Medical THC is suppressed by PhRMA. Is cure for Cancer?

[johnaries]

I just started seeing a nutritionist, who spent some time in 3rd world countries and - frankly - makes a lot of common sense.

She taught me how to look at PLU codes to recognize what produce is "Organic" (begins with 9) and which ones are natural and non-GMO. The PLU codes that begin with 3 are GMO. For those of us on a budget, she separates the items "these you should only get Organic" from those that most cash-strapped folks can afford (you may not get as much benefit from these as you would from the Organic version, but the difference isn't that much so you might as well buy the cheaper version).

Ooooh, someone that actually balances benefits against costs. "Yeah, if you pay more for this you will get more nutrients, but more than yo really need. So you might as well pay less and still get what you need."

Although she was quick to point out "for this item, you want to pay more if you want the benefit". She was also quick to point out that in some cases the benefits would dissipate quickly after being exposed to oxygen. But I digress.

ANYWAY, as we were going through the produce department we came across some packaged Dried Apricots. She taught us how to read the labels to catch "hidden chemicals", but since the label showed Apricot Seeds she lamented the fact that the label would show Apricot Seeds but that Apricot Seeds are basically banned in the US because it is a cure for cancer and PhRMA doesn't want a natural cure.

Whoa! WTF?

OK, I'm all over how medicinal marijuana has so many widespread uses and how it's been suppressed, but this is first time I've heard about cancer and apricot seeds!

This is what I've been able to find out - one of the most promising aspects of cancer treatments is trying to "target" cancer cells. In other words, you have a "bomb" that will kill the cell. But you don't want to kill healthy cells, you only want the "bomb" to go off when it sees a cancer cell and kill the cancer without hurting any of the healthy cells around it.

This is the "Holy Grail" of cancer treatment. This is what all cancer researchers are searching for.

Well, guess what? It appears that Apricot seeds do just that. They carry around some very poisonous toxins, including cyanide. But, as these molecules bounce around in you r bloodstream they do not release these toxic poisons. But, once they bounce around and finally touch a cancerous tumor, they release their cyanide and other poisons and kill the cancer cells.

Please allow me to put this into perspective.

Scientists are desperately searching for a drug that will target and kill cancer without killing healthy cells.
Uneducated, jungle-natives say "Hey, we know something that does exactly that and we've been using it for years!"
PhRMA CEO's say "we can't make money that way."

Personally, I am a skeptic. I am going to look at the research and I'm sure that I will find problems on both sides of the argument - as usual.

But I am not inclined to believe the reports put out by those who have a lot to lose financially if they are proven wrong.

[spacelady]

1. ok i'll bite - medical use of natural THC does have chemical

properties that help many conditions related to cancer and perhaps have properties that help shrink or eliminate cancerous tumors. studies are limited but plenty of anecdotal and medical stories bear this out, big pharma has a huge stake in supressing anything it may not have control over relating to its cash cow of just treating serious disease rather than finding a cure.

[Warpy]

3. They have a bigger stake in finding a cure and marketing it.

If THC did the job, they'd be all over the DEA to legalize it and all over the FDA to approve various preparations and give them 17 year patents to sell it.

[spacelady]

5. Not when it is easily attainable by the masses in its pure form

The properties of thc have not been replicated in the lab as for efficacy. easier to grow and comsume by private individuals.

[Warpy]

7. Rubbish. The drug would be marketed for its purity

and for the fact that people wouldn't have to do something stupid like sucking hot smoke into their lungs to get it.

Trust me, most people out there are pill heads, not stoners.

[spacelady]

10. People don't have to suck hot smoke to get the benefits

I believe many are getting benefits medically thru the usual means albeit "illegally" BECAUSE big pharma has not been able to replicate fake thc adequately. You can eat it and vaporize it to minimize lung damage.

[Oregone]

13. Or you can throw it in the crock pot with butter, or toss it into some vodka

Pharma will still need to get it past the liver, and the easy answer is to dissolve it into oil (it is oil and alcohol solvable). Unless they plan to whoo us all with some methylated version (which wouldn't require the DEA to get on board anyway), I don't think they will be pushing for legalization and patent period of the normal natural substances

[Oregone]

6. You are mistaken

You think they would attempt to patent a natural substance that is readily available? Baahh... It wouldn't be worth the effort on their part. Their best bet is to suppress it and synthetically copy-cat its effects.

[Warpy]

8. We are talking about pure THC here, keep up

and if it were proven to cure cancer, you bet those little white pills would be on a 17 year patent tomorrow.

[Oregone]

12. There may be a variety of Cannabinoids involved in the action

And there may be synergy, as well as catalystic effects.

If some marijuana strains contain some certain combination that do prove to be efficient in cancer reduction, it may be counter-productive to invest in a synthetic combination drug that is free for growers or obtained on the black market.

Its silly to suggest pharma would be all over pushing for a substance anyone can obtain.

[spacelady]

14. When I refer to the pure form of thc I do not mean chemically synthesized

I am referring to the plant form which seems to be more complex chemically and thus not replicable in the lab so far thus of no financial use to big pharma in the "little white pill" form.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. The synthetic form and the natural form are the exact same thing.

There must be some financial use, since Big Pharma's been making and selling the stuff for some thirty years now.

[Gravel Democrat]

19. Nope they are not.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Yeah, they are.

Here's synthetic THC



Here's natural THC

[Oregone]

20. In the natural form, it is most normally accompanied by other cannabinoids

Which, well, eh, could be responsible for some effect (if we are to assume there is in fact one). It may very well be it takes a combination of terpenophenolic compounds, which can readily be obtained in nature as well.

[spacelady]

21. Anecdotal evidence overwhelmingly suggests there is

something more at work with ingesting the natural plant form rather than the synthetic form as far as medical qualities are concerned. Medical marijauna would be a moot point if this were not so.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Oh, anecdotal evidence.

Like how there is no global warming because it's cold outside.

[spacelady]

31. Anecdotal evidence is what we have when objective studies

ARE NOT ALLOWED because of big pharma big lumber big oil big corporations whose best interest are in lobbying against scientific studies of cannabis overall not just medically.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Well, that and all the chemtrails.

[spacelady]

35. What do chemtrails have to do with the medical marijauna discussion?

[truedelphi]

41. Probably exaimining the two types of marijuana under an

Electron Microsope would detail where the differences lie.

[johnaries]

38. only on paper. In tests they exhibit different properties.

which just proves we don't know as much as we think we do.

[johnaries]

15. They can't patent THC. nt

[Oregone]

23. Aren't natural legal substances covered under the dietary supplement act?

You can't patent em and you can barely regulate em? Right?

I mean, the minute they pushed the DEA, or whatever the hell this person is suggesting, isn't the compound fair game for all? Maybe Im mistaken.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. You can patent natural substances.

Come up with a novel use for a natural product (curing cancer for example) and you can patent it.

[Oregone]

28. Thanks. So if a tomato plant could do that...well...how would that work?

All tomato plants would be eradicated, being that they naturally grow a substance that is under patent protection?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Is this some sort of joke? Really?

No, you wouldn't have to destroy your tomato plants. If a company patented a novel use for tomato plants (curing cancer for example) then if you wanted to start a business for the purpose of making money by selling tomatoes for the express purpose of curing cancer, then you'd have to license the patent from the holder.

Christ.

[Oregone]

34. "then you'd have to license the patent from the holder"

Unless there was a pretty well established black market in place for distribution

[johnaries]

37. Sure! Just look at all the patents for different vitamins.....

oh, wait...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

46. Can you demonstrate a novel use for a vitamin?

[Warpy]

2. You are misinformed, disinformed, and uninformed

The drug made from apricot pits (not seeds, PITS) is called Laetrile. It has been used in alternative clinics in Mexico. Here is the story: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html Unfortunately, any cancer fighting properties were overshadowed by the cyanide poisoning patients developed. Bottom line: Laetrile. kills. people.

Research is ongoing into native cures all over the world. In some cases, useful drugs are synthesized from native plant preparations. In other cases, the double blind studies either show no real benefit or show unacceptable side effects to such plants. Such studies in the US are generally undertaken by universities using NIH grants. The final development of a marketable drug is accomplished by the drug companies.

THC doesn't cure cancer. It just makes people a lot more comfortable when they're undergoing chemotherapy.

Please don't let an unreasonable, knee jerk hatred of all things scientific or governmental cloud your judgment in these cases.

[Oregone]

9. "THC doesn't cure cancer"

Heh, is anything truly a cure for something as multi-faceted as cancer? But its definitely a starting point for some solid research and has some heavy in vitro data behind it. I cannot recall the name of the recent study regarding its ability to induce a "kill signal" in specifically cancer cells, and thereby, initiate apoptosis. A quick google turned up the following:

Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948

I honestly think you are mistaken to suggest that THCs total effects stops at making "people a lot more comfortable when they're undergoing chemotherapy". It may very well be beyond a "comfort" issue indeed

Please google "Cannabinoid apoptosis"
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-ca%3AIE-Address&q=Cannabinoid+apoptosis&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

[Gravel Democrat]

17. "misinformed, disinformed and uninformed" indeed RE: THC and Cancer

"THC doesn't cure cancer."

Not so fast.

Marijuana's THC kills brain cancer cells: Study
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/03/content_11126174.htm

Marijuana Chemical May Fight Brain Cancer
Active Component In Marijuana Targets Aggressive Brain Cancer Cells, Study Says
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/news/20090401/marijuana-chemical-may-fight-brain-cancer

Active Ingredient in Marijuana Kills Brain Cancer Cells
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2009/04/01/active-ingredient-in-marijuana-kills-brain-cancer.html


Then, admittedly highly controversial, but worth looking at,
there's this:
http://www.phoenixtears.ca/
Maybe the DEA will allow testing. Maybe not. Probably not best to hold ones breath.

Someone's knee is jerking. I don't think it's the original poster



"You can't patent a plant" -Dr. Lester Grinspoon

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Curing cancer and killing cultured cancer cells are two different things.

[Oregone]

25. In vitro results are a strong basis to begin comprehensive in vivo research

on edit: as long as one can ascertain such experiments would be safe & ethical

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Preliminary in vitro results are a strong basis for more in vitro research.

There's still a big gap between in vitro and in vivo, let alone claiming that it cures cancer.

[Oregone]

29. Oh I agree as far as the claim.

But its also a silly claim to suggest that the extent of its effect is making people comfortable. The jury is still out in the scientific community on that one.

[johnaries]

30. Thank you for your input, but you may want to read my OP.

I'm not talking about laetrile or any derivatives or unnatural "drugs" derived from apricot seeds, pits, etc. And I am a Six Sigma Black Belt, so I understand about tests and statistics and "correlation vs coincidence" more than the average person. I know how to run statistical analyzes to demonstrate causality, and yet I know how those are still extremely fallible.

Please notice that I talked about how scientists are looking for a way to "target" cancer cells. I also concentrated on cyanide, not laetrile. That was on purpose.

Now, if you can come up with some tests on the targeting aspects of apricot seeds or pits or whatever, then we can talk.

But the effects of B17, Laetrile, cyanide, etc are irrelevant unless we discuss the delivery system. Which is what the OP was about.

[Warpy]

39. Read the link

The Quackwatch article has footnotes and that's where you'll find what you need.

Just when you think the book has been closed on some quack treatment, up jumps another quack to give it a go.

[havocmom]

4. Apircot seeds rang a bell: Laetrile, ah yes, I recall the controversy

then laetrile just sorta fell from view

Here is a link with a bit of info http://www.cancure.org/laetrile.htm

Big Pharma is not looking for cures but profits. Seems they look to new 'diseases' to match new drugs.

but then, I am a known cynic ;)

[trotsky]

45. "Big Pharma is not looking for cures but profits."

Which is why we have a 90%+ LONG-TERM survival rate for Hodgkin's lymphoma, right? And 80-90% rates for prostate, thyroid, testicular, and skin cancers?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Your nutritionist's a dangerous, stupid tinfoil nut. Get a new nutritionist.

Or, alternatively, keep the nutritionist and take the cyanide apricot seeds.

[johnaries]

36. Actually, she only confirmed many things I have read and helped

explain many of the things I didn't understand. Bottom line, she makes fucking sense.

No offense, but if I had to choose between your advice and hers - she makes more sense. I'll listen to her and ignore you.

BTW, she advises avoiding High Fructose Corn Syrup. Because of the way the body metabolizes it. Porn, on the other hand, we didn't discuss.

[inna]

40. LOL

:spray:

:thumbsup:

KR+4, btw.

[andym]

42. As a researcher in biomedicine, IMHO if THC has strong anti-cancer activity

it will be discovered and pursued. There is great motivation for NIH funded investigators to find "interesting" compounds that inhibit cancer and then to discover their mechanism(s). When sufficient evidence exists, what happens is that small Pharma will try to develop more potent compounds that target the same biological regulator and then sell the new compounds to big Pharma. See Sirtris and the development of more potent resveratrol-ralated compounds (for diabetes among other diseases) that sold for GSK for 720 million. http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2008/04/21/daily26.html Resveratrol can be obtained at your friendly local supermarket, yet Sirtris was worth a lot of money. If a "target" or "targets" can be pinned down for THC, then big Pharma will go after it (them). In this particular case, they won't be shedding tears that the natural substance is not legal in the USA by federal law.

[slay]

43. It will never be in the best interest of PhRMA to cure cancer - they want to TREAT it

you know, so you have to come back for more "treatments". Capitalism. Money is all that matters. Way more $$$$ in treatment than a cure. It's very logical. Sick and morally reprehensible, but logical.

[busymom]

44. OK Seriously...

I needed that laugh this morning.

Come ON people!

Besides the fact that the basic science behind this idea of hers is complete bullshit, big Pharma may want to suppress a lot of things, but science researchers at Universities would love to be THE person to discover THE cure (of which there will never be just one because there are so many different types of cancers).

As a non-hodgkin's lymphoma 4 year survivor I call bullshit.