cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Helps Tumours Grow Marijuana Helps Tumours Grow Posted by FoM on June 20, 2000 at 10:21:01 PT From Journal of Immunology Source: BBC Marijuana smokers may be more at risk of contracting lung cancer than tobacco smokers.Marijuana smokers may have a higher risk of contracting lung cancer than tobacco smokers, according to researchers. A study carried out in the US found that one of the key ingredients of marijuana may promote the growth of cancerous tumours. The researchers suggest that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the major psychoactive component of marijuana, may reduce the body's ability to fight tumours. Previous research has found that THC can lower an individual's resistance to both bacterial and viral infections. Increased Risk: They suggested that the affect on the anti-tumour immune system, combined with the fact that marijuana smokers inhale large amounts of tar and other cancer-causing agents, could leave them at increased risk of lung cancer. Regular use of marijuana may increase the risk of respiratory tract cancer. Dr Steven Dubinett, UCLA Marijuana smoke deposits four times as much tar in lungs as tobacco. The tar also contains higher doses of carcinogenic hydrocarbons, which can cause cancer. Researchers from the Jonsson Cancer Center at UCLA examined the effects of THC on the immune response to cancer in mice. They found that mice which had been injected with THC had a reduced capability of fighting the growth of tumours. Dr Steven Dubinett, head of the research team, said the results suggested an increased risk of lung cancer among regular marijuana users. "What we already know about marijuana smoke, coupled with our new finding that THC may encourage tumour growth, suggests that regular use of marijuana may increase the risk of respiratory tract cancer." The findings are published in the latest issue of the Journal of Immunology.http://www.jimmunol.org/ Direct Link To Article:http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_798000/798721.stmTuesday, 20 June, 2000, 14:35 GMT 15:35 UK Related Articles & Web Sites:Legalise Cannabis Alliancehttp://www.lca-uk.org/Jonsson Cancer Centerhttp://www.cancer.mednet.ucla.edu/Pot Shrinks Tumors: Government Knew in 74http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread5972.shtmlNew Class Of Chemicals Found To Use Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread5602.shtmlMarijuana Ingredient Kills Rat Brain Tumors http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread4900.shtmlMarijuana Ingredient May Fight Brain Cancerhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread4890.shtmlMarijuana Patch Research For Cancer Patients http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread4385.shtmlResearchers Link Marijuana To Cancerhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread4267.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #10 posted by dddd on June 21, 2000 at 02:28:58 PT identical poultry hi anonymous coward.................... I think your name is good.I started thinking about it,and I had to laugh,,,I somehow came across an alternative name..............."unknown chicken"........dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Dan B on June 20, 2000 at 20:40:40 PT: Correction The study I linked to in the previous message shows not necessarily a lower mortality rate, but a mortality rate that is not significantly different from the norm. Also, it sugests that taking care to avoid injury while using marijuana will greatly decrease mortality rates for marijuana users (which may, in turn, reduce the overall mortality rate--especially for women, according to the study).So the upshot of all this is "be careful out there!" [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Dan B on June 20, 2000 at 20:35:50 PT: Where are the Lung Cancer Patients? The reason bogus studies like this are performed is because, in spite of 12,000 years of cannabis use among the human species, not once has anyone confirmed a case of lung cancer directly attributable to the use of marijuana. I think Dr. Kassirer's comments are important to note: the patients in the New England Journal of Medicine study must have already had suppressed immune systems (due to their conditions as AIDS patients), and any attempt to atribute marijuana as the causal link between acceleration of aspergillus and marijuana use in those patients must take this suppression, as well as other factors, into account. How many of these patients were smoking tobacco, as well? Were statisticals controls used to verify that the aspergillus infections were not due to other factors?With regard to the use of the term "maybe," anonymous coward was correct to assert that science must err on the side of caution, thus the use of "may" or "maybe" is highly appropriate. However, what this study did not show is the level of statistical significance. Did this supposed tumor growth occur all of the time, most of the time, sometimes, or rather infrequently? The point about the fact that these studies were conducted in test tubes seems erroneous--where in the article does it show the mice from the study were fetal mice? If you have access to the journal (I have not had the opportunity to obtain a copy for my own perusal, and Internet access basically prohibits the use of any information found in a Journal of Immunology article), please let me know whether this study was conducted on grown mice or fetal mice.Having said that, not only have delta-8 THC, delta-9 THC, and cannibinol been shown to reduce tumor growth (as mentioned by observer--thanks!), but another study has shown that those who use marijuana, either those who have "ever used" or those reporting "continued use"--not only have a lower chance of getting cancer in general, but have a lower mortality rate, as well! See the link below for more info on this study (requires Adobe Acrobat))(Note: Check out the charts. "Neoplasms" means cancer. Numbers lower than 1.0 indicate a lowered risk for the study groups (marijuana users) versus the control group (non-users).. It may be that THC, alone, suppresses certain functions associated with tumor growth, but that the unique combination of chemicals found in cannabis as a whole decrease tumor size and somehow protect the individual against certain cancers. This seems to be a cause for further study--especially since it suggests greater efficacy in treating cancers for those who ingest whole cannabis versus those who only take the prescription drug Marinol (supposedly safer than the whole product, according to the FDA). Marijuana Use and Mortality [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by dddd on June 20, 2000 at 16:23:23 PT Prepare yourselves First of all,my compliments for all the dazzling,and scholarly comments. This is just the beginning of the all out propaganda offensive we will see in the coming months.Just watch....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Dave in Florida on June 20, 2000 at 13:40:52 PT More BS for the masses The New England Journal of Medicine -- April 17, 1997 -- Vol. 336, No. 16 To the Editor: You point to largely experiential evidence of the medicinal benefits of marijuana and the apparent absence of serious short-term toxicity. However, a note of caution is warranted. Although it is true thatsmoking marijuana carries no immediate risk of death, there may be serious adverse effects in the very patients for whom medicinal marijuana is most commonly considered (i.e., those whose immune defenses are already compromised by AIDS or cancer plus chemotherapy). For example, in patients with AIDS, marijuana use has been associated with the development of both fungal and bacterial pneumonias. (1,2) Moreover, among HIV-positive persons, marijuana use has been shown to be a risk factor for rapid progression from HIV infection to AIDS and the acquisition of opportunistic infections or Kaposi's sarcoma, or both. (3) Cellular studies and studies in animals lend support to these potential health consequences of marijuana.For example, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol has been shown to have immunosuppressive effects on macrophages, natural killer cells, and T cells, as well as on the response of mice to opportunistic infection. (4) In our own studies, (5) (and unpublished data) we recovered alveolar macrophages fromthe lungs of habitual marijuana smokers and found a significant reduction in their ability to kill fungi,bacteria, and tumor cells, as well as a deficiency in their ability to produce protective inflammatory cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor (alpha). Donald P. Tashkin, M.D. Michael D. Roth, M.D. Steven M. Dubinett, M.D. UCLA School of Medicine Los Angeles, CA 90095-1690 References 1. Denning DW, Follansbee SE, Scolaro M, Norris S, Edelstein H, Stevens DA. Pulmonary aspergillosis in the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. N Engl J Med 1991;324:654-62. Return to Text 2. Caiaffa WT, Vlahov D, Graham NM, et al. Drug smoking, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia, and immunosuppression increase risk of bacterial pneumonia in human immunodeficiency virus-seropositive injection drug users. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994;150:1493-8. Return to Text 3. Tindall B, Cooper DA, Donovan B, et al. The Sydney AIDS Project: development of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in a group of HIV seropositive homosexual men. Aust N Z J Med 1988;18:8-15. Return to Text 4. Newton CA, Klein TW, Friedman H. Secondary immunity to Legionella pneumophilia and Th1 activity are suppressed by delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Inject Infect Immun 1994;62:4015-20. Return to Text 5. Sherman MP, Campbell LA, Gong H Jr, Roth MD, Tashkin DP. Antimicrobial and respiratory burst characteristics of pulmonary alveolar macrophages recovered from smokers of marijuana alone, smokers of tobacco alone, smokers of marijuana and tobacco, and nonsmokers. Am Rev Respir Dis 1991;144:1351-6. Return to Text Dr. Kassirer replies: Let's set the record straight. I recommend that only desperately ill patients be allowed to use marijuana, that only physicians prescribe it, and that the government regulate it. Like some of the writers, I amopposed to the referendums in California and Arizona, and I stated publicly on several occasions that I would have voted against them. My argument for prescribing marijuana for seriously ill patients without requiring further research was based on compassion for these suffering people and on the grounds that short-term use of the agent is virtually harmless. If the only effect in these patients is to produce euphoria, so what? In fact, I did support more research on the effectiveness of marijuana in comparison with available agents, but I made two points: first, that such research is extremely difficult because the outcomes that are evaluated are entirely subjective, and second, that the government -- despite nearly a century of mechanisms for assessing safety and efficacy -- almost never permits clinical research on marijuana.Reasonable people differ on the possible consequences of my proposal. I disagree that the compassionate provision of marijuana to very sick people would lead to more widespread abuse of marijuana; such abuse is a function of the availability of street drugs, not prescription drugs. There is no comparable epidemic of morphine or meperidine use. Similarly, though putting physicians in charge of prescribing marijuana would increase their burden somewhat, making decisions about who should receive which drugs (and how often) is precisely what doctors do well. It is hard to imagine why malpractice claims and costs would increase if physicians were made responsible for prescribing just one more controlled substance. It is true that smoking is not a traditional means of delivering a medication, yet inhalers are used formany conditions, and the pulmonary route of absorption is extremely effective for many agents. I am sure that we could find some way of dealing with smoking in hospitals, maybe by allowing patients to use marijuana in other forms. Finally, I believe that the influence of marijuana on immunity in humans requires far more confirmation. The scattered anecdotal reports of an association of marijuana with aspergillus infections in patients with HIV infection are worrisome, but an association alone does not prove causality. Aspergillus species are also found in the air, the soil, and plant matter such as tobacco. In addition, allthe patients in the Journal article who were infected with aspergillus must have been severely immunosuppressed, because they had already had serious infections with other opportunistic organisms. Needless to say, claiming cause and effect in such patients is treacherous. Jerome P. Kassirer, M.D. http://www.nejm.org/content/1997/0336/0016/1184.asp [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by freedom fighter on June 20, 2000 at 13:16:28 PT Sorry Oh please, Im dead tired of hearing these "good" doctors saying maybes. It is just wrong to send out this kind of message out to public. They could least wait and prove it to themselves first! They have been saying like this for 100 years. I can understand if they were "still" conducting the research but nowhere in the article did the "good" doctors mentioned this. They made it look like it is true.Especially when it is about the Cannabis!So, no, Im sorry, these people know better than that! Do'nt tell me to put faith in these folks, for all I do know that we have two different set of doctors. One saying maybe it cause tumor and another saying cannabis does shrink tumors. 30 years ago, we had doctors saying that there will be massive influx of old hippies in hosptials dying in 20 years. Pray please tell me if it is true? least you admit you are a coward and that you are admitting that use of cannabis is a civil issue! Eat 10 raw potatoes and you will die. Eat,consume,smoke all the cannabis you can, you will sleep well and wake up to see another day. Respectfully Yours [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by anonymous coward on June 20, 2000 at 12:19:15 PT "How dare these people..." "How dare these people call themselves scientists/doctors when they say maybe.. They looked extremly silly and stupid."This remark betrays rank ignorance about the nature of science. Good scientists *never* say anything *but* "maybe." Certainty is for the religious. The remarks about weasel-wordedness are similarly off the mark.That being said, I took the liberty of examining web site for the Journal of Immunology. The only paper I saw that looked remotely relevant makes it appear that the newscritters, as usual, got it wrong. The title of the paper is "Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol Treatment Suppresses Immunity and Early IFN-, IL-12, and IL-12 Receptor 2 Responses to Legionella pneumophila Infection1" and it addresses immunosuppression measured by response to a bacterial infection.The part that will be of most interest to readers of this weblog is the dosage of THC used: 8mg/kg, or about 500 times the clinically relevant dose for humans. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by freedom fighter on June 20, 2000 at 11:53:49 PT Oh boy, I heard this before! With all those maybes, and if it is true, all those ole hippies ought to be dropping and dying. Twenty years ago they said the exact same thing. How dare these people call themselves scientists/doctors when they say maybe.. They looked extremly silly and stupid. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by drfist on June 20, 2000 at 11:39:52 PT air and water has higher risk factors than pot as many as 23 different toxic genetic chemicals have been detected in rain and ground water, PCB and dioxins threaten the very food chain and can be found in Bears in the artic. Ground water use in parts of the mid-west U.S. have been positivly correlated with specific types of cancer. So banning water may be necessary. There is no speculation that many pesticides cause cancer, some carry a warning label but they are in most of your foods. What incredible sick logic to demonize a valuble medicine while "covering up" real risk factors, which benefit the most evil companies in History. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by observer on June 20, 2000 at 11:12:11 PT another NIDA 'study' ? Who sponsored this "research"? They "forgot" to tell us. Another NIDA political study? (Understandable why is would not be mentioned, if so.)Notice all the speculative (hopefull, actually) use of "may"..."Marijuana smokers may be more at risk ...""Marijuana smokers may have a higher risk ....""... may promote the growth of cancerous tumours....""... may reduce the body's ability to fight tumours... ""... marijuana may increase the risk of respiratory tract cancer.""THC may encourage tumour growth...""marijuana may increase the risk of respiratory tract cancer." (also see: "weasel words"http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=weasel+word )In fact, the good doctor could not make a single unqualified statement! Why? Because he's doesn't know. This is an in-vitro test that has not been performed in animals. He's seeing a slight change in a metabolic process in the test tube and then speculates. (The prohibitionist press does the rest.)Contrast these highly speculative "maybes" with the spiked story last February :"Marijuana-like drugs eradicated some brain cancers in rats and helped other animals live longer, possibly hinting at a new approach for treating the disease, researchers sayhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread4900.shtmlThat was in actual, living animals, not inside of a NIDA-sponsored test tube.Prediction:Expect this "latest research" to be trumpeted far and wide as "proof" that marijuana may "cause" cancer. (The "may" part will be forgotten of course.) As you hear this "latest research proves" that "marijuana causes cancer" being endlessly repeated, remember the coverage the positive tumor-shrinking results got, results that were studiously ignored and spiked by the U.S. Propaganda Press. Not "on message". [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: