FSTDT Forums
Community => Science and Technology => Topic started by: gyeonghwa on May 02, 2012, 02:31:32 am
-
A Harvard study says:
The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies.
They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.
http://current.com/community/89799784_marijuana-cuts-lung-cancer-tumor-growth-in-half-harvard-study-shows.htm
Well that's helpful I suppose. They could slow the progress of cancer long enough for more conventional treatments to work.
-
Inb4 people who are not at risk of cancer using this as their main argument for their right to smoke it recreationally.
-
If it's lung cancer, smoking it will hardly be a wise decision anyway.
-
If it's lung cancer, smoking it will hardly be a wise decision anyway.
I am not sure why you are saying this. Iirc smoking mj is not a risk factor for lung cancer of any type. And I see no better way of delivering the ingredient to the lungs.
-
Has anything ever gone faster when pumped with THC?
And really folks, why does this make weed viable rather than harnessing the THC directly?
-
Has anything ever gone faster when pumped with THC?
And really folks, why does this make weed viable rather than harnessing the THC directly?
I am not sure how expensive the extraction would be. Is it easy to synthesize?
-
And really folks, why does this make weed viable rather than harnessing the THC directly?
I dunno, why does it?
-
Well, it can also be made into an oil and ingested which would still be quite effective. I'm wondering that how would you need to synthesize it so badly you HAVE to smoke it to survive...
While its synthesis from stuff like petrochemicals etc, is likely expensive, I would imagine its extraction from the actual cannabis does not have too much trouble. There's also this notion that the hemp family is known to be an excellent source of Omega-3 essential fatty acids, regardless of its varietal, which could be just as important in fighting cancer as the THC.
And what a shame Vene isn't here to demand three separately sourced peer reviewed documents to support my claim. ::)
-
Why would the oil be effective?
The issues stem from the requirement that some concentration of THC penetrates and is deposited at the right place.
1. Method of delivery is thus important. Any non-inhalation route will necessarily require significantly higher overall dose to achieve that concentration.
2. Moreover it is probable that the concentration itself will be sufficiently high to create a psychoactive effect beyond the tolerable range of an average person. Most probably the first attempt will be to find if a modification of THC can be made that keeps its therapeutic properties but removes the psycho-activity.
-
And really folks, why does this make weed viable rather than harnessing the THC directly?
I dunno, why does it?
Because people want an excuse to legalize weed so they can smoke it recreationally.
-
Inb4 people who are not at risk of cancer using this as their main argument for their right to smoke it recreationally.
> "Yeah, I have lower back pain and hypertension. I might get heart cancer. That's why I smoke... it's for health reasons. You want me to be healthy, don't you?"
> Smokes like five joints a day, has persistent hacking cough, won't see real doctor
(This is my dad I'm talking about)
-
Politics usually prevents any valid science from being done on pot (by that, I mean no study is approved that isn't overtly trying to show it to be a bad thing). The funny thing is that science, being science, doesn't care about politics, and this sort of thing shows up. I know of at least one other study that tried to show high lung cancer rates in pot smokers. The results were nonsmokers and pot smokers having the same rate of lung cancer, people who smoked pot+tobacco a little higher, and tobacco alone a lot higher. Pot smoke does contain carcinogens, but it also has some cancer-fighting chemicals that cancel them out. It can also be vaporized or eaten, leaving out the bad stuff (mostly generated by combustion of plant material). Smoking is the worst form of delivery: Edibles have it beat in length of effect, and vaporizing is immediate and can be used for nausea where edibles (and pills) are self-defeating.
THC isn't the only active ingredient, there is a whole family of cannabinoids. Additionally, they can change how the body responds to terpenes (also found in the pot, as well as pretty much every plant in existence), which is why the pharmaceutical approach of isolating and manufacturing a single compound has always failed in replicating the effects of medical marijuana.
The idea of "needing an excuse" to smoke pot is a stupid one, because it implies that there's something morally wrong with it. As long as the side effects are less severe than the condition being treated, it's a legitimate medical reason. It would be nice if a non psychoactive variation could be synthesized, because not everyone wants to be high, but the cynic in me would see it being way to expensive for the 99%, while corrupt government officials use it as another excuse to double down on prohibition.
-
According to this article the THC was injected into the mice. So it is not the Devil's Lettuce that is doing it, just its active ingredient.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm)
Then, for three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression, Preet says.
-
Why would the oil be effective?
The issues stem from the requirement that some concentration of THC penetrates and is deposited at the right place.
1. Method of delivery is thus important. Any non-inhalation route will necessarily require significantly higher overall dose to achieve that concentration.
2. Moreover it is probable that the concentration itself will be sufficiently high to create a psychoactive effect beyond the tolerable range of an average person. Most probably the first attempt will be to find if a modification of THC can be made that keeps its therapeutic properties but removes the psycho-activity.
I get it. If you smoke it, you won't get as high? I'll reiterate, how common would it be that you're going to die without it? The oil is also quite simple to prepare and doesn't lose all the other health benefits you can obtain from the hemp family of plants.
-
Lung cancer gives decreased lung capacity and lungs don't normally like smoke in them anyways. Thus, you're only hurting yourself by smoking.
If it can be injected, as nickerson's post says, then you don't need to smoke at all and you're just wanting that high. At least be effing honest about it. I can respect being honest but giving bullshit excuses about 'oh the health benefiiiits' is not the way to go and make me sympathetic.
If, on the other hand you vaporize like Stallchaser explain then cool. Good for ya. Do that. But don't kid me or yourself by saying smoking is the best way to get it into your system and to claim the health benefits. Lungs don't like smoke. They never have. And trying to claim otherwise is asinine.
-
I think that marijuana does have chemicals in it that have positive health benefits, but I also think it's pretty much common fucking sense that inhaling smoke is not a good idea.
-
I am not sure whose comments are targeted at me. But I will respond to those I perceive as such.
0. Shane, I do not seek anyone's sympathy; yours the least. I do not smoke pot. I also did not see anyone claiming that lungs like smoke...
1. Injection as a form of delivery is inferior to inhalation as a form of delivery to the lungs.
2. Inhalation can be done through smoking the burning plant or in terms of delivering THC in nebulized form.
3. The THC should be delivered in a therapeutics dose to the lungs.
4. THC has psychoactive effect regardless of form of delivery, however it may be possible that the effect is removed while keeping the original therapeutic effect in the derivative.
I) I don't think 1 can be argued against. But what I think is not necessarily correct so I am interested to hear arguments in the contrary.
II) Because of 1, 2 and 3 it follows that an inhalation is the better way to deliver THC to the lungs while keeping the psychoactive effect minimized.
III) If 4 is achieved an injection method would be viable. That of course matters only if the derivative has no new dose dependent side effects.
In a previous comment I did mention that the first line of thought will be to create a derivative that is therapeutic but not psychoactive (and this may be very hard to do). While the psychoactive effect is present I do not see what the point of arguing inhalation vs injection vs eating is. All of those will have psychoactive effects. The people who want to use marijuana recreationally do not really care about the method of delivery (at least in my knowledge). And they would not mind THC inhalators either, I think.
In the end the cost vs risk vs benefit evaluation will be the important one. If the derivative that is not psychoactive is too expensive... well I am sure most patients will prefer regular THC as it is rather cheap. I think THC inhalators should be easy and cheap to prepare though, thus removing the risks coming from smoke itself.
Rime, I don't get your point. Both deliveries are liked by recreational users. Both have the psychoactive effect. Smoke or oil doesn't matter to them. But it matters to the lung cancer patients as explained above - better of course if in inhalation form.
-
I think that marijuana does have chemicals in it that have positive health benefits, but I also think it's pretty much common fucking sense that inhaling smoke is not a good idea.
Common sense isn't so common these days.
-
I think that marijuana does have chemicals in it that have positive health benefits, but I also think it's pretty much common fucking sense that inhaling smoke is not a good idea.
Common sense isn't so common these days.
More than 300 plant species in 5 continents are used in smoke form for different diseases. As a method of drug administration, smoking is important as it is a simple, inexpensive, but very effective method of extracting particles containing active agents. More importantly, generating smoke reduces the particle size to a microscopic scale thereby increasing the absorption of its active chemical principles. However, the hazards of inhaling a particulate are unacceptable to some people.[13] (From wikipedia).
-
I think that marijuana does have chemicals in it that have positive health benefits, but I also think it's pretty much common fucking sense that inhaling smoke is not a good idea.
Yep, even inhaling smoke from a fire can give you cancer.
As an excuse, I don't need or want an excuse. If this is true, it is a nice added bonus.
-
1. Injection as a form of delivery is inferior to inhalation as a form of delivery to the lungs.
I) I don't think 1 can be argued against. But what I think is not necessarily correct so I am interested to hear arguments in the contrary.
Yes it can. It all depends on what part of the lungs you are trying to deliver to and what you are trying to deliver. Not all drugs are going to pass through the lining of the lung that effectively. Plus not all drugs are going to effectively carried by water vapor.
-
1. Injection as a form of delivery is inferior to inhalation as a form of delivery to the lungs.
I) I don't think 1 can be argued against. But what I think is not necessarily correct so I am interested to hear arguments in the contrary.
Yes it can. It all depends on what part of the lungs you are trying to deliver to and what you are trying to deliver. Not all drugs are going to pass through the lining of the lung that effectively. Plus not all drugs are going to effectively carried by water vapor.
I see the point you are making, though with very limited scope. As you mention it's a question of effectiveness. For the concentration coming from inhalation to be lower than the one coming from the blood for a given overall dose you will need quite low permeability through the lung lining. But I can see the possibility that some molecule is not deliverable via inhalation. Point taken.
Water vapor is not the only way an inhalator can work and as I mentioned in the reply to Shane, smoke is particulate matter and doesn't need water vapor (it is also the case that THC is a lipophilic molecule and binds to fats very well).
A point in favor of blood delivery is that there is a limit of the rate of delivery achievable by smoking or inhalation. You can't constantly smoke for example ;)
-
Which is why I discounted smoke as a delivery system. Smoke may work for one time, or short term treatments, but any more and it does more harm than good.
-
There are lots of medicines that are derived from certain chemicals in plants. The main active ingredient in asprin, for instance, can be found in willow bark (IIRC). Still, wrapping willow bark around your head is not as effective at curing headaches as taking the synthesized version of the active substance. I have no doubt that marijuana has chemicals that have positive health benefits. But those chemicals should ideally be synthesized and taken in another, safer form so that people can still reap those benefits without suffering the drawbacks of inhaling smoke.
-
Which is why I discounted smoke as a delivery system. Smoke may work for one time, or short term treatments, but any more and it does more harm than good.
I am not certain that you can discount it just like that :). In particular discounting it without addressing the concentration issue at all is quite curious. It is a question of risk vs benefits vs costs. Yet you are just saying: smoke is bad, end of story. I find this very unscientific. I have resigned myself to not commenting in most other subsections of forum since I find the same disregard of the scientific method there. But at least here in science and technology I wish people adhered to it.
This applies to Wikked Wytch's comment as well.
-
You... you really need to know why inhaling smoke is bad for you?
I guess next time I'm escaping from a room on fire, I'll just walk upright because I've never seen proof that breathing in a few puffs of smoke will hurt me.
Also, I direct you to the last sentence in my previous comment:
But those chemicals should ideally be synthesized and taken in another, safer form so that people can still reap those benefits without suffering the drawbacks of inhaling smoke.
This is about people who need those benefits at a rate that would cause damage to their lungs if they smoked it. Even if I only had to take the chemical once, I would rather take it some other way than smoking it.
-
There are lots of medicines that are derived from certain chemicals in plants. The main active ingredient in asprin, for instance, can be found in willow bark (IIRC). Still, wrapping willow bark around your head is not as effective at curing headaches as taking the synthesized version of the active substance. I have no doubt that marijuana has chemicals that have positive health benefits. But those chemicals should ideally be synthesized and taken in another, safer form so that people can still reap those benefits without suffering the drawbacks of inhaling smoke.
Cannabis tinctures were one of the most common medicines before the marihuana tax act. A big part of how it got through in the first place was that it was called "marijuana", a Mexican slang for smokable plant material (and could mean other things like tobacco or datura). That way, they could demonize it without people realizing it was an extremely useful medicine. By the time doctors realized what they were doing, it was too late. Extracts with better medicinal properties than the plant itself would most likely come back if the government wasn't so stupid about it.
-
I am not certain that you can discount it just like that :). In particular discounting it without addressing the concentration issue at all is quite curious. It is a question of risk vs benefits vs costs. Yet you are just saying: smoke is bad, end of story. I find this very unscientific. I have resigned myself to not commenting in most other subsections of forum since I find the same disregard of the scientific method there. But at least here in science and technology I wish people adhered to it.
This applies to Wikked Wytch's comment as well.
I'm only discounting it for most treatments. As I said, one time or short term I could see it. There are a wealth of studies that indicate the problems inhaling smoke causes, pot smoke included. Unless injection, ingestion, or nebulisation are ineffective smoking the medication is the last option.
-
Stop making me agree with Nickerson, dammit.
-
Stop making me agree with Nickerson, dammit.
(http://rgifs.gifbin.com/1232550815_bush%20doing%20the%20happy%20dance.gif)
-
Stop making me agree with Nickerson, dammit.
(http://rgifs.gifbin.com/1232550815_bush%20doing%20the%20happy%20dance.gif)
Yer link is broken.
-
I'm only discounting it for most treatments. As I said, one time or short term I could see it. There are a wealth of studies that indicate the problems inhaling smoke causes, pot smoke included. Unless injection, ingestion, or nebulisation are ineffective smoking the medication is the last option.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that smoking it should be the first option...