Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
65. no shit sherlock. of course medical personnel and scientists rarely use the word cure re cancer.
Mon Aug 5, 2013, 07:22 PM
Aug 2013

that's what the quack in the OP, Mark Sircus used. duh. And it's what the person who posted that quack's article used. Me? Never. As I made more than clear, that claim, using that word, is contemptible.

you really seem to have a serious reading comprehension problem

I read the abstracts of the first three studies listed. It's precisely what I've said repeatedly in this thread: There is some evidence that cannibinoids hold some promise for treatment and it warrants further research.

Here: You seem to need some basic information quite badly. I'm happy to help you out. Read carefully and maybe you'll be able to grasp this not so complicated information. As you seem to have such difficulty in absorbing written material, I suggest that you take that valium of yours and read it a couple of times.

<snip>

Researchers first looked at the anticancer properties of cannabinoids back in the 1970s, and many hundreds of scientific papers looking at cannabinoids and cancer have been published since then.

But claims that this body of preclinical research is solid “proof” that cannabis or cannabinoids can cure cancer is highly misleading to patients and their families, and builds a false picture of the state of progress in this area.

Let’s take a closer look at the evidence.
Lab research

Virtually all the scientific research investigating whether cannabinoids can treat cancer has been done using cancer cells grown in the lab or animal models. It’s important to be cautious when extrapolating these results up to real live patients, who tend to be a lot more complex than a Petri dish or a mouse.

Through many detailed experiments, handily summarised in this recent article in the journal Nature Reviews Cancer, scientists have discovered that various cannabinoids (both natural and synthetic) have a wide range of effects in the lab, including:

Triggering cell death, through a mechanism called apoptosis
Stopping cells from dividing
Preventing new blood vessels from growing into tumours
Reducing the chances of cancer cells spreading through the body, by stopping cells from moving or invading neighbouring tissue
Speeding up the cell’s internal ‘waste disposal machine’ – a process known as autophagy – which can lead to cell death

All these effects are thought to be caused by cannabinoids locking onto the CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors. It also looks like cannabinoids can exert effects on cancer cells that don’t involve cannabinoid receptors, although it isn’t yet clear exactly what’s going on there.

So far, the best results in the lab or animal models have come from using a combination of highly purified THC and cannabidiol (CBD), a cannabinoid found in cannabis plants that counteracts the psychoactive effects of THC. But researchers have also found positive results using synthetic cannabinoids, such as a molecule called JWH-133.

It’s not all good news though, as there’s also evidence that cannabinoids may also have undesirable effects on cancer.

For example, some researchers have found that although high doses of THC can kill cancer cells, they also harm crucial blood vessel cells, although this may help their anti-cancer effect by preventing blood vessels growing into a tumour. And under some circumstances, cannabinoids can actually encourage cancer cells to grow, or have different effects depending on the dosage and levels of cannabinoid receptors present on the cancer cells. [Edited for clarity and to add reference - KA 27/07/12]

<snip>

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/#patent

Happy reading.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

more bullshit. Really fucking irresponsible bullshit at that. cali Aug 2013 #1
Hemp seed oil apparently cured a little precancerous skin lesion kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #2
First of all, as I said, marijuana and related products like hemp oil cali Aug 2013 #3
And what makes you an expert??? felix_numinous Aug 2013 #7
I didn't say I was an expert, hon. cali Aug 2013 #8
I have cancer and take it felix_numinous Aug 2013 #10
First of all, I hope things go well for you with the protocol cali Aug 2013 #12
Treatment is a better word felix_numinous Aug 2013 #14
Don't waste your time LordGlenconner Aug 2013 #15
Thanks-- I once had hope felix_numinous Aug 2013 #17
I wouldn't give up hope LordGlenconner Aug 2013 #23
so you're claiming that people who point out that there is no scientific evidence cali Aug 2013 #31
oh, ffs. I am not anti-pot. I use it medicinally for RSD cali Aug 2013 #19
I agree, they are a waste of time. Rex Aug 2013 #22
What's really interesting is this particular anti-pot DUer admits to having some success with kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #42
what's interesting to me is that cali Aug 2013 #52
You obviously didn't bother to read the hundreds of published, peer-reviewed articles kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #41
you clearly haven't read them and don't begin to know how to read even an abstract, cali Aug 2013 #51
Take some time and watch spartan61 Aug 2013 #4
I didn't say there wasn't something to it. Worthy of more research cali Aug 2013 #5
there won't be any clinical reasearch because.... wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #79
oh for pity's sake. The U.S. is not the only country that conducts medical research cali Aug 2013 #81
you lost me there... wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #82
that's the author of the article in the op. this thread is about the claims he makes cali Aug 2013 #85
ok so ?? wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #87
& one more.... wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #80
Glad you know all. n/t BlueToTheBone Aug 2013 #6
Link to your peer-reviewed study? tabasco Aug 2013 #11
not sure what you're asking for here cali Aug 2013 #18
If you did your homework you would know that the THC isn't the most beneficial kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #44
Guzman's studies and one clinical cali Aug 2013 #49
Right? Rex Aug 2013 #25
jaysus, hon. do you have problems reading? try post 18 cali Aug 2013 #30
You can take that "hon" and cram it. n/t leftyladyfrommo Aug 2013 #100
try reading post 18. cali Aug 2013 #103
Which is about as keen and as informed a query as asking for a peer-reviewed study concluding that C LanternWaste Aug 2013 #29
Wow, what a rude thing to say. Rex Aug 2013 #20
It's a fact. And I'm offended by snake oil claims that purport to cure cancer cali Aug 2013 #26
Who's the one here with the anti-science mind frame? Seems like you are, since you are ignoring my kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #45
Reminds me of all the 'cancer cured' claims.. when you read the fine print, it's in mice (again.) X_Digger Aug 2013 #90
exactly. It's either in mice or rats cali Aug 2013 #97
what, no response to actual facts and evidence? cali Aug 2013 #38
Yeah, dude's being a real dick here Bennyboy Aug 2013 #50
Why am I angry? The same reason that all wingnut science deniers make me angry cali Aug 2013 #53
“Natural News” Takes Idiotic to the Next Level cali Aug 2013 #54
The National Cancer Institute says otherwise... Bennyboy Aug 2013 #57
yes. I've read that. Do you understand what pre-clinical means? cali Aug 2013 #62
K&R B Calm Aug 2013 #9
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Aug 2013 #13
Please be careful when posting stuff like this War Horse Aug 2013 #16
Ignoring science: Not just for wingnuts. cali Aug 2013 #21
We medical people don't use the word "cure" but rarely when it comes to cancer or any other kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #46
no shit sherlock. of course medical personnel and scientists rarely use the word cure re cancer. cali Aug 2013 #65
Great article, despite the anti-pot crowd. Rex Aug 2013 #24
right. I'm anti-pot. so false. cali Aug 2013 #27
You use pot but yet you are anti-pot. Sounds like typical RW "I got mine, screw you" BS. kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #73
lol. you're careening from ridiculous to absurd cali Aug 2013 #75
I'm just quoting you. In this thread you proclaimed that you were anti-pot. kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #93
more making stuff up. FAIL. where in this thread do I say anything about being anti-pot? cali Aug 2013 #94
I'm pretty sure pro-science does equal anti-pot... LanternWaste Aug 2013 #32
I'm pro-science AND pro-pot. Stick THAT in your pipe and smoke it. kestrel91316 Aug 2013 #47
well one out of two isn't bad. cali Aug 2013 #68
While it may be of benefit to cancer patients, the use of the MineralMan Aug 2013 #28
That article is not just hype. The author is lying by misrepresentation cali Aug 2013 #34
I was attempting to be somewhat polite. MineralMan Aug 2013 #36
sometimes calling it as it is, is important. this is reprehensible stuff cali Aug 2013 #37
My tendency is to discuss things politely. That's how I roll. MineralMan Aug 2013 #106
don't pat yourself too heavily on the back. I've you be plenty snarky cali Aug 2013 #107
Do you? Shall we compare transparency pages, then? MineralMan Aug 2013 #108
Then should I presume that heavy pot smokers don't catch Cancer? 1-Old-Man Aug 2013 #33
Yeah, but that's not from the active ingredients that have been studied or are being used cali Aug 2013 #35
So much for my critical thinking skills ... as if I'm going to believe hemp oil cures cancer ..> YOHABLO Aug 2013 #39
Like this? RandiFan1290 Aug 2013 #43
For any of the doubters... AZ Progressive Aug 2013 #40
I'm familiar with those studies: yes there are preliminary studies indicating that cannibinoids may cali Aug 2013 #55
The Federal Government has discouraged studies of Marijuana because of the war on drugs AZ Progressive Aug 2013 #59
there are studies elsewhere in the world. Great Britain, Spain cali Aug 2013 #72
I think pro-legalization people are extremely disingenuous about medicinal properties Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #48
"...just want to get high...???" CanSocDem Aug 2013 #58
"This alone should reduce the number of cancer cases." - Probably one of the dumber claims in here. Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #60
You mean I can avoid cancer by having more choice of drugs? Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #61
I don't believe that. I think there are any number of people who actually buy into quackery cali Aug 2013 #78
Mark Sircus: QUACK, QUACK, QUACK cali Aug 2013 #56
I think his OMD syands for "Orchestral Manoeuvers in the Dark" Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #63
or "Only Make Deposits"- as in his bank account cali Aug 2013 #67
I saw OMD live in 1985 or 1986... SidDithers Aug 2013 #70
Cancer is not one disease... SidDithers Aug 2013 #64
quackery and nothing but quackery in the article. cali Aug 2013 #66
Your sigline couldn't be more appropriate here... SidDithers Aug 2013 #69
honestly, I find it truly disturbing that people here are calling this a great article cali Aug 2013 #71
Yep. Zoeisright Aug 2013 #92
"Dr. Mark Sircus, Ac., OMD, DM (P) (acupuncturist, doctor of oriental and pastoral medicine)" sagat Aug 2013 #74
Amazing that so many people are so stupid or gullible that they cite this guy cali Aug 2013 #76
the asshole quack also claims baking soda and maple syrup cure cancer cali Aug 2013 #77
it has been shown in studies to help fight cancer, but wonder cure my ass. dionysus Aug 2013 #83
actually, it's been shown to have some efficacy in some studies in mice and rats cali Aug 2013 #84
i know. i find it's peddled most by the "i wanna be able to smoke a joint walking down the street" dionysus Aug 2013 #86
apparently smoking it..... wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #88
there have been no studies or clinical trials with humans on the efficacy of cali Aug 2013 #96
and there won't be! nt wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #98
yes, there will. In Spain, there's already been a THC trial cali Aug 2013 #101
tell me how big pharma can cash in.... wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #104
seriously? because it's more than likely that effective treatment cali Aug 2013 #105
thank you for..... wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #110
Synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists inhibit tumor growth and metastasis of breast cancer. wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #89
you realize those are preliminary studies, right? Not human trials. cali Aug 2013 #95
a human trial: wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #99
that's encouraging and interesting. what it isn't is trial. cali Aug 2013 #102
& k & r. eom. wildbilln864 Aug 2013 #91
Great info! BuddhaGirl Aug 2013 #109
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»More on Cannabis cures ca...»Reply #65