Cannabis, cannabinoids and cancer – the evidence so far

[tyrael]

(firstly, apologies if this has already been posted. I did utse however nothing came back)

As with many recreational drugs there exists rumours, fallacies and out right lies regarding what said drug does (or might) and doesn't do! One I have heard before (often with little to no evidence accompanying it) is cannabis (weed/THC/cannabinoids/etc) and it's properties regarding cancer - typically it being a treatment for, or protective against. Anyway, I came across some legitimate research/study regarding cannabinoid MOA and anti-neoplastic treatment.

Can be found here CancerResearchUK blog's : Cannabis, cannabinoids and cancer – the evidence so far.

An interesting read! Thoughts?!

In addition, IMHO on medicinal marijuana (as it is used today), not necessarily for the treatment of cancer but more-so as an analgesic, is pro but with a caveat - I don't personally believe in the selling of marijuana, as is. Carcinogens, change of molecular configuration (due to burning which may outweigh the benefits), etc however I do believe that there can be positives extracted from the plant yet still with more research into things such as which cannabinoid, dosage (TD/LD/ED50%'s), (contra/)indications, and so on......this is just my personal opinion though.

 

[THC_LSD_OC]

I cannot speak to marijuana being an actual treatment for cancer. I think that is a little too broad of a question, as it may not directly cure cancer, but rather help in relieving certain debilitating symptoms cancer patients go through.
First, I will preface this by saying that the reason there are no major official studies out there supporting cannabis and its positive effects for cancer because studies need to be approved by specific federal agencies and it is incredibly rare for the federal government agencies to support a study trying to show the positives of marijuana. I saw this recently on a documentary and it blew my mind. Incredibly frustrating, but hopefully we will continue to change as a nation.

Ok, as far as aiding in cancer; individuals going through chemotherapy experience extreme nausea, trouble eating, and just a general feeling of fatigue along with the fact that many individuals with cancer experience depression and anxiety.
Marijuana, particularly those strains rich in CBD. CBD is the main cannabinoid in marijuana that aids in pain relief.
Marijuana, of course, increases appetite and decreases nausea.
Moreover, it can help cancer patients who are struggling to cope with accepting the cancer. It can truly help increase their feeling of well being, along with helping them remove a vast number of medications that they would have to continue to take otherwise.
As far as burning marijuana, i fully agree, the act of smoking marijuana buds could be potentially detrimental to cancer patients (obviously with lung cancer patients). That being said, there are many varieties of edibles, although nowadays there are very pure oils that can be eaten and they have high concentrations of CBD for pain relief. Along with that there are many different ways to ingest THC/CBD especially in places like california and colorado etc where dispensaries are.
I think marijuana is a miracle drug for cancer patients. I've had experiences with many individuals myself who have tried marijuana (particularly edibles--no smoking) and said that it helped them get off their painkillers.

 

[Chesh]

"When it comes to finding out whether cannabis can cause cancer, the evidence is a lot murkier. This is mainly because most people who use cannabis smoke it mixed with tobacco, a substance that definitely does cause cancer."

This is only a problem in the UK/Europe.

There's been a few studies done in the USA, and I think maybe Canada, showing that regular use of just cannabis does not increase the risk of lung cancer. But then there's other studies contradicting them. And other studies showing it reduces the chance of getting certain cancers (head and beck apparently) but increases the chance of others (testicular being one of them I think).

If only it were simple.

 

[rangrz]

Things as complex as cacinogensis tend to never be simple. Which is why I get so pissed at the legions of potheads who declare from their armchairs that cannabis is a miracle treatment for cancer/aids/<arbitrary disease here>.

I just don't get why this happens? Is it wishful thinking? Ideology trumping reality? A simple lack of scientific literacy?

No one drug is a miracle for anything, particularly not something as diverse as cancer. (Which is not a singular condition, it's a broad category of diseases.)

 

[stivsmegg]

well i would say the main reason pot helps with cancer is nausea from chemo, my mom was recently diagnosed with myelofibrosis and she was put on a low dose of chemo. over time the chemo is being ramped up and it makes her sick....right now i am trying to convince her to try it, so far the drugs normally used for it are..zofram and compazine, the first has the least side effects but doesnt always work, compazine has wicked anxiety side effects so it totally sux unless yer really feeling sick.... now my mom is a bigtime wine drinker but doesnt use drugs, at least not since proly 1980 and then just some shwazz.. but i think i am getting through to her because eventually she will have to stop the wine so the pot will also give her a pleasant buzz to replace the 2 bottles of wine she usually drinks every night. anyway..thats the practical side of it. nausea is what its best for but you find other medicinal properties as you smoke.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

cacinogensis

wut is dis I don't even...

 

[Artificial Emotion]

Watch this new documentary for info on cannabis and cancer.

Here.

 

[rangrz]

wut is dis I don't even...

My bad, I was too busy thinking about the D and thus my mind got side tracked to something that induces cack.

But like, documentaries on youtube...come on bro...peer review journal or GTFO.

 

[ebola?]

My bad, I was too busy thinking about the D and thus my mind got side tracked to something that induce cack.

Lol (I didn't even notice the misspelling at first).

ebola

 

[tyrael]

Things as complex as cacinogensis tend to never be simple. Which is why I get so pissed at the legions of potheads who declare from their armchairs that cannabis is a miracle treatment for cancer/aids/<arbitrary disease here>.

I just don't get why this happens? Is it wishful thinking? Ideology trumping reality? A simple lack of scientific literacy?

No one drug is a miracle for anything, particularly not something as diverse as cancer. (Which is not a singular condition, it's a broad category of diseases.)

Addressing your post;

Firstly, agreed carcinogens are never a black/white case (as can be said with most aspects of medicine to tell the truth)

Secondly, I think the bolded emphases the "armchair MD's". Most people in the know/with knowledge in this area - even with a heap full of positive enthusiasm - understand that, at the least, many more studies must be done to even get a baseline on understand the pharmacology/full metabolic pathways (and how they interact/interfere with said symptoms/effects)/interactions/(full contra-)indications, etc.


And lastly, you're right on the money here! NO drug in a panacea! Throughout medical history there has been countless "miracle/wonder drugs" (or techniques or procedures or the like) which were suppose to revolutionise medicine/care/tx - doesn't matter.

Good points made throughout the thread though.

 

[Artificial Emotion]

But like, documentaries on youtube...come on bro...peer review journal or GTFO.

You make some very good points that I agree with but you have to remember this is a cannabis forum on Bluelight, not some academic forum. I merely posted the link to an interesting cannabis video because I thought it was good to watch, I didn't offer it with the claim it is proof of anything.

So really there's no need for the attitude mate because we're on the same side anyway and you're having a go at the wrong person!

 

[Greenisthecolour]

Addressing your post;

Firstly, agreed carcinogens are never a black/white case (as can be said with most aspects of medicine to tell the truth)

Secondly, I think the bolded emphases the "armchair MD's". Most people in the know/with knowledge in this area - even with a heap full of positive enthusiasm - understand that, at the least, many more studies must be done to even get a baseline on understand the pharmacology/full metabolic pathways (and how they interact/interfere with said symptoms/effects)/interactions/(full contra-)indications, etc.


And lastly, you're right on the money here! NO drug in a panacea! Throughout medical history there has been countless "miracle/wonder drugs" (or techniques or procedures or the like) which were suppose to revolutionise medicine/care/tx - doesn't matter.

Good points made throughout the thread though.

You're going to have to explain to this guy what happened to his skin cancer then.

But like, documentaries on youtube...come on bro...peer review journal or GTFO.

Don't we feel important. You guys want to feel 'official' or something so you deny all of this powerful info about the healing power of cannabis it seems. I guess if someone were to put the contents of a peer reviewed journal into a youtube video that people could watch that would automatically invalidate the info right?

 

[rangrz]

You make some very good points that I agree with but you have to remember this is a cannabis forum on Bluelight, not some academic forum. I merely posted the link to an interesting cannabis video because I thought it was good to watch, I didn't offer it with the claim it is proof of anything.

So really there's no need for the attitude mate because we're on the same side anyway and you're having a go at the wrong person!

Fair enough. I just often find that these types of documentaries can be dangerous to people who lack the background and critical thinking to evaluate them properly... I have a friend (big pothead btw) who watches these type of documentaries all the time, and he swallows them whole and at this point, believes in anything *except* accepted science/history/etc.

Don't we feel important. You guys want to feel 'official' or something so you deny all of this powerful info about the healing power of cannabis it seems. I guess if someone were to put the contents of a peer reviewed journal into a youtube video that people could watch that would automatically invalidate the info right?

No. If a video was made and it showed all the data, the experimental methodology, the references, etc. It would be good. Being on youtube does not make it invalid per se...I mean shit, The Feynman Lectures on Physics are on youtube, things like that...are perfectly valid. But a video scraped together by a non-expert (or usually, someone not even minimally qualified...like talking about sub-specialist medicine by someone who is not only not an M.D. but does not even have an undergrad in life sci) or else, by a fringe "researcher" who works in a lab in their basement and who's work can't make it past peer review.

 

[tyrael]

You're going to have to explain to this guy what happened to his skin cancer then...

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data! Read: one person's story a wonder-drug does not make!

Secondly, just as I don't know the full extenuating circumstances of this guy's situation, neither do you! Correlation does not equal causation! So some man put some cream in his face and it "cured" (to take the negative view - it may have/still come back yet) his tumours, additionally there has been some promise pharmaceutically for some indications. Hence why (I said previously) we have academic/medicinal procedures and methodologies to prove these things! Indeed topical CBD's (or cannbinols in general) may have a positive medicinal effect.....and again which is why we need future investigation!

You obviously missed all of my points so I'll lay them out a little clearer for you, shall I?.....actually I'm not sure which part of what I said you didn't understand?! At no point did I say anything con- cannabinoid (research)! In fact my point was that more research is required because indeed it may have medicinal effects!

However, I'll repeat myself seeing you seem to need it;

NO drug in a panacea! Throughout medical history there has been countless "miracle/wonder drugs" (or techniques or procedures or the like) which were suppose to revolutionise medicine/care/tx - doesn't matter.

...If a video was made and it showed all the data, the experimental methodology, the references, etc. It would be good....But a video scraped together by a non-expert (or usually, someone not even minimally qualified...like talking about sub-specialist medicine by someone who is not only not an M.D. but does not even have an undergrad in life sci) or else, by a fringe "researcher" who works in a lab in their basement and who's work can't make it past peer review.

+1. Peer reviews are in place for a reason, nonetheless to weed (no pun intended) out the non-/pseudo-science. Assuming as rangrz said things like data, methodologies, references, biases, scientist's degrees of freedom, blah blah blah are defined and written - all those things which are ALWAYS required to be called "valid research". If they have fulfilled these criteria AND they still can't even make it past the first review, there's very little hope**.



** Just clarifying I'm not talking about this research (although a point could be made ), I'm trying to make the point as rangrz was, that these things are necessary for "good science"!

 

[aibreann]

"Run from the cure"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

documentary that man in the video above watched. that's how he found about RSO (Rick Simpson oil).