Cannabis Does Not Cure Cancer

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

I agree on all points.  Except I'd like to add that big pharma has the money to do the necessary research in other marijuana friendly countries.  It doesn't have to be done here.

Then you would have to ask yourself what is the profit margin for them if they did so?  Then compare that against the profitability of current accepted chemically patented cancer treatments.   Wouldn't it be more in their interest to make a chemical compound than proving the effectiveness of a natural source whose supply is further suppressed due to prohibition?  I still expect this sort of research to come from a country which benefits more from maintaining a healthy population if there is such a place.   

Sometimes synthesizing and patenting a compound can be much more easily done in a laboratory than having to grow a plant on a farm and extract the desired compounds individually.  Also, synthesizing only individual compounds can be very useful in researching the properties of each individual compound.  Extracting a single protein or other chemical can be pretty tough, whereas synthesizing that chemical on a lab bench can be more easily done in certain cases.

[libertylover]

I agree on all points.  Except I'd like to add that big pharma has the money to do the necessary research in other marijuana friendly countries.  It doesn't have to be done here.

Then you would have to ask yourself what is the profit margin for them if they did so?  Then compare that against the profitability of current accepted chemically patented cancer treatments.   Wouldn't it be more in their interest to make a chemical compound than proving the effectiveness of a natural source whose supply is further suppressed due to prohibition?  I still expect this sort of research to come from a country which benefits more from maintaining a healthy population if there is such a place.   

Sometimes synthesizing and patenting a compound can be much more easily done in a laboratory than having to grow a plant on a farm and extract the desired compounds individually.  Also, synthesizing only individual compounds can be very useful in researching the properties of each individual compound.  Extracting a single protein or other chemical can be pretty tough, whereas synthesizing that chemical on a lab bench can be more easily done in certain cases.

True but you do lose the intricate nuances of interacting compounds which might actually be the key to solving the puzzle as to why an isolated compounds are either ineffective or harmful.   While its natural source counterpart with all its different interacting compounds are potentially more effective and less harmful.  Interactions can be so complex I think that even with our modern science we are still fairly in the dark as to how somethings work.   Not recognizing this point is similar to the arrogance which proclaimed the Titanic unsinkable.   We humans simply don't know the answer to life the universe and everything.  I suspect the answer is 42 but that is just a wild guess. 

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

I agree on all points.  Except I'd like to add that big pharma has the money to do the necessary research in other marijuana friendly countries.  It doesn't have to be done here.

Then you would have to ask yourself what is the profit margin for them if they did so?  Then compare that against the profitability of current accepted chemically patented cancer treatments.   Wouldn't it be more in their interest to make a chemical compound than proving the effectiveness of a natural source whose supply is further suppressed due to prohibition?  I still expect this sort of research to come from a country which benefits more from maintaining a healthy population if there is such a place.   

Sometimes synthesizing and patenting a compound can be much more easily done in a laboratory than having to grow a plant on a farm and extract the desired compounds individually.  Also, synthesizing only individual compounds can be very useful in researching the properties of each individual compound.  Extracting a single protein or other chemical can be pretty tough, whereas synthesizing that chemical on a lab bench can be more easily done in certain cases.

True but you do lose the intricate nuances of interacting compounds which might actually be the key to solving the puzzle as to why an isolated compounds are either ineffective or harmful.   While its natural source counterpart with all its different interacting compounds are potentially more effective and less harmful.  Interactions can be so complex I think that even with our modern science we are still fairly in the dark as to how somethings work.   Not recognizing this point is similar to the arrogance which proclaimed the Titanic unsinkable.   We humans simply don't know the answer to life the universe and everything.  I suspect the answer is 42 but that is just a wild guess. 

Yeah, but you never know until you try.  Plus I could see how it would make it much easier to blend different chemicals together with more control and customizeability.

I also wonder if perhaps it also allows them to skirt some legal issues that growing pot would cause.

[fatcat]

Yeah, but you never know until you try.  Plus I could see how it would make it much easier to blend different chemicals together with more control and customizeability.

I also wonder if perhaps it also allows them to skirt some legal issues that growing pot would cause.

It's been done for years and its terrible.


Also Sativex, which has killed diabetics because it uses alcohol as a means of ingestion

I know it seems similar to bullshit "alternative" therapies to believe that a herb can be more effective than an extracted chemical.

But the myriad different chemicals in cannabis are what make it so effective in treatment for cancer patients and such. THC alone is not very effective in this.

Cannabis extract makes brain tumors shrink, halts growth of blood vessels
Cannabis compounds fight prostate cancer

Of course cannabis alone is no substitute for radiotherapy and chemotherapy, but it is highly valuable medical treatment for side effects of said radiotherapy/chemotherapy exactly because it has myriad effects. Antiemetic properties, pain killing, increased appetite, as well as improved mood and negligible side effects all make it ideal for cancer patients.

the benefits of precise dosing that extraction would provide are pretty negligible for the medical uses cannabis compounds have. It doesn't react badly with any medicines that i know of, and overdose is a near impossibility.

No single chemical in cannabis can have all these effects, so it doesn't particularly make sense to extract them, particularly because there are little to no negative side effects. Also theres little evidence to show Cannabis causes cancer, and even less reason to smoke above vaporizing.

the fact there is evidence it can help to slow/prevent cancer is just a great bonus.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Oh I know about Marinol, I've tried it, and I agree with your assessment of it.

Marijuana is truly a great wonder drug for dealing with the negative side effects of chemotherapy and radiation, it's great at reducing pain and at stimulating the appetite.

That said, while it can be very useful in cancer treatments to cope with harsh treatments, it is not a cure for cancer itself.  

Thanks for being the only one to provide actual links to legitimate resources, however I still have yet to find any conclusive study from a reputable medical journal supporting the findings.  I'd like to find the article the Spanish doctors surely wrote to justify the news article about them.

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v101/n6/abs/6605248a.html
This article, which unfortunately is from Nature, seems to be the closest thing I've been able to find although I don't want to pay 32 bucks to buy the full article from Nature.  I'm sure I can find it free from elsewhere, and I'll look into it when I get back from my biochem lab tonight.

From the article fatcat linked:

Does this mean that smoking dope can protect against prostate cancer?

No. The findings do not imply that smoking cannabis can prevent or treat prostate cancer. Even aside from the harm to health that is associated with dope smoking, the cannabinoid compounds that this study tested are synthetic chemicals not found in cannabis plants, so no conclusions about the actual stuff can be drawn.

[IndyCA]

There is something to it.

http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v3/n10/abs/nrc1188.html
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/3/838
http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/318/3/1375
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T4P-43X1PC3-D&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1029308619&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=7f49cc171569e50454b187e723e607dd
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm040042o
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m58jx46251w0287g/


http://thesethgroup.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OqSRfzqwWA

As an aside, it also shows promise fighting MRSA.  As a hospital employee this is of great interest to me. http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/21366/

[fatcat]

Oh I know about Marinol, I've tried it, and I agree with your assessment of it.

Marijuana is truly a great wonder drug for dealing with the negative side effects of chemotherapy and radiation, it's great at reducing pain and at stimulating the appetite.

That said, while it can be very useful in cancer treatments to cope with harsh treatments, it is not a cure for cancer itself.  

Thanks for being the only one to provide actual links to legitimate resources, however I still have yet to find any conclusive study from a reputable medical journal supporting the findings.  I'd like to find the article the Spanish doctors surely wrote to justify the news article about them.

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v101/n6/abs/6605248a.html
This article, which unfortunately is from Nature, seems to be the closest thing I've been able to find although I don't want to pay 32 bucks to buy the full article from Nature.  I'm sure I can find it free from elsewhere, and I'll look into it when I get back from my biochem lab tonight.

From the article fatcat linked:

Does this mean that smoking dope can protect against prostate cancer?

No. The findings do not imply that smoking cannabis can prevent or treat prostate cancer. Even aside from the harm to health that is associated with dope smoking, the cannabinoid compounds that this study tested are synthetic chemicals not found in cannabis plants, so no conclusions about the actual stuff can be drawn.

Well fair enough.

I didn't know anyone was actually taking the position that cannabis is an effective alternative to chemo/radiotherapy.