PDA

View Full Version : THC can kill glioma cancer cells?


afronaut
06-28-2008, 01:18 PM
For those of you who don't know, THC is the chemical in marijuana that gets you "high."

*Edit: I found another link I should add, considering it's the most valid and trustworthy source on this I can find, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/djm268v1


Here is a review of Dr. Manuel Guzman's research:
http://www.cannabis-med.org/english/journal/en_2006_02_1.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWuD8a3INs

Here are most of the sources I can find on google that are picking up the story:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/medical-marijuana-links/?hp
“Of interest, cannabinoids seem to be selective antitumoral compounds as they can kill tumor cells without significantly affecting the viability of their non-transformed counterparts. . . . The fair safety profile of THC, together with its possible growth-inhibiting action on tumor cells, may set the basis for future trials aimed at evaluating the potential antitumoral activity of cannabinoids.”

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/opinion/ci_9594528
In fact, the first experiment documenting pot's potent anti-cancer effects took place in 1974 at the Medical College of Virginia at the behest federal bureaucrats. The results of that study, reported in an Aug. 18, 1974, Washington Post newspaper feature, were that marijuana's primary psychoactive component, THC, "slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

Despite these favorable preliminary findings (eventually published the following year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), U.S. government officials refused to authorize any follow-up research until conducting a similar - though secret - clinical trial in the mid-1990s. That study, conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program to the tune of $2 million, concluded that mice and rats administered high doses of THC over long periods had greater protection against malignant tumors than untreated controls.

http://www.mpp.org/news/op-eds/oped-cancer-researchs-most.html
THC and other marijuana components have been shown to block growth not only of lung tumors but a variety of other cancers, including leukemia, lymphoma and cancers of the breast and skin. These effects seem to occur through a variety of different cellular mechanisms.

As Spanish researcher Dr. Manuel Guzman, one of the world's leading experts in the field, wrote in a 2003 review in the journal Nature Reviews: Cancer, "Cannabinoids are selective antitumor compounds, as they can kill tumor cells without affecting their non-transformed counterparts..."

That is exactly what you want in a cancer drug: Something that kills the malignant cells without harming healthy cells. It's because most chemotherapy drugs aren't selective enough that they cause such terrible nausea, vomiting, hair loss and other side effects.

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00.n289.a09.html
(This is interesting, in that the article is dated from 2000 and we still haven't heard much information about this from the mainstream news sources.)
Researchers are not sure why, but Guzman's team says the drug caused a buildup of a fat molecule called ceramide, which provoked a death spiral in cancer cells.

The scientists say, "These results may provide the basis for a new therapeutic approach for the treatment of malignant gliomas."

Of course, this isn't to make an argument that smoking pot will cure your cancer.
Asked if this work suggests that smoking pot may be an effective way to fight or prevent cancer, Guzman says no. "When one smokes, only a small part of the cannanbinoids are expected to reach the tumor," he says.
The argument for the legalization of recreational pot use stands on it's own when weighed against the danger, harm, and level of intoxication of other, legal, drugs (specifically, alcohol).

But this isn't about that. This is extremely exciting news in the fight against cancer. We're looking in the face a treatment for cancer supremely more effective and less harmful than chemotherapy. And yet outdated puritanical laws and an absurd attitude inhibits not only what an individual is allowed to do to his own body on his own time, but also promising and cutting edge medical research.

This piece from Scientific American expresses this absurdity well
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=marijuana-research&ref=sciam

And there really is no other word for it than absurdity. Except for maybe hypocritical or asinine. What kind of absurd government allows pharmaceutical companies to research and sell legal speed to treat ADHD (a chronic, yet non life-threatening, disorder whose causes cannot be pinpointed), yet we can't use THC to try to kill a cancer patient's tumor.

Cannabis is unfairly demonized, stopping not only recreational use and medical research, but also many other practical uses of industrial hemp in this country, which could be used as a new, and earth friendly, cash crop for American farmers. You know, the same way our forefathers grew hemp as a cash crop.

What I want to know is,
1. Why isn't this news being picked up by the mainstream media.

and 2. where is the outrage from the conservatives? You know, the ones who go on about "minimal government." The ones who have a problem with the government regulating some big corporation, but apparently don't have anything against the government regulating what a person does to his own body or beneficial medical research for outdated reasons.

RobMoney$
06-28-2008, 02:03 PM
I had no idea you suffered from cancer.

I'm sorry.

afronaut
06-28-2008, 02:16 PM
I don't know if you're being a smart ass or if you actually think I do have cancer.

If you're being serious, then no, I don't actually have cancer.

If you're being a smart ass, well then I didn't know you had to have cancer to care about curing it.

alien autopsy
06-28-2008, 08:57 PM
best way to get your thc is via vaporizing. if you do it correctly, the thc molecule is released before the weed itself is burned, so you get the thc molecule but not the carcinogenic smoke. i have had some experience with volcanoes, but smoking out of a bag is fucking weird. i actually prefer the old school vapor brothers...

and then there is HEMP.....what the fuck. bummer petrochem companies had to infiltrate and outlaw hemp under the guise that it is reefer madness. what a bunch of bullshit.

as to weed being harmful, i would have to say that "legal" alcohol causes way more problems in society than does marijuana (if you take out the fact that a huge number of people are jailed and imprisoned for marijuana).

marijuana is a miracle plant. hemp has so many uses. thc heals. the arts and human culture have evolved with recreational marijana use and hemp fibre/oils.

free the weed. man

afronaut
06-28-2008, 09:32 PM
I tried to make a lightbulb vaporizer, but I haven't been able to get satisfactory results from it. I'd love to try out a vaporizer that works, from what I understand of it, it seems like the only way to smoke. And I bet I'd be able to conserve more pot with it, considering you get a higher percentage of THC per hit.

Still, consuming THC orally isn't going to utilize the cancer killing properties, since only a small amount of the THC will go to the tumor. But this is just another example of completely absurd laws affecting not only harmless adult marijuana users, but also needlessly inhibiting valuable research and production in fields as diverse as biofuels, paper, fabrics, and of course cutting edge medical research.

there is also this new study:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html
People who smoke marijuana do not appear to be at increased risk for developing lung cancer, new research suggests.

While a clear increase in cancer risk was seen among cigarette smokers in the study, no such association was seen for regular cannabis users.

Even very heavy, long-term marijuana users who had smoked more than 22,000 joints over a lifetime seemed to have no greater risk than infrequent marijuana users or nonusers.

The findings surprised the study’s researchers, who expected to see an increase in cancer among people who smoked marijuana regularly in their youth.

afronaut
07-02-2008, 05:57 PM
Really guys? A treatment for cancer that is supremely superior to that of chemotherapy, and no one has anything to say about it? Am I just crazy for thinking that this is really big news and for being outraged that there is no speak of it in the mainstream media?

Run of the mill election time pundit-drivel about Obama reaching out to the faith based community is something to talk about, but the complete ridiculousness of our government refusing to offer American cancer patients this research doesn't raise anyones ire?

RobMoney$
07-02-2008, 06:29 PM
You lost any credibility the minute you started talking about trying to make a homemade vaporizer out of a fucking lightbulb.

People won't pay any attention to the positive effects Marijuana may have as long as the people promoting it appear to be just looking at it as a thinly veiled way for them to simply get high.

afronaut
07-02-2008, 07:36 PM
Anyone who has enough intelligence to actually look at the information seems to realize that it in no way supports the fight to legalize marijuana for recreational uses. Smoking or ingesting cannabis does not utilize THC in ways that fight cancer cells.

The US government will not allow this kind of medical research into cannabinoids, yet it is encouraged to feed kids with short attention spans legal speed. It is easier to do research into the effects of cocaine than it is to do research into marijuana, and other amphetamines and opiates which are much more addictive and harmful with less medical value are used all the time in medicine.

All the poor children with ADHD can get their speed, but all those cancer patients in the US must be stuck with the living hell that is chemotherapy? Bull fucking shit. Only a truly asinine person would trivialize something like this by reverting to the textbook (textbook of bullshit arguments for morons, that is) argument of "oh it's just a bunch of potheads trying to get high."

Thats all your argument is: potheads. "This may be cutting edge research which offers a huge glimmer of hope to cancer patients, but on the other hand, potheads." Weak.

And why shouldn't marijuana users try to legalize their drug of choice? Marijuana is in no way as harmful as other legal recreational drugs, so why should potheads be criminalized?

And please Rob, don't talk to me about credibility. God forbid I experiment with a cheap and quick way to minimize damage to my lungs.

What does this have to do with my credibility, anyway? What about the credibility of the National Cancer Institute or those doctors who possibly found the next generation of cancer treatment?

Maybe if people like you would pull their heads out of their asses and started caring about stuff thats actually important, it wouldn't be just us evil potheads with no credibility supporting marijuana research.

Bob
07-02-2008, 07:39 PM
Really guys? A treatment for cancer that is supremely superior to that of chemotherapy, and no one has anything to say about it? Am I just crazy for thinking that this is really big news and for being outraged that there is no speak of it in the mainstream media?

Run of the mill election time pundit-drivel about Obama reaching out to the faith based community is something to talk about, but the complete ridiculousness of our government refusing to offer American cancer patients this research doesn't raise anyones ire?

i agree with you completely but i have nothing to add on top of what you've already said, so i haven't said anything. but i guess saying "i agree with you" counts for something so

i agree with you, these are all very good points and they are articulately expressed (considering they're coming from a filthy pothead i mean), so thank you

RobMoney$
07-02-2008, 08:58 PM
I'm not saying I don't agree with you, nor am I trying to come off as someone who's against legalizing it for recreational use.
I mean Allah knows Obama could use the extra revenue from legalized weed to help pay for all his entitlement programs.

I'm just saying I could read right through your intent in your initial post. If you or a family member of yours suffered from cancer and you were advocating this, you'd have my attention. But you came off as the campus pothead just looking to get "The Man" off your back.

afronaut
07-02-2008, 09:23 PM
How exactly do you know I don't know anyone suffering from cancer? My very dear grandfather went through chemo hell and died of cancer a few years back, and I witnessed an 8 year old child die on his deathbed of a rare form of bone cancer when I was but 8 years old myself. I hope that gives me enough credentials to care about people with cancer and finding a treatment better than the poison known as chemotherapy.

Contrary to popular belief, the fight for changing marijuana/drug laws does not consist solely of potheads trying to change laws so they can smoke pot. It consists of a myriad of different issues and consists of everyone from potheads, terminally ill patients, regular joe's who don't smoke pot but are able to think critically, and the scientific and medical communities.

As for me, I will always be an advocate of using pot recreationally, though my own pot consumption is relatively low compared to an actual "pothead." I find the majority of "pot culture" to be laughably sophomoric, and wish to have nothing to do with it.

alien autopsy
07-04-2008, 08:53 AM
smoking cannabis does have very real medical benefits. that is why it is legalized in california and several other states.

and therea re synthetic drugs created by pharmaceutical companies that utilize cannibanoids to treat certain cancers and illnesses. but of course, we cant just grow our own.

ASsman
07-05-2008, 05:30 AM
Reason 3,523 to continue habitual consumption of , uh, nothing.