http://www.sciencedaily....2010/11/101124214728.htm

Very disheartening to hear, as I am an occasional partaker of the Good Herb. This to me only drives the point home that we need to have more research on Cannabis.

Thoughts/comments?



- Electric

Sounds like a catchy title jumping to conlusions to me. Where is the evidence that cannabis use can increase anyones chance of cancer? I dont see any evidence. All I see is one action of cannabis that they isolated and seem to suggest the way that works on it's own is how it works in the full spectrum of plant effects. I dunno, I dont buy it really. Maybe it does, maybe it does not..maybe it is offset by other effects of the plant.

"Cannabis is one of the most widely used drugs of abuse worldwide"

Really? Guess that depends on how you define "abuse". It's definatly one of the most used plants worldwide.

Everything I've heard seems to point in the other direction.

Rick Simpson's Phoenix Tears / Hemp Oil is supposed to be able to cure just about any kind of cancer from what I understand.

Sounds like propaganda to me.

http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=497

http://www.cannabiscultu...Hemp-Oil-Cancer-Cure-All

http://www.squidoo.com/rick-simpson-hemp-oil

As it often happens with biomedical research, it is not that difficult for someone to draw lines among dots and connect seemingly unconnected areas. Like doing research on urethral dilation and claiming that your findings are also relevant to lung cancer.

to the op: the original article (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eji.201040667/pdf) contains solid, believable research and it does not much play on the marijuana-causes-cancer game. The latter is what the press usually does.

If you put things into perspective, you will realise that even bread has potentially cancer-inducing chemicals.

I would expect that it would, but that it would have the opposite effect on other certain cancers as well. I would only expect it to promote some forms because of the smoke though, not the cannabinoids. I would expect that many of the compounds in it, not just cannabinoids, would have anti cancer effects,.

However the research only shows a correlation between it and MDSCs, which it promotes, and they can suppress the immune system. This indicates only that cannabis might have a cancer promoting effect in specific cases, but does not show any correlation between cannabis use and cancer rates. So it needs follow up, but to my knowledge no study has yet found higher cancer rates with cannabis users.

Typical scaremongering as per usual.

If we all listened to these 'government funded' medical research projects then we would eat nothing but brown rice and be in bed by 7 O'clock.

The truth is, everything in excess is going to have negative consequences at some point.

I see no scare mongering here. Also, refrain from ad hominems, governmental funding does not mean bad science. If you have some objection with the experiments and the conclusions please state them - this is how discourse is done.

I agree that everything in excess is going to have negative consequences at some point, but how is such generalisations ever relevant? Do you accept the research finding of the researchers or not? Don't you think that the more you know about the physiology of a substance is good? Do you think we ought to know as much as possible to evaluate pros and cons of our decisions?

I see your point.

I hear so many cancer scares in the media that I practically get rather bored.

If THC is so bad then a small number of MS sufferers are going to have a hard time. My heart goes out to them.

My mother has recently retired from being a nurse and has spoken to loads of people who she treated. A migrant DR from Saudi Arabia was talking to my mom a few years back at work and he said "In the east, Cancer is almost unheard of, but TB is prolific" he also put it down to the different cultural diets could play a part (his theory).

Some doctors think cancer is genetic, others think it's down to foods or substances. At this point in time, no-body really knows, if they did, it'll be easier to identify. A lot of conclusion jumping is my main grudge on subject like these.

I'm always going to be in favor of research but media and politics get too involved.

Sorry for being so brash. Though day at work

^
No need to stray so much away from the topic. Regardless on how fed up you are with some things, or how anecdotes have influenced your opinion, do you agree with the findings and the interpretations of the research?

I once had this tooth infection that was more painful and far worse when I used cannabis. It might have been that the weed made me more sensitive to the pain, but it could have been suppressing a specific immune response and have caused the same effect. I don't know but I know that at different times when sick, amd with different sickness or illness that I have both felt better and worse for having used it. So the study findings might relate to my experience in this regard.

As someone who has used cannabis frequently though I tend to get sick less than most people I know who do not use it. So the correlation between it and immune suppressing compounds does not mean, to me at least, that cannabis suppresses immune response. Then again I take fairly good care of myself too in terms of exercise and nutrition, so being a healthy cannabis user likewise doesn't mean anything conclusive for me.

Clearly the evidence supporting the benefits of cannabis use is abundant and often unquestionable.

Added: I want to mention that cancer is a word that covers a broad range of loosely related illness and gives the illusion that cancer is one thing when it is many. Because there are so many kinds and causes of cancer, there cannot be a cure for all of them that is the same thing. Many compounds, plants and chemicals are known to shrink or kill specific types of cancerous rumors and not others. I fear the word cancer is overly simple and this adds to the sensationalism.

The study strikes me as good and not condemning of cannabis or even claiming that it does promote certain types of cancer, just as indicating that it may, and that it needs follow up research.

Yes, exactly - the study itself reads very honest, well researched and convincing. For those who did not bother reading it, it does NOT say anywhere that THC, the molecule used in this study can cause or correlates with cancer. It says that a certain THC-induced immunosupression might give you problems in fighting the stuff your the immune system normally fights (that includes infections and cancer).

Not really! The article is not solid fact and is in early days.

For me this seems valid.

Does not mean it causes or promotes cancer, just means that the Dr. demonstrated a correlation between the MDSCs and cannabis. However this study was likely based on correlations that warranted investigation. It does not seem like it is anti-weed at all to me.

A good friend, when asked by his father if he was "still abusing that Marijuana" replied, "Dad, that's not abuse. That's how it's supposed to be used."

The science daily article is crap indeed. But read their actual research article, then come and share with us your (if any) criticisms.

http://onlinelibrary.wil...0.1002/eji.201040667/pdf

What would you not agree with in their primary paper?

From the article: We have noted that unlike the i.p. administration of THC, i.v. injection does not result in robust induction of MDSC in spleen, lungs and peritoneum although a significant induction in the liver was seen (data not shown).

That raises an eyebrow for me.


The other issue with the study I have is that it used THC, thus the claim that cannabis does this is questionable insofar as that they demonstrated THC did this, not cannabis. Jamie brought this up previously and I agree.

Thank you for posting the PDF.

Tried to read it, couldn't understand it.

Could you explain what conclusion you can make of this? Assuming the media article has got the wrong end of the stick.

cheers

Check these posts for the conclusions of the study:

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...&m=414159#post414159

and

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...&m=414166#post414166

Obviously, it is of no use criticizing a study if you, yourself, cannot comprehend said study. And relying on mainstream media's opinion for your criticism is almost always going to be wrong and unfair.