New Study Explains How Pot Kills Cancer Cells

[critter]

New Study Explains How Pot Kills Cancer Cells

By Steve Kubby

 

A new study published in Nature Reviews-Cancer provides an historic and detailed explanation about how THC and natural cannabinoids counteract cancer, but preserve normal cells.

 

The study by Manuel Guzmán of Madrid Spain found that cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit tumor growth in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key cell-signalling pathways, thereby inducing direct growth arrest and death of tumor cells, as well as by inhibiting the growth of blood vessels that supply the tumor.

 

The Guzman study is very important according to Dr. Ethan Russo , a neurologist and world authority on medical cannabis: "Cancer occurs because cells become immortalized; they fail to heed normal signals to turn off growth. A normal function of remodelling in the body requires that cells die on cue. This is called apoptosis, or programmed cell death. That process fails to work in tumors. THC promotes its reappearance so that gliomas, leukemias, melanomas and other cell types will in fact heed the signals, stop dividing, and die."

 

"But, that is not all," explains Dr. Russo: "The other way that tumors grow is by ensuring that they are nourished: they send out signals to promote angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels. Cannabinoids turn off these signals as well. It is truly incredible, and elegant."

 

In other words, this article explains several ways in which cannabinoids might be used to fight cancer, and, as the article says, "Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and do not produce the generalized toxic effects of conventional chemotherapies.

 

Usually, any story that even suggests the possibility of a new treatment for cancer is greeted with headlines about a "cancer cure" - however remote in the future and improbable in fact it might be. But if marijuana is involved, don't expect any coverage from mainstream media, especially since mainstream editors have been quietly killing this story for the past thirty years.

 

That's right, news about the abilility of pot to shrink tumors first surfaced, way back in 1974. Researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

 

The Washington Post reported on the 1974 study -- in the "Local" section -- on Aug. 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part: "The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

 

"News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article," complained MarijuanaNews.com editor Richard Cowan , who said he was only able to find the article through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report Web page. "The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors," added Cowan.

 

On March 29, 2001, the San Antonio Current printed a carefully researched, bombshell of a story by Raymond Cushing titled, "POT SHRINKS TUMORS; GOVERNMENT KNEW IN '74." Media coverage since then has been nonexistant, except for a copy of the story on Alternet .

 

It is hard to believe that the knowledge that cannabis can be used to fight cancer has been suppressed for almost thirty years , yet it seems likely that it will continue to be suppressed. Why?

 

According to Cowan, the answer is because it is a threat to cannabis prohibition . "If this article and its predecessors from 2000 and 1974 were the only evidence of the suppression of medical cannabis, then one might perhaps be able to rationalize it in some herniated way. However, there really is massive proof that the suppression of medical cannabis represents the greatest failure of the institutions of a free society, medicine, journalism, science, and our fundamental values," Cowan notes.

 

Millions of people have died horrible deaths and in many cases, familes exhausted their savings on dangerous, toxic and expensive drugs. Now we are just beginning to realize that while marijuana has never killed anyone, marijuana prohibition has killed millions.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/11/07/article_kubby.htm

[Guest Wilderbud]

Nice read - Ive heard rumours about marijuana helping cancer patients and not just because it takes the pain away.

[Luke Skywalker]

Indeed, thanks for that one mate.

 

Yes, it IS a conspiracy to keep it down, as there are more monetarily vested interests in keeping prohibition in place than there are currently in making it legal and discovering the truth about the plants.

 

It is changing, but slowly. The internet has helped vastly, information is power, and most of the information is now being broadcast to the world, whether we or they like it or not.

 

Bloody shits me. I wonder if George Bush would accept to be treated with a thc based cancer cure if he ever developed it.....

[quizywig]

I think the conspiracy against pot has been going since the 1930's when the US chemical companys saw hemp as a major threat to there profits with cotton crops, cotton needs heaps of chemicals to grow pot dosent so pot isnt profitable for the companys. Its the same with medicinal pot these companys would loose millions or more, if people took pot for there ailments, the same thing today with prohibition in Aus the beer companys dont want it legal beacuse they too would loose the profits, these beer companys put millions into the goverment to make sure its kept illegal.

MADOGA

[pipeman]

yeah I agree I also think the economical fear of pot is unfounded. Much like the "red peril" If MJ was legalised I don't think it would affect anyone too much. Most people don't want to smoke it whether its legal or not, and I would say the majority of stoners still buy booze and ciggies anyway. The tobacco, alcohol and drug companies would all still make their profits IMO.

[lordoftheIsa]

Nice read

 

At one stage governments tried to link "red peril" with pot.

Right before governments said it led to other drugs they claimed it turned young people into maoists beatniks....

[Luke Skywalker]

Hee hee, maybe they were right... I feel a socialist revolutionary urge right now... ::

 

The new one is that Saddam Hussein was a pot head, and used heroin too, so ergo all you potheads and heroin users are either responsible for, or likely to become, saddam hussein and all he represents... :angry:

 

I saw that on the 10 news a couple nights ago, Sandra spat it out like she thought instantly that all potheads were akin to Saddam, it was a report on a book released by one of his close aids apparently.

 

Grrrr.... They'll try and link terrorism to cannabis in this country soon, you watch, they already do in the US. :angry:

[Oz]

POT SHRINKS TUMORS; GOVERNMENT KNEW IN '74

 

( Wednesday, March 28, The United States Supreme Court rules on whether marijuana use for medicinal purposes can be a valid defense on charges of marijuana possession. The following article was listed as one of the top 25 censored stories of the year 2000. We reprint it here and pose the question, why would the government want to keep us from knowing this? )

 

The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February 2000, when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.

 

The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals. In 1974, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

 

The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes. In 1976, President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."

 

The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of Nature Medicine that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2, a synthetic compound similar to THC. "All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma ( brain cancer ) cell inoculation ... Cannabinoid ( THC )-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.

 

The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological effects. They found none.

 

"Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma ... We also examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid administration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parameters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water intake, as well as body weight gain, were unaffected during and after cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during the seven-day delivery period or for at least two months after cannabinoid treatment ended."

 

Guzman's investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study that THC has been administered to live, tumor-bearing animals. ( The Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a "petri dish" experiment that didn't involve live subjects. )

 

In an e-mail interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn't cite the 1974 Virginia investigation.

 

"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible," Guzman said.

 

In 1983, the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer, who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared."

 

Guzman provided the title of the work -- "Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute -- and this writer obtained a copy at the University of California medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.

 

The summary of the Virginia study begins, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol ( THC ) and cannabinol ( CBN )" -- two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."

 

The 1975 journal article doesn't mention breast cancer tumors, which are featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study -- in the "Local" section of The Washington Post on Aug. 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part:

 

"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

 

Guzman, writing from Madrid, was eloquent in his response after this writer faxed him the clipping from The Washington Post of a quarter century ago. In translation, he wrote:

 

"It is extremely interesting to me, the hope that the project seemed to awaken at that moment, and the sad evolution of events during the years following the discovery, until now we once again draw back the veil, over the anti-tumoral power of THC, 25 years later. Unfortunately, the world bumps along between such moments of hope and long periods of intellectual castration."

 

News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article. This writer stumbled on it through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report Web page. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors.

 

Source: MAP Inc.

[deejayvee]

Bloody shits me. I wonder if George Bush would accept to be treated with a thc based cancer cure if he ever developed it.....

That's an interesting thought.

 

It reminds me of the tale Michael Moore tells, in Stupid White Men, of Nancy Reagan's call to the Republican party to shift their stance on stem-cell research because it could benefit her alzheimers afflicted husband, Ronald.

[Guest]

I have seen so many amazing stories like this one. I think its time somebody put all this amazing material into a book. Something small and cheap to produce. Giving the bear bones of fact but references to internet links for more info. You know, the really shocking truth like its cancer curing power. With a really shocking title on the front. I honestly believe, no, I know for a fact, that marijuana is the most valuable plant on earth and can save this planet. If grown for oil it could replace fossil fuels easily. Nothing else can seriously lay that claim. As well as medical and energy there is food too. It could seriously feed the third world. Its a super plant. People deserve to know.