Marijuana Kills Cancer Cells

[Treetops]

http://naturalsociety.com/marijuana-and-cancer-relationship-destroy-cancer-cells/


Thanks to the available findings of a 2006 study showing that cannabis actually reduces the number of cancer cells, medical marijuana users can now feel even better about the widely abolished pain relief ingredient found in the plant. The relationship between marijuana and cancer has always been up for debate, but with the use of a specially crafted oil made from the buds of the Cannabis Sativa plant, scientists confirmed that the plant’s primary psychoactive chemical tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) destroys any and all malignant cancer cell growths in several patients. Details on the marijuana and cancer prevention connection aren’t exactly known, but further, more extensive testing will reveal exactly what may be causing this seemingly miracle cure.

Shedding Some Light on the Marijuana and Cancer Relationship
Back in 2006, the study was developed by a team of medical researchers at the Virginia Commonwealth University’s Pharmacology and Toxicology department on leukemia patients. The researchers essentially outlined that if taken daily for an extended period of time, cannabis oil actually reverses the growth of cancer and possibly leads to remission in the patient – with zero added side effects. Typically when a leukemia patient enters a hospital for admission and treatment, they are given a very extensive chemotherapy treatment, usually paired with a radiological treatment. Instead of considering any possible treatment involving marijuana and cancer, doctors use these not only ineffective, but also dangerous treatments. Cannabis, on the other hand, as shown in the study, has virtually no side effects. It is especially safe and effective when administered in a clean, medically sound environment and in the form of oil.

Other studies have been made over the past decades much like this one: Manuel Guzman located in Madrid, Spain discovered that cannabinoids substantially inhibit the growth of tumors in a variety of lab animals. In the study he also found that not one of these tested animals endured any kind of side effects seen in many similar chemotherapy treatments. It is becoming increasingly clear that you can sidestep any of the misery associated with traditional cancer treatments and embrace the potent, effective healing powers of THC – not to forget about the positive attributes surrounding cannabis’ other primary cannabinoid, cannabidiol (CBD).

If the results don’t appeal to you, then maybe the 2,500 total studied patients throughout these 37 controlled studies will blow the lid on the myth that cannabis is and can only be used as a “dangerous” drug. None of the patients reported any kind of adverse side effects from the use of THC and based medication – further adding to the benefits of medical marijuana and strengthening the positive connection between marijuana and cancer.

The real irony in the situation here? The combined governments of the world are the primary authority behind more than 30 studies like these completed throughout the years – and kept them secret from the general public. It wouldn’t be very conducive for our government if word got out that a schedule 1 narcotic could actually help people.




Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/marijuana-and-cancer-relationship-destroy-cancer-cells/#ixzz1ttkUkkaL

 

[Cappy]

"a study"

"the study"

I wonder if there is a reason "the study" in 2006 isn't named and linked to at NS?

[edit] After some Google time, I found some more technical information about "the study" but still no name. Wierd, right? Or am I just high? Anyway, if someone can loosely translate without me using the dictionary, lol. GLWT.

Mol Cancer Res. 2006 Aug;4(8):549-62.
Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia T cells is regulated by translocation of Bad to mitochondria.

Jia W, Hegde VL, Singh NP, Sisco D, Grant S, Nagarkatti M, Nagarkatti PS.
Source

Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical College of Virginia Campus, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA.

Abstract

Plant-derived cannabinoids, including Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), induce apoptosis in leukemic cells, although the precise mechanism remains unclear. In the current study, we investigated the effect of THC on the upstream and downstream events that modulate the extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) module of mitogen-activated protein kinase pathways primarily in human Jurkat leukemia T cells. The data showed that THC down-regulated Raf-1/mitogen-activated protein kinase/ERK kinase (MEK)/ERK/RSK pathway leading to translocation of Bad to mitochondria. THC also decreased the phosphorylation of Akt. However, no significant association of Bad translocation with phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt and protein kinase A signaling pathways was noted when treated cells were examined in relation to phosphorylation status of Bad by Western blot and localization of Bad to mitochondria by confocal analysis. Furthermore, THC treatment decreased the Bad phosphorylation at Ser(112) but failed to alter the level of phospho-Bad on site Ser(136) that has been reported to be associated with phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Akt signal pathway. Jurkat cells expressing a constitutively active MEK construct were found to be resistant to THC-mediated apoptosis and failed to exhibit decreased phospho-Bad on Ser(112) as well as Bad translocation to mitochondria. Finally, use of Bad small interfering RNA reduced the expression of Bad in Jurkat cells leading to increased resistance to THC-mediated apoptosis. Together, these data suggested that Raf-1/MEK/ERK/RSK-mediated Bad translocation played a critical role in THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat cells.

Note this is an NIH.GOV website

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16908594

 

[zymos]

It says that for one certain line of leukemia cells, THC interrupted a certain metabolic pathway that the cells need to grow. More or less...

 

[Cappy]

Well, that doesn't exactly sound like "Marijuana Kills Cancer Cells", but we'll take what we can get, right?

 

[zymos]

Ironically, leukemia is one type of cancer that often responds very well to traditional chemotherapy.


If the abstract you posted above is what that site is referring to, then they are really taking it out of context- it was done in vitro on 1 particular cell line.

I think they could have found some more compelling research...

 

[Hydrosun]

Well, that doesn't exactly sound like "Marijuana Kills Cancer Cells", but we'll take what we can get, right?

Are you trying to tell this community to hold back judgement and wait for more studies?

Or are you just nit picking and saying that something that prevents growth isn't the same as killing a cancer cell?

My thought is if a ANYTHING in this universe isn't growing it is DYING, what is wrong with making sure cancer cells can't grow inside a human victim?

 

[Cappy]

Are you trying to tell this community to hold back judgement and wait for more studies?

Or are you just nit picking and saying that something that prevents growth isn't the same as killing a cancer cell?

My thought is if a ANYTHING in this universe isn't growing it is DYING, what is wrong with making sure cancer cells can't grow inside a human victim?

Are you trying to put words in my mouth so you can set up a boogey man to bash?

YES!! I am "nit picking" and saying that something that prevents growth isn't the same as killing a cancer cell.

Are you too stoned to see the difference? Making shit up as we go along is the game of those who oppress us. We should be better than that. Especially considering that we are already in the right without the false impressions.

 

[zymos]

My thought is if a ANYTHING in this universe isn't growing it is DYING, what is wrong with making sure cancer cells can't grow inside a human victim?

That study wasn't done with "human victims", it was done on cancer cells in a petri dish.

Research is great-more should be done. But the fact is, often studies done on other living animals don't translate to humans, much less in vitro studies -> humans.

Cappy- many of the most promising cancer treatments DO prevent cancer cells from growing rather than directly killing them, as that is generally less harmful to the person than chemo/radiation.

 

[ellinho]

just wanna point something out. if a cell is not growing it is far from dying. there are physiological states in the human body where sth is prevented from growing just to live afterwards. for example women are born with about 400k follicals in their ovary which are not growing... every month 5-15 of them grow to get fertilized. some will stay in this state for tens of years even till the menopause and will never grow.

so from a medical point of view. the not-growing of cells is not equal to dying!

 

[Hydrosun]

Are you trying to put words in my mouth so you can set up a boogey man to bash?

YES!! I am "nit picking" and saying that something that prevents growth isn't the same as killing a cancer cell.

Are you too stoned to see the difference? Making shit up as we go along is the game of those who oppress us. We should be better than that. Especially considering that we are already in the right without the false impressions.

Not stoned enough need to go refill the bowl.

Not trying to make up anything, but my understating of malignant cancer (total novice non cancer victim here), is that malignant cancer GROWS at a tremendous rate and SPREADS its growth through out the body, there by killing the host.

So to me it seems if a malignant cancer can't grow, then it can't spread and kill the human host.

I don't think it is a false impression to say cannabis kills cancer cells, there are many skin cancer survivors that killed one of the deadliest cancers (basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma) with the topical application of cannabis oils.

You are correct we don't need to spread false positive impressions, but we also don't need to be pessimistic in the face of great news.

"tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) destroys any and all malignant cancer cell growths in several patients." this quote make the reader think that cannabis does KILL cancer cells (the tumor in this case is called "cancer cell growth", but it does say destroys any and all).

That study wasn't done with "human victims", it was done on cancer cells in a petri dish.

Research is great-more should be done. But the fact is, often studies done on other living animals don't translate to humans, much less in vitro studies -> humans.

Cappy- many of the most promising cancer treatments DO prevent cancer cells from growing rather than directly killing them, as that is generally less harmful to the person than chemo/radiation.

"Back in 2006, the study was developed by a team of medical researchers at the Virginia Commonwealth University’s Pharmacology and Toxicology department on leukemia patients. The researchers essentially outlined that if taken daily for an extended period of time, cannabis oil actually reverses the growth of cancer and possibly leads to remission in the patient – with zero added side effects."

This language makes me think VCU provided cannabis to patients not petri dishes.

How can one know of side effects if the study was done in a dish and not on a patient?

just wanna point something out. if a cell is not growing it is far from dying. there are physiological states in the human body where sth is prevented from growing just to live afterwards. for example women are born with about 400k follicals in their ovary which are not growing... every month 5-15 of them grow to get fertilized. some will stay in this state for tens of years even till the menopause and will never grow.

so from a medical point of view. the not-growing of cells is not equal to dying!

I hear you, but comparing malignant cancer cells to reproductive cells isn't really a fair comparision is it? In their natural state malignant cancers cells need to spread and invade, else they aren't considered malignant rather they are classified as benign. Again not a scientist this is just my lay understanding of malignant v. benign

Ok off to the bowl now. Didn't mean to hype this news or piss any of you guys off.

 

[ellinho]

you revered to the universe... and in the universe your statement was not true ...
but the comparison lacks ^^ as for cancer cells (malignant) a not growing is def considered a benefit. not only your understanding is absolutely spot on, the definition of malignant is "invasive" and "metastatic" (spreading). so you could be on your way to become a scientist dude

just debate man ... no piss nowhere over here

 

[zymos]

^ as said, see difference between metastatic and malignant.

The reason I know that study was not done on living humans?
Because Cappy took the time to search it out and post it, and then I read it. The original article mischaracterizes the study, or else is referring to something else, but since they didn't supply any references, who knows?

I don't think it is pessimistic to be wary of sensationalized poorly reported articles...

 

[Hydrosun]

I'll be honest. I did not go to the GOV website and read the whole study, and I have read Cappy's quote of the Abstract three times and I have no fucking clue what it says. Reading that abstract makes me feel lost in a foreign language. I couldn't tell person from petri dish if that abstract was my Rosetta Stone.

 

[zymos]

"in human Jurkat leukemia T cells." was the clue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurkat_cells

Don't feel bad, that abstract is pretty damn esoteric....

 

[Infinitesimal]

I know some have already seen this but even then its always worth another look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Md2WNqqxTQ

they really do a good job of explaining the modes of action laid out in the article posted in this thread, from 12:28 to 22:48

the fact that a quantity of cannabis smoke contains 50% more of the carcinogen benzo(A)pyrene than the same quantity of cigarette smoke, yet your chances of incurring lung cancer are actually reduced when smoking cannabis, as compared to an elevated risk among cigarette or even non-smokers (the explanation of the study starts at 12:28 into the documentary), to me is proof that cannabis can prevent and possibly stop certain types of cancer.

they go on to explain some of the things described in this article, how cannabinoids are anti-mytogenic, pro-apoptotic ect. ect. and goes on to define what those terms actually mean starting 17:05

 

[ellinho]

WATCH IT! FUTURE OF MANKIND!

 

[Skip]

As far as whether cannabis kills the cancer cells, here is what I learned...

Cancerous cells, like any cells in your body need nutes to survive.

You guys can relate to nutes, right?

Well what happens when you hold back the nutes from your plants?

Do they continue to live? Yes! Does it eventually die? Depends on which nutrients you hold back and for how long.

How about water? What happens to your plants when you hold back water or CO2?

Yes, they die.

Well what happens is the introduced cannabinoids OVERLOAD the the communication system between cancer cells and your nutrient system (blood supply). Cancer cells' demands for nutrients therefore go UNANSWERED by your body. And over time, if the cannabinoids are sufficient and they are applied often enough it should kill the cancer.

If you want to kill something by cutting off its oxygen or CO2, you can't let go every 30 seconds as that just stops the nutes temporarily.

So to kill the cancers you can't do a treatment every now and then, it must be consistent and regular so that there is no time for the cancers to recover.

When you completely block the nutes from the cancers what happens is the cancers FEED ON THEMSELVES. They have to find nutes and they end up cannabalizing themselves, and actually disappear (although they can leave marks).

This is what the latest studies I read show happening... I've watched carcinomas disappear when treated regularly.

So cannabis not only fights cancers by turning off nutes, it also provides a window into how our body works, enabling scientists to study other ways to fight diseases.

 

[Infinitesimal]

As far as whether cannabis kills the cancer cells, here is what I learned...

Cancerous cells, like any cells in your body need nutes to survive.

You guys can relate to nutes, right?

Well what happens when you hold back the nutes from your plants?

Do they continue to live? Yes! Does it eventually die? Depends on which nutrients you hold back and for how long.

How about water? What happens to your plants when you hold back water or CO2?

Yes, they die.

Well what happens is the introduced cannabinoids OVERLOAD the the communication system between cancer cells and your nutrient system (blood supply). Cancer cells' demands for nutrients therefore go UNANSWERED by your body. And over time, if the cannabinoids are sufficient and they are applied often enough it should kill the cancer.

If you want to kill something by cutting off its oxygen or CO2, you can't let go every 30 seconds as that just stops the nutes temporarily.

So to kill the cancers you can't do a treatment every now and then, it must be consistent and regular so that there is no time for the cancers to recover.

When you completely block the nutes from the cancers what happens is the cancers FEED ON THEMSELVES. They have to find nutes and they end up cannabalizing themselves, and actually disappear (although they can leave marks).

This is what the latest studies I read show happening... I've watched carcinomas disappear when treated regularly.

So cannabis not only fights cancers by turning off nutes, it also provides a window into how our body works, enabling scientists to study other ways to fight diseases.

this is a great explanation of the Anti-angiogenic properties of cannabinoids. Ie. it cuts off the tumors blood supply

thanks Skip,

Now combine that with Anti-mytogenic, a reduction in cell devision or mitosis, so the tumor slows or stops growth completely independent of other effects of the cannabinoids.

And then the Pro-apototic action is a biological defense against effects similar to the generational loss observed when making a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy et cetera et cetera (since every cell in your body started as a single diploid combination of your parents haploid sperm and egg cells, subsequently copied and copied and copied while the original diploid cells are long gone in the mature organism).

so an increase of apotosis means that the somatic cells will die a non necrotic (meaning not of old age or deficiencies) death before the generational loss accumulates into a mutation that could possibly cause cancer or some other diseases.... if that makes sense?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7572/
2.2Development

Go to:
The development of any animal from a single fertilized egg cell is vastly complicated, but the early stages are common to all animals (Box 2.2), and at the molecular level development is controlled by a limited repertoire of developmental programs. All development depends on the basic processes of cell division, differentiation, morphogenesis and programed cell death (apoptosis). Differentiation is driven by gene switching: the difference between one cell type and another is primarily in the range of genes that are active in each cell. Morphogenesis, too, is ultimately driven by gene switching, as particular cells develop the capacity to respond to signals from neighboring cells by moving, dividing or dying. Apotosis is an integral part of development: cells do not just happen to die, they have an inbuilt death program that is triggered in response to external or internal signals. All these developmental programs depend on cascades of signals and responses that have been remarkably highly conserved throughout the animal kingdom. Unraveling these programs is a major part of biological research. Probably the best introduction to how this is done, and why the results matter, is the book by Lawrence (Further reading).


Box 2.2

A brief outline of animal development. This very brief summary concentrates on origins and cell lineages. We see that the earliest stages of human development are largely concerned with forming extraembryonic structures, and that the cells and tissues (more...)
2.2.1Only a small percentage of the cells in the early embryo give rise to the mature organism


hope that helps some,

peace
Infi

 

[Infinitesimal]

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

That study wasn't done with "human victims", it was done on cancer cells in a petri dish.

Research is great-more should be done. But the fact is, often studies done on other living animals don't translate to humans, much less in vitro studies -> humans.

Cappy- many of the most promising cancer treatments DO prevent cancer cells from growing rather than directly killing them, as that is generally less harmful to the person than chemo/radiation.

well I know of two people who had it make colon tumors disappear. Also it cured people's skin cell carcinoma. also it kept me from getting second degree burn scars.