That title was for you palak =) Ok, technically I gotta say "probably" because there isn't enough official research to say it does for sure, but the research is strongly suggesting it lately, and well enough for the National Cancer Institute to post this:
Antitumor Effects
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 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 and metastasis. [9-11] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor. [10,11]
In an in vivo model using severe combined immunodeficient mice, subcutaneous tumors were generated by inoculating the animals with cells from human non-small cell lung carcinoma cell lines.[12] Tumor growth was inhibited by 60% in THC-treated mice compared with vehicle-treated control mice. Tumor specimens revealed that THC had antiangiogenic and antiproliferative effects.
In addition, both plant-derived and endogenous cannabinoids have been studied for anti- inflammatory effects. A mouse study demonstrated that endogenous cannabinoid system signaling is likely to provide intrinsic protection against colonic inflammation. [13] As a result, a hypothesis that phytocannabinoids and endocannabinoids may be useful in the prevention and treatment of colorectal cancer has been developed.[14]
Another study has shown delta-9-THC is a potent and selective antiviral agent against Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV), also known as human herpesvirus 8.[15] The researchers concluded that additional studies on cannabinoids and herpesviruses are warranted, as they may lead to the development of drugs that inhibit the reactivation of these oncogenic viruses. Subsequently, another group of investigators reported increased efficiency of KSHV infection of human dermal microvascular epithelial cells in the presence of low doses of delta-9-THC.[16]
Palak, it's not just in vitro, it's in vivo too. =)
There are also plenty of anecdotal stories and evidence of cannabis having great healing effects, not just for cancer but for a shitload of other things. Some fun vidoes of news reports:
And in regards to my previous blog post, there's a huge difference between those 2 paragraphs in terms of political consequences. Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug because it has no accepted medical use. The DEA argues that things like appetite stimulation and pain management are just symptom management and not treating a disease, so therefore cannabis has no medical value and should be schedule 1. But if a federal agency, like the NCI, says that cannabis can shrink tumors, then it has a medical benefit that isn't symptom management. This means that they have to move it to schedule 3, which will remove the DEA's ability to run around raiding medical marijuana dispensaries.
That's why the sentence they removed is so important:
In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.
Vs
Though no relevant surveys of practice patterns exist, it appears that physicians caring for cancer patients who prescribe medicinal Cannabis predominantly do so for symptom management.
Knowing the politics you can see why it's so important to them that this sentence changes.
0 votes
InnovativeYogis.com
1
terrybunny19240 United States. Mar 31 2011 17:27. Posts 13829
Indeed, u know i agree with your position so all I can really do is sayyyy
I hate anecdotal stuff as evidence tbh, it isn't even good for someone to watch because it will exert influence on your decisions at a sub conscious level. mental contamination.
terrybunny19240 United States. Mar 31 2011 18:30. Posts 13829
awesome
1
NewbSaibot United States. Mar 31 2011 18:31. Posts 4943
Claims like these do your cause an injustice, because it makes most of the rational thinking world write you off as crazy.
bye now
1
traxamillion United States. Mar 31 2011 18:38. Posts 10468
On March 31 2011 17:31 NewbSaibot wrote:
Claims like these do your cause an injustice, because it makes most of the rational thinking world write you off as crazy.
lol what?
why would any rational person consider k2o4's offering of scientific evidence to the fact that marijuana and its thc/cannabinoids may have beneficial effects when dealing with cancer, crazy ?
1
Exhilarate United States. Mar 31 2011 18:42. Posts 5453
legalize this shit already
1
NewbSaibot United States. Mar 31 2011 18:51. Posts 4943
On March 31 2011 17:31 NewbSaibot wrote:
Claims like these do your cause an injustice, because it makes most of the rational thinking world write you off as crazy.
lol what?
why would any rational person consider k2o4's offering of scientific evidence to the fact that marijuana and its thc/cannabinoids may have beneficial effects when dealing with cancer, crazy ?
"Cannabis Cures Cancer". Ok I'm done reading.
bye now
1
palak United States. Mar 31 2011 19:06. Posts 4601
well guess if this is for me i'll argue it
from the nci sources i read the only one that is relevant to marijuana legalization is 14 since the Cannabinoids were given to the mice via digestion, the rest were injections of Cannabinoids.
more importantly source 9, guzman paper (which is a review of multiple studies) says "Several plant-derived (for example, THC and cannabidiol), synthetic (for example, WIN-55, 212-2 and HU-210) and endogenous cannabinoids (for example,anandamide and 2-arachidonoylglycerol) are now known to exert antiproliferative actions on a wide spectrum of tumour cells in culture."
Rest of the paper goes on to talk about the importance for the anti tumor effects is the affinity for CB1 or CB2, so synthetic cannabinoids that have a much higher affinity to CB1 and CB2 would be more effective at fighting cancer then the chemicals found in marijuana. Also the majority of the studies seem to be using cannabinoids that are synthetic and not ones derived from marijuana.
The anecdotal stuff i'm not going to bother with. Since anecdotes don't prove anything.
The sentence was taken out because finding a doctor to say he prescribed marijuana to a patient due to it's anti-tumor effects might be a bitch to have come forward, and there have not been any conclusive studies to show that marijuana inhalation or digestion stops tumors, except for CRC. It's really not a big deal that the sentence was removed at all, the information is still on the website, and virtually no one actually goes to that website or reads the information with a fine tooth comb. The only people who do that are people who are die hard on this issue, the layman population which is most important doesn't care about the sentence changing. Also "possible anti-tumor effect" also is not saying anything about it being useful for it treating a disease. As long as the word possible is in there it would not be considered treating a disease. The new sentence says "predominately do so" which leaves open the possibility of doctors prescribing it due to them believing that it has anti-tumor effects without them needing to produce drs claiming that is the reason they prescribed it or needing studies to prove it.
So sure studies are showing cannabinoids may be a possible treatment for cancer, but none of them would be really supportive of marijuana legalization since the vast majority of them are done via injections of synthetic cannabinoids. There hasn't been a study I've read which says that the anti tumor effects from THC and such would be effective if taken in via digestion or inhalation. Also if the synthetic ones have a higher affinity for the receptors that stop tumor growth then they will be more effective treatments then marijuana. Granted if it's shown digestion or inhalation of cannabinoids does suppress tumor growth then marijuana would be a very cheap, albeit not as effective, therapy. But gl with ever letting something come out that is a cheap therapy when health insurance companies spend 4.5 bil a yr on lobbying. I still support legalization, but the anti-cancer argument is still a crap argument imo.
dont tap the glass...im about ready to take a fucking hammer to the aquarium
I don't know everything and i'm not always right, so I appreciate it when people kindly and respectfully point out errors, flaws, and mistakes. You guys rock and thank you for doing that on a consistent basis =)
I dunno if I'll get time to come reply more cause I gotta run right now, but I wanted to make sure u guys know I read what you wrote (and I'm working on that paper you linked night).
On April 01 2011 08:39 hernandez wrote:
you are definitely addicted to weed man... obsessively addicted :/ strongly consider rehab
lol
Thanks for your concern (if it's genuine). But please don't worry, I'm doing more than ok. Rocking straight A's for the last 2 semesters, happily married, have a home, pay my bills, pay my taxes, no trouble with the law, close with my family, etc. I'm far from being addicted or having any trouble due to weed. In reality weed has helped me out in most of the areas listed. Improved my health, helped in my relationships, kept my stress down, expanded my mind and helped me solve problems that stumped me while sober, etc. You should be happy for me, not worrying for me.
