OMG. National Cancer Institute scrubs cannabis/anti-tumor reference from their web-site. OMG.

[Fly by night]

Earlier this week, I posted a thread (that got 300 recs) touting the decision of the National Cancer Institute to acknowledge both the symptomatic relief that is available to cancer patients who use cannabis AND the anti-tumor properties of cannabis and cannabinoids.

Well ....

A friend just sent me this story, hot off the presses.

First federal agency to acknowledge medical marijuana removes anti-tumor information from database

By Kyle Daly | 03.29.11 | 11:44 am

"Last week, The American Independent was first to report that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had added a section on medical marijuana to its treatment database, making it the first federal agency to formally recognize marijuana’s medicinal properties. Now, NCI has altered the page, removing any mention of the evidence that marijuana can diminish and even reverse tumor growth.

"In an edit that appeared Monday afternoon, NCI replaced a sentence about marijuana’s direct anti-tumor effect with one stating that it is prescribed mainly to battle nausea, pain and insomnia among cancer patients. The original passage, which was published on March 17, read:

'The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. In the practice of integrative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medicinal Cannabis not only for symptom management but also for its possible direct antitumor effect.

"The amended version reads:

'The potential benefits of medicinal Cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. Though no relevant surveys of practice patterns exist, it appears that physicians caring for cancer patients who prescribe medicinal Cannabis predominantly do so for symptom management.'"

http://coloradoindependent.com/81475/first-federal-agency-to-acknowledge-medical-marijuana-removes-anti-tumor-information-from-database

------

If this is true (and it certainly appears to be), then the National Cancer Institute has some very serious 'splainin' to do. Here's what I posted at the American Independent web-site just now:

Apropos of the "scrubbing" of the NCI web-site, it is time for an open hearing on the cannabis/anti-tumor issue in Bethesda. NIH has plenty of meeting spaces large enough to hold the hundreds (thousands) of scientists who could speak to the medical benefits of cannabis, including its anti-tumor properties. The fact that the NCI acknowledged (and still acknowledges) on its web-site the several beneficial medical uses of cannabis with cancer patients is a major step forward and suggests some major backbone growth at NIH. It is time to extend this bravery to an open and honest review of the science regarding the anti-tumor properties of cannabis.

The first two teams of scientists I want to hear from are Tashkin et al (UCLA) and Kelsey et al (Brown) on the preventive impact of recreational cannabis use for reducing lung and head/neck cancer incidence. (In fact, I want to get their autographs.)

And that's just for starters.

Come on, NCI. Prove to us that science still matters to someone in Washington, that you folks are no longer willing to be part of the flat earth society that has dominated the medical cannabis debate. From here, it sure appears that way all of a sudden, and that is very encouraging.

Now, NCI, let's go the next step. Convene a conference, put the science of the past forty years on display and let's get on with the program already.

It's time for science, common sense and compassion to trump senseless social control.

It's long past time, in fact.
---

OK, folks, that's my two cents worth. Put up or shut up, NCI. You can't be for science until you are again' it (less than a week later).

Either cannabis contains anti-tumor properties or it does not.

Are there any scientists on the government payroll who should be willing to support answering that question?

In case you didn't know it, NCI, that would be all y'all.

Fly by night (aka)

Bernard H. Ellis, Jr., MA, MPH
Program Director for Smoking and Occupational Activities
Information Projects Branch
Office of Cancer Communications
National Cancer Institute
(1978-80)

[old mark]

1. K&R- Good luck! I 'd love to see some honesty somewhere in the US

medical establishment...they are overrun with insurance and pharmaceutical sellers and political hacks.

Just gimmie some truth...

mark

[Newest Reality]

2. Would it be too bold of me to surmise that

cures for cancer would be harmful to the health of some big money institutes?

If cancer, hypothetically, became completely curable tomorrow, how many billions would be lost from the current structure that promotes curing and combating it? From what I see, they haven't made many leaps or bounds over the decades for all the money invested.

That's just my opinion and ruminations.

[anarch]

3. especially if part of that cure comes from a plant that grows like a...umm...weed.

Not saying that's the case, just that I wouldn't put it past the capitalists.

[AlbertCat]

38. cures for cancer would be harmful to the health of some big money institutes?

Not to mention an end to the "War on Drugs"

No one is concerned about anyone's health, it seems. But money is to be made.

[ohheckyeah]

4. Google cache never forgets.

[Fly by night]

5. Can you bold the last sentence in the previous paragraph above the current highlighted section?

That is the "money" quote re: cannabis/anti-tumor effects that they've just scrubbed.

[ohheckyeah]

6. I'll change the image in the above post.

I highlighted the wrong thing....sorry. For continuity in the thread I'll post it here as well.

[Fly by night]

7. Great. Thanks kindly.

It was the truth on March 17, 2011.

It is still the truth.

Jone Stewart needs to hear about this.

As does the rest of the country.

[ohheckyeah]

8. You're welcome.

I'm still half asleep....I was up all night and didn't get to sleep until after 8:00 a.m.

[barbtries]

32. bless google cache

and bless you for saving it.

[ReggieVeggie]

9. the party line is paramount

can't let people think cannabis is anything other than a Schedule I drug with no benefit of any kind

[Rex]

10. They were told to take it down by Big Pharma.

Can't compete against a weed. I suspect they took it down, because pot is the most politicized herb on the planet and the people that want to keep it illegal are willfully ignorant or worse.

[ohheckyeah]

11. I emailed them and asked them why they changed it

and if they were unaware of Google cache.

Morons.

[Rex]

12. Please let us all know if you find out who made them take it down.

My bet is some asshole that hates 'hippes'.

[ohheckyeah]

13. I'd be willing to bet

that I never hear back from them but if I do, I'll post it.

[Capitalocracy]

30. Maybe if a million people ask them that question...

Just sayin'

[theaocp]

27. Follow the money, fo sho

If it's all natural, they can't patent it and make money off of it. That's why we have all these extracts instead of the real deal. Oh, and anyone who says it's dangerous to smoke it is being deliberately disingenuous. Vaporizers and cooking methods are certainly available. They can't compete against it and can't make money off of it. Therefore, it's illegal. Sick.

[MerryBlooms]

14. I lost my husband 10 years ago to Ocular Melanoma

He was an avid herb smoker since age 14. He was a jogger, didn't smoke cigarettes, nor had he been ill with even so much as a cold for 6 years before he was diagnosed. I wish it had worked for him, but it didn't and it also didn't work for him for the nausea issue, after the cancer had metastasized to his liver, spleen and spine. :( He was dead 9 months from diagnosis.

So for my husband, no, it was not a miracle drug. But for those it is, I'm thrilled and I want it legal and access to all. The stance our government has taken on this drug is ludicrous and truly, a crime against humanity.

[Enthusiast]

50. Sorry for the loss of your husband.

You are right, as of yet there are no miracle drugs to cure cancer.

[ReggieVeggie]

15. kick, dammit

I could be smoking right now instead of drinking!

[Fly by night]

16. Cannabis doesn't have to be a miracle drug to be worthy of serious study and utilization ...

... but it sure appears to be.

For ANY medicine which has such a multitude of well-documented uses now and which holds the promise for ...

... unlimited promise, ...

it is long past time to get serious.

Thank you again, NCI, for publishing the legitimate, well-understood and oft-applied medicinal uses of cannabis and thereby legitimizing four decades of medical practice.

Please hold a conference SOON to shine a light on whoever made you take what was certainly a well-vetted statement about the anti-tumor aspects of cannabis off your web-site.

In the process, bring science and scientists together to expose the evidence that supports -- that demands -- an immediate reclassification of cannabis.

For the children with cancer ...

and everyone else who might get cancer or ...

who might want to avoid getting it.

Democracies aren't afraid of science. Corporatocracies are.

[Enthusiast]

51. I agree. nt

[garybeck]

17. THAT IS NOT ALL THEY CHANGED. Does anyone have a screenshot of the original?

The page on the NCI website in question is here:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page2

two days ago and it said that there were clinical trials and studies that indicated proven medicinal effects including those listed.

now it says "Though no relevant surveys of practice patterns exist,...

and, " Clinical trials conducted on medicinal Cannabis are limited....


I am sure this is different than what it said two days ago.

this is an outrage!

does anyone have a screenshot of what it said a couple days ago when the Raw Story article was published?????

[ohheckyeah]

18. The screenshot above that I posted

is the cached version.

[garybeck]

19. cached from when?

I swear the one I saw was different than that.

[ohheckyeah]

55. I don't know.

The cached page now is from the 30th of March so it is not the page I took a screenshot of. It looks like the cached page I took a screenshot of was modified on March 17.

[garybeck]

20. I figured out what else changed....

on the main "General Information" here:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page2


they used to have something very close to this:

"Several controlled clinical trials have been performed and meta-analyses of these support a beneficial effect of cannabinoids (dronabinol and nabilone) on chemotherapy -induced nausea and vomiting (N/V)"

this statement was moved off the main "general information" page and replaced with a statement about how studies are limited.

the text still exists on page 7, "Overall Level of Evidence for Cannabis and Cannabinoids" which I did not read two days ago so I'm not sure if anything changed there.

Lame.

[Fly by night]

22. I am alerting a CNN producer to this story. Nothing gets released by NCI without thorough vetting.

Apparently, however, well-vetted information can be scrubbed in a heartbeat if it doesn't fit the flat earth party line.

[garybeck]

33. there is also a note on there saying that the page changed on 3/28

but it doesn't say exactly what changed.

[guruoo]

52. Take a screenshot of that cached version, including the date the cache was stored by google nt

[Mnemosyne]

21. K&R n/t

[Fly by night]

23. For those of you unfamiliar with the Tashkin and Kelsey studies, here's a summary

There are volumes of research on the anti-tumor properties of cannabis. Research conducted at the Medical College of Virginia in the 1970s (funded to identify the hazardous effects of cannabis) found instead that cannabis components had potent anti-tumor effects on several cancer cell lines. That research was summarily de-funded and buried. Here is more information about two important studies that are more recent.
----

Feds' Top Pot Researcher Says Marijuana Does Not Cause Lung Cancer:

A U of California researcher who has performed US-government sponsored studies of marijuana and lung function for over 30 years says that pot does not cause lung cancer. Dr. Donald Tashkin said that, when he began his work thirty years ago, he "opposed ... legalization because thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects." However, he now admits that his decades' worth of scientific research revealed an opposite conclusion. In 2006, Tashkin led the largest population case-control study ever to assess the use of marijuana and lung cancer risk. The study, which included more than 2,200 subjects (1,212 cases and 1,040 controls), reported that marijuana smoking was not positively associated with cancers of the lung or upper aerodigestive tract – even among individuals who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints during their lifetime. "What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," Tashkin told the newspaper chain, noting that cannabinoids cause "cells die ... before they age enough to develop mutations that might lead to cancer."

"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
---

Marijuana May Reduce Risk of Certain Cancers, Study Says
August 27, 2009

A new study finds that long-term marijuana users have a lower risk of certain head and neck cancers, Reuters reported Aug. 25.

Researchers from Brown University studied patients with head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and a control group and found that subjects who had smoked marijuana for 10 to 20 years had a 62-percent reduced risk of getting HNSCC. Those who smoked marijuana 0.5 to 1.5 times per week had a 48-percent reduction in risk.

The study authors, led by Karl T. Kelsey, said that the findings may be linked to the known anti-tumor action of cannabinoids. However, they cautioned that larger studies are needed to confirm the findings and that the risks of marijuana use may outweigh any health benefits.

The study was published in the August 2009 issue of the journal Cancer Prevention Research.
----

For more information on marijuana smoke and cancer risk, please see: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6891.

A literature review of cannabinoids' anti-cancer properties is available at: http://www.norml.org//index.cfm?Group_ID=7008.

[eShirl]

24. + infinity

[defendandprotect]

47. Hows much private industry is against this -- from health care industry which poisons us ...

to paper and rope -- on and on!!

Pretty much everything connected with marijuana is a positive --

therefore they had to kill it!!

[ZombieHorde]

25. Fuckers. nt

[handmade34]

26. hence...

IMG]

[riverbendviewgal]

28. I saw it too.

Has anyone seen this one...It seems still intact

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a607048.html



Nabilone is used to treat nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy in people who have already taken other medications to treat this type of nausea and vomiting without good results. Nabilone is in a class of medications called cannabinoids. It works by affecting the area of the brain that controls nausea and vomiting.

[Kip Humphrey]

29. uh, is bush still president?

seems like it since it appears political ideology is still trumping science.

[paparush]

31. Thank you for smoking!

[byronius]

34. New meaning for 'Political Science'.

[BrklynLiberal]

35. Many would be hsocked to learn what a huge bu$ine$$ cancer and its treatment is .....

[bleever]

36. K&R, of course.

:thumbsup:

[BklynThirtyThree]

37. scientific facts that threaten drug companies' profits

have been scrubbed from the record?

I'm shocked! Shocked!

[wildbilln864]

39. * k&r! nt

[Uncle Joe]

40. The blatant embrace and promotion of ignorance by the government re: Cannabis is tragic to

the point of being ridiculous or the other way around.

Thanks for the thread, Fly by night.

[KurtNYC]

41. They are Bogarting, n/t

[Romulox]

42. DU has at least half a dozen Drug Warriors. Nowhere to be found on this one, though.

:shrug:

[blackspade]

43. Big K&R !!!!

[defendandprotect]

44. Probably someone in government read your thread -- !!!

The public isn't allowed to know that drugs are our medicines -- all of them]

from carrots to marijuana !!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

45. K&R and bkmrkd

thanks for the info.

[EC]

46. So why would they want to hide the anti-tumor

side of pot? Is there an agenda to keep cancer occurring or do they even want to cure it?

[defendandprotect]

49. All plants are our medicines/drugs -- there are no drugs without plants ....

but the public isn't supposed to know that --

nor about all of the helpful properties of marijuana --

for clothing, paper, rope -- and it's good for the ozone layer --

on and on!!

War on Cancer doesn't seek causes except the BS ones --

This week they tied another DNA gene to leukemia!!

but not leaking nuclear reactcrs, of course!!

Soon they'll be a DNA link to poverty!!! :rofl:

War on Cancer is as phony as War on Drugs!!

and closely connected, imo!!

[Fly by night]

53. It does seem odd, particularly for a federal agency that is no stranger to fighting vested interests

When I worked there in the late 70s, the tobacco industry still OWNED Congress. Our efforts to reduce tobacco use made significant traction and brought some heat down on the work we were doing. But my bosses stood by me 150%, we moved forward on many anti-tobacco fronts and the rest is history.

I do believe that any scientific evidence that supports the medical uses of cannabis or the benign effects of recreational cannabis use, threaten the legitimacy of many powerful forces. But I remain hopeful that science, and brave NCI scientists who refuse any longer to drink the flat earth kool-aid, will move forward in this arena also.

Remember -- the NCI is now the FIRST federal agency to stand behind the evidence for the many beneficial uses of cannabis for cancer patients. That is BIG NEWS by itself. Now if we can just find out why the anti-tumor science was scrubbed and shine a light on that, we can help NCI scientists do the jobs they are paid to do.

Thanks, all y'all, for your Ks & Rs. If we never stop fighting for science, common sense and compassion, WE WILL NOT LOSE.

[DreamSmoker]

48. Here we go again...

This is about ABSOLUTE control of a portion of our American Population and their needs....
I have followed this Bull since Nixon's days...
All these years and the Government has not only stead fast against any changes to re schedule cannabis..
It just keeps adding more and more people and authority to the DEA..
Now the DEA is as big and Powerful as the IRS... By design..
The DEA does what it wants to even when a President says not to...
80% of the DEA is about eradication of Cannabis...
Get the Picture???
This is not a war about what is right... Nothing new there..
Its about absolute control....

[orbitalman]

54. K and R