Cannabis oil has been shrinking tumors in woman's brain

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...t-cure-cancer/

Just an FYI. The studies just don't support the idea that recreational use of cannabis can shrink tumors. I specifically posted the glioma section of this well-written article because I'm assuming "GBM" is glioblastoma multiforme, which is a malignant growth of glial cells.

In essence, most studies have been done in animal models, and have shown anti-tumor effects at ridiculously high doses (~1000 joints).

I just want to make you aware of what is known and make an educated decision.

I also think there is a CBD component is that is missing from the studies you cite

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

I also think there is a CBD component is that is missing from the studies you cite

Any information or studies on the component you are referring to?

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

Any information or studies on the component you are referring to?

Not that I have personally researched. The CBD compound has been mentioned in several documentaries for it's medical value for seizures - and I'm pretty sure for tumor reduction. I have a friend of the family that used CBD oil for a tumor in the colon and combined with chemo the Dr's were surprised by the amount of reduction.

EDIT: I should mention it was ingested orally

[DenverChief]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20053780

Recently, cannabinoids (CBs) have been shown to possess antitumor properties. Because the psychoactivity of cannabinoid compounds limits their medicinal usage, we undertook the present study to evaluate the in vitro antiproliferative ability of cannabidiol (CBD), a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid compound, on U87 and U373 human glioma cell lines. The addition of CBD to the culture medium led to a dramatic drop of mitochondrial oxidative metabolism [3-(4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2,5-diphenyl-2H tetrazolium bromide test] and viability in glioma cells, in a concentration-dependent manner that was already evident 24 h after CBD exposure, with an apparent IC(50) of 25 microM. The antiproliferative effect of CBD was partially prevented by the CB2 receptor antagonist N-[(1S)-endo-1,3,3-trimethylbicyclo[2,2,1]heptan-2-yl]-5-(4-chloro-3-methylphenyl)-1-(4-methylbenzyl)-pyrazole-3-carboxamide (SR144528; SR2) and alpha-tocopherol. By contrast, the CB1 cannabinoid receptor antagonist N-(piperidin-1-yl)-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-1-(2,4-dichlorophenyl)-4-methyl-1H-pyrazole-3-carboximide hydrochloride (SR141716; SR1), capsazepine (vanilloid receptor antagonist), the inhibitors of ceramide generation, or pertussis toxin did not counteract CBD effects. We also show, for the first time, that the antiproliferative effect of CBD was correlated to induction of apoptosis, as determined by cytofluorimetric analysis and single-strand DNA staining, which was not reverted by cannabinoid antagonists. Finally, CBD, administered s.c. to nude mice at the dose of 0.5 mg/mouse, significantly inhibited the growth of subcutaneously implanted U87 human glioma cells. In conclusion, the nonpsychoactive CBD was able to produce a significant antitumor activity both in vitro and in vivo, thus suggesting a possible application of CBD as an antineoplastic agent.

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

http://www.ncbi..nih.gov/pubmed/20053780

That's one of the studies cited in the article I posted. When you see culture medium and administered to nude rats, that should be your tip that those are preclinical research studies. And they administered very high doses to get the modest effect.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

That's one of the studies cited in the article I posted. When you see culture medium and administered to nude rats, that should be your tip that those are preclinical research studies. And they administered very high doses to get the modest effect.

0.5 mg per mouse is a high dose?

It's also a non-psychoactive ingredient, so there is room to really amp up the dose without much if any negative side effects

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

0.5 mg per mouse is a high dose?

It's also a non-psychoactive ingredient, so there is room to really amp up the dose without much if any negative side effects

Yes, it is. 0.5 mg in a 20 gram mouse translates to 25 mg/kg in the mouse. 25 mg/kg in a 160 pound man is 1750 mg per dose.

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

Not that I have personally researched. The CBD compound has been mentioned in several documentaries for it's medical value for seizures - and I'm pretty sure for tumor reduction. I have a friend of the family that used CBD oil for a tumor in the colon and combined with chemo the Dr's were surprised by the amount of reduction.

I'm just going to tap out here.

We could talk about anecdotal evidence vs. actual trials, colon and GBM being completely different tumors made up of completely different tissue and governed by completely different mediators of tumor cell growth, dosages, delivery to the colon (delivered directly to the colon by ingestion) vs. the brain (must be taken up into the bloodstream, metabolized by the liver, traverse the Blood-brain barrier, and delivered to the site of the tumor in high enough concentrations) etc etc, but I don't think we will agree.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

I'm just going to tap out here.

We could talk about anecdotal evidence vs. actual trials, colon and GBM being completely different tumors made up of completely different tissue and governed by completely different mediators of tumor cell growth, dosages, delivery to the colon (delivered directly to the colon by ingestion) vs. the brain (must be taken up into the bloodstream, metabolized by the liver, traverse the Blood-brain barrier, and delivered to the site of the tumor in high enough concentrations) etc etc, but I don't think we will agree.

Oh I don't doubt there are complications - but the body has natural CBD receptors in the brain - so to get that chemical to the brain is not as much of a stretch (and it's non-psychoactive) - check out the link I posted in my last post

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by DenverChief

Oh I don't doubt there are complications - but the body has natural CBD receptors in the brain - so to get that chemical to the brain is not as much of a stretch (and it's non-psychoactive) - check out the link I posted in my last post

I'm not talking about complications. I'm talking about sufficient concentrations after ingesting the oil, it being metabolized, and it traversing an anatomic barrier in the brain that filters substances. That is much more complicated than simply ingesting something and having a portion of it mechanically delivered unchanged to your colon.

[DenverChief]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

I'm not talking about complications. I'm talking about sufficient concentrations after ingesting the oil, it being metabolized, and it traversing an anatomic barrier in the brain that filters substances. That is much more complicated than simply ingesting something and having a portion of it mechanically delivered unchanged to your colon.

I'm not attacking you - we are having a discussion - you obviously know more than I do about the chemical properties - I'm just trying to traverse the landscape as a lay person with a little bit of anecdotal evidence

[Katipan]

I meet people everyday that are sent by their oncologists. We have them ingesting 1000mgs of THC and 250 of CBD. Not only are visible growths shrinking, we have a gross amount of anecdotal success stories. To the point of national exposure on tv.

It should be next to the aspirin in stores. Until then I guess my boss will just get richer. And if you want to see the funniest most awful riot ever, just try and criminalize weed now. Old people will freak the **** out.