Jesus's middle name is Hume! Caution: Some NSFW images within!

Page 2669 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,234
136
I never had the impression that the signs were created in response to a specific incident. That Snopes write-up is full of completely baseless supposition about people's reasons for making and using them. Not the typical Snopes write-up.

Yeah. Probably lots of people do expect it to affect how other drivers behave around them, but I think the more significant usefulness is to alert rescuers of the possible presence of an infant child.
 
Last edited:

KMFJD

Lifer
Aug 11, 2005
29,184
42,284
136
0v7o07y33fh31.png
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,285
36,410
136
People will believe anything.

While others refuse to see because the view is inconvenient.

No. Cannabis does not prevent tumors from eating away her face.

You sound familiar with her case, anything definitive you'd like to share to support that assertion? Or would you like to proceed directly to reading about some encouraging news? I don't know enough about her story to label her and her family liars, was actually thinking about an old neighbor of mine in Maine when I found/posted it. He used some kind of canna oil or pultice on a really large and disgusting growth he had on the top of his very bald head. Took months, but it worked. I heard two rounds of surgery didn't. I don't know the true medicinal value of cannabis, I don't think anyone does. All I can say for sure is it isn't worthless and doesn't deserve to be dismissed like faith healing or snake oil.

And in keeping with the herbal theme..

now-what-do-we-smoke-him.jpg
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
People will believe anything.

No. Cannabis does not prevent tumors from eating away her face.

Actually, compounds in cannabis has been shown to shrink some types of tumors. And there are other immune-boosting benefits that can then help prevent tumor growth in the first place.

A newer movement I've heard about is taking the grass juice fad and doing whole/raw marijuana smoothie/juice. Beside the typical phytonutrients, there are observed benefits to THCa (the non-psychoactive form that usually dominates most strains, it requires heat to turn into the psychoactive chemical through the decarboxylation process), and much of the range of cannabinoids in general have varying studies demonstrating at least some health benefits.

The limited evidence today is highly promising, but research is still way behind due to the clusterfuck that is marijuana prohibition.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,592
29,221
146
People will believe anything.

No. Cannabis does not prevent tumors from eating away her face.

But then some people are aware of the actual research regarding CBD and various types of tumors

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq

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(HCC) 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 inductionof cell death, inhibition of cell growth, and inhibition of tumor angiogenesis invasion and metastasis.[9-12] Two reviews summarize the molecular mechanisms of action of cannabinoids as antitumor agents.[13,14] Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. For example, these compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in gliomacells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats, while they protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor.[9]

The effects of delta-9-THC and a synthetic agonist of the CB2 receptor were investigated in HCC.[15] Both agents reduced the viability of HCC cells in vitro and demonstrated antitumor effects in HCC subcutaneous xenografts in nude mice. The investigations documented that the anti-HCC effects are mediated by way of the CB2 receptor. Similar to findings in glioma cells, the cannabinoids were shown to trigger cell death through stimulation of an endoplasmic reticulum stress pathway that activates autophagy and promotes apoptosis. Other investigations have confirmed that CB1 and CB2 receptors may be potential targets in non-small cell lung carcinoma[16] and breast cancer.[17]

An in vitro study of the effect of CBD on programmed cell death in breast cancer cell lines found that CBD induced programmed cell death, independent of the CB1, CB2, or vanilloid receptors. CBD inhibited the survival of both estrogen receptor–positive and estrogen receptor–negative breast cancer cell lines, inducing apoptosis in a concentration-dependent manner while having little effect on nontumorigenic mammary cells.[18] Other studies have also shown the antitumor effect of cannabinoids (i.e., CBD and THC) in preclinical models of breast cancer.[19,20]

CBD has also been demonstrated to exert a chemopreventive effect in a mouse modelof colon cancer.[21] In this experimental system, azoxymethane increased premalignant and malignant lesions in the mouse colon. Animals treated with azoxymethane and CBD concurrently were protected from developing premalignant and malignant lesions. In in vitro experiments involving colorectal cancer cell lines, the investigators found that CBD protected DNA from oxidative damage, increased endocannabinoid levels, and reduced cell proliferation. In a subsequent study, the investigators found that the antiproliferative effect of CBD was counteracted by selective CB1 but not CB2 receptor antagonists, suggesting an involvement of CB1 receptors.[22]

Another investigation into the antitumor effects of CBD examined the role of intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1).[12] ICAM-1 expression in tumor cells has been reported to be negatively correlated with cancer metastasis. In lung cancer cell lines, CBD upregulated ICAM-1, leading to decreased cancer cell invasiveness.

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.[23] 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. However, research with immunocompetent murine tumor models has demonstrated immunosuppression and enhanced tumor growth in mice treated with THC.[24,25]

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.[26] As a result, a hypothesis that phytocannabinoids and endocannabinoids may be useful in the risk reduction and treatment of colorectal cancer has been developed.[27-30]

CBD may also enhance uptake of cytotoxic drugs into malignant cells. Activation of the transient receptor potential vanilloid type 2 (TRPV2) has been shown to inhibit proliferation of human glioblastoma multiforme cells and overcome resistance to the chemotherapy agent carmustine. [31] One study showed that coadministration of THC and CBD over single-agent usage had greater antiproliferative activity in an in vitrostudy with multiple human glioblastoma multiforme cell lines.[32] In an in vitro model, CBD increased TRPV2 activation and increased uptake of cytotoxic drugs, leading to apoptosis of glioma cells without affecting normal human astrocytes. This suggests that coadministration of CBD with cytotoxic agents may increase drug uptake and potentiate cell death in human glioma cells. Also, CBD together with THC may enhance the antitumor activity of classic chemotherapeutic drugs such as temozolomide in some mouse models of cancer.[13,33] A meta-analysis of 34 in vitro and in vivo studies of cannabinoids in glioma reported that all but one study confirmed that cannabinoids selectively kill tumor cells.[34]
 
  • Like
Reactions: destrekor

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,592
29,221
146
I was never had the impression that the signs were created in response to a specific incident. That Snopes write-up is full of completely baseless supposition about people's reasons for making and using them. Not the typical Snopes write-up.

Yeah. Probably lots of people do expect it to affect how other drivers behave around them, but I think the more significant usefulness is to alert rescuers of the possible presence of an infant child.

This makes no sense. Why would you think the sign would still be visible in such an incident that would create a hidden/trapped baby?
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,234
136
While others refuse to see because the view is inconvenient.
An affordable and effective treatment, saving faces that would otherwise be eaten away, would be very convenient and nice to have. Certainly not "inconvenient."

You sound familiar with her case, anything definitive you'd like to share to support that assertion? Or would you like to proceed directly to reading about some encouraging news? I don't know enough about her story to label her and her family liars, was actually thinking about an old neighbor of mine in Maine when I found/posted it. He used some kind of canna oil or pultice on a really large and disgusting growth he had on the top of his very bald head. Took months, but it worked. I heard two rounds of surgery didn't. I don't know the true medicinal value of cannabis, I don't think anyone does. All I can say for sure is it isn't worthless and doesn't deserve to be dismissed like faith healing or snake oil.

And in keeping with the herbal theme..

now-what-do-we-smoke-him.jpg
Seriously. It was approved for medical use because it helps people in pain feel a little bit better (obviously, you're getting high). Then stoners start attributing all these magical properties to it just because it's "medical." My niece is a huge stoner, far more severely-addicted than you ever thought was possible with pot. I don't care. I think recreational use should be 100% legal even though I don't use it. Thing is, all I can do is laugh when she tries to tell me that cigarettes cause lung cancer and pot cures it. BULL---FUCKING---SHIT! Burned plant material in your lungs does not identify and target cancer cells. Your body processing all the particles will lead to cells being killed and replaced with new ones, which increases the likelihood of developing lung cancer.

...but many stoners want to believe pot cures cancer just because cancer patients are allowed to use it to treat pain and discomfort.
 
Last edited:

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,234
136
Actually, compounds in cannabis has been shown to shrink some types of tumors. And there are other immune-boosting benefits that can then help prevent tumor growth in the first place.

A newer movement I've heard about is taking the grass juice fad and doing whole/raw marijuana smoothie/juice. Beside the typical phytonutrients, there are observed benefits to THCa (the non-psychoactive form that usually dominates most strains, it requires heat to turn into the psychoactive chemical through the decarboxylation process), and much of the range of cannabinoids in general have varying studies demonstrating at least some health benefits.

The limited evidence today is highly promising, but research is still way behind due to the clusterfuck that is marijuana prohibition.

Well people are already claiming it stops the tumors from eating her face. Sounds pretty conclusive to me! Why bother to research a treatment that's apparently already "proven" well enough to be effective and in-use? /s
 

BudAshes

Lifer
Jul 20, 2003
13,914
3,196
146
Seriously. It was approved for medical use because it helps people in pain feel a little bit better (obviously, you're getting high). Then stoners start attributing all these magical properties to it just because it's "medical." My niece is a huge stoner, far more severely-addicted than you ever thought was possible with pot. I don't care. I think recreational use should be 100% legal even though I don't use it. Thing is, all I can do is laugh when she tries to tell me that cigarettes cause lung cancer and pot cures it. BULL---FUCKING---SHIT! Burned plant material in your lungs does not identify and target cancer cells. Your body processing all the particles will lead to cells being killed and replaced with new ones, which increases the likelihood of developing lung cancer.

...but many stoners want to believe pot cures cancer just because cancer patients are allowed to use it to treat pain and discomfort.

You sound like you need to chill out and smoke a joint.

Unfortunately for you and your niece pot doesn't cure stupid.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,234
136
But then some people are aware of the actual research regarding CBD and various types of tumors

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq
That's great potential if it has been shown to slow tumor grown in some lab tests. Seems like they should isolate which part of cannabis is effective (can't assume it's the THC or even anything unique to cannabis, or even whether significant quantities of the effective ingredients even remain in the oil extract). I'm still totally fine with them selling CBD oil as-is. They should be able to do that. When someone claims her oil extract is the reason she still has a face, I would hope they have some conclusive research to back it up. Otherwise it isn't any different from herb shops with bogus remedies for various ailments.

I mean, stoners can keep believing that SMOKING pot can cure lung cancer too, if they want.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,234
136
This makes no sense. Why would you think the sign would still be visible in such an incident that would create a hidden/trapped baby?
...because the sign is placed prominently in the window. An infant is less likely to try to communicate with rescuers. Rescuers at a crash scene can be pretty certain there was a driver. That part is a safe assumption and a sign would offer no benefit.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,592
29,221
146
That's great potential if it has been shown to slow tumor grown in some lab tests. Seems like they should isolate which part of cannabis is effective (can't assume it's the THC or even anything unique to cannabis, or even whether significant quantities of the effective ingredients even remain in the oil extract). I'm still totally fine with them selling CBD oil as-is. They should be able to do that. When someone claims her oil extract is the reason she still has a face, I would hope they have some conclusive research to back it up. Otherwise it isn't any different from herb shops with bogus remedies for various ailments.

I mean, stoners can keep believing that SMOKING pot can cure lung cancer too, if they want.

like Budashes said, you two could definitely use more doobies in your lives.


...I mean, you were just shown solid evidence that refutes your unfounded assumption that CBD will not fight tumors, and you more or less handwave it away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: destrekor

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,592
29,221
146
...because the sign is placed prominently in the window. An infant is less likely to try to communicate with rescuers. Rescuers at a crash scene can be pretty certain there was a driver. That part is a safe assumption and a sign would offer no benefit.

I think you were having a bad day yesterday.

as to the reefer--consider vaporizing (not oil or wax, but leaf). Edibles will mess you up solid if you have no experience with THC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skyking

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
27,285
36,410
136
An affordable and effective treatment, saving faces that would otherwise be eaten away, would be very convenient and nice to have. Certainly not "inconvenient."


Seriously. It was approved for medical use because it helps people in pain feel a little bit better (obviously, you're getting high). Then stoners start attributing all these magical properties to it just because it's "medical." My niece is a huge stoner, far more severely-addicted than you ever thought was possible with pot. I don't care. I think recreational use should be 100% legal even though I don't use it. Thing is, all I can do is laugh when she tries to tell me that cigarettes cause lung cancer and pot cures it. BULL---FUCKING---SHIT! Burned plant material in your lungs does not identify and target cancer cells. Your body processing all the particles will lead to cells being killed and replaced with new ones, which increases the likelihood of developing lung cancer.

...but many stoners want to believe pot cures cancer just because cancer patients are allowed to use it to treat pain and discomfort.


So, just to review - you don't know anything about the case in question, and completely ignored the contents of the link provided. I like how I specifically cited the input of three PhDs working with NIH, yet your response is to rant about what burnt out kids think. You should let them know they're wasting time and money on their promising discoveries. Erica's full of shit and smokes too much, yeah sounds like conclusive data on tumors to me too. I can see why smoking sets you off, afterall we saw lot of it in the .gif I posted didn't we?

lol

You realize your little strawman dance there proves my comment about the view correct, right? Are you smoking now? Why not just explore some of the links provided to you, maybe not start off with a conclusion already established in your head? I think it's possible to disagree with people like your niece and acknowledge that some incredible work has been done lately. A Spanish team used THC to make glioblastoma cells (read: aggressive brain cancer) basically digest themselves. No effect on healthy cells. Seriously.


Anyway...

58f4b92df05e3.jpeg
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,214
659
136
like Budashes said, you two could definitely use more doobies in your lives.


...I mean, you were just shown solid evidence that refutes your unfounded assumption that CBD will not fight tumors, and you more or less handwave it away.

This really really needs to be split out of the fun thread..

Having said that, while I don't have a dog in this fight if you're referring to the link that was provided, it's really not solid evidence. It talks about having some promising data in mice, but that doesn't mean it'll work for humans. In fact further down the page they talk about how there hasn't been any studies.

No ongoing clinical trials of Cannabis as a treatment for cancer in humans were identified in a PubMed search. The only published trial of any cannabinoid in patients with cancer is a small pilot study of intratumoral injection of delta-9-THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme, which demonstrated no significant clinical benefit.[22,23] In a trial (NCT02255292) conducted in Israel, oral CBD was investigated as a single salvage agent for recurrent solid tumors. The study was projected to be completed in 2015; however, no results have been published. A small exploratory phase II study (GWCA1208 Part A [NCT01812603]) was conducted in the United Kingdom that used nabiximols, a 1:1 ratio of THC:CBD in a Cannabis-based medicinal extract oromucosal spray, in conjunction with temozolomide in treating patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The study enrolled 21 patients. Final results have not been published.

As was pointed out, if Cannabis really did cure cancer we'd all know by now. It really should be studied though.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
This really really needs to be split out of the fun thread..

Having said that, while I don't have a dog in this fight if you're referring to the link that was provided, it's really not solid evidence. It talks about having some promising data in mice, but that doesn't mean it'll work for humans. In fact further down the page they talk about how there hasn't been any studies.



As was pointed out, if Cannabis really did cure cancer we'd all know by now. It really should be studied though.

Just to try and wrap this conversation up, I want to say this: yes the data, in relation to numerous other therapies, is incredibly limited. That being said, the data is exhaustive enough to start rigorous human trials and I suspect some are already underway. But know this: most promising studies that are demonstrated on common research animals, when rigorously designed and well-run, tend to have the proving data carry through. Note the qualifying aspect here, well-run and rigorous... there are a ton of sleazy penny-stock companies that purport to have solid study evidence but it's terribly flimsy at best. There is a distinction when considering studies that are well-regarded in esteemed peer review journals for their fields.

Just about all of the most promising pot studies have serious indications, and have been repeated by numerous teams that rarely refute the original findings. Yes, a crucial point is to be made that they all means nothing until rigorously tested in humans; absolutely agree, and tests are both underway and being designed methodically. Many tests of this nature, cancer-fighting in particular, take years to bear fruit in long-term studies. Most of the studies that will end up being very important didn't even start getting designed until state legalization began to occur and stick; federally-approved studies have been few and far between, and crucially have been severely limited in scope due to the extremely limited supply from federally-approved growers and processors for this otherwise Schedule 1 drug. Just like there was a wealth of promising research into hallucinogens in the 60s and 70s, until the drug wars took hold -- and that's only now just restarting in earnest. Commonly understood therapies that have been practiced for generations can and do often result in success, but to take whole plant products and research them to whittle down to a few key components takes years and tons of money; resources that most don't want to sign up for when the government shows no interest in approving it for therapeutic use and having enough of a market. That's the same reason why antibiotic R&D is so slow -- there's little profit, especially with drugs that are assumed to be destined for resistance soon afterward. Except in this case, evidence is faster to surface, but takes far longer to demonstrate in a statistically significant way and safely.

Which is all to say, there is an epic volume of statistically important research, but little interest and scarce resources to develop rigorous human safety and later efficacy trials. And volunteers may be of limited quantity due to both the stigma and employment risks.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,214
659
136
Just to try and wrap this conversation up, I want to say this: yes the data, in relation to numerous other therapies, is incredibly limited. That being said, the data is exhaustive enough to start rigorous human trials and I suspect some are already underway. But know this: most promising studies that are demonstrated on common research animals, when rigorously designed and well-run, tend to have the proving data carry through. Note the qualifying aspect here, well-run and rigorous... there are a ton of sleazy penny-stock companies that purport to have solid study evidence but it's terribly flimsy at best. There is a distinction when considering studies that are well-regarded in esteemed peer review journals for their fields.

Just about all of the most promising pot studies have serious indications, and have been repeated by numerous teams that rarely refute the original findings. Yes, a crucial point is to be made that they all means nothing until rigorously tested in humans; absolutely agree, and tests are both underway and being designed methodically. Many tests of this nature, cancer-fighting in particular, take years to bear fruit in long-term studies. Most of the studies that will end up being very important didn't even start getting designed until state legalization began to occur and stick; federally-approved studies have been few and far between, and crucially have been severely limited in scope due to the extremely limited supply from federally-approved growers and processors for this otherwise Schedule 1 drug. Just like there was a wealth of promising research into hallucinogens in the 60s and 70s, until the drug wars took hold -- and that's only now just restarting in earnest. Commonly understood therapies that have been practiced for generations can and do often result in success, but to take whole plant products and research them to whittle down to a few key components takes years and tons of money; resources that most don't want to sign up for when the government shows no interest in approving it for therapeutic use and having enough of a market. That's the same reason why antibiotic R&D is so slow -- there's little profit, especially with drugs that are assumed to be destined for resistance soon afterward. Except in this case, evidence is faster to surface, but takes far longer to demonstrate in a statistically significant way and safely.

Which is all to say, there is an epic volume of statistically important research, but little interest and scarce resources to develop rigorous human safety and later efficacy trials. And volunteers may be of limited quantity due to both the stigma and employment risks.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.. Are you saying that well-run studies on animals tend to carry over to humans? If so, where does that come from? I'm basing most of my information off of my wife that runs cancer drug studies, and the doctors in her work. While animal trials are the first step, there is a ton of differences that normally come into play when you transfer that to humans. While it does sound promising, it's not always a thing where it works well in humans because they got good results.. while every human trial has to get good results there are countless that don't work out. Long way of saying, it looks like some people are testing with mice and getting promising results with Cannabis, there's no evidence that it currently does work, except anecdotally.

Also, if it was an approved study then it wouldn't have the stigma, nor would people be afraid to join it. Cancer studies tend to be full due to the impending death if nothing is discovered.

Interesting topic none the less, it really should be split off from this thread..
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,592
29,221
146
This really really needs to be split out of the fun thread..

Having said that, while I don't have a dog in this fight if you're referring to the link that was provided, it's really not solid evidence. It talks about having some promising data in mice, but that doesn't mean it'll work for humans. In fact further down the page they talk about how there hasn't been any studies.



As was pointed out, if Cannabis really did cure cancer we'd all know by now. It really should be studied though.

no one mentioned it curing cancer, just evidence of tumor-killing properties in some cancers. Within a type of cancer there are different tumors and just shrinking those down is one thing, but doesn't necessarily mean the person is cured. But it's huge.

Anyway, this is how model-based science works. A lot of these studies are old with less data behind them simply because of drug scheduling. It's just very difficult to do this research, but now a lot of products are available, the industry now exists where it didn't before compared to when a lot of these studies began. The problem is that it won't change the nature of NIH-funded studies because they are still controlled by federal law. We might end up with a lot of incidental data and patient case studies, and maybe some meta studies from that, but the next stages in basic science are just as problematic as they have always been because drug scheduling still controls funding and approvals.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,042
8,740
136
Take the weed/cancer discussion elsewhere, not in this thread. Next poster who doesn't heed this warning gets an infraction.

Perknose
Forum Director