Here´s an interesting article going over some of the claims regarding marijuana curing cancer from a person who is in favor of legalization of marijuana but wants to dispell myths and misinformation surrounding the theme:

http://www.sciencebasedm...s-does-not-cure-cancer/

Personally I think the choice of wording for the title is not the best, I`d have change it to `may` because the author didn`t prove beyond shadow of doubt that cannabis will never cure any cancer, but rather by reviewing evidence he seemed to indicate that in many cases it indeed may not. Worded in such way the burden of proof is on him. In any case interesting article.

Any opinions on this?

Well this is what the National Cancer Institute say's about it:



http://www.cancer.gov/ca...ealthprofessional/page4


I do think it is absurd to think that it's a cure all for cancer... I mean cancer is such a varied disease that there isn't likely to ever be a magic bullet. But yes I do believe that juicing raw cannabis would allow a person to get plasma levels of cannabinoids high enough to offer some benefit in some types of cancers..

But a cure all... No. not a chance.

That's weird because I haven't run into anyone claiming it's a 'cure-all'.

I see articles all the time about new and very specific ways that cannabis fights or cures certain conditions or types of cancer.

There are multiple different alkaloids in cannabis which are used in different ways.

Plants and humans evolved on the same earth, together, and they are part of us. It's common sense that plants can return our bodies to restorative, healthy states.

Cure is too strong a word, there seems to be loads of information about cannabinoids treating cancer. Cure implies no more treatments would ever be needed; here's why I don't believe a substance will ever cure cancer: genetic changes occur in people with cancer, so even if they somehow rid themselves of all cancer cells, eventually they will probably get more because a substance wouldn't change their genetics back to normal.

Also there are way more than the 20 studies looked at by the author:
This downloadable archive currently contains 145 files under the folder Cancer, Apoptosis, Anti-tumor.
I'd like to see a comprehensive review of all the evidence before I believe whether or not cannabinoids as treatment are "at best, modest".

Several things the author wrote I do agree with, but some things might mislead someone who isn't paying careful attention:
While it may be so that:
There is evidence that treatments like chemotherapy & radiation increase the patient's probability of acquiring other types of cancer in the future: Childhood cancer survivors face future risks due to radiation.

A quick search shows some sources that claim similar things:
American Cancer Society: Second Cancers Caused by Cancer Treatment.
Could chemo drugs cause a second malignancy?
Cancer Caused by Chemotherapy or Radiation claims it's rare, but happens.

I also remember reading somewhere that chemotherapy can later cause gliomas (brain cancer) after a patient is successfully treated for non-brain cancers. Unfortunately I don't recall where, and searching for it isn't easy.

I would like someone to get to the bottom of just how effective cannabinoids can be against cancer.

I actually e-mailed Chris Hayes yesterday asking him to interview the experts on this exact topic like Manuel Guzman & Cristina Sanchez.

Without even reading this article, let me say, yeah, it probably does NOT cure cancer. But, having witnessed my man go through an aggressive cancer treatment that did not even involve chemo, and what it did to him . . . . well his Oncologist was with me on this one . . . Sir, I recommend you vape as much as you possibly can and binge eat as much as possible for as long as you can.


Just so.


What if he had not?


I mean when he came out of his 33 days of treatment and big stay in the hospital he was looking like something between a released concentration camp victim and the crazy statues showing the folks starving in the end days of Rapa Nui.


And this was WITH weed.


imo, even if weed is zero efficacious in direct cancer treatment, I KNOW it helps people to surive the treatment that kills the cancer.

I agree that the word cure in itself is misleading and actually has a lot to do with profitizing.

However, I do think that cannabis in its many forms can help alleviate countless symptoms and also has some preventative function in various roles in terms of cancer. It should never be about finding a cure so to speak.. it is about preventing cancer through means of what is available to us. And I think many are waking up to that idea. Considering cannabis's overall modulating effects via the endocannabinoid system, it certainly has many profound characteristics. Science and medicine agrees and I'm all for it. Since it hasn't been 'proven' or 'accepted' to actually 'remove' cancer so to speak, all articles should be using different, or rather 'correct' wordings.

I'm in hopes that my brother(who is currently studying cannabidiol for AD) will discover further findings in its varying roles and effects on amyloid plaque build-up. The studies and experiments are there, it just needs further acceptance specifically for prevention..or possibly even removing cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25115386

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/abs/6603236a.html

Sure, cure is too strong a word, but that's only because we mislabel cancer. It should be known as more than a disease; everyone's body experiences cancer on small scales every day. Which is to say that our immune systems seek out and destroy cells that are abnormal and are not dying as they're supposed to.

We get cancer because of some imbalance in the body which hinders the immune systems ability to do this, or allows conditions optimal for abnormal cells.

That being said - specific cannabis treatments have been shown many times to reduce and outright kill certain tumors, some in amazingly short periods of time.

So if your cancer is say, for example, brain cancer, which presents itself with tumors, and your cannabis treatment eliminates the tumors and gets rid of symptoms, then for all intents and purposes, cannabis cured your cancer -- and this does happen.

If you read the article, the author actually briefly acknowledges the potential that cannabis possesses for treating the horrible symptoms of cancer and side effects of cancer treatments, just not for actually treating the cancer itself.

Would it be correct to say Marijuana is a possible treatment for certain kinds of cancer, rather than saying 'cure'?

Yes. Cannabis has that potential. It can therefore be only a figure of speech to say, and for everything else that has 'potential' as well. Cannabis certainly is much safer than chemo.

This thread is silly, everyone arguing the semantics of it. We get so science headed here sometimes. You can't say that! It has be worded this way, there has be a publication somewhere to make it true.

Meanwhile we have the thousands of testimonials from people who have cured their cancer with cannabis. Ah but what do those matter, that's not hard evidence.

I'm all for scientific inquiry and I'm super excited about all the research, but sometimes you don't need a doctor in a labcoat to validate what is in front of your face.

Yeah, I don't want cannabis to be mired down with the woo, but also there does seem to be evidence of it helping with certain types of cancer.

Two examples I have, a friend of mine was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer about seven years ago, the oncologist recommended palliative care only, no chemo as it would probably only shorten his life. He got a prescription for cannabis from an osteopath and started Rick Simpson Oil treatment. He's alive now, and his brain tumor is in remission.

My Boyfriend of over a decade was diagnosed with lung cancer. We tried Rick Simpson Oil, and vaporized cannabis, (Well, vaped instead of smoked, he wasn't exactly new to weed)
He passed away before he was able to be scheduled to speak to an oncologist about the possibility of chemo.

I'd say the cannabis was a benefit in it reduced his level of pain. It certainly isn't a magic-bullet. The credible research I've read mostly seemed to conclude that benefits of cannabis as complimentary medicine are quite possible and more research is sorely needed.

I am confident that cannabis HAS cured some people of cancer. If it cures even one in 15 people, it is still a cure for that one person and worth paying attention to.

The article is not perfect and the author does make some hasty generalizations himself, but also raises interesting questions and gives another complementary perspective which balances some of the exagerations and misrepresentations of positive cannabis studies in popular culture. As with everything now we try to distill from it and create something higher



Thanks for your perspective joe! Why do you suppose raw juicing is better than consumption of decarboxylated cannabinoids?

I wonder how much those animal studies can tell us something about humans..



Is there already any coherent protocol in terms of how to use different alkaloids in different ways? Do you mean terpenes and cannabinoids (which are not alkaloids)? In any case would you mind posting a link?

Regarding plants and humans having evolved together, so did insects and virus, that doesn`t mean they are all good. There are plants that have poisons, plants that have medicine, plants that have both together, and it all depends also on the condition, genetics, etc. It`s important to refine the vision and understand the subtleties and details.

For example, the image you posted, there are a lot of words but what do they mean? When they say antiinflammatory, to what extent, in what dosage, with what other side or co-effects? etc.. These are the things that seem to be missed but actually make a whole world of difference.

The same when people talk about some plant has MAOI effect and quoting some abstract without mentioning the IC50 values, which is necessary to know if you need a milligram or 10 tons of the substance to be able to activate DMT




See, here is exactly where the problem lies. Unless you have a controlled assessment of thousands of cases, how do you know the phenomenon you are seeing is not spontaneous remission, which has been established as a fact to happen in different cancer cases whether it`s using cannabis or something else (or nothing) as a treatment? Or how do you know it was not about a specific dose which helps only for a specific type of cancer in a person with a specific kind of genetics? Or how do you know how many cases of people there are who did try but didnt work and they died (they obviously don`t come back to tell the tale), or in other words, leading to confirmation bias?

The testimonials may be a mix of true cures, spontaneous remission, fake reporting, etc..If one shuns any scientific inquiry into the whole question, you open up the possibility to a lot of misunderstandings, misinterpretation, quackery and malpractice.

Just as an example, let´s say cannabis would indeed serve in a particular dose to 4 different types of cancer, but not at all to others. If you just take your testimonials at face value, without analysing statistically or from a broader perspective, maybe you start recommending only cannabis as a treatment for people with another type of cancer which might respond much better to another treatment. This could mislead that person into ignoring other treatments and going only for cannabis, possibly causing his/her death. Or maybe the dose response curve is so sharp that only at a very specific dose which we don`t know yet it works, but at other doses it may even make it worse? Who knows, until it is specifically tested? Can you see the reasoning?

We don`t have to take two polarizing camps of `it works` or `it doesn`t work`, things can be so much more complex than that.

I got no vested interest in any conclusion, and neither does science, so people shouldn`t feel offended once something like this is questioned and put on the table for others to reassess. It´s an opportunity to learn and advance.






Thanks for your story pand. I can totally see how cannabis helps a lot of people in different ways, and I`m glad for nemo`s recovery!

The concluding two paragraphs read:



Afaik, there's no evidence that "the only way forward" is by isolating compounds. That may give some useful information, but not the full picture...at least I don't think so.

Additionally, he appears to conflate "not curing cancer" (his words) with "hugely exaggerated claims of medicinal benefit" (his words) as though cannabis is only reported to have medicinal application for cancer patients. It seems beyond premature for him to make statements about other "claims of medicinal benefit."

It seems that we need more nuance from both sides.

I suspect you probably can't get a high enough concentration of cannabinoids into your blood stream from vaping. I read something about this a while back. Not sure what/where it was, but it made sense to me at the time.. When you juice the whole plant you get a lot stronger dose... and time and again whole plants have proven (to me) to potentially be better medicines by providing better nutrient bioavailability. Also it is possible to do high quality extracts under some heat to get a decarboxylated product as an oil which could then also be eaten. OF course then you would be extremely stoned....which if I was dying of cancer would probably be a GOOD thing. lol


I would honestly say quite a good bit. I mean we use those animals to study pretty much all other drugs...
But it's not just mouse models. There are also invitro studies on breast cancer cells lines



that combined with the self reports of quite a lot of people these day's pushes me towards believing there is something to it.




I think I agree with Jamie here. I have just read entirely to many self reports of people getting relief from cannabis. Though I certainly believe it's WAY over played. You know I actually worked on oncology targets for a number of years and one thing is for certain: Cancer is a very unique disease.. and it's hard for me to really talk about it as one thing.



This line of thinking was drilled into us in grad school and then obviously in industry doing drug discovery. It stems from the fact that to get a drug through clinical trials you really need to show a single mechanism of action. I personally no longer agree with this line of thinking... at least not across the board. My curiosity and interest these day's lies in using plants and plant extracts as medicines. There is a synergistic effect that goes on that we can't replicate from single drugs. Plus the bioavailability of nutrients is radically different from plants.. for instance vitamin C from plant source is a good bit more bioavailable than crystalized vitamin C.. as a chemist this makes plenty of sense to me. Often times we you get a pure crystalized product it can actually be quite hard to get back into solution.

So I actually believe that some of the best medicines are yet to be discovered because we have companies that aren't really interested in the plant sources because they can't patent them. They would rather isolate a compounds from nature, then modify it so they can get a patent.. No larger conspiracy theory needed. It's all about profit and if they can't profit on it they aren't interested.

Snozz, def good points there.

Joedirt, regarding cannabinoid acids or decarboxylated cannabinois, what I wonder is what are the peculiarities in terms of potential pharmacological uses. It`s quite possible they will have unique effects for different conditions, and I wonder how that relates to this case we`re discussing, cancer.

I do think it is quite possible that plants may have different compounds that act in synergy and provide more pharmacological benefits than purified extracts. I personally have had more misfires with pharma than with ayahuasca, which I guess goes in that direction too. Maybe in other cases though, purified or synthesized compounds may be more desirable.

Indeed not being able to patent the plant itself, means the profit isn`t there for pharmaceutical companies. Also the variability of phytochemistry raises questions regarding how standardized a treatment can be, which can be used as an argument against it. Then there is less money going for research that talks about full plant medicinal use, and less published papers. But if the truth is that whole plant is better than purified or synthetic compounds, it can eventually be shown through science (for some reason I seem to remember there were some publications that showed so but need to search for it to confirm).

Yeah man I still haven't had a solid pharma experience.. To be honest I'm scarred of it. I have taken 20mgs DMT and seen visuals for 10 minutes (then baseline other than the harmala feeling) and then I have take 50mg and had almost nothing.. I'm terrified to dose larger than that... But a brew of aya works every time.

And I fully agree about standardizing doses being a limitation. Also every human has a unique biochemistry and the more compounds you have in a medicine (like a plant) the more likely it is that it will cause negative interactions in some people. ... and of course all of this can, and currently is, being shown with science. I think one way around some of this is to start with whole plant medicines and then look for the toxic elements and see if we can come up with solid enough separation techniques to leave the bulk of the plant/medicine alone and just remove the parts that are causing problems in some people...

Allow me to clarify a bit.

As stated cancer is such a varied disease obviously cannabis isn't going to cure all cancer all the time. I don't think anyone is making that claim except perhaps the author here setting it up as a straw man. I also understand the value of well performed scientific inquiry.

In the case of cannabis not only do we have a decent number of studies showing it to be a very effective treatment and preventative medicine, we have that combined with the thousands of testimonials, maybe every one is spontaneous remission or placebo effect or whatever other excuse we want yo use to invalidate it. In the end people are getting better lot's of them, if it's all wishful thinking, it's damn effective wishful thinking. You can only see so many hundreds of people showing before and after photos of their tumors being reduced or outliving their doctors prognosis before you start to realize maybe there is something to this. We also see thast cannabis improves quality of life in many ways for cancer patients.

While we argue the semantics of the word cure vs may be a possible treatment for, many people are suffering and dying. In a case such as this it kinda does come down to it works or it doesn't. If something works really works and cures even 1 in 1000 and is as benign and helpful for other symptoms as is cannabis people should have that option available while we try to figure out just why or how it works. It's great when the research can verify what people are telling us, such as with tumors. Hoever waiting for academia to give the final judgement before we allow patients who are suffering to access it, particularly when something is demonstratably so safe and effective is criminal.

I dunno, this article is rediculous. That was my impression when I began to read it. They resort to the same sort of bs many other hard core skeptics do..calling people like rick simpson quacks etc without looking into the issue any deeper than what the national cancer institute says. Should we all just outright trust the national cancer institute?

It is saddening to me that in 2014 we still have to debate weather or not cannabis is helpful in cancer treatment. The evidence is there.