Posted on 09/08/2012 12:51:31 PM PDT by neverdem
Cristina Sanchez, a young biologist at Complutense University in Madrid, was studying cell metabolism when she noticed something peculiar. She had been screening brain cancer cells because they grow faster than normal cell lines and thus are useful for research purposes. But the cancer cells died each time they were exposed to tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive ingredient of marijuana.
Instead of gaining insight into how cells function, Sanchez had stumbled upon the anti-cancer properties of THC. In 1998, she reported in a European biochemistry journal that THC induces apoptosis [cell death] in C6 glioma cells, an aggressive form of brain cancer.
Subsequent peer-reviewed studies in several countries would show that THC and other marijuana-derived compounds, known as cannabinoids, are effective not only for cancer-symptom management (nausea, pain, loss of appetite, fatigue), they also confer a direct antitumoral effect.
A team of Spanish scientists led by Manuel Guzman conducted the first clinical trial assessing the antitumoral action of THC on human beings. Guzman administered pure THC via a catheter into the tumors of nine hospitalized patients with glioblastoma, who had failed to respond to standard brain-cancer therapies. The results were published in 2006 in the British Journal of Pharmacology: THC treatment was associated with significantly reduced tumor cell proliferation in every test subject.
Around the same time, Harvard University scientists ++reported++[ http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v95/n2/abs/6603236a.html] that THC slows tumor growth in common lung cancer and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread. Whats more, like a heat-seeking missile, THC selectively targets and destroys tumor cells while leaving healthy cells unscathed. Conventional chemotherapy drugs, by contrast, are highly toxic; they indiscriminately damage the brain and body.
Aric Crabb, Bay Area News Group / AP Photos
There is mounting evidence, according to a report in Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry, that cannabinoids represent a new class of anticancer drugs that retard cancer growth, inhibit angiogenesis [the formation of new blood cells that feed a tumor] and the metastatic spreading of cancer cells.
Dr. Sean McAllister, a scientist at the Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco, has been studying cannabinoid compounds for 10 years in a quest to develop new therapeutic interventions for various cancers. Backed by grants from the National Institute of Health (and with a license from the DEA), McAllister discovered that cannabidiol (CBD), a nonpsychoactive component of the marijuana plant, is a potent inhibitor of breast cancer cell proliferation, metastasis, and tumor growth.
In 2007, McAllister published a detailed account of how cannabidiol kills breast cancer cells and destroys malignant tumors by switching off expression of the ID-1 gene, a protein that appears to play a major role as a cancer cell conductor.
The ID-1 gene is active during human embryonic development, after which it turns off and stays off. But in breast cancer and several other types of metastatic cancer, the ID-1 gene becomes active again, causing malignant cells to invade and metastasize. Dozens of aggressive cancers express this gene, explains McAllister. He postulates that CBD, by virtue of its ability to silence ID-1 expression, could be a breakthrough anti-cancer medication.
Cannabidiol offers hope of a non-toxic therapy that could treat aggressive forms of cancer without any of the painful side effects of chemotherapy, says McAllister, who is seeking support to conduct clinical trials with the marijuana compound on breast cancer patients.
McAllisters lab also is analyzing how CBD works in combination with first-line chemotherapy agents. His research shows that cannabidiol, a potent antitumoral compound in its own right, acts synergistically with various anti-cancer pharmaceuticals, enhancing their impact while cutting the toxic dosage necessary for maximum effect.
Breast cancer cells killed by CBD on right compared to untreated breast cancer cells on left. (Courtesy Pacific Medical Center)
Cannabidiol offers hope of a non-toxic therapy that could treat aggressive forms of cancer without any of the painful side effects of chemotherapy.
Investigators at St. Georges University in London observed a similar pattern with THC, which magnified the effectiveness of conventional antileukemia therapies in preclinical studies. THC and cannabidiol both induce apoptosis in leukemic cell lines.
At the annual summer conference of the International Cannabinoid Research Society, held this year in Freiburg, Germany, 300 scientists from around the world discussed their latest findings, which are pointing the way toward novel treatment strategies for cancer and other degenerative diseases. Italian investigators described CBD as the most efficacious inducer of apoptosis in prostate cancer. Ditto for cannabidiol and colon cancer, according to British researchers at Lancaster University.
Within the medical science community, the discovery that cannabinoids have anti-tumoral properties is increasingly recognized as a seminal advancement in cancer therapeutics.
Martin A. Lee is the author of Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana Medical, Recreational and Scientific (Scribner, August 2012). He is the cofounder of the media watch group FAIR, director of Project CBD, and the author of Acid Dreams and The Beast Reawakens. For more information and regular updates, follow Smoke Signalsthe book on Facebook.
Facts and logic are overrated. Attaching labels to whoever you disagree with is SO much more effective.
Just don't let them control your Commerce Clause language while you're busy with your illegal drugs language.
Wine and beer names are getting as weird as race horse names.
If you have cancer/chemo treatments and you're in pain and wasting away, you might have a little different perspective.
Why else would you use it? Medicinal? Maybe...you did not write that.
Nor marriage.
More mental/emotional addiction than physical. As an ex pot smoker, and recovered alky, I know the difference - booze nearly ruined me and pot was gone when businesses started testing for it.
You sound like a good man, I made a post, don’t go crazy on it.
If you could ask anyone who died from cancer whether they would have liked to have had access to marijuana either to help treat the side effects, or if it could be used to directly treat the cancer, they wouldn’t have cared about any Puritan ethics regarding the drug, or who thinks it has what effect or how many cannibinoids or alkaloids it has, or if it is addictive. Like so many things, from Archaeology, to Physics, to Astronomy, we don’t know enough about anything to make empirical statements that are universal truths. Anything can become addictive - running, Facebook, eating, etc. It is all about how what we do appeals to the pleasure center in the brain. Marijuana use, by those who understand it, are mature and intelligent enough to use it responsibly, and enjoy it, should be allowed to use it and be non-regulated. Too many people want to impose their beliefs, morals, ethics, and fears on others because they don’t understand something completely themselves. Let humans make the decisions for themselves. And certainly, let those who are stricken with cancer decide if they want to allow themselves to be treated with something that might either ease their pain, or possibly even cure them. That should be their right, and no person or agency should have the power to regulate that.
You did not ask.
Why would I watch television, watch a movie, drink coffee, smoke a cigar, take a drive in the country, sip a nice ale, play a game of cards, watch fireworks, see a play, photograph wildlife, etc, etc, etc?
I enjoy the experience of it.
Where did I attack your maturity?
Are you saying that you are addicted to a non-addictive drug?
You’re sending mixed messages.
There was no mention of addiction in any of my posts, your post or the one you replied to. You chimed in to agree with the inane comment directed at me and added your own shot at me there. Trying to pretend otherwise isn’t helping your stance any.
Some things are enjoyable, others are just fun, but unhealthy and actually filthy for our bodies. Like cigars and smoking pot. You can excuse it away all you like, but my point still stands....inner happiness precludes the need for many substances. Of course we can still enjoy certain pleasures, but not ones that are obviously really harming our bodies and souls.
Suit yourself. I’m happy and healthy.
You may be paranoid.
My comment directed no slurr toward you, nor do I believe that the post to which I responded did either.
You may have inadvertantly told us more than you intended (I hope not)
ok...but how happy would you still be without all of your comforts? Just wondering...
1. Does that include the mind altering drug alcohol?
2. Do you think fedgov should be involved in that decision, or should the states decide intrastate drug policies under authority of the Tenth Amendment?
Well, I did say that I take or leave them for months and years at a time. With average yearly living expenses of less than $5,000 (for everything) I wouldn’t exactly say that I live a life of luxury. Many years I have lived on less.
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.