Posted on 04/18/2007 1:20:10 PM PDT by Teflonic
The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.
They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.
THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.
"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.
Acting through cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, endocannabinoids (as well as THC) are thought to play a role in variety of biological functions, including pain and anxiety control, and inflammation. Although a medical derivative of THC, known as Marinol, has been approved for use as an appetite stimulant for cancer patients, and a small number of U.S. states allow use of medical marijuana to treat the same side effect, few studies have shown that THC might have anti-tumor activity, Preet says. The only clinical trial testing THC as a treatment against cancer growth was a recently completed British pilot study in human glioblastoma.
In the present study, the researchers first demonstrated that two different lung cancer cell lines as well as patient lung tumor samples express CB1 and CB2, and that non-toxic doses of THC inhibited growth and spread in the cell lines. "When the cells are pretreated with THC, they have less EGFR stimulated invasion as measured by various in-vitro assays," Preet said.
Then, for three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression, Preet says.
Although the researchers do not know why THC inhibits tumor growth, they say the substance could be activating molecules that arrest the cell cycle. They speculate that THC may also interfere with angiogenesis and vascularization, which promotes cancer growth.
Preet says much work is needed to clarify the pathway by which THC functions, and cautions that some animal studies have shown that THC can stimulate some cancers. "THC offers some promise, but we have a long way to go before we know what its potential is," she said.
Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by American Association for Cancer Research.
Debunked by whom? The individuals that wish to “smoke” THC legally.
I’ve read both sides of the “fallacy”, and I’m suspect.
“Besides, smoking pot is fun; it’s the equivalant of the ‘50s-era pastime of drinking a few martinins when you get home from work.”
I can appreciate your freedom and desire to just have “fun” and unwind after a hard days work. But that particular type of fun which you speak of is unhealthy. Incidentally, alcohol is the number one factor in contributing to vehicle accidents and deaths on the roads today. Furthermore, its consumption is the number one cause of domestic violence in this country. Not what you’d describe as a distinguished track record.
“Incidentally, alcohol is the number one factor in contributing to vehicle accidents and deaths on the roads today. Furthermore, its consumption is the number one cause of domestic violence in this country. Not what you’d describe as a distinguished track record.”
Incidentally, I have several friends who argue that, for these exact reasons, we should bring back the prohibition on alcohol and legalize marijuana instead. Alcohol, from what I can tell, is FAR more dangerous; I have never, in my life, heard of a single story about anyone who became unruly and violent while they were stoned, while I’ve heard endless stories of violent and unruly drunks.
Whoa dude - you need to get worked-up quick.
Your friends opinions based on the comparison are without merit. Just because alcohols effects are more violent then that of marijuana doesn’t mean that the laws should be exchanged.
Although, I can understand their point of view, the evaluation should concentrate on the drug and its purpose, effects, etc. independent of a comparison.
Sorry, but that is just not true in most cases...if you are extremely nauseated from chemo, you can't keep a pill down. Been there, done that when my hubby had kidney cancer.
Keep in mind that like alcohol, there are millions of folks who, in addition to supporting a family, paying their bills, and living an otherwise law-abiding life, like to light up a doobie now and then; these people are causing harm to no one except maybe their selves, and I see no reason to criminalize their behavior.
Maybe I should have used a different word than "fun": For me smoking pot is a relaxing way to end the day.
I do not miss work due to it, I do not rob others to feed my habit (which, BTW costs me around $40 a month), and I am opposed to any legislation that makes it easier to fall into the hands of minors.
“I guess we know where you stand on the subject of freedom versus statism.”
You obviously don’t. It is typical of you and those you represent, hence the “we”, to assume you know where individuals stand politically simply because we hold differing views on this issue. And by typical, I mean arrogant, misinformed, and ignorant.
Whether we have a centralized government or self governing states, I would not support the legalization of “recreational” drugs, although I do support the right for each state to decide what is best for its residents.
“...in addition to supporting a family, paying their bills...”
“...these people are causing harm to no one except maybe their selves...”
If this individual is incapasited or dies as a result of their drug use, they can’t very well take care of their family, or pay their bills, which will effect their loved ones.
“...and I am opposed to any legislation that makes it easier to fall into the hands of minors.”
If minors can obtain alcohol and cigarettes with relative ease(which I had done when I was a youth), they will be able to obtain, as they do, marijuana. I appreciate your view; that the legalization of marijuana should only be available to consenting adults, but you can see the frivolous attempt in doing so.
not only can it cure cancer but we can solve that pesky rope shortage.
They been keeping this a secret to themselves? This stuff been around YEARS!
ROFL! You’d make a wisecrack to the devil.
Perfect!!! To say the least!!!
The law is the law. Period! Yada, yada, yada...
Now wait for all of the cops (and cop wannabees). Without our goofy drug laws, half of them would be collecting unemployment - and they know it.
Far Out Man
THC in the form of Marinol is legal. THC and marijuana are two different things in spite of what the author is trying to imply. Marinol is totally synthetic, and has nothing to to with the plant, which is why the dopers have no interest in it.
That's an incorrect statement. Inhibiting growth by 50% is not the same as reducing size by 50%.
Twisted, not adapted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.