>www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0027510716300574
What do you think? The university where this was conducted was in Australia, so who knows if the article can be trusted. It fucks with tubule assembly, but I'm not sure what the impact of this is on a general population.
Also:
>$42
The fuck? How do I steal articles again? I'm a student in the U.S..
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
higherperspectives.com
dutchnews.nl
populartechnology.net
twitter.com
>At lab
>PhD lead talking something about losing funding unless we start researching new shit
>Don't get it completely, too deep in that ganja my nigga, but whatever.
>Some PhD student lights a blunt and says how about we keep smoking weed everyday and if one of us gets cancer, report it
>Lead agrees and files for a grant, which is then used to buy literal tons of weed
>If none of us dies then we will never get a paper published so we better hurry the fuck up
>We are foced to smoke the biggest joints 24/7
>Last monday
>Jane, our sociologist, missing at the lab.
>She's at the hospital with terminal lung cancer
>we did it bois
EZ money m8. Those 42 dollars fund our 420.
>How do I steal articles again?
sci-hub
also check these out:
youtube.com
youtube.com
pay close attention: higherperspectives.com
>Inhaling burning leaves causes cancer
Oh god, really? I didn't see that coming.
You do realise that shelf stacking idiots will use that as justification to keep inhaling burning plant matter, instead of eating it as a herb?
>>Inhaling burning leaves causes cancer
>Oh god, really? I didn't see that coming.
Even eating it creates a risk because THC is a immunosuppressant. Remember your immune system is an excellent cancer fighter and kills cancerous cells daily.
> shelf stacking idiots will use that as justification to keep inhaling burning plant matter, instead of eating it as a herb
actually first youtube link recommends to eat it and tells that smoking doesn't help at 51:22 (when you smoke, thc only neutralizes the damage of benzopyrene I guess)
I personally prefer smoking to eating or vaping because it gives me the best imspirations, when digesting only makes me dumb.
>THC is a immunosuppressant
I can find some articles on that, but from my experience that is simply not true. I'd rather call it immunocorrector: if allergic reactions are caused by immune system, smoking marijuana definitely eases those simptoms (i smoke on almost daily basis for decades now, and I am probably more healthy than I used to be)
After giving it a cursory look the science appears to check out.
However, a lot of their citations involve either conflict of interest (NIDA), in-vitro/animal studies or both. The dosages used are also extreme; 20 mg/kg in a typical human is over a gram of pure THC which even the heaviest of smokers would struggle to get through in a month (assuming a dose of 30mg every day - a 'strong stoning' for a highly tolerant user according to Erowid).
As far as utilization in cancer therapy goes, like radiation, the costs and benefits of THC use will have to be weighed up on a patient-by-patient base. Assuming THC actually does have cancer killing properties as claimed.
Oh, and they also claimed that cannabis potency is increasing dramatically year on year which is categorically false. These claims are based on data on seized cannabis which was heavily skewed in the early days of collection by the seizure of vast quantities of low-quality Mexican 'mexibrick' weed. I will not deny, though, that the availability of high-potency extracts is increasing though how this translates to the average user's consumption is up for debate - cannabis users, like most if not all drug users, will typically titrate their doses to achieve the desired effect. People generally don't drink whisky by the pint any more than they smoke dabs by the gram.
You can get high off premium strains in one hit, smoking anymore is just a waste.
Interesting. But aren't anti-inflammatory foods also technically immunosuppressants, given that inflammation is a type of immune response, at least as I understand it?
>over a gram of pure THC
that's the point, picrelated
this is so true. my buddies in high school would make fun of me for just toking once but holy shit good stuff can fuck you up real good in one good pass
Because you were there for different effects - you got your precious mind-high, when lacking minds couldn't really fly, got their body-high, that takes more to get stoned
is there really a difference?? i've only ever smoked lightly to relax and open my mind. i thought that was the point
that was the point.
then why smoke for body high, user?
not smart enough to enjoy the mind-high I guess, it's still good for them though.
dutchnews.nl
>Explication of mechanisms for cannabis and other addictions closes the logical loop and completes the criteria for the assignment of causality.
low doses of cannabinoids may enhance spread of cancer, where as high doses of cannabinoids usually slow or stop cancer cell growth or even kill the cancer cell (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182964)
Cannabis is actually far worse than tobacco.
populartechnology.net
you smoke the flower, not the leaves.
...
...
what a pile of journalistics you brought us fellow,
there's a list of pubmed researches telling otherwise. (the third post on this thread)
Didn't you feel uncomfortable that no links to scientific research were present?
One of links of yours tells:
> MEXICO CITY, Dec. 2 Marijuana cigarettes contain higher concentrations of several cancer-causing agents than tobacco cigarettes, according to research carried out by Indiana University's department of chemistry.
That actually indirectly proves that cannabinoids probably cure cancer, see the second video on the link above (13:00)
I'm afraid I don't follow
ITT: stoners
Did your petty world shatter, little boy?
Allergic reactions are your immune system overreacting, so it does suppress your immunesystem.
Correcting is the same as suppressing in your case.
Cells are empty here because the cops are busy writing fucking traffic tickets instead of catching criminals. Has little to do with our weed senpai.
>I'm afraid I don't follow
what part of
>This invention relates to the use of phytocannabinoids, either in an isolated form or in the form of a botanical drug substance (BDS) in the treatment of cancer. Preferably the cancer to be treated is cancer of the prostate, cancer of the breast or cancer of the colon.
don't you follow?
look into Hill's causation criteria.
to summarize:
is it a strong, reproducible effect? is the effect closely temporally linked to the treatment, and only the treatment? is there any apparent dose response? do laboratory findings match epidemiological observations, even without a mechanism? how similar are the treatment and effect to other observed systems where causality has been demonstrated? and finally, can a biologically plausible mechanism be proposed?
if all of those are true, the assumption of causation is strongly indicated. further research can demonstrate experimentally the true, exact mechanism, but we don't need to wait for that research to occur to make policy decisions.
this is how the link between tobacco and lung cancer was established and US policy decisions made
>Allergic reactions are your immune system overreacting, so it does suppress your immunesystem.
so does allergy medicine cause cancer too, then?
Insomuch as anything that suppresses the immune system does, sure.
causing cancer =/= failing to destroy cancer
Says a guy from US...
You people in US have so much fake "scientific" bullshit and/or studies that you literally have no right to call someone out for not being trustworthy.
You clearly have no idea what allergies are or anti allergenics are.
and immune suppression does not CAUSE cancer
holy shit this this this
I study phytocannabinoid as part of my research. Most of everything in this thread is full of shit.
>this is how the link between tobacco and lung cancer was established and US policy decisions made
That link was bullshit of the highest order. It was made through faulty studies and surveys in both the U.S. And U.K. where the confirmation bias was so strong it could crush time and space.
Could you please be more precise.
It's interesting when looking at the dangers from drugs and smoking from other counties shows that they're not really unhealthy. Meanwhile the U.S. thinks the sky is falling when it comes to drugs/smoking/drinking being health risks.
Probably that keeps busy the part of our brains that deals with environment, so they pretend to fight for our well-being while only making a show.
Factories and mining companies are way bigger risk, why the fuck don't we make them all keep their shit in one piece and not to make us eat it with our lungs while they're making profits. Is it really that hard to introduce the technologies that make their waist safe? by making thair filth solid at least. Can't they use metal vapour out of their furnaces to produce cermet or bring it in 3d printers. Ain't molecular 3d printers secretly banned (the image is from 1989) because we can use them to print lsd and make many other dangerous substances out of the air? Is it because then we'll get shortage of air as it's going to be turned in stupid solid forms by stupid people? You see, that's how mind-high works.
well whats the deal then, can I keep toking?
The money only goes to the website that published the paper but 6/10
Whatever you're high on, you need to cut down.