Cannabis and Small Cell Lung Cancer: Case Report
- Thread starter spurr
- Start date
Please provide sufficient proof and evidence of said claim, with many unbiased peer reviewed and published studies.
FWIW, it's best to approach a topic like this with an open mind, when it relates to scientific studies. Strict preconceived notions help no one, they just hold people back. To properly critically analyze a study or an argument, one must be as unbiased as possible.
The onus is on those who say cannabis doesn't cause cancer, i.e., the claim maker. That means it's up to you to prove your claim, not others to disprove your claim. If I made a claim stating cannabis does cause cancer the onus would be on me.
In science it's not about one study proving something, it's about a wide and deep body of evidence all showing the same thing; a good example is evolution. There is not single study proving evolution, but the vast body of evidence allows for evolution to be true scientific theory (that's different then the term "theory" as used by laypersons).
The only fact we can state at this time, is there is not enough evidence on either side, for anyone to make a definitive claim.
P.S. I find the large text to be distracting and a bit rude ...
No proof is possible to prove the negative, it is only possible to prove the positive.
If there is a positive link between cannabis smoking and cancer that is for the positive side of the argument to document and peer review.
I have seen countless photos of meth mouth, and cancer of the jaw from chewing tobacco. Show me the photo of the cannabis only user and their cancer.
comon spurr...I showed you mine now show me yours. Or did you not read the study I posted? The one funded by your tax dollars. The biggest of it's kind.
Why do you think Cannabis is schedule 1?? Part of the reason is to block research. You see Cannabis is powerful stuff...and they know it.
Cannabis doesn't cause cancer, Cannabis kicks cancer's ass.
Cannabis is anti-Cancer....
Here is another example of what I'm talking about...
The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February, 2000 when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.
The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia investigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects.
Most Americans don't know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.
The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice - lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.
The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out - unsuccessfully - to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."
The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of "Nature Medicine" that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC. "All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma (brain cancer) cell inoculation ... Cannabinoid (THC)-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.
The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological effects. They found none.
"Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma ... We also examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid administration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parameters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water intake as well as body weight gain were unaffected during and after cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during the 7-day delivery period or for at least 2 months after cannabinoid treatment ended."
Guzman's investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study that THC has been administered to live tumor-bearing animals. (The Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a "petri dish" experiment that didn't involve live subjects.)
In an email interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn't cite the 1974 Virginia investigation.
"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible." Guzman said.
In 1983 the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer, who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared."
Guzman provided the title of the work - "Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute - and this writer obtained a copy at the University of California medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.
The summary of the Virginia study begins, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBN)" - two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."
The 1975 journal article doesn't mention breast cancer tumors, which featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study - in the Local section of the Washington Post on August 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part:
"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that 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."
Guzman, writing from Madrid, was eloquent in his response after this writer faxed him the clipping from the Washington Post of a quarter century ago. In translation, he wrote:
"It is extremely interesting to me, the hope that the project seemed to awaken at that moment, and the sad evolution of events during the years following the discovery, until now we once again Îdraw back the veilâ over the anti-tumoral power of THC, twenty-five years later. Unfortunately, the world bumps along between such moments of hope and long periods of intellectual castration."
News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article. This writer stumbled on it through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report web page. The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors.
Raymond Cushing is a journalist, musician and filmmaker. This article was named by Project Censored as a "Top Censored Story of 2000."
sorry the large type on my previous post offended you....this was my attempt to make it up
Why do you think Cannabis is schedule 1?? Part of the reason is to block research. You see Cannabis is powerful stuff...and they know it.
Cannabis doesn't cause cancer, Cannabis kicks cancer's ass.
Cannabis is anti-Cancer....
Here is another example of what I'm talking about...
The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February, 2000 when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.
The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals; the first was a Virginia investigation 26 years ago. In both studies, the THC shrank or destroyed tumors in a majority of the test subjects.
Most Americans don't know anything about the Madrid discovery. Virtually no major U.S. newspapers carried the story, which ran only once on the AP and UPI news wires, on Feb. 29, 2000.
The ominous part is that this isn't the first time scientists have discovered that THC shrinks tumors. In 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institute of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice - lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.
The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes." In 1976 President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out - unsuccessfully - to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."
The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of "Nature Medicine" that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2 a synthetic compound similar to THC. "All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma (brain cancer) cell inoculation ... Cannabinoid (THC)-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.
The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological effects. They found none.
"Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma ... We also examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid administration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parameters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water intake as well as body weight gain were unaffected during and after cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during the 7-day delivery period or for at least 2 months after cannabinoid treatment ended."
Guzman's investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study that THC has been administered to live tumor-bearing animals. (The Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a "petri dish" experiment that didn't involve live subjects.)
In an email interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn't cite the 1974 Virginia investigation.
"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible." Guzman said.
In 1983 the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer, who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared."
Guzman provided the title of the work - "Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute - and this writer obtained a copy at the University of California medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.
The summary of the Virginia study begins, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabinol (CBN)" - two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."
The 1975 journal article doesn't mention breast cancer tumors, which featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study - in the Local section of the Washington Post on August 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part:
"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that 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."
Guzman, writing from Madrid, was eloquent in his response after this writer faxed him the clipping from the Washington Post of a quarter century ago. In translation, he wrote:
"It is extremely interesting to me, the hope that the project seemed to awaken at that moment, and the sad evolution of events during the years following the discovery, until now we once again Îdraw back the veilâ over the anti-tumoral power of THC, twenty-five years later. Unfortunately, the world bumps along between such moments of hope and long periods of intellectual castration."
News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article. This writer stumbled on it through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report web page. The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors.
Raymond Cushing is a journalist, musician and filmmaker. This article was named by Project Censored as a "Top Censored Story of 2000."
sorry the large type on my previous post offended you....this was my attempt to make it up
Yeah I'm having a hard time with this one guy here although I'm sure there are going to be cases out there that have these links with cancer but hey cancer is very wide spread and if cannibis has showed up for the very first time in this kid I'm going to have to see this one for myself as I have obviously gotten very distrusting of any info put out by the fed gov.There are far too many other cancer causing factors for them to entertain this one as the culprit although you know they will try.Let me see his medical records and then I will tell you lol peace out Headband707
Particularly in lue of the fact that cannabis is cancer fighting lol .....
Particularly in lue of the fact that cannabis is cancer fighting lol .....
If you mix bleach and ammonia you make mustard gas and will kill yourself. If you use only one product at a time you can clean your house to a sparkling shine.
The potentially carcinogenic elements you fear MUST be neutralized by cannabis and the human body OR cannabis smokers would contract cancer.
SINCE cannabis smokers are NOT contracting cancer; smoking cannabis DOES NOT cause cancer.
@ All,
Please realize at this point, we have very few facts relative to effects from smoking raw cannabis with respect to causing cancer or not causing caner (ex., from carcinogens in smoke, like those that can cause cancer from tobacco smoke ... ).
Can we please stick to science? Pretty please with a cherry on top?!
- Please stop using anecdotal evidence as fact
- Please stop using conjecture as fact
- Please stop using your preconceived notions as fact
- Please stop using red herrings (and other logical fallacies, ex., "argument from common belief") to try and "prove" your position.
Please realize at this point, we have very few facts relative to effects from smoking raw cannabis with respect to causing cancer or not causing caner (ex., from carcinogens in smoke, like those that can cause cancer from tobacco smoke ... ).
Can we please stick to science? Pretty please with a cherry on top?!
If you mix bleach and ammonia you make mustard gas and will kill yourself. If you use only one product at a time you can clean your house to a sparkling shine.
The potentially carcinogenic elements you fear MUST be neutralized by cannabis and the human body OR cannabis smokers would contract cancer.
SINCE cannabis smokers are NOT contracting cancer; smoking cannabis DOES NOT cause cancer.
Sorry, but by that pseudoscientific argument, 100% of cigarette smokers would get lung cancer. Yet they don't. Does that mean that tobacco smoke is not carcinogenic? No, it does not.
Without a doubt, SOME cannabis smokers DO get cancer.
That doesn't mean the cannabis CAUSED cancer, anymore than it means that cannabis smokers without cancer are cancer free BECAUSE of cannabis.
T
texsativa
Were any environmental exposures and work history documented, for instance, exposure to asbestosis, etc. Makes me suspicious for environmental exposures, this story.
G
Godless
I think you have that quite backwards. In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. At this point, it is an extraordinary claim to say that there is any kind of link between cannabis smoking and cancer. As I said before, the prohibitionists have been desperately trying to prove it and they keep on failing.
What we can state definitively today is that the risk of getting cancer from cannabis use alone is drastically less than tobacco use, possibly to the point of zero risk. It is so drastically less that I can't see why anyone would bother to worry unless they had other contributory health issues.
Onus of proof is on the claim maker, no matter how extraordinary or plain-Jane-ordinary the claim.
The only extraordinary claim herein, is that anyone knows anything as a fact, at this point.
That's a red herring, even though I know you meant no harm. Comparing cannabis to tobacco is a red herring because we are discussing cannabis and cancer; not tobacco and cancer and how much worse it might be than cannabis, as means to "prove" smoking cannabis isn't 'harmful'.
G
Godless
Well, I never made a claim that smoking cannabis doesn't cause cancer. Just like I can't say with certainty that there is no god, I can't say with certainty that cannabis smoking has no possible link to cancer.
But we are talking in absolutist terms about something neither of us can know for sure today. Shouldn't we be talking in comparative terms when we are analyzing risk?
In measuring the harmfulness of one thing, don't we have to measure it against another? Particularly one that we know an awful lot about like the high risk of tobacco smoking causing lung cancer? Again, we can't prove that it is harmless, but we can assess that harm by evaluating it against a harm we know.
I am afraid that's the best we can do for some time because, fundamentally, MOST CANNABIS RESEARCH IS BUNK:
1. There is so much influence by the prohibitionists who hold sway over who can research and where they get their cannabis from that their influence raises reasonable and serious doubts.
2. I have yet to read a study that even identifies the strain used. The smoke from indicas is noticeably more harsh than sativas (though not always the case) - if they aren't identifying the strain, what other controls have they totally fucked up? Obviously, if they are trying to analyze a long term cancer risk, they are just going off the word of the smoker, who could have been smoking pesticides, molds, poorly flushed chems, and poorly cured weed. I'd imagine that most subjects are street weed smokers that have been exposed to this crap at one time or another. If this factor isn't accounted for, then your study is BUNK.
The reality is that each of us is out there on our own having to make risk assessments with minimal and mostly bunk information. Thank the DEA. When do I get to sue them for lying to me?
C
CANNATOPIA
This article does sound very questionable, If they had a link to cancer it would be spread all over the news in an attempt to stop the MMJ scene from expanding further. I defiantly call BS with this one.
sorry to go off topic, but claiming that meat is a "garbage food" is completely ridiculous. explain how eskimo's were healthy from just eating blubber?
how come herbivore's are not effected by thc but carnivore's are? A deer can eat the plant and not feel a thing, but dogs get floored.
not trying to start an argument about food and health, but claiming meat is garbage and causes cancer more so than vegetables and fruits is not accurate.
we are high energy beings, if you look around, all other high energy creatures are carnivore's.
maybe im wrong, but i have seen many vegetarians get cancer and get sick. they always look sick. I eat both, more vegetables than meat. Although lately, I am wondering if human beings are truly carnivores.
budlover123
Member
Cancer, Cancer, Cancer...
I heard all this talk about cancer is whats causing cancer, quick, shut the fuck up
I'd take cancer over no weed, how come everybody is under the illusion that they live forever? We all got to go sometime.
Besides, the cancer industry is big business and I don't trust it, mostly because everyone else I know believes whatever doctors tell them, and I know doctors are only viewing or are aware of the most profitable solutions
fact is there's always huge medical revelations that made what doctors used to think obsolete, but doctors can't be open minded or deviate from the known conventions or risk being sued, which is probably why when doctors get cancer, they choose different treatment for themselves than they recommend for their patients.
I heard all this talk about cancer is whats causing cancer, quick, shut the fuck up
I'd take cancer over no weed, how come everybody is under the illusion that they live forever? We all got to go sometime.
Besides, the cancer industry is big business and I don't trust it, mostly because everyone else I know believes whatever doctors tell them, and I know doctors are only viewing or are aware of the most profitable solutions
fact is there's always huge medical revelations that made what doctors used to think obsolete, but doctors can't be open minded or deviate from the known conventions or risk being sued, which is probably why when doctors get cancer, they choose different treatment for themselves than they recommend for their patients.
Because that isn't even true?
Here's a couple of behavior studies using THC and rabbits:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6270517
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6299864
And THC and mice:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21559804
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21460829
There are shitloads more....
Human beings are pretty definitely meant to be omnivorous, no matter what you think of Eskimos' diets...
can we get back to cannabis and cancer? Pretty please?!
If that's what you want to talk about, start your own damn thread!!
Oh wait...you did...
Latest posts
-
-
-
4x Ethiopian (ACE Seeds, reg.) SCROG - LED 250W - 90 x 90cm (Grow report)
- Latest: strain_hunter
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
4x Ethiopian (ACE Seeds, reg.) SCROG - LED 250W - 90 x 90cm (Grow report)
- Latest: strain_hunter
-
