note, the image i posted to start this thread, that thread resulted in me being called a big nosed jew furthering the spread of the new world order..... ad hominem abound..
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
I love my secondary THC treatments, but they are secondary. It usually helps with appetite and pain but not enough to be a stand alone treatment. I also think pot is pushed to the side by other forces. Big Pharma would find a way to commercialize it. I think the resistance comes more from the puritanical elements in society (along with mothers screaming for us to think of the children) and possibly the alcohol/tobacco lobby. Other than that I think pot will be legal in 20ish years.

And while I have read THC helps prevent or limit cancer I never heard a sane someone claim it cures cancer. Besides I have a feeling you would have to chain smoke blunts until you rendered yourself stupid to achieve that effect. Too expensive and bad for the lungs.
 

lotek

Active Member
more like you would have to chemically modify the cannabinoids to specifically interact with the mutated cancer proteins then encapsulate this non polar compound inside a proprietary cyclodextrin complex(awesome things if you havent read about them btw) then wrap that up in a patent-able time release or chemically activated capsule and deliver it directly to the tumor via implantation or similar medical procedure like placement of radiation pellets.

like i said, many, many places for pharma to make their cash which is why the conspiracy bit always struck me as short sighted.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
a problem i am having with this debate is that many sources are indeed the same sources the believers are using, just minus the journalist middle man and the misrepresentation of science. leaving me only to try to explain all of the scientific method... or left posting a link to the definition of cure and treatment.

on a side note, the image i posted to start this thread, that thread resulted in me being called a big nosed jew furthering the spread of the new world order..... ad hominem abound..
Besides misinterpreting or misrepresenting cure and treatment, people assume cure will always cost less than treatment. They want to blame big pharma for pushing pills but expect the cure they are holding back to be one.

Get some sour cream and onion chips with some dip, man, some beef jerky, some peanut butter. Get some Häagen-Dazs ice cream bars, a whole lot, make sure chocolate, gotta have chocolate, man. Some popcorn, red popcorn, graham crackers, graham crackers with marshmallows, the little marshmallows and little chocolate bars and we can make s'mores, man. Also, celery, grape jelly, Cap'n Crunch with the little Crunch berries, pizzas. We need two big pizzas, man, everything on 'em, with water, whole lotta water, and Funyons.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I have friends in medieval research that years ago talked about books that 'trees had died in vain' for. (Mostly reprints of late 1800s and early 1900s books--written through the lense of the Victorians and their biases). Today it is electrons that are wasted in vain.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
For the most part I agree with you. The one place I'd differ is here:
Pharma is not hiding anything, they wont loose money from cannabis, they would make millions, because no matter what you wish to think, rubbing hash oil on your skin or smoking joints isnt going to treat anything but nausea and pain. there is tons of money to be made in researching treatment vectors, doseing, ROA, targeting, specialized derivatives, etc. there is NO conspiracy here, outside of your own heads that is.
There's actually a fair number of obstacles in the path of Pharma-corps making the sorts of profits they're used too where cannabis is concerned. That the stuff is illegal helps immensely, as otherwise a profit would be entirely impossible given the relative ease with which it's grown, but any attempts by pharma-corps to commercialize cannabis would put them in direct competition with the private market, which would easily adjust to crush them, especially given that the private market is state-sponsored to an extent. As much influence as big pharma might have on policy, too many jobs and fortunes rely on the illegal trafficking of cannabis, the 'prison industrial complex' as some like to call it taking precedent. Though there's a potential market for processed derivatives, they'd still have difficulty with pricing it in a way that would produce an acceptable profit and still lure users away from private/illegal purchases of the plant itself. That's the market Big-Pharma would be trying to tackle with commercialized cannabis products after all, not curious arthritic grandma and your diabetic aunt, but the vast percentage of the population who use cannabis for recreation already.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
What gets me is that folks don't stop and think that folks in 'big pharma' get cancer and they have children and parents and friends ALL get and die from cancer. If pot or onions or something else could cure them, wouldn't they make sure that they used them?
Yep and a lot of them will turn to alternative medicine.

I have had it straight from their mouths on a number of occasions how they would not be subjected to the toxic cancer causing radiation and chemotherapy poisons.

Hell, the medical profession have the lowest uptake on vaccinations with many refusing to have them and it became so embarrassing that they tried to force them to have the vaccinations.

Hoxsey was visited by the exact same people who persecuted him for years, to cure them or family members. Natural remedies do not cure all cancers but they have a higher success rate than pharma IMO, although that is purely anecdotal evidence. But what is proven is the appalling success rates by conventional means.

Add to that, many people have cancer which is not life threatening and will likely wind up dying of something totally unrelated.

This highlights latent prostrate cancers but I have seen evidence it is also applicable to other cancers, (although this article claims it is unique to latent prostate cancer.

http://www.prostateoncology.com/education/fundamentals_of_treatment/undiagnosed

Patients are unaware that latent prostate cancer can be safely observed without immediate treatment. So when a biopsy discloses prostate cancer, an emotional chain reaction occurs. The word CANCER triggers powerful feelings and a rush to aggressive treatment.
Content from External Source
http://easyhealthoptions.com/altern...ostate-cancer-what-are-you-going-do-about-it/


An autopsy study is one in which researchers ask the question: How often do people have a particular cancer that goes undiagnosed? In order to find the answer, the researchers go to a hospital and obtain tissue from the bodies of people who have died from other causes. They methodically examine the tissue under a microscope, carefully identifying any cellular signs of the cancer they are looking for.
In this case, researchers at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit, Mich., were curious about prostate cancer. So they obtained the prostate glands of 1,056 men whose doctors had not diagnosed prostate cancer prior to death. The men were between 20 and 80 years old.
Of 186 prostate glands from 20-year-old men, 19 had prostate cancer. That amounts to more than 10 percent of these young men.
Content from External Source
Now imagine they had been diagnosed and embarked on an aggressive cancer therapy. There is a high chance that it could do far more harm than good because the toxins used are so damaging and the radiation is in itself cancer inducing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer


Some slow-growing cancers are particularly common. Autopsy studies in Europe and Asia have shown that up to 36% of people have undiagnosed and apparently harmless thyroid cancer at the time of their deaths, and that 80% of men develop prostate cancer by age 80.[144][145] As these cancers did not cause the person's death, identifying them would have represented overdiagnosis rather than useful medical care.
The three most common childhood cancers are leukemia (34%), brain tumors (23%), and lymphomas (12%).[146] Rates of childhood cancer have increased by 0.6% per year between 1975 to 2002 in the United States[147] and by 1.1% per year between 1978 and 1997 in Europe.[146]
Content from External Source

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/30/breast-cancer-screenings-damaging-women


Breast cancer screening causes more damage than previously thought

Around 4,000 women have unnecessary treatment for a disease that will never threaten their health, though tests should continue

Sara Hiom from Cancer Research UK on the results of the independent review Link to video: Breast cancer screening causes harm through over-diagnosis
Breast cancer screening causes more harm than has previously been recognised, even though it saves lives, according to an independent review set up following years of scientific controversy surrounding the NHS programme.
Around 1,300 lives are saved every year by mammography, which women are invited to undergo between the ages of 50 to 70, said the review, which recommends that screenings should continue.
But 4,000 women will undergo unnecessary treatment, including surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, for a cancer they would not otherwise have known about and which would have done them no harm in their lifetime. Some breast cancers are so tiny and slow growing that they would never be a threat to a woman's health, the review says.
Content from External Source
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/4865614/Patients-at-risk-as-NHS-staff-refuse-flu-jabs.html

There are other reports out there but I know just how good you are at researching, I am sure you will come up with plenty more if you feel like it. :)

Oxy...come on...an article about hospital workers not getting the flu shot cannot be extrapolated into "the medical profession have the lowest uptake on vaccinations".

Thats bunk.

Lots of people- including me- do not get the flu shot but still get vaccines for MMR, TDAP, Hep etc...
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
That was for the 08-09 season.

The why is interesting.
However, a study of NHS attitudes conducted by the Government last year found that most staff did not view flu as a serious illness and thought the vaccine unnecessary because they were not at risk.
Content from External Source
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Oxy...come on...an article about hospital workers not getting the flu shot cannot be extrapolated into "the medical profession have the lowest uptake on vaccinations".

Thats bunk.

Lots of people- including me- do not get the flu shot but still get vaccines for MMR, TDAP, Hep etc...
Lol...

http://eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V15N06/art19486.pdf

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/whooping-cough-vaccination

  • By 1972, vaccine uptake was approximately 80% and notifications had fallen to 2,069.
  • Coverage fell to about 30% in 1975 because of professional and public anxiety concerning the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.[1]
  • Major epidemics occurred in 1977 and 1981; 1978 saw over 68,000 notifications and 14 deaths.

Content from External Source
Nice profit for pharma to theoritically save 14 deaths

http://www.nursingtimes.net/whats-new-in-nursing/nurses-shun-swine-flu-jab/5015460.article

http://www.fftimes.com/node/216918




Doctors, nurses scolded for ’flu shot shun

A A A - text size
Monday, 1 December 2008 - 3:16pm
THE CANADIAN PRESS
TORONTO—Canada’s chief public health officer took aim at health-care professionals who refuse to get ’flu shots yesterday,
Content from External Source

You may poo poo the swine flu shot shun but the fact is it was nearly mandatory and governments squandered billions on it when hardly anyone wanted it despite the crazed scare tactics. The pharma companies had it written in that they would not be held accountable for any adverse reactions and rushed it out to make a quick profit without proper tests.

Many people have suffered from it... likewise with the cancer vaccines

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...ill-effects-from-cervical-cancer-vaccine.html

And it is totally useless apart from profiteering by pharma.

You want to talk about pseudo science, I suggest you look at pharma.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
That was for the 08-09 season.

The why is interesting.
However, a study of NHS attitudes conducted by the Government last year found that most staff did not view flu as a serious illness and thought the vaccine unnecessary because they were not at risk.
Content from External Source
No Cairenn, we are talking about the deadly H1N1 and swine flu PANDEMICS here... but notwithstanding that, flu is very dangerous and kills large amounts of people every year... not like the half dozen or so in the PANDEMIC BUNK BUNK and more BUNK.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Lol...

http://eurosurveillance.org/images/dynamic/EE/V15N06/art19486.pdf

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/whooping-cough-vaccination

  • By 1972, vaccine uptake was approximately 80% and notifications had fallen to 2,069.
  • Coverage fell to about 30% in 1975 because of professional and public anxiety concerning the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.[1]
  • Major epidemics occurred in 1977 and 1981; 1978 saw over 68,000 notifications and 14 deaths.
Content from External Source
Nice profit for pharma to theoritically save 14 deaths


Laughing out loud indeed....somehow a survey of 441 Greek health care workers regarding a single flu vaccine and in particular a specific side effect is somehow extrapolated into ridiculously broad generalization of ""the medical profession have the lowest uptake on vaccinations"

never mind that the respondents of the survey also said this:

Moreover, 378 of 390 respondents (97%) stated that vaccinations are important for the protection of public health, and in particular of healthcare workers.
Content from External Source
 

qed

Senior Member
Please can we return to this discussion.

I have long argued (without any research on my part:oops:) that cannabis does not cure cancer. Rather cannabis provides a quality of life to cancer sufferers. My view appears consistent with what I read in this thread and https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-the-harmful-effects-of-marijuana-dr-sanjay-gupta.2173/


Recently I was informed that I am mistaken (and I hate being wrong).

When asked "does cannabis cure cancer", Google responds first with 20 Medical Studies That Prove Cannabis Can Cure Cancer

Following a few of the links yields:


Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other cannabinoids inhibit tumour growth and angiogenesis in animal models, so their potential application as antitumoral drugs has been suggested. However, the antitumoral effect of cannabinoids has never been tested in humans. Here we report the first clinical study aimed at assessing cannabinoid antitumoral action, specifically a pilot phase I trial in which nine patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme were administered THC intratumoraly. The patients had previously failed standard therapy (surgery and radiotherapy) and had clear evidence of tumour progression. The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration. We also evaluated THC action on the length of survival and various tumour-cell parameters. A dose escalation regimen for THC administration was assessed. Cannabinoid delivery was safe and could be achieved without overt psychoactive effects. Median survival of the cohort from the beginning of cannabinoid administration was 24 weeks (95% confidence interval: 15–33). Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol inhibited tumour-cell proliferation in vitro and decreased tumour-cell Ki67 immunostaining when administered to two patients. The fair safety profile of THC, together with its possible antiproliferative action on tumour cells reported here and in other studies, may set the basis for future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids.
Content from External Source
British Journal of Cancer


One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors.[3] During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo .[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8]

Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis.
Content from External Source
National Cancer Institute

Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is the primary cannabinoid of marijuana and has been shown to either potentiate or inhibit tumor growth, depending on the type of cancer and its pathogenesis. Little is known about the activity of cannabinoids like THC on epidermal growth factor receptor-overexpressing lung cancers, which are often highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy. In this study, we characterized the effects of THC on the EGF-induced growth and metastasis of human non-small cell lung cancer using the cell lines A549 and SW-1573 as in vitro models. We found that these cells express the cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, known targets for THC action, and that THC inhibited EGF-induced growth, chemotaxis and chemoinvasion. Moreover, signaling studies indicated that THC may act by inhibiting the EGF-induced phosphorylation of ERK1/2, JNK1/2 and AKT. THC also induced the phosphorylation of focal adhesion kinase at tyrosine 397. Additionally, in in vivo studies in severe combined immunodeficient mice, there was significant inhibition of the subcutaneous tumor growth and lung metastasis of A549 cells in THC-treated animals as compared to vehicle-treated controls. Tumor samples from THC-treated animals revealed antiproliferative and antiangiogenic effects of THC. Our study suggests that cannabinoids like THC should be explored as novel therapeutic molecules in controlling the growth and metastasis of certain lung cancers.
Content from External Source
Oncogene

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide; however, only limited therapeutic treatments are available. Hence, we investigated the role of cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel therapeutic targets against NSCLC. We observed expression of CB1 (24%) and CB2 (55%) in NSCLC patients. Furthermore, we have shown that the treatment of NSCLC cell lines (A549 and SW-1573) with CB1/CB2- and CB2-specific agonists Win55,212-2 and JWH-015, respectively, significantly attenuated random as well as growth factor-directed in vitro chemotaxis and chemoinvasion in these cells. We also observed significant reduction in focal adhesion complex, which plays an important role in migration, upon treatment with both JWH-015 and Win55,212-2. In addition, pretreatment with CB1/CB2 selective antagonists, AM251 and AM630, prior to JWH-015 and Win55,212-2 treatments, attenuated the agonist-mediated inhibition of in vitro chemotaxis and chemoinvasion. In addition, both CB1 and CB2 agonists Win55,212-2 and JWH-133, respectively, significantly inhibited in vivo tumor growth and lung metastasis (∼50%). These effects were receptor mediated, as pretreatment with CB1/CB2 antagonists abrogated CB1/CB2 agonist-mediated effects on tumor growth and metastasis. Reduced proliferation and vascularization, along with increased apoptosis, were observed in tumors obtained from animals treated with JWH-133 and Win55,212-2. Upon further elucidation into the molecular mechanism, we observed that both CB1 and CB2 agonists inhibited phosphorylation of AKT, a key signaling molecule controlling cell survival, migration, and apoptosis, and reduced matrix metalloproteinase 9 expression and activity. These results suggest that CB1 and CB2 could be used as novel therapeutic targets against NSCLC.
Content from External Source
pubmed.gov

  • Is evidence growing that cannabis is effective in the treatment of cancer (as opposed to just relieving the symptoms)?
 
Last edited:

Jason

Senior Member
Is evidence growing that cannabis is effective in the treatment of cancer (as opposed to just relieving the symptoms)?
Quick comment; When discussing this I think its also important to point out that Cannibas in the form of THC medication or vapor is what they are discussing in these studies. Not cannibas in the from of "smoking it", which could be toxic and potentially cause respiratory issues...
 

Jason

Senior Member
In this article they discuss 20 case studies about Cannibus and how it can cure cancer. Each of the studies have been published in very reputable Journals like the British Journal of Cancer, or The Journal of Neuroscience to name a few; Here is the site; http://www.collective-evolution.com...-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/
Brain Cancer
1. A study published in the British Journal of Cancer, conducted by the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Complutense University in Madrid, this study determined that Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other cannabinoids inhibit tumour growth. They were responsible for the first clinical study aimed at assessing cannabinoid antitumoral action. Cannabinoid delivery was safe and was achieved with zero psychoactive effects. THC was found to decrease tumour cells in two out of the nine patients.

2. A study published in The Journal of Neuroscience examined the biochemical events in both acute neuronal damage and in slowly progressive, neurodegenerative diseases. They conducted a magnetic resonance imaging study that looked at THC (the main active compound in marijuana) and found that it reduced neuronal injury in rats. The results of this study provide evidence that the cannabinoid system can serve to protect the brain against neurodegeneration.

3. A study published in The Journal of Pharmacology And Experimental Therapeutics already acknowledged the fact that cannabinoids have been shown to possess antitumor properties. This study examined the effect of cannabidiol (CBD, non psychoactive cannabinoid compound) on human glioma cell lines. The addition of cannabidiol led to a dramatic drop in the viability of glioma cells. Glioma is the word used to describe brain tumour. The study concluded that cannabidiol was able to produce a significant antitumor activity.

4. A study published in the journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics outlines how brain tumours are highly resistant to current anticancer treatments, which makes it crucial to find new therapeutic strategies aimed at improving the poor prognosis of patients suffering from this disease. This study also demonstrated the reversal of tumour activity in Glioblastoma multiforme.

Breast Cancer
5. A study published in the US National Library of Medicine, conducted by the California Pacific Medical Centre determined that cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation and invasion. They also demonstrated that CBD significantly reduces tumour mass.

6. A study published in The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics determined that THC as well as cannabidiol dramatically reduced breast cancer cell growth. They confirmed the potency and effectiveness of these compounds.

7. A study published in the Journal Molecular Cancer showed that THC reduced tumour growth and tumour numbers. They determined that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell proliferation, induce cancer cell apoptosis and impair tumour angiogenesis (all good things). This study provides strong evidence for the use of cannabinoid based therapies for the management of breast cancer.

8. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) determined that cannabinoids inhibit human breast cancer cell proliferation.

Lung Cancer
9. A study published in the journal Oncogene, by Harvard Medical Schools Experimental Medicine Department determined that THC inhibits epithelial growth factor induced lung cancer cell migration and more. They go on to state that THC should be explored as novel therapeutic molecules in controlling the growth and metastasis of certain lung cancers.

10. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine by the Institute of Toxicology and Pharmacology, from the Department of General Surgery in Germany determined that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell invasion. Effects were confirmed in primary tumour cells from a lung cancer patient. Overall, data indicated that cannabinoids decrease cancer cell invasiveness.

11. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine, conducted by Harvard Medical School investigated the role of cannabinoid receptors in lung cancer cells. They determined its effectiveness and suggested that it should be used for treatment against lung cancer cells.

Prostate Cancer
12. A study published in the US National Library of Medicine illustrates a decrease in prostatic cancer cells by acting through cannabinoid receptors.

13. A study published in the US National Library of Medicine outlined multiple studies proving the effectiveness of cannabis on prostate cancer.

14. Another study published by the US National Library of Medicine determined that clinical testing of CBD against prostate carcinoma is a must. That cannabinoid receptor activation induces prostate carcinoma cell apoptosis. They determined that cannabidiol significantly inhibited cell viability. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22594963

Blood Cancer
15. A study published in the journal Molecular Pharmacology recently showed that cannabinoids induce growth inhibition and apoptosis in matle cell lymphoma. The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, The Swedish Research Council and the Cancer Society in Stockholm.

16. A study published in the International Journal of Cancer also determined and illustrated that cannabinoids exert antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects in various types of cancer and in mantle cell lymphoma.

17. A study published in the US National Library of Medicine conducted by the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology by Virginia Commonwealth University determined that cannabinoids induce apoptosis in leukemia cells.

Oral Cancer
18. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine results show cannabinoids are potent inhibitors of cellular respiration and are toxic to highly malignant oral Tumours.

Liver Cancer
19. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine determined that that THC reduces the viability of human HCC cell lines (Human hepatocellular liver carcinoma cell line) and reduced the growth.

Pancreatic Cancer
20. A study published in The American Journal of Cancer determined that cannabinoid receptors are expressed in human pancreatic tumor cell lines and tumour biopsies at much higher levels than in normal pancreatic tissue. Results showed that cannabinoid administration induced apoptosis. They also reduced the growth of tumour cells, and inhibited the spreading of pancreatic tumour cells.
Content from External Source
 

qed

Senior Member
I should be clear. I am not asking if cannabis cures cancer, just whether or not there is growing medical evidence that cannabis (in some kind of medical form) can inhibit cancer (as is the case with chemotherapy).

A positive answer would be at odds with what I (and many on this forum) believed the case to be.
 

qed

Senior Member
Some results from my search of Google Scholar.

The development of new therapeutic strategies is essential for the management of gliomas, one of the most malignant forms of cancer. We have shown previously that the growth of the rat glioma C6 cell line is inhibited by psychoactive cannabinoids (I. Galve-Roperh et al., Nat. Med., 6: 313–319, 2000). These compounds act on the brain and some other organs through the widely expressed CB1 receptor. By contrast, the other cannabinoid receptor subtype, the CB2 receptor, shows a much more restricted distribution and is absent from normal brain. Here we show that local administration of the selective CB2 agonist JWH-133 at 50 μg/day to Rag-2−/− mice induced a considerable regression of malignant tumors generated by inoculation of C6 glioma cells. The selective involvement of the CB2 receptor in this action was evidenced by: (a) the prevention by the CB2 antagonist SR144528 but not the CB1 antagonist SR141716; (b) the down-regulation of the CB2 receptor but not the CB1 receptor in the tumors; and (c) the absence of typical CB1-mediated psychotropic side effects. Cannabinoid receptor expression was subsequently examined in biopsies from human astrocytomas. A full 70% (26 of 37) of the human astrocytomas analyzed expressed significant levels of cannabinoid receptors. Of interest, the extent of CB2 receptor expression was directly related with tumor malignancy. In addition, the growth of grade IV human astrocytoma cells in Rag-2−/− mice was completely blocked by JWH-133 administration at 50 μg/day. Experiments carried out with C6 glioma cells in culture evidenced the internalization of the CB2 but not the CB1 receptor upon JWH-133 challenge and showed that selective activation of the CB2 receptor signaled apoptosis via enhanced ceramide synthesis de novo. These results support a therapeutic approach for the treatment of malignant gliomas devoid of psychotropic side effects.
Content from External Source
The Journal of Cancer Research

Nonmelanoma skin cancer is one of the most common malignancies in humans. Different therapeutic strategies for the treatment of these tumors are currently being investigated. Given the growth-inhibiting effects of cannabinoids on gliomas and the wide tissue distribution of the two subtypes of cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2), we studied the potential utility of these compounds in anti–skin tumor therapy. Here we show that the CB1 and the CB2 receptor are expressed in normal skin and skin tumors of mice and humans. In cell culture experiments pharmacological activation of cannabinoid receptors induced the apoptotic death of tumorigenic epidermal cells, whereas the viability of nontransformed epidermal cells remained unaffected. Local administration of the mixed CB1/CB2 agonist WIN-55,212-2 or the selective CB2 agonist JWH-133 induced a considerable growth inhibition of malignant tumors generated by inoculation of epidermal tumor cells into nude mice. Cannabinoid-treated tumors showed an increased number of apoptotic cells. This was accompanied by impairment of tumor vascularization, as determined by altered blood vessel morphology and decreased expression of proangiogenic factors (VEGF, placental growth factor, and angiopoietin 2). Abrogation of EGF-R function was also observed in cannabinoid-treated tumors. These results support a new therapeutic approach for the treatment of skin tumors.
Content from External Source
The Journal of Clinical Investigation

Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (delta 9-THC), the major psychoactive component of marijuana, has been shown to suppress macrophage soluble cytolytic activity. The purpose of this study was to determine whether delta 9-THC inhibited this function by affecting tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha). The RAW264.7 macrophage cell line was used as an in vitro bacterial lipopolysaccharide-inducible system for production of TNF-alpha. Macrophage-conditioned medium of RAW264.7 macrophages treated with delta 9-THC was shown to be deficient in tumoricidal activity. Immunoprecipitation experiments demonstrated that the macrophage-conditioned medium of cultures treated with drug contained lower levels of TNF-alpha. Northern analysis indicated that delta 9-THC had no effect on the levels of TNF-alpha messenger RNA. However, radiolabel pulsing and pulse-chase experiments revealed that the intracellular conversion of the 26-kD presecreted form of TNF-alpha to the 17-kD secreted form was inhibited by the drug. These results indicate that delta 9-THC suppresses soluble macrophage tumoricidal activity, at least in part, by decreasing the intracellular conversion of presecretory TNF-alpha to its 17-kD secretory form.
Content from External Source
The Journal of Pharmacology

There are many others.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
I should be clear. I am not asking if cannabis cures cancer, just whether or not there is growing medical evidence that cannabis (in some kind of medical form) can inhibit cancer (as is the case with chemotherapy).

A positive answer would be at odds with what I (and many on this forum) believed the case to be.
I don't think anyone denies the research in cancer, it is the meme that is presented, mainly ones like "taking cannabis oil cures cancer". At the moment present research looks interesting but making that into a viable treatment may never happen. The OP has a link to a good resource here
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk...ids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/#can-treat
 

Jason

Senior Member
I should be clear. I am not asking if cannabis cures cancer, just whether or not there is growing medical evidence that cannabis (in some kind of medical form) can inhibit cancer (as is the case with chemotherapy).

A positive answer would be at odds with what I (and many on this forum) believed the case to be.
So the 20 case studies I listed above are at "odds" with your opinion.

Edit: Now I understand, you want to know if there is growing consensus in the medical field if cannibas inhibits the growth of cancer cells or kills cancer cells altogether. Rather than having a discussion about evidence itself or case studies. I think it will be hard to seperate the two.
 
Last edited:

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
My nice died as I and several relatives sat in the hospice room waiting for the inevitable. She had gone through chemo twice but the cancer still took her. She had always been a user of cannabis and had upped that usage greatly due to the belief of her friends that it could do her benefit. The family did not object as it was time to try anything.
I all but knew it was not going to help in any way and it didn't.

Cannabinoids do not cure cancer.

ETA: I survived colon cancer after surgery, chemo and radiation(2001)
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
My nice died as I and several relatives sat in the hospice room waiting for the inevitable. She had gone through chemo twice but the cancer still took her. She had always been a user of cannabis and had upped that usage greatly due to the belief of her friends that it could do her benefit. The family did not object as it was time to try anything.
I all but knew it was not going to help in any way and it didn't.

Cannabinoids do not cure cancer.

ETA: I survived colon cancer after surgery, chemo and radiation(2001)
I have liked this post but not because I like it if you know what I mean. I am sorry for your loss and thanks for sharing. On a plus side, well done for staying alive :)
 

Jason

Senior Member
My nice died as I and several relatives sat in the hospice room waiting for the inevitable. She had gone through chemo twice but the cancer still took her. She had always been a user of cannabis and had upped that usage greatly due to the belief of her friends that it could do her benefit. The family did not object as it was time to try anything.
I all but knew it was not going to help in any way and it didn't.

Cannabinoids do not cure cancer.

ETA: I survived colon cancer after surgery, chemo and radiation(2001)
OT: Wow, horrifying story, and it's one that affects so many families across the world. My father survived prostate cancer while smoking 2 packs a day, and still hasn't stopped smoking. It really irks me because on one hand I'm so happy my father is around, but here is a guy who smokes cigarettes and weed like there's no tomorrow and he's pushing 70yrs old with 2 knee replacements and a belly that would make Santa jealous. I guess the question is why or how does someone who blatantly disregards his health survive cancer while others are defeated at such a young age.

Jaydee how old was your niece if you don't mind sharing?
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
OT: Wow, horrifying story, and it's one that affects so many families across the world. My father survived prostate cancer while smoking 2 packs a day, and still hasn't stopped smoking. It really irks me because on one hand I'm so happy my father is around, but here is a guy who smokes cigarettes and weed like there's no tomorrow and he's pushing 70yrs old with 2 knee replacements and a belly that would make Santa jealous. I guess the question is why or how does someone who blatantly disregards his health survive cancer while others are defeated at such a young age.

Jaydee how old was your niece if you don't mind sharing?
35 two kids
 

Bill

Senior Member.
In this article they discuss 20 case studies about Cannibus and how it can cure cancer. Each of the studies have been published in very reputable Journals like the British Journal of Cancer, or The Journal of Neuroscience to name a few; Here is the site; http://www.collective-evolution.com...-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/
Brain Cancer
1. A study published in the British Journal of Cancer, conducted by the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Complutense University in Madrid, this study determined that Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and other cannabinoids inhibit tumour growth. They were responsible for the first clinical study aimed at assessing cannabinoid antitumoral action. Cannabinoid delivery was safe and was achieved with zero psychoactive effects. THC was found to decrease tumour cells in two out of the nine patients.

2. A study published in The Journal of Neuroscience examined the biochemical events in both acute neuronal damage and in slowly progressive, neurodegenerative diseases. They conducted a magnetic resonance imaging study that looked at THC (the main active compound in marijuana) and found that it reduced neuronal injury in rats. The results of this study provide evidence that the cannabinoid system can serve to protect the brain against neurodegeneration.

3. A study published in The Journal of Pharmacology And Experimental Therapeutics already acknowledged the fact that cannabinoids have been shown to possess antitumor properties. This study examined the effect of cannabidiol (CBD, non psychoactive cannabinoid compound) on human glioma cell lines. The addition of cannabidiol led to a dramatic drop in the viability of glioma cells. Glioma is the word used to describe brain tumour. The study concluded that cannabidiol was able to produce a significant antitumor activity.

4. A study published in the journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics outlines how brain tumours are highly resistant to current anticancer treatments, which makes it crucial to find new therapeutic strategies aimed at improving the poor prognosis of patients suffering from this disease. This study also demonstrated the reversal of tumour activity in Glioblastoma multiforme.

Breast Cancer
5. A study published in the US National Library of Medicine, conducted by the California Pacific Medical Centre determined that cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation and invasion. They also demonstrated that CBD significantly reduces tumour mass.

6. A study published in The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics determined that THC as well as cannabidiol dramatically reduced breast cancer cell growth. They confirmed the potency and effectiveness of these compounds.

7. A study published in the Journal Molecular Cancer showed that THC reduced tumour growth and tumour numbers. They determined that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell proliferation, induce cancer cell apoptosis and impair tumour angiogenesis (all good things). This study provides strong evidence for the use of cannabinoid based therapies for the management of breast cancer.

8. A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) determined that cannabinoids inhibit human breast cancer cell proliferation.

Lung Cancer
9. A study published in the journal Oncogene, by Harvard Medical Schools Experimental Medicine Department determined that THC inhibits epithelial growth factor induced lung cancer cell migration and more. They go on to state that THC should be explored as novel therapeutic molecules in controlling the growth and metastasis of certain lung cancers.

10. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine by the Institute of Toxicology and Pharmacology, from the Department of General Surgery in Germany determined that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell invasion. Effects were confirmed in primary tumour cells from a lung cancer patient. Overall, data indicated that cannabinoids decrease cancer cell invasiveness.

11. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine, conducted by Harvard Medical School investigated the role of cannabinoid receptors in lung cancer cells. They determined its effectiveness and suggested that it should be used for treatment against lung cancer cells.

Prostate Cancer
12. A study published in the US National Library of Medicine illustrates a decrease in prostatic cancer cells by acting through cannabinoid receptors.

13. A study published in the US National Library of Medicine outlined multiple studies proving the effectiveness of cannabis on prostate cancer.

14. Another study published by the US National Library of Medicine determined that clinical testing of CBD against prostate carcinoma is a must. That cannabinoid receptor activation induces prostate carcinoma cell apoptosis. They determined that cannabidiol significantly inhibited cell viability.

Blood Cancer
15. A study published in the journal Molecular Pharmacology recently showed that cannabinoids induce growth inhibition and apoptosis in matle cell lymphoma. The study was supported by grants from the Swedish Cancer Society, The Swedish Research Council and the Cancer Society in Stockholm.

16. A study published in the International Journal of Cancer also determined and illustrated that cannabinoids exert antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects in various types of cancer and in mantle cell lymphoma.

17. A study published in the US National Library of Medicine conducted by the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology by Virginia Commonwealth University determined that cannabinoids induce apoptosis in leukemia cells.

Oral Cancer
18. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine results show cannabinoids are potent inhibitors of cellular respiration and are toxic to highly malignant oral Tumours.

Liver Cancer
19. A study published by the US National Library of Medicine determined that that THC reduces the viability of human HCC cell lines (Human hepatocellular liver carcinoma cell line) and reduced the growth.

Pancreatic Cancer
20. A study published in The American Journal of Cancer determined that cannabinoid receptors are expressed in human pancreatic tumor cell lines and tumour biopsies at much higher levels than in normal pancreatic tissue. Results showed that cannabinoid administration induced apoptosis. They also reduced the growth of tumour cells, and inhibited the spreading of pancreatic tumour cells.
Content from External Source

Contrary to what the referenced article says none of these studies actually prove that cannabis can cure cancer. It is bad reporting of actual science.

It's way to early to draw any conclusions from these studies beyond cannabinoids may have anti-tumor applications that deserve further study. Some of these studies aren't on actual organisms they are on isolated cell lines; others seem to be animal studies that may not be applicable to humans. One is not a cancer study at all - it is a study of the effects of cannabinoids on neurodegeneration. While all conclude that there is potential that deserves further study it is reaching to look at these studies and then claim there are benefits from any form of cannabis ingestion.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Contrary to what the referenced article says none of these studies actually prove that cannabis can cure cancer. It is bad reporting of actual science.

It's way to early to draw any conclusions from these studies beyond cannabinoids may have anti-tumor applications that deserve further study. Some of these studies aren't on actual organisms they are on isolated cell lines; others seem to be animal studies that may not be applicable to humans. One is not a cancer study at all - it is a study of the effects of cannabinoids on neurodegeneration. While all conclude that there is potential that deserves further study it is reaching to look at these studies and then claim there are benefits from any form of cannabis ingestion.
Agreed, but it gives them a valid reason to study cannibus in more depth. Get government approval and or FDA approval to run 10yr trials, so we can have a study that either validates the claims or makes the claims invalid...
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
Agreed, but it gives them a valid reason to study cannibus in more depth. Get government approval and or FDA approval to run 10yr trials, so we can have a study that either validates the claims or makes the claims invalid...
At any one time there are already hundreds of substances being tested for use against cancer, including cannibinols.
Some cannibinols have been shown to have anti-tumour properties, most in vitro but a few in vivo. Thing is there are also some cannibinols (there are several , all present in the cannibis leaf) that have indications that they ENCOURAGE tumour growth. Ingesting weed in any form may, but probably won't, have any desirable effect.

Might as well just eat ground apple seeds.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
Ingesting weed in any form may, but probably won't, have any desirable effect.
This is the part most pot heads will never get. That what has been shown to work in laboratory settings, does not equal bong hits do the same.

There is a desirable effect though! :D
 

jaydeehess

Senior Member.
This is the part most pot heads will never get. That what has been shown to work in laboratory settings, does not equal bong hits do the same.

There is a desirable effect though! :D
Yes, a case could be made that there is a desirable effect, though personally while I had considered it desirable in my youth, I drifted away from its use at about age 30. Tried it again in my later 40s and decided that I very much no longer desired that effect at all. To be honest I am now the same way about the 'desirable' effects of large amounts of alcohol as well.:)
 

psi

New Member
Unfortunately I have some friends that read the Natural News and are really taken in by this stuff and the Big Pharma conspiracy. I saw a post claiming TPTB are repressing research on cannabis and within minutes I had produced a shedload of papers. However these claims are dangerous as some people buy into it and think eating weed is going to cure people.

The Big Pharma conspiracy is an annoyance of mine as we have socialised health care and essentially the government negotiates over prices. As for witholding the cure for cancer it seems that most people don't realise the bulk.of research is done by charities or academia and hospitals.


I don't understand why "such claims" are labelled "dangerous" without anyone commenting on the many decades of mass imprisonment, ruined lives, government mayhem, etc., caused by the fraudulent war on cannabis.The truth is that no one really knows, at this point in time, what all the possibly relevant medical modalities of the plant might be. There are, however, many reasons to think that the up to 60 active ingredients in cannabis contain more than a few treatments for many diseases, including some types of cancer. It would be nice to read a more balanced and contextualized discussion of the politics of claims, both pro and con, about this remarkable and important plant.
 
Top