“Cannabis cure for brain cancer” headline is misleading

Well I dont know what to think about any of the debates and arguments going on here. I’m 25 and i’ve seen too many people die of cancer and known for western medicine fail too many times to trust it. Its not just a matter that i’ve known a few people with cancer, its that for almost every one of them its been a death sentence. Maybe i’m just unlucky.

This taken with the knowledge that for some cancers, getting secondary tumours caused BY the treatment is regarded as normal by the medical establishment gives me cause for fear.

Nothing about any of this adds up. The LD50 of pot is said to be something insane like ingesting twice your own body weight of active chemical, in one attempt!

Why is it illegal now when it used to be fine in Victorian times and before? Just what happened? Did Queen Vic eat too much sponge cake and it caused an international incident?

Admittedly legal pot and a nation full of idiots too wasted to work isnt exactly a great idea either, but taken actually objectively, especially in these times… the sad irony is, is that its easier to believe left wing pot loonies than it is to believe big business who continually profit and keep power by lying to the world. But then big business has brought us amazing inventions and institutions.

The only clear thing I get from thinking about it is that nothing is simple, easy and absolutely true for all people

Hi Kat

Thank you for that but I was asking you specifically for a fair reason, namely that if Peters comment is accurate it kind of negates the logic of the arguments you’ve been making. So would you let me know if you agree or disagree with his comment please?

Thank you

Glenn

Having just read all of these comments, just wanted to thank Laura Davis for making such a rational, reasonable plea for a simple solution.

Hi Kat

Thank you for the responses.

In an earlier post by Peter Reynolds he said:

“Can we just be absolutely clear about Sativex. Please don’t fall into the propaganda trap. Sativex IS cannabis. It is a tincture produced by a CO2 extraction process and soaking in ethanol. It contains all 66+ cannabinoids present in the plant, not just THC and CBD. It is pharmacologically identical to the herbal cannabis grown illegally in people’s own homes or by government appoved growers in Holland, Israel and America.”

Is this a fact please Kat?

Thanks

can we have a response please Kat?

Let me get this straight, there is a reputed cannabis cure for cancer that has been known about for decades.
However, it is forbidden, by law, to be used even as a last resort even to save a life?

It seems to me that someone, somewhere is playing for the team of Big Pharm. you know, the politicians official poisoners, the vaccine, and drug up the kids lobby.
I have a friend who has cancer and has been told he has about eighteen months to live. Now, as he is dying what possible objection to him, and others like him, trying the cannabis cure could there be, unless its to protect the profits of the drug companies? They, as I understand it, have been working for years to produce a drug that mimics cannboids, in order to patent it for profit.
If that is not a conflict of interest, then what is?

As I read your blog (Kat) I too like a couple of others here on this running blog noticed how contradicting your statements are. What kind of car do you drive? Are you making a good living looking for a synthetic cure for cancer to sell? I can answere the second question for you. Yes. You are so ignorant about marijuana! Such as “safe dosages” “Potential TOXIC cantamInants”. You come off as a TOOL. I don’t think you personally mean harm, but for heavens sake pull your head out of big pharmas ass and look around. All your business is concerned with is makeing a cure to sell. Your answere; of course we like to make a buck for finding the cure. Here in the U.S. it costs $100,000,000 to research new compounds or drugs for cancer treatment. What a bunch of crap. That is some expensive red tape. I think you should take up smoking marijuana so you can understand its toxic, scary psychoactive effects. The marijuana plant is the best thing we have for fuel, materials and medicine.

If you watched the video about the kid that had medical Canibbus administered by his father, you would see in this mans face that Canibbus saved his child. It is common knowledge now that there are caniboide receptors in our brains and major organs. It is also common knowledge that caniboides kill cancer cells in test. It is also common knowledge chemotherapy procedures don’t work for every one and end up killing most.

I have found myself reading this forum after my wife watched the ‘Run for the cure’ video.
I am just an ordinary person without a view one way or another but a video such as that I had to try to find out what truth, if any, there was in the assertions made. When people say that something has been proved in the black and white way that Rick Simpson claimed it makes me very suspicious unless there is clear supportive scientific evidence that a layman like myself may understand and have faith in. It did seem to smack of the Cheryl Crow issue when on US TV she announced that drinking water from a plastic bottle had given her breast cancer as if it were a proven fact.
It seems that the majority of posts are from people who have previously formed diametrically opposed views and therefore making a judgement between them is exceedingly difficult. I think that apart from the potential chance of the improvement in treating forms of cancer, that if Cancer Research was to effect and/or support such research it may bring the two sides together. I am quite prepared to accept the singleminded view that may prevail in the U.S., it reminds me of the issue against the use and banning of DDT, which, it has been argued was not in fact dangerous to the levels suggested, and could have saved the lives of many children in Africa who died from malaria (although the effect on other birds, plants, insects and other animals is another really complicated issue) I find the most compelling comments and posts have been made by Laura Davis, especially, I suppose because she has approached the subject like me from an intermediate position, although for more pressing reasons. Having said all that, if a member of my family was suffering from one of the dreadful diseases mentioned and I did not feel that the treatment being offered was being effective, the law could take a running jump and I would try any option that I thought had a chance of making a positive difference. In the 1960s and 1970s when my mother was suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, I wonder how much of her pain and discomfort could have been eased if she had been able to use a cannabis product. I will try to pick my way through research as I find it, but I think that not just for me but the world at large, a clear cut comprehensible answer to the effectiveness of any treatment claims would be invaluable. I understand the principle of what Kat was saying about measureable and pure drugs being used but then if Sativex is as complicated as claimed that principle is somewhat undermined.

Thanks Al. Very wise words indeed. Grandma died yesterday, luckily, she was so full of morphine that she didn’t feel anything, and for that I am grateful. I think you are right: politics and medicine are not natural companions. Wishing you all the very best. :(

I am sorry to hear that your grandmother is suffering with cancer & know of the frustration of seeing a loved one in pain but not being able to help them.
It is a illogical situation, your confusion is justified given modern & further advanced scientific findings, compared to the flawed scientific evidence and it´s assocciated fear mongering media campain that was the basis for it´s prohibition. We are lucky to still have the plant as it has long been on the un list for eradication. But know that it is publicly known to have anti cancerous effects, reportedly “the largest breakthrough to date” (regarding the spanish laboritories results) to cite but one of the many. Then what does it mean when research is restricted & hampered by law in face of such accumulating scientific evidence.
I t doesn´t appear to be a logical stance to maintain such outldated & discredited findings & assertions as a basis for the prohibition of something known to be potentially beneficial. The truth of the matter is politics & medicine have no natural association & one would do well to keep out of the way of the other less it wishes to hamper more.

My grandmother is dying painfully and slowly from cancer – there is nothing more they can for her. She is old and has had a good life.

The debates on here are fascinating and one thing strikes me very powerfully as it seems a giant contradiction: Grandma is doed up to her eyeballs on morphine – fantastic as she is almost pain free, albeit very sleepy and gradually slipping into the otherworld, bless her.

Morphine is an opiate, derived from poppies? And highly addictive? I am not a clinician so cannot speak with any authority of such things, it just strikes me as odd that an addictive, powerfully narcotic, naturally derived (or is it synthesised?) substance is given as pain relief, yet they say that cannabis, which surely is less harmful than opiates, different rules apply?

Je suis tres confusant. I don’t mean to be disrespectful to Cancer Research. Interesting stuff…

It is very interesting that cannabis has preventative qualities against cancer ie; of the test subjects that smoked cannabis were less likely to develop cancer than the control group that did not smoke at all. To quote the late great Bill Hicks “marijuana should be mandatory”, all joking aside if the chemical components of cannabis that have an preventatve effect against cancer could be isolated and composed in ratios that have the strongest preventative effect against cancer. It could be of greater importance than finding a cure for the disease. If it could then be produced at prices that could make it available to EVERY BODY in the country (in a non psycoactive form), who knows by how much it could cut the incedence rate of cancer & what savings could be gained through not having to treat the disease. unlocking money for other research & trials. That a cancer free world may come through prevention rather than a cure. Again if research is allowed!

I read with great interest about the research in Spain wherein mice with brain cancer were injected with THC and cancer cells were killed without affecting surrounding healthy cells. How could the United States (my country) not jump on this? Why was this study not reported in the mainstream media? Oh yes..almost forgot..the government and it’s ties to the big pharmaceutical companies..their profits are way more important than other people’s lives..it’s disgusting.

its about time something was done to legalise cannabis there is plenty of documented evidence to prove cannabis oil cures cancer and i just dont understand why its ilegal people can find all the info on the internet it can no longer be hid from us exodus 30:23 good enough for jesus good enough for me

wow. just re read the article and comments again. I cannot believe you believe your own arguments KAT, on one hand you show it does indeed cure or help cure cancer but still debate it’s effectiveness and SAFE LEVELS of dosage, NO NONE has died from Cannabis EVER, you cannot OD, the effective dose is as much as you can take, all the artificial Cannabinoids that you are so adamant about being wonder drugs and are worth further studies are contained in a natural safe effective form in the plant, no need to extract, centrifuge, dilute, mix with some crap to make it injectable or spray able, etc etc… just eat it or vaporise it. for gods sake I have this debate with the Australian Cancer foundation and they repeat your words just about word for word, funny that eh

they do make very good adverts tho.. so send in your money…..

there is a good side tho, more ppl are hearing about this cure for cancer.
As the U.S Health Service has started to patent various synthetic cannabinoids as cures for cancer the news will only spread further, and then cancer research business will die.

I have watched the video on you tube ‘Run From The Cure’, I think it is atrocious that this treatment is being kept from cancer patients and chemo and radiation is being used instead, despite the devastation these treatments cause. Is THC treatment legally allowed in Britain at all or is the country as small minded as the States? If something helps a cancer patient they should have the right to try it and possibly be cured by it.

Why was my skin cancer cure time lapse video removed when the other video above was not? just curious. If people want to see it, youtube, cannabis cures skin cancer,blessings

Thanks for your response Kat and Peter. You have provided lot’s of information and I will try to work my way through it.

I was a little disappointed to hear that Cancer Research don’t instigate trials themselves as it is less accessible for members of the public to lobby researchers as we don’t know who they are!

If it was legal over here I would definately try making some as the anecdotal evidence seems so compelling but as it’s not and my dad wouldn’t entertain breaking the law, we’ll have to hope for a breakthrough in traditional medicine in the next few years. The problem is at 70 my dad’s unlikely to be eligible for trials as it seems they rarely invite his age group to participate.There seems to be a reluctance at a certain age to spend NHS money on expensive treatments which is understandable I suppose when you have a restricted budget. I was inspired by the modified T-cell research done by Dr Carl June which looks as though it could be promising for lymphoma but again I don’t think it would be available in time as my dad would probably be considered too old by the time it was ready, if he’s still with us. Anyway I’m going off topic but I hope that Cancer Research will support any applications from researchers if they receive any to test hemp oil and will lobby the governement to remove their restrictions for research purposes.

Since there is photographic proof it cures skin cancer along with a copy of diagnosis online for all to see,why do you not accept it as proof?Yes,lack controlled studies ,i know but the time lapse does not lie! If you really cared you would get a small group of say5 people and do a underground controlled study on skin cancer and if it works, you would start to try it on other types.You say testimonials are not acceptable yet that is how side effect list for meds are generated.please respond

“To the best of our knowledge, we have not been approached by any researchers in the UK wishing to conduct trials of hemp oil for treating cancer.”

Kat, the Home Office has received multiple applications for licences to cultivate/import cannabis for medical research but dismisses them all out of hand. Unless your name is GW Pharmaceuticals you have no chance.

Such corruption and unlawful conduct is about to be challenged in the courts. What is astonishing to me and to many other commenters on this and other posts on your blog is that CRUK is not itself pushing harder for research into this area. Because it is politically incorrect you seem so easily deflected. There is an enormous body of evidence, anecdotal but also peer reviewed invitro and animal studies that demonstrate huge potential.

The power of cannabis is in modulating the endocannabinoid system which means its potential is in symptom relief as well as actually treating cancer.

CRUK should be standing up against the government and its obstructive position. It is pressure from the US DEA that is behind this and CRUK should act with a more independent and patient-centred approach.

Hi Laura,

We’re sorry to hear about your father. You may find it helpful to contact our Cancer Information nurses on freephone 0808 800 4040 (9am-5pm Monday to Friday), or by email (https://aboutus.cancerresearchuk.org/contact-us/?secure=true/). They are happy to answer any questions you or your father may have about cancer and its treatment.

There is no reliable scientific evidence that hemp oil can cure lymphoma. The internet contains numerous anecdotal reports that cannabis or hemp oil can cure cancer – however, none of this data has been published in academic journals or made available for peer review (the accepted standard for scientific studies). As such, it is difficult to believe that there is solid evidence for the claims that are made.

Some studies have been done testing purified cannabinoids to treat a very small number of people with brain tumours, but their cancers were not cured (http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-questions/is-cannabis-treatment-brain-tumours, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15313899 ).

As we’re discussed at some length here and in this other thread (http://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/08/19/cannabinoids-for-treating-cancer/), there is evidence that specific cannabinoid chemicals may have an influence on cancer cells growing in the lab. And we have funded lab research into the effects of cannabinoids on bowel cancer cells.

There is no doubt that cannabinoids – both natural and synthetic – are fascinating biological molecules. Many scientists around the world are looking at cannabinoids with the aim of using them to treat cancer – if you are interested, a search of the scientific literature using the terms “Cannabi* cancer” pulls up more than 800 research papers:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=cannabi*%20cancer

However, because of issues with purity, safety, dosing, variations in chemical composition – not to mention the psychoactive properties of cannabis and its legal status in the UK – cannabis and hemp oil themselves cannot be considered to be suitable treatments for cancer.

As we’ve already mentioned (http://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/08/19/cannabinoids-for-treating-cancer/#comment-4821), how would you make sure that people were getting a reliable dose of the drug? And what about all the other contaminants from the plant matter? Much of the research into naturally-based drugs (for example, aspirin, resveratrol and curcumin) relies on purified chemicals, without the risk of confounding – and potentially toxic – contaminants. And chemists can research and tweak the structures of natural molecules to find something even more effective than the naturally-occurring chemical. This means that the dose can be controlled, and also the active substance can be given in much higher doses than might be possible from the natural product itself, to provide safe, reliable and effective treatments for patients.

The natural world has given us many useful chemicals which are showing great potential in the fight against cancer. Cannabinoids are likely to be another – but in the same way we wouldn’t suggest chewing vast quantities of yew bark to get a suitable dose of the chemotherapy drug paclitaxel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paclitaxel) we don’t suggest that cannabis can treat cancer.

Because of the way our funding system works, we do not commission specific clinical trials – rather, researchers come to us with project proposals, and those that of a suitably high scientific standard are funded (assuming there is enough money available). You can read more about how our funding process works here: http://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/10/27/the-multi-million-pound-question/

To the best of our knowledge, we have not been approached by any researchers in the UK wishing to conduct trials of hemp oil for treating cancer. As mentioned before, a trial of the cannabis extract Sativex is currently under way to test whether it can relieve cancer-related pain. There is no suggestion that it can cure the disease.

You may also be interested to read this post: http://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/07/06/there’s-no-conspiracy-sometimes-it-just-doesn’t-work/

Best wishes,

Kat Arney, Science Information Manager, on behalf of Cancer Research UK

Everyone agrees that Cancer Research UK should be looking into Cannabis Oil and testing it’s effectiveness. Everyone exept Cancer Research UK. To ignore this but to support synthetic cannabinoids research shows a disgraceful loyalty to pharmacuetical companies and disregard to cancer patients. Cancer Research UK claims there’s not enough “robust” evidence to support cannabis as a cancer cure, but i challenge Cancer Research UK to name me a currently approved cancer treatment that has as much evidence supporting it’s anti cancer effect. Cancer Research UK has contradicted itself with most of what it’s said, both denying and confirming an anti cancer effect of Cannabis. Plus Cancer Research UK have also admitted the useful sympton relief cannabis provides, yet will not support it’s use in anyway. Even if there’s debate over wether this boy (Cash) was cured by cannabis or Chemo, one thing is not in debate is that the Cannabis helped him through the chemo, yet Cancer Research UK will not even support it’s use as an anti nausea medicine. Shame on you, Cancer Research UK.

What an eloquent and heartfelt plea Laura. Any reasonable human being would support you 100%. I regret though that neither government, nor a politically correct institution like Cancer Research is likely to take any notice. Their focus is less on patients and more on preserving their own power base and certainly, definitely NOT pursuing anything that might undermine Big Pharma’s profits.

Cannabis oil is already proven to cure skin cancer but both US and UK governments maintain it has “no medicinal value”. “Proven” you ask? Well, physician doumented records satisfy me as proof although Big Pharma and government think otherwise.

Cannabis is already proven to minimise spasticity in MS and help with chronic and neuropathic pain.but only when it is marketed by GW Pharmaceuticals at 10 times the price that organised crime charges on the streets. If you have MS or cancer pain and grow your own for virtually nothing then again it has “no medicinal value” and, what’s more, you can go to jail for it.

The UK and US governments, GW Pharmaceuticals and a number of formerly eminent doctors and scientists are engaged in a conspiracy to misinform, mislead and deceive the public about cannabis and about GW’s Sativex which is nothing but cannabis but at a fantastically high price.

This “no medicinal value” story is a lie as hundreds of peer reviewed scientific studies prove. Big Pharma’s profits are sacrosanct though and government will alter and change the law and regulations as it wishes in order to keep the cash rolling in and prevent widespread use of this incredible medicine. Remember, mankind has used cannabis safely and effectively for over 5000 years. It is only in the last century or so that it has been prohibited.

As a last example of the evil hypocrisy and self-serving dishonesty of government and medical establishment, remember again that “no medicinal value” claim. Yet In 2003, the US government registered US patent no. 6630507 for cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants for limiting neurological damage following stroke or physical trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and dementia.

These are the charlatans that we are governed by.

It would be fantastic if Cancer Research would leverage its influence to get proper trials on hemp oil (There are one or two people in Britain making it) but they will be told not to by the government and they will dutifully turn away.

If you want to do something to fight against this terrible evil, join Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR), the UK political party that is fighting to make the truth about cannabis clear.

wwwclear-uk.org

I am not pro or anti cannabis but am a daughter who’s father has just been diagnosed with SLL, non-hodgkins lymphoma. He is stage 4, there is no cure and he has been put on watch and wait. I am also a long time supporter of cancer research. For families like mine reading testimonials of people who have taken Hemp Oil and claim their tumours are shrinking and cancers are going in to remission, are very enticing when you have no hope of a cure through traditional medicine, particularly when the people promoting it are not asking a penny for their advice, so there is no scam involved. But I don’t want to persuade my father to give up six months of his possibly short life, going to live in another country, where we can legally produce this oil for him to try, if there is actually little chance of it being effective.
I feel that as an independent organisation it would be really helpful to families like mine, if cancer research would conduct a proper trial of hemp oil using the methods being promoted on the internet not to necessarily prove it’s effectiveness but maybe to disprove it. I really think there are many people who would be eager to try this oil, but won’t because it’s illegal so there would be no shortage of volunteers for the trial. It would be really inexpensive to fund this research as no expensive drugs are involved and if cancer research’s suspicions are correct, that hemp oil does not cure cancer then this trial would be conclusive and help many people make better choices for the last few months or years of their lives. If however the results were positive then this would provide great evidence that more resources should be put into developing safe and regulated methods of producing the oil.
I do feel as an organisation largely funded by donations from the public, Cancer Research should feel obliged through their research to formally discredit or encourage further research into Hemp Oil depending on their findings. It’s just not good enough to say that there isn’t enough ‘robust scientific evidence’ when that’s what your supporters expect you to be providing.
Please help those families vulnerable to these claims become better informed. I don’t trust your assumptions that hemp oil is ineffective as much as I don’t really trust their claims that it can cure cancer. You have the power and resources to prove or disprove these claims. Please take this opportunity. What have you got to lose?
As they claim that cancer can be cured with Hemp Oil within 2 -3 months surely a trial could be completed within a year.
Thank you.

Again, sorry. Should be, “As much as mitigate Alcohol over consumption, which as CR UK knows damn well, Alcohol is a *cause* of cancers” not case.

Proofread, proofread, proofread, always do it, not proofread properly, doh. : )

I would be most interested to see any comments from qualified medical practitioners about a certain Doctor Jurkovic
He published a paper entitled
“ONCOLOGICAL DISEASES: TREATMENT BY BLOCKING TUMOUR

METABOLISM TREATMENT OF MASTOPATHIA FIBROSA

http://www.jurkovic.sk/files/jurkovic-bmn-av.pdf

Sorry, “more and more are realising the era of prohibition allowed what are actually charlatans were allowed to prosper in career, reputation and status among the scientific community because they reinforced prohibition propaganda and were not questioned, such was the pitifully low amount of permitted research into Cannabis which would be corroborated as published papers in the scientific/research community.

Should have “, is now at an end” at end of paragraph.

Indeed the BS never ends, opinions don’t count for crap when facts prove otherwise, but opinions seem to be presented as ‘professional’ and ‘expert’ judgements contradicting facts in research and actual cases which prove case in fact regards cannabis being anticarcinogenic and deemed more valid than what are facts.

Look below the surface, and i bet those attempting to contradict, are associated with those in the scientific community who have earned significant amounts by publishing books and consultancy for judicial proceedings and many very important reports for many organisations etc which their work hijacked and misled etc, who have engaged in falsified research funded by pharma corp’s and Alcohol industry so they continue to have wealth through monopoly etc, who have demonised Cannabis as medicament as much as a recreational substance much safer than Alcohol and know their reputations are suffering because the truth about cannabis is becoming common knowledge, so when research and cases representing what are truths and fact regards cannabis such as it being a potent anti carcinogen and can retard and even eradicate tumours etc, they come out of the woodwork and try to re-establish their erroneous BS as facts, because more and more are realising the era of prohibition allowed what are actually charlatans were allowed to prosper in career, reputation and status among the scientific community because they reinforced prohibition propaganda and were not questioned, such was the pitifully low amount of permitted research into Cannabis which would be corroborated as published papers in the scientific/research community.

Now that has changed, thanks to the United Nations, and a lot of cannabis research is steaming ahead, proving many who have written for the prohibitionists to be so wrong it’s ridiculous, which is slowly tearing reputations of those charlatans apart, this is one way they try to maintain or re-establish reputation and futile attempts to refute truth and facts.

They were happy enough to gain from prohibition BS, now time to pay the piper as science proves just how wrong they were and are and they are seen for what they are, intelligent people, yes, but charlatans who profited by creating prohibitionist scientific convention and consensus based on nonsense, not actual science and research, all a manipulation to reinforce political prohibition policy regards cannabis.

The game is up for them, they don’t like it, and we see releases such as this via the science platforms for papers and studies etc, and indeed on this Cancer Research UK website, which as we know, is full of inaccuracies prompted by the same aforementioned situation, as in truth and facts, cutting edge research now the U.N. shift in paradigm has allowed proper research, which incontrovertibly contradicts their anti cannabis positions, and more importantly, political prohibition policy in the UK, as all those people are now being proved completely wrong, moreso every month which passes, so it is no stretch to consider Cancer Research UK is being politically manipulated to corroborate political policy and position, as much as idiots in the field who have supported bunkum for donkeys years and do not like looking stupid as facts which contradict them come from the now abundant research happening these days regards cannabis and the anti carcinogenic properties of cannabinoids.

They will no doubt be considering, they should have progressed with more integrity in decades past, indeed, yes, too late now though, they’ve established their careers on utter nonsense, now truth with enforce a balance, their own faults and i’ve no sympathy whatsoever!!!

Humans are not Mice, no, but Tumour retardation and eradication in mice and curent research suggest those trailed in several medical treatment centres around the world have had successes treating cancers and Tunours with cannabinoids, has been proven via cannabinoid treatments, and it is no stretch whatsoever, that the little boy derived more benefit from the cannabis than the Chemo’, however much it cannot actually be proved either way in this specific case, it has been proven elsewhere around the world.

I can’t be bothered to find the papers and citations etc at the moment, but it’s published on the Internet, Cancer Research UK should really get their facts right and do some actual research themselves instead of relying on old positions they consider to still be valid, because they aren’t, things have changed and are still changing with increasing momentum regards cannabis, they are just making themselves look unprofessional and as much charlatans as bunkum prohibitionists ‘scientists’ whose research they rely on, who are Not some fringe, metascientific new age non recognised scientists as some would prefer to believe, but formally recognised eminent scientists and research bodies, now proving the case for cannabis and cannabinoids in cancer treatments!

PaxDeltaPan aka, Paul Lawrenson.

Ok. The whole point of this article was to clarify that we “don’t know” what cannabis did for the boy’s cancer. Yet you clearly state under the photo that cannabis can NOT cure cancer. But you don’t really know that, do you? I am also concerned that this article tries to encourage people to believe the myth that smoking cannabis can cause lung cancer. This has been proved through Dr. Tashkin’s studies at UCLA to be false. In fact, none of his subject who smoked ONLY marijuana developed cancer. The ones who smoked marijuana in conjunction with cigarettes were actually LESS LIKELY to develop the cancer that we know tobacco use can cause. This boy’s tumors have ceased to grow. I have met this child. He is healthy, interactive, and can play now. He is a normal toddler. He has not lost his ability to live normally due to debilitating chemo. He is not so ill that he cannot lift his little head from the pillow. Cannabis DOES induce PCD, or programmed cell death. It has been proven. Why is the UK choosing to ignore this evidence too? I would also agree that this is more about the patents than the patients. Please read this article from the Journal of Molecular Therapeutics on how cannabis has been shown to cause/enhance cell death:

Marijuana Compound Induces Cell Death In Hard-To-Treat Brain Cancer

January 20, 2011 – Madrid, Spain

Madrid, Spain: The combined administration of THC and the pharmaceutical agent temozolomide (TMZ) demonstrates strong anti-cancer activity in brain tumors resistant to conventional anti-cancer treatments, according to preclinical data published online in the journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.

Investigators at Complutense University in Spain assessed the anti-tumor activity of the cannabinoids THC and CBD (cannabidiol) in glioma xenografts (tissue grafts).

Authors reported that the administration of THC in combination with TMZ (the benchmark agent for the management of glioblastoma) “enhanced autophagy” (programmed cell death) in malignant tissue. The combined administration of THC, CBD, and TMZ “remarkably reduce[d] the growth of glioma xenografts … [and] produced a strong antitumoral action in both TMZ-sensitive and TMZ-resistant tumors.”

They concluded, “Altogether, our findings support that the combined administration of TMZ and cannabinoids could be therapeutically exploited for the management of GBM (gliobastoma multiforme).”

A 2006 pilot study published in the British Journal of Cancer reported that the intratumoral administration of THC was associated with reduced tumor cell proliferation in two of nine human subjects with GBM, which is highly resistant to conventional anti-cancer treatments.

Separate preclinical studies assessing the anti-cancer activity of cannabinoids and endocannabinoids indicate that the substances can inhibit the proliferation of various types of cancerous cells, including breast carcinoma, prostate carcinoma, colorectal carcinoma, gastric adenocarcinoma, skin carcinoma, leukemia cells, neuroblastoma, lung carcinoma, uterus carcinoma, thyroid epithelioma, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, cervical carcinoma, oral cancerbiliary tract cancer (cholangiocarcinoma), and lymphoma.

For more information, please contact Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director, at: [email protected]. Full text of the study, “A Combined Preclinical Therapy of Cannabinoids and Temozolomide against Glioma,” appears in the journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.

Come on Cancer Research – you are badly loosing this debate, it is painful to watch and you guys are ment to be against people suffering……….

Just want to apologise for the totally stupid math I displayed above, not really sure how I worked that out.

Interesting to see the level of opinion on this. The trouble with research is there is always some other research to say the something different.

What is clear though is the fact that Cancer Research does not think Cannabis as a realistic cure, and that no robust (even though they did some) evidence supports the case for cannabis as a cure.

Arguments on pure, or modified or legal status are just a smokescreen to avoid the issue. But what deeply worries me is why is Cancer Research trying to avoid a potential cure? A cure that could be grown at home, that could empower people and free the state of a sizeable medical bill.

Famously, when the US National Cancer Institute recently added cannabis as a treatment for cancer on its website, a few days later it was taken down.

Now, Freedom Of Information requests have shown that this was under pressure from the federal government.

http://www.theweedblog.com/government-forced-cancer-institute-to-censor-medical-marijuana-benefits/

I’m not a conspiracy theorist but it is manifestly true that the establishment wishes to suppress the truth about cannabis as a cure for cancer.

Cancer research UK admit that science has proven that cannabis kills cancer cells and does so with out damage to healthy cells, they admit that it could be a treatment (but only support it’s use in synthetic form). But if cannabis kills cancer (as is now proven) then doesn’t that qualify it as atleast a potential cure? Also why haven’t cancer Research UK responded regarding Sativex, which as Peter Reynolds pointed out, is natural cannabis sold at a massively inflated price.

Although I think it is clear Cancer Research UK is intentionally under stating the anti cancer effect of cannabis. If cannabis kills cancer (which is now proven) then why are Cancer Research UK not atleast championing cannabis as a medicine for “treatment” of cancer, even if Cancer Research UK won’t except Cannabis as a potential cure (despite the increasing evidence showing that it is a potential cure). By your own admission, cannabis is proven to kill cancer without causing any harm to healthy cells. By supporting synthetic cannabinoid research but ignoring natural cannabis, Cancer Research UK is showing a disgraceful disregard for cancer patients.

… “there’s no robust scientific evidence to show that cannabis or cannabis oil can successfully treat cancer”.

Funny, as I’ve read dozens of scientific papers showing that cannabinoids encourage apoptosis in cancerous cells. Cure cancer? No. TREAT cancer? Yes. Absolutely.

cannabis is anti pshycotic and there is no genuine evidence linking cannabis use to mental illness. As Peter said, the best they can give is associative “evidence” which actually shows greater corelation between tobbacco smoking (and alcohol consumption for that matter). Experts on mental illness agree that there is no real evidence to suggest cannabis causes things like schizophrenia, infact most researchers will tell you there is much more evidence to suggest cannabis can be helpful for people who suffer such conditions.
So much lies are said about cannabis. It has been accussed of causing cancer when the truth is it can cure it. It has been accussed of causing mental illness when the truth is that it’s far more likely a useful medicine for such conditions.
The media and Cancer Research UK should be made accountable for their false statements

There lack of research in to cannabis as a cure is what I am unhappy about. This post is related to cannabis so what do you expect? Comments complimenting cancer research for being a £300 million (it is nearer £400) a year charity that does what it should. (If doing low budget research in to possible NEW cures is what Cancer Research should do)

Consider that around 300,000 people were diagnosed with cancer in 2008, Cancer research probably made around made a £300 million “profit”. £1 million worth of research per person. Amazing.

By the latest research, the risk of developing psychosis or schizophrenia as a result of using cannabis is at least one in 7500 and perhaps as little as one in 30000.

Professor Glyn Lewis of the University Of Bristol reviewed all the published evidence on the subject in 2009 and says that 96% of people can use cannabis without any risk of psychosis at all and in the remaining 4% the risk is statistically tiny. Even if direct causation of schizophrenia by cannabis was accepted (which is clearly not proven) then on Prof. Lewis’ figures that would amount to approximately 800 additional cases per annum. Based on the Home Office’s figure of six million regular cannabis users that amounts to a risk of one in 7500. In fact, while there is evidence of some correlation between cannabis use and mental health problems there is none of causation. There is, in fact, much stronger evidence of correlation between tobacco smoking and mental health (more than 90% of those diagnosed with schizophrenia smoke tobacco) but no one is claiming that tobacco causes schizophrenia.

As well as the University of Bristol study referred to above, studies published in US journal “Schizophrenia Research” in 2010 indicate that “…marijuana is unlikely to instigate incidences of schizophrenia in the general population, that cannabis use among patients with the disease is associated with higher cognitive function, and that at least some schizophrenics find subjective relief from symptoms of the illness by using pot”.

Furthermore, in Britain in 2009, the ACMD commissioned a study by Keele University into the trends in schizophrenia specifically to test the claims in the media of a link between it and cannabis. It looked at almost 600,000 patients and concluded that “..the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia and psychoses were either stable or declining” despite alleged increased use of allegedly more potent cannabis.

I’m sorry, what do you mean by “what negative side effects?”…

…are you insinuating that there isn’t a link between cannabis use and psychosis amongst other things.

I don’t care if you smoke cannabis or not, but I don’t think it really matters if it’s legal or not, it’s going to be widely available either way. My own mother uses cannabis to alleviate the symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis so I’m not anti-cannabis I’m just anti-whining/blaming a charity like Cancer Research UK whose efforts and remarkable progression over the years seems to have gone completely unnoticed by you all.

Benedict, you are offensive and irrelevant.

The “stoner brigade”?

Who said anything about a magical wonder drug except you?

What negative side effects?

“…whenever you manage to muster up enough energy to turn on your computers”?

“Nobody cares”?

You are an abusive bigot as your own words demonstrate.

It irritates me that whenever something about cannabis hits the headlines the stoner brigade crawl out from under their blankets advocating it’s use as a magical wonder drug that can fix all of our problems. We all know that there are beneficial attributes to the drug but there are also a nice list of negative side-effects that you all fail to mention whenever you manage to muster up enough energy to turn on your computers. Stop attacking a charity that has done so much to further our progress in the fight against cancer just because you haven’t got your own way. Stop behaving like toddlers OR if cannabis really is that important to you move to amsterdam? Nobody cares.

1. Why would you fund research into (artificial) cannabinoids if there was no evidence that “material directly taken from cannabis plants (leaves, buds, oil etc) could treat cancer”?

2 “The reason that natural chemicals are purified and tested for treating disease … is to ensure that effective, consistent and safe doses of medication can be given to patients”

When a person is dying, how is it unwise or unsafe to administer a concoction of chemicals that *has already* been tested in humans for thousands of years? Heck, I’m sure you could find a volunteer or two..
If this scenario is still untenable, then as the poster above said – do some research into naturally occurring cannabinoids, separate the helpful from the harmful, make your ‘aspirin’

It appears to me that, for whatever reason, you are happy to put research into the cornucopia of natural cannabinoids to one side.

I support Lindsay’s comment entirely. “not scientifically robust” arewesel words. There is a great deal of very robust research, much more , for instance, that supports the safety of cannabis asmedicine than many of the highly toxic and poisonous medicines with dreadful side effects that are regarded as mainstream.

It’s no good just bowing down to the dissausion and pressure of Big Pharma. It needs an organisation like Cancer Research UK to have the courage to seize the immense potential of cannabis as medicine and drive it forward.

In the Spanish paper you write about you have this:

“Cannabinoids could be useful for treating cancer but cannabis is not.”

Is that not like say orange juice (Vitamin C) is good for you but oranges are not?

You have enough cash rolling in to commit a useful sum to really RESEARCH. You harp on about there not being enough, well why not? Why don’t you take the lead and do some. Not some small scale effort that people (like you) will brush under the carpet as not being “scientifically robust” enough, but research that is well funded. Also to say that previous research is not “scientifically robust” is insulting to those that have bothered to undertake such research.

Thanks for that Kat. Can we just be absolutely clear about Sativex. Please don’t fall into the propaganda trap. Sativex IS cannabis. It is a tincture produced by a CO2 extraction process and soaking in ethanol. It contains all 66+ cannabinoids present in the plant, not just THC and CBD. It is pharmacologically identical to the herbal cannabis grown illegally in people’s own homes or by government appoved growers in Holland, Israel and America.

GW Pharma sells Sativex at such a fantastically high price that most health authorities will not pay for it. The alcohol in it also makes it profoundly unsuitable for many patients. A safer, more effective medicine can be grown at home for pennies.

Will Cancer Research UK put its considerable influence behind our campaign to allow doctors to prescribe cannabis?

From: Peter Reynolds
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 2:39 PM
Subject: “Cannabis cure for brain cancer” headline is misleading

Dear Henry Scowcroft, Ed Yong and Kat Arney,

How can we take forward the discussion on this post?

The potential for cannabis as medicine for cancer (not just for symptoms and/or side effects of other medicines) is supported by many peer reviewed scientific studies. Cancer Research UK should be taking a lead in this and fighting against the prohibitionist policies of the British government which restrict research in this very promising area.

I am the leader of Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR) which advocates an end to prohibition and the prescription of medicinal cannabis by doctors. Please will you meet with me to discuss how we can work together to advance this important opportunity?

Kind regards,

Peter Reynolds

Is Cancer Research UK going to respond to these comments?

The Journal of Pharmacology, February 2010

“…evidence is emerging to suggest that cannabinoids are potent inhibitors of both cancer growth and spreading….cannabinoids are usually well tolerated and do not develop the toxic effects of conventional chemotherapeutics…”

http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/332/2/336.long

…… “And it’s possible that smoking cannabis can increase the risk of lung cancer.

At the moment, cannabis is illegal in the UK, although the medical use of cannabis and cannabis-derived chemicals is being investigated and debated….”

I find the above comments in your article very disturbing indeed.

Surely,We all love to hear positive stories about curing cancer. Why not work together with organic/alternative researchers to find a positive outcome?

Martyn it can’t be made into salts like all other pharma stuff so…. Its useless to them.

“there’s no robust scientific evidence to show that cannabis or cannabis oil can successfully treat cancer.”

Therefore, anybody who uses cannabis and gets cured must be lying until robust evidence are found and from then on they are not lying? C’moooooonnn !!!

this was put out after seeing the amount of positive comments and reactions about cannabis under the article,,,blatant attempts to counter all the facts about this plants uses.This kind of technique to protect these big pharma’s agendas are so transparent and utterly disgusting.We have the truth,,these articles have nothing but deception as a weapon.Cannabis is big pharma’s ultimate threat and this blatant countering of the truth is looking more and more like a compulsive liar carrying on what they do best.

http://gertschgroup.com/media/AA/AE/gertschgroup/downloads/15931/Oesch___Gertsch_2009.pdf

Cannabinoid receptor ligands as potential anticancer
agents – high hopes for new therapies?
Susanne Oescha and Ju¨ rg Gertschb,c
aUniversity Children’s Hospital Divisions of Clinical Chemistry and Oncology, University of Zu¨ rich,
Switzerland, bDepartment of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
(ETH), Zu¨ rich, Switzerland and cInstitute of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine, University of Bern,
Switzerland
Abstract
Objectives The endocannabinoid system is an endogenous lipid signalling network
comprising arachidonic-acid-derived ligands, cannabinoid (CB) receptors, transporters and
endocannabinoid degrading enzymes. The CB1 receptor is predominantly expressed in
neurons but is also co-expressed with the CB2 receptor in peripheral tissues. In recent
years, CB receptor ligands, including D9-tetrahydrocannabinol, have been proposed as
potential anticancer agents.

Interesting research here on clinically proven links between cannabis use and being an interminable bore: http://www.cannabisscience.com/news-a-media/press-releases/224-cannabis-makes-you-incredibly-dull.html

Prohibition inhibits research into the medicinal use of cannabis. It is also responsible for prejudice, discrimination and ignorance about the plant and its uses.

For instance, Professor Les Iversen, professor of pharmacology at Oxford University, chair of the ACMD and the government’s chief drugs advisor, gave a lecture last year entitled “Bringing Cannabis Back Into The Medicine Cabinet”.

This link is to a collection of films featuring doctors, scientists and researchers and some astounding evidence about cannabis. A recording of Professor Iversen’s lecture is included.

http://peterreynolds.wordpress.com/pjr-tv/

Given the fact the USA did a study in the 1970s and it has been known since then that THC is very effective in treating cancer (not just the side effects) and the fact you have been around since 1902 (ICRF) and then 2002 how much of your £300 million (and then some) have you spent on researching (that is what you do right?) this possible cure?

In my correspondence I’ve had with Cancer Research UK, I got the impression that they were interested in synthetic cannabinoid research over and above working with the naturally occurring ones. Given the ever-growing lab-based scientific evidence of cannabis’s anti-tumour effects and over 80 naturally occurring cannabinoids the only reason I can see for this is one of patents, not patients.

Maybe this charity is in bed with big pharma after all?

I am most grateful to Peter Reynolds and John Ellis for their comments and links. I have never heard of Doctor Robert Melamede and his research into the medical use of cannabis oil. I am currently examining his statements with great interest.

Your website is also completely inaccurate and misleading in the section titled “Does smoking cannabis cause cancer”.

You overlook the biggest study ever of its type by Dr Donald Tashkin of UCLA in 2006 who was astonished himself that those who smoke cannabis without tobacco suffer fewer cancers and COPD than non-smokers and those who smoke cannabis with tobacco do better than those who smoke tobacco alone. He concluded that cannabis has a protective effect against cancer, COPD and the carcinogenic effects of tobacco.

This is cast iron evidence that cannabis oil cures skin cancer:

http://www.cannabisscience.com/news-a-media/press-releases/224-cbis-provides-physicians-documentation.html

Also, your analysis of the reports on the child treated with medcial marijuana completely overlooks the well-established FACT that cananbis is extremely effective in stimulating appetite during chemotherapy.

While the chemo may well have killed the cancer,it was going to kill the child too. The cannabis saved his life.

Your defence of your failure properly to investigate cananbis as a cancer therapy is also disingenuous at best. Cancer Research is part of a prohibitionist establishment that conspires with Big Pharma toprevent proper reserach into cananbis as medicine. If you truly had cancer sufferers’ interests at heart, you would be furiously lobbying the government for licences to pursue clinical trials.

can you please explain Cannabis science and Dr Robert melamede…

… “there’s no robust scientific evidence to show that cannabis or cannabis oil can successfully treat cancer”.

You are abolutely correct to make this point. But there is no robust scientific evidence to prove that cannabis oil can’t successfully cure cancer.