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.

So can someone explain in lamens terms what this report says? There's been "suspected" correlation between thc being topically applied and shrinking/curing skin cancer. Is this similar?

Cancerous tumors have shown to not only grow big and fast but avoid immune response.

One way tumors avoid immune response is to stop producing certain molecules that immune response cells (cytolytic T lymphocytes (CTLs) a type of adaptive immune response) recognize to attack.

While cannabis has been linked with fighting cancer/tumors, the precise mechanisms are not well understood. This study has shown one mechanism: certain cannabinoids (mainly d9 THC and in this study CBG is highlighted) can prevent the tumors from not producing those molecules -- reverting from the invisible tumor to now one the immune response bodies will see and attack.

[removed]

[removed]

That's interesting. There have been a few studies recently about the cannabinoid pathway being a useful target in cancer, but this is the first I've seen on the mechanism.

[removed]

[removed]

They don’t have appropriate controls - resorcinols and flavonoid like compounds, e.g., some of the cannabinoids they are testing, are notorious false positives in biochemical assays. They use vehicle control but not another structurally similar compound with no activity.

[removed]

[removed]

That was great. It’s a pity the original riders of the paper couldn’t make it that clear.

It’s abundantly clear to anyone in the field who knows the language and terminology. Papers would be ten times as long to read if they stuck to nontechnical terms. The primary audience of these papers is other people in this area of research. It’s not anyone in academia’s job to make them understandable for everyone. Learn big words make shorter sentences.

Though I generally agree with what you are saying, a single paragraph to explain it in lay terms is not 10x as long. Also, I feel that to some extent it is the social responsibility of researchers to make knowledge available to as many people as possible. This also helps them because where public support goes money often follows.

> the original riders of the paper

You are here for the cannabis talk and not the science talk, aren’t you?

[removed]

If I’ve correctly understood this article, which I haven’t read, then weed cures cancer. Nice!

Adding your comment to the article that I also have not read I now understand that weed can fix everything. Nice!

That's a super interesting point, and I think it's an important one.

As an idiot on the interweebs, I think the opposing argument might be something like this:

Researchers, like everyone else, have a limited amount of time and energy. If they focus their resources heavily on the specialized knowledge and advancing the field, they can push the limits farther, faster, increasing the sphere of knowledge; others can follow behind and find ways to share the knowledge and make it more accessible.

Specific cannabinoids cost a BANANAS amount of money and apparently poor people should all dig a giant hole and dogpile into it and light themselves on fire with gasoline.

[removed]

[removed]

What country are you in? In the US, and parts of Canada, prices of any cannabis products have plummeted since late 2021.

It's late and my eyes started glazing but they caught Histone Deacetalyse Inhibitors is this what they are talking about? Just curious, I've come across this in some other research and I may need to dig deeper into those.

[deleted]

I loved this point. Slippery slope counterpoint for safety's sake.

I agree - to a point. European guidances specify though than plain language summaries must accompany results of clinical studies (accompany - not replace). This, along with the fact that an increasing number of journals are going fully or partially open access, indicates a trend towards improving access to scientific knowledge for the public. Because why should this knowledge be privileged? A significant proportion of it is after all publicly funded. And as the OP u/davotk has shown, lay summaries are quite easy to write if you have any experience in communications with lay audiences. Likewise, they should be fairly easy for the paper’s authors to write. I think this bridge to the generally public is a very important positive step in science communication, personally.

I get that the previous comment to which you were responding was unnecessarily snarky. But there is a grain of validity in there as well.

[removed]

The study has nothing to do with smoking or eating weed. Getting the specific compounds found in these studies, and in the quantities needed to be effective, is very expensive.

Until we figure out how to breed them for those specific cannabanoids

True, but it is possible that the levels needed are not feasible to select for effectively, in which case another synthesis method or another compound entirely can be found.

[removed]

This field (of translating hard-core science to layman's terms, and reaching out to the public) is called scientific communications/ communicators. Think Allie Ward, and Bill Nye. But they aren't gonna hit something so specific/political as this. Imo I don't think scientist should use their energy to explain their work in laymens terms.The scientist already decided to dedicate their career to their field. The least we can do is google every 3ed word. Plus they will often send you the article if it's behind a pay wall. Which I also think is nice.

Not really. They're all available pretty cheap already.

That's already been happening for years.

Delta 9 THC, CBD, and cbg are already widely available in the form of high purity isolates for very low prices. Maybe educate yourself a little bit before you go getting all worked up about an issue that doesn't exist.

The reality is that if a cheap compound could be used to completely reverse someone’s cancer, it would likely have been found by now. This research will probably result in virtually no change in cancer treatment and a more comprehensive way of treating specific types of cancers will emerge. We’ve studied the link between cannabis and cancer for decades and the reality is that no significant benefit has been seen from cannabis users.

If anything there are weak associations between cannabis use to increased instances of lung and prostate cancers, although this is far from definitive. I wish a simple herb could cure cancer, but it’s seeming less and less likely.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to my comments. I never said these compounds were effective at treating cancer. Just that they are widely available and inexpensive.

[removed]

If it sounds too good to be true..

I hope you have the qualifications of the study authors to be posturing that they have inappropriately designed the experiment. Nothing better than armchair experts criticizing published scientific literature

[removed]

Maybe, but there’s gotta be some reason they’ve failed to find a correlation between pot smoking and lung cancer. Seems like it’d have to be something medicinally useful.

It sounds like he/she is knowledgeable and also has experience/familiarity in this field of study. There is no need to pose a call to authority based off what they said

My comment was tongue in cheek about the all knowing redditors who critiquing published science. As if they were the equivalent of a journal reviewer/editor. Especially criticizing something like proper experimental controls, as if the reviewers didn’t notice - it’s arrogant/ignorant to the process

[removed]

Does it work in the same way as a checkpoint inhibitor?

You can already get strains that are really high in THC, CBG and CBD.

I’m not picking up on how it’s tongue-in-cheek, it seems like a direct callout. Guess I’ll just have to take your word on it

Alright fine, then it’s a direct call out because the likelihood of a redditor being in the upper echelons of immunology and molecular biology like the authors, editors, and reviewers is slim. Unless they are amongst the prestige of researchers in this field, they have no right to be so arrogant and say “they got the wrong controls”.

Watch now, he’ll be a Nobel laureate or something

He could be, you don’t know. Either way, a call to authority is a weak rebuttal. If you don’t know enough to counter his assertion head on then you likely know less than him. It may be Reddit, but a user who provides seemingly informed comments like the one in question on a sub-thread of this kind of study might actually have an informed opinion. Reddit is a large community and their are thousands of scientists involved in the research of cannabis at the moment, it’s a current hot-topic of discussion, after all.

Pot smokers probably smoke less than the average cigarette smoker

Some do, but you’d still expect to see some correlation, however diminished.