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.

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.

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.

Where’s the data? The article gives no specifics about dose, the number of participants or how they measured the results. I’m all for the benefits of THC, but we need qualitative data to be sure.