National cancer institute says MMJ has "direct antitumor effect"

[itisme]

I want to buy an emroidering machine and start making me some T-Shirts with shit like that on it. Maybe the changes made to is also and WHY????

This kind of shit is what really scares me about the war on drugs. The NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE has to bow down to the DEA over MEDICAL SHIT!!! Get the FUCK OUTTA HERE!!! It also makes Chris Rock's point about how Big Pharma was pissed they cured Polio and aint cured shit since! They come up with shit you need daily very often though.

 

[Imona Potboard]

The real story here is that they took it down after 24 hours and it no longer supports our cause.. No doubt from pressure by the pharm companies

 

[zen_trikester]

Part of taking mj for its medicinal effects is the getting high part generally...
I look forward to see what they can bring to the table, even though they are just strictly after profit, and screwing with peoples minds.

How would they take the high out of it, but keep its medicinal effects? would it just be tiny doseages, would those small non high doseage even do enough for the med effects? lots of questions and probally not very many answers at this point.

Well I think that iw where the strains that are high in cbd and lower in thc come in. Some strains have higher analgesic effects which is separate from the high feeling. I have one bagseed born mom that has a minimal high feeling but is great for backaches when I need it. It otherwise isn't a strong buzzs though it lasts longer than most. It is otherwise not much of a plant and I only have kept it around for the pain relieving effects. I think there probably comes a point with severe pain that getting high simply makes you forget about it and is an important part of the therapy. There are certainly more knowledgeable people around here on medical aspects than I. I just know what I have read about big pharma's complaints with natural cannabis.

The real story here is that they took it down after 24 hours and it no longer supports our cause.. No doubt from pressure by the pharm companies

Actually, I think it was first up on 3-17 and then changed on 3-30, but I'm not sure on that. That is per the note on the NCI site.

Changes to This Summary (03/30/2011)
The PDQ cancer information summaries are reviewed regularly and updated as new information becomes available. This section describes the latest changes made to this summary as of the date above.
In writing Cancer Information Summaries, PDQ Editorial Boards review current evidence. They do not make recommendations. Their work is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The summary on Cannabis and cannabinoids does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. The summary statement represents an independent review of the literature; that review is not influenced by NCI or any other federal agency.
In light of the attention garnered by the PDQ summary statement on Cannabis and cannabinoids, reviewers for the summary on the PDQ Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Editorial Board reexamined the recently posted statement and decided to change the wording, in order to clarify the meaning that the Board originally intended to convey and to correct several possible misinterpretations. The changes made and the rationales for them are:

In the General Information section, the wording was revised to make clearer that Cannabis is not approved by the FDA for any medical use.
In the General Information section, a sentence was replaced to add clarification. The CAM Board lead reviewers realized that the previous wording could have been misinterpreted as being a recommendation for prescribing Cannabis, which was not the intent of the Board. In addition, the current evidence for the antitumor properties of Cannabis is discussed only in the context of laboratory studies and not in research involving human subjects. It is discussed only in the summary section titled Laboratory/Animal/Preclinical Studies.
In the last sentence of the Adverse Effects section under Cannabinoids, the words “severe or abrupt” were added for clarification.

Readers of the PDQ Cannabis and Cannabinoids summary should note that no changes were made to the Overall Level of Evidence for Cannabis and Cannabinoids section. This section provides levels of evidence related to the use of cannabinoids and Cannabis.
As part of the regular process for all PDQ Editorial Boards, the CAM Editorial Board plans to further review the literature and discuss other potential revisions to the summary.

And yeah... I'm sure there was some pressure from big pharma and others with vested interests in prohibition.

 

[FCDobbs]

Call me a nut if ya like. Cannabis will never be legal in the us. The us is a corporate holding and there is no net benifit in legal pot for the corporation. A small public tide IS for mmj. The corporation is already on the move to reverse the tide of states like CO and CA with the DEA and IRS. When the corporation is ready for medical Cannabis it will be released with the FDA's blessing in a prescription form with no mind expanding or creative properties, it will be filtered of any positive medical benefit most likely. State mmj as we know it will disappear. Larger than the money issue is the control issue. The establishment went through the drug movement of the sixties, part of which involved a great many people protesting and telling the “government” to get fucked. I don’t need to tell anyone the oppressing interests are not going to risk that again. The last 50 years have been spent devaluing education and independent thought. The last thing needed when attempting to oppress 300 million people is an expanded literacy and conscientiousness.
Just my opinion and we all know what that’s worth. Carry on.

 

[303hydro]

There's a rumor going around Colorado right now, mmj business owners are saying Obama is gonna give everyone a little gift when he leaves office rather than pardoning a bunch of crooks.

 

[trichrider]

well I never...got past what he didn't do to begin with....

the endorsement is hidden in the text.

"Antitumor Effects
One study in mice and rats suggested that cannabinoids may have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. [3] During this 2-year study, groups of mice and rats were given various doses of THC by gavage. A dose-related decrease in the incidence of hepatic adenoma tumors and hepatocellular carcinoma was observed in the mice. Decreased incidences of benign tumors (polyps and adenomas) in other organs (mammary gland, uterus, pituitary, testis, and pancreas) were also noted in the rats. In another study, delta-9-THC, delta-8-THC, and cannabinol were found to inhibit the growth of Lewis lung adenocarcinoma cells in vitro and in vivo .[4] In addition, other tumors have been shown to be sensitive to cannabinoid-induced growth inhibition.[5-8]

Cannabinoids may cause antitumor effects by various mechanisms, including induction of cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis and metastasis. [9-11] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. These compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats. Cannabinoids protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor. [10,11]

In an in vivo model using severe combined immunodeficient mice, subcutaneous tumors were generated by inoculating the animals with cells from human non-small cell lung carcinoma cell lines.[12] Tumor growth was inhibited by 60% in THC-treated mice compared with vehicle-treated control mice. Tumor specimens revealed that THC had antiangiogenic and antiproliferative effects.

In addition, both plant-derived and endogenous cannabinoids have been studied for anti- inflammatory effects. A mouse study demonstrated that endogenous cannabinoid system signaling is likely to provide intrinsic protection against colonic inflammation. [13] As a result, a hypothesis that phytocannabinoids and endocannabinoids may be useful in the prevention and treatment of colorectal cancer has been developed.[14]

Another study has shown delta-9-THC is a potent and selective antiviral agent against Kaposi sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV), also known as human herpesvirus 8.[15] The researchers concluded that additional studies on cannabinoids and herpesviruses are warranted, as they may lead to the development of drugs that inhibit the reactivation of these oncogenic viruses. Subsequently, another group of investigators reported increased efficiency of KSHV infection of human dermal microvascular epithelial cells in the presence of low doses of delta-9-THC.[16]"

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/AllPages#Section_26

they also elaborate that cancer is viral. ???? wtf.

at any rate, they must have been threatened to retract the above.

 

[BongRipkenJR.]

Email response from National Cancer Institute regarding changing stance on cannabis.

Email response from National Cancer Institute regarding changing stance on cannabis.

What the NCI said about cannabis:

"In the practice of interrogative oncology, the health care provider may recommend medical cannabis not only for symptom management, but also as it's direct anti tumor effect"

What they changed it to:
"The u.s. FDA has not approved the use of cannabis as a medical treatment for any medical condition. To conduct clinical drug research in the united states, researches must file an investigational new drug application with the FDA."

"The potential benefits of cannabis for people living with cancer include antiemetic effects, appetite stimulation, pain relief, and improved sleep. Though no relavent surveys of practice patterns exist, it appears that physicians caring for cancer patients who prescribe medical cannabis predominately do so for symptom management"

What I asked the NCI:

Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:47 PM
To: NCI Cancer.gov Staff
Subject: Cannabis and cancer

Message: Why did you change your stance on cannabis as a proper treatment for cancer symptoms and its effectiveness for reducing tumors? This sounds like you were bullied into changing your stance. If you were, its okay, you can tell me.

One step forward two steps backwards. People will suffer more because you wont tell the truth.

And their response:

Thank you for your e-mail to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) about the PDQ(r) Complementary and Alternative Medicine Summary for Health Professionals on Cannabis and Cannabinoids. The NCI, a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the Nation's principal agency for cancer research. The NCI is responsible for coordinating the National Cancer Program and for maintaining our momentum in cancer research. We appreciate your comments, and hope the following information is helpful.

PDQ (Physician Data Query) is NCI's comprehensive cancer database. It contains summaries on a wide range of cancer topics, including peer-reviewed cancer information summaries that are produced, maintained, and updated regularly by Editorial Boards of cancer specialists. The PDQ Editorial Boards are not formal advisory or policy-making boards for NCI, and are editorially independent of the NCI. The PDQ Cannabis and Cannabinoids cancer information summary is produced, maintained, and updated regularly by the PDQ Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Editorial Board, which is comprised of oncology specialists, natural products scientists, health care practitioners working in many aspects of CAM, and patient advocates.

The CAM Editorial Board recently made wording changes to the PDQ Cannabis and Cannabinoids cancer information summary in order to clarify the meaning that the Board originally intended to convey, and to correct several possible misinterpretations. The changes made and the rationales for them are as follows:

--In the General Information section (http://www.cancer.gov/<wbr>cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/<wbr>healthprofessional/page2), the wording was revised to make it clearer that Cannabis is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for any medical use.

--In the General Information section, a sentence was replaced to add clarification. The CAM Editorial Board realized that the previous wording could have been misinterpreted as being a recommendation for prescribing Cannabis, which was not the intent of the Board. In addition, the current evidence for the antitumor properties of Cannabis is discussed only in the context of laboratory studies and not in research involving humans. This topic is covered only in the summary section titled Laboratory/Animal/Preclinical Studies (http://www.cancer.gov/<wbr>cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/<wbr>healthprofessional/page4).

--In the last sentence of the Adverse Effects section under Cannabinoids (http://www.cancer.gov/<wbr>cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/<wbr>healthprofessional/page6#<wbr>Section_88), the words "severe or abrupt" were added for clarification.

No changes were made to the Overall Level of Evidence for Cannabis and Cannabinoids section (http://www.cancer.gov/<wbr>cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/<wbr>healthprofessional/page7). This section provides levels of evidence related to the use of cannabinoids and Cannabis.

More information about the Board's recent changes to the summary can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/<wbr>cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/<wbr>healthprofessional/page8. The complete summary is available at http://www.cancer.gov/<wbr>cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/<wbr>healthprofessional/AllPages. As part of the regular process for all PDQ Editorial Boards, the CAM Editorial Board plans to further review the literature and discuss other potential revisions to the summary.

Thank you for writing.


National Cancer Institute Staff

 

[ijim]

I would think that some of the pharmaceutical representatives got together with our representatives and talked about campaign financing or lack of.

 

[elmanito]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved the use of Cannabis as a treatment for any medical condition.

They did approve GMO ingredients since 1992 into the food chain although long term studies about negative health effects were not done at that time and still.They approved the medicine Vioxx and pull off the market in 2004 because of very bad health effects.Marijuana has a very large history of medical use and safety, which can not say of most modern medicines with their bad side effects.

Namaste

 

[paulo73]

Nice thread and even better input from most of my ICmag fellow growers.
The love to keep us in the dark and feed us shit don´t they.
Thank the Gods with were not raised to be mushrooms!
It´s Sunday we are half-baked and even so our brains/hearts/minds are working better them most.
One Love many Hearts