Can Cannabis Cure Cancer?

Can Cannabis Cure Cancer?
4.32 (86.35%) 63 votes

Some studies on mice show cannabis makes cancer better; other studies on mice show it makes cancer worse. What did the one and only human clinical trial to date find?

Discuss
Republish

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“Cannabis and cancer: reality or pipe dream” quackery? “Among alternative cancer treatments, cannabis inhabits a peculiarly politicised position, hailed as a suppressed panacea by some, denounced as a [dangerous] drug by others.”  “At the far end of the spectrum are those who insist cannabis…helped…cure their cancer.” “The promise, and even the hype, can reach hysterical proportions, with claims of cannabis cancer cures circulating in cyberspace at a furious pace.”

The problem is that sometimes a patient will have a cancer that’s curable with conventional therapies, like you could cut it out before it spreads, but forgoes that treatment in favor of something that just got good online testimonials.

Yes, cannabis compounds like THC can reduce brain tumor volume in mice, or suppress cancer cell growth in a petri dish. But, it turns out, “mice and rats are not people, and what is observed in vitro does not necessarily translate into [human] clinical medicine.” Why not just give it a try, though?  Because there’s other evidence that cannabis compounds “may encourage cancer…growth.” Like THC inhibiting antitumor immunity, or inducing cancer cell proliferation, “enhanc[ing] breast cancer growth and metastasis by suppression of the antitumor immune response.” Yeah, but in “mouse mammary” tumors. You don’t know what happens in people…until you put it to the test. But because of legal reasons, few human studies have been done. But thankfully, “after years of [a] deep freeze on cannabis-related research, funding, and materials, a thaw is starting.” But where do you even start?

Well, if cannabis compounds—cannabinoids—”are postulated to have a potential anticancer effect working through the [cannabinoid] receptor[s], it would follow that [trying it on cancer of] the brain,” where the receptors are most densely concentrated, “would be a good place to start.” Okay. Well, “[o]ne of the most devastating forms of cancer is glioblastoma,” a fast-growing type of malignant brain tumor. And, that’s the first cancer that was put to the test.

Cannabis compounds sometimes inhibit tumor growth in lab animals. However, any antitumor effects have never been tested in humans. So, here we go, the first clinical study on cancer:  specifically, a pilot study “in which nine patients with recurrent glioblastoma”—meaning they had the tumor cut out; they had the radiation treatments; but the cancer is back and is growing. Then, they administered the THC straight into the tumor. Basically, they went back into surgery, had a scoop carved out of the center of their tumors, and they stuck a catheter in the middle, with the other end sticking out of their heads so they could drip the THC straight into the tumor with a syringe. THC was already tested on biopsy specimens, and showed it was able to kill some of the cancer cells off in a petri dish. So, what happened when it was tried on the patients themselves? The patients all died, in a matter of months.

In a few patients, it seemed to work for a few weeks—maybe—but then the tumor took back off despite repeated treatments. This looks like their most dramatic result. Here’s where the tumor started before the treatment, and at four weeks had dramatically shrunk down. 35-year-old guy. Oh, the whole family must have been beside themselves. But then it came back with a vengeance, and despite more infusions, got worse, and then he was gone. With no control group, the effect of the treatment on overall survival is unclear.

This was both the first clinical trial on cancer, and the only clinical trial on cancer, even though it was published over a decade ago. But the good news is: “there are more than 15 trials” currently underway—perhaps the most exciting of which is a phase 2 trial in Israel, again looking at advanced cancers that are progressing despite all standard treatments. In the meanwhile, if you are undergoing a standard treatment like chemo, at least we know that cannabis may help with some of the side effects.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: O’Dea via Wikimedai. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

“Cannabis and cancer: reality or pipe dream” quackery? “Among alternative cancer treatments, cannabis inhabits a peculiarly politicised position, hailed as a suppressed panacea by some, denounced as a [dangerous] drug by others.”  “At the far end of the spectrum are those who insist cannabis…helped…cure their cancer.” “The promise, and even the hype, can reach hysterical proportions, with claims of cannabis cancer cures circulating in cyberspace at a furious pace.”

The problem is that sometimes a patient will have a cancer that’s curable with conventional therapies, like you could cut it out before it spreads, but forgoes that treatment in favor of something that just got good online testimonials.

Yes, cannabis compounds like THC can reduce brain tumor volume in mice, or suppress cancer cell growth in a petri dish. But, it turns out, “mice and rats are not people, and what is observed in vitro does not necessarily translate into [human] clinical medicine.” Why not just give it a try, though?  Because there’s other evidence that cannabis compounds “may encourage cancer…growth.” Like THC inhibiting antitumor immunity, or inducing cancer cell proliferation, “enhanc[ing] breast cancer growth and metastasis by suppression of the antitumor immune response.” Yeah, but in “mouse mammary” tumors. You don’t know what happens in people…until you put it to the test. But because of legal reasons, few human studies have been done. But thankfully, “after years of [a] deep freeze on cannabis-related research, funding, and materials, a thaw is starting.” But where do you even start?

Well, if cannabis compounds—cannabinoids—”are postulated to have a potential anticancer effect working through the [cannabinoid] receptor[s], it would follow that [trying it on cancer of] the brain,” where the receptors are most densely concentrated, “would be a good place to start.” Okay. Well, “[o]ne of the most devastating forms of cancer is glioblastoma,” a fast-growing type of malignant brain tumor. And, that’s the first cancer that was put to the test.

Cannabis compounds sometimes inhibit tumor growth in lab animals. However, any antitumor effects have never been tested in humans. So, here we go, the first clinical study on cancer:  specifically, a pilot study “in which nine patients with recurrent glioblastoma”—meaning they had the tumor cut out; they had the radiation treatments; but the cancer is back and is growing. Then, they administered the THC straight into the tumor. Basically, they went back into surgery, had a scoop carved out of the center of their tumors, and they stuck a catheter in the middle, with the other end sticking out of their heads so they could drip the THC straight into the tumor with a syringe. THC was already tested on biopsy specimens, and showed it was able to kill some of the cancer cells off in a petri dish. So, what happened when it was tried on the patients themselves? The patients all died, in a matter of months.

In a few patients, it seemed to work for a few weeks—maybe—but then the tumor took back off despite repeated treatments. This looks like their most dramatic result. Here’s where the tumor started before the treatment, and at four weeks had dramatically shrunk down. 35-year-old guy. Oh, the whole family must have been beside themselves. But then it came back with a vengeance, and despite more infusions, got worse, and then he was gone. With no control group, the effect of the treatment on overall survival is unclear.

This was both the first clinical trial on cancer, and the only clinical trial on cancer, even though it was published over a decade ago. But the good news is: “there are more than 15 trials” currently underway—perhaps the most exciting of which is a phase 2 trial in Israel, again looking at advanced cancers that are progressing despite all standard treatments. In the meanwhile, if you are undergoing a standard treatment like chemo, at least we know that cannabis may help with some of the side effects.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Image credit: O’Dea via Wikimedai. Image has been modified.

Motion graphics by Avocado Video.

Doctor's Note

In case you missed it, check out my previous video: Does Marijuana Cause Lung Cancer?

What can help in both the prevention and treatment with cancer? I’ve got dozens of videos on the subject. How Not to Die from Cancer is a good place to start.

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

149 responses to “Can Cannabis Cure Cancer?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

  1. Sheesh! Last video was about pot maybe causing cancer, and this one is about it curing it! We live in a confusing world.

    “First you say you, and then you don’t….” tra-la-la!

    1. YR, no more so than “radiation therapy” used to treat cancer, though it demonstrably does cause additional other cancers, presumably at a lower rate so that the benefit vs risk ratio remains positive. Or even mammograms (which uses radiation), which also cause some breast cancers, again with the hope or belief (but where’s the data?) that the overall benefit vs risk is positive.

      The world has always been confusing. The best we can do is to use the best available information to try to make sense of it — and to avoid falling prey to charlatans who sell snake oil to desperate patients.

      I like the approach of prevention: a healthy diet (preferably WFPB), exercise, no smoking or drinking alcohol. Those go a long way. And it’s not too confusing!

      1. @Dr. J your last sentence is spot on.

        Having walked sideXside with a loved one through the cancer conveyor belt of treatments and researching the pros/cons of each my thinking is eat wfpb and live as healthy as you can to improve statistical chances of never having to make those decisions. If I did end up in that boat I think i’d do resections that are not quality of life changing and say no thank you to chemo and radiation both of which are ridiculous treatment choices.

        As for screening tests I found it really interesting how with all the fancy, expensive and unpleasant tests that exist such as mammogram and pet/ct scan a simple ultrasound was the information that everyone used as conclusive proof that there was a non-benign activity going on.

      2. I understood every thing you stated about the prospects of cannabis being a working solution for curing cancer.. Basically, cannabis does not cure the cancer cells in the one human study conducted on the brain with one specific type of tumor. I have to add that I am glad to hear that other countries, that have more flexible laws, that the research continues. From your message, it seems that cannabis does minimize the side-effects of radiation and chemotherapy. I hope that we can start some grass roots effort to allow medical cannabis, at a Federal level, then we can ease the pain and suffering of Cancer patients. I believe that some major event needs to occur to excite people around the country to get behind this effort. I believe that if the AMA or at a minimum American Medical group of Oncologists, Radiologists, Pharmacists and any other medical professional put their shoulder against this issue, we may be able to put the feet of federal Politicians and agencies that operate at the federal level to respond to what could become a firestorm of experts, patients in pain, and their families to rise up and make change. Even though some states have laws on their books that are more liberal with the selling and buying of cannabis, we much launch a federal campaign. All or any one of the states are subject to Federal raids from the DEA with local support from police and sheriffs on a city by city .basis could shut down liberal laws. In addition, this could create and environment where medical research could continue to research of the effect of cannabis on one of the multiple forms of cancer. Thank you for reading this, and I await some feedback.

        1. Thank you Mark Steven Seigal for your comment. Dr Greger and the team do a great job in finding new research and evidence based research to educate everyone regarding health and nutrition. Dr Greger is on the board of Life Style medicine. I think they are the pioneers in making good changes in health and medicine which as you might know takes time. These discussions are also useful to take the matters regarding health go forward.
          I was checking the American cancer Society website on this topic. I think they have a good point.
          ‘The American Cancer Society supports the need for more scientific research on cannabinoids for cancer patients, and recognizes the need for better and more effective therapies that can overcome the often debilitating side effects of cancer and its treatment. The Society also believes that the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance by the US Drug Enforcement Administration imposes numerous conditions on researchers and deters scientific study of cannabinoids. Federal officials should examine options consistent with federal law for enabling more scientific study on marijuana.

          Medical decisions about pain and symptom management should be made between the patient and his or her doctor, balancing evidence of benefit and harm to the patient, the patient’s preferences and values, and any laws and regulations that may apply’.
          What does the American Cancer Society say about the use of marijuana in people with cancer?

        2. Well first, that study you mention which appears as some sort of conclusion or current status is not…it is nine years old and has this from the abstract as primary goal…” ”The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration.
          We also evaluated THC action on the length of survival and various tumour-cell parameters.”
          It was only a THC component and it was administrated to terminally ill cancer patients who had the cancer reappear..or to put it broadly, they were dead peoples walking..known to not be surviving by probability.

          On the issue, the drug lobby, big pharma, has resisted any effort on reduction of pot from a schedule one drug and legalization in general, as pot competes directly with many of their patented lines of pain management opioids.
          AS they may donate thousands upon thousands of dollars to campaigns in one fell swoop, and we may not, we must take corporate donation to campaigns out of the equation.

          This is simply and easily solved..do not vote for candidates that allow corporate or PAC monies into their campaigns. They are the beast…current politicians only pay lip service to removing that influence as it is how they got where they are , elected, with a few exceptions.

          1. Here from the NCI a division of the NIH are the various hurdles to study…

            “Clinical trials that study medicinal Cannabis in cancer are limited. To do research with Cannabis in the United States, researchers must file an Investigational New Drug (IND) application with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), receive a Schedule I license from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and gain approval from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).”

            In essence those parties who already have a dog in the fight, with established contrary view, DEA and NIDA, are responsible for allowing your study.

            So what they are the chances a contrary to their view study is approved?
            And then to further confound your attempts…. prior to just this September all your cannibus could only be obtained in limited source from a suspect quality base in one single place located in one specific university.

      3. Not everyone is an ascetic monk. I like marijuana, daily. I like to have a drink, regularly.

        All in moderation, proper exercise, and WFPB — one should allow themselves to enjoy certain pleasures in life.

    2. Hi YR thanks for your comment. As you can deduct from the study that was carried out on brain tumor that Dr Greger searched in this video, unfortunately it did not cure cancer. It helped with some of the side effects.

      Guzmán M, Duarte MJ, Blázquez C, et al. A pilot clinical study of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. Br J Cancer. 2006;95(2):197-203.

  2. I don’t know that I would be too eager to address side effects of one thing with a drug that contains compounds known to stimulate the growth of cancer cells. Seems risky to me.

      1. Jimbo

        In “Healing Cancer From the Inside Out” they talked about the fact that people don’t work outside like they used to or sunbathe as they used to and they use high SPF sunscreen and stay indoors much more of the day and kids don’t even play outside, and yet skin cancer is on the rise.

        They said the same thing about lung cancer rates increasing even though people stopped smoking at the levels they used to.

        Animal products plus carcinogens is what they say causes cancer to become a problem.

        They pointed to Okinawa where people smoke like crazy and there is high air pollution, but while the residents didn’t eat a lot of animal products, they didn’t get lung cancer and when they started eating animal products, they started getting more lung cancer.

        I don’t know how it all relates back to skin cancer, but they are right. Kids don’t go outside almost at all and people do use high SPF and it isn’t preventing it from becoming a problem. Even though people like lifeguards get it faster.

        I already lost track of my point. I think my point is that these issues are still complicated.

        We will know more about cannabis in the next decade, but we might never have researchers looking properly at things like skin cancer is my bigger fear.

        1. Deb, more skin cancer, in spite of little to no sun exposure? Can that be or the cause?
          Possibly low vitamin D levels combined with sporadic high level sun exposure (such as on vacation).

          1. Or the SAD diet? I seem to remember that foods that contain carotenoids are protective against skin cancer, but people are consuming *how many *vegetables a day? and those vegetables are likely(?) French fries? So maybe the thing to do is to eat a carotenoid/chlorophyll-rich diet, among others–amounting to a rich WFPB diet and get appropriate amounts of sunlight for the Vitamin D.

    1. Well I heartedly suggest you then advise all who are eating meat not to, drinking milk not to, and as well as using alcohol in any fashion and a multiple of other things to include coffee.

      Dr Gregers video states this…” Like THC inhibiting antitumor immunity, or inducing cancer cell proliferation, “enhanc[ing] breast cancer growth and metastasis by suppression of the antitumor immune response.” Yeah, but in “mouse mammary” tumors”

      And also that is not a widespread finding. The truth of the matter is the book is still out on this. If we depend only on mouse studies or cell studies, it already shows as cure for multiple diseases, I can prompt them up if necessary. Problem is mice don’t translate to humans.
      Painting it outherwise is just that, painting it otherwise.

      He clearly states that. “But the good news is: “there are more than 15 trials” currently underway—perhaps the most exciting of which is a phase 2 trial in Israel, again looking at advanced cancers that are progressing despite all standard treatments.”

    1. The studies I can find seem to be all on cell studies or animal studies. These have shown overwhelming positive results. But animal and cell do not necessarily translate to live human bodies.

      The reason why, is its illegal status made its study very difficult. A place in Mississippi was the only one legally able to provide pot and they have characteristically poor quality stuff little suitable for lab use, and vastly restrict the amounts available. Just this September, University of Cal has been permitted to obtain real useable pot from Canada….now studies may begin to be done in the US.

      Why was that situation so bad in Mississippi..it is clear to me they the feds did not want it to be studied.

      1. It does appear however that even with CBD oil, most commonly its effects are found enhanced by very small additions of THC. Not a psychoactive amount but more in the 1-3% range. My guess is studies on humans will be more resultant in affect if done in this context.

        So often it is prepared that way for current medical use.

    2. Yeah, thats somehow fishy. There are at least 113 different cannabinoids in the hemp plant, and they just pick only THC for the study? Why not CBD or CBG, which should be legaly easier to get? They could have done tests with CBD from flaxseed easily, because flaxseed seems to contain CBD.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22706678

      Or they could have done a test with CBG from Helichrysum umbraculigerum.
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0031942279830253

      1. Scientists study different things for different reasons. Here from the study itself the abstract was the primary goal of the study….”The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration.”

        In anticipation of success based on animal study, one is already completed on the potential for assimiliation of pot compounds in human for theaputic use..

        So there are multiple ways this thing is being looked at. We cannot draw to much from one isolated study of THC intercranial injection. Nor to the inverse, can we draw to much from cell and animal study, nor many population studies, in this regard.
        And this is after all nine years ago.

  3. I see this video as a pretty good read on the current status on pot and cancer. Does not say it is bad as the demonization crowd would have it, nor all good as the crowd who thinks of it highly, speaks about it.

    The book is still out.
    For those that are inclined to demonize, be advised the FDA has already approved pot for use in childhood seizures, and patented drugs for various other ailments beyond just nausea and vomiting are already in use worldwide.
    Cancer no it is not proven. No it does not necessarily cause cancer, that was a mouse study nothing in observational data points to that in humans. But no study on humans shows at present remediation.

    Each side may wish for this or that but it just is not as per cancer there yet.

    1. Its continued status as a category one drug make human study in America virtually impossible.
      Why?
      As category one is a drug with no use medically. No good use basically. The inferal is it only provides harm.
      How can you be giving a drug with no medical use to patients with anything? It is morally unsound to do so. And of course if one did, not only would it be illegal it would leave one open to liability.

      Which is why Israel and other places are where human trials are occurring. And why all of our studies are cell and animal studies.

      It is patently absurd to continue in this category one status as the FDA has already approved pot as a treatment for one type of childhood seizures.

  4. “With no control group, the effect of the treatment on overall survival is unclear.” Dr. Greger, the control group is all the other advanced and second time around glioblastoma patients, all of whom die.
    Joseph in Missoula

  5. If you think for a minute, the government bullcrapped this substance into being illeagal decades ago. I wonder why? Follow the money people. The oil tycoons made naturalpathic medicine almost go away in the early 1900’s to pave the way for patentable petrochemical drugs. No money in healthy people, but big money in caring for the sick. This is why I believe beyond a doubt that cannabis has much healing powers that have been surpressed for generations. Believe the government at tour demise.

    1. Well this works for and against by my read.
      One of the largest big pharma companies is now Teva, out of Israel. Is it just coincidence that Israel is where much of the current human trial study is ongoing? Though they may not officially sponsor the studies they may have a hand in producing the environment which makes such study likely and doable.

      I see it clearly as one company seeing a potential of profit in this, and the other companies trying to stifle pot by legislative and measures against ballot initiatives to protect their existant product line such as opioids.

    2. Ronald E. DeSilva said:
      Believe the government at tour demise.
      ——————————————————————-

      I think a better approach would be “Understand government and prevent your own demise.”

      There’s enough private information out there and I personally am seeing information being posted by govt. agencies that have been helpful in my forming a plan of defense against the Grimmy Reaper.

  6. I’m not a proponent of pot, but I was hoping the end result of this study would be a successful treatment.

    I guess my hope for reading about a treatment for this horrible cancer would be for a medicine that could block glucose (or is it better termed glucogen(?) that all(?) cancers feed on.

    Of course there would have to be a ketone substitution for fuel for the body, but it would be interesting to see if the cancer could be starved out this way. My thinking is there has to be a medicinal approach or such a study will never get done. A simple fasting approach to achieving a no glucose state is revenue negative if it works, for the drug companies.

    1. NIH has a positional paper on pot in publication. The study results seem quite promising. And keep in mind this was only one study(in the video) done on patients who have usually zero chance of recovery and not on anything less than that. And only one mode of administration was performed.

      From the NIH source of course this was only cell type study, but this is interesting…:”A review of 34 studies of cannabinoids in glioma tumor models found that all but one study showed that cannabinoids can kill cancer cells without harming normal cells.”

        1. This is far from definitive but things like this show great promise….also from the NIH positional paper..
          ” A review of bladder cancer rates in Cannabis users and non-users was done in over 84,000 men who took part in the California Men’s Health Study. Over 16 years of follow-up and adjusting for age, race/ethnic group and body mass index (BMI), rates of bladder cancer were found to be 45% lower in Cannabis users than in men who did not report Cannabis use.”

    1. Well keep in mind this quoted from the study abstract itself, this was the primary goal of the study….”The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration.
      We also evaluated THC action on the length of survival and various tumour-cell parameters.”

      Safety of the injections was the primary goal, action was evaluated but not primary. It was only done on nine terminally ill patients. Several showed a bit of regression but then it again proceeded. And of course there was no control how could there be? Everyone was basically going to die and did.
      So what carry over can we gain from that…it seems intracranial THC administration was safe.

    2. Peter,

      Research had to start someplace and the fact that the tumors shrunk initially tells me that the isolated compound administered invasively did do something.

      I will agree with you that isolates don’t have a good reputation, after hanging around here long enough, but research is a slow process and you have to start someplace based on some logic and direct administration into tumors is something which is being tested.

      1. If you pause the video and read the articles which are used there is a sentence, “Thus far, the best laboratory results have come from using a combination of highly purified THC and CBD…..” so even if we don’t trust isolates, those are what they are getting the best laboratory results from as of yet.

  7. According to a presentation by Dr. Debra Kimless, from her experience, multiple successes have been obtained in treating a broad range of ailments, including brain cancers. She employs the minimum effective dose, that often is what is termed a micro-dose, and since cannabinoids can obviously pass into the brain since that is where some of the receptors in the endocannabinoid system are, I doubt was any need to open the skull for direct injected into the brain.

    Her care requirements include a mandate a strict adherence to a “How Not to Die” cookbook manner of eating to boot, smart doctor! I wonder what the diet was of the poor souls who were being surgically experimented on.

    As the pharmaceutical industry and doctors were employing legal cannabis based treatment compounds for 100 years, it would be hopeful to think that buried in this fairly long history of use there might be some data or studies or testimonials, that were created for the products to give a level of understanding or at least indications of something. People either got better or not or worse. Wild side effects either happened or didn’t, my money is on didn’t. Might there be something useful in the data? We won’t know until it is put to the test, by continuing to investigate.

    Hopefully the new studies results will provide light where there is now mostly dark mud. There are simply too, too many aspects of today’s study to warrant credibility and cover here. We all hope that as better data and science become available that NutritionFacts.org will bring the same level of excellence it is known for in providing help for food related health matters that it will bring similar quality information when presenting non food plant based health care options.

    1. Mark,

      The diet itself can stall cancer growth as shown by Dr John Kelly using a diet based on the China Study and his patients who changed their diets didn’t die.

      If she has people use the “How Not To Die” diet strictly it is hard to give cannabis the credit.

        1. That is the most “literal” use of a cookbook title I have ever heard of.

          So, can we say that “How Not to Die” might be being put to the test?

  8. Administering THC the way they did, through a tube into the skull, sounds like a very unnatural way to do it. I’m sure they had to administer an anesthetic and this would mean that the body had to deal with influences and side effects from those drugs also. How could this then be a true trial of the effectiveness of THC?

    Here’s a link to another more positive study using CBD oil from marijuana, not THC: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4470774/

    1. This was the primary goal of the study…from the abstract….….”The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration.”

      The primary goal of that study was not to fight or end cancer in these patients. The study of the progression and effect upon tumor were secondary.

      1. Your study is referencing this…”While many anecdotal reports by cancer patients using various formulations of CS suggest significant efficacy, the lack of pure pharmacologically active compounds and legal restrictions surrounding schedule I drugs have delayed the clinical research that will ultimately determine whether cannabinoids are effective in the treatment of cancer beyond their proven palliative effects. It is promising to note that pharmaceutical companies have initiated clinical programs that include GMP-grade cannabinoids for targeting glioblastoma. Elucidation of the molecular pathways mediating non-psychoactive cannabinoid antitumor effects will be particularly important as the drugs move toward the clinic. ”

        There is much to suggest anticipated success on the basis of cell and animal study which have produced known positive effects. The problem is the clinical trials are not yet completed but are ongoing. Why has this not been endeavored earlier..because mostly category one status stood in the way I the US.

          1. Here is the main of the abstract..” Specifically, Δ(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and Cannabidiol (CBD) – the two major ingredients of marijuana – have been shown to inhibit tumor growth in a number of animal models of cancer, including glioma. Although there are several pharmaceutical preparations that permit the oral administration of THC or its analogue nabilone or the oromucosal delivery of a THC- and CBD-enriched cannabis extract, the systemic administration of cannabinoids has several limitations in part derived from the high lipophilicity exhibited by these compounds. In this work we analyzed CBD- and THC-loaded poly-ε-caprolactone microparticles as an alternative delivery system for long-term cannabinoid administration in a murine xenograft model of glioma. In vitro characterization of THC- and CBD-loaded microparticles showed that this method of microencapsulation facilitates a sustained release of the two cannabinoids for several days. ”

            But it was a mice study. But they are addressing a sustained release mode of administration. And they address CBD and THC

            1. Ron,

              Maybe you can help me.

              Are there any CBD without THC studies on dogs? I will accept mice or rats. I will accept whatever the real answer is whether it causes it to grow faster or shrink faster or if it is complicated.

              I am going to say that I will be talking with my human being friend about the CBD oil and this video has given me a different answer than it would have been.

              1. Here is a link on CBD for dogs. It has proven positive effect on dogs seizures. Dogs are rarely used in animal studies that relate to humans due to humane treatment objections.
                Mice are preferred. Many studies on mice show positive cancer fighting effects.
                They like cell studies however may not translate to live humans

                Dr Gregers video part on that one study…that study was not by the authors description centered upon treatment of cancer but to study the safety of THC intercranial administration. The study on tumor size and progression. was secondary.

    2. I am reminded of the hopeful studies done with vitamins that not only kept cancer away (in foods,) but when given as an isolated vitamin, actually caused cancer. And here it seems the cart is coming ahead of the horse again. Instead of giving this to cancer patients, find out whether it is helpful to consume(?)/administer(?) prior to getting cancer. Sure, I’d like to see a cure for cancer, especially since I had cancer and radiation in 2001. The effects of cannabis usage in normal persons may turn out to be protective even if cannabis usage, (in whatever form,) turns out not to function as a cure. This is not meant to be a criticism of any thoughts here; I’m just adding my own thoughts.

      1. A valid point. NCI references this positive result in their positional paper on pot……” A review of bladder cancer rates in Cannabis users and non-users was done in over 84,000 men who took part in the California Men’s Health Study. Over 16 years of follow-up and adjusting for age, race/ethnic group and body mass index (BMI), rates of bladder cancer were found to be 45% lower in Cannabis users than in men who did not report Cannabis use.”

        I think now that it is legal we will have much more in the way of population studies. Status as illegal made it very difficult, as who used it was a person inclined to do illegal things. So they risk take more for one. In any mortality study that would confound the result. For another they smoke cigs as well usually. Legal buyers in pot legal states may endeavor neither. Edibles vaping, these seem among the young adults more popular.

        A whole country now as October 17 will serve as population base for pot study. I am certain many researchers are taking note.

      2. Liisa,

        Thanks for sharing!

        I agree with your position.

        Somehow, the cell and mice studies end up exposing potentially millions of people to risks because it takes soooooo long to get to the Cancer in people studies.

        The vitamins killing people faster is still happening. I was just reading it about folic acid causing more strokes.

        In some ways the studies aren’t connected closely enough in time.

  9. I appreciate that this is a balanced video and that you have included photographs. Pictures speak 1000 words and help me to understand things so much better.

    When I think of the aloe and cancer video, I can’t remember any words, but I remember the eye getting better and with this one, I will remember the brain getting much better and then much, much worse and the person dying.

    If anyone comes here researching glioblastoma, go to the Ted Talk on Tumor Treating Fields and combine it with some recipes from “How Not To Die” and don’t let them drill into your head and scoop out part of the tumor unless they are scooping out the whole thing.

  10. the body isn’t designed to be opened and have stuff dripped into it – its designed to have whole foods and plants ingested or applied and absorbed – the GI tract with its trillions of bugs make what we need and know via the gut-brain connection and immune system that they need to make certain things from what their given – putting a synthetic or whatever THC in a dish or on a tumor rather than allowing whole foods and plants to be ingested – digested and distributed naturally doesn’t make any sense to me – the ethical quandry surrounding that study is beyond me – there are way too many reasons for that study to fail – there are a bunch of studies from Israel and others that show clear benefit – whole plant cold extracted digested works for lots of stuff – smoked is a almost similar story and varous compounds containing various amounts of cbd’s and or thc’s show different benefits for different problems at different doses and or strengths – getting proof from the US is going to take decades while the US Government holds the patent on CBD’s and the war on drugs continues to the profit of same while the populace suffers and the drug companies get richer! Comments welcome!

    1. The fight is going on regardless. The mangiot line is the US, it is gotten around through Israel and the rest of the world. Corporate donation to campaigns by big pharm to stop pot from taking business away from their opioids can only go so far. Eventually the evidence becomes overwhelming. Like with climate change it becomes a thing of one nation saying it does not exist, and all the rest saying it does. When that happens which it will..the thing crumbles before our eyes.

      This study was not aimed at curing cancer but on determining as end goal the safety of intercranial administration of THC and it did not include any CBD.
      So it has slight to no value really. I am hoping US big pharmas long reach does not go as far as Israel. As Teva, one of the biggest of big pharma internationally, is located in Israel and by my read they may give a more objective read on this, I suspect it will not. So likely Israel result will be real result.

      And other nations have also not our dramatic influence on things by corporations..so somewhere some how…. if there is truth to be found out …it will. By hook crook splinter or shaft.

  11. So from what I gathered there is no evidence that shows cannabis is anti-cancer in humans and may even be harmful by surprising the anti tumor immune response. Were any of the studies showing suppression of the immune response human studies?

    That was heartbreaking to see about that young guy… To see how his brain tumor practically went away, I could just imagine how happy he and his family and friends must have been and then to have it come back with a vengeance after that… no words.

      1. S

        I agree with you that my autocorrect will often make things worse. My phone is auto-change-the-meaning-of-the-sentences. Funny thing is that if I have a typo and decided to just keep typing and let autocorrect handle it, sometimes it will leave a misspelled word and just underline it, but if I have a word which is spelled properly and is a real word and is exactly what I want to say, it changes it right before my eyes.

        Siri was even worse. I would try to get to this site through Siri and she would try to fax Dot Org over and over again. Then, I would say, “Bing” and she would type “Bing” and then switch it to “Being” in front of my eyes and say, “You summoned?” Then, I would say, “Google” and she would say, “What can I help you find?” and I would say, “NutritionFacts.org” and she would give me “Nutrition facts that work” website and I would spell out, “Nutritionfacts DOT “O” “R’ “G” and she would give me Nutrition facts for orgies. Did you know that there is a Nutrition Facts for orgies site? Neither did I. It took me a long time, but eventually, I started searching for Dr. Greger and if I forgot to do “Google” first, she would give me a list of doctors, but if I used a search engine one of them would be the proper, Dr. Greger. Eventually, I figured out how to use Safari, which had locked me out because I didn’t know my password a long time ago, but apparently, my brother had fixed it so the whole Siri debacle has ended.

        1. LOL Deb, omg that is hilarious though I’m sure not at the time it was happening! YES my auto correct does the exact same thing to me!! …I gave up on Siri a long time ago… no person should have as much rage toward an insentient robotic voice as I did, I had to accept that Siri sucks and move on.

          1. S

            I ended up with Samsung envy because my friends’ cell phones could seem to understand every sentence I say every time and Siri types the word I say in front of my eyes, then autocorrects it.

            Siri was much worse with directions. I still have an old TomTom in my car and I would set both of them to GPS and Siri almost always tries to lead me in the wrong direction. Perhaps to the street name in a different town or something.

            One afternoon, I was meeting my old high school friends who were in from out of town at a diner and I said the address and Siri had me do a double U-Turn and told me to park the car and walk the ten miles to the diner.

            I am not kidding.

            Siri told me to do a U-Turn on the seriously busy main road and then when I finished that U-turn, Siri told me to do another U-turn to go back in the other direction and I thought maybe there was a reason until Siri told me to park on a street with multiple lanes of traffic and no parking allowed and walk 10 miles to the diner.

            I started pitting Siri against my old TomTom and I would put in an address and get to a stop light and one was telling me to turn left and the other was telling me to turn right and I had to start pulling out my maps.

            1. I wanted to find a place to call or email or comment and let them know Siri does that type of thing, but they have intentionally tried to get rid of all connections to human beings.

    1. Well that is one way of saying it but is that the way of it?
      There is no evidence of clinical trial study for fighting cancer, as they are not completed yet. Pot as a schedule one in the US, and the lack of supply for study, being only one source of limited quantity and suspect quality, have virtually prohibited human study here.

      There are many animal(mice) and cell studies which display positive effect… from the NCI specific to brain cancer study…””A review of 34 studies of cannabinoids in glioma tumor models found that all but one study showed that cannabinoids can kill cancer cells without harming normal cells.”

      And the NIC also states this in their positional paper…” A review of bladder cancer rates in Cannabis users and non-users was done in over 84,000 men who took part in the California Men’s Health Study. Over 16 years of follow-up and adjusting for age, race/ethnic group and body mass index (BMI), rates of bladder cancer were found to be 45% lower in Cannabis users than in men who did not report Cannabis use.”

      So as of right now we may not say pot fights cancer. Much leads us to expect it may. But the studies are invariably on cell or animal not human. And population studies are often fraught with internal difficulties which may conflict resulst. Since it is schedule one and considered of no medical benefit at all despite it being allowed by the FDA for childhood seizure specific….how can one administer it to a patient?

      Pot in various forms is already patented as derivative, for treatment.

      1. This first study that Dr Greger lists that I looked at for this specific, was a mice study and the second was a cell study. Thouigh they draw human conclusions in both.
        Do you want me to produce study to the inverse for mice and cells study?
        I can.

        If we want to assume mouse and cell study translates to human we probably would find cancer cured by pot many times over. But as you know often one does not translate to the other especially in existant disease states and progression.
        Human studies up to now have been very hard to come by. Population studies however are not uncommon.

          1. As far as I read it we may find this or that, showing perhaps tumor progression in mice or cell study by exposure to cannibus,(Dr Greger lists a couple) but this from a NIH published study in 2016, puts things in prospective…” Many scientific studies indicate the potential use of cannabinoids in the fight against cancer. Experiments carried out on cell lines in vitro and on animal models in vivo have shown that phytocannabinoids, endocannabinoids, synthetic cannabinoids and their analogues can lead to inhibition of the growth of many tumor types, exerting cytostatic and cytotoxic neoplastic effect on cells thereby negatively influencing neo-angiogenesis and the ability of cells to metastasize. ”

            Leading us to the human studies which are ongoing.

      2. ron, non-human animal studies are completely unreliable at best and don’t even get me started on cancer research using vivisection! It’s horrible so-called science, to say the least. And we know in vitro isn’t always telling and doesn’t suffice but others have made some good points about how injecting into the brain isn’t exactly natural and WFPBLiisa made a good point above. So I wouldn’t necessarily say that this study proves it can’t help if done differently but still good to know of the evidence and lacking of human study as well as the potential negatives with the potential anti tumor immune response suppression which is alarming to me. Obviously more human studies are needed.

        1. Dr Gregers mention has two references on the pro tumor response. NIC references this many, in their positional statement to the detriment of tumor growth in brain cells…: ”A review of 34 studies of cannabinoids in glioma tumor models found that all but one study showed that cannabinoids can kill cancer cells without harming normal cells.”

          So you may certainly be alarmed, but my opinion is your alarm is distinctly misplaced. There are multiple studies, far in excess of that, pointing to positive effect in fighting cancer.

          The two studies Dr Greger mentions are indeed cell and mice studies. So on the one side, you are claiming no determination by animal and cell study, when it favors your position, but on the other side are claiming great determination when it favors your view.
          So how can that be?

          On the brain study on humans this is stated to be, from the abstract, their goal….” ”The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration.
          We also evaluated THC action on the length of survival and various tumour-cell parameters.”

          A determination of ability to end cancer in these patients was simply never a goal at all. No mention is made of expectant survivability of these patients, and to the inverse they mention as secondary……the length of survival and tumor cell perameters were evaluated only.

          These type patients in short do not survive in any statistically measurable sort.
          So it was not a expectant or possible outcome. They were measuring, on a secondary basis, length of survival and tumor cell perameters, which would mean measurement growth or shrinkage.
          Primary end point was safety of this mode of administration.

          Dr Greger has fairly evenly presented the subject matter, but I find it quite unfortunate many are interpreting it with their own bias intact.

          Here is his concluding statement…”But the good news is: “there are more than 15 trials” currently underway—perhaps the most exciting of which is a phase 2 trial in Israel, again looking at advanced cancers that are progressing despite all standard treatments. In the meanwhile, if you are undergoing a standard treatment like chemo, at least we know that cannabis may help with some of the side effects.”

          There is no mention of any fear of worsening cancer, by pot. He mentions the mouse study point, to discredit not just mouse studies but the one he cites showing a negative effect on tumor. Clearly everyone knows mouse study and cell study will not suffice. But again we cannot play both ends to the middle. Chooseing them to matter when they serve our point and not to matter when they do not.

          1. Here is reference to another mice study showing longer living mice on chemo and CBD as opposed to control…. yourhealthdoc.com/study-cbd-from-marijuana-plus-chemotherapy-tripled-cancer-survival-rates-in-mice/
            A very recent one.
            So I say once again….. disregard this, but also disregard the mouse study showing potentiating effect upon tumor, also in mouse study.
            Or believe both have relevance. But picking one to be true, and another not ,on position held, is a inconsistent position which does not hold logical validity.

          2. Wow ron, I have a position? How exactly does me commenting on the evidence shown in the video, thinking about it, and asking a question equate to me having a “position?” And in what way would I have a position? Politically, medicinally, recreationally… I don’t even know what you’re talking about. In any case, that was rhetorical but I have a feeling you’re going to make a long post about it. Clearly you get overzealous on this subject because you have a VERY pro-marijuana stance, which is fine, except when you get angry at any evidence or speculation you don’t like as so many do. I’m just curious about the science.

            As for vivisection… No, animal studies are always irrelevant at best and if one happened to show results that correlate with humans, I would consider it a coincidence more than anything else.

            1. Clearly you are expressing alarm on mouse and cell study that shows in two studies the possibility of tumor enhancement, but stating also we cannot depend upon mouse and cell studies in a other regard.

              The position is inconsistent and expresses a negative view of pot and cancer treatment. My opinion is that Dr Greger is presenting a even view with this statement…

              ” Because there’s other evidence that cannabis compounds “may encourage cancer…growth.” Like THC inhibiting antitumor immunity, or inducing cancer cell proliferation, “enhanc[ing] breast cancer growth and metastasis by suppression of the antitumor immune response.” Yeah, but in “mouse mammary” tumors. You don’t know what happens in people…until you put it to the test. But because of legal reasons, few human studies have been done. But thankfully, “after years of [a] deep freeze on cannabis-related research, funding, and materials, a thaw is starting.” But where do you even start?”

              Clearly there is no mention of alarm nor is the matter alarming. You expressing alarm, are overstating the role of animal and cell study research.
              Dr Greger clearly discounts the study as per it being mouse mammary tumors, and therefor not in any manner definitive.

              Yet you express alarm. Alarm is a very strong word and expresses a very high amount of concern, which is not warrented by Dr Gregers contexting of the issue .

              There are multiple mouse studies showing tumor shrinkage benefit. If I say I find them wonderful news, and pretend they are in any manner definitive, that is expressing a pro pot bias, as mouse study has only marginal application to human.
              So I do not. But you do with your choice of alarm as opposed to some other neutral word, express bias..

              So if your interest is of the science I have expressed many many examples of study on cells and mice that do indeed show benefit on tumor regression. Many more than two. So I suggest again alarm is unwarranted and Dr Greger is not expressing anything that normally would incite that.
              You can of course be alarmed, this is a free world after all. But others are also free to say it is unwarranted when it is…and it is. Cell and animal study are simply not relevant at this stage in the game, the human trials are it, and all of it. The groundwork is already laid to show it deserves human trial study.

              1. I bothered to count up the various studies I personally have versed, either individually or in group, by references to the positive on declining killing cancer in this discussion.

                I have produced, in my lazy half hearted way, about 78.
                To the inverse there are 2.

                All that means not so much, as they are indeed mouse and cell study. But this does mean the path is well paved, for the conduction of human studies, which will be definitive, likely.
                In any event Dr Greger has discounted the 2, as being only of this category mouse cell study. Which I agree with, and he is stating correctly we cannot make to much of mouse and cell study.
                To be wary of pot because of 2 studies as opposed to 78, which show cancer benefit…is a absurd position to hold.
                Coffee for one, will show far more to the negative on any random sampleing of study. Alcohol certainly, much higher actually.
                In any thing studied, there are always going to be outliers. We decide on the viability and need of human studies dependent upon the concensus or norm, not the outliers.

                But to repeat, we cannot make to much of mouse and cell study. Human trial is the answer to pot fighting cancer, not mouse or cell study. My side, the pot side, does often make to much of mouse and cell study.
                The one human study produced 9 years ago in this video, it as stated, was focused, as end point primary goal…. on the safety of adminstration of THC in a intercranial space, as attested to by that statement in their own abstract. Tumor size and such were secondary to that.

                Those all were peoples who were not expected to live and did not. With that form of cancer and reappearance, they do not survive.
                No where in the study produced, did they have any expectation of remediation of the cancer by the administration of the THC. And to add, it was only THC added not CBD or combination.

                I think Dr Greger is fairly evenhanded in his consideration. Some perhaps are making to much to the negative from it and others to much to the positive. The book is still out and nothing is shown until human trials are concluded. And when that is done, we must all examine them closely, to look for fault and flaw and bias, as this is a hot button issue with significant implications for many.

    2. S, looked at Dr. John McDougall’s Utube on ‘Cancer Screening is a Scam’. He explains why even when you shrink a tumor it usually comes back, there, or in another part of the body. Interesting talk. He focuses on lifestyle for prevention.

  12. I had an interesting conversation with my uncle today. He brought up when his son died at age 50 exactly and I knew it was a heart attack, but he told me that his wife said that she believed it was from marijuana, which he had just started using. What are the chances of that? (I had 2 cousins both die the exact same night. One was from not getting a tetanus shot when he got a small cut on the job and they thought he had the flu, but suddenly he was needing limbs cut off and he didn’t make it. The other one was a mystery. It was New Year’s Eve, but neither of them was out partying and it just was that strange way life happens.

    That…. and I also found out that a friend who is in his 50’s fell and died from the internal bleeding from blood thinners. The third person in my life who died that way in the period of a few months. I haven’t spoken to his family to find out whether it was omega 3’s or aspirin or official blood thinners and I won’t have an insensitive conversation asking if he ate a lot of garlic, unless they are doing that “wildly trying to make sense of things” mental process.

    1. Deb, reminds me of Earl, one of the popular (elderly) city bus drivers of a few years back.

      When he didn’t show up to do his runs or a week or two, we of course wondered why. He later said he had cut his toenails one day and started bleeding like a stuck pig. Turns out he had been doing his prescribed daily aspirin routine, which of course thinned his blood. Ended up in the ER…for how long I don’t remember. Awwww….poor little pigs:

      https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bleeding%20like%20a%20stuck%20pig

      1. I don’t know if it is connected, but macular degeneration is a bleeding related disorder.
        I had one close relative of mine a strict advocate of the aspirin a day thing.
        Macular degeneration of the open bleed sort…of course then he stopped immediately.

        I don’t generally trust general wisdom of docs. Not all that long ago they always advocated by majority bottle as opposed to breast feeding.
        About 100% wrong in that for almost all women. Some are now calling for routine treatment by statins at a certain age just as precautionary…..very questionable.

      2. YR,

        That is the scary type of story.

        I did take aspirin for a while but am not good at taking any pill daily and that might turn out to be a good thing sometimes.

        1. Ron,

          I also question the wisdom of doctors when it comes to things like meds and some of their tests and procedures.

          I will say that when I walked my uncle through his brain cancer care, most of his doctors were fairly nice people and when they suggested things, even if they wanted him to do things like take Zocor when he had Brain Cancer. They said that they didn’t blame him for wanting to stop the meds and didn’t give him a hard time. I liked all of them. Ten years later, I hated everybody. I am a Christian and have to repent for saying that. I don’t hate them. I just hated the process, which my grandmother had to go through and my cousin said that it has gotten worse in the few years since then and I hate that he has had to experience that.

          1. I have no problems with docs. I think it is just we have to realize their limitations and scope of experience and knowledge. Professionals do have a thorough knowledge of areas of specific nature. It is human nature to throw that feeling one knows a thing or two, when one is a professional and really does…. out into areas in which one does not.

            Bill Gates thinks he knows what is best for Africa…he knows computers not Africa, but he thinks that. Is but one example. Docs professionals we must see their limitations.
            And on occasion they are incompetent..it happens. Rare but it does. I had a coworker of mine sent home from a ER visit with a diagnosis of hyperventilation due to stress. He had prior spleen removal and a consequence of that is one has to be very careful of infections. So he had a infection and was suffering septic shock. Lost many of his toes and a few fingers but is now a rich man….so it happens.

            Very lucky for him he survived.

            1. I agree with you about professionals doing that process. They have learned how to be professional, so even when they step into something where they aren’t professional at all, they come across that way and think of themselves that way. We do the same thing with medical things where we try to understand it and don’t agree with the doctors, even though they have the experience. Maybe because we also have experience from a different perspective.

              As far as incompetence goes, part of it is how complicated medicine really is.

              There was a man decades ago who was trying to get doctors to use systems similar to the WebMD Symptom checker rather than just relying on memory. He said that doctors had to learn so much information and they may have missed classes or not read their textbooks properly or may have gotten a “C” in a class and only had some of the understanding to begin with. I think about the study Dr. Greger talked about with doctors not understanding the statistics of their own fields. It wasn’t just 10% or 50% of the doctors. It was the vast majority of doctors who needed serious help even figuring out that part of their job. They didn’t even know they didn’t know.

              All I know is that I genuinely am working at it many hours per day right now and have started to be able to feel more confident of some topics, but these subjects really are frustrating. My friend wants to know what I think about CBD oil and I have to decide what to do for my dog. It is so hard to make those decisions without clear scientific understanding.

  13. As long as you are “studying” the effects of THC, you can expect little assistance with your cancer (though I have no idea whether you can get high at the same time you are in pain.)

    In these contemporary days of 2018, the issue has never been THC (though there is anecdotal evidence that it helps a whole lot with Lou Gehrig’s Disease). What gets you high is not the source of the goods.

    The healing element in cannabis is CBD. If the scientific studies involved THC, you are probably wasting your time. The healing claims being made these days are with CBD. But not too many are going so far as saying CBD knocks out cancer. It seems to be effective reducing pain, getting you to sleep at night, and reducing the effects of autism and attention deficit. One drug with CBD in it has already been approved for epilepsy by the FDA. This (CBD) is the stuff you have to study, not the stuff (THC) that gets you high if you can inhale right.

    1. Well it varies.
      Here is a expert in the fields recommendations …” Juan Sanchez-Ramos M.D., PhD, a leader in the field of movement disorders and the Medical Director for the Parkinson Research Foundation, told Project CBD that he encourages his patients to begin with a 1:1 THC:CBD ratio product if they can get it. In a book chapter on “Cannabinoids for the Treatment of Movement Disorders,” he and coauthor Briony Catlow, PhD, describe the dosage protocol used for various research studies that provided statistically positive results and a dosing baseline for PD. This data was included in a summary of dosing regimens from various studies compiled by Dr. Ethan Russo:
      300 mg/day of CBD significantly improved quality of life but had no positive effect on the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale. (Lotan I, 2014)
      0.5 g of smoked cannabis resulted in significant improvement in tremor and bradykinesia as well as sleep. (Venderová K, 2004)
      150 mg of CBD oil titrated up over four weeks resulted in decreased psychotic symptoms. (Chagas MH, 2014)
      75-300 mg of oral CBD improved REM-behavior sleep disorder. (Zuardi AW, 2009)

      In some applications it seems the addition of trace amounts of THC to CBD 1-3% appear to act to potentiate the effects.Many of the commercial medical pot suppliers now include this in their preparations.

      1. Parkinsons has some human study behind it. At least one small study came out of(guess where) Israel, of course, as pot is allowed to be prescribed by docs legally there for the disorder.

        Now do to the allowance of Canadian pot to assist study is beginning here….https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/18/university-of-california-scientists-get-federal-ap/
        October 17 recreational pot becomes legal in all of Canada by law. Medically they are federally far beyond us ,but a little behind Israel. Israel has a part of government tasked with the specific of medical marijuana study and use. Only 3 other countries have that to my recollection.

        Israel is quite progressive in this.

        1. Ron,

          If they have that, has it shown help with Cancer in Israel?

          Have they used it on people for Cancer and had any results at all?

          1. No to my knowledge the Israeli pot studies on cancer are ongoing with no definitive result.
            The UK will likely have at least one soon to occur due to a pot derivative which is already approved for use in humans for other malady. And the finding of positive result in animal study.

            The UK company who had the successful application for a child seizure drug based on pot, before the FDA, has also applied for a patent on a pot component to treat brain cancer. So I expect progress in this.

    2. CBD (Cannabidiol) and CBG (Cannabigerol) seem to be the most potent cannabidoids against cancer. There are some interresting studies on CBG.

      Boron trifluoride etherate on silica-A modified lewis acid reagent (VII). Antitumor activity of cannabigerol against human oral epitheloid carcinoma cells:
      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02975301

      Synthesis and antitumor activity of cannabigerol:
      https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02976895

      Colon carcinogenesis is inhibited by the TRPM8 antagonist cannabigerol, a Cannabis-derived non-psychotropic cannabinoid:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25269802

  14. Funny thing I don’t use the stuff at all have not for many decades. My last professional employed job, decades ago also, tested often and thoroughly.

    But reading all the literature almost pushes one that way.
    Absent remediation of pain, I would not however, and do not advise others to do so.
    It is clearly much better for health to just use WFPB and exercise.
    For pain I would say this is way way safer than opioids. I would try medical pot for pain before any opioids. The risk from opioids for addiction, as he current epidemic of overdose deaths attests, is just to great.
    Most of us have friends who have suffered opioid addiction and I do as well(him for back pain)…it plainly makes their lives hell.
    Far beyond the pain itself.
    I really think that is the preferred course of treatment in pot legal medical states….first try pot preparations. If that does not work then opioids. It does not have to be smoked and actually THC content may be minimal. But any doc in a pot legal state should know all these specifics. I have seen docs in my state which is medical pot legal, prescribe opioids to peoples I clearly see as addicts. Street sense and all that..yes it is easy to spot.
    It is a small tragedy what is going on.
    Hundreds of legal actions for fault are in the works from states cities and others to big pharma concerns. Yet they seem reluctant to do much.
    So great is the profit I guess.

    1. Ron,

      I know people who have been addicted to opioids, too and agree with you. Addiction like that is costly in so many ways. Many people end up doing things like stealing to fund their habits. Elderly people sell some of their opioids to pay for it for themselves.

      Methadone was cheap for my uncle and was seriously 10,000 times more effective than Morphine and OxyContin and Oxycodone and Dilaudid and the rest of the things they tried. I would try medical marijuana first and then Methadone if that didn’t work. I have thought about it deeply. If I am going to end up with an addiction, let it be to a $7 a bottle habit. It might be $10 or $12 a bottle by now, but my uncle was paying thousands of dollars every month and was getting threatened that Medicare Part D wouldn’t keep covering him. Imagine how many people go through that. They suddenly reach the first donut hole and maybe like my uncle have $4000 a month in pain meds. Then, they reach the emergency donut hole and then, suddenly they are addicted to opioids and reach the “Game Over” we will no longer fund your pain meds notice.

      Nope. I tell every elderly person Methadone is better than having your grandkids get hooked on OxyContin. I know that people used to die from Methadone because they used to try to up the dosage enough to get high and they didn’t know how to give it. My uncle took one pill a day and it was enough, but when they briefly put him in the nursing home after a UTI, they gave it to him multiple times per day and he lost the ability to do physical therapy and lost the ability to speak. I did challenge them because the week before he went in he had walked down and back up a steep set of cellar stairs and I said, “So a week ago, he could walk up and down 20 steps without pausing and now he can’t sit in a chair and throw a beach ball.” I couldn’t figure it out but they were over-over-over medicating him on that and on Ativan. He came home and we got him back on one of each per day and he was back to talking and walking around all day and taking care of himself.

      1. I don’t know what they did to make him mute.

        That is usually Morphine, but they didn’t mention Morphine.

        I know it made my mother mute and she hated it.

        It made him mute again whenever the hospital used it near the end of his life.

        Whenever I could catch them and stop them from giving it he was able to talk and eat and whenever he was on it or any derivative of it, he went mute and had hallucinations. Same for my mother and both of them hated it.

        Honestly, Morphine is a horrific drug in my mind because my mother and uncle and other relatives had such tormenting hallucinations and psychological torture from it and they all lost the ability to speak. My mother would try to speak and couldn’t get the words straight and when she was near the end of the dose, she would communicate how frustrating it was. My uncle wanted to ask me for a piece of chocolate and it was about 10 years after he died that I figured out what he had wanted. He got scientific with me on one of the visits to the hospital, but the drugs gave them both a type of mental dyslexia before they went mute. He asked me the scientific classification of chocolate and then he made me read the menu every single word on it and he watched the clock and told me the position the minute hand was in when I said the word of the food he wanted. Unfortunately, I wasn’t looking at the minute hand, I was reading the list and was more interested in what had suddenly gone wrong with his brain, which was working fine before he got there and 10 years after he died it became obvious that he was saying, “What does a guy have to do to get a piece of chocolate around this place?”

        1. What I find sad is that opium derivitives are so widely studied patented and distributed but pot is so slightly in comparison.
          All for what..likely profit motive as I see it.

          I am not saying eliminate all opioids or anything like that but at least give pot and those derivitives a go in study and use.

          1. I agree that it needs to be studied.

            I think the rest of those drugs need to be studied again because they missed a few things.

            I would do pot end of life.

            Morphine bugs me.

            Mostly, it didn’t help my uncle when they originally tried it on his pain and the pain clinic doctor called it a mediocre pain med, which is used mostly because people stop being able to swallow.

            They would have put someone with brain cancer on morphine which didn’t manage his pain but which took away his ability to communicate that his pain wasn’t managed as their end of life process.

            They tried to tell me that my grandmother wasn’t hungry on it, but she came home and was so hungry and thirsty.

            I hate the concept of a drug that causes people to not be able to communicate.

            My grandmother was still able to communicate until the day she died. I didn’t have to guess.

        2. They don’t let you not have Morphine.

          I talked to my friend who is a nurse and I said, “I am so frustrated because I have him on Methadone and he is saying that he is not on any pain at all and Morphine didn’t work when he tried it and I believe him when he says over and over again that he isn’t in pain.” and she said “No, you don’t understand. They don’t know that they are in pain. Or they don’t know how to communicate it.” and I argued because Morphine takes their ability to communicate away and all of my friends have said that the Morphine part that was the hard part about the end of life care of their relatives. They all agreed that it was where their relatives suddenly lost their ability to communicate and also lost their personalities and their sense of humor and had these looks like they were being hunted by serial killers or in D-Day, which is what some of them communicated they were going through.

          One of my kind-hearted college friends with such a sweet personality went through the same, “Being accused of abuse” thing that my family went through and each time someone has been accused of abuse, it was because they didn’t want to kill their relatives faster with the end of life meds and our relatives weren’t asking us to.

          1. Martin Scorsese made a movie a long, long, long time ago called, “After Hours” and what I remember about it was that it was almost a litmus test for exposing what people were afraid of, at least in my small group of people who watched it. My suicidal friend became afraid in a part where someone was contemplating suicide. My brother became creeped out by the “mob rule” scene and an out of control irrational mob would be closer to his fear. I became so creeped out in a scene where the artist hid the guy from the mob by covering him in plaster of paris and that already creeped me out, but then she covered the man’s mouth so he couldn’t cry out. I had never known that I had a fear of not being able to communicate and that movie showed it to me, but my relatives and my friends’ relatives on Morphine showed it to me even more deeply. My mother crying out, “No more Morphine” and my grandmother crying out, “No, I am not dead yet” and having the Stepford medical people say, “No, you don’t understand, they don’t really know what they want” and not be able to hear them is the most traumatizing thing I can even think of.

          2. I have a particular relationship with pain personally. I used it as meditational focus endeavoring painful circumstance such as teeth drilling for caps minor surgery and this and that injury with no pain meds. So I have examined it and it has not much significance.
            Having someone do something to me like pull my fingers off that would bother me a lot. But pain for useful purpose….it never is anything to me.

            So I can relate to peoples taking pain meds and this and that but in a way cannot. Powerlifting for years and years you get plenty of injuries. I have had both hamstrings severely torn one deadlifting and one sprinting….I never thought of useing any pain meds.. A friend of mine doing the same type of things, developed kidney failure as a consequence of to many Tylenol type pain relievers. Many take them before workouts as a matter of course to alleviate the pain. I would never consider such a thing. I am not tough it is just I have examined it.

            1. My grandmother was allergic to things like Novocaine and all sorts of things and had to do all of her root canals without any pain meds and had to get her broken leg worked on without pain meds. The dentist said that it was so hard for him to watch her go through it, but she just grabbed the arms of the chair with all of her might.

              I have another friend who went through a root canal without anything, but for him it was because he couldn’t afford dentists so he had his root canals done in a dental school settings and the person tried to give him something to numb him, but it didn’t work at all, but the professor was coming to watch the procedure and the student asked my friend to not say anything because he didn’t want to fail his exam, so he just faked the whole thing but came home and collapsed.

              I don’t use any medicines at all. Haven’t needed them for decades and didn’t really need them when I used to take them.

              I didn’t use them when I got injured. Didn’t really think about it. Ice packs and TENS and Ultrasound and Infrared and Cold Laser and MicroPulse ICES are what I used.

              I used to swallow handfuls of pills when I was a young person as a type of Russian Roulette when I wanted to die. It was always the week before my menstrual cycle, but the period pills didn’t work and I had already gotten yelled at for trying to kill myself and never got counseling until an adult in California and art and play therapy and writing/drama therapy was what helped. I hated the “authority figure analyzing me” process of regular counseling, but I loved art and play therapy and we wrote things and did a type of coffee shop reading or something like that. It is probably what the “me too” movement is doing. Channeling things into a direction where something positive finally comes out of things.

              1. Well I don’t grab anything or do anything when in that sort of situation. Why?
                I sweat, I think that is a involuntary reaction to pain.
                I had one dentist I think was sort of a sadist. He would drill and drill
                Another after that the same procedure he does hardly much at all.
                But he knows I take nothing and I think he feels the pain, when I do not. I feel sorry for him when I go there.

                Docs, it can be hard to tell them you don’t want a thing. They try not to allow it. They tend more arrogant than dentists.
                But I am strange I know I am.My practice is to use everything especially bad things thought, and felt, as tools, to study of mind.
                It is a Buddhist practice though, I follow it, not the Buddhism. Some call it mahamudra. It is a formal practice a thousand years old or more.
                I don’t know if I am any good at it, but it is my preoccupation. I will not lie and say it is not what I do…it is. It’s consequence in part is things loose their singular significance. Pain sex whatever, start to mean not a whole lot. To me. So I have become strange ;) Others practice what is called Chod.They are even stranger than me. But it is what they do not me. I have no teacher for that.None of this is prayer or devotion, it is all study and learning.

                1. My mother was able to just focus and manage the pain that way. She was a sweet personality, genuinely the most grace-filled woman I have ever known, but she was so strong that she didn’t shed one tear about her Cancer and didn’t want pain meds. She had an internal discipline that you don’t regret things you can’t change. She never got mad either. There was a Christian speaker who talked about the problem of pain. He said that people get mad at God, mad at themselves, mad at other people. His wife talked about if you squeeze an orange, orange juice comes out. If you squeeze a Christian, it is supposed to be love that comes out, but many, many, many Christians aren’t disciplined enough to have that be what happens.

                  When I was in College, I took a class called Motivation and Emotion and I don’t know how it got that title at all, because I don’t think that topic even came up. We did watch things from Buddhists and Christians who practiced things like silence or focused meditation and chanting and practicing the Presence would be the Christian term for it.

                  Honestly, I have gotten much more “worldly” again, but I did practice the Presence for decades and practiced taking my thoughts captive and being grateful and thankful and joyful in the midst of anything. Right now, I am so far away from those disciplines but I used to live there. It is a peaceful place to live.

                  Right now, I am a million miles away from there, but it was something I actually did easily once there because I am so single-focused.

                  1. The preliminaries of this practice, they call it, must be fulfilled before engaging the actual practice. Most in the west are only given the preliminaries, as they by birth and upbringing are not suited to the practice itself. They are, what may be called, minor tantric practices. Usually they consist of prayer and devotion which takes the form of chanting for several years. Setting up a litter alter offering things but basically chanting is praying that is it mostly. But minor tantra can as well, be good practices to help others, ascetic means such as fasting, and some other things.

                    So for a person born in the west, really, prayer and devotion is what they are brought up on, and used to, and is what they should stay with. Using or engaging the actual practice without the preliminaries causes usually, big ego problems, and leads to lack of compassion.

                    Compassion is the definitive measure on any success with this thing. Finding oneself less so, and you are going wrong. More so, and you are going right. It is not that compassion is so important but it is like a speedometer very handy for that purpose. So I think that works even for the preliminaries.

  15. It is a plant, and hopefully people would think of it as such. Who knows if within the so called optimal diet, it has some role. If one isn’t worried about cancer but immunity, longevity, delaying aging, oxidation, etc. – need I capitalize AS MUCH AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE –, and picked the best edible plants of the who knows how many in nature – 300,000? –, the very best grains, legumes, leaves, flowers, roots, barks, tree resins, fruits, seeds, nuts, etc. – often having among the strongest tastes of bitter, astringent, sour, etc., nutrient or effect level often corresponds to strength of taste, consider even the common olive or once common greens with calcium levels in the range of 700-1000/1500? mg per 100 g, or amla/amalaki, we once were used to such tastes –, does cannabis have any role? So far seems no, perhaps momentarily for some property.

    I haven’t seen it in classical Ayurveda – meaning not worthy of mention –, though according to some it entered later usage as “intoxicating, hot, digestive stimulant, diuretic, expectorant and aphrodisiac … diarrhoea, dysentery and insomnia, … skin diseases, internally as well as externally … an ingredient in a herbal vaginal … for contracting vagina”. For any of those past known uses, or others perhaps in chinese medicine, classical Western herbalism (Greco-Roman such as Dioscorides?), or elsewhere, does it exceed any other plant in those qualities? Who knows, maybe only as intoxicating. Someone want to look into vitamin, mineral, anti-oxidant levels? Still possibly not worth much compared to the best if one was on the best possible diet. But if it was used as part of food like before, tea or a cooking herb. Worth using like mint, basil, chervil, dill, etc.? If one is virtuous in food and loves all tastes because one knows their corresponding effects and uses bitter as much as any other taste, maybe, maybe sometimes in some amounts. Then it would be like alcohol or another drug, for some liked, for some decadent.

  16. In a video I have sent to several friends, among many others from Dr. Greger, this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcV1ISdE5HY discussing what he refers to as “the second most deadly killer—cancer” — Dr. Greger compares pouring the blood of person on a standard American diet on cancer cells in a petri dish and then pouring the blood of a vegan ( which I am ) on cancer cells in a petri dish and the amazing positive difference. This seems to be the video’s main point of evidence that a vegan diet is so profound in providing protection in avoidance and/or the ability to fight cancer. But In this video “can cannabis cure cancer” he shows literature of an experiment with cancer cells in a petri dish and adding cannabis and a similar positive effect–but then points out “but what happens in a petri dish is NOT the same as what happens in the human body”. I wouldn’t want to share this particular video with the same people I sent the one I listed above because I can hear any observant of my friends saying “hey-you ask me to use the petri dish experiment as proof in the first video, and then you discount positive results in the same experiment in this one. So which is it ?” Just to help—can’t use the same argument for one and not the second, ya’ think ?

    1. Well true you cannot have it both ways. But the information on cancer fighting effect of WFPB diet is also correspondingly fitted with other very strong population study determinations, such as the seventh day Adventists study and derivitives of that.

      Cell study does not always translate to humans and animal study does not as well. However in nutrition and cancer it is very hard to identify and monitor strict controls in dietary manners. For one whoever has cancer and is going through primary medical treatment, auxiliary interventional treatments such as chemo, removal, and all, are hard to separate in outcome from diet as singular effect.

      Clinical trials of pot and its componants are pretty standard and do not really have constraints such as one finds with diet. They are like testing any other drug really. The hurdle has been in getting the cannibus to use in testing and the schedule one status which basically made testing on humans impossible.

      Point is that is true. But also there is a reason one may depend more upon cell and animal study in some specifics than others.
      Population studies as result have more application to diet then probably they will serve with pot. So there is some nuance to it but you are right.

      There is certainly no guarantee anything that works on animals or cells will work in the same fashion on living humans. They can only point to a possibility or probability and are not definitive.

      1. Typically cell and/or animal study serve as the basis for the substantiation of other human trial research.
        But in a drug type study, there Is a need to provide lethal dose limit and some other specifics, before distribution occurs. So one drug may have multiple animal studies. The requirement of animal testing on drugs was made necessary by legislation passed back in the day in reference to some widespread poisioning by pharma drugs. One a cough medicine, contained a antifreeze type component and killed and injured many. So animal testing was required prior to sale for most drugs. The chemist killed himself over it but it pointed to a problem. Other countries followed our lead in that.
        Cell testing as well serves as the basis for other research and eventually human trial. But a thing like diet is not suffering the same protocall, the studies themselves are looked to at times to show a thing. No one requires a nutritional study before the diet is prescribed or publicized.
        So the context itself….. diet and drug differs. Preferably diet must be combined with cell or animal and some population study to provide some semblance of effect to my opinion. But human trial of diet in things of specific cancer as treatment, to my opinion are very hard to come by. Heart disease is about the same.
        A similar outcome in relation to pregnant women resulting in deformed babies from prescribed drugs, necessitated the requirement of above and beyond testing and labeling for pregnant woman use.

    2. John,

      Dr Greger isn’t telling people to use WFPB as the sole Cancer treatment and he has provided studues like Dr Ornish and possibly Dr Kelly in Ireland where WFPB has put Cancer into remission and reversed it in one type of Cancer.

      I think the video which you were talking about was examining whether the Cancer fighting nutrients enter the blood stream or not and it was saying that they do.

      He is careful about supplements and should be. For instance green tea was so promising in a Petri dish but the extract killed 14 dogs before the study had to be shut down and killed human beings faster and gave more people Cancer than the control group. The tea itself shrunk polyps but didn’t give less Cancer.

      Chlorella would be another, if you don’t have toxins using it helps cut the tumors almost in half but if you still are being exposed to toxins the chlorella group ended up having exceedingly more tumors than the control group.

      It means that the answers are genuinely complicated.

      Who knows,CBD Oil might be like Chlorella. If you got rid of the toxins it helps you, if you didn’t it kills you faster?

      The studies haven’t been done yet.

      1. It seems like Chlorella is a game-changer for me.

        It wasn’t the dose of Chlorella.

        It was the amount of toxin exposure.

        Low toxin exposure = much better results than the control group
        High toxin exposure = much worse results than the control group

        They haven’t studied other things looking at that pattern.

        THAT phenomenon could have messed up lots of studies on lots of things.

        It could be why the petri dish doesn’t work the same as the person.

        I am hypothesizing that it would be very hard to find a person with Cancer who didn’t have toxins in their system.

        Except maybe not….. The Japanese autopsies where they had Cancer in their system, but it never affected them means that there would be a way to test it with people who haven’t already had Cancer spread.

        I am not suggesting having them try to cause the Cancer to spread. I am just saying that, somehow, they need to find out if other things cause the same phenomenon that Chlorella does.

        Carcinogen + animal products and/or vegetable oil = finding out you have Cancer the hard way.

        But with Chlorella, it would suddenly be that Round Up or soda or other things, like Chemotherapy could increase the tumors.

        Maybe Green tea in some studies was being given to people with a lot of toxins in their systems, or something.

        1. I say that because of the Cancer illustration Dr. McDougall did in his Cancer Screening is a Scam video.

          Green tea shrunk polyps but didn’t reduce Cancer.

          Polyps were earlier on the chart than the tumors. Maybe 10 years apart? If I remember right.

          So green tea got rid of the early mutations, which might become a tumor in 10 years?

          But isn’t effective against the 10-year-old tumors?

          But those 10-year old tumors would have stayed in the toxic diet for 10 years or they would have gone dormant?

          Not sure that is right. I am just thinking out loud. Trying to make sense of the big picture from what various doctors have said.

    1. Wow, Romy, you just said something very interesting to me!

      My friend is trying to choose a pain med and has Cancer and it had taken her 5 or 6 years to get off pain meds after she had back surgery. She did it but the back pain is still intense and now she needs Cancer surgery.

      I am so interested in that.

      1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5671505/

        “Methadone has many advantages in the management of cancer pain including low costs, high oral bioavailability, rapid onset of the analgesic effect, long half-life, and a lack of active metabolites, which can be beneficial for patients with renal failure. Moreover, it seems to be particularly suitable as a first- or second-line opioid or in difficult pain control scenarios. Recent studies show evidence that methadone can be safely given. However, further studies are needed to evaluate optimal dosing strategies, inter- and intra-individual differences in methadone metabolism, and possible drug interactions.

        Different preclinical studies demonstrated that methadone can also act as an enhancer of apoptosis in cancer cells of different origin. This opens a window for its future use as an anticancer therapeutic. The effect of methadone on different cancer cells varies and seems to be dependent on the OR expression, apoptosis regulation, and the response to different chemotherapeutic agents used. Since standard tumor therapies, like radiation or chemotherapy, are mainly based on the induction of apoptosis, a rationale exists to combine them with methadone for an enhanced antitumor activity with simultaneous cancer pain relief. This would make methadone to a “tumor theralgesic,” a term created by us to describe a substance, which possesses tumor therapeutic as well as analgesic activities.”

  17. Does applying oil to the skin cripple artery function? Consuming olive oil does. I would like to know if applying olive oil to the skin hurts artery function.

    1. Arthur,

      I am not sure they have studied it yet.

      I read this, which makes your question a good question to me, but I am not a scientifically minded person:

      “Natural oils are commonly used in topical pharmaceutical formulations as emulsifiers, stabilizers or solubility enhancers. They are presented as safe and inert components, mainly used for formulation purposes. It is confirmed that natural oils can affect the skin penetration of various substances. Fatty acids are mainly responsible for this effect. Current understanding lacks reliable scientific data on penetration of natural oils into the skin and their skin penetration enhancement potential. In the current study, fatty acid content analysis was used to determine the principal fatty acids in soybean, olive, avocado, sea-buckthorn pulp, raspberry seed and coconut oils. Time of flight secondary ion mass spectrometry bioimaging was used to determine the distribution of these fatty acids in human skin ex vivo after application of the oils. Skin penetration enhancement ratios were determined for a perspective antioxidant compound dihydroquercetin. The results demonstrated skin penetration of fatty acids from all oils tested. Only soybean and olive oils significantly increased the skin distribution of dihydroquercetin and can be used as skin penetration enhancers. However, no correlation can be determined between the fatty acids’ composition and skin penetration enhancement using currently available methodological approaches. This indicates that potential chemical penetration enhancement should be evaluated during formulation of topically applied products containing natural oils.”

  18. I believe the fact that the patients had chemotherapy or radiation in the past could have been a factor for the cancer returning so aggressively. I read on the Mayo Clinic website that chemotherapy can cause a reoccurrence of cancer in a different part of the body. It would be ideal to have a trial study with cancer patients with the same type of cancer using cannabis, cannabis and chemotherapy, and another with chemotherapy. THC/CBD cannabis oil is especially helping children with seizures. As medical marijuana gets legalized in the US, I believe we will see more studies done, as is done in other countries, especially Israel.

    1. Eve, this study was aimed not at curing the cancer, but it primarily testing the safety of intercranial adminstration of THC. Secondarily they looked at effect upon tumor size and duration of survival. These statements are found in the abstract by the studies authors.
      These patients, reoccurring cancer of this type were not expected to survive. Nothing in the study suggests they expected a cure.

      Many are taking this as a definitive proof to the negative. I am afraid that is as it was inadvertently presented to lead one that way. I don’t think it was intentional by Dr Greger, but reading the comments it appears many are taking it the same way you are. But no, this is the abstract statement….”The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration.”
      I have repeated that probably about ten times now, as the presentation seems to have led most all to have a misread on the study intention.

      Status as a schedule one drug is what is primarily preventing study in the US. And availability of supply to study. The present stuff out of one place, a university, allowed to grow it, is of poor quality and insufficient in quantity. So systemic cause is why it is not being studied here. But human trial studies are ongoing in Israel and will shortly begin in the UK I am certain. Canada now with full legalization will also produce studies.

      1. As a footnote to that….the university of California has been allowed to obtain a useable form of pot for study(in pill form, smoking biases results) from Canada…..this just occurred for the first time in September.
        But again status as schedule one creates severe obstructions to study.
        One drug company out of the UK has already sought a patent for pot as a treatment for brain tumor. This is the same company who obtained patent and approval from the FDA, for the first time ever, of pot for treatment of childhood seizures. And another derivative of pot is also already patented and used in 24 countries for treatment of another cause.

        It is clear to me, drug company lobbying and donation to campaigns, will continue to prevent pot being reduced in schedule from a one….which means no help to humans at all ever…despite its known global use and individual use here in the US for childhood seizures.
        Pot elements and pot itself, clearly compete with their cash cow opioids, for pain management. And they will obstruct its use by any means necessary.

  19. I’m not for or against cannabis use to treat cancer. Certainly starting with glioblastoma multiforme is a brave choice as nothing works really and I have watched most of my patients die in 3-18 months. So not really fair. Besides a catheter directly into the brain is begging for complications. Maybe start with a less aggressive tumor? Also use an oral route. However, I have had patients with cancer and other horrific diseases starve to death with all natural an prescription drugs failing. One case, an man with an infarcted aorta below the renal arteries, legs rotting off requiring amputation, huge buttock ulcers, and more, starving to death for months. Only marinol worked to reduce nausea, increase appetite and resulted in complete healing of all remaining wounds. This man has been alive now over 15 years getting around in a power wheelchair. This is one of many cases I treated as my practice was treating those with catastrophic illnesses and injuries. I’m all for ginger when it works but marijuana is particularly helpful for those with nausea, lack of appetite, wasting caused by cancer and other problems, where survival may be otherwise possible.

    1. It seems almost all are taking the study wrong. I repeated this often and will again from the authors of the study themselves this was the primary goal of the study(found in the abstract)….….”The primary end point of the study was to determine the safety of intracranial THC administration.”

      It was a total of nine patients, and it was not only this form of cancer, but one that had already failed in treatment. And to compound that, only the THC aspect of the drug was used. CBD, appears by far, the most used compound found in medical treatment, with trace elements of THC included usually, to potentiate effects. This was all THC and the study was a decade old not current at all.

      The study has very marginal application to the issue.

      1. Robert, on a side note……… the oral route of administration in some applications has problems of assimiliation and duration of effect, due to some fat bonding componants of pot.
        Study has concluded and means are now available, for specialized treatments of pot to enable a longer duration of effect and better assimiliation.

        But this is rather recent 2016 I think, and likely has not been added to current or any past research study.
        However pot as treatment for nausea and vomiting is another thing entirely, and perhaps fat content and such have a to do with its affects.
        Patented drug extractions from pot for this cause are already available globally.

        1. Here is the reference to the status and patented drug on pot for nausea…from a print source…
          ” The DEA ensured in writing that dronabinol is Schedule II if only as part of a DEA approved drug. If not the active part of an FDA approved pharmaceutical drug it is listed as Schedule I along with whole plant cannabis.
          Just in time for Insy Therapeutics to enjoy their exclusive marketing position with Syndros, a dronabinol spray liquid and delivery system recently approved for marketing by the FDA. This product is novel with its delivery as a spray, but the stated results are the same as Marinol or dronabinol in general. From the Insy webpage:
          Syndros is approved for use in treating anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (“AIDS”) and nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy in patients who have failed to respond adequately to conventional antiemetic treatments. ”

          Insy, is curiously the company that donated a very large sum of money, to the anti legalization side, of the recreational pot referendum, in Arizona which failed by a slight margine. The only one to fail on the ballot that go round,(I think there were eight)

  20. Robert,

    Can’t agree more as the intracranial approach was rather aggressive and as you point out fraught with potential complications, to say the least.

    I too have a number of patients who have derived significant benefits with their nausea and lack of appetite, using marijuana for a host of disorders. With the large scale legalization, in a number of states, I suspect we will continue to see clinical studies and some more focused specific stain information forthcoming.

    Dr. Alan Kadish moderator for Dr. Greger http://www.Centerofhealth.com

    1. Here from mass roots is a list and description of the various strain effects. This is listed for determination and self administration not prescription, and usually smoked variety.
      “Platinum OG (indica): An indica-dominant hybrid that provides a comforting blanket of body relaxation while the high THC content helps reduce pain and nausea and acts as an appetite stimulant.
      Northern Lights (indica): This classic strain leaves users relaxed and euphoric while relieved of stress, anxiety, and nausea. It also helps to stimulate the appetite.
      Super Lemon Haze (hybrid): A sativa-dominant from South Africa that leaves users feeling energized, motivated, and clear-headed. It combats depression, fatigue, pain, and nausea, but it may not be the best choice for those suffering from anxiety.
      Girl Scout Cookies (hybrid): A cross of Durban Poison and OG Kush, the cerebral effects of this strain hit hard and fast. This strain will combat stress, nausea, and pain, and has been known to stimulate the appetite. It tests high in THC and may be too intense for novice users.
      Optimus Prime (indica): An indica-dominant strain that is common among patients to produce a slowly creeping buzz that covers the body in relaxation. It also aids in calming nausea, easing aches and pains, and inducing strong appetite. Can result in couchlock, especially for inexperienced users.”

      Keep in mind is one wanted to design a study showing no effect of cannibus on nausea it is easily done….simply choose strains which have not that effect.

      1. Some have attributed the effect to this….
        ” Strains of cannabis with more myrcene are categorized as indica and typically deliver symptoms that include appetite stimulation. A notable exception to this is pure sativa Durban Poison, which is good for defeating nausea, although not necessarily generating hunger. This may be due to a peculiar synergistic effect resulting from the delicate interaction of cannabinoids and terpenes, something called the entourage effect. According to the laboratory:
        “If a sample has over 0.5% myrcene, it will have indica, or “couchlock” effects. If a sample has less than 0.5% myrcene, it will have the soaring sativa effect. It is simply the amount of myrcene that is in the sample that dictates how [one] will be affected.”

        1. Here is a fact sheet on patented cannaboid derivative drugs, dronabinol ….https://www.medicinenet.com/dronabinol-oral/article.htm#what_is_dronabinol-oral,_and_how_does_it_work_(mechanism_of_action)?

          The drug for treatment of muscle spasticity of cannaboid derivative in the UK, subsequent to MS, runs about a third of the corrospondant not cannaboid drug in price. Neither are approved by NHS however, as both exceed general cost guidelines.

    1. Pretty sure he would say

      Don’t worry about a thing.

      Every little thing is gonna be alright.

      Today was my birthday and God gave me the blessing of getting a sappy “I love you” birthday card from someone who used to not be very nice to me. Nope, it wasn’t a romantic confession. It was a genuine, honest-to-goodness, “I love you” with no strings attached.

      I got that and three hugs.

      And I got a pipe-cleaner bracelet with a handmade charm on it from an 8-year-old.

      Love the girl who holds the world in a paper cup, drink it up,
      Love her and she’ll bring you luck.

        1. For my birthday present to the community, I am going to try to write fewer comments.

          If I can make them funny, I will do that.

          1. I will have to hone my funny stories into form, in case I ever end up in comedy club traffic school in LA.

            I didn’t get to go because I wasn’t a bad driver.

            1. Happy Belated Birthday, funny Libra lady! Have you ever felt you were from another planet? I half jest. :-)

              Speaking of funny, when my brother was a little twerp he once said, “How come nobody laughs when I say funny things?” HE thought he was hilarious. (He still does.)

              1. I have a brother who is just like that.

                My mother was the one who got his jokes.

                Though I have to say some of the things which made him laugh did end up coming true eventually.

                So it became funnier in the future.

  21. my wife had cancer on her liver, doctor wanted to start immediate chemo. Wife said no. I called my son, who lived in Denver and he said they where doing wonderful things with cannabis in treating cancer. I took my wife there and using only infused canna-butter. she re-tested for cancer, has re-tested for the last 5 years and is cancer free. she used NOTHING but cannabis. The problem with many of these studies is that PROFIT gets in the way of TRUTH.

  22. Hi folks,

    Just finished watching the documentary The God Plant 2018 and it is very interesting if you want to learn about cannabis and people self-medicating to help cure cancer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This