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.
*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.