Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

SomewhereOutside9832 t1_j8fdrke wrote

I used high dose thc oil throughout my treatment for stage 4 bowel cancer and although I can't say it helped reduce the cancer but it sure helped make treatment a lot more bearable.

78

Goobzydoobzy t1_j8fi031 wrote

Anyone know if there have been studies done that show ppl who use marijuana during chemo have a more successful (higher cure rate) outcome?

11

SomewhereOutside9832 t1_j8flpyf wrote

I don't know if there are many official studies but there are many reports in people using it with great results. I personally used thc oil and for me it was great for pain relief and helped with all the chemo side effects. I'm now 3 years clear from cancer so I personally would highly recommend it alongside regular treatment.

40

MrPootie t1_j8fub18 wrote

3 years clear of stage 4? Wow. Congratulations. I hope you have many many more.

32

TheOneAllFear t1_j8hid8s wrote

Wow, amazing! Congratulations.

The subject of various cancers is not talked enough. If you can and have time, can you tell us a bit about your journey? How you discovered it, did you notice it because you were in pain or random screening? You had cancer because of the lifestyle/work/exposure to chemicals? At what stage and what were the steps from there? Also any changes after to prevent it (lifestyle/environment)? Not a lot of details but what we should know and what you learned from your experience. Thanks, congrats and many many years without cancer

2

MocoMojo t1_j8e67s9 wrote

A toke a day keeps the tumor away

36

Herbicidal_Maniac t1_j8eorhu wrote

My first question when I see these headlines is "In real life or in cell culture?" If you're not a scientist, that question will increase your scientific literacy tenfold or more.

28

myusernamehere1 t1_j8ettyi wrote

Cell cultures are perfectly valid modes of study and one of the largest areas of active development.

8

blackholesinthesky t1_j8ewdpl wrote

Yes but understanding the difference will prevent you from making embarrassing mistakes like... I dk... suggesting we insert UV light into the human body to kill a pathogen

33

Herbicidal_Maniac t1_j8f58pc wrote

Or assuming that adding hypernormal concentrations of drug to a cell culture dish in any way translates to the mechanism of action in the human body.

19

Ok_Historian_6293 t1_j8eydsx wrote

This is actually a funny point because in early studies of near infrared photobiomodulation for activating the healing functions of cells, Russian scientists actually tried inserting a fiber optic wire into an IV and then turning on a near infrared light to see if activating the healing aspects of blood cells would help broad spectrum healing abilities.

10

Palpitating_Rattus t1_j8ewsm5 wrote

It is also true so many things work in cell culture but not in actual patients. You can kill cancer cells if you put bleach into the dish. But if you put bleach in people you are not going to have a fun time.

10

myusernamehere1 t1_j8f3h17 wrote

If this is actually a point of contention for somebody then they dont need to worry about their scientific literacy, as it would be moot.

1

Palpitating_Rattus t1_j8f3ob1 wrote

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying every that works in vitro also works in vivo?

1

myusernamehere1 t1_j8f4e8c wrote

Absolutely not, i have no idea how you came to that conclusion. I am saying that cell cultures and organoids help to greatly accelerate research, and i dont get why their use would make a study any less valid. Your bleach example is a bad faith argument.

3

JoeyBE98 t1_j8ios0k wrote

His point entirely is that just because you can put 2 things in a tube and see something happen doesn't necessarily mean if you put that same chemical into our bloodstream it will react the exact same way if it encounters the same cells. There's thousands of drugs that kill cancer in a test tube, but do absolutely nothing when consumed by a human.

2

Palpitating_Rattus t1_j8f6elu wrote

Why is the bleach example a bad faith argument? I gave that as an example that promising in vitro results often fail to make it to the clinic. That statement is absolutely true.

You don't like bleach? Fine, if you put enough table salt into the dish, cancer cells die, but people who eat the same salt still get cancer all the time. Is that still a bad faith argument? Or how about the fact FCCP kills cancer cells in a dish but will likely also kill people if you give it to them?

In vitro research is important, but it should always be followed up by in vivo studies and clinical trials.

1

myusernamehere1 t1_j8ffa66 wrote

Believe it or not, cancer research is typically more advanced than just exposing cancer cells to caustic/toxic chemicals.

0

Palpitating_Rattus t1_j8fgxw8 wrote

>Believe it or not, cancer research is typically more advanced than just exposing cancer cells to caustic/toxic chemicals.

And how is this argument different from what I stated just prior?

> In vitro research is important, but it should always be followed up by in vivo studies and clinical trials.

1

Herbicidal_Maniac t1_j8f47dh wrote

Many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many many things*

1

seamustheseagull t1_j8hii8g wrote

I mean, I recall having this exact conversation in class with our science teacher at 14. In theory, if you could extract all of someone's blood and subject it to bleach/alcohol/UV/etc then in theory some diseases could be cured.

But extracting all of someone's blood is not a thing. Not if you want them alive anyway.

1

crowngryphon17 t1_j8h189p wrote

Until you run into things like the aids prevention treatment that made it worse in effect but looked good in a Petri dish

1

seamustheseagull t1_j8hiood wrote

Also how the whole Ivermectin nonsense started for the most part. Some tests on Covid samples in vitro showed early promise for Ivermectin, but came to nothing when tested in vivo.

Yet 3 years later, some people still don't get the difference.

3

neurodiverseotter t1_j8h59sv wrote

They are an very important part of the process of development of treatments and for the understanding of how certain cells or substance-cell interactions work. However what an in vitro study does not and will never do is to give proof of something working in a living organism. And a lot of comments here seem to assume this study proves the efficacy of CBD in the treatment of cancer which is plain wrong. Asking yourself "is this an in vitro or an in vivo study?" will make you less likely to come to a wrong conclusion about the significance of this particular study.

1

ambrosius-on-didymus t1_j8i86e0 wrote

Very true in the sense that they are a great way to gain proof of concept for a novel drug early in development. But the vast majority of drugs that work well in vitro with cell cultures don’t work in vivo as a living creature (mouse, dog, human) is vastly more complex than a cell culture plate. Additionally, most of the popular cancer cell lines that are used in labs have been selected to be highly responsive to drugs to give research the greatest chance at success. I worked with CBD in a cancer drug development lab and it worked incredibly at killing cancer cells in vitro, but once you tried in an animal model, the effect size shrank dramatically and vanished more often than not.

1

dvdmaven t1_j8eocy2 wrote

More specifically, "In the present study, we investigated the molecular mechanism of cannabidiol prostate cancer cells" Considering there's no non-invasive treatment for this cancer.

14

Palpitating_Rattus t1_j8ew6d2 wrote

I'm pretty sure chemos count as "non-invasive treatment", and it works pretty well for prostate cancer already.

−15

pignutttt t1_j8gm5e2 wrote

You'd be incorrect. But it's OK. It happens

6

Palpitating_Rattus t1_j8h05hm wrote

Um why am I incorrect?

0

pignutttt t1_j8h19fr wrote

How do you get chemo into your body?

3

Palpitating_Rattus t1_j8h5890 wrote

Fair enough. Injections are usually referred to as minimally invasive.

1

pignutttt t1_j8h6eqv wrote

That's true. Sometimes you need a port or picc. I was reading about how they can clone your cancer cells now and do tests to see which chemo is most effective before they use it inside of you. Pretty neat stuff.

2

frijole420 t1_j8e8q0t wrote

English for dummies my man, English for dummies

7

MrPhraust t1_j8emw6e wrote

In translation: Let’s go get stoned!

4

neurodiverseotter t1_j8h5m27 wrote

No, in translation: we put CBD on specific prostate cancer cells in a Petri dish and it had certain effects on cancer proliferative effects which could give some hints about a possible anticarcinogenic effect of CBD which needs to be researched further. This doesn't say about wether or not it will do so in a living organism.

4

Brewe t1_j8hv6il wrote

Translation: weed causes hyperactive cells to become lazy - and it's a good thing.

3

fakkov t1_j8eysbr wrote

Is there anything about dosage?

2

AutoModerator t1_j8e0chr wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Goobzydoobzy t1_j8fin52 wrote

I believe CBD is extracted from hemp plants and not marijuana. Is that because hemp has a higher level of CBD or because it’s a more legal way to go about growing/extracting? Basically, would someone get a significant amount of CBD from, let’s say, one bong bowl? I’m aware that every strain probably defers, but just generally speaking

1

DrAlecHarvey t1_j8fm8f8 wrote

There is definitely CBD in cannabis. You can breed CBD dominant strains. It’s not just from hemp.

10

abx99 t1_j8gs2y8 wrote

The CBD oil that you can get in any state is made from hemp, because it's illegal to make it from cannabis. If you're in a legal state, like mine, you can get hemp-based CBD oil from a regular store, or go to a dispensary and get cannabis-derived stuff. Usually the cannabis-derived stuff is whole-spectrum, with all the cannabinoids and terpenes and such, whereas the hemp-based may be isolated CBD and nothing else.

The other cannabinoids and terpenes often offer additional benefits. Both have them, but cannabis has more. Different strains of cannabis have different ratios of all this stuff; some strains have tons of THC and little-to-no CBD, and vice versa. When I get cannabis CBD, I just get a cannabis extract of a strain with very little THC, make it into an oil, and take a dose that doesn't have any psychoactive effect.

3

prontoon t1_j8ipjho wrote

Just generally speaking: there will be anywhere from 0.5% to about 4% for strains that do not focus on cbd. Other strains will be as high as the mid 20% cbd (for a refrence point, a very strong strain will run in the mid 20% range to low 30% thc). There are some strains that are a nice mix of thc and cbd, ive seen these in the 10-20% cbd range/10-20% thc range. One of the cool things about cannabis is theres thousands of strains with different cannabinoid ratios.

2

Scipion t1_j8fk026 wrote

Honestly, anything CBD can do THC does better, there's just less research since THC was illegal to research forever.

−5

myasterism t1_j8gk1g8 wrote

Hard disagree: the anxiolytic effects of CBD are not seen as consistently with THC. Also why we see the stereotype about weed and paranoia/anxiety.

5

Cmama2Boyz t1_j8gqtcn wrote

I am the stereotype, woooo boy I turn to stone with paranoia on even the smallest bit of weed.

3

ambrosius-on-didymus t1_j8i8qzm wrote

I worked in a research lab before medical school that looked at this. Long story short, CBD (and actually CBD + THC more so) worked great at killing (or arresting the growth of) cancer cell lines in culture. Its effect was much smaller/did not give statistically significant results when you used primary tissue from actual tumors and/or used a mouse model.

1